fatnavTo confirm what has already been stated, it is a Mk.19. The plans are to refurbish it as static only to reflect that Anson’s operated from Carew Cheriton during the war. There is, I believe, a bid in for a lottery grant to expand visitor facilities to the refurbished control tower and to erect a small hangar for the Anson.
fatnavSuggest ‘Alone over the Tasman Sea’ by Francis (later Sir) Chichester. How he was able to navigate and fly at the same time using his sytem amazes me. However, his work was to lay the foundations for navigation by Bomber Command in WW2.
fatnavHi Les,
I never used chinagraph lines on the nav windows, but we used to use them on the pilots canopy for a couple of reasons. The first was to centre the line of sight for the port facing oblique camera when the wings were level, and the second, more rarely, was as a nav aid. Occasionally we would be tasked to carry out recce runs along a foreign coastline. We had, legally, to stay out of the 12 mile extension of the coast to be in ‘International Airspace’. To achieve this as accurately as possible, we would preplan the operational height which would then be flown on the rad alt. Prior to getting airborne the pilot would sit in his seat, positioned at his normal operating height. Using a graph we had designed, the nav would measure out to port from the aircraft cenre line and place a marker on the ground. The pilot would then draw a horizontal line on the inside of the canopy through the marker. The nav would then draw a horizontal line on the outside of the canopy (directed by the pilot) also to bisect the marker on the ground. When airborne on the mission all the pilot had to do would be to line up the lines on the canopy and ensure they did not overlap the coastline. This ensured that you could be as close to the 12 mile limit without beaking it. Simple and it never went u/s.
fatnavHi John,
I take your point about being somewhat cramped in the nose, but having been fortunate enough to have flown in 8 marks of Canberra (2,4,7,9,15,17,18,22) I wouldn’t have swapped the nav’s position in the 9 for any of the others. Your description of the 2 side windows was a bit harsh; we used to have to produce a visual recce report on low level targets as well as taking photographs, and it was quite surprising how much the nav could see. You also make no mention of the recce sight which gives excellent forward visibility even if only a fairly narrow field of view. It was particularly beneficial to have all your nav kit to hand when climbing out from low level, especially in the case of a weather abort.
The other real benefit is that no PR.9 Nav ever lost an eye because of a bird coming through the nose and taking the nav in the face, unlike the other marks with the Nav laid in the nose.
fatnavShowing my age a bit but here goes:-
1. Bristol Filton in 1953 or 54 when an RAF Sabre dived from 40,000ft and we all heard the sonic boom.
2. RAAF Mallala in Soth Australia in 1956. The show finale was mock attacks by 2 Mustangs on a Lincoln.
3. My first Farnborough in 1957. The P1B and SR.53 were my personal favourites.
fatnavHi Andy,
The nav does not have to unstrap at all in the PR.9, everything is to hand. A slight correction to previous post: in the event of an ejection the hatch above the nav is not blown off, it is frangible (fragile and breakable). The nav would eject straight through it. There are two slight protruberences on the top of the seat headrest that assist in breaking it.
fatnavTo add to Les B’s comments about heat in the tropics, when operating the PR.9 in those temperatures we used to have a 20 minute rule where if you hadn’t got airborne within 20 minutes of strapping in you aborted because of the potential heat problems.
To give a further insight, I weighed myself before walking out to the aeroplane and then re-weighed immediately on landing having flown a 2 hour low level sortie over Malaya. I had shed 8 lbs, which was evidenced by the salt stains on my coveralls running from armpit to waist. The problem was that internal cooling for the crew only used ambient air, so all you could suck in air that was already very warm. It was great, where possible, to carry out a quick climb to 10,000ft or so just to get a nice cold blast.
You could also have problems at height in the tropics also. On a mission in the Far East we were recovering to Singapore at our usual cruising altitude of 41.000ft. We ran into thick cirrus cloud at that level and as we were crossing the ITZ (where the hot ,moist tropical air meets the much cooler temperate air) there were a considerable number of very large imbedded thunderstorms. We decided to climb above it and eventually levelled at 56,00ft. We could now see clearly and avoid the big thunderheads that were punching up to, at a guess, 80,000ft. However, we were dressed for operating in the tropics, and only had lightweight flying suits on and it got very cold very quickly. The corrected outside air temperature was minus 84 centigrade, and the aircraft heating could not stop about a quarter of an inch of ice forming on the hatch immediately above my head. We got very cold very quickly, and to add insult to injury, I got soaked to the skin when we eventually descended and the ice melted turning into an internal shower.
However, I wouldn’t have missed itv for anything.
fatnavIf any of you had had to sit in the back of a Belfast from Singapore to UK, then you would think the RAF bought 10 too many.
fatnavHi Propstrike, Yes coming from Haverfordwest, hopefully in Auster 5J/1, G-AJEM.
fatnavForecast is definitely better for Sunday. That’s when I hope to fly in.
fatnavSorry Les, didn’t know Flt Lt Bull. I first staged through Gan in ’74, and no we didn’t leave the nose or canopy open. After that we always carried rolls of bodge tape, and sealed all the hatch covers when we bedded it down.
fatnavA few points to either correct or add to previous threads.
The PR.9 was not fitted with RWR’s in 1974. I left 39 Sqn in Sep ’75 and they were not fitted then. The only mod in the pipeline at that time, to Sqn knowledge, was the update of the nav fit from the original G1V compass, Green Satin doppler and GPI.
As far as support for operating well away from base, that was rarely a problem. Rangers to the Far East, and Specials away from base, were not uncommon. Even RAF bases down the route were not established, or the groundcrew trained, to handle non Air Support aircraft. They would help when they could, but were not trained on and frequently not familiar with the PR.9. Crews would carry out all routine turn-round servicing and often troubleshoot to the limit of their ability as well. I remember two examples; lying in the fuselage in the tropical heat at Gan with a large air blower trying to dry the electrical looms that had got soaked and were causing a certain fuse to blow (it sure beat any sauna I’ve ever been in), and hanging upside down in the starboard well of the pilot’s cockpit trying to change No.6 Inverter which we suspected had blown. It had, the repair was successful so thankyou to the crew of Britannia XL640 whos spares we had robbed. The biggest area of concern with operating away from base was to ensure that you had access to Avpin for engine starts. Our internal tanks were very limited and it was a rare commodity away from PR.9/Hunter bases. We used to have it pre-positioned where we were likely to need it, but it was very volatile and prone to fungal contamination.
To deal with high level intercepts, I will talk about a particular sortie when we were recovering to the UK from Norway. The radar unit asked us if we had the fuel and were able to offer ourselves as high level targets for the Phantom OCU. We replied in the affirmative. They wanted us to run in at 50,000ft and allow the F.4s to practice vis idents. On the first two runs we saw the F.4 low in the 11 o’clock trailing. They were going supersonic and, having acquired us on their radar, doing a steep curving climb to get near us. The next thing we saw was an F.4 fluttering downwards. As you can imagine by the time of the third run we were somewhat bored, and my pilot waited until the supersonic F.4 was abeam us and pulling up, then lazily turned towards him. Needless to say his intercept failed and the crew were somewhat miffed. That was not to say that they could not have had us with a missile, but certainly did not have our ceiling.
fatnavEd Elton my first PR.9 pilot, shame he got promoted and lost his Bucc posting
Mike Bell my second PR.9 pilot, only staff tours subsequently, what a waste
Keith Hargreaves my Bucc pilot, who never frightened me
Pete Tate long time Hunter man who gave me more poling time in the Hawk than any other mate
Richard Cole who still takes me flying and keeps my love of aviation alive
Out of interest Ian Black was one of my studes through nav school and did a tour on F.4s as a back-seater before re-training to be a Driver (Airframe)
fatnavMany thanks for all the info. There is an elderley gentleman in my village who is now seriously ill. He claims he once owned one of the exhibits, but lost touch when he moved. He cannot even remember which airframe it was. He doeszn’t want any claim on it but would love to remember which it was and what happened to it. Thanks again
fatnavThe Hawk was not only used for local air defence, but in the MFF (Mixed Fighter Foce) role as well. This is where, for example, a pair of Hawks would formate on a Tornado F.3, or previously onto an F.4, and let the front-line fighter find any incoming raid and point the Hawks into an intercept position using their high manoeuvrability to get into a shooting position; primarily using the AIM-9L, but having thr gun as a back-up. In effect they were used as additional weapons launch pads.
They would be detached to any suitable airfield for remote operations in this role. For example a number of Hawks of 234(R) Sqn operated from the Newcastle Aero Club in Oct 1987.
The reason that the Valley Hawks were not converted to T.1A status was to save on the costs of servicing the weaponry wiring etc.
Sign In
