It's May 1941, it's night, you have to land, but how?

[jamesinnewcastle]

Hi All – I don’t know if this is the right forum to ask this question but here goes!


I’m looking into the crash of a Stirling Bomber in May 1941 at 02:00, he was 3 miles from his home aerodrome and was returning from a bombing raid. Met office says that it was clear weather, quarter moon, cloud base was 4,000 ft. His undercarriage was down and he was only about 2 degrees azimuth off the centreline of the runway. He hit trees at 30 ft above the ground; the ground itself was 150 ft above the height of his airfield. He had 800 Hours flying time and had been a Cranfield graduate before the war. He had contacted the tower by R/T at some point (while less than 30 miles away) and had nothing to report. He was the only aircraft near the field the next aircraft was 15 minutes behind him.


I believe that the airfield only had gooseneck flares and probably a Chance floodlight. It was not a DREM site at that time. While the Stirling had the relevant aids such as DF and SBA the airfield apparently didn’t have the relevant ground systems.


I’m not trying to find out more about the aircraft, crew or the airfield. I’m not trying to work out or speculate why he crashed (though that is the next step).

I would like to know what the procedure was for landing under such conditions. It seems to me to be a task equal in danger to the actual bombing they did but I can find very little about it on the Internet – unless you know more!


At the moment I have pieced together the landing sequence but it is very sketchy:


1. Start: Coming from the mission. The field is less than 30 miles away, he is roughly at right angles to the runway. The pilot radios the field, I know he did this but what would he have said to the tower? What sort of conversation would have gone on? I believe that an important item would have been the QFE(?) given to him by the Tower stating the atmospheric pressure at the field.

2. Approaching the airfield. How soon would he have been able to ‘see’ the runway. What would he have seen?

3. Turns to fly parallel to the runway but ‘upwind’ ie in the direction he would be landing in. Would he have used the gooseneck lights to do this?

4. Turns 180 degrees and flies back downwind, again parallel to the runway. Would he have seen and used the gooseneck lights to fly with? I assume that he would have noted his heading.

5. He flies away from the field on the same heading, at least 3 miles. Was that too far or was it reasonable? Would he have flown that far to be ready to line up for the landing? At 120mph that would have been just 90 seconds of flight. Would he have lowered his undercarriage by now?

6. He performs a 180 degree turn to line up to fly back and land. When would he lower his flaps?

7. At what distance would he have seen the Gooseneck flares? The Chance light would have come on at some point – but when?

I want to make a 3D animation of the event and I want to be accurate or failing that at least realistic! I guess I need a 1941 pilot to answer these but I’m reaching out to anyone who may know. It's a pilot sort of question.


Thanks in anticipation!

James

[Pontius Navigator]

What was the home airfield?

You seem to have worked out a clear picture of his flight path. If you have worked out the RW direction and the courses flown that would also help someone work out the sequence.

[Flying Binghi]

... clear weather, quarter moon, cloud base was 4,000 ft...

How many OKTA ? re, how visible were ground features.





.

[SASless]

I'll lunch with my favorite Lanc Pilot....American who went north and joined the RCAF and wound up flying out of Teeside on Ops to Germany.

Will see what he can tell me about such things.....always intriqued to hear him talk about those days....when I can get him to do it.

[langleybaston]

it was tenths in those days!

[jamesinnewcastle]

Hi All

Thanks for the replies. I'm no pilot so need some Jargon translation!

OKTA? Tenths? Is that related to 10/10 cloud as they say? The Met Office report states "patchy (half the sky was covered) stratocumulus cloud, base around 4000ft, winds were light from the NE. Visibility was good at around 12 miles and a temp of 2 degrees"

Airfield was Oakington - but don't know what you mean by "RW direction" and "courses flown"?

SASless - Would love to hear your pilots memories - I'm also told that all the airfields had 'code names', that is when landing at Oakington you didn't use the name Oakington - would be good to have that ratified too!

Cheers All - keep it coming!
James

[Courtney Mil]

Hi, James.

Oktas are eighths. So 8 oktas = total cover. Tenths you've already sorted.

RW direction = runway heading.

Course flown = compass heading flown. Ignore drift for now, it's just correctin heading for wind.

Hope those help. Jus ask if any more secret words creep in.:ok:

Courtney

[cazatou]

James

Have you tried the RAF Historical Branch?

[rvusa]

Not in a position (too young!) to answer the questions but it may help if I pose two more? What distance from the airfield did the crash happen? Was QNH used in 1941, as opposed to QFE?
3 miles downwind would be about right for a 3 deg approach.

Oops, looks like crash was at 3 miles?

[Pontius Navigator]

James, apologies but your initial post was so descriptive that I presummed you knew much of the jargon.

Oakington had 3 runways (RW) whose directions in (mag)netic or QDM (in the radio jargon) were 230/050 (ie Southwest/Northeast), 275/095 (west/east) and 190/010 (south/north). The QDM was the magnetic heading to steer to fly parallel to the runway.

The main runway is usually the longest and into the prevailing wind ie RW 23 which was 2000 yards long. The airfield height was 40 feet above mean sea level (asl). The only obstruction noted was a church near the approach to RW 19 (ie to the north).

You have given the weather, do you have the wind direction, that would tend to confirm the RW. Also where is the crash site in relation to the airfield?

Looking at Google it looks as if he may have been on RW 050 as Bar Hill, to the SW, is about 100 feet with higher ground or about 200 feet further out.

[Albert Driver]

These days we would also think in terms of human factors:

Extreme cumulative fatigue of night bombing operations.
A possible loss of concentration due to stress release after crossing the home coast having "survived" another raid.
Possible loss of situational/altitude awareness during the landing checks.
The possibility of damage, known or unknown, to the aircraft causing difficulty lowering flaps/undercarriage distracting from "flying the aeroplane".
Loss of, or damage to, one or more engines due to enemy action or fuel shortage, or damage to the airframe causing handling difficulties.
The black hole effect of a probably remote rural home airfield in the blackout of wartime leading to a loss of altitude awareness.

The list of possible contributory factors is endless. We know that many of the enormous losses suffered by Bomber Command were other than by direct enemy action.

[Momoe]

This was probably N6012 which crashed at Dry Drayton (3 miles SW of Oakington) at 0231 on 3rd May.
Lostbombers.co.uk I've found to be a useful source, it also states that the crash is probably due to damage caused by a night fighter attack.

[Trim Stab]

Not in a position (too young!) to answer the questions but it may help if I pose two more? What distance from the airfield did the crash happen? Was QNH used in 1941, as opposed to QFE?
3 miles downwind would be about right for a 3 deg approach.

Oops, looks like crash was at 3 miles?


If you assume (and it is a big assume) that they were on a 3° approach, then they would have planned to be at about 900ft on the QFE at 3 miles out. If the crash was due to a simple altimeter setting error, the setting error would be about 22hpa - a big discrepancy that an experience pilot would probably have recognised even if he had not been in sight of the ground due to night and overcast conditions.

[rvusa]

Trim Stab.
Wasn't implying an altimeter setting error, just wanted to know if QFE was in use back then?
My 3 Deg approach suggestion was more like sticking to what your normal practice would be, maybe I'm wrong?

[Hipper]

I have the book 'RAF Bomber Stories' edited by Martin Bowman and one story describes a landing of a Lancaster in 1945 (after the Dresden raid).

The home base was Binbrook, call sign BK and the aircraft was T - Tommy.

In this case, as they crossed the home coast at Ofordness, aircraft navigation lights were turned on. Binbrook's homing beacon, a flashing 'BK' was seen. Presumably the aircraft reported in but it doesn't say what was said. The control tower's response was a curt 'Tommy, 1,500 feet'. Permission to land was requested. They had permission to join the circuit. There were other aircraft nearby and they communicated with them too. At one stage 'Tommy' announces 'downwind'.

There appears to have been a ring of lights around the Binbrook circuit. There was a funnel to the start of the runway. Further radio messages from Tommy are 'Tommy Funnels', Tommy Pancake', 'Tommy Pancaking. Out. Full Flaps. 2,850 revs'.

I might be wrong but I get the impression wheels down and some flap applied would happen on the downwind leg.

[Green Flash]

James

If, as momoe suggests, the crash was due to fighter damage, then it may have been as the aircraft throttled back on or turning finals the decrease in airspeed manifested or made worse some control damage and perhaps the pilot lost control and it went in. Stirlings were notorious for their low service ceiling and caught a lot of flak or fighter attention.

[jamesinnewcastle]

Hi All

I've done loads of research already - really now I would like to know what I can't research and that's how to land one of these Bombers at night! I am aware of a huge amount about the aircraft and have all the official reports etc.

But to take the comments as they arrived:

In 1941 there was only one runway and that was grass and camouflaged (I have a luftwaffe photo from Aug 1940). It was 230/050 and at the time was only 1700 yds long.

I would like first to understand how landings were normally done. Without aids for example how did he know how high the ground was? Whatever the altimeter said about his height above sea level or the airfield - it wouldn't tell him how high the land was below him. No point in flying at 500 ft if there is a 600ft mountain in front of you!

Wind from the NE he was landing into it I assume, he was 3 miles out.

I assume that he could set his rate of decent - but again this does not mean he knows where he is in relation to any ground object. So for example - would he fly in but stay at 1000 ft until he saw the goosenecks or the Chance light and then descend?

Hipper - I have the book - you would not believe how much I've read in search of anyone describing in detail how they landed at the time! The description you have read includes a DREM landing system where the whole countryside would have looked like a City round about at night and where the pilot could have simply looked down to find his way. I believe that my pilot may have had about 15 floppy paraffin lights to come home on! (Plus the chance?).

Am I right in that the pilot would have flown up and down in parallel with the runway? Would he have executed the 180 degree turns - or would he have 'circled'

Thanks for all the replies so far guys!

James

[Daf Hucker]

It may of course have been shot down by a night fighter intruder whilst in the circuit......not that that helps with the original question!!!

[Spurlash2]

Light Levels may also have been a player. Here are some figures from May 1941. The figures are in Millilux. The Moon was at 25% phase and 17 degrees below the horizon on a brg of approx 330 degrees.

Can't fettle the table to display, but the light levels were at TWO at the time of the crash. (Time/Millilux) 2100/19, 2200/12, 2300/8, 0001/4, 0100/2, 0200/2, 0300/9

It was dark! (as Albert Driver mentioned)

PS The cloud cover drops the figure to 0.9. Much darker.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

This story is from 1941:

BBC - WW2 People's War - 1941 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/62/a7771962.shtml)

Seems to indicate that the pilot would NOT have been able to see the goosenecks from 3 miles.

Pure speculation, but other possibilities include:
Mistaking a dim light in Bar House Farm for the locating bonfire, if there was one.
Mistaking a couple of cars down Bar House Farm road for the Goosenecks
(n.b. Bar Hill did not exist in 1941 - it was new-built in 1967 see below for old map
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Bar_hill%2C_npe_1948.png
battle damage causing loss of control when flaps / gear were selected
injuries to pilot
etc.
Fighters hang around approach paths for easy kills. They did then and they still do now! We like easy kills!

[jamesinnewcastle]

Hi All

I'm not looking for reasons for the crash yet, but just to quell the interest. Fighter attack is only mentioned in one official document and gets bandied around a lot, it was however only described as "believed attacked" - the AHB has a copy of 765c which makes no mention of fighter attack - I have some pics of the crash and no fuselage or wing bullet holes - which doesn't mean much but really there is not much evidence one way or the other. The Court of Inquiry papers were burned with thousands of others but I think someone somewhere has a copy as I suspect that is where the photos came from! I've learned to take care over any evidence in books etc as one famous author has the crew killed a month before they actually were and has an 8th man make a fatal jump from the aircraft as it crashed only to be killed again some months later on another mission.

Spurlash - Great stuff, I had not realised that the moon could be at 25% and be below the horizon at the same time so you can't see it anyway - slaps head. What was your source for that information?

Fox - that's a good link - I have read it myself but not picked up the distance part. However to test the theory of distance viewing I have bought a paraffin lamp and have desperately tried to find a three mile distance between two points in the countryside (to avoid artificial lights) with a clear view between the two! Surprisingly difficult, three miles is a really long way! Also discovered that when it's really dark in the countryside you can only get 4 metres from your car before you fall into a pothole!

However, the darkness was, I assume, no surprise to the RAF and they must have had some way of flying down safely time after time or they would have lost every night bomber that took off. It's this landing method I am trying to determine, in some detail admittedly.

Thanks for the replies so far chaps
James

[Trim Stab]

Another thouught that occured to me, three miles out and 900ft would be about the point he selected landing flaps. He could have got an asymmetric extension, or a tailplane stall due to tailplane damage or icing picked up on the descent through cloud).

[aw ditor]

James',

You refer in your first para' to a Cranfield graduate, should that perhaps have been Cranwell? As someone who bashed' the circuit as an Oakington 5FTS Varsity QFI more times than I care to remember there is no doubt that Bar Hill was relatively speaking a "lump" on the 05' approach. I cannot recall any student frightening me getting too close to it, though plenty of others! The village of Dry Drayton is on a ridge and is almost in line with the 05' approach, so the aircraft striking the tree/ground there would tie-up. Perhaps he "ducked-under" a standard three degree approach? Oakington had a nasty habit of "fogging-out" early in a narrow band at right angles to 05 runway about 300 yards up the runway from the 05 threshold. This was due to a strip of very wet ground which was originally a drainage ditch in-filled during the construction of the grass runway. (As an aside, drainage for the planned new-town' of Northstowe on the site has been a major problem and has produced an extensive ring of balancing ponds, so the site is very "wet") I assume this was a 7 Squadron Stirling, in which case the Squadron Form 540, (Squadron Record Book') may be of help, also the Pilot's Notes for the Stirling which I believe are available in "repro" form.

AD'

[henry crun]

jamesinnewcastle: Have a browse through this thread, http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/329990-gaining-r-f-pilots-brevet-ww11.html

You will see the the originator and one or two others who contribute, flew at that time. Their recall of events that long ago is astonishing, and I am sure if you contact them they would be only too willing to help in whatever way they can.

If anyone can answer your questions with authority, it will will be Cliffnemo and 1 or 2 others.

[rvusa]

Assuming only visual cues, the pilot could obviously find the airfield using some kind of lighting, enough to set up a left hand circuit around 05. I will also assume that he used a 'standard' 1000' Agl circuit. Using compass, watch and visual cues from the flarepath he would, I would guess, have started a turn onto a base leg at around 3 miles, with U/C and partial flap, before a turn onto final.
At this point he crashed, for whatever reason, technical, battle damage or pilot induced.
I have a limited experience of landing on grass using 'goosenecks' only, but in light aircraft. Their use for judging approach path is very similar to using electrical lighting. Although fairly dim their visibility will have been aided, in fact, by a dark night and the 'blackout', which I assume was in operation? Closer in you get an estimation of range as you can see the flicker of the flame, but he didn't get that close!
If the pilot could see the flarepath from 3 miles then it should have been obvious to him that he was too low, which would seem to rule out an altimeter setting error, leaving the aforementioned, technical malfunction, aircraft damage or a pilot error/incapacity as the cause?
I await a verbal lashing from other 'youngsters' or, hopefully, a reply from someone who 'did it for real'

[Albert Driver]

James, my experience of landing using goosenecks is also very limited but in essence the system relies on the fact that the human eye is not very sensitive to a single dim light but can pick out a line of dim lights much more easily. I was surprised how effective they can be in good night weather conditions.

However they do rely entirely on being in the right place on the approach to be able to see and use them - as indeed do all night landing aids. And that of course is the whole point of the standard circuit - to orientate the aircraft in terms of heading, speed, configuration and height to the landing runway.

Your Stirling appears to have been in the right place in the circuit but (obviously) ultimately not the correct altitude. This could be because the pilot was unable to achieve or maintain that altitude, or mislead into flying at the wrong altitude, or temporarily unaware of his altitude.

We don't know your background or why you have this interest, but you have as you say put a lot of work into this project. Do you have any flying experience at all? If not, are you in a position to go down to the local flying club and ask to experience half an hour's worth of circuits to help you understand why so much emphasis is (still) placed on circuits in flying training? A circuit is still a circuit no matter how sophisticated or unsophisticated the aids used in constructing it and landing from it.

[jamesinnewcastle]

Hi All

Thanks again for all the comments:

Trim stab - My photo shows that the flaps on one wing had not been extended, however I don't have a photo of the other wing so theres a possibility.

AD: Yes Cranwell! I didn't mention Bar Hill, that was another poster. As you note the crash was at Dry Drayton which lies on a rising finger of land which sort of 'points' at the runway (the only one at the time). I haven't mentioned a 3 degree approach either, that was another poster, I don't know iif a 3 degree approach was what they did at that time - this is the sort of information that I am trying to find out. It's very interesting that you have flown the airfield - have you flown it at night? What would you do if it were 3am in the morning and the runway lights had failed?

henry crun: Thanks I shall be stalking those gentlemen soon!

rvusa: 'standard 1000 Agl circuit'? Can you point me to a more detailled explanation or is this general knowledge that I can easily find on the web? I have an AP (number I can't remember) which details a large amount about night landings and some procedures, etc. This is great but of course I am looking at a particular airfield and I know that people 'do their own things'. This document details approach to the field at 2000ft, circle at 1000ft but no clues as to hieght, or shape of the 'circle', etc. Its also states that only the identification lights should be used to request permission to land but I know that they used the radio. Another source of info then that needs a little back-up. I did mention earlier that I am trying to find a three mile stretch of countryside so I can see how far the light from a gooseneck would reach (I'm really short of a pilot, a plane, and 6 goosenecks - so I have to improvise!) Were you landing in darkness? How far do you estimate you could see the goosenecks from?

He could have started his decent on visual cue or I suppose he could have timed his flight from the field and the turn and worked out a rate of decent based on that - but I don't know.


Albert Driver: I'm an engineer but not a pilot. I'm looking into this as the aircraft crashed 30 yards from where my mother (to be) was sleeping. I am very interested to know how I wasn't 'killed' but once you start looking the thing grows into hundreds of interesting threads! Do you think that 3 miles out sounds about right? Was the 'standard' circuit in use in May 1941? What was it? (Actually I think that I am confusing 'circuit' with 'circling') I can see how you could fly along a runway, fly at a fixed speed for a fixed time, turn at a fixed rate and fly back along the opposite route (allowing for your turn), but hieght and descent are the things that I can't get the procedure for. I've done a number of 3D simulations for an amateur documentary I am doing but I really have no idea of the lighting - one is here:

Night Landing with Gooseneck Flares and Perimiter warning Lamps - YouTube


Thanks for all your replies so far - I have learned more

James

[Hipper]

Have you got the privately published book 'Snaith Days' by Keith S Ford. It deals with 51 squadron from 1942-45, so a bit later then your incident, but there's lots of interesting info in it.

Perhaps also some of the RAF DVDs may be useful, such as 'Target for Tonight' or the range of 'RAF at War' discs from the Imperial War Museum.

[jamesinnewcastle]

Hi Hipper

My posts are being regulated as the last one isn't yet on line so you may need to read a few posts back - I'm not sure if they are inserted in sequence. I just hope that the last one isn't missing.

I will look up the book you mention, thanks.

I have seen 'Target for Tonight' but I will look up 'RAF at War', interestingly the pilot that died at Dry Drayton appears in the propaganda film 'The Lion has Wings'!

James

[Momoe]

As already mentioned, although the goosenecks weren't very bright, the contrast against a very dark night in a black-out would have been sufficient.
The pilot was obviously experienced, Dry Drayton is on the extended runway line so he's lined up and that suggests that the goosenecks are visible.
If the plane was damaged and control was compromised, it would be common for the pilot to order the crew to bail out if he wasn't certain of getting it down safely.
Fuel starvation is a possibility, on finals there would be very little decision time, the intruder attack in the circuit is unlikely as radar equipped intruders weren't around until 1942/3.

[Green Flash]

james

Something else to consider is that he may not have been the only cab in the circuit or on finals. If the wave had got back more or less together there could have been lots of big 4 motors all trying to get in at once, possibly shot up, low on fuel, plus lost cabs landing at the first strip they saw. You might be set up for a nice straight in approach and find yourself in close formation with something else and have to take avoiding action which could compromise you. Indeed, there is a picture somewhere of a Whitley that landed at Kinloss at night and an Anson that had landed on top of the Whitley, in mid air! Both aircraft landed safely.

[Shackman]

James,

As someone who had an engine failure just after take off from Oakington (in a Varsity), I can certainly attest to the fact that the ridge behind Dry Drayton rapidly becomes a significant obstruction - or more precisely it was a tree on the ridge line that filled the windscreen for some time. However, that was take off, and when landing, even assymetric, we would be nowhere near the hill.

One thing you haven't mentioned - which may be quite significant - is whether the wreckage was spread out in a more or less straight line, indicating a 'relatively' controlled flight into the ground, which could come from a mis-set altimeter, or essentially all in one place, which is more likely to be 'uncontrolled' as in a spin in from low level as a result of previously unknown battle damage or pure disorientation on a low light night. We tend to forget just how dark it could be with a blackout in force and just a few runway lights (as well as possibly Bourne, Waterbeach, Mepal, Warboys et al all around). Flying and manouevring at low level over the sea at night with just a few ships lights around soon brings that home. Even recently I have had students flying circuits on 'good' nights get disorientated and just increase the angle of bank into a spiral dive through lack of attention to the instruments when turning finals and they were well rested and not returning from operations!

[Albert Driver]

If, as you suggest in your OP James, he was the first one home he would have had very few visual clues to follow in the black hole that night.

2.50am. Home early perhaps? Moon not yet up. Operation planned for an expected slightly later moonlight return? Airfield still preparing the last flares?

Gooseneck flares are good for marking a runway location and direction but give very little glidepath information. With conventional lights either side of a runway you have a shape to aim for. If that shape is long and thin you're too high, short and fat and you're too low.

With a single line of flares in complete darkness all you've got for glidepath is the apparent spacing between flares (which may not be perfectly even anyway) and the apparent length of the line (which may be compromised if the runway isn't level - common in wartime grass strips). Difficult to fly a stabilised approach with no other clues, and so easy to sink below the ideal glidepath.

It all reminds me of some good flying advice:

Let someone else have a go at it first and follow them if they make it safely!!

[jamesinnewcastle]

Hi All

Momoe: Good point about the bail out - the 765c form reveals that the pilot had called the tower on the R/T but had nothing to report. The radio he would have used had a range of between 30 and 50 miles so there is a point at which we know he was OK, unless he was being terribly British - that is one datum. So, how far out would he have been before using the radio - over to anyone to answer that - again it is this the sort of procedural data that I am after. I imagine that he would not have called too soon or the status of his permission could have changed or he might not actually have found the airfield and so why bother the tower? I suspect that he would have waited until he saw at least one visual clue, but I don't guess anymore.

Green Flash: See my first post, three Stirlings left Oakington, one came back quickly with electrical problems and never completed the raid. One was 15 minutes behind the one that crashed. There was a fire in one engine but as they would not have had much fuel the plane did not blaze. Just to gently put the post back on track - I'm not yet speculating just trying to find out the procedures.

Shackman: Very interesting to hear that the hill is significant - I can't know that sitting here at my PC of course so it's nice to get real flying feedback I'm sure that landing at night in 2012 can still be disorientating but the RAF landed hundreds of bombers at night early in the war when all there was were a few flickering goosenecks - I assume that there was a way of doing that which must have been relatively safe - I would like to find out what those procedures were if I can.

Albert Driver: He was on time, see above for details of who was in the air. Another poster earlier in this thread has suggested 25% moon but 17 degrees below the horizon at an angle that would have put it roughly on his left wing (Port? Yes please....). I've read in AP129 that the flares would have been 100 yards apart for a field with no flood light with just three lights in the 'crossbar' which was at the 'end' of the runway and not the start. The lights were 450yds apart where a flood light was used and in that case only two lights were used. That seems a long way but I believe that the floodlight was very powerful.

All comments appreciated gents

James

[Tinribs]

Odd how this thread fits my career

Flew from Oakington in 65 on Varsity course Correct about the hill. We simultated an engine failure in those days by the instructor throttling back an engine to an assessed zero thrust as a sign that it had failed. If the hill got too close, as it sometimes did, it was not unusual to ask the man for a little more power on the dead engine

Even up to the 80s we did night checks by swtiching off all the runway lights and landing on the red T alone

After leaving in 83 I spent 22years with BMI often operating from Teeside, Middleton St George. The airport hotel occiupies what was the Officers' mess. There is a fine statue of an airman outside the buidling and the Canadian flag flies high every day

Each year the "Old Boys" come back for a reunion and it must be said they are a fine example of real men ought to be to us all. They often bring their favourite bits of aeroplane with them, instrument panels, bomb door switches and the like and are very easy to talk to

I once asked one of them why, since they all had Canadian accents, their wives seemed to be British, he replied "spoils of war old boy". Says it all really

[brakedwell]

Did you ever see the M St G Officers Mess ghost?

[cliffnemo]

Hi Henry Crun,
Thanks for the 'reference' I needed cheering up after a bad prognosis.

I think I have read this thread thoroughly, and cannot find a reference to a Christmas Tree. This was a box having yellow screen (top) green screen
(middle) , red screen (bottom), and was quite bright. The object was to keep in the green to clear all obstructions. When nearer to the goose necks their apparent distance apart indicated height. I would suggest that goose necks gave more light than a hurricane lamp, as they flickered with a longer bright light. Also dark WAS dark during the war , as we had total blackout, and no 'light pollution' I carried out many night landings when wasting time at pre-afu on Tiger Moths and stationed at Kingstown Airfield , Carlisle. We had a satellite field, and it was,just a grass field. about ten miles North. of Carlisle No one seemed to have any trouble locating it and landing using Christmas Tree and goose necks . Yes they were only Tiger Moths but the principle is the same. By the way, the Christmas tree was adjusted to give a glide path clear of obstructions
I still have the landing drill notes for a Lancaster if you are interested, but that was late 1944

[jamesinnewcastle]

Hi Cliffnemo

I suspect that the landing methods changed rapidly during the war itself. What year were you landing using Christmas Trees? I am getting a lot of info from AP 129 (Dated 1938) but that only mentions goosenecks, glim lamps and chance lights.

On approach how close did you have to be to see the goosenecks? How high could you go before you lost sight of the goosenecks? Can you remember the pattern the goosenecks were arranged in and how many they were? Sorry I know that that is a very detailed question!

I would be very interested in receiving a copy of the Landing Drill notes that you mention! Happy to pay any costs involved.

James

[aw ditor]

"Christmas Trees." I suspect we were still using them as "Angle of Approach Indicators (AAIs') with a goose-neck flarepath; when plodding round the night-flying circuit in Piston Provosts at grass airfields such as Spitalgate. Although this was the mid 50s'! They seemed to work very well and kept you out of harms way in the "greens". Whether Oakington used them on the night in question is a matter for conjecture, or more research?

[cliffnemo]

Herewith take off drill for Lancaster , ex R.A.F School of Engineering, St Athlan. circa late 1944. Will post landing drill later and answer other questions later.( loaded the wrong page from my exercise book)


/http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj248/cliffordleach/TAKEOFF3-1.jpg

[Trim Stab]

Cliffnemo,

I mentioned it in an earlier post, but did you get any training in those days in tail-plane stall recovery? I suspect that a lot of unexplained accidents in WW2 and until the 60s on short finals prior were due to tail plane stall on selecting full-flaps. As far as I can determine, the cause was not really understood until the 60s-70s.

The Stirling might have been a bit more susceptible to tail icing than some other WW2 bombers, as its tail was borrowed from a seaplane so was set higher than would normally be expected (seaplanes had high tails to keep them out of spray).

Pure conjecture, but I'd certainly be interested to know if it was a phenomena recognised and trained for by WW2 crews.

There is a very interesting video here, courtesty of NASA, for non-pilots who might not be familiar with the tail-plane icing and the non-instinctive recovery technique that it requires.

1 of 3, Aircraft icing loss of control - YouTube (http://youtu.be/w1c4-aDB4k8)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

A little research shows that the quarter Moon set at about half-past midnight on 3rd May 1941, two hours before the accident. There weren't even any major planets in the sky, so it would have been a bloody dark night.
Pilot could have been very disorientated by the very few dim lights on the ground and the stars - I've certainly experienced this. 'Black Hole' phenomenon still gets my guess however.

[Hipper]

You can find Pilot's Notes for the Stirling here (if you don't alrteady have them):

Stirling 1, 111 & 1V Pilots Notes: Amazon.co.uk: Air Ministry: 9780859790420: Books


This is a circuit drawing of Wittering in 1960. This seems to have been drawn especially for a crash report so I don't know if there exist such diagrams for each airfield. I also don't know if circuits were different at night.

http://i918.photobucket.com/albums/ad28/Hipper34/img056.jpg

[Mechta]

I guess this is the Kinloss Anson/Whitley incident referred to earlier:

http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib/54/media-54205/standard.jpg

From what I've read about the Stirling crash, the scenario I imagine, is that the pilot lowered the flaps, and they only went down on one side. Rudder and/or aileron were applied to counteract the yaw, increasing the sink rate; power was applied but did not arrest the descent rate in time to prevent the ground getting in the way. If the flaps ere damaged by enemy fire its quite possible that one went down and wouldn't retract again. A fatigued pilot would only make things worse.

Anyone remember that Blenheim G-MKIV that crashed at Denham in 1987 a month after a 12 year rebuild? The pilot applied the power after a low pass, but the engines 'weren't paying attention' when he sent the message.

[Trim Stab]

From what I've read about the Stirling crash, the scenario I imagine, is that the pilot lowered the flaps, and they only went down on one side. Rudder and/or aileron were applied to counteract the yaw, increasing the sink rate; power was applied but did not arrest the descent rate in time to prevent the ground getting in the way.


Except that if he had asymetric flap deployment, he probably would not have crashed on the extended centreline.

[cliffnemo]

St Athan, R.A.F School of Engineering Circa 1944
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj248/cliffordleach/LANDINGDRILL_0001_NEW-2-1.jpg

[Shackman]

James,

I go back to my original question - was there a trail of wreckage or a smoking hole/compact impact scene? That in itself will give you a much better idea of the nature of the crash and perhaps the dynamics of the accident will discount some of the scenarios.

Of interest I have operated into airfields only illuminated by goosenecks both in training and on Shacks, and in itself there is very little real difference on finals with that of 'normal' lighting in that you still use perspective to 'line up' and control the approach angle. You just don't want to run off the edge and into them!

Also of note (I've only just remembered this whilst writing the above!) Oakington had a marked dip at the south western end of the main runway which could lead to a marked 'false leveling' at night - a normal approach angle would look quite steep and perhaps force an early descent. I can't remember landing at night on 05 so can't say definitely. To see what I mean try holding a ruler in front of you so you are looking along its length, and then tilting it from the level - you will immediately see the change of perspective; now imagine just a few lights to give you that perspective and NOTHING else around to help. You will get my drift hopefully.

edited to change spelling!

[cliffnemo]

Hi James
1. Landed using 'goose necks' , and Christmas Trees A.K.A Glide path indicator) 11/5/1944.
I would hazard a guess they had been used for a long time, even 'when we didn't have numbers cos everyone new each other'

2. Can't remember how many goose necks etc, would guess about 20-30 but definitely on the port side only.

3. Landing drill already posted after much difficulty. Take off drill kept loading instead.

Will answer re tail stall later




I

[onetrack]

I'm looking into this as the aircraft crashed 30 yards from where my mother (to be) was sleeping. I am very interested to know how I wasn't 'killed'

James - Here's a link to a Douglas DC-3 disaster, that involved the aircraft spiralling down in amongst closely-set buildings, from 500', directly after takeoff.
No-one on the ground or in any of the buildings was killed or injured, despite the DC-3 being fully-fueled and almost fully-loaded. An aircraft going straight in, perpendicularly, leaves a surprisingly small impact area.

04 Jul 1949 - The West Australian - p3 (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/page/3852609?zoomLevel=1)

[Momoe]

James, would be useful if you posted the photograph(s)? of the crash scene as this would eliminate some aspects.
We're working with precious little at the moment and anything related to the crash would help.
N.B. Reading the Lanc landing drill, flaps 20 were were selected before turning on to the downwind leg, presuming that this is the same for all heavies which would make sense, this would reduce the possibility of assymetic flap being a cause.
Stirling's had a lot in common with the Sunderland, the wing is a shortened Sunderland wing made thicker to compensate, this gave good handling albeit at the expense of lift and ultimately ceiling.

[Shackman]

James,

I've just re-read your first post, and it appears what you are really asking for is HOW the pilot arrives at the airfield and sets up for the approach - which has in turn led to a number of other answers, including mine, as to why the aircraft could have crashed (as in the number of other forums you have posted in). Although I don't know the exact Stirling parameters or checks, those for the Shackleton will have been somewhat similar so I have sort of used those. I am sure there are many others who could put this much better and perhaps disclose Stirling or wartime specifics.

First you need to find your airfield - probably starting your descent well before coasting in so as to get/keep the speed up, nav hopefully giving directions and WT op getting all the relevant information for you. You need to get below the cloud base (somewhere it said approx 4000ft) which would not be too difficult, aiming to level approx 3000ft until you identify your own airfield (were the pundits - a light flashing the morse ident - working at this time? - hopefully someone else can answer that one). The you can do your own R/T. Also you need to think of total blackout and no moon, and the only lights will be runway goosenecks (and not just Oakington, look at a wartime map and see how many other airfields are clustered around Oakington, each with its own circuit active that you REALLY don't want to get into), chance lights and odd searchlight (perhaps). A 'straight in' approach is unlikely as you would have to overfly all those other (Bomber) airfields and their traffic!

Remember you may the only pilot on the aircraft - I know it was designed for two pilot operation but a lot of crews seem to be single pilot - so you are tired, probably on what is now termed 'a low arousal' state and just glad to be back, and your reactions will not necessarily be at their best. You are also semi flying on instruments - really necessary on a dark night with only limited visual clues. You would probably aim to cross the runway centre line about 1-2 miles upwind and aim for a 'gate' approx abeam the runway about a mile out (visually assessed) at 1000ft QFE and about 140 kts, with take off flap selected as you roll out downwind. At this point any flap problems would be quite evident but hopefully dealt with easily. Downwind checks completed with appropriate engine RRPM selected. At some stage you will select full flap - either just starting the finals turn or when lined up with the runway.

When the runway appears in about your eight o'clock - and here I am assuming a left hand circuit with you in the LHS, start your turn onto finals whilst reducing throttles to control speed. Approaching 90° roll out onto base leg whilst levelling at approx 5-600ft, then as you approach the runway centre line continue the turn onto finals and with full flap and undercarriage down continue the approach using the correct 'sight picture' (go back to my perspective mentioned earlier), gradually reducing speed to the 'threshold/landing' speed as you approach touchdown. Of note, a much more common approach at this time was the constant angle of bank turn to roll out on finals, but this was more a 'fighter' style.

So where can this go wrong? One of the worst places is getting too close into the runway when downwind through either poor positioning to start with or not appreciating a wind blowing you 'into' the circuit. You start your finals turn with about 30° angle of bank, and look over your shoulder for the runway. You find you are tight in or even overshooting the centre line, so you increase your angle of bank, and at the same time start pulling back on the stick to 'get it right'. The next thing is a stall/spin - and no height to recover. Alternatively you could be too wide and continue descending on the finals turn, you could become disorientated (your mind suddenly makes the very few lights you can see to be 'stars' and you try to roll the wings level based on the new 'up', you could have the wrong pressure setting, you could even fall asleep (it has been known!), and finally, as you say, there could have been enemy action at the most inopportune time.

Will you ever 'know' the truth - probably not. Only the Board of Inquiry can make judgements at the time, but with so many losses many of them were just statements of the accident and very little 'inquiry'.

I'm sure there will be many other takes on the scenario; all I have done is use some of the teaching and wise words I got from other pilots I flew with who HAD flown bombers and maritime during WWII (and a couple before!),

[jamesinnewcastle]

Hi All
Thanks for the replies, sorry about the delay in replying as I have been frantic this weekend.

How do I attach a picture on here?


James

[jamesinnewcastle]

Ok just read the sticky on photo posting - will reply to all tonight - so many great posts - appreciated!

James

[101history]

James,

I have a copy of Flying Standing Orders for RAF Stations Holme and Breighton. However, those 2 names are crossed out and Ludford Magna inserted by hand. The Orders may well be generic!

The document is dated Sept 1st 1942.

It covers Diversions, Aerodrome Control, Signals and layout, Signals procedure, Local R/T and Darky Procedure. The 'Chance light' you spoke of in your OP has been crossed out and replaced with 'flood light'. Aerodrome has been manually replaced with Airfield.

It also covers recovery actions by the pilot, Duty Control officer and Airfield Controller when enemy aircraft are in the vicinity with regard to lighting, etc; also covers voice procedures.

Might be of interest!

PS


The Chance light would have come on at some point – but when?



Quote "In the event of an aircraft requiring the Chance Light for landing purposes, the captain will flash the letter "F" after being given permission to land and whilst making his approach" Unquote.

I'm off for some lunch now:ok:

[cliffnemo]

MEMORY ? ? ?
Chance lights were in use during W.W 2.
Darky procedure full described in ''Gaining a pilot's brevet etc.
We never used Chance lights only Goose necks or the Drem system.
On our final 2000 mile final navigation test we had to land in the dark at Albuquerque , where the Americans switched on all the airfield lights , and insisted we switched on our wing land lights. Some of the flight had difficulty landing, so we insisted they switched off all lights except runway lights, In the American mess that night they asked us how we managed to land.

[jamesinnewcastle]

Hi All

This is going to be a Marathon Post as I've not been able to get back on here recently and you've all left so many posts - thanks!

So I will break it into sections and post as the evening goes on.


Cazatou

I have tried the Air Historical Branch, is that what you meant? I have obtained the 765c form data from them but they don't seem like an 'open' source of information. I get the feeling that they bounce you to TNA or the RAF Museum, certainly they stick very closely to the Data Protection Act. However this is a good point to relay the details of the crash as recorded in the 765c.

"The aircraft fouled the trees about 30 feet high with one wing down, continued for 200 odd yards and crashed on its back against a tree, no evidence is available regarding the behaviour of the engines, and the condition of the wreckage indicates aircraft had been trimmed with undercarriage down for landing at base which was 3 miles from the crash"

The line 'aircraft had been trimmed' intrigues me - I know of the trim tabs and what they do (but I am no pilot don't forget) but how would people studying the crash know that the Pilot was planning to do by looking at the position of the trim tabs?


Shackman

The above is part answer to your question I think. I'll up load a photo later and you will see that the only way the aircraft could have hit trees and continued for 200 yds is if he was traveling along a straight path to the runway across a field (that you will see later). All other possible directions to the final crash site are deep with trees and would have stopped the aircraft much sooner.

When I get the photos on here you will also see that the aircraft is in very large pieces. Both these items suggest that he was travelling at a shallow angle directly towards the runway when he hit trees.

[jamesinnewcastle]

If I get this right - here are the photos of the crash. It looks to me like the flap is still fully in. Comments?

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj533/jamesinnewcastle/A3.jpg

[jamesinnewcastle]

Next picture - note that these pictures were not all taken at the same time as large parts of the aircraft have been moved about between each picture (or at least between two of them)

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj533/jamesinnewcastle/A2.jpg

[jamesinnewcastle]

Last one sadly!

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj533/jamesinnewcastle/StirlingBomberN6012beingrecoveredMG-D2.jpg

[jamesinnewcastle]

rvusa

I can't tell you if QNH was used in 1941(in fact I'll have to look QNH up). I assume that it would have been so easy to put a sensitive altimeter into a control tower that QFE would have been used all the time from the very first control tower - or at least been available on request.

This would be part of the procedure I am after of course - it's very specific to ask about May 1941 but you just never know!! I wonder sometimes if there are any control tower personnel out there.


Trimtab

I need to do some trigonometry I guess, that should reveal if a 3 degree flight path were safe.


Hipper

It would be good to know what part of the landing that he would normally put down his flaps, as you can see they don't appear to be down - but should they be? Was he still just circling?


Daf Hucker

The night fighter aspect does always come up - this is perhaps the point to add the information from the other official sources.


AM1180

"Hit trees when circling to make approach continued for 200yds and crashed on its back. Captain called control on R/T and had nothing unusual to report. E of J (co) - appearing to be clear case of pilot approaching F.P. too low (oc.)"

Anyone know what the initials E of J mean? Also 'co' could be officer commanding and 'oc' could be officer commanding but the fact that both are used. Note that the underlined text was written by a different person from the first part of the text.


Form 541

"..........believed attacked by e/a............"


Form 540

"...... The cause of the accident is unknown......."

[jamesinnewcastle]

Spurlash

Your comments and files etc will take me some time to analyse off line but it is really important to know what the weather conditions were


Trim Stab

Sadly you can't see the other wing so they can't help, but your suggestion will be in the list of 'possibles'.


aw ditor

I've looked through the full ORBs and the Pilots handbook but they have no info to help.

You mentioned Cranwell - the pilot was a special 'N' Pilot - anyone know what that means? A quote about the Pilot

"Raymond Cruickshank DFC and Bar, a Cranwell graduate and a special 'N' Pilot had flown on the first Stirling raid as a navigator."


Albert Driver

The aircraft in question nearly killed me when it crashed. OK that is slightly dramatic, more correct to say that my mother to be was aged 11 and asleep in a small cottage when N6012 eventually came to a halt against a tree at the bottom of the garden of the cottage that she had been evacuated to.

The idea of a trip in a light aircraft sounds good - just as long as I get a parachute and two reserve pilots! I wonder if they would want to fly in the pitch dark though as that is what I would like. Then I would have to find a farmer who wouldn't mind a dozen goosenecks burning in his field.


rvusa

Someone else has told me that goosenecks give a good impression of height, possibly better than electric lights. Is that because the flicker can't be seen from far away but only when you get closer? What distance do they start to flicker do you think, it would make my 3D animations more realistic.

[Spurlash2]

Anyone know what the initials E of J mean?

Error of Judgement.

[jamesinnewcastle]

Spurlash

Fits perfectly! Nice one

James

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

"co" is the Station Commander, "oc" is the Squadron Commander, if memory serves.
I agree the flaps appear up.

See below for a good brief (8 page) summary of 'black hole' phenomena.

http://www.cwu.edu/~aviation/faculty_files/HFAM (http://www.cwu.edu/%7Eaviation/faculty_files/HFAM) Night Flying Risks.pdf

note on page 4 that the cessna over flat terrain also crashes at 3 miles.

[Albert Driver]

Goosenecks are just big candles so they flicker according to wind speed like candles. They give quite a good light which can be seen well outside the normal circuit in good visibility but they can give off smoke which can reduce visibility depending on whether the wind is from the runway side or the dead side of the line of flares. And of course, if the general visibility is reduced by the weather conditions they are dimmed, as are all lights and visual clues.

The suggestion that you take a trip to do a few circuits at a flying club was a serious one. The parts of this study where you seem to struggle at the moment, James, are in understanding what a circuit is for and what visual clues a pilot is looking out for at each stage in the circuit - which are essentially the same day or night. A few daylight circuits with an instructor explaining what he's looking for would give you a lot more insight, which you would carry back to the study. It doesn't need to be night flying. I have indeed done night circuits using goosenecks in a single-engine light aircraft but I spent so much time thinking where to go if the engine failed (I was inexperienced with very low hours at the time), any benefit from the exercise was largely lost!

[jamesinnewcastle]

Cliffnemo

Thank for the take off procedure and the Icing video link, it certainly seems that the Stirling fits a lot of the criteria mentioned. One for the list of 'probables'.

Thanks for the landing drill picture - can't make all the writing though. Why would the rear gunner want to make more light to the rear?


Hipper

Thanks for the circuit drawing, I can't quite make it all out though sadly.

Anyway this might be the point at which I ask you all for a better idea of what the circuit may have actually been like in terms of its shape and dimensions. I'll make up a few examples as non-pilot guesses and you can all critique it if you would.

I'll do that later as I want to finish typing!


Mechta

Great Pic - unbelieveable


onetrack

The crash of N6012 involved 28 tons of metal landing at 100+ mph but I suspect that my mother was relatively safe in fact as the cottage was surrounded by a dense ring of trees. While they were pretty much directly under the Flight Path it might have taken a really steep dive to have hit the cottage.


Momoe

Flaps at 30 percent caused a buzzer to sound in the cockpit - and 30 percent is mentioned a lot in the manuals. The photos are up now and the flaps look fully in to me but I stand to be corrected.


Shackman

Thanks for re-reading my post. I understand the desire of people reading the thread to get to the more interesting parts and go off at a tangent but I want to do that by going through the 'no problems landing' first.

You reply is great - what I'd like to do is to capture it graphically because I don't have the experience of 'turning onto the base leg' and because I am making an amateur documentary about the incident which is for me, my mother and all the people who have helped me so far including the villagers at Dry Drayton, especially the Cricket Club who seem undisturbed at my eyeing up their cricket pitch which I believe is on the field that N6012 slid across in 1941.

I believe that there would have been a Pundit light as my 90 year old witness remembers 'a light that was always flashing' (Have I got that right - didn't they flash the Morse code for the airfield identification?)

There was a COI but the AHB doesn't have a copy - they told me that most were destroyed to 'make more room' - sigh if only scanners and PCs were about earlier. My one isn't in AIR5 at TNA either.

OK this link is a landing simulation I made a long while ago - it's not good, it's just a trial and it describes a rectangular circuit (told you I was no pilot) and the props aren't going round. But the land and the hangers are Dry Drayton and Oakington from 1946. Also I have made your view look directly at the runway all the time and there are spotlights on Oakington and Dry Drayton. It's best to watch it in a dark room of course to let your eyes adjust.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR4YjcbpO-U




But with help from the forum I'd like to make two much better ones - one at night and one during the day. This may take some time of course.

I have loads more questions but I'll finish off commenting on your responses first.


101history

Hi - oh yes please - I would love a copy. So interested in the voice procedures too. I found an old BBC sound effects track of the conversation in a control tower during a landing - really amazing to hear the crew asking if the Chance light was on and the Pilot not quite hearing what was being said, at one point a voice says 'He's up there somewhere'....




Thanks All

[jamesinnewcastle]

Hi All

You are posting faster than I can respond - great :-)


Fox3wheresmybanana

That's great I think that you have put the last piece of that puzzle in place



Albert Driver

After searching for ages I eventually found film of a gooseneck, a still from that film below - not a night scene sadly but film can't capture what the eye sees well so I'm not too worried.

You are right about having a flight - I do know someone who flies a little but I suffer a little from vertigo, a lot more from cowardice and my sense of self preservation really gets in the way at times :-)

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj533/jamesinnewcastle/CopyofImage1.jpg

[jamesinnewcastle]

All

I have been researching this event for about 9 months now - I have found out an awful lot of stuff and realised that looking at any one aspect in any depth spins you off into another fascinating area of research.

I don't find it enough personally to know that they 'landed at night' or that they 'navigated home' or that there were 'some lights' or 'some night fighters around'. Each of those areas and many more including the lives of the villagers at Dry Drayton and each of the buildings holds much more depth for me.

While I have found out great chunks of information and know about many of the topics and have many of the books, hundreds of pictures, you guys are providing the 'glue' that binds those chunks together and opening my eyes sometimes to things I can't see in front of my face.

The sum of all this information has to go somewhere - hence the documentary. I can reproduce some of these images too so that the story becomes more real.

But thanks to you all for your assistance - I hope you are getting a lot out of it too!

James

[Courtney Mil]

James,

A fascinating thread that may yet offer more. When it's all over and you have found your answers (hopefully), any chance you can let us know what what you've found?

Courtney

[jamesinnewcastle]

Courtney Mil

When I do finally get it done, and that's not soon, I have the following plan:

1. Anyone who has helped can have a copy of the final DVD. There may be two, one for anoraks and one for the general public! One just a subset of the other.
2. My research will be made public- as if anyone would want it (minus personal information)
3. I'd like to list the means by which I dug up the information and also what type of information has been/can be unearthed as a help/guide to anyone trying to do the same sort of thing..
4. I've promised to give a talk at Dry Drayton

If anyone wants to be put 'on the list' please IM me your details - an email address would do.

When it's done then it's on to the next project - my Uncle was killed in a Lancaster off the Dutch coast...........

James

[jamesinnewcastle]

Fox3wheresmybanana

The link is broken - I'll try again later


All

Just for fun - this is my test animation of a Gooseneck.'flare'. It's just a quick set up to see what I could do, as it turns out the flame should be much floppier!

Stirling Flypast Gooseneck (simulation) - YouTube

James

[Momoe]

Fascinating, my grandfather was a nav in 100 Grp so it's in my blood too.
Although the aircraft is in relatively large pieces, there is still major disruption to the wings and no indication of fire.
Although the aircraft was returning and wouldn't have been fuel heavy the minimum fuel load would be sufficient to create a large fire.
The engines were air cooled radials which are located in front of the fuel tanks, which in the event of a crash gives four large potential ignition sources, not to mention electrical sparking from broken wiring, friction sparks, etc.

Just wondering if fuel starvation has been eliminated, the other thing that I found of interest is that the crash report mentions that one wing was low, if you're on finals - you're looking for a stable flight down the glide path to the runway; Unless you've got crosswinds this makes your corrections in the vertical plane rather than vertical and horizonal to simplify matters. Old aviation adage, height with throttle, speed with stick, so they would have adjusted the glide path sink rate with throttle,
If the pilot knew he was close to the ground, why was the aircraft banked, it must have been significant enough to be picked up in the accident report so I'm thinking >10degs. Is the wreckage trail heading known?

[Green Flash]

james

An utterley fascinating thread, thank you and thanks to all the Ppruners. With reference to My research will be made public- as if anyone would want it I think I speak for many when I say we can't !*&?@y wait to see the results! :):ok:

[jamesinnewcastle]

101 History

I've just noticed the last line of your post - it was in a different font so I missed it but that is very interesting, thanks.

Another piece of procedure.


James

[jamesinnewcastle]

Momoe

There is part of the 765c that I left off, it may answer your question. I'll just include all of the rest of the form - it isn't much.

Unit: 7 Squadron
Command: Bomber
Date of incident: 3.5.41
Place of Incident: Dry Drayton. Cambs
Nature of Flight: Operational Night
Pilot: R.Cruickshank DFC (and Bar)

Rank: Flt Lt
Number: 33364


TYPE OF AIRFRAME AND ENGINE and extent of damage:

Airframe Type Stirling
Mark or series Mk 1
RAF No N6012
Total hours run 46.30
Extent of damage W


Engines:

PO Hercules Mark XI
P1 Hercules Mark XI
S1 Hercules Mark XI
SO (indecipherable) Mark XI

Total hours run

50.30
49.25
51.00
51.0

Date last installed In Airframe
12.2.41
12.2.41
12.2.41
indecipherable

Extent of damage
W
W
W
W

Did fire occur in air? No
On ground? Yes P1 Engine

The aircraft was virtually brand new, but that's not necessarily a good thing because it may not have shaken out all its teething problems.

While the report notes very little fire, and as you say the pics show no visible sign of burning, all the tanks were self-sealing and so the others may still have had fuel in. On the other hand all the engines should have had copious amounts of fuel pumping to them so why so little fire? But if he were very low on fuel would he have not told the Tower so that a crash party could be made ready?

His companion aircraft some 15 mins behind him did make it back OK even with 15 mins more flight time. Lots of reports of Stirlings that guzzled fuel so N6012 may have had overly large consumption or other problems leading to excessive fuel use. Possibly running out of fuel before the other aircraft.

OK the bomb load is given in the ORB - the target is known - so is it possible to work out the likelihood of coming back on fumes?

Comments welcome!


Green Flash

I'm getting loads of good stuff from this forum so the data is growing all the time!


James



James

[jamesinnewcastle]

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj533/jamesinnewcastle/FlightPathtoOakington.jpg

All

As promised earlier here are some photos of the crash site from the air so you can get a better idea of the situation. The crash site is marked with the cross. First a 1945 picture which shows the center line of the only runway at the time (though there are three by 1945). It shows that he was pretty well on track, but you tell me - I'm no Pilot, is that a good place to be when three miles out? Does that suggest that he could see the runway lights? I suppose it depends if the light was just the goosenecks or a monster chance light. What if he was just very good at doing a 180 turn and navigating in the dark by instruments?


http://http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj533/jamesinnewcastle/FlightPathtoOakington.jpg

[jamesinnewcastle]

This next one shows a close up of the field again from a 1945 aerial photo but the place hasn't changed much. I used Google earth for it as they have the handy measuring tool.

Remember the 765c report that the aircraft continued for 200yds? The line I've drawn is the only possible direction that could be the path described I think. That is 171 yards. The arrow marked Oakington FP is exactly along the flight path so at 3 miles out he was just 190 or so yards to the left of the centre line.

The aircraft was one wing down - I think that that may have been the Port (?) wing fouling on the trees to the left of the gap that you can see in the bottom left of the field. Was that why only 'one wing down' because there were no other trees on the starboard side? Does 'down' mean dropped down in flight or torn off?

I have to say at this point that I am not going to come to any conclusion myself until all the data is safely gathered in!

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj533/jamesinnewcastle/Image3.jpg

[jamesinnewcastle]

Finally - this an aerial photo taken by the Luftwaffe in Aug 1940 - as close as I have managed to get to a photo that validates what the fields actually looked like - about 8 months before the crash. It's very murky because I have blown it up hugely from the original.

You can see the gap and the trees to the left more clearly though. It would have been better if I hadn't put the arrow in the way, but the arrow does show how he could have clipped trees on just the Port side.

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj533/jamesinnewcastle/Luftwaffe-Cambridge31Aug1940.jpg

[jamesinnewcastle]

Momoe

To answer more of your question now that you know the shape of the field. Look at the tree line in the crash photos. There is a distant tree line which is probably at the far end of the field. The closest tree line probably looking sort of N to NE. But I'll let you decide if they fit.

I don't know where the other parts of the aircraft are - the eye witnesses don't remember either. As the photos have been taken of the recovery you may not be able to trust the positions of any of the wreckage - it may have been moved there before the picture was taken.

James

[Hipper]

To get yourself in the pilot's shoes to some degree you could, if you don't already, use Microsoft's Flight Simulator. You would need a yoke and pedals ideally.

[Momoe]

One wing down means that the plane was banked, port wing in this case.
Although aircraft engines are machined to higher tolerances, a newer plane may have used more fuel, also being experienced he may have taken a more circuitous route to avoid known flak concentrations.
Very unusual to have a fire confined to an engine, if it was torn off in the crash there would be very little fuel in the engine fuel suppy, picture seems to suggest that port engines are missing.
The plane is too low, however it is on the runway line which suggests that he could see the runway lights. If he had an engine cut shortly after lining up, on either No1 or 2, this would have the effect of yawing the plane to the left and causing altitude loss.
It's possible he didn't select flap as he wanted to be sure of making the runway before committing to extra drag/extra engine power.

[Exnomad]

Were the approach lights which showed a green in you were on the approach path and red if you were too low in use at that time. (known as angle of dangle lights)
I used those on Oxfords at Dalcross in the early fifties.
Obviously fatigue would have been a factor on return from a long raid.

[Shackman]

I suspect he was just completing his turn onto finals - hence the left wing low - and perhaps over concentrating on the visual clue (flarepath of goosenecks) and failed to perhaps appreciate a rate of descent.

Remember he has Bourne Airfield just to his south west, which was almost certainly also active and would preclude any sort of straight in approach, and if anything make the circuit even tighter, whilst the marked upslope of the first part of the runway at Oakington would give a really false impression of being high on the glideslope.

However, that is only one take on all the possibilities of the many other scenarios. Probably the only definite way to know would require the sort of machine not yet available on the inventory but adequately described by H G Wells!

[jamesinnewcastle]

Hi All

Hipper

Bit too much outlay for me - also I would want one of those headsets that allow you to turn your head to look left, right, up, down etc. Then I'd want the display image over three screens! Big plans - small pockets.


Exnomad

Not sure - I've still not researched the date that these would have arrived - I may make a nuiscence of myself over at Airfield Information Exchange


Momoe - Shackman

It says 'wing down' but whoever wrote that could not have been there at the time to watch the aircraft manoevere nor were there any survivors. How do you think they would be able to tell that from the wreckage?

I will check the ORBs from the surrounding fields on the same night and time, I'm wondering now if there were other aircraft nearby.


Cheers
James

[jamesinnewcastle]

Hi Again

Another Question, having just looked at some pictures of Shackletons perhaps Shackman might have a good take on it.

The Stirling had a 350W Landing light in the Port Wing - which according to AP129 had an effective lighting distance of 500 feet.

If you were landing in the pitch darkness would you not want to switch this on really quite early? Any idea when the landing light would have been switched on as part of normal procedure? How effective was it?


Cheers
James

[Aerials]

Hello James, may I congratulate you for putting together this amount of evidence that you've gathered so far and your extremely admirable intentions. These stories need telling to give future generations a deeper insight into what the crews achieved and to give a greater depth of understanding over a Court of Inquiry finding in a dusty old file on a shelf somewhere.

A little pedantry if I may; in your post #75 in the green text you have the engines listed: PO (Port Outer), P1 should be PI (Port Inner) and so on for the starboard side. Under all the Extent of Damage assessments, I think that W should be followed by /O, meaning Write-Off.

Like you, I can see this project being quite complex with many excursions into other aspects. The trick will be knowing when you have done enough to be able to present the project. I expect that it'll never be finished to your satisfaction as to it's completeness, because of all the off-shoots. As with many others, I look forward to reading the more complete version. Again, well done.

[Momoe]

Not from the wreckage but from the impact points, first impact point was some trees, by looking at the break point on the trees across the direction the plane was heading, it's fairly easy to get a fairly accurate measurement of the bank at the point of impact.
Same principle applies to angle of descent, this time by looking at the impact damage along the wreckage trail.
Having worked out the plane's orientation, the crash investigators would look at the damage and could get a fair idea of speed, unfortunately they would have had plenty of practice at this time.

Shackman's theory about loss of height whilst concentrating on goosenecks and final turn is possible but the DFC and bar would suggest this was a very experienced pilot, I'm not 100% certain about the role of the flight engineer but he may have been assisting the pilot to a degree (monitoring instruments, lowering flap as instructed, etc). flight engineer would know what height the plane should be turning onto finals.
Flight engineers were capable of flying the plane in the event of the pilot being incapacitated, so would have a good understanding of height/speed.

Back to an earlier post, you mentioned that a companion aircraft made it back 15 minutes after the crash. This is slightly misleading in that duration is based on a number of factors, not least throttle settings.
Planes have several fuel related parameters, maximum speed (simples!), maximum range and maximum endurance, the last one has little to do with bombers more maritime reconaissance but the point is that if your plane left at approximately the same time and arrived back 15 minutes before his companion, did he take a more direct route or did he fly faster, thereby using up more fuel?

[Shackman]

Re the pilot; you say earlier he was a 'spec N', which would indicate he had done the specialist Navigator course, and elsewhere there is a hint he had earned his DFC as a Nav as well. Although a crossover to pilot was unusual, but not unknown, it could be that he was actually quite inexperienced as a pilot (I'm not casting aspersions here) despite his number of hours, and certainly his total Stirling time was relatively low. Do you have any indication of his previous service record?

Re the landing light, again it would be unusual to switch the landing light on except in extremis - it is a very good beacon in its own right for marauding night fighters. A landing light at 500ft can be seen an awful long way away - just try standing well west of London on a reasonable night and see how many aircraft you can see with landing lights on on their approach to Heathrow! Using the runway lights/goosenecks on their own was quite standard practice - again perspective was/is everything, and it is quite straightforward to make your approach in that way.

[Momoe]

Shackman
Good point about the accreditations being for navigation rather than piloting, I'd just found out about special 'N' pilot when I noticed you'd beaten me to it! Well done.

Service history is only released to immediate next of kin, I couldn't get my grandfathers service record directly, my mother had to apply.

[jamesinnewcastle]

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

[Lancman]

Iirc it was very easy to misread the old 2 finger altimeter at low levels at night, the hundreds needle nearly covered the thousands needle at 1,000 ft. and, of course, completely covered it at 1,100 ft and at 0 ft QFE.

[Hipper]

I'm no expert but when I've seen mention flying hours totals it covers all hours, including night flying.

30 hours on Stirlings is not much.

In a post war crash that interested me, a co-pilot who had 116 hours was considered 'inexperienced' (his total flying hours in all types was 408).

[Momoe]

James,
there was probably a defined circuit at Oakington and other airfields which took into account local anomalies and also to maintain separation from other traffic.

Unlikely to fly down the runway line and then do a 180 and land as this has huge potential for collisions, normal circuit would be upwind join at a defined height that would be high enough not to interfere with aircraft going round but low enough not to cause problems with losing height, 90 deg left to fly downwind parallel to the runway.
90 deg turn onto base leg (N.B. Goose necks, chance light visible throughout here) and then 90 deg turn onto finals.
Aircraft would have lost height throughout the circuit but would looking to be say 1400' at turn onto downwind leg, 800' at base leg turn and 600' at turn onto finals.
Speed/flap position would also be at given parameters relative to the circuit, e.g. 160mph at join, 140mph at base leg turn and 120mph with 10deg flap at turn on to finals, these would have been worked out as a best operating procedure. Standardising circuit procedures assisted in minimising collisions in the circuit, again these are my figures and would need updating with Oakington specific procedures for Stirlings.

This is a typical circuit and may not have applied here, pretty certain though that they would have got close enough to identify the airfield by the pundit code before committing to land.

[Chugalug2]

Rather than add to the excellent feed-back posted by other members, I have a query of my own instead. Sorry! In post #48 cliffnemo (of WWII Pilots Brevet fame) recalls that in 1944:
2. Can't remember how many goose necks etc, would guess about 20-30 but definitely on the port side only.
Others here have emphasised the importance of perspective on the approach, ie using the lit width and length of the runway to maintain a constant (3 degree?) glidepath on the approach. With only one side lit such perspective is unavailable of course and all depends on the so called "Christmas Tree". It may well be of course that Cliff's experience of using goosenecks was not the common use of them operationally. My first experience indeed was on JP's; on Night Solo at Barkston Heath. Total runway lighting failure, followed by an order for all aircraft to maintain circuit height flying continuous circuits, followed by hasty provision of goosenecks down both runway sides. AALs (Angle of Approach Indicators) were still operative anyway so no drama. If this was something like the Oakington set up at the time of the accident then it should have caused no problems for a standard "heavy" circuit with a three mile final approach, I would have thought.

[jamesinnewcastle]

Lancman

Interesting point I'll have a look at that one.


Hipper

Yes and even fewer at night - he was mostly on Wellingtons before Stirlings. I assume that his flying hours also included any training or 'conversion' hours. I wonder if the response of the Stirling was so much different than the Wellington - might be that he had slipped back into Wellington mode.

It's worth noting that on one sortie he wasn't the Pilot so perhaps some of the hours could be discounted as being actual 'Stirling' flying experience?


Momoe

Thanks for overview - I've been passed the Flying Orders for an airfield in 1942 which outline a great many procedures courtesy of 101history. They are being converted to electronic format after which I'm going to precis the procedure and develop a flow chart - this I'll compare to the outline given in AP129 (1938) and see how much has remained the same and so hopefully infer that this is what might have happened at Oakington.

101history has said that anyone interested can have a copy of the material so if anyone want the full unexpergated version do contact me.

This may take some time but I will post.


Chugalug2

From what I've read in AP129 a single line of goosenecks was completely standard (at least early in the war years), the spacing was 50 or 100 ft and at the time of my document the talk was of just 6 along the entire runway as standard though you could extend them. And why not go mad and have just three for the 'cross bar' (?). With a Chance light as standard there were even fewer Goosenecks, I think there were just two!

I'll post the relevant parts of AP129 if anyone is interested. The Pilot landed with the lights to his left - which is not surprising as he was sitting on the left.

I've not read any mention of Angle of Approach lights in any of my research up till this post - I'll ask over at Airfield Information forum.

Todays runways are lit up like Times Square compared with a Scout campfire in 1941. This is part of my incredulation about the procedures for night landing and why I've tried to simulate the conditions. Also the landing was something that the Pilots always had to do - I read that some sorties were uneventful but the landing is taken as relatively uninteresting as there are few texts about what I see as being life threatening and highly dangerous given the conditions!

Here is another test animation I did for a Chance light supported landing, no claims for it to be correct - just a quick look for me to get some idea. (For example, I think now that the Landing light would not have been that visible and probably not even switched on - WIP)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOKAUc4kRQY&feature=related

Cheers
James

[Chugalug2]

If there was only a single line of goosenecks, let alone just two anyway (that has to be wrong if there were no other runway lights, doesn't it?) then there will be no perspective, merely the direction and location of the runway. No doubt that was where the "Christmas tree" stepped in, to tell you if you were on or below the correct (3 degree?) glideslope. AAI's would have been the Post War development (giving you below/on/above 3 degree glideslope), which in turn were replaced by PAPI's (precision approach path indicators?). From your animation I guess that the Chance light was a type of floodlight to light up the landing surface? Given, as already pointed out, that 1941 points to non-paved runways, then the lack of installed runway lighting makes sense. Not that long before Lindbergh had landed at Le Bourget with the aid of cars' headlamps to light the grass runway. We used to do "Restricted Runway Lighting" Night Continuation Training on the Hastings. No Landing Lights, no AAI's, and only LI Omni-Directional Runway Lights on (ie the HI Directional ones Off) We thought that was a bit of a challenge! I imagine BC WWII Pilots would have thought it a luxury! Given such limited visual clues, the possibility of disorientation "turning finals" can but be imagined. With so little experience it could have been just that. Many many years ago, as a CCF cadet, I went on a Hill Walking Course at Bethesda in N Wales. Every day we were given a new set of co-ordinates that were always near the top of yet another Welsh hill, and there would be the remains of yet another WWII crashed aircraft which we were supposed to try to identify and take note of engine serial numbers, etc. It brought home vividly to me the enormous loss rate that the RAF suffered from poor airmanship rather than enemy action. RAF Oakington 3rd May1941 could well be yet another constituent of that terrible statistic ensuring "Victory at all costs"

[jamesinnewcastle]

Chugalug

Being brought up on a diet of WWII films it came as a shock to me doing this research just how many non-combat 'accidents' there were. Not surprising on reflection, but still a shock.

Attached some pics of Chance lights in operation, Some are from the IWM web site - just the thumbnails with IWM credit on - hopefully this isn't going to be a problem. The last picture has a Pundit light behind the Chance light. I think that the top light should be red - ie an obstruction light, bit unnecessary when the main light is on!

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj533/jamesinnewcastle/CH_007211.jpg

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj533/jamesinnewcastle/floodlight.jpg

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj533/jamesinnewcastle/CH_007921.jpg

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj533/jamesinnewcastle/CH_006695.jpg

Cheers
James

[jamesinnewcastle]

Chugalug

Looks like I goofed again! Here are the pages from AP129 and you are right in being puzzled, there are still 6 flares even with the Chance light. I'll claim that they should have drawn them all in instead of just labeling them 1 and 6.

Also there is a drawing with two rows of lights - I've looked at AP129 for ages and only just noticed that! I'm cracking up! Demonstrates the value of discussion I think! I suspect that for a big bomber they would have used two rows of flares. But 100 yds is three times the wingspan of the Stirling, is that a bit wide, even for a runway?

It seems funny that you would land at the tail (bottom) of the T, isn't that the opposite of what lighting was used later. You do land into the wind don't you?

(Note there can be more than 6 as the text indicates - at the time this was written I don't think that there were that many heavy bombers)

Thanks for your observation.

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj533/jamesinnewcastle/AP219045800x600.jpg

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj533/jamesinnewcastle/AP219046800x600-1.jpg

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj533/jamesinnewcastle/AP219040800x600.jpg

James

[Chugalug2]

The difference of the "T" is not that it has been reversed, you always landed towards the bar, rather that in the "Calvert" system it formed the last part of the approach Lighting, ie immediately before the green threshold lights, and was lit red. In your layout its bar shows the last part of the "Flare Path", ie of the "runway lighting" and no doubt is to warn of that. Presumably beyond was unlit grass and no doubt one's landing or taxy lights would be on by then if not before. Interesting that the interval between lights (goosenecks, glims, whatever) is 100yds. That has two advantages. They can be easily paced out when being set up and also give a constant perspective of sorts on the approach (ie the apparent gap between them can be learnt when on a 3 degree glideslope). So I was wrong to say they give no perspective at all, they would do so if correctly laid out, though of a rather primitive and limited kind. No doubt the French Resistance were also instructed to place themselves at set intervals when holding up torches towards their inbound Lysander!
As to "accidental" compared to combat losses, I have heard that the former exceeded the latter for the RAF as a whole in WWII. I suspect that is rather anecdotal but on the other hand would have been talked down anyway. It was a tragedy to be killed in combat, it was shear waste to be lost due to poor airmanship caused by inexperience or fatigue.
Finally, do you have information on the so called "Christmas Tree"? No doubt it had a more official title. It might of course be that it was the very same AAI that I was familiar with post WWII. It consisted of a box on the LHS of the Threshold area with three colour light aspects so set that they gave, if you were were to climb vertically in the approach path: RED RED (very low), RED GREEN (low), GREEN GREEN (on G/S), GREEN AMBER (high), AMBER AMBER (very high). Did Oakington have such a system at the time? Was it lit that night? Without something of the kind any pilot would have found an approach on some 6 goosenecks, with or without a Chance Light, a challenge I contend. Is it possible that he mistook closer lights for the flare path? Blackout of course prevailed in 1941, but how rigorously could it be enforced in the countryside where the day's work starts well before dawn?
Edited to add that the distance between the double row goosenecks would have illustrated the cleared landing zone. The concept of a runway as a paved landing strip was yet to happen in 1941 (for BC anyway). It would again have given more perspective on the approach and as a pilot I would have preferred that layout rather than the single row and Chance light combination.

[teeteringhead]

just how many non-combat 'accidents' there were. ... and not just WW2. WW1, Korea, Nam, Falklands and Gulf 1 I feel sure lost more aircrew to "accidents" than to combat. :(

[Momoe]

Bomber command lost 55,000 in WWII, 8,000 of which were training accidents.

[Chugalug2]

...and how many of the approx 47000 "trained" losses were in avoidable or, at the very least, survivable accidents? The seeming inexperience of the subject pilot of this thread belies the point that he was no less experienced than the bulk of his compatriots who, like he, would on balance not survive long enough to acquire the experience deemed necessary these days to operate in such a challenging and dangerous environment as the 1939-45 Bombing Campaign. They knew how little they knew and how little time there was to learn. They knew how dangerous it was, yet almost to a man they went out night after night to do their duty. Respect!

[Hipper]

Keith S Ford in 'Snaith Days, page 44, describes an Angle of Approach indicator (but he's talking about 1943 or so) with a drawing of the lantern arrangement. The DREM Mk 2 Lighting system was in use then. He also describes the Pundit landmark beacon and has a drawing of a 'D' type landing circuit.

[kookabat]

I'm not 100% certain about the role of the flight engineer but he may have been assisting the pilot to a degree (monitoring instruments, lowering flap as instructed, etc). flight engineer would know what height the plane should be turning onto finals.
Flight engineers were capable of flying the plane in the event of the pilot being incapacitated, so would have a good understanding of height/speed.


Momoe,
I have a former Stirling flight engineer I correspond with occasionally. Will get in touch and ask if he can add to the discussion.

Adam

[Momoe]

Kookabat,
possibly the best lead yet for all the Stirling related flight data.
Kindest regards and my deepest respect for your acquaintance, would be interested to know where he flew out of.
My grandfather was a nav in 100 Grp, but I don't believe they flew Stirlings, Wellingtons and then Halibags and Lancs.

[Chugalug2]

Would not the Co-Pilot be the person chiefly responsible for "assisting the pilot"? Do we know who the constituents of this crew were? I understood that at this point in the Bomber Campaign BC's heavies at least had two pilots per crew, and would continue to do so for one more year. Only then did the shortage of trained pilots and the ever expanding size of the Bomber Offensive lead to the single pilot Bomber Crew AFAIK.

[SOSL]

Well done for starting such an interesting thread and managing it so well. I can't help you with the question you raise in your OP. However, like you I am an engineer and I have some sympathy with your attempt to understand the relevant procedures.

Referring to post #67 - some time ago I was a crew member in a C130 whose captain suffered from extreme vertigo - he had problems climbing upstairs to file his flight plan in the tower of a satellite airfield in Florida and had to send the Nav up there instead.

But when we were trying to land in New Orleans during a severe tropical storm, he managed to get us safely down after 6 attempts.

Fear of heights doesn't always apply to aeroplane flight! If I were you I'd give it a go you might learn a lot and spark off more questions.

[kookabat]

Momoe et al,
I've reread a couple of letters I'd received from my Stirling F/E mate. He was on 149 Sqn then transferred to 199 Sqn (doing supply drops to French resistance etc) after the Stirlings had been taken off main force duties. Bearing in mind that he was flying operationally in 1944-5 and so his experiences may not exactly match those of 1941, this extract at least shows who did what in the aircraft and what the F/E's role was (my emphasis):

"In the Stirling, which had complete dual control unlike the Lanc., the second dickie's seat was taken by the bomb aimer, he had already done some piloting during the PNB scheme. The F/E was facing starboard under the astrodome and in front of the main spar. facing his panel with all the temps and pressures, fues and gagues, and with 14 tanks which were all filled on long trips, you were kept pretty busy - working out fuel consumption according to revs and boost, logging every 20 minutes and keeping your eye on temps, as oil coolers tend to freeze up at altitude if you're not careful."

I see Chugalug's point that a second pilot may have been in the other seat at this early stage in the war rather than the bomb aimer as in my mate's case. The flight engineer concept came about with the advent of the four-engined heavies, of which the Stirling was the first to see service, and would eventually replace the second pilot in the crew - but I don't know how long this transition took. Clearly the Stirling had a station for the F/E and so needed one in the crew to operate the aircraft - did they persist with the second pilot in the meantime or did they get rid of him straight away?
I suspect knowing who was in this crew (and therefore what categories of aircrew they were) could supply the answer to this one.

I'll send a letter to my F/E mate in the next couple of days (he's not online as far as I know) and see if he has anything to add to the discussion.

Adam

[jamesinnewcastle]

Hi All

Thanks for even more interesting responses!

I'm busy turning the Airfield Standing Orders from 101History into an electronic format if anyone is interested in a copy - do see his post for an overview of what it contains - very enlightening and very likely to be relevant as 101 squadron shared with 7 squadron for a short time

Chugalug2/Hipper

I've been over to Airfield Information Forum and it seems that the 'angle of approach' system was around in late 1940 but only experimentally. So I am pretty certain that it wouldn't have been at Oakington in May 1941.

SOSL

Hi - I'm glad you find it interesting, hopefully the documentary will be even more interesting.

I may have mentioned this before but I have once been in a light aircraft for a photgraphy flight over a castle in Wales. I think that the excitement in wondering if we were going to crash may have over shadowed my fear of heights that time! You notice quite dramatically how much more they roll you than they do in comercial flying (gulp!) I read that the Stirling could turn very tightly - be interesting to know what that angle could be.

Kookabat

I'm always interested in talking to any Stirling aircrew, I'd like to ask the Engineer about the tanks that the fuel was likely to have been in and how much, etc, when the Stirling was landing. Just generally of course. Be interesting to know how the fuel was worked out too - I know the bomb load as this is given in the ORB.

On the ORBs Sgt R S Havery was noted as 2nd Pilot. There was an Air Observer, two gunners, W/OP and a Flight Engineer + Captain. A total of 7.

Cheers
James

[kookabat]

No problem James - I fired off a letter to him yesterday, asking specifically about who did what on takeoff and landing - ie moved flaps etc - and if he can recall the landing drill and any radio calls that may have typically taken place. Not sure how much detail he will be able to recall, but it is a start! Once I have a response (the post can take a while so don't expect anything too soon) I'll hit him up with your fuel-related questions.
And for that matter if anyone else has anything specific they would like me to ask, let me know.

Your crew list clears it up. The pilot, two gunners, wireless operator and flight engineer would have still been the same as on later crews - but the second pilot role would later be scrapped and the observer trade replaced by two men: a navigator and a specialist bomb aimer. The end result would still be a seven-man crew, but their duties had been redistributed somewhat. My understanding is that early in the war (so including the time your crash of interest occurred) the 'Observer' would carry out both navigation and bomb aiming. They wore a big "O" on their brevets, which gave rise to the nickname 'the flying ar$eholes'. The trades of navigator (who wore an 'N') and bomb aimer (unsurprisingly, a 'B') came about later on. I don't know when the changeover occurred exactly but my great uncle wears an 'O' in one of the two formal portraits we have of him, and an 'N' in the second one, which was taken in Sydney. He sailed from Sydney in September 1942 so it appears the N was in circulation by then, at least in Australia.

[kookabat]

I've just received a reply from my Stirling flight engineer. He's a lovely man by the name of Tommy Knox - served on 149 and 199 Squadrons, in main Force first but later engaged on 'special duties' including parachuting supplies to French partisans once the Stirlings had been replaced in front-line bombing squadrons.

There are not many specifics here - no radio chatter or anything. But hopefully there are a few useful bits and pieces amongst these. Here are the highlights.

Crew positions:
All of the Stirlings as far as I know used the bomb aimer as second dickie; he had nothing to do anyway; unless it was mapr eading til we got to the target. The engineer panel, temps pressures petrol gauges & fuse box were on the starboard side, just under the astro dome and above the flare chute. That was between the nav. facing port and the WOP facing forward., all behind the pilots who were on a higher level.

Fuel system [my brackets]:
We had fourteen petrol tanks + all their controls were on the front of the main spar, along with supercharger controls + the controls to jettison fuel from the main tanks. On the Stirling all the priming [before engine start] was done inside by the engineer at a point on the port side just behind the WOP. [This differed from the Lancaster - a ground mechanic needed to climb up into the wheel well to prime the engines on that aircraft!]

Other bits and pieces:
Another thing that's not generally known is that all services, flaps undercarraige + bomb doors were all electric; onluy the turrets were hydraulic + of course the brakes were pneumatic. Remember on our initial circuits + bumps, we ran out of air + had to get a bottle from the ground staff for me to recharge the system!

Radios:
I had little to do with when we joined the circuit apart from listening to the chat of the pilot + control tower. Didn't have much to do with the radio side of things. I know that Dave [Tommy's wireless op] had fixed times to listen into base, but he was left in his own little world. He did help me chuck leaflets out the rear escape hatch on low levels over France + help undo the packets of Window that I had to push out the flare chute!

The Stirling was "my favourite aeroplane", he writes. "For some reason, not many people say that!".

I will try to write a reply with a few more questions. James has asked for some detail about fuel remaining at the end of an operation, and what lights might have been on. Does anyone have anything else they would like me to add?

Adam

[jamesinnewcastle]

Hi Adam

Thanks for the feedback - I don't suppose that he remembers how dark it could get? I've been told that there was always 'some light' by a W/O. Was landing at night a routine confident thing, what lit up the runways? What years was he on Stirlings?

James

[kookabat]

Tommy as the flight engineer, as he says above, was sitting some way back facing starboard and so would not necessarily have been able to see the runway. I don't think he can help much on this one, James, but I'll ask away in any case.
Not sure exactly when he started on the Stirling, but his third trip in one was a raid on Lille in April 1944. A few years later than your crew of interest, of course - Tommy had to wait until he turned 18 before he could join up, of course.

Adam

[Fareastdriver]

The Halifax was designed for a pilot and engineer side by side. There were no controls in front of the RHS.

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee224/fareastdriver/Halifaxcockpit.jpg

However there was a kit to fitted RHS controls for training. The Coastal Command Halifaxs had two pilots and two sets of controls.

[kookabat]

I've just received another letter from my Stirling flight engineer mate, Tommy Knox. He's filled in a few gaps relating to the fuel system and how they used it:

All 14 tanks filled, we carried 2254 gals. The inboard engines were fed by 1,2 + 7 tanks and the outboard the remaining 3,4,5+6. There was a balance system where we could transfer fuel from one wing to the other. The main tanks 2 + 4, 331 and 254 gals, from memory, were used always on take-off + landing + in the event of taking evasive action for whatever reason. On a long trip with all tanks loaded, after take-off we'd switch right away to No. 7 for the inboard engines. It was situated on the leading edge between the fuselage + the inboard engine. It was the only tank that wasn't self-sealng, so we'd use it u quickly. Use all the others up + keep 2 + 4 for returning + landing. In the case of being re-called to base, which happened a couple of times + we were too heavy to land, we could jettison 2 + 4 but once you opened the valves it all went, you couldn't stop it and we had to use the remaining tanks for landing.
The crew didn't have anything to do with [working out] the fuel load, that was all calculated for the load + expected flying time. At all times 2 + 7 were first to be filled + we worked out the consumption with revs + boost as the guages were nototiously inaccurate".

No definites on lights, but a reasonable theory:
Can't help you about lights on landing, but I suspect we'd just use the flarepath as it was not unusual for ntruders to follow us in, when you were about to and, so the less indication you gave them as to your whereabouts, was the way to go.

So there's some good stuff there. Remembering that Tommy was on Stirlings much later in the war than the crew James is interested in, things he did may have been a little different to how they were done in 1941, but I think it's a fair guess that any remaining fuel at the time of the 1941 crash was in tanks 2 and 4... I'll leave it to the Stirling experts to work out where in the aircraft those tanks actually were!

Adam