Britten Norman. Success or under-achievement?

B&N design methods ensured a lower cost than other planemakers, one of the reasons for itsa success. All ‘fancy bits’ were excluded at the design stage. Perhaps that is why it became such an enduring design.

A couple facts follow about the Islander design you may not know, from my distant memory of an RAE lecture given at BAe Weybridge by one of the designers (Britten or Norman, can’t remember which one).

All rivet pitches were the same all over the aircraft, and the plane was sized to suit this rivet pitch instead of working out different pitches for each location. For this feature, ‘one pitch’ metal templates were made for the draughtsmen, and the same templates were used by the people who built the planes.

The designer angered our draughtsmen by saying that all aircraft designers loved drawing nuts, bolts and the like – so he forbade his designers to do that!

The cabin was made just the right width for a standard ‘barrel’ of oil, an important consideration for Islanders of the human kind!

Bri 🙂

I can see why the flight test of the BN-2XL makes people spray tea/coffe over the keyboard, most amusing.

… should BN have achieved more?

They are certainly experts in survival and diversification and they are still delivering new Islanders.

From their website:

Britten-Norman Milestones

1947 – John Britten and Desmond Norman meet at DH Aeronautical Technical School
26 May 1951 – BN-1F (G-ALZE) ultra light mono-plane flies at Bembridge
1953 – Britten-Norman Limited formed
1963 – Britten and Norman commence design of 10 seat STOL aircraft
13 June 1965 – BN-2 Prototype G-ATCT first flight
17 June 1965 – BN-2’s first public appearance at Paris Air Show
26 June 1965 – BN-2’s first flying demo at Exeter Air Day
15 August 1966 – BN-2 named “Islander”
28 August 1966 – BN-2 Islander G-ATWU first production aircraft flies
9 November 1966 – BN-2 Prototype G-ATCT crashes at Sneek, Holland (test pilot Peter Hillwood dies)
10 August 1967 – BN-2 Islander receives UK CAA certification
13 August 1967 – First BN-2 Islander G-AVCN delivered to GlosAir, Staverton, UK (Later Aurigny)
19 December 1967 – BN-2 Islander receives US FAA certification
1968 – Additional production output requirement causes branching out to BHC, Cowes
1968 – Romanian production agreement signed with IRMA (UK / Romania offset programme)
20 June 1968 – First BN-2A Islander G-AWIB flies
17 May 1969 – First flight of Romanian built BN-2A Islander G-AXHY
15 September 1969 – 100th BN-2 delivered – BN-2A VH-ATV to Aerial tours, Papua New Guinea
1970 – Britten-Norman receives Queens Award to Industry for Export Achievement
11 September 1970 – First BN-2A MkIII G-ATWU flies
January 1971 – BN-2A MkIII named “Trislander”
June 1971 – BN-2A Defender launched at Paris Air Show
29 June 1971 – First production Trislander G-AYWI delivered to Aurigny
22 October 1971 – Britten-Norman Limited go into receivership
23 November 1971 – Britten-Norman (Bembridge) Limited formed
August 1972 – Bid from Fairey company accepted
21 November 1973 – 100th Romanian built Islander flown: BN-2A-6 G-BBFG
16 August 1974 – 500th BN-2 delivered: BN-2A-21 Defender G-BCEK to Sultan of Oman’s Air Force
September 1974 – Deal for 100 BN-2s to Philippines announced
February 1976 – John Britten and Desmond Norman leave Britten-Norman to pursue other interests
6 April 1977 – First (and only) BN-2A-41 Turbo Prop Islander G-BDPR flies
3 August 1977 – Britten-Norman (Bembridge) Limited goes into receivership
19 Jun 1978 – Pilatus Britten Norman Limited formed (pending acceptance of bid)
July 1978 – Bid form Pilatus Aircraft accepted
August 1978 – First BN-2B Islander II flies
2 August 1980 – BN-2T Turbine Islander Prototype G-BCMY flies
13 May 1981 – First production BN-2T Turbine Islander G-BIUJ flies
20 May 1981 – 1000th BN-2 G-BIIP flies
8 October 1981 – First BN-2T Turbine Islander delivered to GKN-Enterprise Minieres du Zaire
7 May 1982 – 1000th BN-2 delivered: BN-2B-21 Maritime Defender G-MICV to Cyprus Government
27 September 1984 – Last Belgian built Trislander delivered: BN-2A MkIII-2 G-BEPK to Botswana
6 March 1987 – Launch of AEW Defender
1988 – UK MoD places order for Islander Light Utility Aircraft (AL Mk 1)
1989 – Launch of US$10m programme for the flagship “Defender 4000” platform
August 1990 – BN-2T-4R MSSA development deal signed with Westinghouse Development Corp
Late 1993 – 25 years of Romanian BN-2 production aircraft celebrated
29 July 1994 – First BN-2T-4R MSSA production aircraft flies
17 August 1994 – BN-2T-4S Prototype G-SURV flies
September 1994 – BN-2T-4S Defender 4000 launched at Farnborough Air Show
12 June 1995 – 500th Romanian built BN-2 flies: BN-2T Islander G-BVFK
13 June 1995 – 30th anniversary of BN-2 Prototype G-ATCT’s first flight
9 September 1997 – First BN-2T-4S Defender 4000 enters service with Irish Garda Air Support Unit
July 1998 – Pilatus Britten Norman bought by Biofarm Inc
22 July 1998 – Pilatus Britten Norman renamed as Britten-Norman Limited
4 May 2000 – B-N Group Limited formed
5 May 2000 – B-N Group bid for Britten-Norman accepted
19 May 2000 – Britten-Norman Limited goes into final liquidation
18 July 2000 – First B-N Group production aircraft delivered from Romania by Chairman, A Zawawi
1 September 2002 – Subsidiary company, Fly BN Limited, formed to specialise in product support and MRO (‘145’)
10 September 2002 – Corresponding manufacturing subsidiary, Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited, formed
13 November 2002 – Co-founder of Britten-Norman Desmond Norman, dies
12 February 2003 – B-N Group announces relaunch of Trislander production
1 October 2003 – Independent HR & Training company, BN Resources Limited, commences trading
January 2004 – UK MOD places urgent order for Defender 4000 platform – delivered to customer in 9 months
1 August 2004 – Subsidiary, BN Aircraft Sales Inc, formed in USA to handle US aircraft sales
1 November 2004 – Britten-Norman Pty Ltd commences trading in Australia to focus on Asia-Pacific region
23 June 2005 – Britten-Norman Inc commences trading in the Americas
August 2005 – Aero Composites Limited, a Fly BN subsidiary, formed.
June 2006 – BN Logistics Limited formed, based at new premises near London Heathrow.
September 2006 – BN Helicopters Limited formed, based at new premises at Thruxton Airfield, UK.
February 2007 – BN Defence Limited formed, based at new premises at MOD St Athan Airfield, UK.

The trouble is you can’t maintain a production line based on the unique needs of a island hopping service..
For most operators, the Canadian plane is probably a more useful tool.

pagen 01 my original comment on production was simply that a good product with a market will usually do well.

Maybe the time has come for a study into whether it would be a worthwhile proposition to re-engine with Thielerts (should they ever resume production) or another diesel engine.

We got any aeronautical students here looking for a subject?

Just remember, that if the idea sells, I thought of it first! 😉

[QUOTE=J Boyle;1335922]One would think that if there’s a market for them, they’d go back into production. [QUOTE]

See posts #2 & #11, it’s not just Bembridge where production is meant to be restarting either.

As mentioned above, the piston powered BN-2 is alot more handy (and adequate) for the job of inter island hopping because of very short start up and warm up times. Even the T’wotter is way more expensive because of turbine starts.

Aurigny in the Channel Islander introduced Twin Otters on the short inter Island runs but they were not a patch on the Islander/Trislanders

The engines were difficult to start as the running time between starts was too short and a flat truck of linked batteries had to be used to help get them started

Sometimes they were difficult to start after a short time on the ground

The engines burn a lot more fuel than the pistons at low level and basically the cost was a lot more

The big problem with the Islander was not being able to meet the sporadic demand for aircraft. In order to fulfill orders when they came in they had to pre build and stock

It was the stock of unsold airframes tying up too much capital that caused so many cash flow problems and bankruptcies…..it was not anything to do within the aeroplane which was probably in it’s heyday the finest of it’s kind and in some applications still is.

I think temperature cycling is the problem for small turboprops on short hops. The piston engined BN aircraft can sustain this.

One would think that if there’s a market for them, they’d go back into production.

After all, Cessna is making 206s again, and Viking is relaunching the Twin Otter.
Perhaps it’s time has passed?
Cost aside, I’d think the Twin Otters would be a much more useful aircraft if for no other reason than they burn kerosene rather than AVGAS which is getting hard to find. And the Cessna 208 can do most of what an Islander can for comparable operating economics (one turbine with a long TBO vs two piston engines…which are cheaper to buy, but have fairly short TBOs. Then you have double the prop overhaul and twice the cost for ancillaries).

AFAIK… BN Islander is the 2nd most built airliner in the the world, the 1st is the wonderful B-737. My figures might be out of date, ‘cos the incredible A318/9/20 series are here now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me44yhEk2Bo

I have heard recent strong rumours that BN plan to bring the Islander build jigs back from Romania and restart limited production at Bembridge.

Whilst building them out east was more cost effective due to the low wage rates etc. This only worked if a fairly sizeable batch of BN2s could be ordered. Mucho ££$$ss required for this, with the associated risk of not finding customers for the finished aircraft, hence no ‘new build’ Islanders for many a long year.

During 2008 a new and expensive looking paint shop facility has been built at Bembridge, so I hope the above becomes reality.

Chumpy

Is there a comparible with the BN-2 though AK?
The Islander seems to do a few jobs really well and uniquely in some cases, I guess cost isn’t quite so important.
I don’t see that there is a problem with the aircraft, it has been around since 1965 with few changes, which is remarkable in itself, the fact that no one has come up with a decent replacement can’t be blamed on B-N.
Anyone unfamilier with its importance is urged to check it out on Wikipedia

I’ll take the Q as: why is BN-2A not now in decent-volume production, like the Land Rover? BN/Bembridge, (Saro)Westland Aerostructures/Cowes, Fairey/Gosselies, PADC/Manila and IRMA/Bucharest have all been involved, China explored; UK Treasury (twice), Oerlikon/Pilatus, the US farmer, now Oman have invested. But none of them has made any money out of it. So, its cost of production exceeded its achievable selling price, despite such sensibles as (bog-standard) wheels and (easy-build, interchangeable?) wing planks, and off-the-shelf US avionics/power. Maybe all the other prototypes were seen by prospective funders as likely to share that attribute – like all BEAGLE types did.

The problem with Pup was it had not been designed for repeatable production: Cherokee door, 5 parts, Pup 50 (wrong actual #s, but you get the idea). Was BN-2 same?

:D:D Link is good for me!

Now if they had REALLY wanted to achieve maximum noise level, they could always have gone for a four-Palouste version :p 😀

Excellent!!
I have heard it said that the BN-2 is noiser on take off than a Tornado! Brilliant little design though, and really lifted in the BN-2T.

That link doesn’t work for me, so here it is from my saved copy..:D

Undaunted by technical realities, the design team at Pilatus Britten – Norman has announced plans for the BN2-XL, promising more noise, reduced payload, a lower cruise speed, and increased pilot workload.

We spoke to Mr. Fred Gribble, former British Rail boilermaker, and now Chief Project Engineer. Fred was responsible for developing many original and creative design flaws in the service of his former employer, and will be incorporating these in the new BN2-XL technology under a licensing agreement. Fred reassured BN-2 pilots, however, that all fundamental design flaws of the original model had been retained. Further good news is that the XL version is available as a retrofit.

Among the new measures is that of locking the ailerons in the central position, following airborne and simulator tests which showed that whilst pilots of average strength were able to achieve up to 30 degrees of control wheel deflection, this produced no appreciable variation in the net flight of the aircraft. Thus the removal of costly and unnecessary linkages has been possible, and the rudder has been nominated as the primary directional control. In keeping with this new philosophy, but to retain commonality for crews’ transitioning to the XL, additional resistance to foot pressure has been built in to the rudder pedals to prevent over-controlling in gusty conditions (defined as those in which wind velocity exceeds 3 knots).

An outstanding feature of Islander technology has always been the adaptation of the O-540 engine which, when mounted in any other aircraft in the free world (except the Trislander) is known for its low vibration levels. The Islander adaptations cause it to shake and batter the airframe, gradually crystallise the main spar, desynchronise the accompanying engine, and simulate the sound of fifty skeletons fornicating in an aluminium dustbin. PBN will not disclose the technology they applied in preserving this effect in the XL but Mr. Gribble assures us it will be perpetrated in later models and sees it as a strong selling point. “After all, the Concorde makes a lot of noise” he said, “and look how fast that goes.”

However design documents clandestinely recovered from the PBN shredder have solved a question that has puzzled aerodynamicists and pilots for many years, disclosing that it is actually noise which causes the BN2 to fly. The vibration set up by the engines, and amplified by the airframe, in turn causes the air molecules above the wing to oscillate at atomic frequency, reducing their density and creating lift. This can be demonstrated by sudden closure of the throttles, which causes the aircraft to fall from the sky. As a result, lift is proportional to noise, rather than speed, explaining amongst other things the aircraft’s remarkable takeoff performance.

In the driver’s cab (as Gribble describes it) ergonomic measures will ensure that long-term PBN pilots’ deafness does not cause in-flight dozing. Orthopaedic surgeons have designed a cockpit layout and seat to maximise backache, en-route insomnia, chronic irritability, and terminal (post-flight) lethargy. Redesigned “bullworker” elastic aileron cables, now disconnected from the control surfaces, increase pilot workload and fitness. Special noise retention cabin lining is an innovation on the XL, and it is hoped in later models to develop cabin noise to a level which will enable pilots to relate ear-pain directly to engine power, eliminating the need for engine instruments altogether.

We were offered an opportunity to fly the XL at Britten-Norman’s development facility, adjacent to the British Rail tearooms at Little Chortling. (The flight was originally to have been conducted at the Pilatus plant but aircraft of BN design are now prohibited from operating in Swiss airspace during avalanche season). For our mission profile, the XL was loaded with coal for a standard 100 N.M. trip with British Rail reserves, carrying one pilot and nine passengers to maximise discomfort. Passenger loading is unchanged, the normal under-wing protrusions inflicting serious lacerations on 71% of boarding passengers, and there was the usual confusion in selecting a door appropriate to the allocated seat. The facility for the clothing of embarking passengers to remove oil slicks from engine cowls during loading has been thoughtfully retained.

Start-up is standard, and taxiing, as in the BN2 is accomplished by brute force. Takeoff calculations called for a 250-decibel power setting, and the rotation force for the (neutral) C of G was calculated at 180 ft/lbs. of backpressure.

Initial warning of an engine failure during takeoff is provided by a reduction in vibration of the flight instrument panel. Complete seizure of one engine is indicated by the momentary illusion that the engines have suddenly and inexplicably become synchronised. Otherwise, identification of the failed engine is achieved by comparing the vibration levels of the windows on either side of the cabin. (Relative passenger pallor has been found to be an unreliable guide on many BN2 routes because of ethnic consideration).

Shortly after takeoff the XL’s chief test pilot, Capt. Mike “Muscles” Mulligan demonstrated the extent to which modern aeronautical design has left the BN2 untouched; he simulated pilot incapacitation by slumping forward onto the control column, simultaneously applying full right rudder and bleeding from the ears. The XL, like its predecessor, demonstrated total control rigidity and continued undisturbed. Power was then reduced to 249 decibels for cruise, and we carried out some comparisons of actual flight performance with graph predictions. At 5000 ft and ISA, we achieved a vibration amplitude of 500 CPS and 240 decibels, for a fuel flow of 210 lb/hr, making the BN2-XL the most efficient converter of fuel to noise after the Titan rocket.

Exploring the Constant noise/Variable noise concepts, we found that in a VNE dive, vibration reached its design maximum at 1000 CPS, at which point the limiting factor is the emulsification of human tissue. The catatonic condition of long-term BN2 pilots is attributed to this syndrome, which commences in the cerebral cortex and spreads outwards. We asked Capt. Mulligan what he considered the outstanding features of the XL. He cupped his hand behind his ear and shouted “Whazzat?”

We returned to Britten-Norman convinced that the XL model retains the marque’s most memorable features, whilst showing some significant and worthwhile regressions.
PBN are not, however, resting on their laurels. Plans are already advanced for the Trislander XL and noise tunnel testing has commenced. The basis of preliminary design and performance specifications is that lift increases as the square of the noise, and as the principle of acoustic lift is further developed, a later five-engined vertical take-off model is also a possibility.”

All in all, a wonderful aeroplane.

“BN2-XL” 😀

http://www.dh82.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=4&topic=22.0

Having flown the Islander for the last 12 years, I would say there’s not many aircraft that could do the same job.. Ok, its noisy, slow and looks like a box, but it does the job it was designed for…..And I’m not deaf yet…..

If anyone has a copy of the spoof flight test of the BN2-XL, which i think Flight International did some years ago, please try and post it. It has me spitting my coffee out over the keyboard every time i read it:D

Not really fully knowledgable on all B-N designs or what the failures are (thought they were to do with the solo B & N efforts), but surely the Islander / Defender line could be argued to be the most successful The type is still in low level production, and misquoting here, the only Islander replacement would be an Islander!
Maybe could do with some modernisation, but everyone I have spoken to from pilots to engineers (they rebuild them here where I work) seem to like it.
To your question, I can’t see anything they should’ve done differently