The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1921-08-02

cident to determine the cause thereof;
any failure or neglect on the part of
! individuals concerned; any defect in
the particular plane used; the suita-
bility of this plane for military serv-
| ice; any other contributory causes;
and the accuracy of various alleged
statements made at the time of the
accident to the effect that the machine
was badly balanced, had too small a
motor, too much weight, etc.
The investigation, which was most
thorough, was made by Colonel G..
LeR. Irwin, assisted by Lieut.-Col. r.
c. Humber, both of the Inspector Cen
erals department, and the conclusion
reached was that the actual destruc-
ton of the Curtis Eagle was due to
the intensity of the storm which over
whelmed it and drove it into a fatal
dive to earth.
The testimony concerning the pilot,
Lieut.. Ames, clearly established his
ability as flier and his worth as
man. He had been physically exam
ined two and a half weeks prior to
the flight on May 20. Lieut.. Ames
was familiar with the Curtis Eagle,
and was especially selected to act as
pilot for the flight to Langley field.
There was no doubt that he was fully
competent to pilot a plane of that
type, and the accident cannot be con-
sidered to have been due to any fault
of his.
With regard to the Eagle" the re-
port goes on to state that from the
testimony of those who. have actually
handled these planes, they possess
great ease of control for plane of
large size, a very satisfactory ma
neuvering ability, and capacity to car
ry heavy loads; that Lieut.. Kirkpat-
rick, who has handled this type of
plane to a greater extent than any
other officer of the Air Service, com
mends it highly for activity of con-
troll efficient performance in weight
lifting, and superior construction, he
having tested this particular plane in
very heavy weather.
Captain DeLavergne's criticism that
the weight of the passengers, as placed
in the flight to Langley Field. had Il
tendency to depress the tail of the
plane, and to render it difficult to con-
troll, is controverted by the testimony
Lieut.. Kirkpatrick, both of whom
have flown this plane with an equal
or greater number of passengers than
carried on May %. Lieut.. Kirkpat-
ricks testimony regarding the dis
tribution of the weight carried during
an endurance test of Is hours would
seem to disprove Capt. deLavergne's
theory. A condition such as described
could be compensated by an adjust
ment of the stabiizer.
The opinion of all witnesses was
that the crash was due to the sever
ity of the storm encountered near
Morgantown; the unfavorable wealth
err conditions including poor visibility,
low ceiling and bumpy air, heavy rain,
accompanied by thunder, lightning and
strong wind. The testimony indicates
that, due to the intensity of the
storm, the pilot followed the only
course open to him in the interest of
his passengers; that is, to endeavor
to make the landing with the least
possible delay; and that he could not
have followed the course taken by
General Mitchell, Captain ecker and
Major Turner. 1t is generally accept
ed that the machine went into a stall,
due to an air current, and fell into a
vertical nose dive. The fuselage in
which the passengers were riding was
completely destroyed from impact with
the ground. It is almost certain that
the lightning played no part in the
accident.
The investigation disclosed the fact
hof he CT -
Walsh TO return to Washington by
boat was due to the discomfort ex-
perienced in the confined cabin, or
cockpit, on the trip down. Mr.. Walsh
was especially affected by the I'M
pleasant air impregnated with fumes
of gasoline and oil. They were not
influenced by any other reason.