It is indeed a surprising figure, Graham, and, on reflection, it’s unexpected enough to be suspect in my mind. It just has to be less straightforward than it seems on the face of it.

From my long-ago working life, the task of counting things or counting people in largish organisations, and placing them in categories or particular groups, was rarely as simple as it seemed. The result could depend on who did the counting, on what dates they did it, how they classified the things or people being counted and what outcome was expected or hoped for in the first place.

It is perhaps worth saying, in respect of the article, that the reference to the 26 ‘different types’ was in an earlier part and that the question of where the aircraft were made came much later – and may just have concerned BOAC’s overseas services. Therefore, the bits of information that are difficult to reconcile could have come from different sources or different respondents, using different criteria and answering different questions asked at different times.

If, for example, the ’26’ figure referred to all the different aircraft types on BOAC’s books, not just those employed on overseas passenger, mail or cargo services, then several British aircraft types could be added. BOAC inherited a range of aircraft from its predecessor airlines. You mention the Atalantas and the Ensigns but, as you are aware, there were several others – the Albatross, Flamingo and Dragon Rapide come to mind and there were probably others. I also seem to recall that BOAC used Oxfords for training purposes and also evaluated other aircraft for its possible use. Was the Albermarle one of these or is my memory playing tricks? Perhaps there were several of these ‘one-offs’ on BOAC’s books.

I’m not even sure how ‘aircraft type’ was defined. How many ‘aircraft types’ are covered by the phrase ‘Short flying boats’ for example? Even though the S.23, S.30 and S.33 were Empire flying boats (C-class), they might have counted as three types, as they had different power plants and different all-up weights. Around the time the article was written, Shorts were converting Sunderland Mk.IIIs for BOAC use and there were also the S.26 G-class flying boats (Golden Hind, Fleece and Horn). I don’t know but perhaps (and I stress perhaps), ‘Short flying boats’ could encompass five different aircraft types.

And BOAC had aircraft all around the world, not just in Britain, and some of those might be called unusual. Weren’t there some captured aircraft based in Cairo that BOAC used for ‘communication’ and similar purposes, for example?

Anyway, it is probably more complicated than the article suggests. Perhaps someone could help clarify the statements in the article.

In the meantime, I checked I had transcribed the figures correctly from the article and took the opportunity to copy the relevant sections, which are attached.

Terrific photo, Duggy.

It seems that AL522 served with various RAF units, the last being 511 Squadron, before being allocated to BOAC in July 1944. It operated on the Atlantic ferry service from March 1945 to June 1946, which fits well with the date ascribed to the photograph.

I’m not quite sure why it would visit an RCAF training school, though most of its ‘graduates’ apparently went on to join Coastal Command, so experience of a Liberator might have been useful. Alternatively, perhaps AL522 was diverted to Summerside because of bad weather elsewhere. Does the source of the photograph clarify this in any way, Duggy?

AL522 later became G-AHYD, but was used for spares before being restored and, in September 1947, Scottish Aviation began to convert it for in-flght refuelling trials. BOAC was anxious to emulate BSAA in this regard. These trials took place between February and May 1948. BOAC had also acquired some TCA Lancastrians or Lancasters for this purpose. I imagine that the literature on the subject will provide more details as to where these trials took place. Flight Refuelling Limited didn’t move to Tarrant Rushton until June 1948.

The attached photograph shows G-AHYD undertaking in-flight refuelling trials by night.

Oughton says that AL614 was taken on charge at Dorval on 8 May 1942 and used for a couple months by Ferry Command’s Communication Squadron. On 31 August 1942, it was allocated to BOAC for the Return Ferry Service and its first eastbound flight was on 1 September 1942. Berry’s research says it arrived at Prestwick from Gander on 2 September 1942. The latter’s research shows multiple Atlantic crossings, plus a few flights elsewhere.

One incident is noted in this period, though the accounts differ.

Oughton says of AL614: “burst tyre on take-off Prestwick for Gander 24.8.43 and belly-landed at Ayr”. Berry says: “Aug 23/24 Liberator Gander – Ayr. Belly-landed Pwk. RFS. AL614″, suggesting it left Gander on 23 August en route for the UK, where it crashed. From other reports, what appears to have happened is this. AL614, returning from Dorval en route to Prestwick, stopped off at Gander. As it took off from there, around 8.00 in the evening of 23 August, a tyre burst and the undercarriage was damaged. It continued its journey and belly-landed at Heathfield (Ayr) around 8.30 on the morning of 24 August 1943.

Oughton goes on to say that, on 7 September 1943, AL614 went for repair to Scottish Aviation Limited. It was moved from Heathfield to Prestwick late on the morning of that day. As well as the repairs, it apparently had modifications to meet ‘A.I.D. requirements’. I’m not sure what those are but perhaps it explains the ‘moustache’ noted by Adrian in the preceding Post. Oughton says it was returned to BOAC at Prestwick on 16 November 1943. To add to that, there was a radio check on 15 November, a ‘nose wheel shimmy damper’ problem on 16 November, a further radio check on 17 November and, it would seem, a test flight on 18 November.

Oughton says AL614 was back in service westbound on 19 November 1943. Berry’s research shows it left Prestwick on 19 November 1943 bound for Gander. It left very early that day, around one in the morning, and stopped off at Gander, arriving at Dorval in the early evening. It remained at Montreal until almost the end of December 1943, during which period the cabin was modified in some way. It then left Montreal on 29 December 1943 for Gander, where it stayed for more than a day, awaiting an ‘anti-air pump’ and its ‘load’. It got back to Prestwick on Hogmanay (31 December).

Now for a bit of speculation on my part. My suggestion is (with no basis in fact) that the photograph of AL614 in Post #129 (repeated below) was taken by SAL in mid-November 1943, just prior to their returning the aircraft to BOAC.

I think you may very well be right, Adrian. I attach two images:

[1] a similar image to the one in Post #350 but slightly cropped and with the tonal range adjusted
[2] a much tighter crop with the lighter tones unrealistically high

It looks like the upper line of the code ends in “4” and the lower line looks more like an “N” now

AL614 / OLZN looks like the right call to me. Any dissenters?

And, of course, they could indeed be different bare-metal Liberators in the two photographs. That raises the question of how close in time the two photographs were taken. Apart from the elusive bare-metal Liberators, the only changes I’ve found are in the positions of the people and the ‘disappearance’ of one lorry.

If that’s ‘ZM’ on the nose, then it would seem that it is AL529, which had ‘OLZM’ as its call-sign.

The photograph attached shows AL529/ZM at Dorval and the code letters on the nose read ’29’ and ‘ZM’. The Lib in the photo above (Post # 350) seems to have ‘ZM’ on the nose but I’m not sure that it is ’29’ above the ‘ZM’.

Also, I can’t see a BOAC ‘Speedbird’ logo on its fuselage. This is a lesser concern, if intriguing, but the photos is not too clear on this, anyway..

Comments, anyone?

This aerial view was obviously taken on a different day but I have marked the spot where (more or less) where the photographer was positioned to take the above two shots.

Just excellent.

I scanned this from a book. It was taken on the same day but the bare-metal Lib has moved nearer the camera. Perhaps (just perhaps) it would be possible to read its serial number on the original photograph.