|
Post by errolmartyn on May 25, 2016 17:18:17 GMT 12
You're so naughty! Brazilians get really passionate about Alberto Santos Dumont and believing the Wrights flew gliders until 1906, which was the year ASD 'flew' his awkward 14bis; an aeroplane so ridiculous it was a balloon basket fitted with wings and a fuselage, in which the pilot stood upright to fly it. Brazilians start foaming at the mouth about him. Grant, There goes your invite to attend the Olympics then! Errol
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on May 25, 2016 17:47:36 GMT 12
Hmm, might make my forthcoming trip to Buenos Aires a little awkward - I just have to remember to call them the Malvinas...
Ah huh, but the 14bis was designed to be flown from a balloon and in this role it was unsuccessful; hence the balloon basket. It was arguably unsuccessful as a conventional aeroplane as well; the term 'flight' for the September 1906 hop is a little extravagant. The aircraft could only fly in a straight line at any rate; the 'control' surfaces later attached to the main wings, often wrongly mistaken for ailerons, which they definitely weren't had little effect on the aircraft's course. Even at the time, we have to remember that a whole year earlier the Wrights were regularly spending half an hour up over Huffman Prairie in their 1905 Flyer, which could carry two people. Not to also forget that they had built and flown three powered aeroplanes by then and made over 100 flights in them. Of course, no one realised just how far ahead the Wrights were and wouldn't believe them when they decided to prove it, either.
I did say he's a naughty boy! We all know he is!
|
|
|
Post by ZacYates on May 27, 2016 14:48:47 GMT 12
I'm in no way suggesting Santos-Dumont was first, just pointing out some detail. I'm 100% behind the Wrights.
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on May 27, 2016 16:34:27 GMT 12
Yes, I know Zac, the point is that the 14bis was a technological dead end, with its only redeeming feature being that it enabled Santos Dumont a deserved place in aviation history. What his achievement did was spur others into doing the same. In 1907 Robert Esnault Pelterie was making short flights in his own aircraft, but it's also worth mentioning Paris domiciled Transylvanian Trajan Vuia, who made short hops into the air in his machine before Santos Dumont did in the 14bis.
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on May 28, 2016 21:16:44 GMT 12
THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD TAKES ITS TURN TO ADD TO THE RICHARD PEARSE FLEW FIRST MYTH!
Yet another poorly researched piece of journalism, this time from a Phil Taylor of the New Zealand Herald who in the 27 May issue goes on to make ridiculous statements such as:
Success [of the Mudrovich aeroplane] would mean that Pearse's 1903 design was capable of flight. That would reignite debate about whether Pearse's monoplane did fly and whether it did before the Wright brothers' at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. . . . Documentary evidence to support a claim Pearse flew as early as March 1903 - months before the Wright brothers - remains open to interpretation, and Pearse did not develop his aircraft to the same degree as the Wright brothers, who achieved sustained controlled flight.
As I have been at pains to point out before, on 16 November 1909 Pearse himself stated categorically that he had done ‘nothing practical’ until after 1903 (his patent was not filed until 1906 and the drawings to accompany it a year later). So no room here for ‘interpretation’ then about Pearse flying before the Wrights in 1903! Even if the Mudrovich machine, given its significant differences from the few known facts about Pearse’s, does succeed in flying it of course does not prove that Pearse’s machine was capable of flight.
Taylor also reports Mudrovich as saying that patents don't come with measurements - but, "you've only got to know the size of one part that is on the drawing and then you can work out the size of everything else."
Not so. The patent is not a plan or scale drawing but simply a drawing or diagram in support of the patentee’s concept claims at the time. Needless to say, in the two to three years between the patent being filed and Pearse’s first flight attempts in November 1909 the inventor had plenty of time to alter his design, and clearly did so. But the Mudrovich machine even gets this wrong, its rectangular wing being at odds with November 1909 eyewitness reports that Pearse’s was oval shaped. He also fails to take into account that the elevator was moved from the rear of the machine to the front within days of the first trials. As I stated earlier, Richard Pearse was an interesting personality and his dogged attempts to build and fly a powered aircraft on his own deserve to be recognised. Sadly, ill-informed reports about him, such as that in the Herald, simply serve to promote New Zealand as a laughing stock among aviation historians worldwide.
Errol
|
|
brucie
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 4
|
Post by brucie on Jun 7, 2016 12:23:30 GMT 12
To anyone who really understands patents and has studied Richard Pearse, Errol Martyn is fast becoming a laughing stock of New Zealand and the world.
I suggest Errol Martyn gets a copy of "Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks" 1889. Look up Part 2, Patents. Read paragraph 8(2). There you will see that a witness must attest that the applicant is in possession of an invention, for which he desires to obtain a patent.
So, the inventions come BEFORE the patent.
There is a big difference between just getting off the ground and Aerial Navigation, which is useful.
Think on that Errol.
And please try and spell my name correctly, there a 2 c's in Mudrovcich.
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jun 7, 2016 13:09:37 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 7, 2016 14:57:48 GMT 12
How about this direct quote from The Press newspaper, Volume V, Issue 13570, 3 November 1909, Page 6 (and syndicated also in the Marlborough Express, the Colonist, the Manawatu Standard, and the Lake County Press later in that month)
A young South Canterbury farmer, who has for some years past been working in secret in an endeavour to perfect a flying machine, considers that he has now nearly reached the goal at which he is aiming. He intends to make a trial flight with his airship it an early date. The framework of the ship is of bamboo, the wings all of calico, and the propelling power is a motor. The inventor is Mr Richard Pearse, of Waitohi.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 7, 2016 15:10:31 GMT 12
Then there is this report from the Clutha Leader, Volume XXXVI, Issue 49, 30 November 1909, Page 6 which is obviously the same interview that Errol located a couple of years ago, and is without doubt CASE CLOSED on all the ridiculous 1903 and 1902 theories of him flying.
A FLYING MACHINE.
NEW ZEALANDER'S INVENTION.
A young farmer named Mr Richard Pearse, who resides near Temuka, has been engaged for five years on the construction of a flying mahcine. To a Timaru Post representative he spoke as follows: "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. Th« 25-h.p. petrol engine (in four parts) and radiator are built by myself specially for a flying macine. The lightest 25-h.p. in the world to my knowledge weighs somewhere in the vicinity of 300 lbs. My 25-h.p. water-cased engine weighs only 100 lbs, 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 the flying machine is in its lightness and sustaining power.
"My machine weighs altogether, with me in it. only 500 lbs, as against 1000 and 2000 lbs the weights of the machines on the other side of the world. I have 900 ft of sustaining area, as against 500 and 700 ft, the sustaining area of the 1000 and 2000 lb 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 900 ft 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. I have had several tests. Last week's was my most successful one, the machine rising readily, but tilting gradually at the roar owing to the rudder in that position disturbing the equilibrium. As you can imagine, after five years' labor without a return, and the expenditure of about £3OO 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 short time my fortune is made. I am now getting 800 revolutions a 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 100 lbs. 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."
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Jun 7, 2016 16:11:06 GMT 12
To anyone who really understands patents and has studied Richard Pearse, Errol Martyn is fast becoming a laughing stock of New Zealand and the world. I suggest Errol Martyn gets a copy of "Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks" 1889. Look up Part 2, Patents. Read paragraph 8(2). There you will see that a witness must attest that the applicant is in possession of an invention, for which he desires to obtain a patent. So, the inventions come BEFORE the patent. There is a big difference between just getting off the ground and Aerial Navigation, which is useful. Think on that Errol. And please try and spell my name correctly, there a 2 c's in Mudrovcich. Brucie, My apologies for misspelling your name. I do my very best to get these things right, especially as folk often misspell my own surname but, as they say, to err is human . . . just as presumably is the case where folk err not once but twice when making a simple post on the forum. Your red herring comment about inventions coming before the patent in no way alters the fact that in 1903 Pearse, by his own categorical statement in November 1909, had done ‘nothing practical’ up to that time. The patent was of course not filed until 1906-1907. Further, whatever he had invented by that later time clearly underwent alteration between then and 1909, as one would naturally expect with the continuous progress of knowledge and ideas (though not always practical ones) over the intervening two to three years. Regarding your uncalled for laughing stock comment, I’m afraid that you must live in a very small world indeed or perhaps on another planet altogether, judging from the lack of laughter or even so much as a hint of muffled mirth at any of my work being heard here on Earth. Errol
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 7, 2016 17:07:17 GMT 12
I used to live under the misapprehension - thanks to the continuous garbage that the media and a certain Auckland museum regurgitates frequently on Pearse - that there was a chance that he may have flown first. But then I started listening to the sound reason and logic of noted historians who've studied the case for decades, and if you step back and look at the actual evidence, it's quite clear that Errol is absolutely correct. I mean how can he be wrong when anyone in the world can go to the internet and find Pearse himself quoted directly in November 1909 completely blowing away the previous theories that somehow were concocted in the 1960's or so.
But I am quite confident that these days most people who have a genuine interest in aviation history are most definitely not laughing at Errol, they are congratulating him for standing up against the wrongs committed by researchers in the past. I have discussed this with a lot of people and not one has said to me that they think Errol has got it wrong. So, no laughing matter.
However Ivan I do admire the work you've done to recreate the Pearse aeroplane as best you can from the limited drawings that are around. I wish you well for the attempts to fly it and hope it will be successful. It won't prove anything at all regarding Pearse but it will be an interesting achievement in itself.
|
|
brucie
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 4
|
Post by brucie on Jun 7, 2016 19:10:48 GMT 12
And what about the 38 eye witness accounts from 1903?
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Jun 7, 2016 19:21:33 GMT 12
And what about the 38 eye witness accounts from 1903? I'm afraid you are sadly mythinformed. No such verifiable accounts exist. Errol
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jun 8, 2016 12:01:06 GMT 12
My general rule when deciding on the veracity of anyone's personal accomplishments is to read everything personally written by the subject under discussion, and take it from there. You then have to balance this against contemporary news accounts - admittedly not always perfect, but usually contemporaneous - , and other people's memories, also official records which might confirm or make doubtful any particular claim, then decide what the real story might be, at least so far is this is possible, given the available independent sources of information. You can even speculate, although this has to be carried out quite openly, as speculation in itself is just that - it proves absolutely nothing. Reading Pearse's OWN words, I have read absolutely NOTHING that would indicate he was ATTEMPTING to actually fly in 1902, or '03, 04, 05, 06, etc; he is quite emphatic on this point. He is also quite emphatic that his first aeroplane was pretty much a complete failure as a flying machine (way too large, and completely uncontrollable) and that it was for this reason, plus fact that other pioneers were by this time gaily flitting about in the clouds with perfectly reasonable - for their time - practical aeroplanes. In other words, the passing of the years had overtaken his own prodigious efforts, with others overseas having swiftly taken the lead in well-publicised accomplishments, and the leading edge people even starting to profit from their efforts. Designing a practical aeroplane was, after all, only the start - to convince somebody else to purchase the rights to actually produce it - or to set up a factory yourself - was often way beyond the skills and temperament of many of these pioneers - that was for people with smart business and marketing brains. It is also worrying that Pearse did not really progress very much in the early period (up to WW1) in his understanding of positive (or even passive) control of aerial vehicles, and also seemed completely ignorant of the science of aerofoils. Although this last subject has been raised previously on this forum, can ANYONE point to a SINGLE piece of evidence that Pearse's understanding of flying/lifting surfaces had progressed beyond box kites? However none of this lack of knowledge prevented Pearse from re-starting his aerial dreams again in the early 1930s, when he decided to design a vertical take-off aircraft for "everyman", complete with an engine of his own design. His self-belief and perseverance have to be hugely admired, although taking into account his limited practical aeronautical design knowledge, his chances of success were probably slight at best. However it seems that he had acquired a certain amount of additional aeronautical knowledge by this date, but unfortunately by this time technical institutes and universities around the world were churning out hundreds of graduates in the aeronautical sciences, and ten of thousands of perfectly adequate maintenance engineers were striving throughout the world to keep the thousands of extant aircraft in flying trim, while government funded as well as some privately financed research and development of the aeronautical sciences was also underway, in Russia, the USA, Britain and Germany, France and Japan, Italy and most of the states of Europe. Wind-tunnels were a standard tool in these scientific establishments, along with new tools and theories being discussed by top engineers all over the world, with scientific papers being produced in abundance on every detail which could improve the design and production of new aircraft, as well as the materials they were constructed from. Pearse was probably aware of the scale of these developments, through the pages of aeronautical journals, but unfortunately for him that is as close as he could get to the action. He worked alone in a small shed, with very basic tools, probably relying on other skilled (non-aviation) tradesmen to undertake small jobs that were beyond his own engineering capacity.
Something I have known of for many years, but have never seen published ANYWHERE, is that Pearse somehow found out that the Royal Navy was requesting proposals from the British aircraft industry for a new type of aircraft which soon became known as the "fleet shadower". Two prototypes appeared from different companies, both very similar, shoulder-wing monoplanes of unusually ugly appearance, and powered by four tiny Pobjoy radial engines. By the time Pearse became aware of this competition, I think the RN had evaluated both the prototypes offered, decided that neither was worth proceeding with, and had forgotten about the whole idea, but Pearse saw this as an opportunity to at least partially recoup his years of worry and toil, and outlay of his own money. He decided to market his own (untested) "Utility plane" to meet the Admiralty requirement, but was soon informed by their Lordships that they were not interested in such an untested machine. This encouraged Pearse to finish construction of the Utility plane and attempt to get an exemption from the motor car petrol control regulations so that he could finally air test his prototype. The Govt department concerned was, however, very doubtful about the efficacy of this machine, which nobody in govt circles had even heard of. Air Department was duly requested to send an experienced engineer officer to visit the Pearse "aeroplane factory" (in Woolston, near the Avon river) and to provide a report on the practicality of the new and secret invention. This officer carried out his duty, but the impression he came away with was not favourable. Frankly he could not believe his eyes - he felt as though he had just been transported back in time about 40 years, to the very dawn of the age of aviation, when many aircraft structures utilised that old Chinese favourite, bamboo, to provide the lightness and strength required. Needless to say, his report to his superiors was VERY negative, no petrol supply exemption was granted, and the Admiralty heard no more on the subject of this already long-abandoned official requirement for a fleet shadower. The fruit of Pearse's brave idea can be studied at leisure at MoTaT, although it was not designed specifically for fleet shadowing purpose and probably did not come remotely close to meeting it anyway. Pearse did also stress that, in his opinion, his Utility plane would also be ideal for hunting and attacking submarines, just to add its versatility and general worth. Pearse did wax lyrical on the usefulness of his basic design (which he hoped to market commercially after the war), and its utility over all other extant types, also stressing that his engine was very advanced, and even attempted to prove that in some ways it was superior to the contemporary Bristol Pegasus 1,000 HP radial (which itself was semi-obsolete). The Pearse letters which form the basis of my knowledge of this forgotten (and most personally disappointing to Pearse) chapter of his futile attempts to actually be paid for one of his aeroplanes, were contained in that unusual series of govt files known as "war inventions" that were transferred to the RNZAF Museum a considerable number of years ago, but are rarely studied. However they do give an idea of the isolation of Pearse and his increasingly desperate attempts to at last reap some benefits from his years of sweat and toil - he was forced to follow a very frugal lifestyle to support himself and his dreams over a long period. It is interesting to compare his cheerfulness and optimism as a young man in the now-famous interview referred to above by Dave Homewood (first re-published in modern times by Errol Martyn), and the tone of his WW2 letters where he is clearly desperate to get an order for his Utility plane, even one, then his later physical and mental decline, still worrying about his patents and his hope that one day soon his ship just might come in, as detailed briefly in Gordon Ogilvie's book. David D
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 8, 2016 13:08:36 GMT 12
Really interesting about that strange aircraft design of his that is in MOTAT. Someone should have given him some petrol just to see it attempting to fly, it would have been quite amusing.
Were any of his lightweight engines or his bicycle patents actually worthwhile designs? Or did he make nothing from them either?
I love the spirit of a guy pottering in his shed inventing stuff, but there is a degree of madness when he thinks he can sell that utility plane to the Royal Navy. Mind you, Blackburn had the cheek to sell them the Skua and the Roc I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 8, 2016 13:09:49 GMT 12
Actually, that War Inventions file could make the basis of a superb display for the museum at Wigram. So much innovation came out of garden sheds in WWII, not all of it good. But lots of it very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Jun 8, 2016 22:29:50 GMT 12
One thing I have never really understood is why Pearse gave up his early avation experiments pre-WW1.
Did he run out of money, enthusiasm, suffer from illness, or suddenly develop an all-consuming lust for the blonde next door?
I would have thought that someone of his ideas and skills would have possibly emigrated to some centre of aviation activity (UK, France, USA) to follow his dream when the demands of WW1 eventuated, or at the very least beat on the doors of Wigram or Kohimarama. He could have been in George Bolt's shoes.
Instead, after his early experiments, he seems to have given it all away until starting work on the utility-plane many years later.
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Jun 9, 2016 22:45:57 GMT 12
Maybe one day evidence will come to light to prove he pioneered aerial topdressing too..
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Apr 14, 2024 17:14:35 GMT 12
From the 10th April MoTAT update: " Richard Pearse Plane takes pride of placeThe fit-out of Te Puāwananga Science and Technology Centre is nearing completion and the countdown to opening is on. A major milestone was achieved recently when not only was the Richard Pearse Utility Plane successfully transported from M3 into the new centre, it was also mounted so that it appears to hover above the ground! The Pearse plane takes centre stage in the Agents of Change section where Aotearoa science and technology innovators and inventors are celebrated, from Kupe to Peter Beck of Rocket Lab. It is sure to be a star attraction and an object of much fascination and intrigue for visitors. A huge amount of mahi has taken place behind the scenes to bring this marvellous machine back onto display for the first time since the 1990s. You can read more about the multifaceted conservation work done during the past 12 months on our website – and the convertiplane’s history with MOTAT as well as previous restoration work. Congratulations to everyone involved with this project, from Exhibitions, to Conservation, Curatorial, Collections Workshops and Registry – it’s been a huge team effort." See the background story at: www.motat.nz/collections-and-stories/stories/conserving-richard-pearses-utility-plane/
|
|
|
Post by Antonio on Apr 14, 2024 20:13:36 GMT 12
Wow. No mention of New Zealand then?
|
|