Download document:
The aeroplane: November 1913 - .PDF file.
A decade on from the Wright Brothers’ powered flight landmark The Engineer was unconvinced that aviation had much of a future as a civilian mode of transport.
The uncharacteristically down-beat article – which can be read in its entirety here – reported that with a few exceptions – such as the Sikorsky biplane and a French air mail service running between Paris and Nice – most notable aircraft development was targeted at military applications. ‘A study of recent aeroplane progress and invention seems,’ said The Engineer, ‘to point quite clearly to the deduction that there is a tendency to concentrate attention more and more exclusively on the craft as instruments of war.’
The reporter put this down to a number of imperfections in contemporary aircraft design that made the running costs too high for civilian operation.
But despite admitting that there was still plenty of room for improvement – in for instance, the control of the wings and the efficiency of the propulsion systems of the day – The Engineer was still unconvinced that aircraft would have much of an impact beyond the battlefield.
‘If we take into consideration the performances of to-day we are bound to admit that before the aeroplane establishes itself as a means of commercial transport the improvements effected will have to show not simply a perceptible reduction in the running expenses, hut one so huge as to be beyond the hopes of the most enthusiastic.
‘It seems certain that there is practically no chance of its becoming a commercial means of transport,’ concludes the article.
Why is it that almost every major development is denigrated by the experts at the start.
It was my privilege to attend a lecture by Trevor Bayliss in the early days of his ‘clock-work’ revolution. He started off by showing copies of the many letters and views of the host of experts (some eminent members of our profession) which assured him, and the banks/financial houses/ Government departments to whom he had applied for support that clockwork technology was an absolute non-starter.
Then he put up a copy of the Bank Statement showing the royalties he had received and data on the financial and social benefit to both the Governments and the inhabitants of those developing countries far-sighted enough to support his efforts.
Go for it!
Best
Mike B
Well, it just shows how wrong we can be predicting the future! I bet Marconi never thought that you could do anything with radio other than send morse code, now I type this over a wifi connection using a wireless mouse!
We need engineers who don’t think of why “it” can’t be done, (whatever “it” is) but how it could be done and what it might look like if it were done. That’s how we will make progress.
This just reaffirms that visionaries are a rare breed indeed, whether among engineers or other walks of life.
It’s not quite fair to say that the skeptics rubbished the ideas we all know work today…. but were crudely implemented at the time. I believe we will get (Trekie) faster than light travel and matter transfer, but can’t recommend it yet!
I’ve been asked to develop a clockwork fan heater in the past…. not an impossibility, but not likely to work in the way the potential client thought it would!
I’ve experienced this personally with others pointing out that my idea was impossible. This happend with two different ones and now each are industry standards, it just took a lot of work and creativity.
I think the article is very considered has been a little unfairly judged.
The article is very clear in the obstacles that aircraft technology in 1913 was up against and it makes the entirely reasonable point that without surmounting some or all them to some degree aircraft would only be use to the military.
Perhaps The Engineer could run an article on how the First World war advanced aircraft technology and what effect it had on it’s suitability for civilian uses. I’m sure that would be an interesting read.
It could also be pointed out that without Governmnet subsidies, Cvili Aviation would probably never have taken off, and it still enjoys massive effective subsidies today. “will have to show not simply a perceptible reduction in the running expenses, hut one so huge as to be beyond the hopes of the most enthusiastic”; may still be true!
To give the credit where it is really due:
It is generally accepted that the aeroplane is the invention of Sir George Cayley in 1799 at Brompton, near Scarborough in Yorkshire. Indeed, in 1909 Wilbur Wright himself paid Cayley the following tribute:
“About 100 years ago, an Englishman, Sir George Cayley, carried the science of flight to a point which it had never reached before and which it scarcely reached again during the last century.”
From http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/cayley.html
most civil aircraft improvements have been the result of military developments . Look at the advance , and the speed of it , of aircraft design made during WW2 (even more pronounced in WW1) and as an example the development of Concorde from the Vulcan (not directly but lessons learnt and engine wise) remembering of course that the design team of the Vulcan previous job was the WW2 Lancaster bomber (some Lancs also adapted for civilian transport after WW2)