Search results

TO say that the Twenty‐fourth S.B.A.C. Show was an unqualified success is perhaps to gild the lily. True there were disappointments— the delay which kept the TSR‐2 on the ground until well after the Show being one—but on the whole the British industry was well pleased with Farnborough week and if future sales could be related to the number of visitors then the order books would be full for many years to come. The total attendance at the Show was well over 400,000—this figure including just under 300,000 members of the public who paid to enter on the last three days of the Show. Those who argued in favour of allowing a two‐year interval between the 1962 Show and this one seem to be fully vindicated, for these attendance figures are an all‐time record. This augurs well for the future for it would appear that potential customers from overseas are still anxious to attend the Farnborough Show, while the public attendance figures indicate that Britain is still air‐minded to a very healthy degree. It is difficult to pick out any one feature or even one aircraft as being really outstanding at Farnborough, but certainly the range of rear‐engined civil jets (HS. 125, BAC One‐Eleven, Trident and VCIQ) served as a re‐minder that British aeronautical engineering prowess is without parallel, while the number of rotorcraft to be seen in the flying display empha‐sized the growing importance of the helicopter in both civil and military operations. As far as the value of Farnborough is concerned, it is certainly a most useful shop window for British aerospace products, and if few new orders are actually received at Farnborough, a very large number are announced— as our ’Orders and Contracts' column on page 332 bears witness. It is not possible to cover every exhibit displayed at the Farnborough Show but the following report describes a wide cross‐section beginning with the exhibits of the major airframe and engine companies.

Our report on the Paris Air Show takes the form of an introduction, information on highlights and an overall impression of what is thought to be of most interest to our readership.

The background of missile costs is discussed. Missiles are new and very costly. Developments in this field have been subjected to political vicissitudes which have often upset long‐term developments. Missile technology is on the frontier of science and there is no background of knowledge to draw on; much basic and expensive research is required. Missile engineering models are complex in detail and assembly, and therefore costly, and constant change occurs while making and testing the model. The complexity and functional requirements of missile parts are running a parallel race with the machines and processes being developed to fabricate the materials required. The usually small runs required in missile production again add to costs. Imposed on all these activities is the requirement that reliability of near 100 per cent is needed and in no case can reliability be allowed to be secondary to cost. The inflight life and shelf conditions for a missile are usually fairly well established and 100 per cent reliability for a short operating life with a long shelf life are the real requirements. There is a considerable tendency to overdesign for reliability. Some costly features of design such as finest finish, closest tolerances and highest strength are carried over by habit from aircraft design and are not always required in missiles. Having examined some causes of high costs, a programme for cost reduction is set out. Costs can be reduced by: (i) earlier freezing of designs making changes only in groups of several changes at wider intervals, (ii) making a more realistic approach to reliability designs, (iii) selecting tolerances in a more analytical manner according to individual needs, (iv) selecting materials on the basis of actual design requirements instead of using the very best materials available even when the short life makes them unnecessary, (v) avoiding tool‐room methods in production engineering, (vi) setting work standards on as many operations as possible and enforcing them to the greatest degree possible, (vii) selecting the best type of workers to make the transition from development models to production missiles as smooth as possible, and (viii) setting up rigid systems and parts designation procedures for handling production parts. Finally, methods of organizing research and development and production for bridging the gap between engineering design and production are proposed.

COMMERCIAL air transport is a major growth industry. This growth, although fundamentally due to economic and political trends, has been greatly accelerated by the technological advance of aero engines and airframes.

THE ability of an aircraft to take‐off and land vertically can be achieved by a number of design techniques. Those currently favoured vary from the use of a large rotor (as in the helicopter) through propeller‐driven tilting wings and large ducted fans to small jet lift engines. Three major design parameters which affect the final choice of technique arc take‐off and hovering efficiency, cruising flight efficiency (involving, as it may do in the case of helicopters, limitations on forward speed) and the velocity of the lifting jet which will influence noise level and ground erosion problems. The use of the tilting wing, rotor, and to a lesser degree ducted fans places a comparatively severe restriction on the performance of aircraft required for military operations at high speeds and high altitudes, and consequently the turbojet lifting engine appears to offer the best solution to the vertical take‐off and landing problem for this type of application.

Rolls‐Royce Ltd. designs, develops and manufactures gas turbine engines for aircraft and marine industrial purposes and in 1971 the gas turbine business was reconstructed to continue independently of the motor car and other piston engine manufacture. The British Government is the sole shareholder, but the Company determines its own commercial policy.

COMPARED with most other industries a distinguishing feature of the air transport business throughout its history has been the rapid development and replacement of its flying equipment. Aircraft have evolved to meet the needs of expanding traffic and each generation has been succeeded by different, newer and better versions. The thirties saw the appearance of the all metal monoplane with piston engines and propellers. As we all know this was developed to a high degree during the World War II years and afterwards culminating by the early fifties in such aircraft as the DC‐6, DC‐7 and Constellation series among many. During the fifties the turboprop emerged in successful aircraft such as the Viscount, Vanguard, Electra and Britannia but at the end of that decade the turbojets entered the picture — first at long ranges and then progressively over shorter stages during the sixties. Speed (Fig. I) and size (Fig. 2) have all increased with time, of course, and, no less important, what might be considered less obvious factors such as operating cost, reliability and maintainability have all improved as well. In parallel with and indeed essential to this process there has been a perhaps even more remarkable development in propulsion systems as illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4 and there is no need to elaborate on these at this point.

Accles & Pollock Ltd. of Oldbury, Worcestershire, a TI Steel Tube Division company, will be exhibiting a comprehensive range of precision steel tube and tubular products, including plain, annularly convoluted and thin wall tube, at Farnborough.

AEM will be exhibiting in Hall 4, Stand G1. The exhibit will illustrate AEM's comprehensive range of accessory repair and overhaul services for electrical, hydraulic, avionic and safety equipment. Farnborough will also be used as the official launch of AEM's Boeing 737 Landing Gear Total Support Pro‐gramme, which encompasses a complete exchange and overhaul service. Copies of Aviation Accessory News will be available on the stand.