FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1944
1944 - 0880.PDF
45* FLIGHT APRIL 27TH, 1944 CORRESPONDENCE j* The Miles scheme with double runways added, thereby increasing the traffic potential by 50 per cent. a 11 did in fact fulfil the majority of these requirements in the matter of length and width of runways, angles of flightways, etc. In the accompanying sketch we show how, without altering basically the layout in any way, the traffic potential could be raised by 50 per cent, by the addition of double runways—a feature which is ignored in Mr. Winston's sketch. The diagram accompanying this letter should also clear up any doubt as to the efficient working of the scheme as first designed. With regard to the criticisms of refuelling facilities, etc., we do not think the plans could have been properly studied as these facilities have been amply catered for in the constant level service hangars; further mooring space for aircraft is shown on the diagram. The lateral clearance for subsidiary runways laid down by the Air Ministry is 225 yards; by a slight adjustment to the "scissors" runways this requirement can be met. In regard to hangarage space, it must be remembered that the basic principle of an airport is to provide flying facilities. While very adequate provision has been made in the scheme for minor and major repairs (twice that of La Guardia airport, N.Y.) it is felt that to encourage the excessive servicing of aircraft on a port of this character hinders its control and efficiency. We are fully aware of the possibilities of satellite and "feeder" airports mentioned by Mr. Winston, and even of separate land and sea bases, where necessitated by geographical conditions. Gravesend airport and similar smaller airports would deal with small traffic, which cannot fly to a certain wind tolerance for which this scheme caters. It was never intended that aircraft should approach or take off along the axis of the lagoon, but that they should operate only along the strippings assumed on the sketch. These are all 4,000 yards long and have very adequate flightway clearances of all buildings. They could have been constructed as separate units, but quite obviously a single retaining wall round the whole landing area not only has great economic advantages, but also allows a very much greater safety margin for wind tolerance angles. We disagree with Mr. Winston's remarks about cross-circula tion and control. It will be seen that in the case of both land and water parallel runways, if the one is used for take-off while the other is used for landing, the problem of flying control is a simple matter. The only case in which cross-circulation might arise as between flying boat and land aircraft is that* of a misjudged landing, when either might find it necessary*" to climb out of an " over-shoot " in the direction of the other's flight. It would, however, be a simple matter so to control landings as to eliminate this possibility, especially in a unified control as planned here. There is no other possibility of cross- circulation, either in the air or on the ground. Contrary to Mr. Winston's suggestion that a separate land and seaplane base is advantageous for control, we contend that a combined base unifies control, and not only heightens efficiency, but also makes for economy. The positioning of the airport buildings between lagoon and land runways is obviously the best allocation of site for this purpose. But, as an alterna tive means of internal circulation, this scheme was the first to put forward as a working principle the dispersed loading point system; this and more detailed problems may be the subject of a later article. The project was designed purely as a practical exposition of the theories underlying the combined land and sea air base. A site was chosen, however, to prove its practicability under a set of given conditions. It must be remembered that the layout was evolved several years ago simply as a basis for discussion, and in the light of the Air Ministry's latest pamphlet on questions relating to civil aviation, the scheme in general terms basically fulfils their requirements. Quite obviously, however, it is capable of many improvements, but we strongly feel that the problem of an airport must be considered not only from the angle of its own operation, but also in rela tion to road and rail intercommunication, so that the great factor in favour of aircraft—which is summarised in the time that is saved—shall not be lost once air traffic reaches the ground. Anybody who has had an opportunity of seeing for them selves the operation of some of the larger airports will have learned a very clear object lesson—the necessity for the proper planning of these intercommunicating services, and this scheme has been formulated as a very serious attempt to solve the problem. GUY MORGAN, F.R.I.B.A., A.I.Struct.E. (Guy Morgan and Partners). jfr
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
