"FLIGHTS" OF FANCY

It’s a “boy’ thing. lke millions of other boys, I grew up fascinated by airplanes. My first flight was at age 8 when my father took me to Barker Field on Dufferin street in Toronto (there’s a big car dealership there now) sat me on his lap and took me for a flight in an open cockpit Tiger Moth. He too was hooked on flying and made many almost pioneering trips by air when airlines were in their infancy.
During the war, my friend Bernie and I made endless little models of warplanes and hung them from the ceiling.

I didn’t learn to fly until 1960, when I took advantage of the Commonwealth Air Training program with subsidized flying lessons. We learned to fly so that in the event of war, we older guys could fly non-essential flights and the real pilots to take to the air in combat. Or we would ferry aircraft. Stuff like that. You had to be under 35. I was approaching that age so I went flying. I didn’t really enjoy it that much, but logged many hours in a Cessna 172 flying week-end traffic for CHUM Radio. Yes, I was the guy who flew over the 401 and the 400. Those were the days before daily airborne traffic reports. We did it for the cottage-bound on weekends.

Still today, having abandoned my flying career, I am fascinated by flight. I read every article about the heavy competition with Airbus back promoting their single aisle planes and Bombardier getting into the mid-range competition. The big move is toward lighter materials and improved engine performance, both for economy reasons.

A few years ago I sent an Email to Northrop (now Grumman Northrop) to ask “what ever happened to the flying wing?” Northrop flew a prototype in 1940. The flying wing has no fuselage. With my sparse knowledge of aerodynamics (you had to know about “lift” and “drag” as part of your flight training) I wondered why we were still producing conventional aircraft i.e. wing, tail, fuselage. The fuselage is where the planes carry people and cargo. But the fuselage is not aerodynamically useful. It provides no lift. It is all drag. Why, I asked are we not going back to the flying wing? No fuselage means much less drag. The flying wing is lighter, far more economical, and has good carrying capacity. (In fact, the “Stealth” bomber looks like a flying wing.)

I asked, in my Email to Northrop, why the wing was not being promoted. I have never received an answer. I have reached a few of my own conclusions. The principal one being that passengers would not feel comfortable with no windows to look out and survey – what? The endless sky. They would feel claustrophobic, trapped in the middle of a wing. But, if the aircraft manufacturers could solve the problems of stability, it is the way to go.

There are other ideas that most air travelers would not be comfortable with. With forward-facing seats the passengers will fruitlessly go into a tuck position in the event of an accident. The truth is that that approach is useless. On impact the seat will come loose. The only sensible answer is to have the seats facing backward, with the passengers looking at the stern of the aircraft. That simply won’t fly, not because it is a bad idea, but because of our discomfort.

My flight of fancy is to ride in a flying wing. Perhaps they could install cameras so we could see outside and be able to watch our takeoff and landing.

I had to write this piece. I am still a kid fascinated with airplanes. I may go back to model making.. Does anyone still have a plan for the Republic Thunderbird?