Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again/
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again/
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again?
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
By *no* measure was it successful. It was a money pit.
You need to take a remedial reading course.
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.
Oh, you were a stew.
Nonsense.
What about the electrical systems?
Cool. Still have mine. '66 Bonnie.
tm
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---
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.
An American that doesn't fly? Have a look at who makes plane parts these days.
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.).
Conversely US jets engines have always been smokers compared to Rolls Royce.
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.
They have the space shuttle, the only thing faster than that was Apollo but that's old technology borrowed from the Germans.
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).
Germany, 1943?
In article , Michael A. Terrell scribeth thus
Built here anyone;?..
In article , snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca scribeth thus
Suppose thats like comparing a London Omnibus with a sports car;?...
In article , Michael A. Terrell scribeth thus
Yawn ... zzzzzz Frank Writtle was 'working on them long before that;)...
May I suggest you take the narrow bandwidth blinkers off;?...
In article , dennis@home scribeth thus
Nuclear scientists 'n all....
Chuck Yeager would likely disagree. Got some proof of that?
HomeOwnersHub website 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.