FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1924
1924 - 0128.PDF
• In connection with the Air Minister's statement of his policy, it is of considerable interest to examine the proposed figures of the estimates for the fighting services. Although these have not yet been issued, it is generally understood that they will include a reduction of approximately seven million in the Army Estimates, one of between two and three million in the Navy Estimates, and an increase of about two million in the Air Estimates. This is, at any rate, a gleam of encouragement, and appears to furnish further proof that " the flower of idealism has its roots in common sense." It may be objected that, under Sir Samuel Hoare's ministry, an increase of about four million in the Air Estimates had been contemplated, but it is understood that it has been possible to effect a saving of about two millions in other directions, and that consequently the two million increase contemplated will suffice to carry into effect the expansions, etc., planned by the late Government. That there should be an increase— however small—instead of a decrease in the Air Estimates is cause for satisfaction, although the amount devoted to air defence is still lamentably inadequate compared with the sums mentioned in connection with the other fighting services. Four teen millions for the Air seems little enough compared with 45,000,000 for the Army and 55,500,000 for the Navy. Nevertheless, the very fact that, actual amounts apart, it is contemplated to accompany decreases in the Army and Navy Estimates with an increase in the Air Estimate indicates that the rela tive importance of the Air Service is increasingly being appreciated at last. We seem to be working steadily towards the time when the three services will be on an equal footing, as regards money spent on them, and that in itself is a good sign. That the time will come when the figures are reversed and the Air Estimates top the list we have not the slightest doubt. In the meantime things are moving in the right direction, even if progress is less rapid than many could wish. • • • After considerable delay, the first set .-The Qf rules relating to the competitions Aeroplane ^or two-seater fight 'planes, for which Competitions the Air Council has offered prizes amounting to £3,000, have been issued, and are published in this issue of FLIGHT. The main rules are simple enough in all conscience, consisting of a simple formula for obtaining the basis on which the marks will be awarded, and of take-off and pulling- up, tests in which marks will be awarded for distance saved. The formulation of the speed-range per centage figure, however, is none the less meritorious because of its simplicity, and, as shown under our Light 'Plane and Glider Notes, the formula will tend to have the effect of encouraging a very wide speed range, more especially in combination with a low landing speed. At the same time, the stipula tion of a top speed of at least 60 m.p.h. and a slow speed of not more than 45 m.p.h. will effectively prevent " freak" machines from standing much chance in the competition, and the result should be that the machines evolved as a direct outcome of the Air Council's offer should be of very real practical value. Concerning the rules published so far, little need be said. It might, perhaps, be argued that the number of marks which it is possible for machines to obtain in the alighting and starting tests is on the small side 1 as compared with the speed-range marks. The pro portion will probably work out at something like 75 per cent, of the total number of marks for the speed- range tests, and 25 per cent, of the marks for the starting and landing. Whether these figures repre sent actually the relative value of speed range and good climb with quick pull-up is a debatable point, but it should be remembered that what the Air Council desires to develop is a two-seater suitable for instructional purposes. Thus such features as sta bility, controllability, etc., apart from climb and pull-up, may not be particularly wanted. It all depends upon whether it is desired to make the machines " fool-proof," or whether it is preferred to avoid making them too easy to fly, so that pupils progressing from the light 'plane to the more usual machine shall not find the change too great. We do not know if some such reason was behind the pro portioning of marks, but the attitude is defendable. It must be realised that the school machine has different requirements from the private owner- pilot's mount, and that while the machine sold to the general public should be as near " fool-proof " as it is possible to make it, the same does not necessarily apply to the school machine. Several supplementary regulations are still to be published before it is possible to form a complete picture of the nature of the competitions, although the present rules will enable designers to commence work on their machines. For instance, it is not quite clear whether the average of marks obtained in the various tests is to be used as a basis, or whether a. competitor will be permitted to be judged on his best attempt. From the fact that in order to be eligible competitors must complete at least 10 hours' flying in the various tests, it would seem that the average is to be used. In the alighting tests it is stated that this will con sist of " a straight landing " over a barrier 6 ft. high. It would be interesting to know what is meant by a straight landing. Obviously, the expression is meant to convey that the pilot must not come in at a sharp angle and then, shortly after passing the barrier, turn the other way and so go zig-zagging along until he has lost flying speed. That is, of course, quite a sound stipulation. But does " straight landing " preclude a side-slip landing in which the machine is actually following a straight line at right angles to the barrier ? Again, it is stated that one mark will be awarded for every yard saved in the take-off and pull-up tests. It is not, however, stated whether negative marks will be given to competitors who exceed the limits laid down, i.e. who require a longer run for the take-off and who overshoot the distance from the barrier. Doubtless these and many other points will be dealt with in the supplementary regulations that are to be issued later. The eliminating tests should present no difficulties to any competitor, and it might be objected that in drawing up the regulations too great lenience has been shown by allowing competitors two hours in which to dismantle and erect the machine. The announcement that His Grace the Duke of Sutherland, who is generously offering a prize of £500 for the best marks obtained in the take-off and pull-up competitions, intends to purchase a two-seater light 'plane for his own use will be received with general satisfaction, and cannot but do a great deal of good in encouraging others to follow his example and thus make a start with the privately-owned light 'plane of the future.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
