Bristol Aeroplane Research Articles

Banham and 'Otherness': Reyner Banham (1922-1988) and His Quest for an Architecture Autre

With the death of Peter Reyner Banham in March 1988 at the age of 66, the architectural world lost one of its most distinguished historians and irrepressible critics. His career, by normal academic standards, was wide-ranging and helps to explain his unconventional and, at times, idiosyncratic approach to architecture. During the war Banham very successfully studied at the Bristol Aeroplane Company’s engine division, thereby acquiring a thorough grounding in the theory and practice of mechanical engineering. An evident enthusiasm for technology was combined with a rigorous training in art history under Nikolaus Pevsner at the Courtauld Institute from where he graduated in 1952.

SAC — Providing Top Skills to the Aerospace Industry

SAC was formed in July 1961 by three directors, Roger Smedley, Peter Allard, and Ian Creer to provide contract design services to the engineering industry. The name of the company was derived from the initial letters of the surnames of the directors, who previously worked together at the Bristol Aeroplane Company, hence the early specialisation of SAC in aeronautical engineering.

GAS TURBINES IN THE ROYAL NAVY 1965–1969

Naval Engineers JournalVolume 83, Issue 1 p. 35-58 GAS TURBINES IN THE ROYAL NAVY 1965–1969 COMMANDER S. G. MORGAN, COMMANDER S. G. MORGAN COMMANDER Morgan, who entered the Royal Navy in 1944, was educated at the Royal Naval Engineering College, Manadon and the Advanced Engineering Course at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich. He served at the Naval Marine Wing of the National Gas Turbine Establishment from 1953 to 1955. He was appointed to his present position as Head of the Gas Turbine Section, Ship Department, Ministry of Defense (Navy) in May 1969.Search for more papers by this authorA. J. R. SMITH, A. J. R. SMITH ROYAL NAV Smith was educated at the Royal Naval Engineering College, Manadon and the Advanced Engineering Course at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich. He entered the Royal Navy in 1943 and served as a Naval Development Engineer Overseer aboard the PAMETRADA from 1952 to 1954. He was the Head of the Gas Turbine Section, Ship Department, Ministry of Defense (Navy) from 1965 to 1969 and is currently the Director of Engineering, Royal Naval Engineering College, Manadon.Search for more papers by this authorA. W. LAMPORT, A. W. LAMPORT Lamport graduated in Mechanical Engineering at Imperial College, London in 1945. He served in the Royal Naval Scientific Service at the Admiralty Engineering Laboratory. After a period of employment with the Engine Division of the Bristol Aeroplane Company, he returned to the Royal Naval Scientific Service in 1960 and since then has been in the Scientific Advisor's Group in the Ship Department, Ministry of Defense (Navy), concentrating particularly on gas turbine machinery.Search for more papers by this author COMMANDER S. G. MORGAN, COMMANDER S. G. MORGAN COMMANDER Morgan, who entered the Royal Navy in 1944, was educated at the Royal Naval Engineering College, Manadon and the Advanced Engineering Course at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich. He served at the Naval Marine Wing of the National Gas Turbine Establishment from 1953 to 1955. He was appointed to his present position as Head of the Gas Turbine Section, Ship Department, Ministry of Defense (Navy) in May 1969.Search for more papers by this authorA. J. R. SMITH, A. J. R. SMITH ROYAL NAV Smith was educated at the Royal Naval Engineering College, Manadon and the Advanced Engineering Course at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich. He entered the Royal Navy in 1943 and served as a Naval Development Engineer Overseer aboard the PAMETRADA from 1952 to 1954. He was the Head of the Gas Turbine Section, Ship Department, Ministry of Defense (Navy) from 1965 to 1969 and is currently the Director of Engineering, Royal Naval Engineering College, Manadon.Search for more papers by this authorA. W. LAMPORT, A. W. LAMPORT Lamport graduated in Mechanical Engineering at Imperial College, London in 1945. He served in the Royal Naval Scientific Service at the Admiralty Engineering Laboratory. After a period of employment with the Engine Division of the Bristol Aeroplane Company, he returned to the Royal Naval Scientific Service in 1960 and since then has been in the Scientific Advisor's Group in the Ship Department, Ministry of Defense (Navy), concentrating particularly on gas turbine machinery.Search for more papers by this author First published: February 1971 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-3584.1971.tb04694.xCitations: 1 AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume83, Issue1February 1971Pages 35-58 RelatedInformation

University of Bristol

THE Department of Aeronautical Engineering in the University of Bristol was founded in 1945, when the Bristol Aeroplane Company generously presented the University with funds sufficient for the endowment of a Chair, to be known as the Sir George White Chair of Aeronautical Engineering. This was the fourth aeronautical Chair to be founded in Great Britain, having been preceded some quarter of a century earlier by the Mond Chair at Cambridge and the Zaharoff Chair at Imperial College, and a decade earlier by the Wakefield Chair, subsequently abolished, at University College, Hull. In addition, before 1945, a number of universities and colleges—in particular, Queen Mary College1—had offered courses with an aeronautical content, but not in independent departments headed by a professor. The present writer was appointed to the new Chair at Bristol in the summer of 1945; but owing to his commitments at the Royal Aircraft Establishment was not able to take up the appointment until January 1946. Meanwhile the first students, to a total of five, had been recruited and, in October 1945, had begun their general engineering studies in other departments of the Faculty of Engineering.

Judicial Precedent—Court of Appeal—Rule in Young V. Bristol Aeroplane Co.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

The First 25 Years of the Bristol Engine Department

Few things have given me greater satisfaction than the invitation to give the Seventh Barnwell Memorial Lecture, and tell the story of the early history of the Bristol Engine Department.The Bristol Aeroplane Company which was founded by that great merchant venturer and pioneer of transport, Sir George White, has just passed its 50th Anniversary. I always look upon the 20 odd years spent with the Bristol Company as among some of the happiest and most stimulating in my engineering career.

On a Formula for the Torsional Rigidity of Thin‐Symmetrical‐Sections

Journal of Mathematics and PhysicsVolume 36, Issue 1-4 p. 20-25 Article On a Formula for the Torsional Rigidity of Thin-Symmetrical-Sections A. I. Martin, A. I. Martin Bristol Aeroplane Company, EnglandSearch for more papers by this author A. I. Martin, A. I. Martin Bristol Aeroplane Company, EnglandSearch for more papers by this author First published: April 1957 https://doi.org/10.1002/sapm195736120AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume36, Issue1-4April 1957Pages 20-25 RelatedInformation

The Importance of Time in Aircraft Manufacture

The 999th Lecture to be given before the Royal Aeronautical Society “ The Importance of Time in Aircraft Manufacture ” by Air Commodore F. R. Banks, C.B., O.B.E., F.R.Ae.S. was given on 17th October 1956 at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Great George St., London, S.W.I. Mr. E. T. Jones, C.B., O.B.E., F.R.Ae.S., President of the Society, was in the Chair. Opening the meeting, Mr. Jones said:—This evening marked the opening of the Society's 1956-57 Lecture season in so far as the London district was concerned. Actually, two Main Lectures had already been given at Branches; the first at Derby and the second at Henlow and at both there was a large and appreciative audience. It was gratifying that these early Main Lectures at the Branches had been received so well. He mentioned this because out of nine Main Lectures this session four were planned to take place at Branches, and that was quite an innovation. It was, he thought in 1948 that Council thought it would be a good thing if a few of the Main Lectures each session were held at the Branches and, so to speak, take the Society now and again to the Branches. He was sure they would agree that that was a good thing to do. There might be some present from the Branches and he had no doubt there would be reciprocal response in the Branches' members coming to lectures in London.Now it was his pleasant duty to introduce their Lecturer. Actually of course he did not require any introduction. Air Commodore Banks, as they well knew, was a Lecturer of some importance. He had lectured many times to this Society and, indeed, to other Societies in other countries. He was a Fellow of their Society, a Companion of the Bath, an Officer of the Order of the British Empire and, what was a little more unusual in their Lecturers, he was a Commander of the French Legion d'Honneur and a Commander of the United States Legion of Merit. He had a particular distinction in respect of the subject he was speaking on tonight. He started life as an engineer. He then became an aviation fuels specialist. Then he became Director-General of Engine Production in the Ministry of Aircraft Production, and later changed from Production to Development and became Director of Engine Development in the same Ministry. He then went back to his first love, fuels, and returned again for sixteen months to the post of Principal Director of Engine Research and Development at the Ministry of Supply, when at that point of time this Ministry was rather hard put to get the right man in the right job. He was now a Director of The Bristol Aeroplane Company and was also on the Boards of Bristol Aero Engines Ltd. and Bristol Aircraft Ltd.

Trade Announcements

A monthly feature giving news of recent Government and professional appointments, industrial developments and business changes, etc.. Changes in the organization of the Aircraft Division of the Bristol Aeroplane Company Ltd. took effect on July 1. Dr W. J. Strang is appointed Chief Designer (Fixed Wing Aircraft). He, with Mr R. Hafner (Chief Designer, Helicopters) and Mr D. J. Farrar (Chief Designer, Guided Weapons), will be responsible to Dr A. E. Russell, who relinquishes the title of Chief Designer and assumes that of Chief Engineer (Aircraft Division).

Problems of Noise in Helicopter Design

The Chairman said that a short biographical note would illustrate the Lecturer's very wide experience Professor RICHARDS was engaged in research at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, and then went to the Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd, from 1937 to 1939 He was a scientific officer at the National Physical Laboratory from 1939 to 1945 and then went to Vickers-Armstrong Ltd, where he was Assistant Chief Designer and Chief Aerodynamicist between 1945 and 1950 He became Professor of Aeronautical Engineering, University of Southampton, in 1950

A Kaolin Poultice Heater

Journal Article A Kaolin Poultice Heater Get access G. Stenlake Mundy G. Stenlake Mundy FROM THE BRISTOL AEROPLANE COMPANY Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Occupational Medicine, Volume 5, Issue 2, July 1955, Page 68, https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/5.2.68 Published: 01 July 1955

Captain F. S. Barnwell

For US in the early evening of life, who have witnessed the development of aviation since the Wright brothers flew in 1903, for us, it is hard—and a little sad—to realise that some of our great pioneers are already becoming almost mythical characters. They were our personal friends with whom we worked most happily; yet, to the young men of today, who are now carrying, or are about to don, high responsibilities in the aeronautical world, they are indeed just names. And so it is fitting that the Royal Aeronautical Society should have inaugurated these Memorial Lectures, of which this is the third. I am deeply sensible of the honour and responsibility which have fallen to me by the choice of the Bristol Branch to pay this first tribute to Captain Barnwell. May I say at once how indebted I am for so much of the detail of this appreciation to Mr. C. W. Tinson, who served with Barnwell for most of his career at Bristol; to Mr. C. H. Barnes, who has written the history of the Bristol Aeroplane Co.; and several other “ old hands.” It is significant that in all my conversations with them, they referred always with obvious affection and deep respect to “the old man.”

Notes on the Development of the Bristol 171 Helicopter

THE Bristol Aeroplane Company entered the field of helicopter production when a design office was inaugurated at the wartime dispersal factory at Banwell, Somerset, in July 1944. The first Bristol helicopter flew in July 1947.

Accessibility, Servicing and Testing of Components

Prototype helicopters at the Bristol Aeroplane Company have been produced and servicing schedules have been made up detailing the maintenance work and inspection that has to be carried out after the following periods : (a) between flights, (b) daily, and (c) after 30, 60, 120 and 240 hours flying.At the time these schedules were made it was not fully realised that the work would not be carried out exactly in this way.We now learn that the airline operators are dividing their 30, 60, 120 and 240 hour inspection and maintenance schedules into small parts. One of these parts is added to the routine daily inspection, and so, by the time 240 hours of flying have been completed the whole of the interim schedules have also been completed, without withdrawing the helicopter from service. This system can only be operated providing that all work in the schedules can be split into tasks of less than, say, three hours each; there must, of course, be exceptions as obviously the overhauling of an engine takes longer than three hours.

The Rule in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co., Ltd.

It may be convenient in conclusion to attempt to restate the ambit of the first two exceptions in the light of cases decided since Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co., Ltd.:—(1) The court is entitled and bound to decide which of two conflicting decisions of its own it will follow, whether the second decision was reached in ignorance of the first, or the first decision was discussed and distinguished in the second. (The rider to the formulation of the exceptions in the Young Case is the product of the subsequent decisions in Battersby v. Anglo-American Oil Co., Ltd. and Fisher v. Ruislip-Northwood U.D.C.)It appears that when the court has once decided that there is a conflict between two or more previous decisions and purported to resolve it that resolution is final in the sense that a subsequent court cannot then prefer the rejected decision. It is doubtful whether it is open to a subsequent court to decide there was no conflict at all, but it is suggested that no such power should be conceded, although Fisher v. Ruislip-Northwood U.D.C. permits it where the second exception is concerned.When the court has once decided that there is no conflict between two or more previous decisions, it is not open to a subsequent court to hold that there is in fact a conflict and thereby confer upon itself jurisdiction to make a selection: Hogan v. Bentinck Collieries. Fisher v. Ruislip-Northwood U.D.C. is to the contrary, but should be overruled on this point. The Court of Appeal has, of course, power to choose between these two conflicting authorities when the point again comes before it.(2) The court is bound to refuse to follow a decision of its own which was reached in ignorance of a previous decision of the House of Lords that covers the point, or which, though not expressly overruled, cannot, in its opinion, stand with a subsequent decision of the House of Lords, or which is expressly disapproved in considered dicta by a majority in the House of Lords: Leathley v. John Fowler and Co., Ltd. [1946] K.B. 579.Where the House of Lords decision comes first, and the decision is discussed and distinguished in the later Court of Appeal decision, the Court of Appeal in the case sub iudice is bound by the Court of Appeal decision according to Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co., Ltd. and Williams v. Glasbrook Brothers, Ltd., but according to Fitzsimmons v. Ford Motor Co., Ltd., is under a duty to follow the House of Lords decision if, in its opinion, there is a conflict. There is stronger authority in support of the Williams v. Glasbrook Brothers, Ltd. decision, that of a ‘full’ court, but the ruling in the Fitzsimmons Case should be preferred, as it is unreasonable to treat the first and second exceptions differently. The Court of Appeal has, of course, power to choose between the two lines of authorities when the question next arises.If the Fitzsimmons Case is preferred, it has been held in Fisher v. Ruislip-Northwood U.D.C. that a subsequent court can decide that there was no conflict at all, and revive the discarded Court of Appeal decision, but it is suggested that this view should not be followed.

Centralized systems for motor vehicles

In our February issue, we described the only system of Centralized Chassis lubrication that we knew to be available to manufacturers of private motor cars. A letter published in our April issue from the Chief Designer of the Car Division of The Bristol Aeroplane Company reminded us that there was at least one more successful system. He stated that the Enots “One‐Shot” system manufactured by Benton & Stone Limited, Aston Brook Street, Birmingham, England, had always been incorporated on the Bristol 2‐litre car and had proved most effective in service.

Some Factors Affecting Large Transport Aeroplanes with Turbo‐Prop Engines

The Thirteenth Wright Brothers Lecture delivered by Mr A. E. Russell of The Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. before the Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences in New York on December 17, 1949. The problem of flutter is one of the earliest associated with flying but has, until comparatively recent times, been solved merely by solving the problem of strength coupled with the tactical distribution of lead weights. We are now becoming quite proficient at solving the problem of strength and are disturbed if our test structures do not fall within 1 or 2 per cent of the design loads (however arbitrary these loads may be). At the same time this steady refinement of design has resulted in a reduction of structure weight for given design loads. Refinement of structural design has reduced the stiffness of the structure and this, coupled with a steady increase of cruising speeds, has brought the flutter problem into its present prominence.

The Promise of Turbo‐Props

BY courtesy of the Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences of America and the Bristol Aeroplane Company we conclude in this issue our publication of the full text of Mr A. E. Russell's Thirteenth Wright Brothers Lecture.

Investigation of Coarse Grain in Brabazon Spar Booms

OCCURRENCE of considerable coarse grain toward the back ends of the prototype Mark I spar booms had been known at an early stage in the Brabazon development programme, the result of which had necessitated the selective installation of the most suitable extrusions for the Mark 1 construction. In consequence of this experience, the material manufacturers were consulted at the commence of design on the Mark II spar booms, with the object of producing extrusions to the highest standard of efficiency. Resulting from this close collaboration, the Bristol Aeroplane Co. Engineering Development Laboratory were supplied with offcut lengths from the deliveries of Mark II spar booms, identified at the factory as B.S. 3345 and B.S. 3346. These specimens were subjected to exhaustive tests of etching and tensile tests of the material (D.T.D. 363) to determine the selection of booms for the Mark II spar structure. In all, ten lengths were reviewed: four lengths of B.S. 3345 and six lengths of B.S. 3346, an offcut specimen 8 in. long being taken from each end of the delivered extrusions. From each offcut, a cross‐section was cut approximately ½ in. thick for etching purposes. Resulting from the etching test, further specimen pieces were extracted for tensile tests, one from the front end offcut specimen, and two from the rear end offcut specimen. In the case of the two rear end test pieces, one was extracted from the coarse grain region and one from the fine grain region. The position of these extracted specimens is shown in fig. 1 and is determined entirely from the results of the etching tests carried out on the ½ in. thick cross‐sections.

The design and Development of the Helicopter Rotor Testing Tower

From the start of the development of helicopters at the Bristol Aeroplane Company the necessity was appreciated of providing means of testing, independently of the aircraft, rotor hubs and blades. The usual method of testing on the helicopter suffers from several disadvantages, the most important being that proximity of the ground beneath the rotor greatly affects the flow through it and makes such performance figures as can be obtained unrepresentative. Others are the probable inconvenience of having to wait for the completion of the aircraft before rotor-testing can start, the comparative difficulty of instrumentation, and the risk of damage to the aircraft by failure or misbehaviour of the rotor.