Jump to content

Whitley paratroop trainers


Admiral Puff

Recommended Posts

I'm working on a Tiger-engined Whitley III model, using the new Airfix kit and the Flightpath conversion set. Because of my perverse interest in second-line and oddball aircraft, I'm doing it as a paratroop trainer, based on the picture on p.27 of Wixey's Forgotten Bombers of the Royal Air Force (which is the only picture of a paratroop training Whitley I've been able to find). It's a fairly straightforward conversion, but a couple of points have arisen:

1. What is the aircraft's serial number? I can't make it out from the picture. I'm guessing it's in the K range, and by squinting and holding the book at the right angle it may be K3466, but that's purely speculation, and may not even be a Whitley serial. Wixey squibbed it by not quoting a serial at all, nor does he cite the aircraft's unit or base in the caption. Does anyone have any ideas?

2. It's obvious from the picture that the ventral turret opening is in use as the exit point, and that it has some sort of fairing/airflow deflector around the forward rim. I can probably fudge the shape of the fairing well enough to get by, but if anyone has better information, or even a dimensioned drawing, that would be appreciated. Also, would the tunnel through which the paratroops exited have been lined all round, or just left open between the aircraft floor and its skin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K3466 was a Tutor.

According to Air-Britains "K File", Whitley prototypes were K4586 and 4587. Whitley Is were K7183 to 7162 (34 airframes). Whitley IIs were K7217 to 7262 (46). Whitley IIIs ran from K8936 to9015 (80). Whitley IVc ran from K9016 to 9055 (40). K9056 to 9175 were cancelled.

Later production Whitleys eg for Coastal Command were numbered out of the "K" range, example LA's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be looking suitably terrified at just the idea of parachuting into combat. I mean, why jump out of a perfectly good aeroplane so people can shoot at you!

Call me traditionalist, but being an ordinary infantryman was good enough for me.

Please don't ask.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, everyone - that gives me a lot more information than I had! One of those rear-exit aircraft looks like the goods - and saves having to fight with a vacform transparency ... probably "T", going on Aeronut's info.

Will post in RFI when finished - posting as a WIP seems to mean immediate and permanent condemnation of the project to the Shelf of Doom!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

As one of that happy band to have worn Army Parachute Wings on my uniform I`m very interested in Airborne Forces aircraft!

The pull off method using the tail opening was soon discontinued after it proved fatal on a number of occasions and it was too slow as a practical method of getting a stick of men onto the ground as quickly and in as short a space as possible and it induced a massive amount of swing as the man and parachute fell to earth. The pull off method was the same as that used on the pre war Vickers Victoria where the man pulled his rip cord and was pulled from the platform and my understanding is that the man actually faced forwards,....unlike the posed photo. The pose may have been intentionally misleading in this press photo so as to fool the enemy.

It became apparent that the disused belly gunners position was the next best option to use and to answer your question this was lined between the floor and the outside of the aircraft and a pair of opening doors covered the floor position. Early parachuting Whitley`s did not have the wind deflector in front of the opening and I have only ever seen it on Whitley`s based at Ringway in the training role,.....but it was standard for the Airborne Forces/SD Halifax.

Most early paratroopers featured a broken nose after `ringing the bell' in a Whitley,.....exit too sharply and you smashed your face against the side of the hole on the way out,......exit too weakly and the parachute pack on your back (they only had one parachute until the 1950`s,..no reserve back then,...unlike the American`s!) hit the side of the hole, knocking you forward so that your face smashed into the side of the hole,...... thus ringing the bell was quite common until the Dakota brought about a more `gentlemanly' exit from a side door!

I hope that this helps,

Cheers

Tony

Dropping-from-a-Whitley-bomber-Bridgefor

PS- Here is the hole,...said to be a Whitley and most likely is,....but it could also be the mock up Whitley hole figged in the balloon cage.

BridgefordRA-going-through-the-hole.jpg

Edited by tonyot
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Tony - I was wondering when/if you were going to chip in! Those pictures are useful - the first one looks like the same aircraft as in the Wixey book, but from the starboard side. Sadly, the serial is no clearer! It is a slightly better shot of the fairing around the tail wheel, though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they really jump from 300' at Ringway, as I have read in various sources? A colleague who actually jumps out of aeroplanes for fun, though from a considerably higher altitude, assures me that if this was the case a reserve parachute would have been surplus to requirement in any case (though those were not his exact words, which don't bear repeating here :) )

Cheers

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pull off method was the same as that used on the pre war Vickers Victoria where the man pulled his rip cord and was pulled from the platform and my understanding is that the man actually faced forwards

Hi Tony

It was the Vickers Virginia used for early "pull-off" parachute training circa 1935 as seen here in this really good contemporary film about them (pull-off parachuting from 4:37):-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4BiG1IlNM4

The jumper turned on the platform to face forwards just before pulling the ripcord handle. Also, he had a small reserve 'chute under his arm as shown in the footage.

Regards

Nick

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they really jump from 300' at Ringway, as I have read in various sources? A colleague who actually jumps out of aeroplanes for fun, though from a considerably higher altitude, assures me that if this was the case a reserve parachute would have been surplus to requirement in any case (though those were not his exact words, which don't bear repeating here :) )

Cheers

Steve

What reserve parachute? The UK didn't use one until NATO insisted on their use in 1956. The X type parachute was a lines first deployment and was very reliable. The US parachute on the other hand was a canopy first deployment with a harder opening shock which resulted in the occasional canopy failure. Therefore, the use of a reserve parachute was sensible.

When the UK introduced the LLP (Low Level Parachute) in the 90's to replace the development of the X type, the PX, it was designed for an operational drop height of 250 ft which was Lower than the minimum drop height of the then reserve parachute.

When the LLP was live jumped for the first time at minimum height some of the jumpers chose to jump without a (useless) reserve. BTW from full canopy to landing the time in the air was 9 seconds and the jump was higher than planned!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What reserve parachute? The UK didn't use one until NATO insisted on their use in 1956.

As noted in post #10. My point was that if they were jumping from 300' someone (not me) who knows something about parachutes would reckon there was no point in having a reserve in any case.

Cheers

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tony

It was the Vickers Virginia used for early "pull-off" parachute training circa 1935 as seen here in this really good contemporary film about them (pull-off parachuting from 4:37):-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4BiG1IlNM4

The jumper turned on the platform to face forwards just before pulling the ripcord handle. Also, he had a small reserve 'chute under his arm as shown in the footage.

Regards

Nick

Cheers Nick,

I actually meant to say Virginia,......what did I say,.....Vimy or Victoria or something,.....it was very late and we had a family crisis taking place so the mind wasn`t fully with it mate as we were on tenterhooks waiting for a phone call!!! Yeah I know about the platform on the wings and the jumper facing forwards,.....that was why I questioned the jumper facing rearwards on the Whitley tail platform. Apparently the next bloke in the stick pulled the jumpers D Ring which led to him being swiftly snatched from the aircraft, then he would take his place and on it would go,......a very slow way to get a stick onto the ground and the severe oscillation led to serious casualties when jumping from low level (600-800 ft) due to heavy landings.

Great film by the way and sod that for a means of parachuting!

Cheers,

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As noted in post #10. My point was that if they were jumping from 300' someone (not me) who knows something about parachutes would reckon there was no point in having a reserve in any case.

Cheers

Steve

If I remember correctly there were a few people pondering PVR`ing from the Army in the early 90`s when the PX-4 was going to be replaced by the new Low level chute and there was talk of there being no reserve at the time as there was no time to use one anyway at 300 feet! Training jumps are still done from 800 feet and I have jumped at 600 feet under a PX-4 chute,...not a lot of time to sort your drills out and drop your equipment before you hit the deck,.....I shudder to think what it is like from 250 feet!

Shortly before Suez the reserve chute had been implemented into British service as stated previously due to NATO orders but when it came to jumping onto El Gamil airfield the CO decreed that the reserve chutes should be left behind so that his troops could carry more kit.

I`ve just finished an Airborne Forces Whitley and I`ll post it soon,

Cheers

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've managed to identify the Whitley in your original post.

I search through all the Whitley V serials and only two end with 422 - N1422 and Z9422. The later was lost of ops with Coastal Command in 1942 the former first being posted to No.9 Air Gunners School.

Looking at the picture again, I'm pretty sure I can make out the N1 at the beginning.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis: I was a paratrooper with the 2/325th Airborne Inf., 82nd ABN Div. from March 1977 to Dec. 1980. I was always asked by non-jumpers (aka "legs"(US Army speak)) why I should want to leave a "perfectly good aircraft". I always replied that the USAF a/c mechanics/technicians were just as intelligent, well-trained, and motivated as the mechanics who fixed our vehicles(and, I, and, my fellow soldiers in the 82nd, and other units in which I was assigned, had spent a lot of time in a broken down truck; or, waiting for it to be fixed). That usually got a 'Okay, that I understand' look from them. I've also been in a Mech.(APCs-M113s)unit(4th Inf. Div. Mech.) unit, light Inf., 7th Inf. Div.(Light), and the 33rd Inf. Brigade(ILNG). So, I have seen just how good, bad, and indifferently our vehicles are maintained. Jumping from the tail position of a Whitley, though, does look rather terrifying!

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jumping from the tail position of a Whitley, though, does look rather terrifying! Joe

Jumping from any part of a plane is terrifying. But at least you won't get hung up on the aeroplane that way. Happens occasionally, a skydive pilots nightmare. It happened to someone I know recently, damm near ripped the tail off but the pilot got it down ok. However he took the blame. Too fast on the run in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were some serious issues with the early drops as this passage from Lawrence Wright's excellent and sometimes very funny 'The Wooden Sword' shows. The method "not liked" at the beginning was the exit through the tail position.

whitley_drops_zpsu7g0so3b.jpg

I think early British efforts, and the above was not long after Dunkirk, were something of a voyage of discovery.

Cheers

Steve

Edited by Stonar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problems with jumping out of the rear of a Whitley, as described, has rather more to do with the small fuselage cross-section than the method itself. It surely is the safest method of all, in principle, and isn't that how it's done today from the back of C-130s etc? In those days, however, aircraft weren't built with such bluff back-ends. (Which brings up the Ju252 and its rear ramp - were there plans for paras to leap off that ramp? Somebody's got to be first.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...