Best solder free electrical connection

Page 8 of 13  

snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca writes

You could say more or less the same comparing a ford fiesta and a rolls royce
--
geoff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think you'll find that a Rolls will move more passenger-miles per hour than a Ford Fiesta. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:07:35 -0500, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

But more passenger miles per hour per GALLON? Perhaps, but i somehow doubt it, having actually driven and fed both. . . . . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:36:23 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

The point was that his analogy sucks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

Yet you can find both sitting on the side of the road, with steam pouring out from under the hood. :)
--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
geoff wrote:

A fully-loaded city bus and the RR would be a more meaningful comparision/analogy.
--
aem sends...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or a TVR maybe
--
geoff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: (snip)

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.
--
aem sends...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That wasn't the issue.

It's an old plane. There are cheaper now. Do you notice any cheaper Concordes flying?

Because many routes are itty-bitty. A 747, no matter how loaded, doesn't make sense from JFL to ALB.

I thought most would already be belly-up. My bet is that they all have some pretty long term fuel contracts sewn up.

That market was never enough to justify the Concorde.

I don't buy that conclusion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
aemeijers wrote:

Plus the externalities, such as having your windows rattle twice a day (waking the baby, of course) just because some rich nitwit couldn't wait another couple of hours to get to LA. Anyway, rich nitwits save more time than that by buying or renting their own subsonic jet, which goes wherever they want, whenever they want. It's a far more rational solution (if you can call it that).
There was also a big outcry at the time about the pollution--apparently folks were worried about damage to the ozone layer or something, due to inefficient engines spewing crap in the stratosphere. I'm not sure whether there was anything to that (there so often isn't, in the environmentalist cosmos), but that and the sonic booms were what got supersonic flight banned.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:57:06 +0100, Phil Hobbs

Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 23:41:57 +0100, ><(((°> wrote:

Or Envy...!
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french landfills.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
aemeijers wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"dennis@home" wrote:

At 50 feet, it would have hit a tree, and you don't land at 75,000 feet, which is 14.2 miles AAT. They have to descend to land, and gain altitude to leave any airfield. Airports balked at longer runways for 747s, and many would have had to move to have anything longer. it would take decades to use 'Eminent Domain' to take homes and businesses for the extra land at current sites.

Are you sure they have never caused any damage? Have you ever been in Florida when one loops over the state before landing? That distinctive double boom has a lot of energy when it's close. I've heard plenty of them over the last 20 years. I also built some of the communications equipment and telemetry equipment used to track them.

prove it. No commercial SS was allowed, and military SS has limited flight paths at lower altitudes which limits the bases they can operate from.

Sigh. Do you ever study anything, or just type bullshit?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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



  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
tony sayer wrote:

So, where are his flying, today?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well thats like saying where are Stevenson's locomotives working today then;?.
Rather pointless...
--
Tony Sayer



  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.