642 



NA TURE 



[November 3, 1923 



the 01 'ii'i' . ■•" l"":/ as aeroplane 



design is Dastu on iiiuxu luitd knnuN i!-c , so long will 

 the consequences of humun error in ilu |»iluting of an 

 aeroplane be severe. 



The prrliminnn,- rausc of arrident may be any one 

 of a luirulird iiiiii oiu- things ; in the great majority of 

 cases the final steps leadin i<i i < ra h art tlic same. 

 An aeroplano rnnnot mamt.un it-rli in .stiady flifrbt 

 at a speed lielow a (iitiiii iiilnal \ alue (ailed ihe 

 "stalling speed," a value uhiili in the cominiiiial 

 craft of the day is rarcl\ l<>s than 50 in.p.h. Ilie 

 direct consequence of tin- i^ uiiiin|iMriant, Imt tin- 

 secondary effect is vital since at 45 m.p.h. such an 

 aeroplane is unconlrollahU-. Usually the aeroplane 

 first rolls violent 1\, tlun ])uts its nose down and dives 

 almost vertically into the ground at a speed of 70 to 

 80 m.p.h. The shock-absorbing mechanism fitted in 

 the undercarriage never comes into operation. 



Every pilot knows the sequence of events and tries 

 to avoid stalling at the same time as he is anxious to 

 reduce his speed when approaching unfavourable 

 ground in a forced landin;^ : in spite of skill, the 

 inevitable error happens on au appreciable number of 

 occasions. The rules for recovery from stalling are 

 also perfectly well known, but in order to apply them 

 the pilot requires a free fall of not less than 500 ft. 

 If he is only 200 ft. from the ground the stalling of 

 an aeroplane must lead to a crash. Must it always 

 be so ? The Aeronautical Research Committee does 

 not think so, as may be seen from the following 

 quotation : 



" The results already achieved at the Royal Aircraft 

 Establishment . . . are distinctly encouraging, particu- 

 larly as regards the full scale experiments on stalled 

 flight, and the Committee wish to pay a tribute to the 

 skill shown by the pilots in their pioneer work. 



" The present position is, however, that although 

 maintained stalled flight is definitely possible, neither 

 the stability nor the control of the aeroplane are such 

 that flight near the ground may yet be regarded as 

 safe, and since there do not appear to be any insuper- 

 able difficulties in the way, there is a very strong case 

 for pushing forward. . . ." 



Reading more fully in the report shows that the 

 Committee believes in the possibility of ultimately 

 designing aeroplanes which can be kept on an even 

 keel in an emergency, and so touch the ground with 

 apparatus specially introduced for taking the shocks 

 of landing. 



The Air Ministry has responded to the advice of the 

 Committee to the extent of ordering two special 

 machines for the necessary research. This is, we 

 believe, the first time in the history of British aero- 

 nautical research that experimental conditions have 

 had precedence in determining the design of an aero- 

 NO. 2818, VOL. 112] 



plane^ and the announ< 



Salmond at the Air Conieren' e ai im- ixginning «)i iMc 

 year was generally welcomed and appreciated by all 

 branches of scientifu and technical activity in aero- 

 r**'- ?• "• •" ' • onic lime l>efore the aeroplanes 

 it is prol)ably in relation \u tiie 

 cuiuliiioi li they will Ik* used that ihe 



\,r,,i,:,i • ( ,,t>,t,,;tl.<- 1,:..- r.-rison fOr 



research 



uiti, nuitiiic t xptriim i iorlunale, and the 



irutiati\e in aeroplane . like the .Srhneider 



Cuj)- ^'oiielri.ih IWitaiuio '. All the important 



flight records, for sjx ed, height and endurance, are held 

 by the Unit(d Si.ite (,f Aiucriea. together with the 

 palm for tn( ; 



The situation dn not , he one which will 



automatically riu'ht itxlf. belief is growing 



that the remcd\ will oidy < ome hy phu ing a scientific 

 man on tlii' Air ( oum il. iiriiish business instincts, 

 if one ma\- jud'^'c from sui h an example as that of the 

 British 1 Corporation, stil! idea 



that sciLiiime Knowledge is requin-u m tne >uj)reme 

 administration, but events will probably determine the 

 issue against them. In the meantime, one can only 

 hope that the Aeronautical Research Committee will 

 on later occasions be able to report that " progress is 

 continuous " even if " slow." L. Bairstow. 



Biology at the Cross-roads. 



Emergent Evolution : the Gifford Lectures delivered in 

 the University oj St. Andrews in the Year ig22. By 

 Prof. C. Lloyd Morgan. Pp. xii-f3i3. (London: 

 Williams and Norgate, 1923.) 155. net. 



PROF. LLOYD MORGAN'S Gifford Lectures de- 

 livered at St. Andrews last year and now 

 published are a constructiNe ev-^ay in evolutionary 

 naturalism which, he warns us, Huxley would not 

 accept, and that upon more counts than nne. It is 

 true that acceptance in- IIuxU 



is inadmissible as a standard 01 rficrfuec lor luc 

 verification of fact or theory in science ; but the 

 question at once arises : if the biological standards of 

 an earlier generation are not those of to-day, wherein 

 and why arc they not ? The occasion is not provided 

 by Prof. Lloyd Moruan alone : in a multiplicity of 

 forms the question eclioes and re-echoes unanswered 

 in the hearini: of hioloiiisis who appear strangely in- 

 attentive alike to its insistence and its im{X)rt. In 

 the literature of systematic research, little enouLdi of 

 this apf)ears ; but in all kinds of period: 

 intensive and austere, and from all manner of plailonBS 

 approachable by a public, ill-informed pwssibly, but 



