LANCASTER - HEAVY CONVERSION UNIT or FINISHING SCHOOL

[Hugh Thomson]

I have one of the older mold Airfix Lancaster kits from the 1990s in my stash and (now effectively grounded at home with my wife who is in an 'at risk' group viz the coronavirus) thought I would see what I could do with this older model (though I am at best a mediocre modeller).

 

Flicking through my Lancaster books and decals I thought I would try an aircraft from one of the less glamorous Heavy Conversion Units or Finishing Schools. But, subject to one exception, I cannot find any photo of a Lancaster from an HCU or a Finishing School which clearly shows both unit codes and serial.  The one exception is W4113 (GP-J), a BMkI of 1668 HCU, though as an early Lancaster she has the flatter bomb aimer's clear perspex nose blister which isn't replicated in the kit (this has the more pronounced and bulbous later production blister).

 

I have Harry Holmes book on the Lancaster and this gives me the codes and serials used by a number of HCU aircraft - but no photo and without a photo I can't be sure of the font and position of the codes etc.

 

Can anyone help?

[stever219]

Although there was a standard Air Ministry style for codes and serials the former were applied at unit level and could vary considerably.  Theoretically the serial numbers, applied at the factory, should fit the Air Ministry standard form but the sub-contracting of Lancaster manufacture led to variations there too.  Modeldecal and latterly Xtradecal produced sheets of codes and serials (see Hannants website for details and availability) which cover some of the variations.  If you can’t find images of a given airframe the chances of others doing so to “prove you wrong” are quite limited.

 

That late seventies Airfix kit is a good rendition of a mid-to-late production Lancaster but combines features like the early production narrow-chord props with the later style “windowless” fuselage and deeper bomb-aimer’s blister.  In a way the raised rivet surface detail is far more representative of the real aeroplane than the engraved panel lines of later kits.  If you elect to model W4113 you may well find someone on here willing to provide you with an early style bomb-aimer’s blister (although you need 100 posts in order to post in “Wanted”).  

 

I’m awaiting deletion very of my copy of Harry Holmes’ “Lancaster, the definitive record”, when it gets here I’ll have a shufti for more HCU and LFS Lancasters and see what I can come up with.

[Hugh Thomson]

I found what looked like a mid/late Lancaster of 1667 HCU  - GG-X - in one of the Lancaster at War series but the photo is too blurred to make out the serial.  As you say although there were standard forms for the codes in principle, in application they could differ considerably.  'GG-X' is one such example, the codes being very very narrow.

 

W4154 of 1662 HCU also appears in the Holmes book - but although I can see the unit code (PF) I can't see the aircraft code - and as an early production Lancaster it would have the early bomb aimer's nose blister.

 

Who would have thought this could be that difficult. 

[Hugh Thomson]

P.S. I would like to get some photographic confirmation of a particular aircraft before I commit myself - I've worked on the 'how likely is it that I will be proved wrong' approach before and as sure as eggs is eggs within a month or two of completion something turns up to prove precisely that. 

[Graham Boak]

There are a number of code/serial tie-ups for HCU Lancasters in Air Britain's Flying Training and Support Units, but no photos.  However it does include HK734 GG.K.  Combat Codes also gives this, and JB306 GG.E.  As you have one photo of the unit, it would be a reasonable bet that these two aircraft were similarly marked.

 

It shouldn't be surprising that there are few photos available.  They were banned by the RAF at this time, and rules were likely to be stricter on a second line unit than a combat unit which could see rules being bent a little more readily.  Particularly as crewmembers were much more likely to want a photo of their actual war machine than any of the clapped-out heaps they had to endure on their way there.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2020 by Graham Boak

[Hugh Thomson]

Many thanks for your input. The 'GG' code for 1667 HCU (based on a photo in Lancaster at War 3) looks very 'squashed', non-standard and a bit of a challenge to replicate. So I'll keep looking for now.

 

Not sure about the reason for lack of Lancaster HCU and Finishing School photos. I did the same exercise with the Stirling and found quite a few photos of Stirlings in HCU service.  I wonder whether it might be due to the fact that (from what I have read) Lancasters were less common in HCUs, which is why they set up the Lancaster Finishing Schools (i.e. crews destined for Lancasters were operating Stirlings or the Halifax in their HCU). 

 

Interesting subject though - that is what did the HCU course involve? What sort of exercises? What sort of number or duration? What about any class work?

[Graham Boak]

There are examples from the Lancaster Finishing Schools in the AB book.  But no photos.  For details of the course I'd advise looking/asking on the RAF Commands website. http://www.rafcommands.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?1-General-Category&s=&daysprune=

 

The first Lancaster FS was formed from the Lancaster Flights in three different HCUs, so I suspect it was more a matter of concentrating effort, simplifying logistics, maintenance and flying programmes.

[Ossington 2]

The RAF was keen to be in the public eye during the war, but that meant strictly controlled publicity visits to 'crack units at the sharp end'. See 50 Sqn's VN-N for common usage at the time. Though still part of BC, the HCU's and LFS's were considered routine and 'not exciting enough'. I too have wondered why Winthorpe's W4113 exhaust stained flanks appears so often in books, it must be one of those easy-to-get-royalty-paid images that don't take a deal of finding for publishers.

When it came to post-war disposal of records, it was the blunt end that went first. It seems to me that it's only people like us who lament their loss.