Coventry / Baginton Airport

Gents please, can we please stop this 'nonsense' about landing at 'Baginton'. You might have an interest in aviation but unfortunately you do not understand the reality of our city's airport or the science involved in getting an aircraft airborne. In case you are wondering, look back on this thread and elsewhere on this forum and you will see what my background is. I first started working at Coventry Airport in 1972. It was an 'airport' then and of course still is. Despite what it might have been known as locally, it has never been officially 'Baginton Airport'. Prior to it becoming 'Coventry Airport' in the 1960's, it was officially 'Coventry Civic Airport' (it became an 'airport' after the granting of Customs facilities). It just happens to be in the locality of Baginton. After a civil aviation career that has included a few stints outside of the UK, especially in Africa and the Middle East, I returned home to Coventry in 1990 to play a part in bringing the Royal Mail Parcelforce Superhub to Coventry Airport. As is well known this came to fruition and at the time was the largest ever single inward investment in the City of Coventry. Coventry Airport went to a 24-hour operation to accommodate the then large Parcelforce Air Service and associated night freighter services, which included the likes of DHL. The tarmac runway when first laid was 5300 ft in length, which is clearly twenty feet more than a mile. It was lengthened to 6586 ft in the late 1980's. It is in fact longer than that as additional tarmac was subsequently laid but has never been certified for operational use by the Civil Aviation Authority. When it was 5300ft, the airport saw regular jet movements of many types including BAC 1-11s of British Airways who at that time used Coventry as its number one diversion airport when Birmingham was closed. Why would any airline use an airport if it wasn't safe to do so, especially one as prominent as 'The World's Favourite Airline'?? As well as thousands of railway images of the Coventry area, I also have a couple of thousand images taken at Coventry Airport since 1972. Here we see a British Airways BAC 1-11 departing for Belfast having diverted in due to a 'snoclo' runway at Birmingham, back on 14th January 1987. Boeing 737s used to operate regularly through at night, especially when Birmingham's runway was closed for relaying. Two hour plus flights operated to various airports especially in Spain, Malaga being the furthest possible at that time. After the runway was lengthened to 6586ft, it opened up entirely new possibilities so much so the Airport was owned for a time by the Tui group, the owners of Thomson. For a number of years, low cost flights operated daily from Coventry to numerous points in Europe mainly using the Boeing 737, although at times other types substituted including the larger MD90 and the much, much larger Boeing 757. A photograph of the A300 - the largest aircraft to have ever operated through the airport - can be found earlier on this thread. How many of you realise that Coventry's own Atlantic Airlines operate a fleet of Boeing 737 freighters?? They fly between various points around Europe and regularly visit their home base for maintenance. They have also just acquired a Boeing 767 freighter but that is expected to be maintained by Monarch Airlines at Birmingham and consequently is not expected to be seen at Coventry. More's the pity. Contrary to the image portrayed in this thread, Coventry Airport is NOT a little flying field. It is a commercial, fully licenced airport capable of taking regular-sized jet traffic safely and efficiently, and has done since the first BAC 1-11 (British Midland Airways) operated through back in 1970. The runway is longer than MANY around the World that see regular passenger flights. It has superb approaches to both ends of the runway and is the flattest runway of any any airport in the country. Please gents no more of this 'I wouldn't want to land there' stuff. It is totally inaccurate and unnecessary. If you wish to continue with it could I suggest that you continue in Private Messages rather than on a Public Forum. Also for information, a Vickers Viking is not a converted Wellington bomber. Absolutely nothing like it. Now for the quick science bit. Aircraft performance is subject to a number of factors, including aircraft weight (and its payload), outside air temperature and surface winds. The Viscount has never been an aircraft that has struggled into the air. It was a more than capable airliner that had the ability to operate from shorter runways if necessary. It would never have had a problem particularly at Heathrow where pilots would have just 'ambled' into the air with such a long runway available, which consequently used less fuel than rotating early and climbing out steeply when there clearly absolutely no need for them to do so. With the talk of the Vickers Vanguard (the Viscounts bigger brother), this was my favourite personal type and I worked with the aircraft (as the Merchantman freighter) for over 9 years. Hunting Cargo Airlines operated the type through Coventry twice nightly, 5 nights per week on their Belfast - Coventry - Brussels and return freight schedule for 6 years; the final commercial flight ever of the type was into Coventry from Belfast on 20th September 1996. After unloading, the aircraft ferried empty to Hunting's operational base at East Midlands. Four weeks later, 17th October 1996, the FINAL flight was into the former Vickers factory at Brooklands, where the aircraft is now on display to the public, along with other Vickers aircraft types. It really is well worth a visit.

That is incorrect Mike. Pilots have to be approved to fly into Gib, but they fly all other routes as required.

No, the Viking is a derivative of the Wellington bomber to be deadly accurate, but I was half kidding about it really. Re the size of the airfield at Baginton, to many air travellers it would look small and looks are important if one is unsure about flying.

I used to talk to a WWII ferry pilot whose final tour of duty in the air was flying 747s for Air Canada. He had photo albums full of stuff from all over the world (none of Baginton field) featuring aircraft and flight crews in almost every destination you could think of, and he told me about how some places are difficult and that some pilots specialize. I apologize if what I was told is at variance with what you know about Baginton field.

Totally agree with Ron. As a passenger, for the most part, would not be able to see the runway before landing. Even in the cockpit, unless you are used to it, they would have no idea of the size or distance to run. Coventry is quite ample in size and a small aircraft could possibly rotate and land three times on it. If you really want to see a small runway have a look at Pembrey in South Wales, now that is short. There is even a scrapyard at the end of the runway so if you do not make it, the aircraft is now where it belongs. Shobden is another nice one, a third of the way along the runway is a farmer's chain link fence if approaching from the west. From the east you have to contend with 35ft pine trees right at the start of the runway. Landing or departing you have to contend with at least one. As a passenger do not worry, the air traffic control at Shobden has a hand held radio and is always in touch with the pilot to warn him of these dangers, unless of course he happens to be in the loo when you come in for landing, afraid then you have to make a "blind call" and chance it. I loved Shobden and Coventry is so clear to see from miles away and easy to land at.

The fighters at Baginton may not have gone up because they were not 'night fighters'.

The Hurricanes at Baginton were cleared for night-fighting duties, it was the base-commander's decision to ban them from taking off. The RAF's inventory of "night fighters" in those days consisted of Hawker Hurricanes, Boulton-Paul Defiants and Bristol Blenheims. Of these, only the Bristol Blenheims proved effective and then only after they had been fitted with Airborne Intercept radar (AI) and that didn't happen until 1941 by which time the vastly superior Bristol Beaufighter was already in production.

Dutchman, hi. His sole decision, or from higher command? Was there a reason given? Regards, Kaga.

What I read Kaga was that it was his decision alone and he was commended on it afterwards by his superiors. I don't know what reason was given. He may not have known that Hurricanes were cleared for night fighting or perhaps did not want to be blamed if they were lost in action.

Dutchman, thanks. Only a few days after the raid we heard about the rage of the airman, but no one had an answer, beams, codes, that people talk of, the enemy bombers used, was not known, neither was Bletchley Park, or code machine, the talk at that time was the bombers followed the railway lines and the canal, which ran almost parallel, and was believed they could see, have no idea if that was true, I'm not even sure if we heard about radar for the first couple of years. Believe it or not but at one point we kids kept cuttings and photo's from the paper about our heroes, mine was a fighter pilot called Paddy Finucane, can't remember what happened to him or the scrapbook, but I remember his name like a kid of today will remember Rooney in years to come.

There's a comprehensive article about fighter pilot Brendan Finucane at Wikipedia.

mcsporran, hi, that's the best thing I've read in years, can't thank you enough for putting me on to that, that's really took me back to my boyhood, I had loads of newspaper cuttings, but little was of his background, I'm feeling quite emotional. Thanks again, Kaga.

Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft Limited factories, Whitley and Baginton

Thanks for the link Morgana As I've mentioned elsewhere the Sea Hawks were made for the Dutch Navy and the Hunters for the Dutch Air Force.

You're welcome Dutchman and thank you for your link.