The Timaru Herald THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1938 COMPLEX BUSINESS OE AIRCRAFT BUILDING

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLV, Issue 21088, 14 July 1938, Page 6

The Timaru Herald THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1938 COMPLEX BUSINESS OE AIRCRAFT BUILDING

From time to time suggestions have been made to the Government of New Zealand that the Dominion might consider the practicability of establishing factories for the manufacture of aircraft. The question raised in the House of Representatives this week calls for a considered reply from the Government. But whether there are any openings for export after New Zealand needs have been met, remains a moot question. It is interesting to mention, however, that recent reports from the Homeland suggest that Britain’s production of military and commercial aircraft during the next two years is planned to achieve maximum possible output. Speaking in the House of Commons during the air “censure” debate, the Prime Minister (Mr Chamberlain) said: “The design of aeroplanes has been changing all the time like a kaleidoscope. It is desirable to reduce the number of types and to standardise them as far as possible as a general principle, because the nearer you get to standardisation the easier it Is to engage in economical quantity production."

Mr Chamberlain compared the modern military aeroplane with its forerunners, helped by some striking figures. The output of aeroplanes to-day and the output of aeroplanes during the War were “as diffirent as chalk from cheese.” The Bulldog squadron which was formed long after the War in 1929 had a top speed of IG3 miles an hour; the first squadron of Gauntlets, which was formed in 1935, had a top speed of 230 miles an hour, but now British planes travel well over 300 miles an hour. Mr Chamberlain dealt with “mass” production of aeroplanes. He defined mass production as the production by labour saving machinery of very large numbers of identical articles, using as an illustration a motor car engine of which the four millionth had recently been completed. Some idea of the comprehensive nature of the works required to produce aircraft was given by Mr Chamberlain, who said:

“I am told that in the ordinary motor-car engine there are somewhere about 1,700 parts. In a modern bomber there are 11,000 parts In the engine alone; and apart from that in the aeroplanes themselves there are upwards of 70,000 parts for which between 6.000 and 8,000 separate drawings are required. That is a very different proposition from the mass production of a motor car.” It is clear that though Britain has placed very large orders with individual firms or “shadow” factories, running up to such numbers as 700, 800 or 900 machines, the actual number of parts which can be duplicated is not comparable with the numbers that are commonly associated with the term “mass” production. Mr Chamberlain added: “It is possible to apply special methods to reduce time and labour when you have large orders for aeroplanes, but when you are dealing with a complex, delicate mechanism like that of these modern aircraft, the technique must necessarily be very different from that which is employed when you are turning out your grosses of screws or nuts or even of cardboard boxes." It will be seen from the considered views of the Prime Minister of Britain that the manufacture of aircraft is a complicated and highly technical business. It may of course be possible to meet New Zealand’s needs, particularly if overseas deliveries are substantially delayed, but the proposal ought to be approached with caution.

THE PRESIDENT WARNS THE FARMERS.

Rural interests from end to end of New Zealand will, no doubt, warmly appreciate the points raised by the president of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union in an address delivered in his presidential capacity before the annual conference of the Union. Quite a wide range of subjects were dealt with, but it is doubtful, if any phase of the farm problem to-day is as important as the land policy of the Government, because of the Labour Party’s acceptance of the principle of the socialisation of the means of production. The president of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union made, pointed reference to the reaction of the Government to the known intentions of the Minister of Lands:

He contrasted statements made by the Hon. F. Langstone about State ownership of farms, with more recent statements by the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage, making the claim that if Mr Savage’s statements could be accepted at their face value, then Mr Langstone should resign. “I do not know what the Government's policy is with regard to the State ownership and control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange," he said. “I do know that the leaders of the Federation of Labour, who claim to have 180,000 members, stand definitely for this policy. I do know that the Labour Party at its last conference discussed and reaffirmed it as the first plank in their platform, and I know further that they omitted to mention that fact in the official report of the conference appearing in their official journal." It can he said, moreover, that, all hough there appears to be a conflict of opinion at the moment, the intentions of the Labour Party, particularly in relation to land policy are known too well to require elucidation; indeed, the Easier Conference not only listened with manifested approval to the denunciation of titles by the Minister of Lands, but eventually a resolution was carried expressing “confidence in the present Government regarding land tenure, which is directed toward full utilisation of land having regard to prevailing conditions,” and also recommending “that a policy of land nationalisation be carried out as soon as possible.” One of the most illuminating pronouncements came from the Minister of Finance, on his return from Russia; indeed, the Minister was reported in the official organ of the Labour Party as saying that “the Soviet system of economic planning was better than under any other form of government that he knew of. The Soviet's problems,” added Mr Nash, “were greatly simplified by the fact that the State owned all the land of which it had obtained possession by killing off the owners during the revolution.” But another member of the Labour Party who has been featured by the Government as being an experienced man on the land, Mr Morgan Williams, M.P., for Kaiapoi, makes no secret of the Party’s intentions. “Economic and social forces combined,” says Mr Williams, “have doomed the small farmer to gradual extinction.” ... “A few successful co-operative farms or even State farms would do more than any other form of propaganda to wean Ihe farniSr from his rank individualism.” It is manifest that, the objective of the Labour Party, as revealed in the constitution, is the “socialisation of the means of production,” and the periodical utterances of Ministers and Members on the land question amply justify the president of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union in calling the attention of all rural interests to the danger Io their rights on the laud that reposes in the declared planning of the Government iu favour of the socialisation of the meaus of productiou.