FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1953
1953 - 1591.PDF
and AIRCRAFT ENGINEER First Aeronautical Weekly in the World Founded 1909 No. 2342 Vol. LXIV. FRIDAY, 11 DECEMBER 1953 EDITOR MAURICE A. SMITH. D.F.C. ASSISTANT EDITOR H. F. KING, M.B.E. ART EDITOR JOHN YOXALL Editorial, Advertising and Publishing Offices: DORSET HOUSE, STAMFORD STREET, LONDON, S.E.1. Telegrams, Flightpres, Sedist, London. Telephone, Waterloo 3333 (60 lines). Branch Offices: COVENTRY 8-10, Corporation Street. Telegrams, Autocar, Coventry. Telephone, Coventry 5210. BIRMINGHAM, 2 King Edward House, New Street. Telegrams, Autopress, Birmingham. Telephone, Midland 7191 (7 lines). MANCHESTER. 3 260, Deansgate. Telegrams, lliffe, Manchester. Telephone, Blackfriars 4412 (3 lines). Deansgate 3595 (2 lines). GLASGOW, C2. 26b Renfield Street. Telegrams, lliffe, Glasgow. Telephone, Central 1265 (2 lines). SUBSCRIPTION RATES Home and Overseas: Twelve months £3 3s. Od. U.S.A. and Canada, $10.00. BY AIR: To Canada and U.S.A., six months, $16. IN THIS ISSUE : This Week's News - - 746 Comet Development - 752 The First Fifty Years - 753 The Wright Flyer - - 787 The Royal Tour of the World 789 Internationally - - - 793 Wilbur Wright as I Remember Him - - 796 After the Wrights F LYING is growing up; and this jubilee issue, which shows at a glance the formative stages and present extent of aircraft development, mirrors the fact clearly. Our main feature is illustrated by no fewer than 271 pictures. Almost every one of them tells a story. If, in the aggregate, they—and the accompanying notes—teach a lesson, it is that mediocrity has never had, and should never have, a place in the business of flying. A second feature in this issue makes it very plain that this same business is a curious amalgam of razor-keen competition and friendly co-operation. By razor-keen we in no sense imply the use of cut-throat tactics; indeed, we may claim without sanctimonious ness that the flying world is freer than most others from skulduggery and chicanery. Nevertheless, in no other industry is rivalry more marked—or more productive. The incessant demand for improvement, and the almost weekly introduction of something new, keep all concerned on the very tips of their toes. In the 44 years during which Flight has recorded the changeful scene there has rarely been a dull patch. It is, indeed, a great and exciting game in which we find ourselves, and one still full of promise for mankind, though, in all conscience, the aeroplane has been a means of bringing—and may yet bring again—appalling horror and misery. Certainly, in looking back over this half-century of jobs well done, of barriers sur mounted (or crashed!) and of benefits accrued, those whose courage, skill and acumen have brought our industry to its present prominence may feel content that they have faithfully followed the lead of the methodical Wrights. The pace is ever quickening, the field broadens, and even the cleverest cannot tell what lies beyond the next horizon. Proportions for Lift and Drag O BSERVERS of the aviation scene might be pardoned for imagining that after fifty years some standard wing-forms might have emerged for certain of the more familiar duties. As the pages of this issue indicate, almost every shape and configuration imaginable must have been tried out. Though they are primary and all-important components, wings are like fingerprints in that no two are exactly similar. They are even subject to fashion, but at least we have learned not to flap. Today more than ever before the sky is filled with a great variety of wing shapes. Very confusing it must be for the layman to hear and read of the experts advocating completely different shapes to do the same job. Far be it for us to attempt to sort out and justify even the wings of bombers. We would, however, try to be helpful by stressing one or two basic features to be recognized before trying to assess the merits of aspect ratios, drag, weight, cost, thick ness, rigidity, loading, sweep or stowage space. First of all, then, the shapes may be broadly classified as for operation at low speed; for high but sub-sonic speed; or for well over sonic speed. In order, these three classes might be represented byjarge, thick, straight wings; relatively smaller, thinner wings with swept-back leading edges; and much smaller, very thin, straight wings of very low aspect ratio. Of sweep-back, we would recall that it may be used for stability in tail-less designs or—more likely today—merely to postpone the compressibility drag rise as the tran sonic speed region is approached. Although many aircraft have achieved just over sonic speed and a few American machines a great deal more, very little is known about flying at speeds around that of sound. It is with this that most of the wing-design activity is concerned just now. To date we have blundered through the barrier by brute force. , There is perhaps some comfort to be derived from the thoueht that in another ten to fifteen years the advent of long-range supersonic flying will have relegated the claims of deltas, crescents, vees, cusps and isoclinics to academic history, and that the present difficult transonic speed bracket will have been passed. This is not, however, to say that there will be no demand for subsonic aircraft. Presumably saucers are round, though planks may not all be rectangular.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
