Search results

UNFORTUNATELY, there is an almost complete absence of technical information about any of the machines built for this year's Schneider Trophy Race. The two Governments concerned are unwilling as yet to allow anything but the most meagre details to be published. What data are available of the Supermarine “S.6” are given in the table on page 274 of the winners and performances since 1913. The engine‐power is not given there because it is not permitted by the Air Ministry to say more than that the super‐charged Rolls‐Royce “R” installed develops “over 1,500 h.p.” It has, consequently, been impossible to give the figure for weight per horsepower, but it may, perhaps, be said that this is believed to be, in spite of the increase in gross weight, quite considerably below that of the “S.5.” Indeed, when the power actually developed by the Rolls‐Royce is made public it will probably cause something of a sensation. Though, of course, test‐bench figures are not always achieved in the air, those obtained in this case were most remarkable, and it is only to be regretted that it is not possible to mention them. No more can be said than that with this engine, and the series from which it was developed, Messrs. Rolls‐Royce have at one bound come back to the foremost position they used to hold in the aero‐engine world. The continued improvement in engines is, in fact, perhaps the chief feature of the racing machines of 1929 compared with those of 1927. The 900‐h.p. “Lion” of two years ago seemed to have reached almost the limit of development for a single type, but the Napier Company showed this year that that was by no means the end of their resources. They have added probably about another. 500 h.p. and still further reduced the frontal area, the increase of power being largely owing to the addition of a supercharger, which is also a feature of the Rolls‐Royce. This has been spoken of as an innovation in racing aeroplane engines, but actually the example was set by Mr. Fedden in the Bristol “Mercury” fitted two years ago to the Short “Crusader,” an engine which is only just overcoming its teething troubles as a production type but will shortly, it is expected, begin to take its true place as the fine piece of work it is. So jealously guarded are the details of those high‐efficiency racing engines that no details whatever of either the “Lion” or the “R” are available, and in the ease of the latter a photograph giving merely a side view of the exterior of the engine was deemed too confidential for reproduction because it showed the blower casing. Of the Italian engines nothing whatever is known except that the Isotta‐Fraschini in the Macchi M.67 is rated at 1,700 h.p. and the Fiat C.R. 29's Fiat at 1,000 h.p. Whether these are purely nominal ratings or represent actual powers developed on the test bench, or in the air, it is impossible to say.

THE method given in “The Stressing of Rigid‐Jointed Frames” published in the Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society for June, 1936, may be applied to the case of frames embodying initially curved members, as for example, monocoque rings.

With this number the Library Review enters on its ninth year, and we send greetings to readers at home and abroad. Though the magazine was started just about the time when the depression struck the world, its success was immediate, and we are glad to say that its circulation has increased steadily every year. This is an eminently satisfactory claim to be able to make considering the times through which we have passed.

We have long believed that the time would come when Aeronautics would need a monthly journal of its own, similar to those already possessed by other industries, specifically catering for the men engaged on the design and construction of aircraft and those occupied in research work. That is to say, a scientific and technical journal for aeronautical engineers and professional men. It is to interest and assist these that will be our main object. It will be no part of our duty to indulge in propaganda directed to the education of the public in the manifold possibilities of aviation. Nor, at the other extreme, shall we direct our attention to the commercial operation of aircraft as such. We purpose, however, from time to time to deal with general and special uses of aircraft and their economic characteristics as they affect design, and this in regard to service as well as civil aircraft. Our net will be sufficiently wide, including as it will any and every matter that affects the drawing office, the workshop or the aerodrome, to justify the appearance of a new aeronautical paper. We do not feel that we shall be trespassing on any other preserves, for we believe that there is ample scope for what we conceive to be our limited activities without encroaching in any way on the multifarious interests of already established journals.

WE are greatly indebted to MR. SHENSTONE for calling attention to the paper, published in the 1936 year book of the Lilienthal‐Gesellschaft für Luftfahrtforschung, by HERR QUICK on researches that have been made on two types of tapered wing for the Junkers Ju. 86.

As a result of the election held in March the Council of the Royal Aeronautical Society for the year 1939–1940 is constituted as follows:

FROM the conventional wartime under‐carriage consisting of a straight through axle suspended on bracing struts by shock absorber cord has developed the complex modern undercarriage which is required to absorb the energy of descent, provide smooth taxying and the braking effort, and disappear when not in use. These requirements have brought in their trail a collection of hydraulic, pneumatic and electrical auxiliaries and a comprehensive treatment of the subject would assume some magnitude. This paper therefore summarises existing practice to some extent, and presents some notes on various design aspects which, it is hoped, will prove informative.

THIS issue of AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING might without excess of exaggeration almost be described as a special number for inspectors and ground engineers—for, indeed, that elusive individual, to whom we have on occasion referred before, the “practical man.”

THERE has been a very marked tendency of late towards simplifying the control of aeroplanes. Those who have read M. MIGNET'S book on the reasons that led him to develop his Pou de Ciel, will remember that he decided to go back to the beginning, as he himself had found the complications of the normal triple control confusing and complicated. He has consequently gone back to a design which is in essentials strongly reminiscent of the early tandem monoplane evolved by S. P. Langley. This included a heavy dihedral angle with two main planes set in tandem at a fore‐and‐aft dihedral to each other. Lateral stability and control was dependent entirely upon the dihedral angle and the rudder, ailerons being absent.

IN this issue we publish, in the first of two instalments, an article by a well‐known German authority on the long‐range transport aeroplane.