|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 8:17:53 GMT 12
Going by these photos - and except for the greenery and autographs - it doesn't look too bad. I'm glad to hear it's not got to wait long for the Classic Flyers Treatment. Excellent news! Regarding the childproofing, here's what my grandfather had to say in an older post: We had the garage next to the playground, and I was the un-witting vandal employed in early 1966 to make this Grumman 'kid-safe' when it was mounted at the park at Havelock Nth. We rivetted plates over any aperture that might attract sticky little fingers, and secured anything movable that could trap children's hands, feet, what-ever. The fuselege was complete at that time and apart from the missing engine, it looked ready to fly away. It was hugely popular as a climbable play item. No digital cameras then, so no photos. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewpit on Jul 12, 2017 9:33:18 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 16:08:55 GMT 12
A very good article, thanks for sharing the link!
|
|
|
|
Post by jp on Jul 12, 2017 18:38:54 GMT 12
I vote for target tug as well - already have 4 in basically the same scheme already....
|
|
|
|
Post by chbessexboy on Jul 13, 2017 22:38:52 GMT 12
I for one would like to see it restored to its wartime paint scheme. It may well have served as a target tug, but surely that role was an inglorious one. While NZ2505 is still at Classic Flyers and 'Plonky' is able to visit, the prospect of three Avengers together in operational schemes is a rare opportunity not to be missed.
|
|
|
|
Post by keroburner on Jul 14, 2017 1:45:14 GMT 12
Totally agree. Much better to recognise all the war time crews. It bugs me how the RAF Museum painted their Tempest V in TT colours. Machines designed to kill should look the part I say. They should look how they left the factory and arrived on squadron.
|
|
|
|
Post by chbessexboy on Jul 14, 2017 6:48:41 GMT 12
Totally agree. Much better to recognise all the war time crews. It bugs me how the RAF Museum painted their Tempest V in TT colours. Machines designed to kill should look the part I say. They should look how they left the factory and arrived on squadron. Yes, the RAF Museum's decision to paint the Tempest in that scheme was very controversial and divisive. Our only opportunity to view a Tempest and they have chosen to paint it that way because that's what the particular aircraft did. There will be a day when NZ2539 will be the only representative of the type at Classic Flyers and it needs to honour those who served in a combat role. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 14, 2017 9:04:47 GMT 12
Don't forget a large number of our 48 Avengers never saw combat. Only 30 were used in the Pacific by No. 30 Squadron and No. 31 Squadron and the Communications Flight in Fiji. Most of the aircraft were indeed operational within New Zealand, patrolling our eastern approaches, but they didn't see combat here of course.
Twenty of the aircraft became target tugs in wartime, in 1944 to replace the venerable Vildebeest tugs. They were used to train P-40, Harvard and Corsair pilots, Ventura Air Gunners, anti-aircraft gunners and probably others, in air gunnery, so they were a very valuable asset in that role, just as the Vildes had been. Towing targets was an important and vital role, and contrary to what many believe the tugs were usually flown by experienced, very good pilots. And also it was dangerous, I'd be pretty sure the Avenger target tugs had more live rounds fired at them than most of the other Avengers. I have no problem with one of the five Avengers in NZ wearing a different scheme.
And then there is the other thing to consider, Classic Flyers have a Catalina in US Navy colours and a P-40 in RAF colours, so who's to say they will automatically paint this into RNZAF colours? It would look great in Fleet Air Arm colours actually.
|
|
|
|
Post by agalbraith on Jul 14, 2017 10:22:41 GMT 12
Nah...paint her as a US firebomber, turret has already gone!
|
|
|
|
Post by TS on Jul 14, 2017 10:45:51 GMT 12
S%$T stirrer.   |
|
|
|
Post by agalbraith on Jul 14, 2017 10:56:20 GMT 12
LOL.....
I think the T Tug scheme is wholly appropriate and super cool, maybe if we only had one TBF in NZ then sure, paint her as a pacific one. But we have the luxury of 3 ex RNZAF, so my vote is for that. But then I dont have any say or right to. Just pleased she has found such a great home!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 14, 2017 11:53:59 GMT 12
Was 2539 one of the Topdressing trials Aircraft? if so, then thats the config it should be in, due to the significance that experiment had on the whole of New Zealand's history, geography and economy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 12:15:10 GMT 12
Dunno Bruce, but that's a good point - especially when you take into account Gisborne's connection to ag aviation. NZDF Serials has this to say about '39:
Arrived in New Zealand on "Peter White".
Assembled by No.1 Aircraft Depot, Hobsonville and BOC 12 February 1944 with Unit 36, Hobsonville.
To Nausori in 1944 for use by the Communications Flight, returning to New Zealand in January 1945.
One of the last 3 Avengers on strength with the RNZAF.
Sold by GSB tender number SR228/59 dated 23 September 1959 to Bennett Aviation, Te Kuiti.
To children's playground at Havelock North on 24 August 1965.
Recovered and now believed to be in storage with Ken Jacobs in Auckland.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Jul 14, 2017 13:02:00 GMT 12
The topdressing Avenger werent modified,they winched a loaded hopper up into the bomb bay.They didn't load them like a Fletcher.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 14, 2017 13:15:56 GMT 12
I cant find any reference to this one being in the topdressing trials (2504 was the main aircraft). If it was, it would be in Target tug config, with the Modified fuel tank as the hopper. If that tank could be replicated....
|
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Jul 14, 2017 13:21:55 GMT 12
I believe NZ2504, 05 and 06 were the topdressing aircraft - 06 didn't last long tho, having skidded off the runway at Hood.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Jul 14, 2017 13:42:04 GMT 12
A topdressing Avenger day dream.....   |
|
|
|
Post by angelsonefive on Jul 14, 2017 14:02:17 GMT 12
I believe NZ2504, 05 and 06 were the topdressing aircraft - 06 didn't last long tho, having skidded off the runway at Hood. It may not have been Hood Aerodrome. NZ Archives has a 1949 accident file titled : ADQA 17211 AIR1/638 25/2/2456 RNZAF [Royal New Zealand Air Force] Accident Reports - Avenger - NZ 2506 - Te Whiti - Failed take off - 3 May. |
|
|
|
Post by agalbraith on Jul 14, 2017 14:14:57 GMT 12
LOL, love it!
|
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Jul 14, 2017 14:26:58 GMT 12
I believe NZ2504, 05 and 06 were the topdressing aircraft - 06 didn't last long tho, having skidded off the runway at Hood. It may not have been Hood Aerodrome. NZ Archives has a 1949 accident file titled : ADQA 17211 AIR1/638 25/2/2456 RNZAF [Royal New Zealand Air Force] Accident Reports - Avenger - NZ 2506 - Te Whiti - Failed take off - 3 May. According to the accident card this event took place at Hood aerodrome at 1034 hrs on 3 May 49: 'While taking off with a load of fertilizer pilot selected u/c up but owing to load on board a/c sank back onto ground causing minor damage.' No mention of Te Whiti anywhere on card (perhaps that was the intended drop zone?) Errol |
|
We had the garage next to the playground, and I was the un-witting vandal employed in early 1966 to make this Grumman 'kid-safe' when it was mounted at the park at Havelock Nth. We rivetted plates over any aperture that might attract sticky little fingers, and secured anything movable that could trap children's hands, feet, what-ever.
