English built airliners were a total failure.
As an ex corporate pilot, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the DH125. In one or another of its guises it's still being produced, nearly 50 years after it's introduction - albeit by Beech.
The rudder bias system was invented, or at least perfected, at RAE Farnborough I believe. Every pilot who has flown an aircraft equipped with said system should get down on his knees and kiss the behind of the inventor.
The rudder bias system was invented, or at least perfected, at RAE Farnborough I believe. Every pilot who has flown an aircraft equipped with said system should get down on his knees and kiss the behind of the inventor.
Total failure? Aviation history proves otherwise.
They have been operated for years by airlines all over the world (and as stated, some copied by Soviets). I flew a US-built plane for thousands of hours which was roughly based on the BAC-111 (very similar shape and size), and if the BAC-111 is just as straight-forward, and as reliable as the other types built there, then I would fly an English-built plane any day or year (also just today saw a comparison of the Spitfire and Me-109). Are the BAC's pneumatic, electric and hydraulic systems fairly simple? Always admired those heavy turboprops too. Even the Dart's whistle noise can't be nearly as bad as in an Allison-powered C-130, which has no sound-proofing (sign language used as back-up to raise/lower landing gear). Rode in the F-27 and the engine noise was not bad at all, nor in Dart-powered Convair 640 (with "SMB Stage Line").
A few large US airlines operated the BAC-111 and various companies flew the Hawker "Budgie" turboprop. When (US) Braniff had 111s, the airline grew too fast, along with other factors (check the book "Splash of Colors" [John Nance], maybe do research, find out why the first edition was never released...). Apparently the Dart engine is very reliable and economical, and to have appeared in so many variations, from the smaller two-engine to the heavier four-engine Britannias, CL-44s etc, which were/are based in various cities around the world. Although the Shorts 330/360 are not English, I flew both and liked them-nice instruments, fairly quiet, spacious in c0ckp1t and cabin (tall people can walk around without stooping!), and they were forgiving in gusty crosswinds too.
And the many types of Rolls Royce engines just might be the best, along with Pratt & Whitney JT8-Ds .
They have been operated for years by airlines all over the world (and as stated, some copied by Soviets). I flew a US-built plane for thousands of hours which was roughly based on the BAC-111 (very similar shape and size), and if the BAC-111 is just as straight-forward, and as reliable as the other types built there, then I would fly an English-built plane any day or year (also just today saw a comparison of the Spitfire and Me-109). Are the BAC's pneumatic, electric and hydraulic systems fairly simple? Always admired those heavy turboprops too. Even the Dart's whistle noise can't be nearly as bad as in an Allison-powered C-130, which has no sound-proofing (sign language used as back-up to raise/lower landing gear). Rode in the F-27 and the engine noise was not bad at all, nor in Dart-powered Convair 640 (with "SMB Stage Line").
A few large US airlines operated the BAC-111 and various companies flew the Hawker "Budgie" turboprop. When (US) Braniff had 111s, the airline grew too fast, along with other factors (check the book "Splash of Colors" [John Nance], maybe do research, find out why the first edition was never released...). Apparently the Dart engine is very reliable and economical, and to have appeared in so many variations, from the smaller two-engine to the heavier four-engine Britannias, CL-44s etc, which were/are based in various cities around the world. Although the Shorts 330/360 are not English, I flew both and liked them-nice instruments, fairly quiet, spacious in c0ckp1t and cabin (tall people can walk around without stooping!), and they were forgiving in gusty crosswinds too.
And the many types of Rolls Royce engines just might be the best, along with Pratt & Whitney JT8-Ds
.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 10th Apr 2005 at 06:11.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice post Ig Over. At the risk of thread creep. Someone mentioned earlier the steepness of climb out of the Comet 2.
I have been told by two people who were around in those days, (I'm only 40) that the Comet's deck angle was impressive and I have always wondered what it was. Rotate and accelerate? It was also mentioned that the hydraulic fluid, vegetable based I think, was a real fire worry!
And Ig, I have also flown the box the Shorts came in. Got to love low tech solutions like the FO emptying both FEs down a tube into the cargo lockers.
I have been told by two people who were around in those days, (I'm only 40) that the Comet's deck angle was impressive and I have always wondered what it was. Rotate and accelerate? It was also mentioned that the hydraulic fluid, vegetable based I think, was a real fire worry!
And Ig, I have also flown the box the Shorts came in. Got to love low tech solutions like the FO emptying both FEs down a tube into the cargo lockers.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been a pax on RAF VC10s several times, both in the cabin and on the flight deck. I have also refuelled from VC10Ks many, many times when I was an FJ pilot in the RAF. I can attest to what has been said about it. Furthermore, it is quite simply the most beautiful airliner/military transport/tanker ever built. It is the only aircraft which truly merits the handle " Queen of the Skies". Some failure.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if you are talking about production airfields..just around London... Radlett,Dunsfold,Langley,Hatfield,Leavesden,Woodley,White Waltham(open..but Fairey has gone)Hayes,Brooklands,Weybridge...Stag Lane!!
Wingswinger-The VC-10 looks graceful and powerful, but in my opinion, although not a tanker/transport, the Avro Vulcan has such an aerodynamic (despite thick wings?), impressive shape for a heavy bomber or whatever the mission.
As for small civilian jets, although foreign, the original Dassault Falcon (or a Lear) makes me want to climb right up and fly it, but it would cost too much. And a cherry red Let-39 Czech-built tandem seat trainer jet....
As for small civilian jets, although foreign, the original Dassault Falcon (or a Lear) makes me want to climb right up and fly it, but it would cost too much. And a cherry red Let-39 Czech-built tandem seat trainer jet....
You mean the aaahh - de Havilland 125, surely?
Wingswinger, glad you liked the aesthetic appeal of the dear old Vickers FunBus as well as appreciating our One-oh-Wonderful AAR service!
Wingswinger, glad you liked the aesthetic appeal of the dear old Vickers FunBus as well as appreciating our One-oh-Wonderful AAR service!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder just what thought process the originator of this thread was going through when he/she began it?
I'm an American and we rule the world!
I'm an American and I am pi**ed of with Airbus being better than Boyyng.
I'm a Brit but ashamed of it.
I'm just posting this to wind up other Brits.
Just what is the point of it all I wonder?
I'm an American and we rule the world!
I'm an American and I am pi**ed of with Airbus being better than Boyyng.
I'm a Brit but ashamed of it.
I'm just posting this to wind up other Brits.
Just what is the point of it all I wonder?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the TSR2?!
OK it didnt quite get into production, but again this was due to government interference. Some say if it was continued, it would still be a tough act to beat by many jets to this day.
OK it didnt quite get into production, but again this was due to government interference. Some say if it was continued, it would still be a tough act to beat by many jets to this day.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: england
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having done my Nav course on the VC10, I can only say that it was a cow to navigate. Bullet on the tail meant that you couldn't shoot anything lower than about 10 degrees above the horizon. The sextant hole was positioned over the central pedestal, so anything in the rear 180 degree sector meant a limbo dance and hang on for grim death for 2 minutes. The Nav station on the Super was about six inches wide, which meant folding or cutting the plotting chart to fit. Anything more than 50 miles of track and you fell of the edge of the known world!
Having said that, it was a wonderful A/c to be a passenger in. During the early seventies, when the 747 was having all sorts of troubles, the VC10 made BOAC bucketfulls of money on the N. Atlantic.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a much bigger version either building or at the design stage, holding something like 260 pax? I believe it was going to be called the Superb.
One thing is for certain, Sir Charles Guthry, head of BOAC at the time, killed the VC10. He insisted on buying 707's and the rest of the world said, If the VC10 is not good enough for BOAC, it's not good enough for us.
Having said that, it was a wonderful A/c to be a passenger in. During the early seventies, when the 747 was having all sorts of troubles, the VC10 made BOAC bucketfulls of money on the N. Atlantic.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a much bigger version either building or at the design stage, holding something like 260 pax? I believe it was going to be called the Superb.
One thing is for certain, Sir Charles Guthry, head of BOAC at the time, killed the VC10. He insisted on buying 707's and the rest of the world said, If the VC10 is not good enough for BOAC, it's not good enough for us.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definitions?
What did the originator of the thread mean by 'failure'?
Very few post-War aircraft were so badly designed or built as to be dangerous, but does that mean that none of them were a 'failure'? Surely what is meant is 'commercial failure'. And, for better or worse, aesthetics is pretty irrelevent.
I always thought a DH121 Trident, even when elderly, looked an awful lot better than a Boeing 727. But if I was dependant on the manufacturer earning enough money from selling the things to pay my pension, I'd plump for the B727 every time.
Looked at this way, it's remarkable that British aviation managed to be so technically, and aesthetically, competent, yet such a commercial failure. It is in this sense that aircraft like the VC10 and the Vanguard were unambiguously commercial failures.
Very few post-War aircraft were so badly designed or built as to be dangerous, but does that mean that none of them were a 'failure'? Surely what is meant is 'commercial failure'. And, for better or worse, aesthetics is pretty irrelevent.
I always thought a DH121 Trident, even when elderly, looked an awful lot better than a Boeing 727. But if I was dependant on the manufacturer earning enough money from selling the things to pay my pension, I'd plump for the B727 every time.
Looked at this way, it's remarkable that British aviation managed to be so technically, and aesthetically, competent, yet such a commercial failure. It is in this sense that aircraft like the VC10 and the Vanguard were unambiguously commercial failures.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<<
One thing is for certain, Sir Charles Guthry......
>>>
Sir Giles Guthrie, to be precise......
<<<
I wonder just what thought process the originator of this thread was going through when he/she began it?
>>>
Rubik and anyone else. Don't worry about this guy - he turns up on other aviation forums at times under the name "Contrail". All he does is make belittling remarks about the UK, the royal family and other aspects of the nation. He never comes back with any sort of reasoned response to comment and criticism. You're all wasting your time with these otherwise fine responses. I have a feeling he's Canadian actually, not American and certainly not British.
One thing is for certain, Sir Charles Guthry......
>>>
Sir Giles Guthrie, to be precise......
<<<
I wonder just what thought process the originator of this thread was going through when he/she began it?
>>>
Rubik and anyone else. Don't worry about this guy - he turns up on other aviation forums at times under the name "Contrail". All he does is make belittling remarks about the UK, the royal family and other aspects of the nation. He never comes back with any sort of reasoned response to comment and criticism. You're all wasting your time with these otherwise fine responses. I have a feeling he's Canadian actually, not American and certainly not British.
Psychophysiological entity
What about the TSR2?!
Slightly off topic, but I have an old Air Pictorial mag in the loft that says the VC-10 was originally conceived as first a bomber (84 * 1000lb bombs in wing pods & fuselage bomb bay), then for maritime patrol then a tanker before one last shot as a pax aircraft. Then again the mighty Vulcan was going to be marketed as a Pax aircraft (the Avro Altlantic) carrying 60 pax oh & wasn't the Trident was also put forward in competition with Nimrod for an MPA?
...and I used to work in the design building that's now left standing at Hatfield.
It really was a crying shame when hatfield closed down. I never really understood why production was, first shared, then moved totally to Woodford, economics I suppose.
British aircraft were not disasters, they were the victims of circumstance. Just when you thought you'd got it right, something would come along and bite you in the a$$.
It really was a crying shame when hatfield closed down. I never really understood why production was, first shared, then moved totally to Woodford, economics I suppose.
British aircraft were not disasters, they were the victims of circumstance. Just when you thought you'd got it right, something would come along and bite you in the a$$.