Evening star., 1934-02-09

see If We could advertise for the
planes on a competitive basis"
We've advertised" Woodring said,
"and those bids are in, but have not
been VALIDATED, and the result will not
be known for couple of weeks"
Representative James. Republican,
Of Michigan. interposed to say that in
this case the Air Corps chief had
asked that the specifications call for
pursuit planes capable of 230-mile-
an-hour speed. but contractors had
bid on planes capable of only 176
miles.
Where the Air Corps asked a flying
range of 500 miles and an ability to
go up 27800 feet. James asserted, the
advertised specifications called for
planes with a range of 1856 miles and
a ceiling of 1900 feet.
Woodring recently appeared for two
hours before the District grand jury
to aid in its inquiry on reported at
tempts to influence Army motor con-
tract making.
The House Committee had before It
today governmental audit showing
IollIl lOlS 1ldo PiOllAo
as high as 80 per cent on Army air.
plane orders. This figure was credited
to the Boeing Airplane Co. for its
1882 contract work. Other high
profits totals by other concerns also
were listed
The Government audit showed that
from 1923 through eight months Of
1893, Boeing's total Army airplane
sales were S4,5292 208, and the average
profit 80 per cent.
The Military Affairs Committee will
investigate these figures. The House
Naval Committee already is making
similar inquiry Detailed figures on
Army contract profits did not become
available until yesterday.
The audit showed the Pratt-Whit-
ney Co. from 1927 through the first
four months of 1888 collected Sl2080.-
222 from the Army for airplane en-
gines, making % per cent profit.
In 1927 the Army bought 1926, 1856
worth of hornet engines from Pratt
Whitney, on which the contractor
was shown to have made 73 per cent;
in 1923 the Army paid Pratt Whitney
S22O,l39 for wasp engines, on which
the company's profit was placed at
48 per cent.
Pratt Whitney Profits.
In 1880 Pratt -Whitney's profit on
Army engine sales was shown by the
audit to have been 25 per cent; in
1881 it was listed at % per cent; in
1882, 25 pe- cent and for the first
four month Of 1888 only 7 per cent.
Some figures from the audit on
other companies:
Curtiss Aeroplane & Motor Co.,
total Army sales. S4826,987 from 1929
through the first four months of 1888,
profit, IA per cent: Douglas Aircraft
Co., total sales. S9,740, ,469, from 1880
through the first eight months of
1888. profit. 10 per cent; Bendix
Stromberg Co., total carburetor sales,
S8O,61O, from 1880 through six months
of 1888, profit, 68 per cent.
The Wright Aeronautical Co., Pratt
Whitney's biggest competitor in the
engine field, was listed as having total
Army sales Of Sl9,020710 from 1927
through the first two months of 1888.
but as having suffered a 3 per cent
loss on them.
Boeing'S average 80 per cent Army
profit was calculated from these fig
ures: 1929, sales. S374,864, profit,
per cent; 1880, sales, $1,207,37l, profit,
II per cent: nine months of 1881,
sales, $1,805 .89l, profit, SIS per cent;
three months of 1881 and eight
months of 1882, sales, 1924 .439. profit.
90 per cent; four months of 1882 and
eight months of 1888, sales, $846, ,O25
and. profit, IA per cent.
Douglas suffered % per cent loss
in eight months of 1888, but in 1882
its profit was per cent. in 1881 1t
was 33 per cent and in 1929-1930, %
per cent.
Some other firms besides Wright
were shown to have suffered losses.
Cne of these was the Consolidated
Aircraft Co. whose Army sales were
S1,897,585 for 1881. 1882 and four
months of 1888, with loss Of per
cent.
Comparison Of Profits.
Members of the Naval and Military
Committees Immediately began COM
pairing tIlc pIollIS oil AiAiy oAo A>o'J
business.
The audit showed that where Pratt
Whitney made % per cent on Army
sales. its Navy profit on $2l .299,867
was 36 per cent; Curtiss' IA per cent
profit on Army sales contrasted with
6 loss on Navy contracts; Consoli-
dated lost per cent on Army busi-
ness. but made 2.8 per cent on the
Navy's; Douglas Army profit was 19
per cent, its Navy profit 81 per cent;
Boeings Army profit was 80 per cent,
it's Navy profit 81 per cent; Wright's
Army loss of 3 per cent compared
with Navy profit of per cent, and
Bendix made 4S per cent on Navy bus
iness, against 68 per cent on Army
contracts.