FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1933
1933 - 0898.PDF
FLIGHT, NOVEMBER 2, 1933 are capable of a fairly simple solution remains to be seen. In this week's issue of FLIGHT we publish the first part of an article by Mr. W. S. Shackleton on the Rohrbach rotating wing aircraft. The other two principal investigators are Mr. Piatt, in the United States, and M. Strandgren, in France. Mr. Shackle- ton holds the view that the Rohrbach system offers the most efficient solution. Whether he is right or wrong we should not care to judge, but at any rate we feel that his article will be read with interest. Unfortunately Mr. Shackleton gives the Rohrbach main data near the end of his article, so that our readers will have to wait until next week for them. In the meantime it may satisfy them to know that calculations made by Dr. Rohrbach, based upon tests made in Germany by the D.V.L., indicate that a machine somewhat like that shown in the artist's impression, fitted with an engine of 240 b.h.p., would have a tare weight of 1,500 lb. and would have a disposable load of 600 lb. if vertical ascent were demanded. Should this not be essen tial, and if a minimum speed of 13 m.p.h. could be tolerated, the disposable load could be increased to 1,140 lb. At 2,100 lb. gross weight the estimated maximum speed is 124 m.p.h. at sea level and the minimum speed 0. At 2,640 lb. gross weight, i.e., with disposable load of 1,140 lb., the estimated maximum speed is 118 m.p.h., and as the minimum speed at this weight is 13 m.p.h., the speed range is more than 9:1. In practice there would be rela tively few cases where quite vertical ascent, or in other words hovering, would be essential, and a minimum speed over the ground of 13 m.p.h. in still air should be low enough to enable the machine to be used from very restricted areas. • •> •:• •:• Poverty of air equipment for the Army must cause concern to all citizens, and we have often expressed our anxieties at the present state of affairs. There are only five squadrons allotted for army co-opera tion work, four of them equipped with Thejyes the -< Audax " and one with the the Army "Atlas." These squadrons are only capable of close patrols and medium patrols. There are no Army squadrons capable of long patrols or raids, and there are no Army fighter squadrons. Five squadrons, unprotected by fighters, would be utterly insufficient to provide all the recon naissance which even our small Army would need. The question of personnel is quite as serious as that of number of units. The officers in the army co-operation squadrons have to become highly specialised experts—in fact, there is no branch of Royal Air Force work in which the specialisation needs to be more intense. It would hardly be too much to say that a pilot coming new to the work would be entirely useless to the Army for some con siderable time. Yet Air Force officers are not permitted to make this branch of air work their life's profession. When they have done so many years in one of the A.C. squadrons and have become thoroughly proficient, they are usually transferred to a squadron of a different nature where their expert knowledge of Army problems is pretty sure to grow rusty. It has been said in defence of this system that the constant transfer of officers from one type of squad ron to another is a wise policy, in that it ensures for H _ the Army squadrons, as well as for other classes of squadron, a reserve of specialists scattered through out the whole of the Air Force. We very much doubt the use to the Army of pilots who have cer tainly kept in flying training but have grown rusty, and are certainly not up to date, in their knowledge of the Army's special requirements. An even stronger criticism of the system is that, even if every officer in the Royal Air Force had been given experi ence of every form of flying, it would still be impos sible for the Air Force to reinforce any one of its branches from another e.g., army co-operation from Air Defence of Great Britain) until the total number of Air Force units exceeds the minimum required for all branches of its work. At present Air Defence of Great Britain is 10 squadrons short of the 1923 programme, the flying- boat squadrons are far below our needs, naval experts allege that the Fleet Air Arm is too small, and the overseas squadrons are certainly not in excess of requirements. In whichever direction we look, we are struck by the absolute impossibility of the army co-operation squadrons borrowing pilots to increase their strength. The War Office seems to have realised this, and, in agreement with the Air Ministry, has formed a scheme for training an increased number of Army officers in air work. We publish the main part of the official notification on another page. In general, the scheme resembles the scheme for training naval officers in Fleet Air Arm work. In brief, eight Army officers will be seconded to the Royal Air Force every year, for a period of four years, for training in A.C. squadrons. The total number undergoing this training at any one time may amount to 32. They will be given temporary commissions in the Royal Air Force, but will wear their own uniform with " wings " on the breast. After four years of flying they will return to their Army units for two years, and then may do another two years with the A.C. squadrons. This is a very good scheme, and will enable the Army to build up a useful reserve of pilots in the Army, which may make all the difference in the world if an emergency arises. It is true that a man who has not flown for some time gets out of flying practice, and a refresher course at a flying school may be necessary before he can join a squadron. An officer of the R.A.F. Reserve is only asked to do 20 hours' flying a year, and this could be hurried through in a very few days if there were need for intensive training. The Army officers could also be hurried through their flying refresher courses. At least they would not be rusty in Army thought and Army work. If the Army had to choose between a pilot who was rusty in his flying but up to dat in Army work, and one who was in flying training but had forgotten the military side of the business it is probable that the former would be preferred. In the Army, flying, like riding and engineering an'. other accomplishments, is only a means to an eno The flying has to be quite good, and so must the riding be, but the soldier who has only mastered the arts which are called, in good old Anglo-Saxon, aviation and equitation, has not yet begun to be useful. Therefore, the more the Army learns to depend on pilots of its own the better it will be to: the Army. ~.Z .
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
