With the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, I would beg to differ.
Fast does not necessarily equal advanced or best...
Your favorite French fighter?
- Thread starter Oreo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
With the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, I would beg to differ.
Fast does not necessarily equal advanced or best...
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
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
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...
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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
1st Lieutenant
At one time Normandy and Calais were part of England. So apparently the French also won a few. 
Matt308
Glock Perfection
... oh no. 
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
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.
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.
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...
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.
Why not ? We have already seen anglo-french cooperations for the Jaguar and the Lynx, for example.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
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.
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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
In 1969, fuel efficiency was not a criteria.
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.
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.
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
1st Lieutenant
Erich Hartmann opposed German purchase of the F-104. Apparently he knew a thing or two about what makes a good fighter aircraft.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
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
Agreed, but that point is, the Concorde is not the most advanced passenger jet EVER built.
