Strange behaviour?

[Phil Wood]

Researching Harry George Lovelock, DSM. His rank was AM1, RNAS - but his job was Air Gunner, as which he got the DSM (London Gazette, 2/11/1917) and subsequently died 22/03/1918.

 

The following newspaper report gave details of his death:

 

Newbury Weekly News, 4 April 1918 – Local War Notes

Mr and Mrs Lovelock, of Kings-road, have received the sad news that their son, H G Lovelock, DSM, of the RNAS, was killed in Belgium on March 22^nd. Deceased was a gunlayer in a machine with Flight Sub-Lieutenant Bambridge, and was escorting a machine over the lies, when it was struck by anti-aircraft fire. The machine turned over on its back in the air, and the pilot did all in his power, crawling on the wings to bring the machine safely to ground, but it crashed upside down our side of the lines. The pilot had his legs broken in three places, but deceased was unfortunately killed. He is spoken of by his commander, as one of the squadron’s best and bravest gunlayers. The funeral was attended by officers and men, and also by 20 Belgian officers.

 

The bit that interests me is: the pilot did all in his power, crawling on the wings to bring the machine safely to ground

 

I am an ignoramus when it comes to flying (in this case a DH.4) and am struggling to work out how the pilot hoped to bring the plane under control by crawling out on a wing (let alone wings).  Can anyone give a rational explanation for this?

 

The cynic in me can't help considering that, in the event of a crash, it may have been safer (albeit very marginally) to be on a wing than in the pilot's seat sandwiched between the engine and the fuel tank, or that the likely cause of death would not involve burning alive -  and that the pilot was aware of this. In which case his action may have been less noble, but eminently sensible!  And, let's face it, he did survive the crash.

Edited 29 January , 2018 by Phil Wood

[pete-c]

As the pilot's cockpit on the DH4 is directly beneath the upper main-plane, I am wondering if this might be a case of the pilot being flung from his seat when the aircraft turned over.  Perhaps his attempts to regain his seat was interpreted by witnesses of the event as efforts to ' ... bring the machine safely to ground'.

 

I note that Sturtivant & Page lists the pilot's name as Bembridge (FSL FEA) and that the machine was recovered badly damaged.  My initial thoughts are that if it had come down inverted, surely there would not have been much left to recover.

 

Someone on the Forum will no doubt have the answer.

Edited 29 January , 2018 by pete-c

[Phil Wood]

46 minutes ago, pete-c said:

I note that Sturtivant & Page lists the pilot's name as Bembridge (FSL FEA) 

 

I don't have the book - but AIR 76 and ADM 373 service records are as Bambridge (Frederick Edward Arthur). Does the book give the DH.4's number?  I have A7665 - confirmation would be nice.

Edited 29 January , 2018 by Phil Wood

[pete-c]

14 minutes ago, Phil Wood said:

 

I don't have the book - but AIR 76 and ADM 373 service records are as Bambridge (Frederick Edward Arthur). Does the book give the DH.4's number?  I have A7665 - confirmation would be nice.

 

A7665 is the number given in Royal Navy Aircraft Serials and Units 1911-1919 (Sturtivant & Page)  It would seem as though they were incorrect with Bembridge.

 

[Phil Wood]

Thanks Pete. Confirmation of info I found online (which may, of course, come from the book as it too has Bembridge).

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft/serial_numbers.php?pageNum_serials=465&totalRows_serials=11502

 

PS ADM 373 - I should have put ADM 273!

[MikeMeech]

20 hours ago, Phil Wood said:

Thanks Pete. Confirmation of info I found online (which may, of course, come from the book as it too has Bembridge).

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft/serial_numbers.php?pageNum_serials=465&totalRows_serials=11502

 

PS ADM 373 - I should have put ADM 273!

Hi

Page and Sturtivant also have him as Bembridge in their DH4/DH9 File as well as 'A7665'.  This might be expected but the DVD/ROM 'Airmen Died in the Great War 1914-1918' also has 'Bembridge' (and A7665') as does Henshaw in TSTB 2, page 152 (also A7665).  As the latter two sources state that the casualty reports were used for the data then the error in the name may have originated there.

 

Mike

[MikeW]

The RNAS Dispositions Lists (Disposition Of Officers of the Royal Naval Air Service) confirm the Pilot as FSL FEA Bambridge, if there is a hierarchy of of primary sources, I would put the Disposition List above Casualty Reports.

 

Nobody has mentioned that FSL Bambridge was a member of C Flight, No.2 Squadron RNAS.

 

Mike

[Phil Wood]

2 hours ago, MikeW said:

The RNAS Dispositions Lists (Disposition Of Officers of the Royal Naval Air Service) confirm the Pilot as FSL FEA Bambridge, if there is a hierarchy of of primary sources, I would put the Disposition List above Casualty Reports.

 

Nobody has mentioned that FSL Bambridge was a member of C Flight, No.2 Squadron RNAS.

 

Mike

 

I had 2 Sqdn but the flight detail is new to me - thanks.

[Bean tool]

This thread reminded me of the VC winner James Ward who climbed out onto his wing. Apologies that it isn't related to your original enquiry.

 

Dan

[Phil Wood]

1 hour ago, Bean tool said:

This thread reminded me of the VC winner James Ward who climbed out onto his wing. Apologies that it isn't related to your original enquiry.

 

Dan

 

It might be if you know why he climbed out on to his wing?

[Bean tool]

8 hours ago, Phil Wood said:

 

It might be if you know why he climbed out on to his wing?

Morning Phil,

 

He climbed out to extinguish an engine fire however this was in WW2. After further reading last night it would seem some WW1 pilots would climb out of their cockpits to make repairs whilst in flight. Apparently this started the wing walking craze of the 1920's. 

 

Cheers 

 

Dan 

[Phil Wood]

6 hours ago, Bean tool said:

Morning Phil,

 

He climbed out to extinguish an engine fire however this was in WW2. After further reading last night it would seem some WW1 pilots would climb out of their cockpits to make repairs whilst in flight. Apparently this started the wing walking craze of the 1920's. 

 

Cheers 

 

Dan 

 

I suspect it would be more likely to be to avoid an engine fire in a DH.4 - but the suggestion that the aircraft was recovered would indicate to me that there was no fire. A small mercy for Lovelock, who died in the back seat.

 

[Phil Wood]

Another trip to Kew and a clearer picture emerges.

 

The DH.4 was hit by AA fire when at 16,000ft. It then went into a dive until by 5,000ft it was 'fluttering to earth like a leaf'. Both Bembridge and Lovelock were seen moving around the aircraft (the inference being that they were trying to balance the machine), the aircraft continued to fall in a series of stalls and dives . At about 1,200ft Lovelock was dislodged and fell to earth landing about a mile from the eventual crash site. Bembridge hung on until the plane was about to hit the ground when he jumped off.  Amazingly it worked - he suffered no serious injury until part of the plane landed on him, breaking his leg. 

 

The bit about the aircraft being recovered is somewhat inaccurate - the engine was recovered, the rest was burnt at the crash site.

 

 

[Loader]

If the ac was fluttering like leaf it may have had the engine drop out of it removing the weight balance & the crew tried to rebalance it.

If engine recovered & not burnt it might be the reason.

[Phil Wood]

I think the engine remained attached - it was the tail end that suffered.  The shell passed through the empennage and exploded immediately over the tail.

 

While the report states that the engine, while badly damaged, was being repaired, "the remainder of the machine being burned on the spot where it fell". It reads to me as if they had a bonfire to get rid of the debris after salvaging what they could.

Edited 21 February , 2018 by Phil Wood

[Phil Wood]

The full story - or as close to it as we are likely to get: