Mystery Beaufighter, 4RSU

Ozhawk40 posted a series of images from the National Archives ("482 Maintenance Squadron B&W Photographs (etc)"; NAA: J2964, ALBUM 1).

One sequence was of the recovery of a Beaufighter from some off-airport location. He queried which aircraft it was.

I think (I could be wrong) it is A19-70/W of 31SQN which force landed at Point Stuart during the course of Coomalie 47 of January 2nd, 1943. Whilst crossing the Coburg Peninsular enroute to his on-task position for a Convoy Escort, the pilot noticed that he had lost oil pressure in the No.1 engine (LH engine) and elected to RTB. The engine then failed and, unable to maintain height, executed a successful forced landing in swampy terrain near Point Stuart.

Initially it was a 1RSU problem, but unable to extract the aircraft due to the impassable conditions at that time of the year, secured the aircraft as best as they could and left it for the dry season to recover. By that time, 4RSU and replaced 1RSU and the sequence shows their recovery of the aircraft during July, 1943.

Seven months standing out in the tropics seems to have taken its toll on the surface finish which looks well bleached in the photos.

Interestingly, whilst the aircraft was coded "W", it seems not to have been applied - excellent to see photographic proof of that.

After recovery, the aircraft was repaired and returned to 31SQN and was recoded "EH-Y".

It force landed again about 18 miles south west of Millingimbi whilst returning from Coomalie 42 of September 17th with battle damage to the starboard wing (it was later revealed to have suffered an eighteen-inch hole in the top of the starboard wing and a fifteen foot by four foot section of the bottom of that wing blown away). It eventually was loaded onto the ALAGNA and shipped south, ending up at 5AD where it was converted into components.



Attached Image

Thanks Shep - great info cheers

Shep,

I think you've answered your question.

"By that time, 4RSU and replaced 1RSU and the sequence shows their recovery of the aircraft during July, 1943.
Seven months standing out in the tropics seems to have taken its toll on the surface finish which looks well bleached in the photos.
Interestingly, whilst the aircraft was coded "W", it seems not to have been applied - excellent to see photographic proof of that.
After recovery, the aircraft was repaired and returned to 31SQN and was recoded "EH-Y"."

I've seen no evidence of single letter codes on 31SQN (as opposed to 30SQN of course), so perhaps your message decyphering to get "W" is not working in this case?
And that JUL 1943 date coincides with EH allotted to 31SQN. Agree with your EH-Y.

The association with the individual letter "W" with A19-70 returned an accuracy figure of 100%.

It was recorded 7 times in Forms Mauve by mission number/date, callsign suffix letter, duty number and aircraft captain. Of those seven, two were reported as cancelled leaving five. Of those remaining 5 events, 31SQNs A51 recorded one specific serial number each time (without error or exception) with the same mission number/date, duty number and aircraft captain.

Since that research showed a 100% accuracy rate for a particular correlation, I would question your "was not working" analysis.

Along those same lines, even after A19-70 returned to service as "EH-Y" the recording accuracy dropped to 87.5%. Surely even that figure is high enough to be considered accurate? That it still satisfies a reasonable burden of proof?

That July date doesn't coincide with EH codes allotted to 31SQN, it is when the aircraft in question was recovered from the field.

Most RAAF flying units in NWA started quoting full three-letter codes from mid-April 1943; 31SQN from 12APR. In most cases (and there ARE exceptions) the mid-April time frame seems to indicate when most non-interceptor squadrons in NWA started displaying those codes. Exceptions are 13SQN (displayed full codes from late-Jan) and 18(NEI)SQN and 1PRU/87SQN which, although each machine was allotted full three-letter codes, none seems to ever have worn them.

Further to my last ...

I know the sample size for the accuracy of the individual identification letter "W" for A19-70 is small but, without having a massive amount of data to work from that size is the largest possible in that example. One has to work with the available information that one has access to.

I have not, at any time, claimed that ANY of the code letter to serial number associations was a confirmed MARKING. Only that the allocation existed. The purpose of the research was to provide documentary evidence that a serial number was allocated (or not) a certain individual identification letter - not that it was ever displayed.

Even for units like 18(NEI)SQN, a unit that (as far as I'm aware) NEVER marked identification letters on their B-25's in NWA, the accuracy figures returned for their allocations was consistently high - and often with a relatively large sample size (again, contingent on the available operational information).

Units like 90th BG and, upon its arrival in NWA, the 380th BG did NOT have any serial number to code letter associations - their callsign suffixes were always random. (Prior to the inclusion of full three-letter codes in Forms Mauve, the only way to establish a code letter allocation was with the suffix letter of the W/T callsign assigned for each mission. If, on any particular mission, the assignments seemed random, that invariably actually indicated individual assignments. If the suffix letter assignments seemed sequential (i.e. A-B-C or M-N-O or X-Y-Z (for example)) that actually indicated NO individual assignments.


Edit: changed "have" into "having".

This post has been edited by Shep on May 28 2024, 07:49 PM