willedoo

Looks like it. Still think it's a good bet it was the one in the front view photo which AWM said was damaged bringing in blood supplies. The photo with the Japanese tank seems to be the same plane judging by the lack of engines. There was another one damaged on 1/7/45 a few miles offshore, they tried to tow it to the beach but lost it on a reef. General Morshead was aboard that one. It landed hard in a heavy sea & split along the hull apparently. I noticed in the damage reports, one of the Cats was mistakenly written up with the wrong number. Someone had corrected it in pencil at the top of the first page, but the rest of the report still had the wrong number all the way through. Maybe 101's is lost in there somewhere. Cheers, Willie.

A recent post about low flying reminded me of this Pampa in Argentina https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZxecONPNWY Also a link to the cockpit view, he scatters a few people on the ground: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cc5_1307433924 Cheers, Willie.

Thanks for posting, Michael, I really enjoyed that. Cheers, Willie.

Thanks Caa, That's good news, hope to see it one day. Cheers, Willie.

Some good underwater footage of a B17 at Corsica:

Animated description of the GEnx-2B engine fitted to the 747-8:

Thanks, Lars & welcome to the forum. Hope to hear more from you in the future. Some nice clips there; this one has a foreign object floating around the cockpit at 0.49, 2.04 & 6.19. Must be a leaf or a piece of aluminium foil.Cheers, Willie.

A bit of useful information about RAAF Catalina's in here: http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/duigan_terry_aircraft.html also some 1944 prices on a RAAF Catalina order, a Twin Wasp for $11,000 USD, & props for 1500 each: [ATTACH=full]953[/ATTACH] Cheers, Willie. [ATTACH]18089[/ATTACH]

Thanks for the link Geoff, very interesting reading & it answers my question above about their use of the term 'alighting'. There's a map in the pdf showing alighting and take off paths at East Arm in Darwin. So it looks like 101 was definitely damaged on landing. Cheers, Willie.

Thanks, Dexter, nice clip. Call me old fashioned, but I like the way Boeing build artificial force feedback into their columns. I think there was some mention in the investigation into the French Airbus that went into the Atlantic, about one pilot pulling up on the stick & one pushing down at the same time & neither could feel the others input. I was only told that, I haven't read the report yet. Cheers, Willie.

That's a good find, Peter, thank for posting. Cheers, Willie.

Good question. I'd guess being a boat as well as an a/c that this one would be classed as sunk. The photos look like the tide comes in around it; looked up an online tidechart & they're not big - a metre or so. Photos usually show shipping moored a fair way out, so its probably shallow out from the beach for a fair bit. Another question is how much depth of water is needed to take off & land. I see in the record card posted above an entry on 7/7/45: ' A/C damaged alighting 3 July ' Looked up two definitions of the word 'alighting': 1: to come down from something (as a vehicle): as a : dismount b : deplane 2: to descend from or as if from the air and come to rest : land, settle So is 'alighting' flying boat terminology for landing the aircraft, or do they mean it was damaged while unloading cargo or crew, as in being hit by a tender or something? Possibly a bit off topic, but I noticed an entry in the 42 Squadron log posted above. It's from March 1945: [ATTACH=full]949[/ATTACH] Turns out that HMAS Sea Mist & the one that burnt, HMAS Steady Hour were 2 of the 3 patrol boats that destroyed the Japanese midget submarine in Sydney Harbour 3 years earlier. There's a lot of stories in that squadron log. Cheers, Willie. [ATTACH]18085[/ATTACH]

Yes, I suppose in speed & altitude, the only comparison would be the Mig 25/31's, but again they're in a different league being high altitude interceptors. They were designed to intercept high altitude bombers & is probably all they're good for. Mach 3 sounds good on paper, but they can't do it for long without damage to the engines, & they don't have the range or payload to be viable bombers. So I guess the old pig stands out on it's own in regards to the combination of altitude, speed, range & payload, and where it can do it. Seems funny now to think that early in it's life, they had ideas of it being carrier based. Didn't take them long to figure out it was better suited elsewhere. Seems like a lot of aircraft have others that roughly compare, as in the Herc/An12, F15/Su27, Mig29/F18 & a few that compare to the F16 etc, but it's hard to find any to compare with the F111. I can remember when we got them in the early 70's, the Indonesians were not happy about it. Cheers, Willie.

Well, I'm still looking; searching the history of these Black Cats is a bit like opening a tin of worms. The 42 Squadron log has no mention of A24-101 after May, 21st., 1945, but the AWM has photos of it as part of a 42 Squadron detachment working with the USN Air Base at Leyte in the Phillipines, dated 10 days before it was damaged. They say the detachment was on mine laying & courier duties: http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/OG3094 Starting to piece together a bit of it's 42 Squadron history, many thanks to Siznaudin for posting A24-101's record cards & a link to the 42 Squadron operations log. Here's a rough story of it's sixteenth mission with 42 Squadron: In January of 1945, 42 Squadron's Catalina's mined the approaches to Surabaya in Eastern Java. Based at Melville Bay & operating from East Arm, Darwin, they had to re-fuel at West Bay RAAF Marine Section, near Truscott Air Base on the West Australian Kimberley Coast, in order to extend their range. Five aircraft took part in the mission, with A24-101 assigned the position as Duty 1. The others were A24/88, A24/93, A24/96 & A24/97. A24-101 was skippered by Squadron Leader Ken Grant, who often assumed tempory command of the squadron in the absence of the usual commander, Wing Commander John Costello. Two second pilots were on board, Wing Comander Ian Allen, AFC, and F/O Falstein. Other crew members present were F/O Brandon (navigator), Warrant Officer Skett (wireless operator/air gunner), F/Sgt. Beer (W.O./Air), Sgts. O'Mara & Murrell (flight engineers), Sgt. Sainsbuy (fitter 11A) and Sgt. Priestley (Armourer). Departure time from East Arm, Darwin was 9.40 pm on Monday, eighth of January, 1945, for the three hour flight to West Bay, arriving at 12.40 am on the ninth. After re-fuelling, they left West Bay at 4.55 am for the flight to East Java of almost nine hours, arriving over the target at 1.59 pm. The only enemy resistance was a single shot fired from a ship near the breakwater at Surabaya. During the mission, observations were recorded and propaganda leaflets dropped over Lombok and Sumbawa. Arrival time back at West Bay was 10.45 pm, after a flight of 17 hours, 50 minutes. A fifteen minute fuel stop saw them leaving again at 11pm and arriving back in Darwin at 1.40am on Wednesday, the tenth of January. Total flying time for the mission was twenty three and a half hours. [ATTACH=full]947[/ATTACH] There's a Wiki page on the Truscott Air Base, near the site of the old West Bay Marine Section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mungalalu_Truscott_Airbase Apparently it's re-opened & used as an air base for off-shore rigs. Its interesting to see on their page, a photo of a Grumman Mallard flying boat used to service the pearl farms. They say they own 3 of them, all with turbo prop conversions. Cheers, Willie. [ATTACH]18083[/ATTACH]

Good question, Lance, probably with a lot of different answers & opinons. Depends, I suppose on one's view of historical significance. From Australia's point of view, they don't have the war proven history of some of our WW2 aircraft, & they came into the Vietnam war with the US a bit late to really establish a big reputation there. We've seen them go from almost an object of public ridicule in the 70's & 80's, to a much admired & respected aircraft. Most of the public seem to have a soft spot for them nowdays, probably due to increasing public awareness over the years, of their capabilities and uniqueness. A lot of their early reputation was a bit mis-guided, as most military aircraft go through a fairly rocky road to development/operation & it can take a lot of years to reach full potential. Same as the F35 at the present time. But just as an opinion, I'd consider it historically significant, not from Australia's point of view, but in the context of design & capability of military aircraft worldwide. There's been nothing like it before or after it, & probably won't be in the future. Certainly not that much battle proven, but that's the roll of the dice, it just wasn't in the right place at the right time. If it had entered service in the Vietnam war 3 or 4 years earlier, it would be a different story. Thanks for posting, I'm sure you'll get a few more bites, it was getting a bit quiet around here over the holidays. Cheers, Willie.

Very interesting, thanks for posting. Sounds like he was in 5 Squadron, the same one as the ex-boomerang pilot I met recently. He was in Bouganville with 5 Sqdrn so they possibly knew each other. Cheers, Willie.

Between the 42 Squadon log & these record cards, it's really starting to tell a story. Looks like it was new from the States three months before joining 42 Sqdrn, then flew every month bar one from August 1944 till 21st. May, 1945. The only month it had no operations listed was April & the record cards show it in for maintenance at 1 Flying Boat Maintenance Unit for that month. I couldn't find any mention of it in the Squadron log after May 21st, 1945,where it was laying mines around the Chinese coast.. The entry in the cards above dated 7/7/45 lists the accident date as 3/7/45 which coincides with the date given by ADF Serials. The authority column on the right says 42 Sqdrn as does the damage assement entry on 10/7/45. Looks like it was still with the squadron when it had the accident & appears to have a casualty number, 194 ( or possibly 794, hard to make out). I'm starting to wonder if some pages are missing from the squadron log, as it should be in there. The squadron log is a wealth of information, I counted ten different crews who flew in A24-101 while she was with 42 Squadron. The longest flight it did was about eighteen hours, most were long hours which might explain all the down time for maintenance. Still trying to decypher the first card above. Looks like 9 Repair & Salvage Unit took it over & converted it, which I think is conversion back to conventional amphibian landing gear. The plot thickens. Much appreciated, thanks. Cheers, Willie

Yes, it's a bit of a mystery, Geoff. The ADF Serials site lists the date it was damaged as 3/7/45, the landings started on the 1/7/45 so the time is right & the photos look a lot like Balikpapan Bay. Having said that, still nothing definite & the squadron log has no record of it that month. ADF Serials also list it as being with 113 Air Sea Rescue Flight in 1945, but no date. I'm wondering if it transferred to the Air sea Rescue Flight & retained it's 42 Squadron code letters, or even if that was normal practice to do so. I haven't been able to turn up much information on 113 Air Sea Rescue Flight. There will be something, somewhere. Cheers, Willie.

Thanks for a great link, a lot of reading there. It was interesting to see the crew names listed & dated a month or two before it crash landed. Much appreciated. Cheers, Willie.

I bet he'd have a story or two, Dexter, with a career like that. Going by ADF Serials http://www.adf-serials.com/ , the catalina would be A24-105. ADF Serials doesn't list your great uncle's name ,as there seems to be a bit of confusion with another crew member named Sattler. If you google RAAF/Catalina/Georgetown, the first few hits are newspaper items from the government archives, but the only accurate one seems to be the Sydney Morning Herald, which lists your great uncle as a survivor. The other news items mistakenly list one of the pilots, Leo Sattler as a survivor. Similar spelt & sounding names must have led to the confusion at the time. Cheers, Willie.

The photos with the crowd around the Cat really give it a sense of size & perspective. Thanks again for posting them, Scotty. Cheers, Willie.

Thanks, Geoff, haven't been able to find out any more about this one yet. One of the more enjoyable things about looking up the history of old aircraft is the amount of other stories that you come across in the process. It's easy to get side tracked, there's so much out there. Cheers, Willie.

Thanks Scotty, I'll check it out. Another place I might try is the War Memorial, they have the third picture I posted, the front view one, so they might have some info on the incident. Much appreciated. Cheers, Willie.

News item with a satellite photo of the Chinese carrier, Varyag undergoing sea trials: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16190926 [ATTACH=full]913[/ATTACH] The Varyag had an interesting trip from the Ukraine to China about ten years ago. It was originally to be a Kuznetsov class aircraft carrying missile cruiser, but was never completed when the USSR was disbanded. Ukraine assumed ownership, stripped it & later sold it to a Chinese travel agency, minus engines, etc, supposedly to be converted to a floating hotel/casino. Turkey woudn't give permission for it to be towed through the strait, so it was towed around in circles in the Black Sea for 16 months before they were finally allowed through. At one stage,it broke adrift near Greece for four days before being taken under tow again. As the Suez Canal won't allow transit of vessels not under their own power, the Varyag had to go via Gibraltar, the Atlantic Ocean,South Africa & the Straits of Malacca. It finally arrived in China almost two years after being taken in tow. They say it will be a few years before it has operational aircraft. Cheers, Willie. [ATTACH]18071[/ATTACH]

Thanks for the post, Dexter, very interesting & well worth having. It's a big investment, I was reading where Boeing hopes to be in the black before 2020 & others predict they won't turn a profit until after the first 1000 units. Also read somewhere that Boeing will benefit from more cancellations as they can increase the price on future orders. There's supposed to be something like 800 orders locked into prices for the next seven years. Certainly a long term thing. Cheers, Willie.