Gaining An R.A.F Pilots Brevet In WW II
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Oh, NICE! 
.
.
.
.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sherlock Danny gets magifying glass out .............
Opinion: It is a RAAF specimen - "NH" was 12 Sqn, I think. Also big centre white in SEAC roundel is evidence. At first thought no rear armament visible, but careful examination shows tiny tip of what can only be a 0.303 Browning. Ergo a Mk.I (Not Lend-Lease, but bought by British wingeing Poms and given to Oz !), certainly not a Mk.IV.
Chugalug will note that there is clearly only one aerial wire between mast and tail.
Obviously wartime, good shot of the steadying clamps on the wing rack which carried a 250lb bomb.
Thanks, MPN11 and Blacksheep ! (and Chugalug - the canaries were sweet !)
Danny.
Opinion: It is a RAAF specimen - "NH" was 12 Sqn, I think. Also big centre white in SEAC roundel is evidence. At first thought no rear armament visible, but careful examination shows tiny tip of what can only be a 0.303 Browning. Ergo a Mk.I (Not Lend-Lease, but bought by British wingeing Poms and given to Oz !), certainly not a Mk.IV.
Chugalug will note that there is clearly only one aerial wire between mast and tail.
Obviously wartime, good shot of the steadying clamps on the wing rack which carried a 250lb bomb.
Thanks, MPN11 and Blacksheep ! (and Chugalug - the canaries were sweet !)
Danny.
Danny, the white canaries are a rare breed indeed, and only for you!
Oh yes, the antennae is another pointer. The wingtip wires are mercifully absent and thus avoid pilot entanglement.
Bernie, I think that the bulges that you refer to are the fairings of the main undercarriage. It seems that it was a peculiarly US arrangement whereby the gear retracted rearwards, rotating as it did so that the wheels lay flat in a bay behind in the wing under surface. It can be found on a number of other types, such as the P-40.
Oh yes, the antennae is another pointer. The wingtip wires are mercifully absent and thus avoid pilot entanglement.
Bernie, I think that the bulges that you refer to are the fairings of the main undercarriage. It seems that it was a peculiarly US arrangement whereby the gear retracted rearwards, rotating as it did so that the wheels lay flat in a bay behind in the wing under surface. It can be found on a number of other types, such as the P-40.
Sherlock Danny gets magifying glass out .............
Opinion: It is a RAAF specimen - "NH" was 12 Sqn, I think. Also big centre white in SEAC roundel is evidence. At first thought no rear armament visible, but careful examination shows tiny tip of what can only be a 0.303 Browning. Ergo a Mk.I (Not Lend-Lease, but bought by British wingeing Poms and given to Oz !), certainly not a Mk.IV.
Chugalug will note that there is clearly only one aerial wire between mast and tail.
Obviously wartime, good shot of the steadying clamps on the wing rack which carried a 250lb bomb.
Thanks, MPN11 and Blacksheep ! (and Chugalug - the canaries were sweet !)
Danny.
Hi Danny,
Yes A27-207 was 12 SQN.
But, it's a Vengeance IIA (ex AF941), so you are correct, it is not a Mk.IV.
And, purchased through the British Purchasing Commission at the cost to the Austn Govt, contract no. AC24664/BRA-557, received in Australia in early 1943. So not paid for by wingeing poms, but by the Aussie taxpayer - which is the way it should have been.
And, it is not a SEAC roundel - often mistaken. It was an RAAF 'Pacific roundel', i.e. no red in the centre to avoid confusion with the Japanese red 'meatball', which had happened the previous year with a RAAF Catalina being fired upon by a friendly. (I think we had discussed the Pacific roundel when talking about EZ999, the Mk.I at Camden.)
In 1944, lost on ops when the engine failed and ditched, crew ok. A/c was SOC.
Opinion: It is a RAAF specimen - "NH" was 12 Sqn, I think. Also big centre white in SEAC roundel is evidence. At first thought no rear armament visible, but careful examination shows tiny tip of what can only be a 0.303 Browning. Ergo a Mk.I (Not Lend-Lease, but bought by British wingeing Poms and given to Oz !), certainly not a Mk.IV.
Chugalug will note that there is clearly only one aerial wire between mast and tail.
Obviously wartime, good shot of the steadying clamps on the wing rack which carried a 250lb bomb.
Thanks, MPN11 and Blacksheep ! (and Chugalug - the canaries were sweet !)
Danny.
Hi Danny,
Yes A27-207 was 12 SQN.
But, it's a Vengeance IIA (ex AF941), so you are correct, it is not a Mk.IV.
And, purchased through the British Purchasing Commission at the cost to the Austn Govt, contract no. AC24664/BRA-557, received in Australia in early 1943. So not paid for by wingeing poms, but by the Aussie taxpayer - which is the way it should have been.
And, it is not a SEAC roundel - often mistaken. It was an RAAF 'Pacific roundel', i.e. no red in the centre to avoid confusion with the Japanese red 'meatball', which had happened the previous year with a RAAF Catalina being fired upon by a friendly. (I think we had discussed the Pacific roundel when talking about EZ999, the Mk.I at Camden.)
In 1944, lost on ops when the engine failed and ditched, crew ok. A/c was SOC.
Last edited by BBadanov; 12th Mar 2017 at 04:38.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fareastdriver,
Had done that, FED, then blown up as far as pssible, then got Magnifying Glass out ....
(Comes to us all in time)
Thanks anyway, Danny.
....Click on the thumbnail, Danny, and it will flash up to full size. ...
(Comes to us all in time)
Thanks anyway, Danny.
Last edited by Danny42C; 12th Mar 2017 at 14:30. Reason: Box !
Guest
Posts: n/a
BBadanov (#10366),
I'm not completely correct, BB, I think Mk.Is were Northrop-built, and the IIs Vultee-built (as Vultee did not have the production capacity to fulfil both the British (taken over from the collapsed French) and American contracts.
I, II. III were exactly the same aeroplane. All Mark IIIs and IVs were Lend-Lease. Some later Is and IIs were Lend-Lease, the "A" may denote this. All 'ops' were flown in Is and IIs.
I never saw, much less flew or dived a IV. The Mark IV was "a horse of a different colour". Built at the behest of the USAAC, they put a 4° Angle of Incidence on the wing (which had previously had none), and called it their A-35 (the earlier version was the A-31). I would thnk the IV/A-35 would be a better aeroplane, but a worse dive-bomber.
Then the US washed their hands of both models, which were used only as target tugs by both the RAF and RAAF (apart from a few palmed off on Brazil and the Free French in N.Africa). [Source: "Vengeance" by Peter C. Smith]
(Caution: the "Vengeance pilot cockpit panel" illustrated (and photographed) in the above, and in Air Publications "Pilot's Notes", is nothing like a Mk I-II-III. I suspect what they have is from the sole survivor (Camden Museum, Norellan, Sydney): this is EZ999, a Mk.I kitted out (with 0.50 rear gun) as a Mk.IV. This panel may be from a Mk.IV, but I think it's a "bitsa", cobbled together from any bits found lying around.
It was a "SEAC" roundel in SEAC. We just painted out the red centre. In the RAAF, they did the same, then made the white centre bigger.
Danny.
...
But, it's a Vengeance IIA (ex AF941), so you are correct, it is not a Mk.IV...
I, II. III were exactly the same aeroplane. All Mark IIIs and IVs were Lend-Lease. Some later Is and IIs were Lend-Lease, the "A" may denote this. All 'ops' were flown in Is and IIs.
I never saw, much less flew or dived a IV. The Mark IV was "a horse of a different colour". Built at the behest of the USAAC, they put a 4° Angle of Incidence on the wing (which had previously had none), and called it their A-35 (the earlier version was the A-31). I would thnk the IV/A-35 would be a better aeroplane, but a worse dive-bomber.
Then the US washed their hands of both models, which were used only as target tugs by both the RAF and RAAF (apart from a few palmed off on Brazil and the Free French in N.Africa). [Source: "Vengeance" by Peter C. Smith]
(Caution: the "Vengeance pilot cockpit panel" illustrated (and photographed) in the above, and in Air Publications "Pilot's Notes", is nothing like a Mk I-II-III. I suspect what they have is from the sole survivor (Camden Museum, Norellan, Sydney): this is EZ999, a Mk.I kitted out (with 0.50 rear gun) as a Mk.IV. This panel may be from a Mk.IV, but I think it's a "bitsa", cobbled together from any bits found lying around.
It was a "SEAC" roundel in SEAC. We just painted out the red centre. In the RAAF, they did the same, then made the white centre bigger.
Danny.
Last edited by Danny42C; 12th Mar 2017 at 19:12. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
As a former aircraft modeller, and indeed painter of aircraft profiles, I have a small library of what markings 'should' be. However, in the midst of a war in remote parts, I have no doubt that (lacking the appropriate Air Ministry pamphlet) quite a few aircraft flew with a reasonable approximation of what their Airships intended.
People had more important things to think about
People had more important things to think about
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
It is not a real colour photograph, it was a B&W pic that was "colourized" last year by a modeller/planespotter. On the actual B&W image it probably shows up as a darker greyish patch, and he elected to "colour" it green instead of brown!
The colourised WWII images look good...but not necessarily accurate.
The colourised WWII images look good...but not necessarily accurate.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
BB, the link States the colouring was by the RAAF Photographic Training Flight, no moideller or spotter
PN, cannot find the link I was referring to for a series of these images, will put up if I can find.
It may have been this guy, who did these in 2015:
http://www.adf-messageboard.com.au/invboard/index.php?showtopic=2617
BTW, a modeller/spotter is quite often a good source - ask any aircrew about aircraft markings etc of decades ago, and we may not have the best recall for such detail.
My point however is, treat 'colourisation' with a degree of caution.
It may have been this guy, who did these in 2015:
http://www.adf-messageboard.com.au/invboard/index.php?showtopic=2617
BTW, a modeller/spotter is quite often a good source - ask any aircrew about aircraft markings etc of decades ago, and we may not have the best recall for such detail.
My point however is, treat 'colourisation' with a degree of caution.
PN, found that flicker link:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/933036...816378/detail/
Never heard of the Photo Trg Flt orgn, it must have been recently cranked up after the School of Photography was blown away in the name of efficiencies, but some of their cam scheme interpretations are way off the mark.
Caveat still applies - I doubt there would be anyone in today's air force (like the RAF) who are putting these details out and who would have detailed knowledge of WWII markings.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/933036...816378/detail/
Never heard of the Photo Trg Flt orgn, it must have been recently cranked up after the School of Photography was blown away in the name of efficiencies, but some of their cam scheme interpretations are way off the mark.
Caveat still applies - I doubt there would be anyone in today's air force (like the RAF) who are putting these details out and who would have detailed knowledge of WWII markings.
