Looks like a forum meet at the RAAFM and Moorabbin is on. I suggest we leave it a month or two, so in May? …..I’m happy to make the prep and details for the RAAFM, if Mark’s happy to do the same for Moorabbin?

Regards,

Sundays work well for me, I agree with the May target, once James sets a date for Point Cook, I will aim for a Moorabbin date @ 1 month later in June on a sunday as well, but avoiding the Queens Birthday weekend.

Perhaps we should explore:

Point Cook Day, a morning at the B-24, early lunch at the Werribee RSL? afternoon at Point Cook???,

and perhaps a similar arrangement for the Moorabbin day? with a Moorabbin tour in the morning, late lunch at the Kingston RSL and then convoy down to Tyabb?

regards

Mark Pilkington

.

Relic of Antarctica’s first plane found on ice-edge
Pauline Askin
CAPE DENISON, Antarctica
Fri Jan 1, 2010 10:49pm ESTRelated NewsAntarctic expeditioners to have a truly white Christmas
Thu, Dec 24 2009
Antarctic researchers need solid sun block: study
Mon, Dec 21 2009CAPE DENISON, Antarctica (Reuters) – An Antarctic expedition has found what it believes to be remains of the first aeroplane brought to the frozen continent, on an icy shore near where it was abandoned almost a century ago.

Science

Australia has searched for many years for the old single-propeller Vickers plane at Cape Denison, where the nation’s most famous polar explorer, Douglas Mawson, abandoned it after it proved to be a failure during his 1911-14 expedition.

“Luck has been on our side and it’s been a great episode in the history of Antarctic aviation,” said Dr Tony Stewart, leader of the current expedition, after the chance discovery on New Year’s day.

Another member of the expedition, which is dedicated to restoring Mawson’s original wooden huts at Cape Denison, stumbled on pieces of rusted metal tubing among ice-encrusted rocks on the shore of Commonwealth Bay at an especially low tide. They match structural iron tubing from the single-winged plane’s fuselage.

Mawson’s dream of staging the first human flight over the Antarctic ice cap, less than a decade after the Wright brothers made the first powered flight, was shattered even before his expedition sailed for the Antarctic from Australia in late 1911.

The plane crashed in a demonstration flight in October that year, weeks before Mawson was due to set sail. No one was hurt, but the wings were damaged. With no time for repairs, Mawson removed the wings and took the rest of the plane, aiming to use it as a flightless “air tractor” to haul equipment across the ice.

Even as a tractor, with its wheels replaced by sled-runners, the Vickers was a failure. Its engine seized up in the cold.

The Mawson’s Huts Foundation, an officially backed charity that funds the conservation work on site, believes the plane became entombed in ice after it was abandoned and then inched its way toward the sea with the glacial ice over the last 100 years

“It’s been an exciting search. Friday was possibly the only day in several years when the rocks were sufficiently exposed and the tide was low enough and we were here to see it,” Stewart said.

(Writing by Mark Bendeich; Editing by Jerry Norton)

Here is the Vickers REP (probably in the UK), “complete”, before it crashed when flown by Watkins in South Australia.

1 R.E.P. 60 HP five-cylinder air-cooled semi-radial engine The very first airplane to be built by Vickers, this was a license-built French machine, designed by Robert Esnault-Pelterie. The fuselage was built in France while the wings were made in England. After being tested at Vickers’ new airfield at Joyce Green, Dartford, and then at Brooklands, it was crated and shipped to Australia for use by the Australasian Antarctic Expedition. However, the wings were damaged beyond repair on October 5, 1911, during a practice flight at Cheltenham Racecourse, Adelaide, Australia, before the expedition left for the Antarctic. Minus its wings, the machine was converted into an air-tractor, and taken south, but it did not fly in the Antarctic. The first tests of the machine as an air-tractor were made on November 15, 1912. After a short trial trip on November 20, 1912, the vehicle made a successful depot-laying trip with a load of 700 pounds on December 2, 1912. At 3 PM on December 3rd, three men and the air-tractor left the expedition’s base at Commonwealth Bay on a major trip. On December 4, 1912, while towing four sledges loaded with fuel and supplies, several of the pistons seized and the engine broke down. The air-tractor was left at this point, about ten miles from the base. Later another party of men recovered the air-tractor, which was taken back to Commonwealth Bay and abandoned there.

Here is the Vickers #1 being used as the tractor sledge in Antartica.

Its rudder was found intact encased in ice in the workshop of Mawson’s base, and apparantly was photographed near the huts in 1978, but it appears from the media report that the abandoned fuselage has shifted in the ice flow to the edge of the flow and sea, and now apparantly nothing more than a debris of tubes?.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

.
A recent post elsewhere:

10/31/2009. Remarks by Bob Cieslak: In 1993-94, I had the opportunity to work in Indonesia on the engineering development of their N-250 turboprop commuter aircraft. I worked in Bandung at IPTN – Industrie Pesawat Terbang Nusantara (Indonesian Aircraft Industry). Right there at the entrance to the facility was the NU-200 in its’ own display area. In the flight photos I have seen of this aircraft, I never saw any wheel fairings on the main landing gear. Maybe they were added later in the flight test program to gain a few extra knots. I understand this aircraft had a top speed of 256 kmh, and a range of 960 km. The Indonesians were very proud of this aircraft, and still are to this day. A friend of mine who just got back from Indonesia told me that the airplane is still sitting in the same spot where it was in 1993.

An old photo of the aircraft at Bandung.

From November 1954 Flight Magazine

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1954/1954%20-%203020.html

INDONESIAN FIRST BORN – Ground-attack, single-seater for I.A.F.

The first aircraft to be designed and built in Indonesia was
constructed by die Aero-technical Branch of die Indonesian
Air Force and is now completing its flight test schedule.,- It made
its first flight on August 1st last at Husein SastranajgSra A.F.B.,
Bandung, Java.

Significantly this first venture, called NU-200
Sikumbang (Bee), was designed to fulfil an operational role similar
to that of the Fletcher Defender in die U.S.A. and Japan. It is,
in fact, a light ground-attack single-seater with a maximum all-up
weight of 2,400 lb; it is powered by a 200 h.p. D.H. Gipsy Six
driving a two-blade fixed-pitch woodert airscrew.

The accompanying photograph shows it to be a low wing monoplane
of conventional configuration with a fixed tricycle undercarriage.

The pilot sits just above the leading edge under a sliding
cockpit canopy which, together -with the distinctive fuselage upper
contours, should provide an excellent view; the engine is slung
quite low forward of a Hartfard-like hump in the cockpit coaming.
No details of armament are released, but it would appear that
mountings are provided” for two machine guns in the wings with
other stores such as rockets, bombs or napalm slung beneath the
wing.

Construction is composite. The wing is a single-piece wooden
structure with plywood covering, having an aspect ratio of 6.5, a
N.A.C.A. 23012 aerofoil section and an area of 182 sq ft. Its split
flaps are electrically operated.

Two sets of fixed slots are positioned
opposite the ailerons in each wing. The tail surfaces are
likewise cantilever wooden structures with trim tabs on rudder
and elevator.

The fuselage, on the other hand, is of welded steel
tube with metal covering. The undercarriage is fixed and
employs oleo shock-absorbers, and the nose wheel is not steerable.

Span, length and height are, respectively, 34.8ft, 26.75ft and lift.
Maximum and cruising speeds at sea level are quoted as 160 m.p.h.
and 140 m.p.h. and landing speed as 55 m.p.h.; initial rate of climb
is “over 1,000ft a minute” and service ceiling 16,500ft. Range,
with a total fuel capacity of 40 Imp. gallons, is stated to be 600
miles.

Flight’s caption for the photo attached below:

Indonesia’s first home-designed and built aircraft, the single-seat
light ground-support NU-200 Sikumbang (Bee) is here seen airborne
over lava during a test flight.

The Flight magazine advises the wing to be wooden, but it still seems surprising the prototype is successfully displayed outdoors in the tropics, a certain death sentence for wooden winged aircraft in Australia?, and the preserved examples wing looks decidedly metal clad?

More interesting comparisons

Wackett NU-200
Length 26′ 10″ 26.75′ (@26′ 9″)
Height 37′ 0″ 34.8′ (@34′ 9.6″)

Hopefully some detailed photos of the aircraft at IPTN at Bandung will be forthcoming.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

The Hornet for example has had its length incorrectly stated in the 1946 and re-produced as fact ever since! This was not helped by the fact that AP’s gave packaging dimensions for major sub-assembly parts of the Hornet with an allowance for clearance too!

David,

How was the error in the Hornets published dimensions determined?

regards

Mark Pilkington

.

There is a large group of collector/enthusiasts and even publishers, who have acquired and/or copied prints from other private individuals, via disposals from deceased estates, or even from Government agencies and Services over the years and then claimed copyright when they have published them or made them available to others.

The copyright however remains with the original photographer and their legal inheritors, and usually those copies or even original prints, have been acquired as copies without any formal agreement to pass copyright ownership. You cant acquire copyright ownership from “a dumpmaster”, scanner or a print from the negative.

Copyright law varies slightly from country to country, but I suspect the UK & Australian law was similiar up until 1969, and more recent changes in 2005 to harmonise with the USA:

http://www.copyright.org.au/information/cit032/wp0021

The general rule under the Copyright Act is that the first owner of copyright is the creator of the work, or the person responsible for making the sound recording, film, broadcast or published edition. There are, however, important exceptions to this general rule set out in the Act:

Employees. Where a work is made by an employee (rather than a freelancer) as part of that person’s job, the employer usually owns copyright. For people employed on staff who are creating material for newspapers, magazines and other periodicals, the employer will own most of the copyright, but the employee will usually own copyright for some purposes (photocopying and publication in books).

Freelance photographers, engravers and people doing portraits. Freelance creators usually own copyright in what they create. Someone who pays for work to be created will generally not own copyright, but will be able to use it for the purposes for which it was commissioned. However, there are a number of situations where someone who commissions another person to create material for them will own copyright under the rules set out in the Copyright Act. This is the case in relation to commissioned portraits and engravings, and is sometimes the case for photographs.

Films and sound recordings. The first owner of copyright in a film is usually the producer or the person who paid for it to be made. The first owner of copyright in a sound recording is usually the person who paid for the recording to be made. However, in some cases, performers recorded on sound recordings own a share of the copyright in those sound recordings.

A State, Territory or Federal Government will usually own copyright in material created, or first published by it or under its direction or control.

Any of the rules in the Copyright Act about who will own copyright when a work is created can be altered by agreement

Copyright ownership can be transferred by assignment, in a will, or according to the rules of intestacy (if a copyright owner dies with no will).

The transfers from the first copyright owner to the current copyright owner is sometimes referred to as the “chain of title”.

The same copyright can be owned by more than one person. There are different ways that this can come about. Examples include:

two writers collaborate to write a textbook together,
members of a band agree that the copyrights in songs written by any members of the band will be owned by all members of the band,
children of an artist inherit the copyrights in their mother’s paintings.

Someone who needs permission to use a work in which copyright is owned by more than one person will need permission from all the owners.

In Australia copyright on photos was originally based on “50 years from the date they were taken”, until Australia passed its own Copyright Act in 1969 that made it “50 years from the first date of publication” for those taken after May 1969, but a 2005 US-Australian free trade agreement changed that to “70 years after the death of the author”.

http://www.copyright.org.au/information/cit019/wp0128

The information above comes from an informative site by “Copyright Australia”, I suspect there is similar information available in the UK and USA on their own laws?

As Sonderman says above, if these photos were taken privately by the photographer, and copies distributed to your father and others, the copyright would remain with the photographer, and certainly not another collector/enthusiast who may have subsequently obtained a copy and claimed copyright themselves.

I suspect the original photographers distribution of wartime prints to your father and others would constitute “publishing” them, and copyright would have expired on them in 1995 if the UK still retains the “50 year rule”, and therefore you would be quite entitled to post them here, “copyright” can not be re-instigated by a new owner of a print, or by re-printing etc.

regards

Mark Pilkington

.
Merry Xmas and a safe and happy time to you and yours,

Its 11pm Xmas eve, Australian Eastern Daylight Time and Santa is due overhead in the next hour.

smiles

Mark Pilkington

.
I have’nt seen all of the archival records of Percival or Henderson to confirm what claims either has made in detail in personal letters etc, but I feel those are only two people who would know the full details of who actually designed “what”.

The arguments “against” Percival are largely derived from:

1. The Hendy 302 is recorded as a Henderson design.
2. The Flight 1930 article supports that position.
3. The Henderson cantilever wing design is utilised in the Gull.
4. The overall General Arrangement of the Hendy 302 and Gull are the same.
5. Percival employed proffessional designers, suggesting he did not design himself.
6. Strong similarities exist between the wing design of the Hendy, and the Gull.

However a reading of the Flight 1930 Hendy article and Percival’s letter below can have the two views reconsiled to some degree.

The Percival letter to Flight in 1955.
Quote:
I REFER to your obituary notice of Basil B. Henderson on
page 795 of Flight for November 25th. First of all, let me
express my deep regret at hearing of his death. Basil was a friend
of mine of long standing and had my great respect as a highly
trained and most capable engineer.
For the sole purpose of the record, however, one or two
corrections are called for. I was not at any time a member of
Henderson’s organization, therefore I did not “join forces with
Henderson and Miles.”
The experimental aircraft built in the small shed at Shoreham
with the 40 h.p. A.B.C. engine was not the 302.

The 302 was the
aircraft I had built for me by George Parnall at Yate to our design.

It was my personal property from the inception. The contract
to build it for me was made by me directly with Parnall, the
financial responsibility being mine entirely.

The specification for
this aircraft was mine, as well as an important share of the design
work. This would be confirmed by an agreement made between
Henderson and myself as to joint ownership of certain features of
the design structure. I later sold my share in these rights.

Basil Henderson was employed by me on the design work and
H. A. Miles (who, I believe, for some years had been with A. V.
Roe as a stressman) on the stressing; Henderson by way of an
agreed lump sum and expenses and Miles by a weekly salary.
These two gentlemen constituted the whole of the Henderson
organization.

Henderson’s personal contribution to the design was, of course,
an important factor; he had carried out research work on cantilever
wings, which was a great help.

None other than the prototype of this aircraft was built, but
it was a reasonably successful attempt to introduce the low-wing
cantilever form of aircraft.
These details are perhaps unimportant but the matter has been
incorrectly reported on a previous occasion, and this letter is to
set down the facts.
London, W.I. E. W. PERCIVAL

A clear conclusion from Percival’s letter is:

The Hendy 302 was ordered and paid for by him, to an overall design proposed by him but drawn by Henderson and Miles, including further development of the cantilever wing design based on Henderson’s earlier work on the “Hobbo”.

– The Hendy 302’s design was jointly owned by Percival and Henderson and detailed in a contract between them.

– Henderson and Miles were contracted by him to work on the design.

– Percival funded the construction and owned the resultant aircraft.

– The Hendy 302 was a sole prototype.

(Flight 1930 entry for Hendy 302.

The next step in Mr. Henderson’s programme was a two-seater
development of the little ” Hobo,” and
the general ” scheme ” appealed to Capt.
Percival. The upshot was that he decided
to join forces with Henderson and Miles,
they to do the actual design work, calculations,
etc., and Percival to contribute practical
advice out of his long and varied experience
of aircraft at home and in Australia. A
contract was entered into with George
Parnall of Bristol for the construction of the
machine.

The machine incorporates in its wing construction some unusual and
patented features of which Mr. Henderson is the inventor.

Mr. Henderson and Captain Percival are now arranging for the machine to be built in considerable numbers.

The Flight article confirms the use of the patented spars designed by Henderson, confirms Percivals involvement in its development, the engagement of Henderson and Miles to design work and calculations, and a third party, Parnall, to construct it.

Much argument then derives from the interpretation of who is the designer, the person employed to develop calculations and draw up a design, or the person with the overall vision and specification?.

The similarities and differences of the Hendy wing to the Gull wing are clearly seen in the 1930 Flight photos and other Gull photos shown above, the testimony of Robert Paine that the Hendy 302 was used as a reference to rebuild the damaged Gull only confirms there are similarities (as could be expected), it does’nt resolve who actually designed the entire wing structure.

Without testimony of one of those three involved, Percival, Henderson and Miles, we will never really know how much of the Hendy “design” Percival really did contribute?

I am not aware of correspondence and claims made by Henderson to the arrangements, Percival’s design involvement in the Hendy 302, or his own “contribution” into the design of the Gull? – Do his papers exist?

If Percival did hold some contractual and design rights in the Hendy 302, he would consider any wing and other design features extended into the Gull series to be his as well, while acknowledging the design rights of Henderson to the earlier cantilever wing spars used in the Hobo.

Percival died in London in 1984, I dont know what happened to his private papers, and what research might be possible and “confirmed by an agreement made between Henderson and myself as to joint ownership of certain features of the design structure.”

Of course that is unlikely to prove who said and did what in the design room on any given day, during the development of the Hendy 302, or the later Gull, and the debate will rage on.

However its unfair on inuendo alone to then question or dispute Percival’s claim to the design of Saro-Percival mailplane, without any evidence other’s are laying claim to the design work when Saro acknowledge his employment/involvement?

Speculation is not a subsitute for research, to justify revision of history.

regards

Mark Pilkington

G-ORDY,

I’m not suggesting there were any drawings at Brooklands, or that the Hendy might not have been useful as a reference, but I am doubting the ability to build a new Gull wing only from reference to the Hendy, when the dimensions (span/cord) and areas (wing/aileron) are clearly different and the structure is clearly not identical, as all shown by the information published by Flight in 1930 and 1932.

I didnt think the Gull prototype had flaps fitted, but the “Gull” Flight article of 1932 certainly confirms it had folding wings and the folding “flap boxes” regardless, as clearly shown in its photos and 3-d Drawing.

I think the Hendy Flight article of 1930 also certainly confirms the Hendy did not / could not have folding wings.

The Flight photos show the Hendy wing outer panel from both root and tip ends.

The root end shows a full end rib extending past the rear spar, as compared to the Gull photo from Belgium that shows the Gull end rib ending at the rear spar.

The Henty outboard trailing edge ribs are also full ribs, with no evidence of a seperate and removable box structure (folding or otherwise), and in anycase a significant and fixed diagonal brace is clearly fitted into the trailing edge, seen in both the photo and 3-D drawing, that does not exist at all in the Gull wing.

It is impossible for the Henty wing to fold back in any way similar to the Gull with that solid trailing edge.

In addition to the dimensional and structural differences, there is a clear rigging difference between the Henty with its straight wing, and the Gull with its dihedral wing outer panels as seen in both photos and the Flight 3-D drawings of both aircraft.

The two wings have many similarities, 13 ribs in the wing outer panel from root to tip, 6 Henderson cross braces between the spars, 5 ribs from the root to the aileron, but they are clearly not identical, the different cord and span dimensions may indicate different rib profiles and rib spacing, the folding feature, missing diagonal, and folding trailing edge might suggest thicker rib materials etc to create a stronger structure? It seems clear the Gull wing is a derivitive or evolution from the Henty design, but certainly not identical so as to allow the Hendy’s wing to be copied exactly to create a Gull wing.

But without commenting on Rob Paines respectability, his recollection doesnt seem to fit with the historical and technical facts?, and certainly doesnt counter them?

Regards

Mark Pilkington