Ten Ton 1931 British monoplane Flying Boat

You’ve lost me. :confused:

Assuming I’ve got some grip on this, if there was a patent – there’d be evidence for certain. That’s how patents work. My point was simply that patents protect innovation, not that a pylon-wing arrangement would be possible to patent protect. I doubt it would.

A statement by a trade journal does not mean a manufacturer is avoiding certain patent criteria by playing with words.

My original gripe was with Roscoe Creed in his otherwise excellent book:

‘Where it’s predecessors has parasol wings held above the hull by a multitude of struts, the XP3Y-1’s [Model 28] parasol wing was set cleanly on a single pylon, and braced to the hull with only a single pair of struts per side. JUST HOW AND WHEN LADDON CAME UP WITH THE PYLON IDEA NO ONE KNOWS…”

All I originally said was that Consolidated used as a basis for the Model 28, the Sydney and the the idea of removing that myriad of struts they had previously been using, with a pylon (or as Flight put it – a conning tower!) and that Laddon did NOT come up with the pylon IDEA. SIMPLY THAT.

Whether there is a patent or not on the pylon idea is immaterial. You asked me for documentation to prove that Laddon used Blackburn’s idea of using a pylon and you stated he possibly thought of the same idea independently of Blackburn’s.

It’s obvious to anyone that it was already in use, whilst Consolidated were creating forests of struts under their wings and Roscoe Creed should have known this since he was a journalist and spent ‘years researching the famous flying boat’. Was he not aware of the existance of other flying boats?

He could have written – ‘…and braced to the hull with only one pair of struts per side. The pylon idea was already in use at that time by the British as it was an excellent compromise…’

From the langauge used by the staff writers of Flight in 1929, they were also aware of the use of a pylon to reduce the number of struts prior to the Nile. If Blackburn’s had thought of it they would have made a song and dance about ‘how clean our new British monoplane flying-boat is compared to the competition’ in the article.

I fail to see the difficulty you’re having with accepting the fact that the basic design of the Catalina – a flying boat with a pylon attatched to a single wing – was already in use and that Laddon did NOT come up with the idea>:confused:

I’d love somebody to explain the difference between Fowler, Gouge and Fairey-Youngman flaps and which came first – but that’s for another day and another thread.

Oh and Pagen, to be really pedantic for a moment, operating the Catalina float mechanism will either increase or decrease the wing span depending on which way it’s going.

Yep, got you.

I’m not very eloquent, but I thought Fairey Youngman flaps differed from Fowler by being either mounted below the wing (Barracuda), or droppable to below the wing (Gannet), to lie parallel until deployed for T/O Landing etc when the incidence would change, could also double as speed brakes for dive bombing role.
Where as Fowler flaps (Connie, C-130, P-3 etc) was mounted in the same plane with only the incidence changing for t/o and landing. Both extended aft to increase the chord of the wing though.

You’ve lost me. :confused:

Assuming I’ve got some grip on this, if there was a patent – there’d be evidence for certain. That’s how patents work. My point was simply that patents protect innovation, not that a pylon-wing arrangement would be possible to patent protect. I doubt it would.

A statement by a trade journal does not mean a manufacturer is avoiding certain patent criteria by playing with words.

If I misread your view, please feel free to clarify.

Regards,

Look what I have found:

“…the monoplane wing arrangement [of the Nile] not hitherto having been employed on any British flying-boat designed for commercial work.”

p8, ‘British Aircraft at Olympia’ article, Flight, 11 July 1929.

‘…any BRITISH flying-boat designed for COMMERCIAL work’ implies a military boat of foreign design, does it not?

Consolidated did not patent the basic pylon configuration and neither did Blackburn’s because somebody else probably did. Either they were paying for the use of the patent or it was time-expired.

Certainly an interesting discussion – thanks particularly for finding this:

“At MAEE … the pylon was found to adversely affect elevator control (the elevator chord was subsequently increased by 20 per cent), … Sadly repeated unserviceability dogged the Sydney during its first stay with the testing authorities, which lasted until January 1932; after a second visit it was struck off with no production ensuing.”
‘British Flying Boats‘ Peter London, 2003.

One of the problems here is that it is not always recorded why a thing was done and – as with the Sunderland retractable floats – even more difficult to find why an idea was dropped. “Fashions” would be as much to do with the preferences of the Air Ministry, guided by the work of the MAEE – but yes, it is interesting that some ideas were dropped in the UK but pursued over the pond.

And then there’s the question of designers claiming credit for similar ideas. I’d love somebody to explain the difference between Fowler, Gouge and Fairey-Youngman flaps and which came first – but that’s for another day and another thread.

Oh and Pagen, to be really pedantic for a moment, operating the Catalina float mechanism will either increase or decrease the wing span depending on which way it’s going.

AllanK

Fair comment, JDK. 🙂

Thanks! 🙂

It’s been an interesting discussion.

One additional question I’ve got is what on earth are the strange ‘wire box’ structures on the Sydney’s outboard leading edges? I’ve never seen anything like them in the period, and can’t conceive what they may be for.

They’re seen just outboard of the outer props here: http://www.msacomputer.com/FlyingBoats-old/Blackburn-General/Blackburn-Sydney-a.jpg

Regards,

Certainly it’s fair comment to point out there had been predecessors to the PBY with the pylon arrangement; but to point to one – and a minor / failed example at that, no, I’m not buying.

I guess we can reasonably just differ on that. 🙂

Fair comment, JDK. 🙂

What the Peter London quote doesn’t mention is that the partial blanketing of the elevator control, was CORRECTED by increasing the elevator chord by 20%.
(p275 ‘Blackburn Aircraft since 1909’, A J Jackson, Putnam, 1968.

I took it as implicit that it was probably effective at correcting the problem. But there was a problem, and successful correction or not, the Sydney wasn’t an aeroplane to copy. The failure of the Sydney to achieve even significant testing stands as reason enough alone to be sceptical of it being the origin of copying by Consolidated. Then there’s the fact it wasn’t unique in this configuration, and had recorded pylon-derived shortcomings as well.

Quite right JDK! What was I thinking! Should have gone downstairs to check my library, but since it feels like -10C down there I didn’t feel like it! Everyone should take a leaf out of your book and check the facts instead of relying on the old grey matter.

Perhaps. 🙂 We’ve hard 102mm rain over the last four days, but the library’s as safe as it can be around here. It’s also to hand, one great boon since the last two moves of 80 km and 10,000 miles respectively. We all get our facts wrong at times – see above! – but we should always check the central tennant of an argument or thesis…

…the next Consolidated product, the Model 28, broke away from this line of development and produced a pylon mounted wing in which the centre section was of constant chord and with tapered outer sections in a way that mirrors the Blackburn machine.

I’m not sure the taper on the outer section ‘mirrors’ the Blackburn and more importantly than Putnam three-views, Laddon managed a full internal cantilever structure whereas Blackburn’s is very different and more primitive – particularly given the thickness varied across the span, a thicker wing at the strut attachment and an odd external bracing arrangement with kingposts at the tips! Structurally and in design they have little in common. I’d have to conclude it’s all a bit trying hard to show a similarity – IMHO probably coincidental rather than causal.

Certainly it’s fair comment to point out there had been predecessors to the PBY with the pylon arrangement; but to point to one – and a minor / failed example at that, no, I’m not buying.

I guess we can reasonably just differ on that. 🙂

Regards,

I mentioned there’s a reason why you wouldn’t copy the Sydney’s pylon. Here’s why:

“At MAEE … the pylon was found to adversely affect elevator control (the elevator chord was subsequently increased by 20 per cent), … Sadly repeated unserviceability dogged the Sydney during its first stay with the testing authorities, which lasted until January 1932; after a second visit it was struck off with no production ensuing.”
‘British Flying Boats‘ Peter London, 2003.

What the Peter London quote doesn’t mention is that the partial blanketing of the elevator control, was CORRECTED by increasing the elevator chord by 20%.
(p275 ‘Blackburn Aircraft since 1909’, A J Jackson, Putnam, 1968.

Everyone should take a leaf out of your book and check the facts instead of relying on the old grey matter.

Maybe, but relying on the old grey cells can produce more interesting ideas on a forum and maybe even throw up something that dosen’t appear in books!
It’s when something is presented as a fact without at least basic checks is when things can go to hell on a handcart!

It’s fairly obvious that you know your subject!;)

Some Grumman Goose’s had the feature, but I can’t figure out how it was choosen, just an option on high-line models maybe?!

That’s a post-Grumman retrofit, and a very popular one on active Gooses. And as such, may be an answer your earlier question as to merit or retracts weight vs exposed floats drag. It’s a reasonable question, but beyond me to answer.

Cheers,

By all means go for an argument, but from solid data, please!

Quite right JDK! What was I thinking! Should have gone downstairs to check my library, but since it feels like -10C down there I didn’t feel like it! Everyone should take a leaf out of your book and check the facts instead of relying on the old grey matter.

Did it have the ‘Davis wing’? I thought that was the high aspect-ratio wing used on the Liberator, Corregidor, Dominator, & B-36 (lesser extent), the Catalina’s wing is almost the other way around in design.

On checking, no, it didn’t. Oops! 😮 Think I got caught out on that before, as the Cat’s wing is relatively high-aspect ratio and thick; but neither specifically Davis type nor very similar. Apologies for the error, and thanks for the spot, Pagen.

I think we should both seek forgiveness before the collective…:o:o

The sentence I selected from Roscoe Creed’s book near the top of this thread has niggled me since I first read it 20 odd years ago, probably for the same reason given above. If Creed had taken the trouble to find out more about pylon attatchments, maybe I would not have circled the paragraph with a large circle and emblazoned it with the words ‘ Nile / Sydney ‘.

The Sydney’s Consolidated contemporaries were the XPY-1 Admiral and the beautiful Commodore. Both had parasol wings of constant chord. Even the later P2Y Ranger had a parasol wing of constant chord.

What I am trying to say (and making a right royal mess of it) is the next Consolidated product, the Model 28, broke away from this line of development and produced a pylon mounted wing in which the centre section was of constant chord and with tapered outer sections in a way that mirrors the Blackburn machine.

I agree the Sydney in no way compares to the Catalina. It was dogged by technical problems and unservicability. It’s cruising speed was only 100mph as opposed to the Admirals 110mph. I wonder what performance it would have given if the intended engine replacement (Rolls Royce Kestrels) had gone ahead.

I in no way denegrate the very impressive Catalina, it’s a marvellous aircraft.:)

Ah, we’ve gone back on topic!
I think to surmise that Consolidated just kind of used Blackburns idea for the pylon is a bit of a stretch (certainly to prove) as Dornier where doing it, very succesfully with their 18.
So it looks like, as in the retractable floats thing, that it was a fashionable idea at the time.

Talking of which there does still seem to be a link (could be tenous) between SARO and Consolidated with the retractable floats, they seem to be the main two companies to have seriously used it, Catalina, Corregidor (almost SR.A/1 style), & Coronado, SR.A/1, Princess all had it.
It could be that Saro did come up with the idea but didn’t have a suitable model to use it on? They didnt produce that many designs in the period, and the Lerwick possibly didn’t lend itself well to the idea.
Some Grumman Goose’s had the feature, but I can’t figure out how it was choosen, just an option on high-line models maybe?!

D.Legg, I’m still struggling with the concept of the Cat’s wingspan being reduced in flight config, increased perhaps?;)

Anyone want to pick up on my earlier point of whether there was any technical gain (as opposed to obvious visual one) to be had with retractable floats?

Good stuff Allan & all, very interesting.

In his book ‘North Atlantic Cat’ – Don McVicar describes retracting the floats whilst still on the water (during take off) to reduce drag/increase lift when the Cats were overloaded for Atlantic delivery flights.

As did the RAAF on occasion with their long-range Rabaul bombers – with full war load. Several were lost on take off accidents, sometimes when the bomb load went off after a problem on take off. 🙁

I have a copy of a long-range sequence of photos in the RAAF Museum archive where there’s a distant Cat on take off, then a wing then a water-filed bang, then nothing. 🙁

Thanks John, I owe you an e-mail.

David Legg – a) Have you ever come across any ref to the Cat’s pylon being based on other’s work, and b) and reference to a patent or licenced copy on the float retraction?

Regards,

I mentioned there’s a reason why you wouldn’t copy the Sydney’s pylon. Here’s why:

“At MAEE … the pylon was found to adversely affect elevator control (the elevator chord was subsequently increased by 20 per cent), … Sadly repeated unserviceability dogged the Sydney during its first stay with the testing authorities, which lasted until January 1932; after a second visit it was struck off with no production ensuing.”
‘British Flying Boats‘ Peter London, 2003.

Hardly a glowing success to copy, and had Laddon tracked down the test reports or heard any comment on the pylon’s negative effect actually a good reason to avoid it. Which he didn’t, so I’d suggest it’s reasonable to conclude ‘no positive influential link’.

Regards,

It has proven an interesting thread!

James – I’m not sure that I would go as far as to say that the Catalina’s wing was even ‘relatively’ high-aspect ratio. In answer to the question you asked about other types using the retractable wing-tip float mechanism, Consolidated also used it on the Model 29 PB2Y Coronado. Sometimes when we show people around our Duxford-based Catalina we point out the way that the floats operate and tell them that it is one of the few aircraft designed to reduce its wingspan in flight.

Thanks for turning up, David!
Well, aspect ratio is simply length to chord, and IMHO, the Cat’s god a damn long wing which isn’t that wide relatively. That relation would be to other ‘boats of the era, which had fatter and shorter wings for the most part. I’ll offer the Lerwick’s stubs in my defence there! But I wouldn’t push the point.

I knew there was another example, but I couldn’t recall it – thanks.

I believe you may be right John Aeroclub. I thought it a fair conclusion that Consolidated was influenced in some way by the design of the Sydney. Of course I can’t prove it, I have no access to Consolidated’s historical records, I just like a good argument. 😀

Don’t think you’d need those records, any evidence would be good – a conclusion without any evidence is guesswork.

And that ducks the real question – why did all the British maritime manufacturers completely fail to capitalise on this ‘innovation’ and also completely fail to come up with a medium size flying boat there was a spec and need for? Pointing at the dead-end Sydney is pretty hardcore ‘could’ve been a contender’ wannabe noise.

I cannot believe that Laddon was not aware of Maj. Rennie’s unique innovation of five years earlier. Designer’s have always ‘borrowed’ other designer’s ideas, without acknowledging the fact.

Why should they ‘acknowledge the fact’? Where should they? Unless you patent it, as I said before, there’s no copyright on good ideas. Having an idea isn’t important, fun though it is, it’s making it work, as per the Edison quote.

But as John’s pointed out (thanks John) there was a vogue for the configuration, and without evidence ascribing a link without evidence isn’t supportable – good for a theory, but I’d suggest you need more to be credible. The most well known example of parallel but seperate development is British and German efforts with the jet engine. Just because their simultaneous or sequential development does not mean there is a link.

Also there’s good reason why no-one would copy the Sydney.

If you’re looking for a reason not to use struts on a large flying boat, you have to look no further than the initial flight trials of the Saunders-Roe A.33 K4773.
During take-off it hit the wake of a passing ferry, porpoised, stalled and landed with a mighty splash in the Solent.
The result: a badly twisted wing and very nearly an unplanned haircut for designer Henry Knowler as the starboard inner airscrew slashed through the hull and whistled past his ears. 😮

By all means go for an argument, but from solid data, please! 1. I mentioned the A.33 already. 2. I stated the problem was ‘structural failure’. 3. The problem was not the struts but a torsion failure in the wing structure. 4. The wing strut system on a large flying boat was widely used both before and after the A.33; from Sikorsky types and the Do.24 perfectly successfully. 5. The problem with the A.33 was poor structural design and / or stress calculations, not how the wing was positioned.

Correct data, correctly interpreted may = correct conclusion. Or not 🙂

Regards,

The Catalina had a distinct look of it’s predecessor the P2Y and the Cat was contempary with the larger Martin 130 and the Sikorsky S43, both of wich were “pylon” boats. So was the Bleriot 5190. So perhaps the Sydney had some influence elsewhere if even only of the “thats a good idea” type.

Crikey 😮 You lot have been busy since last night!:D

I believe you may be right John Aeroclub. I thought it a fair conclusion that Consolidated was influenced in some way by the design of the Sydney. Of course I can’t prove it, I have no access to Consolidated’s historical records, I just like a good argument. 😀
I cannot believe that Laddon was not aware of Maj. Rennie’s unique innovation of five years earlier. Designer’s have always ‘borrowed’ other designer’s ideas, without acknowledging the fact.

If you’re looking for a reason not to use struts on a large flying boat, you have to look no further than the initial flight trials of the Saunders-Roe A.33 K4773.
During take-off it hit the wake of a passing ferry, porpoised, stalled and landed with a mighty splash in the Solent.
The result: a badly twisted wing and very nearly an unplanned haircut for designer Henry Knowler as the starboard inner airscrew slashed through the hull and whistled past his ears. 😮

The Catalina had a distinct look of it’s predecessor the P2Y and the Cat was contempary with the larger Martin 130 and the Sikorsky S43, both of which were “pylon” boats. So was the Bleriot 5190. So perhaps the Sydney had some influence elsewhere if even only of the “thats a good idea” type.

John
PS JDK did you get the email I sent with the pic of the Mongoose Tutor?

On checking, no, it didn’t. Oops! 😮 Think I got caught out on that before, as the Cat’s wing is relatively high-aspect ratio and thick; but neither specifically Davis type nor very similar. Apologies for the error, and thanks for the spot, Pagen.

James – I’m not sure that I would go as far as to say that the Catalina’s wing was even ‘relatively’ high-aspect ratio. In answer to the question you asked about other types using the retractable wing-tip float mechanism, Consolidated also used it on the Model 29 PB2Y Coronado. Sometimes when we show people around our Duxford-based Catalina we point out the way that the floats operate and tell them that it is one of the few aircraft designed to reduce its wingspan in flight.

SARO – I can’t see anything prior to the post war work on the jet fighter SR.A/1 and the SR.45 Princess. Curiously the first description of the Princess was that the floats retracted inwards into the wing.

“the floats retracting into the lower surface of the wing , with their normally outer surface down.” (London, Peter, Saunders and Saro Aircraft since 1917, Putnam)

Which was almost what was used on the SR.A/1! The floats retracted inwards with the float itself swivelling through 270 degs so that the planning bottom actually ended up facing upwards (upside down) and was neatly recessed into the wing itself. This left the aerodynamically cleaner bodies to be exposed to the slipstream, illustration here http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1948/1948%20-%201171.html

Thinking on, does the Catalina, Princess, and some Goose’s (modified?) float retraction layout actually save that much drag?
The float itself is still essentially presented in full to the airflow, all be it at 90 degs and in a visually neater arrangement. The only saving I can see is the reduction in drag from the supports/bracing being recessed in flight but then you have the weight penalty of the retraction mechanisms to ofset this relatively small gain.
I’ve never thought about this before but it does seem that most larger and more recent flying boats such as the Marlin, Be-12, Shin Miewa, Canadair 215, and even the jet Be-200 just stick with the simple fixed floats and strut layout. I’m beginning to think that the retractable layout simply seems like it was in vogue for a time.

The Dornier sponson arrangement has always struck me as looking like they can cause drag through suction at take-off, but not sure if this based on any fact or my way of looking at things!

One neat and simple arrangement was that used by the Martin Seamaster, no struts, retracts, sponsons etc, just simple fixed floats at the wing tips which angled down towards the water!