Date:         Wed, 28 Apr 1999 17:47:03 EDT
Reply-To:     KENWILFY@AOL.COM
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         KENWILFY@AOL.COM
Subject:      Re: Quality of Quality of Work, NO VANAGON CONTENT
Comments: To: dmc@cyburban.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

In a message dated 99-04-28 15:18:31 EDT, you write:

<< What? No mention of the British, and a disparaging comment about the
 French.
 They did build the Concorde between them, which the Americans tried
 their best to ban from landing on its shores. >>

Being quite involved in the aircraft industry I just want to say that this is
a very poor example of French and British "engineering" (oh those two country
names and that word just don't sound right together:).
The Concorde is basically a very noisy (why we didn't want it here), very
innefficent (you should check into how much of its fuel it burns just to take
off), money pit (it actually looses money every year but as a symbol of
national pride France keeps it in the air).  It's design is from the 60's
(outdated) and it is really a dinosaur compared to the newer, smaller,
business jets made of composites.
So as an example of Brittish engineering maybe use a new Lotus.  As an
example of French, maybe the new Citroen (retro like the New Beetle).  But
please don't use the Concorde.
Hey somebody had to say it :)
Ken Wilford
Van-Again
John 3:16
PS If you think I am flaming you, you're crazy!!!  :)