FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1932
1932 - 0428.PDF
FLIGHT, MAY 6, 1932 Airport Development With this week's instalment we conclude Mr. Norman's paper on the Airport Develop ment as seen by Mr. Dawbarn and himself during their visit to the U.S.A. (Concluded from page 380) ^™T^™"^ HIS state of affairs is an inevitable one *^l where air transport is concerned, since §f>lX where time is of vital importance and ssiiUjA'V'l;^* passengers are to be transferred from one -5 — df/Afoj service to another at a busy traffic junc- m IS W Wwa tion, the arrivals and departures must P yKWUI ^e timed as far as possible to sjmchronise. It was therefore found desirable to erect in front of the terminal building a semi circular fence enclosing an area colloquially known as the " bull pen," the fence being provided with a number of gates opposite which aircraft could be stationed for loading. There is very little doubt that the proper development of passenger handling facilities on these lines will greatly simplify operation and improve the working conditions for operating staff. It seems likely that what was originally the bull pen will become transformed rather in accordance with the principles of railway station design into what is known as a " circulating area." This area will be used to accommodate the immediate needs of passengers and their friends for newspapers, postal and telegraph facilities, etc. From it will lead off a number of loading canopies which will be clearly marked after the manner of platform entrances, with particulars as to the destination and time of departure of the respective service. Approach to the canopies will be controlled by gates, and where customs traffic is being dealt with there will no doubt be a dividing barrier between the waiting public and the arriving passengers, arranged in the same manner as at railway platforms where Continental traffic is handled. As develop ment proceeds, construction of the canopies may become more elaborate, and steel and glass may replace canvas. Alternatively, they may be replaced by underground tunnels leading to the points of embarkation. At an airport such as Croydon it would seem desirable to provide in the very near future for the simultaneous loading of four or five machines and for an ultimate capacity of twice this number. Probably the requirements outlined above, together with the tendency for terminal and station buildings to occupy sites projecting inwards towards the landing area, will influence these buildings to a plan rather convex than concave. Of this Burbank, Buffalo, and Lyon are examples. Leaving the terminal building now for the time being, we may turn to the buildings designed to accommodate aircraft. The first noticeable tendency when an examination of types of hangar is made is that they The control tower on the massive hangar-cum-station building at Wayne County. The passengers' embarking canopy at Oakland. are getting larger and larger. In spite of the prophecy that big aircraft will be treated as ships and moored out of doors all their life, there is a continued reluctance on the part of operators to expose their fleets to the weather, and designers are producing wider and wider spans and larger door openings in anticipation of the trend of aircraft design. The nature of hangar requirements is likely to vary more than that of other facilities as the result of local conditions. In this country where extremes of tem perature are not encountered, the problem of heating is less important than in North America. On the other hand, the European climate produces more rapid deteriora tion than is encountered in a less moist and warmer climate. It is noticeable whatever the size and purposes of a hangar some administrative or workshop accommodation is always required in connection with its use. In the United States the tendency has been to construct an office block at each or one end of the building. It seems likely that since deep trusses are required to bridge the wide spans of modern hangars, space otherwise wasted in the roof can be conveniently used for office purposes. Where a building is to be used for service and repair work, it is likely that a complete upper floor may be desirable, although I have not yet seen a building constructed on this principle. I do not consider it at all certain that airport buildings will always be of restricted height. The demand for accommodation will probably make high buildings absolutely necessary, and if they are correctly planned they will offer no obstruction to aircraft and will naturally improve the efficiency and appearance of the port. For all large buildings steel construction has been adopted in America. In the large hangar at Burbank, Cal., an area the size of a football ground is covered by steel structure having only four supporting pillars arranged some 60 ft. in from the doors. The steel work is seen to be a very complex sort of umbrella design, using com paratively light sections. As examples of other large buildings, the main hangar at Detroit and a new building at Kansas City may be quoted. In France I have seen examples of very fine buildings of reinforced concrete con struction with brick or tiled infilling. In examining the problem generally in America, it strikes one that the more recently constructed buildings have been of much less ambitious* design than those put up a few years ago. For instance, the hangars at the new airport at San Francisco Bay are proving satisfactory in use, and, covered with corrugated asbestos, must have cost very much less than those previously discussed. As a successful combination of artistic effect with economical construction, I consider the hangar of corrugated asbestos at Sacramento to be outstanding. 396
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
