Converting the FAAM Avenger?

Which might make its ‘worth’ way above anything the FAAM might be able to afford, were there the remotest thought/interest in effecting a swap.

The other important thing about the ex FAA Avenger in the US isn’t the fact it’s ex FAA (which is amazing in itself) is it’s a very rare TBF-1 which was the original Grumman built Avenger. 99 percent of the survivors today are the General Motors built TBM-3. The engine cowlings are different and there is only one intake in the ring cowl at the top whereas the -3 has one in the bottom as well. Apart from that the airframe is pretty much identical. Funnily enough here in New Zealand we have 4 TBF Avengers, 3 in museums and one sadly in poor condition. I think in the US she is one of only 2 or maybe three survivors with none on display sadly.

Googling ‘Abbotsinch Avengers’ shows a few more survivors that lingered into the late 50’s and early 60’s. The ‘scrapyards thread’ page 49 shows some in the JN Connel scrapyard at Coatbridge.
That XB446 survived at all is to be grateful for. Other FAA airfield proximity scrapyards provided more survivors thankfully[Seafires ex Anthorn and Fireflies ex Stretton/Burscough?].
Some Avengers have slipped the net too, -3W G-BTBM once at Strathallen.
As for those in the long grass at tin pot strips, i saw one 20 years ago,N4172A a -3E languishing at Kissimee. According to WIX, it moved on in 2006.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249778[/ATTACH]

If only we could turn the clock back. KE442, a genuine, wartime FAA Avenger, photographed in the fire pits at RNAS Abbotsinch in 1958. I hope that this link works –
http://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1097199

Whereas there is an ex FAA Avenger in a museum’s reserve collection, in America? ;o)
The wartime differences between a USN and an FAA Avenger were minimal as far as can be told – there was an observer’s station behind the pilot’s seat (the ‘different seating’ of above?), the observer’s windows in the sides of the fuselage were bulged and there was ‘British equipment’. The post war (1950’s) deliveries did not have bulged windows, as far as I can see.

Found a history of Tarpon FN859 (and it is a Tarpon – it was delivered before Jan 1944)

The National Air & Space Museum’s aircraft, Bureau of Aeronautics Number (BuNo) 24085, was constructed as a TBF-1 and was part of the fourth batch of TBFs manufactured. The aircraft was one of the first 200 Avengers delivered to the British, who called them Tarpons, and was assigned the number FN 859. The museum’s Tarpon was delivered to the British at Quonset Point, Rhode Island, on June 8, 1943. The standard British modifications were probably carried out at this time.
The subsequent wartime history of BuNo 24085 is somewhat vague because of a lack of documentation in both the U.S. and Britain. We know that the aircraft served with No.738 Squadron of the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm, and it moved with this squadron to Lewiston, Maine, on July 31, 1943. No 738 was a training squadron and the museum’s aircraft appears to have served in that role throughout the war. Besides mention of a landing accident in October 1943, however, there is no further information on its wartime service.
No. 738 Squadron was disbanded in July 1945 and BuNo 24085 was accepted by the U.S. Navy at Norfolk Naval Air Station on July 2, 1945. After being assigned to the general aircraft pool at Norfolk, the museum’s aircraft was moved to Patuxent River NAS for service tests in December. A year later, in November 1946, BuNo 24085 was stricken from the list of active aircraft. From that time, until the museum acquired the aircraft in 1960, nothing is known. The aircraft probably served as a “gate guardian” during this period.
The physical evidence of BuNo 24085 leaves as many unanswered questions as the written record. The data plate lists the aircraft as a TBF-1 and it bears the bulged observer windows, which are the most obvious mark of the British modifications. The British roundels can also be seen under the U.S. markings. The mounts for the early .30 caliber nose gun are present but the weapon is missing and the gun trough in the cowling has been faired over. The aircraft also has the radio equipment in the station behind the pilot, which was a feature of the TBM-1C. The British, on the other hand, kept a navigator position, even on the later models.
One of the biggest mysteries is what happened to the aircraft’s wings. The wings, from the folding joint outwards, are from two separate aircraft. The port wing is from a TBM-1C with the mounts for the .50 cal. machine guns still present, even though the position has been faired over. The starboard wing is from a TBM-3J model. The yellow paint and squadron code showing through the topcoat of blue, identify this as a wing from an Avenger used as a utility aircraft. Detail differences, such as antennas, also differ between the two wings. Whether these wings were added in squadron use, as part of the service test at Patuxent River, or simply to make a complete aircraft for gate guardian duties is not known at this time.

http://collections.si.edu/search/results.htm?q=record_ID:nasm_A19610117000

And here is a picture of this Tarpon.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]249770[/ATTACH]
Photographed at NASM’s Paul E. Garber Restoration and Storage Facility, Suitland, Maryland, USA, 1990, by Ron Dupas
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Garber/748.htm

But enough of that.

Lee Howard – is Tiger Moth XL717 still stored, masquerading as G-ABUL? Another disgrace…

Surely the most sensible option would be to procure/build a representative cockpit section with the turret and display it next to the post war variant. With such long service as a fire/bug bomber there must be an appropriate section lying in the long grass at some forlorn tinpot strip.i seem to remember that FAA Avengers also had a different seating arrangement to those in USN service

Quite right – how could I get the serial wrong, considering the number of times I walk past it?! And yes, again, it was MDAP not LL. I can only blame a late night! But I disagree: it IS horrible. And inappropriate.

I’m not in ANY position of authority at all, so please don’t take my comments as being anything other than my own opinion. But I’ve never heard of any such suggestion, nor would I expect to. It was never intended to represent a wartime aircraft (other than the lamentable – in my opinion – decision many years ago to paint is as such); it is what it is: a post-war Avenger. But the crucial fact is that it is a Fleet Air Arm Avenger and not one just marked up as such. It represents all Fleet Air Arm variants of the type and those who flew and maintained it.

If the Smithsonian has an ex FAA Avenger in store then could a deal / swap be arranged with something that the FAAM does have ? Does Smithsonian have a Swordfish ? How many Swordfish do the FAAM / Historic Flight have at least four I think ?
The IWM Duxford Avenger was taken out of the American Air Museum last year. Whilst I understand that airframe is not an original FAA aircraft is it a better representation than the FAAM current aircraft ?

No. The FAAM’s current Avenger is perfect for representing what it is – an ECM.6 which served in the 1950s, not a MkI or II (or vaguely a III) which served in WWII.
The problem with swapping airframes is probably deciding their worth – for example, how many Avengers for a Spitfire? – and, to an American organisation an Avenger, built by a US company and used by the US Navy (which is probable since it doesn’t appear to have any UK service), is unlikely to be worth a one-to-one swap for some ‘old biplane’ with little American attraction (in addition to which there are several Canadian airframes which might be more available without needing to be transported over the Atlantic – again!) to them, although with the Taranto raid as a precursor to Pearl Harbour there would be plenty of associated history. Maybe it should be, in this case, find out what the Smithsonian is interested in…

Dear me. I think many on this post need to go away and do some swotting up on FAA squadron history before posting comments and also stop listening to/repeating unsubstantiated tittle-tattle from un-named sources. Ref 849 NAS, the unit flew Avengers as part of the British Pacific Fleet in 1945, long before the concept of AEW.

Think that was just a mistake – dark blue Avenger, as was, for a dark blue Skyraider.

RNHF have three Swordfish, none of which are up for disposal. And the FAAM’s example, KB446, is the sole surviving original Lend-Lease Fleet Air Arm Avenger – anywhere. It was a miracle that it survived long enough to be around when the Museum first opened.

(Psst – it is actually XB446…) And is it really a lend-lease aircraft? Thought that was WWII – more likely supplied under MDAP (Mutual Defense Assistance Act) or MAP (Military Assistance Program) which differed from the previous scheme in that there was no lease so nothing to pay back!

Yes, the paint scheme is horrible; no it isn’t correct for the mark; yes I’d love to see it reverted back to its original Culdrose Station Flight markings. But be thankful in the meantime that it is still safely on display when so many other types had a less fortunate fate.

Not horrible, just inappropriate. Yes it has survived, but it has had over 22 years of the wrong colour scheme – for a garden party, no less – which sort of gives the impression of not being cared for.

And as for ‘clueless museum curators’, don’t you think that comment is a bit harsh and un-warranted?

The info my source gave me and the statement from the guy on Britmodeller (who doesn’t sound like the chap I originally talked to, an old chap called either Gareth or Garth [my handwriting is near illegible, but the surname I’ll withhold], who worked from a studio in his garage at his home in a village, whose name I couldn’t pronounce, near Tonypandy, Wales. He was a technical artist who was also an impressive painter of warships and naval aircraft; I only went to his place once, to discuss a project we were involved in, saw some of his artwork, we got talking and he had a thing for the post war Avenger – I can’t find any trace of him on the internet…but who knows?) appear similar.
Maybe someone from the museum shot their mouth off about a pipedream of getting a turret for the Avenger, maybe somebody in authority thought an Avenger is an Avenger is an Avenger and theirs was just missing the turret rather than having been in service without it. There are more than enough ‘horror’ stories of things being proposed by ‘forward thinking’ museum management, eager to increase footfall, which have little to do with the traditional workings of a museum as we know it.

Mr Howard – are you in a position of authority with the FAAM that you are able to confirm that the Avenger has not been the subject of thoughts of a rebuild it to something a little more ‘turrety‘? I doubt it myself, but if you look at the Wellington thread concerning turning it from a T.10 navigation trainer without a turret to a more ‘representative’ bomber, then you can see that the possibility can be entertained…so we just need to know.

Sorry, can you recommend a good book on aircraft of the FAA? 😉

Dear me. I think many on this post need to go away and do some swotting up on FAA squadron history before posting comments and also stop listening to/repeating unsubstantiated tittle-tattle from un-named sources. Ref 849 NAS, the unit flew Avengers as part of the British Pacific Fleet in 1945, long before the concept of AEW. RNHF have three Swordfish, none of which are up for disposal. And the FAAM’s example, XB446, is the sole surviving original MDAP Fleet Air Arm Avenger – anywhere. It was a miracle that it survived long enough to be around when the Museum first opened.

Yes, the paint scheme is horrible; no it isn’t correct for the mark; yes I’d love to see it reverted back to its original Culdrose Station Flight markings. But be thankful in the meantime that it is still safely on display when so many other types had a less fortunate fate.

And as for ‘clueless museum curators’, don’t you think that comment is a bit harsh and un-warranted?

Since there was never an AEW Avenger in FAA service I don’t believe 849NAS has one as a mascot – you aren’t confusing it with a Skyraider are you?

Yes, probably.

If the Smithsonian has an ex FAA Avenger in store then could a deal / swap be arranged with something that the FAAM does have ? Does Smithsonian have a Swordfish ? How many Swordfish do the FAAM / Historic Flight have at least four I think ?
The IWM Duxford Avenger was taken out of the American Air Museum last year. Whilst I understand that airframe is not an original FAA aircraft is it a better representation than the FAAM current aircraft ?

Since there was never an AEW Avenger in FAA service I don’t believe 849NAS has one as a mascot – you aren’t confusing it with a Skyraider are you?

I don’t think there are many museums in Britain – especially not the big ones who seem to rely on donations of airframes – that could afford to buy a full size exhibit, not even one held in a reserve collection, abroad, with a proven connection to the service the potential buyer represents. Buying Winkle Brown’s medals would probably not be possible without the assistance of the Lottery Fund, who might decide that medals are not that necessary for a museum so what point an old aeroplane?
Cynical, me?

The FAAM’s Avenger was painted for the D-Day 50th and really should have been repainted after the celebrations were over, although they are a penniless national collection who are probably hoping this coat of paint would suffice for a few more decades. But…a little investigation (something I remember doing at the time I made my notes and came up fruitless) found this post on Britmodeller from October last year:

I spoke to the boss of the FAAM a few years ago to mention that there was a very rare, probably unique example of an original WW2 vintage Royal Navy Avenger sitting in the Smithsonians Silver Hill Storage Site and wondered whether he would be interested in making a bid for it to be displayed at Yeovilton,…..so I was surprised when he said that he already had a D-Day Avenger in the collection! Quite shocked I said that the museum`s aircraft was a post war variant without a turret fitted and he then said that they were considering fitting a turret to bring it back to WW2 configuration!!! When I said that it still wouldn`t represent an operational WW2 British Avenger as it had started off as a post war AS.4 which was based on the TBM-3E variant and only a few TBM-3 based Mk.III`s actually saw service towards the end of the war and were definitely not used during D-Day,…. he just have me a dirty look and walked off!

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234989488-grumman-avenger-as-mk-iv-suez/#comment-2126222

…which strikes me as the sort of thing clueless museum curators in this day and age would say and do.

Didn’t (don’t?) FAA 849 Squadron have an AEW Avenger as a very appropriate squadron mascot?

The reason the Avenger at FAAM wears the current scheme is that it was done for the 50th anniversary of D Day in 1994 when it was borrowed by the RN for a commerative event on the south coast.

The Avenger in its current state is unique and a good representative of its era. If they wanted a WWII Avenger, wouldn’t it be easier to just go out and buy one? 🙂