Crafting Flight Aircraft Pioneers and the Contributions of the Men and Women of NASA Langley Research Center

8/8/2019 Crafting Flight Aircraft Pioneers and the Contributions of the Men and Women of NASA Langley Research Center

1/244


2/244

Langleys first wind tunnel, a replicaof a 10-year-old British design, becameoperational in June 1920.

NASA Langley photo no. EL-1996-00142


3/244


4/244

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Schultz, James, 1956 Crafting flight : Aircraft pioneers and the contributions of the men and

women of NASA Langley Research Center / by James Schultz. p. cm. -- (NASA history series)

SP-2003-4316.Includes bibliographical references and index.1. Langley Research Center. 2. Aeronautical engineering--United States--History. 3.

Aeronautical engineers--United States. I. Title. II. Series.

TL862.L35 S38 2003629.1300973--dc21

2002026358

For sale by U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328

ISBN 0-00-000000-0

Front cover shows the Wright Brothers historic flight Pearl Young at work in Instrument andan artists concept of a future aircraft. Research Division, c. 1929

(on facing page).



5/244

C RAFTING F LIGHT

BY

JAMES SCHULTZ

A IRCRAFT P IONEERS AN DTH E C ONTRIBUTIONS OF

TH E M EN AN D W OMEN OFNASA L ANGLEY R ESEARCH C ENTER

SP-2003-4316


6/244

7- by 10-Foot Atmospheric Wind Tunnel in 1931.



7/244

Crafting Flight III

CONTENTS

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX

CHAPTER 1C RAVING FLIGHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER 2A L ABORATORY FOR FLIGHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

CHAPTER 3R EFINING THE AIRPLANE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

CHAPTER 4S WORDS AND PLOWSHARES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

CHAPTER 5B EYOND THE HOME PLANET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

CHAPTER 6E XPERTISE APPLIED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

CHAPTER 7R EDEFINING ROLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

CHAPTER 8B EYOND THE FIRST ONE HUNDRED YEARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

FOOTNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

NASA H ISTORY SERIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203


8/244

Lunar Landing Research Vehicle outside Langley hanger,later shipped to Houston to train Apollo astronauts.

GRIN photo no. GPN-2000-001821


9/244

Crafting Flight V

PREFACE

While this is a self-contained history of NASA Langley Research Centers contribu-tions to ight, many other organizations around the country played a vital role in the workdescribed in this book.

Within the Agency, Langley for decades has worked closely with other NASA Centers,particularly Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, California; Glenn Research Center inCleveland, Ohio; and Dryden Flight Research Center in Edwards, California. These areNASAs aero centers, where most of the Agencys aeronautics research has been con-ducted over the years.

Other NASA Centers include Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama;Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland; Kennedy Space Center in CapeCanaveral, Florida; Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas; and Stennis Space Center inMississippi.

Without the support of these Centers and NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.,Langleys work would not have been possible. NASA also collaborates extensively withacademia, private industry, and other government agencies. These are far too numerous tomention, but their contributions are equally important.

Last but certainly not least, we must not forget the U.S. citizen, whose tax dollars sup-port our work and whose representation in the Administration and the Congress guides ouractions. It is for their benet, ultimately, that we exist.


10/244

Researcher in the Langley Immersive Designand Simulator Laboratory.

Langley Office of External Affairs photo archives


11/244


12/244

Jeremiah F. Creedon and Richard Culpepper unveil plaquehonoring Langley as a historic aerospace site.


13/244


14/244

Langley 8-Foot High-Speed Tunnel in 1936.


Langley 16-Foot High-Speed Tunnel in 1949.


A Boeing 777 semispan model in the NTF.



15/244


16/244

Eight of the twelve members of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics attending the 9th Annual Aircraft Engineering Research Conference atLangley Field, Virginia, on May 23, 1934. Pictured from left to right are Charles Lindbergh; Vice Admiral Arthur Cook;Charles Abbot, Secretary of the Smithsonian; Dr. Joseph Ames, Committee Chairman; Orville Wright; Edward Warner; Fleet Admiral Ernest King; EugeneVidal, Director Bureau of the Commerce.


Hanger construction at Langley in 1922.


Amelia Earhart, front center, at Langley in 1928. Engineer in Charge Henry J. E. Reid is to her right and Fred Weick is in back on right.



17/244

Chief of Aerodynamics,Elton Miller, and Sperry

ll h


18/244

M-1 in Propeller ResearchTunnel in 1927.


NACA cowling (covering over engine) #10on an airplane in Propeller Research Tunnelin 1928.


P-51 Mustang in the Full Scale Tunnel in 1945.



19/244

Max Munk in his office at Langley in 1926. Electrical engineer Kitty Joyner at Langley in 1952. Langley staff working onIBM type T04 electronic data


20/244

yp processing machine in 1957.

NASA Langley photo no. EL-1997-00144 NASA Langley photo no. EL-20 00-399 NASA Langley photo no. EL-2000-404


21/244

Langleys 737 flying laboratory flight tested advanced warning wind shear detectors to make aircraft safer.



22/244

Cockpit of Shuttle Atlantis showing multifunction electronic display system.


Proteus aircraft lands after collecting data for a cirrus cloud study.



23/244


24/244

Viking aeroshell in a Langley lab in 1973.

NASA Langley photo no. EL-2000-00454High-wing model tested in the NTF at Langley.


Inflatable space structures display in building1148, Structures and Materials Lab during the2001 Open House.


I N T R O D U C T I O N

Standing On The Shoulders Of Giants


25/244

Crafting Flight XXI

The answer is all of the above. We need different types of facilities, different commu-nities, because there is no one best way or one best organization to solve all of theproblems in aerospace. The strength of this community has been its diversity and the stim-ulation supplied by the intersection of strikingly different thought styles. Langley has beenless about boldness, more about breadth and depth of knowledge.

Naturally, I will hedge my bets a bit here, as after all, Im a historian, not a fortune-teller. But to my mind, Langley has been among the giants whose broad shoulders havehelped support the Nations aviation and space enterprises. The plaque unveiled todayreminds us of what has been achieved. It is a splendid and well-deserved tribute. May thevision and hard work of your predecessors also be an inspiration as you face the chal-lengesfor surely there are manyin the days to come. May you continue to be bothmecca and mine for those who wish to reshape the world of aeronautics and space.


26/244


27/244

Crafting Flight 1

C H A P T E R

1CRAVING F LIGHTIn the latter part of the 15th century, Leonardo da Vinci spent many of his waking

hours attempting to perfect an ornitottero, or ornithopter, a helicopter-like craft whose

primary mechanism was a spiral airscrew built to obtain lift. He was convinced that avian

anatomy proved beyond doubt that human ight would be no more and no less a matter of

mastering essential mathematical principles. Da Vinci wrote, notes biographer Serge

Bramly, that a bird is an instrument functioning according to mathematical laws, and man

has the power to reproduce an instrument like this with all its movements. 1

So committed was da Vinci that by 1496 he began discrete, secret experiments with

model craft from the heights of buildings near his workshop in Milan. Bramly believes

that Leonardo based his research on documents such as those produced by medieval

thinker Villard de Honnecourt, who made a detailed sketch of a bird beating its wings. On

a reduced scale, owing to negligible weight and air resistance, small models could have

worked in much the same way that toy gliders do today. Indeed, da Vinci likely began

design experiments with a little model made of paper, whose axis will be made of a ne

steel blade, placed under strong torsion... when released, it will turn the helix. Even

scaled up, weighted with a human-size (if lightweight) dummy, with spring-operated

blades, and constructed of reeds and silk, the ornitottero should have been able to y for a

brief period. 2


28/244

C R AV I N G F L I G H T


29/244

Crafting Flight 3

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, NASM videodisc no. ZB-41440


30/244


31/244


Plying the Ocean of Air 1


32/244

6 Crafting Flight

Paintings of balloon flights inFrance.

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, SI neg. no. 71-309

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, NASM videodisc no. ZA-04222


33/244


Going Aerial 1


34/244

8 Crafting Flight

Sir George Cayley and hisearly aircraft designs.


Model of 1804 Cayley glider.



Going Aerial

when a lightweight engine was Otto Lilienthal c 1890


35/244

Crafting Flight 9

when a lightweight engine wasdeveloped to provide adequate thrustan innovation nally accomplished byAmerican aviators Orville and WilburWright in 1903. 16

Others would advance the edglingscience of aeronautics through the studyof and experiments with gliding, therebycontributing extensively to the designof wings. These pioneers included theFrenchman Jean-Marie Le Bris, whotested a glider with movable wings, andthe American John Joseph Montgomery.In 1843 British inventor William Samuel

Henson published his patented design foran aerial steam carriage, a blueprint thatdid more than any other to establish theform of the modern airplane: a xed-wing monoplane with propellers, fuse-lage, wheeled landing gear, and ightcontrol by means of rear elevator andrudder. Steam-powered models made byHenson in 1847 were promising but

unsuccessful. In 1890 French engineerClment Ader built a steam-powered air-plane and attempted the rst actual ightof a piloted, heavier-than-air craft. How-ever, the ight was not sustained, and theairplane brushed the ground over a dis-tance of 160 feet. Inventors continued topursue the dream of sustained ight. 17

In the late 19th century, German Otto

Lilienthals experiments with aircraft,including kites and ornithopters, attainedtheir greatest successes with gliderights. Lilienthal was captivated by thesweeping ight of seagulls he encoun-tered while installing a foghorn of hisown invention in German lighthouses.He studied birds in meticulous detail,eventually publishing an authoritativebook drawing connections between

natural and articial ight. His aviationresearch was equally painstaking, begin-

ning with a series of kite experiments inthe 1870s and progressing to free-yingmachines with wings modeled after thoseof soaring birds. In the course of ve

years in the 1890s, Lilienthal ew18 different kinds of gliders, taking

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, SIneg. no. A-39013

Otto Lilienthal, c. 1890.

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, SIneg. no. 85-18314

Lilienthal biplane glider inflight.


36/244


Prelude To Flight

Chanute biplane glider


37/244

Crafting Flight 11

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, SI neg. no. A-30908-C

Chanute biplane glider.

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, SI neg. no. A-4387-C

Chanute triplane glider under test by assistantsin 1896.

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, SI neg. no. 00165985 used with permission of Popular Science magazine

Langley Aerodrome 5 in189596.


38/244


Prelude To Flight

Langley Aerodrome


39/244

Crafting Flight 13

NASA Langley photo no. 90L04341

g yhouseboat on Potomac River.


Langley Aerodrome Acatapulting off houseboatOctober 7, 1903.


Langley Aerodrome Afloating in Potomac River after launch on October 7,1903.


40/244


Brothers Extraordinaire

O ill (l ft) d Wilb W ight


41/244

Crafting Flight 15

Orville (left) and Wilbur Wright,c. 1910.



Brothers Extraordinaire1

bishop in the Church of the UnitedBrethren in Christ Like Milton the

build bicycles on a small scale in 1896.They developed a self-oiling bicycle


42/244

16 Crafting Flight

Brethren in Christ. Like Milton, thebrothers were independent thinkers witha deep condence in their own talents , anunshakable faith in the soundness of their

judgment, and a determination to perse-vere in the face of disappointment andadversity. 26

Following their mothers death,Orville, who had spent several summerslearning the printing trade, persuadedWilbur to join him in establishing a printshop. In addition to printing services, thebrothers edited and published two short-

lived local newspapers. They also devel-oped a local reputation for the quality of the presses that they designed, built, andsold to other printers. These printingpresses were one of the rst indicationsof the Wright brothers extraordinarytechnical ability and their uniqueapproach to the solution of problems inmechanical design. 27

In 1892 the brothers opened a bicyclesales and repair shop where they began to

They developed a self-oiling bicyclewheel hub and installed a number of lightmachine tools in the shop. Prots fromthe print shop and the bicycle operation

eventually went to fund the Wrightsaeronautical experiments from 1899 to1905. In addition, the experience of designing and building lightweight, pre-cision machines of wood, wire, andmetal tubing was ideal preparation forthe construction of ying machines. 28

The brothers realized that a success-

ful airplane would require wings to gen-erate lift, a propulsion system to move itthrough the air, and a system to controlthe craft in ight. Otto Lilienthal, theyreasoned, had built wings capable of car-rying him in ight, while the builders of self-propelled vehicles were developinglighter and more powerful internalcombustion engines. The nal problem

to be solved, they concluded, was that of control. 29

Wrights bicycle shop withaeroplane wings, c. 1910.

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, SI neg. no. A-31291


43/244



Wright 1900 glider at KittyHawk. Noted on back of


44/244

18 Crafting Flight

lift than expected, however, and very fewfree ights were made with a pilot onboard. The brothers ew the glider as akite, gathering information on the perfor-mance of the machine that would be crit-ically important in the design of futureaircraft. 32

Eager to improve on this disappoint-ing performance, the Wrights increasedthe wing area of their next machine to290 square feet. Establishing their campat the foot of Kill Devil Hills, four milessouth of Kitty Hawk, the brothers com-pleted 50 to 100 glides in July andAugust of 1901. As in 1900, Wilburmade all the glides, the best of whichcovered nearly 400 feet. The 1901Wright aircraft was an improvement overits predecessor, but it still did not per-form as well as their calculations hadpredicted. Moreover, the experience of 1901 suggested that the problems of con-trol were not fully resolved. 33

Realizing that the failure of theirgliders to match calculated performance

was the result of errors in the experimen-tal data published by their predecessors,the Wrights constructed a small windtunnel with which to gather their owninformation on the behavior in an airstream of model wings of various shapesand sizes. The brilliance of the Wrightbrothers and their ability to visualize thebehavior of a machine that had yet to beconstructed was seldom more apparentthan in the design of their wind tunnelbalances, the instruments mounted insidethe tunnel that actually measured theforces operating on the model wings.

During the fall and early winter of 1901,the Wrights evaluated as many as200 wing designs in their wind tunneland gathered information on the relativeefciencies of various airfoils. Theydetermined the effects of differentbiplane wing shapes, tip designs, andbiplane gap sizes. 34

With the results of the wind tunnel

tests in hand, the brothers began work ontheir third full-scale glider. They tested

photo that glider did not fly.



Brothers Extraordinaire

Wright 1903 Flyer on groundat Kitty Hawk.


45/244

Crafting Flight 19

the machine at the Kill Devil Hills campin September and October 1902. It per-formed exactly as the design calculationspredicted. For the rst time the brothersshared ying duties, completing hun-dreds of ights that covered distances inexcess of 600 feet and remaining in theair for as long as 26 seconds. In additionto gaining signicant ight experience,the Wrights were able to complete theircontrol system by adding a movable rud-der linked to their helical wing-warpingsystem. 35

With the major aerodynamic andcontrol problems behind them, the broth-ers pressed forward with the constructionof their rst powered machine. Theydesigned and built a four-cylinder inter-nal combustion engine with the assis-tance of Charles Taylor, a machinistwhom they employed in the bicycleshop. Recognizing that propeller blades

could be understood as rotary wings, theWrights were able to design twin pusher

propellers from data derived from a smallwind tunnel they custom-built. 36

Returning to their camp near KillDevil Hills in September 1903, the broth-

ers spent the next seven weeks assem-bling, testing, and repairing their pow-ered machine, and conducting new ighttests with the 1902 glider. Wilbur madethe rst attempt at powered ight onDecember 14, but he stalled the aircrafton takeoff and damaged the forward sec-tion of the machine. Three days werespent making repairs and waiting for thereturn of good weather. 37 Biographer

Tom Crouch describes the nal stepsleading to the second try:

[The brothers] were up and about early on the morning of December 17.The day dawned cold and clear. A frigid 24-mile-per-hour wind swept out of thenorth, freezing the pools of standingwater that had collected in the sand hol-lows. The Wrights were accustomed to

the cold.... The morning began with a familiar round of chores. While one man




Wilbur Wright watches his airbornebrother Orville make history


46/244

20 Crafting Flight

brother Orville make historyon December 17, 1903.



47/244

Metal workers welding pipe in 1929.


48/244


C H A P T E R


49/244

Crafting Flight 23

2A L ABORATORY FOR F LIGHTWhen just a young man, novelist Thomas Wolfe set out to see the world. His travels

eventually led him to the Virginia port city of Norfolk and, after he heard of work available

nearby, onward to the shing hamlet of Hampton. There in the summer of 1918, Wolfe and

hundreds of others labored in the oppressive heat and humidity to construct a ying

eld. In his ctional, semiautobiographical book Look Homeward, Angel , Wolfes alter

ego, Eugene Gant, recalls the experience as the weary and fruitless labor of a nightmare.

The workers, wrote Wolfe, reshaped the landscape by blasting ragged stumps from spongy

soil and lling the resulting craters that drank their shoveled toil without end, as they

graded and leveled the ground from dawn to dusk. Meanwhile, overhead, the bird-men

lled the blue Virginia weather with the great drone of the Liberties, practicing aerial

observation and photography in British-designed and American-made de Havilland

DH-4s.

All the hard work had a dual purpose: the creation of a new U.S. Army Air Service

aireld and the Nations rst government-sponsored civilian aeronautical research labora-

tory. Both were named in honor of Samuel Pierpont Langley, former secretary of the

Smithsonian Institution and an avid aeronautical researcher. The research laboratory

Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratorywould be overseen by a parent agency,

the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, or the NACA. The NACAs

A L A B O R AT O R Y F O R F L I G H T2

The NACA Langley Laboratorywould become one of the countrys fore-most sources for reliable, detailed infor-

Former Langley Director Paul F. Holloway.


50/244

24 Crafting Flight

straightforward mandate was to under-take the scientic study of the problemsof ight with a view toward their practi-cal solution. The new organizationwould bring together the best of thepublic and private sectors by creatingindustry and government partnershipsthat would, in decades to come, advance

American aviation far beyond its modestbeginnings. 1

mation on aircraft design and perfor-mance. Aspiring aeronautical engineers

attending universities read researchpapers published by Langley researchers.Both the edgling commercial aircraftindustry and those concerned with theperformance of military aircraft lookedto Langley for help with all manner of difculties, from aerodynamic stabilityand control to structural integrity, frompropulsion efciency to means of reduc-ing drag. As it tackled and solved a vari-ety of problems related to airplanes andight, Langley established an interna-tional reputation as the worlds premieraeronautical laboratory by paying closeattention to detail and displaying a pas-sion for accuracy. 2

The Laboratory enlarged its missionin the late 1950s when the arrival of

the space age shook the internationalgeopolitical order and promised dramaticnew technological possibilities on thehigh frontier. A successor agency,the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, or NASA, assumedresponsibility for Langley, which wassubsequently renamed Langley ResearchCenter. NASAs mission, like theNACAs, was still geared to aeronauticalresearch, but the new agencys mandatealso commanded it to look beyondEarths atmosphere and to create human-carrying craft that could navigate theunforgiving vacuum of space. Langleyled the way in aeronautical research inthe rst half of the 20th century, con-tends former Langley Director Paul F.Holloway (19911997), and in the fol-

lowing decades we would also lead theway in aerospace-related engineering


Former Langley ResearchCenter Director Richard H.Petersen next to a model of the Pathfinder transport in the

National Transonic Facility.


A L A B O R AT O R Y F O R F L I G H T

science. In particular, Langley providedNASA with a large part of the engineer-ing and administrative nucleus for the

Prototypes of Mercurycapsules were assembled byLangley technicians.


51/244

Crafting Flight 25

U.S. manned spaceight program.

According to former Langley Direc-tor Richard H. Petersen (19851991),Langley was able to vault the UnitedStates into a preeminent position, rstin aeronautical technology from 1920through 1940, and next into then-emerging elds of aerospace science andengineering. Langley also had a majorresponsibility in bringing the U.S. intothe space era, Petersen says. Project

Mercury came out of Langley and muchof the Apollo technology came fromLangley. Langley people were alsoinvolved in the early Space Shuttle con-ceptual design. Langley was able toassemble a group of outstandingresearchers on the cutting edge of theirrespective elds and technologies.

Throughout its history, with researchand applied engineering, the Centerhas been responsible for some of the20th centurys fundamental aeronauticaland aerospace breakthroughs. TheNations rst streamlined aircraft enginecowling was developed at LangleyLaboratory. Among other rsts: the tricy-cle landing gear; techniques involvinglow drag-producing ush riveting; devel-

opment of the sweptback wing; researchthat aided in breaking the sound barrier;the genesis and design of the Mercuryspace program; development of rendez-vous and docking devices and techniquesthat made possible the Apollo Moonlanding; and the design of other uniquespacecraft, including a low-cost orbitalspace-science laboratory known as theLong Duration Exposure Facility, orLDEF.



Gemini Rendezvous andDocking Simulator suspended from the LangleyHangar.


Model of the Hyper-X/Pegasus launch vehicle in the31-Inch Mach 19 Tunnel.


The Space Shuttle Challenger deploysthe Long Duration Exposure Facility in1984. Mexicos Baja peninsula is


52/244

26 Crafting Flight

visible to the upper left of the cargo bay.



Langley staff theoretically analyzedthe ight limiting problems of utter androtary wing mechanical instability andveried the theories by tests of scaled

begin aeronautical research. The NACAwas composed of a Main Committeeconsisting of seven government and ve

i b Th C i


53/244

Crafting Flight 27

veried the theories by tests of scaledaeroelastic models in the 1930s and

1940s.In addition, Langley developed and

rened instrumentation systems for air-craft, contributed to improvements inaircraft structures and materials, andincreased the understanding of structuraldynamics and crashworthiness. Langleyplayed a primary role in the developmentof generations of military and civil xedand rotary wing aircraft. 3

On March 3, 1915, the 63rd Congresspassed a resolution authorizing the cre-ation of a government-sponsored com-mittee to study aeronautics. Thus theNational Advisory Committee for Aero-nautics was created and given $5,000 to

private-sector members. The Committeewas to meet in Washington, D.C., semi-

annually (more often if necessary) toidentify key research problems to betackled by the agency and to facilitate theexchange of information within theAmerican aeronautical community. Theunsalaried Committee, independent of any other government agency, wouldreport directly to the President, whoappointed its constituent members. Per-

haps too idealistically, it was hoped thatmembers of the Committee would putego, personal and public agendas, andpersonality conicts aside in the interestof advancing aeronautical research. Con-sidering human nature and the inherentlimitations of working in committee, the


The members of the Main

Committee of NACA, whichmet in Washington, D.C. onApril 18, 1929, include fromleft to right: John F. Victory,secretary;Dr. William F. Durand;Dr. Orville Wright;Dr. George K. Burgess; Brig.Gen. William E. Gillmore;Maj. Gen. James E. Fechet;Dr. Joseph S. Ames,Chairman; Rear Adm. DavidW. Taylor, USN (Ret.), ViceChairman;

Capt. Emory S. Land; Rear Adm. William A.Moffett; Dr.Samuel W. Stratton;Dr. George W. Lewis, director of aeronautical research; andDr. Charles F. Marvin.


NACA Main Committee functioned sur-prisingly well. 4

Beginning in 1920, upon his NACA

ipated in discussions but rarely exercised leadership. 5

As the NACA began its work in


54/244

28 Crafting Flight

appointment by President WoodrowWilson, Wright brother Orville took hisresponsibilities seriously as a Main Com-mittee member. According to biographerTom Crouch, Orville remained a memberof the NACA longer than anyone else inthe history of the committee, until hisdeath from a heart attack, on January 30,1948, at the age of 77. Although, asCrouch notes, while Orvilles

record of attendance at the annualand semiannual meetings over a period of 28 years was exemplary, yet his

personal contributions had no specialimpact on the NACA program. He con-centrated on those issues of greatest interest to him, such as championing thecause of the small investors who wrote insearch of advice or assistance. He partic-

Washington, high on the agenda wasnding land on which to build its rst

research laboratory. The Committeesbest chance to quickly obtain therequired parcel was to cooperate withthe Army Air Service, which was lookingfor a site to house an experimentalfacility with adjacent aireld. The landchosen was 1,650 acres just north of thesmall Virginia town of Hampton. At thetime, the site was located in ElizabethCity County, a largely rural area thatwas home mostly to shermen andfarmers. The land was at, fronting onwater, which was advantageous whenconducting test ights. It was east of theMississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon line, an area generally prone togood weather and therefore good ying.It was no farther than 12 hours by train

Engineer David L. Bacon and physicist Frederick H. Nortonescorted Orville Wright, inhat, around the laboratoryduring his visit in July 1922.To the right is George Lewis.



from Washington, D.C. Nor was it soclose to an unprotected coastal area as tobe subject to attack or possible capture inthe event of war. 6

organization in its early years: Fortyyears ago we had just entered WorldWar I and had a great deal to learn.We had but small knowledge of


55/244

Crafting Flight 29

Although the rst NACA laboratory

building was complete by the end of thesummer of 1917, the Armys resistanceto a permanent civilian aeronauticallaboratory (the Army felt the militarywould do a better job of airplane researchthan civilians) slowed the NACAresearch timetable. Matters were nallyresolved, however, and on June 11, 1920,Langley Memorial Aeronautical Labora-toryand its rst wind tunnel, appropri-ately christened Wind Tunnel NumberOnewas formally dedicated. 7

In a speech delivered before theAir Force Association in Spokane,Washington, on May 31, 1957, NACAExecutive Secretary John F. Victoryframed the challenges confronting the

gaeronauticsand most of that had come

from abroad. We were short of sprucewith which we then built planes; short of linen to cover the wings; short on enginepowerwe had no engine over 80 horse-power. We were short of factories, shortof pilots, short of know-how. In short, wewere just caught short. 8

To confront the daunting technologi-cal challenges it faced, Langley Labora-

tory had to build a professional and sup-port staff from the ground up. Early on,the NACA committed itself to nding thebest and brightest to solve the problemsof ight. Langleys people would mattermost as the Laboratory pushed across theuncharted frontiers of aeronauticalresearch.


Langley MemorialAeronautical Laboratory as itappeared in 1918.


A Collective Effort 2

The NACA hangars in 1931.


56/244

30 Crafting Flight

A C OLLECTIVE EFFORT

The young engineers who came towork at Langley in its rst decadesbrought with them a particular sense of mission. Most were aeronautics enthusi-asts, interested in all things with wings,rotors, and propellers. In coming to theLaboratory, these aeronautical engineershad not chosen a job, but a vocation.Some approached their labors with analmost religious intensity, working nights

and weekends with a zeal of which onlydevotees are capable. The majority keptregular hours, but were no less enamoredwith the cause. For many, Langley was adream come true: here was a one-of-a-kind research facility where the sky wasliterally the limit. No one else in thecountry was doing this kind of work. Itwas so exciting it was unbelievable, saysAxel T. Mattson, who arrived at Langleyin 1941 and in 1974 retired from the

Center as assistant director for ExternalAffairs.

Key to Langleys research strengthwas an atmosphere that fostered explora-tion and initiative. Individuals wereencouraged to nd out what worked. If adevice, modication, or process was suc-cessful, it could then be incorporatedonto an aircraft for testing and verica-tion. If, on the other hand, an idea hadmerit but its application was faulty orincomplete, then the originators went

back to the drawing board to incorporatelessons learned and prepared for anothertry. For the newly minted college gradu-ate ready to make a permanent markupon the world, Langleys greatest giftwas the permission to try and try againuntil the mission was successful. Learn-ing by repeated attempts may appearcumbersome, but failures indicated areaswhere further research was needed toimprove the understanding of ight



A Collective Effort

phenomena. At Langley, the mistakeswere just as important as the successes,for they sowed the seeds of futureaccomplishment. 9

Making test models in the1930s.


57/244

Crafting Flight 31

Hired fresh out of school with a

minimum knowledge of aerodynamicsand little practical experience of anykind, the majority of these early Langleyresearchers learned nearly everything onthe job, writes Engineer In Charge author James Hansen. Because theywere so young, they had not learned thata lot of things could not be done, so theywent ahead and did them.

No matter how much latitudeLangleys staff was given, when all wassaid and done, applied engineering waswhat the Laboratory was about. Butresearchers did not simply slap partstogether to see what worked. TheLangley way was one of systematicparameter modication: that is, meticu-lous, exacting variation of one compo-nent, then another, and so on until theoptimum conguration was achieved.Such a process took time, patience, andcooperation above all else. At Langley,no researcher ever really worked alone.Successful application of aeronauticalresearch demanded collaboration.

Theoreticians were essential mem-bers of the Langley staff. The task of these individuals was to chip away at thephysics of ight with the precise, unfor-giving chisel of mathematics to explainand enlarge upon the results obtained inwind tunnels and in test ights. In theevent that experimental results did notagree with theory, either the experimentwas repeated or the theoreticians formu-lated new laws to explain the unexpectedphenomena. But Langley theoreticians

did more than scribble complex equa-tions in notebooks. Their calculations led



Designed to fly at very lowairspeeds, this Custer channelwing aircraft never made it into full production.


Two mechanics measure andrecord wing ordinates on aCurtiss Jenny airplane.


A Collective Effort 2

to the design of thinner and lower dragwings, sturdier aircraft structures, betterpropellers, and the rst widely used air-plane deicing system, which put engine

h h d 10

Model of a possiblesupersonic transport mountedin a wind tunnel.


58/244

32 Crafting Flight

exhaust heat to good use. 10

For their part, Langley engineers rstused wood, then metal and composites,to model new aircraft designs. Labora-tory researchers rened existing ightsystems, improved engines, andreworked original aerodynamic shapes.Because many of Langleys most tal-ented engineers came to the Laboratorywith little or no background in theoreti-cal studies, it took a while for them tolearn how to use theory to enlargeupon or improve a given engineeringapproach. Nevertheless, some of Langleys best work was done by thosevery engineers who managed to relateabstract theory to pragmatic aeronauticalrequirements to arrive at new techniquesor better devices. 11

An expert support staff was also criti-cal to Langleys ability to innovate. Oneof the most important factors consideredby the Army and the NACA in site selec-tion was the local availability of mechan-ics and technicians. Within an hours cardrive of Hampton there were numbers of workers skilled in wood, metal, and con-crete construction; in marine and auto-mobile repair; in toolmaking; and in the

operation of electrical machinery. TheLangley professional staff prized suchcraftsmen because they provided theessential support services on which allNACA research programs depended.Without such prized workers, researchmodels could not have been made,wind tunnels could not have beenbuilt or properly maintained, and ef-cient daily operation would have provenimpossible. 12


Scale model of an SBN-1airplane in the 12-Foot FreeFlight Tunnel in 1940.


Vari-Eze designed by BurtRutan in wind tunnel.



59/244


Having the Right Tools2

A technician unlatches adoor in the guide vanes of the 16-Foot Transonic Tunnel.


60/244

34 Crafting Flight



61/244


Having the Right Tools2

The Variable Density Tunnelarrives by rail in 1922 fromthe Newport NewsShipbuilding andDry Dock Company.


62/244

36 Crafting Flight


The Lunar Landing ResearchFacility, now the ImpactDynamics Facility.


Vacuum spheres of theHypersonic FacilitiesComplex with a dustingof snow.

NASA Langley photo no. L-1969-02164


63/244


Beyond Brainpower 2

The 1934 AircraftEngineering Conferenceattendees in the Full-ScaleTunnel below a BoeingP-26A Peashooter. OrvilleWright, Charles Lindbergh,and Howard Hughes were


64/244

38 Crafting Flight

of sharp intellect, curiosity, humor,enthusiasm, competitiveness, personali-

ties, and personality clashesthatenabled aeronautical researchers to dotheir best work. What impressed memost about Langley, says DonaldHearth, director from 1975 to 1984,and what made Langley so different,were the people. They were extremelycreative, highly loyal, very competent,always worked well together, particularly

when the challenge was great,and believed that they could do almostanything. Exceptionally able hands alsoappear to have held the managementreins. Many veterans credit men likeGeorge W. Lewis, the rst NACA direc-tor of research, and Langley engineers incharge with setting the Center on theproper course and guiding it through theshoals of project selection and programexpansion. (By 1960, with the appoint-

ment of Floyd Thompson, the title of theindividual overseeing Langley was

changed to Center Director.)Regardless of how it exercised its

expertise, Langley had enough to spare.Langley exported its organizational andengineering talent, rst to Langleysdaughter NACA laboratories and, later,to NASA Headquarters in Washington,D.C., and to the emerging space Centers.In the opinions of some, it is not overstat-

ing matters to describe Langley organiza-tional know-how as crucial to the successof the U.S. crewed space program. Oneof our primary products has been peo-ple: leaders, really, in the aerospaceeld, Paul Holloway maintains. Wesent groups to found other Centers, likeDryden, Lewis (now Glenn), Ames, andWallops. Many went on to Washingtonand played major roles in agency man-agement. In 1961 and 1962, a group left

gamong the attendees.



Beyond Brainpower

Langley employees attend theclosing ceremony for theFull-Scale Tunnel, which isnow operated by OldDominion University.


65/244

Crafting Flight 39

here to start Johnson Space Centertotally from scratch.

Langley engineers might have beenbright and creative, and the leaders adeptat technology management, but theLaboratory was not immune to the pettysuspicions that inevitably arise when asmall town becomes the home of thosethought to be outsiders. In the early yearsof Langleys existence there was some-thing of a culture clash between thelocal populace and the professionalLaboratory staff. A signicant percent-age of that staff came from more popu-lous areas in the North and Midwest,where amusements were many and easyto come by. Hampton was southern,rural, isolated, a place to make fun of but not a place in which to have fun.Hamptonians were made uneasy by the

brash condence displayed by the NACA

Yankees. Matters were not improvedwhen, in response to their cool reception,

some Langley researchers did not hesi-tate to tell the locals on what side of thestreetcar they should get off.

Hampton was a sleepy shing town.As the saying goes, you could re a can-non down Main Street at 9:00 p.m. andnot hit anyone, remembers Don Baals,who came to work at Langley in 1939and who retired in 1975 as assistant chief

of the Full-Scale Research Division.The Hampton people viewed these[NACA] people with a degree of trepida-tion. But the problem was solved whenthe young men married into the localfamilies.

For years the phrase Nacka nut(Nacka is the verbalization of NACA)was heard around Hampton and sur-

rounding environs. The detail-oriented

NASA Langley photo no. L-1995-06377


Beyond Brainpower 2

Barrel-joust competition at Langley picnic at Buckroe Beach.


66/244

40 Crafting Flight



67/244


Beyond Brainpower 2

The High-Speed Frontier, Becker recallsthat, even during World War II, some-times a good diversion was nothing morethan a well-thought-out practical joke:

The staff relaxed through all of the

Richard Whitcomb withmodel designed with area rulein 8-Foot High Speed Tunnelin 1955.


68/244

42 Crafting Flight

their colleagues with prowess on thepiano or other musical instruments.Others were singers and one ortwo were able amateur magicians.

While the Langley staff was seriousabout work, they were serious aboutfun, too. John Becker began his work atLangley Laboratory in 1936 and retiredin 1975 as chief of the High-Speed

Aerodynamics Division. In his book

usual sports and social events with littleapparent effect of wartime pressures.Five of us had formed an informal golf-ing group.... [My boss John] Stack had never played before and had no clubs of his own, but we offered to lend him anold bag with a broken strap and some of our spare clubs.... [Henry] Fedziuk, whowas the chief humorist of the group, had

often been the butt of Stacks practical jokes and saw here a welcome chance toturn the tables.

With enthusiastic help from some of the rest of us he lined the bottom of Stacks bag with some 10 pounds of sheet lead. We also made sure the bag had a

full complement of clubs, and we told Stack that caddies were used only by the

rich and decrepit. By the start of the back nine, with a score card showing well overa hundred in spite of considerable cheat-ing, Stack was seen to start dragging thebag along behind him....

His expletives [became] louder and more colorful, and a short time later hediscovered what had been done. Under-standably, he always examined his

equipment very suspiciously at subse-quent sessions. 20

The spirit of camaraderie extended tothe labs, where cooperation and collabo-ration were seen as a virtue. But therewas also a good-humored rivalry. Therewas enormous technical competitionbetween the divisions at Langley, recallsIsrael Taback, who arrived at Langley in

the early 1940s and who, upon retirement


An Apollo model in theslotted-throat 16-FootTransonic Tunnel in 1964.



69/244

The circular test section and controlroom of NACA Tunnel No. 1 with amodel of a Curtiss Jenny.


70/244


C H A P T E R


71/244

Crafting Flight 45

3REFINING THE A IRPLANE

High above the mud, blood, and gas attacks of World War I trench warfare ew

remarkably imsy craft that were, by the standards of the day, a stunning technological

advance. Here was proof that the airplane was an invention with which to reckon. The

plane was no longer a comic extravagance nor an adult toy; the outbreak of military con-

ict mandated a darker purposethat of a powerful agent of war. As the aircraft of the

warring powers sparred with one another in the worlds rst dogghts, it was quite clear

that the airplanes role had been forever altered.

At wars end, with the European rail system in shambles, the role of the airplane was

again expanded, this time as an instrument of commerce. The private sector aviation

industry slowly began to grow, led by individuals determined to nd a protable niche in

the transportation of people and goods. There were certainly plenty of equipment and

skilled workers, for war had provided an abundance of aircraft and pilots willing to y

them.

Within three months after the November 1918 armistice, commercial aviation began in

Germany as Deutsche Luftreederei inaugurated passenger-carrying service. That same

year, daily ights between London and Paris commenced. The rst passenger ights

between U.S. cities followed in 1920, and by 1925 regular airfreight service between

Chicago and Detroit had been established. 1

R E F I N I N G T H E A I R P L A N E3

Everyone, it seemed, either wanted toy in an aeroplane or knew someonethat did. Enthusiasts predicted that theairplanes exciting childhood would

sher in a brighter faster f t re Soon

NACA test pilot in fur-linedleather flight suit with oxygenface mask before a VoughtVE-7 in 1927.


72/244

46 Crafting Flight

usher in a brighter, faster future. Soon,speculated these starry-eyed proponents,there would be a personal airplane inevery garage. It was simply a matter of time. The general public was becomingaccustomed to the drone of aircraftengines overhead, to the sight of goggle-and leather-clad aviators, and to the

notion of sending or receiving airmail.However, in physical and economicterms ight remained a relatively riskybusiness. Crashes were not uncommon.With the exception of a handful of hardycommercial carriers that pampered well-to-do clients and ferried mail under con-tract, few American companies foundprot in aviation. The federal govern-ment and the military remained the pri-mary buyers of new aircraft and thesponsors of most aeronautical research. 2 Fortunately for the commercial aviationindustry, the nonstop transatlantic ightof aviation pioneer Charles Lindbergh in1927coming as it did almost a quartercentury after the Wright Flyer rose abovethe sands of Kitty Hawkdramaticallychanged the situation.

Wedged into what essentially was aying gas tank with wings, Lindberghdared the wide Atlantic and won. Histouchdown at an aireld outside Paris on

a cool May night set off wild celebrationson two continents. But Lindberghs gutsyaccomplishment was more than a per-sonal triumph, for it proved that theairplane could conquer great distances.Lucky Lindys success drew worldwideattention to the airplanes ocean-crossing potential and, not incidentally,

inspired an entire generation of young,


A test pilot and an engineer

prepare for a research flightin 1920.


U.S. Navy dirigible U.S.S.Los Angeles during turningradius tests in 1928.


R E F I N I N G T H E A I R P L A N E

Fred Weick, left in cockpit,and Charles Lindbergh, rightin cockpit, with TomHamilton at Langley in 1927.


73/244

Crafting Flight 47

aeronautical engineers and aviators. Bythe late 1930s, coast-to-coast air servicewas a routine fact of life and yingboats were beginning regular treks of transpacic routes. 3

Just after World War I, the bulk of Langley research was still aimedsquarely at solutions to problems of spe-cic concern to the military. But by thelate 1920s, as the importance of commer-cial aviation increased, so did the timethe Laboratory devoted to study of aero-nautical items of interest to the privatesector. Fortunately, what had beenlearned in Langley studies of military air-craft design could usually be applied,with minor modication, to civil avia-tion. (By the late 1930s, military and pri-vate sector interests were diverging, asthe military became interested in higherspeeds and altitudes while commercialcarriers emphasized safety and efcientoperation.) 4

By 1927, aeronautical research atthe NACA Langley Laboratory was infull swing. Extensive theoretical and

experimental work was being done onlighter-than-air (LTA) craftknown pop-ularly as airships or dirigiblesin tan-dem with the U.S. Army. Langley per-sonnel conducted tests to determinetakeoff, landing, and docking proceduresand assisted in speed and decelerationmeasurements. As a result, writes Engi-neer In Charge author James Hansen,many Langley ight researchers became

outspoken advocates of airships. It was not clear at the time that the

airplane would win out over the airship. Airplanes of the early 1920s were slowand smallan aerodynamicist who

favored airships over airplanes evenwent to the bother of proving that air-

planes larger than those of the day could

never be built. LTA advocates believed correctly that airships had enormousunproven capabilities. They were not much slower and could carry many more

passengers in far greater comfort thanairplanes, most of which still had opencockpits. They were much more forgivingthan airplanes during instrument ight.With their extreme range and low



On the Job3

operating cost, they could be used not just as military weapons but also fortransportation of heavy commercial and industrial loads.

Unfortunately the accident on

include two wind tunnel facilities, twoengine dynamometer laboratories, and alarge airplane hangar. Research wasbeing conducted on better ight instru-

mentation and ways to reduce aerody-


74/244

48 Crafting Flight

Unfortunately, the accident onMay 6, 1937, that destroyed the dirigibleHindenburg as it attempted to dock inLakehurst, New Jersey23 crew and13 passengers lost their lives when theairship burst into amesalso resultedin the economic collapse of the 20-year-old LTA passenger-carrying industry. 5

Simultaneous with its LTA studies,Langley continued aircraft research. Newmodels manufactured by such companiesas Curtiss, Martin, Sperry, Vought,Douglas, and Boeing underwent evalua-tion at the Laboratory. The work atLangley contributed to an improving air-

plane: one that was becoming safer,faster, stronger, and easier to handle. Butthe plane was far from perfect. Designingthe best possible aircraft proved to be atrade-off between desirable characteris-tics, such as speed and range. Moreover,the forces that permit and constrain ightare complex. Understanding them

required time, determination, andingenuity.

O N THE JOB

The rst building erected at Langleywas, by modern standards, a modestaffair. Built by the New York City rm

J. G. White Engineering Corporation at acost of $80,900 in 1917-era dollars, thestructure contained administrative anddrafting ofces, machine and woodwork-ing shops, and photographic and instru-mentation labs. The rst wind tunnel atthe Laboratory was housed separately ina small brick and concrete building. By1922 the Langley complex had grown to

mentation and ways to reduce aerodynamic drag, increase lift, boost propul-sion efciency, and improve structuralintegrity. 6

For more than a dozen years after itsofcial formation, the Langley profes-sional staff numbered less than 100, a

gure that was not surpassed until 1930.(By 1927 support staff had grown to104 individuals.) That this relativelysmall complement would repeatedly pro-duce top-notch results might have beendue to the balance between structure andindependence, a dynamic that authorJames Hansen terms careful bureau-

cratic restraint [and] research freedom.At Langley there was great institutionalreluctance to announce results of studiesuntil researchers and their superiors werecondent that those results would bearup even under the toughest scrutiny.Researchers were therefore free to workcreatively on novel ideas without the fearof preliminary reports building up toomuch industry anticipation of and pres-sure for future advances. 7

The Langley working atmospherewas one of informality. Everyone kneweveryone else, and the most junior couldbecome acquainted with the engineer in

charge. There was an organizationalchart, but it was seen more as a necessaryevil. Titles were tall cotton. People werenot here for self-glorication, saysWilliam D. Mace, who came to Langleyin 1948 and who retired in 1989 as direc-tor for Electronics. The thing that heldfolks together out here was their com-mon interest: the ability to do rst-class


On the Job

Langley in May 1930 withthe Full-Scale Tunnel under construction in theforeground.


75/244

Crafting Flight 49



Full-Scale Tunnel under construction in 1930.


NACA Langley Laboratoryand U.S. Army Langley Fieldin 1933. Buildings withcheckerboard roofs are U.S.Army airplane hangers.


On the Job3

A Langley carpenter preparesairplane wings for researchflights in 1920.


76/244

50 Crafting Flight


Patternmakers manufactureand assemble a wing skeletonfor inflight pressuredistribution testsin 1922.


A Ford model A with a Huck starter cranking an airplaneengine in 1924.



On the Job

aeronautics research. The fact is, Langleyproduced. If it had not, it would havedisappeared.

In the rst decades of its existenceLangley management did its best to keep

about two-thirds of an atmosphere, theequivalent of a 12,000 foot altitude.

Assuming that the visitor had come in from one of the numerous duck blindsalong Back River, I said rmly, I will


77/244

Crafting Flight 51

g y g pa safe distance between the Laboratoryand bureaucrats in the Nations capital.John Becker, writing in The High-Speed Frontier , observes that the Langley of the1930s did not think of itself as part of thefederal bureaucracy. Langley was spiri-

tually and physically separated fromWashington. The staff had been largelyhandpicked in one way or another toform an elite group unique in the federalsystem... [There was] a benecial senseof family.

As in any family, at Langley therewere occasional disputes, personalityclashes, and struggles over the nature andextent of research programs. Whateverproblems arose were refereed by man-agement, a group small in number butercely dedicated to Langleys ight-research mission. Managers did not minddirtying their hands; indeed, many rel-ished it. That Laboratory managementwas of the hands-on variety soon becameevident even to the most junior engineer.John Becker writes of his introduction tothe Langley management style whilepreparing an experiment in the 8-FootTunnel:

One night during my second week on

the job, just before I closed the airlock doors at the entrance to the test chamber

for a test run, an unusual-lookingstranger dressed in hunting clothes camein and stood there watching my prepara-tions. [My supervisor] had advised menot to allow visitors in the test chamberduring a high-speed run primarily

because the pressure dropped quickly to

have to ask you to leave now. Making nomove he said, I am Reid, in such pon-derous and authoritative tones that I quickly realized it was Langleys Engi-neer In Charge whom I had not yet met.

No one had told me that Reid, who

lived only a couple of miles from LangleyField, often came out in the evening,especially when tests of electrical equip-ment were being made (he was an elec-trical engineer).... 8

Today there is much talk about howto improve the efciency of public andprivate enterprise. The intent is to elimi-nate unnecessary layers of managementin awkward command-and-control sys-tems, systems that centralize power,reward bureaucracy, and stie creativity.From the very beginning Langley hadfew such problems. Laboratory manage-ment encouraged the free ow of ideas,whether they came from a grizzled vet-eran or a recently hired junior engineer.If an idea had merit, a junior engineercould approach his superiors without fearof reproach. If the idea was successfullyadopted, the individual proposing itwould receive full and proper credit.

There was a brisk exchange of ideas

at Langley in discussions not only lim-ited to the lab. Some of Langleys bestwork was done while researchers wereout to lunchliterally. Most of the pro-fessional staff assembled on a daily basisin the second-oor lunchroom of theLaboratory administration building. Platelunches could be bought there for 25 or

30 cents (35 cents on days steak was


On the Job3

before wind tunnel tests were run. Thework was routine, even boring, but forengineers in love with aeronautics, therigors of the work paled in comparison to

what could be, and was, learned.

Langley lunch room withmarble top tables thatresearchers used as sketch

pads during discussions.


78/244

52 Crafting Flight

served). The lunch tables had white mar-ble tops, a feature that was a great boonto technical discussions. Researcherscould and did draw curves, sketches, andequations directly on the table duringanimated exchanges. Such marks couldeasily be erased with a hand or napkin.It was exciting and inspiring for a young

new arrival to sit down in the crowdedlunchroom and nd himself surroundedby the well-known engineers who hadauthored the NACA papers he had beenstudying as a student, John Beckerwrites in The High-Speed Frontier .There were no formal personnel devel-opment or training programs in thosedays, but I realize now that these dailylunchroom contacts provided not only anintimate view of a fascinating variety of live career models, but also an unsur-passed source of stimulation, advice,ideas, and amusement.

However challenging and intellectu-

ally exciting Langleys aeronauticalresearch was, it was far from glamorous.Young engineers worked long, hardhours. The recently hired paid their duesby laboriously plotting by hand the datacollected from wind tunnels, supervisingthe mounting of models, turning valves,watching gauges, and generally making

sure that everything was shipshape

There was a certain price to pay forthe Langley can-do reputation. As theLaboratory attracted more nationalattention, it began to lose some of its bestand brightest to the booming private sec-tor, which beckoned with higher salaries

and hard-to-refuse research opportuni-ties. Between 1920 and 1937, thirty-seven professional staff left Langley foraeronautical careers elsewhere. 9 Consid-ering Langleys size, such a loss was sig-nicant. As James Hansen notes, thoughthe personnel losses may have delayedthe successful execution of a few NACA

research projects, the larger Americanaeronautics effort probably benettedfrom the loss. Langley provided a train-ing ground for dozens of aeronauticalexperts and an apprenticeship that wasexcellent preparation for a universitycareer or a job with a major aircraftmanufacturer. 10

Many who came to work at Langleyintended to stay but a few years and thenmove on. However, not all who thoughtof the Laboratory as a professional step-ping-stone followed through on theiroriginal intentions. Langleys character,its sense of community, its technical cul-

ture, its strong sense of self and mission,the sheer number of aerodynamics chal-lenges that confronted its staff, and thechance to make a difference: these werepersuasive arguments that convinced nota few to stay at the Laboratory. Certainly,for those who elected to remain, therewould be no shortage of interesting

projects.



Breaking Through

NACA hanger as it appearedaround 1933.


79/244

Crafting Flight 53

BREAKING THROUGH

Exactly how it is that human beingsmake an intuitive leap from half thoughtout idea to sound concept remains some-

thing of a mystery. What is not mysteri-ous is that chances for making the rightconnections increase the longer oneworks at it. Perhaps Thomas Edison saidit best when he described genius asconsisting of 1 percent inspiration and99 percent perspiration. Hard work wasthe norm at Langley, but it was work that

the researchers eagerly embraced. Moti-

vating them was a feeling similar to thatfelt by pioneers crossing unexplored ter-ritory: anticipation, enthusiasm, and asense of pending accomplishment.Langley engineers knew they were

making fundamental contributionstoward understanding how an airplaneew, says John C. Houbolt, who came toLangley in 1942 and who retired in 1985as the Centers chief aeronautical scien-tist (13 of those years were spentin the private sector). Langley wasbreaking through, on the frontiers of

technology.



A W-1 with tricycle landinggear designed by Fred Wieck in the Full-Scale Tunnel in1934.


Breaking Through3

In the1920s, Langleys young engi-neers whittled steadily away at a block of assorted aeronautical problems. One of the most difcult dilemmas was that of

speed: how to make planes y fasterwhile maintaining acceptable safety

the Variable Density Tunnel, or VDT. Ithad inherent limitations: among them,small model size and low speed of airow. As the rst two words in the

name suggests, the VDT allowed forair to be pressurized up to 20 atmo-


80/244

54 Crafting Flight

g p ystandards and operating efciencies.Langleys high-speed research, begunin the 1920s, continued even as speedsgeometrically increased. Laboratoryresearchers also worked on small-scaleprojects with precise objectives, like the

instrument program to measure suchthings as engine torque, revolutions perminute, propeller thrust, airspeed, andangle of attack (the angle at which air-craft wings meet the onrushing ow of air). In addition, there were projects togauge stresses on airplanes while inight and upon landing and attempts

to develop better, more responsivecontrols. 11

A landmark event in Langleys earlyhistory was the installation, in 1922, of

p pspheres (1 atmosphere being the normalpressure of air at sea level). At the higherpressures, or atmospheres, accurate aero-dynamic information could be obtainedby monitoring the ow of air over smallmodels. 12

The VDT was not prettyit resem-bled a giant, corrugated, hollow loz-engebut its appearance belied hand-some research results. Studies conductedin the VDT, beginning in 1923, culmi-nated in the 1933 release of an NACAreport that detailed 78 different airfoil, orwing shapes for aircraft, each designatedby a four-digit number. Using the four-digit airfoil series from this report, sev-eral generations of aircraft designerswere able to produce some of the nest

Eastman Jacobs, ShortyDefoe, Malvern Powell, andHarold Turner conduct tests

with the Variable DensityTunnel in 1929.



Breaking Through

military and civilian aircraft everown. 13 Above all, write Don Baalsand William R. Corliss in Wind Tunnelsof NASA, [the VDT] established NACA

as a technically competent research orga-nization. It was a technological quantum

causes and prevention of ice formationon aircraft. Earlier, the Navys Bureau of Aeronautics had made much the samerequest. The result was the NACAs rst

refrigerated wind tunnel, which beganoperations later that same year (and was


81/244

Crafting Flight 55

leap that rejuvenated American aerody-namic research and, in time, led to someof the best aircraft in the world.

Nor was the VDT a perfect instru-ment of research. It was repeatedlyplagued by operational difculties. Whenpartially destroyed by an August 1927re, normal operations did not resumeuntil December of 1930. Nevertheless, itwas the rst of a generation of Langleywind tunnels that would be acclaimed forits leading-edge capabilities.

Other research facilities at Langley

grew out of specic requests. Early in1928, the Assistant Secretary of Com-merce for Aeronautics called a confer-ence of military and government agen-cies, including the NACA, to study the

quickly modied, as noted in Chapter 1)and was intended to study ice formationand prevention on wings and propellersof aircraft. These studies grew into amajor effort that later won a CollierTrophy for NACA scientist Lewis A.

Rodert, who conducted most of his basicresearch on thermal deicing from 1936through 1940 while working in theLangley Flight Research Division. 14

However productive were these in-house efforts, NACA ofcials were wellaware that they needed to keep abreast of

trends and developments in the largeraeronautics community. Accordingly, inMay of 1926, the NACA inaugurated therst Aircraft Engineering Conference atLangley. These inspections, as they


Wing model in the VariableDensity Tunnel.


Breaking Through3


82/244

56 Crafting Flight

Researcher in the Two-Dimensional Low-Turbulence Tunnel, which was equipped with heavyinsulation and refrigeration equipment to conduct aircraft icing research.



Breaking Through

became known to Langley insiders,evolved into elaborate but useful annualevents at which attendees assessed theLaboratorys progress and suggested

areas of research that Langley mightwish to pursue. 15

An interior view of theseaplane towing channel,where a variety of hull and

pontoon shapes wereevaluated.


83/244

Crafting Flight 57

The event grew from a modest andrelaxed affair in 1926, when the NACAMain Committee sent out only 38 invita-tions, into a highly staged pageant thattook weeks of preparation by theLangley and Washington ofce staffs. By1936 the meeting took two days. Over300 people attended each session, includ-ing a number of aviation writers whoreported fully on the presentations innewspapers and journals. Discontinuedduring World War II, the conferencesresumed in 1946 under a slightly differ-ent format and were eventually stretchedto ve days. In succeeding years, theinspections became semiannual affairsand rotated among various NACAfacilities. 16

One of Langleys most celebratedaeronautical contributions came aboutpartly as a result of the second confer-

ence in 1927, during which private-sector representatives repeated a sugges-tion that had been made by the U.S.Navys Bureau of Aeronautics a year ear-lier. Could a covering, or cowling, bedesigned to t around the nned cylin-ders of radial aircraft engines then inwidespread use? Both the Navy and

industry were eager to reduce the highamount of drag associated with the cylin-ders, which, because they were arrayedlike spokes in a wheel, jutted directlyinto the air stream during ight. 17

Langleys subsequent low-drag cowl-ing design was proof that the methodicalapproach to tough aeronautical problems



A plane fuselage mounted inthe Propeller ResearchTunnel in 1922.


Curtiss Bleeker helicopter infront of the Langley hanger in1930.


Breaking Through3

A Langley test pilot, dressedfor high altitude flight, infront of a Wright Apachewithout an engine cowling in1928.


84/244

58 Crafting Flight

paid dividends. First, a team headed byaviation pioneer and then Langley engi-

neer Fred E. Weick designed ten differentexperimental cowlings and put them tothe test in the recently built PropellerResearch Tunnel (PRT), which couldaccommodate full-size operating enginesand propellers. Elements of the designwere systematically varied to determinehow best to cool the engine while main-

taining a streamlined shape. Results were

carefully collected and examined. Oncethe optimum cowl shape had been identi-

ed, air vanes and bafes were rede-signed to direct the airow to cool thehottest portions of the cylinders andcrankcase. The nal product, entitledsimply NACA cowling no. 10, causedan immediate sensation when its perfor-mance was made public. The cowling notonly reduced drag, but also substantially

improved engine cooling. 18


Army Curtiss AT-5A with NACA cowling in 1928.



Breaking Through

Flight tests of the cowling indicatedthat, from drag reduction alone, ightspeeds could be increased by 16 percent.A technical paper authored by Weick that

explained the specics was released inNovember 1928. The NACA announcedto the press that if the cowling (estimated

Curtiss Jenny airplane trails a pitot-static tube for air pressure measurements.


85/244

Crafting Flight 59

to the press that if the cowling (estimatedcost: $25) was installed on existing air-craft, then the possible annual savings infuel and associated costs could amount toover $5 millionmore, said politicallyastute ofcials, than the total of all

NACA appropriations through 1928.19

Conrmation of cowling no. 10sdrag-reducing abilities was provided byFrank Hawks, a stunt yer and barn-storming pilot. Flying an NACA-cowl-equipped Lockheed Air Expressfrom Los Angeles to New York nonstopin February 1929, Hawks increased hiscrafts maximum speed from 157 to177 mph and set a new coast-to-coastrecord of 18 hours, 13 minutes. A dayfollowing the feat, the NACA receivedthe following telegram:

Cooling carefully checked and O.K. Record impossible without new cowling.

All credit due NACA for painstaking and accurate research. [Signed] GerryVultee, Lockheed Aircraft Co. 20

Several months later, the NACA wonits rst Collier Trophy. The airplanedesign revolution had begun.

The NACA cowling became the stan-

dard enclosure for air-cooled radialengines and in succeeding years was con-tinually revised and improved. Thereduction in drag afforded by the newcowling led designers to ask for, and theNACA to look for, other areas wheredrag could be substantially reduced.Looking back, it was clear that in the

cowling design Langley researchers had



Open-circuit air intake for first wind tunnel.


Fabricating airplane enginecowlings in the metal shop.


The Shape of Things to Come3

fully applied the aerodynamics lessonsthey were learning. Writes James Hansenin Engineer In Charge : The cowlingwas the product of fruitful engineering

science: a solid combination of physicalunderstanding, intuition, systematicexperimentation and applied mathemat-

divergencethe tendency of aircraftto twist and bend while in ightandutterdestructive vibrations of a struc-ture reacting to an unsteady airow. Flut-

ter is thought to have been partiallyresponsible for the 1931 in-ightbreak p of a Fokker trimotor hich


86/244

60 Crafting Flight

experimentation and applied mathemat-ics. More than any other project in itsrst full decade of existence, the Langleycowling design effort cemented theNACAs reputation as an organizationthat knew airplanes and how to better

them.

THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COM E

As work progressed at Langley in theearly 1930s, a new sort of airplane wasemerging from the drafting boards of air-

craft industry designers. The wood andfabric that made up the original biplaneswere gradually being replaced by metal.By decades end, most new airplaneswere built entirely of metal. Thebiplanes externally braced double winggave way to a single, internally bracedwing. Landing gear became retractableand the engine was lighter, more power-ful, and covered by a cowling. The pro-peller had variable pitch, which meantthat propeller angles of attack could beadjusted according to ight speed, per-mitting aircraft engines, for the rst time,to operate at maximum efciency eitherat low or high speeds. 21

For all the progress being made inairplane ightworthiness, designersstill had an incomplete understandingof the interaction between the aerody-namic forces acting on an aircraft andthe aircrafts structural response tothose forces. Two a