FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1931
1931 - 1244.PDF
FLIGHT, NOVEMBER 27, 1931 FLYING BOATS IN EMPIRE DEFENCE I ING COMMANDER R. M. BAYLEY, D.F.C.,delivered a lecture on " Flying Boats in Empire Defence " before the Royal United ServiceInstitution on Wednesday, November 18. The chair was taken by Air Vice-Marshal R. H. Clark-Hall,C.M.G., D.S.O. The lecturer denned a flying boat as an aircraft whichuses the sea as an aerodrome, but not a ship with wings. He said that an ocean-going flying boat was notin sight at present. The development of flying boats had been slow, partially because their problems were morecomplex than those of other aircraft. The limit of size was reached later in the case of a flying boat thanin the case of a landplane, and, theoretically, the flying boat could stand more overload. The landplane was tiedmore or less to fixed routes. The flying boat was not so tied. It needed little laying out of a route beyond sup-plies of fuel and oil, which could be put ready for it in some creek. Moorings were desirable, but not essential. Speaking of seaworthiness, the lecturer said that this wasdivided into two parts, the ability to manoeuvre in rough water, and the ability to take off in rough water. Heconsidered a breaking sea with waves five feet high a rough sea. A flying boat could use the open sea for rest-ing on during a patrol. This was an asset. It was con- venient at times to come down and wait. A high degreeof seaworthiness increased the value of a flying boat. But seaworthiness entailed a low landing speed, and thereforea low speed in taking off. A flying boat should have a high cruising speed. The lecturer then mentioned the three types of flyingboats used in the Royal Air Force. The " Southampton " had been a very successful boat, and had many good quali-ties, but now it was looked on as slow. The " Iris " was a larger and faster boat, but suffered from an exag-gerated V in the hull section. The " Rangoon " was a good boat, but its cruising speed was on the slow side.He alluded to the flight from Gibraltar to England non- stop of the Saro A.7, but did not mention the type of boat. The lecturer mentioned the ideal of having one type ofvery versatile boat, but said that it would be very expen- sive. He considered that the role of flying boats at homeand overseas was different. Functions varied with locality. Long range was not so essential for a boat operating inhome waters, but was very desirable for boats stationed overseas. For home work he considered that two smallboats would be better than one large one, and the cost would be about the same. Flying boats, he said, could act for a long time from animprovised base. The use of a surface ship as a base was wasteful, and the surface ship was slow. Bases can besimple, and he foresaw that they will be multiplied throughout the Empire. There were some routes in theEmpire which were only practicable for a flying boat. He instanced the case of a political agent at Bushire wantingto visit a political agent at Muscat. By the old methods of travel, the former would be absent 19 days. Now thatflying boats were available, he would only be absent five days. Turning to the qualities of the flying boat, the lecturersaid that the facilities for navigation were good. The vulnerability of a boat had been overrated. A modernboat had four machine guns with a good arc of fire. Holes in the hull could be repaired and did not mean that theboat would sink when she landed. He considered that, if properly fought, a single flying boat would be a toughproposition for a single-seater fighter. He strongly dis- puted the view that a boat would have to fly low toescape a fighter, and particularly so if there were two or three boats in company. The risk of forced landings wasalways reduced in multi-engined aircraft. Therefore, boats were capable of flying across land. About Diesel Engines MR. H. R. KICAROO delivered the first of the HowardLectures before the Royal Society of Arts on Monday, November 23, at 8 p.m. He had a most enthusiasticaudience and the Hall was full to overflowing. This being the first of the series, the lecture was confined to theelementary principles of the Diesel engine and a disserta- tion on the manner in which it operates. By way of illus-trating more graphically what actually takes place in In time of war. the lecturer saw lots of work for flyingboats in the narrow seas and along the coasts. They could guard straits, and, when necessary, summon othercraft to reinforce. In defence of a harbour, one of their principal functions would be to prevent surprise. If fly-ing boats patrolled out to sea for 200 miles each evening, it should be impossible for a hostile fleet to make a sur-prise attack on the port at dawn. In Empire defence the lecturer said that we could notafford to provide adequate defences all over the Empire. In many cases we could only provide deterrents to anattack. Then flying boats would be very useful in rein- forcing. On the outbreak of war he thought that ourflying-boat squadrons would be most busy, because the flying boat was the most versatile form of aircraft.The lecturer asked why a belligerent flying boat should not be allowed to refuel at a neutral port, as surface shipswere. Also, he asked why they should not fly over neutral territory when only employed on reinforcement duty. Hepersonally believed that in a future war the enemy would use aircraft for an unrestricted attack on shipping. WeBritons would not start such action, as we stood to lose most from it, but we ought to be prepared to makereprisals. The following table of performances of service flyingboats was printed on the precis paper which accompanied the lecture : — PARTICULARS OF EXISTING SERVICE FLYING BOATS Dimensions and Weights Type- Southampton .. Iris Rangoon Engines. 2 Napier " Lion " . . 3 Rolls-Royce " Con- dor " 3 Bristol " Jupiter " Span, ft. 75 97 93 Length, ft. 48 68 66 All-upWeight, lb. 15,500 30,1100 24,000 Ranges, Speeds and Bomb-loads Type South-ampton Iris Rangoon Petrol galls. 500 370 1,000 1,500 740 1,240 680 550 1,130 1,000 Bombs lb. Nil 1,000 Nil Nil 2,000 2,000 Nil 1,000 Nil 1,000 Endu- rance.. hr. 7-0 5-0 6-9 10-6 4-9 8-6 5-6 4-4 9-6 8-5 Speed m.p.h. 104 104 118 118 118 118 112 112 112 112 Range. («) Theo- retical. (b) Prac- tical miles (a) 725(b) 580 (a) 517 (b) 410 (a) 815 (6) 652 (a) 1,250 (6) 1,000 (a) 588 (A) 470 (o) 1,025 (A) 820 (a) 630 (A) 504(a) 499 (A) 400 (a) 1,084 (6) 867 (a) 953 (A) 760 Cruis- ing Speed m.p.h. 80 -— 97 92 to 95 Remarks. All calculations are made on fuel con- sumption at ful speed of aircraft (approx.). — Normal load; no bombs. Maximum overload take-off at this load doubtful except under favourable con-ditions. Normal load with bombs. Maximum overload with bombs (see above). Normal load with- out bombs.Normal load with bombs. Overload without bombs. Overload with bombs. NOTE.—Theoretical range is worked out assuming ideal conditions ; practicalrange assumes average conditions. <S> <3> the cylinder of such an engine, Mr. Ricardo asked hisaudience to imagine that they were sitting on the top of a piston in a cylinder, and he then proceeded to describe hisconception of what they would see and feel from the time the fuel valve opened until the power stroke was finished.Mr. Ricardo's powers of description were so vivid that we were tempted, somewhat irreverently, to feel that hewas wasted as an engineer. The next of this series of lectures will take place on November 30. 1174
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
