FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1912
1912 - 0848.PDF
I (/OGHT] EDITORIAL It would be a pity if the decision of the The Ban authorities temporarily to prohibit the use Monoplanes. °^ monoplanes on army service were wrongly interpreted by the man in the street, yet we fear that it is more than likely to be so. Let us first then draw attention to that great principle under lying military service, which was summed up so completely in Major Burke's remark to a press reporter: " We fly when it is our duty to fly." The service of the King and the Country permits no personal interest to stand against the performance of duty. An officer of the Royal Flying Corps is told to fly, and he flies, which is all there is to say about it. He would fly a broomstick if it were possible and necessary, and he will fly to certain death with the same willing obedience that he brings to bear upon the performance of any other of his varied duties. Such being the case, a grave responsibility rests on the shoulders of those who give the orders, and it is no more than is demanded by humanitarian prin ciples that " they who must be obeyed" should give pause when they are faced with conditions that they do not quite understand, but which seem, on the face of it, to be jeopardising the lives of those who stand to them in this matter somewhat as it were in the position of " children." The fact that several officers have unfortunately been killed on monoplanes, has undoubtedly given rise to the impression that monoplanes as a class are more dangerous than biplanes as a class. In the light of our limited knowledge of the subject, it is not for any authority to adopt an ex cathedra attitude on the mere support of personal opinion, and since to continue the use of monoplanes in the face of the opposite point of view, would be tantamount to the assumption of such an attitude of mind, the authorities have very properly decided that, being in doubt themselves, they will temporarily stop their use, pending further enquiries. The prohibition at any rate does not kill anybody, but it may give monoplanes a bad name—indeed, it has already, in combination with the accidents which have led the authorities to their decision, done that much—and to that extent the need for enquiry is urgent because the aeronautical industry cannot afford, in its present undeveloped state, to wait while the bad impression dies a natural death or expires by simple effluxion of time. Thus the sooner we get a consensus of opinion, the better, and it is to be hoped that the evidence brought to light by the Public Safety and Accidents Investigation Committee of the Royal Aero Club will materially assist the process. So far as the very meagre information at present available is concerned, it is really impossible to say how far recent accidents have been due to some failure of a mechanical detail such as might have happened on any sort of machine, or how far either the mishap itself, or its fatal consequences, have been influenced by the character istics of monoplane flight. These things, as we say, it is impossible to argue in the absence of well considered and authentic data. The one essential thing now is that a completely open mind should be kept until such time as that data becomes available and enables us to pass an unbiassed and considered judgment in the matter. On the subject of monoplanes versus biplanes in general, there is really only this to be said, namely that both are a natural evolution of a basic idea into a concrete form, the basic idea being to achieve certain characteristics in flight and having nothing whatever to do with the design of a monoplane or biplane as such. SEPTEMBER 21, 1912, COMMENT. In other words, the monoplane is the natural consequence of trying to produce a high speed machine, because its single pair of wings and readily streamlined body offer the simplest mechanical solution to this problem. Alternatively, the designer who starts out with the idea that his machine shall possess the quality of wide speed range, is faced with the immediate necessity of providing a wing area of such magnitude as immediately suggests to him the subdivision of the surface into two- units—hence the biplane. If, however, we look at the two types merely as machines, or rather as engineering structures, we are, of course, impressed with the simple strength of the natural box girder afforded by the biplane systemr in which the four wing spars form four natural booms that can be readily trussed together by vertical struts and diagonal wires arranged at intervals so as to form panels along the whole length. In a monoplane, however, the engineering problem is really equally straightforward, each wing being a cantilever and, therefore necessitating top and bottom trussing to some form of mast-like abutment. In starting out to compare the monoplane and the biplane, we assumed that the origin of the design of the former type was a desire to build a machine that would attain a great speed "in the air. High velocity involves,, as a prima facie argument, great power; and the driving of any sort of machinery that is either fast or powerful above the average, ordinarily calls for skill above the average, too. Thus, we could hardly expect at any time that the more advanced types of machine (when, by advanced, we mean progressed, in the above sense) would be readily serviceable in the hands of the inexpert, nor, in fact, should we ever regard it as less than a matter demanding considerable practice when even an expert pilot takes command of a machine that is more powerful or faster than those to which he has been used. Any one of a number of different minor factors may exert a disconcerting influence on his control, to all of which he needs to be thoroughly accustomed before he can possibly feel that he is reasonably safe. That these things need to be understood is clear, and equally is it clear that the only man who can give us the information essential to their understanding is the pilot who takes the risk of first using the machine. We have been ambitious these last twelve months and therein lies, in all probability, the real gist of the present situation. Think for a moment how little while ago it was when no one could fly at all, and how recently it was when no one would fly save in the calmest weather. And now what is the situation ? Here we have in England to-day a body of men, the Royal Flying Corps to wit, every one of whom is willing to go up in the air at the word of command. We are not surprised that any seriously minded person should want to mark time a bit before accepting, as a matter of course, that we are fitted to continue going that fast. As the matter stands now, we can only await with patience the official report and that of the Public Safety and Accidents Committee on the causes of the disasters, and when these are issued we trust that it will be found that the monoplane as a type will be acquitted of blame. Any detail structural weakness is only a question of a relatively small amount of experiment to rectify, and by reason that in the meantime it is an undoubted fact that the monoplane rests under a serious cloud, we trust that the Reports will not be unduly delayed.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
