FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1936
1936 - 1245.PDF
5M FLIGHT. MAY 14, 1936. Private drr Topics of the Day This View Business AFTER flying almost exclusively in cabin machines /\ for a month or so I recently spent the odd quarter * *• of an hour in what was once known as the conven tional two-seater—to wit, a tandem-seater braced biplane. In many ways the experience resembled that of learning to fly all over again, since I was sitting very low in the cockpit and felt that the all-round visibility was unduly restricted. The weather was fairly thick at the time, and, unless I was able to see all the three other machines in the air at the same time, my mental discomfort was considerable. During the final phase of each approach the machine was yawed in order to make quite sure that no other machine had taxied over the fairway, while the hold-off and landing was done entirely by feel and with no forward view whatever. How on earth I ever learnt to land a machine of this kind fairly, squarely, and without drift, is a mystery which I do not feel capable of solving—particularly as the average pupil will not take the trouble to ensure that he is* sitting sufficiently high in the cockpit. Some instructors, as a matter of fact, like their pupils to sit very low, partly so that they should become accustomed to this position, and partly because they have found that better landings are made—I don't know why. The Modern Idea HP HERE is no doubt, however, that the average pupil •*• of to-day has been spoilt by odd passenger flights in cabin aeroplanes, and has learnt to expect a forward view which he certainly will not experience in the majority of training machines. Later on he settles down and forgets that from the driving seat of his car he can see everything in front of him. Aeroplanes, he thinks, must necessarily be different. That is not to say that all cabin aeroplanes have a good view forward. One or two of them frighten me so badly in heavy rain or thick weather that I long for the good old training type. In this matter I am reminded of a statement made by at least two instructors when asked for their considered opinions on the side-by-side cabin trainer. Pupils, they said, can rarely be taught to keep their eyes open in the air and to watch for other machines on all sectors, and a cabin machine would naturally intensify this fault. On the contrary, I feel that the pupil who does not need to crane his neck in order to survey the essential parts of the sky is less likely to get into trouble, and is certainly more likely to see exactly where he is going wrong with his landings. During quite half the period of ab initio training, landing and approach faults are simply not understood, and the movement of the throttle and stick preparatory to the business of "going round again" leaves a pupils mind quite blank until the matter is explained in detail on the ground—when he has probably forgotten what he saw and felt. Shortage of cushions, a badly fitting helmet and a change of instructor must, between them, have once cost me a good many wasted training hours. As a matter of fact, for reasons almost entirely con nected with forward view, I had no difficulty at all with the very first cabin aeroplane I flew, despite the facts that no dual instruction was possible thereon, and that even the forward view would not be considered to be very bril liant in the light of modern ideas. This machine—a Desoutter—I have always looked on as one of the easiest and safest aeroplanes that has ever been produced. Pos sibly its " unfoldability" helped to ruin its chances. Another obsolescent machine, the Puss Moth, rivalled it for ease of handling, safety, and childishly easy landing. Comparisons Again ONE earnest reader has pulled me up for my remarks about relative costs. One can, he says, hardly com pare relative "distance values," since both the car and the aeroplane are used by the private owner largely for pleasure, and, consequently, time rather than distance should form the basis of one's calculations. In that case, of course, the car comes out very well indeed—about 10s. an hour against 30s. for the aeroplane—but I was talking almost entirely of the aeroplane as a means of serious private transport. Furthermore, if one is comparing pleasure values, I would much prefer to travel for twenty minutes in an aero plane than for an hour in a car—much as I enjoy long distance night driving. Not so long ago, after arranging to borrow an aeroplane for a fairly short cross-country journey, I was forced by weather conditions to make the journey by road. The air journey would have taken a great deal less than half an hour, while tht road journey occupied very nearly two hours, hampered as I was by slow lorries, cross ing lights, and endless villages. It was a hot, dusty, and savagely boring two hours, which was made all the less bearable by the fact that the weather improved con sistently. I reiterate that flying is not cheap, and that it is not always useful, but when a machine can be obtained, an when the destination is conveniently placed in relation to an aerodrome, the additional cost is amply justified 1 reduced nerve strain, in increased comfort, and m x saving of time. As the Chinese potentate is reputed ° have said, after being rushed in record time from the snip to the hotel in New York; " Now, what are you going to do with the five minutes that have been saved in tni terrifying journey? " , INDICATOR.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
