May 18, 1916 
LAND & WATER 
17 
The So-Called "Air Muddle" 
And Some of 
By F. W. 
IN the preceding article an account was given of the 
history of the ill-fated French Air Ministry, and 
the causes which led to its creation and to its down- 
fall were discussed. 
It was pointed out that both events followed as the 
outcome of a press and political agitation in which the 
dissatisfaction of the " trade " played a conspicuous part, 
and in which the Zeppelin menace was freely exploited. 
Beyond this the system of control by a civilian Minister 
was a generally admitted failure. I now propose to show 
tiiat the same influences have been and are at work 
in this country, and the same general plan of campaign 
is being followed in the conduct of the onslaught against 
the administration of both the Royal Flying Corps and 
of the Naval Air Service, as in the agitation which proved 
so detrimental to French military aeronautics. 
There is every probability that a case will be made 
out for reform in the administration of our Air t)cpart- 
ments, but the present agitation, with its picturesque 
title " The Air Muddle " is not based on solid grounds, 
or on facts of which proper evidence can be adduced, 
in brief it is not founded on honest criticism. The actual 
attack, however, is the matter of present discussion ; 
at the outset it will be demonstrated that this attack — 
launched by certain sections of the press in an indis- 
criminate manner — is part of a campaign of deliberate 
and cold-blooded misrepresentation. 
I will proceed at once to give a few instances and 
evidences of the above statement of the position." Firstly, 
as to the trade origin of the attack. There appeared re- 
cently in a trade organ published weekly an article 
entitled : "The Dope Question." It may be explained 
that " dope " is the under-varnish applied to the wings of 
an aeroplane. 
Here is the accusation : 
" Manufacturers who are in doubt whether to refuse to 
use dope made by the Royal Aircraft l-'actory and perhaps 
endanger their Government contracts by their refusal, 
are strongly advised to consider their employees' health 
and their own reputations first. 
"If there is any argument on the question, manufacturers 
need only go direct to headquarters at the War Office and 
Admiralty and state plainly that they prefer to use dopes 
which tliey know and in which they have confidence. 
The Aeronautical Inspection Department is entirely 
without prejudice in this matter ; in fact, previous ex- 
jierience of tlie K..^.!-". does not probably prejudice the 
A.I.U. in favour of Raftite and other R.A.F. chemical 
products. 
" So far as the Admiralty is concerned, manufacturers 
will be well advised to go right over the heads of minor 
officiousness to someone of post-captain's rank or higher, 
and state plainly why they object to being dictated to.in 
the matter of material by young men lacking in workshop 
experience." 
Hece is the truth: 
" Raftite," the name given to the Royal Aircraft 
Factory " dope," is non-poisonous. The formula of 
raftite is due to the Laboratory of the Royal Aircraft 
I'actory, where the poisonous character of tetrach- 
forethane vapour (then used in ordinary dopes) 
had been experienced at a date when -not p\iblicly or 
generally known. Raftite contains no tctrachlorethane. 
Apart from the inaccuracy as to fad, a more un- 
worthy accusation has probably never been penned. 
Unfortunately the above scarcely differs, either in its 
untruth, or as to its libellous character, from a multitude 
of other statements which have appeared over the same 
initials in the same journal. In the current issue of 
'Ihc Observer over the initials C.W. there is a new edition 
of this dope accusation. It would now appear that the 
grievance against the Royal Aircraft Factory is that they 
are alleged to have cornered the supplies of a necessary 
ingredient ! Equally false. The text of tlie paragraph 
IS as follows : " Better dopes r,-ere submitted, but thev 
had not a chance. It was even discovered that the R.A.F. 
Its Exponents 
Lanchester 
had established a corner in certain raw material, so that 
private dope makers were to be squeezed out completely." 
Ingenious but entirely without foundation. 
On calling attention to this I have been asked by 
serious people why, if the facts are as stated, the (Govern- 
ment have not' taken action — any private firm would 
have done so. I am not speaking to defend the Govern- 
ment. / also ask ivhy the Government has taken no atdon ? 
I now publicly ask the Government why no action has 
been taken. If such unfounded accusations had been 
made against a private individual or firm prompt action 
at law would have resulted ; is it then so m'jan and 
dastard a thing to serve His Majesty the King that loss of 
reputation and public opprobrium are to be borne without 
hope of prompt or effective redress ? Possibly charges 
of this character may be dealt with by the Committee of 
Investigation now sitting. 
Here is another journahstic outburst from a London 
daily in which the source of inspiration is evident. In 
this case I give in a footnote (for comparison) the transla- 
tion of a letter from the pen of M. L. Bleriot*, showing 
the identity that motive already commented upon • 
" Mr. Tennant referred with great satisfaction the other 
day to the existence of a British Advisory Committee 
on aeronautics. None of the men on that Committee 
has ever been practically identified with aviation>, 
although the Committee has weight in the ' theory ' 
of flight, but the theory of flight was pretty well under- 
stood eighty years ago. It took a couple of brave prac- 
tical men like the WTight Brothers, willing' to risk tlieir 
necks above the hard earth, rather than conclusions and 
figures on sheets of ' theory ' to make a machine that , 
actually flew. Why does not the Government supersede 
its Committee of Theorists, and appoint instead a Com- 
mittee of experts from, the following firms : — Sopwith, 
Martinsyde, Roe, Bristol, and Vickers." 
In this paragraph we have evidently the work of 
an ignoramus to whom the word Iheory is so obnoxious 
that it has to be held up to ridicule in inverted commas ! 
He little seems aware of the fact that every one of the 
constructors he mentions depends largely up9n theory 
for his product ; also the Brothers Wright have always 
acknowledged their indebtedness to the Smithsonian 
Institution and the work of Langley. Such articles 
do not represent any opinion but that of their writer, 
but they all serve as means of publicly imputing discredit 
to the powers that be. Any brick is good enough to throw. 
On the other hand. Lord Montagu, who is now taking an 
active hand in advocating reform in service aeronautics, 
is fully alive to the importance of scientific investigation, 
but he is — or was — ^certainly not too well informed as to 
his facts. Thus in his speech on March qth in the House 
of Lords he deplores that we are behindhand owing 
to the fact that " we had neglected science." It is 
a definite fact that so far as the scientific side of aero- 
nautics is concerned. Great Britain leads the world. J 
Elsewhere Lord Montagu complains of overlapping 
between the Services — so far as scientific research is 
concerned there is no " overlapping." The existence of 
* " I have felt in a manner particularly acute, the affront of'which 
Paris has been the victim. It is the main motive of this letter. French 
aviation, which up to the opening of hostilities was the first in the 
world, has experienced if not a crisis at least a retardation in its pro- 
gress. The reason is quite simple. They have eliminated from the 
technical Committees of the Department concerned with the study of 
the programme the men who had created this science. H they will 
restore to the.se men, who are at once aviators, engineers and con- 
structors, the real technical control in collaboration with two or three 
selected pilots, in four months the time lost will be nearly regained. 
" It is already time. The men to be included are Voisin, Caudron, 
Breguet, Saulnicr, Bechereau, Delage (Nieuport), Farman. From 
these should be formed a Superior Committee for Aerial Defence for 
France. Their past guarantees the future. — L. Bleriot." 
It is to be noted that at the time the letter was penned by M. Bleriot, 
there was already an Advisory Committee acting in co-operation with 
M. Besnard (the .Air Minister), including the names of many well 
known pioneer constructors— MM. Esnault, Pelterie, Clement Bayard, 
and Renault, and others. Clearly M. Bleriot's complaint is the time- 
honoured lamentation of the " outs " who want to be " in." 
t This is definitely untrue. 
t Compare I'roc. Inst. O.K., 1914, cxcviii, pp. 250 et seq. 
