On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:27:20 +0000, Tony Polson put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>
>The light that needs to be shed is whether Heathrow was chosen to be a
>future civil airport at the time construction started. The Wikipedia
>entry suggests that it was designated as a military airport for long
>range transports servicing the war with Japan, but a reference suggests:
>
>"Harold Balfour (later Lord Balfour), then Under-Secretary of State for
>Air (1938-1944), wrote in his 1973 autobiography, Wings over
>Westminster, that he deliberately deceived the government committee into
>believing a requisition was necessary in order that Heathrow could be
>used as a base for long-range transport aircraft in support of the war
>with Japan. In fact, Balfour wrote that he always intended the site to
>be used for civil aviation, and used a wartime emergency requisition
>order to avoid a lengthy and costly public inquiry."
>
>Either that is true, or Balfour used the indubitable benefit of
>hindsight to demonstrate just how much foresight he had in 1943. The
>ability and desire to re-write history should not be underestimated. ;-)

It's equally likely that he's over-egging something that has a germ of
truth. By 1943 the war was progressing in a way that made the allies
reasonably confident of winning it; it wouldn't be surprising if a few
enterprising politicians and businessmen were already thinking of how
best to use their current wartime state to enhance their future
peacetime prospects. But, even if one of Heathrow's proponents (even
its chief proponent) were thinking beyond the end of the war, it
simply wouldn't have been built if those responsible for the purse
strings didn't genuinely intend it to have a military purpose.

>However, what does appear to be true, if you take the Wikipedia entry at
>face value, is that Heathrow was never used for military purposes (which
>I find surprising*) and was handed over to the Ministry of Civil
>Aviation on 1 January 1946.
>>[*I have a recollection of someone who claimed he was stationed at
>Heathrow with the RAF in 1944, but he and his wife are long dead so I
>cannot confirm.]

Just because it didn't have any military flights didn't mean that no
military personnel were stationed there. As it was constructed under
the auspices of the RAF then the RAF would have had a presence on site
during the construction process.

Mark

In message <fln6n4h84oif24um1n60hls7udtlj3vd47>
Mark Goodge <usenet> wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:27:20 +0000, Tony Polson put finger to keyboard
> and typed:

> It's equally likely that he's over-egging something that has a germ of
> truth. By 1943 the war was progressing in a way that made the allies
> reasonably confident of winning it; it wouldn't be surprising if a few
> enterprising politicians and businessmen were already thinking of how
> best to use their current wartime state to enhance their future
> peacetime prospects. But, even if one of Heathrow's proponents (even
> its chief proponent) were thinking beyond the end of the war, it
> simply wouldn't have been built if those responsible for the purse
> strings didn't genuinely intend it to have a military purpose.

>>However, what does appear to be true, if you take the Wikipedia entry at
>>face value, is that Heathrow was never used for military purposes (which
>>I find surprising*) and was handed over to the Ministry of Civil
>>Aviation on 1 January 1946.
>>
>>
>>[*I have a recollection of someone who claimed he was stationed at
>>Heathrow with the RAF in 1944, but he and his wife are long dead so I
>>cannot confirm.]

> Just because it didn't have any military flights didn't mean that no
> military personnel were stationed there. As it was constructed under
> the auspices of the RAF then the RAF would have had a presence on site
> during the construction process.

> Mark

When were the runways built? I don't think that Star-of-David layout
was a very common one. It certainly suggests "something special". And
it have to be strengthen to take today's heavier aircraft?

Michael Bell


--

In message <d01b941f50.michaelbell>
Michael Bell <michael> wrote:

> In message <vpidnfehd6XWue7UnZ2dnUVZ8t3inZ2d>
> "Recliner" <recliner2-news> wrote:
>>
> I used to have to stand on Elephant and Castle station waiting for my
> train to Luton. The planes passed overhead every 3 minutes. I thought
> the noise was particularly miserable.

You could hear the planes stood at The Elephant & Castle, must have been the
middle of the night.

> The runways must have been lined up so that they didn't line up with
> Oxford St and The Mall. What forethought!
>

Difficult to line up with the Mall as it runs more or less NE-SW. You'd
have to move Heathrow to Chertsey.

Mark Goodge <usenet> wrote:
>
>It's equally likely that he's over-egging something that has a germ of
>truth. By 1943 the war was progressing in a way that made the allies
>reasonably confident of winning it


The war with Germany, yes, but not the war with Japan. By 1943 there
were few signs of real progress in that theatre of war, and absolutely
no signs of progress with the "ultimate weapon" that brought the war to
an end.

The turning point was probably the US/Australian/New Zealand attacks on
the Solomon Islands and Gilbert Islands in November 1943, where real
territorial success was eventually obtained.

So at the time Heathrow was built, the prospect of an extended campaign
against Japan must have been very real indeed.

Mark Goodge <usenet> wrote:
[..]
>then closed in favour of Gatwick as the main secondary airport some
>years later.
>
>[1] The first airfield in the area was created during WWI, and
>subsequently became a private airfield used primarily for testing. But
>that was never anything more than grass runways and a few sheds. See
>[..]
>for its location on a pre-WWII map
>
>[2] [..]


Interesting stuff. Thanks.

In message <Zq2dnUL0QMQDq-7UnZ2dnUVZ8tfinZ2d>
"Recliner" <recliner2-news> wrote:

> "Michael Bell" <michael> wrote in message
> news:d01b941f50.michaelbell
>> I suspect that, even 65 years ago, it was hard to find suitable space
> for the future London Airport, and this was largely empty land that was
> available. I've no idea if they were thinking of who'd be under the
> flight paths -- probably not, as in the original plan, there were six
> runways pointing in different directions, and nothing like the current
> volume of flights was envisaged. But I still wonder why they picked a
> spot so near Windsor Castle -- you'd think the King might have objected.

It was actually the site of the Fairey aircraft factory airfield and dates
back to around 1930. It was originally called the Great West Aerodrome.
Appropriately in the 19th Century Hounslow Heath was a favorite spot for
highwaymen, plus ça change!

In message <0mi6n4lp25t1utc2do3p2oj7ibgp98rtn1>
Tony Polson <docnews2011> wrote:

> "Recliner" <recliner2-news> wrote:
> >
> >It was surreptitiously built as an RAF base, when that was never the
> >real plan, but I guess they needed much less planning approval in
> >wartime to open an RAF base than a major new civil airport. So the
> >people in that part of southwest London have had a very long history of
> >repeated government lies as an ever growing airport was forced on them.
> >And, as you say, wide swathes of south London have been subjected to
> >aircraft noise ever since.
>> Surreptitiously? Surely Heathrow was designed solely as an RAF base,
> albeit one with long runways by the standards of the day (they were
> considerably lengthened in later years).

The excuse for evicting the Fairey Aircraft Company was that in 1944 it was
needed for RAF Transport Command as a base for flying troops out to the far
east to take part in Operation Tiger, the invasion of Japan. As the A-bomb
rendered the operation unncessary the proposed use never materialised. It
was a chap called Harold Balfour, the Under-secretary of State for Air that
secured the site for civil development. This was before th 1945 General
Election.

>
> The original intention was that London's airport was to be at Croydon.

No, Croydon was the de facto London Airport immediately after the war but it
was already recognised that it was unsuitable for major development.

> A secondary airport for London was located at Northolt. At what stage was
> Heathrow selected to replace both of these?

31 May 1946, at least that was the date of the press release.

Other locations considered by the Abercrombie committee were Heston,
Bovingdon, Hatfield, Matching, Fairlop. Lullingstone, West Malling and
Gatwick.

In message <p5l6n4hcmrmk1oustu6c7v1uh1giq1lj7d>
Tony Polson <docnews2011> wrote:

[snip]
>
> However, what does appear to be true, if you take the Wikipedia entry at
> face value, is that Heathrow was never used for military purposes (which
> I find surprising*) and was handed over to the Ministry of Civil
> Aviation on 1 January 1946.
>> [*I have a recollection of someone who claimed he was stationed at
> Heathrow with the RAF in 1944, but he and his wife are long dead so I
> cannot confirm.]
>
in 1940 Hurricanes from 229 squadron, based at Northolt were temporarily
based at Heathrow and in 1945 it was used as diversionary field for heavy
bombers returning from Germany.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:29:13 +0000, Tony Polson put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>Mark Goodge <usenet> wrote:
>>The war with Germany, yes, but not the war with Japan. By 1943 there
>were few signs of real progress in that theatre of war, and absolutely
>no signs of progress with the "ultimate weapon" that brought the war to
>an end.
>
>The turning point was probably the US/Australian/New Zealand attacks on
>the Solomon Islands and Gilbert Islands in November 1943, where real
>territorial success was eventually obtained.
>
>So at the time Heathrow was built, the prospect of an extended campaign
>against Japan must have been very real indeed.

Yes, that's very true. The potential requirement for a transport hub
capable of serving an extended campaign in the far east was probably a
lot more significant then that it seems now, with the benefit of
hindsight.

Mark

In message <8d19b31f50%Rail>
Graeme Wall <Rail> wrote:

> In message <d01b941f50.michaelbell>
> Michael Bell <michael> wrote:


> You could hear the planes stood at The Elephant & Castle, must have been the
> middle of the night.

No, it was about 8 pm, early 90s.

Michael Bell


--

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:54:04 +0000, Graeme Wall put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>In message <p5l6n4hcmrmk1oustu6c7v1uh1giq1lj7d>
> Tony Polson <docnews2011> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>in 1940 Hurricanes from 229 squadron, based at Northolt were temporarily
>based at Heathrow and in 1945 it was used as diversionary field for heavy
>bombers returning from Germany.

That makes sense, because in 1940 it would still have been essentially
the pre-war airfield (which would have been fine for Hurricanes),
while by 1945 the majority of the new infrastructure (certainly the
runways) would have been in place and usable by heavy bombers if
necessary.

Mark

In message <37b1b61f50.michaelbell>, at
19:08:22 on Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Michael Bell <michael>
remarked:
>> You could hear the planes stood at The Elephant & Castle, must have been the
>> middle of the night.
>
>No, it was about 8 pm, early 90s.

I lived under the flightpath a few miles east of there when I was very
young, and while not being what you might call a "plane spotter" I still
noticed (from the ground, and by the noise) the introduction of the
Boeing 707 on flights into Heathrow. If was a very well patronised
flightpath.

Several years later (and having moved elsewhere) I recall seeing some of
the first 747s in service, taking off over Egham.

On 2009-01-18 14:02:47 +0000, "Recliner" <recliner2-news> said:

> "Michael Bell" <michael> wrote in message
> news:d01b941f50.michaelbell
>> I suspect that, even 65 years ago, it was hard to find suitable space
> for the future London Airport, and this was largely empty land that was
> available. I've no idea if they were thinking of who'd be under the
> flight paths -- probably not, as in the original plan, there were six
> runways pointing in different directions, and nothing like the current
> volume of flights was envisaged. But I still wonder why they picked a
> spot so near Windsor Castle -- you'd think the King might have objected.
>
> It was surreptitiously built as an RAF base, when that was never the
> real plan, but I guess they needed much less planning approval in
> wartime to open an RAF base than a major new civil airport. So the
> people in that part of southwest London have had a very long history of
> repeated government lies as an ever growing airport was forced on them.
> And, as you say, wide swathes of south London have been subjected to
> aircraft noise ever since.

If I remember correctly the Fairey Aviation company, started up just
after World War I in Hayes. The owner, Richard Fairey, acquired some
land for a flying field in the south-eastern corner of what is now
Heathrow. The site was purchased (appropriated?) by the Ministry of
Aviation sometime during WWII, but I don't know the date; it's
somewhere in Penrose's monumental history of British aviation, but
finding it will take some time.
Planes have been flying from there since WWI, but of course until the
jets arrived they were smaller and didn't need half of southern England
to get lined up with the runways.

In message <9c52ad1f50.michaelbell>
Michael Bell <michael> wrote:

> In message <fln6n4h84oif24um1n60hls7udtlj3vd47>
> Mark Goodge <usenet> wrote:
>>
>>
> When were the runways built? I don't think that Star-of-David layout
> was a very common one. It certainly suggests "something special". And
> it have to be strengthen to take today's heavier aircraft?
>

What is now the Northern Runway was under construction in 1945. After that
was finished the NE-SW and NW-SE runways were constructed, making a
triangle. That was the original plan. Sometime in 1947 it was decided to
expand the layout to 6 runways (the Star of David) but in the event the 6th
ended up as just a taxiway. I think that one was the western NE-SW leg.

In message <37b1b61f50.michaelbell>
Michael Bell <michael> wrote:

> In message <8d19b31f50%Rail>
> Graeme Wall <Rail> wrote:
>
> > > I used to have to stand on Elephant and Castle station waiting for my
> > > train to Luton. The planes passed overhead every 3 minutes. I thought
> > > the noise was particularly miserable.
>
> > You could hear the planes stood at The Elephant & Castle, must have been
> > the middle of the night.
>
> No, it was about 8 pm, early 90s.
>

That's late enough for the worst of the tarffic to have died down :-)