FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1934
1934 - 0181.PDF
FLIGHT, FEBRUARY 22, 1934 7 'le 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. AIRCRAFT v. RAILCAR 12913] I have noticed with pleasure that FLIGHT hasconstantly made a point of advocating higher operating speeds for British commercial airlines.This point must be emphasised by an article, published in The Engineer, dated 2nd inst., which deals with theoperation by the German Railway Co. of railcars on some of their lines. These railcars, which cannot for long beconfined to Germany, are fitted with Daimler-Bervy Diesel engines of from 150-330 b.h.p., and they can attain aspeed of 100 m.p.h. This probably means that they are capable of maintaining average speeds, over long distances,of anything up to 80 m.p.h. If the British air transport companies continue theirpolicy of employing comparatively low average operating speeds, I suggest that they will have, in the near future,a very serious rival in these railcars. Using Diesel engines of such low power, they cannothelp being economic: it has been pointed out that they are fast, and, they will obviously be made as comfortableas possible. The only thing therefore, that our commercial airlinescan do to combat this potential agent for decreasing their traffic returns is considerably, very considerably, to increasetheir operating speeds. London, N.W.ll. A. L. FERMOR. February 6, 1934. DIRECT LIFT [2914] For some months past I have been followingwith intense interest every machine whose performance and loadings have been published, and cannot help butadmire the way in which engineers and designers have been concentrating on lifting from a short run, but onedoes not need to be very well versed in aerodynamics to realise that we shall shortly arrive at that stage where itwill be impossible to leave the ground quicker. If we seriously set ourselves out to discover why thisis ultimately to happen, we find that there is one force which is used by every designer, the use of which is oneof the two obstacles to be overcome before we can hope to rise vertically. I refer to forward motion. Until such time as forward motion is entirely dis-associated from lift, we cannot rise vertically from the ground. Obviously, if the foregoing reasoning is correct, weshould set ourselves out to find the remedy, and the remedy lies in conducting our experiments not on forwardspeed, but on direct lift. The gigantic strides made in engine design, structuraldesign and streamlining, have all had a retarding influence on the progress that should have been made towardsobtaining direct lift, and if the amount of thought and skill, not to mention inventive genius that has beenexpended on the desire for speed, had been utilised on obtaining direct lift, we should have a far different-lookingaeroplane than that which we have to-day. We are in the same position to-day as regards lift as wewere ten years ago, the only difference being that owing to the terrific acceleration and power obtained from thepresent-day engine, we have been enabled to cut down wing area and increase wing loading, but we have notdeveloped wing design as we might. We may only lift with wings if we create a pressure ofair under them, and knowing that we cannot do this without using forward motion, we have been content toblindfold ourselves to any other method. There is another method of obtaining lift, and sciencehas known of it even before it was realised that planes would lift. This method is arrived at by revolving the wings insteadof towing them, but here is the spot where even science has not been successful in solving the problem. No known means of applying power to the rotatingplanes has yet been devised without the re-action from the power unit setting up gyratory motion to the machinejn which it was placed immediately it had left the ground. Evidently this method of lifting has been condemned forthe easier way at present in vogue, although I have certain plans and information that torque re-action has beenharnessed in such a manner that it has been even used to advantage instead of being the unsurmountable obstacleit previously was. This statement may cause some controversy, as it maybe quoted that the Autogiro type of machine is not affected by re-action, but this is not so, because the re-volving planes, or to be more precise, the rotor, are definitely not driven by mechanical means when in the air.If the rotor were to be positively driven by direct power, the re-action is bound to set up gyration of the body in amoment opposite to that of the rotor, and this gyration is definitely a force that cannot be counteracted or controlledexcept by its own re-actionary efforts. In other words, re-action can only be overcome by re-action. The form the re-action takes is the deciding factor, anda few brief words are sufficient to give the solution to the problem.This is the answer. Instead of trying to hold a body against re-action, utilise re-action as a driving force. Perhaps the foregoing will set one or two minds workingalong new lines and peradventure open up some new theories on the subject of direct lifting aircraft. As a finishing touch may I be allowed to give my ideaof the general aircraft of the future? The machine will be composed of a streamlined fuselage,with passenger accommodation forward, rotor engine amid- ships, and pusher air-screw at the rear. The fuselage will be made to enable the machine to floatin water, there will be no under-carriage, no wings, and only a rudder forward of the air-screw for direction control.The machine will be amphibian, as it can land vertically downwards and rise perpendicularly, therefore requiringno undercarriage, and if made watertight can do the same on water. The horse power required to drive it will be compara-tively small, as the drag will be not nearly so great on account of the clean, undisturbed streamline that can bearranged with no obstructions; consequently there should be great possibilities for development. I might take this opportunity of stating that this typeof machine will rise, hover or land on a perfectly even keel, and that there are no freak principles involved, suchas exerting power in two directions at the same time and accepting the result as direct lift. I wish to thank the Editor of FLIGHT for many hours ofinteresting reading, and also for the valuable information that invariably finds its way to its columns through hisgenerosity. ALBERT E. WILDE. Liverpool. February 15, 1934. RUNNING COSTS [2915] I am a reader of FLIGHT and also a regularpurchaser of a motoring magazine. The latter frequently publishes under the heading of Readers' Experiences, abrief survey of the running costs of various makes of cars over a number of years. The articles enumerate theexpenses of garaging, repairs, insurance and fuel consump- tion, the information being supplied by car owners whohave collected and tabulated appropriate information. The increasing popularity of the light aeroplane as a substitute,or at least as an ally, of the sporting and touring type of car, suggests to me that the time is ripe for the co-operationof some owner-pilot in the preparation of a similar article suitable for insertion in the correspondence columns orelsewhere of this journal. This would supply an interest- ing comparison between private air travel and privatemotoring, which I feel confident would interest many readers who are owners of one or both types of machine. I hope that my suggestion will meet with some responseand be put into practice by some interested party in a position to supply reliable information. Wallasey, Cheshire. D. COLLARD.February 18, 1934. 181
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
