FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1952
1952 - 0302.PDF
134 FLIGHT 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. Production and Manpower R EFERENCE "Pedantica's" letter (January 18th), I bow my head in shame for the error of simple arithmetic, although, as your correspondent says, the true figure of the value of the Comet is even more impressive than the one which was originally quoted. I was not seriously suggesting (in my article "Challenge," January 4th) that the ,motor-car industry should be shut down in favour of aircraft construction, and indeed I agree with "Pedan- tica" that it is necessary for this country to get the best of both worlds. I was, however, seeking to show by my comparison that, potentially, building civil aircraft is as important as the "shop window" business in motor cars. There are undoubtedly many industries and occupations of much less value to the nation from which the necessary manpower could be obtained. As an afterthought on the housing problem, one wonders how much sub-contract work could be hired out to areas where there are already workers and machine tools. It has, however, been explained to me that many skilled workers have left the industry proper in order to work in small engineering concerns at about the same basic rate of pay, but with the added attraction of a pound or two of cash handed quietly over as a bonus for a good week's work. This "bonus" is, of course, a strictly illegal and tax-free proceeding, and one does not easily see how a properly organized firm can compete with it. The first temptation is to harness these small engineering shops to the over-all aviation effort by getting them in on sub-contract, but this perhaps completes a vicious circle, since they then attract even more workers away from the main industry by their offers of a pound or two more "under the counter." Income tax, of course, lies at the root of this matter, which could, perhaps, none the less be fully analysed to advantage. London, W.i. CHARLES GARDNER. YOUR correspondent "Once Bitten" has raised an interesting point in his letter of January 18th, and one which must surely have bedevilled the aircraft industry since its earliest days. In the past so much of our aircraft production has been for military purposes, that of necessity it has been subject to the enormous expansion and contraction necessitated by wars and their passings, and by the policies of "peace-time" Governments between the wars. It has followed that many workers in the industry, outside the innermost circle of key personnel, have been found redundant after entering the industry on the crest of a rearmament wave. It does, therefore, seem a pity that after the industry had settled down from the effects of the last spot of bother terminating in 1945, it could not have been allowed to expand steadily, and on the solid basis which our new commercial aircraft could have pro vided, without having to be disrupted by a rearmament pro gramme which, we all hope, will one day end. Experienced men get older, like other mortals, and cannot suffer too many "ins and outs" without either thinking furiously themselves or having their dependents put on the screw and cause another permanent defection from the ranks of the industry. A parallel to the technician problem has surely arisen on the aircrew side. The rapid expansion of all kinds of air travel and transport immediately after the war attracted many hundreds of experienced crews to the business. Then came the doldrums of 1949, when charter operators faded from the scene one by one, and even the Corporations had periodic redundancies. Unfortu nately, as a steadier type of business began to develop on the charter side, a false "boom" was created by the Berlin airlift which, once over, saw the return of many crews to the ranks of the unemployed. My company hung on to the bitter end, but succumbed to the inevitable nearly eighteen months ago. Now it seems that there is a general cry for pilots and R/O.s as the Government distributes trooping contracts. When "peace" comes again, one can only assume the worst will follow, and in any case the private operator is eventually going to be up against fleet replacement. Perranporth, Cornwall. AGRICOLA. Complacency? AT the end of your recent article on the history of the Hawker • firm, I was pleasurably surprised to read that the P. 1067 was probably the first fighter to fly faster than 700 m.p.h. in level flight. I made a few calculations; said to myself, "The British usually err on the conservative side"; and made out the critical Mach Number of that very nice-looking aircraft as about 0.95. Comparing it with the Meteor 4 (0.78), Meteor 8 (0.82), Thunderjet (0.82) and Sabre (0.86), I thought that the 1067 showed real progress. You will imagine my surprise when, a few days ago, I read in a booklet published by Vickers that, just after the last war, a Spitfire 21 had been dived to 0.92. Incidentally, the reduction gear broke down twice in the course of the steep dives involved, and the pilot had to force-land as a consequence. Surely then, if in 1951 the best that can be done with a modern airframe is only just better than what has been accomplished with an airframe the basic design of which is 17 years old, something must be very wrong with the methods of designing fighter aircraft. Personally, I do not think that the designers are at fault, but rather the specifications drawn up by Air Ministry and most certainly the conservative views that prevented the realization of promising, if revolutionary, designs. The deltas and rocket propulsion should have been experimented with at least three years ago, not in the course of a rearmament programme, but as normal progress in fighter design. When and if the 1067 and Swift reach squadron service, they will be as obsolete as the Meteors are now, and that will mean a lot of wasted effort and most certainly wasted lives, should another conflict break out. Another example of that happy complacency : the lack of official interest and support for tlje new explosion-suppression device described in one of your recent issues. I hope you will forgive a foreigner for being so blunt, but "qui aime bien, chdtie bien!" St. Trond, Belgium. VERY'INTERESTED. [While welcoming this letter from an officer of the Belgian Air Force, we would point out that the author of the Sopwith/Hawker history did not state that the P. 1067 was probably the first fighter to fly faster than 700 m.p.h., but that it might in due time add a "first over 700" to the honours of the Hawker family. This, we suggest, is a somewhat flimsy basis upon which to calculate a Mach number.—ED.] Ultra-lights I T is unusual to find articles devoted to ultra-light aircraft, and the interesting summary which appeared in your issue of December 28th calls for further comment. The writer is of the opinion that the present predicament of the "ultra-light" move ment is mainly due to a scarcity of suitable types. Mr. Wheatley mentions support for the Chilton monoplane, for which the writer has unlimited enthusiasm. At the same time it is most regrettable that only four examples of. this type are in airworthy condition, although it is almost certain that this was the number originally built. These are, to my best knowledge : G-AESZ, first prototype; G-AFSV, Train-engined version; G-AFGH, the whereabouts and condition of which remain a complete mystery; and, finally, G-AFG1, the Daily Express Race winner for 1951- It is unfortunate that the present generation of private owners seem to prefer multi-seat light aircraft, the odd passenger being required for conversation purposes ! The near future may find a few younger enthusiasts who prefer to be true solo types, and are not interested in showing their girl friends how well they can fly. Coventry. TIGER BASHER. CONTINUED interest in a power unit for ultra-light aircraft calls to mind a matter which may deserve discussion. The specific weight of air-cooled engines of 1,000 b.h.p. and over is about 1.1 lb/b.h.p., but, below this power, specific weights gradually rise to about 2.5 lb/b.h.p. in the smallest sizes. During the past four years, however, The Aeromodeller has published test results for 45 miniature engines of the single-cylinder two-stroke type. Some of the figures are truly remarkable. One racing engine produced 0.82 h.p. for a bare weight of 6.5 oz, which is equivalent to 0.5 lb/b.h.p.—better than many large gas turbines. Figures below 1.2 lb/b.h.p. are so common as to raise serious doubts as to the wisdom of employing four cylinders and compli cated valve mechanisms on any small aircraft engines. A single- cylinder two-stroke engine of up to 1,000 c,c. capacity should be relatively cheap to develop, produce and maintain. Vibration may be a problem, but hardly more than in the case of motor cycles, while low weight should more than compensate for any inefficiency. While the pen is to the paper, may I also suggest, as a matter of historical interest, that the Hurricane which usually leads the annual Battle of Britain fly-past should in future be accompanied by a Spitfire? I believe there is a Mk I in the Imperial War Museum, but it would be interesting to know if any are still flying. Manchester, 19. G. R. BARRATT.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
