FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1958
1958 - 0759.PDF
FLIGHT, 6 June 1958 775 Straight and Level THE Lockheed victory in the air-liner markets of Australia and NewZealand leaves me stupefied. There is no glossing over the hard facts: fourBritish Commonwealth airlines—Qan- tas, T.A.A., Ansett-A.N.A. and T.E.A.L.—are to be re-equipped with American Electra turboprop airliners. Lockheed have achieved this successin the face of: (1) The determined, on- the-spot competition (at managing-director level) of British manufacturers, (2) the Australian Government's econo-mic predilection for British airliners, (3) the existence of long-establishedBritish aircraft and aero-engine factories in Australia and New Zealand, (4) thenatural inclinations of Australians and New Zealanders towards the oldcountry's products, (5) Australia's dol- lar shortage and (6) the long-establishedQantas-B.O.A.C. partnership. How did it happen? The paramount reason was that theBritish manufacturers were defeated financially. They could not match thecredit-terms, interest-rates and trade-in arrangements offered by Lockheed. TheBritish aircraft industry says the Govern- ment must help it to offer better finan-cial terms: the Government says that the industry must strengthen itselffinancially. Meanwhile, American firms sew up British Commonwealth markets. But I am heartened by two things.The day after T.E.A.L. were told they were to have Electras the company's flagwas flown upside down at half-mast above its office in Auckland. And inVancouver on the same day Grant McConachie, president of CanadianPacific Airlines, gave a tremendous boost to the Britannia and the Comet,adding: "I wonder why Australia does not follow's Canada's lead in supportingthe British industry." I am glad that such an eminent sonof the Commonwealth, who (like his friend and rival Gordon McGregor ofT.C.A.) has always championed British airliners, should have said that. Itneeded saying. • I am not quite sure which arethe highest structures in the world (measured above the local ground level,that is). There are some pretty tall build- ings in New York City (Empire State'sTV mast now tops 1,400ft, I believe), Moscow and, of course, Paris; and thereare several radio masts of comparable height, of which I think the loftiest isthat of the U.S.A.F. at Thule. Now I learn that the world will shortly havetwo more sky-scraping towers, and I am a little perturbed to find that each willbe a gimmick and will be erected in a busy air-traffic zone. Japan, it seems, has decided that theapproaches to Haneda airport, Tokyo, will be improved by erecting, just aboutin line with a major instrument runway, a replica of the Eiffel Tower. For goodmeasure, they propose to make it 100ft taller than the original, i.e. 1,084ft abovethe ground. The other giant mast will be at theHanover Fair, on the stand of Mannes- mann, A.G., a famous German heavy-engineering firm. Utilizing the latest Mannesmann seamless steel tubularprinciples, the tower will be 1,148ft high, and will be ready for the GermanIndustries Fair in 1959—provided someone doesn't fly into it beforehand. • "Americans Celebrate in Britain" ran the news-agency caption to this alarming photograph, which depicts a U.S.A.F. fire-fighting show. By way of explanation, it continued: — "Visitors see how about 8,000 Ameri- cans live in a camp [Alconbury, Hunt- ingdonshire] which until June 1943 was an R.A.F. station, but which is now an all-American community." I never fail to be impressed by the warmth of American hospitality. • People who write publicity hand- outs and news stories should always try to forestall any possible misinterpreta- tion. A recent release from the Royal Australian Navy on the passing of the Sea Fury from front-line service was picked up by one paper as meaning that these ten-year-old stalwarts would "eventually" be replaced by Sea Venoms. What is actually worrying the R.A.N. is what aeroplanes will replace their three-year-old Sea Venoms. • I have just been treated to the fol- lowing argument. "Because of the high speed [of a particular jet airliner] an engine overhaul life of 1,000 hours is equivalent to at least a 1,500-hour life on a piston engine." Sorry, but it isn't necessarily so. Equivalent in what way? I agree that the jet may fly as many miles in 1,000 hours as a piston engine in 1,500 hours. But the airliner which it powers doesn't necessarily produce the same amount of ton-miles at the same cost. • The recent F.A.I. conference in theU.S.A. must have been quite a party. On their way to Los Angeles, delegatesstopped off at Fort Worth, Texas, where they were welcomed by a posse ofmounted cowboys carrying banners and firing revolvers. Then, to quote theofficial report of the conference, "Unfor- tunately, and most extraordinarily, theweather was much too cool to permit the delegates to enjoy dinner in the openwhere there would have been an exhibi- tion of horsemanship, revolver shootingand lassoo manipulation. However, the hosts at Fort Worth did their best byreproducing as many as possible of the demonstrations within the hotel." That's the sort of hotel I like. • The perishable properties of target-dates are familiar to everyone; but I doubt whether any targets have perishedin quite the same way as those set by Boeing for the 707. When American Airlines orderedthirty 707s in November 1955 they gave everyone a laugh by announcing that thefirst one would be put into service on June 15, 1959. (They wouldn't committhemselves to a particular time—after all, that would just be silly, three-and-a-half years in advance.) Then, a year ago, they stated that thedate had been revised: it was to be March 15, 1959. A few weeks ago, in American Air-lines' Flagship News, president C. R. Smith revised the date again. Heannounced that 707 jet services would be introduced between New York andLos Angeles—America's blue-riband route—"before the end of 1958." The latest target date is November 1.So even if American Airlines do not get their 707s into service until half a yearlater, they will still be ahead of their original schedule. The odd thing about all this is thatI had to do quite a bit of research to dig out the facts, which neither Boeingnor American Airlines seems to think particularly remarkable. • Flipping through the May 1958 issue of the A.R.B. Civil Aircraft Regi- ster I noticed a B.O.A.C. Britannia 102 with the recent registration G-APLL. This seemed odd: Britannia 102 pro- duction ceased a year ago, the fifteenth and last aircraft being registered G-ANBO. Referring back, I found the explana- tion : dear old G-ANBG has apparently got so fed up with all the wisecracks that she has been re-registered. No doubt the A.R.B. will be glad to revive NBG for anyone who feels it is appropriate to his aeroplane. In the meantime I suppose someone will try to make something out of the initials PLL. ROGER BACON.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
