windham monoplane 1909

[Rod_Filan]

Unrecognized for his contribution at the dawn of British dirigible flight, Captain William Beedle was a South African living in England when he built his near forgotten vectored thrust airship. The first of its kind.

In 1903 Beedle applied for, and, as aforementioned and attached by Kees, was granted patent 15,139 of 1903. At the same time, to test his theories, he built a model airship utilizing a pivoting propeller. Tests of this unit were successful, and construction of a 2-man dirigible proceeded forthwith. Trials were conducted November 3, 1903 at the Alexandra Palace in north London where one brief flight was made. Sources vary on opinion as to how well the airship performed---although apparently, contemporary magazine reports were encouraging. Further flights were scheduled for the following April but no record is known of these attempts, if indeed they were even tried. In 1904, without the funds to further support development, Beedle put his airship into storage in hopes of continuing his experiments at a later date. Evidently not enough lift force was a problem with the airship's too-small an envelope---and during this time Beedle worked on "adding lightness"---managing to reduce the weight of the gondola framework by 36 kilos. After two years Beedle took his airship to Cardiff, Wales, and met up with E. T. Willows--whereupon a productive relationship was formed, resulting in Willows refining Beedle's swivelling propeller. From 1906 until 1908 Beedle worked with Willows building airship gondolas used on British Army airships, purchased by the Balloon Factory at Farnborough.

The Beedle airship was powered by a single Blake (of Kew Gardens) automobile motor of 15hp driving two propellers--one forward, one aft. The aft propeller was the larger--14 feet in diameter--running at 300 rpm. This propeller was fixed, and used only for propulsion. Mounted at the bow of the gondola was a pivoting propeller, 8 feet in diameter running at 250 rpm, able to swivel in both the horizontal and vertical plane. The gondola itself was of steel construction, triangular in section, 50 feet long, initially weighing 390 kg. A rope basket served as the control nacelle in which the two aeronauts rode. The gasbag of the Beedle employed ballonets at both ends for elevation control, was 93 feet long, 16 feet in maximum diameter, and contained a volume of 26,000 cu.ft. (736 m3).

Source: THE BEEDLE AIRSHIP by Kent O'Grady, Gasbag Journal - September 1996. Photo: Complimentary article THE BEEDLE AIRSHIP REVISITED, Gasbag Journal - September 1997, courtesy John Duggan. John unfortunately passed away recently---a great loss to the airship community. Rest in peace John.


Cheers
Rod

[aerohydro]

Hello All

Thanks to Ermeio for posting the images of the Cooley Monoplane. I've never been quite sure what the wings on this machine were supposed to have looked like, but that image showing the small kite-like model reveals all.

Whilst doing some browsing, I stumbled across this resource from the Rochester Museum, which contains 14 photos of the Cooley Monoplane. (It seems the industrious Ermeio has already been here! ;-)) The link also supplies some text, detailing the workings of both the Monoplane and of Mr Cooley:

"On December 4, 1910, the Rochester Herald announced in a lengthy article and page of photographs that the Cooley "airship" was nearly ready for trial flight. This "airship" was under construction in Rochester by New York City inventor John F. Cooley, reputedly with the financial backing of wealthy Rochester men.

The gigantic aircraft measured 81 feet overall and 42 feet in width and was equipped with two six-cylinder, ninety-horsepower engines. Canvas stretched over wooden ribs covered the "hull" or cabin area. Four "planes" of "naiad aeronautical Irish linen" ran horizontally, two on each side, along the hull to give lifting power. Construction continued through the winter of 1910/11.

In April of 1911, Mr. Cooley disappeared from Rochester and was reported to be selling stock in a New York City airship enterprise; workmen, left to finish the project, abandoned the aircraft. Finally, Mrs. Anna S. Burns, a grocer to whom Cooley owed $92, obtained a writ of attachment on the machine. The final fate of the Cooley airship is unknown."

It seems that Mr Cooley could take flight, even if his flying machine couldn't!

Cheers,
Paul

[ermeio]

Hi, all

this thread is bringing a wealth of info in many directions:

the Rochester Museum, which contains 14 photos of the Cooley Monoplane. (It seems the industrious Ermeio has already been here! ;-))

I had some of the photos, but I had not been there, so at least four photos of the Cooley are new to me! Thanks, Paul.

And yes, few things are as strange as the Cooley, but I think that when spreading her white wings that would have had her grace...

and another stretch in the thread:

Windham - Cooley- and yes, xb70 n - Copia.jpg the same white winged inspiration, is that the Windham release3.0, in all its glory?



waiting the next news, Folks!

Ermeio

[aerohydro]

Hi All

Okay, so there is Windham, Cooley and ... who else? Perhaps we should acknowledge Reinhold Platz?

His 1923 tandem sail-wing glider was a simple and elegant design. Moreover, it actually flew! Click on this german-language webpage to view photos of the glider and its variants.

Cheers,
Paul

[Rod_Filan]

Originally Posted by aerohydro

Okay, so there is Windham, Cooley and ... who else?

I don't want to hijack ermeio's thread by any means......but I just wanted to point out the Rochester Museum website again that Paul found (Cooley central)...

If you search for airship you'll hit on a sequence of four photographs on page 2 and 3 of a "Baldwin" airship. (A blimp possibly made by Baldwin of central New York flies over the 1916 Rochester Industrial Exposition.) Also ID'd as a Zeppelin in one of them. I can't dispute the name of the fair, but the year and make are way off. Not exactly rocket science--quite frankly, the name of the airship is lettered on the side of the gasbag (both sides actually). This is the Strobel airship Palisades Park flown by Frank W. Goodale during 1909 or 1910. You would expect, that considering hundreds of thousands of people saw this airship so late in the decade, that photos of it would be run-of-the-mill. On the contrary-- Palisades Park photos appear to be extremely rare. I always thought that was curious. The only explaination I can think of, is that by this time exposition airships were so commonplace, they had become boring and irrelevant.

Those so inclined, can find some background on this famous American aeronaut and historic airship here:
http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/...rk.Goodale.jpg
http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/...isade.Park.jpg
http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/...isade.Park.jpg
The rest of you can get back to Cooley and Beedle and Windham

Cheers
Rod

[Varese2002]

Originally Posted by Rod_Filan

----

Source: THE BEEDLE AIRSHIP by Kent O'Grady, Gasbag Journal - September 1996. Photo: Complimentary article THE BEEDLE AIRSHIP REVISITED, Gasbag Journal - September 1997, courtesy John Duggan. John unfortunately passed away recently---a great loss to the airship community. Rest in peace John.

Cheers
Rod

Thanks Rod, for getting this almost unknown airship by Beedle somewhat more in the picture.

I did some digging in the old literature and found the following contemporary articles on the Beedle airship, at least one of them written by William Beedle himself.

Aeronautical Journal(1) Vol. 8 (1904) No.30 pp. 32-34, ill. W. Beedlle. The Beedle airship.

Automotor Journal Vol. 8 (1903) No.45 (7 November) pp. 1178-1179 — The article describes and illustrates with photographs this dirigible airship

Scientific American Vol.90 (1904) 16 (16 April) p.313 ill.

1 This is the journal published by the Aero Club (London), later the Royal Aero Club

Cheers

Kees

[Rod_Filan]

Originally Posted by Varese2002

I did some digging in the old literature and found the following contemporary articles on the Beedle airship, at least one of them written by William Beedle himself.

Aeronautical Journal(1) Vol. 8 (1904) No.30 pp. 32-34, ill. W. Beedlle. The Beedle airship.

Thanks for those references. I get the impression Kent O'Grady's essay relies heavily on the Aeronautical Journal report of 1904 written by Beedle. I didn't know he wrote it till now---O'Grady sources this as only to contain "comments" by Beedle, not credited authorship. All specifications are from Beedle's article, so we can be certain that with his name on it, these (those in Imperial measurements at least) are accurate.

Cheers
Rod

[Varese2002]

Originally Posted by ermeio

Attachment 10006

hi, all

this thread is going to be much more interesting than prevented, even from me.
Now I'm going to pose another question about Windham's tandem wing monoplane control: The patent states that the keel gives stability and that it's also used as a control mean: was this accomplished using the keel like a sail?
maybe that the bamboo fuselage was made so to flex, pivoting the propeller by some degree to make the aircraft turn on the left or on the right? Or there was some mean to use the vertical surfaces as a rudder?
And horizontal control?

Another rudder-like item is the radiator (the dish-like object, mounted vertically towards the nose and sharing the same plan of fuselage)
The control of the aircraft will affect the rigging and the bracing.
Best regards
Ermeio

Ermeio, I looked in British Patent 21,668 A.D.1908 from William Frank Howard again, to see if there is an answer to your questions.

• The patent states that the keel gives stability and that it's also used as a control mean: was this accomplished using the keel like a sail?

The patent only states

Beneath these two pairs of planes a and b aforesaid, I provide vertical planes c and d to form a keel. These vertical planes c and d as before mentioned form a keel, which is one of the essential featurea of my invention, and gives stability and direction to the aeroplane as a whole, and moreover prevents the overturning of the aeroplane in a side wind.

The idea is that because of the keel and the two pairs of triangular wings with dihedral, the machine must be 'stable'. There is not much reasoning behind this statement, but looking to later (1911 / 1912) developments like the Fokker Spinne might well be right.

Looking at the actually built Howard-Windham there is in the keel the same triangular sail-like cloth in the vertical plane, just to make the machine stable. No steering was possible.

I think the whole controlling mechanism of the machine is pretty rudimentary. There is a rudder at the end and an elevator but where are the lines to move them and they don't look very effective.

The place where the pilot should sit makes me wonder, no idea where it should be. The circle construction on the front is puzzling.

Probably this machine is the result of a mix of idea's from Howard and Windham. Reading on the first machine partially dreamt up by Windham and realized by the French firm Pischoff there is the following sentence from Flight March 27, 1909 -

An original feature of the control is pivoting the back of the pilot's seat so that by swaying his body he can operate the movements of a pair of small righting planes which are pivoted midway between the main planes at
each extremity.

Windham had some unrealistic ideas about stability and the steering of aircraft, to be fair shared by the greater majority of early developers then. The first Windham-Pischoff plane stood proudly at the first Olympia Show of 1909 after which nothing was ever heard of it again.

The Howard-Windham went the same road, surely never flew and better for all that owing to its complete lack of steering. Probably the stability could have worked.

Cheers

Kees

[Rod_Filan]

Originally Posted by Rod_Filan

...Rochester Museum website again that Paul found (Cooley central).... This is the Strobel airship Palisades Park flown by Frank W. Goodale during 1909 or 1910.

Houston, we have a problem....

Just when you think you have it all figured out...well, we all know what happens then. By bringing this up I managed to steer everyone wrong and now I have to fix it. So here goes...I'll make it as painless as possible.

In regards to the date, I did some digging. As it turns out, by using the Rochester Museum's archive and an item on the Rochester Horse Show, I've been able to glean a more substantial timeframe in which this took place.

"For one colorful Labor Day week of 22 Septembers he reigned in Rochester. Thirteen years have passed since the silvery call of a bugle has echoed through the ring at Edgerton Park but Rochester will not soon forget the glitter of its Horse Show.

The show began in 1911 as part of the Rochester Industrial Exposition, which that year moved into what was then Exposition Park after three years uptown in Convention Hall Annex, which, by the way, was built for that purpose.

Mayor Hiram Edgerton's dream of a combined fair and horse show was realized after the city acquired from the state the old Industrial School property on the North Side. That prison-like institution with its grim 20-foot stone wall and stockade was converted to civic uses after the school for wayward boys was moved to Industry."

In the sequence of Goodale at Rochester, I've identified the prominent columns in the background as the west side of the peristyle at Exposition Park. Obviously then, this could only have taken place in 1911 or later. Keep in mind, the record of Goodale flying at Palisade Park ends in 1913--although that doesn't mean that he couldn't have made appearances elsewhere in New York to advertise the park.

Goodale had been flying at the Palisades Amusement Park since 1909 and notwithstanding the injunction against him by Strobel, the young Frank was now, from 1911 onward, set up with a beautiful new machine paid for by the Schenks.

My mistake revolved around the name change of Palisades Park. Just to recap...In 1910 the Schenk brothers bought the Palisades Amusement Park--named the same as the New Jersey borough of Palisades Park. The park had been named Palisades Amusement Park since 1908--and before that, from the time it opened in 1898 as a trolley park, it was called The Park on the Palisades. In 1911 the new name became Schenck Bros. Palisade Park which remained so until 1934 when the Rosenthal brothers bought it and restored the park's previous and most famous name, Palisades Amusement Park. The Rosenthals closed the park in 1971.

There's only one hitch to all this. New Yorkers, at least in the eyes of the New York Times, didn't accept the name change made by the Schenks. They continued to print Palisades. In a June 1911 item however, I find one exception; the Times announced Palisades Amusement Park opening day and Frank Goodale's airship was very distinctly published 'Palisade', no S. This might explain the inexplicable--why Goodale at some point replaced the Palisade Park on the rudder with Palisades Park on the envelope. Everyone called it Palisades--Palisade looked wrong and confused people.

Badda boom, badda bing, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Cheers
Rod

Freddy "Boom Boom" Cannon - Palisades Park

Freddy "Boom Boom" Cannon - Palisades Park

[aerohydro]

Hi All

Further to the postings about the Cooley Monoplane; there's a patent that casts some light onto the design. It's US1084198, applied for in early 1910, but not granted till nearly four years later.

Unfortunately the patent is quite long (9 pages) and, even as patents go, it's badly written, making it a difficult read. Much of the specification deals with the flying machine design being made up of three main surfaces, and how adjusting these sheet-like surfaces, by use of cables and pulleys, would affect control.

Now having seen the patent, I am now fairly convinced that Cooley Monoplane is actually a canard. (And this, despite the fact that it looks as though it has a normal tractor configuration, and that the captions to some of the Rochester Museum photos indicate the same.)

Here's why: several of the figures in the patent show a canard aircraft. It seems illogical for an inventor to have patented one type of flying machine, whilst building something totally different. Some of the design details that can be picked out in the Rochester Museum photos lend weight to it having a canard configuration, but aren't wholly convincing on that being the case.

However, there is one photo of the rear fuselage, showing how two different covering surfaces overlap - the photo is attached - and this overlapping ONLY makes sense if the Cooley Monoplane was a canard.

Cheers,
Paul