Talk:Bristol Britannia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Related development

Reference should be made to the fact that the Shorts Belfast freighter was a based on Britannia wings and tail units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambak51 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The Belfast was originally referred-to as the "Britannic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.245 (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The civil name for the cargo derivative was to be 'Britannic' but all the aircraft built went to the RAF which named them 'Belfast', hence when these were sold-off to civil operators they remained 'Belfast's.

The Britannic/Belfast was originally designed to transport Blue Streak to Woomera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.189 (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Part of the cause of the delay in getting the Britannia into service was caused by the two 1954 Comet accidents that resulted in the ARB requirement to do extensive fatigue testing on all future airliners, the Britannia being one of the first that this was required of by the ARB before issuing its certification.

"ARB" - Air Registration Board, the part of the British Government formerly responsible for the certification of civil aircraft and which was later absorbed into the-then new CAA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.245 (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Source

My source about the Cubana retrofit with Britannia parts comes from the Aerofax book about the Il-18. RGDS Alexmcfire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire (talk • contribs) 10:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed the comment about Britannia nosewheels not really relevant to the aircraft or notable.MilborneOne (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Inlet Icing Mention

Not really worth including in the article but, BION, the Britannia's inlet icing troubles are mentioned by Wallace Greenslade in The Goon Show episode 'The Burning Embassy' [1]. Ian Dunster (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Many thanks to the fellow Wikipedians, creators and updaters, of this English Britanniapage which I used to expand the Dutch page. Without your contributions it was impossible to achieve this. Thank you very much! Dankuwel!
--MidJo (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Factual Errors

I hesitate to tamper with this excellent article, but a couple of minor things in the introduction need correction:

Firstly:

"Soon after production the turboprop engines proved susceptible to inlet icing and two prototypes were lost while solutions were found."

In fact, the icing problem was only found late in the development cycle, during tropical trials (in 1956?), and the prototype losses were not thus caused.

Secondly:

The 'Whispering Giant" appellation applied to the noise impact on the external environment. Inside, it was very noisy, though with much less vibration than piston-engined types. It was pure jets which reversed this, giving a quiet interior but noisy exterior.

I'll try correcting this if no active editor is interested. John Wheater (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This article states: "Nevertheless, the Britannia is considered the high point in turboprop design...." Is this universally accepted? One would think the Lockheed Electra would rank higher as more were produced, a number are still in cargo/firefighting and even passenger carrying service (at least according to Wiki), and the design soldiers on worldwide as the P-3 Orion (700+ built). Looks like there's half a dozen Britannias lingering around as stationary hulks. By comparison, about four times as many Electras are actually still flying and doing real work, not just as museum pieces. Seems like a no brainer as to which was more successful and hence the true "high point" (although with large turboprop airliners in general, success is at best a relative term). Other than one British enthusiast publication is there any other source, preferably not from the UK to ensure that this is a universal not British only attribution, which really claims this remarkably obscure aircraft was the pinnacle of "large turboprop design" (presumably the author is referring to airliners as another obscure American aircraft, the C-130, comes to mind as a vastly more successful large turboprop in general)? Basically its statements like this in Wiki that really seals its reputation as a reliable source - almost fell out of the chair laughing when first reading this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.153 (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I dont disagree it needs to be reliably sourced it is talking about high point in turborpop design nothing to do with production numbers, making a lot doesnt always indicate a good design. You could build only one of a type and it could still be a really good design. MilborneOne (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

One point is that the Britannia was probably the last western propeller airliner built for the "Blue Riband" long-range routes like the Trans-Atlantic routes before jets took over - later turboprop airliners such as the Electra and Vanguard were aimed at shorter routes (and didn't last that long on front line passenger routes before being replaced by jets). A better comparison would be things like the Starliner and DC-7. Whether this should be in the lead paragraphs without any discussion in the body of the text is a different matter.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

While no doubt the DC-7 was indeed a far more historically significant aircraft (and thus more of a high point), it wasn't a turboprop. Of course, production numbers aren't the only measure of superiority, longevity (again goes to Electra as noted above), and significance to aviation (again Electra wins, as it was the antecedent to a whole family of very successful aircraft, the P-3 Orions, while the Brittania led to what, the Argus!) - by the way, the Onion points to the versatility and overall soundness of design of the Electra so isn't irrevelent. Okay then, what standard or measure, other then being built in the UK, would lead to Brittania's high pointedness? Overall, to say it had a longer range and is therefore the high point is somewhat silly as the Electra was just designed to meet a different requirement - even then, the intro should say "high point in transoceanic turboprop design (which would be a pretty narrow category, but perhaps one that the Brittania could claim, although Russian enthusiasts might want to dispute it)." As for longevity in scheduled airline service, Electras were still doing it into the 90s, so yes not a bad measure of good, even superior, design. There is nothing here to prove that Britannia was a good design - it wasn't terribly successful in its original role and found no one interested in using it elsewise to any significant degree when technology, in the guise of the 707, passed it by - which again would make one wonder how it was a "really good design" and by what measure? Of course, this is a pointless debate - hence, will only reiterate that referring to some British enthusiast publication or the opinion of some British aviation enthusiasts does not a universal claim make. Indeed outside your sphere, this aircraft is pretty much a head scratcher as no one has ever heard of it - only stumbled onto it because of some references to its engines relative to those for the Douglas C-132 (okay, will grant you the Brittania was probably a better idea than a turboprop, swept wing 'Old Shaky'). There are plenty of British aircraft that are true aviation highpoints in their respective domains - the Lancaster, the Canberra, the Harrier - but come on the Brittania? Anyway, have fun in your sandbox... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.153 (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't think the Britannia, unlike the Electra, ever had trouble with its wings falling-off though, although perhaps landing with all the engine and airframe parts still-fitted was not normally expected of US airliners/airlines, something that still apparently applied as late as July 2000 judging by the accident at Paris.

As Rangi Ram says; "There is an old Hindu proverb - People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.66.73 (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Israeli airline El Al was at one time flying Britannias non-stop from Tel Aviv to JFK airport - that's well over 5,000 miles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bristol Britannia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 10:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I will review the article and post my findings here in the next few days. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 10:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

---

I have noticed that the article is not entirely stable—there have already been 16 edits today—if editing does not slow I will find it difficult to keep up with changes and thus ensure that the article is worthy of GA status.

Anyway, here is my review of the article. Overall it is a well-written, interesting and excellently sourced article that has clearly had a lot of effort put into it. There are several things that need changing, but this is certainly on its way to GA status. Well done to all involved.

Introduction

• The note directing users looking for Bristol Britannia (car) is not correct. A template (in this case {{for}}) should be used.

• "A British medium-/long-range airliner" Use of slashes is strongly discouraged (see MOS:SLASH). Is it possible to say, for example, "A British medium-to-long-range airliner", or something similar, to avoid using a slash?

• The lede itself is one long pararaph. For a long article such as this, it would be advisible to split the lede into two paragraphs and, if possible, expand both paragraphs, since one chunky paragraph is hard on the eye.

• "Nevertheless, the Britannia is considered one of the landmarks in turboprop-powered airliner design and was popular with passengers, earning itself the title of "The Whispering Giant" for its quiet, exterior noise and smooth flying, albeit the passenger interior remained less tranquil." A very long sentence, perhaps consider splitting it in two.

• "were about to enter service, consequently only 85 Britannias were built before production ended in 1960." Should this be "...enter service, and consequently..."?

• Since this is the first time that you mention the United Kingdom and the United States, please write them out rather than calling them the UK and the US.

Design and development

• "The Brabazon Committee called for several different aircraft to be developed to specifications composed by the committee for roles felt to fulfill Britain's civilian aviation needs." would sound better as "The Brabazon Committee called for several different aircraft to be developed to specifications they composed for roles felt to fulfill Britain's civilian aviation needs."

• "The name: "Britannia" was chosen" would read better as "The name, "Britannia", was chosen" or "The name "Britannia" was chosen"

• "The first prototype registered G-ALBO" needs a comma, and you might want to link Aircraft registration.

• "the second prototype G-ALRX caused" should read "the second prototype, G-ALRX, caused"

• Should "Bristol upgraded the design as a larger transatlantic airliner for BOAC, resulting in the Series 200 and 300, the Britannia 300LR was seen as "eminently suitable" for BOAC's services between London and Sydney." read "Bristol upgraded the design as a larger transatlantic airliner for BOAC, resulting in the Series 200 and 300, and the Britannia 300LR was seen as "eminently suitable" for BOAC's services between London and Sydney."?

• "A final unique "one-off" development was the Conroy Skymonster, nicknamed Guppy based on a Canadair CL-44D4 N447T" should be "A final unique "one-off" development was the Conroy Skymonster, nicknamed Guppy, based on a Canadair CL-44D4 N447T"

Variants

• This section would defintley look better with images, if there are any available on Commons that are not already used in the article.

Accidents and incidents

• Is it me, or is all the first paragraph excluding the first sentence meant to be a bullet point. Its odd describing the deadliest accident in a paragraph, and then going on to describe others in a bulleted list.

Survivors

• All of the final three in the list need commas after "England".

Other *Having the See also section using "|" for subheadings, and having the References section using ";" for subheadings is inconsistent, it would be ideal to use the same for both.

*Please put an aviation portal box in the See also section.

Everything fixed except the last two items, I don't know how to format these changes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

I've added the portal box, even got it in the correct place eventually! Mjroots (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, all points have been addressed. Upon reflection, the last point I made would have no real effect on whether this meets GA status or not, but a matter of the author's preference. Again, very well done to all the authors of this article, it is very interesting and excellently written. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 06:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, although I treated my contributions as a research exercise and I had not been finished doing some preliminary legwork, the final product seems to stand up well. Look at this version and the latest incarnation of the article to see the vast differences in the development of the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

"First Round-the World"

I see where the confusion is coming from about who was first to operate a round-the-world service. BA's website says "31 March [1959]: Britannia 312 G-AOVT left London for New York and Tokyo to inaugurate BOAC’s round-the-world service, which then operated regularly from August 1960 [1959, they meant to say]. The following day, Comet 4 G-APDH inaugurated the eastward round-the-world service."

They don't say that BOAC was first. (It seems the "inaugural" was a one-time flight; regular service was delayed by some sort of red tape.)

"20 August [1959]: BOAC started the first regular round-the-world service by Britannia 312 aircraft, operating via San Francisco and Hong Kong."

They're saying it was the first regular Britannia RTW service, not the first RTW service. (Tho, truth be told, the Britannias that arrived Hong Kong from the US always? turned around and returned to London via the Pacific.) Tim Zukas (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

First non-stop flight to Canada?

The reference given for that is this British Airways history page, but that does *not* say it was the first non-stop flight to Canada, rather that it was the first non-stop flight to "Canada's Pacific coast". 86.136.249.150 (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, Bristol earlier did a non-stop flight from Filton to Vancouver as a demonstration flight for TCA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.140 (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Expansion of content about Cuban Brits

Recently an anonymouse editor has made a series of undiscussed, unexplained and apparently unreferenced edits to the article about Cuban operation of the Britannia. These edits do not appear to be backed up by the existing sources and no new sources have been introduced to back up the edits. Indeed, these edits have been inserted in such a way as to give the impression that they are supported by the existing references with no evidence presented in either this talk page nor the edit summaries to that effect. Finally, I believe that these edits in total give undue weight to one minor aspect of the operations of this aircraft. Consequently I am reverting these edits and request that before they be re-added, some discussion take place here about their appropriateness and a consensus be established for the proposed changes. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

POV tag - Why?

Why has the POV template been added? Please explain what the potential problems are so they can be discussed.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Mr Ish's comments above. The contributor who has added the POV template appears to have made few additions to WP and has put forward no justification for the marker. The article remains of quite a good standard and I would therefore support speedy deletion of the POV template. RuthAS (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Given the article is already rated "Good" and it's been a week since added - plenty of time to for the editor to give their reasons - I've been bold and removed it. (or have I done the R in BRD?) GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No 3 engine on fire over the Sahara

I only recently learned of an incident in 1954 (when a Britannia crash-landed on the Severn mudflats), and it reminded me of this similar incident on a Britannia flight when I was 13, returning to school in the UK. I had a window seat by the starboard wing, and the bang of the explosion was tremendous. It took seemingly ages for the fire to go out; and the pilot is reported to have said afterwards that he had difficulty isolating No. 3's fuel supply, adding that he was worried that the whole wing might catch light. I have no further facts, but we passengers were taken on a coach trip around the island, which was decked out in bunting for the forthcoming Malta independence celebrations. We flew on to London in an RAF VC10, all seats facing aft. Arrivisto (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I listed this incident under Bristol Britannia#Accidents and incidents, but it has been deleted as "original research". Has anyone any access to veritable data on this incident, please? The independence celebrations dates it to September 1964. Arrivisto (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

As from what you say the aircraft landed safely without much of a problem it probably isnt that noteworthy or notable enough for inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Without wishing to "big it up", an incident doesn't have to have casualties or crashes to be serious. Leaving aside my own bias through personal involvement, it is perhaps of interest that when a prototype's No. 3 engine caught fire, the pilot crash-landed because he feared main spar failure, whereas here, the pilot maintained altitude so as to make an emergency landing rather than a constrolled crash. It might be useful to discover if this incident prompts any recollections of other Britannia engine fires. Arrivisto (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This isnt really a discussion forum perhaps suggest you ask the question at www.pprune.org where somebody is sure to know the answer. MilborneOne (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If this incident happened in 1964, the passengers most certainly did not fly on to London on an RAF VC10, which had not entered service at that time.Ambak51 (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The OP's mention of a VC10 is in a reference to an incident that occurred to himself and not to the Britannia accident that occurred in 1954, which he merely states he was reminded of. The 1954 accident was caused by failure of a propeller reduction gear leading to engine (power turbine) over-speeding and overheating, and a fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Commentary by anonymous editor

The Britannia was designed as a turboprop replacement for the long-range trans-Atlantic DC-7, Lockheed Constellation and Boeing 377 Stratocruiser airliners. As such, it was a 'high point' in turboprop design and almost certainly represented the zenith of long-range propeller-driven passenger aircraft, however the delay in its introduction and the arrival of the Comet 4 and Boeing 707 pure jet airliners ensured that the Britannia only had a short life in its intended purpose, which was trans-Atlantic passenger carriage.

BTW, according to Bill Gunston the Britannia's icing problems could have been eliminated simply by cruising at a slightly higher or lower altitude than BOAC had originally specified, but BOAC were being awkward and insisted on that one specific altitude. This delayed the introduction by several years. However, the Britannia's flight test period came shortly after the Comet accident investigations so BOAC may have thought themselves justified in being ultra-cautious.

The icing problems were caused by the Proteus inlet system that had originally been designed for wing-mounted engines with intakes in the wing leading edge as-per the Brabazon and Princess.

The above was posted without explanation or signature by user:2.31.130.99 talk into an old discussion thread. Moved to end of page. I believe this comes within the ambit of WP:NOTFORUM. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

" ... such as the Deputy Chairman Whitney Straight, however, considered the Proteus engine to be "an obsolete contraption"" - that's curious, as at the time the only turboprop engines he could possibly have seen were the Rolls-Royce Dart, the Armstrong Siddeley Python, and the Proteus, with perhaps the Rolls-Royce Clyde and Bristol Theseus thrown in as well. What was he comparing the Proteus with, the Centaurus - that was designed in 1937-38. If the Proteus was so 'obsolete' why did BOAC not simply order the Britannia with the Centaurus or the enlarged Centaurus, the Orion. No wonder British aircraft manufacturers eventually gave up, most of their customers appear to have been idiots.

BTW, the Proteus was still powering SR-N4's across the English Channel as late as 2000, and was still in some warships in 1982 at the time of the Falklands war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.156 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

British Royal Family Usage

One aircraft was alleged to have been fitted out for Royal Usage - once used on a visit to Malta, allegedly by The Queen Mother. o trace of reliable source found. Good Luck. 60.242.247.177 (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I would not have thought it was particularly noteworthy even if it was referenced. MilborneOne (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)