Best solder free electrical connection

[tony sayer]

In article , Michael A. Terrell scribeth thus

Not that bad really as it was the first one..

What other supersonic airliners are those then?...

[tony sayer]

In article , William Sommerwerck scribeth thus

The USofA shirley?.

[aemeijers]

US design never got past the mock-up stage. The bean-counters killed it based on cost-benefits. Simply put, it could never pay for itself and recoup the development money. As the Brits and the French discovered, the bean counters were right. Unlike Concorde, which had much or most of R&D paid for by taxpayers as a national ego thing, the US SST didn't get that much from Uncle Sam. (US Govt had other expensive things going on.) Without signed orders from the airlines, the financing just wasn't there. US doesn't have a 'national airline' like most countries. Most of the R&D seed money US Govt supplies for aircraft work is related to military requirements or to keep industrial base operational. Some of the military research can also be used on civilian side, like how large jet bombers/tranports led to large jet airliners.

Don't forget the knockoff of Concorde USSR put together. That was purely a national ego thing.

[><((]

No, Concorde wasn't fuel efficient though neither are Porsche, Ferrari and so on motorcars. Come to think of it, neither are those enormous engined gas guzzling motors most US citizens used to prefer.

Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price it is today?

[Kurt Ullman]

I've lost track with all of the ups and downs, but aren't oil prices back pretty close to what they were in the 60s when adjusted for inflation? Might even be a little below.

[><((]

Not in Blighty they're not - no way near.

[clare]

You gotta share the credit for that one with the frenchies IIRC

[The Natural Philosopher]

Concorde got banned from flying supersonic over nearly all land areas. That meant it couldn't actually use its speed to cut route times. i.e.

2hrs coast to coast of USA...

With such a restriction round its neck it was doomed.

[The Natural Philosopher]

The guys who wrote 'Limits to Growth' and were totally ignored?

[krw]

Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.

[krw]

Well, there you have it. You killed the Concorde yourselves.

[krw]

Because perhaps the boot of the government isn't quite as heavy on this side of the pond, yet. Perhaps because this is a *big* place and cars are used to transport more than a couple of people a few km.

It didn't. Your taxes did.

[><((]

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.

[aemeijers]

[e-mail] 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.

[krw]

I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).

The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.

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

[krw]

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.

[Bob Eager]

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

[The Natural Philosopher]

It WOULD have made sense. For a limited market of people with money in a hurry IF they had allowed supersonic flight over land.

As it was, many routes were so restricted it offered no time advantages at all.

[Frank Erskine]

Probably crimps are the best solder-free connections.

[clare]

Not in Canada either. In 1969 a gallon of gas sold for about $0.45 and a reasonably paid worker (like a licenced mechanic) earned $4.50 per hour. Convert that to Metric and gasoline was about $0.10 a liter. Today gasoline hovers around the buck a liter range, and not too many workers earn $22.50 an hour - which would make gasoline virtually twice as expensive in real dollars as it was in 1969.