Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had

[jcf]

The RAF may have been better off just buying (or leasing? Not common in period but it is
something to play with) stock Argosy 100, and later 220, and using them for transport
duties rather than spending the money that was expended to give the C Mk.1 aircraft tactical
capabilities, changes that increased weight and reduced overall performance.

Use the funds saved to procure or develop an aircraft that had all the military specific bells
and whistles. A larger number of stock Argosy may have had a positive knock-on effect in
the commercial freight industry.

[kitnut617]

Reading a number of publications concerning British developments over the last few years, I've learnt that most were very expensive to procure.  This was mainly because the RAF's requirements were quite specific in what they wanted and most times or not, didn't fit in with any other countries requirements.  But the RAF only wanted a small quantity of each type which led to very expensive aircraft.  Most times the few required wouldn't even pay for the design and development of said aircraft.  The USAF on the other hand, always wanted whatever they wanted in the hundreds --- making a unit price very attractive to other countries who didn't have the resources to do their own.

But despite that, the Air Ministry (or whatever they got called) tried to buy 'domestic' products just so the country kept their experienced designers/engineers "in country".  It's interesting to note that the very well regarded Harrier, nearly went the way of the TSR2 even before it got to the ""Harrier"" stage of it's development but was 'saved' because of a large order from the USMC.  What I've read is that the development cost in those days money (50's) was reaching epic proportions somewhat similar in equivalent to the F-35 of today. Imagine if Britain was doing that on their lonesome now ---

[sandiego89]

the RAF's requirements were quite specific in what they wanted and most times or not, didn't fit in with any other countries requirements....

I think the Chinook Mk3 was among the worst RAF examples of "requirements" messing things up.  IIRC correctly, and depending on whom you listen to, the concerns were perhaps trivial, but impossible to certify- so they sat for years- until they were gutted and refitted with an updated cockpit at a huge expense. Sometimes trying to do something on the cheap bites you in the long run.  Not the first or last example of "simples, we'll just plug our fancy new sytem into the airframe...."       

[Logan Hartke]

So that's a vaild reason for the RAF buying C-124s?

Like I said earlier, this thread seems to be degenerating into another 'Why doesn't the rest of the World all buy US aircraft?' thread. 

I never said that the RAF should've bought the C-124. As you and others have pointed out, though, Britain was developing very niche transport aircraft that it had a hard time selling to others. I agree that they should've used their own aircraft industry, but they were trying to keep too many companies afloat with orders that were too small building aircraft that were too specialized.

Aircraft like the Hunter, Canberra, and Harrier are prime examples of what Britain's postwar aviation industry could do when they set their minds to it. I just think that aircraft like the Beverly are examples of using that industrial base ineffectively. The C-124 merely serves as a point of comparison to show what the rest of the world was doing (and what Britain was perfectly capable of).

As you pointed out earlier, this is all speculation benefiting from hindsight. In hindsight, though, the British aerospace industry suffered from the strategy they did pursue, to the point where comparatively few of the RAF's current and planned types are indigenously designed and produced.

Cheers,

Logan

[DarrenP]

one of the issues that the UK had was a very diverse aviation industry and the government trying to preserve all of it instead of allowing natural selection to take place.

[Librarian]

I'm absolutely no expert on this but didn't something similar happen with our airliners.....BOAC/BEA all powerful dictating specs etc. Trident, VC-10 and others. Superb machines all but created to the rivet for British airlines and as a result not fully sellable elsewhere (or something like that).

[PR19_Kit]

I'm absolutely no expert on this but didn't something similar happen with our airliners.....BOAC/BEA all powerful dictating specs etc. Trident, VC-10 and others. Superb machines all but created to the rivet for British airlines and as a result not fully sellable elsewhere (or something like that).

Absolutely correct! BOAC in particular seemed to almost enjoy producing an impossible spec for an airliner and then changing it numerous times while it was being built, or even afterward. And despite being a Nationally owned company at the time you'd imagine that the directors held shares in Boeing.

BEA specified so many variants of the Trident to de Havilland that it was amazing the aircraft was ever produced, and it only suited BEA's somewhat specific demands, the rest of the world buying the 727. Needless to say the original spec. of the Trident was almost exactly the same as the 727 tuned out to be.

[Mossie]

I sometimes wonder if part of the reason Rotodyne was cancelled was constantly shifting goalposts from BEA.  The original BEAline Bus spec called for a 30 seater, increased to 40 seats then to a 70 seat maximum.  The Rotodyne Z/FA.1 had to be enlarged to cope which was beyond the available engine technology at that time and extra gas generators had to be added, which effectively became lift engines.  It certainly didn't kill it on it's own, but it all added to the technological problems and delays.

[Captain Canada]

Are they planning on releasing the Rotodyne again ? GB !!!

Would love to see what it would have become by now.

[Mossie]

There is one!  Got to admit, it hasn't been very successful and I haven't followed it through, despite pushing for it...

[kitbasher]

I think projected costs helped kill off the Rotodyne. Noise certainly did IIRC.

[jcf]

 In many ways Rotodyne was a solution looking for a problem. 

[PR19_Kit]

I think projected costs helped kill off the Rotodyne. Noise certainly did IIRC.

Despite my hatred of the 'Dyne due to its noisy tests at RAF Benson when I was there, it seems they'd sorted the noise problem by the time it was cancelled. The definitive book on trhe 'Dyne lists some sound level readings they took on its test flights into Battersea Heliport and some piston engined helicopters were noisier.

[kitbasher]

The Andover C1.
Strutted its stuff well enough but had politics not intervened then the militarised version of the HP Herald would (OK should) would have been in RAF service.
And would it have beaten the Fokker F.27M and the DHC Caribou and Buffalo in world sales? We'll never know.

[scooter]

I think projected costs helped kill off the Rotodyne. Noise certainly did IIRC.

Despite my hatred of the 'Dyne due to its noisy tests at RAF Benson when I was there, it seems they'd sorted the noise problem by the time it was cancelled. The definitive book on trhe 'Dyne lists some sound level readings they took on its test flights into Battersea Heliport and some piston engined helicopters were noisier.

Analysis

There was a noise-reduction programme in process which had managed to reduce the noise level from 113dB to the desired level of 96 dB from 600 ft (180 m) away, less than the noise made by a London Underground train, and at the time of cancellation, silencers were under development, which would have reduced the noise even further — with 95 dB at 200 ft "foreseen",[19] the limitation being the noise created by the rotor itself.[20] This effort, however, was insufficient for BEA who, as expressed by Chairman Sholto Douglas, "would not purchase an aircraft that could not be operated due to noise", and the airline refused to order the Rotodyne, which in turn led to the collapse of the project.

19-  "Requiem for the Rotodyne - An Account of Unusual Problems Met and Solved." Flight International, 9 August 1962, pp. 200-203, see page 202.
20-  Who believes in Helicopters Flight p380

Of course, I wouldn't put it past Douglas, since he and Leigh Mallory were probably behind Keith Park's "transfer" from 11 Group after the Battle Of Britain, through Parliamentary politics.  I'll go hide in my tank now