RAAF Boston III Aircraft

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 9/12/2012 at 5:18 PM, Nick Millman said:

Sorry to prolongue this diversion from the main purpose of the thread but Zero paint is something I'm somewhat immersed in (!).

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[Nick Millman]

Thanks Mark. Coincidentally I only blogged about that document in August courtesy of Daniel Cox! Of particular interest is the reference to "new type P40" as "duckegg blue and greenish brown" distinct from Old type P-40 - standard RAF" which suggests perhaps that (some) US P-40 aircraft received in OD over NG were being re-painted with sky blue (?) undersurfaces by the RAAF. It was touched on in the discussion of the light coloured under surface ailerons on RAAF P-40s here some time ago.

Regards

Nick

[David E]

Repainting of the undersides of ex USAAF P40Es in RAAF Sky Blue seems to have been reasonably common - wavy, feathered demarcation at the underside of the engine cowl is a bit of a clue. Mainly done to remove the underwing "U.S. ARMY" title under the wing, supposedly. Surprised at the "duck egg blue" description though.

[Nick Millman]

Google "duck egg blue" in images and you will see how this term is still used for light greyish blues as well as light greenish blues - probably the reason for all that 1940 confusion over Sky too. One man's duck egg blue is another man's sky blue.

[gingerbob]

And I just saw this in the last couple days while looking for something else:

Memo for NZAir Attache from NZAF HQ Wellington 23/9/42

1. In re your memorandum on the above dated 4/4/42, 5 gallons [Haze Paint] have been received and trials have been carried out on a Kittyhawk having the under surfaces treated with this finish.

2. From reports received the Haze Paint was definitely brighter than the present duck egg blue and the outline of the a/c stood out more sharply against the sky. Observations were carried out from the air and it was noticed that when the Haze painted a/c turned away it appeared to reflect the light so that it showed up very bright. The spinner in particular could be seen clearly from a good distance. From this it seems that the duck egg blue at present employed on all operational a/c is definitely superior. Another disadvantage of the Haze Paint is that it has an oil base which results in its drying slowly and increases the difficulty of obtaining a satisfactory finish with it.

3. In view of the above it has been decided not to proceed any further in this mattter.

-HT Grigg, for G/C AF Member for Supply

(Yes, NZ rather than Oz, but still interesting I think.)

bob

[Daniel Cox]

Hi Bob,

Since your looking at Haze paint you probably have already seen this, if you haven't it may be of interest;

National Archives of Australia (Mitchell ACT) Series No: A705 Item No: 62/1/327: 'Haze Paint' for camouflage of aircraft. ALO Washington, 1942 to 1942.

Cheers,

Daniel.

[GPB]

Thanks for posting those pics and the information on the cowlings of the "shoulder winged Beaufighter". Are you aware of any other pics of A28-4 that aren't of it pranged?

Cheers,Daniel.

Also Peter to add to Daniels request do you have any pictures of RAAF A-20G's in flight , I have never seen one, lots of DB-7B's and C's and evan an A but none of the G's in flight.

Daniel and Syd,

Please PM me with your email addresses and I will arrange to send you what I have on RAAF Bostons although it would appear to me that you both have somewhat more than I do.

Daniel, the only shot I have of A28-4 is a shot taken after its crash.Syd, I do have a couple of shots of Gs in flight - rather poor though - taken with the 'Box Brownie'. My shots were copied on 35mm film from the albums of the guys that were on the squadron and lack the clarity of yours, Daniel.

Ed,

not being critical of RedRoo. I only discovered the extra 'oles myself when I pulled out my Boston kits a couple of months back. Next on the bench after I finish the B-25s and Ventura. IIRC, those cowlings were one of Gary's first products, appearing some 10+ years ago. Time for a 10 year anniversary issue incorporating corrections and improvements. There appear to be at least three people here that can help with info!!

Cheers,

Peter M

Hi Peter,

What a super thread this is - this has to be one of the best ever on Britmodeller. I just stumbled into it after Ed told me about it. Outstanding photo and new info on all the holes in the cowls. This really was one of the oldest products in the range, now long gone but if there is enough demand we would attempt to re-work the masters and correct the 'holey' problem. I am not sure if Italeri re-popped the B/C kit. At the moment in Oz the G kit is still around under their banner but the ealier one is very hard to find. Demand for the modified cowls seemed to fade when the B/C kit went out of production under the AMT label. I can't remember any significant surge in sales when Italeri re-issued it, but then again that version came and went quite quickly in Oz.

I think your idea of a 10 year anniversary upgrade re-issue is a good one and we would certainly like to hear from folks if they think it is worthwhile.

Cheers,

Gary

[feropete]

Hello Gary,

You said,

"Demand for the modified cowls seemed to fade when the B/C kit went out of production under the AMT label. I can't remember any significant surge in sales when Italeri re-issued it, but then again that version came and went quite quickly in Oz."

I see your problem - not much sense in wasting time and money producuing a correction kit when the kit for which it is intended is no longer in production. Maybe there are enough peole out there with kits in the stash. In the meantime, for those of us with the original issue, filling the extra 'oles is not a major problem. BTW, I enjoyed your article on the Meteor in Modelart a few issues ago. Interesting how two modellers can form quite different opinions after building the same project.

Cheers,

Peter M

[leyreynolds]

I've been following this topic with some interest. Some 20 odd years ago while researching an article, I spoke with a former member of 22 Sqn, now deceased, who told me that during the time in PNG the squadron had no navigators as their equipment had been removed and replaced with m/g's - of course he may have meant Navigators as opposed to Observers, I didn't ask. He also mentioned that one or more a/c had a m/g fitted in the tailcone. He would surely be classed as a primary source. He also only ever referred to the aircraft as Bostons.

Ley

Edited September 28, 2012 by leyreynolds

[Daniel Cox]

Hi Ley,

Who did you interview, do you still have a transcript of the interview? I and I am sure others would be very interested in this if you are willing to share.

Yes machine guns replaced the glazed and manned nose position the first of these modifications were commenced at Eagle Farm by 3 Aircraft Depot from the 31st of October 1942. Interestingly permission to undertake these modifications had not been sought which resulted in some correspondence regarding this fact.

If you look in Gary Byk or Stewart Wilson's works on Bostons in RAAF service you can find pictures of the tail stinger gun. I also concur that an interview from a participant or witness to a historical event is considered a Primary Source in relation to historical study. It is also not a surprise he refers to the aircraft type as a Boston since that is what it was identified as in Commonwealth service. Clearly documents indicate that various model designations were used where it was relevant to distinguish between the various models of the Boston, which is not in any doubt as far as I am aware.

Anecdotally and off topic as someone who used to command Infantry Sections that rode in the back of M113A1 APC's of 5/7 RAR, 12/16 HRL and 1/15 RNSWL I never once used the term M113A1 or M113. I only ever used the name Bucket to describe the M113 unless I was using the radio and even then I only ever used the appropriate ratel nickname. Although the term bucket was fairly universal I am certain it was never an official designation or descriptor for the type. What service people call things, isn't always what they are officially designated.

Cheers,

Daniel.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Daniel Cox

[Sydhuey]

I know that 6 of the original 22 Bostons had a single tail .303 fitted to the extreme tail , 1 had twin .303's squeezed into the tail and 1 had a .50 in the tail A28-8 DU-J and A28-9 DU-K both had the trial gun fitted as a bit of a scare gun with tracer ammo to scare any fighter away from a stern attack , proven not to be a success or need for the gun so was removed (get rid of unnessassary weight) ( few fighters could keep up with a Boston on low level ops, it is recorded about P-40's having trouble keeping up with Bostons on the deck so Japanese fighters were not a problem).

The RAAF used Observers, in the RAAF an Observer was above a Navigator as an Observer was multi skilled, while a multi crewed aircraft like a B-24 may have specialist crew such as Gunners , Navigators, and Bombadiers, smaller aircraft like the Boston and Beaufighters and Beauforts had Observers, trained in navigation , Radio operatorations, Gunnery and Bomb Aiming, the Bostons before they got there gun noses had 4 man crews, Observer, Pilot, and 2 x Wireless operator /Gunners ( another RAAF multiskill aircrew WAG- Wireless operator Air Gunner) , when the gun noses mod happened the observers were posted out , but an interesting fact when the C model and latter the G model Bostons came to the sqn Observers came back as longer range missions happened one of the WAG's in some aircraft was replaced with a Observer for navigation , and by late 44 most WAG's were posted from the Sqn as RAAF B-24 units were forming and they needed gunners and replaced with Observers as the air threat was considered gone by late 44 and navigation on long missions considered more important , the crews dropped from 3 to 2 as the lower gunner was considered superfluous and many times a photographer was carried instead.

Edited September 1, 2020 by Sydhuey

[feropete]

Hello Syd,

You said: "It is know that 2 of the original 22 Bostons had a single tail .303 fitted to the extreme tail ( some books state 2 guns but trust me you can only fit one in the tail) A28-8 DU-J and A28-9 DU-K both had the trial gun fitted as a bit of a scare gun with tracer ammo to scare any fighter away from a stern attack , proven not to be a success or need for the gun so was removed (get rid of unnessassary weight)"

I can't agree with that statement.

First, more than two aircraft were fitted with the 'scatter gun'. I can see it, (or them - see below), on at least eight Bostons. These are A28-6, -8, -9, -11, -13, -16, -18, -21. It/they are not visible on photos I have of A28-1, -5, -7, -15. They appear to have remained on the aircraft for some time. Or were broom handles or some such fitted to try and fool the enemy?

Second, the photo below shows two guns fitted. The port side gun seem to be mounted slightly forward of the starboard side gun, possibly to allow for ammunition feeds. From what I can interperet from photos this seems to be the standard installation.

Twin machine guns mounted in tail of 22 Squadron Boston

Third, A28-22 was the recipient of what I understand to have been a unique installation. This was a single machine gun, (0.5 cal I was told), on a flexible mount in the tail cone. The tail cone was removed and replaced by a hatch that could be opened. The gunmount was on a rail so that it could be retracted back into the fuselage or moved up to the rear if required.

Flexible gun position in tail cone of A28-22. This photo appears in Stewart Wilson's book as an example of the standard fitting.

A28-22 in flight showing the cut away tail cone. Sorry for the quality, it's the only one I've got.

Syd, Daniel, (and anyone else with info on the Boston 'scatter guns'), I'm interested in your thoughts on this.

Cheers,

Peter M

Edited October 1, 2012 by feropete

[Sydhuey]

Peter, thanks for the correction to my misinformation, never knew the tail gun was fitted to so many aircraft, no mention in any book or record i've seen only mention of the mod to 8(J) and 9(K),madly going thru all my photo's when you look closly at them you can see the gun sticking out the tail (i'd never looked that close at them before), I think it must have been done about the same time as the nose 4 x.50 gun mounts as I can't see it on any of the photos when the a/c still had glass noses ( though the glass nosed versions had up to 3 ball mounts fitted for a .303 freemount in the nose), all the photo's with the tail guns appear to be the Port Moresby time period with solid noses and single letter codes Nov 42 -Jun 43 , by the time the sqn's a/c had the DU code applied (about the move to Goodenough post Jun 43) all the a/c appear to have the tail guns removed. The .50 mod to 22 is something don't know how they did it there is not much room back there with rudder and elevator controls and trim controls, room was at a premium, even the single .303 would be a bit of a fit let alone 2 of them.

A photo of A28-8 "J" with 24 mission marking (mid Apr 43) still shows the tail gun, photo's taken as "DU-J" Jul/Aug 43 show the tail gun gone and a normal tail fairing.

Thanks Peter, you have opened another part of the RAAF Boston history .

Edited October 1, 2012 by Sydhuey

[feropete]

Hello Syd,

My understanding, as related by several ex 22 Sqn members, was that the scatter guns were fitted before the squadron moved to Port Moresby. I think that you are correct in your hypothesis that they were probably installed when the 4 x .50 nose guns mod was done. This was not the sort of mod that could have been easily accomplished at unit level and would have required the higher level of depot maintenance. Since this was essentially a USAAF inspired mod, it raises the question as to whether USAAF aircraft were also fitted with the 'scatter guns'. I also concur that the tail guns seem to have been removed about the time the squadron moved to Kiriwina.

The mod on A28-22 was not a success. As you say there is not much room down aft of the rear compartment. I understand that the gunner lay on his stomach on duckboards fitted across the lower longerons. Even when the gun was run out, he was still some way back inside the fuselage and his view, other than directly to the rear, was severely limited. 'SFA' was how it was decribed to me. The weight of gun, ammunition, and gunner, (some 250+ lbs), also had a major detrimental effect on the CG position, somewhat reducing the aircraft's static margin, (stability), and making it difficult to fly in manouevres.

Cheers,

Peter M

[Sydhuey]

G'day Peter,

I have seen US mods to fit a rearward remote fired .30 to each rear engine nacelle but this was also considered a failure.

I went thru all my 89th BS 3rd BG pictures of there A-20A aircraft, they moded there 30 odd A-20's with the 4 x .50's just before the 22 Sqn machines got done and can not see anything sticking out the tails of them, it may have been a RAAF only mod? As 22 Sqn had a few pilots who flew the Boston in Europe and the Desert they may have pushed for the rear guns on experiance there, Bostons in the mid east operated in the traditional mid level light bombers and had lots of trouble with German fighters, something RAAF Bostons and US A-20's didn't have in the low level strafer mode.

[Troy Smith]

I was going to post in the RAAF  A-20G thread which was recently started, but had a quick search and turned this up. 

 

I remember this vaguely now re-reading this,  was searching for  some information regarding  colours re the old Frog kit, with A28-15 "Spirit of Sport"

 

more here photos here

http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/Boston-A28-15

 

From my quick read,  basically A28-15 was in  the original US Dupont equivalent colours,  but any ideas what was used for painting over the nose glazing? 

 

I note from the above the Frog decals look to have a few glitches

 

 

And I don't even know if the decals will work...I've had the kit stashed since, ... erm, 1978 or 79....  from the days when shops were awash  with end of line stock, IIRC a shop in Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent.

Given my procrastination on 1/48th, some 72nd  fodder to actually build would be good....   

 

cheers

T

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LDSModeller]

Hi Troy,

 

I have the exact same model, though mine has been completed to the point of all the main areas (fuselage/mainpalnes/tailplanes etc) have been added and rescribed. Though looking at it whilst reading your post, I noted during a house move two years ago, it suffered loss of rudder and one horzontal stab (better go look for those!!!)

One thing is the main canopy doesn't fit that well, so either a aftermarket one or, sand and theremo form a new one......

 

To answer your question about the painted over nose glazing, I was/am going to use an WWII RAAF Dark/Foliage Green (early 1943 - Foliage Green should be in use by then).

I seem to remember (though don't trust my memory on this) that the greenhouse may have been painted with an aluminium paint, then Dark Green/Foliage Green paint. Looking at grainy WWII B&W photos, its hard to tell, but check out this photo link where the green paint has worn away - is it clear pexi glass or painted Aluminum?

 

RAAF A28 Boston

 

Regards

 

Alan

 

 

Edited May 6, 2017 by LDSModeller

[Sydhuey]

The DB-7B Boston III's were just the tail end of the Boeing built (AL 347-AL369) and Douglas built (AL887 - AL907) RAF order for 480 Boston III's and are in the std Scheme of Dark Green/Dark Earth over Sky, (look at any RAF Boston near these serials , there are some good colour pictures of them in RAF service), nothing special and not repainted in RAAF service, they stayed in that scheme their whole operational lives, Foliage Green may have been used in a few touch-ups but not a lot, Sky Blue would have probably been applied to underside of aircaft damaged/bellylanded but not repainted from Sky Type S unless needed to for repairs etc. 

A28-15 DU-Q (AL361) was nominally Bill Newtons aircraft but he only ever flew it about 3 times before his loss, it flew a total of approx. 56 missions before loss, it was actually flown most of the time by Flt Lt Wines who took it over and flew it on ops more than 30 times. After Bill Newton was lost the artwork was retained but never finished , the crest on the R/H side is finished representing all things Bill Newton liked, the Tojo head on the L/H side was supposed to have more added but was never finished.

The above photo supposedly of Bill Newton is actually the CO WC Keith Hampshire who flew it on 11 May 43 so that is a possible date for the picture. 

The noses when converted to strafers was just painted over with std DG/DE, initially over the Perspex but the Perspex on some aircraft blew out with the gases and back pressure of 4 x .50's going off in the nose so was replaced with sheet aluminium , you can see alot of bulging on the nose panels as the gases caused the alloy to bulge out.

 

A28-15 Q became DU-Q just before the move to Goodenough Is in Jul 43, all the time in Port Moresby it just had the single letter (36"). Serial at time of single code letter Black , when DU  (Sqn code went to 24" with 3 letter codes)added seials went to Grey , Sqn Codes were supposed to be Sky Blue but comparing the roundel white in photo's looks white (very faded Sky Blue or painted white)

Edited September 1, 2020 by Sydhuey