William,

Thanks for all of that.  One WW2 emergency / back up strip I've seen was
covered in a layer of small pea-sized rounded laterite pebble gravel.  If
you drive on it you often get car wheels spinning and I wondered  whether
that it was more to help in slowing down a landing plane rather than helping
one get max acceleration before lift off.

Yes, the Australian War Memorial photo archives are a great and wonderful
thing.  For anyone else interested www.awm.gov.au

Good stuff!

Denis
----- Original Message -----
From: "william mcAlexander" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: WW I airfields


> Ha Ha, so would I Denis. I guess it depends on North or South Hemisphere.
> .
>    But realy, from the photographs, the structures were in the center, and
> the landing field outside.  If you think of a circle, from the center to
> the
> outer edge can be measured in a strait line.  That is how they took off.
> The principle is in moving away from a linear design, which as you expand
> can and will eventually take up a lot of space.
>
>    As for WW I airfields they were not paved, only leveled out.  Some were
> planted in slow growing short leafed grass.  In reading about German
> pilots,
> one remark was that during the rainy season, almost as many aircraft were
> disabled by muddy fields as were shot up.  Here in Northern North America,
> I
> do not know about Mexico, French drains were installed along at least one
> edge of the landing field. French drains were shallow ditches loosly
> filled
> with gravel that would channel excess water away from the field towards a
> natural drainage.
>
> Although macadam surfaces were used in road construction, they do not
> appear
> on any of the photographs of the landing surfaces I've checked.  I have
> not
> checked airfields constructed in the 1930s.
>
> I would hazard a guess that paved surfaces were really not a high priority
> untill aircraft weights and overall air travel incresed in the 30s.
>
> If you haven't already checked it Denis, you might want to check out the
> photos archived in the Australian War Memorial.  Great stuff there.
> I hope this helps,
> William E. McAlexander Jr.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Denis Gojak" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 11:36 AM
> Subject: Re: WW I airfields
>
>
>> William
>>
>> At the risk of being flippant, which isn't always appreciated on this
> list,
>> I'd have loved to watch a plane landing on [7] - the doughnut shaped US
>> airfield of the 1920s.  Did they land clockwise or anti-clockwise?
>>
>> Or maybe I've not got the right image in my mind.
>>
>> One more sensible question - at what point did some form of made surface
>> become mandatory in military airfields?  Were grassy strips seen as
> adequate
>> right through WW1 or were they routinely surfaced then.  Just thinking of
>> cities like Sydney back then, there were relatively few metalled,
> asphalted
>> roads outside the centre until the between the wars periods and laying
> large
>> continuous surfaces of any material was still a tricky proposition.  Did
>> airfields lead the way or did they rely on road building technology?
>>
>> Denis
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> Denis Gojak
>> Banksia Heritage + Archaeology
>> PO Box 457
>> Newtown NSW 2042
>> Australia
>>
>> W    02 9558 0220
>> F     02 9558 4120
>> M    0413 030 293
>> E    [log in to unmask]
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "william mcAlexander" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 2:44 PM
>> Subject: WW I airfields
>>
>>
>> Greetings fellow HISTARCHers.
>>
>>     Back in 2003 I inquired if anyone out there knew about WW I airfield
>> excavations for a paper that I would present at the 2004 SHA conference
>> concerning early airfield design.  As is typical from this list, I got
> good
>> advice.  Carl Berna asked that I keep the list informed about what I
>> know.
>> Here goes.
>>
>>     I know nothing.  Of that I'm sure.  However, I am convinced that
>> surviving photographs exist that demonstrate the following:
>>
>> 1) Early airfields were layed out in simple geometric designs.
>>
>> 2) Prior to 1913 all nations used some sort of a linear design.  With so
> few
>> aircraft in any one area, a few buildings beside one another with open
>> ground where the machines could land (less than 1000 ft. long) in front
>> of
>> them was all that was needed.
>>
>> 3) After 1914 the British built on and expanded the linear design.
>> Photographs from Egypt, Palistine, England, Afganistan, Canada etc. all
> show
>> this.
>>
>> 4) After entering the War, the United States adopted the British design.
>>
>> 5) The French developed a rectangular or open "L" design where two sides
> of
>> the landing field were outlined by structures.
>>
>> 6) The Germans experimented with a wider assortment of designs before
>> settleing on a circular or enclosed design.  The structures surrounded
>> the
>> landing field.
>>
>> 7) In the 1920s, the U.S. started constructing circular design airfields
>> with the structures in the center and the landing field around them, like
> a
>> doughnut.  A reversal, if you will, of the German concept.
>>
>>     I believe that WW I pilots viewed the German design as more
>> efficient,
>> as aviation became a permanent fixture of the modern military.
>>
>>     I am still conducting background checks, but plan to start writing a
>> paper, before the summer, for publication outlining in more detail my
>> conclusions.  As a consequence, I'm giving advanced warning that I will
>> be
>> posting to the list for additional help as questions come to mind. In
>> closing, I apologize for my spelling, the spell check apparently does not
>> want to work today.
>>
>> I would like to thank everyone on the list for thier assistance and
>> patience,
>>
>> William E. McAlexander Jr.
>
>