Interview: Captain Eric Brown

[renrich]

The ranking of the A/C by Brown in his book, DUELS IN THE SKY, WW2 Naval Aircraft in Combat, is exactly as I posted. It seems to me that the criteria he used to establish his rankings was designed so that he could indulge his personal bias. Obviously his ranking of the Swordfish above the TBF is the most controversial and he admits he did a lot of thinking before doing it but he says that the facts are the Swordfish was in action well before the Grumman, obtained better torpedo results and suffered fewer losses. One wonders if Brown had been on the airstrip at Midway in June 1942 and had been offered his choice of an Avenger or Swordfish, notwithstanding the results at Taranto, to attack the IJN fleet, which one would he have chosen. Seems like I remember that the Swordfish in the attacks on the German fleet on their dash from Brest to Norway up the Channel could hardly get into position to attack because of their slow speed. Also, in his analysis of Corsair performance I think he only uses a very early model as he reports that it's top speed is only 395 mph. Then he states that the Corsair would have no chance against an FW190A-4 but then goes on to say, in his analysis of combat between a F6F-3 and FW that in 1944 the FW190-A4 was a little long in the tooth and the contest would only be decided by the skill of the individual pilots. Well, in 1944, the Corsair would have been the F4U-1D with much better performance than either the F6F or the FW and I doubt that in the hands of equally skilled pilots a Hellcat would have ever have had any advantage over any model Corsair.

[lesofprimus]

Originally Posted by renrich

the Corsair would have been the F4U-1D with much better performance than either the F6F or the FW and I doubt that in the hands of equally skilled pilots a Hellcat would have ever have had any advantage over any model Corsair.

Concerning this renrich, my Grandpa flew mock combats against the Navy guys in their Hellcats, and never had a problem coming out on top... He flew the Hellcat at the end of the War and liked it, but loved his Corsair...

The Hellcat was designed to counter the Zero/Zeke, not the F4U...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by evangilder

I have also heard mixed reactions to Brown's statements/opinions. There is no question that the man has flown a variety of aircraft, but this is a subjective field. He will have his own personal bias on things just like anyone else.

That being said there will never be a definitive "Best" anything due to subjectivity.

I agree and that is why I have allways taken what he says with a grain of salt.

[renrich]

I think you have Brown pegged Mr Adler. In fact I have heard that the Hellcat was described as a pussycat whereas the Corsair was a high strung predator. I downloaded the training video of the F4U from Zeno and watching it scared me to death. It was a very early model low cockpit airplane before the elongated tail wheel, sealed over top cowl flaps and before the right wing spoiler. I have a little light plane solo time as well as a ride in an L39 where I got to roll it a couple of times and I can just imagine how it must have felt to go from an SNJ to that 2000 HP beast with the reputation the early models had. The film showing the stall where the left wing just quit flying and the plane was suddenly on it's back did not look anything like a stall in a 172.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by renrich

I think you have Brown pegged Mr Adler. In fact I have heard that the Hellcat was described as a pussycat whereas the Corsair was a high strung predator.

I agree with your definition of the Corsair, but I don't think you can call the Hellcat a pussycat. I understand that it was a delight to fly, but its record says that it had some pretty vicious teeth.

[renrich]

I think the pilot that described the Hellcat as a pussycat WAS describing that it was a pleasure to fly and could be mastered by a relatively low time pilot and certainly it's combat record was good. However, the Navy went with the Corsair and phased out the F6F as soon as the war was over. Interestingly, during the Korean War the Corsair's fearsome reputation as a pilot killer seemed to go away. Maybe it was because the pilots were better trained.

[Hop]

There's a tendency amongst armchair pilots to focus only on combat characteristics, probably because those can be more easily quantified with numbers. Speed, rate of climb, range, power, rate of roll etc. All hard numbers.

However, handling, particularly low speed handling, was of very great importance.

The US navy records show the Hellcat was the much safer fighter.

Hellcats flew 41,715 combat sorties from carriers. Losses were 551 to enemy action, 212 not to enemy action on operational sorties, and 509 on non-operational sorties.

For Corsairs the figures are 9,138 operational sorties from carriers, 167 losses to enemy action, 69 not to enemy action on operational sorties, 224 on non operational sorties.

1 in 75 Hellcat operational sorties resulted in a loss to enemy action.
1 in 54 Corsair operational sorties resulted in a loss to enemy action.

1 in 196 Hellcat operational sorties resulted in an accidental loss.
1 in 132 Corsair operational sorties resulted in an accidental loss.

The Hellcat lost 1 aircraft to non operational causes per 82 operational sorties.
The Corsair lost 1 aircraft to non operational causes per 41 operational sorties.

A seperate set of figures from the USN, loss rates for 1944 and 1945 from carriers:

Operational losses per 100 action sorties:

F6F - 0.5
F4U - 0.74

Per 100 non action sorties:

F6F - 0.7
F4U - 1.15

Per 100 planes onboard ship a month:

F6F - 3.1
F4U - 5.5

The F4U had substantially higher loss rates.

And it wasn't just Eric Brown who preferred the Hellcat as a carrier fighter. It wasn't until late in 1944 that the USN began using the Corsair as a carrier fighter in any numbers, and the Hellcat remained the main USN carrier fighter until the end of the war.

[Glider]

A lot of common sense in Hop's posting. I believe that the USN only started using the Corsair from carriers after the RN made it work on our carriers because the RN were so short of suitable aircraft. If the RN hadn't taken the lead in operating the Corsair from carriers I sometimes wonder when the USN would have started using them.

I admit though I cannot see why he rated the Swordfish over the Avenger, the Avenger was a generation on from the Swordfish in every way as well as being a well behaved aircraft operating from small escort carriers.
Wouldn't have fancied trying to operate a Corsair from and escort carrier though, way to risky.

[Smokey]

Originally Posted by renrich

As usual good post Kris with much common sense. I located the Brown book finally( it was packed in boxes) and reviewed it. His ranking of naval fighters in descending order is Hellcat, Zeke, Wildcat, Corsair, Sea hurricane, Seafire. ahem, His ranking of dive bombers(not naval necessarily) is : JU87, SBD and Val tied, Skua, Helldiver. Torpedo bomber: Swordfish, Avenger, Kate Jill. ahem, Single seat fighters: Spitfire and FW190, Hellcat, Mustang, Zeke.ahem

As Hop said, handling is very important, and so is impact on the war. I think Eric Brown took these things into consideration when ranking these aircraft:

- Effect on the war
- Performance
- Ease of handling, since many pilots received a relatively short amount of flight training

I admit though I cannot see why he rated the Swordfish over the Avenger, the Avenger was a generation on from the Swordfish in every way as well as being a well behaved aircraft operating from small escort carriers.

Maybe in Eric Brown's opinion the Swordfish had more impact on the war and had better handling

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Smokey

Maybe in Eric Brown's opinion the Swordfish had more impact on the war and had better handling

You could be right that maybe that is what he thought. In my opinion though I dont understand how? Avengers I think would have had more of an impact because I can think of more "heavy" ships that they helped send ot the bottom than the Swordfish and the Avenger was a better aircraft. Hell it was an all metal aircraft as compared to a fabric covered biplane.

For the British it had more of an impact but then it would go to personal bias...

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Smokey

As Hop said, handling is very important, and so is impact on the war. I think Eric Brown took these things into consideration when ranking these aircraft:

- Effect on the war
- Performance
- Ease of handling, since many pilots received a relatively short amount of flight training



Maybe in Eric Brown's opinion the Swordfish had more impact on the war and had better handling

I think the Avenger being in on successfull torpedo attacks in every important carrier battle in the PTO after Midway, plus being used successfully as a level bomber when ships werent around......

Plus having superior performance than the swordfish......

Plus being relatively easy to handle since the USN managed to train thousands of pilots to use it with no problem...

The Avenger deserves the title and there is nothing that Mr. Brown can argue to say otherwise.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Hop

There's a tendency amongst armchair pilots to focus only on combat characteristics, probably because those can be more easily quantified with numbers. Speed, rate of climb, range, power, rate of roll etc. All hard numbers.

However, handling, particularly low speed handling, was of very great importance.

Very, very well put Hop. Sometimes just flying a particular aircraft IFR or having an engine out during take off (in the case of a twin engine aircraft) is actually more hazardous than combat itself....

[Parmigiano]

"There's a tendency amongst armchair pilots to focus only on combat characteristics, probably because those can be more easily quantified with numbers. Speed, rate of climb, range, power, rate of roll etc. All hard numbers.

However, handling, particularly low speed handling, was of very great importance"

I could not be more in agreement with this, real pilots appreciate basic things that we don't even think about.

I remember a video about the 262 where Guenther Rall, before mentioning performances, armament etc. said that one of the best thing of the machine was the low level of noise 'finally the radio was always clear and not disturbed by the engine'

Seems stupid, but it is part of the 'situational awareness'

[Soren]

The 109 has excellent low speed handling.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

The 109 has excellent low speed handling.

Pity they still lost so many in accidents.