Easyprop?

[Clitheroekid]

A fascinating short film about a flight from London to Paris in 1923 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FivQtHa2l-Q

Note the aircraft registration - I didn't know Stelios Haji-Ioannou was so old!

I like the way that whilst the passengers are enjoying their high tea the pilot and co-pilot / navigator are sat outside in the fresh air.

And in case you're wondering, the $25 air fare was then about £5.50, or about two weeks' wages for someone on the average wage. The equivalent today is about £320, or about 4 days' wages, but of course a similar flight now costs about £50, so in real terms it's about 15 times cheaper.

I was intrigued as to the mention of playing cards being confiscated. The reason is that French playing cards were subject to stamp tax, so they didn't want people importing cards that hadn't been taxed - you learn something new every day!

[AleisterCrowley]

Good stuff, but it seems to be two aircraft (G-EASY and G-EASN) unless I'm going mad(der)

[Clitheroekid]

Good stuff, but it seems to be two aircraft (G-EASY and G-EASN) unless I'm going mad(der)

Well spotted! I also noticed that by the time the plane takes off (4:00) it's morphed again, this time into G-EATG.

However, it seems that all these shots were just archive footage from Handley Page. According to the Civil Aircraft Register (this really is Geeksville Central! ) G-EASN and G-EATG were both withdrawn from use in April 1921, and G-EASY was sold to India in the same month - http://www.airhistory.org.uk/gy/reg_G-E1.html

Incidentally, it's now very frustrating watching these ancient films, as I can't help thinking what they would be like to watch if Peter Jackson were to work his magic on them!

[bungeejumper]

British playing cards were subject to stamp duty as well - it only ended in 1960. The ace of spades carried a printed confirmation that the tax had been paid.

BJ

[kiloran]

Loved the comment at the start:
"The Channel trip has been robbed of its terrors by the installation of daily air service between London and Paris"

But they missed out "..... and replaced by even greater terrors of flying in a contraption held together with bits of string and wire and chewing gum, just slightly more substantial than a dragonfly"

--kiloran

[AleisterCrowley]

Check out the wing locking procedure - man hammering a few pegs in ...'that'll do'....

[brightncheerful]

Interesting about the playing cards tax, thanks.

I searched for more info and came across this and other c18 taxes:

https://georgianera.wordpress.com/tag/playing-card-tax/

[stevensfo]

Excellent film, thanks!

I can't help wondering if some of the film inside was done while they were on the ground. The table and tea cups all look very still.

Amazing how much progress we've made since then. Scratch cards, boarding passes, wider aisles for dragging screaming passengers along etc.

Steve

[Slarti]

Weren't Hadley Page based at Brooklands?

So would they have flown over the centre of London? No reason to go north to get to Paris.

Slarti

[tjh290633]

Weren't Hadley Page based at Brooklands?

So would they have flown over the centre of London? No reason to go north to get to Paris.

Slarti

Flights to Paris went from Croydon aerodrome in those days. Brooklands was Vickers' base. I have a feeling that Handley Page were north of London. Google will no doubt tell us. Yes, I thought so. They were at Radlett.

TJH

[Slarti]

Weren't Hadley Page based at Brooklands?

So would they have flown over the centre of London? No reason to go north to get to Paris.

Slarti

Flights to Paris went from Croydon aerodrome in those days. Brooklands was Vickers' base. I have a feeling that Handley Page were north of London. Google will no doubt tell us. Yes, I thought so. They were at Radlett.

TJH

Even so, Croydon to Paris wouldn't fly over London, would it?

Some artistic licence there, as with the number of planes used?

Slarti

[AleisterCrowley]

May have been flying from Cricklewood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Transport

[gryffron]

Even so, Croydon to Paris wouldn't fly over London, would it?

Wouldn't need to. But maybe it was a pleasure/sightseeing trip. Doesn't look like a business flight, there being far too many ladies aboard (*). Hence a circuit around London, which would be pretty novel for the travellers of the day.

Doubt there was much issue with air congestion/air traffic control in those days.

Didn't it fly low. Even over the sea. Was that typical of the day? Landmark navigation?

Gryff

(*) Yes, I know, very un-PC. But it was 1923.

[Slarti]

Even so, Croydon to Paris wouldn't fly over London, would it?

Wouldn't need to. But maybe it was a pleasure/sightseeing trip. Doesn't look like a business flight, there being far too many ladies aboard (*). Hence a circuit around London, which would be pretty novel for the travellers of the day.

Doubt there was much issue with air congestion/air traffic control in those days.

Didn't it fly low. Even over the sea. Was that typical of the day? Landmark navigation?

Gryff

(*) Yes, I know, very un-PC. But it was 1923.

I wondered if they could carry enough fuel to allow a jolly round London, before flying across the Channel and then on to Paris.

As to low flying, unpressurised cabin and no heaters?

Slarti

[tjh290633]

Looking back at Wikipedia suggests that they may have been based at Cricklewood, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Transport

TJH

[gryffron]

I wondered if they could carry enough fuel to allow a jolly round London, before flying across the Channel and then on to Paris.
As to low flying, unpressurised cabin and no heaters?

Pretty sure this is the aircraft [edit]previous post agrees[/edit]. Maximum range 700 miles. London-Paris only 300. So a jolly around London then on to Paris should be no issue.

Even an unpressurised aircraft can fly up to 10,000ft with no problems. Most of that stuff was filmed at <1,000ft. Generally I'd have expected more height was better. Less drag, and it allows the pilot more time to recover from engine failures etc. Unless there was low cloud, when you'd probably need to be below it for navigation.

But as others have already pointed out, it was several bits of film spliced to make the story. So I guess it was more for the cameras than realism. No less interesting for that.

Gryff

[tjh290633]

It would be normal to fly about 2,000 feet at the lowest. The reason being that, if you had to make a forced landing, you have a decent chance of finding a good spot and landing into the wind. The usual reason would have been engine failure or running out of fuel.

Crossing the Channel they would probably have climbed to a higher level, the objective being to be able to glide to the nearest coast if needed. Not so critical with multiple engines, as long as you could maintain height on one. Back when I was flying Oxfords, if you had one with wooden props, you could maintain height on one if you kept flying straight ahead. If you had to turn, then you would lose height. If you had metal props, you were OK and had a good chance of getting back to the airfield.

I doubt that one of the HPs could maintain height on one engine.

TJH

[scotia]

Back when I was flying Oxfords

I trust you never had to use the knotted rope! From WIKI:-
Most Oxfords in the UK were equipped with a knotted rope from the pilots seat to the rear door to assist evacuation should the plane inadvertently be put into a spin, which it was almost impossible to recover from. When the pilot(s) released their seat belts centripetal force would hurl them to the rear of the plane, beyond the exit door, from which it was impossible to crawl forward to the door. The rope was installed as a response to a test by four "boffins" who tried to recover from a spin from 18,000 ft. When no recovery happened no matter what was tried the four released their harness and were hurled to the rear of their plane and there remained helpless as the spiral descent continued. However all was not lost. The plane was in such a flat spin when it reached the ground that it skidded sideways over the surface of a field until the tail section hit a haystack and broke off. The four "boffins" walked away relatively unharmed, the knotted rope being their only positive remedy for an Oxford in a spin.

[tjh290633]

No, I never did. In fact I had forgotten all about it, if I ever knew. The Oxbox was a very nice aircraft to fly, spins being a prohibited manoeuvre, a stall turn being the most you could do. I have a vague recollection of deliberately stalling in a steep turn, which resulted in going the other way, although that could get you into a spin.

My instructor on Meteors tried hard to write us both off. It seems that instructors had been taught to demonstrate the effects of losing an engine below the safety speed. Doing that got us into a spin. Unfortunately he had put his foot behind the rudder bar, to improve the experience. Once in the spin we recovered quickly, but his foot was stuck. Trying to get it out sent us back into the spin, from which I had to recover and get us back to 25,000 ft, where he could sort himself out.

A stupid and unnecessary exercise, which I and my colleagues have concluded led to a lot of the Meteor crashes at the start of training on the type. I lost one friend that way.

TJH

[scotia]

A stupid and unnecessary exercise, which I and my colleagues have concluded led to a lot of the Meteor crashes at the start of training on the type. I lost one friend that way.

From https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/ ... Safety.pdf
Before leaving statistics it should be pointed out that they tend to
reflect contemporary attitudes. That is to say that, while the figures for
the late 1940s and early ‘50s may seem appalling to us today, they
were not considered to be particularly remarkable at the time. When
the Prime Minister learned that, in 1952 alone, the RAF had lost no
fewer than 232 fighter aircraft and 141 pilots (ninety four of whom
had died in Meteors, forty in Vampires and seven in Hornets), which
represented a one-in-sixteen chance of a pilot’s being killed within an
eighteen-month period, he wanted to know what was being done about
it. Having studied the problem, the Air Minister advised Mr Churchill
that these figures ‘are not abnormal and there is no cause for alarm.’