Will the real EZ999 please step forward ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Will the real EZ999 please step forward ?
THE CURIOUS TALE OF "VENGEANCE" EZ999, A WARBIRD ALMOST UNKNOWN IN ITS HEYDAY IN WWII AND NOW FORGOTTEN
First thing was do some research and gather together as much relevant material as I could. I'll acknowledge these two references as follows:
1...Posts on the "Pilot's Brevet" Thread as: .............................[Page/Post]
2...Peter C. Smith: "Vengeance!" (1986) Airlife Publishing Ltd,
.....7, St.John's Hill, Shrewsbury, England.
......(ISBN 0 906393 65 5) as: ...............................................[PCS]
The Dive Bomber earned its share of the spotlight in WWII. The Germans had huge success in the 1940 blitzkrieg with their Ju87 "Stuka"; in 1942 the US Navy gained a stunning victory at Midway in the Pacific with the Douglas SBD (A-24) "Dauntless"; in a matter of minutes avenging Pearl Harbor and breaking the back of Japanese naval air power for the rest of the war.
The Russians had the Pe-2, but although originally fitted with dive brakes,* soon removed them and was then used, very successfully, as a general-purpose ground-attack aircraft (Google Pe-2, there is a wealth of material, including a lot of Youtube).
* of an apparently similar design to the Vengeance: grids carried clear of the wing surfaces so as not to impede airflow, but, curiously, only on the lower wing, whereas the VV had them on both upper and lower surfaces.
The RAF had none. It had always seen its role as a defending force, whereas the dive bomber is at its best as an offensive weapon, spearheading the advance of an attacking army. When we saw what the Stukas had done all over Europe, we belatedly decided to join the club. No time to design and build our own, we would have to see what was available "off the shelf".
We had a stroke of luck. The French had seen the need before we did, and ordered an advanced dive-bomber design from a small American manufacturer by the name of Vultee. The USAAC was interested in the project from the start, taking a share in the development of the A-31, as they called it.
But before deliveries to the French could start, France collapsed. Vultee had lost its only customer (the USAAC took a few, didn't like them much, requested a redesign to improve them (which became the A-35), didn't like that either and lost interest in them.
Our arrival on the scene must have seemed Manna from Heaven to Vultee. Our Purchasing Commission took over the French contract . Then we had second thoughts. The BoB had removed the threat of invasion, but there would be no ground offensive in Europe for four years. In North Africa our Hurricanes, P-40s and Beaufighters could do all the tank-busting and strafing the 8th Army wanted.
We'd bought - yes, we paid cash for the first batches (the first 200 @ £21,000 a throw [total say £1.25m today, assuming an inflation factor of 50], but the follow-on orders would be cheaper) until Lend-Lease came in, for a bunch of white elephants. [PCS]
At that time there was a faraway Army of ours (the 14th), fighting a last-stand defensive campaign in a faroff land (Burma). They'd be glad of anything they could get to help them keep the Japs out of India. The omens were not good. The Japs had sunk one of the twin prides of the Navy (Prince of Wales *) and the older Repulse. So now we'd lost our last hope of stopping the Jap troop transports from coming over unopposed from Indo-China, and landing them on the East coast of the Malayan isthmus, to take Singapore after a week or so, then come up through Malaya and Burma to the borders of India.
* "A properly handled capital ship", Admiral Tom Philips had declared, "can always beat off air attack". He was wrong (but, to be fair, that was Admiralty thinking at the time), and AFAIK, no capital ship had been sunk by aircraft in open waters up to then (and he went down in his flagship).
It was a rout. There wasn't much to stop them now, it seemed. The sun was about to set on the Empire on which the Sun Never Sets. (It had already set on the French and Dutch Empires and on the US de facto "colony" of the Phillipines, where "I shall return", said General Douglas MacArthur - and he did !) Of course our unwanted purchases came in handy in India to help plug the gap. They equipped four RAF Sqns and two IAF ones with them.
Miraculously, the Line was Held. The VVs only arrived at the end of'42; by the time we'd worked up on the A-31s ("Vengeance" Mks.I and II), there was little of the '42/'43 dry season left. After the Monsoon, in the '43/'44 season, the 14th Army started pushing the Jap back; he reacted in his usual way, digging in at strong points to hold us up and fighting to the death. These places were tailor-made for the VVs, we simply dug 'em out again, sending the occupants to join the ancestors. The Army was very pleased, as they'd lose a lot of men if they had had to winkle them out piecemeal.
By the '44/'45 season (ie after the monsoon) the war had still a year to run (and as far as we knew then, might have gone on for years). But the VV Sqdns were pulled off ops (for no good reason that I know), and never operated again. The 14th Army had now got on top of the Japs and driven them back over the coastal ranges of Arakan to the central Burma plains where our armour could be deployed.
On our northern (Assam) front the battles of Imphal and Kohima had been won and we were across the Chindwin river. Ideal conditions for a dive-bomber, you would have thought - but we'd all been relegated to odd jobs ! Coincidentally, I believe the same happened to the RAAF at the same time, on the orders of the US Commanding General in New Guinea.
***************
All good (and bad) things come to an end, the war ended as all things must. The RAF ignored our many successes; they'd no more enduring interest in dive bombers now than they had in '39. They scrapped the lot - nobody thought of keeping any Museum specimens. And for a large proportion of the VVs, there would be no option in any case.
"Give us the tools", Churchill had asked the US, "and we will finish the job". But all the aircraft supplied under Lend-Lease had not been given to us, but merely loaned to us to help win the war. Now the war was over: it was perfectly reasonable for the US to demand them back.
The policy adopted was this: anything which they wanted (eg Dakotas and Harvards), we must hand over. As for the rest, if we wanted to keep them, we must pay for them (in scarce dollars) at heavily discounted prices. If we didn't want to do that, then we must destroy them completely. Vultee Vengeances fell in that last category.
Clearly, as EZ999 (Mk.I - A-31), all the Mk.IIIs (A-31s) and Mk.IVs (A-35s) were supplied under Lend-Lease: under the terms of the Lend-Lease Agreement, so all ought to have been scrapped at the end of the war. The few (all Mk.IVs AFAIK) which we (and the RAAF) had modified and were using as Target Tugs were, I suppose, worth paying for, but it's difficult to see a case for keeping any of the others. In practice, the destruction rule seems to have been enforced less rigidly in some areas rather than others. In India it was certainly treated very seriously, and it got me into hot water [160/3200].
As EZ999 escaped scrapping, it would seem that the Australians took a more cavalier view of their contractual obligations under Lend Lease, for it would make no sense to pay good money for an ex-Lend Lease VV to be used as an instructional hulk, when at the same time they had their pick of the 123 British Contract VVs which had been passed on to them to do as they liked with.
*************
Now we'd better look at what we got from the US (all figures from [PCS] ) I believe something like 2300 of both types were built in all. Of these aircraft (listed below by [PCS] as "British), many were switched to Australia and renumbered in the A-27- series). Note that, AFAIK, only Marks I and II were used operationally by the RAF in Burma; the IIIs only came to us in summer '44 after we'd pulled out - and we never got any IVs at all. I'm pretty sure the RAAF likewise only operated with Is and IIs, I don't know about IIIs, but they got plenty of IVs at the end (and one of these, I suspect, is our Narellan survivor).
EXTRACT FROM APPENDIX 3 TO [PCS]
=======================
=======================
Serial Numbers, Qty and Mark
________________________
US A-31s
======
======
AF745-AF944.....200,..... II.............Vultee built,.......... British Contract.
AN538-AN837....300,...... I.............Vultee built,........... British Contract.
AN838-AN999....162,...... I,........... Northrop built,....... British Contract.
AP001-AP137....138,...... I,........... Northrop built,....... British Contract.
EZ800-EZ999.....200,...... IA,......... Northrop built,....... Lend Lease.
FB918-FB999.......82,.... III,........... Vultee built,.......... Lend Lease.
FD001-FD117.....117,.... III........... Vultee built,........... Lend Lease.
[PCS] is confusing about the last two entries above, listing only "FB918-FD117", I have assumed the figures stated.
FP686...................1,...... I,........... Vultee built,.......... British Contract.(replacement for AN679, which crashed before delivery)
......................____
................ .....1200
......................===
US A-35s
======
======
FD118-FD221.....104,....IV-1,..... ..Vulteebuilt, .....Lend Lease.
FD222-FD417.....196,... IV-2,........Vultee built,.....Lend Lease.
HB300-HB550.....251,... IV-2,........Vultee built,.....Lend Lease.
KG810-KG820......11,.... IV-2,........Vultee built,.... Lend Lease.
........................___
........................562
........................===
Of this list, [PCS] records a total of 110 (AF Series) plus 32 (AN Series) as going to the RAAF from the British Contract, I have no idea of what (if any) financial adjustment was made. Together with 46 (EZ Series, Lend Lease) also transferred, they total 188, all Mks.I & II (A-31s). These included:
EZ880-888, EZ905-911, EZ913, EZ915-916, EZ918-919, EZ925-926, EZ929-930, EZ945-946, EZ952-EZ954, EZ974, and EZ995-999.
My logbook shows that I flew (several times each, on 110 Sqn Jun'43 to Dec'43 and on 8 (IAF) Sqn Dec'43 to July'44) EZ811, EZ834, EZ860, EZ862, EZ891, EZ894, EZ904 and EZ993. .... It fits.
In addition, an unstated number of Mk.IVs (A-35s), Lend Lease, went to the RAAF, AFAIK, no Mk.IVs came to India, but some went to the UK, and were there modified as TTs.
Apart from the British allocation, [PCS] says that 25 went to the Free French in July '43,and 13 in December '43 (the first batch of these would probably have been A-31s - Mks I and II, but the second Mk.IVs), for use in N.Africa.
Brazil got 25 AN series (Is) in February '43 and 5 A-35s (IVs) in September '44
*************
Our search now focusses on EZ999. Peter C. Smith, in the last Pages two pages (171-172) of his "Vengeance!" [PCS] writes in 1986 as follows: (Bold type mine):
"The most complete specimen is that held at the Camden Museum of Aviation located at 11, Stewart Street, Narellan, NSW. This is a privately owned museum with no state funding and was founded, and is still run and maintained, by Harold, Verna and Alan Thomas".
"Harold was a former apprentice with Australian National Airways. All restoration work there is done by the family themselves, and a couple of interested volunteers. One of these, who has specialised on the Vengeance, is LAC Wayne Brown from 77 Squadron Engine Section at RAAF Base Williamstown. He very kindly provided details of the work conducted there on this aircraft".
"This aircraft was the last Mk 1A Vengeance built by Northrop aircraft. It did not see active service with the RAAF and spent most of her career being sent from one storage depot to another, and as such has very few flying hours under her wing. The markings EZ999 are fictitious and the code NH-Y represents the code carried by an aircraft of 12 Squadron RAAF, in late 1943".
"After being disposed of by the RAAF she was used by the Sydney Technical College for many years, for training technical tradesmen, and it is only through this that she survived being scrapped. Eventually she was obtained by Harold Thomas, who stored her in his backyard before restoring her to display condition and putting her on display to the public at his museum at Camden airport. In 1979 the museum was forced to move from the airport and is now situated a short distance away at Narellan".
"The RAAF Historical Section at the Air Force Office, Canberra, kindly provided the author with a copy of this aircraft's detail sheet. EZ999 was given Australian serial A-27-99, and was received on 20 June 1943 from the United States by 2AD. On 30 October she was moved into their store, and on 30 August 1945 alloted to 2CRD for further storage; this took place on 28 November. On 13 February 1946 she was allocated to 2AD Store and on 22th was ordered to be stored in situ. On 27 April 1948 it was approved for her to be moved to the RANS, but this move was cancelled on 11 June 1948 and she was passed to the DAP on the 24th".
"It is to be hoped that this unfunded work, both at Narellan and Bull Creek, will receive more support, both physical and monetary, and that both airframes can be fully restored, as tangible reminders of the 'Forgotten Dive-Bomber', the vultee vengeance". [PCS]
To this, we can only say "Hear, Hear". They managed to build 2300 VVs [PCS] , and, as the sole survivor, it deserves its place of honour in the Camden museum on that account alone and should also, IMHO, be correctly catalogued as the very last example in the world of a warbird little known at the time and now completely forgotten.
***************
Well, with a provenance like that, who is going to cavil at the Camden Museum's description of their precious find ? Trouble is: whatever the Museum has got, it's certainly not a Mk.1A, and even [PCS] says that the 'EZ999' on it is fictitious. (Why he did this, as it puts a question mark over his whole detailed story, I can't imagine). Let me explain:
EZ800-EZ999 were Vengeances 1A (Northrop built, Lend Lease), US Serials 41-30848 to 41-31047 [PCS]
From 10 Jan 1944 to 24 Feb 1944, on No. 8 Sqn, IAF, I flew EZ993 17 times (14 operational): this aircraft seems to have been allocated to me, although I flew several others in the same period.
How on earth EZ993 went to India, and EZ999 went to Australia, I have simply no idea. But it certainly did (the Museum's paperwork proves that), the only question is: "where is it now - does it even exist any more ?"
It would have been identical in all respects to my EZ993 (and I know that that ended as a pile of scrap in the Arakan with my gunner and I in it on 24 Feb 1944). So what is it that the Museum has got ? [PCS] shows a Cockpit photo (page 3), and a detailed drawing of the pilot's panel as his Appendix 5. Both items exactly match the Lang photographs mentioned above. And on page 95, "a VV with a 0.50 in rear cannon described as "A-27-204 ex AN558", armed with depth-charges" is shown. (This is a contradiction in terms - AN558 would be a Mk.1, but the 0.50 gun was only fitted to the Mk.IVs).
Or so we thought; it was the cornerstone of our original contention (in several Posts on "Pilot's Brevet" Thread during 2012) that the Narellan Vengeance was a Mk.IV, and as such could not be EZ999. Later I got my copy of [PCS], and have used it mainly as a source of the statistics quoted above.
Then quite recently I read the whole text again. It is lavishly illustrated with photographs, and my eye lit on one on p.169, captioned: "close up of the reconstructed rear cockpit of the Narellan vv with single 0.5 in calibre gun - Wayne Brown" (we have heard of him before, he sounds a good witness).
That puts our case (on those grounds) out of Court straightaway, and now, as I told Cooda Shooda [362/7235-6], we must find other "birth marks" which are conclusive. Meanwhile the jury is out.
And there the matter rests, we must all wait until the Museum replies to my query, and if we can get anyone from the readers of the Aussie Warbirdz (or others out there) to examine the exhibit.
When and if there is any progress, I'll Post again.
Danny42C.
Last edited by Danny42C; 4th Aug 2015 at 00:37. Reason: Adjust Spacing
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: moraira,spain-Norfolk, UK
Age: 82
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VV
Hello Danny, my father spent a time assembling those aircraft somewhere in what is now Pakistan. He had some vengeance info, but I am far from home
and will not get back there until late September (earliest). Then I will search all his stuff. I do not think it will help tho'
John
and will not get back there until late September (earliest). Then I will search all his stuff. I do not think it will help tho'
John
Guest
Posts: n/a
John,
Thanks for the offer - but I agree that we're unlikely to turn anything relevant up on this.
But your Dad's notes may be just what I've been looking for on another matter ! He was assembling Vengeances in what is now Pakistan, you say. Could it have been in Mauripur (near Karachi ?). The (improbable) tale told to me when I got out there at the end of '42 was that the first batch arrived out there CKD, but all the paperwork (inc Assembly manuals) had been lost.
Chief Technical Officer had a set of the crates (for which we'd paid an extra $800 per aircraft in the US) broken open and the contents spread out on an empty hangar floor. Then an aircraft was assembled in a sort of giant three-dimensional jigsaw. When they'd finished, and there were only a few bits left over, it flew ! and they soon got the hang of it after that. (Full story on the "Gaining an RAF Pilot's Brevet in WWII" Thread (p.129/#2568).
Now if the story is true, and if your Dad was part of it, he'd surely remember that !
Cheers, Danny.
Thanks for the offer - but I agree that we're unlikely to turn anything relevant up on this.
But your Dad's notes may be just what I've been looking for on another matter ! He was assembling Vengeances in what is now Pakistan, you say. Could it have been in Mauripur (near Karachi ?). The (improbable) tale told to me when I got out there at the end of '42 was that the first batch arrived out there CKD, but all the paperwork (inc Assembly manuals) had been lost.
Chief Technical Officer had a set of the crates (for which we'd paid an extra $800 per aircraft in the US) broken open and the contents spread out on an empty hangar floor. Then an aircraft was assembled in a sort of giant three-dimensional jigsaw. When they'd finished, and there were only a few bits left over, it flew ! and they soon got the hang of it after that. (Full story on the "Gaining an RAF Pilot's Brevet in WWII" Thread (p.129/#2568).
Now if the story is true, and if your Dad was part of it, he'd surely remember that !
Cheers, Danny.
Australia operated aircraft EZ880 to EZ888, EZ905 to EZ915, EZ918 to EZ929, EZ930 to EZ974, EZ995 to EZ999 inclusive. All those serials were Mk. 1a. the RAAF also had Mk. 2a, Mk. 4 and Mk.4a.
EZ999 history is listed as,
RAAF Serial A27-99, USAF Serial 41-31051, Type A-31-NO, Line Number 320, Version Mk.1a, Contract RFDA-2648, Serial Number 720
Rec 2AD ex USA 20/06/43.
Rec 2AD 30/10/44.
Issued 2CRD ex 2AD for storage 12/02/46.
Authorised for write off 16/05/46.
Rec 2AD ex 2CRD 05/06/46.
Approval to transfer to RANFAA for ground instruction 27/04/48. Cancelled 11/06/48.
Passed to DAP 24/06/48. Issued to DAP 17/09/48. SOC 06/09/49.
Was located at the Sydney Technical College, Ultimo, Sydney NSW.
Still exists as the only complete Vengeance in the world.
It is based at the Camden Museum of Aviation at Narellan NSW.
Photo of 999
Hope is of help Danny
Edited to add: I'm thinking the only fictitious part is the NH-Y identification. NH- was 12 Squadrons identifier.
EZ999 history is listed as,
RAAF Serial A27-99, USAF Serial 41-31051, Type A-31-NO, Line Number 320, Version Mk.1a, Contract RFDA-2648, Serial Number 720
Rec 2AD ex USA 20/06/43.
Rec 2AD 30/10/44.
Issued 2CRD ex 2AD for storage 12/02/46.
Authorised for write off 16/05/46.
Rec 2AD ex 2CRD 05/06/46.
Approval to transfer to RANFAA for ground instruction 27/04/48. Cancelled 11/06/48.
Passed to DAP 24/06/48. Issued to DAP 17/09/48. SOC 06/09/49.
Was located at the Sydney Technical College, Ultimo, Sydney NSW.
Still exists as the only complete Vengeance in the world.
It is based at the Camden Museum of Aviation at Narellan NSW.
Photo of 999
Hope is of help Danny
Edited to add: I'm thinking the only fictitious part is the NH-Y identification. NH- was 12 Squadrons identifier.
Last edited by megan; 3rd Aug 2015 at 23:48.
The adf serial website provides details on the RAAF VV aircraft:
Welcome to ADF Serials
You will need to select 'Second RAAF Series', then 'A27' to get access to details of all the RAAF VVs.
A27-99 (aka EZ999) is listed there, with its service history IAW Megan's above quote.
I believe it is indeed EZ999:
1. The serial number painted on it is not fictitious, as I am sure this aircraft's history is consistent with the RAAF E/E88 aircraft data card. Unfortunately I no longer hold a copy of this card (which has been summarised above) - I have given all my source material to the Research Centre at the nearby RAAF Amberley Heritage Centre.
2. These cards are official documents, and although sometimes contain errors, cannot be doctored to change 'one airframe into another'. If there are Mk.IV VV components, then I would argue this would be consistent with its post-Service role, of being a plaything for technical trainees at the Sydney Technical College through the 1950s and early 1960s. I imagine the Mk.Ia was quite unsophisticated and empty by the time it was struck off charge and given to the Tech College, so a multitude of goodies were added from cannibalised Mk.IV bits.
3. Now the 12 SQN "NH" codes are well and truly fictitious- and I remember this was well known back in the 1960s when the museum owner Harold Thomas painted them on. He wanted something easy with straight lines and no tricky curves - hence the fictitious NH-Y. He may be turning in his grave to know he has caused this controversy over his prized exhibit.
A shame you can't get out Danny, and put your finger on all the bogus Mk.IV components...
Welcome to ADF Serials
You will need to select 'Second RAAF Series', then 'A27' to get access to details of all the RAAF VVs.
A27-99 (aka EZ999) is listed there, with its service history IAW Megan's above quote.
I believe it is indeed EZ999:
1. The serial number painted on it is not fictitious, as I am sure this aircraft's history is consistent with the RAAF E/E88 aircraft data card. Unfortunately I no longer hold a copy of this card (which has been summarised above) - I have given all my source material to the Research Centre at the nearby RAAF Amberley Heritage Centre.
2. These cards are official documents, and although sometimes contain errors, cannot be doctored to change 'one airframe into another'. If there are Mk.IV VV components, then I would argue this would be consistent with its post-Service role, of being a plaything for technical trainees at the Sydney Technical College through the 1950s and early 1960s. I imagine the Mk.Ia was quite unsophisticated and empty by the time it was struck off charge and given to the Tech College, so a multitude of goodies were added from cannibalised Mk.IV bits.
3. Now the 12 SQN "NH" codes are well and truly fictitious- and I remember this was well known back in the 1960s when the museum owner Harold Thomas painted them on. He wanted something easy with straight lines and no tricky curves - hence the fictitious NH-Y. He may be turning in his grave to know he has caused this controversy over his prized exhibit.
A shame you can't get out Danny, and put your finger on all the bogus Mk.IV components...
Danny,
Further to your quote from PCS "The markings EZ999 are fictitious and the code NH-Y represents the code carried by an aircraft of 12 Squadron RAAF, in late 1943".
The meaning of this has been twisted. What PCS says in his book, page 172 is:
"The markings EZ999 now carries are fictitious and the code NH-Y represents the code carried by an aircraft of 12 Squadron RAAF, in late 1943".
You can see those deleted two words completely changes the meaning of PCS's statement. 'EZ999' is not fictitious, the markings it now carries are fictitious.
Further to your quote from PCS "The markings EZ999 are fictitious and the code NH-Y represents the code carried by an aircraft of 12 Squadron RAAF, in late 1943".
The meaning of this has been twisted. What PCS says in his book, page 172 is:
"The markings EZ999 now carries are fictitious and the code NH-Y represents the code carried by an aircraft of 12 Squadron RAAF, in late 1943".
You can see those deleted two words completely changes the meaning of PCS's statement. 'EZ999' is not fictitious, the markings it now carries are fictitious.
Danny, just got off the phone talking to a lovely lady who is the museum director. The aircraft is definitely EZ999. The NH-Y markings are fictitious 12 squadron markings, as it was never issued to a squadron, in fact the aircraft never flew in Australia, the only hours being test flying it may have done after coming off the production line. Who applied the NH-Y markings is not known, nor the graphics on the nose. It spent all its life in Australia in crates. It did have a 50 cal mounted in the rear pit, but its not known when it was fitted, or by whom, now removed - didn't think to ask, but probably a result of the government gun buy back after the Port Arthur massacre.
The following links list the Vengeances built.
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1941_5.html
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1942_2.html
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1942_5.html
Dug out the history of the aircraft you mention that you flew Danny. You got to have a story on 993 to tell.
Northrop A-31-NO Vengeance Vultee Model 72 built under licence by Northrop Ordered by the RAF as Vengeance I EZ800/818, Vengeance IA EZ819/999. Some were diverted to the USAAF and dispatched to Australia as part of a US commitment to equip the RAAF. None served with the USAAF. The balance were delivered to the RAF in India
EZ811 41-30859 to RAF as Vengeance I. SOC Aug 31, 1944
EZ834 41-30882 to RAF as Vengeance IA. Soc Apr 26, 1945
EZ86041-30908 to RAF as Vengeance IA. SOC Aug 31, 1944
EZ862 41-30910 to RAF as Vengeance IA. SOC Aug 31, 1944
EZ891 41-30939 to RAF as Vengeance 1A. SOC Aug 31, 1944
EZ894 41-30942 to RAF as Vengeance 1A. Crashed into Sea Dec 28, 1943
EZ904 41-30952 to RAF as Vengeance 1A. Wrecked when bomb fell off and exploded when landing at Kumbhirgram Dec 17, 1943
EZ993 41-31041 to RAF as Vengeance 1A. Crashed on emergency approach to Mambur airstrip, India Feb 24, 1944
The following links list the Vengeances built.
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1941_5.html
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1942_2.html
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1942_5.html
Dug out the history of the aircraft you mention that you flew Danny. You got to have a story on 993 to tell.
Northrop A-31-NO Vengeance Vultee Model 72 built under licence by Northrop Ordered by the RAF as Vengeance I EZ800/818, Vengeance IA EZ819/999. Some were diverted to the USAAF and dispatched to Australia as part of a US commitment to equip the RAAF. None served with the USAAF. The balance were delivered to the RAF in India
EZ811 41-30859 to RAF as Vengeance I. SOC Aug 31, 1944
EZ834 41-30882 to RAF as Vengeance IA. Soc Apr 26, 1945
EZ86041-30908 to RAF as Vengeance IA. SOC Aug 31, 1944
EZ862 41-30910 to RAF as Vengeance IA. SOC Aug 31, 1944
EZ891 41-30939 to RAF as Vengeance 1A. SOC Aug 31, 1944
EZ894 41-30942 to RAF as Vengeance 1A. Crashed into Sea Dec 28, 1943
EZ904 41-30952 to RAF as Vengeance 1A. Wrecked when bomb fell off and exploded when landing at Kumbhirgram Dec 17, 1943
EZ993 41-31041 to RAF as Vengeance 1A. Crashed on emergency approach to Mambur airstrip, India Feb 24, 1944
Last edited by megan; 4th Aug 2015 at 07:11. Reason: Add info
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,806
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Thanks, Danny42C ... this Thread is going to be a fascinating read.
I have nothing of substance to contribute, of course! However, it therefore seems [if it read it correctly] that EZ999 is EZ999, with faux markings, and may have been 'tinkered with' during its time as a training airframe. On that basis, a replacement rear gun fit and new [or no] sqn markings would make the venerable bird 'kosher'.
I have nothing of substance to contribute, of course! However, it therefore seems [if it read it correctly] that EZ999 is EZ999, with faux markings, and may have been 'tinkered with' during its time as a training airframe. On that basis, a replacement rear gun fit and new [or no] sqn markings would make the venerable bird 'kosher'.
Guest
Posts: n/a
What is it ?
BBadanov,
First I must come out with my hands up ! You're right, of course. I can only offer in excuse that the copying of Page 172 was carried out late at night, and my eyesight is not as good as it once was. The omission was inadvertent, I assure you, and not intended to "twist" the meaning in any way to deceive. Nevertheless, it should not have happened, and I apologise for it.
Having said that, we are really of the same mind, I think. No one disputes that there was an EZ999, or that it came out to the RAAF, and that its subsequent life is fully documented, and that the Museum says that it is what they've got on display.
The doubters question that last statement. Originally, we based our case on the fact of the rear 0.50 Browning. But now we know (Wayne Brown) that this was a replacement. Why they could only get hold of a 0.50, when they had another 167 Mks. I & II from the "British" allocation to scrap, all with the the "proper" twin 0.300/303 fit, is a mystery. You would think the Museum would take pains to display their "Mk.IA" with all the right kit - even if they had to make wooden "dummy" guns.
Now to Peter C. Smith: as I see it, it is immaterial if he says "the markings EZ999 now carries are fictitious" or "the markings EZ999 are fictitious". Either way, his meaning is clear: what we are looking at is not EZ999. How he based that statement we don't know. But he is an enormously respected aviation historian, and he would have not have said that without good reason.
As I said, we have to wait and see.
Cheers, Danny.
First I must come out with my hands up ! You're right, of course. I can only offer in excuse that the copying of Page 172 was carried out late at night, and my eyesight is not as good as it once was. The omission was inadvertent, I assure you, and not intended to "twist" the meaning in any way to deceive. Nevertheless, it should not have happened, and I apologise for it.
Having said that, we are really of the same mind, I think. No one disputes that there was an EZ999, or that it came out to the RAAF, and that its subsequent life is fully documented, and that the Museum says that it is what they've got on display.
The doubters question that last statement. Originally, we based our case on the fact of the rear 0.50 Browning. But now we know (Wayne Brown) that this was a replacement. Why they could only get hold of a 0.50, when they had another 167 Mks. I & II from the "British" allocation to scrap, all with the the "proper" twin 0.300/303 fit, is a mystery. You would think the Museum would take pains to display their "Mk.IA" with all the right kit - even if they had to make wooden "dummy" guns.
Now to Peter C. Smith: as I see it, it is immaterial if he says "the markings EZ999 now carries are fictitious" or "the markings EZ999 are fictitious". Either way, his meaning is clear: what we are looking at is not EZ999. How he based that statement we don't know. But he is an enormously respected aviation historian, and he would have not have said that without good reason.
As I said, we have to wait and see.
Cheers, Danny.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,806
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Danny42C ... perhaps he was misled by the 0.50 instead of the twin .303/.30?
However, ISTR there's an angle of incidence factor to be resolved as well.
However, ISTR there's an angle of incidence factor to be resolved as well.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Plot Thickens
Megan,
Nice pic, clearly shows the long barrel of the single rear 0.50 Browning which normally meant "Mk.IV (A-35)" without any doubt. But Wayne Brown's caption to his photo in [SAC] says this (and its associated rear canopy section) was a "retrofit". Never heard of such a thing before, but he has done much of the mechanical work on the engine, and must know what he's talking about.
There is no doubt that Narellan has all the correct paperwork for, and a full history of EZ999. But does it have the aircraft itself ? That's the question.
As EZ999 was Lend-Lease, we must assume that it was honestly retained by the RAAF after VJ Day, which meant that the Australian Government had bought it back. Why would they do this when they had the free choice of 123 AFs and ANs which the British taxpayer had already bought and paid for ? (they cannot all have been written off already). It makes no sense !
And Peter C. Smith's statement (that the airframe serial EZ999 doesn't belong - ie that we've got a "ringer" here) hangs in the air with no back-up.
As the outer wing section has been removed in your pic, it gives (I think) a tantalising glimpse of the outer gun housing. Now a peep in there by an (ex)-armourer should Reveal All (ie was there a 0.50 in there originally, or a 0.300 ?)
Now your #8 has come in. What a can of worms you've opened here !
First, your Museum Director has given you the "Party Line", but appears not to be up to speed on the history.
"It did have a 50 cal mounted in the rear pit, but its not known when it was fitted, or by whom, now removed - didn't think to ask, but probably a result of the government gun buy back after the Port Arthur massacre".
But we know, don't we ? (ask Wayne Brown, if he still lives, or buy a copy of [PCS] !)
Thanks for the links - will have a look at them later and comment if needed.
Now for the real Nitty-Gritty:
"Dug out the history of the aircraft you mention that you flew Danny. You got to have a story on 993 to tell".
("EZ993 41-31041 to RAF as Vengeance 1A. Crashed on emergency approach to Mambur airstrip, India Feb 24, 1944")
Me ! - see [143/2860] & [144/2878]
I've re-written this story in one piece, edited and with an Epilogue, will PM it to you if you like, as it is irrelevant here, and far too long, and most people have read it before, anyway.
EZ894 41-30942 to RAF as Vengeance 1A. Crashed into Sea Dec 28, 1943
Possibly the one in [141/2813]
EZ904 41-30952 to RAF as Vengeance 1A. Wrecked when bomb fell off and exploded when landing at Kumbhirgram Dec 17, 1943
Killed both - story in [134/2679] Led to the false rumour of death of Sgt Reg Duncan (RCAF) and his crewman.
That's all for the moment.
Cheers, Danny.
Nice pic, clearly shows the long barrel of the single rear 0.50 Browning which normally meant "Mk.IV (A-35)" without any doubt. But Wayne Brown's caption to his photo in [SAC] says this (and its associated rear canopy section) was a "retrofit". Never heard of such a thing before, but he has done much of the mechanical work on the engine, and must know what he's talking about.
There is no doubt that Narellan has all the correct paperwork for, and a full history of EZ999. But does it have the aircraft itself ? That's the question.
As EZ999 was Lend-Lease, we must assume that it was honestly retained by the RAAF after VJ Day, which meant that the Australian Government had bought it back. Why would they do this when they had the free choice of 123 AFs and ANs which the British taxpayer had already bought and paid for ? (they cannot all have been written off already). It makes no sense !
And Peter C. Smith's statement (that the airframe serial EZ999 doesn't belong - ie that we've got a "ringer" here) hangs in the air with no back-up.
As the outer wing section has been removed in your pic, it gives (I think) a tantalising glimpse of the outer gun housing. Now a peep in there by an (ex)-armourer should Reveal All (ie was there a 0.50 in there originally, or a 0.300 ?)
Now your #8 has come in. What a can of worms you've opened here !
First, your Museum Director has given you the "Party Line", but appears not to be up to speed on the history.
"It did have a 50 cal mounted in the rear pit, but its not known when it was fitted, or by whom, now removed - didn't think to ask, but probably a result of the government gun buy back after the Port Arthur massacre".
But we know, don't we ? (ask Wayne Brown, if he still lives, or buy a copy of [PCS] !)
Thanks for the links - will have a look at them later and comment if needed.
Now for the real Nitty-Gritty:
"Dug out the history of the aircraft you mention that you flew Danny. You got to have a story on 993 to tell".
("EZ993 41-31041 to RAF as Vengeance 1A. Crashed on emergency approach to Mambur airstrip, India Feb 24, 1944")
Me ! - see [143/2860] & [144/2878]
I've re-written this story in one piece, edited and with an Epilogue, will PM it to you if you like, as it is irrelevant here, and far too long, and most people have read it before, anyway.
EZ894 41-30942 to RAF as Vengeance 1A. Crashed into Sea Dec 28, 1943
Possibly the one in [141/2813]
EZ904 41-30952 to RAF as Vengeance 1A. Wrecked when bomb fell off and exploded when landing at Kumbhirgram Dec 17, 1943
Killed both - story in [134/2679] Led to the false rumour of death of Sgt Reg Duncan (RCAF) and his crewman.
That's all for the moment.
Cheers, Danny.
Guest
Posts: n/a
MPN11,
So were we originally, until I found Wayne Brown's photo caption, which states that the 0.50 and its matching canopy section were replacements (what happened to the original 2x 0.303s ? - I suppose that as an instructional airframe they were not necessary. But they could have been kept (with the breech blocks removed) as part of the whole aircraft).
Yes, the AoI is the key. Trouble is, all Vengeances look alike, it is impossible to see the AoI on photographs and even with the naked eye I would think you would need a rigger to make a certain decision. The gun mountings in the wings should be another recognition feature, and of course if the guns were there, too, that'd be game, set and match ! But Megan's pic shows an empty space where the outer gun would have been.
Time will tell,
Danny.
So were we originally, until I found Wayne Brown's photo caption, which states that the 0.50 and its matching canopy section were replacements (what happened to the original 2x 0.303s ? - I suppose that as an instructional airframe they were not necessary. But they could have been kept (with the breech blocks removed) as part of the whole aircraft).
Yes, the AoI is the key. Trouble is, all Vengeances look alike, it is impossible to see the AoI on photographs and even with the naked eye I would think you would need a rigger to make a certain decision. The gun mountings in the wings should be another recognition feature, and of course if the guns were there, too, that'd be game, set and match ! But Megan's pic shows an empty space where the outer gun would have been.
Time will tell,
Danny.
hi Danny
I have PM'd you and have some pics to send over to you.
However, you are still misinterpreting PC Smith's statement when you say:
"And Peter C. Smith's statement (that the airframe serial EZ999 doesn't belong - ie that we've got a "ringer" here) hangs in the air with no back-up."
He does not say the "serial EZ999 doesn't belong".
He says, as I stated in my post #7 - "The markings EZ999 now carries are fictitious and the code NH-Y represents the code carried by an aircraft of 12 Squadron RAAF, in late 1943". I explained in my post #6 how the erroneous 12 SQN NH-Y code was added in the 1960s.
The nose art "Dina_Might" is also fictitious, as is the nose art "Beau-guns-ville" on their displayed Beaufighter A8-186. All added - and I dare say was the addition of a 0.50cal - purely for the entertainment of the general public, with no deference to historical accuracy that we now expect from our museums.
cheers, BB
I have PM'd you and have some pics to send over to you.
However, you are still misinterpreting PC Smith's statement when you say:
"And Peter C. Smith's statement (that the airframe serial EZ999 doesn't belong - ie that we've got a "ringer" here) hangs in the air with no back-up."
He does not say the "serial EZ999 doesn't belong".
He says, as I stated in my post #7 - "The markings EZ999 now carries are fictitious and the code NH-Y represents the code carried by an aircraft of 12 Squadron RAAF, in late 1943". I explained in my post #6 how the erroneous 12 SQN NH-Y code was added in the 1960s.
The nose art "Dina_Might" is also fictitious, as is the nose art "Beau-guns-ville" on their displayed Beaufighter A8-186. All added - and I dare say was the addition of a 0.50cal - purely for the entertainment of the general public, with no deference to historical accuracy that we now expect from our museums.
cheers, BB
Guest
Posts: n/a
BB,
I now see your point: when Peter C. Smith sets out, at length and in great detail, the history of EZ999, and then says that "the markings EZ999 now carries are fictitious", he is referring, not to the "EZ999" itself, but only to the squadron letters and nose art on the aircraft.
But it is not uncommon for display aircraft (as in this case) to bear squadron markings, etc "to which they are not entitled", just to make the display a bit more lifelike. Sometimes a row of bombs or swastikas, or 2nd TAF stripes is added for effect. This is well known and Smith hardly needed to draw attention to it.
Be this as it may, it seems that the difference between our opinions is based on this misunderstanding and can now be laid to rest.
I am not yet convinced, but await the physical evidence (AoI and front gun mountings) to settle the matter (and where did that weird cockpit panel come from ? - it is unlike any Mk. I-III, which all had the same panel, no reflector sight, just a simple ring 'n bead)
All the best, Danny.
I now see your point: when Peter C. Smith sets out, at length and in great detail, the history of EZ999, and then says that "the markings EZ999 now carries are fictitious", he is referring, not to the "EZ999" itself, but only to the squadron letters and nose art on the aircraft.
But it is not uncommon for display aircraft (as in this case) to bear squadron markings, etc "to which they are not entitled", just to make the display a bit more lifelike. Sometimes a row of bombs or swastikas, or 2nd TAF stripes is added for effect. This is well known and Smith hardly needed to draw attention to it.
Be this as it may, it seems that the difference between our opinions is based on this misunderstanding and can now be laid to rest.
I am not yet convinced, but await the physical evidence (AoI and front gun mountings) to settle the matter (and where did that weird cockpit panel come from ? - it is unlike any Mk. I-III, which all had the same panel, no reflector sight, just a simple ring 'n bead)
All the best, Danny.
hi Danny,
You ask: "(and where did that weird cockpit panel come from ? - it is unlike any Mk. I-III, which all had the same panel, no reflector sight, just a simple ring 'n bead)".
I am trying to source its E/E 88 Aircraft Status Card (equivalent of the RAF Movement Card) which might shed more light on the particular dates, but my understanding is it probably went direct from storage (in its wooden box) to the Sydney Technical College in 1949. Now I think the late Mr Harold Thomas at the Camden Museum got his hands on it in the early 1960s.
So what we have are those pesky undergraduate apprentices climbing all over your beloved steed for almost 15 years, and stripping bits, changing components, and adding to what may have been a basic Mk.1A all the goodies from the spares boxes (which may have been from a Mk.IV aircraft). By the sound of it, they had instruments and dials and switches, and being trainees let loose on a real aircraft, manufactured brackets and panels (oblivious to the confusion caused 60 years later!).
This to me is a logical conclusion from its life as an instructional airframe, and its cockpit condition was of no great concern to the Museum. But I do not mean to denigrate this approach - as Mr Thomas stepped in and saved this precious unique airframe.
I will write some notes too on the colour scheme/markings of the basic airframe. I last touched it 15 years ago, and its "bottle-green" and earth camouflage just looked a bit suss. Perhaps we can learn some details from this, but who knows - maybe some of those apprentices were trainee surface-finishers, and painted it !!
cheers
You ask: "(and where did that weird cockpit panel come from ? - it is unlike any Mk. I-III, which all had the same panel, no reflector sight, just a simple ring 'n bead)".
I am trying to source its E/E 88 Aircraft Status Card (equivalent of the RAF Movement Card) which might shed more light on the particular dates, but my understanding is it probably went direct from storage (in its wooden box) to the Sydney Technical College in 1949. Now I think the late Mr Harold Thomas at the Camden Museum got his hands on it in the early 1960s.
So what we have are those pesky undergraduate apprentices climbing all over your beloved steed for almost 15 years, and stripping bits, changing components, and adding to what may have been a basic Mk.1A all the goodies from the spares boxes (which may have been from a Mk.IV aircraft). By the sound of it, they had instruments and dials and switches, and being trainees let loose on a real aircraft, manufactured brackets and panels (oblivious to the confusion caused 60 years later!).
This to me is a logical conclusion from its life as an instructional airframe, and its cockpit condition was of no great concern to the Museum. But I do not mean to denigrate this approach - as Mr Thomas stepped in and saved this precious unique airframe.
I will write some notes too on the colour scheme/markings of the basic airframe. I last touched it 15 years ago, and its "bottle-green" and earth camouflage just looked a bit suss. Perhaps we can learn some details from this, but who knows - maybe some of those apprentices were trainee surface-finishers, and painted it !!
cheers
Last edited by BBadanov; 5th Aug 2015 at 02:33.
Sydney Technical College - some rare aircraft
The Sydney Technical College, in the inner Sydney suburb of Ultimo, had some rare aircraft over the years.
One not generally known is the Hunting Jet Provost T.2, probably the College's first jet aircraft.
JP T.2 G-AOHD (c/n PAC/84/012) was built as a Hunting company demonstrator and ended up in Australia on lease for trials by the RAAF as a possible Winjeel replacement:
1959 Ordered by the RAAF from de Havilland via Order No. ABO "E" 5/36,
20/04/59 Issued by de Havilland, Bankstown to RAAF Canberra,
20/04/59 Delivered to the RAAF, fitted with Viper ASV-58 ASV-L-1515,
28/04/59 Issued to Canberra ex de Havilland, Bankstown - as A99-001.
07/05/59 Held at Point Cook.
??/??/59 Ground incident RAAF Point Cook, Pilot Flt Lt John.A.Paule.
Damage to port undercarriage repaired.
30/11/59 To De Havilland at Bankstown. G-AOHD
07/12/59 Charter arrangements terminated.
11/08/1961 Registration G-AOHD cancelled.
??/05/61 Presented to the Sydney Technical College, Ultimo as an instructional airframe.
??/??/83 To Richard E. Hourigan, Melbourne VIC,
??/??/85 Held by the RAAF Museum at Point Cook VIC in storage.
So having arrived for the apprentices at the Tech in May 1961 (and held as an instructional airframe until 1983), it is possible that this JP replaced Vengeance EZ999 as the prime hands-on airframe in the early '60s. (BTW, the RAAF School of Technical Training at Wagga has had many classic examples to play with over the years.)
One not generally known is the Hunting Jet Provost T.2, probably the College's first jet aircraft.
JP T.2 G-AOHD (c/n PAC/84/012) was built as a Hunting company demonstrator and ended up in Australia on lease for trials by the RAAF as a possible Winjeel replacement:
1959 Ordered by the RAAF from de Havilland via Order No. ABO "E" 5/36,
20/04/59 Issued by de Havilland, Bankstown to RAAF Canberra,
20/04/59 Delivered to the RAAF, fitted with Viper ASV-58 ASV-L-1515,
28/04/59 Issued to Canberra ex de Havilland, Bankstown - as A99-001.
07/05/59 Held at Point Cook.
??/??/59 Ground incident RAAF Point Cook, Pilot Flt Lt John.A.Paule.
Damage to port undercarriage repaired.
30/11/59 To De Havilland at Bankstown. G-AOHD
07/12/59 Charter arrangements terminated.
11/08/1961 Registration G-AOHD cancelled.
??/05/61 Presented to the Sydney Technical College, Ultimo as an instructional airframe.
??/??/83 To Richard E. Hourigan, Melbourne VIC,
??/??/85 Held by the RAAF Museum at Point Cook VIC in storage.
So having arrived for the apprentices at the Tech in May 1961 (and held as an instructional airframe until 1983), it is possible that this JP replaced Vengeance EZ999 as the prime hands-on airframe in the early '60s. (BTW, the RAAF School of Technical Training at Wagga has had many classic examples to play with over the years.)
The college seems to have had a number of aircraft pass through their hands, including a Meteor A77-868. After the war, an instructor at the Sydney Technical College called Mark Leech, successfully negotiated a donation of 2 Spitfires, 1 Vultee Vengeance and 1 Mosquito to the College to be used for teaching aircraft apprentices.
The 2 Spitfires and the Vultee Vengeance, still in their original shipping crates were moved from Richmond to the college in Sydney. The Mosquito, which was damaged, was not moved. The two Spitfires were MV154 and MV239. MV154 was assembled at the Technical College while the other one stayed in its crate in a laneway behind the college. It was moved to more secure storeage after it was vandalised. Components from the crate were used to help build MV154 and other parts were used to make dosplay boards. Both Spitfires stayed at the college until 1961 when they were exchanged for a Gloster Meteor.
Spitfire MV239 changed hands a few times before it became the property of Col Pay from Scone who did a total rebuild of the Spitfire. This aircraft was eventually sold to the Temora Aviation Museum in 2000.
Both these Spitfires were acquired by Syd Marshall at Bankstown in the early sixties. After his death Col Pay bought MV-239 (A58-758) (VH-HET) in 1982 and restored it to flying condition. It now resides at Temora Air Museum in the hands of David Lowy.
MV-154 was acquired by an English collector Robs Lamplough in the 1980's. It was restored it to flying condition (G-BKMI).
Some pics of EZ999 I found elsewhere on the net. Perhaps the calibre of the wing guns can be gauged in the last photo by some one knowledgeable.
EZ977 gets a look in
The 2 Spitfires and the Vultee Vengeance, still in their original shipping crates were moved from Richmond to the college in Sydney. The Mosquito, which was damaged, was not moved. The two Spitfires were MV154 and MV239. MV154 was assembled at the Technical College while the other one stayed in its crate in a laneway behind the college. It was moved to more secure storeage after it was vandalised. Components from the crate were used to help build MV154 and other parts were used to make dosplay boards. Both Spitfires stayed at the college until 1961 when they were exchanged for a Gloster Meteor.
Spitfire MV239 changed hands a few times before it became the property of Col Pay from Scone who did a total rebuild of the Spitfire. This aircraft was eventually sold to the Temora Aviation Museum in 2000.
Both these Spitfires were acquired by Syd Marshall at Bankstown in the early sixties. After his death Col Pay bought MV-239 (A58-758) (VH-HET) in 1982 and restored it to flying condition. It now resides at Temora Air Museum in the hands of David Lowy.
MV-154 was acquired by an English collector Robs Lamplough in the 1980's. It was restored it to flying condition (G-BKMI).
Some pics of EZ999 I found elsewhere on the net. Perhaps the calibre of the wing guns can be gauged in the last photo by some one knowledgeable.
EZ977 gets a look in
Last edited by megan; 5th Aug 2015 at 04:52. Reason: Youtube
Two Spitfires in boxes
Megan
In the words of Meatloaf, you took the words right outa my mouth!
As a kid, I used to visit Bankstown aerodrome, as it was then called. It butted onto Syd Marshall's backyard, which was a treasure trove of old aeroplanes. Syd also had his hangar on the airfield proper, with mainly civvie types from the 1930s. One of my first flights was in his Anson (VH-ASM).
But in his backyard was the stuff! He had a camouflaged DC-2 from WWII, I think A30-11. And he had two Spitfire VIIIs in wooden crates, as you correctly identify, MV154 (A58-671) [to UK] and MV239 (A58-758) [to Scone].
Syd assembled MV154 in his hangar in about 1962, and it was wheeled out one Saturday as a photo op. A lot of the keen local enthusiasts were there - Eric Allen, Nev Parnell, myself. In those days I could afford one picture only in colour! Perhaps it then went at this stage to Sydney Technical College - I may be wrong but I think that both were in crates in his backyard through the '50s.
Robs Lamplough "exported" this aircraft to UK (legally? I am not sure), where I think it is still on the display circuit as G-BKMI. It was flown for a long while by ex-Bucc mate Pete John, who I hassle everytime I see him to return it back here - to its rightful home!!! He disagrees for some reason, and it is inappropriate to repeat his responses on this forum! Of interest, UK also tried to "export" Syd's Bf109G, which was stopped at the last minute and is now on display at the AWM Canberra.
Meanwhile, the Spit that didn't get away, MV239, was acquired by cropduster the late Col Pay as VH-HET, and is now flown by the Temora Air Museum in NSW. It is displayed as Bobby Gibbe's Darwin-based RG-V. I once asked the late Bobby, "why did you have V as your individual aircraft marking all the time?" He replied: "V for Victory, old boy!" What a star.
BBad
In the words of Meatloaf, you took the words right outa my mouth!
As a kid, I used to visit Bankstown aerodrome, as it was then called. It butted onto Syd Marshall's backyard, which was a treasure trove of old aeroplanes. Syd also had his hangar on the airfield proper, with mainly civvie types from the 1930s. One of my first flights was in his Anson (VH-ASM).
But in his backyard was the stuff! He had a camouflaged DC-2 from WWII, I think A30-11. And he had two Spitfire VIIIs in wooden crates, as you correctly identify, MV154 (A58-671) [to UK] and MV239 (A58-758) [to Scone].
Syd assembled MV154 in his hangar in about 1962, and it was wheeled out one Saturday as a photo op. A lot of the keen local enthusiasts were there - Eric Allen, Nev Parnell, myself. In those days I could afford one picture only in colour! Perhaps it then went at this stage to Sydney Technical College - I may be wrong but I think that both were in crates in his backyard through the '50s.
Robs Lamplough "exported" this aircraft to UK (legally? I am not sure), where I think it is still on the display circuit as G-BKMI. It was flown for a long while by ex-Bucc mate Pete John, who I hassle everytime I see him to return it back here - to its rightful home!!! He disagrees for some reason, and it is inappropriate to repeat his responses on this forum! Of interest, UK also tried to "export" Syd's Bf109G, which was stopped at the last minute and is now on display at the AWM Canberra.
Meanwhile, the Spit that didn't get away, MV239, was acquired by cropduster the late Col Pay as VH-HET, and is now flown by the Temora Air Museum in NSW. It is displayed as Bobby Gibbe's Darwin-based RG-V. I once asked the late Bobby, "why did you have V as your individual aircraft marking all the time?" He replied: "V for Victory, old boy!" What a star.
BBad
Last edited by BBadanov; 5th Aug 2015 at 11:00.