FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1957
1957 - 0445.PDF
FLIGHT, 5 April 1957 .. 447 Mr. Masefield Looks Ahead —in an R.Ae.S. Lecture on Probable Developments in Civil Aviation THE case for the long-haul turboprop and prospects for theshort-haul jet formed the theme of the lecture given onMarch 26 by Mr. Peter Maseneld, managing director of Bristol Aircraft, to the Reading Branch of the Royal AeronauticalSociety. At many points Mr. Maseneld talked off-the-cuff and off-the-record, making this R.Ae.S. "main" lecture one of specialvalue for the large audience. Entitled Present and Future Developments in Civil Aviation,the lecture took the unusual form of being largely a commentary on a great many informative slides, some of which are repro-duced on these pages. We give here some of Mr. Maseneld's chief "on-the-record" points. Having traced the development of civil aircraft to the presentday, he warmed to the theme that the future held good prospects for both long-haul turboprop and short-haul jet. It would nowbe "fatuous," he said, for the British industry to follow in the footsteps of the big American jets. The U.S.A.F. BoeingKC-135 tanker programme was the reason why the Americans had the 707, DC-8 and Convair 880 today—a programme whichhad been indirectly supported by the U.S. Government to the tune of about £100m in dollars. Where did we go from here? His own hobbyhorse was thatthe products for which markets would exist were the long-range turboprop and the short-haul jet. He was not, he said, "shootingdown" the big jets—but they had a lot of problems: runways, noise, air traffic control, cost, weight—all were "major worries." He showed a slide of a U.S. operator's dwindling net profit perdollar of revenue over the past few years, and noted mat they, with other U.S. domestic carriers, were now pleading for higherfares. Nearer home the cost per capacity-ton-mile for the variousforms of transport were: Air, 36 pence; road, 5d; inland water- ways, 4d; rail, 2d; sea, less than Id. "We have got to get thatair transport cost figure down," he said. The basic facts were that costs were proportional to the number of hours flown andto the number of landings made; and that revenue was pro- portional to distance covered and load factor achieved. To getlower costs we had to have higher annual utilization, long range, and only essential traffic landings. To get high revenue weneeded high block speed to cover the maximum revenue miles, high load factors, and large attractive aeroplanes. Generally speaking, high speed made it difficult to get highutilization in a working day of 18 hours, especially with bigger aircraft which were more difficult to turn round quickly. Toillustrate the comparison in oosts, Mr. Maseneld used the basis of the formula/actual ratios recently commented on byLord Douglas. These were: piston, 108; turboprop, 121; turbo- jets 135. He believed that a fare differential as between jet andturboprop was "very desirable." I.A.T.A. formalities were rather stodgy—not as individuals but, as a body, rather difficult tomove. He said that a fare differential on the Atlantic route might save the air traveller as much as £40. Mr. Maseneld went on to compare the basic advantages of In the text Mr. Mase- field refers to the policy of putting tar- get-dates on produc- tion parts in the factory. Target for completion of this B.O.A.C. Britannia 312, unequivocally painted on the nose, is April 12. It may have to be changed as a result of the strike. the turboprop and the jet, citing for the turboprop good range-performance, low noise level, simple A.T.C, cheapness; and for the jet, speed and simplicity. When comparing the two types inthe long-range role there was a big proportional difference in the weight of installed powerplant, fuel and oil. (This is asubject pursued further by Mr. Maseneld in a letter on page 452.) To illustrate comparative take-off noise of future transports heshowed a slide of M.T.C.A. measured external db figures showing the Britannias as by far the quietest aeroplane, theComet 1 being the noisiest. The DC-8 or 707 would be off the map—being, he believed, 142 db. In speed the turbopropwas "not going to be all that far behind the jets." About 480 m.p.h. was envisaged for Britannia developments, of whichhe illustrated two sketches. He referred to the recently shelved Douglas C-132, an aeroplane with a 200,000 lb payload which,if the traffic existed, "would get costs down to half present levels." He mentioned also the Bear, and wished we knew more aboutit. It cruised at a reported 510 m.p.h.—although he would "like to know the noise-level of the propellers." The case for the short-haul jet was its competitiveness, thefact that it was less critical on A.T.C., and that it was relatively light. For a 500-mile, equal-payload stage, comparison betweenturboprop and jet was about 70,000 1b and 80,000 lb—com- pared with 175,000 lb and 250,000 lb on 3,000 mile stages. Forshort ranges the jet was much more comparable in weight. Mr. Maseneld next examined some basic facts in the pro-duction and marketing of aircraft. Costs were simply propor- tional to man-hours worked and the number of aircraft produced;and revenue was simply proportional to the number of aircraft produced. Generally speaking, the time taken from basic designthrough development and production and entry into service was Left, weight comparison between jet and turboprop for different ranges, illustrating the small difference between short-range designs and empha- sizing the economic case for the short-haul jet. Right, the world's leading air transport nations (passengers carried in 1955). RANGE ATOPTIMUM PERFORMANCE TYPE ALL-UP • WEIGHT CONSUMED 5OO miles 300.0001b 200.000 Ib. 100.000 Ib 100.000 Ib. 80.000 Ib 60.000 1b 40.000 It 20.000 Ib. TURBOPROP J£T M3*-S 3,000 miles TUMOPROP JET • 300jDOOIb 200.000 Ib 100.0001b 100.000 Ib. 80,000 1b 60.000 Ib 40.000 Ib. 20.000 Ib, MILLIONS 5O 4O 3O 2O 1O MILLIONS -i5O WORLD TOTAL : 67.OOO.OOO A A. REST OF WORLD 23% JA CAPITAL PANAM TWA UAL E.A.L. 4O 3O 2O 1O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
