Gaining An R.A.F Pilots Brevet In WW II
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vultee Vengeance
This may be of interest re the Vultee Vengeance:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/827078...69786717/page3
[Scroll down to near the bottom of the page, or just enjoy all the other photographs in the folder if it has been seen already]
Regards
Pete
https://www.flickr.com/photos/827078...69786717/page3
[Scroll down to near the bottom of the page, or just enjoy all the other photographs in the folder if it has been seen already]
Regards
Pete
Guest
Posts: n/a
Geriaviator,
I did not spend much time doing loops in the VV (although it would do them, and barrel rolls, too). But all I did was to look out at the wingtips to make sure that I kept level with the horizon, and never looked at the ball. If you're at the top of a loop in your TM, pulling 1G, does the ball still work ? And didn't a T&B (aka T&S) come with it ?
Don't ever remember trying to fly a VV inverted. I think it would revert to its default (ie brick) mode immediately. Going straight down was what it liked best !
Fareastdriver,
Ah, but how would a N&B work when a VV attained terminal velocity in a vertical dive, and there was no further acceleration ? (it reached 300 mph (brakes out) quite early - around 9,000 ft if you started from 12). But that can only be an academic question, as we would be standing on the rudder pedals on the way down. There was no time to fiddle around with rudder trim. All we could do was to "weathercock", using aileron, to take off any drift and keep line on target. It worked quite well in practice, most people having only a small residual "line error", but a possible larger under/overshoot one if their dive was much less than less than 90° and they hadn't adjusted correctly by "leading" the target with the nose for the last 2,000 ft.
This (hopefully) would bring the "SubVV Point" back over the target at time of release, and we didn't fall for that "throw the bomb off to the side" hoary old fallacy (to adjust for line error) which you correctly (if stroppily !) identified. It's where the aircraft is at point of release that counts - not where the nose is pointed !
Yaw was not much of a problem, as the combination of high speed and an enormous fin took care of it.
Pete,
Thanks for the link, tried it but it won't work as I'm stuck with the Windows 7 that came with the laptop four years ago. Please don't tell me how to fix it - it will be far beyond my feeble intellect - intend to put laptop into hands of friendly local IT wizard soon to MOT it, unship nasties and get it in condition to last me another (?) few years.
Anyway, I think I've probably seen all the VV pictures there are already !
Cheers to all three, Danny.
EDIT:
Can nobody tell me why you would need TWO balls on the panel ? And were any British aircraft so equipped ?
(References to the unfortunate Samuel Hall not needed or wanted).
D.
I did not spend much time doing loops in the VV (although it would do them, and barrel rolls, too). But all I did was to look out at the wingtips to make sure that I kept level with the horizon, and never looked at the ball. If you're at the top of a loop in your TM, pulling 1G, does the ball still work ? And didn't a T&B (aka T&S) come with it ?
Don't ever remember trying to fly a VV inverted. I think it would revert to its default (ie brick) mode immediately. Going straight down was what it liked best !
Fareastdriver,
Ah, but how would a N&B work when a VV attained terminal velocity in a vertical dive, and there was no further acceleration ? (it reached 300 mph (brakes out) quite early - around 9,000 ft if you started from 12). But that can only be an academic question, as we would be standing on the rudder pedals on the way down. There was no time to fiddle around with rudder trim. All we could do was to "weathercock", using aileron, to take off any drift and keep line on target. It worked quite well in practice, most people having only a small residual "line error", but a possible larger under/overshoot one if their dive was much less than less than 90° and they hadn't adjusted correctly by "leading" the target with the nose for the last 2,000 ft.
This (hopefully) would bring the "SubVV Point" back over the target at time of release, and we didn't fall for that "throw the bomb off to the side" hoary old fallacy (to adjust for line error) which you correctly (if stroppily !) identified. It's where the aircraft is at point of release that counts - not where the nose is pointed !
Yaw was not much of a problem, as the combination of high speed and an enormous fin took care of it.
Pete,
Thanks for the link, tried it but it won't work as I'm stuck with the Windows 7 that came with the laptop four years ago. Please don't tell me how to fix it - it will be far beyond my feeble intellect - intend to put laptop into hands of friendly local IT wizard soon to MOT it, unship nasties and get it in condition to last me another (?) few years.
Anyway, I think I've probably seen all the VV pictures there are already !
Cheers to all three, Danny.
EDIT:
Can nobody tell me why you would need TWO balls on the panel ? And were any British aircraft so equipped ?
(References to the unfortunate Samuel Hall not needed or wanted).
D.
Last edited by Danny42C; 2nd Sep 2015 at 23:42. Reason: Addn.
Danny,
Yes, the TM does have a turn and slip in the centre of its panel and very well it works. It's fine for learning instrument flying but does require the driver to look down during aeros. I never looked at the slip pointer (I think connected to a pendulum) when inverted.
Hence the Sea Vixen ball which is just that, like a pocket spirit level about three inches long. Mounted atop the cockpit coaming behind the windscreen it was at eye level so could be watched as well as the horizon and showed the slightest slip/yaw in any attitude. This is why I thought the high-level ball might have been an aid to gunnery.
My ex-CFS instructor Desmond set very high standards and admitted there was some improvement in my flying thereafter. He told me that if I couldn't feel the aircraft skidding via my a*** he was glad I could see it in my ball
Yes, the TM does have a turn and slip in the centre of its panel and very well it works. It's fine for learning instrument flying but does require the driver to look down during aeros. I never looked at the slip pointer (I think connected to a pendulum) when inverted.
Hence the Sea Vixen ball which is just that, like a pocket spirit level about three inches long. Mounted atop the cockpit coaming behind the windscreen it was at eye level so could be watched as well as the horizon and showed the slightest slip/yaw in any attitude. This is why I thought the high-level ball might have been an aid to gunnery.
My ex-CFS instructor Desmond set very high standards and admitted there was some improvement in my flying thereafter. He told me that if I couldn't feel the aircraft skidding via my a*** he was glad I could see it in my ball
Guest
Posts: n/a
Geriaviator,
I'm still unconvinced that a ball device (analogous to the "slip" in a T&S) would indicate correctly when the curved tube in which it moves is in the horizontal plane. Gravity works vertically, so I would have thought that it would have no effect on an object able to move only horizontally.
Both my 90° dive N&B and your top-of-loop tube are in that condition, so.......? Whichever way that cat jumps, the Second Ball Question still waits for somebody to take up the gauntlet.
The USAAC in my Stearman days and your Desmond were of the same mind. They put me in a cockpit with no ASI and IIRC, no N&B (we never did any "under the hood" at Primary), and said "Go fly, boy !" Then you learned what "the seat of your pants" was useful for !
Danny.
I'm still unconvinced that a ball device (analogous to the "slip" in a T&S) would indicate correctly when the curved tube in which it moves is in the horizontal plane. Gravity works vertically, so I would have thought that it would have no effect on an object able to move only horizontally.
Both my 90° dive N&B and your top-of-loop tube are in that condition, so.......? Whichever way that cat jumps, the Second Ball Question still waits for somebody to take up the gauntlet.
The USAAC in my Stearman days and your Desmond were of the same mind. They put me in a cockpit with no ASI and IIRC, no N&B (we never did any "under the hood" at Primary), and said "Go fly, boy !" Then you learned what "the seat of your pants" was useful for !
Danny.
They put me in a cockpit with no ASI and IIRC, no N&B
Flying by TSOYP you will be pushed to the cockpit side by the yaw forces when out of balance. The ball replicates this by gravity pushing the ball to one side which is the same effect. As long as the instrument is under positive 'G' it will do this irrespective of which way up it is. Ask any Boeing 707 prototype.
I still think that it was there as a easily seen last check in the panic of battle to get the aircraft in trim for accurate weapon delivery.
Sorry FED, I can't resist drawing attention to the following from your associated new thread on the Flight Testing forum entitled:http://www.pprune.org/flight-testing...-aircraft.html
Some older and bolder than me are either in agreement or not convinced
Jack
Some older and bolder than me are either in agreement or not convinced
Jack
Union Jack
That is why I went to the TP thread. Hopefully one of them may know some wizened old Vultee or Curtis test pilot rocking away on his veranda who can supply the answer.
Danny.
PS: Is there one pilot out there, who has flown in a cockpit with the duplicate ball instruments on the panel, who can tell me the advantage of that arrangement ? AFAIK, it did not appear on British aircraft - at least not on the ones I flew !
PS: Is there one pilot out there, who has flown in a cockpit with the duplicate ball instruments on the panel, who can tell me the advantage of that arrangement ? AFAIK, it did not appear on British aircraft - at least not on the ones I flew !
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fareastdriver (your #1 on Flight Testing),
Thank you for widening the net ! But if you needed a second ball to help with gun aiming, the proper place for it would be at the bottom of the sight, wouldn't it ? Not to say that it wouldn't be a bad idea. IIRC there was a case in Burma when a Spitfire came in on a vic of Jap bombers, opened fire on No.3 - and shot down the No.2 on the other side !
(your #7364 here)
Some early TMs (and I suppose the previous Gypsy Moths) had a primitive ASI on a wing strut, consisting of a spring-loaded flap and pointer, which the airflow pushed back over a metal quadrant calibrated in 10mph stages. Your "weighted pointer" under the Stearman upper wing centre section sounds like the fuel contents gauge tube under the tank that lived there.
The Instructor (in front) had a pukka ASI in his cockpit, so there must have been a pitot head somewhere, but I can't remember where it was. The stude in back had none, but then he was ab initio, and what you've never had, you never miss. The Wright brothers got along all right without one.
I know a 707 has been barrel (?) rolled (there are pics to prove it), but when it was upside down its N&B would be in the same horizontal position as Geriaviator's ball in a curved tube. Of course inertia would then play a part, but surely gravity could not affect its behaviour ?
Union Jack,
Thank you for pointing me to FED's Post on "Flight Testing". Old, bold pilots do not (by definition) exist. (Old pilots - and very few bold ones - do). This old one is still unconvinced, but open to reasoned argument.
"Flight Testing" may turn something up. But does anyone know of a double ball in any British fighter aircraft ? Certainly not in Master, Hurricane, Spitfire, Vampire or Meteor. We have plenty of members to speak for their successors.
Cheers both, Danny.
PS: FED, just seen your latest to Jack. D.
Thank you for widening the net ! But if you needed a second ball to help with gun aiming, the proper place for it would be at the bottom of the sight, wouldn't it ? Not to say that it wouldn't be a bad idea. IIRC there was a case in Burma when a Spitfire came in on a vic of Jap bombers, opened fire on No.3 - and shot down the No.2 on the other side !
(your #7364 here)
Some early TMs (and I suppose the previous Gypsy Moths) had a primitive ASI on a wing strut, consisting of a spring-loaded flap and pointer, which the airflow pushed back over a metal quadrant calibrated in 10mph stages. Your "weighted pointer" under the Stearman upper wing centre section sounds like the fuel contents gauge tube under the tank that lived there.
The Instructor (in front) had a pukka ASI in his cockpit, so there must have been a pitot head somewhere, but I can't remember where it was. The stude in back had none, but then he was ab initio, and what you've never had, you never miss. The Wright brothers got along all right without one.
I know a 707 has been barrel (?) rolled (there are pics to prove it), but when it was upside down its N&B would be in the same horizontal position as Geriaviator's ball in a curved tube. Of course inertia would then play a part, but surely gravity could not affect its behaviour ?
Union Jack,
Thank you for pointing me to FED's Post on "Flight Testing". Old, bold pilots do not (by definition) exist. (Old pilots - and very few bold ones - do). This old one is still unconvinced, but open to reasoned argument.
"Flight Testing" may turn something up. But does anyone know of a double ball in any British fighter aircraft ? Certainly not in Master, Hurricane, Spitfire, Vampire or Meteor. We have plenty of members to speak for their successors.
Cheers both, Danny.
PS: FED, just seen your latest to Jack. D.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NZ
Age: 72
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have dug up a picture of a Curtiss Helldiver's cockpit.
http://www.photodave.net/2004album/10oct/airshow27.jpg
The aircraft is preserved and some of the instruments are obviously new. On the coaming in front of the pilot is what appears to be a second Turn & Slip. It looks old and original but I cannot positively identify its purpose.
http://www.photodave.net/2004album/10oct/airshow27.jpg
The aircraft is preserved and some of the instruments are obviously new. On the coaming in front of the pilot is what appears to be a second Turn & Slip. It looks old and original but I cannot positively identify its purpose.
Danny,
Sorry, I should have made clear that my Sea Vixen ball was in a straight tube not curved, and worked perfectly when turned 180 degrees as in inverted flight. Maybe 'flight' is the wrong word for an inverted TM which descends like a brick, but it showed me the need for full right rudder to counteract the windmilling prop, and almost full forward stick to maintain nose-high attitude in the glide.
Desmond my instructor reluctantly agreed that it was difficult to fly by the seat of one's pants when one's backside was half an inch off the seat no matter how tight the straps. It was good training for later graduation to Stampe and Zlin with their inverted fuel systems.
Sorry, I should have made clear that my Sea Vixen ball was in a straight tube not curved, and worked perfectly when turned 180 degrees as in inverted flight. Maybe 'flight' is the wrong word for an inverted TM which descends like a brick, but it showed me the need for full right rudder to counteract the windmilling prop, and almost full forward stick to maintain nose-high attitude in the glide.
Desmond my instructor reluctantly agreed that it was difficult to fly by the seat of one's pants when one's backside was half an inch off the seat no matter how tight the straps. It was good training for later graduation to Stampe and Zlin with their inverted fuel systems.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Going out with a Bang.
Fark'n'ell (your #7368),
Thanks for the link ! Pity they didn't stay with the camera on the flight deck all the way round, but impressive just the same. I suppose there is nothing in principle to prevent you from barrel-rolling anything , but a 747 or an A-380 would be worth seeing.
The follow-up shows a chap in a B-52 enjoying himself hugely, chucking it around like a Spitfire - until he pushed his luck too far, and made a spectacular exit. It's happened before and it'll happen again.
Cheers, Danny.
Thanks for the link ! Pity they didn't stay with the camera on the flight deck all the way round, but impressive just the same. I suppose there is nothing in principle to prevent you from barrel-rolling anything , but a 747 or an A-380 would be worth seeing.
The follow-up shows a chap in a B-52 enjoying himself hugely, chucking it around like a Spitfire - until he pushed his luck too far, and made a spectacular exit. It's happened before and it'll happen again.
Cheers, Danny.
Guest
Posts: n/a
FED,
What a nice, neat cockpit ! I could live with that. I don't see another ball anywhere, but I like the combined AH and DI (nicely positioned to the left of the N&B). An early attempt at the Flight Director idea, perhaps ? There is an E2 like compass up top, the thing half obscured by a reflection must be an ASI, I suppose.
But there are sharper eyes than mine on tap !
and:
Geriaviator,
Now you've really got me foxed. If your tube was straight, and the aircraft level, why would the ball stay in the middle ? (Is there an instrument fitter/mech in earshot ?)
I still don't get it. Look at the N&B in the cockpit that FED has just got for us. The ball is in a curved tube, so as it is, gravity takes it to the lowest point. In the same way, a spirit level is slightly curved up, so the bubble must go to the top (same idea as the bubble sextant).
But if the N&B instrument is in the horizontal plane, then as far as the ball is concerned, it's in a straight tube like yours - there is no lowest point to go to ?
Or am I just thick (a distinct possibility !)
Cheers, both, Danny.
What a nice, neat cockpit ! I could live with that. I don't see another ball anywhere, but I like the combined AH and DI (nicely positioned to the left of the N&B). An early attempt at the Flight Director idea, perhaps ? There is an E2 like compass up top, the thing half obscured by a reflection must be an ASI, I suppose.
But there are sharper eyes than mine on tap !
and:
Geriaviator,
Now you've really got me foxed. If your tube was straight, and the aircraft level, why would the ball stay in the middle ? (Is there an instrument fitter/mech in earshot ?)
I still don't get it. Look at the N&B in the cockpit that FED has just got for us. The ball is in a curved tube, so as it is, gravity takes it to the lowest point. In the same way, a spirit level is slightly curved up, so the bubble must go to the top (same idea as the bubble sextant).
But if the N&B instrument is in the horizontal plane, then as far as the ball is concerned, it's in a straight tube like yours - there is no lowest point to go to ?
Or am I just thick (a distinct possibility !)
Cheers, both, Danny.
There has been 396 views of my question about a duplicated slip indicator on 1940s American aircraft. So far, one comment, otherwise no answer.
I will have to punch into the deep recesses of the Internet ether.
Tomorrow.
I will have to punch into the deep recesses of the Internet ether.
Tomorrow.
Guest
Posts: n/a
FED,
I've had a look at the Google Cockpit Instrument Images for P-51 (which I have no knowledge of) and Thunderbolt II (P-47), which I flew for a few hours in India in WWII.
In neither case can I see a second ball on the panel, and I cannot remember a second one in the T-Bolt. As the reason offered for such a thing has been to assist the pilot in gun aiming, one would expect it to have been fitted in the (arguably) two most important "pursuit ships" flown by the USAAC in WWII.
What I do remember about the P-47 is the wide track of the u/c, which made taxying over rough ground so easy, and the bliss of a power-operated hood !
Danny.
I've had a look at the Google Cockpit Instrument Images for P-51 (which I have no knowledge of) and Thunderbolt II (P-47), which I flew for a few hours in India in WWII.
In neither case can I see a second ball on the panel, and I cannot remember a second one in the T-Bolt. As the reason offered for such a thing has been to assist the pilot in gun aiming, one would expect it to have been fitted in the (arguably) two most important "pursuit ships" flown by the USAAC in WWII.
What I do remember about the P-47 is the wide track of the u/c, which made taxying over rough ground so easy, and the bliss of a power-operated hood !
Danny.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a long-time lurker on this thread I wonder if I could be permitted to recommend a book that I have recently read and enjoyed and which certainly falls under the thread title.
The book is A Quest for Wings, From Tail-Gunner To Pilot by G L Donnelly To quote the jacket blurb:-
"The author joined the RAF early in 1937. He first trained as a Wireless Operator (WOp) at RAF Cranwell and subsequently as an Air Gunner (AG) flying in Whitleys and Halifaxes with Bomber Command, and in Sunderlands with Coastal Command.
During this time he was involved in operational raids over Germany and occupied Europe, 1939-42, and anti-submarine operations over the Bay of Biscay 1942-43.
In 1943 he was selected for pilot training and went to Canada where he qualified and was commissioned in 1945. He remained in the peacetime RAF, flying piston-engined and jet-engined types until 1966 when he was invalided out of the service as Flight Lieutenant. During his service Larry flew over fifty different aircraft types".
Lots of interesting detail on service with the pre-war RAF and the route he took from 'Flying Bullet' badge to coveted flying badge. Includes being shot down and getting back to UK via the Comete line, and being awarded the DFM.
The book is A Quest for Wings, From Tail-Gunner To Pilot by G L Donnelly To quote the jacket blurb:-
"The author joined the RAF early in 1937. He first trained as a Wireless Operator (WOp) at RAF Cranwell and subsequently as an Air Gunner (AG) flying in Whitleys and Halifaxes with Bomber Command, and in Sunderlands with Coastal Command.
During this time he was involved in operational raids over Germany and occupied Europe, 1939-42, and anti-submarine operations over the Bay of Biscay 1942-43.
In 1943 he was selected for pilot training and went to Canada where he qualified and was commissioned in 1945. He remained in the peacetime RAF, flying piston-engined and jet-engined types until 1966 when he was invalided out of the service as Flight Lieutenant. During his service Larry flew over fifty different aircraft types".
Lots of interesting detail on service with the pre-war RAF and the route he took from 'Flying Bullet' badge to coveted flying badge. Includes being shot down and getting back to UK via the Comete line, and being awarded the DFM.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: N Yorkshire, UK
Age: 76
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Olympus, I thoroughly agree with you re 'A Quest for Wings, From Tail-Gunner To Pilot" 
On another tack, I was going to PM Danny with this link, but it may interest others on here
https://picturestocktonarchive.wordp...le-of-britain/
PZU - Out of Africa (Retired)
On another tack, I was going to PM Danny with this link, but it may interest others on here
https://picturestocktonarchive.wordp...le-of-britain/
PZU - Out of Africa (Retired)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Days of Old.
pzu,
Thanks for the link. I think the "Stockton Archive" picture at the beginning takes us back to the earlier '30s - judging by the "cloche" hats of that era !
I left Thornaby in November '54, 608 Sqdn went to Malta for their '55 Summer Camp, and to Gib in '56: this will have been their last as the Sqdn disbanded in March '57 IIRC. From '48 to early '51 they had flown Spitfire XXIIs: there is a picture of one in the Archive. It was far more elegant with its longer Griffon nose, the Merlin Spits having more of a "pug" nose IMHO.
Somewhere in the Archive ('13) there is a comment by a George Joyce; as I remember he was (possibly) the first ex-NS pilot to join 608 as an Auxiliary at the end of his service. I think he later went on to BA flying 747s.
The Thornaby Roundabout Spitfire is, of course, a fibreglass replica. When Bentley Priory has to make do with a big Airfix model as a Gate Guardian, you can hardly expect Thornaby to have a real one !
Danny.
Thanks for the link. I think the "Stockton Archive" picture at the beginning takes us back to the earlier '30s - judging by the "cloche" hats of that era !
I left Thornaby in November '54, 608 Sqdn went to Malta for their '55 Summer Camp, and to Gib in '56: this will have been their last as the Sqdn disbanded in March '57 IIRC. From '48 to early '51 they had flown Spitfire XXIIs: there is a picture of one in the Archive. It was far more elegant with its longer Griffon nose, the Merlin Spits having more of a "pug" nose IMHO.
Somewhere in the Archive ('13) there is a comment by a George Joyce; as I remember he was (possibly) the first ex-NS pilot to join 608 as an Auxiliary at the end of his service. I think he later went on to BA flying 747s.
The Thornaby Roundabout Spitfire is, of course, a fibreglass replica. When Bentley Priory has to make do with a big Airfix model as a Gate Guardian, you can hardly expect Thornaby to have a real one !
Danny.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Danny tries to get a handle on an old problem as a first step in solving it.
One of the more persistent bees that buzz in my bonnet concerns the loss ("washout") rates of RAF Cadets training in the U.S. Army Air Corps "Arnold" Flight Schools during '41 to '43 in WWII. I quote from:
[A] "The Official Website of - Arnold Scheme
www.arnold-scheme.org/The%20Arnold%20Register.htm?CachedSimilar"
and from:
"The Official Website of "The Arnold Scheme (1941-1943) Register™ "
"Unfortunately nearly 50% of British cadets did not successfully complete pilot training under the scheme, being eliminated ("washed out"), usually without the right of appeal. Between 1941 and 1943, some 7,885 cadets entered the scheme and of the 4493 who survived training, most were returned to the UK as Sergeant Pilots, with many being posted to Bomber Command". However, 577 of the graduates were retained for a period of approximately one year as Instructors." (nearly all for the BFTS; we had one P/O MacMillan posted to us at USAAC Advanced School, Craig Field, Selma in early '42; he must have been on 42A Course, graduating in the New Year, and cannot have had more than 8 weeks Instructor's School)
(All entries in italics are from the official websites: all my comments in plain text).
[A] Stats & Facts
______________
Total RAF Intake...............7885 Note [#1]
RAF cadets Eliminated at:
_____________________
Acclimatization Centres...........9
Primary Schools................2687
Basic Schools.....................526
Advanced Schools...............170
Cadets Killed in Training.........81
_______________________________So losses 3313, of which 3232 (97.6%)
......................................................were "washouts".
[Highest Rank achieved by RAF Graduate: Marshall (sic) of the Royal Air Force]
[Highest British Decoration Awarded: Victoria Cross]
Summary Stats by Class
____________________
Class Net Intake Graduated
42A........549........302...............(Reg Levy's Class)
42B........555........327
42C........632........405...............(my Class)
42D........651........399
_____________________________1433 Graduates from 2387 [#2] Net Intake, so 954 losses; 931 assumed "washouts" , (954 x 0.976). (39% of the intake).
42E........749........746
42F........753........747
42G........749..... ..738
42H........758........748
42I.........519........507
42K........507........493
43A........518........504
43B........518........503
_____________________________4497 Graduates from
...................................................5071.[#3] Net Intake,
..................................................so 574 losses; 560
...................................................assumed "washouts".
...................................................(11% of the intake).
Source: Dr Gilbert S Guinn
================
Note [#2] + [#3] = 7458, contrasts with [#1] (7885), a difference of 427 ?
How is the difference between the overall washout rates from Classes 42A - 42D (39%) and Classes 42E - 43B (11%) to be accounted for ? Any suggestions as to how this circle could be squared ? And even supposing it could, how can this possibly be ? Even with the introduction of a Grading school in the UK before transit to the US, you could hardly expect an improvement of this size. After all, 252 Losses in 42D and only 3 in 42E ? - Come on !!
For the proposal which was put forard was that a Grading School System be introduced in November '41, in which all LACs for Pilot training would do 15 hours dual (probably on a TM) in UK. Here the small proportion of no-hopers could be identified and weeded-out, and the "naturals" passed through at 2-3 hours as soon as their talents had been recognised. In this way a huge wastage of travel time, berth space and costs could be avoided. Good idea, but wouldn't this amount to re-activating the EFTS in wartime in the UK (which the Empire and US training schemes were specifically introduced to avoid ?
In any event, I never met anyone who had been through one of these Grading Courses, and think the idea was quietly dropped,
Some very top brass was concerned with the excessive failure rates in the US. Google-up, and select: "#5 British Flying Training School, Clewiston, Florida":
"The following article gives a short history of the BFTSs in the USA and, in particular 5 BFTS. If you are interested in the full history of all BFTS please click here * for a full article taken from "Air 41" History of the BFTSs in the USA. This is held in the Public Records Office, Kew Gardens, London".
* Click ! Look for: "Summary of RAF training facilities in America as by June 1941". Although this is naturally focussed on the BFTS, there is a useful bit about the "Arnold" Schoools at the end.
I've seen figures for the BFTS (but cannot trace the source again) which shows an overall washout rate of around 3% # and believe this was the ballpark figure for the Empire Flying Training Scheme. harrym, if you're on frequency, how about Canada ? How about Rhodesia ? (Anyone ?)
[B]# EDIT: Further grubbing around in Google turns up a single individual's estimate of 30% at his BFTS, and of course, from our point of view in tne "Arnold" Scheme: "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence". D.
If we ignore the gross discrepancy between 42A-D and 42E-43B washout rates, a pat answer might be that the USAAC imposed higher standards and consequently had higher failure rates. That would imply that the successful candidates would be of a noticeably higher quality than the rest. As indeed they should be, as we all had 200 hours before "Wings", whereas the others had around 140 (this figure is extraordinarily difficult to tie down, as it varied from place to place and from time to time. I can only record that I never heard any such claim being made after I came back: we were all lumped in together and shared out for the next (OTU) stage of our training.
Danny42C
[A] "The Official Website of - Arnold Scheme
www.arnold-scheme.org/The%20Arnold%20Register.htm?CachedSimilar"
and from:
"The Official Website of "The Arnold Scheme (1941-1943) Register™ "
"Unfortunately nearly 50% of British cadets did not successfully complete pilot training under the scheme, being eliminated ("washed out"), usually without the right of appeal. Between 1941 and 1943, some 7,885 cadets entered the scheme and of the 4493 who survived training, most were returned to the UK as Sergeant Pilots, with many being posted to Bomber Command". However, 577 of the graduates were retained for a period of approximately one year as Instructors." (nearly all for the BFTS; we had one P/O MacMillan posted to us at USAAC Advanced School, Craig Field, Selma in early '42; he must have been on 42A Course, graduating in the New Year, and cannot have had more than 8 weeks Instructor's School)
(All entries in italics are from the official websites: all my comments in plain text).
[A] Stats & Facts
______________
Total RAF Intake...............7885 Note [#1]
RAF cadets Eliminated at:
_____________________
Acclimatization Centres...........9
Primary Schools................2687
Basic Schools.....................526
Advanced Schools...............170
Cadets Killed in Training.........81
_______________________________So losses 3313, of which 3232 (97.6%)
......................................................were "washouts".
[Highest Rank achieved by RAF Graduate: Marshall (sic) of the Royal Air Force]
[Highest British Decoration Awarded: Victoria Cross]
Summary Stats by Class
____________________
Class Net Intake Graduated
42A........549........302...............(Reg Levy's Class)
42B........555........327
42C........632........405...............(my Class)
42D........651........399
_____________________________1433 Graduates from 2387 [#2] Net Intake, so 954 losses; 931 assumed "washouts" , (954 x 0.976). (39% of the intake).
42E........749........746
42F........753........747
42G........749..... ..738
42H........758........748
42I.........519........507
42K........507........493
43A........518........504
43B........518........503
_____________________________4497 Graduates from
...................................................5071.[#3] Net Intake,
..................................................so 574 losses; 560
...................................................assumed "washouts".
...................................................(11% of the intake).
Source: Dr Gilbert S Guinn
================
Note [#2] + [#3] = 7458, contrasts with [#1] (7885), a difference of 427 ?
* * *
How is the difference between the overall washout rates from Classes 42A - 42D (39%) and Classes 42E - 43B (11%) to be accounted for ? Any suggestions as to how this circle could be squared ? And even supposing it could, how can this possibly be ? Even with the introduction of a Grading school in the UK before transit to the US, you could hardly expect an improvement of this size. After all, 252 Losses in 42D and only 3 in 42E ? - Come on !!
For the proposal which was put forard was that a Grading School System be introduced in November '41, in which all LACs for Pilot training would do 15 hours dual (probably on a TM) in UK. Here the small proportion of no-hopers could be identified and weeded-out, and the "naturals" passed through at 2-3 hours as soon as their talents had been recognised. In this way a huge wastage of travel time, berth space and costs could be avoided. Good idea, but wouldn't this amount to re-activating the EFTS in wartime in the UK (which the Empire and US training schemes were specifically introduced to avoid ?
In any event, I never met anyone who had been through one of these Grading Courses, and think the idea was quietly dropped,
Some very top brass was concerned with the excessive failure rates in the US. Google-up, and select: "#5 British Flying Training School, Clewiston, Florida":
"The following article gives a short history of the BFTSs in the USA and, in particular 5 BFTS. If you are interested in the full history of all BFTS please click here * for a full article taken from "Air 41" History of the BFTSs in the USA. This is held in the Public Records Office, Kew Gardens, London".
* Click ! Look for: "Summary of RAF training facilities in America as by June 1941". Although this is naturally focussed on the BFTS, there is a useful bit about the "Arnold" Schoools at the end.
I've seen figures for the BFTS (but cannot trace the source again) which shows an overall washout rate of around 3% # and believe this was the ballpark figure for the Empire Flying Training Scheme. harrym, if you're on frequency, how about Canada ? How about Rhodesia ? (Anyone ?)
[B]# EDIT: Further grubbing around in Google turns up a single individual's estimate of 30% at his BFTS, and of course, from our point of view in tne "Arnold" Scheme: "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence". D.
If we ignore the gross discrepancy between 42A-D and 42E-43B washout rates, a pat answer might be that the USAAC imposed higher standards and consequently had higher failure rates. That would imply that the successful candidates would be of a noticeably higher quality than the rest. As indeed they should be, as we all had 200 hours before "Wings", whereas the others had around 140 (this figure is extraordinarily difficult to tie down, as it varied from place to place and from time to time. I can only record that I never heard any such claim being made after I came back: we were all lumped in together and shared out for the next (OTU) stage of our training.
Danny42C
Last edited by Danny42C; 12th Sep 2015 at 05:09. Reason: Spacing