FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1946
1946 - 0035.PDF
JANUARY 3RD, 1946 FLIGHT CEODETIC VARIATIONS whether the controls were light, or heavy, or even whether one was actually flying or being flown. Everything waved quietly about, and all the time one could feel the very cross- section of the atmosphere. In bumpy weather the control column would move gently backwards and forwards, while rear turret operation would pro- duce strange movements of the rudder, the motors rocked lowly up and down, and the wing-tips weaved in miraculous rhythm. Once, I remember, a particu- lar Wellington on test was voted by all the pilots to be little specially odd in its fore and aft reactions, but the difficulty could never quite be explained in so many words. The re- actions varied too much. It was not until a wandering engineer officer happened to tap the elevators that the cause oi the trouble was finally traced. Not only were several elevator ribs actually missing, but there was most of a complete kit of tools nicely sewn up inside the horn balance. Needless to say, this particular aircraft did not come from the manufacturers; somebody had been tampering with it elsewhere. Probably a tractor had run into the tail, unofficial repairs had been put in hand, and the aircraft had been "allotted " before the job had been completed by someone who had gone on a " forty- eight." One supposes that problems of general design are the causes of tall undercarriages and large ground angles for certain types, but for obvious reasons there is no doubt that an aircraft with a dumpy undercarriage is very much more forgiving during a careless arrival. In fact, of course, the flatter the final ground angle the nearer it is to the tricycle ideal of "level landing," The Mark II Wellington was fitted with Rolls-Royce Merlin enginesnumber of these went into service. The Mark III and Mark X Wellingtons were fitted with Bristol Hercules enginesgreater power enabled heavier take-off loads to be carried. with its consequent leap-proof touch-down behaviour. The Wellington was one of the better examples of the theory, though it was possible to execute a heavy tail- first landing and to damage the back parts if full elevator was used from a highish final approach speed, But given some knowledge of what to expect, landings of the utmost carelessness could be carried out successfully and with little more than a mild float after a violent "wheeler." Overshoot procedure involved the pilot in a good deal of hard work at its commencement and, before the installation of a "slow leak" flap-return stop, one had to be very careful with this control and to raise the flaps in a series of quick stabs if drag had to be reduced while the aircraft was still near the ground. The degree of sink was otherwise somewhat phenomenal, since the flaps returned very rapidly, and it would feel for all the world as if the entire lift had been momentarily removed from the wing. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether very violent flap retraction reactions are. not caused by a temporary break- down of the wing flow rather than by any changes in centre of pressure position or sudden reduction of lift at any particular angle. In the earlier days, too. the pro- nounced nose-up effect of flap-lower- ing could cause a minor panic in the driving compartment, and even after the trim-compensating arrange- ment had been standardised there would occasionally be peculiar effects if the e.g. happened to be well aft. Except when heavily loaded there vvas no great difficulty in single- engined aviation with any of the Wellingtons, though, at least with earlier Hercules versions, it was better to leave the engine wind-Only a limited
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
