FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1962
1962 - 0229.PDF
j ftjGHT PP International -•.URSDAY 15 FEBRUARY 1962 Number 2762 Volume 81 Editor-in-Chief MAURICE A. SMITH DFC Editor H. F. KING MBE Technical Editor W. T. GU NSTON Air Transport Editor J. M. RAMSD E N Production Editor ROY CASEY Managing Director H. N. PRIAULX MBE Official Organ of the Royal Aero Club First Aeronautical Weekly in the WorM Founded in 190* Dissent in the Lords A BLEAK view was taken by Lord Stonham in a Lords debate last week on the British aircraft industry. In contrast, Lord Mills' reply was sanguine. Lord Stonham said that he was going to lift the curtain on a tragedy—the run-down, possibly the destruction, of our "once great aircraft industry." Suggesting that Lord Stonham did not know what he was talking about. Lord Mills averred that the industry occupied a " very dominant position in Europe." In the last eighteen months it had increased its labour force from 280,000 to 300,000. Order books had been lengthening. The French industry, as far as he could establish, employed some 85,000; West Germany about 15,000; and the rest of Free Europe some 40,000. The British industry was in general the best equipped and most advanced technologically. It was powerfully backed by research work in Government establishments and by Government spending. What Lord Mills did not point out was that, although the order books have been lengthening, export orders have been disappointing. And as we have previously suggested, the prospect for research and development workers in particular is far from sanguine. In this issue World News 232 Air Commerce 235 This is the VCIO 240 Airline Profile 243 Straight and Level 246 The Sixth Seat 247 Allison T63 and Aubiaque 251 signing for Manpowered Flight 253 Sport and Business 254 Letters 25 6 Missiles and Spaceflight 258 Service Aviation 264 Industry International 265 lliffe Transport Publications Ltd, Dorset House, Stamford Street, London SE1. telephone Waterloo 3333 (Telex 25137). TelegTams Flightpres London Telex; Annual subscriptions: Home £4 15s. Overseas £5. Canada and USA $15.00. Second Class Mail privileges authorized at New York, N.Y. Branch Offices Coventry: 8-10 Corpora tion Street; telephone Coventry 25210. Birmingham: King Edward House, New Street, 2; telephone Midland 7191. Man chester: 260 Deansgate 3; telephone Blackfriars 4412 or Deansgate 3595. Glasgow: 62 Buchanan Street CI; tele phone Central 1265-6. New York, NY: Thomas Skinner & Co (Publishers) Ltd, 111 Broadway 6; telephone Digby 9-1197. © Iliffe Transport Publications Ltd, 1962. Permission to reproduce illustra tions and letterpress can be granted only under written agreement. Brief extracts or comments may be made with due acknowledgement. Rail v Rotor I ANY people believe that the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs have been unnecessarily obstructive towards plans for a central London heliport. All three sites proposed in the massive Ministry-sponsored report last year—Nine Elms, Cannon Street Station and St Katharine's Dock—have been strongly opposed. It is the question of noise more than anything else that seems to be worry ing the guardians of the public interest. The LCC have supported the recommendation of their General Pur poses Committee that the establishment of helicopter stations in the Lon don area must be strongly opposed unless noise can be kept to a reasonable level. A meeting with the Minister of Aviation has been sought. Most important of all (as briefly reported last week), the LCC suggest that the possibility of a monorail link with London Airport be considered before any final decision on a London heliport is taken. They are not alone in their suspicion that, even with the most perfect heliport, the helicopter may not be the proper vehicle for airport-to-city communications. There is no doubt that a big, economic rotary-wing aircraft, of which the West- land Rotodyne is the pre-eminent example, can be produced to meet the requirement; and there is no doubt either that London needs a heliport for communications other than with its airports. Nevertheless, there seems to be a growing feeling that the monorail might do the airport/city job sooner and more cheaply in terms of capital and operating costs. Whatever is decided—and the issues are by no means clear cut—one thing seems certain. The monorail is looming as a very real competitor for the helicopter, both for airport - city and intercity communications. Moreover, the same system of transport is asserting its potential as a part ner for the big trunk-route airliners, providing the essential fast airport - city component of the air transport system. This, at any rate, seems to be the view of the Hawker Siddeley Group, whose investment in the monorail was announced last week. Whatever is decided, the new focus of attention on the monorail is going to mean further delays in decisions concerning London's heliport and possibly in the development of the helicopters that will use it.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
