|
|
Post by phasselgren on Mar 19, 2006 5:30:54 GMT 12
It is very difficult to find any information about photo-recce in the RNZAF during the post-war period. In short this is what I have found:
Wing commander Ted Arundel writes in his book The Sport Of Kings about the use of K24 aerial cameras on Mosquito's. One hand held by the navigator and others in the drop tanks.
On a site about Canberra (http://www.bywat.co.uk/) there is one photo taken by an F95 recon camera mounted on the nose cone.
Gibs page The A-4 Alley mentions the Minipan Camera on the A-4 (http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/index.html).
According an article about RNZAF in the magazine Air International the Macchis had a Vinten camera pod as an alternative load.
I would appreciate help with any information about:
*Other types used for photo-recce
*The cameras and how they were mounted on the aircraft
*Tactics during photo-recce missions
When the Swedish Air Force about ten years ago prepared a ready-reaction unit for work on the international arena. They were surprised to find that their brand new JAS 39 Gripen was not the most wanted aircraft. The big air forces already have plenty of fighters and attack-aircraft. It was instead the old SF37 Viggen (photo-recce version of Viggen) which got the honor of being chosen for the first unit. As I understand it this was because many photo-recce units disappeared after the cold war but they are still a valuable resource on peace-keeping missions. UAVs can not alway replace the traditional recce aircraft.
Peter
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 19, 2006 8:07:04 GMT 12
As far as I know the machis never carried camera pods while in RNZAF service. I never heard of them during my time as an RNZAF photographer, nor during my time as an armourer. The A4s had minipans in the aft LH main wheel fairing, and the films were developed at CPE in ex US Navy Versamat machines. The A4 also had a modified rocket pod that could hold a Hasselblad facing rear for PR photography. The images of the Kiwi Red team were taken with this.
The orions are our current photo platform and today the photography is done by the air ords using handheld Kodak digital SLRs. There has recently been the introduction of a vertical camera, a commercial medium format camera with a digital back.
There is also quite a bit of aerial recce imagery shot from the Iroquois using hand held Nikon D1x cameras by RNZAF photogs.
For all the information you might want, contact paul.stein@nzdf.mil.nz he is the flight commander at CPE, and the Ohakea public information officer. He has been in the RNZAF for about 25 years as a photographer.
|
|
|
|
Post by phasselgren on Mar 28, 2006 6:58:26 GMT 12
Thanks Phil, interesting information I will contact Paul Stein but I have one more question for you. What is the CPE?
Peter
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 28, 2006 10:54:41 GMT 12
Central Photographic Establishment, Ohakea
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 29, 2006 21:35:05 GMT 12
Slightly unrelated as it's wartime, but this photo shows a photo recon camera from an RNZAF Hudson. I hope this is of interest.  Photo from Contact, copyright RNZAF Museum, Wigram |
|
|
|
Post by phasselgren on Mar 31, 2006 5:23:50 GMT 12
Of course it´s interesting. Do you know if the Hudsons were used for photo recon in the Solomons?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 31, 2006 9:49:49 GMT 12
Reconaissance was their major role, so yes, I'd think so
|
|
|
|
Post by camtech on May 15, 2009 21:52:51 GMT 12
Just going through some old posts, and came across this one.
As an Instrument mechanic/fitter, i specialised in aircraft camera gear, and have worked on the old F24 aerial camera and the F95 as fitted to the Orion. The F24 could be used handheld (bloody heavy though!!) or fitted in a rack in Devons, and if I recall correctly, in the nose door of the Freighter. We also tried various arrangements for the Orion, but these were only partially successful. The F95 in the Orion was fitted in a pod with three cameras: these were a sod to keep operational, as the focal plane shutter was very flimsy. The Canberras had fittings for F24 cameras as well.
From my recollection, the Devon was the main camera ship, and I can remember fitting the rack to various Devons for photo work.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 15, 2009 22:47:33 GMT 12
We still had the F24s during my years as a photographer (01-05), but not operationally, just stored out the back in boxes. I"m not sure what happened to them when they were disposed of. We also had the Orion Cameras (the F95s you refer to perhaps? They were white, with quite long lenses).
|
|
|
|
Post by shamus on May 15, 2009 23:01:48 GMT 12
The F24 camera was also fitted to the Hawker Hind in 1942. I have one of them plus a hand-held mount that can be added or detached very simply. Also have two different aircraft mounts for them.
The camera in the hind was controlled by the pilot electricly. Will post some photos of them later.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on May 16, 2009 8:36:55 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on May 16, 2009 12:01:09 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by phasselgren on May 17, 2009 5:26:07 GMT 12
Just going through some old posts, and came across this one. As an Instrument mechanic/fitter, i specialised in aircraft camera gear, and have worked on the old F24 aerial camera and the F95 as fitted to the Orion. The F24 could be used handheld (bloody heavy though!!) or fitted in a rack in Devons, and if I recall correctly, in the nose door of the Freighter. We also tried various arrangements for the Orion, but these were only partially successful. The F95 in the Orion was fitted in a pod with three cameras: these were a sod to keep operational, as the focal plane shutter was very flimsy. The Canberras had fittings for F24 cameras as well. From my recollection, the Devon was the main camera ship, and I can remember fitting the rack to various Devons for photo work. Good to see this old thread come alive again. I have some new questions after reading these answers. Was the Devon only used for mapping or was it used for tactical recce? Was the camera-pod on Orion used for long distance photos of ships or did it have any other role. The Swedish Air Force used this technique with Viggen to identify ships from a safe distance. Where was the fittings for the F24 placed on the Canberra? Don: Was the Minipan often used for tactical recce? Without being an expert it seems to have a limited capacity and with only one camera the Skyhawk has little flexiblity in how to approach the target. Peter |
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on May 17, 2009 10:05:03 GMT 12
In the RAN FAA the Perkin-Elmer Minipan was used for BDA (Bomb Damage Assessment) &/or other tactical target recon/photos. As I recall it had a panoramic view from horizon to horizon in a swathe either side (wingtip to wingtip) - however I may have misremembered this aspect after all these years. Bear with me... I was trained for five months (late 1972 to early 1973) in USA as a PI (Photo Interpreter) at AFB Lowry just outside Denver, Colorado, with one month at NAS Miramar with VFP-63 at the end of that time. In that intense training period I saw thousands of all kinds of strip film panoramic photos and single frame film through a stereoscope or not. I saw only a few frames (strips of film) EVER from the RAN Minipan. These were test runs at low level over NAS Nowra. So NOT having seen more than that; and never having taking a camera on an A4G photo run EVER - it is difficult to comment exactly on this aspect of the Minipan. Why? The only camera was used by VF-805, while for the rest of my time flying in the RAN was spent on VC-724. 805 helped set up a specific photo facility on HMAS Melbourne; while the main Navy photographic branch was based at NAS Nowra - they were not so interested in it but must have developed the film when it became available. In other words I had subsequently very little to do with the Minipan, while my knowledge is only 3rd hand about how it was used. BTW between Lowry & Miramar (with an actual RAN photographic officer on the same course) we spent a week at the Perkin-Elmer factory in 'the Valley' Pomona near Los Angeles. PE tried to sell a whole bunch of cameras to us then & there, whilst showing us in great detail how it was constructed and the tremendous capability it had (as far as they were concerned). ;D To get back to your comment / pondering capability of the minipan as used in the Skyhawk. It had a lot of capacity but for specific tactical work. It would require a low level run over the bombed target for film of the damage for assessment back onboard/home. Photo recon in Vietnam was very dangerous because defences were awake and knew that soon enough the 'photo recon' patsy (F8 Crusader usually) would hurtle by low fast with wings level over the recently hit target (no point in taking photos with target damage smoke obscuring it by the way). However with the PANORAMIC aspect of the strip film/camera one did not need to be totally wings level at all times which allowed some degree of flexibility. Exactly what that was in practice I cannot say myself. Probably for the intended use for BDA the camera was adequate, taking a series of overhead photos in rapid strip film fashion. Why BDA? No point in going back for a second strike if the target destroyed. No one can know that in the strike aircraft (in that day pre KAHU). Also 'iron bombing' was a 'hit and miss' effort with multiple ripple dumb bombs used - hopefully getting at least one close enough to a point target. CEP standard was 100 feet (Circular Error Probable) for new A4G pilots who trained to achieve 50 feet (in ideal conditions) later. 50 feet was considered the damage CEP for bombs used (depending on other factors such as fusing). Thank goodness the accurate munitions of today mean that multiple strikes (likely) on the same target for its destruction are no longer required. I'll post some PDF pages at FileFront that show some of the 'iron bombing' issues with the stupid stupid stupid gunsight used in the A4G/A4K era (pre KAHU). 5.2Mb PDF of 3 pages with a photo (yay!) of a VC-724 blackboard brief for a simulated multiple A4G strike showing mission details with the gunsight settings for bombing in the wind conditions shown as 'popup' graphics. The next page with diagrams shows the problems for 'iron bombing' and the next next page recounts some issues with this approach for USAF in Vietnam: files.filefront.com/A4GIronBombingProblem3pppdf/;13766908;/fileinfo.html (5.2Mb) |
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 17, 2009 12:37:06 GMT 12
When I was an RNZAF photographer I had to print from aerial negs, but mostly they were from the F111 and not minipan. Minipan film was only 35mm, while the F111 film was 5 or 6 inches wide. The F111s could also do oblique as well as vertical.
We also had 50mm wide (or possibly it was 75mm wide) film, so perhaps the F111 had two different camera formats.
For the Minipan, originally the there was a special film used, I seem to recall it being very thin (and possibly without the little holes), but later on I think we used bulk rolls of Kodak Tmax 400.
Almost all out target imagery was care of sorties carried out by the RAAF on their visits here.
Unfortunately I can't recall anything much of a technical nature about either the minipan or the F111 recce pod. It was a pain to print from and a very boring job. It's lack of interest for me has meant it's something I have failed to retain, if I ever knew it at all.
I do recall spending a lot of time on course calculating the coverage area, altitiude and focal length for aerial photography, but it was not maths we ever used in the 'real world'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 17, 2009 13:30:20 GMT 12
Don't go giving away any military secrets while discussing this topic guys, some of the equipment used on the Orions and Skyhawks etc will still be classified. Not sure if the cameras are, but better to be safe than sorry.
Also, Don are those photos RNZAF Official or RNZAF Museum copyright? Please credit them. I guess the Blunty one is over 20 years old so that will be the Museum's photo.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on May 17, 2009 13:34:10 GMT 12
The minipan used by the RAN and I assume also by the RNZAF was a high speed film camera able to take a series of photos when the attitude of the aircraft was not so limited (upside down was not an option though). As far as the RAN was concerned it was a rugged small camera able to do the BDA job asked of it - it was not meant for anything other than that - or taking happy snaps on a quiet day. ;D
I typed in a story about the Lowry AFB course but decided not to post it. Looking at hundreds if not thousands of photos (sometimes in stereo) is not a job for the weak-eyed; but then again doing such a thing usually makes the eyes weak. ;D The biggest non-thrill I had was spending weeks making radar maps for F111s with the RAAF contingent on the Lowry Leg of the course. These chaps could not even bring themselves to admit that the F111 could do any recon work. ;D
Dave, you posted as I was typing my answer here. One reason why I did not post a long story about Lowry was (so as to) NOT TO CAUSE OFFENSE TO THE USAF. ;D Google Earth gives away more secrets today hence these previously classified 'earth sights' are not longer 'sites with secrets'. I doubt if a Perkin-Elmer Minipan camera would be in use anywhere today. I'll google it.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on May 17, 2009 13:43:28 GMT 12
DATED 1975: adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975SPIE...58...21S"Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, 1975, p. 21-30. The Perkin-Elmer 35-mm Minipan Camera is in service in the United States and in several foreign countries in various applications. The presentation deals with the cameras capabilities and the system (KS-129A) applications. The newest applications of the Minipan in Lockheed's 'Little R' RPV Program is defined including the remote programming of frame rates and the mission profiles. Unique film handling and techniques developed by the U.S. Army provides gamma stretching and rapid color negative processing."
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on May 17, 2009 13:56:06 GMT 12
The minipan could be mounted either laterally or longitudinally in the gear fairing, with the orientation being chosen depending on the requirement. For BDA, the camera would be mounted longitudinally so that impact could be seen as the aircraft egressed (i.e. the target receeds directly behind the aircraft, initially at least). Lateral mounting was used to provide a limited tac recce capability and would create a series of strip photos.
Anyone have a picture of the minipan control panel which was installed in the cockpit? I seem to remember being able to set camera run length and delay, as well as a run light for when the camera was rolling?
I used the minipan a couple of times for generating target photos around NZ, but also once for an Army transport corp exercise in Waiouru training area as they were validating their camouflage set-up.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 17, 2009 15:07:54 GMT 12
I used the minipan a couple of times for generating target photos around NZ, but also once for an Army transport corp exercise in Waiouru training area as they were validating their camouflage set-up. I think I've had to print those, I remember having to search through rolls of minipan film for negatives of various vehicles under cammo nets in the tussock. Apparently they were also used to photograph large areas of bush to help identify certain cash crops. |
|
