Harrier and Hovercraft

C

canteenflat

Guest
#1
Harrier and Hovercraft both brilliant British inventions but both commercial failures. Why?
 

cúnto

Lantern Swinger
#2
canteenflat said:
Harrier and Hovercraft both brilliant British inventions but both commercial failures. Why?
I think it is because the chief engineers were too busy back-scuttling your mother, instead of concentrating on the task in hand. The same can be said for Duran Duran, the Foreign Legion and AIDS researchers.
 
C

canteenflat

Guest
#3
cúnto said:
canteenflat said:
Harrier and Hovercraft both brilliant British inventions but both commercial failures. Why?
I think it is because the chief engineers were too busy back-scuttling your mother, instead of concentrating on the task in hand. The same can be said for Duran Duran, the Foreign Legion and AIDS researchers.
Clearly you're a reason why Down boy!
 
#8
Harrier a commercial failure?

I'm quite sure the sales to the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, United States Marine Corps, Indian Navy, Italian Navy and Spanish Navy would qualify as a commercial success, rather than failure.

Did the sales make a profit? Yes. Ergo, successful.
 
#10
cúnto said:
canteenflat said:
Harrier and Hovercraft both brilliant British inventions but both commercial failures. Why?
I think it is because the chief engineers were too busy back-scuttling your mother, instead of concentrating on the task in hand. The same can be said for Duran Duran, the Foreign Legion and AIDS researchers.
:D
 
C

canteenflat

Guest
#15
Pontius said:
Harrier a commercial failure?

I'm quite sure the sales to the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, United States Marine Corps, Indian Navy, Italian Navy and Spanish Navy would qualify as a commercial success, rather than failure.

Did the sales make a profit? Yes. Ergo, successful.
It was civilian applications I was referring to.
Hovercraft sold a few but VTOL never took off. A civlian VTOL version should be flying the world as part of the Flying Doctor Emergency Service. No airstrip provision or maintenance needed.
 
#20
cúnto said:
canteenflat said:
No airstrip provision or maintenance needed.
I know what he meant. :wink: I took it out of context to emphasize the point that the reason the civilian applications for STOVL technology haven't been successful is that it's too expensive, noisy, inefficient, environmentally unsound and an engineering nightmare. The same reasons why SST wasn't the commercial success it was hoped.

Arguably, Harrier only became a commercial success when it went to sea with the USMC/RN and was sold to other nations as a fixed-wing solution for small deck carriers. Had we not scrapped our big carrier fleet in the 60s-70s the Harrier might have died at the GR1 stage of it's evolution.

Hovercraft were very successful for a time, but now have limited applicability in those areas where it is cost efffective and a necessity. Landing Marines onto a beachhead - yes. Taking cars and passengers across the Channel - no, not when a ferry or tunnel can do it at a fraction of the cost/complexity.
 

Similar threads


Top