FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1961
1961 - 1761.PDF
FIGHT, 1 December 1961 871 It shocks me that a machine like the Vanguard is not going on. 1 ,hould have thought that a machine like that could earn great s.ons of money on trips to Paris, Manchester and the less spectacular b it busy routes of the world where they have not got these great p.nways. surprisingly large proportion of air passengers are still being carried on the older machines like the DC-3; for how long do you think they K:11 continue ? I think we have got them flying lighter and lighter. You cannot possibly say they are unsafe, but if the permissible weight is gradually r.-duced they will become uneconomic and disappear. !- there any point you would make on the charter flights '.' 1 am doubtful about these odd runs. A pilot flying a route everyday knows all about it; a man doing it once in a while gets into trouble if he has not all the answers. These things want going into. The Licensing Board ought to go into some of these matters, but may I ask if you think they are also paying enough attention to the positive side of developing British civil aviation? 1 always visualized an Air Transport Board charged with the task of encouraging services where they were needed, not simply saying yes or no to applications that were made. You mean an inspiring Board? One that initiated services? Maybe. Not that I am complaining of the present Board, who seem to be doing a job quite well—within their ambit; but they don't look after the other side. They have not been informed on what basis they are to act. It must be galling to them, to have their dis- cussions upset for political reasons. On the safety question again. What about the fuel controversy '.' The inquiry promised by the Government is nearly finished.You cannot say that flights by petrol should be stopped, but you can say that in a crash not of the percussion type, spilt kerosineis a good deal safer than JP.4. Safer not only from the point of view of ignition, but speed of flame propagation; with JP.4 it isimmediate; with kerosine it takes some time. However, 1 am content to wait for this report. How about the other argument over the rearward-facing seats'/ Well, there you are up against the operator. He says he won't getso much custom, but 1 don't believe it. Then there is the other objection that has now come in, that the jets climb so steeply thaiyou would fall out of a rearward facing seat, but 1 don't accept that either. I think the back-facing seat is safer; there is only oneaccident that will never befall you in the air—you will never be run into from behind! Is there any other point that ought to be made about safety ? We want a much wider separation between stalling and flyingspeeds. A 707 touches down at 140 knots; do you think that is safe? Statistically you may show me that I am wrong, but some ofthese basic things aren't always proved that way. 1 had hoped that with engines in the tail and with clean wings we should be takingoff and landing at much slower speeds—but it has not turned out that way yet. We come back to the earlier question—who is to say that wedon't want a machine that touches down at 140 knots? JCAO? I don't think so. 1ATA? They are too busy making money.Your committee? Well, it's worth talking about. BACKGROUND TO THE RAAF's SEARCH FOR A BOMBER SALES teams from BAC, Convair, Dassault and North Americanhave followed one another at Canberra in recent weekstrying to secure the RAAF's order for a Canberra replacement (writes Stanley Brogden). Biggest surprise was the arrival of ateam from San Diego to sell the B-58, which had been considered too big and costly for the RAAF. Favourite bomber on the listis the Mirage IV, though it lacks the range to give an operational arc from Australian bases through Indonesia and South-EastAsia. The Vigilante has been the object of intense RAAF admir- ation for some years, as it fulfils RAAF requirements in almostevery way but cost. The TSR-2's range is said to be too short, but other factors are concerned in a decision on this type. Mirage IV The RAAF's evaluation of bombers actually preceded theirinterest in the Mirage 1I1C, but when it became apparent that the choice was so limited the money was switched to the fighter. TheRAAF has now been forced to take some quicker action on the bomber because of the arrival of Russian Badgers in Indonesia.Equipment-wise, the RAAF today is completely outclassed by the Indonesian Air Force. It is believed that after the December election, if the presentgovernment is returned, an order will be placed next year for some £(A)70m worth of bomber equipment. Only one full Canberrasquadron would be re-armed. The RAAF would hope for an aircraft deliveries of which could begin in 1963-64. The complexB-58 systems makes it unlikely that this type would be selected, and the Mirage IV would be a very sensible decision. Should Labour be returned at the election it must honour itsPledge to reduce defence expenditure, and the bomber decision would definitely be held up. But how long it could be held up inview of the West New Guinea situation is another matter. In any event, Labour has for the past 25 years stated without equivocation 8-58 Hustler that Australia should depend on the RAAF for its defence and thatthe other Services should be subordinate to it. In the long run, the return of Labour could mean a much stronger RAAF, as thiswould mean less capital cost overall. Pressure on the present government by the Returned SoldiersLeague has always made it practically impossible for the Liberal- Country parties to concentrate on air defence and play down theother Services, particularly the Army. The departure of Sir Phillip McBride from the Defence Department some years ago was thegreatest victory the RAAF ever had, but the RSL will not stand for air defence being developed at Army expense. With only £(A)200m a year for defence, no Australian Govern-ment which tries to maintain three more or less equally balanced Services can ever hope to have three efficient and properly equippedones. The present condition of the RAAF—with Avon-Sabres and Canberras as the striking force—demonstrates this fact.The re-equipping of the Indonesian Air Force has many back- benchers worried. In the RAAF's favour at present is the fact that an airman,Air Marshal Sir Frederick Scherger, is chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. During his term as RAAF Chief of Staff he waspersonally responsible for the switch from the Lockheed F-104 to the Mirage II1C. He has been impressed by the Mirage IV. A great problem in bomber selection, of course, is the factthat Australia does not (and is hardly likely to) possess nuclear weapons, which these bombers have really been designed to carry. Vigilante The Australian feeling against armament of this kind is such thatany government would risk its neck by even discussing the matter. Both sides simply act as if they have taken it for granted Australiawill not at any time use the weapon. It should also be remembered that defence decisions in Australiaare not always taken on military grounds. The presence of Aus- tralian troops and aircraft in Malaya is a proof. From the militarystandpoint, the Australian commitment in Malaya is regarded as a complete waste. It was and is a purely political matter, whichthe Defence authorities detest. Not one of the three Services is in favour of it, or ever has been, for it is also widely recognized herethat Singapore is even more vulnerable than in 1941-42—the Chinese Reds in Singapore can take it over at any time. And thecommitment we have in Malaya has absolutely no military value if war breaks out in South-East Asia. SEATO is now useless. A good many thinking Australians realize that the RAAF'sbomber selection could carry with it the future fate of their country.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
