FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1952
1952 - 1731.PDF
20 June 1952 755 Our American Correspondent Reports ... THE number of hours devoted by the U.S. Senate Inter state and Foreign Commerce Committee to hearings of proposed civil aviation Bills is very great. Since 1949 they have been constantly reviewing all manner of ways and means to aid in the financing and building of new civil jet transports but the only law passed has been the Prototype Aircraft Bill. This hasn't helped much, as Congress has so far refused to vote the money to implement it. But hearings still go on, and a few weeks ago four new proposed pieces of aviation legislation were introduced. One, Senator McCar- ran's "Construction Differential" Bill—already mentioned in this column—has received some favourable publicity, but the other three don't look as though they will get far. They were chiefly ideas for Government sponsorship—in one case to the tune of 100 million dollars. Later on came a practical but rather complicated (or so it seemed to us) suggestion put forward by the Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board. In each case the industry's reaction has been mixed, and generally unenthusiastic. As the New York Times reported: "Hearings revealed that airlines and aircraft manufacturers were anything but united in their views of what should be done. Some wanted Government aid and some wanted no part of it." Even the Air Force was lukewarm, as they said any new civil development would interfere with military production. Later they relented somewhat and advised the Chairman that the Defence Department favoured reasonable development (a long way from supporting it practically). • • • T^HEN Mr. Donald Nyrop, the chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, gave his evidence, he emphasised that it was going to take the United States at least five to seven years to reach the point of putting a jet transport into some sort of operation and it was, therefore, vital that any legislation should be enacted at once—a rather forlorn hope in an election year, with much more important work still to be finished and Congress due to recess. Nevertheless, he put forward the C.A.B. approved plan and hoped for the best. This seems to boil down to a suggestion that the Government should allocate fifteen million dollars for the building of fifteen jet transports—presumably by one or more companies. The money would be loaned at one per cent, and would go some of the way towards paying initial development costs. Thereafter the loan would be written off at one million dollars per aircraft built, so that, provided the manufacturers built fifteen machines, they wouldn't have to pay back any of the initial loan. Once the aircraft were available, the air lines would be subsidised by the C.A.B. to operate them for a year on cargo operations. Reactions to this plan, although mixed to start with, have since shown a favourable trend, and the president of the Aircraft Industries Association, Admiral Ramsey, reports that the majority of the A.I.A. members favour the C.A.B. suggestion; so something concrete may come of this, at last. • • • T^HE discussions before the Senate Committee raise the question, "What do the airlines here want in the way of new turbine aircraft, and what can the manufacturers give them? And when?" There are lots of answers, ranging from that of the enthusiasts who say that existing types should be re-engined (indeed Lockheed have 85 Super Connies on order, all of which could be fitted with turboprops) to ideas calling for an impossibly advanced specification which is so revolutionary that it is ahead of anything yet in the wind tunnels! But beyond temporary panaceas on one hand and wishful thinking on the other lies the area which both operators and manufacturers are studying with great care. The British progress time-factor is, of course, unknown but very important. Generally, people now hope for an American jet to appear in 1954 or 1955 and be operating three years later. At the back of the discussions on specifications is the Air Transport Association, who are working in close co-operation with the Civil Aeronautics Administration Prototype Committee, and who wield a lot of influence. These two bodies have already produced and issued several preliminary specifications for turbine aircraft, not necessarily as guidances, but more as ideas to be kicked around. The types considered fall into four categories—a feederline aircraft (which could have piston engines to start with), two turboprop cargo types and a jet transport. The suggested feederliner is bigger than one might expect, having a payload of over 5,200 lb with a range of 350 miles at this loading, plus 200 miles to alternative airport plus 45 minutes holding. Extra tankage for 175 miles should be available. At this weight approximately 24 passengers and their baggage should be carried, plus some cargo. The latter is an important part of the picture here, and easy load ing and unloading is necessary. Pressurization would be desirable but not essential; in discussion with feederline operators one learns they want high rates of climb and descent in order to improve block times, and this might be uncomfortable for the passengers without adequate pressurization. Costs must be as low as possible, of course—certainly under the current figure for the DC-3—and must be based on fairly short stage-lengths of about 100 miles or so and using the smaller airfields around the townships, with 3,500 to 4,000ft. runways. The cargo specifications were for two turboprop aircraft having payloads of 30,000 lb and 50,000 lb respectively. The smaller of the two should have a range of 2,000 miles plus reserves, and a block speed of not less than 300 miles per hour, and would need an airport with runways of 5,000ft. Cargo could be in a non-pressurized single com partment, but the cockpit should be pressurized, although adequate temperature-control would be needed for the whole space. The door should be at least 7ft by 10ft and at lorry level. The larger aircraft should have a range of 2,500 miles plus reserves (speed is not quoted) and would need runways of 6,500 to 7,000ft. For this aircraft more than one door is suggested, and some part—if not all—of the cargo compart ment should be pressurized. • • • 'THE image in the crystal ball for the jet transport re-A quirements is not so clear, or perhaps it is being inter preted differently. The C.A.A. and the Air Transport Association were thinking in terms of a payload of between 19,000 and 20,000 lb (50-60 passengers) with a range of 2,000 miles plus reserves of at least 800 miles and a speed of 500 m.p.h. This should give an aircraft suitable for domestic use at the higher payloads and one which would also be capable of one-stop Atlantic operation at a lower figure— perhaps 14,000 to 15,000 lb—with reserve fuel of two hours plus 300 miles against the known worst head-winds at 35,000ft. Block speeds of 500 miles an hour were desired. Take-off and runway lengths would have to conform to cur rent requirements and existing airports—say, a maximum of 7,000ft on hot days at sea level. On the other hand, Pan American Airlines was reported in American Aviation as favouring an aircraft with a cruising speed of M.0.85 or M.0.95, operational altitudes of 50,000ft, 50-60 passengers in luxury seating—or sleeping—a non stop Atlantic range, and a landing speed of not much more than 105 m.p.h. This calls for quite an aeroplane, but it would be more or less in line with Lockheed's reported 200,000 lb, 580 m.p.h. project. Boeing are not so ambitious —at one jump, anyhow. The Boeing 473 was originally estimated at 125,000 lb to 130,000 lb with a cruising speed of 500 m.p.h. at 35,000 to 40,000ft. Douglas, in accordance with Arthur Raymond's doctrine of "The Well Tempered Aircraft," seem to be thinking more in terms of domestic jet requirements and a logical follow- through of their current DC-6 and 7 programmes. This would be the DC-8, design of which is believed to be well under way and which may be the first of the American jet transports to fly. [A note on the DC-8 appears on p.734—Ed.]
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
