|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 23, 2018 11:13:02 GMT 12
Greg Jacques brought these two photos to my attention. Fascinating. They were taken by different photographers, and may be different aircraft, both have a connection to No. 221 Group which was a bomber and general reconnaissance Group in Burma. I'd love to find more photos of this scheme, and find out what the colours were, there seems to be three tones at least.
 ROYAL AIR FORCE OPERATIONS IN THE FAR EAST, 1941-1945.. © IWM (CI 1144) IWM Non Commercial License
The new Allied Air Commander-in-Chief, South East Asia, Air Marshal Sir Keith Park, talks to Air Vice-Marshal S F Vincent, Air Officer Commanding No. 221 Group RAF, and Group Captain H Goddard, while vising RAF units on the Mandalay Front in Central Burma.  ROYAL AIR FORCE OPERATIONS IN THE FAR EAST, 1941-1945. © IWM (CF 413) IWM Non Commercial LicenseAir Vice Marshal S F Vincent, Air Officer Commanding No. 221 Group RAF (right), with Air Vice Marshal W A Coryton, Air Officer Commanding RAF Bengal-Burma, in the rear cockpit of a North American Harvard, flys into an airstrip in the forward area in Burma. |
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Apr 23, 2018 17:34:28 GMT 12
A very odd colour scheme indeed, cannot understand why anybody would desire such a scheme, which seems to be in the nature of camouflage (although colours could be anything!), but why would you have rows of diamonds like that? Perhaps an aircraft finisher (if that particular trade actually existed at that time) did not have enough work to keep him occupied, and in his boredom went through some kind of mental hallucination with the results of this as pictured. Interesting that AVM Clayton has chosen to risk his perfectly good SD cap on this mission, although I'll bet he only left it on for this photograph, then stashed it somewhere much safer than its present location. Another thought, could this particular Harvard have been used for forward air control work, which might require a colourful or odd scheme to stand out to pilots of strike aircraft? Or more likely it might have been used for "under the hood" flying for pilots who had not completed much of this type of flying in recent months and required a refresher course. Dedicated instrument flying aircraft in various air forces often had bright and noticeable schemes as a warning to other airborne traffic in their vicinity.
Also have noticed another photograph on this IWM site with a poorly identified aircraft - the alleged Stinson Sentinel is actually a Fairchild Forwarder, otherwise known as a Fairchild 24. Another supposed aircraft expert has disgraced him/herself in full public view.
David D
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2018 20:36:10 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 24, 2018 22:04:41 GMT 12
I wondered if it is bright colours and was used by the bomber group either as a target tug or an attack aircraft for fighter affiliation. No idea though really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Apr 26, 2018 16:26:24 GMT 12
I'd say too much of the local version of Tui...............
|
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Apr 26, 2018 16:40:32 GMT 12
Just as an aside I coincidently just just started reading Sir Keith Park's Biography by Vincent Orange. I certainly knew nothing about his life apart from his leadership during the Battle of Britain but I was amazed to find he started out in artillery and was at Gallipoli! And by wars end he was CO of 48 Squadron RFC flying the Bristol Fighter (even though just several months previously he had joined the squadron as a junior pilot!)
There is an introduction in the book that gives another take on his apparently hurried posting after the Battle of Britain. Lots of outrage on how he was treated (and certainly I think it could have been handled better) however if you take the emotion out of it and compare his rank, age and time spent in his posting during the Battle of Britain there is another point of view. He certainly was a man of great courage and leadership of that there is no doubt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 26, 2018 18:43:53 GMT 12
He was an ace in WWI too.
I think his posting to Malta was probably pivotal to the Allies holding that important island too. And his work in directing air operations in the Burma campaign was also outstanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Apr 27, 2018 13:04:49 GMT 12
Yes he managed (along with his rear gunner) to clobber quite a few but the book points out there are all sorts of claims ranging from 9 all the way up to 20 victories attributed to Sir Keith. And there was also shooting down and (in the words of the time) sent out of control with no confirmation whether they hit the ground. Official 48 Squadron records credit him with 9 shot down and 11 sent out of control.
Back to the Harvard scheme. Would 4 diamonds on the fuselage sides indicate this belongs to a high ranking Officer...hands off! Maybe not official!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 27, 2018 13:16:55 GMT 12
No way would they mark a high ranking officer's aircraft like that and make him an extra target.
|
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Apr 27, 2018 14:20:33 GMT 12
No way would they mark a high ranking officer's aircraft like that and make him an extra target. Ahhh but it's cunningly camouflaged.....pretty sure the Germans must have wondered why some fighters had squadron codes and some had something else......AL springs to mind! |
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Apr 27, 2018 18:17:28 GMT 12
I'd say too much of the local version of Tui............... Good grief Ando! Try some real beers next time you're over! I'll shout you some to expand your horizons...!! (in exchange for a wee play in the O-1) |
|
