BBC 4 Now - Jet! When Britain Ruled The Skies

vicwatson

Started at 22.00 on BBC Four, over 23.00

Chuck Stone

Excellent program.

vicwatson

Yeh it's great so far. The Comet was some plane.

Chuck Stone

vicwatson wrote: »

The Comet was some plane.

I think it's beautiful with the integrated engines, sharpish nose, and gleaming metals.

Must have looked like something from the distant future back then.

vicwatson

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I think it's beautiful with the integrated engines, sharpish nose, and gleaming metals.

Must have looked like something from the distant future back then.

The VC 10 looked the biz too. Especially in the BOAC livery

mike65

That topic really needed a whole series - 20 years of "near misses and not quites" into 60 minutes doesn't really go!

The British designers always so much better than the Yanks, but airlines count pennies not admiring smiles.

Chuck Stone

mike65 wrote: »

The British designers always so much better than the Yanks, but airlines count pennies not admiring smiles.

They came damn close to being the pre-eminent commercial aircraft manufacturer of the world.

PapaQuebec

vicwatson wrote: »

Yeh it's great so far. The Comet was some plane.

I had the privilege of flying on one when I was a teenager - school trip to Lourdes circa 1972 - operated by DanAir out of Luton if I remember correctly!

durandal01

I can heartily recommend reading "Empire of the Clouds: When Britain's Aircraft Ruled the World" by James Hamilton-Paterson who was interviewed in the program.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Empire-Clouds-Britains-Aircraft-Ruled/dp/0571247954/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346807316&sr=8-2
There's also some excellent early Farnborough footage on YouTube that's worth searching for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=432uUVv12T8

Davidth88

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They came damn close to being the pre-eminent commercial aircraft manufacturer of the world.

The British would have been much more successful if the industry wasn't totally politically driven until the 1980's when Thatcher basically threw it to the wolves ( which TBH was all it was good for by then ).

Look at the aircraft.

Comet, good aircraft , however the early versions were designed with 36 passengers in mind ! not the 140 odd the early 707's were designed for.

VC10 , fantastic aircraft ( possibly one of the best looking ever esp the Super VC10 ), but cost overruns etc almost made this a still born baby. A testament to this aircraft is the roles it has performed for the RAF

Trident , fantastic/groundbreaking aircraft , however was designed to facilitate one customer ( BEA ) who kept changing their mind. By the time the best version came out ( 3B ) the 727 was already selling like hot cakes .

BAC111 World beater for sure , ( all be it the ugly duckling ! ) , should have done better but was never really developed enough , look at the DC9/MD80 series which was it's obvious competitor .

Then you have things like the HS125 ( very successful ) , the BA146 ( should have been more successful IMO )

It's a shame , I love British aircraft

Stovepipe

Apart from the fact that, despite having come out of a war for which they had mass-produced thousands of aircraft and gained a vast body of knowledge, they still insisted on building aircraft in badly-lit sheds, using antiquated production methods and flew them off inadequate runways and expected test pilots and engineers to perform miracles (without ejection seats). They refused to accept that anyone could build better aircraft, despite having captured fantastic technology from the Germans and having the best aeroengines in the world. British aircraft are characterised by being a pain in the arse to maintain, big or small. Not unique to them but, compared to American aircraft, no comparison. Having talked to oul sweats (pilots and engineers) where I work in Lingus, who were veterans of the BAC 1-11, the 707, 737 and 747 and the old Sheds, there is aboslutely no doubt which aircraft they preferred. The 1-11 was heavy for it's size, underpowered and fuel-inefficient as a result, very noisy, mechanically over-complex and was never stretched to increase passenger capacity like the DC-9. The Boeings weren't perfect but they were much more reliable, had excellent spares and tech support and were available in quantity. They also had the knowledge gained by a continuous stream of ancestors, such as the B17, B29 and B47, so a lot of the issues had been resolved before the 707 appeared. It wasn't faultless, by any means, but it was made to work and it did it's job well.

regards
Stovepipe

mike65

British industry post war be it aircraft or automotive was beset by the same issues - stupid management and witless, inconsistent government policies.

Bearcat

Couldn't agree more with stovepipes comments.

Cockpit preparation in a 1-11 was appalling......no sequence to the switch work ......then that heap of over engineered piece of gutless engined 146. Granted quiet, but Christ it was payload limited to the last kg anytime the OAT rose......bleeds off take offs all the time, critical switching of the bleed system at critical times ( t/o and LDG)....cockpit preparation was just appalling. First flight of the day required so many systems test. It was nice to land though and when you got over the appalling design of the cockpit it was a comfy place to sit as long as you were close to the checklist as there was always something to deal with.

The Vc10 wins it for me.....total gas guzzler with those conways.......'twas a fast jet with good performance but the yanks had it covered with the 707 with pratts attached.

Run_to_da_hills

The British Aircraft industry whet down the exact same route as their cars and motorcycle industries.

Davidth88

Bearcat , that's really interesting stuff .

Surprised the 146 was gutless , quite a small aircraft , with four engines !

I remember the Tridents being built at Hatfield ( the Chinese ones anyway ) and the development of the 146 , we used call it ' The mini 'lifter ' because it's configuration looked like the C141 :-) .


( I am only an interested amateur , I had a PPL , and spotted for many years that's all .)

Tenger

Davidth88 wrote: »

Bearcat , that's really interesting stuff .

Surprised the 146 was gutless , quite a small aircraft , with four engines !

There may have been 4 of them but they were referred to as 'hair dryers' for a reason.

L1011

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The British Aircraft industry whet down the exact same route as their cars and motorcycle industries.

Well, BAe was heavily involved in the death of both (owning Rover before BMW)...

bluecode

Davidth88 wrote: »

Bearcat , that's really interesting stuff .

Surprised the 146 was gutless , quite a small aircraft , with four engines APUs!

There I've corrected that for you.:p

Stovepipe

The 146 was designed in 1961 or thereabouts and was quite an advanced concept for it's time, but they didn't cut metal for the first airframe until 1981. The engines are based on a Lycoming T53 helicopter engine (which in itself was a very good unit) with a fan grafted onto the front end, which wasn't so good. It took ages to get it to a satisfactory standard, by which time the market had moved on. The engine was also meant to to be fitted to the newer generations of executive jets such as the Challenger 600s, but they got the TF34 in the end. In service, the 146 is deadly quiet, can use really short runways but is a pain in the arse to maintain and does not deliver serviceability like the 737 or A320. It does not like wet mornings, had a difficulty with high altitude for a long time (29,000 feet being the limit, which is nothing in a jet) and often had to trade passengers for fuel to use short runways.
regards
Stovepipe

Chuck Stone

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The British Aircraft industry whet down the exact same route as their cars and motorcycle industries.

Despite not being a major airframe manufacturer the UK is still has one of the world's biggest aerospace industries.

The aerospace industry of the United Kingdom is the second- or third-largest national aerospace industry in the world, depending upon the method of measurement. The industry employs around 113,000 people directly and around 276,000 indirectly and has an annual turnover of around £20 billion.

Source

L1011

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Despite not being a major airframe manufacturer the UK is still has one of the world's biggest aerospace industries.

Those figures need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Private Eye covered that the UK Govt's claim about their "space industry" (which is part of the general "aerospace industry") included Sky Television!