FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1935
1935 - 0075.PDF
JANUARY IO, 1935- FLIGHT. 39 TECHNICAL PROGRESS in 1934 British Constructors' Re markable Diversity of Types : The Quest for Clean Aero-dynamic Design: Extending the Speed Range NEVER in the history of British aviation have constructors pro duced in one year so many air craft types as those which made their appearance during 1934. Exact numbers are difficult to obtain, be cause in many cases there must of necessity be some doubt whether to class a certain aeroplane as a 1934 or a 1933 type, while in the case of military aircraft the actual year of production is not necessarily that in which illustrations and mention were first permitted to be published. Using a certain amount of discretion, one can, however, reasonably assess the number of new British aircraft types which first became generally known during 1934; the total is approximately fifty. An average of one new type per week is not a bad output for a relatively small industry, and seems to testify to a rather greater versatility among our de signers than some would have us believe. Adopting a rather arbitrary line of demarcation, one arrives at the result that out of the fifty new types pro duced about twenty were small civil types intended to appeal to the private owner; nine were larger types, rang ing from the class that is rather too ambitious for the average private owner, through the "feeder line" cate gory, and up to the machine suitable for operation on well- patronised air routes—a type, unfortunately, often referred to as an "air liner." Of new military types rather more than twenty were produced. Biplane v. Monoplane For a good many years the biplane v. monoplane struggle has continued, the former type, on the whole, holding its own rather longer in Great Britain than in some other countries. In the private owner class the monoplane has undoubtedly won the day during 1934. Subdividing still further, the low-wing cantilever monoplane has now be come the most popular among the small machines, and has found adherents in the larger, twin-engined class. If one looks for a reason, the low-wing monoplane arrangement probably owes its popularity to the relative ease with which aerodynamic cleanness can be achieved. The low placing of the thick wing brings two advantages not shared by any other wing placing. If a fixed under carriage is used the distance from wing to ground is small, and the undercarriage legs can be made of low drag; if a retractile undercarriage is preferred, the thick wing affords a convenient housing for the wheels. There was Non-stop variety—some of the widely contrasted British types produced during 1934. a time when it was thought that the low-wing monoplane was inferior to the high-wing in aerodynamic efficiency. Modern research has shown this apparent inferiority to be due mainly to interference between the wing roots and the fuselage, and by using large '' fillets '' in the corners it is possible to reduce this interference. Among the British military' aircraft types the biplane still holds its own. Thoughtless critics have used this fact as a basis on which to accuse British designers of undue conservatism. The problem is not, however, one which can be solved satisfactorily by such off-hand methods as merely arguing that because a cantilever monoplane looks clean it is clean, or by pointing to a monoplane of some foreign make and draw attention to its great speed. In no branch of engineering is compromise more necessary than in aircraft design, and in no branch of aircraft design are the hands of the designer more tied than in the production of military types. Performance he must give if his de sign is to have any chance of being adopted. But he must also provide for carrying all the equipment which the various Air Ministry departments ask for, and he must see that this equipment is carried in convenient places where it is accessible. He further has to study the ques tion of fighting view for the crew. And, finally, a decision has to be given on whether speed or climb and ceiling are the more important. The monoplane single-seater fighter may be faster for a given engine power than the corresponding biplane, in which the undercarriage cannot readily be designed to
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
