History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:15 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:55 am
Posts: 4656
Location: D88 by night, D20 by day
I can't remember which was which, but apparently the primary function of the X-winged P.1214 was to distract uninformed observers and intelligence people at trade fairs, so that the sales people could do their jobs with less interruption. There was also the potential benefit of getting the competition (both military and commercial) to spend lots of money figuring out how BAe got forward-swept wings to be militarily useful.

As an aircraft design, worthless. As a tool for public relations and information warfare, absolutely brilliant.

_________________
If the BBC told me that it was dark outside at two o'clock in the morning on a stormy day in December, I would feel obliged to check their facts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10401
RLBH wrote:
I can't remember which was which, but apparently the primary function of the X-winged P.1214 was to distract uninformed observers and intelligence people at trade fairs, so that the sales people could do their jobs with less interruption. There was also the potential benefit of getting the competition (both military and commercial) to spend lots of money figuring out how BAe got forward-swept wings to be militarily useful.

That sounds extremely plausible. I know that similar things have been done in naval exhibitions. The problem is that people then treat them seriously.

Quote:
As an aircraft design, worthless. As a tool for public relations and information warfare, absolutely brilliant.


which actually isn't a bad summary of BAe Systems.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6017
Location: Cambs, UK
Francis Urquhart wrote:
RLBH wrote:
I can't remember which was which, but apparently the primary function of the X-winged P.1214 was to distract uninformed observers and intelligence people at trade fairs, so that the sales people could do their jobs with less interruption. There was also the potential benefit of getting the competition (both military and commercial) to spend lots of money figuring out how BAe got forward-swept wings to be militarily useful.

That sounds extremely plausible. I know that I have done similar things for naval exhibitions. The problem is that people then treat them seriously.

Quote:
As an aircraft design, worthless. As a tool for public relations and information warfare, absolutely brilliant.


which actually isn't a bad summary of BAe Systems.


Fixed that for you ;)

Next then. Supermarine Type 545.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10401
Craiglxviii wrote:
Next then. Supermarine Type 545.


Now there's a giant leap backwards. In an era when everybody was dropping nose intakes and adopting solid nose cone to accommodate a radar set, Supermarine drop the solid nose cone and go back to nose intakes. Forward to the past!!!!!!!

In reality, this is a good example of the age-old British problem. Everything they design is just a little too late (or rather takes just that bit too long to design) and comes out one part-step behind the curve.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6017
Location: Cambs, UK
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Craiglxviii wrote:
Next then. Supermarine Type 545.


Now there's a giant leap backwards. In an era when everybody was dropping nose intakes and adopting solid nose cone to accommodate a radar set, Supermarine drop the solid nose cone and go back to nose intakes. Forward to the past!!!!!!!

In reality, this is a good example of the age-old British problem. Everything they design is just a little too late (or rather takes just that bit too long to design) and comes out one part-step behind the curve.


Gloster G. A. 8...

Age old, I wonder if we can track this down? I suspect it is related to the defence drawdown of the immediate post war years; it's not like Empire types were significantly inferior in performance to their direct contemporaries.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5011
Location: EGUD
Craiglxviii wrote:
Age old, I wonder if we can track this down? I suspect it is related to the defence drawdown of the immediate post war years; it's not like Empire types were significantly inferior in performance to their direct contemporaries.

A large part of the problem is the sheer size of the aircraft industry built up during the war, mostly to support Bomber Command. Frankly, there wasn't enough for them to do after the war - but no government was brave enough to say so, and hence doled out just enough support to keep everybody in business until they had no option but to force mergers. Throw in a history of wanting to run multiple design teams to make sure all solutions were considered - which was great in the 1920s when each design team was cheap, but simply not possible in the 1950s and 60s - and you have a lot of companies who were individually just too small to keep up with the Joneses plus a country that can't admit this to itself.

Realistically the only way I can see for the situation to be less bad is to let there be a bloodbath in the aerospace industry just after the war, with all but one or maybe two companies (Vickers and Hawker maybe?) going to the wall and either closing down or being taken over. This is more or less what happened with the engine companies, and their problems were much less intractable than those of the airframers.

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10401
Craiglxviii wrote:
Age old, I wonder if we can track this down? I suspect it is related to the defence drawdown of the immediate post war years; it's not like Empire types were significantly inferior in performance to their direct contemporaries.

The Empire flying boats? They weren't inferior to the Boeings etc in performance but they were in operating economics. Pan American believed it would be impossible for Imperial Airways to operate the Empire boats profitably.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group