I would just like to say...

[Dave Homewood]

Something that keeps coming to mind for me lately. Whilst it is always an extreme privilege to talk with WWII RNZAF veteran pilots about their operational service in fighters, bombers, flying boats, transports, etc, I just want to say I also always really enjoy hearing first hand, or reading first hand, accounts of their flying training - in Tiger Moths and other types at the four Elementary Flying Training Schools, and their advanced flying training in Gordons and Oxfords at No. 1 SFTS Wigram, Vincents or Harvards at No. 2 SFTS Woodbourne, or Oxfords and Hinds at No. 3 SFTS at Ohakea. And the same goes for the guys who flew Harvards, Yales and Cranes in SFTS schools in Canada.

I don't know why, but I always really enjoy hearing about those times in their service when they were becoming pilots, all the new challenges they faced, their relationships with the instructors and other course members, what their first flight was like, and their first solo in each type. The adventures they got up to doing the various exercises, etc. I really think those days are critically important to their story and are always a sort of golden period as they progress through and become more competent day by day.

I always try to ask pilots about those periods in a bit of depth when I interview them. Do others here like to hear the flying training stories too?

[baz62]

Jul 25, 2017 11:47:27 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

I always try to ask pilots about those periods in a bit of depth when I interview them. Do others here like to hear the flying training stories too?

Yes I enjoy that part too as there are usually some hair raising incidents to relate, funny stories to do with learning to fly and life as a new member of Her Majesty's Services, etc.

[Dave Homewood]

His Majesty, in WWII.

[delticman]

Jul 25, 2017 13:19:56 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

His Majesty, in WWII.

Would it not be "Her?" She is the current operator and it's not changed hands, so to speak? It's still the old firm.

[flymac]

I have recently been reading my late father's log books. And I am impressed with the training programme he went through during wartime NZ.
He joined No 1 EFTS at Tairei and flight training in Tiger Moth started 3/4/44, soloed 11/4/44.
By May 24th he had done 39 hours dual and 24 hours solo in a Tiger Moth.
Transferred to No 2 SFTS Woodbourne and commenced flying in a Harvard on June 5th 1944. Soloed Harvard on 8th June.
Whilst at Woodbourne he did his navigation training in an Oxford. Qualified as a Service Pilot Harvard 1/11/44.
He did 86 hours on Harvard's before he converted to the P40. Plus a lot of time in a LINK trainer.
Transferred to No 2 (F)OTU Ohakea 6/2/45 and to fly P40 - soloed on 7/2/45.
April 1945 - Transferred to Corsair Conversion unit Whenuapai to fly the Corsair and soloed this aircraft on 3/4/45.
Transferred to No 19 Squadron Ardmore on April 17th.
Arrived Jacquinot Bay July 1st 1945 and served briefly with 19 Squadron. Shipped home dangerously ill with Dengue fever on 17th August 45.
His log states; "bad break, missed the final showdown but lucky to be still living".

During his training there are lots of interesting bits of info.
P40K 3090 - Made an Emergency Landing - "rotary valve in oil cooler seized : carried out the landing on Ohakea; a Shakey do".
P40N 3202 "taxying incident. Flying control was at fault. Got of with wa warning. No damage done."
His duty was to climb the F4U 5561 to 35,000 feet in cloud - "Sent up in cloud got lost came out at Tauranga"
April 17th 1945 , flew Harvard 1036 for 1.40 searching for missing F4U's (F/S Ferrick and F/S Mortimer). His search area was the Waitakerei Ranges.
Took a Harvard 1036 from Ardmore to Hastings, dropped his instructor then flew on to Ohakea to have the weekend at home. Returned the reverse route. His brother was stationed at Ohakea.

It was 1947 when he started flying again in civil life.

[Dave Homewood]

Great stuff Flymac. I really love reading through wartime RNZAF logbooks. What was your Dad's name, if you don't mind me asking? (Perhaps you've told me before and I have forgotten?)

[camtech]

I have transcripts of 19 Sqn's diaries for the third, fourth and fifth tours, if of any interest to you.

[flymac]

Jul 25, 2017 14:19:27 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

Great stuff Flymac. I really love reading through wartime RNZAF logbooks. What was your Dad's name, if you don't mind me asking? (Perhaps you've told me before and I have forgotten?)

Dave, my father was Flight Sergeant John E. MacLeod. His older brother was Squadron Leader William J MacLeod.
Through your excellent website I have discovered photos of my father and other records. I now have his log books.
One thing that he has noted he scored 93% for air to ground firing in the F4U, which he recorded as "second best score in RNZAF fr Corsair A/c during war".
I must ask how did they score that figure?
And who was the best?
Don 
 

[Dave Homewood]

As far as I am aware, for air to ground firing they had large wooden targets on a range that looked a bit like the targets that archers use. They would have probably have had painted rounds that left a coloured mark on the target so you knew who fired it, and they'd count up the holes with that colour.

[ZacYates]

I enjoy hearing about the training too.

[davidd]

Dave, don't know for certain, but I have always imagined that firing at ground targets would probably not require painted bullet noses, as it would be far easier to have the pupils simply fire at the range targets in a set order, or have ground observers off to one side with binoculars to confirm each aircraft's code letter, and these could be relatively easily reconciled with the pilot in question. An aircraft firing at a drogue was too far out of sight of ground observers, so in this case the painted bullet noses would be about the only strategy that could make individual pilot scores possible. Later in the war it would have been theoretically possible to have R/T contact between tow plane (Avenger, etc) and attackers, but this would not solve the problem of crediting hits for any particular attacker. However I have no knowledge of this ever taking place, or even if it was ever considered necessary.

As ground targets must have been quickly covered in numerous hits from multiple strikes (ground targets probably far easier to secure hits on than an air-towed one) then perhaps the ground targets were covered in a white cloth every day, or even several times a day to make the identification reconciliation job easier? I really must attempt to find out what the standard drills were on these types of exercises, in period APs, although thinking about it more, it was probably far simpler for the attacking pilot to judge if he were getting hits on a ground target by the dust, stones and bits of wood (or concrete?) thrown up by shellfire. Another thing just remembered was that I R (Ian) McKenzie), who was a staff fixed gunnery instructor with 4 OTU at Ohakea on P-40s told me that it was a common practise to simply load two guns for various gunnery exercises to greatly reduce both ammunition consumption as well as re-arming time, and if a pilot was "on the job" he could still secure hits against whatever he was aiming at, although it would be somewhat harder to accomplish. Also the number of bullets requiring painted noses would be similarly reduced - cannot imagine this was anybody's favourite job, but the reconciling of coloured hits on the drogues must have been even worse. Other fixed gunnery exercises included diving over the ocean and trying to shoot white caps on waves, etc, which was probably good fun, or shooting up cloud shadows, apparently all these variations helped to "get your eye in", although no record of these was likely unless camera guns were in use. Sorry, more new questions than answers, but I am certain that those old AP's will contain at least some of the answers, and no doubt the same questions might be largely similar to those found in more modern publications.
Dave D

[Dave Homewood]

Thanks David. You're probably quite right regarding the paint no being used for ground targets. I wonder if any veterans here recall the procedures. I'm sure postwar ground strafing practice in Mossies and Vampires and Harvards, etc, will have run along the same lines as wartime practice procedures when it came to the targets?

[pjw4118]

Dave , in Canada the AG used ground ranges with single guns firing against butts , also to instruct on clearing stoppages etc. Then they went onto a gorund turret and finally onti Fairey Battles still with a single Vickers . Tom Whyte won his course gunnery competition with a score of well under 50% . Tom certainly used painted tips on his ammo for air to drouge firing .Harry Furner trained in the UK and their ranges had a small engine towing the target around an elyptical track to teach angle and deflection shooting , although Harry found the best method was to lay down a field of fire and let the target fly into it. This method wasnt approved by the instructors but Harry found it was very effective in the air. All of them did a lot of trap shooting to get their eye in.
Similarly Jimmy Sheddans method was simply get in close and if you look at his gun camera films normally the first frames show just the swastika on the tail, his aircraft being that close. Like wise with trains , the engine normally fills the screen at the start of firing. He and his squadron also did a lot of shot gun shooting and we both have seen his logbook with the entry "bagged two geese air to air" ( from a Storch over Denmark )

[flymac]

I do recall my father telling me that they had floating targets on the Manukau Harbour and in the Firth of the Thames for ground firing practice.
But his logbook does not state where the targets were located.
I can confirm that my father was a very good shot when he went duck shooting after the war.