Will the real EZ999 please step forward ?

[Danny42C]

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.

[esa-aardvark]

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

[Danny42C]

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.

[Union Jack]

"And they're off!"

Good luck and good hunting.:ok:

Jack

[megan]

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

http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Vengeance-A27-99/WB_2A27_99b.jpg

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.

[BBadanov]

The adf serial website provides details on the RAAF VV aircraft:
Welcome to ADF Serials (http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/)
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...

[BBadanov]

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.

[megan]

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

[MPN11]

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'.

[Danny42C]

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.

[MPN11]

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.

[Danny42C]

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.

[Danny42C]

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.

[BBadanov]

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

[Danny42C]

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.

[BBadanov]

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

[chevvron]

Wasn't the Blackburn Skua originally a dive bomber?

[BBadanov]

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.)

[megan]

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.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/baldrick1946/_IMG7011_1.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/baldrick1946/_IMG6970_1.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/baldrick1946/_IMG6965_1.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/baldrick1946/_IMG6959_1.jpg

EZ977 gets a look in

k4ohwlL_QhI

[BBadanov]

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

[TBM-Legend]

Vengeance MkIV's were fitted with .50 cal wing guns and a .50 cal shooter for the gunner..

[BBadanov]

Yes, TBM, this has already been covered by Danny on the other referenced thread. Hence his confusion when he saw this Mk.IA with 50 cals.

[BBadanov]

To continue our discussion into EZ999, I think it is appropriate to briefly look at the Vengeance in RAAF service in Australia and New Guinea, and in more depth its (primarily) RAF camouflage. Now for those here who do not want to get into an “anorak train-spotter” conversation, perhaps you need to leave now. It is just that you may get bored.
In Australia, the RAAF received 342 Vengeances, all of which were delivered from the US through Lend-Lease, and many of which were diverted by the British Purchasing Commission from RAF contracts:


99 x A-31 Vengeance Mk.I/IA all Northrop-built and ex RAF contracts – A27-1 to A27-15 V-72 Mk.I (in AN853 to AN898 block); and A-31-NO A27-16 to A27-99 Mk.IA (EZ800 to EZ999 block, USAAF 41-30848 to 41-31047 block). [see below, fn 1, 2, 3]
122 x A-31 Mk.II and Mk.IIA, A27-200 to A27-321, either Vultee-built (with RAF AN serials up to AN837) or Northrop-built (AF serials).
121 x A-35A and A-35B Mk.IV-2, all Vultee-built to USAAF orders:


A27-400 to -422 Vultee-built A-35A-VN ex USAAF (23),
A27-500 to -549 Vultee-built A-35B-5-VN ex USAAF (50),
A27-560 to -566 Vultee-built A-35B-10-VN ex USAAF (7),
A27-600 to -640 Vultee-built A-35B-15-VN ex USAAF (41). [fn 4]



Green/Brown Camouflage
The aircraft camouflage was:
“With British and Australian air forces being the ones interested in the Vengeance from the outset, the initial production paint finish for all production at both Vultee and Northrop factories was to be solely the one which conformed to the RAF’s ‘Temperate Land Scheme’, which was a two-colour disruptive upper camouflage consisting of a green called Dark Green and a brown called Dark Earth. As the Vengeance was a day-flying type, underside camouflage would be the light grey-green colour first phased into RAF use during 1940, called Sky. (Early model Vengeances subsequently diverted into the USAAF were also delivered in this scheme; only later were some deliveries to USAAF orders made in that service’s regular Dark Olive Drab with Medium Green ‘splotches’ and Neutral Grey undersides.)” [fn 5]
US and Canadian paint manufacturers supplied American aircraft builders with paints intended to replicate the required British colours, but sometimes the colour match varied. To expedite production, it appears that in March 1942 the US Dark Olive Drab was substituted for the British Dark Green, and all aircraft would simply be sprayed Dark Olive Drab on their upper and side surfaces, with aircraft earmarked for British and Commonwealth air forces could have the second colour, Dark Earth, added later. When RAAF Vengeances’ paintwork was touched up, RAAF colours Foliage Green, Earth Brown and Sky would have been used, until May 1944 when the scheme was rationalised to overall Foliage Green.
EZ999 may have been repainted at some stage. This may have been during its service at the hands of the technical apprentices at Sydney Technical College, or when procured by Mr Thomas at Camden in the early 1960s. Its “bottle-green” shading does not look consistent with olive hue of Dark Green. In addition, its national markings can be a useful timeline. In 1979, EZ999 was moved by Mr Thomas’ museum to its new site in Narellan (near Camden).
National Markings
Vengeances delivered to Australia came in either RAF markings or USAAF markings. Some RAF Vengeances were diverted directly to the USAAF, and carried RAF camouflage and RAF serial numbers, but the US star national marking (as per EZ856 on the cover of P C Smith’s “Vengeance” book). RAF aircraft were delivered with the red-white-blue 5-3-1 ‘Type A’ roundel (where diameter of 5 is the outer blue circle, diameter 3 is the white ring, and diameter 1 is the inner red disc), or with a yellow ring around this roundel, ‘Type A1’ (7-5-3-1). The ADF Serials web page for the Vengeance (A27) has a nice colour pic of an early RAAF Vengeance line-up in 1942, and they have ‘Type A’ roundels, with apparently the yellow of the A1 roundel overpainted with Dark Earth. EZ999 was probably delivered with the ‘Type A1’ fuselage roundels.
In the RAAF, the national markings were changed from mid-1942 from the RAF ‘Type A’ fuselage red-white-blue roundel, deleting the red (and avoid confusion with the Japanese red ‘meatball’), and similarly with the red-blue ‘Type B’ wings roundel. This deletion of the red disc led to variations in the blue-white roundel. In 1942, the red was simply over-painted making a large white disc, but by 1945 the blue had become wider, making a primarily blue roundel with smaller white centre.
In the case of EZ999, its roundel has been changed from the RAF ‘Type A1’ to the post-1942 RAAF blue/white roundel and fin flash, either when it emerged from its storage crate in 1949 by the apprentices at Sydney Tech, or more likely by Mr Thomas in the early 1960s in preparation for display at Camden airfield. The central red was either just overpainted (i.e. to a two-colour 5-3 roundel), or perhaps all new roundels were applied at some stage. Now assuming it had remained in its packing crate from delivery in 1943 until disposal in 1949 - which is quite likely as it never flew - it probably didn't receive its blue/white 5-3 roundels until the early 1960s. Consistent with this, the fin flash had been changed from the RAF tricolour to the white/blue (i.e. white leading) flash.
Squadron Code
Now remember that EZ999 had no operational or flying history with the RAAF. From delivery in 1943, until release by the Commonwealth Disposals Commission in 1949, it apparently remained in its crate.
So for EZ999, this ‘NH’ code is fictitious, but it is painted in the correct Medium Sea Grey. The 12 SQN ‘NH’ code applied by Mr Thomas at Camden in the early 1960s was intended to be kept simple - with straight letter strokes, and ‘NH-Y’ was formulated. 12 SQN operated the Vengeance throughout northern Australia.
The New Guinea deployed units were 21 SQN (MJ-), 23 SQN (NV-) and 24 SQN (GR-), while a fifth unit was 25 SQN (SJ-) in Western Australia.
The three New Guinea squadron operated under the US 5th Air Force, and therefore over the 1943-44 period had the mandatory all-white empennage. Now this marking instruction could be misinterpreted - so some aircraft had a complete white empennage, some had a white fin, some a white rudder. Perhaps to avoid making a mistake, or to save painting too much white paint, this option was fortunately not exercised at Camden on EZ999.
Similarly, the ‘Dina-Might’ nose art was fictitious, but made for a colourful (albeit inaccurate) public display.
Serial Number
As EZ999 was never flown by the RAAF and remained in its box, the serial number was never changed to the RAAF allocated A27-99. The RAF serial appears to be of accurate size and strokes, and the black colour is correct for a newly delivered aircraft of 1943. This similarly was the case with the two crated Spitfires referred to in my post #20, MV154 and MV239. However, by the time these were delivered in late 1944/early 1945, they were marked with the then standard RAF ‘Type C1’ type roundel (i.e. thin yellow outer ring, thin white inner ring between the blue and the red, 9-8-4-3).
There, a quick phase brief in aircraft cam and markings...anyone still awake ??


British Military Aircraft Serials 1878-1987, Bruce Roberston, Midland, Leicester, 1987, ISBN 0 904597 61 X, pg.141.
Vengeance, Peter C Smith, Airlife, Shrewsbury, 1986, ISBN 0 906393 65 5, pg.175-6.
Lend-Lease Aircraft of WWII, Arthur Pearcy, Airlife, Shrewsury, 1996, ISBN 1 85310 443 4, pg.158.
ADF Serials website, A27 Vultee Vengeance.
Aviation History Colouring Book no.23 Vultee Vengeance, Ian K Baker, Queenscliff, 1996, ISSN 1322-0217, pgs.1-3.

[MPN11]

I'm here, Sir. Ah, my Robertson reference book is the 1971 edition, so only covers 1911-1971. It still lists EZ999 as a Mk 1A, though! ;)

I shall now peruse "Bombing Colours" by Michael J F Bowyer, 1973 (First Edition) in detail. I see it already mentions [p 189] the Vengeances of 82, 84 and 110 Sqns. Of course, the application/changes to roundel colours/proportions were, I assume, often done under field conditions, so it would hardly be surprising if variations were encountered. The same could apply to overall paint colours - "Just get on and paint it green - there's a war on, you know!"

Other bookcase items may be dusted down over the next few days.

[Slow Flyer]

(ask Wayne Brown, if he still lives, or buy a copy of [PCS] !)Hello Danny,

You have my attention. I know I'm due for my bi-annual aircrew medical, but I honestly think I'll get through again ok.

I'll try to answer a few of your questions and put your mind at rest that A27-99 (EZ999) actually is sitting in the hangar at Narellan.

Firstly, what I meant to write in Peter Smith's book Vengeance is that all the external markings other than the serial currently worn by the aircraft are ficticious. That includes the colours, the nose art and the unit codes. The photos I've seen of the VV during it's time at the Tech College show it was overall silver (possibly devoid of paint).

As for physical evidence, if memory serves me correct (I haven't seen the aircraft in nearly 30 years), there is an inscription written in pencil inside either the bomb-bay or a wheel-well stating; "last Northrop built ship" or words to that effect. Harold Thomas pointed it out to me and stated that he believed it had been written by someone at Hawthorne during manufacture. As we now, EZ999 was the last Vengeance built by Northrop.

Regarding the .50 cal gun; The aircraft was totally devoid of armament when used by the Tech College so Harold fitted what he could find to make it look like a warbird and not a college training aid (which in effect is what the aircraft was when he took ownership of it). By the way, he was an instructor at the Tech College at that time.

As for the mix of Vengeance IV parts that made their way onto the aircraft; The aircraft was missing some hardware when he received it, particularly from the rear fuselage and empenage. He drove across Australia to Kalgoorlie in Western Australia (back in the 60's and early 70's that meant travelling over hundreds of miles of corrigated dirt roads). Kalgoorlie was the wartime site of No.4 Aircraft Depot and became the last resting place for many of 25 Squadron's Mk II and Mk IV aircraft. Harold loaded his booty onto his trailer and drove the 1500 miles home...only to find the replacement tail fairing he had found had become dislodged and was lost overboard along the way. I believe this trip accounts for the number of Mk IV items fitted to the aircraft.

Anyway...there you have it. A27-99 is alive and well. As an aside, my day job these days revolves around the Hawk 127, which is the second type to carry the RAAF aircraft ident code of A27.

All the best, SF.

[MPN11]

Awesome, Slow Flyer :ok: :ok:

[BBadanov]

Slow Flyer, well done!! Thanks Wayne.


A good answer and solving the mystery.


And the new A27 - do you know why it is called a Hawk 127 ?
BAE Systems were coming up with a specific designator for this 100-series Hawk, I think Hawk 115 had been allocated already to the Canadian NATO model. BAE Australia reported back to Warton that the RAAF had just allocated the 'A27' serial designator to the new trainer (about 1996 timeframe), so BAE in UK said: well then, Hawk 127 it is!

[BBadanov]

oh no Danny!


Do we have to close down the thread?
That's a shame, enjoyed it, thanks for opening up the discussion


JB

[Danny42C]

Why do I never learn to leave things alone ? - I feel like the Sorcerer's Apprentice ! - MAYDAY !

I thought I might get one or two "bites", then the thing would die out. I'd made my point, and that would be that. Now we've got 23 Posts and 3000+ hits in 48 hours. There are so many hares running now that I can't keep up. I'll have to put my two cent's worth in in Post order, one at a time, until I catch up. And please remember:

Three years ago I wrote ('Pilot's Brevet', p.128 #2560): "A great deal of what follows is no more than hearsay from those days. I had no means then, and have no means now, of verifying what I was told".

This was in the days when I hadn't yet realised what a mine of information lay untapped in Google/Wiki.

-----------------------

First off is:

BBad (#16):

"its "bottle-green" and earth camouflage just looked a bit suss". But it was first-class against a jungle background.

---------------------------------

chevvron (#17): "Wasn't the Blackburn Skua originally a dive bomber?"

Yes,

"...... was being shelled by U-30 and all three dived to attack the submarine, which quickly dived to safety. Two of the Skuas were damaged by the blasts and had to ditch..." (Wiki). (U-Boat 2 : Skuas 0)

(Do not mock, Vlad's priceless YouTube (to appear later) shows two VV (IAF) in a 45 degree dive in formation ! Hopefully only with practice bombs).

Some people learn the hard way. We soon worked out that 2,000 ft intervals (5 secs) apart was about right (and much safer !) They were out of service by '41, so before our time.

And they: "......sank the German cruiser Königsberg in Bergen harbour during Operation Weserübung, the German invasion of Norway....." (Wiki).

But with half the power, it was close to a VV in performance (Wiki, VV Mk.I)

"Maximum speed: 275 mph at 11,000 ft
Cruise speed: 235 mph
Range: 1,400 miles "

In your dreams ! (More like 220 max, 160 cruise, 400 mi).

--------------------------------

megan (#19),

Good on 'em for hanging on to those Spitfires ! And what wonderful shots from Dick Simpson ! (seen 'em all before, but never of such quality):

#1 Note gun ports in wing.

#2 What a monstrous great cannon (the 0.50 Browning) How much room was left for the gunner ? Now if that fell off its mounting (as some of the twin 0.303s did in the dive in the early days), and landed on your face (or on the back of your neck, if you were facing forward), it'd make your eyes water a bit.

#3 Note fictitious "bomblets". There seems to have been no standard size white "roundel" (ours were much smaller - perhaps we were short of white paint. Look at the wing - is there an AoI or not (you see how hard it is).

#4 Gun Ports again. Some Mk.IVs had 3x0.50 a side, others only two. All Mks.I-III had two 0.300/303, our 0.303s had flash eliminators on the muzzles. Don't think the US 0.300s had them.

#5 Vlad's (the Impaler ?) famous YouTube again. Chugalug2 found it for me early on (and I've wasted a lot of time trying to trace his Post ['Search' being as much use as a chocolate teapot], and the queue is growing, and I must go on). This must have been taken privately (gross breach of wartime security !) by an IAF student with a home cine-camera, most of it probably at the OTU in Peshawar; it is a montage and there is footage later which may be operational.

When it first appeared (on "Pilot's Brevet" Thread), there was a lot of discussion about it based on Chugalug's original Post (which would be useful here but I can't find it).

Now I think you asked the question as to whether the size of the gun ports in the wing could indicate the calibre of the weapon. AFAIK, no. I was told that the 0.300s/303s (well back in the wing) fired down a long alloy "Blast Tube", at a guess 2½ in dia., the gun port was that size. A 0.50 would still have plenty of room, so the tubes and gun ports were all the same size.

---------------------------------------

BBad (#23),

"In Australia, the RAAF received 342 Vengeances, all of which were delivered from the US through Lend-Lease, and many of which were diverted by the British Purchasing Commission from RAF contracts":
"99 x A-31 Vengeance Mk.I/IA all Northrop-built and ex RAF contracts – A27-1 to A27-15 V-72 Mk.I (in
AN853 to AN898 block)";

On 110 Sqdn in India/Burma I flew AN862, and on 8 (IAF) Sqdn AN893, so one or two of that batch slipped out to us.

"and A-31-NO A27-16 to A27-99 Mk.IA (EZ800 to EZ999 block)"

On 110 Sqdn I flew EZ834, EZ862, EZ868, and EZ891. On 8 (IAF) Sqdn, I flew EZ811, EZ894, EZ913 and EZ993, so that 'block' lost a few in transit as well!

"122 x A-31 Mk.II and Mk.IIA, A27-200 to A27-321, either Vultee-built (with RAF AN serials up to AN837) or Northrop-built (AF serials)".

On 110 Sqdn I flew mostlty ANs and one or two APs, but no AFs. On 8 Sqdn it was nearly all EZs and one or two ANs.

From mid-'44, the FB and FD series (Mk.IIIs - A-31s) started coming out, AFAIK none served operationally (nor any of the Mk.IVs - A-35s, for that matter).

It illustrates the almost impossible task of keeping track of every single aircraft in a major war.

Danny.

PS: We were perfectly happy with our green/brown camouflage: it worked fine ! D.

-------------------------------------

MPN11 (#24),

There was never any doubt that EZ999 was a Mk.IA - the question was whether what we were looking at was EZ999, or some impostor pretending to be EZ999 !

Danny.

--------------------------------------

Slow Flyer (#25),

Welcome aboard ! (and also into "Gaining an RAF Pilot's Brevet in WWII" Thread - the best-loved Thread on Military Aviation) - we'd be happy to hear from you there - at the moment it's slipped off the radar into Page 2 of Mil.Aviation.

If you are who I guess you are, you are the man who can put us out of our misery ! (but remember, strict Anonymity is the name of the game here - so Slow Flyer and BBad, suggest you take down the Christian name(s) straight away).

There are so many questions I'd like to ask, and will ask you on "Brevet" Thread in a few days, but not now - we have enough on our plates to be going on with. Remember that I've never even seen a Mk.IV ! - all my time was on Is, IIs and IIIs.

So the Great EZ999 Mystery is solved at last; I can pipe down now and rest on my oars. My thanks to all who have helped me on this three-year old quest. EZ999 lives still in Narellan - long may it remain so, as a standing reproach to an Air Force which commissioned it, bought it, used it in a desperate time and then turned its back on it.

"Put not your hope in princes !"

Cheers, Danny42C.

Nunc dimittis.

---------------------------------

Bbad,

'Fraid so ! Thanks for your help,

Danny.

[TBM-Legend]

The idea that the Vengeances came in crates is a bit far fetched. My father was a flight mechanic at 3AD Amberley and assembled some Vengeance aircraft among others which were brought from Brisbane docks sans outer wings not in "crates". The Vengeance is a very large aircraft about the size of an Avenger.

[megan]

Thanks for the thread Danny. I never realised until now the paucity of information available on the VV. The aircraft gets absolutely no mention in either "Janes - Fighting Aircraft of WWII" or "The Encyclopaedia of Aircraft Of WWII". Very little on the web as well. Has been an education into unsung participants of the conflict - yours and the airframe. Salute Sir.

[MPN11]

I have 6 assorted volumes on the desk with info on the VV :cool:

[BBadanov]

Adf serials on their message board has just shown the Bill of Laden, for three aircraft shipped from LA to Sydney (2 Stores Depot) in May 1943.

"3 cases Airplanes (3 Model A-31)". The aircraft are EZ997, EZ998 and EZ999.

Each aircraft in a case, weighing 19,700 LB.
"Lend Lease Authorization BSC No 2648."

[Danny42C]

TBM-Legend,

If you can get hold of a copy of "Vengeance!", by Peter C. Smith, on page 127 he shows two photographs of the "crating" in progress at Northrop. Actually, it is clear that it was really "boxing", for which we paid $800 extra each on the British Contract aircraft.

That would translate as £200 then, or £10,000 today ! :*

In 1939 you could get a decent new three-bedroom semi (oop North!) for £399, and a new 8 hp. Ford Anglia would run you £115.

Danny.

[Danny42C]

MPN11,

I think that Peter Smith's "Vengeance!" covers the ground pretty comprehensively. (The Brazilian River usually has one or two, but I wouldn't pay more than £10 for a decent 2/h copy).

But now that we've got the "Horse's Mouth" with us (so to speak), we should be able to get the 'gen' !

Danny.

[BBadanov]

Danny,

I don't know if Slow Flyer will like being referred to as a horse! But with his useful input here he has been a thoroughbred.

Interesting aspect of the Bill of Lading, which might fill in some gaps of its early life. In May 1943 it was shipped to Sydney, to No 2 Stores Depot (2SD) in its crate. The SD was in the Sydney suburb of Regent's Park. It then appears to have remained in its crate.

Slow Flyer reports: "The photos I've seen of the VV during it's time at the Tech College show it was overall silver (possibly devoid of paint)."

So at what stage was it stripped of its RAF’s 'Temperate Land Scheme' camouflage and 'Type A1' roundels? Not at 2SD, this activity is beyond their remit - it would be the job of an Aircraft Depot. The local AD was 2AD at RAAF Richmond, on Sydney's north-western outskirts. So would the crate be transported out from Regent's Park to Richmond, with EZ999 removed from the crate, paint stripped, and repacked to then be transported back into Sydney to the Tech College in Ultimo? Considering that this would have been gifted, I don't think the RAAF would have gone to this much effort.

So it was probably stripped of its paint by the Sydney Technical College students, and possibly as part of their syllabus. Perhaps done in smallish sections for each subsequent class. Who knows? But this Mk.IA's early history is coming together.


Edit: I have erred, by assuming that EZ999 remained stored at 2SD, in fact according to its history it went to 2AD in 1943, presumably on arrival by ship in Sydney ex-LA.
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.

So some storage at 2CRD (which I assume to be 2 Crash Repair Depot), location? Possibly based at Richmond as well. Its history says "passed to DAP (Dept of Aircraft Production)1948" - but this might have been a paperwork transfer which often happened, and not a physical move from Richmond. Struck off Charge (SOC) 6 SEP 1949 probably represents the time of gifting to Ultimo.

[Danny42C]

BBad (#28),

No, we won't close it down, but just let it "wither on the vine", I think.

But it's a bit like Charles II, when he said that: "He had been an unconscionable time dying; but he hoped they would excuse it !

Danny.

Edit: Didn't see your last ("Don't Assume, Check" !) Yes, Slow Flyer should have all the answers from now on ! D.

[Slow Flyer]

BBad, Danny, et al,

I have always assumed the original paint was stripped or the aircraft repainted silver by Sydney Tech. The Meteor F8 currently also held by Camden Museum of Aviation, A77-868, was repainted silver whilst in the care of the Tech College, so that may give us a clue. Of additional note: I once commented to Harold that the Foliage Green on EZ999 looked a little too blue. He promptly went into the shed and came back with an original wartime tin of RAAF Foliage Green paint....end of discussion.

Cheers SF

[Danny42C]

Slow Flyer,

Will put this on on both "Wil the real EZ999..." and "Gaining a Pilot's Brevet..." Threads, suggest we use the latter (as the former must surely be on the way out).

Is this acceptable for just this once, please, Mr. Moderator ?(he's new and I'm not sure which he may be watching)

When we first heard of you, it was of: "LAC Wayne Brown from 77 Squadron Engine Section at RAAF Base Williamstown, who has specialised on the Vengeance". Now you tell us: "I know I'm due for my bi-annual aircrew medical..." Let's have your story ASAP, please !

Now, as regards EZ999,

As it escaped scrapping, it would seem that you Australians took a more cavalier view of your contractual obligations under Lend Lease, for it would have made no sense to pay good money to the US to buy back an ex-Lend Lease VV (one of the 46 EZs which you got), to be used as an instructional airframe - when at the same time you had your pick of the more than twice as many (123) "British Contract" ANs and AFs (already paid for by the British taxpayer) which had been passed on to you to do as you liked with, and most of which would surely have been in the scrapyards at the same time as the EZs.

Did Harold Thomas ever say anything about this ?

Of course, by the time it got to the Technical College, there would be far more of the later Mk.IV bits lying about than of the earlier Mks.I and II, and the studes went to town with them ! (I don't think you got any IIIs, but we did in India), I flew my first (FB956), after they patched me up, on 8 (IAF) in July,'44, just before they closed our business down for good.

Now it is time to say that the Mks.I to III, (and the 'A's) were all the same aeroplane. The dodging about had nothing to do with it, they were merely flags to show who built the thing, and who paid for it. The US had the right idea: they simply called the whole lot A-31s (and all Mk.IVs A-35s), and had done with it.

The A-31s all looked the same, flew the same, dived the same (I never dived a III, but no reason to think it would be any different), had the same tankage, the same bomb load, and the same armament. The only mechanical change was made very early on, when they put in an EDP for the 20-gallon Trap Tank to replace the electric fuel pump originally fitted. This was met with general rejoicing, especially by the back seat folk (who now had no more wobble-pumping to do).

Come to think of it, they had nothing else at all to do. Any Pilot with any sense did his own navigation; the gunners had no live training at all on this installation, so it was a mercy that we were never (AFAIK) attacked. But it was nice to have somebody to talk (all right. Shout) to on the trips.

Cheers, Danny.

PS: Cooda Shooda is in your part of the world, I am sure that he and his "Warbirdz" would welcome your input, as a bunch of them are on the (hopeless, IMHO) self-imposed task of looking for enough bits to put another A-31 together (to rival yours ?). Don't think they'll get far, as you will have hoovered them all up yourself already. D.

[Slow Flyer]

BBad, Danny, et al,

Thanks for the warm welcome.

A few more answers for you: 2 Central Recovery Depot (2CRD) was a spin-off unit from 2AD (2 Aircraft Depot) and was also based at Richmond NSW with detachments at Mascot & Mount Druitt. At the conclusion of the War the unit was responsible for storing, classifying and preparing equipment for either retention or in many cases disposal.

A read through the 2AD records for mid-1943 and they show that there was a considerable effort expended in receiving, erecting and dispatching VV aircraft during the period. According to it's Form EE88, EZ999 was received by the depot ex USA in June '43. From 2AD records qty 4 VV were received for erection (what a great word to descibe bolting an aircraft together) at that time. By Oct '43 2AD state in their monthly Unit History Report that there were no VV awaiting erection although several were in the course of erection. If this is correct (and errors did occur in these reports) 2AD must have at least started to assemble the aircraft. Unfortunately quatities and not serial numbers are refered to in the monthly reports. Starting assembly makes some sense when you consider that at this point the RAAF was trying to get three squadrons equipped with the type and worked-up in preparation for deployment to New Guinea. I don't think it makes sense to leave one in the box. We know it never made it to the flightline as the EE88 records no servicing was ever performed on the aircraft. The EE88 for my current steed (DH82A) is several cards long and records every servicing ever performed on the aircraft during it's RAAF service, including during it's time in storage pending disposal.

Of note; its interesting that it wasn't until October '44, some 12 months later, that EZ999 was transfered into 2AD stores section. Was it left to languish in the back of the hangar for 12 months?


Cheers SF

[BBadanov]

Slow Flyer,

Thx for your replies.

Your #38..."I once commented to Harold that the Foliage Green on EZ999 looked a little too blue. He promptly went into the shed and came back with an original wartime tin of RAAF Foliage Green paint....end of discussion."
I agree with you! It was 'bluer' (I said "bottle green") did not look like the 'olivey' RAF delivery Dark Green. In my #23, I state 'Its “bottle-green' shading does not look consistent with olive hue of Dark Green."

But RAAF Foliage Green didn't come into service until 1944, so what era was Harold trying to create?

Certainly post-1942 when the blue/white roundels were introduced, and post-1943 when the two-letter (e.. "NH-") squadron codes were introduced. When Foliage Green did become the standard colour in 1944 it became "overall", with no browns. (However, Foliage Green might have been used for touch-ups before becoming the sole colour.)

I guess "fictitious markings" leads to such inconsistencies.

Thank you for your input, you have added some insight into the aircraft's postwar background that, I reiterate, we are lucky Harold saved for us.

[Danny42C]

Slow Flyer (your #38):

"I have always assumed the original paint was stripped or the aircraft repainted silver by Sydney Tech"

I'd have thought life's too short for stripping paint off aircraft. Just rough it up a bit and slap on a new coat. Sounds like the kind of displacement activity they gave to naughty boys in the House of Correction (aka "Glasshouse": strip paint off this week, paint next week, strip it off week after, repeat ad lib).

Perhaps that was the idea for errant studes ? :ok:

Danny.

[Chugalug2]

Danny:-
#5 Vlad's (the Impaler ?) famous YouTube again. Chugalug2 found it for me early on (and I've wasted a lot of time trying to trace his Post ['Search' being as much use as a chocolate teapot]Danny my ears must have been burning for they brought me to your crie de coeur above. Is this the post you speak of? If not I'll gladly root around for it. The VV memoriam posts of yours on the WW2 Pilots Brevet thread are many indeed, but I do commend them to anyone interested in Military Aircraft history, and in particular the Vengeance of course (of whatever hue):-

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/329990-gaining-r-f-pilots-brevet-ww11-129.html

[Danny42C]

Chugalug,

Thanks for the link !

That's the one all right ! (your Post p.129/#2561). This triggered off a whole string of comments, questions and answers, which kept the "Pilot's Brevet" Thread up as No.1 in the Charts of "Military Aircrew" (as it then was) for quite a long time.

Has anyone else noticed how the Mighty have Fallen ? "Our" Thread has always boasted the highest number of Posts (CapCom excepted, and that is clearly a special case) on "Military Aviation". Now we are running 50-odd Posts behind "F-35 Cancelled, then what ?" Ah, well. :(

Danny.

[Chugalug2]

Well let's bump this thread up then Danny. That YouTube link leads in turn to this one. I don't remember posting it before but, as ever, your memory will be better than mine:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8RqlK1d1_k

[Three Wire]

Wow chugalug, your link was an eyeopener. After reading all Danny's pages again yesterday, I still had no conception of how big the Vengeance was. the humans put it into perspective. It was a huge bombtruck!

My experience was on a little delta wing bomber that was hurled off boats and my minds scales my plane as smaller.

Kudos to Danny!

[Slow Flyer]

Danny,

I'd have thought life's too short for stripping paint off aircraft. Just rough it up a bit and slap on a new coat.A pic of the VV during her time at the college has been posted over at adf.serials: ADF Serials Message Board -> Veneance Ez999 (http://www.adf-messageboard.com.au/invboard/index.php?showtopic=2678). My memory isn't fading, she really was silver.:)

I'll let this thread run it's course and pop on over to the Brevet thread from here on in.

Cheers SF

[BBadanov]

From adf serials:

"Components of Vultee Vengeance A27-247 together with parts of Vengeance airframes is currently with the Historic Aircraft Restorations (HARS) at Albion Park, NSW:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2852/10373127...8dc8e0de9_b.jpg (https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2852/10373127553_18dc8e0de9_b.jpg)

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3805/10372927...2c7c8a66e_b.jpg (https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3805/10372927664_52c7c8a66e_b.jpg)

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3810/10372930...ae51c552e_h.jpg (https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3810/10372930515_2ae51c552e_h.jpg)

A27-247 was recovered from Lancelin Airfield, WA by Stan Gajda in the 70s together with other Vengeance components from Boulder (Kalgoolie), WA where 30 Vengeance airframes were scrapped at CMU Boulder post war. The parts originally went to the Bull Creek Museum, then to Whaleworld and then Precision Aerospace at Wangarratta before being transferred to HARS.

Rumours abound that not one but two Vengeances will be restored at HARS with one to go back to the USA on completion. Apparently there's a world-wide search being conducted at present for Vengeance components.

I hope this is of some help.

The threads on the provenance of EZ999 has been fascinating reading."

A27-247 is an A-31 Vengeance IIA, ex AF929, which served in 25 SQN RAAF.

[Danny42C]

BBad,

Thanks for the links ! - No.2 and No.3 don't add much, but No.1 is the winner! Clear as day on the fuselage sides are the bolt etc. holes for the wing attachments. Even to my unskilled eye, it's plain that there was zero AoI. Proof Positive !

Your: "The threads on the provenance of EZ999 has been fascinating reading".

Too true - what have we started here ? (the Smithsonian missed a trick didn't they, [or rather two tricks, for they haven't got an A-35 either], but I wager it's far too late to find enough bits to rebuild any more (Nagpur ?). Pack it in !

NOW LET'S ALL GO BACK TO THE "BREVET" THREAD SHALL WE ? THE "EZ999" THREAD HAS COMPLETELY ACHIEVED ITS PURPOSE, LET IT JUST DRIFT OFF INTO HONOURABLE RETIREMENT.

(I hope Cooda Shooda, "Warbirdz", Slow Flyer and all the others who've helped us to settle the question once and for all find this message).

G'night, all

Danny42C.

[Danny42C]

Three Wire (your #46),

When I first clapped eyes on it (I said): "It looked like a double-decker bus with wings !" It was 48 ft wingspan, 40 ft long and 14 ft to the top of the engine cowling (how does that compare with yours?) AUW was around 14,000 lb.

Thanks for the compliment !

Danny.

[Ghostrider870]

I'm the supervisor at the Camden Museum of Aviation and have had an association with the museum for over thirty years.
I see a lot of articles stories etc about our museum and collection that aren't overly accurate or well informed. Some of this one has given me some amusement.
So we get the stories right if anyone wishes to answers to specific questions or wants some detail of triple nine then please feel free to message me and I will do my best to assist your quest.
Cheers
Steve Long
Camden Museum of Aviation.

[megan]

Some of this one has given me some amusementSteve, you might spell out for the edification of the people here what it is that has provided the amusement. All the posts have been made in good faith, and it should not take people approaching you personally with their questions. If you have information put it here. The poster who identifies as Danny42C, and initiated this thread, flew the aircraft in combat during WWII and deserves a modicum, and more, of respect. I rang the Camden museum myself and spoke to a woman (name forgotten) to elicit information, and posted here what she was able to tell me.

And as an aside, museums often put out misinformation as well, not their fault, because their source of information may be incorrect. A particular museum in NSW tells the story that a service operated a particular model of aircraft, but it didn't, and I know because I was a pilot involved.

[Danny42C]

Megan,

Thank you for entering the lists in my support, but I'm surprised this topic has popped up again. Following Slow Flyer's conclusive evidence, I accepted (my #28) that what the Museum had got the real EZ999, which was a Mk.IA. Our search was at an end.
...So the Great EZ999 Mystery is solved at last; I can pipe down now and rest on my oars. My thanks to all who have helped me on this three-year old quest. EZ999 lives still in Narellan - long may it remain so, as a standing reproach to an Air Force which commissioned it, bought it, used it in a desperate time and then turned its back on it...
It was just unfortunate that, having got it, for whatever reason the Museum then had to fit it out with a 0.50 cal Browning (the hallmark of a Mk.IV), complete with a matching rear canopy section, and a "bitsa" instrument panel that was certainly not that of a Mk.IA (or I suspect, of a Mk.IV. either).

There's really no more to be said on the subject. I wish the various groups which are trying to resurrect a second one well, but reckon they're on a hiding to nothing.

Danny42C.

[Ghostrider870]

I'm the museum supervisor for the Camden Museum of Aviation
If there are questions etc regarding EZ triple nine please feel free to
message me and I will endeavour to assist with your enquiry.
Regards
Steve Long

[megan]

You've not answered the question already put to you.Steve, you might spell out for the edification of the people here what it is that has provided the amusementIt would go some way to perhaps correcting, or adding to, information given here.

[Courtney Mil]

Megan, Danny,

The fact that Steve Long (who is the museum supervisor of the Camden Aviation Museum) is simply repeating his position and offer to help off line, makes me think that he has no intention of explaining the cause of his amusement on line.

He may be slightly defensive about any challenge to the authenticity or provenance of one of his exhibits. Perhaps he doesn't quite understand the genuine interest here or the good nature of the discussion.

[Stanwell]

Ghostrider,
It would, I'm sure, be appreciated by the many who have contributed to, or just followed, this discussion if you could let us know
where the conclusions arrived at are flawed.
Thanks in anticipation. :ok:

[Danny42C]

Ghostrider870, megan, Courtney Mil and Stanwell,

Gentlemen, please do not be overly concerned about this affair. It's all 'done and dusted' now. The whole problem arose in the first place because I (and others) worked on the well-known principle that: "If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck".

Now we are all satisfied that it is not a duck (all appearances to the contrary), and there is really nothing more to be said. It would be nice to see it flying, but there is scant chance of that happening now. There must be (very) old men alive in Oz who've flown them, and could pass on the 'gen' to some young fella willing to "have a go" (and I'd add my two cents' worth if asked, and if I'm still here). :ok:

But I'm not holding my breath !

Danny.

[Ghostrider870]

Just for the record I had mutiple posts here because they had to be checked by a moderator first, I missed this fairly important bit of information and mistakenly reposted the same message.
Now why did this cause me amusement? mainly because once again I saw a lot of things being written about our museum that could have been easily answered by us with a simple email, phone call or facebook message. All relevant contact details are displayed on our web site and FB page.
I made it clear in my posts that I was more than happy to assist with any questions regarding EZ999 or any of our collection but I asked it was via PM so I would get a notification via email. I am presently working my day job, carrying out my CMA duties, assisting another museum and restoring 1 1/2 Sea Venoms so I dont get to check every web site as mush as I'd like to.
I would point out that nobody has contacted me.
Having said that and worked with many museums and organisation and having supplied large amount of information to sites such as this, many modelling sites and model kit manufacturers I would have to say that the responses of a few members of this forum have been downright rude and insulting. "He may be slightly defensive about any challenge to the authenticity or provenance of one of his exhibits." Seriously? If you had bothered to contact me then you would have discovered how far from the truth that statement is.
For future reference any one with a bona fide enquiry can contact us via the website or FB page. As for wasting my time with this site again? I'll not bother thanks.
Steve Long

[Danny42C]

It is sad to see this discussion end in such an acrimonious way.

Nevertheless, I must take issue with;
...I would point out that nobody has contacted me...
Cooda Shooda,

You should be able to turn up and confirm receiving:
...(My reply to you 16.6.15.):

It is good to hear that someone is trying to resurrect a flyable one, but it won't be easy. As you say, most of the survivors will be from the Mk.IVs that came out at the end; it is hard to imagine that there will be much left of the Mks.I and II, (the only ones which we and, I believe, the RAAF) went on 'ops' with in the War). We got Mk.IIIs in India when it ended, but they only did odd jobs. I don't think you got any IIIs at all.

The only useful reference book I know is: "Vengeance!" The Vultee Vengeance Dive Bomber by Peter C. Smith, Airlife Publishing, 1986. The Brazilian River has one at £7.49 (your $15.05) at the moment.

Wiki (and the Museum) still says that the Camden Museum one is a MkIA (US A-31), but I think it's a Mk.IV (US A-35), as it has that massive 0.50 "cannon" at the back, which is the hallmark of the Mk.IV (all the others have 2x 0.300/303s).

The clincher would be if your warbird mag chap could check the wing: if there's a 4° Angle of Incidence, it's a IV: if zero, not! - and the airframe No. on the fuselage is a fake (although the paperwork may be genuine, this is not) # EZ999. [EDIT: # I flew EZ993 on 24.2.44, it was the end of the VV, but we, fortunately, lived to tell the tale]. Be that as it may, it looks all there and should be capable of getting into flying condition. The test pilot will have no trouble, it's just a big old pussycat.

Good luck with it ! Danny...

and
...Cooda Shooda,

I've decided to follow up the Narellan Vengeance in an attempt to settle its identity once and for all.

It is now (17 July 15) a full calendar month since I sent a message to the Camden Museum on their website Message Pad, querying whether they had got their Vengeance exhibit (the last one of its kind remaining in the world) correctly catalogued as "EZ999, a Mark 1A", whereas I believe it to be a Mark IV. I told them that, if I had a reply from them within a month, I would put it out on open Post on this Thread: but if they did not, I would put my query to them out on Post anyway.

(This may seem a pettifogging point to some, but as it is the only one left, and I am possibly the only man left alive who flew them operationally, I think it is incumbent on me to try and get the Museum story right).

Of course I had a copy of my query tucked away safe on a Notepad file and Flash Drive (or so I thought). But a fortnight ago I had a Senior Moment (Mental Aberration !) which resulted in my irrevocably losing it (and a lot more - don't ask me how I managed to do it !) As always, I had been scrupulously polite to them first time, so I ate humble pie, explained what had happened and asked them to email me back a copy of my query. This fell on stony ground, too, which is rather surprising as their current website says:
"The Camden Museum of Aviation will be temporarily closed for maintenance until further notice — watch this site for details of our re-opening! Until then, enjoy viewing our website and please feel free to contact us if you have any comments or suggestions"... This implies that they will reply to messages, but it seems not to be so. So I'm reliant on memory alone now, and here goes....
Time to lay this to rest, I think.

Danny42C.

[megan]

I would point out that nobody has contacted meThe explanation for that is simple Steve, no one had you has a point of contact in their approaches to the museum. I obtained a contact number (mobile phone) from the museums web site which directed me to a woman by the name of Nicole who was rather high up in the museum hierarchy. As Danny has expounded in his last email, numerous approaches have been made to the museum, and seemingly remain unanswered, which suggests a problem at the museums end.

PS: I know you do good work Steve in the restoration arena, that is appreciated by all who have an interest in such, and appreciate you might be a busy man. A simple reply to Stanwell's postI'm sure, be appreciated by the many who have contributed to, or just followed, this discussion if you could let us know where the conclusions arrived at are flawedwas all that was being asked of you, rather than a "get in touch with me if you want to know anything". No one has been "downright rude and insulting" and I'm sorry if you have taken anything that way. We do get a lot of posers here it has to be said though.

Time to lay this to restAmen

[Danny42C]

megan,

Agreed. Now can some kind soul tell me how to close this redundant Thread of mine ? (As before, suggest that anything further on the subject can be said on the "Pilot's Brevet in WWII" Thread).

Danny42C.

[CMAadmin]

I have received a number of inquiries relating to this thread with concerns regarding the provenance of EZ999 and the authenticity of the CMA claim of ownership. This has been adequately addressed in previous posts and I trust that matter is resolved.

My apologies for not responding to the website contact form, this link is no longer active while we update the website. Any inquiries on this aircraft or any other aircraft in the collection can be made to my mobile or by email.

The Camden Museum of Aviation is a private aircraft collection founded by my grandfather Harold Thomas. There are many who have visited the collection or volunteered over the 50 years it has been around. My family continues the task of preserving this significant historic collection with the assistance of an active workforce of 30 volunteers.

We welcome the contributions or questions from those who have a genuine interest or connection to the aircraft. Historical records or anecdotal references also help expand our archive so if you have photos, stories or operational records, please feel free to contact me.

Nicole Thomas
Director
0447778020
[email protected]

[Danny42C]

CMA admin (your #63),

Welcome aboard ! - you will find that all the action on your (and other) Vultee Vengeances is on "Gaining a RAF Pilot's Brevet in WWII" Thread on this Forum.

Tried PPRune "Search this Thread", but it only turned up my page p.136 #2702 (to get to p.136 easily (to date there are 455 Pages), look for the Page Number bar, right at the end is a little inverted triangle, click that and you get "Go to Page" box).

The Vengeance EZ999 identity problem is long since solved to our satisfaction: we traced the chap who rebuilt it, it is a pukka Mk.I - but the Museum, for some reason, then fitted it out as a Mk.IV with a single 0.50 Browning (with matching canopy) in the rear (which is the hallmark of the Mk.IV). All sorted out now. It is a Mk I, the EZ999 is genuine, it is just masquerading as a Mk.IV.

Come in on "Pilot's Brevet", the water's fine, the best Thread on PPrune Forums IMHO, and we'll answer any questions you like. At the moment "Fly Past" magazine (September number) is being dissected for a Vengeance article on it.

Danny42C,