Important British Aircraft

[joy ride]

With respectful and light-hearted reference to the "Most precedential airplanes thread" !

Seeing no British aeroplanes being mentioned on the proposed list prompted me to think of my own list of British pioneers. I will kick things off with a selection and reasons for mine, all are free to add their own choice and reasons, and ultimately I hope this will provide enough information for a British plane to be included on "The List".

1) Sir George Cayley's gliders.....first heavier than air machines to carry humans aloft (and even return them to ground alive!)

2) Short S-64 Seaplane: first torpedo plane, led to Fairey Swordfish whose successes ultimately led to huge permanent changes in air and sea tactics and hardware around the world.

3) Vickers Vimy, first to fly non-stop across the Atlantic, a highly important trade and transport route, and paving the way for it to be crossed regularly by plane.

4) Supermarine S6: won the Scheider Trophy outright for Britain, a great achievement, but of greater world significance as it was a stepping stone to a great fighter, the Spitfire, and a great engine, the Merlin.

5) de Havilland Mosquito: showed what could be done by imaginatively re-inventing "obsolete" manufacturing materials and dispersing manufacture, and becoming one of the best multi-role aircraft ever.

6) Gloster E28/39. A very odd inclusion by any standards, but I have my reasons! The British Government failed to take interest or support Frank Whittle's work on jet engines for a very long time. Furthermore, and quite incredulously, they saw no "usefulness" for it and did not even bother to classify his Patents. The result was that the Germans studied his details, saw that Whittle had described centrifugal and axial engine types, and decided to develop the more powerful type. Once the British Government finally did get interested they first got Rover, a car company in! The British ultimately decided to play safe with the centrifugal engine, less spectacular but more reliable with the metallurgy and technology of the time. Pabst von Ohain went for the power, but did have very short service life. Germany did beat us to getting the first jet into service, the Me 262.

However, if, IF IF our government had shown the slightest bit of sense, helped Whittle quickly and early AND classified the Patents, then the E28/39 or its descendants (like the Meteor) would have been the first turbojet. So this plane is included as an example of what Britain could have done!

7) Vickers Viscount. first turbo-prop airliner, stunned all who flew in it, heralded the jet age for passengers.

8) Rolls Royce Thrust Measuring Rig ("Flying Bedstead"): a significant step towards the Short SC1 and thence to the P1127, thence to the Harrier and thus practical VTOL capability.

9) de Havilland Comet: First turbojet airliner into service. Sdaly there were crashes, the biggest air accident investigation, long grounding, complete re-design......and even after all that STILL finally came back into service as the first trans-Atlantic jet airliner.

10) Concorde. Extensively copied and even beaten to 1st place by the Tupolev 144, but the first safe, strong, fully developed and reliable supersonic airliner.

[Capetonian]

VC-10, not a huge commercial success but surely the most graceful British aircraft, historic, comfortable, good performance, and evocative of its age.

Viscount, commercially probably the biggest success, 444 built.

[VC10man]

The VC10, a magnificent plane and if it had been made by Boeing would have sold in the thousands.

Very sad the way British planes went.

[xtypeman]

Britten Norman Islander - still being built first flight back in 1965......

[Flybiker7000]

Sopwith Triplane!
It inspired Fokker to create the renown dr1, wich again created a legend!

[joy ride]

The VC 10 is by far my favourite airliner of all I have flown on, in terms of comfort, style, advanced quality engineering and all manner of other fine attributes.

Sadly, I did not feel it could be included because it set records but not precedents, and did not really influence airliners that followed it (for reasons which are NOT the plane's fault!) We are talking "Influential" rather than favourite, fastest, best, etc.!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

VC10 my favorite airliner after Concorde. Lovely aeroplane but fatally flawed by being built to a BOAC 'Empire' spec for hot and high airfields, so too much wing (draggy at cruise speed) and excessive high lift devices (so extra weight) both of which hampered its cruise performance.

Concorde was just magnificent. The US and the Russians tried and failed, Concorde gave almost 3 decades of Mach 2 luxury travel. I don't think it could be done today; it shows what can be achieved when engineering excellence and no-compromise are the drivers, and the accountants were still in their box. Bit like Apollo.

We just don't do that sort of exciting stuff today.

[joy ride]

I never did fly on a Concorde, so it will always be 2nd favourite to VC 10. I did include it in my list as it was a real World's first, and the Tupolev only beat it by stealing design work but still failed to make a good plane!

Any more British aircraft which were international game changers/trend setters/influential?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Hmm, what defines important? I'm going to shoot for aeroplanes which had the greatest impact on the country and community.


Camel, Hurricane, Harrier - the three Sopwith products that massively contributed to winning (or at-least not losing) three wars. The last also bought us a seat on the team producing F-35, and went a very long way to defining the modern jet combat aircraft.

Concorde: trained one generation of aeronautical engineers, and inspired the next generation of engineers and pilots. Also established the paradigm of multinational aeroplane projects, and was the first true FBW aircraft.

Supermarine S6b. Reminded the country what it could do, trained a certain designer in how to build high performance aeroplanes.

Pegasus XL-R: The aeroplane that really brought British microlight production into mass production, and private aviation to thousands of people who otherwise could never have afforded it.

Tiger Moth: How many generations of pilots did this inspire and/or train?, and to some extent, it still is.

de Havilland Comet: Massively significant both for what it achieved, and it didn't. Also pretty much put Britain into the world lead in air accident investigation.

Lynx: Established Britain as a country who could on its own build world class helicopters; we may not have actually done so first, but we've been equal or lead on multiple projects since.

Hawk: Pretty much defined both the modern jet trainer, and post 1970s British defence export practices.

Canberra: Defined the first generation of jet strike aircraft. Also flew the research projects that demonstrated the behaviour of stratospheric circulation and what that meant about nuclear fallout. Pretty good post war exports as well - even the Americans bought it.

R101: Inspired a nation, then in failing ended all large airship development in the Empire and diverted Britain's design efforts towards large aeroplanes. Trained a big chunk of the generation of engineers we'd need in Ww2.


I reserve the right to edit this later and add a few more as they occur to me :)


Non-inclusions for me. VC10: a superb aeroplane, but one which had minimal national or international impact, essentially because it was designed to meet the requirements of BOAC and nobody else, compared to parallel Boeing aircraft that were genuinely designed to a world market. Mosquito: a fantastic aeroplane, but an evolutionary dead-end, unless you count the plywood fuselage of the Vampire.

G

[rjtjrt]

Hawker Hunter - arguably, the most beautiful jet fighter.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Hawker Hunter - arguably, the most beautiful jet fighter.

But it's significance? Very pretty, quite a lot of fun to fly so long as the hydraulics were working, an interesting evolutionary step between the last WW2 fighters, and the Harrier.

But I'm not convinced at the Hunter's real importance either nationally or internationally. The export sales were okay, the influence on future designs moderate, the display record similarly moderate. Was it really a game changer?

G

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Concorde, of course, apart from doing something not possible today, started Airbus Industrie. Many systems in today's Airbus aeroplanes can trace their lineage back to the beautiful white bird. Quite apart from what it did, it also first FBW airliner and first electronic managed power plant. First carbon fibre brakes, too.

TU144 didn't copy Concorde. If they had, they'd have got the wing and the intakes right. 2 things made Concorde work where TU144 didn't - the wing and the intakes! Particularly the intakes. In cruise, they provided no less than 70% of the thrust (and a teeny bit of drag)!

[Planemike]

deH 88 Comet.........Winner of the England Australia Air Race 1934, just over 70 years ago.

Progenitor of the Mosquito........

PM

[Planemike]

But I'm not convinced at the Hunter's real importance either nationally or internationally. The export sales were okay, the influence on future designs moderate, the display record similarly moderate. Was it really a game changer?

Three words........ The Black Diamonds !!!

PM

[GAZIN]

Success isn't always necessary, so I think the Comet and Concorde were certainly very important to the uk, as were the more successful Spitfire, Viscount and Harrier.

S.B.

[WHBM]

Airbus.

Sure we design and build just the wings (Broughton and Filton), and on the increasing proportion powered by Rolls (Derby), the engines. But with over 13,000 ordered, and over 8,000 now built, those big bits have done far more for the UK industry than 10 Concordes, 54 VC-10s, or whatever. The UK built less than 1,000 commercial jetliners in about 50 years, from the first Comet to the last 146/RJ.

[A30yoyo]

Avro 504,DH Fox Moth, DH Dragon,Short Empire flying boat, Supermarine Spitfire, DH Mosquito,EE Canberra, DH106 Comet, Vickers Viscount,Bristol Britannia, Fairey Delta 2, Fairey Rotodyne,Vickers Valiant,BAC-111,Blackburn Buccaneer Mk2, Hawker (Siddeley) Harrier, B-N Islander
(Collaboratively, Jaguar and Concorde)
Perhaps a blend of significance , importance, interesting engineering and national pride.

[Art Smass]

DH.125 - the first bizjet for people taller than 4'6" - and still flying in various guises after 52 years

[India Four Two]

A30yoyo,

You beat me to it - the Avro 504 must be on the list - an RFC/RNAS/RAF basic trainer from 1913 to 1934, plus the world's first bomber.

On 21 November 1914, four RNAS 504s flew from Belfort in France and bombed the Zeppelin works at Frierichshafen.

And on personal note, both my grandfathers learnt to fly on them. :ok:

[bluepilot]

The Trident? First full autoland aircraft.

[crewmeal]

I'm surprised no on has mentioned the good old BAC 1-11. A solid machine that was the backbone of short haul flying for many years with BA & BCAL.

[joy ride]

Some great candidates folks!

The real thing which bothers me is that so much information these days (books, magazines, films, TV) originates in USA and I have lived and worked there for chunks of my life and love it!

However, I have found surprising numbers of Americans have little knowledge or interest in British aviation. For example, many I have met think that only Germany had jets in WW2 and that the B707 was the first trans-Atlantic jet.

I really, REALLY DON'T want to sound like a "Yank Basher" and I don't want to sound like an over-patriotic jingoist, but sometimes they are so keen on American planes and the Enemy planes they encountered, that they overlook British planes and achievements.

These British planes and achievements then get omitted from history, other writers and producers then reference this "incomplete" history and pass it on down the generations. Sometimes I have seen US Aviation programmes broadcast here in UK which are factually wrong, and completely omit pioneering British aircraft.

So what I feel we have to do here is to select a few British planes which were so technically brilliant, or so influential or superior that we can persuade our American friends to take note of them and give them back their rightful place in History.

Can it really be that no British plane is included in a list of the world's most precedent-setting aircraft? I honestly believe that several of the planes in my opening list would most certainly have been included if they had been American, but we don't need to convince ourselves, we need to convince our American friends and colleagues!

[seafire6b]

The Trident? First full autoland aircraft.

...and to our infinite regret, a salutary lesson against tailoring what could have been a world-winner too closely to one customer's needs - who kept changing their minds about what they really wanted!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Indeed, the Trident perhaps encapsulates in one aeroplane more than any other exactly what was wrong with the British civil airliner business.

First autoland could have been implemented in any airliner, so I don't think the Trident gains any kudos from that.

Wasn't the 146 / RJ the 'most produced' UK airliner? Bit of a niche machine, and no game changer for that.

[treadigraph]

387 146/RJs completed; Vickers built 445 Viscounts.

[Phileas Fogg]

Britten-Norman Islander, 1,280 produced and still going, not sure how many may have been produced in Romania though, but, kinda knocks spots off 387 or 445 production designs :)

[Evanelpus]

Without knowing the selection criteria it's difficult to agree or disagree but the Comet and Concorde should be on that list for sure!

[pax britanica]

I think the Comet has to be on any list of precedent setters as it was the first jet airliner, but our transatlantic cousins,usually non aerospace admittedly, tend to think it was the 707. In the same way they think Lindbergh was the first person to fly the Atlantic .

Concorde also ahas to be there as the only real SST but of course it is half French so not really a 'British ' aircraft.

The Lovely VC 10 doesn't really have any claim sadly, looking nice and making a lot of noise not really counting for anything, although the Trident with its Autoland which I think was designed in from the outset, actually does-and I liked tridents anyway.

Didn't we build the first real carrier borne aircraft and carrier borne jet too.
Also the worlds first stealth bomber the TSR2 which vanished on completion of its test programme.

Joking aside I think for all its many faults , most especially complete lack of marketing savvy and fatal government interference , UK aerospace industry has made some pretty big contributions and has a decent number of firsts which seem to have been overlooked .
PB

[goudie]

From Ghengisbut an evolutionary dead-end,

Britain has had many unique 'firsts' but for whatever reason, very little seems to have evolved, from some excellent designs

ie 707 to 747

[Allan Lupton]

SSD
First autoland could have been implemented in any airliner, so I don't think the Trident gains any kudos from that.

Sorry, but no. The Trident was designed with the necessary system integrity from the outset. With the electro-mechanical computing systems of the day only fully triplex systems could achieve a provable level of reliability for fully automatic landing.

GtE
Mosquito: a fantastic aeroplane, but an evolutionary dead-end, unless you count the plywood fuselage of the Vampire.

We haven't agreed that evolutionary dead-ends can't be Important!
Let's perhaps agree that it was an imaginative use of available resources and that it set aerodynamic standards which served the company and its successors well into the "jet age" - the much-praised Airbus wing team has its origins in the fluid motion section of the Hatfield Aerodynamics department.

Not everything we did at Hatfield was world-class, but at least give us credit for that which was.

[joy ride]

On the balance of historical probability I think that the first 4 major Aviation Precedents were

1) The Mongolfier's ascent in their hot air balloon, setting the first World Precedent (on balance of historical probability) for humans aloft in a craft which resulted from planned research and experimentation.

2) Cayley's glider(s). Based on aeronautical science which he pioneered and which was studied as "first port of call" by subsequent aviators, this set the next major precedent (on balance of h.p.) : carrying a human aloft in a controllable heavier than air machine.

3) Getting a person aloft under power, and there are several candidates, my b. of-h.p. choice would be Clement Ader's Eole.

4) 1st powered, controlled, sustained flight, b. of h.p.: Wright Flyer

I believe these four are the World's First Aviation Precedents after which we get into refinement, improvement, speed, duration etc., and now we have to select the British planes of World-Wide precedent-setting importance. Sadly some superb and much-loved planes might not fit these specific criteria. Those that DEFINITELY DO, in my opinion, are

Vickers Vimy, first non-stop north Atlantic crossing, no breaks, no re-fueling.
Vickers Viscount, first turbine airliner
de Havilland Comet first jet airliner

Without the first 4 precedents, and without these three British planes I think that no list of over 15 planes from around the world is complete!


I would possibly add Concorde. Obviously it was not British but Anglo-French, so perhaps it set the precedent of multi-national airliner manufacturing, now becoming the norm.

If you want to exclude Concorde from the list:

You might argue that Concorde has set no precedent.
I would argue that Concorde has set no precedent.


YET!

[Genghis the Engineer]

So you're basically saying Alan Lupton that whilst it may have been a structural evolutionary dead-end, aerodynamically it wasn't and created knowledge that fed into the successful post war dH designs?


I have a bit of an issue incidentally with the "importance" of both the Vickers Vimy and the Wright Flyer. Both were firsts - yes. But both took the wrong technology to the limit it could go, but that then progressed no further.

The real inventor of the aeroplane wasn't the Wrights, it was Bleriot, who first designed and flew an aeroplane in what we would regard as a modern configuration. Similarly, Alcock and Brown were brave men, and it was an impressive achievement, but arguably the first real modern - non-stop, vaguelly-modern navigation techniques, enclosed cockpit, land-at-an-airport Atlantic crossing was either Lindberg or Chamberlin in 1927.

G

[54Phan]

While the Mosquito may have been an evolutionary dead end structurally, (at least for military aviation), it did prove that the concept of the unarmed bomber was viable. It was also one of the earliest successful multi role aircraft.

[ciderman]

I like threads like this. Gets one thinking. All the moans about the VC10 and the Trident (not being 707 or 727) reminded me that we British did not build a significant podded aircraft ever! The 146 may qualify but with it's shortcomings well known it was never going to sell in huge quantities. There were terrible quality issues too. We failed to go down the accepted best design route. We even tried to re-engine the Comet (sorry, Nimrod). Who on earth thought of that? Having said all that I flew the Vulcan, Canberra and Hunter. All gorgeous aircraft in their own way and true British classics.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

SSD
First autoland could have been implemented in any airliner, so I don't think the Trident gains any kudos from that.

Sorry, but no. The Trident was designed with the necessary system integrity from the outset. With the electro-mechanical computing systems of the day only fully triplex systems could achieve a provable level of reliability for fully automatic landing.

....Which could have been done with any airliner of the time! Precisely my point! There's nothing down to any unique feature of the Trident as an aeroplane that helped autoland. The Autoland engineers could have fitted that gear to any number of other airliners, and later, did!

[pax britanica]

SSD
Precedent is often but not always the first to do or be recognised for doing something.

Autoland really would only work in a Trident because it had triplex systems all over it and other airliners of the time didn't. Several didn't have Triplex hydraulics or power generation and you cannot practically add those systems back into an airframe that was not built around them.
So for all its many faults the dear old DH/HS 121 gripper did indeed set the precedent for autolands. Sure many followed but Trident was the first to do it reliably and in full airline service.

Precedent means an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. So, many later airliners had autoland and they had it because the trident provided a practical and realistic guide on how to land a plane automatically and that's why the Trident is the one that set the precedent

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Yes, the Trident was the first to do autoland, but not because it was a Trident! The 'first' you are claiming a place in history for goes to the triplicated systems and the other autoland gubbins, not to the airframe and engines that constitute a Trident.

That it was fitted later to many and various types shows that to be true.

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, the Trident was the first to do autoland, but not because it was a Trident!

Isn't that a bit like saying that the Comet was the first jet airliner, but not because it was a Comet?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Not at all. A Comet is a Comet. A Trident is a Trident. Fit either with triple systems and autoland gubbins and it can do autolands. The ability to do autolands is independant of type.

You might as well say the first aeroplane to be fitted with a radio was a landmark aeroplane.

[Haraka]

Er, Why do you think the Trident was called the Trident?
( Clue . It wasn't because it had three jet engines as power plants)
Or later four for that matter.

[Allan Lupton]

SSDriver
...Which could have been done with any airliner of the time! Precisely my point! There's nothing down to any unique feature of the Trident as an aeroplane that helped autoland. The Autoland engineers could have fitted that gear to any number of other airliners, and later, did!

Mr Driver, I think you are being a little disingenuous here and should read what you quoted before stating what I've underlined above.
No airliner of the time had fully triplex systems and to retro-fit them would have been difficult, going on impossible. Just to give you (and other young people here) a feeling for what was necessary to achieve a provable level of certificable reliability, we had three powerplants each driving an electrical system and an hydraulic sustem with an air-operable APU available to cater for a main engine failure case. There were also power cross-feeds to power an electrical system if an alternator/CSD failed or a hydraulic system if an engine-driven pump failed. That's only the broad brush.
You happily say "fit either with triple systems etc." but have you ever tried to design something, in the 1960s or now, which would get that system integrity on aeroplanes designed to not be like that, in particular twin-engined aeroplanes or those with manual reversion flying controls.

I shall stop soon as there seems no point in my writing the same thing again.

ETA perhaps you will accept that, like the Bellman, "what I tell you three times is true"

[Genghis the Engineer]

That certainly marks the Trident down as an Important Aircraft - a bit of history I was unfamiliar with, but basically you are saying that it defined the systems configuration of the modern airliner?

G

[seafire6b]

Haraka

I was under the distinct impression, albeit not a first-hand recollection, that the Airco/DH 121 was named after BEA asked for suggestions (perhaps even in a BEA employees' competition?) and I remember being later told that an overwhelming majority wanted it called Trident.

However, I'll happily accept that the actuality might have been something completely different!

[VictorGolf]

How about the Dove? Innovative use of adhesives in assembly and early in the commuter/business/commuter world. With American engines and aero updates it could still be rivalling the Kingair.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Haraka - it was 5 engines. 3 Speys, a boost engine, and an APU. And it was called the dH 121 before it was called 'Trident'.

Mr Lupton. Thanks for the info. It adds nothing to the argument however - you are talking aircraft systems, and from what you describe it's a system that relies on 3 of everything. So it's not the system Concorde or a twin-engined airliner could use such as are most of today's, so probably doesn't even count as the aeroplane that laid down systems design in modern airliners.

So it was just the first fitted for auto land. Not a landmark, especially as that system seems to be Trident-specific.

The aircraft (if there is one) that defined modern airliner systems was probably Concorde, with fly by wire and full authority electronic engine control (full power plant control actually, including intakes and nozzles). Oh, and autoland!

Thanks for this, though:

...you (and other young people here):ok:

[Capetonian]

I would agree that the BAC 1-11 deserves mention. It was sold to operators all over the world, and had the big advantage that it was completely autonomous in that it needed no airfield support, making it ideal for 'milk-run' type flights were fast turnround was important.

244 were built and its only significant competition in short/medium haul was the Caravelle.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I remember (just!) when the 1-11 was introduced. It was known as 'The Bus-Stop Jet' because it needed no airfield support. Why was it not more successful? Especially in the early years before the 737 came onto the market?

[joy ride]

I am fascinated in aviation history and engineering but not particularly expert on either so I am grateful for the fascinating discussion and explanations here.

I am now fully convinced that Concorde should be on the list, Anglo-French or not, I admit I always hoped that I could be persuaded!

I feel that perhaps the Vimy should not be on the list if that excludes the Trident and/or 111, so which one, or both of them do we add to a list of the world's 25 most precedent-setting planes?

So I now have Cayley's glider(s) in my non-negotiable FIRST FOUR precedent-setters, (which no-one has challenged) then:

Viscount
Comet
Trident and/or 111
Concorde

So with your comments I am now proposing that 5 or 6 British planes belong in Stepwilk's list of the world's 25 "Most precendential airplanes of all time".

Do we all feel honestly that Britain (with France in one case!) has contributed THAT many, when you have to consider some of the fine planes in Stepwil's opening list?

And if so, what can we say and do to amicably persuade Stepwill and others to start taking an interest in our achievements and including these five or six internationally important British and Anglo/British planes in their lists, books, TV shows, films etc..?

[Noyade]

G'day Joy Ride.

These British planes and achievements then get omitted from historyJust curious, what British aircraft in particular do you think have been omitted from history?

[seafire6b]

Aah, de Havilland - and nostalgia's still what it used to be!

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1959/1959%20-%203072.PDF

Some might find this advertisement interesting, from "Flight" magazine dated November 1959. At that stage the aircraft hadn't been named, and indeed, it seems nor had the RB.163 turbojet, later called the Spey.

Also, the statement claiming that "exterior noise no more than present propeller-driven short-haul liners" is, to say the least, somewhat debatable!

[RedhillPhil]

Wasn't the Hurricane the first British monoplane eight gun fighter?
Does that make a precedent?

[WHBM]

I would agree that the BAC 1-11 deserves mention. It was sold to operators all over the world, and had the big advantage that it was completely autonomous in that it needed no airfield support, making it ideal for 'milk-run' type flights were fast turnround was important.

244 were built and its only significant competition in short/medium haul was the Caravelle.
I remember (just!) when the 1-11 was introduced. It was known as 'The Bus-Stop Jet' because it needed no airfield support. Why was it not more successful? Especially in the early years before the 737 came onto the market?Actually it wasn't that much of a sales success, apart from right at the start selling to a couple of mainstream US airlines, who sold them off quite quickly, and BEA's final purchase of 18 of the stretched 500 series. Everything else was pretty small orders to secondary carriers that must have absorbed a huge Sales & Marketing cost for each one. The 500 series stretch wasn't even submitted to the FAA for certification in the US (which is why there was never a US-registered 500 series, even secondhand).


This is in contrast to the Caravelle which was sold to a significant number of the European national mainstream carriers of the time.

The principal competitor was the DC-9, which came along well before the 737 and with two engines/two crew was right in the same market. The first One-Eleven was delivered in March 1965, to Braniff, being aircraft No 17, which in itself is indicative of some development inefficiencies. Delta received the first DC-9 just six months later, and the type swept the secondary US airlines.

Also, the statement [about the Trident] claiming that "exterior noise no more than present propeller-driven short-haul liners" is, to say the least, somewhat debatable!
That is of course a comparison with the Vanguard, which was the exact opposite of its "Whispering Giant" Britannia competitor of the same era. Certainly Vanguards in the cruise London to Belfast were audible from the ground passing overhead me, and the Wallasey VOR, mid-flight in the 1960s-70s, and I've read that on quiet days when they were taxying at Ringway they could be faintly heard in Stockport town centre. Being in Edinburgh's old Turnhouse terminal when a Vanguard was manoeuvring outside was a thundering experience. Don't know what it was that did this, probably the square-end props (De Havilland I believe, in contrast to the Brit's Dowty's).

[Flybiker7000]

I reckon the. Concorde to be a airliner-type business-jet!
The main group of Concorde costumers were businessmen with the task of getting a signature in ink on the other side of the Atlantic, and possible be back same day.
IMO it wasn't the planes first(!) crash and following 9/11 that slaughtered the Concorde, it was the web! The latter years of the Concorde, did the web evolve to handle contracts and payment, making fast business-trips over the Atlantic obsolete, and it's a tell tale sign of the planes downfall that the passengers at the last trip was leisure travellers combining an Atlantic cruise with the experience of supersonic flight. The Brits should have realised that before they used money on changing the fatal details and modernizing: They might have been dissapointed if 9/11 hadn't come first :-|
Last argument: Does anybody really miss the supersonic service of the Concorde today? I dont think so!

[chevvron]

SSD: not all Tridents had 5 engines, only the Mk3.
When I was at Glasgow, they seemed to take great delight lighting the booster engine as they passed the control tower when taxying for 24 (now 23). Sometimes you would get just a plume of vaporised fuel, other times a tremendous gout of flame would erupt!

[Krystal n chips]

So far, no mention of the Avro 748.

A rugged, reliable a/c which sold very well and is still flying today. However, I understand one of it's distinguishing and unsung features was in the structural design with a change from "safe life" to "fail safe".

That change alone should warrant a mention.

We won't mention the derivatives however, the last one in particular, unless we are discussing " How to build a heap of junk and then wonder why it doesn't sell".

You could hear a Vanguard, and indeed quite a few a/c of that era taxiing at MAN ( depending on the wind direction ) quite easily in the surrounding districts.

The 1-11. Whilst people go dewy eyed, because is it was British, over the type, the reality of operating the heap was it's downfall. The Spey wasn't exactly fuel efficient, operating in ambient temps, with a full load was "interesting" to watch, and then there was the little matter of routine maintenance.

The last was a time / manpower eater. Simple and routine tasks were never such.

The captive nut / QRF and access panels remained a mystery, if not an anathema, to UK designers for many years as did the concept of Customer Support.

[treadigraph]

Phileas, the Islander is indeed a great success in terms of airframes built and longevity, but I'd hesitate to describe it as an airliner. "Mini Airliner" is one the many roles undertaken by a light utiity transport. :ok:

[Capetonian]

The Vanguard in its passenger configuration was loved by the dental profession. If you had fillings at the beginning of a flight, they'd rattled and vibrated out by the end.

[joy ride]

Noyade, good morning Sir!

In my time in USA I have encountered all sorts of people, magazines, books, films and TV programmes concerning aviation, and in UK we are now very dominated by information originating in the USA.

I have gradually come to notice that over there there is a strong interest and pride in their own aircraft....this is quite right and normal! There is also a strong interest in "Enemy" aviation....the Me 262s, the Migs and Zeros they encountered, and other such things. These twin areas of interest are frequently discussed, written and broadcast about, and now these publications and broadcasts are becoming as or more common in UK than home-produced ones.

The interest in "Us vs Them" is perfectly normal in all countries, here we talk "Spits vs 109s"!

However, I have now very often noticed that British aviation gets little or no mention, and I feel this is not fair. Once an article or TV show is made that omits important British aircraft, then in time it becomes "source material" for the next ones, and with each repeat British aviation seems to get squeezed out.

Recently a thread was posted "Most Precedential airplanes of all time" by Stepwilk who is compiling a list of 25 for a US publication, but has not (so far) included any British aircraft.

I have sent him or her a friendly PM stating roughly what I am saying in this thread that I started, and I hope that on this thread we can get a short-list of British (or Anglo-British) planes that SHOULD be on the list.

Trying not to be too full of "National Pride" I do honestly believe that AT LEAST one British aircraft MUST be on any fair list of the most precedential 25 aircraft of all time, and I hope contributors to this thread can help to make an emphatic case for this!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

SSD: not all Tridents had 5 engines, only the Mk3.

I'm well aware of that, as was the original poster I was answering (who said '4 engines') - the observations were with reference to later Tridents (the 3s) if you care to read the relevant posts.

IMO it wasn't the planes first(!) crash and following 9/11 that slaughtered the Concorde,

There was only 1 crash ever, at Paris 2000. And that wasn't the aeroplane's fault.

it's a tell tale sign of the planes downfall that the passengers at the last trip was leisure travellers combining an Atlantic cruise with the experience of supersoniske flight. The Brits should have realised that before they used money on changing the fatal details and modernizing: They might have been dissapointed of 9/11 hadn't come first :-|

I don't understand what you're saying here. Could you clarify it please? The last-flight pax were not on a cruise - did you mean the Paris crash pax?


Last argument: Does anybody really miss the supersonic service of the Concorde today? I dont think so!

Oh yes! A great many! Not so much that Concorde itself (almost 3 decades in service at retirement) should still be in service, but a modern descendant!

[scotbill]

None of you seem to remember that the Trident was the successful solution to the conundrum of the time that 4 engines were too many and 2 were considered too few. As I recall one of BEA's technical pilots was influential in suggesting three engines would be the perfect solution for BEA's problems.

De Havilland developed the concept and Boeing took a keen interest and requested a vist with a view to collaboration.

DeH showed them round the DH121 project and then sat back to await the return invitation to Seattle.

Surprise, surprise - that never came and suddenly there was a Boeing project of almost identical specification which became the 727.

Sadly, in one of the recessions of the late 50s, BEA panicked and cut back the spec of airframe and engines to tailor the aeroplane to the average BEA sector. This made it deeply unattractive to other airlines while the 727 prospered. The Trident 3b was the closest to the orignal DH121 - much too late.

Finally, many DH/HS designers left to join Boeing.
Interestingly Flight in the 60s published an HS design concept for a twin-engine underwing aeroplane which was within a whisker of the dimensions of the 757 - including the low possition of the horiizontal stabiliser which was only finalised in the 80s for the 757.

So, arguably, the DH121 was the most influential British aeroplane of all time!

[Noyade]

Hi Joy Ride.omits important British aircraftYes, I'm interested in this. What's missing in say, publications, that particularly irks you? I'm looking at British and American coffee table "Great/Famous" style books and yes, the lists differ greatly depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on, but as you said, that's to be expected.

For example, here's an American "Great" aircraft content page. What's missing, that really hurts your pride?...

http://i62.tinypic.com/2eakweo.jpg

[treadigraph]

Noyade, if I'm not mistaken that's the contents list from an American book written by the very British James Gilbert while he was an editor at Flying! :ok:

[joy ride]

Noyade, I am not sure how old that list is, but feel that it is not current. I feel that there is a progressive "forgetting" over the generations and it seems to be to be a growing trend. your list does not list Comet. Also it lists the B17 but not the Lancaster which a far greater bomb carrier in the European theatre in WW2.

As examples, in America I have frequently encountered the "fact" that only Germany had jets in WW2 and that they invented jets, and more of them seem to know of von Ohain than Whittle. The 707 is frequently described as the first jet airliner, Linderberg was the first to cross the North Atlantic non-stop (omitting the "solo"!) and have little or no knowledge of Alcok and Brown's flight nearly a decade earlier.

I honestly believe that when I read a British magazine, e.g. Aeroplane I learn about planes from all around the world. There is a weighting towards British planes, but I have seen plenty of features and Databases on a very wide range of American military and civilian aircraft. I have read various equivalents in USA, mostly Smithsonian Air and Space, but I have to say that in the great deal I have read and watched over there there is a large amount of American and Enemy coverage but vastly less about British planes than we learn about theirs.

This is partly because USA is a large wealthy country with lots of extremely talented people and an ENORMOUS contribution to aviation, and only a fool would try to deny this, Britain's contribution, for all sorts of reasons, is considerably less, and over there our efforts seem to be regarded as "local interest only".

Finally, just to illustrate what I am starting notice, I have been Christmas shopping a few times and have various children to buy presents for. Toy shops seem to be chock-full of toy/model American planes, trucks, trains, buses, cars etc.. This year I have seen stacks of F16s, and stealth planes, P51s, Peterbilt and International Trucks, Boeing airliners, you name it!

I really don't want to sound anti-American, and I understand that they have so much aviation to choose a "Top" list from, but when it comes to a "World" list it is rare to see much or any mention of British examples, but I do hope to be convinced otherwise!

[seafire6b]

Noyade

I reckon the list's missing the Lanc (being another design-platform that continued for decades) and the Mosquito, a true MRCA. Indeed as a bomber, the Mozzie compared very favourably with (or, contentiously, better than?) the B-17 in terms of payload and range.

[Discorde]

Does the Miles M52 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_M.52) qualify? It would have been the world's first supersonic aircraft but the government (typically) cancelled the project. To compound their crime they then gave the US the data that Miles had accumulated during the project, which turned out to be very useful to Bell, who were having trouble with their own supersonic project.

The Vanguard in its passenger configuration was loved by the dental profession. If you had fillings at the beginning of a flight, they'd rattled and vibrated out by the end.

A flavour of what the Vanguard was like to fly (in its freighter version) can be found in the novel 'The Damocles Plot'.

[joy ride]

Scotbill: your mention of the Trident/727 non-reciprocal visit:

I first heard of this from an American airline Captain but was not sure if it was really true. it seems plausible to me, but is this actually a verified fact or an aviation "urban myth"? Another case of British "Fair Play" going too far?!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The dH 121 debacle is a sad tale as has been recounted. What's not yet been mentioned is the ludicrous downsizing demanded by BEA (and agreed to by dH) meant that RR ceased development of the Medway engine that would have powered it.

Anyone know if the Medway would have found a market beyond the 121 had RR continued with it (other than the Trident 3, of course, which it would have suited well!)?

[seafire6b]

A pal of mine working for BEA had to conduct a profitability analysis on the Merchantman. At the end of some months with calculator and paperwork, he then had the unhappy task of advising his bosses it required an average payload of 109% before the red ink could be put aside!

I think that figure actually reflected BEA's very high operating costs at the time. Subsequent Vanguard/Merchantman operators, with undoubtedly lower cost overheads, seemed able make money with the such freighters for years afterwards.

[joy ride]

Somewhat off topic, but I had never heard of the RR Medway! In fact, having grown up in Kent I always wondered why our river's name had been ignored by RR!

Now I live in London and wonder if there ever was or will be an RR Thames or Deptford Creek!

[seafire6b]

scotbill

I too had heard the stories about the 121 visit not being returned. Although the supposition does align with the then very "British" way of doing business, passing on plans and ideas to the competition - how many times have we seen that? Perhaps someone with connections from around Hatfield could throw some light on it?

So meanwhile, regarding your theory:

So, arguably, the DH121 was the most influential British aeroplane of all time! Yep, I'll go along with that!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

So, arguably, the DH121 was the most influential British aeroplane of all time!

I think the fact that it was never built disqualifies it. ;)

---------------------------------------------------

RR Medway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Medway

[astir 8]

There's been no mention of the aircraft which probably introduced more Brits alive today, including many of you lot to the joys of piloting:-

The Slingsby T31 Cadet Mk III and the T21 Sedbergh:D:D:D

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Yep, for me it was the glorious summer of 1976, Nympsfield, and a T21 (and a Bocian, but The Barge was my very first!).

[scotbill]

SS driver

I think the fact that it was never built disqualifies it.

From your sniping at the Trident can I assume you are an un-reconstructed ex-BOAC man?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Scotbill - You know what they say about 'Assume' on all the cheap management courses. I'm afraid you are guilty.

Sniping? No, I tell it as I find it. The Trident was an awful customer-led emasculation of what could have been a very good aeroplane (dH 121). I have no affiliation to any airline never having worked in the industry.

Do you disagree with my analysis of the Trident?

Trident 1; as above, stupidly small, and a 'gripper'.

Trident 2; about as good as the Trident got. But still too small for the market by far.

Trident 3; the right size at last, but too late and an abortion of an aeroplane underpowered with Speys so supplemented by a hopelessly unreliable boost engine.

Not really a proud record, is it?

[Haraka]

SSD wroteYep, for me it was the glorious summer of 1976, Nympsfield, and a T21 (and a Bocian, but The Barge was my very first!).

Sailplanes. So that might possibly explain your confusion regarding my use of jet engine terminology in my posting.

Why do you think the Trident was called the Trident?
( Clue . It wasn't because it had three jet engines as power plants)
Or later four for that matter.

In aviation engine terminology this differentiates the use of an engine from that of an Auxiliary Power Unit ( APU), which by coincidence was what my father was responsible for on Trident whilst with Bristol Siddeley Engines in around 1965.

[WHBM]

I think the Boeing visit to DeH prior to the 727 is fairly widely known. However, you wouldn't get anything significant out of one visit. Furthermore, with Rolls deciding not to go ahead with the right engine, and DeH downsizing the airframe, what is left that they could have taken ? Likewise, the Trident was generally known as the "Gripper" due to its ground-gripping take-off performance. This was certainly not true of the 727, with its novel high-lift wing devices that got it in/out of short fields previously non-jet (the BEA Trident generally operated to European major airports which had adequate runways).

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Haraka. Confusion? Get real!

What have you got against pilots who first flew gliders? I started in '76 on gliders then went to powered aircraft 2 years later (I won't say 'progressed', as I learned an awful lot in unpowered flight). Many good stick & rudder pilots began on gliders.

Don't knock it unless you've tried it (I'm guessing you haven't?).

PS - I agree with WHBM; I don't think the 727 owes anything to the Trident. It's what the Trident should have been and wasn't. It seems the world's airline procurement folk thought so to.

.

[Haraka]

SSD
I read with amusement your attempted engagement with Alan Lupton whose informed opinion you chose to decry. I will ignore your Glider Pilots comment apart from to state that I do include a Silver "C" somewhere away among my flying qualifications.
Alan finally got exasperated with you and quipped:

I shall stop soon as there seems no point in my writing the same thing again.

I'll follow his good example on this one.

Haraka Out.

[WHBM]

I reckon the list's missing the Lanc (being another design-platform that continued for decades) and the Mosquito, a true MRCA. Indeed as a bomber, the Mozzie compared very favourably with (or, contentiously, better than?) the B-17 in terms of payload and range.
The four-engine bombers, Avro Lancaster and Handley Page Halifax (I'm adding that in, in part, due to Mr WHBM Senior being WW2 Halifax aircrew ), seemingly very good examples of contemporary design, were unfortunately NOT followed by worthwhile civilian success derivates. The HP Hermes that was, essentially, a Halifax with a new fuselage, was a real crock, 20 for BOAC that they got rid off as soon as they could, that flew with a ludicrous tail-low inefficient attitude which points to an absolute Design 1.01 blunder at Radlett (the prototype crashed two minutes into its maiden flight, killing the senior HP test crew, due to a major control surface mis-design), while the Avro Tudor, again a Lanc with a new civvy fuselage, was a worse fiasco that never really got any airline acceptance, despite many versions and a huge number being built, part-built, or more sensibly cancelled before delivery. Oh dear.

The Mozzie was indeed brilliant. Two big Merlins strapped to a grand piano :)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Haraka, I do hope your oxygen supply is adequate up there on that very high horse.

Bye!

[seafire6b]

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!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

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.

[DaveReidUK]

Er, Why do you think the Trident was called the Trident?
(Clue. It wasn't because it had three jet engines as power plants)I'm confused.

Was it then a complete coincidence that a 3-engined jet airliner ended up being named after a Roman 3-pronged spear?

Gosh.

[WHBM]

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.
Actually the shortfall was realised early on. Civil flying was allowed to restart in the UK in January 1946, and just three months later the first of a quite sizeable Lockheed Constellation fleet was delivered, brand new, to BOAC. Lancastrians and flying boats (of which a whole new fleet was built immediately post-war) were for Colonial routes which had shorter stages.

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.

[oxenos]

"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.

[seafire6b]

Actually the [civil aviation] shortfall was realised early on.Full credit should be given to the wartime UK government in foreseeing the post-war situation and, amidst the depths of hostilities, forming the Brabazon Committee, as early as December 1942.

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.

[blind pew]

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.

[scotbill]

Do you disagree with my analysis of the Trident? I certainly do - but with only ten years experience of the various marks what would I know?

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.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

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.

[scotbill]

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.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

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.

[Flybiker7000]

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!

[WHBM]

Sir Giles Guthrie cancelled Super VC10s for the cheaper B707's.Not quite. The big batch of BOAC 707-436s were delivered mostly in 1960, coincident with the last of the Comet 4s, with a few a couple of years later. Vickers hadn't even started cutting metal on the first VC10 when these 707s were mostly all in service; not until 1964 did Sir Giles cut the Super VC10 order back from 35 to 17, and the big Boeing order a couple of years later, in 1966, was actually for the first 747s. Meantime BOAC just bought a few of the 707 freighter version, with Pratt engines, in penny numbers, one or two every couple of years. Vickers developed a Combi VC10, but never developed a full freighter version with the strengthened floor throughout. The first standard VC10 came on line in 1964, and the first Supers were delivered in 1965, it being this batch which had been cut back. Incidentally, Sir Giles, onetime test pilot, captained a number of the VC10 proving flights himself; I'm not aware he was ever current on the 707. But he did know a financial basketcase when he saw one (BOAC at the time). He talked the government into funding the huge depreciation loss made by the retirement of the Britannias and Comet 4s after only a few years of service.



The unintelligent use of [Trident] autothrottle de-stabilised many approachesAh yes, those approaches over West London. Power up - throttle back - power up - throttle back ...... when the 757 came along it was a surprise that automatic approaches didn't have to be like that. Scotbill, I'm sure that wasn't your handling up front !


.

[A30yoyo]

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.

[Stationair8]

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.

[joy ride]

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?!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

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)!

Flybike, your knowledge is WRONG! I remember the last Concorde commercial flight. Its arrival (along with 2 others immediately before it), televised live from Heathrow, was the last scheduled NY to Lon service flown by Concorde Chief Pilot, Mike Bannister. Nothing at all to do with German tourists! As I said before, you are almost certainly describing the ill fated Paris accident flight.

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!

What business use reduction? Apart from those grabbing the last available flights after the end of service was announced, Concorde ticket sales were consistently about 85% to the business sector.


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!

I can't make much sense of this. But what I can make out of it leads me to suspect that if you were in charge of roads we'd still have the man with a red flag preceding every vehicle.

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.

[Haraka]

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" ).

[joy ride]

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!

[CISTRS]

As a schoolboy, I remember the Fairey Delta 2 winning the World Speed Recordin 1956, raising it to 1,132 mph.

Other British aircraft meriting a mention would be
The Whispering Giant - Bristol Britannia.
Blackburn Beverley - Giant heavy transport.

[blind pew]

Trident 3 wing cracks...
The big boss was once asked about cross wing landing techniques...which one did he recommend of the two....reply was fly it into the runway ...the undercarriage is strong enough....what was christened "Charlie's tent peg landing technique"...IMHO...there lies the problem

Autothrottle....BEA had this strange idea that the flying pilot shouldn't operate his own throttles and that Auto-throttle must be used when available (except eng out)....after I left and some "notable aviators" had retired the procedure was changed.
There is one gentleman who has operated the Vanguard, VC10 and concorde as well as doing a few circuits in a T1...he told me that the crew were amazed that he could handle his own throttles.
Concorde...BOAC had to get exemption from the CAA to operate out of JFK as the procedure called for a turn below 500ft which was forbidden. The rule was apparently introduced by Dai Davies who didn't cope very well with a departure procedure with an early turn on the Trident sim.

The Super VC 10 was a beautiful aircraft...go to Duxford and have a look into the cockpit (there is a Trident and a Concorde there to)...gigantic and with our own loo although it wasn't always available as on one trip someone bought a large cane swinging chair in Bangkok as Sylvia Crystal played in in the first Emmanuelle Film...happy memories (for the youngsters amongst you the first soft porn film in 1976).
;)
I was lucky enough to fly both the Trident two and the Super VC 10...Both were great aircraft but it was the operation of the former that let it down...but one has to remember that the RAF was killing 100s of aircrew at that time and it took a brave man or a fool to open his mouth to say things were wrong in the 70s...sadly we stalled three gas turbine powered airliners..

[Capetonian]

The Super VC 10 was a beautiful aircraft...go to Duxford and have a look into the cockpit (there is a Trident and a Concorde there to)...There's a VC10 (1103) at Brooklands too (G-ASIX/A4O-AB) and the cockpit is usually accessible to visitors.
Also a BAC 1-11 (G-ASYD), a Viscount (G-APIM), a Vanguard/Merchantman (G-APEP), and a Concorde (G-BBDG). Plus a lot more toys for big and small boys and girls!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I was really impressed when I entered the Vanguard flight deck at Brooklands. The centre console sprouts no less than twelve big levers! I was a tad disappointed to learn from the ex-guardsvan driver who was acting as guide that 4 are power levers for the P1, 4 are power levers for the P2, and the middle 4 are fuel cocks!

[Bergerie1]

blind pew
I think you will find that the recommendation re turns after take-off had more to do with spiral stability than D P Davies' ability to fly an aircraft. I flew with him several times and, whereas navigation was not always his strong point, his aircraft handling was superb.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Surely all aeroplanes except free-flight models are spirally unstable? It's no bar to an immediate turn as soon as the wheels are off the ground, though.

However I have heard that the original 707s could either climb or turn, but not both at the same time. But that was down to marginal thrust over drag.

[Bergerie1]

SSD


Certainly most aircraft of that era were just on the positive side of neutral spiral stability. The problem DPD was concerned about was when taking off before neutral rudder trim was fully established, in which case the aircraft could be spirally stable in one direction and spirally unstable in the other. No problem, provided the pilots monitored the attitude and flight path carefully (as they should) but which could lead to an unwanted deviation if attention was distracted elsewhere.


Perhaps John Farley might like to comment.

[blind pew]

Bergerie the quote about Dai Davis came recently from one of your management mates...you probably can guess whom..."whilst he was an excellent test pilot...he had troubles coping with the BEA departure procedures."

The only other snippet I have to add is that we operated the Trident contrary to his bible and I wish I had read his testimony at the Lane inquiry when I had access to it....but since he was "mates" with some of the other "witnesses" I doubt he would have said "I agree with Cat's Eyes Cunningham...the fools thought they knew better and they didn't otherwise there wouldn't have been a Trident parked in the field at Staines"...The rest is history until you and your mates took over and by then I was long gone.:ok:

[seacue]

I'm not convinced that crossing the Atlantic in 3 hours is very important to business these days. The sun (clock) still takes 5 hours to cross the Atlantic and another hour to reach Chicago.

Suppose that you have to allow an hour at each end for private car to / from the airport. 5 hours transportation.

In many fields, such as computer performance, reducing the time taken for one operation - if the rest of the operations still take their full time, is a case of diminishing returns, One discovers that making that one operation extremely fast doesn't result in much performance improvement. This "law" is variously attributed to some Big Name Person.

Works fine for Brits coming to visit their subsidiary in North America. You essentially keep up with the sun. But not on the return to the UK.

What about the other direction? Leave the US headquarters at 9 am ... arrive at the British head office 10 "clock hours" later- 19:00 after the business day ends. A whole day shot. The main attraction would be to sleep in a real bed. But the super-fancy first class accommodation on some airlines is clearly an attempt to substitute for the night at the fancy hotel.

Where have I gone wrong?

[Bergerie1]

blind pew

I am not surprised DPD had difficulty with your old firm's departure techniques, the peculiarities of which you have described well elsewhere!

I have checked out what he had to say re spiral stability on both VC10s and 707s and believe his advice to be correct.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Seacue
As Lord Saatchi said "this aeroplane allowed me to be in two places at the same time. I could be in London at 10:00am and in New York at 10:00am the same day. Without it I couldn't have placed a British flag on Madison Avenue".

Leave London at 10:00am, arrive New York 09:00am, hold your meetings, home on Concorde by late evening or overnight first class on a 747.

No hotels required, 1 day's work in New York takes 1 day.

[Flybiker7000]

I do talk about the AF4590, and I read between the lines that You know that quite well but prefer to tell the fact of the very last flight of the Concorde in as many replies it have to fill instead of pinpointing this flight from start!
Travel-time: You wont be able to convince Me about the future of supersonic commercial flights as I stand by the statement of the web having taken over the task of closing deals, where signatures in ink was the norm until (about) the new millenium :-|
A freind of mine moved across ' the pond' in '96 and ran into unsuspected problems of moving his economy with him as that couldn't be done on phone or Email but needed his signature in ink! In his case there was no need of buying a tricket to the Concorde as he could survive the time it took the US Postal to transport his signature. Today every one of us would have opened a new account and transferred all savings through net/web -banking, and so works the business economy too.
There isn't any practical need of supersonic transportation between any of the continents today :-|

[Flybiker7000]

I do talk about the AF4590, and I read between the lines that You know that quite well but prefer to tell the fact of the very last flight of the Concorde in as many replies it have to fill instead of pinpointing this flight from start!
Travel-time: You wont be able to convince Me about the future of supersonic commercial flights as I stand by the statement of the web having taken over the task of closing deals, where signatures in ink was the norm until (about) the new millenium :-|
A freind of mine moved across ' the pond' in '96 and ran into unsuspected problems of moving his economy with him as that couldn't be done on phone or Email but needed his signature in ink! In his case there was no need of buying a tricket to the Concorde as he could survive the time it took the US Postal to transport his signature. Today every one of us would have opened a new account and transferred all savings through net/web -banking, and so works the business economy too.
There isn't any practical need of supersonic transportation between any of the continents today :-|

[Capetonian]

There isn't any practical need of supersonic transportation between any of the continents today Whilst there may not be much need, there is certainly a market for supersonic travel. Every time I do the mind numbing 12 hour flight between ZA and UK/EU, regardless of the level of comfort, I think how wonderful it would be to do it in less than half the time. The problem is whether the average passenger would pay the price that would have to be charged.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I do talk about the AF4590, and I read between the lines that You know that quite well but prefer to tell the fact of the very last flight of the Concorde in as many replies it have to fill instead of pinpointing this flight from start!

I take it English isn't your first language, so I excuse that. But you now say you are referring to the accident flight (year 2000) as the last flight (3 years later!) and then blaming ME for... well I'm not sure what! Can anyone else help here?

He quotes the pax makeup of the Paris Accident flight saying it's the last flight, and says this shows Concorde was just a tourist aeroplane by the last flight. And that somehow I knew this to be true! (It's false).

Two things flybiker:

1) I already pointed out you were confusing the Paris accident flight with the last flight, even though 3 years separate them. Yet you say it's my fault you did this! How in christ's name is it my fault?

2) The Paris accident flight was NOT a typical Concorde pax make-up. It was a tourist flight going to meet a cruise liner; that's one reason it was heavily overweight which contributed in no small manner to the accident. I say again Concorde pax make up was on average overwhelmingly business users - 85% in fact. Throughout its 27 years of service. There is not one jot of evidence that it became a 'tourist plane' in its latter years!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Whilst there may not be much need, there is certainly a market for supersonic travel. Every time I do the mind numbing 12 hour flight between ZA and UK/EU, regardless of the level of comfort, I think how wonderful it would be to do it in less than half the time. The problem is whether the average passenger would pay the price that would have to be charged.

That is quite true. There is a VAST market for super-fast air travel on the long routes. But today's airline business model is primarily about seat-mile cost reduction. That simply doesn't fit with supersonic travel. If it did, Airbus or Boeing would have produced a Concorde replacement which would be in service today.

[Noyade]

G'day Shaggy!

Can anyone else help here? Probably not. Go back to his post No.53 - he does seem to be referring to the Paris episode as the "last" flight?

But I think the guts of his argument though, is that he believes Concorde was designed for very important businessmen who had to cross the Atlantic in the morning for meetings, sign on dotted lines, seal deals, lotsa handshakes, and then head home for a nice cuppa with the family and kids in the evening.

And now the internet has destroyed this need (but not the cuppa and family).

I could be wrong. Gotta go - as I shouldn't be seen talking to a flagellator. :)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Ta Noyade. That's what i thought.

Anyone who thinks you win big business 'over the internet' while your competition makes the journey and talks to the customer in person, looks them in the eye, and maybe takes them to lunch doesn't know much about signing mega deals!

[joy ride]

I think that Concorde IS a significant plane because it was the result of an international dream to go faster. Seacue's points about the time advantages being lost in airport time , and traveling to and from the airport are good ones, and I think that the next generations of SSTs will probably be smaller.

However, Phil Collins, one of the greatest drummers in the world (and being a drummer I KNOW how skilled he is!), played a huge charity gig (Live Aid) in the afternoon in London, then another at the same time in New York, and this was watched by the biggest ever worldwide TV audience! This was a defining moment in world history, a huge chunk of the world'spopulation uniting to relieve a crisis in Africa, and for a major star to be able to do two sets at the same time in London and NY was a cultural and humanitarian event of monumental significance and precedence. Concorde did its part, and we all knew it. Has any other plane in history had such a large "virtual" audience, or played a part in such a huge rallying of humanity to a common cause?

The pros and cons of supersonic airliners, and the costs/efficiency/need are debatable. What is not debatable is that it was perhaps the first major International collaboration, effectively the start of Airbus which is now a major manufacturer, in fact I believe Airbus is now "bigger" than Boeing, and that too is hugely significant. When Concorde was being planned who in the world would ever have thought that Boeing would have a major challenger?!

Concorde introduced huge new technological steps, a "giant leap for mankind" if you like! When they were finally retired, it was reckoned that the air-frames STILL had 20 years to give, and despite the extreme demands of supersonic flight I find that truly staggering.

The last point that demonstrates to me that Concorde is of world-class important concerns an article I read about 10 years ago in Smithsonian Air and Space magazine. Once USA were given retired Concordes, teams of US engineers and technicians were studying them in exacting detail, and this A&S article was all about their investigation and how they were planning to use their findings. Once mankind has made a technological leap, that knowledge is there for all time.

Bums on cheap seats drives the airline business more than ever, internet reduces the need for supersonic flights to meetings, but time is still money and humanity has been driven for centuries to reduce travel time and Concorde is the defining monument of that quest.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

joy ride - the internet and virtual conferencing may have helped the wheels of international business to turn and for millions of remote little deals to be done, but no-one ever signed a major deal without usually quite a few face to face look-them-in-the-eye meetings. That means very senior people have to go places and meet up.

And anyone faced with a 12 hour or more long haul flight wouldn't mind that journey time being a quarter of that length.

The need for fast air travel hasn't gone away. It's that in these accountant-driven days, and at current costs of achieving it, we know it can't be afforded!

[Phileas Fogg]

However, Phil Collins, one of the greatest drummers in the world (and being a drummer I KNOW how skilled he is!), played a huge charity gig (Live Aid) in the afternoon in London, then another at the same time in New York, and this was watched by the biggest ever worldwide TV audience! This was a defining moment in world history, a huge chunk of the world'spopulation uniting to relieve a crisis in Africa, and for a major star to be able to do two sets at the same time in London and NY was a cultural and humanitarian event of monumental significance and precedence

Try Philadelphia :)

[Discorde]

I was really impressed when I entered the Vanguard flight deck at Brooklands. The centre console sprouts no less than twelve big levers! I was a tad disappointed to learn from the ex-guardsvan driver who was acting as guide that 4 are power levers for the P1, 4 are power levers for the P2, and the middle 4 are fuel cocks!


There were actually 16 levers at the front of the centre console - besides the two sets of throttles there were the HP cocks, which also acted as fuel trimmers and feathering levers - and four 'start levers'. These latter restricted fuel flow to the engines during start until they had achieved 'low ground idle' RPMs, after which they were selected to 'RUN' to feed a gradually increasing supply to the Tynes until they reached 'ground idle' RPMs.

[DaveReidUK]

http://www.pprune.org/canada/544316-remember-vanguard.html

[scotbill]

The Vanguard was one of the fastest propellor commercial aeroplanes ever built. Its block times on domestic services were very similar to Tridents and 757s due to its ability to use the first intersection it came to - and turn off the north r/w at LHR straight on to the alpha stands.

LATCC had to post a notice to controllers - "Notice that Vanguards descend at the same speeds as jets" after a couple of embarrassing incidents when they had tried to get 737s through the big V's level on the gounds that they were faster.

The faster she went the more precise became the handling - with only tab-assisted controls in lieu of hydraulics. Allegedly a Vickers test pilot wote that, above 400k IAS, he preferred the Vanguard to the Valiant!
Service Vne 330k at low level.

[WHBM]

I somehow recall that in the early British Airways days, which coincided with the introduction of the Tristar, a Merchantman did a trip, maybe more, over to Palmdale with some UK components (seats ?), returning to Heathrow with Lockheed spares. Must have been quite a challenge for the FBOs along the way to California - I suppose they could have routed through Canada as much as possible to get some not-quite-forgotten Air Canada experience. Anyone know which route they took (even better, anyone here actually on the flight ?).

Kansas City mechanic to base engineers : "Funniest lookin' Electra I've ever seen, boys".

[Flybiker7000]

[qoute](WHBM): Anyone know which route they (Merchantman) took?[quote]
The Merchantman needed probably two stopovers for the trip and in that case they might have followed the path treaded by SAS long time before: Thule - Edmonton :-/

[Meikleour]

The aircraft used was fitted with a tempory LORAN set!

Seemed quite exotic at the time!