The Royal Rhodesian Air Force possessed more Vampire FB9 single-seater aircraft than Vampire T11s. ‘FB’ denotes fighter-bomber and ‘T’ trainer. Whereas a Vampire T11 was fitted with two Martin Baker ejector seats, each incorporating parachute and emergency pack, the FB9 lacked this comforting luxury. Its single seat, just like the Provost, was known as a bucket seat.
A pilot had to strap on his parachute before climbing into the FB9 cockpit and, on entry, the parachute upon which the pilot sat fitted into the ‘bucket’ of the seat. When flying long-range sorties, particularly over water, a survival pack was included between the pilot’s buttocks and his parachute. The only similarity between this arrangement and the permanent survival pack, upon which a pilot sat in an ejector seat, was the immense discomfort of sitting on a hard, lumpy pack. Any flight of more than an hour usually ended with a pilot emerging from his cockpit rubbing a sore, numb bum.
Because of the Vampire’s twin-boomed tail arrangement, with the tail plane set between the booms, a major collision hazard existed for any pilot having to abandon his aircraft in flight. The Vampire FB9 had such a bad reputation for RAF pilots being killed when abandoning stricken aircraft that the fitment of ejector seats had been considered. However, cost for modification was so high that the RAF withdrew Vampire FB9s from service and replaced them with up-rated single-seater Venom fighter-bombers fitted with ejector seats. (These were the aircraft I had seen over Umtali that excited me so much, causing me to join the Air Force.) Due to a lack of Federal defence funds, our Air Force took on refurbished FB9s from Britain at very low cost, fully accepting the risks involved in operating them.
Not only were FB9s without ejector seats, they had a very bad reputation for their habit of stabilising in a spin. In this situation, recovery to normal flight was impossible and the aircraft simply kept spinning until it hit the ground. In consequence, intentional spinning of the FB9 was disallowed. The T11, however, was cleared for spinning when an instructor was present. Yet, even though the twin fins of T11s had an improved profile and larger surface area to make spin-recovery more certain, there were some occasions when this aircraft would not respond to pilot recovery actions.
Such was the case on 8 January 1957 when Rob Gaunt of No 9 SSU was on an instructional flight with Flight Lieutenant Brian Horney. They were forced to jettison the canopy and eject when their T11 failed to respond to spin recovery within the prescribed eight revolutions. The strange thing was that, once they had ejected, the aircraft recovered into wings level flight and continued downward in a powerless glide to its destruction.
All members of my course were pretty apprehensive about flying the FB9, having learned how naughty the aircraft could be. At the same time we had reason to look forward to flying this type because we had been told it was much like flying a Spitfire without the visual limitations given by a long nose and forward-set wings. Nor was an FB9 pilot troubled by the gyroscopic swing and high torque problems that arose from the Spitfire’s huge propeller and immensely powerful, high-response piston engine.
I was the first of my course to fly solo in the T11 having flown a solo test with Flight Lieutenant Colin Graves, the Squadron Commander. This was not a once-around-the-circuit affair, but a full hour including aerobatics. When I taxiied into dispersals a reporter, who had come to cover the first ever jet solo at Thornhill, photographed me. Dave Thorne had done such a good job with the reporter that I was saved an interview and an hour later Dave himself made his first solo flight. Following my first solo, I flew a further three solos and a dual flight before moving to the FB9.
The FB9 cockpit presented difficulties for the first flight. When seated in a T11 it was only possible to see the head of a tall man standing six feet forward of the nose of the aircraft. In an FB9, in identical circumstances, the visual freedom given by the low stubby nose was such that one could see the entire man, right down to his shoes. This gave a first-flight student the problem of judging the aircraft’s attitude for climbing and steep turning, having become used to judging aircraft attitude by references to the T11’s high nose.
Flight Lieutenant Mussell had briefed me on what to expect in flight and emphasised that his main concern was that I should not pitch too high and slide the tail booms along the runway during take-off and landing. Preparation for this was very simple. When I was strapped in and ready for engine startup, eight men put their weight on the tail booms to bring the tail protection slides into contact with ground, thus raising the nose beyond normal take-off and landing attitude.
Once I was satisfied that I would remember this position, by using the gun-sight glass as my reference, the nose wheel was set down again and I was ready for my first-ever flight in a single-seater aircraft.
On take-off I was immediately aware that the lighter FB9 accelerated better than the T11. At 85 knots I eased back on the control column to lift the nose wheel and noticed the elevator was lighter than the T11 and the aircraft became airborne earlier than I expected. I retracted the undercarriage and the speed mounted normally but then settled at 130 knots instead of the normal 180 knots climbing speed. Clearly my climbing attitude was way too steep. But it was not until I had reached 15,000 feet that I achieved the correct climbing speed when the nose seemed to be so far below the horizon that I felt I should be descending. Levelling off at 30,000 feet was really strange. I put the nose down quite a bit, then some more, then some more but the aircraft kept on climbing. By the time I achieved level flight, using flight instruments, I was at 33,000 feet. For a long while I maintained level flight, looking around to get a feeling for aircraft attitude while enjoying the newfound freedom of excellent forward vision and the ability to see over both sides of the cockpit.
I rolled the aircraft inverted and pulled through gently back to level flight at 390 knots IAS (Indicated Airspeed). Again I really had to force the nose attitude way down to stop climbing. Having done this I went into a series of aerobatics using the wing tips for attitude reference. By the time I was ready to come back to base, I had acclimatised to an aircraft that was every bit as pleasant to fly as I had hoped. Circuits and landings presented no difficulty and I was a very happy young man as I climbed down from the cockpit in time to watch Dave Thorne preparing for his first FB9 flight. I gave him thumbs-up with both hands and, even though he had his mask on, I could see the huge smile in his eyes.
No 11 SSU had arrived at Thornhill and were involved in their GTS phase. My course, being the senior course, was expected to give the ‘new boys’ a Tough time. This we did. Although not obvious to us at the time, the purpose of a senior course giving its juniors a hard time was to weld the individuals of that course into a unified group.
When sixteen youngsters from different backgrounds, with varying characters and levels of ability are put together, they remain sixteen individuals until forced to turn to each other for mutual support. Fear of air combat and a deep hatred for the Nazi enemy automatically welded the youngsters who trained for World War II. In Rhodesia there was no such enemy or fear, so we deliberately set ourselves up as the enemy by inducing situations of discomfort, even hatred, which soon turned the juniors towards each other.