Vickers Wellesley?

[dpm1did1]

And now my Profile on the Wellesley has arrived!. Could have saved myself a couple of days.

There is a different pic of my bird, although just how different can be measured in degrees.

I think there's more on the LRDU than the whole of the web combined.

It adds 45sq as home for the tropical trials on the XVIII engine although it's not on the allocation lists.

....

I now fancy a twin torpedo K7736 or K7740, however that would need the extended canopy.

[dogsbody]

I believe that only a single torpedo could be carried. The 18 inch aerial torpedo weighed 1548lbs. The max. bomb load of the Wellesley was 2000lbs.

From the Profile:

Chris

[dpm1did1]

...but there's always non-flight ground trials...with double torps.

Not exactly a Wiff, more of a wishful

Edited October 22, 2015 by dpm1did1

[Graham Boak]

Re: confused serial - impossible because L7777 was a Wellington. I did find a list of all Wellesley serials and squadron use but can't find it again.

Not L7777: K7777, which was delivered to 45 Sq. It went to 2 ASU 29.9.37. As did a number of adjacent serials, following the initial ME issue to 14 Sq. The confusion is only a suggestion, but given the fairly complete service use of K7717 in this country it seems very unlikely that it ever went to the ME. Particularly as you'd expect the initial fit of a modified Pegasus to be carried out at Bristols in the UK, as actually described, not in theatre.

The two Air Britain books The K File and RAF Aircraft L1000 to N9999 give a complete list of allocations for every Wellesley.

The torpedo was mounted under the belly. It's difficult to see where any other heavy weight carrier could have been positioned.

Books can indeed be wrong, as part of this discussion clearly demonstrates. However, given the merits of the Putnam series, with the works produced by dedicated aviation specialists usually with (as in this case) having had direct service in the company concerned, the average website is pretty dodgy. The great merit of the internet is access to a wide range of information, but in the end the information comes from paper records in one form or another.

[dpm1did1]

I never trust any singular source as I've seen too many errors. Obviously some are simple ommisions, misprints or misinformation,(such as K files not noting the 45sq reference) however there's also the more nefarious types - eg personal opinion disguised as fact (as in much of the "UFO' thread).

Rarely do I simply take one reference if it's of real importance, and it was only the oddness of L7717 not fitting the usual LDRU stories that made me dig deeper. Teach me for not going for a well photographed MkI..!

There's a good few sources for RAF serials so it's not difficult to find the basic user/fate etc of most. It's when an aircraft has multiple users, especially the 'less attractive' types and particularly if the aircraft itself is a less well covered types from ye-olden days - I believe the VW fits the definition snuggly, and the test/maintenance airframes doubly so.

Suppose I had better start a WIP at some point now ive stared at gazillions of pics and done the usual 'lets take the hard route' decision on which set of decals to use...

[dogsbody]

You can see the belly mount in the photo above.

Chris

[Graham Boak]

The Air Britain serial books are your guide to the history every single aircraft of the RAF - attractive or otherwise - at least from the Ks (and possibly the Js, before not being my period of interest). They are a simplified extract from the aircraft record cards - largely covering their time with flying and test units. The maintenance airframes have their own book recording their activities, if that's the right word, although the allocation of an M serial is usually noted in an aircraft's history. It is known that some of the record cards are missing, particularly Spitfires. They are particularly poor for the Far East because of lost records, and dodgy for the more active periods in the Middle East. However, that does leave the great majority of aircraft and time periods covered, Yes of course some are in error, although as time goes on many of these errors are being identified.

[dpm1did1]

Been adding some stru in the fuselage halves whilst getting the motivation to pencil in the box positions...

...and silly me if I haven't reversed the bits around the centre window - one rib slopes forwards, the other back...oops...

I blame lost maintenance records!