Delta IVH - this can't make Seattle happy . . .

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

And this folks is why the 757 is the width of two horses asses.

Or something like that.

Assuming you're not joking, IIRC the 757 was based on a modified 727
fuselage to reduce development costs. For airlines who wanted a real
wide-body, that's what the 767 was for.
--
Malcolm Street
Canberra, Australia

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

And this folks is why the 757 is the width of two horses asses.

Or something like that.

Assuming you're not joking, IIRC the 757 was based on a modified 727
fuselage to reduce development costs. For airlines who wanted a real
wide-body, that's what the 767 was for.
--
Malcolm Street
Canberra, Australia

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 14:01:44 GMT, "w9gb" wrote:

Dale -

While I understand the attachment, I also live in Chicago and I use to work
next to their new HQ building (old Morton Salt HQ building) ... ( if anyone
thinks that is weird since use to be named Morton Thiokol in the 1980s..
that's another thread). The alternatives at the time were Dallas and
Denver.

I'm guessing having to move into the old Texas School Book Depository
building nixed the Dallas deal

Boeing today is much more than just Seattle - its Hughes, McDonnell,
Douglas, portions of old North American (Rockwell), SeaLaunch alliance, etc.
Many of my relatives worked at Wichita assembly and I have a cousin
(Chemical engineer) that worked for a number of years at McDonnell in St.
Louis.
Many in Wichita are not happy about the sale of that facility and
southwestern Illinois and St. Louis were not enthralled about the Boeing
merger with McD/Douglas .. and a city/region that "it also owed so much to".
In the end ..... the Boeing today only shares the name of the Boeing of
yesterday (this is a trend that you also find in banking mergers .. Wells
Fargo, Bank of America, etc.)

Yeah, I understand, and empathise with those loyal to companies that
no longer exist, even in name. As Henry Spencer pointed out, the Wichita
thing was long ago, but I'm sure there are still plenty of Stearman people
who still resent it anytime someone calls the PT-17 a "Boeing" airplane.
One of the great aircraft of all time. And I think the DC-3 is now included in
the "Boeing History" webpages. 100 years from now, it may all be a blur...

BTW, not that I'm gunning for an ICH T-shirt, but Stearman was sold to the
United Aircraft and Transport Corp. (Boeing) in 1929, long before the B-29
came along.

Dale

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 20:00:41 +1100, Malcolm Street
wrote:

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

And this folks is why the 757 is the width of two horses asses.

Or something like that.

Assuming you're not joking, IIRC the 757 was based on a modified 727
fuselage to reduce development costs. For airlines who wanted a real
wide-body, that's what the 767 was for.

What's the width of a 767 fuselage, in the standard unit of horse's asses?

Dale

Screw the metric system- this one makes much more sense.

Henry Spencer wrote:

On reflection, I think the problem here is that this flight was serving
double duty.

It was partly a test flight, gathering data on performance etc. for
planned analysis. Test flights can be successful even if they don't
complete their flight plan, because the *data* is the primary objective.

Unfortunately, this was also a qualification flight, which is supposed to
verify something that you're already (supposedly) pretty damn sure of.
For a qualification flight not to complete its flight plan is a major
unpleasant surprise and definitely constitutes failure.

Very well put.

What are the odds on the USAF wanting to put a $1 billion recce bird on top
of the next one? Also good luck finding any commercial customers for the
next flight.

I think they'll have to have another test flight with another test payload.
Only if that works will the market trust the rocket with a real payload.

Still great to see a new heavy-duty US launcher, especially one with so much
upgrade potential.

--
Malcolm Street
Canberra, Australia
The nation's capital

Malcolm Street wrote:

And this folks is why the 757 is the width of two horses asses.

Assuming you're not joking,

Was that a pun?

Paul

"Dale" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:11:32 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Why, did you back the wrong horse in that argument?


No, I backed the dark horse...you know, the Iron Horse...but the
discussion soon derailed my train of thought, as well as being hard to
keep track of- and I was completely steamed and fit to be tied by the
time it reached the end of the line.

Does this signal and end to this? I know you can switch to something
else on the spur of the moment...

I'm going to have to rail against this increasingly off-track discussion.



Dale

Just can't quite work "high ball" into this post. Damn. I guess I'm
limited
in my ability to express my thoughts.

Dale wrote:

And I think the DC-3 is now included in
the "Boeing History" webpages. 100 years from now, it may all be a blur...


Think of all the automobile lines that got absorbed by the Big Three
automakers....this is nothing new.
Where's a independent automaker when you need one? What would the 2005
Aeropinion/Pneumoslitos or Electrobats* look like?

Pat

* No, I'm not making these up. :-D

Dale wrote:

What's the width of a 767 fuselage, in the standard unit of horse's asses?

Dale

Screw the metric system- this one makes much more sense.


Yeah, we've got "horsepower", so why not? But are you referring to the
American Horseass based on the Palomino, or the European Horseass based
on the Clydesdale? Then of course there are the Quarterhorseass and
Shorthorseass to deal with....and don't think I'm marely making this up
to trot out my knowledge....studey will show that a bit of forethought
now will spur on the mane point of my discussion before we are all
saddled with preconceived notions and hobbled in our race to the finish
line in this matter...we must take off our blinders, and stirrup more
discussion.... (hook comes out of stage left and drags Pat off stage
among hail of apples, carrots, and oats) :-)

Pat

Malcolm Street wrote:

Very well put.

What are the odds on the USAF wanting to put a $1 billion recce bird on top
of the next one? Also good luck finding any commercial customers for the
next flight.


Yes, this could be the Delta 3 story all over again, unless the are sure
about both the problem and its fix.


I think they'll have to have another test flight with another test payload.
Only if that works will the market trust the rocket with a real payload.


That would certainly be the smart thing to do...so I imagine the
reconsat flight will go ahead as scheduled. ;-)


Still great to see a new heavy-duty US launcher, especially one with so much
upgrade potential.


I keep wondering just how many of those first stages you can cluster
total? Geometry says a core unit with six strap-ons. That would make one
formidable booster; since we'll be structurally strengthening the core
unit anyway, we have it air-light, and stick another core unit atop it
for a upper stage...then add the Timberwind nuclear stage on top of
that, and... :-)

Pat