| |
| |
|
Healey
Duncan |
|
by Patrick Quinn |
|
|
| |
|
Big Duncan -
Little Duncan - Human Duncan |
|
 |
|
Healey Duncan
Saloon - Duncan Dragonfly - Ian Duncan |
|
|
| |
Some months back the US
Austin-Healey Magazine ran an article of mine about the original Warwick
built Healeys. Those 1,185 cars that were produced at the Donald Healey
Motor Company ‘s Warwick factory without any input from Austin from 1946
through to 1954. Yes it is sometimes forgotten that the DHMC were
building Healeys at the same time as the Austin-Healey was being built.
Perhaps first of all I should qualify what was actually built back then
by the DHMC. To be perfectly blunt the DHMC were assemblers of
components brought in from outside suppliers as about the only component
of the early cars that was produced in-house was the chassis. Everything
else was manufactured elsewhere either to the specifications of the DHMC
or to the suppliers. |
|
| |
 |
|
Duncan Dragonfly |
|
The production of the
Nash-Healey is perhaps the most extreme example of the DHMC’s production
methods. The chassis was manufactured at Warwick and fitted with the
engine/gearbox came from Nash in the US. Then with the earlier cars it
was all transported to Coventry to have the body fitted and then
returned to Warwick to be completed before being shipped to the US. When
Pininfarina became involved it became even more circuitous as the whole
chassis/engine/gearbox or rolling chassis was shipped to Italy to have
the body fitted and then shipped to the US. No wonder the cars were so
expensive.
Anyway what I’m leading
to is that the |
|
| |
DHMC never made the
body or coachwork for the early Healey cars just complete rolling
chassis that could be fitted with coachwork to the buyer’s wishes.
However certain ‘off-the-shelf’ bodies were offered and these complete
cars became known by the name of the Healey combined with that of the
body manufacturer. Hence the Healey Elliott, Healey Westland, Healey
Tickford and Healey Abbott. These models were all fitted with Riley
engines and when other engine/gearboxes were used they were known as the
Nash-Healey and Alvis Healey. There was also the Healey Silverstone and
Healey Sportsmobile, both also Riley powered and bodied away from the
DHMC for the two extremes of early post WW2 motoring with the
Silverstone being a racing sports car and the Sportsmobile offering the
height of luxury. |
|
| |
Healeys production
records indicate that some 123 were sold purely as rolling chassis with
a whole range of different bodies fitted. Most were English and included
saloons, tourers and even station wagons or shooting breaks as the
British like to call them. The London coachbuilder Hobbs produced
shooting breaks that featured a heavy use of exterior timberwork not
unlike the Woodies being manufactured in the US at the time. There were
a number of European coachbuilders who also used the Healey chassis,
such as the Swiss company Beuttler with a number of highly fashionable
open and closed bodies but once again were very expensive.
For such a small
manufacturer the variations |
|
 |
|
Healey Duncan Drone |
|
|
| |
on offer from the DHMC
were really quite amazing and something to look back with a degree of
respect. However with Editor Greg’s indulgence I would to focus on just
one of these body manufacturers. A company that besides building bodies
for Healeys and other marques was also pushing the envelope of motor
vehicle design. This long gone company was known as Duncan Industries
(Engineers) Ltd and if you were to look through the Healey build records
you will see that a total of thirty-nine Healey chassis were clothed in
Duncan bodies.
Now before we go on to
the Healey connection it’s worthwhile to have a look at Ian Duncan
himself and what else he was involved with, plus he does play a very
small but important role with the Austin-Healey some years later.
|
|
| |
 |
|
Healey Duncan racing at
Ohakea Circit New Zealand |
|
during 1948, now owned
by Patrick & Caroline Quinn |
|
Following the
completion of his mechanical engineering studies Ian Duncan went to work
for the Bristol Aeroplane Company who at the time were the largest
single aircraft manufacturer in the world. In 1940 with Europe at war he
was promoted to the position of chief technical assistant to Roy Fedden,
the company’s chief engineer. In 1942 Fedden left the company and
travelled to the US to study aero engine production methods on behalf of
the British government with Ian Duncan accompanying him. On their return
they established Roy Fedden Ltd with |
|
| |
a view of designing a new
flat six aero engine, a small gas turbine engine and the first Fedden
car. |
|
| |
Given their experience
with radial aero engines it comes as no surprise that the eventual
engine for the new Fedden car was a rear mounted air-cooled
three-cylinder radial driving the rear wheels through a torque
converter. The end result was a highly advanced vehicle with
chassis-less construction and rubber suspension. Unfortunately the
engine position way out the rear set up a highly undesirable balance
problem with the vehicle. During early testing the car objected strongly
to being driven with any enthusiasm and turned turtle by flipping on to
its roof. Work began on a replacement but there was a distinct lack of
enthusiasm.
Ian Duncan soon left
the company and commenced working with his brother’s canning machine
company. By the end of the war Duncan was established southwest of
London in Norfolk with his mind focused in producing his own car. Duncan
Industries (Engineers) Ltd was formed and ex Fedden staff like Frank
Hamblin soon joined. |
|
| |
Right from the start
Duncan had intentions on building a small car and it wasn’t long before
the project was given the name of Duncan Dragonfly. Both Duncan and
Hamblin agreed that while it was to be a small car, the Dragonfly was in
reality to be a small car in miniature and must be able to carry three
persons. Strangely the team first turned their minds to the wheel size
as a small car had to have small wheels and at the time small cars had
16 inch wheels which would have look ridiculous. Ian Duncan promptly
ordered five |
|
 |
|
Healey
Duncan in England |
|
|
| |
12-inch wheels and
tyres from Crosley Motors of Cincinnati, USA. Eventually they turned to
Dunlop who offered to manufacture the wheels and tyres. |
|
| |
A number of engines
were considered for the Dragonfly with a BSA 500cc overhead valve
air-cooled twin decided upon. The team wanted front wheel drive and with
the BSA powerplant the gearbox was in unison with the engine. With the
engine way forward of the front wheels drive was via a chain driven
differential and half shafts complete with French designed Tracta
constant velocity joints. Like the Fedden the Duncan Dragonfly was also
fitted with rubber suspension designed by Alex Moulton. To students of
automotive history this arrangement is quite fascinating as it pre dates
a far more famous ground breaking car by some thirteen years. It wasn’t
until 1959 when BMC introduced the new Mini that was also front wheel
drive with an engine and gearbox in unison, fitted with constant
velocity joints and Moulton designed rubber suspension.
It was important to
Duncan Industries that the Dragonfly was to be completed and driven on
the road. The end result was a perfect car in miniature weighing 1,064
lbs, 10ft 9 ½ in length, 4 ft 1 ½ tall and able to sit three abreast. It
also had a reasonable turn of speed being good for 65mph making other
small engined cars of the period look rather pedestrian.
Now don’t think that
Duncan industries were only involved in the construction of the
prototype Dragonfly. Yes it was a pet project of Ian Duncan but it
didn’t put bread on the table. The company needed cash to continue with
the Dragonfly and it was fortunate that the UK was starved for new motor
vehicles. It may come as no surprise that in the immediate post WW2
period the British motor manufacturing industry was a particularly close
net group with most major players being in good relations with each
other. Enter Donald Healey who was a friend of Ian Duncan. |
|
| |
 |
|
Other Healey Duncan in England |
|
Healey chassis were
prefixed by letters with the A-type being the earliest and so on working
up to the G-type that were used in the Tickfords in 1954. Three A-type
chassis were ordered from the DHMC and the first one fitted with a
Hillman Minx body suitably modified to take the Healey kite shape
grille. While that was strange enough the next two were even more so
with first a Ford Anglia followed by a Prefect body being fitted. The
next body was completely new and fitted to |
|
| |
a Alvis TA14 chassis
and it was clear that the new design came from the same mind that
designed the Dragonfly body. Not a car in miniature but full size. As
was common practice of the time these limited production bodies were
built using the coachbuilt methods or aluminium panels attached to a
timber frame. Interestingly the timber frames were built by local
boatbuilders. |
|
| |
So started a range of
Duncan bodied Healeys and Alvis cars which were in constant demand to
those who could afford the exorbitant prices. It turned out that Duncan
Industries were the first British coachbuilder that offered the same
body to various manufacturers and over time there were also Duncan
bodied Daimlers, Bentleys and Allard. They were also involved in general
fabricating and continued to manufacturer canning equipment.
Small British motor
manufacturers were hit a body blow in 1947 when the British government
increased purchase tax to 66 2/3 % on cars costing more than 1,000
Pounds. This proved particularly difficult to Duncans but over a drink
with James Watt of the DHMC one evening, Ian Duncan came up with the
answer. It was to offer a very basic body on a Healey chassis for less
that 1,000 Pounds where even such things as the windscreen, passenger
seat and spare tyre became an optional extra. This car became known as
the Duncan Drone and also christened Spiv by some unkind souls. Owners
were free to use their new car as is or fit a brand new body to be then
a second hand car and therefore escape the hefty purchase tax.
The thirty-nine Duncan
bodied Healeys comprised of twenty-three saloons, one convertible and
fifteen drones. In total there were thirty Duncan bodied Alvis cars as
well. At the company’s peak Duncan Industries were employing close on to
120 people. |
|
| |
While the future looked
rosy for Ian Duncan it was the hefty 66 2/3 % purchase tax that was to
sound the death knell of his company. In the end Duncan Industries owed
so much money to the British Government that they had no choice but to
sell off their assets and close the doors. About the only tangible asset
held by the company was the Dragonfly, so Ian Duncan set about trying to
interest various vehicle manufacturers in the little car. Neither Jaguar
or BSA were interested but Ian Duncan approached Leonard Lord of Austin
and he agreed to buy the car for 10,000 Pounds providing that Duncan
would also come and work for him. |
|
| |
So both the Dragonfly
and Ian Duncan set off for Longbridge. At that stage Austin was not
producing any smaller cars so the Dragonfly created quite a bit of
interest. It can’t be said that the company was the most farsighted
organisation and it wasn’t long before all the innovative ideas were
iron out and the result, the Austin A30 while cute was strictly
conventional.
Ian Duncan left Austin
in 1951 when rumours of the merge with Morris were in the air. The |
|
 |
|
Alvis Duncan - See
the front is very different |
|
but the same from
the windscreen back |
|
|
| |
little Dragonfly had long
since been relegated to a storage area and was damaged to such an extent
that it was eventually cut up and sold for scrap.
After Austin Ian Duncan
stayed in the motor industry for a few years but then pursued his other
passion by starting a photographic business where he stayed until he
retired. During this time he remained friends with the Healey family and
took quite a bit of interest when the new Healey 100 was being designed.
While Geoff Healey was perplexed with the low geared four-speed gearbox
supplied by Austin limiting overall top speed. It was Ian Duncan who
suggested they could try the new Laycock de Normanville overdrive to
provide a higher top speed. |
|
| |
Tale of One Healey Duncan |
|
| |
Time has certainly
taken its toll on the Healey saloons, as it’s a fact of life that unless
cared for wood will warp, crack and rot. With their timber framed
coachbuilt bodies many Healeys were not destined to last which is sad,
as they are extremely quick and stylish motor cars. The Healey
Silverstone is in a vastly different situation as being alloy on a steel
frame it has stood the test of time.
Records indicate that
of the thirty-nine Healey Duncans produced, some eight still exist in
various states of repair. There is one Drone, one drop head coupe and
six saloons. I understand that the Drone is very much running as is two
of the saloons and the drop head coupe is coming to the end of a long
restoration. The other four saloons are in various states of decal
depending on the owner’s optimism. All are in the UK except for one of
the saloons that’s in Australia and lucky not have been scrapped many
years ago. |
|
| |
Chassis number B1647
was bought new in 1947 by a Mr Yelverston, a New Zealander working in
England. On a trip back to the antipodes in 1948 he bought the car with
him via Australia. On landing in New Zealand that Healey caused quite a
stir amongst the motoring fraternity as while most had heard of the new
Healeys, but having one in the country was something else again.
Contemporary New Zealand magazines featured this new English sporting
saloon in which testers were impressed at its speed.
Mr Yelverston returned
to the UK and left the Healey in the hands of Fred Sharman who with
permission raced the car in 1948 on airstrip circuit at Ohakea on New
Zealand’s North Island. It is not known how the car then ended back up
in Sydney, Australia a couple of years later. However it has recently
found out that it was put on consignment at the long defunct Neutral
Motors in the Sydney suburb of Double Bay. Sydneysiders would now laugh
at the thought of a car dealer in the genteel and well-to-do suburb of
Double Bay.
The next mention of the
Healey was in 1956 when it was found looking rather forlorn and damaged
in a wrecking yard in Sydney’s western suburbs. Then over a period of
five years its chassis was rebuilt along with the engine, gearbox and
suspension. However it is assumed not completed as the vehicle
|
|
| |
 |
|
Part
of the Healey - Duncan Sales Brochure |
|
was advertised in 1961
for 345 Pounds in Australian Motor Sports as still slightly accident
damaged.
The trail then goes
cold until 1977 when Healey and Austin-Healey enthusiast Keith Bagnall
heard about a strange Healey in the west of Sydney. Keith tracked it
down and subsequently bought it to keep his Healey Westland and
Austin-Healey 100 company. Sadly Keith died last year but I had been a
friend since the early 1970s and we would often chat about the local
Healey scene. On the very day he brought the Duncan home I asked him for
first refusal should he ever decided to part with it – he agreed. |
|
| |
It took some time and a
number of reminders but in 1987 Keith asked if I was still interested in
the Duncan. I didn’t have to think too long about it and luckily we were
flushed with funds at the time following the death of an aunt.
So the Healey Duncan
was now mine and safely tucked up next to the BN3/1. I would be
fantasizing to say that was in anywhere near going condition as I
suspect that it hasn’t run under its own power for close to fifty years.
It wasn’t the easiest car to move when we moved into the mountains west
of Sydney in 1992 and it now sits patiently waiting its turn after
various pergolas, fountains, extra bedrooms and the like. However I have
tracked down quite a bit of the car’s history and definitely become
immersed in the history of the DHMC and its products, both Healey and
Austin-Healey.
There are pieces
missing, the engine to be rebuilt and so on. Plus I have to find the
knowledge of what goes where. However it is part of the amazing history
of the DHMC and something I am passionately interested in. So let’s see
where we go. |
|
| |
Our
thanks to Patrick Quinn for the use of his article on Ian Duncan |
|
|
|