French planes are crap

rom: "NEMO ME IMPUNE"
Date: 11/2/2003 10:44 AM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

Have you ever been able to make a SST?
NOPE

Of course we could have. We had the XB-70 capable of Mach 3 40 years ago,
which in some ways could be considered an SST.

The SST did not happen because of not being able to, there was a lot of public
opposition for environmental reasons.

The government was helping to fund it since it was so expensive, but stopped
funding it, which killed it.

Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

"Ron" wrote in message
...
rom: "NEMO ME IMPUNE"
Date: 11/2/2003 10:44 AM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

Have you ever been able to make a SST?
NOPE

Of course we could have. We had the XB-70 capable of Mach 3 40 years
ago,
which in some ways could be considered an SST.

The SST did not happen because of not being able to, there was a lot of
public
opposition for environmental reasons.

Not exactly true, the SST was a liability nightmare for Boeing. Much the
same realization has come to AI, as they produce airliners with modern
probability of catastrophic event numbers. The tire failure issue with the
SST is four and a half orders of magnitude below minimums for a common
carrier.

"Ron" wrote in message
...
rom: "NEMO ME IMPUNE"
Date: 11/2/2003 10:44 AM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

Have you ever been able to make a SST?
NOPE

Of course we could have. We had the XB-70 capable of Mach 3 40 years
ago,
which in some ways could be considered an SST.

No, it was an experimental Mach 3 bomber. Not a passenger transport. (The
'T' in SST)

The SST did not happen because of not being able to, there was a lot of
public
opposition for environmental reasons.

I was always a bit sceptical whether those public objections would have been
allowed to hold sway if it had been a Boeing SST though! Especially as they
were later rescinded anyway...

The government was helping to fund it since it was so expensive, but
stopped
funding it, which killed it.

Although having massive govt orders for their military and dual-use types
has definitely helped the US plane firms.

John

On 02 Nov 2003 18:12:33 GMT, 362436 (Ron) wrote:

rom: "NEMO ME IMPUNE"
Date: 11/2/2003 10:44 AM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

Have you ever been able to make a SST?
NOPE

Of course we could have. We had the XB-70 capable of Mach 3 40 years ago,
which in some ways could be considered an SST.

The SST did not happen because of not being able to, there was a lot of public
opposition for environmental reasons.

The government was helping to fund it since it was so expensive, but stopped
funding it, which killed it.

Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

And would have killed the concord if the governments of France and the UK
would have been interested in anything other than the "prestige" of flying
a costly white elephant.

Al Minyard

Ron wrote:

rom: "NEMO ME IMPUNE" Date: 11/2/2003
10:44 AM Mountain Standard Time Message-id:


Have you ever been able to make a SST? NOPE


Of course we could have. We had the XB-70 capable of Mach 3 40
years ago, which in some ways could be considered an SST.

The SST did not happen because of not being able to, there was a lot
of public opposition for environmental reasons.


The government was helping to fund it since it was so expensive, but
stopped funding it, which killed it.

Ron Pilot/Wildland Firefighter


A big issue in this was simply the timing.
In the early 'sixties even Boeing thought that SSTs were the future and
expected to sell more 747s as freighters than as passenger carriers.
Brittain and France chose to go for a Mach 2 design, that from a
technological point of view was successful.
US manufacturers, most notably Boeing, also jumped aboard the SST wagon,
supported by US governement funding. The US SST was more ambitious than
Concorde (and the Tu-144) in the sense that it was supposed to fly at
Mach 3 and was supposed to carry more passengers. That greatly
complicated things and lead to a far longer development time.
Then, the 1973 oil crisis occurred, leading to dramatic increases in
fuel costs. Coupled to an increasing environmental awareness the
commercial interest in SSTs evaporated, after Concorde had already flown
but before the more ambitious US SST ever took to the skies.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 2 Nov 2003 02:39:53 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

(Tom R. Rastell) wrote in message . com...
because the French are frogs and frogs can´t fly!


Oh really? Then please explain why Americans were flying French a/c in
WW1. Ever heard of the Lafayette Escadrille? Nieuport or Spad ring any
bells? Moron.

Rob

Let's see, 85 years ago some US pilots flew French aircraft, so current French
aircraft must be wonderful. Really strange logic at work there.

Current French aircraft, while not exactly "crap", are not state of the art and
are clearly inferior to their US counterparts.

Al Minyard

Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during the
first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406 while
inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from 1939-40. The
D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the surrender and was
certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of the time.
After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to the Israelis who
racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage out of the aircraft
against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super Mystere, Vautour, and
Mirage.
Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
capable aircraft.
You just don't like anything foreign Al.

Rob

Just the standard 'blah blah America superior to the rest of the world in
absolutely every respect blah blah" Al post.

The Rafale is a nice aircraft, and excellent value when you take it's weapon
systems - MICA, SCALP-EG, etc - into account. The Republic of Korea's Air
Force wanted the Rafale with uprated engines, but since the US offered the
F-15K with economic offsets that actually outweigh the price of the contract
(i..e. they essentially payed the Koreans to take it), they went for that
instead. Suprise!

The F-15K is a very nice aircraft, but the base airframe is getting on in
years.

Matt

"robert arndt" wrote in message
m...
Alan Minyard wrote in message
. ..
On 2 Nov 2003 02:39:53 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

(Tom R. Rastell) wrote in message
. com...
because the French are frogs and frogs can´t fly!


Oh really? Then please explain why Americans were flying French a/c in
WW1. Ever heard of the Lafayette Escadrille? Nieuport or Spad ring any
bells? Moron.

Rob

Let's see, 85 years ago some US pilots flew French aircraft, so current
French
aircraft must be wonderful. Really strange logic at work there.

Current French aircraft, while not exactly "crap", are not state of the
art and
are clearly inferior to their US counterparts.

Al Minyard

Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during the
first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406 while
inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from 1939-40. The
D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the surrender and was
certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of the time.
After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to the Israelis who
racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage out of the aircraft
against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super Mystere, Vautour, and
Mirage.
Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
capable aircraft.
You just don't like anything foreign Al.

Rob

"Matt" wrote in message ...
Just the standard 'blah blah America superior to the rest of the world in
absolutely every respect blah blah" Al post.

The Rafale is a nice aircraft, and excellent value when you take it's weapon
systems - MICA, SCALP-EG, etc - into account. The Republic of Korea's Air
Force wanted the Rafale with uprated engines, but since the US offered the
F-15K with economic offsets that actually outweigh the price of the contract
(i..e. they essentially payed the Koreans to take it), they went for that
instead. Suprise!

The F-15K is a very nice aircraft, but the base airframe is getting on in
years.

Matt

"robert arndt" wrote in message
m...
Alan Minyard wrote in message
. ..
On 2 Nov 2003 02:39:53 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

(Tom R. Rastell) wrote in message
. com...
because the French are frogs and frogs can´t fly!


Oh really? Then please explain why Americans were flying French a/c in
WW1. Ever heard of the Lafayette Escadrille? Nieuport or Spad ring any
bells? Moron.

Rob

Let's see, 85 years ago some US pilots flew French aircraft, so current
French
aircraft must be wonderful. Really strange logic at work there.

Current French aircraft, while not exactly "crap", are not state of the
art and
are clearly inferior to their US counterparts.

Al Minyard

Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during the
first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406 while
inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from 1939-40. The
D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the surrender and was
certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of the time.
After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to the Israelis who
racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage out of the aircraft
against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super Mystere, Vautour, and
Mirage.
Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
capable aircraft.
You just don't like anything foreign Al.

Rob

while touring France i got to see a variety of different French combat
aircraft. some of the older ones were the Ouragan and Vautour.

i saw an Ouragan on display at the Abbeville Airfield. that aircraft
is always overlooked. it served with the French and Israeli air forces
as well as Indian Navy (as Toofani). in Israeli service it attacked
the Egyptian 1st Armored Division in Sinai and disabled the Egyptian
destroyer Ibrahim el Awal which was captured by the Israeli Navy. in
the 1980s Israel supplied El Salvador with 18 Ouragans for operations
against leftist guerillas.

i also saw a S.O.4050 Vautour at the Aerienne base at Reims on display
outside. the Vautour also served with the Israeli air force as a
bomber and ECM aircraft. the Vautour served in the Six Day war and
destroyed 309 aircraft on the ground including Tu-16 bombers. they
also harassed arab tank formations.

while not a fan of French aircraft i can still appreciate the
successful aircraft they built.

it will be interesting to see if the new Rafale will see combat in the
future.

Jason

if you've never been to France before you gotta go. despite the
anti-French stuff going around, a lot of Americans still travel there.
Paris is wonderful and the people are not as arrogant as we make them
out to be. if anything Americans are the really rude people when they
tour Europe. we don't take time to really plan a tour efficiently,
bring the right essentials, prepare for emergency situations, or
bother to learn the language of the countries we visit.
its not the fault of the French for loathing loud, arrogant Americans
who think they can do anything they want anywhere in the world.

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 04:04:47 -0000, "Matt" wrote:

Just the standard 'blah blah America superior to the rest of the world in
absolutely every respect blah blah" Al post.

The Rafale is a nice aircraft, and excellent value when you take it's weapon
systems - MICA, SCALP-EG, etc - into account. The Republic of Korea's Air
Force wanted the Rafale with uprated engines, but since the US offered the
F-15K with economic offsets that actually outweigh the price of the contract
(i..e. they essentially payed the Koreans to take it), they went for that
instead. Suprise!

The F-15K is a very nice aircraft, but the base airframe is getting on in
years.

Matt

The Rafale has ZERO export sales, despite offsets equal to any offered
by the US. The F-35 has thousands. Do try to keep up.

Al Minyard

On 2 Nov 2003 19:13:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 2 Nov 2003 02:39:53 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

(Tom R. Rastell) wrote in message . com...
because the French are frogs and frogs can´t fly!


Oh really? Then please explain why Americans were flying French a/c in
WW1. Ever heard of the Lafayette Escadrille? Nieuport or Spad ring any
bells? Moron.

Rob

Let's see, 85 years ago some US pilots flew French aircraft, so current French
aircraft must be wonderful. Really strange logic at work there.

Current French aircraft, while not exactly "crap", are not state of the art and
are clearly inferior to their US counterparts.

Al Minyard

Funny how the French had the Dewoitine D.520 and M.S.406 during the
first year of the war and how good they were. The M.S.406 while
inferior to the Me-109E still racked up 175 kills from 1939-40. The
D.520 OTOH was the best French fighter up until the surrender and was
certainly equal to the Spitfire and Me-109 of the time.
After WW2, the French sold many of their aircraft to the Israelis who
racked up more kills and got a lot of mileage out of the aircraft
against the Arabs: Ouragan, Mystere, Super Mystere, Vautour, and
Mirage.
Currently the French have the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, both very
capable aircraft.
You just don't like anything foreign Al.

Rob

Not when they are clearly inferior. The F-15, F-16, F-14. F-35 and F-22
are all clearly superior to anything ever produced in France. And
quoting unverified numbers from a war that France lost in record time
does little to bolster your case.

Look at the export sales of the Rafale compared to the export sales
of the F-35.

Al Minyard