FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1950
1950 - 0826.PDF
FLIGHT, 27 April 1950 CORRESPONDENCE The Editor of " Flight" does not hold himself responsible for the views expressed by correspondents in these columns. The names and addresses of the writers, not necessarily for publication, must in all cases accompany letters. ••*' Memories of the Sidestrand APROPOS S/L. H. R. Bunn's letterpublished in Flight of April 6th, your readers may be interested to see • the enclosed two photographs of the hinged nose on the Sidestrand. One of them shows how the bomb-release levers and cables were folded up into the fuse- lage out of the way of mechanics work- ing on the nose. The swinging engine mounting also mentioned by S/L. Bumi was, of course, first introduced by Boulton Paul in the all-metal P.10 exhibited at the Paris aero exhibition in 1919. Unfortunately I have no photographs left rltasfcratiag this feature of the Sidestrand. W. J. PICKTHORN, •Boulton Paul Aircraft, Ltd. Wolverhamt [We recall that the Bristol ten-seater of 1923 also had a swinging engine- mounting.—ED.] Two views of the hinged nose of the Sidestrand, referred to in the accompanying letter from Mr. W. J. Pickthorn. This aircraft appeared in 1928. Surplus Tigers I WAS most interested to see the page " Cm-tain Call lor tiieTiger" which appeared in your issue of April 13th. It appears as if nobody wants the Tiger Moth any more, except for new flying groups which cannot afford the initial outlay for new aircraft. No doubt these surplus aircraft are destined for the same fate as the surplus E.F.T.S. Tigers, namely, the fire-heap. To those who are responsible for the disposal of these machines I would say that there will be a time when Moths will be extinct—through lack of spares and aJso lack of Moths! Has anyone visualized the position of Britain's light aircraft fleet ten years hence—no Magisters, Moths, or anything in the'i,000-1,500 lb weight category? As a rough estimate, at least 150 Tiger Moths must have been disposed of by the R.A.F. alone, and the V.R. will soon have no use for them. Surely there must^be dozens of flying groups itching to get their hands on such aircraft. Admitted, the Tiger is by no means low on fuel consumption, but a commercial group could easily get the rates down to a reason- able level. It is obvious to any club member that the main problem in commencing a club is the initial outlay, usually ^300-^500, for a reliable aircraft. The plain facts are: Tiger Moth aircraft in excellent trim are surplus to Government requirements. They are needed by our clubs and groups, so much neglected in the past. Perhaps a fairy Godmother really does exist in the Air Ministry? That will be proved by the fate of these excellent training aircraft. LEWIS G. COOPER. Coventry- WILLIAM A. WHITE. [We believe that the official attitude would be that when these aircraft are " reduced to produce," some of the produce (e.g., engines) is very profitable.—ED.] , ; Speed, Load and Diesels WITH reference to your article "The Value of Speed" inthe issue of April 13th, I should like to point out, in" the first place, that you cannot compare the performance of the Queen Elizabeth with the Comet because the Queen Elizabeth's chief cargo is not a mere handful of passengers (2,200), but freight occupying some 60,500 cu ft of space. However, during the war she carried troops in large numbers and was fitted out as a troop carrier, in which case she probably carried 20,000 men, plus large quantities of war materials. Under those circumstances you might arrive at a fair comparison, although the point that arises here is how many passengers she would carry if she was fitted out, like the Comet, for passengers only. Secondly, you state that "the Comet operates at a cruising speed nearly 200 m.p.h. faster than that of other aircraft," bnt is that really the case when the aircraft is fully loaded? The flight to Rome and back gave an average speed of roughly 445 m.p.h with 15 passengers up, but would the speed with a total of 40 up (with luggage) not be reduced to 425 m.p.h.? And what would the specific fuel consumption be then? The latest piston-engined,aircraft seem to cruise at speeds of 325 to 350 m.p.h. With diesel engines of 2,500 h.p. each, which cruise with more throttle than the petrol engine does, the speed would be increased, no doubt, to 375 m.p.h. when cruising with a specific fuel consumption of 0.35 lb/h.p. hr. The jet engine will have a fuel consumption of not less than 0.7 lb/h.p. hr, or double that of the diesel aircraft engine. This means carrying double the amount of fuel, which represents a considerable weight. However, I think that all engineers would prefer the turbine form of engine to the petrol reciprocating piston engine, because of its smoother running, need for less overhaul and considerably safer and cheaper fuel The petrol engine is really completely out of date for the simple reason that its fuel price with tax in this country is £53 per ton [increased by the Budget tax since this was written.—ED.], which is a ridiculous price for any trans- portation undertaking to pay for fuel. Railways, for instance. run on a fuel (coal) which costs only £1 7s 6d per ton and is considered very high priced at that. Diesel fuel is ^24 per ton with tax—the tax [also now increased.—ED.] doubles the price. Turbine fuel cost would be slightly higher. It seems to me, therefore, that the best engine for civil aviation is the diesel, which gives a higher cruising speed than the petrol engine, and overcomes all fire risk. The jet unit will not carry heavy loads at speed and should be used specifically for mail services. It would be sheer ex- travagance- to use it foi passenger service, as the. fuel con- sumption at 500 m.p.h. would be three times that of the diesel aircraft engine at 375 m.p.h. J. R. GROULD (Major). Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex [Our correspondent errs in his estimate of speed reduction with full load; in the case of such a "clean" aircraft as the Comet the difference would be very much smaller. As regards the diesel, its possibilities for aircraft use would be worth considering only if it h^d received such long and in- tensive development as has the aircraft petrol engine. It received a fair trial before the war—particularly hi the hands of the Germans—but its -weight and its inability to offer a large margin of take-off power have always counted against it.—ED.] Flying-boat Fires YOUR interesting description (March 30th) of fire-floats forfighting flying-boat fires leads me to ask if any reader can supply information concerning the number and frequency of civil flying-boat fires, especially during take-off, alighting or taxying. I am anxious to assess the incidence of fire risk when flying-boats are in normal operational movement,- rather than that caused by crashes or during refuelling. Bexley, Kent. ICARUS.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
