Fatal crash of Puss Moth CF-APK Italy 1933

[ian.whalley]

Hi Folks.

If anyone can help I am trying to find a copy of an Italian Report into the fatal crash of Puss Moth CF-APK in the Appenine Mountains in Italy in January 1933. The crash resulted in the death of Pioneer Australian Aviator Bert Hinkler.

Any information would be appreciated.

I am also interested in any Bert Hinkler memorabilia that anyone may have for sale. Books, magazines, autographs, letters etc.

Also interested in autographs/signatures of British Pilots/Test Pilots John Boothman, Hubert Broad, Humphrey Edwardes-Jones, Augustus Orlebar, Leonard Snaith, Sammy Wroath, Mutt Summers etc

Thank you for any assistance that you are able to provide.

I can be contacted off list at [email protected]

Regards, Ian from Oz.

[pasir]

Dont know if you have the following book - entitled -

- SOLO
The Bert Hinkler Story - by R D Mackenzie

Published 1963 - Angus and Robertson Ltd - London
(Austraia - H Pole anD Co Ltd Brisbane)

160 pages with some photos

[ian.whalley]

Thanks for the information and the reply.

I have the original hard cover version and the later paperback with some updated information on the fatal crash.

I also have a copy of "ARC R & M 1699 Report on Puss Moth Accidents" which refers to an Italian Investigation into the crash. I have been looking for a copy of this Italian Investigation for many years but have not been able to locate a copy.

There is also a book by Ted Wixted called "The Last Flight of Bert Hinkler" which suggests Hinkler was murdered when someone tampered with the propeller of the Puss Moth. I do not agree with his theory.

Thanks again for your reply and helpful suggestion.

[larssnowpharter]

Do you have the title of the Italian investigation? I speak Italian and that will help me search for it.

[Sir George Cayley]

I'm not able to help, but with apologies for a very slight drift in thread....

Was it true that Hinkler survived the crash only to die of hypothermia? If so, it's always struck me as spoky that Neil Williams also survived crashing his He-111 en route UK from Spain, again only to succumb to the cold.

Sir George Cayley

[ian.whalley]

Part of the problem with any investigation into this crash is that the crash occurred on the 7th of January 1933 and the wreckage was not found until April of that year.

His body had significant head injuries but the suggestion is that he walked some distance from the wreckage and lay on the ground where he was later found.

There is no real way of knowing whether the injuries sustained in the crash were survivable.

A sad and lonely end to a truly great Aviator.

[ian.whalley]

Sorry, I don't have a title to the report.

I have found reference to the report in other documentation but have never been able to find a copy (in any language).

I am assuming that the people responsible for the report into the 9 Puss Moth crashes had access to a copy as they quoted from it in their report.

Crash occurred on the 7th of January 1933 in the Appenines in Italy. The aircraft was a Puss Moth with Canadian Registration CF-APK. The pilot was Herbert John Louis (Bert) Hinkler who was Australian by birth but was living in the UK at the time. The wreckage was found by charcoal gatherers in April 1933.

Thanks for your offer of help.

Regards, Ian.

[Chris Royle]

Sir George Cayley wrote;
"Neil Williams also survived crashing his He-111 en route UK from Spain, again only to succumb to the cold."

I have never heard that before. Do you have a reference? Was the information within the Spanish accident report?

[Chris Royle]

Sorry for thread drift, but to answer my own question, I have just come across this from the AAIB report of the accident that killed Neil Williams. It states that he was killed instantly.
There is evidence that at the time
both engines were developing power.
The aircraft had broken up on impact
and then caught fire. All four
occupants were killed instantly. No
evidence was found of any pre-crash
failure or defect on the aircraft.
The pilot had considerable experience
of flying the Heinkel 111 on
ferry flights, and had previously flown
the type from Madrid to the UK. 3 3

[India Four Two]

Why was Bert Hinckler flying a Canadian-registered aircraft, rather than British or Australian?

[ian.whalley]

Hinkler was in America trying to sell his own design which was called The Ibis. He purchased the Puss Moth and left it with Canadian Registration.

He then flew the Puss Moth across the Atlantic and back to the UK.

I honestly don't know why he kept the Canadian Registration.

The Avro Avian he flew to Australia had british registration G-EBOV.

[Kevin Lindeberg]

Sir George

In 1974 I visited Mount Pratomagno, Italy, in the company of the Arezzo Aero Club (then) President, Prince Amedeo di Savioa, and one of the carbon collectors who found Bert Hinkler's remain in April 1933. I was shown where he attempted to land his Puss Moth and where he died, some 80 metres down the mountainside from his demolished aircraft.

Bert obviously walked or crawled that distance.

Together with Prince Amedeo, we marked both spots with markers. They may still be there.

I have long been associated with Bert Hinkler, and still have connections with the Bert Hinkler Museum in Bundaberg Queensland. This connection came out of my friendship with Ted Wixted, a great Australian

There is no doubt that Bert was attempting a crash landing. He did not fly into the mountain through error.

Compelling evidence exists showing that one of his propellers broke off in flight. By any measure, an extraordinary event. The events which followed surrounding his funeral and his personal affairs were equally extraordinary and give rise to the view that his crash was not unexpected by certain people.

What was equally unexpected however was that Mussolini would accord Bert a State Funeral. His remains are in a Florence cemetry.

[fauteuil volant]

"Compelling evidence exists showing that one of his propellers broke off in flight."

I'd be interested to come across a Puss Moth with more than one propellor!

[ian.whalley]

I am at present working with a retired Air Crash Investigator to establish the definitive cause of the crash. It has been suggested that the propeller of the Puss Moth was tampered with and that a blade of the propeller was ejected from the hub.The makers of the propeller are of the opinion that it would not be possible for a blade to be ejected from the hub.

The photographic evidence and all other available evidence suggests that a wing came off the aircraft as a result of flutter.

There is a report from the 1930's which includes the crash of CF-APK as one of 9 instances where a wing came off a Puss Moth Aircraft due to flutter.

The Italian Investigation which is referred to in the report mentioned previously also states a wing came off the aircraft.

I might add that both propeller blades were found at the scene and are shown in photos of the wreckage.

If a blade were ejected, the forces on the engine would tear it from its mounts.

I will be happy to post the results of my investigation when they are complete.

Regards, Ian.

[ian.whalley]

Still looking for a copy of the Italian Investigation/Report into the fatal crash of Puss Moth CF-APK in the Appenine Mountains Italy in January 1933 that reuslted in the death of Australian Aviator Bert Hinkler.

I recently visited the Hinkler Hall of Aviation in Bundaberg, Queensland.

Overview | Hinkler Hall of Aviation (http://hinklerhallofaviation.com/node/7)

They have a fully restored (and flyable) Puss Moth painted in the markings of Hinkler's Aircraft CF-APK.

Also of interest:

Bert Hinkler - homepage (http://www.hinklerresearch.org.au/index.htm)

All the best from Oz. Regards, Ian.:)

[ian.whalley]

Still looking for a copy of the report on the Italian Investigation into the crash of Hinkler's Puss Moth CF-APK if anyone can help.The Italian Report is quoted in a British Report on 9 Puss Moth crashes (CF-APK is one of the 9).

Does anyone have details on the relevant Government Department which may have the archives that relate to this report?

Thanks for any help that anyone can provide.

Regards, Ian from Oz.:)

[Fantome]

I will be happy to post the results of my investigation when they are complete.

Regards, Ian.

Most helpful if you can. I'm familiar with all the published works of Wixted, Mackenzie, Bettiens and some lesser chroniclers of the Hinkler story. What I would dearly like to know is whether there are any useful resources and archives apart from what is held in the Queensland Museum library and at Bundaberg in the Hinkler archive there.

The Mackenzie biography was in some ways a disappointment, for I feel the author failed to reveal the true heart and soul of his subject. On the more practical, functional side, Hinkler's greatest contribution to the advancement of aviation was the manner in which he showed the world convincingly that by 1928 the light aircraft was capable of proving it's safety, reliability, ease of maintenance, usefulness and for many it's affordability.

When in Australia in 1928, after accomplishing his record breaking solo flight from England in sixteen days ("Hinkle, Hinkle, little star, sixteen days and here you are" as Punch magazine had it in a full page cartoon)
our man spared no effort in promoting the light aeroplane.
He recorded on both sides of a gramaphone record his advice to the nation about flying as it was then, and his predictions. It is rivetting listening, (even though he mispronounces Hargrave in his rapid fire monologue.)

This should find the audio clip, accessing one side of the recording..-

Hinkler’s Message to Australia; Incidents of My Flight (1928) clip 1 on ASO - Australia's audio and visual heritage online (http://aso.gov.au/titles/spoken-word/hinklers-message/clip1/#)[/SIZE][/FONT]

[DH106]

ian.whalley wrote:-
I am at present working with a retired Air Crash Investigator to establish the definitive cause of the crash. It has been suggested that the propeller of the Puss Moth was tampered with and that a blade of the propeller was ejected from the hub.The makers of the propeller are of the opinion that it would not be possible for a blade to be ejected from the hub.

The photographic evidence and all other available evidence suggests that a wing came off the aircraft as a result of flutter.Interesting - I've never bought the prop blade explanation either. I also feel the wreckage in the crash site photos was far too mangled & "pancaked" to be the result of a forced landing attempt - especially from a pilot of Hinkler's experience.
However - if a the wing did seperate, Hinkler is unlikely to have survived the following uncontrolled spiral into the ground, so perhaps the distance between his body and the aircraft can be explained by him being "flung" or ejected on the way down.
I would also be very interested in seeing your completed report Ian :-)

[punkalouver]

Seeing as it was Canadian registered, is it possible that a report was sent to Canada and is somewhere deep in those archives?

[ian.whalley]

Now that is what I call thinking outside the square.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. I have a friend in Canada and I will ask him to make the appropriate enquiries. :)

[wieesso]

Bert Hinkler and Canada by Fred W. Hotson
In this 10 page article in CAHS Journal Vol 30 No 1 Spring 1992 you can find the following:

@India Four Two
"...During the otherwise routine transatlantic paperwork, Canada's E.W. Stedman, Senior Air Officer, wrote S/L Lawrence that, under the circumstances, the Canadian registration should be cancelled and a British registration taken out. Lawrence came back promptly with a reply, indicating he had discussed the subject with Hinkler. "The reason this certificate was endorsed at this office was primarily due to the fact that the Squadron Ldr. Hinkler's plans are to return to Canada via Australia, and on this account he put forward a very strong plea for the retention of the Canadian registration." The letter ended, "Squadron Leader Hinkler does not wish his projected flight to receive any publicity, it is requested, please, that it be treated as confidential.""

@ian.whalley
about the accidents involving wing separation in flight:
"Bert must have been in on all the detailed investigation carried out by the Air Ministry and de Havilland but little did he know that he would be number eight in that list."
(2 in Australia VH-UPM, VH-UPC, 2 in Europe G-ABDH, G-ABJU, 2 in South Africa ZS-ACC, ZS-ACD, 1 in Canada G-CYUT, the only one with a survivor report - the ninth happened 22.6.33 in Siam HS-PAA)
"All Puss Moth owners were kept informed of the details and the step-by-step modifications. The 1932 C of A renewal report on CF-APK, done prior to Hinkler's last flight, showed all the modifications installed and approved airworthy according to Air Ministry standards."

Martin

[ian.whalley]

So what exactly does that information tell us? What were the modifications that are mentioned?

Hinkler crashed in January 1933 and there was another crash in Siam in June 1933 so whatever the modifications were it seems they did not cure the wing flutter problem. The nine puss moth crashes mentioned in the R & M report (including Hinkler and Siam) are all believed to be the result of flutter.

I have not yet located a copy of the Italian Report into Hinkler's crash. A friend in canada is working to establish whether a copy exists in the Canadian Archives. :)

[Airways Ed]

This would suggest that a copy of the Italian report could be in UK archives; was any wreckage of CF-APK sent to the UK?

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA267086

[ian.whalley]

Thanks for the link. I had spoken to John Kepert re the Puss Moth crashes and he agreed that flutter was the likely cause of Hinkler's fatal crash in CF-APK. I had also spoken with John Watkins who investigated an Australian crash of a Puss Moth. There was a witness who observed the wing seperate from the aircraft.

I have not been able to find a copy of the Italian Report in Australia. I have had no luck finding one in the UK but if someone has the right contacts I would certainly appreciate help in finding a copy.

The wreckage of CF-APK was carried down from the mountains and buried at Florence Airfield. Hinkler's body was buried in Florence. As far as I know no wreckage was transported to the UK.

Thanks for your help and interest. :)

[ian.whalley]

A friend in Canada has located a copy of a file on CF-APK but unfortunately there is no copy of the Italian Investigation into the crash in the file.

Does anyone have contacts in the Air Crash Investigation Office in the UK?

Or could anyone suggest which archives or Government Department would have information used to publish the "ARC R & M 1699 Report on Puss Moth Accidents"? There is reference to the Italian Report in that publication so I would assume they had a copy to refer to.

Enquiries in Italy suggest their records were destroyed during the war.

Thank you for your help. It is very much appreciated. :)

[Sir George Cayley]

Ian,

Here's a link to the Air Accident Investigation Branch at Farnborough. It's an arm of the Department for Transport.

Air Accidents Investigation: Home (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/home/index.cfm)

In the first instance I'd write to Keith Conradi who is the Chief Inspector.

There is also the National Archive (formerly the Public Records Office) at Kew, West London. You have to employ a "reader" to gain access to any particular file though I don't know the cost or how to go about it.

SGC

[ian.whalley]

Thank you Sir George. Your help is very much appreciated. :)

[Captain Bundy]

There's a new book out by Grantlee Kieza all about Bert Hinkler

Went to his signing tonight at Bundbaerg Library.

Haven't read the book yet but will get back to you about it!


Alex.

[ian.whalley]

Thanks Alex. I have a copy of the new Hinkler book. The cause of the Puss Moth Crash is discussed on page 440. No definitive cause is given and different theories are mentioned.

If you are a Bert Hinkler fan or have an interest in the early days of Aviation, a copy of the book "Bert Hinkler" by Grantlee Kieza published by Harper Collins is worth buying. :)

[Grantlee Kieza]

Hi guys
I have some crash reports compiled by Italian authorities in the days after Bert's body was found.
If anyone would like to see them please email me on
[email protected]

Thanks for your interest in my book:ok:

[Grantlee Kieza]

Hello everyone
Thanks for your interest in my book on Bert Hinkler.
I have a copy of the crash report compiled by Italian investigators in the days after Bert's body was found.
If anyone would like to see the report please email me at
[email protected]

Thanks very much:ok:
Grantlee

[ian.whalley]

Thank you Grantlee and congratulations on the Hinkler Book. Welcome aboard. :)

[ian.whalley]

A very big public thank you to Grantlee Kieza for providing a copy of the elusive Italian Document which documents the cause of the crash of Puss Moth CF-APK. :D

This ends my 30 year plus search for a copy of the document involving enquiries in Italy, the UK, Canada and Australia.

The document states that the wing seperated from the fuselage in flight in part due to a defect in soldering which resulted in the breaking of a bolt slot which allowed progressive play in the wing joint. This eventually resulted in the wing breaking away.

The seperated wing was found 250 metres / 820 feet from the main wreckage.

Thank you again to Grantlee. Make sure you buy a copy of his book on Bert Hinkler. Thank you also to those on this forum who helped me in my quest.

I think we can categorically say that the propeller of CF-APK was not tampered with and the aircraft did not collide with a tree while attempting an emergency landing.

Rest in Peace Bert Hinkler and Godspeed. :)

[JammedStab]

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a267086.pdf

Some info in here on the aircraft in question.

[ian.whalley]

Thanks Jammedstab. Already mentioned in post #23 above by Airways Ed but your help is very much appreciated. :)

[Fantome]

Is it not true we have no idea how qualified was the Italian who examined the wreckage and made his report? In the absence of this knowledge I think it prudent to take his references to the nature of the failure in the wing attach area with some scepticism.

Regarding the likely course of the plane in the minutes preceding the crash we have to consider that Hinkler was renowned in England as a daring scud runner. I have read in THE AEROPLANE contemporary mention of his ability to turn up at an airfield at the appointed time, though, as they say, the birds were walking. He also on his last flight was attempting to break the England-Australia record. So the degree of press-on-itis was extreme.

As Mackenzie, the early Hinkler biographer, says in his epilogue on page 122 of 'SOLO' . .......'One suspects that, like many people whose early years are spent in a struggle for self-justification, he was proud and somewhat embittered. Further aimless delay was more than he could bear. His 'get there or else' attitude allowed no compromise and invited self-destruction.'

We can say with some confidence it seems, that the measured or stepped out distance between wing and main wreckage was 250 metres. I think any highly qualified accident investigator today would say that such a separation points to a ground speed at wing failure something at least around 120 knots. Not knowing with any precision the nature of the terrain and obstructions between the two components does make this estimate hard to be sure of. If the wreckage trail is not accurately recorded a later analysis can only be very approximate and possibly flawed. Then again Hinkler may have throttled right back poking round in the murk.

Some investigators would also quite likely conclude that a consequence of the distance apart of wing and fuselage would be to conclude that massive forces attended the impact of the fuselage. For Hinkler to have survived the crash and then crawl from the wreckage and go the distance he did does lead to the conclusion that the aircraft impacted the ground at a shallow angle and that its momentum forces were absorbed and dispersed by break up of the fuselage as it decelerated after initial contact. Loss of a wing in flight at any level invariably means unsurvivable impact forces.

In other words, the path of an aircraft in flight after wing loss, even at very low altitude, is not likely to be one leading to a shallow angle of impact with terrain that is itself not steep or falling away at a high gradient.

If the wing separation did occur 250 metres from where the main wreckage ended up and we cannot say with any certainty that the wing did suffer structural failure in flight, then there will always be conjecture taking into account the alternative hypothesis that impact with a tree or other obstacle occurred first. It is to the recent biographer of Hinkler, Grantlee Kieza's credit that he leaves the question unresolved in his reader's mind. On the balance of probabilities, in the absence of an expert independent technical review of the Italian findings, and considering Hinkler's long non-stop flight from England to Italy, the prevailing weather and his probable uncertainty as to precise position, controlled flight into terrain is most likely.

Those who suggest turbulence as a factor, precipitating wing failure, ignore the fact that the prevailing weather at that time of year is not one of strong winds. Hinkler, tired and unsure of his exact position, dodging low cloud in poor visibility, would be flying slow rather than fast.

Lang Kidby I read likewise does not give great credence to the 'official' accident investigation finding. Fair to say that both of us, aviators of some experience of flying light aircraft here and overseas through skies fair and foul, sometimes with the ring hanging out due weather and terrain, feel qualified to claim some insight. When others try to put themselves in the shoes of a deceased pilot they often commit presumptions of the kind that warrants a sharp rebuke. Of the kind a correspondent to 'Aeroplane Monthly' made a few years ago when the editor reported his flight in the Lancaster in Canada on one of their conducted tours. His editorial in the subsequent issue said that riding round in the bomb-aimer position made him feel just what a man in that position at night over Dresden must have felt. A peeved correspondent wrote that he spoke in his hat or out of some other place. (That letter did win the monthly prize of a slab of 'Spitfire Ale', a nice acknowledgement.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fantome's suspicion derived from hours of outhouse musings -

HJL Hinkler held in reverential esteem by Mussolini. A given. Il Duce lays on funeral with highest military honours. 100,000 turn out in Florence for it.

Il Duce knows that the world's greatest airmen who have the misfortune to prang must never have the slightest shadow or slur attached to their glorious names and their superhuman powers of airmanship.

The fascist leader knows that if image is not everything it comes bloody close.

Somebody whispers in somebody's ear. Somebody gets the message.

[ian.whalley]

Firstly John I take great exception to my emails to you being posted here on a forum. Please remove it immediately.

[ian.whalley]

Fantome is entitled to his opinion. That is all it is. One mans opinion. Is fantome an aircrash investigator. An investigator of any sort? Does he know more than John watkins of TAA fame? It may be of interest that John Watkins investigated one of the 9 documented crashes in the R&M publication that happened here in Australia. There was a witness on the ground who looked up when he heard the aircraft and actually saw the wing come off the aircraft. I had many long conversations with John about the Hinkler crash. John's opinion is contained in the 1979 second edition of Solo by Mackenzie that fantome has not bothered to read.

Do not denigrate the opinions of others. Opinions based on years of research and information contained in ARC R & M 1699 Report on Puss Moth Accidents plus correspondence between the Italian Air Ministry and the Air Attache at the British Embassy in Rome. Perhaps one should obtain a copy of said document and have a read. Then consider the information contained therein.

If there is an official explanation for the crash of CF-APK then it is accepted as wing flutter causing the wing to separate from the fuselage in flight. Hinkler's crash was one of 9 such documented cases. Seems fantome knows much more than the experts who put together the report on Puss Moth crashes.

I do take exception to people who pretend friendship in order to advance their own causes and post private emails on a forum without even asking permission first. So my ideas have no merit because fantome has no confidence in the credentials of the Italian Air Ministry? So where does that leave his "outhouse musings"? No evidence there at all. It is a fact that the wing separated from the fuselage in flight. If fantome does not wish to accept historical fact, that is his problem.

The simple laws of physics indicate that it is not possible for an aircraft to fly so low as to strike a tree and shed a wing then have the remaining wreckage continue on for 250 metres without striking the ground. Simply not possible.

Hinkler was trying to break the record for flight from England to Australia so would have been travelling at maximum speed. Crossing the Atlantic in the same aircraft would have him flying in maximum endurance mode. Lang Kidby suggests Hinkler was trying to descend through bad weather so what was it? Weather good? Weather bad? Can't have both. Anyone heard of turbulence around mountains? Maximum speed, extreme turbulence, design fault that makes aircraft susceptible to flutter, defect in weld that allows a bolt to move thus allowing even more pronounced flutter, wing separates from fuselage, 250 metres between wing and rest of wreckage. Hinkler deceased. Official documentation/correspondence between Italian Air Ministry and British Embassy states definitely that aircraft did not strike tree. I rest my case.

[Fantome]

It is a fact that the wing separated from the fuselage in flight.

Oh really? Does your 'witness' have the same level of credibility as the one who saw the wing come off near Byron Bay killing Les Holden et al? Seeing is believing. Sometimes.

The capacity for intrigue deeply entrenched in the Italian psyche for centuries cannot be discounted as having no relevance to enquiries into the death of Bert Hinkler. There are numerous examples of flawed accident investigations. Books have been written on the subject. There are 'official findings' that later have been found to be either incompetent, criminally
negligent or crooked from the start.

There have been posts on this forum over the years by people employed in the aviation industry appalled by the inaccurate and flawed findings by supposedly qualified, experienced accident investigators. There have been occasions when ATSB sent out investigators to report on a fixed-wing fatality, when those people's entire background was in rotary, and that in the military.
And with no experience at all of sifting through wreckage.

Anyone seriously interested in finding out first hand about DH80 structural integrity needs to speak with the Australian authority on the rebuilding and restoration of the DH family of light aircraft. He is often bothered by cranks and one-eyed obsessive people who take him away from his work, so please PM me so as we can see if Mr Moth is approachable.

"Do not denigrate the opinions of others" ?

Denigration?

Insufferable patronisation!

[ian.whalley]

Sorry John/fantome I will take the experts who put together the publication ARC R & M 1699 Report on Puss Moth Accidents and John Watkins and the laws of physics over your opinion any day.

Insufferable patronisation! ?

Insufferable : intolerable/unbearably conceited

patronisation : can't find that one in my oxford dictionary

patronising : treat condescendingly

Don't know where you get that from. Obviously your opinion and you are entitled to it. My opinions are based on documented research. Yours based on not a shred of evidence. Simply opinion. I am most certainly not conceited in any way shape or form. I am the sort of person that if you show me evidence to the contrary (Evidence!!) I am more than happy to change my mind. 30 years with the police force, 18 months at the RAAF Academy, solo in a glider and a powered aircraft, good understanding of physics, a life time of research and interest in Aviation and Space History, an interest in Bert Hinkler as I grew up in Bundaberg, years of donating copies of everything I have found to Lex Rowland and Hinkler House, Hall of Aviation gives me some confidence in my research and analytical abilities. PM you? Not on your life. Did like the comment "If you can be bothered" when I missed answering a question. Shows me where the conceit etc is.

[Fantome]

Anyone following decades of the Hinkler 'debate' will know that the two outstanding antagonists were Ted Wixted with close connections to the Queensland Museum and Roy Bettiens ex-RAAF. The latter took such exception to the Wixted theories and manner of treating history that he wrote a massive privately published and circulated book known colloquially as THE BETTIENS TOME. In aviation history terms it was the slanging match of the decade

Those excessively precious about their 'evidence' might profitably revisit the Wixted/Bettiens conflict to get a perspective on how pettiness, rancour and vitriol can blot out reason. Or simply lose the ability to weigh up probability
and on balance concede that unknowns outweigh knowns.

Just two queries relevant to the Hinkler crash site investigation. How much had the wreckage been gone over by souvenir hunters and scavangers before the man from the ministry had a look? And why is not entirely conceivable that Mussolini ordered that no blame for the accident be attributable to Hinkler?

[ian.whalley]

Facts John/fantome. Facts. Not supposition. You are entitled to your opinion as are Messrs Wixted and Bettiens.

Do you have copies of the photographs of the wreckage taken by the Italians? Yes I do.

Do you have copies of the Italian documentation? Yes I do.

Do you have a copy of the R&M Report on Puss Moth Crashes? Yes I do.

Do you have copies of the Wixted book, Bettiens book, Mackenzie book (both original and 1979 reprint), Kieza book, Avro Test Pilots book (which has a section on Hinkler)? Yes I do.

Have you worked with an aircrash investigator (who was a previous owner of the Puss Moth now in the Hinkler Hall of Aviation so may well have some knowledge of air crash investigation and of Puss Moth aircraft)? Yes I have.

Have you had at length discussions with John Watkins (who should need no introduction to anyone who knows anything about Australian Aviation History and also investigated a Puss Moth crash in Australia)? Yes I have. Sadly John Watkins is no longer with us but a nicer gentleman or a more knowledgeable engineer and air crash investigator you will never meet.

Have you discussed the crash with John Kepert who used to work at the Aeronautical Research Laboratory here in Melbourne? I have.

Have you given copies of everything you have found to Lex Rowland? I have.

Have you read and analysed the facts contained in the information listed above and have you read the conclusions that people much more qualified than you have arrived at? Yes I have.

Have you really considered ALL of the information that you could find before forming your opinion? I have.

Deal in facts not supposition and innuendo with no factual basis and you may well have some credibility. You are most definitely entitled to your opinion but that is all it is. Opinion not based on fact.

[ian.whalley]

That comment John is rude and uncalled for and very unprofessional. If you have to resort to name calling instead of factual argument then it shows your true character and your level of knowledge. Probably something along the lines of what you have to say in the previous post.

I'm not beating my own drum simply trying to show you the amount of work and research that I have done. If you are unable to engage in a factual discussion and have to resort to name calling that is your problem, not mine.

[DH106]

Mr. Kieza - many thanks for your PM.
Is it possible you can post the Italian Report here so that all may read it?

Thanks.

[Grantlee Kieza]

The wreckage of Bert's plane was taken to the military airfield and destroyed. But the the Gipsy engine was salvaged and used in a Genairco aircraft for some time before being sold in Brisbane in 1948 for £25 for use in a Gipsy Moth

Bert Hinkler: The Most Daring Man In The World by Grantlee Kieza (http://www.harpercollins.com.au/books/9780733329203/index.aspx)

[ian.whalley]

This is the document that I have a copy of:

Air Ministry
Aeronautical Research Committee
Reports and Memoranda
R & M No. 1699
Report on Puss Moth Accidents
HMSO 1937

The members of the committe are listed with their qualifications and I am happy to provide those details if needed. The committee were assisted by the staff of the Royal Aircraft Establishment, National Physics Laboaratory and de Havilland Aircraft Company so I think we could safely say the committee were well qualified and their investigation and findings were of a high standard.

It covers the crash of 9 Puss Moths as follows

VH-UPC Western Australia October 1930
ZS-ACC South Africa May 1931
ZS-ACD South Africa November 1931
UT Canada May 1932
G-ABDH England July 1932
VH-UPM Australia September 1932
G-ABFU France October 1932
CF-APK Italy January 1933 (Hinkler)
HS-PAA Siam June 1933

The Hinkler summary states:
The accident took place at night in very bad weather in high mountains at a height of about 6,500 feet...

That the wing broke away in the air is demonstrated by the lack of splitting of the wing joint, besides the distance which separates the two points where the wing and the remainder of the machine were found (approx 250 m/820 ft).

Thanks to Grantlee Kieza I recently discovered that the quote " that the wing broke away in the air ..." is actually from correspondence between the Italian Air Ministry and the Air Attache at the British Embassy in Rome. Grantlee obtained the documentation from Hinkler House in Bundaberg so they would probably be the people to contact for copies of documents.

The Oxley Library and the Queensland Museum in Brisbane QLD have a collection of Hinkler documents and artifacts as well.

[pigboat]

Ian if you don't already have them, I know where two copies of the books Last Flight Of Bert Hinkler and Solo: The Bert Hinkler Story are available. PM me for more info and I'll put you in touch with the gentleman who has the books for sale. Both books are in used condition, but apparently in good shape.

[ian.whalley]

Thank you for your help Sir. Very much appreciated.

I do have them both but appreciate your help. :)

[Grantlee Kieza]

Just interested in the choice of everyone for the greatest pilot from the early days of aviation.
Having written Bert Hinkler's biography I find it hard for anyone to surpass England to Aust solo in an Avian and solo across the South Atlantic in a Puss Moth.
The Puss Moth had half the power of Lindbergh's Trans-atlantic machine.:ok:

I think the solo aspect puts Hinkler and Lindbergh in a different league to other pilots of the day.

[Fantome]

I AM THE GREATEST?

YOU ARE THE GREATEST?

HE IS THE GREATEST?

Leaving M Ali out of the declension, I think we should decline to put any one flier on the highest most pedestal. For sure, Bert would rotate at the thought were exhumation for an opinion possible, though that is not the point of course.

Geraldine Doogue on the wireless was caught saying 'comparisons are insidious' She meant 'invidious' of course. But worth a laugh. As is the notion of singling out one man for god.

Grantlee, you cannot say that any one of these fliers was better than the other -

Lindbergh

Kingsford Smith

Post with Gatty

Carl Ben Eielson with Wilkins

Hawker with Sopwiths

Cobham

de Pinedo

Henshaw (a solo wunderkind)

Chichester


Adding the necessary rider, that while HJL Hinkler was in some respects an extraordinary one-off, he was neither the most daring man in the world nor the world's greatest aviator. That he was up there is enough.

[Fantome]

"The Puss Moth had half the power of Lindbergh's Trans-atlantic machine."

Sorry, but that is not highly relevant. How they and their aircraft coped with initial gross overload is. Without going into the archive, the Ryan NYP's wing loading was many times that of the DH 80. Added to that the Ryan was inherently unstable, as Paul Mantz found when he flew the faithful replica for the movie.

[stepwilk]

What always stuns me about Lindbergh is not his flying ability but his ability to stay awake. 33+ hours for the flight and he didn't sleep a wink the night before takeoff. I once did a long-distance record drive in a Porsche 911, with a co-driver, and switching off every three hours or so for 48 hours, nonstop except for fuel, was almost unbearable after awhile. And a 911 is way easier to drive than the SoSL was to fly.

[Grantlee Kieza]

That's a great point. In Australia and many other countries there is an inbuilt warning when you haven't had a rest from driving for 2 hours. The fact that guys like Hinkler and Lindbergh could fly for 25-30 hours non stop solo is mind-boggling.

[IGh]

From two slots above:
"...about Lindbergh ... his ability to stay awake. 33+ hours for the flight and he didn't sleep a wink the night before takeoff...."
And C.A.L. did this no-sleep drill repeatedly; eg his solo non-stop flight from Bolling Field to Mexico City, of Dec'13th 1927 was over 24 hours. [Reminds me of some early climbers willing to risk altitude-sickness just for the "record" of the first ascent.]

BTW, for those interested in earlier flights of C.A.L. [C.A.M. Route #2], PHOTOGRAPHS from the defunct newspaper, the Saint Louis Globe-Democrat (a "backer" of the airplane "Spirit") are available on the "web". Almost all those digitized images from the 1920's are mislabeled, and many photos are mirror-images -- makes for mind-bending efforts to puzzle-out the date & place of each image:
St. Louis Globe Democrat Collection Home (http://digital.library.umsystem.edu/cgi/i/image/image-idx?page=index;c=mercic)
or another version of the _Globe-Democrat_ collection:
Missouri Digital Heritage Collections : Browse (http://cdm.sos.mo.gov/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=%2Fstlglobedem)

[PPRuNe Pop]

Repetition is boring!

That is what is happening now and is enough. Use the search engine please.

I am leaving thread open for only a very short while since some cannot recognize that.

PPP

[Grantlee Kieza]

Hinkler's brother used to tell people that Bert had a device rigged up from an alarm clock and which hung around his neck on long flights. If his chin started to drop it would trigger the alarm. He also took several thermos flasks of coffee whenever he went - and in 1927 was using caffeine tablets on his Princess Xenia flight with Hurricane Mac that resulted in a crash in Poland.