FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1942
1942 - 2380.PDF
536 FLIGHT NOVEMBER 12TH, 1942 Correspondence Tin Editor does not hold hinisel/ responsible Jor the views expressed by correspondents. The names and addresses of the writers, not necessarily jor publication, must in all cases accompany letters. SEVERSKY SPEAKS OUT Fastest Fighter in Operational Service R EPLYING to the questions asked by Mr. G. S. Henderson, in his interesting letter (Flight, October 29th), I will answer the three of them in order. The contrast in newspapers' opinions shows, at long last, a willingness to face facts; even unpleasant ones. While I am lost in admiration at the genius of men like Sir Roy Fedden, who gave us the sleeve-valve aircraft engine, I still deplore our lack of a direct-injection engine, or a dive- bomber. (Two lines of technical development in which we have been left far behind.) Until Mr. Henderson gives me some evidence to show the Tornado, Typhoon or Thunderbolt is in operational service I shall continue to believe the Fw 190 to be the fastest fighter in the world. Magnificent as are the Hurricanes and Spitfires, surely the sublime courage of the pilots of the Royal Air Force deserves something even better than the machines in which they saved England over two long years ago. JOHN V. HEWES. THE TORPEDO BOMBER Twin-engined Types on Carriers R EFERRING to the great controversy in your Correspon dence columns upon the torpedo bomber, there seems to me, with the exception of "Aero," to be scepticism over the use of the orthodox layout for twin-engined aircraft. There seems to be a feeling that this type is too large for operation from carriers, perhaps partly owing to the difficulties of moving such a type between decks, even with wings folded. The Japanese appear to have been successful in the operation of the twin-engined Mitsubishi OB-OO torpedo bomber from carriers, and the Americans also had a design for a twin-engined scout dive-bomber, the Freeman FB-I, for operation from carriers. There seems to be a preference amongst your correspondents for a twin-engined aircraft with its engines arranged in tandem in a single fuselage, but surely it is going to be far easier to stow the proposed several torpedoes in a perfectly streamlined fuselage devoid of engines than between or under the two tandem engines of the unorthodox twin-engined,aircraft? I have a type of torpedo-bomber (twin-engined) for carrier operation sketched out, in which the span of the aircraft with wings folded is kept down to a minimum by the use of contra- rotating airscrews, bringing the engines as near to the sides of the fuselage as possible. This design, by the use of special flaps which are also used as ailerons, has its high top speed brought to comparatively low figures for taking off, landing and for the actual torpedo dropping. The aircraft has a tricycle under carriage but with special deck-arrester gear to eliminate the disadvantages of this type of undercarriage on carriers. I am very interested in Mr. Godley's revolutionary design, which appears to be an attempt at a real " flying torpedo." WILLIAM B. RICHARDSON. ALTERNATIVE TEST METHODS Normal Conditions of Hangar Testing AS I have been closely associated with tests in connection with aircraft engines, propellers and their components for some considerable time, I was interested in the interchange of correspondence on the subject of engine testing, particu larly the letter signed by R. P. G. J. (Flight, October 8th), who has obviously studied the subject very thoroughly. To my mind, it has always been very doubtful whether the results of investigations with regard to vibration, failure of highly stressed parts, and even general performance, can be accurate if an aircraft engine be tested under any other than the conditions for which it was designed. One wonders how many times design has had to be modified owing to various failures of details undergoing development tests, the cause of the failure being introduced in the first place by vibrations peculiar to the dynamometer and/or drive. To put it bluntly, aircraft engines should not have to be designed to pump water or to drive a generator, especially by means of a shaft any thing up to 20ft. in length and half a ton in weight. All these faults are absent in the case of hangar testing, and the company for which I work appreciated this fact some time ago and have developed a system which enables the full range of engine tests to be carried out on a hangar installa tion with the aid of a constant speed variable pitch propeller, i.e., standard equipment which will be fitted to the engine in service ; normal conditions are thus simulated to a large degree. The Rotol torque reaction device to which I refer also furnishes a means of assuring that the two halves of a contra- rotating propeller take an equal share of the load. (Inci dentally, it also settles once and for all the question which was debated in the technical Press on whether or not there is any torque reaction on the engine mounting with a contra prop.) The problems of absorbing such large and fluctuating loads on any regenerative electrical system must be terrific, but as I do not profess to know much about electrical engineering, this feature had best be left in other, and more capab." hands. I know from my experience that any other type dynamometer is to be preferred to the regenerative electrical, particularly when accurate results, such as are required on development work, are called for. I must admit, however, that my experience on electrical dynamometers ceased in 1931, but from reports received since, the evils that existed then are not entirely absent in the more modem versions. Com parisons between motor car practice, as mentioned in one of the articles recently published, are not quite to the point. Apart from this, there is the extremely high first cost and the frequency with which electrical breakdowns occur, very often, it is true, owing to the lack of technical knowledge on the part of the operator. W. H. ROBERTS. T FAULTY FILMS Howlers in " The First of the Few '•' MR. FISHER'S letter in Flight for October 15th is of great interest in that he has brought up the problem of tech nical accuracy in films—a matter which has received much attention recently in other aeronautical journals and among the large body of people who feel that films on aviation should be accurate unless there is a good reason for introducing an inaccuracy. A film which has been much criticised on this account is " The First of the Few," which purported to portray the life of R. J. Mitchell and the events leading up to the design of the Spitfire. Apart from several errors of an historical nature, I distinctly remember a large number of errors regarding the Spitfire which I am sure most of your readers will have spotted. The proto type is shown with the modern curved cockpit cover, ejector- type exhausts, and 1942 markings. (No mention is made of the original inverted-gull wing Spitfire.) Spitfires in the Battle of Britain are shown with the new markings, and a number are even fitted with cannon! No attention has been paid to the Air Ministry specification, which laid out the basic require^, ments of this famous fighter, and the entire credit for"rKe R.A.F.'s victory in the Battle of Britain appears to be given to the Spitfire, no mention being made of the Hurricane, which actually took an even greater part in the fighting. I saw a film a few years ago in which a Puss Moth took off, was shown in the air later by a model of an early Stinson, it went into a spin as a Ryan S-T, and crashed as a bird-like machine taken from the film "Things to Come." To those who know anything at all about aircraft such effects are some times highly comical. But in war films, which should accur ately portray air warfare as it is to-day, such errors are un necessary and sometimes give the wrong impression. We must insist on complete authenticity. S. W. GREENWOOD. Key to Composite Non-such No. 3 on Page 533 (1) Port wing. Skua; (2) port undercarriage, Defiant; (3) starboard wing, Martlet; (4) starboard undercarriage, Hurri cane; (5) nose, Spitfire V ; (6) cockpit, Lysander; (7) radiator installation, Mustang; (8) fin and rudder, Fw 190 A3; (9) t^" plane and elevator, )u 87B.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
