DH.86 Express

Yes, Vivian Bellamy was the pilot.:)

It would seem very likely you were among the last passengers as the a/c certainly met it end in Spain in September 58………. I am really envious of you.

Viv Bellamy was certainly the owner although it may have be registered to the Hampshire Aeroplane Club. Fair chance he may have been the pilot as well………..

Planemike

Just to add a little.
I was researching ACZP to clarify the date as my father, who was a great archivist seems to have the date wrong as 1962. It could not have been if the plane went to Spain in September 58.

The flight would have been August bank holiday but in 1958 August bank holiday was at the beginning of the month. Would Bellamy have been the pilot -owner?

I remember father had to sit at the front for CG reasons. We could have been some of the last passengers on a 86!

A great first post and welcome to the Forum! Great memories of ‘CZP.:)

Might be a good idea to delete your e-mail address from the post.:D

G-ACZP

I have 2 pictures of me and my family boarding G-ACZP at RAF Brawdy. South Wales in August 1958.
Could have been a few days before it went to Madrid.

Sorry i can not figure out how to post them so if you would like them it’s

OK i think i did it.

.
It always surprised me that a DH86 did not compete in the 1934 Centenary Air Race?

I realise that DH was focusing on the Comet Racers as the primary “weapon” to maintain british pride and ensure a british win in the race, but the DH86 had a cruising speed of 123 Kts (228kmh), which was faster than the DH89 Rapide that did compete with 115 Kts (212 kmh), although slower than both the Boeing 247 and Douglas DC2.

Does anyone know why a DH86 did not compete? was it over concerns that the American transport aircraft (Boeing 247 & DC2) would perform better denting british pride? or simply that the airframes completed at that time were committed to delivery?

I understood early production deliveries included aircraft to Australia including Holyman’s and QANTAS, and that these were shipped out and erected locally, it is surprising that DH did not include one in the race for air delivery to promote the type, which at the time was the fasted British built airliner?

The DH86 was the most advanced use of the timber/biplane layout for airline use, and represented the last word in that technology, it is dis-appointing that one did not survive into preservation, and an eventual FSM at the Qantas Founders Museum will be a welcome example, at least externally.

On the issue of the Zulu Shields, the Australian experience with the DH86 was not pleasant, as described on the wiki page and within Australian publications, with great concern over the fin post strength.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Express

Technical Deficiencies
This section is largely sourced from the book Air Crash, Volume One by Macarthur Job[2].

Seriously lacking in directional stability, the D.H.86s were frequently in trouble. On 19 October 1934 Holyman’s VH-URN Miss Hobart was lost in Bass Strait with no survivors. Flotsam that may have been wreckage from the aircraft was seen from the air three days later but surface ships failed to locate it in rough seas; the aircraft had effectively vanished. At the time Miss Hobart disappeared the design of the aircraft was not suspect, and it was thought that an accident may had occurred when Captain Jenkins and the wireless operator/assistant pilot Victor Holyman (one of the proprietors of Holymans Airways) were swapping seats in mid flight. However following the loss of Qantas’ VH-USG near Longreach four weeks later while on its delivery flight, it was found that the fin bias mechanisms of the crashed aircraft and at least one other were faulty, although it is doubtful that this had any direct bearing on the accidents other than perhaps adding to the aircraft’s lack of inherent stability. Further investigation revealed that VH-USG had been loaded with a spare engine in the rear of the cabin, and that one of the crew members was in the lavatory in the extreme aft of the cabin when control was lost. It was theorised that the aft centre of gravity condition that thus existed resulted in a loss-of-control at an altitude insufficient for recovery (the aircraft was at an estimated height of 1,000 feet prior to the crash).

On 2 October 1935 Holyman’s VH-URT Loina was also lost in Bass Strait, again with no survivors. This time a significant amount of wreckage was recovered from the sea and from beaches on Flinders Island. Investigation of the wreckage revealed a section of charred carpet on a piece of cabin flooring from just ahead of the lavatory door. It was thought possible that a small fire from a dropped cigarette had led to someone running aft suddenly to stamp it out – the sort of sudden change in weight distribution that could set up a fatal loss of directional control while the aircraft was on a low-speed landing approach.

The Royal Air Force’s Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment tested the D.H.86 design in 1936 following three fatal crashes in Europe. It would be forty years before the report was published – one of the most damning indictments ever written on the design of a commercial airliner put into series production. The D.H.86 had been rushed from design concept to test flight in a record four months to meet the deadlines set by the Australian airmail contracts, and a lot of attention to detail had been ignored. It was a big aircraft for its power, and as a result very lightly built. There was poor response to control movements in certain speed ranges, the wings were inclined to twist badly if the ailerons were used coarsely and, most seriously, the vertical tail surface was of inadequate area. The result was an aircraft that, although quite safe under normal conditions, could rapidly get out of control under certain flight regimes.

Although the control problems were overcome on later-manufactured D.H.86Bs, the results of the tests do not appear to have been communicated to Australia and the D.H.86s already in use were never modified to improve their safety. This lack of communication may have caused a number of later accidents including at least one of two further fatal disasters in commercial service. The mid-air break-up of Qantas’ VH-USE Sydney in a thunderstorm near Brisbane in 1942 with the loss of nine lives was possibly unavoidable, however the fin was found almost a mile away from the main wreckage, which was burnt without an investigation being carried out. The accident involving MacRobertson Miller Airlines’ ex-Qantas aircraft VH-USF at Geraldton on 24 June 1945 most likely was entirely avoidable had the AaAEE report been communicated to Australia[3]. On its first commercial flight for its new owners after military service, the pilot and a passenger were killed in a classic loss-of-control accident while taking off with a heavy load in gusty conditions.

Another D.H.86, VH-USW (the former Holyman Airways Lepena), was bought by MacRobertson Miller Airlines at much the same time as VH-USF and was the last of the type to fly in Australia. MMA sold the eleven-year-old aircraft to an English company late in 1946; it was abandoned in India in an “unsafe state” while on her delivery flight. Edgar Johnston, the Assistant Director General of the Australian Department of Civil Aviation, then had it scrapped at Australian Government expense to make sure that it never flew again[4][5].

The Political and Commercial Consequences

Following the first three fatal Australian D.H.86 accidents and a forced landing to VH-USW Lepena on 13 December 1935 (a Friday) when the pilot believed his aircraft was about to break up in mid-air[6], the Australian Government temporarily suspended the type’s Certificate of Airworthiness. This caused outrage in Britain as it reflected on the whole British aircraft industry. In fact, the D.H.86 had approached the limits to which traditional “plywood and canvas” aircraft construction could be taken, and was obsolete compared to all-aluminium stressed-skin aircraft like the Boeing 247 and the Douglas DC-1 that were already flying before it was even designed (and the immortal Douglas DC-3 had its first flight just four days after the forced-landing of VH-USW). Under pressure from Holymans and other companies, the Australian Government rescinded its ban on the import of American aircraft during 1936, and for the next 25 years most large commercial aircraft imported into Australia were of American manufacture.

regards

Mark Pilkington

I have never seen that short-nosed version of the DH-86 before with the Rapide-style nose. Was that an earlier or later development? Quite neat looking.

That was the first (single pilot) version. Only a handful were made.

Best wishes
Steve P

I have never seen that short-nosed version of the DH-86 before with the Rapide-style nose. Was that an earlier or later development? Quite neat looking.

One of the NZ Express’s failed to get airborne and went through a fence and the other two were wrecked taxiing into ditches, but I’ve never heard any problems with stability. Maybe our pilots and crews were never aware of the problems and recommended fix if the report was suppressed. I’ve talked to a few people who flew in them as crew in Fiji when we used two of them as reconnaissance bombers and they reckoned they were very lovely stable old aeroplanes.

de Havilland DH-86 Express online

Theres a prototype photo (E.2 later G-ACPL) in the Getty archive on
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/3067405/Hulton-Archive

Thanks for the Flickr file, Longshot, great stuff.

Another photo from the “box of delights” I have credited to Air lingus as it’s in my old 86 file and much is sourced from AL. As you see Air Lingus 86’s used the end plates but I believe they came about when the Aussies kicked up a fuss following several accidents.

Quite, John. …and were told to shut up and get on with it.

The dark side of ‘Ah de Havilland’:

The Royal Air Force’s Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment tested the D.H.86 design in 1936 following three fatal crashes in Europe. It would be forty years before the report was published – one of the most damning indictments ever written on the design of a commercial airliner put into series production. The D.H.86 had been rushed from design concept to test flight in a record four months to meet the deadlines set by the Australian airmail contracts, and a lot of attention to detail had been ignored. It was a big aircraft for its power, and as a result very lightly built. There was poor response to control movements in certain speed ranges, the wings were inclined to twist badly if the ailerons were used coarsely and, most seriously, the vertical tail surface was of inadequate area. The result was an aircraft that, although quite safe under normal conditions, could rapidly get out of control under certain flight regimes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Express

I don’t think the Zulu shields were fitted to all aircraft after the concerns, and obviously not as a result of the report.

DH86 First and Last

Some scans from Railway Air Services by John Stroud(the single-pilot 86 G-ACVY survived the war , scrapped Langley 1948, I think)…. and Classic Props vol3 by Mike Hooks (who is far too modest about his Kodachrome photography…the shot of G-ACZP Kidlington 24Apr 1958 is the only colour photo of the DH86 I’ve seen…I have it my spotters log but absolutely cant remember it!!). I’m probably in the minority preferring the single pilot original version

Note to GeoffR….is it possible when making the male mould for the DH86 to make ‘a break’ so the nose of the single-pilot 86 could be substituted. The colour shot of the DH86 is in the tradition of the 2 colour shots of the Empire Boats!! :)….I’ve made a Flickr album which includes some Empire boats on Galilee

http://www.flickr.com/photos/74784995@N00/sets/72157604727564944/

Apologies for the title….G-ACVY was preceded by G-ACPL and one for Australia, so was number 3! Pic of #1 later in thread

Zulu shield endplates

Another photo from the “box of delights” I have credited to Air lingus as it’s in my old 86 file and much is sourced from AL. As you see Air Lingus 86’s used the end plates but I believe they came about when the Aussies kicked up a fuss following several accidents.

John

It looks good T6flyer, but can you get it without those add-ons on the tail that spoil the look of the machine? They were not used on the NZ ones. I note they’re not on John’s photo of the last flying example either. Were they only used by QANTAS?

I will try and get the aeroplane amended, but my friend – Kazunori Ito – that builds these aeroplanes for the simulator is Japanese and has a very very limited understanding of the English language. All emails that I send have to be in very short sentences and broken at that. Everything is done through an online translation program.

He is the most prolific freeware producer of flightsim aircraft (probably turning something else out as this is typed) and as he loves British designs, we have in the past been very fortunate to have seen some wonderful recreations – Seamew, Balliol, Auster 9, Victor, Vulcan, Sperrin, BAC221, etc etc. Two weeks and something else will be produced – he does it purely for his own enjoyment.

A word of warning though, he describes himself as a modeller and so in most cases the flightmodel (the aerodynamic file) sometimes represents a faster type. Already some people have commented on this for the DH.86, but I’m sure someone somewhere will have the ability to ‘tweak’ the file into something more realistic.

Best wishes,

Martin

The ‘Zulu Shields’ were a bodge amendment because the type had serious keel area and stability issues – which were never fully corrected.

If there was one flying, I wouldn’t touch it with a bargepole. Looks nice, a killer.

As per my earlier post, most of the facts here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Express

Having just been looking over Neil Cadigan’s new Lester Brain’s biography, it’s also quite unflinching in regards to the issues.

http://shop.abc.net.au/browse/product.asp?productid=165517

It looks good T6flyer, but can you get it without those add-ons on the tail that spoil the look of the machine? They were not used on the NZ ones. I note they’re not on John’s photo of the last flying example either. Were they only used by QANTAS?

I’m sure that the QANTAS examples did not have the additional rudder thingies either. They were only fitted to later versions (DH.86A and DH.86B). Quantas examples – and Viv Bellamy’s example – were all plain DH.86s. Maybe the modeller has goofed with the paint scheme, or perhaps QANTAS modified their aircraft with the rudder thingies when they became available?

Best wishes
Steve P

It looks good T6flyer, but can you get it without those add-ons on the tail that spoil the look of the machine? They were not used on the NZ ones. I note they’re not on John’s photo of the last flying example either. Were they only used by QANTAS?

DH 86

I just found this in my”box of delights” but I,m a bit ‘Vera Lynn’ about it. It’s obviously the Bellamy machine.

John

Just a quick note to say a big thank you to everyone who helped me in obtaining material for my friend’s DH.86 Express model for the Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Today is has been released at www.flightsim.com for all to try.

Again thanks for all your help, it is as always so much appreciated.

Best wishes,

Martin

thanks Graham
will do
GeoffR

Let me know exactly what you want. I got 3 views, manuals, the lot – as long as I am not out of pocket, happy to help! I’ve even got the Martlesham Heath test reports!