Dave HomewoodWhere were 488 stationed when these photos were taken ?
Their first European base after crossing the Channel from Bradwell Bay was at Amiens/Glisy, (B.48), in France. After a little while they moved to Gilze Rijen in Holland. The snowy photos here are France. Some of the others are Holland.
Dave HomewoodI’m very glad you like them – here are a few more from round the squadron. Most of these are taken in France and Holland. Read the story for more details. 🙂
I think this collectio was an awesome find, one of the best in my research so far. 488 (NZ) Sqn was a neglected squadron as far as publicity as they were so secret compared with the other NZ squadrons, due to the radar gear. It’s great that the man I had to interview was the man at the top, and had the power to wield his camera at will – and not get in trouble for doing so. A pity he wasn’t in the squadron earlier in their Beaufighter days.
The one with the lovely Mossie under the net, and all the squadron lined up was the final parade of the Sqn in 1945, when it disbanded. I love the shadow pattern, makes it look like German camouflage.
Can anyone work out what the blokes are doing behind Ron (in his shirt, tie and peaked cap) in the photo with the windmill?
Dave HomewoodSorry some of them have come out so large, but they don’t look too bad for 60 year old tiny 3×2 inch box-brownie style snaps.
Here’s a snap that was taken inside. Originally it doesn’t show much as its indoors. But I have also enhanced it, and it shows incredible detail which surprised me, from charts on the crewroom walls to models in the rafters. Very nostalgic indeed.
Dave HomewoodNice pics Mpacha. I like the second one very much.
At least two of the aircraft in Mark12’s photo have glazed noses, indicating they are RB-34 Lexingtons as I understand it – this different nose was the major difference between a PV-1 Ventura and an RB34 Lexington. In some services, including the RNZAF, both types were simply called Ventura to save confusion as they’re so similar otherwise.
Dave HomewoodTouche’ James (if that’s how you spell it)
By the way, little islands? You’d best see if your Oxford University Press does an atlas, and check the size of our little islands against the little islands you live in. They’re not as little as you may think.
What is 30 Seconds?
Dave HomewoodThen perhaps you should visit some of the museums concerned, Dave, and see the state that some of their other exhibits and hangers are in. Also see how much of their limited resources are being taken up assembling, cleaning and maintaining these airframes, to the detriment of every other airframe in their collection.
Then go and look at the state of several of the Vulcans that many museums were keen to get their hands on 20 or so years ago, and at the state of some of the other airframes in the same museums. 🙁
Wouldn’t it have been nice if some of the Concordes could have been used as exchange material. It would be great, for example, to have a Tu-144 as a comparison to Concorde in one of the museums where one is preserved (other than in Germany!), or a Bear at Duxford or Cosford (especially the latter, to provide a valuable counterpoint in their somewhat one-sided ‘Cold War’ exhibit).
Anyway, too late now, as it’s a done deal, and the future managers of the museums concerned will now have to live with the consequences of the acquisitions that have been made. 🙁
Granted Mike I have not visited some of the museums that got the airframes. You may be right that theyll divert attention away from existing projects and cause a further strain on some museums. But I feel putting them into struggling museums is better thqan scraping them. After all airliners are made to be outside, they can certainly be stored outdoors for several years if covered and inhibited right till money is raised to get them inside. The museums don’t necessarily have to down tools and divert eberything to the new arrival, do they? Even the planes that are looking sad like the Vulcans can be brought back to pristine with the right enthusiastic team and funds. Such an effort of storing aircraft for the future even if the moss grows and paint fades is worthwhile. You only have to look at Motat’s Lanc and Solent to understand this, and many other aircraft that have seemed hopeless till the right team got behind their restoration.
As for swapping Concordes for something more interesting, a great idea as they would be desirable outside the country, but someone said here they still belong to BA and ownership won’t be relinquished so I guess this is unfeasable.
Dave HomewoodHarbour is good British English Dave, Harbor is correct American. They have an English language too you know (I’m told that apart from proper nations like Canada and Australia, as well as Scotland) even funny little Islands like New Zealand even have their own Dictionary – Published by Oxford University Press, but what the hell…
I think you’ve completely missed the point I tried to make James – I think, I don’t really get what you wrote above. Yes harbour is the correct English spelling, and yes harbor is the correct US spelling. I’m well aware of this, but Pearl Harbour is incorrect wherever you are because it’s mispelling a place name. That’s all I was trying to say. It irritates me when i see people spell it wrong, even if the correct spelling is not the correct universal English spelling.
Dave HomewoodAndy, that ship was real, not CGI. They built the world’s biggest gantry to do that scene. I guess they installed it backwards.
The film is like a Commando comic. It has no real bearing of history and was aimed at the dumbed down teenage market. Despite all the stuff the makers said beforehand about the film’s impoortance and their striving to make it the definitive accurate account they failed miserably. And it had a very bad script, bad actors, and a bad director.
The planes were nice though.
Dave HomewoodGorgeous photo, thanks Steve and Robin
Dave HomewoodCheers Denys. So they’re Lexingtons. Anyone know what became of them?
Nice shots Peter. What’s the future for that Ventura? Flight or static?
How many Venturas and Lexingtons are left in the world? Are any being restored to fly?
Dave HomewoodI have Tora, Tora Tora on tape. Yes, it is a million miles better, and at least it is very close to the truth, unlike ‘Girl Harbor’.
There is indeed some good flying scenes in the modern film, if all to brief and somewhat computer generated. It’s on TV right now, and they just played the ‘chicken’ scene at the beginning. Was that real flying by two good pilots or just very good cgi? It looked too dangerous to be real.
I think the film suffers most from its very poor editing. If they edited out all the actors and storyline, leaving just the aerial action, it would be much, much better.
By the way, is it true this film was released in the UK under the title ‘Pearl Harbour’? The word may be spelled wrong in the USA but it’s a place name, not just a word, so it should be billed as Harbor. The only reason I can see the Brits retitling it with the correct word spelling but incorrect geographical word is to pee off the Americans. In the circumstances of this film though, good on them!
Got to go, I am sure the bit where Americans win the Battle of Britain is coming up soon. :rolleyes: 😉
Dave HomewoodMark, these do look like Hudsons but it’s hard to tell. They’re either Hudsons or RB-34 Lexingtons I think (which was the Army version of the Ventura, but the nose doesn’t looked stretched enough.) As I say, it’s very hard to tell.
Anyone have a better idea? Did the SAAF use Lexingtons? I am sure they used Hudsons.
Dave HomewoodSorry everyone, when I originally posted the item about the Concorde petition, I really didn’t mean to cause all this controversy and falling out between members. I never realised there is so much ill feeling and agression with some people over the retirement of this airliner.
As far as I’m concerned it was a technically advanced aircraft in its time, and seems to have a special place in some people’s hearts. But it had come to, or near to, the end of its useful life and like almost all airliners was bound to be grounded at some point. Especially when safety issues began to compromise it. After all, remember the people who used these planes, the extremely wealthy, they are not likely to want to fly Concorde if bits continued to drop off them, etc.
I do find it disturbing how many people here call them white elephants or millstones round the necks of museums. For goodness sake, you’d all be up in arms if they’d simply scrapped them, like most other grounded airliners, but when BA makes an attempt to preserve their fleet in reputable musuems, you, still winge and moan. Hey, it’s grounded, they’re in museums, they ain’t all being scrapped, they won’t fly again in this era of preservation, get over it.
Dave Homewoodbump – still looking for this article if anyone can assist please
Dave HomewoodCheers Andy. Yes, I agree that it was probably the helmet that caused premature hair loss. Wearing a hat all the time is not good, and of course they had no shampoo and little soap, etc, so that can’t have helped the folacles.
I read in one of my RNZAF books of how the Pacific men got used to shaving their hair off or cropping it really short for comfort. This was a problem only if they were sent home to NZ without much notice to grow it back, because in society then a close shaven head was a social no-no, as it meant you’ve probably just got out of prison. I guess that stigma began to wear off as the war progressed and people realised they were returned servicemen, but it was apparently quite an awkward embarrassment for the airmen at one stage.
Also they went bright yellow-orange all over in hue due to the anti-malaria tablets. A lady I know told me her husband stayed that colour for years after the war, and she hated it because the colour seaped out of the skin’s pores onto bedsheets and white shirts. Most of them ended up contracting Malaria in the end too, it didn’t really help. Did they have to take such tablets in the desert or Med area?
Yep, war is hell.
Sign In
