Flight 19 Lost Avenger Flight

[aileronroll]

Dave,

I hope it’s okay to ask a US History question on your forum. I have always had a fascination with the Fliight 19 loss in the Bermuda Triangle in 1945. Numerous theory’s have emerged over the years (along with positive identifications of Jack the Ripper) usually laying the blame clearly with the flight leader LT Charles Taylor.

The latest expert to hit Australian news sources today has stated flight leader LT Taylor “had a history of getting lost whilst flying, he twice needed to be rescued in the Pacific Ocean”. This was a new take on LT Taylor’s flying ability I had nor heard before. Has any other forum member heard this before?

[Dave Homewood]

There is absolutely nothing mysterious about this loss. It happened often with US Navy Avengers.

In the RNZAF Avengers the crew was always Pilot, Navigator (or Observer) and Wireless Operator-Air Gunner.

In the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm Avengers the crew was always Pilot, Observer and Telegraphist-Air Gunner.

In the US Navy however the standard crew was always a Pilot, a Radio Operator and an Air Gunner.

Note, no navigator onboard the US Avengers. A US Navy pilot was trained to navigate (just as an RNZAF and FAA pilot was) but they were not specialist navigators. So there was always someone navigating and someone else flying who could back up the navigation in our Avengers and the RN examples. But when it comes to the US Navy there was only one person onboard navigating, and also doing the flying, commanding the crew, sorting out issues, etc.

So the upshot is the US Navy lost a LOT of Avengers in the Pacific, either completely lost of they'd need to get another aircraft to find and guide them home. The high command got so sick of this after losing dozens of aeroplanes and crews that they engaged the RNZAF's Hudsons to escort them on night bombing operations, so they could find the target and then find the way home. They also used the Hudsons and Venturas to escort them from place to place. Our bombers had very good, experienced navigators onboard. At night the Hudson crews dropped a bread crumb trail of flares for the US Navy to follow so they did not miss Guadalcanal on the way home.

In the case of the famous lost flight it was a training mission, one instructor who was already known for having poor navigation skills leading four other newbie pilots and their non-navigating crews. It is most likely that Taylor got lost, and the students in the other aircraft probably deferred to his decisions and followed him to their deaths. Whether or not something else interfered with his compass equipment or whether he just screwed up I do not know, but the reality is the loss of flights of US Navy aircraft is not a one off thing. A good indicator of that is they found five Avengers on the sea bed and thought it was Flight 19, then worked out is was another bunch of aircraft that vanished.

[Dave Homewood]

I have moved this into the Foreign Navy Discussion Board.

[davidd]

Probably pertinent to point out that the Fleet Air Arm was so wedded to the concept of having a dedicated observer (navigator) in all carrier aircraft crews (excepting single-seaters of course, and these were usually modified versions of standard RAF land-based types, or wartime US Navy types) that practically all purpose-designed fighters built to Admiralty specifications were two-seaters. There were a few exceptions of course, with the Blackburn Skua and Roc (both two-seaters) having TAG's as the second man rather than observers, so had to rely on the pilot as navigator. Like the RAF and US Navy, FAA pilots were also trained as navigators, and they probably had more extensive nav training than RAF pilots as their navigation problems were considerably more complex than land-based pilots ("very mobile runways" to be located after each flight). The Royal Navy was forced to accept single-seater fighters during WW2 when it became apparent that 2-seat fighters had major problems whenever they encountered modern single-seat fighters in war theatres, and the Royal Navy thus expended money in attempting to make the later-model Seafire, and Sea Fury into competent fighters. These later types would have to rely on better navigation training for pilots and/or have them accompanied by multi-seat strike aircraft on any operations which took them far away from their ship, which could provide assistance with any "navigation problems" should they crop up. So far as I know, all US Navy WW2 carrier types (including TBFs) had a navigation chart board stowed in a horizontal position under the pilot's instrument panel which could be slid out (and presume pilot might have to slide back his seat to provide working room?) to enable him to solve their own "navigation problems", although other navigation aids were provided as they came into service to give further options. Not quite the same thing, but a famous departure from conventional protocols and general strategy was a calculated one-off when a certain carrier admiral, after the battle of the Philippine Sea, ordered all his ships to turn on their searchlights and shine them upwards so as to provide an unmistakable target for his large air strike force returning from a strike against the Japanese fleet, and began running out of fuel in the failing daylight. Not something an admiral would normally order under war conditions, although he was pretty certain that all the Japanese combat ships concerned were sunk, sinking, or fleeing from the scene! My ten cents worth.
David D

[baz62]

Dec 6, 2020 9:29:21 GMT 12 davidd said:

So far as I know, all US Navy WW2 carrier types (including TBFs) had a navigation chart board stowed in a horizontal position under the pilot's instrument panel which could be slid out (and presume pilot might have to slide back his seat to provide working room)
David D

TBF NZ2504 at the Air Force Museum still has this chart board. And you cant move the seat forwards and backwards (in the TBF at least)so I'm wondering if you could lock it a few places depending on the size of the pilot? I seem to recall Brendon Deere's TBM-3 also has the chart board?

[baz62]

[quote author="Dave Homewood" source="/post/291565/thread" timestamp="1607164612"

In the case of the famous lost flight it was a training mission, one instructor who was already known for having poor navigation skills leading four other newbie pilots and their non-navigating crews. It is most likely that Taylor got lost, and the students in the other aircraft probably deferred to his decisions and followed him to their deaths.[/quote]

Yep he got lost but thought he knew where he was. I recall watching an interesting documentary about this Flight and an interview with a chap who was in the tower (radio man possibly). One interesting theory was the fact the leader had recently transferred and that seeing islands got him confused with his orientation to the mainland. The witness said he could hear the leader calling and he was getting fainter as he flew further away.
From Wikipedia: From the US Navy enquiry
"Flight leader Lt. Charles C. Taylor had mistakenly believed that the small islands he passed over were the Florida Keys, that his flight was over the Gulf of Mexico, and that heading northeast would take them to Florida. It was determined that Taylor had passed over the Bahamas as scheduled, and he did in fact lead his flight to the northeast over the Atlantic. The report noted that some subordinate officers did likely know their approximate position as indicated by radio transmissions stating that flying west would result in reaching the mainland.
Taylor was not at fault because the compasses stopped working." (Apparently he called to say both his compasses weren't working. Shame he didn't get a consensus from the other pilots as to what their compasses were reading.)

[baz62]

Findings of the Board of Inquiry
www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Flight19/index.html

[Dave Homewood]

Yep, no aliens had a hand in it, just poor training.

[davidd]

Does not look anything like the findings of a court of inquiry to me, it is a chronology of facts, personnel, aircraft, take off times, communications, etc, but absolutely no conclusions, or even possibilities. Perhaps the latter might be in a separate file? However what has already appeared is of some interest, but they have not ruled out the aliens so far! (not that I believe in them either)
David D

[baronbeeza]

Are there many missing aircraft investigation reports that mention alien or extra-terrestrial activity ?

[davidd]

In answer to baz62, he is quite right, the pilot's seat is only adjustable in the vertical sense, but the rudder pedals have three lockable positions to suit pilots of different proportions, by use of "a toe lever on each inner pedal arm". "Standard vertical adjustment lever located on the right hand side of the seat."

Have just discovered that correct terminology for this board is the Pilot's chartboard (from "Pilot's Handbook" for the "Model TBF-1 Airplane", as compiled by Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation, Bethpage, New York, on behalf of the Bureau of Aeronautics, undated, but specific to aircraft built under contract No. LL-91367.) The chartboard is mentioned (on page 44) as "located below pilot's main instrument panel. The chartboard is equipped with a catch to hold it in the stowed position." No other advice is proffered so I guess it worked quite satisfactorily in service, as designed!
David D

[nuuumannn]

Dec 6, 2020 9:29:21 GMT 12 davidd said:

Probably pertinent to point out that the Fleet Air Arm was so wedded to the concept of having a dedicated observer (navigator) in all carrier aircraft crews (excepting single-seaters of course, and these were usually modified versions of standard RAF land-based types, or wartime US Navy types) that practically all purpose-designed fighters built to Admiralty specifications were two-seaters. My ten cents worth.
David D

Hmmm, should I? ...Arg, dammit, yes, I will. David, there is a niggling and erroneous perception that the RN did not want single-seat fighters aboard its carriers and, as you stated, was forced to accept them owing to wartime experience, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the exact opposite was true. As you know, the post Great War FAA, controlled by the RAF had a significant history of single-seat fighters in the Flycatcher and the Nimrod, and eventually the Sea Gladiator, which was a stop gap, truth be told, but the conditions that arose from the deviation from this pedigree came about from Air Ministry specifications that created the 'Fighter/Dive Bomber' requirement - two disparate jobs that had little cross over (bar the US Navy employing SBDs as 'scouts', with their single forward firing machine gun) - to which the Blackburn Skua was built. This was an attempt by the Air Ministry to cut costs and maximise space aboard existing carriers owing to newer aeroplanes increasing in size and complexity.

That the admirals in the Admiralty were displeased is not always obvious, but they did all they could to attempt to bridge the capability gap they saw emerging in the mid to late 30s with the appearance of fighters like the Bf 109. Both Hawker and Supermarine designers were approached by admirals requesting naval versions of the Hurricane and Spitfire owing to the lack of specifications for naval single seaters emerging from the Air Ministry, but to no avail initially, as the ministry advised the admiralty that production of these aircraft by these firms were to concentrate on the RAF's needs.

Getting a little desperate, admirals then approached Fairey, who had begun building the Fulmar, with the intent of requesting they build 'Sea Spitfires' as Joe Smith from Supermarine had coined them, under licence, but Fairey refused, having accepted specs for building Swordfish, Albacores and Fulmars and developing the Barracuda and eventually the Fulmar's replacement, the Firefly (for a good potted history, read the Seafire section in Morgan and Shacklady's seminal Spitfire The History, which outlines the FAA's attempts at getting single-seaters before the war).

The Fulmar itself was an interim catapult fighter and was the nearest thing the FAA had at the outbreak of war as a decent fighter, despite its performance, but it was only intended to see the FAA until the turret fighter Roc appeared, which was, as we know a disaster. This decision to focus on turret fighters came from the Air Ministry again, but when the navy took over the FAA it went into damage control mode and efforts to change existing specs and get hold of single-seaters was a big priority. The spec that the Firefly was built to was originally issued simultaneously as a replacement turret fighter for the Roc, but the FAA canned it altogether and wrote a single-seat fighter requirement and issued it to Blackburn. Little did they know that the Firebrand would be such a lengthy and troublesome process and emerge as a completely different aircraft way after the fact, but it was intended to be the FAA's single-seat fighter extraordinaire.

As an aside, both Boulton Paul and Miles examined stop gap single-seaters, in a derivative of the Defiant and the Miles M.20, but the Grumman Martlet was ordered in early to mid 1940 and became the FAA's first modern single-seat fighter, but it, and the Sea Hurricane, which the RAF, strangely enough were involved in the procurement of, were intended as stop gaps until the Firebrand came along and Supermarine began work on the Seafire, which the admirals had requested before the war. Hawker even offered the admiralty an example of the Typhoon as a naval fighter if the Firebrand didn't succeed, but the admiralty turned it down owing to its availability being pushed back to 1942/43.

There are plenty of paper records that verify the to-ing and fro-ing of correspondence between senior admirals, the Air Ministry and aircraft companies so the navy could have a decent single-seat fighter, but the facts are almost always overlooked by this persistent but erroneous claim the navy didn't want them.

Pity... Back to our regular programming...

[baz62]

Dec 7, 2020 9:41:37 GMT 12 davidd said:

Does not look anything like the findings of a court of inquiry to me, it is a chronology of facts, personnel, aircraft, take off times, communications, etc, but absolutely no conclusions, or even possibilities. Perhaps the latter might be in a separate file? However what has already appeared is of some interest, but they have not ruled out the aliens so far! (not that I believe in them either)
David D

Ahh might have missed a link.