FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1938
1938 - 0302.PDF
104 FLIGHT. FEBRUARY 3, 1938. would see to it that we got something of the same sort in this country. F/O. J. K. QUILL thought that the tricycle undercarriage was definitely a good thing, but many new machines were flying without it in spite of their high loading. Hitherto the discussion had centred entirely around the tricycle under- carriage. He thought Sqn. Ldr. Fraser's paper deserved some discussion also, and said that the approach with a flapped aero- plane would be facilitated by the tricycle. Heavily loaded aeroplanes should, he thought, be brought in on undershooting and engines Getting heavily loaded machines down might not be easy, but it could be done, and so long as designers saw pilots doing it they would continue to give them as high wing loading as they could handle. Even experienced pilots found it difficult to glide in at night at a steep angle and to flatten out at exactly the right moment. Less experienced pilots would probably btf i» trouble in such circumstances. Landing by one's own landing lights was difficult because the beams chased ahead of the machine across the aerodrome ami finally, at the moment one touched down, they pointed into the sky. SQN. LDR. D. F. ANDERSON said that during the last war the period of a pilot's training which took the longest was teaching him to land. He thought the tricycle undercarriage would definitely help in reducing the time necessary. WING CDR. H. V. ROWLEY said he had recently tried Mr. Hollis William's tricycle undercarriage on a Monospar, and although he was not very enthusiastic when he started, he returned an absolute convert. He agreed that the tricycle undercarriage would cut down the time of training, and did not think the weight mattered very much. Finally, he asked for the views of any pilots present who had tried both types of tricycle undercarriage, the single wheel in front and the single wheel at the back. He had not personally tried both types. ' " Shimmying " DR. G. LACHMANN said he was " sold " on the tricycle under- carriage, but there were a few points he wanted cleared up. For example, which was preferable, the steering or the caster- ing nose wheel? He had noticed that the new large Douglas in America had a steerable nose wheel. The Americans had stated that " shimmying " of the front wheel had to be guarded against, as it was dangerous. He would like to know if it was worse than shimmying of the ordinary tail wheel. He pointed out that on a bumpy aerodrome the front wheel might be thrown off the ground. Would the pilot be able to retain control ? MR. P. P. NAZIR thought it unwise to talk of increased wing loadings until full use had been made of devices available for improving control and for altering the gliding angle. One such device was his cut slot and trailing flap. He showed two lantern slides, from articles reproduced some time ago in Flight, of the spreading of the stall on rectangular and tapered wings and of the change in air flow when the Nazir cut slot was fitted. MR. W. E. GRAY was somewhat amused at this sudden in- terest in the tricycle undercarriage in view of the fact that he patented one many years ago but failed to get the aircraft industry interested, including the firm of the chairman of that evening (Mr. Handley Page). CDR. R. R. GRAHAM, R.N., said that perhaps it was slightly out of order for him as a serving officer to express an opinion, but he thought that from the pilot's point of view there was nothing to choose between the front-wheel and rear-wheel tri- cycle undercarriage. He had tried both. He suggested that the type should be adopted which fitted best into any given design. For deck landing the tricycle was definitely easier than the ordinary undercarriage. '-".«•*• FLT. LT. P. LUCAS said his ideal of an easily controlled approach and landing was to motor in in a high-drag aero- plane fitted with tricycle undercarriage. He suggested the use of a reversible airscrew as an air brake. MR. F. M. THOMAS thought the greatest advantage of the tricycle undercarriage was in connection with fog landine which was made practicable by this means. MR. NIGEL NORMAN referred to the question of landing on runways. If the wind were at an angle to the runway, the e.g. of the aeroplane would be travelling parallel with the runway even if the aircraft was pointing off to one side. With a three-wheeled undercarriage the machine would, as scon as the rear wheels touched, swing its nose along the runway and would not run off. He pleaded for runways on British aero- dromes, but said it was difficult to get people to' see the neces- sity so long as it was held that turfed aerodromes sufficed. He caused a goad deal of merriment by suggesting that the pilot of a large machine ought to be placed below the fuselage and behind the undercarriage. From there he would be able to judge his height ovei obstacles much better than if he were stuck out in front of the machine '' on the end of a long banana," as in the Handley Page H.P.42. ;«•.-• Progressive Air Brakes FLT. LT. H. ST. G. BURKE had not, when flying the irre- versible control advocated by Sq. Ldr. Fraser, found it to give any trouble, contrary to expectations. He thought it was worth designers' while to give it a trial. What was wanted was some form of control with very high drag, which could be put on lightly or hard as circumstances demanded. He likened such a control to the brakes of a.car,, and landing an aeroplane with air brakes was like driving a car without brakes, One did not always use the brakes of a car to come to a screech- ing halt, but it was useful to have the brakes capable of this in an emergency. So also with aircraft one should be able to reduce speed to the required degree. Super pilots like Mr. Bulman did not need such devices, because they could bring any machine into any field just above the staH, but ordinary pilots would appreciate the air brake. MR. F. D. BRADBROOKE expressed the opinion that the tri- cycle with the single wheel behind was inferior to that with a front wheel because of its tendency to cause ground-looping. He thought the tricycle undercarriage needed a runway to give the best results. The Hammond Y-type aeroplane with limited elevator control had a tendency to unstick like a cork coming out of a bottle, and needed a little care in avoiding stalling during the steep climb after unsticking. He agreed with Mr. Nigel Norman that the difficulty of landing over obstacles was directly proportional to the pilot's distance from the ground when the machine was stationary. SQN. LDR. FRASER strongly advocated a variable-drag device. It reduced the skill required and ought to be tried. Whatever they said there that evening about tricycles and air brakes, in the end the matter would be decided by the pilots. [Incident- ally, it might be mentioned that the use of a variable air- brake has been vigorously pressed by our contributor, " Indi- cator," during the past year or two.—ED.] MR. C. M. BARTER pointed out that " shimmyi^j," was cured on motor cycles by steering dampers, so why should it not be similarly cured on aircraft front wheels? MR. H. F. VESSEY did not agree with Capt. Barnwell that the front wheel would necessarily add extra weight. By per- mitting a greater load to be taken off, it paid for itself. He thought that if used in conjunction with a powerful rudder the rear-wheel tricycle might t>e better for deck landing, as there would be no tendency to run down the sloping deck. The first application of the tricycle undercarriage to a big commercial aeroplane—the forthcoming 40-passenger Douglas D.C.4. The photograph appears to have been made with the aid of a model.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
