|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Apr 24, 2012 13:50:28 GMT 12
Pearse flew long after Wrights‘I have had several tests. Last week's was my most successful.’The Timaru Herald | 11:55AM - Tuesday, 24 April 2012HISTORIC DEPICTION: An artist's impression of Richard Pearse flying his aeroplane.A 1909 newspaper interview seems to destroy any notion that Richard Pearse was the first man to fly, writes Paul O'Rourke.
The legend that Richard Pearse, of Waitohi, succeeded in achieving controlled flight before the Wright Brothers in 1903 appears to have finally been proved false.
Christchurch aviation author Errol Martyn said in a television interview he had found newspaper reports of Pearse flights being made in 1910. Research by the Herald suggest the first flights were made in 1909.
In Pearse's own words from November 17 that year:
"I did not attempt anything practical with the idea until, in 1904, the St Louis Exposition authorities offered a prize of 20,000 to the man who invented and flew a flying machine over a specified course. I did not, as you know, succeed in winning the prize. Neither did anybody.
"I have had several tests. Last week's was my most successful one, the machine rising readily."______________________________________ A New Zealand flying machine — Mr Richard Pearse of Waitohi the Inventor(From The Timaru Post, November 17, 1909)INVENTOR: Waitohi man Richard Pearse.A newspaper reporter receives curious instructions from time to time, but surely none more curious or pleasing than that which awaited the writer, a Post representative, on his arrival at the office on Tuesday morning. It read with that brevity peculiar to editors: "Inspect Mr Richard Pearse's flying-machine at Waitohi".
A quick ride in the express train to Temuka, and an inquiry of a very respectable hotel keeper put me on the track leading to the house of Mr Pearse, the inventor.
I crossed the field and rapped at the door of the dilapidated old structure. "Come in," said a cheery voice. The impression made upon my mind is one that I know will never be effaced.
"To the right of me was an empty room resembling a miniature barn, littered with sack and chaff. In the passage, immediately in front of me, rested three pieces of mechanism, built of bamboo poles and sail, for all the world resembling the spars and sails of a yacht.
To the left of me, however, was "the" room, I was face to face with the replica of an up-to-date engineering establishment.
There stood the forcing furnace, the time-honoured lathe, bores and innumerable other tools.
The litter of scrap iron, tins, oils, wire, etc, inseparable from an engineering establishment, and in the midst of it all, king of his own little den, stood the inventive genius himself, Richard Pearse — the man who day in and day out, from 8 o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock in the evening, for five long, weary years, with a patience and doggedness almost inhuman, has plodded on, until the very chink of his chisel would seem to have become tragically monotonous, and the mention of a flying-machine an anathema. But it is, and for Pearse, happily not so.
The man is an enthusiast, heart and soul. He is as fresh, as happy, as healthy and as determined as the day, when five years ago, he set out to achieve the dream of his life — the inventing and making of a flying-machine. And has he succeeded? Well it would appear so. The beautiful network of machinery, bamboo, wire and tarpaulin — looking for all the world like a huge spider's web, with a fly in the centre, and wings at the rear and at either side – answers affirmatively. From the equilibrium rudder at the tail to the propeller at the front and the engines in the centre, the machine is entirely original and demonstrates clearly the untiring patience, indomitable pluck, and engineering skill of the inventor.
But perhaps it would be as well to tell Pearse's tale in his own words. For the information of those who have not had the privilege of meeting this silent worker on the plains, I might mention that he is a man of striking personality and appearance.
He is of good physique, stands well over six feet in his socks, and his hands are large and hardened as those of a man well used to the rough toil of life. His story is simply told, and put in connected form, reads as follows:
"I am the son of a farmer, and have two brothers, both of whom, and myself are bachelors. My father is a retired man, and lives with my mother at Temuka. His farm is cut up between myself and brothers."
"From the time I was quite a little chap, I had a great fancy for engineering, and when I was still quite a young man, I conceived the idea of inventing a flying machine."
"I did not attempt anything practical with idea until, in 1904, the St Louis Exposition authorities offered a prize of 20,000 to the man who invented and flew a flying machine over a specified course. I did not, as you know, succeed in winning the prize, neither did anybody else. But I succeeded sufficiently to realise that there was a future for the flying machine and to send me on the course which is now within a week or two of complete success."
"Many of the parts for machine have been used on the other side of the waters. I do not say, mind you, that inventions have been copied. It is but natural that different people working on the same ideas, should arrive at the same conclusions. But I will say many of my inventions have come into use on the other side of the world since my own were patented in New Zealand."
"Almost every portion of my machine is of my own exclusive manufacture. The 25-horse power petrol engine (in four parts) and radiator built myself specially for a flying machine. The lightest 25hp engine in the world to my knowledge, weighs somewhere in the vicinity of 300lbs.
"My 25hp water-cased engine weighs 100lbs only, turns the four sheet steel propeller blades at the rate of 800 revolutions to the minute, and under the very severe tests to which I have subjected it, it has never shown the slightest sign of failure."
"My propeller connects direct with the crankshaft, thus obviating the necessity for clutches or any other weighty gear. The whole secret to a flying machine is in its lightness, and sustaining power. My machine weighs altogether, with me in it, only 500lbs, as against 1000 and 2000lbs the weights of the machines on the other side of the world."
"I have 900ft of sustaining area, as against 500 and 700ft, the sustaining areas of the 1000lb and 2000lb machines in the northern hemisphere. The action of a flying machine is simply that the propeller drives the machine along, and like a boy with his kite, as soon as a certain velocity is attained (in the case of my machine 12 miles per hour) the machine is elevated with its tricycle into the air, and sustained there by the 900ft of canvas beneath the body of the machine."
"Would the machine drop instantly if the propeller stopped revolving? Certainly not. The machine would descend as gracefully as a parachute."
"At the present moment, my rear rudder is slightly too heavy for the rear of the machine, and I am shifting it to the front, when every piece of the working mechanism will be within my sight as I sit in the machine."
"I have had several tests. Last week's was my most successful one, the machine rising readily, but tilting gradually at the rear owing to the rudder in that position disturbing equilibrium. As you may imagine, after five years labour without a return, and the expenditure of about 300 in raw material, I cannot afford to take any risks with my machine. Next week, if my trial is satisfactory, I will make preparations for the giving of public exhibitions."
"There is no commercial value in a flying machine itself at present. If I can get my machine right for flying exhibitions throughout Australasia, within a short time, my fortune is made. If through any case I am delayed, and foreign machines are exhibited here, I will simply get no return; but that will not prevent be bringing my machine to perfection. Would you like to see the petrol engine and propeller in operation?"
I admitted that I would, and my desire was promptly gratified. The engine was set going, the propeller was given a twist or two, and with a suddenness wholly unprovided for, I was almost blown off my feet by a veritable hurricane of wind.
The propeller blades spun round until they appeared as mere shadows in the daylight; the machine heaved and rattled like a living thing, seeming every moment as if it would spring from the earth and disappear.
A touch of the hand, and the vibrating mechanism was as dead as a stone. It was then that I recollected that the last train train left Temuka at 6.18 o'clock and that I had no chance of catching it, but I was content to lose it. I had seen the first completed flying machine in Australasia, and that was worth missing a dozen trains to see. It was therefore in a cheerful spirit that, after partaking of the lavish hospitality of the Pearse Brothers at their bachelors' house, a couple of miles distant, I crossed the seat of my antiquated bicycle — one of the first I imagine, that was imported into New Zealand — and pedalled all the 15 miles to home and Timaru.
It might be mentioned for the information of those who find time hanging on their hands, that the machine in question is not yet open to minute public inspection, but will be as soon as the inventor is ready.www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/features/6796486/Pearse-flew-long-after-Wrights
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Apr 24, 2012 14:33:32 GMT 12
Had to laugh at the Timaru Herald reporters 'research' claim. The only reason he was able to locate the Timaru Post item was because yours truly had done the research in the first place! Always sad when folk seek to bathe in the reflected glory of the unacknowledged work of others.
The following is a response I have made on the Timaru Herald/Stuff site:
"Reporter O'Rourke has not taken proper note of TV3's (heavily edited) interview with me by Jeff Hampton.
Although, as explained in my book - A Passion For Flight, I had indeed found a 1910 newspaper report (dated 31 January), it does not specify if the reported flights or hops took place in 1910 and or/1909.
As the interview indicated, I also found several late 1909 reports that had been overlooked by previous researchers that mention trials of Pearse's aeroplane, including the Timaru Post account of 17 November.
Missed by the Herald's 'research' is that on the same date the Tuapeka Times, although giving only the barest of information, published the only known contemporaneous account of a witnessed flight attempt by Pearse: one which clearly did not go well:
"The inventor of an airship [sic], a farmer living near Temuka, made a trial flight with the ship a day or two ago. He took it on to a hill in a field of wheat and set the motor going, but the machine refused to use its wings in the desired way, and fluttered down the hill aimlessly."
It's a shame the Timaru Herald did not trouble itself to examine the book before rushing into print with its misleading article."
Errol
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 24, 2012 15:03:00 GMT 12
It is fascinating to read that 1909 article though, it basically answers most of the questions that have been around for many decades, and also my entire idea of Pearse has changed as I never knew he was tall, big built and happy go lucky. ll the previous accounts and photos I've seen gave me the impression he was small, wirey and miserable.
Does this mean that officially he was the first to fly in New Zealand, or is more evidence needed on that still of a "successful" flight?
In 1904 when he started he almost certainly would have had no idea of the Wright brothers. His efforts are still remarkable and wonderful, even if he wasn't the first to fly in the world.
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Apr 24, 2012 16:14:48 GMT 12
Dave,
The lazy, hard-of-hearing reporter has just cherry-picked the Timaru Post report. Obviously he was in a rush to beat others to the story and in the process has made a pretty poor job of it. For a more complete version of the TP item, along with contextual comment, I suggest you read the book!
Cheers, Errol
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 24, 2012 18:09:48 GMT 12
OK, so that second article above dated 1909 isn't the full interview?
I believe my copy of the book has arrived but it's in Cambridge and I'm in Hamilton for the next few weeks. Might have toi convince my sister to bring it across to me.
|
|
|
Post by Evan Gardiner on Apr 25, 2012 18:00:56 GMT 12
The Timaru Herald article records a fascinating insight into Richard Pearse and importantly documents the advanced stage of development of Pearse’s aircraft at the time of the interview, 17th Novmber 1909. Here, presumably, was an unbiased newspaper reporter witnessing an engine and propeller combination, to use his own words:
“The engine was set going, the propeller was given a twist or two, and with a suddenness wholly unprovided for, I was almost blown off my feet by a veritable hurricane of wind. The propeller blades spun round until they appeared as mere shadows in the daylight; the machine heaved and rattled like a living thing, seeming every moment as if it would spring from the earth and disappear.”
Further in the interview, Pearse himself describes a recent attempt at controlled flight “I have had several tests. Last week's was my most successful one, the machine rising readily”
Yet Errol Martyn would have us all believe that Richard Pearse did nothing significant at all towards aviation prior to 1909/1910. Specifically, according to Errol, Pearse had not yet developed an engine by 1910. What was making all that wind then Errol?
It should also be obvious to everyone that such a demonstration over one hundred years ago could only be possible after many years of prior experimentation and development.
I accept that it appears at odds with eye witness accounts when Pearse refers to 1904 as the beginning of the development of his aeroplane but it could be argued that he was referring to that particular model of his aircraft. It is known that there were previous models developed, modified and discarded. For example, in this article the reporter confirms this aircraft had a water cooled engine with a four bladed propeller. Yet, clearly the ‘bones’ of an earlier model displayed at MOTAT are of an air cooled engine and a two blade propeller.
It could also be possible, I guess, that Pearse (or maybe even the reporter) simply got the date of 1904 wrong. After all, Errol claims more than 30 witnesses to Pearse’s earlier aviation attempts between 1902 and 1904 got their dates wrong. Now I can accept one or two of those witnesses being wrong in some detail, but all 37? I have never understood how sworn affidavits supplied by so many honest people with absolutely nothing to gain personally by offering their testimony, could so easily be dismissed as irrelevant. Yet if one person (Pearse) does their best to recall what they were doing 5 years earlier and nominates a date that then suits the argument (for Errol) that date is then set in stone, no argument.
To be clear about my own position, it has never mattered too much to me if Pearse’s first ‘uncontrolled flight’ was celebrated sometime in 1902, 1903 or 1904. To my mind, as a pilot and builder of several aircraft, the achievement of first controlled flight rightly belongs to the Wright brothers. And contrary to Errol’s bluster, this is the view widely held by all the Richard Pearse supporters that I know, and has been for many years.
However, Richard Pearse’s experiments into trying to achieve controlled flight over that 1902/1910 period and his well documented contribution to aviation innovation, rightly deserves recognition in any record of NZ’s history of aviation. I have skim read enough of the Richard Pearse chapter in Errol Martyns history of aviation to be disappointed to find that in this book, a fair and accurate record of Richard Pearse’s contribution to aviation has not been made.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 25, 2012 18:37:14 GMT 12
I guess a way to check reasonably accurately as to how far his development went back is to find out when the, as he said, "the St Louis Exposition authorities offered a prize of 20,000 the man who invented and flew a flying machine over a specified course." A search of Papers Past reveals this was being discussed in the Press in may 1902... paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=HNS19020506.2.27&srpos=1&e=01-01-1900--12-1905--10--1-byDA---0St+Louis+Exposition+prize+20%2c000--Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue 7454, 6 May 1902, Page 4 AIRSHIP FOR THE WAR OFFICE. THE LATEST FLYING MACHINE. Details of a flying machine which be is constructing for the War Office were given by Dr. C. F. A. Burton, of Beckenham, in a paper which he read recently at a meeting of the London Aeronautical Society. The machine is a combination of the gas vessel and Ecrew propeller principles, the balloon being fish-shaped and divided internally into four compartments. The framework is to be constructed of tubular steel, and will be provided with a number of aeroplanes capable of being inclined at will, by means of which the machine will be elevated or depressed. The car is to be made of light steel, and there will be a deck of nickel steel, and the deck of the vessel will be 104 ft, and the width of the deck will be 2Jft. The diving mechanism consists of six screw propellers coupled to petrol motors, each propeller being 17ft in length. It is proposed to preserve the centre of gravity of the vessel by a system of water circulation. Sir Hiram Maxim (who presided at the meeting) thought that the model contained more machinery than the balloon could carry. Mr Percival Spencer, the eminent aeronaut, said the machine appeared to contain many features which were good, but not new, and many that were new, and not good. Sir Hiram Maxim denied that he had offered £20,000 as a prize to be competed for at the St. Louis exposition airship contests. He was, however, prepared to give a large sum of money for a prize if a really practicable and tried airship was produced, This, he said, was not at present in existence, nor could it be produced in time for the St. Louis contests. If it were possible, he trusted that the inventor would offer it to the British Government to reconnoitre the enemy's position in South Africa. Personally, he did not think much would come of the St. Louis airship contests.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 25, 2012 18:45:47 GMT 12
paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=AS19020604.2.91&srpos=3&e=01-01-1900--12-1905--10--1-byDA---0St+Louis+Exposition+airship--Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 131, 4 June 1902, Page 6 AERIAL NAVIGATION. ST. LOUIS, April 13.— Santos Dumont, the'"wizard of the air," who is now en route to St. Liouis to confer with World's Fair officials on the subject of the airship races to take place during the progress of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, may find warmer competition among the American aeronauts than he anticipates at this time. Many American inventors, with plenty of money to back them up, are laying plans to dispute the Brazilian's title to being the "all of it" when it comes to navigation in the clouds. Probably the most formidable contestant Santos Dumont will have for the big prize will be Alanson Wood, the Toledo (Ohio) Inventor, who, with his partner, made a fortune in twelve short months from his invention—the roller coaster. Mr Wood is now completing the detail work on an airship, with which he will compete for the prize at the St. Louis World's Fair for the best dirigible airship. Mr Wood can lift 25,000 pounds with the locomotive force he intends to employ on his ship. Practical tests given his apparatus have demonstrated to the' inventor that his machine will be a success. Leo Stevens is the name of another airship builder who thinks his machine is an improvement on the Santos Dumont machine. It will be propelled by wings very much the same as the Santos Dnmont machine, but there will be two gas balloons instead of one, a smaller one being built within the larger one, and a water ballast attachment on a sliding track to keep the equilibrium of the machine perfect. What he considers his greatest, improvement over Dumont s machine is the addition of two automatic wings attached to the balloon, which will fold up when the balloon shoots upward and open as it descends, acting on the parachute principle and thereby preventing him from coming down to the earth too rapidly. Alvin W. Van Dorston, a skilled mechanic and pattern-maker, of South Bend, Ind., has a patent pending for a flying machine to be operated by gasoline. The body of the vessel is 100 feet long by 37 feet beam in the widest place. The total weight of the machine will be pounds. The lifting surface is 2500 feet. Included in this lifting surface are 96 lifting wheels. 48 on each side. Inventor Gustave Whitehead, of Bridgeport, Conn., recently conducted a series of trial tests with his machine at Charles Island, Milford. He is elated over the success of the trials. He asserts that he made a complete circuit in the air, covering an area of about a quarter of a mile, returning to within 50 feet of the starting point, when the machine descended and dropped lightly to the sandy shore. "The nights were a complete success," said Whitehead. "I had a kerosene motor, which worked perfectly. I steered the machine by running one propeller faster than the other, and there was not a hitch of any kind." Hermann Ganswindt, a noted Berlin inventor, for ten years has been experimenting, and has finally produced an airship which flies successfully by means of a motor and without the use of a balloon. Ganswindt has repeatedly demonstrated the practicability of his invention before the chief of the general staff of the German army.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 25, 2012 18:49:08 GMT 12
But of course with these things, when you read on through the many articles you realise there was another St Louis Exposition in 1904 which also had a prize for flying so there's no cut and dry...
And I'm certain Errol has been through all this, checked the facts and is turning red while he reads my words above, haha. Sorry Errol.
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Apr 25, 2012 19:17:15 GMT 12
Saint Louis Exposition. Because of its international nature in 1904 it was for that year known as the Saint Louis World’s Fair. It ran from 30 April to 1 December 1904 and included the summer Olympics, the first to be held in the United States. The prize Pearse referred to was for $100,000 for the ‘airship’ pilot who achieved the best average speed during three runs over a 15-mile course. No one managed to fulfil the conditions to win the prize, however.
Errol.
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Apr 25, 2012 21:09:11 GMT 12
Oh dear, another cowardly and ill-informed attack on an author by someone hiding behind a pseudonym. Notwithstanding this, it is amusing to note that Chunk has no hesitation in taking it upon himself to assume a first name familiarity with me.
“according to Errol, Pearse had not yet developed an engine by 1910. What was making all that wind then Errol?”
You say that you have only ‘skim read’ the book, which presumably must explain your ridiculous and incorrect statement.
“I accept that it appears at odds with eye witness accounts when Pearse refers to 1904 as the beginning of the development of his aeroplane but it could be argued that he was referring to that particular model of his aircraft. It is known that there were previous models developed, modified and discarded.”
No it can’t (be argued). As prominently displayed at the heading of my Pearse chapter, the inventor himself stated quite categorically in November 1909 - I did not attempt anything practical with the idea until, in 1904 . . . If he did nothing practical prior to 1904 then there obviously can have been no Pearse aeroplane of any ‘model’ prior to that date, regardless of what people may have remembered 50+ years later. Secondly, Pearse himself also stated later that he built only one aeroplane (prior to WWI). So clearly there was only the one aircraft, though he did make some changes to it, such as installing different engines and moving the elevator from the rear to the front.
“It could also be possible, I guess, that Pearse (or maybe even the reporter) simply got the date of 1904 wrong.”
This is clutching at straws, I’m afraid. Pearse himself on four separate occasions gives 1904 as his starting date. This also matches the 1909 accounts which state that his aeroplane had been five and half years in the building.
“After all, Errol claims more than 30 witnesses to Pearse’s earlier aviation attempts between 1902 and 1904 got their dates wrong. Now I can accept one or two of those witnesses being wrong in some detail, but all 37”
In fact there is no mention of ’30 witnesses’ or ‘all 37’ (Chunk can’t seem to make his mind as to the number) whatsoever in the book.
“And contrary to Errol’s bluster, this is the view widely held by all the Richard Pearse supporters that I know, and has been for many years.”
No ‘bluster’, Chunk (you’re getting desperate now), just reporting of the evidence.
“However, Richard Pearse’s experiments into trying to achieve controlled flight over that 1902/1910 period and his well documented contribution to aviation innovation, rightly deserves recognition in any record of NZ’s history of aviation.”
As stated earlier, Pearse had done nothing practical in 1902 or 1903 - ipso facto, it is simply impossible to present any ‘documented contribution to aviation innovation’ for these dates.
“I have skim read enough of the Richard Pearse chapter in Errol Martyns [sic] history of aviation to be disappointed to find that in this book, a fair and accurate record of Richard Pearse’s contribution to aviation has not been made.”
I am sorry that Chunk is disappointed in the book. However, it was written for people with open minds and who are prepared to properly read the book. It is to be regretted that skimmer Chunk chooses not to join them.
Errol
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Apr 26, 2012 16:25:04 GMT 12
For those who are interested, and given that the paper is not yet available for online viewing on Papers Past, here is a full transcript of the Timaru Post's 17 November 1909 report. In my book it was edited down to about half this size, though Richard Pearse's account in his own words still appears in full.
TIMARU POST WEDNESDAY 17/11/1909 PAGE 4
AFTER FIVE YEARS
A NEW ZEALAND FLYING MACHINE COMPLETED
MR RICHARD PEARSE OF WAITOHI THE INVENTOR
A newspaper reporter receives curious instructions from time to time, but surely none more curious or pleasing than that which awaited the writer, a “Post” representative, on his arrival at the office on Tuesday morning. It read, with that brevity peculiar to editors, “Inspect Mr Richard Pearse’s flying-machine at Waitohi.” A quick ride in the express train to Temuka, and an inquiry of a very respectable hotelkeeper put me on the track leading to the house of Mr Pearse. Here I was assured, I would probably receive directions as to the whereabouts of Mr Richard Pearse, the inventor. Mr Pearse senior, lives in a fine brick residence across the river bridge to the south-west of the thriving little town of Temuka. I write these directions now with the easy flowing pen of knowledge, but my knowledge was a peculiarly dim affair at the moment that I cycled across the bridge, and found myself face to face with two handsome mansions, fifty yards or so apart from each other. To locate the particular house I wanted I decided was an easy matter, and cycling up to the gate of the place that suited my conception of what would suit a retired farmer, I entered at a brisk step. I returned with a brisker step. A dog, that under any other circumstances I should probably have considered a handsome animal, rose majestically at my entrance, and yawned. With that quick observation peculiar to men faced with untoward circumstances, I discerned that the beast’s teeth were in perfect condition, and that the beast itself bore a striking resemblance to the infamous bloodhound breed. To place the gate between my framework and that the of dog was the work of a moment. To decide my next step was the work of several moments; but they passed, in course of time, and my decision was that for the sake of a mere inquiry, further acquaintance with that dog was, entirely unnecessary. I therefore moved on to the next house, and was on the eve of entering when a farmer’s dray, four horses, and the farmer himself, came abreast of me. I inquired the locality of Mr Pearse’s residence. “Which Pearse? Why, that’s a fine horse,” he added, turning his head in the direction of a hack that was being urged by its rider across the stream. Then to his leading horse he gave the direction, “Gee-up, Bess.” “I say, what about Pearse’s?” I suggested. “What Pearse?” “Mr Pearse, senior. The father of Richard Pearse, the inventor.” “Oh, aye, so it’s the flying-machine ye’re after. Wal, I wish ye luck. Gee-up Bess.” “But, I say, friend, you haven’t answered my question. Do you know where Mr Pearse, senior lives?” “Oh, aye, of coorse. He lives o’er there,” and my gifted acquaintance pointed to the house with the dog. I stood reflecting for a moment about things in general and the dog in particular. The remembrance of that fateful instruction “Inspect Richard Pearse’s flying-machine” at length roused me to action. “No,” I decided, “a miserable dog should not deter me from the path of duty.” So cutting from a willow tree that grew by the river’s edge a fine switch, the very swish of which as I swung it through the air raised within me the courage of my ancestors, I made the return journey to the brick house. The dog was still there, and rose in that wretched majestic fashion of his as I approached him. I called to him, and told him that he was a good dog, and he licked his lips appreciatively; but he made no move to let me pass. Time was flying, and “Inspect Richard Pearse’s flying machine” were five words that were stamped on my brain, and repeated themselves with cheerful persistency. I opened the gate and entered, and that dog – never shall I forget his kindness – actually turned his back upon me and conducted me to the door. I rang once, twice, thrice, but there was no answer. The dog stood behind me, watching my actions in grim silence. I decided, somewhat hurriedly, it is true, that Mr Pearse, senior, was not at home, and turned to depart. The dog turned too, and in the same stately fashion conducted me to the gate. Once I was safely off the premises, the animal turned his back upon me, and I watched him go quietly back to his old position by the doorstep and resume his recumbent posture. I had wasted three-quarters of an hour circumventing one peaceful dog. The sun was by this time throwing off a blistering heat, and I had been given to understand that I had exactly five miles of none too good road between me at the start of my journey and Waitohi. It is not my purpose to weary the reader with a description of that tiresome journey. Suffice it to say that I have had burned into my brain the truth that a countryman’s mile and a townsman’s mile are two entirely different things. The actual distance from Temuka to Mr Richard Pearse’s farm at Waitohi is nine miles. At the end of what I considered was about five miles, but what I now suppose was actually about three, I got off my machine and inquired of an intelligent specimen of a country youth his estimate of the distance to Mr Richard Pearse’s. “About a mile further on,” he made answer. I went on for about a mile, and seeing a small cottage by the way, I stopped, knocked at the door, and put to the buxom lassie who appeared the old question. “About a mile straight on,” she replied with a smile that would have interested me on any other day and under any other circumstances. As it was, I briefly – almost curtly, I am afraid – returned thanks. I traversed a full townsman’s mile and coming to a cross-road and a horse, vehicle, and man simultaneously, I put to the latter “the” question. “About a mile further on,” came the answer. Had I not be brought up differently, I should certainly have sworn; but I cycled on until I came to a number of wandering horses and an isolated school. To the latter I made my way and knocked. A fair lady answered, and to her I put the question. She could not give me the information I sought, she said, but perhaps one of the scholars could. With that she disappeared into the schoolroom. I was satisfied, however, she had not uttered those words, “A mile further on.” The teacher had been gone barely a minute when a lad of about fourteen years of age made his appearance. He was brimming over with information, and there was nothing I wanted to know that he did not know. He knew Mr Richard Pearse well, and he had also seen the flying machine, and, what was more important, he had seen it fly. Did not Mr Pearse keep his machine a secret, then? Oh, no, he kept it in an open field, and anybody could see it from the roadside. How far was it to the place? Just three miles! Mr Pearse lived in a hut that you could see from the road after you passed the second crossing. I thanked the lad fervently, and pressed on; and without further ado reached the field and the hut described by the boy, and, accompanied by a yelping cur which made his appearance from beneath a dray in the centre of the field, I crossed the field and rapped at the door of the dilapidated old structure. “Come in,” said a cheery voice. I entered. The impression made upon my mind is one that I know will never be effaced. To the right of me was an empty room resembling a miniature barn, littered with sacks and chaff. In the passage, immediately in front of me, rested three pieces of mechanism, built of bamboo poles and sail, for all the world resembling the spars and sails of a yacht. To the left of me, however, was the room. It was only with the utmost difficulty that I was able to bear in mind that I was nine miles away from what townsmen call civilisation. Here in the open field, two miles away from the nearest dwelling, I was face to face with the replica of an up-to-date engineering establishment. There stood the forcing furnace, the time honoured lathe, bits, bores, and innumerable other tools. The litter of scrap-iron, tins, oils, wire etc, inseparable from an engineering establishment, was there; and in the midst of it all, king of his own little den, stood the inventive genius himself, Richard Pearse – the man who day in and day out, from 8 o’clock in the morning until 6 o’clock in the evening, for five long, weary years, with a patience and doggedness almost inhuman, had plodded on, plodden on, until the very chink of his chisel would seem to have become tragically monotonous, and the mention of a flying-machine an anathema. But it is, and for Richard Pearse, happily not so. The man is an enthusiast, heart and soul. He is as fresh, as happy, as healthy, and as determined as the day, when five years ago, he set out to achieve the dream of his life – the inventing and making of a flying machine. And has he succeeded? Well, it would appear so. The beautiful network of machinery, bamboo, wire, and tarpaulin – looking for all the world like a huge spider’s web, with a fly in the centre and wings at the rear and at either side – answers affirmatively. From the equilibrium rudders at the sides and the guiding rudder at the tail to the propeller at the front and the engines in the centre, the machine is entirely original and demonstrates clearly the untiring patience, indomitable pluck, and engineering skill of the inventor. But perhaps it would be well to tell Richard Pearse’s tale in his own words. For the information of those who have not had the privilege of meeting this silent worker on the plains, I might mention that he is a man of both striking personality and appearance. He is of good physique, stands well over six feet in his socks, and his hands are large and hardened as those of a man well used to the rough toil of life. His story is simply told, and put in connected form, reads as follows:- “I am the son of a farmer, and have two brothers, both of whom, and myself, are bachelors. My father is a retired man, and lives with my mother at Temuka. His farm is cut up between myself and brothers. The labour of my portion I lease and I make sufficient out of the farm to live comfortably and pursue my hobby. From the time I was quite a little chap, I had a great fancy for engineering, and when I was still quite a young man I conceived the idea of inventing a flying machine. I did not attempt anything practical with the idea until in 1904, the St Louis Exposition authorities offered a prize of £20,000 to the man who invented and flew a flying machine over a specified course. I did not, as you know, succeed in winning the prize, neither did anybody else. But I succeeded sufficiently to realise that there was a future before the flying machine, and to send me on the course which is now within a week or two of complete success. Many of the parts of my machine have been used on the other side of the waters. I do not say, mind you, that my inventions have been copied; it is but natural that different men working on the same ideas, should arrive at the same conclusions. But, I will say that many of my inventions have come into use on the other side of the world since my own were patented in New Zealand. Almost every portion of my machine is of my own exclusive manufacture. The 25-horse power petrol engine (in four parts) and radiator are built by myself specially for a flying machine. The lightest 25-h.p. engine in the world, to my knowledge, weighs somewhere in the vicinity of 300lbs. My 25-h.p. water-cased engine weighs 100lbs only, turns the four sheet steel propeller blades at the rate of 800 revolutions to the minute, and under the very severe tests to which I have subjected it, has never shown the slightest sign of failure. My propeller connects direct with the crank shaft, thus obviating the necessity for clutches or any other weighty gear. The whole secret of a flying machine is in its lightness, and sustaining power. My machine weighs altogether, with me in it, only 500lbs, as against 1000 and 2000lbs the weights of the machines on the other side of the world. I have 900ft of sustaining area, as against 500 and 700ft, the sustaining areas of the 1000lb and 2000lb machines in the northern hemisphere. The action of a flying machine is simply that the propeller drives the machine along, and like a boy with his kite, as soon as a certain velocity is attained (in the case of my machine 12 miles an hour) the machine is elevated with its tricycle into the air, and sustained there by the sustaining 900ft of canvas beneath the body of the machine. Would the machine drop instantly if the propeller stopped revolving? Certainly not; the machine would descend as gracefully as a parachute. At the present moment my rear rudder is slightly too heavy for the rear of the machine, and I am shifting it to the front, when every piece of the working mechanism will be within my sight as I sit in the machine. I have had several tests. Last week’s was my most successful one, the machine rising readily, but tilting gradually at the rear owing to the rudder position disturbing the equilibrium. As you may imagine, after five years’ labour without a return, and the expenditure of about 300 pound in raw material, I cannot afford to take any risks with my machine. Next week, if my trial is satisfactory, I will make preparations for the giving of public exhibitions. The whole of the parts of my machine are held together with steel pins, and can be taken to pieces and packed with very little trouble. There is no commercial value in a flying machine itself at present. If I can get my machine right for flying exhibitions throughout Australasia, within a very short time, my fortune is made. If through any cause I am delayed, and foreign machines are exhibited here, I will simply get no return; but that will not prevent me bringing my machine to perfection. I am now getting 800 revolutions per minute out of my propeller, and, if necessary, I am prepared to put into it an invention I have just completed and am patenting – a 50-h.p. petrol engine weighing a little over 100lbs. The engine, itself, will be unique in the scientific world, but if I have to resort to it, it will delay the exhibiting of my machine for another three or four months. But I hope to do without the new engine and be in the position to give exhibition flights on my machine in the course of two or three weeks. Would you like to see the petrol engine and propeller in operation?” I admitted that I would, and my desire was promptly gratified. The engine was set going, the propeller was given a twist or two, and with a suddenness wholly unprovided for, I was almost blown off my feet by a veritable hurricane of wind. The propeller blades spun round until they appeared as mere shadows in the daylight; the machine heaved and rattled like a living thing, seeming every moment as if it would spring from the earth and disappear. The smile of supreme contentment that lit up the face of Richard Pearse as he watched the life-like movements of the thing of his own creation was alone worth going to Waitohi to see. A touch of the hand, and the vibrating mechanism was as dead as a stone. It was then that I recollected that the last train left Temuka at 6.18 and that I had no chance of catching it. But I was content to lose it. I had seen the first completed flying machine in Australasia, and that was worth missing a dozen trains to see. It was therefore in a cheerful spirit that, after partaking of the lavish hospitality of the Pearse Brothers at their bachelor house, a couple of miles distant, I crossed the seat of my antiquated bicycle – one of the first I imagine that was imported into New Zealand – and pedalled the fifteen miles to home and Timaru. It might be mentioned for the information of those who find time hanging on their hands, that the machine in question is not yet open to minute public inspection, but will be as soon as the inventor is ready.
Errol
|
|
|
Post by Evan Gardiner on Apr 26, 2012 21:09:20 GMT 12
My apologies for my over familiarity by using your given name. I am a ‘newbie’ on this board, and I am not sure where the ‘Group Captain’ fits in, but from now on errolmartyn it will be.
In reply I will try to ignore the bluster and respond in chronological order to those matters that may possibly persuade you, that there just could be a more accurate version of the history relating to Richard Pearse than the one you represent.
May I respectfully suggest that it would be useful to progress this debate if you could construct your response to replying to the actual detail of the points I make rather, than globally dismissing them all, and the messenger, as rubbish. Actually I don’t mind so much being condemned for any actual flaw in my argument, but to be condemned outright, just because I choose not to buy your book is all a bit pointless and it would not be worth my frustration to continue this debate.
I have replayed your TV 3 interview several times and to me and a number of other people who saw it, the whole tenant of your position appeared to be that Pearse had accomplished very little in the way of developing his engine and aircraft prior to 1909/1910.
To repeat, the Timaru Post story of 17th November 1909 clearly debunks your stated position on TV3. The Post reporter witnessed a completed aircraft with a running engine and propeller combination in Pearse’s shed on this date. This aircraft would have taken many, many years of development prior to 1909 to get it to this advanced stage.
Further, for your information, it is documented that Pearse first began building an internal combustion engine for his aeroplane at the time of the Boer war (1899 to 1902). The people of Waitohi already knew of this aircraft and engine around 1902 and many have signed affidavits to that effect. The ‘bones’ of this engine were much later discovered in a tip and further drawings and performance details of this engine were supplied by Pearse at the time of his Patent application in 1906.
Perhaps the most compelling evidence for me as to what stage Pearse was up to in this 1902 – 1904 period is that I have in my possession an audio file of a recording made by Warne Pearse (Richard Pearse’s brother) for the Royal Aeronautical Society in 1959. Now I personally knew Warne Pearse and like every other person that knew him, we would all unreservedly, vouch for his complete honesty. The recording is over 15 minutes long and as Warne was Richard’s closest confident at that time, Warne provides fascinating detailed information about Richard’s development of his aircraft and on-going flight testing in the early 1900s.
But the one snippet of detail I would like to record on this forum, because it was the subject of an earlier posting, is that Warne had talked with Richard about Richard’s desire to compete for the 10,000 pound prize offered by the St Louis Exposition. Richard was a subscriber to the ‘Scientific American’ so was in a position to receive (allowing time for shipping) up to date information from overseas. Warne recalls that at that time Richard felt he had a very good chance of winning that prize. Warne well remembers the flight of March 31st 1903 that is generally recognised as Pearse’s most significant effort. Warne distinctly recalls swinging the prop to start the engine and watching the plane accelerating down the Waitohi road to eventually become airbourne. Warne still recalls thinking at that very moment “he should win the prize for sure”. Then shortly after the aircraft crashes on top of a 12 foot high gorse hedge. At the time of all these conversations and activities in 1903, it is obvious that Richard Pearse must have been reasonably well advanced in his aircraft and flight development to feel that confidence. Once again this activity is all backed up by eye witnesses at the time.
You challenge my claim that Pearse built different models of his aircraft prior to 1909. errolmartyn says: “clearly there was only the one aircraft, though he did make some changes to it, such as installing different engines and moving the elevator from the rear to the front” From any aircraft builders perspective, any change of an engine from an air cooled two cylinder to a 4 cylinder water cooled, or an elevator mounted from the rear to the front of an aircraft, is very much a change in model. Simply because of the significant center of gravity and aerodynamic effects that would be the result of such a change.
errolmartyn writes “Pearse had done nothing practical in 1902 or 1903 - ipso facto, it is simply impossible to present any ‘documented contribution to aviation innovation’ for these dates.” On 19th July 1906 Pearse filed a patent application to cover several unique parts of his aeroplane. Notably his invention of the aileron, incidentally still an important component of modern day aircraft. He had a draftsman draw those parts of his aircraft that he needed to provide to the patent office with the detail and function of the parts he wanted to patent. To further support his application he had to submit a significant volume of detail about the design and effects of his ailerons. Any historian would know that in the early 1900s there was very little information on these matters available to anyone. Any aviator would know that in the early 1900s, there were no wind tunnels so if you wanted to investigate the effects of an aerodynamic control, in this case an aileron, you would probably do what Pearse did. Mount it on his aeroplane and experiment with a few fast taxis and maybe a short hop or two. You simply could not know the effects of an aileron, or possibly any adjustments recently made, without getting airborne at least for a short period. Much of this activity took place over the 1902 to 1906 period, and once again, in front of the many eye witnesses that have since recorded these events.
Again to quote errolmartyn: “In fact there is no mention of ’30 witnesses’ or ‘all 37’ (Chunk can’t seem to make his mind as to the number) whatsoever in the book.” To me, this is an appalling admission to make. You have chosen to devote a whole chapter of your book to document an accurate record of Richard Pearse’s contribution to aviation history and you have decided not to include the most compelling evidence, of actual eye witness accounts.
To discourage your ridicule of my previous approximation, I have today accurately counted the number of eye witness accounts that have been documented as being present at various ‘flights or hops’ of Pearse’s aircraft between 1902 and 1904. Not including those with second hand information, this total is 49! And at a time when swearing to tell the truth with your hand on a bible had some real meaning, many of these witnesses have volunteered to swear affidavits to what they had actually seen and when that sighting occurred. All of this information has been previously documented by respected historians and authors and easily accessible by you. For you to act in judgement on the integrity of those 47 eye witnesses by deciding not to even recognise their existence in your book clearly says to me that you are not really interested in the facts of the Richard Pearse history. errolmartyn, shame on you! And no, I am not going to quote to you the original researchers of all this information above. You know who they are, but also in all the previous articles and responses I have seen attributed to you over the last few years relating to Richard Pearse, you have always taken that opportunity to debunk and condemn anyone who holds a different view to your own. Including several very respected historians and authors that have devoted many years of their lives to unravelling the history of Richard Pearse.
In fact, on reflection I do not recall you ever making a single, positive statement at all about Richard Pearse’s achievements and contribution to aviation history. Which leaves me to the obvious question as to why you would include a Richard Pearse chapter in your book in the first place? The answer appears obvious to me, by you choosing to seek an interview with TV3 and consequently start a controversy about Richard Pearse to hopefully encourage your book sales. True or false?
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Apr 26, 2012 22:58:08 GMT 12
"The answer appears obvious to me, by you choosing to seek an interview with TV3 and consequently start a controversy about Richard Pearse to hopefully encourage your book sales. True or false?" [Chunk]
As you clearly have little faith in anything that I say, I suggest you contact Jeff Hampton of TV3 News for the answer.
"in all the previous articles and responses I have seen attributed to you over the last few years relating to Richard Pearse."
If you can produce a copy of a previous 'article' by me on Pearse you are a better man than me, given that prior to the book I had never written one!
Should you wish to continue this correspondence please (a) Read my chapter on Pearse properly, not just skim through it. (b) Undertake some study about the reliability of memory. (c) Have the courtesy to write under your own name and not continue to hide behind a pseudonym.
Errol
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 27, 2012 9:35:47 GMT 12
I am a ‘newbie’ on this board, and I am not sure where the ‘Group Captain’ fits in, Chunk, it may have escaped your notice as you have been too busy making a rather forceful first impression, but every member here has a rank under their name as it is part of the forum system. It denotes the length of time that a member has been on the forum and their experience as a member of the community here. The forum has this ranking system built in, and as it was started as an Air Force forum, I naturally placed RNZAF ranks into the gradients available. I am sure this had not actually escaped your notice however as you have gone into your profile and removed your rank, which would have been Leading Aircraftman. Though I have no problem with open debate such as this I would ask all involved to respect the views and research of others, have an open mind and keep the discussion civil. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Evan Gardiner on Apr 27, 2012 12:53:05 GMT 12
Thankyou Dave for your gentle ‘heads up’ about the ranking protocol on your forum and the need for appropriate respect to other ranks when posting your point of view. While I agree absolutely with the sentiments behind both points you have raised here, I would like to briefly comment in reply. I will try and keep it brief because I do accept this issue personally, is not your debate.
Firstly, I have no idea how my ranking of “Leading Aircraftman” was removed. To be honest I do not even know how to do this. All I can presume is that during the process of registering and logging on for the first time, I did experience difficulties and may possibly have deleted this detail by mistake. If you are able, please reinstate me.
As background (not mitigation) for what I accept, may be a degree of lack of respect in my two postings here. I have been closely involved in the long running Richard Pearse ‘saga’ since the very beginning. I have totally accepted the fact that there will always be a number of individuals who believe Pearse did nothing at all. And a whole range of opinions that vary between that extreme and my own view of the history of Richard Pearse.
But what I cannot easily accept is that someone can write and publish his version of the history of Richard Pearse, go on national TV and other media and proceed to debunk Richard Pearse’s early experiments in aviation. Based on a newspaper report that says nothing of the sort. But what really gets me going is that this version of history is being written with the authors decision that the memories of all 49 witnesses to Pearse, at least getting off the ground during this period, are to be totally ignored as being irrelevant and not worth recording. I personally new a number of those witnesses and several, including Richard Pearse himself, are close and valued relatives.
I have read the previous postings on this board relating to ‘the reliability of memory’ but I suggest that all the readers here can clearly remember a few key memories of their early life. And if anyone lived way back in the backblocks of the Waitohi in the early 1900s, and they saw an ‘aeroplane’ completing ‘hops and flights’ down their road I suggest that would be an event so dramatic, that most would hold that memory forever.
It is the integrity of all those honest people that are no longer able to defend themselves, that is really important to me and I will continue to try and represent their point of view to the best of my ability. I apologise for going on longer than intended.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 27, 2012 13:39:55 GMT 12
My apologies to you Chunk, I made an error in thinking your rank title had been deleted. On looking into it I realise now you have to make five posts before you achieve the glorious rank of Leading Aircraftman (my real rank!). So two more posts and your rank will appear and start to climb with subsequent posts. I never knew that, so I have learned something here. Regarding the debate, I have no problem with such things being discussed but it would be much more preferable and I'm sure beneficial if everyone takes a step back, takes a deep breath, and then approaches the subject in a less confrontational way. Questions and discussion about how each point in the research was reached - on either side - and what evidence is considered relevant and not, etc., will I'm sure lead to much more than simply accusing each side of being "wrong, so,there."I hope you know what I mean. As you say there will always be people with opposing views because there always will be - just like the Erebus debate. Both always cause friction and raw nerves when discussed. If such topics were approached in a much less fundamentalist way by opposing sides, we might just achieve something. As for my own experience, I have little knowledge to impart on this topic but I know I have been involved in a somewhat similar case of trying to find the truth in my research and coming up against the case of collective memories versus the known records and logic. Mine involves the riddle of when and if Charles Kingsford Smith landed at the Cambridge Aerodrome in his Southern Cross trimotor. I grew up with the story that my Nana told me often that he had landed at the racecourse, which was Cambridge Aerodrome from 1929 onwards. Nana had photos she had taken on her box brownie, I recall them very well as I looked at them often and they were probably the most interesting thing for me in her photo collection. The racecourse was just a block from our place so it somewhat caught my imagination. When I began researching for my website I tried to find the date and details of this landing. There is no known record of this in the local newspapers, either the Waikato Independent (Cambridge's paper) or the Waikato Times. I found nothng in the musuem at all to indicate he'd landed his aircraft Southern Cross there. I did find: - The Southern Cross crew visited Cambridge (by car) during their North Island tour in 1928, but the aircraft was stuck in the South Island damaged so it was not on that trip - The aircraft was based for a couple of days at Rukuhia (just west of Cambridge) in 1933 (or was it 1934, I don't have my notes here) - The aircraft was witnessed flying circles over Cambridge on that trip when they were based giving rides from Rukhuhia - Two Cambridge men became crew on the NZ tour that year! - Five independent witnesses told me they saw it land at the racecourse, all of them I believe - I now have two sets of photos of the aircraft sitting at what is likely to be Cambridge - Later after Kingsford Smith was killed Ulm and Taylor did land at Cambridge Aerodrome in the other trimotor Faith In Australia there is by far and away enough circumstantial evidence to say it 99% happened but because someone didn't record it in the newspaper it's awfully suspicious, as that would have been like astronauts visiting the town. I wrote to the place where the actual aircraft is held asking where the aircraft's logbooks are as they might reveal a landing. They said the logbooks were divided up and spread widely so there's no way of tracking the date down in the logs. Personally I believe it happened, it had to have happened. My Nana's photos had disappeared but I found some her sister had taken the same day. I have photos from another lady too. And five witnesses who all saw it happen, and recalled it as it was a huge memory for them. One lady said she met Smithy and he offered to take her up, but her father wouldn't allow it and she never forgave him. Nothing is ever easy in research and even if you are sure you know what you have found so far is the truth often something new will pop up and blow that theory out of the water. I have had that often. I have no real opinion of what Pearce did but I have no doubt that the new evidence found by Errol is significant and worth publicising, if only to reignite the debate and see what else comes up, and so long the debate is productive and courteous, that has got to be good.
|
|
|
Post by Evan Gardiner on May 12, 2012 16:13:57 GMT 12
The Richard Pearse Controversy, From A Great Nephew’s Perspective: For those members of this website that are outside the coverage area of The Press I would like to submit the article published in the ‘Perspective’ column of The Press 10th May. I will table the article below but if you prefer to read it on-line this is the link: www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/perspective/6901206/NZ-aviation-pioneer-was-the-real-dealYou may find some similarity with the arguments offered and the conclusions arrived at, with that of a recent contributor on this subject, who used the pseudonym ‘chunk’. This is not surprising and as a number of people have already guessed, ‘chunk’ and Evan Gardiner are one and the same. At the time I did feel a need for anonymity but that need no longer applies and I am more than happy to continue the discussion with any issues from the article. However, for me to accept the wise guidance and request from the moderator for any debate on the subject to be 'productive and courteous', naturally I expect the same consideration in return. Cheers, Evan Gardiner NZ AVIATOR PIONEER WAS THE REAL DEAL: EVAN GARDINER presents a family perspective on the controversy over Richard Pearse's pioneering efforts to fly. I am standing up for Richard Pearse’s family. I am standing up for my great uncle Richard Pearse, my grandfather Warne Pearse and my great aunts Florrie and Ruth. Apart from Richard who died at an earlier age, my great aunts and grandfather were a valued part of my extended family when I was growing up and I was always aware of their sense of fair play and absolute integrity. I’ve also been closely involved in the whole Richard Pearse saga since the early 1960s. Over the years there have been many contenders come and go, to try and dis-establish Pearse’s position in NZ history. Errol Martyn is the latest contender. Richard Pearse’s achievements in the early 1900s were principally established through the efforts of a number of researchers tracking down and independently interviewing the many people who witnessed some aspects of those achievements. Now Martyn is attempting to construct an argument, with the backing of an overseas ‘expert’ that my relatives and all those other witnesses did not accurately remember what happened in their lives at that time. Therefore, according to Martyn, all this witness evidence needs to be discarded as irrelevant when recording Pearse’s place in aviation history. There is nothing new about Martyn’s argument. Or the fact that common sense will continue to show that we can all recall a number of special events and people we have known and to hold those memories for ever. What is new though, is a recently discovered article from the Timaru Post of 17th November 1909. (Timaru Herald 24/04/12) It provides a very interesting and intimate insight into Richard Pearse. Even more importantly, it also clearly establishes the advanced stage of development of Pearse’s aircraft at the time of the interview. When Pearse started up his aircraft engine to demonstrate its performance, to use this reporter’s wonderfully descriptive prose: “The engine was set going, the propeller was given a twist or two, and with a suddenness wholly unprovided for, I was almost blown off my feet by a veritable hurricane of wind. The propeller blades spun round until they appeared as mere shadows in the daylight; the machine heaved and rattled like a living thing, seeming every moment as if it would spring from the earth and disappear.” Further in the interview, Pearse describes his recent attempt at controlled flight, “I have had several tests. Last week's was my most successful one, the machine rising readily.” It should be obvious to the reader that the engine demonstration and the recent ‘flight’ described by Pearse could only have been possible after many years of prior development of his engine and aircraft. In The Press 28th April, an article headed “Pearse's first attempt to fly 'was in 1909” Errol Martyn sought to persuade us that Pearse did nothing of interest to aviation historians prior to 1904 and that “Pearse didn't even attempt flight until six years after the Wrights”. Martyn’s premise is based on his interpretation of that part of a letter Richard Pearse wrote to Dunedin's Evening Star on May 10, 1915. The selected quote that Martyn chose for The Press article was: (Pearse) “started to solve the problem of flight about March 1904” and added, he had "worked at the problem for about 5 1/2 years"’. The problem with this quote is that it has been taken out of context with the rest of Pearse’s letter and has enabled Martyn to present his case and subsequent article on a completely false premise. Reproduced here is the actual part of Pearse’s letter that retained the context that Pearse intended. “After Langley’s failure in 1903 I was still of the opinion that aerial navigation was possible, and I started out to solve the problem about March, 1904. The Wrights started at about the same time. Langley was subsidised to the extent of ten thousand Pounds by the American Government, and after his failure aerial navigation was thought to be an impossibility; in fact ‘flying machines that wouldn’t fly,’ was a standing joke with the Newspapers.” This letter has been widely available for many years now. It was reprinted in Ogilivie’s book ‘The Riddle Of Richard Pearse’ in 1973. This quote from Pearse: “I started out to solve the problem about March 1904”, followed by this important next line that Martyn chose not to include, “The Wrights started at about the same time.”, should have challenged Martyn to at least research what was ‘the problem’ that both these ‘aviators’ were still experiencing in early 1904. The ‘problem’ of course was, lack of CONTROL. Unlike Pearse, the Wrights made it very easy for future aviation historians when their book was published by Dover Publications N.Y. “How We Invented The Aeroplane. An Illustrated History” by Orville Wright. In the appendix “The Wright Brothers’ Aeroplane” by Orville and Wilbur Wright, they say “We had not been flying long in 1904 before we found that the problem of equilibrium had not yet been entirely solved. Sometimes, in making a circle, the machine would turn over sideways despite anything the operator could do, although, under the same conditions in ordinary straight flight, it could be righted in an instant. The causes of these troubles – too technical for explanation here – were not entirely overcome until the end of September, 1905. The flights then rapidly increased in length, till experiments were discontinued after the 5th October, on account of the number of people attracted to the field.” This shows that the Wrights were still having issues with lack of CONTROL, until late in 1905, several years after the Wrights first recorded flight in 1903. Important to note also, that not only did these pioneer aviators need to construct an aircraft that could be controlled, they also had to learn the skills, without any prior training or practise, to fly that aircraft in a CONTROLLED way. In taking Pearse’s quote out of context, Martyn thinks he can persuade us to a rewrite of NZ’s early aviation history. Not so. As previously mentioned in my opening lines, he is even less successful in his assertion that all eye witnesses testimony is irrelevant. Gordon Ogilvie’s book ‘The Riddle Of Richard Pearse’ records no less than 48 eye witness accounts that were able to personally testify to witnessing Pearse's aircraft development and subsequent attempts at powered flight over the period 1902 to 1904. A number of these witnesses have sworn an affidavit to their testimony. A few were able to date their testimony very accurately because they had left the area after 1904. You can say what you like about the ‘sins of memory’ – misattribution, suggestibility, bias, etc. But 48 is too high a number for all to be misled, misinformed, over-imaginative, senile, lying or stupid. Of particular relevance is that Martyn has chosen to devalue this witness testimony even further by claiming that all these witnesses are ‘unnamed’. (The Press 28th April) This is completely untrue and all these witnesses are named and recorded in this book. To be clear about my own position, it has never mattered too much to me if Pearse’s first ‘flight’ was celebrated sometime in 1902, 1903 or 1904. To my mind, as a pilot and builder of several aircraft, the achievement of the first controlled flight rightly belongs to the Wrights. And despite Martyn’s often repeated statement to the contrary, this is the view consistently held by all the Richard Pearse supporters that I know, and has been for many years. However, we staunchly believe Richard Pearse’s experiments into trying to achieve controlled flight should retain its pre-eminent position in any record of NZ’s aviation history. And finally, a question to Errol Martyn. If Richard Pearse’s contribution to NZ aviation history over the period 1900 to 1910 is now not worthy of recognition – who is going to replace him?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 12, 2012 17:50:00 GMT 12
I'm confused. The Wright brothers are credited with the first controlled, powered flight on 17 December 1903, followed by several other demonstrations that month, are they not? i.e. three months before March 1904. With respect, I don't see where your argument lies.
|
|
|
Post by Evan Gardiner on May 12, 2012 20:22:48 GMT 12
No argument at all with what you have just stated. My argument has never been about Pearse beating the Wrights to achieving controlled flight, or uncontrolled flight for that matter. My argument is solely with those promoting a ‘new’ version of NZ’s aviation history that is based on Pearse doing nothing about experimenting with flight prior to 1904 and virtually nothing of note after that date. My argument is that Erol Martyn is trying to change recorded history by taking a selected part of Pearse’s statement out of context and and also claiming that the 48 eye witness accounts to these pre 1904 aviation exploits are all worthless and should be discarded.
Dave, before posting this I read your ‘Introducing yourself’ piece on 0ct.29th 2005. I presume this was right at the beginning of this message board, but I am not sure. Of note to me was when you were asked the question:‘What are your favourite aviation films or TV programmes?’ your first choice for favourite TV program was: the TV 1 doco series ‘Reaching For The Skies’. Because I was interviewed for the Richard Pearse segment I have kept a copy of that series. And I absolutely agree with you (and not for the afore mentioned reason!) that this was brilliantly produced and honestly reflects the history of NZ aviation to this day. My argument is an effort to preserve that history.
|
|