Talk:Bristol Brabazon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related WikiProjects and/or task forces: Aircraft WikiProject

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? —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)

[edit] 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)