FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1946
1946 - 1548.PDF
148 FLIGHT AUGUST »TH, 1946 CORRESPONDENCE The Edtior does not hold hi*nse.lj responsible for the views expressed by correspondents. The names and addresses of the wnters, not necessarily for publication, must in all cases accompany letters. JET BOMBERS XB-43 Not an Adaptation ? IN your issue ot July 18th, under a photograph of the DouglasXB-43, there is a captiun which reads, in part, as follows: "The new Douglas, interesting and ingenious as it is, is anadaptation of a piston-engine machine." J do not believe that this statement is correct, and is perhapsunfair to our American friends, inasmuch as it suggests that the XB-43 was not originally designed for jet engines and thatthey were fitted as an afterthought. So far as I know, this was not the case and this machinewas always to be powered by jets, but possibly because of their unavailability, it was decided to build the XB-42 first as apiston-engined piototype. Without knowing anything about the manufacturers' de-velopment programme, it would certainly seem quite logical to try out such things as wings, undercarriage, flaps, cockpittiuods, etc., all of which were new, on such a prototype— even if the drive to and position of the airscrews was un-uithodox Having thus obtained experience on the airframe and, in-cidentally, many valuable data on the efficiency and working of this type of pusher airscrew, the fitting of the jets wasthe contemplated final step. It would, therefore, be fairer to say that the XB-42 was an adaptation of the jet-enginedXB-43, rather than the other way round, and whilst I stand 10 be corrected by the Americans on this point, 1 do not thinkit is fair to let your caption pass without comment. New York. " CHRISTOPHER CLARKSON.[The author of the article replies:— "We must differ from Mr. Clarkson and cite in our support information from themanufacturers of the aircraft concerned. An extract from Douglas Airview proves that the XB-42 was no mere ' piston-engined prototype'; this reads: 'XB-42 first bomber in the 400-m.p.h. class and a hitherto undercover weapon uponwhich the nation would have relied bad the war been pro- longed ' " The type was, in fact, to be an American counterpart ofthe Mosquito, though carrying double the bomb load, and was ready for production when the war ended, having been on testlor two years. Incidentally, it was certainly not 'first bomber in the 400-m.p.h. class,' the Mosquito having alreadyclaimed this honour, but it did embody some interesting fea- tures preserved in the XB-43. "Like Mr. Clarkson, we have not seen the manufacturer'sdevelopment programme, but we do remember seeing a copy of the original specification of the XB-42 at a time when theXB-43 could hardly have been under serious consideration."] THE DITCHED WAYFARER No Navigating Officer on Board IN'your publication of July j8th, you mentioned in "TheOutfook," the unfortunate ditching of the Wayfarer due to navigational reasons.Would it not be fair to the professional navigators to men- tion, also, that no actual navigating officer was carried on theaircraft? W. M. C. H. P 51-F LIGHTWEIGHT MUSTANG Why Earlier Models Were So Much Heavier "DEFERRING to the articl> on the above on page 613 in-"• Flight ot June 10th last, it may be of interest to other readers to know something of what led up to the remarkableweight reduction in this Mustang development. Shortly after the first of tne early P.5is were put into activeservice, it became apparent that the machine was handicapped by greater weight when compared with contemporary air-craft in the same category. The authorities demanded of the firm an explanation of the Lact that the Spitfire IX, a veryclose equivalent, was mote than i.ooolb lighter, though able to stand up quite satisfactorily to front-line service. In their thorough American fashion, the North Americanengineers obtained three Mark IX Spitfires, using one for flight and wind-tunnel tests, taking another apart for a verydetailed weight analysis, and cutting the third up into little |ir>cf.s for material strength tests! A very detailed report was prepared, comparing the component and group weights of theP.51 and the Spitfire, and accounting as far as possible for the discrepancies. When due allowance had been made for the greater weight'of certain - items which we would call "embodiment loan parts," such as engine, armament and airscrew, and for high^p>>design factors where applicable notably in the chassis), it was found that some 5oolb remained unaccounted for. This, itwas found, was distributed over the whole structure and fittings, representing the effect of designing Mustang detailsprimarily for ease of production, and Spitfire details lor mini- mum weight. In this respect the two machines may be said to representsomething approaching opposite extremes, performance being practically the only criterion in the case of the basic designof the Spitfire, and production man-hours the primary con- sideration in the case of the original Mustang—each at the ex-pense of the other. The interesting thing is the staggering effect on the weight of the machine—over 7 per cent—arisingfrom a different point of view of the detail draughtsmen and designers, and I think we would do well to avoid going thewhole hog on "productionizing," towards which there is a strong tendency now. It is generally conceded that the Spitfire was rather toomuch of a "hand-made" aircraft for quantity production, so it would seem that the best compromise lies somewhere betweenthese two extremes. To some extent we can have our cake and eat it in thisproblem, for as the detail designers' knowledge of ease-of- production requirements has been steadily increasing duringthe war, it becomes possible in many cases to fulfil both re- quirements simultaneously, where only one was consideredbefore. " " STRESSMAN.'' TRIBUTE TO "JOE ERK" His Work Inspired ConfidenceM AY I add my thanks to " Joe Erk "? I think it's abouttime we aircrew types woke up and thanked the ones that helped us through our " ops." As most aircrews willagree, it gave a certain amount of confidence to know the aircraft was in good serviceable condition.Special thanks should be handed out to the "Joe Erks " in the R. and S. Hangars. To see your kite shut up and withan engine U /S, and next morning go and see it fully serviceable in its dispersal, is to appreciate a big job done well.Have you seen " Joe Erk " refuelling on an iced mainplane, seen him working on the engines and fuselage on a very coldday and thought to yourself " How does he do it? " Joe had a good temper; he had to have, to take some ofthe remarks given to him by the aircrew, and getting blamed for things that a particular member of the crew did. He saidnothing and got on with his job. I would like to thank members of my ground crews ofA-Able, 57 Squadron, and R-Roger of 7 Squadron. Thanks, chaps; you were " bang on."I would like to quote an instance that has happened 011 most squadrons. We lost an engine and we had it replacedby a new one. That night we were " on " again, and when the time came to do our air test, we found her U/S. My three" mechs " worked on that engine all the lunch-time, had no dinner, and through tea-time, just so that we would not takeany other aircraft but our own. So I thank you, Joe, once again for doing such a grand joand for getting us types through our " ops." I hope you g| a better deal in Civvy Street. F. E. YOUNG (Flight Eng.). COST OF FLYING What Are the Owner-Pilot's Expenses ? I HAVE never seen figures published of the cost of operatinga private aircraft. I should be very interested to see readers' experiences, if possible, divided amongst the variousstanding and flying charges, also the cost of the annual C. of A. These might also be divided under the various classes ofprivate aircraft as follows: 1, very light aircraft such as the Aeronca, Tipsy, etc.; 2, light aircraft such as the Swallow,Auster, etc.; 3, faster aircraft such as the B.A. Eagle, etc.; 4 larger aircraft such as the Percival Proctor, etc. J. H. R.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
