Radio 4 Today - Empire of the Clouds
Discussion
review said:
In 1945, Britain was the world's leading designer and builder of aircraft - a world-class achievement that was not mere rhetoric. And what aircraft they were. The sleek Comet, the first jet airliner. The awesome delta-winged Vulcan, an intercontinental bomber that could be thrown about the sky like a fighter. The Hawker Hunter, the most beautiful fighter-jet ever built and the Lightning, which could zoom ten miles above the clouds in a couple of minutes and whose pilots rated flying it as better than sex. How did Britain so lose the plot that today there is not a single aircraft manufacturer of any significance in the country? And what was it like to be alive in that marvellous post-war moment when innovative new British aircraft made their debut, and pilots were the rock stars of the age? James Hamilton-Paterson captures that season of glory in a compelling book that fuses his own memories of being a schoolboy plane spotter with a ruefully realistic history of British decline - its loss of self confidence and power. It is the story of great and charismatic machines and the men who flew them: heroes such as Bill Waterton, Neville Duke, John Derry and Bill Beaumont who took inconceivable risks, so that we could fly without a second thought.
It certainly sounds interesting.Eric Mc said:
Simpo Two said:
Yertis said:
By voting Labour.
What he said.In a general sense you are correct. It was Dennis Healy who axed the TSR-2 (although Tony Benn strove manfully to save Concorde when Harold Wilson tried to axe that too).
The forced merger of all the British airframe and aero-engine manufacturers also happened under the Conservatives.
The machinations that went on between the various companies leading up to the mergers were instrumental in ensuring that TSR-2 costs went through the roof.
The forced merger of all the British airframe and aero-engine manufacturers also happened under the Conservatives.
The machinations that went on between the various companies leading up to the mergers were instrumental in ensuring that TSR-2 costs went through the roof.
review said:
How did Britain so lose the plot that today there is not a single aircraft manufacturer of any significance in the country?
A bit tabloid for R4, no? What is BAE Systems if not a significant British manufacturer? Where are the Hawk, Taranis and all those other cutting-edge a/c made if not in this country?bulb763 said:
review said:
How did Britain so lose the plot that today there is not a single aircraft manufacturer of any significance in the country?
A bit tabloid for R4, no? What is BAE Systems if not a significant British manufacturer? Where are the Hawk, Taranis and all those other cutting-edge a/c made if not in this country?I think it's fair to say the flavour of liar occupying No.10 at any particular point in history doesn't make a great deal of difference to the ramshackle and corrupt procurement system in place in this country. The forces end up with good equipment from time to time more by luck than judgement, and high profile cancellations are generally made too late to do any real good - TSR2 included. It's a good job the Russians were as hapless as the rest of us really. Anyway, the book this thread is about is worth a read but just don't take it as gospel. I've stuck a review up on Amazon. On the subject of TSR2 I've written a book on the type which should be out in a week or so!
eccles said:
bulb763 said:
review said:
How did Britain so lose the plot that today there is not a single aircraft manufacturer of any significance in the country?
A bit tabloid for R4, no? What is BAE Systems if not a significant British manufacturer? Where are the Hawk, Taranis and all those other cutting-edge a/c made if not in this country?Edited by bulb763 on Friday 15th October 20:56
Yertis said:
review said:
How did Britain so lose the plot that today there is not a single aircraft manufacturer of any significance in the country?
By voting Labour.There are thousands of reasons that the aircraft industry in the UK isn't what it once was. Purely saying "it was Labour's fault" is possibly the single daftest thing I've read on here and believe me whan I say that I've read some amazing nonsense on here in the past.
IforB said:
Yertis said:
review said:
How did Britain so lose the plot that today there is not a single aircraft manufacturer of any significance in the country?
By voting Labour.There are thousands of reasons that the aircraft industry in the UK isn't what it once was. Purely saying "it was Labour's fault" is possibly the single daftest thing I've read on here and believe me whan I say that I've read some amazing nonsense on here in the past.
Myself? I'd say development costs, more than anything else, determined the outcome of it all.
Look at the differences between a between the first and last pure fighter propellor planes - say a Pup and a Sea Fury, or a Camel and a Tempest. One less wing, more glass, a few more dials, retractable undercrackers, and so on. Fundamentally they're the same thing - fan, engine, wings, machine guns, driver & parachute, tail. Between 1916 and 1946, nothing really changed - they got faster and higher and heavier, but remained the same intrinsic device.
Now look at the next 30 years, the bit where it all went wrong for the British aerospace industry. The arrival of the jet engine, in all it's various guises. Air-Air Radar, Terrain Radar, Avionics, Missiles, Nukes, Ejector Seats, Swept wings, variable wings, VTOL, carrier air ops, area rule, Helicopters etc. Not to mention all the specific roles; ASW, Interceptors, Inderdiction, Fighters, Ground Attack, Tactical Bombers, Strategic Bombers, Reconnaisance.
The differences between a Meteor or Venom of 1946 and that of a 1976 Tornado (prototype) or Harrier GR.1 are far more pronounced that the 1916-46 comparison.
I seem to remember that one of the WW2 Hawkers - the Typhoon I think - had a drawing board to prototype phase of 3 years. The Frightning took seven to get to P1 from Air Ministry specifications. The Tonker was between seven and ten years (or more, depending on how you look at it). The Eurofighter Typhoon began life in the late 70s.
I'd guess that the cost of design and development to Prototype of Eurofighter project probably exceeded the entire operational life cost of the entire RAF Hunter fleet from drawing board to scrapyard.
Edited by Dunk76 on Monday 18th October 13:21
Thesze are issues which have affected ALL aircraft development, not just Britsh projects.
Ande I would argue strongly that a Spitfire was by no means a glorified Camel.
There weere massive advancements in the 20s and 30s in aerodynamics, engines, structures and propellor design.
Pst war the major devlopment has been in control systems and waepons systems.
The British aircraft industry has largely followed a similar path to nearly all the aircraft industries of similar sized nations. Look at what happened in Italy, France and Germany, for instance.
The new kids on the block are the former third world countries that have emerged on the scene as big time players over the past decade or so.
Ande I would argue strongly that a Spitfire was by no means a glorified Camel.
There weere massive advancements in the 20s and 30s in aerodynamics, engines, structures and propellor design.
Pst war the major devlopment has been in control systems and waepons systems.
The British aircraft industry has largely followed a similar path to nearly all the aircraft industries of similar sized nations. Look at what happened in Italy, France and Germany, for instance.
The new kids on the block are the former third world countries that have emerged on the scene as big time players over the past decade or so.
Eric Mc said:
Ande I would argue strongly that a Spitfire was by no means a glorified Camel.
There weere massive advancements in the 20s and 30s in aerodynamics, engines, structures and propellor design.
Massive advancement in how you build the wing spars, or whether your propellor is variable pitch doesn't change the fact the Spit is, from operability point of view, fundamentally the same thing; piston engine up front, guns, operator, some cables or fluids to control the surfaces (which, save for the removal of the top wing, sit in the same place and work in the same way), gunsight in the middle. There weere massive advancements in the 20s and 30s in aerodynamics, engines, structures and propellor design.
The evolutionary step from Camel to Spitfire is a small one.
From a Spitfire to a Tornado is a massive leap.
Both to be conducted in the same period of time.
Edit: I know people want a scapegoat to point at, but it happened to everyone else except the USSR and the USA, I think it's as simple as 'it just got too expensive'.
Things like the Starfighter bribery of the Luftwaffe, or the TSR, didn't help the overall picture, but even so, with the RAF (and everyone else for that matter) now aiming for 30+ years out of a combat airframe costing Billions to develop, and Multi-Millions to buy, was there ever going to be any other outcome?
Edited by Dunk76 on Monday 18th October 16:39
IforB said:
Purely saying "it was Labour's fault" is possibly the single daftest thing I've read on here and believe me whan I say that I've read some amazing nonsense on here in the past.
If I put my serious hat on for a couple of minutes, I would contend that the British aviation industry (and indeed British engineering in general) would be significantly healthier today had the country not been subject to socialist influence during the 1940s, 50s, 60s and 70s. In a general sense I find it useful to blame the Labour Party for anything and everything I don't like – it saves time and is usually at least partially correct.
Dunk76 said:
Eric Mc said:
Ande I would argue strongly that a Spitfire was by no means a glorified Camel.
There weere massive advancements in the 20s and 30s in aerodynamics, engines, structures and propellor design.
Massive advancement in how you build the wing spars, or whether your propellor is variable pitch doesn't change the fact the Spit is, from operability point of view, fundamentally the same thing; piston engine up front, guns, operator, some cables or fluids to control the surfaces (which, save for the removal of the top wing, sit in the same place and work in the same way), gunsight in the middle. There weere massive advancements in the 20s and 30s in aerodynamics, engines, structures and propellor design.
The evolutionary step from Camel to Spitfire is a small one.
From a Spitfire to a Tornado is a massive leap.
Both to be conducted in the same period of time.
Edit: I know people want a scapegoat to point at, but it happened to everyone else except the USSR and the USA, I think it's as simple as 'it just got too expensive'.
Things like the Starfighter bribery of the Luftwaffe, or the TSR, didn't help the overall picture, but even so, with the RAF (and everyone else for that matter) now aiming for 30+ years out of a combat airframe costing Billions to develop, and Multi-Millions to buy, was there ever going to be any other outcome?
Edited by Dunk76 on Monday 18th October 16:39
Camel - open cockpit, canvas covered, wire braced, fixed undercariage, unstressed structure, designed by empirics.
Spifire - Wind tunnel tested, mathematically and fluid dynamics evolved wing, variable pitch propellor, closed cockpit (pressurised in some cases), hydrauliccally operated retractable undercarriage and stressed monocoque structure - no, not much change their.
Yertis said:
IforB said:
Purely saying "it was Labour's fault" is possibly the single daftest thing I've read on here and believe me whan I say that I've read some amazing nonsense on here in the past.
If I put my serious hat on for a couple of minutes, I would contend that the British aviation industry (and indeed British engineering in general) would be significantly healthier today had the country not been subject to socialist influence during the 1940s, 50s, 60s and 70s. In a general sense I find it useful to blame the Labour Party for anything and everything I don't like – it saves time and is usually at least partially correct.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff