FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1921
1921 - 0286.PDF
HT APRIL 28, out that any such lack on the part of the public can be to a great extent ascribed to the way in which the whole business •was handled. In the case of a new mode of transport like that of flying it is no earthly use sitting down waiting for the public to clamour for air services. Run the services and prove to the business man that such services are to his advantage, and he will very quickly avail himself of them. If the £400,000 had been spent last year, civil aviation would have been in a very different position now. Turning to the temporary arrangement for sub- sidising the London-Paris air services, Capt. Guest stated that at present there are two firms running this service and that the present temporary arrange- ment is that the Air Council guarantee a clear profit of 10 per cent, to each firm on gross receipts. The subsidy is to be £75 for each single flight, with a maximum limit of £25,000 to each firm during the period of seven months. As a temporary measure there does not appear to be much to find fault with in these figures. The sum of £75 per flight would appear to be somewhat unfair, as it does not differenti- ate between a flight made by a small three-seater and one of a large twin-engined machine carrying 10 or 12 passengers. However, the profit made by the smaller machine will naturally be less, assuming both to be carrying full load, and so* matters may tend to level themselves. In connection with the London-Paris services we should like to point out a small error into which Capt. Guest fell. On the question of the fares charged by the French and British companies, he stated that the French fare was £5 while the British services charge six guineas. This might convey the general impression that our own services are dearer than the French. As a matter of fact this is not so. The French figure of £5 is for the air trip only, while the British figure includes conveyance to and from the terminal aero- drome. Thus by the time air passengers have paid for conveyance between London and Croydon and between le Bourget and Paris they will have paid at least as much as the fare charged by the British services. On the vexed question of the future of our airships Capt. Guest said very little, and this called forth some remarks by Sir William Joynson-Hicks, who said that he could not believe that out of an estimate of £8,000,000 economies /to the tune of £250,000 could not be effected so as to save money for the airships on which so much has been spent. Our own opinion of the airship question has been expressed so often in these columns that there is no need to repeat it. The decision to delete airships from our service programme was mainly caused by considerations of economy, but there are numerous people, people who should be in a position to judge, who have the greatest belief in airships for com- mercial work, and we cannot agree that anything resembling proof to the contrary has been advanced by the opponents of airships. In his reply Capt. Guest stated that although the decision to abandon airships was taken some weeks ago there are some suggestions put forward which may lead the Air Ministry to temporise a short time longer. He asked for patience for a few weeks more, when he hoped to make a more definite statement. Really these pious hopes do not get us any farther, and it is highest time that something tangible were done. Secrecy has surrounded the negotiations which are said to have taken place between the Air Ministry and financial groups regarding the taking over of all our rigids. Surely it is time that something was done, or else a plain statement should be made as to why nothing has come of these negotiations. So far as our information goes, the offers made to the Air Ministry were of a reasonable nature, and we think a full and clear explanation of the apparent failure to come to an agreement is long overdue. If one were. asked to define briefly thetrenc * m m°dern aeroplane design, the Monoplane answer might very well take the form " the return of the monoplane." Curiously enough, the present revival of the mono- plane type of machine—and that there is evidence of a revival is undoubted—does not appear to be a result of aims at greater speeds than those attained by the biplanes that have for many years superseded the monoplane. On the contrary, the modern mono- plane owes its existence to quite different reasons. In the early days of flying, the monoplane was almost universally held to be capable of far greater speeds than was the biplane. The monoplane was gaining a very strong footing in those days as being pretty, handy, and fast. Then came a period of accidents to mono- planes of various types and makes, and the result was that, with the imperfect knowledge of aeroplane stresses which we then had, the monoplane was banned for a period, until it could be ascertained whether or not the weakness was due to the mono- plane type or to minor constructional details, for a long period the ban on monoplanes kept these machines out of the air, and about the same time a British firm, Sopwiths to be more explicit, showed to a somewhat startled aeronautical world that the biplane, power for power, could be made at least as fast as the monoplane. This fact, in conjunction with the—probably quite undeserved—bad renommee which the monoplane had acquired led to the type being practically dropped in favour of the biplane. So much has this been the case that, in this country at any rate, the monoplane was, for years, practically never seen. The biplane could do all that the mono- plane could do, and appeared to be safer. Conse- quently everybody turned their attention to biplanes and the monoplane was forgotten. In view of the present revival of the monoplane it may naturally be asked what are the reasons that have led to its reappearance ? In the first place there is little doubt that, had it not been for the introduction of the internally braced, thick-section high-lift cantilever wing, the monoplane would not have been revived. For the cantilever type of wing, however, the monoplane formation is eminently suitable, giving a very clean and unencumbered outline with a minimum of "parasite" resistance. If the cantilever wing is used as a biplane some of this advantage is lost. Again the monoplane surface has always been more efficient than the biplane combination, and for that reason, when there are other inducements, its adoption has much to recom- mend it. For commercial work the simplicity of the cantilever wing is a considerable asset. Thus to take the case of the Fokker monoplanes in service on the London-Amsterdam air line : the wing is held to the fuselage by four bolts only. If, therefore, the internal construction is such as to prevent warping 286
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
