DH Venom night fighters with the RAF and Sweden

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

18 years

Posts: 267

Having just started on a project taking a closer look at the Venom NF.2,NF.2A and NF.3 in service with the RAF and the NF.51 with Sweden; I would like to correspond with anyone who was involved with the aircraft before and during its, albeit, short career with the RAF. I also need photographs if anyone is willing to share. Please respond. I'll look forward to it.

Original post

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 8,464

I've got manuals for the NF3 and for the Swedish NF51 if they are of any interest.

It has to be said that the Venom (and Vampire) night fighters were not a success. Our Museum NF3 was in service for just over a year! That said, the Swedish aircraft did rather better.

Dont forget the Vampire NF10 - the Venom sprang directly from it, and the pod is virtually the same, except for the spars, firewall, and intake cutouts. The rest is, I believe identical.

Good luck - be very interested to see what comes out of this.

Bruce

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 2,024

It has to be said that the Venom (and Vampire) night fighters were not a success.

What were the reasons for their lack of success?

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 7,742

As far as NF.3 WX905 at Newark goes it is a National Benchmark airframe, although IIRC its cockpit is incomplete.

Its key service locations were:

Harwarden
Coltishall
Horsham St Faith
Shawbury
Yatesbury
RAFM Henlow – stored
Newark

PM me with an email address if you would like any pictures (I could have helped with you're RF4C request, albeit in b/w). :)

Member for

15 years

Posts: 37

The procurement of the Venom Night Fighter appears to have been a tremendous c*ck-up, and was even recognised as such at the time. The aircraft was rejected when first proposed by DH, but was later ordered in late 1950 during the rush to rearm following the outbreak of the Korean War. Order was in advance of trials at the A&AEE. Trials of the prototype found all sorts of problems, including poor escape facilities and handling difficulties. Trials of the production aircraft showed they had even worse problems. Work by the company to rectify the problems was only partially successful. By then the Air Ministry was stuck with a lemon: it would be expensive to cancel and there was nothing in timescale to replace it with.

Member for

17 years 8 months

Posts: 2,766

I did my basic Air Radar training at Yatesbury on the Newark example. A very long time ago.

John

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 8,464

As far as NF.3 WX905 at Newark goes it is a National Benchmark airframe, although IIRC its cockpit is incomplete.

Hmm, TO, should we ever have a national benchmark of any aeroplane that was ultimately so unsuccessful? - and I apply that to the other two survivors as well!

:diablo:

Bruce

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 7,742

I’ve just checked my PDF of the Register and it’s still listed there and I do believe that the basic methodology of the NAHR is sound and fair to all museums – that said TBPH I was slightly surprised when I first saw it! ;)

Member for

15 years 11 months

Posts: 729

Bit off topic but I visited the Swedish Airforce Museum last Thursday while driving Stockholm->Gothenburg and had a look at their Venom.

It's very nice and the fact it's on the hangar floor and not roped off is a nice touch as you can get up close and count the rivets ( if that's your sort of thing. :o )

The re-vamped museum at Linköping is well worth a visit.

Member for

18 years

Posts: 267

The procurement of the Venom Night Fighter appears to have been a tremendous c*ck-up, and was even recognised as such at the time. The aircraft was rejected when first proposed by DH, but was later ordered in late 1950 during the rush to rearm following the outbreak of the Korean War. Order was in advance of trials at the A&AEE. Trials of the prototype found all sorts of problems, including poor escape facilities and handling difficulties. Trials of the production aircraft showed they had even worse problems. Work by the company to rectify the problems was only partially successful. By then the Air Ministry was stuck with a lemon: it would be expensive to cancel and there was nothing in timescale to replace it with.

But it was in service for a period on average of 2 years 55 to 57.
I'd like to get a few first hand accounts of the aircraft in service. I have learnt that posting to a Venom NF unit was considered by some pilots to be a punishment!!
If it turns out that all is as bad as it seems, then I think it's still a story worth telling.. Eight RAF Squadrons were equipped with the NF2/NF2A or NF3: 23, 33, 89, 125, 141, 151, 219, 253 That's a lot of pilots, navigators and ground crew who gave a lot of time to it at the height of the Cold War.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 10,647

I think the Venom Night/All Weather Fighter is being treated a little harshly here.
It came in a period when British procurement had seemed to have forgotten about the value of night fighters that it led the development of only a few years earlier.
The Americans seemed to have recognised the value of continuing night fighter development straight into the jet era, with the specifically designed twin engined and twin seat F-89 Scorpion and F3D Skyknight, the latter a very sound design that spanned the late 1940s, Korea, and Vietman, though not without its own problems.

Suddenly for the RAF late 1940s there was a night fighter capability void with no obvious type to fill it, both of the types that were drawn into that gap were converted single seat fighters, the twin jet Meteor was arguably the better and safer layout, but the Vampire/Venom did at least make up the numbers and provide very useful training and experience at a time when nothing else was around. Previous experience with the Vampire and Mosquito eased the conversion from single seat to two seat radar equiped type.
The Venom (in single and twin seat form) wasn't intended to be around for very long anyway, but there was a serious capability gap that had to be filled for a short period before the Javelin (and even day fighter Hunter) became succesful and reliable front-line aircraft.
Let's not forget the Venom provided very good FAA service aboard the carriers for a longer period before the Sea Vixen became fully capable.
The first British dedicated jet night/all weather fighters, the DH110 and GA.5 were dogged with political indescision and development problems which had delayed their service entry dates by 5-8 years, the Venom FAW was there in numbers if not in capability, before the Vixen and Javelin were reliable service aircraft.

I'm glad that Newarks' Venom NF.3 is indeed recognised as a 'benchmark' type.

Lindoug, I'm always fascinated by your requests as the subjects seem to be something I'm quite interested in, do they become books or publications anywhere?

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 887

The issue in the 1948-51 timeframe was not only development difficulties with platforms, but was in matching the capabilities of Westinghouse SCR-720, which was licenced to Ferranti as AI Mk.10. After, as we saw it, inventing AI and handing it to US in 1940 for quantity production, we then lagged. That was in part because from September,1945 to April,1948 UK perceived itself as having no formed-body enemy, and in part because all those Ekco, Cossor folk were put to exporting brownware (radiograms).

That nice King Farouk ordered NF Vampire/AI Mk.10, which were diverted to RAF as NF.10 and inspired Venom NF.2/AI Mk.10 as simple derivative, interim kit to supplement AWA Meteors (NF.11/13: AI.Mk.10; NF.12/14: US APS-21) while we tried-before-buy DH.110+GA.5, developed AI.Mk.17 and gratefully accepted US APQ-43 as AI.Mk.22. All this while industry and Establishments were doing Bomb+Bombers. Trying to do too much, we messed up much.

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 7,742

Following on from my earlier post today I would hasten to add that the De Havilland Aircraft Museum also has a NF3 in the National Benchmark category. :)

Plus the IWM and Solent Sky have Sea Venoms in the same National Benchmark category along with NAM’s FAW.21 WW217.

Member for

15 years

Posts: 37

I think the Venom Night/All Weather Fighter is being treated a little harshly here.
It came in a period when British procurement had seemed to have forgotten about the value of night fighters that it led the development of only a few years earlier.
The Americans seemed to have recognised the value of continuing night fighter development straight into the jet era, with the specifically designed twin engined and twin seat F-89 Scorpion and F3D Skyknight, the latter a very sound design that spanned the late 1940s, Korea, and Vietman, though not without its own problems.

Suddenly for the RAF late 1940s there was a night fighter capability void with no obvious type to fill it, both of the types that were drawn into that gap were converted single seat fighters, the twin jet Meteor was arguably the better and safer layout, but the Vampire/Venom did at least make up the numbers and provide very useful training and experience at a time when nothing else was around. Previous experience with the Vampire and Mosquito eased the conversion from single seat to two seat radar equiped type.
The Venom (in single and twin seat form) wasn't intended to be around for very long anyway, but there was a serious capability gap that had to be filled for a short period before the Javelin (and even day fighter Hunter) became succesful and reliable front-line aircraft.
Let's not forget the Venom provided very good FAA service aboard the carriers for a longer period before the Sea Vixen became fully capable.
The first British dedicated jet night/all weather fighters, the DH110 and GA.5 were dogged with political indescision and development problems which had delayed their service entry dates by 5-8 years, the Venom FAW was there in numbers if not in capability, before the Vixen and Javelin were reliable service aircraft.

I'm glad that Newarks' Venom NF.3 is indeed recognised as a 'benchmark' type.

Lindoug, I'm always fascinated by your requests as the subjects seem to be something I'm quite interested in, do they become books or publications anywhere?

Regarding the Venom NF being treated “harshly”. It’s certainly true that the MoS/Air Ministry dropped the ball on post-war night fighter development and procurement. However the Venom NF had been rejected in favour of the Meteor NF11 as far back as 1948. It would never had entered service if it had not been for the huge rearmament programme of 1950, and subsequent “panic” buying of fighters. The Venom NF procurement programme was recognised as being a mistake – there are several references to it in MoS/Air Ministry/Treasury files of the period – all of the “let’s avoid another Venom NF fiasco” flavour.

As to the aircraft’s faults, here’s a couple of extracts from an appreciation of the Venom NF put together by ACAS(OR)’s staff, dated February 1953.

“Far more serious than the above installation difficulties, however, was the discovery that the aircraft had bad mach characteristics at high altitude. It could reach its limiting mach number without adequate warning in a comparatively shallow dive when the pilot was likely to lose control, and up to 25,000 ft of height might be lost before control was regained. The firm promised to do everything possible to overcome this defect, but, after much investigation, it was found that there was no positive cure and that the best solution would be to fit a mechanical “stick shaker” actuated by a contacting machmeter to warn the pilot of the approaching compressibility”.

“To sum up: The escape facilities and installations (equipment, electrical supply etc) of all night fighter Venoms, including the NF3, are below standard and incapable of substantial improvement. In addition, the aircraft has serious flying faults at high speed. These faults are extremely difficult to cure as, since the Venom is an extreme development of the Vampire design, it has no aerodynamic margin anywhere. Small changes introduced to cure one trouble can produce other characteristics of a worse nature. As the design is marginal production aircraft have to be made to very narrow tolerances to be in any way acceptable. Even so every aircraft has individual handling characteristics, and many have unexplained and unacceptable faults”.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 8,464

Following on from my earlier post today I would hasten to add that the De Havilland Aircraft Museum also has a NF3 in the National Benchmark category. :)

Plus the IWM and Solent Sky have Sea Venoms in the same National Benchmark category along with NAM’s FAW.21 WW217.

Yes, I dont agree with that either! I actually like it as an aeroplane, but it's no more than a footnote on the Venom/Vampire programme. I'm just trying to look at it a bit more objectively.

Sea Venom should feature as Benchmark aircraft; they were much more successful.

Going back to the original question, I think the Vampire NF10, and Venoms NF2 and 3 were pretty much stocking fillers until the advent of the much bigger Javelin, and were brought into play only because of anticipated delays in the Javelin programme.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 10,647

When I said harshly YA, I meant in some of the posts here.
It was a procurement fault that nothing decent was developed and put into service and thus creating a gap in capability and numbers. I don't think that the manufacturers and aircraft can be blamed as it was a fairly hurried responce to fill the void, which they did so.
I just think hindsight can paint a slightly different picture.
I agree with what you say though, and that's why I was emphasising the similarly laid out (all be it twin engined), but older, F3Ds career ('50-'70).

Member for

20 years

Posts: 2,929

Sweden received its first Venom NF 2 Mk 51 on 20 December 1952 and its order for 60 was completed in the summer of 1954. Called the J 33, that last one was withdrawn on 24 October 1960. However 4 went to Svensk Flygtjänst AB for use as target towing aircraft. They were replaced by the Lansen.
During their career in Sweden they underwent considerable modification to try to eliminate the problems mentioned in the above posts.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 8,464

Yes, there's an excellent Swedish language book (with some British captions), by Mikael Forslund, which details the trials and tribulations of the Venom in Swedish service.

By the time they were retired, they were in close to NF2a configuration, with the later canopy and so on.

Two of the target tugs mentioned above survive; SE-DCA and SE-DCD, both with the airforce museum.

Oddly, as I am sorting out my shed, I have found a number of avionics parts from the Swedish Venoms, including some instruments, and radar parts!

Bruce

Member for

20 years

Posts: 2,929

My definitive reference book, which covers all Swedish military aircraft, is "Svenska Vingar 1", ISBN 91-971605-3-9, but then I can read Swedish (just as well, since I earn my living as a Swedish-English translator!).

Member for

18 years

Posts: 267

Lindoug, I'm always fascinated by your requests as the subjects seem to be something I'm quite interested in, do they become books or publications anywhere?

I write articles for submission to both UK and French aviation magazines. Most recent ones you may have come across are the RF-100A Slick Chick missions in last December's Flypast.; and a piece on the RF-4Cs at Alconbury in the May issue of Aircraft. I've just completed an article on the Javelin FAW.9 which I'll be sending off this weekend; and keep an eye open for the Meteor FR.9 in an imminent Flypast! Also one on the F-86s at Shepherds Grove in another UK publication.
The French magazine I write for is Le Fana de L'Aviation. This month I have an article on the RF-84 Thunderflash in there. Fana is a fascinating publication and rather akin to what Air Enthusiast used to be before its sad demise. If you get a chance to look at a copy do so.
I like to specialise in Cold War subjects and the Venom Night Fighters appealed to me.........probably because of the controversy surrounding it and' by focusing on one variant' I think that, within the space limitations of a magazine article' I can do it more justice.
Having just read the relevant chapters of David Watkins Venom book it's of note that not all the pilot stories are as negative about the aircraft as some of the posts here.
Doug Gordon

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 8,464

As I understand it, they were, like most de Havilland products, actually quite nice to fly.

My negativity stems from their being in service for such a short space of time. Largely equipped with Avionics from the Second world war, and taken from their Vampire predecessors, they were always going to be little more than a stop-gap.

I've also found an original pilots notes for the NF3 if its of any use to your research?

Bruce