FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1914
1914 - 0106.PDF
t/OGHT to the vast detriment of the private industry which has thereby been robbed of the orders which were due to it. This subject is one that is more of a technical than an editorial one, and we have therefore thought it best to treat it separately in an article which appears on another page of this issue of FLIGHT. In the compilation of this article we have approached the subject entirely from an uncritical standpoint, and without any attempt to prove or disprove that the design of the B.E. machines is either good, indifferent, or frankly bad. It does not concern us in the least, for the purposes of this article, under which category the design falls—the main thing is to deal with the question of whether or not the charge of picking the brains of others, in connection with the B.E., has a solid foundation of fact, or is merely the creation of irresponsible critics. With that we will leave it for the student to examine the facts set out in the article referred to, except that we have this to say in addition, that we will welcome from any of our readers anything in the shape of reasoned criticism which will throw proper light on this important matter. It must be understood, however, that all criticism must be of fact and be of an absolutely definite nature giving the dates and data on which it is founded, and not in general terms. Such legitimate criticism as falls within the lines we have indi cated, we undertake shall find a place in the columns of FLIGHT. We feel very strongly that this is a matter that must be definitely cleared up, once and for all, as irre spective of justice to the R.A.F., a principle is involved which is striking direct at the heart of encouragement for the industry. We would ask our readers to give careful study to the article on the technical aspects of this copying side of the issue, which, unless we are totally wrong in our facts —which we submit is not the case, since they have been most carefully and independently collated—constitutes a refutation of the charges to which reference has already been made. It further emerges from the letter of Messrs. Hewlett and Blondeau that there is apparently something gravely wrong with the inner working of the firms which constitute the aviation industry of this country. One of the main charges against the R.A.F. is that it is building in direct opposition to all statements that have been made as to its real functions, and is working untold harm to the private constructor, who cannot obtain orders in conse quence of the direct breach of faith and understanding involved. How much truth is there in these assertions ? The experience of our correspondents, at any rate, .seems to imply that the R.A.F. is only too willing to encourage the private constructor. The question then arises, if that is so, why is the Factory at present engaged on the construction of a larger number of B.E. machines than has yet been given out on any one tender ? Why is it that the Factory is working day and night shifts, and that no expense is being spared to deliver these machines by March. That, on the face of it, would almost seem to confirm the allegations that the Factory is, in fact, building against the private firms. We have reason to believe that the Factory has been forced into doing this, because of the impossibility of obtaining a sufficient number of machines from private firms. We are informed, altogether independent of official sources, that the machines tendered for and ordered from private firms have been delivered reason ably to time, but that an extraordinary number have been rejected either for failing to comply with the specification, or for not reaching the necessary standard of construc tional excellence. There might conceivably be an answer to this, which would be to the effect that the JANUARY 31, 1914. RAF officials, in order to serve their own ends, set up a fictitious standard of their own in order deliberately to reject machines which are up to all reasonable requirements of the Service. But in the light of the statements made in Messrs. Hewlett and Blondeau's letter, which are to the effect that they at least have no com plaint in this respect, such an answer cannot be enter tained for a moment. Thus we are driven back upon the explanation that, for one reason and another, the needs of the Services cannot be met by the private firms, and the factory is compelled to fill the hiatus. On this point again we shall welcome any authenticated facts and criticisms which our readers may have to offer, with the same reservation as we have insisted upon in the matter of the technical side of the question—that what we require are facts and their foundations, not general state ments of the loosest possible nature, such as have been flying about for too long. Now we come to another most serious aspect of this serious question. In their letter to us, Messrs. Hewlett and Blondeau say that the larger firms are accepting Government orders at a price which must entail a dead loss, with the apparent object of killing the smaller concerns out of hand. We frankly confess that we do not know exactly how much there is in this assertion, which is an entirely ex parte one, as our readers can see for themselves. But, assuming that Messrs. Hewlett and Blondeau know whereof they are talking, can it be that there is any connection between this and the high percentage of rejections which take place, and which, according to our information, has forced the R.A.F. into a building policy which is foreign to its real functions ? On the face of it, there would seem to be something in this theory. Now, if that is so, then it is certainly time for the trade to set its house in order on the lines indicated by the letter to which we have referred. The point which seems to emerge is that our fighting Services must have the best machines and nothing but the best. We cannot afford to give them anything less and that for very manifest reasons. It is one of the functions of the R.A.F. to see that nothing but the best in design, in material, and in construction is passed into the Service and we would rather see error on the side of too stringent an interpretation of the essentials than the slightest leaning towards laxity of inspection. Then comes the point that if the private constructor cannot afford to give of his best for the price he quotes, he must quote higher and abandon the policy which is alleged against him, that he is engaged in a game of " cut-throat" with his competitors. Let it be clear that the allegation is not of ours, but is made by a firm of constructors who should know their facts, and thus, until their statements have been disproved by facts and figures, we are bound to accept them as being a fair index to the state of things existing. In such a case as this the country not only can and should pay, and we are quite satisfied that they will be prepared to pay a reasonable price. We earnestly trust that, for the future good of the industry and of the whole aviation movement, an effort will be made to assist us in the clearing up of a situation which, from all and every point of view, has reached a stage at which it is well-nigh intolerable. We have no desire in the world to accept the role of apologists for the R.A.F. Indeed, beyond so far as they are a Government Experimental Department, our sym pathies are all the other way, but it does seem to us that in the interests of all parties, and in order that casual and irresponsible criticism may be silenced, the whole tangled skein should be unravelled without a moment's more delay than is necessary. 106
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
