Eric Brown

[Red Admiral]

What are people's opinions on Eric Brown's books, comments and experience?

[montanamotor]

Highly recommended. IMHO, a true expert in his own right.

Although sometimes, he cannot suppress a sublime tendency to hail british aircraft above other countrie's makes - axis or allied. And yes, beyond quantitative figures taken by him, he sometimes evaluates aircraft more after his personal preferences than after their objective suitability or performance in a specific role - that is, for the common reader's eyes. I don't know how he was handling this in his professional reports.

If you keep this in mind, his statements appear to be only second to your own personal experience with the respective aircraft he writes about.

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Tony Williams]

Actually, if you look at the planes he regards the highest, there are US and German planes in the mix as well. Although he prefers the Spitfire XIV among single-engined prop fighters, he rates the Fw 190D and P-51D as pretty much equal. And once you get into the jet era, he clearly rates US over UK fighters.

One plane he definitely does not rate at all is the Bf 109...

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Gents,

I have to agree with all three of you.

Considering his time, place and experience it is hardly surprising that 'Winkle' Brown is paartisan for British aircraft.

But, he invariably prefers American naval aircraft to British one and loves the German jets.

He does acknowledge his bias, but points out that if he rated British aircraft as his first choice there were a lot of other nationalities close behind.

To be honest, I know of no other author in our field who is as interesting and entertaining because of his background and bias - with the possible exception of JK Setright (have you seen what prices second hand copies of 'The Power to Fly' are going for?)

[GregP]

I have never been able to find his books anywhere.

Does anyone have a link to a place taht actually can SELL me one?

The main one I am interested in is titled something like "Duels in the Sky" and is supposed to be an analysis of WWII types that Eric Brown flew.

Thanks in advance. :)

[Tony Williams]

Well, you can get this one from amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1853104132/sr=1-2/qid=1155800521/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-2300130-7276040?ie=UTF8&s=books

and this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0870219952/sr=1-17/qid=1155800661/ref=sr_1_17/002-2300130-7276040?ie=UTF8&s=books

and if you put "Eric Brown" and "military" in the relevant sections of this site you get a raft of them: http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Tony Williams

Well, you can get this one from amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1853104132/sr=1-2/qid=1155800521/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-2300130-7276040?ie=UTF8&s=books

and this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0870219952/sr=1-17/qid=1155800661/ref=sr_1_17/002-2300130-7276040?ie=UTF8&s=books

and if you put "Eric Brown" and "military" in the relevant sections of this site you get a raft of them: http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk


Hi Folks

What is not generally known was that he was probably the first “British WW2 Prisoner of War”.
He was invited to be a guest of the Gestapo or SS before the declaration of war and only released some time latter in a secret “prisoner exchange” made across the Swiss Boarder. The only things he was allowed to keep was the clothes he had on and his MG sports car for which the Germans had no spares and there fore no use. This was when a member of the British Embassy Staff promptly gave him his call-up papers. The rest is history.

[GregP]

Thanks Tony! :)

[SkyChimp]

Brown apparently had some sort of paid gig with Grumman and promoted their planes. He spoke very highly of them. He didn't much care for the Corsair. Apparently Vought didn't pay Brown for plugs.

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Sky Chimp,

He makes it very clear in "Wings of the Navy" that the Wildcat was the first proper fighter that he flew and also the one that he made most of his kills in (Audcity/Fw200). As he says himself he had an 'emotional affection' for it - but also that it was the outstanding naval fighter of the early war years.

In the same book he admits that he never achieved 'any sort of rapport' with the Corsair and puts a lot of it down to the fact that he was a not a tall man and the Corsair's chief test pilot was 6'4" - with the result that he had trouble seeing out and reaching all the controls!

He does conclude that the FAA was the first to fly the Corsair operationaly from carriers and that it earned them their only VC.

In all fairness Winkle Brown is expected to have very firm opinions of his own, otherwise why bother to read him?.

Getting back to the subject of his books, can I recommend the two volumes of his 'Wings of the Weird and wonderful. Vol 1 is ISBN 0906393 30 2

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/detail/offer-listing/-/083062404X/all/sr=8-1/qid=1156153239/ref=sr_1_1/026-7078047-8504410?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=gateway

[pgplaneguru]

Hi i have read quite a few reviews of aircraft over the years in a magazine called Air International and another called Air Enthusiast.back orders may be ordered thru their website. i most enjoyed his review of the Martin Baker MB5 fighter which he described as a cross between a V2 rocket and a P 51 Mustang.

[pbhawkin]

Hi all,
Can anyone tell me if there is any content difference between the three various printings (1977, 1987 and 2002) of the Wings of the Luftwaffe book?

Peter H

[ickysdad]

I have never been able to find his books anywhere.

Does anyone have a link to a place taht actually can SELL me one?

The main one I am interested in is titled something like "Duels in the Sky" and is supposed to be an analysis of WWII types that Eric Brown flew.

Thanks in advance. :)

Greg,
Here's another way to find books that even Alibirs,Abebooks, and Amazon can't even find.

http://www.bookfinder.com/

[ChrisMcD]

Hi all,
Can anyone tell me if there is any content difference between the three various printings (1977, 1987 and 2002) of the Wings of the Luftwaffe book?

Peter H

I have the 1977 edition and have seen a later one (1987?) in the library. As far as I can remember the 1987 edition was printed on better/glossier paper, but the content was identical.

These are based on articles in 1960-70's vintage Flying Review magazines. Does anyone know where any other of these articles are available, apart from buying the mags off eBay?

[ChrisMcD]

I have never been able to find his books anywhere.

Does anyone have a link to a place taht actually can SELL me one?

The main one I am interested in is titled something like "Duels in the Sky" and is supposed to be an analysis of WWII types that Eric Brown flew.

Thanks in advance. :)

Hi GregP,

Amazon UK has about 10 on sale - despite the fact that it was printed in the US!

Amazon US has 24! from $9.94

It is 'Duels in the sky - World War II Naval aircraft in Combat by Captain Eric m Brown RN ISBN 1 85310 046 3.

I found it a bit dry - sounds like technical/tactical reports edited up and expanded with historical context.

For the authentic 'Winkle Brown' experience try Wings of the Weird and Wonderful

volume 1 ISBN 0 906393 30 2 with the MB5 (but not the quote!)

Volume 2 ISBN 0 906393 44 2 with the Zero

Almost as good as the 'Wings of' series.

[Sid447]

Brown apparently had some sort of paid gig with Grumman and promoted their planes. He spoke very highly of them. He didn't much care for the Corsair. Apparently Vought didn't pay Brown for plugs.

Is this fact or just hearsay?

Un-biased fact: Grumman made very some very good naval aircraft F4F, F6F.
With few vices for naval service pilots.

The Corsair didn't have good low-speed handling and landing qualities needed for carrier work in service.
The US Navy initially didn't use it for carrier operations because of this.
It's forward view was without doubt one of the worst of all naval aircraft and also suffered from a vicious wing drop at/near stalling speed. This combined with it's "bouncy" main oleos caused a lot of accidents and a dislike by many pilots not just Eric Brown.
Though in other respects it was one of the best fighters in service at the time.

[GregP]

Found a few of Eric's books on Amazon. Thanks!

Bought 'em. :-)

[dodge]

Brown was jockey sized, and I believe that he would have struggled with vision in a Corsair, the cockpit of which suited taller pilots.

[GregP]

Now THERE's a relevant post if I ever SAW one! Ha!

[Johnny .45]

If you keep this in mind, his statements appear to be only second to your own personal experience with the respective aircraft he writes about.



Second to whose own personal experience? Is that a general thing to anyone who reads one of his books, or is that to a specific person?
I've never had the opportunity to read any of his stuff, and I'm curious. He certainly sounds like a smart, talented guy. I'd love to find any of his stuff around here, but I'm not holding my breath. =/

[Johnny .45]

Brown apparently had some sort of paid gig with Grumman and promoted their planes. He spoke very highly of them. He didn't much care for the Corsair. Apparently Vought didn't pay Brown for plugs.

Just because he thought one fighter was better than another doesn't automatically mean that he was paid to say that. Grumman fighters WERE good fighters...it's not like it was some junk that he alone insisted was a good plane in order to sell them. The Hellcat was a very capable fighter, and although the Corsair had better absolute performance, it was a lot harder to fly and had a number of design defects. The first Hellcat left the factory almost vice-free and ready to fight. If he was insisting that the P-39 was the best fighter he ever flew, and telling everyone that they should buy a whole bunch of them, your claim would be more believable. As it is, however, he's echoing an opinion that a lot of other pilots held. The Hellcat wasn't such a "hot ship" as the Corsair, but that's not a bad thing. It performed well enough, and did it with easy handling and safe landing characteristics.
So I have to say that (to me, in any case) that your statement sounds like plain libel of an experienced pilot in order to defend your own personal favorite plane over the one that he chose. And I'[m going to guess that you yourself have never flown either of the planes he's talking about.
If you yourself want to choose the F4U, that's your choice; it's undeniably an excellent plane. I personally like the F6F better, and consider it all around a better plane than the Corsair in every category besides absolute performance. But you don't have to stoop to conjecture and fairy tales about a respected aviation figure simply because you are pissed that he doesn't agree with you. If he had claimed the Corsair was better, I wouldn't have insinuated that Vought had paid him off to make up stories about how good a plane it was...I KNOW that is was a good plane.
I also know that the Hellcat was a good plane, and I'd tell anyone that free of charge. If I flew both of them and realized that I liked the Corsair better as a fighter, I'd say "okay, well I guess I was wrong". And I wouldn't have to be paid to change my mind either.

Johnny .45

[tartle]

there is an interview video on the RAeS website here (http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/aerospace-insight/2010/09/captain-eric-brown-interview/).
We can see what it is like to be merely mortal in the presence of a brilliant flyer and to view his comments through our own filters. After all Wibur and Orville flew their aircraft for hours without too many incidents but the Aero Club members who bought the 6 Short-built Wright Model A's found it easy to run up very large repaiir bills... equivalent to £30,000 per month for one of them!

[Stephan Wilkinson]

Brown's best-known book is "Wings on My Sleeve," which is widely available in the U. S., at least on line if not in your local bookstore...I had no trouble finding a copy when I needed it for research several months ago.

Brown also loved the Bearcat, and places it ninth on his list of all-time favorite aircraft. It's the only Grumman on the list of 20 aircraft. I don't remember ever hearing that he had any financial involvement with Grumman, but you could ask him. He's still alive and pretty accessible.

[GregP]

The COrsair really didn;t have far better absolute performance.

At least in the early models, they shared the same engine and propeller, and had the same performance when flowm side by side. Of course, the airspeed indicator in the Corsair was reading higher, but they flew side by side at equivalent power settings except in low blower, where teh Corsait had a slightly better performance due to ram air into the carburetor.

The Hellcat did NOT have ram air because Grumman was trying to avoid aircraft losss due to carburetor icing. In the end they succeeded. No Hellcats were lost around the ship due to carb ice.

The Corsair cannot make the same claim.

The real issue with the Hellcat was denial by the War Materiel Board of any attempts to improve the Hellcat because the improvemetns would interrupt the production line. The slow roll rate COULD have been fixed easily, but would interrupt the production line. Ditto other changes that would have kept teh Hellcat even with the Corsair.

As satted by Johnny, the Corsair WAS harder to fly accurately and had a few handling qwirks. Recall it was disapproved for carrier use by the US Navy for some time in the war. They didn't call it "hose nose" without reason ... forward visibility is nonexistent in landing configuration and is still problematic at medium to low speeds in a dogfight.

[Nick Sumner]

Of course, the airspeed indicator in the Corsair was reading higher, but they flew side by side at equivalent power settings except in low blower, where teh Corsait had a slightly better performance due to ram air into the carburetor.



Greg, I'm intrigued by this statement. Did the F4U have a problem with its air speed indicator that gave the impression it was faster than the F4F hen in fact it wasn't?

[GregP]

All I can say is that there have been several articles by Corky Meyer, who was a Grumman test pilot during the war. He stated that, at equivalent power settings, the two flew side by side with differeing airspeed indications.

At the museum, we have a Corsair and a Hellcat, and our pilots observe they fly at the same speed for the same power setting. Of course, as a museum, we don't fly them at maximum power settings. We fly at cruise power and a setting sufficient for cruise otherwise. We usually take off at relatively high pwoer, but throttle back quickly into a cruise-climb.

Our Corsair is the oldest one still fyling, so it definitely IS one with the same engine and prop as the Hellcat.

[HurricaneIIc]

Hello -
It was Eric Brown who test flew and raved about the Fulmar's handling and basic "rightness" which was why in earlier posts I had suggested that it be used as a dive-bomber (he also stated that the Fulmar was stressed for dive-bombing) and torpedo plane.
It was suggested to me that the RN already had a dive-bomber, the Skua, but Eric Brown flew that as well and stated that it was likely to tip onto it's nose upon carrier landing.
The Fulmar would be my "TDR" plane, for carriers larger than a CVE at least, leaving the very capable Swordfish for the shortest decks such as the clever MAC ships.
But what I would like to ask today is your opinions on the following 2 fighters for use from carriers: Gloster f5.34 and Boulton-Paul p94 (single-seat Defiant):
I like the great reports on the Gloster's handling etc., and imagine it could hold a good supply of fuel in that fuselage. Does anyone have any insight as to whether the landing gear could hold up to carrier landings? Or whether the Martlet's Twin Wasp engine could be fitted, to allow more power/speed, not to mention great reliability while flying over the sea!
I like the sturdy wide-track gear of the Defiant, and think it too could hold plenty of fuel where the heavy turret used to be. And with thinner wings could have more speed than the Hurricane or Martlet. Just not sure if takeoff/landing distance is too great without modification, does anyone know? Perhaps leading-edge radiators (like on the Whirlwind) would add lift/area while allowing even more speed.
Thanks very much,
HurricaneIIc

[Lightning]

Hi Greg,

All I can say is that there have been several articles by Corky Meyer, who was a Grumman test pilot during the war. He stated that, at equivalent power settings, the two flew side by side with differeing airspeed indications.

This is not an unusual occurrence. Very few, if any, airplanes have airspeed indicators that read perfectly at all airspeeds. There is instrument error which is inaccuracy inherent in the instrument itself, and there is installation error which is caused by the placement of the pitot tube on the airframe where it can be influenced by such things as angle of attack and disruption of airflow due to parts of the airframe itself.

The pilot's operating manual for an airplane usually has a correction table for indicated airspeed vs actual (i.e. calibrated) indicated (not true) airspeed.



At the museum, we have a Corsair and a Hellcat, and our pilots observe they fly at the same speed for the same power setting. Our Corsair is the oldest one still fyling, so it definitely IS one with the same engine and prop as the Hellcat.

Without taking a position on this discussion (as I have not researched it adequately), let me make the following observation: In Francis Dean's America's Hundred Thousand, the following are given:

Drag Coefficient
F4U-1D = .0267
F6F-3 = .0272

Equivalent Flat Plate Area
F4U-1D = 8.58 sq ft
F6F-3 = 9.08 sq ft

Based on these figures, and assuming equal power settings and prop efficiencies, the Corsair should be the faster of the two.

Regards,

Lightning

[Shortround6]

The pilot's operating manual for an airplane usually has a correction table for indicated airspeed vs actual (i.e. calibrated) indicated (not true) airspeed.

Drag Coefficient
F4U-1D = .0267
F6F-3 = .0272

Equivalent Flat Plate Area
F4U-1D = 8.58 sq ft
F6F-3 = 9.08 sq ft

Based on these figures, and assuming equal power settings and prop efficiencies, the Corsair should be the faster of the two.

Considering that the theoretical flat plate areas are with 6% of each other and we don't know how well either present day example corresponds to the "ideal" factory condition ( I am sure the restorers and maintainence people are doing the very best that they can, they may have even even over done it, smoothness of paint/polish) and unless the engines have torque meters installed we don't know the actual power of each engine even if they are flown at the same settings this may be too close to call.
Weren't the production planes in WW II allowed a 2-3% performance variation from plane to plane?

[GregP]

Let's say this.

In the WWII planes of today, NOBODY knows the horsepower. There has not been a WWII-era stock-engine dyno since WWII.

The engines make great HP but, if YOU own a Mustang, would YOU subject your expensive Merlin or Allison to a dyno run? I wouldn't unless I lost Reno and wanrted to win next year.

What I said holds, At the same power settings, except in the Main stage, the Hellcat and Corsair fly at the same speed with equivalent power settings. The Corsair is slightly faster in the Main stage because it has ram air. Grumman didn't want any carb icing around the carrier and didn't use ram airt in the main stage. In low blower and high blower they DID, and the performance is almost identical in speed in low and high blower for airframes equipped with the same engines and propellers.

Believe it or not, it doesn't change the facts. Personally, I love them both ... without a favorite. If I boght a warbird, it would be one or the other, mox nix.

[Lightning]

Hi Greg,

I certainly believe you when you say that those two museum fighters fly at the same speed at the same power settings, but that may be the result of the conditions correctly brought out by both you and Shortround6:

In the WWII planes of today, NOBODY knows the horsepower. There has not been a WWII-era stock-engine dyno since WWII....

What I said holds, At the same power settings, except in the Main stage, the Hellcat and Corsair fly at the same speed with equivalent power settings.

Considering that the theoretical flat plate areas are with 6% of each other and we don't know how well either present day example corresponds to the "ideal" factory condition ( I am sure the restorers and maintainence people are doing the very best that they can, they may have even even over done it, smoothness of paint/polish) and unless the engines have torque meters installed we don't know the actual power of each engine even if they are flown at the same settings this may be too close to call.

We are talking about only two individual airframes here, and, although every effort has been made to conform to the original aircraft's configuration, they are not stock WWII airplanes. In addition to this, the fact is that, when those two airplanes are flying side-by-side at the same speed, there is no way of really knowing whether their identical power settings are producing the same actual power outputs.

As pointed out above by Shortround6, there is the distinct possibility that these airplanes differ, to one degree or another, from the configurations of their stock counterparts as they were delivered from the factory in WWII.

The figures I gave for drag coefficients and equivalent flat plate areas were for the actual wartime fighters in their operational configurations. Those figures imply that the Corsair was faster than the Hellcat, and this is borne out by almost every comparison of their respective specifications found in numerous reference sources.

Regards,

Lightning

[GregP]

Eveeything you said below is true, Lightning. However, Corky Meyer made the same observations about performance in WWII flying stock Hellcats and Corsairs.

That tends to lends credence to it, at least in my book. Corky has always been one of my favorite pilots, authors and people.

The Corsair is sexy and rolls better than the Hellcat, but the Hellcat out-turns the Corsair easily. It has the most wing area of any WII-era single-engine fighter.

If is very easy for me to believe they fly at almost identical speeds, gven their identical popwerplants & engines and almost identical flat plate drag area. I KNOW the Hellcat has much better slow-speed manners.

In the end, it doesn't matter much one way or the other.

As for the airframes, our Corsair is the oldest Corsair flying and the Hellcat in question is the finest restoration I have seen among all the Hellcats I have seen, so you might have a point about individual airframe differences.

Still, when they ARE flying side by side, the Corsair indicates faster by 5-6 knots at cruise speed than the Hellcat, and both have stock pitot-static systems. Might be systemic, as Corky claims in his articles on the subject, especially since he noted the same 50 years ago in side by side testing that were published in Flight Journal.