8. On June 27, 1941, plaintiff and defendant entered into a supplemental agreement whereby the plaintiff was advanced $6,600 of the contract price. Article 6 of the said supplemental agreement provides as follows:

In the event of cancellation or termination of the Contract for any cause whatsoever, or in case of breach of this Supplemental agreement by the Contractor, the Contractor agrees to return to the Government, upon demand, the outstanding balance of any advance payment or payments. If such demand is not met within fifteen (15) days after receipt of notice by the Contractor, the balance remaining due the Government shall

Special Findings of Fact

119 C. Cls.

bear interest at the rate of six per centum (6%) per annum from date of demand until payment is made.

9. The experimental device constructed by the plaintiff contained a liquid pool of mercury which supported on its surface a mirror. A ray of light was focused upon the mirror and as the base of the device was deviated or moved in any manner, the light reflected from the mirror also would move. Movements of the light rays were picked up by photoelectric cells which in turn activated certain auxiliary equipment. When the auxiliary equipment was activated, it moved the platform on the device in such a manner as to compensate for movements to the base. The auxiliary equipment consisted of electric relays, electric hydraulic valves, servo mechanisms, cylinders and a hydraulic system.

10. On February 16, 1942, plaintiff delivered to the defendant his stabilizing platform along with copies of a Manual of Operation and detailed drawings called for under the contract.

11. The stabilizing platform was unpacked in the presence of Sergeants Hamilton and Dickson. Plaintiff instructed Sergeants Hamilton and Dickson as to the operation of the device going over the Manual of Operation in detail as to operation and adjustments of the device.

12. The stabilizing platform was subjected to certain ground and laboratory tests at Wright Field. The tests were made by Sergeants Dickson and Hamilton under the supervision of Col. Kilpatrick, Chief of the Armament Laboratory at Wright Field. Incident to such tests, a memorandum was prepared on February 28, 1942, by Sergeant Dickson showing the results of the tests. The memorandum reads in part as follows:

3. The system described above is basically sound provided that it is not subjected to the forces of acceleration and vibration. The device is poorly designed and manufactured and it is worthless as an aircraft instrument where these forces are always present. In fact, a slight transverse vibration of the platform renders the leveling mechanism inoperable.

4. With the purpose shown under A in view, the following tests were made:

a. The base of the stabilized platform was leveled.

66

Special Findings of Fact

b. The equipment was energized and adjusted to maximum sensitivity.

c. The stabilized platform was adjusted to a level position.

d. The base of the stabilized platform was displaced from longitudinal level approximately 2 degrees.

(1) A stabilized platform followed this displacement and was displaced from longitudinal level approximately 2 degrees.

(2) The small movement necessary to provide this 2 degree displacement so disturbed the floating mirror that 2 seconds had elapsed before the action began to return the platform to level.

(3) Approximately 17 seconds were required for the platform to return to a level position.

e. The platform base was returned to a level position: (1) The platform followed this movement and was displaced approximately 2 degrees from longitudinal level.

(2) Approximately 2 seconds were required for corrective action to start.

(3) Approximately 18 seconds were required for the platform to return to within -2 degrees of the level position.

f. The base was displaced from lateral level approximately 2 degrees.

(1) The platform followed this movement and was displaced from lateral level 2 degrees.

(2) Approximately 2.5 seconds were required for cor

rective action to start.

(3) Fifteen seconds were required for the platform to return to within .25 degrees of the level position.

g. The base was returned to a level position.

(1) Platform followed this movement and was displaced from lateral level about 2 degrees.

(2) Approximately 2.6 seconds were required for corrective action to start.

(3) 16 seconds were required for the platform to return to within .3 degrees of the level position.

h. The base was displaced approximately 2 degrees along the bisector of its lateral and longitudinal level. (1) The platform followed this movement and was displaced an equal amount.

(2) Approximately 3 seconds were required for the

corrective action to start.

(3) Approximately 18 seconds were required for the platform to return to within .7 degree of the longitudinal .6 degree of the lateral levels.

Special Findings of Fact

119 C. Cls.

i. The base was displaced approximately 4 degrees from its longitudinal level:

(1) The platform was displaced an equal amount. (2) Approximately 2 seconds were required for corrective action to start.

(3) Approximately 20 seconds were required for the platform to return to within 8 degrees of the level position.

(4) The leveling action was very erratic since the corrective action for longitudinal level caused action of the lateral leveling mechanism to take place. This induced a false lateral level which had to be removed after the longitudinal level had been established.

j. The base was returned to a level position:

(1) Platform displaced from level approximately 4 degrees.

(2) Two seconds were required for corrective action

to start.

(3) Approximately 20 seconds were required for the platform to return to within 1 degree of the level position.

k. The base was displaced 4 degrees along the bisector of the lateral and longitudinal level.

(1) The platform was displaced an equal amount. 2) Approximately 2.5 seconds were required for action to start.

(3) Approximately 22 seconds were required for the platform to return to within 1 degree level longitudinal and 1.2 degree lateral.

7. The base and platform were leveled both in the lateral and longitudinal plane. Equipment was shaken very gently.

(1) Action of both leveling assemblies was produced which caused the platform to be displaced from level in both planes of from .5 degree to 1.5 degrees.

C. Conclusions

1. That subject device does not comply with the specifications as drawn up for the contract as follows:

a. Stabilization is not produced to within ±1°. This is evident since any displacement of the base produces an equal displacement of the platform. Stability is the strength to stand without being moved or overthrown. It is the state of maintaining a uniform level, both horizontal and vertical, so that no tipping or front or rear pitching occurs. The fact that the platform is caused to return approximately to the level position after an elapse of considerable time, and the fact that movement

66

Special Findings of Fact

of the base is translated into an equal movement of the platform, remove this device from the stabilizer category and establish it as an automatic leveling device of questionable accuracy.

b. Subject device is highly affected by vibration and acceleration which produces very unsatisfactory operation, both in length of time necessary to establish its fixed position and the accuracy of this position with respect to the desired level.

c. The mechanical construction of subject device is far below the standards established in aircraft armament productions, both in general design and workmanship.

d. The return of the platform to approximate level is performed in a series of jerky steps due to the use of the auto-reset on the microammeter switches. This particular type of switch is claimed by the contractor as an original idea. The finished product, however, is manufactured by Weston Electric Corporation and carries a catalog number.

e. The solenoid hydraulic valves, oil cylinders and base castings were stated by the contractor to have been extremely special manufacture at considerable expense to him. However, the cylinders carry a stock number from Hannifin Company, Chicago, and the valves a stock number from General Electric Company. The base is apparently a casting made for some other purpose and adjusted to fit this device.

13. Plaintiff's stabilizing platform was not flight-tested at Wright Field. It was customary in testing instruments of this nature to perform ground tests first and if the ground tests were unsatisfactory, flight tests were not made.

14. On March 13, 1942, Col. F. O. Carroll, Chief, Experimental Engineering Section, Wright Field, sent the following letter to Chief, Contract Section, Wright Field:

1. The above subject purchase order was placed with Dr. Erwin J. Saxl for the manufacture of one (1) Stabilizing Platform in accordance with Dr. Saxl's specification dated December 12, 1940.

2. The date of this contract is February 26, 1941, and delivery was required four (4) months after receipt of

contract.

3. Upon inspection it was found that the device submitted in nowise meets the requirements of the specification, and the quality of workmanship is inferior to the