FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1944
1944 - 0044.PDF
22 FLIGHT JANUARY 6TH, 1944 CORRESPONDENCE The Editor does not hold himseij responsible Jor the views expressed by correspondents. The names and addresses of the writers, not necessarily for publication, must in all cases accompany letters. ROCKET RESEARCH Ejectors Must be Employed IT may interest '' Dim Type'' for me to tell him that many of the statements in the article on reaction or ejector propulsion sent in by Private Smith are only valid if the basic assumptions we made are accepted. Our belief was that reaction propulsion was utterly useless to propel any imaginable kind of aircraft that could be useful unless ejectors were used. If such a limitation (i.e., aircraft made for speeds of under 1,000ft. per second) is accepted, we can treat gas speeds as unimportant so long as the ejectors work properly. Before now, good articles have been made in spite of mistakes in the theory of their design. J. DENNIS. (One of J, J. Smith's team mates.) PITCH PANIC Airscrews or 100 Octane ? THE article entitled "Pitch Panic" in your issue of December 9th was extremely interesting. Especially significant and even startling was the statement attributed to a senior officer of Fighter Command to the effect that, but for the conversion in the nick of time of the thousand or so Spit fires and Hurricanes from De Havilland two*pitch to constant- speed airscrews, the 4 to 1 ratio of enemy and R.A.F. losses in the Battle of Britain might have been reversed, with the almost inevitable inference that the result of the battle would also have been reversed. While " So much is owed by so many to so tew," the nation also owes a debt, admittedly of a lesser and very different nature, but still important, to those relatively few pioneers who imagined, sponsored, and saw through, often in the face of much opposition, the various innovations, modifications, and other developments which have ensured the continual tech nical superiority of the fighting equipment of the R.A.F. over that of the enemy. In this respect I think the R.A.F. have displayed a measure of relative supremacy which definitely surpasses the two other Services. I do not believe that it is generally recognised how much this superiority would have been affected had not the decision been taken to base aircraft engine design on the use of 100-octane fuel instead of the pre-war standard grade of 87-octane rating. In fact, it was only a few months before the Battle of Britain that all fighters were changed over from 87- to 100-octane fuel, a change which enabled the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine of that period to be operated at an increased supercharger pressure which immediately gave an extra 200 h.p. or more. Subsequent engine developments made possible by the use of 100-octane instead of 87-octane fuel have since permitted a truly phenomenal increase in the power of the original engine without any change in its basic size or capacity. It is very interesting to refer back to the records of serious discussions which took place only a year or two before the war when certain authorities expressed the very gravest misgivings at the proposal to design engines to require a '' theoretical type of fuel" (i.e., 100 octane), which they feared would not be available in adequate quantity in time of war, since we were mainly dependent on America for its supply. Fortunately for Britain, the majority of those directly concerned took a different view, and I might quote a rather prophetic statement made by an Air Ministry official at a Royal Aeronautical Society meeting in February, 1937, who, in referring to the advent of 100 octane, said: " Let there be no doubt, however, that petroleum technologists and fuel research workers now have the opportunity to provide by their efforts an advance in air craft engine development, with its effect on air power, which the engine designer by himself cannot hope to offer by any other means." May I conclude by also quoting a reply reported to have been made recently in the U.S.A. by Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd, M.P., Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, in answer to the question: " Do you think IGO octane was the deciding factor in the Battle of Britain in 1940 ? " To which Mr. Lloyd replied: " I think we would not have won the Battle of Britain without 100 octane—but we DID have the 100 octane." Nevertheless, let us not forget that between the fuel and the airscrew there are also many other links in the chain, any one of which, had it failed, could have vitally affected the issue, while all the technical superiority in the world would, of course, have been of no avail at all without the efficient training, skill, and courage in combat of the Battle of Britain pilots. "AERO." THE CASE FOR THE FLYING BOAT Mooring Alongside Ships WITH reference to the interesting article recently published in Flight on the subject of the future of the seaplane or flying boat in post-war air transport developments, might I mention the following point ? It «eems clear that it will be a very great advantage for these large marine aircraft to be able, when required, to moor or tie-up alongside ships moored in sheltered waters or even ir> the open sea. This mooring facility would allow the rapid transfer of freight, crew, and fuel from ship to aircraft and vice versa. It would also greatly facilitate repairs to the motors of the aircraft, as such work could be carried out very conveniently and rapidly with the use of the ship's derricks for hoisting heavy parts. Mooring might have to be done with the nose of the aircraft at right angles to the length of the ship, or in strong currents with the aircraft's nose to the stern of the ship. It might even be convenient, at times, to moor the aircraft with one wing tip alongside the beam of the ship. As to the method of carrying out such a system of mooring, it is clear that some effective means of fending-off must form part of the arrangement, so as to prevent injury to the rela tively frail structure of the aircraft in case of a heavy swell. It is suggested that an adaptation of the old torpedo net, with its spars and other gear, would make a very simple form of fender which could be rigged at any suitable point round the ship's hull. It might be necessary to provide suitable beatj-^ plates on the nose and wing tips of the aircraft to protect til ^ from wear due to friction. Perhaps some of your readers with experience of torpedo-net equipment might like to express an opinion on this suggestion ? W. ADAM WOODWARD. " Can't take any more chum—ceiling down to five feet! "
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
