FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1911
1911 - 0188.PDF
CORRESPONDENCE,. The name and address of the writer (not necessarily for publication) MUST in all cases accompany letters intended for insertion, or containing queries. Correspondents communicating with regard to letters which they have read in FLIGHT, would much facilitate ready reference by quoting the number of each such 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. "All-British" Encouragement. 1087] It is evident that I failed to make my meaning clear in my letter No. 1028, and that the fault is entirely my own. I am not a flying man, and never shall be one : the question of personally competing in the Daily Mail, or any other similar competition, was not present to my mind. I wished to urge that, if any advance is to be made, it is of far more importance that the machine and the inventor should receive encouragement than the pilot. Unless an inventor be a wealthy man there is an impassable gulf between him and such a prize as that of the Daily Mail. If flying men like Mr. Moore-Brabazon have to give up flying competitions on account of the enormous expense involved and the unfairness of the conditions, which are all in favour of the foreign aeroplane syndicates, with their staffs of mechanics and wholesale supply of " spares," how is an inventor who is neither wealthy nor qualified as pilote- aviateur to derive any benefit ? Nothing is done by such a competition to encourage re search, whether into mechanical and scientific principles, or into new types of machine. Far from stimulating British originality, it tends to further foreign interests and to stereo type one kind of machine. There is no difference in principle between the aeroplane of Stringiellow, dated 1848, which you have illustrated, and the latest type of monoplane. After years of research and experiment, and the expenditure of'nearly £1,000, an inventor discovers and develops the application of a new principle, independent in every way of flapping wings, helicopters and screw propellers. It promises to be an enormous success, in which case its importance to this country cannot be over-estimated, but the ultimate proof can only be given by the performance of a full-sized machine, to build and test which, with the resources of a small private workshop alone available, will be a tedious and expensive matter. How does the Daily Mail prize help such a man ? What possible benefit can he be said to have derived from the £10,000 won by M. Paulhan last year ? If it be legitimate for a newspaper to spend £10,000 in advertising itself by giving a prize of that amount to a wealthy aeroplane syndicate for a performance which will depend largely upon organisation and lavish expenditure in pro viding for every contingency, why should it not be equally legitimate for a soap or pill firm to advertise its wares by helping forward a purely British invention, which is certainly an immense advance upon anything at present in existence ? Not a penny of the soap and pill money need be spent until scientific experts have satisfied themselves that the claims made for the invention are sound. The prospect of this country leading the world in aviation is a poor one indeed if it depends upon our copying, or buying, French aeroplanes, Gnome engines and Chauviere propellers. BRITISH BRAINS. [We refer to this subject in our leading article this week. Here, we cannot refrain also from drawing attention to the third paragraph of the above letter. Surely, by " British Brains' " own showing, it is the British originality of String- fellow that is at length being recognised, even though those wicked foreign interests of which he complains are mean enough to try to profit by it.—ED.] ap-[1088] Your correspondent, " British Brains," is parently very upset by the results of recent flying races. He rails against the promoters of the large prizes offered ; he, however, loses sight of the fact that these prizes can be won on any type of flying machine, and that this being so, it is reasonable to suppose that the best type of machine would win. It is not pleasant to think that British inventors are unable to carry off these prizes, but why blame the promoters ? If " British Brains " were to build his machine and win one of these prizes he would be entitled to consider his machine as good as and perhaps better than his competitors' ; and he would reap the benefit of his labours. Present-day machines have accomplished successful flight; it remains for others to improve this ; and " British Brains " is evidently trying to do so. Let him take his model and convince practical flying men not " scientists " that the principle of working is sound and feasible and he will surely find one to support him. Manchester. " FAIRPLAY." The Banefulness of the Extremist. [1089] In a " leader " under the above title in your issue of February 25 th, a reference is made to Professor G. H. Bryan, apropos of an article from his pen which appeared in the Comhill. I hold no brief for Professor Bryan, but I have read his article rather carefully, and your firm though quiet disapproval moves me to protest. The article—as I read it—boiled down to its bones, stated that in aviation undue risks should not be taken without a justifiable object, that the problem of stability was all- important, and that there were no prizes or encouragement for the mathematical development of the science. Stress is laid on the fact that practice and theory should go hand-in- hand and be interdependent. " Of course," says Professor Bryan, in his own italics, " it would be as absurd to attempt to fly on mathematical principles only as it is absurd to expect to get to the bottom of the problem of stability—for that is what was required—without mathematics." Where is banefulness, where the extremist here ? The Professor simply expresses his opinion, which surely every man is entitled to do—that the mathematical and scientific side generally of aeronautics was neglected. I venture to think that there may be some people who will more or less agree with him. Why FLIGHT should object, however courteously, when Professor Bryan says that the present machines are unstable (which they are) and that mathematics with a little encourage ment could do something to rectify this (which it probably could), I confess I am at a loss to determine. The " leader " in question seems to require an explanatory footnote. T. O'B. HUBBARD. [If Professor Bryan had merely contented himself with the platitude that " undue risks should not be taken without a justifiable object," we should not have quarrelled with his Cornhill article. But as we read it, he seems to maintain in a particularly aggressive vein that most of the " practical men " (i.e., those who have achieved the remarkable measure of practical success of the past few years) have been taking " undue risks " and have had no " justifiable object." Surely when he suggests that all the " practical men " who have lifted aviation into an everyday achievement are " indifferent to theory," and when he makes the astounding statement that there is a " spirit of hostility," which ought to become a " spirit of rivalry " between those men and the mathe matician, he writes himself down a prejudiced partisan and he tries to arouse similar hostility in the public—in other words, he plays the part of the extremist, and he exerts a baneful influence on the growing industry. Even if we take another line suggested by Mr. Hubbard's letter, is it fair for Professor Bryan to tell the public that those responsible for the aeroplanes of the present day have shown a sad neglect of the mathematical and scientific side of aeronautics ? Has it not been equally open to Professor Bryan and his professed mathematicians to prove the superior merits of their methods of working ? And did the Brothers Wright, M. Bleriot, MM. Voisin, Mr. Farman and others receive any sort of financial public support prior to successful achievement ? Then again, on the subject of stability, raised by Mr. Hub bard—and even though we are the last in the world to decry the importance of automatic stability—can the present aeroplanes be deemed so much more unstable than all other forms of successful locomotion ? Is the bicycle stable apart from its rider? Is the motor car stable when actually travelling, but for the constant control of the driver ?—Ed.] 190
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
