What airliner type, please?

[Marbles]

http://www.deadrock.co.uk/benson/PC190140axsm.jpg
Can anyone please tell me the aircraft-type, and approximate era (pre-39-45, or post-war) of this photo.

Marbles

[MReyn24050]

Fokker F.36 The sole Fokker F.36 made its first flight on 22 June 1934. Operated on European routes by KLM from March 1935, it was sold in 1939 to Scottish Aviation of Prestwick and was flown from there as a crew and navigational trainer until scrapped in 1940.

[Krakatoa]

Fokker F22 FXX11

[Marbles]

Thank you gentlemen. I had thought perhaps FXXII, but Wikipedia has only a rear-quarter view of a Swedish example, which was far from indicative of the sharp(er) end.

The important thing, for placing it in context, is that it was pre-1939.

[Noyade]

Based on the door shape, the Fokker F XXII....?

Fokker F XXII...

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/5148/door2q.jpg (http://img405.imageshack.us/i/door2q.jpg/)

Fokker F.XXXVI...

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/729/doorw.jpg (http://img96.imageshack.us/i/doorw.jpg/)

Cheers
Jim Morrison

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Don't know about the aeroplane, but the chaps look jolly spiffing.

[MReyn24050]

Based on the door shape, the Fokker F XXII Well spotted Graeme.
Mel

[JW411]

I reckon it is an Fokker XXII. Scottish Airlines started the war with two of them plus a Fokker XXXVI. The three aircraft were impressed into military service and used as flying classrooms for training Observers.

The aircraft were bought from KLM.

F XXII PH-AJR became G-AFXR and was impressed as HM159. This aircraft caught fire over Loch Tarbert and crashed on 03.07.43. I can remember being told as a lad that a cigarette end was involved.

F XXII PH-AJP became G-AFZP and was impressed as HM160. This aircraft survived the war and was the favourite of Gp Capt McIntyre. When I was a little lad she would fly in the summer months between Prestwick and the IOM.
The noise on take-off was pretty spectacular. (Can you imagine four T-6 Harvards in formation). She was eventually broken up in 1952 (which broke my heart).

F XXXVI PH-AJA became G-AFZR and was impressed as HM161. This aircraft crashed on take-off from Runway 26 at Prestwick on 21.05.40. I believe the wreckage ended up in the Pow Burn just off the end.

I shall now go and take my anorak off!

[Jhieminga]

Another hint would've been the props. The F.XXXVI had three-bladers while the F.XXIIs all had two-bladers. The last photo shows the wing of an F.XXII behind the F.XXXVI, both in RAF colours as they were used to train navigators in 1939/1940.

Edit: That's what happens when you type slowly, someone else beats you to it... ;)

[Marbles]

But how about the chap third from right?

http://www.deadrock.co.uk/benson/PC190140xtract.jpg

A clue? He performed two very particular aviation firsts a few years later.

[JW411]

All of which got me thinking;

I had a very good friend called Eric Skemp. Sadly, Eric is no longer with us but I met him through 53 Sqn. (Eric flew Liberators on 53). After the war, he joined Scottish Airlines, ostensibly to fly their Liberators but he also flew the Fokker F XXII. Eric had two books published at his own expense before he died and I am honoured to have a copy of both books (the production run was only 30 copies each).

Here is what Eric had to say about the F XXII:

"And three days later, I had my first taste of the Fokker F-22 - again with Cormack - on a short 'pleasure flight.'

The F-22 was a remarkable beast. A beautifully streamlined airship-like fuselage, covered in silver fabric, surmounted by a ninety nine foot wooden wing and supported on a fixed (tailwheel) undercarriage, was fitted with seats for twenty-two passengers in facing pairs. Long rectangular windows afforded an excellent view. Carrying, in orange letters the Scottish Airlines name below the windows and the registration, G-AFZP, the company's rampant lion logo on the fin and the irreverently nicknamed "three pissy cats" either side of the nose, she was a magnificent sight. But, for my money, her claim to fame arose from her engines. Anyone who has heard a North American Harvard trainer with its high-revving Pratt and Whitney Wasp engine emitting a banshee-wail of ear-piecing intensity will remember the sound. 'ZP' had four of these engines in close proximity to the fuselage, each exhausting through a pair of short vertical smoke-stacks. With minimal internal sound-proofing, the noise was indescribable.

Up front, the flight deck was a long narrow affair. The captain sat in the nose, facing a huge circular control wheel. The first officer sat behind him to starboard, with a somewhat smaller wheel. The flight engineer was behind him, with a slightly smaller wheel which was used to operate the flaps.

Engine starting was hilarious. On the command "Go!" the engineer waggled the wobble pump, I waggled the mixture-lever and the captain waggled the throttle. Or maybe it was the other way round. At any rate, I distinctly remember all three of us either going up and down or backwards and forwards.

Ground handling in a high wind was tricky. But she was a grand old lady and the last of her line".

Incidentally, we had a facing pair of seats from 'ZP in the original Prestwick Spotters Club. The seats were beautifully made from red leather and each seat had the KLM logo pressed into the leather.

I actually know where they are now but some vandal has cut out the KLM logos.

[davidparfett]

My dad trained with Eric Skemp and I know where 3 copies of The First Thousand Hours are!!

[Grobling About]

Roly Falk?

[PAXboy]

Looking at pictures of the Fokker XXII, the fixed undercarriage must have contributed to the noise? A heck of a 'thrum' from those struts!

[Stanwell]

A couple of earlier contributors likened the powerplant noise to that of a flight of Harvards.
The Harvard racket comes from the tips of the two-bladed props going supersonic.
A change to three blades fixes the problem - probably a major reason for the change to three-bladers on the FXXXVI.

p.s. DHC Beavers operating in noise-sensitive locations make the change from 2 to 3 for that reason as well.

[Flybiker7000]

As the major contributior to aircraft development during the 30's was the new engines with steadily increasing power causing the prop' blades to likely being increased to three and later four and even five together with the size of the propellar-disc.
As the cardinal point shows to be pre-war or later could the two bladed propellars indicate an early construction, hence pre-war!

[Flybiker7000]

Fokker XXII is from 1935 and with 500hp P&W Wasp engines.
This is the British counterpart(*) from 1937, the De Havilland DH91 with the 525hp DH Gipsy engines and likely twin-blade propellars!


http://i66.tinypic.com/20ql1qo.jpg

(*): Actual they both was produced in few numbers as well as they didn't survive the second war :-o

[SpringHeeledJack]

Looks like a Constellation that has been underfed and suffered atrophy of it's nether regions. Nice photo btw.


SHJ

[Stanwell]

Yes SHJ, it kinda looks like they said 'oops, we'd better put a tail on it before we pinch the end off'.


Flybiker, as far as I know, the Albatross only ever had two-bladed props.
I imagine that the ungeared Gipsy 12 engine would have had a similar cruise rev range to P&Ws.
So, do we have anyone that can comment on how noisy they were?


EDIT: I looked up the Gipsy Twelve and it was, in fact, geared down by one third, so the prop tips probably would not have gone supersonic.
.

[DaveReidUK]

so the prop tips probably would not have gone supersonic

I agree, at T/O power tip speed would have been around 650 mph.

[Flybiker7000]

"Underfed Connie": There is certainly not used many rulers at the designshop of De Havilland. it's extreme slick and as it shares the Plywood-construction with the Mossie i wonder if the strenght of the plywood lies in this un-edgy design :-/

Prop' size: Until now I've considered the treshold between two and three propellarblades to be about 700hp, but as it seems that the Fokker are on the limit it might be in the area of this 500hp instead :-/
Maybee the simplicity of the wooden fixed pitch double prop' did delay the decision of upgrading to three blades :-/

[DaveReidUK]

Maybee the simplicity of the wooden fixed pitch double prop' did delay the decision of upgrading to three bladesThe DH Albatross had two-blade props, but they certainly weren't fixed-pitch.

[India Four Two]

Flybiker's picture is the first one I have seen of an Albatross from that aspect. I am surprised by the very tall undercarriage and the consequent high deck-angle.

It doesn't seem to be needed for prop clearance. Anyone know why it was so tall?

[Jhieminga]

Most likely the need to keep the take off speeds low. With a lower deck angle and consequently lower AoA on the wing, you need more speed for the same weight to get off the ground.

[Flybiker7000]

As being of taildragger gear the AoA can't be rised higher than when sitting on the ground, hence the height, wich have to be rised together with the lenght of the fuselage to kee the same AoA.
However, judged on the ladders there might be a little more than two meters between ground and leading edge and I think a grown man can stand upright under the wing of a DC-3, hence the difference might be less than what it seems :-/

[evansb]

Indeed. The tall cockpit height did not go unnoticed by photo-journalists. The AOA of the small aeroplane and the Albatross are actually quite similar.. Plenty of airscrew clearance on both..
http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b477/gumpjr_bucket/dh91%20and%20small%20aeroplane.jpg

[Planemike]

Just for the record... The "small aeroplane" is the TK4 G-AETK.

[Chris Scott]

In 1940, A.C. Kermode was evidently struck with the streamlined efficiency of the Albatross design, as was D.P. Davies with that of the Boeing 707 two decades later. Interesting that its total power was not much different from the DC-3**.

What a super photo (as always), evansb. Interesting cowlings for the inverted V12, air-cooled Gypsy 12s.

http://www.pprune.org/members/218710-chris-scott-albums-ah-n-what-airliner-type-please-picture71-a.jpg

http://www.pprune.org/members/218710-chris-scott-albums-ah-n-what-airliner-type-please-picture72-a.jpg

Ahhh, de Havilland... Perhaps we need an Albatross thread.

** [EDIT] There seems to be some confusion on the sea-level T/O power of the DH Gypsy 12: was it 425 HP or 525 HP? Another comparison with the 1100 HP Wright Cyclones or the 1200 HP Twin Wasps of the DC-3 might relate to the effectiveness of their respective superchargers at cruise altitude. I now see that, as well as having a longer fuselage and wingspan, the MTOW of the Albatross was higher than that of a DC-3 or civil-registered C-47. It was a lot faster, but the quoted range (always a bit nebulous unless a payload is quoted) seems a bit limited for trans-Atlantic ops.

[DaveReidUK]

Just for the record... The "small aeroplane" is the TK4 G-AETK.

Which helpfully dates the photo to the latter half of 1937. The race number on the tail was presumably for that year's King's Cup Air Race, held at Hatfield on 11th September, where no doubt the photo was taken, and three weeks before the TK4 was destroyed in a fatal crash.

[ZeBedie]

With as much installed power as a King Air in an aircraft of that size, there must have been some challenges.

[Allan Lupton]

Interesting cowlings for the inverted V12, air-cooled Gypsy 12s.

Yes, and for the benefit of those that don't know I'll point out that the cooling air for those air-cooled motors entered through those round intakes on the wing LE, thence flowing forward past the cylinders.

With as much installed power as a King Air in an aircraft of that size, there must have been some challenges.
Not sure how this contributes as although the power per motor was much the same, I believe the Beech King Air had two motors and as can be seen the Albatross had four.

[DaveReidUK]

There seems to be some confusion on the sea-level T/O power of the DH Gypsy 12: was it 425 HP or 525 HP?

Both. :O

Courtesy of Flight, June 23rd, 1938:

Maximum power rating: 410/425 bhp at 2400 rpm at 7500 ft, zero boost

Maximum take-off power: 505/525 bhp at 2600 rpm at sea level, 3½ psi boost

Not sure how this contributes as although the power per motor was much the same, I believe the Beech King Air had two motors and as can be seen the Albatross had four.

I assume ZeBedie is referring to the King Air 300/350, powered by the 1050 shp PT6A-60A, resulting in a twin with the same installed power as the DH91's four Gipsy Twelves.

[Lancman]

May I suggest that the length of the Albatross main undercarriage leg was governed by the distance from it's hinge near the inboard nacelle to the nearest stowage place for the wheel, in the fuselage? Angle of attack had nothing to do with it, tail-draggers didn't take off with the tail-wheel still on the ground.

[Chris Scott]

Quote:
"Courtesy of Flight, June 23rd, 1938:
Maximum power rating: 410/425 bhp at 2400 rpm at 7500 ft, zero boost
Maximum take-off power: 505/525 bhp at 2600 rpm at sea level, 3½ psi boost"

Thanks, Dave, the confusion resulted from my narrow research, limited to the separate Wiki entries for the Albatross and the Gypsy 12. The former gives 525 hp, but the latter states:
"425 hp at 2,450 rpm at 0 psi boost (five minutes maximum)"

Assuming the latter is authentic, perhaps it was a limitation used for T/O at an early stage in development. One can understand the reduced boost, but interesting that the rpm is also limited. I wonder if the crew controlled rpm with a separate "pitch" lever, as is the norm on piston engines with constant-speed props (including the contemporary Twin Wasp). The Gipsy Queen on the post-war, 4-engined Heron had a combined throttle/rpm lever (whereas on the Dove, with its supercharged engines, they were separate, IIRC). If the Gipsy 12 was the same, it might explain the 2450 rpm limit quoted above. If, on the other hand, the pitch (rpm) lever was separate, setting up all four engines at 2450 rpm for T/O would have required careful handling, particularly on bumpy grass airfields.

Quote from Allan Lupton:
"Yes, and for the benefit of those that don't know I'll point out that the cooling air for those air-cooled motors entered through those round intakes on the wing LE, thence flowing forward past the cylinders."

And presumably also to the carburetors? I wonder if the cylinder-head temp control was automatic in the cruise.

[DaveReidUK]

May I suggest that the length of the Albatross main undercarriage leg was governed by the distance from it's hinge near the inboard nacelle to the nearest stowage place for the wheel, in the fuselage?

If that was the case, why didn't DH just position the pivot further inboard, resulting in a shorter leg?

[Lancman]

That would have lead to a much narrower wheel-track, not a good idea on a grass field.

[DaveReidUK]

Good point.

[Stanwell]

The tall U/C question was raised on a thread a while ago relating to the Short Stirling.

ISTR that aircraft's need for a gangly and complicated undercart was explained by the need to maintain a certain ground-sitting angle.
Because its fuselage was much longer (compared with the Lancaster and Halifax), the extra mains height was needed to achieve said angle.

I went away scratching my head and still none the wiser as to why an aircraft would NEED to ground-sit at that angle.
Prop-tip clearance and bomb-loading requirements would not have been a factor in that case, I'm sure.


In the case of the Albatross, the wing thickness where it abutted the fuselage was, from memory, something like 28 inches.
I would have thought that was adequate depth for the wheel and associated 'struttery

So... I'm still stumbling around hoping someone can explain that mystery for me.

[Chris Scott]

Re the height of the nose with tail-wheel down, the deck angle does look to be a bit steeper than the DC-3, and the fuselage length is over 10% greater. To obtain enough AoA to become airborne on short fields (flapless) **, the respective riggers' angles of incidence would also come into the equation.

In Flybiker's photo, the apparent nose height may be exaggerated, because the men are standing further from the camera than is the nose.

On a different matter, the YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q_zNrj0GpM) shows a very different tail-fin assembly from all the photos posted above.

** [EDIT] ...and to avoid striking the tail-wheel first on a short-field (slow) landing...

[Stanwell]

I haven't seen the video, Chris - but if the fins are in-set on the tailplane, that set-up, on the two prototypes,
was found to give insufficient directional stability.

[DaveReidUK]

In the case of the Albatross, the wing thickness where it abutted the fuselage was, from memory, something like 28 inches.
I would have thought that was adequate depth for the wheel and associated 'struttery'

It's a moot point whether the undercarriage bay was considered to be in the wing or the fuselage - the wing was a one-piece construction with the wheels retracting into a void forward of the spar. The photo below would suggest that there wasn't much scope for moving the wheel bay outboard:

http://alternathistory.com/files/users/user675/De_Havilland_DH_91-11.JPG

[Stanwell]

Hmm. Yes, agree. Thanks, Dave.


p.s. I've just had a look at Flight (17/11/38) "The Albatross in Detail". A good deal of info plus a cutaway.
.

[DaveReidUK]

Nice find !

There's a photo on this page

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1938/1938%20-%203226.html

that answer's Chris's question about prop levers.

[Chris Scott]

Hi Dave,
Great picture of what looks to be a tidy cockpit. Yes: separate pitch-levers - maybe the Heron was to be unique in combining pitch control with throttle.

It appears that, like the post-war Heron (and Dove?), the applied pressure of the wheel brakes was commanded by variable displacement of the captain's thumb-control on his/her spectacles. The differential effect for steering would be controlled with the rudder bar. I wonder if the brakes were hydraulic or (like the Heron and Dove) pneumatic. My guess would be pneumatic.

The original tail-fin config mentioned by Stanwell is best visible on that video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q_zNrj0GpM) at 1:13 and 1:35.

[lawrence hole]

Going back to the original thread, the aircraft was a Fokker F22 which was at Heston Airport in 1938/9 then owned by British American Air Services and photographed by Joe Connolly , an Airwork engineer at the time. The picture was shown in Air Britain's Archive magazine 2013/4.:oh:

[Lancman]

May I beg the OP's indulgence once more and speculate further on the Albatross's ground angle? The only way to dump the lift and increase the drag on landing in those days was to get the tail-wheel on the ground as soon as possible and thereby stall the wing, this must have been significant on an aircraft as sleek as the Albatross. I still think that the length of the leg was decided by the distance from it's optimum hinge point to the nearest available wheel stowage space but the reduced landing run must have been a valuable by-product.


And what a beautiful selection of photographs this de-rail has produced. :).

[Stanwell]

The OP, 'Marbles', in his post #10 asked if we could identify the gentleman third from the right in the group posing in front of the Fokker XXII.
He was apparently later to become famous for achieving a couple of 'aviation firsts'.
OK, I give up - who is it then?


I'll second Lancman's comment re the beaut selection of photos.
Thanks, chaps. :ok:

[JW411]

Is it Clyde Pangborn?

[India Four Two]

Lancman,

That's an interesting observation about the landing run. I see from the Flight article that the mailplanes had split-flaps and the later Imperial Airways ones had HP slotted-flaps.

DH must have decided they needed more lift and drag than the split-flaps provided.

[Stanwell]

Marbles,
A little more info on your Fokker XXII:

It was an ex KLM machine with the name 'Roerdomp' (Bittern) and was acquired by British American Air Services in 1939.
In 1941 it was impressed into the RAF and operated by the Air Observers Navigation School.
After that, it served with 1680 Flight, Abbotsinch, where it was re-named 'Sylvia Scarlet'.
It was lost on July 3rd 1943 when it suffered an in-flight fire and crashed into Loch Tarbot with the loss of all on board.

[Stanwell]

I'd been trying to work out the relationship between the Fokker FXXII and the FXXXVI which look so similar.

It seems that the design of the FXXXVI (indicating 36 passengers and crew) was Tony Fokker's response to a KLM requirement for European routes.
The aircraft's passenger cabin was luxuriously fitted out and much trouble was taken with sound-proofing.

It was many years before anything on either side of the pond could match it for passenger amenity, I'm told.

Albert Plesman, KLM's autocratic CEO, then decided that it was going to be just a bit too big for his needs and no further orders followed.
As was noted earlier, just the one example was produced.

Plesman made up his mind that what he really needed was something about two-thirds the size and at half the price.
Fokker then came up with a scaled-down, 'economy model' version of the FXXXVI - the FXXII (22 passengers).
Four of these were built, using 500hp P&W Wasps (compared with 750hp Wright Cyclones for the FXXXVI).

Accidents aside, the FXXIIs gave satisfactory service on European routes until the two survivors, together with the sole FXXXVI,
were sold to British interests in 1939.
JW 411 provided details of these in his post #8.

While all these aircraft were reported to have had excellent flying qualities, there was, of course, quite a difference in passenger comfort
between the two models.
The two-bladed Wasp powered (and lightly insulated) FXXII cabin was painfully noisy, whereas the three-bladed Cyclone powered
(and well insulated) FXXXVI was quiet enough inside that conversation could be conducted in normal tones.

So, I guess, as always .. You get what you pay for.

[Stanwell]

Following on from this thread where Flybiker7000 tempted us to drift into a discussion on the DH91 Albatross...

Browsing through Fleabay last night, I noticed that there's a Dinky Toy die-cast model of the Albatross for sale (I didn't know they'd done one).
The seller doesn't seem to know what it is.
Looking at the photos, it seems to be quite an accurate scale model (aside from the period three-bladed tin propellors and toy undercarriage).

The asking price of AU$95 caused me to raise an eyebrow until, a couple of items down, I saw a Dinky Toy flat-bed Foden lorry for only AU$4000 (What??).

So, if anybody's keen enough for a piece of DeHavilland and Dinky Toy history, PM me and I'll let you know the Fleabay item no.

[Capot]

OK, Marbles, we all give up. It's time to come clean.

There have been two suggestions for the person in the picture; Roly Falk, and Clyde Pangborn.

Both long shots, IMHO!

Who is it?