Groundcrew Question

[Dej 17]

I've been browsing off-and-on for details of the work WW1 ground crew would routinely carry out on an aircraft and how long it took them then thought 'Jeez, never mind th internet... one of the best WW1 information sources is the one I visit every day' so, can anyone tell me the typical work carried out daily on a WW1 aircraft, what they entailed,how it varied between types and how long it took on average?

 

I suspect that groundcrew in WW1 as in WW2 were something of unsung heroes and if anyone has information to corroborate or otherwise I'd be interested to hear it and I daresay others would.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Dej, I am quite sure they spent many a long day and night nearly rebuilding those kites after just about every mission. James McCudden made it sound like that's what he did when he was a mechanician. In fact, if I remember correctly, he noted that he would often sleep on the ground under the wing of the plane he was in charge of just to be sure he was there with everything ready to go in the wee hours of the morning when the pilots arrived to take off.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[RAF_Louvert 101]

BTW Dej, if you are interested, here is a digital version of Fred Covin's 1918 "Aircraft Mechanics Handbook".

Aircraft Mechanics Handbook

 

 

It gives a pretty good picture of everything that needed to be done at varying times on these planes to keep the in proper flying order.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[Dej 17]

Cheers Lou, that link may well come in handy when I finally get my replica SE5a!

 

I should have added that I'm interested in the matter from the German side too, so if Olham or anyone else has information or similar links to German sources I'd appreciate the input.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Dej wrote:

Cheers Lou, that link may well come in handy when I finally get my replica SE5a!

 

And when might that be Dej? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Dej 17]

Dej wrote:

 

And when might that be Dej? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

Alas, I can only say 'very shortly after I win the lottery'. A man's gotta have dreams though, right?

Edited September 1, 2009 by Dej

[Bullethead 12]

I suspect that groundcrew in WW1 as in WW2 were something of unsung heroes and if anyone has information to corroborate or otherwise I'd be interested to hear it and I daresay others would.

 

As I understand things from reading memoirs, the typical day on an RFC squadron went like this:

 

1. Pilot flies dawn patrol in a plane that was thoroughly tested and tweaked the previous afternoon and evening. It probably starts out pretty close to OK, but probably not perfect.

 

2. Assume the plane wasn't hit or pranged in the dawn patrol, but saw some action involving high G forces. These stretched the plane out of shape somewhat and spoiled its trim. The pilot notices this on his way home from the dawn patrol.

 

3. Upon RTB, the pilot tells the riggers that the plane is now pulling a bit to the right. There follows a series of test hops where the riggers tweak the plane, the pilot does a few circuits, repeat. This goes on until the plane is right again or it's time to fly the next mission.

 

4. Steps 2 and 3 are repeated after each mission the pilot flies that day (always assuming he takes no more damage than a few holes in the canvas or something else easily fixed).

 

5. After the last mission of the day, there follows an intensive series of test flights and tweaks as long as the light lasts and perhaps a bit beyond, to get the plane into the best possible shape for tomorrow's dawn patrol. Then everybody drinks until they pass out, grab a couple hours of sleep, and do it all again tomorrow.

 

6. If for some reason a pilot didn't have to test-fly his own plane between sorties (he didn't do a mission or his plane was too badly damaged to be ready for the next mission), he had to test-fly some other bird, such as one just returned from a major repair job in the depot. As I understand things, this was pretty much like making the 1st flight in a prototype fresh off the drawing boards, due to the thing being so badly out of trim. Many guys died doing this. Getting such a bird back into operational shape took most of the day, it seems.

 

Anyway, that's the impression I get.

[Bletchley 8]

As well as rigging adjustments, engine maintenance was a more or less continuous on-going process - rotary engines, typically, required a complete overhaul every 30 hours or so of flying time, and stationary engines every 80-100 hours (early period engines generally had a shorter time between overhaul than later engines). In some cases (such as Rolls Royce, and possibly Daimler Mercedes) they had to be returned to the manufacturer or to a rear area depot for this major overhaul, although in most cases there were also several lesser overhauls at prescribed intervals between the complete overhauls. Rotary engines were easier to access, and were therefore easier to maintain in the field. All engines had to have their petrol filtered regularly, to remove dirt and dust that might otherwise clog fuel lines etc., and the water and oil had to be changed regularly in the stationary and water-cooled types. Burnt valves were also common, as were distorted or fractured obturator rings, and required regular replacement. Cylinders would also distort or crack and require replacement, particularly on rotary types. Running the engine rich would 'soot-up' the cyclinders, whilst running lean or over-revving would cause heat damage or mechanically stress various parts of the engine and lead to damage to bearings and such like. Metal fatigue was unknown at the time, and metalurgical knowledge was generally poor - so sudden failure of a vital part, leading to incomplete loss of power or complete engine failure, was a common occurence. In the RFC each aircraft had a dedicated fitter (and rigger) for the day-to-day ongoing adjustment and maintenance of the engine, whilst major overhauls or repairs would be done by a whole team of fitters or another of carpenters and riggers at squadron level or at the rear maintenance depots. There was also an armourer for the guns and ordnance, and others who had the tasks of looking after the electrics and the wireless equipment, the cameras and optical sights, maps and photographs, the motor transport and horses, the pilots (a batman, mess stewards), airfield security, the squadron paperwork...

 

Bletchley

[Flyby PC 23]

Special mention for Jasta 11 groundcrew, the Flying Circus.

 

The nickname was partly due to the garish colour schemes, but the other aspect was the requirement for the squadron to be able to transport itself lock stock and barrel to a new location and quickly get itself operational again. This 'baggage train' was also a contributing factor behind the Flying Circus nickname.

 

I imagine that entailed a lot of extra work, and no doubt a lot of equipment on permanent stand by, at a semi portable condition. Being Jasta 11 off course, I suspect they weren't short of willing volunteers.

[JimAttrill 24]

As an aside here, in the modern-day RAF the airframe fitters are still referred to as 'riggers' even though they have no wires to rig any more. The use of 'fitter' for an engine man had dropped away because 'fitter' became the designation for anyone who worked on an aeroplane at the skilled level (the semi-skilled were called 'mechanics' in my day). As an example, my father started in the RAF in the early 20s as a Fitter IIE, the E standing for 'Engines'. He later became a Fitter I which meant he could work on the airframe and the engine. He worked on Vickers Vimys and such in the early days with RR Eagle engines.

 

In the 60s and 70s the designation was A. Fitt (x) where the x was either an A for airframe, P for Propulsion (a silly designation as we called ourselves engine fitters) or E for Electrician. There were also a few 'fairies' about who did the radios, radar and such other electronic stuff.

 

I have forgotten the designation for the armament fitters, but we always referred to them as 'plumbers'. They did the guns, bombs, missiles and ejection seats, the latter because they also go bang.

 

In the modern Air Force, very little is actually 'fitted' any more. All the people do is change components and send the old ones back to the manufacturers or to the scrap bin. The RAF apprentice school at RAF Halton has closed down - I spent two terrible years there but I learnt a lot.

[Check Six 2]

There is a great book called "Naval Eight", (surprisingly about Naval 8 sqn - bet you didn't see that coming) that has chapters written by different duty officers. There is a chapter "The Flight Commander" (or is that Flight leader...sorry, it's at home, and I'm at work), but the chapter that might interest you about ground crew is "The Armourer", and in that chapter, the squadron armourer describes his daily duties, events etc that he thinks noteworthy.

 

It's a pretty good read to get the "feeling" of a squadron from the men doing various jobs around the place. Whilst a book written by a leading Ace (or even a "wannabe Ace") is a rollicking good read usually, full of excitement and blazing huns, and furballs of extraordinary feats of courage and near-misses etc., this book is about a squadron, and not a Squadron Record Book, which whilst invaluable to those of us who are amateur historians, are usually VERY DRY reading.

 

Borrow a copy from your local library, or buy a copy if you can.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

I knew I had copies of some vintage illustrations showing what was involved in "truing up" an SE5 and here they are. Dej, you may want to save a set of these for that special someday.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see, the items involved just in a proper rigging job where nearly endless, to say nothing of keeping the engine, guns, and other sundry bits and pieces in good order.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[Bullethead 12]

I knew I had copies of some vintage illustrations showing what was involved in "truing up" an SE5 and here they are.

 

Wunderbar! Thanks muchos,

[Dej 17]

@ Steve - Thanks for that. I've ordered a copy of Naval 8 from Amazon... was on my wish list anyway.

@ Lou - You're a marvel! Where did you come by those? Looking at them more closely I'm rather daunted. Can one employ riggers these days? If not, then, much as I like the lines of the SE5a maybe if that special day comes I'll get a replica Tripe instead - in honour both of my favourite machine in OFF and those gallant RNAS fellows.

 

Heh, and thsnks to Flyby I now have the (obviously erroneous) vision of Jasta 11 as a troupe of wandering minstrels, their brightly coloured caravans packed with spare wings and canvas hangers toiling through the mud whilst the pilots idly strum their lutes and sing ribald ditties about the local ladies of the night.