Part 22

It will be noted that Orville Wright did not even ask that the Smithsonian should say it did not believe the original Langley machine could fly. All he asked was that the facts regarding the Hammondsport trials be made public by the Smithsonian. It has been his contention that if this information had not been withheld, then anyone having a knowledge of the science of aviation could form for himself an opinion regarding the importance of the differences between the original Langley machine of 1903 and the Zahm-Curtiss-Langley machine of 1914. He has been willing to stake his and his brother’s reputation on the conclusion that a committee of competent disinterested scientists would reach if they had all the facts.

Dr. Abbot, in the years 1933 to 1942, proposed a number of times to issue a statement by the Smithsonian for the declared purpose of correcting the record. All these statements, however, except the final one, would have left the record as confusing as it was before. The first statement proposed was to contain: (1) A history of Langley’s work up to December, 1903, which was entirely irrelevant to the controversy and would have filled hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of print; (2) a history of the Langley machine from 1903 to 1914, which, likewise, had no part in the controversy; (3) A. F. Zahm’s report of the tests of the Langley machine at Hammondsport in 1914, with no correction by the Institution of its many misrepresentations of fact about those tests; (4) Orville Wright’s list of changes made in the Langley machine at Hammondsport in 1914, without any acknowledgement by the Smithsonian of its accuracy. (The accuracy of the list was later acknowledged by the Institution.) (5) A long list of “amendments” by A. F. Zahm to Orville Wright’s list of changes. (These “amendments,” or comments, had the appearance of being corrections of errors in Orville Wright’s list, though a careful reading will disclose that they were not corrections.)

Dr. Abbot’s proposed statement thus would have dealt almost entirely with matters not involved in the controversy. About all that did touch on questions in the controversy would have been contradictory statements by Zahm and Wright. The reader, having no way of knowing which one was telling the truth, would have been more confused than ever.

All the publications proposed later, except the final one, were similar to the first, though less voluminous. None of them would have clarified the situation any more than the first. Not until September, 1942, did Dr. Abbot submit a statement which, with some amendments, was satisfactory to Orville Wright. That statement, published by the Smithsonian on October 24, 1942, is given here verbatim, as follows:

THE 1914 TESTS OF THE LANGLEY “AERODROME”[18]

BY C. G. ABBOT

_Secretary, Smithsonian Institution_

NOTE--This paper has been submitted to Dr. Orville Wright, and under date of October 8, 1942, he states that the paper as now prepared will be acceptable to him if given adequate publication.

It is everywhere acknowledged that the Wright brothers were the first to make sustained flights in a heavier-than-air machine at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, on December 17, 1903.

Mainly because of acts and statements of former officers of the Smithsonian Institution, arising from tests made with the reconditioned Langley plane of 1903 at Hammondsport, New York, in 1914, Dr. Orville Wright feels that the Institution adopted an unfair and injurious attitude. He therefore sent the original Wright Kitty Hawk plane to England in 1928. The nature of the acts and statements referred to are as follows:

In March 1914, Secretary Walcott contracted with Glenn H. Curtiss to attempt a flight with the Langley machine. This action seems ill considered and open to criticism. For in January 1914, the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, had handed down a decision recognizing the Wrights as “pioneers in the practical art of flying with heavier-than-air machines” and pronouncing Glenn H. Curtiss an infringer of their patent. Hence, in view of probable further litigation, the Wrights stood to lose in fame and revenue and Curtiss stood to gain pecuniarily, should the experiments at Hammondsport indicate that Langley’s plane was capable of sustained flight in 1903, previous to the successful flights made December 17, 1903, by the Wrights at Kitty Hawk, N. C.

The machine was shipped to Curtiss at Hammondsport, N. Y., in April. Dr. Zahm, the Recorder of the Langley Aerodynamical Laboratory and expert witness for Curtiss in the patent litigation, was at Hammondsport as official representative of the Smithsonian Institution during the time the machine was being reconstructed and tested. In the reconstruction the machine was changed from what it was in 1903 in a number of particulars as given in Dr. Wright’s list of differences which appears later in this paper. On the 28th of May and the 2d of June, 1914, attempts to fly were made. After acquiring speed by running on hydroplane floats on the surface of Lake Keuka the machine lifted into the air several different times. The longest time off the water with the Langley motor was approximately five seconds. Dr. Zahm stated that “it was apparent that owing to the great weight which had been given to the structure by adding the floats it was necessary to increase the propeller thrust.” So no further attempts were made to fly with the Langley 52 HP engine.

It is to be regretted that the Institution published statements repeatedly[19] to the effect that these experiments of 1914 demonstrated that Langley’s plane of 1903 without essential modification was the first heavier-than-air machine capable of maintaining sustained human flight.

As first exhibited in the United States National Museum, January 15, 1918, the restored Langley plane of 1903 bore the following label:

THE ORIGINAL, FULL-SIZE LANGLEY FLYING MACHINE, 1903

For this simple label others were later substituted containing the claim that Langley’s machine “was the first man-carrying aeroplane in the history of the world capable of sustained free flight.”

Though the matter of the label is not now an issue, it seems only fair to the Institution to say that in September 1928, Secretary Abbot finally caused the label of the Langley machine to be changed to read simply as follows:

LANGLEY AERODROME

THE ORIGINAL SAMUEL PIERPONT LANGLEY FLYING MACHINE OF 1903, RESTORED.

Deposited by The Smithsonian Institution

301,613

This change has frequently been overlooked by writers on the controversy.

In January 1942, Mr. Fred C. Kelly, of Peninsula, Ohio, communicated to me a list of differences between the Langley plane as tested in 1914 and as tested in 1903, which he had received from Dr. Wright. This list is given verbatim below. The Institution accepts Dr. Wright’s statement as correct in point of facts. Inferences from the comparisons are primarily the province of interested experts and are not discussed here.

COMPARISON OF THE LANGLEY MACHINE OF 1903 WITH THE HAMMONDSPORT MACHINE OF MAY-JUNE, 1914.

LANGLEY, 1903. HAMMONDSPORT, 1914.

WINGS.

1 SIZE: 11′6″ × 22′6″ (L.M.[A] SIZE: 10′11¾″ × 22′6″ p. 206)

[A] The letters L.M. in first column refer to Langley Memoir.

2 AREA: 1040 sq. ft. (L.M. p. AREA: 988 sq. ft. 206)

3 ASPECT RATIO: 1.96 ASPECT RATIO: 2.05

4 CAMBER: 1/12 (L.M. p. 205) CAMBER: 1/18

5 LEADING EDGE: Wire 1/16″ LEADING EDGE: Cylindrical spar diameter (L.M. Pl.66) 1½″ dia. at inner end, tapering to 1″ dia. at outer end.

6 COVERING: Cotton fabric, not COVERING: Cotton fabric, varnished. varnished.

7 CENTER SPAR: Cylindrical CENTER SPAR: Cylindrical spar wooden spar, measuring 1½″ dia. about 1½″ dia. at inner end, for half its length and tapering tapering to about 1″ dia. at to 1″ at its tip. (L.M. p. 204.) outer end. Located on upper Located on upper side of wing. side of wing. This center spar was reinforced (1) by an extra wooden member on the underside of the wing, which measured 1″ × 1½″ and extended to the 7th rib from the center of the machine; and (2) by another wooden reinforcement on the underside extending out about one-fourth of the length of the wing.

8 RIBS: Hollow box construction. RIBS: Most of the original (L.M. Plates 66, 67.) Langley box ribs were replaced with others made at Hammondsport. (Manly letter, 1914.) The Hammondsport ribs were of solid construction and made of laminated wood. That part of the rib in front of the forward spar was entirely omitted.

9 LOWER GUY-POSTS: A single LOWER GUY-POSTS: Four for each round wooden post for each pair pair of wings (see Fig. 4), two of wings (see Fig. 3), 1¼″ in of which were of streamline form dia. 6½″ long. (L.M. Plate 62, measuring 1¼″ × 3½″ × 54″ long; p. 184.) and two measuring 2″ × 2″ with rounded corners, 3′9″ long.

10 The front wing guy-post was The front-wing guy-posts were located 28½″ in front of the located directly underneath the main center spar. (L.M. Plate main center spar, 28½″ further 53.) rearward than in 1903.

11 The rear wing guy-post was The rear wing guy-posts were located 31½″ in front of the located directly under the main center spar. (L.M. Plate main center spar, 31½″ further 53.) rearward than in 1903.

12 UPPER GUY-POSTS: For each UPPER GUY-POSTS: For each pair pair of wings a single steel of wings, two streamline wooden tube ¼″ dia., 43″ long. (L.M. p. posts each 1¼″ × 3½″, 76″ long, 184, pl. 62.) forming an inverted V. (See Fig. 4.)

13 Front wing upper guy-post Front wing upper guy-posts located 28½″ in front of the located directly over main spar, main center spar. (L.M. pl. 53.) 28½″ further rearward than in 1903.

14 The rear wing upper guy-post The rear wing guy-posts were was located 31½″ in front of the located directly over the main main center spar. (L.M. pl. 53.) center spar, 31½″ further rearward than in 1903.

15 TRUSSING: The wing trussing TRUSSING: A different system wires were attached to the spars of wing trussing was used, and at the 5th, 7th and 9th ribs out the wing trussing wires were from the center (L.M. pl. 54.) attached to the spars at the The angles between these wires 3rd, 6th and 9th ribs from the and the spars to which they were center. The angles between attached are shown in Fig. 3. these wires and the spars to which they were attached were all different from those in the original Langley machine. (See Fig. 4.)

CONTROL SURFACES.

16 VANE RUDDER: A split vane VERTICAL RUDDER: The Langley composed of two surfaces united vane rudder was replaced by a at their leading edges and single plane vertical rudder separated 15″ at their trailing which measured 3′6″ × 5′, with edges, thus forming a wedge. aspect ratio of .7. Each surface measured 2′3″ × 4′6″, with aspect ratio .5. (L.M. p. 214, pls. 53, 54.)

17 Operated by means of a wheel Operated at Hammondsport through located slightly in front of the the Curtiss steering wheel in pilot at his right side and at some tests (Zahm affidavit pp. the height of his shoulder (L.M. 5, 6), through the Curtiss p. 216, pls. 53, 54.) shoulder yoke in some others (Manly letter, 1914), and fixed so as not to be operable at all in still others (Zahm affidavit p. 7).

18 Used for steering only. (L.M. Used “as a vertical aileron to p. 214.) control the lateral poise of the machine” (Zahm affidavit p. 6), as well as for steering (Zahm affidavit p. 7).

19 PENAUD TAIL: This was a TAIL RUDDER: Same size and dart-shaped tail having a construction as in 1903. vertical and a horizontal surface (Penaud tail), each measuring 95 sq. ft. It was located in the rear of the main frame.

20 Attached to a bracket Attached to same bracket at a extending below the main frame. point about 8″ higher than in 1903.

21 “Normally inactive,” (L.M. Operable about a transverse p. 216) but adjustable about a horizontal axis and connected transverse horizontal axis by to a regular Curtiss elevator means of a self-locking wheel control post directly in front located at the right side of the of the pilot (Zahm affidavit p. pilot, even with his back, and 5). at the height of his shoulder. (L.M. pls. 51, 53.)

22 Immovable about a vertical Immovable about a vertical axis. (L.M. p. 214, pl. 56, axis on May 28, 1914, only. Fig. 1.) No means were provided Thereafter it was made movable for adjusting this rudder about about a vertical axis and was a vertical axis in flight. connected through cables to a “Although it was necessary that Curtiss steering wheel mounted the large aerodrome should be on a Curtiss control post capable of being steered in a directly in front of the pilot. horizontal direction, it was felt to be unwise to give the Penaud tail and rudder motion in the horizontal plane in order to attain this end.” (L.M. p. 214.)

23 KEEL: A fixed vertical KEEL: Entirely omitted. surface underneath the main frame measuring 3′2″ in height by 6′ average length. Area 19 sq. ft. (L.M. pl. 53.)

SYSTEM OF CONTROL.

24 LATERAL STABILITY: The LATERAL STABILITY: Three means dihedral only was used for were used for securing lateral maintaining lateral balance. balance at Hammondsport: The (L.M. p. 45.) dihedral angle as used by Langley, a rudder which “serves as a vertical aileron” (Zahm affidavit p. 6), and the Penaud tail rudder. The last two constituted a system “identical in principle with that of Complainant’s [Wright] combined warping of the wings and the use of the vertical rudder.” (Zahm affidavit p. 6.)

25 LONGITUDINAL STABILITY: LONGITUDINAL STABILITY: At Langley relied upon the Penaud Hammondsport the Penaud inherent system of inherent stability for longitudinal stability was maintaining the longitudinal supplemented with an elevator equilibrium. “For the system of control. preservation of the equilibrium [longitudinal] of the aerodrome, though the aviator might assist by such slight movements as he was able to make in the limited space of the aviator’s car, the main reliance was upon the Penaud tail.” (L.M. p. 215.)

26 STEERING: Steering in the STEERING: On one day, May horizontal plane was done 28, 1914, steering in the entirely by the split-vane horizontal plane was done with steering rudder located the vertical rudder which underneath the main frame. (L.M. had been substituted for the p. 214.) original Langley split-vane steering rudder. After May 28th the steering was done by the vertical surface of the tail rudder (Zahm affidavit p. 7), which in 1903 was immovable about a vertical axis (L.M. p. 214.)

POWER PLANT.

27 MOTOR: Langley 5 cylinder MOTOR: Langley motor modified. radial.

28 IGNITION: Jump spark with dry IGNITION: Jump spark with cell batteries. (L.M. p. 262.) magneto.

29 CARBURETOR: Balzer carburetor CARBURETOR: Automobile type with consisting of a chamber filled float feed. with lumps of porous cellular wood saturated with gasoline. The air was drawn through this wood. There was no float feed. (L.M. p. 225.)

30 RADIATOR: Tubes with RADIATOR: Automobile radiator of radiating fins. honeycomb type.

31 PROPELLERS: Langley PROPELLERS: Langley propellers propellers (L.M. pl. 53, pp. modified “after fashion of early 178–182). Wright blades.”

LAUNCHING AND FLOATS.

32 LAUNCHING: Catapult mounted LAUNCHING: Hydroplanes, on a houseboat. developed 1909–1914, attached to the machine.

33 FLOATS: Five cylindrical FLOATS: Two wooden hydroplane tin floats, with conical ends, floats, mounted beneath and attached to underside of main about 6 feet to either side of frame at appropriate points, and the center of the machine at about six feet above lowest part the lateral extremities of the of machine. Pratt system of trussing used for bracing the wing spars of the forward wings; and one (part of the time two) tin cylindrical floats with conical ends, similar to but larger than the Langley floats, mounted at the center of the Pratt system of trussing used for bracing the rear wings. All of the floats were mounted from four to five feet lower than the floats of the original Langley, thus keeping the entire machine above the water.

WEIGHT.

34 TOTAL WEIGHT: With pilot, 850 TOTAL WEIGHT: With pilot, 1170 pounds (L.M. p. 256). pounds.

35 CENTER GRAVITY: ⅜″ above line CENTER GRAVITY: About one foot of thrust. below line of thrust.

Since I became Secretary, in 1928, I have made many efforts to compose the Smithsonian-Wright controversy, which I inherited. I will now, speaking for the Smithsonian Institution, make the following statement in an attempt to correct as far as now possible acts and assertions of former Smithsonian officials that may have been misleading or are held to be detrimental to the Wrights.

1. I sincerely regret that the Institution employed to make the tests of 1914 an agent who had been an unsuccessful defendant in patent litigation brought against him by the Wrights.

2. I sincerely regret that statements were repeatedly made by officers of the Institution that the Langley machine was flown in 1914 “with certain changes of the machine necessary to use pontoons,” without mentioning the other changes included in Dr. Wright’s list.

3. I point out that Assistant Secretary Rathbun was misinformed when he stated that the Langley machine “without modification” made “successful flights.”

4. I sincerely regret the public statement by officers of the Institution that “The tests” (of 1914) showed “that the late Secretary Langley had succeeded in building the first aeroplane capable of sustained free flight with a man.”

5. Leaving to experts to formulate the conclusions arising from the 1914 tests as a whole, in view of all the facts, I repeat in substance, but with amendments, what I have already published in Smithsonian Scientific Series, Vol. 12, 1932, page 227:

The flights of the Langley aerodrome at Hammondsport in 1914, having been made long after flying had become a common art, and with changes of the machine indicated by Dr. Wright’s comparison, as given above, did not warrant the statements published by the Smithsonian Institution that these tests proved that the large Langley machine of 1903 was capable of sustained flight carrying a man.

6. If the publication of this paper should clear the way for Dr. Wright to bring back to America the Kitty Hawk machine to which all the world awards first place, it will be a source of profound and enduring gratification to his countrymen everywhere. Should he decide to deposit the plane in the United States National Museum, it would be given the highest place of honor, which is its due.

Publication of this statement in the Smithsonian Annual Report presumably should mark the end of the long controversy.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Note that the two families spelled the same name differently.

[2] Owned years afterward by Orville Wright.

[3] First published in _Flying_.

[4] Orville had arranged the camera on a tripod pointing to where he hoped the machine would be after leaving the track. The negative was developed by Orville after his return to Dayton.

[5] The Wrights carried 70 pounds of iron bars in many of the flights of 1904-’05, and could fly with less power than if that load had not been carried. Here is the explanation: The center of gravity of their machine was so far back of the center of pressure on the wings that an air pressure of 70 pounds was required on the top side of the horizontal elevator in front, to make the center of lift and center of gravity coincide. Any downward pressure on the elevator, the brothers reasoned, regardless of whether produced by the air or by a weight, would have to be supported by the main planes. But if the downward pressure is obtained by use of the elevator, then two drags are created, one on the elevator itself, and the other on the wings, in consequence of carrying that extra pressure on the elevator. On the other hand, an equal downward pressure produced by a weight, carried at the same distance as the elevator in front of the wings, would add little to the drag on the elevator, because it would dispose of the necessity for a downward pressure on that part of the machine, and there would then be only the drag on the wings.

[6] All italics used in letters quoted in this chapter are supplied.

[7] Dienstbach was still a resident of New York in 1943.