FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1925
1925 - 0095.PDF
FEBRUARY 19, 1925 axles are hinged under the floor of the body, the hinges being covered with a streamline fairing. Rubber shock absorbers secure the outer axle ends to the angle of the vees. The tail skid is mounted on and moves with the rudder, and is sprung by an enclosed coil spring. The whole fitting is shown in a photograph. The workmanship of the specimen exhibited at Paris was, as already stated, excellent, and if the same quality is maintained in the production machines there should be a ready sale for the Pander light monoplane, especi- ally as we understand the price is very reasonable. Following are the main characteristics of the Pander light monoplane: Length overall, 4-95 m. (16 ft. 3 m.); wing span, 8 m. (26 ft. 3 in.) ; wing area, 10-8 sq. m. (116-3 sq. ft.) ; weight of machine empty, 175 kgs. (385 lbs ) ; weight fully loaded, 280 kgs. (616 lbs.)" ; top speed, 130 kms./h. (81 m.p.h.j ; landing speed, 40 kms./h. (25 m.p.h.). Power loading, 20-5 lbs..'h.p. ; wing loading, 5-3 Ibs./sq. ft. AIR CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S.A. CABLES from America state that President Coolidge is gener- ally believed to have adopted the view that defence funds can be spent more profitably on aircraft than on battleships. A movement is on foot for the establishment of a separate Air Force and Air Ministry in the United States. A Com- mittee of the House of Representatives is inquiring into the state of flying in the country, and Brig.-General William Mitchell, Assistant Chief of the Army Air Force, in his evidence beiore it, is stated to have criticised his superior officers, while at the same time he has been advocating his own point. of view in the public press. The Naval Air Service is also agitated, and in response the heads of the land army and the floating navy are full of indignation, and threatening dis- ciplinary measures. It has been alleged that when the discarded battleship Wathinaton was sunk, the tests were not impartial, but were so arranged as to display the superiority of naval guns over aerial bombs. Since the War, the Navy and Post Office have spent over /J86,000,000 on flying, and the results arc held to be unsatisfactory. There is, in fact, a pretty considerable storm in a very large teacup on the other side of the Atlantic. FLIGHT, of course, does not presume to dictate to the United States how it ought to manage its own defence, spend its own money, and discipline its own officers. There can be nothing improper, however, in our stating our belief that a separate Air Ministry and Air Force is the wisest policy for any country to adopt ; and if the United States decides to follow the example of Great Britain in that matter, we shall openly rejoice. At the same time, the discussion, so far as we are able to follow it from a distance, presents certain features which have an academic interest for us in Great Britain, because the United States, like the British Empire, when considering defence and not aggression, must think in terms of the ocean and not in terms of the land. Any conceivable attack upon either Power must cross the sea—either on it, or under it, or over it, or by a combination of these three. This consideration is what drives men to compare the merits of aircraft with the merits of battle- ships. For the moment we decline to look into the future when the fighting unit may be a craft which performs the three functions of floating, diving, and flying. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. The question now is whether any useful lessons can be learnt by attempting to visualise a duel between battleships unsupported by aircraft on the one hand, and aircraft unsupported by battleships on the other. In the next war such duels may conceivably take place, but they will be extraordinary occurrences, and their results will not provide lessons of universal application. Such duels would resemble the favourite combats in the Roman arenas, when one gladiator equipped as a heavily-armed infantryman opposed a light skirmisher armed only with net and trident. The latter, one reads, almost invariably killed his opponent ; but the Romans were not so unwise as to conclude that their legions had, therefore, ceased to be the main strength of Rome. The conditions were unnatural and unreal, and the fight taught no useful lessons. The same air of unreality has surrounded such experiments as the periodical bombing from the air of the poor old Agamemnon. In the next war we must reasonably suppose that a battleship attacked by aircraft will likewise be defended by aircraft, as well as by anti-aircraft guns, and that, therefore, the upholders of battleships are also upholders of aircraft. We must remember also that various warlike arts are still in their infancy, and may be capable of extraordinary develop- ment. Notable among these are the arts of anti-aircraft fire, of aerial bombing, and of launching torpedoes from aircraft. We have no experience as yet which enables us to decide whether surface craft will be menaced most by bombs or by torpedoes from aircraft. Hitherto the bomb has not achieved a great reputation for accuracy of aim, even when the bombing aircraft have not been harassed by defending air fighters. Much was made at one time of the effectiveness of a bomb used as a depth charge to hole a ship from outside below the water line, because the Oslfricsland was sunk in that way. But Lord Lee of Fareham, then First Lord of the Admiralty, pointed out that it would take a bomb of 8,000 lbs., bursting 10 ft. from the side of the ship, to equal the effect of one torpedo in contact with the ship, while a 4,000 lb. bomb, exploding 30 yards away under water, would only equal 3 lbs. of explosive in actual contact. The aircraft torpedo seems a much more formidable weapon, but it has yet to be tried out in war. The torpedo aircraft may find great difficulty in attaining position for effective discharge. The tactics, as displayed at the last Royal Air Force Pageant, consist in an advance flight paralysing the ship's defence, either by machine-gun fire or by spreading a smoke screen, while the torpedo carriers approach, flying low until they discharge their missiles. A counter smoke screen by the ships might upset the calculations, and, of course, the ship's 'planes might break up the attack. Nevertheless, a good many casualties to the aircraft would be amply repaid by the crippling of one battleship. Another phase of tactics must be considered, that which will follow the advent of the airship cruiser. It may well be that in the next war even the United States will not be able to use helium in all the airships which will be commissioned, and for the purpose of this argument we may regard the airship as very vulnerable when attacked by aeroplanes, but not otherwise. The airships will be used as cruisers on trade routes and as fleet scouts. They will keep out of range of hostile aerodromes on shore, and therefore will only be in danger when hosftle aircraft-carrier ships or hostile airships carrying aeroplanes in their slings get within range of them. To take the latter alternative first, the airships of both sides will carry aeroplanes, and the fight between the two will be on equal terms, with Providence presumably on the side of the big battalions. The combat between the airship and the aircraft carrier is more speculative and more interesting. Presumably, numbers (of aeroplanes) will be on the side of the surface craft, but the airship 'planes will have no under- carriages and will therefore be more formidable. In any case, it will obviously be desirable to prevent p. hostile carrier from getting within range of one's own airships. Therefore, it remains as necessary as ever to rule the surface of the sea, as well as to rule the air. Can Britannia's old function be carried out by her aircraft carriers and her airships alone, or is the co-operation of a surface fleet necessary ? If the latter, then Britannia, or Uncle Sam, as the case may be, must have battleships up to the one-Power standard. It is a question of defending one's own aircraft carriers and one's own airships. All the cases considered above show great uncertainty as to the results of air tactics ; and nothing is more uncertain than air defence. In fact, one may say it is certain that a line of defence can never be established in the air as it can be estab- lished by land and by sea. If the hostile bases are in position, the hostile aeroplanes will be able to take to the air. We repeat that the surface of the sea must be kept safe for one's own carriers and must be forbidden to the hostile carriers. To attempt such a task without the aid of a superior battle fleet would be leaving a very great deal too much to chance. The Gloucestershire Aircraft and Engineering Society Society, together with a Model Club. The Hon. Secretary THE Gloucestershire Aircraft Co., Ltd., of Cheltenham, is Mr. A. A. Bage. This is an example that might with tell us that they have formed an Aircraft and Engineering advantage be followed by many other aircraft firms. 95 ) 2
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
