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were later rescinded anyway...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

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were later rescinded anyway..

But the American SST program was Boeing...


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

"Ron" wrote in message
...
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..

But the American SST program was Boeing...

Uh-huh. But it was already cancelled by that time IIRC

John

362436 (Ron) wrote:


But the American SST program was Boeing...

Ron

Not nearly as boeing as watching glasgow...

--

-Gord.

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 23:44:19 GMT, Gord wrote:

Not nearly as boeing as watching glasgow...

[BANG!]

-Jeff B. (who thinks Gord just needed killin' after that)
yeff at erols dot com

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..

But the American SST program was Boeing...

Uh-huh. But it was already cancelled by that time IIRC

Not quite sure what you mean. Boeings plane would have been our SST if it had
been produced. What "time" are you referring to?


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

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