FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1913
1913 - 0851.PDF
AUGUST 9, 1913. (/UGHf Monoplanes ... Damaged MONTROSE. Biplanes— Ready to fly Under repair Wrecked ... ROYAL AIRCRAFT FACTORS Biplanes— Experimental ready to fly Under test ready to fly ... Monoplanes ... Under repair Under reconstruction IT 4 4 4 1 3 7 12 2 9 120 — " We have now got 120 machines—I take only those in first-class order." Before going to make my inspection, I asked the War Office to send me a list of the machines they had. To my astonishment, and I must confess somewhat to my amusement, I received the following list :— AT THE CENTRAL FLYING SCHOOL. Biplanes— Ready to fly 20 Under repair ... ... 5 Awaiting authority to strike off 2J Monoplanes ... ... ... 2 AT LARICHILL. Biplanes— Ready to fly 9 Under repair ... ... 2, Damaged ... ... ... 2 AT FARNBOROTJGH. Biplanes— Ready to fly 10: Under repair ... ... II From this it will be seen that when they come to put them down in writing, within a week of Col. Seely's statement that he had 120 machines all in first class order, or of his other statement:—126 aeroplanes, of which 31 are under repair, he only claimed (apart from monoplanes, which are under a ban) to have 53 ready to fly. Of this 53, 10 are experimental machines and machines under test in the factory ; some of these I saw flying, but they were only being flown by mechanics in the factory, not by Army officers, and had not been handed over to the Flying Corps; in fact, were not any more than test machines in a private manufacturer's factory. It is a startling commentary on War Office methods that the Secretary for War included in his aeroplanes in the figures which he from time to time presented to Parliament 9 total wrecks " awaiting authority to strike off," etc. We saw some of these, literally heaps of broken spars and scrap iron, which had been swept up into corners of various sheds. These figures, without any inspection of the machines themselves, show that the total claim of machines " ready tc start for war to-morrow morning" which has been the whole basis of our discussion in the House, is 43, but included in this are 20 machines which are being daily used at the central flying school for teaching beginners, and, of course, being daily damaged. I ventured to ask some of the officers of that school whether some of these machines could be classed as war machines. The reply was :—" Yes, certainly, some of them." " But what would happen to your school if we took away the best machines for war ?" Answer: " The school must close, and your supply of officers to take the place of those killed or injured would stop." Obviously, therefore, if our organisation demands a Flying School, as it admittedly does, it as unfair to count the school machines as effective machines which can go to war to-morrow; and this reduces the number of such efficient war machines to twenty-three, which is about the number—ridiculous as it may seem—I have from time to time suggested. Col. Seely may, however, claim that the monoplanes are effective for war purposes. We inspected them all, but it is obvious that those of them which were delivered prior to the decision not to fly them in September last are clearly unfit for use without full over haul. The fabric of many of them is worn, and it is admitted by most experts that aeroplanes unused for nine months become inefficient. Moreover, none of the officers have had practice since September in flying this class of machine, and therefore, even if they could be put into repair, there are only a very few officers—perhaps below half a dozen—who could fly them prior to that date who would be able to take up this branch of the work. It must be understood that there are few who learn to fly beyond more than one or two types of 'machine thoroughly. Beyond this some of the monoplanes are brand-new machines of a type not yet flown by our Army, delivered quite recently under old contracts, and embody all the defects which caused them to be banned in September last ; and frankly, some of the high officers state that they would not in times of peace send up an officer in them, though they might in time of war—a fairly serious comment on the state of affairs in the Flying Corps, that owing to lack of safe machines we should be compelled in time of war to jeopardise the lives of our officers and the whole safety of the Army by sending men up in machines that are, on their own admis sion, unsafe. Let me now test Col. Seely's position a little more in detail. He has at present three squadrons on a war footing, to use his own expression of March 4th, 1912, " always on a war footing." This would involve 18 machines per squadron or a total of 54 machines. As a matter of fact, it is generally considered that 21 per squadron is a right number, or a total of 63. In the House I stated that there were 8 machines at Montrose, ot which 6 were in flying order. I now find from the War Office returns that there were at Montrose 9 machines—4 in flying order, 4 under repair, and 1 wrecked—-or a position from an efficient point of view much worse than I stated. We did not think it necessary to go to Montrose, because the figures were so small, and practically confirmed the statements I had made to the House. However, I think it right to say that on June 18th I received a further return from the War Office to the effect that there were 5 machines in flying condition at Montrose and 3 being overhauled. Unfortunately, within a very few days of that statement I received information that two of those machines in flying condition had been broken—one beyond repair—and that the condition of affairs at Montrose may be summed up by saying : " There are at Alontrose 11 or 12 officers ' scrambling' to fly on 3 machines, one of which is a training machine only." With regard to No. 3 Squadron, Salisbury Plain, I stated in the House; that " there were 2 BE machines which need over hauling and are dangerous ; that there were 4 Maurice Farman biplanes, 2 of which are without engines and need overhauling by the makers ; that there were 4 Henry Farman biplanes, one of which is without an engine, being under repair, and one Avro biplane—a useful machine, but not very powerful." There were thus 11 machines, of which 9 are able to fly. When we got to Salisbury Plain, having in our ears Col. Seely's statement that my figures were absurdities, we found ten machines. The two BE machines which I said needed overhauling were already being overhauled. Of the Maurice Farman machines, two of which were without engines, we found that one had a new engine put in the day before, and the other one had been sent away to the makers for repairs ; the four Henry Farmans ; and two others, in regard to which, in reply to a question from my colleague, Mr. Sandys, the commanding officer said : "I do not regard them as good for war purposes." I think on the whole my remarks on the Larkhill Squadron were more than amply justified. With regard to the Third Squadron at Farnborough, there were, at the time of my visit, eleven efficient flying machines, most of which, however, are of a type which cannot fly more than fifty-four miles an hour when new, and rapidly settle down to forty-eight or fifty by the time they are a month old. I do not want to take technical objection to Col. Seely's figures. It is sufficient for my purpose to accept his own figures of the machines he has ready to fly—obviously no others can be ready to go to war—but it is a grave question whether these machines are really fit for war without at least a very strong backing of the faster kind, when we find that during the last month a French airman flew to England at the rate of eighty-eight miles per hour, and another flew to Berlin at the rate of 120 miles per hour. Of what use would our comfortable, easy-going school machines, flying at the rate of 48 miles per hour, be against an enemy armed in this manner ? I desire, in conclusion, to show clearly to the country the position in which we are placed, and to urge the Government to make greater provision for this essential arm of the service. I gather from my conversations at Salisbury Plain and Farn borough that in order to keep 100 aeroplanes efficient and ready for war it is necessary to buy 300 additional machines, or the equivalent number of spare parts, each year. In other words, that if you start with 100 efficient machines on January 1st, you will, if you use them in the ordinary way, have reduced them to 25 by the end of the year. This by reason of the number of inevitable accidents in the course of training and practice flights. It must be remembered that no machine can keep in the air at a less speed than 40 miles an hour, and the landing at this pace, if there is the slightest mishap, causes very considerable injury to so frail a machine. Beyond this, we have ascertained as a fact that if machines are being properly used at all, one-third of them must always be con sidered to be of necessity under repair. To this Col. Seely may reply that many of these machines which we saw under repair would be back at work within a fortnight, but it is equally true that during that fortnight many of those now being used will be back in the repair sheds. We saw, for instance, two new machines just delivered, which were both smashed up on May 31st, and while we were inspecting at Farnborough, a telegram was received that one of the machines 877
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
