April 6, 2004 at 3:53 am
Whatever happened to the many big names in British aviation manufacturing from World War Two? I know that Hawker became Hawker Sideley, and then BAe, but…
are the following still in operation in any form?
Vickers Supermarine
Fairey
Handley Page
Short Brothers (last I heard they were licence building the Embraer Tucanos, are they still going?)
Armstrong Whitworth
Boulton Paul
Miles
De Havilland (I know DH Canada seems to still make planes, does the British branch?)
Avro
Gloster
Have I missed any of the big names?
By: pierrepjc - 6th April 2004 at 21:40
Eric MC
BAe were on their a**e and not far from closing shop when they sold the 125 off to Beech.
Share price at that time was less than £1 and debt was through the roof. Very bad times.
They do however still manufacture all airframes for the HAWKER UK designs from the Broughton Plant, continuing to supply them to Wichita as the bare fuse and wing components.
It needs to be remembered that if Hawker Siddeley had not gone in to Airbus at the very beginning as at that time a private venture, then things today might be a lot different. How different would be hard to say.
Paul
By: mike currill - 6th April 2004 at 21:30
For whatever it’s worth, as far as I remember, de Havilland Canada also became part of the Bombardier group of companies and de Havilland Pty Ltd Australia along with CAC became GAF
By: robbelc - 6th April 2004 at 19:44
Miles is actually a little complicated.
The original company went bankrupt in 1947 as a result of the very bad winter(power cuts not helping wood glue to dry) plus govenment delays of the Marathon and Monitor. The Woodley part was then taken over by Handley Page. Handley Page(Reading) as it was then called closed in 1962.
After the 1947 collapse Fred Miles started up again at Redhill and later Shoreham and then was merged into Beagle in the late 60’s.
It was at that time that the M100 student and HDM105 were built. The later idea was sold to Shorts and became the Skyvan.
By: Eric Mc - 6th April 2004 at 16:53
I didn’t take it personally.
I do realise that modern aircraft are much more complicated than those of earlier periods and that collaborations are the main way forward. Hpowever, not all aircraft are tremendously sophisticated and with Britain’s proud history in aerospace you would think that at least one home grown design could see it through to production without the need to find an overseas partner. As I stated earlier, Embraer of Brazil are turning out some decent airliners and have really stolen a march on what we could be doing here.
The fault lies with short sighted government policies going back 50 years and the failure of British financiers to get behind long term aviation projects in this country. The UK aerospace companies also sowed the seeds of their own demise in earlier eras by failing to grasp the fact that a proper commercial outlook was much more imporatnt than just tendering for domestic military contracts or requirements issued by the nationalised airlines. In effect, the only customer the British aircraft manufacturers ever took seriously was the British government. Overseas sales were usually an afterthought.
By: Whitley_Project - 6th April 2004 at 16:27
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eric Mc
[B]I can and I will – so there.
No need to get touchy mate 😉
I think with the complexity of modern combat aircraft it’s difficult for a single company to come up with something really competative. The French seem to have done a good job with the Rafaele, but I will be shocked and surprised if it is superior to the Typhoon. Project sharing is the way ahead – at least in Europe. Just a pity we don’t all speak the same language and have to work with the French and Germans.
And as far as airbus goes, i’m just glad we have a part in a successful civil airliner again – a serious rival to anything boeing can produce – not some nodescript south american airliner very few people other than plane spotters have heard of (no offense to the south americans).
You can’t just waltz into markets like these and expect to produce world beating aircraft on your own any more – simple as that.
By: Eric Mc - 6th April 2004 at 14:56
The difference in the pre-war groupings is that they came about organically through the expansion of the various companies and commercial mergers. The Government forced mergers of 1962 were purely political. Some of the companies who were already in “groups” had to leave those groups and join up with new government appointed partners. A good example of this is the case of the De Havilland DH121 Trident airliner. De Havilland revived an old name (Airco) to stand as the group name for the companies who were going to collaborate in the building of the plane. One of the companies in the Airco group was the Bristol Aeroplane Company. However, Bristol became part of the British Aircraft Corporation whereas De Havilland became part of the Hawker Siddeley Group. As a result, the Airco group had to be disbanded and Bristol had no further involvement in the project (a lucky escape for them – perhaps, as it turned out).
By: VoyTech - 6th April 2004 at 13:57
Originally posted by Eric Mc
Due to government enforced rationalisation in the early 1960s, most of the British manufactureres were forced into two large groups, Hawker Siddeley and the British Aircraft Corporation.
Originally posted by Melvyn Hiscock
It is interesting to look at the old Janes AWA from 1945 and look at the Directors of the companies then. TOM Sopwith was on the board of many of them and was controlling WAY more of the British industry than is widely known. BAe was already forming before WW2!
Quite so, Melvyn.
IIRC most of the British manufactureres were in two large groups, Hawker and Vickers Armstrongs already before the war. Gloster and Avro, for example, were wholly owned by Hawker. So, technically, there should be no reason why BAe cannot market its aircraft (if it makes any) under Supermarine brand, for example. Did they not sell commercial jets under the Avro label?
By: Melvyn Hiscock - 6th April 2004 at 13:04
It is interesting to look at the old Janes AWA from 1945 and look at the Directors of the companies then. TOM Sopwith was on the board of many of them and was controlling WAY more of the British industry than is widely known. BAe was already forming before WW2!
MH
By: Joe Petroni - 6th April 2004 at 13:03
Its funny I spent a fair part of yesterday photocopying a Gipsy engine manual (double sided can be tricky!) and at the back there is a list of accessory manufactures. As I looked down the list of old familiar name’s I found myself asking I wonder what happened to them? I wonder if they are still in business?
Auto-Kleen Strainers
B.T.H Magneto’s
D.H. A.C. Fuel Pumps
Hobson Carburettor
K.L.G. Sparking Plugs ‘The Spitfire plug’
Lodge Sparking Plugs Or were these the Spitfire plug?
Rotax Electric Starters and Generators (Telephone ‘Elgar 7777’)
Plessey Vacumn pump and cartridge starter
Perhaps not as interesting or exciting as the airframe manufactures but they all have their place in British Aviation history.
By: Mark12 - 6th April 2004 at 12:00
One lump or two?
I remember being quite depressed in the 1960’s + at the number of ‘famous’ names that seemed to have moved into the drink vending machine or garage door businesses. 🙁
Mark
By: Eric Mc - 6th April 2004 at 11:37
I can and I will – so there.
Eurofighter may very well be the last major project in which BAE Systems have a major part to play in both design and manufacture. The last fully indegenous airframe project started by a major British manufacturer and still in production and controlled in the UK would have to be the Hawk – and even that has a semi-French engine.
I fully appreciate BAE Systems role in Airbus – but it is not their whole plane, is it.
I think Brazil has surpassed the UK now for new, and successful, designs. Embraer are doing what BAE should have been doing all along. In fact, the success of the Embraer short haul jet liners (135/145 etc) is what put paid to the 146/RJ100. And why on earth did BAE give away the executive jet business to Beech?
I do not think that BAE have any long term commitment to airframe manufacturing. Like most city led British companies, they are now a stock market/shareholder return/short term profit orientated business – totally the wrong mindset for large scale investment, long term return engineering industries like aviation.
As I said, within ten years, BAE will be largely a component supplier.
By: Dave Homewood - 6th April 2004 at 11:30
Thanks for all this, most interesting. It’s sad to know that these great names are no more. They will live on in all our hearts though of course.
By: Whitley_Project - 6th April 2004 at 11:28
Originally posted by Eric Mc
Due to government enforced rationalisation in the early 1960s, most of the British manufactureres were forced into two large groups, Hawker Siddeley and the British Aircraft Corporation. There were a few exceptions. Handley Page refused to play ball – and were ostracised by the Government, who refused to place new orders with them. They eventually went into liquidation in 1970. Scottish Aviation and Short Brothers (which was already part of the Short and Harland ship building company) were left outside the mergers for political reasons. Harland and Wolf eventually sold Short Brothers to Bombardier of Canada.In 1977, the two large groups were nationalised and merged by the Labour government of the day into British Aerospace. BAe was eventually sold off as a PLC by the Conservatives and has since virtually stopped being a major airframe manufacturer and concentrated on general defence and collaborative projects – hence the change of name to BAE Systems. In ten years time, Britain will no longer be a manufacturer of aircraft, ending just over a 100 year history of plane building.
How can you say that when they have the lions share of the Eurofighter and are also major players in Airbus?
By: Eric Mc - 6th April 2004 at 11:11
Some of the early Beagle designs were based on older Austers eg. the Beagle Airedale, Husky and Terrier were all “tarted up” Austers.
In fact, I thought that Miles actually became a division of Handley Page (Handley Page Reading, if my memory serves me correctly). As result, projects such as the Miles Marathon and the Herald ended us with Handley Page designations – HPR-1 Marathon, HPR-7 Herald.
The confusion might arise from the fact that the Beagle 206 Basset brgan life as a Miles project.
By: Auster Fan - 6th April 2004 at 10:16
Originally posted by Arm Waver
Dave
I believe that Shorts are now part of Bombardier (spelling?)
Also at least DH merged into Hawker Siddeley along with one or two others.
Miles became part of BEAGLE of which some designs became those of Scottish Aviation…
Did have a sort of flow chart somewhere showing the family tree of BAe as it was… Can’t think where it is now.:(
OAW
Auster were also incorporated into BEAGLE, along with Miles.
By: Joe Petroni - 6th April 2004 at 08:16
I might have been a bit hasty with Gloster’s. Just done a bit of research and they amalgamated with Armstrong-Whitworth to form Whitworth-Gloster divison of Hawker Siddeley.
I remember seeing Gloster airport fire engines as they named them after Gloster aircraft, I don’t think they are still going though.
By: Eric Mc - 6th April 2004 at 08:10
Due to government enforced rationalisation in the early 1960s, most of the British manufactureres were forced into two large groups, Hawker Siddeley and the British Aircraft Corporation. There were a few exceptions. Handley Page refused to play ball – and were ostracised by the Government, who refused to place new orders with them. They eventually went into liquidation in 1970. Scottish Aviation and Short Brothers (which was already part of the Short and Harland ship building company) were left outside the mergers for political reasons. Harland and Wolf eventually sold Short Brothers to Bombardier of Canada.
In 1977, the two large groups were nationalised and merged by the Labour government of the day into British Aerospace. BAe was eventually sold off as a PLC by the Conservatives and has since virtually stopped being a major airframe manufacturer and concentrated on general defence and collaborative projects – hence the change of name to BAE Systems. In ten years time, Britain will no longer be a manufacturer of aircraft, ending just over a 100 year history of plane building.
By: Moggy C - 6th April 2004 at 07:36
Originally posted by Joe Petroni
Glosters ran out of orders and closed down in the early sixties.I think that’s about right.
As I recall, Gloster closed down the aviation side, but an operation called Gloster Saro (Saunders Roe?) was building airfield support vehicles on the Hucclecote site well into the 1970s
Moggy
By: Joe Petroni - 6th April 2004 at 07:08
Vickers amalgamated with English Electric and Hunting to form the British Aircraft Corporation, and then joined the Hawker Siddley Group to form British Aerospace in 1977 (along with Scotish Aviation).
Fairey was taken over by Westlands.
Handley Page went into receivership and was shut down (orchestrated by the Government at the time).
Shorts were indeed taken over by the Bombardier Group.
Armstrong Whitworth became part of the Hawker Siddeley group.
Boulton Paul aeronautical activities were taken over by Dowty Aerospace.
As arm waver said Miles became part of BEAGLE (along with Auster), they went into receivership in 1969. Scottish Aviation took the Bulldog, they also had the Jetsream from Handley Page.
De Haviland & AVRO went the same way to Hawker Siddeley then to British Aerospace and then BAE Systems.
Glosters ran out of orders and closed down in the early sixties.
I think that’s about right.
By: Arm Waver - 6th April 2004 at 04:02
Dave
I believe that Shorts are now part of Bombardier (spelling?)
Also at least DH merged into Hawker Siddeley along with one or two others.
Miles became part of BEAGLE of which some designs became those of Scottish Aviation…
Did have a sort of flow chart somewhere showing the family tree of BAe as it was… Can’t think where it is now.:(
OAW