FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1960
1960 - 0086.PDF
86 Correspondence The Editor of "Flight" is not necessarily in agreement with the viewsexpressed by correspondents in these columns. Names and addresses of writers, not for publication in detail, must in all cases accompany letters. Boeing 707 Take-offs OPENING my bleary eyes on New Year's morning I found tomy surprise that my letter concerning Boeing 707 take-offs had been printed by your esteemed magazine, for which manythanks. I feel that your contributor John Stroud has been rather harsh inthe footnote to my letter, for I did refer to my doubts about the term runway length required, under the paragraph headed"Rome-Cairo," though I must admit I did not make this clear in later paragraphs. However, ignoring for the moment all my othercomments on field lengths required, I should like to re-examine the take-off from Nadi. I have obtained some details about thebalanced field length required by the 707-120 at the maximum take-off weight involved. Reference Flight, November 20, 1959,page 582: Balanced field length for 707-120 at max t.o.w. ISA at sea level = 10,200ft. Temperature correction (reference page738, Flight, November 7, 1958): Recommended increase in balanced field length = either 1.8 per cent per 1°C above ISA or1.0 per cent. Airfield temperature = 21°C, i.e., ISA + 6°C. Therefore, balanced field length for max t.o.w. at 21°.C = eithercirca 11,300ft or circa 10,800ft, in zero wind and ignoring altitude effect. Thus the field length required quoted (i.e., 10,500ft)implied that a fairly strong wind must have been blowing in the favourable direction. My claim about the marginality of the take-off in this case isbased on the fact that the safety regulations were only just met, and that if the temperature had risen by 1°C, or the wind hadslackened during the take-off, the aircraft would have been operat- ing outside the safety regulations governing balanced field length. I also refer Mr Stroud to Flight for December 25, 1959, page798, for further information about the marginality of certain 707 take-offs. Answering two of your contributor's other comments, I makea contrary suggestion, that a major reason for the large orders for the 707 and DC-8 is the quality competition brought about bythe fare-fixing policy of IATA. With all respect to Boeing, I'm sure that any confidence expressed in the 707 could not have beencaused by the commercial-aircraft record of the builder, which amounts in post-war days to less than 50 ageing Stratocruisers,few of which are now in service with major airlines. I also stick to my comment re a turbofan installation. If puttinga 5ft-diameter fan (fixed pitch, ungeared airscrew) in front of a turbojet does not turn the jet into "simply a glorified turboprop,"what does? I refer Mr Stroud to Roger Bacon for enlightenment along the lines suggested (Straight and Level for October 9, 1959). I would remind Mr Stroud that I speak from great experience,e.g., two years in the RASC, one flip round Elmdon, one return trip from Penzance to the Isles of Scilly (I feel the take-off fromSt Mary's qualifies me to comment on rugged take-offs) and five years' avid Flight readership. My wife thinks I would be betteremployed painting the bathroom than trying to put the aviation world to rights. Mr Stroud probably agrees. I wish him a happierNew Year than his comment gave to me. Birmingham 22a G. L. WILLIAMS S.E.S Armament O ECENT letters and photographs in your Correspondence•*•»• columns on the subject of various examples of S.E.5 prompted me to write of one or two points which have puzzled me for sometime regarding this aircraft. During a discussion on aircraft of the First World War thequestion was raised whether a pilot could reach his fuselage- mounted guns. We had been considering means of firing theguns and the point was raised that one or two pilots in their memoirs had mentioned clearing the breech when a gun jammed.At a later date I had the opportunity of talking to an ex-pilot who claimed to have flown S.E.5s and I asked him if it was possibleto clear the breech on the Vickers. His reply was: "Oh yes, we just had to reach out over the edge of the cockpit." I ques-tioned this on the score that the Vickers in the S.E.5 had its breech covered and would only have been accessible from insidethe cockpit. To this my informant replied that the S.E.5s he had flown all had twin Vickers mounted externally on top of thefuselage. This assertion, coupled with a later statement that he had also flown Camels off a platform mounted on the gun turretof a cruiser, made me doubt the accuracy of his memory. I have failed to trace a RNAS squadron which flew S.E.5s. FLIGHT, 15 January 1960 A few weeks later I was sitting reading a book whilst my wifewatched on the TV an old Fred Astaire film, the title of which— The Irene and Vemon Castle Srory-^did not inspire me to watch.Then I heard the magic words "Royal Flying Corps" and there was Mr. Astaire (alias Castle) doing a song and dance in frontof a very real looking S.E.S as part of a recruiting drive for the RFC. I immediately became interested and soon I was treatedto some excellent film of what I am sure were genuine S.E.5s, all of which sported twin externally mounted Vickers guns. The aircraft used in the film were most probably American-built S.E.5s, but nowhere can I find any reference to anyone ever having fitted twin Vickers to an S.E.5. Perhaps one of your more informed correspondents can settlethe question of whether my ex-RNAS S.E.S pilot was correct; or had he seen the film before I did?Stevenage, Hens J. ANDREWS [To our knowledge there is no record of any British S.E.5s havingtwin Vickers guns.—Ed.] Mystery Picture ""THE photographic puzzle offered by H. G. Cloete-Noding•*- (Correspondence, December 25) calls to mind an early war- time photograph on page 23 of Bomber Command (HMSO,1941). This is of a German patrol-ship from the air, in which a very strong shadow of pilot and flight-deck canopy appears toextend over a large area of sea. The solution is intriguing and best left to an expert; I wouldonly suggest that a shadow thrown on concave Perspex might possibly be compressed within the limits of the lens angle. Perhaps a photographic expert could also help to solve anotherpuzzle, namely the photographs in Death in the Air published by Heinemann in 1933. Claiming to be the diary of a RFC pilot, thetext does not entirely ring true, nor do many of the photographs. On the other hand, I would like to learn how other photographscould possibly be faked and also I was extremely surprised to find some reproduced in the German edition of her rotekampfflieger, by von Richthofen (Ullstein, 1933). One does not expect fakes in a book of this nature. I realize that Death in the Air has been the subject of consider-able controversy in die past; have any new facts been brought to light?Windsor, Berks C. JOHN BARRON CORRESPONDENCE IN BRIEF An Australian reader, Peter Hanna, wants to obtain a CoronationNumber of Flight (May 29, 1953) and asks if any other reader who has one for sale will get in touch with him at 13 Mina Rosa Street, Enfield,Sydney, NSW. Sqn Ldr L. F. Henstock is collecting data for a book on theflying characteristics and general operation of 16 aircraft of the 1914-18 period: Maurice Farman, B.E.2c, Pup, F.E.2b/d, R.E.8, D.H.2, D.H.5,Camel, Sopwith Triplane, S.E.5/5a, Bristol Fighter, Dolphin, Handley Page 0/400, Short 184 Seaplane, F-type flying-boat, S.S. airship. Hewrites that he would be grateful if ex-pilots, observers, fitters, riggers, armourers, wireless fitters, photographers, and others who could provideinformation, would get in touch with him at 25 Church Street, Ash- bourne, Derbyshire. FORTHCOMING EVENTS Jan. 15. Denham Flying Club: First Annual Dinner.Jan. 15. RAeS (Agricultural Aviation Group): "Biological Factors in Agricultural Aviation," by C. V. Dadd.Jan. 15. Institute of Navigation: "Heading Definition in Commer- cial Aircraft," by J. Green and A. P. Glenny.Jan. 16. British Interplanetary Society: Schools Lecture, "The Scientific Exploration of Space," by Dr N. H. Langton.Jan. 19. RAeS: "Some Aerodynamic Problems of Engine Installa- tion," by Dr J. Seddon.Jan. 20. Kronfeld Club: "Some Experiences of Flying from 1914 Onwards," by R. M. Charley.Jan. 21. RAeS (Main Lecture at Cambridge Branch): "Research at the College of Aeronautics, Cranfield," by Prof A. J.Murphy. Jan. 23. Aircraft Recognition Society: Annual All-EnglandCompetition. Jan. 25-28. Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences: 28th AnnualMeeting and Honours Night Dinner, New York. Jan. 27. Kronfeld Club: Film Evening.Jan. 29. RAeS Man-powered Aircraft Group: "Engineering Aspects in Man-powered Flight," by B. S. Shenstone.Feb. 2. British Interplanetary Society: "The Use of Reinforced Plastics in Rockets," by A. Wilson.Feb. 2. RAeS: "Suppression of Shock-induced Separations by Boundary Layer Control," by H. H. Pearcey. RAeS Branch Fixtures (to Jan. 21): Jan. 15, Birmingham and Wolver-hampton, "Aircraft Heat Exchangers," by Dr W. Bergwerk; Preston, Annual Dinner and Dance. Jan. 18, Derby, a.g.m. and Film Show;Halt on, "Aircraft Carriers," by J. C. Lawrence. Jan. 19, Glasgow, "Development of the Olympus Turbojet," by E. Mosedale. Jan. 20,Bristol, "Space Medicine," by Wg Cdr P. D. C. V. Whittinghom; Brough, "Flying with the Trans-Antarctic Expedition," by Wg CdrJ. H. Lewis; Coventry, "Transport Command," by Gp Capt F. C. Griffiths; Preston, "Aircraft Structural Testing," by H. C. Channon; Reading,"Airline Routing," by A. Williams. Jan. 21, Isle of Wight, "Aircraft Production," by A. Vines.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
