Fairey Battle L5343 Progress

Yes it is the Static one from Hendon. I think it mentions on the video something about next month possibly?

I thought the hatch in the floor was originally for the Lewis belly gun

According to the Pilot’s Notes for the Battle, it has “Parachute Exit” stencilled on it.

Regarding fuel tanks in the fuselage, the Battle AP dated 1939 states that these are no longer fitted. Maybe they were items that sounded good when the spec was being drawn up, but were found to be useless in service.

Best wishes
Steve P

Thought that was on a Lancaster, maybe wrong though (quite often!:rolleyes:)

I thought the hatch in the floor was originally for the Lewis belly gun, there was a pic in a recent aviation magazine of the gun position where the gun could be fired backwards with the bomb aimer hanging backwards from the hatch:eek: totally exposed to the air flow and with no protection from it or the enemy really.

Remind me if i ever go back in time to world war 2 not to volunteer to be a bomb aimer in a Battle!!!

curlyboy

Hi Steve,

re the undercarriage, I wonder if that was for the benefit of the exiting bomb aimer, so as not to get clouted on the way out! There’s lots of nasty pointy bits on that undercarriage!:eek:

Forgot to say a big thanks to Lewis and Chris in particular for letting me paw the old bird again! If I was a bit closer to Rochester, perhaps I would have had another bash at helping the restoration( albeit nearly 20 years later)!

Cheers

Si

The official line was that the bomb aimer should exit through the hatch feet first and facing the tail. The old cliche about there not being enough room to swing a cat springs to mind:eek:

Pilot’s were instructed to ensure that the undercarriage was up before abandoning the aircraft. Does anybody know why?

I must admit that I was suprised when I heard that Hendon’s Battle was going for a second restoration. Those who did the first did a wonderful job.

Best wishes
Steve P

Hi Guys

I spent a fair bit of time cleaning out the rear gunner to tail section of the Battle during it’s first restoration (see pic 1).

The other photos are of various stages of the MAPS restoration. Pic 2 shows from the pilot seat backwards. The other 2 show the bomb aimers well with the hatch shown. This has 3 windows for the bomb aimer (bomb panel just behind the carpet in pic 4). This hatch slides backwards presumably to allow the bomb aimer to roll out. Looks a bit of a tight squeeze with a ‘chute on!

Anybody have any ideas where the fuel tank mentioned earlier would have been fitted? Where the bomb aimer sat/lay during transit I have no idea.

[ATTACH]165693[/ATTACH][ATTACH]165694[/ATTACH][ATTACH]165695[/ATTACH][ATTACH]165696[/ATTACH]

For those who may not know, the first restoration was done in the main by volunteers (a lot of ‘first timers’ like myself!) with a few experienced guys and RAF personnel. Given the limited resource and research that was available, I don’t think she turned out too bad!;)

This was my contribution to the exterior (with help!)

[ATTACH]165697[/ATTACH]

Cheers

Si

(Photos copyright Simon Newberry)

The passage from the book I quote in my post above suggests they both exited the same way – from the Gunner’s area. Not having been in a Battle is this feasible?

Roger Smith.

The Battle had a hatch in the floor specifically to allow the bomb aimer to bail out.

Best wishes
Steve P

Yes.

I have been told that it would have been near impossible for the bomb aimer to get out with a parachute on and so they were not issued with one.

Excellent pics on their website, but it looks like the nose cowling will
stay as it was.

Excellent workmanship though

Cheers
Cees

The passage from the book I quote in my post above suggests they both exited the same way – from the Gunner’s area. Not having been in a Battle is this feasible?

Roger Smith.

Hi Roger,

I have been in the Battle and I can tell you it would be tricky, and this is without the fuselage fuel tank that would normally be there.

Its not something I would like to try lets put it that way.

I’m not saying I’m right and I’m willing to be proved wrong, all I’m saying is that in my view it would be really difficult.

Yes.

I have been told that it would have been near impossible for the bomb aimer to get out with a parachute on and so they were not issued with one.

The passage from the book I quote in my post above suggests they both exited the same way – from the Gunner’s area. Not having been in a Battle is this feasible?

Roger Smith.

Were there really only two parachutes, for three crew, on the Battle?

Yes.

I have been told that it would have been near impossible for the bomb aimer to get out with a parachute on and so they were not issued with one.

This is the best I can do with the nose section. Even a glance will show that the cowling panels are very different. Note how curved the top cowling is on the Hendon Battle, and how flat is the bottom bath compared to the real thing. The top curve should start further forward as indicated with the red line. Again, like the rudder, the nose is closer to that of the prototype which was faired to match the spinner, rather than that of the production version.

P.S. the pic on the right has been flipped on purpose, for comparison with the that of the Hendon Battle.

RJC

Hello JDK,

See below: Prototype rudder at left, rudder as fitted when the Battle was at Hendon at centre, and production rudder frame at right. Note that the production rudder had a higher trim tab, count three frames from the bottom and not two. Cowling panels had the wrong shape. I’ll try to find comparative views.

RJC

I seem to remember a Battle being preserved in Scotland years ago, part of the Strathallan collection, is there any connection to this one?

No. That one went to Charles Church, and then, via Duxford, to Belgium, where they (Belgian Aviation Museum) are restoring it to complete & static.

Fairey Battle restoration

I came across this link and thought it was too good not to share. Hat’s off to MAPS for their excellent restoration of such a rare aircraft as the Battle!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7630410.stm

I seem to remember a Battle being preserved in Scotland years ago, part of the Strathallan collection, is there any connection to this one?

Graham

Possibly this thought was brought about by the fact (I think) that the Battle was only originally intended to have a crew of two??

Thanks, Roger. To be honest, I’m not sure when ‘originally’ would refer to, although I’m sure that you are right! Certainly I can’t see that full kit, including a ‘chute would be omitted when the concept was upgraded to three crew – and IIRC, the Battle was always a three seater in service, albeit occasionally used with just two aboard…

Were there really only two parachutes, for three crew, on the Battle?

Possibly this thought was brought about by the fact (I think) that the Battle was only originally intended to have a crew of two??

I am currently reading “Strike Hard, Strike True” (Ralph Barker, 1963) and in the chapter “The Maastricht Bridges” P/O Davy’s aircraft caught fire (after dropping their bombs) and Davy ordered Paterson (Gunner) and Mansell (Observer) to jump….
“Patterson was the first to go. He struck the tail fin and broke his ankle and wrist, but landed safely. Mansell followed and made a safe exit. The space of half a minute between their exit times meant the difference between five years in a POW camp for Patterson and escape behind the allied lines for Mansell.” With the fire beginning to die down Davy managed to make a successful force-landing in a field near Amifontaine.

Roger Smith.

Were there really only two parachutes, for three crew, on the Battle?

Can’t see why, or where that would come from. The bomb aimer was intended to be able to move to lie prone, so may have had a detachable rather than seat type.

Great to see the Medway guys work their magic – again!

This story of the prototype rudder and nose – can you elaborate / illustrate, airart?

Were there really only two parachutes, for three crew, on the Battle?