RAF Bentwaters RAF Woodbridge - Reunion Plans and Reports

Photographs of RAF Bentwaters past

Which control tower is this?

(Latest update, December 2007)

Scott Lowe of Chino, California, send me this picture when he "...found some pictures of what I believe is one of the bases, not sure which, though (pictures not marked)..."

Is this Woodbridge or Bentwaters? Anybody know for sure? I think we do, now (2002).

Mike Carroll says:
"80 AHSL means Aerodrome Height (a) Sea Level. I think it means that the picture is of Bentwaters tower during an Air Show, maybe around the time I was there (1959-60). (written in 1998) "

Vic Flintham adds:
"On the control tower the acronym is AMSL which reads Above Mean Sea Level - in other words the airfield's altitude which is written large so that aircrew may set their altimeters before take-off. 80 AMSL fits with Bentwaters, while Woodbridge is 70ft AMSL (written 1998)

Leo Geis adds a new perspective:
I've been reviewing the photos thought to be of Woodbridge or Bentwaters...the mystery tower is not likely Bentwaters. Although the field elevation is close to that of BTW, it is also close to that of WDB, and likely neither since even in the 1940's MSL calculations were (my supposition) accurate to a couple of feet. Bentwaters at 86 MSL (witnessed by my 1970's image below) wouldn't have been estimated at 80... of course, I could be quite wrong. However, the window configuration on the east side (front) of the tower and the scale of the first and second story (especially the second story catwalk) strongly suggests that this is not the BTW facility. (written Feb 1999)

Vic Flintham continues:
Inclined to agree with Leo and not really happy with either option. I have checked with Paul Francis' book on Military Airfield Architecture and have attached three scans from it to make my point.

The first (CT1) is a standard wartime (WW2) temporary watch office and is clearly the basis for the tower in the second scan (CT2) which is Woodbridge.

CT3 (further down the page) shows Bentwaters in 1994 and although much developed it appears not to conform to the first and second types. My refs give Bentwaters at 80' and Woodbridge at 70' however. (written March 1999)

Scott Lowe's contributed picture.

And this from Robert Auschermann, which has 80 AMSL and, judging by the sign, is definitely Bentwaters!
So, compare that angled pole out the back of the main structure. Conclusive? Robert Auschermann: B/W 1955-1958, a/1C 1264th. AACS Squadron, Control Tower Operator: "We were moved to Woodbridge when they tore down the old Control Tower at Bentwaters and then moved back when it was finished. (see Robert's page).

Bentwaters Tower with US Ambassador to Britain, from the 1959 Yearbook, shows 88 AMSL.

RAF Bentwaters Tower, from the 1959 Yearbook, 88 AMSL.

RAF Bentwaters tower, pictured in 1977-78 by Leo Geis, with 86 FT AMSL.

CT3 from Vic Flintham
RAF Bentwaters Tower 1994 Vic Flintham's example of a CT3 tower.

RAF Bentwaters Tower, 6 December 2001

I think Scott Lowe's picture is of BENTWATERS. Maybe...

Unfortunately, Scott's email is no longer valid, so I can't write back to him.

Update, December 2007

This number seems to conflict with the discussion about the photo above, with 80 AMSL on the control tower on, where people were saying that RAF Woodbridge and RAF Bentwaters twin bases had different elevation. However, after further research today, here are two Ordnance Survey maps. Looking at a current day Ordnance Survey map, there is a brown contour line near the disused Woodbridge flightline which has -25- on it. That is 25 metres AMSL. 25 metres is 81.25 feet as near as is reasonable, so 80 might be a good round number.

Left is RAF Woodbridge (25 metres/ 81.25 feet), right is RAF Bentwaters (25 metres/ 81.25 feet) AMSL

Maps of RAF Woodbridge and RAF Bentwaters showing both around 25 metres AMSL

It looks as though "80 AMSL" could be either base!