FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1940
1940 - 2366.PDF
152 AUGUST 22, 1940 AIR BLOCKADE (CONTINUED) of the struggle in view. On no other grounds could the specifications for some of the comparatively short-range aircraft which were built be justified, and certainly they are not justified to-day. Here I do not refer to the single-seat fighters, which by the very nature of their design cannot be other than short-range aircraft. More- over, in action they use up their ammunition so rapidly, when their guns shoot at 1,200 rounds a minute each, as to require their return to the ground for a further load of ammunition. So they are not the kind of air- craft required for any but short-range jobs. The kind of fighter needed for long-range work has not yet made its appearance on either side of the battle front. But before this war is very much farther on its way the need for long-range fighters of a new kind will have become apparent, and a terrific demand will arise for them. At the same time, it will be absolutely neces- sary for the R.A.F. to be equipped with longer-range bombers capable of dealing handsomely with every target in the areas which I have called Zones 3 and 4. And if those bombers are to operate during daylight (which will be necessary in attacks made upon Zone 4 during the summer months of 1941) they will have to be escorted. And why should they not be escorted? Technically, there is no reason why they should not be protected by an efficient type of fighter. And such fighters could easily be built. Purposely, I do not propose to discuss the layout of such fighters here, for a proposal of this nature might be of some value to the other side. Next week I am going to describe some of the targets which lie in the three Zones I have outlined in Germany. In the meantime we have the autumn to get on with the production of new types of aircraft suitable for the changed conditions under which the R.A.F. Bomber Command has to operate. If things are handled properly we ought to be able to raid Zone 4 effectively next year. CONSOLIDATED BOMBER XB-24 (Continued from page 145) The co-ordinates for the upper or suction surface are determined by the two following equations: — Xs = sin & [0.6366198^- B) + B] + tan<9 [(1 -0.6366198 0)(i- A)] Ys = cos6> [O.6366IO.8(A-B) + B]-A(I- 0.63661980) A pair of similar equations defines the shape of the lower or pressure surface : — Xp = sin0 [o.6366i98(A -B)+B] + tan0 [(1-0.6366198 0)(i-A)] Yp = cos 6 [O.6366IQ8(A-B)-B]-(A-2B)(i-0.6366198 6) (In all four formulaes, 6 varies from o to n/2 radians.) The values of A and B are kept constant for any one aerofoil. A sufficient number of values of 6- should be used in order that the points found will be numerous enough to determine fair curves. If the constants A and B are given regular increments, a series of aerofoils can be constructed which will vary gradually in their properties. The equation was developed from formulaes based on the mechanical action of a rotor having rotation and transla- tion through a fluid. This combination of rotation and translation produces a lift, and the phenomenon, known as the "Magnus effect," has been well known to theoretical and practical aerodynamicists for many years. The Flettner rotor ship was built on this principle, and every time one puts top- spin on a tennis ball to pull it down quickly after crossing the net, the phenomenon is utilised, the lift in this case having a negative value. Back spin, of course, tends to keep the ball in the air. The Davis section as used by Consolidated is thinner than current practice and the thin wing has always been attrac- tive aerodynamically, due to reduction of profile drag. But how to obtain a light structure with shallow wing spars is the stress analyst's difficulty, and progress on this problem must precede any aerodynamic advances in reducing wing thickness. The Consolidated 31 appears to be a very good boat, but not all its excellence comes from the wing section, for the general progress in structures and in design generally has contributed much to its success. ;.-.. US. AMBASSADOR AT COASTAL COMMAND On Wednesday of last week the R.A.F. Coastal Command who have done such excellent work, were honoured by a visit fromMr. J. Kennedy, the U.S. Ambassador in London. Left to right : Air Vice-Marshal F. G. O. Hards ; Air Vice-Marshal G. R. Bromet ; Air Commodore R. L. G. Marix ; Mr. Kennedy ; Capt. C. W. L. Meynell, R.N. ; Lady Bowhill ; Colonel Scanlon,American Air Attache ; Air Chief Marshal Sir Frederick W. Bowhill, A.O.C.-in-C. Coastal Command ; Pilot Officer Nunweek, personal assistant to the C.-in-C. ; and Lieutenant W. Francis.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
