Why does Britain not design aeroplanes any more?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Not sure if this belongs here or elsewhere, but my interests are in light aircraft so I'll put it here until somebody moves me on.

I was having a long conversation with a well known British aircraft designer last night (and lets face it, there aren't many of those) and he was having a thoroughly justified whinge about the fact that nobody's designing new aircraft in the UK?

Lets look at what's going on out there...

- Slingsby, a plastic copy of the French RF4 (the firefly)
- Britten-Norman, a 40 year old design (the Islander)
- CFM, folded last year (Shadow, 15-20 year old design anyway)
- Pegasus / Mainair, one new design (the Quik), two 10+ year old designs (Blade and Quantum) and a tarted up German design (the CT, and much of that is built under license in the Ukraine)
- Medway, still building (admittedly very nice) derivatives of the Raven, which is basically a 20 year old design.
- Europa, 10 year old continuously improved design
- Thruster, multiple tweaks on a 20 year old Australian design, albeit that the Sprint is largely British.
- Reality, the Escapade just announced but still in flight test.
- Aviation Enterprises, not built a Chevvron for about 10 years and their Magnum has yet to leave the ground after years of talk.

So, at present in the UK, of UK design we have one newish British light aircraft (the Europa) and three newish British microlights (the Quik, Sprint and Escapade).

Not very impressive given our aeronautical heritage, although microlights are clearly doing better we are still only looking at 3 new designs in 10+ years - everything else is a foreign derivative.


So what's the problem. I've heard red tape suggested, but we are no worse than Germany where any number of new types are coming along constantly - so although that's a problem I don't think it's the big problem. I've heard that it's a lack of ingenuity - but from the British, pull the other one. I have a suspicion that our educational system simply doesn't train original aircraft designers anymore - am I right?

Is it a problem that this island seems incapable of designing more than 3 new small aeroplanes in 10 years? Why is the light aircraft world suffering worse than the microlight world? Is there anything we can do about it?

G

[Kolibear]

Could it be something to do with cost?

It must cost an arm and a few legs to design, prototype and type certify and aircraft, even before the first sale.

Given the bank's reluctance to fund long-term projects sure as this, I believe its more a question of money rather than ability as I think you would need financial backing into the 10s of millions and the climate to generate enough sales to be able to stay in business. Has anyine any idea how many new light aircraft are sold each year in the UK?

Its a interesting question though and at the risk of hi-jacking the thread, can I ask 'Whats going to happen when the world runs out of Cessnas & Pipers?'

After all, they have a finite life and sooner or later, there will be a worldwide market for a PA-28/C150 replacement.

Perhaps 'The PPrune Aircraft Company' (motto - 'We build - you fly at your own risk') has a future after all.

[gasax]

Has a great deal to do with the market and the rules.

Look at the States, largest aircraft market in the world. Number of new light aircraft designs? Cirrus plus Liberty (which is a re-engineered Eurpoa) plus ???

Number of re-hashed old ones - Cessna 172, 182, 206. Rockwell 114, Husky (notionally new but really just a Super Cub), Mooneys, Micco, Taylorcraft, Maule, etc etc. This list is as long as you like.

Number of light aircraft (including microlights) in UK - about 7000. Number in US about 250,000. Number of new sales - handfuls a year in both markets.

Why - new aircraft are expensive - old aircraft are comparatively cheap - the performance is the same. Running costs are high - add in depreciation and new aircraft are very expensive in comparison.

Certification costs certainly help to keep the costs of new aircraft high - but the price differential between Cessna and Cirrus is not that big.

There would however have to be a huge performance difference between new and old aircraft to justify the added cost of the new designs - largely they just do not deliver that.

For a corporate owner there is some justification in the lower maintenance that newer machines require - and that is largely the market requirement that the re-hashed designs are meeting.

Looking at the European market (excluding UK - because we have a lot of NIH type rules that Johnny Foreigner cannot meet). There you see 450kg machines that really are a step forward and which are sensibly priced versus the old designs. But of course they are simply not safe enough to be allowed to fly in the UK!

So we have a tiny market, where new machines are very expensive and a set of rules which put UK designs at a huge disadvantage compared to the nearest countries in our common economic grouping. It's not surprising really.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ah yes, but...

I see many interesting designs coming from Germany and France. Whilst the microlight rules vary between countries, they are pretty much as rigid in Germany as here. The light aircraft rules however, are common European rules in JAR-VLA and JAR-23. The market can't be any bigger in France and Germany than here.

And what about talented amateur designers, who seem quite common in some countries, yet despite the best efforts of PFA/BMAA seem to have largely died out here. After all, people like Geoffrey de-Havilland, Tommy Sopwith, John Edgley, Mike Whittaker - they all started with some variation upon a self-funded project in the garage.

So I'm not convinced we've got an answer, notwithstanding that I think I agree with most of the points made above. (Not sure that the US with 4 times the UK population has 35 times the private aircraft ownership, are you sure?).

G

[Brizzo]

It would be instructive to line up the most common GA aircraft in the UK (presumably Cessnas Pipers and a lot of less common others) alongside the cars that were marketed at the same time as the aircraft made its debut. The huge leaps in car technology have passed GA by over the last 40 years. Lightweight materials, electronics, robot production have left cars superb value and of almost universal good quality.

Why? It has to be the tiny size of the marketplace and the impact of regulation.

[Kolibear]

Interestingly enough, if you look at a new Cessna, its obvious that their designers have been looking at new car design and copying from the auto industry.

Apparently, it cost Fords $6,000,000,000 to design, test and certificate the Mondeo. Thats one reason why the technology has not read across to light aviation.

[Tinstaafl]

If the Islander is representative of UK design, thank christ there isn't any more.

If Concorde is representative, what a pity.

[Circuit Basher]

One light (ish) aircraft omitted from your list, Genghis, was the Richard Noble Farnborough F1 program that is allegedly in Financial Intensive Care (if not actually pronounced mortally wounded).

Main problem is the inability of certain (former) swivel servants to stand up and make decisions like 'We don't need that certification test for an aircraft that small; it would make in uneconomic'. The US still seem to be able to scale the level of certification to the size of the aircraft, IMHO.

[I have control]

What happened to Richard Noble's Farnborough aircraft?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Folded financially before they ever got a prototype built. His Chief Designer is now full time Technical Director of the newly merged Pegasus/Mainair. He (Dr Bill Brooks) was however responsible for the UK redesign on the CT and pretty much the total design of the Quik (not to mention the scrapheap challenge UK entry at Xmas) so the talent hasn't entirely gone to waste.

G

[Bottle Fatigue]

This is something which has been bothering me for some time too.

I can't say that I have the answer, but these are the thoughts which have occurred to me:

1. Recent governments have not funded any wholly british defence aerospace projects in the last 30 odd years. The designers which we had found themselves doing bits of aircraft rather than whole aircraft design, which I can understand would be very frustrating.

So,

2. Experienced aircraft designers p*ss off to boeing/scarebus so they can do what they have been trained to do. When they get there, they find that engineer's pay in Toulouse & Seattle is a whole lot better than in this country.

3. As a result, few (if any) have any urge to return and train young designers.

4. In consequence British skill base is much reduced, and Government finds it cannot place defence contracts in Britain (Vide the Nimrod fiasco). Hence BAe and others don't feel competent to put out a new design in the civil/light aircraft marketplace either with no recent track record.

NB: Many of the 'amateur' designers had completed an apprenticeship with one of the aircraft manufacturers and so this skill base dried up also.

As for the arguments about the lack of a market, I think this is a red herring, you can always sell a light aircraft as an ab initio military trainer (like the Grob).

By the way Ghengis, you've missed out Llyn Williams and his Flitzer. I know some might say that it's a bit retro, but I say modernity is not everything

[bluskis]

The French build quite enough single engine light aircraft for Europe if we all chose to buy them rather than American craft.

The huge difference is that France still believes a country needs to manufacture the products it consumes, while Britain believes it is only necessary to buy and sell them.

A nation of little shopkeepers indeed.

[ChrisVJ]

But the big thing in the USA is experimental. With about 250 manufacturers , perhaps 50 of whom are successful, or at least surviving, there are new and innovative designs galore, from the consevative but effective RV's to the flashy Seawinds etc.

The market in N America refused to be denied by legislation and the insurance companies, It just went and looked for a new way of doing business.

Sad about the UK business but don't take that as typical for the rest of the world. They are out there wheeling and dealing and producing new designs, failures and successes and all.

[jabberwok]

Let me throw one further factor into the ring to see if anyone remembers their history.

It was always said in the early days that aircraft design went hand in hand with power plant development and one could not progress without the other.

If most "conventional" light aircraft are still flogging around with a Lycoming flat four (or derivative) which has changed little in almost half the life span of airborne flight what hope CAN we have for progress?

A new light aircraft engine is surely an essential for any serious development. I don't mean a Rotax but a modern 21th century replacement for the O-320 which should be retired and put in a museum. If car engine designers saw what we are using they'd probably weep..

[Genghis the Engineer]

Bottle fatigue, by jove I think you may have put your finger on it. I'm not so much referring to the brain-drain issue, but that we are hellbent on training narrow specialists capable of (say) only analysing the structure of a wing but not it's aerodynamics, or the performance of an aircraft but not it's handling - or in other words we've got very few "whole aeroplane" people any more, and they are ageing without being replaced from the floor. (Or alternatively we train technicians without teaching them analytical engineering, or analytical engineers without any real practical experience). I'd also go further and say that for the self-improver, the opportunities for the three main aviation professions - pilot, engineer and technician, to learn each others trades are extremely limited - particularly for anybody wanting to learn the analytical end of aeronautical engineering without taking 3-4 years out of their life.

So if you are right, and I think you may well be, what do we do about it?

G


N.B. Yes, I did forget about the Flitzer, apologies to Mr Williams and his delightfully retro design.

N.B.B. I can't see why a Rotax 914 isn't a good, certified, alternative to an 0-320, certainly burns about 2/3 of the fuel of the Lycoming. But at 140hp that is as powerful an engine as is available from them. And again, why is the only interesting British engine in the last 10+ years to get anywhere the Wilsch Diesel, developed by an expat Australian?

[eng123]

Ghengis,
Casting aside our other differences,without meaning to be derogatory towards British aircraft designer's,from my maintenance experience,I must say that i'm pleased!
When I compare the differences from,say,BAC [BAe] 1-11 [Many an unhappy hour spent changing a PRV or Isolation Valve!] to even an older Boeing,say 727,737-200 etc it is staggering.The British [and I'm as patriotic as the next guy] philosophy seems to be why attach it with 6 bolts when you can use 20!
British aircraft designer's also must have a secret deal with the manufacturer of locking-wire!
I fully recognise the need for lock-wire in certain system's/component's,but is it really necessary for every 'B' nut?
I must admit that the 'newest' British commercial a/c I have worked on is the ancient and useless BAe 146,so maybe things have changed with the ATP etc,but I would be surprised.
I would be interested if you have any insider knowledge on these reasons.
p.s I'll just add that my 'time' was served with BAe manufacturing Hawk's and Harrier's.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well, if bottle fatigue's argument is right, a lack of people who have built or maintained them (or for that matter flown them) working on the design and approvals side would be a reasonable direction to point the blame.

G

[Tinstaafl]

Similarly to Eng123, I know an engineer who loathes having to change a RR. Give him a P&W or GE any day.

He says American designs uses various quick disconnects AND routes them in way that makes them very easily accessible. Not so RR.

He can't understand British design 'logic' either.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Could it be that American designers tend to assume a much lower level of technician ability than British ones? Of course, the real effect of this is that American designers create a much lower level of technician workload, and therefore less downtime when anything goes wrong - a pretty significant issue from a buyers perspective.

G

[Tinstaafl]

Is there a higher maintenance related accident rate for British equipment maintained by FAA certified engineers? If not that negates any 'USA is dumb' argument, Ghenghis.

[bingoboy]

Think the problem might stem from schools not making maths/science interesting and practical as they have to fulfil the National curriculum. Might have more success if they analysed the flight of a football or the vibrations of vocal cords!

However to return to light aircraft I feel that the powers that be have managed to create the impression that new design is a near impossibility. WHY

Well look how many aircraft are designed in the US, Australia, France, Germany, ex East Europe/Russia and then look how many are allowed/approved to fly in the UK.

Answers are Many and Few. (yes G I know usual excuses from pfa and bmaa).

So if these splendid designers find their aircraft fly well in their airspace but need mods to do so in the UK ; we must need super heroes here.

Not just light a/c , even exec jets had issues which led to many a registration of convenience although I think the CAA backed off some aspects of re-certification!

So as usual our splendid servants have, with the best possible intentions, managed to stiffle UK learning and inventiveness.

[A and C]

There is a new british light aircraft that will soon fly , it is in an advanced state of construction and I would think will take to the air by the end of the summer.

The verry rough details are Rotax power , two seat , retractable gear, 160 KT cruse , GRP construction.

That is my last word on the subject untill the press get to see it !.

[Bottle Fatigue]

Ghengis, again this is my opinion only, but here goes:

To revitalise the british light aircraft industry, we obviously cannot rely on the government. So our only alternative is to build from the ground up, the method I would propose is as follows:

If anybody has ever wanted to design & build their own aircraft, do it . Use the PFA structure to get your own creation into the air - they will help you as best they can. Also call for help from those around you.

If you don't feel confident in doing that, help someone who is: Lend a hand in building.
If you are an engineer, offer your expertise, in however narrow a field.
If you're particularly brave, put up some money or donate an engine / some avionics.

The idea is to form a team rather than one person, working alone who may well become frustrated, feel out of his depth or think that he cannot devote so much of his time to one thing instead of his family/social life etc.

But , you must also think about how this thing might be put together in production: make it easy to put together, don't use unobtainium for that bracket, use bog-standard stainless, simplify it in every way you can without compromising your design goals.

Hopefully, some of these projects will be so good, that other people will want one - then you can think about producing a kit for other people to build or screw your courage to the sticking point & go to the DTI and ask for help funding type certification (Ulp!).

Possibly I'm going a bit messianic here, but the point is sound. If enough people go down this route, some of those designs are going to be good economic basic trainers which schools and individuals are going to want to buy.

The PFA starting point is low-risk and gives people an opportunity to produce an established aircraft which other people will want to back.


I think I've overextended myself, I'll have a brief lie down, and post some more later :)

[gasax]

Several posts have mentioned selling aircraft as ab-initio trainers to the military, as something that could create, keep a market going.

I rather doubt it, owning an Auster I can tell tou that if one thing killed off the company it was its dependance on military sales and the whole 'cost plus' mentality that producing machinery for the military produces.

My Terrier is at least 300 pounds heavy than it needs to be. Why? cost plus! The more you put into a machine the more you can charge for it. The comparison to the contempary Pipers is literally amazing - my wings are almost double the weight. The seats and their mechanism are 30 odd pounds each.

Incredibly when Beagle produced the Bullfinch prototype their MD suggested that they would 'fit in' civilian sales whenever they had a convenient gap in their military schedule.

It is not dificult to see why they went belly up.

As for new aircraft - produce what the market actually wants - well its very small - apart from microlights in the UK, which is probably why the only successful (ish) British manufacturers produce microlights. But of course they cannot compete with French and other contential designs because Section S makes them heavier and much more expensive. If is interesting that recent statements from our microlight manufacturers are praising Section S and its continuation - after all they have already borne the costs and can use it to keep Air Creation et al out of the UK.

Fix it? Cannot see how unless EASA produces a level playing field in terms of rules. If they do will exisitng UK manufacturers have the financial muscle to compete - definite maybe!

[bingoboy]

Gasax, some good points - manufacturers who wish to increase the sales value of their products always look to government sales as they are a soft touch - unfortunately they all too easily have lost sight of cost control (all the way up to present day Bae).

Re section S - the powers etc that be seem to think that the rest of the world is out of kilter with us and that sooner or later they will fall into line with us. Well whether this unlikely scenario comes about or not it is probably rather too late for the UK.

Universities aim their aeronautical studies at er well certainly not light aviation. Poor old things like Cranfield A1s get made when they do and when was the last UK glider ever developed with help from a UK institute ?

So rant over and what is to be done ?

A long hard road needs mapping out which includes schools, colleges and the controlling powers in the industry. Oh and a totally level playing field across countries with none of the NIH phobia and pomposity.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm pretty familiar with most of the certification codes. There is a common, pretty easy to live with, European certification code used worldwide for non-aerobatic light aircraft called JAR-VLA. Section S, and it's German counterpart BFU-95 are basically both chopped down versions of VLA. The biggest problem with VLA is that it's not been amended for 13 years - but at least it means everybody's familiar with it!

For larger aircraft, JAR-23 (the common european light aircraft standard) is universal, because the only other standard in regular use worldwide is the American FAR-23, which is about 98% identical. For gliders and motorgliders, everybody in Europe uses JAR-22 and I think the only country outside Europe that doesn't accept it is the USA, but there's enough similarity to FAR-23 that it's never so far as I can see given the German glider manufacturers any problem.

So for everything but microlights, we have a common certification standard, acceptable virtually everywhere in the world (even the FAA accept it for primary category certification).

A lot of people in the industry would like to see a European microlight code, which would probably be a sort of merger between S and 95. They're about 75% common anyway, both subsets of VLA which the whole world understands, and a merger would be fairly easy. Given that one or other is mandatory in half of Europe, all of Scandinavia, accepted in many other countries as alternatives to their national rules, that would create a de-facto world standard since it would probably then find itself drifting to convergence with the US Sport Pilot rules as they emerge.

At that point, we would (no doubt with a certain amount of trivial national bickering) have unified international codes for most classes of light aircraft.


But, I still don't think that's the British problem anyway. To describe Section S as protectionism misses the point that far more foreign aircraft (Rans, X'Air, Air Creation, CT, Eurostar, etc. etc.) are certified in the UK and widely owned, than British types are exported. We simply aren't coming up with the designs here.

I agree with Bottle Fatigue and bingoboy, we need a collective effort with the Universities, the PFA/BMAA/BGA, the buying public, and to an extent the CAA bought into it. In the latter case, by allowing a clear and unambiguous route to get a first prototype flying above all, they have a very bad habit of goalpost moving, which is unsustainable for either an amateur or a startup business.

Assuming of course we all think it's actually a problem - are we happy that more X'Airs are sold than Thrusters, and more Cessnas than Slingsbys?, not to mention a complete dearth of British gliders (Edgley sold 2 optimists !) I'm not, but am I in a minority?

G

[Bottle Fatigue]

I'm afraid I have to part company with you there Ghengis. I don't think you're going to get much joy with the Universities, considering the funding they receive.

The problem being that they will want to be paid for giving you advice or access to their test facilities, this is not conducive to the "Home Grown" approach or a start up business.

I'm not sure about the JAR-VLA requirements either, if you're aiming for type certification you need to design to FAR/JAR 23 surely?

I wasn't aware that this wasn't a stable document (I don't have any call to look at it) - is this what you're talking about when you say that the CAA keep moving the goalposts?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Type certification can be done against any appropriate CofA code. For FW, this could be VLA, 23, 22 or (gods forbid) 25. VLA was produced specifically to save developers from having to meet the cost of full part 23 certification - it is much easier to live with, and allows itself simplicity by limiting weight (750kg), stalling speed (45kn), seats (2), manoeuvres (non-aerobatic), engines (1) and operations (day-VFR). All of which is fine for many light trainers or private aeroplanes - and having got a marketable product, expansion of the design and recertification is certainly possible later.

There are also lower standards available in the UK for issue of a Permit to Fly, such as Section S, BCAR-VLH or Section T; these allow a company to develop a UK saleable recreational product, and the same applies about the potential to later raise the certification standard.

No document is truly stable; we know more about airworthiness than we did 10 years ago, and much more than 50 years ago. All these codes have standing review committees - I've sat on two of them (JAR-23 and Section S), as well as top-level overview committees and consultation panels that review, decline or pass proposed changes (I've sat on far too many of them).

What I mean about CAA moving the goalposts is that there are areas - to pick two, gust loads on high speed microlights or Vso definition on self-launching motorgliders, where they haven't actually published clear and unambigous requirements. This means that you have to go and negotiate with CAA what the requirements will be (on occasion, directly with JAA, that's even more fun). So, CAA hauls all their specialists out, the meter and the clock start running, and industry gets swamped.


Regarding the universities, I agree that research funding would be a headache, but that's not my point. We live in a country happy to fund degree courses in leisure managament, textile design, archeology and many other subjects that are certainly no more valuable to GB Ltd than light aircraft design. I happen to know one university is trying to put a light aircraft degree together - because I've been helping them with the syllabus. There are 20+ other institutions offering aero-eng degree courses, and I cannot accept that there is no room in that lot for a light aircraft design course. On my own degree (Aero-Astro / Southampton / more than 10 years ago) we did spaceplane design and interplanetary navigation, if there's room for that, there's surely room for light aeroplane design, or even propeller design - which mysteriously wasn't available either.

G