FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1953
1953 - 0755.PDF
12 June 1953 749 Our American Correspondent Reports . . . BACK in 1948 the American Society of Automotive Engineers (who take more than a passing interest in aviation engineering) held their autumn meeting in Los Angeles. This was just about the time that the news of British progress on turbine engines for commercial aircraft had begun to affect American thinking, although there were many who still didn't believe what they heard. But the subject of pure jet engines versus turboprops came up at this particular meeting, and the value of the latter type of power unit was hotly debated. It was unfortunate for the American aircraft industry that just about that time they had had some very near fatal experiences with the airscrews on their current transports, so that when a repre sentative of one of the leading West Coast manufacturers got up and condemned the airscrew as a method of supplying thrust (whatever the power unit) he got a sympathetic hearing. So persuasive were the arguments, in fact, that the turboprop was, to all intents and purposes, considered as a dead duck, and certainly something which the American manufacturers would do well to avoid (except, perhaps, for certain limited uses). Partly as a result of this meeting, therefore, the emphasis on turbine-engine development for commercial purposes tended to be directed more towards the pure jet, and it remained for military requirements to lead commercial thinking back into the turbo prop field. This may have been an expensive delay. Only now is there news of American turboprops which are really suitable for civil aircraft operations. Allison have had their T38 and T40 running for some years, it is true, but so far they have not caught the imagination of the operators. A more exciting prospect is the Pratt and Whitney T34, about which many good things are said. Wrights also have one or two projects in the development stage which could prove important, but the T34 is probably the most likely turboprop power unit for commercial work—anyhow for a few years yet. • • • THIS recent revival of the turboprop has had repercussions in the airline field. It was quite understandable that as long as there were no American turbine engines ready for commercial work the enthusiasm for such transports would be at a minimum— despite British progress. But now that there is a good turbo prop in the offing (even without an airframe) a change of heart is apparent in at least one important direction. During the last few years Mr. C. R. Smith, president of American Airlines, has, in his frequent speeches and Press conferences, always played down the turbine transport. He was, in fact, one of its most vigorous opponents. Recently, however, he made a speech in which he extolled the virtues of the turboprop (while still being very "bearish" about the pure jet). From this one may assume that American Airlines are taking a close look at such power units for their DC-7 replacements. As if to balance this development, however, Air. Hall Hibberd (vice-president in charge of engineer ing at Lockheeds), came out, in a speech at San Francisco, more in favour, apparently, of the pure jet. He is reported to have said it would make a revolution in our concepts of travel and that jets exploded the belief that speed was uneconomical. He prophesied that pure jets (and turboprops) would cut both time and fares by considerable margins. Nevertheless, it is not too surprising that there is still a lot of"» confusion in people's minds here as to the immediate value of the jet versus the turboprop versus the reciprocating engine. Some operators will have no part of turbines : some have Comets on order. One airline president upholds the turboprop, while a manufacturer lauds the jet. And when you combine this with a section of the industry who would still like to claim that turbine transports are dangerous, uneconomical, uncertifiable and Not Even Round the Corner, it's no wonder the public are bewildered ! • • • Fr the Ministry of Civil "Aviation reckon they have a noise problem out at London Airport, it's nothing compared with the one that faces the New York Port Authority. Although a horribly noisy person himself—particularly in a car—the New Yorker just hates it when it comes at him from the air. And when this is combined with a not unreasonable fear for his family's safety, a strong sense of his personal rights (to say nothing of an estate lobby, or eager lawyers), the combination is enough to frighten any aerodrome authority. And there is always the emotional approach to be considered. When trying to get its case before the proper authorities, the average British community is likely to employ "the recognized channels" all the way up from the local county councilto the House of Commons. But not always so the New Yorker. If there were another serious aircraft crash into a built-up area around, say, Newark Airport, it's more than likely that there would be a mass-march of the popula tion to close the airfield by force. And it might not be an accident that could lead to such drastic action. The noise of 50 jet flights a day — without proper prior education — could do the same thing. And that could become an international problem. • • • THE latest book on aviation here is "The Amazing Mr. Doolittle," a biography by Quentin Reynolds, which will doubtless be published in England in due course. At the moment it is being widely advertised as "The Amazing Mr. Doolittle," with a photograph of the general, in uniform, standing in front of a B-25. This advertisement has more superlatives to the square inch than you could shake a stick at. "The superb story," "the fabulous flyer," "the daring first raid," "the gallant 8th Air Force," "the amazing saga," "the 5 foot 6 inch Superman," and so ad nauseam. The general gets so much publicity these days that this sort of thing probably no longer makes him wince. But this particular advertisement also carries two statements (which appear, of course, in the book) that might bear further historical research. In outlining his career it says, "He's the first man to take off and land entirely by instrument [no"s"] . . . the first to fly the outside loop ..." The dates given in the book are Septem ber 24th, 1929, and May 25th, 1927, respectively. Have any students of history or ex-C.F.S. instructors any comments on this ? I wonder that particularly, as the instrument flight in ques tion was not a true solo flight—as was the first one in England— because Doolittle carried a safety pilot in the front seat. As for the book itself, it contains a great many interesting stories, most of them of a personal nature, and told with consider able verve. It is a competent build-up for a remarkable man (as well as for the oil company he represents). But its appeal is likely to be limited, anyhow outside the United States; for in his endeavour to extol someone he admires, Mr. Reynolds has made the story too much like a strip cartoon. Which is not conducive to reading pleasure or to accaracy. • • • A FINE old argument is boiling up here about the best method —and the safest — of installing jet engines in commercial transports. The Boeing Company, quite naturally, swear by the pod installation. It's better in every way, they say. Better aero- dynamically, easier to maintain, safer and altogether A Better Thing. Not a bit, say the opponents, they don't want it at any price. What about the asymmetric flying qualities, suppose an engine does throw a blade, are you any better off? What happens if you have to land with the undercarriage up, and what about the aerodynamic conditions anyway? But the drive to accept this type of installation is on, and if the C.A.A. become convinced of its superiority, and write their regulations around it, it would be quite a problem. ELECTRICALLY HEATED WINDSCREENS AN informative booklet on the design and construction of L aircraft windscreens that are heated electrically by means of conducting films has been compiled by Mr. J. H. Milsum, of the National Aeronautical Establishment, Canada. Heating a windscreen not only results in the prevention of external icing and internal misting, but also affects the optimum shock-impact strength of the material. Most windscreens arc laminated, i.e. they are made up of two lights of glass on either side of a layer of plastic, usually polyvinyl butyral; and 90 deg F is the optimum temperature for this type of laminate from the point of view of impact strength. Such a temperature is normally also sufficient to provide excellent anti-icing and de-misting characteristics. In order to maintain a temperature of about 90 deg F elec trically, a hard, thin, conducting film of a metallic oxide (usually stannic oxide) is sprayed on to the inside of the outer light of glass, and fired. If a polylaminated, bullet-proof screen is under con struction, another heating film will normally be affixed on the outside of the innermost light. The transparency of the film is said to be excellent, being about 97 per cent, but electrical resistivity is on the high side : experiments are consequently being made in the United Kingdom with metallic films—at present gold —which are deposited by a vacuum-coating technique and give lower resistivities. Power required to give satisfactory heating is normally of the order of 1,500 B.Th.U./hr/sq ft.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
