FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1917
1917 - 0016.PDF
(/UGHT and to assist him in selection or rejection. General Hendersonsometimes also consults some officers of the Royal Flying Corps of special experience. The procedure is that general arrange-ment drawings are sent to the War Office and are examined in General Henderson's office by technical officers who takenote of engineering points. An experienced pilot, who deals with the supply of aeroplanes, also examines the drawings.The Inspection Department is consulted, and General Mclnnes himself inspects and examines the drawings. The drawings,with the criticisms of these various officers, are then submitted to General Henderson, who accepts or rejects. 57. When an aeroplane is submitted for trial it is sent tothe Central Flying School, and is there tried before the Com- mandant, two or three officers, and the Chief Inspector ofAircraft. R. A.F. designed aeroplanes are tried in the same way. Engines of private design are tested at the R.A.F. underthe direction of the Superintendent. 58. In substance the position is that, although great painsare taken to prevent the R.A.F. from having any direct voice in the selection of types of either aeroplanes or engines,engines are tested by the R.A.F. and*most of the persons who advise General Henderson and who try the aeroplanes belongto the department which lias the control of the R.A.F., while General Mclnnes is the head of that department, subject,of course, to General Henderson. We do not see how the Reeling of the trade, which we are informed exists, that theirdesigns may not receive fair treatment or their finished products fair tests in competition with those of the R.A.F.,can be removed under existing conditions. Charge 3 (c).—The R.A.F. has been a Disservice and not aService to the Royal Flying Corps. 59. The first branch of this criticism in effect amounts to thecharge that the designs of the R.A.F., whether of aeroplanes or engines, have not been efficient. That the R.A.F. hasproduced unsatisfactory designs of aeroplanes cannot be doubted, but the K.A.F. exists to make experiments, and itis inevitable that some experiments must fail. 60. The R.A.F. has produced many designs which havedone admittedly good service. The B.E. 2 type marked a great advance in aeronautics. The F.E. type is good. TheR.E. 7, too, has answered its purpose, but upon the question whether in this war the R.A.F. has well served the RoyalFlying Corps, the R.A.F. must be judged by its principal achievement, the B.E. 2c aeroplane combined with the 90 h.p.R.A.F. engine. This is the combination which has been used in far larger numbers than any other, and by it theR.A.F. must, in our judgment, stand or fall. Which is it to do ? In answering this question, we bear in mind that at thetime the R.A.F. engine was produced, the only possible alternative engine of English design was the Green engine,for which no one has so far produced a satisfactory aeroplane. There was no inherently stable machine of private design.The B.E. 2C was strong, the design was aeronautically sound, the drawings were complete. This last circumstance enabledmany manufacturers, entirely new to the trade, to build an aeroplane who could not otherwise have done so. Lookingat things as they were at the beginning of the war, we adopt the language of one of the witnesses who appeared before us,Mr. A. E. Berriman, the Chief Engineer of the Daimler Company :— " The R.A.F. engine and the B.E. 2c aeroplane have theirdefects, but they form a combination that has been instrumental in enabling the Flying Corps to performinvaluable service to the Army in France,"— service, we may add, which would, in our view, have beenimpossible without this combination, at any rate, for many •critical months. 61. Much of the criticism of the B.E. 2c machine fittedwith the R.A.F. 90 h.p. engine has been ill-founded. As an illustration of this, we may refer to the evidence of one of thewitnesses who stated that he was absolutely convinced that a tractor machine is worse than useless for night-flying, andthat it was either negligence or ignorance of the authorities to allow night-fliers to use tractors such as the B.E. 2c. 62. It is a striking commentary on this evidence that allthe three airships which were brought down in flames on the nights of September 2nd, September 23rd and October 1stlast were brought down by pilots flying B.E. 2c machines fitted with R.A.F. engines. 63. It is proper to add that stable machines are admittedto be essential for night flying, and the only machines that are now used for that purpose are the B.E. 2C, a tractor,and the F.E. 2B, a pusher, both of which are essentially stable. 64. The later productions of the R.A.F. are not, on thewhole, as good as some of the machines now produced by private manufacturers, but are more readily obtainable. JANUARY 4. 65. In arriving at our conclusion on the B.E. 2c aeroplanefitted with the 90 h.p. R.A.F. engine, we have not forgotten the complaints that, after the drawings of the B.E. 2c and the90 h.p. R.A.F. engine were sent to the manufacturers, they were constantly being altered in detail, thus creating delayand confusion. There were, in fact, more alterations than one would expect. These, however, were, to some extent, dueto the desire to meet manufacturers' own views and objections, and to the fact that it was felt to be necessary to supplyaeroplane makers, many of whom had no previous experience, with the most exact drawings, even of ±he smallest alteredparts. In the case of the engine, we think this was overdone, and it would have been well to have given a freer hand andmore initiative to the drawing and designing staffs of the engine builders, many of whom, though new to aero enginework, had long experience in motor engine building. 66. The second branch of Charge 3 (c) is that the R.A.F.has discouraged private manufacturers. The evidence of three of th^four manufacturers who appeared before us is allthe other way, the fourth did not refer to the point. 67. In several cases, makers of aeroplanes and enginebuilders new to the work have sent their foremen to the R.A.F., who have obtained there much useful information andinstruction. The testimony of one of these trade witnesses, a large contractor, is worth quoting :— " It would be impossible for me to go away from this com-mittee without expressing the gratitude which I feel towards General McJ.nnes and every officer of every department, fromthe head of the War Office to the bottom of the War Office, for the assistance which is given to me. -There is everypossible ambition to help me to succeed in the very difficult work which I am doing, very often under very difficultcircumstances, and I for one would dissociate myself from any adverse proposition in respect to General Henderson and hisstaff. People say that they do not seem to help manu- facturers and contractors, but I have had nothing but theutmost possible assistance that a human being could have." 68. On the other hand, General Henderson complainedthat the tact and judgment of some of the subordinate officials of the R.A.F. had been deplorable, and we can well believethat some private manufacturers who came into contact with these subordinate officers have genuine cause of com-plaint. Indeed, we are inclined to think that this lack of tact may be answerable for much of the dissatisfaction whichthe trade is alleged to feel. Charge 3 (d).—Manufacturers' Designs have been copied bythe R.A .F. for their own use. 69. There was one regrettable instance of an attempt todo this. We have investigated the matter thoroughly, and are satisfied that, as soon as it was known to the highestauthority, it was immediately stopped and measurements which had been taken of the section of the wing of an aeroplanewere destroyed. CHARGE 4. THE INSUFFICIENT"5"TRAINING OF PILOTS~AND OBSERVERS. 70. Much was said about the insufficiency of the trainingof our pilots in flying, bomb-dropping and in fighting in the air. Instances were given of pilots being sent to the frontafter only five hours' flying. There is no doubt that in the early days of the war, when the demand for pilots suddenlyand enormously increased, some were sent out with insuffi- cient experience in flying. This was inevitable in the situa-tion in which the Royal Flying Corps found itself, and no blame can be attached to it in this respect. It follows thatpilots were also inexperienced in bomb-dropping and in fighting in the air. Observers were, for the same reason,insufficiently trained. 71. The most strenuous efforts have been made to remedythis state of affairs, and the present system of training pilots, except in regard to fighting in the air, meets with ourunqualified approval. Training is still, however, hampered to some extent by shortage of instructors as well as byshortage of school aeroplanes, which explains the fact that there is still a long waiting list of would-be pilots. Suchsteps as are possible, having regard to the demand for pilots and aeroplanes for more imperative needs, are beingtaken. 72. There was no school for air fighting until September,1915, when a" small one was established at Hythe. There was no doubt a shortage of machine guns, but that shortagedoes not account, in our opinion, for the fact that the war had been proceeding for over a year before an aerodromewas fitted up for aerial musketry, and then a by no means sufficient one. Wrhy this aerodrome was not opened foraerial musketry sooner is not apparent, but it is evident that the provision of others has, up to now, proved an almost x6
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
