FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1962
1962 - 0393.PDF
fLIGHT International, 15 March 1962 393 about podded v buried engines seem to have been resolved, the main source of design controversy between American and British engineers is on the subject of controls. American manufacturers rely on manual reversion in the case of failure of powered flying controls. British manufacturers prefer duplicated or even tripli cated power systems. This difference is an important one as it carries with it the complete philosophy of aircraft safety design. The American view seems to be that reversion should be manual if it is at all possible. They think that duplication, not to mention triplication, contributes little or nothing to safety, yet hampers re liability (itself liable to induce accident), because there is twice or three times the amount of equipment to go wrong. The British view point is that if an aircraft needs powered controls in the first place it cannot be wholly safe under manual control. Probably a great deal can be said for both sides in normal circumstances. It is over the automatic-landing issue that the variance is most marked. It seems that the Americans are not planning to insist on any above-average safety minima for their automatic landing systems and that they do not, therefore, need to insist on above-average safety standards for items like controls. Again, this is a matter about which there is a genuine difference in opinion. But whether i hey think their system or ours is better makes no difference. They do not seem to appreciate that the British automatic landing safety minima can be met only by the application of special reliability precautions throughout the aircraft. And that is the main reason for the triplication of power controls on aircraft like the Trident— not a mere dabbling in complexity. Let it be said that American airlines think that safety systems beyond those specified by the airworthiness authorities need very careful consideration before installation. The writer got the impression that the airlines think that any such extra safety pre cautions are good—provided they carry no economic penalty. Top, a Vickers-Armstrongs Vanguard of Trans-Canada Air Lines and, below it, a Viscount in service with the same operator, illustrated here are with America's United Air Lines and with Uruguay's PLUNA The two other Viscounts This point is worth making, because one has heard the view expressed that, if Britain cannot build the biggest or the fastest, she can build the safest. Any Governmental thinking along these lines could result in millions being wasted on a venture that wins only the "approval" of the corporations. American reaction to the ancillary equipment installed in British aircraft is not as critical as has sometimes been supposed. In operation, the equipment is good and broadly comparable to American. There are, of course, complaints; but these point to no basic defect in equipment, referring rather to faults which might be found in the best equipment from any country. British engines, and particularly Rolls-Royce engines, are used in well over half the turbine-powered airliners at present on order or in service in the Western world. This is an achievement to be proud of, especially as so many aircraft of American design use them. Because of this success, it is interesting to hear what the Americans think of them today. On the whole, the airlines were not of the opinion that Britain leads in aero-engine development. And it was not the United States airlines that decided the issue. Because of the controversial nature of this question, it is only fair to give the exact question and answers. Even so, this is only of limited value, because it takes into account none of the experience individual airlines have had with different types of engines. Nineteen airlines gave a positive answer to this question: Do you think Britain has a lead in aero-engine development ? No Yes USA airlines 7 3 Airlines elsewhere Totals . 5 . 12 4 7 The writer would agree wholeheartedly with anyone who said that these results were far from conclusive in deciding whether Britain has indeed lost her lead in engine development. But they do point to the fact that American airlines think so. Whether or not the airlines had any experience with British turbine engines did not seem to affect the issue:— Airlines with experience of British engines Airlines without this ex perience Totals Britain has lead ..4 ..3 .. 7 has not 7 5 12
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
