Probably having sleepless nights because he paid too much for it.

:rolleyes:

That is an astonishingly erroneous statement on two counts.

Firstly the Botha was not an aircraft initiated by the FAA, sure it was intended as a torpedo bomber but with Coastal Command which was RAF.

Secondly there was a good reason for many FAA aircraft requiring a crew of at least two – operating from a mobile airfield required navigation and radio capabilities not required by those operating from an airfield.

As to the poor aircraft designs that the FAA began the war with this was directly as a result of the low priority put on equipping the navy by an Air Ministry pursuing their own restrictive agendas. Also, there was a dearth of high ranking naval officers who had direct experience of the operational roles and requirements of a naval air force – this was in large measure a legacy of the poor, short-sighted, decisions made when the RAF was formed from the combined RNAS and RFC where the fleet was stripped of its capable, experienced and upwardly mobile aviation officers. You may like to compare the respective sizes and capabilities of those two services at that time, the RNAS was well ahead in size and had initiated a number of farsighted tactical, and even strategic, air warfare concepts.

If you doubt the veracity of my thinking above then I refer you to: ‘Air Power and the Royal Navy 1914–1945 a historical survey’ by Professor Geoffrey Till.

Oh lighten up 😀 The poor FAA continued to be supplied with real crocks even after WW2 in which both the Americans and the Japanese had amply demonstrated that carrier borne aircraft could perform with somewhat more capability than a wounded snail.

The Botha was a disaster all round – underpowered and fundamentally dangerous to its crew, regardless of who issued the specs.

I still wonder why, when WW2 had demonstrated what single-seat fighter/fighter bomber aircraft like the F4F, F6F and the Corsair could do, the FAA persisted with the Firefly. Carting an extra crewman around with the commensurate decrease in payload and manoeverability showed that not even actual combat experience could teach the FAA anything.

I do agree that the pre-war thinking by those responsible for issuing the specs was pretty damn poor, but to persist in that even after the lessons of naval combat were available shows a degree of thick-headedness which is unsurpassed.

They had demonstrated that they understood the superiority of the single seat fighter in aircraft like the Flycatcher and the Nimrod, but then they suddenly abandon this insight and issue specs that result in the Fulmar and later the Firefly, not to mention the Skua which was a good dive bomber but hardly a fighter, or the inestimably awful Roc. Nice aircraft if you are operating in minor theatres where the opposition is just as obselescent, or doesn’t have any aircraft, but it is a damn good thing they didn’t field them against serious fighters.

The FAA seemed never to be able to get away from a rather nebulous concept of a fleet aircraft that had to be a fighter, a bomber and an observation aircraft all rolled up into one unwieldy package and which also had to carry more crew than was necessary.

The policy certainly kept Fairey and Blackburn in business but led British naval aviation onto a lee shore.

My understanding is that these would have been painted grey – often referred to as Battleship grey. This was standard for most British inline engined aircraft of the period.

However there are known cases of polished aluminium on other aircraft, so perhaps there is documentary evidence to supprt the restoration colours?

Charge of the Light Brigade, that’s one I was thinking, others are Zulu (but UK Made? I’m not sure?), or perhaps Gallipoli?

The sinking of the HMS Glorious, there was a UK Documentary done. Hasn’t seen light of day this side of the pond, done 10 years ago. IMHO it would make a for a stunning Action Drama dispite the lose of the entire RN Unit. The brave fight of two distroyers protecting their charge, HMS Glorious, against two of the biggest capital ships in the Atlantic. Heroic stuff, they even got their licks in partially disabling the Scharnhorst. Perhaps seen as too shameful to the RN. No air assets doing recce, no spotters in the crows nest, no A/C on standby to take off and fight…what were they thinking?!? But the heroics of the DD’s really was the stuff legends are make of. Go back and read the accounts. Great, though sad stuff.

Zulu is the film of the battle at Rorke’s Drift which was a victory (Michael Caine and Stanley Baker). P’raps you mean Zulu Dawn (?) which is about the defeat at Isandlwana.

On the whole Stearman thing…how many were in civilian hands in 1941??? This was a primary flight trainer at the time FOR THE MILITARY. An old Jenny I could believe.

Lord’s [I]Day of Infamy[I] p. 86 cites one civilian student in an Aeronca from the Hui Lele Flying Club. Student was a Jim Duncan and the instructor was a Tommy Tommerlin.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Why the Sprotborough Arms of course – there’s no need for any alarm.

😀

I am trying to find an unusual British military scheme for a Percival Proctor and was wondering if anyone can help? I know the Royal Navy used them and have found this photo, but I have no idea what colour it was or serial?
Does anyone know or have any photos of Royal Navy Proctors or even of RAF machines that are not silver overall or camouflaged? Apparently there was an RAF Air Commodore that had one for his personal use painted ‘pale metallic blue’ overall, but I can find no photo. Over to you?

That may be orthochrome film in which case the dark areas are actually trainer yellow. Pre-war Magisters were in a similar yellow/aluminium finish. Equally if the areas are red primer then orthochrome would also render them dark.

I suspect you’ll have to find other pics.