Destroyer recovering a downed aircraft

[Sepoy]

Michael

Thank you so much for adding these links.

Although I was aware that HMS "Endymion" was a "Blister" Cruiser, I had not realised that other "Edgar" class Cruisers had been converted.

With all four ships serving off Gallipoli, I obviously need to do some more research.

Whilst scanning through my "Grafton" papers, yesterday, I did notice one occasion where HMS "Grafton" was forced to returned to Malta, where it was dry docked to have damage to its "blisters" repaired. The damage had been caused by tenders and other vessels trying to come alongside. May be it was not the best of solutions, but at least it saved "Grafton" from the same fate as HMS "Hawke".

Sepoy

[horatio2]

It is somewhat reminiscent of the boom on a Boom-layer. The construction looks as though it is designed to raise a substantial weight - but what? I would be inclined to consider nets. It must have been a real problem heading into any sort of seaway with that lot sticking out.

[Sepoy]

It is somewhat reminiscent of the boom on a Boom-layer. The construction looks as though it is designed to raise a substantial weight - but what? I would be inclined to consider nets. It must have been a real problem heading into any sort of seaway with that lot sticking out.

If you look at the dry dock photo, on post 13, you can see the net deployed...

[michaeldr]

The construction looks as though it is designed to raise a substantial weight - but what?

You don't suppose, do you

that it was for something quite prosaic,

like raising and lowering the anchor, without the hook damaging the blister?

[Sepoy]

You don't suppose, do you

that it was for something quite prosaic,

like raising and lowering the anchor, without the hook damaging the blister?

Good idea, but the photograph attached to post 21 shows "Grafton" at anchor and the bowsprit is not being used. I still think it is for a Torpedo or mine net.

I am trying to join the World Naval Ship Forum so I can ask the question there, but the Moderators have not yet activated my membership...

Sepoy

[horatio2]

The picture in post #13 cearly shows what appears to be the top of a net, fixed to 'spreader bars' attached to the stem, Clearly, these cannot remain in place when the ship is underway at any speed so it canot be to stop moored mines. In all it seems an amzingly cumbersome piece of kit for spreading a relatively small net ten feet in front of the bows.

[David B]

I think that these extensions to the bow of the Endymion were spreaders for the torpedo net booms that were popular in the 1890's through to the end of ww1.

They were used to protect the ship from torpedo attack whilst the vessel was at anchor. A google of torpedo net boom will throw up quite a bit of evidence of this.

[TeeCeeCee]

I think that these extensions to the bow of the Endymion were spreaders for the torpedo net booms that were popular in the 1890's through to the end of ww1.

They were used to protect the ship from torpedo attack whilst the vessel was at anchor. A google of torpedo net boom will throw up quite a bit of evidence of this.

I don't think it is an extension of the Anti-torpedo nets that were hung from the side on booms, for one, non of the images in this thread, or linked to, of these ships show side nets or booms fitted.

The second, the 'blister' is 'Bulge' is a different method of torpedo defence. I've never seen a photo of a ship with the 2 methods (side nets and side bulges)

I think it looks like a mine-buffer or catcher. She was in to get side protection (Blisters) so it makes sense that they gave her stem protection at the same time.

The image in post 13 show the net deployed. It's more akin to a goal-keepers net than any of the 'hoops of steel wire' torpdo nets I've seen. Although it looks fragile, I don't think there's not enough thickness in the net strands to cause detrimental drag. I don't suppose it sailed fast with this deployed.

[TeeCeeCee]

The picture in post #13 cearly shows what appears to be the top of a net, fixed to 'spreader bars' attached to the stem, Clearly, these cannot remain in place when the ship is underway at any speed so it canot be to stop moored mines. In all it seems an amzingly cumbersome piece of kit for spreading a relatively small net ten feet in front of the bows.

Did you know the side nets could be deployed as the ship sailed? They had a big impact on speed but it was not only possible, this was the idea behind them.

_____

I can only find refence to bow & stern mounted 'net defence' from the 1880-1900 era. Fisher in 1893 ordered cruiser net fittings to be stopped and the stem & stern nets of battleships to be removed.

_____

Wikipedia has Theseus being fitted with the bulges to enable her to take part in operations in the Dardanelles. I don't think this is a coincidence as the RN had quite heavy losses to underwater weapons in that area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Theseus_%281892%29

[pete-c]

Hmmmm. The aeroplane is wearing the early type RNAS roundels c.1915/16. It's not a 184, it's too small. On the face of it I would have said that it could be Short 136, that old bird certainly had a few dunkings in her time.

There is what appears to be a radiator in front of the wing, as on all water cooled Shorts, but i'm fairly certain it isn't a Short, the fin just isn't large enough.

Having worked my way through British Naval Aircraft 1912-58, I am leaning towards an Avro 510 seaplane. That's got the correct shape fin. There were only 6 of these built, and the only one to see any service appears to have been No.134. ('Calshot, under tow. 8/6/1916.' Sturtivant and Page, Royal Navy Aircraft Serials and Units, 1911-1919.)

[Sepoy]

Hmmmm. The aeroplane is wearing the early type RNAS roundels c.1915/16. It's not a 184, it's too small. On the face of it I would have said that it could be Short 136, that old bird certainly had a few dunkings in her time.

There is what appears to be a radiator in front of the wing, as on all water cooled Shorts, but i'm fairly certain it isn't a Short, the fin just isn't large enough.

Having worked my way through British Naval Aircraft 1912-58, I am leaning towards an Avro 510 seaplane. That's got the correct shape fin. There were only 6 of these built, and the only one to see any service appears to have been No.134. ('Calshot, under tow. 8/6/1916.' Sturtivant and Page, Royal Navy Aircraft Serials and Units, 1911-1919.)

Pete

Thank you for your thoughts. Did the Avro 510 see service in the Mediterranean? The album the photographs are taken from, only covers service in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean off Gallipoli and Salonika.

Sepoy

[pete-c]

Sorry Sepoy,

I meant to add that it doesn't look as though any of the Avro 510's saw service around the Dardanelles/Gallipoli area, or indeed the Med.

This is intriguing! By the attitude of the aircraft in the water it would definitely point to it being a seaplane rather than a land based machine; wheeled aircraft tended to float nose down due to the weight of the engine, whereas seaplanes floated on a more even keel due to the floats.

If these photos were taken around Gallipoli - or indeed Salonika - that certainly limits the number of possibilities. If it wasn't for the shape of the tail a possibility could be a Sopwith Type 807. 807 No. 922was spotting for Minerva, and Doris in April and May 1915, this particular machine having been fitted with the wings and tail from another earlier Type 807. Perhaps in the course of this work the tail assembly was altered slightly for some reason. Sopwith 922 had undercarriage collapse incidents on two occasions in June 1915.

The only slight problem is that the Type 807's were rotary powered, so if that is a radiator visible in the photos, that theory is blown out of the water!!!

If you can narrow the date down a bit more, it may be possible to get a firmer idea.

Pete.

[pete-c]

Sepoy,

Having cross checked HMS Colne's log for December 28th, which saw her taking the seaplane to 'K' - presumably Kephalo? - I have come up with this theory.

Further study of the photos, now leads me to believe that this aircraft was possibly a Short Type 830, possibly flown from HMS Ben-My-Chree. Having previously said that I didn't think it was a Short because of the shape of the fin, further investigations now point to it being possibly one of the above.

Possibly is as good as I can get! The radiator above the engine is the one overriding factor that keeps leading me back to a product of Short Bros. In the photo, just beneath the surface of the water in front of the radiator is to be seen what I think is the cowling on top of the engine. These I believe were normally left unpainted, a natural metal finish, and plainly visible. The 'Ben' had two of these machines, 820, and 821, on board during two periods; May 1st to c.June 15th, and then July 23rd, to sometime in September. They were then transferred to HMS Ark Royal, apparently in November, and then sent back to the UK the following year.

Movements from Ark Royal on December 28th detail all her aircraft returning without incident; in any case, she was at that time at Salonika. Ark Royal herself never operated Short 830s, so this is what leads me to thinking that this could be a flight which, for some reason never got recorded. Maybe this machine was being transferred from the 'Ben' to the 'Ark' on that day, and had to force land, damaging her undercarriage in the process.

Lastly, the business of the fin being the wrong shape is still a mystery. There is a case of a Short having a smaller type of fin - No.10, S41, was rebuilt as a Type 830 and this had a fin very much like the machine in the photo. This however was rebuilt as a landplane, so again, another anomaly!!

We may never know the true identity of this machine. I shall keep this on the back burner though, just in case some detail should come to light.

Pete. (A seaplane fan)

[Sepoy]

Pete

Thank you so much for your thoughts and comments regarding this seaplane, it is much appreciated. My previous efforts to identify the machine had failed due to the shape of the fin, hence the reason for the post.

The photograph was taken by Sub Lieutenant/Paymaster Philip Chase RNR, who served on board HMS Grafton as the Captain's Secretary. In that roll, he kept a diary of the Ship's activities which is quite detailed in places. Unfortunately, I can find no reference to the recovery of the seaplane. However, it does confirm that the "Grafton" was in harbour at Mudros on 28th December. 1915 - was Mudros Harbour the venue for this incident????

They are just interesting photographs....

Sepoy

[pete-c]

Sepoy,

I do hope my ramblings haven't gone over points that you may have already discovered!

From the sideways on photo of the Destroyer it doesn't look to me as if it is in Mudros harbour. If this is HMS Colne - time of aeroplane pick-up given as mid-day - I suppose Grafton could still have been back at Mudros later that afternoon? Study of Ben-My-Chree's log would help in this matter but as yet it is not available on-line so that would mean a trip to Kew.

This fin business is certainly annoying! I suppose it could be a case of an 'in theatre' modification, similar to Samson's alteration that he made to a Short 184 in an effort to improve performance.

Maybe a post on the Gallipoli forum would bring more results?

Pete.

[pete-c]

It is sometimes said that everything comes to those who wait. Having purchased a few back-numbers of Cross and Cockade at FAAM Yeovilton yesterday I can now positively identify the aircraft at the centre of this post - should anyone still be interested.

It is Short S41 No10. This machine was converted from seaplane to landplane configuration and was flown from Imbros in late 1915. The ship assisting with the recovery of the machine to Grafton is - according to the photo captions - 'E' Class destroyer HMS Chelmer.

[Sepoy]

It is sometimes said that everything comes to those who wait. Having purchased a few back-numbers of Cross and Cockade at FAAM Yeovilton yesterday I can now positively identify the aircraft at the centre of this post - should anyone still be interested.

It is Short S41 No10. This machine was converted from seaplane to landplane configuration and was flown from Imbros in late 1915. The ship assisting with the recovery of the machine to Grafton is - according to the photo captions - 'E' Class destroyer HMS Chelmer.

Pete

Excellent! Thank you so much for identifying both the aircraft, the ship and the incident... Is there any indication of the date of the incident?

Were details of the aircrew shown??

I will dig out Lt Chase's diary to see if I can identify the date.

Sepoy

[michaeldr]

Sepoy,

See the log of HMS Grafton for Thursday 16^th December 1915

https://s3.amazonaws.com/oldweather/ADM53-43385/ADM%2053-43385-103_0.jpg

Transcription as given on the Naval History Net

16 December 1915

Place: Off Anzac

Place: off Anzac

Other: 6.40 Weighed & proceeded as reqte off Anzac

Other: 6.30 Stop. Came to port anchor 30 fms 2 1/2 ~ off Anzac

Other: 8.15 Opened fire on 56 A. 8.30 Cease firing

Other: 8.50 Opened fire on 56 A. 9.0 Cease firing

Other: 9.20 Opened fire on 56 A. 9.27 Cease firing

Other: 9.30 Weighed & proceeded as reqte to ~

Other: 9.52 Stop. Came to Port anchor 25 fms 4 ~ off Nibrunesi Point

Other: 4.0 Pilot & observer came aboard

Other: 1.0 Observed aeroplane fall into sea. Proceeded as reqte closing aeroplane

Other: 1.8 Stop & as reqte standing by to hoist aeroplane in from HMS Chelmer

Other: 2.20 Proceeded slow & as reqte towards Anzac

The story seems to be continued the next day – see https://s3.amazonaws.com/oldweather/ADM53-43385/ADM%2053-43385-103_1.jpg

Transcription as given on the Naval History Net

17 December 1915

Place: off Anzac

Place: Off Anzac

Other: 4 on sick list

Other: Sent whaler with flying officer to Destroyer

Other: 2.55 Opened fire on Cham Tepe guns to cover Raglan. 3.5 Cease firing

Other: 6.50 Weighed & proceeded as reqte off Anzac

Other: Sent ~ with flying officer to destroyer

Ship: Met: HMS Raglan

Other: Proceeded as reqte to cover HMS Raglan

Other: 2.55 Opened fire on Chenem Tepe guns to cover HMS Raglan. 3.5 Cease firing

Other: 5.55 Proceeded as reqte to ~ & off Anzac

Other: 5.55 Stop. Came to Port anchor 24 fms 3 1/2 ~ off Nibrunesi Point

Well done Pete; a great find!

regards

Michael

[Sepoy]

Michael

Thank you so much for identifying the precise incident via HMS Grafton's log (also thank you for pointing out that this is on line!)

I will dig out Lt Paymaster Chase's reports of proceedings/diary later this evening to see if he mentions the incident.

Sepoy

[michaeldr]

You're most welcome

In Chapter 6 of his 'Ottoman Aviation 1909-1919' (2^nd version)

O. Nikolajsen has listed for 16^th December 1915, an allied aircraft hit by ground fire and the wreck recovered. Unfortunately this is thought to have taken place at Helles, not off Suvla/Anzac

It will be interesting to see if there is any information as to how this one ended up in the drink? Was it enemy fire or mechanical failure?

regards

Michael

[michaeldr]

I have not been able to find anything specific relating to this in either the Naval or the Air OH

In general at this time (16DEC1915) there were Shorts spotting for the navy and in particular its monitors

One of the reasons that the Grafton was in this area was to provide increased naval fire support, as the army's artillery were already actually withdrawing from Anzac/Suvla

[Sepoy]

I have had a look in Paymaster Lieutanant Chase's diary/copies of reports of proceedings and his entries for the 16th and 17th are:-

16th December
8.15 to 9.30pm Fired occasional rounds on 56A
9.27 Ceased firing
Common pointed 20
Shrapnel 4

17th December
2.55pm Opened fire on Cham Tepe covering "Raglan".
3.10 Ceased firing
Common pointed 15

No wonder, I could not find details of the aircraft recovery (despite spending hours of looking!!!)

It is quite interesting to note that there are ommissions in Lt Chase's papers when compared with the Ship's Logs. Strange, when photographs of the incident are included in his photo album!
I suspect that he does go into some incidents in much greater detail and lesser for others, which may be it is an indication of how much spare time he had. Either way it means that I will have to cross reference both sources when reading his papers!

[horatio2]

According to Sturtivant, Short (S.41) Serial No.10 "To Aegean in SS VENTIAN by 1.10.15; 2 Wing Imbros late 1915; Probably lost in fire 4.11.15."

The loss (if correct) would pre-date the ditching.

Sturtivant also has (p.20) a good photo of S.41/Ser.10 as a landplane at Imbros. It shows a large Union Flag on the starboard fuselage and large, black-on-white "10" filling most of the starboard side of the tailplane.

[pete-c]

Unfortunately there is no mention of the aircrew at the time of this incident. According to his diary, Lt Aylmer Bettington flew this machine at Imbros on December 16th 1915 but gives no indication that he was the pilot when the ditching took place.

As Horatio 2 points out the Sturtivant entry regarding this machine is most likely incorrect. Interestingly the photo in Royal Navy Aircraft Serials and Units was probably taken during October/November. In common with other Short seaplanes operating from Ark Royal during this period the markings on this machine had changed slightly by the time of its ditching to conform with Admiralty instructions. The rudder was henceforth marked with blue white and red bars and the serial moved to the fuselage; black numerals on a white rectangle.

There seems to be no evidence of damage by enemy action in the photo of the machine being hoisted aboard Grafton so I would guess that the cause was an engine failure. The process of recovery was achieved with the aid of a mass of ropes wrapped around the aircraft - the resultant damage probably greater than that incurred during the forced landing itself. Unlike the seaplanes this machine was, it would seem, not equipped with hoisting strops above the top wing. I can only assume that this aircraft was in use for spotting as a result of a shortage of other seaplanes at the time - the use of landplanes for such duties always a risk if a forced landing became a necessity.

[horatio2]

Thanks for that extra information. It did occur to me that after recovery the aircraft could have been recovered to Imbros and the wreck then burned ashore. There are still references in this topic to the crashed aircraft be a "seaplane". I believe (Sturtivant again) that this aircraft was in landplane configuration at Imbros and had been since conversion in UK to an airframe "similar to Improved Type 74". Is that correct and does that description match the photos?