PATRIOTISM AND AIRCRAFT

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 93, 14 January 1936, Page 16

PATRIOTISM AND AIRCRAFT

British v. American

FURTHER VIEWS IN

LETTERS

[l-’urtlier letters on the subject of the respective merits of British and American aircraft appear below.)

“Let Us Have the Best.”

Your correspondent responsible for the letter under the above heading has undoubtedly a keen sense of humour, and he has greatly added to the interest of this correspondence by his contribution (writes “Sussex”). He takes over half a column of your valuable space to tell -the world how bad English aeroplanes are and how good American ones are, and then has the audacity to sign himself as “Twenty Years an English Pilot.”

I’m sure he, cannot realise what a funny fellow he is. Looked at from every angle it makes one laugh, Laney, after piloting these dangerous, inferior English planes 20 years, he can still make such a contribution to this controversy. What a lucky man he should feel! I wonder how many of his American friends can claim such a long acquaintance as pilots to their machines. What a superman he must be, after waiting 20 long years for that inevitable crash in an English plane; he is still alive trying to make New Zealanders’ blood run cold at the prospect Of travelling in an aeroplane similar to those he has been piloting for the past 20 years. I am sure that if Mr. Stuart Wilson could have contemplated such a contribution to his pro-American controversy, he would never have started, for undoubtedly the finest testimonial to the high standard of English aeroplanes that I have read up to date is the nom-de-plume, “Twenty Years an English Pilot.” “'Where Honour is Due.” Your correspondent “Twenty Years an English Pilot”' seems to be labouring under either one of two handicaps, or possibly both —i.e„ (a) ignorance of the types at present available; or (b) the resultant bias from comparing a 8.E.2 jvith a Vultee! I say this (writes “Honour Where Honour is Due”) because he says he has been piloting for 20 years. English manufacturers can now place on the market at least six types of machines suitable for local conditions. I shall name them: —

(1) Blackburn “H. 5.10 (an allmetal machine attaining 204 miles per hour with six to twelve passengers).

(2) Boulton and Paul “Feeder-plane” (a passenger version of the mail-plane, reaching 175-ISO miles per hour with eight passengers). (3) Spartan “Cruiser,” 1935 version (a triple-engine, low-wing monoplane running regularly in England). (4) Avro “652” and “642” (the “652” is the tvpe to be used by Great Pacific Airways, while the “642,” although not of such high performance, is an ideal combination of speed, safety and economy). (5) Airspeed “Envoy” and “Viceroy (the former is giving 175 miles per hour to eight passengers on 600 horsepower, while the latter “cruises ’ six passengers at 190 miles per hour!). (G) Short “Scion” and “Scion Senior” (the “Scion” having proved itself a very satisfactory five-seater on only 180 horse-power; the “Scion Senior” Ims been produced with four 90 horsepower engines on its high monoplane wing). This is no “amateurish” attempt on technical data, but is in reply a very brief survey of the wide range available from English shops. A glance at some of the performances would surely indicate that British aircraft are not so very far behind American figures after all!

“Correct and Incorrect.”

Mr. Stuart Wilson is perhaps both correct and incorrect (says Mr. C. L. Winther Pedersen). Certain classes of British aircraft are definitely superior to American machines in the same, type or class, and vice versa. Regarding commercial planes. British, thanks to Messrs. De Havilland, Avros and others, in the light piano field are superior to any in the world. But England has at the present time no heavy transports to equal the Boeings, Douglases and Sikorskys of U.S.A, either in speed, efficiency or general performance. English light plane engines are superior to American; but I believe in aircooled engines of over, say, 400 horsepower, those of Messrs. Pratt and Whitney and Curtiss-Wright are equal at least, if not superior in design and performance, to their English counterparts at present. But the new Bristol sleeve-valve engine and the Napier "Dagger,” when fully tested and developed, will place England ahead in the near future. In the liquid-cooled aeroengine field. Messrs. Rolls-Royce and Napier build the finest engines in the world, being especially famous for their durability, dependability and wonderful performance. The above statements are made with all due respect to Messrs. HispanoSuiza. Fiat, and Isotta-Franchini. <>f Europe. Comparing military aircraft, excepting day and night bombers and transports, British machines are definitely on top. However, the new Fairey night bomber and a transport by another manufacturer, which have just been adopted by the Royal Air Force but not vet issued, should place England on a" par at least with U.S.A, in these particular classes. British manufacturers are now turning their attention Io the monoplane, following the lead of U.S.A, and Europe, and it can, I think, be taken foi granted, will eventually surpass in performance and design the efforts o U.S.A, in every class of aircraft. Technical Comparisons. In reference to Mr. Stuart Wilson’s wild statements about American planes and cars being more suitable for New Zealand conditions than those from England: I think he will find that there are a great number of people better informed than himself wno think exactly the opposite; in other words, that English planes and cats are particularly suitable for New Zealand conditions and that American ones are not (writes “Phoenix”). One assumes that be is'referring to the medium-size air-liner type that is used for crossing U.S.A., as no one in his right senses could suggest that any country offers better value or performance in two-, three- or fourplace planes than England. Outside the initial expense all-metal planes that are used so much in U.S.A, are too expensive to run, difficult to repair in the event of damage, and par-

ticularly suited to the U.S.A, and no. to the British Empire. These planes are suitable for a country that spends £6,000.000 or £7,000,000 per annum subsidy, as against £600.000. To compare probably tlie most common air-liners of both countries, we can take the latest D.II. 80A, a later edition of the D. 11.86, as used by Union Airways. This plane cruises at 160 nt.p.h. on 800 h.p. and uses four Gipsy 6’s with U.P., props, and carries approximately tlie same load a-> the Douglas D.C.2, which cruises 165-180 m.p.h. on 1400 h.p., two 710 h.p. Wrights. It may surprise Air. AVilson to know that the fastest akmetal air-liner is the English-made Bristol 142, which cruises at 225 m.p.h., 45 m.p.h. faster than the Douglas, its maximum being 260-270 m.p.h. Lbi.-> plane uses two 645 h.p. Bristol Alercurys Vi’s. Air. Plesman, the manager of K.L.AL, the great Dutch line, has lately made a trip to U.S.A., and he says that there is a distinct tendency there to drop tlie two-engined all-metal plane and go in for four-engine planes of mixed metal and wood construction touring at. a slightly slower speed. lie said that tlie chief pilot, of I.W.A. to.d him that four-engine planes were the most suitable for passenger carryiug as they had a greater margin or safety. He mentioned that tlie Dute.i had been foolish to allow themselves to be bustled by Imperial Airways into buving planes that suited the internal needs of U.S.A, and not their air line to tlie East. There was only one fourengined land plane In U.S.A., the Boeing bomber that had lately crashed. The English aircraft industry lias been done a great injustice by .-the Press of tlie British Empire, particularly since the air race to Australia, by tlie frequently untrue damaging remarks about British planes and fhe exaggerated praise of the products of U.S.A. Taking engines—a very important part of a plane—no one suggests that there is a better water-cooled engine that the Rolls-Royce; in aircooled engines tlie Bristol is certainly as good as any. if not better, and thenlatest sleeve-valve engines are a great achievement. When it comes to tlie smaller engines the Gipsy range lias certainly achieved greater things than any.

One can only touch the fringe of the subject in a letter, but to-day born in commercial and fighting aircraft England offers a better range than any country, and the nearer you want to go to keeping your air line a real commercial proposition the more English planes you will buy. I am a pilot myself and have mixed with many others, but very few of them have any real knowledge of the range of planes offered by various countries, their only interest being piloting. The British Empire with its small and large aerodromes and smooth and rough ones, and its great variety of climate and Hying conditions, offers the greatest school for the production of first-class aircraft in the world. Perhaps Mr. Wilson does not realise that England has a vast export trade in planes and engines to the world. Surely these people are not so foolish as to buy unsuitable planes. Even the Japanese, s> close to U.S.A., have lately purchased a number of Airspeed Envoys for their national air lines. These planes are very attractive, and tour at 150-155 m.p.b. on two 240 h.p. Armstrong Sub deley Lynx engines, top speed 175 m.p.li. 1 think it. is as well to leave tne subject of cars, except to say that in my opinion English cars can be puichased to-day that are more suitable for New Zealand conditions than those from U.S.A.