The Aeroplane, June 16, 1937

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've just been given a present, and thought unless anybody wants to talk me out of it, I might share with you lot. A friend picked up an old flying magazine in a jumble sale, and turned up with it this evening.

It is the June 16 1937 issue of "The Aeroplane", price six shillings, editor CG Grey. And it is absolutely fascinating, full of latest technology, a certain amount of re-armament, but little real mentionof the risk of a coming war.

So, if I'm going to share it, the only place to start, must be the obituaries section...



R. J. Mitchell

REGINALD JOSEPH MITCHELL. C.B.E. A.M.I.C.E. F.R.Ae.S., a Director of and Chief Designer to the Supermarine Aviation Works (Vickers) Lrd., died at Southampton on June 11. In him, the British Aircraft Industry has lost one of its most valuable and valued members.

For several years he has been a very sick man, but bore his afflictions and two major operations with that courage and cheerfulness which carried him through his remarkable career. He died of cancer.

R. J. Mitchell was born at Stoke-on-Trent in 1895. He served an apprenticeship with Kerr Stuart and Co. Ltd., of Stoke on Trent, and when he grew up became Assistant Engineer to that firm.

He joined the Supermarine Aviation Works Ltd in 1916, when it was being run by Mr Hubert Scott-Paine. He was appointed Chief Engineer and Designer in 1920, and in 1922 collaborated with Mr. Scott-Paine in producing that modified version of the A.D. Boat which brought the Schneider Trophy back from Italy, to which country it had been alloted in 1921.

During that period after the War 1914-18 he, in collaboration with Hubert Scott-Paine, desighed the Martlesham Competition amphibian of 1922 and machines for the Norwegian, Swedish and Portugese navies, and the special trainers for the Japanese Navy. Also he designed the Sea Eagles, the Sea Gulls, the Swann and the Scylla, a machine which showed great foresight and was accepted by the Air Ministry but was not developed.

Thereafter he designed that series of his flying-boats and small racing floatplanes which at the two extremes of the scale made the name of Supermarine famous all over the World as builders of seaworthy flying-boards and record breaking monoplanes.

His first success with his speed machines was the S.4., which in 1925 put up a World speed record of 226.752 m.p.h.

In that year Italy again won the Schneider Trophy, but in 1927 at Venice Mitchell's S.5. with a Napier motor piloted by Flight Lieut. Webster won the trophy. In 1929 his S.6 (Rolls-Royce motor) piloted by FLight Lieut. Waghorn retained the Trophy over Southamptob Water. And in 1931 his S.6b (Rolls-Royce motor) piloted by Flight Lieut. Boothman won the Trophy outright for Great Britain. The next day a similar machine piloted by Flight Lieut. Stainforth put up the World's speed record to 407 1/2 m.p.h. For these services to aviation Mitchell was made a C.B.E.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Finishing the article...

In producing these speed machines Mitchell somehow found time to design the big biplane flying-boards which have been in service with the R.A.F. all over the World. thee have been the Southampton, the Scapa and the Stranraer. He also produced a single-motor Seagull which has been much used by the Royal Australian Air Force for coastal patrols, and more recently he produced the Walrus amphibian flying-boat especially designed for the Fleet Air Arm.

The last of his great successes was the Spitfire, a low-wing single-seat fighter which made its first appearance at the R.A.F. display a year ago all but a few days. Thi machine has a distinct family resemblance to Mitchell's Schneider racers, and it seems to be by a great many miles an hour the fastest service aeroplane in the World.

Thus at forty-two years of age he had already become recognised as one of the World's greatest designers of aeroplanes andhe seemed to have many years of good work in front of him.

One of the chief reasons for Mitchell's success was his willingness learn and his refusal to be bound by convention. Unlike so many people who have made a reputation for themselves as authoritarians in the various branches of engineering and science, he never pretended that he knew all about everything or that he was perfectly certain that his views were right. He was always ready to listen to the theories and ideas of other people and he was very quick to spot a good idea among a lot of foolish notions. He had a frank and open manner which invited confidences, and a kindly and considerate way of pointing out the errors of others, which far from freezing up their talk seemed rather to invite more discussion.

Although he never professed to be a pilot he was a flying member of the Hampshire Light Aeroplane Club, where he was just as well liked as he was among the most able technical people in the Aircraft Trade.

Very few people in the Industry have accomplished so much or will be so much missed. And the British Empire owes him a debt of gratitude for upholding its prestige.

[Brian Abraham]

the British Empire owes him a debt of gratitudePoignantly, at the time the words were written no one knew quite how large the debt of gratitude was to be.

[aviate1138]

My question would be.......

What if RJ had not had cancer and had continued developing faster and faster aircraft? Would he have been the first aircraft designer to build a machine that exceeded the speed of sound? Would Supermarine/Vickers have built more successful post war jet fighters?

"Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them..."

Twelfth Night, (Act II Scene V).

RJ Mitchell was one of those.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I take it nobody objects to this bit of indulgence then?

So, I'll take us to something a little more obscure - now, but which was the first major news item; a fascinating bit of history about which personally I knew little...


The Bombing of the "Deutschland"

RED AEROPLANES which belonged to the Communist Committee of Control at Valencia, erroneously called the Spanish Government, bombed th German battleship Deutschland in the Majorcan harbour of Ibiva on Mar 29. Here is the German Official Report, as published in The Times. We have not seen it in any other paper. THe report is the result of careful weighing of evidence, and not mere newspaper reports:-

[i]During the second part of May the two German armoured vessels Deutschland and Admiral Scheer and the four destroyers Seeadler, Albatross, Leopard and Luchs, were in the coastal area of the Spanish east coast assigned to Germany by the Non-Intervention Committee for the purpose of exercising naval control. In order to give ships' companies in turn a short period of rest and to replenish supplies, the ships put individually into nearby Spanish, French and British ports.

For this reason the Albatross lay from May 22 onwards in the roadstead of Palma. There, on May 26, occurred the well-known attack by which the British flotilla-leader Hardy and several Italian ships were affected through bombs falling close to them and a bomb exploded on board the Italian auxiliary cruiser Barletta killing six officers.

In order to prevent German ships from being further endangered, German naval craft ceased after that occurrence to put into the harbour of Palma. From May 29, therefore, the armoured vessel Deutschland anchored in the roadstead of Iviza.

The assertion which has appeared in the foreign Press that the Deutschland ought not to have anchored there is not correct. Apart from the fact that the patrol vessels of other sea Powers concerned, for instance those of England and France, continually stay in various Red and White Spanish harbours, it may be pointed out that the little port of Iviza cannot be regarded as a Spanish Nationalist naval base and is not used as such.

The Deutschland was the only man-of-war lying at anchor in the roadstead. Near her the tank vessel Neptun in the service of the German Navy, had dropped anchor. In the harbour of Iviza the German destroyer Leopard lay at the mole; no White Spanish naval craft or steamers lay either at the mole, in the roadstead, or anywhere in sight.

On May 29, about 10 O'clock, a surpsie attack was made on the Deutschland by two bombing aircraft. The machines flew overhead with the sun behind them and dropped several bombs on the armoured vessel as she lay at rest, of which two hit her. In view of the low altitude at which they were flying there can have been no question of the airmen's mistaking the Deutschland for a White Spanish ship.

The [b]Deutschland, which lay at anchor ready to repel attack could not identify the markings and type of the aircraft against the sun and in all the circumstances had no reason to fire on un-identified aircraft. Thus it came about that these were established as aggressors only after they had dropped bombs. It is a fact that no shot was fired either by the armoured vessel Deutschland or by the destroyer Leopard.

During the air attack units of the Red Spanish fleet, the cruisers Libertad and Mendez-Nunez, were sighted about 17 miles and four destroyers nine miles away. A few minutes after the bomb attack a coastal bombardment by the Red destroyers occurred.

All assertions made by the Valencia rulers about fire from the German warships are untrue. Either these rulers have made untrue statements in consciousness of their guilt, or else the pilots of the aircraft have tried to cover up their nefarious attack with such a lie. It is consequently a case of an unprovoked attack by the Red aircraft which are established beyond any doubt as the aggressors.

As a proportion of the chip's company of the Deutschland was off duty and numerous ratings were consequently in their unprotected mess quarters forward, considerable losses in killed and wounded resulted from one of the bomb hits.

As a measure of reprisal for this criminal act the fortifications and military works of the seaport of Almeria were bombarded by the German naval forces on the morning of May 31, and the fire was returned by two batteries.

It must be emphasized that the Red rulers had been seriously warned several times through the Non-Intervention Committee to avoid warlike acts, or acts that could be interpreted as such, against the control forces.

Twenty men were killed. The wounded, about 73 men, were landed at Gibralter, whither some English nurses flew to look after them,- without the publicity which has been given to the ambulance people who went to nurse the Communists in Madrid and elsewhere. Several of the wounded have since died.

The shellign of Almeria was naturally made the excuse for a howl by Red sympathisers, as unjustifable as have been all the accusations about the bombing of Guernica. It was obviously the right thing to do. The pity is that the captain of the British warship whose men were tortured by Japanese police in Formosa did not take equally prompt reprisals. Our prestige in the Pacific would be vastly higher to-day if he had done so, even though we might have apologised with our tongues in our cheeks, as the Japanese did about torturing our sailors.


Many flavours of things to come, and I imagine one of the earliest reports of airborne attacks on warships?

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

And a short report from the same page, that historians can probably conclude a lot from...


Prohibited Islands
By an order from Berlin aeroplanes are prohibited to fly over the islands of Helgoland, Borkum, Nordeney, Sylt and Wangeroog, or over the seas about them within a limit of three nautical miles.

Hmm, I imagine many people reading that at the time had also read a certain novel by Erskine Chilvers.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Given that this seems to have attracted several hundred readers (hi chaps!), I thought I'd jump to the classified advertisements in the back:


WITNEY AERONAUTICAL COLLEGE

Solo flying from£1 per hour, Board Residence £1-10-0 per week

PARENTS are invited to write for illustrated brochure giving details of the only really inexpensive RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL which provides complete practical training in FLYING, NAVIGATION, WIRELESS and/or ENGINEERING. The syllabus is entirely non-military and offers expert training for an assured career in Commercial Flying or Engineering.

WITNEY AERODROME, OXFORD

One for the flight test community - anybody recognise this hotel and airfield?


Fully Licenced Hotel

Dual £2/0/0 per hour
Solo £1/10/0 per hour
Blind Flying Instruction £2/0/0 per hour
CLUB SUBSCRIPTION - 10/- per month

The Wiltshire School of Flying LTD.

HIGH POST AERODROME, SALISBURY

Telephone Middle Woodford 23
Full residence for pupils £2/12/6 p.w. 18 hole Golf Course adjoins the Aerodrome

And a few job advertisements...


Rolls Royce Ltd. have vacancies for experienced aero engine designers. Consideration will also be given to applications from draughtsmen of ability, aged 25 years to 30 years. Apply to the Chief Designer, Rolls Royce Ltd., Derby, giving full particulars of previous experience and salary required.

Multiple RAF recruiting adverts - pilots aged 17-25 (but must be unmarried), reserve officers aged 18-25 (retaining fee £25pa after the first year), or skilled mechanics.

A selection of pilots and engineers looking for jobs, plus this chap who sounds very interesting...


Gwynn Johns, G.Q. parachutist, is always available to carry out delayed drops with smoke anywhere. 195 Holdenhurst Road, Bournemouth.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Still on the classified ads...

Anybody ever read the the posts on the wanabees forums on here about pilots desperate to build experience...

Passengers taken anywhere in return for mere running expenses, paid in advance, by experienced crosss-country "A" pilot wishing to obtain more solo hours. Good references, very reasonable rates. Reply Parsons, 19 Avenue Road, Leamington Spa, Warwicks.


And in continued breach of PPrune rules of advertising, anybody looking for a second hand aircraft...


Mark 1 Swallow, Pobjoy Cataract II engine, C. of A. May, 1938, extra instruments and luggage accomodation front cockpit, one owner, exceptionally well maintained, colour red fuselage, silver wings, air-frame hours 215, engine hours 165;any reasonable trial given. Price £485 or near offer. Apply, W.G. Bromet, Estate Office, Kinetron, Warwickshire.

Cirrus III Wooden Avian 12 months' C. of A., repainted, engine hours since complete overhaul 110, £185.

C.30 Autogiro, 12 months' C. of A., engine completely overhauled, £475. Box 4525, care of THE AEROPLANE, 5-17 Rosebery Avenue, E.C.1.

Avro Avian, Cirrus III, instruments, compass, slots, doughnuts, 12 months' C. of A., no hours since top, perfect condition; seen Airworthiness, Gravesend; £185. Lewis, 38 Church Road, Richmond.

Did Pobjoy really have an engine named the Cataract? And why would I want doughnuts with my Avro Avian?

G

[Mr_Grubby]

G.

Amazing stuff. Keep it coming !!

Clint.

:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

So long as people are finding it interesting, I'm glad to oblige. Perhaps time for a couple of snippets on engineering.

Firstly on a new engine from Rolls Royce, some of you may have heard of it...


What the Merlin Does

Details of the Rolls-Royce Merlin liquid-cooled 12-cylinder fully supercharged aero-motor have now been released. The international power rating of the Merlin is 990 h.p. at 12,000ft. Its maximum output is 1,050 h.p. for take-off.

The dry weight is 1,138.5 lb., which gives a power-to-weight ratio of 1.25 lb. per h.p. at normal maximum output. This is an extremely low figure for a liquid cooled motor.

The total cylinder-capacity is 27 litres. This means that the motor delivers 28.8 h.p. per litre at full power, a figure which very nearly attains Mr Fedden's ideal of 40 h.p. per litre.

The Merlin has been designed for cooling by ethylene-glycol to work with a ducted radiator which reduces the resistance to a remarkable extent.

The Merlin has provision for operation with variable-pitch airscrews which can be either of the two-position type now in production, or with the new Rotol constant-speed airscrews, which the Rolls-Royce and Bristol companies will soon be producing in collaboration.

I don't know about you, but personally I reckon that both this new Merlin engine, and the constant speed propellor might well have a future? Thoughts anybody?

Incidentally, de Havilland also have a full page advertisement for their controllable-pitch airscrews on page 737. These apparently are available for all of the well-known aero engines, from the 1,000 size for Gipsy Major, Gipsy Six and other engines of output up to 250 h.p., to the 5,000-size for engines of approximately 1,000 h.p. Still larger airscrews are being developed.

G

[brakedwell]

The Aeroplane, June 16, 1937
I've just been given a present, and thought unless anybody wants to talk me out of it, I might share with you lot. A friend picked up an old flying magazine in a jumble sale, and turned up with it this evening.

It is the June 16 1937 issue of "The Aeroplane", price six shillings, editor CG Grey.

Isn't that 6d (six old pence) ? Six shillings would have been a fortune in those days.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Isn't that 6d (six old pence) ? Six shillings would have been a fortune in those days.

It would yes, you're right, it's sixpence.

G

[Planemike]

Although he never professed to be a pilot he was a flying member of the Hampshire Light Aeroplane Club, where he was just as well liked as he was among the most able technical people in the Aircraft Trade.




Does anyone know where the Hamphire Light Aeroplane Club was based at this time? Was this club the forerunner of the Hamshire Aeroplane Club at Eastleigh? What aircraft did they operate?

Planemike

[VX275]

Pobjoy did indeed have an engine called the Cataract they also had one called the Niagra. both were single row 7 cylinder radials.
I'd guess that the Avian's donuts were for the undercarriage.

Keep it coming Genghis.

[Warmtoast]

Re. The Bombing of the "Deutschland" Post #5 above

Another interesting snippet from the press dated 3 June 1937.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/GermanbattleshipDeutschland.jpg

[Genghis the Engineer]

A brief note on the Spanish civil war, following that about the Deutschland....


Comparative Values

RECENT EXCHANCES of prisoners between the Nationalists and the Communists in Spain afford some interesting comparisons of the relative values of the different nationalities. The Communists exchanged two Nazi Germans for four Red Englishmen held by the Nationalist forces. Later on, two Nazi Germans were swopped for three Basques. Another exchange was of three Germans and one Swiss for two Red Spaniards, two Russians and one French Journalist. So, we come down to the interesting formulae that:-

1. One Nazi German is the equal of two Red Englishmen, or of one and a half Red Basques.

2. One Nazi German plus one-third of a Swiss is equal to two-thirds of a Red Spaniard, plus one Russian, plus one-third of a Frenchman. In fact, one and one-third Nordic Nazis equals two Communist Iberian-Muscovite-Gauls.

From these figures the exact number of any one nationality needed to win the war could be easily calculated.

G

[India Four Two]

One for the flight test community - anybody recognise this hotel and airfield?

High Post was a Spitfire experimental and production test-flying field during WWII. It features prominently in Jeffey Quill's autobiography "Spitfire: A Test Pilot's Story".

[aviate1138]

Those were the days when the Salisbury/Stockbridge area had aerodromes a plenty!

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn77/aviate1138/Screenshot2011-02-14at071021.jpg

[Genghis the Engineer]

High Post was a Spitfire experimental and production test-flying field during WWII. It features prominently in Jeffey Quill's autobiography "Spitfire: A Test Pilot's Story".

I must admit, I didn't realise that High Post and BDN were separate - but the High Post Hotel is right on the BDN perimeter now, and is where they usually put foreign visitors as the local, but nice, place to stay nearby.

If High Post airfield was to the west side of the hotel, then it's now where the fireworks factory is I think, if not, then it got "eaten" by Boscombe.

Netheravon, Middle Wallop, Boscombe Down and Old Sarum are still busy places on that chart, whilst Chilbolton and Upavon still exist as much smaller airfields and Andover is now a military logistics headquarters but the airfield layout is still very visible from the air. Does anybody know the meaning of the different airfield symbols?

G

[wrecker]

I guess that chart must be pre WW2 as Thruxton is not shown I makes me feel old to realise I have flown into and out of all those fields bar High Post

[Genghis the Engineer]

Sorry for the time delay, not out of material, just very busy. However, I thought I might share two articles on the relatively new technology of wing flaps, which is still not very well understood :8 Sorry for the moment for the lack of the diagrams.

This also will take a few installments...


The Origin of Flaps
SO MUCH has been written and talked about who started using flaps on aeroplanes that more should be known about the work which has been done in this direction by the Fairey Co., Ltd., and its chief, Mr C. R. Fairey. Fortunately we have been able to get the essential facts first-hand.

Mr. Fairey's original work on flaps was instigated by the difficulty associated with getting seaplanes off the water, a difficulty which still exists, but was naturally greater in the designs of seaplanes. Likewise the obvious need for a quick get-off influenced the design of the early deck-flying aeroplane and made flaps desirable.

The first patents which Mr. Fairey took out for hinged flaps in their simplest form were Nos.132541 and 134556 dated 1916. The first flap was fitted to the Hamble Baby seaplane, a little twin-float job which did very good work.

This was followed by an important patent which covered the separation of the trailing edge into two parts, one for the aileron and one for the flap itself, and with them were several patents on operating gears. The numbers of these were 135520, 135521 dated 1916 and 135522 dated 1917.

The next step came in 1920, when patents were taken out to cover interlocking of the operation of the incidence of the tailplane with the control of the flap-gear, so as to correct travel of the centre of pressure. Obviously, when the flap was pulled down, the centre of pressure went back and tended to cock the tail up, so that the incidence of the tailplane had to be diminished, or made negative, to keep the tail down.

This was mentioned in our article on Venetian Blind Landings which has raised the subject of flaps generally. Provisional patents were taken out for the operation, Nos. 8851 of1918 and 6337 of 1920, now covered by patent No. 419687.

More later, but I'm wondering how far that principle of limiting tailplane incidence with flap selection ever got? I currently fly a 1947 derivative of the Stinson Reliant (advertised on page 23 of the adverts section by Brian Allen Aviation Ltd of Croydon Airport) which has a limiter on elevator travel that works similarly-ish, by increasing elevator travel with flap selection. Presumably an extension of the same thinking. However, whilst we all know about pitch change with flaps, I'm not aware of any recent designs using anything similar.

On the other hand, Mr Fairey's brilliant idea of using part of the trailing edge for ailerons, and part for flaps, even by 1937 that was clearly the standard, and the thinking hasn't changed much - although it never occurred to me that anybody would have patented that principle. I wonder if that made Faireys much money?

More follows...

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Right, back to flaps.


Mr. Fairey conceived the idea of the split flap in 1921, but his patent was partly anticipated by a prior publication of Orville Wright's, leaving Mr. Fairey only a claim on the split flap in which both parts were hinged and moved at varying degrees. This is fully covered by patent No.190774, for which application was made in Sept., 1921. The complete patent was accepted in Dec., 1922.

The designs in which one part of the flap is longer than the other are very interesting, and we should like to know what difference is made by having the upper or the lower element of the flap the longer.

In practice Mr. Fairey found that a split flap was not much use on a biplane because the thickness of the trailing-edge in the wing-sections of those days did not leave enough structural strength in the upper half of the flap.

Incidentally, another purpose in those flaps was that they were used to help the folding of the wing, much as in a good many modern monoplanes the inner section of the trailing-edge is folded up to let the wings back onto the fuselage.

Furthermore the Fairey Company found that the split flap is not so effective on biplanes as it is on thick winged monoplanes. That probably has to do with the fact that pulling down a flap on the upper wing interferes with the lift of the lower wing.

After all these experiments the Fairey Company came to the conclusion that the flap could only be developed to its fullest usefulness on the thick-wing monooplane. The best, or at any rate the most practical, form for the biplane is still the original plain flap used on the Type IIIF Fairey biplane. That Mr. Fairey and his Company had all the other ideas for flaps at a time when monoplanes had not come into use was just bad luck.

On the whole, therefore, we think that Mr. Fairey can fairly claim to have invented the flap itself, and the split flap also. If anybody has any prior claim we should very much like to hear of it, but we doubt whether any such claim can be made. In any case the facts recorded hereinbefore together with many others and the patents concerned were submitted to the Awards Committee of the Royal Aeronautical Society prior to their award to Mr. C. R. Fairey honeself of the Wakefield Medal "for the invention and development of the wing flap."

Therefore, as has so often happened in the history of both countries, we in this country can claim to have originated an idea and the Americans can claim to have made either the most popular use of it or a mass production job of it. History generally adds to that the still more interesting step that we bring the idea back here, develop it still further and produce the ultimate finished and perfected article. So the future history of flaps, whether slotted, slatted, split of Venetian blinded, will be watched with considerable interest.



There are a few grammatical errors in there, which I've tried to reproduce as faithfully as possible - although I'm out of practice as a copy typist so there may be a few of my own. The punctuation I've tried to keep as originally published, which is quite different to the modern style.

I'll follow this up with a short article from Mr Penrose of Westland Aircraft on their early use of flaps. However, any requests for subject matter?

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well, plenty of people seem to keep reading this, if not commenting, so I'll keep posting. It gives me an excuse to keep revisiting this fascinating material.


More Early Flaps

MR. H. J. PENROSE, Chief Test Pilot of Westland Aircraft Ltd., Yeovil, has sent the accompanying photograph which shows a split flap which was made before the Zap flap appeared. the experimental flap was fitted to one of the Westland Woodpigeons in 1927, which machine had ordinary lifting flaps on it in 1925. Later this form of split flap was applied to the side-by-side Pterodactyl which had a Genet motor and was flying in 1929. A similar flap was used on the Mark IV Pterodactyl of 1931. In both the flaps could be used as air-brakes and/or rudders. A similar device was fitted to the G.4/31 Westland monoplane.

These flaps, as can be seen from the photograph, were designed as air-brakes if used together, or to put a drag onto one side of the machine and act as a rudder if used independently. But, as may be seen, they would not act as lifting surfaces, which is the essence of the Zap and the Northrop flaps.

The Westland Lysander, which has been often illustrated in this paper, is to-day one of the most slotted and flapped machines in regular constuction. The slots extend along the whole leading edge, and the inner section of the slots is inter-connected with slotted flaps so that the two work automatically. They are a remarkable help both in landing, and in taking off.

G

[jamu]

Hello Genghis. Can you please tell me if the Flaps and Ailerons worked together as flaperons, such as in the Victa Airtourer or if the ailerons acted separately from the flaps.

[bob shayler]

Hi Genghis,
Very insteresting, thank you for posting.

I have an extensive library of aviation publications (including 50 + Putnams, my prized one being a rare 1st edition of Miles Aircraft) but only one by C. G. Grey entitled Bomber first published in 1941, my copy being a second edition. In post number one you commented on no mention being made of the threat of imminent war. In the Bomber which C.G. introduces in the forward as an essay in discursive journalism I am posting an extract referring to the Japanese invasion of China which badly underestimates the capability of the Japanese. This was written about four months before the Japanese landed in Malaya and in the forward to the second edition, C.G. justifies his statements which I will post later.



The Air Wars of Foreign Nations



Somewhere around 1935 or 1936 the Japanese invaded China.They did not declare war and consequently there has never legally been a war in China. But the Japanese started by bombing the Chinese towns surrounding Shanghai, and then, working up the Yangtse River, they bombed Nanking and then Hankow. After that they attacked various places down the coast and finally occupied Canton.

The Chinese, under General Chiang Kai Shek, moved inland and set up a new capital at Chung King, right in the western corner of China near Burma. In all of these attacks the Japanese did a lot of bombing, but there is nothing much to be learned from it. Their bombers are home built hybrids made up of English, American, German and French designs, all mixed.

The Japanese are notorious for their imitations of anything European, whether it be a camera, or a bicycle, or any other mechanical contrivance. It is always rough and shoddy. And Japanese aeroplanes are likewise. But Japanese pilots are rather worse.

A friend of mine who spent several years in Japan trying to teach the Japanese to fly said that they fly alright so long as everything goes according to plan, but if anything unexpected happens, which they have not been taught, they immediately clutch their head with their hands and start wondering what the book says about it. By that time they have probably hit the ground.

Nevertheless, because the Chinese had practically no pilots in the north at all and have had very few since moving west, the Japanese Air Force, clumsy as it is, has had this all its own way. A number of Russian pilots flew for the Chinese and until lately most of China’s machines have been Russian. More lately a number of British and American aeroplanes have been sent to China by way of Burma.

Apparently, they have all been fighters, because nothing has been heard of Chinese bombers attacking the Japanese. I have heard lately that the Chinese are making really good Chinese copies of English and American aeroplanes. The raw materials have been sent to them up the famous Burma road by truck from rail-head at Lashio. And now aerodromes are being built in Burma for serious air transport.

At the time of writing there are possibilities of the Japanese trying to attack Singapore or Burma by air. By reasonable reckoning, about fifty Australian fighting pilots – as Singapore is largely manned by Australians – would be enough to sink any possible bombing force which the Japanese could send against Singapore. Our pilots, whether British or Australian or Canadian, have proved that they can take on the German Air Force in a ratio of anything up to five to one or more. They have taken on the Italians in a ratio of between ten and twenty to one. And on that reckoning there are practically no odds in relation to them against the Japanese.

At the very most, the Japanese could not put more than 250 aeroplanes into the air at once from French Indo-China, so half a dozen formations of our people from Singapore ought to be able to dispose of that number of Japanese fairly easily.

[bob shayler]

This is the forward to the second edtion of 'Bomber' where C.G. Grey seeks to justify his perception of Japanese capability. I am posting this purely as a matter of interest as I have the benefit of hindsight which C.G. Grey sadly didn't have,
Regards,
Bob



Forward to the SecondEdition




Things have happened in the Far East since the First Edition of this book was published in December 1941 which have led some people to question statements which I made then about the Japanese Flying Services. I take no word back of those estimates of the Japanese, in spite of the fall of Singapore and the sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse.

A. There have been no reliable reports of a Japanese attack by more than 200 aircraft at a time. I allowed the possibility of 250 machines being sent to attack Singapore or Burma from Indo-China, or 500 in other directions (page 77). No such numbers have been reported.

B. All reports agree that the Japanese, whether bombers or fighters, cannot stand up to our fighters. Our Mk. 1 eight gun Hurricanes have been proved to be superior to the Japanese copies of German Aeroplanes; and American fighters of lower horsepower and armament have been able to tackle the Japanese without notable loss, if without much success.

C. British, Dutch and American pilots have proved their superiority to the Japanese at any odds. In one raid on Rangoon our fighters brought down between 25 and 30 percent of the Japanese raiders.

D. Reports of air attacks in the Far East have obviously been exaggerated because the people are not accustomed to being bombed. The official figures for air raid casualties in Manila, Singapore and Rangoon alike indicate that the raids were small compared with those on European cites.

E. Numbers of aircraft alone cannot stop masses of infantry and guns from overwhelming small numbers, or armies which are badly armed, badly organized or badly led. And General MacArthur in Luzon has shown what leadership and good armament can do against bigger numbers, even when short of aircraft.

F. Dive-bombers have been proved, in spite of the reports of excited correspondents, only to be slightly effective and very vulnerable if met by determined and properly armed troops on the ground. For modern fighters they are easy targets, because they have to concentrate on their marks when attacking. As at Dunkerque, the troops complained that the R.A.F. did nothing to stop dive-bombing; while our fighters were slaughtering the enemy too high up and too far away to be seen.

G. In one statement I plead guilty to inaccuracy. I said that ‘The Air Force has been reinforced by vast quantities of British and American Aircraft.’ In spite of my experience of two wars and twenty years between, I believed official statements.

H. The Japanese proved to us that aircraft can sink battleships of the highest class. Thus the contentions of Brig.-General William Mitchell, U.S. Army Air Service, since deceased have been proved. He was dismissed from the U.S. Army for fighting for more Air Power. In February 1942, he was promoted posthumously to full General, the rank which he would have held if he had been alive in the U.S. Army. At the same time I was abused here and in the States for supporting General Mitchell’s claims and agitations. I stand by my opinions, statements and prophecies as William Mitchell did. Like Mr.Asquith, I merely say ‘Wait and see’.

I. Another point worth making. When if ever, this war ends we shall need air-liners. And we have none worth mentioning. Today we need fast troop-carriers for air-borne troops instead of obsolete bombers. And if we had the world’s best troop-carriers we should also have the world’s best air-liners. I told the Air Ministry so two years ago. Aircraft would do all that roads and railways can do to keep up traffic between India and China. A year ago, or more, the great Tata ironworks, which employ tens of thousands of Indians, with a small percentage of white supervisors, offered to build such craft if we designed them.



March 1942