Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T03:44:21.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Naval Aircraft Factory, the American Aviation Industry, and Government Competition, 1919–1928

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

William F. Trimble
William F. Trimble
Affiliation:
William F. Trimble is assistant professor of history atAuburn University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The economics of the American aircraft manufacturing industry have been determined in large measure by government aviation policies and the market for military airplanes. This was most apparent in the 1920s, when the industry suffered from sharply reduced military orders and an almost nonexistent demand for civilian aircraft. Struggling for survival, manufacturers singled out the Naval Aircraft Factory, a large navy-owned and run facility in Philadelphia, as at least partially responsible for the dislocation of their industry; they insisted that it and other forms of “government competition” be eliminated. Professor Trimble explores in this article how the ensuing controversy caused naval and civilian officials in the 1920s to develop policies that integrated the factory into naval aircraft procurement and helped to ameliorate the problems of private aircraft contractors.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , Summer 1986 , pp. 175 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 11 Nov. 1918 entry, Naval Aircraft Factory Log, Historian's Office, Naval Air Systems Command, Washington, D.C.; for a summary of flying boat work at the factory, see Lt. Cdr. Frederick G. Coburn, memo to Bureau of Construction and Repair, 30 Nov. 1918, file 404–Z–2, box 289, Bureau of Aeronautics, General Correspondence initiated in the Bureau of Construction and Repair, 1917–25, Record Group 72, National Archives, Washington, D.C. [hereafter cited as BuAer, Gen. Cor. 1917–25, RG 72]. There is no detailed scholarly study of the Naval Aircraft Factory, but for a generally reliable account of the First World War years based on the log at the Historian's Office. Naval Air Systems Command, see Robb, Izetta Winter, “The Navy Builds an Aircraft Factory”, in Naval Aviation in World War I, ed. Van Wyen, Adrien O. (Washington, D.C., 1969), 34–37Google Scholar.

2 Chandler, Alfred D. Jr,The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), 495Google Scholar, stresses that, while the government's role in the general market for goods and services has been minimal, there were exceptions in selected industries, including aircraft manufacturing. The best overview of military aircraft procurement policies is Holley, Irving Brinton Jr,Buying Aircraft: Materiel Procurement for the Army Air Forces (Washington, D.C., 1964), 80–87Google Scholar.

3 Davis, George T., A Navy Second to None: The Development of Modern American Naval Policy New York, 1940), 22, 45–47, 90, 227–28Google Scholar; McCraw, Thomas K., TVA and the Power Fight, 1933–1939 Philadelphia, 1971), 30Google Scholar, examines the “yardstick” functions of the power complex in the context of Franklin D. Roosevelt's advocacy during the First World War of a government armor-plate factory. See also Jenkins, Innis LaRoche, “Josephus Daniels and the Navy Department, 1913–1916 A Study in Military Administration” (Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland, 1960), 95–104Google Scholar. For Daniel's arguments for a government aircraft plant, see U.S. Cong., House, Hearings Before the Committee Naval Affairs … on Estimates Submitted by the Secretary of the Navy, 1915. 63d Cong., 3d sess. (Washington, D.C., 1915), 700Google Scholar. 710; Taylor summarized his views in a letter to Daniels, 10 July 1917, file 28815–,1, no. 16825–A1, box 2833; Secretary of the Navy, General Correspondence, 1916–26, General Records of the Navy Dept., Record Group 80, National [hereafter cited as SecNav, Gen. Cor. 1916–26, RG 80].

4 Coletta, Paolo E., Admiral Bradley A. Fiske and the American Navy (Lawernce, Kansas, 1979), viii–ixGoogle Scholar; U.S. Cong., House, Hearings Hefore the Committee on Maval Affairs …1915, 277.

5 Memorandum of the History of the Naval Aircraft factor” undated, file 404-Z-3, box 289, BuAer, Gen. Cor. 1917–25, RG 72; press release, “How the Navy Builds Flying Boats Ahead of Schedule,” in Lt. Cdr. E. M. Stark to Lt. C. C. Lohmann, 2 Dee. 1918, ibid.

6 Memo, Coburn to Bureau of Construction and Repair, 25 Nov. 1918, file 404–Z–2, ibid.

7 Rae, John B., Climb to Greatness: The American Aircraft Industry, 1920–1960 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 1–3Google Scholar.

8 Taylor to Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, 6 Nov. 1918, file 404–Z–2 (A) 12/4, box 289, BuAer, Gen. Cor. 1917–25, RG 72.

9 Mingos, Howard, “Birth of an Industry,” in The History of the American Aircraft Industry: An Anthology, ed. Simonson, G. R. (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 46–47Google Scholar; Aircraft Year Book, 1920 (New York 1920) 120–22Google Scholar.

10 U.S. Cong., House, Hearings Before the Committee on Naval Affairs … on Estimates Submitted by the Secretary of the Navy, 1920, 2 vols., 66th Cong., 2d sess. (Washington, D.C., 1920), 1: 1610Google Scholar.

11 Ibid., 1: 1610–11, 1634.

12 Featherston, Frank H., “A.E.D.O.: A History and a Heritage,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 94 (Feb. 1968): 38Google Scholar; U.S. Cong., House, Hearings Before the Committee on Naval Affairs … 1920, 1: 1634, 1637.

13 Mingos, “Birth of an Industry,” 54. For McCook Field-built aircraft in 1919–23, see Aviation 18 (26 Jan. 1925): 102–3.

11 Freudenthal, Elsbeth E., The Aviation Business. From Kitty Hawk to Wall Street (New York, 1940), 41–42Google Scholar; Holley, Buying Aircraft, 83–84.

15 Memo of conference, 4 Jan. 1921. file 404–Z–1(A), vol. 4, box 4025, file NPII, Bureau of Aeronautics, General Correspondence, 1925–42, Record Group 72, National Archives [hereafter cited as BuAer, Gen. Cor. 1925–42, RG 72]; U.S. Cong., House, Hearings Before the Committee on Naval Affairs … on Sundry Legislation Affecting the Naval Establishment, 1921. 67th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington, D.C., 1922), 31–32Google Scholar.

16 Turnbull, Archibald D. and Lord, Clifford L., History of Naval Aviation (New Haven, Conn., 1949), 188–90Google Scholar; U.S. Cong., House, Hearings Before the Committee on Naval Affairs … 1921,94–95, Aviation 10 (4 April 1921): 432Google Scholar.

17 Memo, Taylor to assistant secretary of the navy, 12 July 1921, vol. 6, box 4025, file NP11, BuAer, Gen. Cor. 1925–42, RG 72.

18 Memo, Taylor to Moffett, 22 Aug. 1921, file 404-Z-3(A), ibid.

19 Memo, Hunsaker to Moffett, 21 Oct. 1921, ibid.

20 Aircraft Year Book, 1920, 120–22; U.S. Cong., House, Hearings Before the Committee on Naval Affairs … 1920, 1: 1611.

21 Bowman, Chester Grainger, “The Philadelphia Naval Aircraft Factory and the Emerging American Aircraft Industry, 1917–1927: A Case Study of Business-Government Relations” (Senior thesis, Princeton University, 1969), 56–57Google Scholar; Moffett to Materials Division, Bureau of Aeronautics, memo on conference, 9 Dec. 1921, Aer-P-BGS, 404–1, 601–1, vol. 6, box 4025, file NF11, BuAer, Gen. Cor. 1925–42, RG 72.

22 Memo, Moffett to Denby, 9 Jan. 1922, Aer-M-BB, 404–1, vol. 7, box 4026, file NPll, BuAer, Gen. Cor. 1925–42, RG 72.

23 The Harding administration's philosophy of business-government relations is summarized in Murray, Robert K.The Politics of Normalcy Governmental Theory and Practice in the Harding-Coolidge Era (New York, 1973), 32Google Scholar. Lee M. Pearson “Notes on the History of the Naval Aircraft Factory” undated MS in Historian's Office, Naval Air Systems Command Washington D.C., 4, emphasizes Moffett's political motives in ending aircraft production at Philadelphia.

24 Bowman, “Philadelphia Naval Aircraft Factory,” 57–58; U.S. Cong., House, Hearings Before the Committee on Naval Affairs … on Sundry Legislation Affecting the Naval Establishment, 1922–1923 67th Cong., 2d 3d, 4th sess. (Washingtinm D.C., 1923). 1064, 1159.Google Scholar

25 Moffett to Denby, 20 Dec. 1923, Aer-M-1-QL, 404-1, box 2833, file 28815-83½, SecNav. Gen. Cor. 1916-26, RG 80.

26 Moffett to Denby, 30 Dee. 1922, Aer-M-12-AQ, 22-14. 404–1, vol. 6, box 4025, file NP11, BuAer, Gen. Cor. 1925–42, RG 72; Bowman, “Philadelphia Naval Aircraft Factory,” 58–59.

27 Holley, Buying Aircraft, 85–87.

28 U.S. Cong., House, Inquiry into Operations of the United States Air Services: Hearing on Matters Relating to Operations of United States Air Services, 68th Cong. (Washington, D.C., 1925), pt. 2: 1388Google Scholar; “Publisher's News Letter,” Aviation 17 (15 Dec. 1924): 1413Google Scholar.

29 U.S., Hearings Before the President's Aircraft Board, 4 vols. (Washington, D.C., 1925), 4: 1413Google Scholar, 1416; Mingos, “Birth of an Industry,” 61–62.

30 Turnbull and Lord, History of Naval Aviation, 240–43.

31 U.S. Cong., House, Inquiry into Operations of the United States Air Services, pt. 2: 918, 931, 937.

32 Ibid., 1002–3.

33 Ibid., 1124.

34 Ibid., 1496–97.

35 Ibid., 1498–99.

36 Land to Robinson, 7 Feb. 1925, Aer-M-BB, 404–1, vol. 8, box 4026, file NP11, BuAer, Gen. Cor. 1925–42, RG 72.

37 U.S. Cong., House, Report of the Select Committee of Inquiry into Operations of the United States Air Services, House Report No. 1653. 68th Cong., 2d sess. (Washington, D.C., 1925), 2, 3–4, 8, 15–16Google Scholar.

38 U.S., Hearings Before the President's Aircraft Board, 1: 205–6, 247.

39 Ibid., 2: 805–7; 4: 1662–64.

40 Ibid., 4: 1412–19.

41 Ibid., 1650–52.

42 U.S., President's Aircraft Board, Aircraft in National Defense: A Message from the President of the United States Transmitting the Report of the Board … to Make a Study of the Best Means of Developing and Applying Aircraft in National Defense (Washington, D.C., 1925). 6–10, 26–28, 29Google Scholar.

43 Weyerbacher, R. D., “Proposed Functions of the Naval Aircraft Factory,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 52 (Dec. 1926): 2428–31Google Scholar.

44 Ibid., 2431–33.

45 Weyerbacher to commandant, Philadelphia Navy Yard, 19 June 1928, L9/NAF (7490), vol. 9, box 4026, file NPII, BuAer, Gen. Cor. 1925–42, RG 72; Land to commandant, Philadelphia Navy Yard, 20 July 1928, Aer-M-152 SP, ibid.

46 Rae, Climb to Greatness, 22–23; Bowman, “Philadelphia Naval Aircraft Factory,” 88.

47 Bowman, “Philadelphia Naval Aircraft Factory,” 91, refers to the NAF as a “military industrial anomaly.”

48 Holley, Buying Aircraft, 125, presents arguments against the yardstick. For the yardstick and Muscle Shoals, see McCraw, TVA and the Power Fight, viii, 30–31.

49 There is at least anecdotal evidence that when the NAF undertook engine production in the 1930s, it led to substantial price reductions by private vendors. Pearson, “Notes on the History of the Naval Aircraft Factory,” 8.