Wreck of 272 Sqn Beaufighter, off St Julien, Malta
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wreck of 272 Sqn Beaufighter, off St Julien, Malta
PPRuNers,
Last week I was Holidaying and Diving in Malta. Lovely time had by all, but the reason for my post, is that I dived on a wrecked Bristol Beaufighter. The aircraft in question ditched due to severe engine vibrations 10 minutes after take off from RAF Luqa on 17 March 1943 (as part of a 272 Sqn 9 ship 'Escort' mission for 9 Beauforts of 39 Sqn).
However, although I have researched the flight, and it's outcome: Both pilot and navigator got out, and were picked up by local Maltese fishermen. What surprised me as I saw the wreck, was that the Landing Gear is down.
The official report, made by the pilot, also indicates that he chose to ditch without using Flap, but does not mention anything about lowering the gear.
So, being a life long 'Jet Jockey' I have two questions, which I hope I may get help with here:
1. Why would you lower gear to ditch in an aircraft like a Beaufighter, would it not be more likely to 'End Over' ?
2. Why choose not to use Flap to reduce touch down speed to the minimum?
Any thoughts or comments from anyone in the know would be great.
Thanks in advance,
Advo
Last week I was Holidaying and Diving in Malta. Lovely time had by all, but the reason for my post, is that I dived on a wrecked Bristol Beaufighter. The aircraft in question ditched due to severe engine vibrations 10 minutes after take off from RAF Luqa on 17 March 1943 (as part of a 272 Sqn 9 ship 'Escort' mission for 9 Beauforts of 39 Sqn).
However, although I have researched the flight, and it's outcome: Both pilot and navigator got out, and were picked up by local Maltese fishermen. What surprised me as I saw the wreck, was that the Landing Gear is down.
The official report, made by the pilot, also indicates that he chose to ditch without using Flap, but does not mention anything about lowering the gear.
So, being a life long 'Jet Jockey' I have two questions, which I hope I may get help with here:
1. Why would you lower gear to ditch in an aircraft like a Beaufighter, would it not be more likely to 'End Over' ?
2. Why choose not to use Flap to reduce touch down speed to the minimum?
Any thoughts or comments from anyone in the know would be great.
Thanks in advance,
Advo
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,470
Received 2,595 Likes
on
1,098 Posts
Two thoughts and total guesses from an Engineer.
Would the flap not increase the drag at a time when he was struggling with a loss of power? Was the gear already possibly down?
Would the flap not increase the drag at a time when he was struggling with a loss of power? Was the gear already possibly down?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nut,
Yes, Flap would increase Drag. But even in Chipmunks, we would use Flap on Dead Stick Glide Landings.
I suspect its more about Angle of Attack, and wanting to Ditch Tail First. But I don't know.
Advo
Yes, Flap would increase Drag. But even in Chipmunks, we would use Flap on Dead Stick Glide Landings.
I suspect its more about Angle of Attack, and wanting to Ditch Tail First. But I don't know.
Advo
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,470
Received 2,595 Likes
on
1,098 Posts
Would he have been possibly attempting to reach land? Other thing is could the gear have free falled?
Interestingly as he ditched at 100MPH and the figures given are, maybe with the engines problems he didn't have enough pressure to get them down / up?
Stalling speed
Safety speed
Approach
Maximum speed
Flaps & undercarriage up: 104mph. Flaps and undercarriage down: 80mph
170mph
Preliminary 160mph; final 115mph
Variously quoted 330mph
Vne (without external stores) 400mph (with 8x60lb RP) 345mph
Bristol Beaufighter
It does read like he was trying to get back.
http://maltagroupdiving.com/home/div...s/beaufighter/
interesting read on their handling
http://www.mossie.org/stories/Frederick_Lacy_2.htm
Interestingly as he ditched at 100MPH and the figures given are, maybe with the engines problems he didn't have enough pressure to get them down / up?
Stalling speed
Safety speed
Approach
Maximum speed
Flaps & undercarriage up: 104mph. Flaps and undercarriage down: 80mph
170mph
Preliminary 160mph; final 115mph
Variously quoted 330mph
Vne (without external stores) 400mph (with 8x60lb RP) 345mph
Bristol Beaufighter
It does read like he was trying to get back.
http://maltagroupdiving.com/home/div...s/beaufighter/
interesting read on their handling
http://www.mossie.org/stories/Frederick_Lacy_2.htm
Levers for flaps and gear are next to each other.
Wouldn't be the first or last time the wrong lever has been pulled at a time of high stress.
http://s152.photobucket.com/user/gup...panal.jpg.html
Wouldn't be the first or last time the wrong lever has been pulled at a time of high stress.
http://s152.photobucket.com/user/gup...panal.jpg.html
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I note the aircraft was on the sea bed inverted. Is it possible that an undercarriage would drop automatically if pneumatic pressure is lost? In this case, inverted, with no pressure, the doors may be free to open and the inflated tyres did the rest?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: North of Watford, South of Watford Gap
Age: 68
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
The Dornier Do 17 recovered from the Goodwin Sands a few years ago was also on its back with the wheels "down".
Given that most of the weight of an aircraft is in the front half, I can imagine that - even after a successful ditching - as the aircraft sinks it effectively "nose dives" and may end up on its back. Over time the buoyancy of the tyres could overcome whatever holds the undercarriage up, and the legs would move towards the surface, giving the impression that the gear was down before the aircraft ditched.
Given that most of the weight of an aircraft is in the front half, I can imagine that - even after a successful ditching - as the aircraft sinks it effectively "nose dives" and may end up on its back. Over time the buoyancy of the tyres could overcome whatever holds the undercarriage up, and the legs would move towards the surface, giving the impression that the gear was down before the aircraft ditched.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pprunners,
Lots of good ideas here, Thank You. I guess we'll never really know for sure, but I am leaning towards the Floating Gear Theory, as the pilot's report was quite specific but doesn't mention the gear, also a similar situation with the Dornier.
I can definitely recommend this dive!! It's quite deep though at 37m, so watch your Dive Computer carefully, to stay No Decompression!!!
Regards to All,
Advo
Lots of good ideas here, Thank You. I guess we'll never really know for sure, but I am leaning towards the Floating Gear Theory, as the pilot's report was quite specific but doesn't mention the gear, also a similar situation with the Dornier.
I can definitely recommend this dive!! It's quite deep though at 37m, so watch your Dive Computer carefully, to stay No Decompression!!!
Regards to All,
Advo
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,470
Received 2,595 Likes
on
1,098 Posts
Which is probably helped by the depth, some aircraft simply use hydraulic pressure to hold the gear up, if that dissapates then the gear drops, though as to how the Beau does it I don't know.
Gear actuation on the Beau was hydraulic, with a pump on each engine, not pneumatic. Hydraulics were turned off when airborne to avoid overheating the pumps. Pneumatics were confined to brakes, fuel jettison, guns and landing flares from a pump on the starboard engine. With no hydraulic pressure Pontius Navigator's theory re inflated tyres sounds correct. Uplocks must have suffered damage in the ditching.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's something about the Beaufighter that just sits with me, guess it's a hangup from Airfix kits in the 60/70's but it just does it for me!!
lol!!
lol!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Megan,
If the gear is Hydraulic, as you state, water (Hydrostatic) pressure at 37m would only be 4.7 Atmos / Bar. Much less than any Hydraulic pressure. How then would the wheels come down? Particularly since it is upside down, so would also have to overcome the weight of the gear.?
Now, I am really intrigued.
Advo
If the gear is Hydraulic, as you state, water (Hydrostatic) pressure at 37m would only be 4.7 Atmos / Bar. Much less than any Hydraulic pressure. How then would the wheels come down? Particularly since it is upside down, so would also have to overcome the weight of the gear.?
Now, I am really intrigued.
Advo
Re uplocks, I'm afraid the pilots notes don't go into that level of detail. Emergency lowering was by means of a hydraulic hand pump. Perhaps the gear was retained in the up position by trapped hydraulic pressure. I'll ask on the history section of the forum.
From https://www.maltaqua.com/EN/Wrecks/1...ol_Beaufighter
More photos http://subwayscuba.com/divesubway/bristol.html
Good video of the wreck https://vimeo.com/11757050
From https://www.maltaqua.com/EN/Wrecks/1...ol_Beaufighter
More photos http://subwayscuba.com/divesubway/bristol.html
Good video of the wreck https://vimeo.com/11757050
Last edited by megan; 17th Jul 2016 at 05:39. Reason: photo
For those who haven't read it, 'My Father's Heinkel' by Bernard Wicksteed contains a vivd account of his narrow escape from a sinking Beaufighter after it had been damaged whilst engaging a Heinkel (actually a Ju-88) off Portreath.
Quote:
"His plans were completely upset by the by the odd behaviour of the port engine which, without further warning, gave a screech, leapt forward out of the wing and fell into the sea forty feet below. The Beau at once turned over to starboard and cartwheeled into the sea. There was no question of getting out before the aircraft sank, for she sank right away."
Published in 1944, it's a wonderfully written little book and a treasured possession.
Quote:
"His plans were completely upset by the by the odd behaviour of the port engine which, without further warning, gave a screech, leapt forward out of the wing and fell into the sea forty feet below. The Beau at once turned over to starboard and cartwheeled into the sea. There was no question of getting out before the aircraft sank, for she sank right away."
Published in 1944, it's a wonderfully written little book and a treasured possession.
Memories of a Beau, (or at least a bit of it ).
It may come as a bit of a surprise to readers that the RAF had a Beau on strength in 1966. How come you may ask and where? The where first, at Halton on the airfield, and the how come was that it had had the aft fuselage removed behind the mainplane and a hut built on in its place and it was used for ground running training of Halton Apprentices. It was here you realised that the real world was about to intrude on your training as you were despatched outside the shed and into the undercarriage bay to operate the priming pump by hand for the engine start procedure, almost a real baptism of fire as the engine burst into life about six feet in front of you! You never realise at the time just how rare these aircraft were, they were just something to train on.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
megan,
I put out a couple of feelers re Beaufighter manuals and a friend e-mailed me a PDF copy of...
"The Australian Beaufighter Mk21 Descriptive Manual".
It's dated January 1945 and runs to 270-odd pages.
While, of course, it refers to the Oz-built version, I doubt there'd be much difference in U/C systems.
I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment, but if I forward the whole manual to you, perhaps you might glean the answer from that publication.
I understand that hydraulics are covered in chapter 9.
Getting close, folks. Stay tuned.
I put out a couple of feelers re Beaufighter manuals and a friend e-mailed me a PDF copy of...
"The Australian Beaufighter Mk21 Descriptive Manual".
It's dated January 1945 and runs to 270-odd pages.
While, of course, it refers to the Oz-built version, I doubt there'd be much difference in U/C systems.
I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment, but if I forward the whole manual to you, perhaps you might glean the answer from that publication.
I understand that hydraulics are covered in chapter 9.
Getting close, folks. Stay tuned.