FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1960
1960 - 1018.PDF
76 Correspondence The Editor of "Flight" is not necessarily in agreement with the viewsexpressed by correspondents in these columns. Names and addresses of writers, not for publication in detail, must in all cases accompany letters. Farnborough—and no Fleet Air Arm T IKE many other ex-Fleet Air Ann officers, I listened with a•*-' thrill of pride to Margot Campbell's recent BBC feature Find, Fix and Strike. A chance conversation in the train the nextmorning, however, brought me crashing back to earth. "Your chaps are not going to Farnborough this year, I hear," said mytravelling companion—"pity." Mere regrets apart, this is a serious step and the reasons for their Lordships taking it must be serious,if not even disquieting. It is only three years ago that, after many years out in the coldas Cinderella of the Services, the Fleet Air Arm went on show at Farnborough. What an impression those scarlet Sea Hawks of738 made!—not to mention the "anchor" of Gannets or the delight of the public at the square-dancing helicopters. In 1958Sea Hawks again and Norman Perrett's classic call, "Finals 27 greens"—this boosted by the first squadron of Scimitars sweepingover at 0.9-plus (plus quite a lot!). Last year the "dart" snatch and the two-way landing. All these kept the Royal Navy well inthe public eye. But now we quietly bow out of the finest shop- window for both Service and national prestige with nothing morethan an almost meaningless Civil Service excuse. What is left? No Lee, no Ford, nothing nearer to the HomeCounties and London than Yeovilton (115 miles). Apart from my own wish to see my Service performing there are thousands oftaxpayers with no chance, pending the formation of the RAF's first Lightning squadron, to see Britain's newest, most powerfuland most up-to-date fighters—let alone to be reminded of the very existence of the Fleet Air Arm. Lest people who know the concern by whom I am employedthink I have some axe to grind I must regretfully remain, London Wl Vox NAUTICUS Co-operative Supersonic Airliner? •THIS country is going to have to decide soon how to enter the* supersonic transport field. On the one hand, there is the ques- tion of national prestige and technical know-how to be gained,and on the other is the difficulty of selling enough supersonic air- liners to show a profit. To gain the best of both worlds it seemsadvisable to collaborate with either the Americans or with Con- tinental Europe. The question arises, how? America will certainly build supersonic airliners, and as in thecase of the Boeing 707 and DC-8 some duplication will probably emerge. This will make it more difficult for a British firm tocompete in the American market, the largest market in the world. Apart from home sales, the other large market is with the Europeancountries and their national airlines. But the European industry is sufficiently strong and nationalistic (within the "six") to buildits own supersonic airliner. More than one type of airliner will be needed, one for longrange (707 and DC-8 replacement) and the Atlantic route, and at least one other for medium ranges of 1,000 to 2,000 miles. Thelatter would need to be economic down to 300 miles or even less, although the turboprop will compete on more than equal termsfor a long time to come for the shorter ranges. The two great aircraft companies in this country are probably technically ableto build two supersonic airliners—say of Mach 3 and Mach 1.5 for the long and medium ranges—but with American and Europeancompetition would never be able to sell sufficient to recover even a small part of the enormous cost. However, if we collaborated with both the Americans and withEurope we would have a foot in both sales markets and also be able to participate in building both the main types of supersonicairliner. A typical arrangement might be for Hawker Siddeley to col-laborate with one of the giant American firms (Boeing, Douglas, Lockheed?) to build an Anglo-American long-range supersonictransport. Such an aircraft would find most of its sales in the USA, as have the 707 and DC-8. The American firm might findit worthwhile to collaborate with a British firm, as that would practically guarantee a number of sales to BOAC and other Com-monwealth airlines, and increase chances of sales even in Europe, since some of the aircraft would be manufactured on Europe'sdoorstep—in this country. While the main effort of design and testing might be American, the considerable resources of HawkerSiddeley would contribute a large part of the work and perhaps a Bristol Siddeley Olympus engine could be used. The long-rangeAnglo-American supersonic airliner would probably have to com- pete with a rival ail-American consortium, or even a US-Frenchconcern. =.^t :-,;;-: FLIGHT, 8 July 1960 The other link-up might be by the BAC and French and otherEuropean companies. The Vickers experience in medium-range airliners would be very useful for extrapolation to medium rangesupersonic airliners, and Rolls-Royce engines would continue the present happy association. The European market for such an air-craft will be quite considerable and the wasteful competition such as occurred between Comet 4 and Caravelle would be eliminated.The designing could be shared, as it already is, by different com- panies on one aeroplane—e.g., wings by Sud-Aviation, enginemountings and tail by BAC, etc. A factory in Britain would build aircraft for the British Commonwealth and North America, and afactory in France build them for Europe and the rest of the world. Parts would be made in all the member countries of such aco-operative venture. Some such set of schemes as those outlined would ensure thatBritish aeronautical engineering was still out in front and yet ensure that we get our fair share of sales despite nationalisticbarriers. British engines could be used wherever possible, thus ensuring we have some major stake in whichever supersonicairliner is successful. Sheffield 10 A. G. FRANKLIN The Croydon Celebrations From Air Cdre A. H. Wheeler, CBE, MA, FRAeS, trustee (aviation), the Shuttleworth Collection.I N your note on the Croydon millenary celebrations (page 857,June 24), after making complimentary mention of the Shuttle- worth Trust aircraft you go on to deplore an "opportunity glaringlymissed." Readers may be interested to learn of the circumstances leading up to this situation. The original suggestion put up for the exhibition on the aviationside (by the Shuttleworth Trust) was for four separate tableaux, each one representing a scene on Croydon Aerodrome at a certainperiod in its history. Each tableau was to have a background photograph (if obtainable) of the period and the group wouldinclude contemporary vehicles and people in the dress or uniform of the time. The periods we selected were: — (1) The earliest in Croydon's history, with the oldest aeroplanes wehave, and cars of that time. (2) The mid-1914-18 period, with our Bristol Fighter, Pup, Avro504K, etc. (3) The between-wars period circa 1927, with our light aeroplanes—D.H. 53, English Electric Wren, D.H. Moth, etc., illustrating the early sporting aeroplanes.(4) The World War II period with the Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Hurricane and Gloster Gladiator. This rather ambitious display, although agreed by the organizersof the exhibition, became impractical when they failed to obtain permission to fly the later aircraft into Croydon—even our BristolFighter came under the Ministerial ban, although the Croydon authorities asked that permission should be given. Transport ofthese aircraft byroad, with the essential dismantling and re-rigging, would have made the cost prohibitive. Under these conditions Tableau 4 was out and time was tooshort to improvise some other arrangement. Although the Shuttle- worth Trust provided the aeroplanes and suggested the schemedescribed above they had no hand in the actual arrangements for the display. In conclusion, and after hearing comments by some of thevisitors to the aviation display, I can reassure you that Croydon's connection with aviation was well appreciated—it is the severanceof that connection which still needs a proper explanation. Twyford, Berks ALLEN WHEELER [In the following week's issue we were able to record that permission waseventually obtained for a farewell fly-past by club aircraft.—Ed.] JulyJuly July July July July July July July July JulyJuly July July July 2-10.7-10. 8. 8. 8-9. 8-10. 9. 9-10.10. 10. 16.17. 23. 23-24. 24- August 1. July 30- August 7. July 31- August 7. FORTHCOMING EVENTS West Aero Club of France: Gliding Competition, Angers. International Light-aircraft Show, Venice. RAeS Astronautics and Guided Flight Section: a.g.m. and Lecture: "The US Space ond Astronautics Programme," by Capt Robert F. Freitag, USN. College of Aeronautics: Presentation Day and Ball. Royal Aero Club: Lockheed International Aerobatic Competition and King's Cup Race, Baginton, Coventry. Italian Aero Club Competition. RAFA and Exeter Airport Ltd: Display, Exeter. Basse Normandie Aero Club Rally, Flers. Elstree Flying Club Pilot's Rally, Elstree Aerodrome. Leicestershire Aero Club At Home, Leicester East/Oadby. Parachuting Competition, Woburn Abbey. Royal Aero Club Rally, Woburn Abbey. Army Air Corps: Open Day, Middle Wallop, Stockbridge, Hants. Trento Aero Club: 10th Aerial Circuit of the Dolomites. Gliding Weeks: Yorkshire GC, Sutton Bank; London GC, Dunstable; Coventry GC., Edge Hill (opens July 23). Inter-Services GC.: Gliding Week, Lasham. Bulgarian Aero Club: World Parachuting Championships, Mousatchevo, near Sofia.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
