FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1913
1913 - 0628.PDF
1/llGHT squadrons, each of which ought to have at They had Montrose with six, Larkhill with e least twelve machines ? _ eight, and Farnborough with eight, a total of twenty-two. Of those, eight were Maurice Farmans, which did not fly more than fifty-two miles an hour, three or four were Henry Farmans, which could not do more than sixty miles an hour, and eight were B. E. biplanes, which machines, he imagined, after their recent performances, were somewhat under a ban. When accidents occurred to monoplanes a few months ago the right hon. gentleman barred monoplanes, and he should pause before sending any more Army officers up in them. The right hon. gentleman could easily upset all his criticisms, not by producing words or documents, but by producing the machines themselves. Let the right hon. gentleman produce, not 120, but eighty machines which could fly efficiently, and he would make him the most profound apology which had ever been made in the House of Commons. Col. Seely said he would arrange for Mr. Joynson-Hicks to start inspecting the machines on the following day. Mr. Joynson-Hicks, continuing, said: Perhaps I may have to make another apology, but I will deal with one more question, namely, the extraordinary order given by the right hon. gentleman at the end of March, 1913. He then gave an order by telegram or telephone to an aeroplane manufaclurer. I am quoting now from a paper of the importance of The Daily Telegraph. The idea was that the right hon. gentleman wanted to get as many machines as he could, and he offered to buy from this manufacturer new or old monoplanes or biplanes, tested or untested. According to J he Daily Telegraph he got one good machine—a Henry Farman—one Henry Farman biplane of more than doubtful value ; one old Nieuport monoplane that was built to fly in the Gordon-Bennett race three years ago, incorporating every fault criticised by the Mono-C lane Committee; one English-built biplane, which had only een flown two or three times: and one old 50-h.p. biplane, which had been used for training pupils for two years past. That statement has been repeated in another newspaper—the Observer. I knew it all at the time, but I was so disgusted and jso ashamed that I would not even put these facts in a question before the House. I felt that if they were facts they were so detrimental to the management of the Royal Army Flying Corps that I would not make myself responsible for them. I only make myself responsible for them to-day to the extent that they were in the public Press. When a newspaper of integrity like The Daily Telegraph charges the right hon. gentleman with buying anything he could get hold of in order to assure us that he has got 101 machines, that requires a strong answer from him. The information 1 have been able to gather is that we have not got these machines. I still believe my facts and figures are true, but if the right hon. gentleman will produce these machines and let a Committee of the House see them fly, I shall be one of the firat to congratulate him. Mr. Sandys expressed a hope that Col. Seely's invitation to Mr. Joynson-Hicks to inspect the Army's machines might be extended to a Committee of a few members of the House, but Col. Seely said that although he could arrange for Mr. Sandys to accompany Mr. Joynson-Hicks he certainly would not allow a Committee of inquiry to inspect the aeroplanes. Mr. Sandys said it was a national question, and if Col. Seely could not give the information to the whole House he should allow a representative Committee to be appointed. Sir H. Dalziel said he thought the War Office should have a special Test Committee, which would give the greatest confidence to all members of the corps, to see that all machines were properly tested. Colonel Yate protested against the manner in which the Army Flying Corps had been provided for. The right hon. gentleman had cut down every arm of the Service to do it. He had made a reduction of 1,450 men in different arms to get a flying corps of 1,005, a"d to provide for the expenses of that corps of ,£115,500 he had made reductions in the Service generally amounting to ,£86,300. Mr. Lee (U., Fareham) said even the exiguous programme which the right hon. gentleman himself put forward had not been and was not being made a reality. Admittedly the programme applied only to the Expeditionary Force, which, according to the right hon. gentleman's own standard, required eight squadrons of aeroplanes if it went to war. Yet the right hon. gentleman only professed to having provided three, and they knew now that even those were not complete. The right hon. gentleman only proposed to provide live altogether by the end of the present year. Probably the eight squadrons would not be obtained until the end of the year after next. That was a very serious situation for our Expeditionary Force, which was supposed to l>e ready for war at a moment's notice. No suggestion was being made by the right hon. gentleman for the aerial equipment of our Home Defence Army, and if, unhappily, it was called into operation, in addition to all its other obvious disadvantages, it would have to grope about for the enemy pra:tically blindfolded, whilst every movement and position of the 654 JUNE 14, 1913. defending force would be exposed to the vigilant and all-seeing eyes, of the enemy's aerial service. In March, Col. Seely told them three times that he expected by May 31st he would have 14* machines available, and on the right hon. gentleman's own showing we had now only 95 available, 31 of the 126 being under repair. Apparently Col. Seely was satisfied with his three little airships as sufficient equipment of the Expeditionary Force. That might be so but where were his reserves, for, of all craft, airships were the most delicate, and, so far as they knew, there was no provision for wastage. , . ... With regard to aeroplanes, it was, of course, impossible to get them if manufacturers were given no encouragement to invest their capital in the enterprise. There had been a striking example of the persistent discourage ment of British manufacturers by the Government in the prohibition of the very interesting and valuable competitions for hydroplanes instituted by the Daily Mail. The proposed competition might have involved a technical breach of the Aerial Navigation Act, a measure which would not be of the slightest value when dealing with an enemy, though it might be of some effect with regard to tourists, but this was a case in which there should be some relaxa tion of the letter of the law. Did the Government wish to prevent civilian flying altogether? If they did this would be the only country in the world that did it, and we should fall still further behind in this new branch of science. In the course of his reply to the debate Col. Seely said : I do not propose to deal with the more absurd statements to-day, because, of course, they are not generally made in this House, but I will first deal with the very important matter of the accidents which have taken place. There have been statements made that we have suffered greater loss of life in aeronautics than other countries, owing to the fact that we have been less careful in our selection of machines or less careful in testing them. First of all, with regard to tests. Be'ore we accept any aeroplane—and this applies to them all—all aero planes have to fulfil the following tests : First there is a loading test, by which the strength of the construction is tested ; that is to say, the machine is loaded with a weight of sand. During this any one wire may be cut, and the aeroplane must suffer no permanent distortion. Further, there is a test for the landing carriage, which goes over a certain fixed rough course, at the place where all our aeroplanes are tested. The Committee will realise that the landing carriage of the aeroplane may often be more important to the life of the aviator even than the wings themselves. Then there is the flying test, of not less than an hour's duration,, during which the aeroplane must carry a full load and oil and petrol sufficient for the prescribed number of hours. In addition the maximum and minimum speeds must be demon strated, and the workmanship and the material must be to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of the Royal Aircraft Factory. All these things have to be done in the case of each aeroplane. Furthermore, before any aeroplane takes a flight it is inspected by the commanding officer of the place where the aeroplane may be, and every effort is made to see that everything is correct. Every test that we know of is applied, and not until he certifies that it is fit to fly does the officer take a flight. The next question is what has been the result of the great care which I allege we take in avoiding accidents. This House has been told a great deal more about the number or aeroplanes and men in this country than has been the case with any other deliberative assembly, for it is generally considered inadvisable to give information rightly considered to be of vital importance. We have gone as far in giving information as it is wise for us to go. I come to the question of accidents. Last year we had five accidents, resulting in eight deaths. These gallant young officers died as truly in the service of their country as they would have done in the most glorious acts upon the battlefield. It is extremely difficult to avoid these accidents. The utmost care may not succeed in averting them. The accidents to which I have referred took place on what, by any known test, were the very best machines and the most carefully tested we have got. The Committee will remember the recent competition open to all the world. Aeroplanes from many countries entered for that, and very remarkable performances were achieved. There was one aeroplane which did not compete that the judges thought probably superior to all. Four out of our five accidents were caused by winning machines in this competition, which against all the world had shown themselves the most airworthy and the best constructed. In the case of the accident at Montrose the machine was con sidered by our flying officers to be of an exceptionally good design. Most of them, so far as my information goes, prefer it to almost any other. It had flown all the way to Montrose from Farnborough in bad weather. It had been most carefully tested before starting, and upon its arrival ; we cannot be certain as to the cause of the
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
