FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1961
1961 - 0415.PDF
No 2717 VOLUME 79 THURSDAY 6 APRIL 1961 Editor-in-Chief MAURICE A. SMITH DFC Editor H. F. KING MBE Technical Editor W. T. G U NSTON /!/> Transport Editor J. M . RAM 8 D E N Production Editor ROY CASEY Managing Director H. N. PRIAULX MBE IN THIS ISSUE From all Quarters 424 Missiles and Spaceflight 426 The Supersonic Transport 429 Flight System Survey 431 Peruving Flight 432 Straight and Level 435 Background to the Caribou 436 Genuine Antiques 439 Voodooism in Suffolk 441 Sport and Business 446 Diamond Country 448 Correspondence 451 Air Commerce 453 Service Aviation 458 Mine Transport Publications Ltd, DorsetHouse, Stamford Street, London, SB1; telephone Waterloo 3333. TelegramsFlightpres London SEl. Annual sub- scriptions: Home £4 15s. Overseas £5.Canada and USA $15.00. Second Class Mail privileges authorized at NewYork, NY. Branch Offlett Coventry: 8-10 Corpora-tion Street; telephone Coventry 25210. Birmingham: King Edward House, NewStreet, 2; telephone Midland 7191. Man- chester: 260 Deanagate 3; telephoneBlackfriars 4412 or Deansgate 3595. Glasgow: 62 Buchanan Street Cl; tele-phone Central 1265-6. New York, NY: Thomas Skinner & Co(Publishers) Ltd, 111 Broadway 6; telephone Digby 9-1197. © Iliffe Transport Publications Ltd,1961. Permission to reproduce illustra- tions and letterpress can be granted onlyunder written agreement. Brief extracts or comments may be made with dueacknowledgement. AIRCRAFT, SPACECRAFT, MISSILES Official Organ of the Royal Aero Club First Aeronautical Weekly in the World Founded 1999 Studies in Supersonics COINCIDENT with a report that proposals for an intensified study pro-gramme for a supersonic airliner have been approved by America's Budget Bureau, and will shortly be sent to President Kennedy, comes the notable paper abstracted in this issue. Its significance is that the author, Dr A. E. Russell, is head of the design team which is studying Britain's own "SST"; and we firmly believe that President Kennedy's advisers will be wise to defer their submissions until they have studied Dr Russell's prognosis. It is now widely accepted that, come hell or high water (and some such cataclysm might indeed follow) the Americans are determined to go for a Mach 3 cruising speed. The technical problems involved are as manifold as they are obvious, though, as Dr Russell remarks, they need not be regarded as uncrossable barriers. What he himself is asking is whether the effort demanded is worth undertaking when a less ambitious speed seems to offer a considerably better chance of approaching typical subsonic operating costs. In terms of speed the Mach 3 aircraft offers a dubious advantage. On a sector of 3,000 nautical miles its block time would be 30 minutes less than that of a machine cruising at Mach 2.2; or on a 2,000 n.m. sector the time would be 20 minutes less. In terms of safety the "M3" appears a fearsome monster. Because the fuel must be properly insulated it is necessary to house much of the tankage in the fuselage, and Dr Russell finds it "interesting to speculate" on the hazards associated with possible fuel or vapour leaks when the tempera- ture of most parts of the skin of the main structure is higher than the spon- taneous ignition temperature (about 250°C) of conventional hydrocarbon fuels. Such reflections are no more comforting when it is remembered that hitherto most features adopted for successful airliners, including their operating speeds, have lagged seven to eight years behind military experience. As for finance, Dr Russell believes that if the Mach 2.2 airliner (which is the British idea) is to be economic for both operator and constructor, then about 50 must be sold. To achieve the same economic balance for a Mach 3 aircraft at least 200 would have to be disposed of. Self-imposed Difficulties Truly, as Dr Russell concludes, even supposing that technical engineering difficulties can be satisfactorily overcome, the advocates of Mach 3 still seem to be confounded with a formidable array of self-imposed difficulties. Interestingly enough, one of the more reassuring of Dr Russell's pronouncements concerns engine noise. On the runway this noise will be comparable with present levels, and shortly after take-off a supersonic airliner should be quieter than present long-range subsonic aircraft. Remembering Mr Hall Hibbard's contention in his 1959 Plesman Memorial Lecture that there would be "insignificant differences" between the gross weight of an M2 and of an M3 airliner, we were interested (to say the least) to read Dr Russell's view on the matter. In his belief the difference will be "substantial"—actually 337,0001b against 400,0001b for a payload representing 120 passengers. Being ignorant of the recommendations to be forwarded to President Kennedy we have no basis for criticism. But, as an American correspondent recently pointed out, the proposed Mach 3 airliner may well turn out to be a "make-work" project. It is not this journal's desire to teach the Americans how to design aeroplanes or how to conduct their national affairs. But it is very much our purpose to direct their attention to Dr Russell's paper.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
