Hi All
Aerials
Thanks for your kind words - it is an absorbing project. I find that the flow of information comes in waves, during the lulls I work on the models and usually fixate on some opinion which turns out to be erroneous! I've given that up.....
Forums are very special as there are people out there with lots of useful information. Much information I am being sent is behind the scenes.
Hardest of all is trying to obtain information directly relevant to the particular event I am interested in, living a long way from the crash location is a tremendous frustration especially as the owners of the land are so friendly and interested. On my last visit it was difficult getting back to the site amongst offers of tea and lunches!
I have a license to look for wreckage at the site but this runs out soon. Once that happens and the models are finished I will probably start on the documentary. I will put it up on 'Vimeo' which isn't restricted in length as you tube is.
Momoe/Shackman
Thanks - some very valid points. If the treeline had been fairly level at the point the aircraft went through it then you could indeed tell the difference between a 100 foot 'hole' from a 'wings parallel' impact to a narrow but deep one from a banked impact. This then would move the point of impact further North to where the trees were more uniform.
Three miles sounds a long way to be out from the field especially when the DREM lighting radius was only 1000 yards. Since he had to turn back at some point he could well have been banking, perhaps Dry Drayton offered some sort of landmark visible even in the pitch dark - certain field shapes - water perhaps? The Church?
I see the landing data pointing two different ways. Many texts talk about making turns when you can still see the landing lights 'over your left shoulder' - that seems very close to the field to me and probably best for lighter aircraft. The other texts talk about flying away for quite a distance and performing a 'standard' 180 degree turn and coming back on the opposite heading to which you noted while flying 'downwind', this suggests a greater distance, but more time to line up, but more susceptible to crosswinds blowing you off course. The latter course of action would not require any need to see the landing lights at all as they should eventually turn up.
Thanks for the explanation of Special N, I hadn't been able to find that anywhere. I believe that Pilots also had to undergo the W/O course too.
On my next visit to TNA I plan to retrieve all the ORBs from his previous squadron to see what sorties he went on, I have a few already and he was always the Pilot on those sorties. His first DFC, on 7th June 1940, was for successful low altitude bombing over the Meuse in the face of impenetrable fire and being hit. I'm trying to persuade his relatives to let me pay to retrieve his records but no replies so far.
He did not however have many hours night flying on Stirlings, just 17 out of 200 night flying hours in total (mainly on Wellingtons). (Source AM1180). His hours on Stirlings totalled 30 but it doesn't say if this included the 15 night flying hours. His total flying hours was 900.
He had not been at Oakington for very long and may have been unfamiliar with the terrain or more used to his previous airfield. This is why procedure seems important, I assume that he would have flown practice flights around Oakington to get familiar with the land during the day but surely the procedures would have taken the lie of the land into account?
Thanks again to all for suffering my questions with such fortitude!
James