[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:J. W. Dunne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Books

[edit]

Books include _An Experiment with Time_ (1st ed. 1927) and _The Serial Universe_.

experiment http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0571059961/

i found serial universe in z-shops. the earliest date for it was 1938, but i don't if thats the first printing or not.

See the bibliography for a fuller list of his writings. -- Steelpillow (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Serial Universe was first published in 1934.Olamim (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunne D.9 aircraft

[edit]

The description of the D.9 given here may not be correct. According to Jane's of 1913 (See Jane, FT; Jane's all the world's aircraft 1913, Sampson Low (1933), reprinted David & Charles, 1969, p.47) the D.9 was a biplane design and 5 examples were under construction through 1912-1913. Can anybody provide a reference for the current description as a monoplane that crashed? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found these references quoted but cannot confirm the quotations:
  • Lewis, P.; British Aircraft 1809-1914, Putnam (1962). "The D.9 was a tailless sesquiplane of somewhat complicated form designed by Dunne during 1913, with the assistance of C. R. Fairey in the stress calculations. The machine was not completed." and "The James Monoplane was built during 1913 by Levis Ltd., at Stechford, Warks., and was designed by a Mr. James in conjunction with Lt. J. W. Dunne. It was powered by the 35 h.p. five-cylinder in-line Levis two- stroke engine, which was designed by H. Newey, who was associated with the Levis Company, formed in 1909 by William and Arthur Butterfield as Butterfield Brothers. The engine was mounted inverted in the nose of the single-seat fuselage, on either side of which were the triangular-shaped wings with their leading-edges sharply swept back, resulting almost in a delta plan-form. The wing was braced from a cage-like cabane structure which acted also as a crash-pylon. The original name of Mayfly was changed to Leonie, and the machine was to have had floats fitted for testing on Edgbaston Reservoir. Instead, however, it was equipped with a land undercarriage consisting of wheels and skids, and was taken to Castle Bromwich playing-fields, where it caught one wing-tip on a goal-post during its first take-off and was wrecked."
  • Goodall, M. and Tagg, A.; British Aircraft before the Great War, Schiffer (2001). "DUNNE D.9 monoplane (Also referred to as the James monoplane). This was a tailless pusher design of almost delta wing form. It was a single-seater with a protective cage above the cockpit, serving also as an anchorage for the bracing wires. The wheels on the twin skid undercarriage were covered by fairings. The power plant was a 35hp Levis five-cylinder inline two-stroke engine designed by H. Newey, mounted inverted in the nose, and driving the propeller by extension shaft. Dunne was assisted by C.R. Fairey with the stressing and the machine was constructed in 1913 for a Mr. James by Levis Ltd. of Stechford, Warwickshire, motorcycle manufacturers. The name 'Leonie' and the initials 'AB', probably of Arthur Butterfield, one of the directors of Levis, were painted on the wheel covers. The machine was wrecked on its first attempt at flight by hitting an obstruction on a playing field at Castle Bromwich, forestalling the proposal to fit floats for later trials on Edgbaston Reservoir."
The accounts of a single machine which was completed and a production batch which may not have been completed are not consistent. Jane's account of the production batch is at least both contemporary and authoritative. It gives the engine as a 80 hp Gnome, a rotary type. A photo here shows a monoplane with a different kind of engine and "Leonie" on the wheel spats, which I can only assume is the one-off "James monoplane". I'll edit the article accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unpublished documents in the Science Museum records and archive show Lewis to be substantially correct on the D.9. Jane appears to have mistaken the total work in hand to relate to the D.9. Lewis is also fairly close on the other aircraft, whose engine is on display there, but made a couple of slips. It is more accurately referred to as the "Levis-Belmont" monoplane, the engine was not inverted, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Dunne was involved beyond the fact of his patents on some of the technology. Goodall & Tagg appear to have been misled by subsequent confused researchers and to have further embellished their muddle in a botched attempt to resolve it. I'll have to check whether unpublished archives, accessible only by individual permission, are acceptable as WP:RS. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Complete revision required

[edit]

As I just stumbled upon this article again and tried to fix a few small areas, I realized that tiny "patches" would not suffice. This article requires an entire rewrite. Comments? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know about biographies, I'm just trying to improve the material on his aircraft. At the moment there are three half-baked articles, each covering a more or less arbitrary selection of types and scraps of theory amid much repeated content, and with several types not covered at all. IMHO it would be better to merge them all into a single article on say Dunne aircraft, and move the list over to there. Good idea? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably makes sense but in dealing with a biographical article on the individual behind these inventions and scientific theories, a lot more attention has to be paid to the person's life. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
A lot of the information in the article is at variance with sources and will need to be scruptiously checked. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Tell me about it :( . I'm still arguing over the the list of aircraft. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The more I find in his books and elsewhere, the more suspect becomes the fine detail of the biographical dates and the like. I think the best option is some heavy pruning and maybe a bunch of fact tags to boot. But I do wonder what was the original source for much of the article, biographical material on him is hard to find. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft

[edit]
The use of authoritative sources may be the only recourse and I would suggest: British Aircraft 1809–1914 by Peter Lewis (1962) who has a comprehensive account of Dunne aircraft from D.1 to D.10, set up as individual chapters and The Aeroplanes of the Royal Flying Corps (Military Wing) by J.M. Bruce (1982) who concentrates on the D.8 in a separate chapter. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Steelpillow will know this, but on the aircraft and Dunne's work at and before Farnborough, and later with the Blair Atholl Syndicate, I'd recommend Goodall and Tagg "British Aircraft before the Great War" (2001). Their bibliography includes both Bruce and Lewis. Be interesting to compare Lewis (I've not got this) and G&T. My view is that this article, like most of its kind, should be brief on the aircraft . These are better dealt with in their own articles, though of course we have to be consistent with details that appear in both. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How extensive is the Goodall and Tagg resource? Certainly Lewis and Bruce are much more well known as aviation historians. FWiW, a new authoritative source is always useful. Bzuk (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

They aim to cover everything British, however obscure, failures and flyers, before WWI. As an example, they have 6 large format pages on the Dunne aircraft. There's an article on each and an introductory piece on Dunne's aeronautical career. The D.8, for example, has about 390 word plus specs plus 4 pics. When I launched the D.8 article, I found both G&T and Bruce important sources. They have different emphases. Bruce, for example has an interesting long quote from the RFC testing day, in a piece more than twice as long as G&T. There is a bit more on the differences with the D.5, the French connection and the later development of the D.8 in G&T; Bruce, naturally emphasises the RFC experience. As I said in arguing over the the list of aircraft, both books struggle at places where, I suspect, the historical record is a bit thin.

As far as Dunne goes, there is only overlap between G&T and Bruce on the D.8; the books are mostly complementary, as one's period starts where the other ends. Both G and T separately have produced focussed aviation books; I don't know how well regarded they are, but Tagg's book on the Green and ENV engines probably has little competition (and fewer sales?). Seems to me to be a good attempt to get comprehensive cover of a period where records are incomplete, though sometimes the joins show. It's probably been professionally reviewed somewhere.

There is a copy of Peter Lewis's book coming my way shortly, and that will make interesting comparative reading. I'll perhaps report back. Cheers, TSRL (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an excellent resource and will be of use in adding to the story of Dunne aircraft. FWiW, I can provide the details on the Burgess-Dunne aircraft that was officially Canada's first military aircraft. It did have a very short lifespan and an unfortunate demise, however. Bzuk (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Fahey's 1946 "US Army aircraft", p.8, one Burgess-Dunne was also procured by the US signal corps. Engine and fuselage apart, the B-Ds look like D.8s, though sometimes on floats. There is a Flight article about the "hydro-biplane", with a g/a diagram, in the 19 June 1914 issue, p.644-7. I don't know how many were produced; two or more, evidently.
Nieuport production is another unknown (to me at least). We know there was a version of the D.8 in the 1913 Paris show (see Dunne D.8), which had significant alterations both structural and aerodynamic, but did it fly and were any more built before the outbreak of war? There is a curious Flight snippet (12 April 1913 p.419) about the successful flight testing of the French-built Dunne monoplane. Eh?TSRL (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having now seen Dunne's m/s (see next section), think that it was a monoplane, the D.7 bis, which JWD says he flew at Villacoublay in 1913. The Flight article says the pilot was Percival, but maybe both men flew it. The "French-built" comment is now a puzzle.--TSRL (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside in 1953 Katherine Atholl wrote a letter to the (London) Times, she was the wife of the chairman of the company formed to finance the "Dunne". She says two "Dunnes" known in the United States as "Burgess Dunnes" were used for training purposes in the American Navy during the first world war. MilborneOne (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's useful: so at least three US and one Canadian. Does anyone have Fahey's "Ships and aircraft of the US Fleet" as an alternative ref? Bzuk, did Canada have more than one, do you know?TSRL (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one example, the Burgess-Dunne #2, was bought by the Canadian Army as Canada's first military aircraft. First flown to Quebec City by Clifford Webster, it was to be deployed to France during the First World War, but was lashed to the deck of a ship. When the ship encountered rough seas during the Atlantic crossing, the Burgess-Dunne was so severely damaged that the aircraft was scrapped soon after. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Having looked on AbeBooks I've realised that Fahet's Naval book is not the equivalent of the ASAA one, which included 1908-1946. So not helpful.TSRL (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two tiny entries in aerofiles for types AH-7 and Ah-10 (Naval). Is E.T. Woodridge reliable? If so then [[1]] is useful, particularly on the Burgess-Dunne.TSRL (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodall & Tagg's assertion that the Dunne-Huntington did not have a D number, and that the D.2 was an unbuilt, smaller glider version of it is confirmed by a letter to Flight [[2]] from GWB Lacey, Asst Keeper at the London Science Museum, which has a list of the Dunne aircraft up to the D.4, signed by Dunne himself. I'll alter the list.TSRL (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey quotes "an extract" from Dunne's statement: it would be interesting to see if the rest of it clarified some of the uncertainties debated below. Anyone have a Science Museum contact?TSRL (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the last point: I've now got a copy of Dunne's notes. See section D.6 and Dunne's names, below and also talk:Dunne D.6.

Dunne aircraft

[edit]

Moved from User talk:TSRL#Dunne aircraft -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble referencing a couple of your [TSRL's] edits to the article on J. W. Dunne.

  • You added the Dunne-Capper monoplane. I can find no reference to this type. Indeed, Flight (1943) records that Capper asked for a biplane, which emerged as the D.1.
  • You also added Dunne D.9 (1913 monoplane; crashed first flight). Jane's (1913) records the D.9 as a biplane type, of which several examples were being constructed at the time.

Can you provide references for your remarks, or is it OK if I edit the article according to my knowledge? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My source is the 2001 "British Aircraft before the Great War" by Goodall & Tagg (ref in D.8 article). The Dunne-Capper, appearing as a glider in 1907 at Blair Atholl, was finally found a suitable engine and flown thus in Jan 1911. It was developed (same wing, new airframe) into the D.6, which first flew in June 1911. There's an article on the latter in Flight 19110624 (I'm thinking of doing an article on these three). The 1913 D.9, definitely a monoplane in the photo, was also known as the James monoplane, and was a near delta with a nose engine but rear prop, driven by a long extension shaft. Fairly obscure as it crashed on its first flight in Castle Bromwich.
There might be a problem of nomenclature, as often with aircraft of this period when folk were busy getting stuff in the air and less concerned with numbering. Does the JAWA D.9 look like the D.8? Compare Flight 19131115 p.1241-5, esp g/a on p.1243. I'll try D.9 in Flight, but most of their Dunne articles do not mention D numbers. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found nothing under James monoplane, etc. I've added that source and removed the cn from John William Dunne. By the way, Goodall says the D.2 was a projected smaller version of the Dunne-Huntington triplane, not built. He also notes that the Dunne-Huntington triplane, which was built, has been described as a triplane, biplane or monoplane, and looking at the pics I can see why!TSRL (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goodall also notes that Capper was associated with the D.1 glider. Col Capper engaged Dunne at the Balloon Factory and asked him to develop his ideas, starting with a glider. Capper also flew it on all(?) of its flights. JWD was still at Farnborough when the Dunne-Capper monoplane flew, but was with the Blair Atholl Syndicate by the time it flew under power.TSRL (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have easy access to Goodall & Tagg. According to Poulsen (Flight 1943-1376), "... as early as 1905 Dunne had designed his tailless monoplane wing. In the following year he showed it to Col. Capper, of the Army Balloon Section (from which later grew the R.F.C., R.N.A.S., and R.A.F.). Col. Capper, however, asked for a biplane, and a biplane version was designed and built at Blair Atholl." This biplane is presumably the D.1, and yes, Capper went along for the ride. But the implication is that he was not involved in the design of the preceding monoplane, which would later emerge as the basis for the D.6. So - do we believe Dunne's fellow Brit writing in 1943 or an American writing in 2001? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Poulsen records that Dunne had already designed the monoplane by 1905, while Jane's (1913) records that Dunne had patented it by 1906, when he was first engaged by the British Army - presumably via Capper, who according to Poulsen was asking for a biplane instead. If Capper was involved in the design of the pre-Army monoplane, then how could Dunne patent it in his own name? All this leads me to mistrust Goodall & Tagg's account - I wish I could read it for myself. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep adding thoughts, but do Goodall & Tagg give any exact account of why they call it the Dunne-Capper? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what G&T have to say, under the heading "Dunne-Capper monoplane glider" - As early as 1905 Dunne had made a model of a monoplane, the design of which was submitted to the War Office and rejected. A full size glider version of this was made at Farnborough in 1907 under Col. Capper's authority. It is believed to have been tested at Blair Atholl, unsuccessfully by Capper, at the end of August during the first official expedition. [they then go on to describe the aircraft.]
I'm not troubled by nationality, but certainly "Bert" Tagg was British, working with Hawkers from 1935 to retirement. Goodall was in the RAF (national service?) and worked in the UK before his retirement to a post at Brooklands Museum, though I don't know where he was born. Theirs is certainly the fullest account I've seen of Dunne's machines, though sometimes the story creaks a bit, probably where they are trying to understand fragmentary surviving records. Bruce's account of the D.8 also stumbles a little. It's a pity Flight's 1911 article on the D.6 does not mention precursors. G&T have a photo of the powered Dunne-Capper.
On the Patent: probably should look to see what he patented. I don't think one can patent an aeroplane, but you can patent a method of control or a way of producing stability. Given that, Dunne could have his patent and Capper his name on the plane. Though having said that, I'd guess that both of them were more concerned about getting the thing flying than exactly what to call it.
So I think JWD made a model before he went to Farnborough in 1906, was there advised by Capper to build a biplane. Apart from the D-Huntington triplane and the D-Capper monoplane glider, that's what he did at Farnborough. Don't think the fact (if it is) that C said biplanes at the start rules out his (C's) involvement with a monoplane later; this monoplane was based on the 1905 model. JWD was allowed to take his planes when he left, including the Dunne-Capper, and only in late 1910 found an engine for it. This then developed into the D.6. I'm rushing a bit - got to go - but I think that is consistent with both G&T's details and Poulsen, who has less historical detail. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia: I've just learned that Goodall is British. He is a descendent of Charles Goodall, whose company based in Camden were the dominant UK manufacturers of playing cards in the 19th century.TSRL (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find several inconsistencies in your interpretation, based in part on lack of clarity from G&T.

We have two parallel accounts in which a glider is made under Capper's instruction, and flown by Capper at Blair Atholl in 1907. G&T say, "A full size glider version of this ...", implying but not stating a monoplane, and qualify the whole story with "it is believed...". Flight and Jane's both state unambiguously that it was the D.1 biplane, subsequently given a motor and damaged before takeoff that same year. What do G&T mean by "it is believed"? By whom? On what evidence? Are they saying that two gliders were flown by Capper that year at Blair Atholl, possibly on different occasions? Questions, questions, and doubts about what G&T really mean or what evidence they really have.

Its quite clear with book open that G&T are talking about a monoplane, as their header says. They also, in another section, talk about the biplane D.1 and its testing at BA in summer 1907. "It is believed" refers to the testing of the monoplane at about the same time.

Since the Farnborough operation was funded by the Army, I cannot see Capper sanctioning a monoplane and then participating in its design at Army expense, having expressly asked for a biplane instead. The idea is just not tenable.

Possibly, but so far what evidence we have (G&T) says it was so: one would need another source to support a POV.

All this so far suggests that the "D-C monoplane" was the "model" glider that Dunne first showed to Capper. From what you say, G&T make no mention of any role which merits the "Capper" part of "Dunne-Capper". On this evidence, the name appears to have been coined by G&T and has no basis in historical record.

I've been wondering when any of the names cames into use, for Flight just talks about "The Dunne Biplane" etc. Even Paulsden, much later, does not use the D numbers. As I understood it from J. W. Dunne, Capper was the engineer involved. What name it had in 1907 is not known to me; what does Lewis have to say? Whatever it was called, there was an aircraft.

However: Does G&T's photo of the "powered D-C" look significantly different from the D.6? When was it said to have flown, and was it successful? It occurs to me that the D.6 might be a more or less new design, and that the original monoplane might have been given a motor as an attempt by Capper at a "quick win" while the D.1 was being built. This scenario seems compatible with both stories, but again lacks real evidence. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two photos of the powered D-C (PDC) and the D.6 don't show the wing planform, but with that proviso they look the same except that the elevons are clearly visible on the D.6 but not on the PDC. Since the PDC was a direct adaptation of the glider and the latter was controlled by weight shifting, that would make sense. G&T's accounts have the first, unsuccessful, attempts at flight of the PDC on 5/14 Jan 1911 (4 years on) on Salisbury Plain. There were, they say some modifications made, but the double A frame fuselage structure of the glider was retained. The June 1911 Flight (and G&T) article shows that the D.6 had a largely rectangular structure. By this time, of course, JWD had been gone from Farnborough for more than a year, and nothing more is heard of Capper in his story. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dunne updated several models by fitting a new fuselage structure to an old wing. The change from A frame to rectangular tells us nothing about the origins of the D6 wing. If the PDC and D.6 are indeed different, then we are asked to swallow a remarkable coincidence - two gliders flown by Capper at Blair Atholl in 1907, and two powered monoplanes flown in 1911, and no mention of either DC/PDC anywhere except some qualified remarks by G&T. Time to move this discussion to Talk:John William Dunne and ask if Bruce or Lewis sheds any light? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to make that move. I'm not sure we know enough about the dates to talk about coincidences. PDC ff in Jan 1911 as I read it, but D.6 only before June (dated by Flight article). It seems the PDC was modified, or a variant produced, several times in 1911, leading the D.6 and D.7 but with early aircraft modifications could often be done quickly (and not be well recorded). For sure, we have the photos of related but distinct powered aircraft (two of the PDC, in different stages of modification and one of the D.6 in G&T plus several more D.6 in Flight). I've just noticed that whilst the first PDC photo in G&T does not show elevons, as I said before (though it might be the angle of the shot), the second pic shows them clearly along with an altered u/c. Re Capper, remember the placard on the D.7 at the Aero Show. Bruce's book is on the RFC (unless there is another one I don't know about), so only contains the D.8 and does not help with the monoplane. However, I hope to be the proud owner of a copy of the Lewis book quite soon (few days). It will be interesting to see the similarities and differences: compare and contrast, as I used to ask of my students! I'll report back anything useful. Cheers, TSRL (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further evidence, from Flight 1910, "The Blair Atholl Experiments" (1910-0711,-0721) shows four photographs claimed to be of the original experiment. They all show a biplane, before Capper flew it into a wall. Subsequent to these experiments another, powered, machine was commenced in 1907 and piloted in 1908 by Lt. L.D. Gibbs, and there is also a photo of this, clearly labelled D4 on the fin/endplate. No hint of any monoplane. Interestingly, the glider that Gibbs few earlier in 1908 is described here as a small-scale replica of this machine (i.e. D1/4) and by Jane (1013) as the D.3. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC), updated -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, partly because it emphasises the secrecy about these tests, which is why they were at BA and why some details are hard to track down. G&T use Fig 2, labelled D.1A (D.1B was the powered version) and Fig 5, the D.4. I should have spotted that before wondering when the D numbers came in! No monoplane, as you say, but "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Maybe this article provoked G&Ts "believed to have been tested" caution.
I was wrong to say that Capper went out of the picture. When the D.7, a slightly smaller version of the D.6 appeared, incomplete at the 1911 Aero Show at Olympia, it had a caption saying "Built to the order of Col. J. E. Capper". So Capper did keep in touch with developments and call for them, to the DC glider lineage. I'll look later to see if G&T have anything to say re your last sentence. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G&T have the D.3 as a hang glider, fitted with elevons and some rapidly discarded leading edge control features. It was built "to test features of the D.4" and flown by Gibbs. A light machine, it had only 40% of the wing area of the D.4. So they agree with Jane on notation.
I'll close this evening with a speculation: in those days it was easier to design a strong biplane aircraft than a monoplane, and you got a lighter wing loading (overall good at this point). So an aerodynamicist like JWD is likely to have greater need of an engineer like JEC for a monoplane rather than for a biplane. It's a POV! TSRL (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I have consider Capper a mentor to the younger Dunne and his name added to the Dunne aircraft was a tribute and acknowledgment of the assistance that Capper had extended to Dunne. FWiWBzuk (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Update on the monoplane. This memoir from Gurr, whom Capper appointed as Dunne's assistant for the whole project: "As a result, J. W. Dunne decided to build a man-lifting glider (monoplane) and a full-scale tailless biplane in the factory workshops. The machines were made in sections and final assembly took place in the balloon shed behind locked doors. In July, 1907, J. W. Dunne, Lt. Westland, R.E., six selected tradesmen of the Balloon and Kite Section and two civilian assistants entrained at Farnborough Station for Blair Atholl ... Work on assembly of the man-lifting glider commenced and was completed by the end of August. Capt. Gibbs ... arrived a few days later. A number of short glides were made by Gibbs, but the machine was eventually wrecked." Odd that in his list of early types for the Science Museum, Dunne makes no mention of it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D.6 and Dunne's descriptions

[edit]

I've now got, courtesy of the London Science Museum, a full copy of Dunne's description of some of his aircraft, part of which appeared in the letter referred to above. I've also started a new page, Dunne D.6 (though it covers all the monoplanes and possibly "The Dunne Monoplanes" would be a better name?), and I've put the relevant parts of Dunne's doc on its discussion page, together with an explanation of the purpose of the doc and comparisons of the interpretation of two standard texts.TSRL (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitated to mention this, but the formatting of the citations and references are improperly done, but if I get involved, I see a ton of work ahead so I just mention it if you wish to have it corrected. The problem seems to be in using another @#$%^& template that does not format the readout correctly. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Bzuk. Can you be a bit more explicit, because (apart from the Flight refs) everything is in the style I've used for ages without comment? It looks fine from here. Oh, and the two column list. I can't read your message between another and template; what template? Cheers,--TSRL (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of general remarks about the tailless swept design are included and/or repeated in articles on specific types. I think we need a Dunne aircraft article to pull all this together so the specific articles can be streamlined. Once that is done, we may find that some can be merged. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TSRL, bibliography lists are arranged alphabetically by first entry, second authors are written out first name last name, third authors are et al. All of the Wiki citation templates are written as APA style and use an ISO format which does not match the body of the article's date convention. Look at Dunne D.1 for a revision that brings the material back to a standardized bibliographical style. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bzuk, agree about alphabetical order, as done in Dunne D.6. Is the business about the difference in presentation between first names of first and later authors (with respect, a small point) laid out in the Wiki styleguides somewhere? It's certainly not used in the bibliography of books like Goodall & Tagg (2001, US pub, happens to be on my desk, for obvious reasons!). For now, I'm content to live with the product of Wiki's recommended templates, which do a good job of standardising the layout and link inlines to refs. So please don't feel the need to go in hand editing; as you know, the normal rule is not to change the cite style from that first used.
Maybe the way forward would be to get Wiki template editors to change the outputs to the preferred format? It can't be hard to tweak the code, and all the data is already there. This would automatically change things without us having to change the input. Happy with that. Cheers,--TSRL (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the wiki style was there but with so many errors, I was tempted to rewrite them just to have them appear properly. However, as I indicated I do not want to get into a new project at present and will leave well enough alone. BTW, as a reference librarian with a 35+ years in the field, these errors just pop up at me. Regardless, unless a rewrite is in order, I will cast a blind eye to the issue. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

D2 vs Dunne-Huntingdon

[edit]

Jane 1913 refers to the Huntingdon example itself as the "Huntingdon (Dunne II)" and dates the original design as 1905-06. Was there really a proposed model D2 as this article presently states, or should we merge the D2 with the Dunne-Huntingdon? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunne himself says "D.2 was the designation of a proposed small glider form of the Dunne-Huntington triplane. This glider was never constructed." So the comment on this page is correct. Practice seems to vary with lists of manufacturer's aircraft; sometimes people include unbuilt projects, sometimes built but not flown, sometimes nothing but fliers. I've (FWiW) tended to the middle way: a big manufacturer will have started a very large number of projects and I can't see the point of listing them, but if they got a least part built than folk may hear of them and want to know more. I'd label these unflown. I thing the only reason for listing the D.2 separately here is that someone will ask "but it goes D.1, D.3, what about D.2." Could equally well put it with the Dunne-Huntington list entry, though some of these are getting a bit long for a simple list. Certainly, if someone gets to write a Dunne-Huntington page they are likely to mantion the D.2.
I created the Dunne-Huntington triplane page, where all is now explained. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the list mentions the D.9 and gives descriptions of two different aircraft, one from G&T and another from Jane's; Peter lewis adds a third, as an uncompleted tailless sesquiplane! Dunne does not mention it, presumably because even he did not think the Science Museum would want to model it (whatever it was).--TSRL (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lewis is correct. The D.9 was an unequal-span biplane or sesquiplane whose design was never finished. Dunne described it drily as "unsuccessful". G&T's treatment is a complete fairy-tale, embroidering imaginatively on an earlier mistake which muddled it up with somebody else's machine. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This 1913 paper in Flight links the Zanonia form with several designers. And this one links Etrich (with a 1904 design) to it. There seem to be a few other mentions of Dunne and Zanonia in the Flight archive, in the same breath as it were, but only saying that Dunne's designs fall into the Zanonia type, and not that his work was inspired by the seed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey de Havilland's autobiography Sky Fever, Chapter 5 is explicit: "... a machine based on the vee shape of a Zanonia seed, which he [Dunne] had observed was a good glider." De Havilland replaced Cody and Dunne as the Farnborough Balloon Factory's aircraft designer, about 20 moths after they were kicked out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Update] de Havilland was wrong, or at best highly misleading. Dunne explained fully why he rejected the Zanonia form in his 1913 lecture to the Aeronautical Society.[3] Comments made in this lecture and elsewhere, and also made by his brother Frank to the writer Constance Babington Smith, make it clear that he was in fact inspired by watching seagulls. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

[edit]

Dunne was born in what is now Eire (Southern Ireland) but in those days was part of the United Kingdom. He was born a British subject and remained so after partition. As a young child he went to South Africa and later came to England but, AFAIK, never returned to Eire. What nationality should we give him in the article? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, nobody is both watching and caring. I'll change it to what I think - that he was born a British subject and remained a British subject throughout his life. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: At this time the whole of Ireland was subject to British rule. His father John Hart Dunne came from an Irish family (with Scottish blood too), made his career in the British Army and married an English woman, Julia Elizabeth Chapman. His oldest sibling, sister Marion, was born in Scotland near a British Army camp there. J.W. was born in Ireland, also near or even in a British Army camp. His two subsequent brothers were born in England, Leonard in Warwickshire and Frank in London. In other words, they were following their father's postings around and the fact that John Hart's second child was born in his own country of origin appears to be pure coincidence. Technically J.W. is roughly half-Irish and half-English. He may be found remarking wryly on this state of affairs in one of his children's books, "An Experiment with St. George" if I remember correctly. But his official nationality was British, and that's what counts here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

[edit]

This has erupted again. We have to stick to WP:RS. I'd suggest that editors wishing to emphasise Dunne's Irishness or to cut cited content might find it useful to read the above, then seek reliable sources for their PoV and discuss their proposed edits here first. It is a recurrent meme in informal sources but has no basis in reliable documentation. Meanwhile I have tried to tone down the previous over-emphasis on Englishness and clarify his father's status (see also the next discussion below). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality of father

[edit]

General Sir John Hart Dunne was born a native Irishman, in Ireland, which at that time it made him a British subject with a British passport. He rose to the rank of General in the Royal Scots Fusiliers (Duke of Edinburgh's Own), a regiment of the British Army. As such, when we qualify the nationaloty of the man "John Hart Dunne" we might qualify him as British or Irish depending on context. We may say that he was an Irishman, known as General Sir John Hart Dunne, or that he was British General Sir John hart Dunne. But what is totally wrong is to write that the titled individual was "Irish General" Sir John Hart Dunne. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure the Irish didnt have a seperate Army in 1875. Perhaps an Irish-born British General Sir .. may be better. Although I dont see why the origin Dunne's parents are really relevant or the unreferenced bit about ancestry. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne: the subtopic below helps explain why I opened the above discussion; another user is insisting on making a factually incorrect edit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They also ignored WP:BRD, which I had just asked them to respect in this edit comment and instead reverted my edit. The article history shows that this has been going on for a couple of weeks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne: Sorry to ping again, but what bits about his ancestry are unreferenced? The first sentence cites a national census, the whole para cites a book half of which is dedicated to him. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irish vs Irishman

[edit]
The following reply was posted to my user talk page by Glen Gormley (talk · contribs). I have moved it here, where it belongs. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to bother you, but the Talk page on Dunne you suggested doesn’t have a discussion topic on grammatical construction.

Please think for a second. Irish is the adjective. Irishman is the (old fashioned but still acceptable) noun.

Is English your first language? If not, I explain that adjectives “describe” nouns. Dunne was a general. He was born in Ireland. Therefore he was an “Irish general”. Or, in theory, “the general was an Irishman” or “the Irishman was a general”.

Please understand, the issue here is solely the minor grammatical error. The ethnic or national background of the man is not the issue. Glen Gormley (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. The phrase "Irish general" implies a general in the Irish army. As I point out above, he was not. Your logic-chopping is misplaced. (Also, your grasp of the nuances of English grammar and of Wikipedia etiquette are wanting in other ways, but we can get to those later; one thing at a time.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Were the subject born a few years earlier or later, this would be less ambiguous, but I have to agree that it doesn’t work here as “Irish general”. Qwirkle (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think he should be considered Anglo-Irish, much like the Duke of Wellington, who was also born in Ireland but didn't considered himself Irish at all. Meanderingbartender (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglo-Irish were an identifiable class primarily of English descent; they were more like ex-patriots than natives. We have no reliable source for the origins of the Dunne family, so it would be premature to use that description here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As others have commentated, whatever he was, he wasn't an "Irish general". I am also inclined to agree with Steelpillow's comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, really he was, in certain senses; in another context this description would be workable. Here, it creates needless ambiguity. Qwirkle (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For possible COI issues...

[edit]

... related to an editor of this article: See this talk page. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also User talk:Steelpillow — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._W._Dunne&oldid=1216366187"