Best solder free electrical connection

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On 22 Aug 2010 17:44:11 GMT, Bob Eager <rde42@spamcop.net> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:39:08 -0500, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You
nitwits weren't bright enough to figure that out/

Don't you think these US apologists are a perfect example of the Dunning-
Kruger effect?

Apologists, no. Bashers, certainly.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:25:29 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:33:50 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com
wrote:

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.

Not in Canada either. In 1969 a gallon of gas sold for about $0.45 and
a reasonably paid worker (like a licenced mechanic) earned $4.50 per
hour.

In the US it's close. The inflation since '69 is 5.79X. I remember paying
about $.30/gallon during a price war and about $.36 normally. So that's $1.74
to $2.08 today. Gasoline is $2.41/gallon here, so yes a little more.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

also:

http://zfacts.com/p/35.html

Convert that to Metric and gasoline was about $0.10 a liter.
Today gasoline hovers around the buck a liter range, and not too many
workers earn $22.50 an hour - which would make gasoline virtually
twice as expensive in real dollars as it was in 1969.

OTOH, I'm making well over 25x what I was making in 1970 (I made nothing in
'69).

The difference is easily explained by tax.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

aemeijers wrote:

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. But 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. Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets for many routes. Now
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.

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.

Absent some technological leap that allows cheap suborbital flights for
the masses, world travel will be slower and more expensive from here on
out.

Plus the externalities, such as having your windows rattle twice a day
(waking the baby, of course) just because some rich nitwit couldn't wait
another couple of hours to get to LA. Anyway, rich nitwits save more
time than that by buying or renting their own subsonic jet, which goes
wherever they want, whenever they want. It's a far more rational
solution (if you can call it that).

There was also a big outcry at the time about the pollution--apparently
folks were worried about damage to the ozone layer or something, due to
inefficient engines spewing crap in the stratosphere. I'm not sure
whether there was anything to that (there so often isn't, in the
environmentalist cosmos), but that and the sonic booms were what got
supersonic flight banned.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Bob Eager]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:34:04 -0500, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On 22 Aug 2010 17:44:11 GMT, Bob Eager <rde42@spamcop.net> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:39:08 -0500, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You
nitwits weren't bright enough to figure that out/

Don't you think these US apologists are a perfect example of the
Dunning- Kruger effect?

Apologists, no. Bashers, certainly.

MRD.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

 

[Dave]

On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave

 

[tony sayer]

In article <geh276lr23mg4leqijuv79csegd6o5b547@4ax.com>,
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> scribeth thus

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.

Yes I read fine I interpret differently from you!...

The 747 has nothing to do with supersonic air travel its a completely
different class of aircraft.

We \were\ talking about Supersonic airliners....
--
Tony Sayer

 

[tony sayer]

In article <m2o276d9vv1tkkp2tluq1koi9uovlgh7cu@4ax.com>,
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> scribeth thus

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.

It was .. for what it did...


--
Tony Sayer

 

[Bob Eager]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:16:50 +0100, Frank Erskine wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:39:08 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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/

Probably crimps are the best solder-free connections.

I dunno. Spot welds?

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

 

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:57:06 +0100, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

aemeijers wrote:
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. But 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. Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets
for many routes. Now 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.
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.
Absent some technological leap that allows cheap suborbital flights
for the masses, world travel will be slower and more expensive from
here on out.


Plus the externalities, such as having your windows rattle twice a day
(waking the baby, of course) just because some rich nitwit couldn't wait
another couple of hours to get to LA. Anyway, rich nitwits save more
time than that by buying or renting their own subsonic jet, which goes
wherever they want, whenever they want. It's a far more rational
solution (if you can call it that).

There was also a big outcry at the time about the pollution--apparently
folks were worried about damage to the ozone layer or something, due to
inefficient engines spewing crap in the stratosphere. I'm not sure
whether there was anything to that (there so often isn't, in the
environmentalist cosmos), but that and the sonic booms were what got
supersonic flight banned.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.

 

[Bob Eager]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 23:41:57 +0100, ><(((°> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:57:06 +0100, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

aemeijers wrote:
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. But 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. Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets
for many routes. Now 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.
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.
Absent some technological leap that allows cheap suborbital flights
for the masses, world travel will be slower and more expensive from
here on out.


Plus the externalities, such as having your windows rattle twice a day
(waking the baby, of course) just because some rich nitwit couldn't
wait another couple of hours to get to LA. Anyway, rich nitwits save
more time than that by buying or renting their own subsonic jet, which
goes wherever they want, whenever they want. It's a far more rational
solution (if you can call it that).

There was also a big outcry at the time about the pollution--apparently
folks were worried about damage to the ozone layer or something, due to
inefficient engines spewing crap in the stratosphere. I'm not sure
whether there was anything to that (there so often isn't, in the
environmentalist cosmos), but that and the sonic booms were what got
supersonic flight banned.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.

Or Envy...!


--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

 

[Tony Bryer]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:26:45 -0400 Aemeijers wrote :

747 ain't supersonic. But 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. Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets for many routes.

My understanding (possibly wrong) was the itty-bitty 777 is significantly
cheaper to run. ISTM that it wasn't so long ago that twin jets weren't
allowed to do transatlantic flights, but on the more recent UK-USA
flights I've done it's nearly always been a 767 or 777

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

tony sayer wrote:

In article <m2o276d9vv1tkkp2tluq1koi9uovlgh7cu@4ax.com>,
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> scribeth thus
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.

It was .. for what it did...

Well under a fraction of one percent isn't sucessful. It's nothing
but ego bloat.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

(((°> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:57:06 +0100, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

aemeijers wrote:
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. But 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. Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets
for many routes. Now 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.
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.
Absent some technological leap that allows cheap suborbital flights
for the masses, world travel will be slower and more expensive from
here on out.


Plus the externalities, such as having your windows rattle twice a day
(waking the baby, of course) just because some rich nitwit couldn't wait
another couple of hours to get to LA. Anyway, rich nitwits save more
time than that by buying or renting their own subsonic jet, which goes
wherever they want, whenever they want. It's a far more rational
solution (if you can call it that).

There was also a big outcry at the time about the pollution--apparently
folks were worried about damage to the ozone layer or something, due to
inefficient engines spewing crap in the stratosphere. I'm not sure
whether there was anything to that (there so often isn't, in the
environmentalist cosmos), but that and the sonic booms were what got
supersonic flight banned.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.

Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long
before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french
landfills.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Dave wrote:

On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

That's your opinion. They were so worried about building the FIRST
commercial SS plane that they cut corners to save time. the result was
an overpriced, underperfoming product that required longer runways and
altered flight paths at existing airports.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

And how many flights were justifed? It wasn't that long ago that it
took months on a ship to ross the Atlantic or Pacific.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

And people in hell would enjoy icewater. They might even be the same
people.

 

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> saying something like:

Concorde got banned from flying supersonic over nearly all land areas.

Sour grapes, caused by 'not invented here' on the part of the Septics.

It used to go supersonic of the south coast of Ireland. Sometimes, if
the air conditions were right, I'd hear a far-off bang and it was some
time before I realised what it was.

 

[aemeijers]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

(snip)
Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long
before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french
landfills.

Uh, that was only partially to avoid the bad PR (and damage claims) from
sonic booms. It was mainly to avoid conflict with civil air traffic, and
collateral damage on the ground when one occasionally falls out of the
sky, sometimes at full power.

--
aem sends...

 

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.

You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
airliner faster.
The 747 (on a bad day) moves more passenger-miles per hour on less

than 1/4 the lbs of fuel per passenger mile than the concorde could
dream of on it's best day

 

[S Viemeister]

On 8/22/2010 7:15 PM, Tony Bryer wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:26:45 -0400 Aemeijers wrote :
747 ain't supersonic. But 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. Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets for many routes.

My understanding (possibly wrong) was the itty-bitty 777 is significantly
cheaper to run. ISTM that it wasn't so long ago that twin jets weren't
allowed to do transatlantic flights, but on the more recent UK-USA
flights I've done it's nearly always been a 767 or 777

Continental do 757s on some transAtlantic routes.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

aemeijers wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
(snip)
Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long
before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french
landfills.

Uh, that was only partially to avoid the bad PR (and damage claims) from
sonic booms. It was mainly to avoid conflict with civil air traffic, and
collateral damage on the ground when one occasionally falls out of the
sky, sometimes at full power.

They would have had a lot of damage claims. I have an aunt that
lived near Wright-Patterson AFB, and the early flights broke windows and
cracked concrete block walls. I was there a couple times when the SS
Air Force jets went over. Her house and her neighbors always had
something happen. Broken dishes, windows, things knocked off shelves
and out of cabinets.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

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.

You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
airliner faster.
The 747 (on a bad day) moves more passenger-miles per hour on less
than 1/4 the lbs of fuel per passenger mile than the concorde could
dream of on it's best day.

And could land at older, landlocked airports. What good does it do
to shave a couple hours off a flight, then spend it in heavy traffic to
reach their destination?