This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
The Maneuvering Board and Great Circle Sailing
By Ensign John M. Cogan, uscg[1]
Upon receipt of sailing orders, one of the first considerations for the navigator is to determine the distance between point of departure and destination. For the short voyage or coastal trip laying down a track line on a chart rapidly supplies the required information. However, the problem is more complex for a trans-oceanic cruise. In this article our interest will be in the long ocean voyage adaptable to Great Circle Sailing.
The normal approach to computing great circle distance is by the use of such navigational tables as H.O. 211 or H.O. 214. Another popular method is the Cosine Haversine formula. These methods all require resort to special tables and involve considerable mathematical calculations.
When the point of departure and destination lie in different hemispheres, the point of equator crossing must also be determined. This may be accomplished in several different manners. One method is to lay down the track on a Gnomonic chart and locate the point by inspection. With the Cosine Haversine formula, the vertex is first computed. The point of equator crossing is then found by both adding 90° and subtracting 90° from the longitude of the vertex. The one value that lies between the point of departure and destination is the required point of crossing. With the maneuvering board method, the problem is easily solved.
The method described herein utilizes the standard maneuvering board for a solution by means of an orthographic projection. The board is viewed as a projection of a hemisphere of the earth on the plane of the Equator;
This graphic solution of the great circle distance is based on an interesting application of the Maneuvering Board diagram (H.O. 2665). The problems of Great Circle Sailing, particularly the great circle distance and point of equator crossing are solved graphically with sufficient accuracy for most purposes.
The small maneuvering board diagram (H.O. 2665a) is of sufficiently large scale to determine the great circle distance within one-half of one percent of the true distance. The point of equator crossing is determined within ten minutes of arc. However, because of the larger scale, it is more convenient to work with the larger diagram (H.O. 2665).
The problem resolves itself for a graphic solution into two cases: (1) When both the point of departure and destination are in the same hemisphere. (2) When the point of departure and point of destination are in different hemispheres.
CONSTRUCTION: Case No. /
Lat. Dep. 48°-50' N. Long. Dep. 6°-27' W. Lat. Dest. 25°-30' N. Long. Dest. 77°-00' W.
Required: The great circle distance.
(a) Using the inner arc graduations of the
maneuvering board and considering 0° the Greenwich meridian, draw lines at 6°-27' and 77° from this meridian to represent the longitudes of departure and destination. The result is a horizontal projection of these meridians on the plane of the Equator.
(b) Using the 0° to 90° outer arc graduations draw the lines “A” and “B” parallel to the 0-180° line at 48°-50' and 25°-30' on the arc to represent the latitudes of departure and destination. Lay off the lengths “A” and “B” on their respective meridians determining points “a” and
b.” This gives the positions in horizontal projection of the points of departure and destination in relation to the Equator.
(c) Connect “a” and “b” with a straight line Ch. This line represents the horizontal projection of the chord of the great circle track between Points.
(d) The true length of the chord is obtained by Projecting it on a plane passing through points ‘a” and “b” perpendicular to the plane of the Equator. Erect a perpendicular to “ab” at “b” to represent this plane. Lay off on this perpendicular the difference of latitude “C” to obtain “c.” This gives the vertical projection of the great circle chord Cv.
(e) Complete the triangle “abc” by drawing Ct. This line represents the true chord length. Measure the arc intercepted by this line. The number of degrees intercepted multiplied by 60 equals the great circle distance.
(f)As illustrated in Figure No. 1, the great circle distance obtained by this graphic method was 3,510 miles. This total compares most favorable with either distance figure computed by H.O. 211 or H.O. 214.
In actual practice points “a,” “b,” and “c” are obtained without actually drawing in the reference lines. This enables a very rapid solution of the problem. This method is of prime value when it is desired to compute distances to several destinations from a common departure point.
CONSTRUCTION: Case No. 2
Lat. Dep. 35°-20' N. Long. Dep. 67°-40' W.
Lat. Dest. 31°-00' S. Long. Dest. 18°-30' E.
Required: The great circle distance.
Longitude of Equator crossing.
(a) Proceed as in the previous case until “a” and “b” are obtained. Plot as though both latitudes were of the same name. Draw the line “ab.”
(b) Erect perpendiculars to “ab” at “a” and “b” and locate “al” and “bl.” as shown in Figure No. 2. Connect “al” and “bl.” The longitude of
equator crossing is the longitude of the point where “albl” intersects “ab”.
(c) Project this point to the Equator to obtain “c.” Draw “ac” and “be.” These lines are the horizontal projections of the chords of the great circle track. Erect perpendiculars to “ac” and “be” at “a” and “b” respectively and lay off the difference of latitude north and the difference of latitude south to obtain “cl” and “c2.”
(d) The line “ccl” is the true chord length of the great circle north of the Equator and “cc2” is the true great circle chord length south of the Equator. These two chord distances measured in arc individually and added together yield the total great circle distance in degrees. Multiply by 60 to obtain the distance in miles.
(e) As illustrated on the diagram, the distance obtained is only 9.5 miles less than the figure obtained from H.O. 211.
The above method for solving these problems is truly unique in its simplicity and rapidity of solution. It is of particular value when navigational tables and charts are not readily available.
Shipping Terms Common to the Merchant Marine and Informative to the Navy
By Captain E. B. Perry,
U. S. Navy (Retired)[2]
In the combatant ships of the Navy we are concerned, amongst other things, with displacement, draft, trim and stability. When we have to do with vessels of the dry cargo carrier type, whether through charter hire, adoption to military purposes by conversion, or in joint operations involving merchantmen, we are confronted with a few different, and sometimes meaningless, terms peculiar to the merchant service. We learn that vessels built for the merchant marine are of two general classes; “full-scantling” and “complete superstructure,” the latter class being divided into two types, the “open” and the “closed” shelter-deck types. Naval officers are all familiar with those terms relating to combatant vessels and, by design, they give us no trouble. The dry cargo carrier is, within limits, adaptable and the characteristic descriptions define the
> Second Deck
Aftermost Main Cargo Hatch with Tonnage Hatch and Well immediately aft.
IfT | 0 | 0 |
| > | ■ | r> |
si | 0 | 0 |
| ) | ) | Li |
MARINER OPEN SHELTERDECK Machinery space cutaway Not to scale
Tonnage Well unde | VL------------------ |
| ||||||
\ | \___ . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| —11 | j |
Main Deck Second Deck
Two complete decks: one partial forward and two partial decks aft*
Second Deck is Freeboard Deck,
limits of adaptability. Sounding mysterious and vague, those terms are really quite straight-forward and descriptive provided we know the language of the merchant seaman.
To give away a few trade secrets, the “fullscantling” ship is a vessel built with plates, beams and framing heavy enough to allow of that vessel being safely loaded to the deepest draft possible; maximum draft and minimum freeboard. The word “scantlings,” therefore, is a measure of the strength built into the vessel. Dependent upon that strength, the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), working under the provisions of the International Load Line Convention, will assign a freeboard and load line for the vessel. Reviewing a few definitions we find: TONNAGE DECK; upper deck in all vessels having fewer than 3 complete decks and second continuous deck from keel in vessels with more than 2 decks. GROSS TONNAGE; total enclosed space of vessel expressed in tons of 100 cubic feet each, excepting the following spaces; light and air; wheelhouse; galley; toilets; staircases, hatchways in excess of \% of gross tonnage and open shelterdecks. NET TONNAGE; gross tonnage deducting Master’s, Officers’ and crews’ accommodations; spaces used for navigation; boatswain’s storeroom; water ballast and fresh water spaces; variable deductions for machinery spaces: thus the actual earning power of the ship as to cargo space converted to tons. FREEBOARD DECK; uppermost continuous deck equipped with means for permanently closing all openings which are exposed to the elements. DECK LINE; mark on outer shell of vessel, amidships, indicating freeboard deck. FREEBOARD; distance measured down from deck line to LOAD LINE (thru circle) indicating maximum allowed draft, Summer, in salt water. DEADWEIGHT; capacity of vessel to lift cargo, dunnage, bunkers, provisions, fresh water, stores, etc., in long tons and its difference between displacement at maximum draft and displacement on light draft. BALE CUBE; cubic space of holds available for cargo. CUBIC FACTOR; bale cubic divided by total deadweight thus indicating design stowage factor, cubic feet per ton, of ex-
Showing* Tonnage Hatch Main Deck Tonnage Well Second Deck Tonnage Openings Second Deck (0)
pected cargoes. OPERATING FACTOR; weight of bunkers, stores, fresh water, supplies, etc. necessary to enable the vessel to make the voyage contemplated and deductable from TOTAL DEADWEIGHT to give DEADWEIGHT AVAILABLE FOR CARGO. PANAMA and SUEZ CANAL TONNAGES; measurements of vessel assigned by those authorities, differing somewhat from U. S. measurements and including shelterdeck spaces.
Perhaps the best method of understanding just what is meant by a “full-scantling” vessel is to look at a ship of the Victory class. For convenience a table of the general characteristics of three classes is given:
Design type | Vic lory F.S. | Mariner S.D. | Proposed Clipper S.D. |
Length overall | 455'3' | 563'7f | 496' |
Beam, molded | 62' | 76' | 73' |
Draft, full load | 28'6f | 29'10" | 28' |
Displacement, full load | 15,200 | 21,093 | 16,900 |
Displacement, light ship | 4,395 | 7,675 | 6,000 |
Total deadweight | 10,805 | 13,418 | 10,900 |
Bale cubic | 456,525 | 736,723 | 600,000 |
Gross tons U. S. | 7,612 | 9,216 | 10,000 |
Net tons U. S. | 4,555 | 5,366 | 6,000 |
Net tons, Panama Canal | 5,239 | 9,183 | ? |
Net tons, Suez Canal | 5,638 | 9,726 | ? |
Cubic factor | 42.3 | 54.9 | 55 |
The Victory was designed and constructed in accordance with the highest requirements of ABS insofar as the strength of the structural parts of the ship were concerned; the “scantlings” to allow of the vessel being safely loaded to a maximum draft and thus with minimum freeboard. The markings to be found on the side of this full-scantling
ship are those shown in your copy of Knight’s except that the WNA mark is omitted. In this vessel, the freeboard is 9'7" measured down from the deck line at the main deck to the Summer Load Line; maximum allowed draft in salt water. 1 he distances between the other load lines are: Summer down to Winter 7"; Summer up to Tropical 7"; Summer up to Fresh Water 1\" and Summer up to Tropical Fresh Water 14*'.
It will be noted that the Victory is not too “roomy”; it is primarily a weight carrier. For a typical voyage, let us assign an Operating Factor of 1,700 tons. That leaves 10,805 -1,700 or 9,105 tons deadweight available for cargo. With a bale cubic of 456,325 the cargo should average 456,325/9,105 or 51 cubic feet per ton if the vessel is to sail “full-and- down”; lighter cargoes will result in a “full” ship not “down” and heavier cargoes in a ship which is “down” but not “full.” The relationship between deadweight and bale cubic is important and the ship should be designed for the weight-space ratio of the cargo which is expected will be carried in the trade in which the ship will engage. By securing a suitable “cargo mix,” full advantage can be taken of both bale cubic and deadweight.
The Mariner is the last major effort by the Maritime Administration in ship construction. This vessel is of the “shelterdeck” class. Once a shelterdeck was a deck more or less open to the elements. Not so today, for the modern shelterdeck provides full protection from the elements. This is the trick in modern shelterdeck design. A so- called “tonnage hatch” is constructed immediately aft of the aftermost main cargo hatch, through the main deck, to a “tonnage well” in the second deck space, the tonnage hatch having a length of 4 feet and the width of the main hatch. “Tonnage openings” are then cut through the forward bulkhead of the tonnage well and through each of the transverse bulkheads in the second deck space forward of the tonnage well to but not including the forepeak bulkhead. The tonnage openings are a minimum of 3' by 4' and at a maximum height of 2' from the second deck. The tonnage well is drained by large scuppers; the tonnage hatch may not be battened down but the covers and tarpaulins are kept in place by means of lashings through ring bolts. The openings in the end bulkheads may be closed by so- called “temporary closing appliances”— and thus we have a shelterdeck; technically open to the elements but practically very excellently closed. This practice makes the vessel an “open shelterdeck” vessel, the space between the second deck and the main deck being the shelterdeck. The second deck is fitted with hatch coamings and can be battened down in a conventional manner. The second deck thus becomes the Freeboard Deck and the Load Line is established from this deck.
The Mariner is of “open shelterdeck” design. In the Mariner, the “scantlings” were designed and constructed heavier than would be necessary to allow of the maximum draft as an open shelterdeck ship, freeboard being measured down from the Second Deck and not the Main Deck, thus lowering the Load Line. The Mariner, with heavier-than-neces- sary scantlings may, if desired, be easily converted to a “closed shelterdeck” type of vessel merely by closing, in a permanent manner, the tonnage hatch, well and openings. The Deck Line marking would then be moved up to the Main Deck and freeboard, in accordance with the scantlings, figured therefrom to determine the then permissible maximum draft. Complying with Load Line Regulations, as a “closed shelterdeck” the maximum draft for this vessel could be increased to about 31'6", increasing the deadweight by some 1,400 tons, but requiring a correction of the registered tonnage.
A full-scantling vessel may be converted to an open shelterdeck vessel by installing tonnage hatch, well and openings with resultant decrease in maximum draft, deadweight and registered tonnage. Since it is fullscantling, it could be converted back to fullscantling by closing the openings in a permanent manner. A vessel designed as an “open shelterdeck,” with scantlings only sufficient for that type, may not be converted to a closed shelterdeck type. What are some of the advantages of the open shelterdeck type? The scantlings being lighter, designed to suit a decreased draft, there is a saving in the weight of steel. The penalty is decreased deadweight. The second deck hatches must be so constructed that they may be made watertight, costing money, weight and impairing cargo handling. There is a reduction in gross and net tonnage, due to the exception of the shelterdeck space. Gross and net tons are used as a basis for drydock charges, harbor dues, canal tolls, loading and discharge expenses, etc., and the open shelter- deck vessel benefits thereby. Decreasing deadweight automatically increases cubic factor. The open shelterdeck vessel is primarily a carrier for lighter-in-weight cargoes. The trend is towards higher cubic factors; note the proposed Clipper in the table above. While the Clipper has a total proposed deadweight of 10,900, it is expected that the deadweight available for dry cargo will be only about 8,070 tons, resulting in a cubic factor of over 74. If our export trade is to continue to be in heavy grains, phosphate rock, petroleum products, steel mill products and other heavy commodities, we may need vessels that can lift weight. If the future of our export trade is to be cotton, tobacco, lumber and such lightweight items, we shall need vessels of great bale cubic without great deadweight. The Maritime Administration appears to be betting on a “light weight” future. In the naval service the type of ship required, full-scantling or shelterdeck, would be determined by the expected space-weight ratio. Generally speaking, the shelterdeck type would appear to be the most suitable for auxiliary service.
The design of the ship is easily determined. The full-scantling will have a Deck Line at the Main Deck height and will have all of the Load Lines (except WNA) as shown in Knight’s. The open shelterdeck will have the Deck Line marking at the height of the shelterdeck. The closed shelterdeck vessel will have the Deck Line at the Main Deck but there will be no seasonal or zonal markings in the Load Lines. The full-scantling vessel will have no tonnage hatch, well nor openings or they will be permanently closed. If the vessel has been converted to a closed shelterdeck type, the tonnage hatch and tonnage openings will have been permanently closed. The Net Tonnage U. S. of the full-scantling vessel will closely approach the Bale Cubic divided by 100. The Net Tonnage of the open shelterdeck vessel will be low due to the exception of the shelterdeck space.
It is well to know the terms, capabilities and limitations of the vessels of the merchant service; merchant ships are often drafted into the Navy. The full and complete story is all spelled out to the well- informed.
Panama Canal Orders Neu> Towing Machines
New York Herald Tribune, November 11, 1956.—The Panama Canal Co. has ordered two radically new type towing machines for pulling vessels through the canal locks. They are expected eventually to replace the locomotives or “mules” now in service.
The two $650,000 electrically-powered machines feature a seventy-five-foot boom lor putting lines on a ship and a fender of rolling tires that moves with the ship along the wall of the lock.
Savings Expected
Canal officials expect the new “locomotives” to speed the passage of a ship through the canal and save more than $1,000,000 a year in operating costs.
The two towing machines are being built by R. G. LeTourneau, Inc., of Longview, Texas. They are scheduled to be delivered within the next fourteen months.
R. L. LeTourneau, vice-president of the company, said they will be tested about a year before arrangements are made for the delivery of twenty-five others at a cost of some $4,000,000.
Operate in Pairs
The towing machines will operate in pairs, running on rails along the lock. Their booms of light-weight tubing will be lowered over a ship’s deck to put the lines aboard.
When the lines are secured, the machine will pull the ship toward the wall of the lock against a battery of twelve truck tires that will serve as a rolling fender.
This fender will be suspended over the side of the lock wall from the machine. It will be adjustable to a depth of forty-three feet to permit contact with ships at all stages of water level.
The ship will be held securely against the rolling tires while the machine and the ship are under way.
It is planned to replace the fifty-seven “mules” now in service with twenty-seven of the LeTourneau machines.
New Weapons Shown at Aberdeen
By Mark S. Watson
Baltimore Sun, October 5, 1956.-—Five thousand ordnance experts from all parts of the country gathered for a massed demonstration of the Army’s newest weapons and equipment—not the wholly secret items still under development, but several which until today were listed as secret.
They included weapons unlisted even in the recent week-end’s announcement of the latest on hand.
They ranged in size from the infantryman’s new light rifle to the massive ninety- foot Redstone missile, along with hundreds of component parts of intense interest to these professionals, each of whom had in some way contributed to the show. All are members of the American Ordnance Association, and this was their traditional triennial inspection of the newest things in weaponry.
Outstanding were these items:
1. The Dart, a five-foot missile with unprecedented powers against an enemy tank, capable of destroying any existing armor and of unexcelled accuracy. It struck a moving target at 2,100 yards unerringly.
2. A new edition of the Patton tank, with a revolutionary stabilizer for its 90-mm. gun, suggestive of shipboard guns, enabling the tank to lire while in motion. When moving at seven miles an hour, it fired ten shots at a moving target and made ten hits.
3. An entirely new 175 mm. (7-inch) gun superior in many respects to the combined powers of the standard 155, the 8-inch gun, and the 8-inch howitzer. It has a road speed of forty miles an hour. Thus far, it has no announced atomic capability, but that will come when technologists reduce the minimum nuclear shell from the present eleven inches to seven or less.
4. The new 7.62-mm. machine gun (.299- inch) which will replace all three existing .30-inch machine guns. It is ten pounds lighter than the light Browning and hence can be fired from the shoulder or hip.
5. Little John, a 12-inch brother of the 30- inch Honest John rocket, hence much more mobile, but also potentially an atomic weapon.
6. Two heavy machine guns, 30 and 20 mm., firing explosive shells at the phenomenal rate of twenty per second. They are primarily anti-aircraft.
7. 105-mm. mortar, a mighty addition to today’s 60 and 81-mm. mortars, sturdier and more reliable than its immediate predecessor, firing far better than 2,500 yards, and firing a heavier shell.
8. The improved “mechanical mule,” a low-slung carrier for 800 pounds in general cargo or, notably, a recoilless gun. If under fire, the driver can jump out, pull the steering wheel downward, and guide the vehicle while crouching behind it.
* * *
9. An amphibian Superduck and Drake, both radical improvements on the war-time Duck, and a whole new family of cargo trucks with remarkable maneuverability, hill-climbing, and stream-fording ability.
British Gamble on the Atom
By Earl Ubell
New York Herald Tribune, October 28, 1956.—It was a strange place for a queen: high up on a platform beside two huge thimbles the size of smokestacks. But when Queen Elizabeth II pulled a switch that sent atom-born electricity surging into England’s power network less than two weeks ago, she was committing her nation to as fateful a course as had been set for Britain by any of her forebears.
That switch at the enormous atomic station at Calder Hall, in the Cumberland farmlands near the Scottish border, symbolized Britain’s biggest scientific gamble to remain a top industrial nation. The British are putting most of their money in the kind of atomic reactor they can build and build fast.
Some Factors
For they are faced with an ever-diminishing coal supply plus miners who are more reluctant each year to go down into the pits to dig. The British have an industrial machine that needs power in huge supply and will continue to need it increasingly. Their economy teeters between the revenue they get by selling things abroad and the money they avoid spending by making things at home
So they try not to buy coal abroad because it means spending, usually dollars. Furthermore, they want to avoid dependence on oil from the Middle East where political upheavals can cut supplies and bring British industrial development to a crashing stop.
Calder Hall is the British way to provide their country with all the power it needs. The nuclear reactor there—-which will eventually produce heat for 65,000 kilowatt steam turbines—is of a type which is considered primitive in the United States. Even the British call it a “simple” device. They figure on saving 40 million tons of coal with twelve such reactors by 1975.
Straight Uranium
The fuel is natural uranium used as it is refined into metal from the ore. In America the entire atomic program is based on uranium fuel “enriched” with uranium-235, the
!
'
CALDERHALL
A.E.A. POWER STATION/ PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION
SITE OF SECOND AE.A, POWER STATION •
(As above)
atomic bomb material. U-235 is obtained from natural uranium by passing it through a separation plant that costs above $1 billion. The United States has at least three such plants.
When British scientists had to make their decision, they had no such separation plant. Even now when they have one, they do not seem able to divert U-235 into electric power reactors. As a matter of fact they admit freely that Calder Hall was primarily built to make plutonium, an element born in atomic reactors and which can also be used in atomic bombs.
By using enriched uranium in combination with natural uranium, scientists can make reactors which burn up much less fuel than when natural uranium alone is used. This means greater economy. Enriched fuel can also be used in “breeders,” devices which can convert unfissionable elements into fissionable ones.
Water to Steam
At Calder Hall carbon dioxide gas removes the heat produced by uranium fission in the reactor and transfers it to water that turns into steam to power the electricity producing turbine. In this country, water and liquid metals are receiving the most careful attention as heat transferring agents. The British choice of gas was dictated, they say, by safety reasons, since water-cooled devices can get into trouble. This, of course, is disputed by engineers in the United States.
In general, while the British are committed to their one type of reactor for their next twelve power stations, the United States, with plenty of cheap coal to burn, is setting up a demonstration program of five different types and more variety is coming. The idea is to try to find the best type and then “hit it” hard.
Experiments Go On
The British are trying to make their first atomic plant produce electricity at the same cost as that made from coal. They say it almost does. The first American plant at Ship- pingport, Pa., will produce electricity costing about seven times as much as that now made from coal or oil. The Soviet Union, which also has plenty of coal, doesn’t seem to be in a hurry either, and is following the same type of diversified development program as the United States.
All this does not mean that the British are not interested in other types of reactors. They are carrying on a rather extensive experiment program in “breeders” and other reactors containing enriched fuel. Every one is looking for the technological key that will drastically reduce the cost of the nuclear reactor in which uranium is burned to produce heat.
Taming the hydrogen bomb reaction may change the picture entirely. This is so because of the possibility that electricity may be extracted directly from the reaction without having to go to the expense of heating water and convert that to steam to make a turbine wheel go round. But that’s in the unknown future.
Is the reactor program in the United States going too fast or too slow? That’s a political question and a hard one to answer. By fully using our coal, oil and hydroelectric resources, we could make electricity cheaper by far than any atomic plant engineers can now imagine. And we could continue doing this for a long time. This means that private industry is not going to take a flyer on a proposition that starts out losing.
The question then is: do we want the United States government to subsidize an atomic development program so that at some future date private industry can make some money out of it? The answer has been yes, since the United States is underwriting several reactors in various ways.
Now the question has been changed to: how much government support? And there men differ.
Supersonic B-5S Flies First Time
New York Times, November 12, 1956.— The B-58, hailed as the nation’s first supersonic bomber, has made its first flight.
The needle-nosed craft stayed in the air thirty-eight minutes, making a southwest to northwest semicircle over open country.
Two jet fighters fleW escort for the deltawing plane built by Convair.
The ship made its first taxi run recently.
No announcement was made before the flight, but thousands of cars jammed roads around the Convair plant as the big ship was seen.
About 30,000 persons saw the jet leave puffs of smoke behind it in the air.
As the plane’s wheels touched the ground °n its first landing a huge parachute billowed out behind to slow it.
The B-58, nicknamed the Hustler, is powered by four General Electric J-79 turbo
jet engines slung beneath the wings in separate nacelles.
Convair and Air Force officials have said •t is the first American bomber designed to fly faster than the speed of sound.
Can Fly 1,000 Miles an Hour
Capable of flying more than 1,000 miles an hour, the B-58 is also the world’s first supersonic bomber, with the possible exception of a shorter range light jet bomber of the Soviet. The Russians told Gen. Nathan F. Twining, Air Force Chief of Staff, when he visited Moscow last July that their bomber was supersonic.
The triangular wing of the B-58 has a span of fifty-five feet. The Hustler is ninety- five feet long and its sharply swept-back vertical stabilizer is thirty feet high.
B. A. Erickson, chief test pilot and manager of flight of General Dynamics’ Convair Division at Fort Worth, was at the controls.
He described the flight as “outstandingly successful and very satisfying.”
Other members of the crew were J. D. McEachern, flight observer, and C. P. Harrison, flight test engineer. The normal crew will consist of a pilot, navigator-bombardier and defensive systems operator.
It will carry guided missiles and probably can launch them from points well outside the reach of enemy interceptor planes.
The B-58 will be the successor to the B-47 Slratojet, of which there are now more than 1,500 in the Strategic Air Command. It probably will be another two or three years before the B-58 is in squadron service.
Elevons in the wing’s trailing edges combine the control functions of conventional ailerons and elevators. August C. Esenwein, Convair vice president and manager of the Fort Worth plant, said the Hustler incorporates sixteen major subsystems, all virtually automatic and capable of accomplishing their work with a minimum of crew supervision.
These include the bomber’s own defensive system.
Mr. Esenwein said rigid flight testing would begin on Convair’s present limited production contract.
Bacteria Corrosion
Jams British Canberra Pump
Aviation Week, October 22, 1956.—Mysterious form of corrosion that jammed fuel pumps of Royal Air Force Canberra jet bombers operating in Malaya earlier this year, causing them to be grounded, has been traced to microscopic bacteria. These turned sea water into sulphur, which reacted later with silver in the fuel pump system.
The Chemical Research Laboratory, Ted- dington, which traced the cause of this damage, announced it is now using successfully the same type of bacteria to manufacture valuable sulphur from London sewer sludge. These experiments are expected to lead to sulphur production on an industrial scale.
While a Teddington research team was working on plans to utilize bacteria found in ponds and lakes, the leader of the team, Kenneth Butlin, was consulted by Rolls- Royce about the mysterious corrosion that was jamming the fuel pumps of jet planes in Malaya.
It was found that bacteria had entered fuel storage tanks from water which was used by tankers to wash out under-sea delivery pipes. Covered by oil and in oxygenless conditions where they thrive, these bacteria were turning sea salts into sulphurated hydrogen. This gas in turn dissolved in the aeroplane fuel as it bubbled upwards. Later it reacted with silver parts of the aircraft fuel pump and corroded them to a point where they were useless.
According to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the same ideal conditions for bacteria of this sort exist in London sewer sludge.
Ship with “Free Piston” Engine
London Times, October 9, 1956.—The first British merchant ship to be fitted with a new type of marine engine, the free piston gas generator, is expected to undergo sea trials in a few months’ time. The engine, of 3,000 shaft horsepower, is scheduled to be installed in a medium-size cargo ship on the Clyde in the New Year. At their own request the identity of the owners is at present undisclosed, but a detailed announcement is expected in the near future.
The Pescala-Muntz free piston gas generator embodies revolutionary principles, the most striking of which is the absence of a crankshaft. Two horizontally opposed pistons oscillate freely in an enclosed cylinder and generate gases which in turn drive a turbine. While capital cost and fuel consumption are much the same as of a comparable diesel, extreme simplicity of construction and operation promises considerable saving on maintenance.
In France, where the engine was mainly developed, sets are already at work in power stations, in minesweepers, in a locomotive, and in two coastal cargo ships. But elsewhere interest has only recently quickened. In America, General Motors are developing the mechanism for use in various forms as a prime mover, and a 6,000 h.p. set is being installed experimentally in a converted Liberty ship.
In Britain, although orders have been placed for marine auxiliary and land based sets, no shipowner, until now, has taken the decision to instal the engine as a main propulsion unit. The difficulty is that in Britain, unlike America, there is no Government fund to provide for seagoing experiment; the cost of possible teething troubles must be borne by the adventurous owner. Consequently, while a number of owners are examining the possibilities of the engine with extreme interest, each is waiting for the others to make the first experiment. But it seems fairly clear that within a year or so a number of orders will have been placed, and production facilities are being expanded at the moment.
The set at present under construction will have three gas generators driving a single turbine, with reduction gearing and single screw. The generators are being made by the Free Piston Engine Company, a newly formed subsidiary of the Associated British Engineering group, and the turbine is being made by Rankin and Blackmore, manufacturers of steam reciprocating engines, of Greenock.
Jet Shot Down by Own Gunfire
By Jay Walz
New York Times, October 26, 1956.—The Navy disclosed today that an experimental jet fighter was hit and downed by its own cannon fire off Long Island last month.
The plane crashed in a wood near Calver- ton, L. I. The pilot, Tom Attridge, a former Navy flier, fractured his leg and broke three vertebrae.
A Navy spokesman confirmed reports of the freakish accident last Sept. 21. Rear Admiral William A. Schoech, assistant chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics for Research and Development, supplied the following details:
On the day of the accident, Mr. Attridge was making a series of dive runs in an F-11 - FI, a new single-seat carrier-based fighter built by the Grumman Engineering Aircraft Company of Bethpage, L. I.
880 MILES AN HOUR
Traveling at the supersonic speed of 880 miles an hour at an altitude of about 13,000 feet, he began a slight dive intended to test the plane’s four 20-millimeter cannon by firing shells into the Atlantic. He fired a four-second burst, or about sixty-four shells.
Mr. Attridge then began a steeper dive, and fired a second four-second burst.
At the end of the second burst his bulletproof windshield was shattered by an object. He thought he had struck a bird, and headed for his base at Peconic River near Calverton.
However, his jet engine went dead—
because, he learned later, another shell had struck it, and he crash-landed a half mile short of his field. He was hospitalized for his injuries.
The plane, heavily damaged, was given a thorough examination. Admiral Schoech said a battered cannon slug was removed from the plane’s engine, and the nose had been punctured by a third shell.
None of the shells contained live ammunition, and so did not explode on impact.
How Collision Occurred
In the face of some skepticism that even a supersonic jet could overtake and be hit by one of its own shells, Admiral Schoech and other Navy experts gave this explanation:
The shells left the cannon traveling 1,500 feet a second faster than the airplane. After entering their trajectory they immediately began to slow down and fall because of air
resistance and gravity. Meanwhile, Mr. At- tridge, going into a steeper dive, began a short cut across the shells’ curved course. About two or three miles from the point at which the shells were fired, they reached the same point the plane had achieved, and there was a collision.
Navy experts said this was the first time this kind of accident had occurred, but that it could happen “once in a million times.” Accordingly, they took steps to prevent its happening again.
Hereafter test pilots will be instructed to turn aside after firing test shots, or at least pull their planes up so that they will not fly under the trajectory.
Helium Gas Rises Fast as Industry Helpmate and Boon to Research
By Samuel H. Logan
Wall Street Journal, October 24, 1956.— Helium, the colorless and odorless gas once associated primarily with dirigibles, is rising fast as an important tool in industry.
In the Dallas plant of Chance Vought Aircraft, Inc., a welder joins steel plane parts together, his torch flame surrounded by helium. The gas prevents the molten metal from oxidizing as it fuses, and thus permits a firmer joint.
At Texas Instruments, Inc., also in Dallas, peanut-sized transistors, which replace vacuum tubes in electronic equipment, are made with the use of helium to prevent impurities in the atmosphere from affecting the highly-sensitive transistor materials.
And all across the country more and more commercial and military aircraft pilots are reading delicate flight instruments with helium sealed in their working parts by such makers as General Electric and Boeing Airplane Co. The helium insures exact gauging of the planes’ performance despite rapid movement from low to high altitudes.
Such expanding commercial applications have helped lift helium from largely a laboratory curiosity before World War I to an increasingly useful tool in factories and research centers, according to Dr. C. W. Seibel, who presides over the U. S. Bureau of Mines helium-producing headquarters here.
Some 250 million cubic feet of helium, obtained by “distilling” it from certain kinds of natural gas, is expected to be produced in four Government-owned plants this year. That will be about 14 million cubic feet more than 1955 and more than 40 times the approximately 6 million cubic feet produced in 1938, the first year Uncle Sam made the gas available to private industry.
Not all the production goes into private channels. The Government still is its own best customer. The Navy, for example, takes by far the biggest amount to keep its blimps inflated and for use in research projects. But private industry’s consumption of helium has been rocketing. In 1955, about 27% of output went into non-Government use, compared with about 1% in 1938. And industry’s use is still climbing.
Helium’s economic history is probably as peculiar as the light, non-explosive gas itself. To meet the increasing demand for it, Congress appropriated $6 million earlier this year to expand output at the Government’s Excell, Texas, plant, which will bring to some $21 million the nation’s investiment in helium production. The other three plants are located at Amarillo; Otis, Kan.; and Shiprock, N. Mex. Despite the rising demand and the absence of any Government restraint—a lid is kept only on exports— private industry prefers to stay out of the production picture.
* * *
Jets Can Pass Target, Then Bomb It
New York Times, October 12, 1956.— Acrobatic techniques that enable low-level fighter planes to deliver atom bombs without engulfing themselves in the blast were demonstrated at a U. S. Air Force exhibition held at Las Vegas, Nevada. The maneuvers are performed automatically by use of an electronic device named L.A.B.S. for Low Altitude Bombing System. In the maneuver diagrammed above, the pilot sets his L.A.B.S. controls for “over the shoulder” bombing. Skimming the ground to avoid radar and anti-aircraft missiles, the pilot waits until he is over the target and pulls up sharply. The device then takes over. L.A.B.S. releases the bomb just as the plane passes the vertical position. The slight rearward
thrust compensates for the distance the plane has traveled past the target. While the bomb is completing its lazy rearward trajectory, the pilot completes his tight loop and speeds away. His jet can cover several miles before the bomb explodes. This method is used when the pilot has no visible landmark short of the target on which to set the L.A.B.S. sight. If such a landmark is available, an alternative maneuver is used. The electronic device takes over while the plane is still level and pulls up abruptly a good distance short of the target. The bomb is reached before the vertical position is reached. It follows a high forward trajectory toward the target, like an artillery shell. The pilot escapes by performing an Immel- mann. On his back at the top of the loop and heading in the opposite direction from which he came, he does a half roll to turn right side up and streaks for home.
Anglo-Russian Fishing Agreement for Northern Coast of USSR
La Revue Maritime, September, 1956.— After extremely prolonged negotiations, an
agreement has been signed between Great Britain and the U.S.S.R. granting British fishing vessels access to waters within 3 miles of the northern coast of the U.S.S.R., while the Soviets keep vessels of other nationalities twelve miles from their coast.
The agreement is valid for five years, with automatic renewal for a period of the same duration. However, British fishing vessels will not be able to fish off the Murmansk coast at the entrance of the White Sea nor in general off the coast of the Kola Peninsula, into which the Murmansk fjord opens. They will be able to approach within three miles of these coasts east of Cape Kanin and around nearby Kolgouviev Island, hence up to Novaya Zemlya.
Sidewinder Joins Fleet
By Allen M. Smythe
Army-Navy-Air Force Register, October 20, 1956.—A routine release by the Pentagon this week stating that the Navy’s air-to-air guided missile, Sidewinder, is now in fleet operation, may be a forerunner of new information on new developments for simplifying and streamlining the sprawling efforts in the missile field by the three services. It is well known that both Secretary Charles E. Wilson and his Deputy, Reuben B. Robertson, Jr., have been urging missile “czar” Eger V. Murphree to submit plans to reduce the sizes and types of the forty-odd missiles now under development or production.
Effectiveness and the ease of handling are the chief considerations. Expense and the ability of the regular military personnel to operate these new weapons without special training are secondary considerations. The sidewinder more than meets these requirements. It is primarily a defensive weapon and is expected to replace the use of rockets on aircraft. Under development for five years, it is described as “a 5-inch missile with brains.” It is eight feet long and consists of a number of interchangeable component parts.
It was designed by Dr. W. B. McLear, civilian scientist at the Naval Ordnance Test Station, China Lake, Calif. It has an infrared homing guidance system which directs it unerringly to the hot engine of enemy aircraft. It is supersonic and operates above 50,000 feet.
A high Air Force official said “It looks like the Sidewinder makes obsolete our Falcon air-to-air missile with its complicated and expensive ground installations. We are not required to share any of the Navy’s development costs and the Navy benefits because our orders will reduce their unit price.” This is expected to be under $1,000 per missile.
May Replace Rockets
The same official thought the Sidewinder would replace the use of rockets which are only effective in close-in fighting. “One Sidewinder would be better than a salvo of 60 rockets.” Rockets cost from $60 upwards.
Some Pentagon officials also believe that the Sidewinder will make obsolete the Sparrow air-to-air missile developed by the Bureau of Aeronautics.
A high Pentagon source said “We have been using the shotgun approach in the development of guided missiles. If we are to stay within our budget, we must standarize on the simpler and more effective of these expensive weapons. The Sidewinder should prove that the services can agree on an effective weapon.”
BY ACT OF CONGRESS
Contributed by COMMANDER N. BURT DAVIS, JR., U. S. Navy
Although a stiff breeze was still blowing, the Admiral’s barge made its usual smart approach to the starboard gangway with the bowhook ready to grab the guest warp. ^ # , ,
As the passengers disembarked in reverse order of seniority, the bow painter carried away and the
flag lieutenant in all his pomp and splendor fell awkwardly into the sea.
The cries of “Man Overboard” were stifled, however, by the coxswain’s loud yell, Catch him with the other end of the boat hook, that’s your division officer.”
{The Proceedings will pay $5.00 for each anecdote submitted to, and printed in, the Proceedings.)
[1] Following seven years as an enlisted man, Ensign Cogan attended Officer Training School and was commissioned in June, 1956. He is now in the USCG North- wind, in the Antarctic.
[2] Captain Perry served in the U. S. Navy from 1917 until his retirement in 1947. He is now the Washington representative of the Bloomfield Steamship Company of Houston, Texas.