|
|
Post by alanw on Oct 1, 2009 20:04:49 GMT 12
Hi Dave, Don't know if you have seen this before, thought I would post it, found it on the net (no copyright too!) I know you had posted previous about 100 Squadron, in Singapore, looks like a torpedo(?) on aircraft centre of photo, wonder if it was involved in raid on Japanese Fleet getting ready to land troops?  Regards Alan |
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Oct 1, 2009 20:21:13 GMT 12
Looks too short to be a torpedo, think it is a belly tank
|
|
|
|
Post by shamus on Oct 1, 2009 20:23:49 GMT 12
Havn't enlarged the photo, but looks to me like the long range fuel tank that was fitted to Vincents and sometimes Vildebeests.
|
|
|
|
Post by alanw on Oct 1, 2009 20:43:14 GMT 12
Looks too short to be a torpedo, think it is a belly tank Yes You and Shamus are right, had a second look after you both mentioned it and it's too short. Thanks Alan |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 1, 2009 21:06:40 GMT 12
I have seen that photo before. No. 100 Squadron's Vildebeests actually wore camouflage and squadron codes by 1940 and 1941. I recently interviewed a pilot with the squadron, one of the few still alive. He was in Singapore with them originally but later went to their Detached Flight at Trincamalee in Ceylon, so luckily missed the Singapore invasion. However he was involved in the Japanese attacks on Ceylon. I have just finished scanning his massive photo collection and returned them this morning. Watch this space for a new web version of his book with the photos, coming soon to my website.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Wright on Oct 2, 2009 0:12:59 GMT 12
Looking forward to it, Dave. Although I've done a bit of reading about the Vildebeests in Singapore, I still can't believe they were used. Damn, they were brave.
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Nov 6, 2009 12:29:52 GMT 12
Havn't enlarged the photo, but looks to me like the long range fuel tank that was fitted to Vincents and sometimes Vildebeests. I'm involved in a discussion elsewhere about ID'ing Vincents vs Vildebeests (with mp.natlib.govt.nz/detail/?id=24948&l=en as a start point). Is there a good on-line source explaining about the fuel tanks on Vildebeests?' Preferably that can't be dismissed as 'random person on an internet forum has an opinion?' - an online quote of a book or veteran interview is fine. Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by shamus on Nov 6, 2009 20:52:06 GMT 12
I have done considerable research on Vildebeests and Vincents and can tell you that the aircraft in your link photo NZ107 was obtained from Vickers direct to the RNZAF and was a Vildebeest and not a Vincent as stated with the photo.
The RNZAF got the first 12 Vildebeests NZ101 to NZ112 as one batch from Vickers. All the remaining Vildebeests from NZ113 to NZ139 were ex RAF ones.
The Vincents were numbered from NZ300 to NZ361 all being ex RAF ones. NZ300 and NZ361 were made from crashed aircraft and spare parts and have no RAF previous identities.
Although the Vildebeest was a torpedo bomber they did not carry torpedos in RNZAF service but
were able to be fitted with the long range fuel tank as the Vincents were although the Vincent did not carry the fuel tank at all times
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Nov 6, 2009 21:14:57 GMT 12
I have done considerable research on Vildebeests and Vincents and can tell you that the aircraft in your link photo NZ107 was obtained from Vickers direct to the RNZAF and was a Vildebeest and not a Vincent as stated with the photo. The RNZAF got the first 12 Vildebeests NZ101 to NZ112 as one batch from Vickers. All the remaining Vildebeests from NZ113 to NZ139 were ex RAF ones. The Vincents were numbered from NZ300 to NZ361 all being ex RAF ones. NZ300 and NZ361 were made from crashed aircraft and spare parts and have no RAF previous identities. Although the Vildebeest was a torpedo bomber they did not carry torpedos in RNZAF service but were able to be fitted with the long range fuel tank as the Vincents were although the Vincent did not carry the fuel tank at all times Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 7, 2009 20:24:01 GMT 12
Between the Vincent and the Vildebeest III the main difference was the tail struts. The struts were altered for the Vincent design (which was designed as a long range reconnaissance bomber) due to the differenet airflow over the centerline external tank as opposed to the Vildebeest's orginal torpedo cargo.
In RAF service the Vildebeest apparently seems to have carried the torpedo, not the tank. As Les says, however, the RNZAF never had torpedo gear (the Orion was the RNZAF's first aircraft to carry the torpedo) and consequently as they were being mostly employed as long range reconnaissance bombers the RNZAF Vincents and Vildes both carried the tanks. However the Vilde's struts were not modified to the Vincent style despite the airflow.
There were a couple of other very minor differences I have discovered, right now I cannot even think what they were but veterans have pointed out a couple in interviews with me for my book. But they were not externally visual so photos don't show them. It may have been the fuel system I think - added due to the tank fitment, and I guess the Vincent lacked a torpedo dropping mechanism but I don't know if our Vildes retained that.
The Vildebeest Mk IV is of course much more easy to identify, with it's Perseus engine, cowl and three bladed propellor making it look like a Swordfish.
|
|
