Photo FBA Flying Boat

[musec04]

Hi Stig,


I can only sympathise. Looking at the sources used in WDF 135 Voisin III/V at war one of the sources quoted is Gregory Alegi and Paolo Varriale Italian WWI aircraft serial numbers, unpublished work. I can only say given the information available particularly in works the latter has published himself it is amazing how errors have proliferated across a range of WDF as far as Italian serial numbers are concerned. I otherwise enjoy the WDF series, but this one aspect is shockingly poor.Still I guess that makes working on Italian serials on this board with you more rewarding.


I admit I don't know very much about the seperate Regia Marina number system. It would appear though that it was abandoned at some stage? as later FBA serials fit into the regular serial system?



Regards,


Clint

[Stig Jarlevik]

Yes Clint

I believe there is a very good reason for it to be unpublished,,,,
The more they dig in old archives in Italy, the more they find of course and the "facts" in older publications are transferred into "faulty educated guesses".

In all fairness to the authors there are very few dedicated researchers in Italy compared to let's say England or Germany. That means a huge task falls on everyone trying to do something about it.

Also, both Alegi and Varriale say quite clearly that many of their stated serial batches are unverified etc, so perhaps we shouldn't complain. We certainly don't contribute much ourselves, do we?

Perhaps we should ask for better editors instead? The mistake on page 36 would in such a case have been discovered before publication.

Cheers
Stig

[musec04]

Hi Stig,


Your points are valid with regard to the small number of researchers and the role of editors and I totally agree without the intrepid band of researchers we'd all be nowhere.


However what I find disappointing is when the same author publishes incorrect material in a later work, where he already had more accurate information piblished in an earlier work. . WDF 124 was published in 2007, whereas I Reparti came out in 1999. Yet and I'm only going to provide one example where there are others - In WDF 124 there is a SIAI built batch of FBA Type H running 2018-2027, but in I Reparti Varriale has FBA of this batch running to 2041. Moreover a unit is provided 1 Sqa Idrovolante for 2041, which I believe we can regard as stronger evidence than just the list of serials in the WDF. Units are provided for other known serials for machines between 2027 and 2041 too. So while good editing is needed, the writer really ought to check his earlier work as well.


Regards,


Clint

[Stig Jarlevik]

Well Clint

Part of the answer is provided in column three on page 36 in WDF 124.
The FBA types seems to be intermixed with each other and no real answer is provided so far in the remaining documents found.

Varriale is most likely very aware of what he wrote in 1999 compared to 2007. Maybe he tried too much but had too little space? Also his primary language is Italian...

What would have been much better would have been a WDF about all the FBA flying boats, but then the format would not fit and a special would have been needed.

Unfortunately it seems editing is no longer "in fashion" and only Producers are what counts. There are plenty of books published (Hikoki, Schiffer and so on) where it looks like no one has even bothered to read what they publish....

To me it is quite simple really. If I don't understand what I read, so must plenty of others as well. There are books where the author says one thing on page xx and something different on page yy. There could be a very good reason for that, but as an Editor one has to ask, ask and ask again!

Cheers
Stig

[musec04]

Hello,


Currently on ebay is a photo of an Italian FBA Type C No.61 at:


https://www.ebay.it/itm/WWII-CART-FO...AAAOSwvclfSTYU


Regards,


Clint

[musec04]

Hello,


Also on ebay tonight is a photo of another Italian flying boat FBA Type H at:


https://www.ebay.com/itm/Photograph-...kAAOSwcF5fSQYL


The seller says that the serial is 3393 or 3395, but is in fact likely 5595?


Regards,


Clint

[Stig Jarlevik]

Clint

If Paolo Varriale is correct (WDF 124), then, yes, it is far more likely to be 5595 (or 5593?)

Cheers
Stig