FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1932
1932 - 1317.PDF
December 29, 1932 Supplement to FLIGHT Edited by C. M. POULSEN December 29, 1932 CONTENTS Pane The Paris Aero Show. By H. J. Pollard. Wh.Ex., A.F.R.Ae.Soe. 89 Light Aero Engine-Airscrew Combinations. By W. It. Andrews, A.F.R.Ae.S _ 92 Ceiling Capacity as a Measure of Performance. By Clifford W. Tinson F.R.Ae.S ... 94 Technical Literature— Summaries of A.R.C. Reports and Memoranda 95 THE PARIS AERO SHOW By H. J. POLLARD, Wh.Ex., A.F.R.Ae.Soc. AT an aircraft exhibition, as at exhibitions organised by other trades, the object of the exhibitors as a whole is to show that they are a progressive industry, and the object of an individual exhibitor is to demonstrate that, since the last exhibition, he has made greater progress than his trade rivals. The chief task of the trade visitor then, is to form an opinion as to what advances have been achieved. A cursory glance round the Paris Salon might have given the impression that progress during the past two years was small, but a carefully detailed inspection of the exhibits left one with the final conviction that definite progress can be reported. The editor has already given figures showing the ratio of biplanes to monoplanes, etc. It is sufficient to state, therefore, that the use of monoplane structures is greatly on the increase. During the past two years there has been a considerable increase in the amount of flying in France, and one assumes that the difficulties associated with " laminar " lifting surfaces have been overcome, and consequently that sufficient knowledge is now available regarding the behaviour of this type of structure to ensure the safety of aircraft of the mono plane type. Of the monoplanes on view about half were of the full cantilever type (see FLIGHT, November 24, page 1104), whilst of the fuselages about half the total were of monoeoque construction. About fifteen of the monoplanes on view were of the low-wing type; it was, therefore, surprising to find a retractable undercarriage fitted to one land machine only—leaving out of account the two amphibians. This was on the Bleriot 111 Mark 5, a machine fitted with an undercarriage of a similar type to that shown at the 1930 Exhibition, but according to information supplied, a. more forward position on the wheels is now obtained by inclining the hinge pins on which the leg is slung. One wheel was shown up and one down, and with the former the underside of the wing appeared to be " cleaner " than previously. It is understood that further improvements in the details of the component and of its operation are anticipated. It is clear that the Bleriot Co. consider the fitting of this particular undercarriage well worth while. The speed of the machine with the wheels down is stated to be 88 per cent, of the speed with the wheels fully retracted. The fitting of such an undercarriage would, therefore, seem to merit serious consideration. Of course, the low-wing monoplane type of aircraft is the only type that can be considered as suitable for such accessory gear. It is usually stated that the increased weight associated with such an undercarriage greatly offsets its advantage. That, however, is extremely doubtful, since the increase of weight need not be more than 20 per cent, of the weight of the undercarriage. The real point at issue is, what advantage has a retractable undercarriage over a properly faired one. The answer to that question will probably be that there is not much in it, taking account of everything, i.e., weight difference, risk of mechanical breakdown, forgetfulness, etc. The retractable undercarriage shown two years ago on the three-engined Couzinet 33 has been abandoned. Actually, the wheels were not fully retracted but merely pulled up and left half projecting in the wing- propeller slipstreams. Very little reduction in drag could be obtained in that way, and the Couzinet 33 is probably a case in which a properly faired fixed under carriage, attached to a low-wing monoplane, is likely to be better than any other arrangement. Each case must be taken on its merits, but where an undercarriage can conveniently he retracted, a better aeroplane should be obtained by its use, and in the case of several types of aircraft exhibited, it seemed possible for such an undercarriage to have been embodied in the designs. After noting, in several cases, indifferently faired undercarriages, attention was next directed to the lift ing surfaces, and here the progress made since the last exhibition did not appear to be very appreciable. The R.W.D.6 (Warsaw) was the only aircraft having a movable slot. This cabin machine had several features that will be touched on later. To the Potez 43, fixed slots were fitted along the length of the wing, while on the Bernard cabin 1232 a
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
