|
Post by davidd on Jan 23, 2024 8:38:47 GMT 12
It is also very obvious that the German philosophy of having practically all of the crew of their medium bombers crowded together in the nose, supposedly for purposes of morale as well as not having to rely completely on intercommunications equipment was as true with the He 111 as for other types. Or were some of the scenes shot in larger replicas? Probably not. However I am impresed with the quality of the filming, very impressive.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jan 20, 2024 9:26:35 GMT 12
In case anybody was wondering, the close ups of the ribs of these aircraft, shown in close up on this page, are indeed of the popular RAF 15 aerofoil section, same as used on Tiger Moths, as well as half of the British-built aircraft of the Great War, and probably also featuring in the wings of quite a number of WW2 aircraft as well.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jan 18, 2024 9:21:54 GMT 12
Still on the subject of ordinary squadron pilots being requested/ordered to test standard types of military aircraft, two cases of RNZAF pilots in the South Pacific theatre during 1944, both involving aircraft which were NOT the property of the RNZAF, seem strangely similar in many ways. These cases concerned Pilot Officer Ernest Charles ("Annie") Laurie, DFM, of 16 Squadron on 30th April at Torokina strip, Bougainville, and Flight Sergeant Kenneth McGowan of 23 Squadron, on 13th December at Momote Strip, Los Negros. Both cases concerned F4U-1 aircraft, and the general circumstances of each case were strikingly different in some respects, and seemingly very similar in others. There were also some serious lapses in the legality and control of RNZAF personnel in one instance by US personnel, although the NZ pilot in this case seemed not to be fully aware of his responsibilities and, particularly, his own limitations. It seems that an American officer requested him to undertake a test flight of an American Corsair aircraft, believed following maintenance. This request seems to have been in contravention of arrangements between the RNZAF and the Americans, as the RNZAF was completely unaware of this flight, which seems to have been arranged on the spur of a moment. This was exacerbated by fact that Laurie had absolutely no experience of E4U aircraft (only being conversant with the P-40 series), and under normal circumstances he should have refused outright to fly the aircraft concerned, as no RNZAF officer had authorised the flight, and he had never completed a conversion course to this type. Why Laurie agreeed to the flight can only be speculated on, although he was on his third Pacific tour, so could be considered as a reasonably experienced and competent fighter pilot. McGowan's case was also marked by a lack of completing certain normal administrative actions, and, much worse, practically all the normal actions required for testing the aircraft's engine prior to take off were also ignored. And in both these cases, the respective aircraft were seen to make what appeared to be perfectly normal take offs, but these both ended disastrously, probably for very different reasons. Laurie was in a completely strange aircraft of which his technical knowlege was practically nil, although he probably thought (hoped?) he could manage the flight, by relying on his accumulated flying skills. McGowan on the other hand had much less experience (operational and general flying) than Laurie, being on only his first Pacific tour, and may have been a victim of the "apparent take off" mentioned in previous post due to the runway hump. However he did possess the advantage of having completed the normal Corsair conversion course earlier in his career. Both pilots seemed to have been caught out by unexpected circumstances (especially Laurie, who perhaps thought he was simply assisting the Americans by testing their Corsair). Only certainty was that one pilot ended up drowned in the sea off end of the strip, the other died in a fiery crash just off end of the runway. Both aircraft on their take offs were seen to initially climb normally, then to apparently throttle back and sink towards runway, only to proceed to their doom. All RNZAF pilots, when converting from P-40s to F4Us, had to complete at least a week (later 2 weeks) of classroom study of the Corsair, familiarisation with cockpit instruments, and all systems and controls, then a short examination, with perhaps up to ten or more hours of flying before proceeding to an operational squadron.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jan 17, 2024 15:33:25 GMT 12
Quite right Dave H. Any military pilot can be requested or ordered to test a standard-type aircraft, usually of a type they were already familiar with.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jan 17, 2024 12:57:01 GMT 12
Yes, believe the purpose of which was to test the engine as well handling with large fuel tanks (and also testing of switching the tanks as well). The drop tanks fitted for this flight were the very large ones. I think all pilots on this ferry flight would have similarly tested their own aircraft, which were required to be flown to the Philippines on orders of the (American) theatre commander. According to the accident report (25/2/1984) this F4U (call sign painted on aircraft was "754") was a combat ready aircraft already test-flown by Ensign Carlin, USNR on 28/11/44, "and from that day till 13th December the aircraft was given a daily flight check, engine tested, all tanks tested and inspected for flight worthy condition." The eight aircraft concerned were to be ferried to Leyte. Flight Lieutenant A M (Max) Davis, one of 23 Squadron's flight commanders, also flight tested most of the eight aircraft next day before handing them over to the ferry pilots. "The first four aircraft assigned to 23 Squadron were tested by an American test pilot. The 23 Squadron pilots decided to test the aircraft out themselves, more particularly as long range fuel tanks had been fitted since the previous test flight" (as none of these pilots had flown a Corsair with that much load, although they had flown with 1,000 lb bombs on operations). All aircraft were fitted with three (belly) fuel tanks, which contained 165 gallons in each outboard tank, and approximately 50 gallons in centre tank, plus 230 gallons in main fuselage tank (including reserve) to give total of approximately 610 gallons (these all believed to be US gallons). Note that these later Corsairs were NOT fitted with the leading edge outer panel tanks as these had been abandoned following continuous leaking on earlier aircraft. Although the pilot of this aircraft was warned by the American crew chief (who had just started the engine) that the engine was not as yet up to normal operating temperature, and had therefore not had a full-power check, McGowan apparently ignored, or did not hear this advice, and took off almost immediately, although he had requested and received take-off clearance. "The tower operator watched the aircraft become airborne opposite the tower in a normal manner, then seemed to lose flying speed when 3 - 400 yards past tower, drifted to the left whilst slowly dropping the left wing, then eventually striking the left-hand verge (embankment) of the strip and cartwheeling off the SE end of the strip. The aircraft ended up on its back, and exploded into flames immediately, being completely destroyed.
"It was noted that Momote strip had a prominent "hump" over its length, and pilots reported that they often felt they were airborne when they reached the crest, an illusion caused by the falling away of the view of the strip when the "hump" is reached. The enquiry was not very impresed with McGowan's performance leading up to the accident, quoting several ommissions or failures to adhere to normal starting and engine handling procedures as well as his failure to sign the US Navy equivalent of the aircraft Servicing Form (RNZAF Form 700), nor warming up engine and carrying out a full-power check. However it was noted that it appeared that the engine did NOT fail on take off despite the visual evidence of the only "reliable witness" to the accident, the US Navy tower operator.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jan 16, 2024 9:37:13 GMT 12
Just realized, could this pilot have been F/O H A ("Pop") Mullins (I know this is a bit of a stretch), who was at Hobsonville at about this time as test pilot? Checking again, he was only there in February and March of 1944, so probably not. Immediately after this, he was posted to Espiritu Santo for testing of F4Us which were being assembled there. Another test pilot at Hobsonville at this time (in fact he was the senior test pilot for this period) was F/L J R ("Jack") Day, October 1943 to December 1944. So far as I know, only other test pilot at Hobsonville during this time was P/O R W MacMillan, June 1943 to March 1944, when he was also posted to Espiritu Santo for testing newly assembled Corsairs.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jan 15, 2024 21:49:29 GMT 12
I have a (not necessarilly) complete list of test pilots known to have been on strength of Hobsonville from about 1939 to 1945, but NOBODY with initials D A and likewise NO ONE with family name looking like "Chanale" I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jan 2, 2024 15:35:35 GMT 12
Dave H, re the possibility of source of the "transport" aircraft, 42 Squadron not actually formed (under that name) till December 1943, so would simply have been Communications Flight, stationed at Rongotai, which did have a Dragon Rapide on strength. E&W School Flight at Wigram may have had the two DH84s (Dragons) on strength by this stage.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Dec 28, 2023 9:48:34 GMT 12
Yes, I added to Joe's website some years ago (re RNZAF aircraft), a very interesting fellow, with many and varied interests.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Dec 22, 2023 9:43:28 GMT 12
Yes, I think it was hoped that this was how it would work out at the front lines. Of course the RAF and 8th (and later also the 9th) Air Forces had to work out how to co-operate in Western Europe in 1942 and 1943, as did Coastal Command and the US Navy based in the British Isles and North Atlantic, ditto in the Western Desert and Mediterranean.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Dec 19, 2023 9:08:40 GMT 12
I think much of the footage in this documentary show the later (Griffon-powered) Firefly rather than the humble (Merlin-powered) Fulmar! The different shaped rear cockpits and the fitting of long barrelled cannons can help sort one type from 'tuther.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Dec 15, 2023 21:11:27 GMT 12
I can guess that the data in above post can be interpreted as: Manufacturer, then possibly serial number of prop, Diameter and Pitch, and specific engine application.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Dec 13, 2023 20:32:03 GMT 12
Reference to a 2-bladed wooden prop in post by daqqy152 may in fact be the micarta prop which was used on one of the later flights to NZ by the original aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Dec 7, 2023 6:46:02 GMT 12
That is DEFINITELY a new one on me! Very weird. Perhaps somebody's "Flash of Inspiration" which failed to impress the "Powers that Be"?
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Dec 1, 2023 14:05:22 GMT 12
The NZ-manufactured Bevege "High Speed Helmet" was intended for use in any open-cockpit aircraft, and was originally marketed to the civilian population. Don't know that it was ever considererd by the military, but doubt it was used by them, although I have been known to make false statements from time to time! Possible that it was also marketed in Australia, somebody should check on 1930s and 1950s Australian aviation magazines. Charles Kingsford Smith was used in one of the pre-war marketing campaigns, wonder what they paid him for his (priceless?) endorsement! I think the chrome-plated attachments for the speaking tubes (Gosport tubes) were manufactured by De Havilland in UK, seem to recall that this fact was proudly displayed somewhere on these rather smart and well-made accessories. Bevege helmets were still being marketed in NZ in the 1950s, although I imagine the gradual phasing out of "sporting" open-cockpit aircraft would have seen sales gradually die away too (apart from die-hard Tiger enthusiasts). The RNZAF Museum at Wigram has quite a nice little collection of these helmets, in various sizes and colours, and assorted accessories.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Nov 22, 2023 8:43:31 GMT 12
SU = Servicing Unit (in wartime RNZAF)
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Nov 17, 2023 8:20:19 GMT 12
I think only dromes intended for B-17s and B-24s in South Pacific were Ohakea, Whenuapai, Nadi (Nandi), and Norfolk Island (latter for transitting only), plus the dispersal dromes of Rotherham, Galatea, and Te Parita. And of those, only first three mentioned were ever used by these aircraft types, all for ferrying only, although some aircraft were armed. I think Tonga, etc, also saw some heavy bomber use, as did many Australian and PNG dromes.
Note, my use of the term "South Pacific" above is rather loose, I am including mainly the south eastern portion of it, and ignore most things much north of Fiji, etc.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Nov 15, 2023 9:25:51 GMT 12
Very noticeable in many of the photographs taken inside the "ASR" building are many examples of the International maritime "distress" flag, which so far as I can remember was a red field with a central white disc. These flags became somewhat notorious in the RNZAF in Pacific, as they were standard equipment in all RAF-type aircraft dinghies. They were carried by such aircraft as our P-40s in the early days in the Solomon islands, and caused much confusion when these were encountereed by American naval personnel who thought they were some sort of inverted Japanese naval ensign. One shot-down RNZAF pilot thought he was going to be shot by trigger-happy US Naval personel, crew of a crash launch who had been sent out to rescue him (briefly mentioned in J M S Ross's official history if I recall correctly.) These flags were also delivered to the RNZAF in 1946/47 aboard our great fleet of 80 ex-RAF Mosquitos as part of the ASR dinghy equipment, one of the largest aerial delivery jobs in the post-war RNZAF.
The vast bulk of the ground-staff of 490 Squadron would have been RAF, possibly with a small sprinkling of RNZAF, and other Commonwealth air forces.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Nov 6, 2023 14:40:07 GMT 12
Looks like the standard scheme typical of RAF single-engine aircraft in Middle East in 1920s, and into early 1930s. Don't know if any Hinds were shipped out east, I think majority remained in UK to equip the newly formed squadrons during the early expansion of Bomber Command - have I got that right? It is still a very snappy scheme!
Pondering a little on the above, I soon realized that the black upper fuselaage/otherwise aluminium scheme was also used on RAF S/E aicraft "at home" (UK) in 1920s, such as on Fairey Foxes and the like, and on most Fairey IIIF's, as well as Gordons, but not on any of the Hawker or Vickers aircraft (if my memory is firing on all cylinders, which is unlikely). Don't like being caught out by my own statements, but I get humiliated frequently nevertheless.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 31, 2023 14:06:07 GMT 12
For short summary of accident, see Errol Martyn's "For Your Tomorrows, Vol Two", page 235. Air Department in NZ was apparently not very pleased with the way this inquiry was handled by No. 1 (Islands) Group. (Latter comment refers to various documents in the accident report).
|
|