Evening star., 1947-08-01

,g before the Senate War Invest
contracts.
between the Defense Plant Corp. snc
the builders ON March ~, 1874.
One clause in that agreement pro.
vided that. effective not more thar
one year after delivery, the Hughe:
Tool Co. would lease the plane al
a basic rate of s37 500 per month. II
was provided also that. against this
rental fee. the Hughes Tool Co
could credit costs incurred by 1t ir
completing the plane, up to limit
of 100000.
There were two conditions under
which the lease could be Cancelled
One, by payment of $4,000 900, or il
the Government required the plane
in connection with the war.
The big flying boat, which neither
the Army nor Navy wants, cannot
pe approved for commercial service
unless it is dismantled and its basic
sections subjected tc
stress tests, according to testimony
late Yesterday by C. I. Stanton, dep
uty administrator OF the CAA.
CAA Alternatives Outlined.
This was brought out when Sem
ator Ferguson asked il the plane
could pass CAA requirements fol
an approved type certificate for com
mercial carriers.
No" Mr.. Stanton replied. Be
fore issuing the certificate. we
would have to conduct static tests.
To get the certificate. one OF two
things would have to be done.
One. tear the plan down for
stress tests which would approach
the point of destruction. This. of
course, might mean no plane after
all.
Two, build a duplicate hull and
wings for the static tests. Without
these tests, the CAA can issue only
an x or experimental type GER
tificate. permitting test crews but
not passengers to use the plane.
Another CAA expert. A. A. Voll-
mecke, chief of the airframe and
engineering division. tes-
tilted the second alternative would
cost at least several million dol
lars and require at least year.
CAA Inspectors Taken on.
Mr.. Stanton explained CAA in
spectors were pulled of the flying
boat job IN March, 1914, after plans
TO make three such boats, one for
static tests, were abandoned and
Mr.. Hughes obtained another con-
tract for only one plane at the
original price Of $1s,000.000.
The CAA experts had been as
signed to the job in its early stages
at request of Jesse Jones, former
Secretary of Commerce and war
time head of the Defense Plant
Corp, to make progress reports and
observe tests on components Of the
three planes then contemplated.
Later, the inspectors returned
from time to time to check on the
work at request of the Assistant
Secretary of Commerce. Mr.. Stan.
ton denied, however. the CAA was
responsible for supervising the worl
under the Defense Plants Corp. con.
tract.
Senator Mccarthy, Republican o,
Wisconsin. said witnesses from thu
Defense Plants Corp. had said the
CAA had this responsibility. adding
land now CAA witnesses tell us the
DPC was responsible. Actually, il
seems, there was no Federal super
vision whatever"
Handicaps Cited.
Reports from the inspectors leo
former Assistant Secretary Of Com
merce william "A. M. Burden to
write to former War Production
Board Chairman Donald Nelson in
1s43. pointing out that
the Army had cancelled contracts for
wooden planes: the Navy did not
want plywood boat for ocean
service, and the Hughes Co. was
having difficulty fabricating the big
plane and with the glueing processes
Senator Ferguson also read a
letter to Grover Loehning. the
WPB's aircraft consultant, in which
Mr.. Burden pointed out In January
1914, that the weight of the huge
plane probably would seriously re-
duce the pay load and the mainte-
nance would be expensive The avia =
ton expert expressed doubt that
the boat would have any real
utility in the commercial field"
Although extra weight occasioned
by internal bracing for carrying a
65-ton tank was eliminated when
the plane was redesigned for postwar
requirements. the empty plane now
weighs about what the first plan
specified, according to testimony OF
CAA experts. A large door through
which the tank was to enter has
oeen sealed.
Parts Being Redesigped.
Senator Cain. Republican. OF
Washington, asked: What is de-
laying taxing tests?"
W. A. Klickoff of the CAA's air.
frame and equipment engineering
branch, said Mr.. Hughes lis not
with the functioning OF
certsin parts. which are being re-
designed
The plane was moved from the
Culver City tCslifD plant in large
sections some n miles to a dry
dock in the Port of Los Angeles at
a cost of some $1,500,O
Senator Ferguson asked H
Robert Edwards. supervising engin-
eer for the Defense Plants Corp
at Los Angeles. who had been as
signed to the Hughes project. why
Mr.. Hughes leased the airplane and
what he intends to do with it.
L don't know" was the reply.
In response to question, Mr.
Stanton said that he and two other
CAA avy,axte uhA teetSAAl ,,nefnr