Fascinating publication online about all the WW2 Airfields
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
Fascinating publication online about all the WW2 Airfields
Makes a good accompaniment to my copy of 'Military Airfields in the British Isles, 1939-45', although the latter also includes Flying Boat establishments as well.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
Well Windermere is on the listings in it and that was one, will have to look your book out.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The airfield book has superb detail and includes drawings of buildings. The detail is almost identical to an SD we used in the 60s which had all the bits omitted from the OS maps of the time. IIRC it was SD842 but that is digging really deep. An amendment was issued around 1967 that updated the book and removed all the useful historical data. The Military Airfields book is close to the earlier book with details of runway extensibility common with the SD.
Hangar Arcs
Great link, it jogged my memory about a question I'd forgotten about. Might be better asked in the spotters' thread but what's the reason for most hangars to be arranged in a slight arc as opposed to being dispersed?
Sure i read it made aiming more difficult and a lot of thought seemed to have been put into in.
Sure i read it made aiming more difficult and a lot of thought seemed to have been put into in.
Great link, it jogged my memory about a question I'd forgotten about. Might be better asked in the spotters' thread but what's the reason for most hangars to be arranged in a slight arc as opposed to being dispersed?
"Passive defence, enemy aircraft fly in straight lines! Allows time for personnel to get to the shelters but pre-war stations were non-dispersed compact layouts, dispersal did not really take off (pun) until after the outbreak of war."
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near where the Wokkas live.
Age: 79
Posts: 112
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pre-ww2 airfields
but what's the reason for most hangars to be arranged in a slight arc as opposed to being dispersed?
I recall reading somewhere that bomber airfields built during the expansion period of the 1930s were built as grass fields with a circular(ish) perimeter track and hangars and other buildings were built outside this circle. In the centre of the airfield was a large white X in a circle and this was the target for the resident squadrons to practice their trade. The typical bombers of the period being Hawker Hart type aircraft.
I think this is explained in one of the 'After the Battle' books and there is a photo of Scampton, a typical such airfield, with the X still discernable.
I recall reading somewhere that bomber airfields built during the expansion period of the 1930s were built as grass fields with a circular(ish) perimeter track and hangars and other buildings were built outside this circle. In the centre of the airfield was a large white X in a circle and this was the target for the resident squadrons to practice their trade. The typical bombers of the period being Hawker Hart type aircraft.
I think this is explained in one of the 'After the Battle' books and there is a photo of Scampton, a typical such airfield, with the X still discernable.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hangars in an arc.
I've always thought this was simply to make manoeuvring easier, with fewer 90 degree turns. Also saves a lot of concrete with typically three hangars off one access.
The defensive theory doesn't make sense to me - the hangars are still effectively adjacent to each other.
Super report BTW, I'm pleased there are people out there doing all this work.
I've always thought this was simply to make manoeuvring easier, with fewer 90 degree turns. Also saves a lot of concrete with typically three hangars off one access.
The defensive theory doesn't make sense to me - the hangars are still effectively adjacent to each other.
Super report BTW, I'm pleased there are people out there doing all this work.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I think the hangar arc is to do with land utilisation. Given that the airfields were based on a square plot with a circular landing area, the buildings were in one corner with the landing ground occupying the rest.
The rule was not rigid. Horn church hangars were on a convex arc in relation to the landing ground. Hemswell OTOH conforms with the tech site in the SE corner, Kirton Lindsey more so. The arcs use the space better than a straight line. Scampton, from 1916, also has a tight concave arc. Others are in straight lines but a look at the plans show they make best use of space.
The rule was not rigid. Horn church hangars were on a convex arc in relation to the landing ground. Hemswell OTOH conforms with the tech site in the SE corner, Kirton Lindsey more so. The arcs use the space better than a straight line. Scampton, from 1916, also has a tight concave arc. Others are in straight lines but a look at the plans show they make best use of space.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
You may find these interesting, it covers RAF hangar designs
http://www.rafmonument.nl/_files/file/raf-hangars.pdf
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...556/0/fs16.pdf
http://www.rafmonument.nl/_files/file/raf-hangars.pdf
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...556/0/fs16.pdf
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
A friend of mine, very much into the RAF expansion period related how advanced the 1930s hangars were. Rather than build a bomb proof shelter like a HAS the design was also intended to contain the effects of a bomb inside and minimise its effects.
The roof and side lights were intended to allow blow out, the doors, to some contain the blast and shield the adjacent hangars. Given the small size of bombs at the time, a hit inside might affect only part of the building. Technical services, electrics, pneumatics, water, hydrants, drains etc were split.
Another building not mentioned in the DE paper was POL. The fuel bunkers were covered in concrete, semi-underground, and apparently covered with an earth mound. In fact the bunkers were topped with round gravel which was then topped with earth. The gravel overburden was designed to deflect a bomb.
The roof and side lights were intended to allow blow out, the doors, to some contain the blast and shield the adjacent hangars. Given the small size of bombs at the time, a hit inside might affect only part of the building. Technical services, electrics, pneumatics, water, hydrants, drains etc were split.
Another building not mentioned in the DE paper was POL. The fuel bunkers were covered in concrete, semi-underground, and apparently covered with an earth mound. In fact the bunkers were topped with round gravel which was then topped with earth. The gravel overburden was designed to deflect a bomb.
