Identification of DH machines

[ChrisM]

To help resolve an apparent anomaly in a Pilot’s Log Book I am looking at, could some kind member of this forum possibly advise me whether s/nos. 1639 and 1651 were DH1As or DH6s. Sorry about the lack of a prefix; the aircraft were on a training squadron in June 1917.

Thanks for any help.

Chris

[BlackSeptember1918]

Hi Chris

I don't have any lists of serials , I think that Crowood did a book on British aircraft serials that someone might have , but it seems like it should be a DH6 , seeing they were built primarily as a trainer and was in service in 1916 . The DH1 and DH1A were very early models , the DH1 being powered by a renault and starting production at the start of the war , and the DH1A being powered by the beardmore.

Phil.

[Dolphin]

Chris

The aircraft would have been DH1s or DH1As built by Savages Ltd of Kings Lynn in batch A1611-A1660. The non prefixed and other prefixed aircraft with the serials you are interested in weren't Airco/de Havilland types.

A photograph of A1639 is below.

I hope this helps.

[BlackSeptember1918]

Well done Dolphin !...Just another lesson for me that one should never assume anything in life !.

Phil.

[ChrisM]

Thanks for your thoughts Phil; and particular thanks to you, Dolphin, for the very specific information. Hope it helps? You bet it does! The appearance of A1639 was a real bonus. The pilot I am researching flew this machine once on 30th June 1917 and then again at 8.50 a.m. on 1st July. The latter flight was his third of the day and his second solo, his first solo having been 90 minutes earlier in A1651, (his second flight of the day).

I imagine many pilots would have had experience with this machine. At the time it was based at Tadcaster with 46th Training Squadron.

However your answer gives me a real problem which I am despairing of unravelling. In the Pilot’s Log, at the top of a column stating 1639 or 1651 covering six flights on these two days is written “DH1a” two in 1639, four in 1651. You have confirmed that both these aircraft were in fact the DH1a type. But associated correspondence asserts that all or most of those flights were in fact in DH6s. For good reasons, I doubt very much that the pilot in question was lying; it seems unlikely that he would have made a mistake with serial numbers in his log book; and I assume that there is no possibility whatever that the other aircraft, 1651, could have been a DH6. Cannot see any explanation. Any thoughts?

Other machines flown at Tadcaster over the following days were 1615 and 4602, types unspecified.

Chris

[Dolphin]

Chris

The explanation that most readily springs to mind is that the pilot might have believed that the DH 1/1as were DH 6s - maybe they were simply called 'de Havillands'. It seems unlikely, I know, but airmen of the day were sometimes less than exact with their aircraft terminology.

As for '1615' and '4602':

1615 was a prototype Avro 519, 4602 was a DH 1 from the first production batch;

A1615 was a DH 1/1a from the second production batch, A4602 was an RE8;

B1615 was a French aircraft purchased in France, B4602 was a Sopwith F.1 Camel;

C1615 was a Sopwith F.1 Camel, C4602 was a Bristol F.2b.

An aeroplane in the D, E or F series would have been built too late to have been used in mid-1917.

Hence, it seems your machines, 4602 and A1615, were DH 1s or DH 1as. 73 DH1s and DH1as were used as trainers in the UK, being used at the Central Flying School and by Nos 6, 8, 10, 19, 35 and 46 Reserve Squadrons.

I hope this is useful to you.

[ChrisM]

Thanks, Dolphin, for further information and thoughts.

I’m still grappling with my problem, which is as follows:

30th June 1917 (letter to mother)

“……I got up for flying at 7.0 this morning ……..It was my first flight on a De Havilland …..This Squadron is at present on home defence but in about a fortnight's time these machines are going to be replaced by tractors, a different type of machine…….The machine is the D.H.4 but the tractor that I hope to finish my training on and of which I have spoken is the D.H.6.”

1st July 1917 (letter to father)

“……Yesterday I did three hours flying (dual) on the new machine, the De Havilland known as the DH6 and this morning (Sunday) I went solo for half-an-hour…...After completing 8 to 10 hours solo on the DH6 we then fly F.E.2bs……”

And at the same time the log book mentions only 1639 and 1651, together with 1615 and 4602 over the next few days, all of which are DH1As attached to 46th Training Squadron at Tadcaster.. He wouldn’t tell porkies to his dad, he seems to know his aircraft, he is presumably careful in filling in his log….. All a mystery and now likely to remain so, regrettably.

(My previous post was wrong in one respect: I now note that his first solo flights had occurred three weeks earlier at Catterick on unspecified types described in the log as S.H.4317, S.H.2513 and S.H. 6836 – are these readily identifiable please?)

Thanks again for the interest and help.

Chris

[Dolphin]

Chris

It's difficult, isn't it?

As I read it, the 30 June entry could indicate that the pilot has been flying [pusher] DH 1s which are going to be replaced by tractors, ie DH 6s, as he trains for operations on DH 4s. But I can't follow the statement: 'The machine is the D.H.4'.

Progression from a DH 1 to and FE 2b [1 July] seems reasonable, both being pushers. He does refer to the DH 6 as 'the new machine' - a term that probably wouldn't be used for a DH 1 in 1917.

In essence, a mystery.

Turning to the aircraft serials, my first thought was that S.H. would be an abbreviation for Maurice Farman S.11 Shorthorn, a type often used for ab initio training. However, this isn't shown by the serials: 2513 and 4317 were both BE 2cs, while 6836 wasn't allocated. The order 6826-6927 was cancelled. A6836 was an RE 8, B6836 was bought in France - perhaps a Nieuport - but C6836 was a DH 6! Perhaps that's your machine?

I hope the above helps, confusing though it is.

[ChrisM]

Thanks for all your efforts on this, Dolphin.

The prefix S.H. occurs against every aircraft serial number during the pilot’s initial training with 14 Reserve Squadron Catterick in April – June 1917 (7278, 6836, 7378, 2513, 7078, 2435, 4105, 4137). Surely, at this early stage of a pilot’s training, these must have been all one aircraft type?

The more I delve, the more I wonder how dependable a log of this type really is. I have always regarded these things like the family bible. Everything looks so specific, precise times of flights, serial numbers and the rest. I wonder if I am alone in having the odd doubt. The reason why I am starting to feel this way is partly the DH1a/DH6 problem we have already looked at and now the funny with “6836” which doesn’t appear to fit any pattern; but also, in addition to other minor and perhaps more understandable discrepancies between log and correspondence, I have a strong suspicion, still to be investigated, that not all flights made by the pilot, particularly in the post-Armistice period, are included within the log.

After the DH episode he moved on to s/nos. 7167, 4438, 4439, 4412 which the log identifies as BE 2e. As a final favour could I ask you if THESE look right? (Mixed up in these were some others described as BE12s).

Am getting a bit bogged down in this and sorry to have dragged you in with me, Dolphin!

Chris

[Dolphin]

Chris

At last, some easy ones!

7167 was in a batch of BE2ds and BE2es built by Bristol (7058-7257) - most were completed as BE2es.

4412, 4438 and 4439 were BE2cs built by G & J Weir in the range 4300-4599.

Illustrated below, the BE12 was a stop-gap fighter based on the BE2c. It was far from a success.

Turning to the other numbers you mentioned, 7278 was a Martinsyde G.100 'Elephant', 7378 was a Maurice Farman S.11 'Shorthorn', 7078 was a BE2d/e, 2435 was an RE7, 4105 was a BE2c as was 4137. So it seems that, with one exception, S.H. wasn't an abbreviation for Shorthorn.

Your man was in a Reserve Squadron, rather than a Training Squadron or Training Depot Station, so a mix of aeroplanes wouldn't have been too unusual. Reserve Squadrons had the role of preparing airmen for posting to the front, so a mix of operational and recently operational types was required.

Again, I hope this helps.

[ChrisM]

Thanks again, Dolphin. I’ll give you a break by shutting up for the time being while I try and absorb everything you have given me.

Chris