"Robert" <coppercapped> wrote in message
news:2009011911093716807-coppercapped@gmailcom

>>
>> Good point. In the same vein, the committe-specified post war British
>> airliners had about the same success rate as the Modernisation plan
>> BR locos!
>
> I always thought that the Vickers Viscount was the exception. I seem
> to remember that over 400 of the various models were built, many for
> overseas airlines.
>
> The pity was that there was no effective follow-up.

Yes, the Viscount was the only success, and it was used all over the
world. But total sales of 445 wasn't all that great. It was also only in
production from 1950 to 1964, which is a short time by the standards of,
say, the Boeing 737, which has been in continuous production (strikes
apart) for over 40 years.

The Vanguard was intended as the follow-up, but was a commercial flop.
The BAC One-Eleven (which could also be regarded as a British Viscount
successor, though from a different company) didn't do too badly, though
the very similar US DC-9 was far more successful.

Robert <coppercapped> wrote:
>On 2009-01-18 21:46:12 +0000, "Recliner" <recliner2-news> said:
>I always thought that the Vickers Viscount was the exception. I seem to
>remember that over 400 of the various models were built, many for
>overseas airlines.
>
>The pity was that there was no effective follow-up.


There was, in the form of the HS 748, which later developed into the ATP
(advanced turbo-prop) but with something of a gap in between.

Of course the ATP went when BAE made the shameful decision to pull out
of the civil market and close Hatfield. They made far more money from
selling the land for development. Alas, a capable design team and a
highly skilled workforce were cast to the four winds.

Did Brough close too?

On 2009-01-18 22:32:36 +0000, Tony Polson <docnews2011> said:

> "Recliner" <recliner2-news> wrote:
>> True. It is a terrible indictment of British education, training,
> management and investment, all of which fell well short of what was
> needed to succeed in competing on world markets. The car and motorcycle
> industries suffered from the same problems. Indeed, it is difficult to
> find a sector of British industry of that era that could genuinely be
> considered world class ...
>
> ... possibly chemicals, or pharmaceuticals?
>
For a serious discussion of the issues concerning British political,
managerial and social attitudes at the time, I can recommend two books
by Corelli Barnett: "The Audit of War: The Illusion and Reality of
Britain as a Great Nation" (Macmillan, 1986) and "The Lost Victory:
British Dreams, British Realities, 1945-50", also Macmillan, 1995.
Even if one is not aligned with his political stance and think the
conclusions are a bit pessimistic, the analyses are very thorough.

Robert <coppercapped> wrote:
>
>For a serious discussion of the issues concerning British political,
>managerial and social attitudes at the time, I can recommend two books
>by Corelli Barnett: "The Audit of War: The Illusion and Reality of
>Britain as a Great Nation" (Macmillan, 1986) and "The Lost Victory:
>British Dreams, British Realities, 1945-50", also Macmillan, 1995.
>Even if one is not aligned with his political stance and think the
>conclusions are a bit pessimistic, the analyses are very thorough.


I agree with your recommendation of Corelli Barnett - he is an
outstanding historian. I have read the first book - it was superb - and
will order the second from the library. Thanks.

Even at the age of 81, he is as sharp as ever, and this recent article
of his (alas published in the Daily Mail) is thought-provoking:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...in-anyday.html
or
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...in-anyday.html

Tony Polson wrote:
> Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam> wrote:
>> Without the vast US resources that were poured into the Manhattan
> Project, Tube Alloys would not have got anywhere. Certainly, not to the
> point of producing a working nuclear weapon by August 1945.
>>
>
> Absolutely. The Americans knew this, and used Britain's indebtedness to
> forge ahead in world markets from the early 1940s onwards.
>>
>
> Britain's successes are too often the result of individual brilliance.
>
I'm not sure you're right about that. If you look at some of the UK's
world-leading (in that other countries bought the technology)
engineering achievements they could not have been achieved by a single
person no matter how brilliant, but were team efforts. In fact all
postwar engineering shares this characteristic.

Examples I can immediately think of are the Harrier (bought by the US
marines) and the HST (bought by the Australians). These were the work
of development teams, not single brilliant people.

OK, the mini was the masterpiece of Alex Issigonis, but even there he
could not have succeeded without a good engineering team to put his
design into practice.

Tony Polson wrote:
> Robert <coppercapped> wrote:
>> There was, in the form of the HS 748, which later developed into the ATP
> (advanced turbo-prop) but with something of a gap in between.
>
> Of course the ATP went when BAE made the shameful decision to pull out
> of the civil market and close Hatfield. They made far more money from
> selling the land for development. Alas, a capable design team and a
> highly skilled workforce were cast to the four winds.
>
> Did Brough close too?
>

No.

Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam> wrote:
>Tony Polson wrote:
>>
>> Britain's successes are too often the result of individual brilliance.
>>
>I'm not sure you're right about that. If you look at some of the UK's
>world-leading (in that other countries bought the technology)
>engineering achievements they could not have been achieved by a single
>person no matter how brilliant, but were team efforts. In fact all
>postwar engineering shares this characteristic.


I didn't say they were *all* the result of individual brilliance. I
said *too often*. You can still see the quoted text above.

I stand by my statement.


>Examples I can immediately think of are the Harrier (bought by the US
>marines) and the HST (bought by the Australians). These were the work
>of development teams, not single brilliant people.


The Harrier is actually a classic example of a design that was produced
by a brilliant individual. The Hawker P1127 prototype, which introduced
the Harrier design concept and most of its fundamental features, was
mainly the work of Sir Sydney Camm. The design was developed further
through the Kestrel, built in penny numbers for evaluation purposes, and
the Harrier was born.

But the Harrier was so close to the P1127 concept that it was ordered as
the "P1127 (RAF)". Camm had started designing a supersonic version, the
P1154, but that was not developed any further.

So here is a classic example of a brilliant individual coming up with an
amazing concept that needed very little development to go into
production. If I recall correctly, the RAF Museum at Hendon has one of
the P1127 prototypes on display. It is just like a Harrier - except the
production aircraft were larger, having a bigger engine in order to
carry a weapons load.


>OK, the mini was the masterpiece of Alex Issigonis, but even there he
>could not have succeeded without a good engineering team to put his
>design into practice.


Once again, Issigonis designed the Morris Minor and the Mini almost
unaided. He was personally involved in the development of the design as
any study of the history of the iconic Mini will tell you.

Of course there were teams of people assisting these brilliant
individuals. But their individual stamp was all over these projects.

On the railways it was much the same. Each of the Big Four had a Chief
Mechanical Engineer whose personal stamp was all over the company's
locomotive designs. Yes, there was always a huge drawing office
supporting the CME, but the number of genuinely talented people (in
terms of innovation) was very small, and the support mainly came in the
form of draughtsmen.

There were many very able draughtsmen, but what ideas they contributed
were more in the form of details than in the broad, overall
technological concepts that really moved things forward.

I am sure that there must be some counter-examples. I certainly didn't
say that there weren't any, just that too often, organisations relied on
a very tiny number of exceptional individuals backed up with some good
reliable people who contributed far less in intellectual terms.

Collaborative design efforts of the sort that are more common in other
countries were comparatively rare in Britain. There is no better
indication of the British attitude than this: the worst criticism that
can ever be levelled against a piece of technology is:

"It was designed by a committee".

"Arthur Figgis" <afiggis> wrote in message
news:tvKdnV8VtZ3KfenUnZ2dnUVZ8hKdnZ2d
> Tony Polson wrote:


I assume BAES still builds the Hawk there, but that's a plane nearing
the end of its (very long) sales life. I wonder how long Brough will
survive after the eventual end of Hawk production? Or maybe it can get
by for a while upgrading the numerous in-service Hawks.

"Recliner" <recliner2-news> wrote:
>
>I assume BAES still builds the Hawk there, but that's a plane nearing
>the end of its (very long) sales life. I wonder how long Brough will
>survive after the eventual end of Hawk production? Or maybe it can get
>by for a while upgrading the numerous in-service Hawks.


In its own way, the Hawk has been a world beater. It won't be long
before it reaches 1000 deliveries. Not at all bad for a jet trainer
that can step up as a combat aircraft.

It's surprising that it is still in production after nearly 35 years.