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.

Wow. Just wow

http://www.bing.com/...tail&FORM=VIRE5#Al

:LMAO:Actually, I think the landing of the Pilgrim Fathers was faked, and America is just a fictional world created, Matrix-style, in a secret basement deep beneath Whitehall. I mean, does anybody believe that the Westboro Baptist Church really exists??

Another vote for Concorde.Not exerimental, not a one-off, not a specialised military type. Routinely carrying passengers at speeds of Mach 2 @ 60,000ft every day for over a quarter of a century. Designed before computer aided design and modelling were available. Even today it would be a very difficult feat to pull off.That's impressive.As runners up I'd say:The Heinkel He 178/Caproni Campini N.1/Gloster E.28/39 - all developed independantly at the same time and achieved something which has never been done since - introducing a totally new form of propulsion which ultimately freed aircraft design from the limitations of the reciprocating engine and airscrew.The Harrier - the world's first and so far only successful and practical VTOL/STOVL type. The Harrier would have been the only aeroplane in the skies of day two of WW3.The De Havilland Mosquito - the world's first true multi-role combat aircraft. It excelled in every role it performed. Compare the bomb carrying capacity and range of a Mosquito to that of a B-17. Now consider the Mosquito had only a crew of two, only two engines, was made from wood, didn't require a fighter escort and was far more likely to bring you home in one piece than if you were in a B-17.The Apollo Programme - putting men on the moon and bringing them home.

If the only criterion for judgement of great aeronautical engineering is performance, then my vote is for the SR-71. Across the US from east to west in less than an hour. Yikes. Sure, the Concorde could perform at a lower level on a more regular basis with greater efficiency. But speaking strictly in terms of pushing the limits of what an air-breathing airplane can do, the SR-71 flew higher, faster, and farther than anything but a couple of one-off rocket planes.But if you want to talk about a genuinely useful, durable, versatile product, then I've got to put in the first vote for the Douglas DC-3. More than 75 years after its first flight, there are still a handful of Gooney Birds making money for their operators in places other airplanes fear to tread. The guys who use them don't keep them around for sentimental reasons.Two or three generations of planes designed to replace the DC-3 now exist only in museums while the DC-3 itself remains in revenue service. I highly doubt anything we're "engineering" today will still be flying profitably in 75 years.

I think I'd go with Concorde ...................Al

+1 for the Concorde!and I'd also like to leave a brief mention of the Soyuz Rockets.These were derived from the Vostok launcher and first introduced in 1966.They are still used today (not just by Russia, but also by the European Space Agency) and are considered to be the most reliable launch vehicle in the world!

:LMAO:Actually, I think the landing of the Pilgrim Fathers was faked, and America is just a fictional world created, Matrix-style, in a secret basement deep beneath Whitehall. I mean, does anybody believe that the Westboro Baptist Church really exists??

You guys are finally onto it......CNN and FOX News is the biggest and most expensive part of this conspiracy....but in itself should be the biggest clue to how far and how fake this conspiracy really goes :(

I'd perhaps add the De Havilland DH.106 Comet to the honourable mentions...The leap in technology and performance it represented for air transport was dramatic and probably hasn't been matched since. The lessons learned from the Comet had an effect on every airliner design since... I believe the 707's designers admitted without the knowledge of the Comet's fatal design flaws they would have made exactly the same mistakes with the 707.

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).Al

Oh, I know full well it was half French, but our argument is at least a little chauvinistic, be honest :), we Brits consider it British, the French consider it French, but when we come together, we know it was 50/50 and say this so as not to cause futile arguments, since this viewpoint works for us both, there is no problem. Sorry to speak for you hear Al and if you really don't agree with this I'm sorry, but I reckon you know there's some truth in it, anyway, I reckon when us and the French make an aircraft, it always ends up a world beater; exhibit 'B', the Caravelle, RR engines, comet derived nose, some Sud Aviation wisdom, awesome plane... If only they didn't bugger off and make the Rafale when Snecma engines were declined for the Eurofighter :(.

+1 for the Concorde!and I'd also like to leave a brief mention of the Soyuz Rockets.These were derived from the Vostok launcher and first introduced in 1966.They are still used today (not just by Russia, but also by the European Space Agency) and are considered to be the most reliable launch vehicle in the world!

Damn good point, totally agree

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

Agreed.To me this would be a shoot-out between the Apollo program and the Space Shuttle. Nothing comes even close to engineering achievement and sophistication in aerospace industry.