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:

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 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. 🙂

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.:)

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. 😮

P.S. If you looking for plans of the Blackburn Nile, the Flight archive has two to choose from. See magazines dated 11 Oct 1928 and 11 Jul 1929.

Thanks for clearing up that point 12jaguar.
Do I surmise from that, that the stool with the canvas backing is sitting on a suspended floor that uses some of the same attatchment points as the turret?
Is that some sort of foot-rest seen below in the picture above?

The prototype Stirling Mk. IV’s were converted Mk.III’s, with the front and dorsal turrets removed.

Does this imply that the fixed rings in which the turrets rotated were left in situ?

Did the production versions also retain the fixed rings in order to implement a speedy conversion back to Mk. III status?

I can’t draw any conclusions from the photo.:(