2008: NOT THE CENTENARY |
|
|
Following the publication of my book Trials,
Troubles and Triplanes by Ad Hoc Publications in 2007, Eric Verdon-Roe, a
grandson of Alliott Verdon-Roe, published on his website in December 2007 a
lengthy attempt to discredit my research and conclusions regarding Roe's
attempts to make a powered flight in his biplane at Brooklands in June/July
1908. He also sought to prove that at least part of a crucial letter written
by Roe to Major B. F. S Baden-Powell of the Aeronautical Society of Great
Britain on 16 July 1908 was actually written earlier. By so doing he
apparently hoped to show that A. V. Roe had additional time at Brooklands in
which to conduct further trials, during which the alleged 'hops' might have
been made. PHILIP JARRETT |
CLAIM In his book Trials, Trouble and Triplanes Philip Jarrett presents a theory that A. V. Roe never left the ground in his Antoinette powered biplane in June 1908. The central piece of evidence used to argue the case is a recently re-discovered private letter A. V. Roe wrote to Major Baden-Powell (of ‘Boy Scout’ fame) that is in the possession of the Royal Aeronautical Society. Author’s response First of all, I do not ‘present a theory that A. V. Roe never left the ground in his Antoinette powered biplane in June 1908’. I present a conclusion based on the contemporary factual evidence that emerged as a result of my research. Roe’s letter was not written to ‘Major Baden-Powell (of “Boy Scout” fame)’. It was written to Major B. F. S. Baden-Powell of the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain (later the Royal Aeronautical Society). He was the brother of the Chief Scout—a careless factual error on Eric Verdon-Roe’s part. CLAIM The author points out that in the letter Alliott claims only to have ‘nearly left the ground’ and, being dated 16th July, 1908, the day before his forced eviction from Brooklands, he concludes that this is proof that A. V. Roe had not achieved the hops or short flights that he claimed, or that a number of spectators also later claimed to have witnessed. Author’s response My conclusion is that the letter is proof (but not the only proof) that A. V. Roe had not achieved the hops that he later claimed, and that a few spectators later claimed to have witnessed. But the letter should not be regarded in isolation from the other letters by A. V. Roe that support its content and context. CLAIM Before such a definitive conclusion is drawn from one letter, which runs contrary to substantial evidence, it is worth studying the text in more detail. Indeed, closer inspection reveals a number of discrepancies which have been overlooked. Author’s response This statement is misleading. The evidence appears in more than one letter, as I demonstrate in my book, and shall again demonstrate here. The only ‘substantial evidence’ to which it ‘runs contrary’ is insubstantial, belated, and often long after the events in question. It is not ‘evidence’ contemporary with events; in fact there is no such evidence. The overlooked discrepancies alleged by Eric Verdon-Roe are figments, as I shall demonstrate. |
|
|
CLAIM Part way through the letter A. V. Roe states that: ‘Mr Rodakowski tells me he regrets he requires the ground that my shed now occupies for the next race meeting, & consequently desires I have my aeroplane and shed removed by July 25th’. As we know he left Brooklands on the 17th July, he would have known that he was being evicted the next day if the letter were written on 16th July. The letter must have been written earlier. Author’s response This quotation, in which A. V. Roe employs the present tense, is used in an effort to prove that the event he describes (i.e., Rodakowski telling AVR he requires the ground occupied by the shed) must be contemporaneous with the letter. As I have pointed out previously to Eric Verdon-Roe, this is not necessarily so. It is not at all unusual for people using reported speech to put it (‘wrongly’) into the present tense; for example, ‘So he tells me I am a fool, but I disagree, and we come to blows.’ Moreover, there are other examples of A, V. Roe getting his tenses wrong. In fact in his very next letter to Baden-Powell, dated 11 August 1908, he does it no fewer than three times in his first two sentences (see page 47 of Trials, Troubles and Triplanes). This is reported speech, using the ‘wrong’ tense, of a past event. CLAIM Following his original notice to quit on the 25th July, Alliott found himself under further pressure from the track manager. In his book Jarrett refers to correspondence from A. V. Roe published in The Autocar, dated 29th August, 1909. Here, A. V. Roe gives an account of an argument he had with Rodakowski (the track manager) over the damage caused to his aeroplane by Rodakowski’s men when lifting it over railings in order to clear the paddock. A. V. Roe describes how Rodakowski ‘insisted that my aeroplane should be removed in half an hour’s time’, an argument ensued ‘and consequently on July 4th I had a fortnight’s notice to remove my shed and aeroplane’. Thus, from that date onwards, Alliott knew he was going to be evicted earlier. This can only mean that this part of the letter at least must have been written in early July 1908 before he knew of his earliereviction. Author’s response My previous argument/evidence relating to the misuse of tenses effectively negates this whole paragraph, though there are other important aspects to the content of A.V. Roe’s letter to The Autocar that Eric Verdon-Roe has either missed or deliberately omitted. These will be brought to bear at a later date. |
|
CLAIM Further proof that the letter was written earlier appears in the next two paragraphs, where Alliott says: ‘Last week I started a working partner, until then I was working alone . . .’ This would indicate (using Saturday July 4th as a starting point) that Alliott’s partner started work with him in late June. This is consistent with other statements made by Alliott regarding the hiring of an assistant in late June. If the letter had been written on the 16th July his partner would have started work on the 9th July. It would, of course be illogical for him to have hired someone only a week before he knew he was to be evicted. Author’s response The statement regarding the working partner is unsubstantiated theory. It does not necessarily follow that that he would not take on a partner simply because he was going to leave Brooklands. He could simply have moved to another site (as he did three times with his triplanes) and resumed his trials. Significantly, he does not do so, but abandons his biplane completely. I wonder why? I think that question is adequately answered in my book. This does not prove that some of the letter was written earlier. CLAIM So, why was the letter dated 16th July? I recently visited the Royal Aeronautical Society library and carefully viewed the original letter. Close inspection clearly shows that the hand-written date on the letter has been changed, probably by Alliott himself. Author’s response It is very misleading of Eric Verdon-Roe to state categorically that the date on the letter has been ‘changed’. As I have said before, it is by no means certain that the date has been ‘changed’, and he has no grounds whatsoever for asserting that it was ‘almost certainly’ changed from an earlier one. The ‘6’ has been overwritten, but it is not evident that it has been ‘changed’. CLAIM I subsequently asked a forensic expert, Malcolm Watson of Control Risks Network Forensics, to inspect the letter. After two visits to the Royal Aeronautical Society, he states ‘I found that the “1” comprised a double stroke in an ink which was different and bluer in colour than the ink of the main body of the text of the document. The “6” had been overwritten in an ink similar in colour to that of the “1”. There was an underlying number, which also appeared to have been a “6”. From the results of my examination, I am of the opinion that, whilst I cannot be certain, my findings suggest that the original date had been the 6th July 1908 with the “1” having been added and the 6th having been overwritten in a different ink.[‘] Author’s response First, regarding Malcolm Watson’s examination of the letter, Eric Verdon-Roe has again got his facts wrong. Mr Watson did not make ‘two visits to the Royal Aeronautical Society’. Brian Riddle, the Society’s librarian, will confirm that on the first occasion that Mr Watson inspected the letter (in September 2007) it was taken to a laboratory by Mr Riddle, who waited while the examination was carried out and then returned it to the library. Only the second examination (in November 2007) took place at the Society. This leads to other intriguing questions. Did Mr Watson’s first report somehow fail to satisfy Mr Verdon-Roe? And, as a consequence, was Mr Watson therefore requested to re-examine the letter in the hope that he might revise his conclusions? Whatever the case, I find Mr Watson’s measured conclusions most agreeable. They are, as I found in my own analysis, inconclusive. The underlying numeral ‘appeared to have been a “6”.’ He is of the opinion, whilst he ‘cannot be certain’, that his findings ‘suggest’ that the original date had been 6 July 1908, the ‘1’ having been added and the ‘6’ overwritten in a ‘different ink’. He could hardly be less conclusive! There is evidently much doubt and uncertainty in Mr Watson’s words. However, something far more relevant has been completely omitted. If that ‘6’ was initially written in a different ink and some of the earlier paragraphs had been written at that time (on July 6), why are those paragraphs not written in the ‘different ink’ as well? Furthermore, Eric Verdon-Roe’s motives must be understood. His sole aim is to try to prove that A. V. Roe wrote at least some of this letter to Baden-Powell at an earlier date than the 16 July, in order to make it possible that there were further trials subsequent to the six mentioned, before AVR had to leave Brooklands (on July 17). He believes this would allow him to promote the claim that his grandfather achieved hops, despite the fact that there is a good quantity of additional evidence to refute this. If he cannot prove, conclusively, that part of the letter was written earlier than 16 July, he has to admit that, in his grandfather’s own words, written at the time, A.V. Roe ‘nearly left the ground’, i.e. failed to make a powered take-off. I will later present further evidence, again based on AVR’s own words, that there were no further trials, but in his efforts to antedate at least some of the letter Eric Verdon-Roe has been carelessly or deliberately presumptuous and chosen to ignore another and rather more logical and realistic possibility regarding the allegedly ‘changed’ date. Eric Verdon-Roe has presumed that, when AVR picked up his pen and wrote that first numeral on a fresh sheet of headed paper, he was about to write to Baden-Powell. That, of course, is a totally unfounded and misleading assumption. AVR could have been about to write to anybody. We don’t know who it might have been; only that, after writing a single numeral he evidently changed his mind (or was distracted) and wrote no more. There is certainly nothing to suggest that his intended correspondent at that time was Baden-Powell. |
|
CLAIM The fundamental argument put forward by Jarrett depends on this letter having been written exactly at the time A. V. Roe was leaving Brooklands, thus allowing him no further opportunities to experiment with his new aircraft. The evidence indicates that the letter was written over an extended period and was re-dated only when it was finally finished. If it was started in early July, during the earlier stages of his trials with the Antoinette engine, and finished, re-dated and hurriedly posted as he was packing up his belongings the day before he left Brooklands, it creates a very different context to A. V. Roe’s statement that ‘next time out should see something interesting.’ This in itself would be a strange point to make if he knew on the 16th July that there would be no ‘next time out’. Contrary to Jarrett’s conclusion, he had over ten days of flying trials still ahead of him when the letter was written. This new evidence gives us cause to question other parts of Jarrett’s argument. Author’s response My response to Eric Verdon-Roe’s previous paragraph negates the arguments in this one. My evidence stands, and Eric Verdon-Roe’s assertion that ‘the evidence indicates that the letter was written over an extended period and was re-dated only when it was finally finished’ (a curious notion, but the only tenuously plausible argument available to him) is unsound and completely unproven. There is nothing curious about A. V. Roe saying ‘the next time out should see something interesting’, even if he was about to leave Brooklands. As I have stated before, the ‘next time out’ did not have to have been at Brooklands. Of course there could be a ‘next time out’—but at another location. The contention that AVR ‘had over ten days of flying trials still ahead of him when [part of?] the letter was written’ (assuming for the sake of argument, that Eric Verdon-Roe’s dating of the letter is sound, which it is not) does not help his case at all. As will be seen, there are other testimonies by AVR himself, made well after he had left Brooklands, in which he clearly states that he had managed only six trials after installing the 24hp Antoinette and before he left Brooklands. So there were no more than six trials with the Antoinette installed. There is no ‘new evidence’ to give cause to question my arguments, only erroneous assertions based on a complete failure to comprehend the real evidence.
|
|
CLAIM Firstly, why should Alliott disclose his exact flying status at that time, in case it became known to his rivals? The first three paragraphs of his letter are written in a very considered way, and in a format which Alliott probably standardised in his numerous letters in the May–July period 1908 to other possible investors or directors. The principal object of the letter was to ask Baden-Powell to be associated with Alliott’s proposed company, and to become a Director. He had previously written to Baden-Powell explaining that he was not prepared to discuss details of his flying models with him because he was a rival aeronautical pioneer. It would therefore not be surprising if he did not reveal all the evidence of his recent flight trials, given Alliott’s aspiration to be first to win the £1000 Daily Graphic prize for flying a mile. Author’s response Roe made no attempts to conceal either the details of his biplane or his trials of it. The latter were conducted on a site accessible to the public, and he frequently wrote to the press and in private correspondence about his work from 1906 onwards. The statement that the ‘first three paragraphs of his letter are written in a very considered way’ really is Eric Verdon-Roe’s personal opinion, and is actually quite meaningless. Other evidence (yet to be revealed) shows that there was nothing to stop people witnessing his trials, and had anything such as hops and flights under power alone been achieved, the press would soon have known of it. CLAIM Secondly, let us now turn to the exact description of his trials. A. V. Roe makes two clear statements: ‘I only received the 18–24hp Antoinette engine two months ago after many delays . . .’ followed by: ‘I have made several towing flights rising six feet or so towed by motorcars, and have nearly left the ground with present engine & next time out should see something interesting’. We can see he is grappling with several thoughts at once and that the reference to towed flights refers to his earlier engine—hence his use of the word[s] ‘present engine’ to distinguish it from the previous engine. This distinction is what he always maintained in later debates. Author’s response When Eric Verdon-Roe quotes A. V. Roe as saying: ‘“I only received the 18—24hp Antoinette engine two months ago after many delays . . .’ followed by ‘I have made several towing flights rising six feet or so towed by motorcars, and have nearly left the ground with present engine & next time out should see something interesting”’, he deliberately omits some very relevant passages that make it perfectly clear that AVR is not ‘grappling with several thoughts at once and that the reference to towed flights refers to his earlier engine’. The full quote reads: ‘I only received the 18–24 HP Antoinette engine two months ago after many delays, and have had six trials, the propellers have caused me trouble giving way at or near the boss, but now I have got over that difficulty and machine is already [sic] for a flight, as soon as the weather is suitable. I have been working night and day since receiving engine. I have made several towing [towed] flights rising six feet or so towed by motor cars, and have nearly left the ground with present engine & next time out should see something interesting.’ It is perfectly clear that AVR is talking about what he has done since installing the Antoinette. Moreover, the fact that he managed only six trials between installing the engine at the end of May and leaving Brooklands on 17 July is repeated no fewer than four times during August and September 1908 by A. V. Roe himself, and there is no ambiguity in these statements. I quote: Letter to Wilbur Wright, 14 August 1908: ‘. . . in all I managed to get six trials since receiving the 18–24 h.p. Antoinette engine last May, and was fast making progress, when I had to leave in July, his [Rodakowski’s] excuse being they wanted the ground my shed stood upon, I already having had to move my shed only last March at my own expense, as he would not let me erect it in the first place in a position where it could remain when racing started. ‘I managed to make several flights towed by a motor car, the power required being very slight. At present my machine is detached & stowed away in the coach house here.’ Letter in The Autocar of 29 August 1908: ‘The 18–24 h.p. Antoinette engine arrived last May, and by the end of the month I had fitted it ready for trial . . . I managed under great difficulties to get six trials, and was making rapid progress since receiving the 18–24 h.p. engine, and up to July 17th, on which day I left.’ Letter in Motor of 1 September 1908: ‘The 18–24 h.p. engine arrived last May, and, by the end of the month, I had it fitted in ready for trial. . . . I managed, under great difficulties, to get six trials, and was making rapid progress since receiving the 18–24 h.p. engine, and up to July 17th, on which day I left.’ Letter (dated 8 September) in The Automotor Journal of 12 September 1908: ‘I managed to borrow an 18–24 h.p. Antoinette until the end of July, in order to try for the Graphic £1,000, but this unfortunately required several alterations and did not arrive until May; by the end of the month I had fitted it in ready for trial, but here fresh difficulties arose … However, I managed under great difficulties to get six trials, and was making rapid progress and have gathered knowledge which I hope will prove valuable in the near future.’ It should be noted that the details in all of the four letters quoted above—two of which are quoted in full in my book—agree exactly with the statement in A. V. Roe’s letter of 16 July, and also make it patently clear that the ‘six trials’ took place after the Antoinette was installed. As they were all written several weeks after AVR’s departure from Brooklands, and the number of trials cited by AVR has not increased, they prove that the relevant paragraph in the July 16 letter (the fourth paragraph on page 1) must have been written very shortly before AVR left Brooklands. Had he made additional trials since writing that paragraph, the total number of trials cited in the later letters would have been greater. Moreover, as the statement that he has ‘nearly left the ground with present engine’ appears in the same paragraph, there can also be no doubt that this also relates to the period immediately preceding his departure. The foregoing shows that Eric Verdon-Roe’s perceived ambiguity is simply non-existent, and completely disproves his assertion that A. V. Roe’s reference to six trials in his 16 July letter to Baden-Powell refers to his earlier tests with and without the 6hp engine (i.e., before the end of May). Furthermore, these statements made by A. V. Roe in 1908 expose the absurdity of his grandson’s arguments of almost a century later. If AVR had indeed had the benefit of the additional ten days conjured up by Eric Verdon-Roe, then, according to his grandfather’s own statements, he could have made no further trials at all in that additional period, because the total number of trials did not increase. Thus Eric Verdon-Roe’s contentions are conclusively proved wrong not by me, but by the period testimony of his own grandfather, who died half a century ago. |
|
CLAIM The proper interpretation of these statements is therefore that he reported that he had failed to take to the air with the underpowered JAP engine and had therefore resorted to towed flight trials to gain experience while awaiting the more powerful Antoinette engine. Once the new engine arrived he embarked on flight trials, which were encouraging (achieving short hops), and by early July he was very hopeful of ‘seeing something interesting’—namely flying a mile. Author’s response What Eric Verdon-Roe claims to be a ‘proper interpretation’ is in fact a complete misinterpretation of the testimony written by his grandfather. His statement ‘Once the new engine arrived he embarked on flight trials, which were encouraging (achieving short hops), and by early July he was very hopeful of “seeing something interesting”—namely flying a mile’ is utterly incorrect. If anyone believes that A. V. Roe was remotely near to ‘flying a mile’ they are seriously deluded. It is of course Eric Verdon-Roe’s interpretation that ‘seeing something interesting’ meant ‘flying a mile’; it was not AVR’s! CLAIM All of the above puts this letter in a very different context to that presented by Philip Jarrett, who puts forward his belief, that on fitting the Antoinette engine Alliott resumed towed flights. He claims that all the witnesses must have seen these mooted towed flights, failing to note the car, drivers and tow line that would have been clearly visible on an otherwise deserted Brooklands track. This†is essential to make the argument hold up in the face of so many witnesses who said they saw his aeroplane in the air, yet it ignores the specific statements by A. V. Roe that he never conducted towed flights with the Antoinette engine. It also goes against common sense that with a new, long awaited and more powerful engine and with time running out that [sic] A. V. Roe would do anything other than do what all other pioneers did. Of course he would have tried to fly, which is exactly what A. V. Roe always said he did. Author’s response On the contrary, and to paraphrase Eric Verdon-Roe, all of the foregoing puts Eric Verdon-Roe’s contentions in a very different context to that which he presents, in which he puts forward his belief that A.V. Roe left the ground in his first powered aeroplane in June/July 1908.Unfortunately, he presents only unsound and fallacious arguments to support his case. ‘All the witnesses’ to whom Eric Verdon-Roe refers made their testimonies long after the events in question. Nowhere do I contend that they ‘failed to note the car, drivers and tow line that would have been clearly visible on an otherwise deserted Brooklands track’—another fallacious assertion. What I actually say is that, over four years after the events in question, those witnesses, whose testimonies are very weak at best, had confused recollections of what they saw at different times. Other, contradictory, statements, published much closer to the events, will be revealed in due course. Eric Verdon-Roe’s assertion that A. V. Roe made specific statements ‘that he never conducted towed flights with the Antoinette engine’ is completely contradicted in AVR’s letter to Wilbur Wright of 14 August 1908 (see above). I challenge Eric Verdon-Roe to find any evidence from the period in question that Roe denied making such towed flights after fitting the Antoinette. CLAIM The issue between us is simply whether air ever appeared under the rear wheels of Alliott's Biplane as he conducted his flight trials in summer 1908. Certainly, Jarrett accepts that he often had his front wheels in the air. It is unlikely that we will ever know whether A. V. Roe’s first ‘hops’ in the summer of 1908 were long enough to qualify as ‘flight’ according to its definition as it has evolved over time. As we have seen, however, the key piece of evidence that Jarrett uses to try to prove he did not fly is far from conclusive proof. Quite the contrary, it largely supports what A. V. Roe maintained at the time and for the rest of his life. Author’s response Eric Verdon-Roe says: ‘Certainly, Jarrett accepts that he often had his front wheels in the air.’ Please do not put words into my mouth, Eric. I have never accepted that AVR ‘often had his front wheels in the air’. Many years ago I believed it was possible that that the front wheels might have lifted when AVR abruptly applied coarse positive incidence to the forward steering plane, but my more recent investigations led me to wonder whether even that was possible. Moreover, even if the front wheels did lift off, that was very far from hopping off the ground. My proof is far more conclusive than the ‘conclusive evidence’ presented by Eric Verdon-Roe, all of which is fallacious and grossly misleading. The assertion that A. V. Roe ‘maintained at the time’ that he had hopped or flown is completely unfounded. No such period statements by AVR exist. |
|
CLAIM Why did A.V.Roe and his supporters not publicly make claims to have flown in June 1908 till 1909? Surely, if he had flown, he would have claimed to have flown? Hence the evidence of a lack of any claim must be proof that he did not fly. The answer is very simple and entirely consistent with what A. V. Roe always claimed. He was an acutely modest man and would go to any lengths to avoid having his integrity questioned. After his flight trials in June he was convinced he had no witnesses and therefore made no claims that could cause him discomfort or pain if challenged. His eviction removed him from the Brooklands community and it was only after his flights on Hackney Marshes and Hendon that he returned to Brooklands in 1910, following the departure of Rodakowski. It was then that he realized, while talking to the growing aviation community at the circuit, that, contrary to his earlier belief, there were indeed witnesses to his flight trials. Clearly, with witnesses prepared to come forward, he was now in a position to state what he had always known: that he had indeed made short flights or hops in the summer of 1908. Sorry Philip, no complicated plots by generations of propaganda experts. Just a pioneer being cautious not to claim anything he couldn’t prove so as to avoid controversy. How ironic. Author’s response I always find the hackneyed and frequently advanced ‘modesty’ argument mildly amusing. I can believe that, in later years and among family and close friends, A. V. Roe was ‘modest’ about his achievements, but the evidence of his writings and letters in the early days shows quite plainly that he was never loath to promote himself and his accomplishments at that time. The sad little tale of his fear of ‘discomfort or pain’ really does not ring true, and is an emotional way of begging the question. The evidence shows that it was Humphrey Verdon-Roe, not AVR, who initially advanced and promoted claims for hops or flights in 1908. It is tempting to follow Eric Verdon-Roe’s lead and adopt a patronising tone, but I do not need to do so. If I owe any sort of apology, it is simply to say that I am sorry if I failed to make myself clearer in the book and in our previous exchanges. I hope that I have done so this time. CLAIM What is clear is that these flying trials, whether defined as flights or hops, were the first vital steps that led to A. V. Roe’s wealth of aeronautical achievements as they evolved in 1909, when he became the first Englishman to fly an all British aeroplane in Great Britain, followed by the founding of A. V. Roe Ltd in 1910 and all that followed in the years thereafter. Author’s response Nobody disputes Alliott Verdon Roe’s great achievements in becoming the first Englishman to fly an all-British aeroplane in 1909 and founding one of the world’s great aircraft companies. However, in alleging that his grandfather flew at Brooklands in 1908, despite much contemporary evidence to the contrary, I fear that Eric is deluding himself, and trying to delude others. In this respect he has proved nothing other than his own inability to marshal evidence, present cogent and valid arguments and prove something that did not actually happen in the way he would like to believe it had. He has mustered an impressive collection of unsubstantiated assumptions, fallacious arguments, slipshod logic and misleading conclusions to support his case. They do not work for him, but they serve my cause well. For that I thank him. P.S. In his December 2007 Newsletter, issued at the same time as his comments on my book, Eric Verdon-Roe states: ‘So, back to Philip Jarrett and his new book. I attach a document which addresses the key issue he raised in detail. In summary, Philip Jarrett makes much of the fact that, in his view, Alliott could not have flown in the summer of 2008 [sic] because he did not claim to have done so at the time. Why did A. V. Roe and his supporters not publicly make claims to have flown in June 1908 until 1909? Surely, if he had flown, he would have claimed to have flown? Hence the evidence of a lack of any claim must be proof that he did not fly.’ Here, again, Eric is deliberately misleading his readers. I maintain not that A. V. Roe ‘did not claim to have flown in the summer of 2008’ but that he actually stated at the time that he had not left the ground, and that there is contemporary evidence to support this. My argument does not depend on ‘the lack of any claim’ to have flown, but on positive evidence to the contrary, much of which is provided by AVR himself. Eric Verdon-Roe has seemingly chosen to offer a distorted interpretation of the content of my book in order to advance his argument. I suggest that those wishing to determine its true content should read it for themselves. A.V. Roe’s alleged flights at Brooklands in June/July 1908The attempt to ‘reinterpret’ the crucial Roe letter Early in 2007, when my research for Trials, Troubles and Triplanes revealed that Roe’s letter to Baden-Powell of 16 July 1908 had been misquoted for decades, I realised that it might compromise the celebrations being planned to take place at Brooklands on 7 June 2008. After some heart-searching I decided that it would be unfair to go into print with my revelations without notifying the Brooklands Museum of what had been uncovered. I therefore informed Julian Temple, the General Manger, Operations, and he visited me on 13 February 2007 and saw the evidence. As a result I attended a rather hurried meeting a Brooklands on 23 March at which I presented some of my research, including a copy of the Roe letter, to Eric Verdon-Roe. Also present was Peter Clegg, whom Verdon-Roe had engaged to write a biography of A. V. Roe Subsequently Verdon-Roe and Clegg went to the Royal Aeronautical Society library and examined the original letter. Shortly thereafter Eric Verdon-Roe sent me an email in which an effort at ‘damage limitation’ was made by attempting to analyse and reinterpret A. V. Roe’s original letter. It was contended: 1. That ‘the letter was dated 16 July 1908, the day prior to Alliott removing all his aircraft and tools from Brooklands (as indicated in his letter to The Autocar dated August 29th that year). The principal object of the letter was to ask Baden-Powell to be associated with Alliott’s new “British Aviation Company” and to become a Director of it.’ 2. That ‘inspection clearly showed that the date on the letter had been changed by Alliott, almost certainly from an earlier one in July or even before that, and the letter was quite clearly re-dated only when it was finally finished’, and that ‘Reference to certain events during the course of the letter rather in the form of a running commentary also indicated that parts of it were written earlier. Variations in his hand writing style and in weights of ink also indicate that the letter was written in distinct sections.’ 3. That ‘The first part of this letter was written in a very considered way, and in a format which Alliott probably standardised in his numerous letters in the May–July period 1908 to other possible investors or Directors. Indeed he probably penned these letters during the early stages of his trials with the Antoinette engine, leaving them to be addressed and dated later, as he decided to whom to send them (and when he also had time to complete them, and post them). Certainly there is a great deal of evidence . . . that he was working night and day during this period in a race against time so as to be eligible to win the £1000 Daily Graphic prize that was on offer. While he may have “only” conducted six trials it is clear that he was continually modifying, repairing and working on modifications to both the aeroplane and its propeller.’ 4. That ‘Working backwards from the end Alliott refers to Rodakowski just telling him “he regrets he requires the ground my shed now occupies . . . and desires it to be removed by July 25th.”, and “I have been speaking to him to-day about it . . .” As Alliott stated in his letter to The Autocar on August 29th , he had been first told of having to move on July 4th, and thus this probably places the writing at the end of Alliott’s letter on July 4th or 5th (Alliott would have immediately tackled him).’ 5. That ‘A little earlier in the letter Alliott says: “Last week I started a working partner, until then I was working alone . . .” This would indicate (using Saturday July 4th as a starting point) that Alliott’s partner started work with him in the week beginning Monday June 29th or possibly Monday June 22nd.’ ‘Before taking him on Alliott states — “Fortunately some local friends have come in for the last few early morning trials.” This would cover the first three weeks or so in June, and ties in perfectly with the statements from Alliott’s witnesses, and from Alliott’s own description even earlier in this letter — “I only received the 18–24 hp Antoinette engine two months ago after many delays and have had six trials.” 6. That ‘Thus the date ultimately written on the top right-hand corner of this letter does not necessarily date the content. Had the letter been finished off after the date Alliott first heard from Rodakowski, he would not have left his hand-written Weybridge telephone number a the top left; a few days later and he would never have taken on a working partner in that situation; nor would he have stated — “. . . and next time out should see something interesting”.’ 7. Finally that ‘This lends a very different interpretation to his earlier paragraph in which after mentioning his “six trials” to date. Alliott goes on to say “. . . and have nearly left the ground with present engine . . .” You are correct that if the whole letter had been written on 16th July that this could mean that Alliott never became airborne at up to the date of his eviction from Brooklands. In fact we believe it is entirely consistent with his account of what happened at Brooklands during June and July 1908 especially in view of the reason for his writing the letter.’ This was farcical. Having accepted the misquoted contents of A. V. Roe’s letter unquestioningly for decades, Alliott’s descendants were now falling over themselves in a desperate effort to reinterpret and analyse it to show that its contents were not what they seemed. This extraordinary statement contained so many fallacious and misleading arguments and statements that I had to make a lengthy response, as follows: 1. ‘First, you state: “The principal object of the letter was to ask Baden-Powell to be associated with Alliott’s new ‘British Aviation Company’, and to become a Director of it.” ‘Well, that is wrong for a start. Nowhere in the letter is such a thing as the “British Aviation Company” mentioned. Putting it in quotation marks is misleading. What he actually states in the letter—and this is verbatim—is: “. . . I am in negotiations with others to form a Company of £100,000, to take over some land (preferably near London) for aviation experiments, to buy, build and sell (airships?) aeroplanes etc with a view of furthering the popularity and practicability of same, by holding and entering into competitions, and also with a view of making gate money, and renting buildings on sites to other experimenters outside the Company.” ‘This shows that his primary interest was in acquiring land for various uses, of which the building of aeroplanes was only one. The reason he needed land was that he was on the verge of forced eviction from Brooklands and had therefore lost his testing site. In fact he did not send B-P a rough draft of the prospectus for his “Company” until 11 August 1908 (the covering letter survives), nearly a month after his departure from Brooklands. 2. ‘You then say: “Inspection clearly shows that the date on the letter has been changed by Alliott, almost certainly from an earlier one in July or even earlier, and the letter was quite clearly re-dated only when it was finally finished. Reference to certain events during the course of the letter rather in the form of a running commentary also indicated that parts of it were written earlier. Variations in his hand writing style and in weights of ink also indicate that the letter was written in distinct sections.” ‘It is by no means certain that the date has been “changed”, and you have no grounds whatsoever for asserting that it was “almost certainly” changed from an earlier one. The “6” has been overwritten, but it is not evident that it has been “changed”. (Incidentally, to or from what could one change a “6” without it looking considerably rougher that the one on the letter?) Alternatively it might simply have not come out clearly (note the lightness of the preceding “1”) and AVR therefore replenished his pen and overwrote it. There is clearly no alteration/reworking whatsoever to the month, and simply removing the “6” would leave an inordinate gap in the date. It seems evident that AVR was using a simple nib rather than any sort of reservoir or fountain pen: the text fades at quite regular intervals as the ink runs out. (This brings back memories of my junior school days, with italic writing, ink monitors and blue fingers.) As for variations in style, I know that my own fist changes as a long letter progresses and my hand tires, or I think faster than I can write comfortably. In fact AVR’s hand deteriorates even as the first page progresses. Moreover you will have noticed that the specially printed headed paper is slightly different in texture and size to the follow-on sheet, which is not unusual. This, too, might well affect the manner in which the pen works and the ink is absorbed. 3. ‘As far as the “considered way” in which the first part of the letter is written, AVR frequently sent similar letters to several addressees, and he often reused the same or similar phrasing. This does not prove, however, that he “probably” (to quote you) wrote a batch of letters in advance for later addressing and postage. From his letters it is evident that grammar and spelling were not his strong suits, and this repetitiveness is typical of someone telling the same story over and again. ‘I do not dispute the fact that AVR was working on his biplane at every opportunity, but, regardless of that, he himself repeatedly states that, from the time the Antoinette was installed at the end of May until his departure from Brooklands on 17 July, he managed only six trials. Like virtually all pioneer aeroplanes, the machine was fragile and easily damaged (we have contemporary statements to prove that), so constant work was necessary. But that does not change the fact, as stated by AVR, that he achieved only six trials in six weeks. 4. ‘Had you read the letter properly, you would have seen that AVR does not refer to “Rodakowski just telling him ‘he regrets he requires the ground my shed now occupies’ . . .” What AVR actually writes is: “Just as everything is looking so promising Mr Rodakowski . . . tells me he regrets he requires the ground that my shed now occupies . . .”. The meaning is quite different, and not as you infer. In fact this paragraph appears on the second page, well after AVR has already stated (on the first page), “I only received the 18–24 hp Antoinette engine two months ago after many delays, and have had six trials . . .”. This is in total agreement with the letters written to Wilbur Wright and the motoring press a month and more after he had left Brooklands, so evidently nothing further was accomplished after the Baden-Powell letter was written. If he had written the first page earlier, as you suggest, he could hardly have described the status quo immediately before his departure from Brooklands, unless he had a crystal ball! The only irregularity is that AVR lapses into present tense in the paragraph on page 2, but this is not unusual when people are recounting past events and, given AVR’s standard of grammar, does not surprise me in the least. ‘Likewise, had you read The Autocar letter properly, you would have seen that, on 4 July, Rodakowski gave AVR a fortnight’s notice to leave. In his letter to B-P, AVR states that he was he initially given until the 25th, but evidently, after his confrontation with Rodakowski on the 4th, his notice was further reduced by a week. 5. ‘The foregoing negates your next argument about when he took on a “working partner”, and your “guesstimates” about his date of employment. 6. ‘Why would AVR not have left the Weybridge number at the top of his letter if he was still living in digs at Weybridge at the time of writing? (It has transpired that the number, Weybridge 113, was that of the Brooklands Automobile Racing Motor Track Club, so Roe apparently did not have his own Weybridge telephone number.) And, as he doubtless expected in his usual optimistic manner that he would soon be able to resume his work on a new site, why should he dismiss his working partner? Of course, the “next time out” did not necessarily have to be at Brooklands. 7. ‘As your “interpretation” contains highly dubious assumptions, erroneous quotes, blatant misreadings and fallacious arguments, how can I be expected to accept your principal contentions?’ As a result of the foregoing I realised that I was wasting my time trying to be considerate, and that in future I should keep the results of my continuing researches to myself until such time as I was prepared to reveal them publicly. In late September 2007 the RAeS Librarian, Brian Riddle, took the letter to a forensic expert, Mr Malcom Watson, who had been engaged by Eric Verdon-Roe to examine it (at the suggestion of Michael Oakey, editor of Aeroplane Monthly). Apparently his first report did not satisfy his client, and the expert visited the RAeS on Tuesday 6 November 2007, to re-examine it. To an outsider this suggests a determination to produce ‘evidence’ to corroborate preconceived convictions rather than an open-minded approach. It is to be hoped that both reports will be made freely available for study in due course. Mr Watson’s findings were predictably inconclusive, but in December 2007 Eric Verdon-Roe used them in an effort to refute the evidence presented in my book. His arguments and contentions, many of which were reiterations of some of those above, were easily disproved. I produced a full refutation, which I distributed early in January 2008. What really happened on 8 June 1908? Shortly after the publication of Trials, Troubles and Triplanes, consideration of hitherto overlooked factors led me to believe that further investigations into the circumstances surrounding Roe’s alleged ‘hop’ or ‘flight’ of 8 June 1908 were warranted. The only eyewitness testimony regarding Alliott Verdon Roe’s alleged ‘hops’ in his biplane at Brooklands in 1908 that actually pinpoints a date for such an occurrence is that written by W. Boxall and dated 2 June 1912, some four years after the alleged event. Boxall says: ‘This is to certify that I saw Mr A. V. Roe on his flying machine on Whit-Monday in the year 1908, rise from the ground of Brooklands Motor Course for about 25 yards (75 feet).’ This belated testimony has been accepted without question and promoted by those arguing Roe’s case. The date on which Whit Monday fell in 1908 has been determined as 8 June. Therefore the principal date advanced for this alleged hop has been 8 June 1908. However, there are major reasons to question this date. The first, as described in my book, is the known progress of modification and testing of the biplane, as described by Roe himself, which simply does not sit at all comfortably with this date. Further investigation has now revealed another, equally significant, circumstance that makes 8 June even more untenable for an alleged hop, or even for any trial at all. Roe had three letters published in the motoring press shortly after his departure from Brooklands on 17 July 1908; all similar in content, they appeared in The Autocar (29 August), Motor (1 September) and The Automotor Journal (12 September). In The Autocar Roe states: ‘It was during the end of May Mr Rodakowski regretted I should have to remove my aeroplane and shed, as they required the site for a refreshment room. I overcame this difficulty by lending my shed for a refreshment room on race days. Even this was not sufficient, as I was not allowed to leave my aeroplane in the corner of the paddock where it would have been in no one’s way; instead, it had to be lifted over some seven-foot gateposts into a field. On the first occasion it was a gusty day, and in getting down a bank the wind proved too much, the machine falling on the edge of the bank breaking some of the ribs, and further damage was caused owing to the men catching hold of the wrong parts when trying to move it. One can easily imagine how utterly disconcerting this was. I do not mind breaking my machine in a trial, but to do so under these unnecessary conditions is quite different.’ This account, written by A. V. Roe himself so soon after the events in question, can surely be accepted as reliable. So we see that, ‘during the end of May’, Roe consented to have his shed used as a refreshment room ‘on race days’, when his aeroplane had to be removed and lifted out of the paddock over seven-foot gateposts. With preparations for the day’s motoring events starting early in the day, and the need to set up Roe’s shed as a refreshment room, it is virtually certain that it would have been impossible for Roe to conduct any trials on such a day. Prior to this agreement, Roe’s biplane was in its shed in the paddock on the race day on Saturday 9 May, as H. C. Lafone recounted on page 719 of the 16 May issue of The Autocar: ‘By the way, I quite hope to see Mr A.V. Roe’s aeroplane performing under its own engine power within a very few days. The 24 h.p. Antoinette has arrived, and was being rapidly installed when I visited the big “aeroplane” shed in the paddock.’ Roe says that ‘on the first occasion’ that his aeroplane had to be removed from the paddock (i.e. the first race day after the end-of-May agreement), his aeroplane was badly damaged in the process of lifting it over the gateposts and into the field. It so happens that the first racing event after the end of May was a two-day Brooklands Automobile Racing Club meeting that took place on Saturday 6 June and Monday 8 June—Whit Monday. (There was no racing on Sundays.) This was the third event of the year at the track. Events on the 6th were the Second All Comers’ Handicap Sweepstakes, the Second Limit Stakes, the Sweepstakes for 90hp cars, the Match for £250 a Side between S. F. Edge’s 25.6hp Napier and Oscar Cüpper’s 25.6hp Metallurgique, and another Match for £250 a Side between Edge’s 40hp Napier and Cüpper’s 40hp Metallurgique. Events on the 8th were the Household Brigade Cup, the Training Plate, the Fifth 26hp Race, the President’s Cup and the Match for £250 a Side between Edge’s 90hp Napier and D’Arcy Baker’s 90hp Fiat, the last turning out to be a famous and much-debated race. Even though the races did not start until 3.00 p.m., it is impossible to conceive that Rodakowski, the Clerk of the Course, responsible for the organisation and running of such events, would permit Roe to undertake trials on such a busy day for the motoring fraternity. According to The Autocar, Monday’s events attracted ‘probably the largest attendance that has yet been present for the racing at Brooklands’, estimated by Motor at more than 15,000 spectators. Moreover, Roe himself would undoubtedly have been preoccupied with organising the removal of his precious aeroplane and clearing space in his shed to allow its use as a refreshment room (if it was not still in the field outside the paddock after being lifted there on the Saturday; see later). Roe states that the mishap to his aircraft happened on the first occasion that he was required to remove his aeroplane from the paddock on a race day, so it can only be assumed that the day in question was Saturday 6 June, when the weather was ‘fine though rather cold’ according to The Autocar, which tends to agree with Roe’s description of a ‘gusty day’. What we do not know is whether Roe’s damaged aeroplane was required to remain outside the paddock throughout Sunday and Whit Monday, or whether he returned it to its shed on Saturday evening (the building presumably having been changed back from its temporary refreshment-room function) and had to go through the whole rigmarole yet again on the Monday (when the weather was ‘much warmer’). Whatever the case, according to Roe’s account the machine would have been in need of repair on Whit Monday, and therefore hors de combat, even if Rodakowski would have let Roe conduct a trial, which seems most unlikely. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing is that, although Boxall remembered that a significant event had occurred with the biplane on the Whitsun weekend of 1908, he erroneously connected the date with a trial. The memorable event that had actually occurred (and probably on Saturday 6 June, rather than Monday 8 June) was the damaging of the machine in trying to move it out of the paddock for the day’s motor racing. The foregoing throws enormous doubt on the credibility of Boxall’s testimony, and further doubt on the acceptability of Whit Monday, 8 June 1908, as the date of an alleged trial. Incidentally, in the process of scanning the various motoring journals in connection with the above, a search for any reference to a ‘hop’ on 28 June, claimed by Humphrey Verdon Roe in 1910, yielded nothing at all in the way of confirmation. In The Autocar for 11 July 1908, on page 71, H. C. Lafone wrote: There is yet another grievance [regarding Brooklands] which I wish to ventilate. It is this: Why are not aeroplanists more encouraged at Brooklands? Granted that the track is not an aeroplane track, but a motor track; yet is it not a fact that a big “draw” is wanted, and would not the public flock down in their tens of thousands if they thought they were going to see a man fly? Of course, they would. The only man who is trying to do anything at all in this line at Brooklands has a shed for his machine in the paddock, but his tenure of this shed appears to be of the most precarious nature. Instead of receiving encouragement and assistance, he is treated as though his success on [sic—or] non-success were a matter of absolute indifference to the track authorities. To give but one instance, the width of his aeroplane wings is so great that the machine cannot be taken out into the straight through the gate, but requires to be lifted over the railings—no light undertaking. The widening of the gate would make everything easy, but apparently it is not considered worth while to make even so small an alteration as this. No one is more anxious than I am that Brooklands shall have a successful future, and it is my anxiety to see success achieved which prompts me to make these criticisms. They are put forward in no hostile spirit, but in the hope that in future those responsible for the conduct of the track may see their way to be rather more accommodating in their dealings with others, and rather less inclined to infer by their manner that they are conferring an inestimable boon upon those who have occasion to make use of the track. Once again, Lafone makes no reference to the aeroplane leaving the ground, though it would greatly have strengthened his argument had he been able to do so. The quantity of aviation news in the motoring press was such that any news of a British aviator actually taking off in a powered aeroplane, especially at a public site such as Brooklands, would undoubtedly have attracted the attention of motoring journalists. They frequently reported on the accomplishments of the Wrights and of French pioneers, but although Roe gets a fair degree of attention, and his early towed trials are mentioned, one searches in vain for any reference to a powered hop. Roe himself strengthens the evidence against the alleged 8 June ‘flight’ The correspondence pages of the 5 September 1908 issue of The Automotor Journal contain, on pages 1180–81, a letter from G. A. Simmons of Addlestone, Surrey, dated 26 August and headed ‘The Art of Flying’. It reads: ‘Sir, I was much interested in your article “The Mystery of the Wrights”. Having always kept myself informed of their progress, as far as possible, I have, in consequence, regarded their claim to have flown 241/2 miles on October 5th 1905, as being perfectly correct. ‘Although the French machines have better features than the Wrights, I still consider the latter to be well ahead of their French rivals. The French rely entirely on the vertical rudder at the rear for lateral steering, which, to my mind, is a very bad method, and proves that they have not yet attained a proper grasp of the subject. The Wright brothers, however, have obtained their wonderful lateral steering abilities by controlling the angle of the main plane tips. ‘For these reasons, I have also considered the methods of our English experimenter, Mr A.V. Roe, as being superior to the French. He in the first place carried out numerous practical experiments with model aeroplanes, by which he found the best position for propellers, planes [i.e. wings], &c., and he was from the first convinced that lateral steering should be effected by varying the angle of the tops of one or more of the horizontal surfaces. ‘It was only last May Mr Roe was fitting an 18–24-h.p. Antoinette engine into his aeroplane at Brooklands track. Later I saw him carrying out a trial; although he did not get up quite sufficient speed to rise, his efforts were exceedingly promising, and would, I think, have been crowned with success if he had time to make a few more adjustments. For I have seen his aeroplane rise into the air, with himself aboard, when towed by a car, and when in the air, he was able to adjust the height from the ground by manipulating the angle of the forward plane. ‘I now find that Mr Roe has removed his aeroplane from Brooklands track some weeks ago, and would like to know why. ‘It is to be hoped that it is not for the want of the “sinews of war” [i.e. money], and if so I trust it will not be for long. ‘He is one of the few experimenters who is working on sound and approved lines, and deserves every encouragement.’ Roe responded to this remarkably well-informed letter in the correspondence pages of the magazine’s 12 September issue (page 1213). His letter, headed ‘Mr A. V. Roe’s Flying Experiments’ and dated 8 September, reads as follows: ‘Sir, In this week’s issue I see a correspondent of yours asks why I have left the Brooklands Track. The reason was Mr Rodakowski [the Clerk of the Course] regretted they required the ground my shed stood upon, and I had a fortnight’s notice on July 4th. ‘Of course, having to move has made it exceedingly awkward for me, and I do not think it was unreasonable on my part to have expected a few more weeks’ grace, at any rate until the end of July, up to which time the Graphic prize of £1,000 for a mile flight was open, and for which I had chiefly come. Then again it will be remembered free accommodation was offered to aeroplanists at Brooklands Track, and seeing I had borne all the expenses of building a shed and also of removing and painting same, &c., to their requirements, I ought to have been entitled to further consideration. ‘Had I been allowed to remain, there was every chance of my succeeding with little further expense, whereas to move my apparatus and erect elsewhere meant seriously interfering with my slender savings. Perhaps my late experiences may be of interest to followers of the problem. I managed to borrow an 18—24-h.p. Antoinette until the end of July, in order to try for the Graphic £1,000, but this unfortunately required several alterations and did not arrive until the end of May; by the end of the month I had fitted it in ready for trial, but here fresh difficulties arose, as I was only allowed to use the track between 9 and 10 in the morning, and I was not allowed to make a section of the rails [sic] detachable, which would have saved lifting the machine over some seven-foot gate-posts—a difficult and risky task for eight men. However, I managed under great difficulties to get six trials, and was making rapid progress and have gathered knowledge which I hope will prove valuable in the near future. ‘It was during the end of May Mr Rodakowski regretted I should have to remove my aeroplane and shed, as they required the site for a refreshment room. I overcame this difficulty by lending my shed for this purpose on race days. Even this was not sufficient, as I was not allowed to leave my aeroplane in the corner of the paddock where there was ample room and it would have been in no one’s way; instead it had to be lifted over some seven-foot gate-posts into a field. On the first occasion it was a gusty day, and in getting down a bank the wind proved too much, the machine falling on the edge of the bank, breaking some of the ribs, and other damage was done by the man in trying to save it. One can easily imagine how utterly disconcerting this was; to break one’s machine in a trial can be expected, but to do so under these unnecessary conditions is quite different. ‘As Mr Rodakowski witnessed this incident, I did not expect the machine would have to go over again. Consequently on the next occasion I resented it being taken over; however, he insisted upon it, and on July 4th I had a fortnight’s notice to remove my shed and aeroplane. ‘I trust soon to be enabled to make another start under more favourable conditions, for there is no time to lose if an Englishman is to win the Daily Mail £10,000 and some of the other big prizes.’ It is noteworthy that nowhere in this long and detailed response does Roe dispute or contradict Mr Simmons’s statements regarding his towed flights, or the failure of the machine to ‘rise’ under its own power with the Antoinette installed. Had it done so he would surely have mentioned it. Further testimony suggesting that Roe had not made any sort of flight in 1908 appears in a statement on page 397 of The Motor for 20 April 1909, which reads, in part: ‘We have always regarded Mr A. V. Roe as one of the most promising of the budding aeronauts of this country, and such help as we have been able to give him has been willingly given, for we have always admired his pluck in fighting against the difficulties that constantly beset his path, and we feel certain that, had he been able to secure all the facilities that he has required, he would have flown over a year ago. … He is making good progress with his new planes, and we hope very shortly to be able to say that he has attained the first stage in the successful pursuit of a very difficult problem.’ Still further doubt as to whether Roe left the ground is raised in a description of ‘A. V. Roe’s New Triplane’ in the June 1909 issue of Aeronautics (probably written by none other than Baden-Powell, one of the magazine’s co-editors, and, as we know, a correspondent of Roe’s). The introductory paragraph reads as follows: ‘A good many years ago, when aviation, if considered at all, was still approached from a purely theoretical standpoint, Mr A.V. Roe first turned his attention to the practical side of flight. In April, 1907, one of his models won the highest prize awarded in the Model Competition at the Alexandra Palace; during that year, too, he built his first man-carrying aeroplane. This was housed on Brooklands Motor Track, where several trials took place. Owing, however, to insufficient motive power, no actual flights were made, though several interesting trials were carried out, the machine being towed round the track by a motor car, rising off the ground and being controlled by the operator on board. When these experiments came to a premature end Mr Roe resolved to remodel his machine on the lines suggested to him by this course of practical experience.’ Again, Roe did not write in to dispute any
of this, though he usually did so if he disagreed with statements in the
press regarding his work. The only part of the letter that is not quite
correct is the last sentence, which fails to acknowledge the effect of Roe’s
examination of the Wright Model A in
Here we have three independent statements, undisputed by A. V. Roe, that the biplane did not fly under its own power, all in print, and all much closer to the events in question than any of the belated witness statements. Incidentally, it has also been pointed out to me that in the process of conducting the six trials with the Antoinette-engined machine, at least eight men actually participated in getting the aircraft out of its shed and on to the track, and then back into its shed, on each occasion. They most probably watched the trials, and had no reason to be ‘modest’, so it seems very strange that at least one or two of them did not brag about seeing the aircraft leave the ground. Such news would have been quite sensational at that time. It seems equally odd that none of them could apparently be found by Alliott or Humphrey only a few years later to act as bona fide witnesses.
|
