FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1932
1932 - 0778.PDF
FLIGHT, AUGUST 5, 1932 won by the archers trained in the Militia and specially enlisted for service abroad. In the Great War the Territorials and other civilian troops, temporarily enlisted, finally proved their worth. The problem nowadays is one of training. Bravery is not enough by itself. It was the indifferent train ing of some of the old Volunteers which was the real justification for the ridicule directed against them. Of course, it was the same in the days of the Hundred Years' War with France. Untrained militiamen would have been useless. Bat then archery was the popular sport of the day, and so the man who enlisted for service in France was already an expert in the use of his weapon. A large number of Victorian Volunteers were good rifle shots, but rifle shooting on a range has never been the most popular national sport, while infantry drill was positively distasteful to large numbers of the Volunteers. The last few years has seen a sort of reversion to the conditions of Plantagenet times. Flying is rapidly becoming one of the most popular sports of the day, and so the officers of the Auxiliary Air Force Squadrons feel it no hardship to devote the whole of their leisure to training in air work. Their training is, in fact, their favourite recreation. The number of flying hours of the A.A.F. squadrons tells its own tale, and the photographs published from time to time in FLIGHT have shown how well the pilots can perform in the air. In fact, we feel no anxiety at all about that part of the national defence which is entrusted to non-regular airmen. Our air-defence scheme must break down if the Observers Corps is not of the very best. The raiders must be spotted quickly and accurately, and the reports must go in to H.Q. literally like lightning. Any lag may spell disaster, for the raiding bombers will have had time to get through and do their fell work. Fortunately, whenever air exercises have been held, the Observers Corps have done their work very well indeed. The only disturbing question is whether that corps is strong enough in numbers and covers the whole of the area which has to be defended. It is understood that while there is no conceivable danger of air invasion, the defence programme may be developed by stages; and so some shortage, if there is a shortage, is not a matter for alarm. It has to be realised, however, that there will be no time to train air-defence units after the outbreak of hos tilities. They must be at work in the highest state of efficiency from the very moment of the declaration of war. Will it ever be possible, we wonder, to bring the corps up to full strength and efficiency in time of peace? If it is not. then we are running a very serious risk. The anti-aircraft units, searchlights and guns, have this in common with air squadrons, that the equipment makes a fascinating appeal to a certain type of man. There is no one so fond of a busman's holiday as an engineer ; and guns and electrical searchlights are a lure to men of a mechanical turn of mind. The actual operation of the equipment is fairly easily learnt. The great difficulty of the guns is to hit a target moving in three dimensions. Modern rangefinders relieve the gun team of most of the problems, but the inconsiderate pilot may change his speed, height, or direction while the shell is travelling towards him. The lights have another sort of task ; but both must work in the closest co operation with the fighter squadrons. These last are very highly trained regulars, and their training is an expensive matter. Much of the cost of that training will be wasted if the guns and lights are not on the same plane of efficiency. All the various volunteer forces are fully capable of attaining high efficiency, provided that enough time is devoted to training, and provided that sufficient numbers are recruited. It is a serious question whether an appeal to patriotism is enough to secure that those two conditions are fulfilled. • • •> •> In our correspondence columns we publish this week a letter which deserves to be read by manu facturers and users of aircraft alike. Our corre spondent, Mr. A. H. Downes-Shaw, has done a great deal for aviation, not only as a private for owner of aircraft but also through his Money very good work for the Bristol and Wessex Aeroplane Club, Ltd. His views are, therefore, worth careful consideration. Briefly put, Mr. Downes-Shaw complains that there has not been, in aircraft suitable for the private owner, the same increase in value for money as that which has been seen in the motor-car world. Few will probably dispute Mr. Downes-Shaw's statement. On the face of it one may easily show, by facts and figures, that his contention is right. Where, it seems to us, our correspondent may be criticised is in his comparison between the aeroplane and the motor car. To us it would appear that it is scarcely logical to compare the two. In 1927, the year when Mr. Downes-Shaw bought his first aeroplane, the motor-car industry was already well established. The aeroplane industry was not, using the expression to denote that part of the in dustry which built aircraft suitable for the private owner. In 1927 private aeroplanes were being built in relatively small numbers, and were consequently fairly expensive. By the time Mr. Downes-Shaw exchanged his first machine for a new model, i.e., by 1929, the output of aeroplanes had greatly increased and the larger production had resulted in lower manufacturing costs. And now, three years later again, Mr. Downes-Shaw complains that an exchange is not as favourable. During the last year or more, the general depression has resulted in a smaller demand, and aircraft production has slowed down very greatly indeed. That partly accounts for the higher prices. Then it should also be borne in mind that aircraft have, on the whole, maintained a much higher second-hand value than have motor-cars. For all that, our correspondent has a good deal of reason for his views, and it would be interesting to have the replies of aircraft manufacturers. Turning from the financial to the practical side of the question, Mr. Downes-Shaw complains that so little progress has been made with what he terms the " blunder-proof " aeroplane (a very apt ex pression, much more descriptive than " fool proof "). His lament that the " Gugnunc " is still only an exhibition machine will be shared by few. The " Gugnunc " was designed for a special com petition, and is capable of amazing things—but only in the hands of a highly skilled pilot. But, apart from that, the 1932 aeroplanes do get out of and into small fields very much better than did the 1927 machines. Whether they are very much safer is, perhaps, open to discussion, and again we would welcome the views not only of constructors but of users.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
