The photos below where taken or aquired by 2 brothers of my wifes Grandma who both where on HMS Illustrious in WW2. She is looking for information as to where her brothers had been etc and wondered what all the different planes are etc. I have been able to answer some of them but may be you guys could fill in the blanks? aircraft types? or guess where?
By: Flood - 23rd October 2003 at 18:01
James,
No worries! I don’t hold you responsible for it – the Admiralty came out with much worse suggestions concerning aeroplanes and how they should be flown both before, durring, and after the war – and I am fully expecting to have somebody come back with a mention of such a plan in some pilots notes or the aircraft carrier’s owners handbook…:D
These ideas seem to come from desk-bound word warriors who never quite see the flaws in their plans! Can’t think of any right now but you know what I am saying! (Maybe we’ll find that the reason HMS Ark Royal got torpedoed was because they had to dangle a bunch of newly painted Swordfish out to dry…:D:D:D)
You keep up with the suggestions and maybe I’ll let you shoot me down next time!!! (Just you try it;))
Flood.
By: JDK - 23rd October 2003 at 09:42
Hi Flood,
In the case of this almost-certainly-a-Skua, I’m not suggesting it’s being held over the side temporarily. (though it would be one way of getting fingerprints off the rudder, as you suggest.) I’m not suggesting that the idea is good or sensible. I’m just saying that’s what did happen aboard RN Carriers in W.W.II acording to photos and accounts I’ve seen and read!
Cheers
By: Flood - 23rd October 2003 at 01:12
Originally posted by JDK
Mike’s also right about salvaging for spares. Also sometimes it would be done to dangle a crashed a/c over the side while the others were landing back on, and then afterwards retreave it for repair / canibalisation, rather than the ‘shove streight over the side’ idea that is often suggested. Radios, instraments, guns, fittings, etc were all worth getting, as well as (if time allowed) contol surfaces, engines, wings from fold-point outwards, etc…Cheers
James
Sorry, can’t see this myself.
An aircraft has crashed on the flight deck so they get ‘Jumbo’ to lift the wreck, attach it without bits falling off, then dangle it over the side and hope that:-
a/ no one else required the crane more urgently – say for recovery of injured aircrew from overturned wreckage;:D
b/ that nothing hit the crane whilst trying to land… These carriers were not very wide, you know!:D
c/ that whilst the carrier is steaming along to maintain enough over the deck speed for the aircraft to land… that the dangling wreck didn’t beat itself to a metaphorical pulp against the side, damage the carrier, or drag the crane overboard!:D
This probably wouldn’t have happened in peacetime, let alone the shallow Med (probably) in wartime!:D
And in this case it is not the point – unless they are washing the tailplane…:D:D:D
Still very interesting though – any with markings or codes on the side to settle the arguments?
Flood.
By: JDK - 22nd October 2003 at 22:23
Yup, Fulmar.
While was are all being gracious about Fairey torpedo bombers, I was clearly wrong about them not being in camoflage!
Mike’s also right about salvaging for spares. Also sometimes it would be done to dangle a crashed a/c over the side while the others were landing back on, and then afterwards retreave it for repair / canibalisation, rather than the ‘shove streight over the side’ idea that is often suggested. Radios, instraments, guns, fittings, etc were all worth getting, as well as (if time allowed) contol surfaces, engines, wings from fold-point outwards, etc…
Cheers
James
By: phlyer - 22nd October 2003 at 21:29
WW2 Photos
The Taranto Raid was split with approx 2/3rds of each wave lugging Torpedos, the remainder were carrying 250lb bombs.
you can read the first hand account of the raid:
Attackon Taranto, by Lt Cdr JWG Wellham DSC
ISBN 0-8117-1726-7 – stackpole books (USA).
By: mike currill - 22nd October 2003 at 19:56
OK Guys that clears it up. I was wrong about the albacore but at least now we know.
The reason for salvaging the skua or roc whichever it was could have been shortage of spares so they recovered it to salvage anything useable
By: newboy - 22nd October 2003 at 19:01
You can e-mail john at – [email]john.dell@virgin.net[/email], so what not e-mail him a copy of the photo Newboy?
Geoff.
Done that thanks for the link.
Nick
By: von Perthes - 22nd October 2003 at 18:52
If anyone has ‘Wings of the navy’ by Capt Eric Brown (Airlife) (ISBN 0 906393 876) there is apparently what may be the only other photo of the underside of a Skua on P30.
The best source of info for the Skua I’ve found is at – freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/blackburn_skua.htm
You can e-mail john at – [email]john.dell@virgin.net[/email], so what not e-mail him a copy of the photo Newboy?
Geoff.
By: macky42 - 22nd October 2003 at 18:43
Fulmar.
As for the Skua, why on earth are they trying to get it back?:rolleyes:
By: newboy - 22nd October 2003 at 18:37
I ‘ve blow up and cropped a couple of the pictures and found a new one so again what’s this one?, and I have go a huge pile of pictures to go through but most of the aviation related ones I’ve posted already. But there is a suit case full of pictures at her flat so I’m sure there will be more later.
By: Flood - 22nd October 2003 at 17:53
Oh well, all that means is that they are official. Good to see them though – and if you have anymore laying around, being used as drinks mats or preventing the table from wobbling then let us see them!
As for the info… Wait until the Albacore fans try to beat up the Swordfish homeboys and all is left a barren waste land… Oops, my mistake! This is not the AFM forum! (Little joke for all those who know!)
Flood.
By: newboy - 22nd October 2003 at 17:45
Originally posted by Flood
Be interested to hear your answers, Newboy (suspect you will come to regret that name later!!!) if you have been able to utilise info from the back of the prints.
Flood.
The only info on the back of some of them is “Not for public viewing or transmission” and I am taken back by you guys and the amount of info you have been able to supply me with thank you very much.
By: JDK - 22nd October 2003 at 14:43
Phew.
I didn’t say it wan’t a Roc. I said there’s only 1 piece of evidence that any Rocs were ever on a carrier. I also quoted my reference. It’s another piece of the jigsaw. (If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it may be a swan, but bet on duck first…) If I recall correctly, Rocs had a shorter (or was it longer?) nose than Skuas…
Flood’s hypotheses of the Skua / Roc in his last post I think are all sound, though there is a small caviat that an aircraft going over the side on landing will have it’s undercarriage / flaps down – but I agree that the situation (near coast etc) implies not a ‘flying off / landing on’ session.
Sorry, the formation are all Swordfish, not Albacores. Good enlargement Eddie, but Swordfish. Colours (not camo, I’d say) and conclusive is the shape of the upper wing / tail – both of which are distincly different to Applecores. Difficult to explain clearly, but I’ve been looking at the real things (FAAM Albacore and Shearwater, FAAM Duxford, FAAM Flight and Bob Spence’s examples) a lot recently, and I’d place money on it.
For more qualified comment contact Jerry Shore at the FAAM useum Archive (www.fleetairarm.com) or the Fleet Air Arm SIG www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Home.html
Cheers
By: Flood - 22nd October 2003 at 12:54
Originally posted by JDK
Hi, I agree with most of the above conclusions. The Skua / Roc debate should be easy. Only Alec Brew’s ‘The Turret Fighters’ has a photo of Rocs (the turret fighter…) on board a carrier. Other than that one occasion, they did not serve on fleet carriers…
Just because they didn’t serve doesn’t mean they didn’t land…
Just because it is being hauled aboard a carrier doesn’t prove a thing!
Look at the picture; is that not land off to the right…
If anyone has a detailed pic of the underside of both Skua and Roc to compare and contrast then bring it on. I don’t trust plans – the Frog/Novo kit of the Skua (just like the Airfix Fairey Battle) was apparently modelled from a rough plan of the prototype and so is not an ideal choice for this comparison. Owen Thetfords British Naval Aircraft since 1912 says the main differences of the Roc,from the Skua, were a slightly widened fuselage to accomodate the turret, increased dihedral on the wings from the fuselage, and no turned-up wing tips. The angle, to me, is not good enough to be able to say that both the wing tips are turned up – although the port one may have some damage…
Rocs served as drogue tugs – just like Skuas – for the navy (as well as the army), usually where the ships were. The crew on board are in tropical rig which might narrow it down if anyone has more information than that contained in Ray Sturtivants Fleet Aiir Arm Aircraft 1939-1945. I scanned that for both the Skua and the Roc and there is nothing suitable – but then not all fates are accounted for.
Looking again at the picture I could be convinced that it was parked on the deck and rolled overboard – not many would try to intentionally ditch with the undercarriage down, and nobody would land aboard that close to land (or with the ship static… All those bits hanging down and boats in the water etc!). Looks like it was damaged en route if you look at the port wings trailing edge, which would make sense. Aeroplanes falling overboard are always a great source of amusement so it probably made it into someones memoirs or the ships history – does anyone have a complete events history for Illustrious and other carriers serving in the Med (well, they are wearing tropical rig!)?
Flood.
By: Flat 12x2 - 22nd October 2003 at 11:39
At first I thought that mike was right, but then the wing shapes give it away. The Albacores wings are nearly identical in shape, the Swordfish has a much larger upper wing, as can be made out in pic. No.1
Good call by JDK on pic. 12, Fulmar. As per marking ?, how about one of the Vichy French operated Fulmars ?
By: Eddie - 22nd October 2003 at 11:11
Having had a look at some drawings – I also think the wing planform is very like a Swordfish, and far less like an Albacore (the Albacore has no sweep on the upper wing, for example)
By: Eddie - 22nd October 2003 at 11:00
I resampled the Swordfish image in paint shop pro, and this is the result…
Pretty conclusive, I’d say, looking at the leading aircraft. Definitely “Vee” struts.
By: DazDaMan - 22nd October 2003 at 10:56
I didn’t want to get embroiled in this debate over FAA aircraft (of which I’m no expert by any means), but I’m going with Mike on this one.
Although, having looked at the photo again, I think BOTH Swordfish and Albacore are in the formation (the middle two planes seem to have the Stringbag undercarriage, anyway).
By: mike currill - 22nd October 2003 at 10:27
Originally posted by JDK
Hi, I agree with most of the above conclusions. The Skua / Roc debate should be easy. Only Alec Brew’s ‘The Turret Fighters’ has a photo of Rocs (the turret fighter…) on board a carrier. Other than that one occasion, they did not serve on fleet carriers.No 1 is Swordfish, not Albacores. Colours, tail, timing, and undercarriage config all rule out Applecores.
12 The lights on the tail are a clue. My first wild guess was Swordfish, but I don’t have my refs to hand. Von P was right over the three mice – it was one of the bomber units based in Belgum to attack Britain in 1940 as well, IIRC.
Cheers
Sorry to be pedantic but I am sticking to my claim that they are albacores as that undercarriage does NOT look right for a swordfish and as EN830 said 810 squadron used both. The only way to settle that difference of oppinion over what they are is to get the photo enlarged and until then I’ll stick to my guns though if anyone can prove I’m wrong so be it at least then there will be no doubt
By: JDK - 22nd October 2003 at 10:21
No 12 is a Fairey Fulmar rudder, with a badge that’s new to me on!
Very interesting…
Almost certainly Med I’d say.
Cheers
Sign In
October 21, 2003 at 9:47 pm