FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1953
1953 - 0159.PDF
and AIRCRAFT ENGINEER First Aeronautical Weekly in the World Founded 1909 No. 2298 Vol. LXIII. FRIDAY, 6 FEBRUARY 1953 EDITOR MAURICE A. SMITH, D.F.C. ASSISTANT ED/TOR H. F. KING, M.B.E. ART ED/TOR JOHN YOXALL Editorial, Advertising and Publishing Offices: DORSET HOUSE, STAMFORD STREET, LONDON, S.E.1. Telegrams, Flightpres, Sedist, London. Telephone, Waterloo 3333 (60 lines) Branch Offices: COVENTRY 8-10, Corporation Street. Telegrams, Autocar, Coventry. Telephone, Coventry S210. BIRMINGHAM, 2 King Edward House, New Street. Telegrams, Autopress, Birmingham. Telephone, Midland 7191 (7 lines). MANCHESTER, 3 260 Deansgace. Telegrams, lliffe, Manchester. Telephone, Mackfriars 4412 (3 lines). Deansgate 3595 (2 lines). GLASGOW, C2 26b Renfield Street. Telegrams, lliffe, Glasgow. Telephone, Central 1265 (2 lines). SUBSCRIPTION RATES Home and Overseas: Twelve months £3 3s. Od. U.S.A. and Canada, $10.00. BY AIR: To Canada and U.S.A., six months, $16. IN THIS ISSUE: Britannia Progress - - 158 New Vickers Jet Transports - - - - 160 Mountains and an Airliner ----- 164 Research for Industry - 166 Housing for Comets - 172 22 Hours to Australia - 170 And Now Titanium - 173 Fighters for the Navy T HE first month of 1953 nas seen a g°°d deal of activity on the part of Navy spokesmen and supporters who are very rightly campaigning for more energetic and realistic re-equipment of Naval Air Squadrons. The aumination of this effort to date has been a forceful article, "Britain is in Danger," by Rear-Admiral A. D. Nicholl in The Navy League journal. Among principal points in his argument are the following: (1) If the flow of seaborne imports to this country could be interrupted by an enemy for only a few weeks, Britain vould be defeated by starvation even though her armies and air forces had not been conquered. (2) Protection against attack by bombers on our shipping in the Atlantic can be provided only by fighters operating from carriers or other ships. (3) It is not a question of accelerating production of Naval fighters at the expense of some other aircraft; the requirement stands on its own as one of Britain's vital defence needs. (4) The Naval fighter requirement is an indispensable part of our ability to counter attack. It would be very wrong to suppose that this disturbing situation has arisen suddenly or unexpectedly. In fart, we cannot remember a time since the days of the R.N.A.S. when the Navy has been fully equipped with up-to-date aircraft in ail essential classes and of comparable performance with the R.A.F. counterparts. In Flight since the war we have frequently referred to the Navy's lack of high-performance fighters—and, until recently, of any jet fighters at all. In our special Military Aircraft Number of April last year we commented on British and American carrier-based jet fighters in general service, saying, "None can rival the Mig in speed"; and later, of all fighters, "The only ones now in service which can truly be classed with the Mig on the basis of performance are the Sabre and Saab J-29". Recently, it has been suggested that a Naval version of the Mig capable of deck landing may have been developed, but if so we have no knowledge of it. Of the Allied Naval jet fighters—all straight-winged—however, the Tay-powered Panther and the twin-jet Banshee are capable of giving a good account of themselves against all known Russian types which the Allied Fleets might encounter at sea. The same may be said of the British Attacker. The Sea Hawk, which should be in service in a few weeks' time, is probably better than all three, while of higher performance still are the American Cougar and U.S. Naval Sabre (confusingly known as the F2J or FJ-2 Fury). Both of these types are about to go into service. In a rather different class is the Sea Venom—perhaps the best all-weather two-seater now in production for any Navy. This, too, will certainly give very good service, not withstanding NATO criticisms concerning control at very high Mach numbers. It is for this machine for a start that some people are urging a higher production-priority. Deliveries are just about to begin in any case, and higher priority would probably make little difference. We wonder just how many aircraft can be given super-priority—there are eleven already—without the scheme ceasing to have any practical advantage. And what of the later types under development? At one time it was thought that the Navy would order Swifts, and a little later reference was made in a Naval document to a production version of the twin-Avon-powered Vickers-Supermarine 508. Of this wholly Naval prototype it is generally believed that a swept-wing development is not far away. We noted that the Naval correspondent of The Times wrote recently that neither the Swift nor the Hunter was "suitable for conversion into carrier-borne aircraft." At this early stage it would seem that although the delay may be long and the cost high, a 508 development would be a likely replacement for existing Naval intercepters. It will surely have occurred to the Navy, however, that the Javelin has much to commend it for Naval duties. Another possibility offering the chance of earlier deliveries would be for the Navy to adopt and adapt the D.H.uo. This versatile machine has a proven per formance unlikely to be surpassed by that of anything it might meet in the air. We may conclude by paying a tribute to the enterprise of the U.S. Navy in sponsoring such advanced and promising types as the Cutlass and Skyray. There is a touch of irony in the fact that the two Allied Naval services, to whom the possession of steam catapults and rubber decks for wheelless operation offers the opportunity for fighter performance in advance of all others, should nevertheless continue to be equipped with aircraft of lower performance than known potential adversaries. B
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
