FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1970
1970 - 0384.PDF
342 PRIVATE FLYING 1970 ... minute peak-viewing advertising rates (for the London region only). The Zlin cost a little over £8,000 to buy, and costs about £4,000 a year to run (compared with the Gold Leaf press advertising budget of £350,000 last year). The aeroplane has been displayed at twelve air shows and a conservative estimate puts its total audience at about half a million people. But in 1970 the exposure can be expected to be greater as Players, together with; other leading companies, are sponsors of the first World Acrobatic Championships to be held in this country. Although the main part of the competition, which takes place from July 13-26, will consist of eliminating rounds, the final day will see a televised air display par excellence. With the extensive newspaper and television coverage that the event should attract, it, soon becomes apparent that altruism has no place in the modern advertiser's budget. It is evident, therefore, that in order to attract a worthwhile budget from sponsors, sport-flying events should be orientated to maximum publicity. In this, Britain offers a distinct advan tage over America. Although air racing attracts huge crowds in the USA, the television and press coverage is mainly localised—there are no national newspapers comparable with those produced in Fleet Street. Two basic techniques are used to finance the meetings: non-profit-making and commercial, with the former more successful. Reno is the classic example of non-profit-making sponsorship. The races are underwritten by local businesses such as hotels, restaurants and casinos which stand to gain by the success of the Show. Some of this sponsorship, along with the television rights, provides prize Captain Barry Schiff is a line captain and a keen observer of the American aviation scene. In this article he describes how NASA extended its activities into general aviation and discusses the extended series of flight trials and ground simulations now being carried out using a Piper Twin Comanche as a test vehicle. G ENERAL AVIATION has reputedly been a laggard to the technological advances of its big brothers, the military and the airlines, primarily because the latter have almost always had access to direct or indirect government subsidy. General aviation has not. It has been the poor stepchild of the giant aerospace industry, always waiting eagerly for what ever morsels of useful technology might eventually be handed down. A small sliver of the American tax dollar finally has been made available to help in the technological growth of general aviation. Using its extensive flight research knowledge and testing facilities, the US National Aeronaittics & Space Administration (NASA) has been authorised to attempt a balance of the scales of government interest. Its general avia tion section (although small) is working hard to develop advanced concepts for future use in the design of light aircraft. NASA's concern for general aviation began early in 1964 when its operating problems committee saw a need to conduct a broad-scale inquiry into the handling qualities of general- aviation aircraft. The committee wanted to determine if these qualities had kept pace with performance increases and whether they could have an adverse effect on flight safety. To fulfil this purpose, NASA leased seven aircraft that were thought to be a representative cross-section of those used in normal general-aviation operations: an Aero Commander 680, a Beech S35 Bonanza and an A33 Debonair, a Cessna 210 and 3101, a Piper Apache 23-1160 and a Twin Comanche. The flight evaluation consisted of two phases. The first RIGHT International, 5 March 1970 money, which by FAA regulations must be in a holding account thirty days before the meeting, so that it cannot be based on gate receipts. At the end of the day, if the meeting shows a profit, part of the underwriter's investment is returned. Commercial sponsorship is limited, probably because of the small return that is likely to result in advertising. One of the main companies in this field is the Champion Sparking Plugs Co, which puts up several hundred dollars per class at most of the air races. While the Americans have had difficulties in raising sponsor ship for sport flying, there is in Britain the advantage that if a report of a meeting reaches the national papers it is likely to have country-wide coverage. If this is the case, sponsors will see a tangible result from, their investments. The question arises, therefore, as to how to generate the public's interest and thereby gain publicity. Hitherto, air racing has been a non-starter as a spectator sport. Apart from the occasional "What has happened to the King's Cup air race?" there is little evidence to suppose that the majority of the public even knows the sport exists. Furthermore, it is most likely that without the usually superb accompanying air displays few people would support the sort of air racing seen in Britain in recent years. The coming season should see this changed. Formula 1 racing will be noisy, fast, completely in the view of the crowd and each race will last for a matter of only fifteen minutes— a far cry from the present situation where a fifty-minute race over a 17-mile course is usual. There is already talk of some of the English midget racers competing in the USA, and Americans competing over here this summer. British pilots should soon pick up some of the Americans' expertise in maiking these events really exciting. comprised 13 flights per aircraft and was devoted to quanti tative evaluations of various stability and control characteristics of the aircraft during climb, cruise, approach, and landing con figurations. Stalls and asymmetric power effects were studied also. The second phase (ten flights per aeroplane) obtained quali tative pilot evaluations of overall handling qualities with particular emphasis on instrument flight operation. The 23 participating test pilots were from the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, the FAA, NASA, the military, and the general- aviation industry. The flight test programme was completed in 1966. The results were compiled in November 1966 and summarised in NASA Technical Note D-3726, An Evaluation of the Handling Qualities of Seven General-Aviation Aircraft. Marvin (Russ) Barber, NASA's general aviation project engineer, along with three co-workers, Charles Jones, Thomas Sisk, and Fred Haise, were' responsible for this publication. Their concluding remarks did not patronise the aircraft manu facturers, nor were they designed to. The following states in frank objectivity what many pilots have expressed in some what harsher tones:— "An . - • evaluation of the handling qualities of seven (general aviation) aircraft indicates that they have generally satisfactory stability and control characteristics that deteriorate with decreasing airspeed, increasing aft e.g. position, increasing power and extension of gear and flaps. During visual flight and IFR flight in smooth air, the handling qualities are satis factory. Turbulence degrades these . . . qualities. The degrada tion is most noticeable during ILS approaches because of the marked increase in pilot workload. Excessive control system friction, low levels of static longitudinal and lateral stability, high adverse yaw (effect), objectionable Dutch roll charac teristics, and control surface float combine to make precise instrument tracking tasks, in the presence of turbulence, diffi cult even for experienced instrument pilots. NASA looks at general aviation By BARRY SCHIFF
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
