FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1944
1944 - 2327.PDF
NOVEMBER gra, 1944 FLIGHT 509 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. JET PROPULSION Advantage of Wing-mounted Units SINCE reading the query by C. Charles Flight, October 19th) I have been comparing available data about jet- propelled aircraft, and would like to offer your correspondent a few comparisons to think over. One of the primary needs of a tighter plane is room for heavy armament. The Bell Airacomet, the Messerschmitt 362 and the Heinkel 280, by reason of the position of their propulsion units, can have their main armament concentrated in the nose, with the additional advantage of probably being able to carry more ammunition. Nose armament cannot be fitted to the Gloster jet plane, owing to the presence of its large air intake. The twin-jet aircraft probably allows for more tankage space and easier design in finding accommodation for the pilot and equipment, and it is passible to house the nose wheel of a . tricycle undercarriage with ease. The difficulty of installing a ^tricycle undercarriage in a single-jet aircraft has been neatly overcome by the Gloster Company, but the Italians apparently did not attempt to solve the problem in the Caproni Campini C.C.I, and the Me 163, although, without an air intake, being rocket-propelled, has, I believe, skids fitted beneath the fuse lage. As C. Charles says, wing-mounted propulsion units increase head resistance. This increase is at least somewhat alleviated by a much sleeker fuselage, as with the Me. 262 "Swallow" and the Airacomet. There is also the disadvantage of having to mount engines" low on the wings, necessitating a larger undercarriage, or, alternatively, to fit the tailplane high on the fin in order that the spent gases may safely flow clear of the tail unit. Other readers will, no doubt, be able to think of several more comparisons, and I believe the evidence will go to show that the design of multi-engined jet-propelled aircraft is well justified. One question about the Messerschmitt I6J which someone may be able to answer is, what takes the place of elevators on the Me. 163 if, as has been suggested, it is without a tailplane? Are extra control surfaces fitted to the wings? R. L. GLADWELL. WHEN WE WERE YOUNG A 1910 Flip in the Avro Triplane AFTER reading this week's copy of Flight (Oct. 19th) and seeing the front cover, I peiused some old motor cycling volumes and was much amused at the following description of a motor cyclist's trip in Mr. A V. Roe's triplane at Brook- lands—the date was July, 1910. " Later in the afternoon Mr. A V. Roe succeeded in obtain ing his pilot's certificate on his triplane fitted with an eight- cylinder air-cooled J.A.P. engine. It was with trepidation that I accepted a ride in his big passenger-carrying machine. " ' lump in front' was his first remark, but this was easier said than done. There was a tiny iron step about 4ft. from the ground, and after this I had to be careful where I trod, as the body part of the machine seemed made of matchwood, much like a racing sculling boat. "My seat was right forward just behind the engine, with a good stout rrosspiece to hang on to. My legs were too long, and it took some time to compress those unaccustomed limbs into the space provided for them Then Roe mounted with a the 'And with the throttles closed ands&clr tuM-fc«nk»Jtl ojM*rfnree points." aircraft will sink gently OJJ bound and asked me to turn on the petrol, which was in a tank over my head. I did so. ' All rignt,' shouted Roe. There was a roar and a blast of wind from the mighty propeller and we were off. Roe screamed out that he was going to run down the ground and go up against the wind on the return journey. Accordingly we pranced over the green field with the engine running in jerks. Having arrived at the other end of the flying ground Roe turned sharply, and suddenly opened the machine right out. The racing of the engine and the noise of the exhaust at once gave me the idea of a slipping belt or clutch —such is the motor bicyclist! "The great wind from the propeller made it difficult to look ahead, out I could feel every now and then the machine jumping to get free of the earth Then she took the air. It was magnificent. A feeling of a mighty power, serene and strong, superior to all nature, took hold of me. We were up in the machine, flying as steadily and evenly as a bird, with no fear of accident whatever. "Flying oil and boiling water were blown back in our faces, whilst the wind was whistling through the planes. But when once up I did not notice the wind at all. I looked down. We were about 10ft. up with the green turf flying away below. The supreme madness of flying. Oh, to soar lor miles and miles into the heights of heaven ! This was better than motor- bicycles. Let me have more and more! "Then the power fell off and we came down, but so smoothly that 1 did not know we had touched old Mother Earth again. Those few brief moments of absolute bliss and exhilaia- tion, combined with that feeling of safety and repose, were the time of a life. Roe slowly brought his wonderful triplane round before the wind by alternately switching the engine on and off and brought me back agair to the sheds." We certainly have improved since the days of flying oil and boiling water in one's face! A. D. McKECIINIE, Lt. Col. [The engine of this famous aircraft was, as older readers will recall, an 8-9 h.p. air-cooled V-twin J.A.P. motor cycle engine, not an 8-cylinder engine as stated.—ED.] TOMORROWS LIGHT AIRCRAFT Properly Designed Comfort Improves Control I HAVE read "Indicator's" article in your issue of October 19th with great interest, but I really cannot see why to morrow's light aircraft cannot be made as comfortable as to-day's light car. Why cannot you have comfort and control ? Personally, I hold the view that properly designed comfort can mean more control. I agree we do not want to sacrifice control for com fort, and if it were a question of either comfort or control, then truly we would have to do without comfort. But is this the case? . Is not "Indicator" proposing to freeze light aircraft design in the " cyclecar " stage? In pre-war years we loved our Moths and Avians and Swallows, just as years ago we loved our Amilcars and Salmsons and G.N.s. They all had delightlul control characteristics and we shuddered at the shocking in stability of the saloon cars of the period. But to-day one must admit that the small family saloon can l>e driven any given 100 miles in much the same time as could our little near-racing cars of 20 years ago, and with far less physical and mental strain. And how on earth are you going to make an air-minded nation by suggesting to the "amateur" (why "amateur"? We don't have amateur motorists) continuously that his air craft is a fragile contraption precariously battling with gravity? It is nothing of the sort. It can l>e designed to withstand G, which would drain "Indicator" himself out through his own boots. And I did not think anybody to-day thought speed, as such, was lethal Surely it depends on your ability to con trol it. A car travelliagf at 30 m.p.h. with no brakes is more lethal than one travelling at 60 m.p.h. with good brakes. So don't let's^reFl our "amateur" his speed is lethal, but give him anjJRraft with a reasonable and practicable speed range, shaU^ve say as near zero as possible at one end to 100 m.pJ^oi so at the other. I ajfte entirely with "Indicator" about providing knee Tbow room and about putting knobs and levers in the place. This, of course, is all part of the comfort story Tnd an open minded and unorthodox approach to the subject needed. J. S. POLE,, Y. MTC/1 £1W
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
