NO - 3 LANGLE-} MEMOIK ON MECHANICAL FLIGHT 275 



the rear of the point where the wood is torn, this rear-bearing point musl 

 have travelled downward at an angle of approximate^ thirtj eighl degrees in 

 order for the bearing point to strike the cai al this point. As the lower end of 

 the rear guy-pest was only eighteen inches above the cross piece of the launch- 

 ing car, it, of course, would be broken before the bearing point could descend 

 so much. As has been previously slated, Mr. Reed, who was at the rear of the 

 launching track, states very positively that the rudder was dragging on the 

 track at least ten feet before the launching car reached the fronl cad of the 

 track where the machine was actually launched. There arc several ways in 

 which the rudder could have gotten down on the track, but positive informa- 

 tion is lacking. If it was dragging on the track, as Mr. Reed states (and from 

 bis extended experience and rather acute powers of observation I should place 

 great credence in bis report), the subsequent demolition of the guj posts suc- 

 ceeded by the destruction of the rear wings and serious injury of the front 

 ones is easily explained. If the dropping of the rudder on the tract occurred 

 Prom the breaking of the upper rudder post, over which the upper control wire 

 passed, the lower vertical surface would first come in contact with the track, 

 and the destruction of this part would certainly occasion subsequent destruc- 

 tion of the horizontal and upper vertical surfaces of the rudder, leaving the 

 central rib of the rudder still attached to the frame, and upon the machine be- 

 ing released from the car a few moments later this destroyed rudder would 

 easily catch in the launching car and pull the aerodrome down on it, and thus 

 cause the destruction of the givy-posts, wings, and so forth. If the dropping of 

 the rudder was caused primarily by its main rib breaking loose from its con- 

 nection with the frame, the rudder would still be dragged along behind the ma- 

 chine by the wire cords through which it was operated, and the subsequent 

 launching of the machine would still give the rudder every chance to catch in 

 the launching car and drag the machine down on it. 



It can therefore be said that, while positive information is lacking, there is 

 very strong evidence that the accident in the launching was due to the rudder 

 becoming entangled with the launching track owing to the breakage of some 

 part of the mechanism by which it was connected to the main frame. 



It is of importance to note that the photograph furnishes incontrovertible 

 evidence that the main frame of the machine was in no way injured, exec] it for 

 the slight bending of the forward curved extension, and that, therefore, the ac- 

 cident was in no way due to the weakness of the frame. The main frame was 

 not even injured by the machine coming down in the water on its back, and the 

 later damage was entirely caused by the combination of the ignorance of the 

 tug-boatmen and the darkness in which they were working, when they attempted 

 to tow it to the rear of the house-boat so that it could be removed from the water. 



