When we had an Aircraft Industry of our own

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Maybe not but the manufacturing centres were spread out all over the place from the days when they were

I don't think it was the bombs that caused the haphazard layout and chaotic organization of the British aircraft industry! It was always like that, and stayed that way until its ignominious collapse - did any other nation ever fly a 4-jet nuclear bomber prototype off a grass runway (on home turf, in what was effectively peacetime)?!

Apart from the North American Sabres and a few Washingtons, Neptunes and Thor missiles. I'm trying to think what essential military gap the Americans filled for us after the war.

Hercules? Phantom? TriStar? Wessex? Sea King?

During the war, they "loaned" us some real bargains that didn't spend very long in front line service. The Fortress, Airacobra and Kittyhawk spring to mind.

Have you ever heard of:

Dakota
Catalina
Liberator
Thunderbolt
Mustang
Mitchell
Wildcat
Hellcat
Avenger (God knows why - that Barracuda was awesome!)
Corsair
Maryland
Baltimore

And rail travel in tunnels, or even cuttings, is depressing...Short-haul air travel needs to fight back.

Why? Besides, few things are as depressing as being in an airport!

[Willard Whyte]

To add a little bit of balance to some posts we should not forget the following:

We gave the US the engines for their first jet aircraft.

They asked to build the Canberra under licence.

The Viscount (and its Dart) introduced their people to smooth turbine power.

The Marines started operating Harriers in 1971 and thanks to a recent major supply of spares from the UK look to keep then in service until 2025.

The USN will be training their pilots for the indefinite future using the Goshawk.

The USN was pleased to follow our 1950s notions of the angled deck, the mirror landing sight and the steam catapult - still standard USN stuff 60 years later.

We provided a unique supersonic passenger service to the US for nearly a quarter of a century.

But John, the past is past. What of now? What of the future?

We, sadly, have a (recent) history of lack of vision, lack of investment, lack of... well confidence and cajones, frankly.

[Tankertrashnav]

Nevil Shute's autobiography Slide Rule (younger Ppruners may need to google what a slide rule is!) is a good read for anyone interested in the British aircraft industry pre-war. Shute was a founder of Airspeed, and the story tells of its struggles through the thirties, always scratching around for capital. Like many industries WW2 saved the company, with large Air Ministry orders for the Oxford, but of course the company didn't last long post war. The Ambassador was a pretty aeroplane, though.

[John Farley]

W W

But John, the past is past. What of now? What of the future?

Few people seem to have got prediction knocked - especially when it concerns the future. I certainly haven't. As to now:

The F35B benefits from a flight control system developed in the UK called Unified where the pilot pulls back to go up and pushes forward to go down at any speed. Thus eliminating the need for Harrier type VSTOL skill in dealing with two levers for the left hand, so removing the need for specialist training, continuity or currency requirements and above all eliminating the possibility of moving the wrong lever and causing an accident

The F35B has a lift system conceived, developed and supplied by Rolls-Royce.

The first flight and early flying of the F35B was carried out by a former Dunsfold CTP because the JSF Joint Programme Office agreed there was nobody better for the job.

I'm not sure what it is that makes posters apparently need to compete with each other about issues that are considerably removed from the original post. I certainly have no wish to do that. None at all.

[Plastic Bonsai]

In the mid '90's whilst at STEAMY BESS at one of the annual MD's presentations the management made the point that they would have made more money if they were Marks and Spencer's or putting their money in the Halifax Building Society ( it was the 90's). To even mention that shows just how bad things had got.

It's not unimaginable for anyone to start up an aircraft manufacturing facility from scratch. To produce a ATR challenger or Chinook rival would be maybe too ambitious.

Richard Nobel of Thrust 2/SSC fame had a crack with an entry level project in the ARV-2 but didn't have sufficient financial momentum to sustain the slog into gaining sufficient sales.The Sherrif and the SAH-1 were other competent products that just couldn't get going either.

Perhaps someone else will have a go at something smaller to start with.

I saw this a while ago: BBC News - Flying hovercraft takes to the skies. I thought I would really like one of those and with some manufacturing nouse and a bit of styling I could see it making a practical sports vehicle, patrol craft or even a commuter machine (I live near the Solent which would have been an ideal for commuting from the Isle of Wight to the 21st Century. I put the idea into the suggestion scheme at work and my boss said it was ludicrous (or a not so polite equivalent) as we didn't do that sort of thing and it wasn't our market even though another branch makes some advanced aerial targets/drones and certainly would have been up to the challenge technically.

Being an engineer of sorts I would not feel confident about such a venture as I know many of the potential problems and pitfalls involved in the regulation, elf and safety etc., but who knows, there may be someone out there who is oblivious to this or has the coujons to have a go anyway.

[Corrona]

I'm sure all this 'we couldn't do it on our own anymore' is rubbish. I accept that whilst there is no political will or national self-belief we maybe couldn't, but in terms of organic talent there is no way that we couldn't. I simply fail to accept that France (Rafale) or Sweeden (Grippen) can develop such equipment organically whilst we [I]need[I] the help of Germany, Italy and Spain to develop our equivalent (and i don't mention those aircraft to get into the capability comparison debate).

Whilst the reasons for our current Aerospace industry being what it is may be many and varied, it simply doesn't stack up to me that the UK can be the centre of the motor-sports engineering world, but can't design and build meaningful complete aircraft. Indeed if the motor sports engineers teamed up with our existing aerospace design engineers and freed them of the usual political and commercial shackles I think we would all be amazed with what could be achieved.

Of course it may be suggested that we are a Nation of cottage industries (motor sports being an example) and don't do large volume production. This may be true to an extent, but I would suggest that total build numbers of current european mil aircraft are within the cottage industry bracket anyway!

We may not be doing it today, but I'm certain that if we wanted or needed to bad enough we still could.

[Heathrow Harry]

the first thing would be to create a competitor to Bae............ then we'd get some sensible pricing

[Rulebreaker]

No no the first thing to do would be have a design authority with big enough clout and experience to say no to both industry and the services when things like requirements, budgets are being set/tweaked pre/post contract signature.

We can develop a new aircraft ourselves provided we don't design a new power plant,radar, other systems, airframe ect all at the same time perhaps a few existing in production systems in a new airframe with sufficient space to swap out later on would be a gd starting point.

[EAP86]

HH: "...then we'd get some sensible pricing"

What, just like JSF?

PB "...the management made the point that they would have made more money if they were Marks and Spencer's or putting their money in the Halifax Building Society"

There are plenty of DES people on these forums. Perhaps they would like to explain MOD's idea of allowable profits is? I've seen contracts come in early and under cost only for MOD to claw back "excess" profits. This could go some way to explaining wasteofspace's investments in the USA – they seem to be happy with the idea of making reasonable returns.

E

[Plastic Bonsai]

The remark was made at the end of the era of cost plus where they were allowed to make a profit of 6%(?) and they were still making profits of the order of ...6%. I think you could get 8% at the Halifax at the time.

I thought it just showed they were not interested in what we were doing at all. Profit uber alles - which many would say is the crux of a successful business though I would prefer a model of giving customers good advice, support and price and you might just get more business though at a lower percentage profit.

I do believe we did and do have a lot of engineering talent in the UK but the reasons given in the extract from Mr Waterton's book, they struggle to get anywhere.

I was taken with his remark about area-ruling the Hunter. Kingston did that but I don't think they believed the numbers or they got the sums wrong and the changes were barely visible and the performance was barely changed. The T7 however had a higher top speed with a less powerful engine. Even the Bucc wasn't quite right and could have been improved. But there again Aerodynamics isn't a core competancy anymore even though it's the one thing that will give you the edge - you can fit the much vaunted integrated systems into any airframe big enough to fit it but they won't get you further, faster and having to turn for home from a fight last.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I'm not sure what it is that makes posters apparently need to compete with each other about issues that are considerably removed from the original post. I certainly have no wish to do that. None at all.

Well I can't speak for others, but in my case, on this thread, I went off down a rabbit-hole because the original post was of questionable validity (and relevance to this forum), but some of the points that came up from other people were interesting and worth discussing. And when the OP turned out to be a troll (can there be any other explanation for post #16?!), I don't feel bad about this!

[N2erk]

Going back a few posts: TotD - I recall the Mustang was built to British specs as a P40 alternative, and WW- Brits didn't just give the US their first jet engines and the technology that went with it,- include the magnetron and research leading to the first nukes among others.
The TF41 that powered the A7D/E and later model Corsair 2s used by the USAF and USN was a licence built Spey.
Also remember that the awesome Swedish Saab fighters were airframes with: Draken-Avons, Viggen-JT8Ds and Gripens-F404- all foreign existing donks. Dont know about weapon systems. cooperation isn't necessarily bad.

[Brian Abraham]

I recall the Mustang was built to British specs as a P40 alternative

Not too sure what you mean by "specs" N2erk. North American had been asked by the British to build the P-40, but NA said they could build a better mouse trap than the P-40. Speed in obtaining aircraft was of the essence, and NA rolled out the prototype in 120 days. I have never read of anything where the British had any actual input into the design, though the British designed Meredith radiator was used to reduce cooling drag.

The P-51H on the other hand was designed using British design standards as they were less rigorous. The designer Edgar Schmued consulted with Supermarine on the design standards used in the Spitfire, and was thus able to reduce the Mustang weight by 600 pounds. This model was referred to as the "Light Weight Mustang".

[tornadoken]

#17, JF, balance. No dis from me for UK Aero's achievements. I do dissent from we wuz robbed, Ministers were stupid, Yanks were thieves or worse.

For me, here are 2 of the finest Aero achievements: 1. the Swiss Flair Force. Part-timers, they are....amateur they are not. 2. 1942 USSR carting...yes, carting their industry on back of horse and (wo)man over the Volga and Urals.

It's not where it's welded that matters. It's how it's wielded.

PB, pricing and %. When R&D was cost plus, Treasury notions of fair and reasonable centred on return on shareholders' assets. There were always few of these in Aero, as we paid for it all, inc. the airfield. 6% (or any other number) on cost could be an infinite return on capital, cos there was not much of the firm's tied up. Production was seldom cost plus, but as standard costs derived from early batch actuals. Current practice is to try to dump as much risk as practical onto the Prime Contractor, who reaps the reward for his risk. But do shed a small tear for the Buyer, who is not promoted for bankrupting his (sole) domestic Supplier. None of this is easy.

[proteus6]

When we had an Aircraft Industry of our own? 2013

Please remember A400 A380,A350,A330,A340 and A320 Wing design and build, fuel systems and landing gear at Bristol Aeroplane Company.

[A and C]

Hard Cash !

The reason for the failure of most industrial projects in the UK is the lack of sustained financial investment over the years it takes to build a good product and a customer base.........the wiz kids of the city of London are only interested in short term investment and quick returns.

This leaves any long term product within the UK starved of investment.

I can only think of one UK mass market product requiring long term investment that has risen from Zero to a significant market share in the last few years. The significant thing about this success was that the investment money did not come from the city but from one private investor with the foresight to invest over twenty years.

Be it aircraft, cars, motorcycles or any other hi-tech product there is no chance of successes in the mass market without the long term investment of the type that the city is not prepared to make, until this short term mentality changes the UK as a manufacturing country is doomed to failure except when a farsighted individual with the money to invest is involved.

[dunc0936]

There have been plenty of really good comments on this thread, I agree with Both What John Farley and Corrona say, With regards Johns Comments I think the trouble is that we are just not very good at selling UK PLC in this country. As Corrna says we seem to have a lack of self belief these days and all you ever here is we must stop fighting above our weight or just accept we are part/state within the EU. I accept getting investment is not easy, but these days it does not have to come from within the UK. Look at Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin for instance.

I have three suggestions for people to think about or discount which ever the case may be.

1) Regional Airliner (focusing on) Competing with the likes of Bombardier

Up to 100 seats
Fuel Economy
Minimal noise pollution
Ease of maintenance
Cost to buy
Short take off and landing

2) Helicopter

Heavy Lift Capacity
Long Range
Fuel Economy
Ease of maintenance in the field
Not to over complicated in Avionics and Electronics
Aiming at use for UN, NGO's and Civilian Customers

3) Over sized Cargo

Adapted from Existing Airframes (Boeing or Airbus)
Heavy Lift Capacity
Fuel Economy
Long Range, Short Take off And Landing

With Regards forming a new company, as others have said we have a lot of home grown talent in this country and as Banks do in this country they higher in the best talent from around the world. Look at the likes of Sir Richard Branson. He did not know or try himself to run the likes of Virgin Airlines, Trains, Records, Radio etc on his own. He had the vision and either employed directors/managers that do or has gone into partnerships with other companies under the Virgin Group Brand.

Though I do not have the knowledge to be able to design or manufacture such aircraft mentioned above I certainly feel I have the vision to be able to achieve such a thing and form a company, prob in partnership with someone like Marshals or Bea or even Bombardier.

I'm going to leave it here for the moment to give people a chance to comment on the above. I suspect there must be people on here who either have or do work within the industry and be interesting to here what they think either through this thread or by private messaging me.

Duncan

[dunc0936]

Seems like I rather killed the thread with my last post, no my intention, hope I did not get to heavy for people

[Heathrow Harry]

no -we're just stunned by your optimism..................

[Pontius Navigator]

The problem, per se, is not manufacturing something that competes with something else. True Airbus and Boeing are in direct competition but when someone designs a pretty good mouse trap then that is what we should buy and move on an design something else.

Once we had the Dakota what value was there in designing the Valetta? In the case of the Canberra the USA bought and developed it; they didn't press on with another one. With the Harrier they again bought in to the project.

Should we have pressed on with the VC10 when the 707 had the mass market? Competing or catch-up are not the way to mass sales.

With the modern fighters lots of people said we should have bought F15, 16 and 18. Australia has benefited from buy the best rather than buying in to the old country. Canada too bought in and builds them too.