FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1909
1909 - 0054.PDF
JANUARY 23, 1909. CORRESPONDENCE. *»* The natnt and address of the writer (not necessarily for publication) MUST in all cases accompany letters intended for insertion, or containing queries. THE AERIAL LEAGUE OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE. To the Editor of FLIGHT. SIR,—Under this heading an announcement was made last week by Col. H. S. Massy, C.B., stating that "an association has been formed of a national and non-political character, with a view to educating the people of this country as to the immediate necessity for the establishment and maintenance of a similar superiority in the air to that which we now hold on the ocean." It goes on to say that this League, which is a corollary to the Navy League, shall occupy the same position with regard to aerial defence as the Navy League does in affairs maritime. To those who are already interested in the subject, and who fully realise its national importance, the formation of this new league will be welcomed as a wise step taken at an opportune moment, for some official interest and action of a definite character is absolutely necessary if England is not to be left far behind other countries in the new, but rapidly developing science of aviation. The strenuous efforts being made to advance it from a private, sporting and trade standpoint by the Aero Club of the United Kingdom, the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain, and the newly- formed Aeroplane Club, can have little national political effect unless they are met half-way in their suggestions by the authorities ; and if the Aerial League can preach this doctrine and convince the British public, by a series of well-organised lectures all over the country that the present lassitude and limited expenditure by the Government is a real menace to national safety, it will accomplish as much as has been attempted by the Navy League in their constant clamour for the maintenance of the " two-power standard " policy. At the conference of the Federation Aeronautique Internationale last week, it was approved that committees bu formed from the affiliated aero clubs, consisting of one military, one naval, and one legal representative, to discuss with the various Governments different questions as to laws and regulations for governing aerial navigation. Whilst the English Government remains in its present torpid state of indifference, there seems but small hope of any such discussion being held in England. If it be argued that the Army balloon factory at Farnborough is making experiments with dirigible balloons and aeroplanes, these can hardly be attributed to any official demand or encouragement, but rather to the work and enterprise of individuals, without whose personal endeavours and almost unauthorised efforts, England would still be unable to boast the possession of even one Army airship and one aeroplane. Let it be hoped, therefore, that the new Aerial League may start early on its campaign of instruction and, without in any way attempting to alarm the public, by securing their interest and recognition of our backwardness, together with the real necessity for more activity, stir up sufficient popular support to ensure a more progressive official policy being adopted. Regarding the above-mentioned bodies, viz., the Aero Club, the Aeronautical Society and the Aeroplane Club, it seems to me that far greater influence would be secured by an amalgamation of the three in one organisation, which could be so managed that the distinct objects of each existing body would be carried out without the present confusion of titles and the almost unavoidable prejudicial effect which they now, quite unintentionally, exercise on one another. The Aeronautical Society of Great Britain was, I believe, founded as far back as 1866, and its members have always approached aeronautics from a scientific standpoint, arranging lectures of an interesting and instructive nature, and treating the subject more from its theoretical than its practical or sporting side. The Aero Club, the only organisation recognised by the powerful International Federation, which is itself undoubtedly the governing body on aeronautical matters, has filled quite another role, by promoting balloon contests, and by collecting members who take an active, practical, and sporting interest in the subject. AVith the recent addition of the Aero Club League, the Aero Club is providing, amongst other things, a suitable ground for inventors and experi- menters to carry out trials with flying machines, by the payment of a small annual subscription. The objects of the League appear almost identical to those of the newly-formed Aeroplane Club, and for the existence of both I can see neither necessity or advantage. On the contrary, it means a division of interests, just when everything possible should surely be done by united membership and united action to aid the advance and progress of the aeronautical movement in this country. An example of the injurious effects of divided interests is provided by the recent internal dissensions on the point of general control in France, where the feeling has been none tco amicable between the Aero Club, the Automobile Club, and other societies of more recent formation. A temporary settlement of these disputes has been arrived at, but if all the representatives of these various bodies had been enrolled as members of the Aero Club de France, the difficulties could never have arisen. It is greatly to be hoped, therefore, that we may see in England a combination of aerial interests under one organisation rather than the creation of any more new societies or clubs. Yours, &c, London, Jan. 20th. HARRY DE LA COMBE. PRICE OF DIRIGIBLES. To the Editor of FLIGHT. SIR,—Can you kindly inform me in your next issue what the cost of dirigibles of the Zeppelin and Republique, respectively, is ? ENQUIRER. THAT FRENCH LEAD (?) To the Editor of FLIGHT. SIR,—Is a propeller "one of the little details they know more about in France " ? (see Mr. Moore-Brabazon's letter in FLIGHT, Jan. 16th, 1909). Are we to take the propellers fitted to the Farman and Dela- grange machines as the last thing in propellers ? (I) The blades- are extremely small in relation to the thiust. (2) The blades are riveted to the arms, which form a projection on the back, which projections, by the production of eddy currents, must reduce the efficiency considerably. (3) The blades are flat, and throughout their entire length are set at the same angle in relation to the axis, which means that no two parts of a blade are trying to move through or propel the air at the same velocity, which must involve a loss of power. Sir Hiram Maxim, who has carried out more experiments with propellers than most people are aware of, has found, that in a well- designed and constructed air-propeller, in which the blades are correctly pitched throughout their length, the thrust in pounds multiplied by the pitch in feet multiplied by the revolutions per minute, corresponded almost exactly with the foot-pounds of energy imparted to the propeller. It would be interesting to know how this little sum works out on the Farman and Delagrange propellers. Maxim found that a propeller made after a French model gave only 40 per cent, of the efficiency of one of his own. It is noticeable that Mr. Wilbur Wright's attempts at records have been terminated by nightfall, some defect in his engine or transmission-gear, or the establishment of a new record. Wright's record stands at ih. 54m. 53fs. The best French record stands at 44 mins. 32 sec. by Farman. * Is it possible that the French engineers have not succeeded in making an aeroplane engine which will run as long and as well as that of the two American cycle builders ? In this letter there is no attempt to belittle the efforts of the French experimenters—every praise is due to them, and I am sure that no well-balanced Englishman will begrudge his favours—but there is already a decided tendency to force the impression that the Frenchman is so far ahead that we are entirely out of the running, whereas the actual fact is, that they get more support and enthu- siasm from their compatriots at large, and, consequently, the results of their work is brought into greater prominence than would be the case under other circumstances. Yours faithfully, Bristol, Jan. 17th. G. H. CHALLENGER. [* Mr. Henry Farman is an Englishman.—ED.] WEIGHT OF THE WRIGHT MACHINE. To the Editor of FLIGHT. SIR,—In your issue of January 9th, an item of news on page 24 reports the weighing of Wilbur Wright's aeroplane, giving the weights as 364 kilogs. (= 801 lbs.) for the machine and 71 kilogs. (= 156 lbs.) for Mr. Wright, or a total of 957 lbs. In the comparison of the Wright and the Voisin flying machines by F. W. Lanchester, the weight of the Wright machine and aeronaut was given as 1,100 lbs. The discrepancy, a difference of 143 lbs., is serious to anyone who wishes to obtain a fairly accurate estimate of ihe powers and efficiency of the various types of flying machine. Perhaps Mr. Lanchester or your correspondent in France could explain or reconcile the two statements. Allow me to express my thanks to you, Sir, for having, in the past, given so much attention and devoted so much valuable space in The Automotor Journal to this fascinating subject of flight. I send enclosed herewith subscription to FLIGHT, And beg to remain, Yours truly, Burnley. : . ::; '•'•'•• AQUILA.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
