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

[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]

James

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.



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

[kookabat]

Another letter from Tommy Knox

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