Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Aviation History and Nostalgia
Reload this Page >

another cradle of British aviation put into terminal decline

Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

another cradle of British aviation put into terminal decline

Old 3rd Oct 2011, 18:11
  #21 (permalink)  
PFR
Gamekeeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: South East
Age: 57
Posts: 211
Question

pr00ne, Firstly thanks for your post, very helpful. I see here a lot about manufacturing, but what of design - and as importantly - development, leading to manufacture = UK PLC
Surely we don't just want to be a an Island fabrication and machine shop

Last edited by PFR; 3rd Oct 2011 at 18:40.
PFR is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2011, 13:48
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: on the beach
Age: 63
Posts: 2,023
Don't forget Bitteswell!

The 146 was/is an amazing piece of equipment
Let down by crap engines. A two engine 146 would have been brilliant but BAe were blinded by the four engine against two engine safety thing. I worked for them for over 25 years, the people at the sharp end were great but the upper management were entrenched with 1960's ideas and philosophies.
Evanelpus is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2011, 17:18
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 89
Posts: 437
146 engines

ISTR that there was, at the time, no suitable engine for a "twin" 146, which was why deH went for the four converted helicopter engines (but I wasn't there then, and probably missed amny other things as well ...). The choice was "4 engines or none - and nothing to sell" ...
Jig Peter is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2011, 11:46
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Originally Posted by PFR
Surely we don't just want to be a an Island fabrication and machine shop
You make an interesting point. There is a popular belief, particularly amongst the current age "ruling classes" that we should do nice clean and respectable things like design stuff. To be avoided is the dirty brutish business of actually making things.

The latter case ignores a basic principle that many people are actually motivated and are quite good at getting their hands dirty making, modifying and repairing stuff. Park them in a call centre or warehouse/supermarket and they will be unfulfilled and not be as productive as they could be. The flaw is, what price are they prepared to do it for? The "East" and certain parts of S America will always probably undercut them. That is where the made here, paid here, taxed here and spent here argument might be easily overlooked.

As an aside, I remember my late Dad's occasional frustration at "drawing office" coming up with airframe modifications that couldn't be made by following the drawing. The legend "report all errors to drawing office" was not much consolation at the start of the night shift after the drawing office had buggered off home. This may suggest a new point; you may need to know how to make it before you can design it. Unless a large sample of future designers are set loose making things, there may be reduced likelyhood of the best of the best ascending to be the inovative designers. It's a similar principle to the Army not having a large enough bedrock to select and train its Special Forces.
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.