FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1956
1956 - 1832.PDF
996 FLIGHT Research, Development and Technical Issues ... choice of work. It is a long and difficult process to create reallygood research laboratories, but they can deteriorate rapidly. Furthermore, they can run down a long way without it beingapparent to those who are not skilled in research and its administration. The fact that aviation has such wide national implications hasled inevitably to the creation of large research laboratories operated under the auspices of governments. There have been many ex-periments made to try to find the best way of operating such places; my impression is that systems under which the establishmentsare shielded from the direct influence of a government depart- ment through the medium of a professionally knowledgeablegoverning committee reporting directly to a high political level, have much to be said for them. Though the test of the system iswhether it attracts the right men, it is also true that the right men will make any tolerable system work. But the applicability of thework done is so crucial an issue in assessing its value that it is essential to create a position of trust and dose contact with thfrindustry that makes use of the knowledge and the user who operates the engineering product. There is only one basis on which thisposition can be created. It is the recognition that the official establishment should not seek to discourage research enterprisein industry in order to keep the work for itself, nor should it attempt to do project work for which the industry's facilities aremuch more suited. There is a continuous and perhaps natural tendency on the part of the staff of some of these establishmentsto do both these things. The latter is particularly damaging; not only does it create a suspicion that government sources are attempt-ing to take work from industry, but it aids a tendency in research establishments to "evade the issue," which is to carry out goodapplicable research. This is not an easy thing to do if project work of a serious kind is allowed to intrude. Such project workcreates a flurry of day-to-day executive work which clogs the minds of those who are not particularly suited by training to handleit, and it provides an excuse for not facing the really hard task of breaking new ground. Those who work in a government-operatedresearch unit should seek new applicable knowledge, create the position of trust with industry and users which will greatly aidtheir assessment of applicability, and recognize that if this is to be achieved, they must not try to do the other fellow's job. Theyshould also recognize that if they do try to do industry's job it is likely that they will not do it well, but even if they do, it is certainto reduce their ability to create new knowledge of the right kind; it is by the applicable knowledge they produce that they will inthe end be judged, and rightly so. A few odd per cent of gain should not be the target when means of securing more radicalchanges is the real aim; it is another excuse for avoiding the issue, but the few per cent—and more—will come in any case from nor-mal development. If the reason people turn to project work is because they can't really do research well, or because they preferengineering application, then it is better that they should leave the research laboratory and go elsewhere. Strength of Resources. Few will dispute that the timetaken relates directly to the strength of manpower and facili- ties that is deployed. But this is not to say that there is not ampleroom for individual brilliance and managerial skill. The evidence that these qualities are at work is, of course, that more seems tocome from the resources used than might at first be expected; one has only to examine the facts to be aware that there is a factor oftwo or three to one in the effective technical productivity of re- search and design units, and the methods which produce this"gain from nowhere" are of far greater value and importance than most other things in this process. The "strength of resources"argument so overburdens the minds of some who have to decide, that they are apt—and it has happened in England—to "write off"in their minds, and actively to discourage, those places that pro- duce results out of proportion to their apparent strength, on thegrounds that they are too small to be able to handle the job. There is a lot to be said for "backing the stable." Much harm is done bytoo blunt a use of the "number of heads" and the "technical planning" arguments. The fact is that individual flair andmethod can make a very big difference indeed and it is of great importance to recognize and encourage them. But with a givenlevel of skill time is governed by strength of resources. A substantial part of aviation research and development is paidfor by the State in support of military programmes. In the West the economic system is based on private enterprise and aircraftare supplied in the main by privately-owned companies, with a government department having a good deal to say on what theydo. This is an excellent arrangement—the best— but, unless both parties are wise, it is possible to "fall between two stools." Itseems to me that the point that is sometimes disregarded is that too great a divorce of authority from responsibility must lead todifficulty. If there grows in the staff of a government department a tendency to assume authority without responsibility, to build uplarge staffs of only average calibre to exercise it, and to seek to 120 100 §80 40 20 -U.SA. -SOVIET UNION -GREAT BRITAIN GREAT BRITAIN 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 YEAR Fig. 4. Graduates in science and technology (for definition of "graduates" see text). This graph is reproduced from the Universities Quarterly, February 1956. The figures for Great Britain are not considered good for comparison (again see text). place on industry responsibility without authority, the systemwill not work well; decisions are delayed or avoided, and morale, enthusiasm and determination, which are the elements essentialto the speedy achievement of technically difficult tasks, are depressed. I would like to say a word about the British position on resources.The cost of aeronautical equipment, excluding effects of monetary inflation, rose about ten times between the low-subsonic era beforethe Second World War and the high-subsonic and transonic era after it. The British nation was not in a position at the end of thewar to finance immediately all the new resources needed for modern aviation; constructional effort had to go into the buildingof houses and industrial plant to replace those destroyed by bombing. Whether, in the circumstances, more might have beendone is a political question which is not for me to discuss here; the view was that a large aeronautical re-equipment programmecould not be started at the time because of the conditions left by the War. The present generation of British aircraft have, there-fore, had to be developed without as much benefit as we would have liked from the technical resources which are recognized tobe such an immense help in achieving performance and in reduc- ing the time of development. The critics of the British industryboth at home and abroad—and there have been some in U.S.A.— have perhaps forgotten that notwithstanding these difficulties thepresent generation of British aircraft and engines are as good as, or better than, their competitors to the extent that the world out-side Britain is buying them at the rate of 300 million dollars worth a year, and during the period in question the gas-turbine-pro-p^lled civil airliner, in both the jet and propeller form, has been added to the already long list of engineering firsts which camefrom Britain. That there is room for criticism of the position I would not deny; I don't know how people can attempt, andachieve, difficult tasks in difficult circumstances without being open to comment. The more curious situation is the one in whicheverything appears to be so good that nobody wishes to suggest that it might be improved. But the task of the genuine critic inaviation is not easy because the subject is complex. I cite an example later—the breaking of the world's speed record calls formuch more than speed; similarly, military and civil aircraft are not adequately assessed on a single performance parameter. Aero-nautical resources in Britain have now improved considerably; in the last five or six years it has been possible to make a large invest-ment in equipment both from national and private funds and this should have a significant effect on British development in the nextdecade. One of the big factors in resources is technical manpower. Thishas been talked about a good deal in recent times, and I think that the heart of what has been said is contained in Fig. 4 (reproducedby the courtesy of Lord Simon and the Universities Quarterly). Figures such as these can be misleading because the definition ofa graduate varies from country to country. The figures for Great Britain are not comparable with the others for this reason; inGreat Britain substantially more people come into technology through non-university channels than through the universities, andmany of these people would count as graduates in U.S.A. or
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
