Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: RAF Serial Numbers - Re-used and Conflicting.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Delaware, USA
    Thanked 93 Times in 79 Posts

    Default RAF Serial Numbers - Re-used and Conflicting.

    While doing some data clean up on the CWGC Database, I have noted that the RAF ended up re-using serial numbers - either intentionally or unintentionally

    A few cases for the record (Confirmed via Bruce Robertson's British Military Serials)

    BJ574-BJ588 issued to Curtis Mohawk IV but - BJ575 was used by a British Swallow II, and BJ581-588 were used by Wellington IIIs
    MA963-MA968 for 6 DH89 Rapide - but MA965 was used for a C-47 Dakota that went to the RIAF.
    DP851 was issued to a Spitfire and a Miles Hawk Major
    DP855 was issued to a mIles Whitney Straight and a Barracuda II

    I am sure there are more such conflicts?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Thanked 47 Times in 43 Posts

    Default Re: RAF Serial Numbers - Re-used and Conflicting.

    Suggest a deeper check closer to source will find addnl info, as for example the first case.

    Halley Royal Air Force Aircraft BA100-BZ999
    "20 Curtiss Mohawk IVs deld Oct 40 from French contracts"
    "BJ531 to BJ550..." individual histories (ie = the 20 a/c)
    "BJ574 to BJ588 Not delivered"

    "BJ554 to BJ570 Grumman Martlet Is for Admiralty"

    "BA Swallow II impressed in Sep 1940
    BJ575 CLE ex-G-AFGB soc 28 Aug 41"

    The set BJ581 to BJ588,
    issued instead to the first eight of the 600 Vickers Wellington II s deld May-Dec 42
    (then sequentially from BJ589 to BJ625 to the black-out block).

    So I suggest, in this case at least, not delivered means no a/c deld so no RAF a/c taken on charge to carry the AM serials, rather than "issued to".
    That is, the serials were not "issued to" then "re-issued" but were un-used and later re-allotted.

    I don't have the other Halley vols to check the remainder.
    They may well help, and so perhaps may Moss's Air Britain Impressments Log vols if you have them.

    Interesting case, Jagan - good luck sifting through the others...
    Last edited by Don Clark; 29th December 2020 at 11:15. Reason: serial typo
    Toujours propos

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Don Clark For This Useful Post:

    Jagan (29th December 2020)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts