Viewing page 9 of 200

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-8-
Heavier wing-loaded airplanes resulted from the destruction of a fixed top limit stalling speed. They require more space to maneuver than light wing-loaded airplanes. They require more runway length, they land faster, and they're more critical and dangerous, therefore requiring much more exacting piloting technique, especially when these larger and faster modern-day airplanes are forced to use yesterday's airports -- too small because of yesterday's mistakes. Heavier wing-loaded airplanes, because of their lack of maneuverability and faster landing characteristics, require far more meticulous and painstaking instrument landing procedures. They are far more dangerous in bad weather landings and when something goes wrong. 

The alternative, higher instrument minimum for the higher wing-loaded and less maneuverable airplanes is retarding the air lines which have bought these airplanes and have found that adequate instrument landing systems and adequate airports have not been simultaneously provided to enable the completion of as many schedules with the larger, heavier wing-loaded aircraft as with the smaller, lighter wing-loaded airplanes. In other words, a DC-3 can land at an airport in far worse weather and under far worse runway conditions than a DC-6, the latest of air line planes. Surely, there is something wrong with this kind of trend. If the stalling speeds which the air line pilots fought so hard to establish had been maintained, our air lines would today not be looking to Rube Goldberg devices and excessive braking action in a confused attempt to bridge the gap between the inadequacy of our airports and the "hot" performance characteristics of our aircraft. 

THE EDITORIAL, "STALLING SPEEDS." ENCLOSURE NO. 2, IS PACKED WITH THE ANSWERS TO MANY QUESTIONS THIS COMMISSION SHOULD KNOW ABOUT AIR SAFETY. 

To give the President's Air Policy Commission some idea of what has happened in air line aircraft engineering in the brief period of slightly more than ten years, we need only to examine the following table; its contents are startling, even to veteran air line pilots:

WING LOADING PROGRESSION OF AIRLINE AIRPLANES 
1932 to 1947
[[three columned table]]
| Aircraft | Date | Wing Loading in Lbs. per Sq.Ft. |
| -------- | ---- | ----------- | 
| 1. Boeing 247 | 1932 | 16.3 |
| 2. Douglas DC-1 | 1933 | 18.5 |
| 3. Douglas DC-2 | 1934 | 19.2 |
| 4. Douglas DC-3 | 1936 | 25.5 |
| 5. Lockheed Lodestar | 1937-42 | 32.9 |
| 6. Martin 202 | 1947 | 44.2 |
| 7. Convair 240 | 1947 | 44.8 |
| 8. Douglas DC-4 | 1942 | 50.1 |
| 9. Constellation - Lockheed | 1945 | 61.8 | 
| 10. Douglas DC-6 | 1946 | 63.7 |
| 11. Boeing Stratocruiser | (Pending) | 73.6 |