FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1956
1956 - 0251.PDF
FLIGHT, 2 March 1956 249 HENSON AND STRINGFELLOW •: -.r Conclusion of the First Memorial Lecture before the R.Ae.S. at Yeovil - CONTINGENTS from the Bristol and Boscombe Downbranches of the Royal Aeronautical Society attendedthe first Henson and Stringfellow Memorial Lecture, given before the Yeovil Branch of the Society on February 16th. The lecturers were the secretary and the former secre- tary of the Society, Dr. A. M. Ballantyne and Capt. J. Laurence Pritchard, and their paper was devoted to the work of W. S. Henson and John Stringfellow, who jointly carried out a series of experiments at Chard, Somerset (not far from Yeovil) between 1843 and 1847. • The visiting branches to the meeting were welcomed by Mr. E. C. Wheeldon, president of the host branch. Mr, D. L. Hollis-Williams, chairman of the branch, disclosed that members of the Stringfellow family were also among the visitors; and Mr. E. T. Jones, president-elect of the parent Society, introduced the lecturers. After a summary of the paper had been read by Dr. Ballantyne, thanks were expressed to both authors by Dr. E. W. Still (alternate chairman, Yeovil branch) and Mr. Raoul Hafner (chairman of the Bristol branch). Following the meeting, a supper was held in Yeovil for members of the three branches. We gave abstracts from the first part of the paper in our last week's issue; the final sections are summarized below. Stringfellow and the 1868 Aeronautical Exhibition. — OnOctober 14 1867 Brearey wrote to Stringfellow, "I enclose you a circular of our proposed Exhibition, as I hear you might perhapshave something to exhibit." On November 21, 1867, Brearey, replying to a letter fromStringfellow, wrote, "I was very glad to receive your letter this morning. I quite agree with you that if you have succeeded inmaking a flying model you have solved a problem under dis- couraging circumstances. The next thing to do is to convincethe world of it and no better opportunity exists for attracting general attention than the coming exhibition " On December 18, 1867 Brearey wrote, "I am very much obligedfor your interesting letter and photos which I shall read and show at our Council meeting on Thursday. It is a great pity thatexperience like yours should be lost to die world, but I think that you see that the time has arrived when publicity may be given toyour attempts. So far as I can see you would secure the prize to be given for the best working model, always supposing that itwould maintain flight for the distance you state, 40 or 50 yards. I have yet to examine more closely with a magnifier, your photos.Does the machine carry its own motor?" These photographs must have been of the 1848 model. Fromthe letter it would appear that Brearey knew nodiing about it and had not been down to Chard to see the model. The engine wasmissing, as already recorded. Stringfellow had evidently said he had referred to the experiments at Cremorne, and so the 40 yards.Yet the machine or a replica of it, with such an outstanding success behind it, was not entered for the Exhibition or discussed by themembers of the Society during the three meetings held at the time of the Exhibition! Nor did Stringfellow say anything morethan "It flew—in 1847." He gave no description of it, or where it flew, and put the date wrong by a year. Here, indeed, was thegrand opportunity to "convince the world of it!"—an opportunity missed. , , Unfortunately many of Stringfellow's replies to Brearey s lettersare missing, but much may be learnt from Brearey's own letters. On November 25, 1867, Stringfellow wrote a letter from which itwas clear that Stringfellow not only had no model ready, but he was thinking of making a multiplane, though a little doubtful as to the result. _ , Only a few weeks before the Aeronautical Exhibition was due to open, Stringfellow wrote, on June 4,1868, to Brearey, It would be desirable to know positively if the model could be exhibited in the interior. I should wish to know the length and height of the building clear of everything. I shall make it go from one end to the other BY SOME MEANS. ... The machine^ and things generally work very well, but I'm not certain the sustaining planes are the best possible arrangement." Evi letter, have said anything m umiwu j— — — -, , , .... stated I would make it go from one end to the other of the building BY SOME MEANS. This can be done by a guide line and certainly in the first experiments I should not attempt to liberate it untilit had thoroughly proved capable of self-control. Whatever short- comings there may be at first, there is nothing in the principlebut what may eventually be surmounted. . . . There is no room sufficiently large for experimenting in the neighborhood (i.e.,Chard) or I should not have kept my old models rotting for years." It still remains puzzling why he did not continue on the lineswhich had apparendy been so successful. As it was, he abandoned certain features of his 1848 model as a flexible trailing edge andmonoplane construction, in the construction of the triplane. No detailed description of the triplane was published at the time.The Science Museum gives the wing area as 28 sq ft and total weight as 12 lb. Chanute adds 8 sq ft for the tail, making 36 sq ftin all, giving a wing loading y lb to the sq ft, "which was certainly ample support. The engine is said to have developed a third of ahorsepower, but its weight was not stated. Like the earlier model of 1848, the triplane was suspended from an apparatus runningalong a wire on grooved wheels, but with no release mechanism as the Crystal Palace authorities forbade free flights. Brearey had asked Stringfellow, in his letter of December 18,1867 to send him a paper for the next general meeting in February. But Stringfellow always proved shy of giving a detail account ofwhat he was doing. "I am afraid I could not send you a paper worth reading," hewrote on April 1st, 1868. "I had commenced a paper intending to give you some little of my former experiments but am so badwith rheumatics in my head that I am obliged to give it up. . . . I am getting on very slowly with the model, but I think tolerablesatisfactorily and I hope I shall have it finished in time. . . . Stringfellow left no record why he was making the "considerabledeviation" from his former model, but the conclusion may be drawn that he was only doing what Cayley and Wenham hadsuggested, building a triplane, but without fully knowing what the effect would be. The model was undoubtedly a great attraction and beautifullymade. That was Stringfellow's metier. At the following meeting of the Society, on July 3 1868, thechairman praised the triplane and expressed the hope that String- fellow would demonstrate it in free flight. But no such attemptwas publicly made. Following Stringfellow's death in 1883, and not till then, Brearey revealed that the triplane had been testedoff the wire. "In the basement afterwards," (i.e., of the Crystal Palace), wroteBrearey, "the author assisted to hold a canvas with which to break the fall of the model when liberated. When freed, itdescended an incline with apparent lightness, until it caught in the canvas; but the impression conveyed to us was that had therebeen sufficient fall, it would have recovered itself." There was no form of control whatever in the triplane, so thatits chance of recovery was pretty small. "It was intended at the last to set the model free in the opencountry," continued Brearey, "But it was found that the engine, which had done much work, required repairs. .Many months after-wards, in the presence of the author, an experiment was tried in a field at Chard, by means of a w" e stretched across it. The enginewas fed with methylated spirits, and during some portion of its run under the wire the draught occasioned thereby invariablyextinguished the flames and so these interesting trials were rendered abortive." Abel Hureau de Villeneuve, editor of L'Aeronaute, wrote inMay, 1970, concerning the appearance of the triplane at the 1868 Exhibition: "Mr. Stringfellow's machine, hung from pulleys run-ning on a horizontal iron wire, was drawn forward by the action of its screws. If the planes had lifted at all, the cords which heldthe machine to the pulleys would have been slackened by the lifting action. But we all saw that diese cords remained taut all the timeand showed no slackening. Therefore, despite all Mr. String- fellow's assertions, it is safe to say that a machine like the oneexhibited in London is quite incapable of rising." The Juror's report gave a long description of Stringfellow'sprize-winning engines, beginning with the words "Mr. String- fellow's boiler and engine, from the cleverness displayed in itsconstruction and design, merits a particular description. The steam engine does not differ from an ordinary one except in theprecautions to ensure lightness." There is no suggestion in the Report that there was anythingoriginal or novel about the engine. The whole praise was given to its workmanship and the fact it was constructed in the lightestway. Stringfellow's reputation can rest firmly on his work on light
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
