Fido

There has been much debate in the UK recently about the fact that several flights have had to be cancelled due to fog. Some people have called for the system deployed during WW2 whereby flaming drums of oil were placed alongside runways to disperse fog to allow aircraft to land safely - I didn’t realise that FIDO used so much fuel though at a time when it was a scarce resource - see the letter below from The Times …


The Times December 29, 2006

Safe landings

Sir, The wartime Fido airfield fog dispersal system (letter, Dec 26) at RAF Carnaby consumed about 1,137,000 litres of petrol per hour per runway. Besides being costly to operate, deployment to airports like Heathrow would have a nasty environmental impact with pilots who would have to land amid a flaming inferno.
Far better the modern electronic equivalent, but, either way, airports still need methods to taxi multiple aircraft safely in fog once they have landed.

ANDREW MCCONACHIE
Nailsea, Bristol

Very interesting.

To taxi in fog is simple, drag them with a truck, following the pilot lights in the ground. Obviously with sufficient lights on the trucks.

The problem with Heathrow in the fog, was I beleive, to do with stacking hte aircraft in the air in the fog, rather than taxiing n the ground.

From aunti beeb

The airline said dense fog and low visibility had caused air traffic control to place restrictions on flights landing and taking off.

Flow rates were at 50% of normal capacity throughout Wednesday morning, affecting all carriers at the airport, after the spacing between planes in the air was increased from three miles to six miles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6197007.stm?ls

FIDO simply burnt the fog of the airstrip to allow the aircraft to land, and whilst it did use a lot of the precious resource of fuel, it did allow aircraft to touch down, saving other precious resources in the production of replacement aircraft and the traiing of aircrew.

I wouldn’t call it a “flaming inferno” either to be fair. It could be done now adays with gas burners to the left and right of the airstrip, turned off as each aircraft lands. In WW2 it started as a oil drum filled with sand, and some fuel. One drum every 20 odd meters or less if needed. (I think)

Later becoming the following…

East Yorkshire was the home of 4 Group, Bomber Command with many airfields in the area. The two closest were Lissett, some six miles away, which was home to 158 Squadron, equipped with Handley Page Halifaxes. Even closer, the massive emergency landing field at Carnaby was only a couple of miles away. Carnaby had a runway which was five times the width of normal runways and 9,000 feet long. It was one of the few airfields equipped with FIDO (Fog Investigation and Dispersal Operation). This was a perforated pipeline running down each side of the runway with additional pipes set up to form a lead in at the end of the runway. When it was foggy and aircraft couldn’t see to land, petrol was pumped through the lines and ignited. The heat would raise the fog so pilots could dive under it and land in warm but clear visibility. How warm was it? You could feel the warm air from the town! Was it expensive?; yes! it consumed 1.7 million gallons in the month of December 1944 alone to save 22 aircraft and their crews. One of the most spectacular departures from Carnaby was over 70 B-24 Liberators from an American bomb group which had diverted there a couple of days earlier when fog had closed their base in East Anglia.

From http://www.wartimememories.co.uk/children2.html

Only a few airstrips were actually fitted with FIDO, mainly the emergency strips. These were longer, wider and generally somewhere where exploding/crashing aircraft wouldn’t do much damage.

Sorry, but figure given by Times is beyond comprehension…
It must be typo! I can accept 1,337 litres of petrol per hour for one runway.
But 1,337,000 litres per hour… Jeesusss …
This amount of petrol is more likely usage per month of heavy fighting - 3 sorties a day, for 3 or 4 squadrons of Spitfires during BofB. (Figures right from the ceiling, but I cannot be much wrong).

Cheers,

Lancer44

The source I quote says just over the times figure for a month of use. I just figured it for a typo.