One of the engines looks like a Hercules…
Not the one bottom-right in the first photo…..it seems to have cut-outs for valves in the piston tops! š
RAF06.JPG Definitely at RAF North Luffenham. TB had security authorisation to examine British and allied aircraft. Is anyone able to suggest the aircraft with its bubble open? Inscription on photo reads ‘North Luffenham G1165 HGCU 04.10.44’
Must be an Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle.
‘HGCU’ possibly Heavy Glider Conversion Unit?
RAF07.JPG This one is a mystery all round!
(Badly burnt) Bristol Blenheim Mk I
In the open hatch picture some AW Whitleys are sitting in the far distance.
The aircraft with its hatch open is definitely an Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle and the presence of Whitleys would seem to fit the usage of North Luffenham perfectly at that time.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/s76.html
āWhen [North Luffenham] re-opened in March 1944, the station was used by No. 21 Heavy Glider Conversion Unit with Whitleys and Horsas. This HGCU began to receive Albemarles to replace the Whitleys shortly before moving out in September that year.ā
RAF13.JPG and RAF14.JPG Are these all the same type of aircraft – Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle of HGCU?
Yes, both these are AW Albemarles.
Not sure about the statistics, but Iām glad you posted your findings.
āFindingsā makes it sound very grand! In reality it was ten minutes spent with some digital calipers, a calculator and a twenty-nine year old copy of āAircraft of World War 2ā by Bill Gunston, which I didnāt have the heart to take to the charity shop…..again! Anyway it seems my figures werenāt too far out.
This article is fairly good at explaining a few thoughts and views on the 109
A large amount of very interesting reading there!
Interestingly there are several mentions of ānarrow undercarriageā and when it is mentioned by the likes of Gunther Rall and Eric Brown I guess people tend to take notice. I suppose what they meant was that it felt narrow as opposed to it actually being narrow but at least the author confirms my calculations in the “The specific problem with the Bf 109 was the very narrow undercarriage trackā paragraph.
Thanks everybody for the replies and links, I should have realised that the landing / take-off problems with the Bf109 couldnāt just be put down to a ānarrow undercarriageā and are far more complex but I suppose the myth has grown as a sort of shorthand even though the undercarriage is actually wider that that of the Spitfire!
And I suppose the Bf109 undercarriage was narrow if it wasn’t being compared to the Spitfire. š
Somebody should phone the local TV news channel! They would probably send a camera-crew…
…you can’t buy publicity like that! š
Does anyone know if there is a list of u-boats sunk by Coastal command which would include details on the aircraft and crew involved?
As suggested the book by Norman Franks is the excellent āSearch, Find and Killā which list every U-boat sunk by aircraft under RAF command together with aircraft, squadron and crew details.
I have a copy if there is any particular incident that you are interested in.
…it strikes me that a lot of the engine failures may have been handled better by more experienced crews.
Interesting figures.
Possibly, many of these engine failures may not have been ‘engine failures’ at all, things like carburettor icing were surely more of a problem during the winter months. It would be interesting to compare āengine-failuresā during three months of summer.
Also it has to be said that the engines of an aircraft are in a class-of-their-own when it comes to complexity compared to other flight-critical parts of the aircraft.
Likewise what data did the British gain from papers (I presume) carried by shot-down Luftwaffe crews?
According to Dr R V Jones in his book āMost Secret Warā some co-ordinates found in the notebook of a Luftwaffe āBordfunkerā (1) were partially responsible for revealing the operating principal of one the German radio blind-bombing systems; a system that was successfully countered by the British.
(1) Always liked that title better than Wireless-Operator! š
…I spoke to many ex aircrew and all of them referred to the condition of many of the training aircraft they used, all were of the same opinion…
I think it was a universal opinion of aircrew (especially tour-expired) returning to an OTU that the aircraft were ātiredā and the aircraft would also have been of a earlier mark, or an earlier design, to the āfactory-freshā front-line aircraft they were used to.
Irrespective of any other factor, older, more used, lower powered aircraft will have an overall lower serviceability that newer aircraft; it doesnāt necessarily mean that they have been poorly maintained but that is a possibility too.
I think I saw carburettor icing mentioned but no more than two or three times…
āEngine-failureā is an interesting cover-all phrase and Iāve no doubt that, as you suggest, engine-mishandling by the crew was responsible for a fair proportion of these āfailuresā. I donāt suppose the crew had much chance (or inclination) to try to analyse the failure if their aircraft started to lose height, in bad weather, over a blacked-out Britain.
An engine loses power, the RPM starts to drop, it overheats or the oil-pressure drops, obviously it is āengine failureā, nothing to be done so bale-out or crash-land. Interestingly all the aircraft that you posted figures for are single or twin-engined, and Iāve read that the Whitley couldnāt maintain height on one engine.
Also these statistics are probably made up from what the pilots or other survivors reported; people who may not have known what the problem was or who had an interest in not being found responsible. š
Fascinating thread.
PS – we never lost a Ruski Bomber!!
When flying escort? The instinct to protect being greater than the instinct to ‘kill’?
Amongst those I’ve put down to engine failure are several instances of runaway propellers and more of engine fires. There’s a lot to consider.
Agreed. I know from reading about the carrier HMS Vindex that several Swordfish (and their crews) were lost due to āengine-failureā in Arctic conditions…
…the eventual cause was traced to fuel contaminated with water (condensation in the shipās bunkers caused by low temperature plus an ineffective method of dealing with that problem) but these would undoubtedly have been classed as engine-failures had the pattern not been spotted by the flightdeck-crew.