FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1912
1912 - 0669.PDF
JULY 20, 1912. I/OGHT] CORRESPONDENCE. » • The name and address of the writer (not r.eeessarily for publication) MUST in all cases accompany letters intendea for insertion, or containing queries. Correspondents communicating with regard to letters which have appeared in FLIGHT, would much facilitate ready reference by quoting the number of each letter. Aeroplanes u. Dirigibles. [1598] To take K.A.H.'s points in letter 1589 one by one, I would submit that the lives of the crew of an airship in war time are of no more consideration than that of any other fighting men. It is no use having air or water craft in the highest state of efficiency unless they are used, and their use means that we must expect to lose some or all of them. Were it necessary we should not hesitate to sacrifice a number of torpedo craft on the attack of a hostile fleet or base, therefore why should we hesitate to risk airships of one quarter the cost of a destroyer and carrying less than a quarter of the crew ? There is no doubt that the dropping of explosives betrays the position of the airship at the moment, but if her mission is successfully accomplished this is relatively unimportant. As regards dropping heavy weights, if a 20-ton airship drops 5 per cent, of her displacement (1 ton) it would not materially affect her, i.e., she would not suddenly ascend to a great height and lose a lot of gas, whilst it should be noted that if she is proceeding at some 35 knots through the air at the time her aeroplanes and horizontal rudders are capable of giving her more than a ton of negative or positive buoyancy (or more correctly, lift) instantly. If an aeroplane could do all that an airship can, and if it can easily destroy an airship I should quite agree with K. A.H. that it is useless to develop the latter. We know, however, on some points the aeroplane scores and in some the airship, even if we regard them as scouting machines only ; whilst we shall have to wait for the next war to decide whether one type or the other will be supreme for fighting purposes. At present there is no reason to suppose that things will not work out as they have on the water, where the destruction of a few torpedo craft is nothing to the destruction of a battleship, so that K.A.H. and I can agree on his concluding paragraph in which he says that the destruction of a few aeroplanes would be nothing to the destruction of an airship, hereby for the first time, acknowleding their relative importance. Up to date no Zeppelins have been destroyed in the air, their loss in every case has been due to the mooring arrangements adopted, OT to attemps to get them into or out a shed in a breeze. No one would be so mad as to try and get a Dreadnought into a narrow dock with a 4-knot tide flowing across the entrance, nor would they attempt to moor her in a tideway by sending divers down to hang on to her keel. When the mooring problem is properly solved the airship will come into its own, and everything points to the method adopted for the Naval airship at Barrow being on the right lines. Finally I must congratulate K.A.H. on not suggesting that there may be a use for airships " escorted and guarded by aeroplanes." Many people when discussing this question jump to this brilliant conclusion forgetting that the chief function of the airship is to cruise in regions far beyond the radius of action of any aeroplane, and that if operating within their radius the chief advantages of the aeroplane— speed and ea?e of concealment—are destroyed whilst their radius of action is curtailed through their having to fly in circles to remain in the neighbourhood of the airship. PER MARE PER AERA. Natural Stability. [1599] With reference to the stability of aeroplanes, I quite agree with one or two of your correspondents—that to depend entirely on natural stability would be dangerous in a sudden emergency— where perhaps a slight additional warp or other control would save the whole situation. I have experimented for some months past with planes, and my present design 36 in. span—and latest 58 in. span —both possess the same remarkable natural stability. My idea seemed to be pure common sense and was founded on the principle of leverage, i.e., by having rather excessive cambered portions, about 45 to 50°, very much removed from centre of plane, the rest of plane being only slightly cambered. It will readily be seen that the body of the machine is practically the fulcrum of the lifting action of either camber, the latter having enormous power when diverted from the horizontal. A friend and I have tried both large and small models under the most trying wind conditions, and have not yet succeeded in capsizing either machine, the wind being strong enough to smash the steel wiring from king-post. The machine is very fast—will rise to 80 ft. or more (fully that amount). I do not wish to point the matter out as being in any way •ngenious—I wanted a model that would fly in any wind, and it was the means to an end—but as far as r»y very small knowledge goes, I see no reason whatever why this idea should not be adopted on a full size monoplane, as warping or other control could still be used if required. The only thing that will upset these models is a mal adjustment of elevator causing machine to assume too vertical an angle ; that is only to be expected. Shanklin. VERNON L. ADDISON. P. S.—I noticed that when machines landed rather hard on rough ground that the rebounding action of the planes due to the shock, had a decided detrimental effect to the wiring from king-post, the under stays remaining intact. V.L.A. Parachutes for Aeroplanes. [1600] May I trespass on your valuable space by submitting to those interested in flight, a sketch of an appliance which would minimise the risk run by airmen when piloting their machines ? Fig. 1 shows a parachute, C, with its nettles, D, and about 15 ft. of flexible wire rope, G, coiled in a "figure of eight" style, to prevent entanglement, placed compactly into an asbestos or other fireproof canister, B, which is partially spilt through between the points P and Q. The bottom coil of the rope is securely fixed to the stout base of the tube at M. The free rope, F, is passed upward inside the tube (laying along the weak split line of the tube) and is taken to the after part of the body of the aeroplane, thence forward—being carried readily by releasing spring clips—and finally fixed to suitable leather gear worn by the aviator. The asbestos tube, together with its contents—forming, as it were, a projectile—is placed into an aluminium tube, A, fitted at its base with a breech block, H, and an electric firing arrangement (the two wires of which, being passed inboard, connecting a battery and a pistol-grip firing key). no. 1. - TAIYAHQH — FIG.2. FIG.3 •l»V> Into the breech is placed a charge of explosive. The whole is supported on the body of the plane abaft the pilot by a 450 U bracket as shown. "*^"; The asbestos tube is supplied with a cover to shield the parachute from inclement weather. Should an airman lose absolute control over his machine when in the air, and commence falling to earth, the trigger of the pistol-grip would be pulled. By this simple operation the charge in the breech explodes and ejects the asbestos tube upward, pulling with it the wire from the spring clips along the body of the aeroplane. The rope becomes taut and tears its way through the split side of the tube. Since the wire is fixed to the base of the latter, the flight of the tube is suddenly arrested. By the law of momentum the parachute leaves the tube, con tinuing its flignt upward until all the coils of wire are run out.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
