FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1970
1970 - 0381.PDF
fLIGHT International, S March 1970 33V thoughtful design and simplified technology a home-b milder can produce an elegant and up to date one-off aircraft that is hard1 to beat with any production version. In British light aviation one finds too many rabid individuals who seem unable to take the necessary steps to co-operate with their equally rabid fellows elsewhere. We have in this country some of the best care and craftsmanship that I have ever seen in aeronautics, and the basis of an excellent "cottage industry," if only it can be tapped. And it must be tapped, without the larger aircraft industry moving on to the scene, because only in that way can overheads and costs be kept down. Before joining the ARB, while designing for Phoenix Aircraft, I devised a replacement for the home-built Luton Major, called the Majorette, a utility four-seater. The Majorette, which lags for want of capital, could be made by the home-builder for about £2,000 with a 150 h.p. engine. A production version would cost about £4,500. Despite a stock, standard appearance, the advantages of the design lie in the form of construction, with little pre forming, and almost no double curvature. While one may make a beautiful aeroplane out of wood and fabric, one cannot expect to do so to the same extent from metal. But one may sit snipping out wing ribs from 24 swg alloy sheet while watch ing the television—which some feel to be an advantage. But a design is no good if it lacks development potential. Therefore, the Majorette was taken as the starting point for a Phoenix marque, with strong business possibilities. Dropping the wing to the bottom of the fuselage, for those who prefer low wings, and folding the undercarriage away resulted in the Saluki with 75 per cent Majorette parts, but 20 per cent more performance and 25 per cent higher costs, about £2,500 to £3,000 home-built, depending upon extras. The S40 Afghan is really only a twin-engined S38 Saluki, using about one-quarter of the parts of the original Majorette, but is beyond the scope of the home^builder. The fuselage is not quite as wide as some American multi-engined light air craft, although that is no great disadvantage. But in order to make flying really cheap, it is instructive to look back to the much-maligned Flying-Flea. With such a miniature machine in mind, and the ulterior motive of wishing to investigate a wing that will not stall (with quite remarkable properties as far as models are concerned), I designed the S31 using a Hall-Warren wing. This aircraft is now being detailed, and is to be built by Phoenix Aircraft. The College of Aero nautics at Cranfleld is designing the wing. The aeroplane is roughly 17ft span and 14ft long, with an Ardem engine. If successful and safe it should be possible to enable the home- builder to make such an aeroplane for about £600 with engine. New methods of construction and new materials are being found for light aeroplanes. Sheet metalwork has been men tioned already, but glass fibre and plastics of various kinds show new and interesting possibilities. Materials in this class simplify fabrication and can be adapted for a relatively simple technology. The main problem, as far as one can see with such new materials, is designing for fatigue-life. When assembled, or moulded in few stages, an aeroplane with a beau tiful, homogenous airframe, reminiscent of a glass-fibre racing dinghy, has an internal sealed structure which is extremely hard to examine. We are poorly placed for engines in this country. What is badly needed is a range of British engines between 100 and 300 h-p. Although flat engines are relatively clean, there is no reason why radials should not still be considered. A radial can be cowled as cleanly as any in-line engine and it takes up less space fore and aft—an important point when it comes to balancing a small aeroplane while leaving ample leg room. In time turboprops must come for light aircraft, and promising experiments have been carried out with Rover turboprop units in an Auster, a Currie Wot biplane and a Chipmunk. Operating costs are low and the engines are comparatively small and light—but range is limited. The S38 with a projected 160 hjp. turboprop would have a little under half the range of a Lycoming-engined version, at the same speed. If we want a light aircraft industry, there are three priorities. The first is a good, cheap training aeroplane. The second is for cheap and reliable radio/navigational equipment. The third is for a range of small British engines, suitable for light aero planes. And, with the future veTy much in mind, we should be working towards cheap and efficient turboprops because, if we do not, someone else will. We cannot do this, however, without determination and guts, and capital. If we want such an industry, we must go flat out for it. If we do so, we can still beat all-comers. New methods Of construction and new materials are promising a quiet revolution in the manufacture of aeroplanes. And there is an extensive cottage industry of very capable amateurs who, given the right lead and good de signs, could bring about a renaissance in British light aviation. The S3I designed by Darrol Stinton. Models have flown successfully and the first prototype is expected to fly this year. It may have applications in agricultural aviation, and future variants could be effective for STOL operations from strips with steep approaches
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
