Thinking bigger guys -the IWM was given an A-10 – F-111 -U-2 -Huey- F-15 amongst other things from the U.S government.

The actual pounds,shillings and pence of the deal is irrelevant when the Liberator is effectively a memorial.

As I understand there are the following basic survivors

USA
B24A CAF* (flying)
B24A Whittington (stored wreck)
B24D USAFM
B24D Atka Alaska (insitu intact wreck)
B24D Hill AFB Museum (composite restoration)
B24M Castle AFB
B24J Collings* (flying)
B24J Pima
B24J Weeks
B24J Barkdale

CANADA
B24J Rockcliffe

INDIA
B24J Poona

AUSTRALIA
B24M Werribee

UK
B24L RAFM (RAF a/c)
B24M AAM Duxford (USAF a/c)

ie out of the 15 current survivors, 8 ie more than 1/2 are still on display in museums in the USA.

I would have thought as a memorial to American aircrews serving in B24’s in the European war theatre that transferring one from outside display in the US to the UK for restoration and indoor display in US markings is an excellent outcome and serving a totally different purpose to the only other B-24 in Europe being the RAF Museums Liberator IV in RAF markings reflecting service in the far east.

I suspect it is far better protected in Duxford compared to Lackland Texas, I am sure far more people see it, and those people are better reminded of the debt owed by Europe to the USA and those who flew such aircraft to help liberate them.

It is far more fitting that such a internationally important memorial to American airmen is undertaken with real airframes than fibreglass mockups, the reverse is true of gate guardian duties in an outdoor display.

The USAF has a significant number of aircraft on external display at USAF Base “museums” and clearly not all of these will be provided with undercover display outcomes in their current locations and risk being lost if otherwise simply left outside indefinately and the time will come when hard decisions will need to be made in regard to rare WW2 and other types within those external displays, the recent scrapping of a B52 in the US being but one example.

Surely it is better to put efforts to ensure the long term future and maximum survival of US B-24s by transfer of the outdoor Castle B24M to the NASM and ensure the outdoor Barkdale B24J goes under cover at Barkdale as against complaining about the move of the outdoor Lackland B24M to undercover display at Duxford, given the horse has bolted and seemed the best outcome in anycase?

regards

Mark Pilkington

QUOTE=D1566;1862821]I seem to remember reading somewhere that only two RAAF Beauforts were lost in air to air combat; one shot down by a Ki45 and the other by a B24 (!) Anyone confirm or disprove this?[/QUOTE]

The first DAP Beaufort flew in August 1941, and was one of a batch of 180 ordered by the RAF for use in the Far East, but when Japan entered the war in December 1941, it was agreed that all Beauforts would be taken over by the RAAF for the defence of Australia,becoming its most successful and important medium bomber.

The first 50 examples built in Australia were designated as Beaufort mark V aircraft, differing from the Bristol Beaufort mark I built in the UK due to the installation of Australian built, American designed Pratt and Whitney engines, but with the Bristol B4 mk1E turret, and an aft firing cupola gun fitted under the nose. The remainder of the first 180 examples ordered for the RAF were finished as mark VI, VII and VA models, with various differences to the original mark V aircraft such as an extended fin, addition of two guns fitted in gimbles in the nose, deletion of the under nose cupola gun and variations in propellor and engine fitouts.

The definitive Australian Mark VIII Beaufort was the most numerous built, with 520 examples numbered from A9-181 to A9-700, and fitted with a new Bristol B1 mark V dorsal turret and later the B1 mark VE, they had a significantly different rear fuselage shape to accomodate the higher mounting of the later turrets.

When production ceased in August 1944, a total of 700 Beauforts had been built. These aircraft served with numerous squadrons including Nos 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 32, and 100 and established an impressive operational record in operations against Japanese forces in New Guinea. They attacked shipping in all areas of the South-West Pacific and sank cruisers, destroyers and submarines, as well as bombing and strafing inland supply dumps and troops. They were also used for routine convoy protection and coastal reconnaissance.

Most of the Beauforts were phased out of service soon after the war, and today only three remain in various condition in Australia, with one being rebuilt to fly in Queensland and another in storage with the AWM, while another two exist in overseas collections.

I have been reading the book “Song of the Beauforts”, which is the history of the first of those 10 operational squadrons, RAAF 100 Squadron which was formed in 1942 from the remanents of the RAF 100 Squadron Q Flight which had received the first Australian built Beauforts.

The book does mention the liberator incident along with two other aerial engagements, there is no mention of any aircraft being confirmed down by enemy aircraft fire, but of course some aircraft went missing without details of the cause, and this is the experience of only one of ten operational squadrons, however the book does raise the possibility that A9-188 was lost to a night fighter during a night raid on 20 May 1943.

During a search for the lost aircraft the next day remains of the aircraft were spotted by the crew of A9-191 about 1/2 a mile of the coast of New Britain and at the same time 6 zeros were seen rising from the nearby Gasmata airstrip, resulting in a half hour closing chase until the zeros’ broke off due to apparant low fuel.

On 12 July 1943, a 100 Sqn aircraft A9-225, operating from Milne Bay was patrolling the Solomon Sea between Bougianville and New Britain when it approached a USN PB4Y Liberator.

It is remarked elsewhere in the book that the twin engined Beaufort had a passing resemblance to the Japanese twin engined Betty bomber.

The USN report into the incident claimed both aircraft fired at each other, but in anycase the Beaufort was shot down and the USN Captain was able to identify the ditched aircraft and downed crew as “friendly” and dropped a raft and lifejackets and reported their position.

Despite searches by 100 Squadron the dingy was not located due to weather until 26 days later on 6 August 1943, some 93 nautical miles from the ditching location when it was briefly spotted through a break in the cloud with 3 of the 4 crew still visible, however it was never again sighted and rumours persisted of the dingy making it to a Japanese held island near New Ireland and the survivors being beheaded.

Other aerial encounters include A9-208 on 20 July 1943 while patrolling in the same area as the aircraft above came across an enemy convoy consisting of a Carrier, three Cruisers and five Destroyers and was challenged by 3 Zekes.

After transmitting position of the convoy the Beaufort turned to base trying to outrun the Zekes but was subject to a closing attack from the rear. One Zeke was damaged with visible smoke pouring from it and broke off the engagement while the other two pursued the Beaufort which took violent evasive action and headed for a lonely cloud, where it evaded the pursuing zekes for 20 minutes. On return to base it had lost part of the tailplane and had 64 other bullet holes.

A much earlier and more surprising account is provided in the book of A9-38 encountering three enemy fighters while commencing a run on a destroyer in a convoy off New Britain on 1 December 1942.

The crew had earlier heard the mayday call of a B-17 as it was attacked and shot down by zeros and wondered what chance a Beaufort would have?

The Beaufort has a crew of 4, the pilot, who has access to the two wing guns, in this early aircraft they would be 0.303 brownings, the Bombaimer who had access to two 0.303 Vickers guns in the nose gimbles and a single 0.303 Vickers gun in the aft firing undergun. The Navigator had access to two 0.303 Vickers guns one each operating through beam hatches, and the wireless air gunner in the turret, this early aircraft would have had twin 0.303 Vickers guns in the turret.

The 3 zeros flew along the port side the Beaufort just as the Navigator opened his beam hatch, one Japanese pilot 40 yards away had an amazed look on his face and then all three raced ahead, the Beaufort pilot headed for a cloud while the zeros turned for an attack head on. The Navigator fired at the incoming aircraft from the nose and the turret fired at them as they returned for a beam attack, one aircraft was hit by fire from the turret while a second was hit by fire from one of the beam guns, resulting in two destroyed and the third breaking off the attack, remarkably there was no damage to the Beaufort.

While the Beaufort was slower than the other medium bombers in the Pacific theatre such as the B-25 and the A-20 Boston, the crews considered it more maneuverable than both.

I suspect there may be more Beauforts lost to enemy aircraft in the stories of the other 9 operational squadrons but I cant find evidence of any others in the book on the RAAF 100 Squadron.

Much maligned due to early losses from trim tab failure and a mixed performance as a Torpedo Bomber in the Pacific due to rushed training and failures of the American sourced torpedos, the Beaufort never the less performed very well overall in the Pacific in anti shipping, low level bombing and army support.

Beauforts participated in the defence of Milne Bay, the Battle of the Bismark Sea and numerous attacks on the Japanese stronghold of Rabaul, they were the backbone of RAAF bomber squadrons until arrival of the B-24 in RAAF service.

Beauforts undertook the first and last attacks by an Australian made aircraft and noted british aviation writer William Green wrote of the Beaufort, “This bomber’s part in the defeat of the Japanese forces in the Southwest Pacific was probably of greater significance than any other single aircraft type in the RAAF”.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Is it not the case that your first and sixth pictures above show the twin-gun “angular” FN.54 installation? (but from the side, so the second barrel is obscured) All the other pictures presumably show the “earlier” blister mounting?

For what it’s worth, one of the options on the ancient Airfix model kit of the Blenheim IV is an angular under-nose turret similar to that in your first picture, with twin guns. Is this the FN.54 again?

The last picture is definitely Blenheim V, which as I understand it had a totally redesigned nose with a totally new rear-facing gun mounting.

I’m not an expert on Blenheims or FN Turrets so I wasnt willing to make definitive statements about the first and sixth pictures but they did seem to me to be different to the other “blister” type installations and yes personally I did wonder if they were the angular FN54, however I was hoping the photos and debate might encourage more expertise and information to be provided.

It would seem from Air Ministry’s very detailed post that the Blenheim V also had the FN54 or FN54A, but with a large fairing forward of the turret itself, and from his excellent drawings and details from various manuals he has confirmed my suspicions that the single gun blister “under-defence gun” were an in house Bristol design, perhaps slightly different in their Blenheim and Beaufort implementations depending on the size/shape of the parachute escape hatch?

regards

Mark Pilkington

The Bristol Blenheim IV and the Beaufort I and V all had the undercupola remotely controlled, often described as a rear facing Frasier Nash FN-54 or FN-54A “Chin Turret”, although I have seperately read that it is a Bristol own design and built turret.

The turret was permanently rear facing, operated by the Navigator and aimed via a periscope.

The Frazer-Nash FN.54 and FN.54A turrets were jettisonable in the event of an emergency allowing the crew to use the lower fuselage emergency escape hatch.

1 × 7.7 mm (0.303 in) Browning trainable rearward-firing machine-gun in a remotely controlled Frazer-Nash FN.54 chin turret,

or

2 × 7.7 mm (0.303 in) Browning trainable rearward-firing machine-guns in a remotely controlled Frazer-Nash FN.54A chin turret. The turret could rotate 20 degrees to either side with a depression of 17 degrees.

http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Bristol%20Blenheim.htm

regards

Mark Pilkington

.
Maybe when they couldnt get the engines they wanted for it they just fitted some cheap war surplus radials and flogged it off to a DH subsidiary in some South American banana republic somewhere?

smiles

Mark Pilkington

more details here> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.Ae._24_Calquin

I personally was happy to see this thread get locked, it was being dominated by an irrelevent debate over the merits and viability of constructing a “Metal Mosquito” , somewhat an “oxymoron” which seems a very pointless exercise from an aviation heritage point of view?, and something I couldnt see “ever getting off the ground” or certainly not gaining any donations from myself.

There are active airworthy wooden Mosquito projects already underway that prove it can be achieved with the relevent source of parts, expertise and funding, equally there are active “recreation” static projects to bring back from extinction the DH Hornet, AS Whitley and Short Stirling.

None of these projects seem to attract the opposition this proposal seems to be receiving?, despite some of the work ahead, even for static outcomes.

The 13 have put their money where their mouth is and formed a website to seek and gauge support to the proposal.

“IF” the 13 can become 1,300 or 13,000, and raise a relevent level of funds between them and beyond that from public donations, acquire a project set of parts (from the US/Swedish holdings?) and access the NZ expertise, then it would all seem possible, even if currently not considered probable?

But I would agree with Stan,

if someone doesnt “Dream it”, it will never “get off the ground”.

Good luck to them!

regards

Mark Pilkington