the Smithsonian was purely nominal; that his other duties were such
that he did not have the time to give any real attention to questions
that have to be settled by the Institution’s Secretary.
A similar preference to stand aside was shown by others nominally in a
position to exercise authority over the acts of the Smithsonian. That
Institution has as its members the President of the United States, the
Vice President, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and members
of the President’s cabinet. Its Board of Regents is made up of the
Chief Justice, the Vice President, three members of the Senate, three
members of the House of Representatives, and six citizens appointed by
joint resolution of Congress. Any one of these members of the Board of
Regents could doubtless have forced an investigation of any reported
injustice committed by the Smithsonian. But all had other duties to
occupy their time and, like Chief Justice Taft, they were willing
to let the Secretary of the Smithsonian act as he saw fit. Thus the
Secretary of the Smithsonian, which administers several important
government bureaus besides the National Museum, could exercise great
influence. That is how it came about that the attempt to mislead the
public regarding the epochal achievements of the Wrights went so long
unchecked by official action. And as Orville Wright once said he had
discovered, “Silent truth cannot withstand error aided by continued
propaganda.”
After the exchange of letters with Chief Justice Taft, Orville Wright
still delayed sending the Kitty Hawk plane to England. There was
nothing impetuous about what he did. Not until early in 1928, or
fourteen years after the fraudulent tests at Hammondsport, with the
Smithsonian still showing no intention to correct its false record
of those flights, did he send the machine to the Science Museum at
South Kensington. The arrangement he made with the Science Museum
was that the plane should stay there for not less than five years,
and permanently unless brought back to the United States within his
lifetime.
Early in 1928, a bill was introduced in Congress to ascertain which
was the first heavier-than-air flying-machine. Shortly afterward the
Smithsonian adopted a resolution declaring that “to the Wrights belongs
the credit of making the first successful flight with a power-propelled
heavier-than-air machine carrying a man.”
That resolution was, of course, superfluous, for there had never been
any question, even by the Smithsonian, as to the first machine to
make a sustained flight. But the Smithsonian continued to claim for
Professor Langley credit for the _invention_ of the first machine
_capable_ of flight.
Dr. Charles G. Abbot became the Secretary and Director of the
Smithsonian Institution in 1928, succeeding Dr. Walcott, who had
died in 1927. Soon after he became the head of the Institution, Dr.
Abbot invited Orville Wright to go to lunch with him at the Carlton
Hotel in Washington. In the course of their talk Dr. Abbot expressed
the wish that they might come to an agreement by which the Kitty
Hawk plane could be returned to America and placed under the care
of the Smithsonian in the National Museum. Orville Wright said that
this could easily be done. All that he asked for, he said, was a
correction in the Smithsonian publications of the false and misleading
statements previously made in those publications. Dr. Abbot expressed
a willingness to do so, provided this could be accomplished without
injuring the reputation of his predecessor or the prestige of the
Institution.
But the painful fact was that the Smithsonian, however spotless its
previous reputation, had committed a reprehensible act, and its
reputation and prestige were bound to suffer when its guilt became
known. Having committed a serious offense, one or the other of two
courses were open to it: (1) to confess its guilt and make a full,
frank correction; or (2) to try to keep the misdeed concealed.
Unfortunately, the Institution adopted, at the beginning, the latter
course, evidently in the belief that its great prestige, acquired
through an honorable past, could crush any imputation against it.
Indeed, that course did prove successful up to the time Orville Wright
sent the Kitty Hawk plane abroad.
Dr. Abbot had not been responsible for the disgraceful situation he
inherited when he became Secretary of the Smithsonian and found himself
in the unenviable position of having to make an embarrassing decision.
But it seemed as if he could not quite muster the courage to break
away from the course the Institution had been following. Instead, he
at first tried to justify the Institution’s previous attitude, though
he did concede that it was not true that the Langley plane had been
flown at Hammondsport “without modification” as the Smithsonian had
published. There were “many differences,” he admitted. “Some of the
changes were favorable, some unfavorable, to success,” he declared.
“Just what effects, favorable or unfavorable, the sum total of these
changes produced can never be precisely known.” Orville Wright, on the
other hand, insisted that the “effects, favorable or unfavorable” could
easily be determined by experts if only the changes were made known to
them.
But Dr. Abbot still failed to publish the changes.
Since then Orville Wright more than once let the Smithsonian know what
he thought should be done to settle the controversy. In a letter he
sent to Dr. Abbot on December 23, 1933, he wrote:
The points involved in the straightening of the record are not
on matters of mere opinion. They are on matters of fact, which
at this time can be easily and definitely established. All that
I have demanded in the past has been that there be an impartial
investigation of the matters in controversy and that the record
then be made to agree with the facts.
The suggestion made by me in 1925, three years before the plane
left this country, that a committee be appointed to make an
impartial investigation and settle the controversy, received
from the Smithsonian no response. Nevertheless, I shall be
most happy now to join with you in the selection of such a
committee, with the understanding that the committee will
fully investigate the matters in controversy and will make a
full report of its findings.
In a letter a few weeks later, Dr. Abbot suggested that, if it were
agreeable to Orville Wright, he would ask three public officials each
to name an expert to serve on “an impartial committee” of three to
investigate and report on the experiments at Hammondsport in 1914,
and their bearing on the capacity of the Langley machine for flight
in 1903. But all three of the Government officials that he mentioned
were members of the Smithsonian. If the suggested plan had been
followed, presumably Dr. Abbot himself would have had the naming
of the investigating committee, for in organizations, such as the
Smithsonian, appointing of committees by members is usually referred
to the Secretary. (Chief Justice Taft, Chancellor of the Smithsonian,
had written that because he did not have the time, he let questions
regarding the Institution be settled by the Secretary.) It appeared
to Orville Wright that Dr. Abbot did not have too much confidence
in the findings of a committee, even if wholly appointed by the
Smithsonian, for Abbot specified just what questions the committee was
to investigate. And most of these were wholly irrelevant.
A little later, Orville Wright, in reply to a letter from Dr. Abbot,
made this suggestion: That the Smithsonian publish a paper presenting
a list of specifications in parallel columns of those features of
the Langley machine of 1903 and of the Hammondsport machine of 1914
in which there were differences, along with an introduction stating
that the Smithsonian now finds it was misled by the Zahm report of
1914; that through the Zahm report the Institution was led to believe
that the aeroplane tested at Hammondsport was “as nearly as possible
in its original condition”; that as a result of this misinformation
the Smithsonian had published erroneous statements from time to time
alleging that the original Langley machine, without modification, or
with only such modifications as were necessary for the addition of
floats, had been successfully flown at Hammondsport in 1914; that
it ask its readers to disregard all of its former statements and
expressions of opinion regarding the flights at Hammondsport in 1914,
because these were based upon misinformation as the accompanying list
of changes would show. (The accuracy of the list of changes was to be
settled before publication by the Smithsonian, Orville Wright and a
mediator.)
But the suggestion was not followed.
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.
[Illustration: Fig. 3. _LANGLEY WING TRUSSING 1903._
Fig. 4. _HAMMONDSPORT WING TRUSSING 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.