FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1968
1968 - 0056.PDF
58 LETTERS .. . that (besides fuel costs) annual charges, overhauls, certification, insurance and depreciation are high. What would be looked on as slight damage in a wood and fabric machine often involves a major repair or replace- ment, spare parts are expensive, and we have not yet had time to discover their expected life in terms of fatigue or corrosion. American business philosophy makes it seem unlikely that they would look with favour on a specification that would guarantee an indefinite life to the well maintained machine. Tiger Moths still command a good price both in this country and abroad, and are as sound as the day they were built. Many of us doubt that the same can be said of some all-metal aircraft. The secondhand values that they fetch even after two or three years' use are not very impressive. American aircraft are at their best operating from Tunways; they are not so happy on small rough grass fields, although here we must make an exception of the Super Cub. Max Karant may be right in his statement that several low-priced models have not caught on in America. I have perhaps said enough to show that this may not be the fault so much of the aeroplane as to the mentality of the buying public. When, as even in the States, the market is comparatively restricted and selling costs are high it is not always good business to be too cheap, but business rules that apply over there do not always apply equally over here. Let us keep the small aircraft we build in this country simple, unpretentious, easy to maintain and repair, and economic to produce in small numbers. Above all, we must make them fun to fly, and adaptable to all kinds of landing fields. Fortunately we can afford to accept a fairly high proportion of our costs in terms of direct labour, if by doing so we can save raw materials and expensive jigs and tools. By these means we are more likely to develop aircraft of character and of higher performance than the mass-produced machines from across the Atlantic. Moreover, if future sales justify, there is plenty of scope (as I can well testify) for great labour savings in simple terms of organised production as opposed to expensive tooling. If we do this we are laying the foundations of an industry in light sporting aircraft that will certainly enable us to export to most countries of the world, at the same time being able to take rapid advantage of improvements in design indicated by the light of experi- ence. We shall also be better able to adapt our models to the differing demands of particular markets and climates. Croydon Airport, Surrey NORMAN JONES, Chairman, Rollason Aircraft and Engines Ltd Weather Minima up to Date SIR,—Your contributor C.C.J., in his article entitled "Low-minima Difficulties" (page 1028, December 21, 1967) gives the impression that the ARB is complacent concerning the suitability for low-weather operation of existing requirements relating to landing and overshoot performance and states that "The UK takes the view that its landing distances are enough for all likely conditions. . . ." This is far from being the case. We are imposing additional performance requirements when certificating aeroplanes for all-weather operations, though they are not yet published formally in BCARs. First, we are requiring that the effect of any change in approach conditions or techniques (e.g., threshold height and speed) be accounted for in the landing dis- tances, and that the approach accuracy achieved in low- weather conditions be assessed and landing distance margins suitably adjusted. Secondly, we are requiring that the level of overshoot climb performance be such that, following engine failure FUGHT International, II January 1968 at the decision height (100ft for Cat 2), it is possible rapidly to achieve a positive climb with gear extended and thereafter to clear a substantial obstacle profile. We are a little surprised that C.C.J. was unaware of our requirements, since BCAR Paper 367, which stated our intentions on this subject, was first published in 1961 and subsequently presented at the IATA All-weather Conference in Lucerne. However, we hope he is now reassured that the ARB recognises the performance problems which arise in all-weather operations and is taking suitable action to deal with them when certi- ficating aeroplanes for such operations. Redhill, Surrey L. J. W. HALL, Air Registration Board Concorde Discorde SIR,—According to Mr Wedgwood Benn, Minister of Technology, the final "E" of Concorde stands for, among other things, England. The whole of the UK, not just England, helps to pay for Concorde's development costs. A small thing, you might say, but it is an attitude of mind which rules the thinking of people like the Minister. Small things add up, and Mr Benn would be well advised to remember that "E'' stands for one or two other things—Ewing, for instance. Balerno, Midlothian G. P. PHILIP [Mrs Winifred Ewing is the Scottish Nationalist MP for Hamilton.—Ed] SIR,—There have been comments on British acceptance of the Gallic rendition "Concorde" for an Anglo-French joint venture. Alas, there is precedent. My wife collects demitasse cups. One, an English product circa 1880, is clearly marked (you guessed it) "Concorde." Chicago, 111 PAUL c. HEWETT Sir Alan Cobham's 1918 Uniform SIR,—Reference Roger Bacon's quiz in the December 21 issue of Flight, I must confess to being somewhat mysti- fied concerning the early photograph of Sdr Alan Cobham (No 10). I was at Manston in the 1917-18 period, both in the training school and the War Flight, as a mechanic. I do not, however, recall any flight cadet in khaki, much less in the "maternity jacket." All our PFOs—and I knew quite a number—were RNAS personnel. We had some khaki-uniformed people there, but they comprised (a) the US Aero Squadron, commanded by Lt Norman Novem- ber, and (b) officers transferred from Canadian and British regiments who had seen service in France and were transferred to us for training as observers. Perhaps Sir Alan himself can explain the photograph and correct me if I am wrong. Shepperton, Middx vie BUTLER [Invited to comment, Sir Alan says: With the greatest respect to Mr Butler I would say that, like me, he is getting old and tends to forget faces and uniforms. After three-and-a-half years in France (I am an Old Con- temptible) I transferred to the RFC and was posted to Hastings and thence to the RFC Training Centre at Denham. After about six weeks at Denham, in about May 1918, I was posted to Manston for flying instruction. My instructor was a Canadian (in RNAS uniform) named Holly. I was his first pupil and I learned to fly on a DH 6 (backward stagger), then proceeded to go solo on a BE 2c and then a BE 2e; finally, with no dual, I went solo on a DH 9 (Puma engine). From that point I started to fly with Capt Keble on Avros. After about 40 hours' flying I was made an instructor, my first pupils being six young RNAS cadets whom I later took in a formation flight when we migrated to Narborough in Norfolk. I was commissioned in the Royal Flying Corps in the spring of 1918 and naturally went into RFC uniform. In those days an extraordinary number of officers were seconded to the RFC from a variety of regiments, so naturally one came across a great assortment of uniforms—Army, Navy and RFC—but as far as I can remember there were only two or three of us at Manston in RFC uniform. I suppose it was some time after the Royal Air Force was formed in April 1918 that we all assumed RAF uniform.]
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
