Best solder free electrical connection

[Phil Hobbs]

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.

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
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
(Former Triumph owner)

--
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

 

[Phil Hobbs]

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.

Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again/

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

 

[Phil Hobbs]

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.

Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again?

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

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:53:53 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> 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...

By *no* measure was it successful. It was a money pit.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:53:01 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:

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....

You need to take a remedial reading course.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:18:53 +0100, Dave <davenpat@btopenworld.com> 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.

Bullshit. It didn't have the necessary reserves to be a legitimate aircraft
for the routes it flew. It was an economic disaster. Poor design; YES.

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.

Oh, you were a stew.

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.

Nonsense.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:59:22 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

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.

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
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.

What about the electrical systems?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
(Former Triumph owner)

 

[tm]

"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
news:4C71E40A.4090304@electrooptical.net...

Phil Hobbs
(Former Triumph owner)

Cool. Still have mine. '66 Bonnie.

tm



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

 

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:28:57 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:59:22 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

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.

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
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.

What about the electrical systems?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
(Former Triumph owner)
With the french on board they were not limited to Lucas electrics-

they also had Paris-Rhone and Ducellier to choose from.
Any experience with either of them makes Lucas look "not bad" by
comparison.

 

[dennis@home]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:-NmdnZLFjv1x6-3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com...

I've never seen an electric power steering system, and never want to
touch anything made by Lucass.

An American that doesn't fly?
Have a look at who makes plane parts these days.

 

[dennis@home]

"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BvuDlMHwNQcMFwJX@bancom.co.uk...

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?...

He is probably thinking about the blackbird which the USoA had to use to get
the speed record back (some sort of ego trip I expect). Even then it had to
be refuelled multiple times to actually beat Concorde on a normal flight.

I wonder if he even knows the Americans couldn't even break the sound
barrier until they stole the flying tail idea from the UK designers?

Come to think of it a lot of USoA technology was borrowed from others (light
bulbs, telephones, computers, WWW, space flight, etc.).

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Phil Hobbs wrote:

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.

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
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.

Conversely US jets engines have always been smokers compared to Rolls
Royce.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
(Former Triumph owner)

 

[dennis@home]

<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:m2o276d9vv1tkkp2tluq1koi9uovlgh7cu@4ax.com...

The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.

Concord was successful, it met its design goals.

However it failed commercially as the goal was moved.
We had several political changes and an oil crisis that made it too
expensive.
Pretty much the same as the 747 should feel when the A380 takes all its
passengers.
Which it won't as the USoA doesn't allow a level playing field and will
prevent it from getting landing slots when its a threat.

You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
airliner faster.

They have the space shuttle, the only thing faster than that was Apollo but
that's old technology borrowed from the Germans.

 

[dennis@home]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_dmdnfd7TbGSfezRnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

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.

There is a big difference between a SS plane at 50 feet and one at 75000
feet.
In case you hadn't noticed the shuttle flies supersonic over much of America
when its landing and doesn't cause any damage (apart from when it hits the
ground which isn't often).
The entire you can't fly SS over land was just an excuse to keep Concorde
from flying across the US faster than the old planes.

As for cracking block walls I don't believe it.
I have seen an attempt to damage a house using a SS plane and it had to fly
ludicrously low (about 50 feet) and close (directly above) to even pop a
window.

I notice that the US military now has a plane with supercruise just like
Concorde used to do (F22).

 

[dennis@home]

"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
news:4C71E4B4.9020802@electrooptical.net...

Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again/

Germany, 1943?

 

[tony sayer]

In article <rKCdnZnUmoqVJ-zRnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus

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.

Built here anyone;?..
--
Tony Sayer

 

[tony sayer]

In article <40j376ljgj96q0brsbaofkk2dfkubc76gc@4ax.com>,
clare@snyder.on.ca 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.

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

Suppose thats like comparing a London Omnibus with a sports car;?...
--
Tony Sayer

 

[tony sayer]

In article <rKCdnZjUmopEJ-zRnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus

(((°> 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.

Yawn ... zzzzzz Frank Writtle was 'working on them long before that...
--
Tony Sayer

 

[tony sayer]

In article <rgq3765tqb0ejbkvvtibhpn26lrq7scdbk@4ax.com>,
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> scribeth thus

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:53:01 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:

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....

You need to take a remedial reading course.

May I suggest you take the narrow bandwidth blinkers off;?...
--
Tony Sayer

 

[tony sayer]

In article <i4t7au$ec6$1@news.datemas.de>, dennis@home
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> scribeth thus

"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BvuDlMHwNQcMFwJX@bancom.co.uk...
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?...

He is probably thinking about the blackbird which the USoA had to use to get
the speed record back (some sort of ego trip I expect). Even then it had to
be refuelled multiple times to actually beat Concorde on a normal flight.

I wonder if he even knows the Americans couldn't even break the sound
barrier until they stole the flying tail idea from the UK designers?

Come to think of it a lot of USoA technology was borrowed from others (light
bulbs, telephones, computers, WWW, space flight, etc.).

Nuclear scientists 'n all....
--
Tony Sayer