Sikorsky S-55. One of the Hind-look-a-likes.

EDIT: ergo it’s the QS-55

[ATTACH=CONFIG]223718[/ATTACH]There.

Third is DHA3 Drover VH-DHA, somewhere between 1948 and 1952 (when it was lost: http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/DHA%20Drover%20VH-DHA%202.htm). Picture taken at Essendon.

First is the Saunders-Roe Princess flying boat.

Others will no doubt be able to narrow this information down.

Hi
or is it easier/cheaper to maintain a gloss finish rather than matt finish aircraft
cheers
jerry

Lots easier to keep clean, and certainly better able to protect wooden structure than matt, especially against moisture and grease.

Submarines have pretty thin hulls so why ever not? A U-Boat was sunk by a Walrus during the Norwegian Campaign so I’m sure that an Anson could have done the same.

There was the attack on a U-Boot by Anson on September 13, 1939 (only very light damage). A week earlier an Anson had apparently attacked HMS Seahorse in error (resulting in very light damage and the Anson taking itself out with one of its own bombs’ shrapnel). In an accidental attack an Anson managed to break four light bulbs aboard HMS Snapper later in the year. It would seem the Anson was not the weapon of choice against a sub.

The Dakota was indeed in The Netherlands (2010), and has been written off. The wreck was sold to http://www.avionart.nl/ and broken up (nose and tail section saved). To be fair, it was not one of the best to begin with (not disqualifying efforts of volunteers who worked on it), and certainly not up to museum standard (it had been on external display since 1989 on a pole and later in a forest for at least a decade, after 15+ years of dereliction on an airfield. It had been cosmetically done up by the museum who owned it, repainted in WW2 colours, and sported lots of major homemade bits and had serious corrosion issues). It was being transported by an unprepared commercial company contracted by a theatre company for use as a prop (no pun intended) in a show. The museum in question only rented it out because they had a much better museum quality example and a third (a project) anyway. I would say this hardly is the same as a national museum loaning out a unique aircraft to another national museum, and transport being done by the military…

Thanks very much for those pics, the top photo definatel;y isnt a halifax pannier as the internal structure is totally different, judging by the bottom photo you can just make out the thunderbirds style cables/wires that hoist it back into position, which stll makes me wonder why it has fore and aft hatches?

These would seem handy to the crew for inspecting and securing the cargo without taking out the whole pannier every time.

IIRC the entry door is on the right on the Li-2, the DC3 has the door on the left (or port side)
Cees

Not exactly. Roughly the military built ones (C-47, C-53) were lefthanders. Pre-war DC-3’s were quite often righthanders regarding doors. The Li-2 design was based on pre-war DC-3’s imported into Russia, hence the RH-door.