Stanley James Margrie

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

8 years 7 months

Posts: 39

AND it was dark when they were flying, but surely the RAF would have known that the parachutes would get in the way wouldn't they.

I have just tried looking over something as though it was a parachute and you can't see much round it!! In the dark they MIGHT have mistaken the readings and misjudged where they were don't you think?

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Which was why parachutes were not worn until immediately before the crew would have baled-out.

If there was any problem with the clip-on chest-type parachutes it was that, in many cases, it took far too long to recover the parachute from its stowage, clip it to your parachute-harness and get out of the aircraft; if an aircraft was spinning or in some other violent manoeuvre it would have been nigh-on impossible.

Member for

8 years 7 months

Posts: 39

So why did they make the planes of steel and fabric then, was it because it was cheap then and had to be made in a hurry?

Member for

17 years 8 months

Posts: 2,766

The steel tube, wood and fabric fuselage with an all wooden wing used on the Anson was a standard and very good method of construction in the 1930's. Indeed the Anson structure was a family development of that which Fokker in Germany made in the first World War.

Avro made Fokker three motor Airliners under licence between the two wars. The Avro Anson was a twin engined General purpose military design based on the Avro Five/Six tri-motor airliners which used the basic Fokker construction but with the wing set low as opposed to the airliners which had high set wings. All metal construction Monocoque structures only came to the fore in the mid 1930's and we were perilously close to going to war with a Biplane equipped Air force. The 'Annie' was thought to be a very modern aeroplane just pre war.

Something jars a little. I'm sure that the deceased's family would have been offered a military funeral as this is the right of every serviceman but if the family requested a private burial at a more distant place then this might be waived. I presume that Stan now rests under a CWGC headstone. as a honoured war dead.

John

To add a little more. The Anson later got a metal wing and continued in service well into the sixties and it was the first military aeroplane I flew in.
In regards to the Chest type chute, they were kept in a bin secured by a bungie. You clipped them on to your harness with two spring loaded hooks and I was warned that it was possible to put them on upside down so the rip cord handle was not where you expected it to be if you were automatically right handed . It worried me on flights in Canberra's.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

So why did they make the planes of steel and fabric then, was it because it was cheap then and had to be made in a hurry?

No simple answer to that one, but it would not just have been because it was cheap and quick to make.

There was nothing wrong with a metal framework, for strength, covered with fabric, to give it an aerodynamic shape; many successful British aircraft of the period, such as the Hurricane and the Wellington, were constructed in this way. The Anson too was a very successful aircraft in the training role.

The Mosquito, for which aircrew were training for in 60 OTU, was one of the most successful aircraft of the war, and was made almost entirely out of wood.

Member for

8 years 7 months

Posts: 39

Yes, Stan is buried in Hornchurch cemetery under a CWGC headstone. He is also remembered on the British Legion war memorial there. In 2013 I had his name read out the first on the remembrance day parade.

Do you know if Stan was ever at Hornchurch aerodrome please as that is very close to where he lived?

Member for

8 years 7 months

Posts: 39

Diane here again!!

Did Stan receive any medals either dead or alive please, if so, how can I get hold of them please? Thanks for answering this question for me.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 16,832

No simple answer to that one, but it would not just have been because it was cheap and quick to make.

You have to remember that all the early aircraft were fabric covered over some form of framework. Initially wood, later steel or alloy tube.

What are known as 'monocoque' construction where the outer skin of the aircraft is its main structure was tried by the Germans in WW1 but only started to be widely used for aircraft - particularly pressurised ones - in the 1930s. So the Anson was just a construction of its time.

One thing I have noticed about current light aircraft accidents is that tube and fabric aircraft seem good at protecting their occupants from hurt in crashes. But this is an observation, not backed up with any serious research.

Moggy

Member for

8 years 7 months

Posts: 39

What I STILL can't get my head round is: My Mum told me that there was NOTHING in the coffin except sand but the eyewitness said that he saw BODIES on the ground. SO could my uncle's body have been in the coffin but Mum and Dad never knew that, is that possible please would you know?

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 7,025

The eyewitness saw bodies but hasn't mentioned how many or who they were,maybe your Uncles wasn't one of them.I doubt without exhuming the body you will really ever know.

Member for

8 years 7 months

Posts: 39

There were 6 bodies and the Avro Anson held six people didn't it? I think in the eyewitness report he said that there was 6 bodies. I think that the plane was a MK890.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

NK890 is the serial number of that individual Anson; think of it like your car registration number.

Member for

8 years 7 months

Posts: 39

Yep, but did it hold six people please?

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Yes, there is no reason to dispute what is recorded in the 60 OTU (Operational Training Unit) ORB (Operational Record Book).

Member for

8 years 7 months

Posts: 39

So that means that my uncle was one of the bodies found on the ground, why did they tell Mum that the coffin only contained sand then and not the body? That doesn't make any sense to me, what happened to his body? I need to know after all he is my uncle. The eyewitness said that there were 6 bodies on the ground. I there anyone that can find this out for me please? I need to know please?

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

I cannot tell you what you are asking. I don't think anybody can tell you, with certainty, what you are asking but I will try and suggest some things that may be helpful.

You said that Stan was buried in Hornchurch cemetery; Hornchurch is well-known as an RAF airfield but I'm guessing that Hornchurch cemetery is the normal village cemetery and is not connected with the RAF Airfield? That presumably means that Stan's coffin was returned to his parents at their home for burial and was not buried by the RAF itself?

Considering the likely nature of wartime aircraft crashes and post-crash fires you can appreciate that although a coffin may contain a loved-one there must have been some sort of protocol to prevent the next-of-kin from opening a coffin; Stan's parents may not have seen him for many months and all they would probably have received from the RAF would have been a very brief telegram informing them of Stan's death followed by a more personal letter from one of Stan's senior officers and also Stan's personal affects.

The point I am trying to make here is there would (probably) have been no personal contact between Stan's parents and the RAF but also the fact that there must have been protocols to prevent next-of-kin opening coffins. I cannot imagine a scenario where it would have been necessary to tell grieving parents that any coffin 'only contained sand' or where this could have been remotely comforting or helpful to grieving parents.

As regards the number of bodies seen by witnesses at the crash-site, although we should accept that they may be quite correct, they may also have seen a number of bodies and later been told that there were six crew aboard the aircraft that crashed. Although there may have been some initial confusion at the crash-site I cannot imagine a scenario where anything 'mysterious' happened to any of the bodies of those killed in the crash; they would have been recovered as quickly and efficiently as possible under the circumstances and would also have been treated with as much dignity and respect as possible too.

Member for

8 years 7 months

Posts: 39

So, are you saying that his parent was told that there was 'just sand in the coffin' so that they didn't unto the coffin to 'be nosey' and see the body then?

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

No, what I am actually saying is that being told that there was only 'sand in the coffin' would probably make it more likely that grieving parents would open the coffin.

There must have been some RAF protocol that said 'do not open the coffin' because of the distress it would cause to the next-of-kin and in a case where there actually was only sand in the coffin, or mostly sand in the coffin (because this must have been necessary in some cases), why burden and confuse the next-of-kin by actually telling them...

...why not use the (normal) RAF 'do not open the coffin' protocol.....whatever that was?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 16,832

Can we just clarify exactly the trail to this statement about the contents of the coffin Diane?

Who was it told you this story?

Were they the person that was told?

Who was it that told him/her and what official capacity did they have?

Moggy

Member for

17 years 8 months

Posts: 2,766

Diane
I presume that you are a non aviation and non military person so I can understand your difficulty in piecing all this information together but I think the truth of the story will be relatively simple in the end, so I think (respectfully) you might be in danger of reading too much into this. I see the words written in post 27 as having too many inconsistencies. You simply need to apply in person as a relative for the Service record of Stan, they will reveal all and the guys on this forum will help decipher them.

Stan's remains would have been returned to his family (at their request otherwise the RAF would have buried him in the appointed Station cemetery) via an undertaker. I suggest that the undertakers would have been given the discreet but firm advice, that the coffin was not to be opened by family members due to the trauma the deceased had been subjected too, having been subjected to a violent crash and possible burning. A case of " he was grievously injured , best remember him as when he left you".

Stories get around easily in wartime with vast numbers of service men coming on leave and "shooting a line" in pubs, so, the 'Sand' story in Stan's case may be just that, gleaned third hand later. I can't conceive of any authority being so callous as to tell a grieving parent, "here's your sons coffin but I'm afraid most of it is ballast". It just wouldn't happen.

As for medals he would be entitled to at least the War Medal and if this was not applied for at the time I believe it still can be. Anything else will depend on what length of service he had done. We can't assume he was just a rookey Navigator because he was killed in a training plane from the Mosquito OTU . He might have flown ops in some other type prior to going to 60 OTU for conversion to Mossies.

The loss of control by the plane's pilot could be caused by many factors, none having anything to do with the trainee crew, such as instrument problems, not using a vital instrument but relying on senses, lack of attention. turning against a failing engine, and even an engine fire getting out of control,so many things.

I wish you luck in your searches.

John