FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1937
1937 - 0035.PDF
JANUARY 7, 1937. FLIGHT. 13 Topics of the Day designers Back to the Beginning S OME time ago I dived firmly off at the deep end in the matter of aeroplane design in general—asking, in fact, whether we were really on the right track. Those remarks were not universally popular, but since that time I have received some vocal and epistolatory support from quite surprising quarters. Not unnaturally, transport pilots are the most outspoken critics of the present-day idea of a flying machine; they fly so often in conditions which, at the take-off, approach and landing speed of the modern aeroplane, often make a minor naviga tional or visual error an affair of fatal consequences. The fact is, of course, that the majority of have been "single-tracking" since pre-war days, and in no item is this conservatism so noticeable as in the case of control operation. In the very early days of flying, various people had different ideas about control systems—and some of them must have been very different indeed. One thing appeared to be certain, however: It was not possible for a pilot to manage everything with his hands alone. Hence the rudder-bar, which still causes more trouble to the learner than all the other controls put together. Then Mr. R. E. Pelterie "invented" the simple central column, for lateral and fore-and-aft control, to go with the rudder-bai, and aeroplanes have had these same controls, with minor modifications, for the last twenty-eight years. Thinking Again IT may be that this system is right, though fifty thousand people have been known to be wrong before now, and it does not seem likely that a system developed for the control of 1909-10 machines will be equally right for modern machines with quite different characteristics. Much as I should hate to have to learn to fly all over again, the feet should not be asked (boots and all) to operate any thing so dangerously sensitive as the rudder. We may eventually discover better methods of changing the attitude of a machine—ailerons, elevators and rudders have been with us as a worry for a similar length of time —but, until we do, there appears to be only one alternative to the foot-operated rudder. This is the wheel at the top of the normal column. Such a control system was specially fitted many years ago to a Gipsy Moth, and is fitted now to the Hordern-Richmond monoplane. Though my progress while flying the latter was somewhat erratic, I go so far as to claim that this system is more logical, more easily handled by the novice, and more natural in straightforward flying. Anyone who doubts it should try this machine—not for ten minutes, but for half an hour or more. The only weakness in the logic concerns the fact that the rudder is only an incidental and uncomfortable means of making a turn. In one or two machines, notably the Hornet Moth, it is not even necessary to use the rudder at all for this purpose. If the rudder wheel is small, how ever, it does not feel like, and is not consequently used as, a "steering wheel," but simply as an auxiliary device for counteracting aileron drag, for holding up the nose in a steep turn and for side-slipping. When someone produces a machine which will turn accurately and quickly on some form of aileron-cum- spoiler, and which has infinitely variable quick-action flaps of great power (making the ridiculous sideslip a thing of the past), we may be able to do without a rudder and be satisfied with a mere directional-trimming tab. Silencing N OT until the appearance of the v.p. airscrew did the average person realise how little of the noise made by an aeroplane might be due to the engine exhaust expan sion, and when we come to the pusher type yet another source of noise must be considered. Various people have been surprised to discover that the Douglas- and Carden-engined Drone make much the same noise. Persons without first-hand knowledge have even gone so far as to claim that the Douglas Drone must have a geared airscrew because the noise of its passage is so much more high pitched than that of, for instance, the Tipsy, which has the same engine. The fact is that in the case of the Drone the '' beat'' is duplicated as the airscrew blades cut the partial vacuum behind the trailing edge, while the exhaust note forms an unimportant background. It looks as if the multi-engined pusher transport—which is such an attractive idea i.i theory and has, with flat-twelve engines in the leading edge, often been suggested as the type of the future—will be just about the noisiest machine ever made unless the pitch is so high as to be inaudible to all but cats and dogs. As far as the occupants are concerned the noise question is virutally non-existent. In large machines, such as the new Empire boat and the Douglas D.C3, I can say from practical experience that the voice need not be raised at all in conversation, while smaller "twins," such as the Dragonfly, set almost as high a standard. With a nose engine it is difficult to get rid of slipstream rattles, though engine "noise" is often the mentally translated effect of minor vibration. Sooner or later, however, the great mass of earthbound mortals living in the vicinity of aerodromes will raise a concerted wail unless something is done. The modern transport machine usually flies at 10,000ft. or more when on its lawful journeys, so dwellers on air routes will not be troub'ed, but it is, unfortunately, during the take-off at full throttle and in fine pitch "that the noise is really shattering. INDICATOR.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
