Curtiss XP-22

Curtiss XP-22

Curtiss XP-22

The Curtiss XP-22 was an experimental version of the P-6A Hawk that became the basis for the P-6E. It was produced using the third production P-6A Hawk (29-262). The aircraft was given a revised tail, a new nose, cantilever single strut main landing gear, had a generally cleaned-up airframe and the guns were moved from the top of the fuselage to the sides. The aircraft was originally given an annular radiator but this was later replaced with a more conventional belly radiator mounted in a tunnel beneath the rear of the engine. On 30 June 1931 this aircraft reached a top speed of 202.4mph.

The new undercarriage and modified nose were then taken from the XP-22 and installed on the YP-20 while standard P-6A equipment was re-installed on the XP-22. The XP-22 then became a P-6A, while the YP-20 became the prototype for forty-eight Y1P-22 aircraft, ordered on 10 July 1931. These were re-designated twice - first as P-6Cs and finally as P-6Es, the designation they were actually completed with.

Engine: Curtiss V-1570C
Power: 700hp
Crew: 1
Span: 31ft 6in
Length: 23ft 7in
Height: 8ft 10in
Empty weight: 2,597lb
Gross weight: 3,354lb
Max speed: 202mph at sea level, 195mph at 10,000ft
Climb Rate: 2,400ft/ min
Service ceiling: 26,500ft


History

In 1907, Glenn Curtiss was recruited by the scientist Dr. Alexander Graham Bell, to be among the founding members of Bell's Aerial Experimental Association (AEA), with the purpose of helping establish an aeronautical research and development organization. [1] According to Bell, it was a "co-operative scientific association, not for gain but for the love of the art and doing what we can to help one another." [2]

In 1909, the AEA was disbanded [3] and Curtiss formed the Herring-Curtiss Company with Augustus Moore Herring on March 20, 1909, [4] which was renamed the Curtiss Aeroplane Company in 1910. [5] [6]

Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company

The Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company was created on January 13, 1916 from the Curtiss Aeroplane Company of Hammondsport, New York and Curtiss Motor Company of Bath, New York. Burgess Company of Marblehead, Massachusetts, became a subsidiary in February 1916. [7]

With the onset of World War I, military orders rose sharply, and Curtiss needed to expand quickly. In 1916, the company moved its headquarters and most manufacturing activities to Buffalo, New York, where there was far greater access to transportation, manpower, manufacturing expertise, and much needed capital. The company housed an aircraft engine factory in the former Taylor Signal Company-General Railway Signal Company. [8] An ancillary operation was begun in Toronto, Ontario that was involved in both production and training, setting up the first flying school in Canada in 1915. [9]

In 1917, the two major aircraft patent holders, the Wright Company and the Curtiss Company, had effectively blocked the building of new airplanes, which were desperately needed as the United States was entering World War I. The U.S. government, as a result of a recommendation of a committee formed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, then Assistant Secretary of the Navy, pressured the industry to form a cross-licensing organization (in other terms a Patent pool), the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association. [10] [11] [12]

Curtiss was instrumental in the development of U.S. Naval Aviation by providing training for pilots and providing aircraft. The first major order was for 144 various subtypes of the Model F trainer flying boat. [4] In 1914, Curtiss had lured B. Douglas Thomas from Sopwith to design the Model J trainer, which led to the JN-4 two-seat biplane trainer (known affectionately as the "Jenny"). [13] [14]

The Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company worked with the United States' British and Canadian allies, resulting in JN-4 (Can) trainers (nicknamed the "Canuck") being built in Canada. [15] In order to complete large military orders, JN-4 production was distributed to five other manufacturers. After the war, large numbers of JN-4s were sold as surplus, making influential as the first plane for many interwar pilots, including Amelia Earhart. [16] A stamp was printed to commemorate the Curtiss JN-4, however a printing error resulted in some having the aircraft image inverted, which has become very valuable, and one of the best known rare stamps, even being featured in a number of movies.

The Curtiss HS-2L flying boat was used extensively in the war for anti-submarine patrols and was operated from bases in Nova Scotia, Canada, France and Portugal. The John Cyril Porte of the Royal Navy and Curtiss worked together to improve the design of the Curtiss flying boats resulting in the Curtiss F5L and the similar Felixstowe F.3. Curtiss also worked with the US Navy to develop the NC-4, which became the first aircraft to fly across the Atlantic Ocean in 1919, making several stops enroute. By the end of World War I, the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company would claim to be the largest aircraft manufacturer in the world, employing 18,000 in Buffalo and 3,000 in Hammondsport, New York. Curtiss produced 10,000 aircraft during that war, and more than 100 in a single week.

Peace brought cancellation of wartime contracts. In September 1920, the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company underwent a financial reorganization and Glenn Curtiss cashed out his stock in the company for $32 million and retired to Florida. [17] He continued as a director of the company but served only as an advisor on design. Clement M. Keys gained control of the company and it later became the nucleus of a large group of aviation companies. [18]

Curtiss seaplanes won the Schneider Cup in two consecutive races, those of 1923 and 1925. The 1923 race was won by U.S. Navy Lieutenant David Rittenhouse flying a Curtiss C.R.3 to 177.266 miles per hour (285.282 km/h).

Piloted by U.S. Army Lt. Cyrus K. Bettis, a Curtiss R3C won the Pulitzer Trophy Race on October 12, 1925, at a speed of 248.9 miles per hour (400.6 km/h). [19] Thirteen days later, Jimmy Doolittle won the Schneider Trophy in the same aircraft fitted with floats with a top speed of 232.573 miles per hour (374.290 km/h).

The Curtiss Robin light transport was first flown in 1928, becoming one of the company's biggest sellers during the Great Depression, and the 769 built helped keep the company solvent when orders for military aircraft were hard to find.

Curtiss-Wright Corporation

On July 5, 1929, Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company together with 11 other Wright and Curtiss affiliated companies merged to became the Curtiss-Wright Corporation. One of the last projects started by Curtiss Aeroplane was the ambitious Curtiss-Bleecker SX-5-1 Helicopter, a design that had propellers located midpoint on each of the four large rotors that drove the main rotors. The design, while costly and well engineered, was a failure. [20]

Curtiss Aviation School

Curtiss also operated an flying school at Long Branch Aerodrome in Toronto Township, Ontario from 1915 to 1917 before being taken over by the Royal Flying Corps Canada. [21]

Atlantic Coast Aeronautical Station

Glenn H. Curtiss sponsored the Atlantic Coast Aeronautical Station on a 20-acre tract east of Newport News, VA Boat Harbor in the Fall of 1915 with Captain Thomas Scott Baldwin as head. Many civilian students, including Canadians, later became famed WW1 flyers. Victor Carlstrom, Vernon Castle, Eddie Stinson and General Billy Mitchell trained here. The school was disbanded in 1922.


The Falcon XO-1 prototype was evaluated by the USAAC along with eleven other prototypes in 1924 and the Douglas XO-2 was declared the winner of that competition. So Curtiss re-engined the prototype with the Packard 1A-1500 for the 1925 trials, which it won. The engine failed to live up to expectations and the O-1 ordered by the Army was fitted with the 435 hp (324 kW) Curtiss V-1150 (D-12) engine. [1]

The aircraft was a conventional unequal-span biplane design with wooden wings, while the fuselage was built using aluminum tubing with steel tie rod bracing. [2] The landing gear was fixed and the tail included a balanced rudder with a rear skid originally, later changed to a tailwheel.

The initial A-3 Falcon order was placed in the winter of 1927 and delivery of the first plane was in October 1927. A total of 76 A-3s were received. Later, six aircraft were modified as pilot trainers with dual controls and redesignated A-3A. A second batch of 78 improved A-3Bs, based on the Curtiss O-1E, was purchased beginning in 1929.


The SOC was ordered for production by the United States Navy in 1933 and first entered service in 1935. The first order was for 135 SOC-1 models, which was followed by 40 SOC-2 models for landing operations and 83 SOC-3s. A variant of the SOC-3 was built by the Naval Aircraft Factory and was known as the SON-1. [1]

The first ship the SOC was assigned to was the USS Marblehead in November 1935 by the end of the decade, the SOC had replaced its predecessor throughout the fleet. Production came to an end in 1938. By 1941, most battleships had transitioned to the Vought OS2U Kingfisher and cruisers were expected to replace their aging SOCs with the third generation SO3C Seamew. The SO3C, however, suffered from a weak engine and plans to adopt it as a replacement were scrapped. The SOC, despite being a craft from an earlier generation, went on to credibly execute its missions of gunfire observation and limited range scouting missions.

Through the first six months of naval service, the SOC was known as the XO3C-1, [2] The designation was changed to SOC when it was decided to merge its scouting and observation roles. The SOC was not called the Seagull until 1941, when the U.S. Navy began the wholesale adoption of popular names for aircraft in addition to their alpha-numeric designations. The name 'Seagull' had earlier been given to two civil Curtiss aircraft, a Curtiss Model 18 and a Model 25, both converted Curtiss MF flying boats. [3]

When operating as a seaplane, returning SOCs would land on the relatively smooth ocean surface created on the sheltered side of the vessel as it made a wide turn, after which the aircraft would be winched back onto the deck. [4]

When the SOC had been replaced by the OS2U Kingfisher, most remaining airframes were converted into trainers, and were used until 1945. [5] But in a strange twist of history, with the failure of the Curtiss SO3C Seamew, many SOCs in second line service were returned to frontline units starting in late 1943 and saw service aboard warships in the combat zone for the rest of World War II. This is one of the few instances in aviation history of an older aircraft type that was retired or sent to second line service, replacing the new aircraft type, that was supposed to replace it. [6]


NatGeo's "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" How Bad Was It ?

The National Geographic Channel's "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" (also referred to by NatGeo as "Wright vs Curtiss") aired this evening (June 1st), and it was - amazingly - worse than the trailers and episode clips led us to believe.

The visuals of the NatGeo production were, for the most part, done well, so if the viewer turned off the sound it might have been more engaging, even with the too-young Wilbur and all the glaring looks and quiet posturing - but assuming that viewers watched and listened, they were mercilessly abused with one wrong thing after another, one strange portrayal after another, and one topsy-turvy event after another.

While there are far too many fictional elements to chronicle in their totality, several will serve to illustrate that this program should not have been touted as a "documentary" - it is not.

Here are a few of the more egregious lapses. along with some missed opportunities that would have provided much needed depth to the story "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" was floundering to tell.

1) Perhaps this writer's favorite bit of NatGeo nonsense was when the narrator, Jeff Wilburn, educated us all to the "fact" that

"No invention has changed the world quite like the airplane, but the story of its creation is one of intense rivalry, between two brothers named Wright. " ". and a dare-devil called Glenn Curtiss. " ". who was brave enough to take them on." "A bitter competition. " ". fueled by danger, and marked with tragedy, would forever change the way we see the world."

Note to "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" production team - the aeroplane was created on December 17, 1903, when Wilbur and Orville Wright made the first powered, sustained, controlled human flights. There was no - zero - "intense rivalry" no - zero - "bitter competition" between Glenn Curtiss and Wilbur and Orville Wright when the Wrights invented the aeroplane/airplane.

Who would have thought this sort of gross error would pop up on the National Geographic Channel, of all places.

2) During the winter of 1885/86, Wilbur, 18, suffered a terrible injury from being slapped across the mouth by a hockey stick wielded by someone who would later be executed for committing multiple murders. Wilbur's front teeth were knocked out and his face was injured. This event changed the direction of his life, and could be argued that it resulted in the invention of the powered, controlled, heavier-than-air aeroplane.

So, what does "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" have to say about this major event ? Nothing, not a peep.

3) The two attempts to launch the engine powered Langley Large Aerodrome "A" with Charles M. Manly aboard, on October 7, 1903, and on December 8, 1903 - were failures caused by structural collapse, but that wasn't the only structural collapse.

"Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" suffered one, also, by ignoring this major event. which happened only 9 days before Wilbur and Orville made the first powered, controlled and sustained human flights. The failure of the Langley Large Aerodrome "A" to fly with a human aboard provides a sharp contrast to the work of the Wrights - a large institution (the Smithsonian) on the one hand, and the two brothers, self-supporting their aeronautical work, on the other.

Does "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" take advantage of this contrast ? Nope, not at all. there's not a mention of Langley and his Aerodrome "A."

However, perhaps there is another reason why the Langley Large Aerodrome "A" fails to put in an appearance. the notorious 1914 "tests" that Curtiss conducted using a substantially altered, rebuilt and strengthened Langley Large Aerodrome "A" in order to demonstrate that the Wrights weren't the first to fly. The notion was if the Langley Large Aerodrome "A" could be shown to have been flight-worthy, it would be evidence of "prior art" - which, in a patent suit, is an affirmative defense.

The use of the rebuilt and altered Langley Large Aerodrome "A" in this way caused a major rift with the Wrights and left a bad taste about Curtiss. It was, arguably, a low point in Curtiss' career.

So, mention of the Langley Large Aerodrome "A" would have brought up all that unpleasantness about Curtiss, and in keeping with the rampant pro-Curtiss bias of "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" - that couldn't be tolerated.

4) In the part related to the 1908 Fort Myer, Virginia, US Army Signal Corps Aeroplane Trials, "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" tells the viewer that.

"For Orville, the only way to win the contract is to win over Lt. Selfridge. With twelve successful test flights behind him, Orville is joined by Selfridge for the first official demonstration."

There was no need to "win over Lt. Selfridge" - the flights at Fort Myer were to meet aeroplane acceptance specifications set by the US Army Signal Corps (not by Lt. Selfridge).

"Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" seizes on the Fort Myer trials and the death of Lt. Selfridge as a major turning point in their fantasized version of reality. In doing so, they ignore that 5 days prior to the disastrous flight with Army Lt. Selfridge, Orville made a successful passenger flight with Army Maj. George O. Squire, and 8 days before with Army Lt. Frank Purdy Lahm.

Are those successful passenger flights mentioned ? Nope, they aren't.

"Over the course of one week, Orville completes a series of successful demonstrations. And on September 9th 1908, Orville flies for 62 straight minutes, crushing the record for sustained flight. And to boot, their biggest rival, Glenn Curtiss witnesses it all."

On September 12th, Orville made a spectacular flight lasting 1 hr. 15 min. 5 sec., and covering 50 mi., the longest flight of 1908.

Is that mentioned ? Nope, it isn't.

"Curtiss is invited to the event by his good friend, Lt. Tom Selfridge."

In fact, Curtiss was at Fort Myer to assist "Uncle Tom" Baldwin with flying the large two-person airship that would become the "Signal Corps No. 1" - Curtiss operated the engine (one of his) while Baldwin controlled the airship's flight. Baldwin and Curtiss were at Fort Myer to meet the Signal Corps specifications for lighter-than-air aerial machines, just as Orville was present to meet the specifications for heavier-than-air aerial machines.

After the accident which severely injured Orville and caused the death of Lt. Selfridge, we're told that.

"For Glenn Curtiss the competition against the Wright brothers turns personal."

Aha ! Now it makes sense that none of the other true events were included in the Fort Myer story, because including those facts would have softened the drama of Curtiss losing his friend, Lt. Selfridge, and drama is the driving force behind "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss," not history.

And. where's Wilbur while all this is taking place at Fort Myer ? He's in France, astounding the aeronautical community there with his remarkable and beautiful flights.

Does "Wright Brother vs Curtiss" tell us what Wilbur is up to ? Nope, it does not.

Perhaps "Wright Brother vs Curtiss" believed that by adding Wilbur's remarkable public flights, they'd be diluting the drama of the fatal crash at Fort Myer, and, as just noted, drama is the driving force behind "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss," not history.

5) Perhaps the most fictional scene (there are so many. ) offered to the viewer by "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" is the one in which an anonymous government functionary tells Orville Wright and Glenn Curtiss, in 1917, the conditions of the government imposed patent pool agreement, as Orville Wright and Glenn Curtiss sit listening. Orville stiffens, clutches his hands on a folder and squirms, Curtiss looks at Orville and smiles.

That is a wholly fictional event, concocted by "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" and meant to convey that Curtiss had "won" the rivalry.

Two minutes using any web search engine would have turned up the fact that the patent pool of 1917 was between the Wright-Martin Aircraft Company and Curtiss. Orville (Wilbur passed away from typhoid in 1912) sold the Wright Company, along with the Wright Patent, to investors in 1915 and so was no longer involved when the patent pool was established and all the US aeronautical patents were put together and made available to all aviation manufacturers in the US - on the brink of the US entry into The Great War, World War I.

6) "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" makes a plethora of silly and easily avoided mistakes, as when the narrator tells us that in the wake of the 1917 patent pool agreement,

"The government forces the Wright Company to share its patents with other manufacturers, including Glenn Curtiss. Curtiss is now free to build and sell his airplanes and reap the financial reward. His years of experimenting and innovation pay off. He sells an astounding 7,000 of his newly designed Jenny fighters for the victorious war effort."

Those are 'where-to-begin-the-corrections' sentences.

Nearly 7,000 (6,813) Curtiss "Jenny" JN-4 (Canadian) and JN-4D of all types were built and while the "Jenny" became the standard trainer airplane with the US Army, it certainly was not a "fighter."

7) As noted in "NatGeo Loses Its Compass" quite a number of very significant people are missing from this half-baked production. Octave Chanute, Augustus Moore Herring, Bishop Milton and Katharine Wright, Charles E. Taylor, and "Uncle" Tom Baldwin, to name just a few.

8) Incredibly, also missing is the greatest real rivalry between the Wrights and Curtiss. "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" never even mentions the Wright Exhibition Company (February 1910 to May 1912) and the Curtiss Exhibition Company (June 1910 to November 1912). That was a true rivalry, between those teams of aviators who went across the country giving exhibitions of flight, in open fields, at race tracks, in ballparks, at fairs and at aeronautical contests.

It's not enough to claim that time is limited and so the story has to be winnowed down to its essentials. Making the story of the invention of the aeroplane/airplane into "A bitter competition. " between two individuals, Wilbur and Curtiss, (Orville has a very limited role in this production) is not only a falsehood, it misses the larger story, the one the NatGeo audience ought to have been told.

There is a Latin phrase which could serve as the motto for NatGeo's "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss". "Reducitur ad rationem absurditas" - reduced to an absurdity.

9) The number of errors concerning aeroplanes/airplanes is remarkable. A late 1930's-1940's Stearman trainer biplane is shown in flight, presumably because it is a biplane and red, because it has no relationship at all to the narrative about WWI.

As noted, the JN-4 and JN-4D "Jenny" were not "fighters" as "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" states, they were flight training aeroplanes.

The "June Bug" in "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" is missing its vertical tail surface, and its propeller is barely turning over.

The mock aeroplane/airplane in which Orville is shown taking Lt. Selfridge for a flight, is controlled by a single joystick, instead of the two levers used on the Wright machine.

The Wright Patent covered a three-axis control system for aeroplanes/airplanes, not simply wing-warping as "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" seems to say.

10) In order to up the drama, "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" chose to create a false narrative that somehow the title of "First in Flight" was the base motivator of Wilbur and Orville Wright. That contest ended before it began, on December 17, 1903, at Kill Devil Hill, North Carolina, when Wilbur and Orville Wright made the first successful, powered (by their own engine), controlled (by their three-axis control system) human flight.

Generally, throughout the production, motivations are fabricated, simplified and exaggerated. This might make for good tv, but as history, it's rotten compost.

11) Perhaps the biggest problem with "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" is its unrelenting portrayal of Wilbur Wright as obsessed, stodgy and angry and Orville as ineffectual and dominated by his older brother, while portraying Curtiss in a completely positive light, in one scene after another, walking in heroic poses, in slo-mo no less, standing in a low-angle camera hero shot (complete with lens flares), being helpful to a worker, concerned with safety, a charming dare-devil ". who was brave enough to take them [the Wrights] on". and so on.

Near the end of "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" the narrator remarks.

"The Wrights may have invented the airplane, but Glenn Curtiss has turned it into an industry."

No, there is no "may have" about it, the Wrights invented the aeroplane/airplane because they invented the means to control flight.

That use of "may have" betrays the underlying pervasive and unnecessary anti-Wrights and pro-Curtiss bias that infects this production. and removes from it the pretense of being a "documentary" - "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" is not a documentary and it certainly isn't history, regardless of what NatGeo says.

People are free to be pro- or anti- Wrights or Curtiss as a matter of personal opinion, informed or not, but not as the central theme of a "documentary."

Consider the disclaimer NatGeo placed at the beginning of "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss".

"This program includes dramatizations inspired by history. Some events have been altered for dramatic purposes."

It's nearly impossible to find even a handful of events in "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" that weren't altered. You'd think NatGeo would know better, but NatGeo classifies this production as a documentary.

It's a pity that NatGeo and those who worked on "Wright Brothers vs. Curtiss" didn't make the effort to suppress their creativity and their love of fiction a bit and uphold the story as it truly was.

In this writer's opinion, the true story is far more compelling and engaging and of much greater meaning than the fictionalized novella NatGeo and Banijay/Stephen David Entertainment foisted off on NatGeo's viewers.

The next article in this series about "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" will explore in greater detail the matters of bias and time-and-sequence-warping used by "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" in order to build and promote its false narrative.

Also, in this series on NatGeo's "Wright Brothers vs Curtiss" - NatGeo Loses Its Compass"


Individual histories


Each line describes one remaining complete or partial airframe. Each line is broken down into several sections:

  • Aircraft Number describes the type of aircraft and model P-40M-10CU it's c/n 27483 & s/n 43-5795
    and current registration (N1232N).
  • History tells the military history (oldest to newest):
  • Markings deals with current markings, codes first then name: 00 The Jackie C II
  • Holder is current owner or museum: NA-50 Inc
  • Location deals with eith location where it might be seen or owners address: Long Island City, NY
  • Condition:
  • If Latitude & Longitude points are given, aircraft is on permanent outside display and can be seen using Google maps.

P-40B CU Curtiss-Buffalo

Curtiss P-40B G-CDWH at Duxford 2008, the world's oldest airworthy type.

Hawk 81A-3 (P-40C) Curtiss-Buffalo

Hawk 81A-3 / Tomahawk IIb AK255, US National Museum of Naval Aviation

  • Hawk 81A-3 c/n 14737 AK255, ex-RAF Tomahawk Mk IIb, ex-Soviet AF, " 7 ", National Museum Of Naval Aviation, NAS Pensacola, FL (D) Α]Β]
  • Hawk 81A-3 c/n 14777 AK295, ex-RAF Tomahawk Mk IIb, ex-Soviet AF ex-14th Army,147th Fighter Regiment "53", ex-1st Combined Air Division/20th Guards Fighter Regiment - shot down 1 February 1942, AV Specs Ltd Ardmore Airfield, Auckland, New Zealand (R)
  • Hawk 81A-3 c/n 14783 AK301, ex-RAF Tomahawk Mk IIb, ex-Soviet AF, Tom Wilson/The Curtiss Hawk Factory, Griffin, GA (S)
  • Hawk 81A-3 c/n 14784 AK302, ex-RAF Tomahawk Mk IIb, ex-Soviet AF, The Fighter Factory, Suffolk, VA (S)
  • Hawk 81A-3 c/n 15451 AK498, ex-RAF Tomahawk Mk IIb 250 Sqn "LD-C" - 8 confirmed kills, RAF Museum (D). (Flown by Clive Caldwell.)
  • Hawk 81A-3 c/n 15453 AK500, ex-RAF Tomahawk Mk IIb, AVG P-8115, 3rd Flight "69", Chiang Mai Air Museum, Chiang Mae, Thailand (W)

P-40C CU Curtiss-Buffalo

  • P-40C-CU c/n 16194 41-13390 (N2689) Tomahawk Mk. IIb AH935, ex-Soviet AF 194, ex-14th Army,147th Fighter Regiment "53", ex-1st Combined Air Division/20th Guards Fighter Regiment, " 71 ", Flying Heritage Collection Inc, Bellvue, WA (A) Γ]Δ]Ε]

Hawk 87A-3 (P-40E) Curtiss-Buffalo

  • Hawk 87A-3 c/n 15133 AK752 (N440PE), ex-RAF Kittyhawk IA, ex-RCAF 1028, ex-133 Sqn "ZR-J, ex-132 Sqn "FN-H", James E. Smith, Fortine, MT (A) Ζ]Η]
  • Hawk 87A-3 c/n 15134 AK753 (N4420K), ex-RAF Kittyhawk IA, ex-Soviet AF, " Shirley II ", Dakota Warhawk, Wahpeton, ND (A) ⎖]⎗]

Hawk 87A-3 AK875
RCAF 1044 Lope's Hope
NASM

  • Hawk 87A-3 c/n 15184 AK803 (C-GHTM), ex-RAF Kittyhawk IA, ex-RCAF 1034 ex-118Sqn "RE-K", "H", ex-133 Sqn (RCAF) "PN", " PN ", West Coast Museum Of Flying, Sidney, BC (D) ⎘] note : wings from 1037
  • Hawk 87A-3 c/n 15208 AK827 (N40245), ex-RAF Kittyhawk IA, ex-RCAF 1038, " 136483 "Yanks Air Museum, Chino, CA (A) ⎙]
  • Hawk 87A-3 c/n 15244 AK863 (N7205A), ex-RAF Kittyhawk IA, ex-RCAF 1044, Ron J. Fagen, Granite Falls, MN (A) ⎚]
  • Hawk 87A-3 c/n 15349 AK875 (N1048N), ex-RAF Kittyhawk IA, ex-RCAF 1047 ex-111 Sqn, " 194 Lope's Hope", NASM Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, Chantilly, VA (D) ⎛]
  • Hawk 87A-3 c/n 15370 AK899 (N94466), ex-RAF Kittyhawk IA, ex-RCAF 1051, ex-111 Sqn, " 11456 Old Exterminator ", EAA, Oshkosh, WI (A) ⎜] note: FAA registration not correct.
  • Hawk 87A-3 c/n 15376 AK905 (N40PE), ex-RAF Kittyhawk IA, ex-RCAF 1052, " 474580 47 ", Frasca Air Museum, Champaign, IL (A)
  • Hawk 87A-3 c/n 15404 AK933 (N94466), ex-RAF Kittyhawk IA, ex-RCAF 1057, ex-Pearl Harbor, " SU-E Sneak Attack ", Warhawk Air Museum, Boise, ID (A) ⎝] note: wings from P-40F
  • Hawk 87A-3 c/n 15411 AK940 (N940AK), ex-RAF Kittyhawk IA, ex-RCAF 1058 ex-111 Sqn & ex-133 Sqn "X", "Vancouver XIII" & "Popeye X", Banta Aviation, Livermore, CA (A) ⎞]⎟]⎠]
  • Hawk 87A-3 c/n 18723 AK979 (N40FT), ex-RAF Kittyhawk IA, ex-RCAF 1064, ex-111 Sqn, ex-Tora Tora Tora, " 67 ", San Diego Aerospace Museum, San Diego, CA (D)

Hawk 87A-3 AK987 RCAF 1068 USAFM

Hawk 87A-3 AL135
RCAF 1076
Canada Aviation Museum

  • Hawk 87A-3 c/n 18782 AL138, ex-RAF Kittyhawk IA, ex-RCAF 1079 111 Sqn LZ-S, Ken Hake, Tipton, KS(S)
  • Hawk 87A-3 c/n 18796 AL152 (N95JB) ex-RAF Kittyhawk IA, ex-RCAF 1082, ex-Tora Tora Tora "27/15P", " 38 Hold'n my Own ", War Eagles Air Museum, Santa Teresa, NM (A) ⎥]⎦]⎧]
  • Hawk 87A-3 c/n 18815 AL171 (N62435), ex-RAF Kittyhawk IA, ex-RCAF 1084, Weeks Air Museum, Tamiami, FL (R) ⎨]
  • Hawk 87A-3 s/n unknown, ex-RAF Kittyhawk IA, ex-Soviet AF, 78th Fighter Plane Regiment /1st Squadron "23" - crashed 17 June, 1944, Jarfjord, Norway (W)

P-40E CU Curtiss-Buffalo

  • P-40E-CU c/n 16328 41-5336, ex-RAAF "A29-28" ex-75 Sqn & 3SFTS, RAAF Museum, RAAF Point Cook, Victoria (A)
  • P-40E-CU c/n 16624 41-5632, ex-RAAF "A29-71" ex-75 Sqn, ex-1 OTU, Ben Saunders, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (R)
  • P-40E-CU c/n 16701 41-5709, ex-11th AF, Don Brooks, Douglas, GA (R)
  • P-40E-CU c/n 16738 41-13522, ex-RAAF "A29-53" ex-76 Sqn & 77 Sqn, Moorabbin Air Museum, Melbourne, Victoria (R) ⎩]
  • P-40E-CU c/n 16786 41-13570, ex-Soviet AF 20 GIAP/14th Army "51" - Shot-down 1 June 1942, James Goode/CPSI, Jefferson City, MO (R) ⎪]
  • P-40E-CU c/n 19128 41-25109 (VH-KTH), ex-RAF Kittyhawk Ia ET444, ex-USAAF 347th FG/68th FS, ex-RZNAF NZ3094 ex-14sq, Col Pay, Scone, NSW (R)
  • P-40E-CU c/n 19177 41-25158 (ZK-RMH), ex-RAF Kittyhawk Ia ET433, ex-USAAF ex-USAAF 347th FG/68th FS, ex-RZNAF NZ3009, ex-14 Sqn,ex-4 OTU FE-F, , " 88 ", Old Stick & Rudder Company, Hood Aerodrome, Masterton, North Island, New Zealand (A) ⎫]⎬] note: wings from NZ3201

P-40E 41-35918 Military Air Museum in Virginia Beach, Va

  • P-40E-1CU c/n 18505 41-35984, ex-RAF Kittyhawk Ia ET630, ex-Soviet AF, "V A29-113 "Precision Aerospace/Pacific Fighters Museum, Wangaratta Airport, Wangaratta, Australia (R) ⎱]
  • P-40E-1CU c/n 18539 41-36018, ex-RAF Kittyhawk Ia ET664, ex-Soviet Navy 25, Pioneer Aero Auckland, New Zealand (S)
  • P-40E-1CU c/n 18605 41-36084, ex-RAF Kittyhawk Ia ET730, ex-RAAF A29-133, ex-75 Sqn "S Polly" - 1 kill, " S Polly ", Australian War Memorial, Canberra, Australia (D) ⎲]
  • P-40E-1CU c/n 18626 41-36105 ex-RAF Kittyhawk Ia ET751, ex-RAAF A29-114 "HU-B Come in Suckers!", " HS-B "Vintage Wings of Canada, Ottawa/Gatineau Airport, Ottawa, Canada (R)
  • P-40E-1CU c/n 18906 41-36385, ex-RAF Kittyhawk Ia EV131, ex-RNZAF NZ3039, ex-36 Sqn., Museum of Transport & Technology, Auckland, NZ (D)
  • P-40E-1CU c/n 18931 41-36410, ex-RAF Kittyhawk Ia EV156, ex-RNZAF NZ3043, John R. Smith, Nelson, New Zealand (S)
  • P-40E-1CU c/n 19364 41-36843, ex-RAF Kittyhawk Ia EV589, ex-Soviet AF, Murray Griffiths, Deniliquin, NSW (R)
  • P-40E-CU unknown s/n, ex-AVG "68" John Blackburn, Lake Dianchi (Lake Kunming), China (W)
  • P-40E-CU 40-598/13473/241 (N64598) currently being restored back to flying. ex-11th AF, Alaska Air Museum, AK (S) ⎳]

P-40F CU Curtiss-Buffalo

  • P-40F-1CU 41-14112, ex-13th AF/18th Fg/44th FS "Bone Crusher", The Old Aeroplane Company", Tyabb, Victoria, Australia (R) ⎴]⎵]⎶]
  • P-40F-1CU 41-14205,, ex-13th AF/18th Fg/44th FS, " FF-L NZ3024", Royal New Zealand Air Force Museum, Churchtown, New Zealand, (R) ⎷]

P-40K CU Curtiss-Buffalo

  • P-40K-1CU c/n 15736 42-45946 (N45946), ex-11th AF/343FG/11FS, Dwight Jones, Anchorage, AK (S)
  • P-40K-1CU c/n 15794 42-45984, ex-5th AF/49th FS/7th FS "30 Swing It", Pima Air & Space Museum Tucson AZ (R) ⎸]
  • P-40K-1CU c/n 15921 42-46111, ex-RAF Kittyhawk III FR318, ex-Soviet AF, Tom Wilson/The Curtis Hawk Factory, Griffin, GA (R)
  • P-40K-5CU c/n 21117 42-9733 (NX4436J), ex-11th AF, " 33 ", Spitfire USA/Tom Blair, Fl (A) ⎹]⎺]
  • P-40K-5CU c/n 21133 42-9749 (N239FR), ex-11th AF, " 88 ", Evergreen Air Museum, McMinnville, OR (A) ⎻]
  • P-40K-10CU c/n 21467 42-10083 ex-Soviet AF, Tom Wilson/The Curtis Hawk Factory, Griffin, GA (R)
  • P-40K-10CU c/n 21562 42-10178, ex-RAAF A29-183, ex-77 Sqn "AM-H", Pima Air & Spece Museum, Tucson, AZ (S) ⎼]
  • P-40K-10CU c/n 21640 42-10256 (N401WH), ex-Soviet AF, Ron Fagen, Granet Falls, MN (A) ⎽] , ⎾]
  • P-40K-15CU c/n 234279 42-102?? (N67254), ex-11th AF, Airpower, Inc, Chelan, WA (W) note: not recovered from Aleutian AK crash site.

P-40L CU Curtiss Buffalo

P-40M CU Curtiss Buffalo

P-40M-10CU 43-5802 in Aleutian Tiger markings.

  • P-40M-10CU c/n 27466 43-5788 ex-RCAF Kittyhawk III 832, ex-5 OTU, Texas Air Museum, San Antonio, TX (R)
  • P-40M-10CU c/n 27483 43-5795 (N1232N), ex-RCAF Kittyhawk III 845, ex-5 OTU, "00 The Jackie C II ", NA-50 Inc, Long Island City, NY (A) ⏁]⏂]
  • P-40M-10CU c/n 27490 43-5802(G-KITT), ex-RCAF Kittyhawk III 845, ex-5 OTU, " 49 ",Hanger 11, North Weald Aerodrome, Epping, England (A) ⏃]⏄]⏅]
  • P-40M-10CU c/n 27501 43-5813, ex-RZNAF Kittyhawk III NZ3119, tri-statewarbirdmuseum.org, Batavia, OH 45103 USA ⏆]

P-40N CU Curtiss Buffalo

  • P-40N-1CU c/n 28439 42-104687 (VH-ZOC) ex-RZNAF Kittyhawk IV NZ3125 ex-2 OTU, " GA-Q ", Alan Arthur, Albury NSW, Australia (A) ⏇]⏈]⏉]
  • P-40N-1CU c/n 28492 42-104730 (ZK-CAG), ex-RAAF Kittyhawk IV A29-448 ex-75 Sqn "GA-C", " Currawong ", The Kittyhawk Partnership, Auckland, NZ (A) ⏊]⏋]⏌]
  • P-40N-1CU c/n 28580 42-104818, ex-RAAF Kittyhawk IV A29-405 ex-78 Sqn "HU-S", MAPS Museum Canton, OH (R)
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 28709 42-104947, ex-5th AF/49th FG/8th FS "67 The Carolina Belle" - 7 confirmed kills FS, Precision Aerospace/Pacific Fighters Museum, Wangaratta Airport, Greta Road, Wangaratta, Australia (R)
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 28716 42-104954, Edwin Sedgman, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (R)
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 28723 42-104961, ex-5th AF/49th FG/8th FS, Pima Air & Space Museum, Tucson, AZ (R) ⏍]
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 28759 42-104977, ex-5th AF / 49th FG (Pilot: Joel Thorvaldson) - crashed: September 1943 - Tsili Tsili, Mike Spaulding, North Queensland, Australia (R)
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 28813 42-105051, ex-RAAF Kittyhawk IV A29-462 ex-86 Sqn, Keith W. Hopper, Townsville, Queensland, Australia (R) (R)
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 28954 42-105192(N85104) ex-RCAF Kittyhawk IV 858 ex-133 Sqn "F", ex-Pearl Harbor, Planes of Fame, Chino, CA (A) ⏎]
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 29234 42-105472, Bruno Carnovale, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (S)
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 29269 42-105513, ex-5th AF/49th FG/7th FS "20 Keystone Kathleen" Ian A. Whitney/Australian Aerospace Museum, Essendon Airport, Essendon, Victoria, Australia (R) ⏏]
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 29282 42-105526, ex-5th AF/49th FG/7th FS "The Saint", Pioneer Aero Restorations, Auckland, New Zealand (R)
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 29472 42-105710, ex-RAAF Kittyhawk IV A29-528 ex-78 Sqn "HU-V", Neil Bird (S) note: parts from A29-1134
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 29606 42-105844, ex-RCAF Kittyhawk IV 864 ex-133 Sqn "T", Pioneer Aircraft Restoration Ltd, Auckland, NZ (S)
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 29621 42-105861 (N49FG), ex-5th AF / 49th FG / 8th FS, " Suzy ", Lafayette, LA (R) ⏐]
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 29629 42-105867(N1226N), ex-RCAF Kittyhawk IV 867, " 48 ", Commemorative Air Force, Midland, TX (R) ⏑]

P-40N-5-CU 42-105915 Little Jeanne

  • P-40N-5CU c/n 29675 42-105913, ex-5th AF/49th FG/7th FS, Monty Armstrong, Melbourne, Victoria (S)
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 29677 42-105915 (VH-KTI), ex-5th AF/49th FG/7th FS "12 Little Jeanne", "12 Little Jeanne ", Precision Aerospace/Pacific Fighters Museum, Wangaratta Airport, Wangaratta, Australia (R) ⏒]
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 29689 42-105927, Museum of Aviation, Warner-Robins AFB, GA (D) ⏓]⏔]
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 29713 42-105951, ex 5th AF, fuselage with Military Aircraft Restoration Corp, Chino, CA // wings held by d'E.C. Darby, Auckland, NZ (S)
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 29858 42-106096, ex-3rd AF/335BU (Dale Mabry Field, Tallahassee), Tom Wilson's Hawk Factory, Griffin, GA (R)
  • P-40N-5CU c/n 29863 42-106101, ex-RAAF Kittyhawk IV A29-556/1134, ex-80 Sqn "BU-", " FX760/ GA-? ", RAF Museum Hendon, England (D) ⏕]

P-40N-15CU 42-106396 Parrot Head

  • P-40N-20CU c/n 30901 43-22962, ex-RNZAF Kittyhawk IV NZ3220, ex-"G" "Gloria Lyons", John Smith, Mapua,Nelson, NZ (S)
  • P-40N-25CU 43-24362 ex-3rd AF/342CCTS, Craig D. Hillinger, Lawton, IA (S)
  • P-40N-25CU 43-24363, ex-RNZAF Kittyhawk IV NZ3285, (R)
  • P-40N-30CU c/n 32824 44-7084(N999CD), ex-TP-40N, ex-Pearl Harbor "306" " Miss Josephine ", Palm Springs Air Museum, Palm Springs, CA (A) ⏘]
  • P-40N-30CU c/n 32932 44-7192(N10626), "730 O'Rileys Daughter ", Museum Of Flight, Seattle-Boeing Field, WA (D) ⏙]
  • P-40N-30CU c/n 33047 44-7305Craig D. Hillinger, Lawton, IA (S)
  • P-40N-30CU c/n 33136 44-7396 (N40PN) ex-2nd AF/268th CCTU, ex-2nd AF/232th CCTU, " 5 ",Cavanaugh Flight Museum(CAM), Addison, TX (A) ⏚]⏛]
  • P-40N-35CU c/n 33359 44-7619(N222SU) ex-372nd FG "IC-Y", Kalamazoo Aviation History Museum, Kalamazoo, MI (D) ⏜]⏝]
  • P-40N-35CU c/n 33440 44-7700, ex-Brazilian AF FAB 4064, " 3 ", Museum Aerospacial, Campo dos Afonsos AB, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (D) ⏞]
  • P-40N-35CU c/n 33723 44-7983(N9950), Skyfire Corporation, Dover DE (R)
  • P-40N-40CU c/n 33915 44-47923(N923)ex-TP-40N, Fantasy of Flight, Poke City, FL (A) ⏟]⏠]⏡]

Contents

In 1925 the U.S. Postal Service felt they had excellent operational service with converted Airco D.H.4 biplanes. The eight-year-old designs were considered antiquated by this time, however, and a modern purpose-built machine was desired. While most manufacturers started to build new generation passenger aircraft with mail cargo capability, the Curtiss Carrier Pigeon was the first clean-sheet design specifically made for U.S. air-mail service. The aircraft was intended to be sold directly to the Postal Service, but new legislation that opened up outside contracts brought on a slew of competing models.

The Carrier Pigeon was drawn up to meet or exceed the original postal specifications. Strength, serviceability, and ease of maintenance were the three core design criteria. It was intended to provide service on the nighttime runs between Chicago and New York, with only one stop. The plane was built to take advantage of the powerful and plentiful 400 hp Liberty L-12 engine to meet Postal specifications. Up to 40,000 airmail letters could be carried in the 1,000 lb capacity cargo hold.

The fuselage was a welded steel tube frame covered in fabric. The upper and lower wings were interchangeable and used solid, unspliced spruce spars. The rudder, ailerons, and elevators were also interchangeable, which reduced spares counts. Ώ] The hinges used heavy replaceable bronze pins to reduce wear.

The watertight cargo hold was at the center of gravity so the aircraft could accommodate a range of loads without affecting the balance. The landing gear used rubber doughnut suspension. The fuel tank could be jettisoned in case of an emergency. A seven quart fire extinguisher was plumbed to the engine compartment for suppression of inflight fires. The pilot could choose between wheel or stick control based on his preference. ΐ]


Mr. Justice Sutherland delivered the opinion of the Court.

On January 27, 1936, an indictment was returned in the court below, the first count of which charges that appellees, beginning with the 29th day of May, 1934, conspired to sell in the United States certain arms of war, namely fifteen machine guns, to Bolivia, a country then engaged in armed conflict in the Chaco, in violation of the Joint Resolution of Congress approved May 28, 1934, and the provisions of a proclamation issued on the same day by the President of the United States pursuant to authority conferred by §1 of the resolution. . . .

The determination which we are called to make, therefore, is whether the Joint Resolution, as applied to the situation, is vulnerable to attack under the rule that forbids a delegation of the law-making power. In other words, assuming (but not deciding) that the challenged delegation, if it were confined to internal affairs, would be invalid, may it nevertheless be sustained on the ground that its exclusive aim is to afford a remedy for a hurtful condition within foreign territory?

It will contribute to the elucidation of the question if we first consider the differences between the powers of the federal government in respect of foreign or external affairs and those in respect of domestic or internal affairs. That there are differences between them, and that these differences are fundamental, may not be doubted.

The two classes of powers are different, both in respect of their origin and their nature. The broad statement that the federal government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs. In that field, the primary purpose of the Constitution was to carve from the general mass of legislative powers then possessed by the states such portions as it was thought desirable to vest in the federal government, leaving those not included in the enumeration still in the states. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 294. [1] That this doctrine applies only to powers which the states had, is self-evident. And since the states severally never possessed international powers, such powers could not have been carved from the mass of state powers but obviously were transmitted to the United States from some other source. During the colonial period, those powers were possessed exclusively by and were entirely under the control of the Crown. By the Declaration of Independence, “the Representatives of the United States of America” declared the United [not the several] Colonies to be free and independent states, and as such to have “full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

As a result of the separation from Great Britain by the colonies acting as a unit, the powers of external sovereignty passed from the Crown not to the colonies severally, but to the colonies in their collective and corporate capacity as the United States of America. Even before the Declaration, the colonies were a unit in foreign affairs, acting through a common agency – namely the Continental Congress, composed of delegates from the thirteen colonies. That agency exercised the power of war and peace, raised an army, created a navy, and finally adopted the Declaration of Independence. Rulers come and go governments end and forms of government change but sovereignty survives. A political society cannot endure without a supreme will somewhere. Sovereignty is never held in suspense. When, therefore, the external sovereignty of Great Britain in respect to the colonies ceased, it immediately passed to the Union. See Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54, 80-81. [2] That fact was given practical application almost at once. The treaty of peace, made on September 23, 1783, was concluded between his Britannic Majesty and the “United States of America.” 8 Stat. – European Treaties – 80.

The Union existed before the Constitution, which was ordained and established among other things to form “a more perfect Union.” Prior to that event, it is clear that the Union, declared by the Articles of Confederation to be “perpetual,” was the sole possessor of external sovereignty and in the Union it remained without change save in so far as the Constitution in express terms qualified its exercise. The Framers’ Convention was called and exerted its powers upon the irrefutable postulate that though the states were several their people in respect of foreign affairs were one. Compare The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 604, 606. In that convention the entire absence of state power to deal with those affairs was thus forcefully stated by Rufus King:

The states were not “sovereigns” in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of sovereignty, – they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances, nor treaties. Considering them as political beings, they were dumb, for they could not speak to any foreign sovereigns whatever. They were deaf, for they could not hear any propositions from such sovereign. They had not even the organs or faculties of defence or offence, for they could not of themselves raise troops, or equip vessels, for war. 5 Elliott’s Debates 212.

It results that the investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend on the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality. . . .

Not only, as we have shown, is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate, and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with advice and consent of the Senate but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude and Congress itself is powerless to invade it. As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, “The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.” Annals, 6th Cong., col. 613. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations at a very early day in our history (February 15, 1816), reported to the Senate, among other things, as follows:

The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiations may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct he is responsible to the Constitution. The committee consider this responsibility the surest pledge for the faithful discharge of his duty. They think the interference of the Senate in the direction of foreign negotiations calculated to diminish that responsibility and thereby to impair the best security for the national safety. The nature of transactions with foreign nations, moreover, requires causation and unity of design, and their success frequently depends on secrecy and dispatch. U.S. Senate, Reports, Committee on Foreign Relations, vol. 8, p. 24.

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress but which, of course, like every governmental program, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution. It is quite apparent that if, in the maintenance of our international relations, embarrassment – perhaps serious embarrassment – is to be avoided and success for our aims achieved, congressional legislation which is to be made effective through negotiation and inquiry within the international field must often accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved. Moreover, he, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign countries, and especially is this true in time of war. He has confidential sources of information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular, and other officials. Secrecy in respect of information gathered by them may be highly necessary, and the premature disclosure of it productive of harmful results. Indeed, so clearly is this true that the first President refused to accede to a request to lay before the House of Representatives the instructions, correspondence, and documents relating to the negotiation of the Jay Treaty – a refusal the wisdom of which was recognized by the House itself and has never since been doubted. [3] . . .

Study Questions

A. Why does the non-delegation doctrine not apply in this case, according to the Court? What is the significance of the argument about the historical location of sovereignty during the Revolution and during the framing and ratification of the Constitution? What are the limits to the president’s foreign policy powers under this argument?

B. Does Sutherland go beyond even Alexander Hamilton as Pacificus? What might James Madison say in response to the Court in 1936?


The Pentagon has spent $15 million in the past five years to treat 1,892 transgender troops, Defense Department data provided.

The shock trials involving the Ford are the first aircraft carrier trials since 1987.

Most of the troops who were supposed to back up the fighters during the battle in Dawlat Abad stayed put out of fear that the.

Barron, who commissioned as a Navy officer, was selected by NASA out of a pool of 18,000 people to join the 2017 astronaut.

For decades, the Feres Doctrine has kept active-duty military personnel from suing the government.


Watch the video: XP-55 vs. Spitfire