Talk:Bristol Brabazon/Archive 1

Comment
I think that the "subdivision" of aircraft during the Second World War is a British myth. The US built 14,000 B-24s, more than any other Allied four-engine bomber. Yes, 47,000 DC-3s, a twin-engined cargo aircraft made in America, did serve during the war. But the DC-4 and the Lockheed Constellation were already in late design when the US entered the war. Although the Canadians built Avro Lancasters, I think the tiff here is caused by the fact that the US did not do so as well. --Sobolewski 21:45, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The way I read it is not that the US forced Britain not to built transport planes, but that the British decided to acquire US transport aircraft during WWII to free up the UK aircraft industry to build combat aircraft.


 * Anyone have any more definitive an answer? &mdash;Morven 21:58, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * I also find it unlikely that there was an agreement to divide production between the two countries. I assume what they meant was the British decided to buy all American transport aircraft. It sounds like most lend-lease aid was in the form of support equipment, not direct combat equipment because the other countries weren't comfortable relying on foreign weapons.
 * From Lend-lease: Most remaining belligerents were largely self-sufficient in front-line equipment (such as tanks: and fighter aircraft) by this stage, but Lend-Lease provided a useful supplement in this category even so, and Lend-Lease logistical supplies (including trucks, jeeps, landing craft, and above all the Douglas DC-3 transport aircraft) were of enormous assistance.
 * Holy shit, they still owe money from lend-lease: On May 3rd, 2006, the British Treasury Minister, Ivan Lewis in a commons reply said "Repayment of the war loans to the US Government is expected to be completed on December 31 2006," The final payment will be £45 million.
 * Also see World_War_II_aircraft_production and United_States_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II
 * Identity0 08:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's because the US deliberately bankrupted the UK in 1940. As a condition of supplying Britain with war materials, the US demanded that the British Empire sell ALL its assets in the US, which the UK, due to the world situation at the time, was then forced to do. At the time the UK owned a considerable amount of 'US' businesses. This is the reason that Britain was 'bankrupt' after the end of World War II - the US bankrupted them.


 * 'What goes around, comes around' and this is also one of the reasons (one of the others being Suez) that Britain refused to get involved in the Vietnam war alongside the US. 213.40.62.90 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Lend-Lease was not about bankrupting so much as drawing the isolationist US into the European conflict via hieghtened exposure, financially and militarily; finally precipitated by the USS Greer (DD-145) incident. Anywho, I doubt this was the first aircraft to have AC power: the Russian ANT-20 outdate's her by some time. CowMan 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This in 1939-40 was BEFORE Lend-lease was thought-of. One of the conditions of supplying the UK with US-built aircraft was that no loans would be given to buy aircraft until Britain had liquidated all her (considerable) assets in the US. This was done and Lend-lease took over after Britain had run out of dollar reserves. Britain spent over £500,000,000 ($2 billion at the-then exchange rate) in hard cash on buying US aircraft before Lend-lease came into effect.


 * BTW, I believe this war debt was finally paid off in 2006 or-so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.252.67 (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there anything you can cite to back up your claim over motivation? I'm betting you can't, because, as CowMan mentioned, that wasn't the case; rather, historically, the United States has been a much more isolationist nation than European powers; a distinct cultural difference, if you will. While the British quickly leapt into alliances and wars to protect others, Americans have had the long-running tendency to prefer to avoid "entangling alliances".


 * This continued for nearly a century and a half, as such that while WW1 raged in Europe, Woodrow Wilson successfuly won re-election in 1916 under the slogan, [|"He kept us out of the war"]. When WW2 loomed on the horizon, with fascism overtaking much of Europe and Nazi Germany already butting heads with the French and British on issues, the USA's response were the Neutrality Acts. Similarly, one of the central demands both sides sought to please the voters on in 1940 was non-interventionism in WW2, to where the normally hard-lining Roosevelt [|had to promise 'no foreign wars']. That's right, France had fallen and Britain was in the midst of its |darkest hour, yet the American voters didn't want any part of it.


 * This desire for isolationism is what dictated the shifting conditions on the supply of materiel and other things. Initially, the aforementioned Neutrality Acts forbade ANY trade to any belligerent nation. Later, in 1939, the interventionist and militaristic President Roosevelt scored a small victory in the adoption of the "Cash and Carry" policy; it superficially satisfied Congressional and voter desire to maintain neutrality by only subjecting British ships to attack, and ostensibly allowed Germany to trade as well, though as the Royal Navy ruled the seas around Europe, the policy was a tacit allowance of limited war trade with the UK and France exclusively. And further on, it was well-documented that slowly American opinion shifted toward interventionism, allowing the US government to get away with progressively more overt aid to Britain, starting with the Destroyers for Bases Agreement and finally, not long before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Lend-lease agreement. So it wasn't a desire to bleed the UK dry; if that was the desire, then chances are the US government would've required the UK sell them their land posessions such as Canada. Rather, it was simply as fast as the American populace could be convinced to shift in favor of Britain. Nottheking (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a book 'worst aircraft in the world' which states the Brabazon nearly crashed at its fly-by, which everyone thought was a fantastic low pass bank, but was a pilot fighting the controls for dear life. If anyone has other text, it might be worth adding.. 60.240.104.100 (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cold-war stupidity.
If the britons put russo-german contra-rotating turboprop engines (Tu-95 that is) into the Brabazon, the Boeing-707 would never happen. I think the britons were silly not to ivestigate that venue. The russians had no shame putting british turbine into the MiG-15.


 * Turboprop designs were not lacking in the UK; 3 companies (RR A-S and Bristol) had them - there was no need to go abroad. The Boeing 707 would not have had the run it did if it hadn't been for the Comet's fatigue problem, not the lack of turbo-props in other aircraft. The Mig needed a British engine design because current Soviet work was not up to scratch. GraemeLeggett 14:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
What happened to the pic of the Brabazon? Deipnosophista (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Deleted from Commons. I think I'll avoid submitting pics to Commons from now on, they've got a bug up their ass.  (Mind you, I wasn't the one that uploaded the Brabazon pic there.  But they've deleted other 100% free pics I uploaded there due to a draconian degree of copyright paranoia.)--Father Goose (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur. Also, I'd love to know if there's a way that, when we upload a free pic directly to Wikipedia, if we can request that it not be transferred to Commons, as often happens, and then may later be deleted, forcing us to re-upload it here again. - BillCJ (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement of Opinion
Since this page is about the Brabazon, the concluding opinion statement, "The Britannia is still considered by many to be the ultimate propeller driven airliner", probably ought to be deleted. It does not cite to the "many" and ignores the fact that there are probably an equal number of Tu-114 or Lockheed Constellation fans out there who would say the same thing. Extolling the virtues of the Brittania should be done on the Brittania page, and only with appropriate citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.72.19.178 (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparisons to American-Made Aircraft
I notice the article makes a mention of this aircraft being with a size "comparable to a Boeing 747," although looking at the specifications given, I don't think it's comparable; it's much larger if you go by wing span, (as propeller-driven aircraft required larger wings) but otherwise actually much, much smaller. Wingspan is not the main definition for the "size" of a fixed-wing aircraft, otherwise the Antonov An-225 would not be able to lay claim to being the "largest aircraft," as that title would thus belong to the Hughes H-4 Hercules. The An-225, though, has the highest maximum takeoff weight, which is what classifies it as the largest aircraft. Likewise, wingspan is obviously not the most important measurement of size if we look at the article's context, using it as a contrast for its seating capacity; in that respect, wingspan is irrelevant, and fuselage size and takeoff weight instead have importance.

In this respect, the Brabazon is much more comparable to that of the Boeing 767-200. Below I've tabled the data provided on each plane's Wikipedia article, taking the Brabazon, 747, 767, as well as the Comet and 707 as two examples for early-era jetliners. The order is in which they were introduced.

I think that this should clear things up a bit, and hence I think that it'd be correct for the size reference to be changed to a plane that more closely resembles the size of the Brabazon. Nottheking (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Crash-landing?
I remember having a field pointed out to me as being "where the Brabazon crash-landed" or maybe where it landed short of the runway. Did this ever happen or is my memory playing tricks on me? Since nothing of this is mentioned in the article, I must assume the latter! Thanks.--TraceyR (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My father claims it made an emergency landing on a beach/mud flats, but was recovered intact Stub Mandrel (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Surviving wheels
A couple of wheels are at the midland air museum. Need to find a source though.©Geni (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not increase passenger capacity?
Is there any explanation of why the inefficiency of the plane wasnt addressed simply by cramming it with seats? It may have been underpowered but the turboprop version would have been ok. Was this a failure of imagination or was there a technical issue? Stub Mandrel (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is WP:notaforum, but amongst the issues was: the Gust alleviation device which was needed to to allow airworthiness licencing for high-speed high altitude operations (which were needed for economical long range operations) had intractable problems and the aircraft had sufficient metal fatigue issues to prevent the issue of a certificate of airworthiness when it was proposed to hire the aircraft out to BEA for shorter-range operations (180 passengers from London to Nice).Nigel Ish (talk)