How did Britain loose the lead in aviation ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hertfordshire
Age: 49
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How did Britain loose the lead in aviation ?
I am just intrigued as to why Britain could make decent aircraft and then it loose the lead in aviation, take for example the successfull BAC-111.
Other great aircraft like the VC-10 (scrapped because of economics yet passengers enjoyed flying on this aircraft).
Comet 4 was a great aircraft, yet not many sold even though all of the problems were ironed out by this stage.
From my understanding (if I am wrong please correct me), Britian were in the lead with aviation with the comet 1. Then the comet disasters happened and this gave the chance for boeing to catch up.
Four years later the comet 4 is for sale but not many companies want to buy the comet 4.
So was the lead in aviation lost after the comet 1 disasters ?
Since Boeing and De-havilland were pushing the boundaries of technology at the time how comes Boeing never ran into the same problems ?
I wonder how much info (testing / design) was passed back to Boeing freely (or not), Since Boeing seem to have an unblemished record with pressurization.
Other great aircraft like the VC-10 (scrapped because of economics yet passengers enjoyed flying on this aircraft).
Comet 4 was a great aircraft, yet not many sold even though all of the problems were ironed out by this stage.
From my understanding (if I am wrong please correct me), Britian were in the lead with aviation with the comet 1. Then the comet disasters happened and this gave the chance for boeing to catch up.
Four years later the comet 4 is for sale but not many companies want to buy the comet 4.
So was the lead in aviation lost after the comet 1 disasters ?
Since Boeing and De-havilland were pushing the boundaries of technology at the time how comes Boeing never ran into the same problems ?
I wonder how much info (testing / design) was passed back to Boeing freely (or not), Since Boeing seem to have an unblemished record with pressurization.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discuss?
Disparate design teams with too many companies designing for the local market and relying on selling to their colonial subjects while others looked further afield promoting larger markets. BOAC & BEA doth not a world market make!
G'day
G'day
From a technical perspective once the Americans were in possession of German swept-wing data, as well as working examples of German and British jet engines, there was no looking back. The sheer scale of the economic and technical resources of the big American companies (backed by Government orders/contracts) was far greater than what any British company could expect. Boeing in particular benefited from military orders for the majestic swept-wing B-47 jet bomber that flew a full 18 months before the Comet, and by then it had already commenced design of the eight-engine B-52 jet bomber. The knowledge learned from these two projects alone would have been invaluable to the design and development of the 707. (Famed Boeing test pilot ‘Tex’ Johnston flew all three types, not to mention travelling in the cockpit of an early Russian attempt at a civilian jet airliner (Tu-104) that he described as rubbish compared to the 707).
Comparing the subsequent 707 with the Comet, the former was bigger, more powerful, faster, and could fly greater distances and at higher altitudes. Of course Comet struggled to regain its shattered reputation after the series of disastrous crashes, and although the Comet 4 was vastly superior to all the previous Comets, it was too little, too late.
As Feather mentioned, the marketing of the American jets was also far superior to the British marketing of its own aircraft, and of course, America’s own domestic market was significant in itself. Boeing used Tex Johnston himself with great success to showcase the 707 to the world
Comparing the subsequent 707 with the Comet, the former was bigger, more powerful, faster, and could fly greater distances and at higher altitudes. Of course Comet struggled to regain its shattered reputation after the series of disastrous crashes, and although the Comet 4 was vastly superior to all the previous Comets, it was too little, too late.
As Feather mentioned, the marketing of the American jets was also far superior to the British marketing of its own aircraft, and of course, America’s own domestic market was significant in itself. Boeing used Tex Johnston himself with great success to showcase the 707 to the world
...and in the forties and fifties, Britain was still recovering from the ravages of war. The Labour Government of the late forties nationalised (= destroyed) everything in sight, smashing any hopes we had of capitalising on our innovations.
Of course, our small home market (and the domination of Government-owned BEA & BOAC in that market) was also critical.
In comparison with the US, Britain was poor, with far fewer people flying or having the means to. So our airline industry remained feeble until the advent of the inclusive holiday in the late sixties. By then, most of the airframe manufacturing industry had gone.
Also, in comparison with the US, we were poor salesmen, only managing to sell a few export orders. I remember that MEA purchased 707s in preference to VC10s because the Boeing salesmen did a deal involving Lebanese oranges!
Of course, our small home market (and the domination of Government-owned BEA & BOAC in that market) was also critical.
In comparison with the US, Britain was poor, with far fewer people flying or having the means to. So our airline industry remained feeble until the advent of the inclusive holiday in the late sixties. By then, most of the airframe manufacturing industry had gone.
Also, in comparison with the US, we were poor salesmen, only managing to sell a few export orders. I remember that MEA purchased 707s in preference to VC10s because the Boeing salesmen did a deal involving Lebanese oranges!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As suggested already, the civil industry was killed by its slavish obedience to the demands of the two national airlines BOAC and BEA, which in turn reflected the incredibly short-sighted view of their place in the world; BOAC in particular thought, even in the early 70's, that its cabotage rights would continue until the end of time.
And, of course, both the civil and military manufacturers were at the whim of idiots in Goverment holding R&D purse strings; British civil servants with their notion that languid incompetence was and remains the best approach for an easy life; and British politicians who were always, then as now, stupid, only concerned with the next elections and frequently open to bribery from one or more interested parties to support or kill a project.
And, of course, both the civil and military manufacturers were at the whim of idiots in Goverment holding R&D purse strings; British civil servants with their notion that languid incompetence was and remains the best approach for an easy life; and British politicians who were always, then as now, stupid, only concerned with the next elections and frequently open to bribery from one or more interested parties to support or kill a project.
The issue was greater than just the British aircraft industry. The demise of the UK aircraft industry paralleled the gradual failure of the British automobile and shipbuilding industries, etc, etc.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lincolnshire, UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Since Boeing and De-havilland were pushing the boundaries of technology at the time how comes Boeing never ran into the same problems ?"
I believe that all the data from the pressure tank tests on the Comet 1 were given to the Americans to ensure they did not suffer the same fatigue problem, although as in the case of the Bell X2 all flying tailplane they will no doubt claim they new it anyway!
I believe that all the data from the pressure tank tests on the Comet 1 were given to the Americans to ensure they did not suffer the same fatigue problem, although as in the case of the Bell X2 all flying tailplane they will no doubt claim they new it anyway!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We did rather have the habit of making for prestige rather than the mass market. Thus we made Concord and the spams made the 747.
Last edited by effortless; 12th Feb 2008 at 07:31.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hertfordshire
Age: 49
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
smuff 2000, are you saying that Britain knew about the all flying tailplane before the USA ?
I was always led to believe that this came from captured WW2 german aircraft and data that the USA had.
BTW, thanks for the feedback from everyone else, so its not just me that is slightly cynical then regarding bad decisions, lack of foresight and terrible planning by the powers that be......
I was always led to believe that this came from captured WW2 german aircraft and data that the USA had.
BTW, thanks for the feedback from everyone else, so its not just me that is slightly cynical then regarding bad decisions, lack of foresight and terrible planning by the powers that be......
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,371
Received 110 Likes
on
77 Posts
We do aerodynamics and structures rather well...and we are pretty good at R n D and avionic development ...so far so good.....but we never built aircraft with one rather essential detail..well a couple actually..in mind....maintainability and accessability...why struggle for 3 hrs to remove / refit a component when, with a bit of design, the time can be reduced considerably....as Mr Boeing showed.
A few weeks ago, I met some very nice and very clever people from Loughborough...and let them take a few spare parts of a dead aircraft...they had never done this before despite being well qualified in their fields...at the end of the day, one opined that, " we don't build aircraft for ease of access do we"...and freely admitted they had no idea as to how a design, which looks superb on CAD etc..could be a nightmare when fitted.
Then there were the production techniques / processes which hardly helped matters.
In short, the good old British class culture served to hasten the demise, sadly, of the UK aviation sector.
A few weeks ago, I met some very nice and very clever people from Loughborough...and let them take a few spare parts of a dead aircraft...they had never done this before despite being well qualified in their fields...at the end of the day, one opined that, " we don't build aircraft for ease of access do we"...and freely admitted they had no idea as to how a design, which looks superb on CAD etc..could be a nightmare when fitted.
Then there were the production techniques / processes which hardly helped matters.
In short, the good old British class culture served to hasten the demise, sadly, of the UK aviation sector.
Books about it
Read this trilogy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correll...d_Fall_Trilogy
It will answer all of your questions about why Britain is now just a shadow of herself... the aviation industry's post war decline is just one symptom of this much broader story.
Teals comments are right on the money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correll...d_Fall_Trilogy
It will answer all of your questions about why Britain is now just a shadow of herself... the aviation industry's post war decline is just one symptom of this much broader story.
Teals comments are right on the money.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bankrupting ourselves fighting (rightly so!) the 2nd World War
Sharing technology - jet engine, all moving tailplane (rightly so - we were fighting on the same side as the USA, obviously)
Sharing technology - metal fatigue after the Comet 1 problems (rightly so - it was a moral issue which saved lives)
Concentrating on the development of bombers in the 2nd World War; we bought most of our transport aircraft from the USA so they had a lead after the War
Developing airliners which would land at the 'hot and high' airfields of the Empire/Commonwealth which were really too small whilst the USA assumed runways would be lengthened for larger aircraft such as the 747 (Boeing took an enormous risk with the 747, so designed it as a freight aircraft too - very sensible)
Government assuming missiles were the way forward in the late 1950s rather than aircraft
Prestige developments such as Concorde rather than mass market such as 747
Too complicated specifications - TSR2
Sir Stanley Hooker says the aircraft industry from 1955 - 1965 was mismanaged
Too many competing small aircraft manufacturers
Sharing technology - jet engine, all moving tailplane (rightly so - we were fighting on the same side as the USA, obviously)
Sharing technology - metal fatigue after the Comet 1 problems (rightly so - it was a moral issue which saved lives)
Concentrating on the development of bombers in the 2nd World War; we bought most of our transport aircraft from the USA so they had a lead after the War
Developing airliners which would land at the 'hot and high' airfields of the Empire/Commonwealth which were really too small whilst the USA assumed runways would be lengthened for larger aircraft such as the 747 (Boeing took an enormous risk with the 747, so designed it as a freight aircraft too - very sensible)
Government assuming missiles were the way forward in the late 1950s rather than aircraft
Prestige developments such as Concorde rather than mass market such as 747
Too complicated specifications - TSR2
Sir Stanley Hooker says the aircraft industry from 1955 - 1965 was mismanaged
Too many competing small aircraft manufacturers
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's quite simple, but very hard for some British people to swallow.
You have to make an airplane that people want to BUY, and peferably BUY lots of them.
You have to SELL them at a reasonable rate and make a .........PROFIT.
It's no good us going on about power jets, vertical lift, autoland and Concorde when whats wanted is efficiency and reliability.
You have to make an airplane that people want to BUY, and peferably BUY lots of them.
You have to SELL them at a reasonable rate and make a .........PROFIT.
It's no good us going on about power jets, vertical lift, autoland and Concorde when whats wanted is efficiency and reliability.
Usual disclaimers apply!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually we (Brits!) were all too handy at handing over technology and secrets to all and sundry and getting nothing back in return.
Early jet engine technology.
The all moving tailplane. (Miles M52)
Structural fatigue.
Early jet engine technology.
The all moving tailplane. (Miles M52)
Structural fatigue.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lincolnshire, UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As gas path states the all flying tailplane was designed for the Miles M52, the information was passed to Bell who were having control problems with the X2, fitting this device solved their problem. When Miles and the Air Ministry asked for data about the tailplane they were told they couldn't have it because it was "top secret".
If you have been following the JSF story at all you will see a similar thing happening, BAe are a major partner in the program, the British military a major customer, and we are supposed to have a "special relationship" with our friends in the USA but we have had to fight tooth and nail to get sufficient information out of "our partners" to be able to carry out any necessary routine and battlefield repairs on the aircraft!
Tonker you are quite right we did spend a lot of time developing aircraft for our domestic companies which had limited appeal to others. We do get a little fed up though with a certain US company crying foul every time Airbus gain some governmental support to develope new and exciting aeroplanes when that certain US companies success was based on the US Government funding the total development costs of the 707 through the C135 aerial tanker contract in the 60's, a long time ago but!
We British do not have financial institutions which support innovation, British industry started to decline massively when accountants started to get into positions of influence on the boards of companies and eventually to run those same companies, most of which are now long gone!
Sorry about the rant I am just a very patriotic grumpy old man!
If you have been following the JSF story at all you will see a similar thing happening, BAe are a major partner in the program, the British military a major customer, and we are supposed to have a "special relationship" with our friends in the USA but we have had to fight tooth and nail to get sufficient information out of "our partners" to be able to carry out any necessary routine and battlefield repairs on the aircraft!
Tonker you are quite right we did spend a lot of time developing aircraft for our domestic companies which had limited appeal to others. We do get a little fed up though with a certain US company crying foul every time Airbus gain some governmental support to develope new and exciting aeroplanes when that certain US companies success was based on the US Government funding the total development costs of the 707 through the C135 aerial tanker contract in the 60's, a long time ago but!
We British do not have financial institutions which support innovation, British industry started to decline massively when accountants started to get into positions of influence on the boards of companies and eventually to run those same companies, most of which are now long gone!
Sorry about the rant I am just a very patriotic grumpy old man!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm patriotic too, but it infuriates me when we invent something and then don't invest or market the product properly, and then blame jonny foreigner for doing the job right.
It's simply not good enough to keep bringing up we invented this that and the other, as if its our god given right to thus profit from all future applications.
It's simply not good enough to keep bringing up we invented this that and the other, as if its our god given right to thus profit from all future applications.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of civil aviation, the 707 was mass produced on a production line, the Comet was essentially handbuilt. Didn't Boeing reps visit the De Havilland factory during the manufacture of the Comet and declare that they were astounded that anything could be built in such an environment, let alone a jet aircraft?
The British have never been capable of genuine mass production, that's why we innovate.
WW2 did tilt the scales a bit, 1945 = a wrecked Europe and an un-bombed US factory-based economy in full production.
In terms of military aviation, we ran out of money, hence the Phantom, Tornado and the Mk2 Typhoon.
The British have never been capable of genuine mass production, that's why we innovate.
WW2 did tilt the scales a bit, 1945 = a wrecked Europe and an un-bombed US factory-based economy in full production.
In terms of military aviation, we ran out of money, hence the Phantom, Tornado and the Mk2 Typhoon.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Viola - I was under the impression that the B747 was originally Boeing's competitor for the military freighter, the C5A Galaxy won the contest so Boeing then fitted seats and developed the pax version, is that not the case?
"Cold War at 30,000 Feet: The Anglo-American Fight for Aviation Supremacy" might be a good read for those interested ($28.70 from Amazon, etc).
The author (Jeffrey Engel) notes that Britain has never been able to overcome the disadvantage that its domestic market is pathetically small in comparison with America. Between 1945 and 1957 the US military purchased over 2,000 transport aircraft from its manufacturers. During the same period, the RAF bought 46 from British manufacturers. He goes on to say that the British Government provided direct cash subsidies - usually wasted - to its aircraft manufacturers, whilst the US Government's huge military purchasing programs provided a funding lifeline for US plane builders. It is almost impossible for a relatively small country to complete with another that possesses an overwhelminly powerful domestic sales base. (Also consider Japan in that context with its automobile and electronics manufacturing). It became entirely so when various US-imposed draconian contraints were imposed on British foreign sales.
The author (Jeffrey Engel) notes that Britain has never been able to overcome the disadvantage that its domestic market is pathetically small in comparison with America. Between 1945 and 1957 the US military purchased over 2,000 transport aircraft from its manufacturers. During the same period, the RAF bought 46 from British manufacturers. He goes on to say that the British Government provided direct cash subsidies - usually wasted - to its aircraft manufacturers, whilst the US Government's huge military purchasing programs provided a funding lifeline for US plane builders. It is almost impossible for a relatively small country to complete with another that possesses an overwhelminly powerful domestic sales base. (Also consider Japan in that context with its automobile and electronics manufacturing). It became entirely so when various US-imposed draconian contraints were imposed on British foreign sales.
Last edited by Teal; 13th Feb 2008 at 01:49. Reason: Grammar