FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1932
1932 - 0246.PDF
FLIGHT, MARCH 18, 1932 airship activities. ' I believe," said Sir Philip, " that the case for airships has neither been proved nor disproved. I am very much against those people who say that the disaster to R 101 is a reason for going back on former policy or for considering that, because of that disaster, there is no future for air ships." It was sheer lack of money which had dic tated our latest decision. We got some sound horse-sense also from Mr. Lovat-Fraser, a National Labour member, who asked for research in the direction of abolishing the noise made by aircraft, not for the benefit of those in the cabin, but for those on the earth below. Another Labour member, Mr. Batey, was not altogether foolish when he pointed out that our supplies of petrol are one of our vulnerable points-in time of war; though his suggestion that we should try to extract all the oil and petrol which we need from coal may not have been very helpful. Capt. Balfour obscured one good point in a mass of fury. We agree with him that a fast air-mail service is one of our chief needs, and that the attempt to combine mail and passenger carriage is not the best policy. Still, until we have a special mail-plane, and one is now under way, the charge has an academic rather than a prac tical value. Fury, in speech as in writing, has the one merit of waking up the sleepers and affording them some amusement. The debate was growing monstrous dull until the House encountered what Mr. Rhys Davies called " a storm over the Isle of Thanet." Capt. Balfour did not do much harm to the privileged position of Imperial Airways, but he evoked a little gentle satire in Sir Philip Sassoon's reply; and for this awaking of the humorous element he deserves thanks. Capt. Knatchbull made one interesting point. He and Mr. Simmonds voiced the woes of the aircraft industry, and with their complaint we have the deepest sympathy. Capt. Knatchbull mentioned the inadvisability of standardising too much on service types. If we adopted only two types of single-seater, there were only two designing staffs kept busy im proving those types; whereas if we had several types more firms would be kept busy. For economy and for efficiency it may be much the best that the Royal Air Force should have as few types as possible at the same time; but if our aircraft firms cannot be kept in vigorous life, both efficiency and economy will suffer in the end. Of course, the House had to listen to the usual fatuous pacifist pleadings to the effect that it is very wrong to have any air armaments at all. It is used to that, and it bore it as something inevitable. It is strange that many people find so much difficulty in •distinguishing between a peaceful spirit and a pacifist spirit. Anyone who fought in the late war is inevit ably intensely peaceful. He never wants another •war, either for himself or for his descendants. But the pacifist hopes to prevent war by discarding the means of protecting ourselves. He might as well hope to abolish crime by disbanding the police force. Sqd. Ldr. the Marquess of Douglas and Clydes dale, in speaking up for the Auxiliary Air Force, in which he commands No. 602 (City of Glasgow) (Bomber) Squadron, made a curious remark. He quoted the fact that we are still short by 10 squad rons of our programme of 52 squadrons for home defence, and suggested " that the Air Ministry should change its policy and establish, in place of these 10 regular squadrons ... at least 10 Auxiliary Air Force squadrons." Why should the CO. of No. 602 B.S. assume that the 10 remaining squad rons are to be regulars, and why should the forma tion of more A.A.F. squadrons mark a change of Air Ministry policy? Surely Lord Clydesdale must know that, of the 42 home defence squadrons which we possess, 13 are non-regular, i.e., 5 cadre and 8 Auxiliary squadrons. That fact was clearly stated in the Air Minister's memorandum which accom panied the Estimates. The probability is that when the remaining 10 squadrons come to be formed, some of them will be either cadre or-A.A.F. squad rons. At the moment the programme is to remain uncompleted, and when the formation of new squad rons is resumed, we certainly hope that some will be regular and some will be A.A.F. The suggestion that all 10 should be A.A.F. units is not one to be approved. The Noble Lord also urged that some A.A.F. squadrons should be equipped with flying boats. On the whole we like this suggestion, though flying-boat pilots and airmen have more to learn and need more practice than is needed in a bomber squadron. In the regular Air Force, pilots are changed about from one squadron to another, and it is known that it takes a pilot who is quite ex perienced in landplanes some months of continuous work and practice before he becomes a really efficient boat pilot. When he has learnt the job thoroughly, he is probably sent back to landplanes. That would not happen in an A.A.F. flying-boat squadron. It would be located on the coast, where good water men and sailors could be recruited, and they would stay in the one squadron for the whole of their service; but such a squadron would probably be slower than a bomber squadron in attaining high proficiency. Brig. Gen. Spears had one more tilt at the R.A.F. armoured cars in Palestine and Transjordan. We hope that it was a final one, and that Gen. Spears is now satisfied. The House, we should imagine, must be getting as bored by his repeated remarks on this subject as we are ourselves. Why cannot he vary the proceedings by demanding that the Royal Marines should be placed under the War Office? It would be just as sensible and just as useful an outcry. The reform which is really needed, as we pointed out a few weeks ago, is for the searchlights and anti-aircraft guns which are an integral part of air defence to be taken away from the War Office and placed directly under the Air Ministry. Then, if Gen. Spears should think fit to urge that the School of Army Co-operation at Old Sarum and the five Army Co-operation squadrons in this country should be paid for out of the Army Estimates, as the Fleet Air Arm is paid for out of the Navy Estimates, and as the R.A.F. squadrons in India are paid for by India, we shall raise no objection. Air Defence is the especial business of the Royal Air Force, and divided control is one of the best ways to achieve defeat in war. Those guns and those searchlights must, sooner or later, be handed over to the Royal Air Force. 130
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
