Vickers Windsor - Prototype Accident?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ex-EUROCONTROL land
Age: 75
Posts: 97
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vickers Windsor
Hi Chevvron
Maurice Summers was Joseph "Mutt" Summers younger brother. He, too, became a test pilot. Maurice was in the RAF (And was on the same flying course as "Tommy" Lucke - he flew for Vickers during the War) before becoming a test pilot with Glosters and later Hawkers. In 1941 he became Head of Bomber Development at Vickers. Later, in November 1941, he went to the US and flight tested aircraft under consideration for potential use by the RAF.
He returned to Weybridge in late 1943 and continued flying Warwick and Windsor aircraft. His (Vickers) flying activities ceased in 1945 following a bad accident whilst flying a Warwick. He left Vickers in the late 40's and moved to America. Maurice died in 2001.
Hope this is of interest
Maurice Summers was Joseph "Mutt" Summers younger brother. He, too, became a test pilot. Maurice was in the RAF (And was on the same flying course as "Tommy" Lucke - he flew for Vickers during the War) before becoming a test pilot with Glosters and later Hawkers. In 1941 he became Head of Bomber Development at Vickers. Later, in November 1941, he went to the US and flight tested aircraft under consideration for potential use by the RAF.
He returned to Weybridge in late 1943 and continued flying Warwick and Windsor aircraft. His (Vickers) flying activities ceased in 1945 following a bad accident whilst flying a Warwick. He left Vickers in the late 40's and moved to America. Maurice died in 2001.
Hope this is of interest
Here is the report written by S/Ldr English on the Windsor accident at Grove. It has recently surfaced from a trawl through his papers.
(As far as I can tell he had a passenger, Mr Ripper (technical observer?), but no operating crew. He was attached to the Performance Testing Sqadron at the time (Boscombe). He was 27 years old. He had completed 7 bombing missions flying a Stirling, on the last of which the aircraft was "quite badly shot up" and crashed on landing. He had also worked as an instructor on up to 12 types, fighter and bomber, with OUTSTANDING ratings consistently.)
The report is remarkable for its honesty, and even more for its insight into how things were done in those dark days; noting the lack of any assistance from the ground that a pilot would expect nowadays. There he was, stooging about above, in and below cloud, more or less on his own, in a bloody great prototype bomber with two engines out on one side, no idea where he is, looking for an airfield, and all he does is be apologetic about landing downwind.
To A.O.C.
4 March 1944
Sir, I have the honour to report that on 2nd March 1944 I was flying Windsor No 506 from RAF Farnborough. The purpose of the flight was to determine zero foot loads for two-engine flying.
2. At 10,000 feet I feathered the starboard outer and carried out the first part of the test with the starboard inner windmilling in course pitch. After approximately 5- 10 minutes I opened up the inner engine but noticed that it did not respond and that the airscrew seemed to be stopping. I then unfeathered the starboard outer but found that it was giving no power. I immediately checked over the cockpit and found that I had omitted to turn on the petrol cock, I did this but with no result, I also turned on both booster pumps. The engine never gave any sign of firing.
3. Next I tried to restart the inner engine but could not unfeather it. I then decided to come down below the clouds to find my position with the idea of returning to Farnborough. When I was below the clouds I decided to fly south and if I did not locate myself fairly soon to land at the first large aerodrome. I looked at two aerodromes both of which seemed too small, before finding Grove. As soon as I sighted this aerodrome I noticed smoke blowing parallel with the runway, and I turned to what I imagined was the windward and, actually I had taken the reciprocal of the wind direction. I now concentrated entirely on my approach, but tried once more to restart the starboard outer with the balance cock open, also trying the feathering switch of the inner, both unsuccessfully. I therefore began the last part of the approach with the starboard engines feathered. I had no qualms that I should not be able to make a perfectly safe landing with flaps and undercarriage down. and am quite confident that the approach as carried out would have been perfectly satisfactory had it been into wind and not downwind, as I was allowing for a strong breeze. As it was I had no choice but to run straight ahead and avoid any obvious obstacles.
I hope that this fills out the picture of what happened to that Windsor. There is one question (did the stbd inner go from course to feather by itself as it ran down?) but he can be forgiven that. The report was written from a hospital bed.
(As far as I can tell he had a passenger, Mr Ripper (technical observer?), but no operating crew. He was attached to the Performance Testing Sqadron at the time (Boscombe). He was 27 years old. He had completed 7 bombing missions flying a Stirling, on the last of which the aircraft was "quite badly shot up" and crashed on landing. He had also worked as an instructor on up to 12 types, fighter and bomber, with OUTSTANDING ratings consistently.)
The report is remarkable for its honesty, and even more for its insight into how things were done in those dark days; noting the lack of any assistance from the ground that a pilot would expect nowadays. There he was, stooging about above, in and below cloud, more or less on his own, in a bloody great prototype bomber with two engines out on one side, no idea where he is, looking for an airfield, and all he does is be apologetic about landing downwind.
To A.O.C.
4 March 1944
Sir, I have the honour to report that on 2nd March 1944 I was flying Windsor No 506 from RAF Farnborough. The purpose of the flight was to determine zero foot loads for two-engine flying.
2. At 10,000 feet I feathered the starboard outer and carried out the first part of the test with the starboard inner windmilling in course pitch. After approximately 5- 10 minutes I opened up the inner engine but noticed that it did not respond and that the airscrew seemed to be stopping. I then unfeathered the starboard outer but found that it was giving no power. I immediately checked over the cockpit and found that I had omitted to turn on the petrol cock, I did this but with no result, I also turned on both booster pumps. The engine never gave any sign of firing.
3. Next I tried to restart the inner engine but could not unfeather it. I then decided to come down below the clouds to find my position with the idea of returning to Farnborough. When I was below the clouds I decided to fly south and if I did not locate myself fairly soon to land at the first large aerodrome. I looked at two aerodromes both of which seemed too small, before finding Grove. As soon as I sighted this aerodrome I noticed smoke blowing parallel with the runway, and I turned to what I imagined was the windward and, actually I had taken the reciprocal of the wind direction. I now concentrated entirely on my approach, but tried once more to restart the starboard outer with the balance cock open, also trying the feathering switch of the inner, both unsuccessfully. I therefore began the last part of the approach with the starboard engines feathered. I had no qualms that I should not be able to make a perfectly safe landing with flaps and undercarriage down. and am quite confident that the approach as carried out would have been perfectly satisfactory had it been into wind and not downwind, as I was allowing for a strong breeze. As it was I had no choice but to run straight ahead and avoid any obvious obstacles.
I hope that this fills out the picture of what happened to that Windsor. There is one question (did the stbd inner go from course to feather by itself as it ran down?) but he can be forgiven that. The report was written from a hospital bed.
Last edited by old,not bold; 23rd Feb 2014 at 09:16.
