FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1938
1938 - 1307.PDF
AIRCRAFT ENGINEER,_. - AND AIRSHIPS FIRST AERONAUTICAL^WEEKLY IN THE^IVORLD •• FOUNDED WOO Editor M. POULSEN Managing Editor G. GEOFFREY SMITH Chief Photographer JOHN YOXALL Editorial, Advertising and Publishing Offices: DORSET HOUSE, STAMFORD STREET, LONDON, S.E.I Telegrams : Tmditur. gedist. London. Telephone : Waterloo 3333 (SO linei). HEItTFOKD ST.,COVENTEY. Telegrams : Autocar, Coventry.Telephone: Coventry 5210. GUILDHALL BUILDINGS,NAVIGATION ST., BIRMINGHAM, 2. Telegrams: Autopress, Birmingham.Telephone: Midland 2971. 260, DEANSGATE,MANCHESTER, 3. Telegrams: Iliffe, Manchester.Telephone: Blackfriare 4412. 26B, BENPIELD ST.,GLASGOW, C.2. Telegrams: Iliffe, Glasgow. Telephone: Central 4857. SUBSCRIPTIONBATES: Home and Canada:Other countries : r, ei 13 J>.r, f 1 16 0. 6 months, 3 6s. fid. 6 months, 18s. Od. 3 months, 6n. Ad.3 months, 8B. Od. j No 1533 Vol. XXXIII. " MAY 12, 1939". Thursdays, Price 66. The Outlook- I.T.P.M EMBERS of both Houses will have an opportunity to-day of discussing the question of aircraft pro- duction. The Debate may, in fact, be said to constitute the equivalent of the Air Ministry's " I.T.P." For the benefit of the uninitiated it may be explained that in the aircraft industry, when negotiations between an aircraft constructor and the Air Ministry have reached a .certain stage, the constructor receives "Instructions To Proceed." Parliament has long desired an opportunity to challenge the Air Ministry about the progress of the R.A.F. expansion, and doubtless the Opposition will try to make the most of to-day's opportunity. That an attempt will be made to make political capital out of the present position may be taken for granted. It is hardly to be expected that the Air Ministry's critics will bother to remember that the difficulties with which the aircraft industry is faced are not the fault of any one man, of any one department in the Ministry, of any one firm or group of firms in the aircraft industry. They date back to the time when Great Britain was so busy '' setting an example '' to the rest of the world; an example which, needless to say, was not followed by anyone. The number of orders was few, in those days, and the aircraft industry as a whole led a hand-to-mouth exist- ence. Some twenty firms with designing staffs composed the industry. Realising that it would be dangerous to let these firms die, the Air Ministry did its best to keep them all alive by trying to spread the few orders reason- ably among the firms. But it was inevitable that at any given moment one or two firms should be busy while others had practically no work. Then the busy firm would finish its orders and would be slack for a period, another firm having, in the meantime, received orders for a new type of aircraft. That most firms had the very greatest difficulty in keeping their technical staffs together is not to be wondered at. Equally serious was the fact that the workers could never be sure of steady employment for any length of time. Two alternatives were available: either the workers could travel from one part of the country to another, following the orders, or they could leave the air- craft industry and secure steady employment elsewhere. Some followed one course and some the other, but ob- viously neither did the aircraft industry any good. In the circumstances it is scarcely surprising that when the industry was faced with panic expansion difficulties arose. It would be well if to-day's critics in Parliament would bear past history in mind. There is plenty to criticise, but the blame for the present delays in production must be laid at the door of past disarmament policies, framed by several different Governments and agreed to by many of those who are now loudest in their allegations of in- efficiency. The trouble lies in the system rather than with individuals. The system worked well enough in the days of small orders and hand-made aircraft. It has broken down under the stress of quantity production. ReorganisationN OTHING in this world is easier than to criticise. That things are not going too well all admit. What is needed is a reorganisation not only of the Air Ministry's technical departments, but of the air- craft industry itself. In this week's issue of Flight we publish an article by a production engineer, whose pre- vious articles have explained some of the present troubles. This week he offers a suggestion for such reorganisation. Flight does not necessarily agree with all the suggestions. We do not even say that "Production Engineer's " scheme is sound or workable. But unless someone pro- vides a basis for discussion we shall never get anywhere. Our contributor makes suggestions for speeding-up Air Ministry procedure, chiefly by a system of decentralisa- tion, thereby hoping to cut out the vast amount of inter- office correspondence which at present causes delays in giving decisions. His proposed reduction of types to seven will doubt- less be opposed in some quarters, but as our contributor
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
