PUTNAM AND COMPANY LTD

Aeronautical Books
H. F. King
ORIGINS
EROMARINE
8.25
995
995
995
995
995
995
995
995
495
'795
1495
lID 3-views
78 3-views
68 3-views
58 3-views
38 photos 4 graphs
88 photos 52 3-views
119 photos 68 3-views
513 photos
575 phoros
307 photos
3'9 phoros
264PP
176 pp
585 pp
416 pp 306 photos 50 3-views
576 pp
600 pp
494 pp
47 pp
475 pp 401 photos 71 3-views
576 pp 503 photos 108 3-views
400 pp 300 phoros 100 3-views
ETER LEWIS
ritish Aircraft, ,809-'9'4
he British Fighter since 1912
RANCIS K. MASON
:awker Aircraft since 1920
)HN STROUD
nnals of British and Commonwealth
Air Transport, 1919-60 676 pp 365 photos 8 maps 12.95
. G. SWANBOROUGH & P. M. BOWERS
nited States Military Aircraft
since 1909 608 pp 557 photos 139 3-viewS 12.50
WEN THETFORD
ircraft of the RAF since 1918 582 pp 415 photos '963-views 10.95
:itish Naval Aircraft since 1912 432 pp 370 photos II4 3-views 10.95
WEN THETFORD & PETER GRAY
erman Aircraft of the First
World War 640 pp 601 photos 61 3-views '4.95
. R. WEYL Edited by J. M. BRUCE
,kker: the Creative Years 420 pp 274 photos 403-views 12.95
;. W. HADDOW & PETER M. GROSZ
'he German Giants 298 pp 203 photos 38 3-views
.. J.JACKSON
ritish Civil Aircrafr, '9'5-59
Vol. I (A-D)
Vol. II (E-Z)
Ie Havilland Aircraft since 19I 5
vro Aircraft since 1908
'ETER W. BROOKS
'he Modern Airliner
'he World's Airliners
. R. DUVAL
ritish Flying-Boats '909-'952
Putnam's aeronautical series, under the general editorship of Mr John
:troud, deserves' commendation for the wide range of material included,
he high standard of accuracy achieved, and the fine quality of book pro-
uetion. J Financial Times
:. H. BARNES
;ristol Aircraft since 1910

,""' ,
-" .</'/
Nothing could epitomize the theme of this book to better advantage than the photograph above, showing the 1911 Monte Carlo
Motor Boat Exhibition. Like some amoeba at the very centre is the amazing device which Henri Fabre persuaded to become
the first marine aircraft to fly. It was regarded, for the purposes of the occasion depicted, both as a motor boat and as an aircraft.
'"

;2 t'l1
>;
-.c2 0
'-' """t ......
I
"ij 0 8.
......
1::>Q" 1>:l"'(JQ
;J> ;:s 8. 8: '"
tTl l=l...h:l
nl=l... P::
O
td I>:l ':>0'
'"', <::> 0 ;::..
""d I>:lPoI>:l 1--4
...... ""d ;s: > ::L Z '-< - ...... M _.
.....' '-< ..., n ..... _ '"' (l>
q "" 0 '-' "lj "" _'"," I
Z r-:J 0'::::-: trl -f' ' Po >
...... t:l Z ;:s O'Q H ..... J::::j' l,..LJ
:>r/Jo ...... Z """'cr'n
...... ..... "<: '"' '"' ::r:: Z ':>0' ...,.. Po _. I>:l 0
tTl ,;::>. r"\ '"'0;::>
-. '-C.J 0 rl '"
O'(I),d
r/J ;:s _. Po <:::
...... n S'
Z
o' '"' (JQ 1--4
;:s I>:l (l> CJ n 1::>
...... v :r:
J:: 1--4
Z
,C/:J
_ J
H. F. King 1966
Printed and bound in Great Britain for
Putnam and Company Ltd
42 Great Russell Street, London, w C I
by Richard Clay (The Chaucer Press) Ltd,
Bungay, Suffolk
Set in Monotype Plantin
Published in the U.S.A. in 1966 by
Aero Publishers Inc
329 Aviation Road, Fallbrook, California
Library of Congress Catalog Card number 66-20105
'We should then be deriving our boat from a better
architect than man . . .'
.Sir George Cayley, I809
'The method of procedure in this case is to float
the machine on the water, drive the engine for all it
is worth, put the horizontal rudder in the lifting
position, and then it either flies or it does not ...'
Lawrence Hargrave, I902
'The object of interest was the hydroplane which
Wilbur and Orville Wright, inventors of the airship,
were tampering with ...'
Dayton Daily News, March 2I, I907
' ... like a fine bird, between water and sky in the
changing lights.'
Mr E. W. Wakefield, I9II
CONTENTS
Foreword
Lighter than Air
Flying over Water
Flying from Water
Flying in Water
Winged Hulls
Hydrofoil Boats
Planing Boats
Air Lubrication
Air Cushions
Vista
Index
IX
II
13
19
4
1
44
5
65
73
79
88
89
FOREWORD
HAVING LONG been fascinated by the affinities existing between air and
water, and the craft that move in them, and with air-cushion vehicles and
hydrofoils now heightening my interest, I thought it worth inquiring into the
relationships between the two elements as influencing marine and aeromarine
practice.
This book emerged, and although it deals with what is past, its content is
effectively new, having lain unnoticed or unheeded while man fervidly strove
( to mount as an eagle before scudding along as a flying fish.
I shared with many others a deep regret at the secession of the flying boat.
Something, I felt, was amiss or unexplained; and having always envisioned
some species of craft that would rise from the water and proceed through the
air at the lower levels, I was strengthened in that belief. Today there is a
growing probability that in one form or another the marine 'aircraft' will
return. Whether its appellation will be 'dynamic interface vehicle', 'surface-
effect ship', 'winged hull', 'aerodynamic boat' or 'hovership' is not for the
present important.
As for this book, it deals with nothing later than 1914, and I hope it will
bring a recurrent tingle of incredulity to all whose blood is stirred by marine
aircraft, hydroplanes and hydrofoils, air-cushion craft - all the unfamiliar and
inter-related forms of rapid over-water transport that in this sixth decade of
the twentieth century now enter our lives from the past.
London
1966
H.F.K.
r
LIGHTER THAN AIR
IN A BOOK wherein we set out to rescue from oblivion some of the most
curious heavier-than-air devices ever constructed it comes as the first surprise
to find that the natural beginning was man's first ascent in a balloon, on
November 21, 1783.
After witnessing this event Benjamin Franklin found himse1fpondering the
possibilities ofthe new-found means oflocomotion to secure 'release from the
wheel' - to use the phrase of Christopher Cockerell, whose 'Hovercraft'
brought this to pass over a century and a half later.
Writing to the Royal Society, Franklin observed:
'Some think Progressive Motion on the Earth may be advanc'd by it, and
that a Running Footman or a Horse slung and suspended under such a Globe
so as to have no more of Weight pressing the earth with their Feet than
perhaps 8 or 10 pounds, might with a fair Wind run in a straight Line across
Countries as fast as the Wind, and over Hedges, Ditches &even Waters.'
The idea of 'floating on air', envisioned in Franklin's letter, was again
propounded by an unknown philosopher during the nineteenth century.
While this sage did not hold that man could ever fly as high, or as fast, or in
any degree as easily, as a bird, he nevertheless ventured the opinion that he
might fly 'somewhat like one'. 'What,' he asked, 'is to prevent a man making
two balloons, flattish, and in the form of wings, which, instead of flying away
with him ... should be so proportioned to his size and weight as that they
would not do more than raise him an inch or so off the ground, and so keep
him stotting and bobbing lightly about.... Having attained this position of,
so to speak, readiness to fly, there is nothing to prevent him from propelling
himself by means of fans ... .'
Yet, as with heavier-than-air craft, so with lighter-than-air, man's ambition
to soar to the heights was compulsive. Only in the sport of balloon jumping
were human beings to be observed stotting and bobbing lightly about.
I make a single exception - a very curious one, and not strictly 'lighter-than
air', though obviously stemming from ballooning practice. The following
extract from the Scientific American of December 31, 1904, together with the
photograph, tell their own remarkable and sorrowful tale.
'It may take time and the efforts of others,' the American journal reflected,
'to demonstrate whether or no Peter Nissen has left anything of scientific
value in the ideas he entertained of travelling over land and water in a balloon-
shaped apparatus such as that in which he lost his life in an attempt to cross
Lake Michigan on November 29 last. Despite his failure to survive the
II
November 29, 193: Peter Nissen setting out" in his balloon-like c:ontrivance to cross
Lake Michigan. He lost his life.
journey, it is evident that an apparatus such as he des1gned will roll with the
wind over land, water or ice, but it is too early in the history of the device to
determine in what field it might prove serviceable or useful. Man has already
devised and constructed so many things in which he may travel, that this
infant of Nissen's has not yet found its place.'
Yet a vehicle that will traverse land, water or ice has today found a place -
the air-cushion vehicle. And Nissen's device was indeed an 'A.C.V.' - of a
kind.
12
FLYING OVER WATER
THAT IT would be safer to attempt to fly over water than over land was the
belief of some of the earliest visionaries and experimenters. Leonardo da
Vinci not only suggested the testing of a flying machine over a lake but advised
on safety equipment also. 'You should carry,' he said, 'a long wineskin as a
girdle, so that in case you fall you will not be drowned.'
The first practical expression of this aquatic philosophy came in the 1740s,
when a French marquis attempted to glide across the Seine. An inscription
on an early print relates:
'The Marquis de Bacqueville had announced that he would cross the
Seine with some wings of his own invention. On the appointed day he threw
himself from the terrace of his mansion on the Quai des Theatins. His flight
was at first fairly happy, but over the middle ofthe Seine got into difficulties,
and the Marquis, falling on to a boat, broke his thigh.'
Some sixty years after the marquis' attempted crossing of the Seine the
French general Resnier de Joue retired to his birthplace at Angouleme. The
year was 1801 and he was 72 years of age; yet he set about constructing a
gliding apparatus which he attached to his person as a kind of corset. Launch-
ing himself from a rampart 80 metres above the River Charente, he de-
scended to the surface of the river without accident, and was rescued by a
boatman.
In a later venture he broke a leg by falling in a field.
Over a hundred years after, as we shall see, the Seine was the river from
which the first water take-off was effected; and in 1911 it was to receive the
first amphibious aircraft on its maiden water alighting.
The French seem to have had a natural predilection for associating air and
water. At the International Conference on Aerial Navigation held in Chicago
in 1893 L. P. Mouillard submitted a paper describing 'a method of experi-
menting for a soaring apparatus which I have long contemplated, and which
I most certainly would have carried out myself if the failure of my health
had not left me too crippled to perform the necessary manoeuvres .. .' He
explained: 'The method is not new.... It was apparently employed by
Dante * in his exploits over Lake Trasimene, for it simply consists in carrying
on the experiments over a water-bed.... It will be necessary to make the
first experiments in the summer, when the water is warm, for the first attempts
to soar will surely result in a succession of duckings and it will be best that
* This Dante (or Danti) experimented over Lake Trasimene (or Trasimeno) before
the turn of the fifteenth century. Shades of Leonardo.
r
When launched in 1903 from a houseboat on the River Potomac, Samuel Pierpont
Langley's Aerodrome came to grief. Extensively modified, and fitted with floats, it was
made to fly by Glenn Curtiss in 1914, as seen here.
,
they should not be disagreeable.... The body of the man and the aeroplane
[sic] should both be so arranged as to surely float.'
Why the distinguished Mouillard paid no homage to his compatriots whose
ventures were recorded earlier in this chapter I do not know.
Decades passed, but the same ideas remained. Expounding his own
philosophy to members of the Sydney Engineering Association who visited
his laboratory in May 1902, Lawrence Hargrave said:
'The first thing to provide for is safety: it is worse than useless to take any
risks: a man may spend years getting to the trials stage, and then break his
neck by being too adventurous. The method of procedure in this case is to
float the machine on the water, drive the engine for all it is worth, put the
horizontal rudder in the lifting position, and then it either flies or it does
not... .'
It is significant also that the tests of Professor Samuel Pierpont Langley's
Major B. Baden-Powell making an over-water glide at the Crystal Palace during 19
0
4.
Existing water chutes were found to be unsuitable, and a special staging was erected.
historic and successful models (1896) and likewise his heartbreaking full-scale
attempts with the Aerodrome of 1903 were made over water - from a house-
boat on the River Potomac. And when in 1914, Glenn Curtiss eventually
succeeded in flying the reconstructed and much modified 1903 machine, he
fitted floats.
During 1904 Major B. Baden-Powell, assisted by Mr J. T. C. Moore
Brabazon, was making over-water glides at the Crystal Palace. Concerning
these experiments he wrote: .
'It is ... manifest that before we can build a proper airship we must make
a series of trials with some apparatus progressing through the air and carrying
an to direct its course. Several experimenters have tried gliding
machines, which have been designed either to soar down the face of a hill in
the teeth of a wind, or to be drawn along by a string. But in addition to other
drawbacks, these systems have the serious objection of being very dangerous
to the operator. Already two ofthe principal experimenters in the line have
lost their lives through some small deficiency in their apparatus, and if tried
over land there is always the danger that any small mishap may result in
the machine losing its balance and precipitating its operator to the ground.
Such machines, at all events as hitherto designed, cannot well be tried over
water for obvious reasons....
'One of the simplest means of giving an initial speed to any body is to cause
it to run down an inclined track and to shoot off into the air at the bottom.
If means are adopted to prevent the machine from leaving the track before it
gets to the bottom, and if it is then projected over a sheet of water, there can
be but little chance of a serious accident.
'I therefore decided to erect such a track, and conduct a series of experi-
ments. Existing "water-chutes" at once suggested themselves as ready-made
tracks, but, after examining several, and even making experiments with
aeroplanes on them, I came to the conclusion that such were not suitable for
the purpose....
'By the courtesy of the Management of the Crystal Palace, the magnificent
grounds of that institution have been placed at my disposal. ... Here I have
had a large staging erected.'
I illustrate one of the experiments.
During 1907 Dr Alexander Graham Bell's immense 'tetrahedral kite' the
Cygnet (it had 3,393 cells), was positioned in the middle of a lake and r;ised
against the wind by towing behind a boat.
There are very strong links here with Glenn Curtiss, the greatest name in
the development of marine aircraft; for Dr Bell was founder of the Aerial
Experiment Ass?ciation, of which Curtiss became 'director of experiments';
and the Red Wmg, the first powered aircraft produced by the Association
was initially flown (March 12, 1908) from the frozen surface of Lake
It had a sleigh undercarriage - of a type proposed by Wilhelm Kress in the
early 1890s. Lake Keuka was to become the scene of much of Curtiss' early
work on floatplanes and flying boats.
Another who felt the aqueous instinct was Ernest Archdeacon, who
15
r
The Aerial Experiment Association's Red Wing, with its ski-runner undercarriage. It
was first flown, from the frozen surface of Lake Keuka, on March 12, 1908.
sponsored Gabriel Voisin's early experiments. Gabriel relates: 'Archdeacon,
who had been disturbed by the accident at Issy-Ies-Moulineux, suggested to
me some trials over the Seine. I was a good swimmer and, according to the
ideas of my rich patron, water was the ideal shock absorber if there were an '
accident.'
The outcome was the first take-off from water, as already mentioned and as
later described.
In a chapter on 'winged hulls' I shall allude to yet another Frenchman,
Monsieur Leon Levavasseur, whose 1906 hydroplane was considered by
Captain Ferber (one of the most respected French aviation pioneers) to be
capable of rising from the water if 'fitted with aeroplanes and an aerial screw'.
And from a boat that might fly to an aeroplane that might float in emergency
was an early departure by Levavasseur.
Colonel Harry Delacombe has related how this aeroplane - the Antoinette
monoplane, with its thick watertight wings and long boat-shaped body - came
to demonstrate its buoyancy in dramatic and historic circumstances. He was
giving an eye-witness account of Hubert Latham's attempt to win the 1,000
prize offered by the Daily Mail for the first cross-Channel flight - on July
19, 1909. Having viewed through a telescope the start from Sangatte and
observed Latham's passage over the tug in which he was embarked, he later
recorded:
'Bad luck dogged this plucky pioneer, for after he had travelled some seven
or eight miles his motor suddenly stopped and he was obliged to descend to
the water by a series of long glides. His machine eventually took the sea with
scarcely a splash, and floated on the surface like a great seagull with outstret-
ched wings until we arrived near him in the tug.
'His customary sang-froid had not deserted him for a moment, for he sat
in the canoe-like body of his machine placidly smoking... :
Among the earliest and most fervent of British 'water fliers' was Mr E. W.
Wakefield, who, in 19II, formed the Lakes Flying Company at Cockshott,
Windermere, Westmorland. A letter he sent to Flight early in 1912 has its
own story to tell:
' ... this new invasion of the charms of Windermere .. .' (Canon Rawnsley in a letter
to The Times) - the Waterbird of Mr E. Wakefield, who stoutly rebuffed the Canon.
has written to The Times and several other papers a
poe.tIc aP1?eal cal.lmg ?n all lovers of the English Lakes to rise and protest
agamst this new mvaSlOn of the charms of Windermere.... He does not tell
you ofthe country's need for more trained flying men, and of better and more
diverse machines; or how the United States Navy have adopted hydro-
aeroplanes, or how Germany and Holland are inquiring all about the new
machine which he is so anxious to wipe off Windermere. He does not tell
you that almost everyone who has seen it flying agrees that it adds to the
great natural beauty, like a fine bird, between water and sky in the changing
. lights: .
The. aircraft which inspired this impassioned protest was the Waterbird,
a floatplane built by A. V. Roe. It was initially flown from
Wmdermere on November 25, 1911 - only one week after the first British
take-off from water by Cdr Oliver Schwann.
As late as 19.
12
a corres1?ondent of The Aero was extolling the prudence, as
. ,,:ell as the delIghts, of flymg low over water. 'Except to obtain an extended
VIew,' said, 'there is no necessity to fly high, for the sensation of flight is
VIVId when within twenty or thirty feet ... and at the lower level it is
dIfficult to imagine any actual breakage which could entail serious results... :
Yet, far from echoing these beliefs, Gustav Hamel and C. C. Turner
declared in 1914 : 'Nor are the dangers of hydro-aeroplaning less than those of
overland flying ... in a big fall the damage is just as great, and there is some
danger also of being held under water if the machine is submerged or over-
turned.'
This was true of the 'box-kite' type of biplane, as the actor/airman
Robert Lorrame was to find on the first flight from England to Ireland. After
B 17
a terrifying crossing of the Irish Sea, during which his engine stopped
times, he finally ditched a hundred yards from finding strugglmg
under water, with 'a medley of hampering WIres around hIm. Yet he freed
himself and made the shore.
The argument thereafter became academic one; but I hope to shown
that in the dawn of flight there was, m another of Mr. Wakefield s rapturous
phrases concerning flight from water, 'something that beckoned .. .'.
18
FLYING FROM WATER
ONE OF the least forgivable perpetuations by aeronautical writers during the
past half-century is the idea that marine aircraft had their origins when land
aeroplanes were given floats or hulls instead of wheels. The fact is that
Octave Chanute saw a water-borne aircraft which he considered to be capable
offlight ifgiven more power (and told Wilbur Wright as much) well before the
'tniracle at Kitty Hawk'.
But first I must record the earliest known serious proposal for a heavier-
than-air marine aircraft. This was patented by Alphonse Penaud in 1876 and
was a true amphibian, having retractable wheels as well as wing-tip floats.
The world's first powered marine aircraft: Wilhelm Kress' twin-hulled tandem
triplane, of which Chanute told Wilbur Wright: ' ... it seems to me that it may
actually fly if a motor lighter than the present one can be obtained.'
The first powered marine flying machine (and incidentally the first full-
size aircraft to have a petrol engine) to be brought to the point of testing was
Wilhelm Kress' flying boat (Chanute's term). It had two aluminium floats
or hulls to which three wings were attached in tandem.
Alas for the persevering Kress, who had been experimenting with aerial
devices since 1877 and had waited something like two years to test his flying
bO:,lt, as the craft was beginning to lift from the water on a trial during 1901
he saw an obstruction ahead. He slackened speed and attempted to turn; but
the machine capsized.
Still he worked on, and in a letter from Vienna, dated March 13, 1903,
we find Chanute advising Wilbur Wright:
'Today I spent with Wm. Kress, who experimented with a flying boat last
year. You may remember that pictures of it were published at the time, and
that it came to grief; turned over and surtk [sic] upon the first trial. It has
19
since been rebuilt.... It seems to me to possess some excellent points in
construction, and that it may actually fly if a motor lighter than the present
one can 'be obtained. The latter is a Daimler weighing some 30 lbs. per
H.P... .'
Poor Kress....
One of my greatest difficulties has been that of isolating the first instances
of particular arrangements of floats and hulls. Penaud, as I have said, pro-
posed an out-and-out flying boat, with central hull and lateral floats; but what
of the twin-hull arrangement, the floatplane with two main floats and a tail-
float, and so on?
As early as 1897, it appears, Gallaudet (whose company later constructed
seaplanes for the U.S. Navy) was experimenting with twin-float gliders, and
three other schemes seem to have been the proposals, or actual productions, of
Lawrence Hargrave. We must note (I cite an article in the January 1964 issue
of the Australian journal Aircraft) that Hargrave was formerly working with
the Australian Steam Navigation Company, 'where, in the drawing office and
workshops, he learnt much that was to be useful to him in his future career'.
Hargrave's second design for a full-scale powered aircraft was intended to
operate from water on four floats of light wood or papier mache. His fourth
design displayed the classic twin-float plus tailfloat arrangement, which was
subsequently changed (1903) to the almost equally familiar scheme of central
float plus outboard floats. Of this steam-driven 'catamaran', the wings for
A twin-float glider constructed by the American Gallaudet in 1897. Gllllaudet's
company was eventually to build seaplanes for the U.S. NavY.
20
Lawrence Hargrave's 'steam catamaran' of 1903. The wings were not built because
Hargrave was uncertain about engine performance. .
which were never built, Hargrave observed philosophically, 'My new appara-
tus is merely a steamer ifit does not lift out of the water, and a flying machine
if it does.'
The use of what are known today as hydrofoil surfaces to lift an aircraft
from the water was proposed by Professor Enrico Forlanini of Milan in a
patent for which he applied early in 1905. He declared:
'My has reference to ships or vessels of that kind which, instead
ofplowing their way through the water, skim over the surface, thereby offering
much less resistance and as a consequence are capable of attaining very much
higher speeds.
'Heretofore many attempts to produce an efficient apparatus of the hydro-
have been made, the majority of them based upon the phenomenon
exhibIted when a flat object, such as a stone for example, is thrown in such a
manner as to glide over the surface of the water, rather than that of obtaining
a true hydraulic flight. To this end it has been usual to make use of hydro-
planes arranged, for example, in such a manner as wholly or partially to lift
the vessel out of contact with the surface of the water when said vessel is
propelled.
'The object of my invention is so to improve such devices that their
efficiency is gfeatly increased, and one of the essential features ... is that a
boat constructed in accordance therewith will be capable not only of skim-
ming over the surface of the water, but may be also used as a flying machine of
the type, and I have succeeded in constructing an apparatus which
has III practice given most satisfactory results.'
The last claim notwithstanding, Forlanini was unable to achieve aerial
21
flight, and even in the development ofhis waterborne hydrofoil craft, as later
described, he was handicapped by his lack of a satisfactory engine.
NeveJ;theless, that same year - 1905 - saw the first manned (though un-
powered) flight from water, by Gabriel Voisin on June 6. His craft was a
float-mounted glider, towed behind the racing motor boat La Rapiere, and
the trial was conducted over the Seine.
The first manned flight from water (June 6, 1905) was made from the Seine by Gabriel
Voisin in this float-mounted box-kite glider, towed by a racing motor launch.
Gabriel tells the story in his book Mes dix mille cerfs volants (19
61
), trans-
lated by Oliver Stewart and published by Putnam in England in 19
6
3 with
the title Men, Women and 10,000 Kites. Thus Gabriel:
. 'Now, fifty-five years later, as I write these lines, I hear once more the
lapping of the water against the sides of the floats.... I had the c o n t ~ o l s
ready. I waited for a time and then I applied elevator. My lovely ghder
instantly left the water.
'In a few seconds I was as high as the tops of the poplars along the quay. I
went along without oscillation either in pitch or roll. We were approaching
the Sevres bridge. La Rapiere slowed and I alighted on the water without
incident....
'I had flown from the Billancourt bridge to the Sevres bridge at an altitude
of fifty to sixty-six feet.'
Gabriel made three flights above the Seine that day. One was of600 metres;
the others of 100 metres and 30 metres. His historic float-glider was of
Hargrave box-kite type (poetic justice, for Hargrave came near to being the
first man to achieve flight from water) and was mounted on two floats con-
structed to his own designs.
September of the same year (1905) saw similar experiments in progress at
St Helens, Isle of Wight, by Dr F. A. Barton and F. L. Rawson. I quote some
observations made in later years by Dr Barton himself concerning the photo-
graph (which is reproduced) showing 'one of the hydro-aeroplanes which I,
in conjunction with Mr F. L. Rawson, made and experimented with at the
Isle of Wight'. Dr Barton described the craft as having a 'triangular duct'
between 'dihedral planes', adding:
22
A little-known British experiment of 195: the water-borne aircraft built by Dr F. A.
Barton and Mr F. L. Rawson at St Helens, Isle of Wight. It was fitted with a 'flying jib'.
'The machine rested on the water on light pontoons 26 ft. long, and weigh-
ing only 20 lb. each, and in addition to the dihedral wings, had on each side
two main horizontal planes in front and two at the rear, all moveable....
'Two vertical fixed planes and a small flying jib were placed in the bows to
assist the action of the rudder in the stern.'
How vividly that 'flying jib' epitomizes 'air and water'.
'The engine and 7 ft. propeller,' he went on, 'was arranged for on the
steering deck, which was low down on the pontoons just behind the main
planes. .
'The photo. shows the machine just being lifted out of the water after a
trial on the open sea on September 26th, 1905.'
Towing tests behind a launch were unsuccessful, and the intended 35-h.P.
engine was never installed.
Three days after the float-glider trials over the Seine, Gabriel Voisin and.
Lo:us Bleriot met by chance and Bleriot suggested going into partnership.
ThIS was agreed; and so largely to Bleriot's ideas (and much to Gabriel's
alarm) a powered aircraft was built, the essential features of which were two
ellipsoidal wing cellules arranged in tandem. Gabriel relates a tale ofdoubt and
woe, the last indignity being the necessity of giving up the floats, which he
knew so well, and of replacing them 'with "skids" equipped with buoyancy
bags'.
The initial test took place in 1906, on Lake Enghien. 'It was disastrous,'
23
'Disastrous' was Gabriel Voisin's description of trials in 1906 with this BleriotfVoisin
contrivance, having ellipsoidal wing cellules. It is seen on Lake Enghien.
says Gabriel; so after further trials and errors, and by common consent, the
idea of trials from water was given up.
I briefly introduce at this point a water-borne wing-flapper and a marine
helicopter. The flapper was the American Gammeter Orthopter of 1907,
which had (or certainly was to have had) canvas-covered rubber floats, be-
cause the inventor 'intended to experiment over water'. The helicopter was
first envisaged in 1905 by E. H. Mumford and J. Pollock Brown, who were in
charge of tank-testing for William Denny & Brothers at Dumbarton. Two
machines were built. The first made a successful ascent - from the grounsi -
in 1912, and the second is said by Mr Peter Lewis, in his book British Aircraft
I809-I9I4, to have shown considerable promise in its tests on the Clyde
before a storm wrecked it in 1914.
Reverting to the development of 'conventional' marine aircraft, we are
confronted with some remarkably unconventional engineering, and in illus-
trious company, for during 1907 the Wright brothers were themselves
occupied with the problem of flying an aeroplane off the water, using not only
floats but hydrofoils also. The story was later told in a letter from Orville
to Commander Holden C. Richardson. Thus:
'In 1906 after our Government and some of the European governments
had shown little inclination to take our invention seriously we thought a way
to impress them of its importance would be to make a flight over the parade
of battleships to be held at the Jamestown Exhibition in 1907. At that time
we contemplated assembling a new machine at our old camp at Kitty Hawk,
flying it from there to Jamestown, and after taking an unexpected part in the
parade, flying it back.... As such a project could not be carried out safely
in a single flight we decided to put hydroplanes and floats on the machine
so that starts and landings could be made from the water.
'As soon as the weather permitted in 1907 we began experiments with the
hydroplane on the Miami River at Dayton.... The cambered steel hydro-
planes, located a few inches beneath the forward and rear ends of the floats,
24
and extending between them, do not show in the picture [in the Dayton
Herald of March 21, 1907] as they are under water.... In these tests on the
river we used the motor, transmission and propellers from our 1905 aero-
plane.... That motor when functioning properly developed a little over 20
horsepower. But the experiments ... terminated before we succeeded in
getting more than two thirds of that power.
'With 14 horsepower the apparatus quickly raised until only the bottom of
the floats dragged on the water. But we failed with this power to get the
front edges of the planes entirely out of water and thus let the planes skim on
their rear edges as we had expected. Just as the front edges reached the
surface the planes seemed to lose a part of their lift with a consequent sinking
back into the water. This was due to the loss of the lift on the upper side
when the water ceased to flow over the top, but we did not understand the
cause of it at the time....
'Immediately following these experiments negotiations with a foreign
syndicate called us to Europe, so that the project of flying at Jamestown had
to be given up.'
I present with particular relish a contemporary report of the trials which
appeared in the Dayton Daily News:
'The balustrades of the Third Street Bridge were lined Thursday morning
with curious spectators.... The object of interest was the hydroplane which
Wilbur and Orville Wright, inventors of the airship, were tampering with in
preparation for its initial experimental run.
'Although the inventors, who are being branded as geniuses, would not
state the exact purpose of the hydroplane it was intimated that it is to be used
in connection with their airship....
Almost unbelievable - although this photograph, jointly with reports in the text, bear
testimony - is the fact that the Wright brothers were trying out hydrofoils for their
aircraft as early as 1907. The scene is the Miami River, Dayton, Ohio.
25
Although the Wrights were unable to appear at the Jamestown Exposition of 1907,
Mr Israel Ludlow was there with this strange device. It was towed by a torpedo boat.
'The present machine which is uniquely constructed from water boilers,
an old gasoline engine and numerous strips of wood and sheet iron, with the
water planes of copper, made its sail down the Miami River amid the en-
couraging cheers of the assembled spectators.'
The non-appearance ofthe Wrights at Jamestown must rank as one ofthe
bigger disappointments of history. Yet an aeromarine craft was present
nevertheless. A multiplane affair on floats, shown in a photograph, this was
constructed in the Aeronautical Building at Jamestown by ten soldiers placed
at the disposal of Mr Israel Ludlow, its originator, by the U.S. Government.
Mr Ludlow had previously built a series of gliders, and by 1904 was towing
them behind cars, with Charles Keeney Hamilton, later to become one of
America's best-known airmen, as pilot. At Jamestown Mr Ludlow's remark-
able creation was towed by a torpedo boat, but the intended two petrol
engines Were apparently never installed and the craft was eventually wrecked.
A powered aircraft resembling Mr Ludlow's was entered, early in 1909, for
both the aeroplane and motor-boat meetings at Monaco. Called an aeroscaphe,
and piloted by Monsieur Ravaud, it had a seven-cylinder Gnome and was
about 25 ft long. There were tWo concentric peopellers aft. This craft never
left the water and ultimately came to grief.
Seen here on a iand chassis, this was entered by Roger Ravaud for the
aeroplane and motor-boat contests at Monaco in 1909. It came to grief.
26
A remarkable British aeromarine contrivance of 1908/9 was the Humph-
reys Waterplane, built at Wivenhoe, Essex. A contemporary description ran:
'Amidships and incorporated in the lower plane is fitted the most original
feature of this machine in the shape of a kind of coracle hull of very thin wood,
in which the navigator sits. The reason for this is that Mr Humphreys has
elected to start his aeroplane from the surface of the water, thereby eliminating
practially all the danger attendant upon experimental flights from land in an
untried machine. For a fall from a considerable height need haveno terrors
with water below, and none of the fears of hedges, ditches, telegraph wires and
disturbing air currents due to inequalities in the ground. Further, it is
possible to skid on water, whereas land running gear would break or, at least,
prove unresponsive to side influences.'
The Humphreys Waterplane, built at Wivenhoe, Essex, during 1908/9 by Mr Jack
Humphreys, who is said to have been known locally as 'the mad dentist'.
This could, in fact, have been the first amphibian, for it was intended to be
'capable of arising from and alighting on both water and land'.
By late 1908 Glenn Curtiss, in America, was himself at work upon the
water. Experiments were reported in the first issue of Flight, dated January
2, 1909, as follows:
'The "June Bug" has now been slightly remodelled and mounted on
pontoons.... During some recent tests upon Lake Keuka at Hammondsport,
N.Y., the machine, now known as the "Loon", covered 2 miles (I mile with
and one against a wind of 5 or 6 miles an hour) at an average speed of 27'06
miles per hour, but this was not sufficient to enable the apparatus to complet-
ely rise from the water. Further experiments are now being conducted with
hydroplane hulls of various types.'
This was over two years before Curtiss finally succeeded in taking off from
water. His Loon was primitive, but the basic features of flying boats that
were to follow many years later were discernible in the monoplane built by
Major August von Parseval, 'for approval of the German War Office' and
27
A rare photograph of Glenn Curtiss' Loon (the June Bug on floats), which failed to
become airborne during tests in 1908.
subjected to 'preliminary trials' during September 1909. It was intended to
carry a crew of three and had a body of tubular steel. The engine was a
Daimler of laO h.p.
In England, late in 1909, design work was in progress at the Thames Bank
Wharf Motor Works, Westminster, on a type of monoplane 'hydro-aeroplane'
having 'catamaran hydroplane hulls'.
I would give much to see a picture of this craft - if, indeed, it was ever
completed.
Gabriel Voisin provides yet another link in this chapter through his
friendship with Henri Fabre, the first man to leave the water in a powered
'seaplane' (a term coined by Winston Churchill).
'Fabre,' Gabriel recollected, 'who was living in Marseilles, was our friend.
Major August von Parseval was responsible for this flying boat of 1909, amazingly far
ahead of its time, with its monoplane wing and tractor propellers.
28
He often came to Paris and our discussions were always about flying machines.
He was building a hydro-aeroplane - a seaplane, as the type was later called -
close to the Berre lake. It can be seen in the French Musee de l'Air at Cha1ais-
Meudon. It is an admirable machine, designed with the greatest care and
made like a masterpiece.'
Another distinction for a predecessor of this astonishing machine is that
it appears to have been, or to have been intended as, the world's first four-
engined heavier-than-air craft. An October 1909 report (which also alludes
to two floats) bears witness:
'M. Henri Fabre has completed at Marseilles, and hopes to try shortly, a
new combination hydro-aeroplane. The machine is of the tandem monoplane
type, and mounted on two air chambers, so that it can start from and, if
necessary, skim along the surface of the water. It is fitted with four 12-h.p.
two-cylinder Anzani motors.'
Having, it seems, tried hydrofoils and abandoned them because they picked
up weeds and other floating debris, Fabre invented a type of float - flat-
bottomed, and having a curved upper surface - with which his name was
thereafter to be associated. He arranged three of these under a tail-first
apparatus, one at the forward end and two aft, under the wing. The same
disposition of planing surfaces had been tank-tested by Britain's great naval
architect William Froude during the early 1870s.
A contemporary description of the Fabre floats ran as follows:
'These particular floats are so designed that when the machine is moving
either through the air or on the surface of the water, or with the floats com-
pletely submerged, there is always a vertical lift on them due to the speed.
When a hydroplane is travelling over a rough sea, if its speed is sufficiently
Close-up of the first powered aircraft to take off from water - Henri Fabre's Gnome-
engined creation which was said at the time (1910) to be 'more hydroplane than
aeroplane' .
29
-
high and the waves large enough, there will come a moment when the forward
part will be submerged in a wave into which at that moment the main body is
just entering; that is to say, in spite of the vertical lifting effect due to the
buoyancy of the float, there is also a contrary vertical force acting on its upper
surface, which"'tends to cause such portion to dip, and the whole of the hull
to pass under water. When this vertical downward thrust is greater than the
upward thrust, a wreck would almost inevitably result, and the aim of the
present invention is to prevent this.' .
It will have been gathered that Fabre's approach to the problem of gettmg
clear of the water was as much marine as otherwise, and it was said of his
machine that it was 'more hydroplane than aeroplane'. It might even be
suggested, in our aeromarine context, that it was as much a sailing craft as
a hydroplane, for the wings were covered with 'simili-silk', such as was used
for light boats, and when the craft was on the water this covering could be
clewed up to prevent damage by sudden gusts. The general effect was that
of a boat under bare poles. And yet the airframe appeared so heavy, and the
floats so small, that it seemed remarkable that it would float - far less fly.
Mr E. Holt-Thomas sagaciously expressed himself in June 19
12
:
'It has always seemed to me that too little attention has been paid to the
flying part of the hydro-aeroplane machine, i.e., to the planes of the water-
plane. What I mean is this; no matter how good the floats may be, an efficient
waterplane can only be evolved by using an efficient aeroplane. The floats
should be regarded as a landing chassis and a landing chassis only.... I have
known Monsieur Fabre for a very long time, and we have often discussed his
early experiments at Marseilles ... he was quite convinced that he must
evolve an extraordinary machine to get over the holding power of the water;
whilst I was convinced, and I think events prove me right, that if he had taken
a very efficient biplane and attached floats to it, he would have flown success-
fully two years ago.'
'Successfully,' of course, was a relative word; but, while paying due atten-
tion to the views of Mr Holt-Thomas, I nevertheless affirm that Monsieur
Fabre had indeed flown successfully two years earlier - that the world's first
Action study of the Fabre machine, with the curious 'lifting' floats almost clear of the
surface.
3
flight by a powered aircraft from water was, in fact, made by him at Martigues
on March 28, 1910, and that he was airborne at a height of about six feet for
a distance of some five hundred yards. This historic take-off was Monsieur
Fabre's first aerial experience of any kind.
Even during the following year, 19II, the Fabre machine continued to be
regarded as a phenomenon. I quote from The Yachting World:
April I2 - 'There was an alarming incident at Monaco this morning, M.
Fabre, the owner of the aero-hydroplane Goeland, nearly losing his life.
Goeland is a novel kind of machine.... It is driven by a Gnome engine, and
the inventor's idea is that, after skimming for a certain distance on the surface
of the water, the plane should gradually rise up into the air. It has caused one
ofthe competitors to remark that he thought of carrying a punt-gun mounted
vertically on his craft in case the long-legged monstrosity looked like hopping
over him and securing the prize. [Previously it had been suggested that the
craft would compete as a motor boat, rigged so that it could not fly.]
'Since the weather conditions seemed perfect and the sea was quite smooth,
M. Fabre determined on a trial run. The machine crossed the harbour in
perfect style, skimming along the surface; nearing the harbour mouth, it
rose up into the air to a height of about 30 yards, and soared along beautifully,
greatly admired by thousands of spectators. As soon as it cleared the harbour,
however, and encountered the full force of the wind outside, the machine
became unmanageable and to the horror of the onlookers was swept along
at a terrific pace towards the rocks and stone walls below the terraces.
Fortunately, M. Fabre, with great presence of mind, managed to throw him-
self clear of the machine into the sea, and was promptly picked up, none the
worse for his startling experience.'
There is now evidence that the pilot on this occasion was Jean Becue.
In the application of hydrofoils to aircraft the pre-eminent name is that
of the Italian Guidoni, who began his experiments in 1910. As General A.
Guidoni he told the story many years later.
'Having witnessed some of the trials of the Forlanini boat,' he said, 'I was
impressed with the ingeniousness and the possibilities of this system. So
when in 1910 I designed my first seaplane, I put on it the Forlanini type of
floats, but soon realised that they were no good for a seaplane. The change
from one vane to the other gave severe bumps to the machine and produced
changes impossible to control.
'The Crocco system' [I shall have more to say about Crocco in the chapter
on hydrofoil boats] 'gave a too small area owing to the size of the floats and,
astonishing though it may appear, I did not know at that time of his work. In
my first test, using a two floats seaplane, I placed the hydroplanes between the
floats; this proved unsatisfactory, because the floats would never get out of
water, the drag at the getting-off speed being too high. Then I tried the
Forlanini vanes under the floats, but without success.
'My idea was then to have the hydro area divided in a multiplane with two
or three legs; the vanes would be parallel and with a side inclination, the low
end of each one being lower than the high end of the following vane.
3
1
-
Fabre floats were adopted for several types of aircraft. This 'canard' had no
fewer than four.
33 c
Seen in two elements is the Voisin 'canard' in which Maurice Colliex, during August
19II, took off from Issy aerodrome and alighted on the Seine, afterwards making the
return trip. This was the first successful amphibian.
\
I

For several years after 1910 the Italian Guidoni was developing schemes for hydrofoil
aircraft. Glimpsed here, beneath the floats of one of his Farmans, is a very early
installation of foils.
'This design had the advantage of the Crocco vane, because it gave a gradual
variation of hydro area when emerging from water, and it had at the same time
the advantage of the Forlanini's, in giving a sufficient hydro area with a
considerable depth and a reduced width.
, "Provando e riprovando" was my motto, but at the same time I tried to
evolve the theory of the jumping due to the vanes....
'The first set of vanes was built of steel plate and were very heavy. I tried
wood with success and aluminium, which proved the best. In order to be
able to move the vanes along the float, they were mounted on rings of steel
plate or aluminium. The planes I used in this first stage of research were an
old Farman 1909, F.I, and similar improved machines F.2 and F.3, built at
the Navy Yard. Two monoplanes were also tested.
'Increasing the power and speed of machines, I found the wood vanes
inadequate. I tried aluminium sheet vanes and then I standardised a set of
steel vanes, which proved to be the right sort for any kind of machine, pro-
vided the size, thickness and shape were designed according to the power,
speed and weight. I used ordinary steel plates, reducing them at the grinding
wheel and welding the legs to the surfaces.'
Yet one may search in vain the aeronautical history books of the past half
century for any recognition of Guidoni's work. May his own utterances,
which I have quoted, save his name from oblivion.
Once again the name of Voisin presents itself, and in yet another tribute to
it I record that the world's first successful amphibious heavier-than-air craft
was a Voisin canard biplane. In addition to its wheels this was fitted with
three Fabre floats, and during August 1911, piloted by Maurice Colliex, it
3
2
took off from Issy on its wheels and alighted on the Seine, afterwards making
the return journey. The take-off run from water was about zoo yards.
Nor was this a 'one-off' freak, for Gabriel recalls that he delivered to the
Russian Government 'eight to ten amphibious "canard" types'; and a Voisin
canard 'hydro-aeroplane' was the first marine aircraft delivered to the French
Navy (mid-19IZ). It was housed in a special hangar aboard the battleship
Foudre.
As amazingly 'advanced' in design as was Fabre's glorious canard 'ele-
mentary' was a contemporary (early 1910) flying boat, having a catamaran
hull, rear elevator, variable-incidence wing and a tractor propeller driven by a
50-h.P. three-cylinder Anzani. Designed by Monsieur Gabardini, it was
constructed by MM. Seron and Lavagnau.
The Gabardini flying boat of early 1910, with its catamaran hull, variable-incidence
wing, rear elevator and tractor propeller.
More elegant still was the Charpentier flying boat, work upon which is
said to have been in progress at St Malo during 1909. Likewise of catamaran
type, this was to have had twin pusher propellers and a gull wing. I have no
reason to suppose that it was ever completed.
Truly it seemed that the designer had found as his inspiration some beauti-
ful sea bird.
Having failed in 1908 to coax his Loon from the water, Glenn Curtiss was
obliged to proceed with his landplanes; but when he made his famous Albany-
New York flight in one ofthese on May 31, 1910, he fitted it with two cylin-
drical under-wing floats (removed during the stop at Spuyten Duyvil), an
airtight canvas bag, running the length of the strut that connected the front
and rear wheels, and a small hydrofoil. With this equipment he made some
flights over Lake Keuka and landed successfully upon the water.
By the end of 1910 Curtiss had become so confident of his ability to get
free of the water that he invited officers of the U.S. Army and Navy to his
camp at North Island, San Diego. Success came on January z6, 1911, using
two floats set in tandem and a forward-mounted six-foot hydrofoil. In
February a single Iz-foot scow-shaped pontoon was fitted (before the paint
was dry), and thereafter the machine was frequently and extensively altered,
even, at one stage, becoming a triplane. In another phase it had retractable
wheels.
In that same year also - 1910 - experiments with a floatplane were pro-
34
Glenn Curtiss first succeeded in leaving the water on January 26, 1911, using this
biplane. It had tandem-mounted floats and a six-foot hydrofoil. It was later ex-
tensively altered.
ceeding in England. The aircraft was a monoplane designed by Oscar T.
Gnosspelius and had Bleriot-type wings. It was first tried with twin floats and
later with a broad single float; but it never became airborne, although a
successor flew early in 191Z.
The first British powered floatplane to rise from the water was an Avro
biplane owned by Cdr Oliver Schwann and tried at Cavendish Dock, Barrow-
ill-Furness, during 191I. Like Fabre, Cdr Schwann had never previously
flown. The engine was a Green, the power of which was increased by fitting
additional exhaust ports.
I find - to my continuing astonishment - that both air lubrication and
hydrofoils were involved in these experiments.
In one installation' ... an ample air supply was led- through the floats to
the after side of the steps'; and with this set of floats the first take-off was
accomplished - on November 18, 191I.
Seen at Barrow-in-Furness, ;nhere it first left t ~ e water on .November 18, I9II ,
Commander Ohver Schwann s Avro was tned With several different sets of floats.
Hydrofoils and air lubrication were both employed.
35
Of the hydrofoil installation I am able to give the following authentic
description. The floats were 'fitted with two planes under the water. ...
These were made of duralumin plate. Their span was 40 in., chord 4 in., and
the distance apart 4 in. The plates were mounted one above the other at a
depth of 20 in. below the water level and at an angle of 3 to the horizontal.
Each plane was slightly curved to a depth of _{i
e
in.' -
Apparently this British Avro was the first marine aircraft to use the 'stepped'
form of planing bottom. For some years to follow most 'seaplanes' were built
to the twin-float-plus-tail-float formula, and the floats in consequence were
too short to exploit the principle to advantage. There were, however, notable
exceptions.
During 191 I the Italian Crocco built a seaplane, having - I quote Guidoni
- a 'hydrovaned boat'. The vanes proved too small in area, and the machine
'never got over critical speed'. Towed behind a motor boat, it did succeed in
getting off, but was wrecked.
Meanwhile, in America towards the end of 19II, Curtiss, whose 'hydros'
were achieving international renown, was building what was called a 'family
hydro', and which emerged as the first of his flying boats. The maiden flight
was on January 10, 1912. A 60-h.p. engine drove twin tractor propellers
through a clutch and chain transmissions, and the tail was carried on out-
riggers from the long and capacious hull.
To the bedevilment of history, this machine has been repeatedly and
prominently confused with a later type, first flown in the summer of 1912 and
distinguished primarily in having the tail attached directly to a full-length
hull. This formula was later to become the most common for craft of this
class; but to contend that this was 'the first real flying boat' is wholly in-
correct. The earlier type mentioned not only appears to have been called a
flying boat by Curtiss himself, but the means of carrying the tail was per-
petuated in the transatlantic NC-4. And that was certainly so termed by
Curtiss and his colleagues.
The first 'classic' type of flying boat, with the tail mounted directly on the
Glenn Curtiss' first flying boat - the 'family hydro', with its tail carried on
and twin propellers driven through chain transmission from the hull-mounted engme.
3
6
The French Donnet-Leveque flying boat of 1912 was the first 'classic' machine of its
type - that is, having the tail mounted directly on the hull. Curtiss has been extensively
and wrongly credited with this arrangement.
hull, cannot, in fact, be credited to Curtiss at all, but to Denhaut, who
constructed the Donnet-Leveque machine of this type in 1912.
Among the least-known work which I have recorded in this chapter was
that put in hand by the Wrights in 1907, and of which Bishop Milton Wright
recorded in his diary: 'The boys rigged up their floats and hydroplanes and
tried them on the Miami.'
But the boys did not allow their trip to Europe to end their aquatic 'tam-
perings'; nor have I in mind their floatplane of 1913 or the flying boat of
1913-14. I allude to some almost unknown experiments undertaken in the
latter year and described by Orville in a letter which illuminates with astonish-
ing clarity our aeromarine theme. To William E. Valk, Jr, a patent attorney
with the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company, Orville wrote:
'Your letter inquiring about our experiments with so-called slotted wings
was duly received. -
'Mr Octave Chanute told my brother and me that he had heard that a
surface with slots cut in it would give an increased lift and suggested that we
try it in our tunnel. We did so in the fall of 1901 or spring of 1902, and found
that a slightly increased lift resulted from the slots. The drift, however, was
more than proportionately increased, so that we did not see any value in it
at that time.
'In the summer of 1914 we experimented on the Miami river here at
Dayton with cambered sheet-steel hydrovanes with an auxiliary narrow
cambered strip of steel placed just above the forward edge of the main
hydroplanes... .'
Having recalled earlier difficulties, and affirming that the new scheme was
successful in preventing the water from leaving the upper side of the 'hydro-
plane', Orville went on:
37
'In 1918 or 1919 I tested this same arrangement in the wind tunnel, hoping
to maintain the boundary-layer flow on the upper side and so secure in-
creased lifts. But we did not secure a lift at all comparable to that secured by
Handley-Page.
'Handley-Page could have..hadno knowledge of these wind-tunnel experi-
ments, and it is most improbable that he had any of the hydroplane experi-
ments, although we did send a hydroplane of this type to Pensacola in 1915.
'It is Handley-Page who has brought the slotted wing to a state of useful-
ness, and I do not think that anything we previously may have done along
that line ought to affect the validity of his patent.'
Could there be any more vivid example than this, not only of the theme of
the present book, but of the interplay of great ideas?
To resume our pursuit of marine aircraft 'firsts', whether regarded as a
twin-hulled flying boat or as a twin-float seaplane the Radley-England water-
plane of 1913 was of such remarkably original layout that I must give it a
place. The accompanying photograph tells its own story: I feel it only neces-
sary to add that the engines were three 50-h.P. Gnomes, coupled to a single
shaft, and that the craft made several flights before an alighting accident. It
was rebuilt with several modifications, and a 150-h.P. Sunbeam engine.
I conclude this chapter by placing on record some British proposals and
experiments involving hydrofoil undercarriages.
In 191 I the Short brothers patented a scheme employing 'planes for varying
draft'. An arrangement was described whereby a 'hydro-vane' supported a
flying machine when alighting on, or starting from, the water.
'Whether regarded as a twin-hulled flying boat or as a twin-float seaplane the Radley-
England waterplane of 1913 was of remarkably original layout... .' The engines were
three Gnomes, coupled to a single shaft.
3
8
Stimulated by work in Italy Lt C. D. Burney, R.N., persuaded the British and Colonial
Aer?plane Co..Ltd. to a design and development programme for aircraft
havIng hydrofOIl undercarriages. In the upper picture the X.2 is seen on tow. The
lower view shows the X.3 hoisted almost clear of the water.
Some truly remarkable experiments were conducted jointly by the British
and Colonial Aeroplane Co (later the Bristol Aeroplane Co) and Lt C. D.
Burney, R.N. Stimulated by work in Italy - especially that of Guidoni _
Burney persuaded the company to undertake a secret design and development
programme. The .first design, the X.I, was for a biplane; but this was
abandoned. The X.2 was a monoplane with a boat hull which, after various
trials and modifications, succeeded in becoming airborne. Unhappily it
crashed almost immediately, owing to the premature slipping of the tow from
a Naval torpedo boat. The X.3 was larger and more refined, but never became
In June 1914 it was taxied into a hidden sandbank and, following
WIthdrawal of Admiralty support, the experiments were discontinued.
39
The essential features proposed by Burney are set out in a patent of 191I.
A monoplane layout is shown and the craft is described as an 'aeronautical
apparatus furnished with laterally extended wings and having a body of boat-
like form provided with inclined hydropeds upon which are disposed hydro-
planes....' Mention is made of propellers and rudders for use in water,
situated at the lower ends of the hydropeds, the rudders being connected to
the wing-warping controls and to the aerial rudder so as to operate simul-
taneously and in sympathy therewith. It is further stated: 'The propeller for
propulsion in the air is situated at the forward end of the apparatus and is put
into operation as soon as the lift produced by the combined action of the
water propellers and the hydroplanes is sufficient to enable the aerial pro-
peller to be used.'
I hope this chapter may disperse some of the mists and myths which, for
well over half a century, have obscured the true history of flight, and that it
may establish some new and rightful claims to a place therein.
FLYING IN WATER
QUITE OFTEN in the early history of aeronautics is the fish exemplified as a
form oflow resistance, and historian Charles Gibbs-Smith believes it possible
that fish and boats may have brought the idea of streamlining to the mind of
Sir George Cayley. The shapes of birds seem to have been a later considera-
tion. An 1809 notebook entry by Cayley, quoted by Mr Gibbs-Smith in
Sir George Cayley's Aeronautics I796-I855 and referring to the sketch on
this page, observes:
'Trout on a scale of half an inch to one inch. Weight (being a well fed fish)
13 ounces, length from nose to the centre ofthe tail, 13 inches. In the figure
Sir George Cayley's design for a solid of least resistance, based on the form of a trout
( r809)
... the girths are divided by three and reduced to a mean diameter so as to
give a spindle the same girth at the respective places that the trout had. Why
should not a boat be constructed to resemble one half of such a spindle by a
section thro' the axis? We should then be deriving our boat from a better
architect than man, and should probably have the real solid ofleast resistance.'
The study of aerodynamic problems, using water as the medium, was
undertaken in the early 1860s by Thomas Moy, an inventor and latterly
patent agent, whose 'Aerial Steamer' lifted 2-6 in. off the ground in 1875. In
The History of Aeronautics in Gt Britain J. E. Hodgson praises Moy's stalwart
support of the Aeronautical Society in days when mechanical flight was
commonly regarded as the futile hobby of unscientific - not to say deluded -
enthusiasts. Hodgson considered that Moy was entitled to 'a modest place
with the pioneers of modern aeronautical science and technology'. I hope later
to establish that he deserves a loftier eminence, in that, while experimenting
in his 'water flying' (as he himself called it) he invented the hydrofoil boat.
In the relating of aero- and hydro-dynamics the name of Moy is notable
also for a paper of his which appeared in the seventh (1872) report of the
4
1
Aeronautical Society. The title wa; On the Application of Scott Russell's
Wave-line to Aerial Machines, and it concerned a theory propounded by one
of Britain's foremost naval architects.
During the early 1870S the German physicist Von Helmholz was comparing
the behaviour of models in both air and water, and in Germany also some
remarks were made by Otto Lilienthal in his historic treatise Birdfiight as the
Basis of Aviation, first published in 1889.
'It may be of interest,' he said, 'to experiment with slightly curved surfaces
under water. Even on a very small scale we can obtain some results; as, for
instance, when we move a spoon in a cup full of liquid we can notice the
tendency for the spoon to move in the direction of this curvature. We may
assume that the speculations which we have made [previously in the book]
apply to a certain degree to movements under water, and the question arises
whether there is not a gap in the theory of the marine propeller, because the
camber of the cross-section has not been given sufficient attention... .'
I have recorded that the first heavier-than-air take-off from water was made
in 1905 by Gabriel Voisin in a Hargrave box-kite type of aircraft towed by a
motor boat; yet two years earlier S. F. Cody had crossed the English Channel
in a boat towed by a box-kite. These two events, so close in time and so
paradoxical in nature, provide one of the more remarkable of our aqua-aerial
associations. And at least two years before Cody's Channel crossing torpedo
boats of the Russian Navy had been towing man-lifting kites for spotting the
enemy.
Doggedly experimenting with flapping wings as late as 1906 was
Antoine Mutti. Having stated his theory, he wrote:
'My conviction that the secret of a bird's flight is explained in this way is
arrived at as the result of a great number of experiments both in the air and
also (more latterly) in the water. The resistance of the water being greater
than that of the air, it is naturally easier to fly upon the water, and it can be
done absolutely without danger. I am the owner of the English patent, and
of a little model of a flying boat, which I shall be glad to show to anyone who is
interested... .'
The 'little flying boat' will have a place in our chapter on hydrofoils.
Discussing relative dynamic and buoyant support, Major George O.
Squier, U.S. Army Signal Corps, had this to say in 199:
'Peter Cooper-Hewitt [the inventor of the mercury-vapour lamp, and who
was experimenting with a hydrofoil craft in 1907] has given careful study to
the relative behaviour of ships in air and water. He has made a special study
of hydroplanes, and has prepared graphic representations of his results which
furnish a valuable forecast of the problem of flight.
'Without knowing of Helmholz's theorem, Cooper-Hewitt has indepen-
dently computed curves for ships and hydroplanes from actual data in water,
and has employed these curves to solve analogous problems in air, using the
relative densities of the two media, approximately 800 to I, in order to
determine the relative values of support by dynamic reaction and by displace-
ment for various weights and speeds.'
4
2
Pilcher's 'umbrella boat', with its 'cyclone sail'. It was intended to sail on an even keel,
thereby lessening resistance.
Britain's own debt to maritime practice drew comment from Professor
J. H. Biles at a meeting of the British Association in 1911. The professor -
a naval architect of distinction - reminded his audience:
'The question of the strains produced upon the plane has been mathe-
matically investigated, and was afterwards experimentally confirmed by Mr.
Froude in his experiments upon the screw propeller. This covered much of
the mathematical ground needed in the discussion of aeroplanes, although
mathematically Froude neglected the circular motion. I would like to add
that one of the earliest practical flying men, Mr. Pilcher, was one of my own
assistants, and he was also a naval officer. We owe much to the Navy in the
past, and must look to it in the future for further assistance in respect to
mechanical flight.'
To my immense satisfaction I have justification for including Pilcher's work
in this 'flying in water' chapter. Obviously motivated by his gliding experi-
ments, he and his partner W. G. Wilson rigged up a 'cyclone sail' for a 17-ft
boat, and tried it in the Solent during 1897 (two years before Pilcher was
killed). The sail worked 'on the principle of the kite' and exerted 'a lifting
effect'. In any case, the 'umbrella boat', as it was otherwise known, was
intended to sail on an even keel, without being inclined by the wind, and
therefore to offer less resistance than when proceeding with a list. With an
ordinary rig, 200 sq. ft of canvas proved too much for her; but with the
'umbrella' she carried 360 sq. ft and sailed much faster. Messrs Thornycroft of
Chiswick were said to be building 'a light boat especially adapted for the sail'.
It is fitting to remark that Pilcher was an acquaintance not only of Sir
John Thornycroft, patentee of the air-cushion boat, but also of Otto Lilienthal,
constructor of marine engines and pioneer in aeronautics.
43
WINGED HULLS
Now WE consider how aerodynamic means were used to relieve water-based
aircraft of hydrodynamic resistance, and an English clergyman first enters our
story.
In the last years of the nineteenth century the Rev. E. Rust was trying
unsuccessfully to arouse some interest in a form of transport vehicle with
which his mind was occupied. This was a kind of 'flying machine' which
would be 'amphibious to air and water; that is, with a boat or ship-shaped
sub-structure, so as to rest upon the water, or to travel along its surface, as
well as through the air'. The craft was to be lifted and propelled by 'feathering
paddles consisting of four fans'. These last were alternatively called 'wings'.
The boilers for the light marine engine would be supplied with water 'by
pumping from the sea when afloat, or by projecting a feed pipe into the water
when skimming over its surface'.
That the reverend gentleman really intended his craft to operate in ground
effect (the existence of which was doubtless unknown to him) is clear from
his declaration that: 'There would be no need to rise more than a few inches
(or a few yards at most in rough weather) above the surface ofthe ocean... .'
Overland operation he considered possible, 'but only to a very limited
degree ...'; adding that 'travelling, to some extent, might be conducted along
the lines of the rivers and canals'. The 'principal scope' of the machine,
however, would be 'to supersede the discomfort and delay of over-sea
transit .. .', in competition with 'the Calais-Dover and other lines .. .'.
This is the first proposal that I have found for a transport vehicle intended
to operate 'at the interface', as the Americans say. It was submitted to, and
rejected by, Lord Armstrong, whose name is nevertheless perpetuated in
today's air-cushion world by incorporation in 'Vickers-Armstrongs (Engineers)
Ltd.'.
Hardly surprisingly, the first practical suggestions for 'winged hulls' were
linked with the sport of hydroplaning. During 1906 there appeared in France
a Levavasseur hydroplane built by Lein of Perreux and powered by a
50-h.P. Antoinette engine. This craft is doubly interesting, first, because
M. Leon Levavasseur was designer of the famous, beautiful and buoyant
Antoinette monoplane and its engine also; second, because it was tried out by
Santos-Dumont and Captain Ferber. Ferber declared it to be 'quite practical',
and expressed the belief that, 'fitted with aeroplanes and an aerial screw, it
could be made to rise from the water'.
A contemporary description runs:
44
'The chief features of this craft appear to be a floating hull, occupied by the
motor and crew, and a rear part, forming a propulsive tailor stem, terminating
by a sustaining surface, which is held at a constant angle to the hull in front.'
Another writer declared: 'It would be a stretch of imagination to call her a
boat, as she is more like a gigantic flying-fish in the act of leaping... .'
Speeds of about 50 m.p.h. were rumoured for the wingless craft. L'Auto
declared that it feared to mention the speed achieved, though this 'exceeded
anything yet attained by motor craft'.
I have no reason to suppose that the wings and aerial screw were ever fitted,
but during the following year, 1907, details were published of the Obus-
Nautilus, intended to race at Monaco. The Autocar of March 2, 1907,
reported:
'Now a true hydroplane of entirely novel construction has been entered by
Messrs. Conchis and Hemsen. It has two floats four metres square. Each
float has a fore body on parabolic lines, and is cut away aft. On each side of
the fore body project steel plates above the water, which are intended to store
the air, as it were, when the hydroplane is travelling at high speeds, so that the
air thus partially compressed tends to raise the floats out of the water....
There is no doubt that this device offers the minimum of skin friction that
it is possible to get... .'
The AutomotorJournal said: 'Each of the floats is provided with two pressed
steel plates arranged laterally in such a way as to assist the floats in acting
partly as aeroplanes.'
The impact of the hydroplane sent a shock and a shudder through the
yachting and motor-boating worlds. 'Mechanically propelled tea-trays' was
the definition bestowed by one shellback.
Not surprisingly, the profusion and confusion of nomenclature which today
afflicts everyone concerned with the development of 'new forms' of vehicle
was as acutely apparent in those Edwardian times. So let us extend our
sympathy to the editor of the aforementioned journal, whose heart-cry I
reprint from his December 10, 1908, issue:
'According to the latest note from the British Motor Boat Club, an in-
teresting point has arisen as to the exact dividing line between a hydroplane
and an ordinary motor boat; and supposititious cases have been put, such as
whether a craft with her upper works of ordinary section, but with a stepped
under-body, would be a hydroplane or a boat.... Personally, we regard
discussions as quite futile. For all power-craft racing purposes, a vessel is
what she is declared to be.... For instance, a motor-punt, albeit flat-
bottomed and gliding, is distinctly no hydroplane. Nor would a sharpie with
her boat-shaped top be one either. Nothing, again, would make any catamaran
type - which is just as much a glider - a hydroplane. Yet no one has yet
denied that classification to Santos-Dumont's combination of silken cigar-
shaped gas-float [see page 61] although it presents many features of the
catamaran... .'
It was, no doubt, this turmoil among the yachting fraternity that moved
Rudyard Kipling in 1909 to envision a similar rumpus involving what he
45
,.
I BAT-BOATS
Flint & Mantel C:f r " ~ ; )
Southampton : . ~ .
FOR SALE
at the end of Season the following Bat-Boats:
GRISELDA, 65 knt., 42 ft., 430 (nom.) Maginnis Motor.
under-rake rudder.
MABELLE, SO knt., 40 ft., 310 Hargreaves Motor,
Douglas' lock-steering gear.
IVEMONA, SO knt., 35 ft., 300 Hargreaves (Radium
accelerator), Miller keel and rudder.
The above are well known on the South
Coast as sound! wholesome knockabout boats,
with ample crUIsing accommodation. Griselda
carries s'p'are set of Hofman racing vans and
can be hfted three foot clear in smooth water
with ballast-tank swung aft. The others do
not lift clear of water, and are recommended
for beginners. .
Also, by private treaty, racing B. B. Tarpon
(76 winning flags) 120 knt., 60 ft.; Long-
Davidson double under-rake rudder, new thiS
season and unstrained. 850 nom. l\1aginnis
motor, Radium relays and Pond generator.
Bronze breakwater forward, and treble rein-
forced forefoot and entry. Talfourd rockered
keel. Triple set of Hofman vans, giving maxi-
mum lifting surface of 5327 sq. ft.
Tarpon has been lifted and held seven feet
for two miles between touch and touch.
Our Autumn List of racing and family Batl
ready on the 9th January.
A mock advertisement for indubitable winged hulls, concocted by Rudyard Kipling
and published during 1909 in a supposed aeronautical journal of the year 2000.
Reproduced from Actions and Reactions by Rudyard Kipling by kind permission of
Macmillan & Co. Ltd.
called 'bat-boats'. These imaginary craft were nothing more or less than
winged hulls, as clearly shown in an advertisement which Kipling concocted
for a supposed aeronautical journal ofthe year A.D. 2000. In that same 'jour-
nal', under the heading 'Bat-Boat Racing', appeared the following:
'The scandals of the past few years have at last moved the yachting world
to concerted action in regard to "bat" boat racing.
'We have been treated to the spectacle of what are practically keeled racing-
planes driven a clear five foot or more above the water, and only eased down
to touch their so-called "native element" as they near the line. Judges and
starters have been conveniently blind to this absurdity, but the public
demonstration off St Catherine's Light at the Autumn Regatta has borne
ample, if tardy, fruit. In the future the "bat" is to be a boat, and the long-
unheeded demand of the true sportsman for "no daylight under mid-keel in
smooth water" is in a fair way to be conceded. The new rule severely restricts
plane area and lift alike... .'
The name Bat-Boat was eventually to be adopted, in 1913, for Sir Thomas
Sopwith's indubitable flying boat, with its beautiful Saunders-built hull.
By no means indubitable in character (though a very real creation) was a
craft of 191 I which one may regard either as a flying boat which flew with the
tip of its tail in the water or as a boat which, by means of wings, lifted every-
thing clear except its tail.
A product of the Michigan Steel Boat Co., this singular craft was displayed
at the New York Boat Exhibition of 1911, and it travelled from Detroit to
Cleveiand (some 100 miles) in two hours.
Discussing the longitudinal stability of 'skimming and hydro-aeroplanes'
in 1913, J. E. Steele, B.Sc., observed that she was in the transition stage
between the skimmer and the all-air machine, only leaving the water for an
The Flying Fish, built by the Michigan Steel Boat Co. in 19II, flew with its tail in the
water. A hydrofoil was mounted under the metal hull.
47
r'
occasional bound into the air, 'which bound is involuntary, and not one of her
natural functions'.
The hull was an aluminium tank 7 ft 2 in. long, 5 ft 7 in. wide and 2 ft
deep, with rounded-up bow. The vertical sides were carried aft past the hull
for another 10 ft, where they were connected by a cross-piece which formed
the horizontal tail. The hydrofoil was fitted under the hull to assist in lifting
it from the surface. At a moderate speed, with the hull lifted out of the water,
the craft planed along on its hydrofoil and tail; but at high speeds she lifted
completely clear, except for her tail.
A speed of between 65 and 70 m.p.h. was reported for this 'winged hull' -
or what might be termed today ram-wing air-cushion vehicle or dynamic
interface vehicle.
More curious still was a craft built early in 19II by S. E. Saunders Ltd of
East Cowes, Isle of Wight. 'Sam' Saunders, of whom I shall have more to
relate, had undertaken aeronautical work for Sir Hiram Maxim, and formally
announced his entry into the aircraft business in 1909. A news item of
November that year ran:
'Messrs S. E. Saunders Ltd are opening a new department for building
everything required for aero navigation. Mr Saunders, the head of the firm,
is eminently qualified to do full justice to customers' requirements in this
new branch of the business, as no man in the boat-building trade in this
country has had so much experience in wood working in which the chief
object has been lightness of construction combined with strength. For the
past 35 years, Mr Saunders has been working in this direction, and this long
experience has taught him invaluable lessons in regard to the selection of
light woods for the particular purpose required. In addition, Mr Saunders
has seen most of the aerial machines in flight and has also had an opportunity
of examining them in their sheds. He is confident that in the choice of woods
and methods of construction he can save weight without in any way sacrificing
strength.'
Then, after a little over a year, in the opening weeks of 19II:
'Satisfactory floating tests were made on Monday with an aero motor boat
which has been built to the design of M. Pavaud, the French airman,
S. E. .and Co's works.... The designer has personally
the bmldmg of the machine, which is about 20 ft long and
consIsts of flat floats carrying above them a boat-shaped hull capable of
accommodatmg two or three persons. It is driven by an air propeller with a
5
0
-
h
P Gnome engine. At the bow there is a rudder above water. ... Messrs
Saunders, who are builders of the hydroplanes and motor boats for the Duke
of Westminster and others, are proposing to develop at East Cowes a centre
for marine aviation, and have built a shed up the river Medina, near Osborne
Naval College engineering workshops.'
When I resurrected this delightful specimen (Air-Cushion Vehicles of
November 1963) I quoted no fewer than four different renderings of the
'd' , , 'R d' 'R d'
eSIgner s name - evau, avau, 'Pavaud' and 'Payaud'. To these I
am now able to add 'Rivaud' and 'Rayaud'. But as I remarked at the time
compared with contemporary descriptions of the craft itself, the
of Ravaud's name was almost unanimous. She was declared by various
observers and authorities to be an 'aeroscaphe', 'motoscaphe', 'curious
hybrid', 'aero motor boat', 'hydro-aeroplane', 'sea flier', 'aero-hydroplane',
'half an aeroplane and half a hydroplane', 'skimmer with aerial propeller' and
'aeroquat' .
Launched in January 19II, this chimera was intended to appear at Monaco
later in that year. It failed to arrive, although it may have operated in the
The intention was to install a Gnome engine of 100 h.p.,
and WIth thIS Ravaud was hoping for a speed of about 60 m.p.h.
A dynamic interface vehicle if ever there was one. Or should she, after all,
have been included in the chapter on hydrofoils; because I find that
Ravaud declared that the bottoms ofthe floats were (or could be) 'constituted
by blades', serving 'to raise the vessel clear of the water'.
in case the glorious photograph I reproduce should provide further
beWIlderment, I must explain that Ravaud is facing astern.
Monsieur Ravaud in the undeniably curious craft built for him in I9II by S. E.
Saunders Ltd of East Cowes, Isle of Wight. No fewer than ten different contemporary
appellations are quoted in the text.
4
8
D
49
HYDROFOIL BOATS
I NAIL THE British flag to the masthead of this chapter by expressing the
plain belief that a boat was first lifted out of the water by means of hydrofoil
surfaces on an English canal in I86r.
At that time Thomas Moy, whose name has hitherto been known chiefly
for his 'Aerial Steamer', was experimenting with the technique of 'flying in
water', to which I alluded in the chapter bearing that title. He was trying out
a boat, towed by means unknown to me, on the Surrey Canal, which in
early years of the last century linked Rotherhithe and HIS
apparent preoccupation was aerodynamics, and not hydrodynamIcs; but
Approximate section of the foils used by Thomas May in 1861.
recognizing that water was the easier (and the safer) medium, he conducted
his investigations into what he himself termed 'water flight'. His boat had
on its underside three 'planes', rounded above and slightly hollow underneath,
and Moy, I find, has left record of how, with the boat under tow, it was raised
'quite out of the water'. The planes were 'self acting as to angle of incidence'
and 'assumed finer angles as speed increased'. Moy noted that the front edges
of the 'planes' threw up water; 'a kind of vacuum' was created on the after
part and 'thrust was reduced as speed increased'.
In 1869 a Frenchman, Emmanuel Farcot, was granted a patent for various
improvements to ships. 'My last improvement in propelling vessels,' he said,
'consists in arranging along the sides a series of inclined planes, the angles of
which may be varied at pleasure.' He went on: 'These planes are first of all
arranged horizontally, so that at the moment of starting the vessel may be
carried forward with all the speed that the propellers are capable of exerting.
The planes are then inclined ... and the vessel will rise a certain distance in
the water.... The motive power may therefore be reduced, as the vessel
will skim along the surface like a stone which ricochets.'
Moy and Farcot were trying to get lift; and just as several of the early
experimenters strove to achieve flight with wings not fixed but rotating, so,
in 1876, there was a steam-powered rotary-foil hydrofoil craft. For that is the
most accurate description I can give of a contrivance which was engaging the
5
i
attention during that year of a M. de Sanderal. A rectangular flat-bottomed
boat, it had at each corner a 'propeller', working horizontally in the water,
the propulsive screw being at the rear and more or less out of that element.
I think it appropriate to mention here that in 1909 L. Bernasconi patented
a type of vessel having two or more pairs of propellers symmetrically disposed
in relation to the centre of gravity, the shafts being inclined at an angle so that
the vertical component of the thrust along them served to support the craft.
A similar principle was proposed by L. and M. Janin and M. Tetard in 1913.
A number of 'screw propellers or turbine devices' were arranged beneath the
hull and supported on inclined shafts so as to cause the whole vessel to move
forward and emerge from the water. Adjustable inclined 'plates' or blades
were fitted to increase stability and prevent rolling and pitching.
In 1878 John Stanfield and Josiah Clark of London proposed 'A new (or
improved) method of raising vessels or other moving bodies out of the water
... so as to increase their speed.' They declared: 'We place a number of
fin blades or oblique floats on the sides of the vessel or beneath her at different
parts of her length, inclined at an angle, so that as the vessel is propelled
forward, their tendency is to raise the vessel out ofthe water.... At extreme
speeds her whole weight may be supported on the floats or fin blades, so that
she skids along with only her screws submerged and her blades on the surface.
. . . Very high speeds may consequently be attained... .'
Ten years later - in 1888 - an American, G. W. Napier, patented a scheme
for varying the draught of ships by means of adjustable fins on each side of a
vessel. The fins also tended to minimize rolling. Another American, C. E.
Emery, applied in 1890 for a patent referring to retractable and adjustable
surfaces, and in England during 1892 Sir Hiram Maxim patented a 'high-
speed steamer'. The proposed craft was designed to 'skim the surface' and
was the outcome of 'experiments with aeroplanes'. Sir Hiram's object was to
vary the draught in order to attain high speed. A vessel of ordinary form was
shown with an adjustable 'horizontal blade or fin' at the stern. 'By inclining
this blade when going at a high speed,' it was stated, 'the stern is lifted and the
vessel skims along the surface.' Maxim further claimed that similar blades
might also be used at the bow, or the latter might be punt-shaped. The pro-
peller blades could be automatically adjusted by a mechanism which was the
subject of one of Sir Hiram's patents.
Though I am unable to ascertain the precise form of the craft, I record
here that in 1893 an 8-h.p. steam engine was fitted to a Tissandier 'glider'
boat, which had its propeller under water. A speed of23 kmfhr was mentioned
for this boat, which was successively fitted with several engines, including the
Buchet used by Santos-Dumont to fly his airship round the Eiffel Tower in
190r.
A model craft with adjustable foils was constructed in 1895 by one of the
best-known and most controversial figures in French aviation, Clement Ader.
, Ader's craft was pointed at each end. At the front there were two foils, spread-
ing out from the sides and adjustable from inside to any desired angle. At the
rear a single plane, likewise adjustable, formed the tail.
51
And now I introduce a form of craft which is not to be found even in the
bewildering catalogue of modern modes of transport, this being nothing more
or less than an air-cushion hydrofoil. It was Ader's idea, even in 1896, 'to
inject compressed air underneath the surface of the three planes so that they
would work more or less upon an air cushion'. By this means he intended
that the resistance of the boat would be still further diminished.
An abridgement of an Ader patent specification of 1904 read: 'A vessel is
supported during forward motion by two lateral wings and a transverse
tailpiece in such a manner that it "slides" upon the water'. Ader showed
drawings of a flat-bottomed vessel, having a pointed stem and elongated stern,
and with the pivoted wings and tail having channels communicating with
apertures through which atmospheric or compressed air escaped, 'forming a
cushion between the wings &c and the water'.
During 1904 Ader was experimenting with what was described as a flat-
bottomed boat 'provided with wings and taillike a bird's, which, when ex"'
panded, graze the surface of the water'. The account continued: 'Air at the
pressure of one-twentieth of an atmosphere is forced under the wings and
-=. = = - ~ - - - - - - ~ = - = = - - = = - - - . . = : = . = = = - = - - : . ~ - - - - - =:-
Contemporary drawings (circa 1904) of the astonishing 'air-cushion hydrofoil' of
Clement Ader, showing the hinged 'wings' and tail, and giving a cross-section of one
of the 'wings', showing the space for the air cushion.
52
I
,I
tail, raising them and the boat until the bottom just touches the surface. The
resistance being thus diminished, the boat is driven forward rapidly by a
submerged propeller.
'Though the boat worked fairly well,' it was added, 'it is too complicated
and unwieldy for practical use, and has been presented by its inventor to the
Conservatoire des Arts et Metiers, where it is to be preserved as the embodi-
ment of an ingenious idea.'
I shall say more about this phenomenal device in later chapters.
The name of Horatio Frederick Phillips (1845-1926) is acclaimed by Charles
Gibbs-Smith as one of the most honoured in aviation history (a description
that no one would dispute), though 'his later activities' were 'shrouded in
mystery'. In a hydrodynamic context at least I may be able to dispel some
of this mystery, for it was none other than Phillips who collaborated with the
Comte de Lambert in designing the first of a series of so-called 'gliding' or
'sliding' craft with which the count's name was to be associated for many
years to follow.
Phillips had proposed in 188r a scheme for 'Improvements in boats or
vessels to be driven at high speed'. Owing to the great velocity oftorpedo boats
and other fast craft, he reasoned, the water had not time to fill in the run of
the boat, causing the stern to be depressed and resistance to be increased.
'Now the object of this invention,' declared Phillips, 'is to ensure an even
ked, by which means the resistance will be reduced... .'
'This I effect by securing under the boat, and transversely of the keel .
a plate or plates, so arranged that they may be set at any suitable angle .
By the use of these plates the vessel will be lifted partially or wholly from the
water... .'
The contribution of Phillips in connection with the de Lambert craft must,
I believe, be accorded generous acknowledgement, by reason of his inter-
national reputation as an authority on aerofoil surfaces - this notwithstanding
a pronouncement by Orville Wright, who said:
'Although suggestions of the hydroplane idea had been made years ago,
and although Froude had made some experiments without results as far back
as 1872, Comte de Lambert was the real inventor of the hydroplane. He was
the first to produce a successful one, and all modern hydroplanes are based
upon his work. In 1897 Comte de Lambert experimented with a catamaran
formed of two narrow floats, to which were attached four transverse planes,
whose inclinations could be varied two or three degrees. At a speed of ten
miles an hour, the floats were lifted entirely out of the water and the machine
glided over the surface on the four hydroplanes. Comte de Lambert con-
tinued these experiments during the following years up to 1907, and he suc-
ceeded in increasing the speed to thirty-four miles an hour.'
The Wrights were closely associated with the Comte, and Orville's loyalty
is commendable. But he might have declared with greater precision that the
first full-scale powered hydrofoil craft (as it would be classed today) was the
work of de Lambert assisted by Phillips. I have shown that the essential
hydrofoil idea was far older - and British.
53
Contemporary sketches of the steam-powered hydrofoil tested by the Comte de
Lambert in 1897. This craft was designed with the collaboration of the Englishman
Horatio Phillips.
For a description of the de Lambert/Phillips craft we turn to The Yachting
World of January 21, 1898. Headed 'A Novel Craft on the Principle of the
Sleigh', the account runs:
'The idea of constructing a boat of such a shape that, instead of cutting
through, it skims over the water, is old, but until lately all experiments of
boat-builders in this direction have been without success. -
'This success has now been obtained by Count Lambert, of Versailles,
who has invented a very ingenious and at the same time simple craft, which is
able to skim over smooth water with great rapidity.... The boat is construc-
ted to carry a small engine and one man. The buoyancy is provided by two
water-tight skiffs, connected by a light framework, which supports machine
and helmsman. The bottom of the swimming frame consists of four thin
plains [sic] resting on the water, not quite horizontal, but slightly oblique, so
that in forward motion the resistance of the water raises these plains, and
therefore the whole craft.
'The total weight is 6 cwts, the total surface of the sliding plains 55 sq. ft.
A screw-propeller of 2 ft diameter on a slanting shaft is driven by a small
engine, fed from a water-tube boiler. The position of this shaft and screw
brings the main weight well aft and produces a lifting tendency of the fore
part, in conjunction with the skimming plains, so that at a speed of 10 miles
per hour the whole front part of the craft is above water, and at 20 miles only
the back parts of the plains touch the surface ofthe water. At this high speed
the screw makes 800 revolutions per minute, the engine consuming less steam
54
Photographed on the Seine in 1906, an Antoinette-engined development of the original
de Lambert craft.
in proportion to increasing velocity, causing higher elevation of frame and
skiffs, and therefore decreasing displacement of water.'
Craft of this general type continued to be developed for eight years or so;
but in 1907, as I relate in the chapter on planing craft, de Lambert transferred
his attention to a type of 'glider' more appropriately described as a planing
boat than as a hydrofoil.
In 1903 an Italian, Guiseppe Vigo, advanced a scheme for fitting foil-cum-
stabilizer surfaces, and in 1904 an American, H. J. Noll, proposed another
rotary adjustable shafts.
The name of Enrico Forlanini has already been mentioned by reason of his
1905 proposal for a hydrofoil aircraft. During that same year he built and
tested a hydrofoil boat, and his work on craft of this type continued for some
years thereafter. Forlanini's place in hydrofoil technology was assessed by
P. R. Crewe in a paper delivered before the Institution of Naval Architects in
1958. Crewe said:
55
The Forlanin.i hy:drofoil boat of 1906. This Italian designer (he was responsible
for several airships) also foresaw the application of hydrofoils to marine aircraft.
'Hydrofoils may be completely submerged at all design operating conditions,
or pass through the water surface with change in operating condition, in
whIch case the draught may be said to control the area used for producing
water lift. Ladder hydrofoil units vary area with draught in this way.
'The original ladder unit appears to have been developed by the Italian
Enrico Forlanini in the years 1898 to 1905, with application to seaplanes in
mind, and several patents in his name have been examined. A marine craft
of 165 tons displacement was demonstrated on Lake Maggiore in 1906. It
lifted clear of the water and reached a speed of 38 knots, using a 75 h.p.
engine. It is said to have been stable in small waves, but the patents show a
history of increasing complexity, clearly arising from attempts to overcome
defects in behaviour. These included adjustment of the ladder in height and
attitude relative to the hull, modification of the ladder construction, intro-
duction of auxiliary ladders which were to be retractable at high speed, in-
troduction of safety ladders intended to enter the water only in emergency,
and use of aerodynamic damping surfaces.'
Some time during, or before, 1905 Albert de Puydt was experimenting
with a model boat having inclined planes, and subsequently in America
G. R. Napier put forward an idea for a craft having feathering blades pivotally
attached to the bifurcated ends of vertically reciprocating rods, arranged in
pairs on each side of the boat and operated by a hand lever. Springs tended to
keep the rear edge of each blade lower than the front edge, and this tendency
was augmented on the up-stroke, and counteracted on the down-stroke, by the
pressure of the water.
Napier was granted a British patent in 191I.
56
.J
The hydrofoil boat of Crocco and Ricaldoni (1907) being driven at speed on its angled
surfaces by its variable-pitch metal propellers.
In 1907 another American, L. E. Simpson, described a hydrofoil craft
adjustable frames carrying submerged foils, and the same year saw
work m progress on another remarkable hydrofoil boat devised by A. Crocco
and. O. It was 26.ft long, weighed 3,350 lb, and had a loo-h.p.
engme, WIth whIch a speed of Just over 50 m.p.h. is said to have been attained.
The foil surfaces were mounted at stem and stern; the front ones were of V
form, and the rear ones were similarly arranged, although they did not join
at the inverted apex. They were made of steel.
Not the least remarkable features of the craft were the propellers. I append
a contemporary account:
'The aerial propellers are decidedly ingenious devices. They are of double
aluminium plating, and weigh each about 25 lbs. Their pitch can be altered
while running, and they can be reversed if need be. The propellers are
mounted on frames of aluminium sheeting, which, together with the shafts,
The Crocco/Ricaldoni craft out of the water.
57
gear, transmission, and controlling devices, etc, weigh 660 lbs. Curiously
enough, the motor - a Clement-Bayard machine - also weighs 660 lbs.'
Having, I hope, established in hydrofoil history the names of Moy and
Phillips, I am now able, with the highest satisfaction, to associate 'an English-
man named Thompson' with the experiments of Crocco and Ricaldoni; for
that was the description of a man who was said to have been granted a patent
in accordance with which the Italians designed their craft.
I find that a patent specification of 1904, in the name ofW. P. Thompson,
described a vessel having a series of fins fitted to projecting portions of the
keel, and inclined in such a manner that they would tend to raise the vessel
out of the water. They could be arranged in three sets, or in one set con-
tinuous along the keel.
In 1907 Thompson proposed a development of this form of craft, having
'curved aquaplanes of approximately catenary shape in a transverse direction,
attached to the sides of the vessel, with additional angular or curved fins,
also attached to the sides, but extending outwards'.
A true American pioneer was William M. Meacham, who, on July 29,1897,
at Chicago, Illinois, towed a boat, fitted with blades, until the hull rose clear.
In 1906 Meacham published particulars of 'a proposed motor boat fitted with
automatically adjusted submerged hydroplanes', together with a photograph
ofa boat on tow (note that both he and Forlanini used towing, as had Phillips)
and being lifted clear of the water by 'submerged hydroplanes at bow and
stern'.
Jointly with his brother Larned, Meacham had been investigating the
properties of hydrofoils since 1894, and Mr Leslie Hayward, patent manager
of Westland Aircraft, has related how the two brothers applied for a U.S.
Patent in September 1896. A similar proposal had been advanced, however,
by another American citizen, S. A. Reeve (July 1895), and after a long and
involved case, continuing from November 1903 till September 1904, judge-
ment was given to Reeve. Eventually Reeve assigned his patent to the
Meachams.
I promised earlier to include in this chapter M. Mutti's 'little model of a
flying boat', with which he was experimenting in 1906; and this I must not
fail to do, for it was nothing more or less than an 'ornithopter' hydrofoil.
Two longitudinal floats supported the craft on the water, and beneath the
surface were the hinged wings and fixed fore-and-aft 'planes'. A contem-
porary description declared: 'When set in motion, which is accomplished in
the present model by means of a coiled spring, the wings flap up and down,
and are intended to lift the floats out of the water and to propel the apparatus,
which is also partly supported by their action, as well as by the stationary
planes.'
Another who proposed early schemes for hydrofoil craft was W. H. Fauber,
whose name I shall be linking closely with air lubrication. In 1907 Fauber
described a form of vessel having a 'dependent keel', on the lower end of
which was a 'tubular hydroplane member, having the underside, both fore
and aft, cut away obliquely'. 'Inclined edges,' declared the American, 'give
58
Mutti's 'little model of a flying boat', showing the twin floats, fixed fore-and-aft
surfaces and flapping 'foils'.
the hydroplane member a pen-pointed shape, which decreases the skin
resistance and the liability to collect foreign substances in shallow water.' On
each side of the 'hydroplane' were 'balancing rudders', and additional fins
could be fitted on the sides.
America's first powered hydrofoil craft seems to have been that constructed
by Peter Cooper Hewitt and tested during 1907. This had a light mahogany
hull, suspended in a rigid rectangular framework of steel tubing. The frame-
work carried the engine, and attached to projections from its lower extremities
were the sheet-steel foils. Of these there were several, arranged well outboard
at different levels, the four largest having their upper edges at about the same
level as the keel of the boat. At a weight of 2,500 lb a speed of 30 m.p.h.
was readily attained, and at this speed all the foils were out of the water except
those at the lowest level, which had a combined area of only 8 sq. ft.
By the summer of 1907 Alberto Santos-Dumont was himself at work on a
hydrofoil craft. The Motor Boat described it and gave the circumstances of
its construction. Thus:
59
with any kind of hydroplane anything like the speed he says is possible. Sixty
miles an hour is Mr. Santos Dumont's modest hope.'
In its issue of January 4, 1908, The Automotor Journal reported:
'On December 23rd, M. Santos Dumont took his hydroplane out on the
Seine near the Ponte de Neuilly, but unfortunately the engine was not going
well, and no high speeds were attained. Since the last trial a 50-h.P. engine
has replaced that of I2o-h.p., and a two-bladed aerial propeller has been
substituted for the three-bladed tractor screw. The forward lifting-plane
has also been increased in area.... Three months still remain in which
M. Santos Dumont may win his bet with M. Charron by accomplishing .l00
kilonis. per hour.'
Santos never won that 50,000 francs, but his project - 'No. 18' as he called
it - may have inspired others; and certainly during 1909 there was a French
craft called Vagabond, designed by M. Banneau, which had two tubular
buoyancy chambers, and which at full speed rose out of the water, travelling
on transverse planes 'like the old Santos Dumont machine'.
The Forlanini craft of 1906/7 had been handicapped by an unsatisfactory
engine, and another was tried during 1908 and 1909, driven by steam. This
engine proved more reliable, and although giving only 25 h.p., it propelled
the boat, which weighed over a ton, at about 30 m.p.h. During 1910 Forlanini
was experimenting with a two-ton craft having very accurately made steel
foils and capable of carrying two to four persons. An engine of 100 h.p. gave
a speed of 45 m.p.h. .
I alluded earlier to Ader's 'air-cushion hydrofoil' idea ofthe late 1800s; and
I can now place on record a British proposal of 1909 for a craft having adjust-
able 'planes' and in which air was to be introduced under the bottom. Ad-
vanced by C. H. Clark and J. Morrison, this proposal was described as follows:
'The boat is fiat-bottomed, and underneath is a fiat plane or planes, carried
at the forward end by a transverse hinge, while the after-end is attached to a
Santos-Dumont in his 'No. 18' - a hydrofoil craft which he constructed in 1907 with
the intention of winning a prize of 50,000 francs. He failed.
6r
In 1907, Peter Cooper Hewitt, the American inventor of the mercury-vapour lamp,
built and tested the hydrofoil craft seen here both in and out of the water.
---.......-,
...........- = ~ - " ~ - ~ - ; ; : : : : - ~ ~ : ; . ~ - - ' - : ~ -
'The hero of "aerography" has turned his attention to matters motor-
nautical, and in M. Santos Dumont's new hydroplane some quite novel
features are displayed. The "hull" is cigar-shaped, with very long points
fore and aft, and is made in wood and aluminium with stiffening rings about
every 2 ft; of fore and aft members there are only four, the whole framework
being about 33 ft in length. Around the framework will be fitted an envelope
of rubbered canvas, which will be firmly distended with compressed air.
Forward, a plane 4 metres long will hold her trim, while aft another similar
plane I t metres long will steady her. ... This novel vessel is the outcome of
a challenge by M. Charron to give 50,000 francs to M. Dumont if he touches
60
I
cD
Thornycroft drawings of Miranda III.
parallel, this, with the story I shall have to tell of Sir John's 1877 skimmer
patent and that of Mr Knight so many years later.)
To employ the lifting effect ofthe mudguards to the best advantage a new
form of hull was evolved, and in 1909 Miranda III was built. She was 22 ft
long, her beam was 7 ft and she had a 60-h.p. engine. The bottom ofthe hull
was a continuous plane, but there was difficulty regarding disposition of
weights, which 'prevented an early planing angle'. It was then that a hydrofoil
surface was fitted under the bows, to induce them to lift. As speed increased
to about 15 knots lift was sufficient to trim the hull on the main planing surface
and speed increased rapidly to some 27 knots. The hydrofoil, having less
lift to provide, then acted as a planing surface.
Press reports in recent years of trips in hydrofoil craft have stressed the
novelty of the experience; which adds a zest to the following first-hand account
of a demonstration by Miranda III, written in July 1909. Having observed
the craft from a distance, the author of the report was able to record that, as
she passed by, daylight could be seen for about 5 ft aft of the forward plane;
and, looking aft, he was just able to glimpse through the spray that the stern
was out of the water. He was taken for a trip, and reported:
'When first [the engine] opened out, the forward plane came clear of the
water, then the after body rose gradually, the speed increasing at the same
time. At a certain point the stern came clear of the water and the bow
dropped till the aquaplane [sic] just touched the surface. Simultaneously the
engine, which had been running at about 1,000 r.p.m., sprang at once to
63
rod by means of which it can be raised or lowered. Thus, the plane can lie
close against the bottom of the boat, or it can be set at any desired angle.
'The sides ofthe boat are extended below the bottom, forming a boxed-in
step, and if two planes are used side by side a keel is fitted, having the same
profile as the sides. This arrangement necessitates the use of ventilating
cowls communicating with air chambers, from which air has access to the
bottom of the boat through ports.'
It delights and amazes me that I am able to introduce the name of Sir John
Thornycroft into this chapter - and in a context hardly less remarkable than
were his pre-eminent achievements respecting planing and air-cushion craft.
Development of the Thornycroft hydrofoil boat began in a curious way.
The characteristic round-bottomed torpedo craft that were the company's
staple products around the turn of the century could produce discomfort and
inefficiency among their crews by taking spray aboard at speed. Specimens
built for Russia in 1904 had broad strips, or strakes, on both sides ofthe hull,
running well forward from mid-ships. In the building yard (I quote Mr
L. R. Tout, AMINA) these were known as 'mudguards', and in 1908 attach-
ments of this sort were tried on the fast motor skimmer Gyrinus. These
'appendage planing surfaces', as they were more formally known, were
hollowed out in order to turn down the bow wave, with the result that the
wave exerted a lifting force. Such was the reduction in resistance that
Gyrinus increased her speed by about 2 m.p.h., attaining 25 m.p.h. at full
power. (Mr Tout recalls that a few years before the war a German firm
rediscovered the 'mudguard' principle and took out a patent. A striking
Miranda III, the Thornycroft boat of 1909 which had a hydrofoil surface under the
bow. A report of a trip in this craft is given in the text.
62
1,500 r.p.m., clearly showing how the resistance had dropped. The whole
operation ofcorning to the surface occupied no more than 10 sec., perhaps not
so much, and thereafter the boat travelled at full speed without taking any
spray aboard.'
Further development was contemplated, but never came to pass.
Describing, during 1909, a 'balancing device for aerial machines', J.
Richards, of Camberwell, declared that the invention could 'also be applied
to hydroplanes'. An 'increased pressure on one plane' caused it to be raised
'to decrease its inclination and to rock a beam to increase correspondingly
the inclination of the other plane'.
Work continued in America, and in 1911 Cdr H. C. Richardson was
experimenting with a hydrofoil dinghy. Of this he reported that it had
'warping blades for lateral control and a rudder and elevator combined'.
Elevator and warping control were by stick, and rudder control by foot bar.
From such beginnings came the hydrofoil craft that, only in very recent
years, have been put to public use.
PLANING BOATS
'VESSELS WHICH greatly reduce their displacement when travelling at high
speeds,' said Sir John Thornycroft (who did more than anyone to develop
this kind of craft), 'are generally called "hydroplanes"; but this name is not
altogether satisfactory, as the surfaces on which they glide are not always
planes.' He was speaking in 1909, and he added: 'To call such vessels
"gliders" or "skimmers" has been suggested as more appropriate; but the
former title suggests smooth motion, and this is not always characteristic of
their behaviour.'
Sir John himself called them skimmers, and considered the original to
have been the surf-board.
'A single slab of wood, rounded at the edges,' he explained, 'is employed,
and supports a man where huge waves form a sufficient slope to enable him,
assisted by gravity, to attain the necessary start. After the start the man will
even assume a standing attitude on the board, which skims along before the
advancing wave.'
Clearly here before us is the aquatic precursor of the 'gliders' of Lilienthal,
Pilcher and the Wrights. Lacking propulsive power, man comrived to be
'assisted by gravity'.
Other early commentators instanced the flat, richocheting stone, or the
ability of a schoolboy to cross a stream of water on small, broken pieces of
ice - if he stepped lively.
A craft of so-called 'shin form' was patented as early as 1837 by Abraham
Morrison of Pennsylvania, and this has been instanced as a very early planing
boat. The Patent Office in London, I find, holds only drawings, and in the
absence ofa description I quote Capt H. E. Saunders, U.S.N. (Retd), that no
mention is made in the specification of the phenomenon ofplaning. Neverthe-
less, I place on record that the drawings show a vessel with a concave bottom
and an open bow.
Certainly the phenomenon of skimming became dramatically (and very
beautifully) apparent to the eminent John Scott Russell during experiments
which he conducted some 125 years ago. It was from these same trials that
his classic 'wave line' theory was evolved. An account dated 1840 ran as
follows:
'Mr Scott Russell has submitted to the British Association the proceedings
ofthe Committee appointed last year to conduct experiments on the Forms of
Vessels....
'There appeared to be three different conditions of fluid motion and
E
resistance, accompanied with distinct characteristic phenomena: motion
slower than that of the wave - motion on the wave - motion on wings of water.
The last occurred only at very high velocities, when two high and beautiful
films of water spread themselves in the air, and carried the boat as on gossamer
wings along the surface....
'Mr Russell would barely venture to state what may be the result of this
exquisite phenomenon: the speed to be obtained with ease may be railway
pace: and when a ship mounts her gossamers she may truly be said to be riding
on the waves, or, for other's fancy, to be taking flight. The form best adapted
for this very swift passage appears to be a bow exceedingly fine and sharp, I
with the stern very full and very capacious... .'
, I find that in a paper read before the Royal Society of Edinburgh in April
1837, Scott Russell had stated as one offive 'Laws of Dynamical Emersion and
Diminished Resistance' that: 'At 43'8 miles an hour ... the floating body
emerges wholly from the fluid and skims its surface.'
In a provisional patent specification of 1852, Joseph Apsey declared the
nature of his invention to be as follows:
' ... I make the vessel of such a breadth of beam with regard to her length
that a vessel of about 1,000 tons burthern shall draw at her stationary load
line about eight feet of water; secondly, I incline the bottom of the vessel
from amidships or thereabouts gradually upwards to about the load water
line at the fore-foot or bows; thirdly, the upper part of the bows are made
very much fuller or broader than steam ships are usually built; the most
approved form, such as the wave line, may still, however, be retained in that
portion of the vessel which is immersed; the object of such a build of vessel is
obviously to obtain a greater speed by reducing the resistance of the hull in
passing through the fluid in which she floats; and when a high speed be given
to such a vessel by the steam power (for I wish to dispense entirely with sails)
she will rise and skim entirely upon the surface of the water, drawing less
and less as her speed increases, so that the total resistance she experiences
from the fluid shall not increase in the usual excessive proportion through
the submerged cross sectional area of the ship decreasing with the increase
of speed. The inclination given to her bottom will always have a tendency
to dip her at the stern, so that the draft there will slightly increase with the
speed... .'
~ - - ~
Two of the Rev. Ramus' hull-forms, with the original design of 1872 uppermost. The
story of how an historic model of this type came to a fiery end is told in the text. The
second shows a later 'polysphenic' ('many wedged') form.
66
There is no doubt that Apsey intended his craft to skim; though, like the
man whose work I next describe, he underestimated the power required for a
large vessel to attain the skimming condition.
I must here remark that the men in this book seem fully as diverse in
character and temperament as the modes of locomotion with which their
names are linked; and few are more worthy of our veneration than the Rev.
Charles Meade Ramus, who once held the living of Playden, near Rye, in
Sussex. In April 1872 he wrote this letter to the Admiralty:
'Some years ago, while engaging my thoughts on another subject, it became
manifest to me that the speed of all vessels might be immensely increased by
a very extensive alteration in the shape of their hulls.
'The change I propose is based on mathematical and mechanical principles,
and I have long been convinced that my theory is indisputable, but not till
very lately have I, by experiment in a small way, made actual proof of its
correctness.
'The discovery will, I firmly believe, at least double the speed of steam
vessels, and will effect a change in locomotion by sea which has never till now
been conceived.
'If your Lordships will only assure me that my discovery will be acknow-
ledged as emanating from me, I will at once place it at the service of the public
for the benefit of the country.'
On April 10, 1872, the following minute was written by Mr Nathaniel
Barnaby, Chief Naval Architect of the Admiralty, and was countersigned by
the Rev. Ramus:
'Rev. Mr. Ramus has today communicated to me the plan of designing
steamships of great speed....
'It consists in forming a ship of two wedge-shaped bodies, one abaft the
other.
'The object of this invention is to cause the ship to be lifted out of the water
by the resistance of the fluid at high speeds.
'The double wedge provides that while the bow is lifted by the foremost
of the inclined surfaces, the stern is lifted by the after one, and these may
be so placed with regard to each other that the ship shall always keep her
proper trim.'
The outcome was a series of model trials by William Froude, one of the
greatest naval architects of all. These were conducted, however, on the
assumption that the full-scale vessel would be one of several thousand tons,
and it was found that the speed required for such a craft to skim was so great
that the idea was considered impracticable.
The full story of the Rev. Ramus' work did not become known until 1908,
when it was published in The Motor Boat, which had then been in existence
for four years. The tale is ofsuch remarkable interest, and is now so forgotten,
that I reprint the most relevant parts. Headed 'Early Hydroplanes', it ran:
'It is some time since we published particulars of the earliest hydroplane
models seen in this country, and at that time we referred to Mr B. Ramus
having been connected with the early experiments of his father. The outcome
67
of this article was a very courteous invitation from Mr Ramus to visit him at
Playden, near Rye, Sussex, to see these models.
'We were shown the early models lying forgotten in the corner of a work-
shop. Mere dusty old pieces of wood that one would pass by without thought
except perhaps to chop up, never realising them to represent the earliest tests
of a great invention....
'Ultimately the use of rockets was decided upon.... Thirty knots seems
to have been quite frequently obtained for a distance of a couple of hundred
yards or so, and in one case over a very carefully measured distance the speed
was 72 miles per hour. ...
'Perhaps the most interesting model of all ... was used in many of the
towing experiments made in connection with the Admiralty, and it is a matter
for extreme regret that it has long since been destroyed - its end was a curious
one.
'It appears that it used to be a custom in Rye on some particular day of the
year to burn a boat. Usually, we understand, the boat was selected quite
indiscriminately from its moorings, taken into the town and converted into
a bonfire. On one occasion the townspeople took it into their heads to honour
the Rev. C. M. Ramus with their attentions. Late one night, when the last
light was extinguished in his house, the crowd lifted and carried the model,
which was lying in the grounds, away to the usual scene of the bonfire, and
thus an interesting old relic was lost.'
A hardly less remarkable aspect of the Ramus story, and one of which the
writer I have quoted seems to have been unaware, is that this man stead-
fastly advocated the construction of awesome weapons which he called rocket-
rams. I am able to give a sketch of one such proposal. The craft was to be
made of 1 in. boiler plate and to measure 120 ft X 20 ft X 7 ft. Weighing
140 tons, it was to have a propelling force of 175 tons. 'Time of propulsion'
was quoted as 30 seconds, 'distance to be traversed' as 'nearly 2 miles', and
. 'final speed' as 500-700 ft per second.
'Constant experiments on a sufficient scale', declared the reverend gentle-
man, 'will alone enable us to bring the new implement to perfection; but
enough has already been done to show that a new weapon has been discovered,
the power of which is illimitable. It will sweep away all existing navies, and
will, I trust and believe, render war at sea no longer possible.'
An impression of the mighty 'rocket ram' proposed by the Rev. Ramus about 1875.
Measuring 120 ft in length, it was to weigh 140 tons.
68
In Switzerland during the early 1880s M. Raoul Pictet was conducting
model tests on Lake Geneva - 'dynamometric experiments' as Ernest Arch-
deacon later termed them; and in 1883 he published a pamphlet Etude
theorique et experimentale d'un Bateau rapide. Pictet described his hull as
being of 'parabolic form' (i.e. the bottom curved down towards the stern),
and when the British Admiralty caused it to be tank-tested it was found to be
considerably superior to the earlier Ramus models - approaching, in fact, pre-
sent-day efficiencies.
It was Sir John Thornycroft's son, Mr J. E. Thornycroft, who, in 1908,
first linked his father's name with that of Ramus. After mentioning the
Admiralty tests conducted by Froude he wrote:
'There is no doubt from the description and drawings of the boat's design
by the Rev. C. M. Ramus ... that they were the same as the recently re-
invented and re-christened hydroplanes.
'The Rev. C. M. Ramus' son, Mr B. Ramus, served an apprenticeship
to a ship-building firm, with a view to further developing the idea, but unfor-
tunately was unable to do so....
'Shortly after the Rev. C. M. Ramus' proposal to the Admiralty, a patent
was taken out by Sir John Thornycroft for boats which were intended to skim
in the surface water. From the patent specification it will be seen that he
recognised the difficulty of a large vessel to get to the high speed required to
skim, and proposed to raise the vessel to the surface of the water by blowing
air under it.
The de Lambert planing craft ('glisseur') of 1907. This was a simplified departure
from his earlier craft mentioned in the chapter on hydrofoil boats.
'One ofthe types proposed by Sir John Thornycroft was practically a two-
wedged ship, the after wedge being made in such a way as to retain the air.'
Many decades were to pass before air cushions came into effective use,
though in the meantime, as lighter engines became available, so were sports-
men able to apply them to simple forms of hydroplane. But work on more
exotic craft continued. In an earlier chapter I have described the hydrofoil
experiments ofthe Comte de Lambert, assisted by Horatio Phillips. Several
variants were built, but in 1907 de Lambert turned his attention to a 'simpler
form' of craft which finds its rightful place here. It comprised a series of
69
..
five box-like transverse floats, having punt-like 'bows' and mounted on two
longitudinal members, the spaces between the floats being open to the air at
top and sides. A Serpollet steam engine with flash boiler drove an air pro-
peller. With petrol engines and water screws this form of craft was to be
continuously developed until after the First World War.
When I come to deal with air lubrication I shall refer to Mr W. H. Fauber's
scheme for inducing air under his multi-stepped hydroplanes. But this appears
to have been less important to him than his particular system of stepping;
and that he was considered a leading authority on stepped hydroplanes is
clearly evident from early motor-boating literature. Yet like leading authori-
ties who were to follow him (and had doubtless preceded him), he seems to
have had the haziest of notions concerning the antecedents of his scheme,
for in 1908 we find him declaring that the stepped form of hull was un-
patentable, having been patented some thirty years previously 'by a clergy-
man'.
It came as one of my less-agreeable surprises that after the best part of a
century, with the stepped form of hull and float a commonplace of naval
architecture, it should fall to me to unravel its history. And as patents are
involved, I must go very warily indeed.
Presumptions, of course, can create utter chaos in any inquiry such as this.
Yet who would doubt that Mr Fauber's Victorian clergyman was any other
than the Rev. Ramus? But no patent in that name exists, although I have
given the firmest evidence concerning what Her Majesty's Chief Naval
Architect declared to be the cleric's 'invention'. Sir John Thornycroft, as I
shall relate, did patent what was 'practically a two-wedged ship'. But as far
as I know, Sir John was never in Holy Orders.
The stepped form of hull was nevertheless the subject of a patent dated
1906, in the name of A. E. Knight, who declared:
'A navigable vessel or launch constructed according to this invention
comprises the novel principle of forming the after part of the body, for a
considerable portion of its length, more or less, as found convenient, in a
different and higher longitudinal plane to that of the bottom of the fore part,
the bottom of the after part, preferably, inclining in a downward direction
towards the after end, and a distinct joggle or step being formed in the
bottom of the vessel, where the fore and after parts meet....
'When the vessel is travelling at a more or less high speed, the after body
will be lifted more or less, out of the water, the bottom of same being then
about parallel to the surface of the water, the forward body being corres-
pondingly depressed - so that air is admitted between the surface of the water
and the bottom of the after body, remaining there in the form of a film of air
which serves to support the after part of the vessel and keep same out of
actual contact with the water... .'
The Motor Boat of December 10, 1908, commented:
'There seems to be no end to the number of people who have invented
hydroplanes of one kind or another, but perhaps the most unexpected of all
developments is an English patent that was taken out in 1906 for a type that
7
differs in no essential particular from the "Richochets" of M. Maurice Le
Las, experiments with which were, we believe, commenced some time
earlier. The inventor of this English patent is Mr A. E. Knight, engineer to
Lord Howard de Walden, and who will be remembered in that capacity
aboard Daimler 1. ... Having seen the hydroplane design published in The
Motor Boat he called upon us last week, bringing his specification with him,
and was very much surprised to learn of what had been done with the
"Richochet" boats, while it was also news to him to learn of the efforts of 30
years ago of the Rev. C. M. Ramus, and Sir John Thornycroft.... The
likeness to the "Richochets", even to the double rudder, is positively startling.
Yet the two were evolved absolutely independently.... Perhaps the most
astonishing part of the whole thing is that the official search ... failed to
reveal any previous patents of the same nature.'
Sir John Thornycroft, who not only was a friend of Pilcher but at one time
contemplated aircraft construction himself, had this to say in 1909 concerning
'skimmers' and the passage of air beneath them:
'Skimmers are near relations to flying machines... .'
'It is often supposed,' he added, 'that air passes under skimmers, but this
is only likely to take place when the water surface is broken. It is well known
that a jet of water impinging on a surface, even at an acute angle, does not all
pass under in the direction ofthe jet. Asmall part at a point near to the surface
has its motion reversed. This reversal renders the passage of any air between
the jet and the surface impossible. If, however, the surface of the moving
water is broken or churned into foam, then that mixture of air and water will
pass along the surface. What will be the effect of this seems uncertain, but the
late Lord Kelvin was thoroughly of the opinion that the friction of this
mixture would be greater than that of solid water.'
I leave the modern hydro/aero-dynamicists to pronounce on this, remarking
only that Lord Kelvin displayed infirmity in aerial matters, as when he
declined to join the Aeronautical Society as hite as 1896 because he had not
'the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning ...'.
Although in 1852 Joseph Apsey had declared his intention of dispensing
entirely with sails, the wind-driven planing boat was nevertheless to come,
and I produce this letter, dated October 1913, in evidence.
'I have noticed with interest,' wrote an American, Ernest Weltmer, from
Nevada, Mo., 'the development in the last few years of the motor-driven
hydroplane, but I have seen nothing of any sail-driven hydroplanes.' He
continued:
'I am sure that if a cup defender is desired that will run away from anything
else driven by the wind, a sail-driven hydroplane is what is wanted.
'About fifteen years ago my brothers and I used to sail boat races on the
ponds. It was too much trouble to make a hollow-hulled boat, so we fashioned
ours by taking a piece of lath, setting it up edgewise, fastening a piece of
shingle across one end, sloping upward forward at an angle ofabout 25 degrees,
then fastening a cross-bar to a short mast which was stepped in the upper edge
of the lath near the front end, the end which bears the piece of shingle
7
1
mentioned; to each end of this cross-bar was fastened another piece of shingle
sloping upward forward at the same angle as the first. This was the hull of
the boat. We stepped the mast in the edge of the lath just behind the cross-
bar, attached a long rudder to the rear end, and when the sail was up the
"boat" was ready to go. You can see that we had a rough hydroplane with
outriggers. When the "boat" sat quietly on the water it was barely afloat, but
as soon as the sail began to draw it began to rise, and as soon as it had got
clear of the water it was "flying". These boats attained surprising speed.'
To illustrate the very advanced state attained by planing craft before the
First World War I finally cite this account, headed 'Motor Craft at the Paris '
Aero Show', published by The Motor Ship and Motor Boat in December
1913:
'Although primarily devoted to vessels of the air, the Paris Aeronautical
Salon, opened in the Grand Palais last Friday morning by President Poincare,
has some things of interest to the marine motorist. Gliding boats form an
interesting section of the exhibit. _Count de Lambert has two craft on view.
One of these is the glider Flyer, with which M. Paul Tissandier a few days
ago set up the world's record for the kilometre at roughly 60 miles an hour.
The boat, which is propelled by a 200 h.p. I8-cylinder Gnome motor, driving
an aerial propeller by a double chain, has undergone no other change than the
addition of full seating accommodation. A smaller craft, with which M.
Tissandier intends to undertake long journeys up the rivers Seine and Rhone
at the close of the Show, is driven by a Gobron 40 h.p. motor. It is interesting
to note that an important business is now being done by the Lambert Co. in
gliding boats with aerial propellers. The record-breaking boat has been sold-
for passenger service on Lake Geneva, where a couple of these craft have
been in regular service during the past summer. One of them is about to
undertake a journey up the Nile, and many have been sold for service on
South American rivers, where shifting bottoms make ordinary navigation
difficult. Bleriot has one example of a glider with aerial propeller. Nieuport
has a couple of these vessels, and Borel shows gliders with passenger accom-
modation.'
Yet none of these truly remarkable 'gliding boats' was to achieve the
commercial success now promised by hydrofoil and air-cushion vessels, even
though de Lambert-type craft were quite extensively used before, during
and just after the First World War. Nor was interest in them widely manifest
among the motor-boating community, for as late as 1938 one specialist
journal was describing a basically 1907 de Lambert type machine as 'novel'.
This craft was operating on the Nile - and twenty-four years earlier Lord
Kitchener had skimmed the surface waters of the Nile in a de Lambert -
Tissandier 'glisseur' capable of 50 m.p.h.
Perhaps the evidence I have adduced will at last unravel the confused and
tangled history of planing craft.
7
2
AIR LUBRICATION
IN 1865 JOHN SCOTT RUSSELL, to whom I have already paid tribute, wrote
that 'a recurring proposal to lessen friction resistance is to pump air into the
water ahead of, around, or under a ship'; and as recently as 1960, P. R. Crewe
and W. J. Egginton - both prominent in the development of air-cushion
vehicles - observed: 'The Hovercraft provides an engineering solution to the
problem of "air lubrication" of the boundary layer which has occupied the
attention of a number of investigators and inventors for many years. It is
understood, for example, that the earliest record at the Admiralty Experiment
Works concerning air lubrication of ships is a letter dated November 23,
18
75,
from Wm. Froude to Dr B. 1. Tideman of Amsterdam commenting on the
latter's theory concerning the matter.'
Proposals and letters are, of course, welcome material in any book such as
this; but there is nothing like the record of actual achievement to give sinew;
and, viewed against mere suggestions, that which I now relate appears larger
than life itself. The fact is that, even before Scott Russell was writing in
1865 of 'proposals', a vessel with an unquestionably air-lubricated hull was in
regular public service. That she was a ferry boat renders her no less eligible
for a place in history which for more than a century she has been denied.
In this belief I am able to adduce the evidence of only one man, and he
long since dead. Yet this man is the one, above all others, whose testimony can
be accepted, for not only was he an eminent engineer but he was Britain's
foremost consultant in his field, and his services were much in demand in
cases involving patent litigation.
This man was Sir Frederick Bramwell, who during r889 recalled that,
while visiting America in 1863, he had seen an attempt to diminish the friction
of steamboats by blowing a film of air between the bottom and the surface.
The vessel concerned was a New York-New Jersey ferry boat, and she was in
service 'for several years'. While this vessel 'went with less power applied to
the paddles' the power required to provide compressed air was just about
equal to what was saved in driving the paddles, and 'the thing was not
continued' .
Nine years later Sir Frederick made further allusion to this vessel, though
ascribing to his American visit a date ten years earlier than that already men-
tioned. In this instance I quote him at length:
'When I was in New York, in 1853, there was a steamer plying from New
Jersey to New York the real name of which I forget, but the nickname I
remember as that ofthe "Smoothing Iron" ... the steamer had a flat bottom
73
. . lIIU8traUOn of 8-melre Hydroplane btlng huilt tor tile Monaco Raee..
,Til., 'tIC boR' "III carr, 100 h.p. Molor,ln the " B-metre " 160 to 200 h.p. in "Chem!'ionnat de It. Mer" or tho "Inl.cmational" Races.)
Advertisement by W. H. Fauber for his hydroplanes, mentioning 'a strata of air drawn
in between the water and the Hydroplane surfaces'.
Speed':-35 to 40 knots.
WORLD.
IN
THE
Formcrt.,. Proprietor and Mana.cr,
... Fauber" Manufacturing Company,
Chlea_o Ii. EI_in. 111., U.S.A.
length :-15 10 20 metres. !II".lee furnished :-Hydroplane Torpedo 80all.
RACER. 8 rnelres: 100 h.p.: Speed guaranteed over 38 miles per hour!
RACER. 16 melres; 600 b.p.; Speed guaranteed over 46 miles per hour I
ll)'l1ro'lpl"". C,ul,et. hulll to tlttler, "ooord!n. '0 Mon&t;o hAoOln. lhllel,
Hydroplane-5 metl'es, 15 h.p., for one 0" two persons. Price 240.
. The explanation the'U FAUBER" !Iydroplanes are 50/0 f<!sle,r thin ordinary boats oC the same- power and
why they Will make the same speed With Jess than hal( the power, IS very simple.
II} Hydroplane under speed has Jess draught-the displacement of waler and frictional surface on the sides 'of the boat
belnS reduced.
III Only of th: Hydroplane the boat are in actual contact with the water.
IJl The fflctlonnl of th"t of the Hydroplane surfaces in actu,,! contact with the water, is greatly redllced.
btc.\Uses a slrata of air lS drawn In the water and the HyJroplane s'JI'"fac!ls. -
BrneU B.o.n.o. en France i l'Etraroger.
Ihe FASTEST BOATS
DESCRIPTION.
. The" Hydrop!ane combines the and best features of tbe ordinarfi motor boat with new principles oC
produClOg the only practical H)'droplane Boat that b&:J Stabi ity, and will navigate rough water
'The great stability and smooth-running are due to several patentable features. tbe most conspicuous being the Of V
!-:Jltom, composed of concave h)'droplane surfaces arranged in such a manner as to give a gradual and easy line o( displacement"
r' commencinR' i\t the bow, and and deepening towards
t..L9. TI-9. 2r
c&
shaped surface (Fig. -4) beneath the bow. ClltS into rough __
wau.r without pounding, as flat Hydroplanes do.
Fit I shows tbe general (orm of the" V" conCi\ve

ness of (he" V" beneath the bow. must be adapted to the 'C'<--"",
.r- "FAUBER" Hydroplane -

opposite side, tbe surfaces on. the low side thus
'This new element called" Hydroplane Stability," is not found in flat Ihdroplane surfacu- it being quite evident (rom a
of represents beoea.th, tends to
partially lifted out of the waler, 'ery little displacement stability ."t,..
&
remains-whereas tbe II FAUBER" Hydroplane has not only J
o 0 but tbe n.ew element, II Hydroplane
Even on smooth water.. flat surraces ha\'e a brutal contrct,
. causing the boat 10" see-saw." and, in rough wat.er, to pound to a.
disaJ:reeable and dan'gerous extent. , _ __ _ _
-=- .. __ . ..
Ing" and "See-eawlng" action of flat-bottomed
hydroplanes, la a. fault: not: 'to be fou..d with
. the II FAUBER" H)'droplane.. ,-
. The H)droplanr. lille the Screw-propeller, invoh'es n:'lny com.plicated problems. and the present space is rar too limited
.:or the uplanalion of a number or the 5pedal which combine to make the" FAUBER" Hydroplanes $0 praclicaf.
With the coming of the hydroplane the principle of air lubrication was
quickly adapted to these craft. In 1908 Mr W. H. Fauber, an American resi-
dent in France, claimed as an advantage for the type of craft which he evolved
that 'the frictional resistance of that part of the hydroplane surfaces in actual
contact with water is greatly reduced because a strata of air is drawn in
between the water and hydroplane surfaces'. It was later claimed that 'the
75
and was provided for about two thirds or three quarters of its whole length,
measured from the stern forward, with four or five very shallow strips (one
can hardly call them keels) running longitudinally, and closed at their forward
ends. Into each of the channels thus made there was injected air by an air
pump, under a slight pressure, only just sufficient to overcome the "head"
water, and thus air travelled along the channels and escaped at the stern. In
order to keep down the species of ebullition, there was a projecting work at
the stern which earned for the boat the name of "Smoothing Iron".
'The object of the invention was to substitute air friction for water friction.
I saw it at work, but I was never on board of it, and my recollection is that I
was told that about the same result was got out for the total horsepower
employed as would have been obtained if none of the power had been devoted
to working the air pump, and if it had all been employed to the paddles of an
ordinary water-skin-friction boat.'
Thereafter, as Scott Russell observed as early as 1865, came recurring
proposals for schemes to lubricate hulls with air, perhaps the best-known
being that of the Swede Gustaf de Laval, whereby a stream of air bubbles was
forced from tubes. Some fifteen years later the American Culbertson patented
a scheme which appears similar to that declared by Sir Frederick Bramwell
to have been implemented the best part of half a century earlier.
My second mention of Clement Ader's 'swing-wing air-cushion hydrofoil'
(and I shall make three in all, for abundant reasons) concerns the references
he made to air lubrication in his 1904 patent. 'The wings and tail,' he said,
'are so arranged that a body of air can be supplied to their underside, which
serves as a lubricant for diminishing or almost doing away with the adhesion
between such surfaces and the water, thus facilitating the propulsion... .'
He further proposed air lubrication for the propeller. 'For reducing the
friction of the screw propeller in the water,' he said, 'it is made with channels
having openings on the rear side of the blades, and the propeller shaft is made
tubular and communicating with the said channels at the rear end, while the
forward end is open to the air. On the rotation of the propeller a suction is
produced by the water on the rear side of the blades, causing air to be drawn
through the tubular shaft and to issue through the perforations of the channels,
so as to serve as a lubricant between the surfaces of the propeller and the
water.'
Writing from the yard of a leading French boatbuilder late in 1908, M.
Emile Cardon declared: 'I patented - soine months ago - a very simple
arrangement, by which, without extra expense, I direct large quantities of
gas underneath the hull with beneficial use to the motor.
'I make use of the hot exhaust piping to convert water to steam, and with
this steam my apparatus discharges large quantities of gas under th;, water.
'For instance, with a 100 h.p. motor there is heat enough in the gas going
out to vaporise 35 kilos of water per hour, and this 35 kilos of steam, going
through my apparatus, impels about 140 cubic metres of gas under the water
per hour; just the quantity to have permanently a sheet of gas under the hydro-
plane, which diminishes the surface resistance by 80 per cent.'
74
numerous steps, in conjunction with the concave surfaces of the planes and the
system of air tubes, introduce more air under the bottom of the boat and
introduce it at lower speeds, thus obtaining the hydroplane effect earlier'.
The Labor-Fauber hydroplane of early 1909 had eight short planes, in the
form of concave steps, and seven air ducts leading from the sides of the boat
to the bottom of the hull.
Work somewhat similar in nature was in progress in England at the same
period, involving the famous naval architect Linton Hope. Jointly with a Mr
Rathbone, he patented in 1909 a craft contemporarily described as follows:
'At first glance the design seems to resemble the Fauber, but in reality it is
not so. In the first place, the Fauber sections are all hollow Vs, and the steps
are carried right forward; in the present design, however, the steps do not
commence until about a third of the length from forward, and in place of the
hollow V, flattened aft, the ordinary form of a racing launch is retained. The
steps simply follow the normal lines of the hull.
'Again, in profile the Fauber planes are true planes; in the Hope-Rathbone,
they are given a form approximating to the section of an aeroplane wing. At
speed, naturally, the after part of each plane only will be in contact with the
water, but it is expected that the special form will assist in lifting to the surface
at the start, and will give the very great structural advantage of much shallower
steps, without reducing the angle of the "working" part of the plane. For
the rest, there are air tubes to prevent any drag being set up behind the
steps.'
In 1909 also the Thames Bank Wharf Motor Works built a hydroplane for
Lt Noel Sampson which had 'two ventilators' in the turtle deck providing air
to the steps, as did 'two ventilators on each side'; and during 1913 a Mr D.
Hanbury owned a Thornycroft hydroplane called Silver Heels, which had
six large pipes, three of which were forward and led into a false bottom located
immediately before the step. This bottom acted 'as an air chamber'. The
three after pipes, it was reported, led 'straight to the water'.
The state of air lubrication in respect of displacement craft was summarized
thus during 1911:
'The latest development is that a provisional installation is to be fitted to
the Belgian Government's cross-channel mail steamer, La Flandre, which
has been placed at the disposal of the inventor - a certain M. Gustave Quan-
none - by the Belgian Admiralty. The inventor has been working on the
scheme for over eight years and has had two full-size installations at work
already - one aboard a powerful tug and another on the Belgian Hydrographic
Survey steamer, La Belgique. The trials of the latter boat proved sufficiently
conclusive to induce the Government to place a larger and faster vessel at the
inventor's disposal to make further tests.... Already it has been clearly
shown that a considerable economy is possible - even when all allowance be
made for the power necessary to work the air-blowing machinery. The tests
carried out on La Belgique showed something like 12 per cent coal economy
for the same speed when the air-blowing apparatus was working....
'Apart from the experiments to be conducted on a large steamer, the in-
7
6
ventor is stated to be considering an installation on a fast motor launch of the
displacement type....'
. It was furthe: remarked that if the tests showed that for the same consump-
tIon of fuel an lllcreased speed could be obtained, there could hardly be any
great objection to the invention. Disadvantages suggested in the past had
been that the piping on, or orifices in, the vessel's skin would tend to slow
the boat and (more weighty, perhaps) that the air would form bubbles, which
would cling to the sides of the vessel and interfere with the efficiency of the
propeller. The last suggested disadvantage, it was noted, could apparently
be got over by arranging the piping so that the air flowed along the buttock
lines, in a way, and came to the surface underneath the ship's counter and
clear of the propeller.
Nor was the principle of air lubrication unknown to early subscribers to
Flight, for in the issue of July 13, 1912, we read:
'If it be granted that frictional resistance depends on the body L111lIlersed
in water being wetted by the fluid, it at once follows that if any means can be
devised by which the body is no longer wetted, or even if we can reduce the
extent or degree of the wetting, the frictional resistance will be reduced. One
method is to coat the body with a smooth metallic surface such as copper,
aluminium, etc, another is to coat it, so to speak, with a layer of air, the
frictional resistance then being "air-air", instead of "water-water". Some
years ago such an experiment was actually tried by Sir Frederick Bramwell,
who described it as peculiar and "soda-watery", but the important point is
that the resistance was "materially" lessened.'
Thus, by virtue of his own researches, as well as the reminiscences of his
youth, Sir Frederick Bramwell has a place in this chapter.
I have already mentioned Cdr Schwann's Avro seaplane, which had air-
lubricated floats in 191I. Other early floats having provision for air to be
ducted to the steps were those of the Wright 'hydro-aeroplane' displayed at
the exhibition organized by the Aero Club of America in New York during
May 1912. A 'special feature' was the provision of three air-tubes running
vertically through each float, with the object of delivering air to each of the
three steps.
Thus, well before the First World War the Wrights had experimented with
both hydrofoils and air lubrication.
The practice of inducing air under floats was exemplified at the Olympia
Aero Show of 1913, when the Grahame-White Aviation Co. Ltd exhibited
their oo-h.p. Hydro-biplane, the floats of which were described as follows:
'Two main floats ... are employed. A feature of their design is that the
first half of the float is flat on the under surface while the rear portion is
concave, having a maximum camber of 4 in. Air is projected below the after
portion of the floats, so that the machine may glide the more easily over the
water, by tubes, about 2 in. in diameter, into which air is forced by miniature
scoops.'
How effective this sort of arrangement proved in practice I do not know;
nor was Algernon E. Berriman, the contemporary technical editor of Flight,
77
any more knowledgeable, for when his admirable book Aviation appeared
later in 1913 he observed:
'In some stepped floats, air is admitted through a vent to the instep with
the object of "lubricating" the after section with an air film. I have no in-
formation as to its efficiency.'
Writing about seaplane floats in 1918, Naval Constructor H. C. Richardson
remarked: 'Ventilation of the steps facilitates quick planing and is useful, but
is not essential if there is ample reserve of power.'
And that seems to explain why air lubrication was never to become common
practice in marine aircraft design.
In closing this chapter I must record that in 1912 a proposal was advanced
for discharging the engine exhaust 'through a series of holes in the tread of
the step', and I find that some such scheme was implemented in America on
the Hamilton hydro-aeroplane. This was reported as providing 'a good
forced gas film and an engine silencer'.
Astonishing though it may seem, there was correspondence in the Scientific
American during 1905/6 discussing the 'novel idea' of air lubrication, and
suggesting experiments 'on a small scale'; and, surely, quite incredible is the
fact that within recent months one great American concern has put forward
proposals for a 'radically new principle of boat hull design', virtually identical
with that of a century earlier - and suggested for ferry service on the same
New York-New Jersey run!
AIR CUSHIONS
IN ASSIGNING any particular scheme to the present chapter, instead of to
the former one dealing with air lubrication, I have taken as my criterion the
intention to lift a craft pneumatically: that is, to induce, and more or less
contain, a cushion of air between the craft and the surface.
Although the benign phenomenon we nowadays call surface effect, or, more
commonly, ground effect, and upon which the air-cushion craft of today
depend, must have influenced many of the early gliding experiments, it seems
never to have been consciously felt, even though as early as November 1901
Wilbur Wright was declaring his intention of testing 'the effect of placing a
flat surface just under the lower curve to see what effect proximity to the
ground may have had in our kite tests'.
There are, it is true, repeated references to the Wright brothers skimming
the ground; but this was explained by Wilbur in an address delivered to the
Western Society of Engineers on June 24, 1903.
.'Fo,r the purpose of reducing the danger to the lowest possible point,' he
saId, we usually kept close to the ground. Often a glide of several hundred
feet would be made at a height of a few feet, or even a few inches sometimes.
It was the aim to avoid unnecessary risk.'
The ~ r s t recorded utterance on the possible effect of the ground's proximity
seems, III fact, to have been a negative one, although of the greatest historical
interest. This occurred during a discussion following the address already
mentioned. Replying to a Mr Warder, Wilbur said: 'It may be that you
misunderstood my statement in regard to my brother's experiments in low
gliding. I did not mean that he touched the ground; he kept 5 or 6 inches off
the ground. Of course now and then he made a mistake and touched the
ground.' This prompted the said Mr Warder to inquire: 'In these glides that
your b r ~ t h e r made close to the ground, do you not suppose there might have
been a lIttle more pressure than at 10 or 20 feet above the ground?' To which
Wilbur answered: 'I do not think there is very much difference. We have
found, by experimenting, that if you hold a surface stationary - almost
touching the ground, it will have less lift than when it is up in the air. In
gliding I do not think there will be very much difference.'
Could it have been W. R. Turnbull who first observed and recorded the
beneficial influence? It appears more than likely on the evidence of a letter,
dated June 2, 1907, written by Orville Wright to Octave Chanute. One
passage ran:
'We have received a copy of the paper by W. R. Turnbull. I think the
79
We have already noted that the principle of creating a cushion of air
between the bottom ofthe boat and the surface ofthe water had been patented
by Sir John Thornycroft in 1877. I quote the Specification for 'An Improved
Method of Reducing the Friction of Vessels when Travelling on the Water'.
'According to my Invention,' declared Thornycroft, 'in order to reduce the
friction of a vessel when travelling on the water I interpose a layer or body of
air between the bottom of the vessel and the surface of the water, which air I
confine within a cavity of the bottom of the vessel so that the air shall be
carried along with the vessel over the surface of the water, and air being in
direct contact with the exterior of the bottom of the vessel and with the surface
ofthe water below it. To this end the bottom of the vessel is formed with an
external cavity into which air is forced so as to displace water from the cavity,
and the air is maintained at such pressure as to keep the cavity filled, or nearly
so, with air, such air as may escape being replaced.'

;0 II ,1 J 1;' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:
I
T
r,!J.!.
I

_I '-, -,r: : I'

--t:r .. - -'-- - -_. .
t '" /'
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I ' r I /.
! I I I I I K

paper quite interesting, though his different measurements do not agree very
closely with ours. On page 301, he speaks of an increase [in] lift when the
sustaining surface is brought in close proximity to an under plane. Under
practically the conditions he used for measuring, we got exactly the opposite
result.'
Yet twenty years later ground effect was to aid the Wright's compatriot
Lindberg in making his solo Atlantic crossing.
Although there is no air-cushion vehicle in nature, a tangible cushioning
effect is produced over water by natural means - yet another echo of our air-
and-water theme. I quote from Naval Architecture of Planing Hulls by the'
American Lindsay Lord:
'When the distance between crests is around half the length of the hull, or
less, a considerable air cushion operates beneath the plane ... effectively
cutting down frictional resistance. This reduction in friction is pure gain up
to the point where the size of waves causes sufficient plunging to add new
wetted surface plus added wave-making.'
The original drawings (1877) of Sir John Thornycroft's air-cushion hulls. The craft
of near-circular plan form is shown with a semi-immersed propeller.
80
A contemporary engraving of H.M.S. Lightning, the Royal Navy's first torpedo boat.
For this vessel an air-cushion hull was designed by Sir John Thornycroft and tank-
tested in model form.
The foregoing is a description of what is called today a plenum-chamber
air-cushion vehicle. Two distinct forms of hull were shown in the patent
drawings. One was 'practically a two-wedged ship, the after wedge being
made in such a way as to retain the air'. The other was of relatively conven-
tional form, with a hollow bottom forming the air chamber, and resembling
a model which Sir John tank-tested as an alternative hull for the Royal Navy's
first torpedo boat H.M.S. Lightning, delivered in the year of the patent
specification.
Sir John described how he 'tried models intended to carry air under them
in a hollow', continuing: 'This construction is favourable to high speed,
for the angle of the surface rubbing on the water can be considerably reduced
by the adoption of this plan, so reducing the resistance due to gravity on the
incline. At the same time the friction due to air on the supporting water is
much less than that due to water on a solid; and if the air could be cqrried
with the model, the power required to force it under would be small, and
would only amount to that necessary to make up waste. It may be safely taken
F 81
IT
I
, ,
I
that when air goes under a vessel without forcing, it will fail to give any
support. It is evident that the air under a vessel to serve this purpose must
have a pressure above that ofthe atmosphere.' Later he added: ' ... in a vessel
in which the support is due to air in a hollow, the centre of pressure must
coincide with the centre of gravity of the area of the hollow. It is much more
advantageous to have such a definite centre of support than the ever-shifting
position ofthe centre of the lifting force due to contact with the water surface.
The practical difficulties, however, to be overcome in producing a type
embodying this principle are many. Care must be taken, for instance, to avoid
disturbing the water surface by the surfaces which must surround the hollow I
containing the air. If this be not done waves will form and increase the
rubbing surface, besides taking up energy in their formation. With a model
the author designed to overcome these difficulties the resistance has not
proved very small, but it was observed that the wake of the model indicated
very little disturbance of the water surface. This model was very wide and
nearly circular in plan, and it skimmed at quite a low velocity. It may be
interesting to state that this form of model was made in 1873. A similar model
was towed from a launch at about 8 knots; this speed was more than sufficient
to make it rise to the surface. When air was forced under it the resistance
was greatly reduced, but it was never very low. At the best it fell to a value
of about one-quarter the weight of the model. At a lower speed - about 5
knots - a greater resistance was recorded.'
Models constructed and tested by Sir John Thornycroft to investigate the possibilities
of the air-cushion. In the foreground is one representing H.M.S. Lightning, and
immediately behind is another of the same vessel designed to be lifted by air.
82
Sir John concluded: 'It has often been proposed to force air under a vessel
of ordinary form, and Ericson is said to have tried this, but found it was not a
success. In a skimmer, however, if the air can be carried with the model for
the most part, there must be an advantage in this system, and perhaps it
might also be used with advantage in very shallow vessels, not intended to
skim, but having a very large surface of bottom, and not requiring the air to
be pumped against much head of water.'
Another man of massive stature in the dawning of the air-cushion age was
Clement Ader, and in this third and last citation of his 1904 specification I
state his proposals fully, in his own words. 'When a cushion of compressed
air,' he said, 'is retained under the wings and tail, these are made concave on
the under side, and the space thus formed is preferably divided into com-
partments by suitable ribs, and compressed air is forced by pumps into the
said cavities through conduit pipes, so that the wings and tail rest by means of
the air cushions upon the water.'
Elsewhere Ader stated: ... 'in place of a pump a fan may be employed';
and he also used the phrase ' ... the frictional contact of the water with the
wings and the resulting resistance to forward motion are done away with'.
Early in 1906 semi-confidential demonstrations were given of a model
boat, broad-beamed and flat-bottomed for most of her length. It was implied
in one report that the craft was 'suspended' pneumatically and that a sizeable
craft designed along the lines ofthe model was nearing completion at 'a certain
ThSlmes-side yard'. There is negligible doubt that this was the boat described
by one who saw her in the Saunders yard at Goring-on-Thames as being 33 ft
long by 8 ft beam and having a bottom sloped up at the forward end. A sketch
showed that there were two sidewalls (to use current terminology) together
with a centre 'wall', and spaced between these were fourteen smaller walls
(plates, fins or fences), all these extending the full length of the hull. Through
the bottom of the boat between the 'plates' were a number of holes, slanted
aft, and these were to be connected with 'an air compressor, fan or reservoir
driven by a motor engine'.
'The boat depends for her propulsion,' said the observer, 'on the reaction
of the jets of air from the orifices striking the water. At the same time air is
prevented by the fins from escaping to the sides of the boat, and so forms a
species of air bed between the water and the bottom of the boat, upon which
the latter rides.'
It must be noted that this was intended to be an air riding (or air-cushion)
craft, and beyond all reasonable doubt it was constructed according to a
British patent issued to F. W. Schroeder. The vessel was meant to be 'lifted'
by air, and the intention was that it should 'practically slide or skate' over the
water, and not through it.
The year 1908 saw at least two air-cushion proposals advanced in Great
Britain. A patent specification of that year, describing 'Hulls, lubricating',
declared that, in order to reduce the violent rise and fall of the fore part of
high-speed vessels in rough water, a constant supply of air was directed by
means of a cowl into a bellows-shaped chamber, extended by springs. An air
83
Original drawings (1906) of the craft proposed by F. W. Schroeder. An actual boat
designed on the same principle is described in the text.
valve was fitted in the upper part of the cowl shaft, compelling the air, when
compressed by the movement of the vessel, to pass out through pipes to the
under surface of the hull. The sides of the vessel would preferably project
below the bottom in the form of side keels to retain the air.
In another context the inventor - none other than 'Sam' Saunders himself-
claimed that when the boat was at full speed the air rushing into the bellows
chamber would form a cushion that would absorb shocks, and that the com-
pressed air escaping would form a cushion on which the boat would ride.
Saunders-Roe Ltd are today foremost in the production of air-cushion
craft; and, although these are ofthe Cockerell 'hovercraft' variety, it is none
the less remarkable that well over half a century ago one of the founders of the
company should have foreseen the two great benefits offered by the air cushion
- reduction of drag and a smoother ride.
Late in 1908 the design was announced of a craft following 'roughly the
Ricochet principle' but having an exceptionally deep step placed very far
forward. The sides were boxed in, and 'the better to retain air under the boat'
there were two keels forming three channels, running from step to stern. The
designer wished to remain anonymous, but invited correspondence addressed
to 'E.G.S.' Hydroplane. And early in 1909 there was completed in Maynard's
yard a hydroplane hull described as a 'distinct departure', the sides of the
step being boxed in and having a tunnel stern, the tunnel being 'worked in
right from the step'. The idea was to retain as much air as possible.
I have traced yet other air-cushion craft constructed or proposed before
84
the First World War. In these it was forward motion which induced the
formation of the cushion.
In June 1906 news had come from Australia of a novel form of boat which,
although an experiment, was reported to have proved very successful. A
contemporary report ran: 'She is fiat-bottomed and somewhat resembles a
Thames punt, with an increased freeboard. Air is taken in under the bows,
on which she partly floats, after the manner of an aquaplane. The form has
been found to give great stability, and a speed of about II miles per hour has
been obtained. Her length is 23 ft overall, with a beam of 4 ft, and a remark-
able feature is an almost total absence of wash.'
On the same principle was a craft which became widely known in the U.S.A.
as the Hickman Sea Sled, the bottom of which was concave for much of its
length with a view to 'trapping air and forming an air cushion' (I quote a 1913
report). A particular advantage claimed for the cushion was that it reduced
pounding.
It is instructive, after some fifty years, to cite the views of a present-day
expert concerning the superior speed qualities of the Sea Sled. In his book
Fast Boats, Mr John Teale comments:
'The reason for the increased speed is a little obscure, though it is borne
out in practice. However, what probably happens is that, in calm water, the
inward bow-wave formations from the two bows converge into the inverted
V and become trapped under the bottom together with the air forced in by the
boat's progress. The transom is flat and fully submerged. All this provides a
certain amount of lift. The boat will thus rise in the water and will be riding
with a small part of the hull actually in the water and a fairly large portion in
a mixture of air and water from the trapped bow waves. Though the wetted
surface will be greater than in a conventional hard-chine boat, the wetting
will be done by this mixture rather than purely by water, with a lowered
frictional resistance effect. The faster the boat travels the greater the lift
becomes, until at some point, presumably, the craft will rise completely out
of the water and rise solely on the cushion of air. It would then be a hover-
craft, rather than a boat!'
Nor was the idea ofriding on an air cushion, which had been proposed and
tested by Sir John Thornycroft in the 1870s, forgotten as the years went by
within his own family and company, for in 1908 a design was prepared for a
hollow-bottomed craft having an open bow for the admission of air. Certainly
in 1909 such a punt-like craft was being tested by Mr Tom Thornycroft -
and before his death he was able to recall it for the edification of British
Hovercraft constructors Britten-Norman Ltd, of Bembridge, Isle of Wight.
A patent of 1909, in the name of H. P. Dinesen, described a form of ship,
under the bottom of which was a chamber filled with air and closed at the
front, back and sides. The ship was driven by an internal-combustion engine,
and the invention consisted in discharging the combustion gases into the
chamber so as to replace the air, which escaped during the movement of the
vessel. The recess under the hull could be compartmented to diminish loss
of gas when heeling. Air under pressure was supplied to the chamber when
85
The punt-like open-bowed air-cushion craft which was tested by Mr Tom Thornycroft
in I909.
the ship was stationary. A form of flexible rubber skirt was also proposed
for retention of the air.
The use ofa pump or fan to force air into a chamber, which in turn s:Hpplied
air to the under-surface of a flat-bottomed craft, was described in 1909 by
G. F. Whitmore; and in the same year J. C. Hansen-Ellehammer proposed a
form of vessel having one or more spaces in its underside to which compressed
air was supplied by 'a propeller or fan'. 'Ribs' were provided on the underside
to keep the air under the hull when in a seaway, and to act as runners on ice.
The essential feature of a patent specification of 1909, in the name of Alex
Holmstrom, was a form of propeller; but his specification showed two of these
applied to what Holmstrom called a high-speed boat. 'In addition to the
resistance of the air being overcome', it was stated, 'air is simultaneously
swept under one or more awnings [sic] whereby a lifting effect is produced.
Thereby it is made possible, with suitable motive power in the boat, to attain
a high speed not hitherto possible, with the slightest frictional resistance to
air and water.'
The essence of the 'ram wing', as it is known today, was to be seen in a
proposal by H. M. van Weede, advanced in 1911. 'The invention,' he said, 'is
characterized by forming the hull of an arched shell open at bow and stern, so
that the air taken in at the larger front end of the arch will be compressed as
the boat moves forward because of the reduction in the cross sectional area
of the arch towards the rear, with the result that the boat will skim along the
surface of the water.' Van Weede showed in detail the shape of the bottom of
the boat, and referred to 'the mass of air constantly contained in the bottom
cavity, whereby the frictional resistance is materially lessened'.
The containing of air within a cavity qualifies this as an air-cushion pro-
posal.
I had not expected to be able to include in this book of 'air and water' the
annular-jet devices of J. Robertson Porter, but I find (and the fact appears
not to have been recorded previously) that in 1913 this man proposed a
version capable of operating from water. Porter declared:
'This invention relates to aeronautical machines of the type in which a
86
hollow pear-shaped body is enclosed within an outer parachute surface,
forming with the said body an annular air channel through which air is drawn
by means of a fan or propeller; there being also at the top of the machine an
annular and flat or slightly curved surface disposed horizontally and forming
in its centre a flared inlet communicating with the aforesaid annular air
channel.'
Porter went on to mention 'an annular hollow float, designed to afford
greater stability when the machine alights on water'.
'Before starting a flight,' he said, 'the engine is run for a while to heat the
air in the hollow body, so that when the machine is free, the combined lifting
effect of the heated air and the propeller causes the machine to rise. Owing to
the assistance afforded by the heated air in the hollow body, the power re-
quired to lift the machine is reduced in proportion to the size ofthe machine.'
These devices of Porter's were regarded by him as helicopters, but they
had much in common with today's annular-jet A.C.V.s. Porter even seems to
have been conscious of ground effect. He actually employed the expression
'annular jet' and described how this formed an air 'curtain'. A species of
flexible skirt was also mentioned in connection with his devices - surely
among the more remarkable of those which I have sought in this book to
establish in historical perspective.
One of the annular-jet devices of J. Robertson Porter on exhibition at Olympia in I9I ,.
The 'flexible skirt' is seen to advantage.
VISTA
JOHN JACOB ASTOR (1864-1912) was an American capitalist and iilVentor,
a member of the world-renowned family. He was drowned in the Titanic
disaster.
In 1894 he published a book called A Journey in Other Worlds, a Romance
of the Future and mainly concerned with an interplanetary journey in the year
A.D. 2000. There were incidental allusions to the Terrestrial Axis Straighten-
ing Company, flying machines, magnetic railways, cars (and policemen with
'instantaneous kodaks'), television - and air-cushion ships. These last were
called 'marine spiders' and had 'large, bell-shaped feet' through which 'a
pressure of air' could be 'forced down upon the enclosed surface of the water'.
(This is suggestive of the Bertin system of 'petticoats', though the 'bells'
swung backwards and forwards for propulsion.)
Astor wrote of his 'marine spiders': 'Although, on account of their size,
which covers several acres, they can go in any water, they give the best results
on Mediterraneans and lakes that are free from ocean rollers, and, under
favourable conditions, make better speed than the nineteenth-century express
trains... .'
He further relates how delegates returning from a conference boarded a
'water spider' at Key West. This craft was six hundred feet long by three
hundred in width, and its deck was a hundred feet above the sea. It bore its
passengers 'over the water at a mile a minute, around the eastern end of Cuba,
through Windward Passage, and so to the South American mainland... .'
With this inspiring vision of what is yet to be, glimpsed in the reign of
Queen Victoria, I am content to end these excursions into the near-forgotten
past - in the sister elements of air and water.
88
\
INDEX
r:
INDEX
II
II
Ader, Clement, 51, 52, 53, 74, 83
Aerial Experiment Association, 15, 16
Red Wing, 15, 16
Antoinette monoplane, 16
Apsey, Joseph, 66, 71
Archdeacon, Ernest, 15, 16
Armstrong, Lord, 44
Astor, John Jacob, 88
Bacqueville de, Marquis, 13
Baden-Powell, Major B., 15
Banneau, M., 61
Barnaby, Nathaniel, 67
Barton, Dr F. A., 22, 23
Becue, Jean, 3I
Belgique, La, 76
Bell, Dr Alexander Graham, 15
Bernasconi, L., 51
Berriman, Algernon E., 77
B.G.S. hydroplane, 84
Biles, Prof. J. H., 43
Bleriot, Louis, 23, 72
Borel,72
Brabazon, J. T. C. Moore, 15
Bramwell, Sir Frederick, 73, 74, 77
Bristol Aeroplane Co., 39
British and Colonial Aeroplane Co.,
39
Britten-Norman Ltd., 85
Brown, J. Pollock, 24
Burney, Lt C. D., 39, 40
Cardon, Emile, 74
Cayley, Sir George, 41
Chanute, Octave, 19,37, 79
Charpentier flying boat, 34
Charron, M., 60, 61
Churchill, Winston, 28
Clark, C. H., 61
Clark, Josiah, 5I
9
1
Cockerell, Christopher, I I, 84
Cody, S. F., 42
Colliex, Maurice, 32, 33
Conchis and Hemsen, 45
Cooper-Hewitt, Peter, 42, 59, 60
Crewe, P. R., 55, 56, 73
Crocco, A., 31, 32, 36, 57, 58
Culbertson, 74
Curtiss, Glenn, 15, 34, 35, 36, 37
June Bug, 27
Loon, 27, 28
Daily Mail cross-channel prize, 16
Dante, 13
Delacombe, Colonel Harry, 16
Denny, William, and Brothers, 24
Dinesen, H. P., 85
Donnet-Leveque flying boat, 37
Egginton, W. L., 73
Emery, C. E., 51
Enghien, Lake, 23, 24
Fabre, Henri, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
Farcot, Emmanuel, 50
Farman biplanes, 32
Fauber, W. H., 58, 70, 75, 76
Ferber, Captain, 16, 44
Forlanini, Prof. Enrico, 21, 31, 32,
55, 56, 58, 61
Foudre battleship, 34
Franklin, Benjamin, I I
Froude, William, 29, 43, 67, 73
Gabardini flying boat, 34
Gallaudet, 20
Gammeter Orthopter, 24
Gibbs-Smith, Charles, 41, 53
Gnosspelius, Oscar T., 35
Grahame-White Aviation Co. Ltd.,
77
Guidoni, Gen. A., 31, 32, 36, 39
Gyrinus,62
Hamel, Gustav, 17
Hamilton, Charles Keeney, 26
Hamilton hydro-aeroplane, 78
Hanbury, D., 76
Handley-Page, F., 38
Hansen-Ellehammer, J. c., 86
Hargrave, Lawrence, 14, 20, 21, 22
Hayward, Leslie, 58
Helmholz, von, 42
Hickman, 85
Hodgson, J. E., 41
Holmstrom, Alex, 86
Holt-Thomas, E., 30
Hope-Rathbone, 76
Humphreys Waterplane, 27
Jamestown Exhibition, 24, 26
Janin, L. and M., 51
Joue de, Resnier, 13
Kelvin, Lord, 71
Keuka, Lake, 15
Kipling, Rudyard, 45, 46, 47
Kitchener, Lord, 72
Knight, A. E., 70, 71
Kress, Wilhelm, 15, 19
Labor-Fauber hydroplane, 76
Lakes Flying Company, 16
Lambert, Comte de, 53, 54, 55, 69,
70 ,72
Langley, Prof. S. P., 14-15
Latham, Hubert, 16
Laval, Gustav de, 74
Lein of Perreux, 44
Levavasseur, Leon, 16,44
Lightning, H.M.S., 81, 82
Lilienthal, Otto, 42, 43
Lindberg, 80
Linton Hope, 76
Lord, Lindsay, 80
Lorraine, Robert, 17
Ludlow, Israel, 26
Maxim, Sir Hiram, 48, 51
Maynard's yard, 84
Meacham, Larned, 58
Meacham, William M., 58
Michigan Steel Boat Co., 47, 48
Flying Fish, 47, 48
Miranda III, 62, 63
Morrison, Abraham, 65
Morrison, J., 61
Mouillard, L. P., 13-14
Moy, Thomas, 41, 50
Mumford, E. H., 24
Mutti, Antoine, 42, 58, 59
Napier, G. R., 56
Napier, G. W., 51
Nieuport, 72
Nissen, Peter, II-I2
Noll, H. J., 55
Obus-Nautilus, 45
Parseval, Major August von, 27, 28
Penaud, Alphonse, 19,20
Phillips, Horatio Frederick, 53, 54,
58,69
Pictet, Raoul, 69
Pilcher, Percy, 43
Porter, J. Robertson, 86, 87
Puydt de, Albert, 56
Quannonne, Gustav, 76
Radley-England waterplane, 38
Ramus, Rev. Charles Meade, 66, 67,
68, 69, 70, 71
Rathbone, 76
Ravaud, Roger, 26, 48, 49
Rawnsley, Canon, 17
Rawson, F. L., 22, 23
Reeve, S. A., 58
Ricaldoni, 0., 57, 58
Richards, J., 64
Richardson, Cdr. Holden C., 24, 64,
78
Roe, A. V., 17, 35, 36
Rust, Rev. E., 44
Santos-Dumont, Alberto, 44, 45, 51,
59,60,61
Saunders, Capt. H. E., 65
Saunders, S., 47, 48, 83, 84
Schroeder, F. W., 83, 84
Schwann, Cdr Oliver, 17, 35, 77
Scott Russell, John, 42, 65, 66, 73,74
Short brothers, 38
Silver Heels, 76
Simpson, L. E., 57
Smoothing Iron, 73, 74
Sopwith, Sir Thomas, 47
Squier, Major George 0., 42
Stanfield, John, 5I
Steele, J. E., 47
Surrey Canal, 50
Teale, John, 85
Tetard, M., 51
Thames Bank Wharf Motor Works,
28,76
Thompson, W. P., 58
Thornycroft, Sir John, 43, 62, 65,
69, 70, 71, 80, 81, 82, 83
Thornycroft, J. E., 69
Thornycroft, Tom, 85, 86
Tideman, Dr. B. 1., 73
Tissandier, 51, 72
Tout, L. R., 62
Turnbull, W. R., 79
Turner, C. C., 17
Vagabond, 61
Vickers-Armstrongs (Engineers) Ltd.,
44
Vigo, Guiseppe, 55
da Vinci, Leonardo, 13
Voisin, Gabriel, 16, 22, 23, 24, 28,
32, 33, 34, 42
Wakefield, E. W., 16, 17, 18
Warder, 79
Weede van, H. M., 86
Weltmer, Ernest, 71
Whitmore, G. F., 86
Wilson, W. G., 43
Wright brothers, 19, 24, 25, 37, 53,
77,79
Sampson, St. Noel, 76
Maggiore, Lake, 56 Sanderal, M. de, 51
92 93