|
Post by komata on Dec 27, 2016 5:42:18 GMT 12
No-one seems to have commented on it so far, but the 'Warhawk' at 3.14 and 3.27 is an earlier P-40 variant (`K'?) rather than the 'clear canopy' variants which make up the majority of the machines in the newsreel.
Since it is unlikely that a lone example of an earlier version still be would be front-line service amongst the later versions, can anyone explain the anomaly?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Nov 24, 2016 12:33:56 GMT 12
Jim
The book is 'Aeronautical Engineering: A Practical Guide For Everyone Connected With the Aircraft Industry' (Beaumont, R.A, ed. (London: Odhams Press, 1940)).
Amazon seems to have them for sale.
Hope that this helps; thank you for asking.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Nov 16, 2016 9:26:37 GMT 12
Errol Thank you. I've just rechecked the flyleaf of the book and it is definitely BNAF and in S/L Bealey's handwriting, with the 11,.11. 43 date as I've listed above. Perhaps the 'Official records' could be wrong? (it has been known to happen ). However, there is another possibility (although ONLY a possibility as Idon't know if they were even formally grouped under the title):'British North African Forces'. It would seem to fit and, to a degree, does make sense. A possibility for consideration?
|
|
|
Post by komata on Nov 15, 2016 14:49:47 GMT 12
Errol
Thank you; I thought that you would be able to help with the necessary information. On the basis of what you've written, it would be interesting to know where this book has been - if only it could talk!!
Any idea what BNAF might be?
Again, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Nov 15, 2016 11:42:03 GMT 12
. NZ 41465
S/L H.H. Bealey (?; This is uncertain as it is difficult to decifer the name).
37 Squadron R.A.F
B.N.A.F
11.11.43
As I cannot access service records, can anyone amongst the membership shed light on exactly who S/L HH Bealey was, and what the significance of B.N.A.F might be?
Thank you in advance to anyone who can provide information.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Oct 7, 2016 14:53:54 GMT 12
After rechecking VERY closely (hi-res magnifying glass), I would suggest that the second number is a '5', making the aircraft NZ3175. The second number doesn't have the same slight curve at the top that the visible '6' does, while if it were a '1' the cross-stroke would be lower. As the alternative '6'would have the same curve, and the '9' is essentially an 'inverted' '6', the 'curve' would be similar.
Any advances on this suggestion??
|
|
|
Post by komata on Oct 7, 2016 13:25:04 GMT 12
Thank you for the 2 SU 'pooling' information, on the basis of which we will never know which aircraft that particular one was. In the absence of additional information we therefore seem to have reached the end of the investigation.
FWIW, in respect of the cowling number I initially also thought that the first digit was a '5' until I noticed that it curved around to the left, something that most '5's don't do. A '6' would seem to be the obvious alternative.
(Camtech, thank you for the confirmation BTW).
If only the photographer had moved a little to the right...
|
|
|
Post by komata on Oct 7, 2016 12:00:35 GMT 12
Thank you Dave; exactly, that is the image I was referring-to. . Glad you could copy and paste it. The 18 SQN reference was occasioned by the fact that other 18 SQN a/c apparently carried numbers on their cowlings. Thank you for the correction about the SU. I had forgotten taht the RAF and RNZAF did things differently.
In respect of the possible '65' on the P-40's cowling: This appears forward of the Corsair's fin, between it and the canopy. To me the first character is a '6' with that to its right being possibly the vertical stroke of a '5'. Equally, however it could be something else. As there can only be 11 possibilities (60, 61, etc.), and if we know the '6' part of the number, can the identity of that particular 'Kitty be established with any degree of certainty? Presumably 2 SU records are available?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Oct 7, 2016 8:51:46 GMT 12
Concerning two RNZAF P-40's appearing in a facebook image:
On Facebook there is a site titled 'Corsair of the Day'; which literally puts up images of F4-U's of all variants (including the occasional RNZAF machine) on a daily basis. No doubt some of the membership are already aware of the site's existence. For today (7 October 2016) , the image is of a 'colorised' (Hand-tinted) US F4U-1D. However two RNZAF P-40's (P450-N-25's?) also appear within the image. While only the wing of one of these is shown in the RH foreground, another P-40 is clearly visible in the background. This latter a/c has white tailfeathers and appears to carry the cowling code '65' indicating an 18 SQN machine at Torokina in 1944. While the image itself is nicely coloured, the RNZAF national markings are unfortunately incorrect, with the roundels carrying a red centre instead of the correct blue that we are familar with.
No doubt some of the membership will already be familar with this image, although regrettably, I cannot copy the F/B image to this page to bring it to the attention of a wider audience. Perhaps someone else may be able to, in the hope that a positive identification of this specific aircraft can be made.
As it may be of interest, submitted FWIW.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Sept 2, 2016 22:22:28 GMT 12
Glad that I can help. I was told that 'Josephine' was the fiance of NZ5611's regular 'Pacific' pilot, the late Frank Bish. I understand that he married her after the war ended.
it is certainly nice to know that NZ5648 is still 'operational' although unless she's been recently resprayed, the last time i saw her she was dressed-up as a USN machine!! I understand that her current 'owner' is apparently an American, so perhaps this is not too surprising.
Again, glad to be of assistance. Happy modelling.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Sept 2, 2016 21:49:21 GMT 12
Kiwicorsair Re: Your comment "Josephine" has been restored what looks like the 4 tone colour scheme. Also Her current markings are the 4 tone' FWIW, if you are talking about her current (spurious) US 'Star and Bar' markings, then the 4-tone scheme is probably correct. However, if you are referring to the colours carried in the photograph above, sadly, that is very definitely NOT the case. In the guise of NZ5611 'Josephine' NZ5648 was finished very simply for her 'Hamilton' debut. For that occasion she wore locally-mixed dark blue paint which was sprayed over everything, with white being used under both the fuselage and the cranked centre-section. This paint scheme was essentially a 'lash-up' to make her look good 'on the day' and there was no attempt at 'authenticity', rather the scheme was an approximation to what NZ 5611 ('Josephine') had worn in the islands. FWIW, if you are interested, a photograph of NZ5611 in the 'display' scheme appeared several years ago in a paper-back publication on the RNZAF and its aircraft (sorry, title currently unrecalled). In its 'pre-Josephine' state (when displayed outside Asplin's), the aircraft was indeed dark blue overall (including the under-surfaces), and while it was at Asplins I never saw it 'dressed' in the scheme that 'Josephine'. I would emphasise again, that what was worn at that 'display was a 'lash-up'. Not sure if what I have written helps, but thought that I should set the record straight. FWIW: Below please find three images of a Tamiya-brand 1/48 model that I modified many years ago to look like 'Josephine' Ufortunately it is showing its age!! The 'blue' was (from memory) Tamiya 'Dark Sea Blue' with the white being a Humbrol matt enamal. Because I cannot create accurate decals, I had to use those provided in the kit.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Jul 31, 2016 16:29:18 GMT 12
An interesting question. FWIW,as 'Representative of Hs Majesty George VI, King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Emperor Of India and the colonies of the British Empire and its Dominions' (etc. etc. etc.), Sir Cyril was in effect George VI at a local level.. As such, he would have been consulted about the events that were occurring on that level, and be kept in the loop in respect of local political actions. he was, after-all the local 'King'. All information he received would have been passed-on the his 'masters' in London. He would also have been consulted for his 'tactical' knowledge, his advice being sought as to the best appropriate means to deal with the problem as outlined above. Whether or not he would have taken command of the RNZAF would have depended-upon the actions of the New Zealand Government (specifically the War Cabinet), who would have, in turn, taken guidance from Whitehall. If the NZ Govt. decided that Newall was suitable, a War Emergency Regulation would have been quickly passed, formalising (legalising) the appointment. Due to local equipment inadequacies however, I would suggest that he could only have been able to do so much; Vildebeests / Vincents, Hawker Hinds, Airspeed Oxfords and Lockheed Hudsons were not exactly in the forefront of aviation and just a tad less than modern...
As I said, FWIW. It's an interesting question.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Apr 13, 2016 13:27:05 GMT 12
Errol
Re: 'A shame the producers of ‘Story’ didn’t bother to read it first'.
They never would have, even if it was literally dropped on their heads, since why let the (inconvenient) 'facts' get in the way of a good story? The media have always been this way, and, sadly, because it 'sells', will not be changing this 'policy' any time soon.
In the media world (and especially TV) 'sensationalism; is all, and 'truth and facts' are totally irrelevant. In NZ (because of our small size) it this policy is merely more concentrated and obvious...
|
|
|
Post by komata on Apr 4, 2016 10:39:17 GMT 12
Dave H: Thank you. The pilot made his point, and paid the appropriate penalty. Unfortunately I subsequently lost track of him so don't know if he went into GA or not - he certainly had the ability. It was, of course, all a rather long time ago...
|
|
|
Post by komata on Apr 4, 2016 6:32:17 GMT 12
In respect of bridges, and FWIW:
There was a bit of excitement in 1968 when a student pilot (no names BTW; there are those who will know), 'borrowed' and then flew a Cessna under the Bridge Street bridge in central Hamilton, in a protest against being rejected for pilot training by the RNZAF, his intention being to show them that he could in fact fly. Suffice to say that he was sufficiently low for staff at the adjacent Police station to be able to look down and record the aircraft registration on the upper wing as it went past.
It was an 'interesting' afternoon....
|
|
|
Post by komata on Mar 21, 2016 10:18:54 GMT 12
Is anyone else having problems with the colour of the print that the site is generating when typing a post? Although the print DOES appear as white when the post is actually made, during the initial composing' stage this isn't the case, and a dark blue colour seems to the site's 'colour of preference' for the print; this blue being a colour that is VERY hard on the eyes as it tends with the deep red background. Under some interior lighting it can at times become almost invisible. . Perhaps the Admins could check it out and take the necessary action? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Feb 9, 2016 15:44:11 GMT 12
I don't know if 'Hovercraft' are classified as aircraft' or not (I have always considered them to be so BTW, as they DO fly - albeit not very high), but the last two SRN4 Cross Channel passenger / car carrying hovercraft are under threat of scrapping, despite being held 'in storage for preservation'. As these are probably the last vestiges of the once-great British hovercraft industry and the forward-thinking aviation industry / technology from which it came, people are understandably upset that they may be scrapped without due regard to their historical value. For those who may be interested, further details are here, together with information concerning a petition that has been launched to prevent the scrapping: www.change.org/p/homes-and-communities-agency-save-the-princess-anne-the-last-remaining-srn4-hovercraft-for-the-nationHopefully this will be of interest, and signatures will follow...
|
|
|
Post by komata on Jan 30, 2016 16:18:09 GMT 12
ErrolC
'...'So I told him, Snoopy, don't go, Snoopy, don't gooooo.....!!' (With apologies to Wayne and Schuster).
|
|
|
Post by komata on Jan 27, 2016 10:55:44 GMT 12
Dave H: The short answer would seem to have been 'no' as explained in the following article: 'A self-introduced species from Australia, welcome swallows were rare vagrants before the late 1950s and increased greatly through the 1960s and 1970s particularly in the North Island. Early records included Northland (1920), Auckland Islands (1943), Awhitu Peninsula (1944), Campbell Island (1946), Stewart Island (1953) and Farewell Spit (1955). Their arrival was closely monitored by bird-watchers, and resulted in perhaps the most amusing title ever penned for a New Zealand bird publication – Barrie Heather’s 1956 short note ‘Welcome swallow at Farewell Spit’. Welcome swallows first bred in New Zealand at Awanui, Northland in 1958. By 1965 they were common throughout Northland, spreading elsewhere in the North Island, and were breeding in the South Island'.(1) Hope that this helps. _______________________ (1) 'New Zealand Birds Online: Welcome Swallow' [online], New Zealand Birds Online at: nzbirdsonline.org.nz/species/welcome-swallow [accessed 27 January 2016]
|
|
|
Post by komata on Jan 25, 2016 18:45:31 GMT 12
Thank you gentlemen; it would seem that the story is a myth and can be discounted as a result. I would suggest that on that basis the matter can be considered closed. At least we (I) now know.
|
|