International collaboration can mean many different things depending on its context. It has been applied over recent years to almost every international activity from licence manufacture to joint design and development projects and in each case, although some features are common, there are unique difficulties and problems to be solved.

One of the most important aspects of international collaboration is that currently being practised between sections of the aircraft industries of the United Kingdom and France and, in particular, the following joint ventures of aircraft and engine design and manufacture

I am very happy to have this opportunity to tell you about Polaris, which has had such a tremendous impact on the world situation. It will be appreciated that I cannot divulge anything of a classified nature, and that this places great restriction on what I can say. Nevertheless, I hope that what I can say will be of interest; it will be slanted towards the weapon aspects, as this is my prime responsibility.

I will start with some background information on how our programme started and the special measures we found necessary to stand a chance of getting our task completed in the timescale.

The Nineteenth Louis Blériot Lecture was given in Paris on 25th April 1966 under the auspices of L’Association Françaises des Ingénieurs et Techniciens de L’Aéronautique et L’Espace. The Lecture was attended by Sir George Gardner, KBE, CB, HonDSc, CEng, HonFRAeS, President of the Society, and Lady Gardner, by the Rt. Hon. Julian Snow, MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation, by Mr. A. D. Baxter, MEng, CEng, FRAeS, President-Elect, Air Cdre. F. R. Banks, CB, OBE, CEng, CGIA, HonFAIAA, FRAeS, RAF (retd), Vice-President and First Louis Blériot Lecturer, Mr. S. D. Davies, BSc(Eng), CEng, FRAeS, member of Council, Dr. A. M. Ballantyne, OBE, TD, BSc, CEng, FAIAA, HonFCASI, FRAeS, Secretary, and by other members of Council and of the Aircraft Industry and by several former Louis Blériot lecturers, both English and French.

Monsieur Blum, President of AFITAE, presided at the Meeting which was attended by a large and distinguished audience. Monsieur S. Jarry, President d'Honneur, AFITAE, read the list of previous Louis Blériot Lecturers and Sir George Gardner expressed his pleasure and that of his colleagues at this reunion with their friends of AFITAE. Monsieur Blum then introduced the lecturer, Mr. Peter Masefield, Managing Director of Beagle Aircraft Ltd and Chairman of the British Airports Authority and a Past President of the Society. Mr. Masefield said a few words in French and the lecture was then read on his behalf, in French, by Monsieur Peyrelevade. A vote of thanks was proposed after the Lecture by Monsieur Potez.

The Lecture was followed by a reception and cocktail party and later by a dinner.

The Fourth Handley Page Memorial Lecture, “Were the Wrights Wrong?”, was given by Sir William Hildred, OBE, CB, MA, Honorary Companion of the Society, Director Emeritus of the International Air Transport Association, in the Society's Lecture Theatre on 19th May 1966. Opening the meeting the President, Mr. A. D. Baxter, MEng, CEng, FRAeS, reminded the audience that the Handley Page Memorial Lecture was arranged jointly by the Cranfield Society and the Royal Aeronautical Society. Both Societies had much reason to honour the name of Sir Frederick Handley Page and the arrangements by which they alternated in providing both venue and the lecturer had proved a happy one.

On this occasion the Royal Aeronautical Society was glad to welcome its friends from the Cranfield Society and other guests and visitors, particularly Lady Hildred. “HP’s” early reputation was built on the practical application of aerodynamic flow, but it had extended far and wide and to many fields beyond aerodynamics and even beyond aeronautics. He thought it was in this spirit of his wider service to mankind that they paid tribute that night. Certainly he felt that was the approach their lecturer had taken.

Sir William Hildred was well known to most people through his long and valued service to the International Air Transport Association. On completion of his studies at the University of Sheffield in 1914, he joined the Army and served for the duration of the 1914-18 War. In 1919 he had started his Civil Service career in the Treasury, becoming a Finance Officer, then Head of a Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and later a Deputy General Manager of the Exports Guarantee Department. In 1938 he had begun his long association with civil aviation as Deputy Director General of Civil Aviation at the Air Ministry, becoming Director General in 1941. In 1946 he had joined IATA as Director General, where he had done such magnificent work ever since until his retirement only a month ago. He had received many honours, including Grand Officer of the Order of Nassau, Commander of the Order of the Crown of Belgium and, not least they hoped, Honorary Companionship of the Royal Aeronautical Society.

The Fifty-Fourth Wilbur and Orville Wright Memorial Lecture, “The Well-Balanced Structure”, was given by Sir Alfred Pugsley, OBE, DSc, FRS, HonFRAeS, on 9th December 1965 in the Lecture Theatre, 4 Hamilton Place, London W.I. The Chair was taken by Sir George Gardner, KBE, CB, HonDSc, HonFRAeS, President of the Society, who opened the meeting by expressing the sympathy of the Society to their colleagues in America on the death of Dr. Hugh L. Dryden on 2nd December; not only was he a distinguished man in his own country but he was a close friend of many in this country and an Honorary Fellow of the Society.

As has become the custom, the Society's main awards for the year were presented before the lecture. The presentations were made by the President and the citations were read by Mr. A. D. Baxter, MEng, FRAeS, President-Elect; the scrolls of three Honorary Fellowships and of two Honorary Companionships, and nine medals were presented. (The names of the new Honorary Fellows and Honorary Companions and the list of awards, with their citations, were published in the December 1965 Journal, pages LXXX and LXXXI.)

Introducing the Lecturer, the President said that the year of the Wright Brothers’ first flight had been the year of birth of a number of people who had made great contributions to the development of aeronautics; one of these was Sir Alfred Grenvile Pugsley. He obtained a first class honours degree in engineering of London University and then trained as a civil engineer and Student apprentice at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich; there could be no doubt about his full qualifications as a “chartered engineer” according to the new standards. In 1925 he joined the design and research staff at Cardington working on the R101 and not only had he played his part in the design of various parts of the airship's structure, he had also taken part in the full speed trials of the airship. In 1931 Sir Alfred joined the scientific staff of the Royal Aircraft Establishment and worked on structural problems, particularly in the field of aeroelasticity. From 1941 to 1945 he was head of the Structures and Mechanical Engineering Department at Farnborough.

He was appointed Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Bristol in 1945 and was Dean of the Faculty of Engineering from 1951-54, and Pro-Vice-Chancellor from 1961-64. Sir Alfred had acted successively on the Councils of the Royal Aeronautical Society, the Institution of Structural Engineers, the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Royal Society, and was President of the Institution of Structural Engineers in 1957-58. He was Chairman of the Aeronautical Research Council from 1952-57 and was a member of the Advisory Council for Scientific Policy from 1956-59. He was knighted in 1956 and was made an Honorary Fellow of the Society in 1963.

For centuries, scientists and engineers dreamed of going to the moon or the planets, but the more they learned about the problems involved, the more improbable space flight appeared.

While there were many difficult questions, the principal problem overshadowing all others was how to propel the vehicle free of the earth's gravitation.

When serious attention finally was devoted to the magnitude of the thrust required and the means for obtaining it, space flight became a real possibility. This assurance of adequate propulsion marked the true beginning of the space age, and continues to be the prerequisite for the more ambitious space flights planned for the future.

On Sunday 3rd September 1939 at 11 am the staff of the Society in their various homes and on holiday heard that this country was at war with Germany.

On the following Monday morning few will forget the tense air of expectancy in London, that feeling the sky would soon be filled with German bombers and anything might happen.

To those members of the staff on holiday the Secretary telegraphed to remain where they were pending further instructions. To those who had gathered at No. 4 Hamilton Place he explained they were free if they wished to take any war work, either in the industry or services.

The paper re-examines the economics of the various types of orbital booster, ranging from completely expendable to completely recoverable vehicles. Previous studies have compared vehicles of equal payload. Here we have introduced the concept of the cost optimum vehicle. It is shown that the lower the degree of recoverability, the larger the optimum payload for a given total payload in orbit. Cost comparisons are then developed using the cost optimum vehicle in each case.

Additionally, in our previous work we have confined ourselves to the economics of operating the launch vehicle. A recoverable launch vehicle generally automatically implies a capability for recovering the payload. The case for the recoverable vehicle becomes more and more attractive as the salvage value of the payload increases. The break-even points for a number of Payload Salvage Values (PSV) are presented.

Data are included which show the high costs of present day satellite vehicles. These amount to tens of thousands of dollars per lb. If we assume that the PSV of such satellites is $7000 per lb the break-even point for the Aerospace Transporter is about 5 x 105 lb cumulative payload in orbit (COP). The cost of manufacturing such a satellite payload would be upwards of $5000m, which is several times the cost of producing and operating the launching vehicle. It therefore appears unlikely that the Aerospace Transporter will be employed simply to launch conventional satellites. In this connection it should be remembered, however, that the payload capability will revolutionise the approach to satellite design. Attitude control, the structural envelope, etc, will be provided by the launch vehicle in many cases. Thus the mission capability of the payload will be greatly increased. Furthermore, relaxations in payload weight constraints, which could lead to increases in payload reliability and decreases in cost, appear to be possible with such a vehicle.

There are, however, some payloads which must be recovered and the most significant of these is man. Once recovery of the payload becomes mandatory the recoverable vehicle is always superior to the expendable vehicle. This is true no matter how small the number of shots. Thus once we are convinced of the future of man in the exploitation of space, the case for the recoverable vehicle (Aerospace Transporter) is unassailable.

The capability for recovering the payload should add greatly to the value of other orbital operations. An obvious case is that of photographic reconnaissance. Here we have a mission requiring a large number of regular launches and recovery of at least part of the payload. An economic assessment should show the Aerospace Transporter in a very favourable light. At the end of this section the point is made that, although we can see a great many possibilities for utilisation of the Aerospace Transporter payload, this aspect will be so revolutionised that we feel in need of advice from specialists on a number of questions. For example: What types and sensitivity of sensors will be available in the next 15-20 years? How would a relaxation in the weight restrictions affect payload philosophy? How could the intelligence of man be employed? and the most important question: What would be the value of such operations to agriculture, water management, population control and other activities on earth?

The last part of the paper deals with the sensitivity of a number of types of Aerospace Transporter to weight growth and vehicle life. It is shown that VTO vehicles are, if anything, less susceptible to weight growth than HTO vehicles. It is also concluded that there is little point in adding weight to increase the life beyond 50-100 re-uses.

Every Time I speak of “IATA” or use the term, I speak of it and its activity as a corporate body of member airlines. It is the member airlines of IATA who make and agree policies and accordingly it should be understood that it is never a separate entity.

IATA acts under direction, it is neither cartel nor employers’ association, nor is it charlatan in character. It has been maligned, misunderstood, misinterpreted, and yet there is little evidence that it has deviated from its aims and objectives—in one sentence—to ensure that all air traffic moves with the greatest possible safety, speed and efficiency and with the utmost economy for both airline and public.

A Discussion on the Relationships between Government and Aeronautics was held at the Society on 4th November 1965 with the President, Sir George Gardner, KBE, CB, HonDSc, FRAeS, in the Chair. Short introductory papers were given by Mr. Denis W. G. L. Hayiland, General Robert Lecamus and Brigadier General Ake Sunden. Introducing these principal speakers Sir George said how fortunate the Society was to have persuaded three such eminent people to open this Discussion; they were particularly grateful to their French and Swedish colleagues. General Sunden had graduated as an engineer and had been a pilot since 1934. He had served in a number of commands and had been a flying instructor and a test pilot. He was now a member of the Board and Director of Aircraft, Royal Swedish Air Force Board, which included responsibility for aircraft, armament, aero engines, airborne electronics and test flying.

General Lecamus was also an engineer and a pilot; he had served as an engine specialist in various duties, including three years as Head of the Engine Test Section at the French Test Flying Centre at Bretigny. In 1948 he had joined Direction Technique des Industriel Aéronautiques (DTIA) (which later became DTCA—Direction Technique des Constructions Aéronautique) as Deputy Chief of the Development Department and later had served as Chief of Inspection Services in Toulouse for the South West of France. He was now Director of DTCA.

Mr. Haviland had served throughout the 1939-45 War in the Army but he also had learned to fly. After the War he had been Principal, Control Office for Germany and Austria, becoming Assistant Secretary; in 1951 he transferred to the Ministry of Supply becoming Under Secretary, and from 1959-64 was Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Aviation. In 1964 he had joined Industry and was now Chairman and Managing Director of Staveley Industries Ltd.

As the first British jet-powered aircraft was prepared for its maiden flight almost 25 years ago, the late Dr. A. A. Griffith, then Chief Scientist of Rolls-Royce Ltd, was exercising his mind on the problem of aircraft taking off and landing vertically using jet lift. The lightweight lift jet engines of compact dimensions he predicted are now being produced. Since his classic paper on VTOL to the Aeronautical Research Council in 1941 many of the difficult engineering problems have been overcome and we are now on the threshold of a most exciting era during which we shall see operational V/STOL aircraft using jet lift.

The title of this paper was chosen some time ago. In view of events experienced over the past three years on some modern civil jet transports, I propose to devote the time available to the subject of stall characteristics, together with some of the associated problems and with the methods of solution.

Before anyone else raises the point, I wish to point out that the term “Super Stall” is nothing more than popular jargon and is equally as objectionable to the purists as “Deep Stall” or “Stable Stall”. It will, I hope, become clearer later as to what particular characteristics these terms apply.