FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1916
1916 - 0640.PDF
^/ - l/llGHTj point there has never been the slightest doubt with those who have followed the history of the Factory. Not only was it clearly indicated in Parliament that the bringing into being of this Department was for the especial purpose of building up a practical experimental shop upon a national scale, but this " view has been since, time after time, endorsed both by the War Office and even by those closely asso ciated with the working of the Farnborough estab lishment. Yet without doubt most of the adverse criticism of the R.A.F. has sprung from the feeling which has unquestionably obtained that, in the background there was the ever-present shadow of a firm intention to ultimately build up a huge Govern ment Aircraft Arsenal, to the glorification of those who might be " in possession," but not necessarily carrying with it such efficiency and economic benefits to tiie Empire, which wholesome private competitive enterprise ever brings in its wake. Private enterprise always has beaten Government undertakings where free competition has been given, and this will for all time be the same. In the case of the R.A.F., it is abundantly evident that this was a weak point, from the remarks in the report in which attention is drawn to the fact that " the numbers engaged in the Central Office, Stores, and other departments of a non-productive nature, reveal an organisation more liberal than is generally found in Government establishments, and on a scale unknown to us in private works." After allowing for the moderation in language usually associated with committees' reports of this character, this indictment is pretty strong, and, in a way, must be taken to endorse some of \he suggestive evidence at the Air Inquiry as to the slackness generally of the establishment. In regard to the entry of the Factory either in the past or in the future into the commercial side of aircraft construction, the report is not very con vincing. In the preamble of the Committee's report they say:— " The functions of the Royal Aircraft Factory we under stand to include original designs of aeroplanes and engines, improvement of existing designs, manufacture of experi mental aeroplanes, engines and their parts, and aeronautical devices; study of experimental work in all material used in an aeroplane; preparation of drawings and specifications for .contractors, and, in certain cases, supervision of manufacture ; repair of aeroplanes and engines, and provision of aeroplane and engine spare parts for maintenance ; production of aero planes in limited quantity ; and emergency work of all kinds to assist contractors or to make good the failure of con tractors. " From which it is apparent that the War Office has laid it down that the Royal Aircraft Factory should be devoted to experimental rather than manufacturing purposes. " The Royal Aircraft Factory cannot therefore be regarded as an establishment working on strictly commercial lines; it is rather a very large experimental laboratory, probably the largest in the United Kingdom, where experiments are carried out to full scale, therefore expenses must necessarily be high. Experiments upon models to reduced scale are conducted by the National Physical Laboratory as and when required by the Aeronautical Committee or it may be by the Royal Air craft Factory." Now all this is perfectly straightforward and endorses all that has been said as to the legitimate functions of the Factory under its original " Charter," especially when in the next paragraph it is noted that " the only manufactured work done since the war began seems to have been an output of about 50 non-experimental machines and the manufacture of spare parts to meet urgent demands." How these AUGUST 3, 1916. facts and views can be reconciled, however, with the percentages given of the total amounts absorbed by the various classes of work carried out in the R.A.F. is a mystery. These allot to " experimental work, including about £5,000 on indirect expenditure," 22 per cent, of the cash expended, whilst the " con struction of aeroplanes " has accorded to it 35 per cent. It is obvious that something must be wrong here, or else the " remarks " of the Committee must be very seriously re-edited, Here apparently arises another difference of opinion between the Committee and the Air Board, as the latter fall foul of these per centages and claim that the 35 per cent, includes " new experimental, construction, &c, services," and not " construction of aeroplanes." The proportion of actual construction is put by the Air Board as at " probably less than 10 per cent." We agree with the Board that " this is a misapprehension which it appears very desirable to correct." But what appeals to us is how do these extraordinary differences in matters of fact come about. That there is still room for discussion and investigation is further suggested by the fact that the Board again are in direct conflict with the Committee even upon the actual constitution of the organisation as at present in operation ! Is all this due to too hurried an inquiry by the Committee and a sort of accepting everything as presented by the staff all cut and dried for digestion, or is it due to the want of the necessary technical knowledge by those entrusted with the investigation ? Either alternative is highly unsatis factory to those who hoped to see a sound, frank and well-considered resume of the pros and cons of the administration of the R.A.F. One of the most recurring sources of irritation amongst the Trade—the numerous alterations after the issue of manufacturing drawings and the absolute errors in drawings—is very emphatically nailed down as being rampant in connection with the aeroplane contracts given out. We might add that wrong figures and dimensions might well have been also added to "errors in drawings." In the "con clusions " of the Committee, after expressing the strong opinion as to the desirability of such an experimental establishment as the R.A.F., the Committee state that:— " The existing undesirable trade feeling referred to we consider should be met and, if possible, overcome, as its exist ence can hardly fail to have a detrimental effect on all con cerned. We do not consider that the competition of the Royal Aircraft Factory with the trade should, if reasonably administered, be the cause of any detrimental friction or trade feeling." With this latter conclusion we are, as we have already, and for all time in the past, stated, entirely at variance. What " reasonably administered. means exactly it would not be easy to define, but we can imagine nothing more unlikely than that the " reason " could possibly bear the same inter pretation from both sides. As in the past, nothing can regulate prices, quality, invention, initiative and enterprise more than keen commercial competitive construction. It is good for everybody, and not least for the Exchequer. By this means the finest brains are attracted to the industry and, moreover, obtain good value for their goods, and thereby progress is maintained which is calculated to keep this country well ahead in air supremacy. Give over the manufacturing side to a Government official and
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
