dark light

Batman

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 199 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Stephen Fry and THAT film remake #1064458
    Batman
    Participant

    The Australians in the Australian squadrons weren’t segregated – they were actually RAAF personnel serving in RAF numbered squadrons. Probably made no real sense to have the Australian units in Bomber Command allocated RAAF numbers, although 3 Squadron RAAF which fought in North Africa and Italy retained its RAAF number, as did 10 Squadron RAAF which flew Sunderlands in Coastal Command. The other thing was that ground crews, base support staff etc. on the Bomber Command bases were mainly RAF, while the aircrew also had some mixing of nationalities depending on supply of replacement crews. Then of course there were Australian crews serving in RAF units.

    Just to correct a misconception, or maybe how you perceived Malcolm it happened: 3 and 10 Sqns RAAF were ‘permanent’ RAAF squadrons that were deployed in 1939 and 1940, and stayed for the duration. Much like 75 Sqn RNZAF.

    During 1940 the EATS, or Commonwealth flying traing scheme, started to train hundreds of thousands of aircrew to feed RAF squadrons, and the national “Article XV” squadrons.

    Article XV units is why 401 to 449 Sqn numbers were allocated to RCAF; 450 to 484 (I think) allocated to RAAF (only numbered up to 467); and 485 and above to RNZAF. These squadrons were “nominally” dominion, but often commanded by RAF, always with RAF equipment and with some – in a few cases mainly – RAF groundcrew.

    Although nominally a dominion squadron, they were naturally under RAF control. Lets face it, it was the most effective way to operate. The difference was that the Canadians, perhaps recognising the lack of national identity in WWI, insisted in Bomber Cd to their own Group – 6 Group.

    So although a lot of Australians served in the “RAAF” Article XV sqns, a lot also served in the the RCAF and RNZAF squadrons, but probably most served in the RAF squadrons. These latter guys march on ANZAC Day as “Odd Bods”.

    in reply to: JCA (C-27J) stripped from army #2355372
    Batman
    Participant

    On the bright side (except for Finmeccanica), 38 nearly new C-27J will be on the market soon, with full spares stocks, & should be competitively priced. Who might want some?

    AUS wants 10, but competitively priced 2nd hand aircraft, could get 14.

    Interestingly, I saw that the official US services designation for C-27J is in fact “C-27B”, which makes sense as they had originally operated the earlier C-27A.

    “C-27J” is a case of the manufacturers hijacking the US service designation system for their own marketing purposes (in this case, commonality with the C-130J).

    in reply to: NORTH KOREA Airforce and Air defences #2361536
    Batman
    Participant

    …. but are You sure that these are Fulcrum-C’s ???
    Deino

    OK then Deino, if you are the font…
    Are you suggesting it is a “C” highback (maybe the only airframe being produced then), but with “A” avionics? :confused:

    in reply to: NORTH KOREA Airforce and Air defences #2361624
    Batman
    Participant

    I have seen a rather bad pic clearly showing a “Fulcrum C” (either MiG-29 Izdelye 9.13 or MiG-29SE)

    Tazz, I have seen that too, a brown-camouflaged one.
    I think it was one of a very small number of attrition replacements for the earlier Fulcrum A/Bs.

    in reply to: Supermarine Seagull III #1048691
    Batman
    Participant

    [As can be seen, there’s often confusion over whether the inter-war British naval air arm was properly RN or RAF. I defer to those better able to comment.

    Thanks James – confusion indeed! This has been an interesting discussion guys, opening up some unknowns, and I think that we can now be satisfied that the Seagulls between 1923 and 1927 were RAF aircraft.

    But – it has not solved my initial query on the identity of the 3 x RAF machines shipped to Oz. :confused:

    Many thanks all, and a Merry Christmas.

    in reply to: Supermarine Seagull III #1048756
    Batman
    Participant

    from http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43979

    “…were acquired at the scrap price of 100 pounds each and were intended to be used as a spares pool. However, they were found to be in such excellent condition that they were re-erected and quickly put into service.

    LOL wieesso, history repeats itself!
    Reminds me of a more recent deal. In 1994, we bought 15 F-111Gs from the USAF boneyard to extend the LOT of the F-111C. 15 were initially assessed as: 13 could be prep’d for flight delivery to Aus, and 2 would be shipped for spares. “However, they were found to be in such excellent condition that they were re-erected and quickly put into service.” Yes, all 15 were flown out, and rotated through service until ‘G’ WFS c2008-ish; the F-111C was WFS in Dec 2010.

    in reply to: Supermarine Seagull III #1048911
    Batman
    Participant

    As RN aircraft, the Seagulls don’t appear in either edition.

    Thank you Don. I have always been confused about the UK operators of these aircraft. I thought they were RN FAA, but…

    Putnam’s Supermarine Aircraft (Andrews & Mprgan), very authoratative you would think, states: [pg.74] “The first production Seagulls were chosen to form 440 (RAF) Fleet Reconnaissance Flight in 1923…”; [pg.78] “The Australian Seagull IIIs were identical to the RAF Mk II version…”.

    Also British Military Aircraft Serials 1878-1987 (Bruce Robertson), also authoratative, states: [pg.106] “N9562-N9566 Seagull II First postwar flying boat for the RAF”.

    So it would appear they were RAF. Perhaps the Brits were like the Australians, aircraft operated by the RAF/RAAF from HMS/HMAS ships? Both sources refer to “RAF” aircraft.

    in reply to: Supermarine Seagull III #1048923
    Batman
    Participant

    I’ll let you have the full Flypast quote in due course, and I’ll bear it in mind as I gather Seagull V stuff. Who knows…

    Thanks James, I do have Flypast (great reference).

    in reply to: Supermarine Seagull III #1048932
    Batman
    Participant

    The ADF Serials website doesn’t answer that (I presume you’d checked there?)
    Flypast by Parnell & Boughton mentions that in Aug 26 the RAAF Liaison Officer at the (England) Air Min advised that 14 Seagulls were available for disposal plus spares, three were stated as being new having never flown – I guess that’s the ones that were taken!

    Many thanks JDK. I am researching this for adf serials, and have had no luck at either RAAFM or the Nowra museum (was ANAM back then).

    The quote of “14 Seagulls” being available is interesting – but see my listings of RAF Seagull IIs and IIIs. There were only 13 RAF IIIs in total (N9642-N9654 and two went to UK civil reg). Therefore, that 14 total must have comprised some Mk IIs. Follow my thinking?

    I don’t have Air Britain “N series”, but from memory I don’t think that threw any light on this little riddle! :rolleyes:

    in reply to: Supermarine Seagull III #1048945
    Batman
    Participant

    Batman,
    http://www.adf-serials.com list them as Mark III’s.
    Macca

    Yes Macca, but it doesn’t give the RAF serials. And I am contending, that if it was just a “simple radiator mod”, then perhaps they could have been Mk IIs in RAF service, modded prior to shipping to Australia – they would then be Mk IIIs.

    in reply to: B25 Production Line #1056929
    Batman
    Participant

    So they would be B-25Ds?

    in reply to: Rip RAAF F111's #1084742
    Batman
    Participant

    According to http://www.adf-serials.com/3a8.shtml :
    So that is 6 lost. So still missing one…

    F-111C A8-141 crashed 25/10/78 in Auckland Harbour NZ.

    F-111G A8-291 crashed 18/04/99 at Aur Island Malaysia.

    Total 8 losses.

    in reply to: RAN Selection of MH-60R #2029749
    Batman
    Participant

    Wilhelm: at the time the Redhawk was still being built form the SAAF, it was felt that there was a lot of risk in this design and with only 12 built for one customer, the ADF felt that the Redhawk offer represented a poor choice . One was tested here in Australia and it did score very high in the competition. Perhaps if Malaysia bought their 40 as they originally planned to, we would have them in service here now.

    Correct, Roivalk would have been a disaster – 12 ordered by SAAF and 20 odd by us – the total run!! We have been stung enough with orphans. What the Army here liked about Roivalk was you could operate it (on the velt/outback) like a truck – want a new bit of kit? Bolt it on. Don’t worry about configuration management.

    AIR87 was a disaster from start to finish, for its sorry 20 years (yes 20 years!!) of the project. Apache was an overkill, but in retrospect from a Coalition perspective, it -without Longbow – or AH-1Z, would have been preferable to the Tiger, Roivalk or Mangusta. :rolleyes:

    Do I like US kit? Yes, MOTS please. 😉

    in reply to: Navy Wessex paint #1020812
    Batman
    Participant

    sorry, unable to add image

    in reply to: Navy Wessex paint #1028524
    Batman
    Participant

    sorry, unable to add image

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 199 total)