The view that somehow Airbus made Concorde a commercial success or that without Concorde there would have been no Airbus is a myth peddled by Concorde supporters as justification for it.Co-operation was underway by the time Concorde first flew and was completely independent of it. In May 1969 the governments of France and West Germany agreed to create Airbus Industrie which came into being in 1970. Its initial members were Aérospatiale, Deutsche Airbus, Messerschmitt-BölkowBlohm and VFW-FokkerGermany. Construcciones Aeronauticas SA of Spain joined in 1971.The UK was only involved through Hawker Siddeley who were sub-contractors until 1979. The UK became a fmember in 1979 when Hawker Siddeley was merged with the Britsh Aircraft Corporation to become British Aerospace. Its first aircraft, The A300, first flew in October 1972 - only 3 years after Concorde so Concode had no influence on it.I doubt that people's wider software purchasing decisions were influenced at all by knowing that FS pushed processor and OS limits or by seeing it running on a kiosk.

Guys, this has got sweet FA to do with the subject matter ... this thread has been severely de railed with Avsim staff getting into arguments that are impossible to win.I knew this thread would meet a dead end sooner or later, but to end in a feud about Concorde? how on earth did that tangent start?Get a grip guys, please.

Until the mods object to it ....

Yes, but do you know why Germany and France agreed to create Airbus Industrie, and why Britain didn't have to stay in the partnership?No? Well I'll tell you, it was because in 1964, the British were the prime movers in drawing up a document called: 'An Outline Requirement for an Ultra High-Capacity Short Range Aircraft', which they created in cooperation with the French Government. And that was because Sud-Aviation and BAC met up. And do you know why they met up? That's right, they were already having regular meetings because they were producing the Concorde and were happy with the way the partnership had been going because of the political work that had gone on behind the scenes to make it possible to run smoothly, so much so that they were talking about making another aeroplane as well.During one of those meetings - in 1964 - they discussed creating the aircraft proposed in that document, and the following year, the British Minister for Transport visited Bonn, which brought the Germans in on the collaboration. And guess which companies it was that created the HBN-100 prototype which developed into the Airbus A300? Yup, it was Hawker, Breguet and Nord (HBN).Do a search for the HBN-100 and you will see that it looks exactly like an A300 (although a little shorter in the rear, and this detail is important). Note too that it has high bypass turbofans and a wide body. Now the important bit: what made such a design possible, was the wing profile research done when Hawker were doing wind tunnel development work for Concorde, this in addition to the engine research done by Rolls Royce (for the Concorde), which also led to Hawker's knowledge about rear-loaded wing profiles that used fowler flaps instead of triple-slotted ones. These reduced buffet, enabling the A300 to have not only a smaller vertical fin, but also a longer rear fuselage, which is what made it a success capacity-wise and also what worried Boeing enough for them to try and set up a collaboration with Airbus when working toward a replacement for the 727, but largely so they could get their hands on that British wing research data. But, they were not able to do that because Britain, who made the wings, were not in the partnership - technically only contractors. Now is it starting to make sense?If you do a further search you might even find a picture of the mock up cockpit for the HBN-100, which was shown at the 1969 Paris Airshow, and if you look on the side of it, you will see French, German and British flags and the name Hawker Siddeley prominently painted on the side of it. so you see, Britain might have opted out of being in the main Airbus partnership, but they were always going to be involved in it (as contractors), because without them the A300 would not have had the wings that made it a success.Incidentally, we are not arguing, we are having a discussion, and since there isn't much news about Flight to discuss, it hardly matters whether the thread stays on that topic alone, and in fact I did relate this discussion to Flight anyway, drawing a parallel with wider implications of business, so it isn't completely off-topic anyway.Al

I can't agree with your interpration of the facts; in particlar that Airbus came about because UJK and France were co-oprating on Concorde. via Sub Aviation and BAC. It would have happened in any case because governments had already realised that Concorde wasn't going to save the Euriean aircraft industry. European governments had by that time realised that Concorde wasn't going to save the European industery. As a result, in 1967 the British, French, anmd Germans governments agreed to co-operate “for the purpose of strengthening European co-operation in the field of aviation technology and thereby promoting economic and technological progress in Europe, to take appropriate measures for the joint development and production of an airbus." The companies involved in Concorde, Sud Aviation and BAC, were both separately proposing their own aircraft: Sud Aviation its Galion and BAC its 2-11. No co-operation there! Hawker, Breuget and Nord did co-operated on the HBN100 and it was that which formed the basis of Airbus.The reason why Hawkwer Siddely was only was sub-contracter was tthe UK government wouldn't provide the funding for it to become a full member - there was none left after funding Concorde.

I'm not disputing that they would have had a go at making a more conventional airliner, but the point is that they had cooperated on Concorde and done the research necessary to produce a technologically and aerodynamically advanced type, as opposed to something mediocre, and in doing so that is what made the Airbus something better than previous efforts. It's a fact that the aviation industry in Germany was in such a poor state following WW2 that several mediocre US fighter types were license-constructed there just to keep it ticking over, and the German Govt was therefore keen to get involved in anything that would have them producing stuff other than bits of F-104 Starfighters.But it was cooperative advances made in setting up that original co-project which laid all the groundwork for successful collaborative efforts. Without that, the A300 would have been just another mediocre airliner that nobody in the US would have bought. And yes, those companies were thinking about it, but neither the Galion nor the 2-11 were produced because they knew it would have meant another damp squib such as the 1-11 or Mercure, or some other flop, they made the A300 instead, thus there was indeed cooperation.Al

But you are looking at purely the accounts and not at the overall impact and long term effects of how the world of aviation has changed because of the long term way things panned out. If you take simply the accounts for Concorde alone and draw a line under that, then what you say is correct, but it really isn't as simple as that.Let's look at a couple of the wider aspects and their impact: As a marketing tool for expertise and prestige, there was no better aircraft than Concorde, yes in these green times we could slam it environmentally, but how many environmentalist arguments were taken seriously back in 1969 when Concorde first flew and when global warming was unheard of by most people? I'll tell you how many, none. Most of the complaints about Concorde in the US were cooked up to prevent it succeeding, not because people cared about the ozone layer back then, or even the noise, all airliners with tubojets were noisy as hell back then.Do you imagine that the British Airways slogan 'The World's Favourite Airline' was able to be used without being laughed at because they flew B747s and BAC 1-11s? no, it was because they had the prettiest aircraft ever made as their poster girl, reflected in the fact that when BA dropped that slogan, they then immediately adopted a new livery based on the one originally designed for their Concordes. Sure it was expensive and indeed subsidised, but all advertising and corporate identity is expensive and all national flag carriers get subsidies one way or another. But in the case of Concorde, it was not merely an aeroplane, it was a big beautiful advertising hoarding with wings, one that everyone came out in the street to look at and had people hanging onto the fences at airport boundaries to get a look at, and while they were looking at it, they were seeing the words Air France and British Airways on the things. It's the one aircraft that everyone can name, and they can tell you who flew them too, even if they wouldn't know a Spitfire from a DC-10.The sales of Concorde were small because they were blocked by political pressure from the United States - a move brokered by politicians in States where there were large numbers of people employed in the aircraft industry, not because airlines did not want to buy the Concorde, many initially ordered it but were effectively prevented from using it by that pressure. But even then, Braniff did still operate the Concorde for a while, as did Singapore Airlines, and even in its Twilight, Virgin wanted to buy it.If you know anything about the aircraft industry, as I'm sure you do, you will know that this is in fact what made the Concorde expensive, since like every other aircraft, it depended on projected numbers of sales to make a profit. This is true of, for example, the B707, which did not make a profit for years for Boeing, because of the development costs, and it is not hard to imagine what would have happened to Boeing if it had been politically blocked from recouping that money by a move such as 707s not being allowed to land in France or England after Transatlantic flights. They'd have gone bust or been bought up by Douglas. That's the real reason  why Concorde didn't make the projected sales figures, and it merely serves to illustrate why European single nations needed to come together to gain enough clout to challenge Boeing.Thus it is true that EADs had to be created to get the European aircraft industry to be competitive, but that was always the case, and Concorde's success or failure was nothing to do with that. Neither the Comet, Caravelle, 1-11, Mercure, HS 748, Vanguard, Viscount, Britannia or any other pretty good airliner made by a European nation more or less on its own was was able to compete with the might of American production and garner sales there in large numbers, it was EADs that broke that market, with the A300, and EADs was made possible by the cooperative groundwork laid in the collaboration between two European nations and Aerospatiale and BAC, on the Concorde, coutesy of all the aerodynamic research which was then used to good effect to make the A300's wing.The point of all this is that it is the same as MS with Flight Simulator in many respects. It might not have made a massive profit for MS, but as a prestige advertising tool for MS it was one of the best mediums they could ever have dreamed of. Lots of people hate MS, but do you know anyone who hates FS? This is one of the reasons why MS have got back into flight simulators again with Flight, because they know it is a great marketing tool, and if it makes a small profit, so much the better, but like any good business, MS know that corporate identity is critical to wider success.Al

Cliffs notes plz   :Talking Ear Off:So Chock . you delete the notes of ppl who think you are long winded?

Cliffs notes plz So Chock . you delete the notes of ppl who think you are long winded?

No mods do hoping the poster will take the hint.....

Cliffs notes plz :(

This is now the third time you have posted that particular comment directed toward me on this thread, the other two instances of it got deleted (and not by me, in fact I can't actually do that, even if I wanted to, because I'm not a forum moderator with those permissions) but you wonder why a moderator did so? You will also note that the moderator did not merely delete those posts, but also deleted your insult directed toward speedbird105 on this same thread, so it's not merely your attitude toward me that received attention.I genuinely do not mind someone having a pop at me, I'm not that thin-skinned that I cannot take it, but there is a world of difference between posting a pithy comment about someone, and deliberately posting the same insulting comment repeatedly, because that is not being witty, its called bullying, and it is clearly against the forum's rules for obvious reasons. So I'll quite happily endure the odd pop at me, by anyone including by yourself if that is what a comment genuinely is, but yours was not that, demonstrated by the fact that it was done repeatedly and now shows up once more. When you can act in a more reasonable fashion, and not like a child chanting names in a playground for no other reason than to cause trouble, I daresay your comments will be free from the attention of moderators.I assume this point is clear enough for you to not need notes on it?Al

Good dayI think it is very very simple. Aerosoft wants to sell,Aerosoft has stopped developing for FS2004 because it doesn't sell, why, because of the net, you can easily understand what I mean,FSX sucks but Aerosoft sells,MS Flight(not interested Aerosoft) MS Flight sells= Aerosoft will know have great interest,People are "hungry" for X-Plane 10= Aerosoft will sellIf you read Aerosofts forum its clear they are developing only things will sell, you can read it loud and clear!And yes FSX has sell most of all others but why, because of marketing, what's easy to find everywhere? FSX. If you are searching or going to a store, what you will find there!Chears

What you'll probably find is that in spite of Flight or X-Plane, for many it will be down to what you can get for which simulator, including older ones. You only have to look at iFly's FS9 737 to see how much pull one good aircraft that is not available elsewhere can do to keep people flying an older sim.Of course now iFly have their NG available for FSX too, so that'll be two decent NGs that FSX will have when PMDG get theirs out of the hangar, and when Flight or X Plane's new version come out, they will both have to work hard to match what FSX can offer in terms of realistic airliners such as the NG.Whichever one pulls that off is likely to be the one Aerosoft and other will then patronise, and it might even be both of them, so as others have noted, Aerosoft will certainly not cut its nose off to spite its face.Al

To mgh and chockThank you for a very enlightening discussion about the build up and the making of Concorde. As I said earlier FSX (or the whole MSFS franchise to be less precise) might not have been a success in the commercial sense, but it has no doubt brought something magical to the Windows platform. Even FS5.1 for DOS was impressive at the time.If someone was to build something as good as the aforementioned for the Linux platform (and make it exclusive to Linux), I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole flight simulator community suddenly decided the “Penguin” is the way to go.Geraldhttp://www.multicrewxp.com

I'But it was cooperative advances made in setting up that original co-project which laid all the groundwork for successful collaborative efforts.

There were "co-operative advances" in other areas in the 1950s and 1960s.For example, The Channel Tunnel Study Group was formed in 1957 with the two state-owned railways (British Railways and (Société Nationale des Chemins de fer français) as major shareholders. The Anglo-French treaty setting up Concorde wasn't signed until 1962.On your argument, Concorde wouldn't have happened had it nor been for the Anglo-French co-operation on the Channel Tunnel project,

I've purchased a couple of Aerosoft products for FSX and both were incredibly bloated frame killing nightmares. So I doubt I would be buying any Flight products from them anyway. Seems to me that Mathijs says a lot that doesn't go with the reality, his thread on his Ancient setup running FSX at 60+ frames or whatever was particularly impressive.

Never had any problems with Aerosoft or their products and i bought over 20 of them, most addons have an impact on fps, maybe your pc just sucks.

his thread on his Ancient setup running FSX at 60+ frames or whatever was particularly impressive.

I heard that he took all the credit for some else's idea. :(