Viewing page 10 of 17

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

NOVEMBER 15, 1940

which provides a directional beam to the runway; one or two approach markers along the prolongation of the runway, which provide definite position checks during the landing maneuver; and a glide path, which provides guidance in the vertical plane.
  The three-element systems may be fixed or mobile; at present the technical consensus seems to favor the fixed form, even though it involves providing a full complement of transmitting apparatus and antennas for each landing direction. The Civil Aeronautics Board has purchased one-direction installations for six airports, in addition to Indianapolis, where a four-direction system, is already in operation.
  The principal advantage of three-element systems is the provision of vertical guidance along the localizer path, which greatly facilitates landings of large aircraft, such as airliners. The principal disadvantages are the complexity and high cost of the ground installations, and the corresponding complexity and high cost of the receiving equipment on board the airplane.
  All versions of the Army-Hegenberger system are comprised, fundamentally, of one or two non-directional radio markers (usually mobile), located on the prolongation of the desired runway.  This marker, or markers, provides for any aircraft equipped with a radio direction finder two-fold information: direction to the desired runway, and one or more definite position checks during the landing maneuver. For vertical guidance, the pilot depends on the readings of his sensitive altimeter.
  The principal disadvantage of any version of the Army-Hegenberger system is that it does not incorporate radio guidance in the vertical plane. Its advantages are the extreme simplicity, mobility and low cost of the ground installation, and the utter simplicity of the radio apparatus on board the airplane. All that is required is a radio direction finder.
  The three-element system are admirably suited for airline operations; the marker systems are admirably suited for military aircraft. Which of the two systems would be better suited for private pilots has, so far, not entered into consideration.
  Although, numerically, private pilots constitute by far the greatest proportion of all who use our airways, their need in radio navigational facilities are the most modest of any group. The majority of private pilots fly only "contact," in good weather; comparatively few carry even such elementary radio apparatus as radio range receivers. Cross-country navigation in adverse weather presupposes that the private pilot owns an airplane suitable for this kind of flying, and carries the necessary radio apparatus. Such private pilots are in a minority. When it comes to instrument landing, the number of private pilots who will need such facilities, and will be able to physically and financially able to use them, would be extremely small indeed.
  Now the crux of the matter lies in the private pilots' financial ability. Can he afford the price and the weight of the radio apparatus necessary for instrument landings? Physically, almost any private pilot, with but little training, should be able to "shoot" blind landings with the best of them.
  Making blind landings in an airplane is almost as simple as making them on paper. With a familiar airplane, most pilots become proficient in about four hours of practice. The exact landing procedure varies somewhat with the type of the landing system used, and for that reason will not be discussed here. Generally, smaller and slower ships are much easier to land "on instruments" than the larger or faster jobs.
  Such smaller and slower ships are usually the kind that the private pilot flies. They can be landed with equal ease on either the three-element or the direction-finder systems. The principal factor involved, as far as the private pilot is concerned, is the cost and weight of the receiving equipment needed on board his airplane. With a there-element system, the additional weight of such apparatus would be about 75 pounds, in addition to all other radio apparatus for navigation and communication that the pilot would need for such bad-weather flying. As to cost - well, there are no official sales figures as yet available, but the job would cost around $800, installed.
  With the Army-Hegenberger system, or any of its modifications, the weight of the necessary apparatus would be precisely zero, and the cost also zero. This is, of course, with the assumption that the airplane would be equipped with a radio direction finder, for cross-country navigation, and that this direction finder would also be used for instrument landing. In practice, the pilot would find it preferable to equip his ship with one of the new automatic radio direction finders, which weigh a little more and cost a lot more than the ordinary variety.
  For still better results, or for use with the Army-Hegenberger system where only one marker is provided, a gyromatic indicator would be necessary, to operate in conjunction with the automatic direction finder. The extra weight would be a pound or so, and the extra cost-well, rather considerable. In the final analysis, it would cost the pilot about $800 to equip his ship for instrument landing work on either system, the only difference being that, in the case of the Army-Hegenberger system, the extra weight and space required would be negligible.
  It can and should be expected that the cost and weight of instrument landing receiving apparatus for the three-element systems will be materially reduced in the near future. Now that the ultra-high frequency radio ranges are about to make their appearance on our airways, the airlines and radio manufacturers are working on new UHF radio apparatus which will materially reduce its weight, if not its cost.
  Just to give you an idea of what sort of apparatus may be expected soon to become available, there is a little two-way UHF communications unit, now being developed to the specifications drafted by Aeronautical Radio Company, Inc., at Bell Telephone Laboratories. This compact unit is a two-channel four-frequency affair, for two-way communications with airport traffic control stations and airline communications centers. When you select a transmitting frequency, the corresponding receiving frequency is positioned automatically.
  Another unit, also being developed by Bell, is a hush-hush UHF radio range receiver, incorporating many innovations which will make the aircraft radio history. The receiver has a push-button tuning. Just punch the correct button and you are tuned in to the correct radio range. There will be 30 push buttons and 30 pretuned frequencies. Furthermore, the same receiver will have a special channel and a special push button for instrument landing localizer reception. It will provide both visual and aural receptions on both the localizer and the radio ranges. You will be able to fly the localizer and the radio ranges either on a visual left-right course indicator or by listening to the quadrant identification letters, just as you please.
  These two new units are merely the harbingers of the new compact UHF equipment to come. In another couple of years the entire complement of UHF radio apparatus necessary for two-way radio communication and navigation, including markers and instrument landing reception, should be brought down to sufficient compact dimensions and sufficient low weight to fit into most private ships except the lightest light planes.
  But it must be admitted that most of the present UHF radio development, and the entire instrument landing program, do not tap into consideration the inescapable fact that private pilots would also like to have their place in the air when the weather gets thick.
  For this reason, no future program of new radio aids for on airways should be considered first unless it takes full cognizance the needs of private aviation. The air lanes belong to us all, and the interests of private flying must adequately considered. To be then considered, they must be adequately represented.
  We already have two excellent agencies: one public and one private. We have the Private Flying Development Division of the Civil Aeronautics Board, and we have our own Private Fliers Association. These agencies are willing and able to give full representation to the needs of private flying, provided that we make our needs clearly known to them.
  Now is the time for all private pilots, whether they own radio apparatus or not, to look into the future and decide for themselves just what they will need, as group, in the way of participation in the use of our nation's new ways radio aids.
  And that goes double for instrument landing. It does not take an airliner to carry the necessary radio apparatus. Instrument landing is not for airlines alone.
  Instrument landing is an essential safety service for all who fly. Instrument landing procedure well within the physical abilities of the average private pilot; it well within the capabilities of the average private ship. But to make instrument landing truly feasible for private flyers, the system eventually adopted must not place undue financial burden on the pilots or an undue weight burden on [[?]] airplane.

Flying, as it was-
(Continued from page 19)

day my work started all over again.  This was in November, 1912, and I had but one hour of training to my credit. A persevering disposition was a saving grace; day by day I worked until once more, now lat in December, we were ready to go back to the bean field.  But the rainy season was just starting, so on the days we could not go outdoors we worked on another and larger "ship" of the traitor type (see photograph on Page 19).  On fair days we would back to the bean field and resume my grass cutting and landings.
It was an absolute necessity put that little ship on the ground without disaster for it was our exhibition plane and the filing

Transcription Notes:
Deleted notation of column breaks per transcription guidelines On the right side, some words were cut off, so there might be some missing words.