Watson's Second Aeroplane
Watson's No.2 aeroplane during its first flight tests in August 1910 at Errol, Perthshire, where it spent most of its time in the air. This was one of the first clear images of a Watson aeroplane to be published. The Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland.
As with his first aeroplane, Watson's No.2 was built in the workshop sheds of the Tay Motor Boat and Engine Company of Dundee and was finished in July 1910. This is confirmed in the 9 July 1910 issue of the Dundee Courier newspaper, which states that it was nearing completion at the time of the article, which advised of Watson's intent to display the aeroplane at the forthcoming Lanark Airshow.
To be held at the local race course, the aerial meet at Lanark was only the second major airshow held in the United Kingdom and it attracted considerable patronage from members of the global aviation community, as it existed in 1910. Sadly for Watson, attendance at the air meet was not to be; in the 29 July 1910 Dundee Courier is the column heading "Dundee Aviator May Not Compete At Lanark" with the following;
​
"While the engine was being tested yesterday afternoon the propeller blades snapped, the wood being too soft a nature to withstand the strain of the lightning revolutions."
​
"This was the first trial of the airship [sic] and the motor was being tested without the wings and top plane being attached."
​
"It was intended that the aeroplane should be dispatched to Lanark today, but this untoward occurrence will prevent the fulfilment of the plan. In the circumstances it is unlikely that Mr P.A. Watson will be a competitor at Lanark."
​
The article also gives a brief description of the machine's novel reverse parasol wing layout, hinting at it's peculiarity at a time when convention in aeroplane design was hardly established, before stating that;
​
"Mr Watson is an enthusiastic airman, who has devoted much time and attention to the science of flying."
​
This must have been extraordinarily disappointing for Watson; the opportunity to have displayed his theories, manifested in a workable flying machine at a premier event as Lanark would have been a considerable boost for him and would have placed him in the spot light within the greater aviation fraternity.
In terms of construction, in its original form, the No.2 was almost identical to the No.1 apart from the addition of wheels instead of the simple twin skid arrangement present on the No.1. This also meant that the No.2 did not have to rely on an assisted take off means to get airborne, as the No.1 did.
The two aircraft shared the same dimensions, wing plan and boxkite tail surfaces, although the A-frame centre section of the No.2 differed slightly from the No.1 in bracing details. Its wings were two separate units attached to the centre section frame work a third of the way from its base, although the fabric covering crossed between the two around a cut-out at its centre where the pilot sat, giving the impression of being one piece.
Of the same reverse sesquiplane configuration as its predecessor, the No.2's wings were constructed with an exaggerated camber, a considerable increase over the profile of the wings of the No.1. Skids were fitted to the underside of the boxkite at the tail and on each wingtip. In the photograph above, there is no upturned tip on the left hand wing tip skid, as there is on the right hand wing tip.
​
As with the first machine, its primary lateral control was the upper rocking wing hinged on its longitudinal axis at the apex of the A-frame centre section, with the boxkite tail pivoting on its central lateral axis, providing pitch control. These were its only moving surfaces and were jointly actuated, as they were on the No.1, by a single lever jutting from the underside of the parasol rocking wing and supported by an inverted A-frame arrangement.
Although also fitted with skids that protruded ahead of the propeller arc, the No.2 sat on wheels that were bungee-sprung. Its suspension system was unsophisticated, but effective for its time. The two axles were suspended by stretched bungee cord between a rather extensive framework of horizontally mounted struts at the base of the fore and aft A-frames, providing a wide-track, four wheel truck to ride on. In surviving images, the wheels appear to be of the pneumatic variety in popular use.
​
In photographs of the No.2 at rest on the ground there is mild anhedral to the main wings, which were heavily braced by two struts under each wing. With its boxkite tail slumped rearwards and its droopy wings, the No.2 looked a little saggy; its less-than polished finish betraying its 'home-made' origins.
Watson's No.2 undergoing trials, most likely in August 1910 at East Ley's Farm, Errol, Perthshire, shortly after completion. The figures lend scale to the machine's centre section, with the exhaust manifold of its 30hp Humber engine visible. via Philip Jarrett.
To power his new aeroplane Watson paid ï¿¡125 for a brand new three-cylinder 30 hp Humber engine purchased direct from the manufacturers, which drove a five foot diameter propeller. Perched centrally on the wing leading edge between the two uprights, the No.2's Humber was fed by a single cylindrical tank positioned underneath the leading edge of the rocking wing.
Described as "beautifully simple, wonderfully light, reliable, durable..." in advertising literature of the day, the 30 hp Humber was a compact air-cooled engine built by the aviation department of the notable British automotive manufacturers based in Coventry. Having undertaken licence production of the Blériot aeroplane that Louis Blériot flew to Dover from Calais in July 1909, Humber developed its own powerplant to fit to the ubiquitous type, which was similar in layout to the Blériot's nominal French made engine, the three-cylinder 20 hp Anzani.
It is possible that Humber also manufactured the No.2's propeller, as their advertising blurb quotes that the firm made, "...propellers of all designs from ï¿¡12 12s., guaranteed perfect." To incorporate components manufactured to order would have made the completion of Watson's machine much easier than it had previously; after all, propeller design and manufacture was a precise and exacting task.
Humber offered "...high-class workmanship, finest materials, reliable and British manufactured spares..."; since Preston bought one of their engines, why would he not buy a propeller expertly made to order from the same firm?
​
After the inconvenient breakage of the No.2's first propeller, Watson demonstrated considerable haste in getting the machine ready for first flight trials, which suggests that he might have resorted to a local source of propeller supply, unless he initially obtained more than one propeller when choosing his engine type. In a small column at the bottom right of page 7 of the 15 August 1910 issue of the Dundee Courier is the column heading "Dundee Aviator Makes Successful Flight. Aeroplane Trials at Errol." Hardly an auspicious pronouncement of such a significant achievement as the first recorded successful flight of one of one's own indigenous flying machines. Watson must have felt like the day's events should have made the front page headlines.
The full column is brief and reads as follows;
"The airship [sic] was first taken to East Ley's Farm, where trials were conducted in a large field. The aviator was successful in several short flights, the airship [sic] skimming through the air at an altitude of about five or six feet. Towards the end of the week the aeroplane was removed to Muirhouses Farm, where further trials took place. Mr Watson has expressed himself as satisfied with the behaviour of the machine and it is probable that more ambitious flights will be attempted."
An advertisement for the three-cylinder 30 hp Humber engine fitted to Watson's No.2. While it is unknown exactly why Watson chose the Humber engine to power the No.2, it is possible that he did because of Louis Bleriot's successful cross-Channel flight a year earlier, on which Humber capitalised by manufacturing Bleriot XI aeroplanes and the engine shown in the advertisement to power them. The Aero via the National Museums of Scotland.
According to James Watson, himself, Preston and Archie Dickie, who went to Paris to secure the Dutheil Chalmers engine from Alberto Santos Dumont for the No.1, all flew the machine at Errol at this time. The 19 September 1910 issue of the Dundee Courier reports that Watson is progressing in his flight trials, noting that;
"The past week has been particularly notable for good results. Skimming around in the air at an average height of over twenty feet, the aeroplane has been the object of much curious attention by the folks about Errol."
​
Although the article does hint at persistent difficulties Watson encountered whilst trialling his machine;
​
"Mr Watson has tried a number of propeller blades of various weights and shapes and has also tackled the problem of the air resistance of various kinds of woods."
​
Perhaps as a result of the breakage suffered in July during engine running trials, Watson turned to his local propeller maker - Kerr Sturrock, Joiners, as he had reportedly done so with his earlier machine? Nevertheless, this is evidence that propeller manufacture at the time was still something of a black art.
Based on the testimony of James Manson, a labourer with Watson's father's food produce firm, he was invited by Preston to repair the new aeroplane at Errol during its flight testing because of his mechanical knowledge. Manson remembered the year as 1908, but owing to the aeroplane's construction date, and that its engine was not manufactured until 1910, this is not possible.
​
Within Blair and Smith's biased account of the Watson case, the authors mention that the No.2 was displayed at the Errol Games, although in what form the display took is not mentioned. What is debated within the book is which year the aeroplane appeared at the games; since their erroneous belief is that the No.2 was built in 1908, the dates July 1909 and 1910 are offered. Certainly the former can be discounted, whereas the latter is possible, but since construction of the aeroplane was only just completed in July 1910, it could only have made a static appearance in a less-than complete state. Perhaps it made an appearance at either the 1911 or 1912 Errol Games?
This very public appearance and the fact that Preston advised the local press of his intent to display the machine at Lanark in August 1910, as well as notifying of his testing of his first aeroplane locally a year earlier, illustrates that Watson was keen to publicly demonstrate his machine and his theories, which contradicts claims made by the two Alistairs in their book that he wished to keep his flying endeavours secret. Certainly the taking of and subsequent publishing of photographs showing the machine in flight at Errol in 1912 supports this.
Airborne at Errol sometime in 1912, Watson's second aeroplane after modifications had been made to its tail surfaces, originally of boxkite configuration like on his first aeroplane. First published in Flight magazine in 1914, this image was taken two years after its first flight, which took place in August 1910. No images of the aeroplane in flight in its original configuration have been found. via Philip Jarrett.
At the time the No.2 was photographed at Errol, it was sporting a new tailplane of simpler design, comprising a single elevator with small triangular fillets in between the fuselage attachment struts acting as a side area component. Although of poor quality, the pictures show the wing rocking feature in action, there being little lateral movement by the aircraft. To date, these are the earliest images that have been unearthed of one of Watson's aeroplanes in flight.
The photographs, one of which appears above have since been misquoted by James as having been taken in 1908, but again, for the reasons stated above, this is incorrect. On being advised of the No.2's engine's year of manufacture by Charles Gibbs-Smith, James promptly changed his story.
​
What eventually became of the No.2, the machine in which Watson was able to properly take flight and practically demonstrate the rocking wing concept, is not known, but by 1913, the year in which he completed his third and last aeroplane, his need for it had diminished. Within the National Archive at Kew, Richmond is a folder of correspondence between members of the Royal Flying Corps and the War Office, which records that Watson had written to Maj William Sefton Brancker, of the General Staff for the Director of Military Training with the intent of demonstrating an aeroplane for the military. In the folder is a letter written by Captain F.St.G. Tucker of No.2 Squadron, Royal Flying Corps at Montrose aerodrome, Angus, to the Officer Commanding of that unit, Major C.J. Burke, advising that during a visit to Watson's premises on 10 October;
​
"Mr Watson also showed me an old machine he had built and which he wants to present to the squadron. This machine was also the same as the drawings you had in your possession, but very roughly put together. With the machine he would present a 30 hp Humber engine."
​
It is not known whether or not the squadron received the No.2; it is certainly absent from lists of the units aeroplanes at the time.
Now, read about Watson's last aeroplane: