Flaming Coffins

[EARTHLING]

Apologies if raised before.

I have seen written on this sight that the 1.5 Strutter and the DH4 designated as flaming coffins. I assumed this was so because of the position of the petrol tank between the pilot's and observer's cockpit.
I have noted that this predilection to a flaming inferno is not referred to in any memoirs of the people flying them.
I appreciate that I have not read every memoir in existence.
From where did this opinion, frequently expressed, come?

VBR

Peter S

[Lyle]

Probably originated with Arch Whitehouse and his penchant for hype...

[StephenLawson]

Greeting all: The most precarious design flaw in the DH 4 was the placement of cockpit. Pilots were too easily trapped between the engine and the rear cockpit, or in the post war use the mail compartment. Minor training crashes turned deadly, as entangled pilots were burned alive. The planes quickly gained a macabre nickname–flaming coffins. Among those killed in the early DeHavilland airmail flights was Carl Smith, who stalled out over Elizabeth, New Jersey, while testing a DH 4 on December 16, 1918.

[chip55]

Hello
It would seem to me that any Wood, Doped, Painted and Varnished aircraft with a fuel tank under, behind or in front of the pilot, would fit the "Flying coffin" label.

Be well
chip55

[EARTHLING]

I suppose the point that I am making is that criticism seems to come often from pilots who never flew the planes concerned. A case in point being the Sopwith Dolphin and the unease felt because one's head was above the top plane and what would happen if you turned over when landing. As far as I am aware pilots that flew the aircraft did not have such misgivings.Springs makes reference to this fault in one of his short stories but I don't think he ever flew one.
Back to the DH4 and Johns the creator of Biggles who was shot down in the said plane and wrote a graphic description of the event. His feet were awash with petrol but he does not refer to the plane as a sort of flaming coffin or it being a fault.
Similarly MacMillan in his book of memoirs re the one and a half, makes reference to its slowness, the method of fighting in a circle but not to fire hazards.
An article in last years C. & C. giving extracts from an observer's diary re the DH4, concerns itself usually with football matches played and the fact that when fitted with the larger RR engine it climbed like a lift. Reference to the oxygen carried and the electrical heating system. No worries apparently about a fire trap.

VBR

Peter S

[Gregvan]

Hi All,

I'm no expert on the subject, but I have always thought that the "Flaming Coffin" label applied only to the American-built, Liberty-engined DH4 and not the original British version. The American version had more than its share of teething troubles, and when used as a day bomber suffered heavy casualties. Perhaps the reputation of the Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter in this regard also applies more to the obsolescent French-built Strutters that many Yanks trained in, and a few actually flew in combat long after their time was past.

Major Reinberg of the 2nd Day Bombardment Group wrote an entire point-by-point discourse on why the DH4 was a "poor airplane for day bombardment" and why the Breguet 14 was superior - it is thought his work reflected the observations of the 1st Day Bombardment Group vets who were transferred to the 2nd. I cannot type out the whole lost of 21 faults of the DH4, but, a few are :

1. It is not fast at great altitudes with a load of bombs.
2. For a bombing plane it carries to any altitude an inferior quantity of bombs.
3. The fuel tank between the pilot and observer is the target of every pursuit plane that attacks it.
4. The fuel tank is unsupported, works by pressure, and explodes when shot up.
5. When a bad landing is made or the plane crashes the tank leaves its bedding, having nothing to keep it there, and crushes the pilot against the motor.
6. The pilot and observer are too far apart...
7. The observer's cockpit is too low and the seat and belt provided are useless for active fighting. Any observer finds great difficulty in swinging twin Lewises in the blast of a Liberty tractor.

13. The plane is blind from both the pilot's and observer's standpoint.

16. The undercarriage is weak. In a crash there is a tendency for the motor to leave the plane; have witnessed at least one death as a result of this.

18. The gravity tank placed in the wings is not necessary and is dangerous.

And on and on...it also lists 17 "good" points about the Breguet 14B2. Much of it sounds like sour grapes.

Perhaps this gives a little insight into the Flaming Coffin story, but I must admit I cannot recall seeing any actual wartime use of this phrase to describe the DH4 - only "Liberty Plane".

Greg

[Gregvan]

Hi Again ,

As a counterpoint to my previous post, many Americans who flew the Liberty-engined DH4 as an observation plane (and who didn't have to carry bombs) liked the plane and praised its speed. Percival Gray Hart's History of the 135th Aero Squadron is full of tidbits like this.Hart and his pilot , 2/Lt. Schock, ran into a dogfight between Albatros, Fokkers and some Breguets on Sept. 13, and were able to outrun their foes. Hart later wrote, "I met a Major who had seen my little mixup with Fokkers and Albatros the afternoon before. He said he saw one of the Breguets go down in flames. Once again I say that the Liberty Motor is the best friend I have in the world !"

So go figure. As is often the case, pilots liked their own aircraft, once they were familiar with them, better than those they didn't have to/get to fly.

Greg VanWyngarden

[DavidErrol]

One of the great differences between the British D.H.4 and the American DH-4 which, I never see mentioned in the literature, is the static rigging. British machines had streamlined RAF wires while the American machines were rigged with stranded cable. I would think the difference in drag would have been tremendous.

DE

[EARTHLING]

Gregvan

You have saved my sanity and been most helpful.
It would not have made any difference whether it was the British or American version of the DH4 regarding the position of the petrol tank.
your quote, even from a biased official, says that the petrol tank was the target for every pursuit plane.
Also the fuel tank works by pressure and explodes when shot up. Presumably again no difference between the British and American versions?
You also confirm my contention that it appeared to be the people who didn't fly the machines that had the prejudicial feelings.
Thanks

Peter S

I would say off hand that the fuel tank on most aircraft was the target of the enemy and that most of the men controlling the guns would have known where the fuel tanks were located on most of the aircraft that they would have come into contact with, not just the DH4. Just my thoughts.

SteveD