News: The modern name of Kent is derived from the Brythonic word kantos meaning "rim" or "border", or possibly from a homonymous word kanto "horn, hook"
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Aeroplanes for Coast Defence  (Read 4322 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HERB COLLECTOR

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Appreciation 236
Re: Aeroplanes for Coast Defence
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2015, 22:50:31 »
A photo of the Royal Aircraft Factory F.E. 2 referred to in the letter of April 3 1912.
Photo taken at Fleet Pond, Hampshire, close to RAE Farnborough.
© IWM (RAE-O 764)

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7430
  • Appreciation 426
    • Sheppey History
Re: Aeroplanes for Coast Defence
« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2014, 18:05:59 »
Glad it is of some interest!

John38

  • Guest
Re: Aeroplanes for Coast Defence
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2014, 17:59:16 »
A lot of bravery tucked away in that account of the trials, you can imagine the risks.

Interesting the the All Up Weight of the aircraft was 1220 lbs (half a ton). A VC10 burnt off twice that amount in fuel (one ton) just in taxiing out to the runway! It's Maximum All Up Weight was 343,000 lbs.

It certainly seemed a good boat as well as an able aircraft.

Really interesting, thank you.

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7430
  • Appreciation 426
    • Sheppey History
Re: Aeroplanes for Coast Defence
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2014, 16:39:06 »
Experiments with Hydro-Aeroplane.

April 3, 1912.

Aeroplane F. E.-2 was flown over to Fleet in the morning.  The axle and wheels were taken off and floats were fitted as shown in drawing.
The increased weight of the machine due to floats was 179 lb., and the total weight of the machine in flying order with 11 gallons of petrol and 6 gallons of oil and pilot was 1,220 lb.
In the evening the wind was small, probably 6 to 8 miles per hour.  The water was calm, with small ripples.
Owing to lowness of water, there was difficulty in launching the machine, but when floating it was in food trim.
The machine was towed out a little way, and the engine was started up by a man standing in the water, which is very shallow.
Steering was found to be as easy on the water as on land.
After a short run to test the steering, the pilot, Mr. Perry, succeeded in getting off the water after a run of about 100 yards.
It was originally intended that both the main and tail floats should rest on the water, but it was found that the position taken by the machine was such that the angle of incidence of the main planes was too great.  The pilot found, however, that he could easily raise the tail float out of the water.
Alighting was quite successfully made.  It was found that it should be as flat as possible, otherwise there was a considerable jar on striking the water.
The pilot reports that he considers that only in an exceedingly steep landing would there be any likelihood of the machine turning over on to its nose.
In all, six straight flights were made of ¼ to ½ mile and at about 20 feet high.  These were made with and against the wind, and in every case the machine lifted easily.  Also made a right-hand turn; but he found the machine rather heavily loaded, and did not make a complete turn.
The wing-tip floats were useful and prevented the machine from being turned over sideways when turning quickly on the water.  There was, however, a tendency for the machine to remain tilted sideways if the side float touched the water.
The propeller hit the water once, in a turn and stripped off some of the fabric, covering on the underside of the main float was stripped off a little, probably due to scraping along the bottom.
It was found the machine could be driven at quite slow speeds, 5 to 6 miles per hour on the water, and steered fairly accurately.  On a windy day it would probably be more difficult, and it may be advisable to fit a water-rudder.
The floats used are extremely heavy, and have been made only to get data.
It is proposed at once to design a much lighter back float, as it seems possible to regulate the machine with the elevator plane, and the back float appears to be only necessary when the machine is actually at rest on the water.
There was considerable disturbance in front of the float when going slowly, but when going fast there was very little disturbance of the water, and the floats appeared to attain sufficient speed to plane very soon after starting.

Mervyn O’Gorman

April 12, 1912.



17 May, 1912.

Sir,

I am commanded by the Army Coucnil to forward herewith, for the information of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, a copy of a memorandum from the suuperintendent Royal Aircraft Factory, as to the results obtained while experimenting with a hydro-aeroplane at Farnborough.

In view of your letter, dated 11th January, 1912, the Army Council would be glad to know if their Lordships would like the hydro-aeroplane built at the Royal Aircraft Factory handed over to them, as the Admiralty are dealing with hydro-aeroplanes, and whether, as the Royal Aircraft factory is now available for experimental work for the joint Royal Flying Corps, their Lordships would like any work continued there with hydro-aeroplanes.

E. W. D. Ward.



Admiralty, June 19, 1912.

Sir,

With reference to your letter, dated the 17th May, 1912, forwarding a copy of a memorandum from the superintendent, Royal Aircraft Factory, as to the results obtained whilst experimenting with a hydro-aeroplane at Farnborough, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to request that you will convey their thanks to the Army Council for their offer to hand over to the Admiralty the hydro-aeroplane built at the Royal Aircraft Factory, and inform them that their Lordships do not at present require hydro-aeroplane F. E.-2 for naval use.

2.   I am also to request that you will inform the Army Council that their Lordships do not consider it advisable to carry out hydro-aeroplane experiments at Farnborough concurrently with those being carried out at Eastchurch, but that they would be glad to receive any suggestions or designs for floats suitable to be fitted to the naval hydro-aeroplanes at Eastchurch, and in the event of the design being considered suitable for sea work, their Lordships might be glad to have the floats made by the Royal Aircraft Factory for trial at Eastchurch.

3.   In the event of the Army Council concurring with this proposal, details of the naval aeroplane to be fitted with floats could be forwarded to the Royal Aircraft Factory.

I am, &c.

O. Murray.



War Office, London, July 13, 1912.

Sir,

I am commanded by the Army Council to forward, for the information of the Air Committee, the enclosed copy of correspondence between the Council and the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty in regard to experiments in connection with hydro-aeroplanes.

The Council, whilst anxious to avoid taking action contrary to the wishes of the Admiralty in regard to the carrying out of hydro-aeroplane experiments for naval purposes, have to consider the question of the employment of such aircraft for coast reconnaissance in connection with coast defence, and more particularly from the point of view of (1) the assistance which can be rendered by them to coast defence artillery in engaging hostile ships in war, and (2) the attack of hostile aircraft.

Aircraft for these purposes will not necessarily be of the same type as those intended for purely naval purposes.

The Council would, therefore, be glad to have the recommendations of the Air Committee as to the conduct of experiments with a view to arriving at a correct type of hydro-aeroplane for coast defence.

I am, &c.

R. H. Brade.





Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7430
  • Appreciation 426
    • Sheppey History
Aeroplanes for Coast Defence
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2014, 18:50:49 »
MEMORANDUM BY THE AIR COMMITTEE.

Aeroplanes for  Coast Defence.

The War Office, in a letter 87/700 (M.T.-2), dated the 13th July, 1912, have asked the air Committee to make recommendations regarding the conduct of experiments with a view to arriving at a correct type of hydro-aeroplane for coast defence.  The War Office letter and its enclosures are printed as an Appendix to this Memorandum.

2.   The circumstances leading up to this reference to the Air Committee, as narrated in the War Office letter and its enclosures, are as follows:-

The Superintendent of the Royal Aircraft Factory had been carrying out some experiments at Fleet with the hydro-aeroplane, and the Army Council forwarded the results of these experiments to the admiralty, at the same time asking whether their Lordships would like the hydro-aeroplane to be turned over to the Navy, and also whether They wished any further experiments in connection with hydro-aeroplanes to be carried out by the Royal Aircraft factory.

3.   The Admiralty replied that they did not at present require the hydro-aeroplane, and also that they did not consider it advisable to carry out experiments in this direction at Farnborough concurrently with those being carried out at Eastchurch.  They said, however, that they would be pleased to receive designs for floats, and might be glad to have them constructed at the factory for trial at Eastchurch.

4.   The Army Council, in forwarding the correspondence for the information of the Air Committee, pointed out that, although they did not wish to take any action contrary to the wishes of the Admiralty, they nevertheless had to consider the question of the employment of hydro-aeroplanes for coast defence, more especially with regard to observation of fire from batteries against hostile ships, and the attack of hostile aircraft.  At the same time they asked for the Committee’s recommendations as already mentioned in paragraph 1.

5.   The air Committee are of opinion that there is every reason why experiments with hydro-aeroplanes should be carried out by the Royal Aircraft factory at the same time as others are being carried out by the naval wing at Eastchurch, as too much experience in this direction cannot be obtained.  At the same time they think that these experiments would be of more practical advantage if they were carried out on rough water, which introduces several new factors into consideration, and on which a hydro-aeroplane is always liable to be employed.

6.   The Committee consider that the matter brought to their notice raises the whole question of the responsibility for coast defence by aircraft and the line of delimitation between the airships and aeroplanes so employed and those working from the shore for fleet purposes.

7.   The Committee submit this question for the consideration of the War Office and Admiralty.

 

BloQcs design by Bloc
SMF 2.0.11 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines