Pulling the engines certainly seems prudent, since I don't think they have run since you shut them down. I think I would have done that before signing the cheque though.

I assumed most of the work would be done at Duxford after the ferry, but I suppose some (most ?) could be done at YCD. The UK CAA may take a dim view however.

As you say, we'll see. I'll pass on your comments.

Hey Paper Tiger:

I don't want to get to far into the politics of these airplanes, however can you e-mail me and we can chat?

[email protected]

Cat Driver:

PBY & Jacque Cousteu Expeditions
 

IME I recall a doco I saw about 10 years ago in which J.Cousteu
fitted out a Cat for an expedition which I think was in the Red Sea?
Thanks for the web site , that book is a must have for the serious scholar of WWII - a good intro to this theory is in a book I read
called "Infamy- Pearl Harbour & its Aftermath" by John Toland
ISBN 0413 49820 4

In his work, historian Deighton does not subscribe to this conspiracy theory but his work was pre FOI making a lot of new details available.
I had always believed that where governments are concerned, if you have to decide between a well managed conspiracy and a screw up, always bet on the screw up. But I had to change my ideas after reading Toland's book, the evidence is overwhelming.

Pearl Harbour Attack - PBY sinks sub ??
 

Pearl Harbour Attack - PBY/Midget Sub

At 0740 the Patwing TWO Ops Officer advised CINCPAC that a Patrol Aircraft had depth charged & sunk a submarine south of the Pearl Harbour entrance.

In his Dec 20 report to CINCPAC, Commander Patrol Wing TWO states that at 0700 a VP14 aircraft had sunk a submarine by depth charge.
This does not tie in with the PBY smoke pot marking the sub at 0633 & the attack by USS Ward. This could be another submarine of the five that were involved in the attack.

So was historian L. Deighton correct in crediting a PBY with a sub kill?

Catalina in bomber role
 

Catalina Raids on Rabaul (1942-43)

RAAF 11 Sqn & 20 Sqn operated Catalina's in the New Guinea area from various bases,mainly out of Port Moresby until Japanese bomber raids made it too dangerous to base there,whereupon they moved to the Australian mainland, near Townsville.
As well as their long range recce role they were tasked to carry out night bombing raids on various Jap held bases mainly Rabaul , the major enemy base in the region. When B-17's arrived in the theatre the Cat pilots flew on these missions to give the B17 crews the benefit of their "local" knowledge. At the same time the Cat night raids were continued, well into '43.
The following is an extract from the RAAF historian Douglas Gillison's work on this period,describing one such raid 24 Feb 1942.

" Flying Officer Bolitho & his crew had a close call when an engine failure forced the flying boat down to 200 feet & was only saved by jettisoning the bomb load.*

On the following night,also over Rabaul, Sqn Ldr Cohen used his aircraft virtually as a dive bomber** releasing 12 bombs from 1,300 feet as he dived on Toboi wharf where a ship was berthed. eight of the bombs straddled the target."

* Chuck, like you said not much performance left when fully armed.
** lunkenheimer - you were right.

PBY WWII
 

PBY/Catalina WWII

Well fellas I've runout of leads for PBY stories - if nothing else this forum has shown that the PBY was an incredibly well designed aircraft for its role, ranking equally with the DC3/C47 in this respect. In my mind the most versastile aircraft of WWII. Capable of many roles, long range recce,anti submarine warfare,bomber,scout/attack (Black Cat Sqns), torpedo bomber (Midway), long range courier ( Perth - Columbo flights), & SAR.

A couple of corrections to previous posts:

1) Pre Dec 07 1941 the number of PBY's at Hawaii was 81,but only 30 plus were serviceable at any one time, a mission reliability figure I find difficult to believe. Perhaps those more knowledgeable on this subject may care to comment?

2) It is more likely that the sub kill claimed by PatWing Two was the sub sunk by USS Ward. Incidentally, when that same PBY marked the sub with smoke pots he thought it was a SAR operation & the sub was a USN sub in difficulty. The finding of the sub a few weeks ago clearly shows it was Ward's kill Ward may also have sunk a second sub later that morning.

3) There were PBY patrols out that morning,unfortunately in the South West sector.

Capt X/W:

Actually the PBY might be classed above the DC3 due to its versatility.

I prefeer the PBY to the DC3 for many reasons, then that is only my preference.

Cat Driver:

PBY /DC3
 

Chuck,
When you put versatility into the equation you're right in saying the PBY wins by a country mile.
I reckon the PBY design team should have received a medal for their contribution to the war effort.

You may be aware Australia has a problem patrolling our Northern approaches for illegal immigrants.
Discussing the best acft for this task with a couple of colleagues last night we "speced" up the ideal acft with the endurance, a good loiter speed & with a sea landing capability.
The Cat is the obvious choice. We need a squadron.
x/w

Speaking of losing an engine and flying at 200 feet above the water:
 

When I was in Flight Engineers/Mechanics School our instructor told us never to put the mixture in auto lean below five hundred feet. If the pilot requested it they told us to flick the switch indicating to the pilot that we were in auto lean and then monitor the fuel consumption rate to maintain adequate fuel for the flight.

On this particular flight we were about 200 feet ASL when an exhaust valve on the left engine did not open resulting in the top of the jug being blown off. Luckily I was following the instructors’ advice and the mixture was in auto rich. The engine almost ripped from the mounts and in the next two seconds I had placed the cross feed in the open position and I was operating the wobble pumps. The engine stabilized and the MAP and RPM held steady as if nothing had happened.

When we got on the ground and opened the cowl we found the busted jug. We requested that we be allowed to change the engine but the district office refused our request. We ended up doing a top overhaul on the effected cylinder replacing the jug and the piston. We were afraid the articulating rod or its bearings had been damaged and we again requested an engine change and again it was refused. After doing a 6-hour green run on the new cylinder we went for a test flight. The Navy tower indicated that we were blowing a lot of smoke thinking we were on fire. We returned and checked everything. When we went back on the runway the tower again indicated that we were trailing smoke. We returned and performed a cold cylinder check with no negative indications. Once again we requested an engine change and once again it was refused. This time the chief told me to pull the oil filter and bring it to him. He took the filter to the Navy machine shop and rolled it in the bed of a lathe. There were curly cue chips as well as other forms of chips on the filter. The chief had a picture taken of the filter and sent it to the district office. They authorized the engine change.

We pulled the P-Boat into the Hanger and I removed the cowling. I started to make the various disconnects at the firewall and the chief stopped me asking what I was doing. I told him and he told me that the proper way to pull an engine was to make the disconnects at the Dynafocal mounts. This required the removal of the carburetor and several other accessories. The Navy mechanics watched us in total disbelief as we labored to follow the chiefs' orders. It took almost three days to pull and replace the engine when it would normally take one day or less.

:cool:

Torque tubes fail
 

For information:

SPECIAL
AIRWORTHINESS INFORMATION
BULLETIN
REGULATORY SUPPORT DIVISION
P.O. BOX 26460
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73125-0460




U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration

No. ANM-99-31
July 12, 1999


SAIB’s are posted on the internet at http://av-info.faa.gov
This is issued for informational purposes only and any recommendation for corrective action is not mandatory.

Introduction:

The purpose of this Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) is to inform registered owners/operators of Consolidated-Vultee 28-5ACF, PBY-5, PBY-5A, Army OA-10, OA-10A, RCAF PBY-5A and RCAF 28-5AMC aircraft of the failure of a nose gear bay door torque tube. PBY-6A aircraft may also be affected.

Background:

The United Kingdom Aircraft Accident Investigation Board (AAIB) sent a safety recommendation report to FAA based on their investigation of an accident of a Consolidated Vultee Model 28-5ACF aircraft. The aircraft had been on the water for several seconds during a touch and go landing. AAIB found that the left hand nose gear bay door torque tube failed allowing dynamic water pressure loads to collapse the nose gear bay doors and directly impact the nose gear bay aft bulkhead and roof bulkhead resulting in failure of both bulkheads. The aircraft yawed violently to the left, filled with water and decelerated rapidly. During the evacuation of 14 passengers and 4 crew the aircraft pitched forward trapping two passengers resulting in their death by drowning.

The failure of the left torque tube appeared to be the result of severe corrosion of the internal surface of the tube due to the presence of water over a long period of time. The ends of the tube were closed off by the insertion of two cork-like plugs (bungs). The location of the corrosion within the tube was consistent with the attitude of the aircraft in the parked position, i.e. doors open, gear down.

Recommendation:

Based on the AAIB recommendations, the FAA is recommending that owners/operators of Consolidated Vultee 28-5ACF, PBY-5, PBY-5A, Army OA-10, OA-10A, RCAF PBY-5A, RCAF 28-5AMC aircraft (and PBY-6A because of their similarity), accomplish the following as soon as possible:

a) Perform a detailed visual inspection of the right and left-hand nose gear bay door torque tubes, (both tubes have the same Part Number 28B4028) externally and internally.

b) Permanently remove any plugs or bungs installed in the torque tubes. Inspect torque tubes in accordance with paragraph a).

Note: The Illustrated Parts Catalog, AN 01-5M-4 does not show any plug in the torque tube. Removal of the plug will allow water or condensation to drain or evaporate.

c) Repair or replace any corroded parts in accordance with Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B.

d) The AAIB report also recommended publication of specific rigging instructions for the nose gear bay doors. At this time FAA does not have access to any such instructions and is hereby asking for owners/operators for their support. Please send your recommendations for these rigging instructions within 60 days of the date of this SAIB to Maurice P. Cook, Senior Engineer,
Airframe Branch, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Blvd.,
Lakewood, CA 90712-4137, telephone: (562) 627-5230; fax: (562) 627-5210; or email: [email protected].

e) Incorporate the inspection requirements of paragraph a) and rigging instructions for the nose gear bay doors into the FAA Approved Aircraft Inspection Program (AAIP). Inspections should be accomplished annually or earlier depending on the environment of aircraft operations.

For Further Information Contact:

Mr. Maurice P. Cook, Senior Engineer, Airframe Branch, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137, telephone: (562) 627-5230; fax:
(562) 627-5210; or email: [email protected].

PBY WWII
 

An addition to my post of 11 Sept.
PBY roles in WWII -
I left out one of the roles performed by the Cat - Minelayer.

A number of Cat firsts were listed on this forum - there is also a
WWII "last".
On 7 May 1945 a Catalina made the last U-Boat sinking of the war.

I have just finished the memoirs of Brigadier Kippenberger.

He mentions returning to the Italian front after leave in New Zealand and had " the most tiresome hop of 28 hours in a Catalina from Perth to Ceylon".

i had the pleasure of many hours flying around the carribean sea in a pby. it was operated by antilles airboats out of st thomas, they had two, and i was the flight steward for a while.
we flew about six legs a day inter island. my dad was one of the pilots.

we were not allowed to carry pax in the blisters so i had that cabin to myself most of the time.

i remember sitting back reading a book on a nice sunny day and it started to go dark gradually, i looked up to see a large ammount of oil over the port blister. i tried not to rush through the passenger cabin and upset the pax to alert the captain but some of them noticed my haste. we flew on to st croix and made an uneventful landing.

that particular aircraft was purchased by cousteau for one of his expeditions but unfortunately it looped on the water when a float dug in and the young cousteau, the pilot, was killed.

another cat i had memories of was frigate bird two. it was famous for the pioneering flights it made across the pacific from australia to south america (chile) and easter island. captained by sir gordon (pg) taylor she made the first ever crossing of the south pacific to chile.

frigate bird three was parked in the ansett flying boat base hangar at rose bay in sydney harbour for many years. as kids we used to play in the hull. it is now shown with pride in the power house museum in sydney.:)

PBY Update:

Two of us removed the engines last week from the Cat that was sold to Plain Sailing and they are now at Aero Recip for inspection.

N9521C will remain at North Weald and we will ferry it to Virginia in the spring, the lack of one part really screwed us for time.

Cat Driver:

Interesting statement about the C-46 as I flew the airplane while on contract in Alaska several years ago. The aircraft was configurated for bulk fuel with fixed internal tanks in the cabin. I found the aircraft very "pilot friendly" or as friendly as can be expected for the era it was designed in.

While taking off from Palmer Alaska with a full load of bulk fuel as cargo and about a 48K GTOW, we experienced a partial power loss on the number 2 engine. Remember it was bouncing around quite a bit on the mount producing about 50% power. Mag problem if I remember riight. Flew pretty good and landed without incident.

Company also operated PBY and DC-3, all of which I flew. Most impressive was the C-46 which basically carried its own empty weight in payload. That performance greatly out did the DC-3.