Design and Development
By 1921, enough experience had been gained with operation of the de Havilland DH.18 to realise that aircraft needed to be more efficient to improve the economics of air travel. de Havilland therefore built the ten-passenger DH.29 monoplane, while starting work on the design of the DH.32, a biplane of similar size and capacity to the eight-passenger DH.18, but with a less powerful but more economical Rolls-Royce Eagle engine. Owing to the urgent need for more capacity, however, work on the DH.29 and DH.32 was stopped and the DH.34 biplane was designed, with a similar fuselage to the DH.29, accommodating ten passengers.
The DH.34 had a wooden, plywood-clad fuselage, with the cockpit (for two pilots) being positioned ahead of the wings and the passenger cabin. It had two-bay wooden wings and was powered by a Napier Lion engine, which was fitted for inertia starting, avoiding the necessity for hand swinging of the propellor to start the engine. Unusually the design of the aircraft allowed an entire spare engine to carried on board across the rear of the passenger cabin. The cabin door's unusual shape was to allow the engine to be loaded and unloaded, and a specially-fitted 'porthole' on the other side of the cabin would be removed to allow the propeller boss to protrude out the side of the aircraft. Spare engines were not carried routinely (the DH.34's payload was too low to carry both passengers and a spare engine) but this facility was used by operators to quickly fly spare engines out to aircraft that had suffered breakdown.
Two DH.34s were ordered by the Daimler Airway, as part of an initial batch of nine aircraft, with the first prototype (registered G-EBBQ) flying on 26 March 1922. The stalling speed of 63 mph (101 km/h) was considered high and was blamed for a fatal crash in 1923, so extensions were fitted to the upper wings, increasing the wingspan from 51.33 ft (15.65 m) to 54.33 ft (16.56 m).
Read more about this topic: De Havilland DH.34
Famous quotes containing the words design and/or development:
“Humility is often only the putting on of a submissiveness by which men hope to bring other people to submit to them; it is a more calculated sort of pride, which debases itself with a design of being exalted; and though this vice transform itself into a thousand several shapes, yet the disguise is never more effectual nor more capable of deceiving the world than when concealed under a form of humility.”
—François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld (1613–1680)
“Somehow we have been taught to believe that the experiences of girls and women are not important in the study and understanding of human behavior. If we know men, then we know all of humankind. These prevalent cultural attitudes totally deny the uniqueness of the female experience, limiting the development of girls and women and depriving a needy world of the gifts, talents, and resources our daughters have to offer.”
—Jeanne Elium (20th century)