FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1932
1932 - 1072.PDF
FLIGHT, OCTOBER 27, 1932 to FLIGHT), Mr. J. D. North expressed the opinion that from a drag point of view there was nothing to choose between the cantilever monoplane and the braced biplane wing arrangements. He came to the conclusion that the extra profile drag of a cantilever wing, which must of necessity be of fairly thick section, was probably almost identical with the external strut and wire bracing of the biplane cellule. The results of the two Blackburn machines seem to bear this out. It will probably be argued that new developments in monoplane wing construction, such as the intro duction of the monospar principle, will tip the scales in favour of the monoplane. The answer to that appears to be that other forms of construction now being tried out promise to give improvements in biplane construction comparable with those which the monospar principle confers on monoplane struc tures, and so we shall be back where we were, except that the structures of both types will have become lighter, and we shall be that much nearer to the time when civil aviation can, to use the Churchillian phrase, "fly by itself." One then comes to the conclusion that the future will see both the monoplane and the biplane used, and that the choice will, apart from the personal preferences of individual designers, rest upon con siderations other than performance, such as control lability, and the ability or otherwise of remaining true without the need for re-rigging during service. Passengers of aircraft have, like those of ocean liners, their likes and dislikes. Just as the shipping companies have found that, ridiculous as it may seem, the number of funnels affects the booking, so aircraft operating companies are finding that pas sengers are definitely reassured by a multiplicity of engines. It is quite possible that in future they will find that passengers have preferences in the matter of wing arrangement, and we are quite prepared to find that the non-technical passenger will prefer the cantilever monoplane because its deep thick wing looks so solid, whereas the thin biplane wing, with slender struts and inconspicuous wires, looks flimsy. One may smile at such views, but they may well be found in the future to have a not unimportant bearing on bookings. For what purpose the two new Blackburn machines are to be used once Martlesham has finished the comparative tests on them we are not informed. The original intention, as announced in one of the Annual Reports on the Progress of Civil Aviation, was to use them in African districts situated at con siderable altitudes, such as in Kenya. Whether or not that is still the intention we do not know. Pre sumably Imperial Airways would have something to say about the operation of experimental machines, and if it should so happen that the two Blackburn types do not fit in with the plans of Imperial Air ways, we would suggest that the machines be hired out, at nominal cost, to any firm of standing which would undertake to operate a feeder line linking up with the Cairo-Cape Town route, or with any other British Empire route where a demand exists, but the traffic for which is not such as to justify the opera tion of a directly subsidised line. • •> •> • Our Editorial Comment in last week's issue on A.N.D. 11, and in particular that section of Air Navigation Directions which deals with experimental flying, has called forth numerous letters from readers, who thank FLIGHT for having called That attention to the hampering effect which A.N.D. 11 these over-strict regulations may easily have, should we at any time be unfortu nate enough to be saddled with officials less inclined to " Stretch the law a point " than are those in office at present. Unfortunately, lack of space pre vented us from publishing the letters in this week's issue, but next week we hope to publish, at any rate, some, or extracts therefrom, of the many which have reached us, as the subject is one which deserves to be thoroughly ventilated. As at present operated it would seem that A.N.D. 11 places upon the D.C.A. the onus for recommending that an application for permission to fly be granted. Should the D.C.A. happen to be away it would, presumably, fall to the D.D.C.A. to make the recommendation, but he might well excuse himself, not being a technical man, and first want to get the advice of the D. of R., the D.T.D. and the D.A.I. As likely as not, the D. of R. recom mends that the recommendation go through. The D.T.D. cannot be expected to say anything about it, because he will not have had drawings, etc., through his department, while the D.A.I, has not inspected the bits and pieces and cannot, therefore, know whether the right materials have been used. A sort of vicious circle therefore seems to exist: You may not fly a new machine until it has its C. of A., and you cannot get a C. of A. until the machine has flown. Granted that the present officials do their utmost to help, but they are bound by the regulations just as much as is the applicant for permission to fly, and it is unfair that they should be in the invidious position of having to interpret the law liberally if they are not to hinder instead of helping the progress of flying. Several new low-power machines have seen the light of day recently, and others are planned. That the marketing of some of these at a low price will do much to popularise flying is not to be doubted, and it would be a gracious as well as a wise act on the part of the Air Council to see that as few obstacles as possible are placed in the way, during the initial stages at any rate. New low-power engines are being designed for these new light planes, and here again it would be a great help if the fees charged for putting the engines through their acceptance tests could be lowered. It will be quite a long time before these low-powered engines are being sold in hundreds, and while production is small the amount which has to be added to the sale price of each engine to cover the cost of type tests is quite considerable. It should be possible to arrange for engines of up to some definite power, such as, for example, 40 b.h.p., to be type-tested at much lower cost than that which is at present incurred. Much the same applies to the cost of stressing the original design, and here again the Air Council would find that a little leniency would be very well received. Many of the firms planning to build light aeroplanes will be in quite a small way of business for a long time to come, and anything which can be done to make their way a little easier will ultimately result in greater flying activity and greater practical air-mindedness, two desiderata which Air Ministers in the past have enunciated, and which one has now come to take for granted.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
