FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1953
1953 - 0816.PDF
8io FLIGHT Our American Correspondent Reports . . . BRITISH commercial turbines are news again. One would think that after four years of discussion, prophesy, assump tion, praise, deprecation and wild crystal-ball gazing, people here would be wearied of making statements about what the British aircraft industry was doing and what was going to happen; particularly as 75 per cent of what has been said so far has been proved wrong. But not a bit of it. The past few weeks have produced a fresh rash of speeches and interviews, one of which showed a calmer and more reasoned approach than usual. This (not surprisingly) was from a manufacturer who will himself be in the commercial turbine field before long—Mr. Wellwood Beall, senior vice- president of Boeing Airplane Company—who gave an interview to an intensely nationalistic weekly magazine called U.S. News and World Report. Unfortunately, this particular publication never misses a chance of having a crack at the British, but the only time Mr. Beall appeared to be stepping a narrow path was when he was asked if the British Government subsidized jet-transport develop ment. He replied : "The de Havilland Comet was ordered by the British Ministry of Supply before they actually started to build one." Of his other answers those of most interest to British ears were: "It will be hard to catch up with the British on some of the markets they have captured", and "Their market lead can be recaptured ... my guess is that by i960 the market could be evenly divided . ..", and "This prototype [the Boeing jet tanker-transport] and its testing will cost us between 15 and 20 million dollars," and "There is very little risk [of cabin pressurization failure] but we should not like to operate our commercial transports at much higher than 40,000ft until we have accumulated considerable experience at that altitude." To a question as to whether British safety standards were lower than American he replied "not neces sarily. They are different." As would be expected, he backed the pod configuration for engines, but said he did not think the noise problem for those on the ground would be as bad as some people made out. • • • A SOMEWHAT different tone, however, was adopted by Mr. Mansfield Horner, president of United Aircraft Corporation, in a speech at Dallas. In discussing the economy of turbine engines he is reported to have said : "Today it is our belief that we not only have pulled abreast of the British in the last two years, but in actual fact have passed them. We have in production at this time advanced American turbojets that are definitely ahead of any known foreign competitor . . . ours have the highest thrust and considerably better fuel economy." In discussing military devel opment he is reported as saying : "We have all . . . been aware of the British selling of their overall superiority in this jet age. May I ask just one question? Whose jets have been able to cope with Migs in Korea ? If the British had anything to compete, you can be sure they would have them over there. But it is only U.S. Sabres that are now doing the job . . . This fact is pretty indicative of quality." In surveying British civil turbine aircraft develop ments he said that only three types have "emerged as really significant," and he paid high tribute to British salesmanship by saying that they were almost as well known in the United States as was any American aircraft, "despite the fact that the first has only seen supplemental service, the second hardly any flying service, while the third is flying as a prototype only." (He was speaking of the Comet, Viscount and Britannia respectively.) All of which probably made both Mr. Horner and his audience feel fine, provided they did not think the thing through any further. For nowhere in his speech was there mention of some of the more important factors that govern the economics of commercial turbine operations. It is a pity that there still seems to be considerable ignorance here as to how far British engines have actually pro gressed in the war of specific weights, fuel consumptions and overhaul life. BUT the open season for tail-twisting is not confined to the engine manufacturers. Captain Rickenbacker is back in the act again in an interview published in Aviation Week for May 25th. [as reported in Flight of June 12th.—Ed.]. As readers will remem ber, "Captain Eddie" paid a visit to England last September and, on returning to the United States, made some rather astonishing statements about British production—statements which were disproved by subsequent British deliveries to operators who were serious about their procurement programme. Nevertheless, in this latest interview he h'.s given his current ideas on jets—none of which are very complimentary to either de Havillands or Vickers. He says : "If the Comet had proved up to what I hoped for, and needed, I would definitely have bought them . . . But the economics are just not there, performance is not there, capacity is not there and the Comets are not there," (which must, one feels, be very confusing for B.O.A.C.). And in discussing jet engines in general he says ; "... in another five or six years they may be able to get 500 hours between overhauls. But they are figuring the cost anywhere from 12 to 20 per cent of the purchase price for each overhaul. ..." Had Capt. Rickenbacker pointed out that for most of his long- haul runs to Florida he needed very high density and great economy, he would seem to have been on safer ground, for in the same issue of the magazine—some 22 pages further on—the editor himself says "New contracts for the de Havilland Ghost engines in the Comet is call for 600-hour overhaul periods and a guarantee of $10 per flight hour total cost, parts and labour." • • • RECENTLY the new DC-7 took the air. American Airlines are hoping to get their first, fully certificated, by October of this year; and as the chief differences between this aircraft and the DC-6 are the engines (the DC-7 nas Wright compounds, which are said to be giving blower trouble at high altitudes), longer fuselage, and improved controls, this certification might be done by that time if the engines are ready. Two other aircraft are almost ready to fly and an intensive programme can be kept up all the summer. The first flight was of over two hours' duration, so there could not have been much wrong with No. 1 aircraft. Knowing how experienced Douglas are at developing a "progressive" and "well-tempered" aeroplane, this is not surprising. The aircraft itself has an all-up weight, for domestic operation, of 122,200 lb with an estimated cruising speed of approximately 360 m.p.h. The seating capacity is 70 to 95 passengers; 58 DC-7S are ordered. There is also a rumour, not denied, of yet another Constellation development. This will be a super-long-range job, presumably designed to do 3,000 or 4,000 miles, perhaps plus alternates. As a "Connie" with wing-tip tanks has already been flying, the extra tankage may well be carried in that fashion. So far nobody has said anything about engines, but if the machine was needed soon it would probably have to have Wright compounds, too, which would mean that the chief development problems on the airframe would be increased all-up weight and a higher wing-loading. If this new model does appear in the next two years it should find a market, although by 1956 the Britannia will be treading hard on its heels. The only other possible new aircraft that is being discussed is a turboprop development of the Convair. Apparently Consolidated have been canvassing some of their existing, or possible, Convair owners for reactions to such a development. On the face of it this looks more like a holding operation than a serious suggestion. As it is, the Convair range is marginal for certain operations, and the Allison T.38 is obviously unsuitable (the single-engine perform ance would be under that required) which would mean either four engines or bigger engines, for which the present design would hardly carry enough fuel. Nevertheless, it is always possible that the Convair-Canadair team may well be working on some develop ment of this nature—particularly as rumour suggests that the latter firm have abandoned the C.L.21. • • • THE recent British height record did not get much of a press in the States. Nor, for that matter, did the fast North Atlantic delivery flight of two Canberras to Venezuela. This seems a pity. We are so frequently accused these days of playing up our turbine achievements beyond their actual value (and maybe there is a grain of truth in such an assertion) that when we do a fine flight or record we should ensure it gets a decent press. But press relations in America are an all-time job, and because there is no British aircraft industry organization here to take care of such matters (the motor trade do have a representative) it falls on the shoulders of the firms themselves, or onto the British Information Services. This latter organization, which comes under the Foreign Office, does a good job of distributing British news, and maybe full advantage is not being taken of its resources. But it's hard to expect a non-technical organization such as this to know all the various facets of something like the aviation Industry and to be able to pounce at once on a happening and exploit it without some technical advice either from the manufacturer or someone in touch with current developments.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
