Civil Aircraft Issued with RAF Serial Numbers for Diplomatic Reasons
I've been reading the statistics in Colin Cummings excellent book “Last Take-off — a Record of RAF Aircraft Losses 1950 to 1953”, published by Nimbus Publishing and am intrigued by one entry which refers to the loss of a Hemes IV WZ839 on 23 July 1952 at Pithiviers, France . As the entry states:
....."The aircraft was owned by BOAC and leased to Airwork and registered G-ALDB. It was allocated an RAF serial number for diplomatic reasons when undertaking trooping flights. The aircraft was carrying a crew of 8 and 68 military passengers from UK to Malta and the starboard outer engine ran away and components disintegrated causing damage to the starboard inner engine. At night and with no visual cues, the pilot was faced with an emergency landing which was carried out with great skill and avoiding overhead power lines and pylons which appeared when the landing lights were put on. The aircraft stopped quickly and was evacuated by all those aboard, mostly members of the Border Regiment. Several people were injured including the captain but all survived. This is one of three serious air trooping accidents in the period under review. Another Hermes: G-ALDF (also WZ841 [sic]), was lost off Trapani Sicily on 25 Aug 52 whilst carrying UK diplomatic personnel under charter to the Sudanese Government. Seven fatal casualties occurred included several children and the air hostess. A York aircraft: G-AHFA, owned and operated by the Lancashire Aircraft Corporation, was lost in the Atlantic with the loss of all 39 aboard. Besides the operating crew, the casualties were military personnel and their families but the aircraft was not operating under a military ‘cover’ serial number."............
So what were the diplomatic reasons in 1952 that allowed civilian aircraft to be allocated RAF serials?
I can understand RAF aircraft being given a civilan registration "for diplomatic reasons," possibly to ease transit at overseas stops, but to do it the other way around appears weird - in fact when looking at 1952 events through 2007 eyes, both methods appear equally weird, but presumably there were good and compellng reasons to do so at the time.
So does anyone know the answer?
Tony