# Your favorite French fighter?



## Oreo (Aug 7, 2008)

Not complicated-- which is your favorite?

I am not including the Hawk 75, only indigenous designs.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 7, 2008)

My favorite is the MB 152 series, which I find very intriguing and I feel it gets less coverage than the D 520.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 7, 2008)

The MB 152 was also the only one to have wing mounted cannon. (albeit somewhat unreliable) And it was pretty tough.

It was certainly better than the MS 406, and the MB 155 was a pretty decent fighter. (heavier and more relaiable armament and better performance)

The VG 33 was the best all around fighter (with good performance, cost, and armament) to enter production prior to the armistice, but, of course, it came too late.


Not sure what my favorite is though.


----------



## Marcel (Aug 7, 2008)

Arsenal, I just like the looks.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 7, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Arsenal, I just like the looks.



I don't see your vote, there, Marcel?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 7, 2008)

I honestly do not have one. I have been fond of the French Fighters (not to say they did not have any decent ones though). If I had to choose (I chose other because I dont really have one), it would be the D.520.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 7, 2008)

N/A

Like Adler, just don't have a favorite (or a least favorite).

TO


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 7, 2008)

Truthfully, I've never really paid attention to the French fighters. I guess I'll pull a Switzerland and stay neutral.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 7, 2008)

Well, that's diplomatic of y'all. I know not everybody pays any attention to the "minor aviation nations" aircraft, but I think Marcel will be happy to point out, the "minor aviation nations" contributed some interesting planes!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 7, 2008)

Particularly looking at the french planes and engines that were in development or entering production just prior to the armistice. (Gnome 14R, HS 12Z, MB 157, and the advanced developments of the VG-33 series)


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 7, 2008)

Damn I put my vote into the 510 series but I meant to put it into the 520 series. Oh well.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 8, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Damn I put my vote into the 510 series but I meant to put it into the 520 series. Oh well.



Sorry-- maybe I should not have included it, but it was being used until right before the war and it is a really "different" looking design, and I wondered if anyone liked it.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 8, 2008)

Oh well, the D.520 is winning anyway... 

But who else voted for the D.510?


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Aug 9, 2008)

As much as I love the D.520, I'm voting my favorite being the Arsenal VG-33 series, and probably the best had it seen mass production. What is so unique about this design is that it called for the use of certain non strategic materials which could be cheaper and quicker to build than other fighters by normal standards at the time. It was also built under less than ideal circumstances because of competition from other aircraft manufacterers, all on the eve of war. I'm tempted to believe the designers/builders of the Arsenal VG series were able to see the dark clouds on the horizons because of these factors. As such, I would classify the Arenal VG-33 series as something resembling that of a "desperation" fighter design, one which could have made a difference had it seen combat on a wide scale. The Caudron C.714 could also be classified as a french "desperation" aircraft given it's construction.

Only 12-13 VG-33 examples were fully built and of these only 2 reached operational status. A few French publications I have mention that one of the two may have shot down 1, perhaps 2 German planes before hostilities ended, though there is some debate in the various French aviation forums about this. One Stuka and one Me-109 are the two aircraft often mentioned. I don't think anyone has concluded either way on this yet.

My other favorites are the D.520, Breguet 693 series, the MB.170-175 series.


----------



## Bigxiko (Aug 14, 2008)

I believe it were the Morane Saulnier MS 406 series


----------



## Hollywood (Aug 16, 2008)

Nieuport 17,27 or SPAD S.XIII


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 20, 2008)




----------



## Hamilton Standard (Aug 20, 2008)

I believe that too much of the French aviation industry (including engines) was in usable condition by Germany. Why weren't factories destroyed?


----------



## Oreo (Aug 26, 2008)

Nice picture there, Welch.


----------



## Célérité (Aug 27, 2008)

My favorite is the MS 406, it was the principal fighter of the battle of france with the american Curtiss H75. 

The Dewoitine 520 was better but it was little used, consequence of the pitiful french organisation.

Morane Saulnier 406:


----------



## JugBR (Aug 27, 2008)

dont know too much about ww2 french fighters, but im a great fan of mirages


----------



## Oreo (Aug 28, 2008)

Célérité said:


> My favorite is the MS 406, it was the principal fighter of the battle of france with the american Curtiss H75.
> 
> The Dewoitine 520 was better but it was little used, consequence of the pitiful french organisation.
> 
> Morane Saulnier 406:



Nice photo, Celerite. I did not realize there was an MS 406 still flying.


----------



## Célérité (Aug 28, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Nice photo, Celerite. I did not realize there was an MS 406 still flying.



 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuSC5Je8X6k_


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 30, 2008)

That's one little tough looking aircraft.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 6, 2008)

Célérité said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuSC5Je8X6k_




Ah would like seeing that one flying. Is it flying in France?


----------



## Célérité (Sep 7, 2008)

Unfortunately it is based in Switzerland but he flies often in france.

Other photos :

www.airpic.net :: View topic - MS 406 - "HB-RCF" - Charlie Fox


----------



## Juha (Sep 10, 2008)

I voted for D.520.
Nice video clip but IMHO not on M.S. 406, the fixed radiator is a give away. Probably Swiss built D.3801 or much more unlikely M.S. 410.

Juha

Addition, in the You Tube link on the right there is 2 documentary clips on M.S. 406s from 1939-40 period which clearly show the typical retractable radiator of 406.


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 10, 2008)

I am going D.520 Like JugBR said.....I really don't know that much about French Fighters


----------



## Célérité (Sep 11, 2008)

You are right Juha, it's MS 406 D 3801 built under license in Switzerland.That is why he has not a retractable radiator.


----------



## merlin (Sep 12, 2008)

Hamilton Standard said:


> I believe that too much of the French aviation industry (including engines) was in usable condition by Germany. Why weren't factories destroyed?



Fortunately, the Germans didn't make enough use of them. Rather than keep them going, they looted them of machine tools etc.

Its curious that the Germans could use the Czech made equipment but not French! Sure there were some utilization of French Aircraft factories, but nothing like there could have been IMO.


----------



## merlin (Sep 12, 2008)

Célérité said:


> My favorite is the MS 406, it was the principal fighter of the battle of france with the american Curtiss H75.
> 
> The Dewoitine 520 was better but it was little used, consequence of the pitiful french organisation.
> 
> Morane Saulnier 406:



Well you are entitled to your own opinion, but personally for the pilots I think it was suicidal.
The only good MS 406, was the Finnish model when they put captured 1,100 hp Soviet engines in - the Super-Moranes.
It would have been competitive with the 109B C, but it mainly fought the 109E!


----------



## merlin (Sep 12, 2008)

It was a hard choice, but I went with the AG 33 series. Even with a small engine, it still got a decent speed, and it had development potential.


----------



## Célérité (Sep 12, 2008)

Yes merlin, but what makes the charm and heart of a plane that are not its performance but the image that it conveys. Its history, the vicissitudes of crews, the mark that he leaves in time...


----------



## Juha (Sep 12, 2008)

Hello Célérité
I think that I didn't in my previous message thank you enough for the video URL, so Thanks a lot. More so because with that URL I found those two WWII MS 406 clips and a modern Hawk 75A clip. Finnish AF also used those two types.

Thankfully
Juha


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 27, 2010)

I always had a soft spot for the VG 33. It looked formidable, and great performance on so little horsepower. What could it have developed into, we will never know.


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 27, 2010)

Hi



> I always had a soft spot for the VG 33. It looked formidable,


It does not only looked, *it was *formidable...from CEMA and CEV tests.



> and great performance on so little horsepower. What could it have developed into, we will never know.


*We will*: why not ? It was intended to be developed in 

-VG-34
Arsenal VG-34 - Chasseur - Un siècle d'aviation française

-VG-35
Arsenal VG-35 - Chasseur - Un siècle d'aviation française

-VG-36 (my favorite with Leduc effect – so called “Meredith” for english...)
Arsenal VG-36 - Chasseur - Un siècle d'aviation française

VG-37, 38

-VG-39
Arsenal VG-39 - Chasseur - Un siècle d'aviation française

VG-40 series with RR Merlin, VG-50 with V-1710 Allison etc...

Some weight is possible to be saved using soviet Delta Drevisina or american Hugues patent for wooden composites...

So a very promissing plane, bur unlike french propaganda suggested at time, not destinated to be the main french fighter, as assembled in virtualy all cabinet marking workshop...

Required very skilled and qualified labour, at opposite.This means a limited production.
Not the miracle "wooden wonder" solution, but can help...

An excellent site
Sommaire

Regards


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 27, 2010)

I didn't know that the French had any fighters. 

Just kidding! 

I don't have any favorites.

TO


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 27, 2010)

I have always put it into the He-100 category, but it seems the VG 33 wouldn't have had the same problem of being so closely tailored to its engine and thus development would have been fine. Although being a largely wooden aircraft does play against it. The difference in the development experience can be seen by comparing the Mosquito and the ta154. One was a world better, the other a beautiful flop. How would it have played out if France had the time? Thanks for the info VG-33!


----------



## Timppa (Jun 28, 2010)

Of the French "too late" fighters the Bloch M.B.-157 seems to have claimed the most impressive performance.

710 km/h ( 441 mph) at 26,000 ft.

Bloch M.B.157 - fighter







Edit:

My favourite: Morane-Saulnier with Klimov M-105 engine and MG 151 cannon





http://www.kolumbus.fi/kari.stenman/


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 28, 2010)

Always thought them French machines were sometimes odd looking....  Can't decide between some of these, always had a soft spot for the Potez 631 and the Arsenal VG 33 isn't too bad either...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2010)

The Arsenal VG series suffered from a lack of development potential. 

The Airframe, while offering good performance for the engines it was tried with, might have been too small for any serious upgrading of engines, armament or range. A wing about 87-88% the size of a 109's wing doesn't over a lot of scope.


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 29, 2010)

Timppa said:


> Of the French "too late" fighters the Bloch M.B.-157 seems to have claimed the most impressive performance.
> 
> *710 km/h ( 441 mph) at 26,000 ft.*



Maybe it _should_, not _did_. Unfortunately, there are no test records confirming that...

Regards


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 29, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> The Arsenal VG series suffered from a lack of development potential.
> 
> The Airframe, while offering good performance for the engines it was tried with, might have been too small for any serious upgrading of engines, armament or range. A wing about 87-88% the size of a 109's wing doesn't over a lot of scope.



Why not? The VG-39bis was intended to recieve a 1600 hp Hipano.

Arsenal VG-33 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Didn't the russians succeed on fitting both VK-107 and ASh-82 FN on their Yak-3 airframes?

Regards


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2010)

VG-33 said:


> Why not? The VG-39bis was intended to recieve a 1600 hp Hipano.
> 
> Arsenal VG-33 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



The French intended for a lot of things, some of which were pretty much pie in the sky. 

The "Z" series Hispano engines were several years away even if France had not been overrun. They also seemed to have a lot of trouble meeting their claimed performance even after the war. Their claimed altitude performance would have required , by far, the most advance single stage superchargers the world had seen in the entire decade of the 40s. 

Please note that the VG-39 with the Hispano 89ter engine lost the 20mm engine gun and was making do with 6 7.5mm mg in the wings. A 25% reduction in firepower compared to a Hurricane. Granted the "Z" series engines were supposed to use an engine mounted cannon.
None of these planes had armor or self sealing tanks did they? or bullet proof windscreens. 
More powerful engines mean higher fuel consumption. 

Wasn't the standard YAK-3 criticized for short range?
While the Russians did fit more powerful engines to the Yak-3 airframe the ASh-82 version only kept adequate firepower by using a new generation light weight 20mm cannon. Granted the radial was a bit heavier than V-12s. 

As for the pie in the sky comment see the variety of French "light fighters" and some of the proposed armaments for them. 

Or see the armament fit on the Potez 630 fighter variants, two 20mm hispano cannon plus up to 6 7.5mm MGs on a 203 seat plane powered by a pair of 700hp engines and they thought it was equivalent to a Bf 110? OK they were planing replacements in 1940 like:

Sud-Est SE 100 / Liore-et-Olivier LeO 50 - fighter

A 3 seat plane with under 1200hp engines mounting 4 forward firing Hispanos and one rearward firing on a powered mount? 

Given the deterioration in performance of most other peoples aircraft from prototype to service issue aircraft I can't help but wonder what the squadron aircraft would have performed like.


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 30, 2010)

Hello,



Shortround6 said:


> The French intended for a lot of things, some of which were pretty much pie in the sky.


True, but if some pies were still in the sky, some others were already in plates.
As for VG with Hispano Y-45 and Y-51 engines.
The Y-45 was in production, the Y-51 had just passed it's state certification tests.



> The "Z" series Hispano engines were several years away even if France had not been overrun.


So the time for the "Z" for being available, the airframe could have been redisigned several time.




> Please note that the VG-39 with the Hispano 89ter engine lost the 20mm engine gun and was making do with 6 7.5mm mg in the wings. A 25% reduction in firepower compared to a Hurricane. Granted the "Z" series engines were supposed to use an engine mounted cannon.


Note also that the VG-33 was the sole french fighter, if not the sole fighter in the world to remind competitive with a 850/860 hp engine against a 1100 hp Me-109E or the 1030 hp Merlin Spitfire. And was able to remind so, even with some power and "strategical meterials" lack against them.
As a "panic fighter", VG-39 was not bad, it's better to have a 25% reduced Hurricane's firepower Fighter, than no fighter at all, in that order.




> None of these planes had armor or self sealing tanks did they? or bullet proof windscreens.
> More powerful engines mean higher fuel consumption.


I won't bet my arm, or other think it didn't have it. Last MS-406 had armor and protected (but not self-sealing) tanks. Sometimes added in operationnal units or retrofitted for early ones. You should apply it to others fighters of that time in the same way, even during BoB not all af them had such features.
Even if you're obliged to add back's seat armor and resin coat it makes 65/80 + 15/20 kg more. The earth wouldn't stop to go round for that...



> Wasn't the standard YAK-3 criticized for short range?


No more than La-7 or Yak-9. Even the 9D variant, since extra wing tanks were always sealed and never used in order to save weight.



> While the Russians did fit more powerful engines to the Yak-3 airframe the ASh-82 version only kept adequate firepower by using a new generation light weight 20mm cannon. Granted the radial was a bit heavier than V-12s.


Plane desigh was always a compromise, but if it's impossible to keep the firepower in that configuration, the only way is to reduce it...But the Yak-3 BTW did not kept, but increased it (first 200 serial planes had 1 ShVAK + 1 BS, the others 1 BS more). With classical old formula 1 ShVAK + 1 BS the difference would be about 20 kg...



> Or see the armament fit on the Potez 630 fighter variants, two 20mm hispano cannon plus up to 6 7.5mm MGs on a 203 seat plane powered by a pair of 700hp engines and they thought it was equivalent to a Bf 110?


There were obviously official specs problems. The plane in itself, was completly fulfilling them as the Fairey battle did for it' s own ones.



> OK they were planing replacements in 1940 like:
> 
> Sud-Est SE 100 / Liore-et-Olivier LeO 50 - fighter


What if? There were a lot of romantic technofreaks elsewhere...

Regards


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Jul 12, 2010)

The Potez 631 was the French night fighter. Sadly enough the only bomber it was able to catch up to was the He 111. Everything else out flew it. It was woefully underpowered and it too much resembled the Me 110. One of the main reasons the French anti-aircraft kept trying, and a few times successfully, to shoot them down. I hope to build this model soon to add to my collection.


----------



## jipi (Dec 9, 2011)

Night Fighter Nut said:


> One of the main reasons the French anti-aircraft kept trying, and a few times successfully, to shoot them down.



French AAA guns shot everything they saw, as the chance for them to meet a french plane was so tiny...
French pilots also used to be captured and considered as spies when jumping off their plane.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 9, 2011)

Gees, that would really stink.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Dec 12, 2011)

I like the D.520. It soldiered on throughout the war. 
1940 - french
1941 1942 - Vichy French
1943 - Italy
1944 - Bulgaria


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 12, 2011)

jipi said:


> French AAA guns shot everything they saw, as the chance for them to meet a french plane was so tiny...
> French pilots also used to be captured and considered as spies when jumping off their plane.


Talk about a morale killer! Wow!


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 12, 2011)

I have to say that I'm like a lot of you in that my knowledge of French fighters is superficial, but Marcel Bloch is something of a legend and since his firm designed the Mirage (the best French fighter ever) I'm going with the Bloch series of fighters, also someone else said they were good!


----------



## Readie (Dec 14, 2011)

I'd be interested to know the background of these fighters and why one was better etc.
John


----------



## davebender (Dec 14, 2011)

Dassault Mirage F1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Great performance when it entered service during 1973, five years ahead of the F16A. Why didn't European nations purchase it rather then opting for the U.S. built aircraft? The Mirage F1 could have been the first Eurofighter.

Not that this has anything to do with WWII.


----------



## Readie (Dec 14, 2011)

davebender said:


> Dassault Mirage F1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Great performance when it entered service during 1973, five years ahead of the F16A. Why didn't European nations purchase it rather then opting for the U.S. built aircraft? The Mirage F1 could have been the first Eurofighter.
> 
> Not that this has anything to do with WWII.




Nothing to do with being French I suppose?
John


----------



## davebender (Dec 14, 2011)

The French are your neighbors. You've even got a rail tunnel connecting France to England. Why can't Britain cooperate with France to build a fighter aircraft?


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 14, 2011)

Please don't answer that.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 14, 2011)

France was for a most part of post-ww2 era an outcast from NATO, and in Europe only NATO countries were buying F-16s. So neither F-1 nor Viggen (one of my all-time favourites) stood no chance vs. US plane for European NATO countries.


----------



## Readie (Dec 14, 2011)

davebender said:


> The French are your neighbors. You've even got a rail tunnel connecting France to England. Why can't Britain cooperate with France to build a fighter aircraft?



dave, the chunnel connects France to England and was a true Anglo French effort. I used to travel in weekly when I worked in Coquelles/Calais. It was fantastic as everyone spoke English.....
Cooperation over aircraft? Concorde is our (only) finest hour and no one ( not even our American friends) have built such an advanced passenger jet.
Powered by Britain's own RR too...the icing on the cake.
Cooperation with fighters?...not on your nelly.
John


----------



## davebender (Dec 14, 2011)

When I was in southern France most people spoke at least some English. However I had the feeling they thought everyone really should be speaking French.


----------



## Readie (Dec 14, 2011)

davebender said:


> When I was in southern France most people spoke at least some English. However I had the feeling they thought everyone really should be speaking French.



We holiday in Nice - Frejus in southern France and things always go better when we speak French initially.
and lob these gems into the conversation....Bonjour mate....



VICTORY
Battle of Evesham - August 4, 1265
Marking the end of Chivalry in England, the British under Prince Edward earn a victory against Frenchman Simon de Montfort in this massacre.

VICTORY
Battle of Crecy - August 26, 1346
Edward III of England is victorious against Philip VI of France.

VICTORY
Battle of Poitiers - September 19, 1356
Edward of England is victorious against John II of France.

VICTORY	
Battle of Auray - September 29, 1364
Sir John Chandos of England defeats Charles of Blois.


VICTORY
Battle of Agincourt - October 25, 1415
Henry V of England defeats Frenchmen Jean Le Maingre and Charles d'Albret.

VICTORY
Battle of Cravant - July 31, 1423
Thomas Montacute of England defeats Comte de Vendome of France.


VICTORY
Battle of Oudenarde - July 11, 1708
Britain defeats Frenchmen Duc of Burgundy and the Duc de Vendome.


VICTORY
Battle of Albuera - May 16, 1811
Britain defeats Frenchman Nicolas Jean de Dieu.

VICTORY
Battle of Badajoz - March 16-April 6, 1812
Britain deals a major blow to Napoleon Bonaparte of France.

VICTORY
Battle of Salamanca - July 22, 1812
Britain defeats Frenchman Auguste Marmont.

VICTORY
Battle of Vitoria - June 21, 1813
Britain defeats Jean-Baptiste Jourdan and Joseph Bonaparte of France.

VICTORY
Battle of Leipzig - October 16-19, 1813
Britain defeats Napoleon I of France.

VICTORY	
Battle of Waterloo - June 18, 1815
England defeats Napoleon of France in his last battle.


*and before anyone jumps up and down I am joking.*
I like the French (in small doses)

John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 14, 2011)

Readie said:


> Concorde is our (only) finest hour and no one ( not even our American friends) have built such an advanced passenger jet.



With the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, I would beg to differ.

Fast does not necessarily equal advanced or best...


----------



## Readie (Dec 14, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> With the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, I would beg to differ.
> 
> Fast does not necessarily equal advanced or best...




Concorde was designed in the 1960's, first flew in 1969, entered service in 1976. Boeing went big with the Jumbo, not high and fast like us.
I was working on the tarmac area at Heathrow at the time and no aircraft turned heads like Concorde.

The Americans were jealous. 
When the US ban on JFK Concorde operations was lifted in February 1977, New York banned Concorde locally. The ban came to an end on 17 October 1977 when the Supreme Court of the United States declined to overturn a lower court’s ruling rejecting efforts by the Port Authority and a grass-roots campaign led by Carol Berman to continue the ban. In spite of complaints about noise, the noise report noted that Air Force One, at the time a Boeing VC-137, was louder than Concorde at subsonic speeds and during takeoff and landing. 
Scheduled service from Paris and London to New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport began on 22 November 1977.

There was only one Concorde, and probably there won't be another.
As a technical marvel its up there with the best of British and French design.

John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 14, 2011)

Your choice of words were this:

_Concorde is our (only) finest hour *and no one* ( not even our American friends) *have built such an advanced passenger jet.*_

The 787 is much newer technology, and I would go as far as saying it is a more advanced passenger jet. It is simply a newer design with more modern technology. I don't care who's heads the Concord turned in the 60s and 70s. *This is today, 40+ years later*. Naturally aircraft today are going to be more advanced. There is no shame in that...


----------



## Readie (Dec 14, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Your choice of words were this:
> 
> _Concorde is our (only) finest hour *and no one* ( not even our American friends) *have built such an advanced passenger jet.*_
> 
> The 787 is much newer technology, and I would go as far as saying it is a more advanced passenger jet. It is simply a newer design with more modern technology. I don't care who's heads the Concord turned in the 60s and 70s. *This is today, 40+ years later*. Naturally aircraft today are going to be more advanced. There is no shame in that...



I know Chris that was then and this is now but, we were discussing (Anglo) French planes not American ones.
If you ask a Frenchman he will say the same as I do, the Americans cannot/will not acknowledge the Concorde as a 'first'.
We are proud of our 'Speedbird' and that is all that matters.
John


----------



## davebender (Dec 14, 2011)

At one time Normandy and Calais were part of England. So apparently the French also won a few.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 14, 2011)

... oh no.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 14, 2011)

Concord actually was not he first to fly, the Soviet Tu -144 flew in 1968.

Getting back to the favorite Franch Fighter I liked the prototype SE 100, a 2 seater fighter equiped with up to 10 x 20mm HS 404 cannons, top speed of 362 mph and a range of 812.5 miles. Unfortunentely the German drive-by canceled the program.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 15, 2011)

Readie said:


> If you ask a Frenchman he will say the same as I do, the Americans cannot/will not acknowledge the Concorde as a 'first'.
> 
> John



Of course we can. We have not built a "Concorde". 

Could we? Of course we could (hell we built the Space Shuttle, SR-71, there is no reason we could not build a Concorde), but it is not the way to go. It it is too expensive and not fuel efficient. That does not mean it is not a good aircraft. The Concorde was amazing, but that does not change the fact that it is not the "most advanced passenger jet aircraft" ever built. In fact the 787 is probably much more advanced, even down to the construction materials and methods. 

Sorry, to get us off topic...


----------



## jipi (Dec 15, 2011)

davebender said:


> Dassault Mirage F1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Great performance when it entered service during 1973, five years ahead of the F16A. Why didn't European nations purchase it rather then opting for the U.S. built aircraft? The Mirage F1 could have been the first Eurofighter.
> 
> Not that this has anything to do with WWII.



It seems to me that Dassault lost a first "contract of the century" during the 60's, with the Mirage III VS Starfighter.


----------



## jipi (Dec 15, 2011)

Readie said:


> Cooperation with fighters?...not on your nelly.
> John


Why not ? We have already seen anglo-french cooperations for the Jaguar and the Lynx, for example.


----------



## davebender (Dec 15, 2011)

Mirage III was somewhat underpowered. Otherwise it was a good aircraft. The F-104 had plenty of power. Otherwise it was a rather poor aircraft.

IMO the Mirage F1 had the whole package of desirable features for a 1970s fighter aircraft.
- Good power to weight ratio.
- Maneuverable
- Can operate from relatively short runways.
- Designed for easy maintenance and quick turn around time between sorties.
- 43% more fuel then a Mirage III.
- Decent radar (for 1970s).
- Can carry both French made and U.S. made missiles.
. Decent ground attack capability.
- Decent maritime attack capability using Exocet missiles.
- Good combat record vs Iranian F-4s, F-5s and F-14s during the 1980s. 
- Good combat record vs Cuban MiGs during the 1980s in Angola.


----------



## Readie (Dec 15, 2011)

vikingBerserker said:


> Concord actually was not he first to fly, the Soviet Tu -144 flew in 1968.
> 
> Getting back to the favorite Franch Fighter I liked the prototype SE 100, a 2 seater fighter equiped with up to 10 x 20mm HS 404 cannons, top speed of 362 mph and a range of 812.5 miles. Unfortunentely the German drive-by canceled the program.



Concordeski.

The Tupolev Tu-144 was a Soviet supersonic transport aircraft (SST) and remains one of only two SSTs to enter commercial service, the other being the Concorde. 
The prototype first flew on 31 December 1968 near Moscow, two months before the first flight of the Concorde. The Tu-144 first broke the sound barrier on 5 June 1969, and on 15 July 1969 and became the first commercial transport to exceed Mach 2.

The Tu-144 was outwardly similar to the Concorde, under development at the same time by Aérospatiale/British Aircraft Corporation, and allegations were frequently made that Soviet espionage services had stolen Concorde technology.

The Tu-144 suffered a crash in 1973 at the Paris Air Show, delaying its development. The aircraft was introduced into passenger service on 1 November 1977, almost two years after the Concorde. In May 1978, another Tu-144 (an improved version, named Tu-144D) crashed in a test flight while being delivered, and the passenger fleet was permanently grounded after only 55 scheduled flights. 

First by a whisker. But, not the success that the Soviets hoped it would be.

Anglo-French engineering won the real race.

John


----------



## Readie (Dec 15, 2011)

jipi said:


> Why not ? We have already seen anglo-french cooperations for the Jaguar and the Lynx, for example.



Yes, you are right. 
The development of the Jaguar was troubled by conflicting demands and I thinks its true to say that neither the RAF or French Air Force ended up with the plane that they really wanted.
Its always better to co operate or course, but in the real world its often harder than the political leaders would have us believe.

John


----------



## jipi (Dec 15, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Of course we can. We have not built a "Concorde".
> 
> Could we? Of course we could (hell we built the Space Shuttle, SR-71, there is no reason we could not build a Concorde), but it is not the way to go. It it is too expensive and not fuel efficient.



In 1969, fuel efficiency was not a criteria.


----------



## jipi (Dec 15, 2011)

Readie said:


> Concordeski.
> 
> The Tupolev Tu-144 was a Soviet supersonic transport aircraft (SST) and remains one of only two SSTs to enter commercial service, the other being the Concorde.
> The prototype first flew on 31 December 1968 near Moscow, two months before the first flight of the Concorde. The Tu-144 first broke the sound barrier on 5 June 1969, and on 15 July 1969 and became the first commercial transport to exceed Mach 2.
> ...



About this, a longtime ago, I heard a story from an economy teacher of mine. I have no idea if it is true or false.
The Sud-aviation factory, where the french parts of the Concorde were built, was once visited by Tupolev engineers.
The french had spotted that russian shoes had crepe soles, which were known to hold particles of what they were walking upon.

Thus, french technicians spread particles of a fake alliage on the factory floor, that was supposed to fool the russians.

The Concordsky crashed in Le Bourget show because its structure had broken under high-G manoeuver.


----------



## jipi (Dec 15, 2011)

davebender said:


> Mirage III was somewhat underpowered. Otherwise it was a good aircraft. The F-104 had plenty of power. Otherwise it was a rather poor aircraft.



The F104 was so poor, that the USA had almost none of them in their own air force, and that he had been nicknamed "widow maker" in Europe.


----------



## jipi (Dec 15, 2011)

Readie said:


> Yes, you are right.
> The development of the Jaguar was troubled by conflicting demands and I thinks its true to say that neither the RAF or French Air Force ended up with the plane that they really wanted.
> Its always better to co operate or course, but in the real world its often harder than the political leaders would have us believe.
> 
> John



Yes, cooperation may only occur if both country have a convergent point of view.
Another semi-failure was the franco-german Transall, a plane the German wished short ranged, and the french long-ranged.
It finally end up as Medium-ranged...

So pitiful that the last generation of the french planes have been equipped with an airborne refueling pole...


----------



## davebender (Dec 15, 2011)

Erich Hartmann opposed German purchase of the F-104. Apparently he knew a thing or two about what makes a good fighter aircraft.


----------



## Readie (Dec 15, 2011)

jipi said:


> About this, a longtime ago, I heard a story from an economy teacher of mine. I have no idea if it is true or false.
> The Sud-aviation factory, where the french parts of the Concorde were built, was once visited by Tupolev engineers.
> The french had spotted that russian shoes had crepe soles, which were known to hold particles of what they were walking upon.
> 
> ...



I like that story.
The Soviets tried to steal our march and fell flat on their faces.
Good job they weren't involved in building the Chunnel...we'd have ended up in Denmark

John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 15, 2011)

jipi said:


> In 1969, fuel efficiency was not a criteria.



Agreed, but that point is, the Concorde is not the most advanced passenger jet *EVER* built.


----------



## Readie (Dec 15, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed, but that point is, the Concorde is not the most advanced passenger jet *EVER* built.



Come on Chris...

Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde was a turbojet-powered supersonic passenger airliner, a supersonic transport (SST). It was a product of an Anglo-French government treaty, combining the manufacturing efforts of Aérospatiale and the British Aircraft Corporation. First flown in 1969, Concorde entered service in 1976 and continued commercial flights for 27 years.

27 years at supersonic speeds and the comments about 'arriving before you leave' that live on.
It doesn't hurt to admit that we came first...on this occasion 

Now, the Jumbo 747 has had far more impact in global travel and it took American know how to make such a huge plane fly so gracefully and safely.

There is a connection too with Rolls Royce powering both birds.

John


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 15, 2011)

jipi said:


> In 1969, fuel efficiency was not a criteria.



What are you talking about?! Fuel efficiency has been a high level requirement in aircraft system engineering from the very first competitive operations. In fact, while not the only reason, but certainly a major reason the boeing supersonic project was cancelled was because of fuel efficiency (passenger revenue miles). It was deemed a losing proposition to develop such a hugely expensive program for such a niche operation.


----------



## Readie (Dec 15, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> What are you talking about?!



I took the post to mean that in 1960's people were not so concerned about fuel use rates.
That would be true in aviation cars where power was all.
Power was needed to push the design envelope as fast as Concorde did.
John


----------



## jipi (Dec 15, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed, but that point is, the Concorde is not the most advanced passenger jet *EVER* built.



The Concorde was a superlative airplane, kept in service until the turn of the millenium in spite of its cost.
Air France and British Airways lost a lot of money on this plane, but it had to be kept in line because of the prestige it gave them.
 
No other civilian plane has ever had the aura of the Concorde.

That's what made it exceptional.


----------



## Readie (Dec 15, 2011)

jipi said:


> The Concorde was a superlative airplane, kept in service until the turn of the millenium in spite of its cost.
> Air France and British Airways lost a lot of money on this plane, but it had to be kept in line because of the prestige it gave them.
> 
> No other civilian plane has ever had the aura of the Concorde.
> ...



I agree 100% jipi.
This could be an historic post with the English French agreeing about something
Bon
John


----------



## jipi (Dec 15, 2011)

English and French agree since De Gaulle sent his "june 18th call" from London and since Clostermann, Mouchotte, Guedj, De Mozay, Remlinger, De Bordas, and so many other free french, had been given the opportunity to go on fighting nazis in british planes.

No offence for anyone else, though, we know what we owe to all the other countries that sent their boys on the fields of France.


----------



## davebender (Dec 15, 2011)

Next thing you know RAF Fighter Command will be re-equipping with Dassault Rafale fighter aircraft.....


----------



## jipi (Dec 15, 2011)

Not a bad idea indeed...


----------



## Readie (Dec 15, 2011)

davebender said:


> Next thing you know RAF Fighter Command will be re-equipping with Dassault Rafale fighter aircraft.....
> 
> View attachment 186899



Non dave. We'd rather have our Harriers back.

But, we have this to look forward to RAF - F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter)

P&W engines though....simply not on old boy

John


----------



## davebender (Dec 15, 2011)

What happened? There was a time when Rolls Royce built some of the best aircraft engines in the world.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 15, 2011)

jipi said:


> The F104 was so poor, that the USA had almost none of them in their own air force, and that he had been nicknamed "widow maker" in Europe.


There is nothing poor about the F-104 if you use it in the role it was designed for instead of turning it into a low-level fighter bomber.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 15, 2011)

Readie said:


> It doesn't hurt to admit that we came first...on this occasion



I never said it was not a first. Please show me the post where I said that. 

I stand by my post that it is not the most advanced passenger jet aircraft ever built (Which is what you said it was). That is what I have said, and nothing more.



jipi said:


> The Concorde was a superlative airplane, kept in service until the turn of the millenium in spite of its cost.
> Air France and British Airways lost a lot of money on this plane, but it had to be kept in line because of the prestige it gave them.
> 
> No other civilian plane has ever had the aura of the Concorde.
> ...



No one is denying that...


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 15, 2011)

riacrato said:


> There is nothing poor about the F-104 if you use it in the role it was designed for instead of turning it into a low-level fighter bomber.


and in that role it was superb as a strke fighter


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 15, 2011)

jipi said:


> No offence for anyone else, though, we know what we owe to all the other countries that sent their boys on the fields of France.



No offense taken. Believe me, I'm the first person to defend modern French airplanes as being world class.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 15, 2011)

davebender said:


> What happened? There was a time when Rolls Royce built some of the best aircraft engines in the world.



And who is saying they dont? RR is leading edge engineering on this planet.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 15, 2011)

riacrato said:


> There is nothing poor about the F-104 if you use it in the role it was designed for instead of turning it into a low-level turn and burn fighter.



Never understood the F-104 role, personally. But at the time for an interceptor, not a dog fighter, it actually was superb. Not unlike the quick reaction of the British English Electric. While it has been posted that th US did not re-populate all fighters wih -104s, that is not necessarily a negative to the airframe, but rather a recognition of a CONUS defence strategy. If the F-104 was such a $hitty platform, it would not have sold so many airframes. The Starfighter was not just about airframe capabilities, but also about avionics, defensive systems and armament.


----------



## davebender (Dec 15, 2011)

Why aren't they building engines for the F-35 program?


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 15, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> Never understood the F-104 role, personally. .


When the RCAF got it was to enhance the role they were newly assigned in NATO which was lo level nuke strike the pilots thought it was great . The previous role was with All weather Cf100's and F86's for air superiority


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Dec 16, 2011)

> RR is leading edge engineering
> Why aren't they building engines for the F-35 program?


That question should be directed to the manufacturers of the airframe; the Trent 1000 is good enough for the Dreamliner.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 16, 2011)

davebender said:


> Why aren't they building engines for the F-35 program?


Because their development program is behind schedule and it would probably never break even. Export orders are far too likely to settle for the engine that already works. So other than prestige, there's not much in it for RR.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> No offense taken. Believe me, I'm the first person to defend modern French airplanes as being world class.



I too have always liked the modern ones. Never cared for the WW2 ones, and worst of all I never cared for the French Bombers of that era as well.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2011)

davebender said:


> Why aren't they building engines for the F-35 program?



There are two chances of the US sticking a foreign engine in the F-35 and Slim has already left town.

Since the 1950's (if not before) decision on which airplane (or engine) for many of the "smaller" counties to buy/use has depended at least as much on politics and "deals" (manufacturing offsets and like) as the actual capabilities of the aircraft/engine involved.


----------



## davebender (Dec 16, 2011)

British F-4 fighter aircraft were powered by the locally built RR Spey engine. Why didn't RR build an engine for the F-35 which the RAF would use and possibly other nations also such as Australia?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2011)

The Spey already existed. Unless RR already has a suitable engine in production or customers lined up for such an engine for a large production run the cost of designing and building just for the British F-35 (or even a few other countries production) is simply too expensive. The cost of designing and building a new engine can be around a Billion dollars if not higher. Small runs of specialized engines are unaffordable.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 16, 2011)

Exactly. And exactly the reason they stopped development of their own F-35 engine just a few days ago.


----------



## Readie (Dec 16, 2011)

Whatever the reasons I think that its a bad day when RAF aircraft are not powered by British engines.
I mean no disrespect to P&W either, but if we abandon RR its a slippery slope....

The Harrier would still do everything the RAF NAVY realistically could need....

Oh well

John


----------



## davebender (Dec 16, 2011)

I don't understand why Britain bought into the F-35 program. You've already got the Eurofighter and it's an excellent aircraft (except it should have been named "Spitfire II"). Eurofighter research and development have already been paid for. Why not just build enough aircraft to fill the entire RAF requirement? If the program remains fully supported it's also more likely to get some export customers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2011)

davebender said:


> *I don't understand why Britain bought into the F-35 program*. You've already got the Eurofighter and it's an excellent aircraft (except it should have been named "Spitfire II"). Eurofighter research and development have already been paid for. Why not just build enough aircraft to fill the entire RAF requirement? If the program remains fully supported it's also more likely to get some export customers.


Because BAE is a major player in the development of the aircraft and has been since the X-35 days.


----------



## davebender (Dec 16, 2011)

Isn't BAE also a major player in the Eurofighter program?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2011)

davebender said:


> Isn't BAE also a major player in the Eurofighter program?


Yep!

http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/autoGen_106920103850.html


----------



## davebender (Dec 16, 2011)

Then why wouldn't BAE be just as happy building a few hundred additional EuroFighters?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2011)

davebender said:


> Then why wouldn't BAE be just as happy building a few hundred additional EuroFighters?



Because they could build both plus spares and it seems on paper there will be a lot more F-35 operators than Eurofighter operators. You don't make your money on building airframes, you really make big money on spare parts and after production support.


----------



## Readie (Dec 16, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Because they could build both plus spares and it seems on paper there will be a lot more F-35 operators than Eurofighter operators. You don't make your money on building airframes, you really make big money on spare parts and after production support.



True, but I think if we should support our own industries. The 'Eurofighter' (a rather ironic name in 2011) is good but, we had a more flexible aircraft in the Harrier.
The Falklands showed that and the war zones the RAF have operated in since still show the close support in the main role.

I would rather have seen BAE develop the Harrier.

John


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2011)

Readie said:


> True, but I think if we should support our own industries. The 'Eurofighter' (a rather ironic name in 2011) is good but, we had a more flexible aircraft in the Harrier.
> The Falklands showed that and the war zones the RAF have operated in since still show the close support in the main role.
> 
> I would rather have seen BAE develop the Harrier.
> ...



There was no more stretch in the Harrier. BAE is partnered to save money. LM is taking all the risk in money and development, in the end BAE potentially can offer the UK a Harrier replacement with no development cost and it can still make money and keep people employed.


----------



## Readie (Dec 16, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There was no more stretch in the Harrier. BAE is partnered to save money. LM is taking all the risk in money and development, in the end BAE potentially can offer the UK a Harrier replacement with no development cost and it can still make money and keep people employed.



Britain really needs to put our own jobs first instead of the years of selling out to foreign firms.
I hope that you are right Joe
John


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 16, 2011)

I would think (and hope) that if the F-35 VSTOL is every perfected, it would be kinda like a next generation Harrier. Big shoes to fill though.


----------



## Readie (Dec 16, 2011)

Lockheed Martin F-35 STOVL Variant Flies Supersonic Speeds

Its a wonderful aircraft that is beyond doubt. I see the British version are called 'Harrier'. A fitting tribute to the original.
John


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 16, 2011)

Excellent!


----------



## davebender (Dec 16, 2011)

Speaking of which...
The Eurofighter and Dassault Rafale are both fine aircraft but neither aircraft is being produced in large numbers. Why didn't you and your French neighbors hold a flight competition with the winner getting the entire fighter contract for Britain, France, Germany and anyone else who wants into the program? Build 1,000 aircraft of a single type and you get the advantages of mass production. Just as the USA is trying to do with the F-35.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2011)

Readie said:


> Whatever the reasons I think that its a bad day when RAF aircraft are not powered by British engines.
> I mean no disrespect to P&W either, but if we abandon RR its a slippery slope....



Not every company can devote the resources to research and development of engines in all sizes or purposes. Much better to pick a few markets to compete in and make money at than trying to cover every need regardless of cost and profitability. Keeping a company healthy and profitable is a better long term "jobs program" than a taxpayer supported, few year "buy our own nations stuff" jobs program.


----------



## Readie (Dec 17, 2011)

davebender said:


> Why didn't you and your French neighbors hold a *flight competition *with the winner getting the entire fighter contract for Britain, France, Germany and anyone else who wants into the program?



Shades of the Schneider Trophy ! Time to dust off the Supermarines.

John


----------



## Readie (Dec 17, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Not every company can devote the resources to research and development of engines in all sizes or purposes. Much better to pick a few markets to compete in and make money at than trying to cover every need regardless of cost and profitability. Keeping a company healthy and profitable is a better long term "jobs program" than a taxpayer supported, few year "buy our own nations stuff" jobs program.



Its largely because we have ignored the basic fact that economies need to make things that we are in the mess we are in 2011.
I take your point but, I would say that there are other issues at stake here. So much so that the RR engines available could have had a modern fighter designed around them rather than the other way round.
I know that fighters have to be developed but, who are the enemy we are likely to have to fight? What fighters do they have to deploy against us?
I think its a question of balance. 
Keeping jobs at home and having a fighter cability that is affordable and adequate for our real world needs.
John


----------



## davebender (Dec 17, 2011)

I used to think the British were foolish for not switching to the Euro. Now it looks like the Euro is self destructing and the British knew what they were doing all along by sticking with the pound.

Either that or you English muddled through and got lucky.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2011)

davebender said:


> Now it looks like the Euro is self destructing



We can only hope so. I want the Deutsch Mark back.


----------



## Readie (Dec 18, 2011)

davebender said:


> I used to think the British were foolish for not switching to the Euro. Now it looks like the Euro is self destructing and the British knew what they were doing all along by sticking with the pound.
> 
> Either that or you English muddled through and got lucky.



One of the things we can thank Gordon Brown for keeping us out of the Euro Zone.
Our Sterling is part of our identity.

You are right about 'muddling'. Its the English way you know.

I suspect that other EU countries would quite like their own currency back too...

John


----------



## davebender (Dec 18, 2011)

If the Euro breaks up I think continental europe would be in a serious economic mess for several years. The cure might be worse then the disease.

Meanwhile Britain and the USA would continue to economically muddle through. A technique we learned from our English cousins. 8)


----------



## Readie (Dec 18, 2011)

davebender said:


> If the Euro breaks up I think continental europe would be in a serious economic mess for several years. The cure might be worse then the disease.
> 
> Meanwhile Britain and the USA would continue to economically muddle through. A technique we learned from our English cousins. 8)



The main land Europeans are great survivors, They'll be ok, Euro or no Euro.

The gentle art of muddling takes 100's of years to perfect. You colonials are just starting to learn...
The real trick is not to appear to be muddling through...that masterclass awaits you 

John


----------



## davebender (Dec 18, 2011)

Europe survived 1648, 1763, 1815, 1918 and 1945 but in each case things were pretty grim for the next several decades. I'm hoping today's MTV generation of Europeans make wiser choices then their ancestors.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2011)

davebender said:


> If the Euro breaks up I think continental europe would be in a serious economic mess for several years. The cure might be worse then the disease.
> 
> Meanwhile Britain and the USA would continue to economically muddle through. A technique we learned from our English cousins. 8)



That is the main reason I want the Deutschmark back. I am paid in Dollars, but have to pay my rent and utility bills in Euro. I might not be German, but I am against the Euro. Hell my wife is German has been against the Euro from the beginning. I think the average European in the Euro zone is. Unfortunately most of the Govt.'s don't ask the people what they want.


----------



## Readie (Dec 19, 2011)

davebender said:


> Europe survived 1648, 1763, 1815, 1918 and 1945 but in each case things were pretty grim for the next several decades. I'm hoping today's MTV generation of Europeans make wiser choices then their ancestors.



One would hope so dave.
However, with all the divides that there are in main land Europe I am not optimistic.
Any 'melt down' with have's and have not's will cause trouble in some shape or form.
I shall watch with interest Mr Cameron's work to extract ourselves from the EZ mess and (hopefully) leave the EU altogether...
John


----------



## marshall (Dec 19, 2011)

Interesting a thread about French ww2 fighter planes ends with a discussion about euro... 


Don't want to interrupt but I voted on the D.520.


----------



## davebender (Dec 19, 2011)

And then what?

We could revive the plan for "Greater Britain" which Sir Edward Grey and Colonel House tried so hard to make happen during WWI.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2011)

marshall said:


> Interesting a thread about French ww2 fighter planes ends with a discussion about euro...



The fact that the Euro sucks and was a big mistake, is the one thing we can all agree on.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 20, 2011)

Speak for yourselves 

The Euro was and still is a great idea, taking countries that massively fake their statistics and can't keep a budget into the zone was the mistake. The Euro will recover, but of course there will be a lot of damage to countries that were not part of the problem. That's the principle of solidarity. What would happen in Greece today if they were not part of a greater system that will do its best to keep the country alive? Revolution? Civil war?

And about RR: They are a big company. The biggest aero engine manufacturer in Europe perhaps? But even they have to spread risks. Hence you don't see too many RR-only engines these days, but they are usually a major player in any European military engine program (EJ200, MTR390, RTM322, TP400...).


----------



## PatCartier (Dec 20, 2011)

Euro or not is not the pb. The pb is that in Europe, like in US or others, people have no more power of decision: Wall Street, the City Co are our chief.


----------



## PatCartier (Dec 20, 2011)

Readie said:


> VICTORY
> Battle of Evesham - August 4, 1265
> Marking the end of Chivalry in England, the British under Prince Edward earn a victory against Frenchman Simon de Montfort in this massacre.
> 
> ...



lol

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSE
Battle of Donetsk - June 11, 2012
France - Angleterre: 3 - 0


----------



## marshall (Dec 20, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The fact that the Euro sucks and was a big mistake, is the one thing we can all agree on.



I think that Euro was a good idea, though it was introduced too early and I don't mean only time but especially the level of the union (or the level of unification of European countries, don't know which sentence suits here better  ).


----------



## Readie (Dec 20, 2011)

PatCartier said:


> lol
> 
> LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSE
> Battle of Donetsk - June 11, 2012
> France - Angleterre: 3 - 0



Ah, the ever optimistic French.
we shall see mon brave 

John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2011)

riacrato said:


> Speak for yourselves
> 
> The Euro was and still is a great idea,



I think you are in a minority in Germany.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 20, 2011)

That is because individuals may be smart, but people are dumb 

Do you think even a fraction of the people can remotely grasp the complexity of a global economy or international currency. And I include me, to be fair. People today think they have an educated opinion about everything because they saw 15 minutes of a debate with Maischberger (or whatever your country's counterpart is to that), looked up an article on wikipedia or read an article on spiegel-online. Thank god we don't have a direct democracy.


----------



## PatCartier (Dec 20, 2011)

riacrato said:


> That is because individuals may be smart, but people are dumb
> 
> Do you think even a fraction of the people can remotely grasp the complexity of a global economy or international currency. Thank god we don't have a direct democracy.



You are dangerous.


----------



## Readie (Dec 20, 2011)

davebender said:


> And then what?
> 
> We could revive the plan for "Greater Britain" which Sir Edward Grey and Colonel House tried so hard to make happen during WWI.



We have had reservations about the EU EZ for some time.
The EU has become some 'super state' that only the French still want and as for the EZ...an opportunity for some.. and wisely declined by us.

I would be happy with just an EFTA style trade agreement and keep all this federal nonense at arm's lenght.

John


----------



## PatCartier (Dec 20, 2011)

Don't forget that French people, like Irish, said no by referundum to Maastricht-Lisboa diktat. But we live in technocracy.


----------



## Readie (Dec 20, 2011)

riacrato said:


> That is because individuals may be smart, but people are dumb
> 
> Do you think even a fraction of the people can remotely grasp the complexity of a global economy or international currency. And I include me, to be fair. People today think they have an educated opinion about everything because they saw 15 minutes of a debate with Maischberger (or whatever your country's counterpart is to that), looked up an article on wikipedia or read an article on spiegel-online. Thank god we don't have a direct democracy.




True in part... but,democracy has taken a recent kicking in the EU.
John


----------



## Readie (Dec 20, 2011)

PatCartier said:


> Don't forget that French people, like Irish, said no by referundum to Maastricht-Lisboa diktat. But we live in technocracy.



Then that is another reason to see sense and abandon the EU.
The British are under the distinct impression that the French still hold their 60 year old dream of a Federal Europe close to their heart.
Is that true?
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2011)

riacrato said:


> That is because individuals may be smart, but people are dumb
> 
> Do you think even a fraction of the people can remotely grasp the complexity of a global economy or international currency. And I include me, to be fair. People today think they have an educated opinion about everything because they saw 15 minutes of a debate with Maischberger (or whatever your country's counterpart is to that), looked up an article on wikipedia or read an article on spiegel-online. Thank god we don't have a direct democracy.



Yeah okay, you keep on believing that. 

I may not be an expert on the matter, but I know enough, nor am I dumb.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 20, 2011)

The last Pan=European trading organisation that worked was the Hanseatic league and that collapsed 400 years ago killed off by Dutch and to a lesser extent English merchants who could offer cheaper freight rates simply because they werent hidebound by Hansa beaurocracy. We dont need to worry about the Euro we need to worry about other trading nations who are not hidebound by the mountain of paperwork every transaction generates for even the smallest deal in Europe. The day of monolithic slow moving organisations is long gone the Eurozone might have worked 30 years ago but is a dead duck in todays fast moving global economy.


----------



## Readie (Dec 20, 2011)

Well said. That's what I meant. We need to look at India China now not so much the EU.
EFTA ( European Free Trade Assoc) worked pretty well until '73 when we joined the then EEC.
John


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 21, 2011)

That was a good post. And it reflects the current situation in the US too. We have entirely too much oversight by local and federal gov't. It is stifling innovation and industry. Unfortunately, I don't envision peaceful change that will make a difference. We are so far down the path at this point that meaningful change must necessarily be drastic, painful and long lasting. With an economy steeped in social handouts, those people will defend them with violence. I fear for my boys.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 21, 2011)

The politicians are, in many cases, in a deep pocket of men with money. 
The men with money produce stuff in China, SE Asia, India, paying the workers there miserably, and then sell stuff in Europe, USA, Japan other 'rich' countries. 'Outsourcing' is the word, and it applies for services, not just the industrial production. 
So one thing is to go away. Either legal corruption (= lobbying), or the politicians (but new ones will jump in their seats), or people's well being. Hate to guess what will go.


----------



## Readie (Dec 21, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> That was a good post. And it reflects the current situation in the US too. We have entirely too much oversight by local and federal gov't. It is stifling innovation and industry. Unfortunately, I don't envision peaceful change that will make a difference. We are so far down the path at this point that meaningful change must necessarily be drastic, painful and long lasting. With an economy steeped in social handouts, those people will defend them with violence. I fear for my boys.



So, both our countries have arrived at the same place after all.
We are told to expect a 'lost decade' as Cameron co endeavor to turn our fortunes around. I think that there is so much beyond our control that it may take a bit longer.
We need to change the basis of our economies and forget all the 'get rich quick' nonsense.
People's attitude has to change too with the work ethic that a lot of East Europeans have and we would do well to copy.
I also share your worries about our children's future.
John


----------



## Readie (Dec 21, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> The politicians are, in many cases, in a deep pocket of men with money.
> The men with money produce stuff in China, SE Asia, India, paying the workers there miserably, and then sell stuff in Europe, USA, Japan other 'rich' countries. 'Outsourcing' is the word, and it applies for services, not just the industrial production.
> So one thing is to go away. Either legal corruption (= lobbying), or the politicians (but new ones will jump in their seats), or people's well being. Hate to guess what will go.



'Outsourcing' the scourge of our industry.
Its not just the countries you mention Tomo, the British government 'outsourced' a train building contract to Germany as they were a bit cheaper. Result? 1400 men on the dole. Great decision eh.
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2011)

I think we have gotten way way off topic. I am guilty of this as well. 

Lets either try and steer it back, or just say that this thread has run its course.


----------



## Readie (Dec 22, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think we have gotten way way off topic. I am guilty of this as well.
> 
> Lets either try and steer it back, or just say that this thread has run its course.



What WAS the original question
 ?

John


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 22, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think we have gotten way way off topic. I am guilty of this as well.
> 
> Lets either try and steer it back, or just say that this thread has run its course.



You are most correct, sir. My apologies.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 22, 2011)

Well, what I've gotten from this thread is the Concord was the most popular French Fighter. 

I'll see myself out......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> You are most correct, sir. My apologies.



No need to. I was just as much off topic.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 14, 2012)

Arsenal VG 33, what a shame it didn't come sooner.


----------



## futuredogfight (Feb 14, 2012)

P-36


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 15, 2012)

Well the P-36 was actually an American aircraft, that was used by France. The thread is asking for "French Fighter". 

Now having said that, why don't you explain why you think that it was the best, instead of just posting the aircraft and that's it. Kind of defeats the purpose of a forum not to have a discussion about it, right...?


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 15, 2012)

The Arsenal VG33 according to wikipedia (the _*ultimate*_ authority on all aircraft matters) 

"_Somewhat underarmed (1 x 20 mm 4 x RCMG) compared to the Messerschmitt Bf 109, the VG-33 matched it in speed and manoeuvrability and was somewhat faster (at 347 mph) than the Dewoitine D.520 (also listed as 347mph ???). In larger quantities, this plane could have shown the Luftwaffe a rough time, but as was the case for most French planes, production problems plagued the VG-33 such that only 160 aircraft were close to completion before the Armistice, with just 19 of 40 produced (?) actually taken on by the Armée de l'Air. Just two machines ever flew in an active group, the piecemeal GC 1/55 which began life on June 18 and conducted missions for just a week. After the fall of France twelve VG-33s were confiscated by the Luftwaffe, perhaps for fighter training._"

The VG33 thus seems preferable if compared to the D.520 which Eric Brown calls a nasty little brute with poor handling qualities. unless wiki has mislead me... perish the thought.

Of course Capt. Brown never let his national pride nor his personal predjudices stand in the way of making an objective judgement regarding aircraft. 

whereas the Bloch 150 which I like probably because of its resemblence to the P-36, wiki says:

_During World War II, the Bloch MB.152 had destroyed at least 188 enemy aircraft, and lost about 86 of their own. They proved tough aircraft, able to stand considerable battle damage, and a good gunnery platform,[2] but with many problems: poor agility, poor weapon reliability, poor range (600 km, but here the Bf 109E was only slightly better, around 660 km), and were notably underpowered._


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 15, 2012)

Oh, Wikipedia. Great for something, to be avoided for something else.
Saying that a plane featuring a cannon + 4 LMGs is 'somewhat underarmed' is too much away from reality, especially if we take a look at what other fighters were carrying in the air back in 1940. Wonder what would be comment for majority of Soviet, Italian and Japanese planes prior 1943. The author thinks that two MG FF cannons (wing mounted) are worth many times as one HS-404 (centrally mounted), despite firing a weaker shell at lower MV, even at lower firing rate. The French plane has twice the LMGs firing at greater RoF, too.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 15, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Oh, Wikipedia. Great for something, to be avoided for something else.



For sure! Resorting to Wiki indicates my extended state of ignorance on French Aviation circa 1935-40. I used the wiki entries on all the options to make up my mind. A wiki basis is indeed a bit thin, but coming from my state of topical ignorance, it served well to give me a quick (and dirty) education on the topic. 



tomo pauk said:


> Saying that a plane featuring a cannon + 4 LMGs is 'somewhat underarmed' is too much away from reality, especially if we take a look at what other fighters were carrying in the air back in 1940. Wonder what would be comment for majority of Soviet, Italian and Japanese planes prior 1943. The author thinks that two MG FF cannons (wing mounted) are worth many times as one HS-404 (centrally mounted), despite firing a weaker shell at lower MV, even at lower firing rate. The French plane has twice the LMGs firing at greater RoF, too.



Whoever was the author, wiki's description doesn't seem very consistent. The performance indicated for the Arsenal appears essentially the same as that for the Dewotine D.520, yet the wiki entry appears to suggest that the Arsenal was faster and would have posed a greater threat to LW Bf-109s! What to make of this? Does a choice based strictly on performance warrant a coin toss, or is wiki to be trusted that there was some basis for judging the one (the VG-33) of these two very similar aircraft to be superior to the other. Are they much the same airplane or did the VG-33 really show a significant performance edge? Inquiring minds seek to know.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 16, 2012)

Hope you did not get me wrong, Malcolm, I was not pointing against you for using Wiki, I do use it plenty

The VG-33 did featured smaller wing, so it could be a tad faster. A listed speed of 347mph for D.520 seem too high?


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 16, 2012)

No misuderstanding at all, Tomo. Wiki isn't a bad place to start an investigation but to dig deeper I just assume one needs better resources. I believe, we are and were on the same page. 

As far as the speed of the D.520, I don't know. I just thought it odd that wikki would claim one aircraft was faster and yet quote the same Max speed for both.


----------



## deltadart31 (Feb 16, 2012)

Hello,

I am very pleased that you write about the French fighter. If you are interested by the VG 33, you can visit the following website (sorry in french):
Sommaire
In this site I was surprised to read that the VG was only powered by an "small" HS12Y of 860hp ! and however flown at a speed of 558km/h at 5200m! 
compared with 529 km/h at 6000 m for the D520.

I am living at Toulouse and working for LATECOERE, the name of Dewoitine is very famous. The Dewoitine's old factory is nowadays an AIRBUS plant (St Eloy). And the old runway is a boulevard!

Cheers!


----------



## Readie (Feb 18, 2012)

Hurricane Mk.2 - Royal Air Force in WW2

The Free French Airforce made good use of the Hurricane.

Je vous slaut

John


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 19, 2012)

deltadart31 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I am very pleased that you write about the French fighter. If you are interested by the VG 33, you can visit the following website (sorry in french):
> Sommaire
> ...



Merci beaucoup for the link and information. While I don't speak french, it was helpful.


----------

