|
Post by davidd on Aug 25, 2020 10:21:51 GMT 12
My reason for being a little sceptical about oddly coloured spinners being used for unit identification purposes is that the well known shot of NZ3142 "C", which heads this thread, was based at Gisborne at this time (20th June 1944). Although there was (I think) a lonely TBF left on this field (after departure of 31 Squadron), plus a whole gaggle of rather tired PV-1s awaiting the return of the crews of No. 2 Squadron, the Fighter Gunnery School was the only active unit on the field at the time. As Gisborne was some distance from Ohakea, and there was no pressing need for the FGS pilots to operate with the OTU P-40s from that station, I cannot see why a standing system of individual unit identification between the Ohakea and Gisborne aircraft would have really been required.
Both stations would have been well aware of the presence of the other, but they had no business with one another in their normal routines - individual aircraft may have visited between the two stations if required, but I imagine that they all operated in their own areas for the most part. As I am not familiar with the standard syllabus for the FGS courses, I am not certain if they included air to ground firing as a matter of course, always presumed it was mainly air to air stuff. I presume they must have had an authorised area (probably over the sea) for their air to air firing, and also imagine that camera guns were used a lot.
Although different coloured spinners on P-40s may well have been useful for recognising the aircraft flown by various ranks of "leaders" from frontal angles, I still remain to be convinced that this was the case with the FGS P-40s. Incidentally, I have just discovered additional photos of other FGS aircraft with JZ-codes, including Corsairs. Many of these (like NZ3142) had been involved in spectacular (but non-fatal) accidents, although these were of course after October 1944, and at Ardmore. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 24, 2020 12:58:34 GMT 12
Extremely difficult to locate photos are other evidence of Fighter Gunnery School/Fighter Leader School Corsairs (or in fact any of their other aircraft), with or without code letters, etc. Damon, it sounds as though you may have stumbled upon one of the rare images of a JZ-marked Corsair, last digits "66". Apparently 5566 was indeed serving with the FLS in April 1945.
David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 24, 2020 12:44:25 GMT 12
Shorty, probably the prevailing bomb shortage of the time (due to huge demands for same from "North of the Equator" theatre commanders). Some details published on this shortage in the AHSNZ Journals of recent times. They were also using obsolete USAAF bombs during this period, chiefly the 300 pound GP, which are often conspicuous in the above thread. If no bombs at all were available, sometimes they were reduced to simple ground strafing (F4Us as well as PV-1s) but this was rather reckless use of Venturas, with only two forward guns. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 23, 2020 10:13:34 GMT 12
The FGS at Gisborne was originally established on 1st May 1944 with just ten aircraft (three P-40s and 4 + 3 Harvards), and was intended to train 12 "pupils' per 4-week course. The earliest P-40s I have records for in May - June period were 3128, 41, 42, 47, 57, 68 and 71, same as listed above. Harvards in use over same period were 1018, 19, 33, 36, 38, 39 and 57, so looks as though they were somewhat oversupplied with aircraft according to the establishment. Also throughout life of the FGS/FLS, the "flying instructor" strength of the school was only about two or three, increased later to about three or four, which included the commanding officer. CO's were S/L R M Mckay (from 1/5/44), A/S/L A G Sievers from 3/8/44 (after McKay departed for UK and his meeting with the Meteors of 616 Sqdn), A/S/L B H Thomson from 22 Sqdn and Flying Wing Ardmore from 7/5/45 till 10/9/45. Other staff pilot were Sievers from 13/6/44 till appointed OC; F/L J R Court and F/O J H Mills from 7/8/44, F/L R Gray (ex India) from 14/9/44, and F/L B E Gibbs from 23/3/45. I may be short of a few other later replacements. Number of courses to pass through these schools was 14 (7 each for FGS, and FLS), with courses "end to end" (that is, not overlapping). Contrary to best intentions, numbers of "pupils" per course were smaller, typically about eight men initially, but a few were as large as ten with FGS. FLS also started with 8 or 9 pupils, increasing to 10 for final four, so only about 120 pilots passed through these two school over a period of fifteen months. Right through, the duration of all courses remained at 4 weeks, but No. 1 Course did not commence till 22nd May, and the final course had to be extended for several days because of some bad weather. There were always small gaps between courses.
The FGS was transferred from Gisborne to Ardmore between 3rd and 8th July 1944, at which time personnel establishment of unit was stated to be 6 officers, 6 SNCO's and 67 "other ranks". The P-40s on strength were all allotted to other units in late October 1944 when the FGS was re-equipped with F4U-1 Corsairs (NZ5509, 10, 23, 25, 37, 38, 41, 45, 48) although establishment was only for eight. Harvards in use at this time were NZ1013, 18, 19, 33, 36, 38, 39, 49, 57. There were some changes of individual aircraft, but seems that aircraft establishment remained the same till the unit was closed down on 10th September 1945 (presume 10 F4U, 7 Harvard).
On 8th February 1945, FGS was reorganised and renamed as Fighter Leaders School, and aircraft establishment was altered by addition of two more Corsairs to bring total to ten.
A bit more to come.
David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 22, 2020 14:47:02 GMT 12
These views tend to show up well the lamina flow section of the wing. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 21, 2020 19:42:53 GMT 12
Three interesting details appear on this 2 OTU Vincent/Vilde which highlight some things I was previously unaware of. Note the additional "landing" wires which seem to run from the upper end of the forward cabane struts to a point on leading edge of lower mainplanes midway between lower ends of interplane struts and the struts which more-or-less "mirror" the cabane struts. Also interesting is that all the flying and landing wires have the protective "acorns" where they cross each other, to prevent the vibrating aerofoil sections from inflicting damage on each other. Nothing unusual about the acorns, but they do demonstrate that all the landing/flying "wires" are positioned along two parallel planes. There are also quite a lot of bracing wires amongst those cabane struts too, but fortunately these probably did not represent too much of a hazard to the crew should they be required to bale out (rear cockpit gave better chances), but pilot might have preferred to take his chances by making a forced landing! Looking at the photograph again, I notice there are quite a few extra round "blobs" in the image, about the same size as the "acorns", but I am certain they are merely "imperfections" on the negative.
Another detail rarely remarked upon is that the Mk. IV Vildes, and practically all Vincents used the "modern" idea of trim tabs for setting the trim of the aircraft - earlier machines had the adjustable tailplane, as shown in the famous Frank Munger drawing. The pair of trim tabs on the Ohakea aircraft are pretty obvious in the above photograph, and for this reason I suggest that this aircraft is a Vincent.
I would also like to nominate yellow as the overall colour of this aircraft, which was standard for most dedicated drogue towers in RNZAF by about 1942/43 (meaning Gordons, Vincent/Vildes, and Harvards at this time), although not all such received the scheme. The visible fuselage roundel and finflash are of the RAF "C" type, while the upper wing roundel visible MAY be a "B" type. Finally, I believe there is a coloured band painted around the rear fuselage just forward of the tailplane. Such markings were suggested in some of the old files on RNZAF aircraft markings and finishes, and this seems to be pretty strong evidence that the suggestion was acted upon. Reason for such a marking was to bring the attention of aircrew in the vicinity that this aircraft was a drogue tower, and should accordingly be given a wide berth! However I hesitate to nominate a candidate colour for this band, for obvious reasons.
If anybody can produce further images of Vincent/Vildes with the additional landing wires, I would like to see them - perhaps it was a later modification introduced for structural safety reasons?
Edit: Have located true purpose for those additional "landing" wires; in fact they are correctly designated as "Bombing" wires, and were only fitted to aircraft when they were fitted with the outer wing bomb carriers, which were only capable of carrying lighter bombs, 20 pounders and the like. I think that the additional wires were intended to back up other wires when bombs were actually being carried, but probably left in place until the carriers were removed. The inboard carriers were designed to mount 250 and 500 pounders.
David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 21, 2020 18:45:09 GMT 12
Some gripping tales from long ago here Dave H, but sadly there are still many people in this World who can and do inflict appalling treatment on their helpless victims without hesitation for various (usually spurious, or ridiculous) reasons.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 21, 2020 18:25:05 GMT 12
Great news Dave H, I always hoped it might resurface one day. I imagine this might be a fairly fat file! David D
PS, will attempt to recreate my own "lost file" later this evening, or maybe tomorrow, the one detailing the "fleet" of aircraft operated by the FGS/FLS, May 1944 to September 1945. Incidentally, I may have been a bit flippant with your last suggestion, but I will give a little more time to the question of those spinners with split fore/aft colours. As you have already noted, unusually coloured P-40 spinners were certainly not the sole privilege of the aircraft at Gisborne/Ardmore, but as P-40 spinners were always eyed greedily by airmen with spray guns all around the world (they were just so BIG!), anything is possible. However, as I have also pointed out, they already had fuselage codes for specific aircraft identification at a distance, but a split colour spinner would at least provide reasonably reliable unit identification from frontal angles.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 21, 2020 0:08:52 GMT 12
Dave H, Have just lost a summary of all the P-40s with the FGS/FLS at Gisborne (and Ardmore) which took about an hour to compile (I was about to send it!), and do not have the will to write it again tonight, but I can say that the RNZAF was rather inconsistent with painting its aircraft in WW2, and particularly with such tempting items as large spinners! In fact I think other air forces were probably just as bad. However the FGS was allocated a code group to identify its aircraft, this was "JZ", formerly allocated to 15, then 17 Squadrons at Whenuapai, then Seagrove from about June 1942 till July 1943. JZ codes were recorded on at least two of the FGS P-40s at Rukuhia by Darby and Hansen, NZ3128 (JZ-B) and 3171 (JZ-D), and I believe that Harvard NZ1039 (also an FGS/FLS aircraft) was marked with the latter "C" on sides of its engine cowling. I have also seen a (rather poor) photograph of a Corsair at Rukuhia marked with a "JZ" code, which shows that this custom was also carried on with them after the remaining P-40s were allotted to the two OTUs in late October 1944. Unfortunately, as you know, good photographs of FGS/FLS aircraft are extremely scarce, especially their Corsairs.
Hope to re-do the details of all the aircraft serving with this interesting unit.
David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 20, 2020 23:02:06 GMT 12
The photo of "Taurangaruru" at Torokina includes a well known pilot sitting on the wing, Peter Gifford (second from right), who would have been with 19 Squadron at this time. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 19, 2020 9:13:21 GMT 12
Chinapilot, possible reason for poor bombing accuracy (medium level strikes only) was lack of bomb sights for the NZ PV-1s, which is why they practically always flew with the USMC PBJs, which DID have good M/L sights. I think it was early April 1945 before the theatre commander finally made available to the RNZAF a very few well-used (and abused) M/L bomb sights, which then had to be cannibalised and overhauled, after which they could carry out formation bombing on their own if desired (dropping on the leader's visual release). In fact formation dropping was the standard method of area bombing by the PBJs all through this period - if you had a good man, you only needed one good sight! However sometimes things just did not go according to plan. Many aircraft of this era had "bombing lights" (mounted on rear fuselage somewhere I think) which could be seen and used by following aircraft, presumably on night (or dull day) missions for formation bombing. For low altitude bombing, I think simple bomb sights were available, although how good they were, I have no idea! Incidentally, an earlier report happened to mention some "Gunboots" which got me excited, thought it was a misspelling of "Gumboots", but that is even sillier, so concluded they must have been common, garden variety "gunboats". Sorry I have not remembered which day this was on. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 19, 2020 8:59:58 GMT 12
Dave H, not aware of 3 Sqdn Hudsons doing nocturnal trips to "a Rabaul airfield" at any time in 1943, it may have been technically possible, but I have no knowledge of this. You are perhaps thinking of the nocturnal visits by our Hudsons in earlier months of 1943 to Munda airfield (New Georgia), where they dropped various loads of bombs on/around the airfield, including 100 pounders. Guadalacanal to Rabaul and return was about 1100 nautical miles if my memory is to be believed. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 18, 2020 8:36:52 GMT 12
aircraft clocks, thanks for the detailed survey of the units/aircraft, numbers of aircraft, and ground support units as for 30 January 1945. However the ground support unit for 4 Squadron at Emirau should read 10 SU, not 16 SU (the RNZAF never had a No. 16 SU.) With regard to the heading "Pilots available", this is very problematic, and confusing. The numbers stated seem to be correct for RNZAF fighter squadrons, but for RNZAF PV squadrons the figure would seem to be for number of crews. For the USMC/USN transport and patrol squadrons it appears that total numbers are for all aircrew members, and not number of crews (and certainly not number of pilots!) For VS-61, the number would also appear to represent number of crews rather than just pilots. Otherwise, keep up the excellent work. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 16, 2020 11:50:18 GMT 12
Yes, it seems that we did not see any modern American (or British for that matter) submarines in NZ until pretty late in the war. Good details in the above account too (obviously from the horse's mouth) , including the descriptive term for the senior officer. All three are members of the very large (195 units) GATO class, respectively numbered in order shown above: SS 224, 288, 222. This data from U.S. Warships of WW2" (1982 edition, Paul H Silverstone, Ian Allan). Displacement of this class is given as 1,525/2,415 tons, standard light tonnage (presume surfaced/submerged). David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 14, 2020 19:54:10 GMT 12
A typical tale of the treatment of Allied prisoners by the Japanese military, just horrendous. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 14, 2020 19:08:11 GMT 12
"Beefsteak" was the official US Navy code name for Emirau Island. "Brewer" was likewise the code name for the Admiralty Islands, where the RNZAF also located aircraft (specifically at Mokerang strip, Los Negros, although at this time only one NZ F4U squadron was there, purely for local defence, so normally no offensive use, and therefore no inclusion in the above summaries). US Navy Squadron VPB-146 was also located at Mokerang. As the RNZAF's 4 Squadron was also flying 300 mile sectors from Emirau, with its PV-1s, this would seem to be the normal radius of action for this type in the theatre on Sector patrols. At the end of January 1945 (actually on 30th) on strength at Mokerang strip (Los Negros), VPB-146 had on strength 13 PV-1s, although normal strength of such squadrons at time was 15, same as RNZAF. VPB-146 came under Fleet Air Wing 17 (FAW-17), a formation with HQ at Morotai which had squadrons located in a swathe across SWPA, including Morotai, Manus (also in Admiralties), Leyte (Philippines), Owi (ditto), Green Island, Hollandia, and Mokerang. Squadrons included one of PB4Y-1s (VPB-101), two of PBY-5/5A (VPB-33, 44), three of PV-1s (VPB-128, 130, 146), and one of SBDs (VS-61, which also had one SB2C and two J2Fs). The VS-squadrons at this time were in effect short range patrol squadrons, leaving the twin and 4-engined larger aircraft to get on with the long range work.
David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 14, 2020 10:10:48 GMT 12
To answer Paul's question (27th June) they are indeed hydraulic, as I mentioned in caption, with just one very small diameter steel pipe connecting each matched set of sender and receiver units - they imparted no extra boost to the system, but could be supplied with various length levers to impart better leverage (if this could fit the application and was considered desirable!) The units fitted in the TBFs were made under license from the (English) Exactor company, which amazingly (last time I looked) was still in business, and still manufacturing hydraulic equipment. Instead of making their units as per the English originals (which were manufactured from sheet steel welded together), the Sperry units were one-piece castings from what I could tell in a brief comparison. The RNZAF Museum has examples of both Exactor and Sperry-made transmitter units, but cannot recall if they had the matching receiver units off top of my head - probably 25 - 30 years since I saw them in No. 2 Store where they presumably still sit on a shelf. The Exactor units almost certainly came off one of our Sunderlands (operated throttles, prop pitch I think). Exactor controls also fitted to all earlier model Stirlings, most of the later Short flying boats (not certain about the Solents), AW Ensign, Westland Whirlwind (twin-engine fighter), DH Flamingo, and I think also on Blackburn Botha, perhaps also Saro Lerwick and Bristol Beaufort. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 13, 2020 9:09:54 GMT 12
Sorry Dave, no comment on this one. Those OTU Harvard codes are mighty hard to locate. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 9, 2020 12:05:07 GMT 12
I suspect some confusion here nuuumannn .... And I think Barf has always been Balf, or am I kidding myself? David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 9, 2020 11:57:35 GMT 12
Harking back to the Mosquito emergency dinghy storage boxes, the late Ross Cleverley (Safety & Surface worker) has this contribution to make (from recesses of my memory alone). Ross undertook much of his very early career on Mosquitos of 75 Squadron, and it was discovered at this time that the miscellaneous equipment stowed with the dinghy included a "distress" flag for hoisting in the dinghy (I don't know why a tiny dinghy required a comparatively tiny flag when any ship or aircraft coming across such a vessel during their travels, might rightly assume that any occupants might be in some distress). Regardless of this consideration, the RNZAF had a long-standing aversion to this flag (which was apparently an Internationally agreed design from perhaps pre-war days, may still have been currently "legal" in 1951/52) as one of its pilots (F/O Ken D Lumsden, No. 18 Squadron) had an interesting experience about 8 years previously (actually on 1st November 1943, the American landings at Empress Augusta Bay, Bougainville). He was shot down by Japanese fighters: to quote the official history (J M S Ross, page 208); "He had been chased by two Zekes over the landing area, and was fired on by a United States destroyer which holed his aircraft. Then a Corsair fired on him, and shortly afterwards he was forced to ditch. He was later picked up by a (American) barge, after nearly being machine gunned by the crew, and returned to his unit two days later". This incident (and some earlier ones during tours of 15 and 14 Squadrons during May and June of that year) convinced RNZAF to finally make changes to their identification roundels and make them look more like American insignia, by adding horizontal white "bars" to each side of the roundels, in all six positions. Something overlooked in most accounts of Lumsden's adventure was that the greatest peril he faced was the armed American barge, which reported that the New Zealander's dinghy was flying a red and white flag. Strange but true - the flag was a red one, with a white central disc, as approved pre-war. It is unknown what (if any) flags were issued to United States aircrew for their rafts, and it is not known which type the RNZAF was using (supplied in early days of war from RAF sources, or even locally made, or actually issued by the Americans themselves?), but result was that all raft kits in use by RNZAF were checked, and if containing the red/white flags, these were supposed to be destroyed. In Ross Cleverley's personal collection of "war trophies" (he "joined the mob" about 1950/51) was one of the discredited "distress" flags, in all its glory. I THINK Ross donated this item to the RNZAF Museum, as he realized that very few if any of these flags might have survived in New Zealand, apart from his specimen. David D
|
|