THE first active interest of the Navy Department in the practical side of aviation may be said to date from November, 1910, when Glenn H. Curtiss offered to instruct one officer in the care and operation of his type of aeroplane. Prior to this date the Department had carefully followed the development of the different types of aeroplanes, but had taken no steps toward having any one instructed in practical flying, as at that time there was no aeroplane considered suitable for naval purposes. Again, shortage of officers and lack of funds for carrying along such instruction were reasons for the delay in taking the initial step. There were unofficial rumours to the effect that there would be an aviation corps organised, and it was understood that requests for such duty would be considered, but it was looked upon as an event that would take place in the dim future. At this time Mr. Curtiss made his offer to instruct an officer at his flying field which was to be located in southern California, and, as it was understood that he had in view the development, during the winter, of a machine that could be operated from either the land or the water, his offer was immediately accepted by the Navy Department, and I was fortunate enough to be detailed for this duty.
The training camp was located on North Island, opposite San Diego, California, this spot having been selected on account of the prevailing good weather, and because there was both a good flying field for the instruction of beginners, and a sheltered arm of San Diego Bay, called The Spanish Bight, for carrying on the hydroaeroplane experiments. The camp was opened on January 17, 1911, and shortly thereafter seven pupils were on hand for training, three army officers, one naval officer and three civilians.
What was accomplished there is now history, namely the development of a machine that could rise from, or land on, either the land or the water, a feat that had never before been accomplished. It is true that one man had been able to rise from the water; but in attempting to land on the same he had wrecked his machine, so this could not be called a successful experiment. This same machine which had risen from the water and landed on the land and then risen from the land and landed on the water, was flown from the aviation field to the U. S. S. Pennsylvania by Mr. Curtiss, a landing made alongside and the aeroplane hoisted on board with one of the regular boat cranes. No preparations had to be made except to fit a sling over the engine section of the aeroplane so that it could be hooked on the boat crane. The aeroplane was then hoisted over the side and flown back to the aviation field.
As I have said, the above paragraph is now history. What is not generally known is the hard work and the many disappointments encountered before the hydroaeroplane was a real success. Mr. Curtiss had two objects in view: First, the development of the hydroaeroplane, and secondly, the personal instruction of his pupils. The latter was accomplished early in the morning and late in the afternoon as these were the only times when the wind conditions were suitable, and the experimental work was carried on during the rest of the day, and, I think, Mr. Curtiss also worked the best part of the remainder of the time, as I well remember one important change that was made as the result of an idea that occurred to him while he was shaving. No less than fifty changes were made from the original idea, and those of us who did not then know Mr. Curtiss well, wondered that he did not give up in despair. Since that time we have learned that anything that he says he can do, he always accomplishes, as he always works the problem out in his mind before making any statement.
All of us who were learning to fly were also interested in the construction of the machines, and when not running "Lizzy" (our practice machine) up and down the field, felt honoured at being allowed to help work on the experimental machine. You see it was not Curtiss, the genius and inventor, whom we knew. It was "G. H.," a comrade and chum, who made us feel that we were all working together, and that our ideas and advice were really of some value. It was never a case of "do this" or "do that," to his amateur or to his regular mechanics, but always, "What do you think of making this change?" He was always willing to listen to any argument but generally managed to convince you that his plan was the best. I could write volumes on Curtiss, the man, but fear that I am wandering from the subject in hand.
One of the results of the experiments at San Diego, was to show that such a hydroaeroplane, or a development of it, was thoroughly suitable for naval use. Although it was the first of May before Mr. Curtiss returned to his factory at Hammondsport, specifications, which were approximately as follows, were sent him and he was asked if he could make delivery by the first of July:–
"A hydroaeroplane, capable of rising from or landing on either the land or the water, capable of attaining a speed of at least fifty-five miles an hour, with a fuel supply for four hours' flight. To carry two people and be so fitted that either person could control the machine."
His reply was in the affirmative and the machine was delivered on time. Since that time this machine has been launched from a cable, which can easily be used aboard ship, and has been flown on an overwater nonstop flight, one hundred and forty-five miles in one hundred and forty-seven minutes. If such an advance has been made in a little over six months' time, what will the next year bring forth?
In my opinion the aeroplane will be used by the Navy solely for scouting purposes, and not as an offensive weapon as seems to be the popular impression. This impression is probably enhanced by the recent newspaper reports of the damage inflicted upon the Turks in Tripoli, by bombs dropped from Italian aeroplanes. Even could an explosive weighing as much as one thousand pounds be carried and suddenly dropped without upsetting the stability of the aeroplane, and were it possible to drop this on a ship from a height of three thousand feet, which is the lowest altitude that would ensure safety from the ship's gun fire, but little damage would be done. The modern battleship is subdivided into many separate water-tight compartments, and the worst that would be done would be to pierce one of these, and destroy those in that one compartment, without seriously crippling the gunfire or manoeuvring qualities of the ship. In only one way do I see that the aeroplane can be used as an offensive weapon, and that is when on blockade duty, with the idea of capturing the port, ships out of range of the land batteries could send out machines with fire bombs and perhaps set fire to the port.
Innumerable instances could be cited where the use of an aeroplane for scouting purposes would have been invaluable. In recent times may be cited the blockade of Port Arthur during the Russo-Japanese War, and the blockade of Santiago, during the Spanish-American War.
ELLYSON LAUNCHES HYDRO FROM WIRE CABLE
HUGH ROBINSON'S HYDRO FLIGHT DOWN THE MISSISSIPPI
Again suppose that several scouts were on the lookout for an enemy's fleet, and that they sighted the enemy's smoke. It has been proven that by modern scouting methods it is next to impossible for an enemy to start for any of several destinations, no matter how many miles apart, and not be discovered by the opponent's scouts before reaching their destination. The enemy's main strength, or battleships, will be covered by a screen, that is cruisers and torpedo boat destroyers, spread out many miles from the main body, whose duty it is to prevent our scouts from getting near enough to obtain any information. In order to obtain the necessary information our scouts would have to pierce this screen, and the chances are very great that they would be sunk in the attempt, or so crippled that they would be unable to convey the information to the Commander-in-Chief. In any event, why run such a risk? If equipped with aeroplanes it would be an easy matter to send them out, and the information would be obtained in a much shorter time, without danger of the loss of a ship, and with the surety that the information would be secured. In this connection it must be remembered that there is nothing to obscure the vision at sea, that the range of vision from a height of three thousand feet is approximately forty miles, and that the wind conditions are always better than over land; that is, steady. These are simply a few instances of the value that an aeroplane may be to the Navy.
In my opinion, the ideal aeroplane for naval use should have the following characteristics: The greatest possible speed, while carrying two people and fuel supply for at least four hours' flight (not under sixty miles an hour speed, as this has already been accomplished), and, at the same time, capability of being easily handled in a thirty-mile wind. There are many machines for which this quality is claimed, but few that have really proved it. Double control so that either person can operate the machine. Ability to be launched from shipboard, without first lowering into the water, as on many occasions the wind at sea will be suitable for flying, whereas the sea will be too rough to rise from. Ability to land on rough water. The engine to be fitted with a self-starter. Also that the engine be muffled and the machine fitted with a sling for hoisting on board ship by means of a crane, and so constructed that it can be easily taken apart for stowage, and quickly assembled.
A search-light for making landings at night, and an efficient wireless apparatus, should also form part of the full equipment.
I did not make one of the requirements that the aeroplane be able to rise from the water, for in actual service it could always be launched from the ship. For practice work and for instructional purposes, it must be so fitted, but this could be a different rig if necessary. In the near future I predict that the aeroplane adopted for naval purposes will operate from a ship as a base and the great part of the instructional work will be done in the hydroaeroplane on account of the large factor of safety.