Bump – I am interested to know whether US civilian pilots were or weren’t breaking neutrality rules by flying for the RCAF.

Cheers
Dave

IIRC the US law at the time said more or less that you were not allowed to use your US passport to travel abroad in order to join the armed forces of a country being at war. So if you did not join the armed forces you would be OK, I think.
The “US passport” phrase was to exclude people with double citizenship, who were able to use their other passport (American Poles did that, for example).
Your question is probably wider than just about those who trained military pilots in Canada. A lot of US aircraft (and other war equipment) being sold to Britain at the time, what would be the legal situation of all those company engineers etc. who came over to assist in assembly and operation?

JDK, have I gotten on your nerves again? Didn’t 😉 mean to…
And, just in order to improve my English again:

the Typhoon … wasn’t a disaster as an air superiority fighter – it just wasn’t the best

Can you tell me when and where was the Typhoon used as “air superiority fighter”?
I know it was used for air defence against JaBo hit-and-run raids, I also know it was used widely as a fighter-bomber. But “air superiority”?

Have a look at the Putnams Supermarine book for a number of duds by Mitchell. Of Camm’s ‘failures’ even the Typhoon (to which I think you refer?) was very effective

Hmmm, my poor English again…
I didn’t mean to say that Mitchell did everything right (I honestly don’t think so).
I didn’t mean to say Typhoon was ineffective (that’s not the point here).
The point was that at the outbreak of WWII the Air Ministry considered the “new Hawker fighter by Camm” (i. e. Tornado/Typhoon) to become the principal RAF single-engine day air-to-air fighter and the sole to be mass-built. As it turned out the new design never became the principal day fighter, and it is debatable if it ever was a successful air-to-air fighter. So it was a failure as an overall project, as it failed to meet its objective, and also failed to be delivered in time.
I don’t think you can call a guy a Truly Great Designer if such thing happened to him on a major project, desperately needed by his country in a great war.

But, of course, this thread is about Favourite Aircraft Designers, not the Great ones.

If it is beauty that matters, then that is purely subjective. I’d say anything that is not designed by the Russians.

Do you not find the Flanker family good-looking?!

If you want innovation, then its all of the above from this whole thread and don’t forget the Montgolfier brothers.

Do balloons qualify under “aircraft”? (Just trying to expand my English.)

but from the Hart to the Sea Fury, always good enough and on time. Just try a comparason!

Sorry to repeat myself: JDK, with your knowledge of aircraft history, you can’t possibly seriously think Typhoon was “good enough and on time”?

Admittedly the Hurricane demonstrates just how good the Fury line was, as that was pretty much a monoplane descendent.

Don’t forget the Hunter and the Harrier!

Merian C. Cooper, Hollywood film producer (responsible for the original pre-WWII “King Kong”, for example) had a distinguished flying career.
He flew in France in WWI. He then organised a volunteer unit of American pilots to fight in Poland against the Bolsheviks in the 1919-1920 war. The unit continued to exist in Poland until 1939, and was then reformed in Britain as no. 303 Sqn. If you look at its badge (any post by EN830) you can see the stars-and-stripes motif of the US volunteers.
Cooper himself was shot down and captured by the Russians. At the time there was a prize of 500,000 roubles for his head. He managed to conceal his identity and survived the captivity thanks to the fact that his hands were burnt in an accident (the Bolsheviks had a habit of testing prisoner’s social class by their hands, anyone with smooth white hands was executed). While in a PoW camp he was infected with typhus, but was cured by a White Russian doctor imprisoned there. He then escaped from a PoW camp near Moscow with two Poles and in 6 weeks made it to Riga, Latvia on foot.
(Does the story sound interesting? JDK might have a good book for you soon ;))

20 years later Cooper revived the same concept of US volunteers to establish a fighter unit to fight for a good cause. This time he would not fly or fight himself, but his idea was put into life as the AVG or the “Flying Tigers”.

I am not quite sure if he counts as a famous showbiz-man who flew in wars, or rather a famous flyer with showbiz as a hobby. But then, James Stewart also took his flying career more seriously than most of those mentioned here.

I don’t know all of them but filled in the ones I could.
Hope it helps

Yes, it does!

EN613 April 1943 (Not with 41 Squadron from what I have. Issued to 91 on 4/22/43)

I will have to check where I got it from.

Thanks a lot.

Daz,

You asked about the inside cover. Many log books that I have seen had one or more sheets of paper attached there, these being sort of a printed “Instruction Manual” on how the log book should be used, what should be entered in it, etc.

Other points of note are:

“Record of Service” – the last pages of the log book were supposed to include the full detailed listing of all the postings of the pilot. In some log books this is really detailed, in some there is nothing in these pages.

There are also pages at the end of the log book supposed to include the record of Link Trainer practices.

Sorties were usually entered in different colours, combat missions being usually marked in red.

“Log book endorsement” by superior officer had special meanings, depending on the colour:
Endorsement in red ink was a way of punishing a pilot for an offence done while flying. Many RAF accident reports end with the words: Action to be taken: Pilot’s Log Book to be endorsed in red ink ‘Gross Carelessness’ or the like.
Endorsement in green ink could be a reward for showing special skills, such as successful landing in a damaged machine etc.

It was not unusual for pilots to attach photos in their log books, such as camera gun stills where they were credited with victories, photos of friends (especially those missing), official recognition photos when they converted onto a new type of aircraft, etc.

The pilots that I have been in contact and have met are.

S/Ldr Tadeusz Andersz
Sqn Ldr Luwig Matel

Ludwig Martel I presume?

Sqn Ldr Franciszek Kornicki
F/LT Konrad Stembrowicz
W/O Mieczyslaw Matus
F/Lt Czeslaw Tarkowski (Died)
F/Lt Wladyslaw Zajac
there is one other whose name I can’t recall.

Presumably Jan Kowalski, Wlodzimierz Miksa, or Stanislaw Blok?

Yes HAC’s Spitfire Vb BM597, flew with both 315 Sqn and 317 Sqn from May 1942 until February 1943, it switched squadron in October 42 (I believe). It also flew with 58 OTU at Hawarden in mid 1944.

Delivered to no. 315 on 7 May (according to the Aircraft Movement Card), first flight in the Squadron on 10 May (According to the ‘A’ Flight Flying Log Book). Full list of pilots/flights in no. 315 can be found in the Squadron documents (I think I have prepared a similar listing a while ago for Mark12). On 5 September no. 315 moved from Woodvale to Northolt, leaving all its aircraft for no. 317 Sqn which moved in the opposite direction. From then on, the only source of information about BM597 actions is the ORB or pilot’s log books, as no other relevant documents survive for this Squadron.
By 1944 there was no Polish section in no. 58 OTU.