« PreviousContinue »
be to operate the Los Angeles, perhaps at Lakehurst, or wherever the Navy might desire in a conservative way to do actual experimental flight work with her.
Representative DELANEY. The Naval Affairs Committee of the House decided that we could not afford, and it was suggested that we lay the Los Angeles up for a period of time. Now, could you suggest probable folks who might, private enterprise who might be interested in taking the Los Angeles up for the purpose of making experiments on her without any cost to the Government.
Mr. GUGGENHEIM. Well, I cannot see much percentage in any commercial organization doing that. If you can get someone to do it, I should applaud it.
Representative DELANEY. Not even as a patriotic duty?
Mr. GUGGENHEIM. Well, I think patriotism today, unfortunately, clashes with pocketbooks.
Representative DELANEY. I will let counsel proceed.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Delaney assumed just now, as I understood him, that the dirigible could fly eight or nine thousand miles. My recollection is that when the Akron, which was, and as she has been called, "The Queen of the Skies” by those who promoted it, went to San Diego, she ran short of fuel; when she reached San Diego, the gasoline tanks were only one-sixth full and were running low. If that were true, if it had difficulty, or rather lost the greater part of its fuel in crossing the country, there is not much evidence of its capacity to fly eight or ten thousand miles, is there?
Mr. GUGGENHEIM. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the data, the actual performance data of dirigibles, I think we have gone far enough today in the art to be able to accurately say just how far it will go in adverse weather conditions. Now, if you want to figure on 30-,
or 40-, or 50-mile head winds, you can accurately say you can accept the engineer's data on performance today. Perhaps some operations will interfere with it. You may run into unusual conditions; you may have a disaster with a particular ship, but I do think we have gone far enough ahead in the art to be able to predict performance data accurately..
The CHAIRMAN. That is, assuming of course, fair weather.
Mr. GUGGENHEIM. No, assuming 30- or 40-mile head winds, whatever you want to assune. If the ship normally will cruise at 60 miles an hour or 70 miles an hour, if you want to assume a head wind of 30, all the way, you have to cut yourself down to 30 or 40 miles an hour.
The CHAIRMAN. There is evidence before the committee than more than 40 percent of the ships that were built by Germany were lost by storms. While they are getting that, the fact is now that of all the dirigibles that have been constructed, there are only two, aside from the Macon, so far as you know that are available for flight; one is the Graf Zeppelin, and the one which is decommissioned, the Los Angeles; is that your information?
Mr. GUGGENHEIM. That is to my knowledge, those are the only ships that are in commission. Now, there may be some more. Of course there are a great many small dirigibles, I think. Well, I have seen two or three hovering about Habana, Cuba, in the last few years, and I saw one the other day in New York.
The CHAIRMAN. Did you know that nearly all of those small ones that have been built by the Goodyear Co. have been destroyed by storms and otherwise?
Mr. GUGGENHEIM. I did not know that.
The CHAIRMAN. And only one operating now out of the entire number constructed by the Goodyear Co.
Mr. GUGGENHEIM. Í have no information on that.
Representative DELANEY. I think, Mr. Chairman, the testimony yesterday showed that there were quite a number of these blimps still operating in different parts of the country, and that the only accident which happened on Long Island, resulting in the death of a pilot, if I am not mistaken in my information
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I do not want to be in disharmony with my colleague, but the evidence before the committee is quite the reverse. Representative DELANEY. Well, I may be wrong.
. The CHAIRMAN. As I understood you, the heavier-than-air craft has the best possibilities.
Mr. GUGGENHEIM. That is my opinion.
The CHAIRMAN. And that is in the light of the achievement of the Akron and the achievement of the Roma and the Dixmude and the British ships which were all destroyed.
Mr. GUGGENHEIM. No; it is not in the light of that, but in the light of general background and knowledge that I have got, I still believe as I did 5 years ago, before the destruction of these ships, that heavierthan-air have the greater possibilities.
The CHAIRMAN. It is based on practical results, as well as your study and your theoretical knowledge of the subject of aeronautics, is not that true?
Mr. GUGGENHEIM. That is true, but I would not want to stop there. I believe it would be a great mistake not to--even though heavier-than-air craft has the greater possibilities—not to take advantage of the lesser possibilities in the lighter than air.
The CHAIRMAN. When Colonel Lindbergh made the Paris flight to which you refer, the heavier-than-air craft had not reached the degree of perfection which has since been attained?
Mr. GUGGENHEIM. No; it had not. It was due to that flight that it was able to reach that degree and arouse public enthusiasm.
The CHAIRMAN. And your father, Daniel Guggenheim, in order to get us a little more air minded, established the Guggenheim foundation in order to promote the study of aeronautics?
Mr. GUGGENHEIM. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. That was a very worthy purpose; I commend him and those who succeed him, who are carrying on.
Mr. GUGGENHEIM. I thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all. Thank you very much, Mr. Guggenheim.
TESTIMONY OF COL. CHARLES A. LINDBERGH The CHAIRMAX. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in the matter on hand to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Colonel LINDBERGH. I do.
Colonel BRECKINRIDGE. Colonel, will you please state your name, your rank, and your address.
Colonel LINDBERGH. Col. Charles A. Lindbergh, Reserve Corps, Hunterdon County, N.J.
Colonel BRECKINRIDGE. Colonel Lindbergh, have you any financial interest in any company that has to do with lighter-than-airships?
Colonel LINDBERGH. I have not.
Colonel BRECKINRIDGE. This committee, Colonel Lindbergh, is charged with the duty of making recommendations to the Congress for future policy as to airships. Will you please give the committee your recommendations?
Colonel LINDBERGH. I feel that it would be a mistake to stop the development of lighter-than-air at this time. Both heavier-than-air and lighter-than-air development is comparatively new, and I do not believe that we can expect, in a single generation, possibly in two or three generations, to be able to decide whether either one is impracticable or which one will eventually be most advantageous. Certainly today it is conservative to say that the major portion of probable development lies ahead in each field, and in saying that I bear in mind that there have been, I understand, only a few over one hundred units built in lighter-than-air. I do not know how many thousands or tens of thousands airplanes have been built since 1903, but the opportunity for development of heavier-than-air has been almost incomparably greater than it has been in lighter-than-air, if for no other reason than the number of units which can be built and have been built.
It seems that we cannot expect to reach the maximum development in dirigibles, particularly, or in airplanes, in the period of twenty-five or thirty years. I think most of us are more interested in aviation and its possibilities in relation to business and life in general than we are in whether it can be carried on best with airplanes or airships, and while there is definitely a question in regard to which one is superior, or whether or not there is room for both, in a logical operation, as long as there is that question, I think that we are justified and should carry on development of both fields. To stop today developing lighter-than-air, after the amount of money and effort and the number of lives that have been spent and lost, to my mind, would be a great mistake. I have complete confidence in the future of aviation. Personally, I have been more interested in the development of heavier-than-air, but I do not believe that we can say today that lighter-than-air has not a definite place in the industry.
Colonel BRECKINRIDGE. I have no questions to ask.
Representative DELANEY. Colonel, you just spoke about the casualties in the lighter-than-air and also in the heavier-than-air. You have a very definite idea about what they are, as far as the figures are concerned.
Colonel LINDBERGH. Yes, sir.
Representative DELANEY. I would like to place in the record the number of marine casualties from 1912 to 1931, based on the records supplied the committee, and they amount to 10,716, indicating that there is also a great loss of life outside of the heavier-than-air and lighter-than-air machines.
Representative McSWAIN. You might add to that the casualties from automobile fatalities, from automobile collisions and crashes; I think there were 32,000 for the last year only—32,000 deaths in America.
Senator Duffy. Do you think there is anything inherently connected with the area in the air or the space in the air that a dirigible would occupy in war time that would make it quite impossible to defend it? Assume that the target is large; is there anything in that for scouting purposes that would make it impracticable to work out as a unit of the Navy or in connection with the Navy's operations?
Colonel LINDBERGH. I do not know of any experience we have today that would indicate the impracticability of lighter-than-air for military purposes. And I believe that that is a tactical problem and that under tactical operations there should be a very definite field for it, and I think primarily in defense operations.
Senator Duffy. In your opinion, would the advance that has been made, whereby these dirigibles can carry 4 or 5 airplanes that might be used in its defense, be a development that would add to its practicability as a unit of defense?
Colonel LINDBERGH. Of course, I am speaking here without experience in naval operations. But I believe that the carrying of airpianes in dirigibles makes possible the observation of a much larger area and at a lower cost than can be done in any other way. And I know of no reason why that is not a very practical use for dirigibles from a military standpoint. So far as safety is concerned, I have no question in mind as to the eventual safety of the lighter-than-air. I think that is a problem of the structure and operation, similar to the period we went through in the heavier-than-air in the pre-war period. I have entire confidence that from the standpoint of safety the dirigible can be developed satisfactorily.
Senator Duffy. It has been stated that those interested in heavierthan-air have a prejudice against lighter-than-air. Apparently you do not have. I wonder if, in your opinion, there is any such general feeling among those who are greatly interested in heavier-than-air.
Colonel LINDBERGH. I believe that most of us—and here I speak along commercial lines-have confidence in the ability of heavierthan-air to compete with the lighter-than-air from a commercial standpoint and along commercial lines. I believe it would be very unfair to take the stand that heavier-than-air will definitely be able to compete with lighter-than-air on any commercial route. Personally I believe that as time goes on that on commercial routes the advantage will lie with heavier-than-air. But from a business standpoint, and with an interest in aviation rather than any particular phase as a prime motive, I think that it is advantageous to develop both fields, until at least we are able to say definitely, for instance, that on trans-oceanic routes the airplane is superior or inferior to the airship.
The CHAIRMAN. For commercial purposes?
The CHAIRMAN. However, your view is that heavier-than-air will prove superior?
Colonel LINDBERGH. My experience has been in heavier-than-air. I speak from the heavier-than-air standpoint. I believe the airplane can compete satisfactorily with the dirigible on any commercial route. But there is very definitely a question there that is reasonable for the lighter-than-air people to bring up.
Representative DELANEY. Of course, you know the committee has been formed for the purpose of investigating the recent disaster to the Akron. Have you formed any concrete opinion as to what caused the accident on the night or on the morning of April 4?
Colonel LINDBERGH. I do not have sufficient background or experience in relation to the Akron to form that opinion, except that in general my personal feeling is that it has been and is a mistake to discourage specialization in services.
Representative DELANEY. We had a very exhaustive examination yesterday of several witnesses along that line. And this committee has gone into that question very thoroughly and we have endeavored in a manner to try to impress upon the Navy people that we thought it was quite wrong to continue the method of rotation. In other words, we feel that a man should be kept in a place where he might master all of the details of the lighter-than-air craft, such as you have confined yourself. And you have not started to experiment with the lighter-than-air yet, have you? Although you feel that it is safe enough, you want to stick to the primary course and stay right on in the heavier-than-air operations?
Colonel LINDBERGH. That is correct.
Representative DELANEY. But you do believe that we should have a man remain in the spot where he is going to become absolutely familiar with every detail of the management of the lighter-than-air ship and not be transferred to sea to sea duty and break up that continuity?
Colonel LINDBERGH. I do. I feel that if that is not done it will definitely increase the percentage of accidents we will have.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask a question or two. Colonel, you are familar with the fact, are you not, that out of all of the airships which have been built, that there are only two that survive? I mean the lighter-than-air ships.
Colonel LINDBERGH. No, sir; I am not.
Colonel LINDBERGH. My understanding is that in the German operation prior to the war and after the war, that is, the German passenger operation, there were no passengers lost. That is my understanding—but not through personal investigation.
The CHAIRMAN. When I said "survive", I meant at the present time.
Colonel LINDBERGH. That is entirely possible, because I believe that since the war there have been only 8 or 9 dirigibles built-2 in England, 2 in this country, several in Germany. And a number of those have been experimental. I believe the 2 in England, for instance, were the first of that size that had been built. We certainly have built a small number of units here. It is not at all surprising to find a large number of accidents in the initial stages of development of anything as new as lighter-than-air transportation.
The CHAIRMAN. I am not inquiring as to whether or not it is to be reasonably expected, but I am just asking as to the concrete fact. Is it not a fact that all of the ships that Germany constructed during the war, the hundred, were either destroyed by storms or were shot down or met with some casualty ?
Colonel LINDBERGH. Not so far as I know. That is something I cannot answer definitely.
The CHAIRMAN. You have no information about that?