# Talk:No. 491 Squadron RAAF

This article looks great, and is very detailed for such a subject. Some thoughts for ways it could be improved further are:

"as were No. 91 Wing's other components with the exception of No. 77 Squadron, which was based on the Korean peninsula" - this reads a bit awkwardly, and is a bit misleading given that 77 Sqn was probably by far the largest unit in No. 91 Wing (at least judging from the surprisingly large number of aircraft and pilots who passed through the unit)
Okay, will see about recasting a bit.
"it was responsible for all maintenance of the wing's aircraft except day-to-day servicing" - could this be made a bit clearer? eg, "it was responsible for performing complex maintenance tasks on the wing's aircraft [or perhaps whatever the technical term is?], while the flying squadrons handled day-to-day servicing'?
That's the implication but the sources don't seem to be quite as explicit as that -- might be able to come up with something...
"The normal hours worked by technicians" - "normal hours" is a bit unclear given it could refer to a routine, rather than being lower - "peacetime hours" perhaps?
Heh, "normal" was the exact word used by the source so although the implication is "lower" it's not absolutely clear.
I'd rather not say "peacetime" hours as the source suggests that even "normal" hours could involve a six-day week, which doesn't sound like peacetime (except on odd occasions, e.g. for an exercise). Do you think "regular" hours would be more meaningful than "normal"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
"since the occupation of Japan following its surrender in World War II, Japanese workers had only been used for menial tasks" - it might be worth checking David Wilson's book Always First: The RAAF Airfield Construction Squadrons 1942–1974 as he refers to No. 5 Airfield Construction Squadron RAAF hiring Japanese "tradesmen" to work on airfields (p. 101)
Actually, re-reading the official history, O'Neil quite clearly says Korea set the precedent, but he mentions 30 Communications Unit in the same breath so I wonder now if he didn't mean them as the first unit to do it. In view of the uncertainty I'll just say it was unusual at the time, which is also pretty clear from the source.
Do you know if No. 77 Sqn aircraft were rotated back to Japan to Japan for maintenance? Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, O'Neil does say that, will add. Many tks for those comments, Nick. I'm not planning to take this or the companion No. 391 Squadron RAAF article (which I'll also modify a bit per some of the above) to ACR/FAC, I just wanted them as good as possible at this level. Now the laptop's better again I'll get onto Pamphlet in the next day or two. BTW, did you get an email from me yesterday re. the Bugle? Not hurrying you, but I've found that some messages I sent recently weren't getting through... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ian - yes, the email arrived, and I've just replied. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)