FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1912
1912 - 0807.PDF
SEPTEMBER 7, 1912. more concentration of effort in putting their two mono planes earlier through the tests, and the British and Colonial Co. might well have relieved the National Exchequer of ^2,000, instead of the ^1,000 that has fallen to their lot—which, by the way, is as much as the Cody receives in this section. Both Bristol monoplanes achieved the specified essential minima: but, even so, in our opinion their performances are not yet up to the standard of their design. For example, we believe that they are at present too neavy for their wing area, just as the Avro is under-powered for its weight, and that in a few months they will be climbing their first thousand feet at over 300 ft. a minute. The British Dep. must needs take some reflected glory from its French prototype, which won the second prize open to the world; for a contributory cause at least to the excellence of that performance was the businesslike management of Mr. Santoni, who allowed his own particular interests to stand aside so that the combined efforts of the Deperdussin camps might be concentrated on giving proper attention to the French machine that Prevost flew. Apparently, from our figures, the British Dep. weighed more than the French Dep. but as there is some question as to the exact flying weight of the British Dep. it is, perhaps, only fair to take the French Dep. for criticism. It exceeded its anticipated efficiency, but was a few miles per hour below the speed appropriate to its design. In other words, it ought to be able to carry more load than it did, without overloading, but at the same time it ought to fly a little faster, which, in all probability, it would do if tested on a calm day. The Dep. is an uncommonly fine monoplane and if we may regard the dimensions, weights and loading, as being a standard of comparison it should be observed that the machine may be virtually described as a large area monoplane. By large area is not meant so much the absolute dimensions as the loading, and not the loading only so much as the loading in conjunction with the load per horse-power : in a word our factor X and all it can convey. The French Dep. and the Cody form an instructive comparison. Their anticipated efficiencies are 74 and 65 per cent, respectively, while their demon strated efficiencies are 79 and 69 per cent, respectively. And of the Cody, what shall we say of that ? In the midst of such trumpeting on the part of the general press it seems fitting to pay a greater compliment by using the simplest language. Indeed it gives us the sincerest pleasure to see so fine a pioneer receive credit in his own time for a little of the much that he has accomplished. Whatever Cody has gained he has deserved, for none can deny that he has worked hard, and none can deny that his machine went through with the flag flying. It is a triumph of which more than Cody may feel proud, for the Cody biplane is an original British machine, having from the first been different to all others. No one who followed our technical ® ® ARMY AEROPLANE C ALTHOUGH we were able to give the awards in the Army Aeroplane Competition in the greater part of the edition of last week's FLIGHT, some of the earlier copies had to be printed without them. Therefore we reproduce them in full below :— The Aimy Council, on the recommendation of the Judges' Com mittee, have awarded the following prizes in connection with the Military Aeroplane Competition. Prizes open to the world:— First prize, ,£4,000, to S. F. Cody, or Cody biplane (British). Second prize, ,£2,000, to A. Deperdussin, for the Deperdussin monoplane (French), No. 26. Prizes open to British subjects, for aeroplanes manufactured wholly (except the engine) in the United Kingdom :— First Prize, £1,000, to S. F. Cody. commentary on the course of the trials could have failed to see that the Cody must essentially win some high reward, provided that the scope of its purpose appealed to the military point of view. It lias great lifting power, and it could easily be made to carry a gun, which things alone, we should think, are sufficient to accentuate the merit of its performances under the various heads of the competition. And surely this victory of Cody's is a lesson to all hesitating pioneers, for Cody is not " Cody and Co.," be it remembered, but just one man filled with inexhaustible energy, a ceaseless worker with hand and brain. Now that the Cody biplane has received military recognition there is a unique opportunity for some big firm to acquire a ready-made stake in the aeronautical industry by taking up the rights to manufacture. Finally, and in firm pursuance of our desire to do honour without reference to honours, may we not say a word in encouragement of those who, for one reason or another, failed to go through with the event. Of the Martin-Handasyde, for instance, which is a most beauti fully designed and built monoplane of the large wing type, but was placed out of action solely because of the persistent failure of its Chenu engine; of the Coventry Ordnance biplanes, in the further development of which Mr. Manning certainly deserves encouragement, one of which was likewise totally disabled through the failure of its Chenu engine. The Vickers, owing to a com bination of unfortunate circumstances, failed to do itself justice, for it was certainly flying better at Brooklands than ever it did at Salisbury Plain. The Handley Page was not ready, and an untimely landing down wind broke a wing when it did begin to fly; nevertheless the Handley Page monoplane with its crescent wings is distinctly among the machines that we hope to see evolved to a successful issue. Yet another British constructor of great promise, who can scarcely look back on the trials with unmitigated kindliness, is Mr. Howard Flanders, whose original and well-executed design of biplane for three weeks lacked any vestige of its long-promised engine. The Breguet biplane, another distinctive type about which it would have been most useful to have had definite information,appeared to be unable to get its engine into action, notwithstanding the ceaseless efforts of the most determined French mechanic we have ever seen. Of the British-built Pigott biplane it is impossible to say more than that it must be the smallest machine in the world and that it was nicely built; it was only finished just before the end of the trials, and a mishap to one of the wings while " taxying " all too soon put it out of action. To the Mersey, of sad and regrettable memory, there is due this credit, that it was the only monoplane with the propeller behind, and in that regard was exempt from a criticism that has often been levelled against monoplanes in general by those who have regarded their use solely from the military standpoint. ® ® MPETITION AWARDS. As no other British aeroplane completed all the tests, the two second prizes will be withheld, but the three third prizes of £s°° each are awarded to : British Deperdussin Co. for Dep. No. 21. British and Colonial Co. for Bristol monoplane No. 14. British and Colonial Co. for Bristol monoplane No. 15. The following entrants, whose aeroplanes were submitted to all the tests, will receive £100 in respect of each aeroplane :— M. Ducrocq, for Hanriot monoplanes (French) Nos. 1 and 2. Aircraft Co., for Maurice Farman biplane (French) No. 22. L. Bleriot, for Bleriot monoplanes (French) Nos. 4 and 5. A. V. Roe, for Avro biplane (British) No. 7. C 2
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
