The problem with the Mercure was that it was too specialised for its niche. The 737-200 and the DC-9 both were airframes that had ease of modifying for later variants. They both had longer range while the Mercure was more technologically advanced, it engineered itself into a niche of being an oversized regional jet. Flying the Mercure was economical but only for French domestic flights or the occasional Paris-London flight. The Mercure's range was just too short for other trunk routes like Paris to Stockholm. In the US popular cities were too far apart for the Mercure to operate the routes while the 737-200 and the DC-9 could. There were still cities that were close enough for the Mercure but the competition had a better option for the US market due to them having a better appeal to customers.
@@Luke-PlanesTrainsDogsnCars Ummm yes it did actually. There was the 737-300, 737-400, 737-500, 737-600, 737-700, 737-700ER, 737-800, 737-900, 737-900ER. The Max program being a huge fuck-up doesn't somehow erase everything that came before it.
It went EXTREMELY well. The various 737 generations represen, to date, the most sold commercial airliner in history. The DC-9 gave us the MD-80 and variants, including the 717, and arguably even the ARJ.
During the NTSB investigation of the Sullenberger Hudson ditching, they asked Airbus where they got their design and test data for A320 ditching from... it was from scale model tests on the Mercure.
I think what was learned from the Mercure went into the Joint European Transport (JET) studies of the late 1970's, which became the A320 project when it was officially announced in 1984. Probably because many of the engineers who designed the Mercure just transferred their experience to Airbus.
@@FTStratLP yes but they first went with the size which was most needed in Europe and which could also be sold abroad, for rapid economy of scale. Once they showed they were successful at selling those 2 aircrafts, they designed the A320.
But yet, I wouldn't call it a _complete_ failure. Reason: many of the engineers that worked on the Mercure program just conveniently moved from Dassault at Mérignac-Bordeaux Airport next to Bordeaux to (then) Airbus Industrie at Toulouse to work on what became the A320 single-aisle jet (and we know how successful the A320 Family has been to this day).
The Mercure was basically the first attempt by the Europeans to rival the Boeing 737 and while they were not as successful they eventually created the A320 based on the design of the Mercure if you look at the wing and engine placement
@@cchan571 Perhaps the biggest advantage of the A320 was that unlike Dassault, Airbus by the early 1980's had access to the CFM International CFM56 high-bypass engine, which had already been in production for the Cammacorp DC-8 re-engine program and the 737 _Classic_ models (737-300/-400/-500). As such, by the around 1986 CFM offered uprated versions of the CFM56 specifically for the A320.
I flew on the Mercure several times. Air Inter made a point to stick to a tight schedule, fly fast and on time. And the Mercure was fast. 😊 It was perfectly suited for that… not for what the international market was looking for : more versatility and lower costs, at the expense of speed.
@@ClausThanner At the time, flying was somewhat different from today. No lengthy checks or queues, you were not supposed to arrive in the waiting room 50mn before the flight, you could hop in the aircraft even if you were late at the airport, as long as tithe door was still,open. it was almost like taking a bus. Today, you spend one hour and a half in the airport, then you wait for the aircraft to arrive, for one hour of actual flight. What I mean is that, at the time, a 1h flight instead of 1h15 was something important when the traveler spent only 15, or at most 30mn between the airport door to his seat.
First I want to say..........Wonderful Video!! I live in Holland, and when I was a young boy this aircraft came very often to Rotterdam airport till the early/mid 90s....... Don't know if I'm right.........but I thought this plane made scheduled flights from Paris Orly to Rotterdam that days..... Sadly enough Air Inter from France was the only airline who operate this rare bird. As a little boy I always thought this plane was a 737 classic......the sound or better said ''the noise'' was exactly the same.......and also his silhouette during take-off was pretty much the same.... When I was one day at the airport with my father to watch some aircrafts,... this plane was just arrived..........so I was able to see it really close! Funny enough there was a 737-200 on the platform too,......so from that moment I saw the planes were fairly different. A man next to me had a conversation with my father.......he told me that the ''Air Inter plane'' was a very rare bird...........a French made Dassault Mercure... From that moment till today the Mercure is a real mysterious plane with a touch of melancholy to me.
Thanks - From a former airline pilot, and current CFI in the USA. I've been around airports of all types since 1995. Yet, until your video I had never heard of the Dassault Mercure.
I flew frequently on Caravelle and Mercure in the seventies and eighties: The Caravelle was a dream, so smooth. Mercure was brutal, very bumpy flights… preparing landing, the Caravelle would just sail down and land lightly. On the contrary, the Mercure would deploy flaps and rev up the engines, making a lot of noise, jerking around. I hated that plane.
In my experience the Mercure was flown very much like a fighter aircraft rather than a common airliner ... ... and I know Air Inter pilots loved the Mercure.
The "awesome" flight characteristics of the Mercure garnered her much love from pilots (many of whom had a military background), not so much from passengers. ;)
let's not forget the 737 was cheap as hell to design, being a 707 fuselage (shared with the 727 and 757) with redesigned wing and empennage. There was so much commonality in tooling that it was essentially a side project for Boeing
Everyone in comments “wow, this was a MUCH better plane than the American rivals, it was only missing out by not having range and being too complicated / expensive to build.“ Yeah, darn those minor details. 🤦♂️😂 Cracks me up that people think a 5cm wider fuselage or a higher rate of climb will sell airframes. Airlines couldn’t care less about that. Acquisition cost, maintenance cost, route flexibility (ie range) and fleet commonality (including a good parts network) are the things airlines care about. The 737 and MD products were FAR better in every one of those regards - hence why even subsidized European operators still wanted the 737 instead.
I remember seeing the odd Mercure at Lyon while operating 737-200's in there in the early 90's. At first I thought it was a 737 but looked odd somehow. When I queried my skipper about it he pointed out the dihedral tail and explained what it really was.
Thought I saw a Mercure at LHR in the late 70s. It was in Air Inter markings, at the time I did not realise how rare they were. Have your considered doing a video on the VFW614?
Back in the early 80's I had a girlfriend who was studying in Pau France and I used fly between Paris and Pau on Air Inter Mercures. As I recall they were fine, but the flight to Paris from London on BA was by Tristar which was so much nicer!. The loads were also very light usually, so I have no idea how Air Inter made a profit on that route.
Tristar or Trident? The Tristar was a widebody and would not be used for short haul, the Trident on the other hand was the workhorse for BEA and BA for some time.
@@cjmillsnun Oh yes it was an L-1011, they were used a lot on the Paris run in those days ( L-1011 200 ) I travelled quite a few times between LHR and Paris with BA on Tristars. They used Tristars as they had much more cargo capacity. Check out vids of CDG in the late 70's through to about 1990 I am sure you will see one at some point.
When start learning this aircraft though it's AFM for FSX-the add-on also works nicely in P3Dv4/5, it shocked me how similar some of it's main systems, especially the electric one, are to the 737NG (not just the -1/200) It even have AP with IAS Hold (FLCH), Autothrottle for approach only and autoland/autoGo-around function.
3:30 A flashback from childhood, I can smell the superglue now... It's the image of the cover for the box of the 1:100 scale model of the Mercure made by PlasticArt in GDR and sold all over Eastern Europe.
It looks like very much a consortium of a 737 and A-320. The wing design appeared to be better then the 737 at the time. So I'm wondering how much was learned and gained on the Mercure project for the initial Airbus A-320
Dassault and Aerospatiale/airbus were competitors at the time, so any direct pedigree is hard to pinpoint, but it is said that one of the later Mercure update suggestions were filed as a suggestion in the very, very early days of the A320 work but not selected. I agree there seem to be a relationship. If someone had reliably suggested the Mercure was a real predecessor, I would have believed them. But evidence says no.
@ Well Said, I agree with your assessment. At the bare minimum Airbus / Aerospatiale Studied both the 737 and Mercure to gain a superior next generation (a-320) single aisle twin. But as the 737 is still in production with basically the exact same airframe as the original prototype. And 707/727. And still a very viable and competitive option to the A-320 It's amazing how well Boeing got it right in the late 50s and 60s designing aircraft without computers.
I was lucky enough to fly in one of these in the late 80s. A very nice plane to fly in, you could tell the quality was better than a contemporary 737. Being cheaper isn't always the best.
It still baffles me how the Mercure, a 160-passenger, twin-engine midsize narrowbody, in roughly the same size bracket as the two most successful commercial jet airliner series in history, saw fewer units enter service than Concorde, a gas-guzzling, small, (mostly) commercially unviable, operationally-limited airliner that was essentially forced into the hands of its two main operators by their respective governments.
Concorde's specialization niche existed, even if only vaguely, and it had no real competitor, and it was a massive prestige project for the Anglo-French governments. Mercure attempted to enter a market already saturated with models that it could not outperform substantially enough to be worth buying.
Operationally Concorde was highly profitable for British Airways, less so for Air France. Admittedly, the UK government wrote of the development debts and sold the Concordes for just £176 million at todays prices, a fraction of their real cost, but operationally they were a great success.
I did part of my flight training in Montpellier and when I arrived there I wondered what kind of plane was sitting outside, rotting. It looked like a 737 but the engines were different. Well, now I know!
The TGV rail system killed (luckily, the environment is happy) many of the domestic routes. The trains go fast from city centre to another, and the even stop at towns that have no airport anyway.
I saw an abandoned United airlines Caravelle at Victoria BC airport, in 1969 or '70. It was in pretty bad shape, with the airline name painted over, but could be easily discerned.
What. European designer almost always ( from this era) fail to comperhend is the seer size and scope of travel in NORTH AMERICA. Nyc to dca is about 275 miles.. boston to Atlanta over 700 mile. But boston to Miami 1100 miles . The density of European cities makes a 750 nm range economically viable is not feasible across the pond
A lot of great British planes went down the same route. Absolutely brilliantly built and technically spot on but built towards to small a market, too niche. The marvellous and technically superiour VC-10 outclassed the Boeing 707/27 but was built with far too specific a market, the hot and high Empire routs that BA held. The Mecure was a great plane, but its range let it down, the best thing to come out of European aerospace industry was actually the collaboration that eventually led to the formation of Airbus. After the war the only national aerospace industry that could compete internationally was the British one but it was far too fragmented with too many companies competing against each other.
Doesn't mean to say that flight crews and passengers did not enjoy the aircraft, like the UK VC10 and so on. That's what really counts not all of these figures. French are good aviation engineers never to be underestimated.
No that’s not what really counts. What counts is how successful the product is in the market and how groundbreaking in that market the product is. It wasn’t either one. It was a failure, and pilots (like the vc-10) only liked it out of a sense of national pride, not the objective quality of the product. If the 737 was from their country they would have liked it just as much. Overall this plane was an expensive failure that doesn’t even measure as a blip on the radar of the history of aviation. If it had any true technical edge then at least 1 airline would’ve bought it on their own volition, and none did. This aircraft is known for one thing, and that’s being the most unsuccessful commercial jet to enter service. That’s what matters.
Agreed. In the last generation ot two, we have been taught that the numbers in the way of potential income for investors are the only metric. It is not. America thinks so, and that is a world of hurt. Americans always thinks companies only exist to make money for the shareholders, and it is such a naive and narrow view of the world. Companies exist to incorporate and make agency of humans doing their thing , and reach their potential The numbers are there to serve the humans, it is not a law of physics. Companies prioritizing profit maximization over agency is the curse MBAs brought the world.
@@hepphepps8356 I think you’re getting charities mixed up with companies. Companies exist by their very definition to bring money in to give to their shareholders. The fact that you deny such a basic and undeniable fact is hilarious and it shows just how naïve and ignorant you are about the world and the nature of the economy.
Excellent narrative. I remember a visit from A&AEE in 1970 to Merignac that it was introduced to us as one of the first wide body transports. Many thanks Rmb5*
I don't think it was a good idea at those times to try to design and manufacture an airplane to compete with very advanced US planes like B-737, DC-9 etc..
The Mercure is too much a Boeing Bobby, except heavier and harder to find parts for. The stubbier Bobby 100 and 200 were light, and had an excellent glide ratio, key to being a good plane.
The "true" pilots LOVED the Mercure, sometimes flown like a Dassault's Fighter, despite passengers aboard ! In Air Inter it would have be even more money maker if were on a 2 PNT basis, that was not the case . The record of short flights in one single day was possible with the Mercure, with 10 flights !!! Including "bord à bord Corse", that is legs between Marseille or Nice and Corsica. The last 4 ou 5 years of exploitation the Mercure were on a 156 seats cabin, despite requering one more PNC; Too short haul for having commercial success. Evenion Air Inter's domestic french network, some routes were at the utter limit of range of the Mercure (between Lille, north France and Corsica for instance)
Through failure we learn lessons and become successful, look at the De Havilland comet, beautiful design but those windows killed it, but it shaped the way jets are today, then again the boring 737 max should have been withdrawn.
"Least successful" has to be given as relative here. The plane did its job without a hitch; it was just the sales figures that sucked. Love you talking about the blemish-free safety record while showing the footage of the two little kids in the pilot and co-pilot seats!
its not a relative, its given as commercial success which inevitably starts at units sold/production run. A product can only achieve economies of scale with a sufficient production run to cover its initial investment cost, the mercure might have been a quality product however it was a commercial flop as it resulted a net loss for Dassault
On the contrary, This video stressed that Mercure only required 2 persons in the cockpit. The DC 9 was a mere copy of the Caravelle. Douglas cooperate with Sud Aviation, obtained all the information and severed relations, producing a copy. The American Market was closed to foreign airplanes. Strong pressures were placed on Airlines, to prevent the purchase of the Airbus. Eastern Airlines bought severa Airbuses, becoming a reliable, accident free work-horse Loved by pilots and passengers. The Mercure as a fantastic plane -- I was a passenger of that great machine several times
@@albertseabra9226the American market was not closed to foreign airplanes. Foreign airplanes were mostly designed based on European geography and needs and so they failed to sell successfully. What works in Europe doesn’t work anywhere else.
Amazing how ALL jet airliners trace their design back to Boeings 707 in basic design and engine placement, even the 727....... and IF not for the success of Boeing early on scarebus would not exist today, Boeings success created backlogs for delivery and scarebus saw an opportunity to sneak into the market........
A much more beautiful design than the 737, even though the 737 is already a great looking machine. The Caravell and VC10 are the most beautiful of their era, then there's the L-1011 with Dat-ass.
The Dassault Mercure was a technologically advanced airplane when it was first introduced. However, the failing French variant didn't see a relatively steep market. Only a small number were produced for Air Inter. It became strikingly similar to the Boeing 737-200, having the same type of P&W turbofan engines, but the success of the 737 later saw the Mercure being obsolete and the 737 was the choice airplane for many airlines. The DC-9 also became an instant hit with the airlines and became a good selling airplane itself. Air Inter only had a handful of pilots qualified to fly the Mercure, which the airline later replaced with the Airbus A320. I thought the Dassault Mercure was a rather nice looking airplane. It's unfortunate that other types were more highly considered, putting the Mercure at a very low production level.
The problem with the Mercure was that it was too specialised for its niche. The 737-200 and the DC-9 both were airframes that had ease of modifying for later variants. They both had longer range while the Mercure was more technologically advanced, it engineered itself into a niche of being an oversized regional jet. Flying the Mercure was economical but only for French domestic flights or the occasional Paris-London flight. The Mercure's range was just too short for other trunk routes like Paris to Stockholm. In the US popular cities were too far apart for the Mercure to operate the routes while the 737-200 and the DC-9 could. There were still cities that were close enough for the Mercure but the competition had a better option for the US market due to them having a better appeal to customers.
''The 737-200 and the DC-9 both were airframes that had ease of modifying for later variants''.....Ummm that didn't go so well did it.
@@Luke-PlanesTrainsDogsnCars Still did better than the Mercure regardless.
@@Luke-PlanesTrainsDogsnCars ..... ?!?!? every variant of those sold great ! "it went" VERY WELL !
@@Luke-PlanesTrainsDogsnCars Ummm yes it did actually. There was the 737-300, 737-400, 737-500, 737-600, 737-700, 737-700ER, 737-800, 737-900, 737-900ER. The Max program being a huge fuck-up doesn't somehow erase everything that came before it.
It went EXTREMELY well. The various 737 generations represen, to date, the most sold commercial airliner in history. The DC-9 gave us the MD-80 and variants, including the 717, and arguably even the ARJ.
Albeit a commercial failure, the lessons learned from the Mercure proved to be valuable for the A320 (which it greatly resembled).
Thanks for this.
looks nothing like a 320
During the NTSB investigation of the Sullenberger Hudson ditching, they asked Airbus where they got their design and test data for A320 ditching from... it was from scale model tests on the Mercure.
It didn’t sell but was a clear kick off for airbus to be created.
I think what was learned from the Mercure went into the Joint European Transport (JET) studies of the late 1970's, which became the A320 project when it was officially announced in 1984. Probably because many of the engineers who designed the Mercure just transferred their experience to Airbus.
@@Sacto1654But long before the A320 there has been an A300 and an A310.
@@Sacto1654 indeed
@@FTStratLP yes but they first went with the size which was most needed in Europe and which could also be sold abroad, for rapid economy of scale. Once they showed they were successful at selling those 2 aircrafts, they designed the A320.
I suspect the Mercure has the same cabin width as the 320.
FunFact: The Caravelle used the front fuselage and cockpit of the De-H Comet.
Didn’t know that! Flew on several Caravelles in Europe.
Yes, they bought a license of the Comet cockpit.
The front end is entirely the Comet. Was such a beautiful jet, the Caravelle.
The Comet is the OG, though. ❤
But yet, I wouldn't call it a _complete_ failure. Reason: many of the engineers that worked on the Mercure program just conveniently moved from Dassault at Mérignac-Bordeaux Airport next to Bordeaux to (then) Airbus Industrie at Toulouse to work on what became the A320 single-aisle jet (and we know how successful the A320 Family has been to this day).
The Mercure was basically the first attempt by the Europeans to rival the Boeing 737 and while they were not as successful they eventually created the A320 based on the design of the Mercure if you look at the wing and engine placement
@@cchan571 Perhaps the biggest advantage of the A320 was that unlike Dassault, Airbus by the early 1980's had access to the CFM International CFM56 high-bypass engine, which had already been in production for the Cammacorp DC-8 re-engine program and the 737 _Classic_ models (737-300/-400/-500). As such, by the around 1986 CFM offered uprated versions of the CFM56 specifically for the A320.
I flew on the Mercure several times.
Air Inter made a point to stick to a tight schedule, fly fast and on time. And the Mercure was fast. 😊
It was perfectly suited for that… not for what the international market was looking for : more versatility and lower costs, at the expense of speed.
Same issue that killed the Convair 880/990.
@@bricefleckenstein9666
😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢
Such beautiful aircraft.
speed on short sectors make little difference. Hardly a selling point to any attentive customers. Failed project.
@@ClausThanner At the time, flying was somewhat different from today. No lengthy checks or queues, you were not supposed to arrive in the waiting room 50mn before the flight, you could hop in the aircraft even if you were late at the airport, as long as tithe door was still,open. it was almost like taking a bus.
Today, you spend one hour and a half in the airport, then you wait for the aircraft to arrive, for one hour of actual flight.
What I mean is that, at the time, a 1h flight instead of 1h15 was something important when the traveler spent only 15, or at most 30mn between the airport door to his seat.
Alors captain, vous avez battu le record de point à point avec le Mercure ?
First I want to say..........Wonderful Video!!
I live in Holland, and when I was a young boy this aircraft came very often to Rotterdam airport till the early/mid 90s.......
Don't know if I'm right.........but I thought this plane made scheduled flights from Paris Orly to Rotterdam that days.....
Sadly enough Air Inter from France was the only airline who operate this rare bird.
As a little boy I always thought this plane was a 737 classic......the sound or better said ''the noise'' was exactly the same.......and also his silhouette during take-off was pretty much the same....
When I was one day at the airport with my father to watch some aircrafts,... this plane was just arrived..........so I was able to see it really close!
Funny enough there was a 737-200 on the platform too,......so from that moment I saw the planes were fairly different.
A man next to me had a conversation with my father.......he told me that the ''Air Inter plane'' was a very rare bird...........a French made Dassault Mercure...
From that moment till today the Mercure is a real mysterious plane with a touch of melancholy to me.
That was so cool, if only for showing the NAC 737, the precursor to Air New Zealand. It's been years since i saw those colours.
Totally agree!!
Air NZ need to get on the old airline bandwagon and do some heritage liveries!!!
@11:00 - That variant must be very relaxing & soothing… 😉
Thanks - From a former airline pilot, and current CFI in the USA.
I've been around airports of all types since 1995.
Yet, until your video I had never heard of the Dassault Mercure.
Wow. I am not from France, but I have known about it since I was about 7. i can see why you are a former pilot. Oh. Wait. CFI. Who did you pay off?
Only operated on domestic French network
@@jeanlouisverdeaux4599 Thank you!
I flew frequently on Caravelle and Mercure in the seventies and eighties: The Caravelle was a dream, so smooth. Mercure was brutal, very bumpy flights… preparing landing, the Caravelle would just sail down and land lightly. On the contrary, the Mercure would deploy flaps and rev up the engines, making a lot of noise, jerking around. I hated that plane.
In my experience the Mercure was flown very much like a fighter aircraft rather than a common airliner ...
... and I know Air Inter pilots loved the Mercure.
The "awesome" flight characteristics of the Mercure garnered her much love from pilots (many of whom had a military background), not so much from passengers. ;)
let's not forget the 737 was cheap as hell to design, being a 707 fuselage (shared with the 727 and 757) with redesigned wing and empennage. There was so much commonality in tooling that it was essentially a side project for Boeing
And the fact that the 737 is the most successful aircraft in history..
LOVELY documentary! Thank you!
Everyone in comments “wow, this was a MUCH better plane than the American rivals, it was only missing out by not having range and being too complicated / expensive to build.“
Yeah, darn those minor details. 🤦♂️😂
Cracks me up that people think a 5cm wider fuselage or a higher rate of climb will sell airframes. Airlines couldn’t care less about that. Acquisition cost, maintenance cost, route flexibility (ie range) and fleet commonality (including a good parts network) are the things airlines care about. The 737 and MD products were FAR better in every one of those regards - hence why even subsidized European operators still wanted the 737 instead.
Very Well Said !!!!
2 crew operation would have been quite attractive to an airline
but the doors didn't tend to blow out on them
When you create a plane on the assumption that france is the whole world, it's no surprise that it had no interest outside of france
I remember seeing the odd Mercure at Lyon while operating 737-200's in there in the early 90's. At first I thought it was a 737 but looked odd somehow. When I queried my skipper about it he pointed out the dihedral tail and explained what it really was.
The Mercure ASMR was whisper quiet.
Timing is everything.
... as is marketing and flexibility of product range.
Meanwhile at Lockheed: "eeeh; wanna line your pockets?"
The Mercure would make a great famous Flyer for MSFS!
I was normally commuting between Paris and Nantes with this aircraft , was good and confortable
Thought I saw a Mercure at LHR in the late 70s. It was in Air Inter markings, at the time I did not realise how rare they were. Have your considered doing a video on the VFW614?
He already did
Quite possible they used do Air France morning flights from LGW to CDG around that time.
Excellent work must respect.
The ASMR would've been much more successful if it launched in 2024 via a Twitch stream. :D
I have had the chance to fly the Dassault Mercure between Lyon and Lille with Air Inter. Indeed, a very pleasant flight.
Back in the early 80's I had a girlfriend who was studying in Pau France and I used fly between Paris and Pau on Air Inter Mercures. As I recall they were fine, but the flight to Paris from London on BA was by Tristar which was so much nicer!. The loads were also very light usually, so I have no idea how Air Inter made a profit on that route.
Tristar or Trident? The Tristar was a widebody and would not be used for short haul, the Trident on the other hand was the workhorse for BEA and BA for some time.
@@cjmillsnun Oh yes it was an L-1011, they were used a lot on the Paris run in those days ( L-1011 200 ) I travelled quite a few times between LHR and Paris with BA on Tristars. They used Tristars as they had much more cargo capacity. Check out vids of CDG in the late 70's through to about 1990 I am sure you will see one at some point.
When start learning this aircraft though it's AFM for FSX-the add-on also works nicely in P3Dv4/5, it shocked me how similar some of it's main systems, especially the electric one, are to the 737NG (not just the -1/200)
It even have AP with IAS Hold (FLCH), Autothrottle for approach only and autoland/autoGo-around function.
3:30 A flashback from childhood, I can smell the superglue now... It's the image of the cover for the box of the 1:100 scale model of the Mercure made by PlasticArt in GDR and sold all over Eastern Europe.
enjoyed that, thanks
It looks like very much a consortium of a 737 and A-320. The wing design appeared to be better then the 737 at the time. So I'm wondering how much was learned and gained on the Mercure project for the initial Airbus A-320
Dassault and Aerospatiale/airbus were competitors at the time, so any direct pedigree is hard to pinpoint, but it is said that one of the later Mercure update suggestions were filed as a suggestion in the very, very early days of the A320 work but not selected. I agree there seem to be a relationship. If someone had reliably suggested the Mercure was a real predecessor, I would have believed them. But evidence says no.
@ Well Said, I agree with your assessment.
At the bare minimum Airbus / Aerospatiale Studied both the 737 and Mercure to gain a superior next generation (a-320) single aisle twin.
But as the 737 is still in production with basically the exact same airframe as the original prototype. And 707/727. And still a very viable and competitive option to the A-320
It's amazing how well Boeing got it right in the late 50s and 60s designing aircraft without computers.
Unfortunately Dassaults Vision for a new Airliner was not a Mirage.
Nice!
Goooooooooal!
@@iceman9678 mercy, erm, sorry i mean merci
They must have known the writing was on the wall as soon as they saw the TGV plan.
I was lucky enough to fly in one of these in the late 80s. A very nice plane to fly in, you could tell the quality was better than a contemporary 737. Being cheaper isn't always the best.
It was not built to a higher quality than the 737
I flew on one, Air Inter. Nice plane back in the day.
It still baffles me how the Mercure, a 160-passenger, twin-engine midsize narrowbody, in roughly the same size bracket as the two most successful commercial jet airliner series in history, saw fewer units enter service than Concorde, a gas-guzzling, small, (mostly) commercially unviable, operationally-limited airliner that was essentially forced into the hands of its two main operators by their respective governments.
A classic example of overspecialization.
The range was too short and the airplane was built in such a way that it was extremely difficult to engineer longer range.
Concorde's specialization niche existed, even if only vaguely, and it had no real competitor, and it was a massive prestige project for the Anglo-French governments. Mercure attempted to enter a market already saturated with models that it could not outperform substantially enough to be worth buying.
Operationally Concorde was highly profitable for British Airways, less so for Air France. Admittedly, the UK government wrote of the development debts and sold the Concordes for just £176 million at todays prices, a fraction of their real cost, but operationally they were a great success.
Thinking ahead with the CFM56. Though it wasn't certified till like November 1979, right?
I did part of my flight training in Montpellier and when I arrived there I wondered what kind of plane was sitting outside, rotting. It looked like a 737 but the engines were different. Well, now I know!
This plane makes the VC10 look like the A320 family😭💀
Yes very interesting.as i,m a aviation fan..thanks
12:55 the good old days for kids on planes. So much fun to grow up then.
The TGV rail system killed (luckily, the environment is happy) many of the domestic routes. The trains go fast from city centre to another, and the even stop at towns that have no airport anyway.
Very beautiful 😍
This aircraft would have been perfect for the Japanese domestic market
when in Germany, visit the Speyer tech museum, one is propped up there, and you can enter and inspect it.
That’s a beautiful jet.
What a lovely aircraft, and fast, what a shame.
I saw an abandoned United airlines Caravelle at Victoria BC airport, in 1969 or '70. It was in pretty bad shape, with the airline name painted over, but could be easily discerned.
The ASMR was the quietest jet ever made, I gather.
The A320 registered D-ASMR is quite loud. Used to fly over my house every on its approach into DUS
@@didgerihorn… I think the joke went over your head.
I like these presentations however I dislike the computer generated narration.
that's how he speaks, not c computer.
Yeah, as Stephen said, that's not an AI voice, that's his actual voice.
He's doing a Cary Grant impression!
Virginia rental cars have an orange year decal. Now you know.
They definitely were not a success as a commercial plane builder, but they’ve been very successful with private aircraft.
Looking at track record of french engineering, it's a miracle that this plane flew safely with no accident for 20 years. 😂
What. European designer almost always ( from this era) fail to comperhend is the seer size and scope of travel in NORTH AMERICA. Nyc to dca is about 275 miles.. boston to Atlanta over 700 mile. But boston to Miami 1100 miles . The density of European cities makes a 750 nm range economically viable is not feasible across the pond
Been on all the competitors, but never this one
To bad, nice aircraft and (for the time) a great cockpit layout.
what about MRJ (Mitsubishi Regional Jet)
did the Mercure ASMR come with a factory fitted youtuber to whisper in passengers' ears?
I was gonna say, Rudy should have whispered that part
@@jonathankleinow2073 😂
Them wigs did some time too 😂😂😂 ... And where part2 ... Brittany aint learned her lesson still ...
NAC, Viva New Zealand!
The Falcon is such a good jet, I suppose nobody is 100%
A lot of great British planes went down the same route. Absolutely brilliantly built and technically spot on but built towards to small a market, too niche. The marvellous and technically superiour VC-10 outclassed the Boeing 707/27 but was built with far too specific a market, the hot and high Empire routs that BA held. The Mecure was a great plane, but its range let it down, the best thing to come out of European aerospace industry was actually the collaboration that eventually led to the formation of Airbus. After the war the only national aerospace industry that could compete internationally was the British one but it was far too fragmented with too many companies competing against each other.
12:18 story of my life.
Doesn't mean to say that flight crews and passengers did not enjoy the aircraft, like the UK VC10 and so on. That's what really counts not all of these figures. French are good aviation engineers never to be underestimated.
No that’s not what really counts. What counts is how successful the product is in the market and how groundbreaking in that market the product is. It wasn’t either one. It was a failure, and pilots (like the vc-10) only liked it out of a sense of national pride, not the objective quality of the product. If the 737 was from their country they would have liked it just as much. Overall this plane was an expensive failure that doesn’t even measure as a blip on the radar of the history of aviation. If it had any true technical edge then at least 1 airline would’ve bought it on their own volition, and none did. This aircraft is known for one thing, and that’s being the most unsuccessful commercial jet to enter service. That’s what matters.
Agreed. In the last generation ot two, we have been taught that the numbers in the way of potential income for investors are the only metric. It is not. America thinks so, and that is a world of hurt. Americans always thinks companies only exist to make money for the shareholders, and it is such a naive and narrow view of the world. Companies exist to incorporate and make agency of humans doing their thing , and reach their potential The numbers are there to serve the humans, it is not a law of physics.
Companies prioritizing profit maximization over agency is the curse MBAs brought the world.
@@georgehenan853what an immature, naive lacing in history view of the world.
@@hepphepps8356 I think you’re getting charities mixed up with companies. Companies exist by their very definition to bring money in to give to their shareholders. The fact that you deny such a basic and undeniable fact is hilarious and it shows just how naïve and ignorant you are about the world and the nature of the economy.
Bit unfair comparing these with the Trident, big difference between 12 and 115!
Excellent narrative. I remember a visit from A&AEE in 1970 to Merignac that it was introduced to us as one of the first wide body transports. Many thanks Rmb5*
What a beautiful plane!
Seems weird seeing an airliner with a drag chute
7:55 this appears to be an Airbus A300B2 in Air France cs. Take a look at those fat CF-6 engines.
she was beautiful though.
Shame, its such a good looking plane
the boeing 737-200 could probably roast the mercure
I don't think it was a good idea at those times to try to design and manufacture an airplane to compete with very advanced US planes like B-737, DC-9 etc..
The French have never been able to design & build an airliner that worth spit.
One should get informed before writing crap …
Well hey the mercure became the basis of the airbus a320
The Mercure is too much a Boeing Bobby, except heavier and harder to find parts for. The stubbier Bobby 100 and 200 were light, and had an excellent glide ratio, key to being a good plane.
The "true" pilots LOVED the Mercure, sometimes flown like a Dassault's Fighter, despite passengers aboard !
In Air Inter it would have be even more money maker if were on a 2 PNT basis, that was not the case .
The record of short flights in one single day was possible with the Mercure, with 10 flights !!! Including "bord à bord Corse", that is legs between Marseille or Nice and Corsica.
The last 4 ou 5 years of exploitation the Mercure were on a 156 seats cabin, despite requering one more PNC;
Too short haul for having commercial success.
Evenion Air Inter's domestic french network, some routes were at the utter limit of range of the Mercure (between Lille, north France and Corsica for instance)
Either I’m getting a case of the Déjà vu or you’ve covered this aircraft before 🏴
I was thinking the same
@@macjim Mustard has covered this aircraft
Looks like 737 at home
Through failure we learn lessons and become successful, look at the De Havilland comet, beautiful design but those windows killed it, but it shaped the way jets are today, then again the boring 737 max should have been withdrawn.
The Mercure paved the way for the A300 and all its Airbus descendants
You can tell today who got the last larff
Some things just aren't meant to be.
I have to disagree. It actually entered service. :P The MRJ on the other hand? Not so much. 🤣
You could say the A320 is the unofficial successor of the Dassault Mercure
First!
@RuairidhMacVeigh: great video again!
The Mercure was maybe a failure but with this experience it gave Airbus inspiration for the A320 family.
"Least successful" has to be given as relative here. The plane did its job without a hitch; it was just the sales figures that sucked.
Love you talking about the blemish-free safety record while showing the footage of the two little kids in the pilot and co-pilot seats!
its not a relative, its given as commercial success which inevitably starts at units sold/production run. A product can only achieve economies of scale with a sufficient production run to cover its initial investment cost, the mercure might have been a quality product however it was a commercial flop as it resulted a net loss for Dassault
Would you say the early version was neutered by its spey engines?😅
This is the K-Mart version of the superior Boeing 727-200 I flew for 10 years, 1990-2000, at United. What a joke of an airplane this clumsy clone is.
There has to be less successful jet aircraft than that. Avr0 706 Ashton comes first to mind.
Nene Viking must have been a hoot.
They were only technology demonstrators.
I'm thinking Bristol Brabazon, Tu-144 and the Baade 152. The Mercure actually served reliably for quite a few years.
A Major difference is the B737 is piloted with 2 crew members while the Mercure required 3 crewmembers bringing a huge operation disadvantage.
On the contrary, This video stressed that Mercure only required 2 persons in the cockpit.
The DC 9 was a mere copy of the Caravelle.
Douglas cooperate with Sud Aviation, obtained all the information and severed relations, producing a copy.
The American Market was closed to foreign airplanes.
Strong pressures were placed on Airlines, to prevent the purchase of the Airbus.
Eastern Airlines bought severa Airbuses, becoming a reliable, accident free work-horse
Loved by pilots and passengers.
The Mercure as a fantastic plane -- I was a passenger of that great machine several times
@@albertseabra9226the American market was not closed to foreign airplanes. Foreign airplanes were mostly designed based on European geography and needs and so they failed to sell successfully. What works in Europe doesn’t work anywhere else.
The airliner which could only fly Paris-centered routes.
SNCF: *"I'm about to end this man's whole career"*
No, that belongs to the Tupolev TU-144.
...there were more Concords built...! ;-)
Fewer Concordes sold.
Amazing how ALL jet airliners trace their design back to Boeings 707 in basic design and engine placement, even the 727....... and IF not for the success of Boeing early on scarebus would not exist today, Boeings success created backlogs for delivery and scarebus saw an opportunity to sneak into the market........
A much more beautiful design than the 737, even though the 737 is already a great looking machine. The Caravell and VC10 are the most beautiful of their era, then there's the L-1011 with Dat-ass.
Tri-jets are God tier aircraft
THE WORLDS LEAST SUCCESSFUL JET AIRLINER IS THE DE HAVILLAND COMET 1
Vive la difference
The Dassault Mercure was a technologically advanced airplane when it was first introduced. However, the failing French variant didn't see a relatively steep market. Only a small number were produced for Air Inter. It became strikingly similar to the Boeing 737-200, having the same type of P&W turbofan engines, but the success of the 737 later saw the Mercure being obsolete and the 737 was the choice airplane for many airlines. The DC-9 also became an instant hit with the airlines and became a good selling airplane itself. Air Inter only had a handful of pilots qualified to fly the Mercure, which the airline later replaced with the Airbus A320. I thought the Dassault Mercure was a rather nice looking airplane. It's unfortunate that other types were more highly considered, putting the Mercure at a very low production level.
ASMR, the orignial whisper jet!
However...Therefore..🙂🙃
Many Americans seem to be triggered by the existence of this small, barely known French airliner. 🤔
TGVed.