There is some conflicting info on the chassis number of the original Aerolithe. Does anybody know the story of the car?

_________________
Vive la Marque !!

For more understanding, I council highly of reading the article of Yves Kaltenbach on the Newsletter n°20 of Bugatti Trust, it is on page 11:

http://www.bugatti-trust.co.uk/bm~doc/n ... -no-20.pdf

_________________
Make your dream devour your life, so that life doesn't devour your dream.
[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

Great info. This info makes me using the chassis number 57331 as it was the first chassis number that was used for this car, and timewise it is the most appropiate.

_________________
Vive la Marque !!

the Newsletter n°20 of Bugatti Trust, it is on page 11:


Bugatti Aerolithe
Richard Day

Yves Kaltenbach was interested to read an article, “L’Aérolithe – Quand on parle du dragon on en voit la queue …” in the French magazine, Automobile Historique, written by Paul Badré. He
did not agree with some parts of the article and felt some further comment was needed. Although so much has already been written and published on the subject we make no apology for including this article by Yves.
The Bugatti Aerolithe created a sensation at its debut in Paris in 1935 and has since become one of the greatest motoring icons. Perhaps the fact that it no longer exists makes the story more enigmatic and fascinating.
We are grateful to Yves for providing this article for the Trust Newsletter – it is an example of his careful research and insight. It points to the discrepancies in the previously published accounts and draws convincing conclusions.

The Mystery of the Silver-Grey Aerolithe
Yves Kaltenbach

In recent times, three reputable authors have written about one of the most mysterious Bugattis, the Aerolithe. Paul Badré published a 6-page article in a low-circulation French historic car magazine, while Bernhard Simon and Pier Yves Laugier devoted a chapter in
their respective 57S Bugatti tomes. All three pose more intriguing questions than they provide convincing answers.
The Aerolithe was unveiled at the Paris Motor Show held in October 1935 under the iron and glass structure of the Grand Palais. The car was known as the ‘Coupé Special’ and it seems that the ‘Aerolithe’ tag was invented by the French press and hardly used by Bugatti. The car stunned by its appearance, and though it may have been inspired by the ‘Autobahnkurier’ that Mercedes unveiled in Berlin earlier that year, its shape was unique. It used a styling cue that had first appeared in October 1933 on the tail of the Type 59s, i.e. an external riveted spine as a way to join two separate half-shells. Bugatti stated that the bodywork was made from ‘Elektron’, a German-sourced alloy made of magnesium, tin and aluminium and already in regular use in the aviation industry. The ‘Coupé Special’ was later exhibited at Olympia for the London Motor Show, and came back to Britain in March 1936, driven by William Grover-Williams, the famed 1929 Monaco GP winner. G M Giles was one of the lucky passengers and recounted his experience in the next issue of Bugantics. Afterwards, nothing was heard of the car. Its styling was re-used on the 57S Atlantic, the first of which, built in September 1936, was sold to Lord Rothschild.

How many Aerolithes were made? Probably, only one. Although one may spot minor differences (windscreen wipers and front wing sidelights) on pictures taken at Paris and London, this was probably the same car and both Badré and Laugier agree on that.
However, Simon notes that an engine list, sourced from the few surviving factory documents, shows that the engine number was changed between Paris
57331 – engine 226S, and London,
57103 – engine 2S. From that indication,
Simon deduces that there was a second Aerolithe, stating that ‘there can be no doubt about its existence, as it can be distinguished in documentary photos by the description of different details and by the former licence no 57103, 5265NV2’.
According to Laugier, 57331 was transferred to Jean Bugatti’s Atalante Company car soon after the closure of the Paris Motor Show. On the other hand, the latter chassis number and
relevant registration documents were probably transferred to the Aerolithe to enable it to cross the Channel on its own wheels, which was common practice with car manufacturers. However, there is no definitive evidence to prove that more than one Aerolithe was ever made.

What was the exact specification of the Aerolithe? Although the Aerolithe was
equipped with the then-current tall 57 radiator and bonnet*, there is no doubt it was built on a short wheelbase 57S chassis, as the excellent side view from the Paris Show clearly shows. However, Simon states that it used a first version of the new chassis, with waisted rear ends
‘à la Type 35’ and a narrower firewall than was later fitted to the 57S.
Unfortunately, nothing survives except for a couple of ‘narrow’ firewalls and a few drawings, not enough to prove that this version of the 57S chassis was ever made. As far as we know, there is no picture of the bare chassis of the Aerolithe prior to the installation of the body, so we are left with pure speculation. Regarding the engine, although G M Giles was impressed as a passenger, he gave no precise indication about what powered the car he rode in. It may have been an improved version of the 3.3 litre T57 unit, a prototype for the forthcoming S version. Whether it was in its definitive form is also not clear. The bodywork excited the imagination as Bugatti insisted that it was made of a rare material named ‘Elektron’. Bugatti was so convincing that Badré writes ‘it seems established that the bodywork of the Aerolithe was shaped by trained German craftsmen who were specially invited to Molsheim. One must reckon that it is of a much better quality than regular Bugatti production and to a level equal to that prevailing in the aircraft industry’. To the opposite, Simon writes that Bugatti ‘seemed to be in a very tight financial situation…The use of materials such as electron metal and magnesium would have required completely new production units and a technology that was not available in those days, not to mention the question of expense’. At that time, Bugatti’s poor financial situation probably did not allow for the expense of bringing foreign specialists to replace
their own workforce. Given Ettore Bugatti’s inclination towards ‘flashy’
statements, one may accept that the Aerolithe was in fact built from simple aluminium.

What became of the Aerolithe? As before, the authors disagree. Simon’s statement: ‘the second coupé Aerolithe 57103S that was later used to assemble 57374 …’ implies that the Rothschild Atlantic was nothing more than the rebuilt second Aerolithe. Once again there is no serious evidence of this consanguinity. For instance, the Aerolithe had two small ‘fins’ one each side of the rear window lights (which Badré confuses with fuel filters !), which can be seen on the picture taken in a London street. When restoring the Rothschild Atlantic, Jim Stranberg found no trace of this on the inside of the rear panels and also noted that all body panels were made of completely normal aluminium sheet metal. And by comparing the side views of both the Aerolithe and the Rothschild Atlantic (as shown by Laugier p 126) one may
note too many minor differences other than the scuttle height and bonnet line to make this feasible. Furthermore, Badré rightly points out that the rivets on the front wing spines of the two cars are set with a different spacing. Simon and Laugier note that metal panels and
woodwork on the Rothschild Atlantic are stamped ‘2’. Some say that it was made at the same time as the Holzschuh Atlantic, and the latter could have been stamped ‘1’. Given its fate, i.e. completely written off by a train in the mid-fifties, we shall never know. Only Badré concludes that the Aerolithe, with its specific racing car features, ‘became the second 57G, driven by Veyron in the 1937 Le Mans 24 Hours’. While it is quite feasible that the three 57G tanks were built in the troubled spring of 1936 with ‘off-the-shelf’ parts, including perhaps, components from the disused Aerolithe, the two Tanks that ran at Le Mans in 1937 had already raced twice
in 1936. Laugier concludes: ‘Robert Aumaitre, chief mechanic with Bugatti from 1935, confirmed to Robert Jarraud that the car was scrapped’.
This is probably the most credible explanation.
To express my own feelings, I believe that there was only one Aerolithe built, with its bodywork made from aluminium, and incorporating either series or prototype parts. I also think that
this car disappeared some time between April 1936 and the late forties in the turmoil that the Bugatti factory at Molsheim suffered. As there was a removal to Bordeaux under the pressure of the advancing enemy and the forced occupation of the site by the German Trippel Werke, that anything survived from that period was a miracle. There is not such word as “impossible” and we may believe that number of prototype cars (e.g. the 57S45s …) disappeared without trace during those troubled times.

The author wishes to thank the Bugatti Trust for their precious help.

A last detail note from the Trust:
Some of the writings about the Aerolithe have referred to it as having had a standard Type 57 (flat fronted) radiator. In fact it did not.

The first two Type 57S cars had flat radiators but ones which had been re-designed to be 80mm lower relative to the crankshaft centreline than standard.
They had a different mounting arrangement and the starting handle hole was not in the base position. The Molsheim drawing number for this radiator is 57SCH.13 and the drawing is dated 13.8.35. The ‘V’ fronted later Type 57S radiator drawing is dated 18.12.35.

The other 57S exhibited in Paris in October 1935 was the Torpédo Competition. Both the Aerolithe and the Torpédo Competition side views were drawn to a scale of 1:10. Scaling from
the drawings also confirms that they were fitted with the special 57S lowered flat radiator.