Actually something like 30,000 miles. Incidentally, my father kept a log on his cars. And that Minor averaged 52 MPG over the three years he had it. And some 50,000 miles. A high annual mileage in those days.
Perhaps you could persuade US citizens to buy US made cars? You'd be Trump's friend for life.
We were but gave away the jet engine to the US as part payment for WWII, after we gave away 25 jet engines to to frussia as we were friends during WWII provided they didn't copy them... which of course they did.
Maybe you can tell us why america or any other country hasn't also developed a passenger jet to replace concorde since then.
Didn't we invent the steam engine too?
Why would anyone want a replacement for something that ran at a loss?
In article snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)" snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> writes
Tyres that lasted 30k? Not Dunlops then.
In article snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)" snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> writes
It was doing quite well up to 9/11. Having flown on it I can say it was absolutely brilliant.
I don't think so as I'm not that old, I think it was Thomas Newcomen. and yes we pretty much filled the world with steam engines originating from the UK.
To make it profitable. Russia tried and the USA tried.
And finally realised the concept was flawed.
The concept wasn't flawed it worked as a passenger airliner for 27 years. How many people keep the same car for 27 years.
In article snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)" snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> writes
They failed technically. Russian version crashed at Paris Air Show (nice conspiracy theory there) and US one was far to over ambitious. Concorde was viable on charter flights but after 9/11 planes were flying virtually empty. But then the design/maintenance team were ageing and it wasn't exactly a glowing career prospect for a young engineer doing PDS on a 1950/60s plane with no replacement.
They certainly were. Factory fitted. But we're talking the early '50s.
I read it had never made even an operating profit. Let alone recovered the development costs. Take away the first class service, and all you're left with is a pretty cramped space for each passenger.
Most prefer to move on to a more modern design for day to day use. And wasn't one being clapped out the reason the service stopped?
Same with cars cameras phones and most things in we buy rarely last 27 years.
An accident and the increaing cost of maintaince and the cost of fuel. Computers of that time have also ceased to remain in service, well other than the voyager 1 & 2 which were 10 years later anyway.
one of the problems was getting spares for the electronics. (TTL anybody?)
It had to be given to BA for free, they never paid for it.
That'll be why there *are* companies trying to develop alternative forms of ultra high speed planes, then
tim
Would that be the same as Virgin taking passengers into space?
just because they have failed to get the technology right,
doesn't mean that there aren't people who think that their investment will be profitable eventually
Are the people investing in Hyperloop trains doing it because they are train freaks, or because they have calculated it will be profitable for them?
I'll ignore the option of eco-warriors, because the eco friendly alternative to the problem that this solution is trying to solve is not to travel at all, or if you must, travel by conventional train
tim
Until the massive defecit was cut to zero, the debt kept rising every year. Only then could the debt itself start to fall.
SteveW
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.