AEROPLANES OF THE FUTURE Different from to-day's.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19268, 3 January 1931, Page 8

AEROPLANES OF THE FUTURE Different from to-day's.

To-Day’s Signed Article

Specially Written for the “ Star ”

By

F. J. Carmody.

To-morrow’s aeroplane may look nothing like to-day’s

After clinging to the contrary belief with that conservatism that invariably characterises the scientific mind when it has discovered a principle, engineers now are wondering. They have believed they were on the right track, the only track, in their effort- to improve and refine present design. Now many are not so certain that there is not another and better track, one that may result in the discarding of wings, fuselages, controls, and even power systems as they now are known.

IT IS NOT, engineers declare, that the present aircraft design has reached the limit of its perfection. That could not be true, one designer points out, when 400-mile-an-hour ’planes can be evolved out of current principles and 'planes capable of carrying 100 passengers can be evolved out of current principles and ’planes capable of carrying 100 passengers can be achieved merely by scaling up present models. 1 Just the same, however, more and more designers are admitting that' the autogiro or ‘‘ flying windmill ” can do some things, desirable things, that the modern aeroplane cannot. At the Chicago air races last year the autogiro was watched with the closest attention by many who heretofore merely put it down as an interesting freak. There is a greater degree of interest, too, in such once mere oddities as the helicopter, circular wings, crankshaftless engines, and even rotor aeroplanes. Twin “ Windmills.” An engineer who maintains an excellent professional standing while dreaming the most radical of dreams for future designs, recently told the writer that the eventual aerial vehicle might be a craft with twin * windmills ” above the fuselage instead of wings. These, one fore and one aft, would give the ’plane a higher lift efficiency, greater stability, and provide a means for vertical as well as horizontal flight, he believes. The idea of vertical flight becomes more alluring daily. It is not new in aeronautics. Ornithopters and helicopters have been the subject of experimentation for years. The helicopter and autogiro are not one and the same, as many laymen think. The former has modified propellers placed upon a shaft vertical to and above the fuselage, but the propellers are positively driven. The autogiro, on the other hand, has what amounts to a four-section wing placed above the fuselage but rotating, not as a result of positive drive, but by virtue of the forward motion of the craft. The forward motion is derived by means of a conventional propeller in the fore part of the fuselage just as in the case of the aeroplane. The ornithopter, probably the first type of aircraft with which man ever experimented, is, as its name suggests, a wingflapping device. It has been a consistent failure and has very little scientific standing although it involves the idea nearest to bird-like flights. Helicopter and Autogiro. Both the helicopter and the autogiro do have scientific standing. Remarkable progress has been made with the latter in the

last eight years. Derisively labelled a “ flying cheese-grater ” and similar appellations in its early forms, it has gone on to command the respect of some of the most reputable engineers in the industry. While there is by no means any unanimity in the opinion, some think it is the embodiment of the principle of the future aircraft. The autogiro, unlike the helicopter, does not have the capacity for vertical ascent. Nor will it climb as fast as the average aeroplane. With regard to the latter, however, it does have a much better angle of ascent. If, through error, the pilot tries to make it climb at too excessive an angle he does not thereby lay himself open to the danger of ■“ spinning-in ” as is the case of the aeroplane. In such a case the better stability of the autogiro proves itself quite definitely. If vertical ascent as in the helicopter is not possible in the autogiro, vertical descent is, according to engineers familiar with it. Yet while the craft can come down at an angle of 90 degrees to the ground, it is harder to control at that angle and the pilot’s visibility is reduced for he must look over the side and straight down to get his bearings. The rule is to maintain a slight forward speed and to land at an angle of from 60 to 70 degrees. The autogiro will descend at a rate of IS feet per second as against the requirement of not more than 21 feet for parachutes. Pushing the ’Plane. Even the discarded idea of “ pushing ” the aeroplane instead of pulling it by putting the propeller in the rear of the wing is being reconsidered in some quarters today. The area of the wing swept by the blade of the propeller placed in front of it admittedly has little useful lift. Going back to the old system of “ pushing ” might then be beneficial, some engineers argue. They point out that comparing the modern tractor or pulling propeller with the old pusher is unfair because many other factors contribute to tha efficiency of later aircraft.

This advance knowledge of design employed in connection with the old method of placing the propeller would also improve the efficiency of a 'plane so driven. “ Why should the tail of an aeroplane be at the tail end of a fuselage?” asks one of the most progressive thinkers in the aeroplane design field. His question is based upon the fact that if the members which give the ’plane direction were at the front they would lift themselves instead of imposing a drain on both the wing and the power plant of the 'plane as at present. (Anglo-American N.S.—Copyright.)