FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1956
1956 - 0044.PDF
44 FLIGHT, 13 January 1956 SPEEDING AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION . . . Since the war, in the view of the lecturer, the secretarial andadministrative branch of the M.o.S. had had far too much say on general policy and matters outside its legitimate purview.There was a growing tendency for this branch to dominate and vet the technical departments. This was a state of affairs whichshould not be tolerated, either in governmental or industrial set- ups. It was dangerous for such people to express opinions athigh level, on matters about which they could not possibly have any authoritative information. This influence tended to frustrateand detract from the usefulness of the technical people. The Government, said Sir Roy, should possess a few first-class,highly experienced production engineers who were able to tour a factory and give an adequate assessment in regard to plant andequipment, and what could, or could not, be done. He was a believer in Royal Air Force personnel taking partin the technical planning in co-ordination with industry, in addition to their present functions of formulating Air Forcerequirements; but this could only be accomplished successfully if they were experienced, and had spent years on the job. Withmodern, extremely complex aircraft, it was ridiculous for serving officers to be suddenly thrust into a highly technical job for ashort spell and expected to give considered opinions on subjects which were quite outside their experience. This matter would never be put right until the whole questionof promotion of R.A.F. officers was changed. At present every- thing was sacrificed to the General Duties branch and the pro-motion list. It should be possible to "cream off" men at the right stage in their career in the R.A.F. to specialize on engineeringand know that they would go to the top of the tree as technical specialists. After, say, 15 years' specialized experience, it wouldbe reasonable for industry to take an R.A.F. officer's opinion on some important technical problem seriously, but with thepresent set-up both parties were apt to be put in ambiguous and embarrassing positions. Discussing Government control of production, Sir Roy saidthat he believed that procurement should leave the Ministry of Supply and go back to the Air Ministry. At present the wholeM.o.S. set-up was too impersonal and cumbersome ever to keep track of such a quickly moving technique as that of aircraft. As regards civil aviation, the lecturer went on, encouragementmust be given to constructors to put up promising forward- thinking civil aircraft designs, and contracts awarded for proto-types and necessary development work. Funds should be allocated to the M.T.C.A. for the supply of these prototypes.These contracts should be managed by the A.R.B. on the adminis- tration and inspectional sides. The two Government-operatedairlines should be free to negotiate their requirements with indus- try without an intermediary. Similar conditions should applyto charter companies and individuals wishing to purchase aircraft. Supersonic Setback The lecturer said he would date the start of many of ourtroubles to a Government decision not to allow supersonic investi- gations with manned aircraft. In consequence, we were at leasta generation behind the Americans in fighters and more than that in the basic knowledge needed to produce Mach 2 machines.Ten years were lost when it was decided, soon after the end of the war, to start high-speed research by dropping models fromMosquitoes. "Even allowing for the lavish way in which America tackles all design engineering problems," added Sir Roy,"and with the usual 3:1 ratio in the numerical strength of their aircraft technical staffs as compared with ours, she still has anadvantage of about 2:1 over us. For example, for 1,000 British designers, draughtsmen, technicians and test staffs, the Americanminimum requirements would be 3,000; but their thoroughness and insistence in tackling every phase of design, aerodynamics,structures, high and low temperatures, electronics and armament research, etc., will double this figure at 6,000." After making various other comparisons with American practice—i.e., the extensive use of computor techniques—Sir Roy dis- cussed materials, saying that this country had not kept up withthe available improvements in technique; and then he came to the subject of machine tools, where again he felt that we werefalling behind. It caused him concern to go round our best engine and airframe plants and see so many German, Swiss andAmerican machine tools. Other points of criticism by the lec- turer—in which again he drew comparisons with American pro-gress—concerned wind-tunnel facilities and aircraft instruments. He also maintained that not all test pilots in this country hadthe technical education and subsequent training necessary to deal with present-day flight problems, while some of the firms'performance departments were inadequate for formulating pre- flight test programmes and seeing that they were carried out.Too many aircraft had left their firms for Boscombe Down only to be found seriously wanting on the first flights by Service pilots. The S.B.A.C., thought tht lecturer, had failed to appreciatethe great change that had come about in aircraft technique; whereas the Society and its officers had applied themselvesdiligently to their tasks, it was for the most part along traditional, pre-war lines rather than by a new approach. He had hoped thatthe R.Ae.S. and S.B.A.C. might have joined forces more closely. "In pre-war days," said Sir Roy Fedden, "the industry was amuch simpler structure, and by hook or by crook it was possible both to 'take in each other's washing' and to have enough workto keep nearly two dozen ordinary members going. I suggest that the greater complexity of post-war aircraft technique may haveoutmoded this procedure altogether, and that one of the chief problems of the S.B.A.C. is that while it is serving its membersthe way they think they ought to go, this modus operandi does not fill the bill today. "The industry for the most part is controlled by men whocame into it in its early wood-and-fabric days, and it must be immensely difficult for them, having lived through two wars,and done a very fine job of work, to adjust themselves to the modern requirements with a vastly different tempo; in fact, Ishould think it was quite impossible for them to do so. "Some of the aviation pioneers are doing a disservice to indus-try by throttling their firms, because they want to keep every- thing in their own hands, be it design or top management. Inconsequence, little promotion takes place either for experienced or promising personnel, which results in the technical andadministration strength of the company being stultified. "The British aircraft industry should be a dignified, world-wideinstitution, and however well its leaders have served the country in the past, it is submitted they have not shown sufficient leader-ship since the war to meet our needs by debunking tradition where necessary, and facing up to facts in regard to the volumeof work that can be executed in a given time. Also, for the most part, they have failed to spot and bring on the right executivesand lieutenants to succeed them." Concentration Required The lecturer continued: "I believe we have too many majoraircraft firms and too many projects in the military field. Every- thing is spread too thinly, particularly in the technical and engi-neering departments. There must be rationalization, combina- tion and concentration on a few vital projects. In the process ofpruning we must ensure that those projects which are retained are really needed, and once settled there must be no furtherlooking over the shoulder. The few selected types executed pro- perly will prevent the present vast waste of time and moneyand get us somewhere, and stop us drifting. "Sweden outstandingly, and also Canada, are examples ofcountries that knew what they wanted, made reasoned and definite decisions, and saw to it that these were carried throughwithout all the vacillations we have seen here in the last decade. "If we take the United States as our yardstick and comparethe size of their aircraft industry and the range of types in manu- facture, it is obvious either that we are either incomparablymore efficient or that we should not be attempting to do nearly so many jobs. We have on hand today twice as many aircraftas it is possible for us to undertake and phase into production in time to avoid obsolesence. In order to concentrate our effortsand work efficiently it is suggested that we should do better with three engine firms and six airframe constructors. This sug-gestion would not embrace the smaller ranges including feeder, training, and personal aircraft and engines. "This all sounds like an extremist view that things are verybad indeed. Let us be honest. They are certainly very bad, but not hopeless; although they will be in a few years' time ifit is thought possible to get back on to the top line, and keep there, by nibbling and making no more than small adjustments. "Why I believe it is possible to be hopeful for the future isbecause of the nucleus of trained, disciplined engineers with unbeatable creative and inventive capacity that exists in theBritish aircraft industry today." From this point the lecturer went on to propound in con-siderable detail a scheme which he felt would do much to alleviate present difficulties. It related to production by the useof automatically controlled machine tools. After explaining the conception he added that there was a disturbing feature in theattitude of the machine-tool manufacturers: they appeared to be doing very little about it and he understood that the researchinto numerical control which was going on in this country at the present was in the hands of firms other than machine-toolmakers. Saying that, when all was said and done, we came back tothe fact that the nation's needs in aircraft were not being met mainly because we had not sufficient of the right type of trainedhuman beings to organize and control this extremely exacting business. Sir Roy Fedden concluded his paper with a detailedand critical examination of present methods of training for the aircraft industry.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
