Eric Brown's "Duels in the Sky"

[Kryten]

half the problem I see in these comparisons is trotting out a load of test results and then expecting every aircraft of that type to be identical, these planes were built at speed in factories under pressure, some would be complete dogs some would be exceptional, the test reports can only be regarded as a rough benchmark really!

but most importantly its the guy flying it that finally decides how well the aircraft can turn or maneuver, not everyone has the same G tolerance, physical strenth or even the ability to function whilst your head is swimming after a maneuver!

 

[bobbysocks]

rastel, you seem to take the word of your aquaintance who flew for the LW and put weight to the fact that a certain 109 pilot made some seasoned 51 jocks look like novices...but in the same breath you discount bud anderson's account as a once in awhile event. 109 pilots knew all the tricks but so did the 51 boys. they knew which turn to get the 109 into so that the torque of the engine would fight the dynamics and make the plane not turn as sharp. they knew to drop flaps, slap the trim tabs, ride the stall to get inside an EA. there were many good pilots on both sides and somedays you fly your best and some you get through despite your flying. in general the 51 could match the 109 Gs in a turning battle and usually after the 2nd or 3rd rotation they would gain ground. all of this of course was dependant on fuel loads of both planes, etc. but it wasnt an isolated incident. if the 109 could out turn to 51 then they would never had gotten into that kind of dogfight PERIOD! russian yaks and LAs could out turn 109s and 190s so the LW pilots were told to never get into a dogfight with them ( gunther rall interview, etc. ). the AVGs P40 couldnt turn with the jap fighters they faced so they absolutely didnt get into a turning dogfight. it would have been the same for US pilots in the ETO were the 109s and 190s simply that dominating in turning battles. they would have taken the fight verticle or down on the deck or use some tactic that they could have used the superior characteristics of their plane. but they continually engaged in turning battles and more than a few times came out on top. i dare say if they hadnt been able to turn with 109s... you wouldnt be talking to a couple members of this forum. here's the words of the boys who did it...raw and uncensored and not embellished by Hollywood or the history channel.... 2/3rds of the way down is a section on turns and after that use of combat flaps.

Mustang Encounter Reports

here's the reports of the P47 pilots...not in sections so you would have to read through to get their take on LW aircraft and how they dealt with them.

P-47 Encounter Reports

 

[jim]

rastel, you seem to take the word of your aquaintance who flew for the LW and put weight to the fact that a certain 109 pilot made some seasoned 51 jocks look like novices...but in the same breath you discount bud anderson's account as a once in awhile event. 109 pilots knew all the tricks but so did the 51 boys. they knew which turn to get the 109 into so that the torque of the engine would fight the dynamics and make the plane not turn as sharp. they knew to drop flaps, slap the trim tabs, ride the stall to get inside an EA. there were many good pilots on both sides and somedays you fly your best and some you get through despite your flying. in general the 51 could match the 109 Gs in a turning battle and usually after the 2nd or 3rd rotation they would gain ground. all of this of course was dependant on fuel loads of both planes, etc. but it wasnt an isolated incident. if the 109 could out turn to 51 then they would never had gotten into that kind of dogfight PERIOD! russian yaks and LAs could out turn 109s and 190s so the LW pilots were told to never get into a dogfight with them ( gunther rall interview, etc. ). the AVGs P40 couldnt turn with the jap fighters they faced so they absolutely didnt get into a turning dogfight. it would have been the same for US pilots in the ETO were the 109s and 190s simply that dominating in turning battles. they would have taken the fight verticle or down on the deck or use some tactic that they could have used the superior characteristics of their plane. but they continually engaged in turning battles and more than a few times came out on top. i dare say if they hadnt been able to turn with 109s... you wouldnt be talking to a couple members of this forum. here's the words of the boys who did it...raw and uncensored and not embellished by Hollywood or the history channel.... 2/3rds of the way down is a section on turns and after that use of combat flaps.

Mustang Encounter Reports

here's the reports of the P47 pilots...not in sections so you would have to read through to get their take on LW aircraft and how they dealt with them.

P-47 Encounter Reports

Your statement that Lw pilots were told not to dogfight Yaks and Las is simply wrong and untrue and very far from reality . Even if the myth of uber Yak 3s and La7s was true the orders would be the same : Fight to the last bullet.
For every occasion of american pilots memories that you mention i can mention German memories with opposite conlusions. I am sure that all veterans were speaking honestly So i prefer to use maths to discover the truth( Lipfert mentions that the main problem with P51 was the numbers it appeared, he consider Yak 3 more dangerous but of course attacked them as much as anything else even without MW50)
Anyway, it is an american forum and some biasement is naturall, but its a pity that another diferent opinion is silenced

 

[kettbo]

Bobbysocks

As Lenin said, "Quantity is a quality all its own." So all those POS Sherman Tanks and T-34s beat down the Germans and their fewer but better Tigers and Panthers and veteran MkIVs. Same in the air...lots of decent planes will overcome a few good ones.

I'd want to be flying the Mustangs if given the choice:
Faster to close/pursue
A good bird overall
long-ranged to take the fight to the enemy
lots and lots of my buddies with me who are all average or better
get to rotate home after my tour

Against this, the Germans still have a hot little fighter in the 109. Just not enough in 1944 and the overall crew quality in decline, less fuel to train or fight with.

In another thread I posted some pics of my 1/285 scale planes. Next game I'll have 16x P-51s take on 4-8 random late 109s

 

[barney]

This thread made me curios enough to buy Brown's book, 5 dollars for a like new copy from Amazon. When it arrived I could tell my copy had spent its life on the floor of someone's basement. So, with nose running and handkerchief in hand, I dove in.

After reading Brown's bio on Wikipedia I'm a little disappointed with the book. If only half of what Wikipedia states about Brown is true the guy is still amazing and so should have been able to write a more amazing book than this.

Brown was in Germany when war broke out between England and Germany. The SS evicted him from the country. Oh, and take your sports car with you, we can't have an English gentleman running around without a sports car. If that had been me, I would have ended the war building V2's.

The P-51 controversy......

The P-51 was the greatest plane ever. No, the P-51 was only average. The reason they used it was because it had the range. No, the Thunderbolt could have flown the Berlin with drop tanks, the Lightning could have flown to Berlin with drop tanks, the Spitfire could have flown to Berlin with drop tanks. The reason the P-51 was used was because of its lower cost.

Now, Brown was known for dive testing. After the war he dive tested a four engine piston driven airliner. This is a quote from the Wikipedia bio on Brown.

"During this same period the RAE was approached by the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) General Jimmy Doolittle with a request for help, as the 8th Air Force had been having trouble when their Lightning, Thunderbolt and Mustang aircraft, providing top cover for the bombers, dived down onto attacking German fighters, some of the diving US fighters encountering speed regions where they became difficult to control. As a result of Doolittle's request, early in 1944 the P-38H Lightning, P-51B Mustang and P-47C Thunderbolt, were dived for compressibility testing at the RAE by Brown and several other pilots. The results of the tests were that the tactical Mach numbers, i.e., the manoeuvring limits, were Mach 0.68 for the Lightning, Mach 0.71 for the Thunderbolt and Mach 0.78 for the Mustang. The corresponding figure for both the Fw 190 and Me 109 was Mach 0.75. The tests flown by Brown and his colleagues resulted in Doolittle being able to argue with his superiors for the Mustang to be chosen in preference to the P-38 and P-47 for all escort duties from then on, which it subsequently was."

So, was this true, was the Mustang chosen because it could reach a higher Mach number?

 

[MikeGazdik]

Never read the info on the Mach number dive research, interesting. My opinion; the P-51 was simply the right answer for many reasons. It did have the range, it was mass production friendly which controlled it's cost better than any other, it's overall capabilies were really incredible for 1 plane to possess, yet didn't use any cutting edge technology for the time. It was a good plane of then basic construction, powered by a solid known engine that performed at the altitude needed in Europe. It's performance was on par, or better than anything then flying. It was liked by the pilots that flew it. How do you say no to all of that?

 

[kettbo]

I never really considered the production cost and ease of assembly as a factor
Pretty sure the P-38 with twin engines and the P-47 with the ducting and rear mount turbosupercharger cost a ton more than the P-51 per unit.
P-47 and P-38s bloodied the LW heavily by the time of widespread Mustang service, Mustang coming in at the 7th inning as a pretty hot relief pitcher

 

[MikeGazdik]

Pretty neat analogy! The Spitfire (England) and the P-40 (Africa / MTO) had the first 2 innings, the P-47 and P-38 covered up to the 7th, then the P-51 acted as the set-up in the 8th and the closer in the 9th!

 

[GregP]

I find Eric Brown's opinions in "Duels in the Sky" to be very entertaining. His views are the views of a consummate test pilot. He flew operationally and shot down two Fw 200 Condors in Grumman Martlets. He also flew operationally with fighter squadrons after that time, but spent most of his time flying test and training people to land on carriers. His views are, for the most part, flight-test views of a good pilot being asked to fly and test an aircraft. He was not necessarily familiar with the best techniques used to fly and FIGHT any one of his test ships, but was evaluating their flying characteristics analytically. Naturally, he liked the planes he was most familiar with or planes that had the same strengths as the ones he was very familiar with.

To me, there is no real dispute that his views are not the views of other pilots. Most German Aces thought the Me 109 was a war winner. Most Allied test pilots thought it was somewhat of a turkey, because they were not trained to FIGHT it and had very few hours in it. They were trained to fly their own planes that had their own strengths. One would have to do a very detailed and thorough flight test to find out the things the Me 109 did best to exploit its strengths. The Germans did that. It showed their genius in its war record. The Allies simply flew it for 4 – 8 hours and wrote a flight test report, never trying to fight it from the perspective of a pilot who KNEW what the Me 109 was good at and what it wasn't.

To be fair, the Germans did the same with captured American or British planes … they flew them a short while and made reports. There was, as far as I know, a real attempt for any pilot to take a captured fighter and plan execute an attack on a domestic fighter after 40+ hours of familiarization with the enemy aircraft. They all did that because they could not be sure the captured enemy aircraft would LAST for 40+ hours without spare parts. It was a natural response, but not very accurate in the evaluation of enemy hardware.

So … I think Eric deserves a break in his book. My bet is that Hanna Reitsch, Heini Ditmar, and Rudy Opitz of the Luftwaffe probably ALSO evaluated enemy aircraft and the many German prototype aircraft from a test pilot's viewpoint, not from a combat pilot's viewpoint. I bet the Japanese / Italian / Czech / Hungarian / Bulgarian / Romanian / Greek test pilots did the same.

I could be wrong, but it seems logical to me.

 

[renrich]

GregP, nice post and probably pretty much on the mark. A somewhat interesting anecdote about Brown. I have a biography of Marion Carl. A Marine aviator, fought at Midway, the Solomons, flew F4Fs and Corsairs and was also a test pilot after the war. I think he was the second guy to fly faster than the speed of sound. Brown and Carl were friends and spent a lot of time together. I wonder what Carl said about Brown's book. He must have read it. The book is packed so I am quoting from memory. I think that Brown was in the US post war when Carl commanded a squadron of Marine fighters. They were equipped with one of the early McDonnel jets and Corsairs, around half and half. The Corsairs out performed the jets in most ways so practically all the flying was in Corsairs.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The P-51 controversy......

The P-51 was the greatest plane ever. No, the P-51 was only average. The reason they used it was because it had the range. No, the Thunderbolt could have flown the Berlin with drop tanks, the Lightning could have flown to Berlin with drop tanks, the Spitfire could have flown to Berlin with drop tanks. The reason the P-51 was used was because of its lower cost.

Sorry Barney, you're statements are flawed. First, depending on what version of each aircraft you mention will determine if it was going to make it to Berlin. Obviously a Spit Mk 1 is not going to do it, fight and return. The Mustang had the range, was able to loiter over target and return and it had performance sufficient enough to compete with the Luftwaffe, and I think history shows us that. Yes, it did cost less but in the end its overall performance won out although there were many ETO pilots who preferred the P-38 over the -51.

 

[barney]

If you're test flying enemy aircraft, something Mr. Brown did a lot of, I'd suggest your job is not to look for strengths, but for weaknesses, something you can exploit against the enemy. Unfortunately, reporting of this sort is not as helpful as we would like, when trying compare these aircraft, 65+ years later.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If you're test flying enemy aircraft, something Mr. Brown did a lot of, I'd suggest your job is not to look for strengths, but for weaknesses, something you can exploit against the enemy. Unfortunately, reporting of this sort is not as helpful as we would like, when trying compare these aircraft, 65+ years later.

Actually a good evaluation is to look for BOTH strengths and weaknesses and then make comparisons. This was done when the US was able to evaluate some "attained" former Soviet Union combat aircraft during the 1980s.

 

[barney]

Sorry Barney, you're statements are flawed. First, depending on what version of each aircraft you mention will determine if it was going to make it to Berlin. Obviously a Spit Mk 1 is not going to do it, fight and return. The Mustang had the range, was able to loiter over target and return and it had performance sufficient enough to compete with the Luftwaffe, and I think history shows us that. Yes, it did cost less but in the end its overall performance won out although there were many ETO pilots who preferred the P-38 over the -51.

While I haven't posted much, I have been a reader of this board for a few years. And during that reading I've encountered much debate on why the P-51 was the USAAF choice for long range escort over Germany. What I wrote is what I took away from those debates.

Now, I read in the Wikipedia entry on Eric Brown that General Doolittle wanted the plane because of the speed it could obtain in a dive (another way of stating this might be - General Doolittle didn't want his fighters flying into the ground). For me, this is new information (if it is information). I do remember Mr. Brown stating in "Duels in the Sky" that the P-47's factory figure for dive speed was overstated by 100 mph. This, I take to be a direct reference to the dive testing mentioned in the Wikipedia entry.

 

[vanir]

I did a bit of running around at one point trying to find "real world" mission ranges with the respective aircraft, I scoured the manuals and datasheets all over the web on pdf, all reproduced originals mind you, they are war records. Anyways the Mustang was the plane for the job. There is a misconception about them, but its significance I'm a tad disappointed to say, is not in the least overstated. Their impact literally provided the conditions absolutely required for D-Day.
It is no exaggeration to say the Mustang took air superiority back from the Luftwaffe during January and February of 1944, Allied pilots from various air forces in action over Europe have independently stated categorically that the quality of typical Luftwaffe fighter/interceptor pilots visibly deteriorated, notably, obviously, and suddenly after this time. This matches German war records.

As for its combat qualities one for one, aside from the escort range thing. Let's just compare one for one, talk to Günther Räll, he did it and speaks about it at length during dvd recorded seminars. He said, having comparatively tested a captured Mustang, Thunderbolt, Spits of every marqué, as he says, "every major Allied fighter in the war," for the Luftwaffe, that the Mustang was his favourite.
"Was it better than the Messerschmitt?" they asked him.
He laughed, "No. The thing that surprised me was its comfort and roominess, it was very comfortable to fly as an aircraft. But this makes sense, because its pilots sit in the cockpit for eight hour missions, German pilots are in the cockpit for maybe two hours. But the Messerschmitt was always competitive with Allied fighters, the Mustang is no different." Or words to that effect.

Yeah but you need to think about that.

Seriously. It goes from southern England to Berlin and goes toe to toe with G-10 top cover and the best interceptors the Luftwaffe can field. That's war winning, the only other aircraft that could do it was the P-38 and it couldn't tangle with an Erla G-10 like a P-51D can, and it can.

The Thunderbolt, they eventually custom made a king size centreline tank for it, add two of the biggest wing tanks in the air force and it can manage not making it to Berlin. Why? Because the R-2800 guzzles fuel at combat settings, and the Luftwaffe figured that out in mid-43 so they started bouncing P-47s over Holland. It burned their mission fuel. Later the 8th tag teamed Thunderbolts to Holland, with Mustangs taking over from there. Even if the Mustangs played a little over Holland/Denmark or thereabouts, they can still fly to Berlin and go home.

It's a very slippery airframe with a very efficient engine. It just all came together as if that was the original intention, but it just goes forever on the sniff of an oily rag yet carries tons of fuel.

So the revolutionary thing about the Mustang is that it did a twin engine role as a single engine predator. Contemporaries are the Me-110/210/410 or for Britain the Blenheim and Defiant believe it or not.
Closest contemporary is the Mosquito. But you can't compare it to any other single engine job except the Zero M21. These two birds are just in a class of their own, for the same reasons. Fighter performance exceeding conditions where fighters can be present.

 

[tomo pauk]

Mustang was really a gem.
Stating that it was contemporary of Blenheim Defiant is not true, however. And saying it's a contemporary of Bf-110 barely holds water.

 

[barney]

As a follow up to the Wikipedia entry claiming that Eric Brown and others did dive testing on USAAF aircraft, which Wikipedia claims to have influenced General Doolittle's decision to use the P-51 for long range escort (almost to the exclusion of other types), I decided to do a little date checking.

January 6, 1944 - General Doolittle assumes command of the 8th Air Force

January 24, 1944 – the decision is made to go with the P-51 for long range escort

So, that leaves a window of 18 days for Doolittle to request the tests, for the tests to be conducted, for Doolittle to receive and act on the resulting report – not much time.

And where was Captain Brown during this time? From December of 1943 to January of 1944 he was assigned to the Naval Test Squadron (Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment) Boscombe Down (the chronology I found for his whereabouts is only in months).

 

[Juha]

Hello Barney
According to Dennis' Royal Aircraft Establishment at war (2008 ), Brown was the Chief Naval Test Pilot, RAE Farnborough, 1944-49 and CO Aerodynamics Flight 1947-49. The High Speed Flight Section began to investigate the problems experienced at near sonic flight speeds early in 1943. The aim was to establish the max Mach No which could be achieved by a particular aeroplane. The Mustang used was Allison engine P-51, the book doesn't give more exact type, it only notes that dive started from 28,000 ft only due to a/c ceiling limitations. Also on P-47 and -38, no subtype is given, only notes in both cases that Dive recovery flap investigation and additionally on P-47 Very high stick forces.
In his memoirs Wings on my sleeve, 2006 edition, Brown only writes that at the end of 43 (before Christmas anyway) he was transferred to Boscombe Down. 5-9 Jan 44, he visited Italy to testfly Italian a/c, when back he began his 4-engine training on Short S29, on 17 Jan he reported at Farnborough because the previous naval test pilot there had just been killed on the rocket Seafire. So he joined the famous Aerodynamics Flight on 17 Jan 44. And yes, he writes that the transonic flight testing took on a new emphasis after a visit to RAE early in 44 by Lt. Gen. Doolittle, who had just taken over command of the 8th USAAF which had suffered worrying escort fighter losses when the fighters on high cover dived down to intercept LW fighters and lost control. There was no time to set up a normal instrumented research program, but what was wanted was a hand-on series of tests on the P-38H, P-47C and P-51B. The tests up to their tactical and critical Mach numbers began in late Jan 44 and continued through to early March 44. So according to Brown these tests were not part of the famous scientific tests by RAE I mentioned at the beginning of this message.

HTH
Juha

 

[davparlr]

So the revolutionary thing about the Mustang is that it did a twin engine role as a single engine predator. Contemporaries are the Me-110/210/410 or for Britain the Blenheim and Defiant believe it or not.
Closest contemporary is the Mosquito. But you can't compare it to any other single engine job except the Zero M21. These two birds are just in a class of their own, for the same reasons. Fighter performance exceeding conditions where fighters can be present.

Excellent write up!

 

[vanir]

Mustang was really a gem.
Stating that it was contemporary of Blenheim Defiant is not true, however. And saying it's a contemporary of Bf-110 barely holds water.

What I'm saying is we've been taught to look at the Mustang as a fighter enthusiast, but the secret of the Mustang is by thinking about it as a military logistical officer, a staff chief to the air force commander. It's not about fighter awesomeness, it's about a tool for a job. The job is very long range escort.

The Blenheim was designed as a long range light bomber to escort fast medium bombers as an escort fighter-bomber. I've some books quoting British Air Ministry documentation. The Defiant was designed as an escort fighter for overseas deployment, probably with far eastern assets in mind (ie. was most likely designed with RAF/FEC in mind based in India/Burma and DAF/ME ie. Iraq/Iran and Greece, plus of course any BEF/continental deployment). In any case these are typical prewar/early war very long range escort fighter designs. The Bf-110 is another example. The 210 and 410 as well but it changed to a secondary role after BoB experience, they became attack models (zerstörer in the schlacht role, eg. the Ju88C used to strafe soviet supply lines in 43, in 1940 the same aircraft type was a long range fighter/escort based in Norway).

The Mustang's success was in being used capably for this role. Nothing in its class could make the distance past Luftwaffe efforts to resist. As of October 1943 the AFS categorically documents the Luftwaffe had demonstrated air superiority over Europe, a report which directly led to Operation Point Blank. As my favourite warbird documentary puts it, "the plan called for the 8th air force to literally throw itself on the Luftwaffe's sword to blunt it."

The Mustang changed that. Took all German heavy interceptors (eg. Me410 with Bk5 tank guns blowing fortresses in half from over 1km range), right out of the equation. Thunderbolts couldn't get that far without being bounced and using all their mission fuel, whilst Lightnings were having severe problems dealing with Germans far more experienced operating at higher combat altitudes, with single engine deadlies achieving the same performance as less agile twin engine jobs. Even the best, most manoeuvrable and deadly twin engine fighter of the war, the Lightning couldn't tangle with a clean fighter trim Messer of the latest modification of the day. Well that might start some arguments so let's just say there were a few obvious disadvantages.

But again, the Mustang could. And that's only part of the point. The real point is that the logistics officers fills out paperwork and files it with aircraft twice the Mustang's size, that's the category it's in.
It's like the Zero, which has the role capabilities of the Fairey Fulmar, it should perform like one. It doesn't. It is far, far deadlier than that.

Compare them with the typical aircraft conventions that can match their role capabilities (ie. combat range), and what you wind up with is aircraft that cannot fight them one for one. This is why those two aircraft gained such indominable reputations at the time.
They're pretty ordinary as fighters but. Pretty amazing to get that where they could go. Pearl should have had to fight underpowered biplanes with gigantic fuel tanks, instead they had to fight aircraft that could compete with their land based fighters.
Same thing with the Mustang, German fighters should've been facing Lightnings at best, Mosquitoes otherwise, but no they get something that dogfights Messerschmitts like a walk in the park.