Feathered Lancaster!

[Weeds round the prop]

I wonder if anyone can identify this mark of Lancaster and/or put forward
any suggestion as to what it is doing.

http://i1170.photobucket.com/albums/r540/Bigbobcat/Lanc.jpg


I spotted a print of this photo on the wall of a friend's house recently, and
he revealed that his father flew Lancasters in the RAF towards the end of the war and
on into the early 1950s.
All information and details of his service career have been lost after his
passing, and my friend's migration to Australia.
The family legend is that this photo depicts an aircraft flown
by my friend's father performing a 'stunt' which was a court marshall offence.
I have now the original photo and have examined the picture with a magnifying
glass. I have spent a period on the net trying to identify the mark but have
come to no conclusion.

Maybe this photo is already in the public domain?

So far I have the following info and suggestions:
* The picture could be taken over the UK, looking at the fields in the bottom
right and top left corners.
* The aircraft could have white upper surfaces and black under surfaces.
Could this be painted ready for deployment with the Tiger Force to the Far
East after the fall of Germany?
* The roundels are RAF Type C and were used on Bomber Command aircraft
between 1944-7.
* There are no guns in the nose or mid-upper turrets.
* There is a huge amount of oil spread over the wings and tailplane behind the
engines. I suggest that this would not have been the case in peacetime- it
would have been cleaned off!
*The code and 'roundel' on the fuselage are just visible but are not clear.
There seems to be two letters before the roundel, possibly a G and another
character. After the roundel is possibly another letter but it is hidden by a
projection. There is a circular insignia under the cockpit behind the dipole
antenna mount (?).
* The engines could have the later annular intakes, and the exhausts have some
type of flame traps fitted.
* The wing tips seem to extend a long way outboard of the ailerons. Is the
span extended?
* There is a projection (antenna?) below the wing on the bottom corner of the
fuselage, angled out.
* I remember reading something on PPRuNe years ago, possibly John Farley,
about a feathering problem on Lancasters. Maybe this was an investigation
into the glitch.
* I found references to Lancasters flying with bomb-bay mounted turbojets-
Metrovick F2/4; Armstrong Siddeley ASX; STAL Dovern.
My friend and I would be delighted with any help at all in determining what
this Lancaster is doing, where it may be and why, and could the legend be
true.
Regards, Weeds

[jumpseater]

Thing that strikes me, and I'm not suggesting p/shop is that the outer and inner engines are mirrored in the feathered position. That could be part of the 'stunt'.

[sunday driver]

Possibly testing a jet engine installed in the bomb bay?
Though your pic seems to be earlier, there's something similar halfway down this page ... Lancaster (http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Lancaster/Lancaster.htm)

SD

[Hipper]

Here are some post war photos of Lancasters:

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/410951-operation-goodwill-1946-merged.html

I agree that it is most likely the white/black tiger force painting.

I don't think the wings are anything but normal length: about half is taken up by the two engines and half beyond the outer engine.

I think the projection below the wing, only on the port side, is visible at the link in post 7, bottom photo. Is it a chaff/window shoot? You'll also notice in this photo a marking under the cockpit. This was the squadron badge and appeared on both sides - at least at this time with this squadron. You can see it more clearly in post 30.

Is it possible the photo was taken with the camera on a fast shutter speed so the props appear still? I agree that the propellor positions are a bit of a conicidence if that were the case.

Identifying the squadron of your aircraft would be very helpful. You could narrow it down to which squadron used Lancs post war - I don't think the tiger force scheme was employed in WW2. The first two letters before the roundel indicate the squadron - the letter after the roundel identifies the aircraft. Here's a site for WW2 squadron codes which may have persisted after the war (it did for 35 squadron):

Squadron Identification Codes of WWII (http://www.bomber-command.info/sqdncodes.htm)

I should add that if your friend's mother is still alive she should be able to obtain his career details from the RAF. Your friend can also do this if his mother is no longer alive, but it may cost £30.

Air Historical Branch - Records of Service (http://www.raf.mod.uk/ahb/recordsofservice/)

[Rory57]

Not directly an explanation of the photograph but interesting none the less:

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/150001-lancaster-close-call-29-1-1954-a.html

[Blacksheep]

The props are definitely feathered, not "stopped" by a fast shutter speed. All images I've seen of the variants used for jet engine research - or any other research purpose - have the mid-upper turret removed. The exhaust stubs have the flame hiders installed. This is an operational bomber. I know of at least one bomber making it down with all four stopped, but that crash landed at Evere airfield, Brussels which was in use by the USAAF at the time. There would be no air-to-air photos of that event though.

[Feathers McGraw]

One other possibility is that the film used was orthochromatic, and hence does not respond to light of all wavelengths which leads to a shift in the tones of a monochrome image. I also say this because the dark stains behind the exhausts are due to the lead in the fuel and normally show up as a white or slightly silver colour.

[Weeds round the prop]

Thanks to all posters so far-
I will give my friend another grilling and see if he can recall any info on his father. He was very young and even the station names have gone, apart from Syerston.
I haven't had time to peruse the various links in detail (coal-fired dial-up in this part of the Woop-Woop) but will
have a confab with my friend tomorrow.

Hipper: Thanks for the info: his mother has long gone but we will look into his father's service record, although there is no-one alive now with any knowledge. I understand that he was awarded a decoration so we may get somewhere. I will post more details if I can, and thanks for your help with this.
The Operation Goodwill PPRuNe post is superb! Certainly the colour scheme looks the same as my photo, but we have the anomaly of the flame traps, and if Feathers' theory isn't applicable, we have some engines from which 'the newness has worn off' (to say the least!)
I don't think that we will get a squadron code for this particular aircraft- here is the best resolution scan of the fuselage side and I can't determine anything from it:

http://i1170.photobucket.com/albums/r540/Bigbobcat/Lanc2.jpg



Jumpseater: I noticed this too, and mused over the odds of this- there are 6 compressions per rev to bounce off, and 3 blades per prop which is 1:2 chance for each engine. I couldn't remember if the Merlin was geared... but it is, so that throws those odds, and the chances of this happening at random are probably huge (any mathematicians, given the gear ratio?... plus ideas about the gear teeth being odd and odd, or odd and even... don't start on Prime Numbers...) You may have something here.
I now have the original print, presumably from the negative, which hung on my friend's UK living room wall since his childhood. The only 'Photo Shop' that the photographer would have known was 'Boots the Chemist' on Grantham high street! :)

Rory: Thanks for that. Coincidentally, I was brought up in Nottingham and could see Hucknall Aerodrome from the garden as a child- Vulcan with Olympus 593 nacelle for Concorde; VC10 with RB211 on one side etc etc.
I have flown over said golf course into Hucknall (Rolls Royce Flying Club strip)

Sunday Driver: I think that this is a good possibility. Wonderful pictures! Actually, the projection I mentioned may be part of something carried under the fuselage. Maybe the bomb doors have been removed, as looking at the pic of the AWX fitted in the bomb-bay this projection would not likely be mounted as shown in my photo as it would be on the hinge line for the door.
Here is a scan of it:

http://i1170.photobucket.com/albums/r540/Bigbobcat/Lanc3.jpg


Black Sheep: Am I to understand that the flame traps definitely would only have been fitted during wartime ops (and then presumably only on night sortie aircraft?

Feathers: I haven't heard of this process/technique before so don't know what it was used for (quick sortie to Google it... can't find too much at first glance, certainly no aviation references)
Do you have any knowledge of the aeronautical use of this film type?
It certainly would explain the horrible stains. I have meddled with many engines over the years, from British bikes & Deutz diesels to Continental C65s but have never seen accepted oil leaks or soot like that!
Would this also mean that the upper surfaces may not be white? Presumably they couldn't be Olive Drab/ Brown Earth, but they could be pale grey ie Maritime Reconnaisance or ASR.
I did theorise that if this was a 'Wizard Jape', or whatever the contemporary term for a stunt would have been, it seems unlikely to have been premeditated enough to have a formating aircraft with oik and camera in the rear turret (presumably another Lanc), but if they were performing other tasks with this unusual film then things become more likely.
Thanks again, all. I will detail any further findings, for interest.
Regards, Weeds

[cambioso]

Or maybe just a couple of bored post war crews larking about for a pretty unique picture. They did that sort of thing in those days when they were not likely to be "shopped" by their so-called crew mates!
My dad was a pilot on Lancs and Yorks finishing in '46, and some of his tales of bored demob happy crews would make a present day " Nigel's" hair stand on end!

[Agaricus bisporus]

Too early spec for the Metrovick or other jet trials, as suggested above I'd guess a bravado piece by someone with a very large and public willy. I can't see any reason to believe that all engines aren't feathered,and if we discount hidden jet units that's the position.

Not at all surprised, given the risks those boys took on a daily basis what is the big deal about feathering all four?

Perhaps we've al got a bit too precious regarding slightly adventurous pranks these days.
'fact is, I know we have.

So bless'em, whoever they were, and let us thank God there used to be aviators with balls. And a proper sensavumour.

[D120A]

Feathering all four, nailing the airspeed and measuring the rate of descent is a reasonably accurate way of identifying the drag force at that speed. Could that have been the flight test practice in the 40s before the obvious risk rose up and bit someone?

Safer practice in the 50s and 60s was to feather half the engines in a level cruise, nail the speed and double the resultant rate of descent for the drag calculation.

[Weeds round the prop]

Nicely put, Agaricus.

DH120A: I suspect that we may never have an definite answer to this photo. Gleaned from posts here the likely scenario is that the 'stunt' was to stop the props in sync, and that the only camera present to record it for later hilarity and amazement was loaded with Orthographic film. I wonder if he put it into the station Photo Section for developing?

I did find more about aerial orthographic film, but not a huge amount.
The different types of film can/could reveal differences in vegetation cover (probably not a military use) and can 'cut through' mist and haze.

My friend's sister in the UK has just revealed that his squadron from March 1944 was 101 Sqn, Ludford Magna on Lancasters until Sept 1945 when he was in a Transport Conversion Unit, possibly on Dakotas.
She has a wartime letter from the family of a dead tail gunner.
I have had a quick Google and there is a huge amount of info. on 101 Sqn.
I will leave him to research this further (as he has broadband!), but thanks everyone!

Any further ideas/info gratefully received.

Weeds.
P.S.
My other half was amazed at the replies here when I showed her- She revealed that she secretly thought that there would be a shoal of replies all stating that the writers had had this picture on their living room wall since the war and it was their father piloting. The last post would be from someone saying that the picture could be bought at Boots the Chemist in Grantham in 1945! Reminds me of the song 'Dixie Chicken' by Little Feat.

[Load Toad]

Here is an old thread: Lancaster close call 29/1/1954 [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-150001.html)

Oops - repost - apologies.

[FlightlessParrot]

Orthochromatic photographic emulsion is sensitive to blue and green wavelengths, but not red ("ordinary" emulsions are sensitive to blue only, the natural sensitivity of silver halides); panchromatic emulsions are sensitive to red light also. IIRC, panchro emulsions were introduced before the war, but ortho film was still available until the '50s, and panchro a bit special, so use of ortho is possible. The giveaway is that red turns out very dark in photos made with ortho film, and looking at the roundels, that is possible. Blue sky tends to be too light, so for outdoor photography, it would be normal to use a yellow filter, which might affect things further. I don't know how lack of red sensitivity would affect the reproduction of exhaust stains, but I'm sure it wouldn't turn normal green/brown camouflage into a uniform white. HTH

[Shackman]

Firstly I also wondered if this was a 'maritime' lancaster in Coastal white - regrettably I can't find any pictures of similar ones, so don't know exactly what colour scheme they used post war. An additional point is the projection you highlight looks like the 'trailing aerial' mount that we still had on the MR Shack (wound out fully for HF comms - about 100-150 ft IIRC - it was also a good rudimentary radalt; if HF comms were lost you were too low!). It also has what look like early SARAH or similar homing aerials mounted on the nose - another pointer perhaps to a maritime version.

Secondly the props almost certainly look feathered, and I suspect in the days before photshop it would have been impossible to fake. There were plenty of tales doing the rounds when I went through MOTU and first Sqn of Shacks diving to get lots of IAS, then feathering all four for a fly past and unfeathering before the speed ran out to climb away again - Gibraltar Air Days, Biggin Hill and other RAF Open days, although I never met anyone who said they had actually done it. It didn't even require much airspeed to unfeather the Griffon - about 80kts to 'bump start' one when we had a starter motor failure at a very remote airfield in the Far East, so the Merlin should be even easier . As for the flame traps, they were very welcome for the crews during long overwater flights as the continuous flickering/glow from the open exhausts could be quite distracting.

[jumpseater]

Bearing in mind at the time the primary film stock was black and white, and not as widespread or as cheap as today, the 'excess' staining may be due to the photographers use of filters. The chance of this being an un-setup shot wheather official or in the bar is slight I'd suggest. Assuming its taken from a rear turret Mr Snapper would have been ready and prepared to take it.

Now for the science bit

The white aircraft above the clouds would reflect the light significantly. One way to reduce this is to add a filter, this can also enhance the contrast. Good/regular snappers in them thar days usually had a selection of filters across the color spectrum. Typically Red/Yellow/Orange/Green/Blue would give you a wide range of effects. Also the familiarity of use would mean the snapper would instinctively know which to select to get the best pic. Use a blue filter on a white subject you will increase the contrast (enhancing the oil stains in this instance), so a 'regular' weathering/staining might look far worse.

I've uploaded three pics on flickr to show what I mean
Flickr: Norvenmunky's Photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/2012img/with/7493512284/#photo_7493512284)
Original color, then just B&W, and then the light blue filter accentuates the shadow and creases in the clothing. A similar effect would occur on an oil stain.

A quick look through some books here indicates staged PR shots, bomb loading, crew in front of a/c have a tendency to show all four props in a Y attitude on aircraft in the background. I'm thinking more that its a 'feathering symmetry' trick, that they worked out.

[FlightlessParrot]

Further photographic considerations.
1. That is a very nice air-to-air photograph, and such things aren't achieved easily. If the feathering was shenanigans, it was highly premeditated and involved the co-operation of at least one other crew. More likely, it was in some way official.

2. The engines pretty certainly really are stopped. Given the very high level of detail in the photograph, it was pretty certainly made with a large format camera (prob 5x4 inches). The shortest shutter speed that would possibly have been available on a lens for that size would have been a nominal 1/500 sec; for a variety of reasons, the shutter would have been actually open for about 1/300 sec. It seems Merlins came with reduction gearing ratios between ~0.4-~0.45 (Gearing (http://www.enginehistory.org/GfG/gearing.shtml)), so we might imagine the propellors would have been rotating at 600 rpm or more in normal flight. That's 10 revs a second, and in 1/300 sec 12 degrees, which would produce noticeable blur.

Nothing about the aeroplane, I'm afraid, but I hope it helps define the circumstances.

[Blacksheep]

I found this image of a Coastal Command Lancaster that seems to fit the appearance of this aircraft - other than the exhaust flame shields.

http://eternal.flight.pagesperso-orange.fr/wu21/lanc1p3.jpg

[FlightlessParrot]

On each side of the nose are antennae/aerials that look very much like a radar installation. The only pics I've found with Google that show this installation are ASR Mk IIIs. ASR role might explain absence of guns?

[Neptunus Rex]

Restarting a shut-down but serviceable Merlin or Griffon is simple. The feathering pump has only to change the blade angle by a small amount to get a feathered prop into windmilling mode. Then, simply add fuel and ignition and you have a running engine. The Lanc in the photo has plenty of height to accomplish that with ease.

Prior to deliberately shutting down all four, you would, of course, shed all non-essential electrics to conserve battery power. The props can be "Dressed" to the required position by dexterous use of the starter motor. However, the first three props should be dressed before losing the generator on the fourth engine to be shut down.

"Derring-Do?" Definitely, but also readily achievable with the requisite amount of knowledge, skill and forward planning. The photo is a fine tribute to a fantastic aircraft and her indomitable crews.

[PAXboy]

The low sound levels would have made a pleasant change ...!

[Cornish Jack]

Restarting a shut-down but serviceable Merlin or Griffon is simple Ummmm?? well, maybe, but the Captain of the York at Luqa who tried a three engine take-off run to restart the fourth was to be (VERY) sadly disillusioned! Remains ended up in the quarry, IIRC

[Neptunus Rex]

Having carried out a "Bump Start" on the fourth Griffon on a Mk II Shack several times, including at Gibraltar, it is quite straightforward, but you do not continue the takeoff!

At 80 kts PNF operates the Feather Button, to unfeather the prop. As soon as the engine is turning, fuel and ignition are introduced, the engine starts then PF closes the throttles and brings the aircraft to a halt. You allow for brake cooling, check for a mag drop, then perform a normal takeoff with all four running.

[Warmtoast]

Re Oil Stains

I think the what looks like unusually black oil stains over the wings are no more than an optical illusion, possibly related to the film used.

Below are photos of a RNZAF Bristol Freighter that I took at RAF Gan back in 1958.

The originals are in colour with the same photos saved as "greyscale" images. The greyscale black and white versions make the brown oil stains look darker than on the colour originals, particularly on the in-flight photo. The black stains appear very similar to the stains on the Lancaster in the original post.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/GAN/NZ5906-3.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/GAN/NZ5906-Greyscale.jpg

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/GAN/NZ5906-2Cropped.jpg

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/GAN/NZ5906-2Cropped-Greyscale.jpg

As regards the feathering, there's an interesting thread here on PPrune:
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/370817-avro-lincoln-photo-1-turning-3-feathered-2.html

[Hipper]

Depending how far you want to go with this, if your friend gets his father's service career details you should then find out which squadrons he was in.

You should then find a squadron equipped with Lancs - perhaps Coastal Command.

With that info and the dates he was with that squadron, you can arrange for a check of the Squadron's Operations Records Books (ORB) which are held at The National Archives, Kew on microfilm (one day they might appear on-line perhaps). The ORB will list all flights by that squadron with aircraft number, crew names and times of flight, start and finish locations. It may also have information about any unusual actions, such as filming.

Also with a squadron number there maybe Squadron Association.....

I appreciate you are in Australia, but that's the theory anyway!

[Rory57]

The text with the Photograph linked to below is

"a fantastic photo taken by F/Sgt David Walter, 467 Sqn, of the day when a Lanc crew and a B-17 crew decided to see who could fly on the least amount of engines! In this view all four engines visible are feathered. ... UK ... 467 Sqn"

Plenty of exhaust staining visible also.

In the photograph that started this thread, is it possible that the white finish to the Lancaster was some sort of temporary "white-wash" used perhaps for an Arctic exercise and that this has just washed off where it was applied to areas previously contaminated by exhaust?

Avro Lancaster (Image Ref: A12243H) | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ww2images/6903152909/)

[topgas]

I found this pic of the Canadian Mk X with something sticking out in the same place.
http://www.hamiltonairshow.com/images/content/Airshow2012/Avro-Lancaster-MK-X.jpg
and
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8151/7499810856_454540c5df_c.jpg and this one shows black staining on the wings very similar to the original photo.
http://military.discovery.com/technology/vehicles/bombers/images/lancaster-625x450.jpg

One in white, presumably from 279 Sqn by the squadron code. The blown up picture in post #8 looks to me like R as the first letter, but the second doesn't look like L
http://www.projectoceanvision.com/vox/images/chapter00/lancaster37.jpg

[Weeds round the prop]

Topgas seems to have found the antenna projection. This is the first picture in which I have seen it apart from a 'maybe' on one of the Tiger Force Lancs in the pictures on the Operation Goodwill link.
Maybe this is for a trailing wire antenna as suggested by Shackman.

The white staining on the cowls and wing of the Canadian a/c are in line with Feathers McGraw's comments about lead from the fuel. I have never seen this before- does this mean that the Merlins etc today have to run on specially supplied leaded avgas (not LL)? Or has it been painted on for authenticity!
The mid-upper turret on the Canadian looks very similar to the original pic, too. It is lower and has a sloped front (gun side) than the high domed type that I have seen in most other pics. I have seen references to a Martin 250 type?

The squadron code for 101 Sqn was SR, and the pic could show that, but there doesn't seem to be much of a mark after the roundel (or much of a roundel either...)
Blacksheep's pic of the Coastal Command Lanc has a number and a letter before the roundel and nothing after it.

That is a grubby Bristol Freighter, Warmtoast, and I see what you mean.
(I used to know a chap who flew Frighteners for Freddie Laker. Freddie got the contract for transporting certain missiles from the UK out to Woomera for test. He had some fine tales to tell of the boredom of roaring along at 150mph to Oz!)

Regards, Weeds

[Blacksheep]

In the photo I posted 9X was No.2 Ferry Pool, which might explain why the aircraft is so clean. There also seems to be some fresh dope strips on the port wing where panels have been recently sealed by maintenance crews doing last minute work. The absence of a letter after the roundel would imply an aircraft that was not on a regular squadron and the 9 series includes a lot of MUs, station flights etc. where the aircraft would not be part of a squadron line up and so no individual aircraft letter would be needed.

It looks like the mystery aircraft is a station flight hack, or being used for fighter affiliation or some such dreary duty.

[Rosevidney1]

A friend who served in Malaya thinks it may have been a B Mk I (FE) of 7 Sqn which carried the code MG or possibly a B Mk VII (FE) that served with 1689 Flt which was coded 9X (as was 20 MU).

[posart]

Just a few points of confirmation, the Lanc is a standard MkVII, notable by the mid-upper being in the further forward position over the aft escape hatch. It wears the Tiger Force scheme, so probably isn't a maritime aircraft, (you can see the black undersides just extending up towards the bomb-aimer's blister.) The aerials on the nose are the Rebecca blind approach aerials, standard on all late war /post war Lancs. The thing sticking out from under the fuselage is indeed the trailing aerial mount. On very early Lancasters it was on the other side of the fuselage and further back.

The code letters are difficult to pin down, but the exhaust staining is pretty normal!

[Centaurus]

On each side of the nose are antennae/aerials that look very much like a radar installation
Possibly "LUCERO" aerials used for instrument let-downs. Distance to go displayed next to the radar set next to the navigator. We had Lucero on the Australian Mk 31 `Long Nose` Lincoln and often practiced instrument let downs while on SAR detachment in Darwin.

[Centaurus]

I remember reading something on PPRuNe years ago, possibly John Farley,
about a feathering problem on Lancasters. Maybe this was an investigation
into the glitch

Mentioned in "Flight of the Halifax " the Biography of Captain G.N. Wilner and compiled by Normn Mitchell. Wikner was a ferry pilot during the war and when delivering Lancs to operational squadrons in England from the factory was required to feather each prop to ensure the feathering and unfeathering worked OK. On one occasion he had feathered two on one side in cruise and when the F/E went to unfeather the first, the props on the other engines feathered without being touched. At one stage he had all engines stopped and managed to get two going before landing.

Armed guards surrounded the Lanc while investigation carried out and Wikner refused to fly the aircraft again. He recounts it was then he found out that several Lancs had been lost due un-commanded feathering of all engines during the commanded feathering of one prop.

I talked personally to a Australian bomb-aimer called Jarret who 25 years ago was still living in NSW, Australia. He was the subject of a Sydney magazine `human interest` story and he told me they were on Ops when one engine failed. He heard the pilot tell the F/E to feather its prop. Immediately all engines stopped with their props feathered. It was night and the pilot ordered abandon aircraft. Jarret jumped out through the nose hatch but the rest were unable to bale out in time and were killed. He became a POW.

When I talked to him he said the aircraft had previously done a belly landing and it was suspected wiring was damaged and the fault was never located. That was his vague recollection. But certainly Lancs were lost due all props un-commanded feathering.

Circa 1958, I was the squadron QFI on Lincoln Mk 31 at RAAF Townsville. Following a prop change an airmen tested the feathering on that engine. When he pressed the feather button on the newly changed prop, the adjacent engine prop feathered as well. The defect was quickly traced to the metal cage that protected the feathering buttons from being inadvertently pushed in by ham fisted pilots.

Each feather button was equipped with a fire warning light inside the button and a metal dimmer bar could be moved across each feather switch. It transpired that if the dimmer bar somehow contacted the metal protective cage (which it shouldn't but obviously could), it caused an electrical circuit resulting in automatic feathering of the adjcent prop. Tres embarrassing.. The fix was to add more washers and ensure the dimmer slide could never touch the protective cage. I never found out what caused the Lancaster feathering.

In 1999 I received this letter (dated 27 January 1999) from the airman who discovered the defect. He wrote this:
Quote:
"I had been tasked by Sgt Mal Winson along with others to change the No 2 propeller on the Lincoln undergoing a "C" check. The propeller is required to be feathered prior to the removal procedure. I pressed the No 2 feathering button, and No 1 and No 2 commenced to feather at the same time. At no time had I touched the No 1 feathering button. I cut the electrical power to stop the feathering actions. Examination of the feathering buttons showed that Day/Night slide was in the Night position and trapped under the feathering buttons protective cage.

My recollection is that investigations by the electricians indicated that electrical power on No 2 was linked to the circuitry related to No 1 when the feathering button was in this trapped position. The subsequent fix to prevent similar un-commanded feathering action was to place spacers under the feathering buttons protective cage, so as to allow the buttons to fully extend when pulled to the out position, regardless of the position of the Day/Night slide.

I do not know if the modification was formally approved, as a short time later the Lincolns were grounded and taken out of service and scrapped.

Signed: John R. Griffin.
Unquote.

John Griffin, who was by now a senior quality surveyor for QANTAS Airways in Sydney, at my request subsequently sent his letter to the CO of the RAF Battle of Britain Memorial Flight who operated a Lancaster at Coningsby. - just in case....

[l.garey]

Rosevidney1: here is a picture of a Lancaster I (FE) of 207 Squadron (The Aeroplane photograph in Aircraft of the Royal Air Force by Owen Thetford, in which the photo of the white Mk VII marked "9X" (20 MU) also appears (Blacksheep's post)). This I (FE) has similar markings to the feathered friend in post 1, but it does have turret guns.

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc39/apollo-fox/lancsmall.jpg

Laurence