Gaining An R.A.F Pilots Brevet In WW II

[Danny42C]

Cooda Shooda,

(Note: "[PCS]" stands for "Peter C. Smith "Vengeance" (Airlife Publishing) 1986)
.
Following my Post [p.358, #7153], I've had a re-think of the vexed question of the identity of the Camden (Narellan) Vultee Vengeance, and have decided to re-open the matter. (This may seem a pettifogging point to some, but as it's the only one left in the world, and I'm very possibly the only man in the northern hemisphere left alive who flew them operationally, I think it's incumbent on me to try and get the Museum story of my old warhorse right).

There is a great deal about this on Page 132 et seq of this Thread, but it all boils down to: Is it a Mark IA, as catalogued by the Museum, or a Mark IV, as we maintained ? Does this matter ? I think it does ! Since we settled the matter to our own satisfaction here some three years ago, I have dug a bit deeper, and found that some of the "facts" on which we based our argument are not as watertight as we first thought.

Fact No.1: All mark IVs (US A-35s) carry four (or six) 0.50 Brownings in the wings, and one in the back. All marks I-II-III (US A-31s) carry four 0.300 Brownings in the wings, and two 0.300 (0.303 if RAF/RAAF) in the back. Or so they did when they left the factory. The thing in Narellan has one great 0.50 sticking out the back for all the world to see. So it's a Mk.IV ? We..ll, not necessarily !

Suppose someone had a Mk.I that had had the rear guns taken out (very likely when it was put out to grass as an instructional fuselage, as this one was). A Museum gets hold of it, but can't find a twin 0.303 set to replace it when they set about restoring it to display condition. But they can find a 0.50. (and mounting pillar - perhaps the same pillar as the twin 0.300/303s used - I guess a single 0.50 with ammo might be much the same weight as two 0.300s).

To be fair to ourselves, this possibility (actually the replacement of the entire glasshouse and gun was suggested) was considered [p.133, #2650], but discarded as highly improbable. But very recently, roaming in [PCS] (which I normally use only as a reference book), I came across a very interesting pic on p.169, captioned: "close up of the reconstructed rear cockpit of the Narellan VV with single 0.5 in calibre gun - Wayne Brown" [PCS]

Wayne Brown is no stranger, I quote:

"....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...". [PCS].

So there's one leg of our argument kicked away for a start !

Fact No.2 is more arguable. All Mks I-II-III (US A-31) had exactly the same pilot's panel. I flew them all for three years ('43 -'46) and remember them well. What is in the Narellan one is like nothing I've ever seen. In particular, we poured scorn on the double "ball" instruments (only to find that they were not unique: the sad find some time ago of the 70 year old tragedy of the P-40 in the Sahara made me admit [137/2723]: "So they did have two ball indicators. Only question now is - Why? - You can only watch one at a time. One can't go u/s (unless gravity has been suspended) - and they're still working). We'll never know. Better leave it alone".

So that means the Camden panel isn't a one-off, any other Mk.IV would presumably look much the same; we haven't got a firm ident feature to tie all the other pics to Camden. after all.

Fact No.2 doesn't look too healthy now, does it ?

So we must fall back on the two differences that cannot be hidden from the careful eye; and now, Cooda Shooda, I must ask your help a second time. Can you contact your "Warbirds" Vengeance enthusiasts (and I'm sure some of them will be in Sydney), and see, (when the Camden [Narellan] Museum reopens), whether the wing has a zero or 4º Angle of Incidence, as I suspect it will. That will settle it, for it would be no use drilling a new set of holes in the centre section to "bodge" the AoI to zero, it wouldn't fit properly and certainly wouldn't fly, as all the strength had been taken out of the Main Spar assembly !

Second difference: Off with the front gun panels, the guns will have long gone, but the mountings will still be there, it should be obvious what size of gun was there originally. (I exclude the possibility that the mountings have been "swopped" in the same way as the rear guns have [admittedly] been !)

Tempt your "Warbirds" enthusiasts with this letter, tell em' about PPRune (they're probably on it already anyway). When (and if) they find any bits of a Mk.I lying about, I will advise if I can (call me on Open Post on this Thread, so we can all join in the fun), but remember I was just a "Driver(Airframe)", I know how a nut goes on a bolt, but that's about all, so don't be too technical.

Cheers, Danny42C.

PS: I've accumulated a whole pile of stuff in my researches, but will not bother you with it now. But, if I can ever find out how to open a NeW Thread on Mil.Aviation (yes, I've clicked on the button like the man says, but nowt happens), I'll put it on for anyone who might be interested, then it can lapse into oblivion.

D.