Civil Aviation: Aircraft - Types
Civil Aviation: Aircraft - Types
Civil Aviation: Aircraft –Types
Letter from U.S. Ambassador. Gave general sense of it.
Air Lines shd. fly U.S. planes, in interests of our efficiency, suggested loan from Bank. Canadairs are out of date. Their purchase wd. be regarded as due to preference for Comm.
We shd. ignore this.
C.A. Cttee: v. poor prospects of Corpns – remitted it to Dpts. for further considn. Seemed tht. prospective losses wd. be even greater.
B.O.A.C., tho' liking flying boats, repd tht. they had alone to bear cost of m'taining bases. But we were commd to large expense on S.R.45. Also v. popular & comfortable. Explored therefore poss. of others using them = S. African airways willing. U.K. base settled – Calshot. We therefore recommend S.R. 45 shd. continue. Four more wd. be requd (in addn to 3 ordered) if S. Atlantic come in to this too. Propose these 4 be ordered.
B.S.A.A. believe they can operate these at a profit.
This an agreed recommn.
Solent: agreed that this shd. be used.
Land planes long-term. Bratazon & Comet. Comet will be best in world. Brab. is more conjectural. Large expenditure incurred already. Recommend these continue.
Bristol medium (on Constelln model) shd. also go on.
Don't expect these before 1954/55. Not before '53/4 anyway.
Problem = fill this time gap. This is real area of controversy.
Hermes is going on: expected in '50.
Tudor IV now doing well on S. Atlantic. Proposed to continue those & add others for S. Atlantic.
Tudor II is real trouble. Reported in Dec. '46 tht. it wd. soon be in opern.. But series of troubles betwn. Corpns & Dpts.: best has bn. enemy of good.
Final trials: Boscombe & Khartoum – App ii v. unfav.
With v. gt. reluctance therefore Cttee support appln by B.O.A.C. tht. they shd. buy Canadairs on terms explained in para. 5 – includg. no immediate dollar expenditure.
x/ Corpns incurring prodigious losses – losing traffic – bringing B. civil aviation into disrepute.
Canadairs are flying N. Atlantic now.
Involves scrapping Tudor II: ordered in '44 & heavy expense incurred. M/S. wants to convert them to Tudor IV's.
But tht. wd. be delay – Hermes available by then - & even Tudor iv's can't be used s. of Nairobi or e. of Calcutta.
Corpns will take some for freighters. Other uses can prs. be found.
Does this mean abandoning "Fly British"? We must face ugly facts as at x/. And our recommns anyway don't go beyond Tudor ii: one type only, others go on.
If Canadairs are ordered, we must make Corpns understand tht. it mustn't prejudice introdn of long-term types.
Two personal points.
a) Must be better co-opn betwn. M/S. and M/C.A. And also the Corpns. Shall have a report on ordering procedure.
b) Outside pressure. Leakage to Press etc. All known in A.V. Roe's works. Cab. can't do its business on that basis. Dpts. shd. take more care.
Publicity: from B.O.A.C. and firms. They must know a good deal about these things.
Para. 4. of M/S. memo. Says Canadair haven't got cert. of airworthiness.
Model 2 has flown Atlantic. The 4 hasn't got a cert – prob. will.
Has just received its certificate.
Our supplem. point. Alternative use of Tudor II.
Looks as tho' we cd. use almost all of 31 available after conversion.
B.O.A.C. will take 10 as freighters. 3 Charter cos. wd. take 12 at least, for freight or passengers. M/S might use 3-13. Thus, 25 certain. B.S.A.A. wd. prob. take some as freighters. And conversion wd. employ the Avro workers for 12 mos. We shd. get £50/60.000 per aircraft. They've cost £140.000 up to now and another £60.000 to convert. Thus, we might cover addl. cost of conversion & lose initial cost.
Fundamental disagreement on Tudor/Canadair ques.
Cab. have agreed on occasion to purchase of a few foreign craft.
But this differs-
a) Extent: 22 planes.
b) Previously, we hadn't a good B. 'plane. Here there is agreemt. that 2 planes (Tudor IV & Canadair) are equal in range, speed & comfort.
Canadair carries more and is economically more attractive.
Payload figure £1m a year diffce. Don't believe it will be as much. But, even so, ques. do we take the cheaper article or fly Tudor equally attractive to customer.
At end of sorry story we have Tudor IV – a reliable good aircraft. I want to assemble these Tudor II parts as Tudor IV's and fly it as a passenger 'plane.
Abandon this as passenger plane for B.O.A.C. & it must have some adverse effect on export. Some effect on war potential. Wd. deprive designers of experience in opern use as freighters. Wd. involve subsidy to Charter Cos. & Corpns (hidden) therefore we shd. sell at £50.000. Bad effect on our reputn.
Simple issue: 2 planes equal in quality, range & speed. The Canadair will save subsidy of 1/2 to 1 m. p.a. But will damage our aircraft industry seriously.
Don't agree with all these points.
Effect on aircraft industry. We aren't abandoning Tudor IV's as passenger planes. We are using 19 now. So both in prestige & experience arguments – there is nothg. in this.
Comparison. Corpns regard Canadair as much more attractive plane – their commercial opinion. But main considn is economic. Cost of operation. Between 5m and 131/2 m. difference – total cost over their life.
Financial posn of Corpns. Deplorable. £8m subsidy for current year: & Corpns will lose £10m. Can't therefore laugh off a diffce of £5 - 131/2 m.
Quality. Tudor IV can't fly N. Atlantic commercially at all.
It now works its way round via Iceland in head-winds. And with small payload.
Flies direct 3 times a week to Gandar.
U.S. will say Constellation can fly direct to N. York.
Capacity pay load: still-air: Payload
Tudor IV 2864 8.800
Canadair 2595 12.370
Constelln 3250 13.740
But payload makes a big diffce
Payload at max. range. = Atlantic
Tudor IV 3.856 lbs
Practical payload over Atlantic:
10 passengers for Tudor
19 passengers for Canadair
These figures aren't & can't be absolute.
If you switch betwn. pass., freight & petrol you can get longer range with less passengers. Must therefore compare same journey in same condns.
Were these planes requd.
No one suggd Tudor IV shd. be used on Atlantic.
Shannon to Grander was maximum run.
Accept the argument that commercially it wd. be better to use foreign aircraft on N. Atlantic.
C.A. Cttee hadn't got final Rpt. of Courtney Cttee.
Seems tht. Rpt. has bn. altered at last moment. And main weight of criticism is now turned against B.O.A.C.
This will have to be publd. Re-action will be indign v. B.O.A.C. & feeling tht. B. aircraft industry has had a raw deal from them. Will be therefore the more diff. to justify not taking Tudor II.
Hope we can make better use of Tudor IV.
Must clear up 2 principles-
a) Transport. The Corpn must be influenced by good of passengers. State has injected, however, interests of B. aircraft industry & defence. This makes posn of Corpns imposs. If they can't take passenger interests as criterion, they are at mercy of manufacturers.
On operation, not enough diffce in figures to warrant departure from B. policy. If, however, you decide to spend that £5m on aircraft industry, you must say so and say that B.O.A.C. are not respons. for this loss in operation.
In Cab. discn 2/3 mos. ago I said we cdn't defend posn when civil aviation is being subsidised for mil. reasons everywhere.
Only ques. is one of business method. Means of relievg. Corpns of responsibility for loss w'out diminishing their efficiency.
But we haven't got the facts. For Cttee reported w'out seeing Courtney Rpt.
Cab. is in gt. diffy. in discussg. these technical ques. We must find some other method. Rpt. on ordering procedure may show other diffies. We must get these issues settled on business lines takg. a/c of natl interests.
Broad issue. Is Civil Aviation to be used as instrument for experiment of B. aircraft industry. Somethg. wrong with that industry. After all that money spent we still can't be sure we are going to have a B. aircraft capable of flying Atl. commercially. There is no mil. point here – only on wider war potential. Unless you can fly Atlantic on competition basis you do no good either to Civil avn or to aircraft industry. Indeed, you damage most.
App. to 182. is agreed. Don't agree there's little between the 2 types.
We must get an aircraft acceptable to passengers. I favour using Canadairs & makg. best alternative use of Tudors.
I wd. support C.A. Cttee conclns. If it can wait, then I wd. like to see both Rpts.
Remember: Tudor IV's will go on.
Only one manufacturer concerned. A.V. Roc. And they have no more civil machines on design. Tudor IV is the last of Lancasters.
Not therefore v. important qua aircraft industry.
Clear that Canadair has larger capacity & that means longer range if wanted.
But most important point is under-carriage weight. This must limit use of Tudors on Empire routes. V. dangerous therefore to embark on this Tudor aircraft for those routes. Folly to spend more money in adaptg. to Tudor IV in those circs.
Our Constelln services are winning renown for B. aviation (civil).
We aren't going to stop flying Tudor IV's.
On N. Atlantic Canadairs are better than Tudor IV.
(Skymaster air-france is much more acceptable to passenger)
No diffy. in switchg. back to B. spares & engineering methods.
Extendg. period before B. types begin to show a profit.
Prob. not before 10 years. Comet can't fly Atlantic.
We don't know enough about relative merits of Tudor & Canadair.
Dollars – some eventual dollar cost.
Repaymt. of interest wh. we must pay on investments…
= p'poning payment w'out interest.
War potential: want some bldg. in Canada.
But not drawing away from A.V. Roc.
Spoke in favour of Tudors. And against B.O.A.C.
On under-carriage weight. Haven't sufficient informn to be sure. My people don't think it's a serious danger but it is a risk.
A.V. Roc: no civil machine to follow. But they are developing v. important jet 4 engine bomber. Don't want their organn disrupted.
Nothing new in all this discussion. Doesn't influence my recommns. Was reluctant to come to those conclns but I adhere to them.
Get Canadairs: improve our services: concentrate on long term types.
Experience in flying these routes with B. types.
P. 22 Canadairs. 25 Hermes. 15 Constellns & ? Strato-cruisers.
This wd. be composn of B.O.A.C. fleet in 1950/52.
Cd. Cab. endorse short-term p'mme (Canadairs) & p'pone long-term until Hanbury Wms Rpt. considered.
No defence argument in favour of A.V. Roc's. For w'in next 5 years we shall have to rely on U.S. for heavy bombers.
Agreed: Support C.A. Cttee conclusion.
Taken from C.M. 51(48) - Meeting held on 15 July 1948.