Hi Jerry, Peter, & co.

Jerry, look at the upper right-most entry- I think this reads “Located U/S at AFDU…”

Something I’ve never really understood: what is the distinction between “Taken on Charge” (above section) and “Unit to whom Allotted” (lower section)? It seems that if something is allotted to you, it is under your charge?

bob

I knew a T-6G that was painted with invasion stripes, and the owner said that they had a photo of the inspiration, but I never saw the photo, alas. I’ve certainly seen some photos of AT-6 hacks in the UK, but I don’t remember offhand whether any were wearing stripes. There’s a book about 8th AF hacks that might be a good place to look.

bob

The Allison-engined P-51As (Mustang I) showed such promise that the RAF asked for a trial fit of the Merlin – and the result is well-known.

Well Nearly, Rolls-Royce at Hucknell saw the possibility’s of a Merlin Mustang during testing and decided to shoe horn one in then tell the ministry. At first they weren’t keen on another Merlin fighter thinking there were not enough engines available as it was…………..See Rolls-Royce and the Mustang……Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust publications….

Well, nearly again. The Mustang I was not the P-51A, which came later. As someone else mentioned, Harker (of Rolls Royce Hucknall) saw the possibilities, sold it to management, who very quickly sold it to the Air Min. Sorry to burst the “private concerns save the day in spite of the government” bubble. Indeed, contrary to popular legend, the British quickly sold the idea to the Americans, or at least enough of them to get things moving. North American was certainly enthusiastic, and received the go-ahead to create two prototypes of their own. Not only that, but before any of these Merlin prototypes had flown, the joint production plan included 1200 Merlin Mustangs.

You are right that there was concern about the Merlin supply, but that didn’t really work against the Mustang, it was just another problem to be solved.

As for the question, I agree that had the Typhoon worked out as an interceptor all the better, and its load-carrying ability would have made it an obvious choice for the fighter-bomber role, which was evolving quite apart from the Typhoon. The A-36 could be considered the (or ‘an’) ultimate answer to the Army dive-bomber requirement, but by the time it was in service the RAF and USAAF had pretty much concluded that the ability to perform true dive-bombing was a luxury that they could do without- far better that (almost) any fighter be given the ability to pack a heavier punch when the need arose, and revert to fighterish characteristics otherwise.

Whether the A-36’s ability to provide this while at the same time being capable of true dive-bombing would have proved MORE effective is another question- it would have offered more accuracy in some situations, but perhaps at the cost of a higher loss rate. The suggestion of the P-63, or another big-gun aircraft, is another intriguing one. It might have been a better tank-killer than anything else the Allies had at that point, provided that the rate of fire was sufficient to allow hits in the limited time of a firing run.

bob

Just what I was thinking. Ivor, can we put our heads together to see if we can crack the case? PM me if you like. Of course, it’s possible that it was an aircraft already on hand that was made (or changed to) ‘S’. In the photo, W is obvious, the next digit seems that it MUST be 3, but I can’t make enough out of what follows to confidently narrow it down.

bob

Ah, that makes me feel better- the 17 Sept aircraft could still be P8707, and this could be the new, replacement ‘S’.

Also, thanks Ivor for your comments. I’m glad to have some further information on these movements.

bob

Hi Pat, Wojtek, and all,

I believe that it was P8707:

39MU 29-6-41 616S 7-7 610S 19-7 CB ops 17-9 ASTE 331S 18-6-42 CB ops 29-6 LMS VSM 13-6-43 fuel syst mods S type pt fin MkII IFF ros 3-12 COAL RNDA 21-2-44 hook fitt RNAS Hens as hook Spit 11-5

There seems to have been a problem with recording the transfer of Mk.Vs from 610 to 129, though I admit I cannot now explain the evidence that led me to this conclusion. [Edit: having looked back at my information in the process of writing this posting I have begun to reconstruct my reasoning.]

My deduction was that 129 moved around the 19-22nd August to Westhampnett from Leconfield (ex Mk.I), taking over 610’s Vs, while 610 went the other direction (to IIa? or to a mix?). In early September (if my supposition is correct) 129 began getting a new batch of Mk.Vs, and the ones inherited from 610 (and before that 616) were disbursed- perhaps they were due for a major servicing? Or perhaps the new arrivals in September were simply replacements for individual aircraft, rather than a complete squadron re-equipment- some of the ex-610 aircraft were lost by 129 in October.

I’d welcome any supporting or contradictory information!

bob

‘Mark’, when you get it sorted please send me an e-mail with the pertinent info so I can update my contacts.

Thanks,
bob

If they’re all Castle Bromwich, it might be more difficult. Are Henshaw’s logbooks in his papers at the RAF Museum? That would be a good place to start.

bob