who owned raaf spitfires at the end of ww2 (3 Viewers)

[Nig]

What was the tenure arrangements on spitfires brought into australia towards the end of ww2?

Was it a lend lease arrangement or were they purchased outright by the Australian government?

This goes toward the leagle question of how you might get tenure of one if you knew its whereabouts.

If they were under lend/lease it could be considered that they are stolen goods of the country who provided them.

On the other hand their value due to oversupply at the time may have made it uneconomical to return due to the cost of shipping them vast distances to a place where there is an oversupply of the same item.

Same might be said of if they were owned by the australian government.

 

[stona]

Somebody posted the correspondence betwen Ausrtralia and the UK regarding the disposal,actually scrapping,of a bunch of Spitfires,Merlins and spares recently. The correspondence arose because the Australian government considered the aircraft to be owned by the UK government and was seeking permission for their disposal.
In that case at least it seems the Australian government did not purchase the aircraft though permission to dispose of them was granted.
Cheers
Steve

 

[gumbyk]

Not necessarily. They may have been sold, with the provision that if they were to be disposed of, first right of refusal had to be given to the RAF.

There is still a similar thing around now with military aircraft.

 

[Aozora]

All Spitfire Vs were declared surplus to requirements and were to be scrapped dated July 1946.

Five engines were sold to Rolls-Royce in Sydney for £10 each...

The Air Ministry and Ministry of Aircraft Production agreed to allow the Spitfires to be scrapped. Spitfires which were to be set aside for the RNZAF were no longer needed:

Destruction of remaining Spitfire Vs authorised:

Comments on the disposal of Spitfires and the use of Mustangs and Spitfire VIIIs:

 

[Nig]

It seems then that either way, if these machines are found then they could be classified as abandoned goods. then it will come down to whose land that it sits on for tenure.

 

[gumbyk]

Yes, but I think the original question was more to do with why did the RAAF need to seek permission from the RAF.

As far as I know, the RNZAF spitfires were purchased. Some of them were purchased through the sale of war bonds, and you can often see that they carried the name of a town or province here in New Zealand.

 

[Aozora]

Yes, but I think the original question was more to do with why did the RAAF need to seek permission from the RAF.

As far as I know, the RNZAF spitfires were purchased. Some of them were purchased through the sale of war bonds, and you can often see that they carried the name of a town or province here in New Zealand.

If you read the first letter carefully it shows that the RAAF was not asking permission from the RAF to dispose of the Spitfires, which, as mentioned were "free issue from the United Kingdom" : instead the RAAF was advising the Commonwealth Disposals Commission of the intention to dispose of the Spitfires and was asking for the commission's advice as to what action could be taken (ie; how were the surplus Spitfires to be classified), and noting the commission had issued a certificate of disposal allowing the RAAF to scrap the Spitfires and engines.

The third letter shows that the UK's Air Ministry and Ministry of Aircraft Production were advised of the disposal of the Spitfires, via the High Commission in Canberra, and both ministries that the Spitfire Vs were also surplus to the RAF's requirements.

 

[parsifal]

It would be very cool to find them, if they were just buried somewhere as the means of disposal.

 

[Aozora]

It would be very cool to find them, if they were just buried somewhere as the means of disposal.

They could be buried in Burma...

 

[gumbyk]

They could be buried in Burma...

That would be a good way of 'disposing' of aircraft. Nobody would ever think to look there!!

 

[Glider]

In theory I believe that the agreement for the setting up of the RAAF was that Australia would supply and pay for the training of the men but that GB would supply the aircraft.

 

[Airframes]

I'm hearing echoes of that old tale of 'Spitfires buried in crates in abandoned mines in Australia ....'

 

[parsifal]

I dont have very much of value to add to this discussion. But I recall mygrandfather saying that at the end of the war the government was selling spitfire engines in working condition at scrap prices. The DAP had been producing Merlin engines since 1942, but these engines could well have come from scrapped Spitfires as well.

We were interested in Merlins as engines for high output irrigation pumps. We never dis get one....fuel consumption far too high, and spare parts not guranteed I recall was the reason.

Ive seen photos of many RAAF war surplus a/c being dismantled for scrap at Oakey Qld, and other locations, so I very much doubt these Spitfires were stored or presereved in one piece.

 

[bauple58]

What was the tenure arrangements on spitfires brought into australia towards the end of ww2?

Was it a lend lease arrangement or were they purchased outright by the Australian government?

This goes toward the leagle question of how you might get tenure of one if you knew its whereabouts.

If they were under lend/lease it could be considered that they are stolen goods of the country who provided them.

On the other hand their value due to oversupply at the time may have made it uneconomical to return due to the cost of shipping them vast distances to a place where there is an oversupply of the same item.

Same might be said of if they were owned by the australian government.

Although never acknowledged in any published histories, RAAF Spitfires and P-40s were never Australian owned. Consequently, the Commonwealth Government had to firstly obtain approval from the respective owners (i.e. the U.K. and U.S. governments) before scrapping could commence. Whereas the U.K. formally relinquished its interest in these aircraft in late 1946, the U.S. never did (and still hasn't) relinquished title interest in any of its Lend-Lease aircraft. This was a diplomatic solution (engineered by the State Department) so as to avoid a repetition of the political storm that erupted following the earlier U.S. - U.K. Lend-Lease Settlement. This folio is from NAA (Canberra): A816, 58/301/144.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

During the war Britain shipped trainers to Commonwealth countries on the basis the aircraft was free, the recipient was responsible for looking after it, that was extended to the combat types sent. Britain then wrote off British built aircraft shipped to Australia, allowing the Australians to keep the expected low proceeds from any sales and note Australia stayed on rationing to help Britain post war. Lend Lease settlement required the purchase or return of aircraft. After that comes the complications like the early RAAF P-40 came from British Lend-Lease orders, the 1941 RAAF Beaufighter order had money allocated for the purchase but no information if it was ever paid, there were also a number of cash purchases of US types and local allocations/swaps from the USAAF and Dutch.

RAAF inventory figures. Under or awaiting erection 31 August 1945, 108 P-51, 96 Spitfire, 33 Vengeance.

30 August 1945, 1) P-51D figure includes local production, 2) figures are for types still on inventory in 1948 in the specified roles, total inventory was 5,626

Date	Type	30-Aug-45​	1-Jun-48​	1-Jul-48​
Fighter	Beaufighter UK	0​	0​	2​
Fighter	Beaufighter XXI	265​	267​	45​
Fighter	Boomerang	140​	71​	25​
Fighter	Mosquito	98​	139​	134​
Fighter	Kittyhawk	436​	291​	5​
Fighter	Spitfire	416​	339​	49​
Fighter	Mustang P-51D	287​	254​	200​
Fighter	CA17/18 Mustang	0​	101​	101​
Fighter	CA-15	0​	1​	1​
Fighter	Vampire UK	0​	1​	1​
Fighter	Total	1642​	1464​	563​
Heavy Bomber	Lincoln	0​	29​	30​
Heavy Bomber	B-24	254​	240​	237​
Heavy Bomber	Total	254​	269​	267​
Medium Bomber	B-25	37​	32​	32​
Medium Bomber	Beaufort	408​	328​	78​
Medium Bomber	Ventura	61​	50​	11​
Medium Bomber	Total	506​	410​	121​
Reconnaissance	Auster	30​	20​	20​
Reconnaissance	Catalina	115​	32​	32​
Reconnaissance	Seagull/Walrus	16​	10​	0​
Reconnaissance	Helicopter	0​	1​	1​
Reconnaissance	Kingfisher	13​	5​	5​
Reconnaissance	Total	174​	68​	58​
Photo Recon	Mosquito	21​	34​	35​
Combat	Total	2597​	2245​	1044​
Transport/Coms/Misc	Anson XII	0​	1​	1​
Transport/Coms/Misc	Anson XIX	0​	2​	2​
Transport/Coms/Misc	C-47	115​	74​	71​
Transport/Coms/Misc	Glider	0​	4​	4​
Transport/Coms/Misc	Lincoln	0​	0​	1​
Transport/Coms/Misc	Norseman	12​	5​	5​
Transport/Coms/Misc	Proctor	0​	1​	1​
Transport/Coms/Misc	Sea Hornet	0​	0​	1​
Transport/Coms/Misc	Viking	0​	1​	1​
Transport/Coms/Misc	Total	127​	88​	87​
Trainer	Anson	757​	213​	67​
Trainer	Battle	109​	76​	0​
Trainer	Beaufighter UK	48​	31​	0​
Trainer	Hudson	35​	9​	0​
Trainer	Lancaster	2​	1​	1​
Trainer	Link Trainer	n/a	63​	63​
Trainer	Mosquito	42​	22​	22​
Trainer	Oxford	310​	154​	127​
Trainer	Tiger Moth	658​	106​	107​
Trainer	Vengeance	252​	190​	50​
Trainer	Wirraway	421​	415​	415​
Trainer	Total	2634​	1280​	852​
Inventory	Total	5358​	3613​	1983​

1 July 1948 notes: 1 Hurricane still on strength. INCLUDED in losses, 54 US Mustang, 222 Beaufighter XXI, 5 Mosquito 40, 3 Liberator, 17 Catalina, 77 Anson, 28 Oxford, 1 Tiger Moth, 3 Wirraway, 3 Link Trainer, 76 Battle, 28 UK Beaufighter, 250 Beaufort, 46 Boomerang, 9 Hudson, 286 Kittyhawk, 290 Spitfire, 148 Vengeance, 41 Ventura, 10 Walrus/Seagull awaiting write off. Not required in post war RAAF, Boomerang, Spitfire, Beaufort, Ventura, Mitchell, Seagull/Walrus, Kingfisher, DC-2, DH-84, Hudson, Lodestar, Mariner, Norseman, Sunderland, Battle, Proctor, Lancaster, Vengeance.

Many B-24 survived to the end of 1952, Spitfires beyond June 1948 were mostly held until their engines were removed. Around 30 Catalina, 300 Tiger Moth and 200 Anson disposed of in 1946, another 30 Catalina, 200 Tiger Moth, 200 Anson and 100 Oxford in 1947

 

[Glider]

Although never acknowledged in any published histories, RAAF Spitfires and P-40s were never Australian owned. Consequently, the Commonwealth Government had to firstly obtain approval from the respective owners (i.e. the U.K. and U.S. governments) before scrapping could commence. Whereas the U.K. formally relinquished its interest in these aircraft in late 1946, the U.S. never did (and still hasn't) relinquished title interest in any of its Lend-Lease aircraft. This was a diplomatic solution (engineered by the State Department) so as to avoid a repetition of the political storm that erupted following the earlier U.S. - U.K. Lend-Lease Settlement. This folio is from NAA (Canberra): A816, 58/301/144.


View attachment 814533

Going from memory but a number of years ago I was working near the National Archives in London and was able to do a lot of research after work and on the odd day off. All the commonwealth air forces received the aircraft and other equipment for free, but paid for the manning of those squadrons. The exception being the RCAF Heavy Bomber squadrons where Canada paid for the aircraft as well as the people who flew and maintained the aircraft.
Small point, Canadian armed forces (all branches) had a higher rate of pay than the UK forces but to save issues, they only received the same as the UK the rest was put into essentially saving accounts or was sent back home to family.
Apologies if some of this is wrong as it was a long time ago, but I am pretty confident about it.

 

[SaparotRob]

Going from memory but a number of years ago I was working near the National Archives in London and was able to do a lot of research after work and on the odd day off. All the commonwealth air forces received the aircraft and other equipment for free, but paid for the manning of those squadrons. The exception being the RCAF Heavy Bomber squadrons where Canada paid for the aircraft as well as the people who flew and maintained the aircraft.
Small point, Canadian armed forces (all branches) had a higher rate of pay than the UK forces but to save issues, they only received the same as the UK the rest was put into essentially saving accounts or was sent back home to family.
Apologies if some of this is wrong as it was a long time ago, but I am pretty confident about it.

 

[EwenS]

Going from memory but a number of years ago I was working near the National Archives in London and was able to do a lot of research after work and on the odd day off. All the commonwealth air forces received the aircraft and other equipment for free, but paid for the manning of those squadrons. The exception being the RCAF Heavy Bomber squadrons where Canada paid for the aircraft as well as the people who flew and maintained the aircraft.
Small point, Canadian armed forces (all branches) had a higher rate of pay than the UK forces but to save issues, they only received the same as the UK the rest was put into essentially saving accounts or was sent back home to family.
Apologies if some of this is wrong as it was a long time ago, but I am pretty confident about it.

The pay rate issue caused a near mutiny and desertions from the escort carrier Nabob in 1944.

" A 'near mutiny' After Panama a mass protest or 'near mutiny' occurred in NABOB; although she was a Royal Navy ship she was one of only two ships to be jointly RN/RCN manned, additionally she carried British Merchant Navy personnel in the Engine Room and each group had different rates of pay and victualling scales. The RCN personnel received Canadian pay and marriage allowance but all other allowances, and victualling, were to RN rates of scale, it was this disparity that precipitated the dispute. They made their dissatisfaction s known first a brief 'lock-in' - refusal to work - which was followed by a large number of desertions on reaching Norfolk. The situation was relived as a result of captain Lay, (a nephew of Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King) bringing the dispute over living conditions on board to the attention of the Admiralty; he was able was able to use the 'incidents' as evidence of the discontent and to secure concessions from their Lordships.

NABOB arrived at Norfolk Naval Base on March 8th were crewmen began to desert the ship. Captain Lay flew from Norfolk to Ottawa to speak in person with the Naval Board and outline the seriousness of the situation. He suggested that all RN personnel should be borne on the books of the Canadian Naval Headquarters for Pay and allowances and the whole ship should receive rations at RCN scale. This was approved and Captain Lay flew back to Norfolk to re-join his ship. In his absence the ship had entered drydock to have her proper replaced and replacement aircraft had been embarked."

AIUI the engine room personnel would have been merchant seamen who had volunteered for RN service under T.124 agreements. That made them subject to RN discipline, in the same way as any other RN officer or seaman, but they continued to be paid as if they remained in the merchant navy.