Gaining An R.A.F Pilots Brevet In WW II
Foresight from Guy Gibson VC
I uncovered treasure trove last month, a 1957 copy of Enemy Coast Ahead by Guy Gibson VC, published by Pan and with price 2/6d on the cover. When I first read this book I was still a teenager, and 60 years later if anything it's more gripping than ever.
Gibson was killed in September 1944 and even then was questioning the war which had claimed so many of his comrades.
"The scythe of war, and a very bloody one at that, had reaped a good harvest in Bomber Command. As we flew over the low fields of Holland, past dykes and ditches, we could not help thinking: 'Why must we make war every 25 years? How can we stop it? Can we make countries live normal lives in a peaceful way?' But no-one knows the answer to that one.
"The answer may lie in being strong. A powerful strategic bomber force could prevent and strangle the aggressor from the word Go. But it is the people who forget. After many years they will probably slip and ask for disarmament so that they can do away with taxes and raise their standard of living ..."
Gibson was killed in September 1944 and even then was questioning the war which had claimed so many of his comrades.
"The scythe of war, and a very bloody one at that, had reaped a good harvest in Bomber Command. As we flew over the low fields of Holland, past dykes and ditches, we could not help thinking: 'Why must we make war every 25 years? How can we stop it? Can we make countries live normal lives in a peaceful way?' But no-one knows the answer to that one.
"The answer may lie in being strong. A powerful strategic bomber force could prevent and strangle the aggressor from the word Go. But it is the people who forget. After many years they will probably slip and ask for disarmament so that they can do away with taxes and raise their standard of living ..."
Vultee V-72 (A-31/A-35 Vengeance)
Danny42C
Clearing out my library for disposing of on eBay I found this article about the Vengeance in The Encyclopaedia of World Aircraft (1997). Not sure if It adds anything to what has been on here already, but passed on FWIW.
Vultee V-72 (A-31/A-35 Vengeance)
The Vultee V-72 represented continuing improvement of the basic V-11/V-12 design, and with knowledge of the successful application of dive-bombing techniques in the Spanish Civil War the V-72 was designed to incorporate such capability. This development came at the right moment for a British purchasing mission of 1940 which, with even more comprehensive knowledge of the potential of dive-bombing, placed an order for 700. Built by Northrop and Vultee, the latter having inadequate production capacity, these aircraft were designated Vengeance Mk I and Vengeance Mk IIB, respectively, by the RAF. Following the introduction of Lend-Lease in 1941 the USAAF ordered 300 more aircraft for the UK, allocating the designation A-31, and Northrop and Vultee-built examples of these aircraft had the respective RAF designations Vengeance Mk IA and Vengeance Mk III. With experience of the vulnerability of the Junkers Ju 87 to its own fighters in the Battle of Britain, the RAF realised that the Vengeance was unsuitable for deployment in Europe and used them to equip Nos 45, 82, 84 and 110 Squadrons in Burma where they had considerable success.
When the USA became involved in World War II, the USAAF commandeered 243 of the aircraft in production for the UK and these entered service as V-72s. Vultee then built 99 aircraft designated A-35AB, which differed in armament and equipment, followed by 831 A-35B aircraft with increased armament and the Wright R-2600-13 engine. Of this total, 29 were supplied to Brazil, plus 562 to the UK which designated them Vengeance Mk IV. The RAF transferred a small number to the Royal Australian Air Force and also converted some as Vengeance TT Mk IV target tugs; almost all of the USAAF's aircraft were used in this latter role. Variants included the XA-31A static test airframe, becoming XA-31B when used to test a 2237-kW (3,000-hp) Pratt & Whitney XR-4360-1 Wasp Major engine, plus five XA-31C conversions from A-31s as testbeds for the 1640-kW (2,200-hp) Wright R-3350-13/- 17 Cyclone engine.
Specification:
Vultee A-35B Vengeance
Type: two-seat dive-bomber
Powerplant: one 1268-kW (1,700-hp) Wright R-2600-13 Cyclone radial piston engine
Performance: maximum speed 449 km/h (279 mph) at 4115 m (13,500 ft); service ceiling 6795 m (22,300 ft); range 3701 km (2,300 miles)
Weights: empty 4672 kg (10,300 lb); maximum take-off 7439 kg (16,400 lb)
Dimensions: span 14.63 m (48 ft 0 in); length 12.12 m (39 ft 9 in); height 4.67 m (15 ft 4 in); wing area 30.84 m2 (332.0 sq ft)
Armament: six 12.7-mm (0.5-in) machine-guns, plus up to 907 kg (2,000 lb) of bombs.
Clearing out my library for disposing of on eBay I found this article about the Vengeance in The Encyclopaedia of World Aircraft (1997). Not sure if It adds anything to what has been on here already, but passed on FWIW.
Vultee V-72 (A-31/A-35 Vengeance)
The Vultee V-72 represented continuing improvement of the basic V-11/V-12 design, and with knowledge of the successful application of dive-bombing techniques in the Spanish Civil War the V-72 was designed to incorporate such capability. This development came at the right moment for a British purchasing mission of 1940 which, with even more comprehensive knowledge of the potential of dive-bombing, placed an order for 700. Built by Northrop and Vultee, the latter having inadequate production capacity, these aircraft were designated Vengeance Mk I and Vengeance Mk IIB, respectively, by the RAF. Following the introduction of Lend-Lease in 1941 the USAAF ordered 300 more aircraft for the UK, allocating the designation A-31, and Northrop and Vultee-built examples of these aircraft had the respective RAF designations Vengeance Mk IA and Vengeance Mk III. With experience of the vulnerability of the Junkers Ju 87 to its own fighters in the Battle of Britain, the RAF realised that the Vengeance was unsuitable for deployment in Europe and used them to equip Nos 45, 82, 84 and 110 Squadrons in Burma where they had considerable success.
When the USA became involved in World War II, the USAAF commandeered 243 of the aircraft in production for the UK and these entered service as V-72s. Vultee then built 99 aircraft designated A-35AB, which differed in armament and equipment, followed by 831 A-35B aircraft with increased armament and the Wright R-2600-13 engine. Of this total, 29 were supplied to Brazil, plus 562 to the UK which designated them Vengeance Mk IV. The RAF transferred a small number to the Royal Australian Air Force and also converted some as Vengeance TT Mk IV target tugs; almost all of the USAAF's aircraft were used in this latter role. Variants included the XA-31A static test airframe, becoming XA-31B when used to test a 2237-kW (3,000-hp) Pratt & Whitney XR-4360-1 Wasp Major engine, plus five XA-31C conversions from A-31s as testbeds for the 1640-kW (2,200-hp) Wright R-3350-13/- 17 Cyclone engine.
Specification:
Vultee A-35B Vengeance
Type: two-seat dive-bomber
Powerplant: one 1268-kW (1,700-hp) Wright R-2600-13 Cyclone radial piston engine
Performance: maximum speed 449 km/h (279 mph) at 4115 m (13,500 ft); service ceiling 6795 m (22,300 ft); range 3701 km (2,300 miles)
Weights: empty 4672 kg (10,300 lb); maximum take-off 7439 kg (16,400 lb)
Dimensions: span 14.63 m (48 ft 0 in); length 12.12 m (39 ft 9 in); height 4.67 m (15 ft 4 in); wing area 30.84 m2 (332.0 sq ft)
Armament: six 12.7-mm (0.5-in) machine-guns, plus up to 907 kg (2,000 lb) of bombs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Warmtoast (your #7342),
This is like the "curate's egg" (good in parts !).
The line drawing of the A-35Bs supplied to the Free French in North Africa is interesting in two respects: the original exhaust stubs have been elongated to release any flame behind the pilot (clearly to assist night flying), our AT-6As in the States were the same for the same reason, (and it allowed for the incorporation of a cockpit heater, the air warmed by a heat-exchanger from the exhaust gases).
And the last two sections of the canopy over the gunner are missing (the curved one over the gun, which we found a nuisance, and threw out), and also the section before it (I don't see the point of this, I suppose it would improve the gunner's all-round field of view - but he would get wet when it rained). From what I read, the French had a lot of engine trouble with these aircraft and didn't do much with them.
The descriptive part is generally in accordance with the known (?) facts. Going through it, I would only take issue with:
The omission of the IAF Squadrons (7 & 8) from the "line-of battle" in Burma.
"...Vultee then built 99 aircraft designated A-35AB, which differed in armament and equipment..." This skates over the major "improvement" (at the behest of the USAAC), which distinguished the A-35 from the A-31: the re-setting of the A-35 wing at a 4° Angle of Incidence (the A-31 was zero). This should have helped in landing, particularly at night, for now the nose problem would be no worse than in any other s/e aircraft of the time.
Now we come to the "Specifications". Oh, dear ! (for we enter a dream world, think of the mfrs mileage figures quoted at the bottom of car advts).
First, I must stress that I've never seen an A-35, much less flown them. But all A-31s and A-35s look exactly alike, have the same dimensions, the same internal tankage and very little difference in power (1700 hp against 1600, a 6% increase). Against that, the A-35 wing loading at max AUW was 49.4 lb/sq.ft, an increase of some 15% over the 43.1 of the A-31.
Here are Danny's Specifications for A-31 (based on 400 hours of operating the beast). I see no reason why an A-35 would be any better.
Max speed level: ca 220mph at sea level, say 260 TAS at 10,000. (Never needed to use it)
Cruise: 160 mph IAS.
Climb (full load, in formation of six) 110-120 mph. To 12,000 ft bombing height, about 20 mins
Terminal velocity with dive brakes out: 300 mph.
Range: 400 miles, which was plenty for the deeper trips in Assam (to the Chindwin villages where Intelligence said were being used as staging posts for Jap stores moving up-river by night)
There is absolutely no reason for a dive bomber to be based more than 50 miles behind the lines of the Army it is supporting (in the Arakan we were about 30-40, you move up [or back !] with them). Anything more wastes fuel: and you increase "turnround" time, which makes you less efficient as you mount fewer strikes between dawn and dusk.
(The range of 2,300 miles quoted for the A-35 can only mean a ferry range. At (say) 160 mph cruise, that would be 14½ hours hand-flown strapped onto a lumpy "K" dinghy. Not an inviting prospect ! Guess a consumption of 55 Imp galls/hr, you'd need 800 galls. Internal tankage was 220 US galls, 185 Imp; that would mean 615 galls in long range tanks in the bomb bay. Say 8lb/gallon for fuel, extra tanks and plumbing, that's another 4920lb extra).
Can't be done, you wouldn't get off the ground
- the figures don't add up. Where did they get them from ? And where on earth are you going to need to ferry them so far ? Put 'em in a box and onto a ship - or on a carrier deck.
An A-35 can have 5x or 7x 0.50s on board, but not 6x.
Danny.
This is like the "curate's egg" (good in parts !).
The line drawing of the A-35Bs supplied to the Free French in North Africa is interesting in two respects: the original exhaust stubs have been elongated to release any flame behind the pilot (clearly to assist night flying), our AT-6As in the States were the same for the same reason, (and it allowed for the incorporation of a cockpit heater, the air warmed by a heat-exchanger from the exhaust gases).
And the last two sections of the canopy over the gunner are missing (the curved one over the gun, which we found a nuisance, and threw out), and also the section before it (I don't see the point of this, I suppose it would improve the gunner's all-round field of view - but he would get wet when it rained). From what I read, the French had a lot of engine trouble with these aircraft and didn't do much with them.
The descriptive part is generally in accordance with the known (?) facts. Going through it, I would only take issue with:
The omission of the IAF Squadrons (7 & 8) from the "line-of battle" in Burma.
"...Vultee then built 99 aircraft designated A-35AB, which differed in armament and equipment..." This skates over the major "improvement" (at the behest of the USAAC), which distinguished the A-35 from the A-31: the re-setting of the A-35 wing at a 4° Angle of Incidence (the A-31 was zero). This should have helped in landing, particularly at night, for now the nose problem would be no worse than in any other s/e aircraft of the time.
Now we come to the "Specifications". Oh, dear ! (for we enter a dream world, think of the mfrs mileage figures quoted at the bottom of car advts).
First, I must stress that I've never seen an A-35, much less flown them. But all A-31s and A-35s look exactly alike, have the same dimensions, the same internal tankage and very little difference in power (1700 hp against 1600, a 6% increase). Against that, the A-35 wing loading at max AUW was 49.4 lb/sq.ft, an increase of some 15% over the 43.1 of the A-31.
Here are Danny's Specifications for A-31 (based on 400 hours of operating the beast). I see no reason why an A-35 would be any better.
Max speed level: ca 220mph at sea level, say 260 TAS at 10,000. (Never needed to use it)
Cruise: 160 mph IAS.
Climb (full load, in formation of six) 110-120 mph. To 12,000 ft bombing height, about 20 mins
Terminal velocity with dive brakes out: 300 mph.
Range: 400 miles, which was plenty for the deeper trips in Assam (to the Chindwin villages where Intelligence said were being used as staging posts for Jap stores moving up-river by night)
There is absolutely no reason for a dive bomber to be based more than 50 miles behind the lines of the Army it is supporting (in the Arakan we were about 30-40, you move up [or back !] with them). Anything more wastes fuel: and you increase "turnround" time, which makes you less efficient as you mount fewer strikes between dawn and dusk.
(The range of 2,300 miles quoted for the A-35 can only mean a ferry range. At (say) 160 mph cruise, that would be 14½ hours hand-flown strapped onto a lumpy "K" dinghy. Not an inviting prospect ! Guess a consumption of 55 Imp galls/hr, you'd need 800 galls. Internal tankage was 220 US galls, 185 Imp; that would mean 615 galls in long range tanks in the bomb bay. Say 8lb/gallon for fuel, extra tanks and plumbing, that's another 4920lb extra).
Can't be done, you wouldn't get off the ground
- the figures don't add up. Where did they get them from ? And where on earth are you going to need to ferry them so far ? Put 'em in a box and onto a ship - or on a carrier deck.An A-35 can have 5x or 7x 0.50s on board, but not 6x.
Danny.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Grey Power ?
MPN11,
À propos of the funny thing in the back of the Narellan Vengeance, it strikes me that it looks like a complicated Zimmer Frame (after all, the poor old a/c has had a hard life, and it is 70-odd years old).
Not reached that stage yet, thank God.
Danny.
À propos of the funny thing in the back of the Narellan Vengeance, it strikes me that it looks like a complicated Zimmer Frame (after all, the poor old a/c has had a hard life, and it is 70-odd years old).
Not reached that stage yet, thank God.
Danny.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Three Wire (your p.366/#7312 and my reply #7320),
I've worked through more of your: "ADF Serials - Vengeance" <www.adf-serials.com.au/2a27.htm> and realised that the list of comments and questions is going to be far too long to put out on Post, so I'll just copy your link (above) to anyone interested, and draw attention in a PS to the C/N numbers which particularly caught my eye. Once again, thank you for this 'steer' !
Danny.
PS:
What an unrelenting tale of woe ! (we thought we had troubles enough in India/Burma, but.......)
416 417 418 420 435 441 455 457 602 (a real jinx if ever there was !) 603 604 605 627 628 629 632 (I simply cannot account for this explosion) 635 (my line of business on 1340 Flight) 640 643 (Peter C. Smith's "Vengeance") has the full pilot F/Sgt Limbrick's story and pics) 646 651 (bullock on runway !)
EDIT: Note 675, this also happened in India, the fabric covering of the elevators was replaced by metal.
720 (EZ999 our old pal) 4312 (I like the name !) 4341 (Tragic ! The airmen on the wings should have been hanging onto the dive brakes - but could they have been just sitting with legs dangling over the leading edge ?) 5096 (horrific story of the W/Cdr passenger being burned to death in the air)
It just goes on and on !
D.
I've worked through more of your: "ADF Serials - Vengeance" <www.adf-serials.com.au/2a27.htm> and realised that the list of comments and questions is going to be far too long to put out on Post, so I'll just copy your link (above) to anyone interested, and draw attention in a PS to the C/N numbers which particularly caught my eye. Once again, thank you for this 'steer' !
Danny.
PS:
What an unrelenting tale of woe ! (we thought we had troubles enough in India/Burma, but.......)
416 417 418 420 435 441 455 457 602 (a real jinx if ever there was !) 603 604 605 627 628 629 632 (I simply cannot account for this explosion) 635 (my line of business on 1340 Flight) 640 643 (Peter C. Smith's "Vengeance") has the full pilot F/Sgt Limbrick's story and pics) 646 651 (bullock on runway !)
EDIT: Note 675, this also happened in India, the fabric covering of the elevators was replaced by metal.
720 (EZ999 our old pal) 4312 (I like the name !) 4341 (Tragic ! The airmen on the wings should have been hanging onto the dive brakes - but could they have been just sitting with legs dangling over the leading edge ?) 5096 (horrific story of the W/Cdr passenger being burned to death in the air)
It just goes on and on !
D.
Last edited by Danny42C; 26th Aug 2015 at 04:39. Reason: Addn.
Danny, thanks for the pointers.
I looked at that list, so much information, but a few things I picked out might lead local enthusiasts to dig up more gen. Perhaps being outside the Australian military grip they may have been preserved or stored & provide clues in the quest to resolve the panel configuration, etc.
Namely
A27-247 A31 Mentioned in 2006 at Wangararratta, Victoria (possibly ex Water World, Albany W.A.
A27 256 A31 Sold at Auction April 1947
A27-288 A31 sold 29 June 1951 via R.H Grant to Horsham Foundry.
A27-625 A35 "instruments granted to Bundaberg Aero Club".
I also note some a/c never reached Australia and were repossessed by the USAAF. Again there's a faint chance they may have kept an example ?
mike hallam
I looked at that list, so much information, but a few things I picked out might lead local enthusiasts to dig up more gen. Perhaps being outside the Australian military grip they may have been preserved or stored & provide clues in the quest to resolve the panel configuration, etc.
Namely
A27-247 A31 Mentioned in 2006 at Wangararratta, Victoria (possibly ex Water World, Albany W.A.
A27 256 A31 Sold at Auction April 1947
A27-288 A31 sold 29 June 1951 via R.H Grant to Horsham Foundry.
A27-625 A35 "instruments granted to Bundaberg Aero Club".
I also note some a/c never reached Australia and were repossessed by the USAAF. Again there's a faint chance they may have kept an example ?
mike hallam
Last edited by mikehallam; 26th Aug 2015 at 21:19. Reason: forgot one
Guest
Posts: n/a
mike hallam,
The first three quoted are all "British Contract" (two in AF series and one AN), you could do what you liked with them: the British taxpayer had already bought them (ie, as items covered by a US $ loan which was only repaid decades later).
But all A-35s were supplied under "Lend-Lease". The fine print specified that, if the Australians had not "bought them back out of LL" when hostilities ceased, then they must be completely destroyed so that no part of them could come on the market to compromise new US sales.
Instruments would be a prime example of exactly what the US wanted destroyed. The only way in which these could have been "instruments granted to Bundaberg Aero Club" is if the Australian Government had bought the whole aircraft back from the US. Surely not ?
The US does not seem to have kept any (and the Smithsonian Museum has no A-31 or A-35). If Consolidated Vultee had kept one, it would not have been hidden so long. There were rumours that there was one in Pakistan, but, if true, it would surely have surfaced by now. I think we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that the only example extant is at Narellan. I would discount efforts, however praiseworthy, to build another from bits. It ain't going to happen.
Danny.
The first three quoted are all "British Contract" (two in AF series and one AN), you could do what you liked with them: the British taxpayer had already bought them (ie, as items covered by a US $ loan which was only repaid decades later).
But all A-35s were supplied under "Lend-Lease". The fine print specified that, if the Australians had not "bought them back out of LL" when hostilities ceased, then they must be completely destroyed so that no part of them could come on the market to compromise new US sales.
Instruments would be a prime example of exactly what the US wanted destroyed. The only way in which these could have been "instruments granted to Bundaberg Aero Club" is if the Australian Government had bought the whole aircraft back from the US. Surely not ?
The US does not seem to have kept any (and the Smithsonian Museum has no A-31 or A-35). If Consolidated Vultee had kept one, it would not have been hidden so long. There were rumours that there was one in Pakistan, but, if true, it would surely have surfaced by now. I think we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that the only example extant is at Narellan. I would discount efforts, however praiseworthy, to build another from bits. It ain't going to happen.
Danny.
Guest
Posts: n/a
On 30 Mar 2012 on p.124/#3463, harryhrrs made his first PPRuNe Post on this thread, and was warmly welcomed aboard. He was an ex-RAF Armourer of WWII, about my age, and I asked him to confirm what I'd vaguely heard when I first met the Vengeance, namely that the US Browning 0.300s in the rear had been replaced by British Browning 0.303s, in the first place because these had been found to be more reliable, and secondly because ours had been modified so that when firing stopped, the breech block was held back by a "rear sear" (shades of ITW !), whereas the 0.300s stopped forward with one "up the spout".
With these there was a danger that with a vey hot gun, this round would "cook" and go off by itself, whereas the round on our block, held back clear, would not. Not only that, but ours, particularly in a wing mounting, would have cooling ram air flowing through it after firing, but the 0.300 didn't. It seemed an obvious question to ask an armourer, and would help to "break the ice". I asked harryhrrs.
In fact, I could easily have got this informaion from Google/Wiki, but I was an IT sprog then (still am) and it didn't occur to me till long after. We never heard from him again. This was by no means an unusual occurrence, we have ofteh had "birds of passage" like this (and he was 92). But in recent times I have come to wonder if perhaps he resented my question as being an attempt to check his "bona fides" (which it certainly was not - although we have had our share of Walter Mittys), and retired hurt into his shell. I hope it was not so.
Danny42C.
With these there was a danger that with a vey hot gun, this round would "cook" and go off by itself, whereas the round on our block, held back clear, would not. Not only that, but ours, particularly in a wing mounting, would have cooling ram air flowing through it after firing, but the 0.300 didn't. It seemed an obvious question to ask an armourer, and would help to "break the ice". I asked harryhrrs.
In fact, I could easily have got this informaion from Google/Wiki, but I was an IT sprog then (still am) and it didn't occur to me till long after. We never heard from him again. This was by no means an unusual occurrence, we have ofteh had "birds of passage" like this (and he was 92). But in recent times I have come to wonder if perhaps he resented my question as being an attempt to check his "bona fides" (which it certainly was not - although we have had our share of Walter Mittys), and retired hurt into his shell. I hope it was not so.
Danny42C.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
Excuse my trivial intervention, but I started skimming through the ADF Serials list provided by Three Wire and came across a couple of strange entries [I stopped at A27-92].
The following may be a clue to the "Zimmer Frame" shown in Post #7313 from Chugalug2.
I await incoming from Danny42C, who will undoubtedly deny ever encountering it. But then these 2 were OZ-based (7OTU and 1APU) aircraft, not his operational Jungly ones
The following may be a clue to the "Zimmer Frame" shown in Post #7313 from Chugalug2.
A27-7 "Pilot was F/O A L Place Ser#424453, Instructor Pilot W/O W G Barnes and A/Ob was AC1 J O'Brien."
A27-49 "(Pilot) P/O R L Eskerine Ser#419119, Passenger Sgt P West Ser#41360 and (A/Ob) F/O K A Woods Ser#419363. "
Having unveiled what seems to be a 3-seat variant of the VV, perhaps the "Zimmer Frame" in #7313 is indeed a third seat, stowed folded when not in use? Perhaps a local Mod in OZ to suit a specific requirement?A27-49 "(Pilot) P/O R L Eskerine Ser#419119, Passenger Sgt P West Ser#41360 and (A/Ob) F/O K A Woods Ser#419363. "
I await incoming from Danny42C, who will undoubtedly deny ever encountering it. But then these 2 were OZ-based (7OTU and 1APU) aircraft, not his operational Jungly ones
Guest
Posts: n/a
MPN11,
No "incoming" from me, I can assure you, my dear Sir ! Never having seen an A-35, I cannot be dogmatic about what there was there originally.
We know that the shell of EZ999 (an A-31) is there, but what has been done to it afterwards is anybody's guess. I suppose that if you removed the navigation table, there might be sufficient room to put in a folding "jump seat" in the space just forward of the gunner's seat. But the structure does not look strong enough to provide much anchorage in the event of a crash.
Even so, in view of the ADF Serials (I hadn't spotted the "third man" entries), I think you have hit the nail on the head. Take a bow !
We never flew with more than a two-man crew. On transit flights, extra passengers sat on the floor behind the Gunner (from memory, no more than two if the guns and mounting were still in, more if they had been taken out - I have heard tell of a dozen, but find this hard to believe. They had no safety belts at all, and so bound to be injured in any but the slightest "shunt"
Danny.
No "incoming" from me, I can assure you, my dear Sir ! Never having seen an A-35, I cannot be dogmatic about what there was there originally.
We know that the shell of EZ999 (an A-31) is there, but what has been done to it afterwards is anybody's guess. I suppose that if you removed the navigation table, there might be sufficient room to put in a folding "jump seat" in the space just forward of the gunner's seat. But the structure does not look strong enough to provide much anchorage in the event of a crash.
Even so, in view of the ADF Serials (I hadn't spotted the "third man" entries), I think you have hit the nail on the head. Take a bow !
We never flew with more than a two-man crew. On transit flights, extra passengers sat on the floor behind the Gunner (from memory, no more than two if the guns and mounting were still in, more if they had been taken out - I have heard tell of a dozen, but find this hard to believe. They had no safety belts at all, and so bound to be injured in any but the slightest "shunt"
Danny.
Browsing the www. aviationarchaeology.org.uk website I came across the following in their crash listings:
16 April 1945 Vultee Vengeance TTIV HB456 crashed during unauthorized aerobatics over Burton-upon-Trent. F/S W. Saul was killed. Also killed on the ground were: Ivy Goy (29), Elizabeth Banton (60), Edith Baker (25), Brian Baker (20 months), Agnes Jones (59). Four others were injured.
16 April 1945 Vultee Vengeance TTIV HB456 crashed during unauthorized aerobatics over Burton-upon-Trent. F/S W. Saul was killed. Also killed on the ground were: Ivy Goy (29), Elizabeth Banton (60), Edith Baker (25), Brian Baker (20 months), Agnes Jones (59). Four others were injured.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Geriaviator,
As a VV can do aerobatics in the same sense as an elephant can be trained to waltz, I am not surprised that F/Sgt Paul came to grief. He would have been a Target Tug pilot (for that it is all they were used for in UK).
"Unauthorised aerobatics over Burton-on-Trent" - words fail me ! And my deepest sympathy to the unfortunate victims. Even allowing for the exuberance from seeing victory in sight, he should have known better. A F/Sgt had 12 months experience before he got his "crown".
Danny.
As a VV can do aerobatics in the same sense as an elephant can be trained to waltz, I am not surprised that F/Sgt Paul came to grief. He would have been a Target Tug pilot (for that it is all they were used for in UK).
"Unauthorised aerobatics over Burton-on-Trent" - words fail me ! And my deepest sympathy to the unfortunate victims. Even allowing for the exuberance from seeing victory in sight, he should have known better. A F/Sgt had 12 months experience before he got his "crown".
Danny.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Antipodes
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vengeance EZ999 Instrument Panel
Hi Danny and avid Brevet thread die-hards,
I cannot believe that this VV thread continues to run with such vigour. Now regarding the panel fitted to the Camden VV....
From my recollection it is an original (in most elements) VV panel. The obvious new material replacements (added by the Sydney Tech students or by Harold Thomas) were the electrical panel directly above the Aileron Trim and the panel above the Trap Tank selector. Both were approximate reproductions of the original fit items (refer to the photo illustrations in the AP posted by Chugalug #7313).
When I was working on the aircraft 30-odd years ago the panel's wiring and associated fittings appeared to be (mostly) original fit. The AP shows a subtly different panel to EZ999, but it's close enough to state it was the same aircraft mark. The question really rests with; is the illustration in AP2024A an A31 or an A35? From what I have seen of the Camden VV I tend to say the former.....assuming EZ999 was actually assembled with a A31 panel. Remember it spent an extended period at No.2 Aircraft Depot (over 12 months) and there is no record of what was done to the aircraft during that time. I know that's drawing a very long bow, but other than some instruments and the two previously mentioned panels, mostly it looked wartime fit. Why the Oz 1a VV had a different fit-out to the VVs flown by Danny in India has me stumped
SF out.
I cannot believe that this VV thread continues to run with such vigour. Now regarding the panel fitted to the Camden VV....
From my recollection it is an original (in most elements) VV panel. The obvious new material replacements (added by the Sydney Tech students or by Harold Thomas) were the electrical panel directly above the Aileron Trim and the panel above the Trap Tank selector. Both were approximate reproductions of the original fit items (refer to the photo illustrations in the AP posted by Chugalug #7313).
When I was working on the aircraft 30-odd years ago the panel's wiring and associated fittings appeared to be (mostly) original fit. The AP shows a subtly different panel to EZ999, but it's close enough to state it was the same aircraft mark. The question really rests with; is the illustration in AP2024A an A31 or an A35? From what I have seen of the Camden VV I tend to say the former.....assuming EZ999 was actually assembled with a A31 panel. Remember it spent an extended period at No.2 Aircraft Depot (over 12 months) and there is no record of what was done to the aircraft during that time. I know that's drawing a very long bow, but other than some instruments and the two previously mentioned panels, mostly it looked wartime fit. Why the Oz 1a VV had a different fit-out to the VVs flown by Danny in India has me stumped
SF out.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Slow Flyer,
Where to start ! As you say: "The question really rests with; is the illustration in AP2024A an A31 or an A35? From what I have seen of the Camden VV I tend to say the former......"
I flew all the A-31s (Vengeance I - II -III). They all had identical panels, and I can confirm that this panel in AP2024A (whatever it is) is not an A-31 panel. Never having seen an A-35, I have assumed * that it must be (or have started out as) an A35 panel.
There are items in it which I assume * must originally have been there: the angled-out panel at the base of the main (vertical) panel looks like a factory-fitted item, in which a hole had to be cut for the beam of the optical gunsight (the projector seemingly fitted somewhere below). This begs another question: Why put an optical gunsight - or a retractable tailwheel - into an aircraft which needs them as a fish needs a bicycle ? It makes no sense !
Note *: Occam's Razor creeps in !
To summarise: you think the panel is from a A-31, AP2024A says it is an A-35, I don't know what it started as, but it certainly nothing like an A-31 now . The Museum director (see extract from my Post [#12, 4.8.15. on the EZ999 Thread] to Megan below) is unlikely to be of much help:
"Megan,
First, your Museum Director has given you the "Party Line", but appears not to be up to speed on the history. [says] "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] !)"
Danny.
PS: Is there one pilot out there, who has flown in a cockpit with the duplicate ball instruments on the panel, who can tell me the advantage of that arrangement ? AFAIK, it did not appear on British aircraft - at least not on the ones I flew !
Where to start ! As you say: "The question really rests with; is the illustration in AP2024A an A31 or an A35? From what I have seen of the Camden VV I tend to say the former......"
I flew all the A-31s (Vengeance I - II -III). They all had identical panels, and I can confirm that this panel in AP2024A (whatever it is) is not an A-31 panel. Never having seen an A-35, I have assumed * that it must be (or have started out as) an A35 panel.
There are items in it which I assume * must originally have been there: the angled-out panel at the base of the main (vertical) panel looks like a factory-fitted item, in which a hole had to be cut for the beam of the optical gunsight (the projector seemingly fitted somewhere below). This begs another question: Why put an optical gunsight - or a retractable tailwheel - into an aircraft which needs them as a fish needs a bicycle ? It makes no sense !
Note *: Occam's Razor creeps in !
To summarise: you think the panel is from a A-31, AP2024A says it is an A-35, I don't know what it started as, but it certainly nothing like an A-31 now . The Museum director (see extract from my Post [#12, 4.8.15. on the EZ999 Thread] to Megan below) is unlikely to be of much help:
"Megan,
First, your Museum Director has given you the "Party Line", but appears not to be up to speed on the history. [says] "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] !)"
Danny.
PS: Is there one pilot out there, who has flown in a cockpit with the duplicate ball instruments on the panel, who can tell me the advantage of that arrangement ? AFAIK, it did not appear on British aircraft - at least not on the ones I flew !
PS: Is there one pilot out there, who has flown in a cockpit with the duplicate ball instruments on the panel, who can tell me the advantage of that arrangement ? AFAIK, it did not appear on British aircraft - at least not on the ones I flew !
http://http://forum.warthunder.com/i...sahara-desert/
There appears to be two instruments with a ball incorporated, the lower one has been damaged. As one of them is at a high level near the gunsight one could surmise that it is there so the pilot can ensure that the aircraft is correct in the yaw mode so as to increase the accuracy of fire.
A dive bomber would, I feel, have a similar commitment to accuracy so maybe that is why two slip indicators were incorporated.
One for heads down instruments, one for heads up killing.
I think FED has found the answer, a standard blind flying panel supplemented with an extra ball in line of sight. I once spoke to a former Hurricane pilot who explained the principles of aerial gunnery, in particular the need to avoid yaw. Seat of the pants feel is essential but he took a quick glance at the ball as he was sighting. It must have worked as he had shot down three enemy aircraft.
In exchange for helping dismantle a time-expired Sea Vixen my Naval friends gave me its ball indicator, a stand-alone tube in a small housing like a pocket spirit level. This I mounted above my Tiger Moth crashpad so it was just below my line of vision and found it a great aid to accurate flying. For example, an inverted TM (with engine stopped, gravity fuel feed) requires almost full right rudder to overcome yaw caused by the windmilling prop. In this condition it descends only slightly less quickly
In exchange for helping dismantle a time-expired Sea Vixen my Naval friends gave me its ball indicator, a stand-alone tube in a small housing like a pocket spirit level. This I mounted above my Tiger Moth crashpad so it was just below my line of vision and found it a great aid to accurate flying. For example, an inverted TM (with engine stopped, gravity fuel feed) requires almost full right rudder to overcome yaw caused by the windmilling prop. In this condition it descends only slightly less quickly
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fareastdriver,
Yes, I have seen that sad picture. Poor devil !
Certainly one ball is a help in ensuring that your guns are pointed at what you have in your sights, but why a second one ? It must there for a reason, but what can it be ?
As for dive bombing, the only Vengeances that ever did any in wwII were our A-31s: we only had one (in the needle&ball instrument). In any case we didn't have to use it: our vital actions before dive included: "All trims neutral" (I was told that the fin was mounted without any offset [normally there to counter the "swing" from the prop rotation] - but never read anything to support that). Slow Flyer would know ?
Whatever, after you set 2100rpm and pulled the throttle back to one-third, it went down straight as an arrow. Then any time you could spare from keeping your yellow line on target had to be spent watching the ALT - for obvious reasons ! Thought has just struck me: if the N&B was in a horizontal position, would the ball work ?
Douglas SBD Dauntless Flight Operating Instructions Section 1, Fig 2: shows a single ball instrument on panel (I cannot "lift" that picture), but the Google Image on left shows two, the one on the right, one !
You pays yer penny and yer takes yer choice ! Whichever, they did all right at Midway.
Another hare running (pile in, chaps !)
Danny.
Yes, I have seen that sad picture. Poor devil !
Certainly one ball is a help in ensuring that your guns are pointed at what you have in your sights, but why a second one ? It must there for a reason, but what can it be ?
As for dive bombing, the only Vengeances that ever did any in wwII were our A-31s: we only had one (in the needle&ball instrument). In any case we didn't have to use it: our vital actions before dive included: "All trims neutral" (I was told that the fin was mounted without any offset [normally there to counter the "swing" from the prop rotation] - but never read anything to support that). Slow Flyer would know ?
Whatever, after you set 2100rpm and pulled the throttle back to one-third, it went down straight as an arrow. Then any time you could spare from keeping your yellow line on target had to be spent watching the ALT - for obvious reasons ! Thought has just struck me: if the N&B was in a horizontal position, would the ball work ?
Douglas SBD Dauntless Flight Operating Instructions Section 1, Fig 2: shows a single ball instrument on panel (I cannot "lift" that picture), but the Google Image on left shows two, the one on the right, one !
You pays yer penny and yer takes yer choice ! Whichever, they did all right at Midway.
Another hare running (pile in, chaps !)
Danny.
A ball will work in any attitude. Standard technique with air driven instruments is to monitor the ball and T&S when doing aerobatics so as to maintain a uniform pattern. I would say that two balls were useful because in the heat of battle one would like to have the final polish in his line of sight.
Are you sure that there would be no variable yaw effect in a dive? Irrespective of the rudder offset the torque on the engine is going to reduce as the airspeed increases at a constant power setting. The residual roll will be corrected by aileron which will induce yaw. Should this not be corrected then the aircraft will be pointing in a different direction than the line of flight.
As a lowly Pilot Officer I got into a severe argument with some senior navigators during my Valiant conversion course. The party line was that if a bomb was released by an aircraft in a turn the bomb would fly even further off target than it would have done before. I insisted that it would continue at a tangent to the circumference of the turn. My card was noted as being stroppy.
So they sent me to tankers instead of the Main Force.
Are you sure that there would be no variable yaw effect in a dive? Irrespective of the rudder offset the torque on the engine is going to reduce as the airspeed increases at a constant power setting. The residual roll will be corrected by aileron which will induce yaw. Should this not be corrected then the aircraft will be pointing in a different direction than the line of flight.
As a lowly Pilot Officer I got into a severe argument with some senior navigators during my Valiant conversion course. The party line was that if a bomb was released by an aircraft in a turn the bomb would fly even further off target than it would have done before. I insisted that it would continue at a tangent to the circumference of the turn. My card was noted as being stroppy.
So they sent me to tankers instead of the Main Force.