|5/16/1931||10945||Curtiss Wright Flying Service Curtiss Bettis Airport Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania||0||Bill of sale from Walter Beech|
|6/2/1931||10945||Russell Eshman Washington Avenue Swissvale, Pennsylvania|
|5/17/1933||10945||Kenneth R. Cole South Euclid, Ohio|
|12/13/1933||10945||Helen Cole South Euclid, Ohio||Application for “Experimental” License. Application shows a Salmson engine.|
|6/25/1935||10945||Helen Cole South Euclid, Ohio||Technical data for installation of Flottorp 7227 acceptable and engineering inspector assigned to conduct engineering evaluation and flight test.|
|8/2/1935||10945||Helen Cole South Euclid, Ohio||Department of Commerce shows that the license was cancelled, but did not list a reason.|
|9/15/1935||10945||Helen Cole South Euclid, Ohio||This letter was sent to Supervising Aeronautical Inspector Detroit Michigan, from Chief Manufacturing Service concerning the test flights conducted under the supervision of Inspector Neely.“This refers to Aeronautical Engineering Inspector Neely’s final engineering and flight test report of September 2(?) and letter of transmittal of October 1 pertaining to the subject airplane.
1. Aircraft Inspection Report 8-2 authorizes a gross weight of 975 pounds for this airplane and the flight tests should not have been conducted with a gross weight in excess of this amount without the approval of this office.2. Information pertaining to the chassis wheel and the tire installation and tail wheel or tail skid should have been furnished in item 12 on page 4 and page 4 of the AB-46. 3. The pertinent weight and balance report should have been signed by Engineering Inspector Neely. Furthermore, as dual controls are provided and as the rearmost c.g. position obtainable with this airplane is with the pilot flying solo in the rear seat with reduced fuel, the airplane should have been flown from the rear seat in the tests for this load condition. This airplane should have been ballasted, also, to account for the fact that the c.g. is further aft with a 170 pound pilot than with a pilot and parachute weighing 185 pounds. 4. The subject airplane is considered to be unsatisfactory for the following reasons: (a) A passenger cannot be carried with a minimum of 6 gallons with exceeding the gross weight of 975 pounds. (b) The airplane is shown to be unstable for the most forward c.g. load condition with full power. (Refer to our memorandum of May 18, 1935, and our supplemental memorandum of June 15, 1935 to all engineering inspectors pertaining to longitudinal stability. Engineering Inspectors Neely’s report does not show that the range of the stabilizer adjustment has been limited to the setting corresponding to balance at the cruising speed of the airplane, as is required.”