Your favorite French fighter?

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.

That's what made it exceptional.

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.

That's what made it exceptional.

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.

Your favorite French fighter?

Your favorite French fighter?

Morane Saulnier MS 406 series

Bloch MB 150, 151, 152, 155, 157 series

Dewoitine D 520 series

Arsenal VG 33 series

Caudron C 714

Potez 631 series

dewoitine D.510

other?

Chief Master Sergeant

Glock Perfection

Chief Master Sergeant

Airman

Chief Master Sergeant

Airman

1st Lieutenant

Airman

Chief Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Senior Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

1st Lieutenant

Glock Perfection

Glock Perfection

Glock Perfection

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads