Farnborough
FARNBOROUGH: Military aerodrome with limited civil use after WW2 until much later(also known as FARNBOROUGH COMMON and SOUTH FARNBOROUGH)
Note: For pictures of FARNBOROUGH air shows please see my article on air shows.
Note: The first picture was taken by the author, probably in 1996, and some of the other pictures are by the author. The majority being from a wide variety of sources. The second multi-view and hand-tinted postcard was kindly sent by Mike Charlton. From what I can see, this postcard was issued prior to WW1. The third to eighth pictures were obtained from Google Earth ©.
The 1999 detail shows the original executive jet site. Before the main facility to the north was established.
Military users: The Balloon School & Factory plus the Balloon section of the Royal Engineers, (transferred from Aldershot around 1905 or 1906)
THE MISSING LINK
Notes: All four of these pictures have been scanned from British Aviation - The Pioneer Years by Harald Penrose. The first picture from the Royal Aeronautical Society collection is captioned: "Cody on his favourite horse beneath the 'man-lifter' of a string of kites." I am assuming, because the other people in the picture look like military sorts - it might well have been taken here?
The second picture, captioned: "An ancestor of the aeroplane: Cody with his biggest kite (London Illustrated News)" clearly shows in design, a strong family resemblence to the 'powered kite'. The third picture is by G. A. Broomfield and the fourth image is by A Jones.
It may well be wondered how Cody made the 'leap' from kites to a powered aeroplane, and Harald Penrose seems to have the answer: "Cody initially tested his 'powered kite', as he called it, in similar manner to Stringfellow, by letting it run captive along a wire rigged between posts outside the airship shed" The power it seems was from a Buchet engine. "Presently he added, ahead of the wings, biplane elevators hinged at the apex of the triangulated booms in a manner reminiscient of the Wrights' system as described to Cody by Capper."
"There is every probability that he did this in expectation of getting airborne, arranging a prone piloting position to which the control wires were led, as with his 51-ft. glider, and then taxied the machine full-out in order to try the control. The very light wing loading would easily have overcome the disadvantage of the low power and made flight feasible."
NOW LISTEN TO THIS!
Again from Harald Penrose: "It may well be that his statement to the Aeronautical Society a year later refers to this 'power kite'. 'I have accomplished one thing I hoped for very much, that is, to be the first man to fly in Great Britain. I made a machine that left the ground the first time out; not high, possibly five or six inches only. I might have gone higher if I wished."
It therefore seems that the history of UK aviation now has to be rewritten, and that will not be greeted with popular acclaim by historians!
It seems to me that the idea of a powered 'kite' being regarded as being an 'aeroplane' had not occurred to either Cody or to others later on. But, of course, history now shows us that this attitude was mistaken. The first hang-glider exponents proved that a modern 'kite' type of wing could be very efficent and practical, which led to the development of the typical flex-wing microlight today. Let alone the para-motor and the paraglider.
Note: These four pictures were scanned from British Aviation - The Pioneer Years, by Harald Penrose.
The caption for the first picture is; "Cody with the basic structure of Army Aeroplane No.1 in the big Balloon Shed. The picture is by G. A. Broomfield, and, apparently taken in 1907.
The caption for the second picture, apparently taken in 1908 for the Daily Mirror is: "Cody Army Aeroplane No.1, being demonstrated to the Press, appears to show the port wing warped, although it may be a permanent setting."
The caption for the third picture from Flight is: "Drawn by horses and artillery wagon, Cody's machine is brought from the Balloon Shed with tail folded."
Fourth picture: Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the BE2 was the first successful design to enter serious production to equip the Royal Flying Corps.
THE AIR BATTALION
In his excellent book, British Aviation - The Pioneer Years, first published in 1967, Harald Penrose tells us: "A special Army Order stated that the Air Battalion would supersede the existing Balloon School at Farnborough, and under the officer commanding there would be thirteen other officers, twenty-three N.C.O.s, one hundred and fifty-three men of the Royal Engineers, and two buglers." Two buglers - how quaint.
"They would have four riding horses, thirty-two draught horses, four experimental biplanes comprising a Wright, Farman, Paulhan, and de Havilland, one Blériot monoplane, and assorted airships, balloons, and kites. Officers applying for transfer to the Air Battalion should be medically fit, have good eyesight, ability to read maps and make field sketches, immunity from seasickness and knowledge of foreign languages; special consideration would be given to batchelors under 11 stone 7 lb. and 30 years of age."
I think this is a fascinating insight of just how things were. In an age when aeroplanes were becoming of slowly increasing interest to the military, note that horses rather than any motor transport are required. And probably for good reason. The area of Farnborough and Laffan's Plain was generally so rough, that if an aeroplane needed to be retrieved, horses were far better.
RENAMED
It apopears that in April 1911 the Balloon Factory was renamed as the Aircraft Factory, under the control of the remarkable Mervyn O'Gorman, who really did establish FARNBOROUGH as the centre of research, working in close collaboration with the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, SW London. In effect O'Gorman established a team of experts, in all aspects of aeronautics, which really was one of the foremost research establishments in the world. The emphasis being on scientific results being directly applied to full scale aircraft.
Perhaps, needless to say, those involved in aircraft manufacture at the time, saw this as being an unfair advantage. But, O'Gorman allowed anybody to inspect the faciltiies and learn from the results. He was determined to be as fair as possible in spreading knowledge. Quite a remarkable character.
Note: This picture was scanned from John Fabb's excellent book 'Flying and Ballooning - from old photographs'. The caption reads: "The 'Nulli Secundus' flying at Farnborough Common, 1908. The balloon rose to 500 feet and flew for 25 miles." Oddly it seems that John Fabb did not differentiate, in this instance, between a balloon and an airship - although he does so in all his subsequent captions.
Also, the date 1908 is highly questionable? See my notes below - 1907 would seem to be correct - and possibly pictured before the Nulli Secundus attempted to fly around the City of London?
Military Wing Airship Squadron (from 1912 at least?)
School of Photography, Maps and Reconnaissance
Note: This picture of a photograph was taken in the Science Museum, London. (Well worth a visit). Especially as they have this 'gondola' on display.
A MICHAEL T HOLDER GALLERY
This section is devoted to the airship sheds at FARNBOROUGH.
Note: The second item is a photo from c.1910. The third item from Google Earth © is dated 1999. The fourth item, showing the King watching the Beta flying was published in the Daily Mirror on the 18th May 1912.
Note: The fifth item shows the Astro Torres emerging from its 'shed' in September 1913. The c.1961 local area map is of interest in that it shows nothing of the airfield layout and runways. Perhaps classified as being too Top Secret? But how this might be the case seems odd for a location where public air displays had been held for several years. Another item worth noting in the last item is, just about visible on the lower left hand side, the de Havilland DH106 Comet 1, G-ALVG. This had made its maiden flight just three months earlier on the 27th July 1949.
Just in front of the Comet is the only flying example built, VX220, of the Armstrong Whitworth AW.55 Apollo which first flew from the then grass airfield at BAGINTON, (COVENTRY airport), on the 10th April 1949. Intended to be a competitor to the Vickers Viscount, which had made its maiden flight the previous year on the 16th July, it was a total flop. (Note: I have seen a photo of the Apollo featured on the interweb as being a Vickers Viscount!)
FIXED WING OPERATIONS
These first two pictures were scanned from John Fabb's generally excellent book, Flying and Ballooning - from old photographs. Although he captions the first picture of the Prier-Dickson aircraft as being a biplane, it is quite clearly a monoplane, and appears to be based, more or less, on a typical Blériot design.
His caption for the S.E.1 is: "The S.E.1 biplane at Aldershot". This may well be the case but I am inclined to include it here, under FARNBOROUGH. Simply because I think that all the early fixed wing operations happened here. If anybody can kindly offer advice on this, it will be most welcome.
The third picture was scanned from British Aviation - The Pioneer Years, by Harald Penrose, first published in 1967. This shows, in 1911, a radical redesign by de Havilland of his previous aeroplane, which in effect enabled his entry to the team at FARNBOROUGH. He had discarded the front elevator and, as can be seen, the rudiments of a nacelle to protect the pilot from the elements was being included.
The fourth picture: This picture is of a photograph in the Science Museum, London. I think it is probably of de Havilland's second design whilst at FARNBOROUGH? Advice will be most welcome.
Note: See LAFFANS PLAIN for info on Samuel F Cody and his British Army Aeroplane No.1
Nos: 2 & 4 Squadrons (1911 to 1914?) 7 Sqdn (1914 – Maurice Farman Longhorns)
WW1: RFC, Training Squadron Station, Home Defence Station, Reserve Aeroplane Squadron, School, Depot etc.
6 Sqdn (Henry Farman)
7 Sqdn (possibly Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.8s and Sopwith Tabloids before moving to France?)
10 Sqdn (various types)
15 Sqdn (Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2c’s)
41 Sqdn (Vickers F.B.5s & Airco DH.2s)
101 Sqdn (F.E.2b’s)
Note: This picture is of a photograph in the Science Museum, London. (Well worth a visiit). I have no idea where this picture was taken - possibly on the Western Front, especially if the 'blurs' in the background are ack-ack? The main reason for including it here is to open up a debate. Was the SE.5 (and SE.5A) the best Allied fighter of WW1? I think it probably was. It was certainly much better to fly than the Sopwith Camel.
A MIKE CHARLTON GALLERY
Note: These four scans of postcards were kindly sent to me in September 2017 by Mike Charlton who has an amazing collection of British aviation postcards. See - www.aviationpostcard.co.uk
I have tried to identify the Henri Farman type in the first picture, but without any confidence. If anybody can kindly offer advice this will be most welcome.
The second picture also gave rise to a bit of investigation. As far as I can make out this picture was probably taken in 1913 before the Parseval PL18 Luftschiff "Silver Queen" entered service with the Royal Navy, which had purchased it from Germany, and, referred to it as HMA (His Majesty's Airship) No.4. Powered by two 180hp Maybach engines it appears to have served with the Royal Navy until July 1917. I was also interested to see that an aeroplane was flying alongside the airship, but not very close, and this looks to me like a Farman type. Here again, can anybody kindly offer advice about this picture?
What interests me about the third picture, (ooops, please wait a mo whilst I get my anorak on), is that the aircraft seen flying overhead is either a Handley Page H.P.42 or H.P.45. Eight were built for Imperial Airways based at CROYDON The type first flew from RADLETT (HERTFORDSHIRE) in November 1930. Four of the H.P.42 were destined for long range operations on the eastern routes, whereas the H.P.45 was intended for European operations.
The obvious question, I suppose, is why was one pictured over-flying FARNBOROUGH? Which was of course essentially a military establishment. The list of questions could be nigh on endless, and probably all of no consequence whatsover - unless the history is of interest. For example: Was it simply over-flying on a navigation exercise from CROYDON, or, of more import, had Handley Page and/or Imperial Airways asked the RAE (Royal Aircraft Establishment), to conduct some tests before allowing the type to enter service? If anybody can kindly shed some light on this, the advice will be most welcome.
BETWEEN THE WARS
The RAF who used the aerodrome between 1918 & 1939
1920s & 30s: RAF Fighter & Bomber Commands No.2 Sqdn (Bristol F.2b’s)
72 Sqdn Gloster Gladiators 108(B) Sqdn (Hawker Hinds)
WW2: RAF Technical Training 24 Group Photographic School
Principal other users: Royal Aircraft Establishment 1918 to 1994
Post 1945, Empire Test Pilots School, Air Accident Investigation Branch
Manufacturing: Army Aircraft Factory (circa 1910), Royal Aircraft Factory 1908 to 1918
Royal Balloon Factory 1900 to 1919 only?
Aero club: 1920s Royal Aircraft Establishment Aero Club
Gliding: RAE Gliding Club: 1970s to 1990s only?
Operated by: 2004: COMAX (on behalf of the MoD)
Executive charter: Post 1945: Air London, Carrol Aircraft Corporation
Maintenance: Post 1945: Farnborough Aviation Services
Location: W of the A325, N of the B3011, 1nm NNW of Aldershot
Period of operation: 1891 (Balloons) Fixed wing from 1909. Military till 2003. Opened as a RAF base in WW2 in 1941. Later became partly a business flight centre operated by Farnborough Business Aviation and in 2003, when TAG Aviation took over, it has become a major executive jet airfield.
Note: These maps are reproduced with the kind permission of Pooleys Flight Equipment Ltd. Copyright Robert Pooley 2014.
Runways: WW2: 07/25 1875x46 hard 12/30 914x46 hard
18/36 914x46 hard 04/22 1244x46 hard
1990: 07/25 2400x46 hard 11/29 1370x37 hard
18/36 1282x46 hard
2000: 07/25 2400x46 hard 11/29 1370x46 hard
NOTES: In early 1904 Mr Samuel Cody along with his sons Leon and Vivian were civilian contracters building man-lifting observation kites for the Army Balloon Factory here. The Cody clan, or at least S.F. himself also contributed to the first British airship programme. (see below). It appears that Cody designed the tail unit on the first airship, which he later detached and used as a petrol-engined 'glider' - in ‘model’ form presumably? Also in 1904 Colonel R M Ruck began planning an ‘ Elongated Balloon Erecting House’ at a site known as the ‘Swan Inn Plateau’. It appears it was built, then dismantled and moved two miles to be re-erected next to the airship shed.
On 10th September 1907 the first flight of a British Army dirigible, or airship, the Nulli Secundus took place here. Some authors appear to believe it then flew across to central London, but this seems highly questionable. Indeed, see my notes below. It would now appear that the flight to London took place on the 5th October 1907 apparently causing much public interest when it flew to London and circled over Buckingham Palace and St Pauls cathedral - only it’s 50hp Antionette engine* (see note below) wasn’t powerful enough to overcome the head wind to make it back, eventually being moored at CRYSTAL PALACE after ‘crabbing’ there. One report says it was considerably modified and renamed Nulli Secundus II but yet again wasn’t a success, making just two flights before being scrapped in September 1908. Other reports, (see CRYSTAL PALACE), say the original Nulli Secundus was scuppered due to high winds when somebody cut the envelope to prevent it being blown away so I imagine they retrieved what they could.
However, in his book Flying and Ballooning John Fabb has a photograph captioned (the first picture) , “The first British airship Nulli Secundus starting on its three-mile maiden flight from Aldershot, September 1907.” So, it appears and as I suspected, the “first flight” wasn’t to central London but a far more sensible local flight.
Aldershot and FARNBOROUGH are of course pretty much one and the same geographically, but I do think it would be more accurate to describe this flight as being from FARNBOROUGH? Advice on this will be very welcome.
Also, of much interest today I would think, is that this picture shows what appears to be members of the public gathering around to witness the launch. Is it reasonable to conclude that 'security' at FARNBOROUGH was far more lax in those days? Then again, given the general lack of full government support for airship development, could this 'exposure' to the public be akin to what today we'd call a 'PR' exercise?
The second picture is probably even more interesting - it is captioned: "The first British aircraft to fly under power. It was 120 feet long and had a 50-hp Antoinette engine. The flight took place on 5 October 1907 and was from Farnborough to London. The machine was scrapped in 1908."
It would seem that, given the crowds assembled, it is reasonable to suppose that this picture was taken just prior to the Nulli Secundus departing for its 'epic' flight across central London?
WHAT WAS THIS?
In Flying and Ballooning, John Fabb has this most interesting photograph, simply captioned: "Army trials with an airship at Farnborough, 1908". Although the gondola is distinctly pre-WW1 the 'balloon' design appears incredibly advanced aerodynamically showing major features that didn't become generally accepted until adopted for high speed flight after WW2, such as the 'swept wing' tailplane and fin. And indeed, the profile of the 'balloon' itself is surely very advanced for that era.
Can anybody kindly offer more information about this?
ARMY BALLOONING
Here again, a picture scanned from John Fabb's book, captioned: "A Royal Engineers balloon taking-off, 1909" No location is given, but, it does certainly have the look of the FARNBOROUGH / LAFFINS PLAIN area? I find it very interesting that during this period, the development of balloons and airships at FARNBOROUGH was taking place alongside the first fixed wing aeroplane experiments by Samuel Cody based at LAFFINS PLAIN. And yet, in those days it seems, virtually nobody of authority, let alone power and influence, was taking much if any interest.
But of course, perhaps we should not be so swift to enter judgement. If in charge of the Army or Navy in those days, early flying experiments would have held little if any interest. They weren't exactly showing much promise. It took just a few people with vision to appreciate the potential.
THE ROYAL NAVY GOT INVOLVED?
Here again, from Flying and Ballooning John Fabb captions this picture as: "The airship 'Beta', 1910, crewed by the Royal Navy. It ran into its shed at 65/70 feet in 1911". But, was this picture taken at FARNBOROUGH? If anybody can kindly offer advice, this will be much appreciated.
John Fabb captions the second picture: "The airship 'Astra Torres'. She was Royal Navy Airship No.3 and was purchased by R.N.A.S. in May 1913" Here again, was this picture taken at FARNBOROUGH?
A COUPLE MORE AIRSHIP PICTURES FROM 1910
Here John Fabb captions the first picture: "The new Army airship 'Dirigible' No.1, 1910". It seems to me that this airship design very much resembles the 'Nulli Secundus' of 1907, except that the ventral gondola has been 'faired in' although the rudder appears to be the same size. Was this an attempt at streamlining? I would imagine that the effect of any crosswind 'drag' in flight would quickly outweigh any 'streamlining' benefits at such slow speeds?
For the second picture John Fabb has the caption: "The airship 'Gamma' emerging from her shed at Aldershot. 1910" Here again I think the location was FARNBOROUGH rather than Aldershot? But it does raise another question - before WW1 the French term hangar had not been adopted for buildings built to house aircraft. But, was the term 'shed' also applied to these truly massive constructions built to house airships?
A MORE ADVANCED AIRSHIP DESIGN
Also in Flying and Ballooning John Fabb shows a photograph captioned; “The airship ‘Parseval No.4’ being manoeuvred into its shed at Farnborough 1914.” Quite clearly another large airship ‘shed/hangar’ lay alongside and a possibly smaller airship ‘shed/hangar’ was under construction. Unlike the Germans and the French, the British government and the military forces had showed virtually no interest whatsoever in supporting any form of aviation.
It does appear, judging from this picture, that the British airship designers at that time were much concerned with the 'drag profile' of the airship, and producing far more advanced designs than those produced in other countries?
*GETTING AN ENGINE
There is an account that says a lot about how very little official funding was available in that period for aviation in as much as the 50hp Antoinette, installed by S F Cody in British Army Aeroplane No.1, in which he then made the first ‘official’ powered fixed wing aircraft flight from nearby LAFFAN’S PLAIN, was ‘borrowed’ from an airship project. Cody himself dismissed this unintentional hop, saying, “It was only a jump!” According to some authors it seems that at FARNBOROUGH they only had one engine to conduct powered flying with. And that was allocated to airship projects. Can this really be true? As the years pass it seems beyond reasonable doubt this is correct.
SNAP, BANG, WALLOP WHAT A PICTURE!
We need to remember the huge importance a single photograph could have in those days. Regarded as proof beyond reproach or any doubt by the vast majority of people. The Wright brothers realised this, which is why they employed a photographer to record their ‘hop’, which they deviously claimed was a ‘flight’. It was nothing of the sort of course, just a 'hop' conducted in 'ground effect' but the image quickly became ‘iconic’ - a powered machine pictured just above the ground.
With this in mind, it is perhaps very important indeed, as mentioned above, that Cody himself attached no importance to this short airborne excursion. And, please remember, Cody was a consummate showman, always very aware of opportunities to gain maximum publicity for his aerial endeavours!
GEOFFREY de HAVILLAND
Note: This picture, published in Flight magazine, and scanned from the Harald Penrose book listed below, does not state where this picture was taken. I assume it was taken at FARNBOROUGH?
In his most excellent book, British Aviation - The Pioneer Years, Harald Penrose gives an account of how Geoffrey de Havilland became involved with FARNBOROUGH. In short it appears that de Havilland met Fred Green at the exhibition at the Olympia Motor Show, and Green suggested he should contact Mervyn O'Gorman at FARNBOROUGH. It appears that O'Gorman, a most remarkable and forward thinking individual, immediately saw the potential of having both a flyer and designer 'on board' would be an advantage for what he was setting up for aeroplane research.
When going through official records or wading through heaps of books every now and again something leaps out from the page. Imagine my delight on discovering that it was here that Geoffrey de Havilland was awarded his Pilot Certificate, (No:53), dated 7/2/11 flying a De Havilland Biplane, or was it? The more you read into this period the vaguer and yet more interesting it becomes. In those days the business of naming aeroplanes and giving them specific type numbers hadn’t really been considered at length and in detail. After all, they were pushing and pulling various designs on an almost daily basis. It is quite possible the “de Havilland” type Geoffrey flew was a reconstituted Voisin ‘pusher’ type but also described elsewhere as being a Blériot type.
Aircraft were often modified almost overnight with quite substantial changes incorporated especially after a crash and attempting to learn the lessons taught from the experience. This really was the ‘true’ experimental period of British aviation. It was not deemed unreasonable in the slightest to modify an existing airframe and/or engine and consider it altogether another type. In much the same way people customise cars today I suppose, tweeking and adding. Ending up with a much different product than that which left the factory.
Just to add to the picture of general confusion the original French Voisin was apparently powered by a 60hp British Wolseley engine but this was soon replaced by a French 60hp Renault engine. Now called the BE.1 de Havilland first flew it on the 4th December 1911. Handed over to the Air Battalion in March 1912 it actually performed very well, still being used by the Central Flying School in June 1916 albiet re-engined with a 80hp Renault. In between times it was apparently used for early air-ground wireless experiments.
ANOTHER PERIOD DEVELOPS
In 1912 the Aircraft Factory was given the ‘Royal’ charter and became the Royal Arcraft Factory. When the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) was formed in April 1912 they only had eleven serviceable aircraft and this was a motley collection. As Patrick Bishop states in his book Wings: “They were primitive machines capable of climbing only a few hundred feet and travelling at no more than sixty miles an hour.”
In his excellent book, British Aviation - The Pioneer Years, (first published in 1967), Harald Penrose provides us with some more information. "The Royal Aircraft Factory at Farnborough was deputed to train air mechanics, rebuild aeroplanes, repair engines and equipment, whether of the Military or Naval Wings, and to undertake testing of new aircraft and engines." Please see the listing for UPAVON (WILTSHIRE) for more information regarding the formation of the Royal Flying Corps, and how FARNBOROUGH was an integral part of the plan.
In August 1912 a series of trials were held on Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire to establish the most suitable aeroplane for military use. The aeroplane designed by Samuel Cody actually came out tops, winning in most trials, when flown by him! Obviously something much better was required and Geoffrey de Havilland was instrumental in adapting a Blériot design, which became the B.E.2. (The ‘BE’ stood for ‘Blériot Experimental'). This was a very stable aircraft but the original engines by Wolseley and Renault left it woefully underpowered. It was also a hopeless design for aerial combat but, even so, some 3,500 were produced and they led the RFC into WW1 and the early missions in northern France. But, it must be remembered that the concept of aerial combat hadn’t even been thought about until after the war developed. The original use of aircraft in WW2 was for aerial reconnaissance.
It is one of those misunderstood quirks of history which resulted in the B.E.2 getting a very poor reputation which it really did not deserve. It was in fact a superb design and de Havilland really did get it right. What was needed for the RFC before WW1 was a very stable observation ‘platform’ which was easy to fly and the B.E.2 fulfilled these requirements admirably. The fact that it was over-ordered and quickly became a liability for the unfortunate airmen ordered to fly the type, was not the fault of the design. It became a victim of the quickly changing circumstances of the war in the air.
As FARNBOROUGH is a pivotal feature in so much of the history of British aircraft design and development perhaps this is a good place to pose a question. On the 14thSeptember 1912 it seems, a ban on monoplanes for military use was imposed after the break-up in flight of a couple of monoplane designs. When did this ban end? Surely British aircraft design suffered for years from this decision. And of course we need to remember the period in WW1 known as 'The Fokker Scourge', a type which was a monoplane - but able to fire bullets through the propeller 'disc' with a revolutionary interrupter gear.
THE DUNNE DESIGNS
Note: These three pictures were scanned from British Aviation - The Pioneer Years by Harald Penrose. The first picture is captioned: "Final version of the Dunne monoplane on test at the Royal Aircraft Factory, Farnborough."
Without any doubt the last of the Dunne designs have to be featured in this 'Guide', so why not start here, where the original ideas were developed. Looked at today these were astonishing, radical and eventually very successful. A fully stable aeroplane - ideal for reconnaisance - and capable of being flown by one person. Looking back it might seem remarkable that the concept endured for so long, but of course the idea of having a highly manoeurvable aeroplane in a combat situation had not been envisaged until experience in WW1 came about.
1913 AN OFFICIAL DECEPTION EXPOSED
For the full and expanded story of those days please read, British Aviation - The Pioneer Years, by Harald Penrose and first published in 1967, and most highly recommended. During the summer of 1913, when the better informed MPs were getting increasingly concerned about the strength of the RFC if the then expected war seemed inevitable, they were told that the RFC had 126 aeroplanes ready for operations. This was from the Secretary of State for War, and he was lying through his teeth.
Fast forward another century or so, and almost the same set of shambolic misinformation was being promulgated by the government during the 'Brexit' negotiations. So, not much has changed! I think this part of the account is well worth including in this 'Guide'.
His bluff was called when; "On July 12th Mr. Joynson-Hicks had hurled a challenge by asking permission for a Committee of the House to tour goverrnment aerodromes so that they could count the aeroplanes in order to check against the number of 126 stated as the strength of the R.F.C. At this point Col. Seely had his back to the wall. All he could do was to minimise the importance of the Committee and reduce its numbers 'on the public interest' to not more than two. Accordingly, Mr Joynson-Hicks chose Mr. Sandys, the M.P. for Wells, and requested that a military expert should accompany them."
"The Minister would not agree to military help, so Joynson-Hicks asked if he could take a civilian authority, Mr Du Cros, M.P. for Hastings.This also was rejected in a letter signed by General Henderson on behalf of the Secretary of State." Does this, today, (in 2017 at least), have a ring of familiarity?
"On July 30th Mr. Joynson-Hicks revealed in a long letter to the Press the story of his visit to the R.F.C. bases and the appalling result of his investigation. It was a devastating document. He quoted the Minister's fine promises in the House and then contrasted his own findings. 'Before going to my inspection,' he wrote, 'I asked the War Office to send me a list of the machines they had. To my astonishment, and I must confess somewhat to my amusement, I received the following list:
| CENTRAL FLYING SCHOOL | Biplanes ready to fly | 20 |
| UPAVON | " under repair | 5 |
| " awaiting authority to strike off | 2 | |
| Monoplanes ready to fly | 2 | |
| LARKHILL | Biplanes ready to fly | 9 |
| " under repair | 2 | |
| " damaged | 2 | |
| FARNBOROUGH | Biplanes ready to fly | 10 |
| " under repair | 11 | |
| Monoplanes ready to fly | 11 | |
| " damaged | 4 | |
| MONTROSE | Biplanes ready to fly | 4 |
| " under repair | 4 | |
| " wrecked | 1 | |
| ROYAL AIRCRAFT FACTORY | Biplanes experimental to fly | 3 |
| (FARNBOROUGH) | " under test ready to fly | 7 |
| Monoplanes ready to fly | 12 | |
| " under repair | 2 | |
| " under reconstruction | 9 | |
| TOTAL = 120 |
'These figures, without any inspection of the machines themselves, show that the total claim of machines "ready to start for war tomorrow morning", which has been the whole basis of our discussion in the House, is 43 - but included in this are 20 machines which are being daily used at the Central Flying School for teaching beginners, and, of course, being daily damaged."
"Obviously if our organisation demands a flying school, it is unfair to count the school machines which 'can go to war tomorrow'; and this reduces the number of such effecient war machines to 23, which is about the number - ridiculous as it may seem - I have from time to time suggested."
'Col. Seely may, however, claim that the monoplanes are effective for war purposes. We inspected them all, but it was obvious that those of them which were deliivered prior to the ban on flying them in September last are clearly unfit for use without full overhaul. Beyond this some of the monoplanes are brand new machines of a type not yet flown by our Army, delivered quite recently under old contracts, and embody all the defects which caused them to be banned in September last."
"There are at Montrose eleven or twelve officers "scrambling" to fly on three machines, one of which is a training machine only. At Salisbury Plain we found ten machines. The two B.E.s which I said needed over-hauling were already being overhauled. Of the two Maurice Farman machines originally without engines, we found that one had a new engine put in the day before, and the other had been sent away to the makers for repairs. There were four Henry Farman's, and two others of which, in reply to a question from my colleague, the Commanding Officer said: "I do not regard them as good for war purposes."
"With regard to the 3rd Squadron at Farnborough there were eleven efficient flying machines, of which most were of a type which cannot fly more than 54 m.p.h. when new, and rapidly settle down to 48 or 50 by the time they are month old." For me at least, discovering these accounts is, for the history, pure gold. Nothing better.
"I do not want to take technical objection to Col. Seely's figures. It is sufficient for my purpose to accept his own figures of the machine he has ready to fly - obviously no others can be ready to go to war without at least a very strong backing of the faster kind, when we discover that during last month a French airman flew to England at the rate of 80 m.p.h., and another to Berlin at the rate of 120 m.p.h." (My note: Without much if any doubt assisted by a very strong tail-wind). "Of what use would our comfortable, easy going school machines, flying at the rate of 48 m.p.h. be against an enemy armed in this manner:"
"That a Minister holding the responsible position that Col. Seely does should have made statements to the House of Commons in regard so vital a question as preparations for war, which at the first touch crumble to pieces, is a matter which I can only leave to the judgement of those who read this statement."
Needless to say a heated debate followed in the House of Commons, but the result was the pretty stark realisation that the U.K. was woefully unprepared to wage a major 'modern' war in which, as the French and German goverment regimes had already realised, the aeroplane would make a major impact. And how true this turned out to be.
AIRCRAFT REPAIR DEPOT
Another aspect of WW1 activity at FARNBOROUGH was the No.1 (Southern) Aircraft Repair Depot. It is claimed some 700 aircraft covering eighteen types passed through. The subject of ‘re-cycling’ aircraft is a worthy debate in itself. Some aircraft are flying around today with quite probably the only original item being the constructors plate. It’s the age old road-sweepers syndrome, still the “original” item, despite having thirty new brushes fitted and ten replacement handles.
I fail time and time again to understand why, considering that the British Empire and our industrial revolution, (the first in the world), was built upon people having immense practical capabilities in design and manufacture. And yet, whenever reading any of their history, these people seem to have waged a life-long campaign against established figures in authority by and large. In aircraft design the same applies, anybody having any real ability seems almost damned from the outset to wage a campaign against authority to realise their ideas. This said, those that had little or no idea of the basics seemed to rise within the system - why?
FARNBOROUGH ASPECTS
Can you imagine what FARNBOROUGH looked like in those days, prior to WW1? In the 'Cold War' period a ‘top secret’ military aerodrome enclosed with miles of fencing topped with barbed or even razor wire and perhaps two layers deep. CCTV and patrols guarded the perimeters and the whole aspect resembled a prison. This we are taught to regard as progress and a sign that we are now much more civilised. I would beg to differ and regard much of what has happened to military aerodromes as being a clear sign that we now live in a far more dangerous, contained and managed society generally speaking.
In the 1930s for example Private Pilots were welcome to fly in to most if not all RAF airfields – and why not? Just seeing the latest ‘top secret’ aeroplane usually doesn’t reveal much about it’s capabilities - and those seeing it probably didn’t harbour desires to be a spy. Indeed, I can testify to this from personal experience. There is also the big ‘secrecy’ debate to consider of course. Was there even a wooden fence around FARNBOROUGH in 1911? I doubt it.
Secrecy has nearly always surrounded the goings on at FARBOROUGH, BOSCOMBE DOWN and similar places by those flying desks in Whitehall, (or wherever secrecy decisions are made), and they obviously don’t realise that aircraft need to fly let alone take-off and land! In other words once airborne they’re visible. As a kid and ardent plane spotter at HEATHROW we had a pretty good idea what was going on at ‘local’ secret airfields such as FARNBOROUGH and WISLEY.
To illustrate this point here is an account which I think amply illustrates the utter stupidity of those thinking that flying machines can be kept secret. The crew aboard H.M.S. Hermione, (an obsolete light cruiser converted to a depot ship), when it slipped it’s moorings under cover of darkness on the 29th September 1910 from Plymouth, were only told the following morning when at sea, that the ship was to be positioned at the new airship hangar in CAVENDISH DOCK near Barrow-in-Furness, basically to seve as an accommodation block! So even then the official approach regarding secrecy was aspiring to ludicrous levels of stupidity in certain quarters.
Obviously anybody thinking you can keep the construction and flight trials of something as big as an airship secret has to be totally off their rocker. Depending on the weather and flight conditions, something as big as an airship, (they couldn’t fly very high), could be seen for up to 50 miles! There is however something not fully appreciated even today. Just seeing something, and even taking pictures of it, rarely if ever reveals anything really worthwhile regarding construction secrets and performance capabilities. We all discovered this big time when the USSR fighters first displayed in the west after Glasnost. I’ve heard of many western military pilots seeing these displays saying, “Thank God we never went to war with them!”
AN INTERESTING ASPECT
There is another claim to fame for this site, or so it appears. In 1912, at South FARNBOROUGH a small undistinguished building was erected near to the Balloon Factory to house a weather outstation, the first in the UK to collect and provide data exclusively for aviators therefore, as Alexander Frater points out, “its significance was immense.” Today of course there exists what can only be decribed as a global ‘industry’ devoted to providing aviation weather reports, forecasts and advice.
PERHAPS THE MOST UNUSUAL TYPE?
Note: The Westland-Hill Pterodactyl Mk.1 was tested here, it now appears, during 1925 and early 1926. It might be easy today to dismiss this project as being a folly in those years, but, a flying-wing design did result, for example, in the Avro Vulcan V-Bomber.
NOTES ABOUT THE INTER-WAR YEARS
It appears that the R.A.E. Aero Club built the R.A.E. Zephyr G-EBGW in 1923 and flew for a year or two followed by two more aircraft designs. Kenneth V. Wright flew a Blackburn L.IA Bluebird II here in 1930 and 1931. Crashing it at Nivelles in Belgium in September 1931.
In the early 1930s Armstrong Whitworth Atlas aircraft where employed here by the RAF School of Photography. No.4 squadron?
On the 30th June 1937 Flt/Lt M J Adam of the Royal Aircraft Establishment piloted the Bristol 138a ‘High Altitude Monoplane’ to break the world altitude record at 53,937ft. Did it take-off from FARNBOROUGH though?
THE MARTIN-BAKER MB5
In June 1946 Jan Zurawoski demonstrated the Martin-Baker MB5 R2496 here, possibly the first SBAC show held here? It appears quite possible that this aircraft was the very best design produced during the second half of WW2, (as was the Westland Whirlwind when war was declared in 1939), but those in power ignored it. In some ways this is understandable, the decision was made to mostly concentrate all resources on developing existing and proven designs, or, this was the stated aim. In fact a vast amount of effort and expense was expended on producing obsolete aircraft and designs that had no chance of succeeding.
One report of the display by Zurawoski said he, “…presented one of the most brilliant flying demonstrations of the day and was outstanding for its speed range and manoeuvrability.” Prior to this the assessment from BOSCOMBE DOWN of the MB5 was, “It is considered that the general design and layout of the Martin-Baker 5 is excellent, and is infinitely better – from the engineering and maintenance aspect – than any other similar type of aircraft.”
It is probably impossible to make any direct comparisons today, but here is an attempt. Please note that I had hoped to make a Spitfire comparison but the later Spiteful variant seems to be the better comparison:
MARTIN-BAKER MB5 versus the SPITEFUL and P.51D MUSTANG
MB5 Spiteful P.51D Mustang
First flight: May 1944 June 1944 26 October 1940
Max speed: 460mph 483mph 437mph
Range: 1,100 miles 564 miles 1650 miles
Ceiling: 40,000ft 42,000ft 41,900ft
Rate of climb: 3,800ft/min 4,890ft/min 3,200ft/min
Which ever way you cut the cake small wonder the MB.5 was considered to be excellent in every way. Remember that these figures for the MB.5 are for the prototype whereas the Supermarine Spiteful and the North American P.51D had benefitted from years of development with almost limitless cost allocations.
THE EMPIRE TEST PILOTS SCHOOL
The Empire Test Pilots School started operations here, being attached to the RAE (Royal Aircraft Establishment), on the 12th July 1947 and it stayed based here for twenty-one years. Previously it had been based at BOSCOMBE DOWN and, if I remember correctly, went back to BOSCOMBE DOWN.
RUBBER MATS
This was possibly one of the more curious experiments in British aviation history and I would like to share these two accounts from Spitfire's Forgotten Designer by Mike Roussel in which he states: "The Admiralty was interested in having an aircraft without an undercarriage that would be able to land on flexible rubber decks on aircraft carriers. Flexible deck tests started on a hard installation at the R.A.E. Farnborough in 1947, and on a flexible rubber deck on HMS Warrior. This was an attempt to save the weight of an undercarriage, and Eric 'Winkle' Brown proved this was possible when he landed a Sea Vampire on HMS Warrior:"
'We did 100 landings at Farnborough and 200 landings on HMS Warrior at sea, and all were very successful. After landing on the flexible deck you are sitting at the end of the wire and when they pulled the aircraft fully back on the wire the aircraft was positioned over the trap door. The door would open and the aircraft slid down onto a trolley, and not having an undercarriage the carrier could store double the number of aircraft by double docking. Towards the end of the experiment we were a sort of circus act. If any visitors came to R.A.E. Farnborough we had to perform some flexible deck landings.'
It certainly came as a surprise to me to learn the the Supermarine Type 505, which eventually became the Scimitar for the Royal Navy, was originally designed without an undercarriage and a 'V' or 'butterfly' tail. Therefore, at that time the designers at Supermarine obviously believed the idea might well have been adopted.
THE FARNBOROUGH AIR SHOWS
The main annual UK aviation industry flying show hosted by the SBAC (Society of British Aircraft Manufacturers) has been based here from 1948 and became bi-annual in 1962 sharing with the Paris Air Show at Le Bourget.
The SBAC air shows go back to 1932 when the first was held at RAF HENDON (LONDON) but in those days it wasn’t a public event. After WW2 the event was hosted by Handley-Page at their RADLETT (HERTFORDSHIRE) factory and airfield in 1946 and 1947.
In the early days of the SBAC the most spectacular displays were arranged by the UK military forces, especially the RAF, with huge formation fly-pasts filling the sky with their aircraft. Display squadrons with English Electric Lightnings, Hawker Hunters from the Diamond Nine, and Folland Gnats from the Red Arrows gave superb and very exciting displays often literally over the heads of the spectators. Later on safety regulations forbade this practise.
In Tails of the Fifties, an anthology (the first of three) compiled by Peter G Campbell, a contribution by Timothy Foster tells us that at one Farnborough Air Show: “One particularly memorable display was put on Jan Zurakowski, Gloster’s chief test pilot and a wartime Polish fighter pilot in the RAF, doing something called ‘Zurabatics.’ He would take a Meteor, which had a jet engine on each wing, climb it vertically, then throttle back one engine while going to full power on the other. The Meteor rotated like a Catherine wheel about its vertical axis.”
THE 1952 AIR SHOW
On the 6th September 1952 John Derry and his observer Tony Richards was demonstrating supersonic flight when their DH.110 disintegrated in mid-air during a high-G turn and twenty-nine spectators were killed and many more injured. De Havilland designers had little experience of metal aeroplanes and consistently made, it is claimed, elementary mistakes in several designs by underestimating the strength required. The 1952 flying display was also exceptional in that Roly Falk, with just ten hours ‘on type’ displayed the new Avro Vulcan heavy ‘V’ bomber to much acclaim, including rolling it.
It must be realised though that rolling an aeroplane exerts relatively little stress on the airframe and during a well executed barrel roll – none at all. As was demonstrated by Tex Johnson when demonstrating the prototype Boeing 707 - and ordered never to do it again. Perhaps an odd decision I would think as it certainly impresses prospective clients? It is claimed that Roly Falk certainly impressed the ‘powers that be’ and, “…did much to secure Government confidence to order the type in quantity .” Interesting also because in its service role being able to roll the aircraft rarely, if ever, came into the equation? At least in the early years before very low level attacks were the order of the day. In this case a ‘roll off the top’ of a loop was the procedure, having launched the nuclear bomb about midway through the initial vertical phase of the loop.
SERIOUS ACCIDENTS
Several other serious incidents and fatal accidents occurred over the years, fatal only to the pilot/crew members as they pushed their aircraft to the limits to entertain the crowds. It has to be recognised that for many people the allure of an air show is the possibility of witnessing a fatal crash and it seems to be a fact that in recent years, in the UK, more people attended air shows than football matches.
A LIST OF NOTABLE TYPES AT FARNBOROUGH
In Tails from the Fifties, Peter Campbell publishes comments and a list of aircraft exhibited compiled by John Bagley. In his report he makes no mention of the DH.110 disaster, or the superb display of the Avro Vulcan flown by Roland Falk apparently dressed in a suit and tie. Nevertheless I think the list of aircraft exhibited is well worth copying into this ‘Guide’, (with a few notes of mine added for younger readers), as it reflects a time when, for example, jets and turbo-props were gaining the ascendency and helicopters coming along too, all making great strides.
Note: Also not listed by Mr Bagley, but as this picture shows, probably for the 1953 show (?), the astonishing prototype Armstrong-Whitworth A.W.52 TS368 made an appearance. Proving, beyond any doubt just how far British aircraft designers were thinking 'outside of the box' at that time. This aircraft was, it appears, commissioned to explore the viability of a jet 'flying wing' airliner.
(Is the copyright of this picture known?)
Auster J/5F Aiglet Trainer G-AMMS
Auster J/5G Cirrus Autocar G-AMPA
Auster B/4 Ambulance G-AMKL
Avro 707A WD280 Avro 707B VX790
Notes: These were experimental aircraft to test the effectiveness of the ‘Delta’ wing concept in the pioneering work involved for the Vulcan ‘V-bomber’.
Avro Shacketon Mk.2 WG531
Notes: The prototype Avro Shackleton, designed for long range maritime reconnaissance and loosely based from a progression of the WW2 Lancaster via the Lincoln, first flew on the 9th March 1949. It had entered service the year before, in April 1951.
Avro Vulcan prototype VX770
Notes: The Vulcan was the second of the ‘V-bombers’ to fly and did so, for the first time on the 30th August 1952. The Vickers Valiant had first flown on the year before on the 18th May 1951. The third ‘V-bomber’ the Handley Page Victor first flew on the 24th December 1952. It took quite a long time after the first flight before they entered service, needless to say. The Valiant entered service in 1955, the Vulcan in 1956 and the Victor in 1958.
Bristol 170 Freighter 31 NZ5906
Bristol 171 Sycamore VL958 Sycamore Mk.3 G-ALSX
Bristol 173 G-ALBN
Bristol 175 Britannia G-ALBO
Notes: It might well be overlooked today that in the 1950s Bristol were producing very successful helicopter designs. The Sycamore was, I believe, the first to go into series production and was well regarded, with 180 built for both military and civil operations. The twin engine – twin rotor Type 173 was a revelation, but for some reason failed to attract orders. It was developed into the Type 192 Belvedere and the 28 built served in the RAF. Perhaps the narrow fuselage and lack of a rear loading facility/ramp were its downfall?
De Havilland DH.100 Vampire Tr.Mk.II WZ429
De Havilland DH.104 Dove 2 G-AJLW
De Havilland DH.106 Comet 1 G-ALVG Comet 1A CF-CUM
Notes: The fate of the Comet 1 is of course infamous in the annals of aviation history and doesn’t need expanding on here, except to say that even in the 21st century rumblings of discontent persist as to exactly where the blame lays for the faults and failures.
De Havilland DH.110 WG236
Notes: This of course was the aircraft that disintegrated, as mentioned above. The basic design was beefed up to become the DH.110 Sea Vixen, a design with considerable flaws for shipboard operations and a great many crashed usually with fatal results. Having spoken to a now highly respected member of the aviation community who served on the type I was told the Sea Vixen is still a scandal waiting to be exposed, and, the reason you still won’t find a detailed in-service history of the type.
De Havilland DH.112 Venom F.B.Mk.1s WE281 & VV612
De Havilland DH.112 Venom N.F.Mk.2 WL808
De Havilland DH.112 Sea Venom N.F.Mk.20 WK385
De Havilland DH.114 Heron 1 G-ALZL
De Havilland Canada DHC.1 Chipmunk T.Mk.10 WP838
English Electric Canberra T.4 WN167 Canberra B.5 VX185
Notes: The Canberra prototype first flew on the 13th May 1949 and first entered service in May 1951. it was quickly realised the type could quickly be adapted to test fly far more powerful jet engines. It was a very successful type breaking many world records and the last photo-reconnaissance type was only withdrawn from RAF service in June 2006. Altogether 901 were built in the UK, (for several air forces), plus 48 in Australia. In the USA yet another 403 versions of the Martin B-57 Canberra were built and it quite possible, when you read this, that the last two are still flying, operated by NASA.
English Electric ‘Avon’ Canberra WD943
English Electric ‘Sapphire’ Canberra WD933
English Electric ‘Olympus’ Canberra WD952
Notes: Isn’t it quite astonishing to learn that as early as 1952 the prototype Olympus engines, which would eventually power Concorde, were being air-tested?
Fairey Firefly Mk.7 WJ149
Fairey Gannet Mk.1 WE488
Gloster Meteor N.F.11 WM166 Meteor T.7 WL453
Notes: The Gloster Meteor was the first jet fighter to enter RAF service. The prototype first flew on the 5th March 1943, right in middle of WW2 when RAF Bomber Command were turning the tables on the offensive against the Nazi regime. And, the USAAF had also started their bombing campaign. The Meteor entered service in July 1944. The Americans, or so it seems, had no idea about jet propulsion until the British gave them everything they knew FoC, and grabbing German expertise as the war ended.
Gloster Javelin Mk.1 WD808
Notes: The Javelin was arguably the first attempt to design an ‘All-weather’ day and night fighter incorporating airborne radar and other advanced features.
Hawker Sea Hawk Mk.1 WF147 Hunter Mk.1 WB195
Miles HPR.1 Marathon T.11 XA250
Percival Prince 3B G-AMKY Prince 2 (mod) G-AMMB
Percival Sea Prince T.Mk.1 WM735
Percival Provost T.Mk.1 WE522
Note: Picture copyright unknown?
Usually regarded as a complete flop today, the Princess flying boat, as designed, was a fabulous concept, and deserved to be a huge success - on paper by far exceeding all comparative American airliners in performance and ideal to serve the British Empire. But the Bristol Company let it down very badly, failing to produce the engines with the power they had promised.
And of course, shortly after the British Empire was being dismembered, country after country gaining independance, which of course has mostly ended in disasterous results for those populations. However, the flying-boat was very much a thoroughly practical option and most if not all of the pre-war sites used by the flying-boats of Imperial Airways were still available to be used at minimal costs compared to the development of airports required for land airliners.
Saunders Roe Princess G-ALUN
Saunders Roe Skeeter 3B WF112 Skeeter 5 G-AMTZ
Scottish Aviation Pioneer 2 G-AKBF
Short SA.6 Sealand 1H G-AIVX
Notes: The Sealand was quite an unusual venture, being amphibious and bearing a marked semblance to the Grumman G-21 Goose and G-44 Widgeon. Faced with such competition it did not fare particularly well although twenty five were built.
Supermarine Attacker F.B.Mk.2 WK388
Supermarine 508 VX136
Notes: The ‘508’ was, in effect, a proof-of-concept prototype which led eventually to the Scimitar – a naval type which appears to have led a rather good service history.
Supermarine Swifts WJ965 & WK194
Notes: The Swift did enter RAF service but it was an unmitigated disaster and, if you’ll excuse the weak pun, pretty swiftly grounded. It is well worth looking in some detail into the operational history of the early British military jets, very few of which turned out to be even reasonably safe to fly operationally in those early years of the jet era. Quite often, it has to said, because the designers had no regard whatsoever towards making them as straightforward as possible for pilots to fly. Ergonomics was a concept yet to be discovered by designers even though some brave test pilots were begging for improvements in this regard.
Universal Freighter WF320
Notes: This is, arguably, probably the most fantastic evolution of any aircraft before or since. Based at HANWORTH AIR PARK in south-west (LONDON) and having only built light Aircraft; until WW2 when they designed the GAL Hamilcar glider. It is said that this experience played a large part, when, after WW2 the General Aircraft Co designed and built the GAL.60 Universal Freighter, a huge aircraft for its time and having many unique features. What’s more, it could have easily operated out of the aerodrome at HANWORTH having a take-off run, fully-loaded of 790 yards (723 metres) and a landing run, fully loaded of just 310 yards (283 metres). It seems that the potential of the design was quickly realised, as was the realisation that such a small company couldn’t cope with large production orders.
The prototype was transported to the Blackburn factory in BROUGH (YORKSHIRE) and it first flew on the 20th June 1950. In 1952 the RAF placed an order for the Blackburn Beverley C.1 heavy transport and all of the Beverley type were built there. So, does it not seem rather odd, at this major air show in 1952, that this type was still known as the Universal Freighter?
Vickers 660 Valiant B.Mk.1 WB215
Notes: Regarded, even when I was a youngster over forty years ago, as the ‘Cinderalla’ of the ‘V-bombers’ and seen as something of a failure – the truth is it was an amazing performer at the height of its service career and could out-perform the latest RAF fighters.
Vickers 668 Varsity T.Mk.1 WF429
Vickers 701 Viscount G-ALWE
Notes: The Viscount would quickly become the most successful British airliner ever with 445 being built. First flown in 1948 examples of the breed were still flying in the 1990s. And, the type was also very successful in the USA, a market notoriously difficult for foreign competitors to enter.
Westland Wyvern T.F.Mk.4 VZ570
Westland WS.51 Dragonfly H.R.Mk.3 WG707
Notes: I might be wrong but I do believe the Dragonfly was the first successful arrangement by Westland to produce American Sikorsky helicopters in the UK? The Dragonfly being a version of the Sikorsky S.51. Without much doubt Westland became a major player with the WS.55 Whirlwind, itself a version of the Sikorsky S.55. A position reinforced when Westland took the S.58 and re-engined it with a turbine engine to become the Wessex. This highly successful development placed Westland at the top of British helicopter design and the rest, “as they say” is history.
I MISSED IT
During the 1958 Air Show the Black Arrows flying Hawker Hunters performed a loop with twenty-two aircraft in formation. It set a world record which has never been beaten. Unfortunately I was too young to see this, but by about 1960 my best friend and I made our way to the show on our own. We would have been thirteen on our first outing – can you imagine this today? The Black Arrows where still a major attraction and I vividly remember a part of their display which involved four aircraft crossing at very low level, from the four cardinal points of the compass so to speak. We saw, our heads swivelling fit to untwist off our necks, the Hunters from left and right and straight ahead, but had no idea there was another coming from behind and straight over us. Its arrival very nearly made the phrase ‘jumping out of your skin’ a reality!
Another display, never to be forgotten, was by the RAF Lightning team who performed a formation take off. The noise was quite incredible, bordering on painful, and the ground shook beneath our feet. At the Laffin Plains end of the runway they appeared to climb vertically, line astern and kept on climbing until almost out of sight. A very graphic demonstration of the immense power the Lightning had.
It is hard to describe the amount of anticipation we felt when as youngsters in the early 1960s we made our way by bus and train to those colossal air shows. It was a very long day and we were always thrilled throughout, not just by the airshows and static displays but also trying hard to identify all the various aircraft or parts of aircraft lurking in the background behind sheds and hangars. Returning home totally exhausted but very happy. It was a complete adventure and the flying was definitely the main attraction.
Note: First picture: Copyright unknown? The second picture was scanned from the June 2000 issue of Aeroplane magazine.
IT COULDN’T LAST OF COURSE
Over many years the show gradually diminished, bit by bit, until in the end there was little point to attending. Just a few aircraft to see and the displays were equalled or more impressive elsewhere. A sad end reflecting also the total demise of British aircraft manufacturing and expertise. Now, just a few pockets remain. In the introduction to his book British Built Aircraft Vol.3 Ron Smith makes the following observation. “….on the formation of British Aerospace (BAe), the American magazine Aviation Week and Space Technology wryly commented that the final phase of development of the SBAC had now taken place. Whereas previously the numerous members of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors (SBAC) had reflected the vigour, diversity and inventive spirit of the British industry, it had, following restructuring in 1960, been reduced to the ‘Society of Both Aircraft Companies’ (i.e. the British Aircraft Corporation and Hawker Siddeley Aviation Ltd). The formation of BAe was the final act in the process, with the once-great industry reduced to the ‘Single British Aerospace Company’.
THE ORIGINAL SBAC MEMBER COMPANIES
Having made a point about this I suppose it is only reasonable to give a list provided in this book by Ron Smith of the original forty founder members of the SBAC when it was formed in March 1916? I certainly find the list very interesting and was surprised to find so many familiar company names which feature for so many years during our industrial period, and not just in aircraft manufacturing:
Aircraft Manufacturing Co. Ltd
Airships Ltd
The Austin Motor Co (1914) Ltd
Wm. Beardmore & Co. Ltd
The Blackburn Aeroplane & Motor Co. Ltd
Boulton & Paul Ltd
The British Electrical Engineering Co. Ltd
The Coventry Ordnance Works Ltd
The Daimler Co. Ltd
Darracq Motor Engineering Co. Ltd
Wm. Denney & Brothers
The Dudbridge Iron Works Ltd
The Grahame-White Aviation Co. Ltd
Handley Page Ltd
Hewlett & Blondeau Ltd
Jouques Aviation Works
Mann, Egerton & Co Ltd
Mann & Grimmer
Martinsyde Ltd
D. Napier & Son, Ltd
The Norman Thompson Flight Co. Ltd
Parnall & Sons
Phoenix Dynamo Manufacturing Co. Ltd
Robey & Co. Ltd
A. V. Roe & Co. Ltd
Ruston, Proctor & Co. Ltd
Fredk. Sage & Co. Ltd
S. E. Saunders Ltd
Short Bros.
The Siddeley-Deasy Motor Car Co. Ltd
The Standard Motor Co. Ltd
The Sunbeam Motor Car Co. Ltd
Vickers Ltd
Westland Aircraft Works
J. Samuel White & Co. Ltd
G & J Weir Ltd
Wells Aviation Co. Ltd
Whitehead Aircraft Co. Ltd
Wolseley Motors Ltd
A very interesting list isn’t it? With so many of these companies still acting as major sub-contractors during WW2. But, why are so many major design and aircraft builders missing? The absence of Bristol and Sopwith for example? The Royal Aircraft Factory can be discounted on political grounds at least? Possibly the most famous company joining the SBAC before the end of WW1 was the Sir W G Armstrong, Whitworth & Co Ltd.
A MOST FANTASTIC RECORD BREAKING FLIGHT
At the Air Show in 1974 the Lockheed SR.71 Blackbird was the ‘star turn’. It had flown from the USA to the UK using New York and London as ‘gates’ in just 1 hour 55 minutes and 32 seconds on September 1st at an average speed of 1817 mph. It flew back to the USA breaking another record – London to Los Angeles in 3 hours 47 minutes 39 seconds at an average speed of 1438 mph. Apart from having headwinds, this much lower speed is explained by the SR.71 having to descend and slow down to refuel. It was at its best at around 80,000 feet!
Writing this in 2014 it now seems almost impossible to comprehend that, being designed by a team led by Clarence “Kelly” Johnson at the ‘Skunk Works’, it first flew on the 22nd December 1964. Fifty years ago! It could fly at Mach 3.3 (about 2,200+ mph) at up to 85,000 feet. And, it served the USAF from 1966 to 1998. Perhaps not surprisingly, an aeroplane so advanced came with a cost, twelve of the 32 built were lost in service – although none due to enemy action.
THE LAST PERIOD?
In late 2004 it was announced that many of the main structures of the Royal Aircraft Establishment were to be restored and reused. Developers had plans to pretty much flatten the lot. Typical of most of the best in British industrial history, it’ll be just be another ‘heritage’ site. I’m glad it’ll be saved of course to remind me and friends of what it once was.
ROYAL AIRCRAFT ESTABLISHMENT AERO CLUB
This club can lay claim to being the oldest flying club in the UK having been founded in the 1920s. I believe it is still going strong today. In Tails of the Fifties, John Bagley had this contribution dated October 6th 1951: “ The RAE Aero Club operates only one Tiger Moth G-AMCM (at the moment it is suffering from a hangover following a heavy landing), but has another under overhaul. This latter started life with serial T6274, but the fuselage was not repairable and that of T5635 has been substituted. T5635 also supplies spare wings for G-AMCM and will probably suffer complete cannibalisation.” Doing this was very common practice in the years following WW2 and to a lesser extent still happens today even with metal aircraft.
“Three other Tigers, T5595, T5701 and T6098 (bought recently for 50/- each complete with engines will probably be combined in due course to form a third club machine." 50/- or two pounds and ten shillings in 1951 equated to a figure in 2012 of between £63.37 or £259.70 depending on the criteria used. For example the lower figure is a direct time conversion whereas the higher figure is adjusted to reflect comparative income. Either way, being able to buy a more-or-less servicable Tiger Moth complete with engine for this kind on money today is, of course, quite unthinkable. In early 2014, whilst writing this entry, I looked around to see what price a Tiger Moth in good condition might fetch and found one in Switzerland for 59,300 Euros (£49,219). How things have changed.
“Also being repaired is Eon Primary BGA 589 (ex G-ALMN), bought from the Army Gliding Club at Lasham.” Eon stood for Elliotts of Newbury who were a well known manufacturer of ‘sports’ gliders in those days. “Privately owned by members of the club are Proctor 1 G-AHAB of C.E. Berens, Auster 5 G-ALYB of V.R. Vandome and Aeronca 100 G-AEWU, property of J. Colbourne. This last machine was bought in October last, and after the owner had put in a total of 700 hours work on it, a new C. of A. was issued on August 22nd, and several hours flying have already been done in it. Some parts have been derived from the Ely 700 G-AFLU.”
This last remark made me sit up and take notice and asking, what the f!*! is an Ely 700? It turns out it was a British version of the Aeronca C-3 with a wider fuselage and two doors – and only two were built. It also appears the Aeronca 100 was a British version, powered by the Aeronca JAP J-99 engine and twenty one of these were built. A later version the Aeronca 300 was an “improved” 100, but only one was built. Despite its most ungainly looks, it appears this type was quite a delight to fly, and, some claim it might have been quite popular – excepting that few pilots actually found out the way to get in it!
FARNBOROUGH SPOTTER NOTES
In 1977 the SE.5A G-EBIA (F904), belonging it seems to the Shuttleworth Trust, was based here, as was the Aeronca C.3 G-ADYS. Other notable types listed as being based here were the DH.87B Hornet Moth G-AESE. There were three DH.82A Tiger Moths G-AHVU, G-AJHS and G-ANNG, all presumably operated by the R.A.E Aero Club? Also the Douglas C-47 Dakota 4 G-AMCA of BST Aviation Holdings. The Zlinn Z.526 Akrobats G-AWJX and G-AWSH operated by Aerobatics International Ltd were also based here, as was their Craft-Pitts Special G-AZPH. It seems the rather special if not unique and privately owned Bede BD.5B G-BDKK was based here too.
Although I knew of such things, it has come as quite a surprise in researching this ‘Guide’ to discover just how many private aircraft, admittedly owned by people serving in the RAF or similar ‘official’ capacities, had been based at ‘Top Secret’ and lesser sensitive RAF airfields during the Cold War period. Indeed, I can still remember seeing a Cessna 172 (or 182?) regularly parked in an open-ended blister hangar alongside the A.40 at RAF NORTHOLT.
YET ANOTHER ANNIVERSARY
I jest of course and thank heavens so many people in the UK aviation world need barely any excuse to arrange a ‘knees-up’ or a ‘bash’ to celebrate an anniversary. In 1982, during the de Havilland Centenary Rally, (of his birth of course), some fifty de Havilland ‘Moth types’ arranged to fly into FARNBOROUGH – “…on a windy Sunday in July.” Stuart McKay tells us this in his excellent book Tiger Moth.
THE AAIB
Today the Air Accident Investigation Branch is based here but I have yet to determine when it moved its HQ here. Previously it was in Shell-Mex House, off The Strand in central London. I think it is likely that the practical side, dealing with examining wreckage etc, might have been part of the Royal Aircraft Establishment since WW2? It can trace its history back to 1912 when the Royal Aero Club conducted an accident investigation but came into its own in 1915 as the Accidents Investigation Branch. After WW1 it became part of the Department of Civil Aviation but with a remit to investigate both civil and military air accidents.
After WW2 it became part of the Ministry of Civil Aviation and in 1983 transferred to the new Department of Transport becoming renamed the AAIB in November 1987. It struck me as quite astonishing, despite having visited the establishment, to find that in or around 2013 the AAIB had only something in the order of fifty employees. This said, given the highly technical nature of their investigations, by necessity they need to employ the services of a considerable array of highly specialised facilities.
Visits can be arranged, normally in organised groups, and this was how I saw how the facility works – something highly recommended as it really was fascinating and, oddly enough perhaps, not at all macabre. There is of course always the reminder that the wreckage on view represents human tragedy but the diligence, perseverance and attention to minute detail explained makes it a rather uplifting experience. And, rather comforting to see how these people try very hard indeed to hopefully prevent something similar happening in the future. This said, it must be remembered that the objectivity of AAIB reports are sometimes subject to considerable pressures, often politcal, to submit reports that are heavily biased from the factual matters.
PERSONAL MEMORIES
Regarding the first picture, without any doubt my reason for posing my truck against the background of some of the classic buildings at Farnborough was purely sentimental. I very much doubt any of the hundreds of drivers in trucks and vans also delivering to the build-up of the Farnborough Air Show had the slightest interest in the place. The whole procedure of getting in being a pain in the backside mostly. But for me at least, I was on 'hallowed grounds' steeped in the early history of British aviation.
It might be thought that, considering the relative permanence of 'The Farnborough Air Show', that most of the infrastructure would stay in place for many a year. In fact very little does and in advance of the air show a veritable army of people, including hundreds of skilled carpenters, painters, electricians etc, descend on FARNBOROUGH for often up to a month or more to recreate an area remarkably similar to that which existed at the previous air show.
Naturally all this costs an immense fortune, and I still have to discover how the 'cost effectiveness' equation works in favour of taking this approach.
Robin Colbourne
This comment was written on: 2015-11-29 02:00:23Hi, I came across your site when trying to find a photo of the Ely 700 As you may deduce, my father had the Aeronca 100 G-AEWU to which you refer. He bought it from Blackbushe Airport for £75, then towed it behind his Ford 8 to Farnborough, where he set about rebuilding it. After flying it for a while, including a trip around Northern France, it was sadly squashed when the Bessonneau hangar in which it was being kept, collapsed under the weight of melting snow. He did buy another Aeronca 100, G-AEWV, but this turned out to be in such a state that he did not fly it, although the buyer did fly it out contrary to advice. The Ely 700 fuselage was bought from a garage in Guildford. Quite how it got there is not clear. I was an apprentice at Farnborough between 1981 and 1985, and regularly went into the hangar (Q Shed) and neighbouring Nissen hut where the Gliding Club and Aero Club aircraft were stored. Notables were the ex-Neil Williams Pitts Special, The Lockspeiser LDA-01 and the Wanderlust aerobatic glider. The back of the hangar was filled with about half a dozen Sea Vixens which I believe later went to Llanbedr. Yours is a fascinating summary of Farnborough activity. Best wishes Robin P.S. Still looking for a photo of the Ely 700!
Reply from Dick Flute:
Hi Robin, Thank you very much for this information, and your kind comments. Much appreciated. As you will see, these have been added. Best regards, Dick
Brendan Fogarty
This comment was written on: 2020-11-09 00:43:42Hello Dick. Hope you are still active on this. Thanks so much for all this info. I found this page because I was trying to get info on Tiger Moths based at Farnborough. Do you have any other info regarding the dates that the three you mention were present? Also, do you know if the Aero Club still exists? Perhaps there are records available with them. Thanks very much. Brendan Fogarty
Dick Flute
This comment was written on: 2020-11-09 18:14:24Hi Brendan, As far as I know the Aero Club is no longer active at Farnborough. Cannot help further with dates for the Tiger Moths. Regards, Dick
We'd love to hear from you, so please scroll down to leave a comment!
Leave a comment ...
Copyright (c) UK Airfield Guide
