How did Britain loose the lead in aviation ?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phenolic microballons incorporated into cold-set resins is a common technique used today when laying up low production composite components, as in the light and ultra-light private sector
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost of ownership
This link from the Sea Harrier thread makes rather depressing reading
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2003/na...national1.html
One issue, the time for a Harrier engine change: 550 man hours as against 10 man hours for a F16 speaks volumes to the title of this thread.
Now admittedly the Harrier is no ordainary machine, and the wing has to come off for an engine change, and while this is a unique Harrier issue the modular connections employed on the F16 are still very much quicker to disengage/engage than the numerous discrete connections on the Harrier.
Elsewhere the article relates that every Harrier flying hour 'costs' 25 maintenance hours, 2 to 5 times the cost of an F18. The need to 'carry' snags, rather than fixing them is one aspect blamed for the high accident rate.
Older readers may recall the Lightning, another wonderful plane when in the air but oh so rarely seen there. We about fell over with delight, one afternoon on 5 Squadron at Binbrook when 5 Lightnings were seen in the air simultaneously.
Access to all avionics was diabolical and changing the upper engine was a nightmare, involving a crane and numerous engine fitters with all tools on cords for the eventuallity of dropped articles falling down past the newly installed engine - which neccessitated engine back out again.
But just try and tell the kids today though, they just won't believe you.
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2003/na...national1.html
One issue, the time for a Harrier engine change: 550 man hours as against 10 man hours for a F16 speaks volumes to the title of this thread.
Now admittedly the Harrier is no ordainary machine, and the wing has to come off for an engine change, and while this is a unique Harrier issue the modular connections employed on the F16 are still very much quicker to disengage/engage than the numerous discrete connections on the Harrier.
Elsewhere the article relates that every Harrier flying hour 'costs' 25 maintenance hours, 2 to 5 times the cost of an F18. The need to 'carry' snags, rather than fixing them is one aspect blamed for the high accident rate.
Older readers may recall the Lightning, another wonderful plane when in the air but oh so rarely seen there. We about fell over with delight, one afternoon on 5 Squadron at Binbrook when 5 Lightnings were seen in the air simultaneously.
Access to all avionics was diabolical and changing the upper engine was a nightmare, involving a crane and numerous engine fitters with all tools on cords for the eventuallity of dropped articles falling down past the newly installed engine - which neccessitated engine back out again.
But just try and tell the kids today though, they just won't believe you.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depressing indeed...
Some tales of an awful maintenance situation in some of those heartrending stories in that link though...
A very special aircraft and engine, that doesn't really seem to fit with their needs - we go more for small, quick, get-in and out tactics. The US, even their marines, do seem not to have really found that role yet... whilst we did, with smaller carriers and at least once, a greater need!
Yet another reason why we shouldn't always follow their lead, we just don't always talk the same language and they rarely understand our tactics... look who's doing the serious fighting on the ground in Afghanistan. You just can't win all the battles remotely from afar, sometimes you just have to get your hands dirty, close up...
When they have loads of A-10s, does seem a bit daft to put a Gatling gun in the Harrier.
Some tales of an awful maintenance situation in some of those heartrending stories in that link though...
A very special aircraft and engine, that doesn't really seem to fit with their needs - we go more for small, quick, get-in and out tactics. The US, even their marines, do seem not to have really found that role yet... whilst we did, with smaller carriers and at least once, a greater need!
Yet another reason why we shouldn't always follow their lead, we just don't always talk the same language and they rarely understand our tactics... look who's doing the serious fighting on the ground in Afghanistan. You just can't win all the battles remotely from afar, sometimes you just have to get your hands dirty, close up...
When they have loads of A-10s, does seem a bit daft to put a Gatling gun in the Harrier.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry chaps you've been had.
I little research would show that the original RAF Harrier spec called for an engine change to be carried out in a field (as in grassy thing owned by a farmer) in 8 hours with everything (all necessary tools and men plus the replacement engine) being ferried in using one trip each with two Wessex choppers.
When this spec point was demonstrated (before CA release in 1969) the crew did the actual change in 4.5 hours and after the necessary tied down runs etc (again using special tie downs that could be wound down into the ground) had some 30 mins to spare. Everything for making the crane was built up from components joined with pip-pins and no bit could weigh more than 200lb so that two guys could manhandle it). The box that the engine came in was specialled designed so that the lid formed the trestle for the old engine while you lifted the new one in.
The wing is held on with 6 bolts and once you lift it off you have the biggest hole in a fuse that you could wish for. So after the first few hours to do the job have gone by any more is down to the team wanting it to take longer for whatever reason.
There is only one problem in practice and that is on board ship if it is pitching or rolling much. Dangling things on the hoist is not on then.
I could go on but there is no point - the world is full of duff gen and ever will be I guess.
JF
I little research would show that the original RAF Harrier spec called for an engine change to be carried out in a field (as in grassy thing owned by a farmer) in 8 hours with everything (all necessary tools and men plus the replacement engine) being ferried in using one trip each with two Wessex choppers.
When this spec point was demonstrated (before CA release in 1969) the crew did the actual change in 4.5 hours and after the necessary tied down runs etc (again using special tie downs that could be wound down into the ground) had some 30 mins to spare. Everything for making the crane was built up from components joined with pip-pins and no bit could weigh more than 200lb so that two guys could manhandle it). The box that the engine came in was specialled designed so that the lid formed the trestle for the old engine while you lifted the new one in.
The wing is held on with 6 bolts and once you lift it off you have the biggest hole in a fuse that you could wish for. So after the first few hours to do the job have gone by any more is down to the team wanting it to take longer for whatever reason.
There is only one problem in practice and that is on board ship if it is pitching or rolling much. Dangling things on the hoist is not on then.
I could go on but there is no point - the world is full of duff gen and ever will be I guess.
JF
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right to urge caution Brian, and of course it hardly needs to be said that 550 man hours is still compatible with a 5 hour engine change if 110 blokes are used....
Just coming back on the thread as aircraft became more complex and more expensive should not the British Aircraft Industry have gone down the line of the simpler cheaper aircraft. e.g Folland Midge
In other words instead of developing a F-15 type go for a F-16 type.
OK the F-15 is more capable but just think about the exports!!
Foreign operators F-15 2; F-16 24
BB
In other words instead of developing a F-15 type go for a F-16 type.
OK the F-15 is more capable but just think about the exports!!
Foreign operators F-15 2; F-16 24
BB
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just coming back on the thread as aircraft became more complex and more expensive should not the British Aircraft Industry have gone down the line of the simpler cheaper aircraft. e.g Folland Midge
The Jetstream and HS146 were two last ditch efforts, the Jetstream interrupted by HP's insolvency (and a bit overweight to start, allegedly) and the 146 interrupted by a change of govt. as well as a concept maybe a shade too clever + Great undercarriage, shame about the air conditioing
A early followup to the HS 125 wouldn't have been a bad idea too...
Jet, I think John has you at a slight disadvantage on the Harrier
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet, I think John has you at a slight disadvantage on the Harrier
Yep
In an attempt to - tactically paper over my embarrassment, - and in the absence of the thread originator - currently helping the spelling police with their enquires - I shall call the thread to order and suggest that:
1) Britain didn’t ever loose the lead in aviation - but did lose it sometime between the pre-war London to Oz air race and now.
2) The TSR2, had it been produced, would still be in service today, if not production. And its cancellation, can be blamed for the failure of every subsequent British aircraft project, including Nimrod AWACS.
3) Interference from the Wilson/Callaghan governments, in providing several hundred million pounds of make work to the airframes and engines industry, did distract the nations plane makers from their traditional pursuits of magnanimously fostering engineering excellence and promoting innovation.
4) JF is a top bloke and it’s best not to bandy words with him regarding the Harrier.
5)The Harrier is a top plane, except perhaps when used by the USMC or in the case of the Sea Harrier version if required to land back on deck with unfired AMRAAM?
Last edited by Jetex Jim; 27th Feb 2008 at 07:28.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 73
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose the last really commercially successful (over 400 built) British commercial aircraft was the Viscount in its various guises.
After that.............................
After that.............................
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetex Jim - I agree with you on some things, but not others.
That John Farley knows lots about Harriers - well, yes, obviously!!
The Harrier is brill - well, yes, obviously!! (I love all aircraft, but I notice the harrier is the only aircraft that other women are interested in at airshows.)
That we had a lead at the London to Australia air race - as I've said before it wasn't the outright lead it seemed. We won with a specially designed wooden racer (out of 3 which were entered remember) - true. However, the aircraft which came second was a metal passenger aircraft which was in ordinary passenger service!
The TSR2 had potential no doubt, but the specification was over the top and so made it far too complicated and expensive to produce. For example it had a specified range of 1000 miles, when 900 miles would have been much cheaper and just as useful. (Look back at the earlier threads from people who know a lot more than me.)
And as the previous poster has said we designed the commercially successful Viscount and then????? The BAC1 11 maybe, but nothing else which sold worldwide.
We kept on designing aircraft, maybe beautiful, maybe technologically advanced, that no-one else wanted to buy.
That John Farley knows lots about Harriers - well, yes, obviously!!
The Harrier is brill - well, yes, obviously!! (I love all aircraft, but I notice the harrier is the only aircraft that other women are interested in at airshows.)
That we had a lead at the London to Australia air race - as I've said before it wasn't the outright lead it seemed. We won with a specially designed wooden racer (out of 3 which were entered remember) - true. However, the aircraft which came second was a metal passenger aircraft which was in ordinary passenger service!
The TSR2 had potential no doubt, but the specification was over the top and so made it far too complicated and expensive to produce. For example it had a specified range of 1000 miles, when 900 miles would have been much cheaper and just as useful. (Look back at the earlier threads from people who know a lot more than me.)
And as the previous poster has said we designed the commercially successful Viscount and then????? The BAC1 11 maybe, but nothing else which sold worldwide.
We kept on designing aircraft, maybe beautiful, maybe technologically advanced, that no-one else wanted to buy.
We kept on designing aircraft, maybe beautiful, maybe technologically advanced, that no-one else wanted to buy.
The major powers want their all singing all dancing high tech planes but plenty of other nations are happy with something a little less expensive e.g F-16. Why didn't the aircraft industry go for that market or if they did why did they fail?
DR. JEKYLL.
Quite a few BAC 1-11's were used as Biz Jets.
I think about 6 or 7 were built as Biz Jets and about 20 ex American Airlines 400 srs. were converted. They had assorted VIP interiors and long range tanks in the belly holds. The range was about 3500 miles with max tanks, so didn't do a bad job.
Quite a few BAC 1-11's were used as Biz Jets.
I think about 6 or 7 were built as Biz Jets and about 20 ex American Airlines 400 srs. were converted. They had assorted VIP interiors and long range tanks in the belly holds. The range was about 3500 miles with max tanks, so didn't do a bad job.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 73
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as the previous poster has said we designed the commercially successful Viscount and then????? The BAC1 11 maybe, but nothing else which sold worldwide.
On the military side, one would be tempted to say that the Hawk has been a great success with nearly 1000 sales in its various guises and it's still in production.
It's also a pleasure to fly
In fact, one could argue that the British Aviation Industry is still alive and well and relatively healthy.
Engines: RR is still producing World beating engines. Perhaps an example of good government intervention when they were bailed out on the 211 development costs.
Commercial: BAE Systems still does most of the design work and manufacturing of Airbus wings, after the engine the most high tech and complex part of an aircraft (other in the in flight entertainment system)
Military: Hawk sales are still strong. Tornado (OK not totally Brit but) sold well and the Typhoon seems to have found a market niche.
Something radical for the future.
1. The world’s military seems to have fixated on rotary wing for support operations. What about a modern Beverley. Simple rugged aircraft that can lift, say, 30,000 lbs over 300 miles and land and take off on a 250 metre strip?
2. A cheap rugged COIN