Important British Aircraft
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No disagreements there at all, WHBM. In fact, when I referred to the Lanc's "continuation", I must admit I was thinking more of the Shackleton, rather than its civil applications, which of course also includes the York. As you say, none of those was anything to write home about, especially when compared to a contemporary such as the Douglas C-4 (Skymaster, DC-4). Perhaps the Viking was an exception, although even BEA retired theirs in favour of the Dak, which was cheap and plentiful.
If nothing else, the above underlines Britain's obvious priority at the time was warplanes, with a few unworthy
"Band Aid" conversions of bombers towards new peacetime transport roles.
However, regarding Noyade's post, I'll stick with my original Lanc and Mozzie as glaring omissions from the
"Great & Famous Aircraft" list, but upon reflection, I'm now adding the Comet and Viscount!
If nothing else, the above underlines Britain's obvious priority at the time was warplanes, with a few unworthy
"Band Aid" conversions of bombers towards new peacetime transport roles.
However, regarding Noyade's post, I'll stick with my original Lanc and Mozzie as glaring omissions from the
"Great & Famous Aircraft" list, but upon reflection, I'm now adding the Comet and Viscount!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm reading 'The Water Jump' by David Beaty at the moment (the history of trans Atlantic flight), and very interesting it is. He points to UK necessarily concentrating on military aviation in WW2 while the US continued the development of civil types such as the DC4 and Conny.
Even after the war, for many years, we were hampered by lack of investment in a civil airliner capable of comfortable pressurised trans Atlantic flight, relying on Lancastrians, and the wartime US-built Liberators. BOAC eventually managed to buy some US aeroplanes such as the Stratocruiser. The Tudor was a failure, the Britannia of course came too late, and the Comet 1 had its well known serious problems with metal fatigue. It was the late '50s before there was a civil UK contender on the North Atlanic.
Even after the war, for many years, we were hampered by lack of investment in a civil airliner capable of comfortable pressurised trans Atlantic flight, relying on Lancastrians, and the wartime US-built Liberators. BOAC eventually managed to buy some US aeroplanes such as the Stratocruiser. The Tudor was a failure, the Britannia of course came too late, and the Comet 1 had its well known serious problems with metal fatigue. It was the late '50s before there was a civil UK contender on the North Atlanic.
Er, Why do you think the Trident was called the Trident?
(Clue. It wasn't because it had three jet engines as power plants)
(Clue. It wasn't because it had three jet engines as power plants)
Was it then a complete coincidence that a 3-engined jet airliner ended up being named after a Roman 3-pronged spear?
Gosh.
Even after the war, for many years, we were hampered by lack of investment in a civil airliner capable of comfortable pressurised trans Atlantic flight, relying on Lancastrians, and the wartime US-built Liberators. BOAC eventually managed to buy some US aeroplanes such as the Stratocruiser. The Tudor was a failure, the Britannia of course came too late, and the Comet 1 had its well known serious problems with metal fatigue. It was the late '50s before there was a civil UK contender on the North Atlanic.
I believe there was a lot of investment across multiple manufacturers, but it was mis-applied and led to types that were outdated. Among other things, some of the long-haul designs were ludicrously under-sized, with new designs for 20 or 25 passengers. I think the government civil servants who drove the plan and doled out the money thought that only they, and a select few others, were going to use such services.
"Why do you think the Trident was called the Trident?"
Because it was planned to use turbo-prop engines until the office boy pointed out that the prop blades would chop the tail off.
They called it the Trident 'cos it was meant to have three Tynes.
Because it was planned to use turbo-prop engines until the office boy pointed out that the prop blades would chop the tail off.
They called it the Trident 'cos it was meant to have three Tynes.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the [civil aviation] shortfall was realised early on.
Alas, the final result was far adrift from the hopes, with the exception of the Viscount, the Comet encountering its well-known steep learning curve. The others struggled to even get near the finish line, let alone past it.
The French did the first commercial auto lands...before the Trident .. and the VC10 got cat 2 approval over a year before the Trident as well.
And weeing on another myth...the demise of the VC10 was because of forward thinking of Africans after they realised the potential of attracting the American tourists (and breaking the old British Empire monopoly) by extending their runways thus ruling the iron Duck too expensive...
But it continued in commercial service much longer than it should have done because of the attraction of the comfort provided...
And of course the RAF retired the ship last year...twenty odd years IIRC after the last gripper was scrapped in this part of the world.
And weeing on another myth...the demise of the VC10 was because of forward thinking of Africans after they realised the potential of attracting the American tourists (and breaking the old British Empire monopoly) by extending their runways thus ruling the iron Duck too expensive...
But it continued in commercial service much longer than it should have done because of the attraction of the comfort provided...
And of course the RAF retired the ship last year...twenty odd years IIRC after the last gripper was scrapped in this part of the world.
Do you disagree with my analysis of the Trident?
The Tridents were superb all weather aeroplanes. Apart from the Cat111 performance they punched their way through turbulence in a way which gave a greater feeling of security than I experienced on B757/67.
The wing on 2s and 3s was a masterpiece of the kind that HS was so good at. When trimmed to a speed the aeroplane maintained that speed throughout configuration changes (in the absence of passenger movement).
The unintelligent use of autothrottle de-stabilised many approaches but it was perfectly possible to fly a fixed power approach in turbulent conditions by reverting to basics on attitude control. The wing was so strong that the break-up contractor had to resort to picking aeroplanes up with a crane and dropping them on wingtips.
That brick s**thouse construction was probably a relic of the early Comet disasters.
It also made the VC10 too expensive initially. Sir Giles Guthrie cancelled Super VC10s for the cheaper B707's but I believe retrospective analysis showed that in the long run the stronger VC10s were more economical than the 707s which required regular part replacement. (Apart altogether from the greater passenger appeal).
So let's try not to indulge in the classic British pastime of running down our own products.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the Trident did have a good wing, but it wasn't a very big wing. The resultant heavy wing loading made for 'gripper' take offs, high cruise speed, and good turbulence-punching ability.
And didn't they suffer cracks in the wings? Too stiff perhaps?
None of scotbill's post challenges what I said. Which was:
The T1 was stupidly small
The T2 was better but still too small
The T3 was back to the right size - dH 121 size. But it was underpowered and a had a makeshift boost engine cobbled on to try to compensate.
It might have been fun to fly (I've heard different from some who were there), but it was not a 'good' aeroplane for the above reasons, which is why it didn't sell significantly outside BEA.
The 727 was what the industry wanted, and sold very well as a result.
The dH 121 might have been. We'll never know.
And didn't they suffer cracks in the wings? Too stiff perhaps?
None of scotbill's post challenges what I said. Which was:
The T1 was stupidly small
The T2 was better but still too small
The T3 was back to the right size - dH 121 size. But it was underpowered and a had a makeshift boost engine cobbled on to try to compensate.
It might have been fun to fly (I've heard different from some who were there), but it was not a 'good' aeroplane for the above reasons, which is why it didn't sell significantly outside BEA.
The 727 was what the industry wanted, and sold very well as a result.
The dH 121 might have been. We'll never know.
Have already pointed out that BEA's decision to downsize the Trident destroyed its commercial potential.
Ah yes! the wing cracks.
Have a vivid memory of boarding my aeroplane at Heathrow to find the passengers had all been issued with the Evening Standard - bearing banner headlines about wing cracks on Tridents. Felt I had to say somehing.
"Ladies and gentlemen, you will have read in your paper that the wings might be about to fall off this aeroplane at any moment. If that were indeed the case, you can rest assured that neither myself nor any member of the crew would be on board".
Round about the same time a B707 freighter plummeted into Africa when the tail fell off. There was barely a mention of that in the British media as only the 3 crew were killed.
And of course Americans rarely indulge in that self-flagellation the British are so good at - and of which Shaggy Sheep driver is clearly such a skilled exponent.
Ah yes! the wing cracks.
Have a vivid memory of boarding my aeroplane at Heathrow to find the passengers had all been issued with the Evening Standard - bearing banner headlines about wing cracks on Tridents. Felt I had to say somehing.
"Ladies and gentlemen, you will have read in your paper that the wings might be about to fall off this aeroplane at any moment. If that were indeed the case, you can rest assured that neither myself nor any member of the crew would be on board".
Round about the same time a B707 freighter plummeted into Africa when the tail fell off. There was barely a mention of that in the British media as only the 3 crew were killed.
And of course Americans rarely indulge in that self-flagellation the British are so good at - and of which Shaggy Sheep driver is clearly such a skilled exponent.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scotbill, I was never a fan of any sort of flagellation, self inflicted or otherwise. But I know which aeroplanes the industry bought, and which were considered non-commercial untouchables.
You obviously love your Trident. Cuddle up to it by all means. But don't tell me I'm wrong to castigate it as the commercial failure it self-evidently was, and 727 self evidently wasn't.
Airliners are not produced to please those who fly them. They are produced to do a commercially successful job for those who buy them. You'd do well to reflect on that.
Where 3-hole airliners are concerned, the UK screwed up, the US hit pay dirt.
You obviously love your Trident. Cuddle up to it by all means. But don't tell me I'm wrong to castigate it as the commercial failure it self-evidently was, and 727 self evidently wasn't.
Airliners are not produced to please those who fly them. They are produced to do a commercially successful job for those who buy them. You'd do well to reflect on that.
Where 3-hole airliners are concerned, the UK screwed up, the US hit pay dirt.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: 40nm east of BLL
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaggy sheep driver - Downfall of the Concorde.
To my knowledge the major Pax of the Concordes last flight was german leisure travellers:Costumers of a German travel agency wich succesfully offered an Atlantic roundtrip including being supersonic - some westbound and some eastbound (and opposite for the ship-cruise)!
Reducing from business necessity (and the following tricket-prices) to leisure-travellers (though in the expensive layer) IS a sign of downfall by lesser necessity!
Lesser necessity must be yet more actual today and Your wish of a successor to the Concorde may morely be based on nostalgia as well as the (high-)tech side :-/
As for a successor it's IMO morely the aim to show what can be done that drives the few plans until now, and one of this is extending the term to 'hitting the space to achieve less traveltime' as I remember.
But the WWW is still quicker and lot cheaper to close deals over, hence supersonic personal transportation is dead IMO!
Reducing from business necessity (and the following tricket-prices) to leisure-travellers (though in the expensive layer) IS a sign of downfall by lesser necessity!
Lesser necessity must be yet more actual today and Your wish of a successor to the Concorde may morely be based on nostalgia as well as the (high-)tech side :-/
As for a successor it's IMO morely the aim to show what can be done that drives the few plans until now, and one of this is extending the term to 'hitting the space to achieve less traveltime' as I remember.
But the WWW is still quicker and lot cheaper to close deals over, hence supersonic personal transportation is dead IMO!
Last edited by Flybiker7000; 18th Dec 2014 at 22:42.
Sir Giles Guthrie cancelled Super VC10s for the cheaper B707's.
Originally Posted by scotbill
The unintelligent use of [Trident] autothrottle de-stabilised many approaches
.
Last edited by WHBM; 18th Dec 2014 at 23:28.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Trident vs Boeing 727 and RR Medway vs RR Spey vs P&W JT-8D stories are quite complex and touched on in the current Aeroplane Monthly and the Key Trident Special...at one point De Havilland had hopes of a collaborative tri-jet program with Boeing...... a 12,500 lb thrust Spey built by Allison was a Boeing early alternative to the P&W JT-8D on the 727.... the RB141 ,which was running late 1959 was proposed for a Caravelle 8 and for later Qantas short-body 707-138s at 15,000 lb thrust (Google books)....The BAC 111 did brilliantly selling to American and Braniff but the program seemed to stall....maybe George Edwards got disheartened after TSR2 was cancelled, maybe they should have put the JT-8D on the BAC111 like Sud did on late Caravelles.
Depends on how you define important.
Tiger Moth -probably one of the best training aircraft until Cessna and Piper starting building aircraft in large numbers post war.
Auster-sold all over the commonwealth. Saw service in the military and also sent to the Artic and Antarctic with various expeditions.
Bristol Freighter-not going to win a beauty contest but designed to do a job.
Argosy -likewise designed for a purpose and in some ways revolutionised the freight industry with quick turnaround capability.
DH Dove- short haul airliner, used in Australia for aeromedical, charter, freight etc.
DH Heron- used by airlines, military etc.
HS748/Andover-used by the both the military as well as civilian airlines across the globe.
Britten Norman Islander-landrover with wings, probably easier to name a country that has not operated it.
Vickers Viscount
DH Comet
DH Rapide
DH 86
On the military front
Spitfire
Hurricane
Lancaster
Vulcan
Lightning
Harrier.
Tiger Moth -probably one of the best training aircraft until Cessna and Piper starting building aircraft in large numbers post war.
Auster-sold all over the commonwealth. Saw service in the military and also sent to the Artic and Antarctic with various expeditions.
Bristol Freighter-not going to win a beauty contest but designed to do a job.
Argosy -likewise designed for a purpose and in some ways revolutionised the freight industry with quick turnaround capability.
DH Dove- short haul airliner, used in Australia for aeromedical, charter, freight etc.
DH Heron- used by airlines, military etc.
HS748/Andover-used by the both the military as well as civilian airlines across the globe.
Britten Norman Islander-landrover with wings, probably easier to name a country that has not operated it.
Vickers Viscount
DH Comet
DH Rapide
DH 86
On the military front
Spitfire
Hurricane
Lancaster
Vulcan
Lightning
Harrier.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of fascinating comments, many thanks. I already know that Britain's aviation industry has produced plenty of superb aircraft throughout all the years of its existence, and for not a single one of these to be included in a list of the "most precedential airplanes of all time" seems to me to be wrong, not just in terms of our national pride, but in terms of historical significance for worldwide aviation.
The history of flight records various attempts by jumping from towers with feather wings, tying oneself to flocks of geese and ascending with gas balloons, and these were usually as fortuitous as they were fatal.
So I think the 4 which really set precedents, based on research, experiment and accumulated wisdom were Mongolfier balloons, Cayley Glider, Ader (or claimants) powered hop, Wrights powered, sustained, controlled flight.
No-one here has agreed or disagreed with these, but in terms of "Setting Precedence" I feel that these demonstrated (after centuries of failed attempts) that flight WAS achievable, and after these 4 any rational person could no longer deny that human flight was now achievable.
Next we have to single out the planes which really and truly set new standards and led to new ways of flying, building, controlling....whatever!
My feeling now is that the British planes on the "25" list should be;
Cayley Glider, first heavier than air machine to carry people aloft and not die! Set ground rules of Aeronautical science used Wright Brothers and all other pioneers.
Supermarine S6b : because it won the Schneider Trophy and led inexorably to the Spitfire and all the other excellent planes, British and Foreign, which used the Merlin engine (so the S6b effectively set the precedent which led to Mustang, Lancaster, Mosquito, Spitfire, Hurricane etc.
Vickers Viscount, heralded jet age
de H Comet, first turbo jet airliner, structural research and improvements
Concorde.
I think these are the 5 British/Anglo-French planes which had the most impact on world aviation, and SHOULD be included on a list of "the 25 most precedential planes of all time"
Anyone agree or disagree?!
The history of flight records various attempts by jumping from towers with feather wings, tying oneself to flocks of geese and ascending with gas balloons, and these were usually as fortuitous as they were fatal.
So I think the 4 which really set precedents, based on research, experiment and accumulated wisdom were Mongolfier balloons, Cayley Glider, Ader (or claimants) powered hop, Wrights powered, sustained, controlled flight.
No-one here has agreed or disagreed with these, but in terms of "Setting Precedence" I feel that these demonstrated (after centuries of failed attempts) that flight WAS achievable, and after these 4 any rational person could no longer deny that human flight was now achievable.
Next we have to single out the planes which really and truly set new standards and led to new ways of flying, building, controlling....whatever!
My feeling now is that the British planes on the "25" list should be;
Cayley Glider, first heavier than air machine to carry people aloft and not die! Set ground rules of Aeronautical science used Wright Brothers and all other pioneers.
Supermarine S6b : because it won the Schneider Trophy and led inexorably to the Spitfire and all the other excellent planes, British and Foreign, which used the Merlin engine (so the S6b effectively set the precedent which led to Mustang, Lancaster, Mosquito, Spitfire, Hurricane etc.
Vickers Viscount, heralded jet age
de H Comet, first turbo jet airliner, structural research and improvements
Concorde.
I think these are the 5 British/Anglo-French planes which had the most impact on world aviation, and SHOULD be included on a list of "the 25 most precedential planes of all time"
Anyone agree or disagree?!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To my knowledge the major Pax of the Concordes last flight was german leisure travellers:Costumers of a German travel agency wich succesfully offered an Atlantic roundtrip including being supersonic - some westbound and some eastbound (and opposite for the ship-cruise)!
Reducing from business necessity (and the following tricket-prices) to leisure-travellers (though in the expensive layer) IS a sign of downfall by lesser necessity!
As for a successor it's IMO morely the aim to show what can be done that drives the few plans until now, and one of this is extending the term to 'hitting the space to achieve less traveltime' as I remember.
But the WWW is still quicker and lot cheaper to close deals over, hence supersonic personal transportation is dead IMO!
But the WWW is still quicker and lot cheaper to close deals over, hence supersonic personal transportation is dead IMO!
The demise of supersonic pax travel has to be temporary. It used to take 3 hours to cross the Atlantic, it now takes about 7 - 8. Such a backwards step in technical achievement is unprecedented and you have to be very pessimistic indeed to believe it will always be like that.
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 19th Dec 2014 at 09:48.
joy ride
May I suggest that consideration be given to the B.E.2c ?
Largely through the efforts of Edward Busk starting in 1912 at the R.A.F. at Farnborough on improving aircraft stability, with the unstable B.E.2a and then via the prototype R.E.1, the B.E.2c emerged as the first British ( at least) inherently stable aeroplane to enter mass production..
The lessons learned from this were applied from then on in aircraft design. Even the Tiger Moth was "basically a B.E.2c" according to Harald Penrose.
The unfortunate later reputation of the B.E.2 series in combat tends to popularly overshadow this aeroplane's significant contribution to aeronautical progress.
Noting Dave Reid's understandable comment on the Trident name. One source of illumination is A. J. Jackson's Putnam on De Havilland p.p. 422
" To ensure complete safety the powered controls are operated by three completely separate hydraulic circuits. The triplex system also extends to electrical circuits, a distinctive feature, which combined with the three engined layout, led to the adoption of Trident as an appropriate type name in September 1960."
The triplex system was designed from the start to be compatible with autoflare and later autoland - a significant step forwards technically, as Alan Lupton was suggesting.
Incidentally the first three-jet airliner concept from Vickers and BEA was the jet Vanguard of 1956, dubbed "Vanget" ( not "Trident" ).
May I suggest that consideration be given to the B.E.2c ?
Largely through the efforts of Edward Busk starting in 1912 at the R.A.F. at Farnborough on improving aircraft stability, with the unstable B.E.2a and then via the prototype R.E.1, the B.E.2c emerged as the first British ( at least) inherently stable aeroplane to enter mass production..
The lessons learned from this were applied from then on in aircraft design. Even the Tiger Moth was "basically a B.E.2c" according to Harald Penrose.
The unfortunate later reputation of the B.E.2 series in combat tends to popularly overshadow this aeroplane's significant contribution to aeronautical progress.
Noting Dave Reid's understandable comment on the Trident name. One source of illumination is A. J. Jackson's Putnam on De Havilland p.p. 422
" To ensure complete safety the powered controls are operated by three completely separate hydraulic circuits. The triplex system also extends to electrical circuits, a distinctive feature, which combined with the three engined layout, led to the adoption of Trident as an appropriate type name in September 1960."
The triplex system was designed from the start to be compatible with autoflare and later autoland - a significant step forwards technically, as Alan Lupton was suggesting.
Incidentally the first three-jet airliner concept from Vickers and BEA was the jet Vanguard of 1956, dubbed "Vanget" ( not "Trident" ).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting about the B.E.2c and its contribution to the Tiger Moth. I did wonder about including the TM but feel that the Stampe was very comparable and contemporary, therefore not ultmately something of world-class uniqueness and importance.
My point is that we do not have to convince ourselves of Great British Planes, we have to convince the world! That's why I had to grit my teeth and omit the VC 10, Mosquito and Lancaster from the shortlist!
As the thread that prompted this one seems to have been started by an American compiling a list of 25 for an American publication, we have to convince them! Have they even heard of a B.E.2c ?!
Frankly, I doubt that any more than 3 British planes stand any chance of getting on such a list, and I am trying to suggest FIVE already! The criterion is "Precedential" (sic) so I have to ignore personal favourites, even if my grandad contributed to one of them!
My point is that we do not have to convince ourselves of Great British Planes, we have to convince the world! That's why I had to grit my teeth and omit the VC 10, Mosquito and Lancaster from the shortlist!
As the thread that prompted this one seems to have been started by an American compiling a list of 25 for an American publication, we have to convince them! Have they even heard of a B.E.2c ?!
Frankly, I doubt that any more than 3 British planes stand any chance of getting on such a list, and I am trying to suggest FIVE already! The criterion is "Precedential" (sic) so I have to ignore personal favourites, even if my grandad contributed to one of them!
Last edited by joy ride; 19th Dec 2014 at 10:25.