FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1954
1954 - 0841.PDF
26 March 1954 383 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. The R.Ae.C.'s Air-race Policy I WANT to express, in the strongest possible terms, my concern and objections to the way in which the Royal Aero Club has this year "killed" air racing for many keen racing pilots. By the elimination of all aircraft with a maximum speed of 130 m.p.h. and below, the real enthusiasts who have in die past flown their Tiger Moths, Moth Minors, Taylorcraft Plus Ds, Avians and Club Cadets in the Grosvenor Trophy race are this year robbed of the chance of achieving every racing pilot's ambi tion—to win die King's Cup Race. Not only does this ruling eliminate the light aircraft enthusiast, but also the members of die racing community who have not die means to own a higher-powered, faster aircraft with much higher operating costs. This includes many of the younger pilots who should be encouraged to race rather than be excluded by circum stances enforced by a club which claims to encourage private flying. The reasons given by certain members of the racing committee, when questioned, astounded me. I mentioned to one member mat this ruling eliminated at least two past King's Cup winners, and his answer was that the club considered it a good thing that die same people should not have the chance of winning year after year. Does this not apply to owners of aircraft in the slightly higher speed-bracket? Anodier said tiiat the slow aircraft would hinder the jets at the finishing line. Had this particular member ever flown a jet he would realize that die difference between an aircraft flying at 100 m.p.h. and 180 m.p.h. can barely be noticed by the pilot of a jet overtaking at nearly 600 m.p.h. Yet anodier diought diat it would "look bad" if a Tiger Moth won the King's Cup in this jet age. Are die Aero Club taking note of criticism from certain newspapers last year? Incidentally, the only privately owned jet aircraft—die Sparrowjet—is ineligible for the King's Cup as it has foreign engines. Have die Aero Club realized diis, or are tiiey changing die rule because it would look bad not to allow it to enter? Widi the King's Cup, also, goes the chance for the 130 m.p.h. owners to win the British Air Racing Championship; and I think that, bearing these points in mind, the Royal Aero Club has presented a pretty raw deal to half of Britain's few owner racing-pilots. We will in future have to rely on die individual flying clubs, such as Cardiff or Shoreham, for real air racing from which no aircraft is barred. There are few who do not consider die embargo unfair and contrary to the principles which the Aero Club is supposed to maintain—i.e., mainly to encourage the private flying movement. Horley, Surrey. BEVERLEY J. SNOOK. (ex-racing pilot). Future of the Flying-boat "THERE have been recent suggestions that the flying-boat will -*- come into its own with die introduction of atomic propulsion. Without wishing to discount tiiis possibility I would suggest tiiat the following points should not be lost to view: — (1) For commercial operations it seems probable that many years will elapse before the atomic-engined aircraft with its enormous initial cost will be able to compete on the world's air routes with its gas-turbine-engined rival. Will it, in fact, ever be commercially competitive? The gas turbine is still in a com paratively early stage of development and the specific fuel con sumption of die ducted fan, die propjet and die compound engine will undoubtedly be improved witii a consequent increase in pay- loads which, even now, are a commercial proposition on trans atlantic flights. (2) Even when (and if) the atomic-engined aircraft becomes commercially competitive it will still suffer from such drawbacks as the necessity to alight at its full all-up weight. (3) It seems likely that traffic at our main land airports will reach saturation point before the arrival of the atomic-engined aircraft. This will necessitate either the construction of more and greater land terminals at vast expense or the establishment of fewer and infinitely cheaper bases for flying-boats. As far as this country is concerned die distance from London to the Solent (the obvious choice for a flying-boat terminal) will cease to have significance with the introduction of die "BEAline Bus" heli copter, which will do die trip in half an hour. (4) Flying-boats, even with piston engines, are safer than iandplanes. Runways are, for all practical purposes, unlimited in length, breadth and direction, so that the possibility of acci dents such as the Singapore tragedy can virtually be ruled out. (5) The size and cost of atomic-engined aircraft make it dubious whether they will ever achieve a place in military aviation, where the principle of economy of force replaces that of economy of finance. There is, however, an overwhelming case for die gas- turbine-engined flying-boat for operations supporting the exercise of sea power. The engine corrosion problem referred to by the chairman of B.O.A.C. is evidently one that can be constrained within tolerable limits, as die Royal and Merchant Navies are currendy demon strating in a number of ships. Where there is a will there is a way. To take a similar example from that same world of sea faring, where should we now be if the problem of the cavitational corrosion of marine propellers, for which there is no complete solution, had led to a decision to retain the paddle- wheel? British civil and military aviation without the flying-boat resembles a man without an arm or leg. The fact that other European nations, whose needs are different, have not seen fit to pursue the development of marine aircraft is no excuse for our following suit. If we allow flying-boat design to lapse until some indeterminate and uncertain date in the dim future, we are likely to lose the technique and "know how" together with our leader ship in the world of aviation. Soudisea, Hants. F. P. U. CROKER. The Sopwith Pup T HAVE just read Mr. L. T. Mason's letter in Flight of February *• 26th, under the above heading and recall seeing the Sopwith 2-seater (100 h.p. mono Gnome) to which he refers. Several were delivered to the R.N.A.S. at Hendon during the winter of 1914-15, Hawker usually doing a couple of laps of the old racing course round die pylons before landing. The machine's Service history seems obscure except that its nickname,"Spinning Jenny,"suggests an unpleasant reputation. May I join with Mr. Peter Brooks (February 19th) in thanking you for the assistance given to tiiose interested in the 1914-18 and otiier early aeroplanes? ERIC J. ARNSBY. London, S.W.7. [From Mr. J. M. Bruce, author of the article on the Pup, we have confirmation that the Sopwith machine described by Mr. Mason was known as the Spinning Jenny. He adds diat die type was a close relative of the Sopwith Folder floatplane, but it was not a "one-off" type. At least 24 were built for the R.N.A.S., and were numbered 1051-1074 inclusive. Nos. 1052,1053,1056,1057 and 1058 were used at die R.N.A.S. Station, Great Yarmouth, and Mr. B. J. Hurren (Flight, April 27th, 1951) has told us diat on one of Great Yarmouth's Spinning Jennies S/L. J. C. Brooke made the first intentional spin. The type was used for Coastal Patrol duties by the R.N.A.S. Mr. Bruce concludes: "This is another of the elusive types of the 1914-18 war period, and I have not yet been able to obtain dimensions or performance figures for it, nor, for that matter, a satisfactory photograph. Perhaps someone can oblige in one or both respects?"—Ed.] IN the issue of Flight for March 5th, "Senrab" sounds an overdue note of warning on the danger of wishful thinking in the odierwise very laudable researches into aeronautical history. This is particularly true of families of aircraft such as the Sopwith types, for I well remember quite a well-known figure in the air world of today producing a mydiical speed machine of diis line on his slide-rule, an assumption largely based on information supplied by one of the better-known test pilots of the era under review. Subsequent investigation disclosed that a straightforward experimental machine had been confused with a much more famous fighter said to have been fitted widi an engine of advanced (for the time) design. No proof has been found of this assump tion, nor was it technically feasible. In the security fog of war, caution in such matters is doubly necessary. Much the same trend of thought prevails about McCudden's famous S.E.5a—by the way, the correct suffix letter was always in the lower case on "Factory" documents—not necessarily draw ings, as any draughtsman knows! I was at Farnborough when this particular machine was going through—in fact, I "fabricated" some of the fittings—and I cannot, for the life of me, ever remember any Factory-built machine with any prefix letter other than "A." The two C.E.I flying-boats were not completed at Farnborough and bore the Naval numbers N.97 and N.98. Your excellent contributor, Mr. J. M. Bruce, thinks that McCudden's machine may have been B4891; and, having examined many Factory photographs, including those now domiciled with the
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
