Langley, mother laboratory to all the other NACA research centers, without providing the full interpretive history it deserves. David A. Anderton, Sixty Years of Aeronautical Research, NASA EP-145 (Washington: NASA, 1978) is a profusely illustrated summary of highlights in Langley's history. Michael David Keller, "From Kitty Hawk to Muroc: A History of the NACA Langley Laboratory, 1917-1947," NASA History Office HHM-15, 1969, is a well-researched and well-documented, but uncritical, narrative based on Keller's earlier "Fifty Years of Flight Research: A Chronology of the Langley Research Center, 1917-1966," NASA History Office HHN-65, 1966. Two old NACA hands made preliminary sketches of Langley histories: Milton Ames, "Report on the History of Langley Research Center, 1917-1967," NASA History Office HHM-25, 1972, and Hartley Soulé, "Outline History of Langley Research Center, 1915-1958," HHN-40, 1966. Edwin P. Hartman was for years the head of NACA's Western Coordination Office, and his reports on the west coast aircraft manufacturers are models of clarity and comprehension. His Adventures in Research: A History of Ames Research Center, 1940– 1965, NASA SP-4302 (Washington: NASA, 1970) is an insider's appreciative memoir, rich in detail, illustrations, anecdotes, and technical understanding. Its shortcomings in documentation and analysis will be redressed by Elizabeth A. Muenger's forthcoming history of Ames Research Center, 1940-1970. B. R. Luczak, "A Management and Procedural Analysis of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics," unpublished paper submitted to the Stanford University Graduate School of Business Administration, 1950, is strong in describing day-to-day workings of the Ames laboratory but falls far short of what its title promises. Joseph A. Shortal, A New Dimension: Wallops Island Flight Test Range: The First Fifteen Years, NASA Reference Publication 1028 (Washington: NASA, 1978) is an exhaustive catalog of technical activities at Wallops by one of the center's veteran engineers. No one has undertaken a history of Lewis laboratory, but John D. Holmfeld's unpublished manuscript, "The Site Selection for the NACA Engine Research Laboratory: A Meeting of Science and Politics" ([Cleveland,] 1967), is a useful introduction. NOTES CHAPTER 1 1. On the scientific accomplishments of the Wright Brothers, see George W. Lewis, "The Contributions of the Wright Brothers to Aeronautical Science and Engineering," U.S. Air Services, May 1938, pp. 13–15. For a succinct, informed, and candid account of the contributions of the Wrights and Langley, see Charles H. Gibbs-Smith, The Aeroplane: An Historical Survey of Its Origins and Development (London: Science Museum, 1960), pp. 26-28, 222-34. For an interpretation sympathetic to Langley, see J. Gordon Vaeth, Langley: Man of Science and Flight (New York: Ronald Press, 1966); the Wright version is in Fred C. Kelly, The Wright Brothers: A Biography Authorized by Orville Wright (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1943). 2. Gibbs-Smith, The Aeroplane, p. 59. The characterizations of Langley and the Wrights are from Mark Sullivan, Our Times, 1900-1925 (6 vols; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926-1935 [1971]), 1: 566, 568. 3. Walter T. Bonney, The Heritage of Kitty Hawk (New York: Norton, 1962), chap. 9. On the paucity of other aeronautical research in the United States, see Aeronautics: First Annual Report of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1915 (Washington: NACA, 1916), pp. 12-13. [Annual reports of the NACA will be cited hereafter in the form AR 1915.] 4. A. Lawrence Rotch, "Aerial Engineering," Aero Club of America Bulletin 1 (Aug. 1912): 10; Jerome C. Hunsaker, "Europe's Facilities for Aeronautical Research-I," Flying, Apr. 1914, pp. 75, 93, and "Europe's Facilities for Aeronautical Research-II," ibid., May 1914, pp. 108-09. 5. Aeronautics: Report of the Advisory Committee for Aeronautics for the Year 1909-1910 (London: HMSO, 1910), pp. 4-5. 6. Gibbs-Smith, The Aeroplane, pp. 59-81. 7. Announcement of the "First Annual Banquet of the Aeronautical Society," (1911). For a copy of this document and others relating to the navy's role in the early efforts to establish an aeronautical laboratory, I am indebted to Lee M. Pearson, who scoured the archives of the Naval Air Systems Command. 8. Jerome C. Hunsaker and Lester D. Gardner, "Background and Incorporation of the Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences," undated typescript, 8 pp., "the first chapter of a history of the I.A.S." Unless otherwise indicated, this document and all other unpublished materials cited in the notes are among the materials collected for the present study. They are retained in the NASA History Office Archives, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. See the bibliographic essay, pp. 305-320. 9. Chief, Bureau of Construction and Repair, to Secretary of the Navy, "Relative to Proposed Establishment of an Aeronautical Laboratory in Washington," 20 Apr. 1911. On the bureau politics within the navy that lay behind this dispute, see Lee M. Pearson, “The Role of the U.S. Navy in Establishing a National Aeronautical Research Agency," typescript of address before the History of Science Society, New York, 28 Dec. 1956. Hunsaker believed Pearson overstated the importance of interbureau competition and missed the significance of the scientific community; Hunsaker did, however, admit the plausibility of a basic tension between science and technology suggested by Pearson. Hunsaker to Pearson, 29 Nov. 1956. Hugh L. Dryden confirmed for Hunsaker at least part of Pearson's position, “that Naval officers played a predominant role in the Pre-NACA days and in its formation." Dryden to Hunsaker, 17 Aug. 1956. The argument about the similarity of aerodynamics and hydrodynamics had merit. One of the most important papers ever published in aerodynamics, Ludwig Prandtl's "Uber Flussigkeirsbewegung bei sehr pleiner Reibung," was based on research on the flow of water, not air. (Originally published in the Proceedings of the Third International Mathematical Congress, Heidelberg, 1904 [Leipzig: Teubner, 1905], the paper was republished by the NACA in 1928 as TM-452, "Motion of Fluids with Very Little Viscosity.") 10. Sec. of the navy to sec. of war, 18 May 1911, quoted in Bonney, "So Much, So Quietly unpublished draft of history of the NACA, n.d., p. 2d-13. 11. Archibald D. Turnbull and Clifford L. Lord, History of United States Naval Aviation (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1949), pp. 16-17. 12. A[lbert] F. Zahm, “On the Need for an Aeronautical Laboratory in America," Aero Club of America Bulletin, Feb. 1912, p. 35. 13. Zahm, "Uses of an Aeronautical Laboratory," ibid., Mar. 1912, p. 15. 14. Rotch, “Aerial Engineering," ibid., Aug. 1912, pp. 9-10. 15. Richard C. Maclaurin, “The Sore Need of Aviation," ibid., p. 7. 16. W. I[rving] Chambers, "Remarks on Some Developments in Aviation," ibid., May 1912, p. 28. 17. Chambers's "Report on Aviation" filled pp. 155-69 of the secretary's Annual Report. 18. Arthur S. Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era, 1910-1917, The New American Nation Series (New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1954), p. 22. 19. Meyer to the president, 16 Dec. 1912. The membership of the commission is given in Rudolph Forster to Meyer, 20 Dec. 1912: in addition to Woodward, Chambers, and Zahm, it consisted of Charles D. Walcott, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution; S. W. Stratton, director of the Bureau of Standards; William J. Humphreys of the Weather Bureau; James Allen and Samuel Reber of the army; David W. Taylor of the navy; M. B. Sellers of the Aeronautical Society; Henry A. Wise Wood of the Aero Club of America; Bion J. Arnold of the Aero Club, Chicago; W. F. Durand of Stanford University; Richard Maclaurin of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Charles M. Manly, Langley's pilot; Harold M. Sewall; Herbert Parsons; Frederick H. Smith; and Frank West Rollins. Biographical information on the members appears in Bonney, "So Much, So Quietly . . .," pp. 2d-25, 26. The government members were from institutions exactly parallel to those represented on the British Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, the National Bureau of Standards being the counterpart of the National Physical Laboratory and the Smithsonian representing the Royal Society of London. The National Academy of Sciences is perhaps more properly the counterpart of the Royal Society, but the Academy was moribund at the time and the Smithsonian was the real institutional head of American science. 20. Paul G. Dembling to John F. Victory, "Legislative Reasons for Section 9, 35 Stat. 1027 (of 4 March 1909)," 28 Nov. 1951. The pertinent section reads: That hereafter no part of the public moneys, or of any appropriation heretofore or hereafter made by Congress, shall be used for the payment of compensation or expenses of any commission, council, board, or other similar body, or any members thereof, or for expenses in connection with any work or the results of any work or action of any commission, council, board, or other similar body, unless the creation of the same shall be or shall have been authorized by law; nor shall there be employed by detail, hereafter or heretofore made, or otherwise [sic] personal services from any executive department or other government establishment in connection with any such commission, council, board, or other similar body. Walter Bonney believed that this law was additionally prompted by presidential commissions that too thoroughly investigated congressional misconduct. “So Much, So Quietly . . .,” pp. 2d-26. 21. The best account of the legislation concerning the Woodward commission and the laboratory it tried to establish is in Richard P. Hallion, “To Study the Problems of Flight: The Creation of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1911-1915," unpublished typescript, 1976, pp. 6–10. Even this admirable account, however, leaves some unanswered questions. The assistant secretary of the navy wrote to Chambers that "the bill has been passed by the Senate and assurance has been received that it will be passed by the House of Representatives on January 19, 1913.” (Beekman Winthrop to Chambers, 17 Jan. 1913.) The 17th was the day on which the House bill was reported out favorably by the Committee on Naval Affairs, but the day before the Senate voted on its bill. (House Committee on Naval Affairs, Aerodynamical Laboratory, 62d Cong., 3d sess. (hereafter 62/3), 1913, H. Rept. 1343; and Congressional Record, 62/3, 1913, vol. 49, pt. 2: 1258, 1396, 1479, 1481, 1695, 1725, 1786.) The Senate bill was not, as Dr. Hallion states, introduced by Representative Hobson on 20 Jan.; rather, it was referred on that date by the Senate to the House Committee on Appropriations. What was to become the House version of the bill was introduced by Hobson on 13 Jan. and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. This seems to have been the rub, for Representative Mann later objected to this bill because it had come through the Committee on Naval Affairs; apparently he wanted it to come by normal channels from the Senate through the House Appropriations Committee. (U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, 62/3, 1913, 49, pt. 3: 2507-09.) In any event, the bill failed of passage in the House on 19 Jan., despite Winthrop's optimism. Still, his opinion that "Congressional sentiment favors an early report from the Commission" no doubt influenced Chambers's recommendation that meetings begin even without congressional sanction. 22. "Digest of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Aerodynamical Laboratory Commission," apparently prepared by Zahm shortly after the last meeting on 5 Feb.; report of the drafting subcommittee to Chairman Woodward, 24 Jan., 5 pp., unsigned copy, typescript with handwritten changes. 23. Taylor reported these events to William F. Durand in a letter of 8 Feb. 1913. 24. See n. 51. 25. Taylor to Durand, 13 Feb. 1913. 26. Maclaurin to Senator W. Murray Crane, 14 Feb. 1913. See also n. 15. 27. Taylor to Durand, 8 Feb. 1913. 28. Hallion, “To Study the Problems of Flight,” p. 8; U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, 62/3, 1913, 49, pt. 3: 2682, 2763. 29. Draft, "Report of the Aerodynamical Laboratory Commission," 12 Feb. 1913. 30. Bonney, "So Much, So Quietly . . .,” pp. 2d-31 through 33. 31. Army and Navy Register (22 Feb. 1913), p. 235. 32. U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, 62/3, 1913, 49, pt. 3: 2507-09. 33. Aerial Age, Mar. 1913. p. 5. 34. Taylor to Durand, 8 Feb. 1913. 35. Meyer to Senator George Peabody Wetmore, 11 Feb. 1913; asst. secy. of war to chairman, Senate Committee on the Library, 12 Feb. 1913; Charles D. Walcott to Wetmore, 12 Feb. 1913; Maclaurin to Wetmore, 27 Feb. 1913. 36. Hallion, "To Study the Problems of Flight," p. 9; U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, 63/1, 1913, 50, pt. 2: 81, 89, 194. See also Alexander Graham Bell, “Home Notes" for 20 Feb. 1913, 5 pp., handwritten ms. Bell here records an interview with Chambers in which the latter enlisted his support in getting the rider attached to the Sundry Civil Bill. Bell noted that he and other regents of the Smithsonian were reluctant to request funds of Congress. Without the endorsement of all the regents who were members of Congress (which Chambers did not have) there was little likelihood of passage. 37. Ellis L. Yochelson, “Charles Doolittle Walcott, 1850-1927: A Biographical Memoir,” National Academy of Sciences Biographical Memoirs, vol. 39 (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1967), pp. 471-540. A. Hunter Dupree says Walcott was chosen by his predecessor as chief of the Geological Survey because he was the "assistant with the hardiest exterior for political abuse." Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities to 1940 (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1957), p. 217. 38. This account of the circumstances leading up to the reopening of the Langley laboratory derives largely from "Advisory Committee on the Langley Aerodynamical Laboratory," Smithsonian pub. 2222 (Washington, 17 July 1913), Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 1-5. The latter report was apparently prepared by Albert Zahm, recorder of the Advisory Committee of the Langley Aerodynamical Laboratory. The actual mechanism used was that Walcott proposed the laboratory to the Smithsonian Board of Regents at its regular meeting on 13 Feb. 1913. The board then appointed a committee consisting of George Gray, Alexander Graham Bell, and John Dalzell to study the proposal and consider using part of the Smithsonian's Hodgkins Fund. The committee reported to the board at a special meeting on 1 May, where its recommendations were approved and in fact enlarged upon. 39. Walcott to Wilson, 8 May, and Wilson to Walcott, 9 May 1913, both reprinted in the “Minutes of First Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Langley Aerodynamical Laboratory,” 23 May 1913. 40. The term Bureau of Aeronautics appeared in the original Board of Regents authorization, but not in the official publication "Advisory Committee on the Langley Aerodynamical Laboratory," which appeared the following summer. Still, even that formal document stated that the Board of Regents had authorized the secretary “to add, as means are provided, other laboratories and agencies; [and] to group them into a bureau organization." 41. The army and navy each requested two chairs on the committee, because "of the magnitude of their aeronautical interests." The resulting composition was Chambers and Naval Constructor H.C. Richardson from the navy, Brig. Gen. George P. Scriven and Maj. Edgar Russel from the army, Stratton from NBS, W.J. Humphreys of the Weather Bureau, Walcott, and four members at large: Glenn H. Curtiss, John Hays Hammond, Orville Wright, and Zahm. At the time, Zahm was attached to the Smithsonian Institution; the other three were from private life. Cornelius Vanderbilt and Harold F. McCormick had declined to serve. "Minutes of First Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Langley Aerodynamical Laboratory, May 23, 1913." 42. Subcommittees on the following topics were organized and chairmen appointed: 1. Collection and correlation of aeronautical information (Zahm) 2. Publication and dissemination of aeronautical information (Zahm) 3. Aeronautical meteorology (Humphreys) 4. 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 and determination of aeronautical constants (Stratton) 5. Hydro-mechanic experiments in relation to aeronautics (Richardson) 6. Naval air craft (sic) design (Chambers) 7. Military air craft design (Russel) 8. Field experiments with naval air craft (Chambers) 9. Field experiments with military air craft (Scriven) 10. Air craft communication (John Hays Hammond) 12. Laboratory buildings and equipment (Walcott) 14. Natural flight (No chairman) 15. Mathematical principles of aeronautics (No chairman) (“Minutes," pp. 9-10.) At the second meeting, in June, the titles of committees 6, 7, and 11 were altered slightly and a committee on applied aerodynamics (Zahm) was added. Note the similarity of this committee structure to that of the early NACA, as set forth in appendix B. 43. In Apr. 1913 Richard C. Maclaurin of MIT had asked the secretary of the navy to detail Junior Naval Constructor Jerome C. Hunsaker to MIT for three years to prepare a course of instruction and conduct research in aeronautics. Chambers, who was privy to this request, recommended approval, in spite of his earlier disagreement with Maclaurin on the Woodward commission and his continuing suspicion that Maclaurin was engaged in empire-building in Cambridge. When the proposal was approved in June, Maclaurin asked further that Hunsaker be sent to Europe that summer so that he could bring to his post in the fall an upto-date familiarity with the best aeronautical research and instruction going on there. Chambers brought this plan to Walcott's attention, and they decided to send Zahm as well, perhaps so that MIT would not get an undue advantage over the advisory committee in currency and expertise. Maclaurin to sec. of the navy, 22 Apr. 1913; 2d endorsement by Chambers, 6 May 1913; Josephus Daniels to Mac Lauren [sic], 12 June 1913; Maclaurin to Daniels, 14 June 1913; Hallion, "To Study the Problems of Flight," p. 13. Both published reports of their trip: Zahm, “Report of European Aeronautical Laboratories," 27 July 1914, reprinted in Zahm, Aeronautical Papers (2 vols.; Notre Dame, Ind.: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1950), 1: 319-42; and Hunsaker, "Europe's Facilities for Aeronautical Research." 44. Hallion, "To Study the Problems of Flight," pp. 14-15. 45. House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee in Charge of the Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill of 1915, hearings, 63d Cong., 2d sess., 1914, pp. 419-29. (Congress and session will hereafter be cited in the form 63/2.) 46. Walcott to George E. Downey, 16 Mar. 1914; Downey to Walcott, 17 Mar. 1914. 47. This was the real beginning of what came to be called the Wright-Langley controversy, though-as Orville Wright wrote to Smithsonian Sec. Charles G. Abbot on 28 Sept. 1928-it was really "a 'Walcott-Wright' or a 'Smithsonian-Wright' but not a 'Langley-Wright' controversy." (See note 1.) With his accustomed brevity and clarity, Hunsaker summarized the con |