CatTheCool
Airman
- 32
- Aug 28, 2018
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
CatTheCool,
What references are you using, and what was the outcome? Also what were the pilots opinions after having switched? Was there opinions based on switching missions with the Spit or continued profiles (missions)?
Some amount of bellyacheing is to be expected. Once you become acclimated/ comfortable in a plane your mission effectiveness goes up and your resistance to change does as well. Learning a new plane requires leaving something comfortable for something not. If you are also, as are your squadron mates very effective in your current steed the desire to change gets another level of resistance.
I have flown with quite a few guys who came to the Eagle from F16s and F18s. Regardless of which they disliked the flight controls (not fly by wire-don't protect you from over G's), but loved the radar capabilities, load out, and how we employed. They eventually acclimated to the flight controls and other eccentricities of a new, to them, plane.
Cheers,
Biff
CTC,
I would love to have 25 minutes to watch but alas I do not. Do you have a reference time we should look at?
Cheers,
Biff
Sounds like a British Chuck Jaeger then?W/C Beamont flew Hurricanes, went on to be a Hawker test pilot on Typhoons and Tempests and then was shot down in one and became a POW until the end of the war
Gentlemen,
While I do not know of any RAF squadrons that were able to choose the aircraft they wanted to fly, the 56th FG was able to lobby to keep their P-47's, while all the other 8th AF fighter groups converted to P-51's. The 474th FG was able to keep their P-38's even though the US TAC Air Forces wanted them to convert to a different aircraft. OTH, the 367th FG was unsuccessful in trying to keep their P-38's and converted to P-47's in February of 1945.
Perhaps, the success of the 56th with the P-47's was a factor in the decision. I believe the war in Europe was clearly ending when the 474th lobbied to keep their aircraft, and that may have been a factor.
So, at least in 2 cases, USAAF pilots/commanders were able to "choose" what they wanted to fly..
My 2 cents worth.
Eagledad
Yes, in business, its either a "I'm not going along with this" or "You shouldn't be doing this because you're wasting my time and the customer's money". Reorganisation and redundancy usually follow.In military terms even in business there is a huge difference between lobbying, requesting and a flat refusal.
It depends on the company and the business, customer feedback in F1 is highly valued, generally they listen to the drivers.Yes, in business, its either a "I'm not going along with this" or "You shouldn't be doing this because you're wasting my time and the customer's money". Reorganisation and redundancy usually follow.
I was thinking more of software development, you know like Cowboys and Indians.It depends on the company and the business, customer feedback in F1 is highly valued, generally they listen to the drivers.
These were expierenced pilots who had always flown the hurricane and appreicatied it's qualities, durabilty, stable gun platform ect.View attachment 526446
The Pilots asked to fly Hurricanes rather than Spitfires?
This book, of wich I have a Ist edition signed copy by R.R, Stanford Tuck, seems to say different things...
My understanding has always been that those squadrons engaged in the BoB that operated Hurricanes and were offered Spitfires, quite understandably didn't want to change fighters during the battle.These were expierenced pilots who had always flown the hurricane and appreicatied it's qualities, durabilty, stable gun platform ect.
My understanding has always been that those squadrons engaged in the BoB that operated Hurricanes and were offered Spitfires, quite understandably didn't want to change fighters during the battle.