FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1920
1920 - 0945.PDF
SEPTEMBER 1920 THE AIR MINISTRY SEAPLANE (AMPHIBIAN) COMPETITION :r - • Only Five Machines Entered v 'T : WEDNESDAY of this week was the opening day of the com- petition for amphibious seaplanes for prizes offered by the Air Ministry. In view of the importance to the Empire of developing the seaplane—and by this we mean the float as well as the boat type—the entry of five machines only for this part of the Air Ministry Competitions is not a little dis- appointing. Widely scattered as this Empire is, communica- tion between its different parts must of necessity take place by or over sea. It would therefore appear obvious that the type of aircraft which is capable of operating over the sea will •be the one chosen when mails and other urgent matter are transported, regularly and as a matter of course,-by way of the air. Nor is it only for air services in the colonies and dominions that the seaplane will prove its utility. Take the case of a service much nearer home, and one already being run by land machines. Before the traveller by air can go from London to Paris he has to motor out to Croydon. He there boards the aeroplane and proceeds to le Bourget. Having arrived there he has before him another motor ride before he finally arrives in Paris. In the case of passengers the delay caused by this transfer is very considerable, and occupies a ^ime quite disproportionate to that occupied by the actual air journey. When it comes to mails and goods the delay is even more marked. If this service could be operated by means of flying boats or seaplanes, which could start from the Thames in the centre of London and alight on the Seine in the middle of Paris, a great amount of time would be saved. The manoeuvrability of modern seaplanes is such that we have not the slightest doubt that starting from and alighting on rivers as wide as are the Thames and the Seine could be effected without danger to other craft. Such a service, if carried out by the ordinary seaplane or flying boat, would, however, necessitate a re- laying of the route, to follow the river down to the sea and then follow the coast until the other river was reached, when the machine would follow this to its destination. This would mean a waste of time compared with the machine capable of following the direct route. To effect a saving in time by taking the latter route would only be feasible if the machine were capable of making, if necessary, a forced landing en route, and this brings us to the question of the amphibian machine, which is precisely the type that the latter part of the A.M. competitions is designed to try out. It must be admitted that conditions are not undisputedly in favour of the amphibian seaplane, or even of the ordinary seaplane. For instance, the weight of a flying boat or of a float seaplane is, generally speaking, greater than that of a land machine of the same size. This means that the seaplane type is likely to be able to carry a smaller useful load than the land machine of the same power. Where, therefore, conditions permit, the land machine is likely to be employed in preference to the seaplane. Also, the addition of a land undercarriage with its operating gear adds still more weight to the seaplane, thus further reducing its capacity for carrying paying load. It is, however, easy to imagine conditions wMch would render the amphibian seaplane preferable to the land machine in spite of these fundamental handicaps, and con- sequently the production of a seaplane in which the structural weight is reduced as much as possible, combined with the necessary factor of safety and other desirable features, is a problem of no small importance. If aero engines were absolutely reliable—that is to say, if they could be guaranteed never to break down while the machine was en route for its destination—the question would not arise, as there would then be little or no use for any sort of flotation gear. This desirable state of affairs is not reached, however, nor is it likely to be for many years to come, and in the meantime the possibility ot engine breakdown has to be considered. It is quite possible that the time will come when the tendency is all towards specialisation : fast machines will be used for one purpose, slow machines for another ; seaplanes will carry the passengers and cargo over sea, and on arriving the other side they will be transferred to a land machine. Before this comes about however, a great amount of organisation, much of which win have to be of an international character, will have to be done, and in the meantime we cannot afford to neglect the develop- ment of one type at the expense of the other. We especially in this country, even when and if such specialisation comes about, shall probably be carrying much of the world s seaplane- borne traffic, and hence should neglect no effort which will help to place us in the lead where the construction 01 seaplanes is concerned. , . , With regard to the amphibian type of seaplane, we tmnK that the land undercarriage should be looked upon as an accessory to be used in emergency only, rather than expect an amphibian machine to be capable of landing habitually on land. It is quite obvious that the shocks of alighting on an aerodrome are apt to strain the boat hull locally more than do the distributed shocks encountered when a boat or a pair of floats meet the surface of the sea. Unless, therefore, the retractable land chassis and its attachments to the floats or boat are disproportionately heavy, repeated ahghtmgs on land will be apt to strain the hull or floats, and for the sake of economy the weight will have, as already pointed out^ to be kept down as much as possible. The amphibian machine must of necessity be a compromise, and to expect it to De equally suitable for land and sea is somewhat unreasonable. Nor is this probably in the minds of those who have drafted the rules for this part of the competition. THE MACHINESAs already mentioned, the list of entrants for the com- petition is somewhat disappointing, being confined to fivefirms as follows : William Beardmore and Co., Ltd., tairey Aviation Co., Ltd., S. E. Saunders, Ltd., SupermanneAviation Works, Ltd., and Vickers, Ltd. Out of the five machines entered, four are believed to be flying boats, while SPAN rO7-O" SPAN FOLDED 51'-6" 6PEA.TE5T HEIGHT 2OL6" WING APEA ^;2.o^SQ^ # LCNGTH , G'" BEARDMORE AMPHIBIAN FLYING BOAT TYPE W-B. IX A 200. M.P BEABDMQRE ENQHES 1 * ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' 0 4 9 iz is » 047, ,-.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
