FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1919
1919 - 0128.PDF
wm> Commercial Purposes." The text-of this pamphlet we are pubhshing in full as a matter of record, so that there is no need to quote from it here, but we are quite certain that those of our readers who take the trouble to study these " Notes " will £nd them selves considerably surprised at 'the favourable comparisons they contain between the two types of aircraft. They are in no sense an argument for the airship versus the aeroplane. On the contrary, the compilers of the " Notes" have manifestly approached the subject in a purely statistical frame of mind and have contented themselves with simply setting down the comparative facts as they afiect each type. The figures may be taken as accurate, since they are based on a great deal of war-flying experience. From these figures it will be seen that the actual flying comparison between the heavier and lighter- than-air types is overwhelmingly in favour of the latter, except in the matter of speed, in which the aeroplane shows a marked superiority. In cruising endurance, disposable lift, efficiency ratio and static ceiling the airship of the German L. 70 type is enormously ahead of the D.H. IOA, which is the machine selected for comparison, and if the matter ended there it would only be possible to return one verdict in the matter of which type must prove best for commercial purposes. But so far from the question ending with these comparisons, it only begins there, and there are many other factors which cannot be given a place in such a non-controversial document as the " Notes." There is the question of comparative first cost and of upkeep to be con sidered, particularly when we come to the larger types of rigid airship. A capital outlay of £300,000 on the ship alone does not strike one as being par ticularly commercial when we find that all we get for the money is a cargo capacity of 170 tons. Against that we have to remember that for a similar cargo capacity by aeroplane we might have to incur very nearly as great an outlay, without the undoubtedly great advantages of wide radius of action of the rigid. Again, there comes the question of the comparative airworthiness of the two types. It is reasonably certain that the aeroplane can fly in weather in which it would be impossible to bring a rigid airship out of its shed. These are all questions, however— and there are many others—which it is scarcely opportune to argue now. Nothing more need be said than that the " Notes " are likely to be of the greatest interest and utility to those who are busy on plans of development. They contain a great deal of useful food for thought, and are in them selves a justification of the uses of the airship. • • • General Seely's speech at the dinner of General the Imperial Air Fleet Committee last andthe wee^ arouses rather mixed feelings in Aerial Future our mind. His ideals of the future are admirable, and are completely. in line with what we have written during the past few weeks on the R.A.F. and the Air'Ministry during the post- bellum period. " We shall have to have Air Forces for military purposes still. People say to me, ' You must have an Air Force equivalent to the land and sea forces.' I say, ' Yes, but it would be wise to have ah even greater proportion of Air Force.' " That is exactly the kind of talk we like to hear from the responsible head of the Air Ministry, and we are JANUARY 30, 1919 absolutely in accord with the views expressed. But, and this is where the shoe pinches, General Seely is after all only Under-Secretary of State for the Air, and is subordinate, nominally at least, to the Sec retary of State for War. We have very little doubt that so long as Mr. Churchill is at the War Office he will back the opinions expressed by General Seely, but there is no guarantee that in six months' time and before our aerial policy is settled beyond revosation there may not be another Lcrd Haldane at Whitehall, who will set vigorously to work to undo all that may have been done by his predecessor in office and with whom a Minister like General Seely would find it impossible to work. Naturally, we are very greatly relieved to know that an official is at the helm of the Ministry, holding the long view of our aerial future, but we are still most strongly of opinion that the existing duality of office is highly detrimental to the public interest. Clearly, General Seely himself is determined that the Air Service is to develop along the natural lines mapped out for it by the course of events, but the trouble is that it is not he, but the Secretary of State for War, who has the ultimate decision in matters of policy and to whom Parliament will look in the last resort for guidance. So much for that aspect of the matter. Proceeding, General Seely told his audience that he could promise them on behalf of the Secretary of State and for the Air Council that every effort will be made to help forward the air traffic of the future. Plans have been made in the most liberal detail for helping forward that traffic. Among the things we must do and can do is to secure great air routes to all the great Dominions of the Crown. In this effort to increase air traffic throughout the world, for the good of the world at large, we mean to secure the first place in a generous rivalry. We have great advantages. We have built up an air craft industry which, with all due deference to our Allies, is the best and most scientific in the world. At present we navigate the air like sailors sailing over an uncharted sea. The science of meteorology is almost in its infancy, and the possibilities of marking air routes have only begun to be faced. But the plans, the brains, and the energy are there, and the money, he believed, would be forthcoming. From the victory we have won in the War we must go forward to another victory—the mastery of the air in the interests of the Empire and the whole of mankind. This is all good hearing, and again gives us to marvel why on earth, if the Air Ministry and the R.A.F. are in fact to remain independent and separate from the other great Departments of State, Mr. Lloyd George has taken the extraordinary action he has, instead of appointing General Seely to be Sec retary of State. Not only would such a course have been, we are convinced, in the best interests of the Air Service, but it would have avoided a great deal of the suspicion with which the public, and par ticularly that section which is specifically interested in aviation, regards official assurances regarding the future. •u-•:. What Dn«. We have Said that P^pfe regard official it aU assurances that the future of the Air Mean? Service is to be an assured one—that it is intended to develop it on pre cisely the lines that its most ardent well-wishers
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
