A lovely piece of restoration work and a fantastic, flying tribute to the Boddington brothers. Well done Matt and Steve!

Ian

There is a Valiant nose section at Brooklands, which I believe is XD816, the last Valiant to fly. Difficult to get close to though, and certainly not open to the public due to the radioactive instruments!

[ATTACH]201622[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]201623[/ATTACH]

Ah OK, how about this then? 🙂 MW320 is included in that batch of 208, but it’s also listed as G-AIUP in the batch of 44.

Also, I can’t find LV262 in my list. You sure that’s not LV626?

Unfortunately I can tell you pretty much whatever you want to know about the BSAA aircraft, but I’m a beginner when it comes to the others!

I’ll take another look at my new list and compare it to your earlier post to see if I can spot anything obvious. If not, I’ll try and send you the list and you can check! 🙂

I did notice when I was listing them last night that the c/ns are not 100% predictable. For instance TS789 (G-AGNL) is c/n 1213 and TS790 (G-AGNM) is 1215. When I checked, c/n 1214 is an Anson!

I contacted my sister to ask about Gibson’s experience on the Mosquito after Graham reminded me the log book had been published some years ago. This is what she found in his log book :-

15 April 1943 as 2nd pilot with Squadron Leader ‘Shorty’ Longbottom in command, between Fairoaks and Weybridge.

10 July 1944 as 2nd pilot with Squadron Leader ‘Mickey’ Martin in command – local flight.

31 August 1944 with GPG in command – local destinations.

1 September 1944 GPG in command – Wick and all points north.

10 September 1944 GPG in command – Op to Le Havre making cine film.

So his first flight in command was only twenty days before his death and that was a local flight. I would still call that pretty inexperienced on type, but I suppose it’s a matter of opinion!

The article brings to light new evidence which makes the details of the fuel starvation theory seem irrelevant. However, I admit to some curiosity, especially with regard to the fuel figures. In the article, the author points to a “glaring hole” in the pilot error theory. He states that the outer tanks only give a range of 270 miles and the target that night was over 300 miles away, therefore the tank change would have had to take place on the way to the target and not on the way home.

This is very logical, but assumes that the aircraft took off with the outer tanks selected. The Pilot’s Notes for the Mosquito state that the engines should be started on the outer tanks, warmed up on the mains and the taxy and take off to be on the fullest tanks (i.e. possibly the mains). This means that we still can’t be sure of the point in the mission at which the switch between fuel tanks took place. It was recommended that (due to the lack of a cross-feed facility between outer tanks in the event of an engine failure) the outer tanks should be used first, until nearly empty, before switching to the mains. But if they took off on the mains and neglected to switch until later in the mission ….

As I say, if we accept the “new” evidence then the fuel situation is probably not relevant, but then again weren’t there eye witnesses who claimed to have seen the aircraft crash, with the engines spluttering, yet the new evidence says the aircraft “blew up” in the air.

Maybe we can never be 100% certain of what happened that night?

Thanks for the logbook suggestion Graham. I’ll try and locate a copy.

By the way, ‘Pobjoy Pete’, I’ve sent you a PM.