British planes...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On Earth
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British planes...
Hi,
Wondering, Why british planes are unsuccessful??? they just sale few planes and Stop...... British are always the first in everything from the First Jet to First Super-Sonic jet... (don't tell me they are Geniuses!!! just look to Rover
Thanks.
Wondering, Why british planes are unsuccessful??? they just sale few planes and Stop...... British are always the first in everything from the First Jet to First Super-Sonic jet... (don't tell me they are Geniuses!!! just look to Rover
Thanks.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have historically designed and sold to a UK market with the rest of the World "piggybacked." Their big loss was when their designs could no longer be foisted on the "Empire!" Why would you fly the Royal Mail in a DH-86 when the DC-2 was available?
If you consider that the Viscount was their biggest seller, you'll see what I mean. OTOH the Bae 146 wasn't a bad idea, but let down seriously by the engines.
One of the major problems is that they don't grasp the concept of designing anything for ISA +15 [or greater] operations. It never gets that hot in England [well, not till lately, anyway.]
A website I frequent [and I like English machinery; they just don't cut it commercially by themselves] has the HP Hastings nominated as "The Queen of the Skies."
My case rests.
G'day
If you consider that the Viscount was their biggest seller, you'll see what I mean. OTOH the Bae 146 wasn't a bad idea, but let down seriously by the engines.
One of the major problems is that they don't grasp the concept of designing anything for ISA +15 [or greater] operations. It never gets that hot in England [well, not till lately, anyway.]
A website I frequent [and I like English machinery; they just don't cut it commercially by themselves] has the HP Hastings nominated as "The Queen of the Skies."
My case rests.
G'day
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WX at our destination is 32 deg with some bkn cld, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wondering, Why british planes are unsuccessful???
Bottums Up
I believe, and it's not all tongue in cheek, that the Brits have a superiority complex.
Rather than design something to be simple, they seem to design it to be as complex as possible, I believe to show what they believe to be their design superiority.
The manuals for the 146 were disasterously complicated and difficult to work with. The Vol 3 (QRH) was best read by an octopus, so that s/he could keep the required fingers in the multiple pages, that one was referred to.
The Americans on the other hand, know and mostly adhere to the K.I.S.S. principle.
Rather than design something to be simple, they seem to design it to be as complex as possible, I believe to show what they believe to be their design superiority.
The manuals for the 146 were disasterously complicated and difficult to work with. The Vol 3 (QRH) was best read by an octopus, so that s/he could keep the required fingers in the multiple pages, that one was referred to.
The Americans on the other hand, know and mostly adhere to the K.I.S.S. principle.
They weren't all failures..................
The BAC-111 was fairly successful, as was/is the Islander, and if you look further back you will find that the DH-84 Dragon played a huge part in the early days of our industry.
One common problem with all British types though; they all lack adequate ventilation for the pilot. As the previous poster said, the designers never considered anything other than a British climate.
The BAC-111 was fairly successful, as was/is the Islander, and if you look further back you will find that the DH-84 Dragon played a huge part in the early days of our industry.
One common problem with all British types though; they all lack adequate ventilation for the pilot. As the previous poster said, the designers never considered anything other than a British climate.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 60
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
May I suggest that if it was'nt for poorly designed windows, history may have been totally different and we would now all be flying mostly British Aircraft.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avro 504, Gloster Gauntlet, Gloster Gladiator, Tiger Moth, Miles Magister, Chipmunk, Dragon Rapide, Hawker Fury, Fairey Battle, Fairey Firefly, Fairey Swordfish, Beaufighter, Spitfire, Hurricane, Typhoon, Defiant, Tempest, Mosquito, Lincoln, Lancaster, Halifax, Blenheim, Stirling, Wellington, Lysander, Oxford, Sunderland, Vampire, Venom, Meteor, Hunter, Canberra, Buccaneer, Vulcan, Victor, Lightning, Bulldog, Whirlwind, Wessex, Hawk, Harrier, Jaguar, Tornado, Eurofighter, Comet, Nimrod, VC10, BAC-111, Concorde.
One or two of those weren’t too bad!, I suppose!
One or two of those weren’t too bad!, I suppose!
Actually as an engineeer, my take on it is somewhat different.
My first brush with British engineering was a triumph tiger cub motorcycle. Brilliant handling, however the workshop manual contained the following words: "To change the engine oil, first remove the engine mounting bolts and lift the engine one half inch in the frame so that the plug clears the bottom tube."
I stuck with japanese motorbikes after that.
Then there was my brush with a Morris Minor and a Jaguar. I stuck with Japanese cars after that.
Then I watched Rover launch the Range Rover.......and leave it unchanged for twenty years till the rest of the world caught up. People in ski lodges used to boast about the cost of their repairs - especially the gearbox.
Then I remember when the BAe team came to town to sell us the 146 (at Ansett). I remember a nice avuncular guy patiently telling me about all the new maintenance innovations - like spare seals on the landing gear.
Then I had a look at the first prototype. I think they gave them to us very cheap.
My take on the problem is this......The British are often brilliant at theory but incapable of producing a maintainable and quality product at a reasonable cost.
No thought is given to maintenance and accessibility. Systems are either over, or under, designed. Flaws are not fixed as they appear and designs are not modified.
The reason for this is the rigidity of the British class system which is still very much alive and well (once married to a pom).
In the British firm, to "get on" you require a degree from Oxford or Cambridge. After the original and often brilliant design of the product is completed and approved by "Management", its execution is handed down to lesser or mortals to implement.
This means that while the design and structure of the product may be beautifully crafted by an expert. the design of, say, the fuel system is farmed out to the office boy because "the big man" does not want to concern himself with trifling details.
Furthermore, an aircraft or a car is maintained by a 'mechanic" which is a term of scorn in Britain. Feedback from these lesser indivduals is not required, and if they dare to criticise the great mans' creation, let alone having the temerity to suggest improvements, they are simply being "rude".
I think you will find that the great British aeronautical creations were designed before aviation became a mainstream activity that was then taken over by "proper" British managers (that's actually an oxymoron).
My first brush with British engineering was a triumph tiger cub motorcycle. Brilliant handling, however the workshop manual contained the following words: "To change the engine oil, first remove the engine mounting bolts and lift the engine one half inch in the frame so that the plug clears the bottom tube."
I stuck with japanese motorbikes after that.
Then there was my brush with a Morris Minor and a Jaguar. I stuck with Japanese cars after that.
Then I watched Rover launch the Range Rover.......and leave it unchanged for twenty years till the rest of the world caught up. People in ski lodges used to boast about the cost of their repairs - especially the gearbox.
Then I remember when the BAe team came to town to sell us the 146 (at Ansett). I remember a nice avuncular guy patiently telling me about all the new maintenance innovations - like spare seals on the landing gear.
Then I had a look at the first prototype. I think they gave them to us very cheap.
My take on the problem is this......The British are often brilliant at theory but incapable of producing a maintainable and quality product at a reasonable cost.
No thought is given to maintenance and accessibility. Systems are either over, or under, designed. Flaws are not fixed as they appear and designs are not modified.
The reason for this is the rigidity of the British class system which is still very much alive and well (once married to a pom).
In the British firm, to "get on" you require a degree from Oxford or Cambridge. After the original and often brilliant design of the product is completed and approved by "Management", its execution is handed down to lesser or mortals to implement.
This means that while the design and structure of the product may be beautifully crafted by an expert. the design of, say, the fuel system is farmed out to the office boy because "the big man" does not want to concern himself with trifling details.
Furthermore, an aircraft or a car is maintained by a 'mechanic" which is a term of scorn in Britain. Feedback from these lesser indivduals is not required, and if they dare to criticise the great mans' creation, let alone having the temerity to suggest improvements, they are simply being "rude".
I think you will find that the great British aeronautical creations were designed before aviation became a mainstream activity that was then taken over by "proper" British managers (that's actually an oxymoron).
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wholi. I think ya missed the BAE 146 off ya list!!
And Aussies produced some gems, let me think now, the Boomerang, the Nomad ... and ... and ... oh yeah, the Victa Air Tourer - but we sold that to the Kiwis.....
Woomera
And Aussies produced some gems, let me think now, the Boomerang, the Nomad ... and ... and ... oh yeah, the Victa Air Tourer - but we sold that to the Kiwis.....
Woomera
...and yer know what? Wholi flown them all.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't the Chipmunk Canadian?
But I digress, who would have thought of having both circuit breakers and of all things fuses, complete with fuse tester(s) in the 748. And make sure you use the right fuse tester or else you have a blown fuse. Just to finish it off the fuses were just numbered, not labeled. But it was quite a good aircraft aerodynanically.
I too thought the DHC-1 Chipmunk ("C" for Canada) was Canadian - but didn't want to dispute a Mod.
Woomera
But I digress, who would have thought of having both circuit breakers and of all things fuses, complete with fuse tester(s) in the 748. And make sure you use the right fuse tester or else you have a blown fuse. Just to finish it off the fuses were just numbered, not labeled. But it was quite a good aircraft aerodynanically.
I too thought the DHC-1 Chipmunk ("C" for Canada) was Canadian - but didn't want to dispute a Mod.
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 27th Sep 2005 at 01:43.
I think a comment made in relation to British cars by an American "Road and Track" columnist (Brock Yates? in the '70's summed it up perfectly:
"Would you get into a moon rocket that had "Electrics by Lucas" written on the side"?
"Would you get into a moon rocket that had "Electrics by Lucas" written on the side"?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, I think you answered your own question. A good example of British engineering is/was the Dove. On cold flights, the passengers were kept in cosy, warm comfort. The pilots - like chauffers - sat up the front and froze.
The Landrover - nice 4 wheel capabilities, but leaks oil all over the garage floor.
The BAe-146 - great size to fit a good market that was well identified. Then they went ahead and stuck it with 4 engines. Maybe a necessity at the time, but who (outside England) was going to make a decent profit with 4 fans?
The MGTC sums it up nicely. Lovely car, but you need to be an afficianado to own one. Who else could tolerate a garage full of oily rags?
They're getting better though - I think. Wonderful concepts, great design, it just seems like something is missing in the middle that connects brilliant engineering design to market needs. Your explanation above seems to be quite astute. And God forgive if an engineer listens to the advice of a marketer!
Someone told me once about the difference in design between a Spitfire and Mustang. (Both designed in Britain, but a good example nevertheless.) With the Spitfire, someone designed a plane and then looked for the biggest hole available in which to jam the pilot. With the Mustang, the designer started with a seat and then built the aircraft around it.
The Landrover - nice 4 wheel capabilities, but leaks oil all over the garage floor.
The BAe-146 - great size to fit a good market that was well identified. Then they went ahead and stuck it with 4 engines. Maybe a necessity at the time, but who (outside England) was going to make a decent profit with 4 fans?
The MGTC sums it up nicely. Lovely car, but you need to be an afficianado to own one. Who else could tolerate a garage full of oily rags?
They're getting better though - I think. Wonderful concepts, great design, it just seems like something is missing in the middle that connects brilliant engineering design to market needs. Your explanation above seems to be quite astute. And God forgive if an engineer listens to the advice of a marketer!
Someone told me once about the difference in design between a Spitfire and Mustang. (Both designed in Britain, but a good example nevertheless.) With the Spitfire, someone designed a plane and then looked for the biggest hole available in which to jam the pilot. With the Mustang, the designer started with a seat and then built the aircraft around it.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the difference in design between a Spitfire and Mustang. (Both designed in Britain, but a good example nevertheless.
G'day
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see a Woomeri regarding the Airtourer as a gem. Mind you a couple of them Woomeri would seriously challenge the Airtourers take-off performance and solo at that
It's almost 50 years since the Brits had a competition to design a replacement for the Tiger Moth as a trainer. Yes the Airtourer won that competition and I do believe Henry never received the 50 pound prize money either.
tipsy
It's almost 50 years since the Brits had a competition to design a replacement for the Tiger Moth as a trainer. Yes the Airtourer won that competition and I do believe Henry never received the 50 pound prize money either.
tipsy