Eric Brown's "Duels in the Sky"

[nuuumannn]

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]

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

 

[fastmongrel]

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

 

[nuuumannn]

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]

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]

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

 

[renrich]

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.

 

[drgondog]

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.

 

[Juha]

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]

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]

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.

 

[davparlr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[barney]

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.

 

[GregP]

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!

 

[Juha]

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.

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.

... 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

 

[Kryten]

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!