FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1961
1961 - 1452.PDF
556 FLIGHT, 5 Oe/ofor 1961 AIR FREIGHT AND BRITISH TRADE . . . Distribution time is best mapped for each firm, and Fig 12 givesa comparative picture of air and surface shipments for a large British firm. The consignments used as the basis for the two mapsare identical; it is only the manner of distribution that is different. The map is drawn on a time base, with lines proportional in lengthto the log of the transit time, and the circles proportional in area to the log of the static time. Since the time differences between airand surface are so large, direct values are not possible to the same scales, and logarithms are used. The transit lines are, as far aspossible, drawn on the bearing of the destination from the origin. It might be added that Edmonton is the packing centre in NorthLondon. Conclusions At present air freight carries only a small proportionof the total trade in the commodities we have studied, and a good potential market exists for the future. Most of the present trafficin machinery occurs between the UK and destinations lying less than 500 miles away, the zone where air total distribution costs are mostfavourable. Thus Amsterdam. Brussels, Paris, Diisseldorf, Milan, Basle and Copenhagen are the chief markets, and most firms shipgoods regularly to more than one of these. Such trade favours not only direct routes, but multi-stage operations calling at more thanone of these cities. Packing costs become increasingly advantageous to air freightwith consignments over 500kg in weight. To encourage the con- solidation of loads up to and beyond this weight, new breakpointsin the rate structure might be introduced to give the forwarding agent the sort of advantage he now has with bulk loads travellingby surface transport. New rate structures might also take into account the fall-off in the regular use of air freight over distancesgreater than 500 miles. In Europe this would help to encourage traffic to Scandinavia, Italy and the other Mediterranean countries. Freight costs should not be examined alone, but as an integralpart of the distribution function. Most firms are aware of this, but there are difficulties in assessing total distribution costs, and inevaluating intangible factors. There are three customers concerned with each shipment from the carrier's viewpoint, i.e., the manu-facturer, the forwarding agent and the consignee. Any one of these could be concerned with the choice of transport used. A largepercentage of exports to Europe is shipped f.o.b., with the con- signee covering the costs of carriage. It is important that theconsignee should be kept in the picture. The problem can be over- come in some instances by the manufacturer, who (at least indirectly)stands to benefit from any advantage air freight might have to offer his customer. Total distribution costs are often shared, e.g., the consignee may cover transport costs, while the manufacturer i&concerned with packing costs. Often the manufacturer does not break down his packing and other costs, or may include them inproduction rather than distribution. We feel that shipping execu- tives should be encouraged to analyse their distribution networkin relation to production and distribution as a whole. Apart from the elements already considered, inventory costs are frequentlyaffected by the method of transport used. As might be expected, the level of air freight rates is the majorkey to air freight movements. Thus, we have shown how air transport costs can equal up to 80 per cent of total distributioncosts, and frequently equal 60 per cent on the shorter hauls. Even at current rate-levels a good deal can be accomplished by a re-orientation of structure, e.g., to give agents more scope for the bulk consolidation of shipments and to encourage air freight over thelonger European routes. Apart from freight rates, packing and freight handling, together with improved services from other air-ports as well as London, can play important roles. It is as well to remember, too. that the total level of freight traffic is rising, andthere is no reason why air freight's share should not rise with it. Reductions in rates would aim at increasing air freight's share ofthe total market, and we have tried to indicate how this would work with respect to machinery. In Fig 9 a 40 per cent reduction in airrates gives an increase on present air freight of 120 per cent. The isorate map. Fig 10, relating to the weight group 46-lOOkgs, suggestsan expansion of the current air market to include the industrial areas of Western Germany and Switzerland. We have at present basedour work on overall rate reductions. In practice, reductions usually apply to particular rates, thus, e.g., special commodity rates haveshown a greater tendency to fall in the past than standard rates. We hope at a later stage to use our data to illustrate such differentialmovements. We would add a final warning, that in any case, no single figure can be quoted beyond which the market will suddenlyblossom. Air freight is too complicated for this to happen. Finally we may turn to consider time. Speed is important, andwe feel that "static" times representing 80 per cent of the total time it takes to deliver a shipment far too long, even allowing for the shorthauls involved. To the shipper, total time is what matters. Much of this static time is spent in loading, packing or clearing Customs,while the journey time for delivery to the airport can also be signi- ficantly large. Every effort to shorten these periods should be made,and with the growth of regular traffic, mechancial handling and the use of pallet systems would seem to be essential. As traffic grows,the extension of services from airports in the Midlands and the North should be considered, since the necessity at present for someconsignments to use London inhibits some northern manufacturers from using air freight. ELLEHAMMER'S EXPERIMENTS: "Setting the Record Straight- THE following note, on J. C. H. Ellehammer, the Danish experimenter—who has been claimed as the first man in Europe to fly an aeroplane—is from the forthcoming new edition of Charles H. Gibbs-Smith's book. TheAeroplane—an Historical Survey. It is, says the author, an attempt to set the record straight. CLLEHAMMER (1871-1946). who was an engineer, launched his*-> adult work in aviation b> producing (in 1904) the first air-cooled radial engine in history, the water-cooled Balzar-Manly motor of 1903being the first radial. Ellehammer"s engine was a 3-cyIinder 9 h.p. unit, and although an excellent innovation, never powered a flying machine inflight. In 1905 Ellehammer fitted it to his aeroplane No 1, which was built at Copenhagen: this was a monoplane with triangular wingsattached to a large semi-circular "tunnel" centre-section, in which revolved a belt-driven frame-and-canvas propeller. This machine wascompleted late in 1905 (not in 1904 as previously stated), and transported to the diminutive island of Lindholm for testing. Owing to the smallsize of the island, it was impossible to test the aeroplane in a straight line, so a circular track of 10 metres diameter and 600 metres circum-ference was levelled out, and the machine tethered by wires to a central post. So far as control was concerned, Ellehammer concentrated chieflyon longitudinal control; and for this he devised and patented a device in which the elevator was automatically operated by a pendulum. Thependulum was the engine and pilot in his seat, which together swung in a frame below the wings, and was attached to the rear elevator, withprovision for adjusting the pendulum-cum-elevator when flying. The pendulum also provided the lateral stability by its mere presence, withoutany lateral movement. There was also a rear rudder. The undercarriage consisted of three motor-cycle wheels. The first test of the No 1, without a pilot, was made on January 14th,1906 (not 1904 as often stated), and the machine just rose from the ground as it swung round the track. Ellehammer realized that the ground was too soft and the engine tooweak; so he built a new 3-cylinder 18 h.p. motor, and cemented the circular track. The machine was now too small for the engine and pilot, andduring the summer of 1906 it was modified through some fourteen versions before it became what may be called the No 2 of 1906. The monoplane wings were enlarged, the centre-section "tunnel" removed,and a loose, tapered sail was stretched above the wings, making it a "semi-biplane." Control was the same as before. After various manned and unmanned tests, and a few further modifica-tions, Ellehammer succeeded in "piloting" the tethered machine and keeping it off the ground on the circular track for about 42 metres (say138 feet) on September 12th, 1906, Santos-Dumont making his two prize-winning hop-flights on October 23rd and November 12th. Thisperformance of Ellehammer's is often held to make the machine eligible for the honour of the first flight in Europe. Ellehammer himself wrote:"A chapter in the history of aviation was ended. I now no longer had anything to fear from an inquisitive public. Flying was no longer apreposterous and fantastic idea, it was a reality. Proof had been given . . . and purely technical improvements were all that remained to bring aboutimproved performances." These somewhat naive remarks were an indication of how far from thecentral stream of aviation Ellehammer was, and how little he realized about its problems. The historical situation has been confused by thecurious fact that the earlier historians—followed by most of their successors, including myself—did not know that this airborne achieve-ment was only of minimal significance, owing to the machine being tethered, with a fixed rudder, automatic longitudinal control, and nolateral control necessary. The pilot was in fact virtually a passive pas- senger in a machine which went swinging round a pole on wires. Howeveringenious, it was neither a free flight nor a free hop in any sense. The implication that this "famous" event was a free hop-flight appeared to besupported by the surviving photograph, which shows the machine clear of the ground, but—owing to the thinness of the wires and the poorquality of the photograph—does not show the tethering wires. So September 12th, 1906. is not leally a date of any true significance inthe broader picture of world aviation, and the event it signalled does not upset any established priorities. [Other Ellehammer aircraft—Nos 3, 5, 6 and 7, all of which wereunsuccessful, or of which little is known, are also mentioned by Mi Gibbs-Smith—Ed, Flight.] Ellehammer later (in the 1930s) put forward some remarkablesuggestions for reaction-powered helicopters, and for a convertiplane He died in 1946.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
