A Critical Re-Examination of the Franklin Institute Rotating Wing Aircraft Meetingof

October 28 – 29, 1938: Facts and Myths Surrounding the Foundations ofAutogiro/Convertiplane/Helicopter Development in America and Europe

Dr. Bruce H. CharnovHofstra University

Hempstead, NY 11549-1340mgbbhc@hofstra.edu

Abstract

The Rotating Wing Aircraft Meeting of October 28 – 29, 1938 at the Franklin Institute inPhiladelphia, PA, sponsored by the Philadelphia Chapter of the Institute of the AeronauticalSciences, was an historic gathering of those involved, committed to and researchingAutogiro/convertiplane/helicopter flight. It was, as described in the Preface to the ConferenceProceedings, “the first free discussion in this field of science open to all engineers in the aircraftindustry.” This was a significant gathering for the future of rotary wing flight in America, comingat a time when the Autogiro movement was moribund and helicopter development was just aboutto receive a boost with commencement of the just-passed Dorsey-Logan Bill. And, perhaps ofgreater importance, those attending including many of the leading developers of rotary wing flightwere actively speculating as to the future that such flight might take. Their speculations, nowgenerally forgotten, would be vindicated within the decade to come, and their efforts subsequentto that initial rotary wing meeting shape that future. This first significant meeting dealing withrotary wing flight has been either unjustly forgotten or inaccurately mythologized, and only whenexamined, reclaims its historical importance and place in vertical flight history.1

1 Presented at the American Helicopter Society 62nd Annual Forum, Phoenix, AZ, May 9 – 11,2006. Copyright © 2006 by the American Helicopter Society International, Inc. All Rightsreserved.

The 1938 Meeting: Battlefield or Conspiracy?

The October 1938 Rotating Wing AircraftMeeting at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia haslargely been relegated to obscurity in the almost-seven decades since those who would primarilyfashion the emergence of the helicopter and ad-vance rotary wing flight for the majority of theremaining years of the 20th century gathered toshare information and exchange ideas. Only twomajor authors – Frank Kingston Smith in Legacy ofWings: The Story of Harold F. Pitcairn1, whichdeals with the American Autogiro pioneer, and JayP. Spenser in Whirlybirds: A History of the U.S.Helicopter Pioneers 2 discuss this meeting, andeach, as discussed infra based on an analysis ofthe actual meeting presentations and comments,derives a seemingly biased view.3 Even those inattendance (and who made presentations), whowere even then or about to play significant roles inhelicopter development, fail to cite the 1938 meet-ing in their later biographical writings, most notablyH. Franklin Gregory4 and W. Laurence LePage.5

Spenser describes that 1938 meeting in thismanner:

“Late in 1938 and 1939, he [Igor Sikorsky]and other helicopter pioneers attended twoprofoundly significant symposia at Phila-delphia’s venerable Franklin Institute.[6]Organized by the Institute of AeronauticalSciences – predecessor of today’s Amer-ican Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics – which cosponsored the eventswith the Franklin Institute, the now-forgot-ten Rotating Wing Aircraft Meetings offer-ed a priceless forum for pooling knowledgeand exchanging ideas. . . (emphasisadded)These gatherings were convened to ad-vance both the [A]utogiro and the helicop-ter. Since no helicopter industry existed,the [A]utogiro community – represented byHarold Pitcairn, [W.] Wallace Kellett, [E.]Burke Wilford, Dick Prewitt, [W.] LaurenceLePage, and Agnew Larsen, among others– initially dominated the proceedings. Atthe first meeting, LePage (who in Novem-ber 1938 formed a helicopter companywith mechanical engineer Haviland Platt)showed movies of Germany’s Focke-Achgelis Fa 61 helicopter, inspiration for

the Platt-LePage XR-1 helicopter of 1941. .. . Proponents of the sharply divided[A]utogiro and helicopter camps set forththeir views during these forums. Therewas universal agreement that the heli-copter was enormously more complex thanthe [A]utogiro, but heated differencesemerged over whether the former wasworth the cost and bother when the lattercould already everything short of hoverand fly vertically.”7

But if for Spenser the 1938 meeting was abattlefield upon which the proponents of the Auto-giro and helicopter faced off, as will be seen, hemisconstrues the timing – it is after the Autogirohas lost the battle; while Pitcairn admirer FrankKingston Smith, in what can justly be described asa ‘devotional biography’ (privately printed by thePitcairn family), portrayed the occasion in a moresinister and conspiratorial8 manner. He wrote:

“[Jim] Ray arrived at the Port of New York[sic] of October 26, 1938, accompanying,by sheer coincidence, an English helicop-ter inventor named Raoul Hafner [9], whowas on his way to Philadelphia to attendthe meeting on rotary-wing aircraft spon-sored by the Philadelphia chapter of theInstitute of Aeronautical Sciences at theFranklin Institute. The convocation, arran-ged by Ralph H. McClarren, himself aneminent rotary-wing engineer, and E.Burke Wilford, of Gyroplane fame, wasslated to be a major gathering of experts inthe narrowly defined discipline. Professor[Heinrich K. J.] Focke and Louis Bréguethad been invited, but had declined for per-sonal reasons, sending papers to be readat the meeting by their friend Hafner. All ofAmerica’s leaders in the new science ap-peared, ex-cept Harold Pitcairn, who wasconfined to bed by illness, and heard pre-sentations by such outstanding practition-ers of rotary wing as Richard H. Prewitt,Gerard P. Herrick, (sic) Havilland Platt, W.[sic] Lawrence Le-Page, and [E. Burke]Wilford. Speeches were made by Con-gressman Dorsey and Lieutenant [H.]Franklin Gregory; Jim Ray reported on hisrecent experiences in Europe in an im-promptu, completely extemporaneousspeech, and introductions were acknow-

ledged by Grover Loening, W. WallaceKellett, and several army officers in theWright Field program. Pitcairn was wellrepresented by Agnew Larsen and PaulStanley. Another extremely interestedspectator was Michael Gluhareff, an engin-eer long associated with Igor I. Sikorsky.During luncheon, Gluhareff, seated next toGregory, informed him that Sikorsky hadrecently turned his full attention to thetechnical problems of hovering flight andcontrol systems involved with it and invitedGregory to visit United Aircraft’s Vought-Sikorsky laboratory in Stafford, Connect-icut.[10] Having already visited the Pitcairnand Kellett organizations while he was inPhiladelphia, Gregory said he would de-tour to Stafford on his way back to WrightField. It was an invitation that he could notrefuse.”11

Smith would have his readers believe thatH. Franklin Gregory was even then entering into aconspiracy with the Sikorsky company to channelDorsey-Logan funds for rotary wing aircraft devel-opment and deny the Autogiro developmentalfunds! Dr. Sergei Sikorsy has effectively debunkedthis conspiratorial assertion12 and Gregory’s ownrecollection of the visit to Stratford claimed, with adecidedly non-conspiratorial emphasis, that:

“As early as 1938, Major Carl F. Greene(now a full colonel and Matérial CommandLiaison Officer at the National AdvisoryCommittee for Aeronautics (NACA) [13]Laboratories, Langley Field) and I visitedthe Vought-Sikorsky Division in Stratford,Connecticut, to investigate the experi-ments the Sikorsky people were con-ducting on a new mechanism for verticalflight. Correspondence about the devicehad been sent to the Matérial Division, andthe Army deemed it worth-while lookinginto it. This was, too, a time when we werelooking for a new-type rotary-wing craft.Igor Sikorsky was not then at the plant butin Europe. His associates, Michael Glu-hareff and Boris P. Labensky, showed usthe unusual device, which was not a flyingmachine, but a test rig for trying out vari-ous rotor combinations.”14 (emphasisadded)

So, if viewing the 1938 meetings through acritical lens from a vantage point almost 70 yearslater fails to substantiate the posited confrontation-al or conspiratorial frame, what exactly did happenin late October at the Franklin Institute? The ans-wer to that long overdue question will restore thishistoric gathering to its rightful position in the his-tory of rotary wing flight, and provide insight onwhat will come to be justifiably seen as the mom-ent when the Autogiro failed and the helicopter be-gan an ascent that continues to this day.

The 1938 Meeting: An Historical Gathering

The Proceedings of the Rotating WingAircraft Meeting (142 pages of printed text + 13pages of diagrams) begins with an anonymousacknowledgement15 on the first page of thanks onbehalf of the Philadelphia Chapter of the Instituteof Aeronautical Sciences, defining the scope of themeetings as “Uses, Developments and Relation tothe Future of Heavier-than-Aircraft.” It also pointedout that the Meeting delegates were invited to at-tend the regular meeting of the Franklin Institute onthe Thursday evening prior to the conference atwhich there would be a lecture in the Hall of Aviat-ion entitled “Principles of Rotary Aircraft” by Dr.Alexander Klemin, Professor, Daniel Guggen-heim16 School of Aeronautics, New York University,an auspicious start as he was then arguably themost renowned exponent of rotary-wing theory inthe United States.17

The Introduction then proclaimed that “[i]twas rather fitting that registration take place in thislarge hall devoted to a splendid collection of avia-tion exhibits and particularly in view of the fact,hanging from the ceiling is the first autogiro built inthis country.” While the setting in the Hall of Avia-tion was undoubtedly inspiring for the aviation-minded, the claim that the aircraft hanging abovethe registrants was the “first autogiro built in thiscountry” is clearly incorrect. It was, in fact, theoldest surviving American-built Autogiro, the Pit-cairn PCA-1A.18 Pitcairn’s first experimental Amer-ican-built Autogiro, the PCA-1, had been badly da-maged in an accident while being flown by Juan dela Cierva in early October, 1929 and was destroy-ed in a fire that consumed the older Pitcairn hang-er in Bryn Athyn, PA on November 18, 1929.19

The oldest Autogiro in America was (andis) the Cierva C.8W,20 and although there is somecontroversy21 as to the date and pilot on the firstflight in the ‘New World’, it now established that the

Cierva aircraft was first flown in America by Ciervatest-pilot Arthur “Dizzy” Rawson on December 18,1928.22 When the evaluation of the C.8W wascomplete, Pitcairn presented it to the National Airand Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institutionon July 17, 1931 and it was accepted by Dr. Char-les Greely Abbot, Secretary of the Smithsonian In-stitution when James G. “Jim” Ray landed on theNational Mall on July 22, 1931.23 The C.8W wason display for several years, but was transferred tothe Smithsonian storage facility at Silver Hill, MDwhen it began to deteriorate. In 1982 Walter J.Boyne, who became Director of the National Airand Space Museum in February 1983, wrote thatAmerica’s first rotary-wing aircraft “was scheduledfor restoration in the near future.”24 That was 21years ago and the C.8W still has not been restoredand placed in an honored position in the Smithson-ian. That aircraft awaits restoration at the Paul S.Garber Center of the National Air and Space Mus-eum.25

The Introduction then notes that “Mr. E.Burke Wilford, President of the Philadelphia Chap-ter acknowledges his gratefulness to the commit-tee consisting of Agnew E. Larsen, W. LaurenceLePage, Richard H. Prewitt, James G. Ray andRalph H. McClarren, Secretary.” This is telling inthat Wilford, along with McClarren, was then act-ive in the development of the Wilford Gyroplane;Ray and Larsen represented the Autogiro Com-pany of America and the Pitcairn interests; RichardH. Prewitt was chief engineer of the Kellett Auto-giro Company while LePage, a ‘consulting engin-eer’, was beginning development of one of Ameri-ca’s first helicopters. It was a solid representationof the American rotary-wing community, with theexception of Igor Sikorsky and Harold Pitcairn (whowas ill), appearing heavily but not exclusively tiltedtoward the Autogiro, but appearances were toprove deceiving.

Wilford, who had previously done signi-ficant work for the Pennsylvania Aircraft Syndicatedirected towards aircraft safety, purchased the pa-tent rights to the work of German inventor and air-craft designers Walter Rieseler and Walter Kreiserin 1925, thus predating Pitcairn’s involvement withCierva. The rights to Rieseler and Kreiser’s rigid-blade gyroplane would be assigned to Wilford in U.S. Parent 1,777,678.26 He called his craft the WRKGyroplane (X794W)27 and it first flew on August 5,1931. It differed from the Cierva and Pitcairn mod-els of the time in that utilized a rigid rotor capableof cyclic pitch variation. The pitch of the rotor

blades changed as they rotated, a mechanism toequalize lift in place of the Cierva flexible bladesand “flapping hinges”. This use of cyclic pitch alsoafforded a measure of control, but the Wilford mo-del also retained wing and tail control surfaces.28

While the Navy would eventually evaluate his sec-ond XOZ-1 Gyroplane in 1935 – 36, and it wouldbe tested by the N.A.C.A., Wilford was never aserious contender to either Pitcairn or Kellett inAutogiro development. This was, in part, becausehis test pilot Joseph McCormick, brother of WilliamMcCormick who had been with RADM RichardEvelyn Byrd to the South Pilot as his Autogiro pilot,died in a 1934 crash of a Wilford prototype.29

Of greater interest, in terms of the latercharacterization of Frank Kingston Smith, is the in-clusion of James G. Ray in the organizing com-mittee. Smith’s description that “Jim Ray reportedon his recent experiences in Europe in an im-promptu, completely extemporaneous speech”would seem to be at odds with both the significantrole assumed (and acknowledged) of the organiz-ing committee and actual presentation made byRay, a paper entitled “Commercial Uses of RotaryWing Aircraft”,30 a presentation that appears neith-er ‘impromptu nor spontaneous’. So the questionnaturally arises – to what end would Smith deliber-ately mischaracterize Jim Ray’s participation in the1938 meetings? The answer is not long in coming– Smith continues two pages later:

“Within a few weeks of the FranklinInstitute symposium on rotary-wing flight,Harold Pitcairn was back on his feet andable to hold a somewhat belated welcome-home party for Jim Ray in the secludedStone Room, the scene of so many tech-nical sessions. There, he and his assoc-iates could relax in a convivial, social at-mosphere.

While bringing Ray up to date withrecent developments involving the Auto-giro Company [of America], the status ofthe PA-36 program was laid out in detail,including the optimistic outlook they allheld for the military and commercial fu-tures of the jump-takeoff cabin ship and itssuccessors. Somewhat to everyone’s sur-prise, having heard them out, Ray took anantithetical and unpopular position. Hesaid quietly that, in his opinion, they wereall following a cold trail and making a seri-ous mistake by putting so much reliance

on the PA-36, and indeed the Autogiroitself. His own analysis was that the strongpublic reaction to the success of theFocke-Achgelis and Flettner machines pre-saged a demand for an aircraft with hover-ing capability, whether it was really neededor not, and that there lay the direction ofrotary wing’s future. As Pitcairn, Larsen,and Stanley sat astounded, Ray continuedthat while he had followed developmentsof many aircraft companies licensed byCierva Autogiro, everywhere, Autogiropeople were buzzing about the long sha-dow that the successful Fa-61 [helicopter,also known as the Fw-61] would cast onthe future of rotary-wing flight and they hadunanimously concluded that their futureefforts should be concentrated on the de-velopment of aircraft that could hover. Hisstrong impression was that any rotary-wingaircraft without that specific ability was adead issue for military use – which was theonly source of profitable orders under thecircumstances of the worldwide Depres-sion. Then he recommended that the PA-36 program be scrapped and be complete-ly replaced by a helicopter developmentprogram.

His strongly stated position andsuggestion precipitated a heated discus-sion which turned into an argument of in-creasing passion, with Ray on once side,Larsen vigorously defending the other, andPitcairn sitting off to the side, listening in-tently. On many of the points made, hecould agree with Ray, but on the whole hehad to go along with Larsen: the Autogirowould do everything that the helicoptercould do, except hover. He was awarethat Cierva-Focke-Achgelis cross-licensingagreement had been made within the com-plex framework of the Cierva-created Eur-opean Autogiro industry, but had spent somuch time and money on Autogiro re-search and development which had re-sulted in successful commercial applica-tions of the ships, that he still had confi-dence in their outlook. In addition, he hadmade the decision to trust the future of hiscompany the advanced technology of thePA-36[31] in a maximum effort that wasalready well under way and did not believethat it was technologically, financially, or

politically feasible to switch courses inmidstream . . . .

Pitcairn also faced another acuteproblem which could be solved only byhim. For many months he had been toldby his accountants that the two-thousand-dollar-a-week drain on his resources wouldlead to serious consequences if he did notdo something to stem the flow. He waspaying top salaries to Larsen, Stanley,several draftsmen and machinists, and toJim Ray. While Ray was in Europe, thecompany could somewhat justify his reten-tion on the payroll, but now that he wasback, the total lack of any flying activitiessimply did not justify paying his high salaryto have him sit around doing nothing. Adreadfully painful decision had to be made a particularly distressing one in the light ofthe disagreement !between his two closefriends with whom he had begun his avia-tion enterprises so long ago on the cowpasture in Bryn Athyn. When all the scaleswere balanced, they weighed heavily in fa-vor of retaining Larsen, who was fully com-mitted to administering the production pro-gram of the PA-36 prototype, already wellunder way, although he had missed thedeadline for demonstrating it at the con-gressional hearings. Pitcairn had alreadyforgone any salary from the company, sothat only one last personnel cut was pos-sible. It fell on Harold Pitcairn’s reluctantshoulders to tell Jim that he was going tohave to find other employment.”32

As Smith would have his readers believe, the firingif Jim Ray was the logical result of a logical, eco-nomic rationale; yet what emerges is the antag-onism and tension between Pitcairn’s unwaveringcommitment to development of the Autogiro andRay’s view of helicopter advancement and risingenthusiasm. There surely was a psychological di-mension to his termination, here ignored by Smithin his devotional biography of Harold F. Pitcairn, aadvocacy further reinforced by diminishing Ray’srole in the 1938 meetings and characterizing hisparticipation as an “impromptu, completely extem-poreaneous speech.” In fact, as will be seen,Ray’s presentation was extremely positive in termsof describing commercial uses for the Autogiro,with only a marginal comment regarding the use of

the helicopter by the U.S. Coast Guard in rescuesat sea.

The First Session – Friday, October 28, 1938 -Introduction

The Introduction was given by E. BurkeWilford in his role as Chairman of the PhiladelphiaBranch of [the] institute of Aeronautical Sciences.He noted that

“As this is probably the first rotary wingaircraft conference occurring in the world,we hope to make a little history here, andthe only way that we can do that is foreveryone to say what he thinks. Don’t beafraid of hurting anybody’s feelings, or de-parting from conventional procedure. Thatwhat this meeting is for, and we hope thatit will be the start of a real boom in the ro-tary wing aircraft industry. We hope to seethat within the next ten years, there will beat least 10,000 men working in this indus-try. To all you young men that are here,why, this is the line to work in, because it isgoing places.”33

This must be regarded as an extremely optimisticview given that the national economy had not pul-led itself from the Depression, the American Auto-giro movement was, and had been for severalyears, moribund, and the attention of the aviationworld had been drawn to the successful Germanachievement of rotary-wing in the Focke-AchgelisFa-61 helicopter. The Germans has been mostanxious to show off the Fa-6134 and had willinglyand publicly demonstrated the Fa-61 from a dis-tance – but in the fall of 1937 the Fa-61 had beenflown before the world’s most famous living aviator,American Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh, then apersonal guest of Hermann Göring who wanted toproclaim the advances in German air power. Lind-bergh’s reports to the American military communityof the vertical flight achievements of the Fa-61were insightful, perceived of as accurate, author-itative, and alarming.35 The public took sharpnotice when the world’s first female helicopter pilot,Hanna Reitsch (dubbed the German “AmeliaEarhart” and who had recently been given thehonorary rank of Flugkapitän (“Flight Captain”) inrecognition of her many research flights in glidersand warplanes), flew the Fa-61 inside the BerlinDeutschland-Halle,36 a large meeting hall, before

thousand of spectators in February 1938. It hasbeen claimed that the spectators consumed somuch oxygen that it reduced the Fa-61’s enginepower, necessitating airing of the arena during thedemonstrating flights.37 Chosen, in part for herphotogenic and propaganda appeal, and perhapsin equal part for her petite stature and slightweight, given the limited lifting ability of the smallhelicopter, it was an inspired performance. Pic-tures of her controlled, indoor flight stunned theworld in general, and aviation designers and mili-tary leaders in particular – including AmericanArmy aviator 1st Lieutenant H. Franklin Gregory,who would shortly be tasked with the oversight ofAmerican rotary-wing aircraft development.

Additionally, the contemporary Americanpress had not, in fact, been kind to the Autogiroindustry for some time. David Ingalls’ “MissingLink” article in the March 1931 issue of Fortune38

which had highlighted the advent of the AmericanAutogiro and, as the constant flow of PitcairnAutogiro advertisements, called attention to thepower and potential of the Autogiro, touting itssafety and easy of flight training, promising a vir-tual revolution in American aviation. And indeed,an article in the December 1930 Aero Digesttrumpeted the safety of the Pitcairn Autogiro for theneophyte, claiming that “a novice . . . is placed inmuch the same position as when learning to drivea motor car. Mistakes are not necessarily danger-ous. If he becomes confused, he can stop and letthe ship land itself.”39

But the March 1932 Fortune article “Auto-giros of 1931 - 1932” took a far darker tone than ayear earlier.

“Obviously autogiros are not flying everycorner of the sky. Obviously, too, con-sciousness of the autogiro has come upover America’s horizon. The autogiro hashopped on the lawns of the White House,the Capitol, and the Smithsonian Institu-tion, where the first autogiro to fly in thiscountry delivered itself to the very portalswithin which it is now immortalized. It hasalighted on golf courses, on the piers ofocean liners, and once, when it ran out ofgas, it settled at night into the back yard ofa farmer. And some sixty-one commercial(as opposed to experimental) autogiroshave been sold today as compared to onea year ago.”40

And the right hand black-bordered column of thatarticle was entitled “Worst Autogiro Accident” andlisted ten different accidents including Amelia Ear-hart’s Abilene crash,[41] a brief account of BlancheNoyes’ withdrawal from flying the Standard OilCompany of Ohio’s PCA-2 after two hard landingsthat cracked the undercarriage, and accidents byprivate and military pilots, and even the “MissChampion” professional pilot Captain Lew Yancy.And although the end of that accident report statedthat “ [i]n all cases the occupants of the machineswere able to walk away from the accidents” it couldnot have been of much comfort to Pitcairn and hisassociates. And the center of the last page of thearticle featured, in a heavy black-bordered box, ariveting photo captioned “Behold the first comer-cial autogiro to be totally destroyed – but not in aflying accident. This big Pitcairn machine, belong-ing to United Aircraft, was idling on the ground . . .when a backfire started a blaze . . . .’” The newsphotograph showed the PCA-3, which was the first(NC11671) of two PCA-2s fitted with 300 hp Pratt& Whitney R 985 Wasp Junior engines in a specialorder for United Airports, a subsidiary of the UnitedAircraft and Transport Corporation. As it wasmerely a version of the PCA-2, it was speedilygranted an ATC on August 25, 1931, but wasdestroyed in a fire less than a month later. Thephoto, showing a fuselage on fire and smoke bil-lowing from the cockpit, viscerally reinforced thetheme of the article – while Autogiros accidentswere not fatal, they were costly and the aircraft hadnot lived up to its promise of safe aviation. . Thearticle pointed out that the Pitcairn PCA-2 then soldfor the hefty price of $15,000, “whereas an airplaneof similar size and power might cost $11,000 . . .and the Pitcairn sport model for $6,750 – and hereis the real difficulty. An airplane to yield the sameservice might cost only $1,500.”42

In March of 1936 Fortune revisited theAutogiro with an article43 entitled “Autogiro in 1936”and expressed a decidedly different view than theprevious Ingalls’ 1931 article. In evaluating theAutogiro, the magazine viewed the coming of directcontrol as portending a “rebirth” – and, in evalua-ting the previous models that it had waxed so elo-quently about five years earlier, stated plainly thatthe Autogiro had “turned out to be a lemon . . . forall practical purposes.” While the unidentified writerrecognized that the Autogiro was “still the only fly-ing machine that could rise from a narrow lawn,loaf through the air as slowly as twenty-five milesan hour, and, if its engine died, settle to earth as

gently as a parachute,” went on to assert that “thetrouble was . . . it would do those things generallyonly in the hands of experts; and it would not do,even for the experts, certain other desirable things,like flying fast and carrying a decent load. (“Halfthe speed for twice the horsepower” was the con-temptuous jibe of airplane pilots and engineers.)”Harold F. Pitcairn, previously described as an “Im-presario” in 1931, now was characterized as “arich, scholarly Pennsylvania socialite of somewhatascetic tendencies and mathematical bent” whowith “his brothers Raymond, a lawyer, and Theo-dore, philosopher, artist, and Swedenborgian min-ister . . . shares the wealth of the Pitcairn Co.,which has notable holdings of Pittsburgh PlateGlass.” Being portrayed, not as an aviation vision-ary but as a rich dabbler, was no doubt a painfuldenunciation, and Pitcairn could not have helpedbut be further dismayed at the magazine’s asser-tion that Cierva “had regarded the whole Pitcairnventure in the U.S. as a large testing ground onwhich the giro would be given a thoroughgoingworkout under all sorts of conditions, while he per-fected the design for market in Europe.”44 How-ever, in the same article containing those wordswas a powerful visual testimony of the coming ofage of the Autogiro, for in eleven sequential photosthat started horizontally from the lower left cornerof page 88, continued vertically up the left side ofthe facing page and then horizontally across thatpage showing the first pictorial record of an Auto-giro making a jump take-off, a C.30 (G-ACFI) pilot-ed by Juan de la Cierva.

And in an illustration spanning the centersection of two following pages, the magazine intro-duced the reader to the latest Pitcairn develop-ment, the “roadable” Autogiro capable of achievingspeeds of 110 mph in the air and then, upon land-ing and folding its blades backward, driving alongthe highway at 25 mph. In final evaluation of theachievement of direct-control, the jump take-offand the American roadable Autogiro, Fortune con-cluded somewhat unenthusiastically with a luke-warm declaration (in light of the article’s previouscommentary) that “after sixteen years the autogirohas only now became an autogiro.” Yet this optimism may not have been tot-ally unfounded, for while the advent of the directcontrol/jump takeoff Autogiro did not exactly excitethe uninformed public, the ‘roadable’ Autogiro didreceive media attention as seen in the October1935 issues of Bill Barnes Air Trails and the Julyissue of Modern Mechanix & Inventions Magazine.

And, – as noted above, James G. Ray and John M.Miller,45 as authoritative Autogiro pilots as were

then in America, were optimistic about the com-mercial uses for the Autogiro as was ProfessorOtto Lunde.46 The popular media was even then,and had been for a few years, experiencing a ren-aissance of Autogiro imagery that subtly (and notso subtly) posited an optimistic Autogiro future.This had been seen in the October 1929 ScientificAmerican with an artistic rendition of the CiervaC.8W making a night landing at Newark Airport47

while the National Farm Journal portrayed theagricultural uses of the Autogiro in July, 1931; theJanuary 1933 issue of The Open Road for Boysdepicted an intrepid adventurer being rescued fromnative savages by an Autogiro,48 a Popular Sci-

ence image of a bi-rotor Autogiro in 1934,49 as wellas images from the 1935 Model Airplane and1936 Bill Barnes Air Trails magazines of proposedmilitary applications of the Autogiro as well as theMay 1931 Meccano Magazine and the 1934 JunePractical Mechanics in England. John M. “Johnny”Miller, who celebrated his 100th birthday on Dec-ember 15, 2005, a participant in the 1938 meet-ings, had just published an article entitled “TheMissing Link In Aviation” in the previous month’sPopular Mechanics Magazine50 which showed a

direct-control Autogiro landing on a metropolitanbuilding roof.

Additionally, viewers in America andEngland had been exposed to images of theAutogiro in the 1932 films Misleading Lady,Adventures in a Windmill,51 the 1933 films HisLordship (English),52 the W. C. Fields filmInternational House, the Saturday morning serial-

adventure The Whispering Shadow, the 1934Academy Award-winning film It Happened OneNight,53 the 1935 films The 39 Steps (England) andLadies Crave Excitement (showing John M. “John-ny” Miller doing two loops in a Pitcairn PCA-2Autogiro.54

The Autogiro had also been featured inchildren’s literature beginning in 1930 with EustaceL. Adam’s ‘Tom Strong’ teenage aviator adventurebook The Flying Windmill in 1930,55 John Ander-son’s Wonders of the Air,56 J. T. Gorman’s GorillaGold,57 Air Babies58 by Elvy Kalep (forward byAmelia Earhart) with its character ‘Jenny Autogyro’,Edith Lavell’s 1931 adventure series for young girlsLinda Carlton’s Island Adventure,59 Marjorie Har-dy’s 1933 Sally and Billy in Winter, 60Cyril Cowell’s1935 Transportation Picture Reader,61 and the1936 mystery The Dark Green Circle.62 And thisliterary use of and embellishment of the Autogirowould continue after the 1938 meetings.63

Wilford then concluded his introduction byintroducing Ralph H. McClarren of the FranklinInstitute,64 whose assigned task was to provide abrief “Review of Rotating Wing Aircraft.” 65 Hissummary then may have been engaging andinnovative, but now certainly be regarded as astandard, if somewhat fanciful, introduction toautorotational flight. He began with accolade tothe Klemin paper from the night before, and thenmarched through a litany of autorotational historicalantecedents beginning with the venerable mapleseed (which he dropped in demonstration),66 theAustralian boomerang, the children’s toy67 ‘Chinesetop’, and displayed a model of a Pitcairn Autogiro(courtesy of Pitcairn engineer Paul Stanley) whichdisplayed autorotation as McClarren waived itabout, even as he proceeded to reference Leonar-do Vinci’s design for an ornithopter. McClarrenshowed slow-motion movies of a hummingbird inflight, impressed by its ability to hover (hence itsposition on the AHS emblem), and then proceededto show demonstrations from the ‘Franklin Institutetraveling air show’ including a fixed wing flier em-ploying a large aspect wing.

He then intrigued the audience (and indic-ated the direction of the research at the Franklin In-stitute) by showing an incomplete model (“I hadhoped to have completed to actually demonstratevertical flight”)

“[N]ot like the autogiro or the gyroplane, alltypes of which you will hear of later on, butthis helicopter type: The model contains

all the essential principles of a single rotorhelicopter, -- the rotor to be power driven.There is a torque reaction to counteract, sowe would rev this prop up a little bit orchange the pitch of it, to counteract thetorque. When we want to go forward, wechange the pitch, and have both propsturning, use them to help our forwardpropulsion, tilt the rotor, and also use theforward component or sine angle, Theta, tohelp in the forward propulsion.

There is another little trick wemight do that the model doesn’t show. Toeffectively use these two little propellers forforward propulsion, we could put a smallwing on one side of the fuselage, anotherwing or slot wing effect on the other side,aft, and then in forward flight, the would beenough (sic) enough speed and enoughlifting force on those, to counteract thetorque caused by the power put into therotor”68

It is interesting to note that such a design withcounter-rotating propellers, which McClarren wasproposing, already existed – the TsAGI EA-11designed by Russia’s Ivan Pavel Bratukhin.

By the mid-to-late 1930s Russia, aviationdesigner Professor Ivan Pavel Bratukhin of theTsAGI aeronautic research facility already hadseveral years of rotorcraft design. When TsAGIset up a helicopter research section under BorisYuriev, Bratukhin briefly joined it in 1926, but soonleft for additional studies at the Bauman TechnicalSchool in Moscow, where he graduated in 1930.Returning to TsAGI, he was placed in charge of abrigade that developed the 11-EA69 between 1936and 1938. This model sought to combine the cap-acities of helicopter, Autogiro and fixed-wing air-craft but it failed to accomplish its task and its dev-elopment fell victim to politics.

The Bratukhin-designed 11-EA (forExperimentalnyi Autozhir or experimentalautogiro)70 was, having been under conceptualdevelopment since 1933, constructed in 1936.With the appearance of a conventional two-pas-senger aircraft with an Autogiro pylon topped witha six-bladed rotor consisting of three shorter rigidblades capable of feathering (changing pitch) andthree longer, articulated blades. As this craft wasto take off as a helicopter, Bratukhin placed count-er-torque propellers (rotating in opposite directionsfrom each other) on the forward edge of each wing

which would push and pull in opposite directions inhelicopter (hovering) mode. In forward flight, how-ever, both propellers pulled forward even as therotor was unloaded as an autogyro. The 11-EAhad a streamlined fuselage and was powered by a630 hp Curtiss71 Conqueror engine mounted in theforward part of the fuselage with a large fan-equip-ped radiator in front. Tethered flight testing beganin 1936 and continued until the next year. Thesetests, only in limited helicopter mode, revealedcontrol problems due to the complex 6-bladed ro-tor. However, external circumstances includingStalinist purges, forced relocations of key person-nel and fear of being accused of sabotage if testsencountered difficulties slowed testing and subse-quent development by 1937 doomed this com-pound aircraft. 72

The development of the 11-EA, charact-erized by a reluctance to advance to full untether-ed flight testing in 1937, was dictated by the officialretribution for failure increasingly exacted by Sovietdictator Joseph Stalin who saw treachery in suchlack of success. Bratukhin and his associateswere constantly confronted with reports of arrestsof fellow engineers who had failed to deliver thedesired results. As precisely observed by LennartAnderson in Soviet Aircraft and Aviation 1917 –1941, “No one wanted to risk making a mistakeand be accused of sabotage.”73 Indeed, Bratuk-hin’s test pilot, Aleksei Cheremukhin was arrestedand imprisoned with other Bureau colleagues.74

By late 1938, even as McClarren was proposinghis design the participants in the Franklin Institutemeetings, the Soviet political climate was suchthat it was judged improvident and unacceptablyrisky to continue the development of this com-pound aircraft. The 11-EA was rebuilt betweenlate 1938 and December 1939 as the 11-EA-PV, apure helicopter version with the wings replaced byframework booms with two auxiliary rotors on eachside for torque control. Beginning flight testing inOctober 1940, no one mourned it when it last flewin 1941.

After apologizing for not having a completemodel to demonstrate, McClarren turned to ‘dry-ice in lukewarm water’ model of a wind tunnel andapplied it to a model rotor. Turning on a fan, heachieved autorotation to demonstrate velocity vec-tors through the disc as shown by the dry icefumes. He speculated that: “But as we increasethe angle [of the rotor section from a low angle ofattack] , we change from that down force charact-eristic to another one at the high angles, where we

merely block the flow of air rather than having adown-flow characteristic. (Indicating) And thattransition point is the one in which the aeronauticalengineer has to make his best guess when devel-oping the theory of rotor operation.”

And leaving his listeners with that specu-lation, he completed the introduction and “start[ed]the regular session promptly.”

The First Session – Friday, October 28, 1938 –10:30 AM – 12:30 PM

Dr. Alexander Klemin served as Chairmanfor the first session and he promptly introduced thefirst presenter, who “made for himself an internat-ional reputation as an autogiro engineer, which isequaled by few and surpassed by none”75 RichardH. Prewitt, who was then chief engineer of the Kel-lett Autogiro Corporation. His presentation was fit-ting titled “The Autogiro”.76

Prewitt then proceeded, prior to the com-mencement of his content, to “introduce those whohave been responsible for this meeting.” He nam-ed: E. Burke Wilford, Mr. Ralph McClarren, Laur-ence LePage, Agnew E. Larsen, and James G.Ray. These last two are of particular significance –employees of the Autogiro Company of America.And although only for former would be named arepresentative of the company by Frank KingstonSmith, as noted supra, it is obvious that both hadplayed an organizing role in the Franklin Institutemeetings. Prewitt then went to acknowledge anon-organizing committee participant, W. WallaceKellett, with this accolade “[t]here is another manprominent individual in recent years in promotingand obtaining that necessary financial and generalsupport for the further development of the autogiro.It was largely through this man’s energetic and per-sistent efforts that the Dorsey-Logan bills passedthe House and Senate respectively; thereby creat-ing the recent surge of Rotary Wing Aircraft enthu-siasm which emanated there from. Believing thisman, though not an engineer, [Kellett] has in-directly played a prominent part in the Rotary WingAircraft enthusiasm demonstrated here, I takepleasure in introducing Mr. W. Wallace Kellett.”(emphasis added) It is interesting to note that Frank KingstonSmith totally fails to note Kellett’s role in advoca-ting governmental support vis-à-vis the Dorsey-Logan Bill,77 while Prewitt does not even allude toPitcairn’s contribution towards the successful Dor-sey-Logan funding advocacy.78 But, as discussed

later, given the then-extant rivalry between the twoAutogiro leaders, and perceived competition forfunding, such omissions were to be expected. Butas we shall see, it this case it may be that Smithand Prewitt perhaps unjustly ignores Pitcairn, whosurely played a major role with local congressmanin lobbying for support of rotary-wing aircraft (al-though Pitcairn and Kellett probably each advoca-ted for Autogiro support – as we shall see, the Dor-sey Bill didn’t work out as intended for either party).

Prewitt then went on to briefly pay tributeto Juan de la Cierva, who had perished in thecrash of a KLM DC-2 at Croyden Airfield in Eng-land on December 9, 1936 (Pitcairn was shortly topublish a personal tribute to Juan de la Cierva –see Pitcairn, Harold F. Juan de la Cierva.Autogiro Company of America January 9, 1939).The half-page tribute was clearly based on Wingsof Tomorrow which had been published by de laCierva and Don Rose in 193179 but several otheroriginal participants in Cierva’s endeavors also hadpublished books giving the basic history of theearly days of Cierva’s endeavors, notably test-pil-ots R. A. C. “Reggie” Brie80 and Arthur “Dizzy”Rawson.81

Prewitt followed with a superficial sum-mary of the American82 and English Autogiro org-anizations/achievements, merely citing but notelaborating on the “latest developments of theAutogiro; namely jump-off and road-ability” andmerely referring the audience to his soon-to-be-published paper on the jump-[take]off Autogiro83

while noting that “the jump-off feature has greatpromise for increasing autogiro utility by furtherreducing the necessary field size required for oper-ations.”

Prewitt ended his formal presentation witha description of the development at Kellett AutogiroCompany of the KD & YG models, the civilian andmilitary versions of the direct-control Autogiro,84

complete with a short film of the aircraft. This wasperhaps a challenging moment for the Pitcairn re-presentatives in the audience as the Kellett KD-1was the first direct-control Autogiro to go into prod-uction in America.

At the conclusion of the Prewitt presenta-tion, the session chairperson Dr. Alexander Klem-in, sensing that it had been extremely one-sided inits almost exclusive emphasis on the achievementsof the Kellett organization, immediately called uponPaul Stanley to discuss Prewitt’s paper, but to littleavail as the Pitcairn Autogiro Company engineerdeclined to comment beyond thanking the pre-

senter especially for the film presentation, notingthat it had “shots from quiet number of sources.”Dr. Klemin echoed Stanley’s gratitude and furthernoted that the film presentation had included shotsof the “Hafner gyroplane”, an effective segue to in-troduce Raoul Hafner who was in the audience,but he declined further comment, noting that hehad been allotted time to make a presentation laterin the program.

Dr. Klemin then turned to the second pap-er presentation, entitled “The Convertaplane” to begiven by Garard P. Herrick,85 then president of theVertoplane Development Corporation of New York.Herrick, a cousin of Myron T. Herrick, the U.S. Am-bassador who greeted Charles Lindbergh upon hisarrival at Paris, began with an explanation of theorigin and correct spelling of the name of his air-craft: “I might settle this question of spelling ofname of my aircraft first. (Goes to blackboard andwrites, (sic) “CONVERTibe Air PLANE” (probablyincorrectly recorded but should have beenConvertible Air Plane). (Notwithstanding this dec-laration, Herrick contradicted himself in 1949,changing the spelling to Convertoplane when hepresented a paper86 at the 1st Convertible AircraftCongress (Sponsored by the Philadelphia Sectionsof the American Helicopter Society and the Instit-ute of Aeronautical Sciences in Philadelphia, PAon December 9, 1949)).

Herrick noted that:

“[T]he invitation to speak here today isparticularly appreciated, because Irepresent a hybrid, an occupant of theaviation stables that more closely res-embles, perhaps, the mule than anythingelse. We are all interested to find outwhether or not it is the start of a new andimportant breed. I might say that my att-itude is somewhat that of the man who saya burglar in his room, and he said, “Here,what are you doing there?” “Why”, hesaid, “I am looking for money”. “Well”, hesaid, “wait a minute and I’ll get up and helpyou look.”87

Before he proceeded to describe the developmentof an aircraft that could fly as a bi-plane, but thenconvert midair into an autogyro (note, not anAutogiro as this technology and model was notfounded on a Cierva or Cierva-derived license[e.g., from the Autogiro Company of America]),Herrick read a poem by Al F. Lewis entitled “One

of Our Simple Problems” which supposedly em-bodied “statistics” in an allegedly humorous fas-hion – as we shall, this was not received as appar-ently intended, but which reception did not then de-ter Herrick (or even later as he reused the poem 11years later!).88

Pitcairn’s fellow Philadelphian Gerald P.Herrick then detailed the HV-2A Convertaplane,89

an initial attempt to combine fixed and rotary wingflight (he called his various iterations alternativelyVertoplane, Convertiplane, Convertoplane, and theeventual generic Convertaplane). Assisted byRalph H. McClarren, Herrick and his associatessought to combine the best features of fixed-wingflight and the Autogiro. He had carefully consid-ered Cierva’s developments and by early 1931 haddecided that while the safety of autorotation wasobvious, the problem was the relative lack (drag) ofefficiency in horizontal flight. His ingenious solu-tion, developed after much wind-tunnel experimen-tation, was a symmetrical airfoil, mounted on acentral rotor pylon that allowed aerodynamic ad-justment for control. This was, in essence, abiplane with a two-bladed single cantilever upperwing --- the Herrick Convertaplane took off as aconventional biplane and then converted into agyroplane with the upper wing rotating to providelift on a central pylon. Its upper wing did not hingelike typical Autogiro rotor blades, but sat on a hing-ed mount, using standard ball bearings, which teet-ered to compensate for the lift differential betweenthe advancing and retreating sides.90

And while Herrick touted hisConvertaplane as the first attempt to combinethese two aerial technologies, it is impossible toknow if he was aware that he had been beaten intothe air by the apparently successful flight of a simi-lar aircraft by C. L. Stauffer of Elkhart, Indiana. Inthe fall of 1930, Herrick had employed F. E. Seiler,formerly chief-engineer at Kellett Aircraft Companyto assist in the design of the then-called verto-plane. Ralph McClarren may have recommendedSeiler as he had been his assistant at Kellett. Thiswas apparently a closed-end consultancy, becauseafter Seiler delivered drawings and reports regardi-ng the Vertoplane, he commenced employment atthe Heath Aircraft Company, which had beenfounded by Ed Heath in 1926.91 Seiler, before hisdeath in mid-1931, apparently sold the Vertoplaneconcept (and perhaps the actual drawings and re-ports) to C. L. Stauffer, a promoter and Heath deal-er. And while Herrick would contract with Heath tobuild his first model, C. L. Stauffer apparently also

proceeded to independently construct andsuccessfully fly a now-forgotten ‘convertible gyro-plane’ as shown in an obscure news clipping pre-served by the “Ghost Airfields of Indiana Project.”92

Herrick’s initial design, the HV-1,93 dubbedthe Vertoplane (X11384), flew for the first time onNovember 6, 1931. Powered by a tiny three-cylin-der 48 horsepower Poyer engine (the contempor-ary 1931 Pitcairn PCA-2 and PCA-3 Autogiroswere powered Wright R-975/E and E2 engines with240 – 300 hp, while Pitcairn’s attempt to create alighter craft, the PAA and PA-18 autogiros featuredKinner engines with 125 – 160 hp), its crash in itsmaiden flight resulted in the death of it pilot. Tak-ing off in biplane mode, the pilot released the up-per wing in transition to autogyro mode to des-cend, but the aircraft vibrated uncontrollably andalmost immediately dove to the ground.94

Undeterred, Herrick immediately set aboutdesigning a new model. By 1936, after much re-design and experimentation, and securing financialbacking, he had constructed the Herrick HV-2A(X13515). Then called the Convertaplane, thiswas a much more sturdy craft embodying signifi-cant design improvements – the upper wing/rotorwas now reduced in size (to 24 feet) in comparisonto the lower wing (28 feet); and an electric motorwas employed to start the engine. Flight testing ofthe biplane, with full cantilever wings, but lackingstruts or wires between the wings, began in Octo-ber of 1936 at Boulevard Airport in Northeast Phila-delphia with a pilot more distinguished by hisdrinking and carousing than dedication to the

project. Herrick soon replaced him with GeorgeTownson95 who had been active with Pitcairn avia-tion, and who claims to have had words with Ame-lia Earhart just before her historical 18,415 feetaltitude record in a PCA-2 in April l of 1931.96 Thegross weight of the aircraft was 1700 lbs., and theengine was the 125 hp, air-cooled, 5-cylinder Kin-ner. After the HV-2A flew satisfactorily as a fixed-wing craft, the flight testing turned to the autogyro(rotating wing) mode.

The HV-2A was not able to ‘spin up’ theupper wing (rotor) mechanically as no connectionhad been made to the engine, as on the PitcairnPCA-2. In the air, the upper wing would be re-leased to rotate, initially powered by several 5/8inch, rubber bungee cords inside each upper winghalf and running through an aluminum tube. Eachof these wing cords was connected to a cablewhich wound around a spool. Prior to takeoff, twopeople would grasp each wingtip and walk twice a-round the central pylon in the opposite direction toautorotation – the upper wing was then locked inthe biplane cantilever wing position. When thepilot released lock, the bungee cords would causethe wing to rotate for two turns at 60 revolutionsper minute. The now-spinning wing would thenrotate freely and the flow of air through the diskwould increase its speed to 220 revolutions perminute in autorotation.97

Understandably, the first tests of the HV-2V’s autorotation abilities were not in conversionfrom horizontal flight, but in take-off as an autogiro.There, bungee cords could not provide sufficientrotation to achieve flight, so the HV-2V was taxiedaround the perimeter of the airport with the flow ofair slowly increasing the rpm of the rotor (as withthe early Cierva and Pitcairn autogiros). Takeoffwas achieved with 180 rpm, and, once airborne,autorotation increased to 220 rpm. The rotorcraftflights proved the abilities of the HV-2V in autoro-tational flight, so the decision was made to attempta mid-air conversion. However, in both autogyroand biplane modes, higher-then-expected dragwas noted as well as a tendency to veer to oneside. While the former was never solved, the latterwas controlled by pilot technique.

For safety the first conversions from bi-plane to autogiro were at low level --- and weresuccessful. A public demonstration on July 30,1937 gained national publicity when the mediaphotographed the air-to-air Convertaplane con-version at 1500 feet, and the inventor washeartened by expressions of interest by United

States Navy, but little came of that as no fundswere provided for further development. With thepublic demonstrations in Germany of the helicopterand the coming of WWII, interest dimmed in Her-rick’s vision although he continued to design (butnot construct) more sophisticated machines, earn-ing him the title of “dean of convertible aircraftdesigners”. The HV-2A made more than 100 airconversions prior to retirement to the SmithsonianInstitution’s Silver Hill Restoration Facility in1954.98

Herrick’s presentation constituted a historyof the development of his aircraft, and furnishedthe basis for his paper eleven years later at the 1st

Convertible Aircraft Congress which was sponsor-ed by the Philadelphia Sections of the AmericanHelicopter Society and the Institute of Aeronau-tical Sciences in Philadelphia, PA on December 9,1949. (In that later meeting, however, he dealtwith a newer design, the HC-6D, which currentlyexists only as an exquisite wooden model in theNASM collection. While Herrick’s work went un-realized and, in the scope of history, largely un-recognized, he advanced the serious question ofcombining the benefits of rotary-wing flight with theefficiency of a fixed wing aircraft, and set the stagefor two later convertaplane attempts that, althoughultimately unsuccessful, were arguably more of atechnical success – the Fairey Rotodyne99 (1957 –1962) and the Kamov Ka-22 (“Vintokrulya” or “Rus-sian Rotodyne”)100 (1960 – 1965?). Herrick alsosketched uses/advantages for a convertaplane,stating: 1) speed differential; 2) steeper angle ofdescent than airplane; 3) minimum landing space;4) inherent stability and automatic landing; 5) pan-caking maneuver (“tired chicken landing”) [describ-ing a gyrocopter ‘flared’ landing]; 6) lateral andlongitudinal control of aircraft via the rotor; 7) “flywith speed and landing with safety anywhere atany time”; 8) possible increased reliability of ser-vice because if the convertaplane encountered badweather, it would be able to land and ‘wait it out’;9) smoother flying characteristics in rough weather;10) public confidence justifiably established; 11)efficient take-off; 12) bombing (using the aircraft’sability to hover to aim bombs; 13) Naval reconnais-sance; and 14) range or endurance.

In concluding his advocacy for theConvertaplane, Herrick stated that “[t]he ThreeMusketeers of the Convertaplane are present. Asevery engine needs an eccentric to bob up on spe-cial occasions for special purposes, we have aneccentric in the inventor; also the expert aero-

nautical engineer, Ralph McClarren, to keep theinventor within bounds and incorporate his ideas inthe best practice, and the pilot, George Townson,who was courageous enough to prove the safetyand simplicity of this new converting form of flight.”Herrick was certainly correct in part of his asses-sment – he certainly was and continued to be aneccentric.101

Dr. Klemin was perhaps most kind whenhe reasserted his chairmanship of the session withthe almost paternalistic declaration “I am sure,gentlemen, we all enjoyed Mr. Herrick’s paper im-mensely, and never have I seen anyone so sin-cere, modest and what should we say, - gentle-manly, in the presentation of his own ideas. I thinkit is quite refreshing, and you will notice that Mr.Herrick’s humor is particularly subtle, though verymild. The only thing I don’t approve of are hismathematics. (Laughter) I think his mathematicsare of the type of which the college professor, inmarking down a paper say, “I think I shall give hima C, minus.” And then, citing the need to move onto the next paper, Klemin did not allow any furtherdiscussion of Herrick’s paper, a circumstance thatin many ways paralleled Herrick’s subsequent car-eer. Klemin proceeded to introduce Haviland H.Platt who spoke on “The Development of theHelicopter Past, Present and Future.”102

If Klemin’s final characterization of GerardHerrick had effectively served to marginalize hisideas and endeavors, the introduction of HavilandH. Platt positively conveyed a gravitas. Kleminopined “Mr. Platt is a man who had a added togreat mechanical ability and ingenuity, a very crit-ical understanding of aerodynamics, and I am surethat we shall be most interested in hearing theviews on the helicopter of somebody who has act-ually worked in that air very definitely.” LePlatt, a“mechanical engineer and patent expert with anumber of rotary wing patents”103 who had partner-ed with W. Laurence LePage in 1935 to pursuehelicopter development. The partners had investi-gated the Fa-61 helicopter and LePage had act-ually negotiated with Focke to build helicopters inthe United States, a venture that became impos-sible with the rise in tension between the twocountries coinciding with the rise of National Soc-ialist (Nazi) government in Germany. In November1938, less than a month after the Franklin Institutemeetings, the two aviation innovators/ entrepre-neurs would form the Platt-LePage Aircraft Com-pany. And even if the Platt-LePage helicopterfailed to go into general production, eventually

eclipsed by the single-rotor design of Igor Sikorsky,the inventors were the first to suggest the helicop-ter gunship, a large twin-engine helicopter and thetiltrotor. Bell Aircraft would eventually pay royal-ties to Platt for use of his patents in the XV-3. Butin October 1938, that was still in the future.

Platt saw his assigned 20-minuted pre-sentation “to discuss the entire, enormous field ofhelicopter development” as being asked to “con-dense the Encyclopedia Brittanica into one smallvolume” but he had decided to “dig around in thegreat amorphous mess that was presented, and tryto find some little vestige of back- bone or connect-ing thread in all of them and stick strictly to that.”His ‘backbone’ of helicopter development’ consist-ed of: 1. Past – Attainment of sustained free flightwithout regard to utility or safety. 2. Present –Provision or adequate flight control and safety, and3. Future – Attainment of high useful performance.

It was through this rubric that Platt ap-proached a chronicle of helicopter development,and he began with the “Berliner model of 1920,”showing a slide of it hovering while being guidedby “intrepid gentlemen.” In achieving the solutionsto the control issues presented by early helicopterdevelopment, control then-seen in the “remarkablestability of the Focke helicopter”, Platt thought that“it seems almost incredible that in the reduction topractice of this simple solution [the liftscrew isflexibly attached to the shaft so that when the shaftis tilted the disk or cone of rotating blades lagsbehind to some degree so that the thrust T stays inline with the disk axis and not with the shaft axis,achieving inherent stability] had to wait thirtyyears.” He goes on to observe:

“Especially is this so when it is found thatdescriptions of this device, in the form ofthe articulated rotor, have been in publicprint for almost this entire time. Thus Fig.4 (Slide) is a reproduction of the drawingsof a German patent (214228) issued toDegn in 1909 which show universally art-iculated blades. Incidentally, it is interes-ting that Degn also illustrates an overrun-ning clutch and describes correctly thetheory of autorotational emergency landi-ng. Fig. 5 (Slide) shows the drawings of aBritish patent (16,621/1913) to Pollacsek,which is identical with a German one(249702) to Bartha and (sic) Madzer,issued in 1913, containing an exposition ofthe same features. Neither Degn nor

Pollacsek mentioned stability and it istherefore clear that they were as obliviousto the full importance of their designs ashave been most of their successors.”

It is interesting that patent-expert Platt cites thework of Degn, Pollacsek and of Bartha/Madzsar(he apparently was unaware that K. Pollacsek wasan English patent attorney for Hungarians MaxBartha and Dr. Josef Madzsar), the latter of whichare discussed by Liberatore.104 The work of PaulFrederick Degn, of Bremen, Germany, howeverwas even then, if not now, obscure, and may befound in the American version of his patent, #922,756 signed September 23, 1908 and patentedMay 25, 1909.105

Platt goes on to comment on Cierva,observing that:

“It is a curious commentary on the con-fusion of helicopter development that de laCierva, who contributed so very much tothe mechanical perfection of the articulatedrotor, conceived the autogiro under what isnow seen to be the mistaken belief thattorque reaction was the insoluble problemof the helicopter. The Focke machine byusing the same rotor arrangement asmany of the earliest helicopter designs, anarrangement in which there is no externaltorque reaction, shows that torque in real-ity was never an obstacle to success, atleast in the first development stage. Fur-thermore (sic) Clerva, having avoided thepositional stability problem by designing amachine which required motion forsupport, proceeded to conceive independ-ently and to develop extensively the arti-culated rotor for other purposes, withoutever having come to the realization that itcontained also the true solution to the

problem which he had given up asinsoluble.”106

Platt’s discussion of the present centered, under-standably, on the Focke helicopter, focusing on aslide of its rotor head. He stated to the audience:“The idea of variable pitch has become well knownthrough its use in airplane propellers. In the heli-copter it is even more important because of thewide divergence of pitch requirement between fullpower flight and power off autorotation. The typeof mechanism used by Focke for this purpose isone which links blade lag to blade pitch. Increasedtorque, by causing the blade to lag, automaticallyincreases the pitch and vice versa.”

Platt predicted that “future helicopterdevelopment will follows lines laid down in the pastby airplane development. . . the Focke helicopter isopen to great improvement in three ways: 1. In-crease in aerodynamic lift efficiency, 2. Reductionof structure weight, and 3. Reduction of parasitedrag. He also saw a question in two rotors vs. one:“In the case of the helicopter . . . the theoreticalgain of the single over the double rotor appears tobe much more pronounced than is that of the mon-oplane over the biplane. . . . Concerning structureweight, the advantage is again clearly on the sideof the single rotor which does not require outrig-gers and long drive shafts.” These commentsmust be viewed as somewhat ironic given that thePlatt-LePage XR-1 (PL3), funded by the Army withDorsey-Logan funds, was a twin-rotor design alongthe same lines as the Fa-61.107

Klemin then took the podium and, incontrast to his previous remarks at the end ofGerard Herrick’s presentation, literally heapedpraise on Platt when he said: “I think, gentlemen,Mr. Platt’s paper is particularly illuminating, inrespect of the stability with flapping rotor. This isthe first time that I have felt the flapping rotor wasan inherent solution of helicopter stability, that isthe first time that I have seen a simple theoreticaldemonstration of the fact. If the rest of the meetingisn’t worth anything – and of course it is worth a lot– just to see that first diagram and the first outlineof the stability of the helicopter is a very valuablecontribution, Mr. Platt.” (emphasis added)

(Rare photo of Platt-Lepage Helicopter duringconstruction – courtesy of Jay Brian Hendrickson,W. Laurence LePage Archives)

Klemin then singled out ProfessorMontgomery Knight of the Daniel GuggenheimSchool of Aeronautics of Georgia Tech (renamedthe School of Aerospace Engineering in July1962), which had been founded with a $300,000grant from the Daniel Gugenheim Fund for thePromotion of Aeronautics in 1930, and which hadbegun classes and research activities108 in Sept-ember 1931 with two dedicated faculty membersand eighteen students. Knight was the first chair ofthe school, serving until he died in 1943. In 1967,the university constructed a modern building on thesite of a demolished model shop – it was namedthe Montgomery Knight Building. Knight, who wasto make a presentation later during the meetingson helicopter research at Georgia Tech, declinedto add anything to the presentation, but he didknowingly comment on the current status of heli-copter research in stating: “The recent develop-ment towards the successful helicopter in thiscountry is so new, there are relatively few placeswhere serious investigation and study are beingcarried on. It is encouraging to me, as being inone of these places, to know there are otherplaces in the country, if only a few, where this workis going on.” But then Knight went on to add, per-haps with some insight as to why Chairman Kleminhad singled him out to respond to Platt’s presen-tation, “[i]f I am supposed to pick an argument withMr. Platt, I don’t believe that I can afford to dothat.”

Short questions followed from a Mr. Brye109

and Gordon B. Jackson, and then Chairman Klem-in cut the session short, asserting the necessity tomove to the next presentation, and even though itinvolved a competing rotary-wing technology, itoccasioned the a wonderfully warm and praise-worthy introduction of E. Burke Wilford: “[t]he nextspeaker has devoted so much time to the

preparation of this meeting that I am afraid it wouldbe ungracious of us to deprive him of the remain-ing time before adjournment. Mr. Wilford, I am notgoing to shower (sic) eonconiums [presumably thespeaker intended econiums] on you or say what aclever engineer I consider you to be. Everybodyknows Burke Wilford, knows him as a swell engin-eer and a good fellow, and loves him, and that isthe best introduction I can give to our Chairman.”

Wilford’s paper/presentation was entitled“The Gyroplane”110 and he began with a summaryof the development of the Wilford Gyroplane111 withyet another swipe at Gerard Herrick. Wilford said:“I am afraid I will not be the humorist that ourlearned Mr. Herrick is, for I have a real fight talk togive you.” And although it is impossible to know ifas intended, it is likely that, given the focus on theWilford Gyroplane flying, this is a misprint, and heactually announced a “flight talk”. His presentationcentered on the work of Walter Rieseler and WalterKreiser (discussed supra) which would not havebeen as familiar to the audience as that of Ciervaand Pitcairn (hence Wilford aircraft, not derivedfrom Cierva’s work, were properly denoted as a‘Gyroplane’ and not Autogiro).112 After constructinga gyroplane in accord with the principles of “rigidblade feathering” of the European inventors whohad licensed their patents to Wilford, the resultingaircraft was first flown by Paul Hov-gard113 “nowwith the Curtiss Company”, who would later pre-sent a paper to the meeting participants. Addition-ally, Wilford also acknowledged the participation ofElliott Daland, who would later write on the WilfordGyroplane.114

After describing the flight trials of the Wil-ford Gyroplane, Wilford shared two visions of thefuture with the audience. One was a streamlinedversion of the Focke Helicopter which he called theHeli-Gyro while stating “[w]e are not trying to copyMr. Focke’s word in any way, but I am just inter-ested in seeing that rigid feathering blades areused in the helicopter field as well in the gyro field.”Additionally, Wilford looked twelve years into thefuture and imagined that:

“I am a great believer in Mr. Herrick’sprinciple of the Convertaplane . . . [h]ere issomething, say in 1950 we will be going toEurope in. It is a clipped wing aeroplane,with 10,000 horsepower, gross weight wecan not estimate because they’ll be usingBeryllium alloys which will improve all theweight figures immensely. It has just

enough wing area to support it at 250miles cruising speed, so that you designthe most efficient ship just to fly. You don’tworry about landing. Then, we put RalphMcClarren’s maple seed on top, and wehave take-off and landing.”

Wilford’s future convertiplane would not, in fact, flyuntil 1957 – the Fairey Rotodyne, but his descrip-tion is essentially, if broadly-brushed, correct. Butthe Wilford presentation also a discussions of therelationship between rotor tip speed and aircraftspeed. Wilford stated during his presentation:

“In order to maintain aerodynamicefficiency the rotor must be either convert-ible to fixed wing area for forward flight,allowed to idle or be retracted into thefuselage. For there is a reason to believethat a limit of speed may exist in rotorsalone due to the approach of tip speed tothe velocity of sound so that aircraft sup-ported by the rotor is limited to approxi-mately 200 miles per hour. If the rotor issuppressed and the aircraft flies on theclipped wing is only limited by the drag ofthe machine and the horsepower available.A good inherently safe aircraft should beable to make a forced landing in a woodsor on a mountain side without anyreduction in the high speed, performance,and useful carry capacity.”

Chairman Klemin could barely contain his enthus-iasm for the presentation, particularly as Wilfordhad given a mini-presentation within his main topicon “Inherent Aircraft Safety” and sketched a futureof safe and convenient flying via means of an air-craft that could combine the efficiency of fixedwings with the convenience and safety of rotary-wing flight – the convertaplane – Klemin positivelyenthused “That’s the way to do it. All this half-waystuff and mathematical statements, don’t do us anygood. This is the way to do it.”

Klemin then called on Grover Loening,115

who had sold his Loening Aeronautical Engineer-ing Corporation in 1928 to Curtiss-Wright for$3,000,000 and who would, after becoming amajor investor in Grumman, become and remainan aviation consultant, even participating in the de-sign of the helipad on the top of New York City’sPan Am Building. Klemin was interested in hearingfrom “one of our most distinguished aeronautical

engineers” who had actually seen the Focke–Wolfe helicopter, noting that the “other gentlemenare accustomed to talking of it at second hand, orfrom pictures.” Loening, presumably an old handat attending meetings, and knowing of the impor-tance of the coming lunch, answered none-the-lesswith a declaration that conveyed the perceived im-port of the German helicopter, when he answered:“Well, as we are all very hungry, Mr. Chairman, Iwill briefly say that it is quite a shock to an oldheavier than air craft designer, to see this heavierthan air craft hover in the air, so easily that the pi-lot, going up six feet, leans over to ProfessorFocke and says, in a loud voice, “Vas Zoll ich jetztthen?” (What shall I do now?), and proceeds toconverse with him while he is suspended in the air.That was the most graphic illustration of what itreally amounts to.”

Klemin then recognized Professor Mont-gomery Knight, who had earlier refused to chal-lenge Haviland Platt, but did not hesitate on thisoccasion. He stated in a telling and ultimately pre-scient comment in response to Wilford’s presenta-tion:

“I don’t know whether I was supposed totake issue with Mr. Wilford, but I am goingto take the liberty of doing it. The (sic)paramater of forward motion to rotationalspeed, which Mr. Wilford was referring tohas values in the present autogiro as highas five tenths – not three tenths, but fivetenths, -- and there is a mysterious, unex-plored region beyond that point that frank-ly, we know nothing about. Theoretically,of course, we can carry our mathematicsup to indefinite values of very high para-meter, but there is still much work to bedone in the wind tunnel, and recent experi-ments that I have had in the wind tunnelstudies on this subject have revealed thatfor the helicopter, particularly where theinitial blade angle is larger, one must stepwith caution into that region, for fear ofstalling the retrieving blade [probably‘retreating blade’], and having the modelcome to pieces. That actually happenedonce in my experience, and it was quitedistressing, particularly since I had juststepped out of the disk of the rotor a fewseconds before. So there I would like tomake that one suggestion, that we canalready, in the autogiro, go up to values of

parameter of five tenths, and we may beable to go higher, even, with helicopters.There is a fertile field of investigationthere.”

And indeed, Knight’s prediction has proven correct,give the growing body of research in the area ofthe convertiplane helicopter configuration.116 Andwith Knight’s comments, the first session ended.

The Second Session – Friday Afternoon,October 28, 1938

E. Burke convened the afternoon sessionto introduce its designated Chairman, W. WallaceKellett,117 with a refe-ence to an ascribed role in therecent passage of the Dorsey [Logan] Bill, in stat-ing: “Gentlemen, our Chairman this afternoonneeds no introduction. He only spent six months inWashington last year, to get the Dorsey Bill pass-ed, and besides that, we wouldn’t be here if thathadn’t passed.” And while this description was ob-viously intended to be flattering, it resulted in Kel-lett’s taking exception. He replied: “I don’t knowhow to take that introduction. I spent some timedown in Washington to show some of our mem-bers of Congress our ship and some of the needsof this type of aircraft, but I don’t think I can takeany responsibility for it. There were a great manyother factors in it than that. So I will let that go by,with that reference.” And with that, Wilford re-treated with “I am sorry if I said the wrong thing”and the session properly began, but it did not gosmoothly.

Kellett noted:

“The first speaker today isn’t here yet. Hehappens to be a Congressman, and Mr.Dorsey, the one who is responsible for thelegislation. I think we have a very goodprogram. I won’t undertake to tell you thatwe have the most important part of theprogram today, but I have no hesitancy insaying that the gentlemen who are goingto express their views here in this after-noon’s meeting are among the most im-portant wheels that make the car run. . . .We are going to start the meeting by hear-ing from Lieutenant Gregory . . . [who] re-presents the United States Army and theWar Department . . . one of our customers.The War Department has invested moneyin rotary wing aircraft, and they expect to

get utility our of rotary wing aircraft, andeverything we think about in our designand research work should always be withthe idea of supplying something that isgoing please that customer, and give himthe maximum for the money he spends.So I won’t say any more, but that is the ba-sic principle. I feel very strongly that weare only serving our customers, and wehave got to produce from the very begin-ning to the last, something that is going tobe of actual value to our customers. Imight say that Lieutenant Gregory andLieutenant Nichols[118] were the originalArmy Air Corp pilots assigned to the auto-giro when first obtained. They went intothis thing without every having seen anautogiro, and everything that has beendone there is to their credit. They con-ducted a flight school at Wright Field lastyear and trained pilots and mechanics.They did a job that I am sure everybody inour organization feels couldn’t have beendone any better by anybody, and franklyspeaking, I would say that we might nothave done as well.”

And with that flattering introduction H. FranklinGregory, 1st Lt., began his presentation entitled“Army Experiences With Rotating Wing Aircraft” 119

but if Kellett had been privy to Gregory’s thoughtson the Autogiro, the introduction might not havebeen so laudatory.

Kellett had provided the Air Corps with atest version of its direct-control Autogiro – themilitary version of the KD-1/KD-1A, the YG-1series (YG-1/1A/1B). It was first delivered to theArmy Air Corps in October 1936 and performedwell enough the subsequent models were orderedfor the Air Corps Autogiro School at PattersonField in Springfield near Dayton, OH in 1938.Subsequently, the KD-1 flew in a testing programwith the Field Artillery Board at Fort Bragg, NorthCarolina consisting of directing artillery fire, recon-naissance, and landings in otherwise inaccessibleareas. That testing, including the first use of atelephone, with a 1500 ft cord from the ground, toan aircraft is recounted in H. Franklin Gregory’sAnything a Horse Can Do . The second Kellet air-craft, a YG-1A, which had been modified withaddition of military H.F. Radio, was delivered inOctober 1936. And while the testing showed areconnaissance role in artillery spotting for the

aircraft, each of the test models would suffer mul-tiple crashes and would eventually be destroyed inthe testing process, in the field or in the N.A.C.A.wind tunnel, but the Army would open its AutogiroTraining School. But as then 1st Lieutenant (laterBrigadier General) H. Franklin Gregory makesclear in his autobiographical book Anything AHorse Can Do, he and his army colleagues wereeven then viewing the Autogiro as an intermediatestep towards an aircraft that could truly hover, thehelicopter. He wrote:120

“The greatest trend that occurred, how-ever, was not with the Autogiro. Nor withthe results of the school, but with a nation-wide interest in private flying . . . . It didn’ttake the Army experts long to realize thatsome of the small aircraft like the Aeronca,the Piper Cubs, Taylorcraft, Interstates,and Stinsins would do almost the samething in the air that the Autogiro could ac-complish. The light planes were far cheap-er. Tests were run with these craft in liai-son problems with the ground forces dur-ing maneuvers. Results were very encour-aging. . . .

In truth, this had been done years beforethe advent of the Autogiro in the Army,since we had the famous Curtiss Tanager,winner of the Guggenheim Safe Airplanecompetition in 1929 [121], which could fly asslow as thirty miles an hour, about thesame as the Autogiro. Yet in the Autogirowe had seen a way to vertical flight and tomany of us it seemed the next step towardthe helicopter. Primarily this was the rea-son for the Army’s gyro school and its ex-haustive research into rotary-wing aircraft.Thus one of my main tasks in the new jobat Wright Field was to look for a successfulhelicopter.”

Gregory had concluded his evaluation of the Kellettdirect-control (but not jump take-off) Autogiros thatthey were “in reality little more than a high-lift de-vice on a conventional airplane . . . that offered nomore – and in many cases less – performance thatthe performance of many ultalight fixed-wing air-craft.”122 And it was these opinions that consti-tuted the background of his presentation.

Gregory’s presentation began with thetelling of what today would be characterized an

unacceptable racial epithet – made not the whitmore acceptable in conceding that 1938 was adifferent America and the audience was probablyall Caucasian – this was, after all, an historic avia-tion meeting, not a gathering of the local Klu KluxKlan. And while Lt. Gregory was quick to note thathe was “not a speaker . . . not a mathematician oran engineer” who “just purchased me a slide ruleoutside”,123 he was perhaps deliberately minimiz-ing expectations for his “twenty-minute paper onarmy experiences with rotating wing aircraft.”

But then he noted that “when I received aprogram, I noticed by dividing two hours by thenumber of speakers, that I had only fourteen min-utes to present this paper, so I began to get wor-ried, particularly since I had a film that I wanted allof you to see.” And yet, given the time imperativethat Gregory had just announced, he paused for acurious Janus-like story:

“I am reminded of a story that Major CarlGreen told me last night. He said that oneman walked up to another and said, “Both-er can you give me a quarter to buy a cupof coffee?” The man looked at him andsaid, “A quarter! My gracious, I could buyfive cups of coffee for a quarter. If youwould ask for a dime, I might give it toyou.” He said, “Now listen. I asked you fora quarter. If you want to give it to me, O.K.If you don’t want to give it to me, O.K. Butdon’t try to tell me how to run my ownbusiness.”

On one level, Gregory was stating that, as a non-speaker-engineer-mathematician, he wouldn’t tellthe meeting participants how to do their business;but at the same time he was also telling them notto tell him how to do his , in this case, his country’sbusiness – and that business was, in his ownwords, “to look for a successful helicopter.”

Gregory’s account of the military experi-ence with rotary wing-aircraft began with a refer-ence en passant to the Army investigation of theobscure Peter Cooper Hewitt Helicopter of 1918124

(note – according to Liberatore this was the 1917Crocker-Hewitt Helicopter, a co-axial design),125

the even more obscure “J. E. McWorter “Auto-plane” helicopter,126 and the de Bothezat helicop-ter.127 Gregory then proceeded to summarize theArmy’s involvement with the Autogiro which con-stituted the bulk of its rotary-wing aircraft exper-ience. This encompassed flying with the Field

Artillery School, the Infantry School, with theCavalry and the Air Corps Autogiro School.

He concluded: “Well trained pilots arenecessary for the operation of the present auto-giro. The autogiro in the hands of an expert is pro-bably as safe as the conventional airplane. I didn’tsee any tomatoes come this way. (Laughter) Thestability is comparable to that of an airplane. Testsnow under way indicate that the autogiro may dev-elop into an extremely useful military instrument,particularly adapted to certain observation and oth-er needs in Army cooperation.” (emphasis added)

It is obvious that Gregory knew he wasthrowing down the gauntlet – and this is under-standable given his (and apparently the Army’s)sentiments even then favoring development of thehelicopter.128 In asserting that the Autogiro require-ed well trained and expert pilots, he was directlychallenging the belief and advertising pitch of Pit-cairn’s Autogiro Company of America that portray-ed the Autogiro as the ‘safe aircraft for the mass-es,’129 (a claim later made with deadly results byIgor Bensen for his Gyrocopter).

Chairman Kellett, perhaps in an attempt tograft a more positive ending to Gregory’s presenta-tion, proceeded to call upon the Lieutenant’s sup-erior officer Major Green who was in the audience,asking if he would like to add anything more? In-stead of adding anything, Major Green reinforcedGregory’s unique credentials, stating that “His[Gregory’s] experience is unique, in this gathering,because he is, I would say, one of the first personsto actually make application, service application, ofthis instrument. He runs a school, graduated twoclasses, he has kept his autogiros in commission,he has had no accidents. The school has been agreat credit to Lieutenant Gregory and LieutenantNichols, and to the manufacturers of the auto-giros.”

Gregory, perhaps sensing that his pre-sentation had not risen to the level expected oc-casioned by Kellett’s laudatory introduction, inter-vened to praise the Autogiro’s ability to be conceal-ed beneath camouflage nets in a small clearing inwhich Nichols had landed. Kellett, apparently un-appeased, then sought to get an opinion from Lieu-tenant Eric S. Nichols, but if the erstwhile Chair-man thought to gain a more favorable view of themilitary Autogiro, he received faint and fairly vaguecomfort as Nichols succinctly added: “I have hada lot of fun with the autogiro and a lot of difficultywith it, and through it all, I am most enthusiastic onits military possibilities.”

Kellett, not giving up in his attempt to getan addition to Gregory’s presentation, turned to F.J. Bailey of the N.A.C.A., who declined as he wasto speaker later in the meetings, but who did replyin a somewhat dark tone “[o]ur experience wasrather unfortunate in the full scale tunnel . . . “leading Kellett, in an attempt to blunt the thrust (nopun intended) of the previous statements, to opine“I think we have made the giro outstanding. Wehave not only wrecked it in the air; we have done itin the wind tunnel.” And while Kellett apparentlydid not trust the floor to open the presentation forquestioning, allotted the remaining time to allowGregory to show a movie the graduation exercisesof the Army Air Corps Autogiro School (duringwhich W. Wallace Kellett had presented each pilotwith a “miniature autogiro mounted on a plaque fordesk use, very nice and appreciated by all.”

Kellett then introduced the main speakerwho had been delayed, Congressman Frank J. G.Dorsey, although Kellett’s introduction got a bit be-fuddled and he certainly managed to convey anopinionated (but probably not uncommon) view ofthe government in Washington. Kellett stated:

“Our next speaker is Mr. Dorsey. I thinkthat name ought to mean a great deal toeveryone here today, because Mr. Dorseywho had the foresight to see that the dev-elopment of rotary (sic) wind aircraftshould be carried on as part of our nationalresources. He had the interest in it to goto work and dig into it, find out what it wasall about, in addition to all the other thingshe has to do in Washington; He had thecourage when he developed a definite pro-gram, to work with it and see that it wasenacted, which resulted in the enactmentby Congress in the last session of the Dor-sey Bill, authorizing $2,000,000 for auto-giro—excuse me, rotary wing aircraft –development. Down in Washington, I didtake my ship there and demonstrate it tosome of Mr. Dorsey’s colleagues, and I didget to know some of his fellow members ofCongress. I don’t know how many of youhave ever been close to a real, live Con-gressman. We’ve got one here, and Ithink when you have heard him and got toknow him in that way, that you will feelthat you want to go home and get ac-quainted with your Congressman, becauseI have found in Washington that our

country is run by Congress and Congressis run by committees, and members ofthose committees. When they are inWashington, they spend about 10% oftheir time helping their constituents athome, they may spend another 10% oftheir time helping in the affairs of the partyto which they belong, and the other 80% oftheir time is spent in running this countryof ours. They are just as interested in theproblems that we have as they are in any-thing else --- well, I can’t finish that. Theyare interested in the country. So I will turnthe floor over to Mr. Dorsey, the fellow whotook us out of the orphan asylum. If I did-n’t have to be dignified, I’ve heard it calledother things.”

And there can be little doubt that many in the aud-ience viewed Dorsey as the ‘savior’ of the rotarywing aircraft due to his actions in advancing whatcame to be known as the ‘Dorsey Bill’, and whichwould be signed by President Roosevelt as theDorsey-Logan bill after Senator Logan had spon-sored it in the Senate, but although perhaps notobvious at the time, that bill would not benefit eachof the leaders of that industry in attendance equal-ly.

With the growing belief that war wouldcome to Europe, Harold F. Pitcairn had becomeconvinced that the military needed to develop ro-tary wing aircraft, and saw such support as vitaland necessary to the aluminum PA-36 direct con-trol jump takeoff Autogiro130 then under develop-ment, so it was logical to turn to an aviation-know-ledgeable and sympathetic member of the Penn-sylvania congressional delegation, RepresentativeFrank J. G. Dorsey. Pitcairn may also have beenguided in this effort by his older brother Raymondwho was exceptionally well-connected131 in thepolitical world of the day. Pitcairn requested thatthe congressman sponsor a bill to fund experimen-tal Autogiro development for the military, and afterdrafting, introduced H.R. 8143 in early 1937, there-after known as the Dorsey Bill. The bill, reflectingthe specific concerns of his constituents,132 whichincluded the Kellett brothers, E. Burke Wilford, andGerard Herrick (but not Platt and LePage whowere well out of the mainstream in terms of theirtechnology, finances and community standing)133

was titled “To Authorize the Sum of $2,000,000 forthe Purpose of Autogiro Research, Developmentand Procurement for Experimental Purposes.”

Congressional hearings by the House Committeeon Military Affairs were scheduled early in 1938,and Pitcairn resolved to have a flying model of thePA-36 ready to convince the legislators. The KellettAutogiro Company expressed great interest and itwas apparent that the two would be rivals for thegovernment funds. Kellett had, after all, alreadyreceived a contract to supply seven KD-1s, dubbedYG-1A/B’s by the military, to the Army AutogiroSchool, established on April 15, 1938 for pilottraining and field testing under the direction of 1st

Lieutenant H. Franklin Gregory at the same timethat Pitcairn had closed his production line. Thisrivalry had been simmering for several years asKellett rankled over the superior position of theAutogiro Company of America as the Ciervalicensing agent and patent repository in America,and Pitcairn resentment at the Kellett independentconsultations with Cierva on direct-control. Andthere was the lingering issue of the internationalsales of Kellett K-3s – Pitcairn continued to main-tain that this was a violation of the ACA licensingagreement, but more importantly and of greaterrelevance to the pending legislation, Harold Pit-cairn felt that the Army testing of K-3s was not inthe best interest of the Autogiro. Pitcairn had a notunreasonable belief that the future of Autogirotechnology would be better demonstrated by whathe termed the “third generation” – the direct-con-trol, jump take-off PA-36 (in fact, as they Autogiroschool was made up of the military version of theKellett KD-1 direct control Autogiro that could notaccomplish the jump takeoff, H. Franklin Gregory’sAutogiro experience was not, nor would it becomewith the coming of the helicopter, state-of-the-art).It was not surprising, then, when it had becameknown Kellet company was also working on thecollective-pitch control system necessary for jumptake-offs under the direction of its chief engineerRichard H. Prewitt.134 He had previously visitedwith Cierva in late 1933 to discuss direct-control, ameeting viewed with continuing suspicion by Pit-cairn and his associates. Harold Pitcairn had al-ways taken legal steps to protect his discoveriesand patents, and he now took other steps madenecessary by the perceived rivalry – engineerswere admonished to exercise caution over the ef-forts – all papers accounted for at the end of theday, locked desks and safes were the order of theday, and all public statements had to be screenedby legal counsel, approved and then only repeat-ed, not elaborated upon. No hints that might help

the Kellett engineers were to be given, even in acasual conversation.

Agnew Larsen had been placed in chargeof the PA-36 development program, and he ex-pressed confidence that he could build the proto-type for $50,000 by the time of the Dorsey Billhearings. He would be proven wrong on bothcounts. Jim Ray, still in England, had asked to re-turn to America, but the company, with no flyingprototype, had no piloting work and Pitcairn felt itwould be a more productive effort for Ray to con-tinue gathering information on European rotaryflight developments. It was an effort that, as dis-cussed supra, resulted in Ray’s dismissal from thecompany as he came to advocate helicopter tech-nology over the Autogiro.

The Dorsey Bill hearings began on April26, 1938 and Harold Pitcairn had meticulouslyprepared a booklet illustrating Autogiro develop-ment and touting the PA-36 as the latest model.But he had misestimated the sentiments of thosewho appeared before the Committee and severelymisread the results. The hearings would prove adisaster to the future of Autogiro development inAmerica, but that was not known at the time ofDorsey’s presentation in Philadelphia in October1938.

There is no doubt that those who testifiedduring the two days of Dorsey bill hearings were in-fluenced by the images from a few months earlierof Hanna Reitsch flying the Fa-61, and this clearlyshowed from their comments. Assistant Secretaryof the Navy, Charles Edison, flatly stated that theNavy, having already evaluated the Autogiro, wasnot interested in rotorcraft unless they possessedability to hover. And then Professor Alexander Kle-min, Dean of the Guggenheim School of Aeronau-tical Engineering of New York University, who hadmade known a favorable view of the Autogiro, citedthe recent Hanna Reitsch Fa-61 flights and ven-tured the seemingly innocent opinion that the Dor-sey bill language use of the word “Autogiro” mightreasonably be construed to include all types of ro-tary wing aircraft. And, he added, that being thecase, perhaps this implicit meaning should be dir-ectly stated to include all such rotary wing aircraft.No one present, especially Harold Pitcairn, tookmuch notice of this redefinition of the bill’s terms,but the inclusion of all types of rotary wing aircraftwould now encompass helicopters, surely relevantto 1st Lieutenant Gregory, who was of such a lowlyrank that there was no possibility he would be cal-led to testify before the Committee. But he was

perhaps the most experienced Army officer inrotary wing aircraft based on his experience withthe Army Kellett K-3 models, and his relativelyjunior officer status had not prevented the Armyfrom assigning him to command its AutogiroSchool,135 nor would it prevent his subsequentassignment (after being promoted to the rank ofCaptain) to administer allocated funds.

Witness after witness, citing potential uses,enthusiastically testified as to the benefits of rotarywing flight, and by the time that Harold Pitcairn ap-peared it was apparent that the Committee mem-bers were favorably disposed to the Dorsey Bill.As it was near the end of the second day, Pitcairn’stestimony was highly abbreviated and, placing hisprepared Autogiro booklet in the record, he soonleft after answering a few questions, apparentlysatisfied with the results. But he failed to under-stand the gravity of the opinions that had emerged,namely that rotary wing flight would be of benefit,not specifically Autogiro flight; and he further failedto realize that two of the specific questions askedwere seminal to a far different result than he hadanticipated. He had admitted to the Committeethat he had spent $3,250,000 in Autogirodevelopment since 1928, and that the PA-36, theend product of that investment, did not even yetexist in prototype. Although he was apparentlysatisfied with the hearings, it is clear that the finalimpression was that while rotary wing flight wouldprove of benefit, those benefits were not likely toemerge from the Autogiro. It is not surprising,then, that the Committee took only ten minutesafter the close of the hearings to change to pur-pose subtitle – the words “Rotary Wing and OtherAircraft” were substituted for “Autogiro” -- andwhile this substitution may have seemed innoc-uous, it would doom the Autogiro for Lieutenant H.Franklin Gregory would insure no governmentmoney would flow to the Pitcairn PA-36 develop-ment or procurement from the Dorsey Bill, whichwas passed by the House, sponsored by SenatorLogan in the Senate, and signed into law by Pres-ident Roosevelt a the Dorsey-Logan Act on August1, 1938, but which funds were reduced to$300,000 in Public Act #61 passed by the Seventy-sixth Congress and House AppropriationsCommittee.

But in October 1938, it was clear that Dor-sey was both enjoying his notoriety before the ro-tary wing aircraft audience and basking in his ap-parent legislative success for his constituents, andhis talk reflected that sense of success even

though he began with somewhat of a confusingdeclaration when he stated that “something musthave gone wrong with this rotor today, because inthe original letter from the Institute, I was advisedthat I was to talk on the military uses of rotatingwing aircraft, and looking at the program today, Isee that I am to talk on “Government Use andDevelopment”.[136] Well, now, that just lets me outthis afternoon. I can talk about anything I desire.”This is confusing because Dorsey is, as observedby a later speaker John M. Miller, speaking from awritten speech, and he does go on to speak ongovernment uses and development. Dorsey’s ver-bal maneuver may originate from his desire toposture before his Autogiro-advocating constitu-ents, most notably the representatives of the Kel-lett and Pitcairn companies, for by citing an originalinvitation to speak on ‘military uses of rotating wingaircraft’, he was undercutting the previous speakeron the military experiences with the Autogiro, Lieu-tenant Gregory, who had just stated (to the con-sternation of Chairman Kellett) that fixed wing air-craft in general aviation were approaching the slowflight performance of the Autogiro. And Dorseycontinued this effort, letting the audience know ofhis intent by direct reference to Gregory’s talk with(emphasis added) “I was quite interested in the re-mark, and I didn’t have any tomato to throw at thetime, -- the remark of Lieutenant Gregory about thesafety of the conventional type aircraft.”

Dorsey, in his ‘verbal tomato’, proceededto recount at some length his near disastrous ex-perience in a fixed wing aircraft encountering tur-bulent air, segued to his prepared speech with thedeclaration that “I thought there surely must besome kind of an aircraft can keep you in the air, orlet you down on the top of a tree somewhere with-out cracking everybody up. So I became interest-ed in the subject, and I just want to express a fewthoughts to you this afternoon concerning whatpart the government should play in the develop-ment of rotating wing type aircraft, and what youcan do to assist such a program.”

This was, admittedly a subtle but extreme-ly clever way to begin a discussion of the how’sand why’s of government support – by linking,however indirectly, such support to aircraft safety,for that was exactly the theme espoused for mostof the 1930s by the Autogiro Company of America– its advertising copy reverberated with the claimsthat anyone could learn to fly an Autogiro and thatit was the aircraft that “knows it own way down”137

and it is now conceded by the Pitcairn Aircraft his-

torian Carl Gunther that the Amelia Earhart August1931 article “Your Next Garage May House AnAutogiro” in Hearst’s International combined withCosmopolitan138 was actually authored by thePitcairn ad agency copywriters.139

Dorsey proceeded to provide a laundry listof reasons why the government had a stake in sup-porting rotary wing aircraft development, probablyto the satisfaction of those in his audience – but,given subsequent events, the champions of theAutogiro would have considerably less reason tofeel in such a manner, while those advocating ad-vancement of the helicopter could not possiblyknow that their course would be considerablybrighter. And perhaps even Dorsey was unawareof what the future would bring for Pitcairn, Kellett,Wilford and Herrick – at least his sincerity was un-questioned and unquestionable, even as the vis-ion of future government support might have been.Invoking historical example and, by extension, ana-logy, beginning with official aid given to Samuel F.B. Morse to aid development of the telegraph, andextending through a brief description of how gov-ernment funding vis-à-vis airmail routes/post officegrants nurtured the growth of America’s passen-ger airline system, Dorsey arrived at the followingpoints (capitals in the original):

NOT AN IMPORTANT PURCHASE OFAIRPLANES HAS EVER EXISTED INTHIS COUNTRY WHO DID NOT HAVEBASIC FINAICNAL BACKING FROM THEFEDERAL TREASURY.

NO MANUFACTURERER WHO HASCONTRIBUTED ESSENTIALLY TOAVIATION PROGRESS IN RECENTYEARSREMAINED IN BUSINESSWITHOUT ORDERS DEPENDENT ONFEDERAL INTEREST.

THE PRIVATE MARKET CANNOT SUP-PORT AVIATION EXPERIMENTATIONAND DEVELOPMENT.

He then cautioned: “The men behind the Ameri-can rotating wing aircraft industry will do well toponder these inescapable conclusions.” but thenadded “Fortunately, most of you have already doneso and acted upon your thinking.”

Dorsey was walking a fine line, but he wasdoing it superbly for his audience! He knew that

Pitcairn had admitted before Congressional hear-ings debating the Dorsey Bill that he had spentover $3 million dollars140 with little commercial suc-cess. And the public had increasingly becomeaware of the large number of non-fatal141 Autogiroaccidents.142 Dorsey dealt with each of these fa-cets in a form that was elegant and efficient. Withregard to the former, he absolved them with: “Thetwo pioneers, the Kellett and Pitcairn companies,made a valiant try. I suppose they knew they hadsomething good, and something highly attractive tothe private pilot who wanted safety and elasticity inhis flying operations. In 1931-32 they went to thecountry with their Cierva model autogiros[143 andsold about 85 ships. “Then,” Dorsey continued,seemingly unaware of Pitcairn’s deliberate with-drawal from the market in anticipation of thedevelopment of direct control that would obsoletethe older models,144 “the market dried up.” Withregard to Autogiro accidents, he opined that “[i]twas by no means wholly the fault of the giro, al-though performance in the hands of every Tom,Dick and Harry was not always s good as the com-panies’ own flyers were turning in.” He concludedwith “[t]he key fact is that then and today, the pri-vate market is limited for any type of flying machineand seems likely to stay within sharply defined lim-its for some time” and then described how he intro-duced what became known as the Dorsey Bill, HR10605.

Dorsey advised the rotary wing aircraftdevelopers to pursue three markets: “military andcivilian procurement programs of the government;the airmail service, and the restricted but growingprivate market” and noted that the companion HR7448, the Haines Air Mail Feeder Bill, authorizedan “experimental autogiro feeder mail line”145 whichwould become a reality during the July 6, 1939 –July 5, 1940 time frame from the rooftop of thePhiladelphia 30th Street Post Office initially withJohn M. Miller, who would speak later that day, aspilot later aided by Assistant Pilot Frederick “Slim”Soule.146 He also referenced that “the War Depart-ment has called for suggestions, recommenda-tions, proposals and requisitions from the 20 bur-eaus and departments, as specifically called for inthe Dorsey Act. . . . Following study and consolida-tion of these reports, decision on the immediateprogram will be made and it is expected the WarDepartment will call for a variety of proposals anddevelopment programs. This step will depend onthe availability of funds, to be derived from forthcoming appropriation allotments.”

However, it would not work out as Dorseyanticipated. By the time the War Department con-vened a meeting of interested constituencies to de-fine the Dorsey-Logan Bill rotary wing aircraft crit-eria on May 31, 1939, two events had intervened.War had come to Europe on September 1st withthe German invasion of Poland and the HouseAppropriations Committee had designated theArmy as the administrative agency, and the Armyhad in turn appointed Captain H. Franklin Gregoryas its administrator. Gregory, in turn, familiar withthe rotary-wing developments of Pitcairn, Kellettand now Sikorsky, had become convinced, and in-formed his Army superiors, that the future lay withthe helicopter.

As a consequence, the Circular Proposalstating aircraft requirements, the first step in theallocations process, was drafted by Gregory inconsultation with officials from various governmentagencies that had vested interests in rotary aircraftincluding the Departments of Agriculture andInterior, survey agencies,147 N.A.C.A., and theArmy and Navy which were derived from the sub-mitted proposals and discussions of the September1939 meeting. That meeting was conducted byColonel C. L. Tinker, in the absence of GeneralHenry H. “Hap” Arnold, then Chief of the Army AirCorps, on May 31, 1939. The assembled offic-ials148 agreed, prodded by the expert briefing sup-plied by Captain Gregory, who was the junior of-ficer present but who had become project officerfor all the Army’s rotary-wing aircraft, that the pro-posed Dorsey-Logan rotary-wing aircraft should beable to make a vertical take-off over a 50 foot ob-stacle. At the time only the German helicoptercould achieve such performance, a fact certainlyknown to Gregory, and to all intents and purposesthis flight requirement eliminated the Autogiro. TheUnited States was 15 months away from officiallyentering the conflict and Gregory was even moreconvinced that the future of military rotary-wingflight lay with the helicopter, not the Autogiro.

But this was still in the future and Dorseyoptimistically proceed to outline his vision of mili-tary roles for rotary wing aircraft, quoting variousmilitary officers who cited used for the Autogiro,understandably as no one had seen a helicopter inAmerica other than in films of the Focke aircraft.Dorsey asserted that such anticipated governmentfunding could not have:

“[W]on favorable congressional action asingle day before it did” Dorsey claimed

that “[b]efore it could be approved, theArmy had to fly the autogiros which hadbeen purchased from the Kellett Corpora-tion. The lengthy studies of Pitcairn andKellett models at the N.A.C.A. laboratorieshad to be made. Members of Congresswho are themselves authorities on aviationmade it their business to see what the ro-tary-wing manufacturers had to offer. De-partments such as Agriculture and theNavy purchased ships, tested them, putthem into use and reached conclusions.Bureaus such as Forestry and the CoastGuard borrowed giros to make tests fortheir special need. Committees of theHouse and Senate took testimony from allquarters to determine at last that publicwelfare and the national defense wouldbenefit if the rotorships came into their ownuse.”

He then stated, as valid then as today, that: “Thefederal government cannot be a profligate sugardaddy, a careless angel backing uncertain, untriedproposals. As American citizens, we should beproud this is so. As a member of Congress, I shallalways insist that it be so.” His conclusion ap-pears sincere: “For these very reasons, I amproud of the part I played in obtaining federal as-sistance for the rotating wing aircraft industry. Ihave faith in the judgment of those high-ranking of-ficers, soldiers, expert public servants and able air-men who tell me your whirling blades have an im-portant place in the air. I congratulate you on yourpast efforts and successes, your courage and yourvision. To wish you well for the future.”

As Congressman Dorsey had referencedpotential government use, Kellett first called uponJohn Easton from the CAA who noted that “theCivil Aeronautics Authority has handed to the Sec-retary of War a program which we feel if he ap-proves it, and we get the money to carry it out, willgive definite assistance to rotary wing develop-ment with regard to civil aeronautics, as distinctfrom the military value. This has gone forward,and I hope we get the go-ahead.” And while thiswas optimistically stated, and the CAA representedat the September 1939 meeting by Easton, theprospect of war crowed out civilian applications ofrotary wing aircraft.

Kellett, after thanking Dorsey for takingtime out of his campaign for re-election, called onDr. George W. Lewis, who had been appointed in

1934 by Secretary Newton D. Baker to the SpecialCommittee on the Army Air Corps, so he was vital-ly interested and an active participant in planningfor the future of military air power. Lewis becamethe first executive officer of the NACA in 1919 andin 1924 became its Director of Aeronautical Re-search, a title he retained until 1947, a year beforehis death. (Lewis Field at the NASA John H. GlennResearch Field in Cleveland, OH is named in hishonor) And although he had no questions, Lewisseconded the sentiment that the Dorsey Bill “whencarried through, will be the greatest thing that hashappened to the rotating wing aircraft. We alsohave a program we have submitted to the War De-partment, covering the fundamental research onthe problems in rotating wing aircraft,” effectivelyserving notice that the N.A.C.A. also wanted apiece of the Dorsey-Logan pie.

Kellett then called on Kern Dodge, Phila-delphia's director of public safety and a prominentmember of the Pennsylvania Aero Club. Dodgehad been caught up early in the excitement gen-erated by the Wright brothers, and there was aphotograph from 1912 showing him seated in aWright Flier.149 He also had authored the REPORTON REGIONAL AIR TERMINAL FOR THE PHILA-DELPHIA REGION in 1929. It is not known if hewas attending in an official municipal capacity, butthere can be no doubt that, given his history of in-terest and participation in matters aviation, hewould not have missed such ah historic gathering.But he had nothing other than platitude to add, andhis brief and eminently forgettable remark allowedKellett to end the presentation, not before E. BurkeWilford called for (and received) “a rising vote ofthanks” for Dorsey.

Thus Frank G. Dorsey’s presentation cameto an end – the money allocation process wouldtake much longer than he anticipated, and begreatly reduced, yet it would serve through its al-location to spur the growth of the rotary wing air-craft industry – the helicopter. Gregory would ef-fectively see that no developmental funds would goto the Autogiro, and although it would see relative-ly ineffective service150 in foreign military forces(see mainly Russia,151 France,152 England (CiervaC.30A used in coastal radar calibration and theHafner Rotachute rotary kite),153 Sweden,154

Japan155 and Germany (including the Fa 330 rotarykite).156 But as the lack of military operationalsuccess was years away, and the lack of militaryprocurement of the Autogiro immediate but notapparent to those who did not, or refused to

comprehend the profound implication of the modi-fication of the subtitle of the Dorsey Bill from ‘Auto-giro’ to “Rotary Wing and Other Aircraft”, Kellett feltcomfortable (as probably did his audience), on sur-rendering the podium to A. G. Galloway of the U.S. Department of Agriculture who would speak on“Agricultural Uses.”157

Galloway’s talk reflected an optimism as tothe suitability of rotary wing aircraft for agriculturaluses. It was a theme that had intrigued since theearliest days of the Autogiro in America and hadbeen reflected early on in the July 1931 National

Farm Journal cover showing a Pitcairn PCA-2 at acounty fair. Autogiros had already been effectivelyemployed in crop spraying158 (a role that Kellett Air-craft would attempt to revive during the 1959 – 60time frame).159 George Townson, who wouldshortly speak to the meeting, had successfullydone crop spraying in a PCA-2 for Giro Associatesof Morristown, NJ, in 1938,160 and who wouldprovide a demonstration of Autogiro crop dustingat the Philadelphia Airport after the close of thesessions on Saturday.

The proposed agricultural possibilitieswere not lost on either the audience nor the Chair-man, who quickly queried the speaker as to thepolicy with regard to the crop spraying patents thenheld by the government, in stating: “I understandthat all the development work carried on by the De-partment of Agriculture for the development of thatspraying and dusting equipment has resulted inbasic patents, and that it is going to be the policy

of Mr. Galloway’s Department to see that they aregiven over for the free use of the public, of any-body who wants to use them and install them inthose machines for crop-dusting and spraying.That is very generous.” Galloway immediatelyconfirmed this statement, and after a short ques-tion by Gerard Herrick as to the Agriculture Depart-ment’s desire for more efficient rotary wing aircraftpayloads, the session moved to quickly to a famil-iar presentation by an equally familiar speaker (butwho himself was not equally comfortable as he el-ected to read his presentation, staging “I am notmuch of a public speaker . . . “), the noted Auto-giro pilot John M. “Johnny” Miller who would speakon “Autogiro Piloting Technique”.161

Miller162 was one of the most experiencedAutogiro pilots in America and, vis-a-vis his airshow performances doing the loop, probably beingthe most well-known and heralded feature. He hadjust published a cover story in the September issueof Popular Mechanics entitled “The Missing Linkin Aviation”163 (cover included supra) in which headvanced and advocated for greater uses of theAutogiro in inner-city heliport traffic, and would in1940 publish a detailed essay expanding the sametheme as part of the Aeronautics booklets titled“Civil Uses of the Autogiro.”164 Miller would alsoprovide a demonstration of his Autogiro flying ab-ilities to the meeting participants with a demon-stration after conclusion of the Saturday session atthe Philadelphia Airport.

As Miller was both an Autogiro and fixedwing pilot (his email address, established when hewas 99 years old,165 was “Jenny2Jets”), he com-pared the techniques involved in each kind of fly-ing. It was a highly generalized presentation166

and would have been familiar to the Autogiro pilotsin the audience, but then Miller ventured into whatproved for many uncharted territory, landing anAutogiro ‘blind’ when he stated:

“I am especially interested in the develop-ment of blind landing aircraft. I had someairplane experience, and I can see fromthat, that it is very necessary to developsome different type of aircraft before blindapproaches and landings can be madeeverywhere, or even anywhere near every-where. Although blind approach systemsare being developed very rapidly recently,they will always be confined to certainspecific locations, with the present type ofaircraft. However, with the development of

the autogiro or any other type of rotarywing aircraft capable of vertical descents, Ithink that it should be possible to developa very simple means of landing blind invery restricted areas, and with a very min-imum amount of special equipment.”

At the conclusion of Miller’s presentation,Kellett asked if there were any questions, and thenturned immediately to Lieutenant Gregory, also anexperienced Autogiro pilot who, given the questionhe would ask, may even have been trying to getKellett’s attention. Gregory had apparently honedin on the “blind landing of an Autogiro” comment byMiller. Gregory commented: “In general, I agreewith Mr. Miller. There are a few points that I wouldquestion, Particularly (sic) would I like to knowwhat he has in mind to make an autogiro safe forlanding blind.” Miller, replied with an experiencedpilot’s attention to detail:

“Well, I have several ideas on the subjectof blind landings with autogiros. My ideaconsists mainly of slow approaches oninstruments to somewhere near the vicinityof the center of a regular flying field, andthen a slow descent, with power on, untilthe wheels contact the ground. With pow-er on, an autogiro can descend very slowlyand steeply, and if headed into the wind itmakes it that much steeper, and I believe,although I have never been able to provethis yet, that this type of descent could bemade just as well on instruments as incontact flying when visual reference is [not]possible. I don’t see any reason why apilot couldn’t refer only to instruments, de-pend entirely on instruments, and allow theship to settle slowly until it makes contactwith the ground.”

Gregory, apparently relieved that Miller wasn’tproposing anything so innovative that it would di-vert attention of either the government or engin-eers attending the meeting, responded: “That is O.K., but it would require more or less the same eq-uipment that we now have for landing blind.” Mil-ler, who had obviously thought deeper on the sub-ject (it was, after all, part of his written present-ation), reacted in disagreement:

“I doubt that very much, because for in-stance, suppose we take one idea I have

had in mind for several years. – If we hada non-directional radio beacon in the cen-ter of an airport, and an ordinary radiocompass in the ship, it would be possibleto approach the beacon by means of thisradio compass from, a down-wind direct-ion, that is, headed up-wind, and slowlyapproach the beacon, using just enoughpower to bring the ship up-wind to the cen-ter of the field. When the ship is over thebeacon, the ordinary radio compass need-le would wobble, showing that the ship isover the radio beacon. Then a descentcould be made from some altitude such asthree hundred or four hundred feet, andthe ship couldn’t possibly miss any ordi-nary field under those circumstances.”

And, after giving his explanation, Miller did agreewith Gregory’s follow-on repetition of his earlierassertion that “it does require similar equipment,equipment similar to what we have now for ap-proach for blind landings.” But Gregory then ad-ded: “I think you would need more than your radiocompass to make a blind landing” and the encoun-ter between the two experienced Autogiro pilotsended.

Chairman Kellett, wishing no doubt to in-sure that the confrontation remained finished, andperhaps seeking to furnish some resolution, proce-eded to call upon other seasoned Autogiro pilots inthe audience. First Lou Leavitt, who had earlierchanged his name from Levy,167 refused commentas did Paul Hovgard – as James G. Ray was thenext speaker, it was understandable that Kellett didnot call upon him. The session did not end, how-ever, without a comment from E. Burke Wilford asto “engine cooling problems at low speed”, a topicthat presumably flowed from Miller’s commentsabout low-speed landings (particularly blind land-ings), but further comment was deferred as enginecooling was a topic for the next day. And it wasobvious that Kellett was anxious to get to JimRay’s presentation on “Commercial Uses of RotaryWing Aircraft”168 as it promised to be authoritativevision of the future – but if the Chairman and theaudience were expecting a celebration of the Auto-giro, the use of the words ‘rotary wing aircraft’ inthe title and the content of the presentation signal-ed a different (and presumably not completelycomfortable) direction.

Kellett introduced Ray with high praise andanticipation indeed. He stated: “I think if anyone

can tell us about commercial uses, it is Mr. Ray.He flew the first autogiro built here,[169] he hasflown practically every one that has been builthere, and he has experimented with all types ofuses for them.” And while “Big Jim” Ray had fullyearned such a reputation, any expectation that hewould sketch a rosy future for the Autogiro wassoon put aside. Ray’s detailed presentation,which would later be deliberately mischaracterizedby author and Harold Pitcairn admirer Frank King-ston Smith as remarks on “his recent experiencesin Europe in an impromptu, complete extemporan-eous speech” for reasons discussed supra, beganwith a disclaimer:

“Mr. Chairman – Ladies and Gentlemen:The scope of this paper is not limited bythe uses to which rotary wing aircraft havebeen put in the past. There has been noproduction of commercial machines for thelast five years. But there has been a greatamount of technical progress. Craft canbe built today that will have a lot betterperformance than those designed in 1931or ’32. I have attempted, in addition to cat-aloguing some of the sues that were pract-ical with the older Autogiros, to estimatethe uses that can be found for new presentday designs embodying the latest improve-ments in the development.”

And Ray was true to his word – while hecited past commercial uses derived from Autogiroexperience, three was little doubt that he intendedto reference the latest technological advances withwhich he was familiar – and it was well known thathe had returned from Europe where he gainedknowledge of the work of Flettner, Focke and, ofgreatest importance, Raoul Hafner. Ray refer-enced the security occasioned by rotary wing flightand additionally stated that: “rotative wings cangive the private owner a considerably greater util-ity. Either the Autogiro with jump take-off or thetrue helicopter will permit him to land and take offmost anywhere. The addition of roadability, that is;a road drive to permit the machine to run throughthe streets under its own power and with its bladesfolded out of the way, will make it possible for theone vehicle to take you from where you are towhere you want to go. This complete fulfillment ofone’s personal transportation requirements canonly be attained with rotative wings.” (emphasisadded)

The “roadable” Autogiro had been aPitcairn project for the Bureau of Air Commerceunder the leadership of Eugene Vidal, and Rayhad previously delivered170 the Pitcairn AC-35171 tothe government by landing it in a Washington, D.C.park, folding its blades back, and driving it throughthe streets.172 But it is significant that Ray sawsuch a PAV (personal aerial vehicle) in terms alsoof the “true helicopter” – its first mention in hispresentation, but not the last.

Ray spoke of the ability of a rotating wingaircraft to shorten travel time and increase con-venience in “large metropolitan or built-up areas,such as Greater New York . . . between differentparts of the city . . . Rotary wing aircraft can beoperated from especially prepared terminals scat-tered through these areas to give a service that willbe several times faster than any other vehicle cangive.” Additionally, anticipating the creation of met-ropolitan heliports (and the projected Fairey Roto-dyne service),173 Ray talked of central city-to-cen-tral city service (citing the aviation success, butpointedly, not the commercial success, of the 6-place174 Pitcairn PA-19 ‘Cabin Autogiro175 andacknowledging its noted designer Robert B. C.Noorduyn who was attending the meeting) as wellas the “Practical shuttle service with both passen-gers and mail from city center to the airport.”

With regard to the pending implementationof such airmail feeder service, as Ray felt it wasimminent (he was correct, as detailed supra, suchservice would commence the following July but inPhiladelphia, not Chicago as Ray speculated), heproceeded to make some comments on rooftopoperations – his comments regarding potentialoperations focused on the difficulties related toboth the Philadelphia and Chicago post office roofsand clearly evidence realistic observations andconsideration of the attendant aerial engineeringproblems.

Ray also cited the potential for rotatingwing aircraft (his characterization – not specificallythe Autogiro) for transport to remote mining sites,the use of the Florida Year-Round Club’s use of afour-place cabin Autogiro (note that he had refer-red to the PA-19 Cabin Autogiro as a 6-place air-craft previously) that “for the last five seasons thismachine has been operated from a golf fairway infrom of the Biltmore Hotel to take hotel guests andclub members to such places as fishing clubs onthe Florida Keys or to hunting lodges back in theEverglades – transportation jobs that cannot bedone by other means of transport.” (But Ray

revealed that the aircraft had been destroyed in ahanger fire, but it was replaced at a “high cost”).

PA-19 operated by Florida Year Round Club

Jin Ray also spoke of the “possibility offlying on and off of liners at sea” and proceeded toprovide what must have been an understandableand amusing example of possible rotary wing air-craft utility to the audience. He related:

“Suppose you are two days out, let us say,on the “Normandie” on your way to Eur-ope, and you receive a radiogram that youroldest son has had a sudden attack of‘blonditis’. Now all you do is to go on toEurope and catch the next boat backwhich will be a matter of ten days or twoweeks before you can get home. If youcould be flown over to the deck of theinbound “Queen Mary” which happens tobe nearby, you stand a chance of gettinghome for the wedding. By the way, thedeck on the front of the “Normandie” issuitable for use as a flying dock nowwithout further changes.”

Ray also touted the rotary wing aircraft as an idealstable camera platform for aerial photography, cit-ing the photographic success achieved by shootingthe “Morro Castle” ship disaster off the coast ofNew Jersey from an Autogiro. This led Ray intocommenting on Coast Guard rescue work, forwhich he directly stated “[s]traight helicopterswould, of course, will be the most suitable becausethey will not require a wind to hang motionless andremain (sic) airborn while someone or something istaken aboard of landed.” He then went on to add:“Even a life-guard at the beach could use a heli-copter in his work. While the pilot hovers a fewfeet above the water the guard can ago down a

special apparatus similar to a rope ladder, get holdof the drowning person, fasten him to the appara-tus and then the pilot by rising a few feet liftseverything above water and goes to the first –aidstation. Why not?” Ray then concluded his session with anenlarged description of the uses of rotary wing air-craft should a “hurricane strike New England [ashad previously occurred] ”where “all means ofcommunication knocked out by the storm, it wasimpossible for the outside world to find out the ex-tent of the damage. It was over a week before itwas known how many people were actually killed.Why shouldn’t we be able to fly in and get suchinformation.”

Ray’s focus on rotary wing aircraft wascompletely in keeping with the theme of the confer-ence, but must have proven disconcerting to thosewho saw him as a champion of the Autogiro. Kel-let, reassuming the podium and usually quick tocommand the post-presentation comments bydirect questions, was seemingly as a loss forwords, commenting only that Ray’s presentation“ought to intrigue our imagination” and letting anunnamed questioner ask what must have appear-ed an incredibly naïve and unsophisticated , andperhaps even inappropriate question about whathappened “[i]f a pilot takes his hand off the con-trols, does he come straight down?” Kellett didn’teven allow Ray, to whom the question had beendirected, to answer, but stated: “No, in ordinaryweather conditions, he could fly hands off for acertain length of time.” This answer was not ap-parently in the detail sought by the questioner, whoasked again: “If he takes his hand off the controls,what happens?” Kellett again quickly answered,and by now it is apparent that: 1) Ray would not beallowed to speak any more; and 2) the topic wouldremain deflected from Ray’s optimistic view of thehelicopter to a fairly trivial flight control commentwhich bore no relationship to the presentation topicsave for the fact that Ray was superbly exper-ience-ed to give an authoritative answer, pre-sumably why the question was asked of him in thefirst place.

It may even have been that Kellett wasgenuinely relieved to have prematurely ended theRay presentation with no discussion, and thereforenot to have face questions stemming from his ad-vocacy of the “true helicopter” as the thread of thediscussion was superficially taken up by Kelletthimself, a member, Lieutenant H. Franklin Gregorystating “I don’t think it would settle in any case, it

would fly” and John M. Miller’s unacknowledgedoffer of “I think I might be able to clear some of thatup.” Thus Jim Ray’s session ended – and therecan be little doubt that those who advocated a ro-tary wing aircraft future based on the Autogiro weredisappointed – Ray had managed to place the heli-copter front-and-center, and it was about to as-sume even a more preeminent position in whatwas to prove an unanticipated, startling, and ulti-mately pivotal presentation by Raoul Hafner. Andif Ray’s presentation began to turn the conference,that redirection would be completed by Hafner – atrue turning point for the helicopter as rotary wingaircraft future vision.

Kellett, appreciating that Hafner (an Aust-rian then resident in England) had come from Eng-land “especially for this meeting” , and that “he hasaccomplished a most interesting developmentthere” urged the audience to extend to him a veryhearty welcome” which elicited a round of app-lause. As Kellett personally noted, with regard toHafner’s new developments “I have seen it overthere, and we have followed it with a great deal ofinterest, and it has great possibilities”, it wouldseem that this was an anticipated presentation de-void of surprises, as the previous Ray presen-tation had produced – but that was to prove an un-founded assumption, for Hafner did have surprises,and he would set the stage in the first part of hispresentation, but then spring forth in the secondpart.

Hafner176 began his paper “The HafnerGyroplane” 177 by factually lulling the audience witha claim of the familiar – “The subject of the paper issubstantially identical with what I said a year agobefore the Royal Aeronautical Society[178 and laterat Cambridge University, it is my research work inrespect of rotating wing aircraft, together with mat-erial connected with it which I thought would be ofgeneral interest.”` As Hafner’s paper had beenwidely read in America, the territory would havebeen familiar – and perhaps many might also haveseen the slides of his various rotary wing aircrafthe illustrated his talk with, and his comparison withconventional gyroplanes would not have beensuch a leap as to discomfort those of the Kellettand Pitcairn companies present. But while those inthe audience may have perceived as being evolu-tionary, what Hafner was illustrating was trulyrevolutionary – the “spider rotor hub design” andtorsionally flexible tie rods that:

“[W]as the first to successfully integratethe ideas of cyclic pitch control with bladeflapping and lagging degrees of freedom . .. that “provided a means of increasingcollective pitch of the blades and alsotilting the rotor disk using cyclic variationsof blade pitch, but without tilting the rotorshaft with a control stick as was used inCierva’s “direct control” system. . . innova-tion in Hafner’s rotor design was in the useof torsionally flexible tie rods connectingthe blades to the hub . . . really the firststep toward the development of a bear-ingless rotor hub concept, where bearingsand hinges are replaced by flexible ele-ments.” 179

Hafner passed over his revolutionary innovations inless than two pages of his presentation, slippingeffortlessly into a discussion of aerofoil section sel-ection and joystick arrangement – showing imagesof his A.R.III fitted with a conventional rudder thatlooked from the audience as a variant of the con-ventional gyroplane, but it actually was differentand that difference was hinted at during his discus-sion of the gyroplane’s direct take-off, what Hafnercalled “an energy-assisted take-off.” He contrasteda traditional Autogiro “jump take-off” with the A.R.III’s “towering take-off” “which has been pleasantlydescribed as the “gentle but firm act of levitationwhich commences each flight.” Hafner analyzedthat:

“The jump type of start involves an inef-ficient conversion of energy due to highinduced airflow velocities, and is generally,particularly if there is no wind, followed bya substantial loss of height to regain speedafter reaching the top of the leap. The pur-pose of the towering take-off is primarily tohold the machine after the start in the prox-imity of the ground, thereby keeping the in-duced drag down, while the air-screw ac-celerates it to climbing speed, and to reg-ulate the rate of conversion of energy inthe rotor through the sensitive feel of thiscontrol, in order to suit varying windconditions.”

And then, to the delight of the engineers present,Hafner proceeded to provide a “brief summary ofresults from my theoretical work.” He concludedthe first part of his presentation with what would

prove a transitional prophecy: “The gyroplane oftoday can perform these duties satisfactorily, andthe helicopter, the logical development from it, willnot only improve on it, but will be able to challengethe fixed wing plane in almost any department offlight. In its new form, as I visualize it, and whichmay well appear in the near future, it will be a craftof mechanical simplicity and aerodynamic beautyand performance calculations give indeed justifica-tion for great expectations. I will speak of this to-morrow.” (emphasis added)

And thus Hafner’s first presentation ended– it had proceeded quietly and eloquently, somemight have even described it as elegantly, from theknown and comfortable to the unknown that Hafnerhad seen – it was the transition from the Autogiropast to the helicopter future and the future helicop-ter.180

Given that the audience had been placedon notice that the best was come on the followingday, it is not surprising that when Chairman Wilfordopened the floor to questions, Hafner received onlya cursory inquiry from a certain Mr. G. E. Backrathas to the horsepower and top speed of the HafnerA.R. III Gyroplane, a query that elicited a brieftechnically-oriented reply. But then came a gen-uine moment of public recognition bordering on ac-colade from one of the few in the audience withenough depth in engineering combined with rotarywing aircraft research to recognize the significanceof what had just been presented, and what it por-tended. Professor Montgomery Knight stated:

“Mr. Chairman, if there is time for a fewsimple observations, I would like to saythat Mr. Hafner’s paper marks a verysignificant spot in the development of thistype of aircraft in England. It could marksuch a spot in this country if we could real-ize the full significance of what he hasdone. In short, as I see it, he has combin-ed the much maligned mathematics withcareful experimentation and an ability andingenuity in design that I think is rarelyequaled. This combination is practicallyunbeatable. But all three of them, all threeingredients, are essential if a developmentof this type is to be carried on to a suc-cesssful fruition. And when I say that Ithink this marks a very important spot, notonly in English development, the devel-opment of the helicopter or the autogiro,both in England, I think it should and could

mark such a spot also in this country, if wewill only realize the importance of thatcombination of ingredients.”

Knight’s comments were also an indirect critique ofAmerican rotary wing development that, in terms ofthe Autogiro efforts of Pitcairn and Kellett, had ig-nored, or at least seemingly taken little notice ofthe work and direction of Hafner, and a rather lamereply was ventured by Pitcairn engineer Agnew E.Larsen who was supervising in the jump take-offPA-36 project, even then falling behind and exce-eding budget. Larsen replied:

“I think after the speeches today, there islittle more to be added, other than this. Ihave observed Mr. Hafner’s work in Eng-land, and read his paper before the RoyalSociety, and can say with very strong con-viction that in this whole line of develop-ment, I think he had done a most magni-ficent job of combining three phases, -- themathematics, the mechanical design andthe practical application, and there are fewpapers I have ever read that I have derivedthe enjoyment out of that I did from thepaper he read before the Royal Society.Those of us here this evening, I think arequite fortunate in having a repetition of thatsame experience. I feel Mr. Hafner deser-ves not only the congratulations of thisbody, but of all aircraft men, for the path hehad carved out for himself and the rest ofus.”

And while Larsen was correct in characterizing,and thereby minimizing, Hafner’s content as a“repetition of that same experience” and a parti-cularly personal “path he has carved out for him-self”, he evidenced absolutely no ability to recog-nize that Hafner had irrevocably redirected the foc-us to the helicopter. The recognition would waituntil his second presentation the following day, butit was coming.

And with that the meeting adjourned to abanquet at the Penn Athletic Club, with notedToastmaster Casey Jones and a speech/paperpresentation by Edward J. Nobe, then Chairman ofthe Civil Aeronautics Authority. Although referenc-ed as a paper, it lacked a title and was more anafter-dinner speech of the kind afforded attendingdignitaries who have little direct to contribute. Soaside from comparing the assembled rotary wing

aircraft industry leaders to “the cult of dry fly fisher-man in patience, in cunning, in willingness to sacri-fice immediate reward for the game”, a suspectanalogy at best that would probably only work, if atall, after a good meal and strong drink, Nobe hadlittle to contribute . . . but he tried, not without somesuccess.

He established his slim bona fides with theclaim that the CAA owned two seven-year oldAutogiros “[b]ut we still own them. And we still usethem. In my modest way, I not only had faith in theautogiro seven years, but I continue to have faith.Nor am I one of those who believe in justificationby faith alone. Our autogiros work.” And this sure-ly sounded good to the Pitcairn and Kellett person-nel at the table. He placed the rotary wing aircraftindustry in the growing importance of aviation (cit-ing C. R. Smith of American Airlines), and invokedwith evangelical fervor: “The new era of aviation isnot coming – IT IS HERE.” He also pointed to theapplication of the CAA for $400,000 in Dorsey-Log-an funds “in order to help you.” It was what theaudience wanted to hear, and he delivered. Thusthe evening ended and the stage was set for theThird Session the following day.

The Third Session – Saturday, October 29, 19389:30 to 10:30 A.M.

This session, titled “Research Programs”and led by Dr. George W. Lewis, began with anobservation familiar to all who chair the first ses-sion after the conference banquet. E. Burke Wil-ford, in introducing the session chairperson, com-mented that “[i]t appears that “men with rotorsand wings” did a little high flying last night andsome of the boys are a little late.” Burke contin-ued: “Dr. George W. Lewis needs no introductionto us, because the fellows that are here this early,are actively working in this field. He knows themall, and here is the doctor’s chance to get back atus for all the wild suggestions we have made tohim.” Taking the podium, Lewis launched directlyinto the session, not unmindful that he was speak-ing to “a small group of the faithful” but feeling that“it is well to start on time, because it is a long mor-ning program and some of the people are thinkingabout going to [the] Penn-Navy football game.”

Dr. Lewis, of the N.A.C.A., made someintroductory remarks for the session asserting thevalue and priority of rotary wing research pro-grams, 181 stating that:

“This morning we are here to consider thesubject of programs of fundamental re-search in the problems of rotating-wingaircraft. . . . I wish first to emphasize theextreme importance of a soundly conceiv-ed and carefully planned investigation asthe basis for a successful attack on anyengineering problem. Although progressat times has resulted from a single out-standing discovery the progress in thesecases has usually been of a more or lessrevolutionary nature. Once the revolutionhas taken place the success of subsequ-ent developments is almost universallydependent upon intelligently planned andcarefully coordinated study of the problemsinvolved in the application of the originalrevolutionary idea. I believe we may saythat rotating-wing aircraft have definitelypassed the revolutionary stage and theirfuture development now depends on a ra-tional and orderly series of step by stepsolutions of the detailed problems involvedin their successful design. There remainsa large field for fundamental research inthe detailed mechanism of operation of therotating-wing types. Thus the researchprograms we are to consider this morningare of paramount importance not only tothe rate at which we may expect progressto be made in the development of rotatingwing aircraft but to the probably sum totalof the progress to be achieved.”

Lewis was, of course, also making a simultaneousargument for an anticipated allocation of Dorsey-Logan funds (which were, a the time of the meet-ings, still $2,000,000), arguments directly or in-directly also advanced by the other advocates ofrotary wing aircraft research Alexander Klemin andEverett B. Schaefer182 (with Schaefer presenting)on behalf of the Daniel Guggenheim School ofAeronautics at New York University, MontgomeryKnight183 on behalf of the Georgia School of Tech-nology (whose paper had been released by theDirector, State Engineering Experiment Station ofGeorgia and hence came with official approval),and R. A. Bailey184 of the N.A.C.A. (but as will laterbeen seen, this was actually F. W. Bailey, Jr.).And the N.A.C.A. certainly wanted to advance itsfundamental research – but then again, so didevery institution presenting that day, and eachwould make their case.

Each of the speakers presented summar-ies of the rotary wing flight research offerings oftheir individual institutions along with descriptionsof the facilities and extant research programs interms that were both descriptive and persuasive.And as that was clearly the goal of each of thespeakers, George W. Lewis authoritatively con-cluded that “[o]wing to the shortness of the time av-ailable, it seems doubtful that we shall have timefor discussion. I regret this necessity, as I believethat constructive discussion of research programsin their early stages offers an important possibilityof accelerating the progress to be made by the re-search.”

The first paper was presented by Klemin’sco-author, Everett B. Schaefer. His avowed pur-pose was to: “first, enumerate some pressing re-search problems in relation to rotary wing aircraft;second to place on the record some practical met-hods of wind tunnel technique, developed over thelast few years and likewise relating to rotary air-craft.” The subtopics of his presentation clearly de-lineated the pedigree of NYU’s past and current ro-tary-wing research, but also sought to extend suchefforts into the developing helicopter: Autogiro andGyroplane Rotor Research; Autogiro, Fuselageand Tail Surface Intercation; Dynamics and Struc-ture; Jump -Off Giro; Helicopter Airscrews (assert-ing the need for research on rigid blades, flappingblades, freely feathering blades and mechanicallyfeathering blades); Helicopter Stability and Control;Wind Tunnel Set-Up of Model Rotors; and Reduct-ion of Scale Effect in Rotor Testing. All-in-all, abrief but comprehensive and authoritative present-ation what was then a major center of such re-search presided over by the admitted dean of ro-tary-wing research, Alexander Klemin.

Lewis then introduced “professor Mont-gomery Knight, formerly the man in charge of oneour wind tunnels, and now in charge of the schoolat George Tech” and Knight proceeded to describethe GT program in a talk that, as was observedabove, had been released by the Director, StateEngineering Experiment Station of Georgia. He in-dicated that his program was interested in, or cur-rently researching, Ground Effect, Level Flight,General Motion, Rotor Stall, Scale Effect, the det-ermination of Performance Calculations, Blade Art-iculation, Rotor Drive, Stability and Controllability;and Vibration. Knight then proceeded to describethe research facilities at Georgia, including the de-tails of its two wind tunnels, vibration setup, blo-wer laboratory, and announced that the “work of

designing another and very important piece ofequipment had been stated . . . a full scale single-seater helicopter which will be used not only todetermine the feasibility of the jet drive but also tocheck the scale effect corrections. Knight then,with reference to slides, took the audience on vir-tual tour of GT, an impressive, impactful talk thatshowed Georgia to be a worthy rival in the field ofrotary wing research, especially with the ambitionsmodel helicopter project. Perhaps for that reasonLewis felt the need, or at least, seized the opport-unity to diminish Georgia’s program while seem-ingly praising it, in stating (emphasis added):

“I have followed for a number of years, thework that Professor Knight has been doingat Georgia Tech, with a great deal of inter-est, and I certainly do admire his couragein getting into new fields and undertakingvery difficult problems. Offhand, I couldthink of nothing more difficult at the pre-sent time than building a helicopter andbuild an air compressor to drive the bladesby jet propulsion. Any one of he problemsof building the compressor alone is a realproblem. Jet propulsion is a real problem,and of course the helicopter is a real pro-blem. I also wish to compliment Mr. Knighton his paper. I wish that more authorswould write papers following this schemeof putting headings before the paragraphs.It is a very good paper.”

Lewis then introduced “Mr. R. A. Bailey ofthe staff of the N.A.C.A., at Langley Field [the pap-er included in the Proceedings, however, was attri-buted to F. J. Bailey, Jr., Junior Aeronautical Eng-ineer, National Advisory Committee for Aeronau-tics” which is seemingly correct as several re-search papers by the latter are noted in Johnson’slater volume on Helicopter Theory.)185 It is perhapsnot so surprising that the N.A.C.A would send sucha junior engineer to perform such a public and im-portant task, as Knight was the session chairper-son, but it was an important occasion. As obser-ved by Roger Connor in 2006:186

“[B]y 1931, the NACA had begun to studythe autogiro extensively, but the innova-tions that occurred in the technology, suchas direct control and jump takeoff, happen-ed at the hands of industry, not govern-ment researchers, who instead concen-

trated on developing an understanding offundamental principles of rotary-wing flight.[Ref. 14187] However, the NACA did suc-ceed in establishing a significant body ofknowledge on rotor design that the Indus-try would not have been able to compileitself. The publications that resulted fromthis effort meant that the helicopter pio-neers of the 1940s did not have to retracetheir steps in the field of rotor design andcould concentrate on the fundamentalissues of control and stability.”

Bailey detailed the N.A.C.A. fundamental researchand the Technical Notes published by his organi-zation, presumably well-known to the meeting part-icipants. It was clear from the emphasis of his pre-sentation, however, that the N.A.C.A had, and pro-posed to continue fundamental research.

At the end of Bailey’s presentation, the fin-al research paper, Chairman Lewis recognized andcalled upon Dr. Henry Butler Allen, Secretary andDirector of the Franklin Institute. Allen, ever theartful director and institution advocate, welcomedthe visitors and although stating that he “wouldn’tthink of taking up but a minute of your time”, pro-ceeded to cite “the activities that we have beencarrying on for a hundred years in awarding med-als for inventions, and your industry stands out inthe front rank of those who have received awards.”

Lewis acknowledged the Franklin Institute,and Dr. Allen particularly “for the many courtesiesthat have been extended” and then pressed aheadwith a discussion designed to segue to the nextsession dealing with the future of rotating wing air-craft, and in the process imposed his vision of re-search programs. Lewis stated: [P]ersonally I feelthat the greatest advance we can make immed-iately, and that within the next few years, is in theblade design, including the blade, the aerodyn-amic characteristics of the blade itself, and particul-arly the hub mechanism.” Adding that “[t]here aremany men here who have specialized on this pro-blem, and I would appreciate if it they would get upand just say a few words of what they think are themost important factors in this study.” He then pro-ceeded to call upon a select few in the audience,starting with Paul E. Hovgard, who responded: “Iam caught unawares. I have a paper to deliverpretty soon, and I have been thinking of that, mostof the time. Unfortunately, we have been busy atthe Curtiss Company on bids, and I have spent

more time on bids than I have on rotating wingaircraft.” But then Hovgard went on to add:

“Dr. Lewis just now mentioned theimportance of the blade design, and thehub mechanism. I want to just stress thatpoint, particularly the design of the indivi-dual blades, and while I am on my feet, Ithink I will just dig out a part of my paperthat I was going to discuss, because itwas on blade design, and bring out onepoint that expands in some measure, apoint brought yesterday by Mr. Platt. Hepointed out that the articulated blade wasinherently stable, whereas the rigid bladewas not. I think there are articulatedblades which are quite unstable.”

And in his slightly extend remarks, Hov-gard singled out the sui generis aspect of Knight’spresentation on Georgia Tech’s research program– the creation of a full scale helicopter, clearly in-dicating that he understood the tension inherent inthe research presentations between the emphasisof Georgia Tech and New York University (heli-copter research vs. Autogiro research, the pastand a decidedly different vision of the future). Headded: “I am glad to see Dr. Lewis recognizes theimportance of blade design, and that there is roomfor a great deal of work on it. Mr. Knight has doneone thing out of the ordinary, in that he is the headof a research organization that is going to build ahelicopter of very advanced design, and it is a verydaring move, and I wish him all kinds of success.”But then Hovgard seemingly ‘cast his lot’ with Le-wis and Klemin, in cautioning the audience that: “Itis my contention, however, and Dr. Lewis brought itout in the introduction, that the evolution of the finalhelicopter or rotary wing aircraft is going to be stepby step. First, we will have the very simplest case,that of the autogiro. They we will jump the autogirooff, and then you will put power in to it. Each stepinvolves new complications, and taking about sixsteps at once is a very daring move.” And giventhe number in the audience involved with the Auto-giro, it is not surprising that this evolutionary viewof rotary wing aircraft research received applause.But as we shall see, at least one participant wasprobably not applauding – and Raoul Hafner wouldshortly startle the audience with his vision – butthat was sill a session away.

Lewis, after thanking Hovgard for whatmust have been a satisfying declaration, turned to

Haviland H. Platt, who was then concentrating onhelicopter design, and who predictably addressedhub design. He replied: “Well, I don’t know that Ican say very much, on hub design, but I will saythat I think the most important in hub design for thehelicopter is to get all the works into it.” And thenPlatt, a respected engineer particularly in light ofhis paper the day before, pandered to Lewis andthe N.A.C.A., in stating:

“I do want to say one more thing on thissubject of stability, and that is what I had tosay yesterday on that subject was on adifferent phase entirely from the one Mr.Hovgard has touched now. That is, I sim-plified my problem then by simply consid-ering the static condition, that is, it waspositional stability altogether. Now Mr.Hovgard has moved the things forward,and of course that brings in a lot of othercomplications. In the positional stability, instatic operation only, I don’t think the bladedesign in itself has much to do with it. It isa matter of articulation alone. Of course,when you start moving it forward, thisblade design problem becomes very, veryimportant, and I hope Dr. Lewis will get usa lot of information on that problem out atLangely Field. I knew he will.”

Probably feeling a great deal of satisfaction, Lewisthen called upon Kellett Autogiro’s Richard H. Pre-witt, who could be counted on to speak affirmative-ly on any program of research that contributed toAutogiro design, which he did, but in a more concil-iatory manner (and with the longest sentencefound in the Proceedings). Prewitt replied:

“I was sitting here, listening to the pro-grams of these research organizations,and I was very much elated to find thatthey are so constructive, because after all,we are the people who have to take thatinformation and use it and actually try it ina practical way, and that is the thing thatimpressed me most in these programs, asoutlined, was their possibility for applica-tion and for the improvement of design, oractually being able to use your slide ruleand some figures that you might, insteadof guessing, you can kind of estimate whatyou are doing to have when you get

through. And that is a very important thingin the design of any type.”

And finally Lewis called upon Pitcairnengineer Agnew E. Larsen, stating: “Mr. Larsen,won’t you come down an say a few words? Youknow, we who are not from Philadelphia are veryproud of this Philadelphia group, -- when you thinkthat all the of the initiative and instruction is righthere in Philadelphia, -- Larsen, Prewitt, Hovgard,McClarren, Burke Wilford and others. I am sorrythat Mr. Pitcairn can not be here this morning. Ishe still ill?” After replying that Pitcairn remained ill,Larsen spoke in a manner predictable for an Amer-ican Autogiro pioneer advocating the advancementof the Autogiro – he affirmed the Lewis step-by-step approach:

“Dr. Lewis and members present – Withreference to the recent program and itsuse, I think we can honestly survey thetime which has elapsed from that periodwhen we were first making autogiros, andgroping around for a few fundamentals tolearn how to put wings on the fuselage inthe right place, and put blades on the hubin the right place, and come up to the pre-sent time, facing the kind of intricate pro-blems we have found, and notice themarked difference in conditions to workwith. It is a fact that a very useful growinglibrary of real scientific data is coming outof the National Advisory Committee, andthe attitude we display is that we will notproceed on any fundamental problem with-out taking up the library of data whichN.A.C.A. have prepared. Mr. Stanley, whois the chief technician in our organization,works continuously with the literature thathas come out of N.A.C.A. I think theremay be a tendency to ask for pure re-search, and of course we must have acontinuous flow of that, but it is a fact thata lot of research which comes out of theN.A.C.A. is, besides being pure research,applied research and I don’t think we havecome anywhere near the time where wecan give up our appeal for applied re-search. I think every phase of he rotarywing art is in a stage where the moreN.A.C.A. will do in taking one small pro-blem and ferreting it out in reports for ap-

plied research, the better progress we willcontinue to make.”

And then Larsen continued, speaking from his ownexperience at the Autogiro Company of America, ina cautionary, almost admonishing, mode that clear-ly reflected the superiority which infused in the Pit-cairn organization that saw itself as the leader ofthe American Autogiro community, a dubious (andperhaps dangerous) belief in 1938:

“Just in passing, I have noticed the com-ments about rigid blades versus flexibleblades, and Burke’s reminding you thatyou never can build rigid blades. I hopeyou fellows who are interested in feather-ing and that type of rotor won’t be luredinto any ideas of strictly rigid blades. Ithink you are just going for a terrible fall ifyou do. You might just as well take flexi-bility, with all the virtues it can give you,and learn how to apply it. I think that anythought of strictly rigid blades just becauseyou want to feather them, is a fallacy.”

And with Larsen’s statement, to which Lewis agre-ed, the engineering session came to an end, and,with the N.A.C.A.’s Lewis no doubt feeling vindica-ted, the podium was passed to E. Burke Wilford forthe next session, which would not prove as satisfy-ing, for Raoul Hafner was about to surprise thoseattending.

The Fourth Session – Saturday, October 29,1938 1:30 to 1:00 P.M.

The fourth session was titled “FutureTypes and Development” and it commenced withRaoul Hafner, whose presentation was entitled“The Hafner Gyroplane and Helicopter”188 anddenoted “a continuation of Mr. Hafner’s paperpresented at the afternoon session, Friday, Octo-ber 28th) and as such, was sailing under falsecolors. But the title served notice that while theprevious afternoon’s paper was essentially thesame as the Royal Aeronautical paper that wasfamiliar to many in the audience, this presentationwould also deal with the Hafner helicopter.

Hafner began with a declaration that whilethe previous paper had dealt with the Hafner Gyro-plane, this presentation would “an outline of themost recent work, which is leading to the future”which was the helicopter -- and he left no doubt

from where he had come and, of greater import-ance, what he envisioned the future of rotary wingaircraft to be. Hafner did not hesitate in declaringin a manner that could not have reassured the as-sembled Autogiro/gyroplane devotees, and in factmust have been perceived as a bombshell (em-phasis added):

“In spite of the fact that the success I haveso far achieved is connected in popularreport with a gyroplane which embodiesmy principles of rotor construction andcontrol, the investigations and experimentsin respect of rotative wing aircraft, which Ihave carried out almost single handedover a period of nearly ten years, havealways had as a one of their ultimate aimsthe practical helicopter, which, I believe, Ican now claim to have achieved with asingle rotor design. The single rotor heli-copter represents an aerodynamic ideal,which has its analogous counterpart onlyin the sailplane, and the degree of itsmechanical simplicity and consequentreliability closely approaches an extreme.At this date very little remains to be donebefore an experimental construction mightbe hopefully undertaken.”

Hafner went on to explain that :

“[M]y reasons for constructing this gyro-plane, after having built two experimentalhelicopters,[189] was partially because withlimited funds and for considerations ofpolicy I was forced to produce a roundedand practical result, which I was not then ina position to achieve in the form of a heli-copter, and partly because I decided toapproach the final goal by stages, the firstof which represented the solution of therotor control and its testing in practicalflight, which could be best achieved in themanner just mentioned. On the otherhand, I was fully aware that my methods ofrotor control and construction in themsel-ves represent an important asset to thegyroplane; so much so that independentdevelopment in this direction is definitelydesirable.”

Hafner thusly, in a single instance, threw down thegauntlet – he had achieved his rotor control system

by incremental effort – his unique ‘spider rotorhub’ “gave the autogiro a new level of performanceand ease of piloting control.”190 And now this gyro-plane innovator, taken seriously by this Autogirocommunity, was announcing that his developmentswere now to be applied to the helicopter! 191

Hafner proceeded to describe briefly hisproposed gyroplane evolution, the A.R.4, “a two-seat gyroplane” which is a “compact design withpleasing modern lines and comfortable accom-modation” and which “will be easy to take-off, tomanoeuvre in the air and to land, and owing to itsvariable pitch rotor, together with the rudder andtail wheel control, perfectly safe to handle on theground even for an unexperienced pilot, howeverstrong the wind.” And as this generally, as a con-cept, would have been familiar to the audience, itwould likely have evoked nods from the listeners,but if they though that Hafner would continue inthis manner, they were immediately surprised ashe returned to the helicopter with an insightful com-mentary on the Focke machine, and in the processrevealed that he had carefully studied and consid-ered the most advanced European designs, some-thing which few in the audience could claim.

Hafner confidently continued (emphasisadded):

“I now come to discuss the development ofthe helicopter which also depends onthese basic methods of rotor constructionand control. If I did not believe that a gen-uine solution was thus provided for gyro-planes I should not have had such a selfdefined basis for my most recent work onthe single rotor helicopter which seems tobe the outstanding possibility in the rota-tive wing field. I have very carefully con-sidered all helicopter projects known tome, of which there are many untried andavailable to experimenters, but there areonly few with just claims to efficiency andusefulness.I would refer first to the type embodyingtwo superimposed co-axial rotors whichhas shown a measure of success. Theoutstanding difficulty here appears to bethe formidable mechanical complexity ofthe rotor control and drive, which severelyprejudices the safety of this layout. In add-ition to that it is necessary to provide asubstantial gap between the upper andlower rotor in view of the flapping freedom

of their blades. This means that exceptperhaps in hovering or truly vertical flight,the most important portions of the bladesare subject to most undesirable cyclic fluct-uations in angle of attack, owing to the factthat in forward flight the rotors do not lieconcentric in the slipstream. If we, for in-stance have two rotors, and the machine isflying forward, you can see that the slip-stream of the upper rotor meets the lowerrotor, not concentric, and that the portionof the blade, which is the most importantportion, because of lift efficiency comingfrom it, not the middle portion, -- alwaysduring one r evolution enters the slip-stream once, and of course, there beingsuch a varying air flow, its effective angleof incidence is impaired, and the handicap-ping is very great. I consider this a veryserious handicap for this type of rotor as toefficiency. Further, there is the disadvan-tage of the constructional expense of tworotors with the effective disc area of onlyone.”

And then Hafner proceeded to evaluatethe Focke twin-rotor configuration, the helicopterthat was even then so exciting the American mili-tary with reports of its success. He stated:

“The most successful helicopter so far isthe Focke. However, the side by side ar-rangement of rotors had little technical ap-peal to me, largely owing to the structuraland mechanical mass, complexity anddrag necessarily involved. A more seriousdisadvantage lies further in the possibilityof a minor defect in one rotor, which in asingle rotor machine would necessitate atmost a heavy forced landing, as is alreadyknown from gyroplane experience, butmay well in this type destroy the lateralbalance beyond the range of control andend in disaster.[192] May I recall that multi-plication of rotors, contrary to power units,is associated with a reduction in reliability.I feel strongly that Professor Focke hasfollowed a false trail and that evolution pro-ceeds in another direction towards simpli-city and refinement. This is in no way in-tended to belittle his achievement in solv-ing the problem he set himself, with all its(sic) attendent complications, labor and

research, which I fully appreciate. In short,neither of the above constructions is, as Isee it, the solution of the helicopter; indeedI would go so far as to say that if I thoughtthat this age-old dream were to have sucha cumbersome ultimate fulfillment, I wouldconfine my activities to improving the gyro-plane.However, I consider that the value andimportance of the helicopter lies in its in-herent potential simplicity as it offers anaerodynamic ideal. It has the qualities tochallenge the fixed wing aircraft of mediumsize, in almost any department of flight, ex-cept perhaps, maximum speed.With this in mind I developed my project ofsingle rotor helicopter, which is covered invarious patent applications. It may seemsomewhat daring at first inspection, butcloser study reveals its sound technical ba-sis. It consists essentially of a single low-torque high-speed rotor controlled similarlyto that of the A.R.3 Gyroplane, and a sus-pended fuselage adapted to receive aero-dynamically the requisite balancing torquefrom the rotor down-wash. Its appearancemay be strange to eyes used to aeroplanelines, but the fact remains that it repre-sents structurally and mechanically a logi-cal combination of practical features, andmy confidence in its aeronautical authori-ties.”

Hafner then went on to define what hemeant when referring to a “low-torque rotor”, com-plete with torque calculations and showing how hisderivation came from the A.R. 3 Gyroplane endea-vors. (Appendix II of the meetings Proceedings re-printed Hafner’s paper “An Investigation into theProblem of Rotor Torque of a Helicopter” 193as hehad referred to several times during his talk, and itwas apparently little known to the meeting partici-pants). Hafner went on to claim that with regard tohis helicopter design “[t]here is only one aspect ofthe machine which has involved original work, thatis to say the correction of the rotor torque by thefuselage shape. The torque involved and the na-ture of the induced airflow can be predicted withreasonable accuracy, specially for the stationaryhovering case, which is the critical one.” The fuse-lage, to which he was referring, was “a nacelle inthe middle, changes regularly and assumes theshape of a profile, a rather thin profile, about 20%

thickness fore and aft of the nacelle.” He wasreferring to:

“[T]wo helicopter designs in preparation,the P.D.7 is an advanced one, and thesmaller one, the P.D. 6, is only an experi-mental machine. The experimental mach-ine is powered with a Propcher engine,and is a single-seater about the same sizeas the existing A.R. 3 Gyroplane, and I ex-pect to get 150 miles an hour top speedwith it, and about 1500 feet rate of climb,whereas the P.S. 7 machine will be a dev-elopment from it, and we calculate themaximum speed at 210 miles per hour,which is the maximum permissible speed,because at that speed the advancing tip isalready coming very dangerously near thespeed of sound. It is other considerationsthat limit the speed, not the power itself.The maximum rate of climb of this mach-ine, near the ground, will be 3800 feet perminute.”

And with that Hafner’s presentation came to anend – given his reputation and the nature of theassembled meeting participants, he had just “push-ed the envelope” and projected rotary wing devel-opments that bordered on the fantastic in 1938.His technology was sound194 and designs so mod-ern that they evoke admiration even today.195

Wilford allowed five minutes for discussionof Hafner’s presentation, and immediately receiveda question from Mr. Brye dealing with a commentHafner had made the previous day, an engineeringquestion of little consequence that was quicklydealt with. But then Wilford called by name a “Mr.Gerhart, of Wane University, who, I believe, is theonly professor that teaches helicopters in America,or has a regular course.” But if Wilford expectedsome sort of learned rebuke from the hallowedhalls of academe, that was not how it worked out.

Gerhart provided a unique affirmation ofthe revolutionary nature of what the audience hadjust heard, and stated: “Personally, I think that it isworthwhile coming quite a distance to hear thesepapers. If this were a religious meeting, I wouldsay we are at a revival, in view of he very (sic)inspring talks that are going on, in particular Mr.Hafner’s . . . I was very much interested that Mr.Hafner was able immediately answer the[engineering] question just put, because that hascome up a number of times, whether you couldbalance with either a single surface or a singlescrew.” Gerhart then went off with comments re-garding composite aircraft, causing Wilford to cutoff further discussion with “[t]he professor has usedup the five minutes. We will be talking all after-noon about the surprise Mr. Hafner has given us.”And so he turned the podium over to Paul Hov-gard, who had spoken previously, confident that itwould be a more conventional vision of futurerotary wing aircraft.

Wilford identified Hovgard as “a researchworker for the Curtiss Company” which was con-sistent with the brief description Hovgard had givenen passant in his previous extemporaneous re-marks. Hovgard’s presentation, entitled “FutureTypes of Gyroplane”196 itself signaled a return tothe familiar, and he did not disappoint.

Hovgard, formerly a Grumman test pilot,who on April 25, 1933, had flown the XJF-1 (Gru-mman J2F-6 Duck) prototype, began his presen-tation with a disclaimer that clearly revealed that hewas intimately aware of the constraints and hiddenand not-so-hidden motives of previous speakers,stating that:

“My position is quite unique among hespeakers of the aggregation, because I amthe only one who is not engaged either inthe construction of rotary wing aircraft, orin a research or consulting capacity, orwho is not trying to promote some type ofrotary wing aircraft. For that reason, Ihave more freedom to say what I thinkthan the others, because I am not obliga-ted to any certain design of any type, andthe only curb I have on what I say is thatthere will be more freedom in criticizingwhat I have to say, because you all knowmy status.”

Hovgard, who, given the range and currency of hisknowledge of rotary wing aircraft, was clearly beingdisarming, began his substantive presentation withthe statement that “[e]xperimenters have beenworking on helicopters for a very long time . . . “and continued that “[p]rogress has already beenmade along some lines in the rotary wing field.The type with aerodynamically driven articulatedblades and with hinged controls, had been usedcommercially,” obviously referencing the earlyCierva and Pitcairn Autogiros; and then he ack-nowledged that “the War Department of this coun-try is now trying out another type in which the rotoris tilted for longitudinal and lateral control and thewings, ailerons, and elevators are not used,” thedirect-control models then either in service inEurope (Cierva C.30A)197 or under development inthe United States (Pitcairn PA-22 and PA-36;Kellett KD-1).

From the perspective of a non-rotary wingaircraft participant, Hovgard saw the issue of futureaircraft as:

“The first question to confront the engineeris, should he fall behind the leader and tryto catch up, or should he consider all pos-sibilities and choose his course. The lead-ers in production now are those buildingCierva Autogiros. They have attainedsome degree of success and are workingon further improvements of existing mod-els, and on the creation of more advanceddesigns. Other type have been producedexperimentally, and, whether the engineerchooses to follow the leader or strike outfor himself, it is well to study existing andproposed types to the fullest extent pos-sible before choosing any course.”

And that is what he proceed to do.Beginning with a definition, Hovgard

expansively advanced that:

“A gyroplane by the most common defin-ition is any aircraft that is sustained by ro-tating surfaces, and may have either po-wer driven or autorotating rotors. The rot-ors may utilize any of several methods ofachieving lateral balance; and the methodof achieving lateral balance has a largebearing on the range of usefulness of theaircraft, whether it is power or aerodyn-amically driven. A study will first be madeof several types of balancing and the poss-ibilities and limitations of each. The rotoralone will be discussed first.”

And while this wasn’t a traditional way of clas-sifying rotorcraft, it functioned as a useful, if tem-porary, taxonomic approach and, as referenced byHovgard, made use of the “theory of the autogiroas originated by Glauert[198] [who had also writtenpreviously on the helicopter199] covers any rotorwhether of the individually articulated type as usedby Cierva, the interconnected type as used by Her-rick or the rigid feathering type used by Wilford.”

Having laid out the range of rotary wingaircraft rotor systems, Hovgard went on to assertthat: “As far as performance alone is concernedthere is theoretically no difference except that theinterconnected flapping type is limited to an evennumber of blades. Other considerations therefore,must be brought out before choosing the type ofrotor to adopt. For the purposes of discussion, thefact that the most logical rotor to choose now is theone on which the most development work has

been done, will simply be ignored; such a thoughtsimply does not inspire the imagination enough.”

And with that disclaimer of popular choice,Hovgard proceeded to analyze the advantagesand disadvantages of each of the delineated rotorsystems. He saw the problem as:

“All three of the rotors possess the samehigh speed limitation, that is, the limitationimposed by the approach to the speed ofsound and the disproportionately large in-crease in drag with increasing speed inthat region. All three of the types or rotorsnamed must maintain a ratio of blade tipspeed to forward speed of about two toone. At that ratio only the outer half of theretreating blade is traveling relatively for-ward and part of that section is stalled. Ifthe tip speed falls to less than twice theforward speed an intolerable roughness isencountered. That was brought the otherday by Mr. Hafner. His speed limitation isnot he performance of the rotor, or the lackof horsepower, but the roughness thatcomes into the rotor system, and that is aproblem that is going to be with us moredefinitely than the attainment of the lastdegree of refinement in performance. . . .Ina rotor, however, the tip of the advancingblade is moving faster than any other partof the aircraft and that is the part that willencounter the shock wave far ahead ofanything else. The high drag at this pointwill produce such an intolerable roughnessthat higher speeds are impractical.”

Given this assertion, Hovgard turned to a converti-plane configuration as a way of achieving greaterspeed, stating that “[w]hen combined with a fixedwing, the Wilford type rotor has remarkable possi-bilities.” He continued:

“It will be found possible in some of thedesigns to attain higher speeds by usingother means of sustenation for highspeeds and the rotor only at low speeds.In the Herrick rotor, the blades when notrotating are the wing. Means may befound for starting and stopping the rotor atwill, to provide greater speed ranges. Ano-ther method is to use rigid feathering blad-es in combination with a fixed wing, let therotor carry the load at low speeds and idle

at high speeds while the wing carries theload. This principle is exemplified in theWilford system. The individually articu-lated blades have the advantage of greatersimplicity and lighter weight to offset theadvantages of the other types at the highspeeds. Articulated rotors, whether freelyrotating or power driven, will dominate thelower speed field.In aircraft with enough power that thespeed range will be above about four, thenfor a given landing speed the Wilford gyro-plane will be faster than a fixed wing air-plane, even though the airplane be equip-ped with such high lift devices that themaximum lift coefficient is doubled. If thisidea is carried tot he extreme, the doublerotors used and the engine connected tothe propeller or rotors at will, the ultimatein performance will be reached; the mach-ine will be capable of hovering and thehigh speed limitation will be the same asthat off the fastest airplane. . . .As timegoes on, means may be found to drive therotors more simply and even to do awaywith one rotor, and possibly further to drawthe rotor in side the body at high speeds.The basic principles underlying such adevelopment are, however, inherent in theWilford design. It was the author’s privi-lege to make the first extended flights in arotary wing aircraft with blade control, andto have made the longest and highestflights made to date with rigid featheringblades. These flights were made in anyearly Wilford Gyroplane about six yearsago.”[200]

In dividing the future into lower and higher speedsystems, it was apparent that Hovgard was takinga more sophisticated view than others had, andthat there would be room for different approaches.He then advanced a comparison between rigid andarticulated rotors in terms of response to controlmoments, and in doing so demonstrated thebreadth of his consideration, which was consider-ably greater than those who had previously spok-en:

“To produce moments about the pitchingaxis as in the articulated rotor as above theincidences of the front and rear bladesmust be changed. Unlike the articulated

rotor, the rigid rotor is not dependent uponlift for control. There may be a degree ofdanger in the articulated rotor, in that if thecontrol column is moved suddenly forward,so much of the lift of the rotor may be eli-minated that the control moment producedis negligible. The rigid rotor depends onlyupon rotation for control, and the controlsystem is more sensitive when carryingmore load. The rate of rotation, however,is generally much more nearly constantthan the lift.The above principle holds true regardlessof the type of control mechanism employ-ed in the system. The control in articulatedsystems had been placed in apparently allconceivable positions. Cierva was the firstand placed the control below the support,thus tilting the whole hub. Herr Fockerates the next position with the control inside the hub, which moved the flappinghinge. Mr. [David] Kay [201] builds the con-trol into the flapping hinge. There seemsto be some agreement there. I noticed Mr.Platt said yesterday, the pitch change wasmade in the vertical pin. I had understoodit was inside the rotor. I had understood itwas inside the rotor. I have seen descript-ions that showed that inside the rotor wasa screw-jack that went up and down andraised one end of the horizontal pin, and Isee Mr. Hafner nodding his head. Andalso, the control is manual, and is operatedby the pilot with the rotor clutch, so whenthe clutch is engaged to rotate the rotor,the blade incidences of all six blades isincreased at the same time, and that is allinside the head. The next position, in theextension block between the flapping andthe vertical hinge, has not been used forflight control but has been used for somemodels for incidence control in jump-off.The last position, beyond the verticalhinge, is used by Mr. Hafner. In eachcase the choice is made from purelymechanical or patent considerations; aero-dynamically the rotors are identical. Oneimportant item in favor of Mr. Hafner’s de-sign, however, is that the loads from theblade dampers are taken directly into thebody of the machine, and not into thecontrol system.”

After showing a taxonomic approach thatadvanced a continuum ranging from Cierva toHafner, Hovgard went on to discuss the advan-tages of rigid rotors. His analysis of the Fockemachine are worth noting almost seven decadeslater. He opined:

“One of the most difficult steps in theevolution of the Helicopter is the directapplication of the power into the rotor. Themany methods available for torque react-ion are very able presented in an article byHerr Focke describing the development ofhis machine.[202] Most of the methodshave been tried and others are being orwill be tried. The Focke manner of arrang-ing two articulated rotors side by side re-presents the Helicopter in its simplest andcrudest form, and it is the logical first at-tempt at vertical flight, as has now beenproven. For some uses it may representthe final form. Where hovering and verticaltake-off and landing with complete controlare important and high speed has no val-ue, this arrangement has many advant-ages that will be difficult to better in anycompeting Helicopter.I have heard reports since this is writtenthat Focke is considering superimposedrotors for his next type. I rather lamentthat change, because of the great mechan-ical complexity involved, and also becauseit is my contention that if you can’t makeuse of his crude form of helicopter thanneither can you use one which merely hasthe advantage of having the rotors super-imposed. I would rather see his designdeveloped and its use determined beforethe next step is taken.Incidentally, I read also a discussion by anobviously very pessimistic Englishman,made after he saw the flights of the Fockehelicopter. He said that ordinarily, it wouldtake about five years of development workto make it a useful machine, and then heapplied a stupidity factor of three, whichmade it fifteen years before the helicopterwould be useful. He didn’t state whetherthe stupidity factor was on the part of HerrFocke, and I doubt if he mean that, butthere is a stupidity factor in the case ofpeople who will use the helicopter.”

And, in agreement with Hafner, Hovgardconcluded that “[t]he Focke design is cumber-some” and then considered the advantages anddisadvantages of a coaxial configuration, whichlead to a more general view of the future of rotarywing aircraft. He stated:

“It is the contention of the author, that thesuccess of the Helicopter does no dependon whether it has rotors in parallel or oneabove the other, or whether the blades arerigid or articulated, but just “Does it Work?”and “Is it useful?” Progress is consistentlymade in steps but rarely in huge jumps.The first step was made by Cierva in prod-ucing the Autogiro and second step appar-ently is about to be made by Focke. TheAutogiro was first made commercially av-ailable about nine years ago; improve-ments are still being made upon it, and willcontinue to be made on it for some time tocome. In the meantime, the Focke typeHelicopter will be developed, and will ev-entually be made available for Military andcommercial uses; butt it does not naturallyfollow that, as soon as the Helicopter isperfected, the Autogiro will become extinct.In fact, you could contend that the adventof the helicopter would first affect the fieldby increasing the popularity of the auto-giro.In spite of all the airplanes there are stillsome automobiles left on the streets; evenwith the automobiles and tractors, thereare still horses working; in fact, some peo-ple are even barbaric enough to walk fromone place to another. . . . So anyone whocontends that the helicopter is going tomake the autogiro obsolete has no basisfor such contention.”

But, of course, Hovgard was to be proven wrongas the Autogiro faded with the coming of thehelicopter. As a 1944 article stated : “[y]es, thehelicopter is reliable, adaptable, and equal toalmost every situation. She seems to have herrival, the autogiro, quite outclassed.”203 And in thefollowing year Dick Haymes may have sung toHelen Forest “a honeymoon in Cairo with a brandnew autogyro . . .in the 1945 song “I’ll Buy ThatDream” “204 but there were no new Autogiros.

But that wasn’t known in 1938, and Wilfordseemed to have trouble reacting to Hovgard’s talk.

He stated somewhat mysteriously: “It is fortunatethat Paul Hovgard comes from Kansas, but he ismighty close to Missouri. But we are awfully happyin knowing that the aircraft industry is watching ourfeeble attempts, and let’s hope that we will havesomething so good before long, that there will beplenty of production.” And it may be that he wasjust catching his breath from the previous two pre-sentations that had, in particular, taken Focke totask for the two-rotor design, so Wilford changedthe order of presentation and inserted W. LaurenceLePage, American advocate of the two-rotor con-figuration, to present “The Helicopter in Europe.”205

Wilford presented LePage’s credentials as “he isan advocate of the two-rotord helicopter. By theway, Brother LePage started as an engineer andthen turnedwriter, and editor of “Aviation”, and be-sides that, he is a pilot.”

W. Laurence LePage206 was himself notpresenting his own work, but had come to “give toyou the views of two very prominent, fine engine-ers in this field of rotary wing development, andtherefore, in spite of what Mr. Wilford says abouthis ideas of my preference in what I believe rotarywing aircraft should be, the remarks I have to maketoday have nothing whatever to do with my ownviews.”

LePage then proceeded to present a briefcommunication from Louis Bréguet and a copy of apaper “which many of you may have read on thehelicopter.” 207 Bréguet stated that he had reserv-ed the term “Gyroplane” for a category of helicop-ter that eliminated the propulsive air screw bymeans of a forward inclined axis of rotation, statingin his communication with the meeting participants:

“I am firmly convinced that the autogirosolution marks only a provisional stage inthe evolution of rotary wing aircraft, andthat the pure helicopter will hold the sky inthe future.” As LePage elaborated onBréguet: “He elaborates upon that by say-ing that he is of the opinion that the heli-copter will have a flexibility of use whichwill be superior to that of any other flyingmachine, permitting on one hand, hoveringand vertical flight, and on the other hand,propulsion at a very high speed under part-icularly economical conditions. He givestwo reasons to justify this statement: “Nomatter how efficient an autogiro may be,the loss of power due to the separatepropulsive propeller will remain great. . . .

On the contrary, I have proved that thepropulsive efficiency of a helicopter – of agyroplane – always remains practicallyconstant and equal, always remainingpractically constant, an does not vary farfrom the optimum value, especially if therange of forward inclination of the axisdoes not exceed six or seven degrees.”

And LePage went on to present Bréguet’s secondreason for preferring the helicopter, a mathematicalproof of efficiency of the helicopter over the Auto-giro, stressing that “the helicopter is at all times su-perior, in Mr. Bréguet’s opinion, to the autogiro, nomatter what phase of flight is being considered.”He continued:

“Mr. Bréguet also points out that theautogiro is particularly efficient when therotor is tilted back fourteen degrees. I pre-sume he means during vertical or near ver-tical descent. And then he repeats againthis condition in which the autogiro is beinghauled through the air with its rotor tiltedfar back, as its principal source of lost effi-ciency, but the helicopter because its rotoris at all times tilted in the other direction,with the air-flow from the top of the disk tothe bottom of the disk, results in a moreefficient aerodynamic arrangement.He says that he has recently done someadditional computations which have morethan confirmed what we might consider tobe his exaggerated optimism for the heli-copter. Mr. Bréguet ends his message tous with a statement that in his opinion thehelicopter has a tremendous future; thatthe autogiro has served, in his opinion, toemphasize the value, the essential value inhis opinion, of the articulated type of rotor,and that aspect it will remain in the historyof rotary wing aircraft as an outstandingcontribution to this field. But he feels that ithas already reached, or closely approach-ing, the limit of its capacity of improvement. . . . And he ends: “I thank you for havingasked me for my views, and dear sir,please accept my deep regrets at not be-ing able to be present.”

And on that note at once pessimistic towards theAutogiro and optimistic towards the helicopter, Le-Page turned to the communication from Professor

Heinrich K. J. Focke whose helicopter achieve-ments with the Fa-61 were even then confrontingthe meeting participants.

LePage related that: “I wired to ProfessorFocke and told him of this meeting, and asked forhis permission to express to you, as well as I wasable, not only some comment on his work and hismachine, but also such views as I would feel frommy personal acquaintance with him that he wouldwant me to say for him, and I had a very pleasantwire back from him, wishing this meeting great suc-cess.”

LePage continued:

“Professor Focke also started his profoundinterest in the helicopter through the agen-cy and the means of his personal acquain-tance with Juan de la Cierva, and his studyof Cierva’s great works. He, too, came tothe conclusion that the articulated rotorwas the basis upon which he might expectto find a solution for vertical flight. As youknow, all of you, the Focke Helicopter bysight and by name from pictures that youhave seen, and I think the best way inwhich I can portray to you his work is theshowing of a movie which was made espe-cially for me while I was in Germany, bythe many friends I met there, and througharrangements which Professor Fockemade, which shows the machine under anumber of different conditions of flight.”

And after commenting that Focke had increasedthe helicopter’s performance, LePage showed thefilm of its flight, noting en passant that “the ArmyAir Corps has seen this film, and feels that it is anitem which should be included in the archives ofaeronautical development, and they have there-fore made a copy of the film and have it at Dayton,and they very kindly gave me a copy of my originalfilm with English titles, which made it a little moreconvenient.”208

After the film, LePage was asked somequestions as to its capabilities and queries aboutDr. Focke (LePage responded that: “I think he[Focke] is about 45. He is a very likeable man”).He also described his 1937 trip to Germany, duringwhich the Focke helicopter had been flown in theDeutschland-Halle, stating that:

“I feel that there is a justifiable excuse forthis type of demonstration, although I per-

sonally should be very opposed to whatappears to be a sort of fantastic stunt. It isjustifiable, certainly, from an engineeringpoint of view, because it demonstrates theperfectly remarkable and precise controlthat one has over this machine. TheDeutschland-Halle is about two-thirds thesize of Madison Square Garden, and whilethese pictures were taken in the morningwhen there were no people in the hall tospeak of, the ship flew in the hall for sixminutes every night for three weeks, infront of fifteen thousand people. You canimagine that if one were not quite positiveof its reliability and control, it would be avery, very great hazard.”

When Wilford announced that there was no timeleft for discussion of the paper, he turned to theGerman Military Attache for comment (one won-ders what the officer was thinking, having justheard that the films of the Focke helicopter were ofinterest to the American military – one suspects histhoughts did not incline to “archives of aeronauat-ical development” and General Lieutenant Fried-rich von Boetticher replied congenially: “Well, I justappreciate the splendid time I am having here inthe United States. I have enjoyed it so much, aswell as the very good friends I have made here.”209

Wilford then introduced the final meetingpaper, “High Speed With Safety”210 presented byDr. Max M. Munk or Washington, D.C. Munk hadbegun his studies of aerodynamics with Dr. Lud-wig Prandtl at Göttingen, and his work with its windtunnel earned a doctoral degree. He was by 1938well known for theoretical aerodynamics – a daun-ting achievement given that the German militaryhad classified his WWI theoretical work. Monk hadcome to the United States in 1921 and eventuallybecame chief aerodynamicist at the N.A.C.A. aswell as receiving a university appointment at theCatholic University of America. He gained renownin America with inter alia the invention of the vari-able density wind tunnel in 1923. His presentationdid not easily fit the program, and was clearly in-serted towards the end for convenience, as it wasnot an obvious participant in the future of rotarywing aircraft.

As Monk noted, “this is a joint paper of avery strange combination. I made the whole pa-per, but I had nothing whatsoever to do with thetitle of the paper. . . The title was very ably pre-pared by our Chairman, Mr. Wilford.” And in

continuing, it was evident that Monk was searchingfor a way to make the selected title relevant to themeetings, not an easy task as he himself observ-ed: “As for the speed, of course it was almost the(sic) concensus of opinion that the present rotarywing aircraft is for low speed chiefly, and not forhigh speed. As for future hopes, desires, opinionsand so forth, I do not want to make the mistake tosay that a high speed is not possible, just becauseI may at this time not see, not be able myself topoint out how it can be done.” And Monk went onto point out that it was possible to construct veryslow-flying light airplane comparable to the perfor-mance of rotary wing aircraft – but that while sucha light airplane would susceptible to wind gust, therotary wing aircraft would prove more robust undersuch conditions.

Monk concluded, with a dash of humor:

“That may be theory to you, but I havetalked with several pilots and designersduring the last day, and they all confirm tome that actually a rotary aircraft is muchsafer near the ground at low speed, and itthe only means from that standpoint to doit at all. The other thing [light aircraft] isnot safe enough. Of course, this Germanplane [Focke Helicopter], they flew it in ahangar, inside. In America, we use escal-ators for that, and there are no gusts; thenyou can do it. That is not the problem.The problem is not to fly inside of a build-ing, but outside of a building. So you seethat in an indirect way, the great essentialadvantage or rotary aircraft is that it com-bines high speed of the lifting element withslow speed of translation, and in that way,brings out and reserves in a safe slow mo-tion without ground – of course not forlanding and take-off as some of the speak-ers suggested, for only for flying withoutground. I think, therefore, that the sloganof rotary aircraft is very properly “highspeed with safety.”

Wilford added: “Well, we have ended our sessionexactly on time, even though we started late. But Ido want to say one thing, that I think Dr. Monk hasgiven us a wonderful slogan, and it proves he isnot only an Einstein of aerodynamics, but an Ein-stein of philosophy.” And with that, the meetingsadjourned, and as recounted in Appendix I (author-ed by Ralph H. McClarren, AeE. The Franklin Insti-

tute) “[a]bout 70% of the 242 total registered at themeetings saw John M. Miller put a Kellett KD-1autogiro through its paces. He produced somespectacular flying from the direct-0control, winglessAutogiro, making very quick take-offs, almost ver-tical climbs, practically hovering against the (sic)wing [more correctly, “against the wind”] and land-ing without rolling a wheel. Also, a fine demonstra-tion of Crop Dusting was made by George Town-son, flying one of the Giro Associates Pitcairn Mod-el P.C.A.– 2 Autogiros. It exemplified the use ofrotating wing aircraft in the important field of ag-riculture.”

Appendix II of the Conference Proceedingscontained a reprint of Hafner’s paper, to which heand had referred: “An Investigation into the Prob-lem of the Rotor Torque of a Helicopter” (as citedsupra).

Conclusion – An Historic Gathering

These meetings, consisting of invitedpapers based on topic assigned by Chairman E.Burke Wilford (presumably in consultation withothers, notably Dr. Ralph McClarren), were agenuinely historic gathering. There is little evid-ence of the Frank Kingston Smith asserted con-spiracy against the Autogiro in general, and theAutogiro Company of America specifically. JaySpenser’s view of this as a battlefield betweenAutogiro/gyroplane and helicopter comes closer toa broad brush characterization of the antagonisticdynamic between the two camps. But given thetwo significant presentations, complete with surp-rise comments on the state of his helicopter devel-opment, there is little doubt that Raoul Hafnerplaced an indelible stamp on the proceedingswhich was forcefully reinforced and independentlyechoed by Europeans Bréguet and Focke, andAmericans Paul Hovgard and H. Franklin Gregory.The combined impact of their presentations andthe arguments contained therein pointed directlyand undeniably towards the helicopter. And giventhe views of Lt. H. Franklin Gregory, who hadcome to the meetings convinced that the Autogirowas only a way station on the highway leading in-extricably to the helicopter, and who was soon tooversee the dispersal of Dorsey-Logan funds, firstto the Platt LePage helicopter, and then to IgorSikorsky’s single rotor design, the meetings couldnot but have reinforced his beliefs. Those in theaudience advocating the Autogiro, though theycould not have positive knowledge, could justlyhave left the meetings with the suspicion that their

cause was already lost.

1 New York: Jason Aronson, 1981

2 Seattle and London: University of WashingtonPress 1998

3 For authors who fail to mention the 1938 meeting,see e.g., Gablehouse, Charles. Helicopters andAutogiros: A History of Rotating-Wing and V/STOLAviation. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1969;Aellen, Richard “The Autogiro and Its Legacy” Air& Space Smithsonian. Washington, D.C. Decem-ber 1989/January 1990 pp. 52 – 59; Anders, Frank“The Forgotten Rotorcraft Pioneer: Harold F. Pit-cairn.” Rotor & Wing International May 1990 pp.34 – 37 reprinted as “The Forgotten Rotor” Rotor-craft Vol. 28 No. 7 October-November 1990 pp. 30– 34); Gunther, Carl F. “Autogiro” Parts I and IIPopular Rotorcraft Flying Vol. 17 No. 5 Octoberpp. 6 – 14 and Vol. 17 No. 6 December 1979; re-printed in Private Pilot. Vol. 15 No. 9 September1980 pp. 38 – 45; Vol. 15 No. 10 October 1980 pp.38 – 45. See also Gunther’s “Rediscovering HaroldPitcairn” Astman Distinguished Address - paperpresented at the From Autogiro to Gyroplane: ThePast, Present and Future of an Aviation IndustryConference at Hofstra University April 25 – 26,2003 which is printed in Charnov, Bruce H. andDavid Klein (eds.) FROM AUTOGIRO TO GYRO-PLANE CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS. Hemp-stead, NY: Hofstra University 2004; Townson,George. Autogiro: The Story of ‘the WindmillPlane’. Fallbrook, California: Aero Publishers (1st

ed.); Trenton, New Jersey: Townson, 1985 (2nd

printing); Fay, John. The Helicopter. New York:Hippocrene Books, 4th ed., 1987; Jackson, Robert.The Dragonflies: The Story of Helicopters andAutogiros. London: Barker, 1971

4 Gregory, Hollingsworth Franklin. Anything AHorse Can Do: The Story of the Helicopter.Introduction by Igor Sikorsky. New York: Reynal& Hitchcock, 1944. Revised editions were publish-ed as: The Helicopter; or, Anything a Horse CanDo. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1948; Lon-

don: George Allen & Unwin 1948 and The Helicop-ter. (South Brunswick, New Jersey: A. S. Barnes,1976)

5 LePage, Wynn Laurence Growing Up WithAviation. Ardmore, PA: Dorrance & Company,Incorporated, 1981

6 For a brief history of the involvement of theFranklin Institute with manned flight, see Trimble,William F. High Frontier: A History of Aeronauticsin Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh Press1982 pp. 17, 52, 180

7 Spenser, Jay P. Whirlybirds: A History of theU.S. Helicopter Pioneers. pp. 94 – 95

8 Indeed, Smith goes on to assert that thesubsequent crash of the Pitcairn XR-9Bexperimental helicopter at the hands of the Armyacceptance test pilot was a deliberate act. SeeSmith, Frank Kingston. Legacy of Wings: TheStory of Harold F. Pitcairn. New York: JasonAronson, 1981 pp. 312 -313

9 Actually, Hafner was Austrian then living inEngland. With the advent of WWII in the followingyear, he would be briefly interred by the English asa foreign national, be offered and accept Englishcitizenship, and actively contribute to the war effortwith the Hafner Rotachute and ‘Rotabuggy’.

10 Note that Smith is mistaken as the Vought-Sikorsky Division is located, as noted by H.Franklin Gregory in his writings, in Stratford,Connecticut.

11 Smith, Frank Kingston. Legacy of Wings: TheStory of Harold F. Pitcairn. p. 264

12 Sikorsky, Sergei “The Dorsey Controversy”Flight Journal. Vol. 8 No. 2 April 2003 pp. 97 –98; see also ”The Dorsey Bill: Collusion orDelusion” paper presented at the From Autogiro toGyroplane: The Past, Present and Future of anAviation Industry Conference at Hofstra UniversityApril 25 – 26, 2003 printed in Charnov, Bruce H.and David Klein (eds.) FROM AUTOGIRO TOGYROPLANE CONFERENCE PROCEED-INGS.Hempstead, NY: Hofstra University 2004

13 For historical background on the N.A.C.A., seeGustafson, F. B. “A History of NACA/NASARotating-Wing Aircraft Research, 1915 – 1970”Limited-Edition Reprint (VF-70) from Vertiflite,American Helicopter Society, Alexandria, VA 1971;see also “The National Advisory Committee forAeronautics” included in Abbot, D.Sc., CharlesGreeley Great Inventions. Washington, D.C.: TheSmithsonian Institution Series (formerly Smithson-ian Scientific Series) (Vol. 12) 1949 pp. 233 – 238

14 Gregory, Hollingsworth Franklin. Anything AHorse Can Do: The Story of the Helicopter p. 105

15 Internal evidence on p. 1 of the Proceedingssuggests that this acknowledgement was deliveredby E. Burke Wilford, President of the PhiladelphiaChapter of the Institute of the AeronauticalSciences.

16 See Glines, C. V. “The Guggenheims: AviationVisionaries” Aviation History. November 1996 pp.26 – 32, 70 71, 76.

17 Klemin, who had immigrated to the UnitedStates in 1912, had received a B. S. (with honors)from the University in London in 1909. He com-pleted the M.S. in Aeronautical Engineering atM.I.T. in 1915. Naturalized in 1917, he would re-ceive an LL.D. from Kenyon College (Ohio) in1934. His pioneering work included teaching thefirst aeronautics course in America at New YorkUniversity 1919 – 1925, was at the time of theFranklin Institute meetings the Director (with therank of Professor) of the Guggenheim School ofAeronautics (1925 – 1945), and had just taught thefirst course on the theory of rotary wings in theworld in 1937. Aero Digest would laud his effortsat the Guggenheim School in March, 1950 thusly:"his inspiration and untiring efforts; he brought thereputation of the institution to top-ranking positionin this country" and he was instrumental in thefounding of the American Helicopter Society.

18 For reference to the donation of the PAC-1A tothe Franklin Institute, see Brooks, Peter W. CiervaAutogiros: The Development of Rotary-Wing Flightp. 123. It was subsequently donated to the Smith-sonian, restored by Harold F. Pitcairn’s son Step-hen, and placed an exhibit loan at the AmericanHelicopter Museum & Education Center. See “Ex-

hibit Spotlight: Pitcairn PCA-1A” Vertika. Vol. 7Issue 2 October 2000 p. 5

19 Brooks, Peter W. Cierva Autogiros: TheDevelopment of Rotary-Wing Flight. p. 121

20 Boyne, Walter J. The Aircraft Treasures of SilverHill. New York: Rawson Associates, 1982 p. 134 -135; see also Brooks, Peter W. Cierva Autogiros:The Development of Rotary-Wing Flight. pp. 190 –191

21 The Autogiro Company of America itself claimedin 1932 that the first Autogiro flight occurred bothon December 18th and 19th. See “The Autogiro”Philadelphia: Autogiro Company of America 1932p. 15; “Some Facts of Interest About Rotating-WingAircraft and the Autogiro Company of America”Philadelphia: The Autogiro Company of America1944 p. 12 (caption to top photo). But these ac-counts cannot be regarded as definitive as the1932 publication contradicts itself in stating on p.31 “It was flown for the first time over American soilby Mr. Pitcairn, at Bryn Athyn, on December 18,1928.” There is also some confusion about thepilot in the first flight. Frank Kingston Smith appar-ently is not the only source for the claim that Pit-cairn made the first flight on December 18th. The1932 and 1944 publications by the Autogiro Com-pany of America cite the 19th and, being silent as tothe pilot, neither attributes that flight to Pitcairn.Brooks and Townson date that flight on the 19th,and each relates that Cierva pilot Arthur Rawsonfirst made a test flight after the C.8W had been re-assembled – a sensible procedure probably agre-ed upon by both parties – and in describing thefirst flight(s) Smith at first relates ambiguouslythat “. . . the first Autogiro made its first flight. Har-old Pitcairn was the first American pilot to fly it”which, while factually true, obscures the fact thatRawson made the first flight. The accompanyingphoto on the same page (149) is captioned “Anhistoric photograph: the first rotary-wing flight inAmerica, with Harold Pitcairn flying the Cierva C-8Autogiro at Willow Grove in December, 1928” isalso historically accurate – it was the first a photoof Pitcairn’s first American flight – but clearly notthe first American flight. That honor had beenclaimed by Rawson. See also Brooks, Peter W.Cierva Autogiros: The Development of Rotary-Wing Flight. p. 77; Townson, George. Autogiro:The Story of ‘the Windmill Plane’ p. 15; Smith,

Frank Kingston. Legacy of Wings: The Story ofHarold F. Pitcairn. New York: Jason Aronson,1981 p. 149. The apparent controversy was defi-nitively solved in 2005 when, in the midst of a boxof Pitcairn aviation historical film reels provided byHarold F. Pitcairn’s son Stephen, Dr. Bruce Char-nov discovered a ‘lost’ film that clearly showed Art-hur Rawson making the first American Autogiroflight followed by Harold F. Pitcairn. The dubiousclaim of W. Laurence Lepage that the first Autogiroflight had actually been made on December 17,1928, the 25th anniversary of the Wright brothershistorical flight, and other accompanying details(he is the only source claiming that Agnew Larsen,W. Laurence Le-Page, James G. “Jim” Ray andGeoffrey Childs also flew in the C.8W that day!)must not be accorded credibility, probably due toLePage’s memory lapse when recounting theevent 54 years later! See LePage, Wynn Lau-rence Growing Up With Aviation. p. 105

22 For a photo of the C.8W flying over Bryn Athyn,see Townson, George. Autogiro: The Story of ‘theWindmill Plane’. Fallbrook, California: Aero Pub-lishers (1st ed.); Trenton, New Jersey: Townson,1985 (2nd printing) p. 13; see also Harold Pitcairnflying the C.8W. Smith, Frank Kingston. Legacy ofWings: The Story of Harold F. Pitcairn. New York:Jason Aronson, 1981 p. 158

23 For a photograph of the acceptance, see “TheAutogiro.” Autogiro Company of America. 1930,1932 p. 29 (1932 ed.)

24 Boyne, Walter J. The Aircraft Treasures of SilverHill. pp. 135 –136 (See photo of deterioratingC.8W in 1982)

25 See Charnov, Bruce H. “America’s First Rotary-Wing Aircraft: Missing in Action” Rotorcraft. Vol.41 No. 8 December-January 2004 pp. 10 – 13;Boyne, Walter J. The Aircraft Treasures of SilverHill. pp. 132 – 136

26 As noted in Aero Digest Vol. 17 No. 7 Decem-ber 1930 p. 64

27 For a photograph of the Wilford Gyroplane, seeJohnston, S. Paul. Horizons Unlimited: A GraphicHistory of Aviation. New York: Duell, Sloan andPearce, 1941 p. 179

28 For information on the Wilford Gyroplane, seeDaland, Elliot “Wilford Gyroplane” Aviation.January 1941 p. 42; “Newest Wilford GyroplaneSafety” Aviation Engineering Magazine. Septem-ber 1932; “The Wilford Gyroplane” Aero Digest.Vol. 25 No. 2 February 1932 pp. 56 – 57; “TheWilford Gyroplane” Aero Digest. Vol. 26 No. 12December 1933; “The Wilford Gyroplane”Aviation. January 1938

29 Brooks claims that the test pilot who died was J.S. McCormac. Brooks, Peter W. Cierva Autogiros:The Development of Rotary-Wing Flight. p. 23

30 Ray, James G. “Commercial Uses of RotaryWing Aircraft” Proceedings of Rotating WingAircraft Meeting. The Franklin Institute. Phila-delphia, PA, Oct. 28 – 29, 1938 pp. 63 – 69

31 For information about the PA-36 and AgnewLarsen’s role in this project, see “Pitcairn ModelPA-36 Direct Control Autogiro” Aero Digest.September 1940; Rose, Donald R. “Pitcairn ModelPA-36 Direct Control Autogiro” Aero Digest. P.104, 119; Zazas, James B. Visions of Luscombe:The Early Years. Terre Haute, IN: SunShineHouse, Inc. 1993; Larsen, Agnew E. “AmericanAutogiro, Gyroplane and Early ConvertaplaneDevelopments” Journal of the American HelicopterSociety. Vol. 1 No. 1 January 1956 pp. 6 – 15;Larsen, Agnew E. “Pitcairn Whirlwing” Aviation.Vol. 39 No. 9 September 1940 pp. 46 – 48; Smith,Frank Kingston “Mr. Pitcairn’s Autogiros” AirpowerVol. 12 No. 2 March, 1983 pp. 28 – 49

32 Smith, Frank Kingston. Legacy of Wings: TheStory of Harold F. Pitcairn. pp. 266 – 267

33 Wilford, E. Burke “Introduction” Proceedings ofRotating Wing Aircraft Meeting . . . October 28 and29, 1938. Philadelphia : Institute of AeronauticalSciences 1938 Sponsored by the PhiladelphiaSection, Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences p. 2

34 For photographs of the Fa-61 (also called theFw-61), see Gregory, Hollingsworth Franklin.Anything A Horse Can Do: The Story of theHelicopter. p. 59; Francis, Devon, Earl. The Storyof the Helicopter. New York: Coward-McCann,Inc., 1946 facing p. 70 (photo by W. LawrenceLePage); Hollmann, Martin Flying the Gyroplane Monterey, CA: Aircraft Designs, Inc., 1986 p. 29

35 As cited by Martin Hollmann in the introductionto Helicopters, the second prototype Fa-61 (D-EKRA) established the following F.A.I. worldrecords for helicopters:

25/26 June 1937 (pilot Ewald Rohlfs)m 2,439 (8,001 ft.) altitudem 1 hr. 20 min. endurancem 80.6 km (50 miles) distance in a straightlinem 122.5 km (76.1 miles) distance over aclosed circuitm 16.4 km/hr (10.1 m.p.h. speed over aclosed circuit

25 October 1937 (pilot Hanna Reitsch)m 108.97 km (67 miles) distance in astraight line

20 June 1938 (pilot Karl Bode)m 230.3 km (143 mountains) distance in astraight line

29 January 1939 (pilot Karl Bode)m 3,437 m (11,243 ft) altitude

36 For photographs of Hanna Reitsch flying insidethe arena in Berlin, see Gablehouse, Charles.Helicopters and Autogiros: A History of Rotating-Wing and V/STOL Aviation. p. 67 (note that thecaption of the photo is misleading)

37 See Young, Warren R. The Helicopters.Alexandria, Virginia: Time-Life Books 1982 p. 74(photograph of Reitsch conferring with Focke be-fore the exhibition flights)

38 Ingalls, David S. “Autogiros – Missing Link”Fortune. March 1931 pp. 77 – 83, 103 – 104, 106,108, 110

39 Carroll, Thomas “Relative Flight Safety of theAutogiro” Aero Digest. Vol. 17 No. 7 December1930 p. 72

40 “Autogiros of 1931 - 1932” Fortune. March 1932pp. 48 – 52, p. 48

41 On Earhart, see Meyer, Shirley “Amelia Earhart,Autogiro Pilot.” Popular Rotorcraft Vol. 16 No. 66December 1978 pp. 16 – 17; Charnov, Bruce H.“Amelia Earhart, John M. Miller and the First Tran-scontinental Autogiro Flight in 1931” published athttp://www.aviation-history.com/airmen/Amelia-Earhart-Autogiro.htm January 2003; “AmeliaEarhart and the PCA-2: A Re-evaluation of theFirst Woman Autogiro Pilot.” FlyGyro! January/-February 2001 pp. 4 – 6

42 “Autogiros of 1931 - 1932” Fortune March 1932p. 52; See also Aero Digest Vol. 17 No. 7 Dec-ember 1930 p. 73 advertising “Real AirplaneBargains” with prices ranging from $975.00 to$2,595.

43 “Autogiro in 1936.” Fortune. Vol. XIII No. 3March 1936 88 – 93, 130 – 131, 134, 137

44 “Autogiro in 1936.” Fortune. p. 93

45 Miller, John M. “Civil Uses of the Autogiro.”Aeronautics National Aeronautics Council Vol. IINo. 10 November 6, 1940 pp. 611 – 624

46 Lunde, Prof. Otto H. “Development andOperation of the Autogiro” Aeronautics NationalAeronautics Council Vol. II No. 9 October 30, 1940pp. 548 – 562

47 See also the November 1931 National Gliderand Airplane News (cover featuring a Cierva Auto-giro passing near the Eiffel Tower

48 While the scene depicted is unrealistic, it wouldbe repeated in the Autogiro rescues included in the1988 film “The New Adventures of Pippi Long-stocking” and the 1991 film “The Rocketeer”. Forinformation on the latter, see Vaz, Mark Cotta“Rocket Blast” Cinefex. No. 48 November 1991pp. 20 – 45

49 “Double Gyroplane Has Speed and Power”Popular Science. Vol. 125 No. 2 August 1934 p.47

50 Miller, John M. “The Missing Link in Aviation”Popular Mechanics Magazine. Vol. 70 No. 3September 1938 pp. 346 – 351. 134A- 135A(reprinted Homebuilt Rotorcraft. Vol. 5 No. 7 July

1992 pp. 4 – 6; 12 – 14; reprinted HomebuiltRotorcraft. Vol. 9 No. 1 January 1996 pp. 4 – 6;Homebuilt Rotorcraft. Vol. 15 No. 11 November2002 pp. 14 – 16

51 A film of the Champion Spark Plug CompanyPitcairn PCA-2 Autogiro “Miss Champion”(NC11609), flown by Lewis A. “Lew” Yancey flyingto Cuba, the Yucatán, and Glacier National Park.See “Captain Yancey Explores Mayan Ruins byAutogiro” Autogiro News. Autogiro Company ofAmerica. February 1932

52 The only surviving copy of this film, showing thede Havilland Cierva C.L. 24 Autogiro in flight, is inthe British Film Institute (BFI)

53 For information about the character of King Wes-tly, the “Autogiro pilot” in this film, see Carney, RayAmerican Vision: The Films of Frank Capra. Hano-ver, NH: Wesleyan University Press 1986 p. 233

54 See Walker, Bud “People & Planes: CaptainJohn Miller” Aviation History. Vol. 7 No. 2 Novem-ber 1996 pp. 14, 16, 18; Abbott, Paul Bergen “Fly-ing the ‘Windmill Plane’ With Johnny Miller” Popul-ar Rotorcraft Flying. Vol. 24 No. 6 December 1986pp. 18 – 20

55 Adams, Eustace L. The Flying Windmill. NewYork: Grosset & Dunlap 1930

56 Anderson, John Wonders of the Air. London:Humphrey-Milford, Oxford University Press 1937

57 Gorman, Major J. T. Gorilla Gold. London,England: Blackie & Son Limited 1937

58 Kalep, Elvy Air Babies. (forward by AmeliaEarhart) Akron, OH: The Saalfield PublishingCompany 1936

59 Lavell, Edith Linda Carlton’s Island Adventure.New York: The Saalfield Publishing Company1931

60 Hardy, Marjorie Sally and Billy in Winter.Chicago: Wheeler Publishing Company 1933

61 Cowell, Cyril My First Book of Aeroplanes, Shipsand Trains. London, England: Thomas Nelson &Sons 1935

62 Shanks, Edward The Dark Green Circle.Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill 1936

63 See e.g., Seyfert, Ella Maie Little AmishSchoolhouse. New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell1939; Heming, Jack The Lost World of the Colo-rado. London, England: Frederick Warne and Co.Ltd. 1940; Drummond, V. H. The Flying Postman.Porpoise 1948; Kurland, Michael Too Soon Dead.New York: St. Martins Press, 1997

64 McClarren had earned a bachelor’s degree inEngineering science from the University ofWashington in 1928, and received an advanceddegree in aeronautical engineering the followingyear from New York University where he studiedunder Dr. Alexander Klemin. He joined the KellettAutgiro Company and would go on to become thechief engineer of the Herrick Convertiplane Corp-oration. He would be the main consultant to theAutogiro Company of America (later, after thedeath of Harold F. Pitcairn in 1960, Stephen Pit-cairn would be substituted as Plaintiff) in its suc-cessful patent infringement lawsuit against theUnited States government for infringing ACApatents in helicopter design. Long after the pas-sing of the Autogiro from the American scene, Mc-Clarren would serve two terms as mayor of BrynAthyn, PA, passing away at the age of 87 on April1, 1994.

65 McClarren, Ralph H. “Review of Rotating WingAircraft” Proceedings of Rotating Wing AircraftMeeting, The Franklin Institute. Philadelphia, PA,Oct. 28 – 29, 1938 pp. 2 – 5

66 In a similar manner, Wing Commander KenWallis RAF (Ret) often begins his history of theautogyro with reference to the sycamore seed.See e.g., 1986 “The Aircraft of Ken Wallis” BBC

67 See Sir George Cayley’s design for a flying toy,based on the Chinese top. Young, Warren R. TheHelicopters. p. 21

68 Mclarren, Ralph H. “Review of Rotating WingAircraft” Proceedings of Rotating Wing AircraftMeeting, The Franklin Institute. Philadelphia, PA,Oct. 28 – 29, 1938 pp. 2 - 5

69 For information on the 11EA, see Andersson,Lennart Soviet Aircraft and Aviation 1917 – 1941.Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press 1994 (firstpublished London, England: Putnam AeronauticalBooks) p. 335; See Everett-Heath, John SovietHelicopters: Design, Development and Tactics.London: Jane’s Publication Company 1983 pp. 11– 12 (diagram on 12); Gunston, Bill The OspreyEncyclopedia of Russian Aircraft. Oxford, Eng-land: Osprey Publishing Limited, 1995, 2000 p.66 (there listed in the section labeled CAHI); Char-nov, Bruce H. “Autogyros in the Soviet UnionDuring WWII” Homebuilt Rotorcraft. Vol. 15 No.11 November 2002 pp. 8 - 10

70 Everett-Heath, in an otherwise outstandingbook, comments on the 11 EA: “Why the word‘autogiro’ was used to describe a helicopter is notknown” seemingly oblivious to the origins of thedesign and ignoring that the aircraft was intendedas a convertiplane, taking off and landing as heli-copter but flying as an autogyro. See Everett-Heath, John Soviet Helicopters: Design, Develop-ment and Tactics. 1983 p. 5

71 For a description and history of Curtiss Motors,see Gunston, Bill World Encyclopedia of AeroEngines(4th ed.). Sparkford. Nr. Yeovil, Somerset:Patrick Stephens Limited, 1998 pp. 49 - 50

72 Everett-Heath Soviet Helicopters: Design,Development and Tactics London: Jane’sPublication Company 1983 pp. 11 - 12

73 Andersson, Lennart Soviet Aircraft and Aviation1917 – 1941. p. 33574 See Everett-Heath Soviet Helicopters: Design,Development and Tactics pp. 146 – 147.

75 H. Franklin Gregory recounts that he and testpilot Eric Snowdon Nichols, brother of famedwoman aviator Ruth Nichols, were the army pilotsassigned to evaluate the Kellett YG-1 (military de-signation for the KD-1) at NACA in early 1936.There they met with Wallace W. Kellett and chiefengineer Richard H. Prewitt and company test pilotLou Levy (later Leavitt). They came to question thearmy pilots as to a military impression of theAutogiro as Kellett was then as serious about themilitary market as Pitcairn was about the civilianarea. Gregory and Nichols found flying lessonswith Levy to be particularly instructive as he was by

then, with Jim Ray, one of the most experiencedAutogiro pilots in America, but they also enjoyedthe conversations with Prewitt. He described theaircraft’s design and construction, wonderfullyinformative for Gregory who would later make thedecisions that would doom the Autogiro. The pilotscalled Prewitt, who had actually designed the YG-1, “Daddy of this Whirligig”. Gregory, HollingsworthFranklin. Anything A Horse Can Do: The Story ofthe Helicopter. p. 55; for an additional account ofArmy testing of the Autogiro, see Gregg, E. Stuart“Jump Ship.” Smithsonian Air & Space. Vol. 15No. 6 March 2001 pp. 14 – 15

76 “The Autogiro” Proceedings of Rotating WingAircraft Meeting . . . October 28 and 29, 1938.Philadelphia : Institute of Aeronautical Sciences1938 Sponsored by the Philadelphia Section,Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences pp. 6 – 10

77 See e.g., Smith, Frank Kingston. Legacy ofWings: The Story of Harold F. Pitcairn. pp. 261 –264

78 It should not be forgotten that Harold F. Pitcairndid not attend the 1938 Franklin Institute meetingsas he was sick in bed at the time.

79 Cierva, Juan de la and Don Rose. Wings ofTomorrow: The Story of the Autogiro. New York:Brewer, Warren & Putnam 1931

80 Brie, R.A.C. The Autogiro and How to Fly It.London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, 1933 2d. ed.1935

81 Sanders, C. J. and A. H. Rawson. The Book ofthe C.19 Autogiro. London: Sir Isaac Pitman &Sons, 1931

82 The information on the Autogiro Company ofAmerica mirrored, however briefly, that which thecompany itself had previously published. See e.g.,The Autogiro. Philadelphia: Pitcairn-CiervaAutogiro Company of America, 1930; 1933

83 Prewitt, Richard H. “Possibilities of the JumpTake-Off Autogiro.” Journal of the AeronauticalSciences Vol. 6 No. 1 November 1938 pp. 10 –14

84 See Howe, Richard “Kellett KD-1/YG-1 Autogyro(Photo Essay).” American Aviation HistoricalSociety Journal. Vol. 23 No. 1 1st. Quarter 1978pp. 49 – 50; “Kellett KD-1 Autogiro” Aero Digest.December 1934; Brooks, Peter W. CiervaAutogiros: The Development of Rotary-WingFlight. pp. 229 – 231

85 On Herrick, see “The Herrick Vertaplane”Aviation Engineering Magazine. January 1932;Townson, George “The Herrick Convertaplane”American Helicopter Museum & Education CenterNewsletter Vol. 4 No. 3 3rd Quarter 1997

86 Herrick, Gerard P. “The Development of theConvertoplane” paper reprinted in 1st ConvertibleAircraft Congress Proceedings. (Sponsored by thePhiladelphia Sections of the American HelicopterSociety and the Institute of Aeronautical Sciencesin Philadelphia, PA on December 9, 1949) pp. 83– 89

87 Herrick, Gerard P. “The Convertaplane”Proceedings of Rotating Wing Aircraft Meeting . . .October 28 and 29, 1938. Philadelphia : Instituteof Aeronautical Sciences 1938 Sponsored by thePhiladelphia Section, Institute of the AeronauticalSciences pp. 11 – 22:11

88 Davis, Al F. “One Of Our Simple Problems”Proceedings of Rotating Wing Aircraft Meeting . . .October 28 and 29, 1938. Philadelphia : Instituteof Aeronautical Sciences 1938 Sponsored by thePhiladelphia Section, Institute of the AeronauticalSciences p. 12 reprinted in Herrick, Gerard P. “TheDevelopment of the Convertoplane” paper reprint-ed in 1st Convertible Aircraft Congress Proceed-ings. (Sponsored by the Philadelphia Sections ofthe American Helicopter Society and the Instituteof Aeronautical Sciences in Philadelphia, PA onDecember 9, 1949) pp. 83 – 89

89For photographs of the Herrick aircraft models,see Boyne, Walter J. The Aircraft Treasures ofSilver Hill p. 140 – 142; Gablehouse, Charles.Helicopters and Autogiros: A History of Rotating-Wing and V/STOL Aviation. p. 141; Townson,George “The Herrick Convertaplane” AmericanHelicopter Museum & Education Center NewsletterVol. 4 No. 3 3rd Quarter 1997 pp. 3 – 4; Boyne,Walter J. and Donald S. Lopez Vertical Flight.

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press,1984 p. 175

90 In a similar manner, the later Hafner Rotachute,Rotabuggy and Bensen Gyrocopter would alsomake use of a tettering-hinge 2-blade rotor system.See e.g. re: Hafner Rotachute: The Hafner Rota-chute” Aeroplane Monthly. Vol. 19 No. 8 Issue220 August 1991 pp. 470 – 476; Bensen, Igor“Rotachute, Rotary Wing Glider-Kite.” GeneralElectric Co., Report No. 33200. Schenectady, NY:1946; Hollmann, Martin “The Rotachute” Gyro-plane World. Issue 7 April 1977 1 – 3; “The “Rota-chute” and “Rotabuggy”” Popular Rotorcraft Flying.Vol. 19 No. 1 February 1981 pp. 14 – 15, 20 – 21;“The Hafner Rotachute.” Fly Gyro! No. 3 February2001 pp. 18 – 19; “Design Classroom.” CollectedWorks of Design Classroom. California: PopularRotorcraft Association 1974 p. 11; Brooks, PeterW. Cierva Autogiros: The Development of Rotary-Wing Flight. pp. 286 – 287; Bartlett, Ron “”Gyro-planes – The Early Years” International Autogyro1/4ly. Issue 5 p. 13 (author’s photograph of theRotachute exhibited at the Army Air CorpsMuseum at Middle Wallop, England); Lambermont,Paul M., and Anthony Pirie. Helicopters andAutogyros of the World. Rev. ed. New York: A.S. Barnes 1970; London: Cassell, 1958, 1970Previous edition: New York: A. S. Barnes: 1959Introduction by Igor Sikorsky pp. 130 – 131 (therecalled the Hafner Rotaplane); “Lovegrove, PeterGyroplane Miscellavia Volume 6 England: TheBritish Rotorcraft Association April 2005 p. 111(photo); Jones, Barry “Swords – and Plough-shares: A History of British Military Specifications”Aeroplane. Vol. 34 No. 1 January 2006 pp. 54 –58; see also re: Hafner Rotabuggy: Everett-Heath,John British Military Helicopters. London, England:Arms and Armour Press Limited 1986 pp. 23 – 24;“The “Rotachute” and “Rotabuggy”” PopularRotorcraft Flying. Vol. 19 No. 1 February 1981 pp.14 – 15, 20 – 21; “The Hafner Rotachute.” FlyGyro! No. 3 February 2001 pp. 18 – 19; “DesignClassroom.” Collected Works of DesignClassroom. California: Popular RotorcraftAssociation 1974 p. 11; Brooks, Peter W. CiervaAutogiros: The Development of Rotary-WingFlight. pp. 286 – 287; Bartlett, Ron “”Gyroplanes –The Early Years” International Autogyro 1/4ly.Issue 5 p. 13 (author’s photograph of the Rota-chute exhibited at the Army Air Corps Museum atMiddle Wallop, England); 1999 “The Big Rigs of

Combat – Jeeps” (The History Channel) (Rota-buggy); Bunsen, Mary de Mount Up With Wings.London, England: Hutchinson 1960 p. 139; Jones,Barry Swords – and Ploughshares: A History ofBritish Military Specifications” Aeroplane. Vol. 34No. 1 January 2006 pp. 54 - 58

91 See Mondey, David (ed The CompleteIllustrated Encyclopedia of the World’s Aircraft.Secaucus, New Jersey: Chartwell Books, Inc.1978 updated by Taylor, Michael as The NewIllustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft. 2000 p. 287

92 http://www.therylesw.com/ghost

93 See Brooks, Peter W. Cierva Autogiros: TheDevelopment of Rotary wing Flight. p. 23 – 26(photo on p. 25)

94 “A post-crash examination revealed that, whenthe upper wing unlocked, it teetered hard againstits bearings, broke them, and struck the propeller.The pilot attempted to bail out, but his parachutefailed to open properly, resulting in his death.” Seehttp://www.nasm.si.edu/-research/aero/aircraft-/herrick.htm

95 Townson, George “The Herrick Convertaplane”American Helicopter Museum & Education CenterNewsletter Vol. 4 No. 3 3rd Quarter 1997

96 Conversation with the author August 2000.

97 For photographs of the HV-2V in conversionfrom fixed-wing to gyroplane flight, see Haugen,Victor Lieutenant “Principles of Rotating WingAircraft” Aeronautics National Aeronautics CouncilVol. II No. 7 October 16, 1940 p. 429; Brooks,Peter W. Cierva Autogiros: The Development ofRotary-Wing Flight. p. 25; Additionally the NationalAir and Space Museum of the Smithsonian

Institute film collections has a movie of the flyingand mid-air conversion of the Herrick Converta-plane.

98 See Connor, Roger “The Autogiros andGyroplanes of the National Air and Space Mus-eum” paper presented at the From Autogiro toGyroplane: The Past, Present and Future of anAviation Industry Conference at Hofstra UniversityApril 25 – 26, 2003; Boyne, Walter J. The AircraftTreasures of Silver Hill. pp. 142 – 142 (Boynecalled these aircraft the ‘Hapless Hybrids’.)

99 Wood, Derek Project Cancelled: British AircraftThat Never Flew Indianapolis/New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company Inc., 1975; Charnov,Bruce H. “The Fairey Rotodyne: An Idea WhoseTime Has Come – Again – Part I” Fly Gyro!September/October 2001 pp. 4 – 7; “The FaireyRotodyne: An Idea Whose Time Has Come –Again Part II” Fly Gyro! Nov/Dec 2001 pp. 4 –7“The Fairey Rotodyne: An Idea Whose Time HasCome –Again Part III” Fly Gyro! March/April2002 pp. 4 – 8; Harrison, Jean-Pierre “FaireyRotodyne” Air Classics Vol. 22, No. 44 April 1996pp. 44 – 47, 60-62, 64 – 66, 79 – 80; Gibbings,David “The Fairey Rotodyne: Technology BeforeIts Time? Cierva Memorial Lecture. London,England: The Royal Aeronautical SocietyOctober 7, 2003; “The Fairey Rotodyne: TooMuch, Too Soon” Paper presented at the FromAutogiro to Gyroplane: The Past, Present andFuture of an Aviation Industry Conference atHofstra University April 25 – 26, 2003,printed in Charnov, Bruce H. and David Klein(eds.) FROM AUTOGIRO TO GYROPLANECONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS., NY: HofstraUniversity 2004; “Rotodyne, the Airliner WhoseHour Came Too Soon.” Proceedings: Society ofFlight Engineers 26th Annual Symposium BerlinJune 1995; Hislop George S. “The RotodyneReviewed” ” Flight. Vol. 74 No. 2599 November14, 1958 pp. 758 -759 ; The Fairey Rotodyne.London, England: The Helicopter Association ofGreat Britain and The Royal Aeronautical Society(paper presented on November 7, 1958); “FaireyStory: The Sad Saga of the Fairey Rotodyne”WINGSPAN International. Issue No. 8 Septem-ber/October 2001 pp. 60 – 64; Lambermont, PaulM., and Anthony Pirie Helicopters and Autogyrosof the World. pp. 115 – 117; Trenter, S. C. TheHistory, Operation and Application of the Autogyro.

(Unpublished Final Year Project – The Universityof Birmingham, School of Manufacturing andMechanical Engineering) 1997 p. 35; “The FaireyRotodyne” Air Pictorial. October 1956; “TheFairey Rotodyne” Air Pictorial. December 1957(cover); Taylor, John W. R. “The Fairey Rotodyne”Meccano Magazine. Vol. XLIII No. 7 July 1958 pp.311 – 313, 354

100 Taylor, John W. R. VTOL Aircraft andHelicopters. London: Ian Allan 1967; Garden City,New York: Doubleday, 1968 p. 39 (Note – alsocalled “Vintokryl”); Lambermont, Paul M., andAnthony Pirie. Helicopters and Autogyros of theWorld. p. 412

101 While this may be what Herrick (1873 – 1955) isremembered for, it should be noted that he hadgraduated from Princeton University (A.B. 1895)and received an L.L.B. from the New York LawSchool in 1897, going on to serve in the Army AirService during the 1918 – 1919 time frame, attain-ing the rank of Captain.

102 Platt, Haviland H. “The Development of theHelicopter: Past, Present and Future” Proceedingsof Rotating Wing Aircraft Meeting . . . October 28and 29, 1938. Philadelphia : Institute ofAeronautical Sciences 1938 Sponsored by thePhiladelphia Section, Institute of the AeronauticalSciences pp. 22 – 28

103 See e.g., http://www.helis.com/pioneers/f_plp.php

104 For a discussion of the Bartha/ Madzsarpatents (English and German), see Liberatore,E[ugene] K. Helicopters Before Helicopters.Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company,1998 p. 95

105 Patent listed on Simine’s U.S. Aviation PatentDatabase(http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/patents/index.html) and available athttp://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=US000922756&PageNum=2&IDKey=6521C17988D7&HomeUrl=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1% 2526Sect2

106 See also Hafner, Raoul “A Reply to Dr. J.A.J.Bennett” Flight November 1937; “ reprinted in

Lovegrove, Peter Gyroplane Miscellavia Volume 3England: The British Rotorcraft Association March2003 pp. 170 – 179 in which Hafner points out theprevious English patents of Bartha and Madzsar

107 See Connor, Roger [Douglas] “50th AnniversaryPerspectives on the American Helicopter Industry”Vertiflite. Vol. 51 No. 1 January 2006 pp. 22 –42: 28 “Ironically the LePage proposal won outover Sikorsky’s design on the basis of its resem-blance to the apparently proven German config-uration . . . The twin lateral configuration had inher-ent handling difficulties that the Germans hadhidden well . . . “

108 For a sample of Knight’s published papers, seeJohnson, Wayne Helicopter Theory. Mineola, NY:Dover Publications, 1980 p. 1022

109 Otherwise unidentified – there is no reason tosuspect that this was Cierva test pilot R.A.C.“Reggie” Brie.

110 “The Gyroplane” Proceedings of Rotating WingAircraft Meeting . . . October 28 and 29, 1938.Philadelphia : Institute of Aeronautical Sciences1938 Sponsored by the Philadelphia Section,Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences pp. 28 - 35

111 As summarized supra – see footnotes 24 – 28and accompanying text.

112 See Trimble, William F. High Frontier: AHistory of Aeronautics in Pennsylvania. Universityof Pittsburgh Press 1982 pp. 180

113 See Hovgard, Paul “Safety – With Perform-ance” Aviation Engineering Magazine. September1931 p. 12

114 See e.g. Daland, Elliot “Wilford Gyroplane”Aviation. January 1941 p. 42

115 On Loening, see Yenne, Bill Legends of Flight(forward by Frank Borman). Lincolnwood, Illinois:Publications International, 1999 p. 208; Longyard,William H. Who’s Who in Aviation History.Shrewsbury, England: Airlife Publishing Ltd., 1994p. 118

116 Johnson, Wayne Helicopter Theory. See theextensive references to the research literature oncompound helicopter design cited on p. 341

117 For a description and photographs of thebrothers Kellett, see “Autogiro in 1936.” FortuneVol. XIII No. 3 March 1936 88 – 93, 130 – 131,134, 137: 130

118 See Fn. 74 supra for background onconversation between Kellett and Gregory.

119 Gregory, H[ollingsworth] F[ranklin] “ArmyExperiences With Rotating Wing Aircraft”Proceedings of Rotating Wing Aircraft Meeting.The Franklin Institute. Philadelphia, PA, Oct. 28 –29, 1938 pp. 36 - 43

120 Gregory, Hollingsworth Franklin. Anything AHorse Can Do: The Story of the Helicopter. pp. 86– 87

121 See Glines, C. V. “The 121 Guggenheims:Aviation Visionaries” Aviation History. November1996 pp. 26 – 32, 70 71, 76

122 As cited in Smith, Frank Kingston. Legacy ofWings: The Story of Harold F. Pitcairn p. 252

123 Gregory, H[ollingsworth] F[ranklin] “ArmyExperiences With Rotating Wing Aircraft”Proceedings of Rotating Wing Aircraft Meeting. p.36

124 See http://www.usafhpa.org/ histpg01.htm

125 Liberatore, E[ugene] K. Helicopters BeforeHelicopters. pp. 97 – 99 (noting that “the experi-menters also may be the first to use the term rota-ting wing for a helicopter rotor.”

126 While Gregory asserts that the Army had experi-mented with McWorter’s 1/4 scale model, Libera-tore cites this Autoplane in his “Other Projects” Ap-pendix, stating that “[t]he following list of activitiesare not covered in the narratives, mainly becauselittle information is available on them to warrantnarrative treatment.” Liberatore, E[ugene] K.Helicopters Before Helicopters. pp. 171 – 174

127 See e.g., Young, Warren R. The Helicopters.pp. 42 - 49

128 Holley, I. B. Jr. Rotary-Wing Aircraft in the ArmyAir Forces: A Study in Research and DevelopmentPolicies. Industrial College of the Armed Forces,Washington, DC, 1946 p. 218

129 See e.g., the Pitcairn advertisements in Young,Warren R. The Helicopters. pp. 62 – 63

130

131 At the celebration of Raymond Pitcairn’s 75th

birthday on April 23, 1960, Harold F. Pitcairnpresided as master-of-ceremonies at a partyattended by 40 guests. He would read telegraphsof congratulations from former PresidentEisenhower, civic leaders, and officials fromaround the world. Later that night, after returningfrom the celebrations, the younger brother wouldbe found dead at his desk, a bullet in his brain anda gun in his hand. Initially ruled a suicide and,after some pressure and non-cooperation from thefamily, then found to be acid-ental. See Smith,Frank Kingston. Legacy of Wings: The Story ofHarold F. Pitcairn p. 334; see also Charnov, BruceH. From Autogiro to Gyroplane: The AmazingSurvival of an Aviation Technology. p. 233

132 For a detailed history of the develop-ment ofthe aeronautical industry and innovation inPennsylvania, see Trim-ble, William F. HighFrontier: A History of Aeronautics in Pennsylvania.

133 For a description of Pitcairn’s social status, onethat should be read with caution, see O’Brien,Kathryn E. The Great and the Gracious on

Millionaires’ Row. Utica, New York: North CountryBooks, Inc., 1978

134 He would summarize some of his ideas inPrewitt, Richard H. “Possibilities of the Jump Take-Off Autogiro” Journal of Aeronautical Sciences.Vol. 6 No. 1 November 1938

135 For a photograph of the first graduating class ofthe Army Air Corps Autogiro School, see Townson,George. Autogiro: The Story of ‘the WindmillPlane’ p. 117 (note that the attribution of the rankof Colonel to H. Franklin Gregory is incorrect inthe photo’s caption)

136 Dorsey, Frank J. G. “Government Use andDevelopment” Proceedings of Rotating WingAircraft Meeting, The Franklin Institute.Philadelphia, PA, Oct. 28 – 29, 1938 pp. 44 – 53

137 For a montage of Pitcairn/Kellett advertise-ments, see Townson, George. Autogiro: TheStory of ‘the Windmill Plane’. pp. 151- 155

138 Earhart, Amelia “Your Next Garage May HouseAn Autogiro.” Hearst’s International combined withCosmopolitan. Vol. XCI No. 2 August 1931 pp. 58– 59, 160 – 161

139 Conversation with the author.

140But see “Autogiro in 1936.” Fortune Vol. XIIINo. 3 March 1936 88 – 93, 130 – 131, 134,137:130 where it is claimed that the actual totalwas then $4,500,000. It was also claimed therethat the Kellett Brothers had invested $500,000.

141 Peter Brooks, in his excellent book CIERVA’sAUTOGIROS (pp. 165, 192, 268) , notes only fivefatal accidents: Lioré-et-Olivier pilot Pierre Martinwhile flying a C.L. 10 on December 19, 1932;Flying Officer L. W. Oliver who failed to recoverfrom a high speed dive in a Rota C.30A at OldSarum on January 21, 1935; passenger RobertSwenson who died in a crash of a PA-18 at WillowGrove, Pennsylvania in August 1935; a CaptainBarbotin who was rumored to have perished justbefore WWII in Northern France when his LeOC.30 lost a rotor blade; and the death of Frenchpilot Vautier in an unsuccessful landing in a C.30Aat Rouen on May 29, 1938. Additionally, Brooks(Brooks p. 168) states that it was known that Rus-

sian pilot I. Kozyrev crashed in a TsAGI gyroplane(not an Autogiro as it was not a Cierva-licensedmachine) A-12 on May 23, 1937. John M. “John-ny” Miller provides the only detailed account of theworst Autogiro accident in which Carl (mistakenlyremembered as Charlie) Otto and two passengersdied on September 5, 1933– the worst Autogiroaccident in history. It is a cautionary tale thatdeserves to be remembered. Here is how Millerdescribed it sixty-three years later, stating that afterthe 1933 International Air Races at Chicago:

“Vincent Bendix invited the participants togather at his estate at South Bend for adinner and party, offering free fuel to thosewho flew in. . . . As I took off and turnedsouth to go around the south end of thelake [Michigan] I saw Charlie [Otto] take offin his PCA-2 and head straight across thelake. The wind was practically calm there.. . . Due to the unexpected headwind I didnot have enough fuel to make it to SouthBend, so landed at the Department ofCommerce emergency field at McCool, Illwhere I knew that I could get fuel out of abarrel in the little airway beacon shed. Itwas a very hot and humid day and wesweated at the job of getting about 15gallons out of the barrel with the help ofthe man in charge of the field. Then wecontinued on to South Bend. . . .On arrivalover the field Charlie’s PCA-2 was notthere. Flying across the lake with mini-mum fuel he could not be aware of his lowground speed. He ran out of fuel and wentdown in the lake. He and his two passen-gers were lost. One passenger was a well-known free-fall parachutist, Spud Man-ning, whom I had taken up over the airshow to 15,0000 ft several times and knewwell. (Free-fall jumps were new and spec-tacular at the time and Spud Manning wasthe pioneer of that sport).”

Miller, John M. “UFO Recollections – TheDeath of Charlie Otto” AmericanHelicopter Museum & Education CenterNewsletter Vol. 8 No. 1 Spring 1996

142 For a description of Autogiro accidents, see“Autogiros of 1931 - 1932” Fortune March 1932pp. 48 – 52

143 Dorsey did not literally mean that Pitcairn andKellett sold Cierva Autogiros, and he surely wasaware that each manufacturer had developed uni-quely American designs. Rather, it seems logicalthat he intends “Cierva-licensed” autogiros (which,because of their derivation, should be correctly de-noted Autogiros)

144 Smith, Frank Kingston. Legacy of Wings: TheStory of Harold F. Pitcairn. p. 240; Brooks, PeterW. Cierva Autogiros: The Development of Rotary-Wing Flight. p. 152

145 Dorsey would go on to state: Without any directknowledge, I am told the Haines-Act autogiro mailline will be set up in the near future. The postoffice department is said to have its plans com-pleted and shortly will call for bids for the service,probably terminating in either Philadelphia or Chi-cago.

146 On that Autogiro airmail route, see Charnov,Bruce H. “John M. “Johnny” Miller – Tales of anAutogiro Pioneer” International AUTOGYRO 1/4ly.Issue 22 2005 pp. 14 – 17; Miller, John M. “Auto-giro Rooftop Air Mail Operations and Flight Test-ing” Skyways: The Journal of the Airplane 1920 –1940. No. 71 July 2004 pp. 2 – 7; “The FirstScheduled Rooftop Flying Operation and a FewOther Firsts” Rotorcraft. Vol. 41 No. 8 December-January 2004 pp. 27 – 30; “The First ScheduledRooftop Flying Operation in Aviation (Autogiro AirMail Service at Philadelphia, 1939-40)” Rotor-craft. Vol. 30 No. 6 September 1992 pp. 24 – 33;for a digitized copy of Miller’s film of the Kellett KD-1B Autogiro landings on the Philadelphia PostOffice roof, see Charnov, Bruce H. and David Klein(eds.) FROM AUTOGIRO TO GYRO PLANECONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS. Hempstead,NY: Hofstra University 2004

147 Biological Survey and Coast and GeodeticSurvey departments

148 The May 31, 1939 meeting laid the foundationfor American military rotary-wing development andinsured that the helicopter would eventually joinAmerica’s arsenal. Those attending were: J.P.Godwin, Department of Agriculture; Frederick C.Lincoln, U.S. Biological Survey; Charles M. Kieo-bee, Division of Air Military Service; Captain L. T.

Chalker, U.S. Coast Guard; John Easton, CivilAeronautics Authority; Lieutenant Commander C.L. Helber, Bureau of Aeronautics; Roy Knaben-sheue, Department of the Interior; C. S. Helds andC. W. Crowley, Jr., of the NACA; Major W. C. Crit-tenberger, Calvary; Major R. W. Beasley, Field Art-illery; Lientenant Colonel Dale D. Miniman, CoastArtillery; and Lieutenant Colonel E. W. Fales of theInfantry. Gregory, Hollingsworth Franklin. AnythingA Horse Can Do: The Story of the Helicopter p. 91

149 Box 20, File 8: Early Aviators Special Collection& Archives of the Wright State University Libraries

150 For an exception, see Hill, Norman (FlyingOfficer) “Wingless Combat” Royal Air Force FlyingReview. Vol. XVIII No. 4 January 1963 pp. 24 –25, 57 with an account of how a Cierva C.30A sur-vived an attack from two German FW 190 fighterplanes.

151 See Gunston, Bill The Osprey Encyclopedia ofRussian Aircraft. Oxford, England: Osprey Pub-lishing Limited, 1995, 2000 and Aircraft of theSoviet Union. London: Osprey, 1983; Andersson,Lennart Soviet Aircraft and Aviation 1917 – 1941.Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press 1994 (firstpublished London, England: Putnam AeronauticalBooks); Everett-Heath, John Soviet Helicopters:Design, Development and Tactics London: Jane’sPublication Company 1983; Bratukhin, A. G. (ed)Russian Aircraft. Moscow: Mashinostroenie 1995(in Russian but with English translation). Also seeCharnov, Bruce H. “Autogyros in the Soviet UnionDuring WWII” Homebuilt Rotorcraft. Vol. 15 No.11 November 2002 pp. 8 – 10, and “Kamov &Skrzhinsky – Russian Gyroplane Pioneers”International AUTOGYRO 1/4ly. Issue 10 October2001 pp. 18 – 23; Eyermann, Karl-Heinz DieLuftfahrt der UdSSR 1917 – 1977 Berlin: trans-press VEB Verlag für Verkehrswesen 1977

152See e.g., Riviere, Pierre and Gerry Beauchamp,“Autogyros At War” Air Classics Quarterly Review.Vol. 3 No. 4 Winter 1976 pp. 92 – 97; Moulin,Jacques Les autogires LeO C.30 et C.301.Outreau, France: Lela Presse 2003 a chapter ofwhich has been translated and published asLedet, Michel “The Cierva C.30A with the SmallAir Forces” Small Air Observer. Vol. 27 No. 4(108) April 2004 pp. 115 – 122; Charnov, BruceH. “The Autogiro Goes to War in France” Home-

built Rotorcraft. Vol. 16 No. 2 February 2003 pp. 5– 7

153 Everett-Heath, John British Military Helicop-ters. as well as in March, Daniel J. (ed.) BritishWarplanes of World War II: Combat Aircraft of theRAF and Fleet Air Arm 1939 – 1945. New York:Barnes & Noble Books 1998, Gunston, Bill Historyof Military Aviation. London: Hamlyn (OctopusPublishing Group Limited) 2000, the same author’searlier volume Helicopters at War. London, Eng-land: Hamlyn 1977, in Gunston, Bill and MikeSpick Modern Fighting Helicopters. New York:Crescent Books 1988; London: Tiger Books 1991,and Rees, Elfan ap “The Helicopter’s First War” inJarrett, Philip (ed) Aircraft of the Second WorldWar: The Development of the Warplane 1939 –45. London, England: Putnam Books 1997 pp.177 – 191; Barker, Ralph The RAF At War. Alex-andria, VA: Time-Life Books 1981; see “The Haf-ner Rotachute” Aeroplane Monthly. Vol. 19 No. 8Issue 220 August 1991 pp. 470 – 476; Bensen,Igor “Rotachute, Rotary Wing Glider-Kite.” GeneralElectric Co., Report No. 33200. Schenectady, NY:1946; Hollmann, Martin “The Rotachute” Gyro-plane World. Issue 7 April 1977 1 – 3; “The “Rota-chute” and “Rotabuggy”” Popular Rotorcraft Flying.Vol. 19 No. 1 February 1981 pp. 14 – 15, 20 – 21;“The Hafner Rotachute.” Fly Gyro! No. 3 February2001 pp. 18 – 19; “Design Classroom.” CollectedWorks of Design Classroom. California: PopularRotorcraft Association 1974 p. 11; Brooks, PeterW. Cierva Autogiros: The Development of Rotary-Wing Flight. pp. 286 – 287; Bartlett, Ron ”Gyro-planes – The Early Years” International Autogyro1/4ly. Issue 5 p. 13 (author’s photograph of theRotachute exhibited at the Army Air Corps Mus-eum at Middle Wallop, England)

154 See Nicholls, R. A. “Annals of the Autogyro” inHorseman, Martin (ed) Aircraft Illustrated Annual1982. London: Ian Allan Ltd 1981 pp. 18 – 36which contains inter alia an account of the WWIIexploits of Swedish Autogiro pilot Rolf von Bahrflying a Cierva C. 30A Autogiro; see also Molin,Karl-Gustaf, Sten Luthander and Rolf von BahrAutogiron. Stockholm: Bonnier 1943 (Swedish)

155 On Japan, see Francillon, R. J. JapaneseAircraft of the Pacific War. London: Putnam,1970; Tamate, Eiji Imperial Japanese Army Ka GoAutogiro. (Japanese) Tokyo, Japan: Kojin Sha,

2002; Mondey, David (ed.). The Concise Guide toAxis Aircraft of World War II. London: ChancellorPress 1984, 1996

156 Wood, Tony and Bill Gunston Hitler’s Luftwaffe.New York, NY: Crescent Books, 1978; Smith J. R.and Antony L. Kay, German Aircraft of the SecondWorld War London, England: Putnam, 1972;Goebel, Greg “The Invention of the Helicopter”Rotorcraft. Vol. 42 No. 7 October - November2004 pp. 11 – 25; “Flying A Kite: The Focke-Achgelis Fa-330 Rotary Wing Kite.” Rotor GazetteInternational No. 2 Vol. 1 July – August 1992 pp. 1– 2, 4; “Focke Achgelis FA-330 Bachstelze (Wag-tail).” Fly Gyro! No. 3 February 2001 pp. 8 – 9;Focke, Heinrich K. J. “German Thinking on Ro-tary-Wing Development: (5th Cierva MemorialLecture)” Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Soc-iety. Vol. 69 May 1965 pp. 293-305; Gallacher,Ian “Germany’s Wartime Autogyro Kite” WING-SPAN. August 1991 pp. 37 – 38; “Germany’sWartime Autogyro Kite” Air Pictorial. August 1991pp. 37 – 38; Liptrot, R. N. “Rotating Wing Activitiesin German During the Period 1939 – 1945.”B.I.O.S. Overall Report 8, London: 1948; Ford,Brian German Secret Weapons: Blueprint forMars. New York: Ballentine Books, 1969; GermanSubmarine Rotary Wing Kite. Combined Intel-ligence Objectives Sub-Committee London (CIOS)(Reported by Kelley, Bartram and Hugh J. Mulvey),England: 1945; Philpott, Bryan The Encyclopediaof German Military Aircraft. New York: Park SouthBooks, 1981; Smith J. R. and Antony L. Kay, Ger-man Aircraft of the Second World War London,England: Putnam, 1972; Coates, Steve (withJean-Christophe Carbonel) Helicopters of theThird Reich. Hersham, Surrey, England: ClassicPublications 2002

157 Galloway, A. G. “Agricultural Uses”Proceedings of Rotating Wing Aircraft Meeting,The Franklin Institute. Philadelphia, PA, Oct. 28 –29, 1938 pp. 53 – 57

158 See e.g., MacKay, Hal “Bug Fighters” PopularAviation. Vol. XXIV June 1939 pp. 48 – 50, 82

159 Kellett would unsuccessfully attempt to revivethe KD-1 for crop spraying and other agriculturaluses circa 1959 – 60. See e.g. Ray, James G. “Isthe Autogiro Making a Comeback?” Flying. Vol. 66No. 1 January 1960 pp. 34- 35, 91 – 92; Levy,

Howard “Kellett Gyrations” Aeroplane. Part 3 Vol.24 No. 1 Issue 273 January 1996 pp. 32 – 34:34;Townson, George. Autogiro: The Story of ‘theWindmill Plane’. p. 138; “Rotary-wing Aircraft”Flying. Vol. 67 No. 4 October 1960 pp. 24 – 26,100 – 101; see also:

160 See Townson, George “Autogiro Crop Dusters.”American Helicopter Museum & Education CenterNewsletter Vol. 3 No. 1 Spring 1996

161 Miller, John M. “Autogiro Piloting Technique”Proceedings of Rotating Wing Aircraft Meeting,The Franklin Institute. Philadelphia, PA, Oct. 28 –29, 1938 pp. 57 - 63

162 Regarding Miller, see e.g., Abbott, Paul Bergen“Flying the ‘Windmill Plane’ With Johnny Miller”Popular Rotorcraft Flying. Vol. 24 No. 6 December1986 pp. 18 – 20; “Captain Johnny Miller” Rotor-craft. Vol. 40 No. 9 December 2002 – January2003 pp. 8 – 9; Charnov, Bruce H. “John M.“Johnny” Miller – Tales of an Autogiro Pioneer”International AUTOGYRO 1/4ly. Issue 22 2005pp. 14 – 17; Walker, Bud “People & Planes: Cap-tain John Miller” Aviation History. Vol. 7 No. 2November 1996 pp. 14, 16, 18

163 Miller, John M.“The Missing Link in Aviation”Popular Mechanics Magazine. Vol. 70 No. 3September 1938 pp. 346 – 351. 134A- 135A(reprinted Homebuilt Rotorcraft. Vol. 5 No. 7 July1992 pp. 4 – 6; 12 – 14; reprinted HomebuiltRotorcraft. Vol. 9 No. 1 January 1996 pp. 4 – 6;Homebuilt Rotorcraft. Vol. 15 No. 11 November2002 pp. 14 – 16)

164 Miller, John M. “Civil Uses of the Autogiro.”Aeronautics National Aeronautics Council Vol. IINo. 10 November 6, 1940 pp. 611 – 624

165 Miller was still flying his Bonanza at 100 yearsold, although the FAA now required him to have aco-pilot. The co-pilot informed this author thatMiller would let him sit in the plane, but not touchthe controls during flight.

166 For a more detailed discussion of Autogiropiloting techniques, see Brie, R.A.C. The Autogiroand How to Fly It. London: Sir Isaac Pitman &Sons, 1933 2d. ed. 1935

167 For Lou Levy, see “Autogiro in 1936.” FortuneVol. XIII No. 3 March 1936 88 – 93, 130 – 131,134, 137 p. 89; Miller, John M. “Test Flying forKellett Autogiro Corporation” Rotorcraft. Vol. 30No. 7 October – November 1992 pp. 22 – 28 p. 22;“The First Scheduled Rooftop Flying Operation inAviation (Autogiro Air Mail Service at Philadelphia,1939-40)” Rotorcraft. Vol. 30 No. 6 September1992 pp. 24 – 33 p. 24; Gregory, HollingsworthFranklin. Anything A Horse Can Do: The Story ofthe Helicopter. p. 55 (“. . . and Lou Levy (later hisname was changed to Leavitt), test pilot forKellett.”)

168 Ray, James G. “Commercial Uses of RotaryWing Aircraft” Proceedings of Rotating WingAircraft Meeting. The Franklin Institute. Philadel-phia, PA, Oct. 28 – 29, 1938 pp. 63 – 69

169 A true statement. While the first Autogiro flownin America was the imported Cierva C.8W, the firstAutogiro actually built in America was the Pitcairn-Cierva Autogiro Company PCA-1 in 1929.

170 For a contemporary account of the delivery ofthe “roadable” Autogiro, see “Roadable Autogiro”AVIATION. Vol. 35 No. 11 November 1936 pp. 33– 34

171 On the AC-35, see Swinford, George R. “AC –35” Popular Rotorcraft Flying Vol. 7 No. 1 January– February 1969 pp. 20 – 22; reprinted in Love-grove, Peter Gyroplane Miscellavia Volume 5England: The British Rotorcraft Association 2004pp. 82 – 88; Hollmann, Martin “The Pitcairn AC-35”Gyroplane World. Issue 27 December 1978 pp. 3 –4; Aircraft of the National Air and Space Museum4th Ed. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian InstitutionPress 1991 (see “Pitcairn AC-35; For pictures ofthe various configurations of the AC-35, see Smith,Frank Kingston. Legacy of Wings: The Story ofHarold F. Pitcairn pp. 243 – 245; Townson,George. Autogiro: The Story of ‘the WindmillPlane’. pp. 59 – 61; Charnov, Bruce H. FromAutogiro to Gyroplane: The Amazing Survival ofan Aviation Technology. Westport, CT: PraegerPublishers 2003 pp. 112, 124 – 127, 137

172 For photographs of the AC-35 being driventhough the streets of Washington, D.C., seeBoyne, Walter J. The Aircraft Treasures of SilverHill. Pp. 137 - 139

173 “THE FAIREY ROTODYNE – Nearly TheAnswer.” West Coast Aviator’ September/-October1995 pp. 35 – 37

174 Cited by Brooks as a 4-5 seater. Brooks, PeterW. Cierva Autogiros: The Development of Rotary-Wing Flight. pp. 149 – 152

175 Noorduyn, Robert B. C. “Pitcairn PA-19 CabinAutogiro.” Aero Digest Vol. 22, No. 2 February1933 pp. 48 – 50 reprinted in Skyways: TheJournal of the Airplane 1920 – 1940. No. 72October 2004 pp. 56 – 59; Pitcairn Cabin Autogiro.(brochure) Willow Grove, PA: Autogiro Company ofAmerica 1937

176 With regard to Hafner, see the definitive paperLeishman, J. Gordon “The Gyroplanes, Helicoptersand Convertiplanes of Raoul Hafner” Paper pre-sented at the American Helicopter Society Forum61. Dallas, TX June 1 – 3, 2005 reprinted in Pro-ceedings of the American Helicopter Society For-um 61

177 Hafner, Raoul “The Hafner Gyroplane”Proceedings of Rotating Wing Aircraft Meeting.The Franklin Institute Philadelphia, PA, Oct. 28 –29, 1938 pp. 69 – 78

178 Hafner, Raoul “The Hafner Gyroplane” Journalof the Royal Aeronautical Society. Vol. 42 1938pp. 109 – 158 (including discussion)

179 Leishman, J. Gordon “The Gyroplanes, Helicop-ters and Convertiplanes of Raoul Hafner” pp. 1, 4180 For a description and discussion of Hafner’sAR.IV, AR.V, P.D.6 Helicopter and PD.7 “relativelyadvanced looking helicopter designs”, seeLeishman, J. Gordon “The Gyroplanes, Helicoptersand Converti-planes of Raoul Hafner” pp. 4 - 5

181 Lewis, Dr. George W. “Introductory Remarksfor Session on Rotary Wing Research Programs”Proceedings of Rotating Wing Aircraft Meeting,The Franklin Institute. Philadelphia, PA, Oct. 28 –29, 1938 pp. 84 - 85

182 Klemin, Alexander and Everett B. Schaefer “ANote on Rotary Aircraft Research” Proceedings ofRotating Wing Aircraft Meeting, The Franklin Insti-

tute. Philadelphia, PA, Oct. 28 – 29, 1938 pp. 85 –92

183 Knight, Professor Montgomery “HelicopterResearch Program of the Georgia School ofTechnology” Proceedings of Rotating WingAircraft Meeting, The Franklin Institute. Phila-delphia, PA, Oct. 28 – 29, 1938 pp. 92 – 99

184 Bailey, F. J. Jr. “The Rotating-Wing Research ofthe National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics”Proceedings of Rotating Wing Aircraft Meeting,The Franklin Institute. Philadelphia, PA, Oct. 28 –29, 1938 pp. 99 – 103

185 Johnson, Wayne Helicopter Theory. p. 965

186 Connor, Roger [Douglas] “50th AnniversaryPerspectives on the American Helicopter Industry”Vertiflite. p. 27

187 Citing Roland, A. Model Research: TheNational Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1915– 1958, Vol. 1, NASA Scientific and TechnicalInformation Branch, Washington, DC. 1985, p. 131

188 Hafner, Raoul “The Hafner Gyroplane andHelicopter” Proceedings of Rotating Wing AircraftMeeting, The Franklin Institute. Philadelphia, PA,Oct. 28 – 29, 1938 pp. 109 – 117

189 Fay, John. The Helicopter. Fig. 152 pp. 140 –141

190 Leishman, J. Gordon “The Gyroplanes,Helicopters and Convertiplanes of Raoul Hafner” p.1191 As Leishman goes on to note, “Hafner was alsoto introduce the concept of a collective pitch leverheld in the pilot’s left hand and a cyclic lever in thepilot’s right hand, which was to become thestandard for modern helicopters.”

192 A question that might well be asked of themilitary’s V-22 ‘tiltrotor’.

193 “An Investigation into the Problem of the RotorTorque of a Helicopter” Proceedings of RotatingWing Aircraft Meeting, The Franklin Institute.Philadelphia, PA, Oct. 28 – 29, 1938pp. 133 – 155

194 And, as illustrated by Leishman in his 2005paper on Hafner, he made “meticulous calculationsof the flow below the rotor [which] showed theeffectiveness of using fixed aerodynamic surfacesto counter rotor torque reaction and to give direct-ional control.”

195 Leishman , J. Gordon “The Gyroplanes,Helicopters and Convertiplanes of Raoul Hafner”

196 Hovgard, Paul E. “Future Types of Gyroplanes”Proceedings of Rotating Wing Aircraft Meeting,The Franklin Institute. Philadelphia, PA, Oct. 28 –29, 1938 pp. 118 – 124

197

198 See e.g., Glauert, H. “A General Theory of theAutogyro” British Aeronautical Research CouncilR&M 1111, Nov. 1926 reprinted in Journal ofRoyal Aeronautical Society. Vol. 31 No. 198 June1927 pp. 505 – 506 ; “A General Theory of theAutogyro” Air Ministry Aeronautical ResearchCommittee Report and Memoranda Number 1111London: November 1926; Glauert, H. and C. N. H.Lock “A Summary of the Experimental andTheoretical Investigations of the Characteristics ofan Autogiro” British Aeronautical Research CouncilR&M 1162 April 1928; but also see Cierva y Cod-orníu, Juan de la Letter to RAeS with commentson Glauert, H. “A General Theory of the Autogiro”

Journal of Royal Aeronautical Society. Vol. 31 No.198 1927 pp. 505 – 506

199 See e.g., Glauert, H. On the Horizontal Flight ofa Helicopter” British Aeronautical Research Coun-cil R&M 1157, March 1928; “On the Vertical Ascentof a Helicopter” British Aeronautical ResearchCouncil R&M 1132, Nov. 1927; see also Glauert,H. The Elements of Aerofoil and Airscrew Theory.Cambridge, England: Press Syndicate of theUniversity of Cambridge 1926, 1947 (reprinted1930, 1937, 1942) (Second edition 1947, reprinted1948, 1959, reissued 1983 in Cambridge ScienceClassics Series, reprinted 1986, 1993)

200 See e.g. “The Wilford Gyroplane” Aero Digest.Vol. 25 No. 2 February 1932 pp. 56 – 57; Daland,Elliot “Wilford Gyroplane” Aviation. January 1936p. 42; Brooks, Peter W. Cierva Autogiros: TheDevelopment of Rotary-Wing Flight. p. 23;Lambermont, Paul M., and Anthony Pirie. Heli-copters and Autogyros of the World. p. 406

201 On David Kay, see Lambermont, Paul M., andAnthony Pirie. Helicopters and Autogyros of theWorld. p. 123; Ellis, Ken British Home BuiltAircraft Since 1920. Liverpool, England: Mersey-side Aviation Society Publication 1979 pp. 173 –175; “Kay Gyroplane” Flight. December 27, 1934;“The Kay Gyroplane Type 331.” Aeroplane. Dec-ember 26, 1996 pp. 32 – 34; Ogden, Bob “KayGyroplane” WINGSPAN. August 1991 p. 37

202 Hovgard is probably referring to Focke, H. “TheFocke Helicopter” NACA TM 858, April 1938; seealso Leishman, J. Gordon “A History of HelicopterFlight” 2000 athttp://www.enae.umd.edu/AGRC/Aero/history.html

203 “Helicopter or Autogiro?” Flying Cadet. Vol. 2No. 2 February 1944 p. 46

204 Haymes, Dick I’ll Buy That Dream” 1946featured originally in the 1945 RKO Picture SingYour Way Home words by Herb Magidson, musicby Allie Wrubel

205 LePage, W[ynn] Laurence “The Helicopter inEurope” Proceedings of Rotating Wing AircraftMeeting, The Franklin Institute. Philadelphia, PA,Oct. 28 – 29, 1938 pp. 124 – 130

206 On LePage, see “Personalities in the HelicopterIndustry: Presenting Wynn Laurence LePage”American Helicopter. October 1947 pp. 19 , 27-28;Hendrickson, J. B[rian] Dr. W. Laurence LePage:Remem-bering A Forgotten Pioneer paperpresented at the From Autogiro to Gyro-plane:The Past, Present and Future of an AviationIndustry Conference at Hofstra University April 25– 26, 2003, reprinted in Charnov, Bruce H. andDavid Klein (eds.) FROM AUTOGIRO TOGYROPLANE CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS.Hempstead, NY: Hofstra University 2004; “W.Laurence LePage, From XR-1 to Tilt-Rotor” Paperpresented at the American Helicopter SocietyForum 61. Dallas, TX June 1 – 3, 2005 reprintedin Proceedings of the American Helicopter SocietyForum 61

207 Bréguet, Louis “The Gyroplane – Its Principlesand Its Possibilities” National Advisory Committeefor Aeronautics TM 816, January 1937

208 And, given the military alarm at the Fa-61 publicperformance, also made it easier for militaryintelligence to study the German helicopter.

209 On Friedrich von Boetticher, see Beck, Alfred M.Hitler's Ambivalent Attache: Lt. Gen. Friedrich VonBoetticher In America, 1933-1941. Dulles, VA:Potomac Books, Inc. 2005. The book descriptionstates that: Friedrich von Boetticher was Ger-many’s only military attaché accredited to the Unit-ed States between the world wars. As such, hewas Germany’s official military observer in thecapital of the nation whose potential as an ally ofthose powers arrayed against Adolf Hitler in the1930s might have given the dictator pause in anypredatory plans he harbored against his neighbors.Though von Boetticher produced a rich and detail-ed commentary on military and political affairs inWashington in the eight years prior to the outbreakof war between Germany and the United States in1941, he was nonetheless accused after the war ofmisjudging America’s productive potential andmisleading Hitler with overly optimistic reports. AsAlfred M. Beck points out, what he actually toldGerman authorities in Berlin is strikingly differentfrom what his detractors later claimed. Von Boet-ticher "permits a glimpse into the sociology of aconservative officer caste at once assailed by thepolitics of a regime and the impossibilities imposedon it, its weaknesses in resisting its evils, and its

eventual failure to present an alternative to Nation-al Socialism’s illusory attractions."A loyal German, von Boetticher had strong ties toAmerica. His mother was American-born, he spokeEnglish fluently, and he was enamored of Ameri-can military history. He was also anti-Semitic andbelieved that "Jewish wire-pullers" had undue in-fluence over the U.S. government and its policies.His professional ties to U.S. Army officers in theWar Department were so strong—supplying them,for example, with details on German air strengthand operations during the Battle of Britain in1940—that they survived until August 1941 andlong after the German ambassador himself hadbeen recalled. Torn between his duty to Germany(though the Nazi regime had attempted to harm hisson) and his deep affection for America, von Boet-ticher stood among the broad middle range of Ger-man officials who were neither perpetrator norvictim.

210 Munk, Dr. Max M. “High Speed With Safety”Proceedings of Rotating Wing Aircraft Meeting,The Franklin Institute. Philadelphia, PA, Oct. 28 –29, 1938 pp. 130 - 132