# Eric Brown's "Duels in the Sky"



## GregP (May 23, 2012)

I re-read Eric Brown’s “Duels in the Sky” and found the end to not be what has been posted in the past in several forums, includign this one. I confess I merely perused it before and never read the final chapter … to my loss.

At the end of the book he picks the greatest single fighters of WW II to be:

1. Supermarine Spitfire and Fw 190 as tied for first place.
2. Grumman Hellcat. My personal pick as top or very near the top.
3. North American Mustang IV.
4. Mitsubishi Zeke.
5. Hawker Tempest V.
6. Kawanishi George 21.

He takes into account the basic quality of design, development potential, combat success rate, and the aircraft’s influence on the conduct and outcome of various operations. In the Pacific, the Hellcat almost single-handedly turned defeat into victory. The Mustang, though technically superior, never made such an impact in any theater of operations.

He picks the greatest Naval fighters of WW II to be:

1. Grumman Hellcat.
2. Mitsubishi Zeke.
3. Grumman Wildcat.
4. Chance Vought Corsair: Rejected for carrier use at first, it was powerful in the air but never as fit as the Hellcat for carrier duty. A dog on the carrier deck. The rate of climb was never very good in early models and was overstated in later models.
5. Hawker Sea Hurricane.
6. Supermarine Seafire: Short range and very poor deck handling that probably resulted in more operational losses than combat successes.

He picks the most effective dive bomber to be:

1. Junkers Ju 87.
2. Douglas Dauntless and Aichi Val as tied for second place.
3. Blackburn Skua.
4. Curtiss Helldiver.

He picks the best torpedo bomber of WW II to be:

1. Fairey Swordfish.
2. Grumman Avenger.
3. Nakajima Kate.
4. Nakajima Jill.

He says the Swordfish was in action sooner than the Avenger, obtained better torpedo results, and suffered fewer losses. Of course, the “fewer losses” part could easily be due to the fact that the Avenger was used much more in a more hostile sky, but these were Eric’s picks. 

I’d reverse #1 and #2, not for nationalism but more for performance. The Swordfish was good but obsolete. The Avenger was more modern but suffered from vulnerability due to 3 crew, its payload, and low speed versus a single-seat fighter. The Swordfish was worse in this regard, but the Japanese carriers were MUCH more present than were German carriers … as Germany never had one. If they had, the Swordfish would have died quickly or, at the very least, would have suffered losses similar to or greater than the Avengers since they were largely shot down by carrier fighters out of land-based fighter range. The Swordfish lived due to German inability to field a carrier force. Just my opinion.

Any comments? I respect Eric Brown a lot, but do not necessarily agree with his every choice. Still, he DID fly the aircraft in question and I did not. Makes me want to side with Eric regardless of my own feelings ... mostly ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tante Ju (May 23, 2012)

I agree about the Swordfish. If we talk about the best plane, the plane's qualities should be looked at, not operational record, which is effected by mostly other factor than plane quality. Otherwise Brewster Buffalo is best fighter of WW2, because of Finn success...

The Swordfish was well obsolate by WW2, it was against this that success happened, credit to crews and generic lack of opposition, and often, luck. When fighters were around they suffered bad, like during Channel Dash.


----------



## Juha (May 23, 2012)

Hello
IMHO Brown's background as a naval pilot always has some influence to his comments, he tended to put great weight to t/o and landing characteristics.

On Swordfish, I agree with You but one must remember, that much of Swordfish actions were in MTO, where land based fighters were a danger. FAA circumvented that by widespread use of night attacks, it had developed effective night attack tactics in pre-war years and Swordfish suited well to these tactics.

I'd also say that SB2C was better than Brown's evaluation reveals,probably because he only flew an early version a/c, later versions, from late -3 onwards, were much better dive-bombers, so IMHO late Beasts were at least better than Skua.

Juha

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeGazdik (May 23, 2012)

I have long thought that the Hellcat is always overlooked as possibly one of the very best. It is a perfect example of "stats" not telling the whole story. When you compare its performance on paper, it seems you can always find something that was faster, or better armed, or better range or whatever. But it fought better than it would suggest on paper. I cannot really think of reading an objective pilot report that damned its flight performance. 

That it ranked as the best Naval aircraft was not a surprise when I read the book years ago. That it rated so highly in the "best fighter" was surprising when I first read his book. I at first had doubts, but time has erased most of those really.

That being said, I do think that a large reason it out paced all other fighters in the Pacific with the amount of victories it had is largely due to the fact it was there. It was where the enemy was and it excelled. IF another one of the top allied fighters had been afforded the same opportunities, that nameless aircraft may very well have succeeded to the same degree.


----------



## drgondog (May 23, 2012)

I had a long exchange with Brown in the 80's over his ranking, particularly regarding his ranking of the Mustang and the Hellcat... and Me 109

My points (after he wrote the book), which he conceeded, is that he could not properly place the Hellcat as The majorTheatre winner over the F4U or the P-38 in the Pacific. He Could properly state that the F6F was the most important for Naval Operations.

The Hellcat started ops at the same time as the Merlin Mustang, the P-51B was in a much tougher threat environment - flak, aircraft and pilots, in the highest priority theatre for the Allies. 

The Mustang destroyed more aircraft in the air than the second ranking F6F -and when you consider the effect of 'in the air and on the ground' directive from Doolittle, the strafing credits placed the P-51 at the very top of enemy aircraft destroyed for the Allies - 

While little thought has been given to ground destruction, consider: The LuftWaffe NEVER were fully equipped to the authorized levels for the TO&E in 1944 despite ramping production of aircraft by more than 2x over 1943 levels. An equal impact to the restriction of the 'on-hand' strength at Staffel/Gruppe level has to be assigned to strafing losses. 

Further, there was no other aircraft (fighter aircraft) that had more of an impact (positive) on USAAF daylight bombing operations in ETO, as well as wresting control of the air from Germany, than the P-51B. To even separate the Mustang IV (which had very little 'impact') from the P-51D and P-51B was 'curious'. I pointed out to him (and he was surprised about these facts) that the P-51B in five months through May 30 killed more LW aircraft and pilots/crews than All the P-47s for All their sorties in the ETO from April 43 to May 30, 1944 - in the air and nearly the same amount on the ground. I did agree that the P-51D was a slightly better aircraft than the B, primarily for visibility and firepower, at a slight expense to manuevrability.

The other factors I pointed out included 

1.) Neither the Spitfire nor the FW 190 ever 'controlled anything' over the enemy's territory, the F6F had no range, speed, firepower, acceleration, roll or even rate of climb in the later models - over the F4U. Neither the Spifire nor the FW 190 (nor the P-47 or Tempest) impacted their adversaries over the Homeland. The P38 and Zeke were close and the late model P-47 equalled the footprint after Germany surrendered. 

2.) The P-51B was the single most important fighter for the Allies during the most critical phase of the war - namely the preparation for the Invasion and defeat of German forces in the West by winning control of the air over Germany and carving the heart of German reserves (LuftFlotte Reich) for the Invasion. (AFAIK there were zero P-51D kills before D-Day)... The Yak 3, Laag 7, P-38, Spitfire, Tempest, P-47, etc did not have the same impact. The only aircraft that had close to that distinction in my mind was the Hurricane during the BoB (pre "Allies") but even that was a one-two punch with the Spitfire.

My perception of Brown was a.) sharp, b.) biased toward Naval ops, c.) picking aircraft (Spit/FW 190 that were, and remained, in constant conflict far longer than any of the other aircraft in his top list - to which he lent great weight for his ranking.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (May 23, 2012)

i was going to take exception to the comment _"The Mustang, though technically superior, never made such an impact in any theater of operations." _ but drgondog said it way better than i could have...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (May 23, 2012)

The 1944 joint fighter conference rated the tested aircraft as follows

Best above 25,000 ft.
P-47
P-51
F4U-1
F6F
F4U-4 (There was limited test on this aircraft)
Seafire
P-38

Best below 25,000 ft.
F8F
P-51
F4U-1
F7F
F6F

Typically these were flown by opposite military and contactors, i.e., F6F was flown mostly by AAF and contractors and P-51 by Navy and contractors. They didn't seem to rate the F6F particularly high.

I would weight this report pretty high considering the numbers that participated in the evaluation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jim (May 23, 2012)

drgondog said:


> I had a long exchange with Brown in the 80's over his ranking, particularly regarding his ranking of the Mustang and the Hellcat... and Me 109
> 
> My points (after he wrote the book), which he conceeded, is that he could not properly place the Hellcat as The majorTheatre winner over the F4U or the P-38 in the Pacific. He Could properly state that the F6F was the most important for Naval Operations.
> 
> ...


 
So P51 was the best because of his performance in Spring 44? 
The fact that all circumstances were in its favor means nothing?
a) It escorted a massive ,unique in aviation history ,bomber force that attracted the attention of the defenders
b) Faced an exausted ,overdeployed , hugely outnumbered enemy ,who faced fuel and raw materials limitations.
c) An enemy that in the same theater faced P38s, P47s, Spits,Typhonns etc.
d) That period by coincidence was at the same time that german fighters were less competitive during the entire war
e) the levels of gruppe strength were low because of bombing losses and lack of fighter pilots replacements. Not because of strafing
f) The total alleid victory in ULTRA operation gave additional advantage to alleid units
g) It was produced by a raech, industry , unbothered by the enemy, allowing exceptional construction quality
h) Superior fuel unavailable to the enemy.
k)Nothing would have been diferent in spring 44 without the existence of P51s .Siply the american would have solved sooner the problems of P38, and long range versions of P47 and Spit would have been produced sooner, true with greater cost
About the other aircrafts
FW 190 could not dominate over England .True .There were 2 german fighter wings against thousands enemy fighters. Clear Fw190 short coming .However if war conditions were diferent could fly missions with 2 or even 3 external tanks. As for the Spitfire ,according to Parsifal, you are wrong! He dominated luftwaffe in 41/42/43 over France! Ask him, he has nentioned this on several posts! Who is wright?
P51,without its numerical superiority and height advantage because of the bomber presence , could be outfought by late Spitfires,Tempests,Yak 3s,post spring 44 109s and 190s, F4U,. True its package of exceptional range , high speed in horizontal flight, good communication equipment was very valuable. So third place given by Brown sounds reasonable. Spitfire is far the most important and generaly more capable fighter of WW2 and second place in my opinion goes to 109. Last years 190 has lost points in my opinion.
Brown judged the aircrafts flying them on equal conditions, without operational advantages and disadvantages created by the general war situations . Thats the proper way to judge them, historical results while indicative, may be misleading as in P51s case.


----------



## Hop (May 23, 2012)

> The Mustang destroyed more aircraft in the air than the second ranking F6F -and when you consider the effect of 'in the air and on the ground' directive from Doolittle, the strafing credits placed the P-51 at the very top of enemy aircraft destroyed for the Allies -



Half of all US strafing credits in the ETO came in a single month, April 1945. These were aircraft being abandoned on their airfields by a Luftwaffe that barely functioned.



> Neither the Spitfire nor the FW 190 ever 'controlled anything' over the enemy's territory,



Spitfires didn't control anything over Germany in 1944/45? The number of sorties, the tiny number of interceptions by the Luftwaffe suggest otherwise.



> The P-51B was the single most important fighter for the Allies during the most critical phase of the war



The first half of 1944 was the most critical phase of the war? I don't think many outside the US would agree.

I know the Mustang has the reputation in the US as the aircraft that "turned the tide", but the truth is the tide turned in 1942. By 1943 the outcome was no longer in doubt. By 1944 it was just a question of whether or not the war truly would be over by Christmas. 

The most critical phase of the war was in 1940 or 1941, possibly even 1942. But the Mustang certainly played no part in it.



> The Yak 3, Laag 7, P-38, Spitfire, Tempest, P-47, etc did not have the same impact.



Of those aircraft, only the Spitfire was involved in action in the decisive phase of the war. By the time the others scored their first kills the ultimate result was beyond doubt.


----------



## bobbysocks (May 23, 2012)

when did the LW lose all its pilots? i keep hearing this over and over and i am trying to pin point just when it happened. in nov 43 they were experienced enough and had the strength and resources to batter the 8th bomber groups to the point where daylight bombing was halted. i never hear one complaint about lack of anything up to this point. between then and spring of 44 how did they lose that much strength? how? because long range escort were able to meet the LW on its home turf and all of its turf. prior to that the LW could dictate the engagement. if they didnt wish to engage they headed back to germany where the allied planes couldnt touch them. once the 51 came on the scene that safe haven and option was removed. there was no place to run and no place to hide. daylight bombing was only able to resume because of the long range 51s...where before the LW had pushed the allied out of the daylight the allies pushed back...i would pretty much call that turning the tide. in the beginning escorts were glued to the boxes so the LW could then again disengage and go home to relative safety. once doolittle gave the ok to have part of the group leave the bombers and go hunting the loses for the LW compounded. the straffing began and planes on the ground were taken...and the loses to the 51 groups as well. they lost a hefty amount of pilots to flak. haydon got nowotny but the flak got haydon. and that is a typical example of where the reiches planes and aces were lost. yeah at the end of the war they were shooting up everything they could see but the LW had taken heavy losses on the ground prior to that. it just amazes me how there are no complaints about anything until you mention the 51...then its no plane, pilots, fuel,and outnumbered. the VSS out numbered the LW ( iirc by double or more ) at the beginning of the invasion but no complant is ever uttered about that either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 23, 2012)

I have nothing but respect for Eric Brown, but I do have some issues with his rankings. I too feel his rankings are based off of a nationalist and naval bias. 

As much as I love the Spitfire and Fw 190 more than the P-51, I find it really hard to rank them above the P-51. Lets face it, it probably had the biggest impact on the ETO. It was the fighter that was able to take the fight to the Germans. The Spitfire certainly was not able to do that. How can anyone argue with that? Don't take me wrong. I don't think the P-51 was an "Ueber Fighter" like some people tend to believe (Just like some people think that anything with a black cross on it was "Ueber" than anything ever built. I find it overrated in that sense because so many people forget about the other fighters that contributed to the war.) It is just really hard to argue that any fighter made more of an impact. The P-51 was good to great in every category and could take the fight to the Germans. Period...

On the other hand however, I did not fly these aircraft. Brown did, so my hat is off to him. He certainly knows more than I do.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (May 23, 2012)

While winter 43/44 was important for air situation, war had became unwinable for Germany in late summer/early Autumn 42, when it began to look that the 42 Summer Offensive would not gain the oil fields of Baku and SU would not been knocked out of war in 42 and that Japanese onslaught in Asia was running out of steam.

And on complains, DAK from Rommel downwards was complaining loudly on Allied air attacks on it at least from late summer 42 and also on inability of LW, KM and the Italian Navy to protect its supply lines to Europe, KM complained lack of air support in Channel and in Bay of Biscay. Heer thought that during the 2nd week of Operation Zitadelle VVS was gaining upper hand over the battlefield. Saying nothing on situation over Sicily and Italy in later part of 43. That all before P-51B arrived. P-51 clearly made things easier to Allied but it did not change the outcome.

Juha

Reactions: Agree Agree:

1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hop (May 23, 2012)

> when did the LW lose all its pilots?



Between 1 September 1939 and 8 May 1945. 

If you look at fighter losses, the Luftwaffe lost 80% of their front line strength May - December 1940. 

They 46% in the first half of 1941, 63% in the second half of the year.

In the first half of 1942 they lost 54%, in the second half 83%

In 1943 losses were 164% in the first half of the year, 175% in the second half.

In 1944 250% in the first half, I don't have numbers for the second half, but they were even higher.



> in nov 43 they were experienced enough and had the strength and resources to batter the 8th bomber groups to the point where daylight bombing was halted.



Defeating unescorted bombers wasn't that difficult.

The truth is the Luftwaffe suffered a decline in quality as the war went on. Losses in 1940 were largely amongst the highly trained pre war pilots. By 1943 losses were largely amongst the hastily trained replacements.

From Strategy for Defeat by Williamson Murray:



> By the beginning of 1942, the Germans had lost the equivalent of two entire air
> forces . The result was that the Germans had to curtail their training programs to
> meet the demands of the front for new pilots . By January 1942, of the pilots
> available for duty in the fighter force, only 60 percent were fully operational, while
> ...





> prior to that the LW could dictate the engagement. if they didnt wish to engage they headed back to germany where the allied planes couldnt touch them.



You think Goering and Hitler would let their air force sit idly by whilst the German army did all the fighting? The truth is the Luftwaffe suffered heavy losses on offensive and defensive operations, from the start of the war to the end. As the strength of the allies increased Luftwaffe losses soared.



> where before the LW had pushed the allied out of the daylight the allies pushed back...i would pretty much call that turning the tide.



The Mustang certainly turned the tide for the 8th AF bomber campaign. But the tide of war had turned long before.


----------



## Hop (May 23, 2012)

> It was the fighter that was able to take the fight to the Germans. The Spitfire certainly was not able to do that. How can anyone argue with that?



Until the end of 1943 the Spitfire was unquestionably more important to the allies.

For the first 5 months of 1944 the P-51 was unquestionably more important than the Spitfire.

For the last 7 months of 1944, and the first 4 of 1945, the Spitfire and P-51 were both important.

Only if you take those first 5 months of 1944 as the most important part of the war can you argue the Mustang was the most important fighter. I know there's a tendency to do that in the US. The US contribution in the ETO only really got off the ground in the summer of 1943, and things didn't go well until the Mustang came along at the start of 1944. So from the US point of view the Mustang was all important. But there was so much more to the war against Germany than the US bombing offensive. Indeed, the Germans already knew the war was lost before the USAAF started bombing Germany in earnest.


----------



## TheMustangRider (May 23, 2012)

Hop said:


> The Mustang certainly turned the tide for the 8th AF bomber campaign. But the tide of war had turned long before.


Let's take into account that it was the 8th AF strategic bombing campaign over much of Nazi-occupied Europe and Nazi Germany itself that achieved the air superiority necessary for a cross-channel invasion.
No long-range fighters, no air superiority; no air superiority, a doubtful cross-channel invasion; no invasion at all, a very different outcome of the war in Europe.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 23, 2012)

Hop said:


> So from the US point of view the Mustang was all important. But there was so much more to the war against Germany than the US bombing offensive.



Where did I say anything to the contrary? Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say the US was the sole reason the war was won, nor do I believe that...


----------



## drgondog (May 23, 2012)

jim said:


> So P51 was the best because of his performance in Spring 44?
> 
> *Yes, and No. It was for the purposes of ensuring that the Luftwaffe was unable to re-inforce the air over Normandy in sufficient numbers as to prevent logistical re-supply of the troops that landed on D-Day. The Luftwaffe drew 50% of the Ost and Sud Fronts to re-inforce LuftReich from July of 1943 through March 1944. That force stopped the USAAF in the ETO by the end of October 1943 was significantly re-inforced by March 1944. The P-47 and Spitfire achieved local air superiority over France, Belguim, The Netherlands and Western Germany within the range of the P-47 - but adapted new lethal tactices which required the P-51B to defeat. In the period Jan1 - May 30 the Mustang destroyed more LW aircraft in the air than all the P-47 sorties flown in the ETO from its inception in April 1943. Thereafter till the end of the war the Mustang destroyed more aircraft than any Allied Fighter (or any TWO Allied fighters combined) despite the ability of 9th AF and RAF to move to continental airfields after D-Day for the rest of the war.
> 
> ...



I have utmost respect for Brown - I publically posted my dialogue and disagreement fro the reasons stated. I also respect your views even when I disagree.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 23, 2012)

> The P-51 was good to great in every category and could take the fight to the Germans.


 Another factor in favour of the Mustang was that it was available in huge numbers and although that might not have any bearing in such a poll, it certainly made a difference during the war.

This is what Max Hastings wrote about the P-51 (although the latter part is less specific about Allied aircraft types) in his book Overlord, about, well, "Overlord";

"by one of the most extraordinary paradoxes of the war, the bombing of the factories achieved only limited impact upon German aircraft production; but the coming of the marvellous P-51 Mustang long range fighter over the skies of Germany inflicted an irreverseable defeat upon the Luftwaffe, unquestionably decisive for Overlord. In January 1944 the Germans lost 1,311 aircraft from all causes. This figure rose to 2,121 in February and 2,115 in March. Even more disastrous than lost fighters, the Luftwaffe's trained pilots were being killed far more quickly than they could be replaced, with the direction of the air force in the enfeebled hands of Goering. By March the Americans were conciously attacking targets with the purpose of forcing the Germans to defend them. By June, the Germans no longer possessed sufficient pilots and aircraft to mount more than token resistance to the Allied invasion of France."

Have to agree about the Swordfish and although it was most certainly obsolete, as a weapon it did bloody well in the hands of some rather courageous individuals. Perhaps that's why there is so much respect for it in certain circles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 23, 2012)

Hop said:


> Half of all US strafing credits in the ETO came in a single month, April 1945. These were aircraft being abandoned on their airfields by a Luftwaffe that barely functioned.
> 
> *Nope but not terribly far off - For 8th AF the April 1945 credits for a/c - ground was 1715 of 4103 total. I agree that a lot were destroyed in the last month (42%) but over half were destroyed between March 1944 and September 1944 - a period before successful decentralization made such losses more critical. *
> 
> ...



Clearly the Spitfire was of negligible importance at Stalingrad, or at Midway. It was of significance in the MTO over the battlefield and on medium bomber escort to RAF and USAAF MTO during 1942 through mid 1944. It had zero influence in the destruction of Ploesti, or other crital targets in Austria, Czechoslovakia when the 15th AF came into existence. It was of negligible importance against Japan.

It was a great airplane and I didn't quibble with Brown's position of the Spit, had some problems ranking the Fw 190 above the Mustang (or the 109) and had a problem with ranking the Hellcat over either the Mustang or the Me 109.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (May 24, 2012)

I think the main problem with Brown is he disagrees with ME and he doesnt put MY favourite aircraft at number 1. When I say me and my I mean every armchair expert who is currently on this site. We werent there, we didnt fly the aircraft mores the pity but for some reason a man who flew more aircraft than most us have air miles is wrong with his personal opinion. It is a book of personal recollections taken from his contemporaneous notes, he never tried to say it was anything other than that but for some reason he gets more hate than any other figure in aviation history. Till the invention of the time machine when some flight sim experts can go back and refight history we have to respect the opinion of the people who were there. Get 10 veterans in a room get them talking and within minutes you will have 20 different opinions on the best plane of WWII.

So for all those who seem to take great pleasure in attacking Brown and denigrating his experiences and personal opinions, I say come back when you have flown every single plane he did and then I might give you the time of day. 

*Till then you aint fit to polish his shoes.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 24, 2012)

Interesting take Fastmongrel and hard to argue your point because of Brown's experience, but that's the fun of this forum, isn't it? What's a little debate between strangers in front of computer screens at opposite ends of the world to one another? We get to pass judgement over things we have no real world knowledge of and, as you rightly pointed out, the poll is based on his opinion, and that's what we are voicing, our own opinions. So? Spitfire, P-51, Fw 190 or F6F?


----------



## fastmongrel (May 24, 2012)

Problem is nuuumannn the Brown debate always descends into Brown was a Limey As****e who didnt realise everything with a star on the side was the best or Brown was an untermensch who didnt realise everything with a cross on the side was the best. Debate away he didnt rate the aircraft the way I would but it always ends up with idiots getting personal and nationalistic. 

Petty nationalism pisses me off I love old motorbikes and I personally think BSA produced the best motorbikes in the world even though they leaked fuel, oil and electrons in equal measure but no way would I get into a pissing contest with someone from the US who holds the opinion that Milwaukee produced the best bikes in the world even though I personally think the best thing to do with a new Harley is wheel it to a scrap metal merchants and get a few bucks per ton.

I work in a Mercedes garage working on air-con, electrics and bodywork and I think they are the best cars in the world so that should keep the "Jerman stuff is oresome" brigade happy and I am currently helping a friend rebuild his beautiful AMC Javelin muscle car engine so that should keep the USA USA USA brigade happy. When I find the time I will open the boxes of oily rusty metal in my shed and get round to my latest BSA build its a A65 Firebird scrambler and its going to be the best bike in the world apart that is from my BSA A65 Thunderbolt of course

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (May 24, 2012)

Oh and best plane in the world is spelt DeHavilland Mosquito no P Fw or Bf anywhere near it

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 24, 2012)

> Oh and best plane in the world is spelt DeHavilland Mosquito no P Fw or Bf anywhere near it


Nuthin wrong in that, my man!

Regarding Brown I have to say I'm a bit of a fan, not because he's British or Navy or anything, but because he's a good writer. His test flight reports are interesting and engaging. For me as a youngster into aircraft, in _Wings of the Luftwaffe _he brought to life German aeroplanes and technology in a way that no other book or author had done so before. His descriptions added a whole new dimension to these warplanes that we are so familiar with. That's why I like him. 

As for bias, I fail to see where it lies, he speaks very highly of German aircraft, with the notable exception of the He 177. He describes the Ju 88 with "profound admiration"; one of his favourites, along with the Fw 190. As for comments about being navy, why would that have an impact on a flight test report? That one puzzles me.

Birmingham Small Arms? Don't know much about bikes, but they make a cool sound!


----------



## davparlr (May 24, 2012)

jim said:


> P51,without its numerical superiority and height advantage because of the bomber presence , could be outfought by late Spitfires,Tempests,Yak 3s


I am sure these are all capable combat aircraft. I am also sure they could not do it a 600 miles or stay in the air for long periods of time.



> post spring 44 109s and 190s


The early P-51Bs at 67” boost on 100 octane fuel was faster than the Fw-190A-5 and much faster than the Bf-109G from sea level to ceiling. In addition, it could out climb the Fw from 5k ft. to ceiling and the Bf-109 above 20k ft. It could probably out dive the two and also out turn them. Not many tools for the German flying these two aircraft against the P-51 one-on-one. Post May, ’44, with the advent of higher octane fuel and 75” boost, the P-51B is significantly faster than either German aircraft, much better climbing than either. Not until the advent of the late model aircraft such as the Fw-190D-9 and Bf-109G-10+ and K in the fall of 1944, did Germany have planes that could realistically challenge the P-51 and by then it was way too late.



> , F4U


The F4U-1D was a powerful fighter which had similar performance as the 67” boost P-51 up to 20k ft but would need to have the wing tanks added back in to be a long range escort.



> ,. True its package of exceptional range , high speed in horizontal flight, good communication equipment was very valuable.


So, add to this range and speed, climb, dive and turning, and you can understand the success the P-51 had over Germany.


----------



## MAW-Z (May 24, 2012)

fastmongrel said:


> Oh and best plane in the world is spelt DeHavilland Mosquito no P Fw or Bf anywhere near it



Here...here......

Had the opportunity to briefly speak with Eric a few years back; asked and what he thought of the Mosquito and it's later stablemate the Hornet. He thought very highly of both commenting on their " well harmonized controls". I then asked him about the He219....... His eyes opened a bit and said " now that was a good aircraft........"

It's hard not to like the man. He is unassuming, listens to those around him and ever so willing to talk to anyone about his favorite subject.......... Airplanes.

My hat off to him...........

Cheers

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (May 24, 2012)

I have "Duels in the Sky" in my library and have read it several times. Eric Brown is highly biased in his appraisal of the many airplanes in the book. His comparison of the Corsair II and F6F3 versus the FW190 makes no sense at all when compared to actual tests run by the USN on the three aircraft and the subsequent choice of the Corsair over the Hellcat as the fleet's fighter.

Brown was associated quite a lot with Marion Carl after the war. I wonder if they engaged in debates about the relative merits of fighters? Carl was a big advocate of the Corsair and he had much combat experience. Brown had little.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 24, 2012)

As a test pilot where I am dedicated to flying one aircraft after another to determine the good and not so good characteristics, I am concerned about a.) how does this beast fly, b.) does it generally or specifically meet the specifications for which it was designed, c.) what are potential killer flaws with respect to normal activities (takeoff, landing, spin, stall/warning/behavior, aerobatics, for twin-what are single engine behaviors below blue line or on final approach, etc)d,) how is the cockpit layed out, trim requirements at different speeds, control harmony, etc)... in the US kind of like Edwards AFB for USAF.

At Eglin AFB, they wring the a/c out to try to determine combat capabilities, maintenance issues at 40 below, fire control systems, all weather flying, ACM, etc.

"How it Flys"

I've always perceived the talented and experienced WC Brown as the former - very much like Bob Hoover and Tony LaVier.. whereas I viewed Al and Bob White and Chuck Yeager as 'test pilots' with a serious fabric of combat ops behind the eyes. The engineering theory for context, testing at Edwards for how does it handle, rat races for proof of what it can do when pushed to limit in ACM.

"What it can Do"

Just a thought.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (May 24, 2012)

TheMustangRider said:


> Let's take into account that it was the 8th AF strategic bombing campaign over much of Nazi-occupied Europe and Nazi Germany itself that achieved the air superiority necessary for a cross-channel invasion.
> No long-range fighters, no air superiority; no air superiority, a doubtful cross-channel invasion; no invasion at all, a very different outcome of the war in Europe.



Allied managed to undertake succesfully 2 Overlord size landings into Europe, to Sicily and to Salerno, before P-51B had arrived, so I doubt that P-51B had decisive effect on Overlord. Its successes during winter 43/44 and during Spring 44 definitely made Normandy landing easier but IMHO Allied had enough air assets in GB in 44 to made a succesful cross Channel landing in June 44 iirrespectively were there P-51s or not. At least British leadership understood that it was not in their interest to allow SU dominance over Western Europe, so they would in any case drove hard on the landing, not so sure on FDR who was very naive towards Uncle Joe but because Uncle Joe himself demanded the landing, IMHO it would have been done in any case.

Juha


----------



## rank amateur (May 24, 2012)

Juha said:


> Allied managed to undertake succesfully 2 Overlord size landings into Europe, to Sicily and to Salerno, before P-51B had arrived, so I doubt that P-51B had decisive effect on Overlord.
> Juha



Not to say anything to diminish the landings during Torch, Husky or Avalanche but they were not in the same league as Overlord. 
I think the presence of the P51 in German airspace forced the luftwaffe to retreat a large part of their fighter force from France to Germany. Pretty hard to fight of an allied invasion if there are no planes in the neighborhood


----------



## Juha (May 24, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> Not to say anything to diminish the landings during Torch, Husky or Avalanche but they were not in the same league as Overlord.
> I think the presence of the P51 in German airspace forced the luftwaffe to retreat a large part of their fighter force from France to Germany. Pretty hard to fight of an allied invasion if there are no planes in the neighborhood



Husky was the Sicily operations and really in Husky and in Avanlance the landing forces were on the size of Overloard. And Germans had the plans, which they executed soon after D-Day to move fighter and fighter-bomber units to France but because the overwhelming Allied air-superiority, these units achieved little. But during D-Day LW flew around 300 sorties against the landings, not only 2 as was claimed in that old film was that "The Longest Day" Also Ultra helped, Allied knew where the units were to arrive and when the bombed airbases were again nearly repaired and so ready for another go.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (May 24, 2012)

renrich said:


> I have "Duels in the Sky" in my library and have read it several times. Eric Brown is highly biased in his appraisal of the many airplanes in the book. His comparison of the Corsair II and F6F3 versus the FW190 makes no sense at all when compared to actual tests run by the USN on the three aircraft and the subsequent choice of the Corsair over the Hellcat as the fleet's fighter.


 
It seems the multi-AAF and contractor pilots participating in the fighter conference agrees with you regarding the F4U and F8F, but then, what do they know after all they disagree with Eric Brown.


----------



## rank amateur (May 24, 2012)

Juha said:


> Husky was the Sicily operations and really in Husky and in Avanlance the landing forces were on the size of Overloard. And Germans had the plans, which they executed soon after D-Day to move fighter and fighter-bomber units to France but because the overwhelming Allied air-superiority, these units achieved little. But during D-Day LW flew around 300 sorties against the landings, not only 2 as was claimed in that old film was that "The Longest Day" Also Ultra helped, Allied knew where the units were to arrive and when the bombed airbases were again nearly repaired and so ready for another go.



I could be mistaken (it has happend over the years) and I have nothing to look it up but according to wicked Wiki: 'The operation commenced on 6 June 1944 with the Normandy landings (Operation Neptune, commonly known as D-Day). A 12,000-plane airborne assault preceded an amphibious assault involving almost 7,000 vessels. Nearly 160,000 troops crossed the English chanel". I don't know the comparable figures for either Husky or Avalanche but I'm quite sure that the number of ships/landingvessels was substantialy smaller and there certainly was nothing like a 12000 plane airborne assault over Sicily or Anzio. Nevertheless good arguments are usualy enough to convince me .

Chrzzzz


----------



## drgondog (May 24, 2012)

The fighter sorties for the Allies were nearly 4:1 for the re-inforced LW with units from Luft Reich to support Luft 3 during the June 7-9 timeframe. The Luft Reich units heretofore flying only against the limited P-51 incursions from Big Week through the end of May, ran into a buzz saw when ALL the Allied fighters could engage after D-Day over Normandy. 

No longer were P-47s, Typhoons, Spits limited by range restrictions so every 8th and 9th AF plus RAF tactical forces piled on. And - all the seven active 8th AF Mustang units were involved.


----------



## Juha (May 24, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> I could be mistaken (it has happend over the years) and I have nothing to look it up but according to wicked Wiki: 'The operation commenced on 6 June 1944 with the Normandy landings (Operation Neptune, commonly known as D-Day). A 12,000-plane airborne assault preceded an amphibious assault involving almost 7,000 vessels. Nearly 160,000 troops crossed the English chanel". I don't know the comparable figures for either Husky or Avalanche but I'm quite sure that the number of ships/landingvessels was substantialy smaller and there certainly was nothing like a 12000 plane airborne assault over Sicily or Anzio. Nevertheless good arguments are usualy enough to convince me .
> 
> Chrzzzz



D-Day, from memory: 2 US Divs and 2 US AbDivs + 2 British, one Canadian Divs + 1 British AbDiv + all those sundry units
Sicily, 3 US Divs and 1 Us AbDiv + 3 British, 1 Can Divs and 1 British Glider Inf Brig + all those sundry units and AbDivs were smaller than infantry divs.
Salerno, 2 US and 2 British Divs + all those sundry units, so it was smaller but also strong British forces crossed the Straight of Messina to the toe of Italy and the British 1st Airborne landed at Taranto.

Juha


----------



## TheMustangRider (May 24, 2012)

While I agree that both Torch and Husky were massive endeavors, I believe that Overlord was yet substantially greater and perhaps more critical in respect to enemy oppositions than its counterparts.
During the late '43, early '44 period, long-range escorts did not only engaged the LW well into its own airspace but also wreaked havoc on logistical communication lines all the way from the interior of Germany to the landing zones. By the time the landings occurred, LW airfields close to the beaches were unusable and intermediate airfields were congested with German fighters that were easy pickings for marauding Allied fighters; on top of that much of the needed ammunition and fuel that could be rapidly deployed to service those fighters did not make it to the battle zone due to fractured logistical lines, again achieved by long-range fighters bombers operating still out of England prior to the landings.
It is my opinion that without the Mustang the USAAF would have still prevailed over the Luftwaffe. however, it would have taken longer to materialize an invasion and time was not a luxury the Western Allies had if they wanted to prevent Soviet forces to have a greater window of opportunity and take a bigger portion of Europe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## barney (May 25, 2012)

The Mustang doesn't suffer as badly at the pen of Brown if one reads beyond his list of greatest fighters. 

“Mustang IV Versus Spitfire XIV

I can see no sure way to victory for either combatant. I have flown both for many hours, and I would probably choose the Spitfire if given the choice in a fight to the death.......I once flew a Spitfire against an Fw 190 over France, when after only 10 minutes of thrust and parry in a “g” loaded dogfight we both broke off......Such would be the likely result of this contest”

So, maybe Brown has to give the prize to the British fighter but a couple of pages back he has them fighting to a draw. I don't think that is faint praise considering the handling the British fighter possessed. Then add in the fact that if you wanted to go somewhere you needed a Mustang.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (May 25, 2012)

Well, Eric seems to have engendered a lot of response, to say the least!

To me, the Spitfire, Fw 190, Mustang, Hellcat, Corsair, Ki 100, Ki 84 Frank, N1K George, Re 2005, Yak-3, Yak-9, La-5FN, La-7, P-38, P-47, were all top contenders, easily deadly in all their own rights. Picking the winner it tough, and NONE of us has flown most of them other than Erioc Brown. From the comfort of hinshight it is tough to pick. Eric picked, though he didn't include ALL the contenders above.

I still think "the best" depends on what you want to do, how far away you want to do it, how high you want to do it, and how much ordnance you want to carry. If you wan tto fight at 10,000 feet, a P-39 will give you all you wan tto handle ... throughoutb the entire war. Ditto the P-40. If you want to fight at 25,000 feet, your choices are more limited. If you want to get into a good fight after 6 hours in the air, you'd better be flying a P-51 or you might already be experiencing a forced landing due to lack of fuel.

The Corsiar couldn'r turn with the Spirtfire, burt the Spitfire couldn't roll with the Corsair. The Fw 190 was a great roller, but had a viscious stall that made it tough for inexperienced pilots to turn as tighly as it COULD, if flown properly. The Yak-3 and La5FN/La-7 had almost NO weakness unless you wanted to fly higher than about 18,000 feet or so. ALL the fighters had SOME redeeming characteristics or they would never have made production.

Wish I could fly even HALF of them!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (May 25, 2012)

TheMustangRider said:


> While I agree that both Torch and Husky were massive endeavors, I believe that Overlord was yet substantially greater and perhaps more critical in respect to enemy oppositions than its counterparts.



In a long run Overlord was bigger operation but during the landing day they put ashore more divs in Husky than in Overlord but I completely agree that Overlord was more critical to Germans.



TheMustangRider said:


> During the late '43, early '44 period, long-range escorts did not only engaged the LW well into its own airspace but also wreaked havoc on logistical communication lines all the way from the interior of Germany to the landing zones. By the time the landings occurred, LW airfields close to the beaches were unusable and intermediate airfields were congested with German fighters that were easy pickings for marauding Allied fighters; on top of that much of the needed ammunition and fuel that could be rapidly deployed to service those fighters did not make it to the battle zone due to fractured logistical lines, again achieved by long-range fighters bombers operating still out of England prior to the landings.



IIRC all the targets of pre-D-Day interdiction plan were inside the operational range of P-47, as were the a/f from where LW fighters and fighter-bombers could operate against Normandy beaches, so the P-51 range didn't have any direct impact to D-Day tactical situation. The most important impacts P-51s made were allowing deep day-time bombing raids beyond the range of P-47s even if the impact of these raids were less than the bomber barons had predicted and the bleeding of the fighter arm of LW during the winter 43/44 and in Spring 44 it executed but IMHO while those made the landing easier they were not decisively important to the landing.



TheMustangRider said:


> ... however, it would have taken longer to materialize an invasion and time was not a luxury the Western Allies had if they wanted to prevent Soviet forces to have a greater window of opportunity and take a bigger portion of Europe.



IMHO without P-51 the invasion would have been more costly but it could have been done in June 44 anyway.

Juha

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kryten (May 25, 2012)

whilst we all have nationalistic tendencies and personal bias toward what WE regard as the best, you have to look at the realities in a dispassionate manner, reading through countless combat reports and pilots biographies it strikes me that the actual aircraft involved in a combat has some but not that great a bearing on the outcome, tactical situation and pilot experience seem to me to be far greater influences on a combat than the n'th climb rate or roll etc.
So, bearing that in mind I have to conclude the aircraft that was best was the one that could do what all the others could do, be there in sufficient numbers and something more, and that leads me to the P51, it could do any job the others could do, but it could do it for longer and further, and that was critical at that time in the war, and thats why despite my own nationalistic tendency to say tempest, I have to conclude the P51 as without doubt the greatest single seat aircraft of ww2!


----------



## drgondog (May 25, 2012)

Juha - I agree everything you said but wonder about the last comment. Fear of the unknown actual capability of a 'thing' like German airpower over the beaches could have paralyzed the Command Decision for May/June 1944. Had 8th AF not clearly defeated the LuftWaffe over Germany and experienced the same losses during and after Big Week with no pause because the P-47/P-38 combination been insufficient, then I believe that the Invasion Planners would have assigned a huge risk to the naval (and total logistic chain) assets from the LW.

We know from the actual history that USN/RN had little harrassment but the combination of resistance at Omaha and the following storm which destroyed the Mulberyy made the first week an 'uncertain' outcome as the events unfolded. So the effect of the storm was as close to a major problem as Allied high command thought it would be - what if LuftReich mostly intact, losses in acceptable 5% range during Feb?march And actaul airctaft losses at Oaschersleben, Leipzig, Augsburg, Schweinfurt and in the air had not occurred?

Any hesitation in March for a May/June assault left only July for a combination of tide and window of operational weather for the Invasion...

To me, that is the critical question for historians to ponder regarding the value of 8th BC as both the 'bait' and the strategic hammer to draw LuftFlotte Reich up - and the 8th/9th FC Mustang as the hunter to whittle them to point of near death from Big Week through May. The Mustang did Not win the war. We all get that - but IMO it was the single most important airpower asset added to the ETO. (and to MTO post May) The PTO would have managed, with higher daylight losses over Japan but the March 1945 tactics made even that long range daylight escort less critical.


----------



## drgondog (May 25, 2012)

barney said:


> The Mustang doesn't suffer as badly at the pen of Brown if one reads beyond his list of greatest fighters.
> 
> “Mustang IV Versus Spitfire XIV
> 
> ...



Barney - in the limited time we corresponded, he was clear about his respect for the Mustang. Our academic debate was where to rank the Mustang to the Hellcat - and perhaps the FW 190 (and 109) - but I never argued the relative position of his choice for Spit over Mustang for all the reasons kicked around this thread. I also noted Rall's observation from his experience at Rechlin that in his opinion, the Mustang was the Allies 'best' fighter. We also know that Rall did not mean 'dogfighter', but single best fighter to fight anywhere on more or less terms than any Luftwaffe fighter - because of range and what he called 'full envelope' performance from deck to high altitude.

It was a very respectful and cordial exchange of several letters on the subject. A very sharp individual.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## cimmex (May 25, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Juha - I agree everything you said but wonder about the last comment. Fear of the unknown actual capability of a 'thing' like German airpower over the beaches could have paralyzed the Command Decision for May/June 1944. Had 8th AF not clearly defeated the LuftWaffe over Germany and experienced the same losses during and after Big Week with no pause because the P-47/P-38 combination been insufficient, then I believe that the Invasion Planners would have assigned a huge risk to the naval (and total logistic chain) assets from the LW.



what German airpower over the beaches? Did the German fly more as the well known fighter sorties of Major Priller and his wingman Herbert Huppertz on June 6, 1944 (D-Day).
Regards
Cimmex


----------



## TheMustangRider (May 25, 2012)

German air power over the landing zones constituted something like 300 sorties, minuscule numbers compared to the combined Allied air forces which managed to execute close to 15,000 sorties on June 6th alone.
By this time frame the huge attrition placed over Luftwaffe's Luftlotte 3 and Luftlotte Reich by the combined bomber offensive and primarily the 8th AF is quite evident.
I agree that the immediate tactical situation over the landing zones by June 6th became within range of Allied fighters like the P-47, Spitfire, P-38 etc; however, I would not discard that the strategic situation which began to shift gradually to the favor of the Allied air forces over airspace deep into Germany had a comprehensively impact on the small air opposition given by the Luftwaffe during the landings.


----------



## cimmex (May 25, 2012)

thank you, I didn't know this numbers.


----------



## TheMustangRider (May 25, 2012)

You are welcome cimmex.


----------



## Juha (May 25, 2012)

Hello Drgondog
I agree that without P-51B there would have been more uncertainty in Overlord but because of political and strategic considerations IMHO invasion would have went on anyway.
As lord Palmerston said in mid 19th century, “Britain had no eternal allies and no perpetual enemies, only interest that were eternal and perpetual” and in essence the interest was that no Continental European country had supremacy in Continental Europe. Conservative leadership believed that and probably some leaders of Labour too and left-wingers wanted more support to SU as soon as possible sothere was strong political pressure for the 2nd front as soon as possible. Stalin also demanded 2nd Front soon, in fact SU clearly waited the Invasion and its effects on Germany’s troop and a/c disposal before they launched their main Summer 44 offensive in Belarus. Allied had also developed an effective ECM systems against LW guided weapons and invasion forces had plenty of AA assets in addition to very powerful air assets in Southern GB, so IMHO even without P-51B invasion would have been possible in early June 44 but of course risks would have been higher.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (May 25, 2012)

Juha - It would been an interesting Command Decsion with US probably pushing the hardest with short memories of Anzio and Salerno. 

My gut reaction (agree with you) is that independent of the Mustang the Allies still would have had the total number of Fighter groups over France, just a different mixture, and would have decided to go.


----------



## bobbysocks (May 27, 2012)

Hop said:


> You think Goering and Hitler would let their air force sit idly by whilst the German army did all the fighting? The truth is the Luftwaffe suffered heavy losses on offensive and defensive operations, from the start of the war to the end. As the strength of the allies increased Luftwaffe losses soared.
> 
> _*of course not! and i agree they took heavy losses on offensive and defensive ops. they took it hard during the BoB and even in poland. what i was saying is prior to the 51, if a LW pilot took damage to his ac he could disengage and be free and clear of all threats by flying a mile away from the bombers. that is providing all the bombers were past the protective radius of the fighter escort. that pilot could prudently break off thinking he could get refueled, rearmed, his plane patched up and be ready for another sortie that afternoon or the next day. once the 51 was in the skies...that luxury was gone. he was a target anywhere in the skies or on the ground. he could have been chased back to his field...straffed while he landed...or after. * _
> 
> ...



i dont know if end would have been any different. the airwar or even the ground war for that fact didnt hamper the developement of the A-bomb. it would be a question of which theater it would be dropped on first....


----------



## Dawncaster (Sep 23, 2017)

I have a question.

for Corsair "The rate of climb was never very good in early models and was *overstated in later models*."

I can not find that highlighted part in the 'Duels in the Sky' book.

Did he ever fly the F4U-4?

May I ask for detail information?

ps. Eric Brown says he does not have the same experience as many other pilots or authors, such as the good harmony of the controls, light stick force of the elevator with power, and excellent instantaneous maneuverability...


----------



## pbehn (Sep 24, 2017)

Dawncaster said:


> ps. Eric Brown says he does not have the same experience as many other pilots or authors, such as the good harmony of the controls, light stick force of the elevator with power, and excellent instantaneous maneuverability...



Eric Brown is a controversial character, even on this forum. He was found from his early days to have a great talent for flying and especially for landing aircraft on ships. He holds the record for the number of types flown and the number of take offs and landings on carriers. To me, he should be viewed as a Lionel Messi, a Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali or a Jack Nicklaus. Messi could talk all day about running with the ball and even write a book about it, but he has always been able to run with a ball as fast as most people can run. I doubt if Messi could teach anyone to do it like he does unless they were almost as good to start with. Clay could have written a book on avoiding a punch which I would read with interest but never try to put in practice, and the same goes for the same guy as Ali's "rope a dope". Just walk in the ring and take boxings biggest punchers biggest punches is only a sound tactic if you are actually Mohammed Ali. I cannot hit a golf ball straight when I want to so what use in Jack telling me how to fade left or right?

Brown flew more aircraft types than any other pilot, when he discusses light or heavy controls remember he flew heavy bombers and gliders. I am not a pilot but just from reading about aviation there is a huge difference in a planes "feel" between recovering from a dive or rolling at high speed to those coming in to land especially on a carrier close to stall speed. I have absolutely no doubt that whatever Eric Brown wrote he could logically defend as correct in his opinion, but some people view the world in a different way.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dawncaster (Sep 25, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Eric Brown is a controversial character, even on this forum. He was found from his early days to have a great talent for flying and especially for landing aircraft on ships. He holds the record for the number of types flown and the number of take offs and landings on carriers. To me, he should be viewed as a Lionel Messi, a Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali or a Jack Nicklaus. Messi could talk all day about running with the ball and even write a book about it, but he has always been able to run with a ball as fast as most people can run. I doubt if Messi could teach anyone to do it like he does unless they were almost as good to start with. Clay could have written a book on avoiding a punch which I would read with interest but never try to put in practice, and the same goes for the same guy as Ali's "rope a dope". Just walk in the ring and take boxings biggest punchers biggest punches is only a sound tactic if you are actually Mohammed Ali. I cannot hit a golf ball straight when I want to so what use in Jack telling me how to fade left or right?
> 
> Brown flew more aircraft types than any other pilot, when he discusses light or heavy controls remember he flew heavy bombers and gliders. I am not a pilot but just from reading about aviation there is a huge difference in a planes "feel" between recovering from a dive or rolling at high speed to those coming in to land especially on a carrier close to stall speed. I have absolutely no doubt that whatever Eric Brown wrote he could logically defend as correct in his opinion, but some people view the world in a different way.



There is no doubt that Eric Brown was a great test pilot.

His opinion of Corsair is generally correct.

Corsair Mk.I and the early Corsair Mk.II, received by the FAA, were definitely difficult and dangerous aircraft for carrier operation.

As Brown and other pilots, as reported in the USN reports, Corsair showed little or no stall warnings in landing condition and approx 500 feet needed for recovery.

In addition, according to the manual, FAA's clipped wing Corsair had 3 knots higher stall speed than USN's -1 Hogs.

his opinion is proved by Corsair's operation loss ratio with CV, CVL and CVE which is definitely higher than F6F.

However, he didn't combat sortie with the Corsair and stated that he was limited in sight and control due to his 5'7" body.

Brown pointed out that the Corsair's chief test pilot was 6'4", he admits that he never achieved any sort of rapport with the Corsair.

In addition, the performance of Corsair described in the book corresponds to the very early version Corsair which had poor performance of all -1 Hogs and few bulit.

USN Corsair already claimed faster performance in the february 1943 report and it called 'standard' in report.

I think his opinion on speed, maneuverability, and climb in the air combat of F4U can be doubtable.

so what I really wonder is, he ever fly with the later model Corsairs except AU-1.

In the main topic, he claims later model Corsair's climb rate is overstated.

I read what he said about the AU-1 in another book, it was the last produced Corsair for US, but the flight performance was poor due to the added lot of armor plates and pylons, and Brown caught it well.

but I could not find what he mentioned about the climb performance for AU-1 or other later model Corsairs, such as the F4U-4.

so I am curious about his evaluation of other later Corsairs, if he flew with them.

and I also wonder if he knew that the climb performance of the official performance documents of the USN and FAA was calculated in a different way.

USN ACP and SAC shows maximum climb performance that can be achieved with each power setting.

However, the climb performance shown in performance card of FAA and RAF does not distinguish power setting, climb speed and power setting was not constant.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 25, 2017)

Dawncaster said:


> In the main topic, he claims later model Corsair's climb rate is overstated.
> I read what he said about the AU-1 in another book, it was the last produced Corsair for US, but the flight performance was poor due to the added lot of armor plates and pylons, and Brown caught it well.
> .


I have absolutely no knowledge on this apart from what I have read on these forums. Climb performance is the most difficult to pin down simply because it was the easiest to influence. Just filling with enough fuel for the test and omitting ammunition is a huge weight difference as is adding armour plates and pylons. Taking the best and worst cases in these two scenarios possibly explains why Brown used "overstated".


----------



## Dawncaster (Sep 25, 2017)

pbehn said:


> I have absolutely no knowledge on this apart from what I have read on these forums. Climb performance is the most difficult to pin down simply because it was the easiest to influence. Just filling with enough fuel for the test and omitting ammunition is a huge weight difference as is adding armour plates and pylons. Taking the best and worst cases in these two scenarios possibly explains why Brown used "overstated".



ah... I made another mistake.

I also could not find what he mentioned about the rate of climbs for later model Corsairs, including AU-1.

Sorry!

I will fix the post.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 15, 2017)

Dawncaster said:


> I also could not find what he mentioned about the rate of climbs for later model Corsairs, including AU-1.



Brown mentiones this in his book Wings of the Navy; he didn't rate the AU-1 very highly.

"The speed for maximum climb rate was 125 knots (232 km/h) from sea level up to 21,000 ft (6,400 m)..." *Climb was certainly impressive*, with that immense 13 ft 4 in (4.06 m) diameter Hamilton Standard propeller pulling the aircraft up like a high speed lift, 10,000 ft (3,050 m) being passed in 4 - 6 minutes and 20,000 ft (6,095 m)in 9.6 minutes. Above 21,000 ft (6,400 m) climb speed was reduced three kts per 2,000 ft, but the two-stage two-speed supercharger ensured good climbing capability well above 30,000 ft (9,145 m).

This is certainly contrary to the perception that he wasn't impressed by its climb rate.

Here's what he had to say in short about the Corsair in general:

"There can be no doubt the Corsair was one of the fastest naval aircraft of WW2 and few of its pilots criticised it from a performance standpoint. It had a good range, adequate firepower, an extremely reliable engine and it could absorb a lot of punishment. However, in my view it left much to be desired as a fighter from the viewpoint of manoeuvrability and this same shortcoming was apparent in the dive bombing role in which it saw widespread use. Finally it had a very dreary track record as a deck-landing aircraft; many were the pilots that lauded its high speed performance but decried its lack of affinity with a carrier deck."

Brown explained that his role in assessing the Corsair during the war was during diving trials, where Marine Corps pilots had experiences where fabric was tearing from the elevators during high speed dives. Never a good thing.

Here's his introduction to the Corsair chapter:

"Undeniably unique in appearance among singe-seat fighters of its era, with its reverse-gulled wing, mighty Double Wasp engine and immense windmill of a propeller combining to impart an impression of brute strength, Chance Vought's F4U Corsair was not a comely aeroplane by any yardstick. It was anathema to some pilots and shear ambrosia to others. There were those pilots that acclaimed it as the best single-seat fighter of any nation to emerge from WW2; there were pilots that pronounced it a vicious killer equally dispassionate towards killing its pilot as his opponent. Indeed, few fighters were capable of arounsing within those that flew them such extremes of passion as was the Corsair. Of course, in any shortlist drawn up of the most famous - as distinct from the most efficacious - fighters of WW2, this odd looking warplane will inevitably rank among the classics near the top. Yet, to my mind, the Corsair achieved such a level of distinction despite itself, but then I was never to be numbered among its more ardent admirers; *those that apparently assessed the Corsair solely on the basis of its more glamorous attributes and disregarded the penalties that these invoked*."



Dawncaster said:


> I think his opinion on speed, maneuverability, and climb in the air combat of F4U can be doubtable.



I think you need to read the book before making such an assumption. He's pretty clear about its faults and although he does admit he wasn't a fan, he wasn't for good reason. It doesn't appear that he flew later models of the fighter variant before the AU-1, but the faults of deck handling and poor stall characteristics were generic to the breed, not just the early ones, so his assessment is not inaccurate in this regard. This after testing the AU-1:

"It was the handling of the AU-1 that served to heighten my distaste for the Corsair, however, for if its ancetor had proffered some unendearing characteristics, they had been multiplied in the descendant. The AU-1 had developed some highly undesirable directional stability and control characteristics, such as requiring almost full right rudder on a deck-landing approach, thus rendering baulked landing the most hazardous of operations. It also displayed a directional oscillation in diving wiht external stores, thus setting up wing rocking and seriously affecting the aiming accuracy."





Corsair iii by Grant Newman, on Flickr

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dawncaster (Oct 15, 2017)

nuuumannn said:


> Brown mentiones this in his book Wings of the Navy; he didn't rate the AU-1 very highly.
> 
> "The speed for maximum climb rate was 125 knots (232 km/h) from sea level up to 21,000 ft (6,400 m)..." *Climb was certainly impressive*, with that immense 13 ft 4 in (4.06 m) diameter Hamilton Standard propeller pulling the aircraft up like a high speed lift, 10,000 ft (3,050 m) being passed in 4 - 6 minutes and 20,000 ft (6,095 m)in 9.6 minutes. Above 21,000 ft (6,400 m) climb speed was reduced three kts per 2,000 ft, but the two-stage two-speed supercharger ensured good climbing capability well above 30,000 ft (9,145 m).
> 
> ...



Good information, thank you.

*But as I wrote above, I generally agree with his opinion on the drawback of Corsairs which he flew.*

Perhaps someone who does not agree with it is rare.

My assumption is from the comparison in "Duels in the Sky", and it is for air combat performance.

Brown simply asserted that Fw 190 A-4 could not be bested by Corsair II just due to it's lighter weight. there is no other explanation. but interestingly, in the next section, Hellcat - which had heavier weight than Corsair, is rated to be equivalent to Fw 190 A-4.

In fact, the Fw 190 A-4 was lighter than the Corsair, but the wings were much smaller, so wing loading was much higher than Corsair.

So in the USN test, the Corsair easily beat the Fw 190 in dogfight.

in that test, even with a early type propeller blade which had poor efficiency at high air speed, Corsair showed much faster at low altitude, equivalent at medium altitude and slightly slower at high altitude. in 2 minutes all-out runs.

Fw 190 showed faster optimal speed for sustained climb, but zoom climb of both models were the same after dive.

Considering the performances of both models, it seems difficult to assert something.

However, Brown simply asserted Fw 190 is clear winner just by it's light weight, it lacks explanation.

And he stated that he had limited visibility and control due to his small body which was not suitable for Corsair's cockpit design.

In such a situation, it seems difficult to show the best performance in the air combat.

Besides, I have never seen any information that he actually had a mock dogfight with Corsair against Fw 190 A-4 as USN test. or had any combat sorties with Corsair.

Perhaps it seems to be one of the reasons for the difference in conclusions with USN reports or some other Corsair pilots.

So I think, his opinion on Corsair's performances for air combat seems can be doubtable.

Or FAA Corsair's clipped wingtip provided something actually lower performance.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

for case of AU-1, it was stated in USN document as day ground support attack airplane and used by marines, high maneuverability and handling chracteristic for carrier operation was not required for this variant.

It had x10 bomb racks of each 500 lbs capacity on the wings and additional armor plates on front fuselage bottom, so approx 1000 lbs heavier than World War 2 variants and CG position moved forward.

Of course, directional stability much weaker and stick force higher.

for example, according to USN report, It has been stated that the directional stability of the F4U-1 was much weaker with approx 1000 lbs extra weight on front fuselage bottom, AU-1 was always in that state.

And NACA report showed that forwarding CG position brings higher stick force.

I agree with Brown's opinion on AU-1, but it was not a suitable aircraft to evaluate Corsair's flight performance.

So this is why I was wondering about his evaluation for other later variants of Corsair.

During in World War II, Corsair's production inspection trials report stated both stalling and landing chracteristics were considered satisfactory with stall strip for late production models.

It's regrettable that there is no Brown's evaluation of that.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 15, 2017)

it's not that I don't believe what you've written, but would you be so kind as to transcribe exactly what Brown wrote from the book, as I suspect something has been lost in translation. It seems odd that he would make such an assertion, then.

He provides performance figures that clearly offer the Corsair's superiority over the Fw 190, from which he assesses in Wings of the Luftwaffe, which I have here. Also, from the books he's written he doesn't mention that he assessed the Corsair's performance as a dogfighter, so again, I'd like for you to quote exactly what he says in the book on the matter.

In his defence, without seeing the evidence, however, he does state the following "in my view it left much to be desired as a fighter from the viewpoint of manoeuvrability,"

This immediately informs us that this is his opinion from what he flew, so it cannot be guaranteed that this is an unbiased assessment - he makes it quite clear he's not fond of the Corsair from the outset and in Wings of the Luftwaffe he states that he's very fond of the Fw 190 and praises its ease of handling. It appears he spent a lot more time in Fw 190s than he did in Corsairs.



Dawncaster said:


> but it was not a suitable aircraft to evaluate Corsair's flight performance.



Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, Brown wasn't evaluating the AU-1's combat performance for his reader's of his book's benefit when he wrote what he did, he was giving an indication of what it's like to fly the aircraft. Let's not forget that; what he writes in his books are his _opinions_ based on his flying experiences and give us, the laymen a bit of an understanding of what these machines were like to fly and fight in, again,_ based on his experiences_. Here is a bit from the introduction of Wings of the Navy;

"The evaluations themselves are necessarily subjective, but as a former test pilot trained to be objective, I do not believe these have been markedly influenced by emotion such as pilots tend to feel for a particular aeroplane type which they partnered in the struggle for survival."

He does not state that they _should_ be a measure by which the aircraft should be judged as combat machines against their peers, but how he assessed they might perform under such circumstances. Yes, there are many things that he says that are contentious, but we have to remember that what we read are books that we have bought from a shop, not a concise official statement of the characteristics of the aircraft from an official standpoint. So his assessments might not measure up to an offical US Navy or RAF or Luftwaffe assessment of the machines he flew.

Brown's words need to be put into context when making assumptions about his writing. Measuring what Brown has written in his books against what the military, which has had the benefit of carrying out direct comparisons, is a bit folly, since Duel in the Sky, Wings of the Luftwaffe, Wings of the Navy and the other books he wrote are made for public consumption. He enjoyed writing as much as he enjoyed flying and he did a lot of both.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 15, 2017)

nuuumannn said:


> Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, Brown wasn't evaluating the AU-1's combat performance for his reader's of his book's benefit when he wrote what he did, he was giving an indication of what it's like to fly the aircraft. Let's not forget that; what he writes in his books are his _opinions_ based on his flying experiences and give us, the laymen a bit of an understanding of what these machines were like to fly and fight in, again,_ based on his experiences_. Here is a bit from the introduction of Wings of the Navy;.



I have not read any of Browns books but I have read many discussions here and elsewhere. He was a test pilot and a very good one. When he says a plane was problematic because it needed full rudder it doesn't automatically mean it was a problem for him but would be for a newly trained pilot attempting his first landing. When reading a quote from Brown your opinion changes if you are in these different groups.
1 A layman
2 A pilot especially a trainee on carrier landings
3 A navy pilot with experience on the type (who obviously survived)
4 A manufacturer
5 Head of procurement and or training for military naval planes.


There is absolutely no doubt that he could land a plane on a carrier that many couldn't especially at the first attempt so his opinions are frequently what are his opinion for the average or the new pilot not for himself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 15, 2017)

pbehn said:


> When he says a plane was problematic because it needed full rudder it doesn't automatically mean it was a problem for him but would be for a newly trained pilot attempting his first landing.



I'd have to disagree with that. I'm pretty certain when he states that an aeroplane needs full rudder making it difficult to land or such like, he means that it's hard to control regardless of experience levels. As a test pilot that was his job and even experienced pilots encountered aeroplanes with disagreeable handling that caught them by surprise. You don't just get used to flying a difficult aeroplane; if it has bad handling and regardless of your experience you find it difficult to fly, then its a difficult aeroplane.

I suspect it is time you did read his books, pbehn. You will enjoy them and yes, you might find some of the things he says not to your taste, but remember why he wrote them.



pbehn said:


> When reading a quote from Brown your opinion changes if you are in these different groups.



Only if you disagree with something he says.



pbehn said:


> so his opinions are frequently what are his opinion for the average or the new pilot not for himself.



Again, I don't agree; he expresses his opinion of the aeroplane, not what he thinks someone else should hear. Why would he do that? The books are _his_ experiences flying the aeroplanes and_ his_ opinions of what it was like to fly them. You do need to read his books.


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 17, 2017)

To disagree with Brown is fine I doubt he would mind that, he was writing from his own experiences which he acknowledged to be fallible because of the less than perfect condition of many craft he flew. To call him biased I think you should first fly as many aircraft as he did, land as many on a small flight deck as he did and go into combat as he did.

Once you have done as much as he did then you can call him biased against your favourite aircraft.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 17, 2017)

Most anybody is going to be biased, at least to a small degree, depending on their experiences. How much they can look passed their personal experience, especially when dealing with less than factory fresh examples of equipment may be a bit different. 

As a very simple example I have a certain preference for a type of trigger action on target guns that was contrary to what a few companies were pushing. I like triggers that "break" and then stop moving in a very short distance, like a few thousands of an inch. A few very fine target rifles were coming with triggers that kept moving after the "Break" a 1/4 of an inch or more (they were adjustable) under the theory that the bullet would have left the barrel before the trigger (and the finger on it) reached the "stop" and therefore had less chance to disturb the shot. 
I have no quarrel with the "Theory" but my own personnel experience with triggers ( a number of years worth) was such that it felt so strange that I found myself "snapping" my finger back off the trigger after it broke rather than continuing the follow through. I adjusted the over travel out of the trigger so it would conform to what I was used to and to be more consistent with my other guns. 
I am not saying the factory was wrong, just that I had a bias towards a certain trigger "feel" and I was better off sticking to what I was comfortable with rather than changing. 
Somebody else may have liked the factory set up just fine and gotten just as good results from it. 
Some times the bias can come from something as undefinite as "feel", you can't put numbers to it or even describe it in a short sentence but it is there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 18, 2017)

Problem is, most people's accusations of bias come from pretty flimsy sources - most have read one book and decried everything Brown has said, others are reacting to what they've read on the internet (surely not?!!!). Whilst I have not read Duel in the Sky, I have copies of most of his other books and can offer quotes directly from those books, as I have done, that often contradict what these people have written about Brown. For example; what his opinion on the Fairey Swordfish's career might be in Duel, it certainly doesn't match hs opinion of it in RN service during the war, based on Wings of the Navy. He's not all that complimentary about it, whereas regarding the Avenger, he has nothing but high praise for it. His assessments of the naval machines in Wings are pretty evenly spread, reserving equal measure of criticism and praise for US and British aircraft, but having favour for machines built by Grumman, so if there is a bias, it is for the products of a company that has earned it. There is also lots of compliments for German engineering, in fact considerable admiration for their machines, again, the bias is not where it might be expected.

I do ask people to quote directly from the books because it puts things into perspective, rather than hearing our take on it alone.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Oct 19, 2017)

I never had in my hands Brown’s books, I always read something in the magazines or on the internet. But my idea is that Brown was allowed to fly all those planes not for his personal pleasure and to write books but because being such an otstanding pilot top Brasses trusted on him to get a vision as true as possible of the capabilities of an airplane.

Certainly pilots are like Sopranos and then full of idiosyncrasies, and consider that in some Countries by mid-war an eager eye was kept on the end of the war and the profitable market of civil aviation, so certain propaganda facts cannot be underestimated (my engine and my planes are bigger and better than yours…)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 19, 2017)

Everyone has likes and dislikes. Brown may well be biased toward machines that fly like he likes a plane to fly, but he also gives a very succinct evaluation of each type. He DID fly combat, but not as much as dedicated combat pilots. Whereas he might have a different perspective than a dedicated combat pilot, he also very likely knows how a combat plane should fly and what characteristic to look for, if for no other reason than being around pilots in his own squadron who discuss the planes on a daily basis while at war.

Other highly-experienced pilots might come up with a slightly different list, but my bet is that most of the high-experienced pilots would generally rate the planes very similarly to Eric Brown, even if the order might slightly change. I seriously doubt that if another good pilot had the time in type Erich Brown had, that one would put some aircraft near the top while the other might put it toward the bottom. That is, the order might change, but not by much.

I have many more doubts about some of the US pilot evaluations. I have had the experience of asking some what was the best fighter and hearing the P-51. A further query indicated the P-51 was the only fighter he flew in combat. To me, that means he has no real basis for comparison because he never flew the enemy aircraft. Eric Brown DID.

Just because you survived and got home every time doesn't mean the other aircraft was bad. There can be many reasons why that would occur that do not preclude the other aircraft from being as good or better than your own mount.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ChrisMcD (Oct 19, 2017)

Hi Greg, as usual I agree with you totally.

One other thing to remember about 'Winkle" was that he was a shortarse. 

He pointed out that a lot of his dislike of the Corsair was because it was hard for the "pint sized" to see out of! He also commented that the test pilot on the Corsair was over 6' and all the controls were a built accordingly. And yes, he should have been on a retainer from Grumman.

Not sure what his total score was, but shooting down Condors head on in the middle of the Bay of Biscay and flying Wildcats off a seriously tiny flat-top takes some doing. Also, he managed to take part in some of the 1943 fighter sweeps in Spitfires with the Canadians. So, quite a respectable combat career along with his test pilot work.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 19, 2017)

Hi ChrisMcD,

Thanks for the nod. It is sometimes hard for me to see how such diverse opinions can be formed.

One great example is the experience of the Finns with the Buffalo. They had a good experience with them and our own was horrible.

My take on that is that the Finns were good pilots flying against poorly-trained Soviet pilots in inferior aircraft using inferior tactics (on the Soviet side). That takes nothing away from the Finns, but I wonder if they would fare as well against ... say, the Luftwaffe, who were flying better airplanes and had good pilots and tactics. We can't know because it is a "what-if," and they didn't clash with each other in large dogfights. I could be wrong ...

People also forget, in general ... not everyone, how good the P-47 was and how much of the brunt of fighting it took, and came out looking pretty good. To me, the P-47 was a very good fighter with a different set of strengths than the P-51 had, but every bit as good in its own right.

But, I suppose if we all saw things the same, it really WOULD be a dull world, huh? I just don't see the point in getting hot anymore about it since the war is long-since over and decided.

I knew Eric was a short guy and, without going back and checking, I believe he stated that in his eval rating. I could misremember that ... it HAS happened before ... I HATE it when that happens.

Cheers to you, Chris.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ChrisMcD (Oct 19, 2017)

GregP said:


> One great example is the experience of the Finns with the Buffalo. They had a good experience with them and our own was horrible.



Hello again Greg,

AFAIK the Finnish Buffalos were seriously lightened when all the carrier kit was offloaded, which must have helped. 

But, I think an even more important aspect was that they were flying in a cooler climate and the Finns were good at keeping American engines well maintained.

More generally, someone mentioned that American engines tended to be better cooled than British ones - citing the good record of the P-40 family in North Africa - and I think that is generally true. But perhaps not for Brewster, since a lot of the Buffalo's problems in Asia/Pacific seem to be linked to overheating.

Finally, as I remember, Eric liked the Buffalo - "lovely aircraft to fly, but a rubbish fighter" or words to that effect!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 19, 2017)

ChrisMcD said:


> Not sure what his total score was, but shooting down Condors head on in the middle of the Bay of Biscay and flying Wildcats off a seriously tiny flat-top takes some doing. Also, he managed to take part in some of the 1943 fighter sweeps in Spitfires with the Canadians. So, quite a respectable combat career along with his test pilot work.


It was Browns ability to land a plane on a carrier that got him involved with the RAE Some people are somehow destined to live different lives. Brown was told by no less a person than Udet to learn to fly and learn German, which he did. If you take all mention of aviation out of his life story, it is still a great story

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2017)

ChrisMcD said:


> Hello again Greg,
> 
> AFAIK the Finnish Buffalos were seriously lightened when all the carrier kit was offloaded, which must have helped.



The Finish Buffaloes were essentially F2A-1s, There wasn't much to take out.
There were only 54 of these early aircraft built, the US got 11 and then turned over the other 43 to the Finns, The USN then sent 7 of the original 11 back to the factory to be rebuilt into F2A-2s. 
One major difference between the two was that the F2A-2 and later aircraft (including British and Dutch) used an engine with reduction gear and larger, heavier propellers. The reduction gear on the engine was worth over 100lbs and the larger propellers were up to 75lbs heavier than the props used on the first 54 planes. 
Change in weight of the engines/props required the fuselage to be shortened by 5in to maintain the center of gravity. 

About all the Finns could take out was the tail hook, unless they took out the radio or oxygen equipment. 
Many times the land based planes flew with less than full fuel tanks. Many weight charts list weights for 110US gallons of Fuel.

I am not trying to take anything away from the Finns, they did a fantastic job, but many times people try to paint the USN as incompetent because they used a heavier version of the Buffalo and people think if they left it alone it would have done much better. They come up with vague statements about unnecessary "stuff" the Navy added. 
You can't add heavier engines, bigger props, more guns (F2A-1s originally flew with only two guns) more ammo, self sealing tanks, etc without also beefing up the basic structure. 
The USN never flew the Buffalo in combat, only one squadron of the US Marines in two engagements, one against a flying boat. The chances of those Marine pilots flying F2A-1s with engines giving 750hp at altitude and using 9 ft dia props instead of the engines giving over 900hp at altitude and using 10ft 3 in props probably wouldn't have been any better.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 20, 2017)

GregP said:


> One great example is the experience of the Finns with the Buffalo. They had a good experience with them and our own was horrible.



The Soviets experience with the P-39 compared to the USAAF's against the same foe, would be another noteworthy example.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 3, 2018)

I'm wondering why a fully bombed up Avenger or Barracuda would be LANDING on any aircraft carrier.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 3, 2018)

I don't know about bombs and the Barracuda but the part of the specifications for the Avenger included spelling out the landing speed while carrying a torpedo. 

Torpedoes are much more expensive than Iron bombs and storage aboard carriers was limited so jettisoning torpedoes as a matter of routine would not be looked at favorably by the bean counters.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 3, 2018)

That's true, the torpedoes might be worth more than the aircraft.
But even land bases weren't fond of people bringing bombs back.


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (Oct 9, 2018)

There are other factors to be considered in the "discussion" about the various qualities of P-38, P-47, P-51 and Spitfire. Not being a student of the Spitfire I shall keep my comments to the American aircraft and tactics.

Many years ago I had the pleasure of an extended group conversation with a number of 57th FG pilots and ground crews. While I won't get into the lovely chatter of the pilots vs the ground crews, one thing stuck out: One of the pilots (can't recall his name off the top of my head, but his aircraft has been replicated in decals many times) stated that when they returned from their escort missions they were very seldom asked how many aircraft they shot down, but instead were asked how many enemy pilots they killed. This included shooting pilots in their parachutes once they had bailed out as well as killed in their aircraft. This was TOTAL WAR and it was fought as such. I don't know if the RAF ever initiated such a practice over the Continent, but it was definitely so in the AAF. 

The P-51, while a superb aircraft, never was the end-all and be-all as it has been portrayed over the years. The first deep-penetration by U.S. fighters was by P-38s (55FG, as I recall), when they "didn't hear" the recall on the escort mission and went deep into Germany. When the first Berlin raids by the 8AF were flown in March 1944 the number of P-47 and P-38 escort units dramatically outnumbered those of the P-51, so both of those aircraft had plenty of range and capability to do the job. In the final analysis, I am of the opinion that the P-51 was an excellent escort fighter, and while the P-38 and P-47 were as well they were also much better suited to ground attack and interdiction than the Mustang - the P-38 due to its range, concentrated fire power, the fact that losing one engine didn't turn it into a lovely brick and the ability to carry fairly hefty bomb loads; the P-47 because of its amazingly rugged construction and ability to absorb damage (including the immortal R-2800's apparent near-indestructibility), ability to carry a substantial bomb and rocket load, and the extremely heavy firepower provided by the eight .50 caliber machine guns. While the P-51 could offer SOME of the same qualities, it was always very vulnerable to ground fire with a single liquid-cooled engine. 

A final factor that I've never seen addressed is that of the supposed German ability to continue to produce aircraft throughout the war. I consider this HIGHLY suspect, and that for one specific reason: Each time a German aircraft was modified or rebuilt it was assigned a new Werke Number. This is born out by the evidence that years ago when an Fw-190 that had been in the U.S. collection of aircraft was refurbished, as they sanded it down they found SEVEN different markings and camouflage schemes had been applied and each one had a different WN and the aircraft was re-designated as a different type - A-7 vs A-8 vs etc, for example. Since this appears to have been the standard practice in Germany, one must question how many rebuilt and/or re-equipped Me-109s and Fw-190s received the same treatment. Unfortunately, I doubt the records remain to be able to track this down, but the fact remains that the German production numbers - at least in my mind - remain HIGHLY suspect.

I hope the above is of interest and welcome all feedback.

Respectfully submitted,

AlanG

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 9, 2018)

I believe Feb. '44 was the time the P-38 got to Berlin because of drop tanks


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 9, 2018)

Niceoldguy58 said:


> There are other factors to be considered in the "discussion" about the various qualities of P-38, P-47, P-51 and Spitfire. Not being a student of the Spitfire I shall keep my comments to the American aircraft and tactics.
> 
> Many years ago I had the pleasure of an extended group conversation with a number of 57th FG pilots and ground crews. While I won't get into the lovely chatter of the pilots vs the ground crews, one thing stuck out: One of the pilots (can't recall his name off the top of my head, but his aircraft has been replicated in decals many times) stated that when they returned from their escort missions they were very seldom asked how many aircraft they shot down, but instead were asked how many enemy pilots they killed. This included shooting pilots in their parachutes once they had bailed out as well as killed in their aircraft. This was TOTAL WAR and it was fought as such. I don't know if the RAF ever initiated such a practice over the Continent, but it was definitely so in the AAF.
> 
> ...


I would agree to an extent. Imho the p51 was a game changer in the escort role. That's not to say the p47,p38 combination couldn't have done the job if the skies had been saturated with them the way they were with the p51. I believe and think the evidence shows they most definitely could have. It's just that if one looks at the difference in kill/ loss ratios for instance it seems alot more guys would have had to die to achieve the same objective in the escort role anyway. There is an excellent thread that addresses this verry topic called " most over rated fighter of ww2" i believe, wherein I got a bit of an education about this from some of the more knowledgeable members here( lots of good info on there).
I would agree however that the 38 and 47 are, depending on who one is listening to, often not given nearly there due and yes if the mission profile calls for ground attack in whole or in part my personal preference would be to be flying either the p47 or 38 for all the reasons you listed.


----------



## fliger747 (Oct 20, 2018)

Interesting discussion, I have always enjoyed Winkle Brown's aircraft evaluations. As noted here, they are opinions and we all have them. I somehow accumulated about 23,000 hours in everything from Supercubs on glaciers to the 747-8 at almost a million pounds, so as a pilot his descriptions of handling qualities did mean something, a sort of unintentional sub language. Over the years I have also been involved in doing the flight dynamics for a huge variety of WWII combat aircraft for Flight Sim, if you are a flight simmer you have probably flown one of them at some time or another. Yes there are the statistics and performance numbers, given the era occasionally some salt grains must be taken. As interesting as the aircraft's good points, was replication of an aircrafts ill manners. The idea was to be a historian in replicating the experience of these fine aircraft.

As far as Brown's opinions, they are those of a pilot, a plane that makes you feel at one with it will always find a softer spot in your heart. I have favorites, sometimes ones that I as a pilot found a challenge. I have always enjoyed Brown's discussion. The Pacific and Europe were really two different wars. 

Cheers: Tom

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Oct 22, 2018)

pbehn said:


> If you take all mention of aviation out of his life story, it is still a great story



As I read that sentence, I was immediately reminded of Eddie Rickenbacker. Although to be fair, I was thinking of his WW I experience, not his Eastern Airlines experience, both of which are aviation. And the lost at sea experience too...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 22, 2018)

soulezoo said:


> As I read that sentence, I was immediately reminded of Eddie Rickenbacker. Although to be fair, I was thinking of his WW I experience, not his Eastern Airlines experience, both of which are aviation. And the lost at sea experience too...


Brown was in Germany at the end of the war and used to interview many high ranking Germans.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 22, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> I would agree to an extent. Imho the p51 was a game changer in the escort role. That's not to say the p47,p38 combination couldn't have done the job if the skies had been saturated with them the way they were with the p51. I believe and think the evidence shows they most definitely could have. It's just that if one looks at the difference in kill/ loss ratios for instance it seems alot more guys would have had to die to achieve the same objective in the escort role anyway. There is an excellent thread that addresses this very topic called " most over rated fighter of ww2" i believe, wherein I got a bit of an education about this from some of the more knowledgeable members here( lots of good info on there).
> I would agree however that the 38 and 47 are, depending on who one is listening to, often not given nearly there due and yes if the mission profile calls for ground attack in whole or in part my personal preference would be to be flying either the p47 or 38 for all the reasons you listed.




I would encourage both of you to search out the threads where drgondog has gone over this to the nth degree. I really have no beef with either of your posts (you and NiceOldGuy) except perhaps that the skies were saturated with Mustangs. As drgondog has pointed out many times, frequently (read the majority of the time) Mustangs were always fighting as the underdogs as far as numbers were concerned. Yes it's true, by 1945 there were hordes of Mustangs about, but from December '43 when P-51 ops began through June 6, the Luftwaffe was ALWAYS able to muster up far more interceptors than the 8AF could send long range escort, and hit the bomber stream at weak points v. a thinly stretch Mustang escort.

And at the time, the Lightning/Thunderbolt combination was not getting the job done, they simply didn't have the legs for it, and one thing that seems to get overlooked is most air combat in ETO initiated in the 20-25,000 foot band. RIGHT in the Mustangs wheelhouse, I'll let you extrapolate from there. Had it been a 30,000 ft+ campaign, that would be a different story.

He's (drgondog) posted numbers many times that pretty much point out it was the P-51 that sought out and pounded the Luftwaffe into the ground via long range escort and fighter sweeps. The Mustang also did A LOT of ground attack work, some of the numbers are surprising as to which aircraft had the highest and lowest loss rates/sortie. I'm too lazy to dredge them up but his posts are here with data to support his analysis.

Cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 22, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> I would encourage both of you to search out the threads where drgondog has gone over this to the nth degree. I really have no beef with either of your posts (you and NiceOldGuy) except perhaps that the skies were saturated with Mustangs. As drgondog has pointed out many times, frequently (read the majority of the time) Mustangs were always fighting as the underdogs as far as numbers were concerned. Yes it's true, by 1945 there were hordes of Mustangs about, but from December '43 when P-51 ops began through June 6, the Luftwaffe was ALWAYS able to muster up far more interceptors than the 8AF could send long range escort, and hit the bomber stream at weak points v. a thinly stretch Mustang escort.
> 
> And at the time, the Lightning/Thunderbolt combination was not getting the job done, they simply didn't have the legs for it, and one thing that seems to get overlooked is most air combat in ETO initiated in the 20-25,000 foot band. RIGHT in the Mustangs wheelhouse, I'll let you extrapolate from there. Had it been a 30,000 ft+ campaign, that would be a different story.
> 
> ...


I agree. I read drgndogs info and got a new appreciation for the p51 in the process. Although even before that I thought it was the best of three US major fighters just not by as much as I do now.
What I meant by if the skies had been saturated with them is that if they had not had the p51 available and just kept building and deploying p38s and p47s at full tilt to eventually equal the numbers that there would be of p51s( and of course the few remaining p38 and p47 units) they still could have done the job albeit at higher cost and more time. They both had positive kill ratios against the Luftwaffe. The p47 by quite a bit and it got longer and longer legs over time until they were ultimately pretty close to the Mustangs.
Perhaps saturated was not the best word to use. As I look at it now it does sound like a bit of an overstatement but ultimately we did end up vastly outbuilding and deploying the Luftwaffe by quite a bit.
My thoughts on this are simply mathematicall in nature. If you have a positive kill ratio against an adversary and you are drastically outbuilding him on top of it then the outcome is inevitable.
For sure however, the P51 alowed us to do it quicker and with less loss of life and for this it should indeed be held in verry high regard.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 22, 2018)

It just hit me as to why the word saturated beyond perhaps being a bit of an overstatement might raise a few eyebrows.
It makes it sound like im saying the main reason the p51 was successful was superior numbers. Thats not what I meant at all. I was referring to the degree to which we outbuilt Germany and what the outcome would be if the same dynamic would have existed with the p47/p38 instead.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Oct 23, 2018)

Numbers do have a value. The Naval War college had a formula for the advantage of numbers of equal value ships, I don't remember the exact "fudge factor" but it was surprisingly large. Certainly much of the effectiveness of an escort involves distraction of the interceptors rather than just numbers shot down or even equality in a dogfight. The psychology involved in the bomber crews pressing forth was much improved by having little friends.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 23, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> It just hit me as to why the word saturated beyond perhaps being a bit of an overstatement might raise a few eyebrows.
> It makes it sound like im saying the main reason the p51 was successful was superior numbers. Thats not what I meant at all. I was referring to the degree to which we outbuilt Germany and what the outcome would be if the same dynamic would have existed with the p47/p38 instead.



Hi Mike,

Please don't take what I said the wrong way, I was not trying to be critical and in retrospect I'm pretty sure I knew what you meant. Written words have no inflection, so I hope you did not take offense or felt I was being condescending ( not my intent EVER I assure you... I'm the last guy around here that has any right to be condescending ).

At any rate, I hope there's no hard feelings, I shoot from the hip a little too much ( my wife can attest to that, I figure she must have the patience of Job because I'm not divorced...yet ) and sometimes my foot ends up in my mouth. 

Cheers,
Pete

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 23, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Please don't take what I said the wrong way, I was not trying to be critical and in retrospect I'm pretty sure I knew what you meant. Written words have no inflection, so I hope you did not take offense or felt I was being condescending ( not my intent EVER I assure you... I'm the last guy around here that has any right to be condescending ).
> 
> ...


No I didn't take it that way at all. In my 2nd post I was realizing that maybee in choosing the word saturated it was I that had shot from the hip without chosing my words carefully and ended up sounding like I was saying something I didn't mean.( and I wouldn't blame anybody for raising an eyebrow about how that sounded) hence my explanation. 
I know what you mean about written words having no inflection. It took me a while to realize that both words going out and words comming in can sound alot harsher than meant when only in print.
No hard feelings from me. Respectful and I hope thoughtful discussion and maybe even occasionaly dabate ( also respectfull of course)but hard feelings NEVER.
Funny thing is it was I that I thought had sounded condescending and dismissive( albeit accidentally so) LOL

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 23, 2018)

...and many, many more, will answer many of the questions
I have seen posted on this thread.
You guys are great, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 23, 2018)

PS: I forgot to mention to get your butts over to
WWII Aircraft Performance

Mr. Mike Williams and Mr. Neil Stirling will not let you down.

, Jeff


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 23, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> PS: I forgot to mention to get your butts over to
> https:/www.wwiiaicraftperformance.org/


Ok cool. I'll definitely check that out. Thanks!


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 23, 2018)

Michael,
You're too quick on the draw.
I had to re-enter the correct door to the site after botching it up twice.
I have corrected it in post #87.

Sorry sir, have at it, Jeff


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 23, 2018)

Ok it's working now. Just took a quick look at it right now but it looks like it will be a great resource.


----------



## fliger747 (Oct 23, 2018)

One of the things I like about "America's Hundred Thousand" is charts are included for not only variants, but often service test vrs. manufacturers test results. For doing flight dynamics of US fighters it was usually my most reliable reference. For those going further into the weeds, USN had a number of interesting studies in aircraft comparison and other evaluations. One of the more interesting was a comparison test between the P-51 and the F4U. As the Navy was interested in parameters for the Pacific War, the evaluation was conducted with that in mind. The P-51 actually did one or more carrier landings in suitability evaluation, but wasn't enough "fun" that extensive trials were carried out. I knew a guy here in Fairbanks that flew the only ski equipped Mustang in a test flight at Ladd Field. Just one flight as it turned out that you had to start at 90 deg to the desired takeoff direction.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 24, 2018)

fliger747 said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> I knew a guy here in Fairbanks that flew the only ski equipped Mustang in a test flight at Ladd Field. _*Just one flight as it turned out that you had to start at 90 deg to the desired takeoff direction.*_



That does NOT sound like it would be a whole lot of fun.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 24, 2018)

America’s Hundred Thousand is s great book. One of the best out there. A great source.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 24, 2018)

I like it when threads turn out all warm and squishy. Everyone now.....2 verses of Kumbaya

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Oct 24, 2018)

As far as the ski equipped Mustang trial went, I think that's why there wasn't a second flight. I wonder if the gear was left extended, unfortunately the gentleman passed several years ago. I don't remember if more than one arrested carrier landing was done or not. Apparently the minimum approach speed and the maximum speed they though the fuselage would take on hooking was quite close and the Pony's handling made the Corsair look really good.


----------



## Conslaw (Oct 25, 2018)

I'm as big a Hellcat fan as Brown, but I can't say that it turned defeat into victory. The tide had been turned before the F6F Hellcat came into service. Based on the combat success of the FM2 Wildcat, I think that if the FM2 had been produced and fielded in numbers sufficient to fill out the complements of the fast and escort carriers, even that plane would have been sufficient to carry out the US Navy's objectives, though probably with higher losses.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Oct 26, 2018)

Yes, I like the FM2 and it certainly qualifies in the underrated category. The kamikaze threat certainly changed the fleets air defense requirements and such projects as the F8F and F2G might have helped a very bad situation. 

The legendary aircraft designer Ed Heinemann in reference to the design of the A4 remarked, "Simplicate and add lightness".


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 26, 2018)

fliger747 said:


> The legendary aircraft designer Ed Heinemann in reference to the design of the A4 remarked, "Simplicate and add lightness".



Actually that quote is credited to a William Stout, designer of what would become the Ford Trimotor. Often credited to Colin Chapman as well, designer of Lotus cars.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## pbehn (Oct 26, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> Actually that quote is credited to a William Stout, designer of what would become the Ford Trimotor. Often credited to Colin Chapman as well, designer of Lotus cars.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


It could be applied to many designers whether they actually said it or not, the Fury and Bearcat were both designed to add lightness. Designs tend to get bigger over time, there comes a point where a conscious effort has to be made to design it smaller. Look at the latest version of the Mini, its huge compared to the original.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 26, 2018)

Check this baby out. They kept the weight down by slapping
a tail on the front half of the aircraft and called it quits.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tieleader (Oct 26, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Check this baby out. They kept the weight down by slapping
> a tail on the front half of the aircraft and called it quits.
> 
> 
> View attachment 514516


Guessing it's just a tad nose heavy. Or a lot of elevator trim!


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 26, 2018)

It looks like they were building a plane from the spare parts bin and ran out or rear fuselage sections.


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 26, 2018)

I can't believe you guys are getting off topic like this...................


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 26, 2018)

The intended engine was never developed and the method of construction can out hundreds of pounds over weight even on an aircraft this small.
Simplify and add lightness may have been the goal but they missed by a considerable margin. (Another Bell AIrcraft triumph).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 26, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The intended engine was never developed and the method of construction can out hundreds of pounds over weight even on an aircraft this small.
> Simplify and add lightness may have been the goal but they missed by a considerable margin. (Another Bell AIrcraft triumph).


From all the failures in the field of producing a single engine fighter it is quite clear that it isn't that easy to do. The people/companies that made it to mass production had a genius of flair and pragmatism and a huge amount of knowledge.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 26, 2018)

the Bell XP-77 was one of the sizeable group of lightweight fighters than various countries tried to build over a number of years. 
The theory was that you could use a small engine not needed for other larger aircraft and by keeping the size of the fighter down get almost equal performance even if the armament was a bit light. It never worked.
The XP-77 started as the Tri-4 fighter "400 hp, 4000 pounds, 400 mph" but the engine or rather the supercharger envisioned never panned out, structural weight went up.The sometimes planned 20mm through the prop and two .50s in the fuselage became just two .50s. Delays as Bell concentrated other projects (including the XP-59 jet) meant the whole program slid slowly into the abyss. 
They also weren't considering that providing enough well trained pilots was a bigger problem than providing aircraft and sticking pilots that you gave 300-400 hours of flight training to in a distinctly 2nd rate aircraft was not going to win air battles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Oct 29, 2018)

There were two navalised P-51Ds tested on carriers as well as a navalised B-25. Earlier, a P-51B was hooked and tested on land. Eric Brown remains the only person to land and take off from a carrier in a P-39. He made four traps and takeoffs in a bird modified for Royal Navy tests.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 3, 2018)

fliger747 said:


> Numbers do have a value. The Naval War college had a formula for the advantage of numbers of equal value ships, I don't remember the exact "fudge factor" but it was surprisingly large. Certainly much of the effectiveness of an escort involves distraction of the interceptors rather than just numbers shot down or even equality in a dogfight. The psychology involved in the bomber crews pressing forth was much improved by having little friends.


Are you referring to the Lanchester Equations?
https://www.usna.edu/Users/math/wdj/_files/documents/teach/sm212/DiffyQ/de-lanchesters-eqns.pdf
Lanchester is an under appreciated genius.
Frederick W. Lanchester - Wikipedia
Aircraft in Warfare: The Dawn of the Fourth Arm : Frederick William Lanchester : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
This paper on the future of air warfare is remarkable


----------



## fliger747 (Nov 3, 2018)

Lt Robert Elder made 25 takeoffs and landings aboard Shangri La on Nov 15, 1943. P-51D-5-NA, serial number 44-14017 was to my knowledge the only airframe modified for this testing program.


----------



## special ed (Nov 4, 2018)

I flew in AMA controlline carrier competition and as a result of seeing new flyers lose their bonus points because they didn't bring documentation ( three view and/or pic of an actual landling) I put together a loose leaf binder of every acft I could find of any bird coming aboard and it's 3 view to take with me to contests so newbies wouldn't lose their 100 bonus points. Regarding the P-51, the copy had the bottom cropped so I don't have the original source but on page 100 of whatever book, reference is made to a P-51A, actually a Mustang 1A, 41-37426 (FD542) used for land based carrier trials. Not a B model as I had remembered incorrectly. It was considered unsuitable. Then a P-51D, 44-14017, was used for both land and sea trials. I cannot find the reference for the 2nd D model so I could be wrong. Lt Com Elder was called on again to test two P-51Hs in the carrier role as the D model had been rejected because of poor rudder authority coming aboard.. The H models had no modifications (no hook) and were land based trials only but proved increased fin/rudder area was satisfactory. The program was ended.


----------



## fliger747 (Nov 27, 2018)

I knew that Eric Brown had flown the Martlett and shot down a Condor while flying off of "Audacity" in the Atlantic. What I hadn't realized was that he was aboard when she was torpedoed and almost not picked up after the sinking!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Dec 4, 2018)

REALLY late to this one but I'll chip in. I got to know Eric and Lynn pretty well--we exchanged visits a couple of times. He adored the Wildcat, of course, readily conceding that you tend to love what brings you home. In the 80s I hosted them at the late-great Champlin Fighter Museum in Arizona. We had no sooner entered the WW II hangar than Eric spied the Wildcat (FM-2), spread his arms and exclaimed, "Ah, the love of my life!"

The ambient temperature dropped perceptibly but a second before Eric added an aside, "Except you, my dear."

Lynn gave him a sideways glance. "Nice recovery..."

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Funny Funny:
5 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 4, 2018)

Thank you for sharing that moment with us Barrett. I am really beginning
to like Eric very much. I wish I had gotten a chance to meet him.
.....All the stories he could tell.

, Jeff


----------



## fliger747 (Dec 5, 2018)

Yes I was flying out of PDX in that time frame and visited the Late Great Champlin Fighter Museum. Some of those aircraft including the F2G and the Ta152 I last spied in Seattle. 

My recollection was that the Martlett was perhaps a little easier to deck land rather than field land as the narrow track gear easily gave way to the leans on runout. 

Good story!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2018)

fliger747 said:


> Yes I was flying out of PDX in that time frame and visited the Late Great Champlin Fighter Museum. Some of those aircraft including the F2G and the Ta152 I last spied in Seattle.
> 
> My recollection was that the Martlett was perhaps a little easier to deck land rather than field land as the narrow track gear easily gave way to the leans on runout.
> 
> Good story!



Do you mean the Fw 190D (Long nose Fw 190, looks similar to a Ta 152)? The only surviving Ta 152 is, and always has been in storage at the Smithsonian.

Edit: Just looked it up. The Champlin/Flying Heritage aircraft is a Fw 190D-13. The only operational Dora left too.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Dec 6, 2018)

Poor memory (this was 30 years ago). For that reason I always "take the fifth" when talking to the FBI. Flying Internationally I often had no idea what day it was... The Aircraft in question which is (i believe) currently in Seattle was actually on loan to both museums from the Smithsonian. 

A surprisingly small aircraft! Corky Meyers, a Grumman test pilot relates the genesis of the Bearcat; Leyroy Grumman, a legitimate test pilot in his own right, flew a captured Fw 190 in England and remarked (with reference to the F6F) "This is the plane we should have built". 

Cheers: T

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tieleader (Dec 6, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Do you mean the Fw 190D (Long nose Fw 190, looks similar to a Ta 152)? The only surviving Ta 152 is, and always has been in storage at the Smithsonian.
> 
> Edit: Just looked it up. The Champlin/Flying Heritage aircraft is a Fw 190D-13. The only operational Dora left too.


Colllings Foundation has a D-9 in line to be restored to flight condition to join the tour. Still a few years away unfortunately.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 6, 2018)

"Take the Fifth", something the rest of the world is learning about with each news broadcast from the USA, it seems!

On the subject of Grumman aircraft, here's a passage from Brown's Wings of the Navy as an introduction to the chapter on the Avenger.

"A dash of audacity can be perceived in the design of every truly successful combat aircraft. Indeed, audaciousness may even be considered synonymous with progress in aircraft design, for, without its infusion, the end product is inevitably pedestrian and how better could be described the carrier-based aeroplanes which Britain's Fleet Air Arm went to war! The need for RN aviators to fly such antediluvial types as the Swordfish and Sea Gladiator when hostilities began was a direct result of the pedetentious approach of the naval staff to the operational requirements of the FAA; a lack of boldness and imagination hardly calculated to inspire British naval aircraft designers of the day.

"Fortunately for the Allied cause, this lack of enterprise had not been emulated in the USA, where audacity had been displayed in no small measure by aircraft manufacturers in their efforts to meet more far-sighted shipborne combat aircraft requirements, outstanding among the companies that had created a new generation of carrier-based aeroplanes being the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Coprporation of Bethpage. It was to this Long Island based company that the British Fleet Air Arm was to contract an immense debt for boosting the service's morale at a time when it was very much the poor cousin to the RAF in the matter of frontline aircraft.

"It was not simply the fact that British naval aviation was restored to the first division by this company's progeny; Grumman aircraft gave the FAA an insight into how purpose-built naval aeroplanes could really perform, reinstating much of the naval staff thinking on operational requirements in the process. Perhaps in a way this change of attitude in which they resulted was symbolised by the way in which the abstruse thinking of Their Lordships of the Admiralty, which had led to the bestowal of the unimaginative appelations of Tarpon and Martlet on two pugnacious Grumman combat aircraft, performed a volte-face and accepted the vastly more emotive American names of Avenger and Wildcat."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

