FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1951
1951 - 0377.PDF
FLIGHT, 23 February 1951 241 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. "B.E.A."—A Prior Claim cannot help regarding it as most unfortunate that two important British nationalized organizations should each have the initial letters "B.E.A." But whereas British European Airways have over a period used and publicized the three initials and incor- porated them in their insignia, the British Electricity Authority has only recently come into the picture. I suspect that the daily newspapers are as much to blame as anyone for the confusion which now arises, streamlining screamlines and subheadings into their narrow columns as they do. What, for instance, is one to understand by "B.E.A. shows profit for first time," or "Strike of B.E.A. electricians," or again, "B.E.A. installs new lighting system"? And what of the timid airline passenger who has enough aeronautical knowledge to place an unfortunate interpretation upon "B.E.A. power cuts—chairman's statement"? I suggest that a plea be addressed "to all whomjit may concern" for immediate agreement to standardize upon "British Electricity" and "B.E.A.," thereby preventing gbnfusion ffom multiplying. London, E.C.3. A. JENKINS. [We entirely agree. It can be only a matter of time before some- thing serious occurs as a result of this confusion.—ED.] Fighter Armament T'HE arguments of W/C. Colin Gray Flight, February 15th) ••- against my analysis of air-combat statistics deserve closer con- sideration. Surely, the Battle of Britain was not a straight fighter versus bomber conflict ? Most of the Allied losses were inflicted by Luft- waffe fighters, but the German bombers had no effective armament and became, if caught at close range, helpless victims of the defend- ing fighters (the number of our victories would have been far higher had British fighters carried shell-guns). The deficient bomber armament largely made up for the fighter protection. The Allied bomber of 1944-45 not only enjoyed a powerful and most effective defensive armament, but also flew, at least in day- time, in close box formation. This rendered fighter attacks rather hazardous. Hence it should not be misleading to compare these combat statistics. Nor is it a sweeping conjecture to say that the prob- ability of "downing" an enemy bomber, with a chance of survival, was higher in 1946 than during 1944-45. Consequently, my assess- ment of the technical progress in armament attained in Germany by the end of the war does not err. As to comparing air-combat results between the Fw 190 and Me 262, reliable information (on both sides) agrees that the former was eminently practical and, in particular, very manoeuvrable. The Me 262—originally conceived as a fighter but developed as a day bomber and experimentally re-converted as a fighter—was much less manoeuvrable, required more maintenance, was less liked by pilots, but was appreciably faster. As was done by Luft- waffe experts, my evaluation presumed as equal overall tactical value of both aircraft as weapon carriers. Contrary to W/C. Gray's contention, this might even err in disfavour of the Fw 190. A former Luftwaffe air-combat expert (Col. Gordon M. Gollob), the very same specialist who had been responsible for the progressive rocket-missile armament of Me 262, quite recently argued that airscrew-driven fighters still possessed so many advantages over jet fighters that they should in no circumstances be discarded. Col. Gollob's operational experience is, of course, restricted to the Me 262. The inference is obvious. W/C. Gray says that the Me 262, because of higher speed, was less vulnerable to return-fire. Its diminished manoeuvrability must largely have made up for such protection (besides granting less opportunity for attack and reduced probability of producing hits upon the bomber). Although none of the arguments brought forward would affect the conclusions reached in my articles, a final observation seems indicated to avoid misinterpretation. It is easy to sympathize with the outlook of a fighter pilot who enjoys nothing more than a scrap with opposing fighters. But that is of no use for air defence. It is the shot-down bomber which counts and the bomber whose mission has been frustrated (the bomber downed after having dropped its load is of minor value, too). German air-combat statistics referred to the number of destroyed bombers, and in future it would be wise to rate victories over enemy fighters lower than those over bombers, reconnaissance and'or ground attack itrcraft. Dunstable. A. R. WEYL. ' Curious SecurityD URING recent months on several occasions, I have noticed, with some concern, that British aeronautical magazines have been forced to wait until the usual "foreign sources" give news of new aircraft and engine developments being made in this country before they themselves are enabled to mention such things. Here are three examples from your excellent publication alone :— (1) December 21st: ". .. the October 9th issue of our American contemporary Aviation Week included an article on the Beta rocket motor . . . and gave data on the unit which English journals were not permitted to publish." (2) December 21st: "American sources have announced a third British delta, constructed by the Fairey Company. ..." (3) February 8th: "No information may be published con- cerning any British jet bomber other than the Canberra, but foreign reports have mentioned jet-bomber projects by four companies responsible for bombers during the last war Vickers, Handley-Page, Short and Avro." Why is it that this ludicrous state of affairs is allowed to exist ? Surely, if our allies can collect such information, and publish it when it is of no particular importance to their ordinary public, then, using all available means, the agents of a potential aggressor would conceivably be able to do likewise. It would appear that our present security regulations leave much to be desired in many ways. Now that the rearmament drive has started in real earnest, let us hope that the so-called "restricted" information is, in fact, restricted, but not to such an extent that the public hears nothing of some of our latest ventures, at least. Harrow Weald, Middlesex. FRANCIS V. POUND. [For Flight's views on this matter we refer readers to a leading article, "Letting the Side Down," on February 8th.—Ed.] Noisy ProjectP I Flight of January 25th, Mr. R. Russell suggests a "Festival Railplane," to be driven by two powerful gas turbines (pre- sumably Sapphires or Avons were envisaged), to be run as a coach between Marble Arch and the South Bank. Now I wonder if Mr. Russell has considered the noise which would result from the running of two of these engines at a height of only twenty or thirty feet from the ground ? It seems, too, that the jet efflux might have undesirable results; and surely, at the speeds at which such a project could conceivably operate, the jet unit is a highly inefficient device ? Wellington, Berks. J. R. DlXON. Bleriot's Altitude SOME time ago, Mr. Charles Gardner, the air correspon-dent of the B.B.C., came down "to help me in recording a talk in which I gave some personal impressions of watching my old air friend Louis Bleriot make the first aeroplane flight across the Channel. A point which arose in discussion concerned the greatest altitude it was possible to attain in one of the little 24 h.p. three-cylinder air-cooled Anzani-engined monoplanes such as Bleriot himself used on that famous flight. And the question cropped up again when one of these machines—preserved as an historical relic—was flown by a modern pilot at recent British air displays. In these more recent tests the tiny machine seemed incapable of doing much more than just skim along a few feet above the ground. Now, in Flight of February 8th (page 158), I see that A. Cdre. Wheeler comments on the claim that, during his cross-Channel flight, Bleriot reached a height of 200ft, setting against this the argument that the pilot had actually started his flight from the top of a cliff 180ft high. Actually, however, this was not the case. I was there at the time, as Air Reporter No. 1, and what Bleriot really did was to start his flight from sand dunes at Les Baraques, mid-way between Calais and Sangatte, and from very little more than a sea-level starting-point. And during his flight (as he told me on the same evening on returning to Calais) he himself calculated that he had reached an altitude of quite 200ft or perhaps a Httle more. And he added that when he approached the English coast he was quite at a height of the cliff-tops, and could have made a landing on one of these cliffs. The reason he did not do so was that there was by this time a very troublesome and gusty wind blowing. This caused him to fly along level with the cliffs, a little seaward,
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
