|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 27, 2018 11:35:52 GMT 12
A wee spanner in the works, because this Leo White photo credits the pilot as Squadron Leader John Mackenzie DFC (bbc), but if this was the same photo shoot then it won't be Peter Gifford in this aircraft. Perhaps he was flying NZ3008? Or is this actually Gifford? (Air Force Museum of New Zealand photo) Closer up
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 27, 2018 13:55:16 GMT 12
Looks very much like Peter Gifford to me - look at his other photographs (see Chris Rudge's "Air to Air", page 321). MacKenzie does not seem to have worn a moustaches at this time, whereas Peter did. For reasonable picture of MacKenzie, see Geoff Bentley's "RNZAF - A Short History", page 60. Both had fairly slim faces, but I am pretty certain that the pilot sitting in the Kittyhawk is Peter Gifford. I remember when Peter first showed me this photo, he claimed it was him, and he certainly looked like that in life. MacKenzie had a healthy growth of curly hair on his head, whereas Peter was, as they say today, "follicley challenged", and was known informally as "the professor" (his civilian occupation was school teacher). About nine months before he died here in Christchurch, 16 December 2001, a mysterious package arrived at my place. It was from Peter, and I was surprised to see that it contained his Kittyhawk Pilot's Notes (AP 2014A-PN, the RAF version), and a few historical notes on his old squadron (No. 14), but nothing about his history prior to, nor after this period. I was also surprised to see that, above Peter's signature on the first (blank) page were those of S/Ldr J N MacKenzie, and F/Lt J R Hutcheson! A very treasured memento for me. I believe the identification as MacKenzie is an error. There are several photos of Peter taken at about the time the aerial formations were being carried out, as well as others taken in Singapore with 488 Sqdn. David D
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 27, 2018 14:52:27 GMT 12
Thanks very much David. I think that is pretty definitive then.
And what a great package that was to be sent!
|
|
|
Post by alanw on Aug 28, 2018 16:58:49 GMT 12
Hi All,
Awesome thread thus far, and David D awesome mementos in your a aforementioned gift.
Slightly off topic, but seeing as we are discussing 14 (F) Squadron P 40E-1's. Is there any rhyme or reason for the likes of NZ3008 etc to wear "Yellow" coloured Codes? Other Squadrons' P40E-1's wore either Sky or Grey (JZ 15 Sqn or XO 16 Sqn).
Also the colour of NZ3008's Spinner White or Sky?
Just curious - Yellow certainly would stand out for training purposes.
Thanks
Alan
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 28, 2018 18:11:18 GMT 12
What makes you think the codes are yellow Alan?
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 28, 2018 18:18:13 GMT 12
Alan, The P-40E-1s with yellow "HQ" codes were nothing to do with 14 Squadron - they were in fact on the strength of the Gunnery Training School (GTS) at Ohakea, and were used as the "attackers" for the "live" part of the training of trainee air gunners sitting in the turrets of the School's Hudsons, which were also coded "HQ". The legend of the P-40s with yellow codes seems to have been started many years ago in Charles Darby's book "The First Decade", although he conjectured that the P-40Ks which were photographed at Norfolk Island whilst transiting through en route to E/Santo and Guadalacanal in March/April 1943 also had yellow codes, which I am certain they did not. However the ones Charles based his belief on were likely the "E's" he had seen at the Rukuhia graveyard in the 1960s which DID have yellow codes, but were in fact those associated with the GTS. In fact, so far as we know, all the GTS P-40Es were aircraft taken over by 15 Sqdn in Tonga in late October 1942, and returned to NZ in late 43/early 44.
Many of the code groups allocated to the RNZAF (presume by the RAF, although why that should be I don't know) in 1942 were re-used by different units subsequently after the original units abandoned them or were themselves disbanded. Code groups used twice or more included HQ (488/14 Sqdn, then GTS), JZ (15 Sqdn, then 17 Sqdn, then FGS, Fighter Gunnery School), PA (8 Sqdn, then 5 Sqdn), XO (16 Sqdn, then 18 Sqdn), XX (6 Sqdn (Hinds, March - Oct 1942), then 6 Sqdn (Catalinas May 1943/Sept 45), then 6 Sqdn (Catalinas, then Sunderlands, 1952/57, then MOCU (Sunderlands) 1957/59), UY (21 Sqdn Hinds, 1942/43, then one of the Corsair Servicing Squadrons at Ardmore, 1944).
I am fairly certain that the spinners of our Kittyhawks, which were originally painted in the factory, would have been finished in the American variant of duck egg green, or Sky, never white, although later aircraft at 2 OTU had white spinners applied in NZ, while 4 OTU had red spinners. Don't quote me on those RAF colour names, they are a minefield, but the American equivalents are 100 times worse, and the battles on differentiating these colours still rage on to this day! Something else worth mentioning about the original RNZAF P-40E-1s is that those assembled at Hobsonville had serial numbers applied in eight inch high letters, whilst those assembled at Harewood had them in a much smaller size, and located lower down - probably simply the result of two different painters at different stations, with different ideas (or more likely one had the official instructions, whilst the fellow at Harewood didn't, so blustered his way through).
The reason for several types of wartime RNZAF aircraft having yellow code latters rather than more sombre hues is not really known, but apart from the GTS, we can count 6 Sqdn, 3 OTU, and (occasionally) 5 Sqdn (all on Catalinas, although 5 Sdn had black-outlined yellow codes on a few of its white Catalinas in 1945.) It is possible that 1 OTU used yellow codes on some of their Hudsons too, although not certain of this. Then we had 4 OTU's P-40s which had red codes, probably to complement their red noses! Come to think of it, their Harvards also had red codes, but no red noses this time.
Finally, The Hudsons of the Gunnery Training School at Ohakea had their HQ lettering applied in yellow over the camouflage finish, but when some of them were stripped of their camouflage later in 1944 (when bare metal finish was authorized, following the lead of the Americans), the codes were re-applied in black paint. David D
|
|
|
Post by alanw on Aug 28, 2018 20:29:27 GMT 12
What makes you think the codes are yellow Alan? Hi Dave, Reading Pete Mossong's site, he had the following picture for a time - I never had reason to doubt his knowledge? But reading more and more, something didn't add up, hence my question. drive.google.com/file/d/17enQpm5S1VOLWHwtDBdly9M_17C6FDkf/view?usp=sharingThough researching for my P40E-1 Build NZ3008, I did find out that "Umslopogass" was not a cartoon character, but the name of a Zulu Warrior/Chief and companion of Allan Quateremain lxg.wikia.com/wiki/UmslopogaasRegards Alan
|
|
|
Post by alanw on Aug 28, 2018 20:40:56 GMT 12
David D You Sir, are an inspiring fountain of Knowledge!! Thank you again for your reply - most helpful and enlightening. I never knew our Air Force had specific aircraft set up for Gunnery training.
I love researching our WWII Air Force just seeing what turns up is amazing So GTS wore Yellow - I see that as being a big help in gunnery training. If I may, what colour then would 14 Squadrons' codes be? Now that I know, need to get my Model build of NZ3008 right Thanks again, you really have made my day!!! Thanks/regards Alan
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 28, 2018 22:07:23 GMT 12
Yes, the Umslopogaas origin has been mentioned many times on the forum over the years. It's a name I have always really liked on that aeroplane for some reason. In fact I like them all, Magnolia Mufflewurt, Thundergutz, Ivan Ellovanitch, etc.
And I agree, David is a national treasure, it's so awesome having his knowledge shared on the forum.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 28, 2018 22:21:35 GMT 12
Alan, so far as I know, all the early fighter squadrons had codes of a similar colour, probably similar to the Hudsons, Vincents/Vildes, Singapores and Hinds as well as Harvards serving with front-line squadrons in first half of 1942. Certainly in March 1942, it was indicated by RNZAF HQ that sufficient supplies of paint of the appropriate colours were available at this time to refinish all the trainer, and operational aircraft in the RNZAF required for operational duties, in the face of Japanese advances in the South Pacific, but whether this extended to the addition of unit code letters is not indicated. However, this would only add a small fraction to the total orders, so I cannot really see that production of such colours as desired would be a problem. One sometimes hears of odd colours being used for various purposes for differing reasons on RNZAF aircraft in (and since) WW2, but if that were the case, then we are unlikely to learn much more about any of these instances after all these years. Sorry to be vague, but similar minor colour mysteries have also afflicted just about every air force since time immemorial, causing grief and despondency among the modelling fraternity, so we are in good company. David D
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 28, 2018 23:42:30 GMT 12
Do you know how many hours an aircraft like a P-40 would have flown on average before it was given a respray? Six month's service? A year?
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 29, 2018 9:41:37 GMT 12
Dave, I doubt that aircraft were given a complete respray on a calendar basis, but as you know, in wartime (and even in peacetime, including today), large aircraft are generally kept outside for most of their lives, which is why modern air forces (and airlines) spend very large amounts of money on keeping their prize non-human assets provided with a good protective system at all times. In the Pacific in WW2, all-metal aircraft (and even more so those with fabric-covered surfaces or wooden structural parts, such as Catalinas and Corsairs) had to be assessed on a continuous basis as to their condition (all of these were constantly left outside, hangars were extremely rare on island bases, and these were normally occupied by aircraft under major repair or servicing, more for the personnel doing the work than the aircraft itself). Having said all that, my feeling is that unless an aircraft became a complete aesthetic disgrace, it remained in its original scheme - the only things that would get priority would be an operational directive that national identification changes were being introduced, that theatre markings were being introduced or removed, or that the aircraft's code letters/numbers or serial number had become obliterated or compromised by repairs or replacement parts. One exception to these general observation would be marine craft and flying boats, which because of their operating environment were peculiarly at risk of extreme corrosion, and had to have much closer monitoring of their paintwork, as well as other protective systems, such as application of copious amounts of lanolin to their lower (and particularly their normally underwater portions) surfaces, and they incorporated a lot of stainless steel and other corrosion resistant materials in their construction. I think Catalinas would have been largely repainted every 6 to 9 months, at Lauthala Bay during their 360 hour inspections. However land-based aircraft, despite living outside for almost their entire lives, were probably only repainted when somebody was offended by their general appearance, such as the unit commanding officer, or a sarcastic visiting staff officer, or even the engineer officer who considered that "his" aircraft were starting to look shabbier than the American aircraft also operating from the same field, although this priority was always way below the normal maintenance of the airworthiness of the aircraft. I would think that any RNZAF WW2 aircraft of the all-metal type would be lucky to have had two or three complete repaints throughout its life; wooden and fabric aircraft however might be a somewhat different story. David D
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 29, 2018 13:06:00 GMT 12
Thanks David. So we've established that the photos at the beginning of this thread were taken on the 5th of March 1943, which is eleven months after they entered service with No. 14 Squadron. During that time they'd have spent almost all their life outside at RNZAF Station Masterton,in the baking heat of the summer and the wild weather of winter. Yet the paintwork on the two outside aircraft not only seems to be the original factory paint but it looks to be in really quite good condition. A few scuffs on the wing root where the pilot's and ground crews' boots tread up and down, but that is it really. This also leads me to thing that if NZ3036 is in the NZ Blue Grey camouflage scheme it was probably more for trial purposes than an absolute necessity, unless maybe that aircraft had a particularly bad factory paint scheme, or maybe had an accident that necessitated a repaint upon repair - however the only known accident for this aircraft is later in October 1943 at Ohakea.
I believe the later P-40's arrived from the factory in Olive Drab coloured paint. Did this last as well as the (US equivalent) RAF camouflage colours as seen here? Could the OD have lasted as well for 11 months? I seem to recall hearing the RNZAF started repainting the tatty Olive Drab ones in a NZ Foliage Green paint, but was that just ones that had served overseas where the coral dust, cleaning with petrol and the tropical weather was destroying the paint much faster?
|
|
|
Post by alanw on Aug 29, 2018 14:00:58 GMT 12
Alan, so far as I know, all the early fighter squadrons had codes of a similar colour, probably similar to the Hudsons, Vincents/Vildes, Singapores and Hinds as well as Harvards serving with front-line squadrons in first half of 1942. Certainly in March 1942, it was indicated by RNZAF HQ that sufficient supplies of paint of the appropriate colours were available at this time to refinish all the trainer, and operational aircraft in the RNZAF required for operational duties, in the face of Japanese advances in the South Pacific, but whether this extended to the addition of unit code letters is not indicated. However, this would only add a small fraction to the total orders, so I cannot really see that production of such colours as desired would be a problem. One sometimes hears of odd colours being used for various purposes for differing reasons on RNZAF aircraft in (and since) WW2, but if that were the case, then we are unlikely to learn much more about any of these instances after all these years. Sorry to be vague, but similar minor colour mysteries have also afflicted just about every air force since time immemorial, causing grief and despondency among the modelling fraternity, so we are in good company. David D Hi David, Again many thanks for your reply. I will go with Sky Codes (like the Hudson's) for my NZ3008 build Interesting also your comment re the size of the serials between the Hobsonville and Harewood bases, I'm pretty safe to go with the standard 8 inch codes for NZ3008 Thanks/again Alan
|
|
|
Post by alanw on Aug 29, 2018 14:07:01 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by agalbraith on Aug 29, 2018 14:11:30 GMT 12
Great photo's Alan
Such an interesting discussion, thanks gents!
|
|
|
Post by alanw on Aug 29, 2018 14:22:28 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 29, 2018 14:38:53 GMT 12
Those swathes are interesting Alan, but for all we know they may be faded from 30-40 years sitting in the weather at Rukuhia (or elsewhere). I am referring to in service time of the NZ-based Olive Drab P-40's, which realistically served from late 1943 to mid-1945 only.
|
|
|
Post by alanw on Aug 29, 2018 15:02:00 GMT 12
Those swathes are interesting Alan, but for all we know they may be faded from 30-40 years sitting in the weather at Rukuhia (or elsewhere). I am referring to in service time of the NZ-based Olive Drab P-40's, which realistically served from late 1943 to mid-1945 only. Hi Dave, Very True about the time frame at Rukuhia and fading. I would say that the P40 (K/M/N's) that remained at home would have weathered much differently to their counterparts in the Island operational areas. How much weathering is hard to say realistically (wish we had a time machine and use of modern cameras ) The weather we have today is different to say period of 1943 - 45. I recall my dad growing up in Auckland during WWII and how colder the winters were as opposed to say even 20 years ago which I think would have had a different weathering manner to say now. Definitely need a time machine Regards Alan
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 30, 2018 0:30:54 GMT 12
Sorry, I could not help myself, all this excellent discussion inspired me to get the crayons out and do a quick bit of colouring tonight
|
|