"DELUSION?"

Dunstan Times, Issue 3379, 20 June 1927, Page 2

"DELUSION?"

“NEON,” THE FOG PIERCER

It is alleged that “Neon” the author of “The Great Delusion” (Ernest Penn) is a woman. If that be true, a better pseudonym would have been Mrs Part ington, for apparently her aim is entirely to sweep away with the broom of science any belief in the future of flying. So much so that suspicion is aroused that the lady’s services have been enlisted by the Admiralty ,in propaganda for theirs, the senior service. Neon, which by the way, is the name of a gas for which is claimed fogpi weing qualities, has admittedly collected facts and figures to show that flying is not yet a safe method of) transport and communication and to that extent n. ikely quick ~ t:. come into common use. But she spoils her case by overstatement and her premises being unsound, her conclusion falls to the ground —that aviation achieved nothing in the war, was useless for reconaissanco and intelligence, or that they were a serious menace to surface craft, let alone submarines; as for civil uses, well, they are equally futile! “Neon” makes a better case out than might have been anticipated, by dint' of devoting the bulk of her volume of some 300 pages to airships. And there wo have, of course, the most vulnerable point in the armour of the flying force. Admittedly, airships have been an unending disappointment throughout their history. But need we, Partington-wise, stem the progress of flying by damming all effort in this direction.

Neon’s” research into flying records was begun after tho R33 disaster. She is a scientist, used to collating scientific data, and in discussing this disaster the theory was broached that winds wore in effect currents and that navigation in one medium was doomed to failure. “I he Great Delusion” was thus born and to that it owes its over-elaboration on the side of lighter-than-air craft and comparative subordination of the aeroplane section. “Neon” has proved her point—the. helplessness of the airship—but the public scarcely require the point pushed home with so ponderous a tome. But need we despair? Airships are in their infancy, and, after all, they have crossed the Atlantic. Mr A. H. Pollen, who writes a preface to “The Great Delusion” entirely in sympathy with “Neon” says:—“ Take the case of airships. it has been suggested that these are to have a considerable war value, while the expectations of their Imperial services have been put pretty high. A suggestion, welcomed with enthusiasm by successive Governments, is thrown out that the Ministry and a private company should cooperate to produce two five-million cubic foot machines to link the Empire together, so that the further point, New Zealand, shall not be more than fourteen days away from London. This involves crossing all the tropics that there are, and at a point —the neighbourhood of Java—where thunderstorms are not the exception, but the rule. Of the behaviour of airships in the tropics—that is. their conduct other than when struck hv lightning—no one in the world, .Sir Sefton Bvancker says, knows anything at all. What more reasonable than that one of our post-war airships—one that had been completed, but hardly yet flown—should be fitted out, sent to Egypt and used to collect the data so totally wanting and so vitally necessary, before this great adventure of Empire linking can prudently be undertaken ? The order is given, much money is spent. We are, you see, to proceed on scientific and commonsense lines. But within ten days of an official pronouncement that tins experimental flight is essential, it is incontinently cancelled. The unknown data, we are told, might indeed be useful. But why bother about a little thing like that? Wo will assume that it will be all right “on the night.” And after all, what is ou*’ Research Deportment for, if it leaves us, like King Canute, powerless to order the rising tide to fall? So the building of the great craft goes on ; the Dominions’ Premiers are invited to inspect the plans; we have columns about the provision of comfortable sleeping quartern and dining and smoking saloons for 100 passengers—just as if everyone did not know that the proposed ship cannot even theoretically carry the proposed weight; that it is simply madness to send one loaded across the tropics with pilots ignorant of all the elements that make other navigation safe; and that to pass through the thunder belt with the ship unprotected from instant combustmu is more than akin to suicide than to mere folly.” “Neon’s” chief point made with great detail about the RIOO is that the airship’s own weight, crew, passengers, fuel, etc., amounting to 178 tons had only a lifting weight of 150 tons. As the builder of she RIOO, Commander Burney, says: “Neon would not have made the criticisms which he has made against the R.IOO if be had known of the full details of the design of this vessel, and I imagine that he would have made a stronger case if be bad given credit to those responsible for the design of this vessel for not being such born fools as to try and lift •d tons with only 152 tons of lifting capacity.” The Dominions especially know bow Commander Burney, with Sir A. 11. Ashbolt—a New Zealander by the way —when Agent-General for Tasmania did much spadework through the depressing early phases of Imperial air services. Commander Burney adds significantly “1 am confi dent that the publication of this book will not postpone the linking by air,-within a comparatively few number of years, the capitals of our Empire; and if it makes people think well and deeply before we give up our old love, the-Navy, for our new love, the Air Force, it can, I think, no -nothing but good.” Commander Burney, who by the way is making good progress with the R. 100 which he is building—it is comparable in size to the Mauretania —is no unbalanced optimist, for he says too apropos of Neon’s text: “The development of air power, like ail other developments, must proceed slowly and by stages; but, just as it is unwise to claim ton much for any new development, so I believe it is equally unsound to fail to appreciate the changes imposed upon old methods by the introduction of new ones.”

The asseveration that aircraft were useless in war has not found acceptance; equally sceptic is the reception of some of its figures. We have Sir John Trench’s statement that it was timely warning by aircraft which enable him to effect the retreat at Mens without irretrievable disaster.

General Kit Frederick Sykes. Chief of Civil Aviation 1919-1922. is of the opinion that “the author is helped in making out a case against the military usefulness o! air power by the extravagant claims that have been made by its advocates. In showing The limitations within which air power was exorcised during the war—and within which it is still confined—he completely demolishes those claims. Nothing he says, however, alters the fact that,

under conditions in which aircraft can he tactically employed, they become a necessity to modern armies and lleets. - ’ Sir Frederick is no bigoted supporter of tbe Air Service which he has played so important a part in developing, for he savs too: “But what does demand answer

is "the. author’s thesis that airship navigation is basically impracticable and lbs criticism that official calculations as to the utility of the ships under const ruction arc greatly exaggerated, the value of these airships being, in fact, negligible. If these charges of inability to navigate and (■- carrv load cannot I" 1 met we are wasting money and effort in developing airships.

“If they can t»e met, while I agree generally with the criticisms as to the vulnerability and lack of military utility of airships in major operations, and while I am quite prepared to accept airship potentialities as unproven, I think we arc more than justified in trying to ascertain their commercial, and still more their Imperial, value, and, if this can he .proved, their possible use in ocean reconnaissance,” As a leader in the movement for developing our aircraft his modest conclusion “Air power cannot win a war; but it is an essential in war, both tactically and strategically,” is surely a more realistic conclusion to come to. than the extreme pessimism of Neon. IE “The Great Delusion” impresses the lesson of hasten slowly in a dangerous calling, it will have done good. It is only right that a new development of such far reaching irnport-

a nee to the human race should he subjected to the sternest criticism. We feci, however, that “Neon”, in overstating her case, has really weakened her argument. In the heat of argument over the exaggerations such effective criticism of flying as is put forward in “The Groat Delusion” will be overlooked. This is a pity. All the more reason, then, that “The Great Delusion” should be carefully-read by all interested in this vital issue.