Can you Identifty this Wreckage

I was at Rolls Royce in Filton last week where I took the opportunity to look through the flight log books of two of the Bristol Aeroplane Company test pilots, Cyril Uwins and Bill Pegg. During the 1930s Uwins was Chief Test Pilot and Pegg his deputy (he later became Chief Test Pilot himself). Unfortunately Younghusband’s log book is not known to exist.

What I found is that Uwins and Pegg between them made 64 test flights and two taxy runs in the Hawker PV4 (K6926) between 4th February 1937 and 17th August 1938. After that date there is no further mention of the aircraft. The crash which is the subject of this thread occurred on 25th August 1938, just eight days later. Most flights had no passenger but sometimes the pilot was accompanied (names given were Warren, Edgecombe, Bailey and Staniland). On 6th September 1937, Pegg flew with Uwins for 35 minutes after which Uwins flew with Pegg for 45 minutes). Interestingly the PV4 is more often referred to as DB6926 in the log books, i.e. “Dive Bomber 6926”, though K6926 is used sometimes.

Regarding the Gladiator possibilities, there is only evidence of two Gladiators being used by BAC at Filton, K5200 (the prototype) and K7922 which was used to test the Fairey three-bladed propeller during 1937. Both of these aircraft survived past 25th August 1938.

I also found out that Younghusband obviously went back to Bristol for a while at least after his very long stay in hospital as he made the following flights as a passenger:
– 20th March 1939 – with Bill Pegg in Blenheim IV, L4871 for a 15 minute flight.
– 12th April 1939 – with Bill Pegg in Blenheim I, K7109 for a 35 minute flight.
– 27th June 1939 – with Cyril Uwins in Bombay, L5809 for a 60 minute test flight.
– 4th July 1939 – with Cyril Uwins in Bombay, L5809 for a 40 minute test flight.
– 1st August 1939 – with Cyril Uwins in Beaufort, L4443 for a 50 minute flight.
– 13th August 1939 – with Bill Pegg in Blenheim I, L6594 for a 20 minute flight.

Younghusband also appears in the BAC pilots’ superannuation scheme accounts in 1941 so he definitely worked for BAC.

If you are going to the Bristol section of the Heritage Trust, can you find out whether there is any detailed engineering information on the Bristol Jupiter engine while you are there please.:)

There is a lot of technical information at the RRHT in Bristol, though the indexing is not as good as it might be. I have no doubt that there is technical information on the Jupiter, along with most other Bristol engines. There are also examples of each engine on display.

I have actually considered going to the woods with a metal detector Andy

Andy, this might be the best way of resolving the mystery. Pieces that were under the soil, particularly lighter aluminium, may work themselves up to the surface over the years, so a gentle walk through the woods might uncover something with a clear connection to a particular aircraft. If you find a PV4 dataplate, then you can rebuild one of the rarest aircraft on earth !

If you are going to the Bristol section of the Heritage Trust, can you find out whether there is any detailed engineering information on the Bristol Jupiter engine while you are there please.:)

The fact that it was a BAC manager who seemingly coordinated the clean up means that it was a BA show, reinforcing the loaning of a Hawker Aircraft to BAC for engine trials, with a BAC paid pilot.

Thanks both for the additional information. I imagine the main reasoning behind the Gladiator identification was probably one of familiarity. Gladiators were probably quite common around these parts in the 1930s with the Gloster company just up the road. Also the PV4 was most likely unknown to all but a few people anyway so wouldn’t even have been considered. The open vs. closed canopy question is one I’ve thought about myself so that will be one I ask – along with other points you’ve raised here. I’m intending to go into the Rolls Royce Heritage Trust at Filton next week (custodians of the Bristol Aeroplane Company records) to look through more of what they have there just in case there are any clues.

I have actually considered going to the woods with a metal detector – the only remnant I know about is the variable pitch control knob I shared an image of in an earlier post. Would that have been typical of both PV4 and Gladiator? It was actually given to the witness’ father shortly after the accident by a BAC manager in appreciation of the help provided in recovering the wreckage. The crash occurred on their farm land.

Thanks again, this is getting interesting once more!

Andy

Tell tales

Other telltales in respect of Gladiator versus PV4 are :

PV4 had Handley Page Slots on the leading edge of the upper mainplane, Gladiator did not. Better resolution photos may show evidence of Hawker type HP slots.

PV4 had fixed Hawker type undercarriage, with cross axle tube, while Gladiator had Dowty sprung type wheels. These looked like ‘two lollipops stuck upside down underneath’, so ask your witness if this is what they recall.

Gladiators had linked ailerons on top and bottom plane, while PV4 had ailerons on top plane only.

Another source of confusion re Glosters and Hawkers was that Hawker Aircraft Ltd purchased Gloster Aircraft in 1935, but allowed Glosters to continue to manufacture the Gladiator with only some changes to the wing spar structure, converting it to the Hawker construction technique. My gut feel is that the PV4 was the back end of a late model Hart design like a Hector or Hind with larger, stronger wings. In period advertising Hawkers claims that its Hart biplanes were sufficiently engineered to act as dive bombers, but I note the PV4 had a larger wing surface, presumably to allow for more bomb load and more aggressive techniques. Certainly in 1938 the Condor Legion was using dive bombing Stukas with great effect over Spain, so the PV4 design was an exploration in this technique, as with the Stuka having a rear gunner. Hawkers were great at taking existing designs and tweaking them to meet a specific need.

Still ,there will be little telltales in any remnants, for example Hawker pin jointed construction used small tube spacers within the fuselage tube walls while Gloster Gladiators used split tube spacers.

Certainly by 1938 I would expect a Gladiator to have an enclosing, sliding canopy rather than the open canopy of the PV4, which might be a question to ask the adamant witness claiming it is a Gladiator.

Being a radial setup, and understanding that Hawker Aircraft allowed the staff of Glosters and Gloster enterprise to carry on with the Gladiator program without interference, it would seem logical that Gloster staff would supervise the installation of a Bristol radial to the PV4, rather than Hawker staff, no doubt busy on the Hurricane program and more familiar with inline V12s like Kestrels and Merlins. So the folks rushing to the scene from Filton may have been Gloster staff, being one explanation for the witnesses claim that it was a Gloster Gladiator. If a nosy witness was asking ‘what crashed’, it might be logical to reply ‘Gloster’ or ‘Gladiator’ rather than ‘secret test bed’ or ‘Private Venture’ design.

The fact that the variable pitch knob is around suggests that local urchins did souvenir some bits and bobs, I wonder if an ad in the local paper seeking bits might also uncover something.

Can’t disprove Gladiator, but a lot of contemporary news reports quote ‘medium bomber’. Also doesn’t there appear to be a large mount of wreckage for a fighter of that size

Picture of a PV4 here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_P.V.4

the information you provide on the aileron construction really seems to adds to the evidence of it being the PV4. From what you say in your post I assume you’re convinced it couldn’t be a Gladiator as always presumed by the witness? Andy

Andy, unless you actually find a better photo or remnant that matches the images of PV4 aileron it is too earlier to confirm or deny the PV4-Gladiator ID. Your map is excellent. I wonder if a little work with a metal detector might not unearth a few scraps that would confirm an ID, eg some parts with serial numbers or bits of fuselage tube that can be matched with the known tube schedules for Gladiator. There is always something left, particularly if you follow the path through the trees, when odds and sods would have been torn off. Strangely a few bits may be embedded in the trees high up off the ground, which a friend with a quad copter may help find. Your aerial view map also seems to show a drainage ditch adjacent to the crash site; some bits and pieces may have migrated there over the years.

I don’t know if the housing was there in the day but perhaps a door knock might elicit a few bits sitting on somebody’s mantle piece or an old photo album. A Peeler Man was at the scene, so perhaps an old Police report might throw up a few clues. I am not an accident investigator, but everybody loves a little mystery like this. Certainly the PV4 is a missing link between Hart biplanes and the Hurricane. If it was the PV4 I can understand all the hush up and consequent uncertainty about ID.

I guess the other tack is to ask the witness to prove that it was a Gladiator – why are they so certain ?

Thanks very much for that excellent and analytical post! Do you happen to be a crash investigator by any chance? Your analysis of the circumstances of the crash are enlightening and the information you provide on the aileron construction really seems to adds to the evidence of it being the PV4. From what you say in your post I assume you’re convinced it couldn’t be a Gladiator as always presumed by the witness?

I am actually trying to get better copies of the press photos and am in contact with the newspapers but I think the chances of them surviving are very slim as many local newspapers destroyed their original photos and negatives from that time many years ago. I’ve already had an answer from one paper which confirms this. I’m following up with others though and am also chasing up further lines of enquiry with local archives.

The image I’ve attached here, which I created from a sketch made by one of the witnesses shows the aircraft’s track travelling west before turning north at the last moment at which point it hit the tree tops. It then passed through the tree tops for around 100 yards before finally crashing. When it had been travelling west it was flying directly into the hillside below the ridge but the pilot possibly saw the the trees through the fog and attempted to turn away. The hill in that area is quite steep though, so he couldn’t make it. As you can see from the image, the engine separated from the airframe and rolled some way down the slope.

Thanks again for your help with this research, I’m looking forward to finding the conclusive proof!

Andy

Below is a picture of the Hawker PV4 aileron stolen from hawkerhind.com
It is not labeled as such, and is in a group of Hawker tooling images, focused on the Hind era. The image initially caused confusion due to spending inordinate hours working on a CAD model of Hind-Aust Demon ailerons, where what I call the PV4 aileron did not fit for the following reasons :

1) There are two lightening holes in the ribs behind the aileron spar tube, whereas there are only one or none lightening holes in the Hind aileron ribs.
2) There are twelve ribs in the Hind aileron, whereas the PV4 has 14.
3) There are four aileron hinges in the Hind & PV4, but only three hinges in the Hurricane I.
4) There are 10 ribs in the Hurricane I fabric covered aileron.
5) The outer rib arrangement in the Hind creates a step in the washout zone, whereas the the PV4 and Hurricane arrangement has a straight finish to the aileron in the washout zone.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]238264[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]238265[/ATTACH]

On this logic, and referring to Mason’s ‘Hawker Aircraft’ drawings I claim that the picture is of a PV4 aileron, and on the right hand side of the hawkerhind.com photo can be seen another aileron and the edge of a wing stacked on the ground.

Referring to the posted press pictures of the accident, a picture is worth a thousand words, but perhaps a copy of original pictures of better resolution held in newspaper archives might be worth ten thousand words. There is no immediate match to a PV4 aileron component I can readily see, but perhaps better resolution image might throw something up.

This is all just accident reconstruction guesswork based on the photos which appear to be of the same view, with the wreckage more disturbed in the ‘later’ photo with the Bobby and bushwalkers. In the shadows on the tree trunk and in the later photo with longer shadows, is the implication that the Bobby is facing east.

I guess the aeroplane crashed heading west. The plane crashed at 9am on a reciprocal from Uley, landing above Nunnery Lane. I wonder if this data and the final position of the engine supports the aeroplane travelling west.

After you have seen many Hart biplanes on their backs you get used to the idea of excessive braking tipping them over on their nose and ultimately backs, the pilot in perturbation facing the direction from which he came. The pilot survived this crash, so one guess as to the development of the finished wreckage and position of the pilot might be :

1.) Pilot in forced landing turns starboard wingtip into ground, either to avoid tree or as a purposeful measure by an experienced pilot to cause his body to slew sideways on impact rather than headfirst into the cockpit panel.

2.) Aeroplane cartwheels and tips on its nose, undercarriage impacting with tree and forcing pilot back into his seat.

In this scenario, the strongest members in the entire airframe, the nickel chromium alloy T2 axle cross tube and T2 radius arms of the undercarriage, impact with the tree first, absorbing forces that are then distributed through the frame, creating a ‘crumple zone’ that in combination with the pilot being forced down onto a parachute pack on the seat might explain a miracle survival in an airframe that is twisted around a tree, rear fuselage pointing west on one side, and main wheels hooked on the east side of the tree. I can’t see any moss on the tree to confirm this hypothesis….

Both photos seem to be have been taken from the perspective of looking ‘down’ into the cockpit where the pilot would have been visible to the rescuers first arriving on the scene. It would be interesting to find a record of injuries suffered by the pilot to confirm the hypothesis of how the accident worked out : injuries to the left side and a compressed spine or neck, perhaps. Lucky for him the main fuel tank looks intact on the left hand side of the tree. With engine and magnetos off a cooler exhaust and absence of ignition would help.

3) Large bough resting on top of wreck on right hand side lands on top of wreckage, heavy end pointing east. If the aircraft came from the other direction, it would be hard for this bough to finish in the same position. Other bits and pieces of wreckage seem to be draped in a way suggesting a crash from the west.

On the left of the photos are what looks like the lower plane laying north south, with washout zone facing the photographer. In the earlier photo, on the right hand side, what looks like a lower wing roundel faces the sky. In all Hart biplanes, and the PV4, the lower wing is shorter than the upper wing, giving a greater chance of intact survival for the lower wings. Certainly in the impact of the upper starboard main plane of Australian Demon A1-8 into a hillside, something I have looked at in trying detail, you have a similar affect, albeit Demon A1-8 side slipped in at low speed. It looks like this PV4 has attempted a high speed gliding approach and not made it over a wooded ridge, and tumbled down the far side.

It is interesting the witness reports of the Bristol engine sounding like a bag of ‘rusty nails’, something I have read elsewhere in respect of an overheated Jupiter engine, probably gross pre ignition.

Most tantalizingly the remains of upper wing components look draped around the tree. I can almost image a PV aileron in there, but need more resolution to really confirm it. Please find some photos with better resolution ! If you find a twin lightening hole PV4 aileron in the mess then you have your Eureka moment.

I’ve had some recent correspondence from someone who believes he is the last person alive to actually witness this crash. The problem is that he believes he saw a Gloster Gladiator that day whereas my research and the messages in this thread all point to something else. Does anyone have any additional evidence that I could use to pursuade him otherwise? Did the Bristol Aeroplane Company use any Gladiators in the 1930’s? We’re there any based at Filton at this time? Is there anything in the crash photos which indicate it couldn’t be a Gladiator?
Thanks for any help you can give.
Andy

Thanks for that Paul, I’d agree with you that the circumstantial evidence is substantial.

Can anyone tell me where I can read the DTD progress reports referred to by Niall above? Are they in the National Archives?

Thanks

Andy

AndyB

Thanks for your posting on this subject. Though we have no 100% proof it was PV4 K6926 I feel we have lot of circumstantial evidence that it was and I for one have this ‘closed’ in my outstanding file. Richard Younghusband after he recovered from losing his leg served in the ATA during WW2.

Paul

I’ve only just joined this forum after seeing this post. I started this research back in 2003 as I live very close to the crash site in Dursley, Gloucestershire and wrote it up in an article which appeared in our local history journal in 2005, after spending some time collecting evidence by speaking to eye-witnesses, and also contacting various newspapers, archives and aviation groups. I imagine it somehow ended up on this forum via one of those routes. My research has continued over the years, although has taken a back seat, but I’m not sure how I missed this thread which seems to have come up with what appears to be the missing positive identification I was looking for – very exciting! Thank you to Paul for starting it and to everyone for contributing.

My original article investigated three aircraft crashes which occurred in Dursley – Airspeed Oxford L4558 on 15th April 1941, USAAF DH Mosquito, NS638, on 23rd December 1944 and the mystery aircraft discussed here on 25th August 1938. The article includes the original picture shown in this thread and also a photograph of the pilot, Flt Lt R.H. Younghusband, being carried on a makeshift stretcher by the locals who extracted him from the wreckage. I’m including an extract from my article which relates to this crash below.

“… Around 9 o’clock on 25th August 1938 an aeroplane was heard in the vicinity of Woodmancote, Dursley. It was a foggy day and the engine was coughing and spluttering as it came over the Highfields area, then headed off in the direction of Uley before flying back around. Eyewitnesses observed the craft to be a biplane and the pilot was obviously having a real struggle to maintain level flight. In no time at all the aeroplane had lost height and, failing to clear the trees, crashed into the woods above Nunnery Lane. It was utterly destroyed, being all but unrecognisable as the object it had been just minutes before. By an extraordinary stroke of good fortune, the pilot, Flt Lt. Richard Hames Younghusband, based at Filton, survived but was very seriously hurt, suffering a fractured skull, thigh and other internal injuries.

… One other memory of the incident that still survives to this day is the sight of the huge radial engine near the crash site above Nunnery Lane. It had been torn from its mountings on impact and rolled down to its final resting place…

This is the crash where an element of mystery remains and some facts still need to surface. Most significantly among them is the exact type of the aircraft involved in the accident, its registration number and the purpose of the flight.

Newspaper reports of the time describe it as a ‘medium bomber’ with two seats although only one was occupied on this flight. It is also said to have had a Bristol engine which seems to tie up with the Filton connection. One theory is that it was performing a test flight, either of a new engine or perhaps a new type of propeller. The latter is maybe more likely as one remnant of the crash which survives is a propeller pitch control knob and cable used for altering the angle of the blades. Variable pitch propellers were certainly under development in the 1930s in Bristol so it’s a distinct possibility. Equally, radial engines were designed and manufactured by the Bristol Aeroplane Company and several aircraft were retained at Filton as testbeds. It’s also possible that the aircraft could have been one from 501 Auxiliary Air Force Squadron, which was based at Filton at the time, but this seems more unlikely given the types in service then. A popular idea is that it was a Gloster Gladiator and on the face of it this does seem a possibility but the evidence of two seats and the description as a bomber would appear to rule that one out. Other favourites are two Westland aircraft types, the Wapiti and the Wallace, which also flew from Filton. They fit the criteria but no evidence has yet come to light. Only time and further study will reveal the truth!”

So that was what I wrote in 2004 and from the new information surfacing in this thread, it does seem as if I was on the right lines with it being a test flight, seemingly now most likely of an engine as described in previous posts, perhaps also coupled with testing of a variable pitch propeller given the surviving relic I’ve seen, although perhaps that was standard practice in 1938? I know the Gloster aircraft company had their Hele-shaw Beacham variable pitch propeller in the 1930s and some testing was done with Bristol aircraft. I’m attaching an image of the item recovered from the wreck here.

I’ve also found out recently that the pilot didn’t leave hospital until March 1939, almost seven months after the crash. As has been posted here though he eventually died when the Spitfire he was flying crashed in 1953. At that time he was a civilian pilot on the staff at Langham aerodrome which was administered by Marshall’s Flying School, Cambridge.

The Hawker PV4, designed to specification G.4/31, seems to be almost a certainty for this mystery aircraft based on new inputs here so I very much appreciate the new information. Only one example was built and as a two-seater biplane with a Bristol engine which was being used for test flights it certainly fits the bill! I think I got put off the PV4 originally as I saw the information indicated here which stated that it wasn’t struck off charge until March 1939. In retrospect this must be just the time the records were tidied up and it was formally removed from the register as has been suggested. Thank you to Paul for suggesting it and to Niall for providing the information from the Directorate of Technical Development progress report for the quarter ending Oct 1938 which gives more details of the crash of an aircraft with the Bristol Perseus engine. Can anyone tell me where these DTD progress reports can be seen please as I’d like to read up on this further.

Special thanks to Michael Ogden for the most recent previous post to this forum – really interesting. I’d love to know anything more relating to this aircraft in your father’s log book if possible.

Many thanks to everyone again – it really does look like the research is coming to a conclusion!

Andy

DB6926

My father, Micky Ogden, flew this aircraft a few days earlier fron Filton . It was the http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/hawker_pv-4.php

My father also flew the aircraft on 11.38 for 75 mins and on 27.1.38 for 300 minutes. Extracted from my fathers logbook

Michael Ogden

This is the wreckage of the unknown aircraft flown solo by F/Lt Richard Hames Younghusband that crashed at Dursley Glostershire at around 9 am on Thursday 25th August 1938

The aircraft Identity is still a mystery.

What I would like is a possible type Identification -it is mangled up a bit.

Ok – heres what I know

1) Aircraft Took of from Filton
2) Younghusband was in Reserve of RAF Officers (supposedly attached to 501 Sqn) – But he is NOT in 501 ORB for period
3) He may have been employed by Bristols at time of accident- He certainly got a pension form Bristols as a result of thsi incident (he lost leg in the accident, was in ATA durng war and died in a Spitfire after WW2)
4) Plane from newspaper reports had ‘Bristol Engine’ – and definately only one engine – all references are to a single engine, not engines and engine problems caused crash
5) Aircraft listed as RAF ‘Medium Type’ – for 1938 would this be bomber? but what type?
5) Aircraft listed as ‘RAF’ so probably service machine, but not necessrily allocated to RAF Unit – I am thinking maybe Bristol test bed
6) I do NOT think he was formally flying as part of RAF at time, but may have been instructing? Was there a Training School run by Bristols at Filton?

I think the wreckage shows wooden or steel framed fabric aircraft but which one??

Sorry but this has been a mystery aand others for me about 7 years and I feel we are close to an answer

Many Thanks

Paul

Stuart thanks for that – it does make it easy to see that it is just wreckage
Paul

Hi Paul…

Here’s that image, best I can do as there is a reflection of a guy in the image with a camera pointing straight at the photo hung on the wall… ;):diablo:

K8B that’s the same image I had saves me a hard drive search thanks

Just a thought, but have you checked the Local Police, or even their H.Q. they may have a record of the Officer seen in the photo, who may still be around, and who would no doubt remember the incident. A lot of the coppers of that time, kept their old Pocket Books, wherein they would have, perchance the info you are seeking, they also were the Coroners Officer, and attended P.Ms as well..
Got to be worth a try.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Here’s another photo from a slightly different angle, in case it helps at all. Described as “a medium type bomber with a Bristol engine”. . .

Wow Stu. – Thank you very very much – I have another iamge soemewhere on my hard drive – it may be same one – But I will have a look for it!

Paul

My Pleasure…;)