Rhys Davids 56 Sqdn crash site

[alex revell]

Brian,

You’re asking me to go quite a way back, but I’m sure that Alex Imrie gave me the photograph, which Ed Ferko had asked him to pass on to me. At this remove I can’t remember whether or not Ed thought it might be RD.

From memory, the way I checked out whether or not it could be RD was this.

1. As far as I knew the only squadron equipped with the SE5a which quartered their wheels, as in the photo, were 56 Squadron. I checked this further with Les Rogers and he confirmed this was correct. So, I knew it was pilot from B Flight 56 Sqdn.

2. The only clue to the identity of the SE was the part number on the aileron. I asked Jack Bruce to check this for me and he informed me that it was an SE5a manufactured by the Martinsyde Co. They manufactured a batch B1-200. RD was lost in B31. So that fitted.

3. I then evaluated all the 56 Sqdn pilots in B Flight, who were lost flying SEs manufactured by Martinsyde. This gave me four possibilities .On the basis of the nature of their loss - in flames, aeroplane breaking up in mid-air, or taken POW - all were eliminated, with the exception of RD.

The reason I qualified in HITEB that it was ‘almost certainly a Martinsyde built SE’ was because Jack - ever cautious - made the point that the aileron could possibly have been a replacement, fitted to an SE built by another company. However, he thought this highly unlikely because components made by various companies often differed slightly and he also pointed out that there was no reason to suppose that the squadron would not have had spare ailerons from all manufacturers of their SEs to ensure against such compatibility problems.

[alex revell]

I haven't looked at the photo since I've had a computer and a scanner and I've just blown it up to see if I can see any further details. Nothing. But what has always puzzled me is the round section on the extreme left. Looks like a cut out of some kind, but I really can't think what that could be. Anyone any ideas? The long wooden strut sticking out of the wreckage always puzzled Jack Bruce, who thought it looked like some kind of a fence post, although I thought it was probably a wing strut. For what it's worth, Les Rogers, who is a canny old chap, is in no doubt that it is RD, He says he's easily recognisable. I can't say I entirely agree with him - that he's easily recognisabe - but that's his honest opinion.

[nils d]

Before l read this

Hi everyone, and glad to be here,

I am indeed the 'bristol scout' (Dave) who brought about, one could say, the mass bannings at Areodrome--Myself, for a post (139 on a thread about whether vR spoke any 'last words'---a most innocuous post I should add), frighteningly quickly followed by Kevin (modelguy) and Alex---for having the temerity to simply ask if this was the only way to go forward with reportee's, and their victims (the report button is often a weapon of malicious intent over there! Now Andrew--and RAF Louvert perhaps...

I feel like a sort of Judas goat------but then that disrespects the great men I have just mentioned.... I have lost a great number of good friends over there, as have we all, and that is the bitterest pill of all. Nevertheless, I hope to make others soon.

I have come here with the very best of intent, but am using exactly the same name that I used at Arodrome, as I am very proud of my input on that site under this name.

My real name is Dave Lee

Before l read this there was a thread on the Aerodrome site where someone was asking where bristol had gone to.l posted on the thread as l thought hed been banned like Alex.Lo and behold that thread has vanished as far as l can tell.Conspiracy theory anyone?

Anyway welcome to the Great War Forum Bristol ,lts a bit different shall we say.

[david lee]

Before l read this

Before l read this there was a thread on the Aerodrome site where someone was asking where bristol had gone to.l posted on the thread as l thought hed been banned like Alex.Lo and behold that thread has vanished as far as l can tell.Conspiracy theory anyone?

Anyway welcome to the Great War Forum Bristol ,lts a bit different shall we say.

Hi Nils, and many thanks for the welcome,

Scary times indeed 'over there' these days---- and facts speak for themselves re. conspiracy--three bannings immediately (followed by others) one for presuming to debate, (capital crime), and two for asking was that fair, mortal sin.

deleting whole posts is bad enough (unless the unforgivable real sin of bad language involved) but deleting entire threads is a bit like re-writing history!

A strange occupation for a history forum.

cheers,

Dave.

[alex revell]

Hello all,

Could we please keep to the subject matter of this thread. I understand Dave's annoyance, and dislike of censorship, it matches my own, but it's all water under the bridge. If anyone wants to let off steam there's always a PM.

[alex revell]

Regarding the reservation I mentioned of Jack Bruce's concern over the length of the long wooden piece coming out of the middle of the wreck. He thought it was too long to be a wing strut, but I've done some comparison measurements this morning, using the length of the aileron, and the length of the object matches well with the length of a wing interplane strut.

[RAF_Louvert]

.

Alex, my concern on that wooden piece coming out of the wreck is that it looks far too square to be an SE5a wing interplane strut, which has a profile much like that of a prop, with pronounced tapering at each end. It also does not look like an SE5a wing spar as they were very rectangular in shape with dished sides. Of course, I can only go by the photo in the book which I am sure is of much lower quality than your original. Still, from what I can see, it doesn't look like any part of an SE5a.

Also, I too am quite puzzled by the circle to the left side of the photo, which appears to be on the underside of the inboard end of an upper wing aileron.

Lou

.

[Brian Wilson]

Alex,

Thanks for taking the time to provide such a thorough reply to my query.

Its such a sobering image that I can certainly understand why you said you considered long and hard whether to include it in HITEB. From the detailed research you describe it may indeed be Arthur in the remains of B31. Although I wouldn't question Les Rogers' opinion, personally I cannot see any real similarity to RD, but the ill-fated pilot does at least appear to be clean shaven. I originally thought he perhaps resembled Robert Hugh Sloley, until I realised he was part of Maxwell's 'A' flight and was killed flying A8928.

Some of the wreckage almost appears to have been collected together as the foster rail mount and lewis gun have been set against the wheel, although this may actually just be the way in which they originally fell. As for the mysterious piece of debris with the round hole, I came across this excellent website of a SE5a replica project including a number of construction photos. Unfortunately, I cannot see anything resembling this section at all:

http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/image-galleries/se5a

Thanks again Alex and good luck with your research Johan.

[RAF_Louvert]

.

Brian, The Vintage Aviator is indeed a fine site, and I have visited it many times. Outstanding!

.

[alex revell]

Lou,

I don't think it looks too unlike a strut to positively rule it out as such. It has a tapered end at the top. If it's some kind of a post, then two things spring to mind. 1. A single post in a field, which just happened to be in the way of the crash ? 2. A post which looks very much like a wing strut, in general shape, size and length. That's too much of a coincidence for me.

[RAF_Louvert]

.

As I noted Alex, it is very hard for me to tell from the photo in the book, despite scanning it and bumping it up in size for better study. But from what I cannot see in that photo, (i.e. tapered ends, slender profile, and/or dished sides), I feel it may not be part of the aeroplane. That being said, it would be far more likely that it IS part of the aeroplane rather than an errant post that simply happened to be at that precise spot. However, far stranger things have happened in this old world.

( and note my proper use of the term 'aeroplane' )

.

[alex revell]

Lou - and all.

I've emailed a friend in NZ who is building a very fine replica of an SE5a, asking for his opinion, both on the strut(?) and the circular section/cutout. I reckon he probably knows more about the construction of an SE5a than most people.

[Russell Smith]

Strut or post? That is the question...

While I agree with RAF_Louvert that it doesn't appear to have the correct shape or cross section to be a wing strut, I offer these observations:

1. it DOES appear to have the correct length

2. if you look closely at each end there appears to be some darkening which suggests to me the strut end brackets

3. as Alex observed, the ends of the object appear to be the correct shape to be strut end brackets

4. the shape just below the object appears to be a lower wing section viewed from end-on. If that is true, then the position of the object would be correct for a rear wing strut that may still be attached to the lower wing.

my 2¢

[RAF_Louvert]

.

Phffft! I built a Monogram model kit of an SE5a when I was 12. If that doesn't qualify me as an expert in this I don't know what does.

But seriously, I will be very interested to hear what your friend from NZ has to say, Alex. BTW, is he associated with the builders at Vintage Aviator?

(edit) Outstanding photo Russell! Thanks for your input Sir.

.

[Michael Johnson]

Yes, I used to post on the Aerodrome (using my first name only - that's how far back I go), but the German bias threw me off, and then Off Topic turned into the Homeland of the American Right, so I rarely go there anymore.

Much nicer people here (many of whom were there).

[alex revell]

Had a reply from my NZ friend - in Iceland at the moment. He's confirmed that it's a strut. He recognises the end.

[RAF_Louvert]

.

Ahhhh, very good. But what of the mysterious circle?

.

[SiegeGunner]

Sorry to hear about the ructions in 'another place', but their loss is our gain, and it's great to see the exiles strutting their expertise in their posts on this thread ...

[RAF_Louvert]

.

Cor blimey, imagine me bein painted wif an “expertise” brush along wif these fine Gents? Never scribbled me own Joe Hook so I ain’t even half proper enuff to be lumped in wif this lot, let alone me knowin me Khyber Pass from a wing strut.

.

[alex revell]

Cor, leave it orf, Lou. You sound like that Yank geezer in Mary Poppins wot fought he was talking proper cockney. Get up orf your Alice, and get down the Frog to the nearest Alltime. There's plenty of blokes down there wot will tell you that you only use the first word.

All,

While I'm on I'd like to correct a false impression that seems to have come up, regarding people coming over from the Aerodrome site. It's not that we've come over as a second best, far from it. I've been a member here for a number of years. If I've posted less here than on the other site it's just because there were more questions raised there, on which I thought I could give some worthwhile imput, than here. More members, I guess.

[RAF_Louvert]

.

Just call me Bert.

I'm a relative newcomer to both this forum and the other, and never viewed one as greater or lesser. Simply two excellent sites dedicated to preserving the history of the Great War and the memory of those who served in it.

Now then, where's me brushes and brooms?

Cheers!

Lou

.

[alex revell]

Hello all,

I've been discussing, at some length, the question of the piece of wood with my NZ friend. He has no doubt at all that it is a cabane strut. He is making an SE5a - a magnificent job - and he has both original interplane struts and cabane struts, which presumably he is using as patterns. Everything fits for a cabane strut - shape, length etc. As for the circular thing over on the left. We both agree that it's a hole - you can see through it - and we reckon it's the fuselage cockade - the size he thinks is right - which has been cut out by a souvenir hunter. My only slight reservation with that was the regular cut. I thought a souvenir hunter would more likely have hacked it out roughly. But he points out that it would only take a knife and a piece of string to make a good clean cut. And we all know how methodical and efficient those Huns were. (That last remark would probably have led to a ban from you all know where!)

I hope you all agree that that has solved the questions of the wood piece and the hole. I must admit it has worried me on and off over the years since I first acquired the photo.

[david lee]

Hello all,

I've been discussing, at some length, the question of the piece of wood with my NZ friend. He has no doubt at all that it is a cabane strut. He is making an SE5a - a magnificent job - and he has both original interplane struts and cabane struts, which presumably he is using as patterns. Everything fits for a cabane strut - shape, length etc. As for the circular thing over on the left. We both agree that it's a hole - you can see through it - and we reckon it's the fuselage cockade - the size he thinks is right - which has been cut out by a souvenir hunter. My only slight reservation with that was the regular cut. I thought a souvenir hunter would more likely have hacked it out roughly. But he points out that it would only take a knife and a piece of string to make a good clean cut. And we all know how methodical and efficient those Huns were. (That last remark would probably have led to a ban from you all know where!)

I hope you all agree that that has solved the questions of the wood piece and the hole. I must admit it has worried me on and off over the years since I first acquired the photo.

Hi Alex, guys,

IF it is indeed a centre-section strut (I know of no British contemporary use of that word 'cabane'---I believe they were just called, centre section) can you notice any sign of binding on it in your original, I wonder.

I know it may be impossible to ascertain, but traces of diagonal wrapped linen ---probably just the frayed edges of the doped strip, would certainly reinforce the C/S option.

It wouldn't disprove it if none visible, as at least one early SE5, A8922, SEEMS to have unwrapped C/S struts.

Cheers,

Dave.

[alex revell]

Dave, Good point. Yes, it does look as if it has binding.

Alex

[RAF_Louvert]

.

Also, if it is a center (cabane) strut, (and if my sometimes foggy memory serves me correctly this AM), it would not actually be a piece of wood sticking out of the wreck, but a piece of fabric-wrapped steel tubing. I pondered on whether or not it might be a center strut but decided it looked far too long for such. None-the-less, I will defer to the man in NZ who is actually building one. As to the circle being a roundel cut out by a precise Prussian pilot procuring his premium, I'll buy that.

(Damn the alliterations, full speed ahead!)

Lou

.