FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1962
1962 - 0217.PDF
PLIGHT International, 8 February 1962 Rearward-facing Seats SIR,—Mr Hardingham's letter in Flight for November 16, 1961, included this statement: "Generally, under crash- loading conditions a backward-facing seat imposes greater stresses in the floor structure than does a forward-facing seat. Hence, in an older aircraft with a 6g floor, it is often impos sible (unless re-design of the floor is undertaken) to fit backward-facing seats without going well below 6g." Mr J. Cutler's letter of January 25 included this statement: "The design strength of aircraft floors and the strength of all the underframe of seats is not much affected under BCAR by the direction in which the seat faces, because the height of the occupant's e.g. is taken to be the same in both cases." One of the implications of this discrepancy was why this correspondence was continued after November 16 and now again after January 25! A forward-facing and belted sitter is evidently expected to do some of the structural work which the seat should do, resulting in failure of the sitter in a head-on crash. This is the direction in which many of the highest decelerations are likely to occur. Designing for rigidity as well as strength is a familiar necessity and would reduce "whiplash" in a backward-facing seat to a minor effect. I will agree that backward-facing seats must also be comfortable under all normal conditions. The nosewheel undercarriage has been decisive in this respect and flat-rising VTOL should clinch the matter. Unfortunately, weight- saving is more than ever important in VTOL and it is up to potential passengers to fight it out with the operators. Surbiton, Surrey R. C. ABEL CF-104S at Cartierville SIR,—Not much has been said about the CF-104 production programme in Canada, so here is the present story so far. The first two CF-104s and the ninth -104 are still in California. However, the aviation enthusiast can now see up to forty of the forty-nine CF-104s rolled-out in one after noon. Cartierville Airport has really come to life, with up to six CF-104 flights on good weather days. Of the 49 aircraft now out, approximately 28 have flown, and ten are in the pre-flight stage. There has been one accident, the loss of the twelfth machine, 12712 (pilot Bruce Fleming baled out successfully). Nevertheless, production is moving along at a rapid pace. Montreal 16, Quebec BOB MCINTYRE Ocean Weather Ships SIR,—I have just seen your article "Ocean Weather Ship" in the December 21 issue of Flight. As the North Atlantic Ocean Station Network is probably one of the happiest and most practical evidences of useful international co-operation, I think that readers might like to have more information about it than the somewhat misleading article itself contains. You list the United States, United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and Norway as operators of the nine ships. In fact 21 ships are necessary to keep the nine ocean stations continuously manned; instead of five countries, 18 countries whose airlines fly across the North Atlantic are actually involved, making contributions to the network by supplying either ships or cash. The International Civil Aviation Organization has been sponsor of the network since 1946, and the ICAO Council is responsible for co-ordinating the general programme of operation of the stations, for collection and allocation of the cash contributions between the States involved, and for fixing these from year to year. The major factor in the allocation of responsibilities is the proportion which the number of flights of each State's civil aircraft bears to the total number of civil flights across the North Atlantic; to this, as a minor factor, is added an assessment of "non-aeronautical benefits"—principally better weather forecasting—which certain countries will receive because of the presence of the weather ships. As a result of these principles and the Council's computations, the nations which have accepted responsibility for providing The US-registered de Havilland Fox Moth referred to in Mr Dennis Powell's letter below. It is believed to be the only example in the USA Letters The Editor of "Flight International" is not necessarily in agreement with the views expressed by correspondents in these columns. Names and addresses of writers, not for publication in detail, must in all cases accompany letters. ships—Canada, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States—receive certain cash payments from the other participants, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and Venezuela. Montreal, Canada s. G. COOPER Acting Chief, Public Information Office, International Civil Aviation Organization [Our description was based on Air Ministry information specifically relating to the renaming of RN frigate "Rushen Castle" as "Weather Surveyor." We are glad to have Mr Cooper's additional information.—Ed.] A Fox Moth in America SIR,—At the Reading, Penn, USA, 12th annual aviation show held last year the outright winner of the Oldest Air craft Trophy was Mr K. F. Horton (of White Plains, NY), owner of a remarkable veteran D.H.83 Fox Moth, which at the time of the show still bore its original Canadian registra tion, CF-BNO. It has since been re-registered in the USA and although my own data on this beautiful little biplane is extremely incomplete, I understand it was one of several D.H.83s which were exported to Canada circa 1933-34. Enclosed is a photograph which you may care to publish. It is almost certainly the only D.H.83 flying in the USA and is a rare bird in every sense, because only one other of the type was exported to America, this being G-ABZD, which became NC12739 back in the mid-1930s. Nairobi, Kenya DENNIS M. POWELL CAA's Profits SIR,—In a recent news-item on Central African Airways Corporation's 1960-61 profit (page 999, December 28,1961), your reference to our famous Zimbabwe Ruins is certainly apposite if both mysteries are to remain unsolved! State airlines, corporations, commissions—call them what you will—are fair game, never out of season, and unsporting if they make profits. Despite the fact that without subsidy in any form CAA made a true profit last year—as, indeed.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
