FUTURE AIR FIELDS

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 132, 30 November 1935, Page 10

FUTURE AIR FIELDS

AMPLE DIMENSIONS

A REPLY ON TWO POINTS

When considering the question oi size and shape of landing fields it is often suggested that owing to possible development of special craft, such as the autogiro, the provision of reasonably large aerodromes at the present time is not warranted, said Mr. E. A. Gibson and Mr. D. S. G. Marchbanks in their paper to the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Society of Civil Engineers last night.

It is also frequently pointed out that in addition the "landing" and "takeoff" performance of the standard type of aeroplane is liable to be so greatly improved that even if the machine with nearly vertical landing characteristics does not develop to the stage where it can land in a tennis court, the standard aeroplane will require far less ground space than at present. The reply to these contentions, they said, is that, firstly, should the autogiro or some machine with similar characteristics be perfected so that it is as economical and reliable to operate and can be built in the same size range as the ordinary aeroplane, then the field of usefulness of aircraft will be so enormously increased that there will be need for all possible space at aerodromes to cope with increased traffic and that, provided the aerodrome is correctly located to best serve present traffic needs, there should be little fear of its eventual obsolence. However, it is obvious that specialised research into craft of this! type must progress much further than at present before one can visualise the sutogiro counterpart of, say, the Imperial Airways "Scylla." The second point raised can be dealt with by reference to one of the tests required for a certificate of airworthiness which states:—"ln standard air aircraft must clear an obstacle 20 metres above the ground level of the aerodrome of departure without covering more than 600 metres in horizo?i(al projection." i Obviously, while the "landing char,-! acterislics can be improved, as the "take-off" performance is improved, so will there be, within the limits of structural strength of the particular type, a tendency to increase the "pay" load and in consequence increase the "all up" load. This will, in turn, leaa to increased "take-off" run and lower rate of climb. It is then clear that any improvements in this latter direction will lead to increased "pay" loads rather than more limited fields. There is, however, one important point while on this subject that should not be overlooked in its particular application to this country. Some of our most important centres have, and must always have, limited fields with poor approaches. Obviously any air transport operator must choose aircraft with particularly good landing and take-off characteristics to suit these fields rather than attempt to work these important points with machines of poor characteristics by restricting their loading. If this view is accepted as fundamentally sound then Hie universal provision of landing fields of the largest dimensions is noi wprranted. The paper proceeded to discuss the problems and their solution, methods' of improvement and landing area*: ! landing strip lay-out, hangars, etc. in considerable technical detail.