The following documents in the history of the NACA have been selected both to reproduce important materials that are either unpublished or inaccessible and to show how NACA people thought and wrote on issues of great concern to them. Aside from minor corrections in spelling and grammar, the documents are reproduced in their original form, warts and all. To save space, much introductory and concluding matter has been deleted, as have portions considered unimportant or redundant.
[571] 1. Aeronautics: Report of the Advisory Committee for Aeronautics for the Year 1909-1910 (London, 1910).' 4-5 (excerpt).
[The British Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was the model for the NACA. The composition of the committee-representatives of government agencies involved in aeronautics as well as civilian specialists-and the proposed areas of committee study exactly parallel those of the NACA.]
To the Right Honourable H. H. Asquith, M. P., First Lord of the Treasury
SIR:-
The Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, appointed on April 30th., 1909, have since that date held ten meetings, of which one was at the Balloon Factory, Aldershot, one at the works of Messrs. Vickers, Sons & Maxim at Barrow, two at the National Physical Laboratory, and the remainder at the War Office.
The work for which the Committee was appointed was defined in the announcement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on May 5th, 1909, which was as follows:-
On May 20th, the following further statement was made, in reply to a question from Mr. Balfour: -
"It is no part of the general duty of the Advisory Committee for Aeronautics either to construct or invent. Its function is not to initiate, but to consider what is initiated elsewhere, and is referred to it by the executive officers of the Navy and Army construction departments. The problems which are likely to arise in this way for solution are numerous, and it will be the work of the Committee to advise on these problems, and to seek their solution by the application of both theoretical and experimental methods of research."
2. W. I. Chambers, "Report on Aviation, "app. 1 to Annual Report of the Secretary of the Navy for 1912 (Washington, 1912): 155-170.
[Chambers, one of the earliest advocates of a national aerodynamical laboratory, set forth in this report the arguments of national prestige and security behind the movement for a laboratory. He noted the European- especially the British- advances already made, described how the laboratory should be organized and run, and recommended the Smithsonian Institution's Langley laboratory as the logical nucleus. This last recommendation set off a bureaucratic struggle that delayed establishment of a national laboratory for several more years. Chambers's report remains the clearest and most prophetic single statement of the rationale for a national laboratory and its organization.]
A. They can be carried, stowed, and used by all large ships-
(1) To reconnoiter an enemy's port or to search out his advanced bases and to assist in the operations of a blockaded or a blockading force.
(2) To locate and destroy submarine mines, submarines and dirigibles, and to assist in the operations of submarines and torpedo boats.
[573] (3) To damage an enemy's docks, magazines, ships in repair or under construction, dirigible sheds and other resources.
(4) To provide means of rapid confidential communication between a fleet commander and the commanding officer of a cooperating force on shore, or the commander of another fleet or division.
B. They can be carried by all scouts and large cruisers to extend the "eyes of the fleet" in naval scouting.
C. They can be carried, with ample supplies and camp outfit, on board any naval supply auxiliary for scouting at advanced bases and for extensive use with expedition-ary forces.
France leads the world in aviation, and all that she does is worth noting. A short time ago, in response to an inquiry by the minister of war, over 3,000 officers signified their desire to learn aerial navigation. Germany leads in aerostation, but is making great progress in aviation also. France has 8 dirigibles, Germany 30. The number of aeroplanes actually possessed by each is a rapidly increasing quantity, but France will probably possess about 350 before the end of the year, the ultimate aim being to possess 1,000 as soon as the requisite number of pilots can be taught to use them.
It is significant of German foresight that one of the first steps undertaken, when it was decided to construct a large aeroplane fleet, was to found an aerodynamic labora-tory. This is at Gottingen, where the best known course of instruction in aeronautics is ably conducted by Prof. Prandtl.
The following statement, while it does not include all large sums that are being spent, will suffice to compare our own activity with that of some of the principal powers:
|
. |
|
|
|
|
. | |||
|
France |
$6,400,000 |
$1,000,000 |
$7,400,000 |
|
Germany |
1,500,000 |
750,000 |
2,250,000 |
|
Russia |
5,000,000 |
(?) |
5,000,000 |
|
Great Britian |
2,100,000 |
(?) |
2,100,000 |
|
Italy |
2,000,000 |
100,000 |
2,100,000 |
|
Japan |
600,000 |
(?) |
600,000 |
|
United States |
140,000 |
..... |
140,000 |
Exact details are lacking of the progress in many other countries, but all progressive powers are bent on keeping abreast of the times, especially the British colonies, Russia, Japan, and Austria. The latter country has produced one of the very best aeroplanes in existence, the Etrich, and is also developing the hydroaeroplane.
When Congress appropriated $25,000 for the development of naval aviation last year, three officers had been ordered to aeroplane factories for instruction, in anticipation of three machines which were finally purchased, two Curtiss and one Wright.
At that time a land aerodrome was necessary for practice, and a hangar was accordingly built on Greenbury Point, Annapolis, Md., where a sufficient area of flat land was prepared for an aerodrome by the leveling of some trees and the partial filling of a swamp. This served its purpose until the Navy machines had all been [574] provided with hydroplanes and we had demonstrated the practicability of carrying on instruction entirely over water. The aerodrome is now held in reserve for the housing of spare machines, for the exercise of the land attachment of the hydroaeroplanes and for any other emergency use.
It was originally contemplated to establish an aviation school in conjunction with the naval engineering experiment station, where experiments could be expedited, but it soon became apparent that the desired number of officers and men could not be spared away from their regular duties for a sufficient period and that the progress of instruction would be seriously delayed until the machines had been suitably developed and equipped for issuing to ships of the fleet, where practical instruction could proceed, with ample resources, in a systematic routine way. Incidentally, it was recognized that to get good service from these machines in the fleet constant practice would be required and the personnel be made as familiar with them as with other articles of equipment.
This was the first object in favoring the hydroaeroplane attachment.
To-day it is recognized the world over that hydroaviation offers one of the most promising fields of development, for the reason that a water aerodrome is nearly always available, is safer in landing, is less obstructed, and the aerial currents over water are less treacherous than over land. A ship provided with aeroplanes will thus become the hangar and will be surrounded usually by an ideal aerodrome, i.e., by water sufficiently smooth for practice.
Last December the three machines with their aviators were transferred to San Diego, Cal., where a camp was formed with small tents from the U.S.S. Iris and hangar tents of the Army pattern, which had been prepared at the Mare Island Navy Yard.
Experience with these tents demonstrated certain defects and that they were not conducive to efficient progress with a small force of men. Better tents, designed by the Bureau of Construction and Repair, have been made to replace them.
After a season of winter work at San Diego the camp was transferred again to Annapolis, and located nearer the engineering experiment station on the north shore of the Severn River. This experience with tents has demonstrated that they not only facilitate the removal of a camp from one place to another, but that it is cheaper to use them than to provide permanent sheds of more durable material at all the places where a camp may be established. The use of tents also enables us to be prepared, with the advantage of experience, to transport at short notice all the material that may be required at an advanced base.
Many officers interested in this work have applied for instruction, but, as before mentioned, it had not been possible to detach from their regular duties, even tempo-rarily, all who desire the experience. Eight officers have qualified.
At the end of August, 1912, a total of 593 flights had been made by the four instruction aviators in the three machines. The record stands as follows:
[575]
|
. |
|
|
|
| |
|
. | |||||
|
In Curtiss machines: | |||||
|
. |
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
Lieut. Ellyson |
200 |
40 |
30 |
2,227 |
111 |
|
Lieut. Towers |
202 |
37 |
2 |
2,035 |
100 |
|
In the Wright machine: | |||||
|
Lieut. Rogers |
132 |
33 |
54 |
1,530 |
52 |
|
Ensign Herbster |
59 |
14 |
54 |
630 |
9 |
|
Total |
593 |
126 |
20 |
6,422 |
272 |
During flights over water the aviator can usually count on a safe place to land. For this reason most of our hydro flying has been done at an altitude of about 500 feet. But as scouting and reconnaissance work will require flying at an altitude of about 3,000 feet, Lieut. Ellyson has demonstrated that there will be no difficulty in flying the hydroaeroplane at 3,000 feet or over. On one occasion he ascended to 2,850 feet in 23 minutes and 25 seconds. On another occasion, in testing a lower grade of gasoline, he ascended 3,200 feet, but it required 44 minutes to reach the first 2,500 feet. Investigation of the different grades of gasoline shows that the difference in efficiency is considerable.
The longest flight yet made with passenger anywhere in the hydroaeroplane is that made by Lieuts. Ellyson and Towers jointly, from Annapolis, Md., to Hampton Roads, Va., and return, and this flight amply demonstrated three things: (1) The suitability of the "hydro" as a type for long flights; (2) the practicability and utility of the dual system of control; and (3) the necessity for greater improvement in motors. The return flight was enlivened, in very cold weather, by a series of minor mishaps to the motor. In making such flights it is still advisable to follow a shore line convenient for landing in case of motor trouble.
Lieut. J. H. Towers, United States Navy, has recently made a flight of 6 hours, 10 minutes, and 35 seconds with the standard Navy Curtiss hydroaeroplane. This was made in due course of regular work, but it stands as a world's record for flight in a hydroaeroplane and the American endurance record for flight in any kind of a machine. A performance of five hours only would have been satisfactory.
As a part of the instruction and a fruitful means of informing us concerning necessary improvements many repairs have been made by the aviators themselves, and the enlisted mechanics detailed for the purpose have received instruction in this way. A new Wright machine has also been built in this way from spare parts purchased from the company.
It has not been possible, under the circumstances of a meager appropriation and few officers, combining instruction with experimental work, to establish a thoroughly satisfactory system of instruction as yet. The ideal would require each aviator student to obtain a course of study in aerodynamics and meteorology up to date of about four months, such as that recently established at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the theory preceding the practical work, if possible. Such a course would be best attained by the establishment of a school for aviators in connection with the lectures at a national aerodynamic laboratory.
Experimental work.- The work of instruction has been handicapped by a practically continuous series of experiments, with the result that long delays in repairing have rendered work in both particulars slower than was anticipated. On the whole, this method of experimentation for the solution of problems other than the improvement [576] of minor structural details and the test of navigating instruments is very unsatisfactory. Important experiments involving physical research should be relegated to an aerodynamic laboratory and its aerodrome annex. Other important experiments, such as the development of wireless, requiring frequent changes, should be made at an aircraft factory, where extensive repairs and reconstruction are facilitated. Special facilities already exist for doing such work at the Washington Navy Yard.
Some experimental work has been done on different methods of installing the wireless plant, but intermittently, owing to the enforced absence of the expert officer, whose suggestions were being followed. Although the work is unfinished, it has given promise of realizing a range of 50 miles at a sacrifice of 50 pounds only in weight.
Most of the experiments have been devoted to improving mechanical details of the motors and to trying different models of hydroplanes, the result of laboratory investigation at the model basin.
Much useful information has been gained thus about hydroplanes and many uncertain but alluring ideas have been eliminated. There are seven different types of hydroaeroplanes now in France, but our efforts have been confined chiefly to two distinct American types, the single boat with balancing pontoons and the catamaran type with two pontoons. Both types have given great satisfaction, but the single boat, which has been used on both the Wright and the Curtiss machines, seems best for our purposes. It is superior in rough water and it is the father of the flying boat, toward which our ideas have always been inclined.
The flying boat was discussed in the early days, about 1905, between Mr. Glenn H. Curtiss and representatives of the Bureau of Equipment. The first real flying boat was made and tested at Hammondsport, N. Y., a year ago last summer, and flown last winter at San Diego, Cal. After several alterations in the location of the motive power, the Curtiss flying boat tested this summer, with great satisfaction, by Lieuts. Ellyson and Towers, is regarded as a decided advance in hydroaeroplane design and gives promise of extended usefulness in rough water.
Catapult.- Tentative experiments with a compressed-air catapult for sending aeroplanes in flight over the shortest possible track have been made and their early completion is expected to avoid requiring a ship to carry a demountable platform.
The practicability of sending aeroplanes in flight from a suitable platform on board ship was early demonstrated by Eugene Ely in flights from the U.S.S. Birmingham and the U.S.S. Pennsylvania. We have frequently demonstrated the practicability of sending them in flight from water alongside of a ship, and both Mr. Gienn H. Curtiss and Lieut. John Rodgers have flown alongside of a ship, have been hoisted on board and hoisted out again in a hydroaeroplane. Lieut. Ellyson has successfully performed the daring experiment of showing the possibility and facility with which a hydroaeroplane can be sent in flight from a ship in smooth water over an improvised single wire cable, but I would not recommend the use of this device on a ship with rolling motion. Lieut. Ellyson also eagerly subjected himself in a hydroaeroplane to the extreme shock of the catapult device in order to test the effect of such a shock not only on the aviator but on the motor attachments and other fittings. This crucial test was entirely satisfactory in its revelations, although the aviator and machine got a ducking, and it will probably never be required again.
There is no risk that these zealous aviators will not cheerfully undertake in the interest of adapting the art of aviation to naval purposes, and it is worthy of note that the work has progressed thus far without serious accident, although it has been arduous, dangerous, and replete with temptations for the aviators to rival many of the sensational performances that have resulted disastrously to contemporary pioneers in civil aviation.
A simple and convenient self starter is a practical necessity to the hydroaeroplane before issuing it for ship use. Several mechanical devices have been tried with varying [577] success, but other more promising devices are about to be tried and there is reason to believe that the very best will soon be in use on all of our machines.
Instruments.- Aviators and manufacturers have been slow in making use of instruments which not only make flying safer, but which may be made to relieve the aviator of much of the nervous tension and strain of long flights and flying in uncertain weather. A constant increase in the number of disasters has disturbed the people of France for some time, with the result that special attention has been given to the problem of safety; special efforts have been made not only to improve inherent stability and structural strength, but to provide means for controlling the equilibrium automatically.
One can not blame those who are already skilled in flying for being conservative in this matter, in view of the many defective devices that have been exploited to effect the object. There is good reason for going slowly and carefully in the test of anything that presumes to take the place of the aviator's skill, but manufacturers and aviators are beginning to realize that progress in aviation is greatly dependent upon the perfection of instruments for safe guidance and automatic control, that there is something more than acrobatic skill required to place aviation on a practical footing in the Navy, that the elimination of man as a factor of chief importance by the supply of mechanism which will perform the things that he is prone to do indifferently, especially under the strain of fatigue, is a practical necessity to his success as a real aerial navigator.
Simple and reliable automatic control devices which may be added without sacrifice of too much weight are now being eagerly sought and some that may be rigged to work automatically, semi-automatically, or not at all, at the will of the aviator, are being made.
The air compass.- Much important work for which the aeroplane will be useful in the Navy will not necessarily require the air pilot to navigate in a fog or at night or out of sight of his base, but in sea scouting, which I think is destined to be one of his principal spheres of usefulness, the pilot may be caught in a fog, he may be obliged to navigate at night and will have to lose sight of his base frequently. It must be possible, therefore, to navigate as accurately in air as it is to navigate a ship by dead reckoning at sea.
Motors.- Improvements have been confined principally to the correction of small defects which have been made as soon as discovered. Much more could be said about what is still needed. When anything goes wrong or when trouble begins in a flight that promises well, some trifling detail of the motor is usually at fault, a small pin here, a pump connection there, but nearly always something new and unexpected. It was so with the early motors of automobiles and this thought inspires confidence in the perfection of aviation motors, although the demand is still greater for increased power or speed rather than reliability and durability.
Range of speed.- A weight-carrying aeroplane such as a hydroaeroplane necessarily needs a motor with considerable range of speed, and the same kind of motor is needed to reduce the danger of alighting. This is not the kind of a motor and combination of motor and surfaces that now wins the speed contest, such as that for the Gordon Bennett cup. I think aviation would be improved if the terms of future speed contests were arranged so as to require each contestant to go over the course twice, the second time at an average speed 20 per cent lower than his highest average.
Requirements.- A year ago our manufacturers requested specific information as to the conditions to be satisfied in adapting the aeroplane for naval use. The answers at that time were necessarily indefinite, but with the benefit of a year's experience we have been able to issue a set of "general requirements" sufficiently broad in scope to permit a wide latitude for ingenuity and improvement.
These requirements cover not only the peculiar conditions to be satisfied in naval aviation, but, for the first time, require our builders to show that their machines are [578] designed in accordance with up-to-date practice. Builders are required to provide technical data which will eliminate from competition all who depend on haphazard methods. Complete stress diagrams under different conditions of load and all the fundamental characteristics, a knowledge of which is indispensable to an intelligent comparison of designs, are demanded. The stamp of approval is given to the introduction of improved methods for the automatic control of equilibrium, and our builders are encouraged to attain a high degree of efficiency, to improve the factors which govern safety, and nothing is demanded that may not be readily accomplished under the limitations of the art as it is generally understood at present.
In accordance with the policy of the department, as mentioned in the last annual report of the Secretary of the Navy, aeroplanes are now placed in the same category as other articles of a ship's equipment, and are appropriated for accordingly, the general architecture and constructional features being provided by the Bureau of Construction and Repair under its general appropriation "Construction and repair of vessels," and the motive power, including radio apparatus, being provided by the Bureau of Steam Engineering under the appropriation for "Steam machinery," it being intended that all bureaus will do their share in providing the specific parts which naturally come under their cognizance in the department organization.
It seems unnecessary to place a limit on aeroplanes under these appropriations when expenditure on boats, steam steerers, windlasses, boilers, and "all other auxiliaries," costing much more, is unlimited. No economy is effected by placing a limit on any one of the numerous items under these appropriations and no extravagance can occur by removing the limits on aeroplanes, because, regardless of limits, the amount of each appropriation remains the same, and expenditure on each item will be jealously guarded by the bureau concerned to carry on current work as necessities arise.
It is particularly unfortunate that the small limit of $20,000 is placed on aeroplane machinery under the Bureau of Steam Engineering, because our experience shows that each aeroplane used for instruction requires two motors to carry on the work effectively. This of course will be impossible under the present limit, as the expense of repairs is also comparatively great. The limit of $35,000 under construction and repair is unsatisfactory also.
Little more than a year ago our knowledge of the effect of air currents upon aeroplane surfaces was almost entirely a matter of theory. The exact information available was so meager that aeroplanes were built either as copies, slightly modified, of other machines, or else by way of haphazard experiment. This state of affairs obtains to some extent in the United States to-day, although in Europe aeroplane construction is now largely based on scientific data obtained at notable aerodynamic laboratories.
The intuitive, hasty, and crude methods of the pioneer can not succeed in compe-tition with the accurate and systematic methods of the scientific engineer, and it is beginning to dawn upon our perceptions that through lack of preparation for the work of the scientific engineer, i. e., through delay in establishing an aerodynamic labora-tory, a waste of time and money, a decline of prestige, and an unnecessary sacrifice of human life has already resulted.
Students of aviation do not need to be informed of the practical necessity for aerodynamic laboratories. They have repeatedly pointed out, in aeronautical publica-tions, the immense commercial advantages to be anticipated from the establishment of at least one in this country, and they have naturally expected that some philanthropic patriot of wealth and scientific interest would come to the rescue with a suitable [579] endowment fund that would enable such work to be started in short order without Government aid. The fact that no patriot has responded is disappointing, in view of the large private donations that have done so much for aviation in France, but in my opinion, it simply indicates something lacking in the manner of disseminating information concerning the importance of the subject. I am not willing to believe that our people will refuse to establish one when they are fully acquainted with the advantages to humanity and to sane industrial progress, and when a reasonable concrete proposition is advanced for their consideration. It is now my purpose to submit such a proposition, and, in doing so, I will follow briefly, in general outline, the ideas advanced in an address to the Fifth International Aeronautic Congress by one of the greatest authorities in the world, the Commandant Paul Renard, president of the International Aeronautic Commission.
Before considering the character of the work to be done and some details of the needed plant, it will facilitate matters to show what should not be done at such a laboratory.
There are those who dream of supplying the laboratory with all the instruments known to mechanics, to physics, and even to chemistry, in order to have a creditable and complete national institution. They would concentrate in one locality all the scientific instruments and acumen available, with the false idea that economy would result. This would be a grave error.
The financial resources, however great, are sure to be limited, and a too ambitious or a superfluous installation would squander the sources of power and indirectly menace the initiative of other industries. The character of the new work to be done demands that everything should be rejected that can be dispensed with readily in order that appliances specially needed in the new work may be provided and that these appliances be of the latest and most efficient types.
For the sake of economy, not only of money but of time and intellectual energy, tests and experiments that can be executed as well or better elsewhere by existing establishments should be avoided. For example, it is unnecessary to install a complete set of instruments and implements for testing the tensile strength of materials or their bending and crushing strength. Many other establishments permit of such work. If the laboratory be located in Washington, where certain advantages exist such work could be readily done at the navy yard, where other facilities exist such, for instance, as the testing of models for hydroaeroplanes and flying boats. The Bureau of Standards and Measures and other Government branches in Washington also offer facilities which it would not be wise to duplicate in such a laboratory.
I do not think that such an institution should be burdened with measuring the power of motors or preoccupied with the details of their performances. This may be done at various other Government establishments, and it is understood that the Automobile Club of America is also equipped for this work.
Nor is it necessary to have a complete chemical laboratory under the pretext of studying questions relating to the chemistry of fuel or the permeability of balloon envelopes.
I do not wish to convey the idea that an aerodynamic laboratory should be deprived entirely of such facilities and that it should be obliged to seek minor information from other establishments when that information may be more economically obtained by a duplicate plant on a small scale. Such duplicate conveniences, however, should be regarded as strictly accessory; but it should be well understood that whenever important researches can be prosecuted as well or better elsewhere, dependence should be placed on those other establishments where such work is a specialty.
An aerodynamic laboratory should be devoted to (1) experimental verification, (2) experimental research. The first is concerned with testing the qualities of existing appliances, propellers, sustaining surfaces, control mechanism, etc. Usually these tests are made at the request of interested parties (as is now the case with water models at the navy-yard model basin). A constructor or a designer will bring, for example, a propeller and will wish to know its power or thrust at a given speed on the block or on a moving appliance under the conditions of flight, or he may bring several propellers to compare their performances and to ascertain what power they absorb at different speeds.
One of the very successful appliances devoted to this work at St. Cyr is a movable car, in which an aeroplane may be mounted and tested at speeds in perfect safety as to its strength, its efficiency, and the suitability of its control mechanism. This device is specially adapted to make actual service tests of sustaining surfaces, in other words, to try out in perfect safety the relative efficiencies of finished aeroplanes. It is a most important adjunct, as it supplements and rounds out the important research work on models in the closed laboratory.
Tests of this character, i.e., verification tests, constitute, so to speak, standard work. They are performed at the request of manufacturers, clubs, independent investi-gators, and other interested parties on condition of payment for the actual cost of the work. They therefore contribute to the support of the establishment.
The tests of verification, however, notwithstanding their great utility, do not constitute either the most important or the most interesting work of the laboratory. The research work, which prosecutes continuously and patiently systematic, thorough, and precise investigation of new ideas, or of old ideas with new applications, with the specific intention of discovering laws and formulas for advancing the progress of aerial navigation, is of greater importance, because it is the short cut to substantial efficiency, economy, improvement, and prestige.
This work is concerned with developing adequate methods of research in all branches of aerial navigation and in furnishing reliable information to all students, engineers, inventors, manufacturers, pilots, navigators, strategists, and statesmen. The knowledge thus gained should be disseminated regularly through publications, lectures, open-air demonstrations, and by exhibitions of apparatus, instruments, materials, and models- in fact, by all the facilities of the aerodrome, the showroom, the library, and the lecture room.
An exact knowledge of aerodynamics can best be acquired in such a laboratory by experimentation with standard scale models in air tunnels such as those used by M. Eiffel and others. In this way reliable data is obtained of the air resistance to be encountered and the efficiency at various velocities, the amount of lift, the effect of varying impact at different angles of attack on the stability- in fact, all the exact data which, reduced to curves and diagrams, enables the engineer to design a machine in a scientific manner. From such data the performance of a new machine can be closely predicted. The performance of the finished product can be verified later as before described.
Much of the research work will be prosecuted at the request of technical men outside of the institution, to whom the laboratory should offer, gratuitously as far as possible, its material and personal resources.
To obtain benefit from these researches it will be necessary to know that they are worth the time and expense, and a body of men- a council or a board of governors- should be authorized to accept or reject requests for this work. This will be a delicate [581] task, but the principal duty of the council should be to establish and to correct from time to time a program of the research work to be executed by the director and his staff and to coordinate the work to the best advantages within the limits of the money available. The disbursement of the Government funds, however, and the responsibility therefor should be entirely under the director.
With the actual state of aerial navigation and its deficiencies as a guide it will be the policy of the council to concentrate effort upon such points as seem most important, promising, and interesting for the time being.
I do not think there would be any doubt, if we had the laboratory in working order now, but that all questions relating to improvement in stability, automatic control, and safety in general would have the right of way.
The council or board, which in England is called the "advisory committee," should be representative of other Government departments than that employing the director, and should be independent of the director and his administrative staff. It might be possible for the director to act as a member of the council, and, if so, it would conduce to harmony and expedition.
The council should not be a large body, but should be composed mostly of specialists of unquestioned ability, men interested in the sane development of aerial navigation in various branches of the Government and in its useful and safe adaptation to commerce and sport.
Whatever the ability of this council it should not be allowed to pretend that it has a monopoly of aeronautic acumen. Many brilliant and worthy ideas may originate outside of the establishment which it will be wise to investigate. And to avoid any possibility of the council being charged with narrow prejudice, it is indispensable that it be not composed entirely of specialists. In a few words, it should comprise representative men who are also learned and technical men, with broad vision and reputation, whose presence will guarantee to industrial investigators that their ideas will be treated in an unpartisan or unbiased spirit. I will not attempt to suggest the composition of this council or board, but it is evident that the Army and Navy should each be adequately represented on it.
If the laboratory should obtain, in addition to the funds required for prosecuting researches by its staff, any endowments of financial aid in excess of immediate needs (and I am confident it will eventually), it would accomplish useful work by offering prizes and granting rewards for important results achieved outside of the institution. The division of rewards would be one of the functions of the council, and it is possible that this would be one of the best uses of such resources, after the success of the laboratory is assured.
The complete role of an ideal aerodynamic laboratory can be summed up now in a few words in the natural order of establishment: (1) Execution of verification tests by means of nominal fees; (2) facilities to technical men for prosecuting original research; (3) execution of researches in accordance with a program arranged by the council, and (4) reward of commendable results accomplished outside of the laboratory.
Researches and tests can be made on either a large or a small scale, preferably on both.
The use of small models can be made prolific in results because of the comparatively small cost, provided we understand the laws governing transformation into the full sized products. For model work a large plant is unnecessary. M. Eiffel has done very valuable work in a very small establishment.
[583] Certain classes of tests with large models, such, for example, as the block test of propellers, do not require much space. But the conditions are altered when such tests are made on a machine in motion. These more difficult tests are absolutely indispensable and very important to the usefulness of an official laboratory.
Experiments and tests with small models being comparatively inexpensive, private establishments often undertake their execution, but when we attempt to draw conclusions from their results we are obliged to admit that the laws of comparison with full-sized machines are debatable the world over. Comparisons are sensibly true between small surfaces and larger surfaces that have been extended proportionately to the square of the linear dimensions, even to surfaces five or ten times larger, but when we pass to much larger surfaces, as we are obliged to, we are forced to adopt formulas with empirical coefficients, about which there is indefinite dispute.
The difficulty can be overcome only by precise experiments upon large surfaces, and such experiments, whatever the manner in which they are performed, will be costly. If privately executed, the financial returns would not cover the cost.
The laboratory should comprise, therefore, two distinct parts, one devoted to experiments on small-scale models and the other to experiments on surfaces of large dimensions. But in both parts precise and thorough work is necessary.
When we have studied separately each element of an aeroplane, for example, it will be necessary to test the complete apparatus. An aerodrome annex is therefore necessary, or, at least, the laboratory should be located in proximity to an aerodrome of which it can make use. In order that the observations may not only be qualitative but quantitative, it will be necessary to follow all the movements of the complete machine to know at each instant the speed, the inclination, the thrust of the propellers, the effective horsepower, and, in fact, to conduct a true open-air laboratory for air craft after the manner of certain tests that have been prolific of results in France.
The English have established close relations between the royal aircraft factory and their laboratory, the function of the former being the reconstruction and repair of aeroplanes, the test of motors, and the instruction of mechanics.
The location of the model-testing plant, the headquarters of the administration staff, requires comparatively small space, and there is no reason why it should be remote from a city or from intellectual and material resources. It is advantageous to have it easy of access to many interested people who are not attached to it.
The location of the open-air laboratory should obviously be at an aerodrome as near as may be convenient to the model-testing plant or headquarters. Close proximity of the two parts is desirable, but not necessary. The high price of land near a large city obliges the aerodrome annex of foreign plants to be located at a distance, but we are fortunate in having here at Washington ideal conditions for the location of both parts. The model laboratory should obviously be located on the site of Langley's notable work at the Smithsonian Institution, where the nucleus, an extensive library of records, and a certain collection of instruments, are still available. The National Museum is also an ideal location for the historical collection of models that will result.
No more ideal location for the annex, the open-air laboratory, or aerodrome exists in all the world than that afforded by the as yet undeveloped extension of Potomac Park. This is Government property which is of doubtful utility as a park only, but which would be of immense utility and interest as a park combined with a scientific plant of the character under consideration.
There is no reason why the public should be excluded from such a practice field, but there is much to recommend that it be open to the public under proper regulations as to the traffic, especially on occasion of certain tests or flights of an educational value. It is of sufficient area, about 1 square mile. It is about 2 miles long, is almost [583] entirely surrounded by broad expanses of water, and, while convenient of access, is so situated that the public may be readily excluded when tests of a dangerous character are in process of execution. The fine driveways that will be required as a park will offer excellent facilities for the practice work of the aerodrome and for the moving test cars that should be supplied.
One of the most attractive features of this location is the advantage it offers as an ideal aerodrome for both the Army and the Navy, for both land and water flying and the opportunity it affords for cooperation in all branches of the work of instruction and experimentation. Furthermore, it is near to the shop facilities of the navy yard, the accommodations of the Washington Barracks, the conveniences of various Government hospitals, and it would doubtless add to the information and interest of the near-by War College Staff and the General Board of the Navy. Its location would enable our statesmen in Congress and a great number of officials in all departments to keep in touch at first hand with the progress of aeronautics, with the quality of the work done, and with the manner in which the money appropriated was being expended. The educational facilities afforded by the work and by the lectures would be invaluable to the course of intruction for Army, Navy, and civil students of aeronautics.
As Washington is a mecca for business people of all parts of the country, a laboratory located here would be convenient in a commercial sense, especially in view of its southerly location, which renders the open aerodrome available for use throughout the greater part of the year. The only objection that I can see to the Potomac Park extension is that the ground will require a considerable clearing, but the trees on the harbor side of the location would not necessarily require removal.
It is useless to discuss here the various instruments and methods which have been a source of some dispute abroad. All have some good feature, but time has shown where some of the cumbersome and unnecessary installations may be eliminated to advantage and where others may be improved. The new plant of M. Eiffel, at Auteuil, may be regarded as a model for the wind tunnel and the aerodynamic balance. A duplicate of that plant alone would be of inestimable value. The last volume published by M. Eiffel is a forcible example of the value of his discoveries by this method with respect to the angle of incidence and the displacements of the center of pressure. It seems to merit the utmost confidence, although the details of his installation differ from those at Chalais, at Koutchino, at the Italian laboratory, and others. This method permits of testing the resistance of body structures, the sustaining power of surfaces, the tractive power of propellers, and the influence of transverse or oblique currents. If a "free drop" apparatus at uniform speed be regarded as indispensable to obtaining the coefficients of air resistance to solid bodies of different shapes, it is possible that the interior of the Washington Monument could be used to advantage, as was the Eiffel Tower, without disturbance of the main function of that noble structure. This would be an excellent place from which to observe the stability or action of falling models cast adrift at an altitude of 500 feet under varying atmospheric conditions. The free drop of full-sized models would of course require the use of kites or captive balloons.
The moving car previously referred to for tests of verification would be the most useful open-air plant and would soon repay the outlay required by the value of the information obtained from its use. A miniature duplicate of this method for preliminary tests on models with a wire trolley would be of value in a hall of large dimensions. It would be useful in winter work but not invaluable.
The track of the open-air vehicle at St. Cyr is too restricted to give the best results. The car can not circulate continuously at high speed and maintain the speed for a sufficient length of time. An ideal endless track may readily be arranged at the Potomac Park extension, preferably of rectangular form with rounded corners. A [584] railway track would be preferable, but excellent results could be obtained from auto trucks run on macadamized roadbeds. Good results could be obtained by the use of suitable hydroaeroplanes or flying boats suitably equipped with instruments.
At the aerodrome annex ample facilities should be provided for measuring the wind velocity at various heights and at different points. The convenient installation of recording anemometers and the employment of kites or captive balloons should be considered.
A branch of the United States Weather Bureau could readily be established at the aerodrome here in connection with the investigation of meteorological phenomena affecting the movements of aeroplanes in flight and as an adjunct to the national laboratory.
Exactly measured bases and posts of observation are also required, as well as instruments of vision or photographic apparatus, to permit of following machines in their flights and of preserving the records for study.
One of the most useful installations for recording advanced information is an actual aeroplane itself equipped with instruments adapted to record, while in flight, much of the information that is desired. Such machines are already in use in France and in England.
It will be in perfect harmony and convenient to the laboratory to obtain all the services of an aircraft factory from the Washington Navy Yard, where facilities already exist for the reconstruction and repair of aeroplanes, the test of motors, and the instruction of mechanics. But this should not be allowed to interfere with our policy of relying upon private industry for the purchase of new machines, for the sake of encouraging the art among private builders.
It will suffice to merely mention the hangars or sheds required or the local accessories, such as drafting room, office, and minor repair shops. The character and location of these present no difficulties, but they should not be made the principal part of the institution as they are in several elaborately equipped foreign laboratories. The power plant, however, is a subject for careful consideration and the economy effected by M. Eiffel in his new installation at Auteuil is worthy of study.
I have seen estimates varying from $250,000 to $500,000 for such a plant, but inasmuch as $100,000. with an annuity of $3,000 donated by M. Henry Deutsch de la Meurthe to the University of Paris for the establishment of the aeronautical laboratory at St. Cyr, seems to have been sufficient for a very creditable though somewhat deficient plant, I will venture an opinion that $200,000 would be sufficient in our case. Although the same plant would cost more in this country, I assume that some of the buildings required are already available at the Smithsonian Institution. If located elsewhere the cost would be considerably more than the sum named.
Inasmuch as more definite information regarding the actual cost of a dignified and creditable but modest and sufficient installation should be obtained and as the details of the plan, the scope, the organization, and the location of such an important under-taking should not be left to the recommendations of one man, I respectfully recommend that a commission or board be appointed to consider and report to the President, for recommendation to Congress, on the necessity or desirability for the establishment of a national aerodynamic laboratory, and on its scope, its organization, the most suitable location for it, and the cost of its installation.
[585] 3. Minutes of First Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Langley Aerodynamical Laboratory, May 23, 1913.
[Smithsonian Secretary Charles D. Walcott reported on the steps leading to estab-lishment of this forerunner of the NACA. In almost every respect, especially the composition of the committee and the immediate distribution of work among subcom-mittees, this meeting presaged the NACA's first meeting two years later.]
The Advisory Committee of the Langley Aerodynamical Laboratory was formally organized at a meeting at the Smithsonian Institution, at 10 A.M., May 23, 1913. The following is a list of members of the Committee, all of whom were present except Brig. General Scriven:
On motion, Mr. Charles D. Walcott was appointed temporary Chairman, and Dr. A. F. Zahm temporary Recorder of the Committee.
Mr. Walcott briefly outlined the events leading up to the re-opening of the Langley aerodynamical laboratory, as follows:
At the regular meeting of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution on February 13, 1913, the Secretary presented a scheme for the establishing of an aero-nautical laboratory under the direction of the Smithsonian Institution. A committee consisting of judge George Gray, Dr. Alexander Graham Bell, and Representative John Dalzell was appointed to consider the question, and also to consider the availability of any portion of the Hodgkins Fund for the purpose of said laboratory. This committee reported to the Board of Regents at a special meeting held on May 1, 1913, and recommended that the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution be authorized to reopen the aerodynamical laboratory used by the late Secretary Langley in pursuing his researches relating to aeronautics, and the Board thereupon adopted the following resolutions:
"WHEREAS, The Smithsonian Institution possesses a laboratory for the study of questions relating to Aerodynamics which has been closed since the death of its Director, the late Dr. S. P. Langley, formerly Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution; and
WHEREAS, It is desirable to foster and continue, in the Institution with which he was connected, the aerodynamical researches which he inaugurated-
RESOLVED: (1) THAT; the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution hereby authorizes the Secretary of the Institution, with the advice and approval of the Executive Committee, to reopen the Smithsonian Institution Laboratory for the study of Aerodynamics and take such steps as in his judgment may be necessary to provide for the organization and administration of the laboratory on a permanent basis.
[586] (2) THAT; the aerodynamic laboratory of the Institution shall be known as the Langley Aerodynamical Laboratory.
(3) THAT; the functions of the Laboratory shall be the study of the problems of Aerodromics, particularly those of aerodynamics with such research and experimenta-tion as may be necessary to increase the safety and effectiveness of aerial locomotion for the purposes of commerce, National defense, and the welfare of man.
(4) THAT; the Laboratory, under regulations to be established and fees to be fixed by the Secretary, approved by the Executive Committee, may exercise its func-tions for the military and civil departments of the Government of the United States, and also for any individual, firm, association or corporation within the United States, provided, however, that such department, individual, firm, association or corporation shall also defray the cost of all material and services of employees in connection with such exercise of the functions of the said Laboratory.
(5) THAT; the Laboratory shall, with the approval of the Secretary of the Institu-tion, issue bulletins and other publications for public distribution, containing such information as may be valuable to the Government or the public.
(6) THAT; there shall be a Director of the Laboratory, who shall be appointed by the Secretary, and who shall receive such salary as may be approved by the Executive Committee. The Secretary is also authorized to appoint assistants and other necessary employees.
(7) THAT; the Director shall have general supervision of the Laboratory. He shall make an annual report to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Said report shall include an account of the work done for any Department of the Government, individ-ual, firm, association or corporation, and the amounts paid by them to defray the cost of material and services as hereinbefore provided.
(8) THAT; the Secretary may provide or rent such temporary quarters and obtain such permanent quarters as may be provided for by funds available or provided for the purpose.
(9) THAT; the Secretary is authorized to appoint an Advisory Committee, to be composed of the Director of the Laboratory when appointed and one member to be designated by the Secretary of War, one by the Secretary of the Navy, one by the Secretary of Agriculture, and one by the Secretary of Commerce, together with such other persons as may be acquainted with the needs of aerodromical science, the total membership of such Committee not to exceed fourteen in number.
(10) THAT; the Committee shall advise in relation to the organization and work of the Laboratory, and the co-ordination of its activities with those of other Govern-mental and private laboratories, in which questions concerned with the study of the problems of aerodynamics and aerodromics can be experimentally investigated. The members of the Advisory Committee shall serve without compensation, but shall be paid their actual necessary expenses in going to and returning from Washington to attend the meeting of the Committee and while attending the same.
THAT; the Secretary is authorized, with the approval of the Executive Committee, to open the Laboratory and begin its work, when funds are made available for the purpose, either by private contribution, Governmental appropriation, or the authoriza-tion by the Board of Regents of the use of funds that are now or may become available for appropriation by the Smithsonian Institution.
At the same meeting the following additional resolutions were also adopted by the Board of Regents:
RESOLVED: The Secretary is authorized, with the advice of the Executive Com-mittee, to enlarge the approved scheme of the Langley Aerodynamical Laboratory under the direction of the Smithsonian Institution, by adding, as means are provided, [587] other laboratories and other essential agencies, and to group the several laboratories and other agencies into a Bureau organization.
RESOLVED FURTHER: That all resolutions in relation to administration, person-nel, direction, etc., that apply to the Langley Aerodynamical Laboratory, shall apply as far as practicable to the said Bureau of Aerodromics when established.
RESOLVED: The Secretary is authorized to use such portion of the accumulated income of the Hodgkins Fund as may be necessary in connection with the reopening and organization of the Langley Aerodynamical Laboratory, to an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars.
RESOLVED FURTHER: The Secretary is also authorized to expend for the said purpose, the annual income from a restricted portion of the Hodgkins fund not to exceed five thousand dollars per year, for a period of five years.
RESOLVED: The Secretary is hereby authorized to visit such laboratories and institutions in Europe as will in his judgment be of service in the organization and administration of research under the direction of the Smithsonian Institution.
RESOLVED: The Secretary is authorized to associate with himself not to exceed three persons in examining and reporting on the principal laboratories and institutions engaged in aeronautical research, provided that the expenses of such examination and report shall not exceed $2,000.
RESOLVED: The Secretary is authorized to secure, as far as practicable, the cooperation of Governmental and other agencies in the development of aerodromical research under the direction of the Smithsonian Institution.
RESOLVED: The Secretary is authorized to submit an estimate to the Congress of fifty thousand dollars for the continuation of aerodromical (aeronautical) investigations under the direction of the Smithsonian Institution.
Mr. Walcott stated that in pursuance of the Board's action, he addressed the following letter to President Wilson:
Sir:
I have the honor to state that at the special meeting of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, held May 1, 1913, I was authorized, as Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, to re-Open the Langley laboratory for the study of aerodynamics, and to take such steps as may be necessary to provide for the organization and administration of the laboratory on a permanent basis.
The functions of the laboratory will be to study the problem of aerodromics (aeronautics), particularly those of aerodynamics, with such research and experimentation as may be necessary to increase the safety and effectiveness of aerial locomotion for the purposes of commerce, National defense, and the welfare of man.
The Secretary was authorized to appoint an Advisory Committee and to request the cooperation of Governmental and other agencies in the development of the laboratory. The functions of this Committee will be to advise in relation to the work of the laboratory and the coordination of its activities with those of other governmental and private laboratories in which questions concerned with the study of problems of aerodromics (aeronautics) can be experimentally investigated.
I beg leave, therefore, to ask your approval of the cooperation with this Institution of the Departments of War, Navy, Agriculture, and Commerce, and if this meets with your assent, I have the honor to request that one member of the Advisory Committee be designated by the Secretary of War, one by the Secretary of the Navy, one by the Secretary of Agriculture, and one by the Secretary of Commerce.
[588] In addition there will be appointed such other persons on the Committee as may be acquainted with the needs of aerodromical (aeronautical) science, the total membership not to exceed fourteen.
The members of the Committee shall serve without compensation, but shall be paid their actual necessary expenses in going to and returning from Washington to attend the meetings, and while attending the same, from a special fund at the disposal of this Institution.
It is desired to have a representative of the War Department and one from the Navy Department on the Advisory Committee to represent their aeronautical interests; to have a member from the Department of Agriculture to represent the Weather Bureau, as the subject of meteorology is one that has a profound bearing on successful aviation; and to have a member from the Department of Commerce to represent the Bureau of Standards, where in the near future it is hoped that systematic tests of materials, motors, etc., can be made under the direction of that Bureau.
The following reply was received from the President:
Allow me to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of May eighth, and to say that I shall take pleasure in sending copies of your letter to the Secretaries of War, Navy, Agriculture, and Commerce, expressing my full approval of the designation of representatives of those Departments upon the committee which you are forming for the study of the subject of aeronautics under the authorization of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution on May 1, 1913.
Letters were subsequently received by the Institution from the Secretaries of War and the Navy stating that on account of the magnitude of their aeronautical interests, it was thought advisable to designate two members from their respective Departments.
In accordance with the above, the following designations of members for the Advisory Committee were made by the heads of the Departments concerned:
In addition to these, invitations were sent by the Secretary of the Institution to the following gentlemen who accepted membership on the Advisory Committee:
Mr. Walcott also stated that invitations had been sent to Mr. Cornelius Vanderbilt and Mr. Harold F. McCormick, but these gentlemen, on account of press of business matters, were unable to accept membership.
After discussion it was decided that the term of service of all members and officers should be for one year, to expire on or about May 6th of each year, as may be determined later. In view of the fact that May 6th has in the past been generally designated as "Langley Day," it was suggested that the regular annual meeting of the Advisory Committee be held on May 6th, as it was thought probably that many of the members would be in Washington on that day.
On motion of Captain Chambers, Mr. Walcott was then elected permanent Chair-man of the Advisory Committee, for one year.
On motion of Dr. Stratton, Dr. Zahm was elected permanent Recorder for one year.
The Chairman then informed the Committee that he was able to place at its disposal a room in the Smithsonian building which could be used by the Recorder and such assistants as he might have from time to time, and where all records of the Committee could be filed. It was suggested that a general letter-head be prepared for the Advisory Committee, the name of each subcommittee to be placed on this paper with a rubber stamp. The Chairman authorized the Recorder to have a stock of such paper prepared. Provision was also made for the employment of such translating and typewriting services as might be required by the Sub-Committees, and also for the use of Smithsonian franked envelopes for mailing communications relating to the work of the Laboratory.
The Chairman then presented a plan for the organization of a number of Sub-Committees, which, after minor changes, was unanimously approved by the meeting. A Chairman chosen from the members of the General Committee, was assigned to each Sub-Committee, with the authorization to add other members to his committee to the number of not more than four and not less than two, to be selected either from the General Committee or from other sources. It was resolved that the Chairmen of the Sub-Committees should report to the Chairman of the General Committee the names of members selected by them, and that they should make quarterly reports of the work of their Committees, these to be placed in the files of the General Committee, which would later publish an annual report. All of the members present who were appointed as Chairmen of Sub-Committees, signified their acceptance of the appointments.
The following is a list of the Sub-Committees, together with the Chairman ap-pointed for each:
1. Sub-Committee on collection and correlation of aeronautical information. Dr. A. F. Zahm, Chairman, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
2. Sub-Committee on publication and dissemination of aeronautical information. Dr. A. F. Zahm, Chairman, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
3. Sub-Committee on aeronautical meteorology. Dr. W. J. Humphreys, Chairman, U.S. Weather Bureau, Washington, D.C.
4. Sub-Committee on comparative tests and standardization of instruments, motors, and propellers; tests of the tensile, compressive, and bending strengths, and elasticity, weight, etc., of various materials used in aeronautical construction, [590] and determination of aerodynamical constants. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Chairman, Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.
5. Sub-Committee on hydro-mechanic experiments in relation to aeronautics. Naval Constructor H. C. Richardson, Chairman, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.
6. Sub-Committee on naval air craft design. Captain W. I. Chambers, Chairman, Navy Department, Washington, D.C.
7. Sub-Committee on military air craft design. Major Edgar Russel, Chairman, U.S. Signal Corps, Washington, D.C.
8. Sub-Committee on field experiments with naval air craft. Captain W. I. Cham-bers, Chairman, Navy Department, Washington, D.C.
9. Sub-Committee on field experiments with military air craft. Brig. Gen. George P. Scriven, Chairman, U.S. Signal Corps, Washington, D.C.
10. Sub-Committee on air craft communication. Mr. John Hays Hammond, Jr., Chairman, Gloucester, Mass.
11. Sub-Committee on experimental air craft factory. Naval Constructor H. C. Richardson, Chairman, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.
12. Sub-Committee on laboratory buildings and equipment. Dr. C. D. Walcott, Chairman, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
13. Sub-Committee on air craft appliances. Brig. Gen. George P. Scriven, Chair-man, U.S. Signal Corps, Washington, D.C.
14. Sub-Committee on natural flight.
15. Sub-Committee on mathematical principles of aeronautics.
The appointment of Chairman for the two Sub-Committees above was left in abeyance.
16. Sub-Committee on Applied Aerodynamics. Dr. A. F. Zahm, Chairman, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Organized at meeting of June 23, 1913.)
The matter of bringing the membership of the General Committee up to the prescribed number of fourteen was discussed, but it was decided not to add to the number at present.
The Chairman informed the Committee that the Disbursing Office of the Smithsonian Institution can take charge of any money given for the use of the laboratory, or placed at the disposal of the Committee, either by individuals or by the Government, and disburse the same.
The Chairman, Mr. Walcott, expressed the wish of the meeting that the Chairman of each Sub-Committee should, as soon as practicable, ascertain what data, facilities, etc., are now available to his committee; what work is now going on, and what work should be initiated, this information to be reported to the Chairman of the General Committee.
It was the sentiment of the Committee that no funds should be expended for the development of patents, or for experimenting with patents, for the benefit of individuals.
The Recorder was requested to prepare a statement for publication, recounting the organization of the Committee, and setting forth its scope and purposes. He was also authorized to give the daily press an account of the first meeting.
The Chairman stated that a preliminary draft of the minutes of each meeting would be sent to each member for his approval, with an opportunity to make any corrections or comments desired.
It was decided that when the Committee adjourn, it meet again some time next month, when reports might be received from the various Sub-Committees as to the progress of their organization and work, the exact date of the meeting to be determined by the Chairman later and communicated to each member of the General Committee.
4. House Joint Resolution 413, 63rd Cong., 3rd sess., 1 Feb. 1915.
[The introductory paragraphs state the rationale for the actual resolution, which became (in almost exactly this form) the organic legislation of the NACA enacted as a rider on the naval appropriations bill for 1916. (See App. A.)]
Whereas the United States is the only nation of the first class that does not have an Advisory Committee for Aeronautics to advise and direct in relation to experimental work of the Government, and to provide for the cooperation of governmental and private activities in relation to the unsolved problems of aeronautics; and
Whereas the United States invented and led in the early development of the heavier-than-air flying machine, but nothing being done by the Government to develop the art and to encourage and assist American inventors and manufacturers beyond the purchase of a few flying machines, and the establishment of a small plant at the Washington Navy Yard, it has fallen behind, owing to the policy of inaction and the lack of appreciation of the wisdom of utilizing all of the technical ability and the inventive genius of the Nation; and
Whereas under the guidance of an Advisory Committee for Aeronautics continuity of purpose and action in the development of this science and art is practically guaranteed, unaffected by the change of individuals in administrative positions in the executive departments of the Government; and
[592] Whereas the expenditure of money appropriated could be more wisely made, and economies secured by the prevention of duplication of investigation and experi-ment, and the development of aeronautics in America placed upon a strong foundation through the influence of a suitable advisory committee; and
Whereas the establishment of such committee would be in the line of the best practice of European nations, such as Great Britain, France, and Germany, all of which have made remarkable progress in aviation under the spirit of cooperation of governmental and civil agencies; and
Whereas under existing law (section nine of the Act approved March fourth, nineteen hundred and nine, Thirty-fifth Statutes, page ten hundred and twenty-seven) it is unlawful for the President or any Government official to appoint a committee, commission, or board on aeronautics without authorization by Congress: Therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That an Advisory Committee for Aeronautics is hereby established, and the President is authorized to appoint not to exceed fourteen members, to consist of two members from the War Department, from the bureau in charge of military aeronautics; two members from the Navy Department, from the bureau in charge of naval aeronautics; a representative each of the Smithsonian Institution, of the United States Weather Bureau, and of the United States Bureau of Standards; together with not more than seven additional persons who shall be acquainted with the needs of aeronautical science, either civil or military, or skilled in aeronautical engineering or its allied sciences, three of whom may be residents of the District of Columbia, and the others shall be inhabitants of some State, but not more than one of them from the same State: Provided, That the members of the Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, as such, shall serve without compensation: Provided further, That it will be the duty of the Advisory Committee for Aeronautics to supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight with a view to their practical solution, and to determine the problems which should be experimentally attacked and to discuss their solution and their application to practical questions. In the event of a laboratory or laboratories either in whole or in part being placed under the direction of the committee, the committee may direct and conduct research and experiment in aeronautics in such laboratory or laboratories: And provided further, That rules and regulations for the conduct of the work of the committee shall be formulated by the committee and approved by the President.
Sec. 2. That the sum of $5,000 a year, or so much thereof as may be necessary, for five years is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be immediately available, for experimental work and investigations undertaken by the committee, clerical expenses and supplies, and necessary expenses of members of the committee in going to, returning from, and while attending meetings of the committee: Provided, That an annual report to the Congress shall be submitted through the President, including an itemized statement of expenditures.
5. Franklin D. Roosevelt to L. P. Padgett, 12 Feb. 1915, in House Committee on Naval Affairs, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, H. Rpt. 1423 to accompany H. J. Res. 413, 63/3, 19 Feb. 1915, pp. 2-3.
[As acting secretary of the navy, Roosevelt was requested to comment on a joint resolution to create an advisory committee for aeronautics. Roosevelt endorsed the proposal, defended the navy's record in aeronautical research, and (most importantly) suggested adjusting committee membership so that government members would out-number those from private life. This Progressive approach became a permanent part of the NACA canon.]
DEAR MR. PADGETT: I have received House joint resolution 413, of February 1, 1915, to authorize the appointment of an advisory committee for aeronautics, which was forwarded to me by you, for the views of the department.
[593] I heartily indorse the principle upon which this joint resolution to authorize an advisory committee for aeronautics is based. This new method of transportation by air craft will in my opinion soon be utilized commercially as well as in the defense of our country. The great military necessity that has brought such rapid development of air craft about in Europe has demonstrated the practical utility of these vessels of the air, and has placed this country far behind in the use of air craft. Especially are the private engineers and contractors behind in their development of air craft.
This department with the largest "wind tunnel" in the world in operation at the Washington Navy Yard; the model basin at the same place for tests of floats for hydro-aeroplanes; the engineering experimental station at Annapolis for tests of machinery; with the aeronautic station and center now in operation at Pensacola, with shops and facilities for all practical tests with actual air craft or the means to provide for them; and with officers studying, experimenting, and training to become aeronautical engineers, has done a great deal to develop the art and the science of aeronautics. However, we will be only too pleased to have an advisory committee that will bring about the cooperation of the private activities and thus greatly increase the effort in attacking the unsolved problems of aeronautics. It is believed that such a committee is the best means required in placing the country on an equality, or even in advance, of other countries in the development of aeronautics.
I have to suggest that in the second paragraph of the aforesaid joint resolution the following be omitted as not pertinent and because it is inaccurate, viz: "but nothing being done by the Government to develop the art and to encourage and assist American inventors and manufacturers beyond the purchase of a few flying machines and the establishment of a small plant at the Washington Navy Yard."
I further suggest that in the fifth line, page 2, of the resolution the word "fourteen" be changed to "ten"; in the fourth line, page 3, the word "seven" be changed to "three"; and in the seventh line, page 3, the word "three" be changed to "one." A committee of 14 seems too large, especially as when this committee is lawfully constituted it can obtain information or advice from all or any sources available without making the advisors a part of the committee. The departments of the Government most interested in the development of aeronautics will be the ones that will be coordinated by the advice of this committee, individually carry out the work required, and be responsible for the expenditures of money appropriated by Congress. Therefore the representatives of the Government should always have the controlling interest in the activities of this proposed committee. The interests of private parties must be more or less commercial and influenced by such considerations. We should guard against even any suspicion that the work of this committee is thus influenced. The above are the important reasons why I recommend the reduced number of members for this proposed advisory committee for aeronautics.
6. Memorandum on a National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, forwarded by Charles D. Walcott to Senator Benjamin R. Tiliman, chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs, 1 Feb. 1915.
[The excerpt from this memorandum, part of Walcott's personal campaign to establish a national aeronautical laboratory, barely mentions laboratories. Most of the [594] discussion deals with U.S. resources already available in government agencies, and the lead that the European nations had attained over the United States.]
February 1, 1915.
Dear Sir:
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of January 30, 1915, asking for a report showing what action has already been taken by the Smithsonian Institution regarding the joint Resolution providing for the appointment of an Advisory Committee for Aeronautics in the United States.
In response thereto, I have the honor to submit the inclosed memorandum.
I am transmitting also a report on European Aeronautical Laboratories, which gives an outline of what was being done in Europe prior to the outbreak of the present war.
Very respectfully yours,
On May 1, 1913, the Regents of the Smithsonian Institution authorized Secretary Walcott, with the approval of the Executive Committee, to reopen the Langley Aerodynamical Laboratory; to secure an Advisory Committee; to add, as means were provided, other laboratories and agencies; to group them into a bureau organization; and to secure the cooperation with them of the Government and other agencies.
The first action taken by the Secretary was to request the approval of the Presi-dent of the United States of the designation of representatives from the Departments of War, Navy, Agriculture, and Commerce, to serve on an Advisory Committee. On May 9, 1913, the President approved the request, and the Departments named selected their members for the Committee. A number of civilians were also selected for membership. The Committee was then organized, but before effective work could be undertaken, a decision made by the Comptroller of the Treasury, stated that under Section 9 of the Act approved March 4, 1909 (35 Stat., 1027), it was unlawful for any Government employee to serve on such an Advisory Committee without authority being granted by Congress.
The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution also authorized the Secretary to make an estimate to Congress for the carrying on of operations in such a laboratory. The estimate was made and explained to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives in January, 1914 (Hearings, Sundry Civil Bill, 63d Congress, 2d Session, pages 419-429). A statement was also made in relation to the desirability of having authority to appoint an Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.
No action was taken by the Committee or by Congress, and the United States remains today the only first class nation in the world that does not have an Advisory Committee or Board on Aeronautics, and one or more aeronautical laboratories [595] devoted to the solution of problems which the manufacturer and practical aviator meet with in connection with the advancement of aerial flight.
America invented and led in the early development of the heavier-than-air flying machine, through Langley, the Wright Brothers, Curtiss, and others, and a small grant was made by Congress to the Navy Department for experimental work in aeronautics, but nothing was done to encourage or assist American inventors and manufacturers, beyond the purchase of a few machines.
European Countries:-As soon as Americans demonstrated the feasibility of flight by heavier-than-air machines, France took the matter up promptly, and utilized all the available agencies, including the army, navy, and similar establishments, both public and private. Large sums were devoted to the research work by wealthy individuals, and rapid advance was made in the art.
Germany quickly followed, and a fund of one million seven hundred thousand dollars was raised by subscription, and experimentation directed by a group of technically trained and experienced men.
Later England established an Advisory Board, placing the manufacturing and the operation of flying machines in the charge of the army and navy, and turning over the working out of the numerous problems arising to the Advisory Board, an annual appropriation of $25,000 being made for expenses and investigations.
Russia also began serious investigations and construction under the Government, and encouraged private enterprise.
When the European war broke out, France had, exclusive of dirigibles, about 1,400 aeroplanes, Germany 1,000, Russia 800, Great Britain 400, the United States 23. The Navy has 12 of these.
The Joint Resolution authorizing the appointment of an Advisory Committee for Aeronautics is based on the experience of the Advisory Committee of Great Britain and study given to the subject before asking the appointment of an Advisory Committee for the Langley Aerodynamical Laboratory of the Smithsonian Institution.
The amount of the appropriation asked is not large, but it will be sufficient to test the working possibilities of the Committee, and the results obtained by it will determine if it will be of sufficient value to warrant an increase in the appropriations.
At the present time the United States is proposing to appropriate a million dollars for the Navy, and a large amount for the Army, for the purchase and operation of flying machines, but there is no provision in law authorizing the appointment of an Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, and thus leading to the utilization of all of the resources of the Government and of private laboratories and manufacturing plants, as far as may be, in the development of aviation in America.
The Navy Department will go ahead as best it can; the War Department as it can, and private interests as means and opportunity permit. With no central body or clearing house for the various agencies, no place to meet and discuss problems of research, no place to try out new ideas, and no body of expert advisers for Government and civil interests, aeronautics in America will be simply drifting and trusting to luck that all will come out well through sporadic and scattered efforts. What is needed is team work that may be rendered possible by a wisely selected Advisory Committee.
A national Advisory Committee for Aeronautics cannot fail to be of inestimable service in the development of the art of aviation in America. Such a Committee, to be effective should be permanent, and attract to its membership the most highly trained men in the art of aviation and such technical sciences as are connected with it.
Through the agency of sub-committees, the main Advisory Committee could avail itself of the advice and suggestion of a large number of technical and practical men.
[596] The work for which the British Advisory Committee was appointed was defined in the announcement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on May 5, 1909. . .*
Smithsonian Institution.- The Advisory Committee may be provided by the Smithsonian Institution with suitable office headquarters, an administrative and accounting system, library and publication facilities, lecture and assembly rooms, and museum space for aeronautic models. The Langley Aerodynamical Laboratory has an income provided for it not to exceed ten thousand dollars the first year (of which five thousand dollars has been allotted), and five thousand annually for five years.
US. Bureau of Standards.- For the exact determination of aerophysical constants, the calibration of instruments, the testing of aeronautic engines, propellers and materials of construction, the cooperation of the Department of Commerce, by the U.S. Bureau of Standards, would be invaluable. This Bureau has a complete equipment for studying the mechanics of materials and structural forms used in aircraft; for standardizing the physical instruments- thermometers, barographs, pressure gauges, etc.- used in air navigation; and for testing the power, efficiency, etc., of aeronautical motors in a current of air representing the natural conditions of flight.
In these gen