Dambuster serial numbers

JDK

You’re right, of course, codes were re-allocated, but I’m assuming that Simon is only interested in the Chastise Lancasters ie the Dams Raid aircraft.

Simon

ED825 was AJ-T and was flown to the Sorpe Dam by Flt Lt McCarthy (of which more anon).

ED877 was a perpetuated typo! It was a 156 Sqdn aircraft, never modified for Chastise, never with 617 Sqdn and was lost on 5 May 43, over a week before the Dams Raid.

ED887 was AJ-A, Sqdn Ldr Young’s Lancaster, lost on the return flight from the Mohne and Eder Dams.

ED923 was never modified for Chastise, never served with 617 Sqdn and is shown as on operations with 97 Sqdn in that unit’s Operations Record Book.

It seems that the sequence of events was thus:

ED825 arrived at Scampton and was immediately prepared as the reserve aircraft, (although whether there was time to apply the allocated letters AJ-T is another matter). McCarthy boarded his favourite ED915 AJ-Q Queenie only to have it go unserviceable. He then transferred to ED825 AJ-T with all the well-reported difficulties, and flew the operation. Now we get to the conjecture. The 617 Sqdn ORB was presumably then written up from the Order of Battle and showed McCarthy’s original aircraft, but somebody, in their infinite wisdom ‘corrected’ this by scoring out the original serial number and pencilling in ED923. It’s likely that this was done with ED933 in mind, a Chastise Lancaster on charge to 617 Sqdn as AJ-X, but sitting in a hangar undergoing Cat AC repairs after damage on a practice drop at Reculver. So even if he/she had got it right, they would still have got it wrong, as it should’ve been corrected to ED825!

There, Simon, aren’t you glad you asked? Simple, really, ain’t it!

Regards

Allan

A- for Apple was shot down by coastal defences on the Dutch Coast. The aircraft crashed in the sea and was washed ashore and the wings had lain on the beach near Egmond aan Zee until 1953 when the stormflood of that year washed them away. It’s still somewhere under the sand but we have been searching for it for decades but still nothing substantial has been found apart from an aileron hinge. One of these days …..

Cheers

Cees

Allan,

Thanks for clearing that one up for me and in responce to
the other answers I got, yes I believe letters were assigned
more than once as AJ-C was ED817 and also ED910.

Thats what I found researching the Chastise Lancs anyway
but I’m not an expert on RAF serial numbers.

cheers guys!
Simon Beck
www.uswarplanes.net

Dambuster Serial Numbers

JDK

You’re right, of course, codes were re-allocated, but I’m assuming that Simon is only interested in the Chastise Lancasters ie the Dams Raid aircraft.

Simon

ED825 was AJ-T and was flown to the Sorpe Dam by Flt Lt McCarthy (of which more anon).

ED877 was a perpetuated typo! It was a 156 Sqdn aircraft, never modified for Chastise, never with 617 Sqdn and was lost on 5 May 43, over a week before the Dams Raid.

ED887 was AJ-A, Sqdn Ldr Young’s Lancaster, lost on the return flight from the Mohne and Eder Dams.

ED923 was never modified for Chastise, never served with 617 Sqdn and is shown as on operations with 97 Sqdn in that unit’s Operations Record Book.

It seems that the sequence of events was thus:

ED825 arrived at Scampton and was immediately prepared as the reserve aircraft, (although whether there was time to apply the allocated letters AJ-T is another matter). McCarthy boarded his favourite ED915 AJ-Q Queenie only to have it go unserviceable. He then transferred to ED825 AJ-T with all the well-reported difficulties, and flew the operation. Now we get to the conjecture. The 617 Sqdn ORB was presumably then written up from the Order of Battle and showed McCarthy’s original aircraft, but somebody, in their infinite wisdom ‘corrected’ this by scoring out the original serial number and pencilling in ED923. It’s likely that this was done with ED933 in mind, a Chastise Lancaster on charge to 617 Sqdn as AJ-X, but sitting in a hangar undergoing Cat AC repairs after damage on a practice drop at Reculver. So even if he/she had got it right, they would still have got it wrong, as it should’ve been corrected to ED825!

There, Simon, aren’t you glad you asked? Simple, really, ain’t it!

Regards

Allan

Given 617 were using Lancs for a while, isn’t it possible that two different aircraft used the same letter sequentially? Just a thought.

Iv’e got ED-887 as A. & ED-923 as T.
Phil.

In the Aircraft Illustrated Annual 1983, It say’s AJ-A was ED887/G and AJ-T was ED825/G. AJ-A is comfirmed as ED887 in Bomber command losses.