Test Graham Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 V5591 belonged to 11 Sq. Engine cut on take-off,crashlanded in orange grove 2nm north of Aqir 22.6.41. Looks like desert scheme, quite rightly for 11 Sq. However, V5581 was intially 84 Sq, then Far East NFT 1.2.42. Again, the desert scheme is entirely appropriate to its history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted August 11, 2011 Author Share Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) Thanks Graham. If we assume the official airframe records are correct (they aren't always, but there's no reason to doubt them), then it looks like V5581. I didn't make it clear from my first post but this image was taken by the Japanese after the surrender. The aircraft in question was one of the abandoned airframes captured by them. Location is uncertain although Tengah has been offered as one possible location although Palembang seems far more likely. KR Mark Edited August 11, 2011 by mhaselden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Apparently it was not one of the 24 aircraft flown out by 84 Sq (Bloody Shambles 2). So presumably it came out with 211 Sq. (Fuller comments on j-aircraft.org.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted August 12, 2011 Author Share Posted August 12, 2011 Hi Graham, I presume the info in BS V2 about 84 Sqn's movements came from the Sqn's 540 but it's hard to be certain given the lack of references in the book. Your premise about 211 Sqn is at least feasible - the lack of unit markings on V5581 coupled with what appears to be a variant of desert camo would fit with V5581 belonging to 211 Sqn given that unit's role as an OCU in N. Africa. Thanks for the info...and sorry for duplicating discussions here and on j-aircraft! Cheers, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted August 12, 2011 Author Share Posted August 12, 2011 Summer-san has also posted the pic of PT-F that has been discussed at length before on this forum. For reference, the pic is below: According to my Google translation of Summer-san's description of this image, it was taken at Sungei Patani. If Summer-san's location is correct, then this cannot be the aircraft flown by Arthur Scarf on his VC-winning mission because he landed at Alor Star. Presumably, then, the identification of Blenheim L1134 as "his" aircraft could be correct even though we now know that it wasn't PT-F. I also Googled a translation of the note included with the earlier pic of V5581 which indicated that the original image was taken in Java. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 To me, the desert camo points to the aircraft having served, as AB say, with 84 Sq earlier. A photo of another 211 Sq Blenheim en-route to Java (in BS) shows an aircraft in Temperate Land. I don't know about 84 Sq in particular, but it was common for Blenheim squadrons in the desert to only carry the individual code letter, and it looks as though there may be one forward of the roundel on V5581. This also tended to be the case for an unit acting as OCU. Nothing wrong with some duplication between sites where there's unlikely to be a lot of overlap of readership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Boer Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Guys, The photo of V5581 was taken at Kalidjati airbase in West-Java. It was captured intact but unserviceable; made flyable at Kalidjati and then flown to Andir airbase for further inspection and repairs if necessary; test flown at Andir but further history unknown. Best regards, Peter Boer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCRanger Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Warner lists it as formerly of 113 Squadron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted December 1, 2011 Author Share Posted December 1, 2011 Sorry for dusting off this old, and very long, thread but what are folks' opinions about the installation of bomb sights in the 27 Sqn Blenheims. It seems likely that the aircraft went into battle with Light Series Carriers under the rear fuselage so one could argue that bomb sights would have been retained in the navigator's position in the forward nose. Of course the counter to that argument is that the low altitude at which these strafe-cum-bombing sorties were conducted would obviate the need for any form of navigator-operated bomb sight. I've looked through the available LIFE pics and can't find anything definitive. Anyone got any better ideas or precedence for fighter Blenheims retaining the bomb sight? Many thanks, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prop Duster Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Thanks for not asking about the color of the sights seriously good luck on your quest. Been lots of good education on this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted December 17, 2011 Author Share Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) Ok, time to wrap up this thread with my 800th post. Back to the oft-reproduced photo that had been identified as L1134, PT-F. That image can be accessed via the IWM's on-line search capability and is probably the best quality without looking at the original negative. Look just below the port wing root and the bottom horizontal leg of the individual code letter is just visible: I think that visible part of the code letter confirms this aircraft as L4928, PT-E, as seen in the LIFE archive pics: L4928, PT-E Note both images show an aircraft with all-black undersides, roundels under the wings and no gun pack. Also, the individual code letter on the IWM image is considerably smaller than the sqn codes, just like PT-E in the LIFE photo. Since both images were almost certainly taken on the same day, I think there's a pretty good chance they are the same airframe. The only other alternative for the IWM image would be PT-L or PT-Z but those are less likely since all other pics of 27 Sqn Blenheims show full-sized individual airframe code letters. And now let's finish this long-running thread. Edited December 17, 2011 by mhaselden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrzeM Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Tailplane and fin as well - I wonder if they suffered erosion problems? I have photo of Beau from Polish 307 squadron with similar feature: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) It's ALIVE!!! My thread of doom has been reborn...and this time, it's not even a post about Blenheims!! Next stop - total forum domination!!!! Edited June 19, 2012 by mhaselden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Russell Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 It's ALIVE!!! My thread of doom has been reborn... I think you are going to need garlic and a wooden stake to kill it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrzeM Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) I just noted on my Post #357 that the fin of that Blenheim appears to have a light-toned (probably yellow) leading edge. Of course the photo of Beau I've posted relates to these lighter leading edges. What was the reason??? De-icing??? Or... is it not Beau, but Blenheim? 307 had some Blenheims for training. Edited June 20, 2012 by GrzeM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick b Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Back to the oft-reproduced photo that had been identified as L1134, PT-E. That image can be accessed via the IWM's on-line search capability and is probably the best quality without looking at the original negative. I don't know if you realise that this shot of PT-E is taken from a film sequence that is included in the World At War TV series, namely the episode about the rise of Japan. My copy is on good old VHS tape that doesnt pause very well but maybe some better detail could be gleaned off a DVD version? Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now