Hi Adrian,
The Spitfire is NH238. Here’s a link to a previous thread on here –
https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/57705-newark-air-museum-sp…
Hi AA,
I can’t see any reference to Sydenham Armstrong Payn in the civil-registered section of Ray Sturtivant’s Se5 File. He isn’t listed in Air Britain’s British Civil Registers either other than with the Avro 504K.
I must admit I knew nothing about Ayro wheels until roughly an hour ago but a quick look through a couple of old newspapers tells me that they were allegedly invented in Germany in 1926 for the “purpose of accustoming airmen to disturbances in equilibrium and the sensations of looping the loop or flying upside down”. In 1928 the wheels were tested at Aldershot and approved by the Army. It was also stated that they could prove useful for the Air Force, Fire Brigade and Police.
I never did find anything to confirm that the wheels were officially adopted by any of the services and I suspect that when, around ten years later, an RAF officer arranged the Cranwell display he was thinking more of entertainment for the boys rather than…well, trying to re-invent the wheel!
Nor did I find anything to say that they went down well with the Luftwaffe either. The wheels that is 🙂
Totally agree, Adrian. Dave has started some great threads recently. Thanks Dave!
Fargo Boyle – thanks for posting the pic of G-EBIB. Great to see it in its civil scheme complete with skywriting gear.
As to “freak machines” I’m not sure exactly what aircraft they meant. The term seems to have been used fairly regularly from the 1910s through the ’20s to denote types which were built simply to attempt to win races or break records and were unlikely to ever be produced commercially especially as their airworthiness might be a bit, well, doubtful!!
However, in the articles I’ve read on the 1922 RAF Pageant, I haven’t seen any reference to any aircraft that would come into that category. I wonder if in this case it simply referred to aeroplanes which participated in the more light-hearted “acts” and sported unusual colour schemes (“jazzified” as the press put it)?
Like the wonderful Avro 504 which did the crazy flying. Pity there’s not a colour photo of this! –
I suspect the Skywriter was Se5a G-EATE of Savage Skywriting which gave the first public demonstration of the art at Hendon on 30th May 1922. Major Savage went on to own more than 30 Se5as among them G-EBIA now at Shuttleworth; G-EBIB now at Science Museum and G-EBIC at RAFM Hendon.
A 1922 issue of Flight magazine mentions both crazy flying and the use of coloured smoke –
The demonstration of ” crazy flying,” which proved so popular last year, will again be featured, this time by Flight Lieut. W. H. Longton, D.F.C., A.F.C. It may be mentioned that various freak machines will demonstrate from time to time. A demonstration of ” writing in the sky ” should be another popular item. Here the spectators will be able readily to follow the rapid movements of a machine looping, spinning and rolling by the trail of smoke left by the machine. Following this demonstration, there has been arranged further illustration of the uses of smoke in air warfare, and the machines engaged will produce a novelty in the way of coloured smoke clouds.
Interesting articles and great to see the manufacturer is still going! Thanks, FarlamAirframes 🙂
Oh very nice video, Dave. Scion and Scion Senior! Beautiful! (Others may disagree)
Whatever the Virginias dropped seems to have led to some disappointment
” among the numerous youthful enthusiasts who had been led to expect, from the terrific explosions of former years, that the mock fort would be blown to atoms with those earth-shaking explosions which are designed to represent “bombs” But no such thing occurred and the fort and hostile aerodrome were left there with the flags still flying after the bombardment and the only apparent result a fire in the hangars”
Sounds like flares were a possibility?
Good one, Dave 🙂 Here is a video of the contraption in action –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm0jqrmS6jk
And a few close-up pics –
Lovely video! Well found, Dave! Looks like a fantastic, fun, display.
Is that the equivalent of Duxford’s “naughty field” 50 seconds in? 🙂
I’m finding that each report I read on these displays differs in what exactly was attacked by the Pterodactyl and, in the case of the 1932 display, the other aircraft dubbed “Terrors” – the Cierva that year also appearing in a similar “disguise”. In the latest variation on the story this was seemingly a cunning plan to camouflage them so they could better approach the “invaders”. The headline reads –
“Terrors” Hunting Man-Eating Martian Monsters!
By chance, while hunting Pterodactyls, I came across this description of catapult-launching at the 1931 RAF Display written by Major Oliver Stewart –
Among the novelties will be the launching of the twin-engined night-bombing aeroplane….The catapult launching is most impressive; the two tiny compressed air engines of the catapult, like a couple of round chair cushions, can develop more than 8000h.p. and are able to throw the nine ton aeroplane into the air as if it were no heavier or cumbersome than a cricket ball.
Found an article on the 1933 RAF Display written by Major Oliver Stewart in which he writes –
“In the balloon bursting Flight Lieutenant G.H. Stainforth, in the Pterodactyl or tail-less monoplane, successfully chased and shot down a number of balloons shaped and painted to represent flying pigs and similar mythological creatures. He was extraordinarily quick in closing with his prey and then, one bang of the gun, clearly heard from the ground, and the flying creature would grotesquely deflate and fall.”,
At the 1932 RAF Display the Pterodactyl IV was dubbed the “Terror Mk.I” and flew in company with an equally ferociously painted Hawker Hart “Terror Mk.II”. The pair on that occasion attacked hippopotamus-shaped balloons.
1933 obviously saw different balloons and, if I am remembering correctly, a slightly changed scheme on the Pterodactyl?
Laurence – I honestly thought Pterodactyls were extinct. It’s nice to discover that is not the case!