If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
51,849 feet by BobRodwell?
I've been looking through some old Soaring magazines and in the June, 1977
issue there's an article about a record flight by Bob Rodwell to 51,849 feet on March 29th of that year. Can someone tell me why that isn't the current altitude record? Sounds like he's lucky to be alive after having his controls mostly frozen for most of the descent. In the article it says that after finding his spoilers frozen shut, he put his Skylark 4 into a 38,000 foot spin that had an estimated 400 turns! Is Bob still around and is he still soaring? He would be in his late 70's now. -- Gary Boggs 3650 Airport Dr. Hood River, Oregon, USA 97031-9613 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Gary-
That is an interesting sounding flight, for those of us without that issue could you provide some more details? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
No. I remember it well.
The pilot was Mike Field. The BGA did not ratify the claim, and it was later found to be fraudulent. Mike Field had already "broken" the U.K. local height record, and the claim had been allowed. After his "world" record was disallowed, his U.K. local record claim was removed. Mike Field disappeared from gliding, and I have not heard of him since. Bob Rodwell was and is a journalist, and regularly has articles in the aviation press. He probably wrote about the claims, no other connection. W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). Remove "ic" to reply. "Gary Boggs" wrote in message ... I've been looking through some old Soaring magazines and in the June, 1977 issue there's an article about a record flight by Bob Rodwell to 51,849 feet on March 29th of that year. Can someone tell me why that isn't the current altitude record? Sounds like he's lucky to be alive after having his controls mostly frozen for most of the descent. In the article it says that after finding his spoilers frozen shut, he put his Skylark 4 into a 38,000 foot spin that had an estimated 400 turns! Is Bob still around and is he still soaring? He would be in his late 70's now. Gary Boggs 3650 Airport Dr. Hood River, Oregon, USA 97031-9613 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I've gotten several replies that say that this was eventually proven to be a
hoax. Now I wonder even more just what ever happened to this guy? -- Gary Boggs 3650 Airport Dr. Hood River, Oregon, USA 97031-9613 "Stewart Kissel" wrote in message ... Gary- That is an interesting sounding flight, for those of us without that issue could you provide some more details? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I think you will find that this was an article WRITTEN by Bob Rodwell who
was a journalist as well as the Chairman of the Ulster Gilding Club. He was not the pilot involved. The "record" flight was, as I remember, not ratified as there was very good grounds to think that the barograph trace was not consistent with the claimed event. It was claimed to be a wave climb upwind of a thundercloud. A phenomenon never before encountered to such heights .The pilot also landed away from base and only one of the barographs showed a trace. I remember when the event was reported that my partner, who was a dentist, expressed doubts at the pilots claim that the cold was so intense that his tooth fillings fell out There were several inconsistencies which caused a very detailed investigation and the record claim was not accepted. As the pilot concerned threatened legal action it could not be stated that the claim was actually fraudulent. No doubt some one who was involved in the BGA at the time knows more about it? Ian Strachan maybe ? Gary Boggs wrote in message ... I've been looking through some old Soaring magazines and in the June, 1977 issue there's an article about a record flight by Bob Rodwell to 51,849 feet on March 29th of that year. Can someone tell me why that isn't the current altitude record? Sounds like he's lucky to be alive after having his controls mostly frozen for most of the descent. In the article it says that after finding his spoilers frozen shut, he put his Skylark 4 into a 38,000 foot spin that had an estimated 400 turns! Is Bob still around and is he still soaring? He would be in his late 70's now. -- Gary Boggs 3650 Airport Dr. Hood River, Oregon, USA 97031-9613 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
You are confusing the two height claims by Mike Field.
The first claim for the U.K. local height record was flown from a launch at Booker Gliding Club in a club owned glider (a Skylark 3g I think) and was done by climbing in a cu-nim to 25-30,000 ft., and then climbing in wave in front of the cloud. The flight finished with a field landing (not surprising with a flight of this nature), he was retrieved by the Chief Flying Instructor of his club, who I knew and who saw no reason to doubt him. This type of flight is well known, but I have not heard of any other flights of this type to such heights. I did not know about the dental "evidence", my own doubts related to the oxygen system he used, a 120 litre portable system with one of those dreadful medical re-breather bag masks, which I thought would not have withstood the cold and only had an endurance of 1 hour. Although quite a few people were worried the claim was allowed, and I know one person involved with the claim who still thinks that he could have done it. The record was subsequently withdrawn when the second claim was shown to be fraudulent. The second claim for a world record was flown in a Skylark 4 and was sponsored by the Daily Telegraph, but the journalist involved was not a glider pilot and their gliding correspondent Anne Ince was not involved (funny that!). The launch and landing were at Feshie Bridge in Scotland, and the flight was supposed to have been done in wave. There were so many oddities about this flight that no-one really believed it, and it was very carefully investigated. When the barograph trace was examined under a magnifying glass it was found that part of the trace was double, and that the descent was so steep it could only have been drawn on the drum if it rotated backwards for part of the time! In other words the trace had been drawn freehand and not by the barograph. I don't know how he got round the official observer. W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). Remove "ic" to reply. "Silent Flyer" ] wrote in message ... I think you will find that this was an article WRITTEN by Bob Rodwell who was a journalist as well as the Chairman of the Ulster Gilding Club. He was not the pilot involved. The "record" flight was, as I remember, not ratified as there was very good grounds to think that the barograph trace was not consistent with the claimed event. It was claimed to be a wave climb upwind of a thundercloud. A phenomenon never before encountered to such heights. The pilot also landed away from base and only one of the barographs showed a trace. I remember when the event was reported that my partner, who was a dentist, expressed doubts at the pilots claim that the cold was so intense that his tooth fillings fell out. There were several inconsistencies which caused a very detailed investigation and the record claim was not accepted. As the pilot concerned threatened legal action it could not be stated that the claim was actually fraudulent. No doubt some one who was involved in the BGA at the time knows more about it? Ian Strachan maybe ? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Dean wrote: [snip] "In other words the trace had been drawn
freehand and not by the barograph. I don't know how he got round the official observer." I was one of the BGA Executive Committee which disallowed the claim, on advice, and decided (or ratified the decision) to disallow the previous UK record too. I choose my words carefully in case of litigation. For the second flight (claimed world record), we were told that the barograph had originally been prepared the previous day. It was a Winter barograph, using a smoked foil, and had a special modification to allow it to go much higher than the normal 12km limit of the factory unit. The pilot drew the OO's attention to the use of the modified pivot appropriate to the intended height. The instrument was then sealed (using gummed paper tape) and signed by the OO across the join in the tape. On the record attempt day, the pilot claimed it had not been used since sealing on the previous day, and showed it briefly to the same OO before the flight, "still" sealed. It was reported that the OO could see no trace on that part of the drum (about half) visible through the transparent part of the cover. After the flight, another OO (who I have since met personally and discussed this) was doubtful that it was a valid claim. The pilot nevertheless submitted the claim. A trail of detailed investigation was started which exposed the process deficiencies that could have allowed access to open the barograph, put a trace on it, and then reseal it. Forensic examinations led to the conclusion that the submitted trace was fraudulent. The pilot asked to address the BGA Executive Committee in person when he was told that the claim would be disallowed. He then claimed that somebody had switched the trace at some time between him doing the flight and posting the evidence to the BGA. He said that the one received by the BGA was superficially similar to the genuine trace which he claimed had been created on the barograph, and he had not realised that it had been switched by some other person before he posted it. The evidence for the first, UK record flight, had by then been disposed of, so it could not be subjected to the same forensic testing - and of course it had not been looked at so carefully when originally submitted and allowed. There had been no doubts expressed in a way which reached the BGA at the time, though there were some which surfaced after the second incident. Those familiar with the technology of that time will recall that the ideal process was for an OO to check that the foil was blank before the flight on the day, then seal it. When retrieved from the glider after the flight, by the same or another OO, it should be checked as being still sealed, before being opened, verified as having been carried by that pilot on that flight in that glider, and signed again - i.e. continuity/integrity of the history of the trace was preserved and verified. An important element of security with that process is to allow no opportunity to steam open the sealing tape and enable a false trace to be created or substituted, after which the tape could be stuck back with the join carefully reproduced. Some contemporaries allegedly reported that one or more of the ideal steps had not been followed. The rest is history. The BGA also changed its procedures - physical record flight evidence (film/barograph trace) was ruled as having to be kept indefinitely, not returned to the pilot or otherwise disposed of. I am no expert in these things, but I believe that those events have informed the subsequent emphasis on the need for security of logger traces etc., in both BGA and IGC. I imagine that such emphasis will continue, in spite of the claims by some subscribers on other threads that it goes too far. Chris N. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)." wrote in message ...
Bob Rodwell was and is a journalist, and regularly has articles in the aviation press. He probably wrote about the claims, no other connection. He's a delightful man who, when I last met him, was living and working in Northern Ireland and a member of the Ulster Gliding Club. Ian |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Nicholas wrote in message ...
Some contemporaries allegedly reported that one or more of the ideal steps had not been followed. I was told that the claim was for a climb in a wave-assisted cumulo-nimbus. Metereorological evidence was obtained about the prevalence of a) wave and b) cu-nims on the day in question. I have also heard of a forged height claim in Scotland in which the pilot, busy with needle at kitchen table, forgot that barographs scribe in an arc and managed to produce a trace in which he arrived at height before he left. Ian |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Chris Nicholas
writes: Bill Dean wrote: [snip] "In other words the trace had been drawn freehand and not by the barograph. I don't know how he got round the official observer." I was one of the BGA Executive Committee which disallowed the claim, on advice, and decided (or ratified the decision) to disallow the previous UK record too. I choose my words carefully in case of litigation. I also recall this incident. At the end of the day, most "records" are a personal ego trip. Anyone filing a fraudulent claim is only kidding himself, the rest of the world should not care!! Barney, UK |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing | zxcv | Military Aviation | 55 | April 4th 04 07:05 AM |
Looking for Cessna Caravan pilots | [email protected] | Owning | 9 | April 1st 04 02:54 AM |
Use of 150 octane fuel in the Merlin (Xylidine additive etc etc) | Peter Stickney | Military Aviation | 45 | February 11th 04 04:46 AM |
Ta-152H at low altitudes | N-6 | Military Aviation | 16 | October 13th 03 03:52 AM |
Across Nevada and Part Way Back (long) | Marry Daniel or David Grah | Soaring | 18 | July 30th 03 08:52 PM |