FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1910
1910 - 0252.PDF
1/tiGHTl pressed reason for the recognition of any exhibit by the award of a medal. If we consider the models of aeroplanes under the first heading, which is that of novel ideas, it is very difficult to find any model aeroplane that was entitled to an award, for although there were many machines of entirely unconventional design they were certainly not of a character that would have justified recognition by the judges of the very vague and ill- defined principles expressed by some of the inventors. Among the most serious ideas represented by particular models was the Clarke monoplane with its tail in front, but this can hardly be regarded any longer as a novelty, more especially in view of the fact that a full sized machine embodying the principle of a tail in front is APRIL 2, 1910. hardly represent qnite the same merit, as exhibits, as those of G. P. B. Smith and M. Jones. The Clarke monoplane, which is well known to fly, was not demon strated. For an idea pure and simple, the device exhibited by A. E. Creese for indicating to the pilot the direction of cant on an aeroplane in flight was the only exhibit that received an award in this section. It is a simple device, and is calculated to perform a useful purpose. It consists of two small electric lights coupled in circuit with a small battery and an automatic contact-maker formed by a curved tube containing mercury. If the machine cants to one side, the mercury makes contact so as to light up the blue light; if the machine cants in the other " Flight" Copyright Toy biplane, constructed by M. Jones, of New Things, Ltd., and awarded a Motor Union bronze medal in the Toy Aeroplane Section. actually being tried. Another serious design embodying a tangible theory was the biplane exhibited by G. P. B. Smith, which has its lower deck arched so that its extremities join those of the horizontal upper deck. Natural lateral stability is claimed for this feature, and the theory associated therewith is that the upturned ends of the lower deck act as inclined aeroplanes if the machine as a whole suffers lateral dis placement. We have seen this model fly, and as a model it undoubtedly does possess considerable lateral stability, but here again the principle involved is one that it would be improper to endorse outright in respect of full-sized machines without further evidence of the application of the principle. The loading of a model, for instance, is very different from that of a full-sized aero plane, but the wind gusts to which a model is subjected are, approximately, of the same actual intensity. As a model, we have seen this machine almost float in the air as it is pushed from side to side by a gusty wind, but it does not necessarily follow that the inertia and higher loading of a full-sized machine would permit it to behave in the same way. As a toy, it is an excellent device, and as such it has been recognised by the judges as an exhibit of equal merit with a very nicely-made biplane built by M. Jones. Both models were put through practical trials in the annexe, as also were the Burge-Webb monoplanes. These latter are also good flyers, but they are far removed from an actual aeroplane in appearance, and, therefore, "Flight" Copyright. A device, exhibited by A. E. Creese, for indicating to the pilot the direction of cant of an aeroplane in flight, awarded the Motor Union bronze medal for an aeroplane accessory. direction, it is the red light that indicates the fact to the pilot. An extension of the same principle was also applied to the mechanical operation of the elevator, but this portion of the apparatus is of less obvious value, and is clearly omitted from mention in the awards. Under the heading of workmanship, a one-tenth scale model exhibited by Pepys Goodchiid obtained a silver medal, while another model monoplane, exhibited by A. Gaitz-Hocky, was awarded a bronze medal. Both showed considerable skill and much care in their building, although neither was an exact copy of any specific full- sized machine. The Goodchiid monoplane, however, had the loose sail-wings that characterise the Chauviere monoplane, together wiih some other features of that machine. For a model monoplane fitted with a petrol motor, J. Urlwin was awarded a medal devoted to a section specifically recognising model aeroplanes of that class. Such models are, of course, much larger than the majority, but it does not necessarily follow that they represent a more valuable type of model with which to experiment. They do, however, represent a scale of construction that, if successful, might lend itself to very useful research. We imagine that those who are investigating flight by means of model monoplanes fitted with petrol engines will find themselves confronted with many difficulties before they obtain satisfactory results, but we wish them success all the same. Prizes in Italy. AMONG the prizes offered by the Aero Club of Italy, of which the Duke of Abruzzi is honorary president, may be noted one of ^40 for the first flight of 500 metres, £60 for the first flight of 1 kilom. On an Italian aeroplane, ^40 for a flight of 5 kiloms. in a circuit, and ^60 for a trip of 10 kiloms. across country. 250
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
