FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1951
1951 - 2025.PDF
46o FLIGHT, 5 October 1951 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. International AstronauticsI N your September 14th note on the recent London Congress on Astronautics you expressed the views that the achievement of space flight would cost millions, that only governments could afford to sponsor such a project, and that "no government is likely to overload its exchequer without the compulsion of a military aim." With all of these opinions, as a true statement of the present situation, I am in complete agreement. I do not, for example, dissent in any way from the view that the main current expenditure of our Western governments must be on defence. (If it is not, then the question of any subsequent expenditure on astronautics may remain purely academic for a long time to come; from the purely astronautical viewpoint, it is no more than a happy coinci- dence that such a programme still makes a large, if indirect, contribution towards our ultimate objective.) However, I should be grateful for a little of your space in which to register a protest against the facile belief that large expenditures on (for example) astronautics will always be unlikely "without the compulsion of a military aim." It is all a question of the standard of values accepted, at a given period, by mankind. In the past, earlier cultures have variously put their main effort into art, religious practices and architecture, preparations for a dubious after-life (as exemplified by the Pyramids), and so on. We of the twentieth century concentrate on the development, manufacture, and employment of technically advanced means for mutual destruction. . . . Is it too much to hope that one day we may be civilized? After all, exploration and the search for new knowledge and experience have always rated a high priority in man's activity. On this basis, the full mastery of his powers of flight, leading eventually and inevitably to flight beyond the atmosphere and to other worlds, is seen to be an end worthwhile in itself. The "compulsion" involved goes far deeper than any merely military or commercial consideration. Furthermore, while such an effort would undoubtedly be very costly, its expense would still be only a small fraction of that demanded by modern war, when measured in terms of either money or human life. London, N.W.3. A. V. CLEAVER. Those Big, Bold Roundels SINCE, in two recent issues, you drew attention to the "newlarge roundels" of "unusual size" on the upper wing-surfaces of the P. 1067, I have had to suffer taunts ad nauseum about "coupled flying saucers," "is another world watching us?" "visible in all views," etc. I think it is only fair that you should know, in my own self-defence, that the roundels in question are in full accord with A.P. 970, Chap. 108. Hence, may I claim justifiably, unlike Link Willie, to be the only one in step ? Kingston-on-Thames. P. B. D. Admiralty and Coastal Command I READ with interest the article in your issue of August 3rd by"Icarus". While I am not in complete agreement with him I do feel that there is a good case for the transfer of at least a part of Coastal Command to the Admiralty. Mr. W. N. Cumming, in his letter appearing in your issue of August 24th, brings out all the old arguments against this, but his reasoning is hard to follow, and I fear his statements are not altogether accurate. Taking a reasonable view, the protection of shipping on the high seas is a naval commitment. The protection of convoys by carrier aircraft has proved successful, as demonstrated in the last war. The inclusion of air escort carriers in any convoy was always greeted with great enthusiasm by all who sailed in the convoy. It is, however, desirable to provide additional air cover, par- ticularly under certain weather conditions, with land-based long- and very-long-range flying boats and landplanes, which are pro- vided by Coastal Command. There is surely a good case for these aircraft to be transferred to the Admiralty, as their tactical use is purely naval. They would then have the advantage of trained naval crews having experience in surface escort as well as in air escort and having a practical understanding of a seaman's problems. It might also encourage the development of long-range flying boats, which the Royal Air Force seem most reluctant to undertake. Toronto, Canada. J. B. B. D. PAUL. A Veteran-aircraft Club? TOURING this year I have taken part in certain of the larger -'-' flying events with an ancient Avro Avian, and I have derived a great deal of pleasure from the enthusiasm and helpfulness shown by other owners of vintage aircraft. From this experience springs the thought that the formation of a Vintage Aeroplane Club would serve to bring this happy band together. The difficulties of keeping an obsolete aircraft going are in- creasing, and a central pool of information concerning spares and facilities would be invaluable, while a voluntary panel of technical advisers would do much to iron out difficulties at C. of A. time. I envisage restricting full membership to owners of aircraft registered say, in or before 1934 and still holding a current C. of A. An annual rally of such enthusiasts might well become a feature of the flying calendar. Motoring and motor cycling fans have their vintage clubs to keep alive, in a practical way, the spirit of the early days, and I think that aviation now has a past worth preserving. I am inter- ested to know just what support such an idea will provoke, and I shall be very grateful if some of your readers can let me have their views on the subject. Denham, Bucks. ' R. E. GILLMAN. Facing Which Way? ON balance, Mr. B. J. L. Haimes (September 21st) comes downin favour of backward-facing seats. In his attempt to be entirely objective, however, and uninfluenced by the senti- mentality of humanitarian considerations, he advances a number of old arguments against backward-facing seats which cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. For example, he says that when an aircraft falls vertically, ground-loops, somersaults, or disinte- grates, the advantages of backward-facing seats appear to be nullified. As has been pointed out repeatedly, there was a case recently when a Hastings fitted with backward seats nose-dived into the ground and somersaulted over on to its back, all the passengers surviving with only slight injuries—which appears to dispose of two of these objections. The value of backward-facing seats in cases of ground-looping or disintegration can also be shown. A ground-loop tends to throw a passenger forwards as well as sideways in relation to the nose of the aircraft, and the backward- facing seat therefore still has advantages, as there is usually a residual component of forward motion, even in a swing of this description. On disintegration, the back of a passenger's seat would still be there to protect him as he and the seat continue to move on at the speed of the aircraft when it broke up. No protec- tion is provided in either case by forward-facing seats, however. If seats pile up in the front of an aircraft the passengers facing forward will be thrown bodily against the seats in front of them and the seats behind will then descend on top of them. In the first case they will probably sustain crushed-in skulls, whether or not their lap-straps hold them, and, in the second case, crushed-in torsos. Facing backwards, however, their heads and bodies would still be protected, especially if seats were designed with side head- rests and arm-rests designed to take the shock of telescoping. The chaining of seats to the main structural floor members, or "anchoring" by wire stavs (or similar means of restraint capable of standing strains in all directions), would surely ensure that seats do not move relative to the floor just as well as the heavy structural reinforcement Mr. Haimes fears might be necessary. The argument that any aircraft operator who adopts backward seats is "clearly assuming his aircraft may crash" is inconsistent when applied to backward seats only, and is typical of the ostrich- like outlook of operators. It is inconsistent because all operators provide straps which passengers have to fasten on landing ana taking off—an unpleasant reminder of the hazards involved. It is ostrich-like because all passengers know aircraft crash and they can only be reassured, rather than alarmed, at the adoption of any precautions to increase their security. (Ship operators might as well plead that lifebelts and lifeboats are alarming !) Even with shoulder-straps, an occupant of a forward-facing seat is likely to be thrown over or under his straps, but with only lap-straps of the passenger tvpe (useless in forward-facing s ats) a passenger is held securely in his seat in -a backward-fe;in8 seat. Mr. Haimes asks for facts. In the 1947 U.S.A.F. Air Transport Command Traffic Division Report it was shown that in 607 1 'ses
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
