FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1957
1957 - 0711.PDF
FLIGHT, 24 May 1957 717 CORRESPONDENCE The Editor of "Flight" is not necessarily in agreement with the views expressed by correspondents in these columns; the names and addresses of the writers, not for publication in detail, must in all cases accompany letters. The British Industry and the Paris ShowO N Friday, May 24, the Paris Air Show—or, to use its lessconvenient official title, the XXIIeme Salon International de l'Aeronautique—will open with a display of aircraft, industrialdevelopments and ingenious and surprising models of aeroplanes of the future. Many buyers, not with money in their pockets tospend on the spot, but with decisions to make about what to buy in the next year or two, and from which manufacturer, will seethem. Among the American, French, Dutch and German exhibits these buyers will notice a few large British stands; and among theaircraft outside, in the Le Bourget dust and sunshine, they will see some from Britain. But there are only 25-odd British firmstaking part—not nearly enough to reflect our place as the world's second largest producer of aircraft and equipment. The whole question is really one of national prestige, of showingwhat we as a nation are doing in aviation. Individual firms who do attend are unlikely in the next twelve months to attribute neworders to their participation. But who will be so bold as to say that if Britain is not represented more adequately in the next four orfive Paris shows, the reputation of her aviation industry will not suffer? The small firms should not be expected to swim alone inthe rough waters of international competition. Surely it is the responsibility of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors tohelp the industry to sell itself by leading the industry to the Paris Show? By its first-class organization at Farnborough eachyear the S.B.A.C. proves that it recognizes the value of trade fairs. Buyers from all over the world will look for a Viscount andprobably see none, except perhaps one or two in B.E.A. or Air France colours using the airport on regular services [it is nowlearned that a K.L.M. Viscount may be shown—Ed.] they will look for a Javelin and see none; a Firestreak, the first air-to-air missileof any consequence to come from Britain, and see none; and they will look for many of the three hundred British accessory firmswhich were so eager to sell their wares at Farnborough nine months ago. They will find only a few of them.Will this make them think that the British aircraft industry has already started to decay as a result of the new Defence policy?Or will this lack of participation convince them that our industry is virile and striding into the future? The British concerns will be scattered around the show, notgrouped together like the American firms of Boeing, Douglas, Convair, Curtiss-Wright and United Aircraft which have thepredominant position in the exhibition hall. These latter com- panies are there to show that the American industry is wide awake,is producing and selling. With the largest air force and airline operators in the world behind them, they will lose no opportunityto boast their achievements and indicate their plans for the future. The French manufacturers, with their inspiring designsand (in places) encouraging order-books, will make the most of the show to convince the world that they are the real leaders ofthe European aircraft industry. The Germans will be quietly showing how they are recovering and, though now buying thefirst generation of aircraft for their new air force and Lufthansa, are making good progress in designing their own. Where will we stand in all this? The British firms which appliedfor stands were given less space than they asked for; some were turned down outright as the result of a ballot for space. Theywere all individual concerns anxious to uphold their own prestige at a world fair, but in such company they are, individually, smallvoices. So we shall be a series of "small exhibitors"; people with good products and an excellent reputation, but amid the welter offoreign stands still "small exhibitors." The situation desperately needs some drum-banging by Britain.There are mixed feelings about how this state of affairs has arisen. Some British firms which are not taking part say that itis because the Paris Show is not worth the trouble and expense involved. These people honestly feel that they know where theyare likely to sell their goods and have no need to put them in a shop window. (They sho,v at Farnborough each year becauseeveryone is there, and they do not want to be left out.) Others say that Paris is so important that the S.B.A.C. should act on behalfof the firms, and organize an impressive British Pavilion where a major part of the industry could show its wares. But, as theSociety appears to consider the show to be unworthy of this son of organization, these firms are left to fend for themselves and, inthe end, do not enter for fear of being allocated a stand surrounded perhaps by the very German or American competitors from whomthey had wanted to keep away. So we are left with 25 who are prepared to "go it alone —oralmost alone. A brave British contingent willing to show their wares and happy to welcome customers who have been inspecting products similar to their own on the stands hired by competitorsfrom other countries. What are the cold statistics of entering the show, and how dothey compare with the money spent on taking part each year (or will it be every other year henceforth) in the Farnborough display?The cost of the floor space is as follows: Up to 25 square metres, 14,000 francs per sq m; up to 50 sq m, 12,000 fr; 75 sq m, 11,000 fr;100 sq m, 9,500 fr; 101 sq m and above, 8,000 fr (1,000 fr= approx. £1). Thus a stand of 100 sq m which would suit a moderately largecompany would cost a total of 1,162,500 fr, or approximately £1,162. To this must be added the price of the actual stand—which should not be very high, because most firms have standard displays which would need little modification. If a completelynew stand were wanted it could be planned for future use so that the cost would be written off over a period of years. Staff wouldhave to travel to Paris and stay in hotels, but the total would not be much more than that incurred at Farnborough each year, par-ticularly in view of the Treasury restrictions which limit business spending to a maximum of £10 per day per person (in some casesless). The cost of taking exhibits to Paris would not be much higher than the similar charges incurred at Farnborough. Finally,the charges for displaying complete aircraft are reckoned by all-up weight: Up to three tons, 150,000 fr (Gnat, Bristol Sycamore);three to 10 tons, 250,000 fr (Dove, Gannet, Jet Provost); 10 to 25 tons, 300,000 fr (Javelin, Canberra); 25 to 40 tons, 400,000 fr(Viscount 800); 40 tons and over, 500,000 fr (Beverley, Britannia). The bill is not really high. But there are still only 25 Britishfirms at Le Bourget. Is this enough? London, W.I. AN INDUSTRY EXECUTIVE. Our Anonymous Airports A WEEK or two ago I was watching an aviation documentary•**• film in which were a number of scenes at airports of varying size and importance. Most of them, and particularly the Americanones, were immediately identifiable simply by reason of the fact that they prominently displayed their names, often in big, boldletters, on the frontage of the terminal building. Is it not typically modest, typically British, and typically silly,that we do not follow this useful fashion? In London Airport we have one of the finest in the world, but nowhere (though I amopen to correction) does it identify itself other than by signposts on the adjoining roads. In the film mentioned above—one thatwill probably have world-wide distribution—L.A.P. played a con- siderable but, except to the initiated, totally anonymous part London, W.I. W. R. C. The "Sunflower Seed" HurricaneT HE reference to the "Sunflower Seed" Hurricane in the reviewof the book Famous Fighters of the Second World War (Flight, April 26) was of considerable personal interest as I was engaged onthis "super hush-hush" project and this is the first reference to it I have ever seen. The venture came about owing to the rather embarrassing tech-nique developed by German fighters of "bombing" the American daylight armadas of Liberators and B-17s as they attacked targetsin Europe. Somebody suggested that upward-firing rockets might deter the fighters, and a trial installation was fitted to a Hurricane. This consisted of little more than a length of drainpipe fittedvertically in the fuselage, behind the pilot. The tube projected above the fuselage about 18 inches and was faired in; in sideelevation this had the appearance of a large funnel. The lower end of the tube was open and flush with the underside of the fuselage,so there was no recoil. The missile itself was loaded from the top, mortar-bomb fashion, and fired electrically. For the air trials the sliding hood was removed and the Hawkertest pilot tried to make himself as inconspicuous as possible under a large U.S. Army-type tin-helmet. The removal of the hood wasto assist his escape should anything go wrong. The first round went off all right, but the blast severely damaged the rear of thefuselage—this was only a canvas-covered wooden-stringered fair- ing. For the next test the area around the tube was reinforced.At the time the drawing office grapevine indicated that the American bomber crews were most impressed and had multipletubes fitted to their aircraft and used in action within six weeks. The rockets were timed to explode at a height above the bomberformations usually occupied by the German fighters busy dropping bombs timed to explode an equal distance below them ! Whetherany German fighters were destroyed, or deterred, and if there was any subtle reason for the code-name chosen, I do not know. Potters Bar, Middlesex. MAURICE ALLWARD.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
