OH DEAR ERROL!!!!

[glycol]

When you stated recently on the forum that the fabric was on the bottom of the wing rather than on the top in an earlier criticism of Ivan Mudrovcich’s interpretation of Pearse’s aircraft, I put it down to a simple slip up & anyhow you were rapidly corrected.

Your criticism dated JAN 20, 2015 @ 7.18P.M. of the picture at the Wairarapa Air Show states “most notable of all, that it possessed no camber (whereas M's clearly features a very obvious airfoil)”.

Errol I am surprised that a researcher of your reputation was unaware of this.

Quote from Provisional Specification No.21746-19th July 1906.

“Passing lengthways and across the framework, are three trusses of light material in which the upper and lower rods, forming the trusses, bulge outwards in the centre of the framework until about three feet apart.”


That most certainly puts a curve in the top of the wing. It has been called arced sine or part circle aerofoil.

This was a common system with very early aviators and probably taken from Lilienthal or Chanute who also used it. The Wrights evaluated it and discarded it.

This type of aerofoil has the characteristic of rapidly reversing the centre of pressure at higher angles of attack. Does this ring a bell with how you might end up in a hedge rather than climb over it?

I would strongly recommend you spend some time talking with Ivan Mudrovcich on how this aircraft was developed. You may be very surprised on how it was achieved and how knowledgeable he is on the subject.

Alternatvely don’t comment on technical details unless you know their origin.

[Dave Homewood]

If you chaps are going to have a discussion about this, please keep it cool as I am about to go away for the weekend and I'd hate to come back and find a huge argument here guys. Think of the other poor moderators who I am leaving in the lurch... Thanks!

[errolmartyn]

Dear Glycol (a shame you didn't have the courage to sign your name to this criticism)

"When you stated recently on the forum that the fabric was on the bottom of the wing rather than on the top in an earlier criticism of Ivan Mudrovcich’s interpretation of Pearse’s aircraft, I put it down to a simple slip up & anyhow you were rapidly corrected."

Not 'corrected' but commented upon. There is difference!

A reporter from the Timaru Post visited Pearse on 16 November 1909. An account of his interview with the inventor appeared in next day’s issue. A substantial portion of the column and half-long item featured Pearse’s own words, including these:

. . . 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.

While preparing Volume Three of my A Passion for Flight, it was drawn to my attention by a fellow historian that the comment was ambiguous and in fact, if taken literally, suggests that the canvas sheeting was installed beneath the entire machine! It does not of course confirm that the canvas covered the upper surface of the wing. On page 183 of Volume Three can be found an amendment to the way in which I present the text on page 156 of Volume One.


""Your criticism dated JAN 20, 2015 @ 7.18P.M. of the picture at the Wairarapa Air Show states “most notable of all, that it possessed no camber (whereas M's clearly features a very obvious airfoil)”.

Errol I am surprised that a researcher of your reputation was unaware of this."

Your statement makes no sense: I am of course aware that Pearse's machine possessed no camber, just as I am aware of Mudrovcich's 'reproduction' wrongly features camber.

On page 158 of Volume One of my A Passion For Flight I write of November 1909 eye-witness Sam H. Carter’s inspection of Pearse’s machine (the one he actually constructed as opposed to what he had in mind two to three years earlier):

Carter then proceeded to give details of the machine itself, which differed in some significant respects from those to set down in Pearse’s 1906-1907 patent, changes brought about no doubt as the result of more recent knowledge and experimentation. He now has ailerons (unless Carter actually saw and incorrectly described the impractical ‘rudders or hinged vanes’ of Pearse’s patent), the elevator has been moved from the rear to the front but no rudder is visible, and, unlike the patent’s rectangular one the wing is oval-shaped:

The machine is of the monoplane type; area nearly 800ft; weight, complete with motor, 340lb; span, 34ft, aspect-ratio, 1.2. The lateral control is by ailerons (balancing planes). The wing is oval-shaped, single-surfaced, with no camber [author’s italics]. . . .

(Carter's report was published in the Otago Witness of 1 December 1909.)

""Quote from Provisional Specification No.21746-19th July 1906.

“Passing lengthways and across the framework, are three trusses of light material in which the upper and lower rods, forming the trusses, bulge outwards in the centre of the framework until about three feet apart.”

That most certainly puts a curve in the top of the wing. It has been called arced sine or part circle aerofoil.

This was a common system with very early aviators and probably taken from Lilienthal or Chanute who also used it. The Wrights evaluated it and discarded it.

This type of aerofoil has the characteristic of rapidly reversing the centre of pressure at higher angles of attack. Does this ring a bell with how you might end up in a hedge rather than climb over it?""

You make the common mistake of treating the 1906-1907 patent as representing what Pearse actually built. We know from eyewitness accounts of November-December 1909 (when Pearse had just completed his machine and made his first flight attempts) that significant changes in his thinking had (not unnaturally) occurred in the interim.

"I would strongly recommend you spend some time talking with Ivan Mudrovcich on how this aircraft was developed. You may be very surprised on how it was achieved and how knowledgeable he is on the subject."

I would strongly recommend that Mr Mudrovcich (and yourself) familiarises himself with statements published in November- December 1909 by eye-witnesses including the inventor himself.

"Alternatvely [sic] don’t comment on technical details unless you know their origin."

See above. QED.

Errol

[glycol]

Dear Errol,

I had a bet with my grandson that your reply would have something to do with my not using my name on the forum. That is simply to preserve my privacy as it is with about 99.9% of the members... Thanks for the

ice cream. I thought a professional wordsmith would do better than that.

Now your motives are suspect. Is your anti-Pearse crusade to get publicity for your books?

I do note you use an image of one of your books each time you post with a postscript mentioning a couple of other books to finish off. Pearse discussions seem to draw a crowd rather rapidly! Very useful

marketing tool!

There may well be a difference between corrected and commented on – The end result is that you were wrong.

By the way, I was the forum member who answered your request for the Herald clippings.

Let me put a disclaimer here.

These comments are all my own and while I have known Ivan Mudrovcich for many years, I have not been in contact with him for three or four years. Ivan Mudrovcich is totally unaware of my comments here so

don’t blame him. These are my opinions and thoughts.

My remarks are made after seeing dozens of criticisms of Pearse from you and several for the Mudrovcich aircraft.

The claims of first flight almost invariably come from people trying to capitalise on the publicity, such as the movie man and the Wairarapa Air Show Group. Your public criticisms too, add not detract from

the publicity. Other authors have been no better.

One cannot help but wonder are you so obsessed with your apparent crusade against anything to do with Pearse, that you are losing a historic researchers’ desired objectivity. There have been several times

when there has been a suspicion of subjectivity. I certainly hope that those suspicions are unjustified.

Here’s a hypothetical question. If your research turned up a March 1903 dated picture of a snow covered aircraft in a hedge at Watohii, what would you do with it?

Now let’s look at your rather laughable reply. I grinned at the QED at the end. You are a character!

I may be 81 years old, but senility hasn’t set in yet. THAT IS TOTAL RUBBISH!!!

I produced a legally recognised document-you produced a bloody newspaper report!!!

QED!!!. NEVER-NOT EVEN IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS IS THAT PROOF.

You too make the all too common mistake of believing totally any newspaper report that you locate in your research. Pearse’s letters obvious exceptions

Even this forum frequently criticises newspaper reports as unreliable and with some justification.

I am sure most people on this forum, including you, have seen newspaper articles or reports on subjects we are familiar with that are totally wrong.

Here’s a recent and very relevant example from the Wairarapa Airshow:

Here’s some history in the making.

New Zealand Herald Jan 17th, 2015

“The crowds were treated to a flypast by replicas of two of New Zealand’s earliest aircraft, the Pearse and the Pither.”

Here’s the link to the full article.

www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11388050

QED I believe that applies here a little better than the position you picked.

Dear God Errol-Your next bit is classic.

“You make the common mistake of treating the 1906-1907 patents as representing what Pearse actually built. We know from eyewitness accounts of November-December 1909 (when Pearse had just completed his

machine and made his first flight attempts) that significant changes in his thinking had (not unnaturally) occurred in the interim”

Just what are you suggesting here? That Pearse first patented his aircraft, then built it after the patent and modified it to fly in 1909?
There are probably only a handful of people who have done the background reading of the papers to argue with you. Gordon Ogilvie, Philip Heath , Ivan Mudrovcich, and even me assisting Ivan with a view to

future construction.. It’s pointless. I no longer have access to my research which makes writing this a little difficult. However, if you take the start as the 1906 patent, with a design and build as well as

trials in a period prior to that, ignore the controversial dates with the witnesses affidavits, then look at the newspaper reports, whatever their value, as modified versions of the 1906 –it all starts to

look logical and generally reasonable with a very few potential problems.

The only official documentation that gives any indication of the aircraft’s design are the Patent documents.

Acceptable evidence to me is:
Patents
Artifacts
Pearse letters
Sworn affidavits
Newspaper reports. Of interest but too often reporters get it totally wrong.

If you seriously believe that he spent considerable time working up a patent and never built any part of it, I would have to wonder at your sanity.

It is only logical that the aircraft was built before the patent

Here’s little hint:

Extract from Richard Pearse’s 1915 letter 10 May 1915 to the Evening Star, Dunedin

“I thought of it long before I took out a patent, and in all probability the Wrights would not rush off to the patent office the moment they had designed it, for they would try to make their machine as

perfect as they could before protecting it.”

Do you really believe Richard Pearse would be any different!

By the way Errol did you notice he built & then patented his tilt rotor attempt?

For the record:
I do not believe Pearse flew before the Wrights.
Ref: Pearse letters

I do believe that he achieved hops with an aircraft that became the source of the patent application.
Ref: Sworn affidavits and witness reports.

I do believe that the aircraft was probably modified at times.
Ref: Low grade evidence pointing to just that.

Extract from your own find: Timaru Post 17 November 1909
“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.”
Didn’t that patent mention something about a rear rudder?

Extract from the letter mentioned above:
“I only built one aeroplane, which was designed before anyone had made a flight, and after some trials with my last motor mounted on it, I found that to do things properly I would have to make such extensive alterations that it practically amounted to building a new machine”

Later in the same letter he said he decided to give up the struggle. He also mentions that took place when he lived near Temuka.
I don’t doubt for a moment that he found it difficult to control.
Characteristics of the “cambered airfoil meant centre of pressure moved rapidly aft with increase in angle of attack.
Ref: Sworn witness reports of aircraft in hedge.

The drive to build an aeroplane obviously hadn’t stopped and he did return to it.

I have not the slightest doubt that Pearse built an aircraft before 1906. Furthermore, I do not have the slightest doubt that the aircraft was very similar indeed to the patent.

I make no claims whatsoever of when he flew BUT I firmly believe he at least, accomplished hops prior to 1906.

I do notice in your low value newspaper reports that features evident in the patent seem to be frequently mentioned.

While he may have changed to airfoils with no camber plus shifted the rear rudder to the front, it would still be utilising at least some of the original aircraft

An explanation of how you can legitimately write of the sworn affidavits of the many named witnesses would be of some interest. Oddly enough they seem to mention activity prior to 1909.


.To save date worries I would happily accept that the pre date of 1906 as their sighting date.

The Mudrovcich reproduction to me is a thoroughly researched example of Pearse’s aircraft of around 1906.Every detail is period except where safety is concerned and to my eyes at least, it remarkable achievement.

I am not in a position to say this is how Ivan did it, but it is how I would do it

Please don’t tell me –you can’t use the patent as a guide. Especially don’t tell me you can’t scale off the drawings.

Errol-you can. The process is called reverse engineering and it is frequently used in development shops in several fields of manufacturing.

The drawing matches Pearse’s description. The tricycle & engine support as well as the wing structure are of extremely simple construction as the details supplied testify.

The descriptions are very good indeed.

An original engine exists as well as a propeller and propeller shaft.

Another engine has been reversed engineered as well.

I would not be surprised if there are a few engineers on this forum who know exactly what I am talking about and could carry on from here to produce a replica of that aircraft.

For David Homewood’s benefit-no guessing or deductions are necessary.

I would be very surprised indeed if those original artifacts don’t fit the reproduction aircraft exactly.

I’ll briefly try and give, as an example, the reverse engineering of the engine as I assisted here and have some knowledge of it.

Museums holding Pearse artifacts were more than helpful, both in South Canterbury and Auckland.

Once the decision was made to reproduce the engine, jigs were made and setup that allowed a datum point to be made with each of the surviving cylinders. From this datum point every whole, thread or brackets

position was plotted exactly in minute detail. Even the screw types used to locate brackets that went right through the bore... They were piano screws by the way-just like someone stated he had used. Ivan

located the same type of screw from the late 1800s and used them on the replica. He didn’t want “nitpickers” bothering him.

Air New Zealand were kind enough to lend a borascope for the occasion so the bore and broken off piston could be measured, ring types sorted and the connecting rod system identified.

This was painstakingly put on paper-the cylinder joining system identified, and then things really started to come together.

Screws and an old piece of wood still attached showed where the wooden beam fitted and there were still track & levelling pieces, used to locate the cylinders that fell out of the relics
.
To reverse engineer and build the engine took just on three years of pretty much full time work. It took a further year and building multiple versions of the carburettor before Ivan was satisfied that at

least it was simple enough to be of the right period. It took hundreds of start attempts to get it to run and start easily.

There were months of research on timing, fuel types available in the early 1900s, ignition systems available and so on.

That fact that the engine works and produces the rpm that Pearse gave is not just coincidental.

Now you have a lot of detail that relates to the engine mounting system.

Now you have more detail to relate to the wing structure

When you have the mounting system you can relate to the tricycle and so on...

Errol I have thoroughly enjoyed our little chats. Age has caught up with me to the extent I have no option but to limit my time on the computer. More personal matters will have to use that priority.

I have never before made a posting of this nature.

This will be my last posting. ^{You will have the last word!}

Believe it or not, I have read two of your books and am grateful that you pointed me to an early flyer relative that I was unaware of. Naturally, not accepting newspaper reports at face value, I dug a little

deeper and was able to verify. Thanks you for that.

I am also aware that you would have been offered a slot in the movie as I was the person the producer asked, to give him the names of “two of Pearse’s biggest critics.” Maurice Hendry was the other critic. I

believe he has backed off now that it has been demonstrated the engine can run for several minutes.

You certainly had an opportunity to find out all about it in great detail there. It didn’t appear to clash with your book launch from here.

My working life was aviation totally. The majority of my friends and acquaintances have spent their working life totally in aviation. Everyone who has been made aware of this reproduction has thought it a great idea and have been impressed with the thoroughness of it.

The late T.T.Bland was enthusiastic about it.

To run into criticism on an aviation site for aviation enthusiasts I find almost beyond belief.

Ivan’s stated ambition is to see if the Pearse aircraft had the ability to fly. I am absolutely sure that the Royal Aeronautical Society will be informed either way.

I can only hope that we may possibly see some recognition for an outstanding effort.

I know the final attempt of flight of this aircraft is imminent and I am also aware that he is in poor health. I wish Ivan and his team every success. I have heard that they were very pleased indeed with

Masterton’s effort and the engine had to be blipped frequently to slow her down. I wonder if she could do better than 120 feet and 12 seconds. Oh dear there we go again. I am joking Errol.

Does it matter-not a lot? However, it may explain the witness reports and that in itself is worthwhile. Errol, I may be misunderstanding you, but are you admitting now that Pearse flew in 1909?

Ogilvie states “Even this late date allows Pearse to be judged the first in Australia or the Southern Hemisphere to achieve a powered flight in a heavier than air machine.”

Hmm-this from a country farmer who designed and built several engines, one of which was the first multi cylindered engine in the country,designed a couple of aircraft and other devices. Nothing worthy in

that? Famous for being famous! In the words of Tui –Yeah Right!!

Hey David –did you miss an opportunity to produce what could possibly become a very saleable booklet.

Sad to note the passing of Jack Melhopt- he made a special trip to Auckland to see this aircraft and would very much liked to have flown it. He thought it wonderful.


Cheers

Glycol

[Peter Lewis]

Guys,keep the discussion polite and civil.
You may agree to disagree but if you want an out and out argument then do it through personal messaging.
If you do it here the posts will be removed.

[baz62]

Yes I'd give up Errol it doesn't matter what you come up with you will always be wrong in his eyes.

[errolmartyn]

Glycol,

It would take a small essay to address the numerous errors and misconceptions contained in your lengthy post. I don’t propose to waste my time doing so but leave it to those who visit the forum to come to their own conclusions upon reviewing the thread, hopefully in conjunction with reading the first Volume (or at least its last chapter) of A Passion For Flight.

Incidentally, any profits from sales of the trilogy benefit the Aviation Historical Society of New Zealand, not me. As most good libraries hold copies, one need not feel obliged to purchase or support the Society.

Errol

[noooby]

Can I just add one thing about patents??? Many are submitted before an article is built or tested, mostly due to a lack of materials or technology. Peoples minds are often quite far ahead of the technology of the time!

Frank Whittle patented the turbo jet engine in 1930 but didn't build it till 1937.

Having a patent doesn't mean your invention will work. Nor does not having a patent for your invention mean it won't!

Just my 2 cents

[dodgy]

That is a lot of thoroughly researched and potentially contentious writing from someone who won't even sign their name at the end...