FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1943
1943 - 1253.PDF
MAY 13-rn, 1943 FLIGHT 509 CORRESPONDENCE The Editor does not hold himselj responsible for the views expressed by correspondents. 1 he names and addresses of the writers, not necessarily for publication, must in all cases accompany letters. THE C. W. 21-B Forerunner of the Mohawk IN your issue of April 29U1, R. E. Gregory asked for detailsof tht: C.W. 21B. According to my information it is asingle-sent radial-engined fighter which preceded the Mohawk and is in service with Nethtilands Indies Air Force. It is the machine which \V. Firth, in the April 8th issue, described as the best interceptor. Surely an aircraft which «as the forerunner of the Mohawk to Kittyhawk series cannot beat the Spitfire .or Typhoon. * R. PEARCE. VENTURA'S METIER Not at Its Best as a" Day-bomber " I TOO, fail to understand the repeated use of the Venturaas a drsv bomber, when we have at least one type thatseems to do the job better. I refer to the Mosquito, and I am sure most people will agree that this outstanding aircraft can outstrip the 300 m.p.h. odd of the Ventura.- Of course, we know no official figures of the Mosquito's behaviour under various conditions, but we have only to look at the dean shape—remember it carries two R.-R. Merlins—to realise that its performance must be really good. The bomb loads are almost identical. Surely, the Ventura would be better employed with Coastal Command, where its famous predecessor was so successful? ROY T. SMITH. FAULTY FILMS What the Flying Tigers Achieved I HAVE followed with interest the talk of faulty films whichgoes on in the Correspondence columns, and would like to add a little more to it. The film to which 1 refer is "Flying Tigers," and the two points are these. First, in one of the dog-fights against Nakajima fighters, a peculiar change takes place. The pilots take off in Tomahawks, and the actual fight takes place with the Americans flying Spit- fires. When the American aircraft land they are again Toma- hawks. Secondly, while the blowing up of a Japanese bridge is in progress the squadron commander bales out—well inside Japanese territory. Yet when he is next seen he is back on the airfield looking as if he arrived back with absolute ease. I understood these films were to show the general public the horrors of aerial warfare in China; but if these mistakes are continuously made the public will be going just for a laugh. R. E. GREGORY. "PASSENGER DRAG" An Apparent Anomaly READING through an American magazine recently I cameacross an article describing a towed flight of two gliders on a long cross-country trip in the United States. The tug was a Waco biplane, and the gliders were of the clean, high- performance type. In the course of the article the following sentence occurred, which rather puzzled me: "The weight of an additional passenger in the towplane (tug) was felt far more sharply in reduced speed and performance than when the same passenger was. carried in a glider. It's just about the difference between lifting 200 pounds and pulling the same weight behind you in a wagon." Perhaps I am dense, but why should it make any difference in which' part of the air " train" the passenger sat ? "R.H.O." [The explanation is quite simple. At the cruising speed of the air "train" the L/D (ratio of lift to drag) of the Waco biplane was probably in the neighbourhood of 6:1. The glider, if of clean design, probably had an L/D of 18, or three times as good. In other words, for every G lb. of load added to the tug there would be 1 lb. of extra drag. For every G 1b. added to the glider the additional drag would only be £ lb.,or one-third, in direct proportion io the L/D of the two air- craft— ED. 1 T.V. DIVES Are They Possible Nowadays ? T^HF. sub-title of the article "Aileron Control" by •*• "Witness" in Flight of April 22nd contains the expres- tion "Terminal Velocity Dives the Real Test." Am 1 right in thinking that such dives could not be made in modern air- craft, owing to the high speeds that would be attained and the great heights at which the dives would have to start it the pilot were to have a chance of pulling out of the dives without breaking his wings > " PER ASTRA AD MAKE." [Our correspondent is perfectly right in pointing out that terminal-velocity dives are not demanded of modern aircraft types, which are so "clean" that the speeds reached would be excessive. The sub-edit01, 111 the hurry of going to press with an issue that had to be lushed on account of the printers* Easter break, thought of terminal velocity dives from a habit formed in the old biplane days. " Witness " must be absolved from all blame. Modern aircraft types are only expected to reach what is. termed a "limiting speed," which is-determined for each type by considerations of structural strength (and perhaps the pilot's ear drums!). I his limiting speed varies, of course, with the different types, but in general it may be said to be somewhere in the region of 300-3G0 m.p.h. for bombers and 500 m.p.h. or more for fighteVs.—ED.] IN DEFENCE OF THF DEFIANT Its Origin and Intended Function MAY' I refer to receat articles and correspondence concern-ing the utility of, and origin of, the Defiant aircraft so as to correct one or two misapprehensions which may have arisen. The Defiant was conceived in 1935 in my office at A. and A.E.E. in collaboration with the chief designer and chief test pilot of Boulton and Paul, Ltd. It subsequently became an Air Ministry specification. The advent of powered turrets was the basis of its design, and it was intended entirely as a home defence day fighter against bomber formations. It was visualised that it would be used in conjunction with single-seater fighters such as the Hurricane, the performance of which it nearly approached. It was recognised that being heavier its rate of climb would be slower than that of the fixed-gun fighter, but it was foreseen that the Hurricanes would first engage the enemy in quarter and astern attacks and when the enemy were so committed, the Defiants would join combat, using their turret guns from beam positions, the word " beam " including positions below the bomber eis well as on either flank. By this means it was considered that overwhelming fire could be brought to bear on bomber formations, particularly against the leader, who was fairly well protected from single-seater fighters by the lest of the formation, but on whom the cohesion of the formation re- lied. Furthermore, with attacking Defiants on each flank the bombers would have restricted evasive manoeuvre. The Defiant was, of intention, not equipped with pilots' guns, as it was considered that their presence would incline pilots to consider them as offensive armament and regard the turret as purely for defence, an attitude which was known to prevail with the Bristol tighter in the last war and which had an adverse effect upon its tactical use. The Defiant was not intended for fighter-v-fighter engage- ments, although, of course, such combats might be forced upon it. Unfortunately, Ihe Defiant was never used as visualised for reasons vhich cannot be given in this letter, and therefore its true value could not be judged. This in no way detracts from the excellent work it did outside its intended role at Dunkirk nor as a night home defence fighter for which duties it was admirably suited. Every Defiant crew whom I know are loud in its praise, and regret they were not given an opportunity to prove its utility in its intended r61e. The Defiant was to have been followed by a twin-engine model having an outstanding performance and an overwhelm- ing turret installation, but for reasons which also cannot be stated at this juncture, it did not see the light of day. E. D. DAVIS, Air Vice-Marshal.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
