Capt. Eric Brown: Flight Test God or Biased Meathead

[Juha]

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

Juha

 

[Juha]

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

Juha

 

[syscom3]

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

His credibility to me is quite low.

 

[slaterat]

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

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

Slaterat

 

[syscom3]

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

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

 

[pbfoot]

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

 

[kool kitty89]

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

Nope, us Yanks did that.

 

[syscom3]

Nope, us Yanks did that.

 

[The Basket]

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

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

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

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

 

[KrazyKraut]

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

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

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

 

[The Basket]

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

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

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

 

[Juha]

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

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

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

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

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

Juha

 

[The Basket]

That is what I is saying.

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

 

[drgondog]

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

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

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

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

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

Juha

I agree everything you say.

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

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

Expert could be in the eye of the beholder..

 

[Juha]

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

Juha

 

[drgondog]

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

Juha

Lol - I surrender

 

[Graeme]

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

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

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



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

 

[kool kitty89]

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

 

[pbfoot]

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

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

 

[Soren]

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.

Excellent post Evan, I agree.