FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1951
1951 - 1989.PDF
438 FLIGHT, 28 September :95, 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. "Zura's" CartwheelI WAS one of the many spellbound spectators at this year's S.B.A.C. Display who saw Zurakowski's magnificent demon- stration of the "cartwheel," and I was intrigued to hear the commentator describe it as the only completely new aerobatic manoeuvre for twenty years. As far as I can recollect, however, I saw an almost identical manoeuvre on several occasions in February-March, 1941, when I was on a fitters' course at Inns- worth Lane, near Gloucester. The machine concerned was, on each occasion, a Hurricane, presumably built by Glosters at Hucclecote and flown by one of their test pilots (unless it came from Rotol's airfield, nearby). The "rotation" came at the top of a much less steep and prolonged climb than the Meteor's, but, looking back on it, I cannot see where the pilot got sufficient turning moment unless, in the last stage, he opened the throttle wide and gave full rudder. Can any other reader confirm this ioj-year-old memory, and, if possible, identify the pilot and tell me how it was done ? Tolworth, Surrey. T. N. SIMPSON. [An explanation of the cartwheel appeared last week (page 383). Such a manoeuvre is not possible with a single-engined aircraft like the Hurricane, and "Zura" himself suggests that the evolution witnessed by Mr. Simpson was more akin to a flick roll.—ED.] Farnborough Bouquets and Brickbats CONGRATULATIONS to the organizers of the 1951 S.B.A.C. ^-/ display at Farnborough. And to :— Charles Gardner for his effortless commentary on the flying events on the two public days. Jan Zurakowski for proving the seemingly impossible a fact. The test pilots for their usual polished performances with ever faster and greater British aircraft. To everyone concerned with the flying, congratulations. But howls of derision to :— Those responsible for the complete lack of organization on the roads leading to Farnborough—for not having planned in advance the reception of some 150,000 people, even more so in view of the favourable weather forecast given on Saturday the 15th. A five- minute talk by a competent traffic authority after, say, the 9 o'clock news would have worked wonders. Howls, too, for their failure to divert or withhold British Road Service "heavies" carrying oil storage tanks bv these routes at the peak period. London, S.W.13. D. R. STANLEY-ADAMS. MAY I, through the medium of your journal, make a very strongcriticism of the organization of this year's Farnborough Air Display ? Never have I come across such gross inefficiency in traffic and parking arrangements. We arrived within five miles of Farn- borough at 2.30 p.m. and reached the car park at 4.45 p.m. in time to see the tail end of the display—and this after having been charged £1 for two of us in a two-seater. While one feels charitable on a day such as this, the disorganization makes this fee no less than impudence. I am composing this letter, sitting waiting my turn to leave the car park. It is now 9.50 p.m. and no sign of movement ahead. London, S.W.5. PETER J. MORLEY. ALREADY some criticisms of the poor arrangements to admitL the public to the Farnborough Show have appeared in the Press, but no mention has been made of the complete lack of any arrangements to permit their egress. No gates were opened at the South Entrance and most of the 140,000 crowd were apparently expected to pass back through turnstiles which good-humouredly refused to turn. This quite naturally caused a terrific jam; people were forced to clamber over them as best they could. It took this correspondent from 5.30 to 6 p.m. to move the hundred yards or so through the turn- stiles. Just to improve matters, it rained steadily. No football match was ever like this, because of the presence of so many young children, and were it not for the good-natured helpfulness of the crowd many nasty incidents could easily have occurred. Having successfully emerged we thought our troubles over. It was, however, a mere beginning for the many of us who had been beguiled by a wide-awake publicly-owned railway into buying combined rail-and-bus tickets from Waterloo to the airfield. A mile-long queue for the return bus journey to Aldershot station confronted us, and a route-march up muddy lanes with grea potholes full of rainwater to reach the end of it. Please do not think I exaggerate; all this is true in word and fact. But the queue moved steadily forward. At least, it did for two ' hours and then—stop. We waited and waited, and then inteli- gence passed on the message, true or untrue I know not, that Aldershot station was bearing down under the stress of people upon its planks and was likely to collapse at any moment; there, j upon, they said, officialdom had decided to take no more from the Farnborough queue until a few had been drained off at the Aider- shot end. This was sufficient for the writer, who immediately • left the queue and found alternative travel. '\ The immense queue I left behind was mainly composed of families with small children who were soaked and utterly miserable —crying with cold. Lord knows what time they got home. This latter complaint is no pigeon of the airfield authorities and". concerns only the publicly-owned British Railways. Sidcup, Kent. H.B. [In a letter to The Times on September 21st Mr. E. C. Bowyer, director of the S.B.A.C., said, inter alia, that the Sunday evening's delays were due to the fact that the heavy rain, which began to fall immediately flying ended, caused a concerted homeward rush. (Otherwise, probably, visits to ths "static" exhibits would have smoothed the flow.)—Ed.] TO the general impression gathered from the many I havespoken to who visited it, that the 1951 S.B.A.C. Display at Farnborough was the finest yet, I should like to add the suggestion that this was due in some measure to Mr. Charles Gardner's brilliant commentary during the public days. For informative yet not-too-technical, wit-sprinkled and light-hearted yet sincere digests on aviation he has no rivals. Reigate, Surrey. V. H. IZARD. WHAT THEY ARE : This is the key to the Farnborough aerial photograph published on page 422. The respective aircraft are :— (1) De Havilland Chipmunk. (2) Vickers-Supermanne Attacker. (3) Avro 707A. (4) Hawker P.1072. (5) De Havilland Comet. (6) Sapphire-Meteor. (7) Percival Prince. (8) Handley Page (Reading) Marathon. (9) Bristol 170. (10) Vickers-Armstrongs Varsity. (11) Airspeed Ambassador. (12) Boulton Paul P.111. (13) Avro707B. (14) Hawker P.1052 (Naval). (15) Fairey Gannet (wings folded). (16) Fairey Firefly 7. (17) Gloster P.V. Meteor. (18) Gloster Meteor N.F.11. (19) Scottish Aviation Pioneer. (20) Auster Model "S". (21) Auster Aiglet. (22) Percival Provost. (23) Percival Sea Prince. (24) Blackburn and General Aircraft G.A.L. 60. (25) Proteus-Lincoln. (26) Nomad-Lincoln. (27) Vickers-Armstrongs Viscount. (28) English Electric Canberra B.5. (29) Avro Shackleton. (30) Bristol Brabazon I. (31) Avro Ashton. (32) Handley Page Hermes V. (33) Short S.A./4. (34) English ElectricSapphire-Canberra. (35) Short Sealand. (36) De Havilland Vampire Trainer. (37) Westland Wyvern T.F.4. (38) Handley Page (Reading) Mamba- Marathon. (39) De Havilland Dove. (40) De Havilland Heron. (41) De Havilland Sea Venom N.F.20. (42) De Havilland Reheat Venom. (43) Bristol Sycamore. (44) Westland-Sikorsky S.51.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
