It's May 1941, it's night, you have to land, but how?
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 70
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can find Pilot's Notes for the Stirling here (if you don't alrteady have them):
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.
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.
I guess this is the Kinloss Anson/Whitley incident referred to earlier:
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LIVERPOOL
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'
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
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!),
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!),
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Brize
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guess what I've found
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
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LIVERPOOL
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chance Lights
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Newcastle
Age: 68
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Newcastle
Age: 68
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Newcastle
Age: 68
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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......."
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......."