How’d you get your presents early:confused:
I don’t get to open mine til tomorrow! But, can I echo the comments above and offer best wishes to everybody for next year.

Any links to somewhere for an explanation of why she was abandoned like that?

Try: http://uk.geocities.com/kendo1938/catalina.htm

Catalina Society (http://www.catalina.org.uk) has updates on changes to the world’s Cat population (by David Legg) but no recent info on N5593V.

I suspect the name’s a British PR effort from 1940, as the Sunderland with a four gun tail turret (plus a nose and two flexible dorsal mounts) regarded (by the British) as heavily armed for it’s day – remember the Wellington, a heavy bomber initially had only two forward and two rear… The Germans would hardly be impressed, as they were toting cannon around.

James, I think you’re right but with a little more detail and dates I think it comes even clearer.

As you said, early models had a twin gun front turret, four gun rear and two dorsal hatches each with single guns. In mid production (mainly MkIII) there was a mid upper turret but the dorsal hatches returned in the MkV.

In early 1943 the Galley guns, which could sweep the beam areas below the aircraft, were installed by 461 squadron (RAAF).

In August 1943 the fixed nose guns were installed by 10 squadron (RAAF).They are of almost no use in air combat, being fitted to attack U-boats flak batteries, but they add to the impression of the Sunderland being heavily armed.

The RAAF squadrons even came up with a plan to fit guns (and a gunner) in the tight space just behind the front turret. (see pic) They were told to remove this modification. The Australians were highly innovative and led the way in the MkV Sunderland having Pratt and Whitney engines with feathering props, building a prototype in parallel with Short Brothers.

Anyway, the point is, that we look back on the late Sunderlands, imagine guns pointing out of practically every window and happily assume that is why the Germans gave it a nickname. But the nickname “Flying Porcupine” pre dates those additional guns, so I agree – your comment is bang on. It shows how easy it is to apply hindsight in research. It takes great care to consider facts in light of the knowledge of the time, rather than our knowledge now.

If anybody can provide more evidence of an earlier use of “flying porcupine” than 1942, do share it. I’ve checked Flight magazine’s Jan 39 Sunderland article which had no mention – but then it wouldn’t prewar.

Try Bill Shaksphere with Richard III for much earlier ‘spin’. 😉

😀

As to … Moggy’s question of the Sunderland’s alleged ‘flying porcupine’ (Das Fliegen Stachelschwein) being an British invention or genuine German. I’m going for Allied, but anyone got early evidence?

OK, happy to look into the ‘Flying Porcupine’ question because, to be honest, it has bothered me for a while.

The earliest evidence I could find was 1942.
In “Coastal Command” published by the Ministry of Information through HMSO there is a sentence which states:

The Sunderland has a very wide range and an armament formidable enough for it to be nicknamed the ‘flying porcupine’ by the Germans.

Now that strikes me as very odd because the Fliegen Stachelschwein name is usually illustrated with the story of Ft Lt Walker’s epic battle with eight JU88s in EJ134, a 461 sqdn RAAF Sunderland, which took place on 2nd June 1943. It was in mid 43 when the U-boats stayed on the surface that the Sunderland was fitted with addition fixed forward guns. Is my memory also correct that the additional galley guns would not have been used until 43?

And a small negative. Chris Goss in his book “Bloody Biscay” which records the long range maritime fighter ops of the JU88s of V/KG 40, despite using much German sourced material, does not mention the nickname at all.

Based on this, my suggestion is that the name was simply a creation of a creative writer at the Ministry of Information during WWII. A very early example of PR spin. 😉 Can anybody add more to this?

Excellent thread – the comments above about Japanese being a contextual language are spot on but my Japanese friend knows more about art history than aviation and cannot add to the Beaufighter debate.

The V-bombers were built to the same Air Ministry specification but, in case it had been too demanding, they called for a conventional design to spec B.14/46. This became the Short Sperrin which had four engines, two on each wing in large and ungainly pods – no pylons there either.

Barrow in Furness

Interesting. There some activity there to bring tourists from the Lake District to Barrow. I’ll pass this on.

A flight in a floatplane Beaver for £110 – there’s gotta be a demand for that.

There is from me! Operating from Glasgow you’ve got a huge customer base. It should be a success. You don’t even have to take people somewhere – they should be able to find a market for pleasure flights returning to the Clyde Seaplane base.

And maybe later they can get a Grumman Goose and do proper flying boats trips. (Does that help keep it historic? :diablo: )

Chris,

Your mention of movies clips reminded me that the Crown Film Unit produced a film “Coastal Command” in 1942 as a propaganda piece showing both a Sunderland and a Catalina in operations. It has been available on video but might be hard to find. I’ve got a copy and will make time to watch it again (no great hardship 😉 ) and can let you know how useful it might be.

It is on IMDB: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0034603