Hello Dan ,

MB796 is still waiting for you in Normandy … if you are wealthy 🙂

Zorglub

If only! I keep looking for the end of the rainbow, money that grows on trees and an occasional lottery ticket. So far no go!

Still paying on the daughters college loans and the little guy will go to college someday too. I’m afraid it will have to remain dreaming barring some sort of miracle 🙂

Pilots from 41 Squadron. Tony Lovell and Norman Ryder in the photo too if my memory isn’t too bad.

Thanks for the responses. Good stuff, and the marine peer aspect is well articulated, most useful.

That’s where I started thinking about it, but I’m less sure now.

For instance discussions an airmanship today will probably touch on Kern’s 1996 Model (or similar).

Description here:
http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:airmanship-model

Diagram here:
http://winging-it.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/airmanship-excellence.html

Broadly, and this is thinking aloud, really – I’d think the component pieces of the model would be included in a good 1930s approach to airmanship. But the next step is I’m pretty sure they weren’t talked about – or thought about – in such a structure at least. How far were these concepts specified? If that’s correct, by not being articulated in that way, there is a substantive difference in understanding, and thus in application.

(Conversely, we could also argue such dreadful looking PowerPoint type graphics actually detract in the other direction from people learning capability, rather than pretty diagrams. A variant on the ‘flying the computer’ issue of the modern airline pilot, or adherence to H&S rules but not actual safety.)

So how about an experienced pilot in the 1930s flying at a couple of hundred feet over a large body of water in a single engine aircraft. They’d discounted any benefit of flying higher, though there are clear (now taught) safety advantages in doing so. Can we say this hypothetical pilot is ignorant, or displaying bad airmanship? (And is ignorance on such a flight effectively poor airmanship anyway? Are we making an anachronistic Catch 22?)

Specific or general comment most welcome!

Regards,

It was a termed used to evaluate RAF and RCAF pilots during WW2 and after. This is from a Canadian Spitfire pilot’s logbook. The same form appears a number of times during his WW2 years. It also appears in a similar form in his logbook from the 1950s when he was flying RCAF Sabres.

Wow, superb photos Simon. Those four Spitfire Mk 1’s look amazing and such excellent formation too. I didn’t realise so many were flying now! Nice to see the ex-New Zealand Hurricane there too again. I hear that last year it was a highlight of the show flown by the master himself, Keith Skilling. Was he at the controls this year?

Seems like it’s about time to start filming the Battle of Britain remake. With all the Spit Is and Hurricanes as well as the flying 109Es it sure would make for some serious in flight non computer generated flight scenes. Maybe inject some money into getting the Spanish He111s back in the air too 🙂

Beautiful pictures!

I have never met the gentleman but did have the please to meet Bob Hoover who I believe was a ‘colleague’ of Yeager when on ops in the UK. Bob Hoover demonstrated a high level of professionalism for more than 50 years that I believe Yeager never came close to. Yeager’s claim to being the first human to fly through the sound barrier was very dubious and had much to do with the politics of the time which required a military officer rather than a civilian to claim the crown.

Bob Hoover flew Spits in the MTO with the USAAF. He wasn’t with Yeager in England. He was with him during the test pilot time. Seems to me he was flying chase on the X-1 the day Yeager broke the sound barrier.

As for Yeager’s comments on the Brits. Clearly his experience was a poor one. One doesn’t have to dig too hard to find that there were resentments on the parts of both the Brits and the Yanks. One doesn’t have to look too hard to find that there were also great friendships and relationships too.

Getting worked up over the comments of one former fighter pilot seems a bit silly to me. I don’t imagine he much cares at this point what the rest of us think who don’t know him. The one time I met him, he was pleasant enough. It’s not like there was time to chat as the line for his autograph was a bit long. I’ve met and gotten to know a number of RAF and USAAF pilots over the years. There are pleasant personalities and some who are more abrasive. As near as I can tell that applies to the rest of us too.

It does look like a MK.V.

Most likely a this aircraft had a tropical filter, and hence a larger oil tank fitted.

If the tropical filter was removed, a one piece cowling could be fitted in it’s place.

Take a look at pictures of JG891 after it had it’s tropical cowling removed and one fitted, prior to it going to the US.

Cheers

Paul

Note the dress of the pilot. No doubt a Tropical filter equipped Spitfire Vc

Totally agree. I think that is more of a statement of fact than an opinion!

That’s interesting, as to be honest, it was the first time in my years here that I really wondered what was bothering Moggy so much. I’d never seen him come across the way he did in the Burma thread and I genuinely though the real world was creeping into his posts and that something was wrong.

And Andy, I really wanted to tell you to just back off and let the folks who still wanted to talk about it, do so. You’d made your point multiple times and it was overkill. There were others of the same mode. In my mind, that was the time for restraint that didn’t happen.

I have a great deal of respect for both you gents and what you bring to the table. It was strange to want to tell both of you to back off.

Considering he’s up in the turret, I’m thinking that Mr. Pitt isn’t driving.