We have a clear look at the production and traffic , what's happening with infrastructure and R & D here?
I haven't given that a lot of thought yet.We have a clear look at the production and traffic , what's happening with infrastructure and R & D here?
It's aircraft miles, not passenger miles, but that aside you have made a good point. I wondered if there was the demand to meet the increase in supply myself.Octupling and quadrupling the passenger miles flown means there must have been a lot of wealthier people around. What kind of fare structure is involved in enticing your average Brit to vacation at Bondi rather than Brighton?
Interesting thread you got hear and I got a question. Don't know if the question could fit here but its about the swordfish torpedoe plane. Could the UK have gotten a better torpedo plane then the swordfish and what would it been called?
Thanx
However, in this thread I don't want to throw money at the RAF and FAA because that would turn it into a Britwank and I have to find a plausible source for the money. The extra money I have found for Civil Aviation is still relatively small in the scheme of things and given the anti-military sentiment that existed between the World Wars in Britain it would be easier to obtain more funding for Civil Aviation than Military Aviation and Naval Aviation.
Yes. Those were the arguments of the committees whose advice Churchill rejected in 1920 when he said, "Civil aviation must fly by itself!"Even without throwing money at the RAF/FAA, the general improvement in R & D and infrastructure will spill over into the military sector. Transport Command would probably have more and better aircraft, not to mention more planes to co-opt directly from the civilian sector although I'm not sure what overall effect that would have. A larger aircraft industry means a larger pool of skilled, experieced labour for production and training, so we can avoid, or more likely mitigate some of the early war production fiascos.
Churchill was the father of the ten year rule wasnt he?The Treasury receives a lot of criticism on this forum for not spending enough on the armed forces between 1919 and 1934. I am one of the people doing the criticising.
Winston Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer from 6 November 1924 – 4 June 1929, about one third of this period therefore he deserves some of the blame. Or if someone else had been Chancellor would less have been spent on the armed forces?
IIRC it was introduced in 1919. But it might have been him that had it automatically renewed.Churchill was the father of the ten year rule wasnt he?
Just checked wiki he suggested it as secretary state for war and air and then as chancellor he made it automatically renewing.IIRC it was introduced in 1919. But it might have been him that had it automatically renewed.
Having said that it would not take much more money to produce a big improvement in the FAA because relatively small sums were spent on it in the first place.Even without throwing money at the RAF/FAA, the general improvement in R & D and infrastructure will spill over into the military sector. Transport Command would probably have more and better aircraft, not to mention more planes to co-opt directly from the civilian sector although I'm not sure what overall effect that would have. A larger aircraft industry means a larger pool of skilled, experieced labour for production and training, so we can avoid, or more likely mitigate some of the early war production fiascos.