The action brought by Partridge was eventually settled out of court by making a payment to him of £25. As Hurren comments in Fellowship of the Air, ‘It was the easy way out, as undoubtedly McClean had been flying low; but the case aroused great interest among aviators (who could never believe that they were not popular with earthbound people who regarded the flying machine as an abomination).’
While S.36 was under repair McClean apparently did little or no flying at Eastchurch, but on 9 July at Harty Ferry S.40 was fitted with the 50hp propeller from S.32, and from 16 to 22 July it was fitted with 8ft upper wing extensions with ‘flaps’ (single-acting ailerons), which suggests that a little extra lift was needed.
On 21 July McClean was back in the air at Eastchurch in S.36, now fitted with new wings since its ‘Eastbourne wettings’. He then took up Mr Marshall as a passenger.
Yet another new Short machine made its first appearance at Eastchurch on the evening of Tuesday 23 July. This was the S.47, described as a ‘new naval triple twin Short tractor’. Ordered by the Admiralty on 25 March as a ‘Triple Tractor Biplane’,, it was powered by two 50hp Gnomes mounted in tandem, the front one driving a direct-coupled propeller and the rearwards-facing rear engine driving wing-mounted counter-rotating tractor propellers through Wright-type chains and sprockets. It was fitted with double-acting ailerons that worked both above and below the 48ft-span wings, which was said to have made the lateral control far more sensitive. This indicates that the aircraft had already made its maiden flight, probably with McClean at the helm, though Shorts’ order book gives the ‘Date Completed’ as 24 July. On the 24th McClean flew the S.47 on its one-hour test with Lieutenant Malone as passenger, successfully completing the test despite having to fly the last 15 minutes in a thunderstorm. Malone flew it himself on the 25th, handling it ‘very well’. It had a tendency to generate heat beneath its 16ft-long metal engine cowling, and was consequently nicknamed ‘Field Kitchen’. Malone frequently piloted the S.47 at Eastchurch on subsequent occasions, his handling of the aircraft being described as ‘excellent’. It was given the naval identity T4.
The Shorts works and Royal Aero Club sheds at Eastchurch, photographed by Dr WJ S Lockyer from Frank McClean’s 70hp Short tractor biplane on 27 July 1912. (AUTHOR)
At Eastchurch parish church on Friday 26 July McClean was present for the unveiling of a memorial window to the late Hon. Charles Rolls and Mr Cecil Grace by the Archbishop of Canterbury. McClean flew S.36 again that evening and in the evening of the following day. On Sunday the 28th he had planned ‘some hydro work’ with S.40, but a strong wind all day ruled out any flying.
Up the Thames and under the bridges
On Friday 26 July Lieutenant de Vaisseau de Conneau (alias ‘André Beaumont’) of the French Navy who was also managing director of the Donnet-Lévèque company set off from Juvisy in one of the company’s single-engine biplane flying boats, intending to fly from Paris to London. He followed the Seine to Berons, where he alighted after covering thirty-six miles. His plan was to continue along the river to Havre, cross the Channel, go round the English coast and up the Thames to Westminster. Unfortunately bad weather intervened and forced him to bide his time, but he was able to resume his flight on 9 August, setting course along the Seine for Havre. After alighting briefly at Quillebouef for replenishment, Conneau continued to Havre, where he alighted in front of the casino. The aircraft was slightly damaged when it collided with the shore, but he was able to make a non-stop run to Boulogne after lunch. There, enthusiastic but overzealous fishermen damaged a float in their efforts to assist, halting progress for that day. After overnight repairs Conneau took off on the afternoon of the 10th for the cross-Channel flight, but the aircraft was considerably buffeted by the wind and he quickly had to put the flying boat back on to the very choppy water. Suddenly a very strong squall caught the aeroplane, and it was overturned. Conneau swam clear and oversaw the towing of the wreck back to the shore. It was intended to make another attempt to fly to London once the aircraft was repaired.
In England, the Daily Mail newspaper had loudly proclaimed Conneau’s anticipated arrival, saying he would become the first aviator to fly up the course of the Thames through the City of London, and that a reception at Carmelite House, the newspaper’s head office, had been arranged. Lord Northcliffe, the newspaper’s owner, had obtained special permission for the flight, and on the 10th reporters and photographers were strategically positioned to record the event, unaware of the happenings across the Channel.
McClean later recalled: ‘This roused the fighting spirit at Eastchurch, and the night before [Conneau] was due to arrive, my cottage was invaded by all and sundry, demanding that I, being the possessor of a machine with floats (prehistorically known as a Hydro-Aeroplane), should start not later than 8 o’clock next morning, and so get there first.’
The apparent spontaneity of the subsequent event is open to question, as The Sphere, which now seemed to regard McClean and his aeroplane as its own, and even described his adventure as ‘The Sphere flight’,, stated in its issue for 17 August 1912:
After the completion of The Sphere marine aviation experiments in the English Channel the attention of this journal has been turned more particularly to the development of the hydro-aeroplane. It is felt that in view of our insular position as a nation the hydro-aeroplane must rapidly assert its pre-eminence over the flying machine pure and simple. The length of our coast-line seems to point inevitably to increasing uses for the hydro-aeroplane with its combined usefulness on sea and land.
With this leading idea in view The Sphere has been organising, in collaboration with Mr E.K. McClean of the Eastchurch Aviation Ground, a number of experiments by which the present state of the hydro-aeroplane’s efficiency can be demonstrated to the general public. A flight up the Thames to London was projected in the belief that by this means thousands who had never seen a hydro-aeroplane would witness its wonderful capacities.
After considering all the widths of the river bridges the aviator came to the conclusion that the flight was possible. Then M ‘Beaumont,’ the well-known French aviator, announced his intention of flying up the Thames. Bad luck, however, prevented the accomplishment of his journey and the laurels fell to Mr McClean, who successfully reached London on Saturday morning.
The overturning of Lt de Vaisseau de Conneau’s Donnet-Lévèque flying boat in a squall prevented him from making his heralded flight up the Thames on August 10 1912, and McClean took the opportunity to upstage the Frenchman. (AUTHOR)
The Sphere’s account of the flight reads as follows:
… Mr EK. McClean left the Royal Aero Club ground on the Isle of Sheppey at 6.30am on Saturday morning. At first there was a short journey across land; then the aviator began travelling up the waters of the Thames. In the initial stage the height maintained was about 400ft, but this varied according to circumstance, and when some thick, murky air was encountered the hydroaeroplane dropped to 50ft. The course of the river was followed throughout; no corners were cut off at the bends as the flight was to be a strictly river one. The machine which Mr McClean selected for the journey was a large Short biplane fitted with two hydroplane floats shaped so as to act in the same way as the body of a hydroplane boat. The machine was 62ft broad from wing-tip to wing-tip and stood from 13ft to 14ft above the water. This great width gave the hydro-aeroplane splendid lifting capacity, but at the same time it increased the difficulties of negotiating the arches of the river bridges. The machine, however, is an extremely steady one, and Mr McClean was able to fly straight and sure through the Tower Bridge; that is, the space enclosed between the upper footways and the roadway bascules. From this point he saw that all was well for passing beneath the other bridges. The machine dropped gracefully towards the water and skimmed through the succession of bridges…, just touching the water at one or two points. The bridges and the Embankment were lined with enthusiastic crowds waiting to see M Beaumont, and great cheers arose when Mr McClean drew up off Westminste
r Pier and threw out his anchor, which gripped the bottom of the river.
McClean’s flight up the Thames to the Houses of Parliament in S.40 on 10 August 1912, passing between the footbridge and road spans of Tower Bridge, as seen here, and under several other bridges, made national headlines. (AUTHOR)
The journey was over. London had been reached, and throughout the remainder of Saturday and part of Sunday morning throngs of people gazed their full on the white-winged water-skimmer which for the first time rested under the shadow of the Clock Tower. On Sunday Mr McClean started on the return journey to Eastchurch. He did not attempt to rise from the water till all the bridges had been passed.… More crowds were out to see the white-winged apparition as it floated past barge, wharf and steamer.… Gaining Shadwell Reach the aviator turned in order to rise from the water with the advantage of the wind, which was then blowing downstream. Rising easily from the surface the machine turned in the air to resume its homeward course, but unfortunately a side-blast of air deflected against the machine by some tall buildings tilted it in such a way that the right-hand float struck the water too smartly. No barge or other object was struck, and the damage done to the machine was very slight, but unfortunately it prevented the completion of the homeward journey by river. The wings were unshipped and the biplane returned to its hangar by train.
This spread from the 17 August 1912 issue of The Sphere charts McClean’s Thames flight. Note the illustration at bottom left, showing the aircraft after suffering damage in the attempt to take off after taxying back down to Shadwell Basin. (AUTHOR)
Another imposing spread from the 17 August 1912 issue of The Sphere follows McClean’s progress through London along the Thames. It will be noticed that he actually taxied, rather than flew, beneath some of the bridges. (AUTHOR)
Flight’s account of the event included a rather weak attempt to offer an excuse for McClean’s flight:
Although London was deprived… of the sight of M. Beaumont piloting his hydroaeroplane up the Thames, the visit of Mr F.K. McClean more than compensated for the loss. Remembering an appointment in town on Saturday morning, Mr McClean thought it would be a good idea to come up on his Short machine [S.40], and so at 6am he had it brought out of its shed at Harty Ferry, in the Isle of Sheppey, and after seeing everything in order he started off. Following the coast round Leysdown, Warden Point to Sheerness, he continued over the Thames. At Gravesend the smoke of the various factories rather troubled the aviator but he made good progress. Approaching London Mr McClean brought his machine lower down and negotiated the Tower Bridge between the lower and upper spans, but the remaining bridges to Westminster he flew underneath, the water being just touched at Blackfriars and Waterloo bridges. He reached Westminster about 8.30 and was taken ashore to Westminster Pier on a Port of London launch.
The return journey on Sunday afternoon was not so successful owing to restrictions as to rising from the water which had been imposed by the police. The bridges had all been safely negotiated, and when near Shadwell Basin Mr McClean started to manoeuvre to get into the air at the point designated by the river authorities. He had made one circuit when the machine side-slipped, and either through hitting a barge or by sudden contact with the water one of the floats was damaged. The machine was then towed into Shadwell Dock, this operation being superintended by Mr McClean from the driving seat, and dismantled for its return by road to Eastchurch.
Frank McClean examines the S.40’s seven-cylinder Gnome engine at the time of the Thames flight. (AUTHOR)
The S.40 moored on the Thames at the end of its sensational flight. McClean was later congratulated by King George V for this adventure. (AUTHOR)
After he had gone ashore at Westminster McClean went to lunch at Hatchett’s, and during the meal he was approached by a nervous head waiter and told that the police were looking for him. Taking the bull by the horns, McClean asked for an interview with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Edward Henry. During the interview he was reprimanded and told that no action would be taken if he took his aeroplane away, provided he did not leave the water until he had passed all the bridges. In his own brief account of the flight, written in 1938, McClean wrote:
It was a dreary dawn as the enthusiasts pushed me and the machine down the slipway into the Swale, but the engine did its job, and at a steady thirty miles an hour or so the river slipped past below until the Tower Bridge loomed ahead.
Then temptation took a hand in the game, and instead of going over the top, I put the machine through the opening. There was room and to spare, although the bus horses crossing the bridge had other ideas.
London Bridge was not so commodious. I had, however, lost too much height to make it advisable to cross above the roadway. When I reached the farther side, I knew that there was sufficient room for the machine, but the remaining bridges to Westminster were negotiated on the water.
An invitation to visit Scotland Yard followed, and a promise not to repeat the offence gave me freedom. But the subsequent return journey ended abruptly when I discovered, too late, that there was not enough space among the shipping below the bridges in which to manoeuvre in the air, and the home-coming with the debris was by road.
The Aeroplane’s account, almost certainly the work of C G Grey, its patriotic, opinionated and pugnacious editor, was longer and rather more entertaining, though inaccurate in places:
Quite one of the neatest sells for which aviation has as yet been responsible was that perpetrated by Mr Frank McClean and his Short hydro-biplane on the British public on Saturday last. When all London, or at any rate all that section of it which reads the Daily Mail, was anxiously awaiting the much boomed arrival of Lieut. de Conneau, of the French Navy, on his French aero-hydroplane, a mere British aviator, Mr F.K. McClean, on a mere British hydro-aeroplane, calmly flew up the Thames, and after passing by the elaborate arrangements made for Lieut, de Conneau’s reception at Carmelite Street, alighted by the new County Council building opposite Westminster.
Evidently the Daily Mail’s ‘Special Correspondent’ was somewhat chagrined that British enterprise should have got in front of France for once in a way, for he opens his description of the arrival by saying, ‘The crowd that gathered on the Victoria Embankment, London, on Saturday morning in the hope of seeing M. Beaumont arrive were fortunate enough not to go away entirely disappointed. While the French airman was kept at Boulogne by the tardiness of his mechanics in arriving from Paris an English flier stole his thunder.’ Incidentally, it may be well to point out that Mr McClean is Irish rather than English, and that the italics are ours.
Mr McClean started out from the Isle of Sheppey at about 6.30am and alighted at about eight o’clock. Strangely enough, he adopted the course of flying under all the bridges instead of over them, which certainly added to the risk so far as he was concerned, as there can have been very little room to spare under some of the older bridges. The machine he used is one of the ordinary type Short biplanes with front elevator and monoplane tail.
Mr McClean said that on his way up the river he had a good journey as far as Plumstead, where he got among London smoke and so had to come down low, and when approaching the Tower Bridge, where the river becomes much narrower, he found that air currents from the various buildings made it advisable to fly as low as possible.
To those who have followed aviation from its beginning in this country, it is peculiarly gratifying that Mr McClean and his Short biplane should have achieved the distinction of being the first water-fliers to arrive in London, for not only was Mr McClean one of the first men in this country to take up aviation, but he has from the commencement flown Short machines, and of course the Short Brothers were the very first firm to equip a proper aeroplane factory in England.
Mr McClean has long been recognised as one of the soundest and most capable fliers in this country, but he has never brought himself before the public, for he has never had any desire for personal publicity. Recently his name became known to the outside Press, b
ecause for purely scientific purposes he made flights over the wreck of the SS Oceana to test the possibilities of submarine photography. It will, however, be remembered by those more closely in touch with aviation that it was he who lent two Short biplanes to the Admiralty, in 1910, for the purpose of training the officers who are now the senior pilots of the Naval Wing of the Royal Flying Corps, the actual training of these officers being undertaken by Mr G.B. Cock-burn during Mr McClean’s absence in the Pacific on an astronomical expedition.
Knowing Mr McClean’s objection to personal advertising, the writer has no hesitation in saying that this flight could only have been undertaken by him in a thoroughly sporting patriotic spirit, to show that, after all, there are British pilots who can do good flights without being on the advertisement staff of a halfpenny paper.
On behalf of British sportsmen The Aeroplane congratulates Mr McClean and the Brothers Short on the success of a thoroughly sporting undertaking.
As a sign of the times, it is worth recording that about mid-day, when Mr McClean’s machine had been sitting in the river for a few hours, the police rang up the offices of The Aeroplane and asked whether the staff could give them any clue to Mr McClean’s whereabouts, as they wanted to know what he was going to do about leaving his machine in the river unattended. The inquiry was made just in the same way as an inquiry might be made about a car left in a street without a driver.
Frank McClean Page 12
