|
Post by davidd on Oct 22, 2020 9:03:47 GMT 12
Another hobby NOT mentioned in original article was the manufacture of attractive items for American servicemen, which sometimes became an obsession (and could give you considerable spending power!)
I always remember reading "Spud" Spurdle's account of this, whilst he was with 16 Squadron at Espiritu Santo in 1943, and attempting to intercept some of the sneaky night bombers the Japanese occasionally sent over. He was enraged to find that the P-40Es they were flying at the time had a high rate of unserviceability, and on investigation he discovered that several tradesmen, mainly instrument types, were far more dedicated to manufacturing "sweetheart" trinkets for the Americans than getting the P-40s into a state suitable for night flying. He only hints at the steps he took to bring these chaps into line!
My dad was rather attracted to this "industry" as well, and was also a very keen pursuer of some of the more magnificent examples of Lepidoptera which flitted about in quiet clearings of the jungle near Piva in 1945. He also participated in a "crocodile hunt" in dark pools in streams, but all they got after hurling in hand grenades was a lot of very small, dead fish. We still have his butterfly collection, kept in a large flat tin, with many specimens protected in actual display packets (double sided cellophane of some kind) and some even with their scientific names printed on the edges. The most magnificent were the huge ones with a large furry (yellow) body, and wings of amazing jet black and peacock blue upper surfaces, with yellow, green and red lower surfaces with black veining. This type of butterfly had to be gutted after death, as their abdomens would have rotted otherwise.
He also was attracted by one species which was speedy and manoeuvrable, and hardly anybody could catch them, but Dad, after much effort, finally succeeded. However I don't think dad made any money on his small-scale manufacture of "attractive items" although he had a small kit (kept in an almost air-tight "Peanut" tin, which still survives).
There were a few tools (since lost, or put to other uses) plus pieces of "Plexi-glass" (American version of "Perspex") of various thicknesses, some vandalised RNZAF brass buttons, plus half-finished items, which seemed to involve moulding the plastic into various items, and affixing the tiny brass "letters" and "crowns" microscopically cut from the brass buttons. However I think his main passion was chasing the butterflies.
He also tried swimming off the Torokina beach, but was almost drowned in the heavy surf one day (he never told us kids, but did tell my mother of this near-death experience).
I also heard from a former Equipment officer who accepted the offer of a ride on a water sled towed by one of the RNZAF Crash boats at Piva in 1945, but regretted it almost immediately, and was terrified that he would also drown as there was a bit of a chop on the sea, and the ride was very rough, and he had practically nothing to hold onto. These boats were capable of about 38 knots I think, although doubt they would travel at that speed in a chop. He could not communicate in any way with the crew of the boat as it was a full time job just to hang on - they all naturally assumed he was having a great time of course! The noise of the exhausts of the boat would have made any sort of conversation impossible. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 22, 2020 8:24:55 GMT 12
Surprised that the fighter escort did not escort the Venturas over the city, but it could be argued that they would only be able to provide defence against enemy fighters, but not the flak! And German flak was always greatly respected by this stage of the war, if not earlier. You had to have real guts to fly over defended targets anywhere in Europe in daylight by 1943, and earlier, and at night it would have been just about as dangerous. Aircrew were always in danger aboard aircraft, at any stage of flight, but particularly over enemy territory. The action above just gives an idea of that ever-present danger. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 19, 2020 15:23:24 GMT 12
The "Malaguna floatplane", first entry in the above post, was probably the same aircraft which was delivered to Jacquinot Bay by an RNZAF pilot (F/L R H F Hickson), an Australian-born member of No. 6 Squadron at Halavo Bay, and a flight engineer from his crew by the name of Crook. The RNZAF Museum at Wigram has Crook's logbook, which contains a brief entry for this flight from Rabaul - the aircraft was still at Malaguna at the end of hostilities, but a few days after its arrival at Jacq Bay, one of the floats sprang a leak and the aircraft capsized and eventually sank at the mooring. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 18, 2020 9:17:27 GMT 12
PD12 rang a bell with me, so I will keep my big mouth shut today! David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 18, 2020 9:08:47 GMT 12
Great filming of these aircraft taxiing and taking off. I presume the filming is made utilising drones, specifically models with a bit of performance, as I was surprised how close they flew to taxiing aircraft etc., as well as following the main aircraft in acceleration and climbing out. Comments? David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 18, 2020 8:48:41 GMT 12
Great job, all is now plain and simple. You have nailed it. I have an idea that the area allotted to the RNZAF PV-1 Squadron AIRCRAFT on first arrival was somewhere in the area between the two runways. Whether the RNZAF F4U servicing unit (5 SU) was located adjacent to the PV-1 SU (10 SU) is unknown to me, and the squadron personnel of both BR and F squadrons may have been allotted the same or different areas over time. Very little of these arrangements of messing/accommodation, and servicing/parking areas has been recorded, although you can sometimes come across brief references to such things in the ORBs of units, or even in personal diaries, or in notes on reverse of photographs. Keep up the good work. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 17, 2020 11:46:58 GMT 12
Worth mentioning that some course photographs may contain members of the training staff, as well as pupils. This is particularly so in the image immediately above, with quite a large "staff contingent" of seven men, from R M (Bob) McKay through to F/L T J MacLean de Lange. P G H Newton (extreme right, front row) became a fighter pilot, and one of just two RNZAF "aces" in the South Pacific theatre, although the other fellow (Geof Fisken of course) made his earlier claims in the Singapore area with 243 Squadron, RAF. In the FIRST image, non-pupil officers present include all those present wearing flying badges, viz, Blundell, P/O H P B ('Swoop') Dive, F/L R J ('Nugget") Cohen (think he was Officer i/c Advanced Training Flight of 1 FTS), and P/O A N ("Ginger") Johnstone. Last mentioned many decades later, and in civilian capacity of course, became a test pilot in Australia for a time of the Transavia Air Trucks, although spelling of that aircraft may be in error. Generally speaking, RNZAF subsequently did not include flying training staff in course photographs. Fortunately, the ranks and badges worn can usually be used to spot any staffers present. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 17, 2020 10:25:45 GMT 12
I think that would be F J McDonald, there was such a pilot in circulation at that time, as was R Morphy. Think the latter was later a member of RNZAF in WW2, Roy Borgia Morphy, a Squadron Leader by 1942, if not mistaken was CO of 16 Squadron (Woodbourne/Fairhall) by that time. Errol M will correct me if I am wrong in this speculation. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 13, 2020 17:48:09 GMT 12
aircraftclocks, "our man" at Emirau certainly gets things right about 99.9999999999999% of the time, so I think we can forgive him one small error, every once in a while - they are usually easy to spot if you can concentrate for long enough! I do enjoy his style and habit of trying to keep things just bouncing along without it getting boring, and dreaming up new ways of describing things that have happened before many times.
Interesting to see the RAAF Spitfire Squadron (No. 79) popping up - it was moved here (Admiralties) to keep away pesky Japanese reconnaissance aircraft, but as these were getting very scarce by this time, the Spitfires were withdrawn to undertake more pressing needs somewhere else. Typically the Japanese sensed this, and began to mount more small scale attacks against Allied positions, and more reconnaissance flights in November. The theatre commander heard the outcry about the lack of air defence over the Seadler anchorage, and called on RNZAF to transfer one of their F4U squadrons at Bougainville (and its SU, No. 4) to move up to Los Negros pronto, to plug the defence gap. I could be wrong, but have a feeling that 79 Squadron was equipped with some of the oldest Spitfires in operational use anywhere - Mark Vs! David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 13, 2020 17:25:16 GMT 12
A small point, but that would by a USMC PBJ Mitchell, not that there is any way to prove this observation! Cannot understand the b&w print on the right, as it does not seem to be the same scale as the underlying Satellite colour image, and none of the remaining runways of the latter show up on it. I understand the RNZAF was relocated to a new area on this island base part-way through their period at Emirau. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 13, 2020 16:45:58 GMT 12
Most of the Vincents shipped to Fiji seem to have been in silver/grey colours too, but at some point (probably early to mid-months of 1942), all operational aircraft in Fiji were finished in camouflage colours, including Vincents, DH 89s, DH 86s, and probably the one and only Moth, also the one DH 84 (Dragon) later shipped up there. The first Dominie sent to Fiji (NZ524 from memory, in about Sept 1943) would also have been in camouflage, although this was so-painted at the factory where it was built in the UK. When 524 was returned to NZ for a major inspection, another Dominie was shipped up to replace it; this aircraft was in aluminium dope overall, as camouflage was no longer a priority. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 13, 2020 8:44:28 GMT 12
aircraftclocks - seems to be an error in last line of above message. The 2 PBY-5As NOT NZ-3, probably VPB-44 (as was case on two previous posts). David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 13, 2020 8:31:17 GMT 12
I would guess that was the type involved, from Wigram, as no other aircraft stationed there would have been capable of carrying four persons, although I wondered if there was a DH 84 Dragon still flying with the E&W School Flight - probably not. Woodward was an active instructor (B Cat) with the Intermediate Training Squadron of 1 SFTS from September 1942 through to June 1944, so his career seems not to have been too interrupted by this incident. A somewhat similar accident occurred in Fiji in 1941, when an airborne (not landing or taking off) DH 89 Dragon Rapide struck a truck standing near the runway with a wingtip, but all lived to tell the tale. In this case the pilot happened to be the commanding officer of the unit, but reading between the lines, Air HQ in Wellington was not impressed by this bit of flying, although again the pilot suffered no serious consequences. David D
Edit: Strange that the Dragon Rapide incident in Fiji (1941) mentioned by me above was also mentioned on another thread (about Dragon Rapides in Fiji during WW2) on the same day! What are the chances of that?
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 13, 2020 8:00:12 GMT 12
The constable giving verbal evidence at the inquest seems to have a degree of aeronautical knowledge one would not expect to find in your average bobby - sounds as though he was an enthusiast himself, and kept up to date by reading the contemporary aviation weeklies, including comments on the probable reasons for Flying Fleas falling out of the sky in the UK, etc. By 1942 I think the aerodynamic problems of the Flea must have been common knowledge around the World, but unsuspecting young carpenters in rural areas of the South Island probably had no inkling of this. Incidentally the engine looks like the Scott "Flying Squirrel", a type aimed specifically at amateur aircraft builders. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 8, 2020 9:42:28 GMT 12
Chinapilot, what was the date that the pilot was lost at Kavieng? I remember reading about P/O D H Trim earlier today on this thread, who was subsequently rescued. There is a photograph of him in one of Geoffrey Bentley's books on the RNZAF, taken just after he was returned to, I think, Emirau, still in his flying suit. By this stage of the war, Allied losses in the theatre were generally pretty light, but always a present danger. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 8, 2020 9:29:41 GMT 12
Yes, this is a most valuable resource and should be archived for all members for the centuries to come. You will notice that the NZ PV-1 squadrons have been notable for their absences in the more recent posts. This was because of movements of these squadrons to new locations, and also, to an extent, lack of bombs available at some of the bases, as well as difficulty of shipping the servicing units (including all their heavy equipment) forward to the new bases. Readers will also have noticed frequent references to detached Flights of No. 6 FB Squadron (Catalinas) in the weekly summaries of the resources available to the theatre commander. The reason these aircraft are not otherwise mentioned is that their main role was support, particularly Dumbo duty and supply of distant outposts, none of which could in any way be considered offensive (guns and bombs). The prime operational purpose of the theatre air forces was the conduct of operations against the enemy, wherever he might be hiding, which tends to deny any mention of the normally inoffensive Cat crews who were usually engaged elsewhere on more humanitarian duties. I am also intrigued by the presence over the last few months (in the chronological record) of the two USMC R4D (Dakota) squadrons at Piva Uncle (Bougainville); what was their purpose within the theatre? Seems to be a moderately large force, although they could have been responsible for routine intra-theatre passenger and freight services, and shuttling of the USMC Mitchell units to new bases I guess.
Congratulations to aircraftclocks for his prodigious efforts in keeping up this solid work ethic for months and months (at least it has seemed that way, but I see it started as recently as late July, so not that long), but it is pretty intensive stuff, a campaign of constant pressure against everything Japanese that moved or was spotted in the theatre.
David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 8, 2020 8:42:32 GMT 12
When the RNZAF's B.12 Canberras were painted up in camouflage for the first time in 1964 (for the rush deployment to Singapore), I think it was the first aircraft which was painted up with the camouflage colours reversed (that is, the dark (olive?) green where the dark grey should have been, and vice versa. It was several days before they got around to entirely redoing the upper-surface scheme to match the official laid down drawing, although in the great scheme of things, would it have really mattered at all? I am assured that this really took place, and that the incorrect scheme was photographed both for the record, and perhaps also as a lesson to aspiring S&S trades to carefully read the instructions! My informant in this case was one F/L K R F (Ross) Lamb (think I have his initials correct). Makes the stories of overpainting mere serial numbers seem like pretty small change. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Sept 28, 2020 9:10:16 GMT 12
It was the Civil Aviation Branch (CAB) of Air Department from 1937 rather then the CAD; that finally changed to the Civil Aviation Administration (CAA) in early/mid 1950s, then the Department of Civil Aviation (DCA, about 1958?) and finally became the Civil Aviation Division of the ungainly Ministry of Transport in about 1964. This all changed in the 1990s, to present setup, although I will leave it to others to elaborate on these more recent changes. Also some of my dates in the above summary should be treated with considerable caution! David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Sept 23, 2020 16:15:22 GMT 12
I think that NZ901 - 1005 were all built at Inglewood (California) in 1941 (they had a big strike there in 1941, which delayed production somewhat), as were perhaps a few of the following aircraft, but vast bulk of subsequent machines were built at Dallas, Texas. Will hand this problem over to the experts to sort out those troublesome ones in the 1006 - 1030 series. David D
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Sept 23, 2020 8:45:02 GMT 12
The absence of aircraft lost on operations from the Form 541s is not uncommon - 75 Squadron also seemed to follow this practice in certain periods, although they may have been alluded to on the Form 540s. David D
|
|