FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1912
1912 - 0988.PDF
Although the promise of the four types of British engines entered in the competition is hopeful, they have not yet proved themselves capable of equalling the performances of the best foreign high- powered engines. The importance of encouraging or establishing a first-rate British aircraft engine industry cannot be overrated. Order of Merit Obtained. Ten of the competing aeroplanes were placed by the Judges' Committee in order of merit as follows :— i. Cody biplane (British), No. 31. 2. Deperdussin monoplane (French), No. 26. /Hanriot monoplane (French), No. 1 •••IF 1 *" 1 Maurice Farman biplane (French), No. 22 ) ''ua " / BWriot tandem monoplane (French), No. 4 1 p 1 *" \ Hanriot monoplane (French), No. 2 ... / ^ ' i Deperdussin monoplane (British), No. 21... \ 7.-J Bristol monoplane (British), No. 14 ... J-Equal. \ Bristol monoplane (British), No. 15 ... j 10. Bleriot Sociable monoplane (French), No. 5. Certain of these aeroplanes did not fulfil some one of the require ments called for, but all were considered to be efficient machines. The standard of excellence attained by several of the competing aeroplanes brought them very close together in the final assignment of positions in the order of merit, although their particular merits were of a widely varying nature. The Judges' Committee were unanimous in the selection given above. Summary of Attainments of various Aeroplanes Tested. Cody Biplane, No. 31 (see FLIGHT p. 808). The Cody biplane is a heavy machine, strongly and somewhat roughly constructed. In range of speed (a variation of 24 miles an hour between maximum and minimum flying speed) and in the field of view afforded to pilot and observer, it excelled all other com petitors, its nearest rival in these respects being the Maurice Farman, A remarkable feature is the combination of a speed of over 72 miles an hour with the power of stopping, after landing, in 56 yards. The powerful engine seemed to work satisfactorily. The pilot can start the engine from his seat, or, if that device should fail, is able, by throttling the engine, to swing the propeller and clamber into his place while the aeroplane stands still with the engine running. Mr. Cody achieved all the tests without difficulty. The judges formed the impression that the machine had not been pressed to the utmost, and that some of the results might possibly have been improved on. On the results obtained, however, this machine was easily first. Deperdussin Monoplane, No. 26 French) (see FLIGHT, pp. 675, 703, 710, and 810). The Deperdussin monoplane (French) is a well-designed and well- constructed aeroplane of a type of general usefulness. The speed test was somewhat affected by a difficult wind, and an allowance is due to both speed and speed range for this reason. This aeroplane was the first to finish all the tests, which were attacked without regard to favourable conditions of weather, a method of procedure which impressed the judges as implying a certain confidence in the stability and airworthy qualities of the irachine. The observer is seated behind the pilot, and, speaking generally, owing to his position in relation to the wings, a better view is obtainable by him from this monoplane than from most others of similar type. The controls are well designed and good. Making due allowance for the exceptional skill of its pilot, the Deperdussin monoplane gave the impression of being usually stable and easy to handle in the air. The landing chassis does not seem very strong, but the machine landed on and rose from hard or soft ground with equal facility. Hanriot Monoplane, Nos. 1. and 2 (see FLIGHT, p. 676). The Hanriot is a well-constructed and highly standardized aero plane, designed largely for speed. It has a rather small wing area. The two machines entered are practically identical, and attained the highest speed of any aeroplane in the competition. The range of speed obtained by No. 1 appeared to be at the expense of safety, for the aeroplane was unstable at slow speed. These machines, although steady enough when in the air, appeared to be somewhat difficult to land, and both of them exceeded the specified limit of 75 yards in their run after touching the ground. The discomfort caused by propeller draught is very noticeable to the observer, and the view is limited. Aircraft Company's, Maurice Farman, Biplane, No. 22 (see FLIGHT, pp. 603, 673). The Maurice Farman biplane differs greatly from any other machine in the competition by reason of its very large wing area and comparatively light weight. It is a singularly stable machine, very easy to control, and with some power of recovery, both longi tudinally and lat.rally, from the disturbing effect of wind gusts. In range of speed it excelled all competitors except the Cody, but in actual speed it only just passed the minimum required. This aeroplane may be considered a very safe machine, and valu able for instruction and practice. NOVEMBER 2, 1912. Bleriot (Tandem) Monoplane, No. 4 and Sociable (No. 5) (see FLIGHT, pp. 627, 649). The Tandem Bleriot (No. 4) is a very attractive machine, light, stable, and strongly constructed. The view is good for a monoplane. The observer is seated behind the pilot. The fuselage is, in accordance with the usual Bleiiot custom, not cased in. This machine, very skilfully piloted, passed all the tests, but with not very much to spare. This was mainly due to the fact that a Gnome engine of only 70-h.p. is fitted. It would still appear to be the case that, although the light single-seater Bleriot machine, built to suit the 50-h.p. Gnome, has, perhaps, up till now, been more successful than any other single-seater monoplane, considerable difficulties are experienced when a more powerful type is called for. The above remarks also apply to a certain extent to the side-by- side (sociable) seater of the same make (No. 5). The fuselage of No. 5 is cased in. It appeared to be less stable than No. 4. The view is good. Deperdussin Monoplane, No. 21 (British) (see FLIGHT, pp. 675- 703, 710 and 810). The British Deperdussin monoplane is very similar to the French pattern. The observer's seat is, however, in front of that of the pilot. In workmanship and finish the foreign machine is superior. The British entry showed signs of somewhat hurried construction. No serious effort was made until August 24th to put this machine through any test, and naturally the pilot (who, at the last moment, took the place of the original pilot) found the time insufficient. The three hours' consecutive flying was achieved, but the height of 4,500 ft. was not attained on the first trial on account of dense clouds, and on the second owing to engine stoppage. Bristol Monoplane, Nos. 14 and 15 (see FLIGHT, p. 698). The Bristol monoplane is a well-designed and well-constructed machine. It is, however, heavy for its wing area, and has very littla reserve of power when fully loaded. The two machines, Nos. 14 and 15, are practically identical, the differences in results being probably due partly to pilotage and partly to engine tuning. These monoplanes are comfortable to sit in, the observer is, to some extent, protected from propeller draught, and the view is fair. If made somewhat lighter, or if not required to carry full load, they would be very efficient machines. A. V. Roe and Co.'s Avro Biplane, No. 7 (see FLIGHT, p. 719). The Avro biplane is remarkable for theipeculiarity of its construc tion, the pilot and observer being completely enclosed in a cabin with windows. This innovation has undoubtedly some advantages ; rain makes but little difference to the comfort of the pilot, and propeller draught is not noticeable. There are also, however, disadvantages, the chief being restriction of view. The machine is well designed and of good construction, but, was, for the purposes of these trials, under-engined, the power being insufficient to give the rate of climbing required. Also, owing to the small size of wheels used, and the fact that the central skid is fitted very near to the ground, rising from ploughed land was quite impossible. Mersey Monoplane, No. 19 (see FLIGHT, p. 755). The Judges' Committee are of opinion that the machine possessed some original and useful features, but that its constructional details were capable of improvement, having been designed and carried out in a somewhat hasty manner. As the three hours' test was not effected, the ability of the machine to carry the requisite load was not proved, but it is possible that it might have done so, owing to the believed small fuel and oil consumption of the engine. The Judges' Committee desire to express their profound regret at the death of Mr. Fenwick, a man of most attractive personality and of great promise as a pilot and designer. Conclusion. The Judges' Committee wish to record their appreciation of the admirable spirit shown by the competitors and pilots engaged in these trials. No personal difficulty or trouble of any kind arose, and it seemed to be the desire of all to ensure a fair and unbiassed trial of efficiency and the success of the most deserving. Owii.g to the persistently unfavourable weather, the judges were compelled to proclaim as "flying weather" every interval when the wind moderated at all, but the pilots, almost without exception, ascended cheerfully under weather conditions that were sometimes not very attractive. The detailed arrangements for the trials were made by the officers of the Military Wing, Royal Flying Corps, and they, assisted by a number of Staff College Students, who volunteered for the work, by the officers of the Central Flying School and the Staff of the Royal Aircraft Factory, acted throughout as observers, timekeepers and weight-checkers. To these officers and to Mr. H. E. Perrin, Secretary of the Royal Aero Club, who also helped throughout the trials, any success which may have attended the competition is due. The report is signed by David Henderson, Brigadier-General ; Godfrey Paine, Captain, R.N. ; Mervyn O'Gorman, Superintendent, R.A.F. ; F. H. Sykes, Major (Secretary). 988
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
