Mr. LOENING. Well, my opinion is that they are apparently successful for the work to which they are being put; they constitute a solution as of this date. Mr. SIROVICH. Have we anything in the United States that is comparable to that type? Mr. LOENING. Yes; I think we have. I should say today, in view of the Navy's flight yesterday to Hawaii of 127 men and 18 airplanes in formation flying, 2,400 miles, without a hitch, that we can be considered absolutely supreme in transoceanic aviation. Mr. SIROVICH. And they were all hydroplanes? Mr. LOENING. They were all flying boats with side floats. Mr. SIROVICH. One more question: I would like to get the benefit of your experience and of your extensive reading on this subject. Suppose there were a storm on the ocean where all those planes flew from San Francisco to Hawaii, and the water was pretty stormy, and seven or eight of them had to land or were compelled, for some mechanical reason or another, to land on the ocean, how long could they withstand the stormy sea? Mr. LOENING. Well, I should say that at present the Navy patrol type could stand on the sea for a good many hours. As a matter of fact, Commander Rogers Mr. SIROVICH. When you say "a good many hours," what do you mean—a few hours? Mr. LOENING. Oh, no; at least a day. Commander Rogers, as you know, was afloat for many days in his first flight to Hawaii, before he was rescued. The difficulty in general, in landing on the water, is not riding the sea, it is getting off again. That is the impracticable feature in making landings on the sea. I fully agree with Mr. Martin; I fully agree with his feeling that the rough water conditions over the Atlantic are the most important thing to be considered by naval architects and constructors and engineers in transoceanic flying. I concur in that entirely; he is quite right. Mr. SIROVICH. Have we perfected a patent or invention of a transoceanic hydroplane that would enable it to ascend, once it had to rest on stormy water? Mr. LOENING. A good deal of work is being done along that line, some by the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics on the application of boundary layer control, not only to the surface of the wing but also to the surface of the hull, in order to break the suction so that it can get up quicker. Mr. OLIVER. Would you agree that seaworthiness is an element of greater importance in transoceanic aircraft, with relation to the merchant-marine development, than it would be with relation to planes desired or used by the Navy, or the Army? Mr. LOENING. I think, as an engineer, I would place seaworthiness as one of the three or four major considerations, and I do not think, until you know what service they are going to run in, you could decide the first one. Mr. OLIVER. I am speaking of the merchant marine. Mr. LOENING. I am, too. The first is to carry the load to destination over the ocean; the second is to do so with some reasonable economy: the third is to do so with the best possible practice, which means ability to fight the weather, fog, rain, and so on, and, in addition to that, the ability to make emergency landings if they have to. I class them all equal. Mr. RAMSPECK. Are you familiar with the practices of the compares that are building flying boats! Mr. LOENING. Yes, sir. Mr. RAMSPeck. To what extent, if any, do they call into consultato strictly shipbuilding architects! Mr. LOENING. I think, as those boats are getting larger and larger, they are now beginning to do so; but I concur with Mr. Martin that there has been a considerable lack in the last 15 years or so of good naval architecture in the actual features of the overseas aircraft. I that in the last 3 or 4 years that is being rapidly changed, largely besa ise, as we have indicated in our report, there is a growing feeling that flying boats are becoming vessels, they are ships and, naturally, tend to attract the shipping mind and shipping engineers. Mr. RAMSPECK. When you say "naval architects," I presume you mean what I understood Mr. Martin to mean-architects who design Mr. LOENING. Architects who are familiar with conditions. Mr. RAMSPFOK. Not necessarily those who design naval vessels! Mr. LOENING. No, sir; architects familiar with overseas conditions, Artic and Pacific; anything that has to do with water conditions. Mr. SIROVICH. What would you say about this Sikorsky plane that same here 6 or 7 years ago and flew to South America; is that a hydroplane! Of course, that is an American plane, the Sikorskyť Mr LOENING. Yes, Mr. SIROVICH. Did that come from Europe and come to the Atlantic const and then go down to South America! Mr. LOENING. No. About 4 years ago there was a French boat that came across the Atlantic and, of course, at the time of the Chicago Fair, the Italians came across with their squadron of twinhell flying boats under General Balbo. Mr. SIROVICH. They were all hydroplanes? STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. KNOWLES, AERONAUTICAL ENGINEER, Mr. KNOWLES, My name is Thomas A. Knowles, I am an aeronautal engineer representing the American Zeppelin Transport Corporation. I quite appreciate that your interest is more the development of the American merchant marine and the procurement of the proper vesels and other equipment for the merchant marine, than it is the discussion of technical differences between types of craft, details about seaworthiness, and so on. I plan to steer clear of technical discussions and merely to say that the word "aircraft" as recommer ded by the Maritime Commission, includes both heavier than-ur and Ighter than air types of equipment. I recall that as Mr. Kenhey's interpretation in reply to a question asked him before this con mittee at the time he presented his statement. The recommendation of the Maritime Commission points out certain particular fields of utility for lighter-than air craft and, as far as our organization is concerned, we are quite ready to go before whatever technical agency Congress cares to set up for the adminis tration of any over-ocean service, to present the technical deta 1s there, and to make our technical argument at that time. The thought I wish to leave is that the use of the word "aircraft" will leave the field open for all persons to come in and bid and make their technical presentations at the proper time. The endirsement which Mr. Kennedy gave to airships, in the report, has been made by many other Federal agencies, including the Federal Aviation Commission, the President's Business Advisory Council, the Durand committee, and a list which I can supply for the record, if you would like to have it? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we would be very glad to have it. (The matter referred to is as follows:) TABULATION OF VARIOUS AIRSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS [FOREWORD. While this country is not now carrying out any clear-cut or definite policy with regard to the construction and operation of large rigid airships for military, naval, or commercial purposes, the lack of action cannot be attributed to the absence of recommendations on the subject. A number of the governmental recommendations on airships appear in the following list. These recommendations are the results of a number of independent investigations made during the past 5 years, and while changes in administrative policy in the meantime may now suggest alternative methods of carrying out these recommendations, the fundamental soundness of their unanimous finding remains unchallanged.] 1933-Joint committee to investigate dirigible disasters (the "Akron Committee").--"It is recommended that the Navy continue in the maintenance, development,, and operation of airships." 1934-United States Navy General Board.-The Chief of Naval Operations, with the approval of the Secretary of the Navy, in commenting on the subject of airships as dealt with in the report of the General Board, said: "It is believed that dirigibles built for commercial purposes would be as useful in time of war as those built expressly for naval purposes. It is therefore recommended that the recommendation of the General Board to cooperate with commercial interests in the development of commercial airships for overseas use be vigorously prosecuted * 1935-Federal Ariation Commission (Howell Board).-Basic recommendations on commercial-airship policy: "It should be the policy of the United States to undertake further construction and operation of rigid airships in naval and commercial service" (Recommendation No. 79, p. 197). "The early inauguration of an experimental trans-Atlantic airship service should be undertaken to meet the competition of the newest foreign ocean liners and of a projected foreign airship line. The initial step should be the construction by the Government, for charter or lease to a commercial operator, of a commercial airship and a commercial terminal, with necessary docking and handling facilities" (Recommendation No. 82, p. 201). The Federal Aviation Commission gave considerable study to the relationships which should exist between vessels operating on the surface of the ocean, and those aircraft which fly over the oceans, in our overseas commerce, and while the Maritime Commission is now discharging certain of those functions which were then being discharged by the Commerce Department, their sympathy with the Maritime analogy is clearly shown by the following extracts from their more detailed findings: "The analogy of foreign air transport with the merchant marine is obvious. We have suggested that it be given special attention, but the constant coordination of the two could hardly be escaped. We assume as desirable the closest harmony of purpose and of plan between the specific agencies in the Department of Commerce charged with developing the merchant marine, and those especially concerned with promoting the development of American-flag air transport outside our own borders. "The early inauguration of an experimental trans-Atlantic airship. service should be undertaken to meet the competition of the newest foreign ocean liners and of a projected foreign airship line. "The officials of the Department of Commerce have plainly had in mind, and those professionally or officially interested in the design and operation of surface vessels have indicated that they also have in mind, a close and natural connection between merchant marine and airship policies. The United States so far declined to build new liners of immense size and speed to compete scross the North Atlantic with the new vessels supported by the British, French, Gạch, th, and Itanan Governments. The result is that the American flag docs set Py today on any first class Vessel on the North Atlantic run, and the Navy ↑ Day whực là vessels to count on as auxiliary cruisers in time of war. wreed at sen is being pushed beyond the economical limit, and that part of the mil express, and passengers able to pay for extraordinary speed should go by The airship promises here an effective and economical answer to the • prsiap. Its cost is less and its vraie to commerce and to the Navy perhaps dot. engilvale nit The capacity of modern airships is wtfhelent to carry most of it fest class trans Atlantic mails und a substantial fraction of the first class Is tigers and express how paying high rates to travel on the fastest foreign American mirslijm oli trai » Alantic service wond be in competition with the new foreign liners, not with American vessels – Noch airship would, kowever, have foreign airship competition.”* "For nonstop trans Atlantic service, for example, the airship appears able to pement the service given by American steamships and to meet the compe *j* on, of foreign superliners offering its passengers great comfort and reasoni ཚུལ པi『r fa 195 The Durand Airship Committee Contestigation for the Navy). ja is the unatamous opinion of this committee that the best interests of the sales in which airships give promise of useful and effective service, both est marcial and naval, require a cor tinning program of construction and use.” Atal in pursuance of this opinion it is our recommendation that the Navy Ingvortment should continue with a positive carefully considered program of altstip construction * 1976 Bunners Advisory Council for the Department of Commerce as a course for immediate action we recommend that the national policy toword airships should be to undertake further construction and operation of ra d'airst.pw in commercial and naval service, and this policy should be immedi fely_p_blicized recognized and vigorously prosecuted " *1' at the I prtment of Con.merce which is now charged with shipping and a'r eommerce be also charged with the execution of the commercial phases of The above policy " 10" Renate invextination of air safely (Copeland comm:ffee) "Our own dhe herafiota on the matter and our studies of testimony and the record it dicate **it airship can be built safely and operated safely, and that they may be of to our world trade, to our commerce, and to oir national defense • Pending the detailed investigation and recommendation which the Merit me Commission has been so directed to make your cotatattee has not deemed it advisable to make specific or defalled recommet d'ition other than the above as to the appication of the Merchant Marine Act. 196 to airplanes or airships engaged in foreign commerce or as to other possible legislation in regard the reta" 147 United States Maritime Commission The pending amet dment to the Merchant Marine Act, 1966, is a direct result of the Maritime Commission a Tow on. The ndation which they made upon their conclusion of the studies ther were instructed to make under the 106 net The following extracts from the Maritime Commission, s “Ecotorne Sarvey of the Merchant Marine – November 20 1967 * wmmarize their findir ga "Ihe addition of aircraft to the fleets of shipping comrendes now seems to Just as sail gave way to steam so may the ste imship give wỦy arraft for fist express servic The ocean going flying boat or dirigible remly another vessel a much faster vessel and one that is likely to be cheaper to operate. Not to make use of this new kind of eq ipment may prove short sighted to express shipping computilem, “In view of the fact that afterift have a deffrite place in overseas trade, and in view of the further fact that there is a close relationship between ship12 and overwater fiving. It is reexmmended that respotisobi ity for the eco ven in de velopment of this new form, of transport be lodged in the Maritime Cor rai-slen ** In addition to the findings of the govert mental agencies listed above there are a Imber of additonal, er dorsements from recognized authorities on the bombers of the Shipping Board. Bureau of Air Commerce and the No total Advisory Committee for Acrotalfacs An airship program has also been endorsed by the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and as recently as January 9-12, 1938, the First National Aeronautic Planning Conference, recommended further construction and operation of rigid airships in naval and commercial service. Mr. KNOWLES. I did not want the committee to conclude its aircraft portions of the hearings without presenting myself and laying myself open to being asked any airship questions that you gentlemen care to ask, in order that your deliberations may have the full advantage of a discussion of this phase of the subject. Mr. SIROVICH. What would be the advantage of having Zeppelins in competition with heavier-than-air transoceanic hydroplanes? Mr. KNOWLES. Congressman Sirovich, I do not believe there is any true competition in the situation. We now have all types of surface vessels in parallel operation; we have the Baltimore Mail Line that offers a type of cheap passage at $100, and taking 10 days to cross; we have the cabin liner which takes 7 days, at $160 to $200, and we have the foreign de luxe superliners. The only competition I see in this thing is that we in aeronautics will be able to compete effectively with the Queen Mary and the superliner class of vessels, which this country has not seen its way clear to endorse. Mr. SIROVICH. In other words, if this is incorporated in the bill so that you can utilize dirigibles, then you would be competing against the lines like the Zeppelin and Hindenberg of Germany. Is that right? Mr. KNOWLES. That is it, exactly. The ambition of our company is to establish under the American flag, services using American ships and offering a type of service comparable to that rendered to Europe by the German Zeppelins. We think, perhaps, that these airship services would occupy a place somewhere between surface vessels and high-speed airplanes. At the present time, we feel we have the only type of aeronautical equipment which has shown itself to be ready to serve this nonstop field, but we are not so narrow-minded but that we can see the other types of equipment gradually being developed. The CHAIRMAN. And we have a monopoly of helium in this country. Mr. KNOWLES. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. What relation would that have to a thing of this kind? Mr. KNOWLES. Helium is very important to this country, because our monopoly of helium and the fact that we have these two enormous coast lines give the rigid airship a unique place in our nationaldefense program. The question is sometimes raised, "Why should we have airships when the other countries do not have them?" But the national-defense needs of other countries are entirely different from the national-defense needs of this country. Our situation suggests defensive and scouting missions, in which the scouting airship and the airplane-carrying airship are supreme. This situation backed up with the fact we have helium, which makes our airships noninflammable, gives us a second advantage, make airships even more valuable to the national defense of this country than they could possibly be to any other country, except, perhaps, Japan. The CHAIRMAN. If they had used helium, this tragic disaster to the Hindenberg would not have occurred? Mr. KNOWLES. That is correct. Mr. SIROVICH. Could a dirigible be utilized as a sort of floating cruiser in such a way that it could carry airplanes? |