The brrrt is worse than the bite... Shark mouth schemes....

[Django]

From the book Heavy Wrecker...
"Flak Eater, a B-17G, of the 364th Bombardment Squadron, 305th Bomber Group. Eighth Air Force, undergoes replacement of one of its Wright R-1820-97 Cyclone radial engines with and assist from a C2. The curved end of the boom marks this vehicle as an early C2. Unlike the later boom rated at five tons, the early boom had a 10 ton capacity. Another identifying feature of early C2s, though not visable in this view, was that the headlights were mounted on top of the fender. (NARA)"

[CWH Museum]

Lancaster VR-R, KB772 (R for Ropey), 419 Squadron RCAF.

[Lightjug]

Ztex beat me to P-51 “What’s Up Doc” , but I just stumbled on to one in the WIX backyard
Picture from This Link

[WIXerGreg]

I had one and didn't realize it.

[deltascrew]

P-40B by deltafastback, on Flickr

[Jarink1]

Lancaster VR-R, KB772 (R for Ropey), 419 Squadron RCAF.

That is cool beyond words.

[Baldeagle]

If somebody buys the PBY in the other thread here's a suggestion on markings............



Not sure what the story is on the (un)happy looking fellows in the foreground, but found it here:

http://loudandclearisnotenought.blogspot.com/2009/08/



-

[Scott Rose]

We definitely need to find out the story behind that picture

[David Legg]

We definitely need to find out the story behind that picture

Scott - the aircraft is Argentine Navy 2-P-6, s/n 0238 ex-RCAF 9841. It was taking part in naval exercises at the time.

[Larry Kraus]

When I looked at the very interesting website that was listed above:

http://loudandclearisnotenought.blogspot.com/2009/08/

I thought that the designation PBV-1A was a mistake. However, I just now happened to be reading the PBY section of "United States Naval Aircraft since 1911" and learned that this was the designation for Lend-Lease purposes for BuNo 67832-68061 manufactured by Canadian Vickers Ltd.

Apparently, all 230 aircraft of this batch actually became OA-10A's in the USAAF. Another 149 aircraft built by Canadian Vickers became Canso's in the RCAF. Boeing in Canada built a total of 362 Cansos as well.

I trust that David Legg will correct any if this information that may be in error.

[David Legg]

I trust that David Legg will correct any if this information that may be in error.

Hi Larry - sorry for the slow reply but I have been away in France on holiday.

Although I have not studied the list of Argentine Catalinas/Cansos in the list on that website closely yet, I can say that the author has tied himself up in knots as regards the type designations although he may well just be copying what some others have written in the past (e.g. the book you quote from) and perpetuated earlier errors.

So, first, there was no such thing as a 'PBV-1A Canso' even though that designation appears in print from time to time That would mix up US Navy and RCAF designations. Canadian Vickers built Canso A amphibians for the RCAF and were also contracted to build PBV-1A Catalinas for the US Navy. Different contracts, different end-users and so different designations. In the event, none of the latter aircraft ever saw US Navy service and all went to the USAAF as OA-10A Catalinas straight off the Cartierville, PQ production line. These were the 230 aircraft you correctly mention. Canadian Vickers also built 139 (not 149) Canso As for the RCAF, 30 at St Hubert, PQ and the rest at Cartierville. The 362 aircraft that Boeing built at Sea Island, Vancouver, BC were not all Cansos as you quote. In fact, only 55 were and they were assembled from Consolidated-manufactured parts. It is not correct to call them PB2B-1 Canso As as the Argentine listing does as, again, that mixes up US Navy and RCAF designations. The remaining 307 aircraft were a mix of PB2B-1 and PB2B-2 non-amphibians and went to various Allied air forces, a few staying with the US Navy.

I hope that helps.

[Larry Kraus]

Thanks for clearing that up, David. I'd never seen that PBV designation anywhere else and wondered if it was a misprint. I guess that even Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers can get it wrong once in a while. The exact wording on Page 82 of "United States Navy Aircraft since 1911" follows:

"The Canadian Vickers aircraft were designated PBV-1A by the Navy, but all 230 built (67832-68061) in fact went to the USAAF as OA-10A amphibians; another 149 built by Canadian Vickers went to the RCAF under the service name Canso. Boeing in Canada built a total of 362 Catalinas and Cansos, the first of which flew on May 12, 1943. This total included 240 flying-boats similar to the PBY-5, designated PB2B-1, plus 50 PB2B-2s similar to the PBN-1 described below, built on lend-lease contracts for the RAF, RAAF and RNZAF; and 17 Catalina's and 55 Canso amphibians for the RCAF."

It just goes to prove that mistakes in print, especially by authors that you would normally trust, seem to live on forever.

[David Legg]

Well Messrs Swanborough and Bowers were very highly respected authors but in that quote the figure 149 should be 139 and they were Canso As rather than Cansos. It is not really accurate to say that the PB2B-2 was similar to the PBN-1 - the only shared features were the modified vertical tail/rudder and full-span elevators (also shared with the PBY-6A). The PBN-1 had several other features that were unique to it including modified bow profile and turret, modified floats, modified hull. The figure of 362 Catalinas and 'Cansos' (sic) quoted by them is correct but you had originally mis-quoted as just 'Cansos'. The point they make about the PBV-1As is absolutely correct.

My main point however, was that the compilers of the Argentine list have made a mess of the designations by combining US Navy and RCAF designations for the same aircraft.

[Cubs2jets]

OK David. So, the Canadian built aircraft are properly identified as a Canso. Or is it CANSO? As in "That aircraft parked over there is a Canso (CANSO).

If you have more than one, what is the proper pluralization of the name? Canso's or CANSO's? As in Those aircraft parked over there are Canso's (CANSO's).

C2j

[David Legg]

Well Canso is a place (a town and also a stretch of water known as the Strait of Canso). So it would be Canso or Canso A, not CANSO or CANSO A. Plural would be apostrophe s.