I know. I love that. 😆

I know, it was a bit disappointing he didn't mention that. Almost makes me think he didn't know Borman was an Apollo astronaut. It's kinda a big deal.

In my mind Borman was the most badass of all the Apollo astronauts!

@@flotfyr14 he certainly groomed that tough guy image. I don't think a more easy going chatty astronaut like Pete Conrad was any less competent.

While they know about each other this Megaprojects and "sensible" channel Simon keeps the fact BB Simon has got Danny and Sam in his Prince of Persia basement from himself as "sensible" Simon would report BB Simon for unsafe practices.. 🤔

@@itarry4 Sensible Simon allegedly doesnt know about the down stairs "tenants"

@@itarry4 ALLEGEDLY

Know about one another? They are starting to bleed together

The Blaze is bleeding into the other channels, I believe this is the true or 'alpha' personality. Soon it will consume its siblings in order to feed its exponential growth.

Well when you have bazillion KZfaq Channels its no wonder :D

facts

@@JackieWelles so many channels, that Simon loses track? " What do you mean I'm in the middle of making video #5 for a competitors channel?!?!" "All channels are Mine!!!" Sniff... Allegedly

not those promises, he meant other ones 🤣

Beluga XL maybe? :)

@@moritzk3004 how about both!!!!

Airbus beluga? I’ve just reached the super guppy and can not stop giggling over how idiotic it looks. (How did it get off the ground?

Flying-fish psychiatrist, surely?

Look at it smile

That is the Airbus Beluga XL. Get it right.

@@1992AC this is the beluga, no one cares about the accuracy of the name, get friends

I’ve been asking for months, I feel like Simon is purposefully ignoring it lol

Well I can give a lead in. The Gau 8 Avenger was first started as a Mobile Mounted Anti Aircraft weapon for the US Army but it kind of turned over the truck it was mounted on. And so General Electric had this wicked gun and no place for it to go. Fact : loading Depleted Uranium onto the aircraft results in a Sub One Thousand Round load due to the weight of the round. I typically saw 950 counts and we had to remove bolt on weights from inside the nose landing gear compartment ( sometimes )

Yes, like promising Danny that he'll let him out of the basement some day.

@@offrails that’s just a pipe dream. He has company now anyway.

Danny is never leaving the basement, because he likes it more than cocaine

@@leighpowell1062 allegedly....

Lol 😆 lol 😆 hilarious.

Our naming sense is the worst... Flugzeug = fly thing = plane....seeing him struggle sometimes with German wording and names is kinda funny.

@@himmelblau2126 Nonsense! I admire a people who don't bullshit around the naming schemes of anything.

@@himmelblau2126 As a Brit currently learning German, I'm very much enjoying the language's hilariously direct way of naming things. Not such a fan of the grammar though...

@@bimblinghill me neither and im german. german grammatic states a rule and at the same time there are so many exceptions that it makes a rule obsolete.

airbus was part of thr ETV tho and it went to the ISS multiple times

that jab, well done

@keith moore But doesn't that mean that you could stall yourself with it? I mean if you were flying close to minimum speed or something and decided to let it rip?

@@RevCode yes yes it does.

A220 is great, it joins the A400M in the exclusive club of "good looking Airbus"

A220 is kawaii

@@raitchison A340 certainly looks stunning. So does the A350, so does A330...

​@@guillaumeromain6694 agreed! I preferred the a330 over its Boeing competitors too, found it quieter (yes I have NC headphones... less noise still helps though) and more comfortable for the long haul. Used to fly between Sydney/Kuala Lumpur 3-4 times every month and always tried to book A330 flights

@@jsleeio Definitely! I love the A330 as the workhorse of the industry it truly is. Much prefer it over 767 even 777... Unsung hero the A330! would go out of my way to ensure I end up on one over the competition

Me too man, very good to get your feet in the water

Yep this was one of those priceless inside joke acronyms!

E.T.O.P.s

Think it's Phuket In Thailand.

what was established in 1957 was indeed the European Economic Community (Treaty of Rome), though that was the direct predecessor of the EU. So while technically named incorrectly in the video, the key point remains, that the beginnings of Airbus fell within the time of a new European customs union and close collaboration

@@TigruArdavi But when the Airbus consortium was founded, Britain wasn’t a member of the EEC (it joined in 1973, and the A300 first flew in 1972).

Yeah I had a little 'HAAAAAAAA!' at that one myself. It's been a while now since DB were known for being on time - anywhere, ever.

That happens when politicians get heavily involved with a mass transit system. Just ask someone who works at DB in the operational branche. You would be surprisesed about the amount of political shit they have to deal with on a daily basis.

@@obelic71 As a regular visitor to Germany ( in more 'normal' times at least) you're preaching to the choir Mr Smeets & I wholeheartedly agree.

To be fairer yet, America's heavy investment was in its purchase of warplanes from Boeing ... to protect Europe ... while Europe directly subsidized Airbus with corporate welfare ... to wipe out Boeing.

@@MrTexasDan Now there's an informed opinion...

@@MrTexasDan Sure, sponsoring commercial planes because you need those in war.... I am sure that makes sense in your head

@@Carewolf I'm not sure why you feel the need to be defensive and insulting. Here, let me type slowly ... Boeing was not sponsored or subsidized by the US government. It was however a huge vendor of expensive aircraft to the US military. These aircraft were then largely used to protect Europe from the Soviet scourge. So, while the American taxpayer was spending its treasure protecting Europe, Europe was directly subsidizing Airbus with the stated goal of taking out Boeing.

@@MrTexasDan So, they were never given say billions to compete against Concorde.. You can look it up, they were given money to develop civil aviation

I mean, one, that is not really relevant, the end result wasn't affected and Airbus did continue on, and two, the accident was blamed on Air France, not on Airbus anyway, so it's doubly not relevant.

@@Musikur it was its Maiden flight, that’s highly relevant

@@Kadeo-ms6qw it wasn't its maiden flight it was a display flight at the Habsheim Air Show. The aircraft was the 9th(I think) A320 to fly and had flown multiple times before it crashed.

Also, he failed to mention their propensity for the tail falling off.

@@Musikur , yes and no, I’d bet my fortune there were software modifications after that crash. The pilot fought hard to tell his story about the airplane not cooperating when he pushed the throttles forward. Automation that doesn’t work perfectly and doesn’t allow the pilot final authority to what it will do can ruin your day.

One has been done for The Orient Express on his Geographic site: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eNp4f9qb1JqnY30.html.

Frank was a clever man and one of the best astronauts

Absolutely correct. Shame the great Caravelle wasn't talked about.

French had Dassault Mercure twin.

Hardly a mega project - only 11 were built, and they all flew with one airline in France until they were retired in favour of the A320... The Brits, however, had the BAC 1-11.

Some later B4's were definitely 2-person crew, though inital ones were not, and they were built that way, not retrofitted.

@@shebbs1 really? What year did this happen? Which airlines operated this version?

FATMAN 82456, THERE ARE several movies on the C47, do a search, there were some on the 50th of D DAY, CELEBRATIONS , cheers 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

*launch

@@tip0019 ha! I blame autocorrect. :D

@@tip0019 I like lunch better

A moonwalker.

Jim Lovell said he barfed all the way to the moon...

How about the one in Turkey which is built from shipping containers ;)

Retirement On 10 April 2003, Air France and British Airways simultaneously announced they would retire Concorde later that year.[209] They cited low passenger numbers following the 25 July 2000 crash, the slump in air travel following the September 11 attacks, and rising maintenance costs: Airbus, the company that acquired Aerospatiale in 2000, had made a decision in 2003 to no longer supply replacement parts for the aircraft. Although Concorde was technologically advanced when introduced in the 1970s, 30 years later, its analogue cockpit was outdated. There had been little commercial pressure to upgrade Concorde due to a lack of competing aircraft, unlike other airliners of the same era such as the Boeing 747.[210] By its retirement, it was the last aircraft in the British Airways fleet that had a flight engineer; other aircraft, such as the modernised 747-400, had eliminated the role.

@@hurri7720 All of that copy/paste is true. However it still potentially had another decade of life in it and would have happily gone on until about 2012. It was an unfortunate combination of circumstances that ended it's use earlier.