Letters to the Editor

THE AVIATION BOOM [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]

Sin,—Sir Leo Chiozza Money may not like progress with or without a capital " P." He may prefer a quill pen and a brougham to a typewriter and a motor car, and he is perfectly entitled to do so, but he is quite powerless to check the progress he affects to despise.

The internal-combustion engine which made the motor car and the dirigible airship practicable may not have added one iota to the world's happiness, but it has come to stay and must be endured. He states that " the economic argument has no foundation whatever." I submit that it may be economical to use a horse and cart to transport light loads short distances, but a carrier who attempted to compete in the transportation of heavy loads over long distances with horse-drawn drays would soon find himself out of business. Economic law forces the adoption of the cheapest and most rapid form of transport. Canada can best afford to supervise her forests owing to the economic advantage provided by the aeroplane. Complex needs of civilization demand various services from transport of which some can best and some can only be provided on an economic basis by the air.

It may not be the immediate function of the aeroplane to provide an Atlantic passenger service. As long-distance flights and endurance tests can be carried out in safer ways X would certainly do nothing to encourage the continuance of these attempts to cross the Atlantic any more than I can deplore the spirit which prorapts them.'

The economic and commercial advantage of the aeroplane is experienced in the countries of vast spaces, Australia, Canada, Africa, and the United States rather than in England, where distances are short and roads and railways well developed. The time wasted going to and from the aerodromes of the large cities cancels the benefit gained by the speed and directness of flight. In the United States, after eliminating routes where it was found that the aeroplane was unable to compete with the train, a successful mail service has been established, the operations of which, it is claimed, reach a higher stage of efficiency than any other known form of transportation. "

A notable section of Australia's air service is the Queensland and Northern Territory line, which flies over thick bush in very sparsely populated sheep and cattle country, rendering services which no other form of transport could supply except at the expense of great time and in great discomfort. These aeroplanes often carry medical aid to the backwoods or a sick man to a township. It cannot, surely, be maintained that such a service is kept up for war purposes ?

Moreover, insurance companies quote lower premiums. on bullion taken by the Imperial Airways Company than when carried by rail and ship. I think this shows that the factor of safety in favour of a passenger by aircraft to-day is high compared to that of the seaman not only in " the earliest day of navigation," but as late as the eighteenth century. No one ,studying the old naval records, or, say, the City of London sailings of the East India Company, can fail to be astounded at the appalling monthly list of wreckages and founderings.

Sir Leo Chiozza Money, complains that no commercial air line pays without a subsidy, that in fact " the tax-payer pays Part of the fare of every passenger who flies from London to Paris." He therefore compares the new air services unfavourably with railways and steamships, which gained their efficiency, he says, owing to the fact that they " were left to make their own way." For an erstwhile Labour candidate to advocate individualistic effort is indeed a case of Saul among the Prophets. I welcome such a sign of economic graCe, but I cannot admit the analogy. While it is true that owing to particular industrial conditions it was possible to , develop railways by private 'enterprise in EnglEind, elsewhere, notably in Australia; Germany, France, and Italy,' railways haire been initiated and maintained by the State, in the majo'rity of ca-sea at the expense of the tax-Payier; whilit in England" passengers now travel largely

at the expense of the shareholder. The great Mercantile Marine, built up mainly by private enterprise, nevertheless receives Government help in the form of harbour works, coastal light service, and the charting of the seas. The Government mail subsidy, in fact, effected the change from sail to steam.

Civilization is more and more dependent for stability on communications and transport. Labour and Conservative

. alike deprecate war, and favour arbitration and improvement of mutual understanding. Easy and rapid communications are a fundamental essential ; the limit of speed in steamship development has perhaps been reached. The next develop- ment is in aerial transport. Airships, I believe, are to be the future " greyhounds of the Atlantic." They are unlikely to compete ashore against railways or against the aeroplane over short distances. But whereas our fastest ocean liners have a maximum speed of about twenty-seven knots, the airship R. 100, now building at Howden in Yorkshire by the Airship Guarantee Company, is built for a maximum speed of eighty-three miles per hour.

The statement that " the more ambitious the gas-bag the smaller the chance of its riding a storm " is not in accordance with facts. The tendency is towards increasing the size of the airship. The R.100 has a capacity of 5 million cubic feet, as compared with the 21 million cubic feet of the ill-fated ' Shenandoah.' The airship designed for the United States by the toodyear Zeppelin Company will have a capacity of 6,500,000, and I am ready to hazard a guess that the next decade will see airships of between 8 and 10 million cubic feet. " Riding the storm " presumably means strength to resist vertical wind gusts. In thunderstorms these often reach 2,000 feet a minute. The R.100 is designed to withstand twice the strength of such a gust, whereas in previous airships the vertical gust condition has been entirely neglected. It cannot be fairly said that these airships are built for " hideous warfare." They • are not designed for evading anti-aircraft guns. Their purpose is commerce, and to bring the Empire closer together.

The failure of the Zeppelin as a war weapon is often remem- bered. Her success as a commercially paying proposition is generally forgotten, yet in the early days, 1910-1914, a German company had a line of four ships which carried over 17,000 passengers. One hundred thousand miles were flown without one fatality. Since the War the company built a small airship, the ' Bodensee,' and commenced a regular air service which was carried out in all weather, and no damage was sustained by passengers or airship. The ' Bodensee always carried up to full capacity and made 103 voyages, carrying a total of 2,400 passengers without mishap. In time of war our airships would be employed as scouts to assist cruisers in maintaining our trade routes and protecting the convoys which have to bring food and necessities to our islands. Not a very hideous form of warfare !

If waters " no longer defend this island," surely we must

look for other means of self-defence ? It is just as foolish (and the result is just as tragic) to consider war unthinkable, as it is to believe it to be inevitable. It is naturally in the interests of an island people, whose • capital is more vulnerable to air attack than that of any first-class Power, to secure a veto on submarine and aerial warfare, but for this to be effective it must be universal and international. Unfor- tunately, such unanimity is lacking. The alternative to defence was on an historic occasion chosen by Carthage–With what results we all know.—I am, Sir, &c., 8 Broadway, S.W.1.

C. D. BURNEY'.