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

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?

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

Nut,

Also, it's unlikely his gear was still down after 10 minutes of flight.

Advo

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

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

http://s152.photobucket.com/user/gup...panal.jpg.html

It is possible that the gear unlocked during the impact.

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?

This question may be answered by 'Walter' over on 'Gaining a Pilot's Brevet in WW2'.

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.

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

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.

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!!

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

Megan,

Do you know if the up locks were electrical or hydraulic or mechanical. That might be the clue......

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.

https://www.maltaqua.com/img/62/2009...2012-33-10.jpg

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

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.

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.

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.