Last year I wrote a post in which I tried to work out the identity of Neon, the author of an eccentric but popular diatribe against aviation entitled The Great Delusion (1928). I concluded it was ‘probably’ Bernard Acworth, and not his third cousin (by marriage) Marion Acworth, as is usually suggested. Giles Camplin kindly offered to reprint my post in Dirigible, the journal of the Airship Heritage Trust which he edits. I took the opportunity to do some more research and reflection, which just confused the issue! To cut a long story short, I still think Bernard was Neon, but suggest that Marion did have input to or at least influence on The Great Delusion. And if you do want the long story, see the Summer 2009 edition of Dirigible!
Not surprisingly, there are a number of articles on interesting subjects in this issue: an obscure airship built in Staffordshire in 1909 by a Mr Deakin; the almost-equally-obscure story of the Britannia Airship Committee, an attempt to fund and build a rigid airship for the Navy in 1913-4; Zeppelin raids on England; sound detectors of the north-east coast; and more! Well worth a read.
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. Terms and conditions beyond the scope of this license may be available at airminded.org.
Possibly-related posts:
-
Have you come across J. A. Sinclair’s book “Airships in Peace & War?” Published in 1934 it is a fantastic book that responds to Neon and very strongly states the case for the airship. I highly recommend it.
-
Thanks — I knew of it but didn’t know it took a swipe at Neon!
By the way, that’s a fabulous website you have there.
-
An extract…
“These writers [Neon and Spanner] have told us a great length, and with crocodile tears in their eyes, that vast sums of public money have been thrown away in these futile attempts to build airships. Well, well, it does seem pretty obvious that the wrong sort of people were playing at airships. Why in heaven’s name did they not leave the job to the men of practical experience? Of course, great sums of money were spent. Why not? Experiments cannot be carried out with the expenditure of vast sums of money without the sacrifice of a few lives. This is true of every sphere of progress.”
Another one…
“Our own post-war experiments have been carried out by experts in battleship design, not by practical and experienced airship men. Therein, largely speaking, lies our failure. I might hazard a guess as to the identity of “Neon,” but it would lead us nowhere. But, Mr Spanner is a naval architect. He ought to know why these airship experiments failed. Was he not a member of the department that designed them? If so, he surely helped to spend the vast sums of money on these post-war failures?”
As I said, it’s a great read and quite an enjoyable rant in places. I’d say it’s a must-read for you. Interesting timing too coming as the book is written post the loss of R101, Akron but before the loss of Macon and the Hindenburg.
Thanks for the feedback on the NS11 – now with a much more memorable URL. Best viewed in anything other than Internet Explorer! Let me know if you come across anything NS-related.
Cheers
Peter
-
Thanks again — I wish he had hazarded a guess though!
-
I tracked down a copy of The Great Delusion and have just finished it. A very interesting read, that ranges widely from well-researched common sense to the downright whacky. I also didn’t expect the anti-internal combustion engine and pro-steam power from coal chapter. Some laugh out loud moments too that might well have been illustrated by Bateman or Heath Robinson… “If air travel is ever to be as good for the health as sea travel, it will be necessary on air liners of the future to provide a number of open seats in which be-goggled. hide-wrapped passengers can have fresh air poured into their lungs.” [page 139]. How much fun would that be!
Putting the airship chapters aside (where there is much I agree on) is there anything in the air defence and bombing chapters that you believe is not so off the mark?
Regards
Peter
-
It’s certainly not boring! Yes, there is some sensible stuff in the air defence chapters. On the technical side, he (or she) notes that while every incoming bomber can’t be shot down (Stanley Baldwin’s ‘the bomber will always get through’ of a few years later), that doesn’t mean that their loss rate can’t be made prohibitively high. (Though he probably gives to much credit to AA.) And bombing is very inaccurate. On the moral side, she (or he) asks why it is okay for the RAF to bomb women and children in Waziristan, and then to bemoan the possibility of British women and children being bombed in London? (On the other hand, Neon likes naval blockades, so can’t quite claim the moral high ground.)
Still, there’s enjoyable silliness too: one footnote speaks darkly of a ‘far-reaching, interlocking, and powerful influence of Scientific Pools and Salaried Bureaucrats, of Wireless, of Oil and the Aircraft Industry’ (234). Our era doesn’t have a monopoly on conspiracy theories.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://airminded.org/2009/06/12/who-was-neon-again/trackback/