d their initial training in her, and there were few
officers or men in the airship service who were not filled with regret
when orders were issued that she was to be broken up. The general
feeling was that she should have been preserved as a lasting exhibition
of the infancy of the airship service, but unfortunately rigid airships
occupy so much space that there is no museum in the country which could
have accommodated her. So she passed, and, except for minor trophies,
remains merely a recollection.

RIGID AIRSHIP No. 23 CLASS

After the decision had been made in 1915 that work on No. 9 should be
restarted, the Admiralty determined that a programme of rigid airships
should be embarked upon, and design was commenced.

Several ships of the same class were, ordered, and the type was to be
known as the 23 class. Progress on these ships, although slow, was
more rapid than had been the case with No. 9, and by the end of 1917
three were completed and a fourth was rapidly approaching that state.

The specification, always ambitious, laid down the following main
stipulations.

(1) The ship is to attain a speed of at least 55 miles per hour
for the main power of the engines.

(2) A minimum of 8 tons is to be available for disposable weights
when full.

(3) The ship must be capable of rising at an average rate of not
less than 1,000 feet per minute, through a height of 3,000
feet starting from nearly sea level.

As will be seen later this class of ship, although marking a certain
advance on No. 9 both as regards workmanship and design, proved on the
whole somewhat disappointing, and it became more evident every day that
we had allowed the Germans to obtain such a start in the race of
airship construction as we could ill afford to concede.

We may here state that all of the ships of this class which had been
ordered were not completed, the later numbers being modified into what
was known as the 23 X class; four in all of the 23 class were built, of
which two--Nos. 23 and 26--were built by Messrs. Vickers, Ltd., at
Barrow, No. 24 by Messrs. Wm. Beardmore and Co., at Glasgow, and No. 25
by Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth and Co., at Selby, Yorkshire.

In many respects the closest similarity of design exists between No. 9
and No. 23, especially in the hull, but it will be of interest to
mention the salient differences between the two ships.

The length of the hull, which in No. 9 was 520 feet, was incr