[Observer1940]

Paragraph 3 (1st part). “It seems probable that the lack of manoeuvrability of the Whitley and the consequently greater difficulties of getting out of searchlights when once illuminated contribute very largely to the greater losses of Whitley bombers as compared with other types. Whitleys on the other hand appear quite suitable for attacking targets which do not involve crossing the searchlight belts.”

Paragraph 3 (2nd part). “When the Whitley aircraft do not cross a searchlight belt, their losses are about the same as the losses for other aircraft or less than the average for other types.”

So if it was that Whitleys were slow to get out of the way and more got shot down as you suggest, over these searchlight belt areas, then why did this higher statistic of Whitley losses (compared with other bomber types) not follow on other parts of the route to and from the target (where all bomber types were exposed to AA)?

I felt the report distinctly gave the impression that the greater losses of Whitleys than other bomber types was due to evasive action in getting out of searchlights.

1. I do not feel that the report is saying that more Whitleys were victims to A.A., but either way it is still flying limitations, due to design considerations.
or
2. That Pilots did make an attempt to turn quicker than the flying limitations permitted and the Whitley dived away and became a statistic.

A Test Pilot and several Whitley Pilots according to a 1941 report obviously did get back to report parts of the main plane skin torn away.

The Test Pilot turned the Whitley which stalled in the turn, then dived away. However the Test Pilot managed to regain control and land. The damaged Whitley main plane is pictured and you will notice that the structural bracing in the Whitley wing has begun to break apart.

Some of the RAF crews who found themselves in a severe dive and got back, managed to get the elevator to shift and regain control by applying trim tab.

However, when this obviously failed and the tabs / elevator were found damaged in a crashed aircraft, the Pilot was apparently sometimes blamed for having too much trim tab.

In November 1941 Bomber Command commissioned an RAE Engineering Report into diving speed limitations. The Whitley design only permitted a maximum dive of 240 ASI, but Pilots did not like to exceed 200 to 220 ASI.

She may have given the impression of a fine old lady, but Pilots who got back were reporting that the Whitley V was impossible to pull out of the dive, requiring strengthened Pilots cabin floor, strengthened control column floor bracket and strengthened control column pivot pin and other structural mods to the main plane, fuselage and tail. It was clear that huge pressures must have been exerted on the control column.

Other Whitleys were seen/heard to turn and dive, or dive to the ground at varying angles in the UK and that is all we know about the last moments.

Mark