pobjoy pete574 !!!!!!!
Calling JAYCE Calling JAYCE
Its getting down to the line now if you can extract some further detail from FIL.
He clearly states “nearly in the canal” and “pavillion now demolished”
Two things, can you ask him to confirm he means the river that runs alongside Ravensmead Rd,and also where the pavillion was in relation to the river and Ravensmead Rd or Ravensbourne Station.
This may help us considerably as there is no sign of a pavillion base on GE.
Until we can get a 60’s survey image the GE shot is all we have other than visiting the location (not an option for me yet,300miles away)
Many thanks in advance PP.
pobjoy pete574 The Final Solution 2
I looked at the (what is now m/wall training ground) originally but was not convinced then, and now having the benefit of the recovery shots i am still going with Warren Ave Field.Mk 12 has provided us with the best possible evidence for both final location and the “stump thumping” part.
Having images from three sources “on different days” with no time label is challenging if trying work out final direction from shadow information but i originally went with approx s/west and am sticking with that.In the end my own decision is based on the background match with a bit of support from the “river” input.
I doubt if there was time or height for a “key points” partial circuit and that the last turn was to the right and the approach made with partial sideslip with the stump contact “assisting” the nose to the right.
Will give Bromley Council a ring Mon to see if they have any old survey images.Good Night PP
Would be happier if evidence of old pavilion showed on GE and how old is the tree in the field !!
Perhaps we should borrow a plastic copy and have a 574 Day at Bromley.
pobjoy pete574 Extra playing time (allowed for weather and crashes)
This is getting interesting again just when the umpire “Bruce” thought the game was over.
We now have two eye witnesses but their evidence puts them several hundred yards apart in different fields.
So we go back to the extra photo evidence thats now available which has been helped by MK12’s recovery shots.
The shot of 574 with cricketers in background plus screen and goal post (straight hedge/fence and chimneys behind) seemed to indicate that the background was Calmont Rd / Warren Ave (one leads into the other) Thats fine but the recovery shots now show a fence housing and Pavillion on the opposite side of the field (tail pointing towards C/R W/A) ( nose towards another fence, housing and pavillion in background)
We are lucky as the aircraft has not been moved (even after dropping the u/c) so acts as a ref point.
Jayce FIL says field is W/A playing field with machine heading towards canal (river)
Pavillion now demolished no mention of new build replacing it.
I can only go on a 1963 OS map and GE.The only field that has the above elements is the lower one that now has a golf course in one corner.
Of course a period vertical survey shot (or site visit)would sort this in minutes as the GE images are over 50 years later so trees have grown and some gone.(remember the Hurricane some years back)
Although GE images are good for the current status of development they are not as good for for showing fine detail of disturbed ground.
I was going to contact Bromley Council to see if they had some 60’s mono survey images, i will do so now as the situation needs clarification.
Oxo merged to become Brookebond OXO then unilever now premier foods so a call to the “OXO Brand” dept informed them about a cricket ground they knew nothing about but gained nothing in return.
Being flat and by a river means that there is “higher ground” on both sides and the trees are effective screens for most backgrounds.
In the end we will get there and its great how so many interested parties (miles apart) have contributed to help solve the unknowns.
I was 12 (ATC underage) when this happened and always wondered why the engine stopped !!! but was unaware of course about the stumps.
Mega thanks to MK12 for his contribution and images.
pobjoy peteGeeing everyone up
Some interesting discussions here but i can see where there is room to disagree.
“G” is applied while you change direction (from the norm) and is relevant to how quick you change direction which affects the load and how much extra strain (apparent weight) the airframe is subject to.
Some G meters read Zero in normal flight and therefore will read +1g when a +1g load is applied.
Some meters start at 1g and a +1g load will read as +2g.
What we are interested in is NOT overloading an airframe beyond that which it is designed for.
An aileron or good slow roll is that where the nose of the machine pivots on an imaginary point in space or some convenient spot (small cloud) or imaginary spot above the horizon usually.
Depending on the type of aircraft and rate of roll there will be some instance of positive, zero and negative loads during this manoeuvre as controls are used to maintain the nose on the spot but the loads should not be unduely high.
In fast jets and specific aerobatic machines the roll can be so quick as only aileron is needed to complete the action.
Your 707 and DC3 would not do this for obvious reasons which include airframe loads and control response and what type of battery they have (thats before we get on to items being flung around inside).
In a barrel roll the nose describes or FLIES a path AROUND the point in space by flying around it rather than being forced to stay on it.
In theory if the aircraft has enough power and can maintain the required speed the actual load applied for this manoeuvre can be well under the aircrafts design limit and should NEVER include a negative element.
Of course this is all ok if everything goes to plan and an even and symetrical path is FLOWN however it all goes pear shaped if it is not, with the machine possibly being subjected to excess negative g at the top or excessive positive g in a pull out.
The conseqeunces of that for an airliner are usually fatal.
The usual starting point for a barrel roll is “offset” from the reference point and starts with a climbing and rolling action in order for the nose NOT to drop below the horizon whilst inverted thereby giving a good reference ahead and avoiding an inverted rolling dive with the speed increasing.
It is the lack of a G meter in most non aerobatic machines that should be taken into account as the pilot will not have an indication of the loads being applied (until he blacks out)
pobjoy pete574 All matched up
Well done RG and an excellent diagram to boot.You see what attention to detail a proper thought process and use of high class equipment can achieve.Its up the nearest ladder and on to the fuel system.
I suspect the S/Puff box bit was an attempt to see if we were paying attention.
ps How did the Swan Vesta trial go !!! was it an even “Match”
Honey Hoops eh! not sure about that, thought they were a bit “girly” you should really mix it with the Honey Monster with added banana and sultana’s.
Flew out of a proper old Spitfire base today (tea in the original control tower)
Perranporth. If you want to see an unusual long range tank fitted to an early Spit ask MK12 for an image of the ones that look like a tin bath on “one wing only”. Now that really did not improve the handling at all.Used for extended convoy patrol work around the western approaches.Perranporth was also the base that three Free French (Spitfire) Squadrons formed up into a Wing before going off to the LG’s around the Chichester area prior to D Day.Some of the guys came back a few years ago to revisit their temporary home it was a great day PP
pobjoy pete574 The telephone
Is that a real telephone MK12 or one from the props dept from the local amateur dramatic society in Bromley.Probably rushed to the scene by the local rag to make a more dramatic picture.
Interesting that no one has produced any EVIDENCE against the original inciDENT.(not that they knew the actual location)
I do not recall any national outcry with regard to the wanton destruction of stumps at the time so “why would” anyone want to fake it.
What i do recall is “the story” of the “unexplained” engine failure and how they could not risk the London flights again.
There is simply NO EVIDENCE that at the time anyone was interested in a few small dents on the wing (even if they noticed them) when there was a massive dent in the spinner and broken bits of prop all over the place and a Spitfire laying on its belly in the middle of suburbia only seconds away from impact with housing or falling in the river.
pobjoy pete574 The telephone call !!!
Hello dear; you know i said nothing could be a bad as fighting the Japs off the airstrips “i was wrong”
Mk12 I see the unbelievers are STILL getting very restless (probably down to substance abuse) (and not having a train set when they were young)
But you must look on the bright side as this has been a great information forum and provider of some really historic images.We must be kind and forgiving as it is the season of goodwill and it has probably brightened up their dull existence.
ps Is there any evidence that 574 actually flew again after her “pre States” rebuild which i believe was to “flying” standards.
Just to throw the non believers off the scent do you have an image of the groundsman’s grass mowers as this will get them very excited and let us get on with the serious stuff.
pobjoy peteNailed for an answer
RG Whilst i admire your belief in being a non-believer i must question your ability in performing such an important “scientific replay” of the event with nails.
A true believer would immediatly see the flaw in trying to break a nail with a piece of cardboard as it is the “breaking” part that gives the clue.
I would remind you that we have requested images of the broken stumps from Halton to ensure accuracy in a full scale experiment.
However to appease those of little faith and to show the customary kindness that “believers” have towards others we will extend our extensive knowledge of stump breaking to one and all.
I am of course pleased to inform you that no “real” stumps were hurt during our experiment (but my borrowed neighbours shovel is now slightly shorter).
Results showed that before breaking the “stump stunt double” bent “towards” the applied load and after fracture caused an impact to the rear of the initial point.I was going to supply images of all this “as you indeed did” but i could not get them fuzzy enough.
On another point there is some doubt as to your claim of using a “sugar puff “
box as the colour does not match.(we do not see the Morrisons issue as being critical for your results).
As for the real event a “possibility” is this.
574 crosses the eastern hedge/boundary in a mild sideslip and at shallow angle to the pitch. The Stb wingtip impacts the stumps which also swings the nose to the right.As the windmilling prop (RH rotation from the rear) impacts the turf and destroys itself this also assist’s a “nose right” movement.
Aircraft slides to a halt near the southern boundary and umpire emerges from pavilion and declares it an “on drive”.
Hurricane does victory roll overhead and continues on to Biggin.
pobjoy pete574 Skidding
The shot of the machine before recovery operations “with the cricketers playing in the background” shows the a/c to be approx 40-45 degrees “off line to the right” only a faint single slide line and what looks like some prop debris.
I do not think the driver would have much say in the matter as the speed decayed or if there was any wind to speak of or its direction.
However i did wonder if the “clout ” of the stumps with the given moment arm did give it a help towards the right.Just remember how easy it is to steer an aircraft (hangar packing) by very small wingtip loads.
Also as suggested before it would have been quite in order to “put it down” in a mild sideslip to avoid “float” and impacting at the other end.It was certainly “very tight” so there could be no “holding off” like a normal landing.
pobjoy peteWrong Thread
The crane looks like the standard Mk7 RAF recovery crane, made by Coles on a Thornycroft Amazon WF chassis. Maybe that will get me over those snakes heads!
No Chance try the Military vehicle Trust or Classic Wrecks.
pobjoy peteJokes and Views
I thought Mk12’s Joke was quite good considering it may be the last one he ever makes.
As for “My Views” on the stumps i even think some of the original hardned “non-believers” are less sceptical now as no one has proffered any “evidence” against the claim and even a very expensive recreation of the incident (3 nails from B&Q) failed to disproove history.
Do you expect us to go through all this again just to appease the latecomers and then have the temerity to blatantly high jack the thread onto fire engines.
This is not Rugby mad Wales, it is Spitfires, Cricket, and England !!
pobjoy peteMessenger
i seem to recall that G-AIEK (became Montys Messenger later) was based on a farm at Sancreed in Cornwall and used to use St Just airfield on ocasions.
There was also a Messenger based at a strip at Lelant for a while (replaced by Gemini).
I recall seeing it a local garage forecourt for a while afterwards.
The Gemini met its end taking off in a crosswind from the strip and finished up hanging from the trees.
pobjoy peteStandard Vanguard (thread creep)
Ok i spotted the Vanguard (but have not passed out with excitement over it)
What next; someone will want to know who made the B….y screens !!!
And before someone ask’s they were made of wood and are now available in PVC at £1745.95 EACH.
pobjoy peteAnother snakes head
Right on to a snakes head pagen01, never mind you can borrow a ladder from the fire engine you are so keen on.
We have finished with the “stumps” non believers and are on to the next phase, of why the engine stopped.
Please try to keep up !!, MK 12 has been very kind dealing with those of little faith, ask Merlin he still has the bumps on his head.
Location Sorted
Stumps Sorted
Engine Sorting
pobjoy pete574 “Fill her up please”
Thanks for the P/Notes MK12.
To start with i wonder why Vickers kept the same type no LF16E for the conventional and low back models.Agreed they have the same Packard built engines but i notice that the fuel quantity (rear tanks) is less in the cut down version (less space).
Next point: the pilots notes explain about the rear two tanks but then go on to state their use is PROHIBITED !!.
The fuel system is simple enough for a 4 tank system and well provided with both booster pumps and air pressure from the vac pump plus non return valves in the fuel line.
If we ignore the “optional” drop tank there are only two separate fuel cocks and two gauges (front and rear bottom tanks)
The vac pump exhaust provides tank venting and pressure if required.
If the rear tank was filled in error but its own f/selector left off, the guage would show full but no fuel would flow to the engine.If a pilot was used to a “one fuel lever system as per earlier marks a potential exists for a problem. The “two fuel cocks” are not “together” and the “rear” one is down to the l/h side of the seat (out of the normal scan).
Sign In
