Meteors 'found' in Syria

Sorry for reawakening this zombie thread but I couldn’t resist checking now that the Syrian civil war appears to have ended, if any of these Meteors have survived.  Surprise, surprise but 3 appear to have made it including at least 1 NF.13, if I compare Alan Clarks image on page 2 with the latest google earth maps which have a date of 2024.

I have read that there was an officer serving in Egypt in the 1930s who had been “doctored” by some tribeswomen in Syria.
It was rumoured that some men had been returned “intact”, but with the necessary round bits sewn inside their mouths.

Resmoroh
The recent images are dated 2009. So where were they before?

Laurence

maybe the same place the Spitfires were…….

Resmoroh
Getting off the thread maybe, but a sensitive subject if ever there was one, especially if (we?) are going to try to find those Meteors and the rest.
According to Tony, what you just described is what lost aircrew were told to expect. However, there was a fate worse than death (?) for red-haired fellows. They were supposed to be so special that they would be handed over to the local ladies who would use them for their own ends.

By the way, if you go back to the Google Earth images of a few years back (using the timeline feature on GE introduced recently) the Meteors were not there (31 December 2004). The recent images are dated 2009. So where were they before?

Laurence

Laurence,
As I understand it the “G(h)oolie Chit” was a piece of paper which had on it (in several languages) a promise that in return for returning the Airman Intact – and this is the important bit (we are talking about bits of a gentleman’s marriage tackle) – the gold coin was theirs, and their village would not be bombed. In the past aircrew who were unfortunate to have crashed, or force-landed, in hostile territory (why does Afghanistan and the NW Frontier of Pakistan come to mind??) could produce the ‘Chit’ in order to stop the Men of the village handing the poor bu$$er over to the Women who were likely to carry out some rudimentary medical procedures on his “Crown Jewels”.
I always greeted this tale with some scepticism. My appreciation of the folk in these parts of the world, and at times when these “Chits” were said to have been in force, could not read! So it was a bit of a nugatory exercise!
There is a real history to be written here. Do those aircrew (with, or without, the obligatory GC) still sing as Counter Tenors??????????? – or not?
HTH
Resmoroh

My friend Tony Tubbenhauer, who flew Blenheims IVs and Bisleys from Sharjah in 1943, always uses the term “Goolie chit”. It seems to have remained engraved on his brain (not anywhere else I hope) since then, so it must have been an important part of life. I am not sure the word “Goolie” was written on the chit though!

Laurence

Peter, Hi,
On a simple matter of nit-picking accuracy, I was always taught that the spelling was “Ghoolie” – but I stand to be corrected by the cognoscenti.
I should say that in relatively recent years a very young Tactical Air Traffic Controller (barely out of the cellophane wrapping paper) on the Tac Comms Wing was warned off for possible Detached Duty in them parts where Ghoolie Chits had been de rigeur in the past! We (the Old Stagers) sucked our teeth and advised the taking of a Ghoolie Chit. The Young Man rang Strike Command Medical Section asking about these ‘Chits’!! We cried with laughter back at Benson/Brize Norton until the tears ran down our cheeks!!
HTH
Resmoroh

Any idea what the penalty is for a westerner snooping around military airfields in this part of the world?

Just take a “goolie chit” with you

That airframe in the pen looks rather like a Harvard to me, with the leading edge raked backwards.

I don’t know if Syria operated them, but like the C-47, they seemed to end up pretty much everywhere!

Going to try to attach some scans from google earth of the interesting objects on Damascus Mezze and Rayak airfields. Here goes………..

The first is what looks like a dump on the southern perimeter of Damascus Mezze airfield that contains a number of old trucks and possibly aircraft scattered among some small buildings. This image shows a couple of trucks and two of the potential ‘aircraft’. There are maybe 7 or 8 objects like this in total on the airfield that I have spotted. If these are aircraft, I think the wings have a very familiar shape to them but perhaps I am just seeing what I want to see. What do you think?

The second is an aircraft parked on a dispersal just north of the centre of the runway at Rayak airfield in Lebanon. Any ideas what this could be?

Elliot – You’re right, it could be a bit hairy. Think I’ll stick to snooping around Duxford instead. I’ve heard strong rumours of the presence of Spitfires there.

I suggest you bring JDK with you. He has expressed admiration for those who travel to remote destinations to view old aircraft, and may be able to distract the guards with one of his famous monologues. Just don’t antagonise them James 😀

😀

I’ll wait for the Google Streetview first, I think. :p

Glad to hear they are ‘famous’ rather than ‘infamous’ and I hope not monologues but just a part in discussions…

Regards,

Back to the subject of the thread……………

If you look really closely on google maps, Damascus Mezze airfield has some very interesting shapes in a dump like square enclosure on the southern perimeter of the base. It’s more a case of looking for the shadows rather than the objects themselves. There are maybe 5 or 6 objects there that could, if you squint hard enough (and pray even harder), be roughly the right size and shape to be single seat, straight winged, piston engined aircraft. There is a similar enclosure in the far south western corner of the airfield, which possibly has another 2 of these objects sitting in it.

It’s probably just my imagination and they’re completely innocuous objects like some old oil drums and planks leaning up against a brick outhouse!

While I was searching ‘in the desert north of damascus’ as per the comments in an earlier reply, I accidently crossed the border on google maps into Lebanon. Rayak air base in Lebanon also has some interesting aircraft to be seen:

Apart from the usual Russian stuff, there is a Hunter on the pan – would this be one of the aircraft that has recently been brought back into service to shoot at terrorists?

On a dispersal to the north of the runway, there is also a single piston engined aircraft that looks like it could be something interesting…….. any ideas?

As soon as I can grow a beard, I’m heading out there for a poke around!:D

Any idea what the penalty is for a westerner snooping around military airfields in this part of the world?

Might be a bit hairy Alan, but surely worth it.

I suggest you bring JDK with you. He has expressed admiration for those who travel to remote destinations to view old aircraft, and may be able to distract the guards with one of his famous monologues. Just don’t antagonise them James 😀

Back to the subject of the thread……………

If you look really closely on google maps, Damascus Mezze airfield has some very interesting shapes in a dump like square enclosure on the southern perimeter of the base. It’s more a case of looking for the shadows rather than the objects themselves. There are maybe 5 or 6 objects there that could, if you squint hard enough (and pray even harder), be roughly the right size and shape to be single seat, straight winged, piston engined aircraft. There is a similar enclosure in the far south western corner of the airfield, which possibly has another 2 of these objects sitting in it.

It’s probably just my imagination and they’re completely innocuous objects like some old oil drums and planks leaning up against a brick outhouse!

While I was searching ‘in the desert north of damascus’ as per the comments in an earlier reply, I accidently crossed the border on google maps into Lebanon. Rayak air base in Lebanon also has some interesting aircraft to be seen:

Apart from the usual Russian stuff, there is a Hunter on the pan – would this be one of the aircraft that has recently been brought back into service to shoot at terrorists?

On a dispersal to the north of the runway, there is also a single piston engined aircraft that looks like it could be something interesting…….. any ideas?

As soon as I can grow a beard, I’m heading out there for a poke around!:D

Any idea what the penalty is for a westerner snooping around military airfields in this part of the world?

Worldwide trade in vintage planes without restrictions is essential to keep preservation and restoration alive. There are plenty of examples of the scrapping of historic airframes in the uk when no chance was given for others to bid for them openly, especially military ones.

Alternatively they might just be’ left’ which is nothing unusual !! -It should be pointed out that various aircraft in Saddam’s fleet of decoys were destroyed by the Allies due to misidentification so maybe the Syrians view them as having a purpose!

A number of Iraqi Hunters, and other types, were destroyed by an AC-130 at H-2 airbase, Iraq March 2003.

Look away if you don’t want to see Hunters being used as target practice. Apologies to Merkle as an Su-7 is also hit!

Video at the following.

5.5MB download.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/images/iraq-030401-centcom05-attack-on-aircraft.mpeg

TJ

WJ244 – you are confusing your Mosquito’s!

TW117 was the T3 at RAFM, and was exported to Norway. A comprehensive inspection was carried out on the aircraft; the upshot being that if you put fuel in it, you could fly it out (almost!!)

Its replacement, TJ138, came to the RAFM via St Athan and Swinderby. It was broken in two at Swinderby when being moved to St Athan.

Bruce

Thanks Bruce. I checked an old Wrecks and Relics before I posted and that listed TW117 at Hendon. Obviously it had moved on before my visit. Pleased to know that I was right about the repair and the reasons behind it though as I recalled it very vividly and didn’t think the memory banks were quite that bad – yet!

Having read the other posts it is a shame that TW117 wasn’t returned to airworthy status and the ex IWM Mosquito (TV959 I think) which I last heard of with Stephen Grey could have been passed on to Norway. The cut spar would have been less of a problem to repair for static and we could have had the pleasure of a flying mossie here. I know it is all very easy to say wiith the benefit of hindsight but it does seem a shame that the opportunity was missed.

I think the point you keep missing JDK is that whilst many were not in a position to do anything about Winston, they do have every right to miss the old bird.

From what you’ve said, in quite bombastic style, it seems you don’t like anyone expressing such regret, fine, that’s your view, but do you really need to antagonize everyone? Could you not manage a little empathy rather that the brisk ‘well you had your chance, shut up about it’

The Temora Aviation Museum has the receipt. That’s where it ‘belongs’. Get over it, or get over and see it. 😎

Regards,

From an ownership point of view, yes. From a historical point of view, possibly. From the average UK enthusiasts point of view, no. In my opinion it doesn’t really ‘belong’ anywhere, it’s just staying there for the moment. It’s all part of the life of the aircraft.

I’m another one that would like to see that aircraft in the UK, though. I’d like to see some of the Syrian aicraft repatriated too, but I wouldn’t know where to start, jets aren’t really my thing and I’ve already got my hands full with what I’m involved in.

It’s all very well suggesting that a group come up with money, and a plan, but since a rather spectacular old V-bomber has sucked up quite a bit of the spare cash from enthusiasts, things are a bit thin over here. There’s also a bit of a recession going on. (Shhh… don’t tell the anybody. 😀 )

Not all of us have the ways and means to travel half way round the world to see an aircraft. To suggest that it is something that someone should just “Get over” is a bit off. God knows, I’d love to see some of the collections in Australia and New Zealand, but I haven’t got the disposable income at hand yet to be able to do it.

Regards

Rich

I do get those points, but none of them are actually the Meteors fault as such, possibly more the RAAFs procurement and tasking (re fighter pilots sent on ground attack) at the time.
I still think that when you consider the options at the time that the Meteor was possibly the most suited, and safest, aircraft in the ground attack role (certainly preferrable to the F-84)
As for fighters, well I suppose the RAAF wasn’t any less equipped than the RAF at the time, and didn’t expect to be in a shooting war so quickly into its post-war re-arming programme.
Lets face it, I would think that any airforce, including the RAF, would have wanted Sabres instead of Meteors, but the timescale just wasn’t right, it was still too new an aeroplane.

Maybe we can meet in the middle on this one!

I don’t think there’s a dispute, is there? The RAAF bought Meteors despite the documented fact that it wanted to buy Sabres – in both cases as an air superiority fighter, not ground attack. The RAAF’s Meteors were switched to ground attack after a tactical redeployment due to ‘failing’ in the air superiority role. (How ‘fair’ an assessment of the capability of the aircraft or men is arguable, as in my previous, and Monsun’s interesting post. However that’s the history.)

How useful they are as a ground attack type isn’t what I was discussing – if you buy a tool to do job ‘a’ and it is adjudged unsuccessful, while it may be interesting that it is good at job ‘b’ that fact has to come after recognising it didn’t do what it was bought for, surely?

James – this is a little meaningless :’the fact remains no one wanted them enough to buy them to stay’

For instance I might want a Ferrari more than a premiership footballer -however if he has 150K to spend and I don’t- does he want it more than me or does he just have more disposable income??

Far from meaningless. I can’t think of anything more solid than achievement – however tough to attain or however difficult to raise the cash – as against the ephemerality of wishes. Your (and my) disposable income and capability to formulate a successful plan are – more than ever in history- based on your (or my) choices alone. You could certainly have more disposable income that a premiership footballer, you’d just have to have done things differently. Certainly you’ve preserved a lot more aircraft than any premiership footballer, I suspect. Which is the measure of the man?

Most of what we deal with – including history and preservation – is down to those who saw challenges and arranged matters to achieve their goals, rather than those that saw obstacles and found excuses then envied others graft or talent.

The facts are that the Strathallen machine was sold at auction to the highest bidder -good for Kermit and I don’t see anything wrong with that -however if it had been a case where it stayed in Scotland to represent the type I would have been delighted -I don’t however subscribe to the view that the ‘best price’ is always the best deal ! I have been involved with a number of machines were I could have accepted a better price but found it in the hands of people who I would be unsure of their end use of the item i.e the Queens Flight Whirlwind HCC.12 -but sometimes it’s not all about the money!

I’m not saying it always comes down to money. It often – as you well know – comes down to a better plan or better offer bearing in mind other factors. But someone has to formulate that better plan and make it work. Wishing things were different and not doing anything about it is futile and rather pathetic. Tyre-kicking is tyre-kicking however well intentioned and distinct from those that organise whatever’s necessary to achieve their objective.

If the Mosquito had stayed in the UK, that would be fine by me too. However I rather think Kermit Weeks deserves a round of solid applause from the UK for ensuring the preservation of multiple British types – many of which had very dubious futures if he’d not bought them. The fact that he is able to do that on Australia oil revenue that he personally had nothing to do with obtaining is a matter of irony and amusement rather than fulmination or regret.

It’s ridiculous. Winston should be over here where he/she belongs!

The Temora Aviation Museum has the receipt. That’s where it ‘belongs’. Get over it, or get over and see it. 😎

Regards,

Perhaps I could add a little to the debate on the Meteor in Korea.

As regards the fighter role, the outcome usually depended on the height that the Meteors operated. At medium altitudes (around 20,000 ft) a Meteor F.8 could out-turn, out-accelerate and out-climb an F-86A Sabre so stood a reasonable chance of success in mock combat. It therefore should, at least, have been able to hold its own against a MiG-15.

At altitudes in excess of 25,000 ft, however, the Meteor’s performance fell away progressively and was completely outclassed by Sabre and MiG above 30,000 ft as the latter two could cruise at Mach numbers that the Meteor could not attain due to compressibility issues and they could employ dive and zoom tactics at will.

In Korea there does not seem to have been that much co-operation between RAAF and USAF, especially in the early war period, as on a number of occasions RAAF Meteors were positioned above USAF Sabres, the exact opposite of what should have happened! If the Sabres had been used consistently as top cover to RAAF Meteors at medium levels, any MiGs that were forced down into the clutches of the Meteors would have had a tough time getting home.

Peter