FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1909
1909 - 0228.PDF
APRIL 17, 1909. CORRESPONDENCE. %* The name and address of the writer not necessarily for publication) MUST in all cases accompany letters intended for insertion, or containing queries. FLYING MACHINE CRITICISM. To the Editor of FLIGHT. SIR,—As I have been asked to finance the construction of a variety 01 heliocopter machine, I was naturally very interested in Mr. E. C. Dwyer's letter in your issue of April 3rd, especially his statement that at least half-a-dozen series of exhaustive experiments have been carried out in recent years on lines other than the aero- plane. Now it seems to me a great pity that I may spend my money on a machine similar to one that has already been built and proved a failure. The machine, the construction of which I am asked to finance, is the design of a gentleman well known as an authority in the engineering woild ; but even so, it is generally admitted that " there is nothing new under the sun," and with so many minds running in one direction, there is no saying whose ideas have been anticipated elsewhere. Could not, therefore, Mr. E. C. Dwyer give us further information, or place us in the way of getting further information in respect to the above-mentioned experiments. Thanking him in anticipation, I remain, yours faithfully, ' ..-,.• • EDWARD S. JONES. To the Editor of FLIGHT. SIR,—Mr. Dwyer's letter, in your issue of April 3rd, is apt to convey a wrong impression to the minds of your non-technical readers. With reference to the inventions which " looked very encouraging ' on paper,' " Mr. Dwyer does not mean that they were fully worked out on paper ; he really means that a sketch of the idea was shown on paper, and from this an attempt was made to construct the invention, which naturally resulted in failure. It is this sort of procedure that delays progress when a new industry is being developed. A " wild-cat " scheme is shown in a few sketches backed up by a good deal of talk, and parties with money are interested until the mechanical difficulties are reached, and the result is that really good inventions are neglected. The failures, of course, not being properly developed, come on the field first, and when the good ideas, fully worked out, make their appearance, they cannot find support ; the financiers, having been bitten, are shy. It is not at all necessary to build a full-sized machine to find out the mechanical difficulties. It is "on paper" that the mechanical difficulties ought to be, and are discovered, if the proper method is adopted for the consideration of the invention. I have seen no less than five inventions for flying machines which looked very encouraging on paper, I should say one sheet of paper, but when that sheet was extended to four, and several sheets of foolscap were used for calculations, the mechanical difficulties became apparent. These, with other problems which then revealed themselves, proved the invention to be unworkable, although it looked quite feasible when first presented in a few sketches on a sheet of paper. If engineering schemes are embarked upon without all the details having been fully gone into, and the design worked out and considered over and over again " on paper," it is only to be expected to have difficulties met with during construction. Yours faithfully, Glasgow. D. Ross KENNEDY. • AUTOMATIC STABILITY. " To the Editor of FLIGHT. -"•' SIR,—I notice in your issue of April 10th, a report of a lecture delivered by Professor G. H. Bryan, at the Royal Institution, dealing with the stability of aeroplanes. If Professor Bryan cares to com- municate with me, I shall be pleased to show him a model of an aeroplane which I have been able to produce after long and conti- nued experiments, which possesses both lateral and longitudinal automatic stability without the aid of gyrostats, movable planes, or like complications. Yours faithfully, Mitcham. G. P. SMITH. AERONAUTICAL INSTITUTE AND CLUB. To the Editor of FLIGHT. SIR,—Many will be pleased at the announcement made by Mr. Senecal, in YLIGHT, April loth, that the Aeronautical Institute and Club are going to restart their useful gatherings of members for the purpose of reading papers, lectures with models and illustrations, and friendly discussions on things aeronautical, where members meet members whose minds run in the same channel, and are willing to do their best towards solving the problem of the conquest of the air. Seeing how near its mme clashes with that of another club or two, I would suggest that this society modify its name a little. Perhaps " The Institute of Flight" would be a more distinctive and appropriate name. Wishing our vice-president every success in the club's revival, _: ,_ I remain, . . . • .: •.-.••;.--..•.-..-:•••.,;j.:i ::::.. Yours &c, "~ • Lordship Lane, .y;•'•'•:;/ R. SHAPLAND. THE HOLLANDS PROPELLER. To the Editor of FLIGHT. SIR,—I see that my name is mentioned by Mr. E. Wilson- (April 3rd) in connection with the Hollands propeller. I have now had an opportunity of seeing the "Hollands," and the seeing has not enchanted me with the idea embodied in it. The point of greatest mean efficiency in a propeller approximates to the centre of the outer half of the blade, and this being the case, why transfer surface from the outer half to the centre ? Why not cut the centre half out altogether, and so be able to utilise and concentrate the lost power of the centre half on the point of greatest: mean efficiency, either by increased curve, surface, or speed ? I tried the same idea as the " Hollands " some time back, and came to the conclusion that the type of propeller I mention is very much better and more efficient, owing to less disturbance of air in the centre portion of the propeller, and I think that no high efficiency can be attained by the centre portion of any propeller, the speed' being insufficient to be of any use, which I think is proved by the fact that a small propeller is never so efficient as a large propeller. It has been mentioned before that the " Hollands " has proved' efficient on an aeroplane. May I ask where, when, what machine,, and what flights were made ? I am open to conviction by facts, and shall be pleased to know that a wooden propeller of the type I have illustrated can be beaten by one having full length blades of metal, and shall be further pleased to know that a polished wooden blade can be beaten by any metai blade for strength, lightness, or efficiency, providing the shape in both cases is the same. • .--. . Yours very truly, - . . MONTKORD KAY. NEW COMPANIES REGISTERED. Private Company. Aero Pioneers, Ltd.—Capital ^2,000, in 1,1500 shares of ^r each and 2,000 deferred shares of is. each. Manufacturers of and dealers in aeroplanes, flying machines, and balloons, <S:c. ® & & & • PUBLICATIONS RECEIVED. Aeronautical Navigation. By Commander R. A. Newton, R.N.. London : Elliott Bros., 36, Leicester Square. Price (3d. Aeronautical Patents Published. Applied for In 1907. Published April 22nd, 1909. 28,590 F. CAPONE. Aeroplanes. Applied for in 1908. Published April xsth, 1909. F. CAPONE. Aeroplanes. F. W. DUKWA. Flj-ing machines. Published April 22nd, 1909. 7,129- 17,877. 10,161. J. KAY. Steadying balloons, also applicable to airships and the like-14,327. J. DEIXLEK. Flying machines. 18,877. M. KOBEK. Rotating propellers for aerial machines. 19,536. C. G. RODECIC. Balloon aeroplane.20,433. A. R. SILVERSTON. Airships. 22,943. K. L. W. GEEST. Airship:; or flying machines.24,076. W. AND O. WRIGHT. Flying machines. 27,731. G. BEHRENS. Transportable shed for airships. Applied for In 1909. Published April 22nd, 1909. 676. O. WUPPER. Flying toys. 23O
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
