FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1952
1952 - 1359.PDF
FLIGHT, 16 May 1952 583 Our American Correspondent Reports... PRELIMINARY data on the activities of the American commercial operators during 1951 have now been issued by the Civil Aeronautics Board. The figures cover both passenger and cargo carriers, and botti classes of traffic show percentage increases over 1950. But, as was pomted out by this column on May 2nd, so do the overall, and individual, operating expenses. The four largest freight- earners in the States hauled over 175 million ton-miles of freight on their domestic routes, a gain of 20 per cent, and showed an increase of almost 40 per cent on their operating revenues. Operating expenses, however, rose by 32.45 per cent and preliminary figures for the first quarter of this year show an even steeper rise. This steady increase will result in a general upward revision of freight rates if the carriers are to break even, much less make a profit. However, as all surface-freight transportation costs have been going up over the last few years (another increase has just been granted the railways), the air will not be at a price disadvantage in this respect. But even if the air-freight rate rise is fairly substan tial, the overall cargo business should show a continued improvement this year and most of the carriers will be using new, larger and more economical converted passenger aircraft which are now on order. At some point, however, this use of converted passenger types is going to prevent further progress, and the enormous potential air-freight market that is becoming available will demand aircraft specifically designed for such work. It may be that several different types of freighter will be needed to cope with specialized loads, and some sort of detachable body or cargo-container—to save trans-shipment—is almost certain. The first manufacturer to be able to offer a fast and economical aircraft of this type will be in the money. At the moment, the only new turboprop freighter known to the writer, and actually under construction, is the Lock heed project It is a high-wing, high-tail design of some 125,000 lb all-up weight with rear-end loading, and it is bemg built for the United States Air Force. In drawing up the specification, Lockheed went deeply into the whole cargo problem and consulted the major freight-carriers as to their specific needs. Although their first production run will be for the military, you can bet your life that they will put this machine on to the civil market as soon as possible. Other manufacturers—such as Fairchild, Douglas, Consolidated and Boeing—must also be giving active attention to this problem, but by wirming the U.S.A.F. competition, Lock heed have a start on their competitors. • • • JN the passenger-carrying field the domestic operators say they are happy in their work, and content with their equipment programme. But in private they must be keeping their fingers crossed and trusting that the greater economy of their new types, plus an increasing air-mindedness on the part of the travelling public—together with an increase in fares generally—will offset their ever-rising operating ex penses. If these things don't happen or they can't fill the extra seats which will soon be available, it is quite possible that they may look back on 1951 with nostalgia. During last year their overall revenue ton-miles went up by 25.61 per cent, operating revenues by 25.78 and total net income by 57.68. The local service airlines did even better in their small way. Their revenue ton-miles went up 54.77 and operating revenues 26.46. Passenger traffic went up 52 per cent. This isn't surprising when one considers the great potential market there is here for the short haul inter-city airline, but it is so when one realizes how much obsolete and obsolescent equipment is in use. To exploit this market to the full the operators will need to have new and economical aircraft. At the moment, the necessary local-service types are not available from American sources (and the general opinion is that they won't be built until some sort of Government assistance is forthcoming as an aid to the manufacturer). Back in 1946 or so the American constructors would not take the risk of building a feederline transport unless they could get firm orders—and big ones. A few played about with the idea—Boeing and Lockheed among them—but they soon abandoned the attempt under the financial stresses of the post-war period. So the local-service carriers have carried on with the aid of heavy mail subsidies. This state of affairs will continue until a suitable machine is produced in the States, or some brave character buys "foreign." At one time the de Havilland Dove looked as though it would be in the running, but there were those here who, despite its obvious economy and advantages over existing types, felt it was too small for the job. The Marathon could be a contender under the specifications which were discussed at the Society of Automotive Engineers Aviation Section meeting in New York in April, 1951, so it is a pity that—so far as one knows— no British machine of this type has visited the States. Both the Dove and the Percival Prince have been seen here and a considerable number of the former have been sold as executive transports. American Aviation, for April 14th, contains an excellent article on Dove sales in the States and mentions a figure of some 42 to date.) There seems to be no reason why the Prince would not make an ideal aircraft for the small feederline and taxi-charter operators who have to haul mixed loads of passengers and freight. More than one such operator has expressed interest. Unfortunately, the introduction of a British type so far from home and on our chief competitor's door step does mean a considerable outlay in cost and time. The two major requirements would be an adequate flow of aircraft once orders had been secured and a good—and by no means small—organization to take care of repair, maintenance, overhauls (both airframe and engine) and spares. Once these are established, dollars are to be made. Those who should know these things say that there is now less buyer-resistance to British goods, and in the aviation market the impact of Canberras, Doves, Beavers, Nenes, Tays and Sapphires, and of our Flight Refuelling techniques, have served to promote a greater acceptance of British technical progress. • • • AT a recent meeting of the Aircraft Operators' Council in •^*- Los Angeles, Mr. E. F. Burton, chief engineer for the Santa Monica division of the Douglas Aircraft Company, made some significant remarks about runway lengths. He said, in effect, that designers must tailor their jet aircraft to existing airport dimensions, and that he was thinking in terms of 10,000ft, with take-off runs for turbine aircraft—whatever their size—of 5,500ft on a standard day and 7,000ft on a hot day. It is true that he introduced the possibility of using arrester gear (such as Grumman have installed at their airfield at Bethpage); but the extra weight and cost of such equip ment is considerable and—to the writer anyhow—this seems to be tackling the problem from the wrong angle. He men tioned approach speeds of 125 m.p.h. with touchdowns at about 100 m.p.h, but admitted that higher tyre-pressures might be necessary. All this was particularly refreshing inasmuch as certain of the American manufacturers on the West Coast, when discussing the possible increase in runway lengths for Los Angeles City and other local airfields, said flatly that runways of 15,000ft would be required for the jet transports of the future. As the impossibility of conforming to such a specifica tion at most of the airports of the world seemed obvious (neither the land nor the money being available) it was difficult to know whether these suggestions were put forward seriously or were being made for personal or political reasons. (Many of the pilots with whom we discussed the matter at that time, however, made it clear that if they were going to be asked to fly aircraft which required such great take-off and stopping distances, then someone had another think coming.) Mr. Burton's remarks, therefore, have served to get the matter back into perspective. Whether his views are shared by other West Coast designers is not known.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
