FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1960
1960 - 0007.PDF
FLIGHT, 1 January I960 Frank Beswick (left) interviews Mr. Mensforth ' "Flight" photograph THIS is the first of a series wherein Frank Beswick elicits the views ofrepresentative personalities in a cross-section of the industry on ques- tions of national concern. MP for Uxbridge until the recent Election,Mr. Beswick was a former Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Air Minister, then Parliamentary Secretary to the MTCA, in the post-warLabour Government. Later he was chairman of the Labour Party Civil Aviation Sub-Committee. ONE of the success stories of post-war British aviation issurely that of Westland helicopters. Amid uncertaintiesof the aviation industry generally and disappointments over helicopters in particular Westlands have just concentratedupon their chosen task and forged ahead. It was natural, there- fore, to ask Mr. Eric Mensforth, the chairman of Westland Air-craft, whether he thought any contraction of the British aircraft industry ought to be on a selective basis; that is to say, "ShouldBritain concentrate upon a narrower field of aviation, with heli- copters, possibly, one example of specialization?""Certainly specialization is essential," replied Mr. Mensforth. "That has been our policy, and it has paid. No point in mixingengines with airframes; the success of Rolls-Royce illustrates that. When we decided upon helicopter specialization we quite deliber- What Course for the Industry? No. 1 OF A SERIES By FRANK BESWICK ately gave up fixed-wing interests. That is why, when we acquiredSaunders-Roe, we took over only their aircraft division." "But as a nation have we also to depend upon specialization forsuccess; must we eliminate any projects, and if so which?" "That is not my job to say. But clearly, if we cannot afford todo well all the things that are now before us then we must cut out the least promising.""In view of your experience at Yeovil can we look forward to the time when the industry generally will meet the cost of allresearch?" "We have borne much of the cost of our helicopter research;this, of course, has to be recovered in due course from sales, and our biggest customer has been the Government. In our experi-ence there is a difference between the problems involved in fixed- wing aircraft and those concerning helicopters. The latterincreasingly involve mechanical engineering, e.g., vibration and fatigue, not aerodynamics and so forth. We also owe much togeneral aeronautical effort in providing us with developed materials, engines, instruments and radio. I should not havethought that the industry generally could meet the whole cost of aeronautical research, particularly in relation to defence. More-over, co-ordination at Farnborough is an important factor." "Can present State expenditure on research and developmentbe deployed more fruitfully?" "It depends upon what we are after. Results from Britishresearch so far are nothing at all to be ashamed of. But it depends upon how much we need to devote to defence and how much uponcommercial aviation. It is hoped that international affairs will improve and restrict the market in missiles; so that from theviewpoint of the British economy it might be desirable to con- centrate more upon civil air transport. We are proud of whatwe have achieved on helicopters; it is an interesting speculation as to what would have been the effect of earlier State support."We constructed the Westland London Heliport at Battersea at our own expense, and we considered it worthwhile more asa matter of research than of promoting sales. We have already learned much about such things as control, single-engine approach,refuelling, parking, lighting and guidance systems. One might well suggest that research of this kind ought to be the respon-sibility of the State" (and here Mr. Mensforth gave a shrug and a smile) "although it is possible that we get results more quicklyand economically." "Would you be satisfied to accept as a private risk the develop-ment of helicopters?" "So far that has been our position up to varying stages beforesecuring orders. With a machine such as the Westminster the sums involved are much greater, and whilst continuing to take areal risk ourselves we think that at an appropriate stage a measure of Government support is desirable. We also ask that we shouldnot find ourselves in unfair competition with some machine in which, in effect, the Government have a vested interest becausethey have much more massively supported its development cost. Let the final choice between one machine and another be onmerit.1' "If State financial assistance is required for a particular project undertaken by a particular company, on what basis should theassistance be given?" "If the contract is for defence purposes with no commercialrisk involved, then there should be a straight payment with a fair but narrow profit margin. With a civil machine the risks could beshared by the company and the State and the advances treated as a loan.""Supposing there was the specialization which you suggest and the manufacture of helicopters was concentrated into one unit, inthese circumstances is not the risk of production entirely extracted? Would not the State be compelled to purchase from the onemanufacturing unit?" "No, they could go to France, for example. The sanction againstsuch a monopoly would be that of foreign competition. If a British firm let them down the State should not hesitate to buy abroad." * * * I was impressed by Mr. Mensforth's conception of the inter-national character of this aviation problem. Not only was there this idea that if national developments entailed merger and con-centration then the competitive spur should come from the foreign manufacturer, but also there was in his scheme of things a morepositive role for co-operation between companies here and overseas. He was quite frank in admitting the benefits which his owncompany had received from the use of American know-how since they built the Sikorsky machines under licence. He emphasizedthere was nothing really new in this—either in aviation or in other industrial fields. Another example in aviation was theHamilton Standard propeller; reciprocally there was the gas tur- bine and radar. Westland were unashamedly adapting the tech-nical knowledge of the American manufacturers. In return the Americans, too, had their benefits, partly in the shape of revenue,but also in the way of "adventurous thinking" on particular prob- lems. The Westminster, at the present time the largest helicopterin the Western World, was the only one available for trying out certain American components. * * * . "Can anything be said about an optimum size, from the researchand production viewpoint, for manufacturing units? Are there technical as distinct from financial gains to be derived fromfurther rationalization in the industry?" "The optimum is that minimum which can command thenecessary facilities, e.g., of research, development, production, sales, finance, etc. The smaller the minimum the better. Thesmaller the organization the better the chance of its management being human.""What about the supersonic transport? Would an independent British effort be justified?""I am technically ignorant on the matter, but I should say it is highly doubtful. Is there economic justification on sufficientroutes to command worthwhile sales? We must be reasonably certain of sales before the large development sums are committed.It may be more sensible to spend the nation's money on some less spectacular but commercially more profitable venture."
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
