FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1923
1923 - 0559.PDF
SEPTEMBER 20, 1923 THE VICKERS "VIGET" LIGHT 'PLANE 750 c.c. Douglas Engine AN exceptionally fine piece of work. This is the mainimpression left upon one's memory after a thorough inspection of the new Vickers light 'plane, designed and built for theforthcoming competitions at Lympne in October. The machine is in no way original, and for that matter mightequally well have been built in 1913. The " Viget," as the type has been christened, is in fact a perfectly normal equal-span, non-staggered biplane, with Rafwire bracing and one pair of interplane struts. The construction throughout is ofthe normal wire-braced form used in larger machines, and aerodynamically the "Viget" is equally .orthodox. Thisfact should not, however, be used as a criticism of the design. While there are those who believe that the monoplane offersthe only solution of really low-power flight, there are others who maintain that this has not yet been proved, and thatthere is at least a possibility that the braced biplane, with its over any other type. Personally we are inclined to think thatthere is so little to choose between the monoplane and the biplane that in the future there will be room for both.The Vickers " Viget," then, is a perfectly orthodox biplane, using normal bracing and having R.A.F. 15 wing section.The machine is well illustrated in the accompanying photo- graphs, general arrangement drawings and perspective sketches.What is more difficult to show, however, is the excellent work- manship and careful detail design put into the machine, andin this respect the " Viget " might have been built for an aero show, the work being well up to any show finish usually foundon larger aircraft. It appears that Vickers have, in building this machine, worked on the old assumption that what is worthdoing at all is worth doing well. Certainly both workmanship and finish are as good as on the larger aircraft carrying theVickers name. THE VICKERS "VIGET " : Front, three-quarter front, and three-quarter rear views. On the left the machineis coming in after her. first flight, piloted by Capt. Cockerell. ( lighter construction and smaller overall size, offers Certainadvantages which may outweigh any small aerodynamic advantages which the cantilever monoplane possesses. Mr.Rex Pierson, Vickers' chief designer, has gone into the question very thoroughly, and the fact that he has decidedin favour of the biplane appears to prove that he has come to the conclusion that, by the time all the factors have beentaken into consideration, the biplane offers the better solution. For several reasons we are pleased that Mr. Pierson shouldhave come to this decision. If we are to learn anything from the competitions (and we are not very hopeful in this respect)it is essential that as many different tyes as possible should be represented, so that they can be compared and theirperformances and behaviour noted. Especially when, as in this case, the engine of the biplane is the same as that used onsome of the monoplanes is comparison facilitated, and there is thus more likelihood of finding out definitely whether in factany one type does possess any very pronounced advantage The fuselage of the " Viget " is a wire-braced girder structurewith spruce longerons and struts. The longerons are of plain square section, while the struts have been spindled out to acruciform section. The fuselage fittings are of a novel type, and appear especially suitable for light 'planes, where thelongerons are of such small size as to render piercing out of the question. The fittings on the " Viget" are of VickersDuralumin, and are so designed as to wrap around the longerons, small woodscrews being used for locating thefittings on the longerons. The fittings are formed of two separate units, one for the vertical and one for the horizontalbracing. The horizontal portion is slipped into a cut-out in the vertical component, as indicated in one of our sketches, sothat it becomes necessary to slide the fittings on to the longerons. It might be objected that it is thus impossible toreplace a damaged fitting without dismantling the fuselage. While this is admittedly so, it is possible to meet the criticismby pointing out that a fitting should not need renewal, and 559
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
