FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1948
1948 - 0410.PDF
344 FLIGHT MARCH 25TH, 1948 C correspondence the home fires, although at the expense of trouble and grieffor the instructors. "Reservist's" ab initio suggestion must be echoed in everyV.R. school in the land. In five years a compulsory service pupil who was permitted to do V.R. service in lieu of full-time national service could be given • 200/300 hours' flying instruction, equivalent ground tuition, acquire experience otwartime aircrews while mingling with older V.R.s and generally become at least S.F.T.S. standard—a useful pilot—and stillmaintain the production /manpower time that is so vital, and all with little or no great alteiation to the cost and main-tenance of the existing facilities. Someone sadly under- estimates the potentialities of this V.R. scheme! "Flatfeet" (March nth) raises another excellent point; 1feel guilty of greedily enjoying myself and flaunting my pleasure before his starved eyes-, and I can well picture hischagrin. Only a few years ago, trained aircrew were suffi- ciently vital to claim priority over law enforcement, andthese policemen, whose physical and mental requirements so admirably suited them for flying duties, must now be forcedto forget a hard-won skill and waste the experience incurred in acquiring it. Surely the authorities concerned could permit these mento spend what little spare time they do have in satisfying their desire to retain their aptitude for flying, instead ofrepressing their appetite and causing such dissatisfied officers as " Flatfeet." There would be a better patrol if they weresatisfied (and efficient) policemen and not "dicing" around on the public highways in the moonlight (I'd love to see thatowl-interception!). Perhaps, however, it is merely that we have to use up the pre-war recruiting and enlisting forms, andnow that hostilities have ceased civil servants are not allowed to use their spare time usefully. Could some kind Ministrystart an enquiry, or form a committee, to sort it all out—or have we anyone who can get results in less than months andsay a straight yes or no for once instead of a haze of red tape? "Jimmy" and "Reservist" both require advanced types—who doesn't? From Spits to Lanes, Tigers to Sunderlands— we all want our favourites again. The V.R. schools would beinteresting indeed if wishes came true, but reason and the purse-strings predominate, and the old Tiger is obvious inqualities of robust strength, ease of maintenance (which "Jimmy" decries!) and adequate numbers. But I beg leaveto suggest one sure cure, let us all rally round—ROLL UP A.ND WEAR THEM OUT ! "474" Leicester. BRITISH AIRLINERS Facing Facts Not Anti-British T ETTERS such as that of Mr. Thorpe in your issue ofJLv February 19th impel me to make a plea for a measure of objective honesty in the spate of opinions now appearing inprint about our commercial heavy aircraft. Many of those who are presently accused of being " anti-British in all mattersconcerning aviation" are in my opinion doing more than all the flag-waving, drum-beating "British is best" merchantsput together, to get the record straight and to induce our air- craft industry to face squarely its unhappy position vis-a-visthe U.S. in respect of large landplane airliners. Only the Air Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, in an article datedFebruary K)th last, seems so far to me to have put the issue both fairly and unemotionally. He points out that the argument " fly British to support ouraircraft industry " is not valid, since the aircraft industry can, in fact, only be supported by extensive orders for military air-craft. He adds that the large airliners which all the world's airlines at present have on order could easily be supplied bytwo or three factories, and that the folly of Britain spending millions of pounds in trying to force its way into this restrictedand precarious market is not yet appreciated. To revert to Mr. Thorpe, his remark that the Tudor IV mightprove to all that Britain's aircraft can "equal and surpass" anything else in the world is simply not based on a factualexamination of the airliner situation to-day. Nobody who has had any operational experience of the Tudor IV (with onecelebrated exception) believes that it is in any sense a world- beater. Certainly it has no fundamental faults (I hope andbelieve that Lord MacMillan's investigation will not disprove this), and is generally conceded to be a nice, sound aircraftwhich, five years ago, woufavhaye been well up in its class. But it has inevitably had in itt short life a good share ofoperational and maintenance troubles; it does not really cruise fast enough for 1948; and its range performance will always be a worry, and one which is accentuated in certain otherMarks of the Tudor breed. At maximum landing weight it stalls at 101 m.p.h. as against the 76 m.p.h. of the Constella-tion, whilst its take-off safety margin under any engine failure condition does not nearly compare with the Connie, thoughundoubtedly better than some other interim British landplanes. Let it not be supposed that, by admitting these facts, weshall harm our aircraft export trade. No airline operator out- side our Corporations is ever going to buy a Tudor anyway.As long as three years ago, the writer remembers a K.L.M. executive telling him how decisively, and precisely why, hiscompany had opted for Constellations instead. The many good British, types will sell well irrespective of the Tudorhistory—vide the Dove and the Vampire. The really depres- sing feature of the present-day picture is the apparent reluc-tance of sections of our aircraft industry to admit they still have things to learn about big airliners. One designer eventold a senior airline maintenance executive of my acquaintance that he did not think the Constellation could teach the Tudor-makers anything ! What about tricycle undercarriages, high__ lift flaps, power boosted controls, and ground refrigeration ii,%tropical countries ? These are minor refinements which our U.S.. friends havebeen using for years, but not one British aircraft over 6o,ooolb is yet equipped with any of them. With the singrfe andbrilliant exception of Mr. Hagg's Ambassador, no one of our civil types possesses that stamp of aerodynamic '' class '' whichmakes the Connie, look as well as it performs. Furthermore, one may doubt whether even the Brabazon will prove as gooda transatlantic proposition as the Stratocruiser, which I suspect is going to put an awful lot of airline non-users outof business; whilst the Bristol M.R.E., type when it flies, will only be doing what the Constellation has already done yearsearlier. Since really neither our aircraft industry nor our exporttrade depends upon the British Corporations flying Tudors, why not face facts and, as the Daily Telegraph Air Corre-spondent says, '' cut our losses on the grounds that they are out of date and will cost millions of pounds to operate inaddition to their development expenses. We should be ready to accept and use the American long-range airliners since, ifwe do not, the competitive position of our Corporations will be hopelessly jeopardized." Only those whose daily job it isto try to sell transport in present-day British aircraft to non- British hard currency passengers against the competition ofDouglas and Lockheed products, will really appreciate the truth of that. In the years ahead possibly the D.H. 106 willget us out of the rut, but certainly we hear of nothing else that can. Meanwhile, I suggest that facing facts is not "anti-British"and that those who advocate it are doing a greater service to British aviation than those who, like Mr. Thorpe, believe thatthe Tudor is so far beyond criticism that it should be kept flying whilst even the slightest doubt about its safety exists.I have never seen you give space to those who honestly believe that British airlines should, for the present, use American air-craft. I do not know if the opinions of B.O.A.C.'s Technical Development Department are based upon the same premisesas mine ; but failing these, perhaps you will print the present letter in the interests of a fair hearing for this point of vi^jt Rio de Janeiro. " " FACT-FACER*.^ FORTHCOMING EVENTS Mar. 25th.—R.Ae.S. (Yeovil) : " Recen: Development in Flying-Boats." H. Knowler, F.R.Ae.S. Mar. 31st.—Royal United Service Institution : "Atomic Energy." Prof. H. S. W. Massey, F.R.S. Apr. 1st.—R.Ae.S. (Manchester) : *' Flight Refuelling." C. H. Latimer Needham. Apr. 1st.—n.Ae.S. (Yeovil) : A.G.M. and Filmi. Apr. 3rd.—Helicopter Association of Gt. Britain : " Some Technical Aspects of W9 Developments." J. S. Shapiro, A.F.R.Ae.S. Apr. 3rd.—Rugby Football. R.A.F. versus Army, Twickenham. Apr. 5ch.—R.Ae.S. (Derby) : " Flight Refuelling." Sir Alan Cobham, K.B.E., A.F.C. Apr. 7th.—R.Ae.S. (Gloucester and Cheltenham) : A.G.M. and Films. Apr. 7th.—R.Ae.S. (Luton) : " Rocket Propulsion and Interplanetary Flight," A. V. Cleaver, A.R.Ae.S. Apr 14th.—R.Ae.S. (Graduates and Students) : " The Influence of the Recent Civil Airworthiness Requirements on Civil Aircraft Design." W. Tye, B.Sc, F.R.Ae.S. Apr. 14th.—R.Ae.S. (Bristol) : A.G.M. and Films. Apr. 15th.—Royal Aeronautical Society : " The Aerodynamic Problems of High Altitude Design." W. E. W. Petter, B.A., F.R.Ae.S. Apr. 16th.—British Interplanetary Society : " High Strength Hydrogen Peroxide for Rocket Propulsion." V. W. Slater, B.Sc., F.R.I.C., M.i.Chem.l. and W. S. Wood, B.Sc., F.R.I.C, A.M.I.Chem.E. Apr. 16th.—Institute of Navigation : " The Future of the Magnetic Compass." Cdr. W. E. May, R.N. Apr. 30th.—United Flying Clubs Ball, The Dorchester, Park Lane. May 5th.—British Interplanetary Society : " Lunar Research." H. P. Wilkins, F.R.Ae.S.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
