Warbird Information Exchange

"The RAF in India left what they thought were thoroughly and deliberately ruined B-24s which the Indian Air Force were able to resuscitate."

The RAF Command may have thought they were thoroughly destroyed but I have read that after working through destroying some of them the RAF men assigned to the job merely disabled the landing gear safety switch, powered up the aircraft and retracted the landing gear. There was minimal damage and the Indian AF was able to revive many of the aircraft quite easily. I have never heard if this was true of any other types in India. I would imagine that there must have been C-47/Dakotas and other types left behind.

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.

.
I think James has hit on many of the reasons for fewer UK wartime aircraft surviving into preservation, size of farms, inability to leave valuable aluminium sitting in graveyards etc, but I also think the size of the US generated more applications for aviation and activity in aviation which may have seen more surplus aircraft retained in civil use?.

But I feel there may have been a more direct interest in the UK to discourage re-use of wartime aircraft to encourage purchase of new UK manufactured aircraft to keep the wartime industry and workforce somehow employed, and I wonder if this translated to control of how many airframes were disposed.

In Australia only certain airframe types were released by the Commonwealth DisposalsCommission in consultation with the Dept of Civil Aviation, resulting in TigerMoths, Ansons, Wacketts, Moth minors and DH Dragons being offered for airworthy use, and Oxfords, Beauforts, surplus wirraways and single seat fighters only being offered for scrapping in situ, (not removal from site).

Some single seat fighters such as P40's and boomerangs did survive in some stripped form, but none made it complete onto the civil register directly post war, interestingly the Oxford was not offered as a civil aircraft despite its earlier life in the Consul series?

I suspect a similar situation may have existed in the UK?

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

I am not sure that is the case today, do you mean US and S Africa based (as well as registered)? Its not possible to permenantly operate a foreign registered warbird (Permit to Fly CoA) in the UK.

_________________
Warbird Colour - Authentic historic aircraft finishes http://www.warbirdcolour.co.uk

Aren't there a number of Dakotas, with full C of As, with US registration based in the UK? This may just be a tax dodge today.

I know a few ex Brit military aircraft made it on to the UK register immediately after the war, for commercial or display purposes. As another poster stated, the whole world seemed to be going with US surplus aircraft then, at least for serious commercial operations. The British freighters, etc didn't seem to last long. I wonder if this was due to shear numbers of US aircraft available, or spares availability, or reliability (sleeve valve engines versus P&W and Wright, for example) or a bit of all 3?

_________________
Bill Walker
Canadian Military Aircraft Serials
www.ody.ca/~bwalker/

I contacted the Imperial War Museum at Duxford and posed the question of the the limited numbers of surviving RAF bombers. Below is his reply.

CH/IWM115008

11 November 2008

Dear Mr Lewis

Thank you for your email concerning why so few Second World War Royal Air Force bombers survive today.

The quick answer is that it is expensive to maintain aircraft. Second World War aircraft were canvas covered and at the edge of Second World War technology. Post war with jet engines and muck more modern electronics, they became obsolete and the armed forces cannot afford to maintain obsolete equipment for which they have no need. Civil versions of some bomber aircraft were produced such as the Lancastrian but again these soon became obsolete in the face of jet aircraft and were junked. If just left they took up valuable space and the canvas would deteriorate quickly.


Yours sincerely



Christopher Hunt
Imperial War Museum

_________________
Kind Regards,
Gary Lewis
J.A.F.O.

Hi Bill,
Good point, I'd overlooked the Daks. I think Mark V put his finger on it that they aren't under the restricted requirements which most combat-only types face, Dakotas being a full-certificate type, I assume. That said, most of the UK based Daks are on the UK register, only a couple which are technically transient arent. Other types I can think which fit this are PBY / Catalinas and Grumman Widgeons and Gooses (Geese?!) which have been UK based while on the USCR for a period.


That was me, and I'd assume a bit of all three. When given a choice, e.g in Canada and Aus, US engines seem to have been preferred over UK ones in transport types - the famous exception being the Northstar.

Gary - Good idea to contact the IWM. Interesting reply. The 'canvas covered' types were the Wellington (very obsolete in 1945) and um, well, of the major types (Lancaster, Halifax and the obsolete Stirling) the rest were stressed skin metal construction. The Mosquito was wood with a fabric covering (madapolam) but that served very well in the RAF until the 1950s.

I also don't agree with '...these soon became obsolete in the face of jet aircraft...' Jets were not the issue. The conversions of the Lancastrian, freight Stirling and Halton from Halifax were not as efficient at the job as the US dedicated types or the floods of C-47 / Dakotas. (Parts and numbers as well as arguably reliability would have been factors.) Even the dedicated airliners remained piston powered for some time, or we'd have not seen the heyday of the DC-4, 6 and Connie before the jets really arrived.

While 'canvas' (used for sails, IMHO, fabric - Irish linen and relatives being the material, I thought?) wasn't an issue as stated, IMHO, the structure of aircraft such as the Mosquito didn't take being laid up well, and again sheer numbers and space were factors. There just weren't so many British bombers at the war's end; those left were used up or quickly scrapped, while the US had too many and no hurry to scrap them at the same rate.

That said, the general trend and all Christopher's other points I'd agree with. The US desert storage is, for air forces around the world, as I said earlier, an exception, rather than a rule relating to 'maintaining' aircraft and using 'valuable space'

It's been an interesting thread; one other factor is that once you start looking at the statistical survival rates (see the bomber count thread) they are all coming in at around or under 1% survivors from production - again, the greater US production is reflected in greater surviving numbers even at this statistically error-bracket level.

Thanks to Mark Pilkington for his efforts here.

Except for certain N American products, and a Douglas type, all warbirds from W.W.II are survivors in tiny numbers. We are lucky there are any.

Cheers,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Amen Brother, Amen

_________________
Kind Regards,
Gary Lewis
J.A.F.O.