Reply to thread

Message

Maybe this thread should be renamed? It doesn't seem to have much to do with design-by-committee.

Take the opening example: the Roc was a simple adaptation of the Skua. Both designs came from Blackburn's chief designer, George Petty. Most of the above-listed objectionable features came directly from that earlier design. And, of course, Petty didn't come up with the turret fighter concept - the Air Ministry held responsibility for Specification O.30/35.

Likewise, we can blame Don Berlin for the Fisher P-75. Sure, GM execs probably cheered on his cheaper approach to aircraft development. But what did these suits know about aircraft? Any design flaws rest at the feet of the otherwise-noted designer, late of Curtiss.

As noted, the Bristol Brabazon seems to fit best. But, even there, it was the requirement which came from a committee. The design came from 'Archie' Russell. But I guess Sir Archibald later made up for it with his work on another committee requirement - Concorde

<blockquote data-quote="Apophenia" data-source="post: 491882" data-attributes="member: 728">Maybe this thread should be renamed? It doesn't seem to have much to do with design-by-committee.Take the opening example: the Roc was a simple adaptation of the Skua. Both designs came from Blackburn's chief designer, George Petty. Most of the above-listed objectionable features came directly from that earlier design. And, of course, Petty didn't come up with the turret fighter concept - the Air Ministry held responsibility for Specification O.30/35.Likewise, we can blame Don Berlin for the Fisher P-75. Sure, GM execs probably cheered on his cheaper approach to aircraft development. But what did these suits know about aircraft? Any design flaws rest at the feet of the otherwise-noted designer, late of Curtiss.As noted, the Bristol Brabazon seems to fit best. But, even there, it was the requirement which came from a committee. The design came from 'Archie' Russell. But I guess Sir Archibald later made up for it with his work on another committee requirement - Concorde <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Apophenia, post: 491882, member: 728"] Maybe this thread should be renamed? It doesn't seem to have much to do with design-by-committee. Take the opening example: the [i]Roc[/i] was a simple adaptation of the [i]Skua[/i]. Both designs came from Blackburn's chief designer, George Petty. Most of the above-listed objectionable features came directly from that earlier design. And, of course, Petty didn't come up with the turret fighter concept - the Air Ministry held responsibility for Specification O.30/35. Likewise, we can blame Don Berlin for the Fisher P-75. Sure, GM execs probably cheered on his cheaper approach to aircraft development. But what did these suits know about aircraft? Any design flaws rest at the feet of the otherwise-noted designer, late of Curtiss. As noted, the Bristol [I]Brabazon[/I] seems to fit best. But, even there, it was the requirement which came from a committee. The design came from 'Archie' Russell. But I guess Sir Archibald later made up for it with his work on another committee requirement - [i]Concorde[/i] ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification