PART D.--AERIAL "WHO'S WHO" AND DIRECTORY.

FIFTH YEAR OF ISSUE. (Founded 1909.) LONDON: SAMPSON LOW, MARSTON & CO., Ltd. 1913. Printed by Netherwood, Dalton & Co., Phoenix Works, Rashcliffe, Huddersfield. CONTENTS PAGE Preface 7 Glossary of Technical Terms 9 ~PART A.~ Argentine (~J. Schiere~) 15 Austrian (~Special Austrian Editor~) 16 Aeroplanes 17 Dirigibles 22 Belgian (~J. Bracke~) 26 Aeroplanes 27 Dirigibles 29 Brazilian 31 British 32 Aeroplanes 37 Dirigibles 60 British Colonies, Etc. 63 Bulgarian 66 Central American Republics 67 Chilian 68 Chinese 69 Danish 70 Dutch (~J. Schiere~) 71 French (~Special French Editor~) Aeroplanes 73 Dirigibles 109 German (~Special German Editor~) 126 Aeroplanes 131 Dirigibles 151 Greek 168 Italian (~Special Italian Editor~) 169 Aeroplanes 172 Dirigibles 176 Japanese (~Partly Official~) 180 Aeroplanes 181 Dirigibles 182 Mexican 183 Norwegian 184 Peruvian 185 Portuguese (~J. Schiere~) 186 Roumanian 187 Russian 188 Aeroplanes 190 Dirigibles 191 Servian 193 Spanish 195 Swedish (~Lieut. Dahlbeck~) 196 Swiss (~Special Swiss Editor~) 198 Turkish 200 Uruguay 200 United States (~W.L. Jones~) 201 Aeroplanes 202 Dirigibles 220 ~PART B.~ Historical Aeroplanes of the Last Six Years 1B et seq. ~PART C.~ Principal Aeroplane Engines 1C Austrian (~W. Isendahl~) 2C Belgian 2C British 3C French 4C German (~W. Isendahl~) 8C Italian 11C Swiss 12C U.S.A. 13C ~PART D.~ Aerial "Who's Who" 1D Classified Aerial Directory 12D Alphabetical Index--Aeroplanes end of " " Dirigibles book PREFACE. As conjectured last year, considerable further changes have been produced in this edition. When, some five years ago, work on this annual was first commenced, the military aviator was an idle dream. Fighting men in dirigibles were a bare possibility; but nothing more than that. Every amateur building an aeroplane (or even merely intending to build one) in his back garden was a possible "conqueror of the air." The aeroplane was going to oust the motor car as a sporting vehicle--everyone was quite certain about that! Beyond that, nothing! To-day everything is completely changed and except as a war machine the aeroplane is of little interest or use to anyone. A few civilian aviators are still flying, but in practically every case they are doing so in connection with the business aspect of the question. There is no "sport of aviation" such as the prophets foretold a few years ago. An increasing number of people obtain their pilot certificates and lists of these are still given, although the title of "aviator" is in the bulk of cases somewhat of a courtesy one, since so few keep on flying once they have secured their brevets. It is as a _war machine_ that the aeroplane has come into its own. The Italian aeroplanes over and over again proved their utility in Tripoli. Although in the Balkan War aircraft were less in evidence than many expected, this may be attributed to the peculiar circumstances of the campaign and also to the scarcity of available machines. Every country is now engaged in forming its aerial fleets. How far the naval and military branches will coalesce, or how far they will differentiate remains to be seen. The probabilities, at present, all point in the latter direction, and that just as an army is made up of cavalry, infantry, artillery, etc., and a navy of battleships, cruisers, torpedo craft and submarines, so the sky fleets seem destined to consist of groups of different types of machines, each type designed for some special purpose. The increased war utility of aircraft has necessitated an extension of the pages devoted to organisation of military aviation, etc. The details given are by no means as full as I could wish; but all organisations are being so continually changed owing to increased experience that satisfactory data are not very easy to come by. During the past twelve months or so we have learned at least one or two important things. The mere fact of the possession of aeroplanes by a nation is a military factor of comparatively little importance. A nation possessing next to no aeroplanes can easily acquire a few hundreds in case of emergency _if she has the people to build them_. The real problem is two-fold. First, of course, is the possession of trained and efficient aviators to fly the machines. Naval and military officers who have merely secured their brevets at a flying school are of no immediate value; civilians of the same kind are of still less utility. Second to this is the productive capacity of any country; which may roughly be gauged from the number and importance of its firms engaged in construction. These points cannot too strongly be enforced. The air strength of any nation in case of war resides in its efficient flying men and in its own productive capacity. The next war will see aircraft quite as much "contraband" as warships, and the nation which relies upon aerial imports will be foredoomed at once. One month is probably the utmost effective life of an aeroplane on hard active service and it may well be a good deal less. And firms capable of building efficient machines cannot be improvised. A remarkable feature of the last twelve months has been the recrudescence of the dirigible, which is now in far greater esteem than it was a year ago, or for that matter, ever before. In the past there is no doubt that progress was hampered by arguments between the advocates of "heavier than air" and "lighter than air," and a curious notion that the one could only exist at the expense of the other. Such ideas are now dead, and it is recognised that for war purposes both have their uses and that both are interdependent. It is not quite yet realised how intense this interdependence is likely to be. Briefly the present situation may be summed up as follows: the dirigible has enormous potentialities for attack on fortified bases and the like, but its powers of defence, guns or no guns, are very slight. A single aeroplane should be able to disable or destroy without very great difficulty the finest dirigible yet built (supposing it able to find the airship in the vastness of the air). The damage that a single aeroplane can do to land defences or ships is, however, entirely trivial--at any rate at present. Hence the aerial war unit already formed in Germany, and likely to be in existence everywhere else ere another year or so has passed. This unit is a dirigible of great offensive powers, associated with a number of aeroplanes presumably intended to defend it and ward off and defeat attack by hostile aeroplanes. This is merely the crude beginning, it seems reasonably safe to prophecy that in the early future the aerial war-unit will be made up somewhat as follows:-- (_a_) An offensive dirigible, carrying the maximum of bombs, etc. (_b_) One or two dirigibles carrying oil and petrol for the aeroplanes--possibly capable of dealing with all minor repairs and of carrying a certain number of aeroplanes on board. (_c_) A number of war aeroplanes specially designed for fighting other aeroplanes and attacking hostile dirigibles as chances may occur. (_d_) A few very swift one man aeroplanes which will be the eyes of the unit. This seems an early certainty. After all it merely reproduces for the air what centuries of experience have shewn to be essential for fleets and armies. The matter is a fascinating subject for speculation; but in connection with a work that exists merely to deal with things as they are at present, is perhaps, better not now pursued further. One point, however, may perhaps be mentioned, and that is that victory or defeat in aerial warfare seems likely to depend upon which side can first destroy the other's bases. A base-less dirigible will not live long. This is likely to lead to very great attention being paid at an early date to anti-aircraft guns and other devices for the defence of aerial bases. Reverting to the arrangement of the present edition, a few words may be said about some of the changes. As stated last year the clumsy old system of grouping monoplanes, biplanes, etc., separately has been abolished. So many firms specialise in both that any such grouping could only lead to confusion. A tabular system has been generally adopted for most new matter. This will be found far more convenient for reference, and of course, saves a great deal of space. The effective age of aeroplanes is somewhat of a vexed question, for while one year probably represents the really effective war utility endurance, even in peace time, school life is more or less indefinite and so is ordinary private life. Consequently--although "dead machines" are excluded it has not been possible to draw an exactly uniform age limit line beyond that. Speaking generally modern machines represent as a rule detail improvements rather than the complete changes of the past. For example, the gap between 1911 and 1913, is far less than the gap between 1909 and 1911. This fact is beginning to make itself felt in war machines. In Part B an attempt has been made to collect illustrations of aeroplanes of the past which for one reason or another possess an historical interest. This section is remarkable for two totally different things (1) the early anticipations of some modern practice, and (2) the past prevalence of certain other ideas which are now totally extinct.