MAKING LEMONS INTO LEMONADE
The French government, in just one swift blow, recently solved a whole bunch of expensive aerospace failures. They are: Dassault Mercure, SNECMA CFM-56 and Airbus. It has been realized that a CFM-56 powered Mercure could become a low-end to the Airbus A300, rescuing the belaguered consortia with a smaller aircraft easier to sold against the seemingly ubiquitous 727s, 737s and DC-9s.
To answer an official request, in 1973 Dassault proposed a variant with the CFM56 and a supercritical wing. Contacts were made with SNIAS to build it in France. The Mercure 200-1 would be lengthened by 6 m (20ft) to accommodate 160 passengers in two classes to 184, while the 200-2 would keep the Mercure 100 fuselage length with the new wing to seat 124 in two classes to 150.
So, by 1974 Dassault joined forces with Aerospatiale: Mercure 200 and AS.200 became one. Next, Dassault and Aerospatiale made a joint proposal to the varied players at European level. The same year at Farnborough Air Show, the Group of Six was announced- a new consortium to replace both Europlane and CAST with both BAC andHawker Siddeley, Aerospatiale, both Dornier and MBB, and VFW-Fokker.The Group of Six combined the work of Europlane and CAST into a new project that featured two designs- a 200 seater designated Type A anda 110+ seater designated Type B.
The Type A design became the Airbus A310. With the entry of Dassault into the consortium it became the Group of Seven. The British offered new variants of the both Trident and One-Eleven and the French offered two designs, the Aerospatiale A200 and the similar looking Dassault Mercure 200 with CFM56 engines.
This attempt at the Type B from the Group of Seven almost ended in 1976 when the French insisted upon a lead role. Dassault went to Douglas and together they studied the Advanced Short to Medium Range (ASMR). Somewhat astonishingly, late 1976 the French government and its Aerospatiale company followed Dassault. Only for the French to realize the next year that Douglas once again was pulling theirlegs... as they had done with the Caravelle in the previous decade, somewhat ironically with the same aircraft: the DC-9 !
The French trio thus angrily terminated ASMR and returned to their European partners: badly burned and humbled. They found a very different landscape. Competitors were: BAC 3-11 development of the1-11, Trident, and Avro 146; but also Fokker developments of their F.28 jet: F.29, F-70 and F-100.
Clearly,something had to give.
With the nationalization of the BAC in 1977 to form British Aerospace, the British government abandoned further development of older airliners.They joined forces with Airbus to develop an all-new 150-seat single-aisle aircraft under the program name of JET (Joint EuropeanTransport).
BAe was offered a lead role in JET with final assembly in the UK provided the British returned to Airbus Industrie. JET was made up of BritishAerospace (BAe), with Airbus being represented by MBB, VFW-Fokker,and Aerospatiale.
Hawker Siddeley, now part of BAe, led the design effort for JET and created three designs: JET1 – 100 seats max; JET2 a 136-seater; and JET3, a163-seater. The JET designs were influenced by Aerospatiale's own previous A200 design... and Dassault Mercure 200. All designs were powered by the GE/SNECMA CFM56 engine.
Early on a decision was made for a fuselage diameter larger than that ofthe Boeing 727/737 to allow a more comfortable six-abreast seating arrangement than that of the Boeing jets.
Fokker was invited to merge future developments of their F.28 into JET1.
Dassault noted that JET2 fit Mercure 200 like a glove. Well actually, the Mercure 200-1 and 200-2 evenly matched JET2 and JET3.
Both got the blessing of the group, as pulling out JET1 and JET2 out of existing aircraft – F.28 and Mercure – would allow more resources to be poured into JET3.
In 1978 JET3 was formalized with BAe being responsible for lead designand final assembly in the UK and Airbus Industrie responsible for coordinating BAe's European partners.
Meanwhile the French Government managed to coerce Dassault, Aerospatiale and the Europeans into JET1. The goal there was for the failed Mercure investment not to go the same way as Concorde: that is an eye-watering expensive commercial failure.
In the following year the UK returned to the Airbus consortium and curiously, the JET2 team was relocated to Toulouse, France. In 1980 JET2 was redesignated under the SA (Single Aisle) designator with SA1, SA2, and SA3 being various lengths of the JET2 design. This was kind of return to JET1 and, luckily enough, the former Mercure 200 was still there, making good strides. Hence it got a third name: SA1: it was gradually integrated into Airbus.
The French government, in just one swift blow, recently solved a whole bunch of expensive aerospace failures. They are: Dassault Mercure, SNECMA CFM-56 and Airbus. It has been realized that a CFM-56 powered Mercure could become a low-end to the Airbus A300, rescuing the belaguered consortia with a smaller aircraft easier to sold against the seemingly ubiquitous 727s, 737s and DC-9s.
To answer an official request, in 1973 Dassault proposed a variant with the CFM56 and a supercritical wing. Contacts were made with SNIAS to build it in France. The Mercure 200-1 would be lengthened by 6 m (20ft) to accommodate 160 passengers in two classes to 184, while the 200-2 would keep the Mercure 100 fuselage length with the new wing to seat 124 in two classes to 150.
So, by 1974 Dassault joined forces with Aerospatiale: Mercure 200 and AS.200 became one. Next, Dassault and Aerospatiale made a joint proposal to the varied players at European level. The same year at Farnborough Air Show, the Group of Six was announced- a new consortium to replace both Europlane and CAST with both BAC andHawker Siddeley, Aerospatiale, both Dornier and MBB, and VFW-Fokker.The Group of Six combined the work of Europlane and CAST into a new project that featured two designs- a 200 seater designated Type A anda 110+ seater designated Type B.
The Type A design became the Airbus A310. With the entry of Dassault into the consortium it became the Group of Seven. The British offered new variants of the both Trident and One-Eleven and the French offered two designs, the Aerospatiale A200 and the similar looking Dassault Mercure 200 with CFM56 engines.
This attempt at the Type B from the Group of Seven almost ended in 1976 when the French insisted upon a lead role. Dassault went to Douglas and together they studied the Advanced Short to Medium Range (ASMR). Somewhat astonishingly, late 1976 the French government and its Aerospatiale company followed Dassault. Only for the French to realize the next year that Douglas once again was pulling theirlegs... as they had done with the Caravelle in the previous decade, somewhat ironically with the same aircraft: the DC-9 !
The French trio thus angrily terminated ASMR and returned to their European partners: badly burned and humbled. They found a very different landscape. Competitors were: BAC 3-11 development of the1-11, Trident, and Avro 146; but also Fokker developments of their F.28 jet: F.29, F-70 and F-100.
Clearly,something had to give.
With the nationalization of the BAC in 1977 to form British Aerospace, the British government abandoned further development of older airliners.They joined forces with Airbus to develop an all-new 150-seat single-aisle aircraft under the program name of JET (Joint EuropeanTransport).
BAe was offered a lead role in JET with final assembly in the UK provided the British returned to Airbus Industrie. JET was made up of BritishAerospace (BAe), with Airbus being represented by MBB, VFW-Fokker,and Aerospatiale.
Hawker Siddeley, now part of BAe, led the design effort for JET and created three designs: JET1 – 100 seats max; JET2 a 136-seater; and JET3, a163-seater. The JET designs were influenced by Aerospatiale's own previous A200 design... and Dassault Mercure 200. All designs were powered by the GE/SNECMA CFM56 engine.
Early on a decision was made for a fuselage diameter larger than that ofthe Boeing 727/737 to allow a more comfortable six-abreast seating arrangement than that of the Boeing jets.
Fokker was invited to merge future developments of their F.28 into JET1.
Dassault noted that JET2 fit Mercure 200 like a glove. Well actually, the Mercure 200-1 and 200-2 evenly matched JET2 and JET3.
Both got the blessing of the group, as pulling out JET1 and JET2 out of existing aircraft – F.28 and Mercure – would allow more resources to be poured into JET3.
In 1978 JET3 was formalized with BAe being responsible for lead designand final assembly in the UK and Airbus Industrie responsible for coordinating BAe's European partners.
Meanwhile the French Government managed to coerce Dassault, Aerospatiale and the Europeans into JET1. The goal there was for the failed Mercure investment not to go the same way as Concorde: that is an eye-watering expensive commercial failure.
In the following year the UK returned to the Airbus consortium and curiously, the JET2 team was relocated to Toulouse, France. In 1980 JET2 was redesignated under the SA (Single Aisle) designator with SA1, SA2, and SA3 being various lengths of the JET2 design. This was kind of return to JET1 and, luckily enough, the former Mercure 200 was still there, making good strides. Hence it got a third name: SA1: it was gradually integrated into Airbus.
Last edited:
