viscountAnyone know which units operated this aircraft and at what time periods as a guide as to when to concentrate a search through my slides.
I am sure that “A4scooter” is aware that in RAF service there were only 3 main colour schemes applied to RAF Chipmunks which were fairly universal in application across the fleet. Bare metal with yellow T-bands until mid ’60s, bare metal (later grey paint) with day-glo patches and the final red/white training scheme from the early ’70s. The day-glo could be applied as stick-on patches or a paint coating to fin, rear fuselage and outer wings. Other than application of unit badge to fuselage or tail, and a unit code (or colour coded spinner) there was little addition to the standard scheme of the period. There are naturally some exceptions eg the CFS ‘Skylarks’ formation team, Prince Charles’s aircraft, BBMF; while those with the British Army and Royal Navy had their own air arm standard schemes. The RAF paint and marking specs are well documented.
The main hope for an interesting individual scheme is that WD361 was operated at some stage by a UAS/AEF/FTS with a colourful badge. In 20+ years of service it will have been used by a number of units. A poke around the net reveals it as coded E with 5 Air Experience Flight (AEF) in 1968 and was with London University Air Squadron (ULAS) in 1971. As it was demobbed in 1974 (to G-BBRK) it may never have acquired the final attractive red/white training colours. Indeed likely didn’t as the red/white scheme was often retained by private owners, the fading day-glo was usually quickly removed and an overall paint colour applied for protection.
Hopefully now over to the Chipmunk history experts for some real detail of WD361’s service history. A quick Google around the web shows it to have been quite camera shy as a military aircraft! There will be photos in private collections though, so I wish you luck with your appeal for help here.
viscountYes, my source book shows Bu.No. (USN serial) 05314 as being one of a batch of 200 (05235-05434) Stearman N2S-3 Kaydet aircraft with C/nos 75-6409 to 6608. Boeing model B75N-1. Which all appears to fit.
I would suggest (as speculation) that a restorer/previous owner, failing to find photos to enable an authentic repaint as 05314 has researched an accurate but generic scheme of the period, using the aircraft’s genuine C/no number in place of the Navy serial. Further, for personal reasons, has applied the CFB Trenton name, so providing a ‘red herring’ in tracing the military background. I’d stick to the locations on the official history card. To me, much of the fascination of these aircraft is not so much the often brief military service, but where it has been and what it has been used for in the very considerable number of years since de-mob.
Thanks “J Boyle” for explaining the ‘V’ added to the designation, makes so much sense. Thats my new bit of information for today to store away! Interesting stuff.
viscountWith access to an image (first link required membership to view) I can throw in a few comments as no one else has done so yet, but I am sure they will be close behind.
First, what a striking and good looking example of a Stearman you have.
However, there are aspects of the markings that puzzle – although I am the first to admit that WWII USN colours are not my speciality!
The type on the fin VN2S-3 does not correspond with details in my usual reference on US Navy aircraft. In the 1922 to 1962 system: N = Trainer, S= Stearman as manufacturers. While N2S-3 is the correct designation for an R-670-4 engined aircraft, it is the V prefix that I cannot decode (only post 1962 did V = Staff transport on Navy aircraft). I am not saying it is not correct for this aircraft though, just outside my experience base.
The Bu.Ae. serial on the fin does not match with my list of 3rd sequence USN Serials which commenced with 00001 in late 1940 and is still growing today. Serial 06488 is a Grumman TBF-1 Avenger. Again 6488 might be correct, just outside my understanding of the USN serial systems.
The ‘210’ is a unit applied code, so is not based on the serial number. Certainly USAAC training units in the 1941/42 period used such 3 number codes, the first number indicated the Flight (which in turn indicated the stage of training eg basic, advanced etc) the final two numbers the aircraft number in that flight. So 210 would translate as No.2 Flight’s tenth aircraft. Navy likely had a similar scheme of identification within the training unit, others will be along to tell me I’m wrong shortly!
Clearly you have already worked on translating the colour coding of the fuselage band and the changes in presentation of the National insignia.
As to ‘CFB Trenton’, I’m wondering if this is perhaps some link to a previous owner’s recent past, as to me CFB (Canadian Forces Base) is a relatively modern term, to be WWII or shortly after would it not be RCAF Trenton, or even RAF Trenton? Again I’m on the edge of knowledge base here. Was the aircraft restored in Canada, or perhaps owned by a Canadian with links to modern CFB Trenton?
A great number of Stearman were re-worked just post War and in the process completely lost their original identities, being replaced with new construction numbers and military serials etc. How much of this aircraft’s past do you know for certain? I cannot quite read the current VH- registration to work backwards from.
Great looking aircraft in a striking scheme, enjoy it whether the markings are authentic to the airframe or just evocative of the period, it looks good!
viscountI find the 75 Sqdn link posted without much much comment by ‘Wieesso’ makes a compelling case to be the likely answer to the Squadron, as asked in the initial post. The last photo on the link shows 7 dwarfs art work very much in the same style as ‘doc’, complete with lettering too – to me it seems that at least part of the answer has been found.
J.J.Halley, in ‘Squadrons of the R.A.F’ 1980 lists 75 Sqdn as operating Wellington III aircraft between January and October 1942 (earlier on Wellington I, IA and IC, then later on Stirling, Lancaster and Lincoln. An example Wellington III operated is X3595 coded AA-A. 75 Sqdn was based at Feltwell from 4th April 1940, then Mildenhall from 13 August 1940 (text), 13th August 1942 (table) before Newmarket from 1st November 1942. Typing error doesn’t help.
I do hope that in 2-3 months time (from what I hear), once the full service history has been disclosed to the family on request (should they do so), ‘peppermint-jam’ will follow-up as to whether 75 Sqdn fits the service record, or if ‘slipstream’s’ observation that the stained state of the fuselage shows it to be an instructional airframe at a training school.
I do enjoy this type of thread for the wealth and depth of knowledge uncovered. Must get around to posting my dad’s course photos and see if they can be sequenced, as not all are placed or dated.
viscountIs the bear (if that is what it is) cartoon based on a Koala Bear? If so it could point to an Australian squadron or partially crewed by Australians. Is that a four (or five?) letter word beside it, however the more I stare at it, the longer the list of possible words becomes!
Does the fact the Wellington III has survived 26 (at least) missions help? Certainly the external condition of the aircraft shows it has been around for some time since it left the factory.
Make sure your friend is clear as to which source to get the RAF service information from. There are a number of websites that give the impression for a joining fee you can trace RAF service histories – there is just the one, non-web source which supplies full and authoritive details for WWII RAF personnel. Cost £30, you will need to fill in two forms, be the next of kin, provide a death certificate, and best have his DoB. NI number, and service number too, oh and alot of patience as the wait for the results can take several months.
Info and printable forms: https://www.gov.uk/requests-for-personal-data-and-service-records
An easier to follow, step-by-step version: https://www.gov.uk/get-copy-military-service-records/apply-for-someone-elses-records
If you have the details, the forms are quite straight forward to fill in. I know, I’ve done so only a few days ago for my father’s records.
viscountMy apology for mis-understanding your original question so totally.
The answer is that visits by MDD airliners to Britain are now few and far between. DC-8, DC-9 and DC-10 are rare, indeed the DC-9 and DC-10 highly unlikely to appear again. MD-11 again rare, the Lufthansa freighter into Manchester is now operated by Boeing 777 aircraft. East Midlands might be your best bet, although DC-8 and DC-10 freighters have largely (totally?) been replaced by other types over the past couple of years. Any stored DC-8s at Lasham or Southend still?
Which MD-80 series operators still bring their aircraft into the likes of Manchester, Stansted or Birmingham, perhaps others may have knowledge of? Certainly I have seen Bulgarian and Spanish operated MD-83 aircraft at Liverpool on European football charters this winter, but nothing regular or expected.
An interesting question, that clearly highlights how DC and MD aircraft types have faded away rapidly over the past couple of years and how ‘historic’ they are becoming.
viscountA simple question but a little to broad. All MDD aircraft types, or just Phantom, Eagle, MD-80 series or even MDH types etc etc?
There are vast number of images to be found easily Googleable on the web, or are you after purchasing prints?
If it is particular aircraft type, serial, operator, unit, location you are after then members here will try hard to help, but as asked here it way to vague for a satisfactory response. Yes I could go to considerable effort to digitise, clean and post several hundred photos, only to find that I did not cover what you wanted, or maybe had already been discovered by Googling with the right combination of key words.
Sorry to sound negative, but if you read around other posts, the more specific the question, the more likely you are to get really positive responses.
viscountConsiderable military activity over North/Central Wales is quite normal on a fair weather day. Nothing new or remarkable at all.
What is new, is the fact that they now show up and can be seen on Fr24.
Sat on ‘suicide hill’ (at the 13 threshold) of RAF Valley noted 20 different Hawks either departing, landing, or both in a 2 hour period last week (7 x T.1s and 13 x T.2s.
viscountConsiderable military activity over North/Central Wales is quite normal on a fair weather day. Nothing new or remarkable at all.
What is new, is the fact that they now show up and can be seen on Fr24.
Sat on ‘suicide hill’ (at the 13 threshold) of RAF Valley noted 20 different Hawks either departing, landing, or both in a 2 hour period last week (7 x T.1s and 13 x T.2s.
viscountWas this at night? Another forum reports Cessna 404 G-LEAF over Cambridge and Ely for hours in the early hours of 28th February before returning to base at East Midlands. ICAO ‘REV’, call sign ‘Endurance’ belongs to RVL Aviation, part of RVL Surveys, in full the company name(and relevant to the next paragraph) Reconnaissance Ventures Ltd. The company was formerly (or still is?) a part of the Air Atlantic Group/Air Atlantique.
Almost certainly on some form of photographic or sensor survey. At night very likely using infra-red sensors looking for heat ‘hot spots’ of energy wastage. The FR trace shows multiple parallel tracks – classic ‘box’ survey pattern. At one time flown by compass and stopwatch, today Sat Nav plots the track with great accuracy. Aircraft acting as tv signal relay eg car rally or cycle racing fly an orbit that gradually moves as the orbits repeat, following the race on the ground progresses, while those operating for the security services fly repeated orbits, not parallel lines. In my experience radar calibration tends to involve orbits of the installation (rather than repeated parallel tracks), while crew training shows as repeated regular tracks around an airfield (either left or right handed). Surveys are not only over land, but also coastal regions. There are other companies too around Britain conducting specialist survey work with sensor or camera equipped aircraft – the Partenavia P.68 particularly is a popular vertical camera mount, while Navajo and twin Cessnas are favoured by other companies.
A little more on RVL Surveys, Reconnaisance Ventures Ltd on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RVL_Aviation
The company website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RVL_Aviation
viscountI find that I can avoid wading past the ‘stickies’ by using ‘new posts’ (not ‘What’s new) on the upper selection bar rather than selecting a particular forum section. If done from the front page, you can scroll through all posts from every section, if you select say ‘historic’, then ‘new posts’ just new posts from the one section, without the pinned posts.
Well it works for me, I look in twice daily, so across all sections 15-25 threads to scan through the titles (no announcements to scroll past) of and select whichever I wish to pursue – often hovering the mouse over the title so I can read the first line of content before deciding to look further.
viscountSeems the problem continues, as I have this-evening have had the e-mail informing me that 5 unsuccessful attempts were made to enter my forum account. I am far from being a prolific contributor, although I do ‘pop-in’ twice daily for a catch-up.
The e-mail provides the IP of the ‘hacker’ as 111.10.139.222 which apparently traces through to Guangdong, China. Make of that what you will.
viscountI agree, Ericmunk, an excellent site detailing the history of each Drover. With so many details, clearly the authoritative history of C/no.3014, complete with first flights, hours flown etc. I do hope that the new owner’s attention is drawn to the excellent summary of events regarding the aircraft. My many thanks to Erikmunk for drawing our attention to the link in his post above.
viscountEricmunk, do you mean ‘two others’ or ‘the only the two’. I ask that, as I am only aware of G-ALLK and G-APXX – and on checking, these two are the only Drovers to come up on a search of the CAA GINFO register site.
For those curious, G-ALLK c/no. 5003 (or 0003), was registered to de Havilland at Hatfield, with ‘paper’ dates of registration 31.3.49 and cancellation 16.10.50 – entered in the ‘destroyed or permanently withdrawn from use’ column! I have it simply as ‘remained in Australia as VH-EBQ’, which was indeed the case. A photo and full history of this aircraft: http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac1/austcl/QantasFleet/VH-EBQ.html
With the benefit of the internet (it is a long time since I first researched the background for VH-EAS/G-APXX in the early 80s) I find that VH-EAZ is correct for this aircraft from an authoritative Australian site. See http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac1/austcl/QantasFleet/VH-EAZ(2).html for a photo and airframe history with explanation of the re-registration from a Qantas historian. I’ve gone back to page 1 and altered my ‘potted’ history of this aircraft to incorporate the new information. Interestingly the CAA registration document for G-APXX of 1960 states 5014 as being formerly VH-EAS. All a little confusing.
viscountAt a slight tangent, has a Drover ever been flown in Britain or indeed in Europe? I suppose that the best bet would be if one was brought over for a SBAC Farnbrough Show during the ’50s.
Well done Jet Age Museum. A ’50s civilian type could well provide public interest adding variety to the collection, particularly with the Royal Flying Doctor Service type connection to provide a talking point. Clearly an established museum’s ‘pile of scrap’ is a young dynamic museum’s ‘exhibit worth restoring’. Perhaps the Jet Age Museum might do well, although I know they have built up restoration expertise on fighter types, to chat with SAHG at Speke who have recent experience restoring their Prince, as there are similarities eg ’50s civilian small passenger cabin type, sat unloved outside for years etc.
Added later on ‘edit’: Seems that I (and possibly others) were misled by the ‘user name’ of the member posting the information that the future of the Drover has been secured. My apologies to the Museum and the actual new owner on my presumption, the correct details provided a few posts further down.
Sign In
