Capt. Eric Brown: Flight Test God or Biased Meathead

[Matt308]

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

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

 

[SoD Stitch]

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

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

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

 

[The Basket]

I dunno as a personality.

But look at what he did and what he achieved.

His opinion means something because he was there.

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

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

 

[wilbur1]

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

 

[Krabat42]

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

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

Krabat

 

[Glider]

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

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

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

 

[evangilder]

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

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

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

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

 

[ccheese]

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

Charles

 

[Glider]

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

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

 

[evangilder]

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

 

[drgondog]

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

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

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

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

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

So I am on the side of respect

 

[Erich]

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

 

[syscom3]

Good summary Evans.

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

 

[Juha]

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

Juha

 

[lesofprimus]

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

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

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

 

[Kurfürst]

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

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

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

 

[rochie]

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

 

[ccheese]

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

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

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

I must read his book.....

Charles

 

[rochie]

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

 

[Juha]

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

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

Juha