Fairfax Naulty. In view of the actualities of the spending of over a billion of dollars for the manufacture of airplanes and the failure to get such airplanes to the American Expeditionary Forces in France until after the Armistice, the great fuss made by Menoher and Jones over an expense bill covering nearly 6 months, every item of which was supported by vouchers and amounting to a little over $1,000, seems ridiculous petty fogging. Section K is filled with untruths. General Kenly's telegram to the Director of Air Service August 23, 1919, copied in enclosure No. 4, disposes of all questions of authority given Fairfax Naulty by General Kenly. It is not garrulous, but it is absolutely definite. General Kenly did authorize Fairfax Naulty to go ahead and that expenses would be paid (digression). Why Menoher and Jones went to all the trouble they did is still a puzzle to Fairfax Naulty, who hesitates to give his credence to the presistent suggestions of oblique reasons by both men. Nil nisi bonum de mortuius. General Menoher died August 14, 1930, hence he cannot explain; nor can Fairfax Naulty, ethically or decently, attack the reputation of a dead man, even though for over 20 years the files of the Air Service and the War Department contained errors in statement, to call them such, that have harmed him and that have only come to his knowledge within the last fortnight or the battle would have been fought out to get a correct record long ago. Maj. B. Q. Jones' letter to General Menoher is filled with inaccuracies-to use a mild term. Jones admits that he had no personal knowledge of what hẹ sets forth, a Major Lake then being in charge of the Technical Section, and Brig. Gen. William L. Kenly, Director of Military Aeronautics, which had succeeded the Signal Corps Air Service, previously in charge of aircraft design and production. Maj. B. Q. Jones was later demoted and transferred to another branch of the Army, the implication at the time being that he was not up to the duties of technical operations in aeronautics. If the statements that follow seem incredible, reference may be had to the reports of the Hughes (now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), Lampert, and other committees of investigation and the report of the Morrow Board, in which statements are set forth far more derogatory to the persons named than any that are made, and based on fact, by Fairfax Naulty in this brief. After the cinema-sand tests were made at Bolling Field, General Kenly, at one of the talks with Fairfax Naulty, asked if tests could be made by flowing water across the wing sections and photographing the results both in plan and from a side elevation, as Fairfax Naulty had mentioned in an earlier talk. General Kenly was told that no facilities were available in Washington and that the nearest place usable for such experiment was the public aquarium in New York, where Fairfax Naulty had made many studies of fish bodies in movement to determine nature's way of reducing movement resistance by water pressure by "streamlining" fish bodies. General Kenly said: "Why not try it?" So Fairfax Naulty and his son went to New York and negotiated with the superintendent of the aquarium with a view to using one or more of the fish tanks for this purpose, the work to be done after the aquarium closed for the day. The difficulties of getting satisfactory results and of getting an equipment made for placing of the cameras were so many that after about 10 days the project was given up. A Signal Corps photographer was delegated by Major General Suier, Chief Signal Officer, and he was sent to New York to "stand by." This man, whose name, as I recall it, was Gilmore, was what is known as "nosy" and was always asking questions, where I was and what I was doing, etc. As I was in charge of the work and his job was to photograph when needed, I probably told him the story about the gulls, as he was a gullible sort of being, anyway. That is probably how the foolish gull story started. I had made many still photos of birds of all sorts in flight and needed no more for my present purpose at that time. That such silly "gab" should be entered on the record and stuffily reported to General Menoher by B. Q. Jones 'is about as inane a thing as I ever heard of. It is too bad that the time of the committee and my time should be needed to offset the "report" of B. Q. Jones, but some answer seems to be required and hence is briefly given. B. Q. Jones has been shifted about a good deal in the service, as the Adjutant General's Office could indicate. Reverting to parachutes: Fairfax Naulty can still recall his bitter disappointment over the cavalier treatment of his parachute attachable to and detachable from the body of a pilot (Fairnault portable parachute) by W. C. Durand and the subsequent lack of confidence in the decisions of the officials of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Today troops, equipment, tanks, and artillery are flown in by planes and dropped back of the lines of an opposing force and the lives of many pilots have been saved by the use of parachutes operated on the original Fairfax Naulty plan. On pages 3, 4, and 5, section 1, of H. R. 2864, the descriptions of the aeronautical inventions of the Fairfax Naultys are so succinctly and briefly set forth that it seems redundant to repeat the information in the brief. Exact dates of reduction to practice of all these inventions, with dates of the technical copyright, are being checked back and will be available for inclusion in the record for the Committee on Claims or the chairman of the subcommittee. Much explanatory data is marked out in the hearings before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives for the purchase of Fairfax Naulty inventions in aviation, held on April 18, 1930, a copy of which is attached. It may be asked why the Fairfax Naultys delayed so long in asking for adjudication on their claims by the Court of Claims of the United States of America. The answer is that both hated to be compelled to go into suit to collect what they thought was due them for their inventions and preferred to continue their development of aeronautical devices in the hopeful expectation that sooner or later their work would receive recognition and compensation. Besides, when litigation begins invention ends, as the elder Naulty found out in a patent suit years ago, which he finally won, but during which time he produced nothing of moment in invention. The Fairfax Naultys respectfully ask for a personal appearance before the subcommittee of the Committee on Claims of the House of Representatives, that they may fortify this brief by oral testimony. Sincerely yours, EDWIN FAIRFAX NAULTY, DESCRIPTION AND SPECIFICATIONS OF METHOD USED AND RESULTS ATTAINED IN THE TECHNICAL APPLICATION OF THE FAIRNAULT CINEMA-SAND TEST SYSTEM FOR AIRCRAFT AS SHOWN IN THE FILM HERE WITH DEPOSITED COPYRIGHT, 1919, BY EDWIN FAIRFAX NAULTY AND LESLIE FAIRFAX NAULTY, OF NEW YORK The Fairnault cinema-sand testing system was invented to show the effect of air flow across aerofoils and other parts of an aircraft, that designers, constructors, and users might see the actual results of propellor thrust upon wing sections. Hitherto there has been no satisfactory method by which this could be done. What the airman is interested in particularly is the effect of the air flow from the moment it strikes the leading edge of the aerofoils of an aircraft until it has flown astern of the trailing edge. The frontal air attack and the backwash of the air flow are important factors in flight, and hitherto all knowledge of the effect of these elements has been speculative. If it were possible to see the air flow many disputed questions could be readily settled. Attempts have been made to do this by the use of smoke and water, but the smoke is lighter than air and highly compressible, so it is impossible to get a true idea of the action of air flow from the moment the air flow strikes the leading edge, as the method has been to blow the smoke from a place ahead of the leading edge. As airplanes fly in the air and do not float in water, tests in water are not satisfactory. So Edwin Fairfax Naulty and Leslie Fairfax Naulty devised a system by means of which the actual air flow could be seen and the desired results obtained. A power plant equipped with a propeller is set up in suitable position. This provides a determinate air flow, the speed of which is under control. A chosen model, of practical size, of an aerofoil is then set up on a suitable holding frame or structure so the model is in the line of the air flow generated by the power plant and propeller. On the model to be tested is carefully sifted, by manual or mechanical means, selected sand or other granular substance. Sand is preferred and was used in the cinema tests herewith deposited. A curtain is provided between the power plant and propeller and the model. The power plant is started and operated until the propeller has reached the desired revolutions per minute. This achieved, the curtain is withdrawn from between the propeller and the model being tested when the air flow sharply strikes the model. The sand, or other granular material, is blown off the model by the air flow, and it will follow the exact contour of the air flow across the model. From visual observation of the action of the sand the aviation technician is enabled to ascertain the amount of lift, lift over drift, drag astern, and other factors. But human observation is open to error; and conditions are often misinterpreted. The camera, however, has no personal equation, so to record the results of any experiment of this nature the inventors photograph the action of the sand-impregnated air flow. A still photograph gives only one impression; a cinema photographic series gives many impressions. So at a suitable place, according to whether a plan, side, under, or angular view is desired, a cinema, or motionpicture camera, is set up, properly equipped. The film speed of such camera may be the usual one of 16-18 pictures per second, or it may range as high as 200 plus pictures per second. The faster the motion pictures are taken the slower the apparent action when the resulting positive is projected. Both methods have value, and both are covered in the invention. The camera is kept in operation until all the sand is blown away. If desired, additional sand may be sifted over the model and the process of photographing continued, on the same film. The film is then developed in the usual manner, and from the negatives obtained as many positives as are required are made. The positive is then placed in a projecting machine and the motion pictures thrown on a suitable screen. The result is that aviation technicians and others are enabled to see the effect of the air flow as indicated by the flying sand and thereby to correct faults in construction of wing sections or other parts of aircraft as well as to observe the actual action of air flow from an air screw under varying conditions of wind pressure. If the photography has been done at normal speed, certain results are obtained. If the speed is superspeed the projection of the pictures appears so slow that the action can be observed in minute detail. Further, the technician can study the film itself without projection, and panel by panel, and thus observe many results that his eye might miss in the projection. Enlargements of critical or particularly valuable single pictures can be made and studied. The Fairnault cinema sand testing system can be operated in the open air or in a suitably prepared building or housing where the necessary artificial light can be provided, outside or natural air currents excluded, and all factors controlled. Further, a battery of cameras can be used to take the attack, the flow across the aerofoil, and the backwash, and the results can be projected or otherwise examined. Since it is necessary to provide a background against which the sand or other granular material can be seen, various recording instruments may be mounted on this background and photographed at the same time the tests are photographed. These instruments would be provided with recording dials which would show the revolutions per minute of the air screw, the time occupied in making the test, the heat and humidity of the air, and the barometric pressure and all other technical factors in the test. The motion-picture film herewith deposited shows, in part, tests made of 19 differently contoured aerofoil models and of the upper and under surfaces of each. The value of the Fairnault cinema sand tests is increased by the fact that the film may be used to train student aviators and aviation technicians and others interested in the art. BEN GRUNSTEIN FEBRUARY 13, 1945.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. McGEHEE, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 2055] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2055) for the relief of Ben Grunstein, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. A similar bill was favorably reported by this committee in the Seventy-eighth Congress. The facts will be found fully set forth in House Report No. 1143, Seventy-eighth Congress, which is appended hereto and made a part of this report. [H. Rept. No. 1143, 78th Cong., 2d sess. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to appropriate the sum of $600 to Ben Grunstein, of Hudson County, N. J. Such sum represents reimbursement by the United States of an amount paid by him in part satisfaction of the judgment had and taken against him in the sum of $2,500 as surety on a bond for the appearance of Reuben Finn. STATEMENT OF FACTS It appears that Ben Grunstein, who is engaged in the wholesale butcher business in Hoboken, N. J., signed a bond in the amount of $2,500 for the appearance of Reuben Finn to appear in court. Mr. Grunstein is not a professional bondsman. He signed Reuben Finn's bond at the request of a friend of many years' standing and who was related by marriage to the defendant. Mr. Grunstein did not receive any compensation for signing the bond. After the defendant, Reuben Finn, defaulted, Mr. Grundstein made every effort to locate him by communicating with the police departments in Newark, Jersey City, and New York City; advertising in the newspapers; and checking at morgues in various cities and counties in New Jersey and New York. The defendant was later apprehended, convicted, and confined to a Federal penitentiary, with very little expense to the United States Government. Mr. Grunstein paid the sum of $1,000 on the bond, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that it cost the United States any sum in excess of $400 to apprehend the fugitive. Therefore, it is recommended by your committee that Mr. Grunstein be reimbursed in the sum of $600 and that he be relieved from further liability on the bond. Appended hereto is report of the Attorney General, together with other pertinent evidence. Hon. DAN R. McGEHEE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C., January 10, 1944 Chairman, Committee on Claims, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This refers to the bill (H. R. 3190) to relieve Ben Grunstein of liability on a bail bond for $2,500 given by him in behalf of one Reuben Finn. The facts relating to this claim as they appear in the files of this Department were summarized in my letter to you dated September 16, 1943. By letter dated January 7, 1944, you have submitted for my review an affidavit sworn to by Ben Grunstein. The following additional facts appear from the affidavit. Mr. Grunstein is engaged in the wholesale butcher business in Hoboken, N. J., and is not a professional bondsman. He executed the bail bond in question at the request of a friend of many years' standing, who was related by marriage to the defendant in the case. It further appears that Mr. Grunstein did not receive any compensation in the matter. After the defendant defaulted, Mr. Grunstein made efforts to locate him by communicating with the police departments in Newark, Jersey City, and New York City; advertising in the newspapers; and checking at morgues in various cities and counties in New Jersey and New York. As appears in my prior letter, the defendant was eventually apprehended, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced. Whether, in the light of the additional facts now presented, any relief should be granted to the claimant is a question of legislative policy concerning which I have no suggestion to make. I suggest, however, that under any circumstances, the amount of the relief, if any, should be reduced by the sum of $1,000, which would approximately and roughly cover the expenses incurred by the Government in searching for and apprehending the defendant, and removing him from the place of arrest to the place where the case was disposed of. Mr. Grunstein's affidavit is returned herewith. Sincerely yours, FRANCIS BIDDLE, Attorney General. AFFADAVIT OF BEN GRUNSTEIN In re United States of America v. Reuben Finn, principal, Ben Grunstein, surety. Ben Grunstein, of full age, being duly sworn according to law upon his oath, deposes and says. reside at 820 Avenue C, Bayonne, Hudson County, N. J., and formerly resided at 65 West Thirty-eighth Street, Bayonne, Hudson County, N. J. I am 53 years of age and the husband of Flora Grunstein and the father of three adult children, viz, William Grunstein, my associate in business; Sylvia Liberman; and Arthur Grunstein, a member of the United States Marine Corps now stationed in the South Pacific area. I have been engaged in the wholesale butcher business for the past 30 years and have been located at 502 Observer Highway (formerly Ferry Street), Hoboken, Hudson County, N. J., for the past 21 years. I own said property, and I also own premises 302-304–306 Communipaw Avenue, Jersey City, N. J., for approximately 20 years. During this period of time I have gone bail for approximately six people, and they were all either personal friends or employees, and at no time have I ever acted as a professional bondsman or ever exacted from anyone any compensation, reward, or payment for giving myself as surety for them. On July 18, 1939, at the request of one David Braverman, and after the advice and approval of my personal attorney, John B. Graf, 26 Journal Square, Jersey City, N. J., I agreed to act as surety for one Reuben Finn who was being arraigned |