Hatfield
HATFIELD: Civil company aerodrome
Note: The second picture is from The John Stroud Collection
The first and third pictures were kindly sent by Mr Michael T Holder. The first picture was published in Flight magazine on the 14th November 1930, when the aerodrome had just opened.
Principal user: A major manufacturing base for the De Havilland Aircraft Company from 1934 and during WW2, and later. Eventually to become part of Hawker Siddeley, then the British Aircraft Corporation and eventually British Aerospace Group
Operated by: 1933: The de Havilland School of Flying
1934: The de Havilland Company (By now the main de Havilland aircraft factory)
1965: de Havilland Aircraft Division of Hawker Siddeley Aviation Ltd
Flying club/school: 1930s: London Aeroplane Club
1990s: Hatfield Flying Club
1959 ‘snapshot’. Propellers Flying Group, TK Flying Group
Military users: WW2: RAF Flying Training Command 50 Group EFTS (RLG)
ATA: No.5 Ferry Pilot Pool
Location: Just W of Hatfield town centre, about 6nm WSW of Hertford
Period of operation: 1930 to 1994
Note. These maps are reproduced with the kind permission of Pooleys Flight Equipment Ltd. Copyright Robert Pooley 2014.
Runways: 1933: Max landing run 1143 grass
WW2: N/S 1143 grass NE/SW 1143 grass
E/W 914 grass SE/NW 960 grass
The original and shorter hard runway was ready for use in May 1947
1965: 06/24 1829x46 hard 14/32 1829x46 grass
(Note: The last northern 610 metres of 14/32 available for emergency use only)
1993: 06/24 1823x46 hard 14/32 670x46 grass
NOTES: It appears the de Havilland company opened up HATFIELD in 1930 as an off-shoot to STAG LANE specifically to operate a contract for a RAF Reserve Flying School. De Havilland also operated an EFTS at WHITE WALTHAM (BERKSHIRE) in the 1930s. (From 1935). It is claimed that by 1933 there was just one hangar on the airfield. However, the London Aeroplane Club had also moved from STAG LANE in September 1933, and, with several changes made to its constitution it then became a major provider of subsidised flying to DH employees. This would appear to indicate that at least one more hangar was available towards the end of 1933. Plus of course work on the new DH factory and assembly sheds was well advanced, both the factory and airfield being fully operational when STAG LANE aerodrome closed in July 1934.
It is claimed, and in all probability correctly, that the closure of de Havilland’s STAG LANE aerodrome was being forced by the massive development of housing all around the airfield. Ironically a similar state of affairs was happening to HATFIELD when it closed just over sixty years later. I have read that the completion of the exchange of manufacturing capability from STAG LANE occurred during 1934 and HATFIELD was then substantially extended. This is only partially correct as, after the Stag Lane aerodrome closed in July 1934 the DH Stag Lane factory then became the DH Engine factory and was still producing parts well into the latter half of the 20th century. When it closed the BACS banking operation later took it over.
THE LONDON AEROPLANE CLUB
Stuart McKay in his excellent book Tiger Moth has this to tell us: “When the London Aeroplane Club was formed at Stag Lane in August 1925, it did so around the first DH60 Moths, and was responsible to the Royal Aero Club and the Air Ministry, both of whom had an interest. Stag Lane aerodrome offered excellent facilities for Club members and private owners, but the pressures exerted by the expansion of surburbia caused de Havillands to establish in 1930, a new factory site at Hatfield. The works gradually transferred until the closure of Stag Lane aerodrome in July 1934, but the London Aeroplane Club had moved overnight in September 1933, at which point the constitution of the Club was changed.”
“The London Aeroplane Club was taken under the wing of the de Havilland Aircraft Company and used as the primary source of subsidised flying for employees. The old de Havilland School of Flying which had enjoyed a joint civil/military role, became a Reserve and Elementary Flying Training School operating Tiger Moths, although some Jaguar-engined DH9Js were retained initially.” There is a popular misconception that 99.9% of early aircraft had a very brief life expectancy, but this is far too simplistic. Many did of course, but well designed and constructed examples, when well maintained, can keep on flying almost indefinitely. The DH9 for example, then the Airco DH.9, first flew in July 1917. The Avro 504 first flew in September 1913 and was still being used in a military role in WW2! At least one very well preserved Avro 504 is still flying today.
HATFIELD HOSTS THE KING’S CUP
On the 8th July 1933 the King’s Cup Race was held here and in suitable fashion Geoffrey de Havilland won the race over 831 miles in the DH.85 Leopard Moth G-ACHD, against forty-two starters, averaging 139.51mph. It appears this was the first and last time a de Havilland type won the race despite hosting the event from 1933 to 1938 when WW2 put paid to all private civilian flying. Some claim that in July 1934 the King’s Cup Air Race was held here; won by Captain Percival in his newly designed E.1 Mew Gull averaging 191mph, the highest winning speed in any King’s Cup up to that date. (See GRAVESEND KENT for more information on Alex Henshaw and the Mew Gull.)
The truth of the matter now appears somewhat different although Percival might well have achieved the highest speed in the race, which is a handicapped race. It now seems that the 1934 King’s Cup Race occurred on the 14th July and forty-one aircraft competed over the 801 mile course with Mr Harry M. Schofield winning flying the GAL Monospar ST-10 G-ACTS with an average speed of 134.16mph. The 1935 King’s Cup also of 801 miles, was held here on the 7th Sepember 1935. On this occasion Tommy Rose won flying the Miles M.3B Falcon Six G-ADLC averaging 176.28 mph.
The King’s Cup Air Race, held here in 1936, was probably (?) over a course of 1,360 miles. If this is correct twenty-six aircraft started and the race was won by Mr Charles E Gardner flying the Percival Vega Gull G-AEKE with an average speed of 164.47mph. However, another expert reckons the 1936 race was to MOUSEHOLD- NORWICH (NORFOLK), 103 miles to TOLLERTON-NOTTINGHAM (NOTTINGHAMSHIRE), 121 miles to WHITCHURCH-BRISTOL (SOMERSET), 109 miles to SHOREHAM-BRIGHTON (SUSSEX), 120 miles to ANSTY-COVENTRY(WARWICKSHIRE), then the final 68 miles back to HATFIELD. An overall distance of 612 miles!
On the 11th September 1937 C E Gardner won the King’s Cup Race once more only this time in a different Percival type, the Mew Gull racer G-AEKL over a course of 1,443 miles. There were twenty-seven entrants in 1937 whereas in the following year only 19 aircraft competed and Alex Henshaw won this time in another Mew Gull G-AEXF and set the highest speed attained for the pre-WW2 King’s Cup Races. In February 1939, between the 5th and 9th, Alex Henshaw broke the world speed record for a return flight to Cape Town in South Africa flying G-AEXF. I’m pretty certain that record still stands? He took-off and returned to GRAVESEND (KENT).
In all the King’s Cup was held here for six years in succession and all private flying, indeed virtually all civil flying, was banned during WW2. The King’s Cup Race resumed in 1949 but never returned to HATFIELD.
AN ADVERT
In October 2020 Mr Michael T Holder sent me this - a de Havilland advert for the DH87B Hornet Moth which first flew here on the 9th May 1934.
As Mike says, an alternative caption might be: Young woman - "Dwarling - this is absolutely spiffing." Pilot - "Ha, ha, yes Penelope - now just watch me fly into that bloody great hill 'cos I'm not watching where I'm going."
On a more serious note, I was interested to see the folded chart fixed to the lower part of the instrument panel. What a good idea. I have never flown an aircraft which afforded this luxury. There was no room anyway. Also in the advert was the claim that sales agents were available at every aerodrome - surely a case of ove-egging the soufflé?
THE SBAC SHOW
On the 27th and 28th June 1937 the last pre-war SBAC show was held here. The first SBAC show was, I believe, held at HENDON (LONDON) and before WW2 it was a private affair for invited guests. Shortly after WW2 the show was opened to the public, possibly when it was held at RADLETT (HERTFORDSHIRE) but it is probably reasonable to say that the SBAC show really came into its own as a major national event after it was moved to FARNBOROUGH (HAMPSHIRE).
THE DH TECHNICAL SCHOOL
Worthy of note is the de Havilland Technical School which was founded at STAG LANE and later moved to HATFIELD. The technical apprentices were encouraged to not only build complete aircraft, they designed some too. Existing types built by the Technical School includes the DH9J G-ABPG, three DH82A Tiger Moths – G-ACPS, G-ADGO and G-AEVB plus the DH60 Moth Major G-ADIO.
Following on from this they started designing and building their own aircraft, the TK Group series. The TK.1 E-3/G-ACTK first flew from STAG LANE in June 1934 although there is some debate over the date, one source claims it first flew in November 1933. The TK.2 E-3/G-ADNO first flew on the 16th August 1935 and was very successful attaining a “maximum racing speed” of 189.7mph on 140hp. This was used as a communications aircraft during WW2 and flew until the end of 1947. Oddly perhaps there doesn’t appear to have been a TK.3?
The TK-4 E-4/G-AETK was also a quite remarkable design and was, at the time, the smallest aircraft built in the UK with a wing span of 19ft 8ins and a length of 15ft 6ins. First flown from HATFIELD on the 30th July 1937 this type was quickly entered in the 1937 King’s Cup Air Race and achieved 230mph. Tragically it crashed after just two months of flying killing the de Havilland chief test pilot R J Waight. The last design, the TK.5, was of a radical pusher canard layout and as Ron Smith notes, “….was reminiscent of a Rutan Varieze, complete with wing-tip fins, swept wings and a nose wheel.” It failed to get airborne when tested at HATFIELD and does not appear to have carried any markings.
THE TIGER MOTH LEGACY
I wonder how many people, if asked today what type of aircraft they thought was the truly iconic DH design associated with HATFIELD – would answer – the Tiger Moth? Very few I suspect and until embarking on research for this Guide the humble Tiger would have been very low on my list – in fact probably not on it! And yet, it can be easily argued, perhaps the Tiger Moth should be nominated for this accolade. It was in fact, the main reason HATFIELD came into existence because, as increasing orders came in, the STAG LANE factory couldn’t cope. Plus, with nearly 9,000 being built (one source claims 8, 868) at several locations around the world, it might well be reasonably claimed that the DH82 Tiger Moth is also the iconic DH design!
I would like to quote this, again from Stuart McKay’s excellent book Tiger Moth: “A vivid splash of colour radiated from the Hatfield paintshops in July 1936 when official policy decreed that all RAF training aircraft should henceforth, be painted yellow overall. The supply of Tiger Moths to the Reserve Schools resulted in further highly individualistic colour choices until such times that the brown and green of European camouflage was adopted as standard. With minor amendments, all future UK production was finished in these drab tones until the last aeroplane left the Cowley plant in 1944.” The “Cowley plant” was the Morris Motors factory on the south-eastern outskirts of Oxford – to which Tiger Moth production was moved in 1940.
This left HATFIELD with enough capacity for full production of the Mosquito which is of course, if the heart rather than statistics is allowed to determine an iconic aircraft type, probably most people’s choice of DH design? It would certainly be mine. However, to return to Stuart McKay: “The Tiger Moth had joined the RAF in 1931 as a basic trainer and communications aeroplane, but almost immediately, she adopted an original colour scheme and was heavily modified in order to become latest equipment for the Central Flying School’s Formation Aerobatic Team. Forever after, adaptability was to be the watchword in her life.”
“In the UK she flew wartime coastal patrols searching for submarines at dawn; she carried bombs during the invasion scare and as a result was branded as unco-operative in the matter of recovery from spins. The series of intensive trials at Boscombe Down and Farborough resulted in the infamous Mod.112, a subject of continuing controversy more than forty years later.”
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THIS (With apologies to film star Michael Caine)
“The Tiger Moth served with the Expeditionary Forces in France during the earliest days of the war and offered one of the few avenues of escape. She flew with the Army Navy and Air Force in the UK and with forces in Asia, Australia and New Zealand, Canada and Africa, taking in her stride tasks from trainer to air ambulance and even prisoner evacuation. The United States Army Air Force trained pilots on Tiger Moths borrowed from the RAAF and as the PT24, the DH82C was ordered from DH Canada for home based US forces, but the aircraft were never delivered, diverted instead to the care of the RCAF.”
THE DH82 QUEEN BEE
From memory I do now believe I had not heard of the ‘Queen Bee’ probably until the 21st century. For reasons unknown. In fact I recall first hearing of the ‘Queen Bee’ after one survivor had been restored to flying condition as a more or less standard Tiger Moth. To quote once again from Stuart McKay’s book Tiger Moth: “The DH82 Queen Bee was intended as a cheap and expendable pilotless target for anti-aircraft practise. Flown under command of wireless apparatus situated in what would have been the trainee’s cockpit, the front position was fitted with instruments and conventional controls which permitted the aeroplane to be flown between sites by a ferry pilot.”
“Based at units around the coast of Great Britian, in Malta, Gibraltar and Singapore, and aboard ships of the Royal Navy, the Queen Bees were flown uder wireless control whilst gunners attempted to shoot them down. If the exercise was unsuccessful, the aircraft would be brought back to base, flown onto the water, serviced and sent off on a further mission.” It would appear that most if not all Queen Bees were fitted with floats. I find this fascinating having had some floatplane flying experience. Today, flying off water is deemed to be a very specialised subject which I would agree it most certainly is. But, for flying a full-scale ‘model’ aircraft, where better? The aircraft was expendable anyway and if the take-off, and more likely the landing, was cocked up, nobody got hurt. Some Queen Bees were catapult launched off Navy ships.
Oddly enough I cannot find a ‘first flight’ date for the Queen Bee, but, Stuart McKay has a photograph captioned: “In this 1937 action photograph, (My note: Seen taking-off) DH82 Queen Bee K-5107 is in the charge of No 3 Anti-aircraft Co-operation Unit based in Malta.” To discover this was quite a revelation as I had previously thought the first remotely-controlled aircraft, (in the UK at least), were the Australian GAF (Government Aircraft Factory) Jindivik ‘drones’ flown from RAE LLANDBEDR in Wales, probably, initially in the 1950s. The first flight of the Jindivik, in Australia, was on the 28th August 1952.
SIGNIFICANT FIRST FLIGHTS FROM HATFIELD
I have Ron Smith to thank for, (hopefully?), mostly completing this list of first flights which I’d started to make many years before I discovered his excellent series of five books titled British Built Aircraft which have proved to be immensely useful to this Guide. (in this case Vol.3) One item of note to bear in mind is that the total number of the type produced obviously includes, in most cases, aircraft built either in part or wholly, elsewhere. I have provided an asterisk to indicate when some were built outside of the UK. It also complicates matters if prototypes are included, so let’s call it a rough guide. For many old-timers, (myself included), the STAG LANE site will always be the spiritual home of de Havilland. Others can, I think, make a very convincing claim for HATFIELD wearing this accolade?
LIST A: The 1930s
Date Type Registration Total produced
17.04.34 DH89 Dragon Rapide E.4/CH-287 730*
09.05.34 DH87 Hornet Moth E.6/G-ACTA 165
08.09.34 DH88 Comet E.1/G-ACSP 5 (some say 3)
12.08.35 DH90 Dragonfly E.2/G-ADNA 67
20.05.37 DH91 Albatross E.2/G-AEVV 7
22.06.37 DH94 Moth Minor E.4/G-AFRD 73**
28.12.38 DH95 Flamingo G-AFUE 16
*One built in Canada
**Additional aircraft built in Australia (Total production unknown?)
LIST B: World War II
Date Type Registration/Serial Total produced
25.11.40 DH98 Mosquito E.0234/W4050 7,781
20.09.43 DH100 Vampire LZ548/G 3 3,268 (all versions)
28.07.44 DH103 Hornet RR915 Either 384 or 390?*
*This number including Sea Hornets
LIST C: Post 1945
Date Type Registration/Serial Total produced
25.09.45 DH104 Dove G-AGSS 542
04.11.46 DH100 Vampire F.3 ? 202*
27.07.49 DH106 Comet 1 G-5-1/G-ALVG 21 (inc 1A version)
28.08.49 DH113 Vampire NF.10 G-5-2 95? (inc versions)
02.09.49 DH112 Venom VV612 845**
10.05 .50 DH114 Heron Srs.1 G-ALZL 149 (inc Srs.2)
15.11.50 DH115 Vampire T.11 ? ***
19.04.51 DH112 Sea Venom WK376 ****
26.09.51 DH110 WG236 At least 2?
16.02.52 DH106 Comet 2X G-ALYT 17*****
14.12.52 DH114 Heron Srs.2 G-AMTS (see Srs 1)
19.07.54 DH106 Comet 3 G-ANLO 1
27.04.58 DH106 Comet 4 G-APDA 74******
27.06.59 DH106 Comet 4B G-APMA For use by BEA only?
31.10.59 DH106 Comet 4C G-AOVU See below
09.01.62 DH121 Trident 1 G-ARPA 117 (all versions)
13.08.62 DH125 G-ARYA +1000*******
02.11.64 DH121 Trident 1E G-ASWU/9K-ACF See Notes
27.07.67 DH121 Trident 2E G-AVFA See Notes
11.12.69 DH121 Trident 3B G-AWYZ See Notes
03.09.81 HS.146 G-SSSH 387 (all variants)
Last new type to fly from HATFIELD
01.08.82 BAe 146-200 G-WISC
01.05.87 BAe 146-300 G-LUXE
23.03.92 BAe RJ85 G-ISEE†
†The last aircraft to be built and flown from HATFIELD
*It seems a total of 1,157 single-seat Vampire variants were produced?
**The Swiss built 250 for their own use
***It appears 3,268 of all Vampire, Venom and Sea Venom variants were built?
****It seems 3 prototypes + 50 FAW.20, 167 FAW.21, 39 FAW.22 were built for the Royal Navy plus another 39 FAW.22s for the Royal Australian Navy
*****Two built for the Ministry of Supply, fifteen for the RAF
******Comet 4 x 28, 4B x 18, 4C x 28. Plus two unsold for Nimrod development
*******The ‘family’ development of the DH125 has been one of the extraordinary success stories in executive jet history rivalling the US Grumman Gulfstream and Cessna Citation plus the French Falcon ‘dynasty’. Can anybody explain why BAe sold this division to an American company?
BACK TO THE '30s
THE MacPHERSON ROBERTSON RACE
When, on the 8th September 1934, the first of the DH.88 Comets first flew, (only three were built, others say five) – it was just six weeks before the start of the MacPherson Roberston England to Australia International Air Race. It seems this project was conducted under great secrecy and the type was designed mainly because it was feared the Americans would probably win it, and, as we now know – they would have. Or at least KLM would have flying an American DC-2. Typically the British government offered almost no support, (absolutely none according to some opinions), towards the UK winning this most prestigious race and de Havilland charged ‘just’ £5000 for each Comet. A price heavily subsidised it is said. See MILDENHALL (SUFFOLK) for more info on the race.
TWO PICTURES FROM MIKE CHARLTON
These two pictures from postcards were kindly sent by Mike Charlton who has an amazing collection. See, www.aviationpostcards.co.uk
Regarding the first picture see below. As for the second picture clearly an event was being held here - but what event? Can anybody offer advice? Another interesting aspect is that the DH90 Dragonfly, G-AECW, was registered to De Havilland in March 1938 until November 1945. And, does not appear to have been impressed for miltary service. Could it be, possibly, that this aircraft was allowed to continue as a company 'hack' during WW2?
THE DH91 ALBATROSS
It appears that the original design was for a long distance mail-plane, but it was taken up by Imperial Airways as a fast airliner seating 22 passengers. It first flew in 1937 and seven were built, serving with Imperial Airways during 1938 and 1939 as their 'Frobisher Class' type. During WW2 the five passenger versions were based at WHITCHURCH, (Bristol), and served the Lisbon and Shannon routes The two mail-plane versions served as couriers on the PRESTWICK to Reykjavik service to Iceland
It appears that the seven examples buiilt were: G-AEVV, G-AEVW, G-AFDI, G-A FDJ, G-AFDK, G-AFDL and G-AFDM,
It be would reasonable to suggest that, in so many ways, the extraordinarily advanced DH91 Albatross with its ply-balsa-ply construction methods paved the way for the DH98 Mosquito which flew from here on the 25th November 1940? Since making this note many years ago I am now gratified to discover that many experts also agree.
THE FLAMINGO
On the 22nd December, (some say the 28th), 1938 the first flight of the DH95 Flamingo took place, de Havillands first all metal airliner. I have read that the original square windows were replaced by oval ones, and, (how very ironic?), if the same design rational had been applied to the DH.106 Comet the history of jet airliner development would probably have been substantially changed, and, without any doubt, the role of the British aviation industry within it? But, as stated later, this now appears a myth.
WORLD WAR TWO
HATFIELD PRODUCTION
Production totals in and around the WW2 period are given as 3,054 Mosquitos, 1,945 Tiger Moths, 320 Queen Bees and 406 Dragon Rapides. In addition to these de Havilland types it is claimed that 1,515 Airspeed Oxfords were built here. Also, 150 Hawker Hurricanes and 1,252 Mosquitos were repaired.
THE ATA AT HATFIELD
Another very important aspect of HATFIELD history is when, in December 1939, Pauline Gower was deputed to establish female ferry pool here for the ATA (Air Transport Auxilary). This was despite the opposition of many male pilots in the ATA at that time. We men don’t emerge smelling of roses when it comes to arrant sexism during this era or any other for that matter. I suppose we should now apologise officially to Pauline Gower even though she died in 1947? According to Mary Cadogan in her book Women with Wings she initially appointed eight women pilots; “Mrs Winifred Crossley, Miss Margaret Macdonald Cunnison, the Hon. Mrs Margaret Fairweather, Miss Mona Friedlander, Miss Joan Hughes, Mrs Gabrielle Patterson, Miss Rosemary Rees and Mrs Marion Wilberforce.”
I truly believe these women deserve considerable respect today and their names must be remembered. In fact I believe the accomplishments of all ATA pilots, both male and female, deserve a considerable accolade. For example, the ability of many RAF crews to navigate right from the inception of the service in WW1 was patchy at best and did not improve much until WW2 was half way through. Indeed, when hostilities commenced some RAF bomber crews couldn’t even find the country they were supposed to drop bombs on – let alone a specific city. Against this (please don't disillusion me) the ATA pilots established a fine record, usually flying as single crew too, of finding their destination airfield. Often in very marginal weather/visibilty. Visibility was often a major concern as during WW2 everybody, especially industry, were encouraged to make as much smoke as possible, to hinder enemy aircraft. After 1941 there were very few of these around, but the policy stayed in place to hinder RAF operations.
A NAVIGATIONAL ASIDE
This said a large amount of navigation technique was led by boffins who hadn’t a single clue amongst the lot of them about the basics. These deluded fools thought that incredibly complex mathematical and geometrical techniques were the answer for many years, including the early years of WW2. And, the RAF top brass, who also had no idea between them, went along with the idea. Indeed, when I learnt to fly the Dalton ‘spinwheel’ was a very much a revered device. Bloody clever it was too, but mostly superfluous for basic VFR navigation in daylight, if you could read the terrain from a map.
Just look at RAF bomber designs. If anything the navigator should be postioned to have the best overall ‘look out’ after the pilot? In those days nothing could beat getting a good view of the terrain by day and often by night with a bright moon. But no, they were invariably put in a position with a minimal view outside. Why? It simply doesn’t make any sense. This is an aspect which often bewilders me when seeing record breaking long distance aircraft designs of the 1920s and 30s.Invariably aircraft were designed to make it nigh on impossible to see where you are actually going! Charles Lindbergh’s Spirit of St Louis being a superb example – no forward vision at all, and precious little side vision either. Even today some senior airline managers often make a similar claim, stating that their aircrews almost never need to look out of the flight-deck windows. Try telling this to aircrew members and see their reaction!
BACK TO THE ATA
Getting back to Women with Wings Mary Cadogan has this to say, and from what I’ve learnt I would say she is spot-on: “It was a bone of contention that women were at first allowed to ferry only ‘the light type of trainer aircraft from factory to aerodrome’, while there were no restrictions on those which the male pilots could fly. However, common sense soon prevailed, and it was acknowledged that competent women flyers could cope with anything from Tiger Moths to heavy four-engined bombers. (The only craft that remained vetoed for the ATA girls were flying boats. This was not because of any supposed incapacity on the part of the female pilots, but simply because ferrying them might entail overnight stops on board with male crew-men. So the ban was in defence of the girls’ honour!)”
With the ATA pilots they were I believe mostly having to do their own navigation? And by then the pilot was usually given a much better view of where they were going – which obviously made navigation easier. It think it was also true that often they had to perform the flight engineers duties too whenever practically possible. To make the point, ATA pilots were expected to perform the functions of at least three crew members in order to deliver the aircraft in the case of heavy bombers. I suppose it is fanciful to expect they didn’t sometimes make mistakes, like landing at the wrong aerodrome for example - but - I have yet to find a single account of this happening!
Indeed, Mary Cadogan has this to say in Women with Wings. “Essentially the ATA pilots had to be resourceful and able to adapt quickly to different machines. There was rarely opportunity to practise in advance on an unfamiliar aeroplane.” (My note: Yet another example of the utter incompetence, stupidity and potentially the useless killing of pilots which gave the top brass in RAF command no pause for thought – in fact the life of a pilot, or any aircrew member for that matter, counted for probably less than a sausage on their breakfast plate; Certainly equally expendable and probably considered of less worth). “The girls were simply, before take-off, given a sheaf of handling notes to be strapped to a knee for reference during the flight.” It now appears most had no means to strap these handling notes to their thigh or knee, instead they were stuffed into their flying boots.
“Responses from the personnel on the receiving-ends of the planes varied from surprised pleasure to resentment when they discovered that the ferryers were female. Eventually, however, when the war effort cranked up at an astounding rate, and there was a truly desperate shortage of pilots, ‘They didn’t mind if you were a man, woman or a monkey’, according to Lettice Curtiss, an ATA member who has recorded her memories in a fascinating book called The Forgotten Pilots (1971). Other books of reminiscences of their wartime ferrying days have been produced by Ann Welch (Happy to Fly, 1983), Lady du Cros, née Rosemary Rees – (ATA Girl, 1983) and Alison King (Golden Wings, 1956). The writers have in common a wry sense of humour and an unpretentious approach to their important and hazardous wartime work. The planes they flew were unarmed, so they would have been in danger had they come within range of enemy aircraft.” (My note: After the so called "Battle of Britain" period, the chances of any ATA pilot encountering an enemy aircraft over the UK was very slight, and probably non-existent.)
I’m not too certain she appreciates the full truth of her next comment? “The main problem they faced, however, was our good old murkily unpredictable British weather.” Here again it needs some explanation. The general weather patterns were no different from those we see today, records bear this out. BUT, everybody –especially industry – were tasked to provide as much airborne smoke and pollution as possible, to hinder enemy bombing attacks. The fact that this threat had pretty much disappeared after the ‘Battle of Britain’ did not affect the thinking of the top brass, who also obviously did not know that the prevailing winds affecting the UK come from the west. Therefore most of all the airborne shite being produced was mostly wafting over their bomber bases in the middle eastern parts of England. Making it bloody difficult for Bomber Command to wage their war on Germany. And once again I really do think these people should be thoroughly investigated to determine whose side they were really on? Without any doubt whatsoever, when we declared war with Germany, there were a huge number of "our" people batting for the Nazi party to win. And, as I often remark, the TV programme ‘Dad’s Army’ is not a comedy programme, it’s a documentary!
SOMETHING TO BEAR IN MIND
Getting back to aviation matters and the comments Mary Cadogan makes regarding ATA pilots; “Over 100 ATA pilots were killed in flying accidents during the war, fifteen of them were women.” (My note: Which just goes to show just how damned good the women pilots really were!) “Although they often had to cope with prejudice and discrimination (even being paid £80 less per year than the men who did exactly the same job*), there was a general sense of sadness when the ATA began to run down in the middle of 1945. It had taken the horrific background of war to provide them with the opportunity, but the ATA girls had found tremendous satisfaction in piloting aeroplanes which they might otherwise never have flown. Many of the aviatrices hoped to continue in some sort of flying career after the war ended, but few were successful, and ten years after their release from the ferrying service only seven of the female pilots were still flying professionally.”
*I watched at TV documentary in October 2011 which claimed Pauline Gower managed to get equality of pay for her female ATA pilots. The first time in the UK that equal pay for both sexes was achieved.
Please excuse my indulgence here, but as my research progresses I find myself continually surprised and often dumbfounded by the history of women pilots in aviation. One minute they are global heroines, the next only fit to brew tea for ground-crew. I can easily imagine the chagrin felt by women ATA pilots after WW2 and can easily understand why they often regarded themselves as ‘the forgotten pilots’.
There is also another aspect which I think very worthy of mention. I’d be glad to be corrected but I believe the ATA had only 168 female pilots? Whatever the number I find it astonishing to learn these women came from twenty-eight nations. One of whom could hardly speak a word of English when she started delivering aircraft. Obviously this soon presented a problem so she had to go and learn some of our language on ground duties. I think this says so much for the incredibly robust attitude Pauline Gower had towards her female pilots. If you can fly and navigate this is all that is required. Bear in mind no radios were installed for delivery flights.
WOMEN PILOTS IN COMBAT
Can you please excuse me? During the research for this 'Guide' I have discovered stories which I simply love to share - but where to place them? Given the impact of women in the ATA this seems as good a place as any?
It is often a popular misconception that women were never allowed into the combat arena, certainly one that I shared until reading Women with Wings by Mary Cadogan. And of course the really great thing about producing just a Guide, (as mentioned elsewhere), is that I can make up the rules as I go along and pretty much include anything I think will be of interest; and I think this is of considerable interest, especially as a comparison to the ATA women situation in the UK. “By October 1941 the losses of Russian aircrew members had been enormous. Nevertheless many people were surprised when their country’s most celebrated aviatrix, Marina Raskova, broadcast an appeal on Radio Moscow for women volunteers to become front-line combat pilots. The truly overwhelming response brought sackloads of applications, and Marina, with her small band of helpers, sifted from these the names of some 2000 girls who seemed particularly appropriate, and who would be called for interviews. Three women’s air regiments (one of fighters and two of bombers) were to be formed; each would have three squadrons of ten aircraft and be ‘manned’ entirely by female pilots and aircrew, mechanics and armament fitters.” Just why I wonder, hadn’t I heard of this before? Surely it is so remarkable, and unique of course, it should be part and parcel of every broad span history of aviation history!
I would highly recommend Mary Cadogan’s book, perhaps especially for her work in promoting this aspect of Russian aviation history. As she also points out; “The young women from whom Marina had to select her first air-crews were not all untried flyers. Her own exploits had already inspired many girl students and factory workers to join local flying groups or the Osoaviakhim, a network of paramilitary flying clubs which had been in existence for some time, providing free instruction in glider and powered flight for girls of seventeen and upwards. Several were already experienced flight instructors, and/or pilots of airliners operating within the Soviet Union (these must surely have been the first civilian female airline pilots in the world, though this is not often acknowledged).” This said, we did have a couple of female airline pilots in the UK during the 1930s, including Amy Johnson.
If your interest is now awakened, perhaps reading Night Witches by Bruce Myles will be a big help in understanding this subject. In closing this Russian episode I’d like to close with this from Mary Cadogan; “Amongst the most indelible images of bravery must be that embodied by Lily Litvak, ‘The White Rose of Stalingrad’, and truly ‘the pride of her regiment’. This pretty,blonde and popular young fighter-pilot passionately loved and despairingly lost her fellow flyer, Alexei Salomaten, when he crashed. She marked her Yak fighter with a rose for every enemy ‘kill’ she made and struck terror into the Luftwaffe – ‘Achtung! Litvak!” But the end was of course inevitable and as Mary says; “In the end, after twelve months of intensive combat, (My note: A few weeks was considered quite enough by the RAF), Lilly was killed when two Messerschmitt 109s brought down her flower-adorned fighter.”
A REVELATION FOR ME AT LEAST
Mary Cadogan had another ‘bombshell’ of a story to tell; “At this time, of course, the concept of all-girl combatant aircrews was indeed revolutionary, although apparently Sabiha Gokcen, the adopted daughter of Kemal Ataturk, President of Turkey from 1923 to 1938, had led a female-crewed squadron of bombers into action in Turkey in 1936! And Turkey is of course a Muslim country!!!
There was obviously some kind of injustice going on here, during this period, which now deserves an official apology? I can easily understand how the huge surplus of military male pilots coming into the civilian market utterly swamped it. However, if on no other basis, and in accord with a sense of fairness. I’d have thought the women ATA deserved ‘an equal bite of the cherry’ when it came to dividing up civilian flying jobs? Especially as, has been proved, they were often much more proficient than many of their male counterparts.
BACK TO de HAVILLAND - and the MOSQUITO
As said elsewhere the ‘reputation’ and ‘ethos’ of a company must surely be determined by their main area of expertise? de Havilland were always involved in private and commercial aircraft. And yet somehow, as if out of nowhere, the Mosquito design emerged! Fully formed, utterly brilliant, revolutionary and without equal. It is claimed that Geoffrey de Havilland deliberately ignored Air Ministry instructions not to proceed with this project. In effect making the design team acting in greatest secrecy and based at Salisbury Hall, and continuing to develop the design, an ‘Act of Treason’ officially?
It doesn't need me to expand, in this 'Guide' on the history of the Mosquito. Far more capable people have already done this.
AN INSIGHT INTO THE DH.104 DOVE
The first flight of the DH.104 Dove on the 25th September 1945 surely gives a tremendous insight into the latter phase of WW2? As we now know the Brabazon Committee had been formed on the 23rd December 1942 to plan the future development of civil aircraft to serve the British Empire. In other words, it was realised at government level that Germany had lost the war! But, I cannot recall the Brabazon Committee being concerned about feederliner types? If this is correct it follows that de Havilland saw the potential market and set about the design of the Dove.
This must be the case as it first flew only five months after the war in Europe ended, which obviously demonstrates that those ‘in the know’ where well aware of the outcome well before and planned accordingly. So confident in fact they’d even given the go ahead for a small feederliner to be produced by one of their major sub-contractors! Just one extra detail, the Dove first flew on the 25th anniversary of the formation of the de Havilland company. After a production run lasting twenty three years the last Dove produced was flown in February 1968, the last of 544 including two prototypes.
I’ll make no bones about it. I’m still struggling to get a hold on the ‘real’ history of WW2. What is certainly beyond doubt is that the powers within the British establishment knew, from late 1942, that ‘our’ war with the Nazi regime was won. Is it fair to say it was still basically a "WW1 trench warfare" mentality being fought in the skies over Germany, and we now had superior numbers. At the same time the British were just helpers to mop up in the real campaign during the latter stage, the really important objective being the USA resisting the Russians gaining control over western Europe. Which was, and had been, a huge market for American goods and commerce.
IN CONCLUSION
I now find this very interesting. When it came to the jet age de Havilland were really struggling and produced designs of aircraft which were all heavily flawed, at least initially. This being something which masks the remarkable achievements of those in the company tasked with designing and producing the Dove and Heron, which they got pretty much right, from the start. It has been a feature of UK aircraft design since WW2, that, as often as not in civil aviation, the real success has been with types of lesser status. And, without exception it seems, these have failed to attract government support for development and marketing. Why?
THE COMET STORY
It has generally gone down in history that on the 27th July 1949, and registered C-5-1, the worlds first jet airliner took to the skies - the de Havilland DH.106 Comet. This is not apparently the case, as the Avro Tudor 8 took to the air piloted by Jimmy Orrell nigh on a year earlier, at WOODFORD (CHESHIRE) on the 6th September 1948. What is the case however is that the Tudor 8 was not a success and the DH.106 Comet 1, now registered G-ALVG , did enter service with BOAC after almost three years of testing, flying from London (HEATHROW) to Johannesburg in May 1952, albeit not a direct flight.
MAKING THE TRANSITION
It is well worth mentioning that de Havilland were unusual if not unique amongst the major airframe manufacturers for a great many years for also designing and making engines and propellers which were hugely successful in the piston era. However, it appears the jet age proved to be the undoing of de Havilland in engine production, the Goblin especially being notoriously unreliable. The main de Havilland jet engines were the Goblin, Ghost and Gyron. It is also very obvious that de Havilland struggled with all their jet designs and, although some were produced inconsiderable numbers, most were severely flawed in many respects and killed countless pilots.
Many now blame the lack of power the Ghost produced led directly to the Comet jet airliner being designed and built in far too flimsy a way. Which was noted at the time. To quote Andrew Nahum from his excellent book Frank Whittle, invention of the jet: “By 1947 the Comet programme was appearing as an oddity in the national aircraft ordering system, though it was also part of a wider struggle between the airlines and the Ministry of Supply over the policy that the Ministry should be responsible for the ordering of airliners and progressing development on their behalf.” Reading 'between the lines' perhaps it is now pretty obvious where the major problems lay?
WHAT WAS REALLY GOING ON?
As well as the muddled thinking applying to development of the Comet jet airliner it is now hardly surprising in many respects when most of those in the know, for example, must have been wondering what the hell was going on when the Bristol Brabazon project was still going ahead, alongside design development for the Britannia. By which time of course anybody with even a modicum of intelligence would have stopped the expenditure on the Brabazon in its tracks!
Against this I find this very interesting – to continue quoting from Andrew Nahum: “Thus in November 1947, R.G. Strauss (then Minister of Supply) noted that the Prime Minister’s directive on ordering procedure was not being followed by the airline corporations. (My note: Just two – BEA, British European Airways and BOAC, British Overseas Airways Corporation). BOAC had refused, in writing, to discuss contracts with his Ministry or to co-operate in the purchase of the Comet. The corporation was negotiating directly with de Havilland and ‘there were no prototypes in the accepted sense of the word.’ MoS officials saw the Comet as ‘an anomaly – a product of the Corporation’s orders.’ They queried whether the inspection standards were sufficiently high, and commented on the ‘uncooperative attitude of the firm [de Havilland]’, their insistence on being given a free hand and, presciently, ‘the difficulty in finding any way of checking the design standards being used.’
Looking back it is truly astonishing that de Havilland could have been allowed to even go ahead with the Comet programme, they had virtually no experience in building metal aircraft, let alone a jet airliner.
ANOTHER ASPECT
This story is so complicated, changing year by year after WW2, but in essence the British aircraft industry was producing designs that, quite simply, scared the Americans nigh on witless - they were so advanced. Also, some pillock in window design who did not understand the basic design constraints of constructing a pressure vessel, which were developed in the Cornish tin mines by the designers of the first steam engines two centuries before, escaped the attention of the main DH.106 designers. When it was realised that you cannot employ a square aperture in a pressure vessel - it will quickly fail. So what did the de Havilland design team do? They put square windows into the Comet - .it almost beggars belief.
Or so goes the usual history which I have certainly swallowed for more years than I want to admit. The ‘true story’ was not even divulged to the official enquiry. To quote from Andrew Nahum once again: “Another fact not revealed at the enquiry, or for that matter many years afterwards, was that there had been major concerns within the RAE about the Comet structure before the crashes. The operating economics of the first jet airliner were expected to be quite marginal and de Havilland had chosen a particularly thin guage of aluminium skin, to minimise structure weight and to allow maximum payload. Their calculations showed it would be adequate but RAE was worried. Ironically, their concerns focussed on the ability of the wing skins to tolerate the continual flexing in flight. In fact the wing skins proved not to be a problem. The potential cabin pressure problem did not then occur to anyone.”
“In spite of the exhaustive nature of the enquiry and the substantially correct finding of metal fatigue, two facts about the failures remained submerged for many years. The first was that the metal fatigue, attributed to raised stress at the squared-off window corners, actually had another cause. These window corners, in fact, had quite generous radiuses and should have been adequate. The fatal flaw arose because the structure had been designed to be bonded – glued, in fact – by another British innovation, the Redux process, which could replace riveting and achieve permanent metal-to-metal joints, if clamped and heated adequately while curing. During production, one of the supervising engineers came to the de Havilland chief designer, R.E. Bishop, with concerns that they could not be sure that the window areas were being properly heated and cured, due to the complex shape. Bishop decided that these areas should therefore be reinforced, as he saw it, by normal aircraft riveting after curing. It was this 'belt and braces' riveting, inserted as an afterthought into a high stress area, that caused the failures. The cracks emanated from the rivet holes in the corner area – not from the material in the corner structure itself.”
OTHER OPINIONS
I have been told, by somebody involved with de Havilland at that time, and coming from the RAF, that the sheer arrogance, (and basic engineering ignorance), at the upper levels in the company was utterly appalling. Their jet fighter designs were a disaster initially, from the Vampire up to the Sea Vixen – coffins with wings for those brave enough to fly them. But, incredibly the company survived and went on to help produce two good airliners and an executive jet. The DH 121 Trident, the DH 125 executive jet and, to some extent the really excellent BAe 146.
The argument that, if de Havilland hadn’t made such a tragic mess of being the first to have a jet airliner in operation, the British would have conquered the world’s airline markets is surely sheer fantasy. Nobody, (except perhaps Saunders-Roe with their astonishing, revolutionary and quite exceptional Princess flying boat design), in the British aviation industry had forseen what Boeing would achieve when they unleashed their 707 – first entering service in 1961. We didn’t stand a chance. The original Comet only carried about forty passengers and even the much later Comet 4C a hundred at best with all-economy seating. The original production Boeing 707-120 could carry one hundred and eighty passengers. Plus, Boeing had used their expertise in developing bomber designs to make the 707 faster. The 707 could cruise at about 620mph whilst the Comet was limited to 500mph.
I have heard it said that in the Comet design process a combination of ignorance and/or arrogance by those involved led them to ignore the most basic of lessons of engineering and design practice involving how pressure vessels should be constructed, (which was established by the producers of steam engines for Cornish tin mines in the 18th century), and as a result, many people died and the Comet became synonomous with disaster. Indeed, after WW2 the de Havilland name has become associated with producing ‘killer’ aircraft. Most of their designs were fatally flawed even when entering production and going into service! Robert Jackson makes this point: “The structural testing programme was based on the belief that static testing would be more than adequate to reveal any fatigue stresses that might be present in the airframe, particularly the fuselage."
As already said, it is often claimed that because of this fatal flaw, that Britain lost for ever the lead in the ‘world-wide’ jet transport race. And, the failure of the De Havilland company to fully imagine the future success of jet travel also made the Comet a none runner with it’s limited range and low passenger carrying abilities. This now seems to me to be a rather unfair judgement - the first in any field invariably get it wrong - and of course this gives a huge advantage to those following. It had for many years seemed that due to the cost and delays involved in discovering exactly why the two BOAC Comets, G-ALYP (January 1954) and G-ALYY (April 1954) had exploded at high altitude over the Mediterranean led, in effect, to no worthwhile development work taking place. This opinion now also seems somewhat misplaced, as, according to Robert Jackson in his book Britain’s Greatest Aircraft de Havilland had been working on a ‘stretched’ version, the Comet 3, even whilst the Comet 1 was entering service. Indeed, the first Comet 3 G-ANLO firstflew from HATFIELD on the 19th June 1954.
It is also worth remembering that although these two fatal crashes tend to be the only examples generally remembered today, two other fatal accidents occurred prior to this. The first fatal Comet crash was in March 1953 involving the Comet 1A CF-CUN whilst being delivered to Canadian Pacific Airlines, the long way round via Karachi and Sydney etc. This example crashed on take-off from Karachi, killing all on board. The second was the BOAC Comet 1 G-ALYV which disintegrated in a thunderstorm soon after departing from Calcutta. At least one other BOAC Comet crashed on take-off from Rome and typically ‘pilot error’ was conveniently blamed. It was then discovered that if a critical, but then unknown angle-of-attack, was exceeded at lift-off, the Comet wing suffered a huge loss of lift. In the dark and/or poor visibility it was very easy to just exceed this unknown critical pitch angle, with disasterous results, and, it would be virtually impossible for any pilot to avoid doing so. Accordingly, Comets were fitted with an ‘Angle-of-Attack’ indicator and the wing redesigned. This does of course beg the question as to how extensively de Havilland flight tested the Comet for normal airline operations, (obviously inadequate), and why the then ARB gave it permission to enter service.
Another commonly held belief is that when the Boeing 707 arrived from the USA the Comet was basically “a washout”. Here again the ‘facts’ appear to state otherwise. The first production Comet 4 G-APDA flew from HATFIELD on the 27th April 1958, the first of nineteen ordered by BOAC, and, on the 4th October 1958 to quote Robert Jackson, “ …inaugurated the first fare-paying transatlantic jet service (London – New York), beating Pan American’s Boeing 707 by three weeks.” Although the B.707 was vastly more attractive to most airlines we musn’t get too dewy-eyed over its initial entry into service. The engines used, Pratt & Witney JT3Cs, were so unreliable that some airlines carried a spare in a pod under the wing! As a spotter at Heathrowduring this period I can testify that it was common practice for Pan Am to exchange at least one engine after a transatlantic flight.
GLOBAL DOMINATION
Given that today most people in the western world at least, would agree that after WW2 the USA embarked on a massive global expansion programme combined with a 'gung-ho' attitude in persuing the ‘Cold War’ and embarking on major conflicts such as Korea and Vietnam to establish their control of global ‘democracy’ and free enterprise, they didn't have it all their own way when it came to selling their jet airliners; such as the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Convair 880/990. Some countries purchased the Comet 4C. The first, perhaps surprisingly, being Mexicana. Subsequent orders came from Misrair (Egypt) , Aerolineas Argentinas, MEA (Lebanon), Sudan and Kuwait. Altogether thirty of this series were produced, twenty-three of them at HawkerSiddeley’s Chester factory, bringing total Comet production to 113. The final examples went to King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia, the Royal Air Force (five) and the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) at Boscombe Down, Wiltshire (one). The last two went to Hawker Siddeley at Manchester (WOODFORD) for conversion to the prototype Nimrod MR.1 maritime patrol aircraft.
De HAVILLAND SUFFER A LOSS OF CREDIBILITY FOR MILITARY DESIGNS?
By the late 1950s nearly all of any credibility in aircraft design associated with the de Havilland name had been nigh on wiped out. Aside from the DH.106 Comet their military jet fighter designs had been, on the whole a disaster too, at least in the initial stages. A scandal I have been told by emininent people, which even today has yet to be be fully exposed. One recurring aspect in their opinions appears to be that de Havilland designers did not appreciate the strength needed to be built into airframes for high speed flight.
If you think the statement I have made is outrageous, about de Havilland military jet fighters being ‘killers’, may I give you two examples told to me by pilots who flew in these aircraft. The first was a Vampire pilot based at COLTISHALL in NORFOLK and he told me that when he finished his tour of duty with the squadron less than a handful remained of the twenty-two pilots who started the tour. He added that the majority of those that died did so within a few miles of the airfieldsoon after taking off. The second was a navigator on Sea Vixens and he told me this aircraft was a death-trap when coming into land on a carrier. He told me the situation was so bad the surviving crews didn’t bother getting to know replacement crews as there was little point. Aftermiraculously surviving a massive landing crash in one, onto an aircraft carrier, he asked to be transferred to the RAF, where he soon ended up as a pilot flying Lightnings.
A LACK OF COMPASSION?
It would not have occurred to me that such a thing should be done, but on hearing of the idea, I now wonder why not? It appears that there is nothing to indicate that the design team of the DH.106 Comet, (and other military types), wrote to those families of those that died flying their obviously flawed designs with sincere apologies for making such seriously defective aircraft. It really does appear, I have been told, that they couldn’t care less and were unaffected by the consequences. Obviously I have no idea if the latter accusation is proven, but, it certainly serves to illustrate the bitter feelings many have held. It seems such a shame that the end of De Havilland left this legacy, in part at least.
BACK TO HAPPIER MATTERS
In reference to ‘anorack’ matters Ron Smith also lists the quite substantial fleet of various types of test-bed aircraft operated by de Havilland mainly from Hatfield. Here are some examples:
Type Reg/Serial Notes
Spitfire XIV RB144 One of several Spitfires used for propeller testing. The propeller testing fleet also included a Hawker Henly and a Handley Page Halifax with a nose-mounted spray rig for propeller de-icing/anti-icing trials.
Gloster F.9/40 DG206/G Meteor prototype, first flown from CRANFIELD in March 1943 for Goblin testing
DH110 Vampire VV454 Goblin afterburner testing
Avro Lancastrian VM703 Ghost testing (Lancastrian VM729 used too) These flew 425 hours for Ghost testing
Avro Lincoln RA678 Avro Tudor propeller trials
DH110 Vampire TG278 Ghost testing. 1st flight 8th May 1947
DH112 Venom VV612 Ghost afterburner trials
Short Sperrin VX158 Gyron test-bed designation Short PD6. First flew from ALDERGROVE (NORTHERN IRELAND) on the 7th July 1955 but mostly flown from HATFIELD
Gloster Javelin ? Gyron Junior trials. First flight January 1961
It might well be the nascent anorak tendencies I’m now discovering as I get older, but I’m finding the subject of prototype and test-bed aircraft increasingly interesting. It was the same with that ‘Road to Damascus’ revelation regarding the huge importance of model aircraft in aircraft design and development from the very earliest days.
THE TRIDENT STORY
Although de Havilland did all the design and development work on the Trident, the initial concept work starting in 1956 for a BEA specification, I seem to recall reading the original ‘back-of-a-fag packet’ concept dates much earlier, possibly as far back as the Brabazon Committee proposals in WW2? When it first flew it was during the Hawker Siddeley Aviation era, albeit still carrying the type designation DH.121. The first Trident flight was on the 9th January 1962, flown by John ‘Cats-Eyes’ Cunningham and Peter Bugge. Yet again the Trident is usually regarded as a commercial disaster for the British aviation industry in many ways, being far too complex and unreliable. This said, 117 were built.
An uncle of mine flew them for BEA and in cold and damp conditions first thing in the morning, they soon learnt to ignore the many spurious warning signs, calling it ‘morning sickness’ which disappeared during the flight when things warmed up. It appears the BEA management wouldn’t provide heaters and dehumidifying equipment. As so many people employed by BEA have told me, the airline was always an accident waiting to happen, and these often occurred.
SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT
I have been told that all the aerodynamic and associated design work for the Trident was given FoC to the Americans who then quickly produced the simplified Boeing 727 which became a huge commercial success! The first 727 flying in December 1960 two years before the Trident. Was it the fear of replicating the faults in the Comet that led to the Trident being so complex a design? It appears, as with the Airspeed Ambassador, that after service with BEA the secondary owners were allowed to strip out much of the complexity, and still maintain a perfectly acceptable safe level of service.
This said, in the greater scheme of aviation developments the Trident programme proved once again just how superior British designers and boffins were to their American counterparts. The concept of triple systems redundancy being adopted by Airbus for example. And, we really must not forget that the Trident was the first ever airliner certified for ‘Auto-land’ capability in zero visibility. I’m told this was a great safety feature, the really big problem being, having completed the landing roll, was how the f**k do you taxy to the terminal? Ground radar, if it existed, was still in its infancy? And, it appears, even the crews of ‘Follow Me’ vans also often had serious difficulties navigating in such conditions.
Even today it is interesting to observe how various airlines approach operating in foggy conditions. Most have a very cautious attitude, probably quite correctly? A few years ago my wife and I had booked a flight at Xmas with Alitalia from Heathrow to Sicily via Milan to visit our daughter. The airport terminals were packed with passengers as most flights were cancelled due to the fog. Indeed, Terminal Two was closed to arriving passengers just after we arrived. I said, “Don’t worry, Alitalia pilots can deal with fog; they have to as for much of the winter northern Italy is fog-bound.” Sure enough our flight both arrived and departed on time.
Even as a private pilot I have flown in conditions abroad, (with an instructor), well outside those permitted in the UK. But, as quite correctly pointed out, “We have learnt to adapt, otherwise we cannot fly.” For example, on a flight in a Cessna 152 from Avignon in southern France in a howling 40 knot plus gusting wind my instructor, after landing, announced; “You obviously must enjoy aerobatics!” But, the regular airline pilots landing here day after day take it in their stride, as they do in so many places around the world. Never, ever, believe the myth that airline pilots today just press buttons. When it really gets rough probably the first thing to fail is the autopilot system!
PEDAL POWER
It appears that the first 'Human-powered aircraft' was flown by W Frederick Gerhardt at McCook Field in Dayton, Ohio in 1923 - and he achieved a short hop of 20 feet (6 metres). Since then the concept has slowly gained pace and interest across the world. It now apears that is was in the UK that the first officially authenticated take-off and landing of a man-powered aircraft was achieved, on the 9th November 1961 by Derek Piggott in Southampton Universities Man Powered Aircraft (SUMPAC) at Lasham Airfield (HAMPSHIRE). The best flight of forty attempts was 650 metres.
The Hatfield Puffin first flew on the 16th November 1961. The Hatfield Man Powered Aircraft Club was formed of employees of the de Havilland Aircraft Company and had access to company support. Eventually its best distance was 908 metres obtained by John Wimpenny, and this record stood for ten years.
SPOTTERS NOTES
In 1977 it appears these aircraft were based here: D.H.60 Cirrus Moth G-EBLV belonging to Hawker Siddeley Aviation Ltd and the Cierva C.24 G-ABLM belonging to the Mosquito Aircraft Museum. Also a DH.87B Hornet Moth belonging it seems to both The Shuttleworth Collection and Mosquito Aircraft Museum in those days. In addition the Druine D.5 Turbi G-AOTK of the T.K. Flying Group and the DHC.1 Chipmunk 22 G-APPK. Plus the DH.104 Dove G-AREA of Hawker Siddeley Leasing.
THE DH125
Although never a front runner compared to American types of executive jets, the DH125 'family' has been a huge success. And, for pilots who have flown them, highly regarded. Although production was carried out at HARWARDEN (FLINTSHIRE) it appears that the DH125/HS125/BAe 125 and Raytheon Hawker primary developments took place here. For example the BAe 125-800 G-BKTF first flew here on the 26th May 1983 and the BAe 125-1000 G-EXLR first flew here on the 16th June 1990. In June 1993 BAe Corporate Jets was sold to the US Raytheon Corporation. May I be allowed to ask - why? I suppose it was under our Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher when the diabolical idea that we should sell every British successful commercial enterprise to a foreign concern, (call that mostly an American company?), took place, and we should privatise as many social functions, like education and health facilities. Her rallying call being “Greed is good” and “There is no such thing as society.” I suspect the damage caused to British society by this essentially philistine woman will reverberate for decades to come?
THE 146
I think a very convincing case can be made for the BAe 146 being the best short-haul jet airliner ever? Or at least until the end of the first decade in the 21st century. I believe it is probably unique in having production cancelled with a full order book? Not without major problems initially (?) it was delivered in larger numbers than, for example, the BAC.111 or Sud-Aviation Caravelle which it was designed, (some claim), to replace, albeit with virtually STOL capabilities by comparison. The first BAe 146 G-SSSH first flew here on the 3rd September 1981. I think comparison with the BAC.111 and Caravelle is probably misleading? The 146 also took on the turboprop market which I think this was its main strength. The 146 could use much smaller airports than the regular jet airliner types, and it appears, offer similar revenue returns to those operating propeller powered types.
THE END OF AN ERA
Many experts believe that the end of the British aviation industry was pretty much on the cards by 1960, nine years before Concorde first flew. The British Empire was imploding let right and centre and in effect the United Kingdom was bankrupt. A condition still existing today many allege, albeit having very deliberately sabotaged and hugely damaged latterly by a certain Gordon Brown. Who, astonishing though it might seem, was briefly Prime Minister of the United Kingdom! A rabid Scot who has, apparently, dedicated his entire political career towards the destruction of England being a major influence on the global ‘stage’. Not being much interested in UK politics please don’t take my word for it – just look at the records.
Whatever the case, it has greatly saddened me, driving around the UK for over forty years, to see one after another major aircraft factory close down. The reasons for this are incredibly complex, but one aspect of it all still defeats my understanding. We had, and still have, the talent and creativity in abundance - so why was this fabulous resource dumped?
A TREASURED MEMORY
Just a little boast if you don’t mind. On the 7th of January 1994 I got a call from Wycombe Air Centre to ask if I could deliver the CFI to Hatfield to retrieve one of their aircraft which had diverted there due to bad weather. Being available I was of course delighted and, to be honest later on and all on my own, lining up on that famous runway looking into the setting sun (especially because the aerodrome was covered in snow which seemed to heighten the occassion), I took a few moments off to take a picture through the windscreen and reflect on the seminal history that had occurred here before pushing the throttle fully forward.
I wasn’t flying a Comet or Trident of course, just a humble Cessna 172 G-WACZ. Even so I felt I was on ‘hallowed turf’. The problem was of course that from the moment the aircraft started moving I had to deal with flying and navigating quickly back to Wycombe before the sun set so the moment soon passed. The sun certainly set on this famous aerodrome, when very shortly after it closed for ever. So by sheer luck I was one of the very last pilots to use this very famous runway.
The accolade for being the very last aircraft to fly from HATFIELD belongs to Dick Bishop, son of the de Havilland designer R E Bishop, who flew the Tiger Moth G-APLU from HATFIELD on the 4th April 1994.
One last item from Ron Smith. “In 1998 the Comet flight test hangar and adjacent fire station and control tower were adopted for listing by English Heritage. When it was erected, the hangar was, with its 217ft span portal frames, 330ft length and 45ft height, the largest aluminium building in the world"
PICTORIAL REMNANTS OF A PAST ERA
Note: Pictures by the author taken in June 2015.
From left to right. FIRST PICTURE: This classic Art Deco style 'pub', just outside and south-east of the airfield, and on what was once the A.1 trunk road, was a sort of 'staging post' years ago. I would like to think that many visitors, including some famous pilots, to HATFIELD, retired here for a bevvy or two? Now operated by Ramada.
SECOND PICTURE: This picture is the first of three surviving buildings in the Art Deco style included here, that were constructed for the 'new' de Havilland facility in the 1930s after the company moved most of their manufacturing capacity away from STAG LANE (see LONDON). This building was the reception where visitors to de Havilland presented themselves and is now a KFC with a drive-in facility.
THIRD PICTURE: This building, now highly modified in its centre section, was the office block for de Havillands. Apart from administration I assume the drawing offices were also housed here? Today it is the Hatfield police station, and I suspect from looking around a bit, possibly housing other facilities for the Hertfortshire Constabulary.
FOURTH PICTURE: The security office. When, some forty or more years ago, booking in and intent on delivering a couple of heavy parcels containing widgets, (or rather fixtures), used in aircraft construction - I would not have spared a glance at the architectural merits of this modest building. Thankfully I have now learnt to be a bit more perceptive and, on this visit was very pleased to see it has survived; albiet rather surprised to discover it now serves as a hair dressing salon. Who then, could have foreseen this outcome!
THE de HAVILLAND LEGACY
Today, and I can share in this, the name de Havilland is most certainly part and parcel of our aviation heritage, and, prior to the end of WW2 the company provided types we can be very proud of. After WW2, although producing several classic and unique designs for the emerging jet era, behind the scenes all was not well.
Whatever the truth about this is, one thing is certain; after WW2 ended de Havilland went into the “killing business” with a vengeance producing several military aircraft which entered service but which were nigh on suicidal to fly. I have now met several people who were in the RAF and Royal Navy at that time who have chilling stories to tell - and it all seems to have been ‘hushed up’ officially.
Perhaps it’s high time this appalling history was opened up and the story told to at least honour all those brave enough to attempt flying these aircraft? The astonishing arrogance and in many ways utter ignorance, (these people were supposed to be trained in engineering and aeronautical principles?), of some senior DH design people appears to beggar credulity today. I suppose one of the principal lessons is, that just you produce excellent wooden aeroplanes, or aeroplanes with wood and metal frames covered in fabric - this does not infer any expertise with all metal aeroplanes.
Colin Rolfe
This comment was written on: 2021-05-03 21:57:01Nice long history, but as a former Hatfield employee and amateur historian, I think the quote of formerly owned by the British Aircraft Corporation is wrong. BAe took over the ownership of the site when it absorbed the aviation division of Hawker Sidley. Whilst some subcontract work was done for BAC, for they never owned the site.
We'd love to hear from you, so please scroll down to leave a comment!
Leave a comment ...
Copyright (c) UK Airfield Guide
