PR Buffalo

[Antoine]

I'm 95% certain That this question was already treated in the past, but my research gave nothing.

So was there an external difference with a fighter buffalo, as I understand the cameras where fitted under the cockpit, where there's already a window.

I'm still searching on paper references, but any help Will be appreciated.

Thanks!

[Fernando]

No armor, no gunsight, no armament, I would guess no radio either (a difference inside the cockpit, would be).

Fernando

[LDSModeller]

Hi Antoine

Quote from New Zealand in the Second World War.

The RNZAF in South East Asia 1941-42 (printed 1952)

Page 8

Quote "Also serving with the detached flight at Kota Bharu was another

New Zealand pilot, Sergeant CB Wareham who in the early stages of the war,

began a career as a photograhic reconaissance pilot ...... In Malaya the the

Photographic Reconaissance Flight of Buffaloes carried out over a hundred

sorties, most which ranged as far north as Singora......

Throughout their operations these Buffaloes carried no armour or guns, and

although intercepted and hit by Japanese fighters on numerous occasions,

the pilots relied solely on evasive action to get through." end quote

Regards

Alan

[Michael louey]

Hi,

There was a detailed response in AMI (Aussie Modeller International) a while ago about the RAAF PRU buffalos (with diagrams) -

See this link http://www.network54.com/Forum/219149/thre...thers+-+did+the

If the link doesn't work, just search PRU Buffalo

Regards

Michael

[Fernando]

Hi,

There was a detailed response in AMI (Aussie Modeller International) a while ago about the RAAF PRU buffalos (with diagrams) -

See this link http://www.network54.com/Forum/219149/thre...thers+-+did+the

If the link doesn't work, just search PRU Buffalo

Regards

Michael

Hi, Michael,

The thread refers to the Model 339-23 Buffaloes assigned serials A51, from which A51-1 to -6 served in No. 1 PRU, RAAF. The question was more focused to the MOdel 339E Buffalo Mk.I which served in RAF and Commonwealth during the Malaya campaign. Reportedly "at least two" served in the No. 4 Photo Reconnaissance Unit Flight (Squadron In action). "Buffaloes over Singapore", which tracks the history of every single one, mentions W8166, destroyed at Kallang, 6/2/42 ("fitted with three cameras") and W8241, delivered to 67th Sqn. in Burma.

Fernando

[mhaselden]

Hi, Michael,

The thread refers to the Model 339-23 Buffaloes assigned serials A51, from which A51-1 to -6 served in No. 1 PRU, RAAF. The question was more focused to the MOdel 339E Buffalo Mk.I which served in RAF and Commonwealth during the Malaya campaign. Reportedly "at least two" served in the No. 4 Photo Reconnaissance Unit Flight (Squadron In action). "Buffaloes over Singapore", which tracks the history of every single one, mentions W8166, destroyed at Kallang, 6/2/42 ("fitted with three cameras") and W8241, delivered to 67th Sqn. in Burma.

Fernando

Fernando,

The 2 Buffalos used by 4 PRU were serials W8136 and W8166. Buffalo W8241 was used for PR work by 67 Sqn in Burma but it was really a fighter-reconnaissance conversion as it still retained a couple of guns. The info on RAAF B339-23s is still relevant because the former commander of 4 PRU, Sqn Ldr CGR Lewis, escaped from Singapore before the surrender and eventually made his way to Australia where he assisted in the conversion of six B339-23s for PR duties.

Kind regards,

Mark

[LDSModeller]

Hi,

There was a detailed response in AMI (Aussie Modeller International) a while ago about the RAAF PRU buffalos (with diagrams) -

See this link http://www.network54.com/Forum/219149/thre...thers+-+did+the

If the link doesn't work, just search PRU Buffalo

Regards

Michael

Hi Michael

The RAAF 339-23's were the remanants of the Ducth NEI order that were

shipped too late for the Battle of Singapore, and were diverted to Australia

The RAAF 339-23s were actually F2A-3's conversions to Duch requirements,

whereas the 339E's were conversions from the F2A-2 to RAF requirements .

They may have been used for PR, but Singapore was not one of those places, as it was in

Japanese hands by the time they arrived in Australia.

Regards

Alan

[mhaselden]

Hi Michael

The RAAF 339-23's were the remanants of the Ducth NEI order that were

shipped too late for the Battle of Singapore, and were diverted to Australia

The RAAF 339-23s were actually F2A-3's conversions to Duch requirements,

whereas the 339E's were conversions from the F2A-2 to RAF requirements .

They may have been used for PR, but Singapore was not one of those places, as it was in

Japanese hands by the time they arrived in Australia.

Regards

Alan

Alan,

You are entirely correct - the B339-23s were used by 1 PRU RAAF in Australia not by 4 PRU RAF in Singapore. However, please see my last post. The difference between the B339-23 and the B339E wasn't huge when considering the conversion for PR duties - it was largely a question of balance. Interestingly, the available RAAF documentation for the 1 PRU airframes often shows side view diagrams of the B339E rather than it's longer-nosed stablemate.

Kind regards,

Mark

Edited July 13, 2010 by mhaselden

[LDSModeller]

Alan,

You are entirely correct - the B339-23s were used by 1 PRU RAAF in Australia not by 4 PRU RAF in Singapore. However, please see my last post. The difference between the B339-23 and the B339E wasn't huge when considering the conversion for PR duties - it was largely a question of balance. Interestingly, the available RAAF documentation for the 1 PRU airframes often shows side view diagrams of the B339E rather than it's longer-nosed stablemate.

Kind regards,

Mark

Hi Mark

I was looking to see if you had replied, but I think I

clicked on the last replies only and missed yours

Apologies if I covered ground you you had already touched on (how embarressing!!!).

Thanks/regards

Alan

[Seahawk]

Extract from "Buffaloes over Singapore" by Brian Cull (Grub Street, 2003), pp 30-31:

"Requests by Air HQ for a few long-range Hurricanes fitted with cameras for reconnaissance work went unfulfilled. It was therefore decided to equip 2 Buffaloes drawn from the fighter reserves for this task. The selected aircraft were stripped of guns and armour plate: one, W8136, was equipped with a single F.24, sighted simply through a downward observation window in the cockpit floor. The other, W8166, was fitted with additional fuel tanks to allow 4 hours' duration, giving at least 700 miles, and with 3 F.24 14-inch cameras: this aircraft was delivered to the unit just before Christmas. ....."

[Aircraft operated by newly established 4 PRU, commanded by Sq Ldr CRG Lewis (Air HQ's Chief Photographic Officer) and with F/L AD Phillips (ex 4AACU) and Sgt Charlie Wareham. Latter was destined to fly the single camera aircraft. Following is relevant bits of his description of the operating procedure.]

"I was taken away from 243 Sq and put onto the very secretive photo-reconnaissance unit. I had a plane allocated [W8136] allocated to me which was kept under wraps except when I was flying it to test it. A camera was fitted in it and nobody knew much about camera work. To take my photographs I had a trap door cut into the bottom of the plane which I was to lift up with a sling. There were guide wires positioned - cross-wires, two pairs - and by trial and error the camera was eventually set up so that, once the cross wires were over a target and I pressed the button, a photograph was taken of the area where the cross-wires were. The whole process was hand-operated. ....

The method was to fly up to the target area: then I opened the trap door and had a look down to see what I wanted to photograph and simply pressed the button to take the photograph. ... All the guns were taken out of my aircraft and all the armour plating from around the petrol tanks and around the wings, so as to make the aircraft lighter. That plane would travel at about 250-260mph on the clock which was considered a little above what the normal Buffalo would do with armour plating and guns."

NB discrepancy: W8136 used the existing ventral observation window v. trap door specially cut. Take your pick. No mention of any special colour scheme which on balance inclines me to think there wasn't one.

HTH

Nick

Edited July 13, 2010 by Seahawk

[mhaselden]

Nick,

You're absolutely right. I should have been more specific in my earlier posts. The RAAF configuration drawings closely mirror the camera installation in W8166 (the "Long Range" PR Buffalo) while W8136 just had a single camera shooting through the fuselage ventral window.

KR

Mark

[Antoine]

Many thanks to everybody participating in this topic.

I've gathered my references (among them Eyes for the Phoenix (hikoki) and Buffalo down (red roo)), the most important being a french book, brewster Buffalo by J.L.Couston,but still no pics references for W8166 and W8136.

Also, aeromaster decal sheet Nr48619 talks about a certain AS430 from 8PRU at Seletar in 1941!!!

Anything about that?

[Seahawk]

Many thanks to everybody participating in this topic.

I've gathered my references (among them Eyes for the Phoenix (hikoki) and Buffalo down (red roo)), the most important being a french book, brewster Buffalo by J.L.Couston,but still no pics references for W8166 and W8136.

Also, aeromaster decal sheet Nr48619 talks about a certain AS430 from 8PRU at Seletar in 1941!!!

Anything about that?

Given that both aircraft were drawn straight from stores, I'd expect them to be in the standard finish for Far Eastern Buffaloes. If the security around them was so tight, there was no point in drawing attention to their role by giving them a special paint scheme.

Aeromaster transfer sheets are not noted as reliable sources and I suggest this sounds highly, ..err, creative. Firstly there never was an 8 PRU, secondly AS430 was an ex-Belgian aircraft, which would probably have had a number of non-standard features from the true RAF Buffalo Is in the Far East so why go to the trouble of sending it out there?, thirdly it is in a block of 30 serials (AS410-AS430) assigned to the Fleet Air Arm (though Sturtivant's "FAA Aircraft 1939-1945" has no record of its having been taken on charge by the FAA) and fourthly I'd be surprised at another PRU Buffalo escaping Cull's attention in "Bloody Shambles" which, as we have seen, draws on several eye-witness accounts.

So I'm sceptical. Purely on basis of what happened to the rest of the batch, I would have expected to find AS430 sculling around in some second-line FAA or trials unit in the UK.

Nick

Edited July 25, 2010 by Seahawk

[mhaselden]

The odds of AS430 being sent to Singapore and converted for PR work are so small as to be insignificant. I have no idea where Errormaster "found" the information regarding AS430. We can be pretty certain about W8136 and W8166. There is a possibility that a third machine was converted but that's never been positively confirmed and no indication of the serial number has ever been found. To-date, no photographs of the PR Buffalos in Singapore have been located and I very much doubt that any still exist. Over the years, researchers have contacted the surviving pilots or the families of those who have passed away (one was killed in action flying Mosquitos during WWII), the only exception being Noel Henkel who passed away many years ago.

I agree the PR Buffalos probably retained the standard camouflage and they probably wore no unit codes. However, it would be nice to find a pic one day!

Cheers,

Mark

[Terry McGrady]

Many thanks to everybody participating in this topic.

I've gathered my references (among them Eyes for the Phoenix (hikoki) and Buffalo down (red roo)), the most important being a french book, brewster Buffalo by J.L.Couston,but still no pics references for W8166 and W8136.

Also, aeromaster decal sheet Nr48619 talks about a certain AS430 from 8PRU at Seletar in 1941!!!

Anything about that?

As Mark says highly unlikely .Can find no record of This Machine going to the Far East

Aeromaster are not known as Errormaster for nothing. The quality of their decals is good , but their research is often poor .

Cheers

Terry McGrady

Edited July 25, 2010 by Terry McGrady

[Antoine]

I agree with both of you about AS410, I was a bit surprised.

Anyway, don't be too rude with aeromaster, as they kind of opened the way.

I think I'll go for W8136.

Dark earth/Dark green/Sky (or light blue?)/Night black, fuselage band and spinner sky, serial but no squadron code.

About the modifications:

- no seat armor

- ventral window

- camera

Any suggestions?

[Nick Millman]

According to 67 Sqn RAF pilot Bingham-Wallis:-

"Our aircraft in Rangoon were painted pale blue under colour. Of the original 30 aircraft there, approximately 20 were painted half black and half blue beneath, ie. on the mainplane. Shortly after they were assembled and painted, (we painted the black) the Air Ministry orders were changed and the remaining aircraft were left as delivered from the manufacturers, pale blue underneath. The band of blue forward of the tailplane would be a shade lighter than the sky blue".

Nick

[mhaselden]

According to 67 Sqn RAF pilot Bingham-Wallis:-

"Our aircraft in Rangoon were painted pale blue under colour. Of the original 30 aircraft there, approximately 20 were painted half black and half blue beneath, ie. on the mainplane. Shortly after they were assembled and painted, (we painted the black) the Air Ministry orders were changed and the remaining aircraft were left as delivered from the manufacturers, pale blue underneath. The band of blue forward of the tailplane would be a shade lighter than the sky blue".

Nick

Nick,

I think Bingham-Wallis is mistaken. The half-and-half underside scheme was a local recognition day fighter marking applied at the squadron level. All aircraft leaving the Brewster factory were painted DG/DE and "Sky".

Kind regards,

Mark

[mhaselden]

Folks,

I think I've found the source of Errormaster's assertion that AS430 was a PR Buffalo operating with 4 PRU from Seletar. Roy Conyers-Nesbit's book "Eyes of the RAF: a History of Photo-Reconnaissance" has a nice profile photo of AS430 on p.215 which falls in chapter 12 dealing with PR in Southeast Asia during WWII. The caption for the photo reads, "The RAF's Brewster Buffalo, the equivalent of the US Navy's F2A-2, was rejected as a front-line fighter when it arrived in England during July 1940. As with other machines and equipment which were considered inferior at home, all Buffalos were sent to the Far East where they were alloccated to five RAF and one RAAF fighter squadrons as well as to No 4 Photographic Reconnaissance Unit. Although these machines were outclassed by Japanese fighters, the pilots achieved remarkable results."

Presumably, the Errormaster bods decided that this photo must show one of the 4 PRU airframes 'cos "all Buffalos were sent to the Far East" which, as we all know, is not correct. Incidentally, AS430 is recorded at 5 MU on 19 Jul 40 before being sent to "AMDS" on 10 Aug of that year (I don't know what the acronym AMDS stands for). It eventually became instructional airframe 2859M and was struck off charge on 22 Oct 40 (or 29 Oct if you read the front of the Aircraft History Card).

Anyway, I think the Conyers-Nesbit book constitutes the source of AS430's inclusion in the Errormaster decal sheet and so we can firmly discount it's use by 4 PRU.

Cheers,

Mark

Edited July 25, 2010 by mhaselden

[Nick Millman]

Nick,

I think Bingham-Wallis is mistaken. The half-and-half underside scheme was a local recognition day fighter marking applied at the squadron level. All aircraft leaving the Brewster factory were painted DG/DE and "Sky".

Kind regards,

Mark

I think that is what he was saying wasn't it? - e.g. "we painted the black". In other words they had painted black on about 20 of the 30 before the orders were changed. So, some of the Buffaloes remained wholly "pale blue" underneath - the question is which ones!

Nick

[mhaselden]

I think that is what he was saying wasn't it? - e.g. "we painted the black". In other words they had painted black on about 20 of the 30 before the orders were changed. So, some of the Buffaloes remained wholly "pale blue" underneath - the question is which ones!

Nick

Sorry. You're right. I should have read it more closely.

I don't think we have a sufficient photographic record of 67 Sqn's aircraft to determine which were painted with the black port underwing. They weren't assembled in serial number order, and few came from the same production batch (except to say they were all late-delivery airframes).

Cheers,

Mark

[Antoine]

So far I identify three "dark zone":

1- camo

2- sky band presence

3- ventral window presence

I vote sky, or any color used at the time for underside for 1 (better for PR purpose).

I vote yes for 2.

And I vote yes for 3, as again, it was the best choice for PR.

[mhaselden]

So far I identify three "dark zone":

1- camo

2- sky band presence

3- ventral window presence

I vote sky, or any color used at the time for underside for 1 (better for PR purpose).

I vote yes for 2.

And I vote yes for 3, as again, it was the best choice for PR.

Antoine,

The Sky fuselage band was only used for fighter aircraft in Far East Command. I would therefore assume that the Buffalos of 4 PRU would not wear it (although I accept this is nothing more than a semi-educated guess by me). All the RAF Buffalos had the ventral window so we can be 99% certain that the 2 aircraft allocated to 4 PRU would have retained that feature.

Kind regards,

Mark

Edited July 25, 2010 by mhaselden

[Antoine]

About the window, some sources say otherwise.

About the sky band, both aircraft were ex- fighter, so the possibility remain.

[mhaselden]

About the window, some sources say otherwise.

About the sky band, both aircraft were ex- fighter, so the possibility remain.

The other sources about RAF Buffalos not having a ventral window are just plain wrong. In seriousness, there is ample photographic evidence to show that RAF aircraft were fitted with the ventral window and retained it through the operational life of the aircraft.

The sky fuselage bands were only applied once the aircraft reached operational squadrons in Singapore. The Buffalos assigned to 4 PRU were drawn from reserve aircraft that had never been allocated to fighter units and hence never wore the Sky fuselage markings.

Kind regards,

Mark

Edited July 25, 2010 by mhaselden