|
|
Post by htbrst on Dec 20, 2011 7:56:18 GMT 12
I cam across a photo in an old Aeroplane monthly* with a picture of a Handley Page W.10 G-EBMM. ( This issue, November 1991: www.theaviationindex.com/publication/aeroplane-aeroplane-monthly/volume-19-issue-11-1991) It notes that "...was sold to National Aviation Day Displays Ltd (NADD) in November 1933 and based at Ford, was renamed "Youth of New Zealand" Does anyone know if there is a 'story' behind the naming of this aircraft ? You can see it painted on the front of the aircraft in this image:  |
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Dec 20, 2011 8:44:50 GMT 12
www.hatfield-herts.co.uk/aviation/airspeed_1930-39.html22 September 1934 – Alan Cobham and Squadron Leader W Helmore attempt a non-stop flight using air-to-air refuelling from England to India in Airspeed AS.5 Courier (G-ABXN). First refuelling from a Handley Page W.10 (G-EBMR), Youth of New Zealand, was successful. However, a mechanical fault resulted in a forced-landing at Malta, after the second refuelling from G-EBMM damaged the aircraft and ended the attempt.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Type_W#cite_note-Times46904-5On 22 September 1934, W.10 G-EBMM Youth of New Zealand of Sir Alan Cobham's National Aviation Displays crashed at Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom. The airliner was being used as a tanker (it had extra fuel stored in the rear cabin) and was returning from Portsmouth to Coventry after a mid-air re-fuelling of an Airspeed Courier aircraft being used by Cobham for a long-distant flight to India. The Youth of New Zealand had just departed from Heston Aerodrome after being refuelled when it crashed into a field killing all four crew. The Inspector of Accidents concluded that the probable cause was a fracture of a main bolt that secured the bracing wires of the front spar to the tailplane. The failure of the bolt would cause a loss of control, failure of the bolt was probably fatigue. The aircraft had been involved in an early accident when the tailplane had been swopped from another aircraft but after 50 hours of flying since the repair it was not thought that the bolt had been disturbed.
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Dec 20, 2011 8:50:20 GMT 12
It seems there is quite a bit of information online about this aeroplane and it's history. It was 'City of Melbourne' with Imperial Airways, then renamed by Sir Alan Cobham to 'Youth of New Zealand'.
|
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Dec 20, 2011 12:01:58 GMT 12
Great info; it would be interesting to find out why.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 5, 2022 23:37:07 GMT 12
KILLED IN AIR CRASH
INQUEST ON FOUR VICTIMS
CAUSE NOT ASCERTAINED
THEORY OF FRACTURED BOLT
EVIDENCE BY EXPERTS
A verdict that there was not sufficient evidence to show what caused the 16-seater air liner Youth of New Zealand to crash at Aston Clinton, near Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, on September 22, was returned at the resumed inquest at Aylesbury on the bodies of the four victims of the accident.
The victims were Charles H. G. Bremridge (the pilot), James Donovan (engineer), Arthur Liittlejohn (rigger), and D. A. Harington, a boy helper. The air liner was returning from Portsmouth to Coventry after having refuelled Sir Alan Cobham's machine for his attempted non-stop flight to India, broken later in the day at Malta. After leaving Heston airport, where the liner landed for petrol, it crashed in a field and burst into flames. Sir Alan Cobham sat in the rear of the court.
Dr. Harold E. Whittingham, consultant in pathology to the Royal Air Force, said that on September 24 he received parts of the bronchial tubes of the victims. The absence of carbon monoxide showed that the men were not suffering from the effects of gases from the petrol engine for at least some hours before their death.
"Nearly on its Back"
Dr. J. R. Thompson, resident medical officer at the Royal Buckinghamshire Hospital, Aylesbury, said that a microscopic examination failed to show any irritating smoke or fumes breathed into the lungs of the victims, and it, was unlikely that such fumes were present in the cabin of the aeroplane before the crash.
Walter James Shouler, a farm labourer, said that when approaching the field in which he was working the aeroplane was up about 300 ft. and was quite level. Then it raised its rose straight up. It seemed to do a kind of loop. It came right again. Then it dived and crashed. He saw smoke corning from the rear of the aeroplane. One of the first to reach the wreck, he could do nothing because of the heat. He saw no portion of the aeroplane fall away.
Leonard Harry Stace of the Birkett Air Service at Heston, said that he was flying on the day of the crash from Wrexham to Heston. Another aeroplane was south-east of him and was in a "nose up" position. He estimated its height to be about 600 ft. He saw two pairs of wheels uppermost —it was nearly on its back. Several large fragments fell from the wing. He thought they were inter-plane struts, but was not prepared to swear to that. He circled the aeroplane at 200 ft, and saw it burst into flames. He realised he could not help and flew to Halton Aerodrome. It was gusty, which made flying difficult, but not dangerous. A pilot would have to keep a firm hold of the controls.
Effect of Bolt's Failure
Major James Cooper, Inspector of Accidents for the Air Ministry, said his conclusion was that the primary cause of the accident was a fracture of the main bolt which secured the bracing wires of the front spar to the tail plane. He considered that this fracture occurred in normal flight and, as a result of the failure, the pilot was deprived of control. The fracture of the bolt was typical of failure by fatigue. Asked what would happen if the bolt broke. Major Cooper said that the tail plane would twist, having the same effect as the pilot pulling up the elevator to raise the nose. The aeroplane would be forced upward very violently. If the pilot had been ready for this, he questioned whether he could have done anything.
Every other connection and every wire of the tail unit was found intact after the accident. The pilot would have no control of the machine from the time the bolt failed. There was no evidence of defects in the outer starboard section. Asked if the fracture could have been observed on an ordinary inspection, Major Cooper said it was hardly possible to detect a crack of that nature with the naked eye. He could not say whether the bolt was bent or showed signs of having received abnormal treatment. The portion which was broken off had never been found, which supported the theory that it came off in the air. His own view was that the failure of the bolt was the result of the bolt having been subjected to some force which it would not get under conditions of normal flight.
Use in an "Air Circus"
Major Cooper said he thought the machine at the time was being flown quite properly and at quite a proper height. The machine was manufactured by Handley Page, Limited, and delivered to Imperial Airways in March, 1926. They used it until March or April, 1933, and it was taken over by the present owners. The total hours flown was about 5000, and that was by no means abnormal.
Counsel for Mrs. Bremridge: Has this machine been used in an " air circus," taking passengers up for short flights?
Witness: I understand so.
Asked if the quantity of petrol used for refuelling and kept toward the tail of the machine would have any effect, Major Cooper said it was in the cabin. The conditions had all been fully approved by the Air Ministry.
Asked how long the fatigue had been going on, Major Cooper said it was a slow fatigue—a matter of weeks, anyhow. The minute hair crack would not have been seen and might have been there a year.
Answering counsel for Mrs. Donovan, Major Ccoper said: "We do know that in fact the tail plane had been damaged accidentally and very severely. That was when they were refuelling at Frinton."
The Earlier Accident
George Edward Cook, chief engineer to Sir Alan Cobham, said that the machine's certificate of airworthiness was renewed by the Air Ministry on August 10 last. It would be examined by him weekly, and every day for the machine by Littlejohn, and for the engines by Donovan. It was also examined about every three weeks, by the Air Ministry, representatives. They, last examined it on September 12.
Dealing with the accident at Frinton, Cook said that he carefully examined all the fittings, and if the bolt had been bent he would have seen it. After the accident the tail plane was removed from a sister machine and fitted to the Youth of New Zealand with the consent of an Air Ministry inspector at Frinton, the whole job being done by Littlejohn. This tail plane had not been damaged, and Littlejohn reported that it was in order. The machine was tested in flight before the refuelling.
The control cables were criticised by the Air Ministry representative, and also the control wheel. One control cable was changed the next day, and the full control wheel and cables were changed when the machine left Lincoln. In his opinion the machine was airworthy.
Questioned by counsel, Cook said that the bolt, as far as he knew, had always been on the machine.
Asked if they had had previous difficulties with the machine, Cook said they had a little engine trouble. Counsel then asked. " No other snags?" and passed Cook a document, at the same time reading out the heading on it.
The coroner said that he did not wish the press to make use of that heading, and counsel apologised for having read it.
Ages of Aeroplanes
Major Cooper pointed out at this stage that the age of an aeroplane did not depend on its years. A machine was often almost entirely rebuilt, and after 10 years might be practically new.
Cook said that the machine had flown about 50 hours since the renewal of the tail plane, and 80 hours since the last air certificate.
The coroner asked Major Cooper whether he thought the injury done to the tail of the machine by a lorry at Frinton would have affected the strength of the bolt. Major Cooper said that the bolt had been subjected to some abnormal stress, and the thing which came into mind was the damage done by the lorry.
There was also the possibility that the bolt had been overstressed as a result of over-tightening of the nut.
After five minutes' retirement, the jury returned their verdict. The foreman added that they wished to say that there was no blame attached to anyone. In their opinion, the aeroplane crashed before the fire broke out.
|
|
|
|
Post by delticman on Dec 7, 2022 9:13:31 GMT 12
|
|
