Hi there,I know this has little to do with actual flight simulation, but being an aviation based forum, this is at least partially appropriate; what aeroplane or space vehicle do you think represents the pinnacle of engineering endeavour?Personally, I believe it is Concorde, the performance statistics are just monumental and even its range and capacity weren't terrible (granted they weren't great either) by the standards of regular airliners of the era. Compared to other supersonic craft however, it is in a league of its own, even today, supercruise is uncommon, but Concorde could even pass its MMO without the aid of reheat; that would be impressive even if it only carried a few cameras or bombs. It didn't stop there though, the ECS would give it a cabin altitude of only 5,000 feet when flight altitude was 60,000 feet (impressive bearing in mind a 744 will give a CA of 7000 feet at up to 41,000 feet) and keep the cabin comfortably cool (well, unless bleed air had to be diverted to the secondary nacelles for a reverse thrust idle descent, then it could reach up to 50*C). The ingenious fuel system was also amazing, with thirteen tanks cooling hydraulic fluid and systems as well as varying the centre of gravity to give a more efficient angle of attack. Of course, the most amazing thing about it though, is the fact that it does all of this whilst carrying a payload of up to nearly 112 tonnes (meaning just its payload weighs more than the SR-71 at MTOW.I will concede that I'm British, so Concorde is particularly special to me and acknowledge that aircraft like the YAK-141, SR-71/A-12/YF-12 and the F/A-22 and spacecraft like the Apollo and Gemini as well as the space shuttle are all magnificent, but I think Concorde's complexity, record smashing ability and stunning looks put it on top.But what do you think?Look forward to hearing your opinions,Charlie

The Space Shuttle

SR-71 Blackbird

+1 the space shuttle. For it's time, the most complex piece of hardware ever created.

I think I'd go with Concorde (and yes I know, I'm a Brit too, but that's nothing to do with me saying it, since it was half French as well).I love the Space Shuttle and the SR-71 and all those other high flying speed machines, but what the Concorde had over those, was that it almost made such impressive performance mundane. Sure it was a complicated process on the flight deck, but essentially it was able to operate like a normal airliner, with short turnarounds between flights, when in operational practice, it was more like a spaceship than a regular airliner.Military aircraft are about capability rather than economical convenience of course, and we can see that in the fact that the SR-71 needed the pilots in pressure suits, and it also needed very special facilities between flights since it leaked dangerous fuel when being refuelled until the airframe heated up and expanded to seal off gaps when it was at high speed. Much like it, as impressive as it was, the Space Shuttle Orbiter needed what amounted to a major overhaul between flights (incidentally, if you want a cool book on that aspect, with great info and even better pictures, then I can highly recommend the book, Return to Flight - Space Shuttle Discovery, which is one of the best books I have on my shelves). Not surprising then that it should need some complex servicing between flights when we are talking about a craft which could glide, fly into space, do 17,000 mph, and dock with other craft, which is a goddam impressive list of capabilities by any standards. But even so, it could never really be said that it made trips a mundane and comparitively risk-free experience, and we can see that NASA think so too when they have decided to explore other options rather than to keep Shuttles going.Concorde needed none of that complex cossetting between flights, you could simply top up the tanks and go. That is what makes its creation such an impressive feat; after all, even the engineers on the Apollo moon shots said that making a practical proposition of Concorde was a tougher task than they had on their hands. As if all that was not enough, it's also one of the most beautiful machines ever built, and if you ever get a chance to sit in the pilot's seat, as you can in several places around the globe, then I recommend that you do so, because it's cool (and yes, my wife did say I was a big kid for wanting to do so LOL)Al

The Wright Flyer.

North American X-15This one was the pioneer for reaching space in an airplaneCheers

+1 for the Concorde.Yes, maybe the Wright Flyer was more important but the thing for me is that almost everything that came after the Flyer was better, faster and cooler whereas everything that's come after the Concorde has been slower and more boring. Oh sure, an Airbus for instance may be technically more advanced and much more economical but it is still pretty much just a bus full of sweaty people on the way to or from Gran Canaria. The Concorde however was a supercar and today it's a reminder of a time when mankind was constantly aiming higher not being content with just improving what we already have or finding new ways to not having to get off our arses and go outside, and when political correctness wasn't more important that food on the table.

+1 for the Concorde.Yes, maybe the Wright Flyer was more important but the thing for me is that almost everything that came after the Flyer was better, faster and cooler whereas everything that's come after the Concorde has been slower and more boring. Oh sure, an Airbus for instance may be technically more advanced and much more economical but it is still pretty much just a bus full of sweaty people on the way to or from Gran Canaria. The Concorde however was a supercar and today it's a reminder of a time when mankind was constantly aiming higher not being content with just improving what we already have or finding new ways to not having to get off our arses and go outside, and when political correctness wasn't more important that food on the table.

YES, that's exactly it. It has a certain wow factor but also, even by today's standards, with the exception of the avionics, it's still the most advanced airliner; the brakes were carbon ceramic, upgraded to carbon fibre, the pneumatic system, as I said earlier still puts others to shame, the fuel system is a work of scientific art (yes, its a paradox, but there's some truth in it) and the hydraulics do the job too.

The Wright Flyer.

hmm, not sure about that, Wilbur and Orville were just lucky to be the first, it just used a regular internal combustion engine and hit lucky with the wing. It might not have been clear, but I was somewhat asking what you think the best piece of engineering in this field in all history is, even by today's standards...

It is a wonderful piece of engineering even by today's standards: it used composite materials for the structure (wood is technically a carbon composite material), canard configuration, push propeller configuration, active aeroelastic wing (flight controls were actuated by wing twisting), yaw damper (rudder was mechanically connected to roll controls)... :(

The Apollo program in general. The tallest, most powerful manned rocket that in many stages took 3 men to the Moon. On nothing more than modern day calculator's processing power and 60's tech. I mean, this is the clear winner, right?

Shuttle program.

The Apollo program in general. The tallest, most powerful manned rocket that in many stages took 3 men to the Moon. On nothing more than modern day calculator's processing power and 60's tech. I mean, this is the clear winner, right?

The tallest is a very apt word !The tallest tale, NASA ever told. Of course, Nixon was the president at the time for the 6 so called moon landings.That footage still cracks me up. (...now if those 18 astronauts would just take that lie detector test.........)Fred.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mitchell+and+web+moon+conspiracy&docid=1550287504634&mid=A71AE84FB0FEC2416863A71AE84FB0FEC2416863&view=detail&FORM=VIRE5#Al

For me it would definitely be the Apollo program,especially the development of the Saturn V booster,and its awesome F1 engines.