FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1932
1932 - 0794.PDF
FLIGHT, AUGUST 5, 1932 eoPPespnTxHoTVoo The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed by correspondents. The names and addresses of the writers, not necessarily for publication, must in all cases accompany letters intended for insertion in these columns. THE "HERMES" IN THE KING'S CUP [2800] On redding your article on the King's Cup race in FLIGHT of July 15 I notice I am stated to have not been " perfectly satisfied " with my engine on reaching the Bristol Control. I think there must have been a mistake or misunder standing, for I was perfectly satisfied with the performance of my " Hermes " engine throughout the race. In fact, I was perfectly satisfied with most things. The Controls were splendidly organised, and I was even satisfied with my handicap, the only snag being that twenty machines had better ones! WINIFRED BROWN. Croydon, Surrey. July 21, 1932. BETTER VALUE FOR MONEY [2801] In 1927 I bought a D.H. 60 " X Moth," with a Cirrus II engine, and learned to fly. Two years later, in keeping with the common habit relating to automobiles, I sold my aeroplane in part ex change for a D.H. 60 " G Moth," with Gipsy I engine. The transaction was in every way justifiable—even more so than the exchange of a 1927 car for a 1929 model. My second machine, as compared with the first, had a vastly improved under-carriage, automatic slots and an engine better cowled in. Moreover, the engine, though of roughly the same overall dimensions and weight was more powerful, was designed to a more generous specifi cation of strength to horse-power, consumed less oil and was more reliable in service, these being improvements one would expect from the period of years which had elapsed between the designs of the two engines in question. The second machine was, therefore, a more convenient and much safer proposition than the first, and its market price, with all these improvements, was round about the same as that of my first machine two years before. To-day, three years later, I am in the position of want ing to exchange this second machine for a new model. In the matter of value for comparative prices, however, the exchange of an aeroplane to-day is a much less favour able proposition than the exchange of a 1929 car for a 1932 model. What I should like in the way of an aero plane is something a bit faster, a bit more comfortable, with a bit more generous accommodation of space and weight allowance for passenger and luggage, but, above all, a safer and more blunder-proof machine, more useful for small-field work, more independent of the large aero drome, and a machine of the same or lower market value than that of the 1929 model. It is true that I can get some of these advantages by buying at a considerably higher figure; but, even at a higher figure, I can get very little in the way of improvements in safety of handling and ease of take-off and landing. I have, therefore, reluctantly decided to stick to my 1929 model as a better all-round proposition than anything offered on the market to-day. Rival designers may regard this as a generous tribute to the makers of the " Moth," but one wonders why even SEE «' Glorious " v. " Florida." JUDGMENT was delivered in the Admiralty Division on July 22 in the action against the Admiralty arising out of a collision between the aircraft carrier Glorious and the French liner Florida, which occurred in fog in the Mediter ranean on April 1, 1931, and resulted in the death of 22 passengers and members of the crew of the French vessel. Mr. Justice Bateson, giving judgment, said both vessels were to blame, the Florida more so than Glorious, because she altered her helm and ported across the bows of the Glorious. Therefore his lordship appor tioned two-thirds of the blame upon the Florida and one- third upon the Glorious. The Florida was to blame for high speed in fog, not stopping on hearing the whistle of that manufacturer has not in the lapse of three years produced something which shows the same advance in value for money in respect of the requirements of the amateur touring-pilot as is offered in the automobile trade. (What about the "Fox Moth"?—ED.) Prices of everything seem to have come down except those of aeroplanes. Is there no sense in the dinning cry of the " man in the street " for a machine of the tennis-lawn type? The Guggenheim Trustees appreciated the reality of this demand, and their competition produced amazing advances in performance in such types as the " Gugnunc," but the " Gugnunc " to-day is still only an exhibition machine, trotted out annually to show the public what can be done. It does seem strange that there is nothing in production to-day to beat the Avro design of 1912 for taking passengers into and out of small fields. A. H. DOWNES-SHAW. Bristol. July 30, 1932. NATIONAL BENZOLE MIXTURE. [2802] Referring to the article appearing in your issue dated July 22 dealing with the manufacture of Benzole, I feel that this is likely to be rather misleading to the " man in the street." The article refers many times to Motor Benzole—and states that as a fuel for aviation purposes it is becoming increasingly popular. Is not this incorrect? in that it is really Benzole Mixture which is becoming more widely used. There seems a vast difference between Benzole and Ben zole Mixture—the latter, I believe, being petroleum spirit of a given grade to which is added quite a moderate propor tion of pure Benzole. Prior to the war pure Benzole was obtainable at most garages at Is. 4d. per gallon and proved a delightful fuel to run on. This, of course, was entirely British made, but the Benzole mixtures obtainable to-day apparently contain a very large proportion of either imported motor spirit or refined imported crude petroleum. A little enlightenment here seems to be required, especi ally as in the article mentioned above it refers " to those who have the interests of home produced fuel at heart." It seems that when one purchases Benzole Mixture one is getting a small proportion of the home product and still a large proportion of imported spirit. I am only a motorist and an onlooker, so to speak, and I may be quite wrong in my assumptions, in which case I should be glad to be corrected. W. R. BURNETT. London, N.2. [Our correspondent is, of course, quite ri/;ht in pointing out that it is National Benzole Mixture which is becoming widely used. We think, however, that he has somewhat misunderstood the purpose of the article to which he refers, which was to tell our readers something about the produc tion of Benzole. The mixing of this with other fuel is a purely mechanical process, and did not, therefore, require any particular mention in the article.—ED.] 513 5S S§ the other ship, and for porting. The judge added that he was advised it was unseamanlike to approach an aircraft carrier with planes in the air as the Florida did. She ought to have given the warship a wider berth. Glorious was to blame for high speed in the fog and not stopping on hearing the whistle of the Florida. His lordship be lieved the evidence of the commander, officers, and men of Glorious, but he could not accept a good deal of plain tiffs' evidence. As to the rule governing navigation in fog, in view of the modern conditions and the existence of aircraft and aircraft carriers, the judge thought that pos sibly the rule should be altered to provide that when air craft were in the air a wide berth should be given to the carrier by other vessels. 738
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
