FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1963
1963 - 1853.PDF
660 FLIGHT International, 17 October 196 J WHAT'S WRONG WITH AIR RACING? By Lewis Benjamin WHAT has happened to air racing? How many remember the giant meetings in Europe of the twenties and thirties and the time when a 100,000 spectator event both in Europe and America was almost commonplace ? And the aircraft—sleek, potent, race-designed hot ships, compact bundles of power. Dan gerous, exciting, crowd-compelling. Of all the countries that once proudly presented air racing on a national scale only Britain still retains recognized annual events, and they are but a poor mockery of things that once were. What vintage racing years they were! In 1936, the year that Charles Gardner won the premier event, the Kings Cup was a 20-lap, 312-mile full-throttle race, and that after an eliminating dash of 1,224 miles! Ever since 1922, when King George V gave racing popular recognition, the sport had attracted tremendous crowds, and had half the country keenly following the contestants, who were themselves household names. Remember a few? Alex Henshaw, Amy Mollison, Geoffrey de Havilland, Tommy Rose. In the USA, where racing was done on a gigantic money-making scale, pilots raced for fabulous purses and were feted and probably better-known than many so-called film stars. Huge concerns backed their men and machines, in a manner more reminiscent of a wartime project. The USA produced some fine new machines immediately after the war and the initial races were well-attended, but they were a sad reminder of greater things and, after a few years, had all but faded from the scene. That was nearly 20 years ago. Now only Britain is left still running obsolete races that no longer attract the public in sufficient numbers to attract the money, which in turn means nothing being ploughed back into the sport—a dreary circle that must eventually mean the death of racing in this country. Just how little interest is shown is best illustrated by the fact, that since 1961, none of the races has been televised. The sports viewing every year on that day has included motor racing, athletics, swimming and (naturally) cricket, and the national newspapers have given the scantest cover, usually a few inches somewhere inside. Was it the repetition of the same old warriors battling around the same old course that lost the races national coverage ? In 1961, of the aircraft that got through to the once-proud Kings Cup, only three were postwar and one was even 30 years old in a handicapped race for odd aircraft racing flat out at speeds from 100 to 300 m.p.h. This year there were still six over 20 years old. Race? Its a handicapper's nightmare, with wily pilots trying to pull the wool over the eyes of wily handicappers. There is nothing wrong with the standard of racing—the pilots probably have never been better—but the chances of winning are not strictly by skill alone. So what keeps racing going in Britain ? It certainly isn't the prize money. Never in the field of flying endeavour have so many pilots flown so much for so little (if the parody may be forgiven). The race of the year is for a cup—spell it any way you wish but it remains just a cup, and on loan at that. Nothing else, and racing an aeroplane—even as we do in Britain, on the cheap—isn't cheap. No, pilots do it for the fun and the honour of winning, the pleasure of pitting their skill against one another, the community of good pilots and friends, a few days away and several good parties. The Kings Cup was, at least until this year, the ultimate race of a series whose eliminating rounds earned cash prices, £25 for the first in each class, £15 and £10 for the second and third. Not much, is it? (Incidentally the entry fee was £10.) This year, however, there was only one qualifying race. Seven laps of an 18-mile circuit and the National Air Races were over for another year. Seventy minutes of glorious flying on the strength of which the handicappers attempted the impossible, and a good pilot found himself with the uneasy title of British Air Racing Champion. It is not hard to foresee the eventual decline and fall of air racing in this country for, as time goes by, the backers are going to be even harder to find. This does not reflect either on the pilots or on the organizing bodies, all of whom do a fine job. Another factor, financial backers apart, is that machines get more expensive and less expendable. Since few can afford two aircraft, one solely for racing, the family or business mount must be spared the caning of a full-throttle, low-level race. But what's wrong with racing aeroplanes? The public once loved it and the pilots enjoy it. What it wants is a new approach, something nearer the modern conception of a race, be it sailing dinhgies, cars or horses. There must be one class, one start and everyone for himself. Bring racing back. Give the public, and after all they are the real backers, the spectacle of genuine, closed- circuit racing. Give the pilots the incentive and they will risk their cash if, by their skill and endeavour, they stand a chance of getting it back with interest. I firmly believe there is a space in the publics ever increasing leisure-time to watch real air racing. Leave air racing for a moment and consider motor racing. Motor racing was having a heyday when Bleriot crossed the Channel, and through its subsequent ups and downs it is still as popular as ever. Why? First, the salient points. It is compact, the spectator is always in the picture, the noise and atmosphere are constantly with them. It is international—not always, it is true, but this can be an important point because, patriotic feelings being what they are, anything that can induce national pride (or chagrin) is a sure-fire draw. It is sponsored by interested companies, manufacturers and by the great big happy public—and because they watch, so do their eyes and ears, the national Press, radio, newsreels and television; a wonderful snowball effect that spells success to anything it touches. I do not believe that Mr and Mrs Smith watch motor racing because Joe Smith sees himself as another Fangio but because it is a spectacle, dashing, exciting and sheer escape. There is nothing humdrum about magnificent metal screaming at its limit. Now substitute aircraft for cars and be guided by these factors: one class, compactness, sponsorship and international participation. Here is the basis for a revival of air racing. I do not believe that an all-metal racer, regulated in size and power, would cost more than a Formula I car, and in the junior class the aeroplane equiva lent would not cost as much as a sports car. Given weight and construction limits and with one engine specified for all, the initial cost could be as little as £600, well within the pocket of any syndicate. Neither is the venue a problem, for the major motor-race tracks all over Europe and this country are often converted airfields any way, and most of them have excellent facilities for flying-in. This might in itself present the initial way to re-start racing with a minimum of bother, as a same-day attraction at motor race meetings. Regardless of aircraft that may one day be designed and built to set formulae, there is at this moment a suitable junior-class racer in general use—the robust Turbulent. The right body to investigate the potential and to set up tne regulations is already in being—the FAI, with its well-established offices in every country. (The writer puts this suggestion with tongue in cheek: the FAI ought to be the organizing body.) The exciting thing about the one-class air race concept is the undeniable fact tha it could start now and, what is more, on an international scale i need be. This is not a pipe dream. From this modest return to racing big things could develop (MoA and ARB willing), from new racers to perhaps a World Air Racing Championship. \
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
