Comper Production

Compact single-seat monoplane with a high-mounted wing, primarily built of spruce with fabirc covering. The fuselage comprised a lightweight girder composed of longerons and diagonal struts which attached to the longerons via three-ply wood gussets. This structure was relatively strong for its low weight and did not require any realignment even with prolonged use. The fuselage was constructed out of three separate units, the front section carried the engine mounting, the middle portion contained the cockpit, while the rear section carried the tail unit. Of particular note was the engine mounting, which incorporated a patented vibration-absorbing design that proved to be quite effective in practice. The wing rested on a relatively narrow portion of fuselage, the inefficient portion of wing area within the center being kept proportionally small. The wing was braced by a single pair of V-shaped struts on each side of the fuselage, and featured relatively straightforward construction, consisting of a pair of spruce spars and light girder ribs. It was built in three sections, the relatively narrow center section of which was built as an integral part of the fuselage and attached to two separate bulkheads. The wing was designed to be folded so that the aircraft only required a minimal storage footprint. All of the wing's fittings were composed of standard steel plate while the covering was composed of fabric. Two compartments were provided for baggage accommodation, the front compartment for a suitcase and the rear fuselage locker, large enough for a set of golf clubs.
Early Swifts had been built with a fin and rudder very similar to the Cranwell CLA 4 but, as early as the prototype, it had been found to provide insufficient directional stability and all were fitted with a long curved fillet on the fin leading edge. While this was effective it was not very elegant and Comper redesigned the fin and rudder completely.
A somewhat unorthodox undercarriage arrangement was used; elements such as the shock absorbers were entirely housed inside of the fuselage, reducing drag. The legs directly connected with various internal members. The axles were bent while rearward-sloping radius rods were used to orientate the wheels. Comper wood wheels with high pressure lyres were fitted to early Swifts but although they were quite satisfactory the new aero wheels with balloon lyres which were becoming popular for light aircraft were substituted from the beginning of 1931 and were easily changed on existing aircraft.
A deck fairing around the wing attachment aft of the engine accommodated the aircraft's fuel tank; fuel was supplied via gravity to the engine. This tank, which had a total capacity of nine gallons, had a partition that separated one gallon from the rest and could function as a reserve tank. The remaining 10 gallons of fuel was held in a narrow section tank on the left side of the cockpIt. A hand-operated pump was required to transfer its contents to the gravity tank. One 40 h.p. ABC Scorpion (prototype only), Pobjoy P and 75 hp Pobjoy R, which was the standard production powerplant. A few aircraft were powered by the 120 hp Gipsy III or 130 hp Gipsy Major as shown in the table.

Specification
Span	Length	Height	Wing Area	Empty Wt	Max AUW	Cruise Speed	Maximum Speed	Range	Service Ceiling
24 ft	17 ft 9 in	5 ft 4 in	90 sq ft	540 lb	985 lb		140 mph/ 122 kn	380 mi	22000 ft
7.32 m	5.41 m	1.63 m	8.36 m2	245 kg	447 kg		225 kph	612 km	6706 m

Single seat autogyro based on the Swift, with the same fuselage, including its suitcase compartment in the forward fuselage and luggage locker behind the open cockpit. The autogyro featured a low wing, braced above on each side by a single strut from the side of the fuselage, and with full span ailerons. The undercarriage track was 8 in. wider than the Swift at 4 ft 8 in. On the top of the fuselage ahead of the single-seat cockpit the rotor pylon projected upwards approximately 3 ft above the fuselage and on it was mounted the three blade rotor. While other manufacturers all had Cierva rotors, Comper designed his own with balsa wood in the construction, much to Cierva's displeasure. Lack of directional stability with the central fin and rudder resulted in a lot of damage during Cierva’s first attempt to fly. After flying with increased area fin and rudder this was abandoned in favour of the two oval fins on the tailplane. One 80 h.p. Pobjoy powerplant.

Specification
Span *	Length	Rotor Dia	Disc Area	Empty Wt	Max AUW	Cruise Speed	Maximum Speed	Range	Service Ceiling
13 ft 6 in	17 ft 9 in	27 ft	572.63 sq ft
4.11 m	5.41 m	8.23 m	53.2 m2

*Span * = span of stub wing

Three-seat low-wing monoplane touring aircraft with retractable undercarriage. Construction was mainly of fabric-covered spruce wood frames, with some plywood-covered sections. It had folding wings, retractable main landing gear and fixed tailskid. Accommodation was for the pilot and two passengers, accessible via a sliding framed canopy, plus an additional luggage locker. The fuselage was a built-up wooden girder of spruce members and pinned and glued with wood "biscuits" at joints, the whole covered for the most part with fabric. The wooden stabilizer, with routed spars and solid spruce diagonal bracing, was covered with fabric and mounted on top of fuselage, with adjustable struts to the bottom of fuselage. The unbalanced elevators were built on a wooden box spar and flanged steel ribs welded to tubular trailing edge. The cantilever fin and unbalanced rudder was of welded steel tube covered with fabric.
The undercarriage had Dowty oleo legs, differential brake operation and a quite wide wheel track of 6 ft. When retracted it left the lower part of the wheels exposed so that in the event of a failure to extend it would still support the aircraft. The Mouse seated 3 persons, but differed in having the two front seats on rails so that either one could be pushed back to share the company of the rear seat passenger. A sliding hood was fitted and behind the rear seat was a luggage compartment for three suitcases. Unfortunately these were specially designed to fit the available space. To reduce storage space and cut hangarage costs for the Mouse it was fitted with folding wings which, when the two locking pins in each were removed, could be pulled out and folded back against the fuselage, reducing the width to 11 ft 10 in. One 130 h.p. de Havilland Gipsy Major powerplant.

Specification
Span	Length	Height	Wing Area	Empty Wt	Max AUW	Cruise Speed	Maximum Speed	Range	Service Ceiling
37 ft 6 in	25 ft 1 in	6 ft 9 in	172 sq ft	1300 lb	2215 lb	130 mph/ 113 kn	135 mph/ 117 kn	600 mi
11.43 m	7.65 m	2.06 m	15.98 m2	590 kg	1005 kg	209 kph	217 kph	966 km

Low wing, single-seat racing monoplane. It had a fuselage based on the Swift and its wings were scaled down versions of those of the Mouse. The rectangular cross-section fuselage consisted of four spruce Warren girders, fabric covered behind the engine. The cockpit was at the trailing edge of the wing and behind there was a deep, rounded fabric covered decking. In front of the cockpit the decking was continued in aluminium, enclosing the fuel tank. Forward of this and beyond a firewall, the engine was mounted on a frame of square section steel members. The wing of the Streak was built In one piece and the fuselage was mounted on It. The centre section incorporated the retractable main undercarriage, and outboard of this the mainplanes had five degrees dihedral. Of RAF 34 section, the wings were built up around a pair of spruce and plywood box section spars, carrying three-ply and spruce ribs and skinned with stressed three-ply sheet. They were straight tapered on leading and trailing edges, with rounded tips. Mass balanced ailerons filled more than half of the trailing edge. The mass balances, not fitted for the initial flights, were conspicuously mounted on extended upward arms from near the aileron root. The tailplane and split elevators were also of spruce and plywood, but fabric covered. The rounded fin and rudder, though fabric covered had a steel tube structure. Like the elevators, the rudder was not horn balanced; it extended to the bottom of the fuselage, operating in a cut-out between the elevators.
Comper was an early adopter of retractable undercarriages for light aircraft at a time when the balance of advantage between drag loss and weight penalty was not obvious. The main wheels of the Streak were mounted at the end of the wing centre section, each between pairs of compression legs. Pairs of cross braced struts, joining the legs a little way above the axle and hinged at top and bottom, rotated to retract the wheels rearwards. In common with many aircraft of the time, the retracted undercarriage left a part of the wheel exposed, to give some protection in a wheels up landing. The wheels, which had brakes, were retracted manually via a heavily geared down, bicycle chain drive. At the rear there was a simple, sprung tailskid.The main fuel tank of 29 gal was in the upper fuselage between Ihe engine firewall and the pilot's instrument panel and two additional tanks of 8.5 gal each were separately fitted between the spars on each side of the centre section, giving a tolal of 46 gal. One 146 h.p. special high compression 4-cyl inverted In-line Gipsy Major powerplant, driving a two bladed propeller. For racing this provided a "no reserves" endurance at maximum power of 4 hours, or a full throttle range of 704 miles in nil wind.

Specification
Span	Length	Height	Wing Area	Empty Wt	Max AUW	Cruise Speed	Maximum Speed	Range	Service Ceiling
23 ft 6 in	18 ft	5 ft 9 in	80 sq ft	880 lb	1429 lb		175 mph/ 152 kn
7.16 m	5.49 m	1.75 m	7.43 m2	399 kg	648 kg		282 kph

The Kite was created by redesigning the single-seat Comper Streak racing aircraft as a two-seat tourer. The main changes, apart from the installation of the second cockpit by inserting an extra bay into the fuselage were the fitting of a more economical engine and the provision of extra tankage. The wings almost identical to those of the Streak. They were built up around a pair of spruce and plywood box section spars, carrying three-ply and spruce ribs and skinned with stressed three-ply sheet. They were gently tapering in plan with rounded tips. There was 5° dihedral outboard, but none on the centre section. Mass balanced ailerons, narrower than those of the Streak filled more than half of the trailing edge. The mass balances were conspicuously mounted on extended upward arms from near the aileron root.The tailplane and split elevators were also of spruce and plywood, but fabric covered. The rounded fin and rudder, though fabric covered had a steel tube structure. The elevators and rudder were mass balanced, with external weights like those on the ailerons. The rudder extended to the bottom of the fuselage, operating in a cut-out between the elevators.
The rectangular cross-section fuselage consisted of four spruce Warren girders, fabric covered behind the engine. The pilot's cockpit was at the trailing edge of the wing and behind there was a deep, rounded fabric covered decking. Immediately in front of the pilot's cockpit was an extra fuselage bay containing the passenger's position, placed over the centre of gravity so that the trim would not be disturbed by their presence or absence. The fuel tanks of the Kite were in the wing roots, again to minimise changes in trim. The mounting for the engine, constructed of square section steel tube, started immediately in front of the passenger compartment. The main wheels, which were provided with brakes, were mounted at the end of the wing centre section, each between pairs of compression legs. Pairs of cross braced struts, joining the legs a little way above the axle and hinged at top and bottom, rotated to retract the wheels rearwards. As on the Streak, the retracted wheels protruded to give some protection in a wheels up landing, but on the Kite there were small fairings ahead of them. At the rear there was a simple, sprung tailskid. One 90 h.p. Pobjoy Niagara powerplant driving a two bladed propeller.

Specification
Span	Length	Height	Wing Area	Empty Wt	Max AUW	Cruise Speed	Maximum Speed	Range	Service Ceiling
23 ft 6 in	19 ft 3 in	7 ft	80 sq ft	750 lb	1350 lb	140 mph/ 122 kn	155 mph/ 135 kn	700 mi
7.16 m	5.87 m	2.13 m	7.43 m2	340 kg	612 kg	225 kph	249 kph	1127 km

Light side-by-side two-seat high wing monoplane. The two-spar strut braced wing, with ply-covered leading edge, was conventional and similar in construction to that of the Swift. The primary fuselage structure consisted of two keel members to take all the load and to which the cross-braced laminated wood tail booms were attached. The booms carried a cantilever tail-plane and a single central rudder, while the two longitudinal members carried the engine mounting and centre-section superstructure, as well as the well glazed cabin, designed for maximum view. Another member lay transversely across, curved down on each side in stub wing form to take the undercarriage and the wing struts. The axles were attached to the tips of the stub. These tips were hinged at the top and held at the bottom by shock-absorber cord. When the machine is on the ground this cord is to some extent stretched and the stub tips were out of line with the stub wings themselves. When, however, the machine would be airborne these tips become, aerodynamically, extensions to the stubs, so that a great deal of the undercarriage drag is removed. The nose-wheel was of the simple castering type. The 100 h.p. Walter Mikron inverted in-line engine was originally specified, but in the immediate pre-war years the supply of a Czechoslovakian engine presented difficulties. Thus, the design was modified into a single seater to reduce weight and take an available lower powered engine. The result was the Fly.

The Fly was simply the Scamp, with the fuselage reduced in width to accommodate only a single seat. One 40 h.p. 2-cyl Praga powerplant. A prototype Fly was built at the College of Aeronautical Engineering at Brooklands Aerodrome but was only 80% complete when Comper died on 18 July 1939. In June 1940, the Fly was taken to the Heston Aircraft Company for completion and testing, as the Heston HAC.7 Fly, but it failed to become airborne, and the type was abandoned. The aircraft was taken over by Capt Gerard Fane, who redesigned it entirely as a new aeroplane, the Fane F1, later known as the Fane F.1/40.