# Capt. Eric Brown: Flight Test God or Biased Meathead



## Matt308 (Sep 4, 2008)

Okay all you turds that destroy beloved airplane threads with your unending banter about the illustrious Mr. Brown... here is your chance to piss and moan in relative comfort about whether Eric is a biased buffoon whose only support can be airplanes British or if Eric was so bloody brilliant in his analyses that his conclusions are irrefutable.

May you argue until your bladders burst. Just stay outta my threads.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 5, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Okay all you turds that destroy beloved airplane threads with your unending banter about the illustrious Mr. Brown... here is your chance to piss and moan in relative comfort about whether Eric is a biased buffoon whose only support can be airplanes British or if Eric was so bloody brilliant in his analyses that his conclusions are irrefutable.
> 
> May you argue until your bladders burst. Just stay outta my threads.



Well said, Matt! I was getting a little tired myself of the unending banter as to whether Mr. Brown was God's gift to the Flight Test program, or a complete moron who wouldn't know flat spin from an accelerated stall.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 5, 2008)

I dunno as a personality.

But look at what he did and what he achieved.

His opinion means something because he was there.

He flew Wildcats off a converted frieghter to shoot down Fw-200 in North Atlantic. Have to admit the guy had some balls.

God? no. Meathead ? You will have to translate that one for me!


----------



## wilbur1 (Sep 5, 2008)

Matt just for you me and lucky(when i can get hold of him) are gonna tear all your threads now


----------



## Krabat42 (Sep 5, 2008)

Hey Matt, you should change your sig to "Master of unnecessary threads".  It's like opening a new "Best fighter pilot" or "Best fighter aircraft" poll.    

Can we go back to Tigercat flight testing? I'd like to know what people may find out over the time. There's experts here for every single Fw-190 subtype and every Luftwaffe Rotte but something new about the F7F flight testing would be fine.   

Krabat


----------



## Glider (Sep 5, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Okay all you turds that destroy beloved airplane threads with your unending banter about the illustrious Mr. Brown... here is your chance to piss and moan in relative comfort about whether Eric is a biased buffoon whose only support can be airplanes British or if Eric was so bloody brilliant in his analyses that his conclusions are irrefutable.
> 
> May you argue until your bladders burst. Just stay outta my threads.



Its easy. If he says something bad about the 109 then he is the devil incarnate, who knows nothing and is the most biased pilot that ever flew. If he wax's lyrical about the FW190, Me262 or He162 then he is a really good egg who can do nothing wrong.
Simple really.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 5, 2008)

I think like any test pilot, he has his good and bad points. As with any pilot, personal bias is going to enter the equation. If you have only one sample of an aircraft to test, and it has issues with fuel, or has been a crashed aircraft that has been patched together, that information should enter into the equation as a sub-par aircraft example.

Additionally, when testing enemy aircraft during wartime conditions, there may not be anyone who has trained and flown the aircraft in combat to understand the nuances of the airplane itself and to explain them. This is probably more true with German aircraft as they were quite good at technical innovation. 

It is much easier to fly an aircraft to it's full capabilities when you have access to what the engineers say the limitations and capabilities are. Without that information, test data may not be complete as there are variables that may not be known at the time of tests.

I have a great respect for his wartime deeds as an RAF pilot. He certainly has flown a number of aircraft. But you cannot base any argument on the opinion of *one *source. Anyone who has ever worked in a test environment knows that a single test will not provide reliable data. You need at least three sets of results to have any chance of reliable test data. When working with numbers and empirical data, three tests run by the same person will provide good data. When working with variables that are subjective, you needs at least three different testers.


----------



## ccheese (Sep 5, 2008)

Guess I gotta play dumb. I've never heard of the man, don't know who or
what he is or what he did. I gather, from reading the thread he's an RAF
test pilot. And I get the impression he was "hollier than thou". Guess I have
to do the google thing.....

Charles


----------



## Glider (Sep 5, 2008)

evangilder said:


> I have a great respect for his wartime deeds as an* RAF *pilot. He certainly has flown a number of aircraft. But you cannot base any argument on the opinion of *one *source. Anyone who has ever worked in a test environment knows that a single test will not provide reliable data. You need at least three sets of results to have any chance of reliable test data. When working with numbers and empirical data, three tests run by the same person will provide good data. When working with variables that are subjective, you needs at least three different testers.



RAF, RAF!!! Fleet Air Arm please. Being serious for a moment I agree with what you say.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 5, 2008)

Oops, you are correct on that one, Glider. See, here is proof on subjective material from a single source!


----------



## drgondog (Sep 5, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Okay all you turds that destroy beloved airplane threads with your unending banter about the illustrious Mr. Brown... here is your chance to piss and moan in relative comfort about whether Eric is a biased buffoon whose only support can be airplanes British or if Eric was so bloody brilliant in his analyses that his conclusions are irrefutable.
> 
> May you argue until your bladders burst. Just stay outta my threads.



He is definitely neither from my perspective. I corresponded with him in the early 90's specifically on his rankings and the analysis that went behind it. 

While I don't agree all of his conclusions he is well grounded as an Aero Engineer from knowledge standpoint, and I respect his stick and rudder expertise - 

Whether I agree with him in all respects (and I don't) he has dropped more time in round off errors in his logbook than my total time - and he has flown the aircraft he pontificates about..

So I am on the side of respect


----------



## Erich (Sep 5, 2008)

interesting gents you bring this chap up, yes agree with Bill he has made some errors like all of us which is nothing new, also have heard from several reputable sources the man never had a WW 2 combat service record other than test flying captured LW a/c for analysis for the RAF


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 5, 2008)

Good summary Evans.

He has loads of flight time flying aircraft, but he seems to base everything (at least the fighters) on a "plane-to-plane" dogfight, and not tactics the pilots would use in a real battle.


----------



## Juha (Sep 5, 2008)

Erich
IIRC he got 2½ Fw 200C Condor kills while flying Martlets ie RN early Wildcats from RN's first CVE HMS Audacity. Brown flew also some sorties during BoB in Sea Gladiators or was that in ordinary Gladiators.

Juha


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 5, 2008)

I agree with Erich and Bill, but Im slightly more biased about the man simply because my Grandfather did not like him, thought him very egotistical, and swayed his opinions somewhat on which side won the War...

My Grandfather even went so far as to say that u purposely biased his opinions and, in certain situations, did not fly the aircraft being tested to the limits of himself or the aircraft....

I do respect his stick time and his service, but his somewhat biased opinions (occasional) about certain performance issues of captured aircraft mean about as much to me as the wart growing on Matt's hairy ass cheeck...


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 5, 2008)

I don't think there would be any problem with Brown. From all his writings, he seems to be honestly describing his experience, and opinion of the aircraft he liked and disliked. Of course his preferences are subjective, but that is only natural.

The problem is how people interpret him. Take example Brown's comments on the Bf 109, he considers it a good aircraft for shooting down bombers and not so good for fighter vs fighter combat. Some people are going to quote that with great enthusiasm, but the context is that Brown flown only one Bf 109, that G-6/U2 from a Wilde Sau unit that mislanded in Britiain in July 1944, and was equipped cannon gondolas for night buff hunting. 

Browns comments - which are mixed up in his books with contemporary reports from the AFDU done, in this case, with the same aircraft he logged an hour or so into - are of course valid for that particular type; the context is that this subtype of the 109 was neither the newest, nor representative of all the other subtype in service at the time. It was simply an anti-bomber 109 setup - which could be easily changed to an anti-fighter setup if needed, by removing the gunpods - hence little wonder it shows anti-bomber and not anti-fighter qualities.. it is this context that fans often, and conviniently forget about, and then hide behind Brown's authority.


----------



## rochie (Sep 5, 2008)

i dont think anyone can argue with the amount of different aircraft he flew.
i thought he was very complimentary about luftwaffe aircraft during WW2, but didnt like the russian planes he tried out


----------



## ccheese (Sep 5, 2008)

I am surprised.... Wiki says...

"He flew aircraft from Britain, America, Germany, Italy and Japan, and is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as holding the record for flying the greatest number of different aircraft. The official record is 487, but only includes basic types. For example Captain Brown flew several versions of the Spitfire and Seafire, and although these versions are very different they only appear once in the list."

"Due to the special circumstances involved, he doesn't think that this record will ever be beaten."

I must read his book.....

Charles


----------



## rochie (Sep 5, 2008)

charles
wings on my sleeve is a decent read and has a list of all aircraft he flew.


----------



## Juha (Sep 5, 2008)

I more or less agree with Kurfürst. Only exception is that IIRC Brown didn’t clearly state that the 109G he flew had gun gondolas under wings. Those who know the fact that the max speed of 109 G-6 with gun gondolas was 621km/h can draw the right conclusion from his writings especially if one knows the fact that a G-6/U2 landed in error to Manston in May 44 IIRC. And sometimes IMHO he seems to put too much weight on take off and landing characterises of planes, maybe because he was FAA pilot. IMHO that might explain his very positive attitude towards F6F and Firefly and his IMHO rather negative attitude towards F4U and Bf 109G, On Corsair one must remember that IIRC his opinion was mostly based on early “birdcage” hood Corsair.

Rochie, in fact Brown was very impressed by La-7 his critic was concentrated against its equipments which he thought were below par. Il-2 and MiG-3 on the other hand didn’t impress him.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Sep 5, 2008)

Hello CCheese
there are at least 6 books to read written by Brown.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Sep 5, 2008)

Hello
I checked Brown's victories from C. Shores' Those Other Eagles, it was only 2 Condors, both in Nov. 1941.

Juha


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 5, 2008)

Well, flying a plane on a test flight for a short time, is far different than having flown the plane for multiple hours in a simulated dogfight.

His credibility to me is quite low.


----------



## slaterat (Sep 5, 2008)

If you can say that Eric Browns credibility is low , then really no one has any credibility. The guy flew more warbirds than anybody period. Is his opinion on any given aircraft the only truth, of course not. Kurfurst basically hit the nail on the head, its how people interpret him.

Being a Hurricane fan all my life,a plane that is very hard to peg: I have read many descriptions of its flight performance that are so different its hard to believe they are talking about the same plane.

Slaterat


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 5, 2008)

If Mr. Brown had several dozen flight hours each in many aircraft, and flew some simulated dogfights in them, then I can give him credibility. 

But just taking them up for a couple of hours to see how they handled just doesnt cut it.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 5, 2008)

I assume from what I've gleaned from the pilots getting checked out in various types wasn't all that great a deal and I'm going to say he knew more about ww2 aircraft then of all of us combined . but some times the guys from over the pond have a tendency to think they invented flying so maybe this is why he rubs some folks the wrong way. 
With the nations of the various aircraft he flew listed I surprised he never flew the Chipmunk


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 6, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> some times the guys from over the pond have a tendency to think they invented flying



Nope, us Yanks did that.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 6, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Nope, us Yanks did that.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 6, 2008)

If you are a fan of aviation then you have to respect the exploits of Eric Brown. Even if you don't like him then you still have to give him the nod for what he achieved.

To say he didn't fly enough combat is a weird basis to judge his pilot skills.

But any opinion based on anything is always going to be in the eye of the beholder. His judgement on the 109 was more than just performance. If he liked the 190 and Ju 88 and Ar 234 and was a german fan and still the 109 didn't float his boat then that must say something.

perception is far more difficult to overcome even if the facts say otherwise.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 6, 2008)

... yet of all the German top aces who probably had more hours on both planes most still preferred the 109 over the 190. That must also say something.

I respect Brown, he's probably the guy to talk to if you want an assessment of various WW2 aircraft and one of the few who can tell you somthing about rare types like the He 162.

That said, I don't take everything he says as pure gold. With that many planes I doubt he had a consistently high number of hours on all of them. So with planes that take some "getting used to" like the Corsair or the 109 his opinion might not reflect all the aircraft has to offer. And even then, his opinion is still just one (very experienced) opinion. IIRC Rall once said he never used the slats during maneuvering, other 109 aces said this was where real turn fights began... opinions differ.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 6, 2008)

Well Brown was a test pilot so he took safety into account. 

But again we are talking about the 109. Brown said some things about it and therefore he is wrong.

He liked a lot of the German aircraft he flew...even some obsolete types...but he didn't blow his load over the 109. He wasn't the only UK pilot who didn't like it.


----------



## Juha (Sep 6, 2008)

Now Brown himself wrote that his experience with 109G was limited even if it included simulated dogfight and wrote that his opinion might have different if he had flown it extensively in combat.

KrazyKraut, are you sure that aces like Kittel, Priller, Wurmheller, Thyben and Romm prefered 109 over 190? I doubt that. As you wrote, opinions differ.

Syscom3
Brown was trained fighter pilot and had flown much in fighters like Gauntlet, Gladiator, Wildcat, Spitfire/Seafire, Firefly, Sea Fyry, Vampire and Sea Hawk. Also at least Swordfish and Barracuda. And reasonable flying time at least Fw 189 and 190, DH 108 Swallow, Avro Tudor and Mosquito to name a few. 

One with 500 combat flying in say Fw 190 could probably be better to analyze its behaviour in combat but was he better to compare it with many other fighters?

I think that Bill's father was well able to compare P-51 and Fw 190D and able to compare P-51, Spitfire, Fw 190D and 109K but was he able to compare Macchi MC 202, Dewoitine D.520 and Hurricane? In P-51 vs Fw 190D comprasition I would appraise more Bill's father's opinion but in Wildcat vs Seafire Brown's.

Juha


----------



## The Basket (Sep 6, 2008)

That is what I is saying.

Judging his career on a very limited aspect of his life.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 6, 2008)

Juha said:


> Now Brown himself wrote that his experience with 109G was limited even if it included simulated dogfight and wrote that his opinion might have different if he had flown it extensively in combat.
> 
> KrazyKraut, are you sure that aces like Kittel, Priller, Wurmheller, Thyben and Romm prefered 109 over 190? I doubt that. As you wrote, opinions differ.
> 
> ...



I agree everything you say. 

I would add that my father would never have positioned himself as a 109 or Fw 190D 'expert' on the basis of the hours he flew in them at Gablingen after the war. He did have the ability to fly them against the late model 51D flown by very skilled pilots (Elder and Hovde) but who knows what actual condition both ships were in relative to overhauls and specs?

I wonder if he would even consider himself an 'expert' in Mustangs with over 600 hours in them including post war and Korea? He would have considered Bob Hoover as the 'measuring stick' for that standard.

Expert could be in the eye of the beholder..


----------



## Juha (Sep 6, 2008)

Hello Bill
Now my point partly was that your father with a good deal of combat flying in P-51s and an ace in it and with reasonable amount in Fw190D in simulated dogfights against P-51s was probably a better judge on those two a/c than Brown who had no combat time in P-51 and surely much less flying time in it and in all probably less simulated dogfight time in Fw 190 even if he might have had nearly as much stick time in Fw 190 even if I doubt that. And also IMHO your father was probably better judge on those two a/c than for ex. Hoover just because Hoover was “too good” P-51 jockey without probably same sort of intimacy with Fw 190D than with P-51. But this is hair splitting in my part.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Sep 6, 2008)

Juha said:


> Hello Bill
> Now my point partly was that your father with a good deal of combat flying in P-51s and an ace in it and with reasonable amount in Fw190D in simulated dogfights against P-51s was probably a better judge on those two a/c than Brown who had no combat time in P-51 and surely much less flying time in it and in all probably less simulated dogfight time in Fw 190 even if he might have had nearly as much stick time in Fw 190 even if I doubt that. And also IMHO your father was probably better judge on those two a/c than for ex. Hoover just because Hoover was “too good” P-51 jockey without probably same sort of intimacy with Fw 190D than with P-51. But this is hair splitting in my part.
> 
> Juha



Lol - I surrender


----------



## Graeme (Sep 6, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Okay all you turds that destroy beloved airplane threads with your unending banter about the illustrious Mr. Brown...



Never my intention Matt, simply wished to share with you an appraisal of the Tigercat by Brown, which I *finally* found *today*...

Interesting end piece. He flew a modified F7F-2N at the Naval Air Test Centre at Patuxent River, to evaluate the supine pilot position with the cockpit fitted with a periscope. 





Also found his DeHavilland DH-103 Hornet report and the controversial(?) Corsair article...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 6, 2008)

Are you going to post the rest of those articles or just taunt us with the covers.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 7, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Are you going to post the rest of those articles or just taunt us with the covers.


I've read most of them , he is really vey good at what he does , but there are many just as good


----------



## Soren (Sep 7, 2008)

evangilder said:


> I think like any test pilot, he has his good and bad points. As with any pilot, personal bias is going to enter the equation. If you have only one sample of an aircraft to test, and it has issues with fuel, or has been a crashed aircraft that has been patched together, that information should enter into the equation as a sub-par aircraft example.
> 
> Additionally, when testing enemy aircraft during wartime conditions, there may not be anyone who has trained and flown the aircraft in combat to understand the nuances of the airplane itself and to explain them. This is probably more true with German aircraft as they were quite good at technical innovation.
> 
> ...



Excellent post Evan, I agree.


----------



## Soren (Sep 7, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I agree everything you say.
> 
> I would add that my father would never have positioned himself as a 109 or Fw 190D 'expert' on the basis of the hours he flew in them at Gablingen after the war. He did have the ability to fly them against the late model 51D flown by very skilled pilots (Elder and Hovde) but who knows what actual condition both ships were in relative to overhauls and specs?
> 
> ...



IIRC your father said that the Fw-190 was slightly better in the horizontal than the P-51 ? If so it agrees completely with other aces have said and all the sensible stuff I've read on the subject. But seeing that you'd have to be accustomed to an a/c before you can get the max out of it your father must have been quite familiar with the Fw-190 ? How many hours did he fly it ?

Anyhow may he rest in peace with all the other aces out there


----------



## Krabat42 (Sep 8, 2008)

Hey Graeme,

Could you send me scans of these articles by email? I expect they are to large to be posted here.

Krabat


----------



## drgondog (Sep 9, 2008)

Soren said:


> IIRC your father said that the Fw-190 was slightly better in the horizontal than the P-51 ? If so it agrees completely with other aces have said and all the sensible stuff I've read on the subject. But seeing that you'd have to be accustomed to an a/c before you can get the max out of it your father must have been quite familiar with the Fw-190 ? How many hours did he fly it ?
> 
> Anyhow may he rest in peace with all the other aces out there



Soren - he had ~ 25 hours in it, liked the airplane and said he could easily take it into combat. Interestingly enough he had just a little more than 50hrs in the Mustang by the time he had 3 air scores - two over 109s plus a probable and one Ju 87.

He was regarded by the ones that flew with him as one of the best pilots they flew with... 

I would have to believe someone like Willi R. would be able to extract more from the 190D, but reminded that dad also defeated the 190D flown by the other senior pilots in his 51D when they swapped out. 

Soren - the problem is that the experiences weren't under serious test and flight test profiles so the judgements are subjective and falls largely back to pilot versus pilot skill.

All I know is that he had enormous respect for the pilots and a/c he flew with and against. He may have been cocky, but it would only be discernable in rare circumstances. He was a very modest man.

There are several good observations by Bud Fortier on my father in his (Fortier's) book "An Ace of the Eighth"...

Thanks for the sentiments. I miss him.


----------



## fly boy (Sep 10, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Okay all you turds that destroy beloved airplane threads with your unending banter about the illustrious Mr. Brown... here is your chance to piss and moan in relative comfort about whether Eric is a biased buffoon whose only support can be airplanes British or if Eric was so bloody brilliant in his analyses that his conclusions are irrefutable.
> 
> May you argue until your bladders burst. Just stay outta my threads.



ok then


----------



## Soren (Sep 11, 2008)

> I would have to believe someone like Willi R. would be able to extract more from the 190D, but reminded that dad also defeated the 190D flown by the other senior pilots in his 51D when they swapped out.



Did your father fly against senior German pilots post war ? Or did you mean senior -51 pilots who took the 190 out for a spin ?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 14, 2008)

Soren said:


> Did your father fly against senior German pilots post war ? Or did you mean senior -51 pilots who took the 190 out for a spin ?



Senior USAAF pilots. The senior LW pilotes were still in the 'debriefing stage' in July - Sep 1945 timeframe. My father also taught the same guys how to fly the B-26 and A-20 - at least well enough to keep them alive on whiskey runs to Paris.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 14, 2008)

drgondog said:


> My father also taught the same guys how to fly the B-26 and A-20 - at least well enough to keep them alive on whiskey runs to Paris.


I don't think they would understand or approve today and there aren't enough airplanes to bend


----------



## drgondog (Sep 15, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I don't think they would understand or approve today and there aren't enough airplanes to bend



You are 100% correct - and actually I would say that zero tolerance for peacetime mistakes started in 1947-1949.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 15, 2008)

drgondog said:


> You are 100% correct - and actually I would say that zero tolerance for peacetime mistakes started in 1947-1949.


When i listen to the guys from that era talk , a check out involved a 10-15 minute talk on the aircraft with a few minutes in the cockpit and away you go. met a gent named Kelly Walker he said his check out in the 262 was all of 15 minutes on the ground.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 15, 2008)

I agree with both Kurfurst, Bill and Erich here, but I can understand where Sys is coming from as well.

You can not go up and fly a plane for an hour and put an accurate ranking on it. Now having said that I do respect his knowledge and that he has way more flight experience than I have (Hell I have no WW2 aircraft flight experience ), but I do not agree with everything Eric Brown says. I just dont think that the few hours in each aircraft can give you an accurate assessment of the aircraft.

I still would give anything to fly atleast 1 or 2 of the aircraft he has flown though...


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 15, 2008)

Bingo Chris. You have to respect the fact that he flew the aircraft in question. At the end of the day his opinions have to be taken with a pinch of salt and alongside all the other data that is out there and available on the web and in books. In my opinion his is neither a Flight Test God or a Biased Meathead but is somewhere in between. Whilst he certainly will be a little bit biased his opinions have to still be valued because unlike almost everybody here he flew the aircraft and not just looked at statistics (not that there isn't anything wrong with doing it - it just doesn't give the full picture).


----------



## Venganza (Sep 16, 2008)

I read Capt. Brown's book, Wings of the Navy, which as the name would reflect, covered (Allied) naval aircraft, everything from the Swordfish to the F4U. It was an enjoyable read and whatever else you can say about Capt. Brown, he is a good writer and has flown in an incredible amount of planes. Having said that, and not being a pilot myself, I'm not sure what to make of some of his assessments of the planes he flew as they seem to go against consensus (not that that makes him wrong). One striking example for me was the difference in his opinions of the Wildcat and the Corsair. He writes glowingly of the Wildcat, which he clearly adored, and with considerable disdain for the Corsair, which he clearly disliked. As has been written on this thread, as a naval aviator, he may have based too much of his opinion on the takeoff and landing characteristics of the respective aircraft. Certainly the Corsair was not the easiest plane to fly off a carrier (or land), long nose, vicious torque roll upon stalling, etc., but I still think if you asked a 100 pilots which they'd rather take into a dogfight, all 100 would say the Corsair. It doesn't matter how well the plane takes off or lands if you never live to land it. Still and all, I'd love to have a chat with him (if he's still around) and talk about planes.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 16, 2008)

Actually, except for the early "birdcage" canopy F4U-1's, view for take-off in the Corsair was very good. 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G69yNblVO2k_


----------



## Venganza (Sep 16, 2008)

The better view isn't surprising, given the blown hood and raised pilot's seat of later Corsairs. I believe that Capt. Brown flew at least one of the later versions, an AU-1 (F4U-6) if I remember correctly, and he seemed to dislike that even more than the earlier versions. I guess he just didn't like the Corsair.

Venganza


----------



## Graeme (Sep 16, 2008)

Venganza said:


> I believe that Capt. Brown flew at least one of the later versions, an AU-1 (F4U-6)* if I remember correctly*, and he seemed to dislike that even more than the earlier versions. I guess he just didn't like the Corsair.



You remember correctly!...


----------



## renrich (Sep 18, 2008)

It is clear that Brown was heavily biased against the Corsair but he displayed the same bias against other AC also. For instance he rates the JU87 above the SBD which he says is tied with the Val. Given the supposed good survivability of the SBD and it's combat record, that seems implausible. His rating of the greatest WW2 carrier fighters is (1) Hellcat, (2) Zeke, (3) Wildcat, (4) Corsair, (5) Sea Hurricane, (6) Seafire. I am glad the US Navy saw things differently. I believe that Brown, like a few members of this forum, was decidedly prejudiced toward one country's designs and one theatre of war.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 18, 2008)

Re: carrier fighter ratings, it really does matter a lot how easy the plane is to land on the carrer (mainly, relatively few planes had serious problems taking off from carriers). Even in wartime carrier fighters tended to engage in intense air combat a fairly small % of the time. Lots of operational losses when not in contact with the enemy, or in prolonged ground strikes with little air opposition, could really wear down a force.

And remember the USN's preference for F4U depended somewhat on version. When F4U's started operating regularly from carriers in Jan 1945, that was F4U-1D v F6F-5 which may not have been such a big performance difference in practice (eg. when the two examples tested v a captured A6M5 had best speeds of 413mph for the Corsari, 409 for the Hellcat, closer than the official stats). And the F6F was easier to operate, also better for deflection shooting for one of the same reasons, lower nose profile. However F4U-4 had a clearer advantage over F6F-5 in basic performance, for the postwar decision to make it the main piston fighter. It was good enough in carrier characteristics and significantly better in other areas, at least was though to be.

I'm not sure that reasoning held up so well in the real piston fighter combat mission in Korea though. In 1945 carrier ops 41% of F4U's hit by AA were lost compared to 26% of F6F's; the operational loss rates were ~.75% and .5% per sortie respectively. In Korea those were the two basic sources of loss, and carrier operating conditions were typically more difficult, especially in winter. Those statistical differences if they held up represent a lot of planes and pilots which would not have been lost in Korea if using the F6F (considering 530 F4U's lost in Korea to all causes, none to piston fighters, against which the F4U-4/5's real advantage would lie).

As for AU-1 it as never a carrier plane for the US. Some Marine sdns in Korea deployed to CVE's and CVL's as one sdn air groups in the Yellow Sea with their F4U-4's, but never took AU-1's. The AU-1 was popular though for the landbased USMC mission in Korea: better power at low altitude, more payload, less vulnerability to ground fire, and just a new airplane in 1952, not a banged up F4U-4 delivered late in WWII or just after and already run hard in Korean combat conditions for 2 years.

The AU-1's which survived Korea were mostly transferred to the French, operating mainly from shore bases also. But the F4U-7, purpose built for France, was basically the AU-1 with the F4U-4's engine, and was apparently a satisfactory carrier plane.

Joe


----------



## renrich (Sep 19, 2008)

On May 16, 1944, after a series of comparative tests, a Navy Evaluation Board concluded that the F4U1D was the best all around Navy fighter available and a suitable carrier AC. It was recommended that all carrier fighter and fighter bomber units be supplied with that type ASAP. For a post war comparison of the two types by someone who flew both operationally, read Linnekin, "80 Knots to Mach Two." It is clear that the Corsair was superior in most respects. In tests held by the Navy against the FW190 with the F6F3 and F4U1, the Corsair appeared to hold all the advantages over the Hellcat. I have seen the tests of the Hellcat and Corsair versus the Zeke also and the performance numbers for the US AC appear to be in error.


----------



## renrich (Sep 19, 2008)

In WW2, in the Pacific, the Hellcat and Corsair flew almost the same number of combat sorties. The Corsair dropped more than twice the tonnage of bombs yet had only 349 losses from triple A to 553 for the Hellcat. It has been stated on this forum that the Corsair dropped lots of bombs on unoccupied or lightly defended islands. Only goes to show that statistics can be misleading. The ratio of fighter kills versus bomber kills is tilted in favor of the Corsair also and since the Corsair was operational earlier than the Hellcat and was contending with veteran IJN pilots in the Solomons, that would seem to be a factor also. I put a lot of faith in pireps such as Linnekin who flew both operationally, although not in combat. His favorite piston fighter(which he also flew operationally) was the Bearcat but he stated that the Corsair compared favorably to the F8F in some ways. His evaluation of the Hellcat was that it was a bit of a slug.


----------



## marshall (Sep 19, 2008)

I don't like to compare anything only by statistics but what about the kill/loss ratio for Corsair and Hellcat? F4U 11:1 (2140 destroyed to 189 lost aircrafts) and F6F 19:1 (5163 to 270), why Hellcat was so successful?


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 19, 2008)

renrich said:


> It is clear that Brown was heavily biased against the Corsair but he displayed the same bias against other AC also. For instance he rates the JU87 above the SBD which he says is tied with the Val. Given the supposed good survivability of the SBD and it's combat record, that seems implausible.


He never flew them in combat so his opinion was based on how they performed and how they handled. The Ju 87 is famous for its excellent handling and it's stability in a dive, which also contributed a lot to its accuracy.

I think that is "bias" you are talking about is rather his fair opinion, based on the criteria he could actually witness.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 19, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> He never flew them in combat so his opinion was based on how they performed and how they handled. The Ju 87 is famous for its excellent handling and it's stability in a dive, which also contributed a lot to its accuracy.
> 
> I think that is "bias" you are talking about is rather his fair opinion, based on the criteria he could actually witness.



Actually while he remarked how they handled - he ranked them in terms of comparative value... I had a long running debate with him (polite- I Do respect his knowledge) on several of his ordered ranks. 

In the above comparison for example he could not possibly express an opinion of each in context of experienced combat abilities - as he never flew 95% of the a/c, in combat, that he comments on

As I said earlier, he has lost more time in his logbook in round off errors than I have in total. While I disagree some of his conclusions I respect his opinions.


----------



## fly boy (Sep 19, 2008)

marshall said:


> I don't like to compare anything only by statistics but what about the kill/loss ratio for Corsair and Hellcat? F4U 11:1 (2140 destroyed to 189 lost aircrafts) and F6F 19:1 (5163 to 270), why Hellcat was so successful?



with either plane our pilots kicked @$$


----------



## Soren (Sep 19, 2008)

Nothing was wrong with Brown, he was a good pilot, but like many have said by now you dont get proficient in any a/c by flying it for a couple tests, far from it. And his wartime evaluations were ofcourse also somewhat biased. But again some a/c are easier quicker to learn to fly proficiently than others, which reflects itself in the conclusions test pilots make.

I still don't think anyone said it any better than Evan:


> I think like any test pilot, he has his good and bad points. As with any pilot, personal bias is going to enter the equation. If you have only one sample of an aircraft to test, and it has issues with fuel, or has been a crashed aircraft that has been patched together, that information should enter into the equation as a sub-par aircraft example.
> 
> Additionally, when testing enemy aircraft during wartime conditions, there may not be anyone who has trained and flown the aircraft in combat to understand the nuances of the airplane itself and to explain them. This is probably more true with German aircraft as they were quite good at technical innovation.
> 
> ...


----------



## JoeB (Sep 19, 2008)

renrich said:


> In WW2, in the Pacific, the Hellcat and Corsair flew almost the same number of combat sorties. The Corsair dropped more than twice the tonnage of bombs yet had only 349 losses from triple A to 553 for the Hellcat. It has been stated on this forum that the Corsair dropped lots of bombs on unoccupied or lightly defended islands. Only goes to show that statistics can be misleading.


Right, that statistic is misleading, whereas the one for F4U's and F6F's flying the same missions off carriers in 1945 is apples to apples. And Corsairs went down when hit by AA substantially more often (and they didn't get hit any less often). Presenting a misleading stat doesn't invalidate an apples to apples non-misleading stat, IMO  The source is btw the official document "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics", Table 29, and there's a notation on the next page pointing to it, that the Corsair was notably more vulnerable. And though the F6F wasn't used in Korea (expect a few bomb/drone F6F-5K's), nothing in that war contradicted the WWII conclusion that the F4U was relatively vulnerable to AA fire among radial piston planes. It was the reason for rearranging oil cooling system on the AU-1.

On 'kill ratio' you correctly noted F4U's were credited many victories v JNAF fighters in the Solomons in 1943 (although, F6F units also flew there and the their relative record wasn't vastly different). But they also scored alot in 1945 including many kamikazes, as did F6F's, with F6F's also scoring loads of victories v all kinds of a/c, many not fighters, in 1944 where F4U units (after the supression of Rabaul in early '44) mainly sat 1944 out as far as air combat. So it's not so comparable, true. Also of course those are victory credits not real enemy losses. For Boyington's VMF-214 in the Solomons, counting up in Gamble's "The Black Sheep Squadron", JNAF losses were on the order of 35-40% of VMF-214's offical credits. And accuracy of credits tended to increase as the war went on, so that's another potential skew.

However to quote another more (though not purely) apples-apples claim stat, in the period Sept 1944-end of war, covered by "NACS" (Table 28 ) the claimed kill ratio's of F4U and F6F, v. J-fighter types only, were essentially the same: 2315:149 for F6F, 15.5:1, and 634:42 for F4U, 15.0:1. Again though 1945 victories v fighter types included a lot of kamikazes, in both cases. Note that total F4U victory credits in the period were 1042, ~1/2 of total F4U victories and almost all would have been in 1945. Total F6F victories in the period 3518, more than 1/2 the all-war total, but many of those would have been in Sep-Dec '44.

Joe


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 19, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Actually while he remarked how they handled - he ranked them in terms of comparative value... I had a long running debate with him (polite- I Do respect his knowledge) on several of his ordered ranks.


I stand corrected then. So it'd be interesting to know the reason for the ranking positions. Did he tell you anything on that?
I don't want to derail the thread into a dive bomber debate, but Ju 87 and SBD seem pretty evenly matched in terms of performance stats relevant to their role (offensive and defensive armament, range, speed etc.). And I know Brown had a relatively high opinion on how the Ju 87 performed in the dive.



As for the F4U vs. F6F debate: A potential problem is that both fighters outperformed 90% of their adversaries, add to that tactical and pilot superiority and the performance advantage of the F4U simply doesn't matter that much anymore and safety is more important.


----------



## renrich (Sep 19, 2008)

As pointed out, the Corsair downed relatively more fighters than did the Hellcat. Corsairs were in combat on Feb. 14, 1943. Hellcats were first in combat August 28, 1943. The six and one half month difference may have meant that the Corsair pilots met many more veteran IJN pilots than did the Hellcats. Statistically it still makes me wonder why the Hellcats suffered so many more losses from triple A per ton of bombs dropped. Also, I wonder if a Zero is carrying a bomb and flown by a kamikaze pilot, is it a fighter or bomber. An aside is that when the first Wildcat squadron was withdrawn from Guadalcanal to Espiritu Santo to transition to Corsairs, it was like a wild west rodeo, with the planes flying the pilots. These were low canopy undebounced F4U1s and the consequent landing difficulties made for many hairy landings and quite a few crashes. Fortunately, the robust Corsair construction kept the fatalities down somewhat. Another interesting aside since this thread is about Eric Brown is that his evaluation of the FW190 reads somewhat the same as that of the Corsair regarding stall characteristics. Abrupt stall with little or no warning with the left wing stalling first. Also since this thread is about Brown his evaluation of fighters is about their ACM capabilities, not air to ground, so the vulnerabilities to ground fire of the two AC is not relevant. Facts are facts and the Navy apparently preferred the Corsair for fleet defense and I have never heard of anyone other than Brown who would say the Hellcat was superior to the Corsair in ACM.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 19, 2008)

renrich said:


> 1. As pointed out, the Corsair downed relatively more fighters than did the Hellcat. Corsairs were in combat on Feb. 14, 1943. Hellcats were first in combat August 28, 1943. The six and one half month difference may have meant that the Corsair pilots met many more veteran IJN pilots than did the Hellcats.
> 
> 2. Statistically it still makes me wonder why the Hellcats suffered so many more losses from triple A per ton of bombs dropped.
> 
> ...


1. But again, we have apples to apples stats for later in the war, where we don't have to wonder how much of the F6F's higher claimed ratio for whole war was due to the mix of targets. In Sep 1 '44-end of war period we have the claimed ratio for both v fighter types, against the same or similar mix of Japanese air arms at the same stage of their decline (or perhaps partial resurgance in '45 in some cases). The ratio's are almost exactly the same, ~15:1 claimed. 

2. Because, as mentioned last time this came up, if you compare all war AA loss stats, you're comparing lots of F6F missions on carrier raids against heavily defended targets, in 1944 especially, with landbased F4U milk runs against bypassed garrisons. If instead you look at the apples-apples case of carrier missions only for both types in 1945 (only year F4U's flew substantial amount of carrier missions), the F4U had a notable higher loss rate, against the same mix of targets. Also the tonnage of ordnance per sortie for 1945 F6F and F4U carrier ops was almost the same, for example Feb-June 1945 .14 tons/sortie F6F, .15 F4U, 1.94 rockets per F6F, 2.9 per F4U; but in July-August it was .19 F6F .18 F4U and rockets 2.76 and 3.04. There didn't seem to be a real payload difference, in side by side carrier ops, but a loss difference.

3. The stats quoted are victories by type of a/c identified, by codename, ie. Zeke, Oscar, etc. There are actually stats for each individual type, how many claimed v. how many F4U and F6F were lost to each enemy type. There was no way to tell for sure what mission the plane was on, and there's no attempt to make that distinction in those stats. However two things are clear: the % of kamikazes among fighter types would have been similar for both F4U and F6F in that same period so the kamikaze factor doesn't invalidate the equality of claimed kill ratio's; but the kamikaze factor would have bumped up both planes' ratio v a situation confronting strictly 'real' fighters. Both types actually lost some combats over Japan v real fighters, in cases where we know both side, though even against real fighters and discounting to actual Japanese losses both were successful overall.

4. The Navy definitely preferred the F4U-4 going fwd from the end of WWII, but the late war comparison was mainly F4U-1D v F6F-5, not as distinct. Also to the degree F4U-1 was preferred in 1945 it was for speed as interceptor to catch fast kamikazes and fast conventional attackers like 'Jill', 'Judy', etc. I'm not aware there was any strong consensus the F4U was a better fighter v. (real) fighter machine in side by side ops, (your source for that?), and we have stats in same period v same mix of fighter opponents where claimed ratio's were equal. 

My thesis is that the Navy's preference for F4U-4 from 1945, based on higher speed mainly, for air defense, proved an error by the time of the Korean War. By then the speed of the piston component of the air wing had become irrelevant, but the F4U's inferiority in AA vulnerability and carrier accident rate became more important. You can't usually predict the next war though, of course.

Joe


----------



## The Basket (Sep 20, 2008)

With German airplanes like the Do 335, Ar 234, Me 163 and He 162...he is probably one of the few men to fly them and write extensive about them so is an easy job to use his opinion.

He did fly the Arado a lot so his opinion on the Blitz is taken as gold...as there is not much else. 

He flew as a test pilot so maybe he thought more about flight safety than combat. Is this aircraft going to be a widow maker...

He did write nice things about the Stuka but also called it a bullet magnet and considered its ability to defend itself against fighters as zero. Nice machine...but poor survivabilty.


----------



## Njaco (Sep 20, 2008)

I'm waiting for the 'Chuck Yeager: God or Meatball' thread!

I only have one book that I've read by him "Wings of the Weird and Wonderful" and I didn't find it too biased. But like Kurfurst posted, things can be misconstrued by others.


----------



## renrich (Sep 20, 2008)

Is it possible that losses in air to ground missions were affected by dive bombing techniques? The Corsair was used as a dive bomber late war and was almost as accurate as SBD in that role. Hellcat could not dive bomb. In tests with FW190, Corsair obviously had many performance advantages over Hellcat. Faster at all altitudes, better rate of climb, better roll rate. Again Linnekin stated that the Corsair was better at air to air gunnery than either Bearcat or Hellcat because of better control modulation. During the late war, tons of bombs or rockets per sortie would not be as relevant as total tons for each AC. Are you saying that the kills for each AC is based on wartime claims and not authenticated kills based on research post war? I have wondered about that. Just watched again the video of Jim Swett's mission where he got seven kills on Vals. I wonder if that is supported by Japanese records. In Lundstrom's books, kills by Navy pilots are roughly 50% supported by IJN records. The IJN pilots were even more over enthusiactic in claiming kills.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 20, 2008)

renrich said:


> 1. Is it possible that losses in air to ground missions were affected by dive bombing techniques? The Corsair was used as a dive bomber late war and was almost as accurate as SBD in that role. Hellcat could not dive bomb.
> 
> 2. In tests with FW190, Corsair obviously had many performance advantages over Hellcat. Faster at all altitudes, better rate of climb, better roll rate.
> 
> ...


1 Divebombing F4U's would again be Marine units v. bypassed garrisons. In carrier ops in '45 no evidence AFAIK they flew any differently than F6F's, and as time went by those included a lot of USN F4U units anyway. They just lost more planes to AA, and it's not a total mystery why: the F4U's oil system was very vulnerable, why it was eventually re-arranged on the AU-1 (and F4U-7).

2. In tests v A6M5, the example F4U-1D and F6F-5 were not much different in speed, 413 v 409mph best (at different altitudes). But anyway here we're headed back to the common tangent, IMO it's a tangent, of which plane was really faster, climbed higher rate etc. when the point is combat results. There's a relationship between the two of course, but my point is effectiveness in fighter-fighter combat, not (relatively small) speed or climb differences. Here we have a large sample of combats by F4U and F6F v same opponents in same period flown by the same or similar air arm (USN and USMC) and the claimed fighter-fighter ratio was almost exactly the same. That strongly implies there wasn't a big practical difference in effectiveness v enemy fighters. 

As far as anecdotal comparisons, AFAIK F6F v. F4U was mainly like the Big Three USAAF fighters: people who'd flown one successfully in combat tended to be convinced it was the best and not that many had extensive combat experience in more than one. A few Japanese comments in postwar interviews said the F6F was the most formidable US fighter, period. That might have been an impression based on partly numbers and damage done by F6F's rather than careful analysis, but still worth noting.

3. I don't understand that logic. There's room for only so many planes on a carrier (and F4U's and F6F's were about the same size). There's no evidence either could fly more sorties per day, so ordnance per sortie is the measure of how much they could deliver from a given carrier over a given period of time. It was about the same.

4. Yes, official Navy stats of claims (official victories). There's no way you could reconstruct that period completely from both sides. But there's no reason to believe that F4U and F6F claim accuracies differed in that same period against the same opposition, so it's a valid *relative* comparison IMO. 

5. I agree approximately, but claim accuracy ratio v enemy fighters was lower than the overall average, typically, and definitely in results given in Lundstrom. Victories against eg. lone flying boats or floatplanes, fair % in those books, were almost 100% accurate. Claims against bomber types tended to be more accurate that those against fighters, too. The F4F's claim accuracy against fighters in 1942 was more like 25-33%. In Swett's combat April 7 1943, F4F's, F4U's, P-38's and P-39's claimed 39 total Japanese a/c and the Japanese lost 12 Zeroes and 9 Vals: relatively good claiming, especially given the number of fighters downed.

Joe


----------



## renrich (Sep 20, 2008)

I have seen combat film of Corsairs dive bombing at Okinawa. In fact, the Corsairs because of their bombing there were called the "Angels of Okinawa." What I meant was on the tonnage dropped is that if one dropped significantly more tonnage than the other it would show that it flew more sorties. As to "small differences" in performance read the Navy evaluation of F4U and F6F versus FW190 and I believe the differences become more evident. I have read where the Japanese said the Corsair was the most formidable fighter of all they faced in WW2, including all services. They even named the Corsair, "Whistling Death." All of that is anecdotal, of course. Truthfully, based on performance figures, I can't see how anyone could say that Hellcat was the equal of Corsair in ACM. A direct quote from Dean's "America's One Hundred Thousand," " A modern evaluation of a Corsair found it to be the weapon of choice over a P51D, a P47D and a F6F5. A WW2 pilot noted the Corsair was a high strung predator while the Hellcat was a nice safe pussycat." Another quote, " Corsair controls were better harmonised than the Hellcat." That is confirmed by Linnekin in his book. Since Brown is supposed to be the subject in this thread, I guess that a true statement is that the Corsair either inspired great enthusiasm or great distaste. Perhaps that is true as to members of this forum.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> I stand corrected then. So it'd be interesting to know the reason for the ranking positions. Did he tell you anything on that?
> I don't want to derail the thread into a dive bomber debate, but Ju 87 and SBD seem pretty evenly matched in terms of performance stats relevant to their role (offensive and defensive armament, range, speed etc.). And I know Brown had a relatively high opinion on how the Ju 87 performed in the dive.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## renrich (Sep 21, 2008)

In a book I have about and "by" Marion Carl I recall that Brown and Carl were friends. Of course Carl was a test pilot too. I think he was the second pilot to fly an AC past the speed of sound. My guess would be that Brown and Carl had many spirited and interesting conversations. Since Carl was a man with much combat experience, his perspective would have been somewhat different than Brown's.


----------

