Aeroplane crash in Cambridge (Glos) 1916

[andrewb]

Hello there

This is my first post to this excellent forum - I've been reading it for a few weeks now and realise there are some very knowledgable people out there. I'm hoping someone will be able to provide some more information regarding the two photographs I've attached.

I believe the photos to show the same incident - an aircraft crash in the small village of Cambridge in Gloucestershire (not the big city of the same name!). It certainly seems to be attracting some interest. Both pictures have the same date - July 11th 1916.

Does anyone recognise the aeroplane - could it be a BE2? One of the pictures shows the serial number 6536 on the tail. Does anyone have any information about the history of this particular aeroplane? Could it have been based at Leighterton which is approximately 10 miles away? Any idea why it crashed?

I'd really like to find out as much as I can about this incident which occurred just 3 miles from where I now live. All help will be very much appreciated.

Many thanks and Best Regards

AndyB

[Dolphin]

Andy

Welcome to the Forum - I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

6536 was a BE 12, and was built by The Daimler Co Ltd in batch 6478 to 6677. The BE 12 was unfortunate attempt to make a single-seat fighter from the basic design of the BE 2c; in essence, the observer's cockpit was faired over, a 150 hp RAF engine was fitted instead of the 90 hp RAF used to power the BE 2c, and a synchronised Vickers gun was installed.

Not surprisingly, the BE 12 was a failure as a fighter and was withdrawn from the Western Front after only a few weeks' service. The type was used with more success in Macedonia and Palestine, as well as on night fighting operations over the UK.

The first BE 12s to go to France were supplied to Nos 19 and 21 Sqns RFC in August 1916, so if your machine crashed in July, it's likely that it was on a training mission.

I hope this helps.

Gareth

[andrewb]

Many thanks for the reply Gareth. I have a few more questions if you don't mind.

6536 was a BE 12, and was built by The Daimler Co Ltd in batch 6478 to 6677.

Do you have the date and place of manufacture for this batch of aircraft?

The first BE 12s to go to France were supplied to Nos 19 and 21 Sqns RFC in August 1916, so if your machine crashed in July, it's likely that it was on a training mission.

Who would have operated the aircraft them prior to them being supplied to the two squadrons? Would they have been with a different (training?) squadron or possibly still with the manufacturer?

Thanks again.

Andy

[Dolphin]

1. Do you have the date and place of manufacture for this batch of aircraft?

2. Who would have operated the aircraft them prior to them being supplied to the two squadrons? Would they have been with a different (training?) squadron or possibly still with the manufacturer?

Andy

The best answers that I can give are:

1. The BE 12s and BE 12as in batch 6478-6677 would have been built in early 1916; unfortunately, I don't know where the Daimler factory was. The BE 12a was a variant with unequal span wings, based in the BE 2e, while the BE 12 had wings based on those of the BE 2c.

2. I think it most likely that the aeroplanes would have gone direct to the squadrons. No 19 Sqn was formed at Castle Bromwich in September 1915, and trained with a variety of types before its BE 12s were issued in February 1916. The squadron moved to Filton [is this near the scene of the crash in your photograph?] on 29 March, before going to Fienvillers in France on 1 August (after a day's stopover at St Omer). No 21 Sqn was already in France and flying BE 2es, and was withdrawn from the Front to equip with the BE 12 from 28 July, returning to operations on 25 August.

Some BE 12s must have gone to training units at about the time that the type was undergoing its disastrous baptism of fire. However, there seems a good chance that 6536 may have gone to No 19 Sqn, as several other aircraft whose serial numbers are close to its went to that unit, ie 6532, 6538, 6540, 6542, 6545, 6546, 6547, 6548, 6549 and 6551. Perhaps 6536 came to grief while on a training flight from Filton?

There's a photograph of 6536 in J M Bruce's classic British Aeroplanes 1914-1918, but there's no indication of where and when it was taken. See below. One interesting point is that the machine has the curved BE 2e-type fin fitted to some BE 12s to improve stability.

Regards

Gareth

[andrewb]

Thanks again Gareth, some very interesting information.

The BE 12s and BE 12as in batch 6478-6677 would have been built in early 1916; unfortunately, I don't know where the Daimler factory was.

Thinking about it, I think the Daimler factory concerned may have been the one in Coventry.

The squadron moved to Filton [is this near the scene of the crash in your photograph?] on 29 March, before going to Fienvillers in France on 1 August (after a day's stopover at St Omer).

That makes sense, Filton is around 20 miles from Cambridge so it could have been the place it went to. I had wondered whether it was from one of the Australian Flying Corps training squadrons based at Leighterton but I'm not sure which aircraft they flew.

There's a photograph of 6536 in J M Bruce's classic British Aeroplanes 1914-1918, but there's no indication of where and when it was taken.

Thanks very much for this, it's nice to see a picture showing it in one piece!

Best Regards

Andy

[Dolphin]

I had wondered whether it was from one of the Australian Flying Corps training squadrons based at Leighterton but I'm not sure which aircraft they flew.

Andy

Nos 7 and 8 Squadrons AFC arrived at Leighterton in May 1918, so 6536 certainly wasn't one of theirs. Nos 5 and 6 Sqns AFC were based at Minchinhampton from about the same time.

No 1 Sqn AFC in Palestine did use at least seven BE 12as, but not only one BE 12. No 4 Sqn AFC, who used Sopwith Camels and, later, Snipes, on the Western Front had a BE 12 (A562) on charge for a short time.

Best wishes

Gareth

[Horace Bachelor]

Andy,

Welcome to the forum.

Do you remember the ramshackle old garage in Cambridge that always looked like it was about to collapse. Am I right in thinking that was a WWI hangar from one of the local airfields?

Rich.

[andrewb]

Thanks for the further information Gareth. I've since found out from Mick Davis at the Cross & Cockade website that 6536 was built at Coventry on June 30th 1916. It then went to the Southern Aircraft Repair Depot at Farnborough on July 5th 1916 (presumably after a different mishap) and was then reassigned to 19 Sqn Filton where it was delivered on July 11th 1916 so your thoughts about that were correct. This was the same date as this crash, an interesting coincidence. It later went on to 48 Sqn at Rendcomb near Cirencester so it was obviously repaired.

Do you remember the ramshackle old garage in Cambridge that always looked like it was about to collapse. Am I right in thinking that was a WWI hangar from one of the local airfields?

I'm not sure I do Rich, I've only lived here 7 years so perhaps it was before my time? I'll have to do some checking.

Thanks again

Andy

[Laurence Batchelor]

Thanks for the further information Gareth. I've since found out from Mick Davis at the Cross & Cockade website that 6536 was built at Coventry on June 30th 1916. It then went to the Southern Aircraft Repair Depot at Farnborough on July 5th 1916 (presumably after a different mishap) and was then reassigned to 19 Sqn Filton where it was delivered on July 11th 1916 so your thoughts about that were correct. This was the same date as this crash, an interesting coincidence. It later went on to 48 Sqn at Rendcomb near Cirencester so it was obviously repaired.

I'm not sure I do Rich, I've only lived here 7 years so perhaps it was before my time? I'll have to do some checking.

Thanks again

Andy

I have studied the Daimler firm during WWI in some detail.

They wre based in Coventry and had 2 factories.

One called 'The Motor Mills' a former weaving mill they took over and expanded from 1896 onwards and where the first British car was manufactured.

Their newer and second factory was more northerly in the city in an area called Radford and the factory simply known as the Radford Works.

During 1915 the Ministry of Munitions laid out a large aerodrome at the side of the Radford Factory.

Locally it became known as Radford Aerodrome, but officially it was the Aircraft Acceptance Park No.1

Daimler were perhaps one of the largest producers of aircraft during WWI my data suggests they produced in all 2,248 aircraft and 5,905 aero-engines between 1914-1919 along with a huge range of other munitions and military vehicles.

On another note the city of Coventry produced in total around 25% of all aircraft built in Britain during WWI.

Many of the various manufacturers assembled their aircraft minus their wings and then transported them by road to the Radford Aerodrome.

The wings were then attached and then the machines were checked over and flown from Radford.

One assumes if they were accepted they then flew onto to other aerodromes around the country and then onto military or training service.

Kind Regards

Laurence

[SiegeGunner]

Welcome to the newcomers to the Forum, and congratulations on combining with Gareth to tell the story of this aircraft in such detail - a fine example of the Forum working together. Now, for the final five points, can you tell us the name of the pilot who put 6356 in the hedge ...?

[centurion]

Andy

Welcome to the Forum - I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

6536 was a BE 12, and was built by The Daimler Co Ltd in batch 6478 to 6677. The BE 12 was unfortunate attempt to make a single-seat fighter from the basic design of the BE 2c;

Not strictly true - the idea was to produce a general purpose machine that could undertake bombing, and recce duties. Design started in 1915 before the Fokker E types came on the scene and the design and first prototype was not armed. For mid 1915 it was a relatively good air craft with a top speed of 100mph and a very good climb. It was reported to be as easy to fly as a BE2 and as stable. For the role in which it was envisaged this isn't bad.

Unfortunately by the time the first production models were coming off the production line in Dec 1915 armed fighters were in German service and it wasn't such a good idea any more. Although a gun was fitted sighting was very poor and the sync problematic. Its stability madeit a relatively easy target.

Its worth noting that the BE12b with a 200hp Hispano Suiza engine has been reported as as fast as any contemporary fighter and with an exceptional climb rate - for this reason most of those built were allocated as anti Zeppelin fighters although one may have been used on the WF as a fighter bomber. As the same engines were required for the SE5a the BE12b was only built in small numbers.

[andrewb]

Thanks everyone for the additional information, very interesting.

I'm afraid I don't know the pilot of the aircraft at this point but I'll try to make some local enquiries. I'm not too hopeful but I'll give it a go.

Best Regards

Andy

[Alec McCudden]

Hi Andy

I am not convinced that these are photographs of the same aeroplane. the angle of the fuselage looks different and the foliage and trees nearby do not look the same either. Also the photographs appear to different types of film or photographic paper (not that this necessarily means anything!).

Alec

[centurion]

The handwriting on both photos is the same (but again we don't know when the caption was written). The difference in emusion means almost certainly two different photographers. The top photo show the starboard wing in the trees with bits of tree broken by the impact whereas the 2nd photo graph seems to show much fewer trees. In the top photo on the extreme right of the photo there appears to be a hut or something. This is not evident in the 2nd photo. I think Alec is probably right.

[centurion]

The handwriting on both photos is the same (but again we don't know when the caption was written). The difference in emusion means almost certainly two different photographers. The top photo show the starboard wing in the trees with bits of tree broken by the impact whereas the 2nd photo graph seems to show much fewer trees. In the top photo on the extreme right of the photo there appears to be a hut or something. This is not evident in the 2nd photo. I think Alec is probably right.

[PFF]

Try the Aerodrome Forum for query:

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/index.php

Note:must be registered to reply or post queries.

[andrewb]

Thanks for your thoughts. I have considered the differences in the background scenery between the two pictures and wondered whether it was the same aicraft. I have always assumed it was from the date on each and the information about the location. The pictures came from postcards which were usually printed very quickly by local entrepreneurs following any such incident. Such an event would have attracted a lot of attention so there is likely to have been more than one photographer present.

I suppose the aeroplane could have been dragged out of the hedge and could have been photographed in more than one location, possibly it was even repositioned to make a better picture for the camera?

Best Regards

Andy

[centurion]

The pictures came from postcards which were usually printed very quickly by local entrepreneurs following any such incident.

Local entrepeneurs were all too often quick to use 'stock' photos to get the cards out fast (for example the Mk IV female tank paraded at the 1917 Lord Mayors show appears on a number of postcards of tank weeks and other similar events up and down the country even though only male tanks were used). One needs to be very careful with post cards.

[Doug Johnson]

The woman with the bike in the centre of the left picture appears to be behing the aircraft on the extreme left of the right picture.

Doug

[centurion]

The woman with the bike in the centre of the left picture appears to be behing the aircraft on the extreme left of the right picture.

Doug

I think the best you can say is a similarly dressed lady. Not enough detail to say otherwise.

[Alec McCudden]

The aeroplane in the top photograph appears to be minus it's upper starboard wing. The one in the lower picture seems to have it's wings in tact.

Alec