So far I have spoken only of heavier-than-air flying-machines. There
is also the airship to which many people pin their faith for future
long-distance air-transport.
The airship was neglected in England after the War because experience
seemed to show that it was incapable of playing a useful part in
warfare. Its revival was chiefly due to Commander Burney, who
continually drew attention to his conviction that the airship could be
made a safe and successful long-distance air-transport vehicle.
Most airship advocates believe in the bigger the better theory. If
the gas-capacity of an airship is doubled, the disposable lift may
be quadrupled, and the size will be only about 1.3 times that of the
smaller vessel. For this reason the two English airships now being
built are each of 5,000,000 cu. ft. gas-capacity. One is being built
by the Government, the other for the Government to Commander Burney’s
general design.
These airships have provided matter for many speeches on Empire
air-ship-routes of the future. At the recent Imperial Conference
airships were spoken of as the right vessels for long-distance
air-lines. These forecasts are based on slender foundations.
Since 1914 only one successful commercial airship-service has been
run. The ‘Bodensee’ in 1919 made 103 trips between Berlin and
Friedrichshafen and carried 2450 passengers. Those 103 trips seem to
be an insecure basis upon which to build calculations about voyages
halfway round the world. The new airships may go from England to Egypt
in 2½ days, and from England to Melbourne in 12½ days, but nothing
has occurred in airship-development to strengthen the probability of
such events. The two new airships are nothing more than a gigantic
experiment.
I must make some unpleasant remarks about airships, but, before
doing so, it is necessary to record admiration of the English
airship policy. I do not agree with the man with a genius for mixed
metaphor who described the airship scheme as the “thin edge of the
white elephant”. On the contrary, in initiating this experiment the
Government has shown imagination and daring. Airship enthusiasts are
to have an opportunity of testing their theories. If the experiment
is a hopeless failure no money and no time will have been wasted, for
the knowledge gained will be of value in directing future aeronautical
development.
But to the question: Will the airship become the long-distance air
vehicle of the future? I answer No.
I base my view on an examination of airship history and on the opinions
of airship pilots. Upon that basis the probable future of the 5,000,000
cu. ft. vessels will be this:
The first one to be completed will make a first flight, and come to its
200 ft. mooring mast successfully. For several months it will cruise
periodically, and minor structural modifications will be made. It will
fly to India and back. Paying passengers will be accepted, and after
considerable delay the first long-distance passenger-flight will be
flown. Some two or three years after the airship comes from its shed,
it will meet with disaster.
More airships will be designed and built, larger still than those now
building. There will be another disaster.
By then the heavier-than-air machine in the moving-wing and fixed-wing
forms, will have proved itself capable of doing all that airships can
do and doing it more safely, more quickly, more regularly, and more
cheaply. The airship will gradually disappear, and its place will
be taken by the heavier-than-air craft, as the balloon is gradually
disappearing and its place being taken by the airship.
There is only one major difference between balloon and airship, a
difference in the amount of control exercised by the airman. The same
difference exists between airship and aeroplane. The aeroplane is
the more controllable. It can rise and descend with less preliminary
juggling; it can turn more quickly; and it can land more quickly.
In support of my pessimistic forecast I append a brief outline of
air-ship-history.
Lighter-than-air man-carrying flight started in 1783 when Pilâtre de
Rozier, the world’s first aeronaut, went up in a Montgolfier balloon.
In the same year a hydrogen filled balloon flew from Paris to Nesle. In
the following year an oblong balloon propelled by parasols as oars was
made by the Duc de Chartres.
In 1852 a small airship propelled by a steam engine was made. In 1882
Tissandier’s airship worked by an electric motor was flown, and in
1884 the airship ‘La France’ was flown. Count Zeppelin built his first
airship in 1900. Santos Dumont constructed an airship, and, in 1902,
flew it round the Eiffel Tower.
It will be seen that the airship has passed through a longer period of
development than the heavier-than-air flying-machine, even if the claim
that Clement Ader flew in 1897 be accepted. Lighter-than-air flight,
indeed, dates back to 1783.
The result of that longer development period is not such as to warrant
too sanguine a belief in the airship’s future. The accidents to
non-rigids and rigids have been many in proportion to the number of
vessels actually flown.
The last type of non-rigid built in England was the North Sea type,
one of which was destroyed by lightning soon after the War. Nine
people were killed. Among the rigids, R.34, which made the double
Atlantic crossing, was damaged beyond repair in 1921. R.33 has had many
adventures, among them being her break-away from the mooring-mast in
1925. This was hailed as a proof of the safety of airships. R.33 is
still alive, though she is treated with the respect due to her age.
R.36, the first British airship to be adapted for commercial purposes,
is still in existence though not in service. R.38 broke up over the
Humber in 1921 and forty-four people were killed.
The U.S.A. have the ‘Los Angeles’, which is the name now given to the
German designed and built ZR.3. The ‘Shenandoah’ broke away from
her mast in 1924, and was destroyed in 1926. According to survivors’
stories, the ‘Shenandoah’ was wrecked by the same kind of vertical
air-currents that wrecked an early Zeppelin in 1913. In all, nine
American airships have perished violently since the War.
The French ‘Dixmude’ was the ex-Zeppelin L.72. She created a world’s
record in 1923, and then disappeared off Sicily with all hands (54
people).
Considering how few large airships have been built, and how short a
time they are, on the average, kept in service, the proportion of
serious accidents is high. In war that proportion is prohibitively high.
The Zeppelin works have turned out more rigid airships than any factory
in the world. The fate of every Zeppelin airship completed since 1915
was recently given in a French technical paper. I do not vouch for
the figures, but they come from a fairly reliable source. Out of 76
airships no fewer than 37 (or nearly 50%) were put out of service
before they had completed one year’s work. Only four airships were
kept in service for more than three years. This is the record of the
firm which knows more about airships than any other firm in the world.
Yet airships have had longer to develop than aeroplanes.
How can an airship be said to be superior to a fixed-wing aeroplane?
It can hover, it has a longer range, it provides a higher degree
of comfort for its passengers. How is it inferior to a fixed-wing
aeroplane? It is slower, it requires more elaborate ground
organization, it is less controllable. Since the moving-wing aircraft
is, as yet, far from fully developed, I leave it out of discussion.
The argument that an aeroplane is always using a part of its power for
lifting is counterbalanced by the argument that an airship is always
using a part of its power for driving its bulk against the wind. An
airship cannot stand still and use no power. There is always some wind
at a height, and the airship must either use power or drift. An airship
with all its engines stopped is as helpless as an aeroplane with all
its engines stopped. The aeroplane, while gliding, still retains a
large measure of controllability, and the pilot can select its landing
ground within 50 yards. The airship has less controllability when its
engines are stopped. Its commander would be lucky if he could select
its landing ground within 50 miles.
It is right that the airship should have every chance to develop. If
it prove successful, so much the better. I do not think it will prove
successful. If it is made to work, it will be at more than ten times
the cost in money and lives, at which heavier-than-air machines have
been made to work.
Sometimes it seems regrettable that even a small part of the sums
spent on developing airships cannot be spent on developing the
passenger-carrying aeroplane.
I will give airships the last word by recalling that Sir George Cayley
in 1816 expressed his belief that airships would eventually prove
the most efficient and safest means of air travel, and by quoting Dr
Eckener:
“A modern airship”, said Dr Eckener, “is at least as capable in heavy
weather as a modern aeroplane. A storm will never have more effect than
delaying or speeding a trip, and it can become directly dangerous only
inasmuch as it may delay the voyage beyond the reach of fuel supply.”