Some questions on FAA Avengers

[Seahawk]

I think (that word again!) that the answer is in 85sqn's post 23:

 

"A pilot would be responsible for bombing in dive bomb attacks."

 

From what I recall, FAA Avengers were used exclusively as bombers, delivering their ordance in shallow dive or glide attacks.

 

 

 

[Graham Boak]

In the BPF, yes.  However their initial use was in the ASW role, because of their dual inability to carry the British torpedo or carry out accurate (i.e. steep) dive-bombing.  That's why the Barracuda was preferred on the Fleet carriers until their limitations in hot climates were fully realised.  In temperate and colder climes the Avenger was used to carry the Fido, or Mk.24(?) homing torpedo, scoring (I believe) that weapon's first kill.

[85sqn]

Heres how she's progressing:

 

 

[72modeler]

1 hour ago, 85sqn said:

Heres how she's progressing:

 

 

Love it! You nailed the colors and the weathering is perfect- very subtle and understated. Can't wait to see the grand unveiling! Did you spray the roundels?

Mike

[85sqn]

2 minutes ago, 72modeler said:

Love it! You nailed the colors and the weathering is perfect- very subtle and understated. Can't wait to see the grand unveiling! Did you spray the roundels?

Mike

Yea I used Maketar masks for the lettering and smaller roundels and I just made the bigger ones with an Olfa circle cutter and a punch. Cheers- shes getting there, gloss coat on now!

[detail is everything]

On 5/28/2017 at 3:27 PM, Nick Millman said:

Some of that seems to have been cut and pasted from a comment I made here in October 2013. The third sentence should read (my emphasis):-

 

"There was no ANA equivalent for Sky Grey simply because at the time of the ANA consolidation it was not required by any service as a paint colour." 

Nick

 

Thanks for the correction and clarification.  I've amended my original post accordingly.  

 

Such are the vagaries of collecting information and quoting others.  Chinese whispers style, errors creep in and then they become the truth.  

 

Simon

[85sqn]

Chaps,

 

For info I would like to add something to this thread regarding TBM3 Avangers aka Avenger MkIII's. I have come across a series of photographs showing JZ684 and JZ704 ( I think). JZ684 is in TSS and JZ704 is SBG, both with BPF markings and 'W' on the tail therefore 857 Sqn. 

 

They do not have an observers position behind the pilot, it is the US set up with radio gear there. Is that what people have generally expected of Avenger MkIII's?

[Graham Boak]

TBM3Es were delivered straight from lend lease stocks and hence no "Tarpon" window.   They were built by Eastern Motors rather than Grumman, so would all be in SBG.  Finding one in TSS is a bit of a surprise.  Perhaps this is a -3 rather than a -3E?  This particular batch changed from -3 to -3E partway through - Sturtivanr says from BuAer No.69140., which I make the last 54, which would be from JZ676?

[85sqn]

Hi Graham If TBM3E's don't have a circular FAA window then JZ684 is maybe a TBM3. 

 

Were they known for not having the observers position behind the pilot?

[Graham Boak]

I would have assumed that all of this production from EM batch lacked the FAA mods, so unless Grumman production overran in some hitherto un-commented manner, my first suggestion is to question the serial.  Not having seen the photo.  It would be interesting to find photos of other aircraft in this batch.

 

Pure speculation, but if Grumman had an excess of fuselages or fuselage substructures, then these could have been passed over to EM, just for batches intended for the FAA.  but this assumes that EM would be aware of which aircraft were going where, and would interrupt the production flow.  Rather odd.

[Seahawk]

See post 11 by @detail is everything in this thread for his musings on late FAA Avengers.

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234989488-grumman-avenger-as-mk-iv-suez/

 

and @iang's comments in this Hyperscale thread:

 

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/british-tbm3-which-color-t204282.html

 

I'm pretty sure @tonyotmodelled a GSB FAA Avenger III in one of his much missed articles in Model Aircraft Monthly (or whatever it's called this month) but I can't track it down.

 

Afraid I'm away from my references so unable to contribute much.  Three points:

•  I have a photo of a crashed JZ678 377/P in which the curve of the upper/lower camouflage demarcation under the tailplane is clearly visible.  A demarcation on the crushed cowling is also, more arguably, visible.  Without my references I'm not even sure whether it's a Mk. III or not.  I don't see early TBM-3s being in TSS being a big surprise: after all, Wildcat VIs (Eastern Motors FM-2s) started off in TSS before going over the GSB.
•  It is certainly the case that TBM-3s/3E s delivered postwar under MSDAP as AS.4s were bog standard USN configuration but I am unable to be as certain as Graham seems to be that that was the case for WW2 FAA Avenger IIIs.  Not having the Observer up top would require such a fundamental change in how the FAA fought the aircraft that I would be surprised to see them wearing it.  It would certainly make integrating Avenger IIIs into units otherwise equipped with Avenger I/IIs difficult - and unpopular with Observers.  The best external indicator of the FAA configuration is the goldfish bowl window - which is obscured by milling crowds in the photo of JZ678 mentioned above.  I think I've seen a clear photo of a very late Avenger III with the goldfish bowl window but until I can find it I'll say no more.
•  I wouldn't see whether an aircraft is a TBM-3 or TBM-3E having any bearing on whether it had the FAA mods or not.

Nick: are you sure your photo shows USN radio gear in the second pilot location?  If so, it's an interesting and significant find.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Seahawk

[Graham Boak]

My understanding is that all aircraft delivered under Lend-Lease had to be to the US Service specification.  That was written into Lend-Lease.  However many of the FAA aircraft were actually paid for by the British, and built to contracts signed before Lend-Lease, which continued to run afterwards.  It certainly appears that those companies with such contracts continued to produce aircraft to British standards of detail and paint for some considerable time.  However as Britain had no such previous contracts with Eastern Motors it would seem that any continuation of British contract features can only have been with supplies passed over by Grumman, of which paint would seem to be the most obvious and easiest.  However such could always have been applied post delivery.

 

I do not recall seeing any TBM-3E in FAA markings other than in GSB, or with the FAA mods.  I am surprised to find any such Mk.IIIs, but if the evidence is there, it has to be explained somehow.  

 

Note that Liberators had a particular Service Depot in the US where they were converted from build standards to the British requirements, whether Coastal or Bomber.  The majority of British types had a UK "foster" company where changes to UK equipment was carried out, and for most FAA types this was Blackburn.  Mustangs continued to be painted by NA in British-required colours, at least until the abandoning of camouflage on USAAF types.  B-25Js were supplied to the Soviet Union in their specified camouflage colours and pattern.  So exceptions to the LL  rules in terms of painting were not totally unheard of.  Corsairs continued to be built with British wingtips and camouflage, but the FG-1s (Mk.IVs) were not painted in FAA colours but standard USN GSB.  This would appear to be the closest equivalent to EM's build of the Wildcat and Avenger.  

 

As said earlier in this thread, the establishment of the BPF did lead to a significant change in FAA operation of the type.  It could well be that integration of the Mk.III/IIIE to US-build standards wold therefore be a lot easier anyway.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Graham Boak

[EwenS]

1 hour ago, Seahawk said:

See post 11 by @detail is everything in this thread for his musings on late FAA Avengers.

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234989488-grumman-avenger-as-mk-iv-suez/

 

and @iang's comments in this Hyperscale thread:

 

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/british-tbm3-which-color-t204282.html

 

I'm pretty sure @tonyotmodelled a GSB FAA Avenger III in one of his much missed articles in Model Aircraft Monthly (or whatever it's called this month) but I can't track it down.

 

Afraid I'm away from my references so unable to contribute much.  Three points:

•  I have a photo of a crashed JZ678 377/P in which the curve of the upper/lower camouflage demarcation under the tailplane is clearly visible.  A demarcation on the crushed cowling is also, more arguably, visible.  Without my references I'm not even sure whether it's a Mk. III or not.  I don't see early TBM-3s being in TSS being a big surprise: after all, Wildcat VIs (Eastern Motors FM-2s) started off in TSS before going over the GSB.
•  It is certainly the case that TBM-3s/3E s delivered postwar under MSDAP as AS.4s were bog standard USN configuration but I am unable to be as certain as Graham seems to be that that was the case for WW2 FAA Avenger IIIs.  Not having the Observer up top would require such a fundamental change in how the FAA fought the aircraft that I would be surprised to see them wearing it.  It would certainly make integrating Avenger IIIs into units otherwise equipped with Avenger I/IIs difficult - and unpopular with Observers.  The best external indicator of the FAA configuration is the goldfish bowl window - which is obscured by milling crowds in the photo of JZ678 mentioned above.  I think I've seen a clear photo of a very late Avenger III with the goldfish bowl window but until I can find it I'll say no more.
•  I wouldn't see whether an aircraft is a TBM-3 or TBM-3E having any bearing on whether it had the FAA mods or not.

Nick: are you sure your photo shows USN radio gear in the second pilot location?  If so, it's an interesting and significant find.

I don’t think it was intended that Mk.III would be integrated into squadrons with Mk.I/II. Only 2 squadrons ever got them so it is difficult to be certain but just look at what did happen.

 

The first squadron was 854 at Nowra, Australia from May 1945 when it came off Illustrious. Mk.III started arriving July. Its last Mk.I left in May and Mk.II in August and it sailed for home in Oct without aircraft to disband. It was part of a spare CAG and would probably have ended up on Victorious late in 1945 after her cancelled refit.

 

The other squadron was 828, the most recently arrived fleet carrier in the BPF. They had been operating off Japan and arrived back at Nowra 24 August. The last Mk.I/II left in Sept. The first Mk.III were received in August. Ive not seen any information to suggest Mk.III were being supplied to this squadron as replacements while off Japan. Also, 828 had been a bit of a night flying specialist while in Europe I believe. I’ve read somewhere that it was intended to resurrect this when Implacable went back north for Op Olympic, which would fit with 1790 replacing 1771 with Fireflies as night fighters. Having all radar equipped Mk.IIIs would fit with that.

 

When you look at the delivery dates and details of those 86 in the JZ635-720 batch most went to India and then onto Australia. Given that each BPF squadron operated 15-21 aircraft there is not enough to re-equip 820, 848, 849 and 857 as well as 828 and 854. But freeing up 2 squadrons worth of Mk.I/II (something like 36 aircraft) does ease the position for the other squadrons and simplifies the maintenance position in each carrier. 

 

The KE batch that were being delivered in July 1945, were coming to the U.K. Not enough time to have them shipped on to Australia in time for the BPF heading back to Japan in late Sept/early Oct. Also both Implacable and Indefatigable remained in the Pacific through until 1946. But no attempt was made to give Indefatigable’s 820 sqn any Mk.III. 

 

So so maybe there are sufficient differences between the 2 models to necessitate keeping them separate. In the USN by 4 Aug 1945, all the operational CAGs in the Pacific were TBM3/3E equipped, with TBF/M-1 models restricted to stateside training groups. Not sure when the latter were phased out in operational units but the data is there if anyone wants to look.

 

[Seahawk]

2 hours ago, Seahawk said:

 I have a photo of a crashed JZ678 377/P in which the curve of the upper/lower camouflage demarcation under the tailplane is clearly visible.

I'm getting cold feet on whether the serial is indeed JZ678.  I'm happy about the JZ and the 7 but the other 2 digits might be 5, 6 or 8.  In particular it might easily be JZ578.  If someone were inclined to look at Sturtivant's FAA Aircraft, we might be able to nip an error in the bud.

2 hours ago, Seahawk said:

  I think I've seen a clear photo of a very late Avenger III with the goldfish bowl window but until I can find it I'll say no more.

Here is Avenger III KE461 some time post war.

 

 

Google photo-searches using "Avenger" with serials KE436 or KE446 will yield other clear examples.  I appreciate however that these are images of aircraft delivered to the UK and in the UK.

 

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Corsairs continued to be built with British wingtips and camouflage, but the FG-1s (Mk.IVs) were not painted in FAA colours but standard USN GSB. 

True, but before seeing service with the BPF they were modified to British standards somewhere along the line, most visibly by addition of carbon monoxide intakes/outlets.

 

 

[Graham Boak]

JZ578 was a Mk.II.  Into barrier on Premier with 856 Sq 17.9.44,   849 to Victoious, Bankstown to Schofields 15.6.45.

No JK8xx.

 

Delivered to US standard does not imply serving in the same state.  I'd have thought that whereas most mods could be (and were) carried out after assembly, a rework of the internals and adding windows was more likely to have been a production line job.  The KE ones are interesting, though.

[iang]

1 hour ago, EwenS said:

 Only 2 squadrons ever got them so it is difficult to be certain but just look at what did happen.

 

The first squadron was 854 at Nowra, Australia from May 1945 when it came off Illustrious. Mk.III started arriving July. Its last Mk.I left in May and Mk.II in August and it sailed for home in Oct without aircraft to disband. It was part of a spare CAG and would probably have ended up on Victorious late in 1945 after her cancelled refit.

 

The other squadron was 828, the most recently arrived fleet carrier in the BPF. They had been operating off Japan and arrived back at Nowra 24 August. The last Mk.I/II left in Sept. The first Mk.III were received in August. Ive not seen any information to suggest Mk.III were being supplied to this squadron as replacements while off Japan. Also, 828 had been a bit of a night flying specialist while in Europe I believe. I’ve read somewhere that it was intended to resurrect this when Implacable went back north for Op Olympic, which would fit with 1790 replacing 1771 with Fireflies as night fighters. Having all radar equipped Mk.IIIs would fit with that.

 

When you look at the delivery dates and details of those 86 in the JZ635-720 batch most went to India and then onto Australia. Given that each BPF squadron operated 15-21 aircraft there is not enough to re-equip 820, 848, 849 and 857 as well as 828 and 854. But freeing up 2 squadrons worth of Mk.I/II (something like 36 aircraft) does ease the position for the other squadrons and simplifies the maintenance position in each carrier. 

 

The KE batch that were being delivered in July 1945, were coming to the U.K. Not enough time to have them shipped on to Australia in time for the BPF heading back to Japan in late Sept/early Oct. Also both Implacable and Indefatigable remained in the Pacific through until 1946. But no attempt was made to give Indefatigable’s 820 sqn any Mk.III. 

 

So so maybe there are sufficient differences between the 2 models to necessitate keeping them separate. In the USN by 4 Aug 1945, all the operational CAGs in the Pacific were TBM3/3E equipped, with TBF/M-1 models restricted to stateside training groups. Not sure when the latter were phased out in operational units but the data is there if anyone wants to look.

 

 

 

849 Squadron definitely also received at least one TBM-3 Avenger III - JZ678: 377/P

According to Sturtivant & Burrow it was  on charge from May 1945. It crashed into the island (date?) before being tested at Bankstown 9-10 July 1945 and then to 828 Squadron coded 379/N. 

 

I have a photograph of the aftermath of the crash on Victorious.

 

[85sqn]

Chaps, I've uploaded one of the images from my series that shows three Avengers. The nearest one is what I think is JZ684. I have a better photo that shows the rear cockpit and the radio gear.

 

Next aircraft along is FN... Sqn codes are 385

 

Behind is the SBG JZ704 (I think). Coded 371 it has a crest forward of the cockpit.

 

https://flic.kr/p/2iWnyJy

 

[iang]

Nice photo (I've not seen it before). I'm not sure about the serials. Under magnification it is easy to make mistakes. I agree that the nearest aircraft looks like JZ684, but it could be JZ 5x4 (I'm not sure about the middle number -possibly a 3 or 5 or 8). I can't read the other two serials. 

Edited May 1, 2020 by iang

[85sqn]

Just now, iang said:

Nice photo (I've not seen it before). I'm not sure about the serials. Under magnification it is easy to make mistakes. I agree that the nearest aircraft looks like JZ684, but it could be JZ 5x4 (I'm not sure about the middle number -possibly a 3 or 5 or 8). I can't read the other two.

Hi Ian, I also thought 3 initially. You can make out the radio rack in the back cockpit so even if it is not a TBM3 that is what caught my attention.

[85sqn]

JZ634 ties in with Sturtivant and 857 Sqn till Oct 1945.

 

JZ704 was at Nowra from Nov 45 and 857 Sqn ended up at Nowra from October 1945 so I think there is a case for that one.

[72modeler]

I just now found this- see the link below. it doesn't really answer questions regarding the middle seat on FAA Avengers, but it does have some useful photos and interior diagrams. Hope some of you find it helpful.

Mike

 

https://www.pearlharboraviationmuseum.org/pearl-harbor-blog/mystery-middle-seat/

[detail is everything]

7 hours ago, iang said:

Nice photo (I've not seen it before). I'm not sure about the serials. Under magnification it is easy to make mistakes. I agree that the nearest aircraft looks like JZ684, but it could be JZ 5x4 (I'm not sure about the middle number -possibly a 3 or 5 or 8). I can't read the other two serials. 

How about JZ654  

 

See https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1228480/

[85sqn]

8 hours ago, detail is everything said:

How about JZ654  

 

See https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1228480/

If I wasn't blinkered by confirmation bias it  could be. JZ634 fits the narrative better as it ties in with Sturtivant.