FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1915
1915 - 0854.PDF
I/HD NOVEMBER 5, 1915. * I • I MCHAIRd§£FLECTIONS By THE 9 |n DREAMER." " Wfc> aitneth at the she shoots higher much than he that meaneth a tree."—Herbert. THERE are some things about which there can be no two opinions; evidently flying is not of that class. Whether the ability to fly an aeroplane be an art or a science is a point on which opinion seems to be greatly divided. Starting with the knowledge that science teaches us to know, and art to do, flying is yet one of those things in which it appears to be difficult to deter mine just where the one ends and the other begins, or whether, as some assert, that the two are so intimately mixed in the act of flying as to be concurrent in operation. If I appear to lean a little to the side of art, I do so with the full knowledge that I am going in direct opposi tion to the majority, for all the pilots I have spoken to personally on the subject have given it as their opinion that it is a science, and they certainly ought to know better than I, who have never piloted a machine. But did I side with them, did I in fact allow myself to be guided into their way of thinking, we might all of us slip into the wrong channel simply from want of opposition. In addition, I would like to see this question discussed in the correspondence columns of " FLIGHT." I argue that science terminates directly the machine is in the air. A machine is wheeled out into the aerodrome, the pilot takes his seat, the engine is started, and the machine commences to run along the ground. Perhaps, with the exception of ruddering a little to keep a straight course, owing to the liability of the machine to run askew should the ground be a little rough, the pilot need do nothing. If he keeps the " joy-stick " at neutral, the machine, being properly designed, will rise into the air directly it has attained its flying speed. Thus far it is science. The machine flies simply because it has been scientifically designed with the object of flying. Beyond this, I maintain it is the art of the pilot that governs all until the machine is safely on the ground once more. Given a suitable day and a well-designed machine, I know it will continue on its course without the pilot's assistance, and also, that with most machines it is possible to fly for quite a long time with the hands off the controls, and I will grant that this is due to science, but it is only after all a question of time. Almost always no sooner is a machine in the air than the art of the pilot is called into requisition to correct a fault, not in the science, but in the vagaries brought about by the fickleness of nature. One of the arguments put forth by those who maintain that flying is science pure and simple—and I have heard it from those who have flown thousands of miles—is, that once in the air, there is so little to do, that on long journeys, with everything going all right, it is a job to find something to occupy one's mind and so prevent a kind of sleepy stupor, partly induced by the roar of the engine. I must admit, from the amount of evidence, that this is so. But there again, I argue that it is but the temporary overlapping of science owing to the fact that the machine is on a straight course, which brings me back to where I admitted science before. Again, there are the words " with everything going all right" art must be for ever on the alert to take charge. A sudden bump, up or down, a side gust, and the machine needs the guiding hand of the pilot to hold her on or to place her back on her proper course. Left alone, she would possibly right herself again, but she would simply take up her course in the direction in which the disturbance happened to turn her, or in the event of a very severe bump, might get nose down, when, if left to science, she would simply do what science intended she should do, continue to fly straight, be it horizontally or vertically downwards. " Anybody can learn to fly" is the strong point of those arguing for science. I admit they can, but it does not prove to my mind that therefore art does not enter into it. Anybody can learn to draw, but it does not prove against the artist. I do not wish to use it as an argument against the scientific side, that because a machine will not do every thing of its own accord, and without the aid of man, that it is therefore not scientific, neither will I admit that because a machine is scientific the best can be got out of it without the aid of art. May I instance the automatic piano-player ? Here we have an instrument which the veriest novice can play. One has but to place the roll in position and pump the wind, and a tune will result, giving all the notes, the periods, the harmonics—everything. Thus far it is mechanical and scientific. But let a musician, an artist in his profession, but take control, and you shall admit that although the machine is scientific it requires art to play it. I will not admit that our master pilots, our artists of the air, are but those with a little more scientific know ledge than their fellows. That they have learned the scientific part more thoroughly than their lesser skilled brethren is probably true, but they have soared far a nd away above the code of rules and regulations; they fly by intuition, by feeling, by art—they are artists. I have in my mind two men, two pilots, whose names are my secret. They have both been flying for about the same length of time. One is, to my mind, an artist of the air, the other is a good, sound pilot. So far as safety is concerned, I would almost as soon trust myself with one as the other. But watch their individual flying. The one is aggressive. He always seems to have to start off from the bumpiest portion of the aerodrome. His machine is not so steady in the air. He lands with a slight hesitation at times, but always well and truely. Watch the other. His machine seems to be alive, to be part of himself. He rises smoothly, flies steadily. His turns and curves are artistically proportioned, and of almost geometrical exactness. He lands true and straight, and light as a bird. I argue that that man is an artist in his profession—that he flies by art—that flying is an art. 854
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
