Ray Stutivant's Research

“Are you volunteering the massive time and considerable expense needed to create and maintain such a list?”

No, because this subject is of no particular interest to me. It was just to illustrate what is possible. Like everything, it needs a lot of time and effort, but could be built up slowly, in much the same way as Joe Baugher’s US military serial lists are.
Too many researchers are leaving us these days, and in a lot of cases their material is dying with them because no arrangements have been made to safeguard their research…

Sorry guys, I’m limiting my research to 1690 BDTF, as I’ve only got an ever diminishing proportion of one lifetime left!!

Are you volunteering the massive time and considerable expense needed to create and maintain such a list? The Stammkennzeichen list requires a unique entry for each aircraft of one country. An equivalent British entry would be considerably larger, and would need to expand to cover Commonwealth, American and Allied forces. More significantly, it could not be restricted to a single entry for each aircraft, as many aircraft carried more than one code combination through their lifespans. I entirely agree that such a list would be useful to researchers, and perhaps a Wiki-type approach would be preferable, but it will still require immense commitment.

Not strictly on topic, but this “what code did this wear?” type of discussion shows the need for some sort of online list where photos etc can be documented for future researchers. Otherwise everyone will spend a lifetime arguing about Man A saying a code was BD-B while Man B insists it was BD-R.
A great example is the Luftwaffe Research groups stammkennzeichen lists:
https://luftwaffe-research-group.org/pages/SktzA/
you will see that most entries have a reference code, which can be decoded to a particular book, online photo, email reference etc….

[ATTACH=CONFIG]261044[/ATTACH]

Lee here is the image apparently image in “Britain’s Fleet Air Arm in WW2′ by Ron Mackay

I suspect that Ripon S1651 had an accident on March 10, 1932 in which Lt Patrick George Osric Sydney-Turner RN attached RAF escaped by parachute at Gosport, Hants. I assume wreckage recovered and aircraft rebuilt at Baffin

I say assume as from the records it has S1651 Deld D Flt “BTS” Gosport (‘D5’) by 2.32 – @3.32; cv to Baffin

and the to date “3.32” matches

I know Patrick George Osric Sydney-Turner was at RAF Base Gosport for Torpedo training at the time BTS = Base Training Squadron

Thanks Lee and Paul. I hadn’t realised that the great man had been part of a team, that’s an interesting insight. I have obtained the whole of the Flight’s ORB from the NA and have looked at a number of references there, but they give few details about the aircraft used. I’ve been able to access one pilot’s log book and been kindly given a copy of another’s. I’ve also been able to identify virtually all of Unit’s aircraft and obtained copies of movement cards from Hendon but they have revealed nothing about the Unit’s codes. I strongly believe that Mr Sturtivant had seen a photo of the Hurricane showing full code letters but, if so, where is that photo now? I’m now trying to track all the people listed in the ORB (nearly 100 people) so I’m just hoping that more information wil come to light. Thanks all again, Andrew

Paul

Can’t access the link?

I found an email from you recently with some additional details of a Fairey IIIF incident that you’d found in the Portsmouth Evening News that I hadn’t caught up with. Now duly entered into the master version of the files. Always keen to take in any additional info to keep the records going.

Lee

QED

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1720608794689710&set=gm.1153976224741960&type=3

My gut feeling in this case was that Ray Sturtivant had an access to. Photo of aircraft (even if not used) I recently saw on Facebook Picture of a Blackburn Ripon S1651 As being coded D5 while with was D Flt BTS Gosport as per the listing in his FAA interwar book

I wondered how of all the Ripons with D Flight he was sure S1651 was D5 now I know!

Andrew

[for those wondering, No.1690 (Bomber) Defence Training Flight]

The thing to remember is that Ray was the figurehead and driving force behind the publication of a lot of books and magazine articles but they were not always the result of one man’s research. There were a number of others – the backroom boys – who quietly beavered away to supply him with the raw material that he then used to generate the books that so often bore his name. For RAF types a lot of the backroom work was done by Jim Halley (who also sadly passed away last month) who had privileged access to the Air Historical Branch archives at Bentley Priory and latterly at Northolt.

It is worth noting that Vic Flintham and Andy Thomas in their book ‘Combat Codes’ also cite 1690 as being 9M. What sources have you looked through?

With the passage of time it is unfortunately impossible to determine quickly and easily the origins of some of the information, but while Ray’s work wasn’t perfect (whose is?), I doubt he would have cited such a thing without good reason.

Lee

Firstly, I am so embarrassed by my incorrect spelling of his surname. My excuses are failing eyesight, thick fingers and incompetence at using mobile phone keypads!

Secondly, my query is how did he know that 1690 BDTF was allocated the code letters ‘9M’ and that Hurricane LF374 carried the letters ‘9M-A’. I’m sure that he wouldn’t have stated that without evidence, but what was that evidence? I’ve been researching the Flight for a couple of years now and haven’t been able to find any other reference to the allocation, or use of, these code letters by the Flight……

Andrew

I am now custodian of the master versions of the records (as might be expected, having co-authored FAAFWAS1946 and subsequently FAAHS1943 and S&UoTFAA, and we are working on the second edition of FAAA39-45) and keep them fully up to date (including making any amendments as necessary that come to light with the passing of time).

What is your query?

Lee

His name is spelt Sturtivant by the way.

It might help if you share what this assertion is.