Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
BEagle,
I wasn’t “sneering” at the so called Golden age, we were just never as good as we told others we were.
V-Bombers were undoubtedly cutting edge for the early fifties, but we built 3, 4 if you count the Sperrin, in penny pinching tiny numbers. They remained a cutting edge deterrent for what, about a decade? The US had the B-52 at the same time and developed it, something we stopped doing when we reached the B2 in 1962, the B-52 is now slated to be in service for another THIRTY years.
I actually agree about the Vampire, it sold very well but lets face it, the rest of the world had no industry to compete with us with at the time, same thing happened with the car, truck and merchant ship markets, we built the most as there was no competition but could not remain succesful when facing REAL competition.
Hamburg is assembling narrow bodied airliners, merely bolting fully assembled structures together. It’s not hi-tech and doesn't employ that many people, Airbus are very far ahead of Boeing in this respect, they still do an awful lot of manufacture and fitting out on the assembly line, Airbus don’t. BAE turned it down as there was very little money in it and it got them nowhere in terms of technology or value add.
I don’t see what possible difference a UK Airbus narrow bodied assembly line would have made to the FSTA farce?
I wasn’t “sneering” at the so called Golden age, we were just never as good as we told others we were.
V-Bombers were undoubtedly cutting edge for the early fifties, but we built 3, 4 if you count the Sperrin, in penny pinching tiny numbers. They remained a cutting edge deterrent for what, about a decade? The US had the B-52 at the same time and developed it, something we stopped doing when we reached the B2 in 1962, the B-52 is now slated to be in service for another THIRTY years.
I actually agree about the Vampire, it sold very well but lets face it, the rest of the world had no industry to compete with us with at the time, same thing happened with the car, truck and merchant ship markets, we built the most as there was no competition but could not remain succesful when facing REAL competition.
Hamburg is assembling narrow bodied airliners, merely bolting fully assembled structures together. It’s not hi-tech and doesn't employ that many people, Airbus are very far ahead of Boeing in this respect, they still do an awful lot of manufacture and fitting out on the assembly line, Airbus don’t. BAE turned it down as there was very little money in it and it got them nowhere in terms of technology or value add.
I don’t see what possible difference a UK Airbus narrow bodied assembly line would have made to the FSTA farce?
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
The original BWoS A310MRTT proposal pre-dated FSTA by a considerable number of years. Had BWoS thought ahead, once they'd converted the 2 dozen A310MRTTs they'd proposed, they would have had a facility and workforce all ready to start on Airbus narrow-body assembly work.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Originally Posted by pr00ne
BEagle,
I wasn’t “sneering” at the so called Golden age, we were just never as good as we told others we were.
I wasn’t “sneering” at the so called Golden age, we were just never as good as we told others we were.
The B52 continues in service because it can continue to perform a useful function, despite its age, in today's world - and there is little to suggest that the Vulcan could not have also, had it survived in service beyond the ending of the Cold War. Obviously a re-ngining with more modern engines (a la B52H) would clearly have been much more difficult, if not impossible, with the Avro though. However had the Cold War continued beyond 1990 it is unlikely that the B52 would still be in service today - B52s over Iraq in 1990 were one thing, over Mother Russia it would have been something very different.
Why there is this continuing need to diminish the acheivements of this country is utterly beyond me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Originally Posted by WebPilot
However had the Cold War continued beyond 1990 it is unlikely that the B52 would still be in service today - B52s over Iraq in 1990 were one thing, over Mother Russia it would have been something very different.
We now return to your regularly scheduled thread......
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Originally Posted by brickhistory
This is slightly OT, but the might BUFF was planned to be around after 1990 in the Cold War. As a cruise missile carrier and not a pure "bombs away" mission admittedly, but still a useful aircraft.
We now return to your regularly scheduled thread......
We now return to your regularly scheduled thread......
Which, of course, was much what the Vulcan was in Blue Steel/Skybolt days!
I think the point stands that while the B52 may well become the first "century" serving aircraft, it survives owing to a fluke of timing rather than any innate superiority of it or its development over other aircraft of its vintage.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: ISLE OF MAN
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
PrOOne - you are indeed wise - I did miss that debate. I must have been on nights.
What about the Tucano then? Granted it is a little less complex
What about the Tucano then? Granted it is a little less complex
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
What about the Tucano?
They basically changed the cockpit to something similar to the Hawk, put an MB seat in it, some other stuff and bobs your uncle.
:-)
They basically changed the cockpit to something similar to the Hawk, put an MB seat in it, some other stuff and bobs your uncle.
:-)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
[QUOTE=pr00ne]WorkingHard,
No-one builds the Harrier anywhere any more, if you mean the AV-8B and the UK GR5/7, they were a co-operative programme between the US and UK with the UK providing the fuselage, tailplane, undercarriage, engine and ejection seat, the US providing the wing and nose and each providing its own specific avionics. They were assembled on two final assembly lines, one in the US and one in the UK.
QUOTE]
Armour produce a good range of Harriers a little small but still good!
One point of the quote" UK providing the Fuselage" yes the UK did provide a large part of the fuselage but only as far as the engine bay.
No-one builds the Harrier anywhere any more, if you mean the AV-8B and the UK GR5/7, they were a co-operative programme between the US and UK with the UK providing the fuselage, tailplane, undercarriage, engine and ejection seat, the US providing the wing and nose and each providing its own specific avionics. They were assembled on two final assembly lines, one in the US and one in the UK.
QUOTE]
Armour produce a good range of Harriers a little small but still good!
One point of the quote" UK providing the Fuselage" yes the UK did provide a large part of the fuselage but only as far as the engine bay.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
It does seem that those with greater knowledge than I cannot even agree on something like the Harrier and who built what. I always thought the Harrier was purely a British design and build but others seem to be suggesting different.
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Gentlemen, you are all missing the bleeding obvious! If you don't buy aircraft and kit from overseas, how do you think senior officers are going to get luscious postings and trips to the United States?????????
OK, call me bitter and twisted.
OK, call me bitter and twisted.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: USA (Naturalized but bits still British!)
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
EnginEears
For the Tucano, they also took out a perfectly good engine (see my monica) and put in a TPE331 POS.
They replaced the "rabbit ears" with a "stove pipe" - drongos!
Or was I dreaming.....
For the Tucano, they also took out a perfectly good engine (see my monica) and put in a TPE331 POS.
They replaced the "rabbit ears" with a "stove pipe" - drongos!
Or was I dreaming.....
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
WorkingHard
Don't even go near the Harrier engine, I believe that the US helped fund that in the 60's, in fact they have had an input with the design, thus the Harrier 1 airframe was British but the engine a joint US/UK project.
But if it helps its all British:
Don't even go near the Harrier engine, I believe that the US helped fund that in the 60's, in fact they have had an input with the design, thus the Harrier 1 airframe was British but the engine a joint US/UK project.
But if it helps its all British:
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Beagle,
What on earth makes you think that BAES converting a dozen A310s to tanker transports would have left them with the equipment or manpower to assemble narrow bodied airliners? Filton converted and overhauled dozens of A300s and A310s to freighters in an operation which lost money.
Webpilot,
I agree, the UK aerospace industry is very succesful and has sold lots of first class products around the world. It has and still does compete with the US very effectively. I just don’t believe the naive propaganda of the 50’s that told us we led the world-we didn’t. That position has always been occupied by the US. The Vulcan was a superb design for its day, no getting away from it, as an original conception it was brilliant, but there is far more to success than original design, there is ongoing development, at that we in the UK have been historically very bad indeed.
STANDTO,
What about Tucano? The spec was for an off the shelf turbo prop basic trainer, it was very much an employment issue and I honestly think that whoever had proposed to build it in Northern Ireland would have won. The RAF allegedly preferred the PC-9 put forward by BAe, the actual RAF Tucano bears very little resemblance engineering wise to the original Embraer aircraft, new engine, beefed up structure, new cockpit, new systems etc etc.
Very much a political employment aeroplane.
seand,
As I said, the UK provided the fuselage and the US the nose.
WorkingHard,
We are talking about Harrier 11, the GR5/7 in the UK and the AV-8B in the US. The original Harrier, GR1 through 3 was pure UK built, as was the US AV-8A.
If it wasn’t for offshore procurement and development funds the P1127 development programme that led to the Harrier would have died long before it entered production. In the 50s and 60s US offshore procurement funds bought 100s of Hunters and Javelins for the RAF and a lot of Hunters for NATO air forces.
The funding for Pegasus may well have been of US origin but the programme was all British, Bristol Siddeley and then Rolls- Royce.
What on earth makes you think that BAES converting a dozen A310s to tanker transports would have left them with the equipment or manpower to assemble narrow bodied airliners? Filton converted and overhauled dozens of A300s and A310s to freighters in an operation which lost money.
Webpilot,
I agree, the UK aerospace industry is very succesful and has sold lots of first class products around the world. It has and still does compete with the US very effectively. I just don’t believe the naive propaganda of the 50’s that told us we led the world-we didn’t. That position has always been occupied by the US. The Vulcan was a superb design for its day, no getting away from it, as an original conception it was brilliant, but there is far more to success than original design, there is ongoing development, at that we in the UK have been historically very bad indeed.
STANDTO,
What about Tucano? The spec was for an off the shelf turbo prop basic trainer, it was very much an employment issue and I honestly think that whoever had proposed to build it in Northern Ireland would have won. The RAF allegedly preferred the PC-9 put forward by BAe, the actual RAF Tucano bears very little resemblance engineering wise to the original Embraer aircraft, new engine, beefed up structure, new cockpit, new systems etc etc.
Very much a political employment aeroplane.
seand,
As I said, the UK provided the fuselage and the US the nose.
WorkingHard,
We are talking about Harrier 11, the GR5/7 in the UK and the AV-8B in the US. The original Harrier, GR1 through 3 was pure UK built, as was the US AV-8A.
If it wasn’t for offshore procurement and development funds the P1127 development programme that led to the Harrier would have died long before it entered production. In the 50s and 60s US offshore procurement funds bought 100s of Hunters and Javelins for the RAF and a lot of Hunters for NATO air forces.
The funding for Pegasus may well have been of US origin but the programme was all British, Bristol Siddeley and then Rolls- Royce.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
When did we ever make the best
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
If BWoS lost money with the A300 conversion programme, why is it that Elbeflugzeugwerke goes from strength to strength doing precisely the same thing? 't Bungling Baron's soft southern brother can't have got his sums right, I guess?
Whether the Brabazon hangar would have been suitable, post-MRTT conversion, for narrow-bosy final assembly, or whether additional facilities would have been required is a moot point; the fact remains that the core work force would have been capable of either task.
Nevertheless, although both the A310-300 with ACTs and the 767-200ER both came out extremely well in cost and operational assessment by MoD DFS a decade ago, the nonsense of PFI and Noo Labia's underfunding of the Armed Forces to support its own political adventurism has left FSTA years and years late. I recall a senior civil serpent confidently predicting "This programme will NOT slip"......
And before our tame Trot leaps to the defence of his Labour luvvy fellow-travellers, I doubt whether the Tory party would have admitted its invention of PFI-for-the-Armed Forces was a crock either...
Whether the Brabazon hangar would have been suitable, post-MRTT conversion, for narrow-bosy final assembly, or whether additional facilities would have been required is a moot point; the fact remains that the core work force would have been capable of either task.
Nevertheless, although both the A310-300 with ACTs and the 767-200ER both came out extremely well in cost and operational assessment by MoD DFS a decade ago, the nonsense of PFI and Noo Labia's underfunding of the Armed Forces to support its own political adventurism has left FSTA years and years late. I recall a senior civil serpent confidently predicting "This programme will NOT slip"......
And before our tame Trot leaps to the defence of his Labour luvvy fellow-travellers, I doubt whether the Tory party would have admitted its invention of PFI-for-the-Armed Forces was a crock either...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Originally Posted by Blacksheep
Do you mean like the Supermarine Spitfire, Avro Lancaster, RR Merlin, English Electric Canberra, RR Avon, Blackburn Buccaneer, RR Spey, Hawker Harrier or RR Pegasus? Or were you thinking of something more recent?
Exactly. While I'd agree with proone that ongoing development has been lacking in the British industry over the years it was, until dismembered by political idiocy, world class. That is to say that while not every product was the best in the world, many were and let's not imagine some utopia where everything the Americans built was a class leader either. The British industry punched well above its weight, and continues to do so, and we should "celebrate" that (to use a nasty modern idiom), not try to diminish it.
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Blacksheep,
Were any of the types you quote really, REALLY, the BEST in the world? The Spitfire-extremely short range, difficult to mass produce, expensive to make requiring dollar expenditure on US machine tools and Swiss instrumentation-If it was the best why the need for the Mustang?
Lancaster-outcome of the disastorous Manchester programme-was it REALLY better than the B-29?
Merlin was undoubtedly superb.
Canberra-a jet powered Blenheim, radar less and as vulnerable to Migs as was a Fairey Battle to ME109s in 1940.
Buccaneer and Harrier-who bought them?
To be fair though I was thinking specifically of the propaganda claims made in the fifties.
BEagle,
Don’t Elbeflugzeugwerke do their A300 freighter conversions in Dresden? A lot cheaper per hour than in Filton? They may well be a little more desperate for work and jobs than BAES and have lower margin expectations. If I were doing it I would be carrying out that sort of work in China.
Nevertheless, the 6500 people employed by BAES/Airbus UK at Filton are busy enough on wings, (AXXX and A400M) doubt if a final assembly facility would offer anywhere near as many jobs, certainly not as skilled and qualified as they are there now.
Filton airfield is a mite restricted runway and location wise it it not?
I could not agree more about the FSTA farce, which ever persuasion is in power it would have been no different, even more so now that David Tony Blair Cameron is adopting NOO Labor policies on a daily basis.
Were any of the types you quote really, REALLY, the BEST in the world? The Spitfire-extremely short range, difficult to mass produce, expensive to make requiring dollar expenditure on US machine tools and Swiss instrumentation-If it was the best why the need for the Mustang?
Lancaster-outcome of the disastorous Manchester programme-was it REALLY better than the B-29?
Merlin was undoubtedly superb.
Canberra-a jet powered Blenheim, radar less and as vulnerable to Migs as was a Fairey Battle to ME109s in 1940.
Buccaneer and Harrier-who bought them?
To be fair though I was thinking specifically of the propaganda claims made in the fifties.
BEagle,
Don’t Elbeflugzeugwerke do their A300 freighter conversions in Dresden? A lot cheaper per hour than in Filton? They may well be a little more desperate for work and jobs than BAES and have lower margin expectations. If I were doing it I would be carrying out that sort of work in China.
Nevertheless, the 6500 people employed by BAES/Airbus UK at Filton are busy enough on wings, (AXXX and A400M) doubt if a final assembly facility would offer anywhere near as many jobs, certainly not as skilled and qualified as they are there now.
Filton airfield is a mite restricted runway and location wise it it not?
I could not agree more about the FSTA farce, which ever persuasion is in power it would have been no different, even more so now that David Tony Blair Cameron is adopting NOO Labor policies on a daily basis.
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Webpilot,
Indeed the UK industry was and always has been world class, of that there is no doubt. For a very expensive offshore island coping with withdrawal from Empire the fifties and sixties did indeed see us punching well above our weight, of that we can be very proud, as we can of the state of the industry today, after all the trials and tribulations of political interference, mergers, policy shifts etc to end up with the worlds second largest industry is truly amazing. I am VERY proud of it. Before you start BEagle, I agree that the current state of play is in no way the responsibility of the Labour party or Tony Blair!
Indeed the UK industry was and always has been world class, of that there is no doubt. For a very expensive offshore island coping with withdrawal from Empire the fifties and sixties did indeed see us punching well above our weight, of that we can be very proud, as we can of the state of the industry today, after all the trials and tribulations of political interference, mergers, policy shifts etc to end up with the worlds second largest industry is truly amazing. I am VERY proud of it. Before you start BEagle, I agree that the current state of play is in no way the responsibility of the Labour party or Tony Blair!