Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not that bad really as it was the first one..(((°> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
geoff wrote:
That's a very good example of why most people with brains left
Europe
for 'The new World'.
So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New World? And
the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as they
could get?
What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since
I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?
It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
What other supersonic airliners are those then?...They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
The USofA shirley?.It was a fast plane, but a poor design. They spent wads of money
to build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was
noisy and very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that
they weren't able to compete with better planes from multiple
countries.
"Bad design" is debatable. Supersonic planes are inherently inefficient, and
the Concorde (which was actually a British-French design -- hence the name)
was expensive from the get-go.
You can't say it wasn't able to compete with other planes, because the
Concorde was the only supersonic transport. Even without the fatal accident,
the Concorde would have eventually gone out of business, as there just
weren't enough rich people or business who needed to zip to Europe and back.
US design never got past the mock-up stage. The bean-counters killed itIt was a fast plane, but a poor design. They spent wads of money
to build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was
noisy and very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that
they weren't able to compete with better planes from multiple
countries.
"Bad design" is debatable. Supersonic planes are inherently inefficient, and
the Concorde (which was actually a British-French design -- hence the name)
was expensive from the get-go.
You can't say it wasn't able to compete with other planes, because the
Concorde was the only supersonic transport. Even without the fatal accident,
the Concorde would have eventually gone out of business, as there just
weren't enough rich people or business who needed to zip to Europe and back.
No, Concorde wasn't fuel efficient though neither are Porsche, Ferrari and(((°> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
geoff wrote:
That's a very good example of why most people with brains left
Europe
for 'The new World'.
So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New World?
And
the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as
they
could get?
What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since
I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?
It was a fast plane, but a poor design. They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
back pretty close to what they were in the 60s when adjusted forWho was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price it
is today?
I've lost track with all of the ups and downs, but aren't oil prices
Not in Blighty they're not - no way near.In article <op.vhucy5uvcnngb9@me-pc>, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com
wrote:
Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price
it
is today?
I've lost track with all of the ups and downs, but aren't oil prices
back pretty close to what they were in the 60s when adjusted for
inflation? Might even be a little below.
You gotta share the credit for that one with the frenchies IIRCOn Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
geoff wrote:
That's a very good example of why most people with brains left
Europe
for 'The new World'.
So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New World? And
the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as they
could get?
What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since
I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?
The guys who wrote 'Limits to Growth' and were totally ignored?wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 02:08:01 +0100, Michael A. Terrell
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
(((°> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
geoff wrote:
That's a very good example of why most people with brains left
Europe
for 'The new World'.
So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New
World? And
the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as
they
could get?
What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since
I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?
It was a fast plane, but a poor design. They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
No, Concorde wasn't fuel efficient though neither are Porsche, Ferrari
and so on motorcars.
Come to think of it, neither are those enormous engined gas guzzling
motors most US citizens used to prefer.
Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price
it is today?
Correction: Super sonic flight was bannedaemeijers wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
It was a fast plane, but a poor design. They spent wads of money
to build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was
noisy and very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that
they weren't able to compete with better planes from multiple
countries.
"Bad design" is debatable. Supersonic planes are inherently
inefficient, and
the Concorde (which was actually a British-French design -- hence the
name)
was expensive from the get-go.
You can't say it wasn't able to compete with other planes, because the
Concorde was the only supersonic transport. Even without the fatal
accident,
the Concorde would have eventually gone out of business, as there just
weren't enough rich people or business who needed to zip to Europe and
back.
US design never got past the mock-up stage. The bean-counters killed it
based on cost-benefits. Simply put, it could never pay for itself and
recoup the development money. As the Brits and the French discovered,
the bean counters were right. Unlike Concorde, which had much or most of
R&D paid for by taxpayers as a national ego thing, the US SST didn't get
that much from Uncle Sam. (US Govt had other expensive things going on.)
Without signed orders from the airlines, the financing just wasn't
there. US doesn't have a 'national airline' like most countries. Most of
the R&D seed money US Govt supplies for aircraft work is related to
military requirements or to keep industrial base operational. Some of
the military research can also be used on civilian side, like how large
jet bombers/tranports led to large jet airliners.
Don't forget the knockoff of Concorde USSR put together. That was purely
a national ego thing.
Concorde got banned from flying supersonic over nearly all land areas.
That meant it couldn't actually use its speed to cut route times. i.e.
2hrs coast to coast of USA...
The SST was cancelled, seeing the writing on the wall. The Concorde wasn'tWith such a restriction round its neck it was doomed.
Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.In article <-NmdnY7Fjv0c5e3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
(((°> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
geoff wrote:
That's a very good example of why most people with brains left
Europe
for 'The new World'.
So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New World? And
the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as they
could get?
What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since
I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?
It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
Not that bad really as it was the first one..
They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
Well, there you have it. You killed the Concorde yourselves.On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:31:33 +0100, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com
wrote:
In article <op.vhucy5uvcnngb9@me-pc>, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com
wrote:
Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price
it
is today?
I've lost track with all of the ups and downs, but aren't oil prices
back pretty close to what they were in the 60s when adjusted for
inflation? Might even be a little below.
Not in Blighty they're not - no way near.
Because perhaps the boot of the government isn't quite as heavy on this sideOn Sun, 22 Aug 2010 02:08:01 +0100, Michael A. Terrell
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
(((°> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
geoff wrote:
That's a very good example of why most people with brains left
Europe
for 'The new World'.
So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New World?
And
the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as
they
could get?
What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since
I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?
It was a fast plane, but a poor design. They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
No, Concorde wasn't fuel efficient though neither are Porsche, Ferrari and
so on motorcars.
Come to think of it, neither are those enormous engined gas guzzling
motors most US citizens used to prefer.
It didn't. Your taxes did.Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price it
is today?
The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <-NmdnY7Fjv0c5e3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
(((°> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
geoff wrote:
That's a very good example of why most people with brains
left
Europe
for 'The new World'.
So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New
World? And
the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as
they
could get?
What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since
I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a
classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?
It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
Not that bad really as it was the first one..
They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.
747 ain't supersonic. But on a dollar/gallon per passenger mile basis,They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.
I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <-NmdnY7Fjv0c5e3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
(((°> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
geoff wrote:
That's a very good example of why most people with brains
left
Europe
for 'The new World'.
So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New
World? And
the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as
they
could get?
What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since
I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a
classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?
It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
Not that bad really as it was the first one..
They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.
The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
airliner.
So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You nitwitsYou might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
airliner faster.
That wasn't the issue.krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
(snip)
They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.
747 ain't supersonic.
It's an old plane. There are cheaper now. Do you notice any cheaperBut on a dollar/gallon per passenger mile basis,
it is a whole lot cheaper to run, when anywhere near fully loaded. In
recent years, due to passenger volume being so reduced, a whole lotta
747s and other jumbos were parked in the desert, in 'preservation pack'
status.
Because many routes are itty-bitty. A 747, no matter how loaded, doesn't makeAirlines switched to the itty-bitty jets for many routes.
I thought most would already be belly-up. My bet is that they all have someNow
that volume is picking up again, some jumbos are being brought back out
of storage. At one point, they were gonna modernize the 747 fleet, but
it will probably never happen, because Boeing would rather sell new
planes, and Airbus is nipping at their heels. But the long delays in the
Boeing Dreamliner rampup can be at least partially blamed on the
airlines getting gun-shy. It costs a lot of money to keep airplanes with
a lot of lifespan left sitting in the desert. Another air disaster or
major fuel cost spike, and there will be multiple airlines going belly-up.
That market was never enough to justify the Concorde.Supersonics only made sense for civilian use for a very tiny niche
market of rich people and businessmen who had to have face time
someplace far away in a hurry. That niche market got even smaller with
the rise of cheap easily available hi-rez video-conferencing services. A
lot of execs don't travel near as much as they used to. Plus, of course,
with the general economic downturn, there are a lot fewer executives.
Either retired or flipping burgers for somebody else.
I don't buy that conclusion.Absent some technological leap that allows cheap suborbital flights for
the masses, world travel will be slower and more expensive from here on out.
Don't you think these US apologists are a perfect example of the Dunning-So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You
nitwits weren't bright enough to figure that out/
It WOULD have made sense. For a limited market of people with money in aOn Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:13:58 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <-NmdnY7Fjv0c5e3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
(((°> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
geoff wrote:
That's a very good example of why most people with brains
left
Europe
for 'The new World'.
So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New
World? And
the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as
they
could get?
What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since
I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a
classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?
It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
Not that bad really as it was the first one..
They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.
The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
airliner.
I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).
The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.
You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
airliner faster.
So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You nitwits
weren't bright enough to figure that out/
Probably crimps are the best solder-free connections.On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:13:58 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <-NmdnY7Fjv0c5e3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
(((°> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
geoff wrote:
That's a very good example of why most people with brains
left
Europe
for 'The new World'.
So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New
World? And
the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as
they
could get?
What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since
I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a
classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?
It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
Not that bad really as it was the first one..
They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.
The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
airliner.
I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).
The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.
You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
airliner faster.
So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You nitwits
weren't bright enough to figure that out/
Not in Canada either. In 1969 a gallon of gas sold for about $0.45 andOn Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:31:33 +0100, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com
wrote:
In article <op.vhucy5uvcnngb9@me-pc>, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com
wrote:
Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price
it
is today?
I've lost track with all of the ups and downs, but aren't oil prices
back pretty close to what they were in the 60s when adjusted for
inflation? Might even be a little below.
Not in Blighty they're not - no way near.