Most ignored combat aircraft of ww2

[Shortround6]

Eric Brown also flew a variety of "missions" a lot of which had very little to do with max turning rates or max roll rates or other extreme, exploring the edges of the envelope flying.

He did a lot of work figuring out which planes could be landed on carrier decks (or not landed on them). for a number of weeks at the end of the war he was ferrying a variety of German Aircraft back to England (or at least to British controlled zones in Germany) which often meant flying a plane that had been repaired/serviced by German mechanics using whatever parts they could scrounge up at the field they were at. Getting a strange plane into the air and back down with very little briefing and not breaking it (and himself) in the process took precedence over wringing the last G or two out it's turning circle. Some of the se planes he flew only once or twice (test hop if he was lucky and then the ferry flight to turn the plane over to the people examining it) .

He may have also flown some planes 2-4 years apart and with dozens (if not hundreds ) planes inbetween it is quite possible that his perceptions/standards had changed.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

A test pilot focuses on how a plane performs and why. An experienced combat focused pilot in the same type should not have too much problem besting one (a test pilot) in combat maneuvers. It's two different types of flying in the same aircraft.

Hello BiffF15,
I recall reading about Eric Brown flying a Spitfire in a duel against a FW 190.
Either he met an enemy pilot who was equally inexperienced or he might have actually known what he was doing.
The two maneuvered against each other for a while to no advantage and finally broke off at the same time.
Someone who is willing to do this probably knows his business at least a little.

- Ivan.

 

[BiffF15]

Hello BiffF15,
I recall reading about Eric Brown flying a Spitfire in a duel against a FW 190.
Either he met an enemy pilot who was equally inexperienced or he might have actually known what he was doing.
The two maneuvered against each other for a while to no advantage and finally broke off at the same time.
Someone who is willing to do this probably knows his business at least a little.

- Ivan.

Ivan,

I agree completely. However, the longer he spent away from an operational unit the further behind he would become in combat tactics. I really enjoyed his books, however I read them with a grain of salt due to his extended time away from combat flying. Thats my opine only.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[nuuumannn]

I'll take your Bristol Beaufort, Short Stirling, Vickers Warwick and Wellington and raise you an Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle... Or perhaps a Bristol Bombay for good measure!

Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle - Wikipedia

Bristol Bombay - Wikipedia

 

[nuuumannn]

As an aside, here's a Fiat CR-42 shot down over England in 1940 and preserved at the RAF Museum.

0507 RAFM CR-42

 

[nuuumannn]

At times I have wondered if everything he wrote was even reliable. His description of the A6M was that it had a mediocre roll rate and modern pilots generally say otherwise and videos also show the roll rates to be quite good.

'Moderate' is not mediocre. The problem with Brown is sweeping statements like this. People get the wrong idea and just start bashing him without actually reading his stuff. Accuracy can only be attained by quoting directly.

From Wings on my sleeve: "In the air the light weight Zero was remarkably nimble, with a high rate of climb of the order of 4,500 ft per min and superb manoeuvrability. The handling characteristics were somewhat marred by the imperfect harmony of control, which gave only a moderate rate of roll and with a rather sensitive rudder to deal with considerable directional control changes with power and speed. Also acceleration in the dive was rather slow and was to prove a bit of an Achilles heel against the heavy American fighters such as the Hellcat, Corsair and Thunderbolt."

"In assessing the Zero as a fighter, it must be remembered that it ruled the air in the Far East from 1939 to mid 1943. It had the impressive combat kill ratio of 12:1 and it was not until the Grumman Hellcat appeared on the scene that it found itself bettered in the Pacific War theatre [P-38 pilots might disagree]. Whereas the Zero always sought to fight in the horizontal plane where its remarkable turning circle gave it the advantage, the Hellcat countered this by initiating combat in the vertical plane by diving on the Zero and picking up so much speed in the dive that it could follow the Jap[anese] fighter round a third of its tightest turns..."

 

[Skyediamonds]

DerAdler: beer is on the house! Still, for an odd aircraft, the Heinkel really ranks right up there.
Pars: Supreme Allied commander Eisenhower had listed the "lowly" C-47 as one of the most prized aircraft along with the (I think) Sherman tank & a few others.

 

[Glider]

Glider,

A test pilot focuses on how a plane performs and why. An experienced combat focused pilot in the same type should not have too much problem besting one (a test pilot) in combat maneuvers. It's two different types of flying in the same aircraft.

Cheers,
Biff

True but he was also a combat pilot. There were precious few aircrew of any nation in WW2 that were both experienced combat pilots and trained test pilots.

 

[Dimlee]

I nominate this aircraft. (By Alan Wilson from Stilton, Peterborough, Cambs, UK Su2 38 yellow)View attachment 513650

Good find. I agree wholeheartedly as I belong to that school of thought: "Su-2 had to be allocated most of production capacity given to Il-2".
Trivia: Production was suspended in Jan 1942, but Su-2 was still used in combat for close support until (at least) July 1943 and for recon until Jan or Feb 1944. Taking into account comparatively small number produced (910 according to Sukhoy company) and high rate of attrition in VVS in the first years of war, such longevity itself was quite an achievement.

 

[Greyman]

It's two different types of flying in the same aircraft.

Eric Brown thought so too.

April brought me a temporary but violent change of scene. I was whisked off down to Kenley near London and attached to 411 and 416 Squadrons of the Royal Canadian Air Force to teach them how to land their Spitfires on a deck. I had my own Seafire with me.

The Canadians showed lukewarm interest in the idea. To begin with they were heavily engaged in fighter sweeps over France, and to make matters more unsatisfactory neither they or I had the remotest notion why we were doing what we were doing.

In the end they blackmailed me into a kind of exchange. For every deck-landing session I had to do a fighter sweep with them.

This kind of flying was a revelation to me, an incomparably satisfying business, in which a pilot lived on his wits and reflexes all the time.

 

[BiffF15]

True but he was also a combat pilot. There were precious few aircrew of any nation in WW2 that were both experienced combat pilots and trained test pilots.

Glider,

Today test pilots who fly fighters also come from combat oriented fighter background. Their time away from combat flying / training puts them at, in my opine, a serious disadvantage. They get little to no combat training, and atrophy on tactics as well as currency. To stay good you need to stay proficient. While Brown did fly occasional combat sorties I would doubt his proficiency was at the level of someone doing it day in and day out. I would have been embarrassed if I couldn't beat a test pilot in identical jets. Six weeks off makes a difference. How about a year off, or more.

All my opine based on what I've seen.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[GrauGeist]

True but he was also a combat pilot. There were precious few aircrew of any nation in WW2 that were both experienced combat pilots and trained test pilots.

Believe it or not, Adolf Galland was also a test pilot for a time at Tutow.

 

[GregP]

There are two SBD Dauntless aircraft still flying. The Planes of Fame has one of them.

All the rest are A-24s painted up like a Dauntless, some even with tail hook gear fitted.

 

[GrauGeist]

The list of airworthy Douglas SBDs are as follows:
SBD-4 (BuNo. 10518) N4864J @ Yank's Air Museum, Chino, Ca.
SBD-4 (BuNo. 10694) N34N @ Midway Dauntless, Bellvue, Wa.
SBD-5 (BuNo. 28536) N670AM @ Planes of Fame, Chino, Ca.
SBD-5 (BuNo. 54532) NL82GA @ Commemorative Air Force, Peachtree City, Ga.

The list of airworthy Douglas A-24s are as follows:
A-24A (SerNo. 42-60817) NX5254L @ Erickson Aircraft Collection, Madras, Or. - painted as an SBD-3
A-24B (SerNo. 42-54682) N93RW @ Lone Star Flight Museum, Houston, Tx. - painted as an SBD-5

There are no airworthy A-24 types flying in original USAAC/USAAF markings.

 

[Glider]

Believe it or not, Adolf Galland was also a test pilot for a time at Tutow.

There is a world of difference between being a test pilot and being a trained test pilot. The UK had the first test pilot school in 1943 graduating in 1944 and the US copied this idea in 1944 graduating in 1945. No one else had an active scheme until post war.
Biff is correct anyone in any sphere needs to stay current but if you really want to know what an aircraft can do, you need a test pilot. The ETPS was set up because so many highly skilled pilots who were test pilots, were being killed in accidents.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Germans tended to employ test pilots who had considerable experience and held a host of certifications, like Erich Warsitz and Hans-Werner Leche.

It's one thing to be capable of pushing an aircraft to it's limits to find the aircraft's strengths and weaknesses, but an entirely different case pushing an aircraft to it's limits in a kill or be killed situation.

 

[Skyediamonds]

Graum, BIFF, DerAdler, and fellow gentlemen:

With regards to the debate between test pilots both, with and without combat experience, may I recommend (late) Col. John Boyd? There is a fantastic book entitled: "John Boyd, the Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War." I forgot the author's name, but it was on one of the best seller's list. John was known as "40-second Boyd." He flew F-100's out of Nellis AFB in Nevada and defied anyone, young, old, experienced or new, to try to shoot him down within 40 seconds. There was only one pilot and even then, he managed only to squeeze out a tie. Other than that, no one had been able to shoot him down. John would purposely allow the challenger to get "on his six o'clock" and try to initiate a "kill." Within 40- seconds or less, John was able to out-maneuver the challenger and be on his "six" while announcing over the radio "Guns, Guns,." He deplored test pilots over at Edwards saying they were nothing but "secretaries taking notes on their knee pads of the flight characteristics of a particular plane." He even challenged some of those test pilots. None took him up on his offer.

John was able to demonstrate some of the design flaws in the F-100 that was overlooked by both test pilots and people at North American Aviation, the manufacturer who produced the F-100s. Everyone was familiar with the deadly "Sabre Dance," during landing, but it took John Boyd to figure out how to counter the unique handling qualities (use more rudder instead of ailerons).

Finally, John also pointed out another design flaw that was overlooked by both NAA & test pilots on the hydraulic systems to the F-100. Everyone scoffed at him and challenged John. John then had them set up a test rig with the F-100 suspended off the ground and proved it. Yes, it was a mess all over the floor and NAA had to go back to the drawing boards.

He constantly defied authority and was passed over for promotions because of his confrontational attitude. John ended up working in the Pentagon for many years coming up with a new concept of 'warfare." The (late) Dick Chenney, then vice president in the Bush Adminstration was one of his students. It was also General Norman Schwarzkopf who was one of John's disciples and followed John's principles "On the Art of War" that led to the successful campaign against Iraq. John was also instrumental in the design of the lightweight fighter that ended up as the (then) General Dynamics F-16.

John absolutely hated the (late) McNamara's "Brain Kids" and their concept for all-in-one fighter that resulted in forcing the Navy to swallow the F-111 "Aardvark." He said they "....should rip the wings off, put in a couple of back seats, paint it yellow and have it taxi up and down the runway."

In summary: John was never a combat pilot in the true sense of doing a tour in Viet Nam or anywhere else. Nor was he a test pilot, operating in the official capacity, yet managed to outwit and outfly almost anyone; whether they be experienced combat pilots (who later on became his disciples), test pilots or people at NAA (and other aircraft manufacturers), and those within the Pentagon (they actually feared him).

As a post script, the people within the Pentagon listened to him (reluctantly) that led up to the F-16 and FA-17 (then converted to the FA-18). Like Ed Heinneman of Douglas Aircraft in designing the lightest and most simplest fighter jet possible that resulted in the A-4 "Scooter," John was an advocate of the lightest and simplest fighter jet possible using the most modern up-to-date designs.

It was just by accident that I came upon this book while browsing around a used book store. I highly recommend it to everyone. You won't be able to put it down.

Response, gentlemen?

 

[Greyman]

Response, gentlemen?

Don't encourage Navalwarrior.

 

[BiffF15]

Graum, BIFF, DerAdler, and fellow gentlemen:

With regards to the debate between test pilots both, with and without combat experience, may I recommend (late) Col. John Boyd? There is a fantastic book entitled: "John Boyd, the Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War." I forgot the author's name, but it was on one of the best seller's list. John was known as "40-second Boyd." He flew F-100's out of Nellis AFB in Nevada and defied anyone, young, old, experienced or new, to try to shoot him down within 40 seconds. There was only one pilot and even then, he managed only to squeeze out a tie. Other than that, no one had been able to shoot him down. John would purposely allow the challenger to get "on his six o'clock" and try to initiate a "kill." Within 40- seconds or less, John was able to out-maneuver the challenger and be on his "six" while announcing over the radio "Guns, Guns,." He deplored test pilots over at Edwards saying they were nothing but "secretaries taking notes on their knee pads of the flight characteristics of a particular plane." He even challenged some of those test pilots. None took him up on his offer.

John was able to demonstrate some of the design flaws in the F-100 that was overlooked by both test pilots and people at North American Aviation, the manufacturer who produced the F-100s. Everyone was familiar with the deadly "Sabre Dance," during landing, but it took John Boyd to figure out how to counter the unique handling qualities (use more rudder instead of ailerons).

Finally, John also pointed out another design flaw that was overlooked by both NAA & test pilots on the hydraulic systems to the F-100. Everyone scoffed at him and challenged John. John then had them set up a test rig with the F-100 suspended off the ground and proved it. Yes, it was a mess all over the floor and NAA had to go back to the drawing boards.

He constantly defied authority and was passed over for promotions because of his confrontational attitude. John ended up working in the Pentagon for many years coming up with a new concept of 'warfare." The (late) Dick Chenney, then vice president in the Bush Adminstration was one of his students. It was also General Norman Schwarzkopf who was one of John's disciples and followed John's principles "On the Art of War" that led to the successful campaign against Iraq. John was also instrumental in the design of the lightweight fighter that ended up as the (then) General Dynamics F-16.

John absolutely hated the (late) McNamara's "Brain Kids" and their concept for all-in-one fighter that resulted in forcing the Navy to swallow the F-111 "Aardvark." He said they "....should rip the wings off, put in a couple of back seats, paint it yellow and have it taxi up and down the runway."

In summary: John was never a combat pilot in the true sense of doing a tour in Viet Nam or anywhere else. Nor was he a test pilot, operating in the official capacity, yet managed to outwit and outfly almost anyone; whether they be experienced combat pilots (who later on became his disciples), test pilots or people at NAA (and other aircraft manufacturers), and those within the Pentagon (they actually feared him).

As a post script, the people within the Pentagon listened to him (reluctantly) that led up to the F-16 and FA-17 (then converted to the FA-18). Like Ed Heinneman of Douglas Aircraft in designing the lightest and most simplest fighter jet possible that resulted in the A-4 "Scooter," John was an advocate of the lightest and simplest fighter jet possible using the most modern up-to-date designs.

It was just by accident that I came upon this book while browsing around a used book store. I highly recommend it to everyone. You won't be able to put it down.

Response, gentlemen?

I've read the book and enjoyed it very much. He did a lot of great work, and was larger than life to many, and equally hated by many others.

His 40 second routine also overstressed the shit out the jets from what I've been told. Not good to do as it will probably be someone else flying it when there is a catastrophic failure. It is one thing to do an unauthorized maneuver in war and quite another to do it in training, and routinely at that. His opinion of his flying skills was not universally shared.

The USMC adopted his philosophy as did segments of the USAF, and have enjoyed much success with it.

I will agree that test pilots are not anywhere near as proficient or versed in the latest maneuvers or tactics.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Eeeek, Jets again!

With regards to the debate between test pilots both, with and without combat experience, may I recommend (late) Col. John Boyd? There is a fantastic book entitled: "John Boyd, the Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War." I forgot the author's name, but it was on one of the best seller's list. John was known as "40-second Boyd." He flew F-100's out of Nellis AFB in Nevada and defied anyone, young, old, experienced or new, to try to shoot him down within 40 seconds. There was only one pilot and even then, he managed only to squeeze out a tie. Other than that, no one had been able to shoot him down. John would purposely allow the challenger to get "on his six o'clock" and try to initiate a "kill." Within 40- seconds or less, John was able to out-maneuver the challenger and be on his "six" while announcing over the radio "Guns, Guns,." He deplored test pilots over at Edwards saying they were nothing but "secretaries taking notes on their knee pads of the flight characteristics of a particular plane." He even challenged some of those test pilots. None took him up on his offer.

I overheard a fellow at the Udvar Hazy NASM who suggested to his prospective son-in-law that he should read this book.
I requested a copy from my local public library and it does make pretty good reading as do some of Col. Boyd's actual writings.
As a comment here, I believe a little more detail about Col. Boyd might be useful here.
John Boyd was THE F-100 Driver. He probably knew more about the flight characteristics about that particular aeroplane than anyone else INCLUDING the test pilots.
His tactic when fighting with the F-100 was to pull up into a very high AoA and "Flat Plate" the aeroplane. The drag and deceleration was tremendous and the pursuing aircraft would overshoot quickly. Then he would go back to normal flight attitude and shoot the fellow that was now in front of him.
Unless you are very familiar with the peculiar instability of the F-100 at high AoA, this is a very dangerous thing to do.
More on this in a bit....

John was able to demonstrate some of the design flaws in the F-100 that was overlooked by both test pilots and people at North American Aviation, the manufacturer who produced the F-100s. Everyone was familiar with the deadly "Sabre Dance," during landing, but it took John Boyd to figure out how to counter the unique handling qualities (use more rudder instead of ailerons).

Using Rudder instead of Ailerons for lateral control at low speed is actually the correct approach as I understand it.
Using Ailerons may stall the wing that you are attempting to raise.
As mentioned earlier, the F-100 had serious directional stability issues at high AoA. Part of this was corrected from the prototypes by increasing the size of the Fin/Rudder, but not before another rather famous NAA test pilot, George Welch got killed while flying it. The situation was never entirely corrected and the "Sabre Dance" is a great illustration of that high AoA directional control issue coupled with being behind the power curve.

He constantly defied authority and was passed over for promotions because of his confrontational attitude. John ended up working in the Pentagon for many years coming up with a new concept of 'warfare." The (late) Dick Chenney, then vice president in the Bush Adminstration was one of his students. It was also General Norman Schwarzkopf who was one of John's disciples and followed John's principles "On the Art of War" that led to the successful campaign against Iraq. John was also instrumental in the design of the lightweight fighter that ended up as the (then) General Dynamics F-16.
.....
In summary: John was never a combat pilot in the true sense of doing a tour in Viet Nam or anywhere else. Nor was he a test pilot, operating in the official capacity, yet managed to outwit and outfly almost anyone; whether they be experienced combat pilots (who later on became his disciples), test pilots or people at NAA (and other aircraft manufacturers), and those within the Pentagon (they actually feared him).

Response, gentlemen?

The book about Col. Boyd was not very complimentary on Schwarzkopf at all. I believe you are misinterpreting the conclusion.
Yes, the Gulf War was fought using the principles and strategies of Col. Boyd, but the original strategy of Schwarzkopf was "Hey diddle diddle, right up the middle" (strength against strength) which is the complete opposite approach.
The now standard "Energy - Maneuverability Theory" was apparently the creation of Col. Boyd and his group that called themselves "The Fighter Mafia". The interesting thing here was that he was certain that this theory did not completely capture the differences between aircraft and was working on a follow-on theory toward the end of his life.
The concept of "OODA Loop" (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) and the idea that whoever can execute this cycle faster will have the advantage can also be credited to this fellow.

- Ivan.