FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1932
1932 - 0382.PDF
FLIGHT, APRIL 22, 1932 • I uiiu- iwii T ^HJnf • • • • ^^^; .„, .-_ •*« ii uri . MT ¥ MEM tU&'^^^l Among the newest of our own aerodrome buildings is that at Brooklands. Built to the designs of Mr. Graham Dawbarn, it certainly looks most suitable from outside—the interior is equally suitable and exceptionally well arranged. (FLIGHT Photo.) marked-out landing space by a distance equal to 15 times their own height—an ideal that should be turned into practice. But often it is not possible, and in such cases two general requirements affect the layout: the first is that the main mass of buildings should be placed parallel to, and not across, the prevailing wind ; the second is that " flying gaps " clear of obstructions to a width of at least 200 yards should be provided at intervals all round the field. No wastage of space need be involved by these restrictions on the placing of buildings. The space in front of buildings is fully used for the taxi-ing about and wait ing of planes ; the spaces between buildings can be economically used as public enclosures for sightseeing or as car parks. Convenient relation to road, railway or waterway traffic is most important. Both Berlin and Amsterdam provide admirable examples, not only of relation to existing roads, but also to new roads in process of development. The Schiphol aerodrome is considerably more than an ideal distance from the centre of Amsterdam ; but future de velopment will place the field at the crossing of_ new main trunk roads with quick direct connection to Amsterdam, Leyden, The Hague, Harlem and other towns. The Tempelhof aerodrome of Berlin is unrivalled for its proximity to the centre of the city. It covers part only of a huge pre-war parade ground. Most of the rest has been wisely laid out as open space for public parks, playgrounds and the like Traffic connections are excellent. Roads new and old lead from the field to the shopping, adminis trative and business centres. A main canal dock is not far away to the north. Stations on the main ring railway, the underground and the tramways are all within a few hundred yards of the main entrance. In the United States only very rarety can a grass sur face be found or made good enough to stand up to the wear of aircraft wheels and tail skids, and an artificial surface must be prepared of some wear-resisting, dustless, and resilient material ; concrete, tarmac, and crushed rock or ashes or even the natural earth with an oil dressing have all been tried. The cost of such treatment over a whole aerodrome would, at present, be prohibitive, and the traffic is therefore canalised to a certain number of " runways." It is assumed as a basis that aircraft can, if necessary, land or rise up to 22i degrees out of the wind ; and the normal provision is therefore of four run ways intersecting at 45 degrees to each other. When weight of traffic makes grass inadequate, I look myself rather to an artificial surfacing of the whole field rather than to a system of runways ; though, to save sur facing, the field itself may become star-shaped with eight or more points leading out to clear flightways. The buildings would perhaps come forward in V-shaped groups into the spaces between the star points. Let us now consider the individual buildings. For small aeroplanes, the hangar is much like any other shed—a light steel or wood frame covered with corrugated steel or asbestos sheeting, or even boarding and felt. The hangars at Tempelhof, Berlin, are typical examples of the larger hangars for commercial planes of all sizes which are to be found at any big Continental airport. The effective size of a hangar is the size of its clear door opening. At Tempelhof is a series of four door openings each about 150 ft. wide by 25 ft. high. Here is a con siderable engineering problem normally solved in Europe by placing a main lattice girder of box form over the doors and running subsidiary girders from it to the back wall. All height in the hangar above that of the doors is virtually waste space ; all unnecessary height creates an unneces sary obstruction to flight. It is a cardinal principle of aerodrome design that all buildings should be kept as low as possible. Hence truss forms must be of the minimum practicable height in relation to their depth ; a propor tion of 1 to 10 should be secured. The third need of the hangar is that adequate workshop, store and staff space should be attached ; it is more usual to place this accom modation at the back or side, but at Tempelhof it forms a central mass to the series of openings. The whole mass is very fine ; but there is no excuse for the flag poles and lamp standards—dangerous excrescences of this kind should be abolished from all parts of an aerodrome. 'IILMJ1 Fl i-lL.''" j Hannover is an example of the station building being placed at the end of the hangars and attached thereto. It looks somewhat severe, and gives the impression the interior accommodation would be cramped. Skilful arrangement has, however, mitigated this to some extent. 358
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
