How did Britain loose the lead in aviation ?
The Boeing competitor for the C5A contract looked much like Lockheeds. It was mainly the know how in pressurising such a large aircraft that was carried over to the 747.
Incidentally, they didn't develop the 747 instead of an SST, but as well. The SST was only cancelled after almost as much money had been spent as the UK spent on Concorde, and they didn't even have a prototype to show for it.
The real tragedy was the Trident, instead of being built for the world market it was built for BEA, so the 727 had the world market. There is a suggestion Boeing only developed the 727 after they heard United Airlines where interested in Trident. If they had built Trident the way the market wanted it BEA would have bought it anyway. They would probably have insisted on calling it the 'super Trident' and reversing the light switches or some such.
Incidentally, they didn't develop the 747 instead of an SST, but as well. The SST was only cancelled after almost as much money had been spent as the UK spent on Concorde, and they didn't even have a prototype to show for it.
The real tragedy was the Trident, instead of being built for the world market it was built for BEA, so the 727 had the world market. There is a suggestion Boeing only developed the 727 after they heard United Airlines where interested in Trident. If they had built Trident the way the market wanted it BEA would have bought it anyway. They would probably have insisted on calling it the 'super Trident' and reversing the light switches or some such.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who said we lost the lead?
We are still designing the best aircraft in the world, there is a clear line of aircraft with British designed wings, its just that we are called Airbus now and we share design work with others.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real tragedy was the Trident, instead of being built for the world market it was built for BEA, so the 727 had the world market. There is a suggestion Boeing only developed the 727 after they heard United Airlines where interested in Trident. If they had built Trident the way the market wanted it BEA would have bought it anyway. They would probably have insisted on calling it the 'super Trident' and reversing the light switches or some such.
Re-designed, with smaller Speys (so even RR suffered a lack of market too), and cheaper l.e. droop devices rather than proper slats, BEA immediately wanted a larger one... and so did the rest of the world
Too late, Boeing had seen the sense in a 3-engined short/medium haul and set the scale accordingly. Years later the Trident had been stretched as far as it could in the 3b with extra boost engine... not much more than the original design had specified.
de Havilland sold 120? Boeing more than ten times as many...
Thankyou BEA !
The story as I heard it from insiders at de Havillands...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh!
The Hatfield designed 146 was also halted at a critical stage as governments changed... the knock-on effect being that engine supply at seriously competitive prices was lost, as well as a good foothold in the target market...
Hatfield also didn't have a large erecting shop, one factor in AI assembly going to Tolouse... been nice if govt. had done what the French did, helped with a loan to build a massive one just in case... to help sway the argument..
A famous airfield is now a housing estate and a Uni campus... you choose!
The Hatfield designed 146 was also halted at a critical stage as governments changed... the knock-on effect being that engine supply at seriously competitive prices was lost, as well as a good foothold in the target market...
Hatfield also didn't have a large erecting shop, one factor in AI assembly going to Tolouse... been nice if govt. had done what the French did, helped with a loan to build a massive one just in case... to help sway the argument..
A famous airfield is now a housing estate and a Uni campus... you choose!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: norwich, norfolk, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harry, Good points, Your last comment, "you choose" I have to assume we do via the ballot box, but do we ?
I have lived through several governments, watched so much going on (or not as the case may be ) and always arrive at the same conclusion ! We do not have any say in these things, we are only aware of the results after the descision is made ! But hey thats democracy ! I assume !
Looking forward to the next major cancellation ! lets all try to guess what that may be ..... Keith.
I have lived through several governments, watched so much going on (or not as the case may be ) and always arrive at the same conclusion ! We do not have any say in these things, we are only aware of the results after the descision is made ! But hey thats democracy ! I assume !
Looking forward to the next major cancellation ! lets all try to guess what that may be ..... Keith.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 74
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading this thread (and others like it) it is obvious that the UK was very provincial in its outlook towards build aircraft for world markets. Perhaps a leftover from having had an empire and thinking that we impose our (read "our governments") thinking on the rest of the world.
We just did not understand marketing and giving the customer what he wanted.
We just did not understand marketing and giving the customer what he wanted.
Last edited by S'land; 13th Feb 2008 at 21:39. Reason: Unable to type!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Stole No Lead. We Had None.
G/P: we were all too handy at handing over technology and secrets to all and sundry and getting nothing back in return. A barnacle of a myth.
Lend/Lease, an Act for the Defense of US, ended upon defeat of US' Enemy. Its continuation for USSR, 8 May-8 August 1945 had already been illegal (USSR neutral v.Japan), and to protract it after Japan's capitulation would have siphoned voters' taxes to competitors taking their jobs. So, UK asked Keynes to negotiate a Reconstruction $ Loan, as we were skint.
He did, and settled Lend/Lease obligations within it, July,1946 after scratching for Reverse to net them down. All Tizard's October,1940 goodies (e.g:cavity magnetron) were thrown into this pot. So were Trinidad and Abadan £ fuel, and spark plugs, and good British grub for USAAFE. Not well-measured - how could it be, we were fighting, not counting; we settled on (?$600Mn. net outstanding, from ?$30Bn. provided to the King's Forces), and paid in drips to December,2006 at 1.9% p.a. From April,1948 US provided (Marshall Aid), from December,1950 Mutual Defense Assistance, both as grants.
?getting nothing back in return.
Between end of Lend/Lease, September,1945, and start of Cold War R&D Collaboration (such as Burns/Templar GW Agreement, February,1950), commercial issues were present, as we tussled for market. If there was anything of benefit to Bell X-1 in Miles M.52, and if it was ripped off...then naughty, but thanks for 438 free F-86, fellas, and, gee we didn't think you would mind us giving Korean War materials supply Super-Priority to Comet 3 so we could make a nice bid to Pan Am in 1953 (and Capital Viscounts, and TWA Britannias). (That provoked Ike to complain to Churchill).
We sold designs in Derwent/Nene to USSR in September,1946, for money and goods (we were cold, hungry and $-sparse; USSR was our friend). Their, and Goblin, licences to US were within Reverse Lend/Lease; money changed hands for the later Sapphire (and other) licences.
I'm with Viola, root and branch. C.Barnett has made an academic career from declinism. We grumpies can wallow in missed chances, but we had only ourselves - and the power of scale economy - to blame, if blame there be. Much better profitably to make chunks of many Airbuses (or Swindon Hondas) than to lose much on all of few Britannias (or Austin All Aggros).
Lend/Lease, an Act for the Defense of US, ended upon defeat of US' Enemy. Its continuation for USSR, 8 May-8 August 1945 had already been illegal (USSR neutral v.Japan), and to protract it after Japan's capitulation would have siphoned voters' taxes to competitors taking their jobs. So, UK asked Keynes to negotiate a Reconstruction $ Loan, as we were skint.
He did, and settled Lend/Lease obligations within it, July,1946 after scratching for Reverse to net them down. All Tizard's October,1940 goodies (e.g:cavity magnetron) were thrown into this pot. So were Trinidad and Abadan £ fuel, and spark plugs, and good British grub for USAAFE. Not well-measured - how could it be, we were fighting, not counting; we settled on (?$600Mn. net outstanding, from ?$30Bn. provided to the King's Forces), and paid in drips to December,2006 at 1.9% p.a. From April,1948 US provided (Marshall Aid), from December,1950 Mutual Defense Assistance, both as grants.
?getting nothing back in return.
Between end of Lend/Lease, September,1945, and start of Cold War R&D Collaboration (such as Burns/Templar GW Agreement, February,1950), commercial issues were present, as we tussled for market. If there was anything of benefit to Bell X-1 in Miles M.52, and if it was ripped off...then naughty, but thanks for 438 free F-86, fellas, and, gee we didn't think you would mind us giving Korean War materials supply Super-Priority to Comet 3 so we could make a nice bid to Pan Am in 1953 (and Capital Viscounts, and TWA Britannias). (That provoked Ike to complain to Churchill).
We sold designs in Derwent/Nene to USSR in September,1946, for money and goods (we were cold, hungry and $-sparse; USSR was our friend). Their, and Goblin, licences to US were within Reverse Lend/Lease; money changed hands for the later Sapphire (and other) licences.
I'm with Viola, root and branch. C.Barnett has made an academic career from declinism. We grumpies can wallow in missed chances, but we had only ourselves - and the power of scale economy - to blame, if blame there be. Much better profitably to make chunks of many Airbuses (or Swindon Hondas) than to lose much on all of few Britannias (or Austin All Aggros).
Lose the lead?
How did Britain loose the lead in aviation ?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sunny Oxfordshire
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a most interesting thread.
Whatever the manifold reasons for Britain's decline and fall in the aircraft manufacturing business, the question remains:
How do we, learning from our bitter mistakes of the past, get back in the business of manufacturing commercial aircraft?
The Brazilians have been successfully producing regional airliners for years; the E170-E190 series have gained large orders with US carriers.
Eclipse have gone from a start-up to, in a decade, having a $3billion order book for their VLJ.
There is no reason why we in the UK are not able to achieve similar results.
The UK has a large trade deficit, exporting value-added engineered goods is in our best interest.
We do share design work with Airbus, but only as a sub-contractor. Most of the profits are pocketed in France and Germany and wing production could easily be farmed out to the far-east if it is politically expedient.
Whatever the manifold reasons for Britain's decline and fall in the aircraft manufacturing business, the question remains:
How do we, learning from our bitter mistakes of the past, get back in the business of manufacturing commercial aircraft?
The Brazilians have been successfully producing regional airliners for years; the E170-E190 series have gained large orders with US carriers.
Eclipse have gone from a start-up to, in a decade, having a $3billion order book for their VLJ.
There is no reason why we in the UK are not able to achieve similar results.
The UK has a large trade deficit, exporting value-added engineered goods is in our best interest.
We do share design work with Airbus, but only as a sub-contractor. Most of the profits are pocketed in France and Germany and wing production could easily be farmed out to the far-east if it is politically expedient.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rural Virginia
Age: 70
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm proud to say that I worked for BAe/RR in Herndon, VA (USA) back in the days of the BAC1-11, HS748/ATP, HS125-series, etc. We also supported Shorts 330/360, Jetstream 31/41 and another obscure a/c called Airbus who had 2 customers in the US. In the early 80s, the HS125 biz jet seemed to be THE biz jet, unfortunately the RR Viper 522/622 engines were rather thirsty. When I left for another related EU company, the legacy was in decline and I made the jump just in time. BAC1-11s were also gas-thirsty and fell out of grace due to age and fuel costs mostly, but the RomBAC was still in production. Ah, those British a/c were good'n's...
Cheers, y'all.
Cheers, y'all.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK design
Airbus design in the UK is not sub contracted , they are British employees of a UK company (Airbus UK LTD) producing world leading designs, you guys do not give the UK employees enough credit, as I said before there is direct evolution from HS to A300 and then through to A380, and the HS125 is still made in North Wales
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder at what point in the past Britain was considered to have been preeminent in aviation?
Structurally
Regarding the Comet, as every schoolboy (once knew) the Comet hull failures were caused by fatigue fractures starting at the corners of square cabin windows. Given that another part of British Industry had been safely making pressure vessels for years,- and knew enough to always make access ports with rounded corners - its astonishing that the clever boys at DH would not have looked to the boiler industry to see how a pressure vessel could be safely made.
It was nice of Britain to pass the results of their pressure chamber testing to the USA, but since Boeing had been succesfully building pressurised aircraft since 1943 one wonders how much they could learn from it.
Quality
It's been mentioned elsewhere how British aircraft of the fifties each tended to handle differently, because of inconsistent build dimensions and rigging angles, and at the time the original Nimrod hulls were being produced these kind of inconsistencies were still being built in - as we are regularly reminded by BAE whenever they need to exercise their excuses regarding MRA4 lateness.
Aerodynamics
Regarding the TSR2; a comparison with the NA Vigilante is interesting. This highly advanced aircraft made its first flight in 1958, the same year as the TSR2 proposal was tendered. The Vigilante specification is very close to that of the TSR2.
Vigilante/TSR2
Length ft 76/89
Wing area sqft 754/702
Payload Kg 13,000/9,000
Max speed Mach 2.0/2.15
Range, miles 1290/1150
Ceiling feet 52000/54000
Rate of climb ft/min8000/50000
Engines 2 x J79/2 x Olympus
Thrust Dry lbf 10900 each/19610 each
Thrust A/B 17000 each/30000each
Its also worth remembering that the Vigilante was a carrier capable aircraft.
A look at the numbers reveals that the TSR2 is only slightly superior in speed and ceiling. And inferior in payload and range. The only major advantage being in much increased rate of climb, 8000ft/min v 50,00ft/min. But this seems a dubious distinction in an aircraft intended for nap of the earth operation.
Regarding the engines, the Vigilante used the J79, as per the standard model F4 while TSR2 would have used Olympus, almost twice the thrust in both wet and dry modes. Just what had they done with all that extra power? - not much - so much for superior aerodynamics.
It's traditional at this point to trot out the argument about unwanted government interference in engineering matters, and indeed Sir George Edwards does have a grumble about this in his biography, they would have preferred to use the Medway, but were obliged to use the Olympus in order to make work for Bristol's. This is generally the nature of government interference, steering work to a particular section of the industry in response to lobbying from within that industry.
The Spey engined Phantom; a huge amount spent installing Speys in what had previously been one of the worlds greatest fighter aircraft.
F4J (J79 engines)/F4M (Spey)
Speed Mach 2.4/2.07
Initial ROC, ft/min 41250/32000
Ceiling ft 70000/60000
Maximum range miles 1956/1750
Despite the extra power, all performance numbers are reduced. (This is normally the point where Spey apologists cough and start muttering about clean burning exhaust and reduced visual signature)
Requirements Analysis
To turn to the airline side of things, it was traditional (as described in earlier posts) for British industry to latch onto a launch customer, and let them write a specification for them. Boeing, by contrast, would do a world wide market analysis and then produce a generic type, nobodys ideal case but still worth buying.
Britain, meanwhile, having built the aircraft around its launch customers specification, then whines because it ends up with an aircraft that is only ideally suited to that one customer, and further away from what the rest of the world wants than Boeing design derived from analysis.
In retrospect, in numerous coffee table books and the biographies of retired British planemakers the British aircraft industry is always the victim,- it never got a fair shake.
Perhaps, but for me it's always talked a better game than it ever played.
Structurally
Regarding the Comet, as every schoolboy (once knew) the Comet hull failures were caused by fatigue fractures starting at the corners of square cabin windows. Given that another part of British Industry had been safely making pressure vessels for years,- and knew enough to always make access ports with rounded corners - its astonishing that the clever boys at DH would not have looked to the boiler industry to see how a pressure vessel could be safely made.
It was nice of Britain to pass the results of their pressure chamber testing to the USA, but since Boeing had been succesfully building pressurised aircraft since 1943 one wonders how much they could learn from it.
Quality
It's been mentioned elsewhere how British aircraft of the fifties each tended to handle differently, because of inconsistent build dimensions and rigging angles, and at the time the original Nimrod hulls were being produced these kind of inconsistencies were still being built in - as we are regularly reminded by BAE whenever they need to exercise their excuses regarding MRA4 lateness.
Aerodynamics
Regarding the TSR2; a comparison with the NA Vigilante is interesting. This highly advanced aircraft made its first flight in 1958, the same year as the TSR2 proposal was tendered. The Vigilante specification is very close to that of the TSR2.
Vigilante/TSR2
Length ft 76/89
Wing area sqft 754/702
Payload Kg 13,000/9,000
Max speed Mach 2.0/2.15
Range, miles 1290/1150
Ceiling feet 52000/54000
Rate of climb ft/min8000/50000
Engines 2 x J79/2 x Olympus
Thrust Dry lbf 10900 each/19610 each
Thrust A/B 17000 each/30000each
Its also worth remembering that the Vigilante was a carrier capable aircraft.
A look at the numbers reveals that the TSR2 is only slightly superior in speed and ceiling. And inferior in payload and range. The only major advantage being in much increased rate of climb, 8000ft/min v 50,00ft/min. But this seems a dubious distinction in an aircraft intended for nap of the earth operation.
Regarding the engines, the Vigilante used the J79, as per the standard model F4 while TSR2 would have used Olympus, almost twice the thrust in both wet and dry modes. Just what had they done with all that extra power? - not much - so much for superior aerodynamics.
It's traditional at this point to trot out the argument about unwanted government interference in engineering matters, and indeed Sir George Edwards does have a grumble about this in his biography, they would have preferred to use the Medway, but were obliged to use the Olympus in order to make work for Bristol's. This is generally the nature of government interference, steering work to a particular section of the industry in response to lobbying from within that industry.
The Spey engined Phantom; a huge amount spent installing Speys in what had previously been one of the worlds greatest fighter aircraft.
F4J (J79 engines)/F4M (Spey)
Speed Mach 2.4/2.07
Initial ROC, ft/min 41250/32000
Ceiling ft 70000/60000
Maximum range miles 1956/1750
Despite the extra power, all performance numbers are reduced. (This is normally the point where Spey apologists cough and start muttering about clean burning exhaust and reduced visual signature)
Requirements Analysis
To turn to the airline side of things, it was traditional (as described in earlier posts) for British industry to latch onto a launch customer, and let them write a specification for them. Boeing, by contrast, would do a world wide market analysis and then produce a generic type, nobodys ideal case but still worth buying.
Britain, meanwhile, having built the aircraft around its launch customers specification, then whines because it ends up with an aircraft that is only ideally suited to that one customer, and further away from what the rest of the world wants than Boeing design derived from analysis.
In retrospect, in numerous coffee table books and the biographies of retired British planemakers the British aircraft industry is always the victim,- it never got a fair shake.
Perhaps, but for me it's always talked a better game than it ever played.
Last edited by Jetex Jim; 14th Feb 2008 at 21:18. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dH Trident
dH had a design known as the dH 121, about 120 seats, to be powered by RR Medways. They were in competition with Vickers (who had on paper the VC11) for the BEA contract. Word is that when BEA said 'give us a 90 seater' if dH had said no, the contract would have gone to the rival.
So the Trident 1 was bult to BEA spec with RR Speys, and the RR Medway didn't get developed. Almost immediately BEA realised the inadequacies of the Trident 1, and asked for a Trident with more range and more capacity. dH made the Trident 2 - same fuselage but bigger wings, slats instead of droops, and uprated Speys.
But that wasn't big enough either, so dH built the 3B. Stretched fuselage, but the Spey was not capable of further development so this heavier aeroplane was underpowered. To give it 'hot and high' take off capability, it had a 4th engine, a 'boost' engine mounted in the base of the fin, just above no. 2 Spey.
If you include the APU, the Trident 3B had 5 engines, all mounted in the tail! No wonder the wing is positioned so far back on the fuselage!
SSD
So the Trident 1 was bult to BEA spec with RR Speys, and the RR Medway didn't get developed. Almost immediately BEA realised the inadequacies of the Trident 1, and asked for a Trident with more range and more capacity. dH made the Trident 2 - same fuselage but bigger wings, slats instead of droops, and uprated Speys.
But that wasn't big enough either, so dH built the 3B. Stretched fuselage, but the Spey was not capable of further development so this heavier aeroplane was underpowered. To give it 'hot and high' take off capability, it had a 4th engine, a 'boost' engine mounted in the base of the fin, just above no. 2 Spey.
If you include the APU, the Trident 3B had 5 engines, all mounted in the tail! No wonder the wing is positioned so far back on the fuselage!
SSD
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lincolnshire, UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The Spey engined Phantom; a huge amount spent installing Speys in what had previously been one of the worlds greatest fighter aircraft.
F4J (J79 engines)/F4M (Spey)
Speed Mach 2.4/2.07
Initial ROC, ft/min 41250/32000
Ceiling ft 70000/60000
Maximum range miles 1956/1750"
I was told by a USAF Phantom pilot on a visit to RAF Alconbury that Phantom endurance in a combat high power situation was limited to 15 - 20 mins, he also said that when in reheat they had about 20 mins max total endurance.
Can anyone provide the equivalent figures for the Spey Phantom, I was always under the impression from past reading that the low bypass ratio Speys had improved the aircrafts loiter time and overall endurance!
F4J (J79 engines)/F4M (Spey)
Speed Mach 2.4/2.07
Initial ROC, ft/min 41250/32000
Ceiling ft 70000/60000
Maximum range miles 1956/1750"
I was told by a USAF Phantom pilot on a visit to RAF Alconbury that Phantom endurance in a combat high power situation was limited to 15 - 20 mins, he also said that when in reheat they had about 20 mins max total endurance.
Can anyone provide the equivalent figures for the Spey Phantom, I was always under the impression from past reading that the low bypass ratio Speys had improved the aircrafts loiter time and overall endurance!
Can anyone provide the equivalent figures for the Spey Phantom, I was always under the impression from past reading that the low bypass ratio Speys had improved the aircrafts loiter time and overall endurance!
http://warships1discussionboards.yuk...ft.html?page=3
"Can you point me to something that explains how, with the Spey turbofans (Specific Fuel Consumption .63 lbs fuel per pound of thrust per hour [1.95 in afterburner]) the F-4K (FG.1) had a shorter range than the F-4B/J with J79 turbojets (SFC .85-.86 [1.93-1.97])?
While the enlarged intake ducts for the greater airflow of the Spey could have caused a reduction in the capacity of the centre-fuselage tanks, I have not seen anything to indicate a great enough reduction to exceed the 35% improvement in fuel economy the Spey provided.
Can you enlighten me?
For certain, the F4K is roughly 3,000lb heavier than a F4 C, D, J, or N. It was 2,000lb more than a F4E, F and RF.
The mach1.9 figure is reasonably certain. J79 gave a rough figure of 1,500mph, the Spey 1,386 at high altitude (probably 36,000ft), at low level the Spey gave 10mph greater speed.
Ceiling was upto 60,000ft with Spey, J79 took it over that figure.
Climb figure was superior, presumably the Spey giving it the edge in the initial stages and making up for inferior performance at the laster stages.
Cost was rather more than the projected 1.2 million per plane at something close to 3 million. "
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder at what point in the past Britain was considered to have been preeminent in aviation?
, Buccaneer, TSR2 (intercepted by what?), Harrier et al. If airpower was the game then BritAeroEng Ltd offered a winning combination, as long as the opposition didn't have too many second rate 'planes of course.The reality is that British Engineering Ltd has been on a long downward slope since the late 1940s, if not before. But engineering is yesterday's industry, British Finance Ltd is the future and it makes oodles of dosh (yes, I know most of it is smoke and mirrors, but that's not the point)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other great aircraft like the VC-10 (scrapped because of economics yet passengers enjoyed flying on this aircraft).
And the British airliners of the 40s through 70s were generally designed to a single specification dictated by London, leaving little room for tailoring a family of models for foreign customers. Boeing and Douglas, by contrast, offered a great deal of customization of fuselage lengths, engine choices, etc. The British offered almost a "take it or leave it" airplane.
And it was the great flexibility offered to the customer that eventually proved what combination was most productive and most reliable. It was the Darwinian free market at work.
I'm sure someone will take exception to these observations, but in many or most cases they valid.