When we had an Aircraft Industry of our own

[dunc0936]

Came across these links today. Vickers and Bristol did build some good aircraft and like the VC10 have lasted a long time if not flying passengers. Just a trip down memory lane for some. There is still a market for turbo prop airliners. Just wonder why the likes of Bea systems and Marshalls (can't think of any other British Manufacturers left) don't try and make new short/medium range turbo prop airliners today???? we just seem to have given up!!!! Most of these types were still flying well into the 90's as freighters in some countries


Vickers Vanguard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Vanguard)

Vickers Viscount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Viscount)

Bristol Britannia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Britannia)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Just wonder why the likes of Bea systems [sic] and Marshalls (can't think of any other British Manufacturers left) don't try and make new short/medium range turbo prop airliners today???? we just seem to have given up!!!!


Money
Politicians
Unions
Etc

Have Marshalls ever designed a complete aircraft from scratch? BAE Systems don't care about manned aircraft any more...much more cash to be had from building aircraft carriers and dreaming up UAVs.

Military Aircrew???

[Bevo]

Might I suggest this read:
Empire of the Clouds: When Britain's Aircraft Ruled the World
Empire of the Clouds: When Britain's Aircraft Ruled the World: Amazon.co.uk: James Hamilton-Paterson: Books

In 1945, Britain was the world's leading designer and builder of aircraft - a world-class achievement that was not mere rhetoric. And what aircraft they were. The sleek Comet, the first jet airliner. The awesome delta-winged Vulcan, an intercontinental bomber that could be thrown about the sky like a fighter. The Hawker Hunter, the most beautiful fighter-jet ever built and the Lightning, which could zoom ten miles above the clouds in a couple of minutes and whose pilots rated flying it as better than sex. How did Britain so lose the plot that today there is not a single aircraft manufacturer of any significance in the country? And what was it like to be alive in that marvellous post-war moment when innovative new British aircraft made their debut, and pilots were the rock stars of the age? James Hamilton-Paterson captures that season of glory in a compelling book that fuses his own memories of being a schoolboy plane spotter with a ruefully realistic history of British decline - its loss of self confidence and power. It is the story of great and charismatic machines and the men who flew them: heroes such as Bill Waterton, Neville Duke, John Derry and Bill Beaumont who took inconceivable risks, so that we could fly without a second thought.

[Brian Abraham]

heroes such as Bill Waterton, Neville Duke, John Derry and Bill Beaumont who took inconceivable risks, so that we could fly without a second thought.Here is Bill Watertons view on the state of the industry, written in 1955 and extracted from his book "The Quick and the Dead".

What I have to say here is not directed against any individual or firm: it is intended as an overall indictment. For a parlous state of affairs exists (throughout almost the entire airframe industry,) and members of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors (together with Government officials, Services chiefs and civil servants) must share the burden of responsibility.

An individual firm is only publicly limelighted when a particular project, after enthusiastic advance publicity, is proved a failure. But virtually every firm has its unsung, discreetly hidden mistakes.

Many people knew, for example, that the Bristol Brabazon was an acknowledged flop before it was half completed. Money spent: a reputed twelve million pounds. There was the great Saunders Roe Princess flying boat let down by its engines, and written off for its original purpose at an estimated ten million pounds. A further twenty were said to have been spent on the Supermarine Swift. It was hailed as a world record beater, issued to the squadrons – then with drawn as a failure. Now it has been salvaged to appear in the role of a fighter reconnaissance aircraft.

But there have been others, to swell to even more gigantic proportions this figure of forty two million pounds – almost all of it public money.

Yet no major aircraft company has closed down since the war., irrespective of colossally expensive failures. Indeed, they would not be permitted to, for two reasons: politically it would be unsound to throw thousands of people out of work, and it would be strategically unwise to allow a firm to put up the shutters when, in a national emergency, it would need time to take them down again. And firms know this.

Illustrating this is the case of the post war fighter which neither the R.A.F. nor the Navy wanted. But it was built in quantity nevertheless because (and the story is an open secret) the manufacturing firm told the Ministry of Supply: Either we get an order or we close down.” Blackmail? An ugly word…

Nor is it easy, when an aircraft flops, for one man to be accused as the guilty party. He is only one cog in a gargantuan, creaking machine.

It all starts when the requirements for a new plane are drawn up by the Service or airline concerned. Since five to seven years will pass before the plane gets into service, considerable crystal ball gazing is inevitable. Needs are largely determined by (a) what the “other chap” is likely to put in the air at that time, and (b) what is possible technically and what manufacturers say they can do. Invariably (b) decides the day, irrespective of requirements or anything else.

Yet the industry is often defeatest in its estimation of what can be achieved technically – not surprising when it has failed to exploit the latest in tools, techniques, materials and ideas. I remember the R.A.F. asking for a clear vision cockpit canopy, only to be told it was impossible. None the less, American Sabres were flying at the time with just such canopies – not the vision restricting hoods of British fighters with their great area of metal. So fed up was the R.A.F. about this that the Central Fighter Establishment got their hands on a couple of Sabres, took a canopy from one, went to a contracting firm and set it on a fighter – just to show that it could be done.

This is no isolated case. Time and time again I have known the R.A.F. and M.O.S. to be told they could not have what they wanted – and they seemed powerless to do anything about it. (Subsidised by the Government, the aircraft companies are on a safe thing: whoever loses they win. They sit tight – and smug.) Emasculated by safe Government contracts, none of our manufacturers has had the courage to invest his money in a much needed light aircraft. In the same way, we have no helicopter to compare with the Americans’, and no proven long range civil airliner (with the exception of the Viscount and possibly the Britannia).

I digress…

When the customer has decided upon his needs, an official specification is issued to approved firms by the M.O.S. and those interested submit design studies from which usually two are chosen. They might be radically different from each other, as were de Havilland’s 110 and the Javelin, and the Vulcan and Victor, or remarkably similar, like the Swift and Hunter. For insurance reasons (and to keep the industry busy) both firms are set to build prototypes, and the orders go out for ancillary equipment. (Here, as I have said, there is a strong argument for standardization : time and money could well be saved if a strong directive urged – and challenged – firms to wrap their shapes and new ideas round common wheels, brakes, generators, etc. – as they do engines and armament.)

At this stage, and tbroughout, payment is made for design work, materials, tools and tooling, jigs, development work, flying, modifications and changes. An order is guaranteed for production, and to the lot is added overheads – often a hundred percent. – plus a fixed profit. This is known as “cost plus” and the more the cost the more the plus. Tools and buildings are loaned or rented to firms and if contracts are slashed or “planes unsuitable the firm is paid compensation.

Within three to six months of its first flight, the general pattern of the prototypes’s behaviour and performance is usually determined. This is something that cannot be rushed, for although the customer ought to come into the picture early on, a firm must be granted a reasonable period in which to make necessary modifications: a project that starts badly might work out well and bice versa. But no more than a year should be needed and firms made to work to that deadline. At the end of those twelve months there is no reason why one of the two prototypes could not be selected – although not by examining the results and figures presented by the manufacturers, as often happens now. Instead, it should be done as we did it a Central Fighter Establishment –by the practical method of flying one plane against the other in side-by-side climbs, accelerations, decelerations, dives, tail-chasing turns and rolls, with camera guns firing. After such trials there would be no doubt of comparative performances, for even mock attacks are a thousand percent more reliable than paper figures and individual tests. Yet, incredibly, these vital and logical trials do not come until a ‘plane is actually in production.

Shortage of prototypes is another time-wasting bugbear, for if you lose one or two very special aeroplanes, as we did with the Javelin, progress is delayed for months – even years. Recently Air Chief Marshal Sir John Baker, the C.A. (Controller Air) pointed out that twenty English Electric P.1’s had been ordered to speed development. Had the new prototypes come along at regular, frequent intervals of, say, three months in the first place, it would have been something to shout about, but the second did not arrive until about a year after the first – the same as in the past.

Once the new aircraft has been selected, the other should be dropped without more ado – unless it has qualities to suit it for some special role. Both firms should then concentrate on (producing) the new plane; the winner’s design staff dealing with technical problems and changes as they arise, the loser’s getting to work on fresh designs for the future. As things stand, only the winning firm produces the new plane, while the other ambles along often manufacturing old stuff contracted to keep the workshops occupied. Otherwise, both are given orders for their separate planes resulting in double sets of costly jigs, tools, ancillary equipment and testing for minute production quantities. This is presently happening in the case of the Victor and Vulcan, making for high costs per production unit and duplication headaches in R.A.F. stores, ground equipment and training, both flying and technical.

Let the design staff admit their faults, and if too many occur, break them up and install people who are competent. Faults are common to all new aircraft, and are nothing to be ashamed of. Let there be an end to this business of “getting by” ignoring what the test pilots and ground servicing people say, and covering up. It should not be necessary to wait until someone is killed, or until faults are spotlighted in service and planes grounded (en masse), before modifications are made.

The trouble is that few British firms understand development work. A new prototype is built - and that is pretty well that. Consequently our production aircraft do not fly at all as well as they should, and are rarely little changed from their first prototypes. The users get 50 percent, aeroplanes instead of 90 per cent, aeroplanes. We could learn here from the Americans. They ran into serious trouble with their Super-Sabre, and their Convair Delta F102 was badly down in performance. Yet within three months the Sabre was comprehensively altered - given a redesigned tail, controls and wingtips – and was out of its troubles. The 102’s faults were corrected with equal hustle. Britain has demonstrated nothing to compare with these methods. Witness the Comet, for example: a brilliant conception, let down by its aerodynamics, engineering and handling – nothing like a 100 per cent aeroplane. Externally, the Javelin, Hunter or 110 have hardly altered since prototype days. There has been no wasp waisting to make them conform to the area rule and so raise speeds by up to 25 per cent.

Under existing arrangements, the people who design the planes are usually responsible for their development and, like proud parents who have produced a misfit, they are reluctant to admit the fact, and are furious when other people criticise. As I see it, when a prototype flies it should be taken right out of the hands of the designers (who thereafter become no more than consultants) and passed to fresh minds, dedicated to making the plane efficient as quickly as possible, regardless of all other considerations.

The Services blame the M.O.S. when the right aircraft do not arrive in the required numbers at the proper time. It is true that the Ministry has much to answer for, but the Services cannot claim not to know what is going on. Both the Navy and Air Force have officers attached to the Ministry, and an airman is Controller Air. He is responsible for ordering and for controlling testing and development, and since he has a seat on the Air Council, that body can hardly plead ignorance of the stage of the new aircraft and their faults. The R.A.F. and Navy may not be getting the aircraft they want – but they seem to be keeping pretty quiet about it.

These are some of the factors contributing to the overall picture of the muddle, inefficiency and lethargy which are in varying degrees responsible for Britain being almost an also ran in the aircraft stakes. It is doubted that we do only just manage to scrape into third place – trailing behind America and Russia – consider how their development had leapt ahead. Both have produced in quantity fighters which can “break the sound barrier” in level flight, and heavy bombers are in service twice as big as our largest. Soon a United States’ bomber the size of our V-class machines is to be flown at supersonic speed in level flight, and the Americans have flown 500 m.p.h. faster than any Briton, and a good deal higher. The Americans claim, further, that they have four fighter aircraft capable of winning back any new record our P.1 could set up, and knowing a considerable amount of both sides’ claims, I do not doubt the United States’ boast. We have dropped flying-boats while the Americans have progressed with advanced designs, and there is the lack of helicopters and light planes to which I have referred.

With safe Government contracts, our manufacturers lack the incentive of real private enterprise to challenge the Americans and Russians. In all but name and the distribution of profits, they are already nationalised in a way. Nor is there the incentive of pride – the pride of airmen – for the heads of the industry are almost exclusively financiers, accountants and businessmen. (One notable exception is Rolls-Royce, where the executives are engineers first and administrators second). Experience has led me to believe that heads of firms fear the return of a Labour government and the threat of nationalisation, and so argue, “The Socialists will have the lot so let’s grab what we can while the going is good”. They have further covered themselves by pouring money into overseas plans. And remember – an aeroplane factory is equipped to manufacture many articles, so the change-over can cope with a variety of circumstances, especially overseas.

One thing is certain: the firms have not ploughed back the money they should have done. A walk through a British aircraft factory and then an American or Canadian one would soon prove this point. By comparisons our firms are back-alley garages. Even though some of our groups and enterprises boast of over 60,000 employees, they are composed of a mass of small units, more often than not working against each other or duplicating each other’s efforts. There is not one firm in Britain, which could manufacture planes of the size of the defunct Brabazon in quantity. What firm here has the plant or tools to build the one hundred-plus giant airliners ordered from Douglas ? They lack the vast presses, stretch presses, milling machines, shapers, drop hammers, and even the abundance of small hand – power tools of North America, and as a result we are building planes almost identically in the way we did fifteen or twenty years ago, despite the revolutionary demands of the jet age. Javelins are built in much the same way as Spitfires, and there are none of the heavy rolled or milled “skins” used in America, and only a token use of titanium. And, this delay of the airframe structural revolution hinders and limits aerodynamacists and designers.

This modernizing of our factories is a priority task, for as things stand we cannot introduce even existing American designs – far less think of progressing ahead; we haven’t the means of transferring them to the production belt.

Not only have we failed to keep pace on the engineering side, but we are way behind on the aerodynamics which dictate the shape of new aeroplanes. For years few companies, for instance, had their own wind tunnels, Farnborough did most of this work and, not unnaturally, was overloaded, with the result that many tests were left undone. High speed and supersonic tunnels are still at a premium. The lack of these tunnels has meant the absence of much important research, and we have tried to muddle through by guess and by God. Logically, such methods are impractical in the jet age. When the United States sent her pilots through the sound barrier for the first time, the flyers knew, from ground missile and wind tunnel tests, what to expect. Our chaps still have to “suck it and see” when exploring new ground.

The Government has been blamed for our lack of full-scale research facilities, and although it is true that they have passively done nothing to shake things up, it must not be forgotten that the industry, operating on public money, has made vast profits in the past ten years, and insufficient of it has been ploughed back for this purpose.

So we see that in both research and engineering facilities we are way behind current requirements, and there is yet another factor to consider; personnel.

There are keen brains and excellent engineers and aerodynamicists in the aircraft industry. There are also many deadbeats – a hangover from the war and pre-war years; people, many in responsible positions, who are hopelessly out of their depths, and who are doing their damnedest to see that no one who knows his stuff is likely to reach a position where their shortcomings will be laid bare. They exist at all levels, from director to labourer, and they haven’t done a decent day’s work for years. With many it is politics, first last and always – not “ is this the best way to do the job; will this produce the best possible aeroplane quickly and cheaply?”, but “how is it going to affect me and how much can we sting the Ministry”?

So the good men are kept down – even forced out - by the bad. Pay, too, is generally far from generous. Only recently an employer said to me: “We’re trying desperately to get aerodynamicists, but they’ve got the nerve to want a thousand a year.” During the war the industry was able to get all the brains it wanted, and cheaply; today the mathematicians go elsewhere – to football pools firms, for example. Even a chief aerodynamicist, the man who determines, lays out and advises on the shapes and sizes of aircraft and their parts, often receives little more than fifteen hundred pounds a year. Ten thousand would not be overpayment for a first-class man. To my mind this is one of our biggest failings. Directors baulk at the thought of any one individual under them getting big money. They revolt at paying two competent experts fifty pounds each per week, yet cheerfully pay ten incompetents fifteen to twenty pounds per week to muddle along and accomplish nothing.

There, then, are the main reasons for Britain’s failure; the smugness of firms who initiative has been destroyed by safe Government contracts….Dilatory and inefficient methods and the lack of proper organization…. A failure to understand development work…. Lethargy on the part of the R.A.F. and Ministry of Supply….The shortage of engineering and research facilities…. The choking effect of lay-abouts and hangers-on….A general tight-fistedness in the wrong direction which, among other things, prevents the industry from obtaining and retaining, the best brains available. Last and most important is the failure at all levels to think and act big.

How is the situation to be remedied? As things stand no one at a sufficiently high level anywhere has the guts enough to stand up and call the cards. No Service chief has yet risked his rank by revealing the truth. Nor has any M.O.S. official. One or two M.Ps. often hit the nail on the head, but the situation demands far more than lone voices from the Opposition back bench.

I feel that nothing less than a Royal Commission will do to investigate thoroughly the aircraft industry and the procurement of aircraft – one whose findings will not be hidden by dust and quietly forgotten, but a body whose conclusions will be acted upon without delay. For the sands are running out.

The aircraft industry, the M.O.S., the Services, air transport firms, airlines, all need looking into. Indeed, so does the nations’s whole aviation policy, for there are too many sectarian interests at work in divergent ways. A strong man is required, for only by ruthless measures will things be changed. If the Services do not get what they want they must say so – and the responsibility laid fairly and squarely at someone’s door. Contracts for specifications, price and delivery must be honoured. If a firm fails, let it fail and be taken over as a national arsenal. The industry talks private enterprise; very well., let it take the risks of private enterprise as well as the profits.

There is nothing wrong with British air matters that honesty, frankness ruthlessness in the right quarters, and hard work, cannot put right; but it must start at the very top, or a lead must be given from the very top. The well being of the entire nation is above that of individuals and firms.As you might expect, he was pilloried for his views, and you probably can well guess by which cabal.........

[Heathrow Harry]

what is really sad is that you could use exactly the same words about any current programme................

[tornadoken]

Viscount was successful by any measure. Vanguard lost large sums for Vickers, Britannia for us and Bristol. BAES has made more, employed more by designing and making (most of) the wings for many thousands of Airbus products than all of some hundreds of legacy types. BAES Military A/c has done rather better on 40% of many hundreds of Tornadoes than on (most of) some hundreds of Lightnings, Hawks, Harriers. UK very much has an aerospace industry. We just don't assemble many flyaway products.

The business has changed and no point in bemoaning that. Boeing initially was to have made almost nothing on 787. But they designed it all.

Judged by return on investment, exceeding Post Office Savings Account: Viscount, Hunter, Canberra, RR Dart, Spey, RB211-and Trent families, and Airbus wings are the sole business successes of UK Aero. Military programmes cannot be judged by that single measure: posters here have heaped abuse on many UK products, praise on others. There is no immaculate case to give National resources to a product simply because it flies and is Made in Britain. If King Air (Shadow R1) and Global Express (Sentinel R1), 707-as-AWACS (E-3D) and -as-ELINT (Rivet Joint) do the job better than might a Jetstream, Andover, Nimrod platform, then...that's what this Board's Users deserve.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

tornadoken,

You said "If King Air (Shadow R1) and Global Express (Sentinel R1), 707-as-AWACS (E-3D) and -as-ELINT (Rivet Joint) do the job better than might a Jetstream, Andover, Nimrod platform, then...that's what this Board's Users deserve." I don't think that you'll get many complaints; however, I think that one of the issues being raised is that British products used to do the job better than (or at least as good as!) their US competitors.

Duncs:ok:

[rigpiggy]

I always loved the budgie"748", the ATP was hamstringed by weak engines, low speed. If you threw some 150's on the wing you would have an ATR competitor, but that boat is already sailed due commercial agreements. I know nobody likes aluminum blades anymore, but First air supposedly went thru the spare prop blades during their trial in a week

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

British products used to do the job better than (or at least as good as!) their US competitors


Long live General Isation and his busy broom! Ever since the 1940s, we have been dependent on the Spams for a good deal of our aerial capability. Of course, some of the American aircraft used over here were procured largely because of delays to/problems with potentially promising British designs, but the quality of most of the American equipment should not be understated.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I assume you are meaning civil Types in that? The Americans did have the luxury of a bomb safe manufacturing base for airliners while the war was still running. It took us some time to switch to purpose designed airliners but we soon caught up; except for production capacity.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I assume you are meaning civil Types in that?


I think my comment applies to civil and military aircraft.


The Americans did have the luxury of a bomb safe manufacturing base for airliners while the war was still running


I don't think the number of bombs falling on Britain after about May 1941 was sufficient to pose many problems to our aircraft designers and manufacturers!

[Lukeafb1]

dunc,

I don't believe Marshalls ever manufactured aircraft per se.

[Fareastdriver]

The Americans were always streets ahead on transport, even before the war. Whilst we were flying about in enormous 4 engined biplanes they were developing aircraft like the DC3. The England Australia Race had our specially built racing aircraft flying against a standard KLM operated DC3 complete with passengers. The vastly superior DC4 and the Constellation were already in development before the war started.
When the war ended all our expertise was channelled into, among others, the Brabazon and the Princess.

[Wander00]

But Marshall did design and build all the droop noses and visors for Concorde

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I don't think the number of bombs falling on Britain after about May 1941 was sufficient to pose many problems to our aircraft designers and manufacturers!

Maybe not but the manufacturing centres were spread out all over the place from the days when they were. As regards civil aviation, the designers had more pressing things on their minds; like military and national survival.

Apart from the North American Sabres and a few Washingtons, Neptunes and Thor missiles. I'm trying to think what essential military gap the Americans filled for us after the war. I think we only kept the Harvards because we already had shed loads of them. During the war, they "loaned" us some real bargains that didn't spend very long in front line service. The Fortress, Airacobra and Kittyhawk spring to mind.

[dunc0936]

If Marshals or Bea or come to it, someone decided to build British made aircraft from Scratch. (New Company) Do the people on here who are probably better informed than myself think there would be a market for it,

I doubt trying to compete with Boeing or Airbus on the Jet Airliner market would be sensible and the Jet Fighter market is to expensive and pretty much a no no as well as the Air transport market. Unless of course you are talking the over size transporter Antonov 224 springs to mind

How about the Helicopter market?? Turbo Prob airliners?? or even a replacement for the Nimrod either made from scratch or adapted from an Boeing/Airbus airframe?

Also the is only on Chinnook type airframe, is there a market for another one but perhaps for the civilian market?

Just a thought

Duncan

[John Farley]

To add a little bit of balance to some posts we should not forget the following:

We gave the US the engines for their first jet aircraft.

They asked to build the Canberra under licence.

The Viscount (and its Dart) introduced their people to smooth turbine power.

The Marines started operating Harriers in 1971 and thanks to a recent major supply of spares from the UK look to keep then in service until 2025.

The USN will be training their pilots for the indefinite future using the Goshawk.

The USN was pleased to follow our 1950s notions of the angled deck, the mirror landing sight and the steam catapult - still standard USN stuff 60 years later.

We provided a unique supersonic passenger service to the US for nearly a quarter of a century.

[Chris Scott]

I agree with dunc096. Probably a pipe dream, but if we could build or obtain a short-medium-range turboprop even more efficient, quiet, and less-polluting than those at present available, and build the third runway at LHR, we could do away with the HS2 rail plans.

I don't live in the Chilterns, but it seems to me that runways are cheaper than a railway, cause much less environmental impact countrywide, and can be useful when flying ops eventually cease. And rail travel in tunnels, or even cuttings, is depressing. Flying, particularly with Cat3B, is so much more adaptable to changing circumstances than railways. Short-haul air travel needs to fight back.

(Err, I thought this was a Military forum?)

[safetypee]

JF :ok:
The US bought many HS 125s before they bought the complete design and manufacturing organization.

[walter kennedy]

Provided that you do not need to import large amounts of expensive kit and materials, nor excessively draw skilled manpower away from other economically critical projects, a nation controlling its own economic system can keep whatever high tech industry going that it chooses - the crux is who controls the economy policy making processes.
Take the Apollo project, for example: apart from the fuel, it didn't take anything from the US's workforce or resources - the scientists and engineers were not missed from making cars and washing machines - and the money released by the Kennedy administration flowed into the economy giving rise to the prosperity of the "60's - not to mention the feelings of national pride and purpose that it generated.
It just takes the political will.
Conversely, look at the UK and the USA under the global financial system (that we are gravitating to again) in the depression of the 1930"s - couldn't even feed our children properly yet suddenly a massive arming program was possible - to crush nation states that had broken free of that depression.
Why haven't you got industries today like the aviation one you have been discussing? - go figure.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Maybe not but the manufacturing centres were spread out all over the place from the days when they were


I don't think it was the bombs that caused the haphazard layout and chaotic organization of the British aircraft industry! It was always like that, and stayed that way until its ignominious collapse - did any other nation ever fly a 4-jet nuclear bomber prototype off a grass runway (on home turf, in what was effectively peacetime)?!


Apart from the North American Sabres and a few Washingtons, Neptunes and Thor missiles. I'm trying to think what essential military gap the Americans filled for us after the war.


Hercules? Phantom? TriStar? Wessex? Sea King?

During the war, they "loaned" us some real bargains that didn't spend very long in front line service. The Fortress, Airacobra and Kittyhawk spring to mind.

Have you ever heard of:

Dakota
Catalina
Liberator
Thunderbolt
Mustang
Mitchell
Wildcat
Hellcat
Avenger (God knows why - that Barracuda was awesome!)
Corsair
Maryland
Baltimore

And rail travel in tunnels, or even cuttings, is depressing...Short-haul air travel needs to fight back.


Why? Besides, few things are as depressing as being in an airport!

[Willard Whyte]

To add a little bit of balance to some posts we should not forget the following:

We gave the US the engines for their first jet aircraft.

They asked to build the Canberra under licence.

The Viscount (and its Dart) introduced their people to smooth turbine power.

The Marines started operating Harriers in 1971 and thanks to a recent major supply of spares from the UK look to keep then in service until 2025.

The USN will be training their pilots for the indefinite future using the Goshawk.

The USN was pleased to follow our 1950s notions of the angled deck, the mirror landing sight and the steam catapult - still standard USN stuff 60 years later.

We provided a unique supersonic passenger service to the US for nearly a quarter of a century. But John, the past is past. What of now? What of the future?

We, sadly, have a (recent) history of lack of vision, lack of investment, lack of... well confidence and cajones, frankly.

[Tankertrashnav]

Nevil Shute's autobiography Slide Rule (younger Ppruners may need to google what a slide rule is!) is a good read for anyone interested in the British aircraft industry pre-war. Shute was a founder of Airspeed, and the story tells of its struggles through the thirties, always scratching around for capital. Like many industries WW2 saved the company, with large Air Ministry orders for the Oxford, but of course the company didn't last long post war. The Ambassador was a pretty aeroplane, though.

[John Farley]

W W

But John, the past is past. What of now? What of the future?

Few people seem to have got prediction knocked - especially when it concerns the future. I certainly haven't. As to now:

The F35B benefits from a flight control system developed in the UK called Unified where the pilot pulls back to go up and pushes forward to go down at any speed. Thus eliminating the need for Harrier type VSTOL skill in dealing with two levers for the left hand, so removing the need for specialist training, continuity or currency requirements and above all eliminating the possibility of moving the wrong lever and causing an accident

The F35B has a lift system conceived, developed and supplied by Rolls-Royce.

The first flight and early flying of the F35B was carried out by a former Dunsfold CTP because the JSF Joint Programme Office agreed there was nobody better for the job.

I'm not sure what it is that makes posters apparently need to compete with each other about issues that are considerably removed from the original post. I certainly have no wish to do that. None at all.

[Plastic Bonsai]

In the mid '90's whilst at STEAMY BESS at one of the annual MD's presentations the management made the point that they would have made more money if they were Marks and Spencer's or putting their money in the Halifax Building Society ( it was the 90's). To even mention that shows just how bad things had got.

It's not unimaginable for anyone to start up an aircraft manufacturing facility from scratch. To produce a ATR challenger or Chinook rival would be maybe too ambitious.

Richard Nobel of Thrust 2/SSC fame had a crack with an entry level project in the ARV-2 but didn't have sufficient financial momentum to sustain the slog into gaining sufficient sales.The Sherrif and the SAH-1 were other competent products that just couldn't get going either.

Perhaps someone else will have a go at something smaller to start with.

I saw this a while ago: BBC News - Flying hovercraft takes to the skies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8543202.stm). I thought I would really like one of those and with some manufacturing nouse and a bit of styling I could see it making a practical sports vehicle, patrol craft or even a commuter machine (I live near the Solent which would have been an ideal for commuting from the Isle of Wight to the 21st Century;). I put the idea into the suggestion scheme at work and my boss said it was ludicrous (or a not so polite equivalent) as we didn't do that sort of thing and it wasn't our market even though another branch makes some advanced aerial targets/drones and certainly would have been up to the challenge technically.

Being an engineer of sorts I would not feel confident about such a venture as I know many of the potential problems and pitfalls involved in the regulation, elf and safety etc., but who knows, there may be someone out there who is oblivious to this or has the coujons to have a go anyway.

[Corrona]

I'm sure all this 'we couldn't do it on our own anymore' is rubbish. I accept that whilst there is no political will or national self-belief we maybe couldn't, but in terms of organic talent there is no way that we couldn't. I simply fail to accept that France (Rafale) or Sweeden (Grippen) can develop such equipment organically whilst we [I]need[I] the help of Germany, Italy and Spain to develop our equivalent (and i don't mention those aircraft to get into the capability comparison debate).

Whilst the reasons for our current Aerospace industry being what it is may be many and varied, it simply doesn't stack up to me that the UK can be the centre of the motor-sports engineering world, but can't design and build meaningful complete aircraft. Indeed if the motor sports engineers teamed up with our existing aerospace design engineers and freed them of the usual political and commercial shackles I think we would all be amazed with what could be achieved.

Of course it may be suggested that we are a Nation of cottage industries (motor sports being an example) and don't do large volume production. This may be true to an extent, but I would suggest that total build numbers of current european mil aircraft are within the cottage industry bracket anyway!

We may not be doing it today, but I'm certain that if we wanted or needed to bad enough we still could.

[Heathrow Harry]

the first thing would be to create a competitor to Bae............ then we'd get some sensible pricing

[Rulebreaker]

No no the first thing to do would be have a design authority with big enough clout and experience to say no to both industry and the services when things like requirements, budgets are being set/tweaked pre/post contract signature.

We can develop a new aircraft ourselves provided we don't design a new power plant,radar, other systems, airframe ect all at the same time perhaps a few existing in production systems in a new airframe with sufficient space to swap out later on would be a gd starting point.

[EAP86]

HH: "...then we'd get some sensible pricing"

What, just like JSF?

PB "...the management made the point that they would have made more money if they were Marks and Spencer's or putting their money in the Halifax Building Society"

There are plenty of DES people on these forums. Perhaps they would like to explain MOD's idea of allowable profits is? I've seen contracts come in early and under cost only for MOD to claw back "excess" profits. This could go some way to explaining wasteofspace's investments in the USA – they seem to be happy with the idea of making reasonable returns.

E

[Plastic Bonsai]

The remark was made at the end of the era of cost plus where they were allowed to make a profit of 6%(?) and they were still making profits of the order of ...6%. I think you could get 8% at the Halifax at the time.

I thought it just showed they were not interested in what we were doing at all. Profit uber alles - which many would say is the crux of a successful business though I would prefer a model of giving customers good advice, support and price and you might just get more business though at a lower percentage profit.

I do believe we did and do have a lot of engineering talent in the UK but the reasons given in the extract from Mr Waterton's book, they struggle to get anywhere.

I was taken with his remark about area-ruling the Hunter. Kingston did that but I don't think they believed the numbers or they got the sums wrong and the changes were barely visible and the performance was barely changed. The T7 however had a higher top speed with a less powerful engine. Even the Bucc wasn't quite right and could have been improved. But there again Aerodynamics isn't a core competancy anymore even though it's the one thing that will give you the edge - you can fit the much vaunted integrated systems into any airframe big enough to fit it but they won't get you further, faster and having to turn for home from a fight last.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I'm not sure what it is that makes posters apparently need to compete with each other about issues that are considerably removed from the original post. I certainly have no wish to do that. None at all.

Well I can't speak for others, but in my case, on this thread, I went off down a rabbit-hole because the original post was of questionable validity (and relevance to this forum), but some of the points that came up from other people were interesting and worth discussing. And when the OP turned out to be a troll (can there be any other explanation for post #16?!), I don't feel bad about this!

[N2erk]

Going back a few posts: TotD - I recall the Mustang was built to British specs as a P40 alternative, and WW- Brits didn't just give the US their first jet engines and the technology that went with it,- include the magnetron and research leading to the first nukes among others.
The TF41 that powered the A7D/E and later model Corsair 2s used by the USAF and USN was a licence built Spey.
Also remember that the awesome Swedish Saab fighters were airframes with: Draken-Avons, Viggen-JT8Ds and Gripens-F404- all foreign existing donks. Dont know about weapon systems. cooperation isn't necessarily bad.

[Brian Abraham]

I recall the Mustang was built to British specs as a P40 alternativeNot too sure what you mean by "specs" N2erk. North American had been asked by the British to build the P-40, but NA said they could build a better mouse trap than the P-40. Speed in obtaining aircraft was of the essence, and NA rolled out the prototype in 120 days. I have never read of anything where the British had any actual input into the design, though the British designed Meredith radiator was used to reduce cooling drag.

The P-51H on the other hand was designed using British design standards as they were less rigorous. The designer Edgar Schmued consulted with Supermarine on the design standards used in the Spitfire, and was thus able to reduce the Mustang weight by 600 pounds. This model was referred to as the "Light Weight Mustang".

[tornadoken]

#17, JF, balance. No dis from me for UK Aero's achievements. I do dissent from we wuz robbed, Ministers were stupid, Yanks were thieves or worse.

For me, here are 2 of the finest Aero achievements: 1. the Swiss Flair Force. Part-timers, they are....amateur they are not. 2. 1942 USSR carting...yes, carting their industry on back of horse and (wo)man over the Volga and Urals.

It's not where it's welded that matters. It's how it's wielded.

PB, pricing and %. When R&D was cost plus, Treasury notions of fair and reasonable centred on return on shareholders' assets. There were always few of these in Aero, as we paid for it all, inc. the airfield. 6% (or any other number) on cost could be an infinite return on capital, cos there was not much of the firm's tied up. Production was seldom cost plus, but as standard costs derived from early batch actuals. Current practice is to try to dump as much risk as practical onto the Prime Contractor, who reaps the reward for his risk. But do shed a small tear for the Buyer, who is not promoted for bankrupting his (sole) domestic Supplier. None of this is easy.

[proteus6]

Please remember A400 A380,A350,A330,A340 and A320 Wing design and build, fuel systems and landing gear at Bristol Aeroplane Company.

[A and C]

The reason for the failure of most industrial projects in the UK is the lack of sustained financial investment over the years it takes to build a good product and a customer base.........the wiz kids of the city of London are only interested in short term investment and quick returns.

This leaves any long term product within the UK starved of investment.

I can only think of one UK mass market product requiring long term investment that has risen from Zero to a significant market share in the last few years. The significant thing about this success was that the investment money did not come from the city but from one private investor with the foresight to invest over twenty years.

Be it aircraft, cars, motorcycles or any other hi-tech product there is no chance of successes in the mass market without the long term investment of the type that the city is not prepared to make, until this short term mentality changes the UK as a manufacturing country is doomed to failure except when a farsighted individual with the money to invest is involved.

[dunc0936]

There have been plenty of really good comments on this thread, I agree with Both What John Farley and Corrona say, With regards Johns Comments I think the trouble is that we are just not very good at selling UK PLC in this country. As Corrna says we seem to have a lack of self belief these days and all you ever here is we must stop fighting above our weight or just accept we are part/state within the EU. I accept getting investment is not easy, but these days it does not have to come from within the UK. Look at Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin for instance.

I have three suggestions for people to think about or discount which ever the case may be.

1) Regional Airliner (focusing on) Competing with the likes of Bombardier

Up to 100 seats
Fuel Economy
Minimal noise pollution
Ease of maintenance
Cost to buy
Short take off and landing

2) Helicopter

Heavy Lift Capacity
Long Range
Fuel Economy
Ease of maintenance in the field
Not to over complicated in Avionics and Electronics
Aiming at use for UN, NGO's and Civilian Customers

3) Over sized Cargo

Adapted from Existing Airframes (Boeing or Airbus)
Heavy Lift Capacity
Fuel Economy
Long Range, Short Take off And Landing

With Regards forming a new company, as others have said we have a lot of home grown talent in this country and as Banks do in this country they higher in the best talent from around the world. Look at the likes of Sir Richard Branson. He did not know or try himself to run the likes of Virgin Airlines, Trains, Records, Radio etc on his own. He had the vision and either employed directors/managers that do or has gone into partnerships with other companies under the Virgin Group Brand.

Though I do not have the knowledge to be able to design or manufacture such aircraft mentioned above I certainly feel I have the vision to be able to achieve such a thing and form a company, prob in partnership with someone like Marshals or Bea or even Bombardier.

I'm going to leave it here for the moment to give people a chance to comment on the above. I suspect there must be people on here who either have or do work within the industry and be interesting to here what they think either through this thread or by private messaging me.

Duncan

[dunc0936]

Seems like I rather killed the thread with my last post, no my intention, hope I did not get to heavy for people

[Heathrow Harry]

no -we're just stunned by your optimism.................. :eek::eek:

[Pontius Navigator]

The problem, per se, is not manufacturing something that competes with something else. True Airbus and Boeing are in direct competition but when someone designs a pretty good mouse trap then that is what we should buy and move on an design something else.

Once we had the Dakota what value was there in designing the Valetta? In the case of the Canberra the USA bought and developed it; they didn't press on with another one. With the Harrier they again bought in to the project.

Should we have pressed on with the VC10 when the 707 had the mass market? Competing or catch-up are not the way to mass sales.

With the modern fighters lots of people said we should have bought F15, 16 and 18. Australia has benefited from buy the best rather than buying in to the old country. Canada too bought in and builds them too.

[ORAC]

But John, the past is past. What of now? What of the future? Maybe, maybe.....

Reaction Engines Limited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_Limited)

Skylon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)) / SABRE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine))

Pre-Cooler Validated by ESA (http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/news_updates.html)

[pr00ne]

To ORAC's list I would also add;

F-35
A380
A350
A400M
Boeing 787
Typhoon Tranche 3
AW169
AW189
Bombardier C Series...

...just as highlights. All have substantial UK design and manufacturing involvement by tier 1 airframers and a whole host of equipment and component manufacturers.

For those of you who choose to view the world through Daily Mail backward looking doom and gloom glasses, it is maybe just worth pointing out that the UK retains the second largest aerospace industry on the face of the planet, has more aerospace and defence SME's than France, Germany, Italy and Spain put together, is involved in a whole host of projects around the world and still has an overall aerospace capability matched by only a few other countries.

Just screwing together chunks of airliners and other aircraft made by other people is not a terribly high tech value add activity.

The production rates of Airbus far exceed what the rather unsuccessful pure UK airline industry ever achieved, they are churning out more airliners in an average month than the entire VC10 production run, and of those airliners the wings, engines, engine nacelles, fuselage sections, undercarriage, fuel systems, transparencies, seats, galley equipment and wheels tyres and brakes are British.

[Dan Winterland]

''and of those airliners the wings, engines, engine nacelles, fuselage sections, undercarriage, fuel systems, transparencies, seats, galley equipment and wheels tyres and brakes are British.''

A point I made to my Chinese F/O this morning when he asked if Britain still made aircarft. I pointed out that the Airbus we were flying was more British than from any other country.