'Flaming Coffin'

[Vulcan works]

Good morning,

There seem to be a few references on the internet which use the term 'Flaming Coffin' when describing the DH4. Are there any contemporary references which use this term? Did the DH4 have a reputation as a 'flamer' within the RFC/RAF or was it no more likely to catch fire than any other two seater of the period? It seems after several years of research in this area that the main grouse one hears in relation to the aircraft from those who flew it related to the RAF3a engine. Is this a case (simillar to the term 'Golden Triumverate' which I came across recently) of a tag being applied post-war and becoming accepted because it is oft repeated?

Regards,

Mike

[centurion]

The first reference I can find to this is in an American magazine of the 1950s, it was trying to make the case that the US bomber squadrons were forced to use an obsolete and dangerous British aircraft. So I fear you may be right in your analysis (repeat it often enough and it must be true !)

[Tazzy2]

The fuel tank was situated between the observer and pilot,this made communication difficult and left the plane vulnerable to attack. In his letters to his wife,(which I now have), an RFC/RAF pilot refers to it as a "flying coffin" so maybe it is an embellished phrase.

[David B]

With a fuel tank in that position (between pilot and observer) and with an attacker in all likelihood aiming at the pilot/observer, a few stray bullets entering the

fuel tank was highly likely. Thus t tank going up easily could have very well given the aircraft a bad name for being an easy flamer.

[MikeMeech]

Hi All

The DH.4 was no more a 'Flaming Coffin' than any other aircraft of the period, even in US service, the figures are available on that, however I don't have the time at present to dig them out. If it was down to the location of the fuel tank then an aircraft like the Bristol Fighter would also be a 'Flaming Coffin' due to the pilot sitting on one of the fuel tanks! All aircraft of the period would burn, fuel, wood and imflamable doped fabric would all burn.

Mike

[centurion]

Mike is correct. Any two seater would have a large tank to provide endurance/range and, apart from those provided with some armour protection, all would be vulnerable. Some aircraft types seem to have been more prone to engine induced fires but the RR Eagle installation was not a particular fire risk.

As I said I think that this is a very post war legend.

[McCudden]

I'm sure I've seen this term applied to the RE8 too.

Alec

[mickdavis]

The RE8 was a much maligned as the DH4 but statistics in AIR1/15/1/146 show the following percentages wastage rates (all causes) for Jan-Jun 1918:

AW FK8 48

Bristol F2B 43.4

DH4 (RR) 42.6

DH4 (RAF) 44.1

FE2b 31.9

RE8 28.0

SE5a 62.9

Camel 50

Dolphin 50.7

DH9 61.1

[centurion]

I've seen the phrase Flaming Coffin applied to many different aircraft including some of the WW2 Japanese bombers that were in essence flying fuel tanks with no armour or self sealing (and might justify the epithet) but I've never seen evidence of it applied by the air crew that operated any of them (although the crews of the Heinkel He 177 Greif do seem to have nicknamed it the Luftwaffe's Cigarette Lighter because of the many engine fires). I wonder if it's a piece of journalese that keeps getting trotted out by sub editors and the like.

[MikeMeech]

Hi

According to Sturtivant and Page in 'The DH.4/DH.9 File' page 88 (Air-Britain 1999), 499 US DH.4s reached sqns before the Armistice, 417 actually used at the front. 33 lost to enemy action, 4 lost over the lines not due to enemy action with 249 crashing at the front. It then states that "only 8 of those aircraft being sent down in flames". Personnel losses were 38 KIA with 16 of those going down in flames, 8 wounded, 10 missing and 20 POW.

So 'Flaming coffin'?

Mike

[Vulcan works]

Sorry for the slow resopnse, but the dreaded nightshifts got in the way.

Thanks for taking the time to give your thoughts on this. It is interesting to note there is a thread on The Aerodrome from 2003 discussing this from an American perspective and I think the conclusions were simillar to those drawn here.The thread notes several modifications made to DH4's post war in the US, including the relocation of the undercarriage. Perhaps this is what started the idea that this problem was associated with the DH4 in particular. I found a piece in 'The First War Planes' by William E Barrett published in the US in 1960 which states ' Nothing in the history of the DH4 squadrons supports the charge and the experience of 50 (50th Squadron, USAS) denies it.' in relation to the 'Flaming Coffin' tag. It would appear that even 50+ years ago people were trying to correct this.

Tazzy2,

Is there any possibility you might put the comment in your letters into context? It would be nice to have some evidence that this phrase was in use within the RFC in relation to the DH4 in particular. I would have to agree with the comments above relating to the likely flamability of most WW1 era 2 seaters, and also that any fighter pilot worth his salt would know where to apply the killer blow when equipped with a limited amount of ammunition. At the end of the day you would be shooting into the forward fuselage with the engine, pilot and observer as your primary target. I would imagine most if not all aircraft of the period would have the fuel near the centre of gravity which would also bring it into the equation.

Mike

[Tazzy2]

As soon as I am able I will post a transcript of the letter. I will do it this way as it is on thin paper that does not copy well.

[Tazzy2]

Gorrell's History of the Air Service of the AEF refuted the misconception. Quote: "Of 33 DH-4s lost to enemy action by the US Air Service, eight fell in flames- no worse than the average at the time."

[Vulcan works]

I was mulling this over on the way into work last night. It seems that the RFC engineers were an inventive lot, surely someone must have been doing some work on making fuel tanks safer during this period. I remember from my Halton days the basic principle of using natural rubber to coat fuel tanks so that they will self seal as escaping fuel causes the rubber to swell. I can't believe that crews were happy to just go on sitting on top of a firebomb without trying to improve on the basic model.

One other possible consideration is that when 11/2 Strutters and the like were being shot down in droves they were slower than the opposition and due to their designed role would be carrying larger quantities of fuel to achieve greater range. By the time the DH9a came along the engine power available was such that it was much more difficult to lay a bead on these aircraft, and therefore much more difficult to torch one. This doesn't necessarily mean the fuel tank was any more resistant to gunfire.

It would certainly be interesting to find out what was tried out during this time.

[centurion]

Self sealing tanks were very much a post war development. There is an old thread on them somewhereThe DH9a with the Liberty Engine was slower that the Eagle engined Dh4 (but faster than the Dh9) as was the post war Liberty engined Dh4b. Sopwith 1/½ Strutters do not seem to have been more prone to flame than any other aircraft. Not sure what you mean by designed role as they essentially came as two seat fighters and single seat bombers. The quantity of fuel carried would possibly affect the ferocity of a fire but not the proclivity to flame in the first place except that possibly a larger tank might be easier to hit. However the fuel consumption of a 1/½ Strutter with a much less powerful engine would be much lower that that of a Dh4 and the fuel tank smaller.

During WW1 there was some research into building jettisonable tanks Fokker leading the way producing experimental fighter variants with the main tank positioned to replace the streamlined axle faring on the undercarriage but after a couple of landings and take offs these leaked fuel like a sieve and increased the fire risk. Self sealing tanks are heavier that the old fashioned flamers and even as late as WW2 some designers were not including them (notably the Japanese - the 'zero' originally had no armour or self sealing tanks).

[Vulcan works]

Sorry to generalise - it had been a long night. 11/2 Strutters were mentioned as 'flamers' on the Aerodrome thread. Perhaps best not to waffle when tired.

I have read in several places that pilots (Mick Mannock amongst them) kept a pistol handy to finish themselves off rather than burn. Whether this is another urban myth I don't know, but the point is that if they were that worried why didn't they tinker with the fuel tank in the same way that they tinkered with just about everyting else on the aircraft?

Thanks for the tip reference the self sealing tank thread, I'll have a look at it shortly.

[Vulcan works]

Found the tread - 18th June, 2011. A very interesting read, thanks

[MikeMeech]

Hi All

Looking for other things in the AIR 1 files at TNA I did notice documents on 'Self-sealing' fuel tanks, so they were certainly being developed in WW1. I also noticed on some US documentation a report that British two-seaters were due to be fitted with 'self-sealing' fuel tanks in late 1918. I think some French aircraft were fitted with 'self-sealing' tanks before the end of the war. But others may be needed to confirm that.

Mike

[centurion]

Sorry to generalise - it had been a long night. 11/2 Strutters were mentioned as 'flamers' on the Aerodrome thread. Perhaps best not to waffle when tired.

I have read in several places that pilots (Mick Mannock amongst them) kept a pistol handy to finish themselves off rather than burn. Whether this is another urban myth I don't know, but the point is that if they were that worried why didn't they tinker with the fuel tank in the same way that they tinkered with just about everyting else on the aircraft?

Thanks for the tip reference the self sealing tank thread, I'll have a look at it shortly.

You will not develop a self sealing tank by tinkering

[centurion]

Rather than repeat a posting see

 

[centurion]

Having done a little digging, including the knowledge of rubber products (don't snigger) picked up when gainfully employed by Dunlop I can report that

a. The self sealing tanks tried out in WW1 were quite different from those used in WW2

b. In some circumstances could be worse than useless

I'll do more detail tomorrow.

[centurion]

The first patent for a self sealing tank appeared in the USA in 1917 and was promptly suppressed by the Federal Government and not released until after the war had ended, one is not sure why. French attempts involved putting a thick coat of natural rubber (latex) round the tank, provided that it has not been treated by processes such as vulcanisation natural rubber tends to bond with itself (which is why natural rubber products were often packed with French chalk and cycle punture repair outfits contain chalk). This property means that a hole in a block of latex tend to heal itself and the idea was that the rubber coat would close up after the passage of a bullet and seal the puncture. There were (are) some problems with this:

• To be effective the rubber coat needed to be quite thick which meant that an existing fuel tank so treated would become much bulkier and might not fit back in the aircraft. If a smaller tank was used this would reduce the range/endurance of the aircraft. The use of self sealing tanks had either to be taken into account when the aircraft was initially designed or would involve significant modifications to an existing aircraft. Not something to be achieved by operational staff "tinkering".
  
• Natural, untreated rubber perishes over time and, if not sealed away from the air, will lose its self healing properties as it ages
  
• Natural rubber will begin to melt when in contact with petrol (gasoline). In the case of a single bullet entrance hole this might aid the sealing process but as we shall see could prove a serious liability with an exit hole.
  

High velocity machine gun bullets could pass right through a fuel tank thus producing both an entry and an exit hole. By the time the bullet has entered and passed through the tank it will be deformed and/or tumbling so that the exit hole will be larger and more ragged than the entrance one and much more difficult for the natural rubber coating to 'heal' and seal . Moreover the exiting round will blast a mixture of petrol and rubber fragments way from the tank. Rubber when in contact with petrol melts producing a very sticky and highly inflammable goo (which is why it was a component of some WW2 period 'Molotov cocktails'). Some of this would stick to parts of the aircraft (and possibly the crew) worsening the effect of any fire and some of it would be in aerosol form increasing the risk of one. A bullet through an ordinary fuel tank did not automatically mean a fire and there are many cases of aircraft forced down through loss of fuel rather than fire, fires were often the result of leaking fuel coming in contact with hot engine components. A petrol/rubber aerosol would be more vulnerable to this.

None of this escaped notice. Post WW1 solutions were more sophisticated, Initially the Germans tried putting the rubber coated tanks inside a tight leather covering and some of the initial WW2 raids on Britain were made by Heinkel IIIs with such tanks. However this was only partially effective. Self sealing tanks developed in the USA in 1940 were covered in laminations of different types of rubber and encased in an outer metal shell. This proved much more effective and became the norm. It became increasingly the trend to incorporate automatic or semi automatic fire extinguishers in the fuel tank compartments (something the 'tinkerers' of WW1 had tried). As rubber became in short supply on all sides synthetic materials were developed which are what are used today.

[Catfish]

Hello,

i do not know whether such things were done with the D.H.4, but a lot of planes arriving at the front were stripped of all kinds of armour, and 'superfluous' security equipment to make them lighter, supporting performance and improving weapon load (SE5 comes to mind).

OT so the rubber was glued or applied to the outside of a (steel) tank, i always thought the whole tank was made of rubber, or it would be inside of the tank ! Thanks

Greetings,

Catfish

[Vulcan works]

By 'tinkering' I had in mind what might be more correctly put as 'minor airframe modifications carried out at Squadron level'. It would indeed take a keen Engineering Officer to try to develop a self sealing fuel tank in a canvas hangar in France, but I am always struck by how advanced some of the engineering carried out by these people was. Also how they often got it right when the designers didn't. This might include such things as improved bilge drainage to keep fuel away from the crew, wrapping the tank in fire supressant materials or the strategic placement of armour plate. If only some of these old boys were still with us.

[centurion]

Hello,

i do not know whether such things were done with the D.H.4, but a lot of planes arriving at the front were stripped of all kinds of armour, and 'superfluous' security equipment to make them lighter, supporting performance and improving weapon load (SE5 comes to mind).

OT so the rubber was glued or applied to the outside of a (steel) tank, i always thought the whole tank was made of rubber, or it would be inside of the tank ! Thanks

Greetings,

Catfish

Are you confusing some things? AFAIK the only armour fitted to the SE5 was part of an overly complex adjustable seat. This was removed from his machine by Albert Ball before the squadron took its machines to France and replaced with a simpler board seat that allowed him to sit lower. He also had the cockpit cover removed and a fared headrest fitted. He also had significant changes made to the armament arrangement (including a downward firing Lewis). The squadron was inspected by Hugh Brooke-Popham immediately on arrival in France. He evaluated Ball's unauthorised changes and concluded that the seat change made sense as did the cockpit cover and headrest but the gun changes did not and approved the rest of the squadron adopting the former but not the later. Instructions were issued for production machines to also adopt these changes. At no time were "armour, and 'superfluous' security equipment" stripped to improve performance. I would be interested if you can provide verifiable evidence of this being done on other machines.