A review of the various means of producing vertical take-off is made and the salient advantages and disadvantages of each type discussed. The place of the vertical take-off aircraft in the air transport picture is considered and the optimum type of aircraft for each role suggested.

The speaker has no specialist knowledge of agricultural aviation and will therefore briefly describe the aircraft, and provide thoughts on possible uses in aid of agriculture.

The ultra-light autogyro is probably the smallest practical aircraft of any type. Happily it does not need to be correspondingly fragile or delicate and it is little affected by turbulence or inclement weather, in the air or on the ground.

Some thought has already been given to an agricultural autogyro, although a somewhat larger machine than the Wallis autogyro was envisaged. While advantages would undoubtedly ensue from the larger size, such an aircraft would probably be in competition with comparable helicopters and fixed - wing machines. By the time development was complete there might be no great saving in first cost or maintenance.

The phrase “Air-Cushioned Vehicle” describes the complete range of vehicles which obtain some or all of their support from a free pressurised cushion of air contained between the vehicle and the ground.

Vickers’ interest in air cushion vehicles stems directly from the basic work carried out on the Hovercraft—one type of air cushion vehicle—by Mr. C. S. Cockerell and the initiative and encouragement displayed by the N.R.D.C. through its subsidiary Hovercraft Development Ltd.

This interesting discussion ranged over the whole known field from that of near space with meteorological, communications, navigation and astronomical satellites, from prestige flights and satellites with military applications to interplanetary space with all the added difficulties arising from radiation and other engineering problems; landings and bases were mentioned as regards the planets. The desirability of this country having its own space problem, in addition to co-operation with other countries in Europe, was touched upon. The discussion was opened by Mr. R. H. Francis and Dr. W. F. Hilton, the former concentrating mainly on the instrumental rôles and the latter on the irreplaceability of man in certain aspects of space development.

The contribution of the production engineer to the improvement of aircraft structures lies in producing better and cheaper aircraft more quickly.

In the first place he must advise the structural engineers as to what methods of construction are practicable within the timescale of a particular project. He must also ensure that full weight is given to the economics of production in determining the type of structure to be employed. In this respect he must guard against a tendency to conservatism. It is always easier, and usually cheaper, to do a thing the way it has been done before than to develop something new, but in the long term some structural developments which appeared almost impossible have become routine economic processes.

Before I attempt to describe the various missiles which we have developed, I feel it useful to give a brief review of the evolution with time of our technical group, of the position of this group in France and finally of the criteria which guided its choice of a working programme.

Our technical team was formed in 1946 at the Arsenal de 1'Aéronautique, a government establishment. Its staff, at that time, comprised some ten engineers and specialists. In 1953, the Arsenal de 1'Aéronautique was turned into a company, the SFECMAS, which eventually merged with Nord-Aviation in 1955. The growth in manpower and facilities of the Nord missile group went on steadily during that entire period. The present staff amounts to some 900 engineers and specialists, who are employed only in laboratories, design, research and test facilities. This does not include the production side, which is dispersed among four plants outside the Paris Area.

The development of a new commercial aircraft is a complex process spanning several years and requiring the energies of a large number of persons, both within and outside the originating organisation. Conditions for successful growth must be just right for the design to proceed to the first major accomplishment stage—that of flyable “hardware.” Conditions have to continue to be extremely favourable to reach the second stage—that of widespread airline operation. History indicates that they must be favourable to an unfortunately remote extent to reach the third stage—that of financial success for the manufacturer.

Many of the conditions involved go far beyond those under the control of the manufacturer and may even be wholly unpredictable in nature. This is why the third stage is so seldom achieved, at least in a free enterprise system.

Boundary layer measurements have been made at four positions on a slender gothic wing of aspect ratio 0·75. Test's were made over a range of incidence at M=1·42 and 1·82. With transition fixed by roughness near the leading edge the boundary layer thickness varied little with small positive or negative incidence but was reduced at larger incidences, this being most marked at positive incidence for positions nearest the leading edge due to the influence of the wing vortex. With the exception of positions in the vicinity of the vortex, a good estimate of the boundary layer thickness was given by the theory for incompressible flow over a flat plate and an excellent estimate of the variation of local static pressure and Mach number with incidence was given by not-so-slender wing theory.

The Eighteenth British Commonwealth Lecture, “Australia's Internal Air Transport” by Mr. John L. Watkins, O.B.E., B.E., D.I.C., F.R.Ae.S., Director of Engineering, Trans-Australia Airlines, was given in the Lecture Theatre of the Society on 11th October 1962. The President of the Society, Mr. B. S. Shenstone, M.A.Sc, F.R.Ae.S., F.I.A.S., F.C.A.S.I., presided.

Before the lecture Sir Roy Dobson, President of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors, presented certificates of S.B.A.C. University Scholarships to the following who had completed, or were about to complete, their courses: J. M. Chaney (Blackburn Aircraft, College of Aeronautics and Massachusetts Institute of Technology), B. C. Latter (Blackburn Aircraft and College of Aeronautics), R. A. Newnham (Handley Page—College of Aeronautics), R. A. Williamson (A. V. Roe & Co.—College of Aeronautics), D. F. Pilkington (A. V. Roe & Co.— Imperial College), R. J. G. Archer (de Havilland Engine Co.—Imperial College) and C. E. H. Joy (Bristol Siddeley—Imperial College).

Introducing the Lecturer, Mr. Shenstone said that unlike many of the lecturers in this series, Mr. Watkins had been raised in the country of which he was to speak. He had taken his degree of Bachelor of Engineering at the University of Adelaide in 1930 and then took a post-graduate course at Imperial College, London. In 1932 he joined Vickers-Armstrongs and worked on early geodetic work under Dr. Barnes Wallis. Returning to Australia in 1934, Mr. Watkins joined the Air Board, which later became the Australian Department of Civil Aviation. During the war Mr. Watkins had worked on special projects for the RAAF in the Australian Department of Aircraft Production, with the Army Inventions Directorate, and on many other projects. When Trans-Australia Airlines was formed in 1946 he was appointed Technical Superintendent and since 1953 had been Director of Engineering. One of the jobs he was most noted for outside Australia was his responsibility for choosing aircraft for TAA and also for British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines when that Airline existed as a separate entity. In 1950 Mr. Watkins had been loaned to the Government of India as Technical Adviser to the Indian Air Transport Inquiry Committee.

Mr. Watkins had been awarded the O.B.E. for his services to Australian Civil Aviation in 1958 and had been a Fellow of the Society since 1956. He was a past Chairman of the Melbourne Branch of the Australian Division.

An All-day Symposium on Airline Engineering was held in the Society's Lecture Theatre on 21st January 1963. Mr. B. S. Shenstone, M.A.Sc, F.R.Ae.S., F.A.I.A.A., F.C.A.S.I., President of the Society, who is also Chief Engineer and a Director of British European Airways, was in the Chair. About 40 airline engineers from 23 airlines attended the Symposium at the invitation of the President. The airlines represented were: Adria (Yugoslavia), Aer Lingus, Air France, Air India, Alitalia, American Airlines, British European Airways, British Overseas Airways, Canadian Pacific Airlines, Central African Airways, Finnair, K.L.M., Lufthansa, Middle East Airlines, N.Z. National Airways, Olympic Airways, Qantas, Sabena, Swissair, Trans-Australia Airlines, Trans-Canada Air Lines, Trans World Airlines and United Air Lines.

The Symposium was divided into four periods, each with a short introduction followed by Discussion; they were “What is worth developing for the Airlines,” introduced by Mr. M. B. Morgan, C.B., M.A., F.R.Ae.S., Deputy Controller of Aircraft (R & D), Ministry of Aviation; “Blind and Automatic Landing,” introduced by Mr. R. C. Morgan, O.B.E., F.R.Ae.S., Chief Project and Development Engineer, B.E.A.; “Engineering Problems of Supersonic Transport,” introduced by Mr. Charles Abell, O.B.E., F.R.Ae.S., M.S.L.A.E., Chief Engineer, B.O.A.C; and “Engineering Problems of the Jet Flap and STOL Aircraft,” introduced by Mr. W. E. Rhoades, B.S., Vice-President, Engineering, United Air Lines.

Opening the meeting Mr. Shenstone said that the Symposium was part of an Airline Chief Engineers Conference. This first day was open to anyone but the following two days would be confined to discussions among the specially invited airline delegates. He then outlined the programme for the first day and suggested that the discussions should consider the general problems of airline development rather than detailed domestic problems.

The following report of the contributions to the Symposium was prepared by Mr. R. H. Whitby, B.Sc, A.R.C.S., D.I.C., F.R.Ae.S., Performance and Analysis Manager, B.E.A.

I have approached this topic from the point of view of an airline, but the conclusions may be of value over a number of industries. In order to make the approach clear, it is worth defining some terms and also giving a simplified map of the subject.

I have referred in a number of places to “operational” engineering as opposed to “design and manufacture”; the term operational used in this sense should be understood to cover any activity based primarily on the use of machines to produce a service or material of some kind, rather than the design and creation of machines themselves. For example, transport as a whole would come in this category, as would the distribution of goods, the distribution of power in the form of electricity, and possibly mining operations and the production and distribution of crude petroleum.

Certain criteria are desirable to measure the adequacy of handling qualities, performance, guidance, and perhaps wholly external things like noise, associated with an aircraft on its final approach. These criteria should be quantitative so as to enable the designer and operator to predict or lay down suitable limits to the operation, to compare one aircraft with another, and to make good use of operating experience.

The history of the Thunderbird weapon system starts in 1949 when the English Electric Company was asked to undertake a design study for a surface-to-air guided weapon system for use by the Army for the air defence of the United Kingdom. This study gave rise to the proposal for a chemical rocket guided by a semi-active radar tracker and homing on to the target by means of proportional navigation.

A class of delta wings is considered, whose under-surface has an inverted-V, or inverted-W, cross section of such a form that, at the “design” Mach number and incidence, the shock waves formed are plane. The geometry of the shock-wave system and surface is described briefly, and comments made about the utility of the concept in relation to hypersonic flow studies.

Autogyro principles and theory are well known and only the practical aspects of design and construction of the smallest of autogyro aircraft will be considered on this occasion. Also, at this stage, it would be inappropriate to be specific about prices of such aircraft owing to the difficulty of estimating production costs. Tare weights, however, may provide some clues as to costs.

In the “thirties” the autogyro had been brought to quite a high standard of performance, mainly through the pioneering and development efforts of one man, Senor Juan de la Cierva.

During those years many ideas, which would today be regarded as novel, had been tried. Jump-start, pusher engines and tricycle undercarriages are not new.

A Great deal of information is available today which cannot over-emphasise what is at the moment, the serious plight of millions of people in the world and which will become more serious unless agriculture and science can continually develop new techniques to increase production.

There is more than enough land in the world if only it can be developed and farmed. What is needed is capital, work and new ideas for its means, so that, if all are to be fed enough food, the grain production of the world must be doubled and the animal production tripled.

The invitation to read this, the Ninth Barnwell Memorial Lecture, gives me the opportunity of acknowledging publicly the friendship and encouragement I used to receive from that great and kind gentleman. For several years before his death, he accorded me the privilege of a weekly meeting, and although I was in every way very junior, he invariably treated me as a friend as well as a colleague, thereby adding affection to the deep respect I felt for him.

I do not recall any details of our discussions of gas turbines, although I am certain we did review their possible advent on more than one occasion. Had he lived to see them, I am sure our efforts would have received his encouragement and support.