The recent accident to the U.S.S. Akron has again brought to the fore the most mooted aviation question—airships or not? Of course, there is no universal answer, and even if the question were answerable after due consideration the solution found might be wrong after all. The pros and cons have been weighed many times and still some one goes ahead building and flying airships, and still others clamor for their discontinuance. Why is this? Lives have been lost and much material has been destroyed in airship operation; only to be followed by more airship experimentation.
It is of interest to consider this matter along unusual lines. An airship has the distinct advantages of being able to carry extremely large loads at relatively high speed. It also has the characteristic of being able to attain high altitudes. In speaking of large loads one is comparing them with airplanes and in speaking of high speed one is comparing them with craft other than airplanes. In mentioning high altitudes one is comparing them with other aircraft.
The large load-carrying ability of the airship permits long-range operation, very much longer than any airplanes designed or built or even contemplated. This radius of action gives the military organization an air patrol not otherwise obtainable in other craft. Extremely large areas can be patrolled and scouted in a short time. It is reported that airships were used at the Battle of Jutland as scouts.
To the commercial operation the airship gives a means of carrying large loads of us passengers, mail, and cargo over long ocean stretches which cannot be conveniently traversed otherwise. An airplane would require many inconvenient stops to cover the same distance and its load would be small in proportion. A surface ship is too slow.
The high-altitude characteristic of the airship is of major advantage in the military field. Commercially this advantage has not been explored or exploited. As a scout the airship may reach altitudes where it can see the enemy and still be beyond the range of anti-aircraft fire and possibly airplanes. One says possibly because high- altitude airplanes have a limited radius of action from their base of operations.
The high-altitude feature combined with great range and large load-carrying capabilities makes the airship a bomber of importance. The Zeppelins are synonomous with bombing. Their ability to be an offensive unit in bombing far distant points is without parallel. The defense that can be put up against them is both complicated and questionable.
In stating the elemental points in favor of the airship one has tried to avoid the complication of bringing in disadvantages which might have a bearing. The two are, of course, intimately interconnected in actual life, inextricably intertwined so that any argument proceeding by weighing advantages and disadvantages in the same breath would be futile.
The main items of attack of those opposed to airship experimentation are the cost in lives and the high cost in money.
It is extremely difficult to appraise the value of a life. It is silly to balance it economically, for life cannot be so weighed. Self-preservation and the preservation of others is inherently in the nature of all of us, but for some reason or other we take chances continually without quivering an eyebrow. Why is that? Perhaps we want to do the particular thing we set out to do, accepting or not knowing the risk, because the love of that is greater than the love of life. Injuries, fatal accidents, and other things like that happen daily in all walks of life and the relative risks are not so far apart that many shrink from the most hazardous. Therefore, if men are willing to undertake this character of work for the love of it or for the interest in it or what not, we should not count lives lost. Every person ever lost in connection with airships has contributed his all in a way and to a cause which must be regarded as meritorious, and it is safe to say that no one ever lost would want the work stopped for his sake. In truth, we should be guided by other things.
Coming now to the matter of cost in money. All individuals who are producing things in this world work only in part for money. We are presumably producing something that someone wants or needs. We produce everything from the basic necessities of life to the most extravagant luxuries. All go into the make-up of life. As to what will be made depends on the call that will be made for it. Much energy is expended on speculation that never pays, and much energy is put into things that are far more abominable and useless than airships. Our case then must be settled on the basis as to whether or not we want something else more than we want airships. Be it economical or military or other advantage we are seeking we must weigh the matter in comparison with something else.
In other words, do we want means of attaining large load-carrying capacity, great range, and high altitude more than we desire some other features of living, or is it possible to obtain these airship characteristics to better advantage otherwise?
Airships are in the experimental state and will so remain until the problems are licked. They can be licked only by building and operating airships. Their vulnerability, uneconomical operation, difficulty, etc., are in many ways tied up to their experimental status. One could argue these points extensively, but counter arguments are easy to present; the result would no doubt be a draw.
An outstanding item that has not been considered heretofore in discussing airships is perhaps more important than any of the usual arguments. Without much contradiction it can be stated that an airship requires for its design, construction, and operation as great a combination of skill on the part of human beings as any other construction. Long suspension bridges, high building, large ships, long rail systems, and all the other tasks to which engineers turn do not give vent to the skill required with airships. The education, the training, the perseverance, the attention, and the all-around ability required to produce and operated an airship to any extent are without parallel. Any one interested in tackling a construction problem where everything is highest mathematics with and without the figures let him try the airship and the airship hangar, and if he likes being a skipper, he is sure to meet a veritable fleet problem when he goes to command an airship.
The men who have given their lives and those who are giving their work to a cause that is difficult, hazardous, and hard under the best of circumstances should not be thoughtlessly and carelessly condemned without an exact and true understanding of the case. The decision as to whether or not he Navy is to continue with airships merits the calm, considerate judgment of wise men.