|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 5, 2021 20:25:17 GMT 12
Does anyone know the details of this incident, as seen in the WAIKATO TIMES, 18 February 1941? OxfordWingless by Dave Homewood, on Flickr
|
|
|
Post by ZacYates on May 6, 2021 0:51:46 GMT 12
Perhaps NZ261? From NZDF Serials:
A quick skim doesn't show any other mid-airs before 18/02/41.
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on May 6, 2021 4:20:12 GMT 12
Perhaps NZ261? From NZDF Serials: A quick skim doesn't show any other mid-airs before 18/02/41. Tiger Moth NZ652's collision was with Oxford NZ261 but the latter required only a minor repair, so clearly not the same as the machine in the photo. I rather suspect that the photograph is of an Oxford that was involved in a collision in other than in New Zealand, and so will be rather difficult to identify. Errol
|
|
|
Post by tbf2504 on May 6, 2021 8:53:05 GMT 12
If they were in formation, then it was unlikely to be flying with a Tiger Moth, most likely other Oxfords which was part of the conversion to twin course syllabus. As Errol says it was most likely an overseas accident.
|
|
|
Post by planewriting on May 6, 2021 9:03:30 GMT 12
I concur with Errol based on the fact there doesn't appear to be any accident of this nature in New Zealand in the usual information sources one would look. It occurs to me it wasn't necessarily a New Zealand pilot either. If it was a New Zealander then I would expect their name to be mentioned. I suspect the focus is more on the remarkable feat by a pilot "somewhere" rather than it being a New Zealand occurrence. Another clue maybe is that the landing place is described as a "field" rather than the more commonly used term in New Zealand "paddock". Thoughts anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 6, 2021 9:06:32 GMT 12
Oh, I had not considered it might be overseas. That makes more sense as I am sure the incident would be more famous here if it were in NZ. Plus the paper would surely have named the pilot of he was RNZAF.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 6, 2021 9:07:40 GMT 12
Snap! You posted while I was thinking about my reply Peter.
|
|
|
Post by camtech on May 6, 2021 15:51:58 GMT 12
Considering the item appeared on a page covering overseas events, it is far more likely to be of overseas origin. Another thought - how many of our instructors were non-commissioned?
|
|
|
Post by davidd on May 6, 2021 16:49:25 GMT 12
I agree, has to be an "overseas" aircraft, as none of ours featured in an aerial collision prior to that date. Also the RNZAF had NO NCO instructors prior to about August 1942, and even after that they were great rarities, for some reason the RNZAF seemed to prefer the commissioned type. Actually I recall reading the notes written on wartime RNZAF flying instructors that a decision was made to not commission any further NCO instructors at Tauranga as the existing few were spread very thinly throughout the service, EFTS's and SFTS's, and of course confined to Sgts accommodation, so had very little opportunity to "talk shop", which inhibited their carers. You would think that the obvious route would be to send MORE NCO's through the instructor's school, but they chose not to, despite fact that RAF at least must have many hundreds, if not thousands of them at their own schools. All rather odd.
However one fact about that photograph does not really make sense to me. How can any aircraft (particularly one like the Oxford, with a rather marginal performance at best of times), actually fly under any sort of control with only one complete wing, that seems impossible to me. I would have thought that they might just get away with it with perhaps half of one wing missing - but everything outboard of the engine of this one appears to be entirely missing, and we have been told that this is so. Remember the RNZAF C-47 which lost half a wing after colliding with a PV-1 near Whenuapai in March 1945? I think that still had a little bit of aileron, and was flying fairly light at the time (fortunately), but the extent of the missing wing was estimated at the time as about 15 feet, which is quite a lot, but with a span of 96-odd feet, there was still quite a goodly amount of wing area remaining on that side and some of the aileron to give at least some stability and control. Perhaps a weakened wing clipped a tree coming in to land on a field, but usually wings are very securely attached to the rest of the airframe, so I cannot even really believe that! Only explanation is that there is actually more of the mainplane surviving on this side of aircraft than is apparent, and perhaps the photographer took this shot, either inadvertently or deliberately, so as to exaggerate this effect. What do others think?
Just noticed, look at the apparent shadow of wing in right foreground, if that IS a shadow, then a LOT of wing survived that collision.
David D
|
|
|
Post by noooby on May 7, 2021 6:20:01 GMT 12
That's quite possibly a Canadian built Oxford, note the engine cowlings for the Pratt R-985 engines.
Edit, scratch that, I'm thinking Canadian Ansons, not Oxfords!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 7, 2021 9:04:22 GMT 12
Regarding instructors and commissions, I am surprised to find any RNZAF flying instructors were NCO's.
It was standard practice at the end of aircrew courses to commission the top one-third of the course who'd achieved the highest marks as Pilot Officers, and the rest remained as Sergeants. That's how it worked.
And the instructors were normally drawn from the trainees who achieved the all round best quality flying marks on their course, so logic tells me they'd always be in the upper echelons of the top-third, and would be Pilot Officers.
So how did Sergeants end up as instructors? Strange. Were they drawing all the top third from courses to be instructors and needed more still?
As for the accident, you make good points there David about how the aircraft managed to fly its way to the ground. I wonder if it hit something on the ground that took more of the wing off.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on May 7, 2021 19:30:08 GMT 12
Dave, The RAF had Sgt flying instructors (and I presume that RCAF and RAAF also followed suite), so we should not be surprised that the RNZAF also had them. And it should be clearly understood that the written examination marks were NOT the sole means of deciding who would be awarded a commission; if you read some accounts, many bods on these flying courses were amazed that LAC Plonk, A/P u/t, was awarded a commission with rather ordinary exam marks, and, so far as they could see, no readily apparent "officer qualities" either! I think that the recommendations for awards of commissions were forwarded to Air HQ (they would have been chosen by a small committee at their training station, probably Officer Commanding, Chief Flying Instructor, and perhaps several of the more experienced instructors, and others with "an interest", such as the station medical officer). Air HQ would then presumably give their stamp of approval (unless some dark deeds committed by any of the pupil pilots subsequently came to light), and the chosen ones would duly be informed. There were lots of trainee pilots with excellent exam marks who were not put forward for commissions at end of their flying courses, but one of the on-going tasks of all serving officers was to keep an eye open at all times for promising looking man-material amongst the NCOs and even ordinary airmen (or airwomen for that matter), and particularly among their own subordinates, who they would get to know moderately well as they worked on their usual duties. In theory, those who did their jobs well, and took on extra duties or responsibilities would eventually be spotted by their superiors, and be duly put forward as being a likely prospect. At least we are led to believe that that is how it was supposed to work! Maturity, some confidence in their own abilities, and ability to get others moving, along with a good helping of sensible initiative, all were supposed to be the signs to look for.
As to the numbers of NCO flying instructors trained by the RNZAF, I think I slightly underestimated that number somewhat in a previous post. I have made further checks, and came up with about 40 - 50 such NCO instructors, some Sgts immediately off their "Wings" course, with a smaller number being more experienced F/Sgts or Warrant Officers with quite a lot of flying under their belts. The first seven were trained with No. 21 Flying Instructors Course (graduated 17th August 1942) were all new sergeants, A A D (Aubrey) Bills (later a well-known fighter pilot), W F Hayes, P Hyland, E R Reynolds, D I Stewart, R K Stringer, and N C Sutherland (later another well-known fighter man). The following course contained no NCO pilots, but No. 23 (graduated 9th October 1942) included another seven (B Chaffe, A L Hickinbotham, R V Jury, K A McGregor, J F Morgan, T B Watt and J R Zainey). No. 24 Course, graduated 7th November 1942, included another seven new Sgts (J Finch, R A Fowell, E R Jenkins, R V Love, G B McLeod, J E Matthews, and R C Meharry). A single Sgt instructor graduated with No. 25 F/I course (R A Coulter), but it was not until No. 29 Course that three more Sgts were trained, graduating on 25th April 1943. Subsequent graduates (note that several failed the fairly stiff course) came out of course Nos. 31 (graduated 27th June 1943, R H Streeter only). No. 33 Course (graduated 13th August) contained a W/O, but he failed to graduate. Several further course contained a few Sgts (Nos. 34 nil, No. 36 (one out of three, Sgt S R Waugh), and No. 39 graduated 13th December 1943, one of two NCOs came through (Sgt J R Hall). Later courses graduated with following totals: No. 40, graduated 7th Jan 44, two; No. 43, 7th April 44, Sgt A A Wiblin (later killed in accident); Other NCOs went through Staff Pilot courses, but apparently no more actual instructors, at least so far as I can tell, good records are hard to come by!
Hope the above details are of some interest to Board members. There is not much material on this specific subject, but I have trawled through some of it at Archives NZ in Wellington over many expeditions mounted to find some of the "real good stuff".
|
|
|
Post by davidd on May 7, 2021 19:40:40 GMT 12
I added a small paragraph to my yesterday's post on the photo of the Oxford in distress, which seems not to have been noticed by many as yet; see what you make of it, I think it is fairly compelling. David D
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 7, 2021 20:19:43 GMT 12
Interesting about the system - which I have read about in a few places and have heard about first hand from veterans too, was not as cut and dry as I'd thought.
I guess when I think about it there were some pilots who did terribly on their flying training course and nearly failed, but still got a commission. One that comes to mind is Johnny Checketts. Perhaps he pulled back his marks in his later training but I remember reading he was nearly chopped. I guess they looked for leadership, and a calm personality. Maybe in some cases it was also the old boy's network at play?
Re your added paragraph David, I assume you mean about the shadow of the wing? I did look at that after reading your mention of it, and it does seem odd. Are you suggesting the photo has been doctored?
|
|
|
Post by davidd on May 8, 2021 11:09:40 GMT 12
About that (strongly suspected) wing shadow; not doctored Dave, I think the photo is perfectly natural, it is the caption I have the problem with. However any other photograph taken of that aircraft from a different angle may have told an entirely different story. It would seem to me that this photograph was selected to give the impression (and the caption writer may or may not have been in on this) that the entire mainplane outboard of the engine was torn off.
Incidentally, the AFM was a relatively rare decoration (compared to the DFM for instance, let alone the DFC). Has a book been published on subject of awards of the AFM? Possibly not, but even a scan of AFM awards in London Gazette might manage to snare some likely suspects; a Sergeant flying instructor from this time period should rather stand out, and because these awards were quite rare, a reasonable citation may be more likely.
David D
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 8, 2021 13:23:15 GMT 12
Yes, I see what you mean about the shadow and the angle.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 8, 2021 17:14:36 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 8, 2021 17:17:35 GMT 12
So, wow! Amazing airmanship!
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on May 8, 2021 20:41:17 GMT 12
Sadly, Sly did not survive the war, being shot down over Germany on a raid against Braunschweig while captain of a 514 Squadron Lancaster. The crew of seven were all killed, including New Zealander Fg Off W. L. Harvey:
514 Squadron, RAF (Waterbeach, Cambridgeshire - 3 Group) Lancaster II LL685/G2 - took off at 1706 captained by Sqn Ldr E F Sly, DFC, AFM, RAF, on same raid as the above. Shot down by a night-fighter some 45km NW of the target, crashing 800 metres west of Bennebostel, a few kilometres south of Celle, at 1905. The seven crew were buried on the 15th in the parish cemetery at nearby Westercelle, but later reinterred at Hannover. Wireless Op: NZ405487 Fg Off William Leonard HARVEY, DFM, RNZAF - Age 23. 396hrs. 25th op.
In addition to Sly's AFM and DFC, four of the crew were holders of the DFM, though all had been commissioned by date of death. Possibly the only Bomber Command crew to be lost that held between them an AFM, a DFC and four DFM?
Errol
|
|
|
Post by planewriting on May 9, 2021 16:46:17 GMT 12
The research and comments stemming from the posting of that single photograph clearly illustrate the benefits to be gained from having this forum.
|
|