FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1930
UNTITLED0 - 1479.PDF
FLIGHT, DECEMBER 5, 1930 AERO SHOW TWO impressions stand out clearly after a visit to theGrand Palais des Champs Elysees, where the12th Internationa] Aero Show is now being held.The first is that civil types of aircraft form a very much larger percentage than they have done at any ParisAero Show since the war, and the second is that among the civil aircraft there is a marked increase in size. In fact, thisyear's Show is remarkable for the number of large machines exhibited. This is not, perhaps, to be wondered at if oneremembers that private flying is nowhere, anything like as greatly developed, as it is in Great Britain. In France, theAir Ministry decided some time ago to grant a subsidy to private flying, and this took the form of a grant of a certainlarge percentage of the purchase price of the machine. The effects of this subsidy have hardly had time to make them-selves felt yet, although it is easy to sense that French aircraft constructors are not overlooking the fact that machines suit-able for the private owner will be wanted in the near future, and many of them have produced types ready for the expecteddemand. But the stage has not been reached when any great amount of business is being done on the stands. Webelieve that the De Havilland Company have, perhaps, done more business than anyone else in the small machineclass, as a result of showing a " Puss Moth " on the Morane- Saulnier stand. Generally speaking, however, the exhibitorsdo not seem to show a great deal of faith in the machine for the private owner. As far as the French constructors areconcerned, they do appear to be fully alive to the great possibilities of commercial aviation, and there is scarcely afirm which is not exhibiting at least one civil type of aircraft. Many are showing more than one type. If one looks around the Grand Palais, the first impressionis one of confusion and overcrowding. This is probably to some extent due to the great number of large machines,many of which encroach on the stands adjoining but is also caused by a re-arrangement of the stands. In previousyears the gangways have been on the extreme outskirts, against the pillars of the gallery. This year the spaces nearthe gallery are stands, and the gangways are placed further inwards. The decorations are simpler this year, which is anadvantage most appreciated by the photographers, as much more daylight is available than was formerly the case.But decoratively speaking, one rather misses some of the very beautiful effects of previous years. Coming to the subject of the aeroplanes themselves, themain note of the 1930 Paris Aero Show is one of sameness. The absence of the freaks which have been such a prominentfeature of many a Paris exhibition in the past will be regretted by no one. But the lack of extravagant-design has becomealmost a lack of original design. It is scarcely a question of copying. The unfortunate aircraft designer is in a very diffi-cult position, because if he produces something original his machines are at once dubbed freaks, and if he is orthodox he will most likely be accused of copying other people. Forexample, the general Fokker design, i.e., the single or three- engined cantilever monoplane, is almost the dominating typeat the Grand Palais this year. In detail, the machines vary greatly from the Fokker, but in a general way many ofthem are of the general Fokker type of machine. And if the designer puts his cantilever wing down to the bottomof the fuselage, he is at once accused of copying Junkers. So •what is he to do ? The biplane type, which has been themost popular in Great Britain for many years, has inspired but few designers, and certainly if the Paris Show can betaken as a guide, the cantilever monoplane is the type of the immediate future. In the Grand Palais one sees it in largenumbers, and in large sizes. And there is no doubt that for general appearance the type looks " clean." Whether itreally is^ very much cleaner in an aerodynamic sense is probably open to discussion. But it looks clean and simpleand straightforward. And there is no rigging to be main- tained during service. So that the appeal which the type isbeginning to have is readily understood. When it comes to translating the cantilever wing into astructure, there seems to be a diversity of opinion among designers. The all-metal construction is certainly gainingfavour, but as yet it has by no means entirely ousted the ply-covered wing. If anything, metal construction seemsto have gathered more headway in fuselages than in wings and the metal fuselage with wooden wings is still very popular. Of real improvements, or rather, attempts at improvements,in aerodynamic design there is little enough evidence, Bleriot has produced and is exhibiting a large cantilevermonoplane commercial machine with two fuselages (this was illustrated in FLIGHT last week.—Ed.), the under-carriages being all but buried inside the fuselages. Whether the drag of two smaller fuselages, with the wheels buried,is smaller than that of one larger fuselage with the under- carriage exposed, is difficult to judge. It may be recollectedthat some years ago we described in THE AIRCRAFT ENGINEERa design by Mr. James V. Martin which achieved a maximum L/D of 19 by retracting its undercarriages into the twofuselages. But in the Martin monoplane the engines were in the noses of the fuselages. In the Bleriot they are mountedin tandem in the wing, between the fuselages, and the space between them is the pilot's cockpit. This arrangementcertainly gets the two fuselages out of the slipstreams, but it transfers the slipstream of the forward engine to the centreof the wing. The second serious attempt to reduce drag is representedby the little Couzinet three-engined touring machine. This is a low-wing monoplane with three 40-h.p. Salmson engines,and the undercarriages retract into the outboard engine casings. At least the wheels do. The three chassis members,telescopic leg, radius rod and axle, still lie exposed, some 1-2 in. from the lower surface of the wing, and it is quite 1401 B 2
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
