§ Sir F. SYKESasked the Secretary of State for Air what alterations, if any, have taken place in the permissible performances of His Majesty's Airships R 33 and R 36, respectively, since they have been recommissioned in accordance with the policy of 1924; and, if such alterations have taken place, to what factors they are attributable?
§ Sir S. HOAREAs regards R33, when this airship was completed in 1919 she was put through the normal acceptance tests and her speed, man œ uvrability, etc., ascertained and recorded. She is now an old airship and her performance has no doubt fallen off, but the precise extent of this falling off could not be ascertained without drastic trials to which it is not proposed to subject her. R 36 has not been recommissioned since 1921, and the question therefore does not arise in regard to her.
§ Sir F. SYKESasked the Secretary of State for fir Air whether he will arrange for the publication of the scientific data acquired as the result of airship flights carried out during the past two years; whether this information has been supplied to the constructors of airship R 100; whether further experimental flights are considered desirable before airship R 101 is laid down at Cardington, and, if so, whether the information derived therefrom will be supplied to the constructors of R 100 prior to the laying down of that airship; and whether arrangements have been concluded to ensure that R 100 and R 101 will be designed to use a common type of mooring mast and other ground facilities?
§ Sir S. HOAREAs regards the first part of the question, all scientific data of general interest acquired as the result of the airship flights carried out since 1924 will be published, but at present the data producd by the later experiments of 1925 have not been completely analysed. As regards the second part, the fullest possible information in this respect will be supplied to the constructors of R 100. As regards the third part, further experimental flights for the production of constructional data before R 101 is laid down are not con-50W sidered necessary, and no question of supplying the information to the constructors of R 100, therefore, arises. As regards the last part, the contract for the construction of R 100 provides that this airship is to be capable of being moored to the Air Ministry type of mast.
§ Sir F. SYKESasked the Secretary of State for Air whether accounts are being kept to distinguish between expenditure relating to the construction of His Majesty's Airship R 101, expenditure on general airship research work, and expenditure on the repair, maintenance, and experimental flights of His Majesty's Airships R. 33 and R. 36, respectively; whether he will state the expenditure incurred in respect of R 33 and R 36, respectively, since they were recommissioned in accordance with the policy of 1924; and what is the policy in regard to the use of these ships in the future?
§ Sir S. HOAREThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the direct expenditure on R 33 has been £77,000, including her reconditioning at the beginning of the programme, her repair after the breakaway at Pelham and all flying expenses. The expenditure on the partial reconditioning of R. 36 with a view to her use for mooring mast trials in Egypt, since cancelled, has been £13,500. As regards the last part of the question, it is under consideration to use the R 33 for further experiments with service aeroplanes and it is not proposed at present to proceed further with the reconditioning of R. 36.