FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1950
1950 - 0379.PDF
FLIGHT, 23 February 1950 253 major new legislation or the creation of new Government agencies and with a minimum of expense. " Such a plan," he says, "if adopted, would give the U.S. manufacturers and airlines the answer to the problem of how to com- pete effectively with the threat of British domination of future air trans- portation. It offers a practical solution to the problems of financing, testing and producing such aircraft in quantity." Under Beall's suggested plan—which seems to have caught the C.A.A. some- what off-guard—that authority would conduct design competitions for various American jet transport types. Two companies in each category would be reimbursed for construction of pro- totype aircraft. After certification, the C.A.A. would pur- chase production aircraft and lease them to U.S. airlines, with reimbursement on a basis of revenue ton-miles actually flown. Assuming that the C.A.A. is the proper Govern- ment agency, special appropriations would have to be set up by Congress for carrying out this plan, of course. Mr. Beall, in fact, is now in the process of persuading the Ameri- can taxpayer to foot the development bill via the C.A.A. and the A.I.A.—precisely along the lines so successfully worked out (after much trial, travail and costly error) by that arch-enemy of free enterprise, the British welfare state. Mr. Beall goes on to point out the inability of any single manufacturer or airline to finance such a project (Boeing's estimate that they will lose some $25 million on the 55 Stratocruisers nearly completed)—and cites the parallel case of the U.S. Maritime Commission in fostering American-flag shipping by financial subsidy—horrid word ! He contends J"hat a C.A.A. leasing arrangement would combine the maximum efforts of all three interested _parties—C.A.A., airlines and manufacturers—in seeing that efficient, prac- tical turbine-powered transports not only are designed and built, but arc commercially operated. Naturally, any air- line desirous of outright purchasing of such new equipment could do so by dealing directly with the manufacturer. Anyway, whatever the modus operandi finally agreed upon, it is a fair certainty that the next few months will see the real start of an intriguing jet-transport race between Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed, the three leading American manufacturers in the civil transport field. We say this because it is no secret that the preliminary design-studies" have been shuttling around the engineering conference firmo maintenance : The external underslung engine pods of£ he Boeing B-47. Coupled with the flexible wing, they also 'unction as dynamic balance-weights under certain gust conditions. A Lockheed proposal for a four-jet 40-seater (see p. 437, Flight, September 29th. 1949). Fuselage tanks, flanking a communicating aisle, would separate the two cabins. rooms of these three firms for the past year or more, await- ing the financial "GO" signal. (Parenthetically, we lik2 the American definition of a conference as a "place where conversation is substituted for the dreariness ol labour and the loneliness of thought.") In our " Notebook " entry of September 29th, 1949, we discussed certain tentative proposals of Lockheed and Boeing for a 1955 Jet airliner in the 40/50-seater categon , and, since some of our remarks have been challenged by Mr. Beall, we feel it only sporting on our part to keep the ball / in play over the net—on the principle that the better the opponent the better the game. Mr. Beall, we might say, is clearly a top-ranking player in the modern style—.that is, a thoroughly aggressive net player with a sparkling volley that appeals to us. MILITARY HANDCUFFS We stated our own personal credo that designers of civil jets need to get clear away from the military-missile school of design. It seems obvious to us that the designers of the Comet have escaped the military handcuffs and used astute judgment in keeping well clear of the higher machinations of Dr. Mach, as characterized by the fully sweptback, high aspect ratio, razor-blade wing, exemplified in the Boeing B-47 and other recent military jets. We have also gone on record as suggesting that the peduncular power-plant is retrogressive aerodynamic design and, in our view, only a passing fashion cycle bred under Hitlerian duress. Mr. Beall, in passing the ball back to us, says that we are a little amiss in relating the Boeing jet-transport studies too closely with their B-47. "It is true," he goes on to say, '' the XB-47 does not carry fuel in the wing for two reasons: (1) the wing is extremely thin; and (2) military requirements dictate self-sealing tanks which make the problem correspondingly difficult. All of our commercial studies carry fuel in the wings, outboard of the fuselage, or for the shorter range aircraft, separate fuel tanks. In this connection we note that the Comet utilizes a fuselage fuel tank in addition to wing cells." [This is not so.—ED.] The accompanying sketch (based on a drawing in our American contemporary, Aviation Week, and on other illustrations) purports to show a proposed Boeing jet trans- port to accommodate 38-40 passengers over ranges up to 2,500 miles at a cruising speed of 500 m.p.h. According to Aviation Week their sketch shows a logical transport adap- tation from the B-47 six-jet bomber, using identical swept- back wing and tail surfaces. (A recent Boeing com- munique, however, specifically mentions that the civil jet would have to be provided with more wing area.) Four jet units are slung below the wing at the outboard pod stations in two double nacelles. Two huge fuel tanks are suspended at what are the inboard power unit stations on the B-47, leaving the fuselage volume open for passengers and cargo. Missing from the transport version are the built-in JATO units on the aft section of the B-47 fuselage. Landing gear would presumably use the same tandem bicycle-type main wheels retracting into the fuselage, with smaller outrigger wheels at the wing tips or engine pods. More recent jet-airliner studies Flight, January 5th, 1950, page 11) show a somewhat similar conception, but without the external fuel tanks. The latter, presumably, have reverted to the fuselage once more, as in the B-47.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
