FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1956
1956 - 1623.PDF
FLIGHT, 16 November 1956 781 POLISH AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENT . . . trim tabs. The nosewheel-type undercarriage, hydraulicallyretractable, was fitted with oleo-pneumatic shock absorbers The C.S.S.12 had a span of 60.72ft, with length 41.02ft, height16.81ft, wing area 431.64 sq ft, weight empty 7,717 lb, gross weight 12,127 lb, maximum speed (at 8,000ft) 227 m.p.h., cruis-ing speed 199 m.p.h., service ceiling 19,700ft, and range 745 miles. In the meantime, C.S.S. started to build under licence thegeneral-purpose Russian Po-2 biplane, and this was designated C.S.S. 13. Scores of these aircraft were completed and are nowused in Poland for agricultural and ambulance duties, as well as for training, glider-towing and liaison work. C.S.S. was dissolvedin 1950. P.Z.L. This concern consisted only of a small design office,under the direction of Dipl.Ing E. Stankiewicz, before it was allotted the task of aircraft production. Then a prototype wasbuilt of the S-l, a two-seat open-cockpit high-wing parasol monoplane of wooden construction, with plywood and fabriccovering. A 125-h.p. Russian M-11D five-cylinder radial engine with a Townend ring was fitted. The first flight took place onNovember 15, 1945. Later Stankiewicz designed another high-wing monoplaneintended specifically for glider-towing. This aircraft, known as the S-3 Kania, was built by S.Z.D. (Experimental Glider Estab-lishment), which was usually concerned only with glider con- struction. The engine was a 125-h.p. M-11D, and the aircraftfirst flew on April 1, 1951. Despite its good performance, and the pressing need for such a glider-tug, the Kania did not gointo production. G.I.L. In the summer of 1950, the maiden flight of the GIL helicopter took place. With the exception of some early workby Tanski [see Flight for July 27, p. 174], this was the first helicopter built in Poland. The first proposals for this machinewere made in 1946 by Z. Brzoska, but the real work on the project did not start until the spring of 1948. The main creditfor the final design must go to B. Zurakowski. This experimental helicopter, with a two-bladed main rotorand an anti-torque tail rotor, had an open cockpit with side-by- side seating for two. The fuselage, to which a tricycle under-carriage was fitted, was built in two parts: a welded tubular forward structure, with a specially adapted 100-h.p. Hirth enginebehind it and the main rotor immediately above; and a plywood monocoque tubular boom carrying the tail rotor and its controls.The two rotor blades, of NACA 43012A section, were carried on a universally mounted head. The maximum rotor speed was272 r.p.m. and the maximum forward velocity 87 m.p.h. Rotor diameter was 28ft llin, the gross weight 1,280 lb, verticalceiling 3,300ft and range 110 miles. Apart from work on helicopters, G.I.L. also helped to developan ultra-light, single-seat cabin monoplane, designed by T. Chylinski, powered by a pusher 31-h.p. flat-four two-strokeGAD engine (designed by Gajecki). The machine was called the Pegaz, and first flew on July 16, 1949. Although it proveda winner in the 1947 design contest for an ultra-light aircraft, only the prototype was built. On the whole, during the first five years after the war, Polishdesigners were very active, and did their best to overcome very difficult conditions; but the lack of official interest in their work,and the disastrous situation in the engine field—the only power- plant available in numbers being the Russian M-11RF—invali-dated much of their effort. To be concluded) Fair Play for the Helicopter A Critic Challenged IN his article "How Fares the Helicopter?" in Flight ofNovember 2, John W. R. Taylor reviews the "state of the art"in the rotating-wing field and complains of the lack of pro- gress in this country. No one will disagree with him that morerapid progress would be desirable; but more than one premise on which he bases his ideas is open to immediate challenge. More-over, although he concludes with the plea that "the time has come for helicopters, not excuses," he offers no clear indication as tohow this objective is to be achieved. Indeed, one feels that his criticisms are inclined to be somewhat confused and, at times,aimed at the wrong target. It is important that the picture should be viewed in its trueperspective. The decision taken earlier this year by the Ministry of Supply to restrict its official support to only a limited numberof helicopter projects in this country, and in certain cases to cancel the contracts altogether, was in no way related to any desire toachieve a measure of standardization within the British helicopter industry. Based on such a premise, agreement with its decisionwould never be endorsed even by the Ministry itself, because it simply is not true. The decision was reached, with no littlereluctance, entirely as a result of financial considerations. It is as fully appreciated in Ministerial circles as anywhere that theexistence of a wide variety of design-projects provides one of the most healthy stimuli to any industry.In the United States, there were no fewer than 75 different helicopter design projects in varying stages of progress by theend of the second world war and it is upon this sound foundation that the present strength of the American helicopter industry isbased. Sometimes a "one-off" prototype may yield only informa- tion on how not to approach a problem; but even this knowledgecan be of great value. Attempts made to develop a number of minor projects in this country during the last ten years havefallen by the wayside mainly owing to limited financial resources. Even now, an increase in the variety of design-projects could beof immense benefit as a stimulus to the British helicopter move- ment. For convincing proof, one has only to look at the motor carindustry. There is no lack of inventiveness on the part of British designers; the writer has personal knowledge of three novelrotating-wing projects including one autogyro, a type which is by no means dead. These need only financial backing to bringthem to practical realization; and there are, undoubtedly, many others.In contrast to Mr. Taylor's contention, there is little doubt that if the Ministry of Supply were not so severely restricted byfinancial considerations it would have no hesitation in giving contractural support to a much wider variety of helicopter designsthan it was able to do even before the recent curtailment. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. By BASIL ARKELL Another unfortunate aspect of the restricted development policythat has been forced upon us is apparent in the repercussions among the specialist helicopter engineers and technicians them-selves. If the redundant helicoprer design teams were being encouraged to swell the ranks of those engaged on existing pro-jects, in order to obtain increased production of a smaller variety of types, there might be something to be said for a policy ofstandardization as a temporary expedient. But this is not the case, and the discouragement thus engendered in the minds ofengineers who are finding that they can no longer use the experi- ence gained during perhaps five or ten years in the study ofrotating-wing problems is felt even more widely than at first appears. In the country's technical schools and colleges, where theyounger generation of engineers is being trained for its future role, the helicopter branch of the aeronautical sciences, althoughattractive, is regarded with understandable misgivings by students. They naturally wish to enter a field which offers somestability and continuity for their future work; so the majority turn to supersonic or guided weapon projects. In this way, manypromising young men are lost to the helicopter industry even before they start, in spite of the fact that some of them have madequite worthwhile contributions to rotating-wing science in the form of theses prepared while still within their academic precincts. If future development is to be safeguarded, a way must befound of encouraging these young men to apply their energies permanently to the solution of rotating-wing problems. It is easy to blame the industry for not displaying sufficientinitiative, but such an attitude takes no account of the solid contribution that has already been made by the private enterpriseof those companies which comprise the helicopter industry. It is too often forgotten that more than half the helicopter projectscurrently in design and production in this country were begun as private enterprises by the individual manufacturing firms. Sucha record leaves little room for adverse criticism and its omission does less than justice to the companies concerned. Today, researchand development costs are so astronomic that the industry cannot possibly bear the whole burden on its own shoulders. It musthave support in the form of development contracts or reasonably large production orders before an expensive programme can beembarked upon. It is true that apathy in high places—and, in some cases, afrank disbelief in the helicopter's future—has been responsible for retarding development. In fact, such an attitude is notunknown in certain sections of the aircraft industry itself. Its effect can best be counteracted by creating the conditions in whichthe helicopter is able to demonstrate its unrivalled advantages in public and sell itself to the sceptics. But how are these condi-
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
