FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1917
1917 - 0525.PDF
MAY 31, 1917. 170513 TheNecessity ofLanding Grounds. In dealing with landing grounds as accessory to any great scheme of aerial services, Mr. Holt Thomas gave it as his opinion that it would be necessary to lay them out at the rate of one to every ten miles of route to be covered. At first sight this seems to be a very generous allow- ance, but we are inclined to agree with the conclusion, the arguments for which will be found set forth in the paper itself. Of course, the expense would be heavy, but spread over each machine using the routes, it would really only amount to a quite nominal sum. Mr. Holt Thomas' estimate is id. per mile, which is certainly not excessive. Even that is an outside estimate, based on the figures of the London- Paris service alone. The fact that many other services would use that route reduces the cost per aeroplane mile very considerably, and the same deduction will apply to each of what may be called the trunk routes. No doubt there will be difficulties to be surmounted, but they will not be found in- superable. As a matter of fact, those difficulties will in practice be found to be far less than those encountered in building a railway, for example, where provision has not only to be made for acquiring land for intermediate and terminal stations, but for the permanent way itself. In the case of the aeroplane service all we require is the intermediate stations, and even these need not entail more than the expendi- ture, of a very nominal sum to make them suitable for their purpose. Mr. Holt Thomas estimates tha^ the cost of upkeep per station need not exceed £250 a year, which is little enough in all conscience. How- ever, it is impossible to deal in the way of comment with every aspect of the paper, which our readers will peruse for themselves and arrive at their own conclusions regarding the author's theories. For ourselves, we see nothing in it but what has a sure 'foundation on fact. Its main interest is that it sedulously avoids the unpractical; its principal conclusions are the results of actual experience over a period of years, and we see no reason at all, provided the public can be converted to the possibilities of aerial transport and will come along with the money, why the theories of to-day should not become the accom- plished facts of to-morrow. In the meantime we tender our congratulations and thanks to Mr. Holt Thomas for an exceedingly well-reasoned and temperate statement of the case for commercial aviation in the immediate future. In a recent issue of the New York tothe6 Journal> The New Republic, there appears Future. a verY well-reasoned article entitled " Our Duty in the Air." There is a good deal which applies as well to this country as to the United States, particularly with regard to the neces- sity for a continuous policy and also for co-operation between the countries who are now fighting as Allies in a common cause, and who will, when peace reigns again, equally figure as Allies in the development of aviation. The New Republic says:— " We are peculiarly rich in wood and in firms that work in wood. Furniture firms and canoe firms, for instance, are admirable candidates for a selective draft into the ranks of the makers of aeroplane bodies. For aeroplane motors, besides our present manu- facturers, we are happy in possessing an unparalleled number of firms making motors for motor cars and for motor boats. From corresponding firms on the other side of the Atlantic there have come some of the best aeroplane motors of the war. Certain of the largest and most formidable English aeroplanes are^ equipped with motors built by Rolls-Royce. " The United States has the equipment, actual and potential, capable of being expanded to the desired capacity within a period of only a few months. And it has the skill, on two conditions : First, that models and instructors are furnished copiously by the French and the English to show us such specifications and methods as we may not now understand; and, second, that orders are placed by our Government, not only copiously, but continuously, for several years to come to justify the expansion undertaken. " I say continuously, because continuity is essential to sound technical progress. The Advisory Com- mittee on Aeronautics has calculated that our per- manent air service will demand an annual supply of 4,000 new aeroplanes. Why should it not be possible for the Administration and the Congress to establish an aerial building programme at least as definite as the three-year naval building programme laid down in the Navy Act of August 29th, 1916 ? Under such conditions we should see sound technical progress rapidly made by manufacturers of a solid sort, experimenting towards the hope of participation in a known 'business." Practically nothing is needed in the way of comment. The food for thought is there, and we commend it to the British industry and to those in whose hands lies the future of civil and military aviation. The Wright- Martin two- seater recon- n ais s a nee tractor bi- plane used by the U.S. G o v e'r n - ment. 'This machine dif- fers from the model R ('• FLIGHT," March 1st, 1917) many spects, ably equal - span wings, the t ai;lfland ~ chassis. in re- not- the m m m m m m m m m m m m * •5*5
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
