Best solder free electrical connection

[Dave]

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave

 

[tony sayer]

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

Yes I read fine I interpret differently from you!...

The 747 has nothing to do with supersonic air travel its a completely
different class of aircraft.

We \were\ talking about Supersonic airliners....

 

[tony sayer]

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

The Concorde was not successful.

It was .. for what it did...

 

[Bob Eager]

Probably crimps are the best solder-free connections.

I dunno. Spot welds?

 

[>]

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

Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.

 

[Bob Eager]

Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.

Or Envy...!

 

[[email protected]]

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.

The 747 (on a bad day) moves more passenger-miles per hour on less
than 1/4 the lbs of fuel per passenger mile than the concorde could
dream of on it's best day

 

[S Viemeister]

My understanding (possibly wrong) was the itty-bitty 777 is significantly
cheaper to run. ISTM that it wasn't so long ago that twin jets weren't
allowed to do transatlantic flights, but on the more recent UK-USA
flights I've done it's nearly always been a 767 or 777

Continental do 757s on some transAtlantic routes.

 

[[email protected]]

It was .. for what it did...

By *no* measure was it successful. It was a money pit.

 

[[email protected]]

Yes I read fine I interpret differently from you!...

The 747 has nothing to do with supersonic air travel its a completely
different class of aircraft.

We \were\ talking about Supersonic airliners....

You need to take a remedial reading course.

 

[[email protected]]

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

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.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

Oh, you were a stew.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Nonsense.

 

[[email protected]]

Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.

What about the electrical systems?

 

[[email protected]]

What about the electrical systems?

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.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.

Conversely US jets engines have always been smokers compared to Rolls
Royce.

 

[tony sayer]

Well under a fraction of one percent isn't sucessful. It's nothing
but ego bloat.

Built here anyone;?..

 

[tony sayer]

The 747 (on a bad day) moves more passenger-miles per hour on less
than 1/4 the lbs of fuel per passenger mile than the concorde could
dream of on it's best day

Suppose thats like comparing a London Omnibus with a sports car;?...

 

[tony sayer]

Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long
before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french
landfills.

Yawn ... zzzzzz Frank Writtle was 'working on them long before that...

 

[tony sayer]

You need to take a remedial reading course.

May I suggest you take the narrow bandwidth blinkers off;?...

 

[tony sayer]

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.).

Nuclear scientists 'n all....

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again?

Germany, 1943?

Chuck Yeager would likely disagree. Got some proof of that?