GrahamSimonsI’m not sure I get the point of this thread
There are hundreds of threads on here that I personally find completely pointless, – I look, I read, I move on, but I feel no need to make any comments about the fact!
GrahamSimonsForget Wiki…real pros use the Putnam series..
I’ll debate the accuracy of Putnams with you ANY day!
GrahamSimonsI too was under the impression that the Cv 990 was the fastest subsonic airliner. I never knew about it until I discovered a reference to it in edition 7 of the BAC/Sud Concorde Flight News. issued on 6 Octber 1969.
They stated:
Concorde flew at supersonic speed for the first time on 1st October. This was the 45th flight of aircraft 001 and the sixth since flying resumed on 21st September. M. André Turcat and M. Jean Pinet who were at the controls reported that handling and thrust margins were satisfactory.
‘Readers in the air transport industry will perhaps point out that this is not the first time a commercial passenger aircraft has exceeded Mach 1 – adding even that a DC-8 on test achieved the distinction eight years ago. It can at any rate be said that this is the first time in the Western world that it has been protracted and deliberate!’
I did some digging and came up with the start of this thread!
GrahamSimonsI seen to remember that there was a very large article on this in a very old edition of Air Pictorial – I’ll see if I can locate it
GrahamSimonsI think the interesting point Graham is making is not about the detail of the contemporary reports, but the subsequent reported implication that those reports didn’t exist and if they did that they were substantially inaccurate – which he’s found is not the case.
Regards,
That’s one of them, yes!
GrahamSimonsand Graham is interested in it as an example of (probably journalisticly driven) hindsight inflating the degree of actual secrecy of the time.
Actually, this time I do not have any ulterior motives, although I will admit that if if enough agree with me, it may well change slightly how I look – and research – things in the future.
I just used the U-2 as an example of something that has been in the back of my mind for some time, but has only recently come into sharper focus – it has reached the point whereby I felt it worthy of opening up to greater discussion.
I am also beginning to think that it is also ‘generational’. In the immediate post-war years there was only a few writers – and most were on the staff of magazines – at the time there were little to no purely historical aviation mags. This situation remained until the early 1970s when a new breed surfaced and a number of authors almost monopolised the then-new historical mags. At the time I was heavily involved in the early days of Duxford and up to my eyes in getting a certain Rapide back in the air, so I was not yet writing. I avidly read all the mags, I still have Aeroplane Monthly number one, and remember going over to Stamford to meet Mike Twite in some tiny little office near the George Hotel there before Key moved out to the industrial estate.
Looking back, it is clear that certain authors in the 1970s had close connections with certain aircraft manufacturers and were able to get a certain level of data – and photographs – from them. I am almost certain that either they, or the magazines editors ‘embellished’ their stories either to make themselves or their magazines look as is they were privy to a certain level of information etc that others could not get their hands on. The obvious way was to add the words ‘secret’ or ‘highly secret’ tags – if this happened enough times, I am sure I for one ended up almost being ‘brainwashed’ into remembering or believing it as they quoted it!
Recently, I suspect some of the newer generation of authors are rightly prepared to question what has previously appeared in print. This brings me on to what should be done about updating our records as more information comes to light – or challenging what others or themselves have made public earlier.
A good instance of this is/was Roger Freeman and his Mightly Eighth trilogy – an absolutely fabulous set of books when they first came out in the 1970s. At the time there was NOTHING available that could touch them. Sadly though, Roger never made any attempt to update them – in a letter dated 1987 from him I have in my possession, he freely admits that those books were written using ‘press and public relations hand outs’ and that he had not had the time to check through all the records that had later become available – unfortunately, this held true even to the point that when the 2000 softback edition came out from Cassells –which was supposed to be a revision – it is possible to see where just to odd word had been changed – they used a very slightly different typeface and none of the… I wont use the word ‘mistakes’ because that is not right, but certainly none of the ‘improvements in our knowledge’ brought about by 30 or so years of additional information coming to light had been fixed.
The unfortunate legacy of that is that so many people hold those three books in such high regard that they are taken as gospel on all things 8th Air Force – and I for one know that it just is not so – but you try and change their opinions!
20 years ago I had a certain book published – last year I got asked if I would like to have it re-printed. I said no, but I would welcome a chance of a revised version coming out, for over the passing years I had kept and on-going programme of revising the original work. I’m not going to mention the title or publisher, but to give you an idea as to the scale of the restoration and changes, it’s gone from 160 pages to 256 – and that’s not saying that the First Edition was a load of crap – it just shows how MUCH additional material has come to light that can be used to tell a more accurate story!
The second thing that has come out of this thread is what should be said or done about accuracy?
I will state now I think that no-one is or can be 100% accurate, but that I strive at all times to be as accurate in my writings as I possibly can be. I was once told by a member of staff at the British Library that they expect all the magazines and books that they are accepting THIS WEEK to survive at least 500 years. To me, being a part of that makes me aware of the awesome responsibly that I must ‘get things right’ for future generations.
So yes, I’m picky, anal, pedantic, obsessive…. and pretty much any other word, phrase or insult you care to throw at me – to me, comments like that shows I am doing what I do to the best of my ability. Criticisms are to be welcomed – as long as they are constructive – that way we all learn. But what makes me see red is that it’s not about WHAT the comments are – it’s the way they are made.
If someone says to me ‘Hey Graham, nice job you done there, it’s good to see all that in print, but by the way, did you know that on page 32…’ I take what they are saying in good grace and welcome their comments, after all, none of us are perfect. But most do not do that. They come over and it’s straight out with ‘You Graham Simons?…. you got that well and truly wrong on page 32…’ there is a smug grin on their face and a sneer in their voice for they seem to take great delight in having caught me out. It’s the same old scenario of put you head above the parapet and someone will kick you in the teeth. I bite my tongue yet again. Oh well, can’t take a joke, should not have joined!
We may all be interested in aviation history, but we all need to bear in mind that the things we do now impact strongly on how future generations see things and we should make every effort to ‘put the record straight’ which is, in my mind an ongoing process. I make a conscious effort to try not to make any of my work look as if I know more, or have better ‘connections’ than others. I also welcome constructive criticism.
(sits back and waits for the next flame-war attack)
GrahamSimonsBen Richtie was the man that replaced Kelly at the Skunk Works helm.
If we’re going to be pedantic here, his name was Benjamin Robert ‘Ben’ Rich
Secondly, the SAM thing….
SA stands for Surface-to-Air….. the ‘M’ being the Soviet Type M-2 missile as is quoted in the article.
Oh, and I made a mistake in my original starter – I said less than a week – in fact the article, which is attached, comes from Aeroplane and Astronautics dated May 13th 1960.
I will not even go anywhere near the Horten thing, I saw the movie when it was first shown, and the innumerable re-runs – it still makes my blood boil!
As for Pagens quote ” …details omitted, possibly due to censors”…. what I am actually saying is the opposite – I have discovered that far from omitting details, the early reports contain far more than have been repeated later – which is in agreement with the earlier part of his comment!
GrahamSimonsYeah – I’d discovered it was changed by the USAF to code-name Wild Weasel from the RAF’s codename Furious Ferrett …. and the P***ed off Polecat…. (ok… I’ll get my coat!)
Being serious – anyone interested in early RAF ECM wants to search out details of 100 Group – indeed the thread on Mosquito DD736 was from 1962 Bomber Support Training Unit and is mentioned elsewhere here I’ve covered it in detail in a couple of books, and there was an excellent article in Aeroplane Monthly some years back by I forget who!
Early ECM ranged from huge Jostle transmitters in the bomb-bays of RAF B-17s through to a simple microphone next to the engine to pick up and re-broadcast engine sounds to Luftwaffe radar controllers.
Just about every RAF Bomber Command type of aircraft was used – another good source of information is Proffessor R V Jones’ book Most Secret War. which tells of early German radar beam interceptions by Wellington over Spalding in Lincolnshire in 1940 if I remember correctly.
GrahamSimonsAbout time we got some decent atmosphere pics instead of all those dreary ‘record’ pictures!
GrahamSimonsWell at least that flushed out some more information for you guys!
GrahamSimonsI was under the impression that this forum was where it was possible to express ones own views and opinions. Perhaps you can tell me where I said anything other than expressing my own opinion, what I had discovered in my own work and about what is regarded as the accepted time-frame in publishing any book of this nature.
Other than questioning the validity of ANY book (please note I was being deliberately non-specific) that has been delayed for so long, I never said ONE WORD about the publishers, the author, any ‘conspiracy theory’ – or the work of Fishman. To tag such completely unrelated ‘allegations’ in a reply to a post of mine I find both opportunistic and most offensive.
GrahamSimonsI’m staying out of this one – I know what I unearthed from primary source documentation back in 1989… and I know what I updated from primary source documentation for publication next year.
That said – I must question the validity of the contents of any book that has been delayed so long – supposedly ‘for editing’. Book ‘production’ splits into two stages – the first being the work of the author, the second being the work of the publisher – the former being highly indeterminate – so long to research, so long to write and then that of the publisher that takes a fairly determinate time – so long to edit, compile, prepare, layout, print and bind.
Assuming a 256 page work with around 100 pictures, edit – first edit two weeks, author approve and then re-edit – a month.
compile and prep – a month
layout – a month
print and bind – four to six weeks.. and that is being generous.
How long has this work been stalled? I know what *I* think are the reasons for the delay, but I’m not going to say why in public!
GrahamSimonsFour pics taken during the recovery operation. Some items were in very good condition – others were – ‘leave alone and walk away – SLOWLY’.
EOD and RAF did a lot of the work – both Merlins were removed, I cleaned up one – which went to the Tower Museum at Bassingbourn, the other went to a Museum store in the Kings Lynn area. Of the 600 rounds of 20mm, EOD recovered 595, and blew up the breech of one cannon, which I was told had two in. One, which was how the aircraft was discovered in the first place, was held by Kings Lynn Police.
Date according to slides was 1974-6.
I’m still looking for the paperwork!
GrahamSimonsEntry in “Mosquito Crash Log” by MCP 1980:
“23.11.44 1692 BSTU DD736 Aircraft seen spiralling out of cloud, righted itself then spun into the ground at East Winch, Norfolk. Aircraft was coded J.”
Location is wrong – it was Middleton Fen
GrahamSimonsLike I said… next time I’m up in the loft, I’ll dig (excuse the pun) out the paperwork… the dig was in the late 1970s….. done by East Anglian Aviation Society – of which I was Engineering Director – we were working along with a team from the RAF and EOD Bicester. We also got Gerry Swannenburg over from Holland as a consultant.
The aircraft was ex 1692 BSTU, 141 Sqn and Rolls Royce. Both engines, props, radiators and a lot of other bits and pieces came out, along with 600 rounds of 20mm. There was also oxy bottles with holes through them. We also recovered a Molins built ‘Verey’ pistole which was built under licence to Webley which we presented back to Molins Ltd.
Depth of dig varied from a prop tip sticking out of the mud to 20 ft deep. There was a pic I got from the R-R files, but that has since dissapeared.
More to follow
Sign In
