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.

I concur (always wanted to say that !)
AH is on Mosquito AP, Mastrand tyre size matches and Kelsey of Canada is a known supplier of Mosquito tail & mainwheel castings.

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.

Mein lieber Herr Erna,

May I congratulate you for paying attention to your English teacher because after 30 years it is still very good !
Welcome and thank you for presenting a fascinating group of relics.

May I add Bristol Blenheim to your list of possible aircraft ?
There are others that will no doubt provide more clues about the various parts but here are some from me :

The FB60857/5 is a Bristol engine part, perhaps Bristol Pegasus engine, FB stands for Fedden-Butler, the engine designers for the Bristol Jupiter, Mercury, Pegasus poppet valve engines and later sleeve valve engines like Hercules. In association with the date of 1936 I think Pegasus is most likely.

The stowage case dataplate makes me think of an underwing mounted stores container, which may have contained propaganda leaflets.
From the book, the “Central Blue : Recollections of Sir John Slessor” 1956 pg 217 he describes the early operations of the RAF in 1939 being concerned with the dropping of propaganda leaflets over Germany, which later continued as part of regular bombing. Certainly Blenheims were used in the early part of the war and I could probably imagine a Hampden being used for a night propaganda run.

The 1936 dated air pressure dial face could have been used for a gas starting system for engines, certainly used on Bristol radial engines, or for pneumatically activated guns.

The fuel selector c0ck face suggests a gas starting system for the engines, with fuel supply direct to engine ‘cylinders’

Good luck with unwrapping your mystery!

Beaufort 🙂

Thanks Spitty, makes sense now. Needed up there?

Were city bombings simply revenge …. like an honest assessment from WWII aviation fans.

With aircraft called Vultee Vengeance and V2 rockets called Revenge weapons then it is obvious that ‘an eye for an eye’ is a big part of the mix. The bombing of Coventry certainly allowed British thought to move towards mass bombing of cities. The Doolittle raid on Tokyo in 1942 could not be described as anything but a mix of revenge aimed at the psyche of Japan as much as the US. What is not commonly recalled is Soviet bombing of Germany and Nazi occupied territory in the later part of the war which was indiscriminate, widespread and traveled on the wings of vodka and vengeance.

You can’t tell me the Jordanian airforce lifted its delivery of munitions on ‘is’ after one of its pilots was burnt alive in a cage because more strategic targets suddenly became available…

Total war is now ubiquitous. It is normal for you to see visions of total civilian devastation on the news in war zones today. Between these visions and the concept of total nuclear war it has the perverse but welcome affect of keeping most functional nations from entering into mass conflict, because expressions of simple scoudrel patriotism in front of your TV might soon see you lifted into the air by a return missile strike.

I figure the real problem is that today’s operators of drones do not have the pure protection of revenge lust to allow them to mentally slot away their daily work, which is dressed more in the way a soda salesman might report his daily footwork.

The best thing for all of us is to ensure that at least some veterans get pulled into politics afterwards to communicate some perspective to other politicians too keen to sound the bugle and get us to stumble down the inevitable path to our darker natures. To me the preservation of a warbird contributes to the education of future generations who might not know when WW2 started or why, showing them an aluminium, cordite toting, consequence of ignorance.

Sorta think that :

Item 1 is RAE air compressor from early WW2, more generally replaced by the Heywood type compressor.
Item 2 is bilge pump, may be Catalina or Sunderland or for emptying your Key inbox…
Item 9 is an EP ram that does have the whiff of Mosquito about it…a similar three way EP ram is used to contol shutter on air intake for Desert Equipment, two way version may be for Oil Dilution valve.

I would like the Rotax starter for Cheetah and the EP rams, but am 5,000 miles away…do you do a buy & hold service in the Garage That Keeps On Giving, so that things can be kept on the shelf until a wheelbarrow load is accumulated that can then be picked up as a job lot by a delivery van?