FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1945
1945 - 2231.PDF
FLIGHT NOVEMBER 8TH, 1945 CORRESPONDENCE The Editor does not hold him set] responsible J'or the views expressed by correspondents. The names and addresses of the writers, not necessarily for publication, must in all cases accompany letters. BEFORE THE ARK The Hermes and Her Designer IN Flight, September 20th, your correspondent, MichaelDawson, is quite correct in stating that H.M.S. Hermes was the first aircraft carrier built and designed as such for theRoyal Navy. All previous carriers were "conversions," having started their life as something other than an aircraft carrier.However, the suggestion that Hermes was designed by Sir Dennis Burney is not correct. She was designed by Sir E. H.Tennyson D'Eyncourt, the Director of Naval Construction at the time. J. L. BARTLETT. TURBINE JET ENGINES Oil Consumption Compared with Piston Engines OIL consumption has been of so much interest to aircraftdesigners and operators in the case of piston engines that no doubt this interest will also be displayed in regard tojet engines, and, therefore, it may not be out of place to point out that the attractively low oil consumption figures of 1-2pints per hour generally quoted for jet engines are only a frac- tion of the total oil consumption for the unit. _ ,In your extremely informative account of the Derwent V engine (Flight, October 25th) it is stated that 1 per cent., byvolume, of engine oil has to be added to the fuel to ensure lubrication of the injector equipment, and taking your editorialestimate of 1 lb. fuel per 1 lb. thrust, we get for the 4,000 lb. thrust an oil consumption of the order of 40 pints per hour,or, shall we say, 30 pints at maximum cruising conditions. C. L. FRASER. AIRCRAFT APPRENTICES An MJ*.'s Question in the HouseO N October 9th I asked the following question of the Ministerof Labour: — "Whether he will regard apprentices indentured to air-craft firms before the age of 16, for the purpose of studying for the Air Registration Board's examination to qualify aslicensed ground engineers, as exempt from call-up in view of the fact that such a licence is the only one recognised by theAir Ministry as qualifying the holder to certify the safety of aircraft and engines for flight."The Minister of Labour replied: — " If the Hon. Member would let me have particulars of anyindividual cases that he has in mind, I would consider whether they satisfy the conditions under which apprenticesare deferred as such, and, if not, whether there are other grounds that would justify deferring their call-up."I should be glad to hear from any firm with such apprentices so that I may submit their names to the Minister of Labour. ERIC L. GANDAR DOWER. ECONOMICS OR EXTRAVAGANCE? Fate of Surplus SunderlandsJ N Flight (October 25th) "Indicator" says he knows thatSunderland flying-boats surplus to R.A.F. requirements have been and are being scuttled in the Irish Sea because nouse can be found for them. I emphatically disagree that they are useless; as the Sunder-land was developed from a transport machine, the Empire series, I fail to see why it cannot be reconverted and used asa transport for such things as perishable goods and urgently needed material. The argument that it would be too expensiveeither to reconvert or operate them is nonsensical; if the Government can afford fifteen millions a day on war, then itcan afford to operate a subsidised airline with these aircraft. There are many uses for a ubiquitous aircraft such as theSunderland; for instance, the evacuation of prisoners of war from the Far East or the transportation of urgently neededBritish exports to the Continent. Or why not sell them cheap to foreign countries, who would snap up the chance of obtain-ing such formidable machines cheap for the defence of their country? This, too, would greatly enhance the prestige ofthe British aircraft industry and Britain as a whole, a fillip which we need in certain parts of the globe. In any case, it is SHrely more profitable to dispose of anaircraft cheaply than just to sink it, lock, stock and barrel. It is a wonder to me that taxpayers stand for what is reallytheir property being wasted in this fashion when it could be usefully employed. Or perhaps the great British public aretoo complacent to care. JOHN C. BRAY. REFUELLING IN FLIGHT Trebled Payload and Unlimited RangeI N Flight, October 18th, two correspondents made referenceto the Lord-Nicolson patent of 20 years ago. This was based on an idea conceived by my old friend John Lord andCapt. Nicolson, but no steps were taken to develop the scheme beyond that necessary for the preparation of a patent specifica-tion. Some years later, when I decided to carry out a full investigation of flight refuelling with a view to making it apractical proposition, it was deemed worth while acquiring the Lord-Nicolson patent, and the claims were experimentallytested, but were turned down in favour of more promising methods. Mr, Huntley is bold enough to state that " if a sound prin •ciple for assisted take-off is introduced, there can be no casiS for refuelling in the air, unless it be for endurance records " .(my italics). His one word " endurance " sums up the claims of refuelling in flight, since by this means we are able to giveunlimited range to any short-range aircraft. In other words, our primary job is to transfer fuel in flight at one or more care-fully pre-arranged points along the airliner's route, with a view to relieving the liner of the obligation to carry the vast quan-tities of fuel required for long non-stop flights. In this manner it so happens that the revenue payload can be trebled, or evenquadrupled, and it can be shown that the cost of the refuelling service is but a small fraction of the additional revenue gained. The full benefits of assisted take-off and climb are immedi-ately available to any flight-refuelled service, and, important though this factor is, it is regarded by us as merely a by-productof flight refuelling, but we do strongly recommend that a combination of both assisted take-off and extension of rangeshould form the ideal basis of any flight-refuelled service. This aspect is elucidated in Mr. Latimer Needham's next article onthe subject, which it is hoped will be published in an early issue of Flight. ALAN J. COBHAM, Managing director, Flight Refuelling, Ltd. Equal or Greater Advantage to Flying BoatsI HAD not wished to take part in the correspondence on thesubject of refuelling in flight. In view of Mr. Hornsby's letter in your issue of October 18th, however, my continuedsilence might be misunderstood. I must say emphatically that I see no reason to alter orretract anything that I have said or written on the subject in the past. In July, 1940, Sir Alan Cobham and I gave a jointlecture to the Royal Aeronautical Society (Journ. R. Ae. S., July, 1940), in which we showed how wing loading and rangecould be increased with economic advantage; how aircraft could; have their tanks topped up en route; how take-off run couldibe reduced with a great saving in airport cost; and how initial angle of climb could be greatly increased with a correspondingimprovement in safety. The scientific and technical reasons which were given in sup-port of these conclusions remain qualitatively sound, but with the passing of time and the incidence of other advances thescale of the advantages has altered. Nevertheless, aerodynamic improvements which have reduced the drag of aircraft leaverefuelling in flight where it was as an added advantage. Little has been done to reduce the specific fuel consumption of engines,fuel loads have increased, take-off runs become much longer, and initial angles of climb have deteriorated. And there hasbeen a deplorable crop of transport accidents as a result. It is unfortunate that the war stopped the promising trans-atlantic experiment in refuelling, which was very successfully begun in 1939, and that war "economy" has so alterejrxoursense of values for the worse. Mr. Hornsby raises the question of flying boats, and asks howtheir design could be influenced by refuelling. The advantages would be the same ^is with "land" planes, except in onedetail, where they would be greater. The weight of a boat hull is usually about 12 per cent, of the water-borne load, andin as far as that load can be cut down (even though subse- quently increased in flight), hull weight can be saved, with acorresponding increase in pay-load. Thus, in a boat like the Shetland, 4,000 lb. could probably.be added to the pay-load it5,000 gallons of the fuel were put on after the take-off, the hull being re-designed to take advantage of this.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
