Greatest ever blunder in the history of the UK aircraft industry?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Age: 84
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British author Bill Gunston wrote a serious article some years ago on the very same subject. His conclusion, [and I recall this from a few years ago] was that without the "Buy British" bankroll of the aircraft manufacturing industry, it would have gone belly up at the time of the Comet disasters.
I can think of a number of aircraft types , for example, which were absolutely inferior compared to what was available to the US, the Century series fighters for example, but were foisted on the RAF because they were British. The point was surely made when the RAF had to fly both B29 Washington, and Sabres because there was nothing in the UK inventory to fit those tasks. Wherever you care to look at aircraft types, in whatever role, we had second best. Beverly and Hastings were light years behind turbo-prop US equivalents.
We in NZ were similarly pressured by the way! In 1967 when ANZ opted for the B737 instead of the BAC 1-11 there were questions in Parliament, but the facts were that the B737 was a far superior aircraft for NZ routes. They also bought the F27 Friendship in preference to the Herald, again because the F27 was a much friendlier proposition. From the 1960s right up until the present day, no British aircraft was ever given serious consideration by ANZ.
Bill Gunston was right!
I can think of a number of aircraft types , for example, which were absolutely inferior compared to what was available to the US, the Century series fighters for example, but were foisted on the RAF because they were British. The point was surely made when the RAF had to fly both B29 Washington, and Sabres because there was nothing in the UK inventory to fit those tasks. Wherever you care to look at aircraft types, in whatever role, we had second best. Beverly and Hastings were light years behind turbo-prop US equivalents.
We in NZ were similarly pressured by the way! In 1967 when ANZ opted for the B737 instead of the BAC 1-11 there were questions in Parliament, but the facts were that the B737 was a far superior aircraft for NZ routes. They also bought the F27 Friendship in preference to the Herald, again because the F27 was a much friendlier proposition. From the 1960s right up until the present day, no British aircraft was ever given serious consideration by ANZ.
Bill Gunston was right!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Age: 84
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mount Cook was/is a wholly owned subsidary of ANZ with specific routes. It now operates under the ANZ Link banner, using ATR aircraft. The BAC replacement [ATP?] was never given a look despite one being demonstrated in NZ.
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
Samuel
What about the Canberra in 1949? The US bit our arm off to have that.
In my view we concentrated our national funds more on bombers in the late 40s early 50s and these turned out to be as good as any at that time.
Later the US became the largest operator of Harriers and Hawks (as the Goshawk)
I suspect (know) it is harder to sell military aircraft to the US than it ever is to buy them. I think your poor old UK industry did quite well on that basis.
In my view we concentrated our national funds more on bombers in the late 40s early 50s and these turned out to be as good as any at that time.
Later the US became the largest operator of Harriers and Hawks (as the Goshawk)
I suspect (know) it is harder to sell military aircraft to the US than it ever is to buy them. I think your poor old UK industry did quite well on that basis.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jig Peter - I have Damien Burke's more recent TSR2 book and the story of "which airfield" is rather different in that one. Basically - Vickers in charge (and they were - no doubt about that), wanted to use Wisley (as with Valiant, VC-10 etc.), English Electric wanted to use Warton (longer runway, clearer airspace), but once both companies were merged into BAC the Vickers component agreed to use Warton but were overruled by... Ministry of Aviation, who chose Boscombe Down. This remained the case for a year or so until delays meant BAC(Vickers) suggested Wisley again (to save a month of dismantling/transporting to Boscombe/reassembling first aircraft), and Beamont at BAC(EE) objected as engine problems and weight growth meant reduced safety margins at Wisley and any immediate re-land case would force use of Heathrow (with heavily populated surroundings). So back to Ministry Men's choice of Boscombe. McLelland version seems to be just Beamont's version of events.
Reading Burke's book it seems the greatest blunder of TSR2 was not cancelling it sooner, or perhaps believing RAF when they wanted mach 2, rough field, kitchen sink etc. all in one jet.
Reading Burke's book it seems the greatest blunder of TSR2 was not cancelling it sooner, or perhaps believing RAF when they wanted mach 2, rough field, kitchen sink etc. all in one jet.
Correct me if I am wrong, but BAe tried to sell the militarised BAe 146 to the RNZAF in mid 1988, IIRC. I have pics of one when I was at woodbourne, and wondered who on earth would purchase a STOL tact AT aircraft without a rear-loading ramp. A Bonkers Design. Samuel - perhaps you were there at the time?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The B29 was a wartime development for one theatre and its contemporary was the Lancaster. For the post-war confrontation the B29 happened to be suitable. The USA then developed the B36, 47, 58 and the ultimate weapon the B52 whereas we developed the V-bombers which were medium bombers and much more capable than the B36 and B47. So like for like we were evenly matched in building aircraft for a particular mission.
Again an inaccurate comparison. The Hastings was a match for contemporary 1940s transports like the C54 and the Beverley was perfect for its designed role; it was simply mis-employed. Its equivalent was possibly a C119 or C123.
Where we did fall behind was in turbo-props such as the Britannia and Belfast and in jets the VC10 v B707 etc.
You might have argued that the Lightning was no match for the F4 but it was much better than the F102/106 and perfect for its role at that time.
Other than the Canberra, Fightener, and Hawk.
Wherever you care to look at aircraft types, in whatever role, we had second best. Beverly and Hastings were light years behind turbo-prop US equivalents.
Where we did fall behind was in turbo-props such as the Britannia and Belfast and in jets the VC10 v B707 etc.
You might have argued that the Lightning was no match for the F4 but it was much better than the F102/106 and perfect for its role at that time.
From the 1960s right up until the present day, no British aircraft was ever given serious consideration by ANZ.
What about the Canberra in 1949? The US bit our arm off to have that.
In my view we concentrated our national funds more on bombers in the late 40s early 50s and these turned out to be as good as any at that time.
Later the US became the largest operator of Harriers and Hawks (as the Goshawk)
I suspect (know) it is harder to sell military aircraft to the US than it ever is to buy them. I think your poor old UK industry did quite well on that basis.
In my view we concentrated our national funds more on bombers in the late 40s early 50s and these turned out to be as good as any at that time.
Later the US became the largest operator of Harriers and Hawks (as the Goshawk)
I suspect (know) it is harder to sell military aircraft to the US than it ever is to buy them. I think your poor old UK industry did quite well on that basis.
Some glass half empty types might say thats not many.
I can't think of any other foreign aerospace industry that has exported a fast jet for operational use by the US, ever*.
When you think about it that says quite a lot about how good our aerospace industry actually was.
* I could be wrong of course, but I can't think of any!
Not strictly operational use perhaps, but didn't the US buy some Kfirs for the Aggressor squadron and DACM training?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Age: 84
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USA then developed the B36, 47, 58 and the ultimate weapon the B52 whereas we developed the V-bombers which were medium bombers and much more capable than the B36 and B47. So like for like we were evenly matched in building aircraft for a particular mission
t blunders, but were alo unavailable at the time the Washington's were leased.
Where we did fall behind was in turbo-props such as the Britannia and Belfast and in jets the VC10 v B707 etc.
Other than the Canberra, Fightener, and Hawk.
John Farley. Yes the Canberra was a brilliant design and far superior to anything the Americans could put up at the time, That's one success! The Goshawk is surely a very different aircraft to the Hawk it came from?
Last edited by Samuel; 12th Jan 2011 at 00:20.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Age: 84
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I am wrong, but BAe tried to sell the militarised BAe 146 to the RNZAF in mid 1988, IIRC. I have pics of one when I was at woodbourne, and wondered who on earth would purchase a STOL tact AT aircraft without a rear-loading ramp. A Bonkers Design. Samuel - perhaps you were there at the time?
I recall a sales pitch, but your old mate Pat Neville was CAS at the time and he would have died laughing at the suggestion the RNZAF buy such a dead beat type, totally unsuited for any role in transport. He would have enjoyed lunch on BAe though! Now beats the hell out of golf balls in Taupo!
The type was never particulary well-received in NZ, and I have heard that the maintainers didn't like it. There was a mob of them in the Ansett colours parked up in Aus for a long time; they may still be there!
Last edited by Samuel; 12th Jan 2011 at 00:24.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The strict A to the Q is none: the industry itself made very few Product Investment decisions, thus few chances to get them wrong. The UK State, incarnate as Air Ministry (then MAP/MoS/MoA...) for RAF (and, 1918-1939, RN), and Imperial A/W, BOAC/BSAAC/BEAC, did most of the Requiring, defining and paying.
The Q is itself moot, as implying lost opportunities for hefty sales of novelties not instantly copied. The Q also ignores the inconvenient detail, that BAE has made profits on dramatically hefty sales of Airbus wings and bits of Boeing wings, either after repaying taxpayers' Launch Aid, or without calling on us at all. Every other UK aircraft type that achieved a half-decent sales run was taxpayer-subvented, one way or another. So, of course were F-27, Caravelle, the Embraer and Bombardier ranges. (Let me leave WTO to deal with City, State, Federal taxpayers and Boeing).
The biggest fluffed decison within the competence of industry Boards was to surrender General Aviation. Nothing post-WW2 to follow up the sector from Moths to Anson.
Each candidate "blunder" here posted involved Ministers making decisions under uncertainty: none was done capriciously. So: 9/46 sale (not gift) of Nene and Derwent was to our valiant Ally, with whom we would have to live after the departure from Europe of GIs before US' 1948 Presidential Election. They were bartered for Ukrainian grain, intended to pave the way to a long term, $-sparing means of feeding our people. Uncle Joe in 1948 in Berlin had other ideas.
So: DH (with Fairey and Hunting) getting the 1958 medium haul type wrong was due to listening to the sole funded Customer. Their Boards would not have put up 50%, nor MoS the other 50%, of R&D for a product with no Customer.
The book and this Q dodge a killer Q: Why should taxes prop up Air? If firms see a market Just Do It! and find investors, like all other ideasmen. Bristol, Hawker Siddeley, Rolls Royce, Vickers did so in other sectors. UK Aero's Product Investment risk aversion was not due to blunders, but to blinkers.
The Q is itself moot, as implying lost opportunities for hefty sales of novelties not instantly copied. The Q also ignores the inconvenient detail, that BAE has made profits on dramatically hefty sales of Airbus wings and bits of Boeing wings, either after repaying taxpayers' Launch Aid, or without calling on us at all. Every other UK aircraft type that achieved a half-decent sales run was taxpayer-subvented, one way or another. So, of course were F-27, Caravelle, the Embraer and Bombardier ranges. (Let me leave WTO to deal with City, State, Federal taxpayers and Boeing).
The biggest fluffed decison within the competence of industry Boards was to surrender General Aviation. Nothing post-WW2 to follow up the sector from Moths to Anson.
Each candidate "blunder" here posted involved Ministers making decisions under uncertainty: none was done capriciously. So: 9/46 sale (not gift) of Nene and Derwent was to our valiant Ally, with whom we would have to live after the departure from Europe of GIs before US' 1948 Presidential Election. They were bartered for Ukrainian grain, intended to pave the way to a long term, $-sparing means of feeding our people. Uncle Joe in 1948 in Berlin had other ideas.
So: DH (with Fairey and Hunting) getting the 1958 medium haul type wrong was due to listening to the sole funded Customer. Their Boards would not have put up 50%, nor MoS the other 50%, of R&D for a product with no Customer.
The book and this Q dodge a killer Q: Why should taxes prop up Air? If firms see a market Just Do It! and find investors, like all other ideasmen. Bristol, Hawker Siddeley, Rolls Royce, Vickers did so in other sectors. UK Aero's Product Investment risk aversion was not due to blunders, but to blinkers.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,755
Received 2,740 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
JFZ90Quote:
What about the Canberra in 1949? The US bit our arm off to have that.
In my view we concentrated our national funds more on bombers in the late 40s early 50s and these turned out to be as good as any at that time.
Later the US became the largest operator of Harriers and Hawks (as the Goshawk)
I suspect (know) it is harder to sell military aircraft to the US than it ever is to buy them. I think your poor old UK industry did quite well on that basis.
Interesting that you mention 3 UK fast jet types exported to and used by the US - 2 of which are still in service.
Some glass half empty types might say thats not many.
I can't think of any other foreign aerospace industry that has exported a fast jet for operational use by the US, ever*.
When you think about it that says quite a lot about how good our aerospace industry actually was.
* I could be wrong of course, but I can't think of any!
What about the Canberra in 1949? The US bit our arm off to have that.
In my view we concentrated our national funds more on bombers in the late 40s early 50s and these turned out to be as good as any at that time.
Later the US became the largest operator of Harriers and Hawks (as the Goshawk)
I suspect (know) it is harder to sell military aircraft to the US than it ever is to buy them. I think your poor old UK industry did quite well on that basis.
Interesting that you mention 3 UK fast jet types exported to and used by the US - 2 of which are still in service.
Some glass half empty types might say thats not many.
I can't think of any other foreign aerospace industry that has exported a fast jet for operational use by the US, ever*.
When you think about it that says quite a lot about how good our aerospace industry actually was.
* I could be wrong of course, but I can't think of any!
WB-57 Home
All be it a tad modified
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naa, I can black cat the lot of you.. Now THIS is what I call a blunder..
East Lancashire Typhoon fighter jets face the axe (From Lancashire Telegraph)
East Lancashire Typhoon fighter jets face the axe (From Lancashire Telegraph)