Message-ID: <Qc3xjB600WBwAaaE4U@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 91 02:12:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #432

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 432

Today's Topics:
			   R-100 and R-101

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  space+@andrew.cmu.edu.  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
			 tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 91 05:07:47 GMT
From: agate!bionet!ucselx!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: R-100 and R-101

In article <DLBRES10.91Apr19212658@pc.usl.edu> dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) writes:
>Totally inadequate, because, the reasons for the crash of the R-101
>were directly traceable to extremely bad design, mismanagement, and
>negligence. There were two different consortiums building the craft...

Worse than that.  The R-100 was built by dirty, evil capitalists, and
warmongering merchants-of-death armament builders at that -- Vickers.
The R-101 was designed and built by good healthy uplifting socialists
as a government enterprise.  The R-100 project was grudgingly supported
and kept on a tight budget, while the R-101 had all the money it could
use.  Clearly it was proper and moral for the R-100 to fail and the
R-101 to succeed.

In fact, the R-100 flew quite well and made a successful maiden voyage
to Canada; there were some technical problems but nothing disastrous.
The R-101 had grave trouble flying at all, needed hasty and ill-advised
lengthening to have any hope of meeting its performance specs, and was
generally over budget, behind schedule, and below expectations... and on
its maiden voyage to India, this flagship of socialist progress crashed
on a hillside in France with no survivors.

As a result, the airship program was cancelled and the R-100 scrapped.
Now, in the British government's defence, it should be noted that this
was not *entirely* vindictive spite:  the Depression had just started,
the government was facing a sea of red ink, and they were probably
relieved to have a good excuse to kill this costly and highly speculative
program.  (Note, too, that they were right in deciding that airships had
little long-term future, even though it was for all the wrong reasons.)
But there were a lot of people pissed off that the wrong one had crashed.

Apart from design by a small competent engineering staff vs. design by
government bureaucracy (sound familiar?), there was at least one other
reason for the different results.  The R-100 was short of cash, but its
design staff could -- and did -- change their minds whenever it seemed
justified.  The R-101 had lots of money for advance studies, but once a
decision was made it was very difficult to change.  (Sound familiar?)
The R-101 barely limped into the sky on its ill-fated voyage; there were
all manner of portents of doom if you were looking for them.  Feynman's
comments on the SRBs cover the R-101 well too:  "For a successful
technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for
nature cannot be fooled."

>believe the R-100 was designed by the same person who designed the
>Lancaster bonber (but I'm not sure).

Not quite right.  The R-100 was designed by Barnes Wallis, better known
for the Wellington bomber, the Dambusters' bouncing bomb, and the Tallboy
and Grand Slam giant penetrating bombs.
-- 
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V13 #432
*******************