Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:54:04.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Producing light aircraft: three viability case studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

J. M. Robertson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Light Aeroplane Group of the Royal Aeronautical Society was set up with the aim of encouraging activity in the light aeroplane field in Britain and its hope is that production of light aircraft should be restarted in this country. Clearly there are many problems to be faced in setting about the renaissance of an industry which will range far beyond the scope of those encountered in building a ‘one-off’ aeroplane. In this paper I shall present three case studies of light aircraft produced in the recent generation. I hope that this will give a reasonably complete picture of the implications of starting light aeroplane production and will therefore form a good basis for discussion.

In formulating the design competition which has just been announced, we have taken note of the market appraisal which Hugh Field presented at Cranfield in September 1977 in which he pointed out that there is still a lack of a really good training aeroplane in the world market and also of the specification that Alan Bramson has put forward for the so called Multi Role Club Aeroplane which is aimed at just that slot in the market. The results from Alan Bramson's survey of opinion from flying instructors showed the acceptability of a low-wing, tricycle undercarriage monoplane with side-by-side seating.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 83 , Issue 820 , April 1979 , pp. 135 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1979 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

1. Light Aeroplane Design Competition. Aerospace, pp 12–13, October 1978; p 21, November 1978.Google Scholar
2. Hirst, Mike. Exploiting the light aeroplane's potential. Aerospace, October 1977.Google Scholar
3. Jane's All the World's Aircraft.Google Scholar
4. Harrison, Neil. Aircraft by the thousand: Flight looks round Piper's Vero Beach, Florida, Factory. Flight, pp 479–485, 24th March 1966.Google Scholar
5. Kent, D. US mass-produced aeroplane. Flight, pp 41–44, 9th January 1975.Google Scholar
6. Moll, Nigel. Lock Haven: Piper's front line. Flight, p 479, 12th August 1978.Google Scholar
7. Report of Inquiry into Aircraft Industry (Plowden Report). HMSO, 16th December 1965. Chapter 30 of this report expressed confidence in the future of the light air-craft industry in this country and made strong recommen dations that government financial assistance should be given to it.Google Scholar
8. Harrison, Neil. Beagle Pup. Flight, pp 985–991, 15th June 1967.Google Scholar
9. Harrison, Neil. In the air No 228, Beagle Pup-100 and Pup-150. Flight, pp 637–641, 25th April 1968.Google Scholar
10. Beagle's difficulties. Flight, p 898, 11th December 1969.Google Scholar
11. Wrixon, G. R. Beagle Bulldog. Flight, pp 624–631, 16th April 1970.Google Scholar
12. Beagle Aircraft: A production history. Midland Counties Aviation Research Group, 1974.Google Scholar
13. Kent, D. Avions Robin. Flight, pp 242–244, 13th February 1975.Google Scholar
14. Wilding-White, Ted. Dijon developments. Flight, pp 508–509, 12th October 1972.Google Scholar
15. Team test: Robin HR200/100. Flight, 14th March 1974.Google Scholar
16. Lambert, Mark. France's aircraft industry: Light air-craft. Flight, pp 1590–1593, 27th November 1976.Google Scholar
17. Lambert, Mark. et al. France's light aircraft industry. Flight, 30th April 1977.Google Scholar
18. Robin (8-page pamphlet). Robin SA.Google Scholar
19. Field, Hugh. In the air No 314, Piper Tomahawk, Flight, 1st July 1978.Google Scholar
20. Ashmead, Gordon B. Aircraft Production Methods. Chilton, 1956.Google Scholar
21. CAA. BCAR Section K: chapter K3-8 para 4.2, 1st April 1972; chapter K4-3 para 4.3.1, 10th April 1974.Google Scholar
22. Boughton, Terence. The Story of the British Light Aeroplane (see chapter 16, postscript). John Murray, 1963.Google Scholar
23. Grangier, Marc. CSE Aviation: One of the world's leading fixed-base operators, lnteravia, December 1976.Google Scholar
24. Masefield, P. G. Light aviation—problems, prospects and performance. 19th Bleriot Memorial Lecture. Journal of the RAeS, Vol 70, No 671, November 1966.Google Scholar
25. Saul, Prof. S. B. Productivity and the European Aerospace Industry. Flight, pp 96–100, 20th January 1972.Google Scholar
26. Jones, G. T. Simulation and Business Decisions. Penguin, 1972.Google Scholar
27. Wild, Rolf H. The economics of light aircraft production. Interavia, pp 224–226, March 1976.Google Scholar
28. Harvey, R. A. and Walkerdine, R. J. New light on learning curves. Flight, pp 151–152 17th July 1976.Google Scholar
29. Procter, Roy G. ‘How we done it,’ Aerospace, pp 13–16, December 1977.Google Scholar
30. Editorial: The lessons of Beagle. Flight 8th January 1977.Google Scholar
31. SirMasefield, Peter. A letter in Flight, p 482, 26th February 1977.Google Scholar
32. Smith, T. Pioneering for an industry: Beagle's breakdown analysed. Flight, pp 733–736, 30th April 1970.Google Scholar
33. House of Commons, Committee E. Two-hour debate considering proposal that Government should take over Beagle Aircraft Co. 14th March 1968.Google Scholar
34. House of Commons. Two-hour debate devoted to Beagle as first topic under the Consolidated Fund Bill. 27th January 1970.Google Scholar
35. House of Lords. One-and-a-half hours debate on light aircraft industry and Beagle Company. 19th February 1970.Google Scholar
36. House of Commons. Three-and-a-half hour debate ‘That this House regrets the mishandling by HM Government of the Beagle Aircraft Co'. 10th March 1970.Google Scholar