Whereas there is an ex FAA Avenger in a museum’s reserve collection, in America? ;o)
The wartime differences between a USN and an FAA Avenger were minimal as far as can be told – there was an observer’s station behind the pilot’s seat (the ‘different seating’ of above?), the observer’s windows in the sides of the fuselage were bulged and there was ‘British equipment’. The post war (1950’s) deliveries did not have bulged windows, as far as I can see.

Found a history of Tarpon FN859 (and it is a Tarpon – it was delivered before Jan 1944)

The National Air & Space Museum’s aircraft, Bureau of Aeronautics Number (BuNo) 24085, was constructed as a TBF-1 and was part of the fourth batch of TBFs manufactured. The aircraft was one of the first 200 Avengers delivered to the British, who called them Tarpons, and was assigned the number FN 859. The museum’s Tarpon was delivered to the British at Quonset Point, Rhode Island, on June 8, 1943. The standard British modifications were probably carried out at this time.
The subsequent wartime history of BuNo 24085 is somewhat vague because of a lack of documentation in both the U.S. and Britain. We know that the aircraft served with No.738 Squadron of the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm, and it moved with this squadron to Lewiston, Maine, on July 31, 1943. No 738 was a training squadron and the museum’s aircraft appears to have served in that role throughout the war. Besides mention of a landing accident in October 1943, however, there is no further information on its wartime service.
No. 738 Squadron was disbanded in July 1945 and BuNo 24085 was accepted by the U.S. Navy at Norfolk Naval Air Station on July 2, 1945. After being assigned to the general aircraft pool at Norfolk, the museum’s aircraft was moved to Patuxent River NAS for service tests in December. A year later, in November 1946, BuNo 24085 was stricken from the list of active aircraft. From that time, until the museum acquired the aircraft in 1960, nothing is known. The aircraft probably served as a “gate guardian” during this period.
The physical evidence of BuNo 24085 leaves as many unanswered questions as the written record. The data plate lists the aircraft as a TBF-1 and it bears the bulged observer windows, which are the most obvious mark of the British modifications. The British roundels can also be seen under the U.S. markings. The mounts for the early .30 caliber nose gun are present but the weapon is missing and the gun trough in the cowling has been faired over. The aircraft also has the radio equipment in the station behind the pilot, which was a feature of the TBM-1C. The British, on the other hand, kept a navigator position, even on the later models.
One of the biggest mysteries is what happened to the aircraft’s wings. The wings, from the folding joint outwards, are from two separate aircraft. The port wing is from a TBM-1C with the mounts for the .50 cal. machine guns still present, even though the position has been faired over. The starboard wing is from a TBM-3J model. The yellow paint and squadron code showing through the topcoat of blue, identify this as a wing from an Avenger used as a utility aircraft. Detail differences, such as antennas, also differ between the two wings. Whether these wings were added in squadron use, as part of the service test at Patuxent River, or simply to make a complete aircraft for gate guardian duties is not known at this time.

http://collections.si.edu/search/results.htm?q=record_ID:nasm_A19610117000

And here is a picture of this Tarpon.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]249770[/ATTACH]
Photographed at NASM’s Paul E. Garber Restoration and Storage Facility, Suitland, Maryland, USA, 1990, by Ron Dupas
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Garber/748.htm

But enough of that.

Lee Howard – is Tiger Moth XL717 still stored, masquerading as G-ABUL? Another disgrace…

If the Smithsonian has an ex FAA Avenger in store then could a deal / swap be arranged with something that the FAAM does have ? Does Smithsonian have a Swordfish ? How many Swordfish do the FAAM / Historic Flight have at least four I think ?
The IWM Duxford Avenger was taken out of the American Air Museum last year. Whilst I understand that airframe is not an original FAA aircraft is it a better representation than the FAAM current aircraft ?

No. The FAAM’s current Avenger is perfect for representing what it is – an ECM.6 which served in the 1950s, not a MkI or II (or vaguely a III) which served in WWII.
The problem with swapping airframes is probably deciding their worth – for example, how many Avengers for a Spitfire? – and, to an American organisation an Avenger, built by a US company and used by the US Navy (which is probable since it doesn’t appear to have any UK service), is unlikely to be worth a one-to-one swap for some ‘old biplane’ with little American attraction (in addition to which there are several Canadian airframes which might be more available without needing to be transported over the Atlantic – again!) to them, although with the Taranto raid as a precursor to Pearl Harbour there would be plenty of associated history. Maybe it should be, in this case, find out what the Smithsonian is interested in…

Dear me. I think many on this post need to go away and do some swotting up on FAA squadron history before posting comments and also stop listening to/repeating unsubstantiated tittle-tattle from un-named sources. Ref 849 NAS, the unit flew Avengers as part of the British Pacific Fleet in 1945, long before the concept of AEW.

Think that was just a mistake – dark blue Avenger, as was, for a dark blue Skyraider.

RNHF have three Swordfish, none of which are up for disposal. And the FAAM’s example, KB446, is the sole surviving original Lend-Lease Fleet Air Arm Avenger – anywhere. It was a miracle that it survived long enough to be around when the Museum first opened.

(Psst – it is actually XB446…) And is it really a lend-lease aircraft? Thought that was WWII – more likely supplied under MDAP (Mutual Defense Assistance Act) or MAP (Military Assistance Program) which differed from the previous scheme in that there was no lease so nothing to pay back!

Yes, the paint scheme is horrible; no it isn’t correct for the mark; yes I’d love to see it reverted back to its original Culdrose Station Flight markings. But be thankful in the meantime that it is still safely on display when so many other types had a less fortunate fate.

Not horrible, just inappropriate. Yes it has survived, but it has had over 22 years of the wrong colour scheme – for a garden party, no less – which sort of gives the impression of not being cared for.

And as for ‘clueless museum curators’, don’t you think that comment is a bit harsh and un-warranted?

The info my source gave me and the statement from the guy on Britmodeller (who doesn’t sound like the chap I originally talked to, an old chap called either Gareth or Garth [my handwriting is near illegible, but the surname I’ll withhold], who worked from a studio in his garage at his home in a village, whose name I couldn’t pronounce, near Tonypandy, Wales. He was a technical artist who was also an impressive painter of warships and naval aircraft; I only went to his place once, to discuss a project we were involved in, saw some of his artwork, we got talking and he had a thing for the post war Avenger – I can’t find any trace of him on the internet…but who knows?) appear similar.
Maybe someone from the museum shot their mouth off about a pipedream of getting a turret for the Avenger, maybe somebody in authority thought an Avenger is an Avenger is an Avenger and theirs was just missing the turret rather than having been in service without it. There are more than enough ‘horror’ stories of things being proposed by ‘forward thinking’ museum management, eager to increase footfall, which have little to do with the traditional workings of a museum as we know it.

Mr Howard – are you in a position of authority with the FAAM that you are able to confirm that the Avenger has not been the subject of thoughts of a rebuild it to something a little more ‘turrety‘? I doubt it myself, but if you look at the Wellington thread concerning turning it from a T.10 navigation trainer without a turret to a more ‘representative’ bomber, then you can see that the possibility can be entertained…so we just need to know.