Boscombe Down
*BOSCOMBE DOWN: Military aerodrome (Once known as RED HOUSE FARM)
Note: This picture was obtained from Google Earth ©
Note: All pictures taken by the author unless specified. The first picture is of the Lightning T.4 XL629 that served with the Empire Test Pilots School here from 1966 to 1975 and it is painted in the colours it wore during this period.
Military users: WW1 details see RED HOUSE FARM
Interwar: Bomber Command 4 Group
10 Sqdn (VickersVirginias - they also operated three Handley Page types during this period, Hinaidis, Hyderabads and Heyfords)*
78 Sqdn (Heyfords) 88 Sqdn (Hawker Hinds)
218 Sqdn (Fairey Battles)
WW2: RAF Flying Training Command 23 Group 35 Sqdn (Halifaxs)
*Battle of Britain RAF Station 10 Group
(1st September 1940) 249 Sqdn (Hawker Hurricanes) Posted down from CHURCH FENTON (YORKSHIRE).
Later 56 Sqdn (Hurricanes) Posted from NORTH WEALD
RAF Coastal Command 58 Sqdn (Whitleys)
Experimental Station (Top Secret)
A&AEE (Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment)
Intensive Flying (Development) Flt
Aircraft Gun Mounting Establishment
ETPS (Empire Test Pilots School)
Post 1945: MoD A&AEE
'V' Bomber dispersal airfield
RN Air Section
ATES CATS DRA-EFS DTEO
ETPS MoD(PE) MRF SAM
SAOEU (Harriers, Tornados)
2013: Southampton University Air Squadron (2 AEF) Grob 115 Tutors
Flying club/school: Post 1945: Bustard Flying Club
1959 ‘snapshot’. Bustard Flying Club (also at OLD SARUM)
Gliding: Listed in 1975
Operated by: 2000: MoD (PE)
Location: 1.5nm SE of Amesbury
Period of operation: 1917 to present day
Runways: WW2: At the start, grass runways only, the first hard runway being finished at the end of 1944
Later: 06/24 2743x91 hard WNW/ESE 1280 grass
SSE/NNW 1280 grass
2001: 05/23 3212x45 hard 05/23 (S) 773x74 grass 05/23 (N) 773x36 hard
17/35 2109x45 hard 17/35 681x91 grass (W of 17/35 hard)
Helipads: Three in 2001: (1) W of & roughly at midpoint of 17/35 runways. (2) S of 05/23 main runway roughly one third from eastern end. (3) N side of aerodrome, W end of main apron, roughly SW of & near main hangar & buildings complex
NOTES: * It has often been a tad difficult, without spending an adverse amount of time in detailed research, to ascertain exactly what types squadrons flew whilst based at various Stations. The problem being that the RAF are forever moving squadrons around. As always my excuse is that this is only a ‘Guide’ and cannot possible claim to be a detailed history.
I came across a very interesting note in the history of 35 Sqdn who moved here to be the first squadron to fly the production Handley Page Halifax four-engine bomber in November 1940. This gives some insight into the gestation period required in those days between the first flight and combat operations commencing. The prototype Halifax first flew from BICESTER in OXFORDSHIRE on the 24th September 1939. I think I’m correct in believing the first Halifax bombing raid was from RAF LEEMING on the 10th March 1941? Just two months later than the first flight of the Avro Lancaster on the 8th January.
AN INSIGHT
In his autobiography The Urge To Fly Don Robertson gives an interesting insight into BOSCOMBE DOWN. He was a Royal Navy pilot seconded to A&AEE in 1943 and a couple of paragraphs seem well worth quoting: “The Royal Air Force Station at Boscombe Down, or, to give it its full name, the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE), had been moved from Martlesham Heath at the beginning of the war. The new location in the middle of Salisbury Plain was considered to be less vulnerable and, although it frequently had up to 150 aircraft on the aerodrome, most of which were either prototypes of new aircraft or at least developing new weapons, during my time there it was never bombed nor, to my knowledge, was it ever seriously attacked by low-flying aircraft, although the odd single enemy aircraft, unable to find its objective, did unload in the vicinity.”
I think this is now, historically, of considerable importance as we now realise the very significant part aerial photography, (Photo-Reconnaissance), played in the success of Allied forces. I believe it is generally agreed these days, that the Germans made two big mistakes in this area of fighting a war.
A) They attached too little importance to this vital component.
B) They failed to develop a large team of expert interpreters, capable of ‘reading’ the results.
A MOST UNUSUAL ESTABLISHMENT
“Although it was a Royal Air Force Station, Boscombe Down must have been very difficult to run from the service point of view. There were hundreds of civilians, a large aerodrome without a full perimeter fence, 150 very valuable aircraft dispersed around the perimeter and, over all, a flying programme of enormous variety. It was no wonder that normal service discipline was practically non-existent, with no duties or parades! In addition, there was insufficient housing accommodation and a large number of officers and men lived out….”
From a modern point of view, utterly astonishing? A major ‘Top Secret’ facility seemingly lacking in even basic security measures? I’m guessing to some extent, but it would appear the people in charge of Boscombe Down took a pragmatic viewpoint. As the entire area was swarming with Army and indeed RAF personnel, the risk of anybody spying and learning anything of worth was pretty much non-existent? It would appear they were quite right.
I also believe there is another aspect, perhaps still not too readily appreciated today? For example, BOSCOMBE DOWN can be viewed, with a telescope, from several higher vantage points in the vicinity. So let’s say a determined spy with a telephoto lense, hiding in a hedge, could obtain photographs of a ‘Top Secret’ prototype in the air. In those days perhaps some useful information could have been gleaned of course, nothing of much worth though, as the photograph would not reveal the exact performance of the aircraft nor the capabilities of any on-board equipment.
What I think is highly significant is when Don Robertson says that, even to test pilots at Boscombe Down, the development of the Gloster E.28/39 first jet aircraft, was unknown to even to them. So, the system of secrecy worked in this case!
Don Robertson gives much insight on the pressures felt by the test pilots in those days, and how careful they had to be, making out their reports. The days when a test pilot could say, “Entry to this aircraft is difficult, and should be made impossible”, were long gone.
OTHER ASPECTS
“If it was a new type the Ministry may already have committed itself to a substantial order, a whole factory may be involved in its production with thousands of men and women earning their living working on it and any serious delay could have political implications. As pilots of the aircraft, we had pretty shrewd ideas as to whether it could ever reach operational service but for the civil servants concerned, the decision to cancel was more difficult as it was easier to carry on while calling for modifications.”
This needs a lot of examination and explanation. What Don Robertson is describing here is surely a highly questionable practice. To place orders for a type – before it has been thoroughly tested! Surely this beggars belief? And, we were supposed to be conducting a war against a most formidable enemy! As said many times before in this Guide, surely this is some sort of proof of Nazi moles and/or sympathisers being set in place within the Air Ministry, and indeed, the higher echelon of RAF Staff? Does any other explanation make sense?
I think this recollection should be included too: “Boscombe seemed to collect a number of odd aircraft rather like a home for lost dogs. Most had been sent for some specific trial and on completion had been forgotten by the sender. The Commanding Officer’s Performance Testing Squadron had a spare Hurricane which could be borrowed for odd jobs and in ‘A per T' we had a B-17 and a B-25 Mitchell twin-engined bomber parked on us. It was too good an invitation not to get multi-engined experience so with a little studying we sorted out the taps and flew them. It was, after all, our job to keep the aircraft serviceable!”
“The B-17, popularly known as the Flying Fortess, was rather like a large four-engined Anson to fly. It was, of course, without any load and so, with a large wing area, it floated round the sky. There was plenty of room in the well upholstered cockpit, chromium-plated switches for all services such as undercarriage and flaps, and all I needed was an airline captain’s cap and a large cigar to relax in complete comfort. After I had flown it I was surprised when, on opening the lower hatch, five of our own airmen emerged. They had stowed away in the bomb aimer’s compartment and come for the ride without bothering to let me know.”
“The Mitchell was a different kettle of fish, having a great deal of power, not much wing area and a very complex fuel system. It was also the first aircraft that I flew with a tricycle undercarriage which was not very suitable for the grass aerodrome at Boscombe but very welcome nevertheless. Placing the main wheels carrying the weight behind the centre of gravity, effectively simplified landing and take-off because the aircraft had no inherent tendency to swing or to bounce. Some would say it took the skill out of flying but it was a big safety factor which was soon to be incorporated in the design of all future aircraft.”
Not quite true of course; since 1950 very many light aircraft have been designed as ‘tail-draggers’. And indeed, some very popular tricycle types such as the Cessna 150/152 and Piper PA-22 Colt have been modified to become ‘tail-draggers’. In light aviation circles the ability to fly tail-draggers and take-off land them properly has become, to some extent, a badge of honour. Being mainly a nosewheel pilot I still remain rather confused. Having flown many tail-draggers I have found them really quite easy to control during the critical stages of landing and taking-off. But, perhaps needless to say, I have always picked fine conditions to fly them in, seeing little point in being a novice attempting flying in a howling crosswind - and, it seemed obvious to be light-footed on the brakes.
ONLY 'HEAVY METAL'?
It might be supposed that BOSCOMBE DOWN concentrated on ‘heavy metal’ types but this isn’t the case. The first DHC.1 Chipmunk, registered G-AKDN, was evaluated here and went on to become both the RAF basic trainer for a while, plus equipping University Air Squadrons etc where it served until 1995. It appears 740 Chipmunks were built for the RAF, the last was delivered in October 1953.
THE HUNTER STORY
After WW2 and the success of the Hurricane, the Hawker company during WW2 struggled to produce another comparable classic. But, after WW2 a team lead by Sydney Camm, (responsible for the Hurricane design) came up with the Hunter. Without any doubt whatsoever the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest were exceptionally good designs but, as per usual in the UK, (as often as not during WW2 and beyond), were let down by the engine makers failing in their task to meet not just performance requirements, but also ‘in service’ reliability.
This was also the case with the Hawker Hunter, Rolls-Royce taking seven years to make the AJ.65, later named Avon, ‘fit for purpose’. I trust it might today seem remarkable to learn that the original Air Ministry specification F.3/48 goes back to 1948, even 1947, and the Air Staff Operational Requirement OR.228 is of that period. It appears that a fighter would be required to intercept bombers as advanced and as fast as the Boeing B-47 Stratojet which first flew in December 1947. I suppose it was realised that if the Americans could produce such a bomber, the Soviets would quickly follow?
According to Robert Jackson in his book Britain’s Greatest Aircraft the Hawker team under Sydney Camm started their studies for a swept-wing fighter in March 1948. The initial concept was the Hawker P.1067 but this was amended to meet OR.228. “The new Operational Requirement called for a single-seat land-based fighter capable of carrying out day interception duties in any part of the world. Its primary role would be interception of high-altitude, high-speed bombers as soon as possible after they were detected by radar, but it would also have a secondary ground-attack role.”
“The OR was dictated by the need to intercept a fast, high flying, nuclear-armed bomber as far as possible from its target area, and so the greatest importance was attached to time-to-altitude performance. From time of engine start to 45,000 feet, including taxi time, was not to exceed six minutes, while the rate of climb was not to be less than 1,000 feet per minute at 50,000 feet. The requirement also called for a maximum speed in level flight of at least 547 knots at 45,000 feet, with a desirable diving speed of at least Mach 1.2. The required endurance was seventy-five minutes, including the climb to 45,000 feet and ten minutes’ combat at full power at that altitude. Armament was to be four 30mm Aden guns.”
Extraordinary is it not? All this called for in 1948! And, don’t forget, the sound barrier wasn’t officially broken until the 14th October 1947 by Chuck Yeager in the Bell X.1 which bore an uncanny resemblance to the Miles M.52, first commissioned in 1942 in the UK, but suddenly cancelled when it was realised the Americans could, by then, also be capable of claiming this most significant all-time speed record. Needless to say, just as with the Wright brothers making their bogus claim to be the first to fly, the sound barrier had been broken several times before – even in the USA, but not officially recognised.
“The P.1067 prototype, WB188, flew for the first time from Boscombe Down on 20 July 1951, with Hawkers Chief Test Pilot Squadron Leader Neville Duke at the controls. The second Avon-powered aircraft, WB195, flew on 5 May 1952, and the Sapphire-powered prototype, WB202, on 30 November that year. Intensive trials with all three aircraft continued into 1953, by which time there was no longer any doubt that Hawker had produced a very fine aircraft indeed. It now remained to be seen what experienced RAF fighter pilots thought of its characteristics, and how well the Hunter, as the aircraft was named, would stand up to high-g combat manoeuvres.”
This was of course a period during which the ‘anti-G suit’ was still being developed, so perhaps it should also be considered how well fighter pilots could have withstood high-g manoeuvres at the speeds the Hunter was capable of? It appears the first ‘anti-g suit’ was developed by Wilbur R Franks at a university in Toronto, Canada, in 1941 and used by both RAF Hurricane and Spitfire pilots. This said it was quite a long time before relatively comfortable and very effective anti-G suits were developed.
Getting back to Robert Jackson’s account: “The Hunter sailed through its Service handling trials at Boscombe Down in the summer of 1953 almost without complaint. The first real problem occurred early in October, when two pilots from the Central Fighter Establishment’s Air Fighting Development Squadron (AFDS) were cleared to fly the first production Hunter F.1, WT555. During a preliminary combat evaluation, a serious snag occurred almost immediately. When the wing trailing edge flaps were used as airbrakes in high speed, low-level turns, the Hunter’s nose pitched violently downwards, which was quite unacceptable. The problem was solved by fitting the aircraft with a ventral airbrake.”
SOMETHING TO CONSIDER
Just as an aside, the first 'V' bomber, the Vickers Valiant, could fly rings around the Hunter at high altitude. It seems such a shame that this first-class design should generally be regarded today as a flop. It was nothing of the kind. This undeserved reputation appears to result from the Valiant not being suitable for ultra-low-level duties. In fact Vickers had designed such a version, which was turned down, and those in authority insisted on using the existing Valiants in this way, a task for which it had never been designed!
As another note, all three of the 'V' bombers were evaluated here; The Valiant, Vulcan and Victor. And, it was discovered, that these three bombers could often in many circumstances, out-perform the RAF front-line fighters. For example, a moderately loaded Victor K2 tanker could out-climb a fully loaded McDonnell Douglas Phantom - and in some circumstances out-accelerate it in level flight.
MORE BOSCOMBE DOWN HISTORY
In the early fifties four “squadrons” were based here. “A” squadron flew fighters, “B” squadron flew bombers, “C” squadron flew Royal Navy types and “D” squadron investigated helicopters. In addition the organisation known as CATS, the Civil Aircraft Test Squadron, were based here too. This was at a time when military jet types were appearing but it was still a grass airfield in 1948 according to Lettice Curtiss, (in her fascinating autobiography), and who should know better as she was based there. She maintains the first hard runway was laid down in the early 1950s which does of course directly contradict my WW2 runway notes gleaned from another “so called” reputable source who was based here! On the other hand, see below, there must have had at least one very long runway in use by the end of 1951.
Lettice tells a brilliant story involving the arrival on the 27th January 1952, in probably poor weather and perhaps in the dark, of a giant Convair B.36 which had six propeller engines and four jets. It had flown direct from Carswell Air Force Base in Texas taking over 51 hours.
She says the conversation between the pilot and ATC went like this;
Controller: “You are three miles from touchdown, slightly left of centreline”
Pilot: “Okay”
Controller: “You are two miles from touchdown, on centreline”
Pilot: “I have landed.” A slight pause, then; “My, isn’t your field rough!”
Controller: “There’s nothing wrong with our airfield, you’re not on it. You are a quarter of a mile short of the touchdown position”.
Not being used to approach lights, they didn’t have them in the USA at that time it seems, (at least not in the military), the pilot had mistaken these for runway edge lights and landed between them! Incredibly but probably due the ground being frozen solid the bomber sustained very little damage despite hitting a haystack, crossing two ditches and a main road. So much for the arrival in the UK of “a highly classified movement by the USAAF.” A team of USAAF engineers rebuilding GREENHAM COMMON arrived and having cleared a suitable path, (which must have taken a day or two?), the mighty bomber was towed onto the airfield.
Lettice tells another story, supposed to be true, of a senior member of the A&AEE technical staff returning from a, (boozy?), night out in Salisbury driving up the main road. On spotting the B.36 and a crew member wandering around he stopped, got out, said, “If you want the airfield it’s a mile down the line”, got back in his car and drove off! There’s another point too regarding the sheer size of the B.36. In those days ground radar at airfields had still to be developed but the radar controller on watch apparently saw the B.36 come to a stop
THE FAIREY DELTA 2 AND THE WORLD AIR SPEED RECORD
A most significant event in aviation history took place from here when, in March 1956 Peter Twiss broke for the first time ever the 1,000mph World Speed Record at 1,132mph in a Fairey Delta 2. I can most certainly recommend that you read his fascinating and well written autobiography Faster Than The Sun. I was astonished to read that getting the aeroplane to fly this fast was the least of their problems, it could do this easily and go faster too! A superb machine.
Rather than try to produce a précis myself on the Fairey FD.2 it seems a much better idea to quote excerpts from Robert Jackson’s excellent book, Britain’s Greatest Aircraft. “….in February 1949, Fairey had been asked to investigate the design of a single-engine transonic research aircraft, which was covered by Specification ER.103.” This they did of course but I am still amazed this was in 1949! “Fairey received a contract to build two aircraft in October 1950, but considerable delay resulted from the fact that the Company was heavily involved in the super-priority production of the Fairey Gannet for the Royal Navy, and detailed design work did not begin until the summer of 1952. By this time, Fairey had a new Chief Engineer: he was R.L. Lickley, who had been head of the Department of Aircraft Design at Cranfield. Under his direction, the aircraft – now known as the FD.2, or Delta Two – gradually took shape, and the first drawings were released to the shops in September 1952.”
It seems to me highly significant that: “The finalised FD.2 design differed from the original concept only in minor detail. The biggest modification involved the nose section. To improve the pilot’s vision during the landing phase, Fairey’s design team devised a ‘droop snoot’ whereby the whole nose section, including the cockpit assembly forward of the front bulkhead, could be hinged downwards at a ten-degree angle.” As far as I am aware this was the first time such an idea was incorporated into a delta-wing supersonic aircraft? It was of course more famously incorporated into both the Concorde and the Tupolev Tu-144 'Konkordski' supersonic airliners – the only supersonic airliners that were built and entered airline service.
The wing of the FD.2 was another major advance. “The wing, despite its thinness, was of remarkably solid construction…. Each wing contained four integral fuel tanks (and) The wing trailing edge carried inboard elevators and outboard ailerons, which were power-operated.” Was this also the first wing to fly which combined a thickness-chord ration of just 4% and a leading edge swept back to 60 degrees? I think it was and once again, remarkably advanced for its time.
Oddly I cannot easily discover where the FD.2 was actually built. Was it at the Fairey factory on WHITE WALTHAM aerodrome (BERKSHIRE) or the Heston factory next to the old HESTON airport site (LONDON) – or both? It doesn’t really matter as the aircraft components were transported by road to BOSCOMBE DOWN for final assembly and flight testing. “Fairey’s chief test pilot was Group Captain Gordon Slade, but it was his deputy, a young ex-Fleet Air Arm officer named Peter Twiss, who took the FD.2 into the air for the first time at Boscombe Down on 6 October 1954. Right from the beginning, the FD.2 showed itself to be an aircraft of enormous potential.” All this potential was subsequently discarded by those in power – why?
It is sometimes claimed that after the French got a detailed look at the design, when they allowed it to perform low-level supersonic flight trials at their base at Cazaux, (roughly 50 miles SW of Bordeaux in late 1956 and also used by Dassault), it highly influenced the development and design of the Dassault Mirage. As Robert Jackson quite rightly points out: “This was quite untrue, and something of a slur on the technical ability of Marcel Dassault’s excellent design team. In fact, the progenitor of the Mirage family, the Dassault MB.550 Mirage I, was conceived in 1954 and made its first flight in June 1955; the Mirage III made its first flight on 17 November 1956 and exceeded Mach 1.5 on 30 January 1957. There is little doubt, however, that the obvious capability of the FD.2 persuaded the French government to instruct Dassault to proceed with a multi-mission version of their design, the Mirage IIIA, the prototype of which (Mirage IIIA-01) flew on 12 May 1958.”
LACK OF SUPPORT FROM THE BRITISH AUTHORITIES
It must be remembered that the reason the FD.2 actually flew to Cazaux for these tests was because the British authorities has expressly forbidden all low-level supersonic flight testing being undertaken anywhere in the UK, despite this being the height of the ‘Cold War’. Being of a simple mind I fail to understand how, on the one hand, the Ministry of Supply can place an order for a transonic aircraft to undergo a complete flight test programme only for Fairey to be informed, in effect, “You cannot do half these tests round here mate – more than me job’s worth.” Incidentally, if you haven’t heard this story before, but still have some credule left in your XXL bottle of incredulity, reading the arrangement of the insurance required for the tests in Cazaux, in Faster Than The Sun, will probably have your flabber well and truly ghasted.
However, I am getting ahead of the story, and to return to Robert Jackson’s account: “The Fairey team, almost to their surprise, were beginning to learn that the aircraft was capable of very high speeds, and as yet it had not even used its afterburner. The first supersonic flight was made on 28 October 1955, and further supersonic flights confirmed Fairey’s view that the Delta Two was capable of speeds well in excess of 1,000mph.” To put it very bluntly, and I thoroughly recommend anybody to look into the situation; once those in authority, especially the Ministry of Supply, realised they had a first-class winner at their disposal, easily capable of much further delevopment and a world beater, they stamped on it and nothing would be allowed to go ahead. They were very much against the FD.2 breaking the Air Speed Record.
“Urged by Gordon Slade and Peter Twiss, the company began to think seriously of using the aircraft in an attempt on the world air speed record, which at that time was held by a North American F-100C Super Sabre at 822.26mph.” I think the following should be considered very seriously and the underlying motives investigated as they most certainly indicate a very clear official attitude that the British should not, in any way, be allowed to demonstrate superior abilities compared to American achievements if at all possible without creating serious political problems. “Grudging approval was eventually obtained after a lot of hard work on Fairey’s part, but the Ministry of Supply made it clear that it did not wish to be associated with the attempt.” Today this attitude, and the reasoning behind it, really must be exposed and explained.
“No finance was forthcoming, and Fairey had to pay for the necessary insurance cover as well as for the services of the team of recording specialists from the Royal Aeronautical Establishment, Farnborough.” Apart from those in positions of high authority in the Ministry of Supply, everybody else was enormously keen to achieve the speed record. As Peter Twiss explains in his book Faster Than The Sun the GPO (General Post Office) engineers, working under extreme secrecy, performed brilliantly. Their role was just as critical to the success of the attempt as the boffins from FARNBOROUGH who also, perhaps needless to say, bent over backwards given a time frame which was ludicrously short.
Against this background of serious obstruction by the Ministry of Supply: “The attempt on the record was prepared under conditions of stringent secrecy, and on 10 March 1956, Peter Twiss took WG774 to a new average record speed of 1,132mph at 38,000 feet over a 9.65-mile course off the south coast between Thorney Island and Worthing. It was the first time that the record had been raised above the 1,000mph mark, and it exceeded the previous American-held record by 37 per cent, the biggest leap so far.”
It must also be recorded that requests to the USA to help assist in recording this air speed record were flatly denied. Proof indeed that the UK and the USA have a very special relationship. Basically defined, it seems to me over the last sixty years, as: We (the USA) will take what we want FoC from the UK, and in return you will support us in any way we require, especially in wars to gain control of oil and gas reserves. I also suspect, as each British Prime Minister gets elected that they are probably told, “Listen up, we sorted you out in WW2 and destroyed your Empire along the way, so don’t get uppity and snuggle up to Europe or else we’ll really put the boot in. Is that clear, pal?”
Something like that – I think it is called diplomacy.
A STEPPING STONE
What today is probably not much remembered is that Fairey saw the FD.2 as a stepping stone to a very effective supersonic fighter, akin to the French Mirage in many ways. Again from Robert Jackson: “As a first step towards the development of a supersonic fighter based on the Delta Two, Fairey proposed ER.103/B, a variant with a modified fuselage housing a de Havilland Gyron or a Rolls-Royce RB.122 turbojet with reheat. This was to followed by ER.103/C, which would be a prototype fitted with A1 and armed with Firestreak missiles mounted on the wingtips. It was estimated that the aircraft’s performance would include a speed of Mach 2.26 at 55,000 feet and Mach 1.8 at 60,00ft, with a time to 45,000 feet of 1.9 minutes.”
Against this I suppose we must bear in mind that the English Electric P.1A had first flown in 1954 and was showing great promise in the very limited field of (probably) only a single flight in the bomber interception role. In effect a suicide mission for the pilots. As the UK couldn’t afford enough of these to counter the Soviet forces, setting up a missile based defence system really was the only option. To put this another way the British, having a very limited vision of future air-warfare requirements decided the English Electric Lightning should be selected. Pretty obviously the Lightning, brilliant though it was, had no future development potential.
Is it not, looking back, rather interesting that in France, closely located geographically at its northern extremities, the powers in authority took quite another view? The French, just the same as the British, had dabbled with a wide variety of designs in the early years after WW2, but eventually decided the delta wing configuration was the best for long term future development. As had the USA and the Soviets of course. Fairey were offering this solution to those ostensibly in charge, and it was turned down. Why?
To end the FD.2 story once again I would like to quote Robert Jackson: “Together, the two FD.2 prototypes made an enormous contribution to high-speed aerodynamic research. After its flying career was over, the second aircraft, WG777, went to the RAF museum at Finningley, Yorkshire, and later to Cosford, where it may be seen today. WG774 was almost completely rebuilt and, fitted with a model of the ogival wing planform that was to be used on Concorde, flew again as the BAC 221 in May 1964. It was retired in 1973 and is now on display at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, Yeovilton, alongside the British prototype of the Concorde SST.”
CONSPIRACY THEORIES?
Having now learnt so much about this period in British history in researching this ‘Guide’ it is very hard to escape the conclusion that, within the corridors of power, certain people with a secret and vindictive agenda were in place and beavering away quite effectively. Oddly enough, if they existed, they seemed to serve both US and Soviet aims! One aspect is surely beyond any doubt today; forces were being applied to ensure the British aircraft industry would fail. Certainly at ground level the Trade Unions were taking every step possible to guarantee the industry would fail and their members cast out of work. This was clearly evident, even to me, when making deliveries to most of the aircraft and aircraft engine factories in the early 1970s. I couldn’t make sense of it then, and still can’t.
At government level, senior management level and even at middle management level it was also quite clear the British aviation industry, from the 1960s at least, was clearly intent on destroying itself. Old established firms with no common culture in aircraft design, (fighters against airliners for example), were being amalgamated in a hotch-potch seemingly purposefully arranged to guarantee that maximum internal conflict would arise.
Regarding the British ‘establishment’, (and I know it might sound utterly bizarre), I am taking increasing note of those that believe that deep seated moles placed in various high places during WW2, in the British Government; and almost certainly in the civil service and in British industry, (in the ‘pay’ or influence by the Americans or Russians – or both!), were intent on the destruction of the British aircraft industry. And not just the aircraft industry of course, the UK manufacturing, steel producing, coal mining, and shipbuilding industries all appeared intent on self-destruction. Perhaps it might said that the Thatcher regime (1975 to 1990) simply finished the job off?
By looking at this period of our aviation history from a long time perspective it does seem hard to totally disregard the possibility that some sort of destructive secret agenda was at work. There was an awful lot of mischief, often with very evil intent going the rounds during the Cold War era. If you now think I’m off my rocker, consider the disclosures about how the French fed the Russians misleading data about Concorde development, (very weak in negative G around the wing attachments), via the ‘Russian’ spies working in France to make the Russian Koncordski structurally weak in one critical area, and then plotted to exploit this and make it crash at the Paris air show! Which it did of course and all of this is now on record. But, these revelations hardly seemed to make a splash in the popular press and media.
Venue (date?) for a Royal International Air Tattoo
NOTE: I probably should apologise for bringing political aspects into this Guide, it was never my intention when setting out to produce a Guide. As you have probably guessed, along the way, such considerations are difficult if not impossible to avoid. Plus of course it is virtually impossible to talk about many British military flying sites without taking into consideration the impact and influence of external factors, some global.
A PERSONAL MEMORY
In July 2008 I was given the job of collecting the Vans RV8, N42KL, from Randers airfield in Denmark which is where the first picture was taken. My truck is alongside the container in which the Vans, plus another aircraft, had been shipped from the USA.
This picture brings back fond memories. It was always such a privilege to move aeroplanes, but when it involved as it did in this case, driving across one the most famous airfields in the UK - that was always something special.
ANOTHER PERSONAL MEMORY
In September 2009 I was invited to fly into BOSCOMBE DOWN, and flew the Cessna 172 G-BDNU across from ELSTREE on the 27th. As it turned out, although I am not at all sure I fully realised it at the time, this was to be my final flight as a PPL and P.1 'Pilot-in-Command'. I flew two circuits landing on both the 17/35 grass and hard runways - the main runway wasn't available due to maintenance. But I didn't really care as it was such an immense privilge to be allowed to land on such a hallowed airfield in British aviation history.
And, lets face it, if you have to make your final flight anywhere in the UK, BOSCOMBE DOWN really does take a lot of beating.
We'd love to hear from you, so please scroll down to leave a comment!
Leave a comment ...
Copyright (c) UK Airfield Guide
