FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1936
1936 - 1579.PDF
046 FLIGHT JUNE 18, 1936. We now get to your correspondent's suggestion that the problem of arriving machines '' must be enough to break a traffic manager's heart—unless there are no winds to bring machines in before or after time '.' [our italics]. The answer to these three possibilities is that, if the machine arrives in time everything in the garden is lovely ; if it arrives before time it is lovelier still, as the passengers can have one or more drinks in the attractive snack bar, or even a meal in the restaurant if the wind has been very strong. As to the third possibility, of the machine arriving after time, the num ber of days in the year on which there is a sufficiently strong head-wind to cause the machine to miss the train connection is very small. In addition, there are many more trains passing Gatwick Airport Station than the scheduled semi-fast ones chiefly used by the operating companies, and, although these ether trains take about 50 minutes to reach London, the total journey time on these few occasions would still be not more than if operating from Croydon. Lastly, this Company has the liberty of asking the Southern Railway to stop the next train to pass through Gatwick Airport to pick up passengers from an aircraft delayed by wind, and, in any case, we believe that the operating companies allow themselves a few minutes on the return journey to guard against this possibility—which can easily be done and still achieve a shorter time from city to city as against using another airport. We naturally do not agree with your correspondent that it is a pity that publicity should be given to the manifest advantages of Gatwick Airpoit, since the sole object of building this airport was to .give the operating companies and the public those very advantages. Further, we would take this opportunity of stressing that, in addition to the above advan tages, the use of Gatwick obviates the necessity of negotiating tht belt of Surrey hills and that at Gatwick there is much less fog—and it may be this latter fact that makes the advantages of Gatwick so apparent ! Your correspondent's reference to a passenger just catching a train by means of a wild, troglodytic gallop along an echoing subway is particularly unkind when our efforts to provide, as another publication has put it, " an air-conditioned, non-echoing subway " have proved so successful that the real danger is not the troglodytic gallop but the fact that the restful silence might lull the passenger to sleep—although even this is hardly probable, since the total time taken to traverse this silent subway at an ordinary walking pace is less than one minute. We think the above disproves your correspondent's sugges tion that there is no enormous advantage in flying from one airport or another, as Gatwick certainly offers all the above advantages for aircraft bound for Continental destinations. Incidentally, we should also like to take this opportunity of refuting the suggestion that Gatwick is an "emergency" airport, as we feel the term " emergency " can only apply to a large field used for landing purposes when a proper airport is not available. The term "emergency airport" is mis leading and cannot apply to a first-class airport equipped as Gatwick is and which claims to be the closest and most suit able airport for London when dealing with southern-bound traffic. AIRPORTS LIMITED. Gatwick Airport. A. M. DESOUTTER Joint Managing Director. THAT ULTRA-LIGHT IDEAL HAVING been away for a couple of weeks I found en my return the numbers of Flight of May 7 and May 14, in which Mr. Boddy, Mr. Richardson and Mr. F. Munro Dingwall answer my remarks on Mr. Boddy's original article re the ultra-light aeroplane. Though by now the topic has lost its first flavour and many readers will not even remember what was the subject of dis cussion, 1 hope you will grant me a little space for a short rejoinder. Though I might be well on my way to develop an inferi ority-complex after Mr. Richardson's remarks re intelligence and boredom, and after Mr. Munro Dingwall's conclusions on what he thinks I want, I am not downhearted yet, because I foster the fond hope that both these gentlemen, and parti y also Mr. Boddy, have really missed my point. Therefore, without going into details again, let me make my opinion clear by putting the matter in a nutshell. Notwithstanding the renewal of interest in the " ultra light," 1 have said, in contradiction to Mr. Boddv's con clusion, that I do not believe the 3oh.p., 80 m.p.h. two-seater —in its present form as an aeroplane—to be an interesting commercial proposition. I do not maintain that there is not to be found a certain number of customers who will be glad to acquire an aeroplane at small cost, with the knowledge that it will be inexpensive in use, but I believe that prolonged operation will lead to disappointment! - t Why ? Because the essential quality—the raison d'Mre— of the aeroplane in its present form is speed: speed which enables it to be used in all sorts of weather, even against strong head-winds—but, speed with the adjunction of a comfortable margin between top and minimum, ensuring the ability to get out of tight corners. IE this form the aeroplane is still far from being an ideal flying machine, though, within its limitations, it serves a purpose. That purpose is not served by the "ultra-light" plane, with too low a cruising speed and too little excess of power to ensure quick acceleration. Aviation for the. multitude will come only when we secure the perfectly safe flying machine, able to be used in any weather. And that is just what the ultra-light aeroplane is not. B. STEPHAN Ankara, Turkey. THE POU MYSTERY I HAVE been following the correspondence in your paper with great interest, especially in so far as the Pou is con cerned. I am disappointed to know that no steps will be taken to investigate the tendency to get into an uncontrollable dive. Investigation has since been promised.—Ed. I under stand that the majority of them show no tendency towards this, but the similarity between all the accidents makes one wonder whether the fault may not lie in the actual handling more than in any inherent vice of any particular type, bo far as I can ascertain, most of the accidents have occurred alter satisfactory circuits, when the pilot intends landing. I have no practical experience other than in the actual con struction of a Flying Flea, held up until now awaiting the Air Ministry investigation. The following suggestion must be regarded merely as a suggestion which may contribute towards the knowledge of the behaviour of this machine under certain circumstances. Suppose I am flying along at about 50 to 55 miles per hour and intend coming in to land. I gently reduce my airscrew- speed, allow the stick to go forward, lowering the nose, and come in with the screw turning in relation to my forward and downward motion. Take it that, instead of throttling down gently, I slam the throttle shut; what happens ? I am moving at 50 m.p.h. but the screw is moving relative to a speed of, say, 20 m.p.h. Is it unreasonable to suggest that we have .virtually, in a nose-down position, " put the brakes on the front end " ? The slowly moving screw has a sudden braking effect and, in addition to this, a partial vacuum is created below the front wing; lift of the middle section of this is lost and the nose falls suddenly. The front wing has stalled and possibly the resultant exaggerated front-wing incidence results in increased lift of the rear wing, further aggravating the trouble. With cable controls the pilot can have no remedy other than, if at sufficient height, in opening the throttle wide as a last resort which might return the lift to the front wing. How may we remedy this tendency ? By wind-tunnel experiments, of course, but this avenue is closed. We can, I suggest, increase the safety or lessen the risk perhaps by fitting rigid controls, by careful rigging and finally by very careful handling. Mignet never designed a machine for fancy flying; he cautions us against sudden closure of the throttle and I believe he now approves of the rigid control system. In addition to these, I should suggest that every builder of the Flea should avail himself of the services of the Air League inspector, who will examine the finished (uncovered) machine for a very modest fee; in addition to this inspection of workmanship we might \\ ith advantage have a subsequent examination when the machine has been finished and ready to fly. Wing incidence, positive and negative could be checked, rigging adjusted, centre of gravity in relation to centre of pressure decided and a greater margin of safetv assured than is obtainable under the present state of affairs If the Pou is to continue to be the machine of the amateur builder we must take every care in the construction, riggin? laid handling, but we must, finally and before we fly, have expert advice on these and not trust to our own imagination I look forward to reading the opinions of others on tins matter. M. ARMOUR. Anstruther, Fife.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
