British planes...

[FlyMD-12]

Hi,


Wondering, Why british planes are unsuccessful??? they just sale few planes and Stop...... British are always the first in everything from the First Jet to First Super-Sonic jet... (don't tell me they are Geniuses!!! just look to Rover ;)

Thanks.

[Feather #3]

They have historically designed and sold to a UK market with the rest of the World "piggybacked." Their big loss was when their designs could no longer be foisted on the "Empire!" Why would you fly the Royal Mail in a DH-86 when the DC-2 was available?

If you consider that the Viscount was their biggest seller, you'll see what I mean. OTOH the Bae 146 wasn't a bad idea, but let down seriously by the engines.

One of the major problems is that they don't grasp the concept of designing anything for ISA +15 [or greater] operations. It never gets that hot in England [well, not till lately, anyway.]

A website I frequent [and I like English machinery; they just don't cut it commercially by themselves] has the HP Hastings nominated as "The Queen of the Skies."

My case rests.

G'day

;)

[NAMPS]

Wondering, Why british planes are unsuccessful???

Indeed! I can't for the life of me understand why the square windows in the Comet didn't catch on!! :8 :}

[Capt Claret]

I believe, and it's not all tongue in cheek, that the Brits have a superiority complex.

Rather than design something to be simple, they seem to design it to be as complex as possible, I believe to show what they believe to be their design superiority.

The manuals for the 146 were disasterously complicated and difficult to work with. The Vol 3 (QRH) was best read by an octopus, so that s/he could keep the required fingers in the multiple pages, that one was referred to.

The Americans on the other hand, know and mostly adhere to the K.I.S.S. principle.

[4Greens]

They had a bit to do with the Concorde!

[chimbu warrior]

They weren't all failures..................

The BAC-111 was fairly successful, as was/is the Islander, and if you look further back you will find that the DH-84 Dragon played a huge part in the early days of our industry.

One common problem with all British types though; they all lack adequate ventilation for the pilot. As the previous poster said, the designers never considered anything other than a British climate.

[Woomera]

Chimbu, it seems the case was the POMs invented it, the Yanks always perfected it! That is particularly the case with turbine and jet aircraft.

[Howard Hughes]

May I suggest that if it was'nt for poorly designed windows, history may have been totally different and we would now all be flying mostly British Aircraft.

:ok:

[Buster Hyman]

I thought the Spitfire was prety good.

[Wholigan]

Avro 504, Gloster Gauntlet, Gloster Gladiator, Tiger Moth, Miles Magister, Chipmunk, Dragon Rapide, Hawker Fury, Fairey Battle, Fairey Firefly, Fairey Swordfish, Beaufighter, Spitfire, Hurricane, Typhoon, Defiant, Tempest, Mosquito, Lincoln, Lancaster, Halifax, Blenheim, Stirling, Wellington, Lysander, Oxford, Sunderland, Vampire, Venom, Meteor, Hunter, Canberra, Buccaneer, Vulcan, Victor, Lightning, Bulldog, Whirlwind, Wessex, Hawk, Harrier, Jaguar, Tornado, Eurofighter, Comet, Nimrod, VC10, BAC-111, Concorde.

One or two of those weren’t too bad!, I suppose! ;)

[Sunfish]

Actually as an engineeer, my take on it is somewhat different.

My first brush with British engineering was a triumph tiger cub motorcycle. Brilliant handling, however the workshop manual contained the following words: "To change the engine oil, first remove the engine mounting bolts and lift the engine one half inch in the frame so that the plug clears the bottom tube."

I stuck with japanese motorbikes after that.

Then there was my brush with a Morris Minor and a Jaguar. I stuck with Japanese cars after that.

Then I watched Rover launch the Range Rover.......and leave it unchanged for twenty years till the rest of the world caught up. People in ski lodges used to boast about the cost of their repairs - especially the gearbox.

Then I remember when the BAe team came to town to sell us the 146 (at Ansett). I remember a nice avuncular guy patiently telling me about all the new maintenance innovations - like spare seals on the landing gear.

Then I had a look at the first prototype. I think they gave them to us very cheap.

My take on the problem is this......The British are often brilliant at theory but incapable of producing a maintainable and quality product at a reasonable cost.

No thought is given to maintenance and accessibility. Systems are either over, or under, designed. Flaws are not fixed as they appear and designs are not modified.

The reason for this is the rigidity of the British class system which is still very much alive and well (once married to a pom).

In the British firm, to "get on" you require a degree from Oxford or Cambridge. After the original and often brilliant design of the product is completed and approved by "Management", its execution is handed down to lesser or mortals to implement.

This means that while the design and structure of the product may be beautifully crafted by an expert. the design of, say, the fuel system is farmed out to the office boy because "the big man" does not want to concern himself with trifling details.

Furthermore, an aircraft or a car is maintained by a 'mechanic" which is a term of scorn in Britain. Feedback from these lesser indivduals is not required, and if they dare to criticise the great mans' creation, let alone having the temerity to suggest improvements, they are simply being "rude".

I think you will find that the great British aeronautical creations were designed before aviation became a mainstream activity that was then taken over by "proper" British managers (that's actually an oxymoron).

[Woomera]

Wholi. I think ya missed the BAE 146 off ya list!! :}

And Aussies produced some gems, let me think now, the Boomerang, the Nomad ... and ... and ... oh yeah, the Victa Air Tourer - but we sold that to the Kiwis.....

Woomera

[Sunfish]

Is it Australia's fault if the rest of the world doesn't understand the brilliant design logic behind Australian products?

:p

[tinpis]

:hmm: ...and yer know what? Wholi flown them all.

[Bobster]

Wasn't the Chipmunk Canadian?

But I digress, who would have thought of having both circuit breakers and of all things fuses, complete with fuse tester(s) in the 748. And make sure you use the right fuse tester or else you have a blown fuse. Just to finish it off the fuses were just numbered, not labeled. But it was quite a good aircraft aerodynanically.



I too thought the DHC-1 Chipmunk ("C" for Canada) was Canadian - but didn't want to dispute a Mod. :}

Woomera

[Sunfish]

I think a comment made in relation to British cars by an American "Road and Track" columnist (Brock Yates? in the '70's summed it up perfectly:

"Would you get into a moon rocket that had "Electrics by Lucas" written on the side"?

[Lodown]

Sunfish, I think you answered your own question. A good example of British engineering is/was the Dove. On cold flights, the passengers were kept in cosy, warm comfort. The pilots - like chauffers - sat up the front and froze.

The Landrover - nice 4 wheel capabilities, but leaks oil all over the garage floor.

The BAe-146 - great size to fit a good market that was well identified. Then they went ahead and stuck it with 4 engines. Maybe a necessity at the time, but who (outside England) was going to make a decent profit with 4 fans?

The MGTC sums it up nicely. Lovely car, but you need to be an afficianado to own one. Who else could tolerate a garage full of oily rags?

They're getting better though - I think. Wonderful concepts, great design, it just seems like something is missing in the middle that connects brilliant engineering design to market needs. Your explanation above seems to be quite astute. And God forgive if an engineer listens to the advice of a marketer!

Someone told me once about the difference in design between a Spitfire and Mustang. (Both designed in Britain, but a good example nevertheless.) With the Spitfire, someone designed a plane and then looked for the biggest hole available in which to jam the pilot. With the Mustang, the designer started with a seat and then built the aircraft around it.

[Feather #3]

the difference in design between a Spitfire and Mustang. (Both designed in Britain, but a good example nevertheless.

Ahh... to be fair, NA built the Mustang to a British spec.....not quite "Both designed in Britain?"

G'day ;)

[tinpis]

..and they made the engine work properly and turn the prop the correct direction.
After they replaced the Allison that is.

[tipsy]

Nice to see a Woomeri regarding the Airtourer as a gem. Mind you a couple of them Woomeri would seriously challenge the Airtourers take-off performance and solo at that:D

It's almost 50 years since the Brits had a competition to design a replacement for the Tiger Moth as a trainer. Yes the Airtourer won that competition and I do believe Henry never received the 50 pound prize money either.

tipsy

[gaunty]

"Lucas" :{ aka, semi- affectionately as, "the makers of darkness".:rolleyes:

Had one of them front wheel driven generators for the light on my two wheeler bike, you know the one that you used that dinky lever to get that little ribbed wheel to contact the tyre to spin the genny?

Care was required selecting it at any speed, lest the drag had you over the handlebars and if you weren't going downhill it required quite some effort to pedal against it. The "light" it produced was sufficient to see the front tyre but not much else and if you didn't carry spare globes.........don't remember ever using it in anger, now that I think about it.

[john_tullamarine]

(a) .. what's wrong with the Victa ? .. learnt to fly in that grossly underpowered beast ... ah ... three hours to climb to height ... five minutes aeros ... land .. refuel .... repeat exercise ...

(b) be aware that the 146 orginally started out as a twin but the engines didn't eventuate ... sat on the shelf for a while .. and then was resurrected when the little engines came onto the market ...

[tipsy]

John T, you are of course talking about the first production Airtourers with 100 ponies up front and not the later 115, 130, 150 and 160 HP with a CSU that go like er um ....................................... very well indeed.

Then again you couldn't possible be old enough to have flown the protoype (VH-FMM) with a neck snapping 65 horses under the bonnet, could you?

tipsy

[tinpis]

Im certainly old enough to have flown a new 100 Victa
Bought as a replacement for aero clubs venerable tiggy moth.
Twernt bad on a cold day bit hard to get used to the bull in a china shop noise when you did a snap roll.
And the spin?
Gawd :hmm:

[Bobster]

Was told many moons ago that the best combination was an American airframe with a British engine.

Certainly the Merlin transformed the Mustang from mediocre to a classic and the Avon powered Sabre had quite a reputation too.

[Lodown]

Thanks for the correction Feather.

Also thinking of an often used analogy to elaborate on the subject. The best farmer isn't necessarily the one who grows the best crop, but rather the one who best gets the crops from farm to market. The poms have never been good at that aspect and the Aussies have probably been worse.

[Woomera]

Nothing wrong with the Victa, John, even the 100 HP RR version. We thought it was real flash after ab initio in a Chippie!

Which is probably why the Aussie Government wouldn't support it, forcing it's sale to the Kiwis, who promptly sold the CT4 back to Australia.

Can't have a successful Aussie aircraft in our history now can we?

:ugh:

[Sunfish]

Woomera, the Victa sale was a result of what I call "received knowledge" in Government. This is a belief planted in the public service that certain truths exist - always self serving.

ie:

" There is only room for two car manufacturers in Australia" - justifies not helping anyone as they fail.

"Australia is uncompetitive in manufacturing anything, especially aircraft"

"There is only room for three publishing and broadcasting companies"

and of course my favourite one; "There is only room for one Australian international carrier - Qantas"

[zlin77]

With regard to British Engines into U.S. airframes at least the reverse happened with The Heron (Dh-114) and the Riley conversion with IO-540's......

[mattyj]

Why don't the Brits build Personal Computers?



Cause no one likes getting oil all over their desk tops!!:p

[Macchi]

The motto of the British Engineering Society:

"Why raise the bridge when you can lower the river???"

:E

[Tinstaafl]

The BN2: A superb short field machine...................that's horrible to fly.

One day a Mr Britten & a Mr Norman were having a conversation:

Mr B: Well, Norman, by the looks of things on these plans we've certainly achieved our goal of good short field aeroplane. What say we improve the ergonomics before we have to cut metal?

Mr N: Why?

Mr B: Yes. I see what you mean, old boy......

[tinpis]

This should be known by heart now :p

Time for this again methinks




Britten-Norman BN2 XL

By a well-known ‘Flight magazine’.

Undaunted by technical realities, the design team at Pilatus Britten - Norman has announced plans for the BN2-XL, promising more noise, reduced payload, a lower cruise speed, and increased pilot workload.

We spoke to Mr. Fred Gribble, former British Rail boilermaker, and now Chief Project Engineer. Fred was responsible for developing many original and creative design flaws in the service of his former employer, and will be incorporating these in the new BN2-XL technology under a licensing agreement. Fred reassured BN-2 pilots, however, that all fundamental design flaws of the original model had been retained. Further good news is that the XL version is available as a retrofit.

Among the new measures is that of locking the ailerons in the central position, following airborne and simulator tests which showed that whilst pilots of average strength were able to achieve up to 30 degrees of control wheel deflection, this produced no appreciable variation in the net flight of the aircraft. Thus the removal of costly and unnecessary linkages has been possible, and the rudder has been nominated as the primary directional control. In keeping with this new philosophy, but to retain commonality for crews’ transitioning to the XL, additional resistance to foot pressure has been built in to the rudder pedals to prevent over-controlling in gusty conditions (defined as those in which wind velocity exceeds 3 knots).

An outstanding feature of Islander technology has always been the adaptation of the O-540 engine which, when mounted in any other aircraft in the free world (except the Trislander) is known for its low vibration levels. The Islander adaptations cause it to shake and batter the airframe, gradually crystallise the main spar, desynchronise the accompanying engine, and simulate the sound of fifty skeletons fornicating in an aluminium dustbin. PBN will not disclose the technology they applied in preserving this effect in the XL but Mr. Gribble assures us it will be perpetrated in later models and sees it as a strong selling point. "After all, the Concorde makes a lot of noise" he said, "and look how fast that goes."

However design documents clandestinely recovered from the PBN shredder have solved a question that has puzzled aerodynamicists and pilots for many years, disclosing that it is actually noise which causes the BN2 to fly. The vibration set up by the engines, and amplified by the airframe, in turn causes the air molecules above the wing to oscillate at atomic frequency, reducing their density and creating lift. This can be demonstrated by sudden closure of the throttles, which causes the aircraft to fall from the sky. As a result, lift is proportional to noise, rather than speed, explaining amongst other things the aircraft's remarkable takeoff performance.

In the driver's cab (as Gribble describes it) ergonomic measures will ensure that long-term PBN pilots' deafness does not cause in-flight dozing. Orthopaedic surgeons have designed a cockpit layout and seat to maximise backache, en-route insomnia, chronic irritability, and terminal (post-flight) lethargy. Redesigned "bullworker" elastic aileron cables, now disconnected from the control surfaces, increase pilot workload and fitness. Special noise retention cabin lining is an innovation on the XL, and it is hoped in later models to develop cabin noise to a level which will enable pilots to relate ear-pain directly to engine power, eliminating the need for engine instruments altogether.

We were offered an opportunity to fly the XL at Britten-Norman's development facility, adjacent to the British Rail tearooms at Little Chortling. (The flight was originally to have been conducted at the Pilatus plant but aircraft of BN design are now prohibited from operating in Swiss airspace during avalanche season). For our mission profile, the XL was loaded with coal for a standard 100 N.M. trip with British Rail reserves, carrying one pilot and nine passengers to maximise discomfort. Passenger loading is unchanged, the normal under-wing protrusions inflicting serious lacerations on 71% of boarding passengers, and there was the usual confusion in selecting a door appropriate to the allocated seat. The facility for the clothing of embarking passengers to remove oil slicks from engine cowls during loading has been thoughtfully retained.

Start-up is standard, and taxiing, as in the BN2 is accomplished by brute force. Takeoff calculations called for a 250-decibel power setting, and the rotation force for the (neutral) C of G was calculated at 180 ft/lbs. of backpressure.

Initial warning of an engine failure during takeoff is provided by a reduction in vibration of the flight instrument panel. Complete seizure of one engine is indicated by the momentary illusion that the engines have suddenly and inexplicably become synchronised. Otherwise, identification of the failed engine is achieved by comparing the vibration levels of the windows on either side of the cabin. (Relative passenger pallor has been found to be an unreliable guide on many BN2 routes because of ethnic consideration).

Shortly after takeoff the XL's chief test pilot, Capt. Mike "Muscles" Mulligan demonstrated the extent to which modern aeronautical design has left the BN2 untouched; he simulated pilot incapacitation by slumping forward onto the control column, simultaneously applying full right rudder and bleeding from the ears. The XL, like its predecessor, demonstrated total control rigidity and continued undisturbed. Power was then reduced to 249 decibels for cruise, and we carried out some comparisons of actual flight performance with graph predictions. At 5000 ft and ISA, we achieved a vibration amplitude of 500 CPS and 240 decibels, for a fuel flow of 210 lb/hr, making the BN2-XL the most efficient converter of fuel to noise after the Titan rocket.

Exploring the Constant noise/Variable noise concepts, we found that in a VNE dive, vibration reached its design maximum at 1000 CPS, at which point the limiting factor is the emulsification of human tissue. The catatonic condition of long-term BN2 pilots is attributed to this syndrome, which commences in the cerebral cortex and spreads outwards. We asked Capt. Mulligan what he considered the outstanding features of the XL. He cupped his hand behind his ear and shouted "Whazzat?"

We returned to Britten-Norman convinced that the XL model retains the marque's most memorable features, whilst showing some significant and worthwhile regressions.
PBN are not, however, resting on their laurels. Plans are already advanced for the Trislander XL and noise tunnel testing has commenced. The basis of preliminary design and performance specifications is that lift increases as the square of the noise, and as the principle of acoustic lift is further developed, a later five-engined vertical take-off model is also a possibility."

All in all, a wonderful aeroplane.