FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1931
1931 - 1296.PDF
FLIGHT, DECEMBER 11, 1931 FOKKERS FOR THE ROYAL DUTCH AIR FORCE: Eight Fokker D.XVI biplanes, fitted with Armstrong-Siddeley supercharged "Jaguar" engines, recently delivered to the Royal Dutch Air Force. German Airwoman's Flight to Far East FRAULEIN ELLI BEINHORN, the German airwoman whomade a solo flight to West Africa in January, left Berlin on December 4 on a flight to India and the Far East,landing later at Budapest. " Control Beyond the Stall " DR. G. V. LACHMANN will read his paper on " Controlbeyond the Stall " before the Royal Aeronautical Society on Thursday, December 17, 1931, at 6.30 p.m., in theLecture Hall of the Royal Society of Arts, 18, John Street, Adelphi, W.C.2. During the last two years Dr. Lachmannand his associates have been carrying out research work on this very important problem. In his paper, which will bevery fully illustrated, Dr. Lachmann presents the results of this research, and reviews the developments which havetaken place in lateral stability and control beyond the stall, and the less explored problems of longitudinal controlbeyond the stall. Suggestions are made as to the way existing technique can be applied to produce a fully con-trollable spin-proof aeroplane capable of being landed in restricted areas. To make an aeroplane spin-proof is muchmore important than to accept the situation that spinning is an inherent characteristic of the aeroplane and the bestmust be made of it. The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed by correspondents. The names and addresses ofthe writers, not necessarily for publication, must in all cases accompany letters intended for insertion in these columns. " FLYING BOATS IN EMPIRE DEFENCE " [2783] You have been good enough to give a certainprominence to a lecture I recently gave at the Royal United Services Institution on " Flying Boats in EmpireDefence," so that perhaps you will allow me to correct one or two wrong impressions, which I submit are conveyedby your comment in the issue of FLIGHT datedNovember 27. It is contended that I seemed to give my case awaywhen I said that it was useful for a flying boat on patrol to come down on the sea and wait. What I actually saidwas: '' The function of the flying boat . . . is to remain in the air and only use the water as an aerodrome ;in fair weather the open sea can be used when on patrol ; this is an asset, as sometimes a waiting game can beplayed, and the flying boat is not forced to remain in the air continuously." I did not at any time imply that thepresent flying boat could or would do this in a rough open sea, which seems to me the point of your criticism ; ifthe quotation had been more accurately reproduced, this, I think, would have been clear, and in conformance withmy contention that the ocean-going flying boat is not yet within sight. In a later paragraph you say: "If this link is to bedependent on the permission of foreign nations, then we must have a supply of boats which are able to fly non-stopfrom England to Gibraltar and on from Gibraltar to Malta. Wing Com. Bayley attempted to discount thisargument, firstly, by mentioning that one R.A.F. boat (i.e., the Saro A.7) has already flown non-stop fromGibraltar to England, and, secondly, by asking why a belligerent flying boat should not be allowed to refuel at aneutral port, as that concession was allowed to belligerent warships by the international rules of war." Again, ifthe references had been correctly given, it should be plain that nothing was further from my intention than to deny how essential it is for us to have flying boats capable ofthe distances mentioned. May I point out that I em- phasised the fact that we are aiming in new types at arange of 1,500 sea miles when required, together with a high degree of seaworthiness ; that we are already reach-ing the stage where a flying boat can fly from the United Kingdom to the East without touching foreign territory?I do not think my subsequent remarks as regards refuel- ling at neutral ports should, in fairness, have been directlycoupled with these points. I was then talking about a totally different subject—that of belligerent rights—andendeavouring to point out that the flying boat is not accorded the same latitude as that allowed to a ship ofwar. Whatever the range of flying boats—or ships for that matter—it should be obvious that the greater thenumber of potential refuelling points, the easier the journey. Surely there is no attempt here to discount theargument of the necessity of having flying boats of range sufficient to reinforce within the Empire without touchingforeign territory. It is impossible to deny that seaworthiness in flyingboats is essential ; in my lecture I said that " a high degree of seaworthiness vastly increases strategical mobilityand operational value, but seaworthiness is closely linked with performance in the air, and this we must have." Isubmit that this is the fairest way of putting it ; the result is, and inevitably will be, a compromise, but thenevery aircraft is. If, however, in my lecture the case for performance wasover-stated, as is implied, it is somewhat surprising that no one in the audience got up afterwards and said so. I should add that neither my lecture nor this letternecessarily represents the official Air Staff view. . :_ -: • :f :. R- M BAYLEY.' •'• -" Wing Commander. Air Ministry, London, W.C.2.December 4, 1931. : 1218
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
