Concorde - join the campaign
kul...@kulwant.net
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!
Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.
To sum up the situation:
- we aren't arguing with the reasons Concorde went out of service - the
airframes were over 25 years old, whereas the average age of British
Airways fleet is less than five years
- Airbus receives billions of Euros every year in subsidy - it has a
duty to build the best planes it can for the people of Europe
- the A380 and A350 (which hasn't yet started) are highly questionable
projects
- fresh Concorde air-frames could be built by Airbus at modest cost,
and given that R&D has already been written-off, the tickets could be
priced much lower.
PLEASE add your support to the petition at www.save-concorde.com
Benbo
<kul...@kulwant.net> wrote in message
news:1149362751.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all,
>
> The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
> signatures this week!
It was not feasible at $2 a gallon, so what makes you think it will fly at
$3 a gallon?
It takes money, not signatures.
Z Goudie
>It was not feasible at $2 a gallon, so what makes you
>think it will fly at
>$3 a gallon?
>It takes money, not signatures.
Now if every government in the world taxed aviation
fuel at the UK road gas rate of 70% we'd not only save
the planet but leave a lot more room in the sky for
sailplanes.....
Trevor Fenn
GK
> - the A380 and A350 (which hasn't yet started) are highly questionable
> projects
>
> - fresh Concorde air-frames could be built by Airbus at modest cost,
> and given that R&D has already been written-off, the tickets could be
> priced much lower.
- Lets build space shuttles instead of Concorde (Buran airframes can
be purchased for a bottle of vodka), if Airbus has money to burn.
They're much faster and fuel consumption is similar...
Robert Chambers
year old technology? If there's a market for supersonic passenger air
travel Airbus and Boeing will be designing and building one. Fuel is
not going to get any less expensive so unless there's some technological
breakthrough that gets you supersonic without burning as much kerosine
as Concorde did I don't see it happening.
Business travelers that want to get somewhere fast have loads of small
jet options to chose from. Some of them are right up near mach 1
The concorde was and is a beautiful looking plane both on the ground and
in the air.
Robert
Andrew Venor
If Airbus is that flush with cash they would be better off starting from
a blank cad screen and build a new plane with modern technology instead
of trying to reuse a 1960's design.
ALV
OB
otherwise they would've done "something better". Sometimes the original is
often the best...
OB
Trevor Fenn
news:e5t484$6s9$1...@news-02.connect.com.au:
> I kinda wonder about that - it seems the SR-71 wasn't improved by CAD
> otherwise they would've done "something better". Sometimes the
> original is often the best...
>
>
How do you know there isn't something better? :)
matt weber
No airline ever paid a cent for the airframe, however the basic desigh
is pretty maintenance intensive, and Concorde burned as much carrying
99 pax as a 747 carrying 400. Suffices to say the fuel component in
ASM with fuel at about 2 dollars a gallon is kind of dear.
Tony Verhulst
Yeah, unfortunately. I would love to see one or two remain in flying
condition - sort of like a B17, for instance. But to for a moment think
that any manufacturer is going to resume production... well, that's just
not realistic, IMHO.
Tony V. LS6-b
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING
Ric
"Trevor Fenn" <fenn...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns97D7BF9718073fe...@216.77.188.18...
I think their called satellites...
Ric
Jim Macklin
UFO
GlobalHawk
"Ric" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4482453f$0$2600$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Tony Verhulst
>>
>>How do you know there isn't something better? :)
>
>
> I think their called satellites...
Not that I'm an expert (hey, this is Usenet).... satellites are great
for most ..uhm... observations. But, their orbits are predictable and
known. So, if you have some mobile missile launchers and you know that a
satellite is coming within range, you hide them. If the SR-71 is
retired, my money is on that they have something better.
Tony V.
Ric
"Tony Verhulst" <n...@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:0_KdncfDmOMQyB_Z...@comcast.com...
Hmm, good point.
Ric
Frank Whiteley
Try a Google search for Black Star Aviation Week. Myth or reality?
Frank Whiteley
Jay Beckman
news:1149400161.7...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
IIRC, the code name for the F117 project was "Have Blue"
Jay B
Don Johnstone
>'OB' wrote in
>news:e5t484$6s9$1...@news-02.connect.com.au:
>
>> I kinda wonder about that - it seems the SR-71 wasn't
>>improved by CAD
>> otherwise they would've done 'something better'.
>>Sometimes the
>> original is often the best...
>>
>>
>
There is something better for PR but it goes out of
service next month. Designed in the 1940s and still
in service a photo reconisance platform that has no
equal. Sometimes what you have is better than what
you might get.
As I recall Boeing tried to design an SST, one major
problem, no Brits on the design team.
>
Graeme Cant
Not in the UK.
The signatures aren't from people who want to help pay to get Concorde
flying. They're from people who want the Government to use other
people's money to get Concorde flying.
Get enough signatures and there's a good chance you'll get a heap of
other people's money.
GC
>
>
Graeme Cant
>... a photo reconisance platform
r e c o n n a i s s a n c e, Don. It's French.
> As I recall Boeing tried to design an SST, one major
> problem, no Brits on the design team.
Dead right, Don.
No Brits.
Absolute disaster.
Result?
Not ONE penny of UK government subsidy for the Boeing SST!
Look where it got them!
Had to go off and build the 747 with their own money!
Poor bloody Boeing.
Look at what might have been.
Half the Tristar designed by Brits and ALL the engines!
Yesss!
Triumph of British engineering!
HEAPS of Don's taxes used to help it along!
Roaring success!
Can't understand why it sent Lockheed broke.
Oh well.
GC
>
>
Lew Hartswick
>
> If Airbus is that flush with cash they would be better off starting from
> a blank cad screen and build a new plane with modern technology instead
> of trying to reuse a 1960's design.
>
> ALV
Yea. It's sort of like saying "Lets start a petition to have Ford
build Model T s " :-)
...lew...
Jonathan Wilson
Richard Branson and Virgin wanted to buy up and operate some of them (I
think he said at the time that he would operate them even at a loss just
for the prestige of having the worlds only supersonic passenger plane). But
it didnt happen (I guess because the airports, UK/french governments and
the manufacturers who would have had to keep making parts for the things
didnt want them flying anymore)
Al Dykes
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=175&page=1
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. Proudly then, even more so in hindsight.
Paul Tomblin
>satellite is coming within range, you hide them. If the SR-71 is
>retired, my money is on that they have something better.
Yes, they do. They have air superiority, so that they can perform
battlefield recon with ordinary tactical air assets, which means that the
aircraft that spots the enemy can also destroy the enemy. They also have
Predator, Global Hawk, and other UAVs.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Kyoto dealt with Global Warming. Disposing of lawyers cuts down the
production of Hot Air, and thus is encouraged by the Kyoto Accords.
-- Keith Glass
Paul Tomblin
>Yea. It's sort of like saying "Lets start a petition to have Ford
>build Model T s " :-)
Ah man, that would be so cool! Especially if they still only cost $850.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Wonder what diamonds do to lusers though."
"When attached to the teeth of a blade turning at 7000rpm, a darn fine job."
-- Peter N. M. Hansteen and D. Joseph Creighton
Gary Boggs
"Al Dykes" <ady...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:e5uklj$l3t$1...@panix2.panix.com...
matt weber
and it built two aircraft. The one most are familiar with is what
become the F117, however Northrup also built a somewhat more
conventional looking, but still Stealth aircraft under the program
(and no, it looked nothing like the B2, but the materials tecnology
developed was used in the B2).
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 23:11:08 -0700, "Jay Beckman" <jnsbe...@cox.net>
wrote:
rocky climb rescue
"Benbo" <Be...@Benbo.us> wrote in message
news:hFlgg.1474$9c7.735@trnddc06...
>
> <kul...@kulwant.net> wrote in message
> news:1149362751.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
>> signatures this week!
>
> It was not feasible at $2 a gallon, so what makes you think it will fly at
> $3 a gallon?
>
> It takes money, not signatures.
>
Sir Richard was prepared to throw $500m at the project, it didnt happen ....
Why?
Matt Whiting
> In a previous article, Lew Hartswick <lhart...@earthlink.net> said:
>
>>Yea. It's sort of like saying "Lets start a petition to have Ford
>>build Model T s " :-)
>
>
> Ah man, that would be so cool! Especially if they still only cost $850.
Assuming those are 2006 dollars, not 1908 dollars!
Matt
JD
Probably because in the proposed project $500m would have been small change.
JD
flash...@earthlink.net
A new Model "A" roadster, with spare tire, electric start, & folding
cloth top cost $770, in Washington, D.C., in January 1930 -
Model "T" (the predecessor of the "A") cost FAR less.
Flash
Morgans
"Jay Beckman" <jnsbe...@cox.net> wrote
>
> IIRC, the code name for the F117 project was "Have Blue"
I thought that Have Blue was the name for the technology proving predecessor
to the F117.
It was a smaller craft, but had all of the facet shapes making up the body
and wings, just to see if that kind of shape would fly, and be good for
radar scattering.
No?
--
Jim in NC
Morgans
"rocky climb rescue" <onacliff...@bm.au> wrote
> Sir Richard was prepared to throw $500m at the project, it didnt happen
> .... Why?
I understood that the makers of the Concorde didn't want to support a plane,
or many planes, at ANY price.
--
Jim in NC
JD
According to Wikepaedia the price had fallen to $300 by the 1920s following
its introduction in 1908 at $850. Note that real mass production did not
start until about 1910 with the opening of a new plant.
JD
Jay Beckman
news:b0Ngg.1470$AP5...@fe02.lga...
From this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Blue
I gather that Have Blue was the demonstrator for combat stealth and that
there was another program called "Tacit Blue" that was the demonstrator for
observational stealth (possibly something like a "stealth" OV10...?) that
could loiter very near the modern electronic battlefield yet be very hard to
pick up on radar.
The USAF Museum has a "Tacit Blue" airframe on display.
Jay B
OB
the CIA destroyed all the tools & dies used to make the aircraft....
But we're talking about aerodynamics here. There (appears) to not currently
be an aircraft that can sustain Mach 3+ (SR71)or sustain Mach 1-2 carrying
passengers (Concorde) in existence (take the Tu144 out) or in service
today...
And Schwarzkoff was desperate for the SR71 in Gulf I - something that could
penetrate the airspace for a good loosksey when it wasn't expected....
OB
"Ric" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:44826338$0$25127$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Don Johnstone
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>>... a photo reconisance platform
>
>r e c o n n a i s s a n c e, Don. It's French.
Eh, yes Graeme your are factually correct, however
I struggle to think of a better reason not to spell
it my way :-)
matt weber
but no one who is talking has ever described what it looks like, or
any performance details, other than that the engine is based upon
unstable (supersonic) combustion.
By contrast there were a lot of rumbling about the F117 long before it
was made public. While the shape was a surprise, the general size,
weight, and performance were not.
Whether or not Aurora really exists is not at all clear at this point.
vincent p. norris
>signatures this week!
>
Aside from the adverse responses offered above, why should I care
whether or not the Concorde ever flies again? Give me a reason I
should care.
vince norris
Derek Copeland
British Airway's Concords (only the Froggy version
had an 'e' in its name) when they took them out of
service, but for some reason they wouldn't sell them
to him. It would be nice to see it flying again, even
if it is noisy and expensive to ride in.
Derek Copeland
Brian Goodspeed
lost all their top aircrew and engineers, etc.
BG
kenny
"vincent p. norris" <vp...@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:n8v982tv7a9hkp04p...@4ax.com...
this is the bean counter mentality that squashes great
achievements.
to think that i can tell my grandkids "yep, i remember
when we used to be able fly across the atlantic faster
than the speed of sound".....but now, we take a giant
leap backwards and can only reminisce about the "old days"
of supersonic commercial passenger flights. in a world
controlled by accountants more concerned about quarterly
P/L numbers, rather than the big picture of human achievement.
the heady days of the Apollo era are, sadly, long gone.
Eric Greenwell
If the accountants were in charge, the Concorde would have died decades
sooner. You should be impressed the inevitable was delayed for so many
years, not depressed that it finally happened.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"
Frank Whiteley
the R&D costs. That's why Branson wanted them, he could turn a profit
with them without reinventing the wheel.
Frank Whiteley
vincent p. norris
>> whether or not the Concorde ever flies again? Give me a reason I
>> should care.
>>
>> vince norris
>
>this is the bean counter mentality that squashes great
>achievements.
Had nothing to do with counting beans, Kenny.
>
>to think that i can tell my grandkids "yep, i remember
>when we used to be able fly across the atlantic faster
>than the speed of sound"...
Your grandkids will look at you scornfully and say, "Grandpa, you old
fuddy duddy, get with it! We learned in history class in school that
there was a plane called the Blackbird that could fly several times
that fast! Why didn't you know that?
I was genuuinely sorry when I learned the SR-71 would fly no more. It
was a far greater achievement and served a very important purpose,
unlike the trivial social value of the transport.
vince norris
matt weber
<frank.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually the last several years, Concorde was a losing proposition.
The load factors were abysmal.
whatever the attraction once was, it was gone.
The real problem was the BA 747/777 Business and 1st class cabins were
a lot more comfortable, and a lot less expensive. R class fare
(Concorde) is 120% of the F fare.
Having Flown Concorde several times, there are a number of terms I
would use to describe travel on Concorde, but luxurious and
comfortable would not be among them. Think of riding in domestic First
class on an American Airlines MD80, and you will have a good idea of
what Concorde was like, except that the overheads were so small that
nothing more than a blanket or pillow would fit in them. They make the
small overhead bins on some BAE146's look generous.
FatKat
kenny wrote:
> "vincent p. norris" <vp...@psu.edu> wrote in message
> news:n8v982tv7a9hkp04p...@4ax.com...
> > >The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
> > >signatures this week!
> > >
> > >Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.
> >
> > Aside from the adverse responses offered above, why should I care
> > whether or not the Concorde ever flies again? Give me a reason I
> > should care.
> >
> > vince norris
>
> this is the bean counter mentality that squashes great
> achievements.
>
> to think that i can tell my grandkids "yep, i remember
> when we used to be able fly across the atlantic faster
> than the speed of sound".....
The "we" being whom? From its service life, the "we" is a very small
group; Concorde's impact on commercial air travel was negligible - and
that's factoring in the development costs, but putting aside how much
more money could have been spent on making air travel practical and
affordable, such that the "we" that actually represented a reasonable
cross-section of society and not just a small group of
champagne-sipping snobs with little if any understanding of the concept
of supersonic flight. That way, I won;t have to tell my grandkids of
the wonders of transoceanic flight - they'll be able to experience it
themselves.
> but now, we take a giant
> leap backwards and can only reminisce about the "old days" of supersonic
> commercial passenger flights.
For me, the old days meant a narrow column of stale air within the
fuselage of a four-engine jet, lacking anything other than a stale
paperback to pass the time. We're definately way ahead of the old
days.
> in a world controlled by accountants more concerned about quarterly
> P/L numbers, rather than the big picture of human achievement.
WTF!??! Accountants? How we hate them. Okay Mr. Achievement, if you
can plonk down the millions it will cost to give every international
airline at least a few of these jets, and find a way to make it break
even (not profitable, I wouldn't want to make...gasp...a bean counter
of you) go right ahead.
>
> the heady days of the Apollo era are, sadly, long gone.
Amd what days are those? Of footprints and flagpoles on aremote rock
that we never found a way to make our own? Oh, I'm sure we're still
paying for those days even if we're not reaping the profits. Whoops,
that's my inner accountant talking.
Dave Kearton
>
> WTF!??! Accountants? How we hate them. Okay Mr. Achievement, if you
> can plonk down the millions it will cost to give every international
> airline at least a few of these jets, and find a way to make it break
> even (not profitable, I wouldn't want to make...gasp...a bean counter
> of you) go right ahead.
>>
>> the heady days of the Apollo era are, sadly, long gone.
>
> Amd what days are those? Of footprints and flagpoles on aremote rock
> that we never found a way to make our own? Oh, I'm sure we're still
> paying for those days even if we're not reaping the profits. Whoops,
> that's my inner accountant talking.
It hardly seems a fair jab at accountants, who were an essential tool in
the Apollo program - as any other exercise where huge amounts of money are
involved. Without the bean counters, there would have been an obscene
waste of funds and very little progress.
OBTW, mankind is leaving its first trackmarks on Mars, prior to sending
astronauts up there, that doesn't seem too retrograde to me....
...not like reviving a 40 year old aircraft program.
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Roger
wrote:
<snip>
>
>The real problem was the BA 747/777 Business and 1st class cabins were
>a lot more comfortable, and a lot less expensive. R class fare
>(Concorde) is 120% of the F fare.
120%.? You could fly transatlantic for about $1200 USD and the
Concord was about $7,000 as I recall.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
drclive
We need the money and support for organizations like AOPA which is
everyday fighting for our rights as GA pilots. BA and the Concorde
bellows to an industry valued around 1.5 billons pounds; they don't
need either support or money from us.
kenny
I concur regarding the SR-71, but as others have pointed out, one
can be reasonably certain a superior follow on platform exists in
the world of "black" programs. No doubt developed without fuel costs
or other esoteric civilian concerns in mind.
Retiring "speed bird" (aka Concorde), only gave me bragging rights
on flying the (now) fastest commercial jet in existence (albeit it
in the realm of Part 91 operations). The Citation X - mach .92 , as
the sales/marketing people of Cessna like to point out.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed i'll eventually transition to one
of these
http://www.ainonline.com/publications/nbaa/NBAA_04/d2saip1.html
granted not exactly an F-18E/F, but since I couldn't qualify for
naval aviation due to less than optimal vision, it'll do nicely.
Keith W
"Roger" <Delete-Invalli...@tm.net> wrote in message
news:jngf821at0mtdfcbf...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:42:45 GMT, matt weber <matth...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>>The real problem was the BA 747/777 Business and 1st class cabins were
>>a lot more comfortable, and a lot less expensive. R class fare
>>(Concorde) is 120% of the F fare.
>
> 120%.? You could fly transatlantic for about $1200 USD and the
> Concord was about $7,000 as I recall.
>
120% of first class
Damn few airlines offer first class tickets for $1200. Cheap business
class returns start at around $2000
Keith
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Paul Tomblin
>Retiring "speed bird" (aka Concorde), only gave me bragging rights
"Speedbird" isn't the nickname for Concorde, it's the nickname for
British Airways. Remember the old BOAC logo was a stylized bird - that's
why BA is always "Speedbird" on the air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedbird
>on flying the (now) fastest commercial jet in existence (albeit it
>in the realm of Part 91 operations). The Citation X - mach .92 , as
>the sales/marketing people of Cessna like to point out.
Cessna also once pointed out that the Citation X is the fastest aircraft
ever built without government money.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
People who love sausages, respect the law, and work with IT standards
shouldn't watch any of them being made.
-- Peter Gutmann
Trevor Fenn
@allhats.xcski.com:
> In a previous article, "kenny" <ke...@pentagon.gov.net> said:
>>Retiring "speed bird" (aka Concorde), only gave me bragging rights
>
> "Speedbird" isn't the nickname for Concorde, it's the nickname for
> British Airways. Remember the old BOAC logo was a stylized bird - that's
> why BA is always "Speedbird" on the air.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedbird
>
>>on flying the (now) fastest commercial jet in existence (albeit it
>>in the realm of Part 91 operations). The Citation X - mach .92 , as
>>the sales/marketing people of Cessna like to point out.
>
> Cessna also once pointed out that the Citation X is the fastest aircraft
> ever built without government money.
>
>
I think Burt Rutan's Space Ship One might have taken that title from
Cessna.
TF
kenny
"Paul Tomblin" <ptomblin...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:e69hi1$82i$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
> Cessna also once pointed out that the Citation X is the fastest aircraft
> ever built without government money.
Indeed, the aircraft design team was awarded the Collier Trophy for
their work.
It only illustrates my earlier point. The engineering to design &
build a supersonic commercial airliner is entirely possible. What
is preventing it are the bean counters!
FatKat
Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, "kenny" <ke...@pentagon.gov.net> said:
> >Retiring "speed bird" (aka Concorde), only gave me bragging rights
>
> "Speedbird" isn't the nickname for Concorde, it's the nickname for
> British Airways. Remember the old BOAC logo was a stylized bird - that's
> why BA is always "Speedbird" on the air.
>
library book about the development of SST's. There was a picture of a
concorde mock-up with BOAC markings. It was still a few years before I
found out what BOAC stood for. Was it ever pronounced as a single
word? Did it rhyme with "Coke"? The pictures seem so dated now,
especially ironic for the Concorde - like 1960's TWA livery on the 7E7.
FatKat
How does a small, subsonic aircraft inform the example of a larger and
faster aircraft? Ofcourse the design is possible - nobody here has
said otherwise. It's got to be possible and practical. Do you have an
answer for that - one that doesn't just pass the buck to an easily
identiifed and villified occupation (accountants) whose work isn't
romantic enough to involve you?
JD
No - always Bee Oh Ay See. The modern successor to Imperial Airways when the
word "imperial" became unfashionable, about the time the British Empire
became the Commonwealth of Nations.
JD
Kwyjibo
news:OtKdnUgV845aZxrZ...@comcast.com
> I'm keeping my fingers crossed i'll eventually transition to one
> of these
>
> http://www.ainonline.com/publications/nbaa/NBAA_04/d2saip1.html
>
Do you reckon they will even be given clearance to fly within US airspace?
Not so much because of the sonic boom, but because it will probably be able
to outrun a super hornet and (possibly) an F-22.
--
Kwyj
Paul Tomblin
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> British Airways. Remember the old BOAC logo was a stylized bird - that's
>> why BA is always "Speedbird" on the air.
>>
>I remember when I first heard of BOAC - I saw it in an old school
>library book about the development of SST's. There was a picture of a
I grew up in Toronto, where BOAC had ads on the TV for flights to England.
"Bee Oh Ay Cee takes good care of you."
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story
about a guy named `Manual'" - Dilbert
matt weber
<Delete-Invalli...@tm.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:42:45 GMT, matt weber <matth...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>>The real problem was the BA 747/777 Business and 1st class cabins were
>>a lot more comfortable, and a lot less expensive. R class fare
>>(Concorde) is 120% of the F fare.
>
>120%.? You could fly transatlantic for about $1200 USD and the
>Concord was about $7,000 as I recall.
Read more carefully: 120% of the F (First Class) fare.......
Your $1200 figure is actually high, you can often 'bargain basement'
economy fares for under 500USD return.
Mike Kanze
Didn't get to bed last night
On the way the paper bag was on my knee
Man, I had a dreadful flight
I'm back in the USSR
You don't know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the USSR, yeah"
(Copyright © 1968 Northern Songs. All Rights Reserved. International Copyright Secured.)
--
Mike Kanze
vincent p. norris
>on flying the (now) fastest commercial jet in existence (albeit it
>in the realm of Part 91 operations). The Citation X - mach .92 , as
>the sales/marketing people of Cessna like to point out.
>
>I'm keeping my fingers crossed i'll eventually transition to one
>of these
A group of former military pilots and a few others gather at the
American Legion for lunch every Thursday. At today's lunch I learned
some guy in Johnstown, PA, only about 50-60 miles from here, is
determined to build a supersonic "light business jet." He's trying to
hire the necessary talent. What may come of it, I have no idea.
>.... since I couldn't qualify for naval aviation due to less than optimal vision, it'll do nicely.
I had the good luck to qualify, but all the aiplanes I flew had
propellers.
vince norris
Jack
Change that to read "customers", instead of "bean counters".
Your company spends money with no thought of return, I suppose? They
won't be moving at .92 for long if that is the case.
Jack
kenny
> I was genuuinely sorry when I learned the SR-71 would fly no more. It
> was a far greater achievement and served a very important purpose,
> unlike the trivial social value of the transport.
>
> vince norris
well the "trivial social value" of the Concorde wasn't
my point. a 1970 era aircraft being retired in 2005, with
no viable replacement, is a sad commentary on how we've
willingly accepted a step backwards without so much as a
whimper - that was my point.
i grew up in the Apollo era and had relatives who were
working on the program. back then, those were the days
of actually having a vision of the future, of exploring
other worlds beyond our own.
Concorde to me (as was the entire Apollo program) was
more a symbol, of what could be accomplished when people
with a vision were allowed to pursue their goals.
granted the 60's was an era of turmoil, and ideas of
a moonbase were scrubbed (by the bean counters) due to
more "trivial" domestic social concerns.
BUT - if we had established an operating moonbase back
then, just think were would we be now ? (vs. the sad
present state of apathy). It could've been used as a
staging point for more ambitious manned planetary missions.
kenny
perhaps it's not the occupation per-se, but the mindset which
would exploit the figures to claim a project does not merit any
funding for whatever reason.
"practical" is a relative term.
practical technologically? almost certainly.
practical in the realm of FAR 121 day to day
operations? the jury would need to convene on
that one.
practical in the realm of FAR 91? GUARANTEED !!
done deal! the majority of Citation X operators
would be standing in line to acquire a new SSBJ
that can transport them at mach 1.8+ to their
destinations (@ say FL600). The owners of the
aircraft I crew, have said they eagerly await
the introduction of a new generation of SSBJ's.
Other Part 91 operators have said the same thing.
Once the aircraft start to fly, it'll inevitably
make inroads to Part 135 operations. perhaps
raising public awareness, and demand for a new
supersonic fleet of Part 121 aircraft.
FatKat
kenny wrote:
> "FatKat" <roby...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:1149801505....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > kenny wrote:
> > > "Paul Tomblin" <ptomblin...@xcski.com> wrote in message
> > > news:e69hi1$82i$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
> > >
> > > > Cessna also once pointed out that the Citation X is the fastest
> aircraft
> > > > ever built without government money.
> > >
> > > Indeed, the aircraft design team was awarded the Collier Trophy for
> > > their work.
> > >
> > > It only illustrates my earlier point. The engineering to design &
> > > build a supersonic commercial airliner is entirely possible. What
> > > is preventing it are the bean counters!
> >
> > How does a small, subsonic aircraft inform the example of a larger and
> > faster aircraft? Ofcourse the design is possible - nobody here has
> > said otherwise. It's got to be possible and practical. Do you have an
> > answer for that - one that doesn't just pass the buck to an easily
> > identiifed and villified occupation (accountants) whose work isn't
> > romantic enough to involve you?
>
> perhaps it's not the occupation per-se, but the mindset which
> would exploit the figures to claim a project does not merit any
> funding for whatever reason.
Are you talking about the accountants or yourself? You offer no
practical support for resurrecting Concorde and stick with a mindset of
opponents as unromantic bean counters. Concorde was overpriced,
underperforming, a small, if glamorous footnote in the annals of
aviation.
>
> "practical" is a relative term.
Only when you relate it to something else. How many aircraft with a
service life covering the same period as Concorde and in major revenue
service, had flown fewer miles and carried fewer passengers? Why
lament the passing of an aircraft that offered only illusory advantages
at more substantive costs?
>
> practical technologically? almost certainly.
Certainly....what?
>
> practical in the realm of FAR 121 day to day
> operations? the jury would need to convene on
> that one.
Not until you've made your case. Until then, the bean counters are
free.
>
> practical in the realm of FAR 91? GUARANTEED !!
> done deal! the majority of Citation X operators
> would be standing in line to acquire a new SSBJ
> that can transport them at mach 1.8+ to their
> destinations (@ say FL600). The owners of the
> aircraft I crew, have said they eagerly await
> the introduction of a new generation of SSBJ's.
> Other Part 91 operators have said the same thing.
"Would"? It must be easy to rely on what "could" happen as much as
what actually "did" happen.
>
> Once the aircraft start to fly, it'll inevitably
> make inroads to Part 135 operations. perhaps
> raising public awareness, and demand for a new
> supersonic fleet of Part 121 aircraft.
"will", "perhaps"...
I remember when Concorde debuted in NY - it raised awareness alright -
and not in a positive way. You merely assume that others will share
your love of SST when you've offered no reasonable explanation for how
the technology will become practical enough to actually embrace those
others.
FatKat
kenny wrote:
> "vincent p. norris" <vp...@psu.edu> wrote in message
> news:ot1f82llf5451do3a...@4ax.com...
>
>
> > I was genuuinely sorry when I learned the SR-71 would fly no more. It
> > was a far greater achievement and served a very important purpose,
> > unlike the trivial social value of the transport.
> >
> > vince norris
>
> well the "trivial social value" of the Concorde wasn't
> my point. a 1970 era aircraft being retired in 2005, with
> no viable replacement, is a sad commentary on how we've
> willingly accepted a step backwards without so much as a
> whimper - that was my point.
Actually, when you toss out the arbitrary requirement of supersonic
speed, you've got no shortage of alternatives. Crossing the pond in
half the time seems nice, but not in a space apparently narrower than
that for subsonic airliners. The point you're missing is that Concorde
failed because it was itself not quite viable - therefore it was not a
true step forward for civil aviation, and even if it were, the fact
that it was available to only a small percentage of passengers means
that it would only be a step backward for them. Having traveled by air
in the 1970's, I can definately say that 21st century air travel is
way ahead of those Concorde days.
>
> i grew up in the Apollo era and had relatives who were
> working on the program. back then, those were the days
> of actually having a vision of the future, of exploring
> other worlds beyond our own.
Yes, but now we know that there's a gap between vision and reality -
when you don't have to live with the one, you can as much of the other
as you want. Oh, BTW, we have explored world beyond our own since
Apollo - do the names "Voyager" or "Mars Pathfinder" ring a bell?
>
> Concorde to me (as was the entire Apollo program) was
> more a symbol, of what could be accomplished when people
> with a vision were allowed to pursue their goals.
You can have as many symbols as you want - but when I actually fly, I
prefer a real airplane to a symbolic one. BTW, all of those backward
designs inhabiting today's airlanes are the product of people with
vision actually achieving their goals as opposed to resting on their
vision and their symbols.
>
> granted the 60's was an era of turmoil, and ideas of
> a moonbase were scrubbed (by the bean counters) due to
> more "trivial" domestic social concerns.
And what were those trivial concerns that so upset only the bean
counters?
>
> BUT - if we had established an operating moonbase back
> then, just think were would we be now ?
Hmmm, very likely a footnote on a VH-1 special about the crazy 1970's
when we sunk ou rmoney onto a crazy idea of having small bases on the
moon for no apparent reason except to satisfy aerospace enthusiasts,
and despite millions that would have to be spent during stagflation
using 1970's technology. Hey, sounds like the space shuttle!!
> (vs. the sad present state of apathy). It could've been used as a
> staging point for more ambitious manned planetary missions.
You like that word don't you - "could"? You like to blame others as
narrowminded bean counters merely because they chose a different
"could".
LWG
workers on an oil platform on the North Sea. It was described as an
arrowhead shaped planform, an acute isosceles triangle. I think there was
also a grainy, indistinct picture. I have often wondered how accurate that
article was.
"matt weber" <matth...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ifp9825rsl3656bkm...@4ax.com...
> There continue to be rumors about an SR71 successor called Aurora,
> but no one who is talking has ever described what it looks like, or
> any performance details, other than that the engine is based upon
> unstable (supersonic) combustion.
>
> By contrast there were a lot of rumbling about the F117 long before it
> was made public. While the shape was a surprise, the general size,
> weight, and performance were not.
>
> Whether or not Aurora really exists is not at all clear at this point.
>
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 18:52:43 +1000, "OB" <ob1...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>
>>I would've thought lack of spare parts was a major contributor considering
>>the CIA destroyed all the tools & dies used to make the aircraft....
>>
>>But we're talking about aerodynamics here. There (appears) to not
>>currently
>>be an aircraft that can sustain Mach 3+ (SR71)or sustain Mach 1-2 carrying
>>passengers (Concorde) in existence (take the Tu144 out) or in service
>>today...
>>
>>And Schwarzkoff was desperate for the SR71 in Gulf I - something that
>>could
>>penetrate the airspace for a good loosksey when it wasn't expected....
>>
>>OB
>>
>>"Ric" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>news:44826338$0$25127$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>
>>> "Tony Verhulst" <n...@thankyou.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0_KdncfDmOMQyB_Z...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How do you know there isn't something better? :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think their called satellites...
>>>>
>>>> Not that I'm an expert (hey, this is Usenet).... satellites are great
>>>> for
>>>> most ..uhm... observations. But, their orbits are predictable and
>>>> known.
>>>> So, if you have some mobile missile launchers and you know that a
>>>> satellite is coming within range, you hide them. If the SR-71 is
>>>> retired,
>>>> my money is on that they have something better.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tony V.
>>>
>>> Hmm, good point.
>>>
>>> Ric
>>>
>>
>
Graeme Cant
> ke...@pentagon.gov.net wrote:
>> It only illustrates my earlier point. The engineering to design &
>> build a supersonic commercial airliner is entirely possible. What
>> is preventing it are the bean counters!
>
> Change that to read "customers", instead of "bean counters".
>
> Your company spends money with no thought of return, I suppose? They
> won't be moving at .92 for long if that is the case.
Change that to read taxpayers.
Check kenny's email address, Jack. HIS company will move at whatever
speed it damn well pleases and all it takes is YOUR money.
Just pay and get it over with.
GC
>
>
> Jack
kenny
"drclive" <drc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149761343.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> We need the money and support for organizations like AOPA which is
> everyday fighting for our rights as GA pilots. BA and the Concorde
> bellows to an industry valued around 1.5 billons pounds; they don't
> need either support or money from us.
hey i belong to both AOPA & NBAA, and am a CFI
i hope the cynical attitudes displayed are in the
minority. it would be a shame to discourage a new
generation of young engineers from pursuing the
next evolution of manned flight hardware. Or to
dissuade the "kid" schlepping odd jobs at the local
FBO to pay their way through flight training (on
the ladder towards the multi turbine 121 platforms).
Not all of us care to stop our flight training at
the PPL milestone. - and not all of us care to be
ALPA union flunkies more concerned about extorting
more pay from the flying public either....
As a sidenote, the B-52 is still around, and it's
older than Concorde. Can you say SLEP ? however i
agree, it would be like trying to fly that ancient
relic the space shuttle into the next century. time
to sink it and develop a new generation of hardware.
naysayers can rejoice with the likes of Fred Smith's
old college professor (who purportedly gave him a C
on his term paper describing his brainchild).
Judah
;)
"Jay Beckman" <jnsbe...@cox.net> wrote in
news:e4Pgg.11127$KB.5630@fed1read08:
>
> From this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Blue
>
<snip>
>
> Jay B
rocky climb rescue
Jack
> Check kenny's email address, Jack. HIS company will move at whatever
> speed it damn well pleases and all it takes is YOUR money.
Yes, check his email address, Graeme -- it doesn't exist. Another P. T.
Barnum sucker-punch, as phony as "Kenney's" daydreams of the Concorde,
that blot on commercial aviation which served mostly to waste fuel, tax
money, the environment, and lives in a search for yet another Jingoistic
Corporate ego massage.
The dozens of airlines who optioned and then refused Concorde, leaving
the Governments of Britain and France deservedly holding the bag, are
powerful evidence that the "bean-counters" were right, as were the
directors who actually made the [non]investment decisions.
Jack
Derek Copeland
Concord (English spelling) wasn't American! I seem
to remember that Boeing tried and failed to develop
a slightly bigger mach 2.5 swing-wing SST.
I am sure that Virgin Atlantic could have made a commercial
success of Concord, had they been allowed to do so.
It was quite succesful anyway until the Paris crash.
Maybe the British and French governments didn't want
their national flag carriers to be shown up by a true
private sector company.
Derek Copeland (UK)
Jack
> Jack's comments sound like sour grapes to me, because
> Concord (English spelling) wasn't American! I seem
> to remember that Boeing tried and failed to develop
> a slightly bigger mach 2.5 swing-wing SST.
Why doubt that Boeing would have developed a fine SST if the money was
available? The money would have been available if it was deemed to be
commercially viable.
Sour grapes were de Gaulle's specialite, I believe.
Jack
Derek Copeland
to defend President de Gaulle, who for years vetoed
the UK's applications to join the EEC, and who seemed
to hate the British and Americans for winning his country
back for him.
Compared with the proposed Boeing SST, Concord was
a relatively simple fixed geometry aeroplane (apart
from the nose). I believe that the biggest problem
was getting the engines to work at supersonic speeds,
and this required rather special ductings. At the time
it was designed it was a medium sized airliner, but
is rather small by today's standards. More seats might
have improved its viability. Might I suggest that Boeing's
design was maybe a bit over ambitious for that time.
Long haul travel these days means sitting for many
hours in an uncomfortably small seat, risking deep
vein thromboses in the legs, in a sub-sonic, wide bodied
jet. As for many people time equals money, there must
be a market for faster and more comfortable travel.
If you want to take a car ferry from England to Ireland,
there is now the option of a hydrofoil craft, which
halves the time of the crossing, and is quite popular
despite being more expensive. At least you get the
choice between economy and speed.
All the advances in travel technology from canals to
railways to steam powered steel hulled ocean liners
to aeroplanes to jet transports have required far-sighted
designers and shedloads of investment cash. If the
accountants had always been allowed to get their way,
we would probably still be travelling very slowly by
horse and cart, and sail driven wooden ships
Derek Copeland
Tony Verhulst
http://aflyer.com/images/JUNE_pdf/Page-12.jpg
Tony V.
Jack
> All the advances in travel technology from canals to
> railways to steam powered steel hulled ocean liners
> to aeroplanes to jet transports have required far-sighted
> designers and shedloads of investment cash. If the
> accountants had always been allowed to get their way,
> we would probably still be travelling very slowly by
> horse and cart, and sail driven wooden ships
The accountants always do get their way, eventually. All those wonderful
advances were sustained by their economic, not their romantic, momentum.
Better SSTs will be built, when they make sense. If the simpler Concorde
could not recoup its full development and operational costs, we can
applaud Boeing for being sufficiently prescient to avoid making an even
bigger mistake.
The dreamers will solve tomorrow's problems, and the accountants will
fund the solutions, as always.
Jack
Ian Johnston
<REMOVE_TO_REPLY...@bgoodspeed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
: I suspect BA did not sell because they would also have
: lost all their top aircrew and engineers, etc.
While the Concorde pilots were a very able bunch indeed, they were not
as senior in BA as you might think. Concorde duty was very boring
indeed - only one route, so no variety in destination.
Ian
Derek Copeland
were leaned on by the US Government not to buy Concorde,
so that they could wreck the European aircraft industry
and see off a competitor to their own companies. Same
as they try to wreck every other countries economies
in their own interests. So called Globalisation equals
Americanisation!
Once Great Britain had thriving aircraft industry,
with companies such as Handley-Page, Avro, Vickers,
Supermarine, Miles, De Havilland. Now all we do is
make wings for Airbus, and even that industry is up
for sale.
I can perfectly well understand why the Arabs in the
Oil producing countries, which the US also tries to
dominate, hate the Americans so much!
Derek Copeland
Welsh Druid
"Derek Copeland" <REMOVE_TO_REP...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
message news:4f3k7jF...@individual.net...
>> If you want to take a car ferry from England to Ireland,
> there is now the option of a hydrofoil craft, which
> halves the time of the crossing, and is quite popular
> despite being more expensive. At least you get the
> choice between economy and speed.
???
Where does that operate from ?
Derek Copeland
sure which). It passed us going in the opposite direction
last time we took we took the snail ferry, which was
last Christmas. Actually I think it may be a Catamaran,
but it's quite fast.
Del Copeland
At 13:06 12 June 2006, Welsh Druid wrote:
>
>'Derek Copeland' wrote in
Brian Goodspeed
as the Bell X-1 but somehow the Americans conveniently
forget that!
309
Derek Copeland wrote:
> Once Great Britain had thriving aircraft industry,
> with companies such as Handley-Page, Avro, Vickers,
> Supermarine, Miles, De Havilland. Now all we do is
> make wings for Airbus, and even that industry is up
> for sale.
Once Southern California (much larger than GREAT Britain) had a
thriving aircraft industry: Convair, Douglas, Lockheed, all building
commercial aircraft that in one way or another contributed to the
advancement of modern travel. Late last month, the last commercial
product from the old(e) Douglas Plant delivered (a so-called Boeing
717, nee MD-95, nee DC-9-30+ with Rolls engines...). The assembly line
is silent, save for the wrecking crews. I would much rather see it
"for sale."
Many forget that Airbus (or its predecessor) benefitted from a doomed
"partnership" between Sud Aviation and Douglas (funny how similar the
nose section of the A-300 is to the DC-10, isn't it????). Yes, I
suppose you'll call McDonnell "pirates" from stealing the Kestrel and
improving it into the AV-8B, aka Harrier. Yes, it goes both ways, eh?
Yes Derek, you have my pity, for what it is worth (not much, eh?). I
am sorry to see Concord(e) silent -- almost as much as I am to see
factories that employed thousands, created much of the "Arsenal of
Democracy" that no doubt helped save "the United Kingdom" in the 40's
(or is its current fate worse than it would have been without
"Americanization?"), and helped usher in many technological
advancements.
Please tell me you have studied history and can recall that once upon a
time, GREAT Britain DOMINATED the world... As a good Canadian once put
it, "All good things must end." Just be patient Derek. Yeah, a Union
Jack on every streetcorner would be an improvement, eh?
Isn't it wonderful to know that sour grapes grow equally well on both
sides of "the pond?"
It wasn't politics alone or accountants alone that silenced Concord(e),
a thing of beauty. But politics and accounting together form
formidible allies...and the economics of operating much faster than
God's good birds would sanely fly conspired altogether to end the
party.
Isn't it just plain silly that sombody's simple request for donations
to restore an antique (albeit expensive and fast) airplane can cause
this newsgroup to spin into degrading mudslinging over politics?
Keep in mind, Derek, that the Americans did not invent "domination." I
rather doubt you coud even say we've perfected it. Look also, if you
dare, at the charity America affords the globe as whole, even those
supposed "enemies" in times of tragedy.
Shame on you.
Derek Copeland
although I didn’t realise quite how much the US Political
and Financial systems had also screwed up your own
aircraft industry.
There is a board game called Monopoly in which the
idea is take over all your competitors’ businesses
and achieve a monopoly, so you can charge what you
like. The US seems to play Monopoly with the whole
World, not helped by corrupt and on-the-make politicians
and stock market investors after a quick buck. Take-overs
and mergers often provide that quick buck.
If you are in the market for a large airliner, you
essentially now only have the choice between Boeing
and Airbus. Both of these companies constantly issue
writs against each other claiming unfair Government
subsidies, Boeing’s in the form of military contracts.
Both companies produce lumbering sub-sonic aircraft.
Why should they produce anything better if there is
no effective competition?
The UK government alternates between the Conservatives,
who are the poor man’s version of the Republicans,
and the (New) Labour Party, who are generally more
concerned with spin, political correctness and the
class war rather than nurturing our industries. To
the latter anyone who owns a business is a ‘Capitalist
Bastard’ to be taxed and snowed under with repressive
legislation and red tape! However to be fair to them
they did champion Concorde under Industry Minister
Tony Wedgewood-Benn.
Between them, the two main political parties in the
UK have also helped to pretty well screw our industry
by meddling, nationalisation and over-taxation. Several
promising and possibly world beating military aircraft
had their funding withdrawn at the last moment by politicians
concerned about the escalating cost. But as one famous
aircraft designer once said “If I told them the true
cost up front, they would never agree to it in the
first place”.
I would like to remind the Americans that the UK produced
the Spitfire fighter, the Lancaster, Halifax and Mosquito
bombers, the first Jet Airliner (DH Comet), the first
true Mach 2 intercepter, the Harrier jump jet, the
first and only Mach 2 airliner - Concorde (with a bit
of help from the Froggies), and many other innovative
aircraft. Now we produce nothing other than Airbus
wings, Rolls Royce engines and a few small trainers
and microlights.
Actually we do very little metal bashing of any sort
these days, as the multi-national companies chase round
the world looking for the cheapest possible labour
markets, such as Eastern Europe and China. One of our
major car plants is about to close so that production
can be transferred to Slovakia. I personally haven’t
done a job for years that actually involves making
anything - only importing and selling or installing
equipment from abroad. I am not quite sure how Great
Britain, once ‘the Workshop of the World’ actually
earns a living, as most companies over here are now
service based. Essentially we all earn a precarious
living by taking in each other’s washing!
I suspect that even if I did start up a company that
produced an innovative product, it would rapidly be
taken over by a multi-national company. They are generally
only interested in selling what they produce already.
Some very successful UK companies have avoided the
stock market altogether and remained as private companies
just for this reason.
I think that we need to reform our political and financial
institutions so they are less weighted towards the
big multi-national corporations, and more towards small
companies and genuine entrepreneurs.
By the way, I understand that the USA donates less
in charity as a percentage of its GNP than many smaller
and less rich countries.
Derek Copeland
309
Derek Copeland wrote:
> The US seems to play Monopoly with the whole
> World, not helped by corrupt and on-the-make politicians
> and stock market investors after a quick buck. Take-overs
> and mergers often provide that quick buck.
>
US) was gobbled up by a small (corrupt?) company from "England,"
perhaps you've heard of a US Company named Tracor? Or a "UK" company
named BAe? Look in the mirror.
>
> I think that we need to reform our political and financial
> institutions so they are less weighted towards the
> big multi-national corporations, and more towards small
> companies and genuine entrepreneurs.
>
such? One needs to remember that when a small company becomes
successful, really successful, it becomes a large corporation -- which
can still be an entepreneurial endeavor, say Broadcom, Microsoft (once
upon a time) are examples. Your logic might pull these successful
companies into pieces...despite the good they do...and then the
incentive to be enteprenuerial is now gone...
> By the way, I understand that the USA donates less
> in charity as a percentage of its GNP than many smaller
> and less rich countries.
>
What data is that??? Please let me know -- I'll be happy to be less
charitible to the thankless globe so I can apply my good graces to tow
and winch costs. If you're referring only to the charity doled out by
the US government, let's not forget the charitable donations from
private citizens, corporations, churches, rotary clubs... I happen to
work for that "subsidized" tiny little company called Boeing (by way of
merger and aquisition). As one would expect from a large company, its
employees fund the largest corporate employee charity source, and for
the tsunami victims gave over $3 million.
Another fine Canadian put it quite aptly, you'll miss US, if we're not
around. It's so easy to pick on the big guy -- even if he's nice to
you.
Enough from me. Back to Soaring...or at least thinking about it.
Derek Copeland
you can visit almost any country in the World and see
the same makes and types of aeroplanes, cars, motorcycles
and almost any other manufactured goods. Cars are sometimes
re-badged to pander to local markets, e.g. General
Motors cars are Chryslers in the US, Opels in Europe,
Vauxhalls in the UK and Holdens in Australia, but they
are still basically the same vehicle. Gives you an
illusion of choice I suppose!
In the UK it is getting quite difficult to buy goods
that are NOT made in China or Eastern Europe. Maybe
Germany, the US and Japan if they are a bit more upmarket.
Isn't there an argument that workers are also consumers
and that consumers earn the money to consume by working.
We will all disappear up our own exhaust pipes if we
go on the way we are.
Hope you get soon good soaring this year 309.
Del Copeland
Owain Walters
>In the UK it is getting quite difficult to buy goods
>that are NOT made in China or Eastern Europe. Maybe
>Germany, the US and Japan if they are a bit more upmarket.
>Isn't there an argument that workers are also consumers
>and that consumers earn the money to consume by working.
>We will all disappear up our own exhaust pipes if we
>go on the way we are.
Derek,
I find it amusing that you spend your working day writing
these ill-founded opinions and factual inaccuracies
on RAS, URAS, URASb, the Lasham Newsgroup and PPRUNE
(and I suspect others but I am too busy working to
track them down) and yet complain about jobs disappearing
overseas. If I wanted to employ someone to help me
push my business forward, improve efficiency and margins,
why would I chose someone who sits around and surfs
the internet and yellow pages all day and writes rubbish
to newsgroups over a hard working Eastern European
who is half the cost and almost certainly better educated?
More to the point, what the hell has any of your crap
got to do with gliding?
Owain
Derek Copeland
morning, during my lunch break or after work, and I
can type quite quickly, so they do not detract from
my work. I am quite a bit bit older than you and probably
better qualified (although I don't know what profession
you are in).
I don't like the way the World is going in terms of
globalisation, unnecessary and illegal wars, racial
and religious intolerance, and stupid legislation,
so I am trying to do something about it in any way
I can. Any problems with that?
If you don't like what I write please either ignore
it, or else present a reasoned counter argument beyond
calling it 'rubbish' and 'cr4p'.
Del Copeland
309
Derek Copeland wrote:
> Don't you find it even a little bit worrying 309, that
> you can visit almost any country in the World and see
No, I don't. My glider is a 41 year old Schwiezer glider, manufactured
in another plant that doesn't exist (well, it does...it just hasn't
made a glider in 30 years).
My power plane is a 58 year old Swift that was manufactured in a Fort
Worth Plant that was dormant/vacant for decades and was bulldozed (last
year, I think).
They used to say "The sun never sets..."
>
> Hope you get soon good soaring this year 309.
>
Thank you, and I wish you good soaring, too.
Now enough of this silliness about supersonics,
socio-economical-political B.S.; I'm focusing on Soaring.
Over and OUT,
-309
peter...@soaringmuseum.org
Brian Goodspeed wrote:
> Miles Aviation designed the aircraft which was re-badged
> as the Bell X-1 but somehow the Americans conveniently
> forget that!
> >
My father, Stan Smith, was project engineer on the Bell X-1. He and
another pioneer glider pilot, Bob Stanley, headed the design team. They
were talented engineers and aerodynamacists, not "re-badgers." I'm
sorry to see their integrity impugned on R.A.S.
Brian Goodspeed
Britain's First Supersonic Aeroplane
Could Britain Have Been First to Fly a Supersonic Aeroplane?
During the summer of 1942 the British government decided
to embark upon an ambitious new project. The Air Ministry
and the Ministry of Aviation approached Miles Aircraft
with a secret contract for a jet engine-powered research
aircraft designed to fly at a speed greater than the
speed of sound.
Air Ministry specifications called for an aeroplane
capable of flying more than twice as fast as any existing
aircraft. At the time, no aeroplane had ever exceeded
the sound barrier though there were unconfirmed reports
of Spitfires and Mustangs going through the sound barrier
in steep dives1.
Dubbed the Miles M.52, the secret aircraft would be
designed for a speed of 1,000mph, with the ability
to climb to 36,000 feet in 1.5 minutes.
Aircraft Design
The boundaries of design and technology were being
pushed forward all the time. The wings of the M.52
were very thin and designed to remain within the V-shaped
shockwave generated by the aircraft's nose at supersonic
speeds. In the forward section of the fuselage, the
pilot sat in a pressurised pod, which could be separated
from the aircraft in the event of an emergency using
explosive bolts. However, the pilot did not have the
advantage of sitting in a modern ejector seat, meaning
that he would then have to attempt to climb out of
the tumbling capsule at close to supersonic speeds
- a near suicidal manoeuvre.
The contract for the development of an engine for the
M.52 went to the Whittle Company, headed by Frank Whittle
- the inventor of the jet engine. The resulting engine
was given the designation W2/700 and was fitted with
an afterburner2.
In 1943, Whittle's company was taken over by Rolls
Royce, which used the W2/700 as the basis for a whole
series of jet engines, including the Rolls Royce Derwent,
which went on to be fitted to the Royal Air Force's
first operational jet fighter - The Gloucester Meteor3.
Further power was to have been obtained by fitting
a specially designed ducted fan to increase the airflow
through the engine system. This is what modern turbofan
engines currently employ.
The American Connection
In 1946 a team of American engineers from Bell Aviation,
who were also working on a supersonic aircraft project,
visited the top-secret research facility of the Miles
Aircraft company. The British government instructed
the company to co-operate fully with the Americans,
in return for data on the United States' own supersonic
programme4.
It is known that the Bell company had been having serious
problems with control of their aircraft as it approached
the sound barrier. The Miles team had overcome this
snag with a completely new idea - the all-flying tailplane.
Basically, up until then, the horizontal tailplanes
of all aircraft had been fitted with small flaps on
their trailing edges to aid with vertical stability.
The all-flying tailplane did away with these flaps,
which were just not large enough to counteract the
enormous forces encountered at supersonic speeds, and
designed an aircraft where the entire horizontal tailplane
pivoted, thus giving a much greater movable surface
area with which to control the vertical pitch of the
aircraft. This was a significant breakthrough, in fact
Chuck Yeager5 is on record as saying that the single
most significant contribution to the final success
of the Bell XS-1 was the all-flying tailplane.
Project Cancelled
Within a few weeks of the American's visit, the Air
Ministry Director of Scientific Research, Sir Ben Lockspeiser,
cancelled the British supersonic project, saying:
..in view of the unknown hazards near the speed of
sound ... [it is] considered unwise to proceed with
the full-scale experiments.
Despite 90% of the design work being completed and
half of the construction finished, the project fell,
apparently due to a Treasury savings measure.
The Air Ministry ordered Miles to break up all jigs6
and to send all their design data to Bell Aviation.
As it seems likely that the M.52 would have been flying
by the summer of 1946, and since it would most likely
have achieved its specified performance, it is hard
not to believe the British government was pressured
by the Americans to cancel the M.52 project.
This allowed the US become the first 'through the barrier',
in October 1947, using the rocket-powered M.52 lookalike,
the Bell XS-1. As an added bonus, the Americans' first
jet engine, the General Electric Type 1, drew heavily
on the designs of the British jet.
Aftermath
Following the cancellation of the M.52, the government
instituted a new programme involving 'no danger to
test pilots and economy in purpose'. This was another
way of saying that it was planned to use expendable,
pilotless, rocket-propelled missiles. The Royal Aircraft
Establishment was responsible for the development of
a suitable rocket motor and in charge of aircraft design
was Barnes Wallis7 from Vickers Armstrong.
The rockets were exact 3:10 scale replicas of the M.52
and the first launch took place on 8 October, 1947.
A Mosquito light bomber took off from an RAF airfield
in Cornwall with a rocket-powered model strapped to
its belly. Sadly, the motor exploded shortly after
launch. Following this, and the success of the XS-1
the Daily Express took up the cause for the restoration
of the M.52 programme, but to no avail.
In October, 1948, a second rocket powered model was
launched. This was successful and achieved a speed
of Mach 1.5.
One interesting titbit of information, purportedly
from a member of the development team, was that at
the end of the flight, it was planned that the aircraft
would be given instructions that would send it into
an 'impossible manoeuvre', a 15G turn, thus destroying
the aircraft and letting the pieces fall back into
the sea. However, what actually happened was that on
the successful completion of the test, the 'self-destruct'
command was transmitted, but, instead of the aircraft
being destroyed by the manoeuvre, it was suddenly discovered
that the airframe was so well designed that it survived
what was thought to be impossible, and it was last
observed on radar heading serenely out over the Atlantic
Ocean.
The final irony came when even these rocket trials
were suspended, the reason being given as, 'the high
cost for little return'. The consolation from this
investment was the information that a small scale model
of the Miles M.52 had successfully broken the sound
barrier. Sadly, the United Kingdom had already lost
the chance of being the first nation to break the sound
barrier.
For a visual comparison of the two aircraft designs,
see the following pages: Bell XS-1 and Miles M.52.
Related BBC Links
See what else the BBCi archives have on Supersonic
Technology.
------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
1 But the wing design of these propeller-powered fighter
aircraft meant that such high speeds invariably led
to a catastrophic failure of the airframe and thus
the death of the pilot.
2 The principle behind an afterburner being simply
to pump raw fuel into the engine's exhaust, where it
is ignited, thus greatly increasing the engine's thrust.
3 Entering service in 1944, the Meteor went on to fly
for more than a dozen air forces throughout the world
was operated by the RAF up until the early 1960s. The
Brazilian Air Force flew the Meteor up until 1974.
4 Which was never received!
5 American Chuck Yeager was the first pilot of the
Bell XS-1, which was eventually to become the first
aircraft to break the sound barrier.
6 This has only happened on one other project, namely
the TSR2
7 Designer of the Wellington Bomber and the world famous
'Bouncing Bomb', as used by 617 Squadron of the RAF,
otherwise known as The Dambusters.
At 01:42 15 June 2006, peter...@soaringmuseum.org
wrote:
Brian Goodspeed
Owain Walters
Derek,
What you 'dont like' has nothing to do with gliding
and each one is a massive subject in their own right.
As for what I do, I am in Hedge Funds. I am starting
to find a perverse satisfaction in the fact that we
make money out of the things that you disklike.
Looking forward to seeing you in the air, assuming
you can tear yourself away from the computer.
Owain
Auntie Owen
more common "Owen" intended to give an air of importance to someone who is
anything but. He's well known in English gliding circles for his personal
attacks which contribute nothing to the points being discussed. He is an
unpleasant yob.
He is "in Hedge Funds" (capitalized for further importance) which
basically means that he contributes nothing at all but rides happily on
the back of anyone willing to do real work.
To add further fuel to the "debate" all of US must be really pleased that
their lads fought and died to preserve such a fool.
Owain Walters
At least have the balls to slag me off under your name!
Owain
PS. Being that my father is in the USAF, I shall ask
him whether he thinks his comrades would rather I wasn't
here. TO be honest, I am not confident of the response!
At 11:36 15 June 2006, P...@schoolboy.Comauntie Owen
wrote:
Ian Johnston
<REMOVE_TO_REP...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
: If you want to take a car ferry from England to Ireland,
: there is now the option of a hydrofoil craft
Where? Neither the Supercat or HSS ferries are hydrofoils, and they
don't have much do do with aviation either, except that the former
sounds liek a winch and the latter is power by gas turbines.
Ian
--
Derek Copeland
I have already explained that mistake to 'Welsh' Druid.
I'm not really into Ships, but they are apparently
catamarans and at least twice as fast as the bog standard,
monohull, Ro-Ro car ferries.
Can I also admit to typing 'Chrysler' when I meant
'Chevrolet' in my piece on General Motors and globalisation.
Can I thank 'Jack' who pointed that out that mistake
in a private e-mail'.
Del Copeland
---------------------------
At 16:00 15 June 2006, Ian Johnston wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:36:35 UTC, Derek Copeland