FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1946
1946 - 1888.PDF
FLIGHT SEPTEMBER igxH, IQ46 CO O ••3 « CORRESPONDENCE capacity to develop the odd piston engine on chance ol its being used. While the gas turbine is completely superior to the piston engine in the very high powers, say above 4,000 b.h.p., I do not agree with ,Mr. Soltz tha^ development work on the com- pounding of the piston engine should be discarded; because there are indications that the airscrew /turbine will not be required in powers much in excess ol 4,000 shaft horse-power, due to the size of aircraft to be built in the next few years, and the preference tor multi-engines from considerations of experience and safety, etc. Therefore, in the case of the long-range aircraft, the com- pounded piston engine is very competitive with the airscrew turbine In fact, if some of our existing piston engines were compounded, one could visualise the airscrew/turbine receiving a serious setback and the jump would then be from the com- pounded piston engine to the pure jet turbine. I do not think, however, that such a course will be taken in this country, because the need lor the airscrew /turbine is mainly a civil transport one and our piston engines have practically all been developed lor military purposes; some firms consider that it might be easier to jump to quite a different prime mover such' as the airscrew/turbine in order to recover lost ground and make a very advanced engine for air transportation. It, may well be in America, where the piston engine has been particularly well developed and adapted to the needs of civil air transport, that the case of the compounded piston engine will receive close attention. The Americans have the additional advantage of a well-developed turbo-blower for piston engines. F. R. BANKS. FLYING FOR THOUSANDS Can a Rc-born Civil Air Guard be Formed ? IN this supposedly "advanced" age of a socialist order ofthings—where equality of opportunity is a shining peak to be won—what is the position ot a poor blighter who, wanting desperately to fly, is forced at the same time to earn enough to eat yet who, by the ridiculously low purchasing power of the pound, is utterly unable to afford the present rates of flying ? He just can't fly. Admittedly, it can be argued that private flying—which in- cludes club flying—is a frivolous pastime quite beyond the pale of serious endeavour in putting the world back to some sem- blance of civilised conditions, but, equally, it can be argued that flying is still only for the prosperous few and, under our present political order, such worldly discrimination is surely anathema. Such being the case, what steps are our enlightened leaders taking to remedy this singularly unequal state of affairs i I do not for a moment begrudge anyone their present flying. They are just lucky to be able to afford it. All I am bewailing is my own inability to afford it—and, of course, there are thou- sands in my position. Would it not be possible for some such scheme as the pre-war Civil Air Guard to be revived ? It doesn't much matter what form the scheme takes as long as the thousands of impecunious enthusiasts are given their chance to get into the air. STEPHEN WATTS. CLOSE-SUPPORT AIRCRAFT Specialized Types Advocated HAVING read your account of the imposing demonstrationof Offensive Support at Westdown Ranges, I am prompted to remark on the complete absence of specialized close-support aircraft. Doubtless the Spitfire, Tempest, Meteor and Vampire possess the tractability demanded for this work, but for air- craft of theii power they carry an inadequate offensive load. Neither the Spitfire ner the Tempest, both of which are exten- sively used for dive-bombing, is fitted with dive-brakes, and so far as is known no special armouring for the engine and pilot has been added. In offensive power these aircraft fall far short of the American XA-41, described in your issue of August 8th, which has a bomb capacity of 6,4001b and is armed with four 37mm and four 0.5m guns. Perhaps one day we shall see a single-seat close-support s machine powered with twin turbine-airscrew units of moderate power (Siddeley Mamba or Rolls-Royce Dart?) with adequate visibility and armour protection, dive brakes, and Stowage for, say, 4 ooolb of bombs or an equivalent load of rocket projectiles. "BROWN JOB." " Low circuits again." W £ \ ENCOURAGEMENT FOR FOOLS With a 40 h.p. 4-cyl. Minimum •. 'T'HE article '' Let us have encouragement for fools "by -*- Risteard MacRoibin in Flight, August 22nd, made refresh- ing reading, and I hope there will be many more on the same • topic. I wonder if we shall ever get back to simple designs. Be- fore the war we tried to adhere to the slogan "Simplify and add more lightness," but that seems to be a forgotten age, and nothing seems satisfactory now unless it is complicated and terribly "modern." To take one example, to connect side-by-side dual control, a torque tube used to be employed, but nowadays it often appears to be necessary for the linkage to include amazing tours all round the cockpit to achieve the same result. While agreeing, in the main, with the writer's ideas, I am not quite so happy concerning his views on horse-power. I have flown quite a bit with 25 h.p. which was fun, but though the machine (Dart "Kitten") was practically foolproof, I do feel that a greater reserve of power is necessary for take-off. It is disconcerting to require the major length of an airfield to get unstuck, however pleasant it may be once the trees or hangars are behind the aircraft, and, since forced landings are com- paratively easy to achieve successfully on these types, I would sacrifice the weight of dual ignition to have a larger engine. Although I visualize, in the distant future, an aircraft which one can more or less "put on," with the present knowledge of design and materials, I think 40 h.p. is the right figure for a single-seater ultra-light plane (which must be robustly built for amateurs); and not less than four cylinders. If some manu- facturer could turn engines out cheaply on the lines, for ex- ample, of the Continental A-40, and if some future government could be induced to encourage enterprise in the ultra-light sphere, I am _sure such movement could progress and much- could be learned. It was t^ff engines which killed the move- ment before the war. The more one reads of Mignet's work (and I have read,-"" everything I can lay my hands on) the more it is apparent that"l he is or was a genius (by the way, what happened to him during the war?). I admire his work and couldn't agree more with his remarks on single-seaters. I feel that he made mis- takes by suggesting that anybody who can make a packing case can make an aircraft, and by not laying sufficient stress on the importance of the C.G., the result being that amateurs installed a variety of engines in the same position in the nose. The C.G. thereupon migrated to dangerous positions, of course, even as it does in the best regulated design offices, the differ- ence being that, in the latter, action is sometimes taken. It is significant that Henri Mignet, who made no claims to good driving, flew t% Pou more than anyone else and had no trouble. His later models—particularly the H.M 18 and that delightful version the Pou Bebe—were never involved in an accident and Mignet took liberties with these creations which would have been impossible with most planes. A fe-w fatalities killed his movement, yet they were entirely unnecessary. I hope that Risteard MacRoibin has started something. At any rate, there will be creations at the Paris Exhibition to delight some of our hearts. Wouldn't it have been nice to : have been one of the victorious nations? SQN. LDR. A. H. CURTIS.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
