"Managed Decline" pretty much sums it up. Sadly it doesn't seem to matter who is in power either. The only difference seems to be what minority of the population benefits alongside the top 1% who always benefit.
@@ChrisCooper312 it very much does matter who is in power. We are a nation that loves to vote Conservative. The conservative parliamentary party loves people who have studied humanities and have been to Oxford. Competence is not a criteria we value. Personality is. Decline will continue all the while this continues to be the case.
@@nicktheengineer5976 Don't forget the accountants. The ones who sold off loads of British industries for a quick buck rather than have small, steady unexciting profits.
The best presentation on the sad demise of the British aircraft industry that I have seen. I was an apprentice at BAC Weybridge 1967-72 and witnessed the collapse at first hand, a combination of short term political expediency and ill-considered concentration on commercial disasters such as Brabazon, Britannia and Concord. The result was the loss of an entire industry, the expertise and tens of thousands of jobs. The technology was given away to the French and Americans, who had better understanding of the long-term value and more national pride.
@@peterbrazier7107 When you are unemployed, you either take what work is available or immigrate. F1 takes advantage of the abundance of unemployed aerospace engineers in the U.K.
To submit a very small, but significant insight. In the mid '80s I worked for BAe at Bristol, having about 20 years in the Industry by then. I was astounded by the incompetence & often said so. A hopelessly inept , incompetent middle Manager patiently explained to me that it was Not necessary to know anything about Aircraft to be a Manager.. I left to work in Toulouse, on about 3 times the salary, where the Managers Did know about Aircraft.
That is certainly a bureaucratic style, often seen running businesses in socialist states and failing companies. They had no business suppressing development based on their own macroeconomic evaluation and wishes of other governments that want to supersede your native industry. It is against the principle of statehood, and a government's first responsibility is to prevent damage to their own interests, and is against the principles of the free market. With solid backing and commercial basis, the government does not have the legitimacy to damage their own industry to preserve an unequal exchange with other states, which was made worse by companies being run like governments.
REG Davies once said, about the decision to axe the VC 7 project, that Britain has an inexhaustible capacity for self-injury...the BAC Three-Eleven story is the continuation of an horrific trend.
But it ended up being a wise decision. The VC-7 would have been woefully uncompetitive against the Boeing 707 (especially the later -320 models) and the Douglas DC-8 on transatlantic routes.
Incredible how many times the British shot themselves on the foot with laws designed to protect their brief advantage in aircraft technology. A very good documentary, and your narration is superb. Thank you.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 In the 1930's and into the war it was superior to the US, and at least equal with Germany, plus there were the complimentary technologies such as radar...something else the Americans needed help with, besides jets.
This should be compulsory viewing for every MP in the country, A brilliant piece of work that is deeply sad and reflective of way too much in the UK in the last 70 years.
I would give an honourable mention to another very successful British small jet, the Hawker Siddeley/BAE 125 business jet (or Dominie T1 for the RAF), continuous build from 1963 to 1993, then BAE sold it off to Raytheon who kept it in further production until 2013 as the Hawker 800/1000 series with a total of 1720 built in 50 years.
Unfortunately, BAe were not in a good place, financially-speaking in the early 1990s, hence selling off their Corporate jet division. Love the 125-800 dearly, great, sleek-looking aircraft although I gather it was not very powerful(?)
And I have a problem with that viewpoint. The entire video I felt like it was a complaint against the fact that the government did not invest in the local industry. But it really is an industry that would not have survived. The biggest mistake was pulling out of Airbus instead of attempting to get a bigger share of it. But I'm not certain Airbus would have been as successful if it was left to the British.
@Wallace Carney With the demise of the British aircraft industry the RAF now has to rely on foreign aircraft designs and manufacturers. The only British aircraft left in RAF service is the 1970s era Hawker Siddeley Hawk.
Quite the opposite - the most successful military aviation development / production market in the world works that way in the US. You WANT to build the best possible product, so you’ll win when it comes time for the government to pick. The issue is that the British government also wanted to control all aspects of each design, who they could and couldn’t use for parts, and then forced sub-par designs on their own (also government controlled) airlines who didn’t even WANT them. Because their government had such a stake in both the builders and operators, the overall potential for failure was just too large (ironic, since that’s exactly what happened.) If they had allowed a truly open market design process, one would assume that the best designs would win, and eventually enter service with the best performance, cost, and reliability. On the other hand, I think many of the potential models mentioned here weren’t nearly as competitive as the content implies. Aircraft “earlier to market” than the American counterparts weren’t fully developed, and had no clear target market. Even so, there were a number of other issues that let each of these designs down. To actually capture market share in the US (European markets would have never been enough) - they needed to develop planes that were BETTER than anything the US was building (to overcome various incentives, etc.) That just simply never happened, there was a design here and there which seemed comparable, but didn’t even remotely speak to the industry as a whole. The primary example of this is Airbus - they DID create an aircraft that was better than anything being built by the US companies, and guess what? US companies bought it! Same thing with the RR RB211 engine, which powered nearly all of the dominant US aircraft of the day. I suppose the final irony is that - in spite of playing their part in the demise of British aviation success, the government (and US manufacturer demand/sales) are pretty much the ONLY thing that saved RR and the RB211 project. The very same two elements which also destroyed the UK airframer market for good. 🤷🏻♂️
@@EstorilEm The US government went by issuing specification and real-world performance. they did not do macroeconomic evaluations on a spreadsheet and choose their competitors based on that, or on political principles.
@@charlesc.9012 I'm talking about airlines - the US government never got involved with such things. It was purely capitalism and the best designs with the highest performance were the ones the airlines purchased.
Sure, very expensive to acquire, to maintain and operate..Brits never understood the concepts of economy in 1960's..They built aircraft for Britain and commonwealth routes, disregarding requirements of global demand..This video is full of inaccurate and false reporting. American governments has never blocked American Airlines buying British planes. Total BS.. Another patriotic British nonsense...British manufacturers have lost the race, they have only themselves to blame..
50:32 THIS I would consider to be the main point and main problem: the fact that the government said no to the BAC three-eleven AND to Airbus. They could've become a major partner in the Airbus consortium.
I rode in a Braniff BAC-111 in Texas back in Christmas of 1968. A pleasant experience with cheerful, singing stewardesses (they were still called that back then).
HMG were and still are a huge barrier to International trade through British manufacturing -INDUSTRIAL ;KNOW HOW ' AND PROWESS .Shocking . Thanks for the great video.
The British aircraft industry went the way of its car industry, steel industry, ship building industry, and it's manufacturing industry in general. Some might argue that it went the way of the British Empire and Britain in general.
'How should we fail? Should we cancel our cooperation with Europe or should we withdraw support for our own industries?' British government: 'Let's do both!' As of 2022 this course has not changed.
I am interested in aviation generally and have always been ... I learned to fly in 1976 and always used to speak to the pilots when I flew commercially in the 70's when I worked in mainland Europe. I was on board a BAC 1-11 when it made its very last commercial flight and the captain told me he was saddened as it was a perfect aircraft, perfectly serviceable ... he described this model as ... "Bullet proof"!
We may have lost the competition to be the largest producer of civil aircraft, but as this video shows, we definitely won the competition to form the longest and most convoluted sentences about aircraft. We substituted long-haul with long-drawl. But I don't think there is any money in it.
Great video. My first flight was on a RAF Comet 2 from RAF Lyneham to Malta. I was in awe when I first saw the VC-10. When, at the age of nineteen (and alone) I stepped on board a QANTAS Boeing 707-338 on a flight to Australia when I had no idea that I would ever fly on an American aircraft! I've parachuted from American, Canadian, French and Italian aircraft (on one occasion with a Russian parachute). Flown in all of those along with Polish built seaplanes and a glider built in the former Soviet Union. I think we can shed our national pride and embrace the great achievements of aviation from all over the world.
Perfectly said James. The Comet was certainly a terrific prototype for commercial jet transport, and for its day quite a smart looking aircraft. Although Great Britain may not have known commercial success, there has certainly been pride in inaugural services and innovation the Comet and Concorde being very clear leaders. The Soviets produced some unfortunate looking examples but have also produced some quite remarkable aircraft. Russia's contemporary commercial airframes are not too bad at all. Some of the British commercial aircraft have been on both ends of the spectrum in terms of aesthetics and performance. Concorde's brilliance and elegance goes without saying and like the B707 and B747, those three aircraft types are classics that will never be beaten. I wonder what the Bristol Brabazon's legacy would have been like had it been produced ten years earlier. A couple of the French (Latécoère 631/Sud-Est SE.161 & SE.200 Amphitrite) and German (Junkers G.38/Dornier Do X) prop giants of the 20s/30s are incredible that they even flew given their size, aerodynamics and available technology. The Handley Page HP42 aircraft Imperial Airways flew to Africa etc were pure luxury, like a flying 'Orient Express'. Surprisingly not unlike, of all carriers, Aeroflot's Tu-114 counter rotating prop aircraft and Tu-104 jet aircraft that both featured levels of luxury one would least expect in that region and era. Take a look at some of the interior photographs available online, you’ll be pleasantly surprised I suspect. I don’t know how they do it, but the US just seems to produce truly aesthetically appealing, terrific performance great aircraft. Everything Boeing has produced since the 314 Clipper, B307 Stratoliner, B377 Stratocruiser and every 7 series jet airliner are remarkable and have an unrivalled elegance. Some of the other US manufacturers are quite good also particularly Lockheed, and to a lesser extent Douglas, their terrific exceptions being the DC-2, DC-3, DC-5, DC-6, DC-7, & DC-10. The DC-8 has some redeeming features but pales compared to the B707, especially the B707-138 (QF). The DC-9 and MD-11 are pitiful and really unworthy of a mention. I would be interested to know what your stand out favourites are? I can not imagine the thrill of flying on both the Comet and Boeing 707. I’m glad your first time was with us. I certainly hope you were well taken care of and the memories are positive. Do you recall the tech stops you made enroute. I used to fly as aircrew for Qantas until a few years ago. Although the B707s were still in our fleet when I was a youngster, the destinations they flew to were not the places my family was travelling to, my first international jet experience was on a DC-10 with Air New Zealand and several times on Boeing 747s, typically with Qantas and on -100s and -200s with other carriers. But B707 really would have been a terrific thrill. Wishing you the very best regards, Anton
Great video, but it makes me sad. The UK has developed so much. We have so many innovative engineers and thinkers, compared to how small we are. Our train / ship / aircraft companies were the best at one point. Then successive governments decided to keep messing about and now we make next to nothing that isn't made for companies with foreign ownership. It's like we won WWII, said that we have nothing left to prove, and put up a big "for sale" sign on all of our industries and that took us to where we are today...
The British government of today should watch this video to see how short sighted thinking could again destroy any forward motion in the country's economy
Sadly the UK was never a leader in aircraft technology and the U.K. aircraft industry was already in decline prior to WW2 and would completely collapse by the end of the century.
Superb video - you outdid yourself this time! The HS-134 looks so much like the Boeing 757 which was designed nearly 15 years later. A tragedy that this and the BAC designs never got a chance to compete, but I wonder if the UK would have ever been able to compete against the overwhelming US industry which could rely on an enormous domestic market as well as overseas sales; as well as a rapidly growing Airbus which would have been defended by what was then a very protectionist EEC.
Thanks, a very sad story which reminds me once again of listening to Sir George Edwards talking about 'walking along the gloomy corridors of power looking for a faint glimmer of a coherent policy.'
this is what happens when you have goverments that are so out of touch with reality they are on another planet, another point is that most sernior men/women in goverment come for universities that are not know for their inovative technology, but more like banking insurance and others area's of money movements.
The government did it for them. Managed decline, managed by people who didn't understand technology because it's looked down upon by the arts-educated establishment. They don't understand that engineers build the world.
Rich people do what's more profitable, they don't have any allegiance to a nation or it's people but to their own self and profit. Even in war they invest on both sides and profit. What's a loss to the national aviation industry might have been extremely profitable to a few, unfortunately nobody talks about that. As the Romans asked who profits is the question
Because Hawker Siddeley stayed in the Airbus group as a private venture partner, they are today the part of Airbus that builds most of the wings for Airbus airliners. It was actually an amazing achievement for them to build a wing larger than that of the 747 for the A380 project.
While the decline of the British aerospace industry may hurt from a nationalist point of view, it is thanks to the sheer dogged (and, yes, "ruthless") French determination to pull through against the odds, dealing with flip-flopping British and reluctant German governments, that there is any aerospace industry left in Europe (and indeed Britain) today. It can be argued that it was Airbus that kept Rolls Royce afloat.
The now discontinued Airbus A380 has succeeded the Concorde as the largest financiall failure in commercial aviation history... Airbus has laid off thousands in the U.K. with rumors of closure of the Broughton plant since Brexit.
I'm an airline pilot for a small cargo only airline out of Memphis that paints the tails purple. I fly a 767 now, but I've flown Shorts SD3-60's, deHavilland Canada Dash-8's, 727's, 747's, 757's and now the 767. The very first airplane I ever flew on was a BAC 1-11, from Detroit to Newark ["Detoilet to Manurark"] when I was about a year old. BTW, I DO NOT recommend bringing children on an airplane until they can talk full sentences! The reason for this is that many little ones cannot "pop" their ears yet, and you need to be able to tell them what to do if their tiny eustachian tubes are blocked by mucous, which small children seem to produce by the gallon. The valsalva maneuver can solve their problem, but you need to be able to tell them how to do this. Apparently I did not have the problem since I have great ventilation in my pumpkin-like air-filled head, but that is not true of every child.
As an Airport Paramedic we learned to advise parents to have their infants suckle a bottle on descent & ensure the wee kids chew gum as everything you point out is true. It worked.
It’s a tradition. Every recession in the USA gets blamed on whichever president is in office when it’s at its worst, even though the seeds for it usually are planted during the administration of the previous one - and also as you said it’s not USA-specific.
This is in MHO an important educational video that neatly and clearly sets out the confluence of competing politics, national interest finance and - perhaps, a lack of courage and vision. This is one of the very best sources of information on any subject I have ever had the opportunity to learn from. Respect and sincere thanks.
The Omani Airforce operated 3 One Elevens for 35 years. They were series 475’s which then became series 485’s when they were modified with large main deck cargo doors.
As Airbus became a runaway success the biggest mistake in hindsight was perhaps the British government withdrawing from Airbus. Unfortunately Britain has and almost unique ability to shoot itself in the foot. Brexit being the latest in a very long list..
You complain about government then you wish that you could join a much larger moribund and corrupt government in Europe. You wish to enjoy more bureaucratic rules and regulations....oh I forgot, the Brits love government since they went socialist in 1945. Let's see how successful Europe is now that they choose to run on windmills and fairy dust.
@@disillusionedanglophile7680 The proof is in the facts. Airbus are the worlds biggest aircraft manufacturer and the British aircraft industry is a foot more in history. Good luck turning that around.
Brexit was and is entirely justified... but is inevitably being undermined by the same ludicrous, self defeating outlooks and incompetence, public and corporate alike, as is detailed here repeatedly. Or more bluntly, that there is STILL an absolute refusal among the mediocrities STILL infesting our establishment classes, to accept that the loathsome EU's composite continental "Yoowupeen" elite is the direct successor of that which pertained in the time of de Gaulle. AS SUCH, they and the EU institution they control is STILL our enemy, as indeed it always has been.... and should be treated as such.
What happened to all the other replies RUclips told me about? They can’t *all* have changed their minds about posting can they? Or all been deleted? Having said this, I don’t think trying to start a political argument was your best idea. Not everyone blames Brexit for aircraft disasters - not even the NTSB.
Interesting, but it buys into a wider narrative that blames the British aircraft industry's failure on anyone but itself. More simply, we built the wrong planes for the wrong customers at the wrong time and far from being world leading, our postwar aviation industry was sprawling, chaotic and bloated. The 3-11 MIGHT have succeeded but, more likely, it would have been a flawed design with some good ideas that ended up being done better by others. See also the Comet, the VC-10, the BAC 111 and many others. The constant proposals and might-have-beens are a misty eyed attempt to dodge the painful reality of constant British failures. This strain of historical revisionism is seen in many areas of British technological history and always fails to understand the inherent problems of british industries and of the society that they came from; British industry was rooted in a class based society that meant that the products were always aimed at a narrow elite rather than the mass market. As such, going back to 1945, we made the wrong choices and then compounded them by going all in on those choices. Airbus has at least maintained the semblance of a British airliner industry; the BAC 211 and 311 would have just hastened the end. It MIGHT have worked but, as we saw with the Trident, technical innovation isn't all that. let's stop pretending about the past and accept that we failed. Let's move on. Let's realise that the future is not a re-run of the post colonial past.
I’m still of the opinion that Great Britain would have been better of today if they just like the French had a proper revolution in the 18th century and got rid of that whole bloody royal house and all of those upper class nitwits. The head of George III on a spike on top of the Tower would have looked rather splendid. Plus it would have helped with that horrible class system Britain still suffers under
It is the same thing that happened to the UK car and shipping industries as well as many others, it's down to everything being about short-term thinking until the next general election instead of a long-term forward thinking and planning strategy, the UK still doesn't use the latter even to this very day.
@@alanzyoutube And the same is about to happen but this time to the whole of the western world. The Chinese and South Koreans now build pretty much all the solar panels, electronics, engineering and their cars are cheaper or have features which are better. They also back them up with good warranties , build the supply chains and logistics. Western countries have been reliant on past success and traditional brands. This is no longer so important to the modern consumer. Our GDP is about to go southwards and most people are not even aware.
@@kfraser3783 A white paper is the name given to a government policy proposal in the UK. It's printed on white paper, hence the name. Before it there is often a green paper which is a discussion document that informs proposals for a future policy. As you may guess this used to be printed on green paper. These terms are heard much less now but were often in news broadcasts in the latter half of the 20th century.
The British government was responsible for the death of the British aircraft industry, so many planes that could have been world beating, scrapped and others ruined because of idiotic decisions! The government did exactly the same to the British car industry!
interesting video but there is a lot of unjustified ant-French bias in here which lead to some very questionable statements. TSR2 was cancelled not because of some government conspiracy but because it was over budget, overweight, its engines (Olympus 22R) had serious problems and long development ahead of them, was costing 1m GBP per day to develop , had no viable export market (even the RAF recommended Australia buy the F-111) and its direct competitor the F-111 was faster, flew higher, had longer range and could carry, if necessary, three times the combat load. BOAC was the real problem for airliners, heavily favouring US aircraft but in some cases this was for good reason. Concorde however is a different story. The French were not years behind the UK. They had designs for the Super Caravelle that closely resembled the BAC designs. It made sense to combine the development of the aircraft as it would to later form Airbus as a direct result of this experience. Further it was the British long range design that was chosen not the French medium range version so the UK actually drove the development of the aircraft in that respect. The Olympus was the only viable engine for the aircraft and SNECMA was relegated to providing the Afterburner and nozzle sections with Rolls Royce developing the engine and inlet design. Concorde was commercial failure from a production aspect (as was the A380) for many reasons (the 74 oil crisis and worldwide recession that followed basically killed sales) but was an operational aircraft was profitable for BA for over 20 years (and on and off for Air France for various reasons) proving the concept and collaboration to be a success. Concorde production was primarily done at Toulouse? Don't tell the Filton crew that. There was mirror production at both sites. This commentary is a little too anti-French than evidence supports. The 211/311 using the RB211 would not have succeeded as the RB211 had a long and troubled development history (just ask Lockheed) to the extent that it bankrupted Rolls Royce. In the end that Airbus was the right direction to go, is demonstrated by the fact that as it now outsells Boeing.
Because frankly, the British aviation industry at the time was too tied to British needs. And they couldn’t compete against Boeing. It was only when the Airbus was formed that Europe could finally compete against Boeing.
@@senabecool7232 Or the fact the Bristol Britannia got hamstrung by the Comet I tragedy, which delayed its introduction into service until 1956, two years after it should have entered service.
This is an excellent summary. The period covered more or less coincides with my time at school and as an engineering apprentice. I can remember how depressing it was to keep hearing of yet another promising project being canned by politicians and I experienced first hand the arrogance, hubris and ineptitude of top management*. Yet some would have us believe that the decline of engineering and manufacture in the UK was down to poor workmanship and "the unions".
Well the worst engineering failure in commercial aviation history was the _Comet Disaster_ it was a catastrophe based on a combination bad engineering, bad management and shoddy workmanship.
All three: management ineptitude, union malevolence - fueled by its connections to hostile Russia - and the UK government working towards a social experiment based on federal European ideology. Perhaps we stopped believing in National pride and lost confidence in our technological abilities.
Having lived in the early 1960s, owned several British made autos, and later Japanese and German brands, I fear that the problems are not with the concept, but from the execution.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Rubbish the Comet was new & ground breaking . Even the USA Boeing & Douglas admitted they learned from the comet & could of well had the same problems with new tech & design . When the comet was sorted out ,it was a fantastic airliner & the smoothest airliner I ever flew in , the Boeing 707 was a bone shaker in comparison . You obvious have bias or jealousy towards Britain . The British craftsman is second to none in the world ,it was Britain that led the industrial revolution. You would still be pi55ing into the wind if it wasn’t for us British .😊
@@maskedavenger2578 There was absolutely nothing ground breaking about the Comet besides the debris falling back to Earth. Boeing was the world's leader in pressurized cabins and began successfully building pressurized airliners in 1938... In fact Boeing, Douglas Junkers and Lockheed were all building pressurized airliners more than a decade earlier with no catastrophic in-flight structural failures. The Boeing B-47 flew faster and higher with 9.8 psi cabin pressure differential and it never exploded either.
@@maskedavenger2578 The de Havilland Comet in all its variants still holds the title worst safety record of any jet airliner in history in terms of per flight and per passenger mile fatality rates. The Comet 4 was permanently grounded due to premature metal fatigue well before its rated cycles and hours of sevice life was reached.
14:15 Philippine Airlines held the BAC 111 in service up to the 90’s. Memorable start up sound by the RR Spey engines and its incredibly noisy on take off. It also has a shallow angle at take off.
@Perseus1275 I agree that was the starter as I also hear that starter sound on German WW2 tanks when hand cranked. One of our Manila airports is at the end of a runway and I was inside the arrival area with two walls between me and airside , a BAC 111 took off with its tail at the terminal and the windows really shook upon its takeoff.
The Speys on the 1-11 had a combined CSD and starter known as a CSDS. It was a unique bit of kit and made a unique noise when the engine was started. It was quite a lump and quite a challenge to replace.
Especially when BEA had actually ordered a large number of 727-200 and 737-100 planes, which were actually far better-suited for European operations than the BAe 121 Trident.
With hindsight and although it pains me to say it, as it was such (still is) an amazing achievement, was pouring resources into Concorde rather than the production of passenger aircraft that there was actually a large demand for a big mistake?
You have put a lot of time into this, its fantastic, thank you. ( First aircraft I flew in as a passenger was the Vickers Viking, Liverpool to Dublin in 75, then in 80 from Luton UK to St Lucia, Via Gander and Antigua in a 720B when fuel was affordable.
A great video, showing the rise and fall of a brilliant British aircraft industry. Having worked for the de Havilland aircraft company and later the Hawker Siddeley film unit, it was so sad to see the demise of such a great industry destroyed by the governments of that time.
As alway British innovation coupled to short stiltedness from government meant inevitable decline in global leadership in aviation, but Wilson was to aviation what Beecham was to railways. Makes you proud to be British!
ur videos are so entertaining and intriguing they give so much insight that people (especially aviation enthusiasts like me) don’t often ever think about
The BAC-111 was one of the loudest aircraft that I have experienced. I was just a little kid (10??) My dad and/or sister would take me to BOS on Sunday. Remember when you could go out on the observation deck - the good old days. As a youngster I named it “Noise Incorporated.”
Another finely detailed yet highly informative clip. It's a shame that December 2nd 1970 is somewhat a day of infamy in that it pretty much destroyed Britain's Aviation reputation. Personally i think The 3-11 was a very appealing and ideal looking aircraft that showed real promise.
very good video - but I think there was no betrayal. Putting into account the macro-economic situation of the UK in the 1960/1970, Britain was called the "sick man of Europe" and had not the means to finance such a fast amount of aviation projects via gov spending (Concorde, RB 211, B1-11, B2-11, B3-11, VC-10, Trijet, TR-2...), nor had Britain economic success in aviation like the Americans in the late 1950s with the B707 or DC 8. They wanted something which they could not afford (and that tells you something, by the way) Britain needed partners to share the risks and to finance the R&D costs. Thats why Airbus was and is such a success. And in the 1960´s - everybody wanted to go supersonic, so Britain put a lot of money into the development of the Concorde - an economic disaster in hindsight...nevertheless, a great story!
Very true, to suggest that Britian was at any point a world leader in aerospace technology is disingenuous.. Britian had always lagged years behind in aircraft technology and that position continued to decline with the economic collapse post-WW2 and commercial failures like the Comet, VC-10, Concorde and all the other failed programs to come out of BAC.
I wonder how much different things would have turned out if the government just stayed out and didn't try to meddle with the companies. Couldn't have been any worse than what ended up happening to the UK aerospace market.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 And something better likely would have arisen after bankruptcy. Couldn't have turned out worse than now, the UK aviation industry basically did collapse, except for Rolls-Royce engines.
@@derek20la Many abandoned British aircraft factories are now occupied by foreign manufacturers, at least there are still jobs... the rest are now housing estates. Rolls-Royce went completely bankrupt on February 4th,1971. it was bailed out by British taxpayers. BMW now owns the automotive division, Caterpillar now owns the Diesel engine division. Rolls Royce plc is multinational corporation with majority holdings in American, French and Indian investment groups.. Rolls-Royce has recently lost market share (down to 12%) to Pratt & Whittney and the world's largest engine manufacturer group GE-CFM/Safran which makes 55% of all the jet engines in the world.
The reality would only have been at best the modest success of the Viscount and 1-11 and more likely a commercial money pit like the Trident and VC10. Like the VC10 these aircraft would have arrived too late and offered too little advantage over the 727 and 737 to secure the volumes to compete with them in the market. In competition with the A300, they would have been impacted badly by the RB 211 like the Tristar and so giving the A300 time to establish itself as the DC10 did over the Tristar. The fact is the Airbus was the better commercial option and the issue is the unwillingness to engage with it by Britain (other than Hawker Siddley's private venture) in favour of continuing Concorde.
Graham, you’ve really hit the nail right on the head. These imaginative concepts were a great 'what could have been' fantasy but your argument is 100% correct. As far as the RB2-11 power plant goes, it is criminal what RR did to Lockheed with regard to their L1011 program. Lockheed should never have trusted RR with the luxurious privilege of an exclusive contract. Because Lockheed was so badly burned with losing so very many orders to the DC-10, entirely as consequence of RR's failure and unforgivable 2 years plus delay, subsequent to their massive losses Lockheed made the decision to never again build another commercial aircraft. A tremendous pity because historically all their commercial offerings were exceptional, the L1011 included which was a remarkable aircraft in a superior class of its own. I sincerely like the DC-10, but it severely paled in comparison to the L1011 TriStar. Had they continued to design and produce superior airframes, I can only wonder what terrific narrow and wide body aircrafts we could have been familiar with now. They would certainly be far more high-caliber than the rubbish Airbus rolls out. The A300 and 310 were great aircraft, but the insane automation authority, bizarre modes in which it operates and those wretched dangerous side sticks wrecked their subsequent variants.
The Comet was a pretty airplane, but Boeing/Douglas would have beaten it in the market eventually anyway because the 707/DC-8 engines were so much easier to get at for maintenance and replacement savings lots of labor time/expense, and with the much less swept wing and non-swept tail elements, the Comet was always going to be slower.
This is not the story of betrayal. This is the story of relying on government - read taxpayers - support. Which is always fickle and unreliable. If one cannot build capital like Boeing one shall not compete with Boeing. Full stop.
The three biggest mistakes that killed the industry: - Duncan Sandys 1957 White Paper - Allowing BOAC to cancel orders for the VC-7 programme - Leaving the Airbus consortium
The number one reason why the U.K. aircraft industry collapsed is because Britian always lagged years behind Germany and America. The Brabazon Committee and nationalization continuing after WW2. The economic collapse and the collapse of the British empire after WW2 were also major contributing factors. If Britian was unable to mortgaged itself to America with the Anglo-American loan the entire British aircraft industry would have completely collapsed in 1948.
No one wanted to buy the VC-7. BAe was offered a full share in Airbus but the financing never materized, it could not afford its existing 20% stake which they sold in 2006.
The vocal resentment towards France aside, British aviation industry was severely misguided when it thought it could compete with Boeing of McD and their industrial capacity. There is more to a successful aircraft than grand ideas. And a meddlesome government is not helping
I love how the British government accused the US of being protectionist for telling US airlines not to buy their planes despite having recently forcing their state-owned airline to buy a British-made plane instead of the Boeings they wanted to buy. They did something similar to what the US did later on too lol.
Companies like Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed were a decade ahead of the British before the war even started.. The U.K. aircraft industry was doomed to failure after the country's defeat in WW2. The final nail was when Britain went completely bankrupt and had to mortgage itself to America, under the terms of the Anglo-American bailout loan the U.K. became a U.S. protectorate from 1947 until 2006 and the country is still occupied by American military forces.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 its always nice when people reveal their, um...alternative understanding of reality...right out the gate. Did you know Germany has military bases here? or that they surrended to the English not once, but twice in the span of 30 years?
Britain joined the EEC in January 1973 not 1975 as stated in the video. The 1975 reference is to the referendum held that year as promised by the Wilson government.
My father used to regularly fly on Airspeed Ambassadors when he visited the Dounreay nuclear plant in the 1950s. It may not have been a great commercial success, but it was apparently quite a nice aircraft.
History Channels Normally: "Hur dur Boeing killed BAC" 200IQ: "France and Germany's unreasonable demands in common market killed BAC" The thing is, if UK was actually closer with USA? BAC and British jets could have made deals with GE engine, cutting dev cost of BAC prototypes.
Britain was never an aviation leader, unlike the U.S., and surprisingly, the USSR, with later France and Germany (with Airbus) joining the party. Britain could have joined France and Germany in their Airbus in the beginning. Instead, they decided to blindly follow their useless pride.
Competitors. They're our friends apparently! This just shows that the eec and eu were never ever a good thing for the people of this country. Look at how many jobs and industries were destroyed by it!!
It seems the Brits only did well when they had the captive market of the Empire to sell to. Once they had to compete with the world the emperor had no clothes.
Nice to see an hour long video on British aircraft! I had watched a video called Great British Aircraft, that I would highly recommend but it is on Curiosity Stream not on RUclips.
De Gaulle didn't want Britain in the EEC but when he stepped down from President, the British Government started being Buddy-Buddy with France and Germany at the expense of the British Manufacturing Industry. Then the EEC deided we ould afford more than every body else to fund the EEC.
Great, informative documentary - thank you for this fascinating insight. Might I please make one small point (53:45) - the Avro RJX was still a four-engine design, not the twin as stated in the commentary. Three prototypes were completed and they all flew. One surviving prototype still sits (to this day) outside the Concorde hangar at Manchester Airport in north-west England, just a few miles from the Woodford (originally A.V. Roe) aircraft factory to the east.
The Ukrainians managed to produce a more efficient version, albeit remarkably suspiciously similar airframe, with the Antonov An-148. Even with four hairdryers the 146 was a gutless and impractical aircraft. There was an expression 146 = 1 aircraft 4 engines, ought to be 6! They were very quiet, probably part of the problem, and had terrific landing gear always resulting in a soft landing like it kissed the runway. But four engines on a domestic regional airliner is insane, the drooping wings gave the appearance it was exhausted. I’m possibly wrong here, but I recall there being some theory that the Lycoming engines were originally designed for helicopters. To observe a BAe146 climb out vs a B737 there really is no compassion, the latter leaps skyward like a rocket, the other meanders with great sluggishness.
@@sydyidanton5873If the 146 was gutless and impractical, BAe wouldn't have sold almost 400 units. Although it was often said a 146 was the only aircraft with 5 APUs! It's not "some theory" about engines being helicopter derived, the ALF502 is based on the T55 that powers the Chinook. But the 146 is STOL, a 737 might climb better but it will get in and out of airports a 737 cannot. An-148/An-158 is not related to the 146 although it shares a similar configuration, it's derived from the An-74 transporter that had engines mounted for the Coanda effect. Sadly it has an appalling reputation for poor reliability, such that if you excluding sales to the Russian government they've only sold 15 aircraft in over 10 years of service.
I have got to be honest: As a man who grew up in the 80s/90s and was bought up with a strong grounding in the European ideal - And who voted „Remain” in 2016 - This video is giving me a quite different perspective on the issues surrounding Brexit. It makes me wonder just what the UK might be like today if we had never joined the EEC, and also poses the question as to whether I would miss being in the EU as much as I do if I had grown up in a non-EU UK? Many thanks for the video - Not only interesting and extremely informative on the subject matter, but also for how it raises some valid questions over the wider geopolitical considerations which had a direct impact on the British aviation industry in consequence. 😇
Check out my latest video "Boeing 747 Breaks Up Just After Takeoff | Falling Apart Over Hawaii (4K)" Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/vP7P9zn0PRY/видео.html
UK politics is still "managing decline" and it doesnt have to be like that. Austerity is the main reason for this. They need to invest public money into things in the UK. Bribes from US companies "lobbying" killed the UK aircraft industry as much as anything. This lobbying will now kill our NHS. Corruption in our politics is still managing decline.
@@roberthardy3090 The Emergency. Kept the Colonials busy! Korea was my war but it finished just before we were shipped out. 1956............never learned a damned thing! Now nothing matters anymore as Britain as I knew it is destroyed.
Great summary of events. I think a few corrections are in order though - The French airliner is pronounced "Car-a-velle", not "Carvelle" (a caravelle is actually a type of sailing ship) The entry date of the UK into the EEC was 1 April 1973 (not 1975). Ireland and Denmark joined in 1973 as well. When Concorde was launched in 1962, the two major contractors were BAC and Sud Aviation. Aerospatiale came into being in 1970 when the nationalised French avation industry was reorganised (for the umpteenth time) British Aerospace came into being in 1977 (not 1978).
*Excellent comment* unfortunately this was a very poorly conceived and executed attempt at a documentary style video... too many whiny excuses and not many credible facts.
There is this other story about how England did everything in it's power to throw away it's headstart in the development of the jet engine. When Frank Whittle patented his invention, the British government insisted that his patent be published - so the Germans could take notice of it and start their own jet engine programme. Next, when the Whitlle plane flew, they gave the Wittle engine to the Americans, who reverse engineered it and produced the first operational jet in the worldl the Airacomet, a year before the Meteor flew. The Americans kept it quiet, as the Airacomet underperformed and it was not in their interest to offend the British. Next, the British gave the Nene jet engine away to the Russians directley after the war. The Russians put the engine in the Mig-15 and by 1950 the British had no jet that could match the Mig-15. Next, there was this Miles M.52 project, that was almost ready to break through the sound barrier - and then was axed, with the orders to give all the details to the Americans so that they could build their X-1 and break the sound barrier one year later. I completely miss the logic.
Good video but there was no betrayal. The United States produced the DC-4/6/7, Constellation, and Stratocruiser. It followed with the 707 and DC8. Britain never produced anything comparable. It had no track record of producing large airliners that the market wanted, even in the piston-engine period, and successive UK governments were correct to question the advisability of throwing public money at private enterprise. The best guaranteed outcome for Britain financially was a full share in Airbus - walking away from that was the major mistake.
Empire of the Clouds gives a good account of how, although the British aviation industry was often innovative, it was badly organised and run like a bunch of cottage industries where everything was essentially hand built in tiny batches. It also made decisions that were often hard to fathom from a practical point of view - engines buried in the wing roots? Clearly not as practical as slinging them on pylons beneath the wings. These two factors alone pretty much scuppered the Nimrod MRA4 whereas equally vintage B707s carry on seemingly indefinitely in a military capacity.. Anyway, even allowing for the British tendency towards amateurish management, and inept government - something still doesn't quite add up. It can't all be down to the UK management being just that little bit crap, can it? Perhaps one day we'll discover the full extent of American interference/sabotage/collusion to hobble our competitor industries? We had early leads in aviation, atomic research, computers, all lost to the US.
The MRA.4 project had entirely different problems. 16 of them, like each individual aircraft being unique 'artisan' - in other words, handbuilt, and major components like wings non-interchangeable between airframes of the same type. Conversely, one of the strenghts of US industry is the capability of mass producing items. Which is also one of the reasons all that early lead was handed over. Making magnetrons for radar in larger numbers for instance. Or the cryptographic 'bombes' used to crack codes.
I am old enough to remember all this. At the time I could not understand why other countries could be given British expertise but Great Britain received nothing in return. It led me to think that many politicians, civil servants and administrators had little loyalty to Great Britain. I have not changed my opinion!
There is absolutely no evidence to support the myth that Britian gave away any technology lead in aerospace technology because the U.K. was never an industry leader, it lagged years even decades behind.
My late English grandfather was very distressed and angry about England in the 1950's and 60's. He hated the USA and the Yanks - he had experienced them in WW1. He attributed the destruction of his "Mother Country" to the Lend-Lease war debts. As he saw it, England was on the hook to trade USA towards settling the debt. I remember watching the test flights on TV when the VC10, the BAC 111, the Trident flew. As I recall, the Concord began as an all British venture, but the politicians got squeamish over costs and risks, and so merged with the French. But it was the ruckus stirred up about Sonic booms the made it un-economic. I have hard many sonic booms and think they do not create the bother the delicate folks say. It was political in my view. I almost cried as I saw the TSR2's on trucks heading to the scrap yard - another political casualty. I recall Germany buying Phantoms and Starfighters ( which liked killing pilots). I assume they were brought because of trade coercion or some inducement. But yes management must have been very bad Britain - bad for aircraft, and other industries too, like cars and motorbikes. They all went from industry leaders to bankrupt. Worst was to see the prestigious marks sold off to the enemy :- for example Rolls Royce to Germany. I am sure there was a good measure of British upper class arrogance in these dealings too. Just as an aside - On Tv back then was a fiction program based on the aviation "The plane makers" which really focused on the management politics, as I recall.
What a brilliant video. In my humble opinion, the British aircraft industry failed because there were too many companies in too small a pond. Protectionist policies insulated the industry from real competition and allowing sub-optimal management/designs to progress further than they should have. In contrast, the pan-national Airbus project is a global success story. The value of wings, engines and other products for the 13,000+ Airbus models flying has provided substantially greater value to the UK economy than any one of the homegrown projects had they been successful. Yet despite this, even in recent times, UK government has still managed to lose UK ownership of the wing manufacturing element of the Airbus project. Britain is a small country and the only people who don’t understand this to this day are Britons. We are approximately the same size as Texas and Florida combined yet we tried to compete against the Americans, French and Dutch with a WW2 structured industry and talent pool spread across multiple competing organisations at a time when capital costs were increasing and technology rapidly evolving. If the British Aircraft industry failed because it was not radical enough in; focusing on building models for pan national requirement and markets, building a multinational supply chain to source the best components and ignoring to the outdated requirements of BOAC. Again, a superb video and loved the detail and length.
I have fond childhood memories of travelling in the now exotic vintage airliners featrured in this segment! A Phlilippine AIrlines BAC-111 (shown here!) from Manila to Davao, a Philippine Airlines Vickers Viscount for my first flight ever from Manila to Hon Kong - the return trip to Manila on a Thai Airways Caravelle... Then several trips to Hong Kong from Manila on Cathay Pacific Convair 660s!
A brilliant and well researched video detailing how disastrous government interference in private industry generally is. You detailed at least three different British airliners from what was a world leading industry that were more or less deliberately sacrificed because of the narrow political interests and appeasement of the sitting government to gain EEC membership. Sad when you think what could have been.
to be fair without said government intervention the british aircraft industry would probadly have collapsed even earlier with british airlines going for cheaper/more economical (though quanities of scale etc) american designs no matter how innovative the british offerings were
@@Exospray Also doesn't help that boeing also is backed heavily by the US government through order and government subsidy aside from US market being larger overall British industry being too small and UK not as strong as the US make the industry harder to survive even without UK government BS
I flew in a VC10 while I was a cadet in the Air Training Corps and flew to Cyprus and Malta… the RAF variants had the seating facing backwards, a very odd sensation when taking off.
I absolutely love your videos. But please, would you consider getting a slightly better microphone? Your audio sounds very damped / "dull" compared to all other videos in my playlist, and it's also a bit quiet. This is especially important because after all, you telling the story is the main feature of the video!
I agree, the A300 is also an aesthetically superior looking aircraft. Both the A300 and A310 are the better looking and far safer aircraft than the rubbish Airbus builds now. They should never have introduced those ridiculous side sticks or automation that outrageously has authority over the pilot. The so-called flight envelope safety feature is a complete con it doesn’t work in the two 'alternate law' modes, consequently giving the flight crew a dangerously false sense of security, with the unknown ability to place the aircraft in attitudes outside safe limitations particularly at night without reference. The A300/310 airframes were terrific aircraft, a real pity they wrecked their later variants.
This is not just a story about British aviation, this is the story of Britain in general.
It's the fault of 1 square mile in Central London who have no concept of what the rest of us want or need and they certainly have no national pride
The words "foot" and " shooting" come to mind .
"Managed Decline" pretty much sums it up. Sadly it doesn't seem to matter who is in power either. The only difference seems to be what minority of the population benefits alongside the top 1% who always benefit.
@@ChrisCooper312 it very much does matter who is in power. We are a nation that loves to vote Conservative. The conservative parliamentary party loves people who have studied humanities and have been to Oxford. Competence is not a criteria we value. Personality is. Decline will continue all the while this continues to be the case.
@@nicktheengineer5976 Don't forget the accountants. The ones who sold off loads of British industries for a quick buck rather than have small, steady unexciting profits.
The best presentation on the sad demise of the British aircraft industry that I have seen. I was an apprentice at BAC Weybridge 1967-72 and witnessed the collapse at first hand, a combination of short term political expediency and ill-considered concentration on commercial disasters such as Brabazon, Britannia and Concord. The result was the loss of an entire industry, the expertise and tens of thousands of jobs. The technology was given away to the French and Americans, who had better understanding of the long-term value and more national pride.
America and France were well advanced in aircraft technology at the time...
And a lot off people who would be in the British Aircraft Industry are now in Formula 1 Teams.
@@peterbrazier7107 When you are unemployed, you either take what work is available or immigrate.
F1 takes advantage of the abundance of unemployed aerospace engineers in the U.K.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Yep. And that is why here in Britain we have a lot of the Motor Racing industery.
@@peterbrazier7107 Are there any major British automobile companies left???
To submit a very small, but significant insight. In the mid '80s I worked for BAe at Bristol, having about 20 years in the Industry by then. I was astounded by the incompetence & often said so. A hopelessly inept , incompetent middle Manager patiently explained to me that it was Not necessary to know anything about Aircraft to be a Manager.. I left to work in Toulouse, on about 3 times the salary, where the Managers Did know about Aircraft.
Indeed, that is why Britain no longer makes any commercial jet aircraft... and the RAF buys foreign aircraft.
Ahh, the Mcdonald douglas theory of management.
That is certainly a bureaucratic style, often seen running businesses in socialist states and failing companies. They had no business suppressing development based on their own macroeconomic evaluation and wishes of other governments that want to supersede your native industry. It is against the principle of statehood, and a government's first responsibility is to prevent damage to their own interests, and is against the principles of the free market.
With solid backing and commercial basis, the government does not have the legitimacy to damage their own industry to preserve an unequal exchange with other states, which was made worse by companies being run like governments.
@@charlesc.9012 is this a quote from the Noddy book of Management
@sandervanderkammen9230 correct, but unfortunately they don't buy good, tough Russian Aircraft 😕
REG Davies once said, about the decision to axe the VC 7 project, that Britain has an inexhaustible capacity for self-injury...the BAC Three-Eleven story is the continuation of an horrific trend.
But it ended up being a wise decision. The VC-7 would have been woefully uncompetitive against the Boeing 707 (especially the later -320 models) and the Douglas DC-8 on transatlantic routes.
Incredible how many times the British shot themselves on the foot with laws designed to protect their brief advantage in aircraft technology. A very good documentary, and your narration is superb. Thank you.
Britian never had a lead in aircraft technology
@@sandervanderkammen9230 In the 1930's and into the war it was superior to the US, and at least equal with Germany, plus there were the complimentary technologies such as radar...something else the Americans needed help with, besides jets.
@@owenshebbeare2999 *Both Germany and America were years ahead of Britain in the 1930's*
@@owenshebbeare2999 *Please name a single British company that still makes commercial jet aircraft in.the U.K.?*
@typo pit Churchill stopped the Royal family from surrendering to the Germans and got American to pay for the war.
This should be compulsory viewing for every MP in the country, A brilliant piece of work that is deeply sad and reflective of way too much in the UK in the last 70 years.
Our MPs are a shower of traitors.
I would give an honourable mention to another very successful British small jet, the Hawker Siddeley/BAE 125 business jet (or Dominie T1 for the RAF), continuous build from 1963 to 1993, then BAE sold it off to Raytheon who kept it in further production until 2013 as the Hawker 800/1000 series with a total of 1720 built in 50 years.
Great little jet, we had x 2! G-FOUR & G-FIVE ...
My God: success! Unheard of!
Unfortunately, BAe were not in a good place, financially-speaking in the early 1990s, hence selling off their Corporate jet division. Love the 125-800 dearly, great, sleek-looking aircraft although I gather it was not very powerful(?)
Excellent video as always.
Yet another example of British shortsightedness and no long-term strategic thinking, that still plagues the UK to this day.
British GOVERNMENT shortsightedness
The British aircraft industry no longer exists
And I have a problem with that viewpoint. The entire video I felt like it was a complaint against the fact that the government did not invest in the local industry. But it really is an industry that would not have survived. The biggest mistake was pulling out of Airbus instead of attempting to get a bigger share of it. But I'm not certain Airbus would have been as successful if it was left to the British.
@@tradingmedic The British people voted for the government. Blame where due.
@Wallace Carney With the demise of the British aircraft industry the RAF now has to rely on foreign aircraft designs and manufacturers.
The only British aircraft left in RAF service is the 1970s era Hawker Siddeley Hawk.
This video should be exhibit #1 in why governments have no place in picking winners and losers.
Quite the opposite - the most successful military aviation development / production market in the world works that way in the US.
You WANT to build the best possible product, so you’ll win when it comes time for the government to pick.
The issue is that the British government also wanted to control all aspects of each design, who they could and couldn’t use for parts, and then forced sub-par designs on their own (also government controlled) airlines who didn’t even WANT them.
Because their government had such a stake in both the builders and operators, the overall potential for failure was just too large (ironic, since that’s exactly what happened.)
If they had allowed a truly open market design process, one would assume that the best designs would win, and eventually enter service with the best performance, cost, and reliability.
On the other hand, I think many of the potential models mentioned here weren’t nearly as competitive as the content implies. Aircraft “earlier to market” than the American counterparts weren’t fully developed, and had no clear target market. Even so, there were a number of other issues that let each of these designs down.
To actually capture market share in the US (European markets would have never been enough) - they needed to develop planes that were BETTER than anything the US was building (to overcome various incentives, etc.) That just simply never happened, there was a design here and there which seemed comparable, but didn’t even remotely speak to the industry as a whole.
The primary example of this is Airbus - they DID create an aircraft that was better than anything being built by the US companies, and guess what? US companies bought it! Same thing with the RR RB211 engine, which powered nearly all of the dominant US aircraft of the day.
I suppose the final irony is that - in spite of playing their part in the demise of British aviation success, the government (and US manufacturer demand/sales) are pretty much the ONLY thing that saved RR and the RB211 project.
The very same two elements which also destroyed the UK airframer market for good. 🤷🏻♂️
@@EstorilEm The US government went by issuing specification and real-world performance. they did not do macroeconomic evaluations on a spreadsheet and choose their competitors based on that, or on political principles.
@@charlesc.9012 I'm talking about airlines - the US government never got involved with such things. It was purely capitalism and the best designs with the highest performance were the ones the airlines purchased.
The VC-10 remains one of the most achingly beautiful areoplanes to have graced the skies. A wonderful video.
Sure, very expensive to acquire, to maintain and operate..Brits never understood the concepts of economy in 1960's..They built aircraft for Britain and commonwealth routes, disregarding requirements of global demand..This video is full of inaccurate and false reporting.
American governments has never blocked American Airlines buying British planes. Total BS.. Another patriotic British nonsense...British manufacturers have lost the race, they have only themselves to blame..
50:32 THIS I would consider to be the main point and main problem: the fact that the government said no to the BAC three-eleven AND to Airbus. They could've become a major partner in the Airbus consortium.
I rode in a Braniff BAC-111 in Texas back in Christmas of 1968. A pleasant experience with cheerful, singing stewardesses (they were still called that back then).
HMG were and still are a huge barrier to International trade through British manufacturing -INDUSTRIAL ;KNOW HOW ' AND PROWESS .Shocking . Thanks for the great video.
The British aircraft industry went the way of its car industry, steel industry, ship building industry, and it's manufacturing industry in general. Some might argue that it went the way of the British Empire and Britain in general.
It's hard not to see a pattern here...
'How should we fail? Should we cancel our cooperation with Europe or should we withdraw support for our own industries?'
British government: 'Let's do both!'
As of 2022 this course has not changed.
The UK aircraft industry was doomed to failure and completely collapsed at the end of the last century.
I am interested in aviation generally and have always been ... I learned to fly in 1976 and always used to speak to the pilots when I flew commercially in the 70's when I worked in mainland Europe.
I was on board a BAC 1-11 when it made its very last commercial flight and the captain told me he was saddened as it was a perfect aircraft, perfectly serviceable ... he described this model as ... "Bullet proof"!
We may have lost the competition to be the largest producer of civil aircraft, but as this video shows, we definitely won the competition to form the longest and most convoluted sentences about aircraft. We substituted long-haul with long-drawl. But I don't think there is any money in it.
Hi. And the moral of the story is: "it's better to have businesses running governments, than governments running businesses". Cheers, P.R.
The moral of the story is, if you own an airline? Buy your planes from the Germans, French and Americans.
Great video. My first flight was on a RAF Comet 2 from RAF Lyneham to Malta. I was in awe when I first saw the VC-10. When, at the age of nineteen (and alone) I stepped on board a QANTAS Boeing 707-338 on a flight to Australia when I had no idea that I would ever fly on an American aircraft!
I've parachuted from American, Canadian, French and Italian aircraft (on one occasion with a Russian parachute). Flown in all of those along with Polish built seaplanes and a glider built in the former Soviet Union.
I think we can shed our national pride and embrace the great achievements of aviation from all over the world.
Perfectly said James. The Comet was certainly a terrific prototype for commercial jet transport, and for its day quite a smart looking aircraft.
Although Great Britain may not have known commercial success, there has certainly been pride in inaugural services and innovation the Comet and Concorde being very clear leaders.
The Soviets produced some unfortunate looking examples but have also produced some quite remarkable aircraft. Russia's contemporary commercial airframes are not too bad at all.
Some of the British commercial aircraft have been on both ends of the spectrum in terms of aesthetics and performance. Concorde's brilliance and elegance goes without saying and like the B707 and B747, those three aircraft types are classics that will never be beaten.
I wonder what the Bristol Brabazon's legacy would have been like had it been produced ten years earlier. A couple of the French (Latécoère 631/Sud-Est SE.161 & SE.200 Amphitrite) and German (Junkers G.38/Dornier Do X) prop giants of the 20s/30s are incredible that they even flew given their size, aerodynamics and available technology.
The Handley Page HP42 aircraft Imperial Airways flew to Africa etc were pure luxury, like a flying 'Orient Express'.
Surprisingly not unlike, of all carriers, Aeroflot's Tu-114 counter rotating prop aircraft and Tu-104 jet aircraft that both featured levels of luxury one would least expect in that region and era. Take a look at some of the interior photographs available online, you’ll be pleasantly surprised I suspect.
I don’t know how they do it, but the US just seems to produce truly aesthetically appealing, terrific performance great aircraft.
Everything Boeing has produced since the 314 Clipper, B307 Stratoliner, B377 Stratocruiser and every 7 series jet airliner are remarkable and have an unrivalled elegance.
Some of the other US manufacturers are quite good also particularly Lockheed, and to a lesser extent Douglas, their terrific exceptions being the
DC-2, DC-3, DC-5, DC-6, DC-7, & DC-10. The DC-8 has some redeeming features but pales compared to the B707, especially the B707-138 (QF).
The DC-9 and MD-11 are pitiful and really unworthy of a mention.
I would be interested to know what your stand out favourites are? I can not imagine the thrill of flying on both the Comet and Boeing 707. I’m glad your first time was with us. I certainly hope you were well taken care of and the memories are positive. Do you recall the tech stops you made enroute. I used to fly as aircrew for Qantas until a few years ago.
Although the B707s were still in our fleet when I was a youngster, the destinations they flew to were not the places my family was travelling to, my first international jet experience was on a DC-10 with Air New Zealand and several times on Boeing 747s, typically with Qantas and on -100s and -200s with other carriers. But B707 really would have been a terrific thrill.
Wishing you the very best regards, Anton
Great video, but it makes me sad. The UK has developed so much. We have so many innovative engineers and thinkers, compared to how small we are. Our train / ship / aircraft companies were the best at one point. Then successive governments decided to keep messing about and now we make next to nothing that isn't made for companies with foreign ownership. It's like we won WWII, said that we have nothing left to prove, and put up a big "for sale" sign on all of our industries and that took us to where we are today...
That's so true, how depressing.
The British government of today should watch this video to see how short sighted thinking could again destroy any forward motion in the country's economy
Nothing can be achieved without effort, too many of us think that it isn't necessary with the results that we see.
Sadly the UK was never a leader in aircraft technology and the U.K. aircraft industry was already in decline prior to WW2 and would completely collapse by the end of the century.
The British were good at everything but business.
Superb video - you outdid yourself this time! The HS-134 looks so much like the Boeing 757 which was designed nearly 15 years later. A tragedy that this and the BAC designs never got a chance to compete, but I wonder if the UK would have ever been able to compete against the overwhelming US industry which could rely on an enormous domestic market as well as overseas sales; as well as a rapidly growing Airbus which would have been defended by what was then a very protectionist EEC.
Huh? We are also Airbus yah muppet.
Thanks, a very sad story which reminds me once again of listening to Sir George Edwards talking about 'walking along the gloomy corridors of power looking for a faint glimmer of a coherent policy.'
A very sad story of how the British aircraft industry threw it all away.
Along with the BAC TSR.2 and Hawker Siddeley P.1154.
this is what happens when you have goverments that are so out of touch with reality they are on another planet, another point is that most sernior men/women in goverment come for universities that are not know for their inovative technology, but more like banking insurance and others area's of money movements.
The industry didn't throw it away, politicians did
The government did it for them. Managed decline, managed by people who didn't understand technology because it's looked down upon by the arts-educated establishment. They don't understand that engineers build the world.
Rich people do what's more profitable, they don't have any allegiance to a nation or it's people but to their own self and profit. Even in war they invest on both sides and profit. What's a loss to the national aviation industry might have been extremely profitable to a few, unfortunately nobody talks about that. As the Romans asked who profits is the question
I always love the fact that de Gaulle saw a Brexit coming before Britain could even join the European project
De Gaulle spent WWII living in Britain and knew us well.
Because Hawker Siddeley stayed in the Airbus group as a private venture partner, they are today the part of Airbus that builds most of the wings for Airbus airliners. It was actually an amazing achievement for them to build a wing larger than that of the 747 for the A380 project.
While the decline of the British aerospace industry may hurt from a nationalist point of view, it is thanks to the sheer dogged (and, yes, "ruthless") French determination to pull through against the odds, dealing with flip-flopping British and reluctant German governments, that there is any aerospace industry left in Europe (and indeed Britain) today. It can be argued that it was Airbus that kept Rolls Royce afloat.
@@aoife1122 Not initially, though. Rolls-Royce recovered because of the success of the RB.211-524 on the 747-200B and 747-400 models.
Hawker Siddeley is not affiliated with Airbus SE and ceased to exist in 1977.
The U.K. no longer manufactures commercial transport aircraft.
The now discontinued Airbus A380 has succeeded the Concorde as the largest financiall failure in commercial aviation history... Airbus has laid off thousands in the U.K. with rumors of closure of the Broughton plant since Brexit.
Your programs are always high quality and very informative. Thank you
Too bad about this one... pure revisionist fiction and propaganda myths.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Can you explane please?
A "Nation of Lions lead by Donkies".
What are donkies?
@@rivaterrier the plural of donkey
I'm an airline pilot for a small cargo only airline out of Memphis that paints the tails purple. I fly a 767 now, but I've flown Shorts SD3-60's, deHavilland Canada Dash-8's, 727's, 747's, 757's and now the 767. The very first airplane I ever flew on was a BAC 1-11, from Detroit to Newark ["Detoilet to Manurark"] when I was about a year old.
BTW, I DO NOT recommend bringing children on an airplane until they can talk full sentences! The reason for this is that many little ones cannot "pop" their ears yet, and you need to be able to tell them what to do if their tiny eustachian tubes are blocked by mucous, which small children seem to produce by the gallon. The valsalva maneuver can solve their problem, but you need to be able to tell them how to do this. Apparently I did not have the problem since I have great ventilation in my pumpkin-like air-filled head, but that is not true of every child.
As an Airport Paramedic we learned to advise parents to have their infants suckle a bottle on descent & ensure the wee kids chew gum as everything you point out is true. It worked.
'Eisenhower Recession of 1958". I like that. It sounds likes if Ike was personally to blame for a worldwide event that largely occured a year later.
It’s a tradition. Every recession in the USA gets blamed on whichever president is in office when it’s at its worst, even though the seeds for it usually are planted during the administration of the previous one - and also as you said it’s not USA-specific.
This is in MHO an important educational video that neatly and clearly sets out the confluence of competing politics, national interest finance and - perhaps, a lack of courage and vision. This is one of the very best sources of information on any subject I have ever had the opportunity to learn from. Respect and sincere thanks.
I know understand why you are so highly regarded as a Transport Historian
How often did British - American partnerships end up with the US gaining all the benefits?
There were no successful British-American partnerships... the U.K. aircraft industry was in steep decline and lagged years behind.
Usually, the French got the better of each "deal".
@@michaelplunkett8059 France was ahead the of the U.K. in many aspects of jet technology during cold war era.
Always - that's why it's better to get in bed with the French.
World war 2?
The Omani Airforce operated 3 One Elevens for 35 years. They were series 475’s which then became series 485’s when they were modified with large main deck cargo doors.
Goat transporters.
As Airbus became a runaway success the biggest mistake in hindsight was perhaps the British government withdrawing from Airbus. Unfortunately Britain has and almost unique ability to shoot itself in the foot. Brexit being the latest in a very long list..
You complain about government then you wish that you could join a much larger moribund and corrupt government in Europe. You wish to enjoy more bureaucratic rules and regulations....oh I forgot, the Brits love government since they went socialist in 1945. Let's see how successful Europe is now that they choose to run on windmills and fairy dust.
@@disillusionedanglophile7680 The proof is in the facts. Airbus are the worlds biggest aircraft manufacturer and the British aircraft industry is a foot more in history. Good luck turning that around.
Brexit was and is entirely justified... but is inevitably being undermined by the same ludicrous, self defeating outlooks and incompetence, public and corporate alike, as is detailed here repeatedly.
Or more bluntly, that there is STILL an absolute refusal among the mediocrities STILL infesting our establishment classes, to accept that the loathsome EU's composite continental "Yoowupeen" elite is the direct successor of that which pertained in the time of de Gaulle. AS SUCH, they and the EU institution they control is STILL our enemy, as indeed it always has been.... and should be treated as such.
Fucking *_YES_* Brexit was a big mistake!
What happened to all the other replies RUclips told me about? They can’t *all* have changed their minds about posting can they? Or all been deleted? Having said this, I don’t think trying to start a political argument was your best idea. Not everyone blames Brexit for aircraft disasters - not even the NTSB.
Interesting, but it buys into a wider narrative that blames the British aircraft industry's failure on anyone but itself. More simply, we built the wrong planes for the wrong customers at the wrong time and far from being world leading, our postwar aviation industry was sprawling, chaotic and bloated. The 3-11 MIGHT have succeeded but, more likely, it would have been a flawed design with some good ideas that ended up being done better by others. See also the Comet, the VC-10, the BAC 111 and many others. The constant proposals and might-have-beens are a misty eyed attempt to dodge the painful reality of constant British failures.
This strain of historical revisionism is seen in many areas of British technological history and always fails to understand the inherent problems of british industries and of the society that they came from; British industry was rooted in a class based society that meant that the products were always aimed at a narrow elite rather than the mass market. As such, going back to 1945, we made the wrong choices and then compounded them by going all in on those choices.
Airbus has at least maintained the semblance of a British airliner industry; the BAC 211 and 311 would have just hastened the end. It MIGHT have worked but, as we saw with the Trident, technical innovation isn't all that. let's stop pretending about the past and accept that we failed. Let's move on. Let's realise that the future is not a re-run of the post colonial past.
I’m still of the opinion that Great Britain would have been better of today if they just like the French had a proper revolution in the 18th century and got rid of that whole bloody royal house and all of those upper class nitwits. The head of George III on a spike on top of the Tower would have looked rather splendid. Plus it would have helped with that horrible class system Britain still suffers under
It is the same thing that happened to the UK car and shipping industries as well as many others, it's down to everything being about short-term thinking until the next general election instead of a long-term forward thinking and planning strategy, the UK still doesn't use the latter even to this very day.
@@alanzyoutube And the same is about to happen but this time to the whole of the western world. The Chinese and South Koreans now build pretty much all the solar panels, electronics, engineering and their cars are cheaper or have features which are better. They also back them up with good warranties , build the supply chains and logistics. Western countries have been reliant on past success and traditional brands. This is no longer so important to the modern consumer. Our GDP is about to go southwards and most people are not even aware.
@@carlarrowsmith Western governments are still wedded to free trade dogma and are thus easy prey for the ruthless mercantilists of East Asia.
@@GCarty80 This has nothing to do with free trade, it has to do with attitude and aptitude.
When you're watching a video on British aerospace history and you hear the words "white paper" :(
Context?
@@kfraser3783 A white paper is the name given to a government policy proposal in the UK. It's printed on white paper, hence the name. Before it there is often a green paper which is a discussion document that informs proposals for a future policy. As you may guess this used to be printed on green paper. These terms are heard much less now but were often in news broadcasts in the latter half of the 20th century.
When you are watching a video on any British manufacturing history, and hear the words "white paper"....
The British government was responsible for the death of the British aircraft industry, so many planes that could have been world beating, scrapped and others ruined because of idiotic decisions!
The government did exactly the same to the British car industry!
interesting video but there is a lot of unjustified ant-French bias in here which lead to some very questionable statements. TSR2 was cancelled not because of some government conspiracy but because it was over budget, overweight, its engines (Olympus 22R) had serious problems and long development ahead of them, was costing 1m GBP per day to develop , had no viable export market (even the RAF recommended Australia buy the F-111) and its direct competitor the F-111 was faster, flew higher, had longer range and could carry, if necessary, three times the combat load. BOAC was the real problem for airliners, heavily favouring US aircraft but in some cases this was for good reason.
Concorde however is a different story. The French were not years behind the UK. They had designs for the Super Caravelle that closely resembled the BAC designs. It made sense to combine the development of the aircraft as it would to later form Airbus as a direct result of this experience. Further it was the British long range design that was chosen not the French medium range version so the UK actually drove the development of the aircraft in that respect. The Olympus was the only viable engine for the aircraft and SNECMA was relegated to providing the Afterburner and nozzle sections with Rolls Royce developing the engine and inlet design.
Concorde was commercial failure from a production aspect (as was the A380) for many reasons (the 74 oil crisis and worldwide recession that followed basically killed sales) but was an operational aircraft was profitable for BA for over 20 years (and on and off for Air France for various reasons) proving the concept and collaboration to be a success.
Concorde production was primarily done at Toulouse? Don't tell the Filton crew that. There was mirror production at both sites. This commentary is a little too anti-French than evidence supports.
The 211/311 using the RB211 would not have succeeded as the RB211 had a long and troubled development history (just ask Lockheed) to the extent that it bankrupted Rolls Royce.
In the end that Airbus was the right direction to go, is demonstrated by the fact that as it now outsells Boeing.
You're the reason the words "Brabazon Committee" are forever imprinted into my brain.
And none of the planes in the Brabazon Committee succeeded
Except the Viscount
Because frankly, the British aviation industry at the time was too tied to British needs. And they couldn’t compete against Boeing. It was only when the Airbus was formed that Europe could finally compete against Boeing.
@@senabecool7232 and the best selling British commercial airliner of all time - the Dove feeder liner
@@Sacto1654 Planes like the VC10, Trident or Handley-Page Herald would've succeded if the British considered the wider market not BEA or BOAC
@@senabecool7232 Or the fact the Bristol Britannia got hamstrung by the Comet I tragedy, which delayed its introduction into service until 1956, two years after it should have entered service.
This is an excellent summary. The period covered more or less coincides with my time at school and as an engineering apprentice. I can remember how depressing it was to keep hearing of yet another promising project being canned by politicians and I experienced first hand the arrogance, hubris and ineptitude of top management*. Yet some would have us believe that the decline of engineering and manufacture in the UK was down to poor workmanship and "the unions".
Well the worst engineering failure in commercial aviation history was the _Comet Disaster_ it was a catastrophe based on a combination bad engineering, bad management and shoddy workmanship.
All three: management ineptitude, union malevolence - fueled by its connections to hostile Russia - and the UK government working towards a social experiment based on federal European ideology.
Perhaps we stopped believing in National pride and lost confidence in our technological abilities.
Having lived in the early 1960s, owned several British made autos, and later Japanese and German brands, I fear that the problems are not with the concept, but from the execution.
I agree. My experience of British engineering is mostly a brilliant idea poorly executed. Shame because some of the ideas were great.
The _Comet Disaster_ remains a shameful example of BOTH bad design and shoddy workmanship.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Rubbish the Comet was new & ground breaking . Even the USA Boeing & Douglas admitted they learned from the comet & could of well had the same problems with new tech & design . When the comet was sorted out ,it was a fantastic airliner & the smoothest airliner I ever flew in , the Boeing 707 was a bone shaker in comparison . You obvious have bias or jealousy towards Britain . The British craftsman is second to none in the world ,it was Britain that led the industrial revolution. You would still be pi55ing into the wind if it wasn’t for us British .😊
@@maskedavenger2578 There was absolutely nothing ground breaking about the Comet besides the debris falling back to Earth.
Boeing was the world's leader in pressurized cabins and began successfully building pressurized airliners in 1938...
In fact Boeing, Douglas Junkers and Lockheed were all building pressurized airliners more than a decade earlier with no catastrophic in-flight structural failures.
The Boeing B-47 flew faster and higher with 9.8 psi cabin pressure differential and it never exploded either.
@@maskedavenger2578 The de Havilland Comet in all its variants still holds the title worst safety record of any jet airliner in history in terms of per flight and per passenger mile fatality rates.
The Comet 4 was permanently grounded due to premature metal fatigue well before its rated cycles and hours of sevice life was reached.
14:15 Philippine Airlines held the BAC 111 in service up to the 90’s. Memorable start up sound by the RR Spey engines and its incredibly noisy on take off. It also has a shallow angle at take off.
@Perseus1275 I agree that was the starter as I also hear that starter sound on German WW2 tanks when hand cranked. One of our Manila airports is at the end of a runway and I was inside the arrival area with two walls between me and airside , a BAC 111 took off with its tail at the terminal and the windows really shook upon its takeoff.
The Speys on the 1-11 had a combined CSD and starter known as a CSDS. It was a unique bit of kit and made a unique noise when the engine was started. It was quite a lump and quite a challenge to replace.
@@PhD63 Boilerplate technology.
A fascinating, and heartbreaking, story of what could have been. That BAC 3-11 could have been a real contender.
A case where the 'buy locally' argument was shortsighted and hence backfired.
Especially when BEA had actually ordered a large number of 727-200 and 737-100 planes, which were actually far better-suited for European operations than the BAe 121 Trident.
With hindsight and although it pains me to say it, as it was such (still is) an amazing achievement, was pouring resources into Concorde rather than the production of passenger aircraft that there was actually a large demand for a big mistake?
You have put a lot of time into this, its fantastic, thank you. ( First aircraft I flew in as a passenger was the Vickers Viking, Liverpool to Dublin in 75, then in 80 from Luton UK to St Lucia, Via Gander and Antigua in a 720B when fuel was affordable.
A great video, showing the rise and fall of a brilliant British aircraft industry. Having worked for the de Havilland aircraft company and later the Hawker Siddeley film unit, it was so sad to see the demise of such a great industry destroyed by the governments of that time.
Unfortunately the truth is British aircraft were not very good... de Havilland was decades behind in aircraft technology and simply doomed to fail.
Great video Ruairidh! Fascinating history, thanks for the upload.
As alway British innovation coupled to short stiltedness from government meant inevitable decline in global leadership in aviation, but Wilson was to aviation what Beecham was to railways. Makes you proud to be British!
ur videos are so entertaining and intriguing they give so much insight that people (especially aviation enthusiasts like me) don’t often ever think about
wow ... about 5 episodes of "Yes, Minister" in that lot.
Ryanair had one in the 90s last of old school, the beoing 737 200. Classic jets. BAC one leven, great aircraft.
what an eye opener, and another show stopping episode, thanks
The BAC-111 was one of the loudest aircraft that I have experienced. I was just a little kid (10??) My dad and/or sister would take me to BOS on Sunday. Remember when you could go out on the observation deck - the good old days. As a youngster I named it “Noise Incorporated.”
Great job! Always enjoy your videos
Another finely detailed yet highly informative clip. It's a shame that December 2nd 1970 is somewhat a day of infamy in that it pretty much destroyed Britain's Aviation reputation. Personally i think The 3-11 was a very appealing and ideal looking aircraft that showed real promise.
very good video - but I think there was no betrayal. Putting into account the macro-economic situation of the UK in the 1960/1970, Britain was called the "sick man of Europe" and had not the means to finance such a fast amount of aviation projects via gov spending (Concorde, RB 211, B1-11, B2-11, B3-11, VC-10, Trijet, TR-2...), nor had Britain economic success in aviation like the Americans in the late 1950s with the B707 or DC 8. They wanted something which they could not afford (and that tells you something, by the way) Britain needed partners to share the risks and to finance the R&D costs. Thats why Airbus was and is such a success. And in the 1960´s - everybody wanted to go supersonic, so Britain put a lot of money into the development of the Concorde - an economic disaster in hindsight...nevertheless, a great story!
Very true, to suggest that Britian was at any point a world leader in aerospace technology is disingenuous.. Britian had always lagged years behind in aircraft technology and that position continued to decline with the economic collapse post-WW2 and commercial failures like the Comet, VC-10, Concorde and all the other failed programs to come out of BAC.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 There's a difference between being a world leader in technology and being a world leader selling that technology.
I wonder how much different things would have turned out if the government just stayed out and didn't try to meddle with the companies. Couldn't have been any worse than what ended up happening to the UK aerospace market.
Also if they hadn’t been so focused only on BOAC and BEA, rather than looking at the global market.
If it had not been for nationalization the U.K. aircraft industry would have completely collapsed by the 1950s.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 And something better likely would have arisen after bankruptcy.
Couldn't have turned out worse than now, the UK aviation industry basically did collapse, except for Rolls-Royce engines.
@@derek20la Many abandoned British aircraft factories are now occupied by foreign manufacturers, at least there are still jobs... the rest are now housing estates.
Rolls-Royce went completely bankrupt on February 4th,1971. it was bailed out by British taxpayers.
BMW now owns the automotive division, Caterpillar now owns the Diesel engine division.
Rolls Royce plc is multinational corporation with majority holdings in American, French and Indian investment groups..
Rolls-Royce has recently lost market share (down to 12%) to Pratt & Whittney and the world's largest engine manufacturer group GE-CFM/Safran which makes 55% of all the jet engines in the world.
The VC-10, like the Concorde, was bold and beautiful. But those alone are not a guarantee of sucess.
The reality would only have been at best the modest success of the Viscount and 1-11 and more likely a commercial money pit like the Trident and VC10. Like the VC10 these aircraft would have arrived too late and offered too little advantage over the 727 and 737 to secure the volumes to compete with them in the market. In competition with the A300, they would have been impacted badly by the RB 211 like the Tristar and so giving the A300 time to establish itself as the DC10 did over the Tristar. The fact is the Airbus was the better commercial option and the issue is the unwillingness to engage with it by Britain (other than Hawker Siddley's private venture) in favour of continuing Concorde.
Graham, you’ve really hit the nail right on the head. These imaginative concepts were a great 'what could have been' fantasy but your argument is 100% correct.
As far as the RB2-11 power plant goes, it is criminal what RR did to Lockheed with regard to their L1011 program. Lockheed should never have trusted RR with the luxurious privilege of an exclusive contract.
Because Lockheed was so badly burned with losing so very many orders to the DC-10, entirely as consequence of RR's failure and unforgivable 2 years plus delay, subsequent to their massive losses Lockheed made the decision to never again build another commercial aircraft. A tremendous pity because historically all their commercial offerings were exceptional, the L1011 included which was a remarkable aircraft in a superior class of its own.
I sincerely like the DC-10, but it severely paled in comparison to the L1011 TriStar.
Had they continued to design and produce superior airframes, I can only wonder what terrific narrow and wide body aircrafts we could have been familiar with now. They would certainly be far more high-caliber than the rubbish Airbus rolls out.
The A300 and 310 were great aircraft, but the insane automation authority, bizarre modes in which it operates and those wretched dangerous side sticks wrecked their subsequent variants.
The Comet was a pretty airplane, but Boeing/Douglas would have beaten it in the market eventually anyway because the 707/DC-8 engines were so much easier to get at for maintenance and replacement savings lots of labor time/expense, and with the much less swept wing and non-swept tail elements, the Comet was always going to be slower.
This is not the story of betrayal. This is the story of relying on government - read taxpayers - support. Which is always fickle and unreliable.
If one cannot build capital like Boeing one shall not compete with Boeing. Full stop.
Excellent comment
The three biggest mistakes that killed the industry:
- Duncan Sandys 1957 White Paper
- Allowing BOAC to cancel orders for the VC-7 programme
- Leaving the Airbus consortium
The number one reason why the U.K. aircraft industry collapsed is because Britian always lagged years behind Germany and America.
The Brabazon Committee and nationalization continuing after WW2.
The economic collapse and the collapse of the British empire after WW2 were also major contributing factors.
If Britian was unable to mortgaged itself to America with the Anglo-American loan the entire British aircraft industry would have completely collapsed in 1948.
No one wanted to buy the VC-7.
BAe was offered a full share in Airbus but the financing never materized, it could not afford its existing 20% stake which they sold in 2006.
The vocal resentment towards France aside, British aviation industry was severely misguided when it thought it could compete with Boeing of McD and their industrial capacity. There is more to a successful aircraft than grand ideas. And a meddlesome government is not helping
I love how the British government accused the US of being protectionist for telling US airlines not to buy their planes despite having recently forcing their state-owned airline to buy a British-made plane instead of the Boeings they wanted to buy. They did something similar to what the US did later on too lol.
Companies like Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed were a decade ahead of the British before the war even started..
The U.K. aircraft industry was doomed to failure after the country's defeat in WW2.
The final nail was when Britain went completely bankrupt and had to mortgage itself to America, under the terms of the Anglo-American bailout loan the U.K. became a U.S. protectorate from 1947 until 2006 and the country is still occupied by American military forces.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 its always nice when people reveal their, um...alternative understanding of reality...right out the gate.
Did you know Germany has military bases here? or that they surrended to the English not once, but twice in the span of 30 years?
A truly comprehensive analysis and presentation.
If I was marooned on a desert island. I'd want Ruairidh with me. His endless tales of the de-industrialisation of Britain are enthralling.
Britain joined the EEC in January 1973 not 1975 as stated in the video. The 1975 reference is to the referendum held that year as promised by the Wilson government.
My father used to regularly fly on Airspeed Ambassadors when he visited the Dounreay nuclear plant in the 1950s. It may not have been a great commercial success, but it was apparently quite a nice aircraft.
History Channels Normally: "Hur dur Boeing killed BAC"
200IQ: "France and Germany's unreasonable demands in common market killed BAC"
The thing is, if UK was actually closer with USA? BAC and British jets could have made deals with GE engine, cutting dev cost of BAC prototypes.
Had no idea UK bowed down to France and Germany. What a rich heritage thrown away
Britian was never a leader in aviation... they would lag years behind before the final demise at the end of the last century.
Britain was never an aviation leader, unlike the U.S., and surprisingly, the USSR, with later France and Germany (with Airbus) joining the party.
Britain could have joined France and Germany in their Airbus in the beginning. Instead, they decided to blindly follow their useless pride.
What a tale of woe!
And so much innovation simply handed over to competitors. If it beggars not belief it certainly beggars credibility.
Competitors. They're our friends apparently!
This just shows that the eec and eu were never ever a good thing for the people of this country. Look at how many jobs and industries were destroyed by it!!
It seems the Brits only did well when they had the captive market of the Empire to sell to. Once they had to compete with the world the emperor had no clothes.
Nice to see an hour long video on British aircraft! I had watched a video called Great British Aircraft, that I would highly recommend but it is on Curiosity Stream not on RUclips.
Thanks for the recommendation, I shall take a look.
De Gaulle didn't want Britain in the EEC but when he stepped down from President, the British Government started being Buddy-Buddy with France and Germany at the expense of the British Manufacturing Industry. Then the EEC deided we ould afford more than every body else to fund the EEC.
Great, informative documentary - thank you for this fascinating insight. Might I please make one small point (53:45) - the Avro RJX was still a four-engine design, not the twin as stated in the commentary. Three prototypes were completed and they all flew. One surviving prototype still sits (to this day) outside the Concorde hangar at Manchester Airport in north-west England, just a few miles from the Woodford (originally A.V. Roe) aircraft factory to the east.
The twin engine concept was known as the 146 NRA and I believe evolved into the less ambitious quad engine RJX
The Ukrainians managed to produce a more efficient version, albeit remarkably suspiciously similar airframe, with the Antonov An-148.
Even with four hairdryers the 146 was a gutless and impractical aircraft. There was an expression 146 = 1 aircraft 4 engines, ought to be 6!
They were very quiet, probably part of the problem, and had terrific landing gear always resulting in a soft landing like it kissed the runway. But four engines on a domestic regional airliner is insane, the drooping wings gave the appearance it was exhausted.
I’m possibly wrong here, but I recall there being some theory that the Lycoming engines were originally designed for helicopters.
To observe a BAe146 climb out vs a B737 there really is no compassion, the latter leaps skyward like a rocket, the other meanders with great sluggishness.
@@sydyidanton5873If the 146 was gutless and impractical, BAe wouldn't have sold almost 400 units. Although it was often said a 146 was the only aircraft with 5 APUs! It's not "some theory" about engines being helicopter derived, the ALF502 is based on the T55 that powers the Chinook. But the 146 is STOL, a 737 might climb better but it will get in and out of airports a 737 cannot.
An-148/An-158 is not related to the 146 although it shares a similar configuration, it's derived from the An-74 transporter that had engines mounted for the Coanda effect. Sadly it has an appalling reputation for poor reliability, such that if you excluding sales to the Russian government they've only sold 15 aircraft in over 10 years of service.
I have got to be honest: As a man who grew up in the 80s/90s and was bought up with a strong grounding in the European ideal - And who voted „Remain” in 2016 - This video is giving me a quite different perspective on the issues surrounding Brexit.
It makes me wonder just what the UK might be like today if we had never joined the EEC, and also poses the question as to whether I would miss being in the EU as much as I do if I had grown up in a non-EU UK?
Many thanks for the video - Not only interesting and extremely informative on the subject matter, but also for how it raises some valid questions over the wider geopolitical considerations which had a direct impact on the British aviation industry in consequence. 😇
Yes, a fascinating topic. So many what-if's!
A very interesting topic to cover.. You should change title to.. 'Fall of the British Aviation Industry'
Check out my latest video "Boeing 747 Breaks Up Just After Takeoff | Falling Apart Over Hawaii (4K)"
Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/vP7P9zn0PRY/видео.html
UK politics is still "managing decline" and it doesnt have to be like that. Austerity is the main reason for this. They need to invest public money into things in the UK. Bribes from US companies "lobbying" killed the UK aircraft industry as much as anything. This lobbying will now kill our NHS. Corruption in our politics is still managing decline.
Agree with you but the NHS has been dead since creation due to its Stalinist command and control structure. But I digress...
The great British engineers have always been held back and betrayed by politicians....
That was superbly executed Rurairidh, very professional production, and good pace.
I remember these, and also VC10s in the 1960s, as we lived in Ripley under the flight path from Wisley airfield.
The UK had a lion's share of Marshall Aid cash but it wasn't spent on industrial infra structure as Germany did!
3% of GDP
Basically it funded British involvement in the Korean War and our anti communist war in Malaya.
@@roberthardy3090
The Emergency. Kept the Colonials busy!
Korea was my war but it finished just before we were shipped out.
1956............never learned a damned thing!
Now nothing matters anymore as Britain as I knew it is destroyed.
Well made and researched. A lot of effort has gone into this video and it shows.
Great summary of events.
I think a few corrections are in order though -
The French airliner is pronounced "Car-a-velle", not "Carvelle" (a caravelle is actually a type of sailing ship)
The entry date of the UK into the EEC was 1 April 1973 (not 1975). Ireland and Denmark joined in 1973 as well.
When Concorde was launched in 1962, the two major contractors were BAC and Sud Aviation. Aerospatiale came into being in 1970 when the nationalised French avation industry was reorganised (for the umpteenth time)
British Aerospace came into being in 1977 (not 1978).
*Excellent comment* unfortunately this was a very poorly conceived and executed attempt at a documentary style video... too many whiny excuses and not many credible facts.
There is this other story about how England did everything in it's power to throw away it's headstart in the development of the jet engine. When Frank Whittle patented his invention, the British government insisted that his patent be published - so the Germans could take notice of it and start their own jet engine programme. Next, when the Whitlle plane flew, they gave the Wittle engine to the Americans, who reverse engineered it and produced the first operational jet in the worldl the Airacomet, a year before the Meteor flew. The Americans kept it quiet, as the Airacomet underperformed and it was not in their interest to offend the British. Next, the British gave the Nene jet engine away to the Russians directley after the war. The Russians put the engine in the Mig-15 and by 1950 the British had no jet that could match the Mig-15. Next, there was this Miles M.52 project, that was almost ready to break through the sound barrier - and then was axed, with the orders to give all the details to the Americans so that they could build their X-1 and break the sound barrier one year later.
I completely miss the logic.
Good video but there was no betrayal. The United States produced the DC-4/6/7, Constellation, and Stratocruiser. It followed with the 707 and DC8. Britain never produced anything comparable. It had no track record of producing large airliners that the market wanted, even in the piston-engine period, and successive UK governments were correct to question the advisability of throwing public money at private enterprise. The best guaranteed outcome for Britain financially was a full share in Airbus - walking away from that was the major mistake.
Isn't hindsight wonderful. However, there was great innovation within the British aerospace industry, they just didn't know how to sell
Exactly right.
All commercial airliners to this day are modeled after the Boeing Dash 80, not the Comet.
And the Boeing 707 series has long outlasted the Comet and many will remain in service until at least at least 2045
Empire of the Clouds gives a good account of how, although the British aviation industry was often innovative, it was badly organised and run like a bunch of cottage industries where everything was essentially hand built in tiny batches. It also made decisions that were often hard to fathom from a practical point of view - engines buried in the wing roots? Clearly not as practical as slinging them on pylons beneath the wings. These two factors alone pretty much scuppered the Nimrod MRA4 whereas equally vintage B707s carry on seemingly indefinitely in a military capacity..
Anyway, even allowing for the British tendency towards amateurish management, and inept government - something still doesn't quite add up. It can't all be down to the UK management being just that little bit crap, can it?
Perhaps one day we'll discover the full extent of American interference/sabotage/collusion to hobble our competitor industries? We had early leads in aviation, atomic research, computers, all lost to the US.
The MRA.4 project had entirely different problems. 16 of them, like each individual aircraft being unique 'artisan' - in other words, handbuilt, and major components like wings non-interchangeable between airframes of the same type.
Conversely, one of the strenghts of US industry is the capability of mass producing items.
Which is also one of the reasons all that early lead was handed over. Making magnetrons for radar in larger numbers for instance. Or the cryptographic 'bombes' used to crack codes.
I am old enough to remember all this. At the time I could not understand why other countries could be given British expertise but Great Britain received nothing in return. It led me to think that many politicians, civil servants and administrators had little loyalty to Great Britain. I have not changed my opinion!
There is absolutely no evidence to support the myth that Britian gave away any technology lead in aerospace technology because the U.K. was never an industry leader, it lagged years even decades behind.
BOAC hated British aircraft.
Boeing Only Aircraft Corporation.
My late English grandfather was very distressed and angry about England in the 1950's and 60's. He hated the USA and the Yanks - he had experienced them in WW1. He attributed the destruction of his "Mother Country" to the Lend-Lease war debts. As he saw it, England was on the hook to trade USA towards settling the debt. I remember watching the test flights on TV when the VC10, the BAC 111, the Trident flew. As I recall, the Concord began as an all British venture, but the politicians got squeamish over costs and risks, and so merged with the French. But it was the ruckus stirred up about Sonic booms the made it un-economic. I have hard many sonic booms and think they do not create the bother the delicate folks say. It was political in my view. I almost cried as I saw the TSR2's on trucks heading to the scrap yard - another political casualty. I recall Germany buying Phantoms and Starfighters ( which liked killing pilots). I assume they were brought because of trade coercion or some inducement. But yes management must have been very bad Britain - bad for aircraft, and other industries too, like cars and motorbikes. They all went from industry leaders to bankrupt. Worst was to see the prestigious marks sold off to the enemy :- for example Rolls Royce to Germany. I am sure there was a good measure of British upper class arrogance in these dealings too. Just as an aside - On Tv back then was a fiction program based on the aviation "The plane makers" which really focused on the management politics, as I recall.
What a brilliant video. In my humble opinion, the British aircraft industry failed because there were too many companies in too small a pond. Protectionist policies insulated the industry from real competition and allowing sub-optimal management/designs to progress further than they should have. In contrast, the pan-national Airbus project is a global success story. The value of wings, engines and other products for the 13,000+ Airbus models flying has provided substantially greater value to the UK economy than any one of the homegrown projects had they been successful. Yet despite this, even in recent times, UK government has still managed to lose UK ownership of the wing manufacturing element of the Airbus project.
Britain is a small country and the only people who don’t understand this to this day are Britons. We are approximately the same size as Texas and Florida combined yet we tried to compete against the Americans, French and Dutch with a WW2 structured industry and talent pool spread across multiple competing organisations at a time when capital costs were increasing and technology rapidly evolving.
If the British Aircraft industry failed because it was not radical enough in; focusing on building models for pan national requirement and markets, building a multinational supply chain to source the best components and ignoring to the outdated requirements of BOAC.
Again, a superb video and loved the detail and length.
Well said!
I have fond childhood memories of travelling in the now exotic vintage airliners featrured in this segment! A Phlilippine AIrlines BAC-111 (shown here!) from Manila to Davao, a Philippine Airlines Vickers Viscount for my first flight ever from Manila to Hon Kong - the return trip to Manila on a Thai Airways Caravelle... Then several trips to Hong Kong from Manila on Cathay Pacific Convair 660s!
A brilliant and well researched video detailing how disastrous government interference in private industry generally is. You detailed at least three different British airliners from what was a world leading industry that were more or less deliberately sacrificed because of the narrow political interests and appeasement of the sitting government to gain EEC membership. Sad when you think what could have been.
to be fair without said government intervention the british aircraft industry would probadly have collapsed even earlier with british airlines going for cheaper/more economical (though quanities of scale etc) american designs no matter how innovative the british offerings were
@@Exospray Also doesn't help that boeing also is backed heavily by the US government through order and government subsidy aside from US market being larger overall
British industry being too small and UK not as strong as the US make the industry harder to survive even without UK government BS
If not for nationalization the U.K. aircraft industry would have completely collapsed by the 1950s.
Audio sounds as if recorded on compact cassette tape, surely you can do better!
I flew in a VC10 while I was a cadet in the Air Training Corps and flew to Cyprus and Malta… the RAF variants had the seating facing backwards, a very odd sensation when taking off.
I went on a Trident Two that did the same, with a table like on trains.
The safest way to fly!
Safer, much safer.
@@rwm2986 the safest way to do an emergency landing! ;)
Who needs conspirinancy theory when you`ve got Politicians! Or in Boeing`s case, Bean Counters! Now Sub`d.
A sad tale. Politicians...
I absolutely love your videos. But please, would you consider getting a slightly better microphone? Your audio sounds very damped / "dull" compared to all other videos in my playlist, and it's also a bit quiet. This is especially important because after all, you telling the story is the main feature of the video!
The A300 would have been a better seller than the 3-11 due to greater range
I agree, the A300 is also an aesthetically superior looking aircraft. Both the A300 and A310 are the better looking and far safer aircraft than the rubbish Airbus builds now.
They should never have introduced those ridiculous side sticks or automation that outrageously has authority over the pilot.
The so-called flight envelope safety feature is a complete con it doesn’t work in the two 'alternate law' modes, consequently giving the flight crew a dangerously false sense of security, with the unknown ability to place the aircraft in attitudes outside safe limitations particularly at night without reference.
The A300/310 airframes were terrific aircraft, a real pity they wrecked their later variants.