Britain’s New Airships

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 80, 28 December 1929, Page 17

Britain’s New Airships

THERE have been many airships and the Graf Zeppelin is holdei of a flue record. But experts in the world of the air realise that R 101, our new airship, is a deciding factor in the futuie of that class of aircraft, and that is why its flying exploits are being

carefully studied. “The first and greatest virtue of the R 101,” says the “Times,” is that owing to the employment of furnace oil instead of petrol as the source of her motive power (at one-fifth of the cost), she will be decidedly safer than all previous airships. The risk of fire is reduced to a minimum, and smoking, which had to be banned in the case of the Graf Zeppelin, will be allowed in aspecial compartment. ' “Another great and novel advantage is that the elimination of petrol will enable her, unlike airships dependent on this form of fuel, to face the temperature of the tropics and the effect of its extremes on the lift of the ship. So far, as risks of mishaps from outside are concerned she is designed to withstand a sudden vertical gust of 45 miles an hour, or three times the wind velocity provided against in the case of the Graf Zeppelin. “In comfort, too, and in the extent of her accommodation, as well as in safety, she has a marked superiority over predecessors. “It is not only probable, but practically certain, that further developments will be necessary before the point is,reached at which an Empire airship service can be regarded as a reasonable commercial enterprise. But in what is likely to prove a new era in airship construction R 101 has undoubtedly made a good beginning. “The work of building up an airship service, which, if it can be established, must prove of incalculable value to the Empire, is bound to be a costly affair. And the designers and constructors of R .101 have worked well and wisely in determining, even at some possible sacrifice for the time being of speed and carrying power, to put before all other considerations the indispensable ; and much-abused attribute of Safety First.” Mr. A. E. L. Chorlton, the designer and inventor of the engines of R 101, in an interview expressed himself as highly del ghted with the success of the airship’s flight. “The trial,” he said, “has demonstrated for the first time two things—the possibility of using a high-speed heavy oil engine, and, secondly, the use of heavy oil as fuel in aerial navigation. By this means absolute safety against the ever-present peril of fire in lighter-than-air craft is ensured and there is a greater qeonomy, represented by a figure of no less than 30 per cent, in fuel when compared with petrol engines. Further, we are saving in fuel weight another 25 per cent. “The weight of oil-burning engines, of course, is greater than thqt of\etrol engines, but I guarantee that we can reduce by half the present weight per brake horse power of the oil-burning engine. During the trip only four of the engines were used, and it was only when we came to manoeuvre for the mast at Cardington that the port aft engine was used.

“What remains to be done is to reduce engine weight. That can be cut down by half. The ship, when the new propellers are fitted, will be in a position to run fully out and to attain her maximum speed. Even at present there' is no doubt that the airship could make a non-stop run to Egypt.” “The present problem is whether or not airships, from a civilian standpoint, are a ‘commercial proposition.’ The affimative has still to be pro,red, after making due"allowance for the anti-airship school of thought,” says the “Daily Herald.” “It is true that the Graf Zeppelin has flown round the world, and that should answer the ’lt can’t be done’ critics. But there remains the fact that her crew, mindful of the limitations of their craft, have displayed decided antipathy to her projected Polar flight. That is not to say that she, or her British compeers, could not surmount the difficulties ahead. “But it does suggest that —and here, one may be sure, the staunchest supporters of airships would agree—the problem is not yet solved.” “Size in itself is no detriment to a vehicle of transport for a sea passage,” writes Commander Sir Charles Denniston Burney, a leading authority, in the “Observer.” ’ , “We do not choose a small liner for crossing the Atlantic because we are frightened of the size of a large one. The real objection to size in an airship is, at present, that the larger the airship the more difficult the question of landing and housing her at the completion of her voyage. “Hitherto airships have been handled By man-power, but although the size and power of the airship have increased, the size of the man remains the same. Obviously, therefore, if airships exceed a certain size they become too unwieldy to be man-handled. “The development of the mooring mast provides a solution, under most climatic conditions, for airships operating between two fixed and previously determined points, but it does not solve the difficulty of taking the airship into her shed from the mast, and taking her to the mooring mast from the shed: nor does it provide a solution for the landing of an airship at any place except that which has been previously prepared for her at a cost of many thousands of pounds. ■ “The other great-defect of all airships yet built is that they do not obey one of the fundamental laws of transport. Alone among vessels in use to-day they cannot make a landing on their own without extraneous aid. The aeroplane and the flying-boat can, as a rule, make a forced landing without damage. A marine vessel can always anchor or heave-to, a train oi motor-car or any kind of land vehicle can stop at any time. Airships, however, can only make a landing at a prepared base, and it is to the overcoming of this difficulty that we should, in my opinion, concentrate all our energies. “I am a firm believer in the necessity for redoubling our activities in / the development of the long-distance aeroplane, flying-boat and airship.