FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1957
1957 - 0311.PDF
FLIGHT, 8 March 1957 313 Correspondence The Editor of "Flight" is not necessarily in agreement with theviews expressed by correspondents in these columns; the names and addresses of the writers, not for publication in detail, mustin all cases accompany letters. Flight-deck Standardization IN your Editorial of February 15 you say: "Diversity of cockpitdesign is quite extraordinary, extending from fundamentals— such as whether or not there should be an engineer's station. . . ."Surely you are not suggesting that layouts should be uniform? I would agree with your call for standard blind-flying panels oncontemporary aircraft; but standardization beyond that would be a bar to progress. Aviation changes too rapidly for anybody todeclare that aircraft will always have propellers, or astrodomes, or engineers' stations, or even (for that matter) pilots. It is theimmediate consideration which counts, and the justification for carrying any particular person or equipment can only be animprovement in economy or safety. Now on some aircraft the flight engineer has been essential,because he has been able to effect repairs in flight. On others, he has been advisable because of the complexities of the fuelsystem, or the engine controls, or the cruising procedure. On other aircraft, however, different design has made him quite unnecessary,and this includes most of the "bread-and-butter" aircraft which British airlines have flown since the war (Dakota, York, Argonaut,Viking, Viscount). The present trend, with the simplicity of turbine engine controls, and developments in automation, wouldsuggest that the engineer is becoming even less necessary. How- ever, the coming of rocket or nuclear propulsion might eventuallymake him more essential. In the meantime, on a particular aircraft, it is for the A.R.B.and the operator to determine his worth with regard to safety, and the operator alone to consider the economic justification for carry-ing him. In this connection it must be remembered that because he has qualifications which fit him for other jobs, he is expensiveto employ; furthermore, the space he occupies, together with his panel and perhaps his relief, detracts considerably from payloadcapacity. If he is carried unnecessarily it will waste the taxpayers' money (your money, Sir, and mine). To reiterate, therefore, whether or not an engineer is carriedmust depend on the particular aircraft, and calls for considerable clear thought. It could be an unpleasant handicap to Britishaviation development if partisan pressures were allowed to influ- ence such important considerations. London, W.I. ' ICARUS. [We were not suggesting uniformity: merely a little lessun-uniformity—Ed.] The Vulcan Accident "EVERY time mention is made of the tragic Vulcan accident•*-' I wonder if the cause was some peculiar equipment failure. This is because I remember the bending of the direction-findingbeam that caused the loss of the Monospar Croydon many years ago, and also a curious fault that appeared last summer in theradio equipment I use to steer model aeroplanes. This latter trouble was the failure of one particular receiverto respond to one particular transmitter in one particular spot relative to the transmitter, and it occurred on three differentaerodromes. This dead spot was about 20ft high and 100 yd forward of the transmitter, but on the ground the receiver wouldrespond all the way up to half a mile in that direction. When in the dead spot from the particular transmitter the receiver wouldrespond to another, though weaker, transmitter. Also, two other The Short seaplane photograph taken by Mr. D. A. Alderton (see below). receivers showed no sign of a dead spot from either transmitter.An attempt was made to locate the position and extent of the dead spot, but it could not always be found. Three times itprevented the model flying a course in contests. It was this behaviour that led to the discovery of the fault. No one has sofar been able to offer any explanation of the cause. It makes me wonder if some peculiar condition, that cannotbe repeated, caused a faulty indication of the Vulcan's height. Rugby. HOWARD BOYS. A Short Seaplane Recollection T HAVE just been reading—a little belatedly, I know—the articlesA on the Short seaplanes which appeared in three of your December 1956 issues and one in early January this year. I didquite a lot of flying in these very pleasant aircraft (as observer) from Westgate seaplane base during the 1914-18 effort, and I stillhave a very soft spot for them. Under the rather difficult con- ditions of the time I took a few photographs, and I am enclosingtwo of the air-to-air examples [one is reproduced in the heading —Ed.] as of possible interest to you. The single 230-lb bombslung on the rack between the floats is easily distinguishable. Two were carried on occasion, but with all the other odds and ends(sea-anchors, hydroplanes, pigeons, emergency rations, etc.) we seemed to collect, one was pleasanter.Wallington, Surrey. D. A. ALDERTON. Pilots or Missiles? CURELY the end of fighter aircraft isn't in sight, even if we^ are coming to the age when guided missiles will do the bomb- ing and fighting? There will be an air space between missile level and the groundwhich someone is going to use. If we are to scrap fighters, what is going to prevent enemy bombers with H-bombs comingover at supersonic speed in that empty space? And if the Government wakes up and provides an adequateair transport force to supplant the antedeluvian sea transports for troops and equipment, who will protect these air transports ifwe have no fighters? London, S.W.5. GEOFFREY DORMAN. TN view of the advances that are being made in the guided-•*• missile field, both in the Western Hemisphere and the Soviet Union, plus the recent statements that the fighter "is out"(to quote a National newspaper) and obviously the intercon- tinental missile will eventually replace the bomber—surely it isfeasible to assume that air displays are things of the past? As a regular reader of your excellent journal and a devoted"Farnborough fan" I find this thought most depressing. Unless, of course, we are to be treated to the spectacle of aBritish-built Redstone or Corporal, perhaps even Atlas rocket in the ascendant over Laffan's Plain? Egham, Surrey. D. A. KEEL. Motor-guns—a Flashback to 1914-18R EPEATED references have been made to a revolutionaryAmerican aircraft cannon for supersonic fighters—Project Vulcan, or T.161. This is said to be based upon the principleof the old Gatling gun. The rate of fire is given as "more than 9,000 rounds per minute," and the weapon has six rotating barrels,firing individually in succession. It seems to have been recently approved for Service installations. The weapon is, of course,mechanically operated, i.e., it relies upon neither recoil nor gas pressure for loading and firing. Moreover, it would seem thatthe ignition is electric (i.e., not by percussion). In connection with this weapon—now hailed as an enormous;step achieved by the combined efforts of the General Electric Co. and U.S. Army Ordnance—it may be of interest that substan-tially the same aircraft weapon (although with 12 barrels and firing rifle-calibre projectiles with percussion ignition) was fired40 years ago. One of the first experimental versions is shown in the accompanying 1916 photograph. The gun was experimentedwith during World War 1 until the armistice and the last develop- ment version was retained by the late A. H. G. Fokker as hispersonal property. Most probably, he transferred this weapon, with his other personal belongings, to the U.S.A. (where he diedin December 1939); possibly this interesting model has been discovered there for "re-evaluation." Inventor and designer of the weapon was the German engineerLeimberger, employed by Fokker during World War 1 as a weapons engineer and responsible for many innovations in thesphere of fighter armament (e.g., the Maltese-cross operation of synchronizer gears), all commonly ascribed to Fokker's inventivegenius. The story of this engine-operated weapon of 1916 goes backto a secret circular which the then Major Wilhelm Siegert (in charge of inspection of the Prussian Air Corps) directed to German
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
