PDA

View Full Version : A little more of Capt Eric Brown for Air Combat Manoeuvres



Trinity_Jay
07-18-2008, 07:09 AM
Hola all,

The book is nearing its finish and looks glorious. A dedicated website will be made live in August that will be posted here that shows samples of the spreads, artwork, images, photos, text, etc.

And here's another taster of the Capt Eric Brown interview:

You flew a number of Russian aircraft. What were your thoughts on their performance, build quality, etc?
Firstly, the Russians didn't build for longevity in their aircraft. They were very practical and they said, "Look, there's no point in building an engine for more than a hundred hours because it isn't going to last that long. It'll be shot down." Therefore, engines were built only for a hundred hours' flying time. And this left the Russians at a great disadvantage when peace came because none of their engines were fit for transmission into civil aircraft. Also, the workmanship was a bit rough; you could feel the rivets proud on the fuselage and that sort of thing. So it was a bit rough and ready. So you may say what does it matter if the rivets stick out or not, but it does matter because of drag and reducing performance. They were rough and ready but they improved as the war went on. They learned their lessons. But where the Russians really lost so badly in the initial stages of the war was due to the fact that they were tactically nave. Very! At the battle of Kursk, which was the greatest air battle of all time, they lost over 400 aircraft and the Germans lost 26.

For example, I asked Eric Hartmann as to how he had shot down three hundred and fifty-two victories. How did you do it?" He said, "Well you can't believe it, but the Sturmovik, which was their main ground attack aircraft, flew like B-17s in formation and didn't attempt to make any evasive manoeuvres. And all they had was one peashooter in the back of each plane. Also, some of the pilots were women. Their peashooter was no threat unless they had a very lucky hit on you. I didn't open fire till the aircraft filled my whole windscreen. If I did this, I would get one every time." I asked Hartmann how we would have faired on the western front and he replied that he was there for a month and didn't get one kill and was very lucky to survive and get away with it.

One aircraft that many simmers want to fly is the Westland Whirlwind; a beautiful, graceful and aesthetically pleasing fighter.
Yes, the look of it. It's an intriguing look, an aggressive look. The trouble was it was underpowered and the controls weren't harmonised very well. So it was a sad disappointment. A far better two-engined aircraft was the Mosquito that saw action early in the war. Truly magnificent.

You also flew the Ju-52 or better known as the Stuka. What was your opinion of it?
I had a high opinion of the Stuka because I had flown a lot of dive-bombers and it's the only one that you can dive truly vertically. Sometimes with dive-bombers, pilots claim that they did a vertical dive. What a load of rubbish. The maximum dive is usually in the order of 60 degrees. In a dive when flying the Stuka, because it's all automatic, you really are flying vertically. You feel that you are over the top and feel you are going that a way! The Vengeance and Dauntless were both very good but could dive no more than sixty or seventy degrees. The Stuka was in a class of its own.

Trinity_Jay
07-18-2008, 07:09 AM
Hola all,

The book is nearing its finish and looks glorious. A dedicated website will be made live in August that will be posted here that shows samples of the spreads, artwork, images, photos, text, etc.

And here's another taster of the Capt Eric Brown interview:

You flew a number of Russian aircraft. What were your thoughts on their performance, build quality, etc?
Firstly, the Russians didn't build for longevity in their aircraft. They were very practical and they said, "Look, there's no point in building an engine for more than a hundred hours because it isn't going to last that long. It'll be shot down." Therefore, engines were built only for a hundred hours' flying time. And this left the Russians at a great disadvantage when peace came because none of their engines were fit for transmission into civil aircraft. Also, the workmanship was a bit rough; you could feel the rivets proud on the fuselage and that sort of thing. So it was a bit rough and ready. So you may say what does it matter if the rivets stick out or not, but it does matter because of drag and reducing performance. They were rough and ready but they improved as the war went on. They learned their lessons. But where the Russians really lost so badly in the initial stages of the war was due to the fact that they were tactically nave. Very! At the battle of Kursk, which was the greatest air battle of all time, they lost over 400 aircraft and the Germans lost 26.

For example, I asked Eric Hartmann as to how he had shot down three hundred and fifty-two victories. How did you do it?" He said, "Well you can't believe it, but the Sturmovik, which was their main ground attack aircraft, flew like B-17s in formation and didn't attempt to make any evasive manoeuvres. And all they had was one peashooter in the back of each plane. Also, some of the pilots were women. Their peashooter was no threat unless they had a very lucky hit on you. I didn't open fire till the aircraft filled my whole windscreen. If I did this, I would get one every time." I asked Hartmann how we would have faired on the western front and he replied that he was there for a month and didn't get one kill and was very lucky to survive and get away with it.

One aircraft that many simmers want to fly is the Westland Whirlwind; a beautiful, graceful and aesthetically pleasing fighter.
Yes, the look of it. It's an intriguing look, an aggressive look. The trouble was it was underpowered and the controls weren't harmonised very well. So it was a sad disappointment. A far better two-engined aircraft was the Mosquito that saw action early in the war. Truly magnificent.

You also flew the Ju-52 or better known as the Stuka. What was your opinion of it?
I had a high opinion of the Stuka because I had flown a lot of dive-bombers and it's the only one that you can dive truly vertically. Sometimes with dive-bombers, pilots claim that they did a vertical dive. What a load of rubbish. The maximum dive is usually in the order of 60 degrees. In a dive when flying the Stuka, because it's all automatic, you really are flying vertically. You feel that you are over the top and feel you are going that a way! The Vengeance and Dauntless were both very good but could dive no more than sixty or seventy degrees. The Stuka was in a class of its own.

JtD
07-18-2008, 07:29 AM
Interesting. As always. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Two issues:
1st: 400 against 26 in the battle of Kursk? Can someone please shed some light on this, I am lost.

2nd: The Ju-52 isn't the Stuka, it's the Ju-87. You wouldn't want an error like this creep into a book. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hoep
07-18-2008, 07:42 AM
400 vs 26 at Kursk? Sounds like a typing error...in mid-1943 the Ivans were already fightings at good means against LW...these numbers look more like 22.06.1941

Schwarz.13
07-18-2008, 07:47 AM
Really looking forward to the finished (and typo-freehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) book! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trinity_Jay:
One aircraft that many simmers want to fly is the Westland Whirlwind; a beautiful, graceful and aesthetically pleasing fighter.
Yes, the look of it. It's an intriguing look, an aggressive look. The trouble was it was underpowered and the controls weren't harmonised very well. So it was a sad disappointment. A far better two-engined aircraft was the Mosquito that saw action early in the war. Truly magnificent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Xiolablu3
07-18-2008, 07:55 AM
EXcellent read, thanks! Cant wait for the book.

Just trying to shed some light on Erics statemetns about VVS/LW losses over Kursk and came upon an interesting statement on Wikipedia...

'In the last quarter of 1942 and the first half of 1943, 40% of Luftwaffe losses occurred were in the battles over Malta and Tunisia.'

You guys think this is correct? We are always told North Africa was nothing more than a 'sideshow'.

From :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk#Preliminary_Actions

Xiolablu3
07-18-2008, 07:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schwarz.13:
Really looking forward to the finished (and typo-freehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) book! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trinity_Jay:
One aircraft that many simmers want to fly is the Westland Whirlwind; a beautiful, graceful and aesthetically pleasing fighter.
Yes, the look of it. It's an intriguing look, an aggressive look. The trouble was it was underpowered and the controls weren't harmonised very well. So it was a sad disappointment. A far better two-engined aircraft was the Mosquito that saw action early in the war. Truly magnificent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quick, EDIT this page before Eric Brown is found in the drawing room, murdered with a candlestick bearing the markings 'LowFlyer woz ere, whirlwind foreva!'

Trinity_Jay
07-18-2008, 07:58 AM
Thanks guys. I ploughed through the rough text and pasted it without gleaning the copy. I wanted to give you a flavour.

And a dive-bombing Ju-52? Why the devil not? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

CPS_Bulldog

Hoep
07-18-2008, 08:04 AM
Wikipedia, IMHO, is very usefull to fool our minds. It's so full of errors and mistakes that i don't believe anymore anything which is written there. Especially when it tries to talk about WWII specs.
However, well, if during Zitadell operation the LW lost ONLY 26 planes...god, that'd be a great result!!!
AFAIK Stukas and JU88 losses were tremendous (espec. due to Flak) during those days at Kursk...

BTW, great read, looking forward to the final edition, sorry for hijacking your thread

Xiolablu3
07-18-2008, 08:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoep:
Wikipedia, IMHO, is very usefull to fool our minds. It's so full of errors and mistakes that i don't believe anymore anything which is written there. Especially when it tries to talk about WWII specs.
However, well, if during Zitadell operation the LW lost ONLY 26 planes...god, that'd be a great result!!!
AFAIK Stukas and JU88 losses were tremendous (espec. due to Flak) during those days at Kursk...

BTW, great read, looking forward to the final edition, sorry for hijacking your thread </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because it gets some things wrong, doesnt mean everything it prints is wrong. In fact its usually very good.

Wikipedia has a long article on the Battle of Kursk and states :-

'In the first three days of fighting over the northern flank Luftflotte 6 lost a total of 39 aircraft against Soviet losses of 386'

SO Eric has rememberd it as 29 rather than 39, but his numbers essentially agree with Wiki, however its not throught he whole battle, but the first few days on the Northern flank.

Trinity_Jay
07-18-2008, 08:09 AM
No problem. No one is hijacking the thread; I appreciate ALL comments.

No Wikipedia was used. All from Eric.

He then talks about flying the He 177 ("dreadful") and the Zero which was nimble but would creak like a biscuit tin.

What a lovely bloke. Hats off to him.

I was rather hoping he liked the Whirlwind...

CPS_Bulldog

Xiolablu3
07-18-2008, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trinity_Jay:
No problem. No one is hijacking the thread; I appreciate ALL comments.

No Wikipedia was used. All from Eric.

He then talks about flying the He 177 ("dreadful") and the Zero which was nimble but would creak like a biscuit tin.

What a lovely bloke. Hats off to him.

I was rather hoping he liked the Whirlwind...

CPS_Bulldog </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah mate, I was just reading on the Battle of Kursk on Wikipedia to see if it agreed with ERics comments, it seems it does, except he got the number wrong by 10, it was 39 lost by the LW, not 29, but they essentially agree. However its not through he whole battle, but the first few days on the Northern flank on which these losses occured according to Wikipedia's article.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
07-18-2008, 08:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schwarz.13:
Really looking forward to the finished (and typo-freehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) book! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trinity_Jay:
One aircraft that many simmers want to fly is the Westland Whirlwind; a beautiful, graceful and aesthetically pleasing fighter.
Yes, the look of it. It's an intriguing look, an aggressive look. The trouble was it was underpowered and the controls weren't harmonised very well. So it was a sad disappointment. A far better two-engined aircraft was the Mosquito that saw action early in the war. Truly magnificent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quick, EDIT this page before Eric Brown is found in the drawing room, murdered with a candlestick bearing the markings 'LowFlyer woz ere, whirlwind foreva!' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Credit me with a little more grammatical prowess dear boy!


Despite the astounding amount of different aircraft in his logbook (******ss book of record entry and all that) Capt Brown's stick time on Whirly = 0 btw.

I have testimonies in my collection from experienced Whirly pilots that rather liked the old girl. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Interesting though - looking forward to more. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hoep
07-18-2008, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoep:
Wikipedia, IMHO, is very usefull to fool our minds. It's so full of errors and mistakes that i don't believe anymore anything which is written there. Especially when it tries to talk about WWII specs.
However, well, if during Zitadell operation the LW lost ONLY 26 planes...god, that'd be a great result!!!
AFAIK Stukas and JU88 losses were tremendous (espec. due to Flak) during those days at Kursk...

BTW, great read, looking forward to the final edition, sorry for hijacking your thread </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because it gets some things wrong, doesnt mean everything it prints is wrong. In fact its usually very good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wiki probably is good for a generical knowledge of a single generic topic, but as soon as you need to go deeper, errors and mistakes become evident.
However, i agree that it's something great. If when i was a child there had been wiki, i swear a god i would have never pushed my father to buy me the Britannica

joeap
07-18-2008, 08:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
EXcellent read, thanks! Cant wait for the book.

Just trying to shed some light on Erics statemetns about VVS/LW losses over Kursk and came upon an interesting statement on Wikipedia...

'In the last quarter of 1942 and the first half of 1943, 40% of Luftwaffe losses occurred were in the battles over Malta and Tunisia.'

You guys think this is correct? We are always told North Africa was nothing more than a 'sideshow'.

From :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk#Preliminary_Actions </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

North Africa was a sideshow in overall terms, especially for the landwar.

WOLFMondo
07-18-2008, 09:28 AM
The guys is ancient. I can forgive him for getting a figure wrong. 10 planes is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Xiolablu3
07-18-2008, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
EXcellent read, thanks! Cant wait for the book.

Just trying to shed some light on Erics statemetns about VVS/LW losses over Kursk and came upon an interesting statement on Wikipedia...

'In the last quarter of 1942 and the first half of 1943, 40% of Luftwaffe losses occurred were in the battles over Malta and Tunisia.'

You guys think this is correct? We are always told North Africa was nothing more than a 'sideshow'.

From :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk#Preliminary_Actions </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

North Africa was a sideshow in overall terms, especially for the landwar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe for the Germans, however the Italians pumped hundreds of thousands of men against the British and Commonwealth forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign

stalkervision
07-18-2008, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For example, I asked Eric Hartmann as to how he had shot down three hundred and fifty-two victories. How did you do it?" He said, "Well you can't believe it, but the Sturmovik, which was their main ground attack aircraft, flew like B-17s in formation and didn't attempt to make any evasive manoeuvres. And all they had was one peashooter in the back of each plane. Also, some of the pilots were women. Their peashooter was no threat unless they had a very lucky hit on you. I didn't open fire till the aircraft filled my whole windscreen. If I did this, I would get one every time." I asked Hartmann how we would have faired on the western front and he replied that he was there for a month and didn't get one kill and was very lucky to survive and get away with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not exactly true. Hartman shot down a number of american mustangs in the war which were flown by american's at the time btw. He faced american pilots and squadrons numerous times and got kills.

In fact he got FOUR Mustangs in one mission! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

cawimmer430
07-18-2008, 04:13 PM
Hmmm, sometimes I just like taking a Stuka with no weapons up for a quick spin. It's a fun plane to fly and just cruise around in. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


A shame we can't fly the Ju-52/3m! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif