British Classics got me thinking
Discussion
Saw a good programme last night on the Blackburn Beverley and it got me thinking...
How did a load of engineers with no more than "HB" pencils and slide rules manage to create
such a beast in such a short period, especially in post war broke Britain ????
What chance of us creating something of similar magnitude today? They had no CAD/CAM
no composites, no CNC machines, no finite stress analysis software, yet still they managed to
build, by all accounts, a very effective aircraft.
So why are we now not able to produce such beasties? Is it because we don't need to? Is it because
pen pushing HSE/CAA kick the ar.e out of everything and it's not worth trying? Is it because we can't
afford to? I don't know... What do you think?
Andy M
How did a load of engineers with no more than "HB" pencils and slide rules manage to create
such a beast in such a short period, especially in post war broke Britain ????
What chance of us creating something of similar magnitude today? They had no CAD/CAM
no composites, no CNC machines, no finite stress analysis software, yet still they managed to
build, by all accounts, a very effective aircraft.
So why are we now not able to produce such beasties? Is it because we don't need to? Is it because
pen pushing HSE/CAA kick the ar.e out of everything and it's not worth trying? Is it because we can't
afford to? I don't know... What do you think?
Andy M
We don't need to - not in the same way.
Back in the late 40s, the military needed to develop specific aircraft for specific tasks.
These days, much military heavy lift capability can be operated through the leasing of civilian operated aircarft. Pure militarty aircraft are retained for specialist cargoes and special duties.
Don't forget also that at the time the Beverley was designed, Britain still had massive world wide commitments and needed a fleet of transport and cargo aircraft to ferry troops and equipment to far flung corners of the Empire.
I would argue to day that the UK does not have enough cargo carying capacity to fulfill its current commitments - but that is a different debate.
Back in the late 40s, the military needed to develop specific aircraft for specific tasks.
These days, much military heavy lift capability can be operated through the leasing of civilian operated aircarft. Pure militarty aircraft are retained for specialist cargoes and special duties.
Don't forget also that at the time the Beverley was designed, Britain still had massive world wide commitments and needed a fleet of transport and cargo aircraft to ferry troops and equipment to far flung corners of the Empire.
I would argue to day that the UK does not have enough cargo carying capacity to fulfill its current commitments - but that is a different debate.
Simpo Two said:
I think the OPs point is that we couldn't do it now even we wanted to. Too much red tape, H&S, EU directives and legislation stop things being achieved. Plus the corporate structure slows people down and stops them thinking and taking responsibility.
I think that is a general problem with aviation projects throughout the world, not just here.Modern aircraft are infinitely more sophisticated and capable compared to the 1940s (when the Beverley was designed) and take an enormous amount of time and money to develop.
I am not saying this is right - but it is the way things are.
Eric Mc said:
Simpo Two said:
I think the OPs point is that we couldn't do it now even we wanted to. Too much red tape, H&S, EU directives and legislation stop things being achieved. Plus the corporate structure slows people down and stops them thinking and taking responsibility.
I think that is a general problem with aviation projects throughout the world, not just here.Modern aircraft are infinitely more sophisticated and capable compared to the 1940s (when the Beverley was designed) and take an enormous amount of time and money to develop.
I am not saying this is right - but it is the way things are.
To answer the question of "Modern aircraft are infinitely more sophisticated and capable" so are current design/prototype/production techniques.
So we no longer have needs to support far flung parts of the empire, there's enough countries that do need such equipment still, why aren't we able to offer
a world beater now, such as the Beverley was at the time? Others can do it, why can't we? Interestingly many pilots thought it was better suited to it's job than the C130 that replaced it.
Fixed gear and higher ground clearance affording it the ability to operate off of much worse ground than the Herc.
The programme was on last night on "Discovery Turbo". They did show some good footage of the last remaining example, interviewing the "family" team that look after it.
The Beverley was such a "world beater" that not a single example was sold to anyone other than the RAF.
Now, whether that was down to any problems with the basic performance of the aircraft or the possible nefarious activity of competitors (it's chief rival in the 50s would have been Lockheed after all) is open to conjecture.
I personally know people who flew in and jumped out of these things so know and understand what they were like to fly in.
Could Britain build such an aircraft today - yes it could - but of course it would be obsolete and no-one would want it.
Could Britain build a modern replacement - no, not on its own. It would need to do it as a collaborative project - and funnilly enough, it is. It's called the Airbus A400M. And, of course, that project exhibits all the hallmark failings of modern military aircraft procurement.
Now, whether that was down to any problems with the basic performance of the aircraft or the possible nefarious activity of competitors (it's chief rival in the 50s would have been Lockheed after all) is open to conjecture.
I personally know people who flew in and jumped out of these things so know and understand what they were like to fly in.
Could Britain build such an aircraft today - yes it could - but of course it would be obsolete and no-one would want it.
Could Britain build a modern replacement - no, not on its own. It would need to do it as a collaborative project - and funnilly enough, it is. It's called the Airbus A400M. And, of course, that project exhibits all the hallmark failings of modern military aircraft procurement.
Eric Mc said:
T
Could Britain build a modern replacement - no, not on its own. It would need to do it as a collaborative project - and funnilly enough, it is. It's called the Airbus A400M. And, of course, that project exhibits all the hallmark failings of modern military aircraft procurement.
I don't know about that - we have all the skills in this country still to build a transport plane. BAe managed to build about 90% of a Nimrod in the last couple of years, after all. The big problem is that governments give lots of money to defence contractors these days to build things for them, so the defence contractors have lost the ability to build things quickly and cheaply. The Beverley was designed as a freight aircraft first, and then sold to the RAF, and the C-130 was developed at Lockheed's cost.Could Britain build a modern replacement - no, not on its own. It would need to do it as a collaborative project - and funnilly enough, it is. It's called the Airbus A400M. And, of course, that project exhibits all the hallmark failings of modern military aircraft procurement.
There is only one large airframe manufacturer in the UK and by and large, they don't seem to really want to be building aeroplanes.
I don't think any major airframe manufacturer would today take the massive risk involved in designing and building an aircraft first and then finding out whether there are any potential buyers.
The Beverley started life as a glider project by General Aircraft (a kind of super-derivative of the wartime Hamilcar) and possibly inspired by the German Messerschmitt 322 Gigant. Like the Gigant, it was realised that for an aeroplane that big, having its own engines was a better bet than looking for a super powerful tow aircraft. The resultant aircraft (the Universal Freighter) needed a fair amount of amendment before it evolved into the Beverley.
I don't think any major airframe manufacturer would today take the massive risk involved in designing and building an aircraft first and then finding out whether there are any potential buyers.
The Beverley started life as a glider project by General Aircraft (a kind of super-derivative of the wartime Hamilcar) and possibly inspired by the German Messerschmitt 322 Gigant. Like the Gigant, it was realised that for an aeroplane that big, having its own engines was a better bet than looking for a super powerful tow aircraft. The resultant aircraft (the Universal Freighter) needed a fair amount of amendment before it evolved into the Beverley.
Eric Mc said:
I don't think any major airframe manufacturer would today take the massive risk involved in designing and building an aircraft first and then finding out whether there are any potential buyers.
Lucky that de Havilland and Supermarine took the risk and pursued 'private projects'. But that stemmed from the drive and insight of individual personalities, and it all confirms that times have changed and nobody has personalities that rise above the surface.ETA: And there is no major threat to our shores, which is highly fortunate.
Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 7th February 14:27
Aircraft projects were "smaller" and less technical then than they are these days. A single person could more or less design an aircraft in the 1930s. Now it takes 100s or even 1,000s to arrive at the final product.
It's a bit like motor racing.
A successful Grand Prix team of the 1930s could have less than 20 personnel. Look at how many are employed by McLaren or Ferrari today.
It's a bit like motor racing.
A successful Grand Prix team of the 1930s could have less than 20 personnel. Look at how many are employed by McLaren or Ferrari today.
FourWheelDrift said:
Sounds like the Classic British Aircraft series narrated by Harry Enfield on Discovery. They often show all episodes in one day.
That's the one. They also showed an episode featuring the Rapide and Anson. The Rapide was, indeed still is, a real thing of beauty :-)
Lovely pic Eric!
I was lucky enough to fly in this one a couple of times after it was restored by a guy I knew at Sywell.
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=6635
Funny thing was, as mentioned last night, "restoration" is hardly the right word. "Build" would be more appropriate as the
original drawings are, err shall we say, basic :-)
I didn't know they were built up and down the country by cabinet makers, engineering firms indeed almost anyone who had the correct skills and machinery.
Can't imagine that happening today either!
Interestingly this one was a Dominie which had an extra station for nav training. From memory it had been removed though
I was lucky enough to fly in this one a couple of times after it was restored by a guy I knew at Sywell.
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=6635
Funny thing was, as mentioned last night, "restoration" is hardly the right word. "Build" would be more appropriate as the
original drawings are, err shall we say, basic :-)
I didn't know they were built up and down the country by cabinet makers, engineering firms indeed almost anyone who had the correct skills and machinery.
Can't imagine that happening today either!
Interestingly this one was a Dominie which had an extra station for nav training. From memory it had been removed though
Edited by mrloudly on Monday 7th February 16:57
There was a war on.
Wooden aircraft were a useful way of making use of skills which otherwise may have been under-utilsed. The main reason the Mosquito was given the go ahead for production was not because it was a superb aeroplane (which it turned out to be) but because it was made from non strategic materials.
De Havilland were probably the best wooden airframe builders in the world having had extensive experience with their DH84 Dragon, DH86 Dragon Express, DH88 Comet, DH89 Dragon Rapide, DH90 Dragonfly and DH91 Albatros.
Some of these aeroplanes, particularly the Albatros - and even the Mosquito, had structural failings but DH led the world in monocoque bonded wood airframes.
Wooden aircraft were a useful way of making use of skills which otherwise may have been under-utilsed. The main reason the Mosquito was given the go ahead for production was not because it was a superb aeroplane (which it turned out to be) but because it was made from non strategic materials.
De Havilland were probably the best wooden airframe builders in the world having had extensive experience with their DH84 Dragon, DH86 Dragon Express, DH88 Comet, DH89 Dragon Rapide, DH90 Dragonfly and DH91 Albatros.
Some of these aeroplanes, particularly the Albatros - and even the Mosquito, had structural failings but DH led the world in monocoque bonded wood airframes.
Eric Mc said:
Wooden aircraft were a useful way of making use of skills which otherwise may have been under-utilsed. The main reason the Mosquito was given the go ahead for production was not because it was a superb aeroplane (which it turned out to be) but because it was made from non strategic materials.
Goering said:
It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked.
Cobblers.
We can and relatively easily to be honest.
That isnt what the world wants from the aviation industry anymore though. What it wants now is a lot more advanced, a lot more complicated and probably most important of all...needs to be produced to a lot more rigourous set of standards and legal requirements. There is no great conspiracy or lack of ability or lack of desire about it.
We can and relatively easily to be honest.
That isnt what the world wants from the aviation industry anymore though. What it wants now is a lot more advanced, a lot more complicated and probably most important of all...needs to be produced to a lot more rigourous set of standards and legal requirements. There is no great conspiracy or lack of ability or lack of desire about it.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff