A Reminiscence of the Flying Characteristics of Many Old Type Aircraft

A Reminiscence of the Flying Characteristics of Many Old Type Aircraft

A detailed analysis of very early aircraft and their flying characteristics.

1971-08-16

82 typewritten sheets

This content is available under a CC BY-NC 4.0 International license (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0). It has been published ‘as is’ and may contain inaccuracies or culturally inappropriate references that do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the University of Lincoln or the International Bomber Command Centre. For more information, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ and https://ibccdigitalarchive.lincoln.ac.uk/omeka/legal.

MLovattP1821369-190903-75

A REMINISCENCE OF THE FLYING CHARACTERISTICS OF MANY OLD TIME AIRCRAFT.

BY:- Air Marshal Sir Ralph Sorley, K.C.B. O.B.E. D.S.C. D.F.C. F.R.A.e.S.

INTRODUCTION.

Since the end of [deleted] [underlined] 19 [/underlined] 34 [/deleted] 1914, when I joined the Royal Naval Air Service I have been fortunate enough to fly as pilot some 170. different types of aircraft as well as handle in the air a few more and to travel as passenger in a number of others. It has occured [sic] to me at this late date and at the age of 73. to try to record my impressions of some, if not all, of these machines as far as my memory will allow. Fortunately it is good and with the aid of my Log Books, in which only sketchy notes were made at the time, and a few books of reference and many photographs I will do my best to highlight the variations and contrasts between one and another, as well as the conditions of flight over these fifty six years. The dates given are those when the type was flown. Although I am not the only one who flew them, many of which were prototypes which never entered service, it is inevitable that opinions may differ about their peculiarities, but I give only my own opinions which I hope may be of interest to some of the past, more of the present, and perhaps a few of future generations.

This saga covers mainly the reciprocating engine era, with a few contrasting jet types which followed, and those mostly commercial. I ended my piloting days with introduction of the Jet, but with the unfailing aid of N.E. Rowe. C.B.E. (Nero.) an engineer of great technical integrity first met when technical officer at Martlesham and who in 1943 became my Director General of Aircraft Development, I had something to do with the planning of new type aircraft and engines to suit the sub-sonic and early super-sonic era. In digesting what follows the reader is asked to look for the various yard sticks of progress such as weight, power, speed, climb and materials which mark the amazing strides made during the last sixty years of aviation. I think the text will speak for itself in these matters.

Much of my varied experience of aircraft was gained from two postings to the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment, first at Martlesham Heath, Suffolk, 1925 – 27. and later at Boscombe Down, Wiltshire in 1940. These, following a year at Marine Aircraft Experimental Establishment, Felixstowe, in 1924, led me along the paths of Designers and Manufacturers from all of which, and from whom, one naturally acquired a lot of practical knowledge. On leaving Boscombe this stood me in good stead when appointed Assistant Chief of Air Staff to the great Viscount

[page break]

2.

Portal, in charge of Technical Requirements; and thereafter on becoming Controller of Research and Development in the Ministry of Aircraft Production, later called Supply.

These thumbnail sketches touch on the aeroplane and only mention their engines, but disregard almost completely the contemporary developement [sic] of all those subsiduary [sic] pieces of equipment which in more recent terms form a ‘weapons system’ of great complexity, which is where we stand to-day.

[underlined] DECEMBER 1914. [/underlined]

Having been interested in flight since about 1912 as a schoolboy, my first introduction to aeroplanes I could touch and begin to fly was at Eastchurch, when at the tender age of 16, I had been selected as a Probationary Flight Sub Lieutenant and reported there to the Commanding Officer, Major E.L. Gerrard the Royal Marines, I spent my first night sleeping with a real aeroplane in it‘s [deleted] s [/deleted] hanger, so one can say the long marriage was consummated correctly. By the luck of the draw I was allocated to a certain well-known pre-war Australian pilot as my instructor who shall remain nameless, but more of this as the story unfolds.

1 [underlined] SHORT ‘PUSHERS’ – 50 h.p. and 70 h.p. GNOME. Biplane. [/underlined]

These were of the S.38. type. They had a span of sixty feet and were therefore very lightly loaded per square foot of wing area. They also had ailerons which were not interconnected but which hung down vertically until sufficient speed had been attained on the ground to lift them up horizontally when they then became effective. They also had a front elevator attached to the nose of the nacelle, but which had little or no effect as such, but was a help in lining up the horizon. They were light on all controls and were pleasant to fly, but with such Iight loading they were liable to bounce into the air at take-off and landing and one had to be very quick to 'blip' the engine into life to save a stall.

The one I first learned on was a side-by-side dual control, others had the instructor and pupil separated fore and aft. All were ‘wheel’

[page break]

3.

control laterally, and quite light, and whether from inexperience or diffidence of my youth I treated them with great respect. Evidently too great for my instructor who, when I failed to bring up a dropped wing quickly enough to his liking would yank the control over so that we were well over on the opposite bank in a flash. He soon reached the stage actually of standing up in the cockpit and threatening to hit me over the head! After experiencing this performance several times I made bold enough to ask Sir Frank Mclean, who was in charge of instruction whether I could change my instructor. He seemed to understand, and I then went dual with John Alcock who saved my bacon, or there would not have been this to write about. A contrast in personalities.

The 50 h.p. and 70 h.p. Gromes had a habit of breaking their connecting rods, and it was not long before I experienced a sound of tearing metal and a quick return to earth. Neither engine lived up to it's horse power rating and at 1100 revolutions a minute one could just stay in the air: 1150 was a bit better, and 1200 was flat out. These engines had no throttle and the art of 'blipping' the ignition on and off by means of a press button switch on the control wheel was difficult near the ground in a light breeze when the aircraft was so easily wafted upwards by the slightest up-current, or as a result of a bounce.

On the whole they were nice to fly although underpowered. By accessing the developed horse power of the '50’ at 38 h.p. and that of the ‘70' at 57 h.p. (figures I seem to remember) and taking the all-up weights of the two aircraft as 1380. lbs. and 1490. lbs. respectively, then the weights per horse power work out at 36 lbs. and 26 lbs. which is heavy by any standard. The speed range of the former was 35 to 42 m.p.h. and that of the latter 38 to 57 m.p.h. I quote these figures at the begining [sic] as a contrast to those at the end of the piston engine era, when 8 lbs. all-up weight per horse power was common in 1944. By then too the speed ranges were measured in several hundred miles an hour. This only indicates the vast stride made in the development of aircraft and engines in the intervening thirty years.

[page break]

4.

2. [underlined] MAURICE FARMAN LONGHORN. – 70, 80, or 100 h.p. RENAULT. (BIPLANE). 1915. [/underlined]

Often known as ‘the flying birdcage' this too was a very lightly loaded machine, with front elevator on curved outriggers much further forward than on the Shorts. It had what was known as a [deleted] s [/deleted] lifting tail and having no tailplane adjustment could become unmanageable if it got into a steep dive. It was a perfect lady in all other respects and literally floated through the air and was pleasant on all controls. The Renault had a crackle of exhaust and could be fully throttled down, and when on the glide there was only the swishing of the wind to be heard through the many wires and struts. Being French the throttle operated in the reverse way to the British, that is to say to open up the power one pulled a sort of door bolt back towards one and to shut down pushed it forward. Quite the opposite to nature or instinct.

The cockpit was well protected from the wind and the forward view was excellent. The passenger, or pupil sat higher and behind the pilot and as there was no dual control the most one could do was to lean over the instructor and to put one's hands on the 'spectacles' which controled [sic] the ailerons. This form of lateral control was well ahead of its time, as it [inserted] is [/inserted] almost commonplace nowadays. I remember the finish of the woodwork and how beautifully everything fitted into very small spaces. I see from my book of reference 'The Flying Book end Aviation World Who’s Who’ of 1914 that the all-up weight is given as 1720 lbs. This for the land plane seems a little too much, but see later the seaplane.

It wasn't long before I had a forced landing due to the fuel tanks not being filled (no such thing as a cockpit check then) but such a lady gave me no alarum [sic] and we settled like a nesting bird. I may say that in these early years the time of any flight was in minutes, thirty or forty or one hour was a long trip and ten or fifteen was average.

3. [underlined] BLERIOT MONOPLANE. – 80 h.p. GNOME. 1915. [/underlined]

I had a flight in this aeroplane piloted by Lieut. Commander Vaughan-Fowler. The view was anything but good and from the pilot's position ahead the wing blanked out any view of the ground almost completely for landing. It was a warped wing control which I was

[page break]

[inserted] Rewrite [/inserted]

5.

unable to feel for myself, but otherwise the aircraft gave one the feeling of frailness. It gave little impression of speed, and all I can say about it is I am glad I did not have to go to war in one, although it had a long history of success in obtaining height, speed, and distance records since 1909, and also it was on this type that the French pilot Pegoud first looped the loop and introduced other forms of aerobatics.

4. [underlined] MORANE LOW WING MONOPLANE. – 80 h.p. LeRhone. 1915. [/underlined]

At the same time I had a flight in this aeroplane with much the same effect. Although it seemed faster it was not one well suited for military use and again I was glad I never had to fly one in action. It had a moving tailplane i.e. no fixed surface and thus was very sensitive fore and aft. There was no real space for a passenger who sat with the pilot between his legs and clutched him round the middle. Apart from the fact that it had a distinct rate of climb, and was quick on the lateral warp control it was a very limited purpose machine, but much used for racing pre-war and by the French in war.

I took my 'ticket' (Royal Aero Club Certificate No. 1089.) at Eastchurch on the I2th. of February 1915. on a Short pusher No. 63. Age 17. and one month.

5. [deleted] [underlined] WRIGHT BIPLANE. (OGILVIE). – 60 h.p. E.N.V. 1915. [/underlined] [/deleted]

Before I go on, perhaps I should describe just what was entailed in obtaining the 'ticket' – that coveted little blue card on which one's photograph and signature had to be appended, for in those days it was, in fact, an aviator's passport, on which is printed in [deleted] three [/deleted] six languages a request:- 'The Civil Naval and Military Authorities including the Police are respectfully requested to aid and assist the holder of this certificate.” It also served the same purpose as does a driving licence, without which one was not licenced to fly.

The test required was relatively simple, consisting of flying a

[page break]

[inserted] Rewrite [/inserted]

6.

few figures-of-eight within the confines of the aerodrome, to demonstrate ability to turn right and left: to then switch off the engine and make a vol pIanè from a given height and land on a circle marked out on the ground, the aircraft to come to rest within it. That test of prof [deleted] f [/deleted] iciency was about as enlightening as are our present ‘O’ level tests in proving today one has been educated?

5, [underlined] WRIGHT BIPLANE. (OGILVIE). – 60 h.p. [deleted] E.N.V. [/deleted] [inserted] N.E.C. [/inserted] 1915. [/underlined]

I also had a short flight with Alec Ogilvie in this re-vamped Wright which he had altered and re-engined with an [deleted] E.N.V. [/deleted] [inserted] N.E.C. [/inserted] which made a better machine of it. We sat out in the open in front and as far as climb was concerned we did not rise very far off the ground. The engine was running badly and we only did a circuit of Eastchurch aerodrome with wing tips nearly touching the ground in turns. He was one of the founders of Eastchurch and held ‘ticket' NO. 7.

6. [underlined] BRISTOL BOXKITE. – 50 h.p. GNOME. (BIPLANE). 1915. [/underlined]

This I flew in (or should it be on) with a fellow pupil as pilot at Eastbourne. It staggered off the ground with two up and had no climb at all. We came face to face with the railway embankment at Polegate which is in the form of a triangle, the embankment being the three sides and the centre being the same level as the surrounding fields. We pulled up over the first side and then sank down almost to ground level in the centre. With barely enough room to gather speed enough to 'hoick' over the next, we just scraped over the rails by inches. Such was the performance of that machine, although the pilot in this instance had something to do with it. He was a cocky type and I feel sure wanted to impress me which he did.

7. [underlined] BRISTOL TRACTOR. – 80 h.p. GNOME. (BIPLANE). 1915. [/underlined]

My first tractor, and a delightful machine with a good performance and it handled well on all controls. It was a modified T.B. 8. type fitted with ailerons instead of warp and all machines of this type had a four wheel undercarriage although the nose wheels were only to prevent

[page break]

[inserted] Rewrite [/inserted]

7.

one tipping up on one's nose after landing. It's top speed reached 75. m.p.h. Designed by a Rumanian, Henri Coanda, who had a great eye for a cleanly shaped aeroplane I think it was among the first to attain good performance. If I remember correctly the wing section design incorporated the Philips entry. The weakest part of the design was a balanced rudder without any fin, the rudder post being unbraced as in the first B.E. 2. I see the only twelve of them were built and delivered by October 1914 although the licence was given to build them abroad to Deutsche Bristol-Werke, Halberstadt, and Louis Breguet in France just before the war. As far as I know none were built and the type died as a trainer only when I flew it at Eastbourne.

8. [underlined] MAURICE FARMAN SEAPLANE. – 100 h.p. RENAULT. (BIPLANE) 1915. [/underlined]

I went onto seaplanes at Calshot where there was an assortment of various types.

The Maurice Farman seaplane differed from the landplane in that it had not the front elevator, and was mounted on two floats made of thin three-ply. These were flat bottomed with no step and it was difficult to 'unstick' because of this, with any load sometimes impossible. One was used for anti-submarine patrol based at Bembridge, Isle of Wight, and there I experienced a very different performance to that of the landplane. The 'observer' sat on the petrol tank behind and carried in it's wooden box a 20 lb. Hales bomb. This he was intended to launch over the side onto the unsuspecting submarine. We had to taxi a long way out into Spithead for take off near the forts, by which time the engine was nearly red hot, consequently what little power there was became even less and in a calm sea and little wind any take off was a speculation. Once in the air there was insufficient power to climb and on one occasion I went from the Isle of Wight to Eastbourne not ever above two hundred feet, so much so that when it came to turning round l had to land because of loss of height. Not a very efficient weapon of war.

9. [underlined] WIGHT PUSHER SEAPLANE. – 160 h.p. GNOME. (BIPLANE) 1915. [/underlined]

I should say that none of the seaplanes here described were fitted

[page break]

8.

with dual control, and one just listened and watched for the differences in handling and flying them on and off the water. This Wight was a type built by Samuel Wight of Cowes, designed by Howard Wright and was no small toy to let a boy of 17 lose on. It must have weighed about a ton and a half and a double row Gnome engine of fourteen cylinders required some strength to start. The proced[deleted]r[/deleted]ure for this was to switch on one half of the engine i.e. seven cylinders, after dopeing them through the valves with neat petrol. One then turned the whole thing by a crank handle at the back of the nacelle. Once it fired you then hurdled over the back seat to reach the pilot’s controls right up front. Once there the immediate action was to switch in the other bank of cylinders and 'blip' until clear of the beach, and if lucky and pointing out into clear water, taxi out. Apart from this weighty and athletic complication, this aeroplane had two other unusual features. The first of these was a double cambered wing; that is to say the top surface had not a single contour on the top, but was intended to be two cambered wings joined together [deleted] ed [/deleted] at mid-chord. This I may say seemed to have no beneficial effect. The other was two very long floats, each of which had no less than three steps on which to plane the water. Because of the great length of these floats one progressed from one step to the other until one got her up on the rear step. By then, in order to keep the forward steps out of the water one was pulling back hard on the elevator control and all of a sudden the thing leapt into the air at an astonishing angle, which required immediate forward push on the control to prevent a bad stall. If too much, then the whole contraption was back on the water again and the same process had to be repeated. Truly a remarkable aeroplane.

In the air it felt very much as it looked, a large cumbersome machine, not in this instance under powered but just cumbersome. There was even a worse and more unpleasant Wight, even a bit bigger and heavier with, I believe?, a 200 h.p. Salmson engine. Having the same characteristics but being more cumbersome it was even worse to fly, and my log book says “no likee much – landing rotten."

[deleted] 10. AVRO CIRCUIT OF BRITAIN 510 [symbol] 150 h.p. SUNBEAM. (BIPLANE) [/deleted]

[page break]

9.

10. [/underlined] AVRO CIRCUIT OF BRITAIN '510' – 150 h.p. SUNBEAM. (BIPLANE) 1915. [/underlined]

This was the prototype No. 881 which was purchased by the Admiralty before the War and another five were built thereafter.

It was a most pleasant aircraft to fly, and if only the engine had been up to it's job it might have had a bigger future. But it lacked power and as soon as the revs. fell off then there was no performance. In the air it felt right, and my first flight seems to confirm this as it was one of one and a half hours, which for that time was a long flight. With a better engine it would have made production figures. These were days when engine development was at it's earliest stage and Louis Coatalen of Sunbeam's was an early stater [sic] as Aero engine designer.

11. [underlined] SOPWITH CIRCUIT OF BRITAIN TYPE. – CONVERTED AT CALSHOT TO 120 h.p. AUSTRO)DAIMLER (BIPLANE). 1915. [/underlined]

A truly delightful aeroplane with, for once, enough power to make things happen. It was a one off machine built for the race and never saw the light of day in Service, nevertheless a good specimen of design and a forerunner of Sopwith development of many military types to come.

12. [underlined] SHORT TRACTOR SEAPLANE. – 135. h.p. SALMSON (CANTON UNNE). (BIPLANE). 1915. [/underlined]

I flew this type on joining H.M.S. Engadine early in 1915. As usual all one had was a few minutes flight as a passenger before being pushed off solo. It had flat-bottomed floats and the same drooping ailerons as the earlier Shorts, but in this case one gathered speed sooner than before and so had lateral control almost at once. It was a really good aeroplane and handled easily and responsively for its size. The [inserted]e[/inserted]ngine was on the heavy side for the power but was beautifully designed and made, and very reliable. In many hours of flying them I never had any engine trouble. They were difficult to ‘unstick’ with a full load in a calm but the floats stood up to a pretty pounding without breakage; if anything gave it was chassis struts that bent. Once with a heavy load I careered a long way through a choppy sea with water being thrown right over the engine when in the end the wooden propellor burst, which was not surprising. These aircraft were

[page break]

10.

embarked in ships which were converted cross-channel ferries and were supposed to operate from open water. This was highly optimistic as there was no weather reporting, and conditions were either too rough or too calm for any certainty of take-off, and it was a highly inefficient way of conducting operations. See later under Sopwith Baby.

In addition they were fitted with a wireless set called ‘R[inserted]o[/inserted]uset’. This was mounted on top of the petrol tank and as it had a rotary spark gap revolving in the open making a continuous arc, I always thought it more than dangerous. Many an hour did I spend in helping to overhaul those Canton Unee’s [sic] (one crank on to which a master connecting rod was affixed, with the other rods attached to the web of the master; a lovely piece of work). It was, of course, a French engine but licensed into England to the Dudbridge Iron Works, Stroud.

I once did a test with a destroyer going ahead of me pumping oil on to troubled waters to see if by taking off along a path of oiled water we could find it noticeably calmer, but it did not seen to make much difference. These Shorts had no forward or aft firing guns and so were completely defenceless, but they were capable of carrying a few bombs weather permitting.

Perhaps at this point I should say how the ground or deck handling of these seaplanes embarked in ships was carried out. First they were stowed folded in a hangar. The latter was a heavy steel structure built on to the qu[inserted]a[/inserted]rterdeck of these small ships, mostly under 2,000 Tons, which then gave them the most dreadful seaworthy characteristics. When folded it was possible to stow about four or five aircraft which could be wheeled out tail first and one at a time on to the quarterdeck. The wings were then spread and locked into position by steel pins which had to be secured from turning to prevent them unscrewing. The engine was run up to test power and afterwards shut down when the pilot and observer took their places. A crane, one on each after corner, was trained over the centre section of the aircraft and the heavy hook attached to a wire sling and the order given to hoist out. Once clear of the deck the aircraft was slung outboard and at the same time turned so that it faced the side of the ship while being lowered down to sea level, and mechanics armed with long bamboo poles fended off the wings from touching the

[page break]

11.

side. This was fine as long as there was no tide running but if so then as soon as the upstream float [missing letter]ouched the water the wing tended to dig in so one had to be very quick in releasing the hook to allow the aircraft to drift quickly down the ships side.

The proceedure [sic] for returning on board was similar in reverse. The machine had to be taxied slowly nose on to the side of the ship until the floats nearly touched it, when the engine was switched off, and if well judged the crane hook would be hanging just over the centre section ready for the pilot to stand up and hook it on to the slings. Easy when not at anchor, but with a tide running past, very good judgement was needed to aim sufficiently up tide to give time to leap up and grab the hook as one drifted past, hook on, and be quickly hoisted up before the tide took charge.

13. [underlined] SHORT TRACTOR SEAPLANE. – 225. h.p. SUNBEAM. (BIPLANE). 1916. [/underlined]

This type followed the one above and was a much bigger aeroplane with the biggest engine so far designed, but not more reliable. The machine was somewhere between 60 and 70 ft in span, this time with interconnected ailerons but still with flat-bottomed floats, especially as it was intended to carry a torpedo. It handled very well in the air for such a large aircraft and succeeded the 135. h.p. Canton into Service, which I was sorry to leave as it was less heavy on the hand and I thought a better looking aircraft.

14. [underlined] MORANE PARASOL. – 70. h.p. Le RHONE. (MONOPLANE). 1916. [/underlined]

As commented on the [inserted]e[/inserted]arlier Morane in which the wing so obstructed the view of the ground, in this type that had been overcome by raising the whole wing well above the heads of the pilot and observer. It was mounted on a tripod of steel tubes at the centre, called a 'cabane' but still had warp lateral control although an improvement on the original it was not a very effective military machine, but was used quite a lot in France by both British and French.

15. [underlined] SOPWITH MILITARY BIPLANE. – 100. h.p. MONOSOUPAPE GNOME. 1916. [/underlined]

As with the above I flew in this aircraft Montrose. It had been

[page break]

12.

developed from the Round Britain seaplane, by the look of it, and suffered from a poor view and lack of any armament. Unlike most rotary engine Installations which were by a shaft extending aft through one or two bearing plates with the rotating engine overhung, this had one bearing plate at the back and another right in the nose carrying a front extension shaft, with the engine rotating in between them.

16. [underlined] SOPWITH SCHNEIDER – 100 h.p. MONOSOUPAPE GNOME. (BIPLANE) 1916. [/underlined]

This was a derivet[deleted]it[/deleted]ive of the original Sopwith Tabloid, which fitted with floats won the Schneider Cup Race at Monaco in 1913.

It was fitted with a single float and tested on the Thames at Sunbury or Teddington. It proved unstable on the water and the single float was sawn down the middle and the two halves made into twin floats and mounted on a wider undercarriage. Later, so successful was the type that it was produced in some quantity for the R.N.A.S.

I first flew it from Killingholme on the Humber. At that point the river runs out at anything up to 6 knots and we were on the South bank. The prevailing wind was across the river and consequently one took off into wind but across a fast moving current. The effect was as if taking off with a great deal of drift. However if one corrected for drift and turned into what seemed the apparent wind then disaster overtook. One had to ignore the opposite bank of the river and let her rip. The casuality [sic] rate there was not inconsiderable, and it certainly was not an ideal place to instruct anyone on a new type.

The 100 h.p. Gnome was insufficient to give it a first class performance but it was a very lively little aeroplane, and very soon a more pleasant type came about as a result of more power being available.

17. [underlined] SOPWITH BABY SEAPLANE. – 110 h.p. or 130 h.p. CLERGET (BIPLANE) [/underlined]

Having aileron control [deleted] i [/deleted] instead of warp it was much more pleasant to fly. It had the top centre section cut out above one’s head, in which a Lewis gun was mounted to shoot upwards. The difficulty with this was loading the gun or trying to clear a stoppage it was necessary to look upwards for a time, and on one occasion I went into a spin when doing so. For such a lightly controled [sic] machine strangely it had a wheel

[page break]

13.

for operating the ailerons. The floats were still of very light construction and in the Engadine we stiffened the bottoms with extra carpentry. But this still left the tail float easily punctured if it should strike the water during landing, which happened to me on two occasions with the result that at the end of the landing run the machine slowly turned over backwards. This weakness was never remedied, for reasons unknown, otherwise it was a first class aeroplane and a joy to fly. The method of starting the engine however was most unpleasant. To do so one had to pull the control column back behind one’s backside and then, bent double in the small cockpit turn the engine by a crank handle. If lucky this might require only slight effort but if, as sometimes happened the darned thing refused to fire one was soon in a bath of perpiration [sic] when dressed in thick flying clothing and it is a wonder there were no cases of pneumonia following.

18. [underlined] FAIREY HAMBLE BABY – 130 h.p. CLERGET. (BIPLANE) 1917. [/underlined]

Was a copy of the Sopwith Baby but had full span flaps which could be lowered by a hand wheel for take-off and landing. As far as I could see they had little or no effect except to spoil the otherwise good handling qualities of the type, because the flaps also operated as ailerons over the full span.

19. [underlined] B.E. 2c. – 90. h.p. R.A.F. (BIPLANE) 1917. [/underlined]

One of the early types, supposedly inherently stable. I cannot say I noticed its stability except that it was slow on the controls. Unlike the first of the type, the B.E.2., it now had ailerons instead of warp and if stalled [deleted] w [/deleted] was prone to fall into a spin pretty rapidly. Badly windscreened it was very draughty for both pilot and observer (by this time the passenger had come to be recognised as the observer) although the fitting of adequate armament fore and aft had yet to come. Any such was improvised and as the observer was in front of the pilot, nicely wedged in between the planes, his field for any fire was only outwards at about 45 degrees ahead or over the pilots head aft. It was far too sedate for war, and thus got a bad reputation.

[page break]

14.

20. [underlined] B.E. 2c. – 90. h.p. R.A.F. (BIPLANE). 1917. [/underlined]

A strict derivative of the 2.c. but having only one bay of interplane struts with a big overhung extension of the top plane beyond them; It had a slightly better performance and was a little lighter on control. I thought it a distinct improvement on the earlier type but it fell out of the hand very suddenly if stalled. Again not a good military type but both did valient [sic] service against long odds.

21. [underlined] SOPWITH PUP. – 80. h.p. LE RHONE. (BIPLANE). 1917. [/underlined]

This was a classic little fighter, very lightly loaded and very light on control which just sprang into the air and went on going up quite rapidly. It was the first real fighter type designed for the purpose, armed with one Vickers gun mounted in front of the pilot's face and firing through the airscrew. Fitted with a rather clumsy mechanical interrupter gear, which was the forerunner of the much better Constantinesco oil operated system. Developed directly from the original Tabloid but with the requirements of a fighter from the first drawings it was a greatly liked and highly efficient machine, which led the way to the later Camel.

[deleted] 24. [underlined] SOPWITH 1 1/2 STRUTTER. – 110. h.p. CLERGET. (BIPLANE). 1917. [/underlined] [/deleted]

[deleted] Designed [/deleted]

22. [underlined] SOPWITH CAMEL. – 110. h.p. CLERGET. (BI[inserted]P[/inserted]LANE) 1917. [/underlined]

The Camel was the outstanding fighter of the first war, and with superior power over the Pup it was a real war machine. Fitted with two Vickers guns mounted in front of the pilot's face, and Constantinesco interrupter gear it was only rivaled [sic] by the S.E. 5. which came [deleted] some time after it. [/deleted] [inserted] about the same time i.e. end of 1916, [/inserted] It was a joy to fly because of it's quickness on control, but because it was under ruddered it responded to the torque of the engine to the right to such an extent that no rudder at all was needed to turn righthanded, and if given any it went into a right hand spin in a trice. In fact almost full top, or left rudder, was necessary to prevent a spin but so many first comers to the type ended up that way and usually

[page break]

15.

hit the ground before they realised what had happened. Once that characteristic had been learned there was no quicker or better fighter in manoeuvre. The guns were mounted in a kind of hump which restricted the view of the pilot forward, and he also sat rather too far under the top centre section to give him much view upwards. But in spite of these faults it was either loved or hated by those who flew it. Both constructionally and as a flying machine the Camel was a simple design and being very strong for its weight stood up to a good deal of bad handling. A classic type indeed.

23. [underlined] DE HAVILAND 4. – R.R. 275.h.p. EAGLE. (BIPLANE) 1917. [/underlined]

But this too was as great a clasic [sic] in its class as a two-seater day bomber. It was a large aeroplane for its time which had a performance almost as good as a 'Scout'. It could carry a load of bombs, 2 X 230 lbs, and was a dream of an aeroplane to fly. It had fuel for four or five hours and was as reliable as a taxi-cab. I did very many hours on this aeroplane ranging far from base and was never once let down. Those fitted with the B.H.P. engine (Beardmore-Halford-Pullin) were not so good on performance or reliability. This engine was a bitch to start and on one occasion during a long flight round the Aegean I spent about two days before the darned thing would condescend to fire. The very first D.H. 4’s had unbraced tailplanes but after a few fatal accidents the fin and tailplane were braced to each other by double streamline wires. The B.H.P. version was notable for having a four bladed propeller the width of the blades being no more than four or five inches [deleted] wide [/deleted], and I do not recollect seeing any such others.

24. [underlined] SOPWITH 1 1/2 STRUTTER. – 110. h.p. CLERGET. (BIPLANE) 1917. [/underlined]

This type was designed as either a two-seater or a single seater, the former was supposed to be a fighter and the latter a bomber. Very soon they were all two-seaters with one Vickers gun firing forward and a Scarf ring for the observer and I think they carried 2 X 112 lbs bombs.

The pilot sat in front right under the top centre section but owing to the big stagger he had a very good view downwards over the leading edge of the bottom plane. If I remember correctly there was a glass

[page break]

16.

panel in the floor of this cockpit marked with adjustable lines, through which the sighting of the bombs was supposed to be done. I don't know if it was used much because of the difficulty of flying the aeroplane with one's head inside the cockpit and steering over an unseen target, hoping it would come into view in the panel at the last moment.

They were light on control and very pleasant to fly, and although a largish single bay wing structure, they were strong, and had a relatively good performance. Much used in France and other theatres of war, they followed the earlier traditions of Sopwith and were leaders in their class. In the Aegean where I first flew one, they formed a mobile circus and moved around the Salonica front.

25. [underlined] ALL STEEL HENRI FARMAN. – 135 h.p. SALMSON CANTON UNNE. 1917. [/underlined]
[underlined] (BIPLANE) [/underlined].

Equipment of a Greek Squadron in the Aegean. I flew it only once and did not take to it greatly. It was about the first design to be constructed in steel tube and certainly looked cumbersome, and felt so in the air. It was a good weight lifter and somehow pushed itself through the air faster than might be expected. Not many were used by the British and as a type it had a very limited life. I cannot say I enjoyed this experience, especially as the engine stopped dead on the glide down from 3,000 ft and so I had to make a 'dead stick' landing on a not very big aerodrome.

26. [underlined] D.H.9. – 230 h.p. B.H.P.. (BIPLANE). 1917. [/underlined]

But a shadow of the D.H. 4. the only improvement being the cockpit arrangement, in that both were close together and further aft clear of the wings. With the early B.H.P. engine there was not the same power and so the splendid performance of the '4' was not repeated. Apart from that it had good handling qualities and carried 2 x 230 lbs. bombs as did the D.H.4. The B.H.P. had been redesigned by Siddeley-Deasy a motor car firm, but that did not increase it's reliability at first and as a bomber it did not score points. However after the war the type was used by Cobham and others in the development of Empire routes and many other commercial uses. The unu[deleted]a[/deleted]sual narrow chord propeller

[page break

17.

was not used again on the Siddeley Puma, as the B.H.P was renamed, and was fitted with the conventional wide chord two-blad[deleted]d[/deleted]er. In spite of the shortcomings the type was very pleasant to handle.

27. [underlined] D.H. 9a. – 400 h.p. LIBERTY (BIPLANE) 1918. [/underlined]

A very superior machine with plenty of power. It had the D.H. 9. layout but with the old D.H. 4. nose and was as agreeable to fly as was the 4.

The engine was of American design and to that extent it had coil ignition, a strange inovation [sic] to us accustomed to the original magneto of German origin. This meant that one switched on by two switches, one for starting and one for full advance. The mechanics pulled the propellor round over compression, which was very heavy work, and when just near compression the mystic word ‘contact’ was shouted. At that the pilot switched on one switch and the mechanics, sometimes two or three joining hands, run away with the prop. If lucky the engine fired and the job was over; if not then it could go on and on. But woe betide the pilot who in anxiety or by mistake switched on both switches at once, for if so the engine back fired and the prop. reved [sic] round in reverse and usually hit the arm of the man who was nearest with the result a broken wrist or forearm.

The D.H. 9a. continued life in the Service for about 15. years and among it’s many credits was the introduction of the Desert Air Route from Cairo to Baghdad in 1921 and many other operations in Iraq and the North West Frontier. It was a wonderful workhorse.

28. [underlined] F.2a. Flying BOAT. – 2 ROLLS ROYCE 375 h.p. EAGLE (BIPLANE) 1919 [/underlined]

This very large type was evolved from the Curtis America and was used from Felixstowe and Yarmouth for long patrols over the North Sea during the first war. It weighed over five tons and had an endurance of over seven hours, so it was most advanced for it's time. I don’t know how many were built but I think not more than one hundred.

I flew one after the war and with a span on 83. feet it felt a real ‘cathedral’ to me. I thought it slow on controls and the take off from calm

[page break]

18.

water could go on for miles before unsticking. Although it did good service and was a successful flying machine it was not my type; I have always prefered [sic] small, or medium sized aeroplanes, and at Felixstowe I devoted my time there to such.

29. [underlined] D.H. 6. – 90. h.p. R.A.F. (BIPLANE) 1917. [/underlined] [inserted] [symbol] [/inserted]

Often known as the 'clutching hand’ because of the very pronounced camber of the wings. It was the answer to the instructor’s prayer in those days when pilots were so urgently needed, because it was devoid of vices and you could do with it what you wanted. In fact it was too placid and did not do those things which got you into trouble in most aeroplanes.

Designed as a sort of hip bath, the two cockpits were as one, as a result there was the closest contact between the instructor and pupil. I remember one night when teaching my observer to fly we sailed round several aerodromes in the moonlight and each time we came to the Mess we throttled back and floated silently past blowing an old motor horn. Everything about this aeroplane was dictated by cheapness and ease of production; the wings were sawn off square, and the engine left uncowled. It would fly at less than 30. m.p.h. with a top speed of only 75. and was very easy and not unpleasant to fly strangely enough. With this sort of performance it was a simple matter to fly backwards in any wind over 30. m.p.h. and in 1919. this I used to delight in doing up and down Aldeburgh High Street, achieved by just throttling back at the up wind end and opening up at the other.

I see that just under 2300. were built and the all-up weight was only a little less at 2027. lbs. It was a unique design typical of De Havilland who always designed functionally and without frills, to achieve the required purpose.

30. [underlined] BLACKBURN KANGAROO. – 2. ROLLS ROYCE 250. h.p. FALCONS (BIPLANE) [/underlined]

A large span aircraft, the most notable feature of which was the long protruding nose away out beyond the wings. The pilot felt very isolated and had nothing much in front of him to line up with the horizon. In fact it was one of the earliest forerunners of the present

[page break]

19.

day pilot's position in big aircraft – miles out in front with the wings hardly in sight behind. This caused the first questioning in my mind (or perhaps bottom) as to how the human can instinctively and instantly adjust itself to the height and angle of the cockpit above the ground. Sometimes one is almost touching the ground with the seat of one's pants (as in light aircraft or gliders) and sometimes sitting twenty feet above it. And yet one can change from one to the other immediately and judge take off and landing with no apparent difficulty or difference. It is just instinctive.

Designed as a general purpose seaplane, the floats were too heavy for it, and [inserted] it was [/inserted] used as a land plane for anti-submarine patrols, I can't say more than it felt clumsy and uninteresting, and I am glad I did not fly it operationally.

31. [underlined] AVRO 504. – GNOME, LYNX, LUCIFER, RENAULT, etc. (BIPLANE) 1919. [/underlined]

The classic of all training aircraft. Although designed as early as 1913, it never developed into an operational type except in a small way at the outbreak of the War but became the standard trainer. It introduced the Gosport method in 1915/16. devised by SMITH-BARRY, the foundation of pilot instruction ever since. In competent hands it was possible to do any manoeuvre, and I only wish I had been so properly instructed by going through an instructors course. One could not but love the responsive controls, and these held good whatever engine was installed, and thes[inserted]e [/inserted] were many. I think it was a better machine with the Gnome than with some of the others because the Gnome was smother [sic] and gave it some of it's great character. I remember being given experience of up-side down flight at the hands of Captain Hinchcliffe (a pilot who then had but one eye, and who later on was to be one of the early casualties of flying the Atlantic) and unused as I was to gravity affecting me as it did, proceeded to slip through the belt round my waist and nearly deserted ship. Amazed as I was to do banked turns inverted I cannot say I enjoyed that experience.

32. [underlined] HANDLEY PAGE V/ 1500. – 4. R.R. 350 h.p. EAGLES (BIPLANE) 1919. [/underlined]

[page break]

[inserted] [symbol] [/inserted]

20.

This experience was gained in the tail turret of what was then a gigantic aeroplane and apart from marvelling at the way in which such a vast contraption handled: to say nothing of the effect it had on the bathers on Margate beach when flown at no feet: I cannot give any constructive comments on the type.

33. [underlined] BRISTOL FIGHTER. – R.R. 275 h.p. FALCON (BIPLANE) 1919/23. [/underlined]

THIS outstanding aeroplane I first met in No. 24. Squadron at Croydon doing VIP Communication flights, and it was a type to which one could become affectionate from the outset. It had no vices and a performance which at the time was achieved with great ease. I cannot remember any feature which was dislikeable and little did l but know it, I was to do many hundreds of hours on it over the deserts and mountains of Mesopotamia, Kurdistan, Palestine and Trans-Jordan and it never let me down. It was on this aircraft that I made the grave mistake of taking my rigger up on my tail-plane to a height of 1500. feet – quite by accident – and returning us all to earth complete in one piece during 1920. But that is another story. This mistake was repeated by two other pilots, on a Spitfire and Lysander, twenty years later during the Second War. A truly great type.

34. [underlined] R.E. 8. 160 h.p. R.A.F. (BIPLANE) 1920. [/underlined]

In the hot climate of Mesopotamia it proved to be a better aircraft then I had been led to believe from earlier hearsay. If anything the rapid stall became a little more rapid and had to be guarded against carefully; and the air cooled engine certainly did not like the high temperature and seized up engines could force land one in very unpleasant places, especially with an Arab Rebellion underneath. Nevertheless until we were re-equipped with Bristol Fighters they did a remarkable work horse job from Persia to the Persian Gulf and up the Euphrates at Abu Kamal against the Syrian incursion.

[page break]

21.

35. [underlined] BRANDENBURGER SEAPLANE. – 260. h.p. BENZ. (MONOPLANE). 1924. [/underlined]

A German aeroplane much used by them to attack shipping off our North Sea Coast. After the armistice one was retained at Marine Aircraft Experimental Establishment, Felixtowe [sic] . It was delightful to fly having a perfect view for pilot and rear gunner, and its big thumping engine pulled it through the air very gracefully. It had long strut-braced floats which unstuck quickly and easily and all controls were Iight and well harmonized. I gave it full marks as a sea plane and it was a real pleasure in the air.

36. [underlined] ATALANTA FLYING BOAT. – 2 R.R. 600. h.p. CONDORS. (BIPLANE) 1924. [underlined]

A very large and cumbersome flying machine with a power loading somewhere above 20. lbs per h.p. As at the time I had decided that flying boats of this kind were not my particular cup of tea, I'm afraid I experienced it only as a passenger and took little real interest in it.

37. [underlined] FAIREY 3. D. – 450. h.p. NAPIER LION. (BIPLANE). 1924. [/underlined]

A good general purpose aircraft usually operated on floats and robustly developed from an earlier version, and the forerunner of the Fairey 3.P. This too appeared first on floats, but later was adopted as a general purpose land plane on which I did many hundred[deleted]e[/deleted]s of hours based on Aden. Both these types had wing flaps which made lateral control heavy when in the lowered position for landing, but apart from that the 3. F. particularly had a very good performance and withstood a great deal of overload without showing much objection. One of the best General Purpose types introduced into the Service which did much of the route proving throughout Africa and Southern Arabia and the type which established Dick Fairey in big business.

38. [underlined] PARNALL PLOVER AMPHIBIAN. – 400. h.p. BRISTOL JUPITER. (BIPLANE). 1924. [/underlined]

A nice little fighter type on floats, although in the air it felt rather flimsy and the centre section bracing slakened [sic] in any manoeuvre.

[page break]

22.

The amphibian feature was rather more in name than in substance, being only a small wheel which protruded a few inches below the keel of the floats and was quite useless for any aerodrome work. The type was an ende[inserted]v[/inserted]our to capture the Fleet Air Arm market but it did not succeed in competition against the Fairey Flycatcher.

39. [underlined] SUPERMARINE SWAN FLYING BOAT. – 2. 450. h.p. NAPIER LIONS. (BIPLANE). 1924. [/underlined]

Mitchell’s first attempt at a twin-engined boat and I am not sure what market he had in view. It was a novel conception in that the hull had a vertical stem like a trawler and the pilots sat high up on top of the hull between the two engines; the interior was therefore unobstructed for passengers or any other load.

It was quite delightful to fly and no longer the soggy cumbersome sort of flying boat I had experienced previously. However it soon appeared that it had little or no future although aerodynamically it was a big step forward. It was during the time that we were testing it at Felixtowe [sic] that one got to know Mitchell and his way of thinking which was to be a great asset to me later on at the time of the Spitfire. To follow the Swan he had ideas for what was to be the successful Southampton boat which did valiant work when later introduced into the Service and a Flight of four of them made the pioneer journey from England to Singapore; round Australia and back to Singapore and Borneo to Hong-Kong in 1927/8.

40. [underlined] VICKERS VALENCIA. – 2 R.R. 600. h.p. CONDORS. (BIPLANE). 1924. [/underlined]

In competition with the Atalanta and just as cumbersome and underpowered and really had no future. It was tested with a C.O.W. gun mounted in the nose with the idea of shooting downwards at submarines, and if I remember correctly the gunner traversed this weapon when aiming on the bow or beam by standing on a little foot-rail completely outside the hull. An alarming experience to watch let alone perform. I did not fly this type.

41. [underlined] FAIREY FLYCATCHER AMPHIBIAN. – 400. h.p. ARMSTRONG JAGUAR. (BIPLANE). 1924. [/underlined]

[page break]

[symbol]

23.

It was adopted by the Fleet Air Arm as their fighter. A more ungainly shape one could hardly imagine, the fuselage being broken-backed with a massive undercarriage for it's [deleted]s[/undeleted]size. However it was a pleasant aircraft to fly and did rather better than it looked. I flew the type as a seaplane and a land plane and of course the latter made a big improvement. Like the Plover it too had a small wheel protruding through the keel of the floats which only made the process of unsticking from the water more difficult. Just in order to see what use this [deleted] this [/deleted] amphibian device could be used for I made one attempt to take the aircraft off through the hangar and out through the front doors over the slipway at Felixstowe to show that it could be used on a concrete floor or deck in this way. Alas, my Squadron Commander caught me in the act of preparation, and that test was not done.

42. [underlined] ARMSTRONG WHITWORTH SISKIN. – 400 h.p. JAGUAR (BIPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

At Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment. 1925/27. An all metal fighter (except for fabric coverings) which had evolved in various stages of development at Farnborough by the end of the war, but had been completed when Fred Green joined Armstrong's. It was no more elegant looking than was the Flycatcher, but was very manoeuvreable [sic] and had a good performance in spite of its ungainly shape. I can testify to its strength as I had the unpleasant experience in a dual-controlled version of spinning first one way and then the other and finally inverted through 9,000 ft of cloud and then had time to straighten things up after breaking cloud mostly on my back at 1,000 ft.

A further developement [sic] was the Siskin IIIs with a supercharged Jaguar on which we attained a full load ceiling of 30,000 ft for the first time. This was done with highly inefficient liquid oxygen equipment, equally inefficient heating for hands and feet, and with an outside temperature of minus 60 degrees Centigrade in an open cockpit. Sir John Siddley the engine maker wrote a short letter of thanks!

In order to show the improvement the supercharger gave to the aircraft we did a freak climb with no load and attained 10,000 ft in four minutes, and 20,000 ft in just over eight minutes – a record rate of climb for those days.

[page break]

23. [duplicated page number]

43. [underlined] GLOSTER GREBE. – 400 h.p. JAGUAR. (BIPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

One of Folland's little beauties, like the Siskin it had grown through the development of the Nighthawk and previous Farnborough designs in which Folland had a big hand. Now chief designer at Gloster Aircraft he began a new sequence of fighters developed from the Grebe. It was a true delight to fly and made it's imprint on the Royal Air Force in a few Squadrons and was much loved.

44. [/underlined] HAWKER CYGNET. – 30 h.p. ANZANI-A.B.C. OR CHERUB. (BIPLANE). 1925. [/underlined]

The first of Camm’s master pieces. The plan-form was a miniature lay-out which proved to be the foundation of many of his later designs. It was a glorious toy and from it I learned the first essential of pure gliding, because one day the propeller disappeared over my right hand top plane and I found myself with a screaming engine and no propulsion. The crank shaft had sheared completely and having stopped the engine from flying apart, I made my way downwards towards an open field. As the thing flew at almost no miles per hour it seemed to take an awful long time to reach ground level, but in turning to and fro on the final approach I must have let the speed increase to the dangerous level of about 30. m.p.h. and consequently floated too far across the field to avoid the nose coming to rest in the opposite hedge. I am glad to say with no damage except to my own nose, and regretfully that is the full extent of my gliding experience.

Designed in 1924 for the Light Aeroplane Trials at Lympne, had it not suffered engine trouble it was in a class of its on and considering that it weighed only 798. lbs with two people and fuel it was indeed a marvel.

45. [underlined] D.H. 53. – 30. h.p. TOM TIT. (MONOPLANE). 1925. [/underlined]

Another of the best of the light aeroplane types. Lovely to fly but of no commercial use, so D.H. thought, having no margin of load or performance, nevertheless a few were accepted for the Service to try out ab initio training on them. This formula of light weight and

[page break]

24.

very low power proved to be wrong which led D.H. to design a much more sensible aeroplane – the Moth.

46. [underlined] AVRO AVIS. – 30. h.p. TOM TIT. (BIPLANE). 1925. [/underlined]

Also for the same competition and also inadequate. Although this one was designed later than the Avro Monoplane type 560 described below, and although the power allowed had been increased, it was still underpowered and of no use commercially. A nice little toy and we at Martlesham all enjoyed flying it, but mostly without a passenger. However like the D.H. 53. it led to the Avro Avian on the same lines as the Moth. This whole conception of what might sell as a useful civil type for travel or sporting activities was quite impracticable as there was not enough performance to safely meet either requirement.

All these light aircraft types were designed round glorified motor-cycle engines of 600 c.c. to 1500 c.c. and they certainly churned out a lot of power at high revs for a great deal of unreliability.

47. [underlined] MARTINSYDE. F.4. – 400. h.p. JAGUAR. (BIPLANE). 1925. [/underlined]

One of the war-time F.4.’s re-engined and made into a beautiful aeroplane although large in size for a fighter by contemporary designs. It was never put forward as a Service type but was on offer for foreign sale by Aircraft Disposals who had hundreds left over from the war. I always wonder why some foreign government did not acquire them as at the time it was quite outstanding with this engine.

48. [underlined] AIRCRAFT DISPOSAL CO. AVRO 4. – 140 h.p. AIRDISCO. (BIPLANE). 1925. [/underlined]

A good old 504 re-engined with a V.8. engine made out of old Renault parts. It certainly brightened up the performance but I cannot say it was an improved aircraft over the original. It was not a winner as I do not think any were sold.

49. [underlined] AVRO MONOPLANE. – 30.h.p. TOM TIT. 1925. [/underlined]

Another of the light aeroplane contestants previous in time to the Avro Avis and being thoroughly underpowered like all the rest was

[page break]

25.

just a bit of fun held together with sticking per and gum. [symbol]

50. [underlined] A.N.E.C. – 30. h.p. TOM TIT. (MONOPLANE). 1925. [/underlined]

Yet another of these miniatures and by far the most interesting and entertaining. So it deserves quite a description. It was a single seater in which the pilot was fed into his cockpit through the centre section of the monoplane wing which was then closed down and fastened over his head. His view was then only to either side the dashboard blanking out any ahead. His bottom was very close to the ground as the two wheels were attached to the underside of the fuselage which had no undercarriage struts at all. It had a moving tailpIane, that is there was a no fixed stabilizing surface at all. The result was the most sensitive fore and aft control ever experienced and by breathing [symbol] in or breathing out it was so light on the stick that the little aircraft either leapt upwards or dived before one realised that the stick had been moved at all. The entrancing result of this was to watch it take off in a series of ups and downs which we soon christened 'pints'. Thus anyone even remotely heavy handed who was allowed to fly the aircraft was judged by the number of pints he drew before becoming master of his emotions. On one such occasion when lent to a certain friend, he disappeared into the distance beyond a belt of trees while still busily drawing off pints, until on failing to reappear again a search party found him completely upside down on top of a haystack and fortunately with no damage whatsoever. As there was no way of getting out except through the roof it was neccessary [sic] to lift the aircraft off the pilot. Those who had the joy of flying this unique machine were entered as members of the 'pint club' the subscriptions for which were enjoyed in the Mess.

51. [underlined] BEARDMORE WEE BEE. – 36 h.p. CHERUB (MONOPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

A development of the same theme only this time a two seater whereas the A.N.E.C. was for one only and lucky at that. The layout for entry and exit to the cockpits was the same but fortunately in this machine a fixed tail-plane had been designed to overcome the great fore and aft [deleted] ensit [/deleted] sensitivity. Nice to fly but no future.

[page break]

26.

52. [underlined] RAYNHAM LIGHT AEROPLANE. – DOUGLAS. (MONOPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

Of all of them this one had less power than any, being a boosted standard motor-bike engine, and had nothing to recommend it in any way.

53. [underlined] PARNALL PIXIE I. – 30. TOM TIT. (MONOPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

Another toy completely under powered as usual. The majority of this class had top speeds about sixty or seventy m.p.h. and might be coaxed up to ceilings below 10,000 feet if one had the time and inclinati[missing letters]

54. [underlined] PARNALL PIXIE III. – 30 h.p. CHERUB. (MONOPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

A curious development of the earlier Pixie I. in that when installin[missing letter] more power they at the same time designed to be either a monoplane or biplane by the simple expedient of attaching a short upper wing. While it flew reasonably well as a monoplane the additional weight did not justify the alternative and like the rest, fun but no future.

55. [underlined] HAWKER WOODCOCK. – 400.h.p. JUPITER. (BIPLANE). 1925. [/underlined]

An early post-war night fighter design by one Captain Thompson, before the days of Carter or Cam at Hawkers, but inherited by each. It was a viceless aeroplane although in its early stages a little flimsy. Nevertheless it was adopted by the Service in small numbers and later developed for the Danish Airforce as the Danecock. As a type it required a great deal of redesign before it was fully satisfactory, and although I enjoyed flying it later on in the Air Ministry Race at the 1927 Hendon Display it really was not an exciting aeroplane.

56. [underlined] GLOSTER GAMECOCK. – 400.h.p. JUPITER. (BIPLANE). 1925. [/underlined]

A grown-up Grebe from the same stable and a really efficient fighter with a speed range of 49.m.p.h. to 153.m.p.h. maximum with a service ceiling of about 25,000. ft. I flew this type in the 1925 Hendon Display at which I was presented to His Majesty King George V in the experimental park. The following incident occured [sic] when His

[page break]

27.

Majesty enquired the performance of my aircraft. On being told the above figures he turned round to Queen Ena of Spain, who was accompanying him, and while beating a tattoo on the cylinders of my engine with his gold-mounted ebony stick, exclaimed "Ena, Ena, 150 miles an hour - - - bang, bang, bang, - - - 25,000. ft!”

This type went into Service and was much liked but unfortunately became prone to wing flutter a nasty new pestilence that reared its ugly head at that period. This was overcome in due course and led Folland on to better things. [inserted] [symbol] [/inserted]

57. [underlined] BLACKBURN DART. – 450.h.p. NAPIER LION. (BIPLANE). 1925. [/underlined]

A Fleet torpedo dropper nearly as clumsy as an elephant but controlable [sic] . As with so many aircraft designed to meet Naval requirements, they were cluttered up with everthing [sic] except the kitchen stove; usually of appalling aerodynamic shape; and consequently much down on performance. This comment does not refer particularly to the Dart but will perhaps be repeated as other Naval types are mentioned. The Dart had a ceiling of 10,000. ft which it attained in 37 minutes – hardly a rapid rate of climb – and a maximum speed of 90.m.p.h at that height. It was one of a number competing for an order which it won.

58. [underlined] FAIREY FAWN. – 450.h.p. NAPIER LION. (BIPLANE). 1925. [/underlined]

A design to replace the General Purpose [deleted] the [/deleted] D.H.9.A. Very broadly evolved from the Fairey 3.D. It had the usual Fairey full-span flaps, and to meet a spasm of new safety requirements, all the petrol had to be carried externally in bulky tanks which protruded above the top plane. The biggest effect this had was to ruin any performance which the aircraft was likely to have, nevertheless it was ordered into Service for a few Squadrons. Not one of the best choices.

59. [underlined] BRISTOL BLOODHOUND. – 400.h.p. JUPITER. (BIPLANE). 1925. [/underlined]

Designed as a Bristol Fighter replacement it had a speed of 125.m.p.h. and a ceiling of about 18,000. ft. It was one of the first types to have Frise ailerons which gave it rather a spongy feel, but they were very effective. The whole wing bracing seemed a bit on the light side and

[page break]

28.

indeed after a quite normal touch-down at Henlow the centre section bracing wires snapped and I found myself finishing the landing run with the whole of the top planes staggered forward on to the top of the engine. A very elegant arrival on a strange station!

60. [underlined] BLACKBURN BLACKBURN. – 450.h.p. NAPIER LION. (BIPLANE). 1925. [/underlined]

Commonly known as the Bull. Another of the Navy’s inelegant contraptions, it had been devised from the Dart, but had a cockpit for two perched on top of the engine just in front of the top plane, and from the front making the nose shape look exactly like a bull's head. It was heavy and unmanoeuvreable [sic] and I do not believe that any subsequent aircraft were built.

While mentioning animals I should also remember that with the introduction of the Napier Lion the service representative who travelled round units attending to its early teething troubles, became known as 'the lion tamer'. He was not the only one, for each engine and aircraft manufacturer had similar representatives and often they worked day and night to keep their products working satisfactorily in competition with the other.

61. [underlined] BLACKBURN BLUEBIRD. 36 h.p. BLACKBURNE. (BIPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

A side-by-side dual controlled afterthought of the Light Aeroplane Trials, heavy for the type, [deleted] s [/deleted] thus hopeless, but later I believe re-engined with a much more powerful Genet with w[inserted]h[/inserted]ich it made one or two long flights in Africa. There is actually this one in existence today.

62. [underlined] AVRO ANDOVER. – 600 h.p. R.R. CONDOR. (BIPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

Designed as a light troop carrier, alternatively an ambulance. It was a large ungainly aircraft weighing the best part of six tons relying on a single engine, in spite of that it was quite gentlemanly to fly with the pilot perched forward behind the engine and just in front of the upper wing. It could carry 12. people or 6. stretcher cases and apparently was thought of for use on the Cairo-Baghdad route; tried by lmperial Airways and found wanting.

[page break]

29.

63. [underlined] BRISTOL BROWNIE. – 36 h.p. CHERUB. (MONOPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

Yet another of these Light Aircraft, this time an attempt to build in metal as well as wood and with the pious hope it might be suitable to the Service as a primary trainer. But again at full load it was hopelessly underpowered taking 53 minutes to reach a ceiling of 8500 ft. It was pleasant to fly as a single seater but quite inadequate to be taken seriously, although it won several money prizes in competitions.

64. [underlined] FAIREY FOX. – 400 h.p. CURTISS D.12. (BIPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

An outstanding aeroplane which was to have a big influence on British design. Fairey had long been an advocate of building a really clean bomber, and the frightful shape aquired [sic] by the Fawn had driven him to America to try to show up the errors of bad streamlining. There he bought the rights to build the Curtiss D.12. engine, which at the time had the smallest frontal area for it's power of any power plant. He also aquired [sic] the rights to manufacture a twisted metal airscrew which became known as the Fairey-Reed. Having invested his own money in what he felt was right he then designed around this engine and propeller a beautifully clean bomber capable of carrying 500.lbs. of bombs. While the pilot’s view was not all it might have been, as he sat concealed behind the engine with a long flat nose streatching [sic] in front of him, however it certainly had a fine performance of just under 160 m.p.h. at ground level and 127. at it's ceiling of 18000 ft. Being an ungeared engine, take off seemed longer than usual and touch down at 65/67. rather faster. Except for the rather cramped space for the pilot and gunner the design was a step in the right direction and the Curtiss acted as a spur to Rolls Royce in their design of their Falcon engine of the same period. The Fox was accepted into Service in very small numbers and gave much pleasure as well as controversy. For instance, Fairey's insistence in making [deleted] h [/deleted] the nose flat along the top was not so effective in reducing resistance as was the drooped shape adopted by Cam in most of his Hawker types, which also gave the pilot a very much better view.

[page break]

30.

65. [underlined] GLOSTER GORCOCK. – 450 h.p. NAPIER LION (BIPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

A development of the Gamecock, with either a direct drive or geared engine. While it had a slightly increased speed, the heavier engine resulted in a rather sudden stall and when demonstrating at the Hendon Display I found it very prone to stall on top of a loop. It had a cylindrical radiator underslung between the undercarriage struts, which I am sure did no good to the aerodynamic cleanliness and the type was not adopted as a follow on to the Gamecock.

66. [underlined] VICKERS VIRGINIA. – 2. NAPIER LIONS. (BIPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

The standard night bomber in service for a good many years, much grown up from the Vimy, it lumbered into the air at a remarkably low speed and continued to lumber through the air until it lumbered back to earth again. It was characterised by having very large wing area enabling it to carry a big load for a long time, but having said that it could neither be praised for looks or performance. I am glad I never had to serve in a Virgina squadron. In those days all landings were made with engines throttled right back and any pilot seen to use any power to assist his landing was said to ‘rumble' That silly practice was a hang over from the days of unreliable engines, so the pilot must always be ready to land without engine. A costly form of training carried on far too long, and many were the aircraft written off as a result.

67. [underlined] VICKERS VANGUARD. – 2. 600 h.p. R.R. CONDOR (BIPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

One of a series of passenger and troop carrying aircraft evolved from the old Vimy, through the Vernon with two Lions, which type showed well during the opening of the Cairo-Baghdad air route. That type grew into this very much larger one, the Vanguard, I suspect with [deleted] an [/deleted] an eye on commercial sales, but I do not think it succeeded. This in turn was soon converted into the Victoria which was adopted by the Service as an effective troop carrier superceeding [sic] the old Vernon. None of these did I fly.

[page break]

31.

68. [underlined] BRISTOL TRAINING & TAXIPLANE. – 120 h.p. LUCIFER (BIPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

A nice gentlemans aeroplane, not adopted by the Service being a bit underpowered although used by Bristol's in their own flying Schools as one might naturally expect. As a Taxi it lacked the power to carry a pilot and two passengers.

69. [underlined] ARMSTRONG AJAX/ATLAS. – 400 h.p. JAGUAR. (BIPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

A private venture Army Co-Operation Type put forward to take over from the Bristol Fighter, which it did in due course. It was quite an elegant aeroplane which performed it's functions well, having a ceiling of nearly 21000. ft. attained in only 35 minutes and a sea level speed of 142 m.p.h. Quite a step forward for the Army Co-Operationist's.

70. [underlined] BRISTOL BOARHOUND. – 400 h.p. JUPITER. (BIPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

Another private venture competitor against the Atlas but it’s flying qualities were not nearly as good as they might be and it had a generally ill-defined clumsiness. There was also in this Competition the D.H. Hyena and the Vickers Vespa.

71 [underlined] VICKERS VIXEN. – 450 h.p. NAPIER LION. (BIPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

Also a competitor against the Atlas and I believe a development of an earlier type, the Valpariso. The Vixen, although very pleasant to fly was not as handy for the Army Co-Operation job as the Atlas. It remains in my memory as causing the first con-trail any of us had ever seen, when flyin [sic] at or about it’s ceiling and that can't have been more than 20,000 ft. Viewed from the ground we all thought the aircraft was on fire but as it continued steadily on it’s way that was fortunately not the case. Then perhaps it might be either a leaking fuel tank or a boiling radiator, but when the machine eventually landed and we questioned the pilot anxiously he assured us that none of these things had occured [sic]. In fact we had observed the first phenomenon of what now a days is a common occurance [sic].

72. [underlined] HAWKER HORSLEY. – 600 h.p. R.R. CONDOR. (BIPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

A rather large and unresponsive aircraft, which when I flew it caused us to comment on a sluggish lateral control. It entered Service

[page break]

72. (continued) and proved to be a very versatile torpedo-bomber. Indeed it carried 1,000 lbs. of bombs or a torpedo weighing 2150. lbs. with comparative ease. It was also used to attack the world distance record in 1927. achieving 3420. miles on the same day as Lindbergh flew for New York to Paris covering 3590. miles, so the record for Britain lasted only a few hours. It can be said that the Horsley was a good step forward from the unpopular Fawn, which it replaced and far [deleted] exce [/deleted] excelled.

[page break]

32.

73. [underlined] BREGUET XIX. – 460 h.p. RENAULT. (BIPLANE) 1925. [/underlined]

A bomber type much used by the French in which they set up a number of long distance records of many thousands of miles non-stop. So famous did the type become that we had one at Martlesham to test in this country and my comments on flying it were anything but complementary “Lord help the Frenchman”; literally solid on lateral control while fore and aft nearly as sensitive as the A.N.E.C. View bad on eye level and ‘buckets’ on landing and take off”. Not a good impression. As was the French custom the throttle opened in the reverse direction to our own i.e. to open up the engine one pulled the lever backwards towards one, and vice versa to shut it down. This led to it’s early demise when on a winter day on an icy tarmac a mechanic ran up the engine, and when the chocks began to slip he promptly pulled the throttle back, only to crash full into the hangar doors w[deleted]h[/deleted]ith it. I don't think that aeroplane was ever repaired. A Grave error!

74. [underlined] D.H. MOTH. – 60 h.p. CIRRUS. (BIPLANE). 1925. [/underlined]

The epic outcome by De Havilland of the inadequate designs entered for the earlier Light Aeroplane Trials. D.H. decided that nothing less than 60 h.p. would produce a usable aeroplane, and with the help of Halford then with Aircraft Disposal Company designing a little vertical four cylinder engine, the components of which were made up of bits and pieces of old 70 h.p. Renaults left over from the war, the first of the great Moth family was born. It flew beautifully and even better when the Cirrus II & III gave it a little more kick. From then on the Moth was to prove a world beater, and provided a mount for many of the great individual pilots who used them to make long distance record flights across the world – Any Johnson – Lady Bailey – Jean Batten, to name but a few. The Moth was the foundation on which the great De Havilland Company was built up after the [inserted] first [/inserted] war.

The design was essentially simple and therefore of low co[deleted]a[/deleted]st and there were no frills, even the air speed indicator being a spring operated gauge a[deleted]c[/deleted]ctuated by the pressure of the air on a flat plate. This policy of simplicity enabled it to sell below £1,000, and with a slightly uprated Gipsy engine well over a thousand aircraft were built.

[page break]

33.

Like very many others I flew Moths over the course of years in various parts of the world, but I think one incident is worth recording. While in Aden I was caught out by a sand storm when returning from an up-country landing ground. It became so dense that there was only just time to get back on the ground as best I could, which happened to be in a dried-up wadi. As the wind was blowing so hard it entailed landing the aeroplane in full flight and yet at no ground speed. Having successfully accomplished that arrival, and crouched underneath the plane eating and breathing solid sand for an hour or so, the storm passed on and only then did I see that one tyre had evidently been punctured. With the very limited run available to get out of the wadi I decided to deflate the other tyre rather than risk a swing on take-off. The dear Moth come off with hardly any run and landed back at Khormaksa on two rims, and with not a little consternation at being long overdue.

75. [underlined] PARNALL POSSUM. – 450.h.p. NAPIER LION. (TRIPLANE). 1925. [/underlined]

A very ambitious piece of unorthodox design being a triplane in which the engine was mounted internally on top of the fuselage driving on either side a propeller driven by shafts and gearing along the leading edge of the centre plane. In spite of its novelty it flew quire well, but I suspect that the weight penalty of the engine and propellor installation left very little for military load, and it was never subsequently developed for Service or other use.

76. [underlined] D.H. HYENA. – 400.h.p. ARMSTRONG JAGUAR. (BIPLANE). 1925 [/underlined]

Another contestant against the Atlas for Army Co-operation requirements. Although a delightful aeroplane to handle, it was unsuccessful in that competition, and following on the same fate as the earlier D.H. Dormouse in the two-seater fighter reconnaissance trials D.H. began to lose interest in Military designs.

77. [underlined] HAWKER HORNBILL. – 600.H.P. R.R. CONDOR. (BIPLANE). 1925. [/underlined]

A very fast single seater fighter design with a direct drive engine, but unfortunately was directionally unstable resulting in a continuous

[page break]

34.

hunt on the rudder. This deficiency of rudder and fin area also made steep turns difficult to execute at high speeds. It was a remarkably clean aeroplane but there was little room in the cockpit for pilot movement. Its performance however was outstanding for the time, being 187.m.p.h. at sea level with a stalling speed of only 64.m.p.h., a very fine speed range and being Cam’s first [inserted] new fighter [/inserted] military design with Hawkers it was certainly very impressive. No doubt a little disappointing to him that it did not go into Service.

In the Hornbill one could see the same plan form as the Cygnet and the forecast conception of many types to come.

78. [underlined] D.H. 54. HIGHCLERE. – 600.h.p. R.R. CONDOR. (BIPLANE). 1925. [/underlined]

A fourteen passenger civil single-engined aircraft, somewhat before its time, weighing 11,000.lbs. with a power weight ratio of 18 1/2. lbs. per h.p. which did not make a very attractive proposition. My comments were "Very lumbering with full load and rank bad at taxi-ing. It did not go beyond the prototype stage.

79. [underlined] HAWKER HERON. – 400.h.p. JUPITER VI. (BIPLANE). 1925. [/underlined]

The Heron was Camm’s follow on to the earlier Woodcock, with which it had a superficial resemblance having a tubby fuselage but its outstanding difference was in the metal construction introducing the well-known square-ended tubular structure. This form of construction was used in every Hawker type for many years to come. In spite of very satisfactory performance, a maximum speed of 156.m.p.h. and a rate of climb to 10,000.ft in 5 1/2 minutes, this type was never adopted.

The Moth and the Heron both introduced differential control on fairly large ailerons fitter to either top or bottom plane only.

80. [underlined] VICKERS VESPA. – 400.H.P. BRISTOL JUPITER VI. (BIPLANE). 1926. [/underlined]

This was Vickers competitor against the Atlas, and was a very large span aeroplane with excellent control down to a stall at 40.m.p.h. with a top speed of 118.m.p.h.

With its very high aspect ratio performance at altitude was excellent

[page break]

35.

but as altitude was not the criterion for Army Co-operation work it is strange to see why Vickers adopted this lay out. However the Vespa made its mark in the world by attaining the [inserted] height [/inserted] record for Britain at 43,976.ft with a Pegasus S.3. engine on the 16th September 1932 piloted by Cyril Uwins – Bristol’s test pilot. With its light controls the aircraft gave one an im[deleted]m[/deleted]pression of floating about through the air in rather a big aeroplane.

81. [underlined] HANDLEY PAGE HANDCROSS. – 600.h.p. R.R. CONDOR. (BIPLANE). 1926. [/underlined]

A competitor as a torpedo-bomber against the Horsley but not nearly such a good aeroplane. I note from my log-book that I likened the handling of this aeroplane to that of seven furniture vans; from which I presume it was a bit heavy on the hand!

82. [underlined] SOPWITH SNIPE. – 230.h.p. BENTLEY 2. (BIPLANE). 1926. [/underlined]

Although this was a 1917 vintage fighter I had not flown one before this at Martlesham. It was most curious to go back to flying behind a rotary engine with its to[inserted]r[/inserted]que effect during turns and at take-off. Although in its day it was regarded very highly for its handling qualities and performance, I do not remember being very im[deleted]m[/deleted]pressed with it at this late stage. It certainly lacked the urge which was now obtainable with the higher-powered engines which one had become accustomed to by 1926. Just why we had it at Martlesham then I cannot recall.

83. [underlined] FOKKER F. VII. – 3.240.h.p. ARMSTRONG LYNX. (MONOPLANE). 1926. [/underlined]

A worthy development of earlier Fokker design, with a large span cantilever wing made in one piece and mounted on top of the fuselage, entirely ply-wood covered. The roomy fuselage was constructed of welded steel tubes and had accomodation [sic] for eight or ten passengers. With the three Lynx engines it had plenty of power in hand and was delightful to fly.

For a long time the British authorities were suspicious of this welded tube construction, which Fokker had used for many years previously, but after the tests of this type A.V. Roe took a licence and built a few

[page break]

36.

similar aircraft which were known as Avro 10’s. Only fourteen were built. I remember flying Sir Sefton Branker back to Stag Lane, D.H’s. small aerodrome at Hendon, and just managing to end the landing run before the boundary was reached. Before the days of brakes the only deceleration was caused by the tail skid. A thoroughly good type.

84. [underlined] ARMSTRONG SISKIN V. – 400 h.p. SUPERCHARGED JAGUAR (BIPLANE) [/underlined]

A much cleaned up Siskin differing from the III., nicer on control and with this engine sure went up-hill. Never adopted by us but some were sold abroad. The Siskin family brought about very good development of the Jaguar, a 14. Cylinder double row radial as opposed to it's competitor the 9. cylinder single row Bristol Jupiter. These two engines vied with each other keenly throughout the 1920’s and the fighter types that used them spurred on development.

85. [underlined] AVRO 504 k. & GOSPORT. – 100 h.p. GNOME. (BIPLANE) 192[deleted]5[/deleted]6. [/underlined]

At this late date the old original 504 was given an extention [sic] of life with an oleo undercarriage and converted to take a series of more powerful engines such as the 130 h.p. Clerget, the 180 h.p. Lynx, the 150 h.p. Mongoose and an Avro Alpha a few of which were made by that firm. In fact it was tried with a number of others as well. But in spite of remaining as delightful to fly as ever, it had [inserted] had [/inserted] it's day and was out of date.

86. [underlined] BLACKBURN SPRAT. – 260 h.p. R.R. FALCON (BIPLANE) 1926. [/underlined]

One of two types designed with folding wings with the object of stowage within the hangar built on the deck of a [inserted] Cruiser? [/inserted] submarine. In the event the limitations of size, shape, and H.P. made for very bad[deleted]s[/deleted] performance and my comments were “no speed, lands like a brick and has no controls.” That sounds like a very attractive aeroplane and it was not surprising that this venture [below the waves] was a failure. I should add that of course the Hangar was to be watertight, and that the aircraft were to be fitted with floats so that they could be withdrawn onto the deck, the wings spread, and a seaplane take-off made. I seem to have described this ineffective experience of ten years previously!

[page break]

37.

87. [underlined] VICKERS VENDACE. – 260 h.p. R.R. FALCON. (BIPLANE) 1926. [/underlined]

The competitor to the Sprat but with rather better flying characteristics; as we tested both as landplanes I hate to think what they would be like on floats. A pity the Navy took so long to learn their aviation lessons.

88. [underlined] AVRO AVENGER. 525 h.p. DIRECT DRIVE LION. (BIPLANE) 1926. [/underlined]

A private venture single seater fighter which showed advanced thinking by it’s designer Roy Chadwick. One of the cleanest biplanes built up to that time, having an oval semi-monocoque fuselage made up of wooden frames with a double planked [inserted] wooden [/inserted] skin covered with varnished fabric. A beautiful piece of work. The engine was well streamlined but unfortunately the pilot and military equipment were all too tight fitting for the Service. It was a competitor with the Gorcock and the Hornbill and the only one built was entered for various races in which it attained an average speed of 180 m.p.h. It was a glorious machine to fly and together with the Hornbill and the Fox showed what minimum frontal area was worth.

89. [underlined] FAIREY [deleted] 3/ [/deleted] 3.F. – 450. h.p. NAPIER LION (BIPLANE) 1926. [/underlined]

As refered [sic] to in No. 38. a very much cleaned up machine which must be regarded as a new design adopted by the Service for a number of General [deleted] Service [/deleted] Purpose Squadrons at Home and Overseas. The Air Routes from Cairo to the Cape; Cairo-Nigeria; Cairo to Aden and then on to Masiera Island were all developed by the sturdy 3.F. so it is worthy of a small place in history. I always enjoyed flying it, for two years at Aden over most inhospitable country, and could trust implicitly in [deleted] in [/deleted] the reliability of the airframe and that of the trusty Lion, during 1931/32.

90. [underlined] ARMSTRONG ARGOSY. – 3. 400 h.p. JAGUARS. (BIPLANE) 1926. [/underlined]

I’m afraid nothing much can have impressed me about this type after a ride as passenger as I cannot remember anything about it’s [deleted] s [/deleted] performance.

[page break]

38.

91. [underlined] WESTLAND WIDGEON. – 80. h.p. CIRRUS. (MONOPLANE) 1926. [/underlined]

A contemporary of the early Moth and Avian. This little high wing monoplane was very good on all controls and gave one unobstructed downward view which was a great advantage in the days when engine failure nec[deleted]c[/deleted]essitated a continual lookout for fields in which to perch if needed. While both Moth and Avian sold well, for some reason the Widgeon did not and only very few can have been built. At any rate on my visits to Yeovil I always managed to get a joyful flight in the works machine.

92. [underlined] AVRO AVIAN. – 80 h.p. CIRRUS II. (BIPLANE). 1926. [/underlined]

Starting life with a 70.h.p. Genet which was underpowered it soon changed to the Cirrus and with this combination Bert Hinkler made his record flight from England to Australia in 1928. This type had a very successful career lasting in use up to 1939 although the total number built was not as great as the Moth. I enjoyed the use of one with a Hermes II engine of 115.h.p. while at the Air Ministry in 1929. In this pleasant aircraft I used to visit most of the aircraft factories in the course of my job and the bigger engine was a great improvement.

93. [underlined] HAWKER HEDGEHOG. – 400.h.p. JUPITER VI. (BIPLANE). 1926. [/underlined]

This was a 1923 design and was a three seat Fleet Reconnaissance type, an overdue competitor against the Bison, Blackburn and Parnall Panther all of which were then entering Service. It had very good handling qualities and led the way with landing flaps fitted to both top and bottom wings. In appearance it slightly resembled an overgrown Woodcock and from the date of construction I think this was designed by Carter prior to the days of Camm.

94. [underlined] D.H. HOUND. – 550.h.p. NAPIER LION. (BIPLANE). 1927. [/underlined]

Designed for a competition of General Purpose prototypes, of which the slower Wapiti and Fairey 3.F. were selected much to D.H.’s great disappointment. The Hound proved to be a fast aeroplane touching 162.m.p.h. but unfortunately was too cramped within the fuselage to have been suitable for the innumerable 'workhorse' duties especially overseas

[page break]

39.

when all kinds of desert equipment had to be accomodated [sic]. Controls were not ideal but could have been improved had the aircraft been developed. However it put up three world records for speed with load around a closed circuit. This was almost D.H.’s last attempt to capture a military order and except for one more design, the D.H.77. all metal interceptor monoplane powered with a Halford H. engine of 330.h.p., he devoted himself to civil designs only, right up to the outbreak of the second world war.

95. [underlined] FAIREY FERRET. – 400.h.p. JUPITER VI. (BIPLANE). 1927. [/underlined]

If I remember correctly, entered as an alternative to the 3.P. as a G.P. type; presumably backing the horse both ways with an air-cooled and liquid cooled engine. My comments – "solid and not very interesting” seemed to indicate that it was not as good as its sister.

96. [underlined] VICKERS VIXEN. – 600.h.p. R.R. CONDOR. (BIPLANE) 1927. [/underlined]

A revamped aeroplane registered G-EABC. So presumably intended for an overseas market. With the extra power it was a great improvement on previous Vixens but as we had it only for handling trials I do not know what was its eventual fate.

97. [underlined] HAWKER HAWFINCH. – 450.h.p. JUPITER VII. (BIPLANE). 1927. [/underlined]

An all metal two-bay fighter built to specification F9/26 against which no fewer than nine different prototypes competed and from which the Hawfinch and the Bulldog tied. After Service trials however the Bulldog won being fractionally the faster of the two at 174.m.p.h.

The Hawfinch once again showed Camm's mastery of clean design and efficient performance, the machine having a service ceiling of 24,000.ft. and did 171.m.p.h. at about 10,000.ft, which height was reached in 7 minutes 40 seconds. I think the two-bay lay out was its slight handicap, but very likable as were all Camm’s designs.

[page break]

40.

98. [underlined] VICKERS VALIANT. – 400.h.p. JUPITER VI. (BIPLANE). 1927. [/underlined]

Another competitor for the G.P. class which was a very easy aircraft to handle.. All Vickers types of this period bore the stamp of Rex Pierson their designer and Vixens, Vespas, Valients and their fighters of this era had a family resemblance, but the Valient was not successful, although the view was good and the cockpit comfortable and roomy.

99. [underlined] GLOSTER GORAL. – 400.h.p. JUPITER VI. (BIPLANE). 1927. [/underlined]

Yet another unsuccessful G.P. type with poor lateral control. It is curious to note how many aircraft of this vintage came out with control systems which were unharmonized. Only a few were nicely matched and this made a big difference in their handling qualities.

100. [underlined] GLOSTER GOLDFINCH. – 450.h.p. JUPITER VII. (BIPLANE). 1928. [/underlined]

A competitor for the single seater fighter class against the Hawfinch and Bulldog, it was a much improved Gamecock but heavier on controls and compared unfavourably with either of the other two.

101. [underlined] BRISTOL BULLDOG. – 450.h.p. JUPITER VII. (BIPLANE). 1928. [/underlined]

The fighter finally selected for Service and I thought it a beautiful aircraft at all speeds and on all controls. The Bulldog formed the equipment of six of our fighter squadrons and was very well liked throughout, which resulted in a number of foreign sales to Sweden, Esthonia [sic] and Denmark and was developed with a variety of Bristol engines, starting life with a maximum speed of 173.m.p.h. it eventually attained 234.m.p.h. when fitted with a Mercury VI engine.

102. [underlined] VICKERS S.S.F. TYPE 141. – FALCON. R.R. MARK X. (BIPLANE). 1928. [/underlined]

Another private venture competitor, the controls of which were very powerful and effective right down to and below the stall.. It was very easy to fly, but I suspect that it was not a very clean design as speed fell off quickly with any reduction in power or in any manoeuvre. It was therefore not seriously in the running. All the above fighters were to a specification F.9/26 the requirements of which called for day and night use.

[page break]

41.

103. [underlined] BOULTON & PAUL SIDESTRAND. – 2. JUPITER VI. (BIPLANE). 1928. [/underlined]

A twin-engined bomber being a succesful [sic] development of the earlier Bugle, which went into limited Service with one or two squadrons. It had a heavy and sluggish rudder which in the end was fitted with an early attempt at servo tab assistance to lighten the load on the pilots legs. Being a large span of high aspect ratio it was good at altitude as the wing was very efficient, so much so that on one occasion when picketed down during a gale I found it was literally flying at its pickets as I was able to pass my hand completely between the wheels and the ground.

104. [underlined] VICKERS VIREO. – 240.h.p. SUPERCHARGED LYNX. (MONOPLANE). 1928. [/underlined]

An all metal monoplane which was an optimistic attempt to build a fighter to meet current requirements at half the usual weight and horse power. This ideal just could not be attained however desirable it might seem and the Vireo showed this only too clearly as it 'hurled itself at the ground when landing and many more horses are required to make it real". Not very attractive.

105. [underlined] BLACKBURN LINCOCK. – 240.h.p. LYNX. (BIPLANE). I928. [/underlined]

Another but better attempt at the ‘lightweight’ fighter. A perfect little aeroplane and as light as the old original Sopwith Pup. All controls were well harmonised and effective, but of course it lacked the neccessary [sic] performance as a fighter and was unable to take the required service load. For sheer joie de vivre it had it.

106. [underlined] BOULTON & PAUL PARTRIDGE. – 450.H.P. JUPITER VII. (BIPL[deleted]A[/deleted]ANE) /28 [/underlined]

Yet another single seater fighter competitor, which flew much better than it looked, but required a strong pull to get out of a dive and suffered from large changes of trim at va[inserted]r[/inserted]ying speeds. Altogether not very successful. There was also the Armstrong Starling in this contest but I cannot remember flying it.

[page break]

42.

107. [underlined] HAWKER HART. R.R. 590.h.p. KESTRAL. (BIPLANE). 1928. [/underlined]

Camm’s first real masterpiece. A beautifully shaped clean and efficient day-bomber with a loaded weight of a little over 4,000.lbs it attained a maximum speed of just over 180.m.p.h., climbed to 10,000 ft in just over 10 minutes, had a range of about 400 miles and a service ceiling of 22,800. ft. Such a performance at the period was phenominal [sic] and outstripped its competitors, the Avro Antelope and Fox Mk. II; and was adequately roomy for both pilot and gunner/bomb-aimer which the other two were not. It had delightful handling qualities and I suppose became one of the most successful Service types ever introduced; so much so that not only was it sold abroad to many other Air Forces, fitted with either liquid or air-cooled engines, but was also developed into varients [sic] such as the two-seater fighter Demon; the Fleet Spotter Osprey; the Army Co-operation Audex; the G.P. Hardy; the South African Hartbees; and finally the much improved Hind and the less successful Hector.

I do not remember any single basic type which had such a successful span of development life which was certainly attributable to Camm’s determination and designing ability. I was lucky enough to fly most of these and they were all pedigree.

108. [underlined] AVRO ANTELOPE. – R.R. 520.h.p. KESTREL. (BIPLANE). 1928. [/underlined]

The real competitor to the Hart, it was slab-sided and had not nearly so much room for the crew, nor so much view for the pilot because of its long flat nose. Camm’s designs all overcame this disadvantage by adopting a sloping nose and a rounded shape which gave a much better air flow and consequently gained in performance thereby. It handled very well and was sent with the Hart to 100. Squadron at [deleted] Bister [/deleted] Bicester for comparative Service Trials. Here the great, Boom’ decided to hold a personal inquest into the views of all and sundry concerning both types, and armed with his walking stick prodded each aeroplane in various tender spots when asking about some feature or another. The outcome was a win for the Hart; but later the Antelope served two valuable purposes, being used at Farnborough for the

[page break]

43.

development of the Gloster-Hele-Shaw variable pitch propeller, an early British invention; and much later in 1935[deleted]I[/deleted] I found it on the scrap heap and used it as a target on the ground to test out, by practical result, the effect of a two-second burst by eight machine guns on it’s metal construction, and very satisfactorily. So the Antelope did us proud in the end as well as giving some of us the pleasure of flying it.

109. [underlined] HAWKER TOMTIT. – 150 h.p. ARMSTRONG MONGOOSE. (BIPLANE) 1928. [/underlined]

A very advanced ab-initio training machine which introduced for the first time the Reid and Sigrist blind flying panel for instrument flying training. It was highly efficient, rather soft on laterel [sic] control and tended to float on the glide and was not altogether easy to land well.. That is not to say that it was not delightful to fly. Only ten aircraft were built for the Service while a few others were made with various engines, in an attempt to capture a rather non-existent civil market, but I think it was too expensive for the private owner. I flew it at Brooklands by the courtesy of the Company and indeed took my family in it to their great enjoyment.

110. [underlined] WESTLAND WAPITI. – 580.h.p. JUPITER VIII. (BIPLANE). 1928. [/underlined]

The type which shared the General Purpose market with the Fairey 3.F. and it was a splendid aircraft to fly having good controls, simple, rugged, straightforward and a draughtless [sic] cockpit for once. The engine was well overhung in the nose and the nine cylinders could be felt firing almost individually as it bounced along. The Wapiti did valiant service all over the world and although it looked clumsy it was a splendid workhorse. A modified version became famous as the first aircraft to fly over the peak of Mount Everest, and many were used by the Air Force in India to keep down trouble on the North West Frontier.

111. [underlined] FRENCH WIBAULT. – 460.h.p. RENAULT. 1928. [/underlined]

A type which I can remember little or nothing about so quoting my log-book “Controls, though better than the Breguet were poor to say the least. It had no adjustable tailplane so any change of trim caused a big load on the stick. View in any direction was practically non-existent

[page break]

44.

and particularly so in turns. Not my idea of a good aeroplane although much used by the French”.

112. [underlined] HAWKER HARRIER. – 580.h.p. JUPITER VIII. (BIPLANE). 1929. [/underlined]

A complementary design to the Horsley in an attempt to gain higher performance with a bigger load. In this it was not successful particularly at take-off with full load and as the Horsley was already in production the Harrier had no future. It was used for a number of years as a flying engine test-bed at Farnborough and Bristol.

113. [underlined] HAWKER HORNET/FURY. – 480.H.P. KESTREL. (BIPLANE). 1929. [/underlined]

This aircraft was an insight by Camm of the fighter necessary to surpass his own design of the Hart. From the word go it was outstanding by any yardstick and my comments were; “without doubt the most perfect example of what an aircraft should be, controls excellent at all speeds, glide 70.m.p.h. in comfort, lands and takes off like a bird, goes very fast and one can see everywhere one wants to with plenty of cockpit space”. It did not take long for this private venture prototype to be produced as the Fury, the most elegant aeroplane of all time at that date. Moreover it was the first front-line aircraft with a speed of over 220.m.p.h., a climb to 10,000. ft. in three minutes and fif[deleted]i[/deleted]ty seconds and a service ceiling of 29,500. ft. but armed with only two Vickers guns. It formed the equipment of three fighter squadrons No.43. No.25. and No.1. and these squadrons were enthusiastic about the precision with which the aircraft could be flown and the abundance of power available, made evident from the surprisingly low all-up weight of about 3,600.lbs. The Fury sold abroad to Yugoslavia, Norway, Persia, Portugal, and Spain and in fact became the envy of others who could not get them.

From the Fury evolved the Nimrod, as a Fleet Fighter to take over from the old fashioned Flycatcher which had served the Fleet Air Arm well for many years though long outmoded in performance. The Nimrod was also sold abroad to Denmark and Japan and together with the Osprey, conversion of the Hart, began to close the big difference in performance which had existed so markedly between Fleet operated aircraft and those operated from land bases.

[page break]

45.

It was with the introduction of the Fury with it's high performance that the Boffins began to forecast that pilots would not be able to withstand speed beyond 300 m.p.h., or the effects of ‘G’ beyond the power of 4. Famous last words; and as so often predictions of the future have been so wrong by the scientific world.

Furies and Bulldogs set a new standard of aerobatics, both individual and in formation. I believe it was due to these relatively lightly-loaded fighters that Squadron training tended to concentrate on formation manoeuvres which, while highly spectacular, were not 'war’.

All these Hawker types since the Hedgehog had proved superbly the simple form of metal construction that had been used in all of them, which in it’s own right was just as brilliant as was the overall design.

114. [underlined] FAIREY FLEET FIGHTER/RECONNAISSANCE – (BIPLANE) 1929. [/underlined]

Unless this was the Ferret[deleted]in[/deleted] in original clothing, then I do not recollect what it was. I rather think it was another of Fairey’s double strings.

115. [underlined] Fairey Fantome. – 480 h.p. R.R. KESTREL. (BIPLANE) 1929. [/underlined]

Fairey’s private venture competitor against the Hornet but not such a perfect aircraft, the controls of which became very ineffective below 80 m.p.h. and as usual with so many clean aircraft of that time it had a long flat nose which obscured forward view for take off and landing and for sighting the guns. The cockpit also was very tight fitting as in the case of others described previously; and although a high performer the Fantome only came to rest in [deleted] Belgiim [/deleted] Belgium much to the disappointment of Dick Fairey but led to him establishing a Belgian company.

116. [underlined] PARNALL ELF. – 115 h.p. CIRRUS HERMES. (BIPLANE) 1929. [/underlined]

An attempt at the private owners market; which in appearance was most attractive, but with poor flying characteristics being directionally unstable, bad at take-off, poor laterally and on elevator controls it really hadn't a hope. In fact heavy with no harmony at all.

[page break]

46.

117. [underlined] VICKERS 143. – 500 h.p. JUPITER VI. (BIPLANE) 1929. [/underlined]

Another Vickers private venture fighter similar to the previous 141. but with an air cooled engine, and a symetrical [sic] wing-section. Presumably in competition with the Bristol BULLPUP and the Hawker Jupiter Interceptor, none of which were produced.

118. [underlined] BRISTOL BULLPUP. – 480 h.p. MERCURY 2.A. (BIPLANE) 1929. [/underlined]

A rather more powerful Bulldog, directionally unstable and it felt the big torque of the Mercury very much at take-off, requireing [sic] full rudder to hold it straight. With a speed of no more than 190 m.p.h. the Hornet remained superior.

119. [underlined] AVRO 621. TUTOR. – 155 h.p. MONGOOSE etc. (BIPLANE) 1929. [/underlined]

Roy Chadwick’s design of a basic trainer to replace the old 504. It was completely foolproof, flying comfortably at 50 m.p.h., and stalled at 41. with a top speed of 108 m.p.h., which was a very good speed range no doubt obtained by the use of Handly [sic] Page slots, which by this time had become an accepted feature of a good many types.

It was accepted into Service as the Avro Tutor powered with the 240 h.p. Lynx and was much[deleted]ed[/deleted] used in the R.A.F. at Home and Overseas, as well as being sold into Denmark, Greece, and South Africa. Developed still further with the Armstrong Cheetah the type became known as the Avro 626, and continued in production until 1939. by which time the Air Forces of Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Greece, South China, Lithuania, Esthonia [sic], and Portugal all had aquired [sic] this splendid aeroplane either as landplane or on floats. Altogether a pretty successful kite.

120. [underlined] BLACKBURN NAUTILUS. – R.R. FALCON XII. (BIPLANE) 1929. [/underlined]

Another two-seater Fleet Fi[deleted]f[/deleted]g[inserted]h[/inserted]ter Reccon[deleted]n[/deleted]aissance type which was sluggish and heavy on control, and I thought not quite a fighter. I don’t remember much about this competition as it came at the end of my days at Martlesham, which I enjoyed so much.

[page break]

47.

121. [underlined] CURTISS 0.2e. – CURTISS/WRIGHT. (BIPLANE) 1930. [/underlined]

In America on vacation from the Staff College, I was given a flight in this type over New York which struck me then, and since, as one of the sights of the world. I was allowed to fly dual from the back seat and found it very stable and easy, and I remember bringing it down into Mitchell Field and pulling off a perfect three-point landing much to the surprise of the gallant 'LOOTENANT' who occupied the front seat. I also had a flight from Langly Field in a Curtiss A.3. but quite forgot what operational functions either type fulfilled. Two of us Squadron Leaders were on a survey of a number of aircraft factories to study American methods and development, and were usually addressed as 'Squadies’ – an American form of Sergeant. America is a very leveling [sic] country.

122. [underlined] D.H. TIGER MOTH. – 130 h.p. GYPSY MAJOR. (BIPLANE) 1931. [/underlined]

The Tiger Moth was an obvious development of the earlier ones, but with increased power made it the forerunner of no less than 8300 built, to become the primary trainer [deleted] othe [/deleted] of the R.A.F. and other countries in preparation for the Second War. It was universally liked by both instructor and pupil. My friend in Aden and many other places, it still towes [sic] gliders in a number of Clubs.

123. [underlined] CIERVA AUTOGIRO. – 140. ARMSTRONG GANNET. 1934. [/underlined]

A later development of Cierva’s lengthy experiment [deleted] ion [/deleted] with the autogiro principle. In this C.30. type which I tried at Hanworth he had introduced a shaft drive from the engine to the rotor, and by clutching in it was possible to accelerate the rotor speed. This enabled a vertical take-off to be made but only to sufficient height to gain forward speed, when the rotor had to be declutched and thereafter it turned freely by air speed alone. It was known as the 'jump autogiro' for this reason. I was most impressed. The landing was made from a down hill approach but forward speed became nil as [deleted] as [/deleted] the stick was pulled back and one sank vertically onto the ground for the last few feet.

Production was done by Avro who made 66. and it was licenced into France and Germany but alas was never further developed, I believe owing to the death of Cierva.

[page break]

48.

124. [underlined] AIRSPEED COURIER. – 240 h.p. LYNX. (MONOPLANE) 1934. [/underlined]

A very nice civil cabin aeroplane with one of the first retractable undercarriages designed in this Country. It was a real attempt at a modern conception by this new firm headed by Tiltman and Norway. It was with this aeroplane that Alan Cobham carried out his early experiments in flight re-fuelling another aircraft in flight; a method which took many years to perfect, but one which is in vital use to-day. Only a few Couriers were built.

125. [underlined] HANDLEY PAGE 42. ‘HORATIUS’ – 4. BRISTOL PEGASUS. (BIPLANE) 1934 [/underlined]

I was a paying passenger in this type on a flight from London to Paris to visit the Aircraft Exhibition. IT WAS MY FIRST EXPERIENCE of real commercial airline flying and what impressed me most was the elegance and roominess of the passenger accomodation [sic] ; but still more watching Captain O.P. Jones, with his Captain Kettle beard, walk slowly out across the tarmac pulling on a pair of spotless yellow suede gloves to take his place at the controls, after all engines had been run up for him. This was a fine piece of airline showmanship which surely gave the passengers great confidence, for airline flying even then was not everybody’s cup of tea.

We arrived safely in Paris, and returned later in a sister ship 'Hengist’. A most successful type, although somewhat ugly ducklings of Imperial Airway's fleet, they took a large slice of the Continental traffic from their competitors.

126. [underlined] SHORT SCYLLA. – 4. BRISTOL PEGASUS. (BIPLANE) 1935. [/underlined]

An attempt at a replacement of the H.P. 42. but which looked even uglier. Both types cruised at about 100. m.p.h. but the Scylla was far less comfortable and only a few were built. I made the journey again to Paris, in both cases taking about two and a quarter hours, in this instance to be shown the most secret Hispano 20mm. gun demonstrated in the dungeons of a fort outside the city. It was very impressive but at that early stage of development an uncertain bet so I chose the 8X.303. guns for the Hurricane and Spitfire. An exciting and epoch-making journey as that gun became the next step to victory in 1944.

[page break]

49.

127. [underlined] Miles Falcon. – GIPSY. (MONOPLANE). 1936. [/underlined]

A pleasant little enclosed cabin, private owners aeroplane, one of a family of such which Miles designed over the next few years. It flew well but needed a lot of neck twisting to see out in most directions and as I flew it at Brooklands in bad visibility, it struck me as a bad feature.

128. [underlined] WESTLAND WALLACE. – 680. h.p. PEGASUS. (BIPLANE). 1938. [/underlined]

At West Freugh Armament Training Camp which was equipped with these aircraft for target towing. An overgrown development of the old Wapiti with all mod cons such as heating and an enclosed cockpit. Very gentlemanly and comfortable to fly and I remember the propeller was so geared down that one could almost count the revolutions!

129. [underlined] VICKERS WELLESLEY. – 680.h.p. PEGASUS. (MONOPLANE). 1938. [/underlined]

A large span monoplane bomber constructed on Wallace’s geodetic principle of design, which had originated in his design of the airship R. 100. The wings flexed a good deal in turbulent conditions and being rather soft on controls responses were slow but otherwise quite straightforward. Hardly an ideal bomber and not many were built as such, but its great success was in a long-distance Flight by four of these aircraft to Australia in two non-stop stages; England to Egypt and thence to Australia. This Flight was under the command of my Brother-in-law Wing Commander Oswald Gayford who was also the pilot of the long-distance flight made in the Fairey monoplane in 1938. All aircraft reached Australia but his one had a forced landing in crocodile country on the west coast some hundreds of miles from the nearest habitation. As the Wellesley was heavily loaded [deleted] w [/deleted] and single-engined that was quite a remarkable flight for 1937/38.

130. [underlined] FAIREY BATTLE. – 1030 h.p. R.R. MERLIN. (MONOPLANE) 1938. [/underlined]

Like the Wellesley, the Battle was a single-engined day bomber which introduced the change over from the old biplanes. Contrary to some expectations they proved to be quite easy and straightforward to

[page break]

50.

fly; the only trouble being that they lacked sufficient performance and bomb load to be effective in war. The Advanced Air Striking Force which went to France at the outbreak of war was equipped with this type and it suffered heavy loss in the first few months.

131. [underlined] SUPERMARINE STRANRAER. – 2. PEGASUS. (BIPLANE) 1938. [/underlined]

A very good flying-boat following on after the Southampton; free of vibration and with good controls; another of Mitchell's successful designs. I enjoyed a pleasant flight in one all round the Firth of Clyde and watched the new cruiser doing her speed trials off Arran. She was H.M.S. Arathusa [sic].

132. [underlined] BRISTOL BLENHEIM. – “2. BRISTOL MERCURIES. (MONOPLANE) 1938 [/underlined]

The bomber developed from the civil prototype 'Britain First' which at that time,1935, was given a cruising speed of 240 m.p.h. This caused consternation in some circles and a prompt reaction to have it converted into a bomber to augment the few types available for the pre-war expansion programme. It is never wise to take a civil type and arm it, and still retain it's original performance; it just doesn’t happen. But something had to be produced to fill the need and the Blenheim was better than some others; and was used in the early stages of the war to come.

The one I flew in 1938 I thought good on control except the rudder which was solid any speed, but it was not fast enough to be an unarmed bomber, and as soon as turrets were added the performance fell off too much. Like the Battle it suffered many casualities [sic] when war came.

133. [underlined] AIRSPEED OXFORD – 2. 270 h.p. CHETAH’S. [sic] (MONOPLANE) 1938. [/underlined]

A twin-engined crew trainer which at first had poor take-off and climb with fixed pitch propellers and insufficient power. This was much improved in later development as it handled well in the air. It had a very marked swing to the right at take-off which was best countered by opening up the starboard engine a little more the the [sic] port one. I once forgot this trick on a cross-wind runway and took off at right angles! It was also over flapped and with full flap down had a rather abrupt touch down with no hold off whatever. In spite of these characteristics it did a fine training job.

[page break]

51.

134. [underlined] MILES MAGISTER. – 130.h.p. GIPSY III. (MONOPLANE). 1938. [/underlined]

One of Miles' three-ply and glue constructions designed as an elementary trainer, but being underpowered had no performance worth taking about, and was very draughty and cramped. I also seem to remember that it had some unpleasant characteristics directionally in a turn in which the nose tended to go down from which recovery was not straight forward.

135. [underlined] AVRO ANSON. – 2. 335.h.p. CHEETAH’S. (MONOPLANE). 1938. [/underlined]

A very easy machine which served the Air Force well in many roles. From the first model which tended to look like a flying greenhouse, made with a wood and fabric wing all in one piece, it adopted the constructional features of Fokker. By 1946 with the Anson 19 the wing had been designed in metal and fitted with 420.H.P. engines, I used it a lot when visiting units in my Command, but in those days it lacked all the modern forms of radio navigation.

Altogether the Anson in its various forms lasted from 1935 when first introduced as a Coastal reconnaissance type until about 1952 after some 11,000 had been built.

136. [underlined] MILES MONARCH. – GIPSY THREE. (MONOPLANE). 1939. [/underlined]

A little two/three seater side-by-side enclosed cabin machine which was quite pleasant even though the control system was not harmonised. One of Miles many three-ply and glue types and an improvement over the Magister.

137. [underlined] NORTH AMERICAN HARVARD. – PRATT & WHITNEY WASP. (MONOPLANE). 1940. [/underlined]

At Boscombe Down: one of the many lease-lend American types which was a very satisfactory trainer having good controls except for a slight hunt on the elevator. Being an ungeared engine this type was notorious for its propeller noise due to the high tip speed and anyone living near a training airfield equiped [sic] with Harvards suffered unmercifully.

[page break]

52.

138. [underlined] CURTISS HAWK & MOHAWK. – WRIGHT CYCLONE. (MONOPLANE). 1940. [/underlined]

The first of a series of Curtiss fighters – Mohawk, Tomahawk, Kittyhawk. This Hawk was one of the early types aquired [sic] from U.S.A. by the French to augment their pre-war aircraft supply. It was easy and pleasant to fly, excellent laterally but rather heavy on the elevator and pulled hard in a tight turn. Very resilient undercarriage suspension, good windscreen and rigid and robust at all speeds; a nice article although not terribly fast having a bulky circular fuselage.

139. [underlined] GLOSTER GLADIATOR. – 850.H.P. MERCURY. (BIPLANE). 1940. [/underlined]

A splendid example of design of the old school, just another biplane fighter with all their characteristics. Lightly loaded, it would glide for miles even with half-flap. It was noteworthy for a single-strut undercarriage which was the design of George Dowty who was in the Gloster team just before the war. As events were to prove the Gladiator was hardly a match for the German.

140. [underlined] D.H. FLAMINGO. – 2. 890.h.p. PERSEUS. (MONOPLANE). 1940. [/underlined]

The first all-metal D.H. airliner which only saw service to the tune of 16 aircraft, procdution [sic] being stopped by the war. They were used for Air Council and other V.I.P. communication work, very pleasant to fly but once again controls were not well harmonised. It was excellent in the 'one engine out’ condition when it could be trimmed to fly hands and feet off. At full load it motored in at just over 100.m.p.h. with a pleasant hold-off for landing. It might have had a bright future but for the war.

141. [underlined] HAWKER HURRICANE. – 1030.h.p. R.R. MERLIN. (MONOPLANE). 1940. [/underlined]

This was one of the most important aircraft in my life as I had been much concerned with its conception during 1934 with Sidney Camm. After helping him with the Hart and the Fury I was able to put across to him what I thought would be needed for a fighter suitable for war against Germany when it came; and it seemed obvious to me it would not be long coming. To be successful this fighter must be a complete departure from

[page break]

53.

the previous requirements of biplane fighter design with all their limitations of slow landing speed, and insufficient hitting power by only two or four guns; and with these packed into the fuselage within reach of the pilot thus making it bigger than needs be.

When I went down to Kingston to see his mock-up with its thick section wing, there, was the layout neccessary [sic] to install two batteries of four guns each, one in each wing, and thus narrow the fuselage down considerably as well as enclose the cockpit with a sliding hood. Together with the essential retractable undercarriage and V.P. airscrew this would then fulfill [sic] the Operational Requirements I had previously envisaged and written into Specification F. 5/34.

Camm was one of the most clear sighted of our military designers in spite of his sometimes vitriolic language and inability to suffer fools gladly, but if one could convince him, often in the course of fierce argument, he would go all the way with you. This is how it happened in 1934 when the Hurricane was born. It was a masterly design throughout and I doubt if there was any other, except perhaps the Spitfire, which proved capable of so much development throughout the war.

142. [underlined] LOCKHEED HUDSON. – 2. PRATT & WHITNEY WASPS. (MONOPLANE). 1940. [/underlined]

One of the first of the tricycle types, which did not impress me greatly, although it had the usual excellent American detail lay-out. It handled quite well but as so often all controls were different; ailerons being light but low geared, rudder heavy and spongy, and no feel about the elevator. At slow speed I thought the ailerons got very soft and ineffective. Rather disappointing as it looked better than it proved to be.

143. [underlined] MILES MENTOR. – 230.h.p. GIPSY QUEEN SIX. (MONOPLANE). 1940. [/underlined]

The same family resemblance and characteristics of all Miles’ previous products. I certainly did not like the flap control coupled to the throttle, as this was neither instinctive nor neccessary [sic]. In other respects it was not outstanding.

[page break]

54.

144. [underlined] MILES MASTER. – 450.h.p. R.R. KESTREL. (MONOPLANE). 1940. [/underlined]

A full grown trainer better than any of his previous miniatures but by no means perfect as the ailerons were inclined to snatch. Approach speed of 85/90.m.p.h. was needed to obtain a nice hold-off for touch down, otherwise it could be 'brusque'. Later redesigned as a Mk.2. with Pratt & Whitney Wasp engine it was a much improved machine.

145. [underlined] WESTLAND LYSANDER. – 840.h.p. MERCURY. (MONOPLANE). 1940. [/underlined]

An unusual high-wing monoplane designed for Army Co-operation which required a technique of its own to fly it really well. Disappointingly heavy on ailerons, it was rather like a flying boat i.e. sluggish. Heavily flapped it was good at slow flying but was very defenceless against enemy attack. It was not a success in this role but much used for supply dropping to the ‘Resistance’ and for picking up aircrew on the run in Europe.

146. [underlined] MESSERSCHMITT. 109. – DAILMLER-BENZ. (MONOPLANE). 1940. [/underlined]

I liked this aeroplane although the cockpit was cramped and the forward view for landing was not all that good. Even with the narrow undercarriage it had, the take-off was quite normal but needed a lot of right rudder to counteract the torque, but the rudder was light and effective. Below 300.m.p.h. ailerons were pleasantly light and effective but hardened up above that speed. It was very stable fore and aft with a heavy elevator and needed adjustment of tail trim for each change of speed. I noted that the engine was smooth and powerful and opened up instantly when required, presumably a side effect of petrol injection instead of carburation. I thought it a very good aeroplane.

147. [underlined] SPITFIRE II. – 1650 h.p. R.R. MERLIN (MONOPLANE) 1940. [/underlined]

I found the controls on this aeroplane excellent below 280.m.p.h. above which speed they stiffened up laterally. By comparison with the M.E. 109. no rudder was needed in turns whereas the latter was of the old school requiring a lot of top rudder in steep turns to either side. Take-off was easy and the view good and it had a pleasant float at touch-down after an approach speed of 90.M.P.H.

[page break]

55.

As with the Hurricane the Spitfire was of first importance to me, and it certainly lived up to my ideas of it some six years earlier, when my aquaintance [sic] with Mitchell influenced him to adopt the F. 5/34 requirements for eight gun armament etc. With Mitchell's thin section wing it was not easy to install them as in the Hurricane, but with great effort and ingenuity he managed it successfully, although at first it had looked impossible to get in more than six. Here I should say how lucky I then was then to have as ultimate Chief over my department (Operational requirements), Sir H.R. Ludlow-Hewitt as D.C.A.S., who had similar ideas. Consequently he backed the F. 5/34 requirements completely and reduced opposition from those who had become acclimatised to the old biplane manoeuvreability [sic] and low landing speed as a prerequisite for all fighters. A very outmoded viewpoint.

It may not be generally known that both Gloster and Bristol built prototypes with air-cooled engines to specification F. 5/34, but they were well behind Hawker and Supermarine in time.

148. [underlined] SPITFIRE.III. – 1260.h.p. R.R. MERLIN XX. (MONOPLANE). 1940. [/underlined]

This aircraft was a development prototype. The wing tips had been removed which added about 30.M.P.H. and manoeuvreability [sic] was materially improved. My comments were "A great aeroplane that gives a real feeling of speed. Controls very good below 350.M.P.H. but ailerons get very stiff above this. The fore and aft control which was very sensitive on the Mk.II. during landing is damped by an inertia ballast weight on the stick, which is very effective. Inclined to do a little jump on touchdown. Altogether a great improvement on 12.lbs. boost.” The experience gained with this developement [sic] model of which only one was built, proved most useful in further development of later Marks of Spitfire, particularly Mk.V.

Through the genius of Joe Smith; who was Mitchell's right-hand man and took over all further design responsibilities after his death in 1937; the Spitfire outlived all its contempories developing to Mks XXI & XXII powered by 2050.h.p. R.R. Griffon engine, and remained the finest and fastest fighter in the world long after others had become obsolete.

From the basic design was evolved the Seafire for the Fleet, and a Photographic Reconnaissance Type, both invaluable up to the end of war.

[page break]

56.

149. [underlined] PERCIVAL PROCTOR. – 250.h.p. GIPSY QUEEN. (MONOPLANE). 1940. [/underlined]

A very nice enclosed cabin communications aircraft. It had rather a long take-off, with a cruising speed of about 160.m.p.h., a long flat glide and a longish hold-off for landing. Later when C.R.D. I had one for my own use based on Hendon and I had two interesting episodes with it.

Once when climbing out of Hendon off the short runway towards Harrow, l was heading for the cloud base at about 1500 ft when out of the cloud in front me and only a relatively few feet above dived a whole squadron of Spitfires. I was very much at the receiving end, but by the time I had drawn breath they had passed over my head. That shook me as there was no time whatever to get out of the way. The other was a repeat of landing in a Moth in a sandstorm, but this time in a blizzard in Yorkshire. Stupidly I took-off a disused runway and ran slap into thick and blinding snow so did a quick circuit, found the down wind end, and landed at no forward speed on about half throttle, literally lowering myself vertically on to the ground.

150. [underlined] BREWSTER BUFFALO FLEET FIGHTER. – WRIGHT CYCLONE. (MONOPLANE) 1940 [/underlined]

An American lease-lend with a supposedly high performance which did not appear to mature. It was an ugly aeroplane with a completely circular large fuselage and the wings were mounted half-way up. As so often, the controls were not harmonised and it did not strike me as being a winner. The tail wheel was fully castoring and supposed automatically to lock fore and aft for landing, but if this did not happen it was quite possible to end up with a ground loop.

151. [underlined] MILES U. 8. – GIPSY. (MONOPLANE). 1940. [/underlined]

Yet another of his attempts at an initial trainer of which I can remember very little except that it never saw service.

152. [underlined] GRUMMAN MARTLET FLEET FIGHTER. – WRIGHT CYCLONE. (MONOPLANE). ’40. [/underlined]

Similar design to the Buffalo i.e. a big circular fuselage with the wings mounted half-way up. Very responsive on ailerons but heavy on rudder and elevator, nevertheless turned corners very quickly. It gave

[page break]

57.

the impression of being a bigger machine than it was; and incidentIy [sic] one was nearly blown out of the cockpit with the hood open.

153. [underlined] FAIREY FULMAR. – 1100.h.p. R.R. MERLIN. (MONOPLANE). 1940. [/underlined]

If I remember correctly this was a conversion from an experimental type F. 4/34. which specification was for a light dive-bomber to carry two 50. lbs. bombs internally stowed. Hawkers also designed the Henley to these same requirements, but for reasons I quite forget, neither aircraft completed trials as such; the Henley being converted for target towing, and the Fairey into a Fleet Fighter-Reconnaissance type, renamed Fulmar. My comments were "Not what I expected. All controls feel heavily mass-balanced and have no crispness or feel, with the result that one does not feel part of the aeroplane, and certainly not my idea of a fighter.”

154. [underlined] WESTLAND WHILRLWIND. – 2. R.R. PEREGRINE. (MONOPLANE). 1940. [/underlined]

A single seat supposedly night-fighter, armed with four Hispano 20 m.m. guns mounted in the nose. It stemmed from a specification F. 10/35 which was intended to develop [deleted] s [/deleted] the Hurricane into a four cannon fighter. However my successor changed the concept altogether, and the Hurricane developed itself, only two or three years later on, and just too late for the Battle of Britain.

To fly I thought the Whirlwind rather full of tricks of its own; “requiring a very heavy push on the stick to get the tail up and lacked feel on all controls at landing. Not enough elevator to hold off at touch-down when the tail is well up after the wheels touch, it then does a little prance". Not an ideal night-fighter and only a few were put into Service. A disappointment for its designer Teddy Petter.

155. [underlined] D.H. PUSS MOTH. – 130.h.p. GIPSY III. (MONOPLANE). 1940. [/underlined]

I flew this one when it was ten years old, and contrary to other opinions I was very disappointed and wondered how on earth such a machine could have flown the Atlantic and got around the world so successfully. For reasons I didn't define at the time it did not appeal to me; so I may have misjudged it.

[page break]

58.

156. [/underlined] STINSON RELIANT. – LYCOMING. (MONOPLANE) 194o. [sic] [/underlined]

“An American [deleted] e [/deleted] runabout belonging to Fairey’s, furnished for comfort with a cruising speed of about 150 m.p.h. Controls arranged like a car and has a very smooth undercarriage. As with most high-wing types the view out sidewise is obstructed when on a turn and in bad visibility this can be naughty when turning in to land.”

157. [underlined] BOULTON PAUL DEFIANT. – 1260. h.p. R.R. MERLIN (MONOPLANE) 4[missing numbers] [/underlined]

Built to Specification F. 9/35. a conception for a standing patrol fighter with an all round field of fire and a speed of over 300 m.p.h. it was a re-insurance against the F.5/34. failing in the interceptor role. Hawker’s also designed the Hotspur to this specification but never finished it because they were too busy with Hurricane production. The Defiant went into Service and on one day over the beaches of Dunkirk scored a big success, but owing to the shortage of fighters it had to be used as an interceptor, which of course it wasn’t, and was not so successful thereafter.

To fly, it appeared to have a slight lack of lateral stability, was rather soft on the rudder and lacked feel: had an excellent view in all directions, but it weighed 8000 lbs. and that just spoiled its performan[missing letters] Ultimately the Hotspur was said to be 20 m.p.h. faster, but that was spil[missing letter] milk. But one thing the Defiant did; develop the four gun turret which put Boulton Paul on the map for design of this armament for the defence of bombers. John North aquired [sic] the licence from a French firm – S.A.M. – for their method of Hydraulic power operation, and developed it to a grea[missing letter] extent to our advantage.

158. [underlined] HANDLEY PAGE HALIFAX. – 4. R.R. MERLIN XX’s (MONOPLANE) 1940. [/underlined]

We had the Halifax, Manchester, Stirling and Lancaster all at Boscombe at the same time. I handled the Halifax with Squadron Leader McGuire and thought it quite quick and responsive, and at 50,000 lbs. all up weight and 10 lbs. boost the take [sic] seemed excellent. I also thought the Pilot’s view might have been better.

It must be remembered that these heavy bombers were the first of thei[missing letter]

[page break]

59.

kind, of British design any rate, and aircraft of 25 tons were somethin[missing letter] of a novelty; however pilots found less surprise or difficulty flying them than [deleted] might [/deleted] was anticipated.

I think the credit for their evolution should be given to the then Wing Commander R.H.M.S. Saundby, who in 1936 wrote what became known as 'the big bomber paper’, an appreciation of the operational economies as they improve with the size of bomber.

159. [underlined] AVRO MANCHESTER. – 2. R.R. VULTURES. 1760 h.p. (MONOPLANE) 1940. [/underlined]

In some respects it was lucky to have a go at the Halifax before the Manchester, because the former showed up the latter as being slower in response and heavier, with a worse take-off, although I liked the pilot's view much better. But the real let down of the Manchester was the engine as the Vulture was unreliable and never gave it’s power so the one engine out case was pretty hopeless. McGuire, in whose Flight these types were one day had a poor up-hill take off and caught his left wing against a big radio pole and waltzed round it through over ninety degrees without damage or disaster; which only went to show how strong was the wing structure. The Manchester was not in the same class as the [deleted] Three [/deleted] [inserted] two [/inserted] others and it rapidly developed into the Lancaster.

160. [underlined] CURTISS P.40. TOMAHAWK. – Allinson. (MONOPLANE) 1940. [/underlined]

From one to the other, my next was the lead at this time in American fighters of the lease-lend era and it followed Curtiss characteristics, with a smooth engine which felt good. It had an electric control over the pitch change of the propeller which was operated by a small switch tucked away out of sight. Of course I forgot to check that it was in fine pitch for take-off, as opposed to coarse for flight, with the result that I nearly did a McGuire on the same up-hill run, as it did not want to leave the ground too easily [deleted] i [/deleted] in coarse. Boscombe was a grass airfield then.

161. [underlined] AVRO LANCASTER. – 4. 1280. h.p. R.R. MERLINS. (MONOPLANE) 1941. [/underlined]

It had become apparent to Roy Chadwick that the Manchester was no match to the other two four-engined types, and with remarkable speed

[page break]

60.

a prototype Lancaster was first flown on the 9th. January 1941 and delivered to Boscombe on the 27th, and a productionised prototype followed as early as the 13th. of May. Dobson and Chadwick had done wonders and this must be a record for introducing an outstanding winner. Until then the Halifax had looked to be the best, but the Lancaster was in a category of it's own, and which became the best of them all. "A greatly improved Manchester with a much better top speed, handles well with improved ailerons on 100 foot span, larger twin rudders and no central fin. A splendid effort".

From that time on it became the equipment of fifty six squadrons in front line service and was constantly modified to carry bigger and better bombs, culminating with the ten ton block-buster ’Grand Slam’, and of course the remarkable skip bomb invented by Barnes Wallis for the Dam Busters.

The Lancaster was one of the finest types ever introduced into the Service and from it Chadwick evolved the successful York transport in just five months after the drawings were issued to Avro’s experimental department. This was a great step towards getting a small foothold in the transport aircraft field, up till then entirely in American hands, and they were operated in Service and Civil use all over the world. Unfortunately I never had the pleasure of flying one.

A further evolution was the Lincoln bomber which increased the all-up weight from 50,000 lbs. to 82,000. This type was intended for the long-range attack of Japan from Pacific bases, but fortunately not needed.

162. [underlined] FAIREY SWORDFISH. – 750 h.p. PEGASUS. (BIPLANE) 1941. [/underlined]

Although by now a design some seven years old it still had a remarkable career in front of it. It was one of those old fashioned aircraft which just stepped into the air with any old load and wafted along behind a large highly geared down propellor, the slip stream from which blew one about unpleasantly in the cockpit. It was a wonderful old crate which did valiant service. It seems unbelievable that the Fleet Air Arm were able to carry on a first class war with an aircraft with such poor performance.

[page break]

61.

163. [underlined] BOEING FORTRESS. 17.– [deleted] G. 17 [/deleted]. 4. WRIGHT CYCLONES. (MONOPLANE). 1941. [/underlined]

It was an interesting comparison to fly this American heavy bomber after ours. I found it quite straightforward in take-off, flight, and landing, although it was a two-man job requiring the second pilot to lock the throttle levers, operate the undercarriage switch control, flap control etc whereas ours did not need two pairs of hands. The controls I found heavy and slow in response and quite devoid of feel, but it motored in comfortably at 110.M.p.h. At 40,000.lbs the undercarriage was surprisingly resilient. I later did some dropping trials with American 2,000.lbs bombs at an all up weight of 49,000.lbs when the take-off was still good.

One of the remembered characteristics of all these American types was the distinctive smell they had; just in the same way the French and German types smelt differently, no doubt due to the paints and materials, used in each.

164. [underlined] FAIREY ALBACORE. – 1130.h.p. BRISTOL TAURUS. (BIPLANE). 1941. [/underlined]

Here my log-book lets me down because I remember flying this Swordfish replacement; in fact a grown-up Swordfish in which the pilot was positioned right up front behind the engine with a much superior view. It was a single-bay robust aeroplane but I cannot remember anything of its flying characteristics.

165. [underlined] MILES. M. 20. – 1060.h.p. R.R. MERLIN. (MONOPLANE). 1941. [/underlined]

Another three-ply and glue construction but of much greater ambition than anything previously. It was in fact a wooden 8-gun fighter of very clean lines but the old familiar long flat nose. I am afraid I cannot remember any of the handling features of the type which complemented another wooden attempt later on by Jimmy Martin. Designed as an insurance against failure of our metal raw material supply, there was yet another manufactured by Hilson which was a copy of a Hurricane in wood. I think it was just as well they were not needed as I am sure they would not have stood up to battle damage.

[page break]

62.

166. [underlined] MILES. M.18.(T.1/37). – GIPSY. (MONOPLANE). 1941. [/underlined]

An ab initio trainer built to compete against a number of other prototypes to specification T. 1/37. It had a very thick wing section with controls lacking harmony but quite pleasant to fly and I thought a vastly better job than the Magister. I do not believe that this competition resulted in any Service type. It astonishes me now what a prolific designer Miles was.

167. [underlined] D.H. MOSQUITO. – 2. 1535.h.p. R.R. MERLINS. (MONOPLANE). 1941. [/underlined]

The first prototype came to Boscombe early May 1941 and was immediately recognized as a winner being beautifully manoeuvreable [sic] , fast, and in fact very like a fighter to handle. Unfortunatly [sic] it broke its back while taxi-ing due I think, to the tail wheel tending to bounce. However Bishop immediately had a makeshift repair done and the aircraft flew back to Hatfield, where the ne[deleted]c[/deleted]cessary minor re-design was made to the fuselage in a matter of days and from that momen[deleted]a[/deleted]t the Mosquito never looked back. From September 1941 to early 1944 it was the fastest aircraft in the war and nearly 7,000 were built.

I quote from a book of reference "The trials at Boscombe Down marked the tur[inserted]n[/inserted]ing point in the Mosquito’s career. Up to that time there had been incredulity about the De Havilland performance estimates. The Boscombe measured speed proved 10.m.p.h. faster than those estimates; 20.m.p.h. faster than official estimates and 20.m.p.h. faster than the Spitfire with the same engine. The whole atmosphere changed from the moment Boscombe confirmed that".

The lasting credit for the introduction of the Mosquito into the Service rests with the late Air Chief Marshal[deleted]l[/deleted] Sir Wilfred Freeman who had supported D.H.’s earlier conception of this wonderful type from 1939 onwards, much against opposition of many who could not, or would not, place any faith in speed instead of armament for the protection of the bomber.

Thereafter the type was converted for many roles – unarmed bomber; fighter bomber; night fighter; intruder; photographic reconnaissance; pathfinder and a few others and every conversion was a success. An epic aeroplane.

[page break]

63.

168. [underlined] HESTON PHOENIX. – GIPSY. (BIPLANE). 1941. [/underlined]

A really poor type which I found difficult to taxi without brakes, and what there were of them were not working. It had the worst climb imaginable and no wonder it did not sell. I cannot remember anything about it that resembled being good.

169. [underlined] STINSON A.R. 430. – LYCOMING. (MONOPLANE). 1941. [/underlined]

A high wing ‘puddle jumper’ type for army co-operation – slotted and flapped in every direction with excellent convex windows on both sides, out of which to lean; all it lacked was window boxes of aspedistras [sic] ! With flaps down it was hard to exceed 40.m.p.h., and landed about 25.m.p.h. which was funny for an aircraft of 4,000.lbs all-up weight. I don’t think we took any on lease-lend.

170. [underlined] PERCIVAL Q.6. – 2. GIPSYS. (MONOPLANE) 1942 [/underlined]

A good looking clean 6/8 seat civil type. I seem to remember that it had reputation for being difficult to land, but I have no record of experiencing this or any other difficulty with it, in fact I liked it. Designed in the hope of commercial sales just before the war and built of three-ply and glue it had no future.

171. [underlined] North American Liberator. – 4. PRATT & WHITNEY. (MONOPLANE) 1942. [/underlined]

Another American heavy bomber which came to Boscombe but which I did not fly. However there is quite a little story to tell about this aeroplane as I accompanied the Lyttel[deleted]e[/deleted]ton Mission to U.S.A to negotiate supplies of lease-lend aircraft.
[inserted] X [/inserted]

The numbers of those to go exceeded the capacity of a Boeing Stratoliner in which we were intended to be flown from Prestwick across the Atlantic, with the result that I found myself allocated to a Liberator used by the Royal Air Force Ferry Command. This flight in November 1942 was still something of an adventure and the conditions were worth recording. Aircraft No.592 had been stripped of everything internally; had no seating and only a few oxygen plug-in points along the sides. On seeing the absence of seats, stupi[deleted]e[/deleted]dly, I suggested installing a park bench down

[page break]

64.

the centre as at least something to sit on. After three hours sitting on this hard bench, I and the five others would willingly have thrown it overboard if we could, but to add to our discomfort we found that the next three hours had only returned us to our starting point, the weather having shut down on the American coast. The next two days were at stand-by with much shuffling of weather conditions, and that awful bench having been removed, we were suddenly told to be ready by 8 p.m. “We dressed as for the North Pole in sweaters, Sidcott Suits, flying boots, Mae Wests, gloves and helmets until quite immobile; and taxi out only to find the Stratoliner at the end of the runway with a flat tyre and we have oil pressure trouble. We taxi back, take off all the sweaty clothing and wait. By ten o'clock all is in order, and re-dressed in all that clothing again, off we go and this time for the full crossing.”
[inserted] X [/inserted]

The six of us were laid out on [deleted] t [/deleted] the floor head to foot with no heating and scarcely any light, and individual movement was virtually impossible. We flew mainly at 8000 ft. in clear weather until 200 miles east of Newfoundland when ice began to fly off the propellers and clanged against the fuselage in an alarming manner. At last we broke cloud over the New Brunswick coast at 2000 ft.

By then a filter of light had crept into our airbo[deleted]u[/deleted]rn cell and I had managed to stagger upright and walked over the other reclining bodies to an Elsan situated right in the tail. This I found to be a reasonable seat when facing aft with a little window. So I rode the lavatory looking out over snow covered New Brunswick and Maine, a deserted pine-covered land with few signs of habitation until we landed at Presquisle, having taken sixteen and a half hours for that leg of the journey. After the finest breakfast I can remember at this staging post we re-embarked for Washington and I enjoyed the 750 mile journey, looking down on Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore from my point of vantage on the elsan. This took 4 1/2 hours; thus 20 hours and 45 minutes from England and considered a good trip. Shades of Atlantic travel 28 years [deleted] agg [/deleted] ago.

[page break]

65.

172. [underlined] BEECHCRAFT TRAVELLER. – PRATT & WHITNEY WASP. (BIPLANE). 1942. [/underlined]

In Washington I was taken in charge by Group Captain Heslop – ‘Slops’ of the British Technical Mission and a grand tour of the U.S.A. was planned to visit as many aircraft factories as possible. In this small single-engined biplane, with backstagger he flew me to Martins at Baltimore; a very gentle introduction to what was to follow.

173. [underlined] BEECHCRAFT [deleted] 2 [/deleted]. – 2. PRATT & WHITNEY WASPS. (MONOPLANE). 1942. [/underlined]

This was a different six-seater type in which next day we visited Brewsters on Long Island, and eager to get my hands on this apparently viceless type I said I would fly it back to Bolling Field. But I discovered there were two vices which I had not observed with ‘Slops’ as pilot; the first was that it disliked a three-point landing and must be put down on the main wheels with the tail up: and the second that it had a method for operating the wheel brakes by ones toes pressing a little pedal attached to the rudder bar. This I had never experienced before and was my undoing. Correction of any swing on the runway required both rudder and toe-brakes and as the rudder effect at Ianding speed was not good I got tied up with trying to operate first one toe brake and then the other. The result was not only awful but could easily have been disastrous, as we swung right off the runway and dashed past various aircraft parked beside it, by the grace of God without hitting any, but completely out of my control. A shame-making performance in front of our Allies but ‘Slope’ took it and made no alteration to our grand tour!

On November 16th in this same Beechcraft provided with a Naval crew from Anacostia Field we set out on our long journey, and I decided to leave the flying in better hands. Our first stop was Nashville (600. miles) which was a staging post for R.A.F. Ferry Command where many aircraft were being Re-fueled en route before flying the Southern Atlantic to Africa and the Middle East. Judging by the numbers I saw there this made flight delivery across the Atlantic an every day occurrence. Two and a half hours later we reached the smallest and most insignificant airport at Little Rock (famous for Eisenhower) and a further two hours on we arrived after dark over Dallas and Fort Worth, the lights of which made the most magnificent sight after so long a period of black-out at

[page break]

66.

home. Next day we visited Consolidated Aircraft at the famous Willow Run plant, almost exactly one miIe long under one roof and filled from end to end with Liberators under construction. Impressed I was, to say the least.

Off again for another three hundred miles to refuel at Midland, and on this leg I renewed my personal acquaintance with the cockpit and commented “Beech is a nice quiet comfortable aircraft cruising easily at 185.mp.h. at 6,000 ft; is pleasant to handle except rudder is of little value, only disturbing the directional stability which it does to no mean extent if used at all coursely [sic]”. This may have been some of the cause of my shocking earlier arrival! "On again to Tuscon another 500 miles passing over Texas without seeing one mule or steer and no cowboys. Surprising how air travel misses the local industries – but oil wells plentiful".

Yet another 500 miles to Burbank "On this leg I lay basking in the sun and gazed out over the Mexican border imagining tall hats and bronchos and not a little surprised at the barren rockiness of the country all the way from Fort Worth. We climbed up to some 12,000.ft to cross a high range at Palm Springs, and as it got dark the sunset became quite Egyptian, and soon below us was the largest carpet of lights I have ever seen en masse. So this was Los Angeles, almost unbeliev[deleted]e[/deleted]able in extent for so many miles in every direction. In such a fairy land it was quite a job to find Lockheed’s airport which was right in amongst all this. This is quite one of the sights of the world.”

We had accomplished this journey in two full days and spent the next day visiting North American Aircraft, Douglas, Lockheed, Northrop and finished up with a wild ‘do’ in Beverley Hills.

Next day a not surprisingly painful visit to Consolidated at San Diago where still more Liberators were being churned out by the hundreds. I am afraid I did not take as much interest in them as I should have done, and was only too thankful for the Beech to return me to Burbank and bed.

Next day November 22nd began our return journey making Winslow to refuel man and machine, after 450. miles of very rocky barren country, and then proceeded 200 or so miles to Albuquerque – not the Mexican town I had expected but just another city, which I failed to appreciate in any way.

[page break]

67.

In the bitter cold of early morning we set off for Wichita nearly 600 miles on and here we had our first mechanical trouble with burnt out generators. Luckily we were at a small aircraft firm who fixed it soon enough for us to complete another leg as far as Kansas. By then the weather had turned sour to the East and next morning we had to make a stop at St. Louis and await clearance into Dayton some 300 miles further on. Cloud was very low, but we got in all right and next morning reached base at Washington.

This was a most valuable survey of both American production methods, and advanced new design which I was shown. It was not all one way traffic as I was swapping our experience and difficulties in an attempt to help them avoid similar ones. At Burbank the 50 ton Constellation, doing its first flight trials, showed only too clearly the future of American civil transports. Elsewhere I had been shown mock-ups of 100 ton aircraft and engines of over 4,000.h.p., to say nothing of remotely controlled armament for the defence of big bombers double the size of current ones; eye-opening development we were unable to undertake in this country because of the strains of war.

My last visits to Bell & Curtiss were made by airline to Buffalo, after which I flew on to Toronto joining up with the rest of the mission in Montreal where I found the same Liberator await[deleted]n[/deleted]ing clearance to Gander. By now the weather was changing from fog to snow and soon after landing we were grounded and remained snowbound for three days. During this time I took the opportunity in the quietness of a disused office to write my report. This I am glad to say was received favourably by those in high places, and was to have the desired effect of enabling this country to develop civil aircraft.

After a calm and good crossing to Prestwick in nine hours, mostly at 15,000 ft but upwards to 23,000 ft towards the end (sucking an oxygen pipe and frozen stiff) I was glad to finish that journey of 12,000 miles and 85 hours flying, and land back on my native heath on the 28th anniversary of joining the flying Service, during which time I had never imagined I would fly the Atlantic.

[page break]

68.

174. [underlined] AUSTER. – 130.h.p. GIPSY. (MONOPLANE). 1943. [/underlined]

A puddle-jumper adopted by the Army which I found terribly noisy and toy-like, nevertheless it remained in the Service for at least 20 years, and must have been a better aeroplane than I judged it to be. In fact the Army Air Corps was founded on the Auster some of which still fly to-day.

175. [underlined] FOCKE-WULF. 190. – 900.H.p. B.M.W. (MONOPLANE). 1943. [/underlined]

In June 1942 the first of this type was delivered into our hands intact by a German pilot who landed on Pemberry airfield on the South Wales Coast. I had immediately flown down there to have a look at this prize, and found ‘Batchy’ Atcherley had incarcerated the poor boy in a lavatory just to keep him safe. In dumb crambo the pilot had prevented anyone from climbing about the aeroplane by indicating it might explode. After a while, and as nothing had happened, valour overcame discretion and a full inspection ensued.

We badly needed to know all about the F.W. 190. which was causing some havoc at the time, and was promptly put through its paces and stripped apart at Farnborough, which provided valuable information. Nearly a year later I flew this aircraft at Farnborough on a not particularly enjoyable flight. In the first instance the seat had been locked in the lowest position and I found my forward view completely blanked out. In any event it had a large circular nose which was not condusive [sic] to a good take-off and landing view even had the seat been higher. Second surprise was that I was warned that the left brake was much weaker than the right, but having got myself into the thing I was not deterred by that. The engine was an enormous thumping powerhouse and consequently it climbed off the runway at a very steep angle. Fore and aft it was much heavier than I expected, the ailerons being very good but with a tendancy [sic] to overbank [deleted] s [/deleted] while the rudder was without feel. The natural visibility on that day was poor which added to my discomfort at not being able to see anything ahead. With the nose down speed increased very rapidly and being thoroughly uncomfortable I made a landing approach at about 120/130.m.p.h. as at any lower speed there was considerable ‘sink’ with the nose well up. I touched down almost entirely

[page break]

69.

by feel cursing the inadequacy of the forward view, and as a result no doubt I thought it was soon time to apply the brakes. For the second time this was my undoing, for in a trice we swung off the runway to the right and I was careering across grass, once again missing parked aircraft by the grace of God, as rudder alone had no effect whatever in changing direction. We came to rest unscathed but in a muck-sweat with [deleted] t [/deleted] the though[missing letter] that valour is not always the better part of discretion.

Two years later I was to meet the designer Dr. Kurt. Tank in circumstances I will describe later on.

176. [underlined] MILES M.28’. – 130 h.p. GIPSY. (MONOPLANE). 1943. [/underlined]

Yet another Miles idea, and what a contrast to the one above. Heavily slotted and flapped with a stilt-like undercarriage, it was fool-proof and a child could use it. With an enclosed cockpit it was an amateurs delight and could land on the proverbial pocket handkerchief, but in spite of all that it did not sell.

177. [underlined] FAIREY BARRACUDA. – R.R. MERLIN. (MONOPLANE). 1944. [/underlined]

I attended some carrier trials in H.M.S. Indefatigable when several new types were being tried for deck landing, I believe the Mosquito. At the end of the day which had been successful I was to be flown ashore to Prestwick and found awaiting me on the flight deck an old Barracuda. It was a typical Fleet reconnaissance type which looked a thorough christmas tree. The rear-gunner’s cockpit was enclosed by a perspex roof which as soon as I had been hurried through it was slammed down over my head, without knowing how to open the thing. The engine roared and before I knew where we were, we were over the bows and off. How thankful I was that I was not a crew member of a Barracuda. Practically deafened by the noise I was glad to touch down at Prestwick in one piece. Not my idea of a good aeroplane.

178. [underlined] VICKERS WARWICK. – 2. 2,000 h.p. CENTAURUS. (MONOPLANE). 1944. [/underlined]

A development from the Wellington which introduced a remote control sighting system from the tail. I had a ride in the tail, piloted by Mutt Summers at Wisley and besides being im[deleted]n[/deleted]pressed with the gun-sighting

[page break]

70.

system, I was also impressed by the flexibility of Wallis’ geodetic construction on a much larger aeroplane than the Wellington. The movement of the tail and outer wings was rather sick-making but as I had seen a wing being tested to destruction in a test rig, when the tip of the wing flexed upwards to five feet, I had no qualms.

179. [underlined] SIKORSKY R. 4. HELICOPTER. – 1944. [/underlined]

I have quite forgotten this single experience of handling a helicopter, but I see from my log-book that I did a bit of dual, and although not the simple thing I had imagined, managed to handle it fairly successfully in the time available.

180. [underlined] DAKOTA. – 2. PRATT & WHITNEY WASPS. (MONOPLANE). 1945. [/underlined]

This was one of the unique of many unique flights that must have been made by this wonderful aeroplane, the war-time version of the great D.C.3.

On the 11th April 1945, I received a message direct from Germany that our troops had just captured the design offices of Focke-Wolf and would I come at once. Hastily gathering together two or three experts we flew out of Hendon to Eindhoven and then Rheine, and found our H.Q. already established in some houses in Canabruk. It had been arranged that my little party would be at Focke-Wulf first thing next morning. [symbol] On arrival we were received as honoured guests and were at once taken to the board-room and introduced to the senior engineers. To my disappointment Dr. Kurt. Tank. had been flown back to England immediately after the place was captured, but his deputy proceeded to take us through their latest design projects beyond the F.W.190, and at once it was evident from the fact that each one of them was a swept-wing lay out, here was certainly something for us to learn about. At that time our aerodynamisist [sic] were only dimly aware of the great advantage that swept-wings conferred on future near-sonic and super-sonic jet aircraft design. German research obviously was ahead and I suppose there had never been a more open, or fruitful, design conference, moreover hard to believe such could happen within sound of the guns.

After hours of interpreted discussion we were bidden to a feast

[page break]

71.

which I felt was guilding [sic] the lil[deleted]l[/deleted]y too much too acept [sic] from our enimies [sic] who were short of food themselves. Clutching a few bottles of Moselle perhaps I rather [deleted] hautil [/deleted] haughtily withdrew my party and flew back to London to find Kurt Tank himself. This I soon did, finding him in a bare room in Westminster under interrogation. Leaving him in the hands of experts I invited him to dine with my party at the Savoy that night. He was a man of great quality whom I thought deserved good treatment and perhaps a little fluid might enlighten us still more on his forward thinking.

It transpired that what he wanted most was to be transported with the whole of his organization to England to continue the work they were doing. This raised the ugly question of employing Germans, and greatly to my disappointment the verdict was given that public opinion would not stand for it.
[inserted] X [/inserted] America however took the other view with the result that most of the best technical talent was shipped to U.S.A. much to our disadvantage in the post war years; and the remainder were taken by Russia.

Kurt Tank was sent back to Germany and eventually found his way to Argentine [sic], and later to India, where he designed in each country advanced fighters of the type we had been shown.

This episode is a departure from the Dakota. Our pilot on this strange sortie was Lt. Daniels of the Royal Dutch Navy who had a reputation for coping with emergencies and who soon after was killed in one. He let me fly home as second pilot and I was glad for a few hours to take my mind off what I had heard and seen, which had the war not ended as it did, would have had us at great disadvantage.

181. [underlined] D.H. DOMINIE. – 2. 385 h.p. GYPSY QUEENS. (MONOPLANE) 1946. [/underlined]

This was a classic design originating as the Dragon, and later the Rapide and finally converted into a flying class-room as the Dominie. It was one of Charles Walker’s most efficient civil transports of about 1937. vintage, and some are still flying at this present date of 1971. As usual with any D.H. aeroplanes, it was essentially functional, simple and in it's early days cheap. A delight to fly with absolutely no vices whatever, I am envious when I see one in the air and regret the number of years before I first flew it.

[page break]

72.

182. [underlined] D.H. DOVE. – 2. 385. h.p. GYPSY QUEENS. (MONOPLANE) 1946. [/underlined]

De Havilland’s contribution, before the Comet, to civil transport at the end of the war. It was a Rapide replacement, practical, modern, rugged and elegant, it was an immediate success and no less than 275. had been sold by the end of 1946. “A lovely aeroplane, handles like it’s namesake at an all-up weight of 7300 lbs. No noise, no vibration, excellent one engine out and very good view. I would say almost perfect”. Perhaps because it was the 21st. anniversary of my wedding day it was an appropriate one to be introduced to the Dove. It is still to be found in the air to-day in many parts of the world.

183. [underlined] BRISTOL FREIGHTER/WAYFARER. – 2. HERCULES. (MONOPLANE) 1946 [/underlined]

Designed by Bristol’s towards the end of the war, in order to get a foot in the transport market. It was a straightforward workhorse, which by 1946 had proved it’s worth in a great many countries, as well as initiating Silver City Car Ferry business. I handled the aircraft with Cyril Uwins at Bristol, and having had a hand in egging them on with the project I liked it’s behaviour [sic] in the air. It felt solid on all controls but particularly so on the rudder; noisy indeed but not much vibration. Over 200 were built and many still in service.

During the next four years, when C. in C. Technical Training Command I flew only my Avro. 19.

184. [underlined] D.H. CHIPMUNK. – GYPSY MAJOR. (MONOPLANE) 1950. [/underlined]

The Tiger Moth trainer replacement which was designed and first built by D.H. Canada in 1945/6 but later transfered [sic] to England because of dollar shortage. In all over a thousand were produced at Chester. It was a lovely little aeroplane with beautiful controls and one in which one felt at home and joyful from the first moment of opening up the engine. I flew one very soon after retiring from the Royal Air Force and joining De Havilland’s at Hatfield.

185. [underlined] D.H.COMET. – 4. D.H. GHOST JETS. (MONOPLANE) 1950. [/underlined]

A direct result of my visit to U.S.A. was the formation of the Brabazon Committee in January 1943. with the task of formulating

[page break]

73.

requirements for key categories of Civil aircraft we should need if Britain was to pIay any part in Air Transport after the war. The outcome was recommendations for, among others, a Jet transport; at first envisaged as an Atlantic mail carrier, but gradually evolved as a passenger type. The history of this development is fully set out in Martin Sharp’s “An Outline of the De Havilland History” as is also the story of the Dove and Ambassador – all three filling general requirements of the Second Brabazon Committee.

The Comet first flew on 27th July 1949. – the first commercial jet airliner, but it was not until April 1950. that I had the exhilarating experience of flying with John Cunningham on one of his test flights. This is what I recorded in my log-book:- “A great experience, a ride to 40,500 ft. doing some stability tests: rate of climb quite astonishing and sitting inside one could not guess how quickly we reached 30,000. There is some noise but no vibration and one gets a distinct impression of being very high. Behaviour on controls seems excellent and most manoeuvreable [sic] at height. A marvellous sunset above a blanket of cloud and then down through it into the last twilight for a flarepath landing. Strange lack of appreciation of speed, especially when com[deleted]m[/deleted]ing downhill when we must have been doing about 500 m.p.h. No noise of wind rushing past the window, and as smooth as sitting in an arm chair. I wonder how passengers will take to height?” The first jet airliner service was inaugurated by B.A.O.C. on 2nd. May 1952. and led the world, and developed Commets [sic] are still flying to-day. Britain turned over a page in aviation history.

186. [underlined] D.H. BEAVER. – 450 h.p. WASP. (MONOPLANE) 1930 [sic]. [/underlined]

The first in line of D.H. Canada’s S.T.O.L. types which have become world famous. The Beaver originated early in 1947. and was essentially designed to lift rough and ready loads to places where there was no other form of transport. It could be operated equally well on skis, whee[deleted]e[/deleted]ls or floats, in winter temperatures far below zero or in the heat of the deserts. From being an immediate success they have continued to operate in all corners of the world by fifty three airlines and charter owners

[page break]

74.

in about twenty seven countries. It was a lucky break for the Canadian Company who managed to aquire [sic] surplus engines at a cheap price, around which the design centred, but their great achievement was in the slow flying qualities which enabled it to take off and land in very restricted places. I found it very noisy but a grand robust, simple and pleasant aeroplane, very easy to fly with no tricks and a good view, and I thought everyone would like it, and there must be many happy users to-day.

187. [underlined] BOULTON PAUL BALLIOL. – R.R. Merlin (MONOPLANE) 1950. [/underlined]

Designed as a turbo-propeller advanced trainer but the Armstrong Mamba for it did not suit and it was re-engined with a Merlin. It was nice to handle in the air, but very noisy, and the side-by-side cockpit was highly congested. The undercarriage was harsh and there was [deleted] a [/deleted] a distinct swing to one side on take-off and landing. Not very successful.

188. [underlined] AIRSPEED AMBASSADOR. – 2. 2600 h.p. CENTAURUS. (MONOPLANE) 50. [/underlined]

Designed by Hagg as the third of the [inserted] Brabazon [/inserted] types constructed by D.H’s. It was a most elegant aeroplane carrying 49. passengers, and weighing just over 52,000 lbs. I flew in one on B.E.A’s. inaugural flight on the Paris service. This was a beanfeast with an excellent lunch provided on arrival. We returned at 15,000 ft. in cloud, and I thought the aircraft particularly smooth and comfortable, because on cruising power the engines seemed to be just ticking over. Alas only 22. were built but this efficient aeroplane, characterised by it’s high wing and triple fins and rudders, was operated for many years by B.E.A. as their Fleet leader, and is still doing good service for some charter operators.

189. [underlined] D.H. HERON. – 4. GYPSY QUEENS (MONOPLANE) 1952. [/underlined]

This was a development from the Dove capable of carrying 15/17. passengers, which was, and still is, used as a short range feeder liner selected by the Queen’s Flight and by industrial firms. “A nice aeroplane the wings of which flex a good deal in turbulence, which made it a little tireing [sic] to fly in rough weather. Excellent on any one or two engines out conditions which caused no big change of trim. A bit sluggish laterally especially at low speed when rudder is needed to help bring up a wing.”

[page break]

75.

190. [underlined] LOCKHEED CONSTELLATION. – 4. PRATT & WHITNEY. (MONOPLANE) 52 [/underlined]

Ten years after seeing the prototype on the tarmac at Burbank I boarded one of B.A.O.C.’s to take me to Australia. In 1952 the ‘Connie’ was about the Iast word in airline travel and for comfort and ‘gracious living’ – much food and wine – it certainly was excellent. However although 3 to 4 days for that journey was regarded as fast, it needed some stamina all the same. Our route was London – Zurich – Beirut, where a night stop was made after a 12 or 14 hour day. A very early start next morning for Karachi, reached after about ten hours flying; an all-night flight followed to Calcutta for breakfast, and then another 7 or 8 hours to Singapore and another night stop. Early in the morning on to Jakarta, where we were kept locked in a room while a little brake trouble was being rectified: then another 8 or 9 hours to Darwin for a meal followed by an all-night flight ending at Sydney. In the heat of the Far East the stops on the ground felt worse by virtue of stepping out of an air conditioned aeroplane which, however monotonous, was more comfortable.

The conditions of flight were almost perfect especially crossing the Alps at about 20,000 ft with visibility well exceeding one hundred miles in any direction; but after Calcutta we entered the much talked of Inter-Tropical Front area where the dreaded Cu-nim (Cumulo Nimbus) clouds towered upwards to well over 20,000 ft. This entailed flying through the tops; sometimes in severe turbulence, but one was thankful that ‘Connie’ didn’t have to push through the dense centres which were very much to be avoided.

The object of this visit was to establish a D.H. base for Blue Streak at Woomera, then in its very early days, when life in the scorching desert could not be regarded as funny. After completing our business in Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney, I flew back in a Quantas ‘Connie’ again, as far as Columbo and thence relaxed by P & O taking the best part of 3 weeks to get to England.

I made those same long-stage flights several times during the fifties, and each time they seemed to get longer and more interspersed with uncomfortable experiences. The pallid passenger in the next seat who would sleep all over one through the long droning night, quite

[page break]

76.

immovable until literally heaved back into his own chair; the trials of being st[inserted]a[/inserted]cked up over Sydney in a violent storm and taking an hour or so to be lowered progressively from 15,000 ft to ground level, only to find the customs jammed full and still insisting on a ridiculously close inspection of the baggage of collapsed and overwrought passengers – Australian customs are not noted for their consideration. The many delayed take-offs and uncertainty of destination – these incidents and more led to the phrase ‘With time to spare go by air’. But this was still the piston-engine era – has the jet set changed all that? I will give one answer later.

Within these long journeys I flew intercity in D.C. 4's and D.C.6’s Convairs and a Percival Prince, none of which I feel deserves individual mention except to extol the D.C.4. and say the D.C.6. never matched it because of unreliable engines.

When things got too bad the magic name of De Havilland usually got me an invitation from the Captain to visit the flight deck and, perhaps a little unfairly, I passed a happier time with the air crew learning how things worked than with the motley assortment of passengers passing their time badgering the poor stewardesses who must w[inserted]a[/inserted]lk miles during one of these long stages.

191. [underlined] ARGONAUT. – 4. R.R. MERLIN. (MONOPLANE). 1952. [/underlined]

A post-war conversion of the D.C.4. to take Merlin engines – R.R. entry into the airline business. While it gave the aircraft a better performance, it was the noisiest ever thought of and I was glad my experience of it was only a short trip to Madrid rather than a long journey to Africa. In spite of the noise they did good service for some operators and are still to be found flying on charter routes.

192. [underlined] PERCIVAL PROVOST. – 2. 500h.p. LEONIDES. (MONOPLANE). 1953. [/underlined]

“A pleasant high-wing monoplane very quick on lateral, and good on other controls. It had accommodation for 8 or 10 people and was much less noisy than its smaller sister the Prince”.

[page break]

77.

193. [underlined] VICKERS VIKING. – 2. BRISTOL HERCULES. (MONOPLANE). 1954. [/underlined]

About 1944 George Edwards took over from Rex Pierson as chief designer for Vickers and once again in order to get a foot in on post-war civil aviation they developed the Wellington into a transport. At first this was done by geodetic fabric-covered wings on a new metal fuselage, but soon produced new metal wings and so turned it into a new machine. Ten years later I had the pleasure of flying through Central Africa in one, from Johannesburg to Nairobi, which was then called ‘the milk run’. After two false starts we got going for Lusaka, Nodola, Karme, Abercorn, and all stations North to Nairobi. This was a lengthy proceeding taking eight or nine hours, unloading and loading stores and supplies of every description. The aeroplane functioned all right but was a wearisome trip although most interesting to see how the daily necessities were being conveyed by air from town to town. Near Nairobi the wonderful effect of many thousands of flamingo, rising from the lakes as we passed over, was as if a pink carpet had suddenly been spread over the water, or a pink veil slowly waved over the desert.

Here I joined a Constellation and via Khartoum, Cairo, Athens, Rome rumbled my way to Heath Row. While the Viking may not have been the most efficient civil aircraft, it was a well executed quick conversion of a military type, which entered service as soon as the war ended, and lasted the best part of twenty five years.

194. [underlined] VICKERS VISCOUNT. – 4. R.R. DARTS TURBO-PROP. MONOPLANE. 1953. [/underlined]

This type was included as an addition to the requirements of the Brabazon VI, and became VI.A. Just as the Comet aimed to be a jump ahead of the world, so too did the Viscount become the first turbo-propeller civil airliner. George Edwards, and Hives of Rolls Royce, made a beautiful job of this highly efficient aeroplane, which introduced completely new standards of passenger comfort with much greater speed than previous piston-engine types. There were of course many 'doubting Toms’ when we first proposed this step forward, but still in service to-day it remains a winner. To discover for myself its fine qualities I made a journey in one to Istanbul and back in July 1953. The stage times were

[page break]

78.

London – Rome 3 1/2 hours; Rome – Athens 2 1/2 hours; Athens – Istanbul 2 1/2 hours. The smoothness in flight without any vibration and relative quietness was a great advance and no wonder the Viscount proved itself in so many countries. In those days the plain jet could not equal the turbo-propeller for fuel consumption, especially on shorter stage distances, but this was to change after about ten years.

195. [underlined] VICKERS VANGUARD. – 4. R.R. TYNE TURBO-PROP. (MONOPLANE). 1959. [/underlined]

Following the success of the Viscount, George Edwards introduced a much larger and more powerful aircraft capable of seating about 100 passengers. However time was aginst [sic] him on this project, because the rapid development of the plain jet was fast eliminating the fuel consumption difference, and in spite of the good economics which the Vanguard showed in operation only twenty were built for B.E.A. The jet transport has clearly surpassed it on nearly all routes, both short and long, nevertheless the Vanguard is doing a good job in freighting, and I imagine will continue to do so for a long time.

In 1959 I went on an inaugural proving flight with a bonanza lunch laid on at Nice. I often wonder who enjoyed it, because, not only did we take-off from Heathrow straight into cloud but remained solidly cloud bound, and were diverted to Rome in the same cloud. There we pecked at a bowl of spaghetti, hurriedly re-embarked and never saw the ground again until touch-down at London. A very happy day!

196. [underlined] BRISTOL BRITANNIA. – 4. BRISTOL PROTEUS. (MONOPLANE). 1959. [/underlined]

Starting as a gleam in Auntie’s eye as a medium-range Empire transport at 94,000.lbs all up weight on four Centaurus piston engines, the designs of this type changed, and grew, to ultimately produce a long-range transport ending up at a weight of 175,000.lbs. Unfortunately it had a chequered and long-delayed introduction into service, being dogged with Proteus engine troubles amon[inserted]g[/inserted]st others, with the result that by the ti[deleted]e[/deleted]me it began operating for B.O.A.C. it had clearly become the last of the turbo-prop mainliners. The fact that it was able to practically double its weight in ten years, speaks volumes for the high standard of engineering of the structure. The ‘Whispering Giant,’ as the

[page break]

79.

Press christened it, still whispers it’s way around the world carrying goods and passengers at very economical rates and if it became famous for nothing else it might be regarded as the initia[deleted]o[/deleted]tor of the ‘package tour’ for to-day’s holiday makers. 79 aircraft were built so they should bring happiness to a great many yet.

I have never had the pleasure of a long ride in one but was allowed to handle it briefly on a test flight, so briefly that I cannot comment.

197. [underlined] D.H. TRIDENT 2. – 3 R.R. Spey[deleted]s[/deleted] Jets. (MONOPLANE) 1966. [/underlined]

This was to be my first, and so far only, experience of a journey by jet and I looked forward to apprising the latest product of my old firm. As soon as I boarded I settled down in a window seat prepared to watch all proceedures [sic], only to be followed by a man who plonked himself down alongside me, and it didn’t take long for my senses of smell and hearing to tell me he was pixilated. I did my best to glue my attention to the window and revel in the enormous surge of power thrusting us steeply upwards into our steady climb, and trying to guess our altitude and position as we crossed the coast. Throughout there was a rambling voice telling me he had come from Salt Lake City where he and his mother had emigrated from England (how I wished his mother had kept him there) but had spent a night with friends in London, and now he “thought” he was going to Cairo (I wished he was there). By now he was on his second large Scotch and we were at cruising altitude of about 40,000 ft. and I really could not bear this obnoxious piece of England any more. I quietly asked the Steward to take my passport to the Captain with a request that I might be invited to join him on the flight deck. This invitation was forthcoming and I spent about an hour listening to the familiar jargon of the aircrew and watching the Alps in miniture [sic] pass beneath us.

As soon as we had left Genoa behind, all preparations for descent were being made and I returned to the Cabin hoping that my plagueing [sic] passenger would be asleep. But not so, as soon as I arrived back at my seat he saw me from across the aisle, where he had been leaning on two others, and clutching a still full glass he staggered across to me,

[page break]

80.

fell over, shot the glass full down my front followed by himself. The steward got him into another seat, mopped me up, and of all things put a little stewardess alongside him to look after him. This was hardly the best thing to do as he started to ogle her and and [sic] call for another glass. I was nevermore thankful to get shot of anyone, and after landing the last I saw of him was weaving his unsteady way up a corridor and sprawling over the B.E.A. desk, presumably trying to express his earlier thought about Cairo. So the ‘Jet Set’ havn’t [sic] improved conditions even if the aircraft have.

[underlined] CONCLUSION [/underlined].

Variety is said to be the spice of life. I hope my experiences with nearly two hundred different aeroplanes have provided the reader with variety at least; and perhaps a little spice.

The contrasts spread over these – and there have been many more that did not come my way – in the span of one’s life are truly an amazing record of the ingenuity and skill of man’s rapid progress in engineering; I doubt whether exceed or even equalled before.

In the begining [sic] it was said aviation would become the means of uniting the peoples of this world in brotherly love and understanding. Whatever else it has done, and is doing, it has not [inserted] yet [/inserted] done that. Rather the reverse; and as for my brotherly love, I hope he fell into the Nile!

From an all-up weight of under a ton, aircraft are now operating at two hundred and fifty tons, and designs of up to five hundred are in sight. From thirty miles an hour, thirteen hundred is now with us in the sky: and whereas twenty thousand feet in eight minutes was a freak climb, the latest fighter makes forty thousand in four minutes an everyday possibility.

One could go on drawing such vast contrasts in many directions – from the carriage of a pig by Moore-Brabazon to prove that pigs can fly, to the arrival of plane loads of three or four hundred humans intent on having a good time, or if in uniform of destroying each other.

Readers must draw their own conclusions what aviation is doing for the world; I can not. But I do know I’ve enjoyed it all.

ENFORD[deleted character], E Wiltshire. 16.8.71.