FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1921
1921 - 0566.PDF
the airships that they had no time to devote to the investigation of anything else. When we leave the generalities of the Report and come down to the figures given, it seems to become plain that these have been put at the highest possible point, as though the intent were to show that airship services can only be run at a relatively ruinous cost. We shall challenge some of these figures presently. The truth of the matter is—and we have neither scruple nor hesitation in saying this—that the Air Ministry, with the exception of those who have worked with airships during and since the War, has no belief in lighter-than-air craft, and the Committee has quoted absurd figures in order to make them show up badly. We have known for a long time that there were many wheels working within wheels where the airships are concerned, and that there is a very strong adverse influence at work. Otherwise, why was there no airship expert on the Committee, and why was no officer or official with extended experience of airships called to give first-hand information for the guidance of the Committee ? Now, as to certain of the figures quoted in the Report. One glaring example of inaccuracy is in connection with the price of hydrogen, which is assumed at 20s. per 1,000 cu. ft. If the Committee had been seriously desirous of ascertaining the real price of this essential gas, it could have discovered that the real price is not 20s. per 1,000 ft., but 6s. Supplies have been quoted for at this figure within the past few weeks. That is to say, the assumed figure is too high by about 70 per cent. Then, the cost of moving the pooring mast from Croydon, presumably to Cardington, though nothing is said as to where it is to be removed to, is put at £10,000. This in face of the fact that there is in present existence a quotation from a very well-known steel firm for the erection of a steel mast, 160 ft. high, with concrete foundation, FOR £3,600. There seems to be some- thing very wrong with the Committee's figures. Moreover, why has the Committee been so shy of estimating for revenue ? All they have to say is that, " With the data available, and taking into consideration the natural conservatism of the general public towards the adoption of new methods of transport, the Committee consider that it is imprac- ticable to frame any trustworthy estimates of the revenue to be earned by the existing fleet." They do not even add the opinion that, naturally, there will be some revenue ! The whole question of the earning possibilities of the airship is passed over in this somewhat contemptuous paragraph. We do not like it. The attempt to " crab " the lighter-than-air craft is too obvious all through the Report. • • The terms of reference of the Committee ^ did not include any alternative to the at all? existing fleet of airships, and thus no blame whatever can attach to them for not entering into the question of whether or not the big rigid is the best type for opening up Imperial air communications. It is at least questionable whether there is not an alternative, and we suggest that the subject is a proper one for official enquiry before a final decision is taken, one way or another, as to the fate of the airship service. We note that the Report examines the expenditure necessary to carry on an airship service for five years, and the proposal involves the building of twelve new ships at a cost of £4,545,000, the cost of the first being put AUGUST 25, 1921 at £300,000, the next three at £250,000 each, and the remaining eight at £240,000 per ship. Have we become obsessed by the big rigid ? Is it not at least possible that there is a smaller, cheaper type of ship which will show a better commercial prospect than these huge craft which cost an enormous amount of money to build ? We do not propose to dogmatise, but it will be of more than passing interest to examine the possibilities.' Let us take a type such as the Parseval, which is a thoroughly practical ship. The 18-ton Parseval is capable of carrying a load of 25 passengers and 7 as a crew for I,QOO miles at a cruising speed of 60 miles an hour. These ships Can be built in England for NOT MORE than £30,000 each, so that ten Parsevals can be obtained for the cost of the first rigid as proposed in the Committee's Report. They have neither the capacity nor the endurance of the larger craft, but they are certainly capable, of working on the Imperial air routes with a considerable degree of success. Assuming it is desired to open up communications between England, Egypt, India and Australia, it would be necessary to erect mooring masts at London, Marseilles or Rome, in Egypt, at Basra, Calcutta, Colombo, Singapore, Java, Perth, Melbourne, and at a point in Northern Australia. These stations, twelve in all, would cost £50,000 each. (The Report mentions £55,000.) This would total £600,000. Assume that twelve ships were required to be always in commission, with an equal number in reserve, we get to a figure of £720,000 for 24 airships, or a totai capital expenditure on ships and stations of £1,320,000. Writh this number of ships it would be possible to run services between this country and Australia three times a week, instead of the fortnightly service suggested in the Committee's Report. These would carry 75 passengers per week each way, in stages, instead of the average of 25 per week carried by the 4,000,000 cu. ft. ships mentioned in the aforesaid Report. We need not pursue the subject farther just now, except to say that this is a very brief outline of a scheme which lies before us for establishing an Im- perial airship service. This scheme shows that for a total capital expenditure of £2,320,000 these services can be put into being. Allowing a further £680,000 for coritingencies, it calculates that a total capital of £3,000,000 would have to be available, which compares, on figures alone, very favourably indeed with those discussed by the Committee. We need not commit ourselves to a judgment of the scheme in question, but it looks on the face of it thoroughly practical, and when we say that it has been put forward by an officer of long experience and distinguished record in the airship service, we think we are justified in saying that a case for the very closest examination is fully made out. Mr- In the course of an interview with ^ The Times, Mr. W. M. Hughes, Prime Airships Minister of Australia, referred among other matters of Imperial interest to airships and Empire communications. Asked whether he was satisfied with the Report of -the Committee we have been discussing, he said :— " In so tax as the advice tendered has relation to the technical side of the question it is not for me, clearly, to attempt to criticise it. But if you ask me whether I am satisfied with the proposal to cast aside the instrument o\ Empire communication, which, I may remind you, cost something like ,£40,000,000 to bring up to its present state oi
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
