Frank McClean

by Philip Jarrett

  Predicting that the headquarters of the Naval Wing, RFC, at Eastchurch, ‘will become simply a huge training establishment for naval aeroplane pilots’, Grey said that the station needed to develop enormously. ‘Splendid work has been done by the Navy at Eastchurch in the past, and will be done in the future,’ he wrote, ‘but it is a long way from Whitehall, and must not be neglected if it is to keep pace with the development of the rest of the Naval Air Service as represented by the new waterplane bases and the [HMS] Hermes [the recently-commissioned mother ship for naval aeroplanes].’

  The entire personnel of the Naval Flying School at Eastchurch had been turned over from HMS Actaeon to the Hermes and became absolutely independent of any other branch of the Service, dealing directly with the Admiralty through the captain of Hermes. Grey declared: ‘The aeroplane now assumes its proper position as a definite arm on an equality with the Submarine Service.’

  Meanwhile, McClean had not given up ballooning. He made an ascent on 27 May, his first since October 1909, and on Saturday 31 May he took part in the RAeC’s Hare and Hounds race, which saw several competitors drifting across London after ascending from the Hurlingham Club. The balloon acting as the ‘hare’, the Banshee, with Mr J D Dunville in charge, set off soon after 3pm, pursued by five others playing the part of the ‘hounds’; the one descending closest to the Banshee after it had come down would be declared the winner. Unfortunately it was not the Chili, piloted by Frank McClean, that alighted nearest the ‘hare’ when it landed at Sudbury in Suffolk, but the Dunlop 1, piloted by Mr James Radley, who put it down within 200 yards of the Banshee.

  In its 7 June issue Flight published a detailed description of S.58 (the reconstructed S.40), but, confusingly, the two photographs reproduced on the first page of the article depicted a different machine. The aircraft shown was S.62, one of two ‘Biplanes of the latest pattern S.38 Type’ ordered by the War Office on 14 January 1913. These two machines, S.62 and S.63, were to have 50hp Gnomes, dual control and ‘double control mechanism’. The order was recorded as being completed on 21 April, but, as the following account shows, S.62 was evidently completed a month earlier.

  On Saturday 22 March Gordon Bell, with his mechanic, Chapman, as passenger, had left Eastchurch in S.62 at 2.45pm and flown to Hendon in ‘very boisterous weather’ to take part in the three-day Easter Meeting. The gusts were so bad that, over Enfield, the toolbag was lifted clean off the floor and came down again upside-down. Bell landed at Hendon at 3.55pm after a ‘terrible journey’. Although attempts were made to keep the flying activities going, a violent gust swept across the aerodrome, followed by ‘lightning, thunder and copious rain’, and the wind rose suddenly to such a force that the mechanics struggled to hold down the aeroplanes and return them to their sheds. Momentarily left unattended, S.62 was ‘lifted up sideways, turned completely over, and laid down – none too gently – upon its back’, the force being sufficient to embed the propeller 14in into the ground. It suffered considerable damage, chiefly to its tail booms, rudder and ailerons.

  This machine, photographed at Hendon shortly before it was smashed, was the one depicted on the opening page of the Flight feature, where it was correctly captioned as Gordon Bell’s 50hp aircraft. It has more recently been written that the Army had only one S.38-Type biplane, and that this was S.62, which was given the military serial number 446 with the RFC. In the light of the foregoing, however, it seems more likely that 446 was actually the second of the two machines ordered by the War Office, S.63, and that S.62 was never delivered.

  The S.38-type biplane S.62, built for the RFC, at Hendon on 22 March 1913, shortly before it was wrecked by a violent storm as it stood on the airfield. This illustration was confusingly used in a description of McClean’s very similar S.58, published in the 7 June issue of Flight (AUTHOR)

  This also raises the strong possibility that, after the shattered remains of S.62 were returned to Shorts, some components, especially from the relatively undamaged nacelle, were incorporated in a modification of McClean’s S.58.

  The general-arrangement drawings and detail sketches on the remaining three pages of Flight’s article showed McClean’s 70hp S.58. The writer stated: ‘It is a Short biplane, originally built for Mr Frank McClean for use over water, that forms the subject of our scale drawings and sketches this week, and equally with ourselves our readers are indebted to Mr EK. McClean for the courtesy in placing this machine of his at our disposal for the purpose of their preparation.’ Although this particular aeroplane is not a new model,’ the article continued, ‘it has the greater advantage of being well tried and a thorough success. Not only was it a good waterplane, but its owner was so favourably impressed with its qualities as a land machine after he had substituted a set of wheels for the floats, that he has since retained it for this purpose, in order to obtain greater enjoyment from its more frequent use over the Royal Aero Club’s grounds at Eastchurch, where he has his sheds.’ One suspects this was a cover-up for the machine’s shortcomings, as it was evidently underpowered and slow, and this, coupled with the limited capacity of its tandem nacelle, rendered it unsuitable for the Nile expedition flight.

  In the first annual report of the Air Committee on the Progress of the RFC, dated 7 June 1913, it was stated that the Naval Flying School at Eastchurch ‘has up to date been utilised for training most of the personnel for the Naval Wing, both in elementary and advanced flying’, and that the station ‘was also used as a depot for the trained pilots, pending their disposal to the various air stations which are being established round the coast’. ‘For this purpose’, the report added, ‘the school is well situated and equipped, and can undertake the training of a larger number than those at present being trained there.’ The school had so far trained twenty-four officers and forty-one men, and another officer and eighty men were under training. Five large double aeroplane sheds had been erected there, and some sheds had been rented from private owners as well.

  That same month the Admiralty produced a report on Aerial Navigation’. Under the section headed Aeroplanes and Hydro-aeroplanes’ it was stated that: ‘In view of the aerial development abroad it is considered that the money allocated for the construction of hydro-aeroplanes and their appurtenances in the 1913–14 Naval Estimates is insufficient to meet the requirements of this rapidly expanding branch of the Navy.’ Among proposed expenditure on aviation totalling £350,000 for the financial year 1913/14 it was thought that £50,000 was needed for the purchase of thirty-five additional aircraft, £30,000 for development of the Isle of Grain and Cromarty Air Stations, £20,000 for aircraft sheds, plus £15,000 for the repair of school machines.

  McClean took part in another ballooning event at Hurlingham on 28 June, being the first of the five entrants to start in the Long Distance Balloon Race for a cup presented by Mr A Mortimer Singer. He piloted the balloon Dunlop, and had Commander C R Samson for company. The winner was Mr C F Pollock in the much-greater-capacity Planet, who, with Mr Mortimer Singer as his passenger, crossed the Channel and alighted about five miles south-west of Rouen. All of the other competitors descended on the south coast of England, between Bexhill and Hastings.

  Eastchurch had grown almost beyond recognition in its few years of existence. In the beginning the whole aviation community had been housed in half-a-dozen buildings, but by mid-1913 the naval installations alone comprised the new barracks of the Royal Naval Flying School, including comfortable officers’ quarters, some twenty naval aeroplane sheds, a shed for a meteorological balloon, and various subsidiary sheds for stores and other items. The navy’s own sewage farm was sited in the middle of the Service’s sheds. In addition there were numerous privately owned sheds, occupied by Mr Ogilvie, Mr Jezzi, Professor Huntington, the Hon Maurice Egerton, the Blair Athol Aeroplane Syndicate (whose shed was in the care of C R Fairey, later to found Fairey Aviation), and of course McClean, who in addition to his seaplane experiments at Harty Ferry had his S.58 there. Moreover the Short Brothers’ works had expanded enorm
ously. There were two long factory sheds, the machine shop had been extended and the drawing office now accommodated a dozen draughtsmen or more. A new pusher biplane without the front elevator was in production along with many tractor seaplanes.

  On the afternoon of Friday 13 June Bell flew a 120hp Martin-Handasyde monoplane from Eastchurch to Brooklands with Lieutenant J R B Kennedy, RN, as his passenger. He then indulged in some dangerously low flying in the vicinity, making very low and steeply banked turns over the airfield which finally resulted in the aeroplane sideslipping into the ground and cartwheeling. Kennedy’s neck was broken and he died instantly; Bell fractured the front of his skull and cut his nose badly. He was to be away from test flying for some time, this task being taken on by Sydney Pickles. On 23 June McClean attended the meeting of the RAeC’s Public Safety and Accidents Investigation Committee at which Bell’s accident was examined. He had not, however, been among the committee members who had visited Brook-lands on the 14th to examine the wrecked aeroplane. In its resulting report the committee concluded that the accident ‘was solely due to the handling of the aircraft,’ and that ‘The pilot, experienced and competent as he was, showed a grave error of judgement in flying as he did over and around the sheds at Brook-lands’. Bell was later reprimanded by the chairman at an RAeC Committee meeting.

  McClean records that he again went ballooning on 6 July, this time with Brewer and Maurice and Phyllis Bidder in the balloon North Star.

  Challenging the regulations

  The aviation community had been alarmed by regulations issued by the Home Office under the Aerial Navigation Acts 1911 and 1913, which were seen as excessively restrictive and impracticable. As a result of complaints voiced by aviators the Committee of the RAeC appointed a seven-man sub-committee to consider what action the club should take. McClean was one of the seven, and on Tuesday 8 July he was present at a special meeting of the Committee to receive the sub-committee’s report. It was found that stringent enforcement of the regulations had prevented British manufacturers from carrying on their manufacture and experiments at various places which were chosen for their fitness but happened to be close to Prohibited Areas; that ‘British aviators had been deterred from flying abroad owing to the difficulties of conforming with the requirements of the regulations imposed by the British Government on their return journey’; and that the impracticability of the regulations had prevented the RAeC from organising events in connection with large prizes offered for competition amongst aviators, which ‘would have resulted in furthering the progress of the art and manufacture of hydro-aeroplanes and aeroplanes, to the manifest advantage of the Government’.

  The Committee therefore forwarded to the Home Office, War Office and Admiralty a document outlining the objections and stating:

  In view of these circumstances, and also to modify the feeling expressed abroad that Great Britain is inimical to the advancement of the art of aviation, the Club wishes to place on record its view that the international freedom of aerial navigation is much more to the advantage of this country than of foreign nations, and recommends:

  (1)

  That active measures be taken to protect the interests of aviators and the industry.

  (2)

  That the following alterations in the Regulations be suggested:-

  (a)

  That the Home Office open a register on which shall be entered the names of approved British aviators who shall be exempt from the orders issued under the Regulations, provided that they have commenced their flight in this country and that they report forthwith all details of any flights they have made over any Prohibited Areas. The Committee is of the opinion that regulations for identification can be framed to deal practically with this suggestion.

  (b)

  That approved registered British aviators coming from abroad may pass over any of the prescribed landing areas without alighting, provided previous notice of departure from a foreign country has been given to the Home Office.

  (c)

  That a further portion of the coast line, situated between Archcliffe Fort and Lydd Railway Station, be scheduled as a landing area.

  (d)

  That provision be made for permitting British and foreign hydro-aeroplanes to alight on the water in convenient specified places.

  (e)

  That the existing regulations shall not apply to free spherical balloons taking part in sporting competitions.

  In August the government issued a White Paper containing a statement regarding the progress made by the RFC during its first year of existence. With regard to Eastchurch, it was reported that the Naval Flying School ‘has been utilised for training most of the personnel for the Naval Wing, both in elementary and advanced flying’, and that it was also used as a depot for the trained pilots, ‘pending their disposal to the various air stations which are being established round the coast’ (namely Calshot, Grain, Harwich, Yarmouth and Rosyth, with other sites under negotiation). The total number trained for all branches of the Naval Wing stood at 184, and another 114 were under training; the staff originally recommended to carry out the training at Eastchurch had been found sufficient. Five large double aeroplane sheds had been erected on the site, and in addition some sheds had been rented from private owners. Permanent residential quarters had also been built at the school.

  The race becomes a farce

  Gordon Bell’s accident ruled out any chance of him flying the Shorts’ entry for the Daily Mail Waterplane Circuit, but McClean submitted his entry for the event. In its 31 July issue The Aeroplane reported that his new machine, the S.68 tractor biplane, was ‘well under way’ in the factory, and was to be fitted with a six-cylinder in-line water-cooled 100hp Green engine that would give it a speed of 60mph.

  As a member of the RAeC’s accident investigation committee, McClean had the sad task of studying the wrecks in which many of his fellow pioneer aviators lost their lives. One of his saddest such investigations must have been the trip to Farnborough on 7 August to examine the wreck of S F Cowdery’s Waterplane, another of the entrants for the forthcoming Daily Mail Circuit of Britain seaplane race, only a few hours after the crash that killed the pioneer.

  By mid-August Shorts had completed McClean’s entry for this event, set to start from Southampton on Saturday 16 August. Similar to the 100hp Gnome-engined seaplanes that the company was then producing for the navy, the S.68 was supported on two stepless main floats and a small tail float, spanned more than 60ft and had Cellon-doped wings of much narrower chord than usual. It was postulated that McClean might be accompanied by another pilot. On 6 August the machine’s Green engine was undergoing a bench test.

  The event was beset by troubles. In addition to Cowdery’s fatal accident, only one of the three entrants was present at Southampton on the first day. This was Harry Hawker in a Sop-with seaplane, who set off at midday. Upon reaching Yarmouth at 4.38pm he collapsed from sunstroke. Sydney Pickles tried to take his place on Monday, but rough sea and rising wind obliged him to abandon the attempt and the aircraft was dismantled and returned to Cowes for a second try. It was hoped that the competitors would be ready to make another start on Saturday 23 or Monday 25 August.

  McClean’s absence was due to engine problems with S.68, entry No.4. In a long leader in the 21 August issue of The Aeroplane C G

  Barely completed in time for the 1913 Doily Moil Circuit of Britain seaplane race, the Short S.68 had to be withdrawn when its 100hp Green engine proved troublesome and the aircraft’s performance proved inadequate. (AUTHOR)

  Grey wrote:

  The non-arrival of Mr Mclean’s [sic] Short in time for the official start was most unfortunate, but considering that the whole machine had to be designed, built and tested inside three weeks, there was sufficient reason for its being late. The task was practically an impossibility, and the Short Brothers came very near achieving the impossible. If the machine is put into flying order this week, it will still be a remarkable feat, for the firm is taking an entirely ne
w departure in fitting a long heavy engine into a type of machine originally designed for a shorter and lighter engine, and the balance will necessarily take some adjusting, apart from the fitting of radiators and other ‘gadgets’ which are strange to the workmen.

  In its 23 August issue Flight reported:

  … Mr Frank McClean and Messrs Short Bros had been working away with solid perseverance to remedy the obstinacy of the engine, the fault being ultimately found to lie in a cracked cylinder. It was no sooner located than its replacement was arranged for by co-operation with Mr Fred May, of the Green Engine Co. Its testing, until Mr May was satisfied with its running, was then started, and at 2am on Thursday the engine was taken over to Grain Island, where the Short machine was comfortably resting, to be installed. All being well by Thursday evening, Mr McClean hoped to make for Southampton by way of the air, and there was the possibility of his making a start during Friday for the race itself.

  In its leader the magazine commented: ‘That the engine on Mr McClean’s Short biplane has not been developing its full power is a matter of regret to all concerned…’, and added ‘… at the moment of writing it is not even certain that Mr McClean will be able to make a start during the present week.’

  The initial trials were indeed disappointing, McClean noting that his attempts to fly S.68 during 14–24 August were a ‘failure’. The engine vibrated badly and this caused the radiator to leak. Consequently the water boiled away so quickly that, during one engine run, a piston seized and its cylinder had to be replaced. Although he did eventually manage to fly S.68 for half an hour, it proved too slow and underpowered for racing and McClean was obliged to withdraw from the race at the very last moment, on Saturday the 16th, owing to radiator trouble, even though the start was deferred from 6am to 10.30am in the hope that he would fly over from Grain that morning. In fact there were other problems too. In its 28 August issue The Aeroplane described further modifications made in a desperate effort to get the S.68 up to scratch: