Discussion
I couldnt spare the eighty quid each for flights from Halfpenny Green with the guys from Coventry at Wings And Wheels but the good lady and myself were sore tempted
Mind you watching them land after about twenty minutes I did feel I could have spent £160 for a better twenty minutes
Still a lovely evocative thing of delight
Mind you watching them land after about twenty minutes I did feel I could have spent £160 for a better twenty minutes
Still a lovely evocative thing of delight
I flew on the RAE Farnborough one from Farnborough to RAE Bedford & returned. Would have been 74 or 75.
Leaked like a sieve as I found out as we took off from Bedford into a massive storm, water pee'd in through the front escape hatch.
Also did a VHF radio upgrade to units that used less power.
http://www.dhdove.co.uk/
Leaked like a sieve as I found out as we took off from Bedford into a massive storm, water pee'd in through the front escape hatch.
Also did a VHF radio upgrade to units that used less power.
http://www.dhdove.co.uk/
The Irish Air Corps used Doves rather than Devons - so some Doves were kitted out for non civilian tasks. I remember getting a guided tour of Irish Air Corps Dove "201" which was fitted out for aerial photography and had a large survey camera mounted in the centre fuselage.
The Devon was the RAF's version of the Dove.
The Devon was the RAF's version of the Dove.
I remember one flying from near Paris to Northolt. Due to a bit of a headwind, it had to refuel before it crossed the channel and then topped up at Manston.
I also remember like the pembroke we also asked the passenger with the thickest and warmest clothing to sit near the door.
Also having to tactfully ask 'larger' people to stand on the scales as it was always a bit tight weight wise with a full passenger load.
Also the in flight catering was an eye opener for some - Wooden boxes with flasks and sandwiches.
I also remember like the pembroke we also asked the passenger with the thickest and warmest clothing to sit near the door.
Also having to tactfully ask 'larger' people to stand on the scales as it was always a bit tight weight wise with a full passenger load.
Also the in flight catering was an eye opener for some - Wooden boxes with flasks and sandwiches.
Ah yes, the dear old Clockwork Viscount...
They might have leaked sometimes, but did de Havilland ever really build a bad aeroplane (DH108 aside)? OK, the early Comets' square windows were something of a problem, cost quite a lot of lives, but once they replaced them with round windows, the Comet became an excellent aeroplane...
I do remember a flight on a leaky Trident once, over-wing door seal had gone... that wasn't nice... should have been a no-go item... put the fear of God up the mincing purser when I ordered that this fault be entered in the tech log and fixed immediately. I didn't bother to tell him I wasn't from the CAA rummage squad...
Mustn't forget the Albatross:
Wooden like the Mosquito, powered by four de Havilland inverted V12s.
They might have leaked sometimes, but did de Havilland ever really build a bad aeroplane (DH108 aside)? OK, the early Comets' square windows were something of a problem, cost quite a lot of lives, but once they replaced them with round windows, the Comet became an excellent aeroplane...
I do remember a flight on a leaky Trident once, over-wing door seal had gone... that wasn't nice... should have been a no-go item... put the fear of God up the mincing purser when I ordered that this fault be entered in the tech log and fixed immediately. I didn't bother to tell him I wasn't from the CAA rummage squad...
Mustn't forget the Albatross:
Wooden like the Mosquito, powered by four de Havilland inverted V12s.
Edited by RoverP6B on Wednesday 21st October 15:25
Hmm... the Mosquito was only problematic in hot climates (the animal glue would melt!), or if landed hard (like the Duxford example). The Hornet was unproblematic, the Chipmunk still doesn't have a single airworthiness directive against it, don't think the Vampire/Venom was problematic and the Sea Vixen was fine once they sorted out the leading edge after the Farnborough disaster. The Dove/Devon/Heron family were fine. No record of problems with the Moth Minor, Leopard Moth, T.K.2, DH.88 Comet, and the HS.125/Dominie was outstandingly successful...
RoverP6B said:
Hmm... the Mosquito was only problematic in hot climates (the animal glue would melt!), or if landed hard (like the Duxford example). The Hornet was unproblematic, the Chipmunk still doesn't have a single airworthiness directive against it, don't think the Vampire/Venom was problematic and the Sea Vixen was fine once they sorted out the leading edge after the Farnborough disaster. The Dove/Devon/Heron family were fine. No record of problems with the Moth Minor, Leopard Moth, T.K.2, DH.88 Comet, and the HS.125/Dominie was outstandingly successful...
I did say "monoplanes". You've included a few biplanes in your list. The Chippie was designed by De Havilland Canada - which was very much an independent operation from the UK based company.Yes, once you "sort out" a problem with a design there is a good chance that particular problem won't reoccur. But BEFORE the sorting out, you obviously have a problem. Both the DH110 and Comet had serious issues with their structures, which led to catastrophic and fatal accidents.
The main issues were with their wooden monoplane aircraft. Every single DH91 Albatross was wrecked due to structural breakages of some sort.
And saying that the Mossie was only a problem in hot climates does seem to be an admittance that its effectiveness was restricted to limited parts of the world.
An old boy who lives around the corner from me was based in Egypt in the early 50s and he worked on photo-recce Mosquitoes - every one in the squadron was suffering from delamination and cracking of major joints - such as the wing spars.
There WERE structural problems with DH88 Comets, mainly undercarriage related- but they were built in tiny numbers (5 in total) and had fairly limited lives.
You will often hear the words "heavy landing" used as a euphemism for "undercarriage collapse" in many accident reports concerning these wooden De Havilland monoplanes.
Son't get me wrong, some of these designs are the most achingly gorgeous looking aeroplanes that ever flew - the Albatross in particular. But they did have their shortcomings.
No, all of that list are monoplanes. I deliberately excluded biplanes. The prototype DH.110's wing design failed at high speed, but that was at a time when nobody knew how to design a wing for an aircraft that fast. The production aircraft had a long and distinguished record in service. The Comet initially was problematic because of metal fatigue - but that wasn't exclusive to de Havilland by any means, it wasn't well-understood at the time. The Mossie could be problematic in hot climates simply because nobody had at that time invented a glue which could survive those climates. Build a Mossie with modern epoxy adhesives and it'll be fine wherever you take it. Yes, the DH.88's undercarriage had certain weaknesses (I understand that this has been rectified with the survivors and one replica), but we were talking about airframes, and in that respect the DH.88 was an outstanding success... As for the Albatross, one was lost in a bombing raid on Bristol, another was lost in a crash-landing caused by a fuel line failure, one got wrecked when the undercarriage collapsed on landing (which can happen to any aircraft), another got bent in another landing accident of some kind, one had some kind of structural failure and the other two were scrapped in the war.
Edited by RoverP6B on Thursday 22 October 12:57
My mistake - I should have recognised your Moths as monoplane types.
I am really only quoting Bill Gunston - who was a very well respected aviation author (and ex-RAF). Sadly he died a couple of years ago. I always liked Gunston's books and he wasn't above being a bit controversial at times. However, some of what he said did ring true especially when you tie it in what other writers might say - if a little less bluntly.
I would also refer you to James Hamilton-Patterson's book "Empire of the Clouds" which also makes comment on the frailty of some of De Haviland's designs.
I am really only quoting Bill Gunston - who was a very well respected aviation author (and ex-RAF). Sadly he died a couple of years ago. I always liked Gunston's books and he wasn't above being a bit controversial at times. However, some of what he said did ring true especially when you tie it in what other writers might say - if a little less bluntly.
I would also refer you to James Hamilton-Patterson's book "Empire of the Clouds" which also makes comment on the frailty of some of De Haviland's designs.
RoverP6B said:
No, all of that list are monoplanes. I deliberately excluded biplanes. The prototype DH.110's wing design failed at high speed, but that was at a time when nobody knew how to design a wing for an aircraft that fast. The production aircraft had a long and distinguished record in service. The Comet initially was problematic because of metal fatigue - but that wasn't exclusive to de Havilland by any means, it wasn't well-understood at the time. The Mossie could be problematic in hot climates simply because nobody had at that time invented a glue which could survive those climates. Build a Mossie with modern epoxy adhesives and it'll be fine wherever you take it. Yes, the DH.88's undercarriage had certain weaknesses (I understand that this has been rectified with the survivors and one replica), but we were talking about airframes, and in that respect the DH.88 was an outstanding success... As for the Albatross, one was lost in a bombing raid on Bristol, another was lost in a crash-landing caused by a fuel line failure, one had some kind of structural failure and the other two were scrapped in the war.
The undercarriage problems with the DH88 were to do with its connection points to the wooden spars - which were a bit weak. As they were on the DH91 and Mosquito. There was a direct family link between all three of these designs.The DH110 crash occurred at a not particularly high speed. Granted, the DH110 had just performed a supersonic pass, safely, and then turned around for a flypast over the field at around 300 knots. It was at this speed that the wing leading edge failed - perhaps because it had already been weakened. The main reason it failed was because a wing fence had not been fitted. De Havilland didn't realise that it was the wing fences fitted to the other DH110 that had prevented its leading edge from failing.
By 1952 there were plenty of aircraft flying at or above the speed of sound that were not undergoing major wing failures. I don't recall it ever happening to a Hunter or even the much derided Swift. Even the Russkis had an operational transonic aircraft already in service (the MiG 15) that could perform at higher speeds than the DH110 (which was a prototype only and not an operational aircraft) without falling apart.
It was the failure of the DH110 that scuppered its chances of being ordered by the RAF. Of course, De Havilland beefed up the structure and it emerged as the much better Sea Vixen - which served well with the Royal Navy.
I understood it was the undercarriage legs themselves on the DH88 which were problematic. We certainly never had any such problems with our Mossie at Strathallan, and Neil Williams et al flew the flippin' pants off the thing. One day I was up there and was somewhat alarmed to see it emerge from round the side of the hangar, gear up, at lawnmowing height and 300+mph...
The Hunter wasn't without problems in its early days. The leading edge underwent a redesign with a sort of sawtooth midway along the wing...
The Hunter wasn't without problems in its early days. The leading edge underwent a redesign with a sort of sawtooth midway along the wing...
When the Sea Herons used to come into Northolt we would quite often manage to take the wrong steps out to the aircraft.
We would often get whinged at by the crew so we would always make certain that it was a empty leg and not with a vip on.
With no steps the often very attractive female stewards on the plane would have to hitch their skirts all the way up to get in and out of the aircraft. They normally were equipped with a full set of webbing and would put a smile on the faces on late teenage airmen
We would often get whinged at by the crew so we would always make certain that it was a empty leg and not with a vip on.
With no steps the often very attractive female stewards on the plane would have to hitch their skirts all the way up to get in and out of the aircraft. They normally were equipped with a full set of webbing and would put a smile on the faces on late teenage airmen
baldy1926 said:
When the Sea Herons used to come into Northolt we would quite often manage to take the wrong steps out to the aircraft.
We would often get whinged at by the crew so we would always make certain that it was a empty leg and not with a vip on.
With no steps the often very attractive female stewards on the plane would have to hitch their skirts all the way up to get in and out of the aircraft. They normally were equipped with a full set of webbing and would put a smile on the faces on late teenage airmen
We used to get them in quite regularly at Valley when I worked on the VAS there.They used to drop off mail for passing Navy ships, and either a Wasp or a Lynx would come in to pick it up.We would often get whinged at by the crew so we would always make certain that it was a empty leg and not with a vip on.
With no steps the often very attractive female stewards on the plane would have to hitch their skirts all the way up to get in and out of the aircraft. They normally were equipped with a full set of webbing and would put a smile on the faces on late teenage airmen
The regular Stewardess was very pretty, but thought she ran things, much to the amusement of us and the aircrew.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff