FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1941
1941 - 0040.PDF
12 JANUARY 2XD, 1941. retired officers of the RAF. and other sen-ices, are allowed only a 3rd class railway warrant when travelling on duty. It appears to be nothing more than a gratuitous insult to suggest that such men, who are responsible for a very large area and for personnel totalling something like a thousand, should travel 3rd class, while the most junior officer in the W.A.A.F. is (quite rightly) comfortably seated in the neighbouring 1st class compartment. Enough has probably been said to indicate the anomalies under which the Observer Corps is suffering, and which cause the greatest irritation to a very loyal and valuable body of men, fortunately, without, so far, having suc- ceeded in damping their enthusiasm. It is surely high time that the Observer Ceased to be "nobody's baby," and if the Air Ministry still fails to accept the responsibilities of parentage, the only alterna- tive would appear to be for the Government to make an affiliation order. Correspondence. Tlic Editor does not hold himself responsible for the views expressed by correspondents. The names and addresses of the writers, not necessarily for publication, must in all cases accompany letters. GROUND ENGINEERS' EXAMINATIONS Practical Tests SuggestedI WAS very interested reading the article " Ground Engineers'Examinations" by Mr. Thomas. Being a ground engineer myself, may I express my views on the matter?I am entirely in agreement with Mr. Thomas when he advo- cates that examinations should be of a higher standard andalso should be both theoretical and written. To this I would add that a practical test should not be omitted, as a groundengineer is definitely a practical man. He must not only be able to inspect and diagnose the trouble or defect, but shouldbe able to do the work himself if needs be. During the period I have held a licence, which has been sinceT937< I have never yet been employed as an inspector on the strength of my licence, but rather I have been expected to dothe job of maintenance and repair, to inspect and to sign the aircraft out as fit for flight. This applied to the majority ofground engineers in pre-war days. I am also certain that the majority of employers expected the licensed ground engineerto do the job and not merely to know how to do the job and act as inspector. My own experience has proved this. It is also a very good suggestion that a "super" licencehe granted to men who can reach the required standard. This licence should cover all types of aircraft and engines and enablethe holder to perform the duties of the present "A," "B," " C," " D " and " X " categories. The standard of this exam-ination should obviously .be of a very high degree and should be practical, theoretical and written. A degree would not beout of place, and would be universally recognised. The value of a man of this calibre would certainly be a credit to any firm.Once the degree, or whatever may be decided, is obtained no renewal should be required provided he does not leave theprofession and also that he carries out his duties satisfactorily. While on this subject, the question arises as to the statusof a ground engineer. Unfortunately, this does not exist with regard to his employer, the pilot and, lately, even the wirelessoperator. This deplorable state is due partly to the ground engineer himself, because he has made no effort to improve it.But surelv the time has come when the question must be settled. The general opinion of both employer and pilot has been thata ground engineer is employed merely because regulations make it necessary and also to maintain the aircraft in a conditionfit to fly. His social standard has been that of an untouch- able. But as regards knowledge and useful work done, exactlythe reverse is the case generally. It has always been argued that when a pilot leaves theground his life is at stake. This argument is unfair"and unjust. Proof of this is not far to seek. Insurance companies haveplaced their faith and confidence in the ground engineer un- wittingly by reducing premiums on both passengers and pilotsalike. In fact, the really honest pilot of a veteran class will himself admit that the ground engineer is having a raw deal.But it's a case of "O.K., Jack, I'm fireproof." The salary of a ground engineer compared with a pilot's is ridiculously smalland totally inadequate for responsibilities shared. This condi- tion is bound to be altered, even if we dare to try to be justto the ground engineer. All this has a definite bearing on the final issue of examina-tion. I was once in conversation with a chief pilot of a certain airline ^company about the status of a ground engineer. Headmitted that the engineers were having a raw deal, but pointed to the fact that owing to what he considered the lowstandard of the present examination, it was not considered that a ground engineer was valued at more than £5 to £5 5s.a week. But when I pointed out that a pilot's licence did not require even that standard of knowledge, the " biter was bit,"and both abruptly terminated the argument. In conclusion, I would again reaffirm my opinion that theexaminations should be of a higher standard ; the present system being revised. This will automatically raise the status of aground engineer and will force the employers to the just and long-sought-for settlement the G.E. has been awaiting. E. G. S. BOMB TRANSPORT The Case for the Escort Fighter nPHEKK are already some conclusions from the lengthy dis--»- cussion developed in connection with the Mr. Pembe.ticn- Billing's remarkable invention: 1—that the P.B. assisted take-off device is highly desirable both for heavy bombers and high- speed fighters; 2—that bombers will always be inferior in speedand effective fighting power (that is a function of armament and manoeuvrability) to fighters. That way we are returning rather unexpectedly to the mostimportant factor, to the escort fighter. Instead of the multi- purpose planes we shall have to build reliable types for everyparticular purpose. If they prove afterwards useful for other duties, it is better to make alterations later (as in the Me noand Ju 88) than to be confused too early by contradictory requirements. I agree with Mr. P.-B. about the limitationof armament in bombers. Instead, I would rather use escort fighters than increase the speed of the bombers. As the dragincreases parabolically with the speed, the reduction of aircraft size and wing area will never be sufficient to increase speedfrom 250 to 400 m.p.h., without a big increase of engine size and fuel consumption. The P.B. device can help to increasethe speed of fighters, but in bombers it will always be more advantageous to increase range and load rather than speed.A better aerodynamical form of a bomber will improve the fuel economy, and it is the most important factor in long-range planes. A well accompanied bomber can be made far better aerodynamically if it has reduced or even entirelyremoved gunners' positions. On. this occasion I would like to suggest another importantmeans of improvement. The part of the wing between the nacelles provides very small lift, because of interference be-tween the nacelles and fuselage. Shortening of fuselage n,ftse behind the airscrew discs (as in the FW187 or Grumman Sky-rocket) will allow placing the nacelles close together, reducing the wing span and drag about 20 per cent. Such an arrange-ment is advantageous in fighters with fixed front guns, or in bombers without front-gun turrets. It reduces the turningmoment in the case of single-engine flight, and increases there- fore the single-engine performance.Defending the slow bomber 1 do not say that the possibility of attaining in emergency 400 m.p.h. would not mean animprovement. It would be a proof of good aerodynamical shape, and of excess of engine power. Unfortunately it willhardly be possible in the near future, as contemporary engines are hardly of sufficient size for their duties, and we are not surewhen and in what quantities the promised Supcrcyclones and Superwasps will be available. I would like to suggest further that the bombers should beclassified bj? one characteristic number, that of ton-miles (TM). In the pure-bomber, high-load, long-range plane, the onlyimportant feature is the bomb load which can be carried a certain .distance. It a plane can transport 2 tons of bombs1,000 miles, it will be able, roughly, to transport 1 ton 2,000 miles. It can be called a 2,000 ton-miles bomber. As it has,of course, to return empty, its service range will be about 1,500 miles with 1 ton and 750 miles with 2 tons. It remains anopen question whether we should call it " 2,000 TM " for tota: flight distance, or " 1,500 T.M." for service range.A. B. GATUSZKA.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
