FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1952
1952 - 1662.PDF
724 FLIGHT, 13 June 1952 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. Racing Specifications XXANDLING reports on the Mew Gull and Ambrosini S.7 -*•-•- that have appeared in Flieht have made interesting reading. In a contemporary U.S. journal, "Slick" Goodlin writes a similar type of article. He recently tried the Cosmic Wind (one of the Goodyear Trophy midgets). For comparison, I repeat some of the data, which might be subject to correction :— S.L. max. speed 195 m.p.h. Stalling speed 60 m.p.h. Initial climb 1,600 ft/min Ceiling 18,000 ft Take-off distance ... 140yd Range 375 miles Wing loading 18 lb/sq ft Weight empty ... 820 lb Rate of roll ... ... ... ... ... ... 120 deg/sec The report cites the absence of frills in the cockpit (no blind flying panel is mentioned). The forward vision was of the order of the Mew Gull's, although the pilot could take a reasonable peek over the engine when flying straight and level. The roll was of Tomahawk variety: a dead straight barrel-roll could be held almost indefinitely by bashing the pole over with a trace of rudder in the same direction. The stall, reasonably straight and preceded by judder; cockpit, tailor-made to fit each pilot; construction, remarkably enough, all-metal; wings, laminar-flow of area to comply with racing regulations; engine, Continental flat-four apparently untuned except with regard to type of fuel; undercarriage, of Cessna spring-steel type, complete with brakes; prop, two-bladed fixed pitch (race regulation). Though not as fast as the Mew Gull, possibly because it is considerably less powerful, it is nevertheless an interesting machine (with readily available spares for most parts), although the "Midget Mustang" series, now in production and of roughly similar design, has an initial cost of 6,000 dollars. Whew ! These midgets have been mentioned as suitable for rattling close-support "grasshopper" or "mosquito" aircraft. During the war, Bell produced an amazing midget with this end in view. I think it carried the designation XP-30 and had the well- tried inverted, six-in-line Ranger engine in a craft the size of the Mew Gull, but with 360 deg bubble canopy vision and retractable undercarriage. With 500 b.h.p. in hand they claimed 330 m.p.h. (?). Construction was mostly wood, and armament two 0.303 m.g.s (?). The wing loading was not stated, but to judge from the thin, high-aspect-ratio little stubs on either side of the engine, it must have been pretty high, and probably the designers could not match the performance needed at the other end of the speed scale, or we would have heard of further prototypes. St. James, South Africa. A. Louw. [Our correspondent's letter makes particularly interesting reading in conjunction with the article on page 713. Incidentally, we believe he is thinking of the Bell XP-77, which had a twelve- in-line engine of over 500 h.p., achieved, it is said, over 400 m.p.h., and had one 20 mm and two 0.5m guns.—ED.] Historical Preservation I AM in full agreement with Mr. Rupert Moore's suggestion, in his letter of May 2nd, that more attention should be paid to the apparently less important details of historic aircraft. Having recently spent much time in search of details going back to 1914, I discovered in our museums a very real lack of accurate information and in some cases complete blanks in con tinuity. On these occasions I had to fall back on my memory of that period, and it seems that much information of this kind is arrived at in the same way, since no official records exist from which to check facts. Each successive year thins the ranks of the early enthusiasts and it would appear to be a wise move to establish a reference centre for historical details while those who remember apparently unimportant facts are still capable of recording them. Memory is still fresh of the controversy provoked by the camouflage of the Portuguese Hurricanes borrowed for the filming of Angels One Five. A mere eleven years after the Battle of Britain and there was doubt about the war-paint of the fighters that wrote the most glorious page in the history of the Royal Air Force ! I have for many years thought that the ideal way of treating historical aircraft would be to withdraw one of the last of the species in service and preserve it in that condition. The difficulty here is that the machine may by that time have been modified far beyond its original specification and not be very true to type. This would then give rise to anomalies like the Battle of Britain Spitfire masquerading in the Imperial War Museum in 1942-43 camouflage. She may well have been an actual Battle of Britain fighter (though this seems doubtful), but not withdrawn from service until 1943. Extreme accuracy of detail should always be observed in museum exhibits. Individual shades of a given camouflage colour seem to vary considerably. I was indebted in 1950 to Cellon, Ltd., who lent what must have been very valuable shade-cards, actual painted samples on fabric of the colours used in the First War. These, however, were at variance with my own samples, comprising sections of fuselage and wing coverings and roundels taken from crashed and scrapped aircraft—B.E.2D and E, D.H.6, R.E.8 and Bristol Fighter. My memory of the aircraft of this period is clear, as I used to spend most of my holidays at North Cerney, or Rendcombe, aerodrome, near Cirencester, and Minchinhampton, part of which is now Aston Down. The under surfaces of the wings were generally clear-doped on unbleached linen, this resulting in a soft biscuit colour. It would appear historically incorrect to have the underwing surfaces of the Shuttleworth Dove/Pup painted a dark colour, which necessitates outlining the roundels in white. This was the standard treatment for top wing and fuselage sides of those days. The S.E.5AS and Dolphins at Minchinhampton were clear- doped underneath and camouflaged on top and sides right up to 1919. The pretty shape of the S.E.5A in the South Kensington Museum should never have been completely covered with drab brown, but it would probably be a major operation to restore her original condition now. The Australians training on 504KS at Minchinhampton in 1918 used to carry, behind the fuselage roundel, a red band with white kangaroo superimposed. I have never seen a reference to this insignia and should like to know if it appeared in other units. Little Eaton, Derby. J. V. CAMPBELL-WHITE. [For those who possess them, of course, bound volumes of Flight dating back to 1909 preserve a considerable amount of infor mation; but there must necessarily be a lack of data on such subjects as camouflage, which during a war inevitably come under security bans.—Ed.] Registration Lettering r READ with keen interest the letter by Mr. P. F. Wright, of •*- Birmingham, in your issue of May 23rd, and also endorse his thanks to you [for publishing registration letters, where possible, when mentioning aircraft]. I, too, am a very ardent spotter and recorder of civil aircraft registrations; my records date back to 1934. Much to my regret, I have a very particular grouse which has recently made the identification of aircraft operated by B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. in particular very difficult, even with a good pair of binoculars. I refer, of course, to the great reduction in size of the actual lettering, and the transfer of fuselage lettering to the tail unit in many cases. It would be interesting to learn from the Corporations why this change has taken place and what advantage is gained. Kingston-on-Thames. M. J. SELL. FORTHCOMING EVENTS June 14. Girl Guides Association: Air Ranger Flying Pageant, Sywell, Northampton. June 14. Auster Flying Club: Rally, Rearsby. June 14. R.A.F.A.: Air Pageant, Sydenham, Belfast. June 14. London Aeroplane Club, Vintage Aeroplane Club and Herts Auto and Aero Club: At Home, Panshanger. June 14-15. Wines and Chateaux of Aniou Rally, Angers. June 14-15. Ae>o-Club de Charente Maritime: Pons Rally. June 15. R.Ae.S. Garden Party, White Waltham. June 18. Aircraft Recognition Society: Contest, London. June 21. Boston Aero Club: Display. June 21-22. Aero-Club de Basse Normandie: Flers Rally. June 22. Aero-Club de Savoie: Aix-les-Bains Rally. June 24. Golf: R.N. v. R.A.F., Sandwich. June 25. Golf: R.A.F. v. Army, Sandwich. June 27. London Aeroplane Club: Midsummer Dance, Hatfield. June 28. R.N. Air Station Eglington: Air Day. June 28-29. Aero-Club d'Eure et Loire: Rally, Chartres. June 28-29. R.Ae.C: La Baule Rally. June 29. Northern Heights Model Flying Club: Gala Day, Hawker Airfield, Langley.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
