Eric Brown's "Duels in the Sky"

[drgondog]

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]

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.

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.

 

[cimmex]

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]

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]

thank you, I didn't know this numbers.

 

[TheMustangRider]

You are welcome cimmex.

 

[Juha]

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]

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]

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.

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

I also agree with you. the tide had turned against germany....but the war at that time was not a definate loss. think of the resources they would have had if they had been able to keep allies from daylight bombing. you couldnt amass the number of bombers at night as you could during the daylight. so men and machines of all kinds could have been sent from the core of germany east or where ever. with out harassment the LW would have been able to maintain machines and fuel. the soviets would have faced a more formidable army....and who knows they may have been able to stop them as the length of the front shrunk.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Dawncaster]

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]

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]

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]

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."

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

 

[Dawncaster]

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."



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."

View attachment 468981Corsair iii by Grant Newman, on Flickr

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[nuuumannn]

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.

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

Only if you disagree with something he says.

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]

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.