RAAF Boston III Aircraft

[Daniel Cox]

Hi All,

Although the following images are often published it can't hurt to post them here since they are relevant to the discussion.

Shown below is a Douglas in Santa Monica, California built A-20C-1-DO Havoc which was ostensibly built for delivery to the British Royal Air Force as a Boston III aircraft as part of the Lend-Lease Scheme. This aircraft is either 42-33335 or 41-19335 and was photographed by Alfred T. Palmer of the U.S. Office of War Information at Langley Field, Virginia, during July of 1942.

1A34949 0

1A34949 1

1A34949 3

1A34949 2

1A35091 0

1A35091 1

1A35091 3

1A35091 2

5400 pixel wide and larger versions of the images shown above can be found here.

Cheers,

Daniel.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Daniel Cox

[pacificmustang]

Daniel, this is a fascinating thread, have learnt quite a bit.

Impressed by the amount of time you obviously have devoted to each post

David, welcome to BM!!! Have been spending most of my time here for some time now and find it a great forum, the amount of knowledge from some people on their chosen subject blows me away, usually backed up by contempory photos too,

Paint colours seem to be a particular favourite!!

With regards to Peter, you are right, for years he has argueably been the leading researcher on RAAF SWPA colours, but there wiil always be room for other researchers to challenge what we have accepted before as more research comes to light

Bruce

Edited September 5, 2012 by pacificmustang

[Nick Millman]

I don't know whether Boeing used Dupont paints but the appearance of the colours in the superb photos posted by Daniel are consistent with that and should steer people away from some of the more fanciful ideas about "equivalents". The Douglas built aircraft used Fuller enamels and the undersurface paint was specified as Fuller TL-8715 Blue (Duck Egg). I don't know whether that is the "pastel blue" identified by Ian K Baker and which is compared to FS 35526 or 35414 in the Red Roo book as I have not been able to find a chart, swatch or sample of it.

As to the Red Roo book it is an excellent reference for modelling the Boston but the colour material has not benefited from recent discoveries. Thus for example Dupont 71-021 is likened to MAP Sky Grey and shown as a definite grey - almost Neutral Grey - in the book's profile colour key. It is not mentioned at all in the colour table. 71-021 was closer to Sky than Sky Grey and the nearest FS value is 25622. Some people keep describing it as a "greyer" version of Sky but it is more correctly a paler and cooler variant that some might perceive as slightly blue-green dependent upon illumination. It is still Munsell GY (Green Yellow) - approx 10 GY 8/1 whereas MAP Sky is 2.5 GY 7/1 - darker and greener.

Dupont 71-065 is not Dark Earth but Deep Sky Blue! Dupont Dark Earth was 71-009 and 71-035, the two paint colours, lighter and darker, originally being intended for use with the temperate and desert schemes. It is apparent that this was not strictly adhered to and that they were used interchangeably in some production circumstances. Eventually 71-009 was discontinued and 71-035 was standardised. 71-035 is not similar to FS 30118 but is closer to FS 26120 which is a little darker and more chocolate in appearance. 71-009 is very close to FS 30145.

71-013 is not close to FS 34092. That is like a washed out, greyed out, desaturated version of the colour which makes me suspect the match was made with a degraded and chalked paint surface. Dupont Dark Green is closer to FS 14056. It is darker and less olive than MAP Dark Green, being a more rich "forest" green.

Here are the difference calculations where 2.0 or less = a close match

71-021 vs MAP Sky @ 7.78

71-021 vs MAP Sky Grey @ 11.8

71-021 vs FS 25622 @ 1.50

71-009 vs MAP Dark Earth @ 6.18

71-009 vs FS 30145 @ 1.62

71-009 vs FS 30118 @ 6.25

71-035 vs MAP Dark Earth @ 9.84

71-035 vs FS 26120 @ 2.73

71-035 vs FS 30118 @ 11.0

71-013 vs MAP Dark Green @ 10.7

71-013 vs FS 14056 @ 0.87

71-013 vs FS 34092 @ 12.9

I have a view from the pigments used, but no hard evidence, that the darker, richer upper surface colours were possibly selected because of the known tendency for the MAP paints to chalk and fade badly. A report from the Air Member for Engineering and Maintenance, RAAF, sent to London in early 1945 touches on this:-

"It is also desired to mention the fact that in this theatre (e.g. SWPA), the MAP standard aircraft camouflage colours do not stand up to exposure. The so-called dark colours e.g. green and brown, chalk heavily and change colour markedly. The reduced colours such as the greys, which were once used for sea camouflage, chalk very heavily, whilst a colour like sky blue turns white within a month. The basic colours used here are foliage green and earth brown (now obsolete). These colours are pure pigments with an absolute minimum of white pigment for correct matching, and have proved to be more than satisfactory in regard to performance and colour retention."

This report also challenges the prevalent idea that RAAF Foliage Green originated from US Medium Green. Having been able to examine both thanks to the kindness of an Australian correspondent they are not similar.

Three other aspects come into the consideration of Boston colours. The first is scale colour where lighter, de-saturated colours are used by modellers to suggest scale. The second is modelling conventions where specific hobby paints become enshrined as the paint to represent a particular historical colour, not always appropriately. The third is paint colour comparison sites where the "matches" are unqualified and no indication is given as to how they have been determined. Having examined some of these colour call outs there is both inaccuracy and inconsistency where the FS values cited are not the closest and where multiple alternatives are not just variants but entirely different colours. These are all pitfalls for the unwary.

I should add that there seems to be a lot of difficulty over the amount of green in some of the FS values given for duck egg blues and sky blues. The pale blue-green colour space is prone to differing perceptions, either towards light blue or light green and often a green element can creep into the perception and comparison of light blues and light blue-greys that isn't really there, especially when colour photos are being used. Coincidentally this also arises with matches given for the French gris bleu clair which was a pure, bright blue-grey (like the name on the tin) with no element of green and yet FS matches are repeatedly given which are pale blue-greens.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Nick Millman

[David E]

Daniel, I don't know if I've run over your cat without knowing, or you've just had a crap day but man, lighten up! All I said was a/ I couldn't find Peter's post (thanks Ed) and b/ context is important (as someone who does as much homework as youalready knows - yes, appreciate your work on ADF serials and elsewhere). And again, thanks to Ed for explaining your thread, as you seem to be too busy being offended, defending yourself and apparently reading things that aren't there.

I thought that AMI got bad on occasions but this is freaking ridiculous.

Impressive primary research and good on you for sharing, by the way.

[Sydhuey]

Nick, has just reinforced what has been known for a long time the actual tints of paint on Aircraft Like the Boston painted to a British spec with American paint is a big grey area, to me matching paints to known paint samples is better than just quoting a paint spec, look at the colour photo's put up by Daniel of a US Based Boston painted to British spec , compare these to the photo's I posted of the original panels from DU-J ,A28-8 and compare to the restored A28-8 which was painted to a paint spec not colour matching, I does not look right, paint colour is always a contentious issue, I have painted quite afew aircraft over the years and no two aircraft are the same unless they are painted with the same batch at the same time, I have worked on C-130H's in Australia and have had 5-6 Hercs side by side with the age of paint jobs between new and 5 years old , they are all in the same colours but the colour differances are amazing, have also seen UH-1's one in Townsville (tropic area) and one in Canberra (cool climate) both were painted as same time but when the two machines were together 18 months later you would not thing they were the same spec colours, I am always amused about people who jump on people who paint models and say no thats wrong , blah ,blah,etc, to me unless a colour is radicaly differant to known photo's /info of a paint scheme , the aircraft at some time in its life probably looked like this, as I said I'm an aircraft engineer and have painted aircraft anything within a couple shades lighter or darker than a set shade is close enough for me. Just my opinion on colours.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Sydhuey

[Sydhuey]

CDK,

the interior colour in A28-8 (DB-7B Boston III) was colour matched to the existing paint in the fuselage (excellent un faded samples were removed for colour matching from inside the fuselage), these aircraft were from the RAF order for 480 Bostons (taken over from the French)I am not sure of the spec or name of the actual colour but it is a very accurate duplication of the interior colour, the A-20G's ( I think we had about 6 airframes at Amberley were all in the std American spec Interior green), this aircraft (DB-7B) were painted to british requirement/specs and this aircraft is the only DB-7B (Boston III) restored in the world , though DB-7B, DB-7C(yes one of the mystical Dutch machines) and A-20C's have been found in Russia, hopefully info and photo's will eventualy emerge of these aircraft. regards Syd.

[Daniel Cox]

Daniel, I don't know if I've run over your cat without knowing, or you've just had a crap day but man, lighten up! All I said was a/ I couldn't find Peter's post (thanks Ed) and b/ context is important (as someone who does as much homework as youalready knows - yes, appreciate your work on ADF serials and elsewhere). And again, thanks to Ed for explaining your thread, as you seem to be too busy being offended, defending yourself and apparently reading things that aren't there.

I thought that AMI got bad on occasions but this is freaking ridiculous.

Hi David,

I have been/am crook as a dog at the moment which is no excuse of course, anyway I though you took offence regarding my post which as you say you didn't therefore I am wrong so I would like to say I am sorry for my response which was uncalled for, Britmodeller isn't at fault it's my mistake not anyone else's.

Cheers,

Daniel.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Daniel Cox

[Terry McGrady]

Very interesting and informative info Daniel. Thank you very much for your time and effort

Great to see some primary research.

Cheers

Terry McGrady

[Daniel Cox]

Hi All,

I don't know if anyone else finds this but I can't determine if Boston IIIA or III is appropriate for AL893, A28-4 and also the same applies with the A-20C-1-DO Havoc shown above which is either 42-33335 or 41-19335 and was intended for RAF service as a Boston IIIA or III before the US claimed it. I find conflicting descriptions that lead me to doubt whether my using the term IIIA is appropriate for A28-4 where even the RAAF uses at various times IIIA or III?

Cheers,

Daniel.

[Sydhuey]

Daniel ,

I believe all the DB-7B's Douglas and Boeing built are Boston III's ,later A-20C's are Boston IIIA's.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Sydhuey

[Daniel Cox]

Hi Syd,

I think the paint specs are important for they provide at least a starting point in understanding the colours that said there are enumerate factors that are involved with how a painted object appears from the way it was prepared and or applied the environment it has been and is in to the lighting conditions and the observer amongst many others. Do you know if those original skin panels are still around, or have they been disposed of?

Cheers,

Daniel.

[Daniel Cox]

Hi Syd,

Thats how I understand it I thought the IIIA was the Boeing product, it should be a Boston III yet has been called a IIIA on various original documents at the time.

Cheers,

Daniel.

P.S. Thanks Syd, Ed, David, Nick, Bruce, Terry, Claus, Peter and all.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Daniel Cox

[Sydhuey]

the rear fuselage skins (L/H and R/H) are in storage at the Amberley Heritage centre, it is hoped to have them mounted with the photos of the various roundels as well to show the various roundel configurations applied to the Aircraft, the original skin with the bomb log is at the RAAF museum , thats why I find it strange they were painted Yellow when the original (badly faded but still obviously green) was on hand.

[Nick Millman]

CDK,

the interior colour in A28-8 (DB-7B Boston III) was colour matched to the existing paint in the fuselage (excellent un faded samples were removed for colour matching from inside the fuselage), these aircraft were from the RAF order for 480 Bostons (taken over from the French)I am not sure of the spec or name of the actual colour but it is a very accurate duplication of the interior colour, the A-20G's ( I think we had about 6 airframes at Amberley were all in the std American spec Interior green), this aircraft (DB-7B) were painted to british requirement/specs and this aircraft is the only DB-7B (Boston III) restored in the world , though DB-7B, DB-7C(yes one of the mystical Dutch machines) and A-20C's have been found in Russia, hopefully info and photo's will eventualy emerge of these aircraft. regards Syd.

FWIW Dupont 71-036 was 'Cockpit Light Green' and was intended to match the RAF requirement for cockpit interior colour.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Nick Millman

[Daniel Cox]

Hi All,

Here are some more pics from 20 July 1942;

By the way for those interested in such things the tractor appears to be a Massey Harris, Pacemaker Tractor

Cheers,

Daniel.

[cdk]

Hello Sidhuey and Nick,

thank's a lot for the interior colour information. From colour pic's of the restored machine I have also presumed a colour like 71-036. In the book from Scott Thompson - Douglas Havoc and Boston The DB7/A20 Series - is a facsimile from a exterior paint diagram. All exterior colours are from Fuller. Interior colours are not listed. The Boston on the Diagram had a serial W8252 for a Douglas built Boston III.

To my mind the Interior for a Boston III built by Douglas can be the 71-036 paint or a similar colour from Fuller or someone else. I am not sure what Boeing was doing. The serial from the Boston in post #26 can also AL335. In this case it is a Boeing built Boston III and the entrace hatch for the bombadier looks like US interior green.

The Interior for a A20-C / Boston IIIA is in some sort of US Interior Green.

Claus

Claus

[Nick Millman]

Thanks for that. I know the diagram you refer to but I'm afraid my post transposed the manufacturers and attributed Fuller to Boeing! I'll amend it!

[feropete]

Hello Daniel,

I have been following this topic. I'd like to thank you for starting it, and Sydhuey and the others that have contributed to it. I have deliberately refrained from entering the discussion as I did not want to create dissension by replying to your attack on me. However your recent post forces me to add some views of my own. These are given below in italics.

You wrote:

“Mr. Malone made claims that were factually incorrect I felt it was worth addressing I also felt in addressing it I could also share with you and others some information about A28-4 and its use by the RAAF hence a new thread.”

Thanks for the info you posted on A28-4.

My 'claims', as you chose to call them, were made in the context of an earlier thread which was a general discussion about USAAF and, (to a lesser extent), RAAF Havocs and Bostons, their colours and operations.

I do not agree that my ‘claims’ are factually incorrect.

“There are plenty of errors of fact as propagated by all of us including myself and Mr. Malone on occasion in forums like this. That said when I am wrong and considering this is a discussion forum I am happy for this to be pointed out and discussed. I confer the same respect upon Mr. Malone or anyone and presume they are robust enough in personality to appreciate the correction of errors when they are wrong.”

I agree with that comment. None of us is perfect and, given the nature of research, we will all draw incorrect conclusions at some time. I certainly appreciate anyone pointing out any errors I may have made.

“Mr. Malone claimed the "RAAF did not designate their aircraft as Boston III and Boston IV" this is factually incorrect as demonstrated by me with the provision of primary source documents as examples to prove that the RAAF did use the designation of Boston III and Boston IIIA for example.”

I accept that you have demonstrated that, early in their history of Boston operation, the RAAF, in some files, did designate their aircraft as Boston III and Boston IIIA. I do not believe, as you seem to be asserting, that they used this descriptor universally. I believe that you have chosen your evidence to support your argument.

You printed some pages from the early days of 22 Squadron's A.51s showing the aircraft designated as Boston III and Boston IIIA. Why didn't you print some pages from later in the squadron's history where they designated all marks simply as 'Boston'? They no longer used the term ‘Boston III’, nor did they designate any aircraft as ‘Boston IV’.

I would also refer you to the Form E/E.88, (commonly known as status cards), where the RAAF designated the aircraft as Boston Bombers, Boston, Boston A-20A, Boston A-20C, and Boston A-20G. No mention of Boston III, Boston IIIA or Boston IV there.

You have shown that the names Boston III and Boston IIIA were used in some documents by the RAAF but, this does not prove your contention that the RAAF designated their aircraft Boston III and Boston IV.

Incidentally the use of the term ‘Boston IIIA’ for any of the RAAF’s initial batch of 22 DB-73 aircraft, (or DB-7B, if you prefer), is quite incorrect. The initial 22 aircraft received by the RAAF were originally part of an order for 480 DB-73 aircraft placed by the French. Following the French defeat that order was taken over by the RAF and the aircraft were completed to the same standard as the DB-7B aircraft previously ordered by Britain. The RAF designated the DB-7B, Boston III. When the RAF received A-20C aircraft, acquired under lend lease, they designated these aircraft, Boston IIIA. You could possibly make an argument that the RAAF should have designated their A-20Cs, Boston IIIAs, although I am unaware of any evidence that they ever did.

“Mr. Malone also erroneously claimed that RAAF aircraft did not carry bomb aimers, again my post provided evidence proving that claim in error. A28-4 for example had a bomb aimers position in RAAF possession from the 29th of March 1942 till at least the 10th of November 1942 and flew 11 Operational Patrols with a bomb aimer from 21 July 1942 through to 27 August 1942. A28-4 was typical of 22 Squadron Boston III aircraft at the time.”

I was replying to Ed’s comment that ‘RAAF Bostons included Mk IIIs (A-20C) with transparent noses for bomb-aimers.’ My reply was, ‘The RAAF A/C did not carry bomb aimers, only a crew of two, pilot and gunner’. I am guilty here of misinterpreting Ed’s comment as being about the A-20C aircraft but, my reply was correct for that version. In retrospect I can see that he may have been referring to the DB-73 aircraft as well.

I was aware of, and should have made mention of, the fact that the RAAF’s DB-73 Bostons were converted to carry four .50 cal mgs in the nose position previously occupied by the Observer, at the time of their move up to Wards Strip in late 1942. As you have correctly pointed out, prior to that, they were operated by four crew members in their brief period on anti-submarine patrols off Australia’s coast.

After their conversion to carry four machine guns in the nose and, following their move to New Guinea, these aircraft were initially operated by three crew members, a Pilot and two Wireless Air Gunners in the rear compartment. By mid 1943 the crew complement had been reduced, yet again, to two at the expense of one of the gunners. The ventral gun had been found to be next to useless and its fitment interfered with the use of a reconnaissance camera mounted on the floor of the rear compartment. On photographic missions an extra crew member was often carried to operate the camera mounted in the rear compartment and, sometimes, flight leaders carried a dedicated navigator with the WAG in the rear compartment.

“I also messaged Mr. Malone to point out my post in order to encourage his discussion on the subject, which so far he has chosen not to add to. So to be fair I have offered Mr. Malone every opportunity to discuss his mistaken claim”.

I don’t know who you messaged but I have received no messages from you.

“I did not presume that people should just take my word for it because of whom I may be, I provided notes, photographs, images of primary source documents and a reasonable bibliography of sources to assist anyone who doesn't believe my statements to check my claims against primary source evidence.”

Nor do I expect people to accept what I say ‘because of whom I may be'. My original post was not intended to be a major piece on the RAAF’s Bostons, just a couple of quick comments to help fellow modeller and, did not require an exhaustive list of references and bibliography. If they he had wished to follow up in more detail, I am sure he would have asked.

“I provided the correct information, despite the evidence you question why I would question him because he's forgotten more than you will ever know about the RAAF, if you have evidence that proves me wrong provide it, play the ball not the man”.

And you didn’t play the man? Why use my name then in the title of this thread? That’s bowling bodyline, I think.

“ I give up precious family time to share with the Britmodeller community, historical aviation information based on primary source research that I have undertaken, it is not based on some book I have read or a third hand anecdote I have heard. I have also brought new information to light on some Second World War Aviation subjects and have enjoyed participating in discussions of the same where I have provided information and learned alike”.

Daniel, most of us who visit Britmodeller do it for enjoyment and to learn from others, as I have from you. I am sorry that you find it such a burden.

I resent your innuendo that I do not do research and that I get my information second-hand from books and third-hand from anecdotes. Those who know me will get quite a laugh when they read your comment as they know that I am particularly scathing of those who fail to do ‘first order’ research and rely only on what they read or stories they have been told. I have been researching the history of the RAAF for many years.

Unfortunately I am no longer in a position where I can regularly visit the NAA and AWM archives, (as you have invited David below). I was a frequent visitor in the past, starting some fifty years ago. I have also visited many ex RAAF personnel, recorded their stories and copied their photos. I also collaborate regularly with many recognised researchers in this field, including David.

“Perhaps David you might come with me when I visit the Treloar Technology Annex at the Australian War Memorial (AWM) or come to the AWM Library when I order boxes of archive folders so I can photograph their contents or visit State Libraries, interview former aircrew, pay for documents to be digitised by the Australian National Archives or help me pay for images and documents from the Imperial War Museum and UK National Archives and much more instead of questioning why I would point out Mr. Malone's mistake”.

Daniel, the work you are doing in the archives is commendable and I support your endeavours in that direction. As you point out it can be a time-consuming and expensive activity but, for the true seeker of knowledge, it is time and money well spent.

“Although you may not like it I do not apologise for noting misinformation, the whole idea of an authors infallibility is ridiculous”.

You should note that point yourself. We are all fallible.

Oh, and stop calling me Mr Malone. All my friends call me Peter, or Pete if you must.

Regards,

Peter

Edited September 8, 2012 by feropete

[Sgt.Squarehead]

[Daniel Cox]

Hello Peter,

Thank-you for your response I appreciate it, I like how you have added your comments in blue italics it is certainly easier to read so I shall do the same in this instance.

You wrote:

"I accept that you have demonstrated that, early in their history of Boston operation, the RAAF, in some files, did designate their aircraft as Boston III and Boston IIIA. I do not believe, as you seem to be asserting, that they used this descriptor universally. I believe that you have chosen your evidence to support your argument."

"The RAAF did not designate their aircraft as Boston III and Boston IV."

I wrote:

"I would argue that the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) did designate their aircraft Boston III and Boston IIIA at least for a period of their usage."

"the RAAF did use the designation of Boston III and Boston IIIA"

I did not and still do not suggest they used the term universally I said that it was for a period of their use only, nothing further than that. Of course I have chosen my evidence to support my argument, which is that they "did designate their aircraft Boston III and Boston IIIA at least for a period" The evidence supports my claim "for a period" and nothing further. The latest dated references where the descriptor Boston IIIA is used that I have found include; 21 September 1945, 9 October 1945 and 30 June 1944 from (File RAAF 19/45/5, 150/4/2217). That said beyond early 1943 the descriptors Boston III/IIIA in extant archival material appears much more infrequently. Which supports my argument that "for a period" the RAAF did use the term Boston III and IIIA respectively.

"I would also refer you to the Form E/E.88, (commonly known as status cards), where the RAAF designated the aircraft as Boston Bombers, Boston, Boston A-20A, Boston A-20C, and Boston A-20G. No mention of Boston III, Boston IIIA or Boston IV there.

You have shown that the names Boston III and Boston IIIA were used in some documents by the RAAF but, this does not prove your contention that the RAAF designated their aircraft Boston III and Boston IV."

Yes I did show that the designation Boston III and Boston IIIA was used in some RAAF documents, those documents included a part of a Technical Order (TO) some Operations Record Book (ORB) entries, a correspondence regarding bomb container problems and a page from a Boston aircraft casualty list. I also concur that the RAAF did not use the term Boston IV and have made no statement at any point that they used the term Boston IV as you suggest I did. I only stated Boston III and Boston IIIA and have not used the term Boston IV at any point in my claims.

It is interesting that you earlier state the following, "I believe that you have chosen your evidence to support your argument." Of course I have chosen my evidence it supports my claim and provides some good examples of what is available. There is more of course however I provided enough information to prove my point. To further add to this it should be noted that in the documents covering Boston Aircraft Casualties the descriptor Boston III is used for D66 (24 & 26 April 1942), D70 (26 & 27 April 1942), A28-12 (10 &19 November 1942) and A28-13 (30 January & 22 February 1943), While the descriptor Boston IIIA is used for A28-1 (1 & 29 December 1942), A28-21 (14 December 1942 & 19 January 1943), A28-4 (7 January & 10 February 1943), A28-14 (9 February & 8 March 1943), A28-6 (4 & 28 April 1943), A28-13 (1 & 18 June 1943) and finally A28-1 (3 & 11 April 1944).

Since you refer to the status cards to discount my argument. Lets look at the status cards (the bibliography in my first post lists these, for those readers looking to source them).

The Record Card-Airframes, Aero Engines, Mechanical Transport and Marine Craft, RAAF Form E/E88 designations are listed below;

A28-1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20 and 21 states: "BOSTON BOMBERS and BOSTON BOMBER"

A28-2, 9, 14, 17, 19 and 22 states: "BOSTON BOMBERS"

A29-9 states: "BOSTON BOMBER and A20 C"

A28-5, 6, 7, states: "BOSTON BOMBERS, BOSTON BOMBER and A20 C"

A28-11 states: "BOSTON BOMBERS, BOSTON BOMBER and A20C"

A28-12 states: "BOSTON BOMBERS and Boston"

A28-29, 30, 31, 37, 38, 39, 40, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 71, 72, 73 and 74, states: "BOSTON"

A28-32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 states: "BOSTON A20A"

A28-61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 75 and 76 states: "BOSTON A20-G"

A28-77 and 78 states: "BOSTON A20G"

Though the RAAF status cards are a very useful and valuable resource they should be treated with greater caution than RAAF TO's with respect to type designations, where they are often at variance or incomplete compared to RAAF TO's and other documents. For example lets look at the Boston if one were to presume primacy for type designations rests with the status card we would quickly come to the erroneous conclusion that of the 29 A-20G aircraft received by the RAAF two were considered BOSTON A20G, twelve were considered BOSTON A20-G and 15 were considered BOSTON aircraft. While conversely the 22 Boston III aircraft that were received were considered individually as BOSTON BOMBERS, BOSTON BOMBER, A20 C, A20C (A28-11) and Boston (A28-12). Clearly on examination of all the available archival documents this is not the case.

If I were to believe every type designation I read on an RAAF status card I would believe for example that the Spitfire HF Mk VIII MV469 was a Mosquito aircraft which it wasn't. I would also believe that the first 100 Spitfire Mk VIII aircraft received by Australia were not considered Spitfire Mk VIII aircraft by the RAAF despite the voluminous available primary source material that states otherwise because the RAAF status cards say "SPITFIRE" only!

It is a flawed argument to suggest that an absence of type designation on an RAAF status card should hold primacy against RAAF Air Force Headquarters, RAAF Command Allied Air Force, Headquarters 9 Operational Group RAAF, 22 Squadron RAAF and Department of Air documents which all variously use the descriptors Boston III and Boston IIIA in extant archival documents.

"Incidentally the use of the term ‘Boston IIIA’ for any of the RAAF’s initial batch of 22 DB-73 aircraft, (or DB-7B, if you prefer), is quite incorrect."

I completely agree with you that it is incorrect, that said they still used the descriptors Boston IIIA in order to describe them.

Therefore I claim that my contention in fact still remains proven while yours still remain factually incorrect reference designations (I can't see us agreeing on this one). Regarding bomb aimers clearly we are on the same page so I concur with you.

"And you didn’t play the man? Why use my name then in the title of this thread? That’s bowling bodyline, I think."

I used your name in the hope that it might stand out to you when you browsed the forum so you might respond and not for any other reason.

"I don’t know who you messaged but I have received no messages from you."

I did message you under the heading "RAAF Boston III Aircraft" my message box states that you have "left the conversation" I agree that since that is the case you didn't get my message having left the conversation? I have subsequently recently sent it again.

"Daniel, most of us who visit Britmodeller do it for enjoyment and to learn from others, as I have from you. I am sorry that you find it such a burden.

I resent your innuendo that I do not do research and that I get my information second-hand from books and third-hand from anecdotes. Those who know me will get quite a laugh when they read your comment as they know that I am particularly scathing of those who fail to do ‘first order’ research and rely only on what they read or stories they have been told. I have been researching the history of the RAAF for many years"

Unfortunately I am no longer in a position where I can regularly visit the NAA and AWM archives, (as you have invited David below). I was a frequent visitor in the past, starting some fifty years ago. I have also visited many ex RAAF personnel, recorded their stories and copied their photos. I also collaborate regularly with many recognised researchers in this field, including David."

It is not a burden at all I am happy to share and learn alike, at the time I was under the impression from David E that my input was unwanted for which in light of my efforts I took offence. David has subsequently made reference to running over my cat (which although I don't have one) I found amusing and read from his further comment that no insult was intended. That being the case I was wrong to respond as I had and have since apologised for being a right twit which is why I have left my previous rant up since it makes me look rather foolish which I should wear since I clearly was.

My innuendo was addressed solely toward David and not you at all! which is explained above which is also clearly wrong of me to claim. That said I still stand by the invite and am also happy to dig up stuff for you or David if you or David cannot visit in person when I am visiting Canberra (several times a year) all you have to do is let me know what you are after.

"Oh, and stop calling me Mr Malone. All my friends call me Peter, or Pete if you must."

I called you Mr. Malone since David called you that and I was referring to you as such in my response to him not you. I am happy to call you Peter.

Cheers,

Daniel.

P.S. Sgt.Squarehead, I hope my response is worthy of the Popcorn consumption.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Daniel Cox

[feropete]

Hello Daniel,

As one who has worked in the aviation industry, I am well aware of the problem in designating various versions of aircraft. I remember, for example, that much of the technical and drawing material for the RAAF's Mirage IIIO aircraft was labelled Mirage IIIC. Similarly much of the PC-9 material was labelled PC-7. In both those cases the aircraft in question were developed from earlier designs and the technical information remained the same so there was often no need to issue new drawings and manuals. When we first got the Hornets, various documents labelled them as F-18, F-18A, F/A-18, F/A-18A and, I think, F-18/A. To the guys on the ground getting the designation correct was not a major matter.

Similarly, I would suggest that it doesn't really matter what different sections of the RAAF called the aircraft designated A28 in the first A series. What does matter is that people like you and I take the time and trouble to correctly identify the various versions.

I recognise your right to disagree with me and I expect you to respect my right to diagree with you. I'm afraid that we may disappoint the Sergeant slightly. He won't get to see us 'get down and dirty'.

Cheers,

Peter M

PS. Maybe David was thinking of my cats. We've got six of the little bludgers, he's welcome to run over the two siamese any time he wants!

[Sydhuey]

While discussing various points on the Boston with Daniel we discovered that a long held belief that early model Boston III and A-20A's with "Tropical Cowls" with the series of cooling holes in the cowls and overseas Boston III's  with solid cowl may in fact be the same cowls , I believed that some photo's of Australian Bostons A28-4,-16,-21 (and several photo's of Bostons captured by the Japanese sister A/C to the Australian Bostons) had solid cowls, high defenition photo's posted earlier by Daniel show these cowls actualy have panels that are fitted into the holes making the cowl look solid, why the RAAF would have some a/c with cowls with the cooling holes covered over and the rest left open is anybody's guess, severel publications on the Boston state that the earlier build Bostons had the cooling holes and as it was found that it wasn't that sucessful and went to a colid cowl on later "C's",this may be wrong but as no examples of the "C" model are preserved in the world , it is somthing we can only presume.

Some facts on A28-8 "DU-J" "Jessica"

This Boston restored at RAAF Base Amberley in the late 80's early90's and now on display at the RAAF Museum, is the only Boston III preserved/restored in the world (may be some DB-7B, DB-7C and A-20C's on the Russian steppes), this is a historically important aircraft as not only is it the only early Boston on display in the world ,its original RAF serial # AL907 show it was the last of 240 DB-7B's build by Douglas of an order of 480 , (had Douglas production number 240 on nose visible during restoration), it is a combat vet having been on 49 combat missions crash landing from battle damage on its 49th,it is one of only two aircraft preserved flown by VC winners in combat (Bill Newton flew "J" on two combat missions 18 and 22 feb 43)(the other is William Barkers Sopwith Camel in Canada),it also a memorial to one Gunner killed (Sgt. H.C. Taylor) and another badly wounded (Sgt.D.O. Duncan) on a night mission to Lae on 24 May 43. Damage from this mission is visible on the original fuselage skins at RAAF Amberley Aviation heritage centre.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Sydhuey

[Sydhuey]

feropete.

Peter,

Good to have contact with you at last , I have seen photo's from the "Malone Collection" used in several publications, one thing I was wondering do you just supply the photo's as I have seen several photo's with differant captions and some captions on your Boston photo's are not exactly the most accurate, would like very much to see your whole Boston collection and discuss accurate captions for them , I think we all have great interest in all aircraft but A-20 Boston/Havoc's are my passion, regards Syd.

[David E]

That said I still stand by the invite and am also happy to dig up stuff for you or David if you or David cannot visit in person when I am visiting Canberra (several times a year) all you have to do is let me know what you are after.

Very kind of you sir, I'm fortunate in having one of my Army mates on the curatorial staff with similar interests to me and who loves a challenge. The down side (albeit a pleasant one) is that it also gives me opportunity to contribute models to the Education team!

[David E]

This report also challenges the prevalent idea that RAAF Foliage Green originated from US Medium Green. Having been able to examine both thanks to the kindness of an Australian correspondent they are not similar.

Funny you should mention that. When I started work at CAC in 1983 I was naturally drawn to the wartime scale models scattered around desks and filing cabinets in the design office. In short order I accumulated a Boomerang, Griffin and R2800 CA15s and a Woomera, plus a couple of "stillborn" concepts. All of them appeared to be in their wartime foliage paint. On various foraging trips through the two aircraft factories I scrounged a range of wartime airframe parts, some of them also in Foliage Green. I recall about four different shades of that colour being present, and a wartime model of a Beau 21 next door at GAF was a little different again! Now here's the interesting bit - when I repaired one of the CA15s as a farewell gift for one of the stress engineers that had worked on it, I wanted to preserve as much of the finish as possible and tried the Humbrol Authentic US Medium Green 42 as a match. Spot on first time, couldn't even spot the repair job. Others have done similar things with model paints and bits of 1:1 scale aircraft in various states of repair and with much variation in result. Several different paint suppliers, many different batches, applied by painters of varying skills to different materials and with different primers, not surprising really.

I still have a few tins of the Humbrol Authentic paint and it's still my favourite match for Foliage Green. My second favourite is a ModelMaster green from the USAF SAC camouflage scheme, can't recall it off the top of my head but FS34096 rings a bell.