course. The tiny navigators table and angle poise lamp with dim bulb in the
cockpit made the job even more difficult. Also, when over enemy territory, he
had also to constantly check the H2S screen to identify coastlines, lakes, etc.,
as navigation landmarks. Like their pilots, Intruder navigators too were at ‘the
top of their tree’.
The de Havilland Mosquito was generally loved by its crew; its speed and
versatility were unsurpassed and its tough construction allowed it to take
punishment but still remain airworthy. Octogenarian ‘Bud’ Badley, a
Mosquito pilot with 23 Squadron during the war, described returning from
one mission thus
51
;
… One time I came back … flying a lot of holes held together by an aeroplane!
But magnificent as the Mosquito was, it had some vices which the pilots
would have been made well aware. These aircraft relied on pure speed to
function, therefore the engines tended to operate ‘flat out’ for longer periods
than normal, and engine failures or ‘cuts’ were a problem. Without full power
the ‘Mossie’ could be a bitch, unflyable, a ‘brick with wings’.
51 Its light
plywood construction and powerful engines gave it a frightening acceleration
which made it prone to ‘swing’ on take-off, especially if the engines were not
balanced. But if there was an engine failure on take-off, the torque of the
remaining engine at full throttle would roll the aircraft onto its back driving it
into the ground. There was no recovery procedure here, even with full rudder
and aileron correction. Unofficially, the best thing to do was to ‘cut’ the
remaining engine and attempt a straight-ahead crash-landing. But crews were
aware of no-one having done this successfully and a relatively high number
came to grief in this way. Equally, the landing speed was high (110 mph) and
a one-engined Mosquito landing was just as dangerous, although some, like
the legendary night-fighter ace Wing Commander Bransome Arthur ‘Branse’
Burbridge, did so on several occasions. To add to the pilot’s concerns, some
evasive and ‘zero-g’ maneuvers could cause the carburetor(s) to fail and the
engine(s) quit. These aircraft, built at factories at Hatfield and Leavesden in
Hertfordshire, could never be tested individually, that had to be done ‘live’ on
operation and some aircraft developed so many vices that aircrew refused to
fly them. But even for the best aircraft, an engine ‘cut’ was always a possibility, and dealing with the subsequent ‘asymmetric flying’ was impossible to
prepare for, it had to be learned ‘on the day’—or to make matters even worse
for an Intruder, ‘on the night’. The Mosquito crash log
52 shows that engine
failure contributed to a significant proportion (*11%) of Mosquito crashes
17 The GEC Laboratories 1939–1949
433
cockpit made the job even more difficult. Also, when over enemy territory, he
had also to constantly check the H2S screen to identify coastlines, lakes, etc.,
as navigation landmarks. Like their pilots, Intruder navigators too were at ‘the
top of their tree’.
The de Havilland Mosquito was generally loved by its crew; its speed and
versatility were unsurpassed and its tough construction allowed it to take
punishment but still remain airworthy. Octogenarian ‘Bud’ Badley, a
Mosquito pilot with 23 Squadron during the war, described returning from
one mission thus
51
;
… One time I came back … flying a lot of holes held together by an aeroplane!
But magnificent as the Mosquito was, it had some vices which the pilots
would have been made well aware. These aircraft relied on pure speed to
function, therefore the engines tended to operate ‘flat out’ for longer periods
than normal, and engine failures or ‘cuts’ were a problem. Without full power
the ‘Mossie’ could be a bitch, unflyable, a ‘brick with wings’.
51 Its light
plywood construction and powerful engines gave it a frightening acceleration
which made it prone to ‘swing’ on take-off, especially if the engines were not
balanced. But if there was an engine failure on take-off, the torque of the
remaining engine at full throttle would roll the aircraft onto its back driving it
into the ground. There was no recovery procedure here, even with full rudder
and aileron correction. Unofficially, the best thing to do was to ‘cut’ the
remaining engine and attempt a straight-ahead crash-landing. But crews were
aware of no-one having done this successfully and a relatively high number
came to grief in this way. Equally, the landing speed was high (110 mph) and
a one-engined Mosquito landing was just as dangerous, although some, like
the legendary night-fighter ace Wing Commander Bransome Arthur ‘Branse’
Burbridge, did so on several occasions. To add to the pilot’s concerns, some
evasive and ‘zero-g’ maneuvers could cause the carburetor(s) to fail and the
engine(s) quit. These aircraft, built at factories at Hatfield and Leavesden in
Hertfordshire, could never be tested individually, that had to be done ‘live’ on
operation and some aircraft developed so many vices that aircrew refused to
fly them. But even for the best aircraft, an engine ‘cut’ was always a possibility, and dealing with the subsequent ‘asymmetric flying’ was impossible to
prepare for, it had to be learned ‘on the day’—or to make matters even worse
for an Intruder, ‘on the night’. The Mosquito crash log
52 shows that engine
failure contributed to a significant proportion (*11%) of Mosquito crashes
17 The GEC Laboratories 1939–1949
433