P6966, the first production Whirlwind, crashed on August 7th 1940 in Stirlingshire. The cause, as recorded in the 263 Squadron ORB, was a tyre burst on take off – visibly damaging the undercarriage and forcing the pilot, P/O McDermott, to abandon.
Since that time, the implication that this was somehow the Whirlwind’s fault has crept into re-telling of the event, with phrases like ‘an indication of things to come’ used – while the ORB said that McDermott ‘burst a tyre’ as if it was his doing.
Looking carefully at the remains of P6966 as held by Steve Vizard, we noticed that the one recovered tyre was wrong.
On checking, it turned out to be an I VV 12 (8 – 10 1/4) tyre. The Whirlwind AP states clearly that it should be an I R 11 (10 1/2 – 10)
Steve was absolutely sure that this was the tyre that he dug up in 1979, still attached to the undercarriage leg.
I VV 12 was a Hurricane tyre. 263 was also operating Hurricanes at the time.
So.. assuming it is possible to fit the 10 1/4″ hole diameter I VV 12 onto a Whirlwind’s 10″ hub without noticing the error, is it possible that as soon as the aircraft was moving at speed the ill-fitting tyre blew, leading to the loss of P6966?
It’s a theory.. 🙂
By: Beermat - 16th September 2013 at 17:03
Not a stupid question – I see where you were going with that.. re bail out, it may be that the damaged undercarriage jammed on attempted retraction? Certainly the leg that was recovered was buckled, suggesting that it wasn’t fully retracted on impact. Pure conjecture, of course.
By: Reckless Rat - 14th September 2013 at 22:42
HMSV – that rules that idea out, then! ‘Scuse ignorance, but sometimes stupid questions are worth asking.
CD – I seem to remember that it was done once or twice later on – F/Sgt Len Gray being one, over in France. Curiously, they did have a good reputation for survivability in pretty serious crashes.
By: Creaking Door - 14th September 2013 at 21:19
I’ve always wondered why he didn’t try for a belly landing…
Does a Whirlwind belly-land well? I’d have thought it was pretty much an ideal aircraft to belly-land…
…although I doubt that its ‘belly’ would get anywhere near the ground!
By: H.M.S Vulture - 14th September 2013 at 20:30
Matt – are the stud bolt spacings the same on the Hurricane and Whirlwind hubs?
Hurricane & Whirlwind wheels do not have stud bolt spacings !
By: Reckless Rat - 14th September 2013 at 18:27
I’ve always wondered why he didn’t try for a belly landing, considering the perceived value of the brand-new, ‘top-secret’ fighter. Easy to say and difficult to do, no doubt, but presumably they decided not to risk it with the high approach and landing speed?
Matt – are the stud bolt spacings the same on the Hurricane and Whirlwind hubs?
By: skyskooter - 14th September 2013 at 17:26
Many thanks.
By: Matty - 14th September 2013 at 16:55
Just wondering how the tyre came to be buried so deep if it failed on take off. Was it perhaps the case that the aircraft got away, the pilot realised the problem, baled out leaving the machine to pile in from height?
Pretty much. The story of the incident and dig is here: http://www.aircrashsites-scotland.co.uk/whirlwind_lanton.htm
By: skyskooter - 14th September 2013 at 16:51
Just wondering how the tyre came to be buried so deep if it failed on take off. Was it perhaps the case that the aircraft got away, the pilot realised the problem, baled out leaving the machine to pile in from height?
By: adrian_gray - 13th September 2013 at 14:59
Sorry, Andy, couldn’t resist… If it’s any help, I’m much, much taller than I was when I went to my first dig!
Anyway, back to Whirlwinds…
Adrian
By: Arabella-Cox - 13th September 2013 at 14:12
Hair thinner. Not sure about robust. Though that might apply to my girth.
I don’t know about favours, but you might be off my Christmas card list!!
By: adrian_gray - 13th September 2013 at 13:57
Presumably the hair is now “thin but robust”?
Adrian
(who has just lost all hope of ever getting a favour out of Andy!)
By: Arabella-Cox - 13th September 2013 at 13:19
Good grief! I actually had some, then. I was a good deal thinner, too!! Though hair somewhat shorter than usual. Luckily, the cheesecloth floral pattern shirt is out of shot.
That brings back a few memories.
That must be the tyre on the right?
By: Beermat - 13th September 2013 at 11:53
Yes, you can tell by the hair!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]220719[/ATTACH]
If you have more pics of that tyre, Andy, that would be great – just to confirm that it IS the same as the one we saw 34 years later.
By: Arabella-Cox - 13th September 2013 at 07:54
Somewhere, I’m sure I have photos of the lumps we recovered on that dig. I will try to find them and post them. Also, I think 3 x 20mm cannon turned up.
Gosh. Was it really 1979?
By: Beermat - 13th September 2013 at 00:06
No hulk to rebuild – just a couple of smallish lumps that were pulled down deep behind the engines. If you mean a flying repro.. I’m sure if you paid he and several others would be delighted to!
By: CIRCUS 6 - 12th September 2013 at 19:21
Never mind the whys and wherefores about a tyre, is Mr Vizard going to rebuild the hulk?
By: Creaking Door - 12th September 2013 at 12:16
I reckon that it is as good a theory as any other; of course, the correct size tyres sometimes ‘burst’ too.
Could the wrong size tyre simply have come off the wheel rim at take-off speed?
By: Beermat - 12th September 2013 at 10:51
I don’t know enough to tell. It’s torn on one side.. We don’t have it, it would take a return to the owner’s to look at it forensically. Also, what if it’s the other tyre?
Of course, there’s no dispute that tyre damage on take-off was a cause. It’s just the reasons for that damage that might be explained by the wrong tyres being fitted.
By: hampden98 - 12th September 2013 at 10:26
If you have the recovered tyre is the damage to the tyre consistent with a blow out or crash?
Sign In
September 12, 2013 at 10:07 am