Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Dassault Mercure Joke  
User currently onlineCF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 990 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 8184 times:

In another thread, there was an amusing reference to the Mercure's range (or rather, lack of it). Reminded me of a joke I heard:

Q: Why was the Mercure's range only 500 miles?
A: To ensure that none of them ever left France.

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJj From Algeria, joined Jun 2001, 1227 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 8133 times:

What was it maximum range?

User currently onlineCF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 990 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 8114 times:

It was indeed something around 500 miles.

User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2951 posts, RR: 37
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8079 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Range with max payload was 600nm/1110km
Max ferry range was 1750nm/3240km




Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineBroke From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8026 times:

Actually, a Mercure did cross the Atlantic. There was one at Eastern's Miami facility in the mid 1970's (summer 1974, I think) on a demonstration flight. I talked to Eastern's manager of DC-9 flying and he said that it was an excellent flying airplane.

User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11151 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8022 times:

Broke,

Yes, but it had to make a fuel stop on the way.



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently onlineCF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 990 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7972 times:

Too bad it didn't do better in the market. I have some old Mercure sales lit and the interior was nice. It featured the enclosed overhead bins (new at the time) and was billed as being wider than the Boeings. In fact, this may have inspired the A320's cabin 15 years later.

It sounds like Hughes Airwest was interested but some unfortunate circumstance with the dollar vs. the franc made the plane too expensive. Perhaps this fact, as much as the range, made it a non-player in North America. EA could probably have made good use of them out of ATL or the northeast US, where the 150 pax capacity with only two engines instead of three would have been cheaper to run than a 727-200.


User currently offlineIslandHopper From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 327 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7917 times:

Dassault Mercure WAS a joke. A 737-200 copy (same engines even!) that, as the joke says, could barely leave France. A nice, well-built plane that was totally useless outside of Air Inter.

That's what happens when you let socialist governments bankroll and control private industry. No private endeavor would build ten planes and call it a day.  Smile You'd think they would have learned their lesson from the VC-10 and Trident fiascos, but no. Finally with the Airbus, the socialist governments allowed them control over the design, even if they bankrolled the development...and we see the success it is now.

Why is there still no Mercure history in the listing on a.net?


User currently offlineAFa340-300E From France, joined May 1999, 2084 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7886 times:

IslandHopper,


You'd better learn more about the Mercure... That would avoid you to make such comments.

BTW, what socialist government are you referring to? I can't think of any in the 1960s or 1970s, can you?


Regards,
Alain Mengus
Air Transport Business [ATB]


User currently offlineDaV From Italy, joined Jun 2001, 669 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7822 times:

You'd think they would have learned their lesson from the VC-10 and Trident fiascos, but no.

I was almost sure that both the Trident and the Vc-10 were British design...  Smile

Dassault Mercure WAS a joke. A 737-200 copy (same engines even!)

Simply put: it wasn't. The Air Inter requirements was for a B727 dimension aircraft with B732 economics to be operated on domestic routes. Dassault performed exactly the task. For your information, also the Dc9 used the same P&W JT8D engines... that should advice you wich was the most popular engine on short haul aircraft at the time.
I suggest you to read carefully the article posted by Alain.

DaV



Two monologues do not make a dialogue
User currently offlineDoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3378 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7798 times:

both the trident and VC-10 were created as private endeavors to meet the requirements of BEA and BOAC respectively. BEA asked HS or avro or whoever it was at te time to shrink their original design and reduce its range to lighten it. After they began operating, they complained it didn't have the range or payload neccesary for profit! The VC-10 was designed and built with long haul flying and short field operations in mind. These incongrous tasks ended up making a rather heavy aircarft. BOAC then cancelled half their VC-10 orders and started buying RR powered 707-420s, then gave up completely on the homeland, and bought PW powered 707-320s. Both aircraft were victims of their poorly run lunch customers, not any "socialist state"

Doug
PDX/LAF



When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2991 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7785 times:

Seems like the Mercure would have been well suited to WN in the early days when they only flew inside Texas....


Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineThomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3860 posts, RR: 23
Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7774 times:

It never ceases to amaze me how someone will speak negatively on a subject they know very little about and or did little or no research on the given subject. Personally I have always been intrigued by this plane and I am glad to see that it is a object of discussion.

Let's not turn this into a US vs Europe' debate. That is what the 'non-aviation' forum is for.

Thanks for the link, Alain.

Thomas



"Show me the Braniffs"
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13044 posts, RR: 78
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7724 times:

Now if the -200 had been built with CFM-56 engines, it might have been a different story.
Is it true that the aircraft had a head up display, if so, would be the first airliner to do so.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7703 times:

Funny joke! Maybe it's me but I can't help but see a little similarity between the Mercure and the A320.

User currently offlineTrintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3224 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7683 times:

Interesting article there Alain. Yes, the Mercure intrigued me as well and since it quietly disappeared from the radar screens 8 years ago little had been published about its history. All talk about governments aside, Mercure is a lesson showing what happens when a company devotes itself to designing an aircraft with just one customer in mind (contrast planes like A320 and 777 where several customer potentials were consulted). One may then say that planes like TriStar and DC-10 were also built to 1 customer's specs (AA in that case) but, as Alain mentions, the radical shift in the market in the mid 70s (following the oil crisis) which killed off the Mercure's chances actually favoured the two trijets, as they offered larger capacity with greater fuel economy over 707s and DC-8s and thus were highly viable planes. In like manner the A300 which was also in the works at the time gained a major boost as it too was a design well suited to those troubled times.

As to why no listing of Mercure exists in the data section, that seems to be because the listings include currently active types - which the Mercure is not. The book that the listings are derived from - namely International Directory of Civil Aircraft - is updated every 2 years and retired types are deleted.

TrintoCan.



Hop to it, fly for life!
User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7553 times:

That would avoid you to make such comments.

To be fair, in the article you posted, that joke is in there.

B4e-Forever New Frontiers


User currently offlineIslandhopper From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 327 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7456 times:

I hadn't read that excellent article posted by Alain...as you might know info on the Mercure is hard to find, thus my request for an entry in the a.net airliner history section. I never represented myself as an expert...my apologies for my technical misunderstandings.

I actually like the Mercure, but still hold that it serves no use for anyone but Air Inter, and that a privately funded venture would not have built that plane. I had read that the Mercure project was 75% financed by the French government. Socialism at its finest.

>both the trident and VC-10 were created as private endeavors to meet the requirements of BEA and BOAC respectively

Come on, what private venture would design an entire plane for only one airline. There HAD to be major government/political control on these projects.

I did not intend for this to be a political US vs. whoever debate, simply making the point that the VC10, Trident, and Mercure wouldn't have been built by anything but a government controlled or funded enterprise.


User currently offlineDoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3378 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7447 times:

the expectation was that both e vc-10 and trident would be popular outside of britan and her (ex)colonies. BEA and BOAC were lunch customers, so they set forth the design requirements. At the time both seemed to know less about hte airilne industry than the airframe manufactueres.


When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlineToner From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7426 times:

http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/dmerc.htm

Range 1100 km


User currently offlineDaV From Italy, joined Jun 2001, 669 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7365 times:

Come on, what private venture would design an entire plane for only one airline

If I'm not mistaken Boeing started B737 production over an order for a dozen of aircraft from a single foreing airline -namely Lufthansa- before orders started to arrive for the bigger -200 version, wich was still under development.

DaV



Two monologues do not make a dialogue
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6289 posts, RR: 54
Reply 21, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7343 times:

The Mercure was a good plane, probably one of the best.

The prototype was somewhat shorter than the Air Inter production version and would have had a pax and range capability nuch the same as a B737-200.

No orders came up, mostly because it came too late. Airlines were already committed to 1-11, DC-9, 737 or F-28.

Then Air Inter asked Dassault to modify it for its needs, a high capacity short range plane tailored for their network. Dassault accepted that, still hoping for orders for the original more conventional version. But competition was too tough, and the Mercure came too late on the market.

Even the short fuselage prototype was rebuilt and put into service by Air Inter, of course with their standard fuel tank configuration - a separate certification for one plane would be pointless.

What other plane in the history of aviation can show the same record as the Mercure? Tailored exactly to the customers need every single example ever built made sterling service, accident free, with very high number of take offs and landings for 25 years.

Why did Air Inter keep them that long time? It cannot be because of "commonality" or because of simple and easy spare parts service. It can only be because...

The Mercure was a good plane.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Dassault Mercure- A Tribute By Wings. posted Tue Oct 24 2006 21:14:35 by WINGS
Dassault Mercure - Thoughts & Questions... posted Mon Jun 19 2006 21:06:29 by Richierich
Dassault Mercure - Airbus? posted Sat Apr 19 2003 23:42:05 by ContinentalEWR
The Dassault Mercure, The Mercure 200 And Asmr posted Sun Jun 23 2002 11:01:24 by AFa340-300E
Dassault Mercure posted Tue Oct 2 2001 08:39:08 by YKA
Anyone Here Ever Flown The Dassault Mercure 100? posted Wed Sep 26 2001 22:36:39 by 767-332ER
Dassault Mercure posted Sun May 14 2000 10:37:05 by Trintocan
Dassault Mercure posted Tue Oct 12 1999 11:07:49 by TU-154
Le Dassault Mercure! posted Thu Aug 26 1999 19:56:26 by CV990
Bomb Threat On OS Was Joke posted Mon Oct 23 2006 22:13:19 by Macc