FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1910
1910 - 0134.PDF
(/JJGHT] Aerial propellers must, of course, be especially designed to suit the class of machine they are going to drive. The blade area must be taken into consideration, and should be made and designed by experienced draughtsmen. A two-bladed propeller is and should be most efficient for aerial work. One cannot give too much attention to the design and make of the propeller, and when made it should be properly tested and set up, as the uneven wear and tear of the engine greatly depends on a properly constructed pro peller. * I have had a varied experience with fast-running steam and petrol-driven propellers, and have produced some of the fastest propellers yet made, both corrugated and plain surfaces. I have now turned my attention to the aerial propeller, and with the experiments I have made so far I think the majority of propellers now in use can be greatly improved upon. Perhaps in a later issue, if the Editor permits and I can spare the time, I shall give some scale drawings of my experience. Manor Park. HENRY H. WILLIES. FRAMES FOR MODELS. [358J Could any of your readers inform me of the lightest and strongest method of constructing a plane 2 ft. x 5 ins. And also about what should be the weight of a model frame 1 ft. 6 ins. long, main plane 2 ft. x 5 ins. and tail 9 ins. x 3 ins., to lift at about 5 m.p.h. Wishing your most excellent paper every success. Marlborough College. THOMAS M. GARROD. HOLLOW SPARS. [359] We notice in last week's issue of FLIGHT a letter (353) of T. W. K. Clarke, of Kingston, in which he mentions that his firm is the only one manufacturing hollow spars in England. As we ourselves have been manufacturing these for the past six months in stream line, oval and round sections, we could not let this remark pass unchallenged. We shall be very pleased to submit samples of these to any readers of FLIGHT who may be interested. While writing you we feel we must take the opportunity of informing you that FLIGHT has quite passed our expectations as an advertising medium, and quite bears out our own opinion that there is nothing like a specialist paper as a medium for reaching the public it caters for. 99, Snow Hill, Birmingham. THE CENTRAL NOVELTY Co. AERONAUTICS FOR THE NAVY. [360] In the article on " Aeronautics for the Navy," your corre spondent, Mr. Griffith Brewer, writes of dirigibles, " They cannot reasonably be expected to go cruising with a fleet at sea, because the first gale encountered would mean their destruction." Surely this is wrong ! How can a gale damage a dirigible when aloft ? Can a strong tide or marine current of itself damage a steamer negotiating it ? I have never heard of or experienced such a thing. Disregard the possible effects of wind upon the steamer navigating a tide or current and ycu have the same conditions as will obtain with a dirigible in a gale—with the exception that the velocity of the aerial current will be much greater than that of the marine current. The airship moves through and with the wind, and unless it be made fast to some stationary or comparatively stationary object (such as a steamer), the wind cannot exert any pressure upon the dirigible other than that normally caused by the vessel's progress through the air. And apparently the danger would not be very great even if the dirigible were made fast to a vessel, since Mr. Brewer advocates the use of captive balloons at sea, when the wind is too high for aeroplanes. Surely the dirigible, whose con tainer is designed to afford as little resistance to the air as possible, would stand, under the same circumstances, as much as the spherical balloon. The dirigible could use its engine to relieve the strain on the tow-rope, and its planes to maintain equilibrium. The only effect on a dirigible, not being towed, will be if the speed of the wind is greater than that of the vessel to drive it to leeward, and this effect will be decreased as the speed of the dirigible is increased. There appears to be no reason why a dirigible should not keep the air at sea for an indefinite period. Ballast, in form of water, is easily procurable, if air ballast is not used. Fuel could be renewed from a vessel beneath in all weathers suitable for handling aeroplanes or captive balloons, and there appears to be no reason why the gas supply should not be replenished under the same conditions. A dirigible scout will be far more reliable, far more efficient, and far easier to maintain aloft at sea than an aero plane scout. The aeroplane depends upon its engine to keep it aloft, and so far this has been its weak point, and will be where FEBRUARY 19, 1910. over-sea work is concerned for some time to come, for, granted that it can be fitted with floats, how long will it last if it has to descend in a choppy sea ? With regard to the captive balloon for naval use, I would point out that the Italian Navy has a balloon ship, the " Elba," and the French naval depot ship " Foudre " also carries a balloon. It would appear probable that our Admiralty has watched the work of these vessels, and found that the result would not justify their adoption. The dirigible possesses all the advantages of the captive balloon for naval scouting work, and many more. It can rise to the same altitude, but it can also cruise ahead of the fleet, and so see far more in advance of a balloon which is fast to one of the ships. If a captive aerial scout is required, the man- lifting kite would be better than a captive balloon ; it needs no inflating, it can be got ready and got aboard easier and quicker, and it would offer considerably less resistance than a balloon if the vessel towing it had to take to her heels on the advent of the enemy. What would be the resistance set up by a 15,000 c. f. balloon towed against a 30-mile breeze by a scout with hostile cruisers at her heels, and what would the crew of the scout say about the balloon ? And what kind of job would it be to get that balloon on deck under the same circumstances ? I have formed one of a crew of 36 men who spent five hours aloft on a 3,000 ton- windjammer, trying to make an upper topsail fast, and then lost it. That was a tough enough job, but I should imagine it would be a picnic compared to getting the balloon tied up ! Pin Mill. HAROLD R. INGERSOLL. [361] The article dealing with the above subject in your issue ot February 5th should prove most interesting to members of the Senior Service, but I beg to take exception to several of the suggestions made therein. Surely the difficulties of launching an aeroplane from a warship, and subsequently landing same on this vessel at sea, although perhaps not insuperable, would require such extra apparatus and fittings as to seriously curtail the fighting efficiency of the ship. A light upper deck, as suggested by your contributor, for launch ing the aeroplane, must necessarily add to the resistance of the ship, enemy's target area, and fire and splinter risk, if permanent ; and if only to be rigged temporarily must take up a certain amount of stowage space, a factor now jealously restricted in modern warship construction. Neglecting for the time being the dangers and risks of starting the aeroplane, which I agree would be considerable, the alighting or return to the deck after a flight would appear to be practically impossible by reason of the uncertainty of the aviator to so regulate the speed of his aeroplane with that of the ship, considering the exceedingly small free open space for such a descent thereon, as, , unless the area of the raised deck suggested be so excessive as to prohibit its use, this landing would be impossible, and leave the quarter-deck as the only alternative haven—a space too restricted and taken up by bollards, skylights, guns, barbettes, &c, to be feasible. It would, of course, be possible to construct specially-designed vessels for the launching and return of aeroplanes for use in the Navy, but it is hardly likely that the Admiralty will incur this expense until these machines have been more fully perfected. As a naval officer, and one seeking employment in the Naval School of Aeronautics, I quite agree that every effort should be made, and encouragement given to naval officers, to thoroughly test the possibilities of the aeroplane ; but until its manoeuvring qualities can be more easily controlled, it would appear, as suggested by your contributor, that the captive "balloon of the smallest practical capacity is the most reliable and compact aerial scout for the Navy. A. SYDNEY GUSH, Engineer Lieutenant, Royal Navy. [362] The article in your issue of February 5th by Mr. Griffith Brewer puts forward many interesting points, particularly with regard to the starting of a flying machine from the deck of a warship, and to the landing thereon after the completion of flight. This subject has received my attention for a long time, and not only that, but I have made, some time ago, practical pro positions to the Admiralty with regard to the design of a special flying machine for naval warfare. I must, however, join issue with the writer of your article with regard to the type of machine which would be in all probability the most suitable for the purpose. He states emphatically that such a machine must be " capable of executing with the greatest ease and accuracy the sharpest move ments and curves. It must also be a machine with the greatest strength in proportion to its weight, and consequently must be a biplane." It must be obvious to those who have seen these machines in flight that a biplane, for several reasons, is not the type of machine 130
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
