FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1941
1941 - 0092.PDF
JANUARY 9TH, 1941. Correspondence The 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. - WAR LESSONS Capt. Macmillan Challenged I REGRET that I must draw attention to Air Strategy 29by Capt. .Norman Macmillan (November 28 issue), and I refer you to his paragraph headed War Lesson. The speed ofthe German advance was, in fact, in no way due to aircraft, but was entirely due: — (1) to tanks,(2) to treachery behind the lines, (3) to want of readiness on the part of Holland and Belgium,(4) to incapacity of the French High Command. If you go back to the old war you will rind that the Germanswere at the same position on September 6, when the Battle of the Marne was fought, and took, therefore, 37 days to getapproximately where they were—i.e., the neighbourhood of Paris—and tins was done on foot. In point of fact our planes,if anything, delayed the German advance by: — (1) Destroying the Meuse Bridge, which could not havebeen done otherwise. (2) By bombing their transport and troop concentrations.Such a general statement to the effect that the Air Arm has tended to reduce the duration of hostilities is not in any waytrue. If that's the kind of lesson Capt. Norman Macmillan learns from the last war, I think he had better retire frompublication. G. N. BRAY. GROUND ENGINEERS' EXAMINATIONS Support for Mr. T. R. Thomas THE article by Mr. T. R. Thomas on Ground Engineers'Examinations is indeed timely; G.E.s as a class were rapidly being forgotten in the present mad rush. This mustnot be so. 1 therefore appeal to all G.E.s who remain actively engaged on aircraft work to keep their licences current, andto the Air Registration Board to remain an active body to enable them to do this. Qualified men with past experiencein Civil Aviation will be weeded badly in the first few years after the cessation of hostilities. Most experienced G.E.s will agree that the pre-War examina-tion standard was too low. Too many men were disinterested in their work, hence the appalling condition of some aircrafteven when maintained by those well qualified(?). The future licensing authority must have, and exercise, its power tosuspend a licence when evidence of poor work is apparent. The principle of the British licensing system is good but thestatus of the G.E. must be raised. To do this it will be necessary to raise the general standard of knowledge requiredof an applicant. I admit that this might cause a temporary shortage of licensed men, but the general rise in status, andconsequently remuneration, would attract a better type of man to the ranks to counteract the loss. Mr. Thomas statesthat the present licence is only an assurance that the holder can recognise good or bad work, and that it is no guaranteethat he can personally rectify bad work or even that he can carry out a good job; an increase in the probationary periodto four years would go far towards eliminating this big failing. To me it seems entirely unnecessary to introduce a writtensection into the A and C examinations: after all, these cate- gories cover the practical and not the theoretical work. WithB and D categories, however, there is a difference, a knowledge of mathematics, mechanics, etc., is really necessary, thereforeI suggest a part written examination. Possibly the R.Ae.S., who have plenty of experience with this class of examination,could assist here. The following are a few suggestions for im- provements and discussion: —(ij A minimum of four years' apprenticeship, over a period of not more than five years, as a minimum requirement forapplicants for A and C licences. (2) No "omnibus" licence for A and C men unless theyhave, or have held, a B and D licence. (3) Current A and C licences as a minimum requirement forapplicants for B and D licences. A combination for an " omni- bus " licence with a B and D licence could quite easily forma basis for the so-called " super " licence. (4) A discharge record showing more than, say, two years'absence from active work to entail temporary suspension of the licence. The record could conveniently form an extra leafin the existing licence. (5) Abolish the name Ground Engineer (which suggests a rather low form of aeronautical life) and substitute Civil Air-craft Engineer. There is a great deal in a name. Finally I urge G.E.s in general to express their views now,in these columns if Flight is agreeable. If you let this oppor- tunity slip there may not be another and your continued ex-istence as licensed aircraft engineers may depend on your self advertisement. G.E. 2877. THE SLIP-WING BOMBER The Fighter Still Has the AdvantageI HAVE read with great interest the article by Mr. Pemberton-Billing on the slip-wing fighter But there are a few points that seem not very clear. If, as P.B. suggests, bombers willbe developed on the slip-wing idea they will be very unmanceuv- rable. If this is the case then there will be no need for amanoeuvrable fighter. If the fighter is fast and can climb well, it should be able to beat the bomber. If bombers are fast andfighters are slow and manoeuvrable, then the use of fighters will end. A fast fighter could come in above the bomber and;as the larger plane would not be able to evade him, the fighter ' would remain supreme. In the case of the fighter overshootingthe target, could not guns be mounted in the underneath of the fuselage, firing downwards? But the day of the fastbomber is not quite here, and for the present the manoeuvrable fighter is still at its best. With the fast bomber it may meanbomber v. bomber. G. WATSON. Harrogate HIGH-FLYING AIRCRAFT ' ]k Initiative of British DesignersA S a member of the aircraft industry I read with interest thearticle by Pemberton-Billing on stratosphere attack, and noticed an unduly biased opinion on the lack of foresightshown by the British aircraft industry. This is probably so in a number of cases, and although hewas kind enough to exclude General Aircraft Ltd. from his opinion he immediately cancelled this by saying that they"possibly did little more than copy the Americans." I feel that this is a gross under-rating of a very gallant firm. Theirstratosphere machine has certainly gone one better than the Americans, who made their initial tests in this field of flying ina pressure tank. It is obvious that by flying a machine with a sealed cabinthe pilot is able to make observations (fatigue, behaviour of instruments and engines, etc.) that were not possible with theAmerican project. In passing I should like to point out that this firm alsopioneered in this country— 1. Twin fin and rudder.2. Tricycle undercarriage. If we are to have expert opinion, then let it be fair and giveall credit due to English.designers, who, I contend, do take th^ initiative, even at their own expense. J. R. FINNIMORE. .'". DESIGNING FOR PRODUCTION Lack of Real ApprenticeshipR EAMER'S " letter hits the nail on the head. The greatest '"snags in the aircraft business do not arise in the shops. The trouble starts in the drawing offices, and as a result of thelow standard of training among technical staffs in real drawing office work. I am a designer-draughtsman with a leading aircraft firm.Fifteen years ago I was in high precision work and know what passes in that business.Candidly, the standard of D.O. work in aircraft offices is lamentable, barring at a few firms.The Minister of Aircraft Production would do well to instal a checker of drawings in many of the offices. He would therebyhasten production. " Reamer," as I say, hits the nail on the head. It is my considered view that not one aircraft designer ordraughtsman out of fifty knows how to tolerance a job cor- rectly. Does anyone wonder at this ? I do not.ft may surprise "Reamer" and others to know that any form of real apprenticeship is non-existent in the aircraft busi-ness. Men just pick things up and that, added to push, gets •-» them throughI, too, enclose my card, but sign myself "SIX-YEAR APPRENTICE."
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
