Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1933. THE FUTURE OF AIRSHIPS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18057, 6 April 1933, Page 6

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1933. THE FUTURE OF AIRSHIPS

,As in the ease of earlier similar disasters, the whole \,orld has been shocked by the news of the tragic fat-o of the giant United States airship, the Akron, and the terrible death of so many men whose lives have been sacrificed in another endeavor to prove the practicability of the dirigible; and once again the question arises as to whether there is any justification for the continued pursuit of success in this particular branch of aeronaut deal science. Less than three years ago Great Britain lost some of her most able men in the wreck of the RHI1; a few years before that Italy suffered a similar experience; and at still earlier dates both France and Germany were given ample reason to appreciate the dangers attendant upon experiments with airships. The loss of the Akron is not America’s first disaster, for 14 jives were lost when the Shenandoah broke in two in September, 1925. In fact, the whole story of flights with lighter-than-air machines is written on the graves of those who have perished as a result of thorn; there has been only one outstanding success and a dozen or more major catastrophes. In these circumstances it. is inevitable that the wisdom of persevering should again be seriously questioned. Already Britain, France, and Italy have withdrawn from the field, leaving oidy America and Germany with their faith in airships retained, with every possibility of the defection of the former in consequence of the fate of the Akron. It would apt, of course, bo suggested that because of the existence of an element of danger any enterprise should necessarily Ire abandoned, but there should be some tangible justilicatioa for a continuance of such a grave risk as is clearly involved in the use of dirigibles, and this justification does not. seem to exist. Every flight that has been made has served to prove the ever-present danger, and despite the many and costly experiments in different countries there is not the slightest evidence to suggest that the risks have diminished with time and progress. On the contrary, in recent years each disaster has succeeded its predecessor in magnitude, thus showing that a false sense of security has resulted in plans being laid on a scale that is not warranted by experience. Some excuse might be found if developments with dirigibles were in their infancy, but, as a matter of fact, this type of machine has been in practical use much longer than aeroplanes, with which the proportion of accidents is remarkably small. The first engine-propelled airship made flights ns long ago as 185(5, and in 18S5, 18 years before the first aeroplane took the air, a French dirigible had made several comparatively long flights, driven by an elec trie motor. Before tho end of last century quite a number of successful trips had been made by airships of various makes. Prior to the war Germany concentrated on the const ruction of Zeppelins, and other Eur •pean Powers were not a great deal behind in their experiments; yet the machines in use to-day are relatively little advanced, the margin of safety is no greater, if as great, and the prospects of their cemincreial exploitation are almost negligible. When the RlOl came to grief, it may be re membered. Dr. Eck'cncr, the German expert, stated that the accident would not have occurred had helium b■ ■

used in placo of inflammable {(as

Admiral Moffett.—one of the victims of tho Akron —made a similar assertion. Yet the Akron used helium, and tho disaster which befel her was just as disastrous ns that of the British machine. Dr. Eckener still professes completo faith in airships, but it is safe to say that very few now share that faith with him. It had also

been argued that the disasters to the RIO 1 and the Shenandoah were, due to their being “spliced” ships, but the Akron was not constructed in this way, yet it proved no more safe than tho others. The primary cause of all these disaster's undoubtedly rests in tho fact that all airships are, and must be, dependent upon the maintenance of an escapable gas in a confined space, and since it is seemingly impossible in the construction of the envelope to combine strength with Iho essential lightness, real safety cannot be obtained. Even assuming that all constructional difficulties could be successfully overcome, the question would then arise as to what practical advantages would be served by airships that could not equally be served by modern aeroplanes, which are infinitely less expensive and require much less ground organisation. Tho conquest of the air is no longer in the pioneering stage. Various designs of craft have been tried out, and many of them have proved successful, but the dirigible, the oldest type of all, is still confronted with precisely the same handicap,, as existed when the first of its line took the air. Common sense would seem to dictate that the stage has been reached when future effort should be concentrated in a more profitable direction, that the aeroplane whose safety and utility have been thoroughly demonstrated, should be exploited to the fullest possible extent, but Dial experiments with airships, which, despite extensive and prolonged tests, have proved both dangerous and defective, should be discontinued, or, at the most, eonfiied to the workshops.