Fortress SR386

[Phil Listemann]

Moning all,
I'm unable to find the US serial of SR386. Does anyone know it?
Thanks and Happy Easter
Phil

[COL BRUGGY]

Phil,

You are not alone! Others have had problems with SR386:

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=1656

Then we have this:

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=25521

Col.

[robstitt]

Phil:

Phil Butler in 'Air Arsenal North America' also lists SR386 as ex 42-30244 but according to Dave Osborne's work, as per Col's link, that was lost with the USAAF Jan 5, 1944.

Will contact Phil re his source.

Robert

Robert

[Phil Listemann]

Hi Robert,
Thanks. Actually I did so too just after Col's answer, asking Phil if he had an update. Wait and see...
Phil

[robstitt]

Hi Phil:

Not sure if this is within your project scope but assume you know the 14 B-17Fs were 'theatre transfers' from USAAF used stocks and that they took 14 RAF-serialled B-17Gs in exchange as they arrived in the UK.

Curious: Were they designated Fortress II?

And you've likely done this but searched Dave Osborne's listing and no sign of SR386.

Robert

[COL BRUGGY]

Rob,

You will find the 14 Theatre Transfers mentioned in my Post#2 (1st) link, just scroll down.

Re: SR386. That's were the trouble started, ie:

Sample:

SR384 - 42-30970
SR385 - 42-30986
SR386 - ?????????
SR387 - 42-31027
SR388 - 42-31031

Col.

[robstitt]

Thanks, Col. Noted.

Phil Butler also lists the B-17Gs handed over to the USAAF on arrival.

Robert

[Phil Listemann]

Morning All,
There are many possibilities in this case and US archives can be wrong too. Yes those Fortresses from SR batch are Fortress IIs as they were B-17Fs. It is clearly written in all movement cards. I don't know why some sources have identified them Fortress IIA, the IIA being the B-17E. Regarding this batch, received in anticipation of Fortress IIIs to be delivered later in the year, all but three have their former US serial written in their card. The three Fortresses without any US serial are SR379, SR386 and SR389. By early 1944, the 8th AF was progressively withdrawing their B-17Fs for brand new B-17Gs, and generally speaking the F supplied were not in good shape...maybe this one will be never solved!
Phil

[Phil Listemann]

Good evening,
If we think twice about this batch (SR), the US serial given to SR379 could be wrong (SR379 is one the Fortress for which the US serial is not written on its card). The first reason is all the RAF serials given to this batch were issued from the US serial from the smallest number to the highest. Therefore SR379 doesn't fit at all. That would be logical as the RAF used to proceed like this, in respecting the order of foreign serials in allocating its own sequence. SR376-SR388 respect this untold rule but SR379. For SR389 it is a bit different because the basic deal was an exchange of 13 Fortresses and a 14th was received as an extra and indeed SR389 was received a couple of days after the first 13 were handed over to the RAF, at the time when all the RAF serials had been allocated. I found a couple of possibilities of B-17F filling the gap from Osborne's list. Knowing that details for aircraft sent overseas are very limited and sometimes non-extant on their respective US card, errors are more than probable for some cases.
Phil

[robstitt]

Hello Phil:

Re: '...the RAF used to proceed like this, in respecting the order of foreign serials in allocating its own sequence.'

This was not always the case. For example, the RAF serials for the 20 Fortress Is (B-17Cs) were not in sequence with the US serials, nor were those for the Fortress IIAs (B-17Es). On the other hand, the RAF serials did run in sequence with the blocks of US serials for the Fortress IIs (B-17Fs) destined for Coastal Command.

Looking at 'The British Air Commission and Lend-Lease' I count 13 other types where serials are in broken and/or irregular sequences.

I would suspect it was not so much a function of what the RAF might have liked but what was practical for the manufacturer or modification center in terms of allocating the RAF serials they were given versus competing demands for the airframes.

Cheers:

Robert