FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1912
1912 - 0986.PDF
I/UCHT NOVEMBER 2, 1912. MILITARY TRIALS. REPORT OF JUDGES' COMMITTEE. BELOW, we publish so much of the text of the report of the Judges' Committee on the Military Aeroplane Trials, 1912, as consists of new material not hitherto available. Much of the report is devoted to descriptions of the tests them selves, which were duly described in FLIGHT during the course of the event. References to the different machines also contain summarised particulars of their dimensions and performances, which were also published at the time of the Trials, and appeared in our various tables. A large section of the report contains appendices with the full text of the conditions, &c, &c, and there are several large charts showing the gliding angles of some of the machines. Most of the information cited above would be redundant in FLIGHT, and lack of space prevents its publication in the present overcrowded issue. We have, however, inserted in brackets references to back numbers of FLIGHT where matter omitted from the following precis will be found. In order to save repetition of references the following summary of the material that has appeared in FLIGHT may be useful:— Original conditions Dec. 23rd, 1911 Table of entries ... Page 704 Supplementary conditions 1'age 464 Table of engines ... ,, 722 Rcsitm,'of conditions ... ,, 702 Speed measurement ,, 745 Conditions.—Thirty-two entries were received, and twenty-five Summarised tables Page 812 et seq. aeroplanes were delivered to take part in the competition. Four of these machines were in such an incomplete state that they were in large measure built in the sheds on the competition ground. Two machines, the Aerial Wheel monoplane and the Piggott biplane, had not made a flight by the twenty-fourth day of the competition ; the competitors who entered these machines were then instructed to withdraw them. Several other entries suffered from being either unprepared or untried. Assembly.—Speaking generally, the monoplanes were superior to the biplanes in this test, and though one biplane, the Avro, completed it in 14J mins., another—that of the Aircraft Co.—took 9J hrs. to assemble and leave the ground. Design, construction and standardization of pirts.—The Judges' Committe examined and compared the details of ccnstiuction of all competing machines, the ftaff of the Royal Aircraft Factory being called in ti assist in making such measurements and expert examinations as were required for the purposes of accurate comparison. The Judges Committee also individually and collectively examined all competing machines for convenience of handling, accessibility of all controls, and such other details as ease of communication between pilot and passenger, method of fitting dual controls so that they could be operated with equal ease, or nearly so, from either pilot's or passenger's seat, comfort, &c. ; they also took careful note of the design of the landing gear of every competing machine in order to form an opinion of its efficiency apart from the skill of the pilot. The competitors gave every assistance duiing these examinations and though only a few produced drawings it was possible to arrive at definite decisions as to relative merits in the matter. Gliding test-—The results showed that the tendency of pilots was to cause their aeroplanes to travel at too low a speed for the best gliding angle to be attained. For example, one competitor obtained a best gliding angle of I in 67 at 92 ft. per second, and a worst angle of 1 in S'5 at 78 ft. per second. Landing on grass.—The ground selected for this test consisted of a level expanse of short grass, the surface being firm. The pilot was told to approach the landing place at a height of about 100 ft., descend by a vol plan,!, land and etop in the shortest distance possible. He was allowed to approach the ground as slowly as he could, and to twist and turn after landing. The distance was then measured in a straight line from the point where ground was first touched to the most distant point of the track made by the aeroplane. As a matter of fact, however, all the competitors ran their machines practically straight after landing. One competitor (Mr. Cody, No. 31) had fitted a brake which he could let down for landing and draw up from the pilot's seat before starting. This consisted of a chain looped round his skid, and the run of his aeroplane was thereby considerably lessened. Ease of steering the aeroplane on the ground. —In this test the pilot was instructed to run his aeroplane along the ground as slowly as he thought fit, and to steer it in circles and figures of eight, under observation. Steering is largely obtained by the draught of the propeller slip stream acting on the rudder, and the roponse of the machine is usually best when the speed of travel is high, though for manoeuvring purposes there is utility in having prompt response when the speed is small. Accidents have, for example, occurred from a lack of mananivring power on the ground when nearing a crowd or obstruction. For this reason, aeroplanes in which the propeller is fitted behind the planes and, therefore, nearer the rudder, have some advantage, e.g., the Cody, Farman, and Mersey. Some aeroplanes obtain greater control on the ground by a steerable wheel or skid, by means of which they steer after alighting from a glide with the engines stopped, or when, the wind being behind them, the propeller slip stream becomes less effective. The com peting aeroplanes fitted with this type of auxiliary were the Avro and Breguet. The aeroplanes entered for the trials, for the most part, steered pretty well on the ground. Gliding angle ... Page 746 The awards 78 Table of results ... „ 796 View.—The field of view of pilot and observer was rneasured by placing the aeroplane on a floor marked in squares. An. observer seated in the machine marked the " dead area " on a sheet squared to correspond with the floor marking. A small correction for the varying heights of machines made this method an accurate one. Order of importance.—The Judges' Committee placed the requirements called for in the competition in the following order of importance, and assigned value to them accordingly:—Speed, including flexibility of speed, climbing, gliding, landing, view, starting ; communication between passenger and pilot, and dual control; sound construction throughout, interchangeability of parts, and compactness and convenience of handling. No competing aero plane had a silenced engine, and, therefore, the difficulty of measuring relative efficiency in this particular did not enter into the awards. The low position in the above list given to sound construction is due to the fact that those aeroplanes which were considered in the awards all complied generally with the broad requirements in this respect. The difficulty of judging accurately the capability of an aeroplane to face rough weather is so great that, in spite of its supreme importance, it was considered unwise to allot a high value to it. The Judges' Committee, however, included this kind of stability among other impressions of general excellence which they formed during the course of the trials, and to which due weight was given. General Remarks. Requirements generally complied with.—When the condi tions of the competition were first published they were criticized in many quarters as being too severe. The tests, however, have been surmounted by machines of widely different types, in some cases with considerable margin to spare. Flying in wind.—The unfavourable weather brought out the fact that, though normally a natural reluctance is felt to flying in winds of 20 to 30 miles an hour when there is no object to be gained, this can be safely accomplished by most machines of a good type. Moreover, once the aeroplane is clear of the ground, the flyer's objection to wind appears to be based chiefly upon the fatigue induced by keeping uninterruptedly on the alert. In a flight of a duration as long as three hours, the element of fatigue is an important consideration; improvements in design or mechanism may, however, overcome this difficulty, and allow of prolonged flights in winds of high velocity. No really " Military " aeroplanes entered. — Of the 10 aero planes placed in order oi merit, the first five were machines which had not been specially designed for the competition. The qualities asked for in the published " Specification of a Military Aeroplane " were, in fact, the attributes of a successful flying machine, and were only in a secondary sense Military requirements. The judges formed the opinon that only in one case, the Mersey aeroplane, had an endeavour been made to fit the design to the requirements of actual war, although some designers in evolving an efficient flying machine had, at the same time, produced an aeroplane which, with some modification, might be made a useful craft for fighting or reconnaissance. The Judges' Committee, however, did not feel justified in giving weight to any Military considerations except those expressed or implied in the original conditions. Had they done so, the superiority of Mr. Cody's biplane would have been further accentuated. Engine developments.—It is the duty of the Judges' Com mittee to point out that all the aeroplanes which passed the tests, and those others which, although not entirely fulfilling some condi tions, have been recommended for awards, were fitted with foreign engines. The longer period of development abroad, which has standardized certain foreign engines, has been greatly in favour of foreign manufacturers, as there is a prospect of purchasers obtain ing these engines on a definite date, and of their conforming to a general standard. Two foreign engines of the same type were failures, and spoiled the chances of two aeroplanes of British design, but, on the whole, the foreign engines were trustworthy and efficient. 986
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
