|
Post by davidd on Apr 21, 2016 9:26:44 GMT 12
In law, creating a false provenance for the purposes of increasing the desirability of the article in question is called fraud, although the money to be made with this type of crime (until detected, by which time "the bird has flown") can be substantial, which is why they do it. The amazing thing is that it is done so openly these days, almost as if it were not fraud! They are not so forgiving in art circles. However if the intent is merely to give a legal identity to a normally factory-produced article (such as an aircraft made up from original production and/or new-build parts) then no deliberate deception is involved. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Apr 21, 2016 9:59:41 GMT 12
Dave H, The actual aircraft flown by the 14 Squadron pilots at Espiritu Santo in May 1943 (second post in this thread) was actually a P-40E (NZ3097) which had been ferried over from Tonga via Fiji a few months previously and was NOT the P-40K under discussion. This may seem (to the uninitiated) like bad planning by the RNZAF, but was simply a case of two units on different airfields using the same coding system (numbers from 1 to about 25). Just so long as both groups remained segregated by geography, no problem existed. Likewise, in the RAF, USAAF, US Navy, etc., this would have been happening all the time, without any real problems. These numbers were only for tactical purposes within each unit, for quick recognition in their own combat formations, with each unit having (hopefully) an individual style of presentation. This is why these numbers were of no real interest to "the powers that be" and are therefore the source of much confusion in this day and age when relatives of the fighter pilots of that era want to know more about the INDIVIDUAL aircraft that appear in the surviving records which cannot be positively identified as the actual (unique) serial number of the aircraft is unknown in most instances. Incidentally the "real" 7 (NZ3056) was first recorded on operations from Kukum strip (Fighter II, Guadalcanal) on 30th April 1943 (details unknown at moment), then on 7th May 1943 flown by the late Sgt A M (Max) Davis on a 3 hour escort operation to Munda, then later that same day took part in a Hudson escort flown by F/L J H Arkwright. It was not flown on ops between 15th and 30th May (for reasons unknown), then used regularly by 15 Sqdn pilots from 31st May till 12th June, after which the squadron departed Guadlacanal, and the pilots of 14 Sqdn arrived. P/O John Polson was the first pilot from the new squadron to fly 7 on ops, on the 13th, and three days later it was damaged when P/O Peter Gifford took off with the birds nest securely in position in the radiator cowl. It was next recorded on ops at the end of this squadron's tour on the 22/7/43 (probably required an engine change). In the meantime, the next squadron (No.16) had arrived to take over the aircraft, and in fact it was one of their pilots who undertook NZ3056's test flight on 21/7, F/L de Denne, and the following day the well known RAF pilot (F/L R L "Bob" Spurdle took it up on operations (pilots of both 14 and 16 Squadron were flying the available aircraft on this date). Very shortly after this date, NZ3056 was ferried back to Espiritu Santo and came under the ownership of 2 FMU at this airfield (Pallikulo, also known as Bomber I), where it was flown by the next squadron in line, No. 17. Practically all of the surviving original P-40Ks were replaced at Guadalcanal (Kukum) by new P-40Ms in the final week of July 1943, so NZ3056 would have had a considerably quieter life in the New Hebrides (Vanuatu), although they were still on local defence duties and did carry out interceptions against "bogies", most of which turned out to be allied aircraft. In all likelihood, 3056 would have received a new cowling number in place of the original "7", as there was already a "7" in use at Espiritu Santo, but I do not have any knowledge of what this new number might be. David D
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Apr 21, 2016 15:05:23 GMT 12
Yep, people have been doing that for years. The RAF Museum's Sopwith Pup is an example of this. It was built new from scratch but incorporates a few struts and other sundry items from an original Pup (Pups?), yet the chap who built it maintained that he came across it in a disused airship hangar in France. TOM Sopwith himself saw the completed aircraft and stated that it was like a late production aircraft, the standard of manufacture was so good, but the guy who built it used Sopwith's quote to verify its originality - cheeky sod. Blasphemer!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 21, 2016 15:56:22 GMT 12
Dave H, The actual aircraft flown by the 14 Squadron pilots at Espiritu Santo in May 1943 (second post in this thread) was actually a P-40E (NZ3097) Bugger! then later that same day took part in a Hudson escort flown by F/L J H Arkwright. Not according to John Arkwright's logbook, which states he flew NZ3058 that day (and the next day). It was a .55 minute flight and the notes section states "Returned owing to Sgt Murdoch's guns jamming". Well, it looks more like NZ3058 than it does NZ3056, maybe an error on either his or the other record keeper's part? and the following day the well known RAF pilot (F/L R L "Bob" Spurdle took it up on operations Gosh, a Battle of Britain veteran an a fighter ace, that adds some value to the dataplate, surely!
|
|