Too many people to thank individually, would not like to leave anybody out, so thank you all good people who have commented on my offerings, or helped me with answers recently, on this, or on "The Battle of Britain" Thread, on which I would suppose most of us are keeping an eye.
Yes, Warburton, of course - and the "Malta Story" film (oh, how long ago !) is well worth YouTubing if you can get it. Essentially true, and a charming love interest to boot, which should bring in your WAGs And I've now got enough of the gist of what Stanford-Tuck wrote about the BoB pilots for my purpose.
It would seem that, like Mark Twain's: "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated", this old Thread has arisen once more, Phoenix-like, from the ashes. Will keep my lip buttoned on the subject of its demise for a while......
Now the hoary old topic of "how many hours to solo ?" has been raised. This Extract from my p.118, #2347 shows me at odds with some of the recent Posts - but then, it'd be a dull world if we all thought alike, wouldn't it ?.
"The first ten hours of military flying instruction are critical. This is where the sheep are sorted from the goats. In civil life, a flying club will keep on taking your money till the cows come home, irrespective of whether you're ever going to make a pilot. The Army can't afford to do this, it's working to a timetable.
An average pupil will go solo after eight hours. Nine hours is stretching it. Ten, and your instructor will hand you over to a check pilot, who will take you up and assess your performance, and who may give you a second chance, with a different instructor. But this rarely happens. You're "washed out".
It sounds hard-hearted, and we think of late developers and helping lame dogs over stiles. But, as is pointed out, your dog is still lame after you've got him over the stile, and there are more stiles ahead. Better to chop him now.
Once the decision is taken, the bitterly disappointed pupil was always whizzed away quickly. Back in Canada, most retrained as Navigators or Wireless Operators/Air Gunners, so all was not lost. But never a second chance as a pilot! (Or so we were led to believe at the time; I have subsequently heard that there were second chances - particularly when these were disciplinary cases, and the pupil's flying ability was not in question). Obviously, this information was hidden from us then: otherwise it would offer a sort of "soft option" to the Arnold scheme for those who wished to take it.
The majority of these losses took place in the first ten days. After that they became progressively fewer. One of my room mates disappeared after a month, having absent-mindedly blundered through the circuit at our Relief Landing Ground. "Dangerous tendencies", they said, and he was out. Two others had fallen at the first hurdle, so now I had the room to myself
The Arnold Scheme had a "washout" rate of around 50%, I believe. [40%, actually]. Whether this was due to the impossibly high standards, or whether simple arithmetic had more to do with it, I have often wondered. My Course at Carlstrom started out some fifty strong. When we went on to Basic School, there were about twenty-five of us left. But we didn't find any "vacant chairs" when we got there. I think Carlstrom simply had to get rid of half of their intakes.
As for the later "Arnold Scheme Hazing" by American Officers, I can only say that the ones we had in 42C were few, harmless, and kept out of sight most of the time. A Guess: the US top brass thought that Hazing was a Good Idea of Itself ("never did me any harm, Sir"), but they could not induce RAF Cadets to do anything so stupid to their own comrades, and therefore had to import their own officers to do the dirty work. My opinion was that the oft voiced opinion that Hazing played a serious part in our "Chop Rate" is a red herring, it was just a nuisance, that's all (says he, never having suffered any).
Plenty more to say, but it can wait. - " 'Ware incoming !"
Danny.
Last edited by Danny42C; 27th Sep 2017 at 12:05.
Reason: Preamble Left Out !