Representative ANDREW. With what implements would the planes destroy the airship?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Attacking planes would destroy the airship with bombs, and would be able to destroy personnel by machinegun fire.

Representative DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, so far all of the witnesses who have appeared for us have seemed to be protagonists of the lighter-than-air machine. I think it would be very restful for the committee if we were to hear somebody who has some opposition to this form of travel or warfare implement. Now, Congressman Boland, of Pennsylvania, desires to be heard, as does Congressman Fish, of New York, who seems to have the impression that sabotage was committed on this Akron, and might have a bearing upon the subsequent destruction of the ship, and I would like to ask the chairman of the committee permission if I might telephone these gentlemen to come over here and sandwich them in between the witnesses who are for and against.

The CHAIRMAN. It is entirely agreeable to the chairman, but I would not want to disturb the continuity of the program outlined by our counsel without his consent, and I would like to cross-examine this witness a little.

Colonel BRECKINRIDGE. It would not disturb the continuity, so far as I am concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you much more to ask this witness?
Colonel BRECKINRIDGE. No, sir.

Representative DELANEY. I do not mean right now; I meant to ask them over and be prepared to take their testimony.

Colonel BRECKINRIDGE. So far as counsel is concerned, we will be through with Lieutenant Harrigan in a few minutes. You can then call either of the Congressmen.

Representative DELANEY. All right.

Colonel BRECKINRIDGE. This committee, Lieutenant, is called upon to make recommendations as to what should be the future policy as to airships. What is your view on what should be the Government's future policy toward airships?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. In the light of my limited experience, I feel we are justified in continuing this field of endeavor.

Colonel BRECKINRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, you may cross-examine. The CHAIRMAN. What experience have you had in operating airships?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Well, I have had no experience in command of airships. Does that answer your question, sir?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. What contacts have you had with airships? Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Mostly as the head of a department on an airship, as the senior aviator of the airplane unit. I also was a student naval aviator for a period of approximately one year, and during that time I took the regular lighter-than-air training.

The CHAIRMAN. How many airships have you been on?
Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Two; the Los Angeles and the Akron.

The CHAIRMAN. The Akron was destroyed and the Los Angeles is tied up.

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. The Los Angeles is tied up.

The CHAIRMAN. Destroyed, practically, is it not?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. No, sir; it is an excellent training ship as

it was previously.

The CHAIRMAN. An excellent training ship?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the purpose for which it was used?
Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What are its dimensions?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. She was 685 feet.

The CHAIRMAN. It used helium?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is the Los Angeles now?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. She is in the hangar at Lakehurst.
The CHAIRMAN. It is deflated?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. It is partially deflated; yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN Was the helium wasted in the deflation?
Lieutenant HARRIGAN. It was not; no, sir, it was returned to the
storage tanks and purified.

The CHAIRMAN. The only purpose for which it is available or useful, in your view, is that of a training ship?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It would not do for scouting?
Lieutenant HARRIGAN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Why?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Because of its limited range, and because of the fact that it has no compartments for airplanes, because of the fact that it is probably not good for more than 1 or 2 more years of operation.

The CHAIRMAN. I take it from your answer then, that the primary purpose of an airship is to carry the airplanes?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. I would say that the primary purpose of an airship to be used as a naval scout would be to carry some instrument that would increase the scouting area; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you not answer that yes or no?

mary purpose of the airship is to carry airplanes. Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Of a naval airship; yes, sir.

The pri

The CHAIRMAN. I am speaking of the naval airship; that has been the only kind we have been talking about.

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And the Los Angeles was not built for the purpose of carrying airplanes?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. It was not; no, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And therefore it has no utility, then, as a weapon of offense or defense in naval warfare.

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. I would say not.

The CHAIRMAN. Then I come back to the question: The primary purpose of an airship is to carry airplanes, and when it does not carry airplanes it has no utility as an instrument in war?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. I agree with that; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Was the Los Angeles acquired by the Navy Department?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. It was; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Acquired theoretically, at least, for the purpose of being an aid in naval warfare?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. No, sir; the Los Angeles was acquired as a training ship and as an experimental ship in 1924.

The CHAIRMAN. Experimental-what do you mean by that? Lieutenant HARRIGAN. As a ship for the development of aircraft instruments, airship instruments, and the development of flight practice, and the training of airship personnel.

The CHAIRMAN. Who constructed the Los Angeles?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. That ship was constructed in Friedrichshafen by the Germans.

The CHAIRMAN. Who constructed the Roma?
Lieutenant HARRIGAN. I cannot answer that.

The CHAIRMAN. Or the Dixmude?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. I would say the French.

The CHAIRMAN. Who have constructed airships in the United States, other than the Akron contractors?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. The Shenandoah was fabricated at the Naval Aircraft Factory and assembled at Lakehurst.

The CHAIRMAN. What became of the Shenandoah?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. She was lost in 1924.

The CHAIRMAN. Where?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. In Ohio, in the early fall of 1924.

The CHAIRMAN. She broke in two, did she not?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. I understand so.

The CHAIRMAN. There was some gust, was there not, some wind, and she was buffeted around by the wind?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. And broke in two.

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the loss of life there?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Fourteen, I think.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the cost of the Shenandoah? If you know.

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. No, sir; I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. Was the pattern something like the machine we have before us?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. The design was.

The CHAIRMAN. Strike that question. Was the design substantially the same as the Akron and Macon?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. No, sir; it was quite different in that there was only one main longitudinal keel as compared with three on the Akron and Macon.

The CHAIRMAN. It had helium?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Yes, sir; it did.

The CHAIRMAN. Did it have the same or substantially the same power?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Approximately the same power; it had three engines less.

The CHAIRMAN. Three engines less?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Yes, three engines less; that would be approximately 1,500 horsepower.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you make any investigation, any research or study with a view to determining the cause of that disaster?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. I have read the report, portions of the report of the investigation of the loss of that ship; that occurred, certainly, before the time of my association with lighter-than-air.

The CHAIRMAN. Without desiring hearsay evidence, but in a general way, the record showed structural defects, did it not, or did it? Lieutenant HARRIGAN. I am convinced the ship did not strike the ground and break up at that time; I do not know, sir, enough about it to answer that question.

The CHAIRMAN. Were not the published reports clearly indicative of the fact that it broke in two in the air before it struck the ground? Lieutenant HARRIGAN. I cannot answer that.

Representative DELANEY. I think, Mr. Chairman, if you have read the report of Commander Wiley, he indicates in that, or he states in that that both the bow and stern were up at one time, indicating that the ship had in some way broken in the center.

The CHAIRMAN. That was my recollection. I read the report at the time, and that is my recollection.

Representative DELANEY. I am speaking now of the Akron, not of the Shenandoah.

The CHAIRMAN. I beg your pardon, I was speaking of the Shenandoah.

Representative DELANEY. I am referring to this fact now, to have it appear in the record, as compared with the statement you made regarding the Shenendoah, as having buckled in the center. Commander Wiley did say in his statement that he saw the stern and bow both in the air at one time.

The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking of the Akron?

Representative DELANEY. Yes, sir; I am speaking of the Akron. The CHAIRMAN. That would indicate a buckling in the center. Did he make any statement-I was compelled to be absent in the Senate on that impeachment case-did he make any statement as to the cause of this buckling?

Representative DELANEY. No, he did not; I do not believe.

The CHAIRMAN. The weather must be propitious before one of those huge airships may launch; is not that true?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. The wind velocity must be comparatively low before the ship can be taken from a hangar, and there should be assurances that the ship will not have to pass through severe squalls. The CHAIRMAN. Then, that is one of the obstacles to its utilization; that is to say, it can only be launched where the weather is propitious. Lieutenant HARRIGAN. I think that is true of every craft as well. The CHAIRMAN. Is that true of the airplanes?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. I would say so; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to influence a comparison, but do you not recall that when a large number of airplanes, sent by the Army, crossed the continent, and they were tied up there in Montana, because the weather to them, they said, was unpropitious, and yet the mail carriers went through storm and wind without any suspension of their activities whatever?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Well, a mail plane operating alone has a considerable advantage over a squadron and group of planes which must fly in close proximity to each other, and if the pilot of a mail plane has knowledge that he has decent weather conditions or fair weather conditions in the vicinity of his destination, he is justified in going through and flying by his instruments, whereas the leader of a squadron would not be justified to take a squadron through unfavorable weather.

176296-33

The CHAIRMAN. I got the impression from your testimony, and if I am wrong I want you to correct me, that you were rather favorable to the airship, because it had advantages in bad weather over the airplanes, and you indicated that you did not know whether your airplanes ought to have gone up from Lakehurst on the fatal day; did you mean to convey that idea?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. I meant to convey that idea to this extent, that under normal operating conditions, we would not have sent planes, say, to Philadelphia, in that weather condition; the ceiling, maximum ceiling, was between 800 and 1,000 feet; there is no reason why it could not have been done if there was any necessity.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it on account of the fog or wind?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. On account of the low visibility; account of the low ceilings.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not mean to say that planes may not fly where an airship would not be only vulnerable, but its destruction would be inevitable?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. I think there are times when an airplane is justified in landing.

The CHAIRMAN. I am speaking of starting.

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. That would depend entirely on the gravity of the mission; if a plane had sufficient latitude to take off and gain say 800 to 1,000 feet, it would have, it would be justified in attempting flight, if it were a grave mission; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The point I am trying to make is that the plane has advantages in starting off in the face of storms or low visibility that an airship would lack; is not that true?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. If the storms are severe, I would say the plane has an advantage; yes, sir; because the plane could gain a higher altitude than the airship.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not a fact that the mail planes cross the continent and go over the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Madre and all of the intervening obstacles, day and night, month in and month out, without scarcely a miss, regardless of weather?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. They operate under some severe weather conditions; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The fact is-I do not want to be critical with the Army and Navy operators-they have not essayed to fly in weather conditions that the mail carriers fly in every day, or in many parts of the United States; is not that true?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. I Would not say that; no, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. At any rate there is no reason why in the average storms that we have on the Rocky Mountains and in the Sierra Madre, there is no reason why the airplanes may not rise and fly and land-they do it.

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. Yes, sir; they do it.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no reason why you could not have flown with your airplane from Lakehurst on the morning that the Akron started off?

Lieutenant HARRIGAN. There was no reason we could not; we would not have been justified in the light of our knowledge of the weather conditions.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not need an airship to go up and find out the visibility and wind conditions in order to determine whether you could launch an airplane, did you?