Identifier: aeroplaneinwar00grah (find matches)
Title: The aeroplane in war
Year: 1912 (1910s)
Authors: Grahame-White, Claude, 1879- Harper, Harry, b.1880
Subjects: Airplanes Aeronautics, Military
Publisher: Toronto : Bell and Cockburn
Contributing Library: ASC - York University Libraries
Digitizing Sponsor: Ontario Council of University Libraries and Member Libraries

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
nt is devoted to establishmentcharges, and such items; and a sum of ;^28,000was earmarked for building a new dirigible balloonshed at Farnborough, and in making improvementsto the one at Wormwood Scrubs. This leaves ;!^85,000; and this sum of money,quite inadequate as it is, is free to be spentupon airships and aeroplanes. Quite an active air-ship policy is pursued, and a large percentage ofthis money remaining is dribbled away upon thesecostly machines—in building new ones, and inrepairing old ones. Criticising this policy trenchantly, soon after theannouncement of the manner in which the War OfiEiceproposed to spend its money, Mr Arthur du Cros,M.P., the Hon. Secretary of the Parliamentary AerialDefence Committee, remarked: We, almost aloneamong nations, are developing the lighter-than-airtype of machine to the exclusion of aeroplanes.France and Germany, formerly two of the staunchestadvocates of the dirigible balloon, have almostceased its development, in favour of the aeroplane.
Text Appearing After Image:
THE AEROPLANE IN WAR 65 In a year, in regard to these two machines, thetables have been turned, added Mr du Cros. Nowthe aeroplane, which costs so much less than thedirigible, is infinitely its superior. One aeroplane,costing say ;^iooo, would, in the case of actual aerialwarfare, have completely at its mercy a dirigibleballoon costing perhaps ^50,000. Defending their pohcy, soon after Mr du Crosattacks, and responding to the definite statement that aeroplanes have become immeasurably superior toairships for military purposes, War Office expertsadvanced the argument: There would be work inwar-time, such as very detailed reconnaissance, thatan airship could perform better than an aeroplane.Both types should, therefore, be developed. It may be agreed, in this connection, that theairship would, in a number of cases, allow of amore detailed reconnaissance being made than froman aeroplane; its slower speed, and the fact that itcould hover over one spot, would give it this advan-tage. But,

Note About Images