FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1961
1961 - 0143.PDF
"""•i , PLIGHT, 3 February 1961 143 America and the Supersonic Airliner "INCLUDE ME OUT," SAYS DON ADAMS (New York) A. <s had been expected for some months, the US Govern-A ment recently indicated its willingness to subsidize the development of a Mach 3 commercial transport (Flight,December 16, page 960). Five million dollars have been earmarked for "such a programme in the Fiscal 1961 budget, and it has beenre: ammended that sums of eighteen and thirty-two million dollars bJ set aside for the project in the following two years. Manyami varied reasons have been cited for proceeding with such a venture; but it is believed that there are just one or two keyreasons behind the decision. A very major consideration in the eyes of all politicians inAmerica—if not indeed the world over—is the necessity for assuring that their constituents in particular and the countryin general enjoy a healthy state of employment. For the past several years the American aircraft industry has been undergoinga gradual transition. Emphasis has been shifting from manned aeroplanes to unmanned missile and space projects. With thisf reorientation has come a widening degree of technological unem- ployment. No longer is there a need for vast numbers of workerswith the traditional aircraft skills. Fabrication of aluminium sheet structures has given way in priority to the assembly of tiny,intricate electronic components. More dollars are being spent in the aircraft business in current times than in former years, but thetotal weight of deliverable hardware has been considerably reduced. More money than ever before is being spent on development workand on "support equipment," but few dollars actually see their way into aeroplanes pure and simple. So, year by year, there is decline in the number of men requiredto build aircraft structures. And the future holds little promise of any rapid reversal of this trend. Faced with the prospect ofhaving to lay off numerous workers, the aircraft industry has vigorously pursued lines of business which show hope of requiringthe skills of the "metal benders." Hence we see companies inves- tigating trailer caravans, the boat business, and many other fieldsm which light-alloy structures find a place. But through all this there is an understandable desire to stay in the aeroplane business.Those companies removing the words "aircraft" from their names in favour of some more general term) do so not because of anyreal prophetic business sense, but because they simply do not have the abilities to withstand the ever-sharpening competitionin the modern aircraft construction field. The pursuit of new military aeroplane projects accordingly becomes keener and harderfought. The Congressmen who would assure high employment for their districts are brought into play. The trade unions arecalled upon to apply pressure at high levels to keep the production iines rolling. Paper Projects in Plenty A distracting point is that each year there are fewer requirementsfor new aircraft. Times between requests for the development of some new type become increasingly longer. Accept this situa-tion, and perhaps see an eventual locking of the doors? Or assume the offensive? Most manufacturers have faced thesealternatives, and have resisted the harsh facts of life by creating multiplicity of possible aircraft designs. There are new "paper"aircraft for every imaginable purpose. And where there is no genuine requirement an artificial need is created, simply so thatthe factories can be kept in a healthy state of employment. Although the B-70 bomber was not originally conceived in sucha light, there are many who contend that the programme is being pursued mainly on grounds other than an absolute military need.It has been called a "make-work" project. Even the US Air Force is sensitive on this point, since many of their pronouncements dealwith the "fringe" benefits of the Valkyrie project. More pertinently to the subject under discussion, it wouldappear that the supersonic-airliner programme is being initiated on exactly the afore-mentioned premise. The giants of theAmerican aircraft industry would like to build a supersonic trans- port. The project would keep a lot of people on the payrolls evenif the aircraft never saw airline service. But the airlines cannot afford to support the supersonic programme, and sufficient civilorders would not be forthcoming to make the project a profitable venture for some manufacturers. Why? Because currently con-ceived supersonic transports are clearly and grossly uneconomic. Not enough could be sold to pay off write-off costs. The airlineswould not purchase them, because at today's fares the aircraft could not earn a profit. Hence the movement to get the Government to underwritethe project. It would seem that they have taken the bait and decided to support the supersonic programme. Keeping Ahead of Mr K It is all very well for a relatively small group of people to decidethat a Government project should be undertaken; but it is another thing to secure public approval for the proposed move. Despitegreat Air Force propaganda, a long period of time elapsed before the nation lent its support to the B-70 programme. The gimmickbeing used to boost the supersonic transport is prestige. Unless America is first with a faster-than-sound airliner, it is beingargued, she will lose her once pre-eminent place in the aircraft world. Losing the supersonic race to the Russians would, it isclaimed, be a further sign of her lag in the scientific race. One finds it hard to sustain this contention. Whether it isgenerally recognized or not, the measure of progress in the modern world has been transferred from aircraft to missile/space activities.The country which wins the space race will gain most of the prestige. A second-place space effort simply cannot be overcomeby some contribution in the aircraft field, however outstanding and significant that effort may be. An example of this postulationwas evident when, recently, Convair had to take a full page in the New York Times to advertise the fact that their B-58 had brokenno fewer than six officially certified aircraft world records. Some of these records had been held by Russian products. Not longago such an event would have been editorial front-page news and a cause for national rejoicing. In America today, several bits ofspaceflight news make the front page almost daily while aeroplane news (except for ghoulish crash reports) is usually conspicuous byits absence. In the writer's opinion, building a supersonic transport willstimulate nothing more than self-created and false prestige. The Mach 3 programme should not now be implemented unless it canbe conclusively proved to be an economically worthwhile venture. The US simply should not engage in supporting atechnological WPA* project. Obviously, no one desires to see a once-proud industry crumbleovernight—or ever. Some kind of forced activity could well serve to tide the manufacturers over what will prove to be somedifficult times, provided that this support can be directed at potentially fruitful ideas. What comes to mind is an effort to * Works Progress Administration, from the famous "depression."—Ed. The USAF/North American B-70 Valkyrie, says the writer of this article, "has been called a 'make-work' project." But such allegations do it an injustice: not only h it the focal point for "state-of-the-art" advances in every aspect of aeroplane design—an essential pre-requisite to a 2,000 m.p.h. airliner—but it could even see squadron service with Strategic Air Command
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
