BBC 4 tonight. Jet. When Britain Ruled the Skies
Discussion
Quote from the Clive James review - which echoes a lot of what has been said here -
"In the second programme, the one about the airliners, the facts were faced about the first version of the de Havilland Comet, which had to be withdrawn from service after a series of mass fatalities. The delay cost Britain its lead and the American Boeing 707 was soon in command. It was a sad story but would have been worse if the truth had been dodged. As things were, the footage of the beautiful Vickers VC10 would have been worth tuning in for just on its own. Britain could certainly make planes. It just made too many of the wrong ones, and when it made the right one it could never fill a big order. The British were bad at business".
"In the second programme, the one about the airliners, the facts were faced about the first version of the de Havilland Comet, which had to be withdrawn from service after a series of mass fatalities. The delay cost Britain its lead and the American Boeing 707 was soon in command. It was a sad story but would have been worse if the truth had been dodged. As things were, the footage of the beautiful Vickers VC10 would have been worth tuning in for just on its own. Britain could certainly make planes. It just made too many of the wrong ones, and when it made the right one it could never fill a big order. The British were bad at business".
hidetheelephants said:
Disappointingly shallow analysis of the enormous flux in british civil aviation in the late 1950s; not a mention of the VC7 and an absurd and flippant dismissal of the Rotodyne with 'we had no use for it'?
In two hours I thought all the salient points were covered succinctly. we were never going to win, but it was fun trying.Also, with that voice Barbara Flynn could talk me into bed.
TimJMS said:
hidetheelephants said:
Disappointingly shallow analysis of the enormous flux in british civil aviation in the late 1950s; not a mention of the VC7 and an absurd and flippant dismissal of the Rotodyne with 'we had no use for it'?
In two hours I thought all the salient points were covered succinctly. we were never going to win, but it was fun trying.Also, with that voice Barbara Flynn could talk me into bed.
Eric Mc said:
I always get the impression that Westland weren't that interested in developing the Rotodyne as they inherited the project when they were forced into a merger with Fairey by the government.
The 'Not Invented Here' mentality accounts for a lot of lost opportunities I think.Absolutely - and also worked against the TSR2. The TSR2 was originally an English Electric project but ended up being developed by the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) - which consisted of English Electric, Vickers, Bristol and Hunting and others.
There were varying degrees of enthusiasm for the project within the newly formed group.
There were varying degrees of enthusiasm for the project within the newly formed group.
Simpo Two said:
Plus, add 'Government Meddling' and you're guaranteed to achieve much less at much greater cost.
Too simplistic.Most of these projects would not even have started without "Government Meddling". It was the Government (through various bodies, such as the Ministry of Aviation, Ministry of Defence, the RAF, Royal Navy etc) who specified the aircraft that were needed.
The manufacturers then attempted to build the specified aircraft - sometimes successfully - sometimes spectacularly unsuccessfully. Sometimes the "customer" caused problems by changing their minds about what they needed. Sometimes the problems were generated by incompetence or poor decision making within the manufacturers.
The civil scene wasn't an awful lot different since it was generally a government requirement that prompted the design of an airliner too. There were some exceptions to this - but often it was the government or a nationalised airline (government run) that was calling the shots.
There were some of course - but the vast bulk of designs were to government requirements.
Some government specs were very, very good (Spitfire and Hurricane spring to mind) some not so good due to lack of clarity as to what the specification should really be.
As the 1950s progresses, the development cost of aircraft increased dramatically as the performance and capability of the designs became more demanding and complex. Therefore, setting the specification incorrectly could have major cost consequences as the manufacturer struggled to alter the design or overcome fundamental design flaws..
The other factor in the 1950s was the speed of technical advancement. A combat aircraft specified in 1950 would be obsolete by 1955 - but in the UK it usually took that long for the aircraft to enter service - so the plane was out of date just at the point it was ready for use.
This affected all countries, but the US and the USSR had far greater resources available to their aircraft industry so they could junk a design after only a few short years and start replacing with the next generation. Britain could not afford this profligacy.
Some government specs were very, very good (Spitfire and Hurricane spring to mind) some not so good due to lack of clarity as to what the specification should really be.
As the 1950s progresses, the development cost of aircraft increased dramatically as the performance and capability of the designs became more demanding and complex. Therefore, setting the specification incorrectly could have major cost consequences as the manufacturer struggled to alter the design or overcome fundamental design flaws..
The other factor in the 1950s was the speed of technical advancement. A combat aircraft specified in 1950 would be obsolete by 1955 - but in the UK it usually took that long for the aircraft to enter service - so the plane was out of date just at the point it was ready for use.
This affected all countries, but the US and the USSR had far greater resources available to their aircraft industry so they could junk a design after only a few short years and start replacing with the next generation. Britain could not afford this profligacy.
Eric Mc said:
There were some of course - but the vast bulk of designs were to government requirements.
Some government specs were very, very good (Spitfire and Hurricane spring to mind) some not so good due to lack of clarity as to what the specification should really be.
The spec for the Spitfire had the advantage of being issued after the prototype had flown.Some government specs were very, very good (Spitfire and Hurricane spring to mind) some not so good due to lack of clarity as to what the specification should really be.
I am right. The Air Ministry did not specify anything about the design of the fighter requirement apart from the fact that it had to be a fighter aircraft and it had to carry 8 machine guns.
The two aircraft built to the specification turned out to be broadly similar in general terms but massively different in execution.
The two aircraft built to the specification turned out to be broadly similar in general terms but massively different in execution.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff