|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 26, 2009 15:17:34 GMT 12
I'm wondering, why did the RNZAF only ever get allocated the flying boat version of the Catalina, and not the amphibious version with retractable wheels? Was this because we were allocated the less desirable type off the back of RAF or US orders? Or did the RNZAF specifically only want flying boat versions? Surely the amphibious type would have been much more useful, and I find it hard to believe the manufacturers even continued to make them without wheels after they'd begun to make them with the wheels.
I know that the RNZAf was trying to get Catalinas from as early as 1940 but were continually turned down till finally in 1943 when our first allocation came. So was the acceptance of non-amphibious types simply a "take what we can get"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Mar 26, 2009 15:58:28 GMT 12
Possibly something to do with range - landcats were heavier and therefore could carry less fuel than a seacat.
|
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Mar 26, 2009 16:02:00 GMT 12
Thats an interesting question you ask Dave. Were the boats cheaper than the amphibs? I'm not sure how the lend-lease actually worked apart from the either give them back, chop them up or pay for them side of it. Did the lend lease mean we were paying a monthly amount for the use of them?
Baz ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 26, 2009 18:05:57 GMT 12
Were the Catalinas on the lend-lease scheme though? Or were they allocated from British stocks? I'm not sure. I think you make a good point Bruce regarding the range and weight. Perhaps that is the consideration that clinched the purchase.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbf25o4 on Mar 31, 2009 8:14:05 GMT 12
Dave,
the answer lies with the Lend Lease program and the undertaking by Admiral King (USN) to equip RNZAF squadrons with US naval aircraft. hence corsairs, venturas, sbds and the catalinas. The FB version was the standard USN issue at the time, especially for the Pacific with the myriad of islands in the combat area and the long range required for patrols and ferrying.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 31, 2009 10:59:20 GMT 12
Ah right, that makes sense. Thanks very much Paul.
|
|
