Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

RAF Lockheed P-2 Neptune

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

RAF Lockheed P-2 Neptune

Old 23rd May 2020, 04:22
  #101 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 3,842
The pilots of Neptunes would refer to them as "Two turning, two burning, and it was often the wrong two burning..."
Ascend Charlie is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 09:38
  #102 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by pr00ne View Post
Nope. Only 4 RAF Neptune squadrons (36, 203, 210 and 217) with 3 squadrons and the AEW Flight at RAF Topcliffe, and 1 squadron at RAF Kinloss. Plus there was the Neptune element of the OCU at Kinloss too.
217 was at Kinloss, plus the OCU. The remainder must have been at Topcliffe.

i always thought it was a very graceful looking aeroplane.

MR1 I think WX505, 217 squadron, c1956
Caramba is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:26
  #103 (permalink)  
Green Flash
Posts: n/a
Gracefull yes but I remember seeing a Dutch one displayed (Finningley maybe) very enthusiastically and it couldn't half turn. The Cloggies were hurling it about the sky in the grand style.
Old 23rd May 2020, 16:57
  #104 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 12
The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) operated 25 Neptunes from 1955 to 1968. Lockheed CP-122/P2V-7/CL-826-45-14 Neptune (25), (Serial Nos. 24101-24125). They were replaced by the Canadair CP-107 Argus.

Several ex-RCAF Neptunes ended up fighting forest fires in the U.S.A.
evansb is offline  
Old 24th May 2020, 08:31
  #105 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by pr00ne View Post
Martin the Martian,

I doubt that there was any such restriction seeing as the majority of the RAF's Hunters, Shackletons and Javelins were also MDAP funded.
From documents I've seen, the US did place restrictions on the use of aircraft they bought (or part-funded) via their various aid programmes. The restrictions were not just by numbers (i.e. "we've paid for N so we'd better see N assigned to SACEUR") but, in some cases at least, also applied to individual aircraft, identified by serial. The latter restriction came as something of a surprise to the Air Ministry and caused a fair amount of inconvenience when it became known, since it meant they had to ensure only non-US funded aircraft went out of area.
redsetter is offline  
Old 24th May 2020, 10:23
  #106 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,641

Are you seriously saying that the US would have prevented the RAF deploying US funded aircraft to Korea in the early 50's. Seeing as the US directly paid for numerous Hunters, Javelins, Canberras, Shackletons, Sabres, Neptunes Whirlwinds and Washingtons that would have been quite a restriction. I know that didn't happen, but it was a possibility for some time.
Operation Firedog in Malaya and then Confrontation with Indonesia as well as the long running saga in Aden just three instances of "out of area" with many of the types that the US paid for utilised, but up until maybe the mid to late 60's there is a strong argument that the RAF frontline was actually a lot further East than Europe.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 24th May 2020, 11:35
  #107 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 99
I assume the US might have allowed US financed aircraft to be used in Korea. As regards Malaya etc not all UK aircraft were paid for (part or otherwise) by the US, which meant that some could still be deployed for purely national committments. But the fact remains, the US government had a very real say in the use of aircraft they had financed (so Suez must have doubly annoyed them).
redsetter is offline  
Old 24th May 2020, 17:12
  #108 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brighton
Posts: 892
As mentioned above, some Hunters (I never found out how many) were funded under MDAP, but that did not stop them being used in the Middle East. However, come disposal time at the end of their RAF service, the funding source determined the countries to which they could be sold. The US vetoed sales of MDAP-funded aircraft to Latin America (and possibly elsewhere), so it was the UK-funded airframes that went there.
kenparry is offline  
Old 24th May 2020, 18:51
  #109 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 79
Posts: 16,757
Originally Posted by Green Flash View Post
Gracefull yes but I remember seeing a Dutch one displayed (Finningley maybe) very enthusiastically and it couldn't half turn. The Cloggies were hurling it about the sky in the grand style.
A Cloggie one displaying at Den Helder was doing a high speed run iro 300kts when the copilot's hatch unlatched. I think the Cmdr was in the right hand seat and managed to hang on to it.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 25th May 2020, 00:16
  #110 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,738
Originally Posted by chopper2004 View Post
I have a copy of P2V In Action (pub Squadron Signal No.68) and Page 29, shows a photo of P-2V s/n 51-15956 destined for UK albeit in ferry and US markings still.

I was not aware that the batches we had under the MDAP , had the MAD tailboom but just the early versions without or with turret? Came across this on a pictorial book of the RAF from the year dot to the 1970s

Same here


chopper2004 is online now  
Old 25th May 2020, 09:08
  #111 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 43
I have the same book. Discussed that very photo with the Pater. Iím sure I remember being told that the aircraft arrived without MAD tail or observer nose and were converted during their time in the RAFs hands.

51-115956 became WX543 before going off to Brazil. Iíll try to do some homework


Caramba is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.