When I had the honour of addressing you at our last annual meeting, I mentioned that I had proposed to this Society that an experimental apparatus should be constructed; that the proposition had been agreed to; and I may now say that the apparatus is very efficient. I have tried a number of experiments with it, accompanied by our worthy Secretary, Mr. Brearey.

My studies and experiments in that most interesting science. Practical Aërostation, have been wholly in reference mechanical action on the air, and the motive power most suitable for that purpose.

In my brief address I make no reference to the buoyance balloon principle, yet I may express pride and satisfaction that scientific advances made in aërostatic science—thanks some Members of our Society, and to other pioneers—have lend to the adoption and commission of balloons in Her Majesty Service.

I have made an instrument for testing captive vanes–which I may call the flight–meter—the use of which is to detemine the relative properties of lifting and propelling vanes various forms and various angular pitches, with vanes one foot or less from tip to tip; by turning a handle a velocity of one to two miles a minute is delivered on the air.

In the Paper which I read before the Äeronautical Society, at the General Meeting in 1878, I stated that; with respect to those of my models which are actuated by wing–movement, I had found a difficulty of sustaining the weight which appertains to the living example. But, from experiments which I have lately made, I find that the weight to be sustained depends upon power and strength of material employed, and also upon the right application of that power. For instance, in the wing–action of the bird, that portion of the pectoral muscle which depresses the wing is considerably more powerful than that which elevates it, because its functionis to sustain the whole weight of the bird by impact upon the air. In my models I attain that action by affixing india–rubber cord, more or less in tension (according to the powerused), underneath the wings, so that when the wings are elevated there shall be a strong downward impetus.

In placing this model before you, I venture to suggest that the attention of the members of the Society should especially be directed to finding or inventing a propeller which will enable us to grasp the air in such a manner as to utilise the power we possess in the steam-engine. We are at present unacquainted with any aërial propeller which does not require an enormous expenditure of power; and when I regard the ease with which many birds raise themselves from the ground, I cannot but think there is much room and opportunity for improvement in our mechanical appliances, and that the difficulty may be overcome.

The model I produce and where of a plan is here to annexed, illustrates what I believe to be the best (that is to say, the figure of 8 or sculling) action; but the same movement may, no doubt, be obtained by a more simple mechanical arrangement. Either a direct lifting, or a lifting and propelling action, may be produced by this arrangement.

It will, perhaps, appear remarkable that in 1878 I should refer back to the circumstances of an event of which I was an eye–witness seventy–two years ago. My reason is, that the death of Mosment never accounted for, seems to me now to find its explanation in the experiments of Glaisher and the catastrophe of the “Zenith.”

On the 7th of April, 1806, the aëronaut, Mosment, made his ninth ascent from Lille. His departure took place from the centre of the town at a quarter-past 12, and under favourable conditions of weather; at 1.45 the aëronaut was precipitated into the moat which surrounds the town, the place where he fell being from 3500 to 4300 feet distant from the point of departure. Conjecture was exhausted as to the origin of the catastrophe, which created a great sensation at the time; the cause of it, however, remained undiscovered.

Our communication respecting the aëronautic catastrophe of 1806 being entirely at variance with other published accounts of the same occurrence, we feel it incumbent on us to return once more to the subject.

Many attempts have been made to improve the top valve of the balloon. In connection with these attempts it will be sufficient to mention the names of Messrs. Giffard and Lefébre. I have myself proposed a valve pipe in the interior of the balloon, and which, by its more or less elevation, should permit a regulated escape of gas. (Aëronaute, May 1st, 1872.) As neither of these plans have been practically applied I am unable to say how far they would realize their theoretical promise. But it has since occurred to me that there remains a means yet more simple for attaining the same result, which is to do away with the valve, entirely, and to raise the apparatus in the interior of the balloon by means of a cord and pulley.