FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1910
1910 - 0722.PDF
CORRESPONDENCE. %* The name and address of the writer (not necessarily for put or contai, Correspondents asking questions relating to articles which they have read in FLIGHT, would much facilitate our work of reference by giving the number of the letter. NOTE.—Owing to the great mass of valuable and interesting corre spondence which we receive, immediate publication is impossible, but each letter will appear practically in sequence and at the earliest possible moment. RADLEY AND HIS MACHINE. [720] In your issue of August 20th Mr. Massac Buist remarks that Mr. Radley " seems suddenly to have learned to fly." Would it not be more correct to state " Mr. Radley has suddenly obtained a machine worthy of his abilities " ? For has he not been for some time in the front rank of monoplane flyers ? Because up to now he has had bad luck and bad engines, does that necessitate him being a bad flyer ? Bournemouth. E. R. WHITEHOUSE. CAPT. BERTRAM DICKSON AT LANARK. 721] Feeling that the reference I was able to make a couple of weeks ago to the flying of Capt. Bertram Dickson, in the course of an article published by you, and which contrasted the Bournemouth and Lanark flight meetings, was perchance too brief, I crave the courtesy of your space to draw attention to the following facts: On the opening day of the Lanark meeting Capt. Dickson was the first man to fly, and he would doubtless have continued in the air till set of sun if he had not had the misfortune to break an inlet- valve at 7- 5 p-m. On the Monday he was the first to fly the cross country journey ; then, owing to an error whereby, it now appears, his mechanicians put 6 stone more lead on his machine than he intended (of which mistake he was not aware at the time) in the weight-carrying competition round the course, the Farman biplane got smashed underneath while it was running over the ground on the far stretch and by contact with a ditch filled up with straw. The total load then aboard her was 37 stone. This untoward experience put him out of competition for the next two days, during which the weather proved perfect for the purposes of his rivals, but as soon as Capt, Dickson was ready for the fray again the weather, to quote his own phrase, " was vile," and continued fairly unfavour able till the close of the meeting, so that he never had an opportunity to do pretty exhibition flights or to compete in events which had been practically won during his enforced inactivity. All his efforts were therefore concentrated on the cross-country com petition, which " needed a deal of watching." H. MASSAC BUIST. AERONAUTICAL TERMINOLOGY. 722] Mr. Fred. T. Jane's letter in your issue of the 20th ult., and your own comments thereon are most interesting. But why Oh why 1) does Mr. Jane " not think much of port and starboard'''' ? Surely he must know that starboard and right, port and left, are not at all synonymous. A buoy, for instance, maybe on the "star board hand," but it may equally well be on one's own left hand. Again, you say, " one speaks of an ardent yachtsman." In point of fact, " yachtsman " is a word which a yachtsman never (or hardly ever) uses. " An ardent yachtsman " is pure journalesque, nothing else. One may say of a man that he is a "smart helmsman," "a darned good sailorman," or " a something-or-other fine navigator," but one would never refer to him as a "yachtsman." In the same way, a real "yachtsman" would never invite you aboard his 4'yacht"; he might ask you to go a cruise in his " packet," his " craft," his " boat," or even in his " old hooker," but never in his "yacht." "Seaman" is never used in accounts of yacht races, in the sense of the man who runs the boat; in generally accepted yachting terminology one speaks of the " owner " (the man who foots the bills), the " helmsman " (the amateur at the helm), or the " skipper" (the professional at the helm); but never the "seaman." Every single term employed in yachting or sailing terminology has a definite and unmistakable meaning. Although an adequate aeronautical terminology will certainly be evolved some day, there are heaps of ready made terms to hand, which appear to have been neglected. For instance ; why should an aeroplane "cant "when a boit " heels " or " drift" when a boat " makes leeway"? Considering that flying, like sailing, is intimately connected with the wind, why is it that the wind is hardly ever referred to in the reports of flying meetings? A wind may be a "head," a "free," a " beam," or a "fair " wind ; and surely its direction, character and force are of some interest in comparing the performances of various "planes" and the "airmen "who are "running" them. Surely ation) MOST in all cases accompany letters intended for insertion, ig queries. also, an aeroplane can " luff" and " bear away " like a boat; it can " stay " or " gybe " round a " mark " or pylon. Another point, organising committees have taken great pains to draw up a " Code de Signaux " by combinations of shapes and colours. Why could they not have adopted the " International Code of Distant Signals " with which every seaman is acquainted ? These signals are unmistakable combinations of four shapes ; ball, cone and drum ; with the numerical four values I, 2, 3 and 4. The number of possible combinations is ample for any purpose and the great disad vantage of using various colours is done away with. I think that on the questions of terminology, signalling and the rules of the road in space the experience accumulated during centuries afloat should not be despised. Obviously, naval or yachting experience will not prove all-sufficient for aeronautical purposes, but there is a good deal which could be taken as it stands ; the remainder will evolve in due course as the special requirements of the air are better appreciated and understood. JOHN W. WARD. 80-H.P. ENGINE WANTED. [723] Many thanks for the insertion of my last epistle (710), may I correct a slight typographical error appearing therein? I had old Horace in mind as I wrote and his munificent patron Mecaenas. I should like to add that I have somewhat modified my plans and intend leaving the larger type until later as everything must be sacrificed to speed. The first to be constructed, therefore, will be a small racing machine, so that a 60-h.p. to 80-h.p. engine will now do if—under favourable wind conditions—I can get 80 m.p.h. out of it: and not a mile less will be of use if a British machine and aviator is to win the Daily Mail " Blue Ribbon," as I have it on the highest authority that two, at least, of M. Bleriot's machines will be capable of doing from 80 to 85 m.p.h.; and there is no good in trusting to possible breakdowns with that firm : their organi sation and generalship is too excellent. It is a huge task set us, but surely British ingenuity can do the trick. Here's one, at any rate, who will spend his last " fiver" in trying. But things would be so much easier if only our delightful Government would come out of its shell and give manufacturers of engines a little real encouragement by offering to purchase a goodly number of a reliable light speed engine fulfilling certain previously stated requirements. Walbrook. W. F. C. STEUART-SETON. SELF.CAMBERING PLANES. [724] The article on " Flyers and Yachts," recently completed in FLIGHT, has reminded me of an idea I thought of some time ago, which may interest some of your readers. Briefly, the idea is to have, instead of a fixed-cambered aerofoil, a frame in which the fabric is held taut by springs similar to the ailerons on the Short biplanes. I must admit that this idea possesses many disadvantages, but several good advantages appear to me as I write, and among them are the following :— (1) Large angle of incidence on starting off, which will diminish after leaving the ground, thus allowing starting off at low flying speeds. (2) By fixing suitable control wires the angle of incidence could be adjusted during flight, thus allowing a variable flight speed. (3) The angle of incidence of either wing (in a monoplane) could FRONT bPAR REAR 5PAR. be varied separately, thus doing away with wing-warping or the use of separate ailerons. I should also imagine that a plane of this description would, whilst flying, assume a more perfect camber than a fixed one which relies on the relative position of the tail for its flying angle. I enclose a sketch, which may serve to illustrate my meaning, and should be very glad if other readers would give me their opinions as to its practicability. In closing I should like to express my appreciation of your very valuable paper. Carlisle. E. TEMPLE ROBINS. 720
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
