FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1936
1936 - 1460.PDF
JUNE 4, 1936. FLIGHT. 5g7 - Correspondence The Editor does not hold himself responsible for the views expressed by correspondents. The names and addresses of the writers, not necessarily for publication, must in all cases accompany letters intended for publication in these columns. VOICE IN THE QBI WILDERNESS AS an air W/T. operator who is rather keen on his job, I crave a little of your space to throw a few bricks. Apparently airline companies carry wireless to render air navigation safer, but from my year of expedience I find that, with the possible exception of Swissair's operators, a lot of my fraternity use their radio to fox the pilot and jam the aether, the breed carried by one of our larger companies, and the 1st Officer cum W/T. operator, being especially dangerous during the winter. In QBI conditions three repeats of a message is quite usual for them, and not having the Q code buttoned up, they have to have many messages spelt out to them. And after being given QGPi* when Croydon is QBI it shakes me to know that one or two more 'planes are whistling around in the same area, the operators on them having misunderstood or not heard their instructions. And very few operators seem to listen to other aircraft but expect Control to keep them informed. After thirty minutes in the air any operator worthy of the name should have the position of almost every aircraft on his route taped. Coming in QBI CZF, six bearings a minute at least should be obtained (with snappy co-operation from Control). Ground stations would be much more efficient if they were not used to train raw operators; this, fortunately, is only noticeable with English stations on fine days and Sundays. If wireless must be carried then do let us have good operators as well; and to obtain them I suggest that candidates for the Air W/T. Licence should have at least three years' experience, preferably Marine, before thev are allowed to sit. This would definitelv be a step towards safer navigation in bad weather, speed up air transport, clear the aether, and perhaps avoid the urgent necessity for another W/T. channel at Croydon. EX-MARINE. Crovdon. *["Your turn for landing is No. i."—ED.] A LANDING-FEE FUND ? T HE decision of the members of the Aerodrome Owners' Association to charge landing fees to private owners ap pears to have aroused a good deal of comment and irritation out of all proportion to the imposition. Personally, I voted for the proposal, and still cannot understand the mentality of people who would never dream of refusing to pay green fees for the Ube of a golf course of which they were not members, or for parking charges for their cars ; yet they expect to be able to fly about the country, using aerodromes which are both expensive tc acquire and to maintain, and grumble about having to pay landing fees. On the other hand, I am not unmindful of the asset which a large body of private owners has been and is to civil aviation. IF my own experience, the Northamptonshire Aero Club practically" grew round the Cirrus Moth which Geoffrey Linnell owntd in 1927, and many pilots of to-day owe their introduction to aviation to a passenger flight at the invitation of a private owner. In the early days the clubs leased their aerodromes and controlled them, but few own their present aerodromes and are raiely the sole users or controllers. There is no reason, however, why the clubs should not still offer free hospitality te pnvate owners and pay the landing fees them selves to the controlling authority. The following is an outline of a suggested scheme for providing the necessary machinery. (1) Instead of subscribing to several clubs, as many do, each private owner should pay a subscription of, say, £5 5s., to the Royal Aero Club or the Council of Light Aeroplane Clubs, whichever agrees to administer the scheme, and all clubs in the country should be supplied with a list of subscribers and grant them reciprocal membership. (2) The average landing fee for private aircraft is is. 6d., and the suggested subscription would provide for seventy landings by each private owner at the various clubs. Some will pay more visits, some fewer, but it would be a fair average to start with as a basis, and could be reviewed in the light of the necessary experience and statistics. (3) When landing at a flying club, the private owner would sign a standardised "chit" certifying he was pay ing a private visit to the club ; and at the end of the quarter, half-year or year, these '' chits'' would be sent to the Royal Aero Club or the Council of Light Aero plane Clubs, where they would be analysed and sorted out to the various clubs. If the central fund is sufficient to pay the landing fees in full, as I anticipate, and leave a small balance, a cheque would be sent to each club to re imburse it for the full amount of the fees paid to the aerodrome owner in respect of private owner visitors. Prudence dictates, however, that it would have to be pro vided that if the estimates were too low, and the fund was insufficient to pay landing fees in full, the clubs would have to make up the small deficit; but no doubt they would be quite willing to do this out of the large profits we hear so much about which they make out of private owners in the catering and licenced departments, petrol, oil, repairs, etc. Under some such scheme as this I think all parties would be getting a fair deal : (a) The aerodrome proprietor would be getting his landing fees, which are badly required for upkeep and improvement; (b) The private owner would not have the irritation of being continually called upon to pay small fees and would feel that he had a right to use the aerodromes instead of merely being there on sufferance as at present, ancj would, moreover, be a full member of all clubs at a very slightly increased outlay, instead of a temporary member for the duration of his visit ; (c) The clubs certainly might lose a small income from a few local private owners, but this would be more than compensated for by the increase in profitable visits from a larger number of private owners. I do not, of course, know what the Roval Aero Club or the'' Council of Light Aeroplane clubs think of the scheme, but V am sending it at the same time to Mr. Harold Perrin for their consideration. In the meantime, and in view of the 'recent correspondence on the subject in Flight, I thought it would be as well to have the opinion of private owners upon it. I' may say that local owners to whom I have submitted it have given it their blessing. c. M. NEWTON. Sywell Aerodrome, Northampton. THOSE POUCULIARITIES •\17TTH all respect that is due to a designer of Mr. Latimer- VV Needham's qualifications, I venture to suggest that his theory of Pou instability, as set out in Flight of May 21, is quite unsound. He starts with the assumption that the thrust line is above the centre of drag; in his diagram he has raised the airscrew considerably, and it is incredible that the centre of drag is so low, especially at the lower speeds, when ons remembers that most of the lift is taken by the front wing. One would expect the tbrust to be below the drag—which would reverse Mr. Needham's main argument. But even with a high thrust line his reasoning seems wrong, and he seems to exaggerate the downwash effect; for if the thrust is in creased the speed is increased, and if the stick is held in the same position the angles of attack are reduced and more of the lift therefore taken by the front wing, the machine there fore climbs unless the stick is eased forward. Of course, in ? high-speed dive the fuselage drag is accentuated and the centre of drag lowered, but then the thrust is provided largely by the weight, and the C.G. is not high; the airscrew will even drag in high speed dives. If a longitudinal dihedral is maintained a high-speed dive seems impossible, and as nobody wishes to do a T.V. dive in a Pou it would seem wise to limit the movement of the front wing so as to preclude all high-speed dives. On some recent Poux there is a tendency to increase the vertical gap, but if the variation of the gap due to control movements is found to have peculiar effects on the lift of the rear wing there seems no serious objection to making the front wing fixed and the rear one pivot; except that the steadiness in bumps caused by the stick yielding during a bump, and claimed as a benefit of the system, would be lost. Not having had an opportunity of flying a Pou I offer these comments with reserve and in the hope that the - will stimu-
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
