Aeronautics, March 1913

Auf dieser Internetseite finden Sie ein Digitalisat der Zeitschrift „American Magazine of Aeronautics“. Die Zeitschrift „Aeronautics“ war in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika (USA) das erste kommerzielle Luftfahrt- und Luftsport-Magazin. Die Zeitschrift wurde in englischer Sprache herausgegeben. Die Digitalisierung und Konvertierung mit Hilfe der automatischen Text- und Bilderkennungssoftware hat teilweise zu Format- und Rechtschreibfehlern geführt. Diese Fehler sollten jedoch im Hinblick auf den Gesamtumfang von weit mehr als 20.000 Einzelseiten als vernachlässigbar angesehen werden.

PDF Dokument

Für das wissenschaftliche Arbeiten und für das korrekte Zitieren können Sie auch das originale Digitalisat im PDF Format in hoher Druckqualität gegen Zahlung einer Lizenzgebühr in Sekundenschnelle herunterladen. Sie können das PDF Dokument ausdrucken bzw. in Ihre Publikationen übernehmen oder auf einem eBook-Reader lesen.

 » PDF Download

Published by AERONAUTICS PRESS, 122 East 25th Street, New York

March, 1913


C-4 Model,4Cyl. 45 H.P. C-6 Model, 6 Cyl. 65 H.P.

C-G-6 Model, 6 Cyl. 75 H. P. C-8 Model, 8 Cyl. 110 H.P.


to. load, the r rated they

These 1913 models have been thoroughly tested for over six months. An AC-6 model now holds the American duration record for pilot and one passenger—3 hr., SI min., IS sec.


Notwithstanding the exceptional reliability shown by 1912 model motors those for 1913 must pass as a part of the regular routine of manufacture a more severe test than any American motor has ever before been subjected That is, every 1913 motor before leaving factory must pass a six hour, full

full speed test, with a speed variation of not more than 5% throughout un. During this test they will be required to equal or exceed their

horse power. This assures you of SERVICE UNQUESTIONABLE, yet are reasonably priced.

Catalog and full data on request.

CHARLES B. KIRKHAM, savona, n. y.

The Only



The Only PATENTED Propeller




U. S. Navy Aviation Camp, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, February 24, 1913

From Senior Aviation officer, to Secretary of Ihe Navv, Bureau of Navigation. SUBJECT: Report on tests of Paragon Propellers.

The Paragon propellers, built by the American Propeller Company, of Baltimore, Md. have been tested

as follows:

The pair for the Wright motor were put on B-2, equipped with Wright six cylinder motor. The machine apparently had increased speed when equipped with the Paragon propellers, but the motor was giving so much trouble that it was impossible to determine the actual speed of the machine.

The propellers were than fitted on B-l, equipped with Sturtevant motor and a twelve tooth sprocket instead of the usual eleven tooth drive. This allowed motor to run about normal speed and propellers seemed to be more efficient than the Wright. They are in use on the machine at present and are giving perfect satisfaction.

The three bladed propeller was fitted on A-2 machine, equipped with motor No. 3 16. Previous to this the machine while equipped with Curtiss propeller ran over a measured course, and an average of six runs showed a speed of 56.7 miles per hour.

When equipped with Paragon three bladed propeller machine was run over same course under same conditions and an average of 57.1 miles per hour attained. Extension surfaces were carried on machine, and the wind was not directly down the course, which accounts for the rather low speed.

I am convinced thai the three bladed Paragon gibes more thrust and more speed than any other propeller we habe had.

[Abridged Copy]

FOR HYDRO AND SPEED MACHINES Three Bladed Paragons more efficient than two blades. Less diameter required. Cheap in Price. Unequaled in strength. Phenomenal in results.

(Signed) J. H. TOWERS

FOR WRIGHT-TYPE MACHINES New Process Paragons twisted under moist heat and pressure. Three ply Seamless and Jointless blades. Adopted by U. S. Government Aviators.

AMERICAN PROPELLER COMPANY, 243-249 East Hamburg St., Baltimore, Md.

Our Aeroplanes and Hydroplanes Have Become the American Standard

Our tractor type with enclosed nacelle introduced by us last season is being copied by builders all over the country this year.

Our Coast Defense Hydro equipped with muffled, six-cylinder Sturtevant Motor, Hying over the ocean off Marblehead in mid winter, passed the Government tests and was accepted in two days—ONE TRIAL FOR EACH TEST.

We are prepared to build for prompt delivery aeroplanes especially adapted to exhibition, sporting and military use. The purchaser has choice of motor. The Sturtevant leads all American types. Crattk starting and fully muffled.

An assortment of aeronautical motors at greatly reduced prices is offered.

Burgess Winter School

is located at Palm Beach under the charge of Frank Coffyn, Hotel Ponciana, Palm Beach. Special winter rates upon application.

Do You Know What a Scooter Is ?



"SIjp onlg propeller tljat is alao a My-VHftei"

Vol. XII, No. 3 MARCH, 1913

Serial No. 67

Wright-Curtiss Litigation

77ic famous Wright-Curtiss patent litigation ncars its final, and hastened end. There would be but one more court to pass upon the case, and this court usually declines to reverse decisions save where u substantial error appears, but, it is not unlikely that the case will ultimately go to another, the United States Supreme Court, as the Curtiss attorneys feel there has been a very substantial error made. Moreover, Judge Hazel has not passed on the present machine.

The Wright patent has been sustained, as to the combination of the warping and the rudder by the courts in France and Germany and cabled reports state that the appeals in these foreign cases have been won by the owners of the patent rights in the highest courts. Details of these foreign decisions will be printed in a subsequent issue. There are Wright patents in Canada and England and it is not unlikely that suits will shortly be brought in the British Isles.

The effect a final decision favorable to the Wright Company zvill have here is problematical. There seems to be now no universal objection to paying royalty and, at least, everyone will be relieved at last to see the patent adjudicated.

It is doubtless true that capital has been "scared off" due to the uncertainty, but time has shown that the sporting public has not been ready for an enlarged production of aeroplanes in this country.

It is not expected that makers will object to paying a moderate royalty. The Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers paid but one-quarter of one per cent, royalty on their output, zehile the Seldcu Patent was in litigation and this fund established a laboratory which did good work. Capital at one time was shy, but later scores of independent makers started in business producing low-priced cars. Xo one can be found to say that the favorable adjudication of the Seidell patent would have worked any hardship. Incandescent lamp makers combined in the paying of royalty to Edison and even continued to pay, it is said, what amounted to the same thing even after the "death" of the patents.

The Curtiss attorneys hope, they say, for reversal in the present appeal to be taken, on the ground that Judge Hascl did not thoroughly understand all the points brought out by the defense.

The favorable adjudication of the Wright patent in all these countries will certainly drive experimenters into the invention of stabilising means which do not infringe and thus zvill progress be made. Wilbur Wright ofttimes said that those -who were not zvil!i)ig to concede the Wright claim to royalty zverc free to invent.



X the suit of the Wright Company, complainant, against the Herring-Cnrtiss Company and Glenn H. Curtiss defendants, with 11. A. Toulmin (Frederick P. Fish and Edmund Wetmore, of counsel) acting for complainant, and Emerson R. Xewell (J. Edgar Bull, of counsel) for defendants. Judge John R. Hazel, of the District Com t of the United States writes his opinion in part as follows :

"The objects of the Wright patent, according to the specification, are:

'To provide means for maintaining or restoring the equilibrium or lateral balance of the apparatus, to provide means for guiding the machine, both vertically and horizontally, and to provide a structure combining lightness, strength, convenience of construction, and certain other advantages which will hereinafter appear.'

"There are eighteen claims in the patent,

but claims 3, 7, 14 and 15* only are infringed. * * #

"The defenses are: (1) That the patent is

* See Wright patent of Mav 22, 1906. filed March 23. 1903. Obtainable from the Patent Office for 5 cents.

not entitled to a broad construction; (i) that if it is broadly constructed it is invalid in view of the prior art; (3) that if properly construed as to its scope the defendants do not infringe; and (4) that in any event defendants' mode of flying is on a different principle from complainant's."


"The record is replete with publications and oral testimony showing that the principal obstacle to the use of the aeroplane before the invention in suit was the inability to maintain lateral balance. * * * Indeed, this was the perplexing problem upon which human flight depended and the one with which the patentees had to cope.

"Much, indeed, prior to the Wright patent had been written on the subject of aerial machinery,'' says Judge Hazel in reviewing the work of Langley, Chanute. Lilienthal, Maxim, and others who had faithfully endeavored to solve the difficulties and remedy imperfections. * * *

"In this situation the patentees conceived the idea of hinging * * * planes to supports * * * with flexible joints to permit * * * impart |ing] to the aeroplane surface a helicoidal twist (and)

by warping or depressing the margins of the supporting planes at opposite ends, the aeroplane could be controlled in its movements and its equilibrium maintained in flying, and the proofs show that in their earlier efforts the inventors did not design to use either a horizontal rudder in front of the machine or a vertical rudder at the rear, but later, he-fore the application for patent was filed, these instrumentalities were added. * * *

"Means were provided for increasing or decreasing the angle of incidence * * * consisting of a rope attached both to the vertical rudder and to the wings or margins which enabled the aviator lying in the cradlef to operate by the motion of his body, both instrumentalities for maintaining the equilibrium of the apparatus. In the estimation of the Wright brothers the machine was prevented from turning on its vertical axis by the adaptation of the movable vertical rudder as an auxiliary to the warping planes or ailerons as described in the specification, and by the conjoint use of such parts they were able to fly, steering in either direction, and to restore and retain equilibrium.

"To induce a construction of the claims in controversy that will exclude defendants' aeroplanes it is contended that the patentees merely improved the known gliding-machine, * * * and that the wing tips, horizontal rudder, and vertical rudder were old separately and in combination. In the year 1896, and previously, Lilienthal had flown experimentally with a gliding machine which was afterwards wrecked. Later, the Pilcher and Chanute structures, of both the monoplane and biplane type, were used for experimental flying, but they also were failures, and little success was achieved in correcting their imperfections.

"In a published address by Chanute * * * there is contained a percursory review of the aeroplane and its practicability up to the year 1897. In this address he points out the differences between curved and flat planes with regard to the effect of air pressure thereon, but his descriptions were not sufficiently definite to suggest the later improvements by the patentees. He declared that the use of a motor to facilitate flight * * * was a minor detail * * * and that the maintenance of the equilibrium was the most important problem in connection with aerial navigation. While his experimentation and publications were helpful to the patentees, it is not contended by the defendants that they were anticipatory of the claims in suit, but merely that they showed the progress that had been made in efforts to make possible human flight.

THE PRIOR ART. "That the prior patents do not show the patented combination of complainant's construction is evident from an examination thereof.

"[In] the Henson British patent * * * there is nothing to show that the patentee had

;' In the first machine the operator lay on his stomach.

in mind the principle that the steering or control of the machine depended upon the tilt of the wings in connection with the use of the vertical rudder.

"In the Maxim British patent for an aerial machine, * * * the function of the vertical rudder was essentially different.

"In the Lanchester British patent, the intention of the patentee was to secure the lateral balance of his aerial machine by automatic means. * * * His machine carried a rear rudder which was used for steering and not for maintaining the equilibrium of the contrivance, and the wings were immovable.

"The patents to Crepar and Johnston for gas balloons, lighter-than-air, were provided with horizontal and vertical rudders, but

* * * apparatus of this description, even though provided with planes, and horizontal and vertical rudders, bears no close similarity

to machines of the type under consideration.

* # *

"In the * * * Harte British patent,

* * * in my opinion, the described means do not correspond to the combination in claim 3 of the Wright patent, and as the vertical steering rudder of the Harte patent is not usable to maintain steadiness or balance, the elements of claims 7, 14, and 15 are not disclosed.

"The Mouillard patent * * * for a glider, bears more particularly on claim 3 and is said to contain aileron portions on the sides of the planes. * * * The specification in no way indicates that Mouillard considered the problem from the viewpoint of the patentees; nor does it show means for simultaneously increasing the lift of one aileron and depressing the other, or for simultaneously adjusting the ailerons above or below the horizontal plane; nor does it show the use of a rudder in connection with the depressible portions. The complainant's expert witnesses expressed the opinion that the depression of one wing operated to turn the apparatus and not to balance it.

"Much has been said by defendants of the Boulton British patent. * * * Defendants argue that such patent discloses the elements of claim 3 in suit, but complainant has shown with reasonable certainty that the pressure on the lateral vanes would be such as would not only turn one upward and the other downward, but that it would also pull the weight * * * to one side with the result that the apparatus would become unbalanced. The side vanes of the patent to Boulton did not in my opinion suggest the lateral marginals of the patent in suit. * * * Although Boulton theoretically understood the probable disturbances due to air pressure, his self-acting mechanism for controlling and safely directing his machine amounted to little, and his assertions and suggestions were altogether too conjectural to teach others how to reduce them to practice, and therefore his patent is not anticipatory. * * *

Importance is attached to the revived Mat-tulath application for a patent, dated January 8, 1900, but I think there is an utter

failure to show that the * * * structure

* * * was complete, or that it was even remotely possible to reduce it to practice.

* * * Even assuming that it belongs to a prior art, the structure is not provided with movable side ailerons simultaneously adjustable, or a movable rudder. * * *

"One additional publication, the Ader article, published in France in 1893, may be dwelt upon. * * * As there was no connection between the warping features and the rudder b} which the lateral balance of the machine was secured, the publication is not entitled to be considered in limitation of the

claims in suit embodying such elements.

* * *

"The defendants point to the Voisin machine, a structure without warping means or its equivalent, but having a rear rudder for steering and maintaining balance. Such device, however, is provided with vertical end surfaces which impart lateral resistance to air pressure, while in complainant's and defendant's aeroplanes the ends are open, the air passing through without resistance, and therefore the principle of operation in the Voisin structure is essentially different.

"The Schroeder German patent * * * is for a gas balloon. * * * From my examination thereof, I conclude that there was no such co-ordination between the vertical rudder and the wings as would enable their simultaneous movement to restore lateral balance. At any rate, as hereinbefore stated there is a wide distinction between a gas containing machine * * * and an aeroplane.

* * *

"Xo useful purpose would be served by the consideration of other contrivances. A summary of what had gone before in aerial machinery unmistakably discloses, first, publications which did not contain descriptions of apparatus of such clearness and definiteness as to enable those skilled in the art to construct therefrom an operative device, or clearly suggesting ways or means to solve the problem of lateral balance; and, second, exhibit patents which * * * 'emerged from oblivion solely to meet the exigencies of the occasion.' * * * As the defendants have not proven that the defects attributable to such devices could have been removed by the exercise of the skill and training of an engineer or mechanic, I am of opinion, after complete consideration of the testimony of both sides, that the patentees by their method of securing the equilibrium of the planes made an important advance in the embryonic art.

* * *

"The prior separate use of such elements is freely admitted by the patentees, but they assert, rightly I think, that the patented combination was a new combination performing a new and novel result. The antecedent patents, the efforts to perfect the gliding machine and to provide means for restoring equilibrium, in short, the many unsuccessful attempts to remedy existing imperfections in aerial machinery, all bear witness to the fact that the achievement of the patentees re-

quired the exercise of the inventive faculty. Having attained success where others failed, they may be rightly considered pioneer inventors in the aeroplane art. Their concept was practical, and their combination of old and new elements meritoriously advanced the operativeness of aeroplanes of this type from which astonishing flights have resulted. * * * "And even if the patentees were not strictly pioneers in the sense of producing an apparatus novel in its entirety, they nevertheless strikingly surpassed their predecessors in devising means for restoring lateral balance and are entitled to a liberal construction of their claims in controversy and to the application of a range of equivalents that will include an aeroplane appropriating substantially the same instrumentalities and the same principle of operation."


"The defendants urge that patentees' invention is without practical utility, that the flat planes described in the specification were never used, that the vertical rudder is useful merely to equalize resistance, that the patent fails to disclose the manner of effecting the equalization of the differences of air pressure, and argue that in turning complainant's machine the ailerons are warped, with the result that the aeroplane swings or circles toward the side on which the greater angle of incidence was produced, that by such manoeuvering to prevent upsetting complainant's machine has to he turned from its course, it being impossible to further turn the vertical rudder, and they argue that defendant's aeroplane is radically different from complainant's. They also claim that it was not until the vertical rudder was constructed to move independently of the ailerons, as in defendant's aeroplane, that an operative device was produced."

Judge Hazel disposes of these points by saying that the Wrights were covered by the law in the wording of the patent regarding flat surfaces; that the addition of a separate rudder lever was not necessary to operativeness. * * *

"There was much discussion at the bar as to claim 3 which does not include the vertical rudder as an element. The important feature thereof is that the lateral marginal portions of the planes must be capable of movement to different angles relatively to the normal planes of the aeroplane * * * to present to the atmosphere different angles of incidence. It was argued that without the cooperation of the vertical rudder the claim was wholly impracticable. The complainant company, to the contrary, rejoins that there is shown a sub-combination which is valid and which should he sustained. There is evidence that the marginal ends of the supporting planes are capable of moving simultaneously in different angular relations to the plane and to each other without the assistance of the vertical rudder, but the result was not satisfactory as the machine in its flights skidded to the side, an imperfection which has been

remedied by the use of the vertical rudder in conjunction with the ailerons.

"It is not essential to the validity of claim 3 that all parts of the machine, or all parts specified in other claims, which are necessary to its operativeness should be included therein and resort must be had to the specification for the disclosure of the parts necessary to insure the practicability of a patented device. In the Wright structure a new and novel result was obtained simply by having the ailerons on the ends of the planes without the supplemental feature of the vertical rudder. The warping feature is, in fact, the essential part of the machine while the vertical rudder insuring successful flying is a valuable adjunct without which lateral balance could not be restored. The employment, in a changed form, of the warping feature or its equivalent by another, even though better effects or results are obtained, does not avoid infringement. * * *

"It is next contended that defendants' aeroplane does not infringe claim 3 as its ailerons do not move in either direction above or below the normal plane of the body portion, but any such alteration, however, is immaterial as defendants' planes move at different angles relative to the aeroplane and to each other and attain the substantial result of the Wright patent.

"Claim 7 is for the elements of (1) an aeroplane, (2) means for moving the ailerons in different directions, (3) a vertical rudder, and (4) means for operating the rudder, causing it to 'present to the wind that side thereof nearest the side of the aeroplane having the smaller angle of incidence and offering the least resistance to the atmosphere, substantially as described.' The description of the modus operandi of the rear rudder plainly discloses its object and purpose and is not restricted to the warping ropes or wires. Claim 14 includes the horizontal rudder with means for presenting its under side to the resistance of the air currents, while claim 15 specifies the location on the aeroplane of the vertical and horizontal rudders. The said claims must be given an interpretation of sufficiently wide scope to cover the appropriation of the substance of the invention or the equivalent means by which the principle is applied to an aeroplane of the type described in the patent in suit.

"This brings me to the final question of whether or not there is in the defendants' machine a tendency to spin or swerve which is checked or counteracted by the operation of its vertical rudder. * * * ■>


"The evidence is that the defendants in their machine have two slightly curved^ planes supported by rigid posts placed vertically to the planes at the front and rear sides, the ends thereof being open the entire length, and that there are two ailerons or wings on the exit In present Curtiss machines the ailerons are flat.

treme sides of the planes, each pivoted to supports and cross-pieces midway between the upper and lower planes. * * * Each aileron has the same angle to the supporting props as the other, and as the angles of incidence of the planes change in flying the angles of the ailerons also change, each presenting unequal angles and resistance. In consequence of such variation in the angles of the ailerons, the speed of the high and low sides varies whenever the planes are tilted from the normal angle. At the rear of defendants' construction there is a vertical rudder, and there is a sharp question of fact as to whether such rudder is used to assist the ailerons in recovering lateral balance by retarding the speed of the high side and increasing the speed of the opposite side. If it is not so used, then in my opinion the defendants' machine is not operated on the principle of claims 7, 14 and 15 in suit. The claim is that such rudder is operated in a manner to compensate for the difference in head resistance on the ailerons due to the unequal angles caused by the continuous alteration of the angle of incidence of the machine, or, in other words, that the defendants' rudder is turned to the high side because of the unequal resistance exerted by the ailerons. This mode of operation the defendants earnestly deny, and there is much dispute in regard thereto. * * *

"If I am correct in my interpretation of claim 3 and the rule of law applicable thereto, the ailerons of defendants' construction and the manner of using them are within its scope. The witness Curtiss frankly testified that the purpose thereof is to preserve the lateral balance "without the use of any other element or part,' it making no difference whether the aeroplane is in a straight or curved flight. Each concession supports the asserted infringement of the claim under consideration. There is, however, other testimony showing the specific manner in which the result is attained. The witnesses for complainant have sworn that in defendants' construction the aviator to restore lateral balance causes the ailerons to be lowered or raised, thus increasing the angle of incidence of one while decreasing that of the other, by inclining his body and moving his seat towards the high wing. It is true that the vertical rudder is not connected so as to co-act with the ailerons, there being no direct connection between them, but each is controlled separately. According to the evidence, a turning effect is at times produced in defendants' machine by air disturbances, to counteract which the right aileron of defendants' machine may be pulled downward as the other is raised, and the vertical rudder inclined towards the raised aileron. Defendants firmly deny that there is any turning tendency or swerving which requires turning the rudder away from its central position ; and, * * * upon this point really hangs the question of infringement.

"Curtiss * * * swears that the rear rudder is not used to assist the ailerons in their

functions or to restore equilibrium, but merely for steering. The witness Willard, who has many times flown a Curtiss aeroplane, swears (similarly). * * * As the ailerons in the machine (lie) used were differently placed than midway between the planes, the incident loses importance.

"Captain Heck, of the Government Aviation Station, who has flown the defendants' aeroplane substantially testified that there were no deviations of the aeroplane from its course owing to the use of the ailerons; that the vertical rudder was not used to counteract any turning or swerving due to their use, and that he had never made such use of the vertical rudder, but he admitted that on one occasion in climbing he tilted abnormally and turned his rear rudder in the opposite direction to restore balance, and succeeded in doing so. Lieut. Ellyson, of the United States Navy, also testified that he noticed no swerving when flying, and that the vertical rudder in the Curtiss aeroplane is (not) used in flying, except for steering purposes. The witness Post (also so) testified.

"The testimony of witnesses who have flown the defendants' aeroplane * * * would ordinarily be entitled to greater weight than the opinions of experts or the contradictory testimony of (other) witnesses * * * were it not that there is cogent evidence tending to modify or qualify their denials of the use of the vertical rudder except for steering.

"Willard concedes that the rear rudder is turned to the high side to gain additional restoring power; that it is used as 'a separate agent to accomplish a desired result more quickly or more positively.' In the Curtiss letter in evidence it is substantially admitted that the rear rudder is turned toward the high side at times to assist in balancing the machine by steering or turning.

"The testimony of Lieut. Milling, of the United States Signal Corps Aviation School, who has frequently flown in both Wright and Curtiss machines, strongly supports the claim that the defendants' employ the vertical rudder for the dual purpose of steering and recovering balance under certain conditions. * * *

(Mere quotation is made from Milling's affidavit.)

"This would seem to bear out the assertion that the rear rudder is used to correct the differences of resistance, and not merely to recover from an unusual tilt due to untoward causes. * * The fact is clear that it (the rudder) does on occasion assist the ailerons in restoring equilibrium. That it is capable of action separately from the ailerons, or that it is primarily for use in steering and only incidentally to assist in restoring balance when abnormally tilted, does not avoid infringement."

By the construction of the Curtiss controls, the Judge says: "the rear rudder and ailerons are capable of substantial co-ordination.

* * That the vertical rudder of defendant's machine at times operates on this principle is fairly substantiated.

"To further differentiate their machine from complainant's, the defendants assert that in their aeroplanes there is no normal difference in the angle of incidence to the course of travel as in complainant's, as their ailerons are directly in the 'stream line,' and have no unequal pressures which tend to cause the machine to turn or swerve, and it is argued that the problem of the patentees was different from the problem solved by Curtiss, in that the machine of the former is steered by its wing tips and vertical rudder, while that of the latter is steered wholly by the rudder. But, as elsewhere shown, this argument is not entirely substantiated by the facts. * With a knowledge of the principle of the patent in suit and a familiarity with the method of operation of the marginal ends of the planes, it is not likely that there was much difficulty in making the supplementary planes of the defendants' machine in such a way as to avoid a difference in the normal angle of incidence by putting the planes in the 'stream line.' Such alterations or modifications, however, in view of the latitude of the claim, did not constitute fundamentally different modes of operation from those described in the Wright specification.

"The defendants are believed to have appropriated the substance of claim 7. and to have infringed claim 14 inasmuch as in addition to the essential elements of the Wright patent and the object with which such elements are used, they also employ in their aeroplane, as hereinbefore shown, a horizontal rudder for "presenting its upper and under surfaces to the resistance of the atmosphere.' Claim 15 contains the essential elements and specifies the location of a vertical rudder at the rear of the machine and a horizontal rudder at the front thereof§.

"The defendants have embodied in their aeroplane the various elements of the claims in suit. While it is true, as pointed out herein, that the defendants have constructed their machine somewhat differently from complainant's and do not at all times and on all occasions operate the same on the Wright principle, yet the changes they have made in their construction, relate to the form only. They have constructed their machine so that it is capable of restoring equilibrium in substantially the same way as in complainant's mi-chine, and the evidence is that on occasions, depending on aerial conditions or other disturbing causes, they use the vertical rudder not only to steer their machine, but to assist the ailerons in restoring balance.

* * * "The question of infringement is resolved adversely to the defendants as to the claims which are the subject of this controversy.

"A decree may be entered, with costs, in favor of the Wright Company as prayed in the bill, but because of the importance of the litigations and of the questions involved, a supersedeas will be allowed upon condition that an appeal be diligently prosecuted."

Dated. Feb. 27, 1913.

$ The suil was started when front elevators were slandaril practice in Curtiss and Wright machines.


The effect that a decision favorable to the Wrights will have on the industry we do not care to discuss at length, but would say, we think such a decision would certainly be a very good thing for them. We imagine that they would handle the matter in their usual fair and broad-minded way.


I do not want to be quoted. I want to keep out of any controversy. \ fully believe we shall be compelled to build aeroplanes ourselves in a very short time and in that case I want to be in position to ask for licenses from either Curtiss or the Wrights on any device we may want to use. Naturally, we are going to get out some stabilizing device, absolutely non-infringing and at the same time effective, and have several plans in view.


We believe a moderate royalty would rather help to develop the aeronautical business but we do not think that the Wright Company is progressive enough to be satisfied with a moderate royalty. The flying art will be considerably held back for years to come unless somebody gets up an automatic warptng device.


In reference to the Wright-Curtiss case will say that 1 do not see how it can effect the progress of the business in any way, as those that wish will pay the royalty and continue. I cannot see why it would harm anybody to pay the Wright Company a reasonable royalty. I have always been of the opinion and do know that if it had not been for the Wright brothers none of us would have been flying. There is no question but that they unlocked the secret of flight, and I think we all owe to them a loyal support on this point.

Of course, I am speaking as an old-timer who has fought the aeronautical game for over forty years. Those who have come into the business since flying was started, of course, do not know or care to know what we now call ancient history in the flying game, and, naturally, they do not see or understand why the Wright brothers should have the credit due them. * * * I see no reason why the Wrights should not have all that is coming to them, and I for one, with my few remaining years that I stay in the aeronautical profession am in absolute accord with any decision that may be made in their favor, and will so govern my business to meet the requirements they ask. If every manufacturer


History of Wright Suits

Summer, 1909.-—Suits filed against Aeronautical Society, Curtiss and the Herring-Curtiss Co. Curtiss in bill of sale of the first Curtiss aeroplane ever sold, that to the above society, guaranteed the society against suit. (AERONAUTICS, Oct., 1909.) Suit against the society later discontinued.

Sept. 30, 1909.—Order to show cause, issued by fudge Hazel at Buffalo, to Curtiss why preliminary injunction should not issue. (AERONAUTICS for Nov., 1909.)

Jan. 3, 1910.—Judge Hazel grants preliminary injunction, but suspended until appeal decided. (AERONAUTICS for Feb.. 1910. This issue contains full opinion with exhibits.) The Curtiss factory continued working under $10,000 bond.

March 14, 1910.—Re-hearing of injunction action and case appealed.

July 1, 1910.—Circuit Court of Appeals reverses decision of Judge Hazel and directs that injunction be dismissed and bond cancelled.

Nov. 27, 1912.—Briefs submitted and final hearing held before Judge Hazel in Wright vs. Curtiss, et al.

Feb. 27, 1913.—Opinion handed down, as printed in this issue. The Curtiss interests will now appeal to the next higher court (probably under bond) and the case will come up probably in the fall at the Tost Office Building in New York. If decision is then favorable to Wrights, the amount of damages to be awarded will be determined in a supplementary proceeding before a Master.


1909.-—Suit started against Ralph Saulnier for importation of Bleriot. Discontinued as Saulnier left country and exported machine.

Feb. 17, 1910.—Judge Hand granted Wrights temporary injunction against Paulhan, who was flying a Farman and a Bleriot. He decided ailerons to be equivalent to general helicoidal warp. (AERONAUTICS, March, 1910.)

June, 1910.—Charles H. Lamson started suit against Wright Company for alleged infringement of his patent 666,427, of Jan. 22, 1901. Still untried up to date.

Nov. 29, 1910.—Suit started against C. G. White, who flew a Bleriot and a Farman.

Dec. 22, 1911.— Final hearing. Judge Hand enjoined White permanently, and he nude cash settlements of damages.

Earle L. Ovington and T. Sopwith were also enjoined. A suit was started against the Aero Club of Chicago on its 1910 meet but case was settled. The suit agains the Moisant Company is still in the courts.


March 13, 1913.—The Wright patents were fully upheld in France by a decision given in the 4th Division of the Court of Appeals, confirming a previous judgment rendered in the 3d Division after receiving reports from a technical commission. The hearing and arguments lasted seven days.

Suits were brought in France by the owners of the French Wright rights against practically all the other rmkers. In June, 1911, the French Court upheld the claims of the Wright patent both as to the combination of warping with the rudder but as to these two elements disassociated; but, there was a string to this, as a commission was appointed to discover, if possible, some prior art which would nullify this patent.

In Germany the Wright patent was assailed by the unlicensed makers who sued the Patent Office there, which finally decided that the claims of the Wright patent rights owners were worthless on the ground that Chanute had disclosed the facts prior to the taking out of the patent when he said in a lecture that the Wrights balanced their machine by warping the wings. The Patent Office considered this enough to enable anyone skilled in the art to duplicate the Wright invention. The Wright interests appealed to the German Courts, and, in February, 1912, the Wright patent was finally upheld as to the combination. _

and flier would get together as a unit and ask the Wrights what they want, I believe that we would have no difficulty in coming to an agreement or understanding that would be entirely satisfactory to all concerned.


Personally, I don't think that the decision of the Wright case, one way or the other, will have any particular effect on the American aeroplane industry. If the Wrights win, and any particular manufacturer does not want to put up a personal fight, it looks like all he would have to do is to talk business to the Wright's interests. After all it is only a matter of dollars and cents. As the big exhibition money has already been made, it is only a manufacturing proposition and a matter of popularizing the sport and getting orders from the Government.

The old saying, "Two heads are better than one,'' still holds good, and if the aeroplane industry in America were restricted for development to one concern and one head, it would never get very far; while foreign companies, not handicapped by a monopoly, would soon leave this country so far behind that it could never catch up.

While if there are a great many manufacturers and competition, even if thev were all operating under one license, it would result in the final development of the aeroplane to a place in which it belongs in this country.


An appeal will be taken from the recent adverse decision of the District Court, and we feel certain the appeal will result in a reversal, as did the appeal from the original decision some years ago.

Pending the final decision on the appeal our business will continue as usual. Of course, the importance of the technical point involved is less now than it was when the case was started; and we think that aviation history of the past four years has made our position stronger than it was when the first decision was reversed in our favor.

During the progress of this trial the technical experts at Washington have passed favorably on the application for patents on the

methods of steering and balancing employed on Curtiss machines, and have issued letters patent on the same.

Scientific recognition of Mr. Curtiss's inventions have come from various bodies of high standing. * * *

Governmental recognition has come from Europe, Asia. South America, in the form of patent applications allowed, and in orders for Curtiss machines for Government use in France, Germany, Russia. Austria, Italy, Japan, P.razil, etc., as well as from the Government of the United States.

The significance of this diversified recognition and support, is such that it cannot help but sustain us in the feeling that our position in the case is a reasonable one, and that the result of an appeal will be favorable to us.


We do not care to express any opinion at the present time regarding the effect of the decision in the Wright-Curtiss case, except that we are inclined to believe that if the Wrights are successful in establishing their patents, it will be a very good thing for them.


president aero club of america.

As to the effect the decision of Judge Hazel in the Wright-Curtiss suit may have on the industry, it is hard at present to foresee the developments which the suit may bring about, since the matter depends principally on the attitude of the parties involved by the terms of the decision.

As to whether the decision is just or not, would say as a matter of principle I believe it proper to accept the verdict of the courts, when it appears that the judge was unbiased, and gave fair consideration to the case before him, as I have no doubt was the case here.

This verdict is the result of nearlv three years consideration, during which time the world's authorities have testified for and against. From the cablegrams received from Germany and France the judiciary of the three countries seem to be of one mind in their decision.

Some Light on the Patent Situation


Ex-President Aeronautical Society

THE decision of Judge Hazel is to be most highly commended for the conscientious and painstaking effort to arrive at sound conclusions, and there is no question but that from the evidence adduced before the Court, his decision would have been reached by any other equally conscientious judge. The responsibility is clearly felt by the unusual fact that the decree "may be entered with costs in favor of the Wright Company as prayed in the bill but because of the importance of the litigations and of the questions

involved, a supersedeas will be allowed upon condition that an appeal be diligently prosecuted."

The conclusions of the Court are well defined in the decision in the following words:

"And even if the patentees were not strictly pioneers in the sense of producing an apparatus novel in its entirety, they nevertheless strikingly surpassed their predecessors in devising means for restoring lateral balance and are entitled to a liberal construction of their claims in controversy and to the application of a range of equivalents that will include an aeroplane appropriating substantially the same instrumentalities and tlie same principle of operation."


The claims sued upon, of Wright patent 821,393, May 22, 1906, include numbers 3, 7, 14 and 15. Claim 3 is for the warping of the lateral edges of the planes to different angles of incidence, while number 7 includes this warping in combination with a vertical rudder presented to the side nearest that having the smaller angle of incidence. Number 14 is for a biplane or multiplane, as differentiated from a single plane which is referred to in the singular in the first two claims, and the warping of the lateral edges is included, together with the vertical rudder and with the horizontal rudder. Claim 15 includes all these instrumentalities in a more limited form by referring to the location of these instrumentalities.

The warping was held equivalent to any separate wing tip, aileron or flap, and probably any device that is manually controlled to present a greater or less angle at the extremities will be considered an infringement of this patent.

To depart from the scope of the patent, it requires, therefore, some automatic means to control or, at any rate, not manually operated device positioned at the extremities of the planes. For instance, it can be conceived that if double propellers could be applied with clutch mechanism, so placed that their thrust was at an inclination to the line of flight, the disengagement of one propeller from the other could balance the machine and certainly avoid the scope of the patent.

Of course, it must be understood that the judge was confined to the evidence before him and it is the privilege of anyone having a machine with such modifications of the Curtiss or the Wright machine as he may consider avoids infringement, when sued, to present an entirely new defense. For instance, it would appear that the structure shown in the Wright patent is not susceptible to making turns because the rudder as constructed is not operable separately (according to the patent) and if this feature is brought out strongly it might have its effect on the decision in any future case, because it is one of the requirements that the structure shown and described in a patent shall be fully operative and while this is quite true so far as what is shown, yet it may be considered that an aeroplane that could not make a turn is not very practical. Should this be an oversight, a re-issue might be applied for. but the day is somewhat late, seven years having now transpired. Furthermore, the prior art might be presented in a different manner, as the decision refers only to nine prior constructions and it is interesting to note that the Mattnlath revived application which is one of the nine, is not considered an operable structure. If this can be proved practical the fact would have its weight upon the consideration of the Court in another case.

1 he Wrights recognize they were not the first to produce an operative flying machine, as indicated by the following transcript from the patent:

"Contrary to the usual custom, we place the horizontal rudder in front of the aeroplanes at a negative angle and employ no horizontal tail at all. P>y this arrangement we obtain a forward surface which is almost entirely free from pressure under ordinary conditions of flight, but which even if not moved at all from its original position becomes an efficient lifting-surface whenever the speed of the machine is accidentally reduced very much below the normal, and thus largely counteracts that backward travel of the center of pressure on the aeroplanes which has frequently been productive of serious injuries by causing the machine to turn downward and forward and strike the ground head-on. We are aware that a forward horizontal rudder of different construction has been used in combination with a supporting-surface and a rear horizontal rudder; but this combination was not intended to effect and does not effect the object which we obtain by the arrangement hereinbefore described."

The reason that only four claims out of 18 were relied upon in the suit is that these 4 more directly apply to the Curtiss structure if ailerons were to be adjudicated as equivalent to warping. Claim 1 is somewhat broader than claim 3 but does not so distinctly specify the warping to the different angles relative to each other as it merely includes "means for so moving said lateral marginal portions." Claim 2 was not applicable because "the standards maintaining a fixed distance between the portions of the aeroplanes which they connect" when warped are not found in the Curtiss construction. For the same reason claim 4 was not applicable. In claim 5 the warping is referred to as "about an axis lying in the body of the aeroplane perpendicular to said lateral margins." In claim 6 the flexible joints are not found in the body or main structure of the Curtiss machine. For the same reason claim 8 was, no doubt, omitted; while claim 9 calls for "helicoidal warp around an axis transverse to the line of flight." The same reason likewise applies to claim 10. Claim 11 refers again to the flexible joints of the struts, while claim 12 and 13 are for a horizontal flexible rudder which is quite different from any rudder in the Curtiss. Claim 16 is for a single vertical rudder structure which is not found in the Curtiss. Claims 17 and 18 include universal joints supporting the two planes.

While any future defendant can offer new evidence it is also the privilege of the Wrights to include other claims in any future suit.

In conclusion, giving due credit to the Wright brothers for being the first to produce a governable aeroplane, let us render tribute to them; and if the toll is heavier than we can bear, let us be public spirited enough to all join together and acquire the right to make their invention for the common good —no matter what the cost may be. If, on the other hand, there are better means of controlling an aeroplane, let us endeavor to find those means. In the firm belief that there are such means to be found, perhaps this decision is a blessing in disguise, by spurring us on to better effort. We all must appreciate that we have not yet arrived at the practical and final solution, notwithstanding that we should all be grateful and recognize the wonderful advance brought about by the efforts of the Wrights.

Wright Versus Curtiss


Massachusetts Institute of Technology

S IS well known to all students of aviation the basis of the Wright patent is the use of the vertical rudder to prevent a flying machine from turning in the wrong direction (towards the side to be raised) under the influence of the unequal drifts on the two tips. With the Curtiss system it is claimed that the drift of the tips is equal and that, therefore, the vertical rudder does not have to be used as an offset. However, the decision given at Buffalo was against Curtiss, and I propose to show in this article that this decision is correct and that it can be shown that the drifts on the tips must be unequal. But I shall also show that in spite of this fact it will not be necessary to use the rudder as an offset every time the ailerons are used.

In aviation we continually come to problems in which a change in the time element alters the results which follow certain lever movements, and this is why practical aviators who generally have little or no theoretical knowledge, are often at a loss to account for observed phenomena.

For the sake of clearness I will define accurately two terms:

1. Pressure Angle. This is the angle between the chord of a surface and the path of the machine or the surrounding air stream.

2. Angle of Incidence. This is the angle between the chord of the surface and the horizon.

Pressure angle is a term I have been using at the institute and it appears to me to be a good term. It suggests to the mind immediately the angle which determines the magnitude, direction, line of action and point of application of the resultant pressure. It is essential to understand the difference between these two angles, otherwise it will be impossible to understand the nature of many of the phenomena of flight. The angle of incidence has nothing whatever to do with the resultant pressure on a surface. After the characteristics of the resultant pressure (determined by the pressure angle and V) have been found, the angle of incidence simply gives us the H & V components of that pressure.

Xow the next thing which must be thoroughly understood is this: The lift of a surface is obtained by the reaction of the air and this action and reaction results in giving the air at the trailing edge of a surface a downward acceleration. This is, of course, similar to the slip stream of a screw. There is so much evidence on this point both theoretical and experimental that 1 shall not take the time for a mathematical proof of this.

It follows, therefore, that the ailerons of the Curtiss system rest in downwardly moving air. I have reason to believe from testimony that in the latest machines flying at 6o M. P. H., the angle made by this air stream with the horizon is something over

The equalizer on the Curtiss machines is simply an ingenious lever system whereby the resultant pressures on the ailerons are always equal, and, therefore, the ailerons always maintain equal pressure angles. Flow-ever, the force which tends to turn a machine about its vertical axis is not the resultant pressure but only the H component of that pressure and the magnitude of this component is determined by the angle of incidence, hence to prevent turning not only must the pressure angles be equal but the angles of incidence must also be equal and this they cannot be when the ailerons rest in downwardly moving air as they do in the Curtiss system. I will now take up a case, and prove this mathematically.

In Fig. I the long arrow is the horizon, OW is the downwardly moving air stream at the rear of the surfaces and ArO is the right aileron moved to a pressure angle of -f-150. Suppose the aileron to be flat and have an area of i square foot, and the machine to travel at ioo M. P. H.

From Eiffel we get at +15° x= 5.304 y=20.4

.". R = V 5.3042 + 20.4- = 21.07 resultant pressure.

At +15° the resultant pressure on a plane surface is practically normal to the surface. However, it is evident from Fig. I that the angle of incidence of ArO is +17°, therefore, the H component tending to turn the machine (in the wrong direction) is 21.07 x sin 17° = 6.163 pounds.

In Fig. 2 AiO is the left aileron and it has a pressure angle of —150 but it has an angle of incidence of only —13° hence the H component is 21.07 x sin 130 = 4.742. Therefore, there is an unbalanced backward pressure on the wrong side of 6.163 — 4-74-= M-i for everv square foot of aileron when flying at 100 M. P. H.

This proves absolutely the existence of the unbalanced backward pressure, but the question now is, will the rudder have to be used always as an offset? The answer is no. The use of the rudder as an offset will depend upon the length of time the ailerons are used. The moment inertia of the Curtiss machine about its fore and aft axis is less than the moment inertia about its vertical axis, moreover the banking force vKy) is about six times as large as the turning force (Kx), therefore if the disturbing gust does not per-{Continued on page 106)

Paulhan's Flying Boat. The machine described below is a later type.

Curtiss Flying Boat

1LYING boats, since Curtiss has coined the name, are holding the center of the aqua-aerial field. No previous description has appeared of this most successful machine. The development of the Curtiss "flying boat" has been duly chronicled in past issues. The latest machine is equipped with wheels on which the craft runs to and into the water and home again to the shed after a flight. These may be drawn up out of the way once flight is attained. The machine described herein is the very latest product, finished the middle of February, in which is embodied many new features. The boat part is in two sections, for convenience in shipping, quickly bolted together as shown in the drawings. The rudder has been enlarged by adding a wooden portion which extends into the water. New strut sockets are employed, the old style turnbuckles give way to those of French pattern, and refinements are noticed all over.

The main planes, 5 feet 6 inches apart, are of the usual Curtiss construction, the upper plane spreading 37 feet, the lower 27 feet b inches, chord 5 feet 1 inch, camber 334 inches, located 18 inches back. The angle is 7l/2° on the water and 6° in the air. The c. of p. is about 20 inches back. At the engine section the trailing edge is omitted for the propeller. Each plane is in 5 sections, 5 feet 6 inches long. The upper overhang is a separate section. The drop from front to rear beam is 54 inches. The extensions are of varying curve, each rib outward being shorter and deeper. There is no rear beam in these outer top sections.

These sections are each double surfaced with Goodrich cloth tacked with copper nails to the laminated spruce ribs, which are 16 inches apart. These are affixed to the front and rear spars by copper straps. The sections join together by steel sockets bolted through the spars.

The front and rear spars are 1 inch by 1^4 inches in cross-section, of a "D" shape, laminated spruce, 52J/2 inches apart. There are 5 sections to each spar and 7 sections in the upper surface. The 12 vertical struts are i}4 inches by 2*^ inches, fish-shaped, laminated spruce, ending in steel nickel-plated sockets. Roebling cable 3-32 inch and 1-16 inch, is used for guying laterally and fore-and-aft in each section. The wires are fastened with sleeve and thimble, tightened by turnbuckle.

The elevator is in two parts and is hinged to the rear of twin adjustable fixed triangular tail surfaces above the level of the lower plane. Each half is wired separately so that either can be used if one becomes broken. It is perfectly flat and guyed to the steel tube mast which serves also as lever for operating. All surfaces are double covered, as above.

There is a triangular fixed horizontal non-lifting surface 7 feet by 4 feet 6 inches to which is hanged the elevator. A vertical surface extends gradually upward from the boat to the rudder post. The rudder has about 10 sq. ft. of surface, of a "D" shape. This is guyed from a little triangular steel tube tiller from which 3-32 inch cables run over large pulleys to the steering wheels, the standard Curtiss dual control being used. Turning either of the twin hand-wheels operates the rudder, or either wheel may be disconnected. {Continued on page 106)


Lieut. L. E. Goodier, U.S.A., of the Coast Artillery Corps, has invented a launching way and turntable for the Curtiss flying boats used by the United States Army at the aviation camp on North Island, California. The device is simple, easily set up anywhere and has proved in daily use to be very successful.

Between the army hangar and the water, at low tide, there is a wide strip of soft ooze, difficult of navigation with the regular wheel equipment of the flying boats. This strip is now traversed by a wooden railway, which stretches out into the water at low tide. The flying boat sets on the combination car and turntable, which latter is of steel so the car will sink on entering the water. As the wheels

are deeply flanged, the flying boat can be started from the hangar under its own power. It runs down the rails into the water, where the car sinks out of the way, while the flying boat glides on without interruption.

Returning, the flying boat heads directly for the hangar, and is stopped when its bow touches the track. A cable attached to the car is tautened until the car is directly beneath the boat, which is then hauled up and easily swung around ready to start out again. The device was proved a great time saver in handling the winged craft on soft ground.

Another ingenious device for moving the flying boats over the "mush" at low tide is the keg-wheeled truck shown in the accompanying photograph. This truck is made up with kegs for wheels and two-inch pipe for axles. The platform has padded cleats to prevent damage to the boat when making a turn on the beach. Clumsy as this device appears at first sight, it answers the purpose well, and the boats mounted on it easily run to and from the hangars under their own power.


Instead of warping wings or hinging ailerons, Dr. Alexander Graham Bell proposes to use rigid wings with a vertical rudder lying approximately in the medial fore and aft plane of the machine, when the latter is in normal horizontal position. This balancing rudder is mounted on an upright axis, within the medial vertical plane of the machine, the axis being approximately at the centre of pressure. When the machine is on an even keel, the balancing rudder or device lies within the fore and aft medial plane, but when the balance of the machine is disturbed, the balancing rud-

der is turned about its axis by suitable means provided for this purpose, so as to incline the rudder to that side of the axis toward the lower side of the machine. The effect of the resistance offered by the air as the machine is moving rapidly forward is to again restore the lateral balance of the machine, whereupon the balancing rudder is returned to its normal position. If a rudder of this kind were placed to the rear or in advance of the center of pressure of the machine, the effect of employing the same would be to alter the direction of movement of the machine.

The rudder could be operated by shoulder controls or in any suitable manner. A patent has been issued on this device.

Prospects were never better than they are now as we have received over three hundred inquiries since the first of the year, of which many of them have promised their order in the spring and early summer, and some orders have been received for later delivery.—Kemp Machine Works.

New Developments in Aeronautics

Page 97


The latest type of aeroplane tents of the U. S. Army aviation service are of the type shown in the photograph. The tent has an opening for the entrance of machines, 45 feet by 10 feet. The inside dimensions are 45 feet

by 45 feet. The anchors used to hold the poles in place are screwed into the ground with a wrench and will stand a 5,000-pound pull if they are sunk into the ground three-quarters of their length. The anchor rods are J/2 inch and the screw plate, 4 inches in diameter. The cables are fitted with chains and turnbuckles for the purposes of adjustment. Thirty-six strand, T/2 inch cable and 10 ounce canvas are used in constructing the tents. These tents are so designed that any two can be placed side by side and use only 3 poles instead of 4. Each tent costs about $600. They have withstood now rains, winds up to 50 miles an hour, and snow storms, and have suffered no damage while all other types of tents in the same weather have dropped or given way. It takes about 4 hours for 6 men to erect the tent and about 2 hours for the same number of men to knock it down to prepare it for shipment. The tent complete weighs about 400 lbs. This tent has been evolved after two seasons of experimenting at the southern winter camp.


A visit to the English Dep factory by a representative of British Aeronautics, revealed the method of construction of the "raono-cocque" body.

The cockpits in which pilot and passenger seat themselves are built up in an extremely interesting manner. A wooden mould is first obtained, and thin strips of wood are tacked and glued across it diagonally. When completely covered with these strips, another set is put across them at right angles to them, and finally another layer, making a form of three-ply. The "casting" is then removed from the mould and covered on each side with specially thin fabric, fitted with lockers and varnished. The result is an extremely light and rigid casing.

The new type of rudder and elevator has been in existence for several months, and must have been seen and noted by a great number of people. For those who have not seen it, however, we may as well make the remark that in it all bracing wires are entirely eliminated. The arm that takes the pull of the rudder wires is part of an L-shaped member, the longer arm of which extends about two-thirds of the way across the rudder. These arms are composed of ten thicknesses of thin wood glued together, and therefore' there is obviously no chance of their breaking through a longitudinal strain.


One meaning of the term "propeller efficiency." viz., the true efficiency, is the useful work of the propeller divided by the power absorbed by it. Xow. the useful work is the speed of the aeroplane, multiplied by the thrust of propeller zvhile driving machine at that speed and, of course, the power absorbed is the brake horsepower of engine at the necessary number of revolutions (/. e., the number of revolutions made under those conditions).

Another meaning of propeller efficiency is simply the thrust exerted by the propeller when revolving at a fixed point, multiplied by the pitch velocity: and this product, divided by the footpounds delivered to it by the engine. The pitch velocity is the pitch times the number of revolutions per minute.

M. B. Sellers.

A financial statement of the Zeppelin passenger airship service shows a deficit of nearly $250,000.

Harry Atvvood is trying out a flying boat at Sandusky which already boasts of YYeldon B. Cooke. Sandusky hopes for two aeroplane factories.

E. Percy Noel says he made $10,000 out of Aero & Hydro last year, and Alfred \V. Lawson won't sell Aircraft for $100,000. A good magazine must be a paying proposition—almost as good as the supply business!


George A. Spratt, of Coatesville, Pa., has invented a "buoyancy-indicator," the object being to provide means for indicating to the operator the approximate force of the wind and consequently its approximate extent of buoyancy or lifting power; the term "wind" as here used referring to the relative speed between air and aeroplane. This speed indicator is so correlated to the weight of the aeroplane that it shows at a glance, the supporting power of the wind in terms of the

weight of the aeroplane. It comprises a telltale in the form of a bladed fan or propeller of light construction to be mounted at some convenient point upon the aeroplane in advance of the operator.

The buoyancy indicator may comprise a supported shaft or spindle so mounted as to be free to move horizontally and vertically from a substantially definite point. Propeller blades rotate on the spindle, turning against the tension of a spring, one end of which is connected to the spindle and the other end to said blades. At the opposite end of the spindle, tail vanes are employed. At the forward end of the spindle, a weight may be placed.

The spindle i is supported by a swivel cr universal joint carried by a suitable standard 9. As shown in the drawings, this consists of a yoke member 10, suspended by cords 11 within a ring 12 mounted on the standard 9 which may be secured at a convenient point.

The tension of the spring is proportioned to the weight of the aeroplane, and the object of such proportioning is to so correlate the action of the blades that one complete revolution of the same will indicate wind or air currents of sufficient force or velocity to provide the necesary buoyancy to sustain the aeroplane. Proportionate movements of the blades, therefore, will indicate the variations in such range, and whether or not the wind or air currents are above or below the degree of force or velocity necessary to provide sufficient buoyancy to sustain the aeroplane.

The tail vanes can be omitted and the blades are mounted on a spindle supported in substantially the same manner, with the exception that the blades are placed at the rear and are sufficient to counterbalance the weight disposed on the other side of the support and perform substantially the same functions as the tail vanes.

One may also provide means for shortening the length of spring, since any addition to the weight of an aeroplane demands a higher speed for support. This can be done by fastening the spring to the spindle by means of a running clamp having a set screw instead of fastening the spring permanently to the spindle. Then by revolving the clamp once around the spindle thereby taking up one coil of spring and moving the clamp along the spindle, the spring would increase the tensional resistance to represent the speed increase demanded by a definite load added. Means is also provided for adjusting the weight.

Air. Spratt's patent is Xo. 1,050,573.


Congress has appropriated $125,000 for army aeronautics for the coining year, the same sum as was allotted last year.


Specifically, Congress allotted $10,000 for naval aeronautic experimentation in its $9,000,000 total appropriation, but the latter sum covers aeroplanes, aeroplane machinery, boilers, boats, etc., etc., so that up to $100,000 can be spent for aeronautics in the Navy if requisitions are approved. But Congress cut down the working appropriations about $500,000, so that expenditures on aeroplanes are uncertain. Last year the Navy was limited to $50,000 in the appropriation. Captain W. Irving Chambers plans a competition with prizes and premiums if a measure which he is working strenuously for is passed by the next session of Congress.

The story is told that one of America's best known aviators taught his first wife to fly while his second sat on the ground and, one supposes, watched.

In conclusion would like to say that in my mind AERONAUTICS is the best aerial magazine of the present.—W. F. C, California.


Sandusky, in Ohio, is a coming aviation centre. It is the home of the Roberts motor people, Weldon B. Cooke has established himself there and is to huild aeroplanes for the market. Cooke has already rented a plant. Harry N. Atwood is there now experimenting with a flying hoat, as is Dr. F. M. Bell, with his own design tractor. There is a good field reported fronting on the water which makes that city suitable for land and water flying.


Just before sunset on the evening of March 6, Lieutenant J. H. Towers, U.S.N., proceeded to sea from Guantanamo Bay in the Curtiss Navy Flying Boat, with Ensign Chevalier, U.S.N., as an observer, to scout for a supposedly hostile fleet.

Conditions were had on account of frequent rain squalls, three of which were passed through by the aviators.

The whole force of five hattleships and two scouts was discovered about fifteen miles distant, soon after leaving the harbor. Observations of its location, course and speed were made, without detection, at an altitude of 1,150 feet, and at a distance of something over 10,000 yards.

Lieutenant Towers returned to Guantanamo Bay as dusk reporting the facts to the commander-in-chief, who then ordered out the destroyers and the attack took place an hour later.

Siurlevan I


Aeronautical Motors in Government Service

In September, 1912, the U. S. Government purchased a Sturte-vant four-cylinder motor installed in a Burgess aeroplane. This machine was equipped with Starting Crank and Muffler and demonstrated to the Army and Navy Officials the first successfully muffled aeronautical motor in use in the world.

Since that time, the Government has purchased more Sturte-vant Motors than any other make, either American or foreign. With the exception of the Curtiss and Wright motor, with which these manufacturers equip their planes, the Sturtevant Motors are the only ones of American make used by the Government.

Send for Bulletin No. 2002

B. F. Sturtevant Co.

Hyde Park, Boston, Mass.

And all principal cities of the world.




For all photos, descriptions, data,news, drawings, etc., regarding FRENCH AVIATION, address below:

Etudes Aeronautiques ALEX. DUMAS, Engineer, E.G.P. 20 Rue Ste. Marie, Neufchateau (Vosges\ France







Instruction on Land or Water



Designed Scientifically Thomas Bros. Aeroplane Co.,



Built in capacities and types for standard and special aviation motors

Write for prices on standard makes. Send your specifications for special designs


Broadway and 57th St., New York City

Abo Manufacturers of Automobile Radiator* of all types


The Boland aeroplane with which the late Frank E. Boland toured Caracas, Valencia, Puerto Cabello, Maracaibo, and other towns in South America, is of the same general order as the previous machines of his design which created so much talk in the East, and like its predecessors, is tail-less, rudder-less, aileron- and warp-less. Turning and balancing is accomplished by the resistance-making "jibs" at either lateral extremity of the 'plane; these are not interconnected and but one works at a time. In the scale drawings heretofore published in AERONAUTICS the system was fully illustrated and explained. The weight is all placed in the "boat"' and most of the bracing is from the bottom of the boat near the center. The back bed rail is not braced. The passenger's seat is at the center of lift, about 6 inches forward of the front bed rail. The engine like the 'plane is built by the Boland Aeroplane and Motor Co., of Marion, N. J.


An English firm is marketing a very good tool for bending eyes in wire strainers. These


could be made at slight expense by American supply houses and would be of valuable service to amateur builders.


An interesting patent has recently been issued to Johan R. Froberg, of Richmond, Cal., on a releasing device by which an aeroplane may be restrained until its propelling mechanism is exerting the necessary propelling effect or for testing or allowing an aviator alone to start his motor, get in his seat and leave when comfortably seated. A plate, 4, or bracket is fastened to some part of the aeroplane, skid or boat. b__

Upon this plate or bracket 4, there is formed a transversely projecting shank 6 which is slotted to receive a latch 7. The latch 7 is pivoted at 8 to the shank 6, and the free end of the latch extends through a slot 9 formed in the plate 4- This latch 7 is provided on its opposite edge with a recess or notch 11 into which is adapted to snap and rest the trip latch 13.

The cast-off 13 in addition to its longer arm or prong 12 which enters the latch notch 11 also has the cast-off arm 15.

The latch 7 is normally drawn toward the fulcrum 14 of the cast-off 16 by a contractile spring 17, one end of which is fastened to the latch and the other end of which is fastened to the plate 4. The outer end of the latch 7 is provided with a concaved seat or recess 18 adapted to embrace the tip of the cast-off arm 15.

In operation, the aviator or his assistant passes the ends of the restraining cables 16 over the cast-off arms 13 and the latch 7 snaps against the cast-off arms.

The restraining cables 16 are attached to anchoring posts or other stationary elements.

Boland Tail-less Biplane.

ASK MEN WHO KNOW what they think of

gentlemen:— the roberts motor co., sandusky, ohio-

having iust completed my 1912 season of commercial flying with my benoist military tractor biplane no. 30 equipped with roberts 6-x motor no. 181, 1 take pleasure in stating voluntarily and without solicitation on your part, that your motor never tailed me during the entire season's flying from any fault of the engine or equipment connected with it. my repair bill on engine was practically nothing, and the surplus power delivered in emergency requirements astonished all who saw its performances. . .

1 do not feel that this expression of continuous performance and reliability record is needed by you because it is but the opinion or all practical flyers 1 have ever known who have had experience with your product in the air. the four roberts engines 1 have had intimate personal knowledge of in the last two years but confirm the opinion 1 have heard often expressed: ^you can come nearer tor-getting a roberts than any other engine in the air." with best wishes, sincerely yours, ,— » frank m. bell.

Flying BenoistJMilitary Tractor Biplane No. 30

write today for other copies of letters from men who know. standard equipment, paragon propellers

THE ROBERTS MOTOR CO., 1430 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, Ohio

C. & A. Wittemann

aeronautical engineers

manufacturers of




Gliders Propellers Parts - - - +

Special Machines and Parts Built J

to Specifications զpound;

large stock of steel fittings, laminated ribe, %

and struts of all sizes carried in stock. 4*

hall-seott motors, 40-60-80 h. p. J



1 +

works: ocean terrace and little clove road

staten island. new york city +

established 1906 tel. 717 tompkinsville £

Aeronautical Supplies


Build your own flying machine. We supply all parts and fittings at extremely low prices.

1913 CATALOGUE with working drawings of 3 well-known flying machines mailed on request.


85 Chambers Street 67 Reade Street


telephone: 3624 worth



Aeroplane, Motor and Accessory Catalogues Circulars, Brochures, Bulletins, etc. :: "

135 w. 14th street

new york


goods of quality at less than the cheaperkind get our 40-page catalog "everything aviatic and a small order will tell yon wl.y those who know send to us when they want the best at the right pnee. let us give you a special figure on that supply list. HAMILTON AERO MFG. CO.

208 30th avenue seattle, wash.


In the centre of the board is an aneroid, scaled for both barometric and height readings, and supplied with a zero-setting device, by means of which variations in air pressure may be compensated for. Underneath this is a dial giving the engine revolutions. The upright scale on the left hand, calibrated in miles per hour and operating through a pressure device of the liquid type, is connected to a "Pitot" tube, which latter may be fitted on a strut between the main planes. The "Pitot" tube consists of two tubes placed side by side, one having its open end pointing forwards, while the other has an orifice at the side into

which the wind cannot blow. Both are connected to the indicator, the effect of the second tube being to correct the reading of the first by differentiating between the pressure due to velocity and that due to the static condition of the atmosphere. In fitting a "Pitot" tube it is naturally necessary to secure that it is neither shielded by any part of the machine nor subjected to any cross currents or the like; and once fitted it should not be moved about, nor should any alterations be made to the machine in its immediate neighborhood.

On the right of the board is an "inclinometer, adjustable for slight variations in the flying attitude of the machine. This adjustment raises the calibrated face of the instrument from, or depresses it into, the face of the board.

Every possible part is made of aluminum.

The compass is to a certain extent a secondary consideration on this particular board and can be fitted or left off as desired, as many pilots prefer other positions for this important instrument.—Flight.


"It is reported that M. Berthelot, a captain at Vesoul, has completed the construction of a sighting device for use in throwing bombs from aeroplanes and dirigibles," says La France Militairc. "It consists of a complicated form of pendulum, with a truncated cone enclosed in a cylinder.

"On account of the special arrangement and the use of a sufficiently dense liquid, one that will not freeze in winter, and of the protection of the pendulum from the air, giving ;i little more stability, it remains constantly vertical. The inclined positions taken by the machine are quickly registered but vibration does not affect it.

"At a height of 1,000 meters the field of view has a radius of 200 meters, in front of the vertical. It also gives lines of sight for different inclinations, in front of the vertical.

"The field of view and the lines of sight permit the operator to recognize his target in advance, and tell him when to release his projectile, correcting his speed, altitude, etc.

"While the sight lacks a special indicator for speed, it permits its calculation by measuring the distance passed, as indicated by the part of the field of view passed over, the height of the machine being known.

"There have been computed range tables to avoid calculation and to permit rapid operation. The eye and the hand must act simultaneously, for the slightest delay causes big errors."

This device apparently follows closely the operation of the Scott apparatus, which won the Michelin prize in France last summer and which has been fully described in AERONAUTICS. The device of Captain Berthelot has never been tried out, in fact, not even constructed, but exists in blue print form only. It remains to be seen what this device, as well as many others that have sprung up like mushrooms since Scott showed them how, will do in actual practice. So far, the Scott device is the only one that has shown satisfactory results under all conditions of weather and at safe heights.


THE CURTISS AVIATION BOOK, by Glenn H. Curtiss and Augustus Post, with chapters by Captain Paul Beck. U. S. Army. Lieut. T. G. Ellyson. U. S. Navy and Hugh Robinson. 8vo., cloth, illustrated, 307 pp., $1.35 from Aeronautics; published by the F. A. Stokes Co., 443 Fourth Ave., New York. Here is a thoroughly human book, the story of Curtiss' early life written by Post, his feats of ingenuity and mechanics. Curtiss himself tells of his notable flights abroad and in America. Here is a book which will appeal to the red blooded boy and the casually interested onlooker alike.

LES AVIETTES. Etude et historique de l'avia-tion sans moteur par G. Houard. Une brochure in-8° illustree de photographies: Prix 1 franc. Editions scientifiques de la Revue du Ccrf-Volant, 1 boulevard Henri IV, Paris.

LA THEORIE DE L'AVIATION, son application

a 1'Aeroplane. Brochure in 8° fig. Prix..........

1.S0; Par Robert Gastou. Preface de Maurice Far-man.

Published by Librairie des Sciences Aeronautiques, F. Louis Vivien. 48 rue des Ecoles, Paris.

Published Monthly by Aeronauticj Press 122 E. 25th ST., NEW YORK Cable: Aeronautic, New York 'Phone, 9122 Madison Sq ERNEST L. JONES. Pres't - - THOMAS C. VYATKINS, Treas'r-Sec'y ERNEST L. JONES, Editor - M. B. SELLERS, Technical Editor EDWARD LOBDELL, Associate Editor SUBSCRIPTION RATES

United States, $3.00 Foreign, S3 50

No. 67

MARCH, 19 13

Vol. XII, No. 3

Entered as second-class mailer Seplember 22, 1908, at Ihe Posloftice, New York, under the Acl ot March 3, 1B79.

C| AERONAUTICS is issued on the 30th of each Month. All copy must be received by the 20th. Advertising pages close on the 25th.

<J Make all checks or money orders free of exchange and payable to AERONAUTICS. Do not send currency. No foreign stamps accepted.

cylero cTVlart

RATES: 15 cents a line, 7 words to the line. Payment in advance.



FOR SALE—A few Model D~! Gray Eagle motorsi, slightly used, that have been taken in trade for larger motors. In first-class condition, and guaranteed, at bargain prices. Kemp Machine Works, Muncie. Ind.—T. F.

FOR SALE—6 cyl. "Aero Special" Elbridge 2-cycle, magneto, radiator, complete, new. sample. Original price $1,800. will sacrifice at $800 cash. Also -1 cyl. used, good shape, with magneto, at $450. Address at once, Two-Cycle, care of AERONAUTICS.

ENGINE FOR SALE—S-cyl. "V," list price. $1,500; new. never used. The one who buys this motor gets one of those few real bargains that isn't picked up every day. Thoroughly tested by maker who desires to sell the last one in his shop. Complete with propeller, $800. Address. "Eight Cvlinder," care of AERONAUTICS. 122 E. 25th St., New York.

ANTOINETTE AERO MOTOR FOR SALE— 70 II. P.. water cooled, practically unused, fine condition, regular price $4,000; going for $400. Also 4 Bosch magnetos, and a quantity of engine fittings. Address "Antoinette," care of AERONAUTICS.— Mar.

WOLVERINE—For sale, Wolverine 25-30 H. P., 220 lbs. thrust. 130 lbs. weight. New, good. Factory price $350. Best offer buys; or exchange for auto runabout. Also 2-cyl. 10 it. P. marine. L. B. Post, 1020 McBride, Syracuse. N. V.—Mar.

FOR SALE—Brand new. special 10 11. P. 4-cyl. air-cooled engine, equipped with imported magneto and Schebler carburetor. Bargain for $100. C. Louns-bury. Box 3, Glen Spring Heights, Springdale, Conn. —Mar.

ELBRIDGE—For sale, 40-60 II. P. Elbridge motor, Bosch and G. & A. equipped. Harrison radiator, not used. Motor not run 10 hours since new. Guaranteed perfect condition. $450 cash, or exchange for 75 H. P. motor and pay difference. Address, Al Williams. 1051 8th St., Douglas, Ariz.

FOR SALE—At a sacrifice, one new 4-cylinder 50 11. P. Maximotor, 1912 model, complete with radiator and propeller, $400.—for immediate acceptance. II. A. Elliott. 507 Majestic Bldg.. Detroit. Mich.

ROBERTS four-cylinder with radiator and propeller. Used very' little. Price $850. Address Roberts Four, care of AERONAUTICS.

CURTIS S- FARMAN -Exceptionally well made passenger biplane of Curtiss-Farman type. Roebling cable, Naiad covered, 20-inch by 3-inch wheels, seamless steel tubing, laminated ash and spruce members, etc.. $100. Buchanan, care of AERONAUTICS. 122 E. 25th St.. New York._

SACRIFICE—A Curtiss type biplane, flown by one of America's most famous aviators, with 8 cyl. Hall-Scott 60 H. P. motor, all in Al condition, for $1,800 cash, subject to demonstration to bonafide purchaser. Shipping boxes, propeller, crates, completely equipped for the road. Free instruction in flight to purchaser at well-known flying field. The best bargain of the season. Opportunity knocks but once at every man's door. Address "Sacrifice," care of AERONAUTICS, 122 E 25th St.. New York._

FOR SALE—1912 genuine Curtiss aeroplane with hydro-aeroplane attachment. Model "D" exhibition type. Brand new Curtiss Model "O," 8-cylinder, 80 H. P. motor. Extra parts, crates, etc. The ideal high-powered exhibition machine. Quick sale necessary. If interested write at once. ~ Address Curtiss Hvdro. care of AERONAUTICS._

FOR SALE—Tractor biplane. 42 feet spread, 5 feet chord, double surfaced. Fannan running gear. S-cyl. 60 II. P. motor, Bosch magneto. Schebler carburetor, radiator, combination tank. 8-foot Paragon and Nor-niale propellers, extra parts, tent, crates. Complete exhibition outfit. Would make fine hydro-aeroplane. Price, $1,500. Will sell without power, or power plant separate. F. Robinson, 191 Caledonia Ave., Rochester. N. V._

HYDRO PONTOONS—In our stock of duplicate parts we have a number of extra sets of pontoons for standard Curtiss hydro-aeroplanes. These sets include the complete boat, the small pontoons for ends of planes, all necessary braces, etc., everything com-pleee and ready to put on. As they occupy space we need for other uses we will sell these few sets tor less than the cost of making the pontoons. Write today if you want a bargain. Curtiss Exhibition Co.. Ham-mondsport. N. Y._

ASSORTMENT of complete power plants, including: Curtiss 25 II. P. 4-cyl.; Clement-Bayard 30's; Hendee (Indian) 7-cyl., 50. Bargains at 50 per cent, below cost.

Immediate delivery of genuine Bleriot and several antiquated but successful aeroplanes of unexcelled workmanship "for a song." Address Assortment, care of AERONAUTICS, 122 E. 25th St., N. Y. Citv._

IDouble Hydro Floati, weight. 55 lbs. each, pair. J2S0- I Running Gran, Farman or Wright, complete, $42.50- I Hubs, knock-out axle or to fit, 1", 1*6", 1*4", or IV- |


A. WEAVER, Jr., Mfr., 132 West 50th Street, N. Y. " Wheels, 20" x 2*4", complete, $6.00 — 20" x 3". $8.25, with Curtiss or Fannan type stock Hub, 6" wide. We make any size or typo of wheel. Send for list. Compare my prices with all others.


NEXT to the Government Aerodynamical Laboratory and an increased aeronautical appropriation, the great need is for a national registration and license law which will put aeronautics above aero club politics.

It is obvious that once the Government, as is proper, assumes control of the registration of balloons, airships and aeroplanes and of the licensing of operators, the country is free from the custom of granting so-called "licenses" to aviators who merely fulfill certain ridiculous conditions while in all other respects are absolutely unfit to be wandering about in the air. We will not see world-famous pilots deprived of said license simply because they took part in a so-called "unlicensed meet," while others who were not blessed with the appellation "licensed pilot of the Aero Club" of this or that were free to fly to their hearts' content.

Every automobilist has wished for a Federal law. One must now get register anew when he goes from one State to another and then again when he gets to the next. As so many States had their laws all on the books it has been impossible up to the present to get a national registration and license bill. But there is a chance at this early stage to avoid this situation in aeronautics.

Every individual, every club, that has the real interests of the sport at heart will boost for this universal plan. Opposition is proof of private interests.


THE commission appointed by ex-President Taft to report on the feasibility of an aerodynamical laboratory and to make recommendations for the establishment and conduct thereof has completed its labors. It now remains for Congress to pass a suitable bill.

Allow us to point out—and we believe that our suggestions will be found embodied in the result—that this is a national project, for the benefit of all. It should not be an adjunct to any one particular college or university, it should not be hampered in its work by civic or collegiate opinions and petty idiosyncrasies, it should not be under the control of this local aero club or that one, nor bear the official approval or be under the influence of any one aeronautical organization. It must be unlimited in scope and be under the control of the Government absolutely, beyond the machinations of aeronautical politics.

Were it not for the peculiar situation which exists in Aeronautics in the United States, it would be needless to urge that personal pre-

possessions and temporary interests be not permitted to outweigh the interests of the United States Government and the aeronautical industry.


THE cover illustration shows the new Burgess-Curtis "Coast Defense" marine tractor supplied to the Army, in flight at Palm Beach.


DURING the past year the Royal Aircraft Factory undertook a series of experiments on full-sized machines, to improve their efficiency and stability. These were carried out in conjunction with aerodynamical researches at the British National Aerodynamical Laboratory.

As a result of this work, one of the changes to the Farman machines enabled that machine to carry 82 pounds more load, the laboratory calculations before the test having showed that a gain of 80 pounds would result.

The net results of applying laboratory data to the improvement of this machine were:

An increase of speed of from 37 M. P. H. to 47-5 M. P. H.

An increase of range of from (35-37) M. P. H. to (33-47-5) M. P. H.

An increase in amount of load carried of 10%.

An increase in climbing ability of 100%.

A very great increase in stability and ease of control.

A very great increase in total efficiency.

The power used was the same throughout the tests.

Another striking result of using the laboratory data was the development of the Royal Aircraft Factory Machine BE 2, which was expressly calculated to exceed the requirements of the 1912 British aeroplane competition, from data furnished by the laboratory.

The conditions imposed upon competitors were:

Attain an air speed over 55 M.

Climb at the rate of 200 feet per minute.

Fly fully loaded for 3 hours.

Glide at an angle of 1 in 6.

Be capable of landing at 40 M. P. H.

Range of speed 15 M. P. H.

The results achieved by the laboratory machine were: 72 M. P. H., 480 feet, per minute, 5 hours, 1 in 8, 40 M. P. H., 32 M. P. H.

The results attained were in almost perfect accord with the computations of the laboratory data.

4 4


5 9

are now being manufactured in four sizes to meet the demands for smaller and larger motors. Nothing but first-class material, equipment and workmanship used throughout. Why not consider a reliable power-plant at a reasonable price for your'plane?

Model G-2 16 H. P. Model 1-4 35 H. P. Model H-6 55 H. P. Model J-8 75 H. P.


Muncie, Ind.


PLANES hold Ihe following records:

World's long dislance hydro record with one passenger. World's long dislance hydro record wilh lwo passengers. American endurance record, aviator and three passengers. Have more world's records than all other m'f'rs combined. The first successful Tractor Biplane built in America.

The New Benoist Flying Boat

Records indicate superior efficiency. Why not get an efficient machine rtvh:le vou are about it ?



S L 0 A N E Thc Deperdussin School S L 0 A N E

Will be back East for the SPRING SEASON about May 1st, 1913

The BEST Machines - - The BEST Pilots - - The BEST Field

These guarantee a thorough course and complete satisfaction

Monoplanes Biplanes

You want to learn to fly. Why not learn with us?

Assure yourself of learning the art of flying by attending an established school.

Convince yourself of the ability and reputation of our school by writing for information regarding our wonderful performances in California.


Gilpatric and Miss Stahl starting on their re altitude flight.

Water Flying

Everything the Best

Be up-to-date by learning to fly on our famous Caud-ron and Deperdussin Monoplanes.

We conduct the only school in America teaching on these machines.

Safe machines and competent instructors are as good as insurance.



1733 Broadway NEW YORK CITY 'Phone COLUMBUS 5421 606 S. Michigan Ave. Chicago, III.

210 Merchants Trust Bldg. B'way and 2nd Street



Curtiss Flying Boat

{Continuedfrom page gf)

Lateral stability is secured by the usual ailerons hinged by pivot bolts through bushings in outer rear struts. These are 10 feet by 3 feet. These are controlled by 1-16 inch Roebling cable run in duplicate over large pulleys to the shoulder braces forming the back of the aviators' seats and may be worked by one or both of two occupants.

The folding running gear consists of two 20 inches by 4 inches Goodyear wheels centered 9 inches back of front edge of plane. The power plant is the standard S-cylinder "V" So H. P. Curtiss engine, driving direct a Curtiss propeller 8 feet by 5 feet 6 inches pitch. Bosch dual magneto, El Arco radiator. A starting crank is employed. The fuel and oil tanks are strapped to the engine bed. which is supported by steel tubes and double guyed. The thrust is 500 to 550 pounds.

The boat, made of spruce, measures 23 feet 7l/> inches in length, 30 inches greatest width and 38 inches greatest depth. The bow is hooded with a Goodrich aluminum fabric shield. The boat serves as a fuselage and

supports the tail. Three small keel strips prevent damage to the hull from the beach From the middle the boat tapers to a point at the rudder post. The hull has one 3-inch step and is divided into 6 watertight compartments. Two small floats are also attached under each wing end.

The two seats, side by side, are in the hull jlist ahead of the front spar. The one steering column branches into a "Y" to the upper ends of which are attached the steering wheels. The fore-and-aft rocking of the pillar operates the elevator and the natural side swaying of the pilot moves the shoulder rests which operate the ailerons.

A small door on each side provides facility in embarking. The fabric hood curves outward around the seats to give plenty of room.

The consumption of gas per hour is 7 gallons, 2l/> pints of oil, the engine running 1300 R.P.M., total weight empty 1,200 pounds, or with supplies for 4 hours and operator, 1,700 pounds. Speed 59 miles, climbs 200 feet per minute.

Wright Versus Curtiss

(Continuedfrom page gj)

sist, the machine will be brought back to the horizontal position before it has had time to turn out of its course to any dangerous ex-

straight course. Of course, in windy weather gusts will persist and hence the turning will persist and there will come a time when the rudder will have to be used to prevent destruction.

F/f 2

tent, hence the rudder need not be used as an offset. The machine will come back to the level and the side resistance of the tail will be sufficient to swing the machine back to a

What I have written above will, I think, not only support the decision given at Buffalo, but it will explain why there is a difference of opinion among aviators as to just how much the rudder has to be used in the Curtiss system.


( The following, left out of the February issue, should follow the last line on page bSof that number.)

the propeller. The efficiency is determined by dividing the work appearing from the action of the propeller by the total power applied to it.


BULLETIN DE LTNSTITUT AERODYNA-MIQUE HE KOUTCHINO, Vol. IV, published by Librairie Aeronautique 40 rue de Seine, Paris, at 8 francs. Qto volume, paper, 1-10 pp., with illustrations, diagrams, tables, etc. Written in French. Reports experiments on propellers, disposition of c. of p., resistance at various angles of incidence, etc.

ENGINEERS' HANDBOOK ON PATENTS, by William Macomber, a leading patent lawyer and Professor of Patent Law at Cornell.

This volume is a handbook in which are presented the theories which underlie successful inventions and tend to guide the inventor on successful lines, both as to the law and theory of patents. It places in the hands of the inventor, engineer and manufacturers in general, a concise, handy volume that shows a distinct departure from the orthodox order of works on patent laws. Legal phraseology and terminology has been omitted to the utmost and all the matter is stated in plain, direct words. A careful study of the book will enable the user to avoid lines of thoughl which have resulted in past failures on the part of other inventors and will inform him of the steps necessary to secure for himself the full benefits of a successful invention. This is just what the aero inventor needs. Published by Little, Brown & Co., Boston, at $2.50 in leather. '



Have you seen our new price list ? Write for it. A price for everybody.


Agents: Eames Tricyle Co., San Francisco; National Aeroplane Co., Chicago.


Made in two sizes

50 H. P. 6-cyl. Air-cooled,

PRICE, $650.00 Complete

100 H.P. 6-cyl. Water-cooled, 3^oeiit!

PRICE, $850.00 Complete Catalog Free Agents Wanted




New and Enlarged Edition, Commencing January, 1913 +


The Leading British Monthly * Journal Devoted to the Technique f and Industry of Aeronautics. *

(FOUNDED 1907)

Yearly Subscription One Dollar, Eighty-Five Cents Post Free

■Mj-j.— .__A specimen copy will be mailed

llUlC. free on rece;pt Qf 15 cents.


3 London Wall Buildings, London, England American Office : 250 West 54th Street, New York


MJLBall Bearings

Z5« West Fifty- fourth , Now YorU,



INCL.pr0peiler-carburet0r-b0sh magneto. oilpump-cable-switch-mounting bolts


210 lbs min.stationary thrust 156 lbs MAX.WEIGrlT(c0mple.TE| 36 hours delivery





We make an extra high grade plated finish wire for aviators' use.


John A. Roebling's Sons Co.


V-Ray Spark-Plugs Never Lay Down


Marshalltown, la.

J. C. (Bud) MARS, now booking season 1913.

Have never been connected with the American Aeroplane Mfg. Co. uiul School of Aviation.

17 North La Salle Street, Chicago, Ills.

A view of the Navy aviation camp on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with warships in the background. These machines are here in a strategic position in the event of intervention in Mexico. Guantanamo is about 1,400 miles from I'cra Cruz and about 960 miles from the nearest Centra! American coast. These machines


can be quickly transported, when wanted, to any point in the Carribbean or the Gulf of Mexico. The aviators have been doing fine work with the fleet, in addition to their principal job of instruction. Much of their information must be regarded as confidential by the War Department.


President Taft appointed a commission to inquire into the feasibility of an aerodynamical laboratory, investigate the advantages to be derived therefrom and report with a definite plan of action. The commission has had three meetings and several subcommittee meetings, and has prepared a report which recommends the establishment of a national aeronautical laboratory under the direction of Smithsonian Institution at Washington, and advised by an aeronautical committee similar to that known as the British Advisory Committee on Aenonautics.

Owing to the rush in Congress at the closing hours of the last session the bill legalizing the commission was not passed so that this body cannot make its report to the President and to Congress, or give publicity to it. There is a strong sentiment in Congress in favor of a bill which embodies the views of the commission and there is no opposition save from one lone technical institution.

The Smithsonian Institution is under the control of the United States Government and is a nonpartisan organization. Its aid to Langley, to science in all its branches, and its contributions to public knowledge are well known. It has funds which can be applied at once to the equipment of the laboratory once the project is legally launched.

The bill for the establishment of such a laboratory will probably come up in the first session of the new Congress, and its provisions are as follows:

This bill was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Stone and referred to a committee. From here it will be reported in the new Congress.

The following is a synopsis thereof.


Be it enacted that a National Aeronautical Laboratory is hereby established under the direction of Smithsonian Institution;

Sec. 2.—Functions of the laboratory shall be the study of the problem of aeronautics, etc.

Sec. 3.—Laboratory shall, under regulations to be established and fees to be fixed, exercise its functions for the military and civil departments of the Government; also for any individual, firm or association, provided that such individual, firm, etc., shall pay cost of material and labor of employees in connection with such exercise of the functions of laboratory.

Sec. 4.—Director at $5,000, appointed by the President with advice and consent of Senate; clerks, etc., to be appointed first year to be reported to Congress.

Sec. 5.—Director shall have general supervision, make annual report, and issue bulletins giving information of value for public distribution.

Sec. 6.—Board of Regents of Smithsonian may rent temporary quarters, etc., as may be provided for by private contributions or authorized by Congress, buy books, equipment, etc.

Sec. 7.—Gives Regents power to accept gifts, hold and dispose of same.

Sec. 8.—Laboratory work under control of an aero-

nautical committee composed of director of laboratory, Chief of Bureau of War Department, in charge of military aeronautics, officer of Navy in similar position, secretary of Smithsonian, Chief of the Weather Bureau, ' Chief of U. S. Bureau of Standards, with not more than seven additional persons of proper qualifications, these latter to be appointed by the President, three of whom shall be residents of the District of Columbia, and not more than one of the remainder from one State. These members serve without pay, actual expenses attending meetings, however, to be paid. One member to retire each year and appointments thereafter for a period of seven years each.


It is desirable, in connection with this laboratory, to so co-ordinate the research work and the supply of information as to encourage the study of aeronautics at many of our universities and technical schools, some of which may obtain adequate facilities, eventually, for original investigations in aerodynamics.

Under the' stimulus of a central national plant located at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, which is cognizant of the standards of scientific study at all institutions of learning, each school may be kept informed concerning the progress of original investigations at the national laboratory and all that is accomplished by foreign laboratories in other parts of the world, to the end that a concentration of effort by all may be focussed upon the most important problems from time to time, and that an incentive may be created whereby many of the bright students and their instructors, in all parts of the land, may be encouraged to co-operate in this new field of exploration and, eventually, to supply a much-needed body of scientific engineers and physicists well grounded in the science of aeronautics.

It might, perhaps, be possible to locate certain facilities for independent research in aerodynamics at one or more of these schools, by private endowment, as has been done abroad in some countries, and original plants of this sort should be encouraged, but they would be mere adjuncts of the colleges and would not be equipped with resources for extensive open air aeronautical investigation.

The colleges would be, under the plan, provided by the bill before Congress, co-operating branches of the central plant to the full extent of any superior facilities they might possess. There would be created, thus, a large body from which to choose the talent required at the national plant, and at manufacturing establishments generally. This body would be too restricted if narrowed down to any one college, and the ends of justice of efficiency would not be served should exclusive preference be given to any particular college in the selection of such talent for the national plant.

Governmental Aeronautics


Lincoln Beachy trusts his Curtiss

He holds the American Altitude Record and does things no one else would attempt.

Lieut. J. H. Towers, U.S.N.

trusts his Curtiss

And holds the American and World's Duration and Distance record for Hydroaeroplanes.

8-cyl. 80 H.P. Curtiss Power Plant.

Results tell the Story

6-cyL 60 H. P. Curtiss Power Plant.

No matter whether you want a motor for power, speed, reliability, or endurance, careful investigation will prove to you that Curtiss Motors are years ahead of all others.

Used by the Governments of the United States, France, Russia, Germany. Japan, Italy, Austria, Brazil, et al. Only adopted by them after most severe tests

There's always a Reason

We want to send you the advance catalog of Curtiss Motors for 1913 and explain why Curtiss Motors lead the world. Ask for it to-dav.

4-cyl. 40 H. P. Curtiss Power Plant.




The Aero Club of Pennsylvania is sponsor—congratulations—for a Federal bill to be introduced into the next session of Congress which provides for the registration of all aerial craft and the licensing of all operators save those flying over aerodromes under their own control.

Its provisions follow the average State automobile law and time will, no doubt, necessitate improvements but it is good for a starter and deserves the hearty support of all. Let us hope that this will be passed before we have a conglomeration of fool State laws.

The committee of the Club which drafted the bill consists of E. Cullman, chairman; Henry M. Neely, Victor de Vonckheere, H. E. Hankins and M. F. 1 >onoghue.



"Whereas, it is deemed expedient that the control of all vehicles of the air, and of the licensing of the operators thereof be under the control of the United States of America, therefore:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled:"

Section 1.—This covers the terminology of Aeronautical terms, defining "aviator," etc.

Section 2.—That no aircraft shall be operated unless registered in the office of the Bureau of Navigation of the Department of Commerce and Labor.

Section 3.—Every application for registration shall set forth, verified by oath the name and residence of owner, description of type of aircraft, name of manufacturer, manufacturer's number, if any, of said aircraft, to be registered.

Section 4.—Bureau of Navigation of Department of Commerce and Labor to enter such application and if all requirements Section Three of this Act complied with, to issue a numbered certificate of registration for a fee of $5.

Section 5.-—Every registration certificate issued must contain the facts required by Section Three and date of registry. Registration of such aircraft not to be valid until registration number is posted in a conspicuous place on said aircraft; and the registry shall be null and void if the aircraft is used if the number be removed.

Section 6.—License to be valid for one calendar year. Annual fee $5.

Section 7.—No person can use any aircraft until licensed by the same Bureau.

Section 8.—Application for operating license shall set forth in writing, verified by oath, name and residence of applicant, post-office address. Applicant to be over 18 years of age. Shall submit satisfactory proof that said applicant is duly qualified to operate such type of aircraft as said applicant applies for permission to operate. To application attach certificate of physician that applicant is sound of body, with special reference to eyesight, condition of heart and condition of nerves.

Section 9.—It shall be the duty of said Bureau to enter application in, if all the requirements of Section Eight have been complied with, to order applicant to make such tests as may be deemed necessary, and if applicant demonstrates ability to manage aircraft as provided for in rules and regulations, then said Bureau shall issue certificate to applicant. Fee. $5.

Section 10.—Operating license must contain licensee's name, address, date of registration, the number of the license. Licensee, whenever operating, must exhibit for inspection certificate at request of such Federal authority as said Bureau shall by its rules and regulations provide.

Section 11.— License valid one calendar year. Fee $5.

Section 12.—Registration certificate or operating license shall not be transferred.

Section 13. No person holding an aviator's license shall be permitted to operate under said license a dirigible balloon or spherical balloon, and vice versa.

Section 14.—Any person or persons using or operating any hydro-aeroplane on an}- body of water shall be subject to the laws, rules anu regulations of marine craft and shall not be subject to the laws, rules and regulations governing aircraft.

Section 15.—The Department of Commerce and Labor is authorized to establish rules and regulations from time to time as it may see fit to do so to carry out the purpose of this Act relating to the registry and operating of all aircraft, and the granting of all aviator's and aeronaut's license, and generally to do and perform all things which it may deem necessary for the carrying out of the provisions of this Act.

Section 16.—Breach of any provision of Act shall be sufficient cause for revocation of registry of operating license.

Section 17.—The provisions of this Act shall not apply to novices experimenting in any aerodrome, or under the supervision of a licensed aviator or aeronaut.

Section 18.—This Act shall take effect thirty days after its approval.


Frederick C. Hild, who is the American Aeroplane Supply House, of Hempstead, L. I., flew his 4-cyl-inder Roberts-Bleriot-type in a dense fog from Hempstead to Blackwell's Island, in the East River, landing on the penitentiary grounds, on March 4. The distance is about 18 miles. On trying to start in the deep mud, he broke a propeller and finally shipped the machine back.

The day was cold and drizzly. Hild expected to fly to Washington. He still plans this trip.

Hild taught himself to fly in one of the machines his company has been marketing and flew for his certificate on February 20th, when he was up 2,735 feet. He saw a mirage of the village of Hempstead at the height of 2.000 feet in the altitude test. The village appeared to be magnified to about 20 times normal size.


The Benoist flying boat has had its successful trials under the guidance of Hugh Robinson, the former Curtiss hydro flyer, with envious _ water boats chugging along through the muddy Mississippi.


The Washington Aeroplane Company's new flying boat, belonging to Marshall Reid, equipped with the new 80 H. P. Gyro motor, made six successful flights March 14, at a speed of about 65 miles per hour in the air, getting off the water in about 100 feet. This boat was described in the February issue.


Page 1 1 1

March, 1913

Model B, 4-cylinder, 60-70 h. p.

Weight complete 260 lbs. 500 lbs. thrust

Three other models correspondingly SIMPLE, COMPACT, POWERFUL Write fbr catalog


1528 E. Jefferson Avenue


To Our Friends--Our Patrons and Aviation Generally

The New York Aeronautical Supply Co. of 50 Broadway, New York City, has consolidated with the Cordeaux-Etter Mfg. Corporation of No. 11-13-15 Mc-Kibben st., New York City (B.B.) N.Y.—and in the future they will do business under that name. A Urge stock of Aeroplane Supplies and Woodwork is carried in stock at all times. Send 10 cents for catalogue describing over 750 parts and fittings.

Cordeaux-Etter Mfg. Corporation.

11-13-15 McKibben St. New York City (Borough of Brooklyn^

A Course at the Curtiss Training School

tjJWill prepare you for a commercial future in Aviation. Graduates ready for Exhibition

Flying. Trade Demonstrators. Private Operatives. ֊ An open field for pleasant remunerative employment.

<1 Offers these unique advantages: A $50,000 equipment of Standard Aeroplanes,

Hydro-Aeroplanes, and Flying-Motor-Boats. ^Classes limited to ten students under the personal supervision of Mr. Glenn H. Curtiss. *I Opportunity to keep directly in touch with latest developments in Aviation.





Harry M. Jones, who started from Boston, January 13. with a package of beans via aerial parcel post for New York's postmaster, on March 10 almost completed his trip when he landed at Rye, N. Y. lie was looking for experience after purchasing his Burgess machine—and he got it in plenty—cold, wind, storms, and general troubles peculiar to aeroplanes.


During the year 35 aeroplanes and parts of domestic make were exported at a value of $126,427. For December, 1912, alone, 3 were exported at a valuation of $13,286, including parts. No imports or exports of foreign machines were made during December. For the year ending December 31, 16 aeroplanes, with parts, were imported, valued at $62,876. Exports of foreign goods were 17, totaling $69,886. Five foreign machines remained in warehouse, valued at $19,516. Previous to July 1, 1912, parts of aeroplanes were included in another division than under aeroplanes so that the total figures given are slightly under the actual, without doubt.


Aerial Yacht Co., San Francisco, $25,000; S. P. Christofferson, L. Christofferson, Ernest Hammer.

National Aeroplane Mfg. Co., Oakland, $250,000; YY. H. Irving, W. T. Casselman, A. C. Taylor, S. P. Post.

The Kirkham Aeroplane & Motor Company, Inc., Savona, N. Y., $100,000; Edwin H. Skinner, South Beach, N. Y.; Charles 15. Kirkham and Stanley I. Vaughn, both of Savona, N. Y.

Cordeaux-Etter Manufacturing Corporation, Brooklyn, N. Y., $10,000; Theodore 11. Klein, 273 Halsey Street, Brooklyn; John Winne, 534 West 124th Street, and WaHer Schuiman, 40 West 127th Street, New-York. Takes over the N. Y. Aeronautical Supply Co.

Richmond Aeroplane & Exhibition Corp., Box 884, Richmond, Ya., $50,000; J. E. Crass, Jr., L. M. Thomas, Harvey Baker.

Silver Lake Aviation Co., Jersey City, N. J.. $300,000; Jos. E. Curtin, Lynn Comstock, H. O. Coughlin, latter of New York.

The First Am. Passenger Sailing Airship Co., New York, $20,000; Frank Weninger, George A. Fuller, Tony Mundus, latter, 495 Bainbridge St., Brooklyn.

The Wright Memorial Commission, Dayton, ().; A. M. Kittredge, E. A. Deeds, T. C. Eberhardt, F. II. Rike,, E. E. Burkhart and (). B. Brown.

The Keystone Aircraft Company, Philadelphia, Pa., $100,000; H. P. Fry, M. C. Ryan, J. C. Jones, all of Philadelphia.


^ Receiver has been appointed for Standard Aviation Co., of Chicago.—Chicago Tribune.

Fred Eldred. Kalamazoo, Mich., adjudged bankrupt with liabilities of $14,000 and no assets. Two years ago he tried to float the Tribiplane Company of Kalamazoo.—Grand Rapids Herald.

Aerial Navigation Co., Girard, Kan., adjudged bankrupt March 5. E. R. Adams is Referee, 246 Wahlenmaier , Bldg., Kansas City, Kan.


Ingenieur Wilhelm Kress, of Vienna, whose early experiments in aviation, particularly with a hydroaeroplane, are common knowledge the world over in aeronautical circles, died on the 24th of February, aged 77 years.


A new machine is being listed by The Wright Company, having the same approximate dimensions as tlie model EN, which was the exhibition size of the standard Wright, equipped with the four cylinder motor driving a single propeller. A motor starter will be included as standard equipment.


The Moisant chief pilot, S. S. Jerwan, delivered a letter by aeroplane to ex-president Taft in front of his hotel at Augusta, Ga., on March 8, by dropping it from his monoplane. He also delivered the Augusta "Chronicle" via. aeroplane, making a flight of 60 miles.

In the letter, Jerwan said, in part:

"It is a sad spectacle that the United States, ranking- as it does among the most powerful nations of the world, and priding itself upon being the birthplace of aviation, should play so small a part in so vital a matter as the necessity of an appropriation for an aerial fleet, in keeping with the standing and dignity of this country."

Mr. Taft kindly acknowledged the unique letter but declined Mr. Jerwan's offer of a ride.

The school will move back to Garden City the early part of May. So far, at the winter headquarters ten pupils have been trained. Marvin C. Wood, one of the pupils, has qualified for his license at the U. S. Array Aviation Field, Augusta, Ga.

The two Aldasoro brothers of the Mexican Government are to try for their license and will then start for Mexico, to take an active part in the war against the rebels.


THF Curtiss Aeroplane Company deserve credit for the longest non-stop engine run on record so far as recollection serves—40 hours. Just to make certain that the public will believe this, the company submits to AERONAUTICS a detailed statement of horsepower, revolutions, etc., backed up by sworn affidavits. These witnesses testify that Curtiss' motor number 323, on February 4, ran for 40*2 consecutive hours without a single adjustment or the motor touched other than to supply fuel, and that a record of the speed was made every half hour and that at no time did the engine turn less than 1025 R. P. M. at which speed it developed approximately 70.4 P.. H. P. and that the average R. P. M. was 10-10.

This same motor, as one affidavit shows, was used for 3 months in school work previous to the 40.5 hour run, and during that time Francis Wildman made 577 flights, covering approximately 4,616 miles, in the air 96 hours total; also, that previous to this the motor was used by Hugh Robinson for four months, whose record card shows about 6,000 miles. In all this time no repairs were made other than grinding valves.

In the test the motor was loaded "with a dynamometer fan which absorbed practically 70 II. P. at 1025 R. P. M., all adjustments were set in advance and no adjustments of any kind were made during the run; the motor was not touched during the 40 hours. At the end of 40 hours, with 30 minutes added for good measure, the engine was running alone at 1040 R. P. M."

On a basis of 55 M. P. II., this run would have produced a flight, non-stop, of 2,200 miles. The company gives the mileage of the motor as 13,500.

Copies of the new catalogue, covering a 4-cyl. 40 H. P., 6-cyl. 60 H. P., and an 8-cyl. "V," 80 H. P. may be had now on application.


The Kemp Machine Works recently ran one of their six vertical cylinder 55 H. P. air cooled motors on the block for five hours, according to the report made by the company to AERONAUTICS.

"After running the motor 15 minutes the first run, and all was working smoothly the motor was stopped long enough to fill the oil reservoir and gas tank and was then started for a little limbering up in which the motor was run for 4 hours and 40 minutes on a trifle over 5 gallons of gasoline.

"The last hour the motor was running at full speed and pulling to its limit in which the cooling was excellent although we have increaed the bore of the cylinders to 4 54 inches and raised the compression considerably, but the new type of cylinders and valves and the increased radiation surface take care of the cooling without a force blast other than that of the propeller even with the auxiliary ports eliminated entirely which makes the motor clean and desirable in other ways and permits throttling as low as 175 R. P. M."

The new catalog of the Kemp Machine Works, of Muncie, Ind., is now ready.


Vulcanized Proof Material

For Aeroplanes, Airships, Balloons. First Rubberized Fabric on the market. Lightest and strongest material known. Dampness, Heat and Cold have no effect. Any strength or color.

"Red Devil" Aeroplanes

That anyone can fly. Free Demonstrations.

Hall-Scott Motors

Eastern distributor. 40 h. p., 4-cyl.; 60 and 80 h. p., 8-cyl., on exhibition at Wittemann's. All motors guaranteed. Immediate delivery.


Will install a Hall-Scott free of charge in anyone's aeroplane and demonstrate by expert flyer. Expert advice. 'Planes balanced.

Private Flying Field

Fine private field with smooth water frontage for hydro-aeroplanes. Private sheds and workshop. Located at Oakwood Heights, Staten Island.


Box 78, Madison Sq. P.O. New York




To the Editor:

"On page 20 of your January issue, there is an article by Mr. A. Hyatt Verrill, the fifth paragraph of which is such a direct slap at the Roberts Motor and so thinly veiled that we wish to make a protest.

"Mr. Verrill's criticisms of our statements are entirely uncalled for, and show that they appear to be based on some grouch against the Roberts Motor which we cannot understand. We will take these matter up seriatim and answer them.

"First, regarding the motors having 'never failed.' So far as our own knowledge is concerned of the stoppages of Roberts Motors in the air, particularly at the time this statement was made, we do not know of any other cause 'for stoppage' except running out of gasoline. The writer has seen a great many flights with Roberts Motors in various parts of the country, probably one hundred or more, and not in a single instance, has he seen the motor stop running in the air.

"Mr. Weldon B. Cooke, the California aviator, who has been using a Roberts 6-cylinder motor since a year ago this month, and has filled during the season of 1912 some 73 professional engagements, states that his motor has stopped on him only once, and then it was on account of lack of gasoline.

"In all our experience, we do not know of a single accident that was caused by the motor stopping in the air. It is possible that there have been some, but we have yet to hear of them.

"Now so far as the motor spoken of as flying 'continuously' for over a year with less than 10 cents repairs, Mr. Verrill's only chance for criticism is in a typographical error of the term 'continuous,' which should be 'continual.' This motor was the second 4-cylinder we built and sold originally to Messrs. Hadley & Blood, of Mineola, by them to Fred P. Shneider, of New York, and by Shneider to the Tarbox Bros., of Washington, D. C, where it was flown almost every good flying day during the season of 1911. Tarhox Bros, sold this motor to Raymund V. Morris, of New Haven, Conn. As we were especially interested, we followed the performance of this motor very carefully and our records show that the only repair to this motor was the replacement of a taper pin in the pump driving gear.

"If Mr. Verrill knows of a serious accident that occurred due to motor trouble with a Roberts Motor, this is a matter of which we have no knowledge whatever.

"The accident referred to by Mr. Verrill was perhaps that to Raymund V. Morris, as that is the only serious accident of which we have knowledge with the Roberts Motor in the neighborhood of New Haven. We have a letter over Mr. Morris' signature stating that the accident was due to no fault of the motor.

"As to the number of Roberts "Motors in use, I doubt very much if Air. Verrill has any reliable data on this matter such as we have. It might interest your readers to know, as a matter of information, that in seven months we sold 61 Roberts aeroplane motors and shipped 55. There are probably quite a numher of Roberts Motors in use in the United States in aeroplanes that Mr. Verrill has never heard of. At the time we made the statement that no Roberts Motors had been abandoned in preference to another make, we had no record of a single aviator flying another motor after once using the Roberts, except that he was flying for some one else and was compelled to use the motor furnished him. Since then, we have a record of just one instance of this kind, and if Mr. Verrill knows of any other, he has knowledge which we do not possess.

"We really believe that Mr. Verrill's criticisms are uncalled for and are the result of something entirely foreign to the facts in the case, and we trust you will give this letter the publicity which it deserves, under the circumstances.

"We also wish to take exception to Mr. Verrill's statement that in 'nearly every case the American motor will suffer by comparison with the European

"prototype." ' This would make the American motor appear to be a copy of the foreign motor while as a matter of fact the majority of American designs are original in themselves, and not copies in any sense of the word."

Yours very truly, THE ROBERTS MOTOR COMPANY. Feb. 7, 1913.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Every one realizes that an editor is not responsible for individual opinions expressed in articles by others; yet, a journal is always open to the other side. Whenever injustice has heen done, even by authors of articles, it is only right that there should be a remedy.

Letters have been received from Fred'k C. Ilild, of the American Aeroplane Supply House, and from Raymund V. Morris, users of Roberts motors. Both of these correspondents are enthusiastic on the subject of their own motors. Ilild flew for his pilot "license" up to 2,735 feet, in 32 minutes. He says he never knew any of his Roberts to fail in all his experience, and his 4-cylinder has been in use in his school flights all winter, flying 2 to 4 hours every week. "Never missed and not a single cent for repairs."

Mr. Morris states he finds but one of the five statements alleged by Mr. Verrill to be in the catalog of a certain 2-cycle engine maker (presumed to be the Roberts company) actually in that catalog, and takes these statements up categorically. His 4-cylinder Roberts was used over a year, he says, without repairs, i. c, replacements. "To tighten a bearing is not to repair it. To repair is to restore." As to the accident met with hy Mr. Morris, he states it was not due to the motor's failing, notwithstanding newspaper reports.


THE BOY'S BOOK OF INVENTIONS, by Harry E. Maule. 8vo.. 374 pp., fully illustrated. Published hy Doubleday, Page & Co., at $1.60 net. Of twelve interestingly written and instructive chapters on various mechanical and scientific subjects, three are written on history, development and the present-day aeroplane. For the mechanical boy's Christmas no more suitable book could be given. Even the older ones who enjoy the recital of world progress will find the book absorbing.

KATALOG DER HISTORISCHEN ABTEILUNG der Ersten Internationalen Luftschiffahrts-Ausstellung at Frankfurt in 1909, hy Dr. Louis Liebmann and Dr. Gustav Wahl. Large quarto vol., 513 pp., handsomely illustrated. Published by Wusten & Co., Frankfurt a. M.. Germany, at 30 marks. This book contains a description of all the objects displayed in the historic department of the "ILA" exposition at Frankfurt. Old relics in the way of engravings and descriptions of famous halloons or other craft devised. Reproductions are shown of famous drawings, medals, autographs, letters, etc. A book for the library and the historian.

LES HYDRO-AEROPLANES, par Pierre Riviere. Paper, 8vo., 88 pp., ills., published _ at 3 fr. by Librairie Aeronautique, 40 rue de Seine, Paris. A short history of the hydro-aeroplane, with pictures, drawings and descriptions of the present-day machines.

ABREGE SUR L'HELICE et La Resistance de l'Air, par Maurice Gandillet; Quarto, 187 pp., published by Librairie Gauthier-Yillars, 55 Quai des Grands Augustins, Paris, at 10 francs. Chapters: Resistance de l'Air. Rendement, Epiphenomenes, Gepale, Traction helicale, Traction motorale, _ Traction moto-propulsive, Helice au laboratoire, Helice en vol libre. Questions diverses, Resume et Conclusions.

APPRECIER UN AEROPLANE, l'ameliorer s'il y a lieu, par le capitaine du genie Duchene. Un volume de 60 pages. Prix: 1 fr. 50.— (Librairie Aeronautique, 40, rue de Seine, Paris.)

Take Notice!

Harry Bingham Brown

The Great English Pilot

will demonstrate to the Porto Ricans his great flying ability by elevating

Frederick Rodman Law

who will dive from an enormous elevation in a "Stevens Safety Pack," at the Third Insular Fair, San Juan, Porto Rico, February 22d to March 2d, 1913.

These two wonderful Airmen have been engaged as a Star Feature at the largest Expositions and Fairs of the World.

Under the careful management of

A. Leo Stevens

Address all communications

San Juan, Porto Rico

U. S. Patents Gone to Issue

Copies of any of These Patents may be Secured by Sending Five Cents in Coin to the Commissioner of Patents, Washington, D. C.

Even in these enlightened days, the crop of patents on absolutely worthless, or even questionable, devices increases rather than decreases.

It would take an entire issue of the magazine to abstract in a full and clear manner the claims of the majority of the patents issued. In a great many cases it is even impossible to ghe in a few lines what sort of an apparatus the patent relates to. In most instances we ha-\ e used merely the word "aeroplane" or "helicopter" if such it is. Where it is impossible to indicate the class, even, in which the patent belongs, without printing the whole patent, we have used the word "flying machine."

The patents starred (*) are those which may be found of particular interest; but it must be understood we do not pretend to pass judgment upon merits or demerits.

Where patent seems to have particular interest, the date of filing will be given. Editor.


* 1,050,153—Louis Marmonier, Lyon, France, automatic STABILIZER for aeroplanes; combination of 2 gyroscopic pendulums running in opposite directions, with frames supporting same pivoted in another frame and having trunnions, short shaft, quadrant, etc.. with electric device to correct failure of synchronous deviations between pendulums and the second frame, etc. Filed Oct. 19, 1911.

1,050,222—Arthur M. Mcintosh, Sydney, N.S.W., Australia, WING, curved in direction of length, also in breadth, the front edge adjacent outer end being curved upwardly; horizontal rudder convexly curved in direction of width, and means to tilt.

1.050,337—Robert Carlson, Corbin, Mont., AIRSHIP.

1,050,415—William C. Zimmerman, New York, N. Y,. FLYING MACHINE.

1,050,402—Charles L. Hudler. St. Louis, Mo., TANDEM MULTIPLANE, in which rear series of planes tilt for elevator action.

1,050,530—Johan Richard Froberg, Richmond, Cal., PROPELLER of hollow blade construction and peculiar shape.

1,050,566—William Saint, Dayton. Ohio, STABILIZER, comprising an extensible and contractible lever with weight at end.

*1,050.573—George A. Spratt, Coatesville, Pa., BUOYANCY INDICATOR; indicating to operator force of wind (lift). Filed Feb. 23, 1910.

* 1,050,601—Alexander Graham Bell. Washington. D. C, STABILITY device employing vertical rudder turning about an axis normal to the supporting surface at about the c. of p. of machine. Filed Feb. 8, 1910.

1,050,654—Tohn P. Holland. East Orange. N. T„ FLYING MACHINE.


1,050,821—John Eddy, Riga, Mich.. AEROPLANE.

' 1,050,874—Willard Irving Twombly, New York, N. Y., SAFETY HARNESS for Aviator. Heretofore described in AERONAUTICS.

1,050,921—lames Darche, Corpus Christi, Texas, HELICOPTER.

1.050.980—Samuel D. Mott, Passaic, N. T., HELICOPTER.

1,051,004—William Pfeiffer, Walla Walla, Wash., TOY BALLOON.

ISSUED JANUARY 28, 1913. 1,051,429—Ralph A. Merck, Gainesville, Ga., STABILITY device, including a type of ailerons and a tail which can be shifted fore and aft to change c. of g. by a lazy tong arrangement.

1,051,659—Butler Ames, M.C., Lowell, Mass., HELICOPTER; comprising a series of planes having their right line elements within, or parallel to a common axis of rotation, and each plane of the series bearing a fixed angular relation to the other plane or planes; suitable journals for said aeroplane; and means provided with bearings for said journals; all designed to distribute more evenly the effort to rotate said planes, etc.

*1,051,709—Stanley Drake, Dunnville, Out., Can., PARACHUTE; safety device for use of the aviator.

1,051,783—Charles B. Thomas, Watts, S. C, STABILITY device, comprising a liquid receptacle, a weighted staff pivoted therein, reciprocating members moved by said pendulum and connections to stabilizing planes.


*1,052,003—David, Benjamin and Louis Kohnke, Detroit, Mich., STABILITY device, comprising vertical surface over main plane pivoted at axis in line with front edge of main planes; seat slidable fore and aft. Filed Sept. 20, 1912. See Dr. Bell's patent, 1,050.601.

1,052,199—Alfred Theodor Zeise, Altona-Othmar-schen, Germany, Manpower aeroplane with flapping wings in addition to rigid supporting planes.

1,052,204—George B. II. Austin, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, STABILITY device comprising swinging car, etc.

1,052,334—Albert L. Gettvs and Alton E. Hiteshew, Johnstown, Pa.. HELICOPTER-AEROPLANE.


1.052,489—Leo. L'Home, Perryville, Mo., PARACHUTE.

1,052,580—Luman L. Goodrich, Jr., San Antonio, Texas, AEROPLANE.

1,052,623—Tohn Wilfred Seddon, Painswick. England, FLYING MACHINE.

1.052.661—Max Geldner, New Dorp, N. Y., FLYING MACHINE.

1,052,803—Femand D'Orbessan, Ozone Park, N. Y., FLYING MACHINE.

*1,052,943—Harry W. Odlin, Edgartown, Mass., STABILITY device to which a swinging seat or car operates ailerons or warping.

1,052,986—Joseph L. Tucker, Helena, Ala., FLYING MACHINE.


*1,053,182—Antony Jannus and T. W. Benoist, St. Louis, Mo., PARACHUTE carrying and disengaging means, using members to support parachute, which members break in response to imposition of weight in releasing, with details.

1,053,619—Walter L. Marr, Flint, Mich., STABILITY device comprising ailerons and rudders. A vertical rudder intersects each aileron in this fashion [+], the combination being used at each wing extremity.


1,054.099—Sern B. Eversen and Tohn McLartv, Seattle, Wash., FLYING MACHINE.

1,054,374—Gustav Voight, Stettin, Germany., AEROPLANE.

1,054,484—John Anderson, West Mt. Vernon, Me., AEROPLANE.


1,054,798—Benjamin F. Seymour, Tr., Denver, Colo., FLYING MACHINE.

1,054.968—Frederick A. Ilelwig, Chicago, 111., Tandem AEROPLANE.

1,054,989—Heinrich Schneider and Theodor Kur-rell, Los Angeles, Cal., AEROPLANE.

1,055,245—Jean F. Webb, of New York, N. Y., "Air Anchor" for Parachutes.

* Patents starred (*) will be found of particular interest.

50 H.P.



80 H.P.





Built of Nickel Steel and" Vanadium Steel Throughout

Endurance Record to Date 4 hrs., 23 min.

From the


of Nov. 20, 1912 In the testing establishment of Dr. Bendemann at Adlershof (near Berlin), a 7-cylinder Gyro Motor was recently tested. In a 5-hour endurance run and at i.oooR.P.M., anaverageof 45.7 H. P. was obtained. The fuel consumed was 14.7 kg. gasoline per hour and 3.06 kg. lubricating oil, which is more favorable than the Gnome motor of the same horse-power. The weight of the motor was 73 kg.

Send for Catalog

THE GYRO MOTOR COMPANY, 774 Girard Street, Washington, D. C.

Airmen Should Be Interested In Photography


Has long been regarded as the standard American Authority on photographic matters.

Each number has forty pages of interesting photographic text, printed on fine paper from good type, and illustrated with many attractive half-tones.

The cover for each month is printed in varying colors, and is ornamented with a different and pleasing photograph.

The valuable and authoritative formulae furnished throughout the year are alone worth the price asked for subscription.

Some of the other regular features are

Articles on practical and timely photo graphic topics.

Illustrations showing examples of the work of the best American and foreign pictorialists.

Foreign Digest.

Camera club happenings, exhibitions, and photographers' association notes. Items of Interest.

A department devoted to "Discoveries."

Reviews of the new photographic books.

Description of the latest novelties and specialties brought out by dealers and manufacturers.


Foreign Subscription, Two Dollars A Sample Copy Free


135 West 14th Street, : : : New York

Hotel Cumberland

NEW YORK Broadway at 54th Street

"Broadway" cars from Grand Central Depot in 10 minutes, also 7th Avenue cars from Pennsylvania Station

Headquarters for Aviators and Auto-mobilists.

New and Fireproof

Strictly first class. Rates reasonable.


With Bath

and up

Send for booklet

A New Wright Flyer

Ten Minutes' Walk to Thirty Theatres


Formerly with Hotel Imperial

We will present this season a new model, known as Model "E", designed especially for


This model will be equipped with either four or six cylinder motor, turning a single propeller. It is so designed that it can be taken down for express shipment and reassembled within a few hours.

The old models, refined in details, will be continued for use of those who wish to fly for pleasure and sport.

All models may be equipped with HYDROPLANES.

I NAIAD Aeronautical Cloth

Aero Varnish


We were the first in the field, * The Wright School of Aviation | and the test of time is proving |

that our product is the best. |

Our School of Aviation will open at Simms Station (Dayton) about April ist with a corps of competent instructors. The school will be under the personal supervision of Mr. Orville Wright. Tuition for a complete course will be $250.00. Enroll now.


Dept. "A", Dayton, Ohio New York Office, - - 11 Pine Street




+ +

i 1


* Sample Book A-6, Data and Prices on Request T

I The C. E. Conover Co. |


% 101 Franklin Street, New York |

March, 1913


Send sketch or model for FREE Search of Patent Office recordi. Write for our Guide Books and What to Invent with valuable List of Inventions Wanted sent Free. Send for our special list of prizes offered for Aeroplanes.


We are Experts in Aeronautics and have a special Aeronautical Department. Copies of patents in Airships, 10 cents each. Improvements in Airships should be protected without delay as this is a very active field of invention and is being rapidly developed.


Main Offices - 724-726 NINTH ST., N. W. - WASHINGTON, D. C.



+ M-++4-


Patents and patent causes. Specialist in Aeroplanes and Gas Engines.

JOHN O. SEIFERT 50 Church Street New York, N.Y.




Over 100 complete drawings. Scale 1" to foot: some full size


AERONAUTICS, 122 East 25th St., New York



-That Won't Tip Over-

CHARLES H. BURLEIGH, South Berwyck, Me.

Special grades of Bamboo for Aeronautic Work. Reed, Rattan and Split Bamboo for models. Tonka Rattan for Skids \% diameter and under any length.

J. DELTOUR, Inc. milLit^St-


Samples and prices on request


112 Duane Street, New York City


Ex-member Examining Corps, U. S. Patent Ottioa Attorney-at-L»w and Solicitor of Patents

American and foreign patents secured promptly and with special regard to the complete legal protection of the invention. Handbook for inventors sent upon request. 30 McGill Bid*. WASHINGTON, D. C.

"Ideal" Plans and Drawings

arc accurate anil are accompanied by clear, concise building instructions, postpaid at the following prices: Wright 3-ft. Biplane, 25c. Bleriot 3-ft. Monoplane, 15c. "Cecil Peoli" Champion Racer, 25c. Cnrti«j Convertible Hydroaeroplane (new), 35c. "Ideal" three-foot Racer (new), 15c.

Complete Set of Five...............$1.00 Postpaid

Send for our new 40 pp. "Ideal" Model Aeroplane Supply

catalog, fully illustrated. 5c. brings it. (None free). IDEAL AEROPLANE & SUPPLY CO., 82a West Broadway, New York



Port Jefferson


New York


DRAWINGS, Bleriot XI Type. 3 Sheets. Complicated Parts Full Size. Price $5.00

The three sheets constitute the best set of mono-" * plane working drawings now on the market. There Is no need for the purchaser of a set of these drawings to guess at anything; since nil dimensions of every part of the machine are given, together with the thickness, and gauge of every piece of wood or steel used In the construction. :♦>»; AERONAUTICS, 122 E. 2Sth St., Now York


have positive action, are small and light, easily applied to any motor

Write for circular


636-644 First Avenue, New York, U. S. A.




w''h The H Al.L-SCOTT-equipped hydroaeroplane being launched, just previous to the try

HALL-SCOTT EQUIPMENT out over the waters of the Golden Gate, San Francisco, Cal.

THE first hydroaeroplane certificate to be granted by the AERO CLUB OF AMERICA has fallen to A. G. SUTRO, who successfully fulfilled all of the requirements as prescribed by the AERO CLUB OF AMERICA, in his HALL-SCOTT-equipped double tractor machine. It is interesting to note that throughout the tests the exhaust silencers were in position on the motor, so that only the whirr of the propellers was audible to the spectators who thronged to the beach to witness the flights.

HALL-SCOTT mufflers are one of the many features to be found in HALL-SCOTT equipment, so necessary to the comfort of aviator and passengers.

The HALL-SCOTT Type A-4, Model 1915. 100 H. P., hydroaeroplane power plant, is the only one on the market with necessary power for the hydroaeroplane.

Details of this new model, also of Types A-i 140 H. P. and Type A-2:6o H. P. may be obtained of Capt. Thos. S. Baldwin, Box 78 Madison Square P. O., New York City, or write direct to

Hall-Scott Motor Car Company i

For catalogue, C-20 San Francisco, California

Press of Styles & Cash, New York.