The Wooksta's Mosquito Blog comments thread

[The Wooksta!]

Comments on Plan 3.0 can go here.

[Gondor]

Looking forward to what you find out Lee as it's an interesting subject

Gondor

[Nick]

Regarding the navalised Mosquitos RG171-173: It sounds like somebody needs to spend time trawling in the National Archives. Was it just a trial by the RN, was it done for a particular project?

We know that Winkle Brown did test fly Mosquitos from a carrier in 1944. What was the time gap between this and your Sea Mosquito find?

[The Wooksta!]

The three 618 aircraft were built in '44, I think - I have the serials elsewhere and I can't access them till monday - and RG171-173 were built at some point in 1945.  There's a potted history of RG171 in Ian Thirsk's Mosquito An Illustrated History vol II (well worth every penny for just two photos - the interior of a T.III showing the instructor's seat and a photo of DD744 underneath showing the camera position) and it moved about a bit before being scrapped around 1948.  Interestingly, the photo of it shows four blade props, whereas 173 has 3 blade props. Overall PRU Blue but with yellow codes.


RG173 left to rot at Thruxton. The little protrusions under the fuselage under the A are the arrestor hook mounts.



So, hooked PR16s.  Extrapolate further - folding wings, four blade props Lockheed u/c and larger elevators.  EDSG over Sky.  With or without Korean war bands?



And this is a list of all mosquitos and brief histories.
http://www.airhistory.org.uk/dh/_DH98%20prodn%20list.txt

[kitbasher]

With

[Gondor]

At this rate Lee you should either start a web page with all the info your finding or wright a book.

Gondor

[The Wooksta!]

TBH, the information is all there.  Yes, quite a bit in the books can be contradictory, but a lot of it is because someone has made an assumption based on dodgy info which then becomes fact as it's repeated over and over.  For example, many captions of photos DD744 wearing the silver scheme say it's a PR.II because it became one.  The earliest one I know of with photos of it say it later became a PR.II and so people assume it is a PR.II without looking at the actual photo itself.


People just need to do the research themselves. It's rewarding in and of itself.  I can see why some people get so wrapped up in it and just don't want to do whiffery.  The more hardcore say it's because whiffery screws reality, or cheapens it.  One guy I overheard at 'udderfield Show a few years back said it was "insulting the dead"...  I just think he's an unimaginative f***tard.

[PR19_Kit]

The more hardcore say it's because whiffery screws reality, or cheapens it.  One guy I overheard at 'udderfield Show a few years back said it was "insulting the dead"...  I just think he's an unimaginative f***tard.

Of course they wouldn't ever read a novel, or watch a TV detective show '...because it's not real....'

[Rheged]

I agree wholeheartedly with Wook that there is no substitute for rigorous research.    As a historian I've read so many texts where people pontificate about subjects of which they have little knowledge and not troubled to look at original source material.

As to whiffery screwing up reality, great; let's have more of it!   Don't the JMNs and others of no brain and less courtesy  ever read a story/novel or watch a film?..............or are they the ones who think Eastenders** or Coronation Street** are documentaries?  Writing a work of fiction is just whiffery with words.


**Other long running soap operas are available.

[Gondor]

I agree wholeheartedly with Wook that there is no substitute for rigorous research.    As a historian I've read so many texts where people pontificate about subjects of which they have little knowledge and not troubled to look at original source material.

As to whiffery screwing up reality, great; let's have more of it!   Don't the JMNs and others of no brain and less courtesy  ever read a story/novel or watch a film?..............or are they the ones who think Eastenders** or Coronation Street** are documentaries?  Writing a work of fiction is just whiffery with words.


**Other long running soap operas are available.

The problem I have with research, and I do want to do some proper historical research, is knowing where to look and what is available to look at. Now if there was a course that would teach me how to do that part, then the rest would somewhat easier.

Gondor

[NARSES2]

I helped a mate research his Grandfather's WWI service record and we spent a lot of time going through the National Archives records at Kew. They had all of his RGA Batteries Daily diaries and reports etc on file. It was a case of asking them what they had available for his specific unit and after a while they came back to let us know and arrange a viewing date. Amazing and fascinating.

It's a case of knowing what you want to do and then checking to see what's available. A good starting point is (or at least was) your local library as they have access to what their regional central libraries have and they in turn will know what national and specialists libraries will have. Can take time but they will get there although given all the financial cuts of recent years it may take a lot longer than it did.

[kitbasher]

People just need to do the research themselves. It's rewarding in and of itself.  I can see why some people get so wrapped up in it and just don't want to do whiffery.  The more hardcore say it's because whiffery screws reality, or cheapens it.  One guy I overheard at 'udderfield Show a few years back said it was "insulting the dead"...  I just think he's an unimaginative f***tard.

The degrees of inventiveness demonstrated on this forum are tremendous.  Disagree by all means but how whiffery is undertaken depends upon individual approaches to it - there's no one 'correct' approach, merely what appeals to the individual.  For example, I prefer something that to me could/would be rooted in fact, but with the facts tweaked a little.  So to get there I will do some research - books/magazines in the personal library, decal sheet instructions in the stash, internet, sometimes a public library, asking folk for some information - and the same applies to real world builds.  And sources can be wrong!

So research is a key component of my approach to our hobby.  Certainly not 'insulting the dead', that's crass - surely it respects the dead?

[Pellson]

People just need to do the research themselves. It's rewarding in and of itself.  I can see why some people get so wrapped up in it and just don't want to do whiffery.  The more hardcore say it's because whiffery screws reality, or cheapens it.  One guy I overheard at 'udderfield Show a few years back said it was "insulting the dead"...  I just think he's an unimaginative f***tard.

The degrees of inventiveness demonstrated on this forum are tremendous.  Disagree by all means but how whiffery is undertaken depends upon individual approaches to it - there's no one 'correct' approach, merely what appeals to the individual.  For example, I prefer something that to me could/would be rooted in fact, but with the facts tweaked a little.  So to get there I will do some research - books/magazines in the personal library, decal sheet instructions in the stash, internet, sometimes a public library, asking folk for some information - and the same applies to real world builds.  And sources can be wrong!

So research is a key component of my approach to our hobby.  Certainly not 'insulting the dead', that's crass - surely it respects the dead?

I second all of this completely!

[zenrat]

Some of the dead should be insulted.

[kitbasher]

Some of the dead should be insulted.

Fair call.