Capt. Eric Brown: Flight Test God or Biased Meathead

[Matt308]

Okay all you turds that destroy beloved airplane threads with your unending banter about the illustrious Mr. Brown... here is your chance to piss and moan in relative comfort about whether Eric is a biased buffoon whose only support can be airplanes British or if Eric was so bloody brilliant in his analyses that his conclusions are irrefutable.

May you argue until your bladders burst. Just stay outta my threads.

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by Matt308

Okay all you turds that destroy beloved airplane threads with your unending banter about the illustrious Mr. Brown... here is your chance to piss and moan in relative comfort about whether Eric is a biased buffoon whose only support can be airplanes British or if Eric was so bloody brilliant in his analyses that his conclusions are irrefutable.

May you argue until your bladders burst. Just stay outta my threads.

Well said, Matt! I was getting a little tired myself of the unending banter as to whether Mr. Brown was God's gift to the Flight Test program, or a complete moron who wouldn't know flat spin from an accelerated stall.

[The Basket]

I dunno as a personality.

But look at what he did and what he achieved.

His opinion means something because he was there.

He flew Wildcats off a converted frieghter to shoot down Fw-200 in North Atlantic. Have to admit the guy had some balls.

God? no. Meathead ? You will have to translate that one for me!

[wilbur1]

Matt just for you me and lucky(when i can get hold of him) are gonna tear all your threads now

[Krabat42]

Hey Matt, you should change your sig to "Master of unnecessary threads". It's like opening a new "Best fighter pilot" or "Best fighter aircraft" poll.

Can we go back to Tigercat flight testing? I'd like to know what people may find out over the time. There's experts here for every single Fw-190 subtype and every Luftwaffe Rotte but something new about the F7F flight testing would be fine.

Krabat

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Matt308

Okay all you turds that destroy beloved airplane threads with your unending banter about the illustrious Mr. Brown... here is your chance to piss and moan in relative comfort about whether Eric is a biased buffoon whose only support can be airplanes British or if Eric was so bloody brilliant in his analyses that his conclusions are irrefutable.

May you argue until your bladders burst. Just stay outta my threads.

Its easy. If he says something bad about the 109 then he is the devil incarnate, who knows nothing and is the most biased pilot that ever flew. If he wax's lyrical about the FW190, Me262 or He162 then he is a really good egg who can do nothing wrong.
Simple really.

[evangilder]

I think like any test pilot, he has his good and bad points. As with any pilot, personal bias is going to enter the equation. If you have only one sample of an aircraft to test, and it has issues with fuel, or has been a crashed aircraft that has been patched together, that information should enter into the equation as a sub-par aircraft example.

Additionally, when testing enemy aircraft during wartime conditions, there may not be anyone who has trained and flown the aircraft in combat to understand the nuances of the airplane itself and to explain them. This is probably more true with German aircraft as they were quite good at technical innovation.

It is much easier to fly an aircraft to it's full capabilities when you have access to what the engineers say the limitations and capabilities are. Without that information, test data may not be complete as there are variables that may not be known at the time of tests.

I have a great respect for his wartime deeds as an RAF pilot. He certainly has flown a number of aircraft. But you cannot base any argument on the opinion of one source. Anyone who has ever worked in a test environment knows that a single test will not provide reliable data. You need at least three sets of results to have any chance of reliable test data. When working with numbers and empirical data, three tests run by the same person will provide good data. When working with variables that are subjective, you needs at least three different testers.

[ccheese]

Guess I gotta play dumb. I've never heard of the man, don't know who or
what he is or what he did. I gather, from reading the thread he's an RAF
test pilot. And I get the impression he was "hollier than thou". Guess I have
to do the google thing.....

Charles

[Glider]

Originally Posted by evangilder

I have a great respect for his wartime deeds as an RAF pilot. He certainly has flown a number of aircraft. But you cannot base any argument on the opinion of one source. Anyone who has ever worked in a test environment knows that a single test will not provide reliable data. You need at least three sets of results to have any chance of reliable test data. When working with numbers and empirical data, three tests run by the same person will provide good data. When working with variables that are subjective, you needs at least three different testers.

RAF, RAF!!! Fleet Air Arm please. Being serious for a moment I agree with what you say.

[evangilder]

Oops, you are correct on that one, Glider. See, here is proof on subjective material from a single source!

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Matt308

Okay all you turds that destroy beloved airplane threads with your unending banter about the illustrious Mr. Brown... here is your chance to piss and moan in relative comfort about whether Eric is a biased buffoon whose only support can be airplanes British or if Eric was so bloody brilliant in his analyses that his conclusions are irrefutable.

May you argue until your bladders burst. Just stay outta my threads.

He is definitely neither from my perspective. I corresponded with him in the early 90's specifically on his rankings and the analysis that went behind it.

While I don't agree all of his conclusions he is well grounded as an Aero Engineer from knowledge standpoint, and I respect his stick and rudder expertise -

Whether I agree with him in all respects (and I don't) he has dropped more time in round off errors in his logbook than my total time - and he has flown the aircraft he pontificates about..

So I am on the side of respect

[Erich]

interesting gents you bring this chap up, yes agree with Bill he has made some errors like all of us which is nothing new, also have heard from several reputable sources the man never had a WW 2 combat service record other than test flying captured LW a/c for analysis for the RAF

[syscom3]

Good summary Evans.

He has loads of flight time flying aircraft, but he seems to base everything (at least the fighters) on a "plane-to-plane" dogfight, and not tactics the pilots would use in a real battle.

[Juha]

Erich
IIRC he got 2½ Fw 200C Condor kills while flying Martlets ie RN early Wildcats from RN's first CVE HMS Audacity. Brown flew also some sorties during BoB in Sea Gladiators or was that in ordinary Gladiators.

Juha

[lesofprimus]

I agree with Erich and Bill, but Im slightly more biased about the man simply because my Grandfather did not like him, thought him very egotistical, and swayed his opinions somewhat on which side won the War...

My Grandfather even went so far as to say that u purposely biased his opinions and, in certain situations, did not fly the aircraft being tested to the limits of himself or the aircraft....

I do respect his stick time and his service, but his somewhat biased opinions (occasional) about certain performance issues of captured aircraft mean about as much to me as the wart growing on Matt's hairy ass cheeck...