FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1911
1911 - 0328.PDF
I/UGHT] There is yet another difficulty in connection with this section of model-making, a consideration of which shows all the more clearly why it is desirable that a definite scheme should be drawn up in advance. There is a very considerable difference between agreeing that some idea is sufficiently original to be eligible for a prize purely on the score of originality, and in agreeing that the idea itself has a reasonable claim to be considered meritorious in principle. At the moment it is impossible to feel otherwise than that the award of a prize in this section would in some manner be an ex pression of approval on the part of the judges in respect to the practical merits of the principle of the device for which the prize was awarded. Let us take, for the sake of example, such a model as that exhibited by A. H. Bailey, which con sisted of a biplane fitted with obliquely arranged side-curtains mounted in frames, and so attached by cords to the main planes as to be capable of being warped for the purposes of stability and control. Although fundamentally introducing the principle of the dihedral angle, and other principles such as ordinary rudder action combined with the screening method utilised on the Neale biplane, there might well have been sufficient originality in the device to warrant the judges recognising it as an idea. On the other hand, it is quite a different matter if they are asked to sanction it in any way or to signify their approval of it as a workable invention. For our own part we foresee that there must always be this difficulty, and feel very strongly that the best objects of the prize-givers will be attained by having it clearly set forth in advance that the award of prizes in this section does not imply approval of principles that have not been tested in the presence of judges, unless the same is clearly stated in the notice of award. When it comes to a consideration of the other categories there is less difficulty in selecting models that are worthy of comment, and as may be observed from the list of prizes the judges have not hesitated to dispense encouragement wherever the seed thereof shows likelihood of falling on good ground. In the case of models exhibited for workmanship, however, the prize distribution follows lines that are some what at variance with the general scheme recommended and advocated by us above. Good workmanship, per se, may be applied equally to any form of model-making, and where the model in question is a flying machine and is not intended to be useful either as a toy or as illustrative of an original idea, we consider that it ought to be a scale copy of some actual machine that has been selected. The reason for this attitude is quite definite. If the model is a toy or embodies an original idea, it should be entered in the corre sponding class and not be judged for workmanship except as a secondary consideration. If it is incapable of demonstrat ing either actual flight, a new principle, or some mechanical movement, then the correctness of its general lines and detail must be taken for granted, which can only be done when the model represents something that elsewhere has been demonstrated successfully. Prizes for pure workmanship should therefore be given, we consider, for scale models only, although we must admit that under the present arrangement the judges could scarcely have done otherwise than make the awards they have. In connection with making scale models, it should be unnecessary again to remark that the idea of encouraging an intelligent interest in the work should be a basic principle underlying the distribution of the awards, for the organising bodies are concerned with aviation and not with wood-working, carving, or any of the other arts that are pressed into the service of the model-maker and that doubtless receive individual encouragement from their own societies in other quarters. A scale model is distinctly useful as a record of actual achievements, and as such is worthy not only to receive a prize but to be kept in a prominent place. As we mentioned last year, we should like to see the Royal Aero Club acquire small scale models of successful machines with a view to building up gradually a museum history of flight. Very possibly if the models exhibited at Olympia were worthy of that distinction, some such scheme might be adopted, but most certainly they are not at the present time. From the standpoint of mere workmanship, some of them reach a high degree of excellence, but none are really faithful copies. There is, of course, a great deal in a full-sized machine that cannot be reproduced actually to scale, but this is only all the more opportunity for the model-maker to exercise his appreciative faculty in the elimination of such details as are unnecessary, Elimination is one thing ; APRIL 15, 1911. alteration another. When a model-maker copies a machine he should copy everything and not introduce variations of his own. If some detail is too small to be copied faithfully, some appropriate dummy should be set in its place as an indication of its presence. At the present time model- makers in this section chiefly fail because they copy the superficial appearance only, and alter many of quite the- important features of the machine. In the section of model-making that is devoted to the construction of what we have perhaps inadequately described as toys, there is now, as there has been from the first, the greatest evidence of all round ability and real progress, and we can only suppose that the fact that there is a com mercial side to this undertaking has had much to do with the comparative superiority of this class of work. It is, as we have said, perhaps inadequate to describe these models- merely as toys, but the term serves to differentiate our meaning better than any other that we can use at the moment. After all, there is nothing that is derogatory about a toy, and very possibly it serves a more important part in the matter of encouragement—by awakening an interest in flight outside the sphere of those at present associated with the movement—than is accomplished by either of the other sections. Moreover, the successful construction of a toy under the conditions of fairly energetic competition such as- now prevail, is by no means the easy and simple accomplish ment that it was when a toy was a model that would only fly by a pure stroke of luck or a trick of launching. Model- making for the toy category demands an appreciation of fundamental aerodynamics, of engineering principles and of what has actually been accomplished in the practical field. The latter is useful primarily as a guide in design, but also for commercial reasons because the public eye is more likely to be attracted by something that it easily recognises. A knowledge of fundamental aerodynamics is necessary in order to adapt quickly and effectively the general lines of an actual flying machine to the requirements of a practical flying model ; and a knowledge of engineering principles is essential if the model is to be built so that it will withstand rough usage. Especially is this true of models that are rather elaborate, and it is most satisfactory to be able to record the progress that has been made year by year along these lines. This year, for example, the progressive feature is most decidedly the capacity for rising from the ground demon strated by the Ding-Sayers model, also by a rather larger model constructed by M. Gordon Jones, who obtained a prize in this section for the flight capacity of a smaller model not equipped with an under-carriage, suitable for starting- on the ground. The little Ding-Sayers machine not only flew beautifully, but would rise from the ground every time, and even though the floor was rough concrete. Moreover, the place where the flights were made was full of obstructions, and sooner or later the models would be sure to dash full speed into something hard ; but although every effort was made in this way to break up the Ding-Sayers flyer under conditions that might quite well be experienced in practice, only a single wire came adrift, and that was only unhooked, so that it could be replaced without necessitating any sort of structural repair. As an engineering construction on a small scale, therefore, the Ding-Sayers model was quite worthy of notice, and as a design of biplane it is distinctly interesting as an adaptation of modern methods to the requirements of models. The Gordon Jones model likewise flew admirably, and withstood equal knocking about without damage, while as an engineering construction it was especially interesting on account of its simplicity and because, as a type, it was more closely similar in appearance to the popular conception of an actual aeroplane. The Burge-Webb model flyer is another extremely satis factory toy, but the particular model that made the best demonstration for the judges showed no advance on its condition of last year, when it won a prize, and the other pattern, which was adapted for starting off the ground, failed to do so on this occasion. G. P. Bragg Smith also competed in this section, as he has done on former occasions, and his small model biplane flew very prettily. As in the case of the other competitor just mentioned, however, it showed no advance on last year. A model entered by A, E. Cartledge flew fairly well, but was mainly interesting because constructed throughout of brass tubing reinforced with steel-wire bracing. So far as
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
