Warning: session_start(): open(/tmp/sess_6b3j2c2am6dji0ddp5era1anc5, O_RDWR) failed: Disk quota exceeded (122) in /home/buysella/public_html/wp-content/themes/boombox/includes/rate-and-vote-restrictions/vote/class-boombox-vote-restriction.php on line 193

Warning: session_start(): Cannot send session cache limiter - headers already sent (output started at /home/buysella/public_html/wp-content/themes/boombox/includes/rate-and-vote-restrictions/vote/class-boombox-vote-restriction.php:193) in /home/buysella/public_html/wp-content/themes/boombox/includes/rate-and-vote-restrictions/vote/class-boombox-vote-restriction.php on line 193

Warning: session_write_close(): open(/tmp/sess_6b3j2c2am6dji0ddp5era1anc5, O_RDWR) failed: Disk quota exceeded (122) in /home/buysella/public_html/wp-content/themes/boombox/includes/rate-and-vote-restrictions/vote/class-boombox-vote-restriction.php on line 196

Warning: session_write_close(): Failed to write session data (files). Please verify that the current setting of session.save_path is correct (/tmp) in /home/buysella/public_html/wp-content/themes/boombox/includes/rate-and-vote-restrictions/vote/class-boombox-vote-restriction.php on line 196
A Commercial Failure: The Dassault Mercure Story – Viral Trends

A Commercial Failure: The Dassault Mercure Story




The first 650 people to click this link get two months of Skillshare for just $0.99 at http://skl.sh/mustard3 In the late 1960s, French aircraft manufacturer Dassault Aviation made a huge…

source

Your reaction?
Cute Cute
0
Cute
Fail Fail
0
Fail
Geeky Geeky
0
Geeky
Lol Lol
0
Lol
Love Love
0
Love
Omg Omg
0
Omg
Win Win
0
Win
Wtf Wtf
0
Wtf

Comments 30

  1. It's funny to see both Dassault and Embraer were both in competition with the 737 for the same small-jet market, but had opposite outcomes. While the smaller plane size was a disadvantage for Dassault, it was an advantage for Embraer.

  2. Bravo on the video, it's always nice to see a video where the author 1) created the video themselves, and 2) took the time to narrate it (as opposed to that ** annoying "computer voice" used by lazy authors).

  3. They should have several versions of the aircraft like midrange and longer range versions!.On paper, it is an amazing aircraft!.Perhaps the design team was not given proper instruction or choices !.

  4. Nice seems to be the French answer to the B737-100 & B737-200 due to it using the PW JT8D engine used by the McDonnell-Douglas DC-9 & B737. Should have been re-engined to the CFM-56 to compete with the B737-300,-400 &-500

  5. Are all these people saying "because it couldn't even fly out of France" intentionally being blind for humorous effect? As if there weren't equally short lines to be flown all over the world, and as if the 737 wasn't built for the same reason?
    There were also political factors involved, as always. The US government was keen on making sure US aircraft were sold, and weren't above cutting deals and offering incentives for people to buy American. The foreign products just weren't enough better to justify buying them.

  6. I like airliners alright, but I literally cannot tell one from another for the most part (with obvious exceptions like a 747, or DC10m L1011, VC-10, etc). I know to people who love airliners they are as different as night and day, but if you wanted me to tell a 757 from an A320 (or whatever), I'd be lost. They all have basically the same shape, same tail, same cockpit, everything. I am sure if I applied myself I could learn to tell them apart by the small differences in cockpit windows, engine nacelles, etc, but it doesn't really interest me. Military aircraft, on the other hand, are far more unique, and rarely do two types look even similar to each other.

  7. The 737 was in many ways a worse aircraft. The reason why it was successful is because it came out earlier and had much in common with existing aircraft (like interiors, engines, and systems of the 727). The 737 was later standardized on by airlines like Southwest and thus it made sense to keep on improving the 737 rather than continuing with the 757 (which was too large). But the 737 had so many problems with it. Trying to shoehorn modern CFM56s on it requires a cropped fan, accessories mounted on the side, the engine mounted forward of the wing… and tilted up (which is better for takeoff, but reduces cruise efficiency due to the local airflow which comes from slightly below). When it came time for the NG, it needed an entirely new wing and landing gear, but one with the anachronistic manual reversion flight controls to stay on the same type certificate. The cockpit is cramped, noisy, and has poor visibility. The cargo capacity is limited—the 737 having a much smaller lower lobe than the 707, 727, and 757–aircraft it eventually replaced—and its competitor the A320. The pedestal and overhead panel are still straight from the 1960s. Southwest even rendered analog gauges on the flight displays so they could keep commonality with Classic and Jurassic models. Boeing knows it needs to clean sheet a new model for the 21st century, but risks losing customers who might switch to a competing aircraft if they can’t buy the 737 anymore. 
    Airbus got it right with the A320… squarely aimed as a direct 727 replacement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

log in

reset password

Back to
log in