FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1938
1938 - 0976.PDF
346 FLIGHT. APRIL 7, 1938. CORRESPONDENCE (CONTINUED) forgotten that the charges of inefficiency related only to theEuropean services of the company, about one-tenth of their total route mileage.The Cadman Committee deals with these charges as follows: (Para. 113.) " No passengers and no other staff (except threekilled at Elsdorf) have, in fact, been killed on the European services of the company during the years 1935-1937, a factwhich, we think, merits emphasis." (Para. 115.) "We find no evidence to support the sugges-tion that Imperial Airways' services are less safe than those of any foreign company."(Para. 116.) " We see no reason for dissatisfaction with the proportion of traffic carried by Imperial Airways."(Para. 117.) "A comparison on a ton-mileage basis of the subsidies paid to various companies in Europe is given in Ap-pendix K. The figures in this Appendix show that a lower amount was paid to Imperial Airways for work done than toaay of the other companies. Since 1934 subsidies to Imperial Airways, expressed as a percentage of the company's totalrevenue, have been reduced, in the case of European services, from 32.4 per cent, to 20.2 per cent., and for all services from45.4 per cent, to 23.8 per cent. As will be seen from Appen- dix L, none of the four large foreign companies can approachthese figures." (Para. 118.) " It is incorrect to state that the dividend of9 per cent., in respect of the year ended March 31, 1937, was paid out of an increased subsidy. There was, in fact, a re-duction in subsidy for that year. During the last three years dividends have increased, while the subsidies have decreased,a result indicative of improved trading." With regard to para. 116, it is remarkable, in view of thefact that the British Airways' service to Paris is so much faster than that of Imperial Airways, that the latter company shouldstill retain four-fifths of the total passenger traffic, and goes to prove how right Imperials have been in their policy of provid-ing really comfortable and roomy 'planes, first-class catering, etc.In para. 117, the Committee makes amends for a statement in para. 46, where it refers to Imperials as being heavilysubsidised. A heavy subsidy means that the payment made is high in proportion to the services rendered, whereas the pre-sent subsidy is very low expressed in shillings per ton-mile, and will be halved this year.The above extracts from the report are, I think, more than sufficient reply to the comments of Mr. C. W. A. Scott, pub-lished in a recent issue of Flight. It was the Government who first called Imperial Airwaystheir '' chosen instrument'' (see Empire Air Mail Scheme, Cmd. 5414, para. xv). Mr. Scott forgets to mention that theQantas D.H.86's are faster than the Atalantas and Hannibals because they are much newer machines and carry a lighter load.Why should Mr. Scott consider that shareholders are likely to be opposed to reasonable development ? Does he think thatthe payment of dividends is a sign of easy inactivity ? If divi- dends had not been forthcoming in the past, to whom wouldImperials look for the additional four million pounds of capi- tal they now require ?The Cadman Committee report resembles Jellicoe's first dis- patch after Jutland, which appeared to turn a British victoryinto a defeat. W. L. NAYLOR. London, W.9. THE POOR PRIVATE OWNER Subsidise the Pilot Instead of the Club ? IT has been my intention for a long time to write a '' moan ''on behalf of the P.P.O., but I have been forestalled by both the Duke of Richmond and Gordon and '' Indicator'' inthe same week [Flight, March 31]. I heartily agree that the P.P.O. should be subsidised. Iwould go further and state that the subsidy given to clubs is entirely wrongly administered. My suggestion is that thesubsidy should be given directly to those obtaining and renew- ing their "A" licences. Human nature is such that theyhate the idea of somebody else getting the bonus in addition to the payment they make for their flying. I venture to sug-gest that it the subsidy were given direct to the pilots the number of people taking their "A" licences with a view togetting the reward of £25, with the little blue book containing their photograph, would be more than quadrupled. The clubswould be the last to complain about this " slight" alteration, as the number of their flying hours would soar. If the P.P.O. could also receive the subsidy, even though itwas only a very poor imitation of that given in France, his numbers would go up tenfold. Just think of the additional numbers of potential pilots whowould be available for the defence of our shores. It would save the Air Ministry large sums in advertisement, and stilllarger sums in ub initio. training. Nearly every "A" licence pilot envies the P.P.O. in hisfreedom, but I know from four years' experience that it costs the P.P.O. about four times as much as flying from a club.With the subsidy to pilots and P.P.O.s, poor Kronfeld would never have suffered from lack of orders for his famous Drones;instead, his chief worry would be great competition, and the new industry would receive a tremendous fillip.May I also save headlines and reply to " P.T. 'B' Pilot" and thank him for his recommendation? I find that most" B " licence pilots are frightfully ignorant on the question of ultra-light flying and condemn it because it is easy, safe andcheap, which makes their skill superfluous. Here is a holder of a " B " licence with considerable experi-ence who finds entirely new pleasures while playing with my toys! * H. R. DIMOCK,. Ely, Cambs. Ely Aero Club. OLEAULIC? No Water in Aircraft Plumbing, so . . . TO continue to use the word '' hydraulic '' in speaking ofthe systems used in the power operation of moving parts and controls of aircraft seems to be incongruous when the fluidused is not water; but the meaning of the word is so well established that any new term which may be coined shouldpreferably convey the same ideas. I suggest that oleo-aulic might legitimately be reduced to ' 'oleaulic'' (four syllables,of course), and that this may meet the case. S. Devon. R. J. HARRINGTON HUDSON/ BROADSIDE FIRE The Cazaax Effect—and Another AS Mr. North is still, apparently, interested in the detailsof the Cazaux experiments, I offer the following informa- tion for what it is worth. The aircraft were multiplace decombat twin-engined monoplanes capable of nearly 200 m.p.h.; the guns, so far as I know, were rifle-calibre Darnes; and themountings were in manually operated turrets. I shall be in- terested to learn what kind of deductions Mr. North intendedto make had I been able to supply detailed answers. Perhaps Mr. North can tell us something of a new effectnoticed, I believe, at heights over 15-17,000^., due to the change of sound velocity at altitude. Apparently, the Cazauxeffect is less noticeable at such heights. TACTICIAN.London, W.i. I SPEED OF THE WIND —and of One Hurricane in Particular WAS interested to see a paragraph in a recent issue inwhich it was said that the top speed of the Hawker Hurri- cane multi-gun fighter as supplied to the R.A.F. may be takento be 330 m.p.h.—according to the S.B.A.C.'s figures ! Perhaps this figure refers to the sea-level speed? [No; sea-level speedwould be very considerably lower.—ED.] Bearing in mind the flight of one of the Hurricanes of No. 111 (F.) Squadronfrom Edinburgh to Northolt at an average speed of 408.75 m.p.h., the first thing that strikes one is that there must havel>een a following wind of 80 m.p.h. On second thoughts we decide it must have been considerably more, because of:—(1) The comparatively low speeds of the take-off and touch- down. (2) The initial climb to 17,000ft. (3) The fact that the wind was not blowing dead under the machine's tail all the time, but diagonally behind it (as mentioned in Flight). , (4) The Air Ministry statement that the machine was not going "flat out" at any time during the run!So we conclude that either Nature's "hurricane " must nave beaten all the-world's records since Creation, or else (rather abig or) Hawker's Hurricane must have exceeded the S.B.A.U figures by a pretty colossal margin. . .Also (welcome thought) we have the Supermanne Av atl( Co. (Vickers), Ltd., advertising the Supermarine SprtnreFlight as " the fastest military aeroplane in the world ! Market Harborough. M. J- W
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
