Miloch wrote:
> I think the key description is from the BOAC captain
> "The Tudor was built like a battleship. It was noisy, I had no confidence in its
> engines and its systems were hopeless. The Americans were fifty years ahead of
> us in systems engineering."
From http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/582405
-avro-lancastrian-tales-9.html by "BSAA1947" on 27 Oct. 2016:
"The Tudor is often said to have polarised opinion among its pilots.
Yet the odd thing is that these well-used quotes from Gordon Store
are totally at odds with the opinions of ALL the former Tudor pilots
I spoke to. Without exception all the people I contacted who had
first hand experience of flying the Tudor said it was fine. Nothing
exceptional, but absolutely fine. In fact a couple described the
Tudor 5 as being very pleasant to fly. I even asked Eric Brown
some years ago for his opinion of the Tudor and he told me that
once the small modifications to the engine nacelles and wing
roots had been made (at the prototype stage) it was a very nice
aircraft.
Incidentally, the heater design and layout were not unique to the
Tudor by any means, but nobody ever seems to talk about the
cabin heater in these other aircraft (DC-6 for instance).
The Tudor losses are also frequently used to support the claim
that the aircraft was poor, and even dangerous. Now, please
correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe any of the Tudor
accidents were ever categorically attributed to mechanical faults
with the aircraft. Yet the accidents are cited as proof that the
aircraft was a failure. Curious isn't it?!"
|
|