FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1954
1954 - 0040.PDF
24 FLIGHT MR. SHENSTONE'S COMMENTS M AINLY because headline news was short before Christmas, the great British public, normally regarded as non-technical, was treated in its daily papers to a series of disturbing stories on the subject of workmanship and finish of aircraft. They arose from the remarks made by the chief engineer of B.E.A., Mr. B. S. Shenstone,* at the Institution of Production Engineers' conference at Southamp ton. His paper is summarized on page 19 and (continued) below; it will be seen that he said some hard words about certain aircraft of which he has had experience or knowledge. Flight knows and respects Air. Shenstone as a modest and capable engineer and one who does not seek newspaper publicity. We believe he must have been a surprised man when he awoke one morning to find some of his remarks broadcast and head lined in the national Press. Had his forthright comments, made before fellow technicians, been prepared in terms more suitable for public consumption—with the aid, perhaps, of a public relations officer—they would probably have passed without giving offence or even causing comment. The Institution of Production Engi neers disassociated itself from his remarks. The unfortunate aspect of Mr. Shenstone's remarks as they were widely quoted is that they seem to embrace all British air craft, new and old. This was not, we feel sure, intended. The aircraft industry naturally resents the attack on the quality of their products, and points out that even if justification were claimed there is ample machinery within the companies and the S.B.A.C. for correcting any wrong practices at an early stage. Moreover, B.E.A. (and, of course, B.O.A.C.) co-operate with the manufacturers at every stage from design to delivery of their aircraft, and if work were not to be up to standard the Corpora tion's own representative in the factory should surely have said so at once. We believe that Mr. Shenstone's main complaint con cerned aircraft other than those used by B.E.A. (in view of his previous associations, Canadian experiences may have been fore most in his mind). If so, this should have been made clear at the time. The Canadian operators are very good friends of this country and must receive nothing but the best treatment. We now quote some of the relevant official statements made just before Christmas, and in particular we print, in extenso, the excellent letter to The Times from Sir Geoffrey de Havilland. The Society of British Aircraft Constructors wrote to Mr. Peter Masefield, chief executive of B.E.A., asking for full tech nical details of Mr. Shenstone's complaints, and stated: — "The Society has maintained over many years on behalf of the aircraft industry a range of technical committees and panels manned by experts in all fields of aeronautical and ancillary engineering. This long-estab lished machinery for technical discussion is well known throughout British aviation, and has been available to Mr. Shenstone at any time though he has not as yet made use of it on any question recognizably related to his present allegations. "The Society has asked that the information be made available without delay so that it can be referred at once to the appropriate technical committees." Vickers-Armstrongs simply said that they had the authority of B.E.A. to state that Vickers Viscount airliners (which have *Born (1906) and educated in Canada, Mr. Shenstone was with Junkers in 1929-31 and Supermarine in 1931-38; he served with Air Ministry, M.A.P. and British Air Commission, Washington and Dayton, 1938-44; was technical adviser to the Canadian Minister of Reconstruc tion and technical administrator for T.C.A. and Canadair, 1944-46; and was assistant to vice-president and general manager of Avro Canada, 1946-47. He took up his present appointment in 1948. of many unstressed components and, in particular, of hinges, latches and locks. And very often it was not a removable piece of equipment which failed, but the mounting bracket, which was difficult to repair. Mr. Shenstone then turned to the need for good workmanship and good finish: not only, he pointed out, did good finish impress the public, but it reduced corrosion, fatigue and the build-up of dirt. He said there was no excuse for the scratches and imperfec tions in the skinning of the wings from one factory, and suggested that "In the U.K. the average finish given to an aircraft is far inferior to that given to the average American aircraft. This was very noticeable during the war and is still in many cases quite obvious." He continued: "Why do some British manufacturers of aircraft still find that flush riveting is too difficult and make unimpressive excuses for the use of snap-head and brazier-head rivets? There is no modern American transport with anything but flush rivets on fuselage and wing. As Heinkel pointed out before the last war, his shop people objected strongly to the use of flush riveting until recendy gone into service with B.E.A.) have given full satisfaction in respect of the matters criticized. Sir Roy Dobson, speaking to Avro apprentices at their prize- giving, said: "If you were looking for craftsmanship, you would choose the British aeroplane every time." The joint shop stewards' committee of B.O.A.C. at London Airport, representing eight unions, said that Mr. Shenstone's statement was "a calculated insult to the skilful craftsmanship of British aircraft workers." B.E.A. regretted that Mr. Shenstone's remarks at a purely technical conference had been interpreted as disparaging British aircraft in general. Not all the criticisms of details related to aircraft operated by B.E.A., who in particular were not the operators concerned with the rewired aircraft. Sir Geoffrey de Havilland's comments were as follows: — "The incorrectness of Mr. Shenstone's criticism at the Southampton aircraft production conference on Saturday of the detail finish of British airliners lies mainly in its sweeping character and in the omission of facts on the other side. It is a pity to have given an impression that British aircraft are generally inferior, and to have provided our com petitors with an undeserved weapon with which they can damage our trade overseas, where the discredit will spread but the answer to it may not. "Mr. Shenstone does not say that the teething troubles in intro ducing the new types of British airliner, taken all round, have compared very favourably with the troubles of introducing new American types. He does not say, for instance, that three new British airliners, two of them turbine-driven and therefore pioneers of a new means of propul sion, have been successfully introduced without having to be grounded for the eradication of major faults. He does not say that a new British turbine aircraft, quite revolutionary and altogether ahead of any other country's product, has given less trouble in its introductory period than any new American type since the war. "So much for the damage done abroad. Among ourselves naturally we recognize the importance of maintaining a high standard of work manship throughout our factories if we are to secure our foothold in the export markets. We know that excellent work is turned out by the craftsmen of several competing countries, not only in aircraft but in automobiles and many other exported products. "It is, of course, necessary, by training and by meticulous inspection to keep the closest watch on quality, for which in the past British goods always enjoyed such a high reputation overseas." Litde was reported in the newspapers of the views expressed by Mr. Shenstone on interchangeability of parts. We know that he is not entirely alone in feeling that in this respect there is room for improvement in civil and in military aircraft. This is largely a matter of the extent of jigging and tooling and thus of cost and of the production numbers involved. Some British manufacturers are now able to think in terms of the same rate and scale of production of airliners as have the larger American companies for years past, and this problem should resolve itself. We take the view that no ultimate harm will come of Mr. Shenstone's criticisms, which were undoubtedly intended to be constructive ; they were based partly, though not entirely, on his past experience, and were, no doubt, in the nature of a warning. Foreign airlines are in the main very well qualified to assess for themselves the design, workmanship, equipment and per formance of the aircraft they are considering purchasing. Moreover, the virtues of the new British airliners are certainly not so marginal by comparison with those of the possible alternatives that an implied reflection upon the finish of some of the aircraft— one easily verified in each case—will blight their future. Where the Shenstone cap does fit, those responsible should be reminded that inferior workmanship, dated practices and insufficient attention to detail do not pass unnoticed in aircraft or any other product. They do greater and more lasting harm than the words of any one man. he insisted on it. Whereupon they developed techniques for countersinking and control of flush rivets so that the end result was a technique just as easy to operate as the older type of riveting. The continued use of non-flush riveting on British transport makes a bad impression on the passengers and intending buyers. Aircraft with such rivetings are much more difficult to keep clean. "Perhaps one of the worst aspects of workmanship in the U.K. at present is electrical wiring. It is sad to relate, but it is necessary to point out, that within the last two months an operator who bought new British transport aircraft has had to strip them of all their electrical wiring and renew it, before they could put this type into operation. This is a terrible slap in the face and some thing that will not remain unknown because the operator is so fed-up at having to do this job that it will become widely known. "I will say no more about workmanship except that a reputation has been built up for British workmanship and it is about time we stopped living on that reputation." A brief discussion followed Mr. Shenstone's paper. It is note worthy, perhaps, that no speaker then questioned his criticisms. DISCUSSING PRODUCTION (continued from page 19)
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
