Gaining An R.A.F Pilots Brevet In WW II
I'm with Chug on this. I was introduced by a Trustee of "my" Yacht Club, a retired 2*, and I get a great deal of benefit from the Journals although regrettably, from France, attendance is a bit infrequent
Re The Battle of the Beams, "Most Secret War" by Prof RV Jones covers it, and many other scientific challenges. Prof Jones was the boffin at the heart of the Secret Services throughout the war.
Available from the South American river amongst other places.
Available from the South American river amongst other places.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chugalug (#9281),
Thanks for the "steer" to "The RAF and the Far East War 1941-1945" and the three links. Will keep me in reading material for quite some time. Will be interesting to see if there is any acknowledgement of the VV's good works in India/Burma/Oz - but I wouldn't hold your breath !
Danny.
Oops - forgotten the Journal seminars ! Nice idea if you're in striking distance of London, but I can hardly get further than the front door now.....D.
Thanks for the "steer" to "The RAF and the Far East War 1941-1945" and the three links. Will keep me in reading material for quite some time. Will be interesting to see if there is any acknowledgement of the VV's good works in India/Burma/Oz - but I wouldn't hold your breath !
Danny.
Oops - forgotten the Journal seminars ! Nice idea if you're in striking distance of London, but I can hardly get further than the front door now.....D.
Last edited by Danny42C; 14th Sep 2016 at 16:03. Reason: Addn
Danny, I find the seminars a bit of a challenge myself, given that they usually involve travelling to/from Hendon and concentrating all day on fast flowing presentations. Hence the appeal of the Journals that encompass them all (including the bits that there wasn't time for on the day).
The latest Journal is #64, and the next Seminar is on 18th October 2016 about "Cold War Air Systems Procurement". Unfortunately for me it is being held at Filton so instead I'll read all about it in the next Journal.
The latest Journal is #64, and the next Seminar is on 18th October 2016 about "Cold War Air Systems Procurement". Unfortunately for me it is being held at Filton so instead I'll read all about it in the next Journal.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A sorry story indeed.
Chugalug,
I have started on the first link (http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/document...st-Air-War.pdf)
My comments added as [..] - no authority except what was common knowledge (?) out there at the end of 1942.
Danny.
........................................
THE RAF AND THE FAR EAST WAR 1941-1945
p.7
Then came the appalling naval disaster as the Prince of Wales and Repulse set sail – knowing they would have no air cover –to try to attack the Japanese invasion forces, failed to achieve the surprise they needed, and turned back.
[They could have had air cover had they asked, but maintained radio silence even after they should have known they had been spotted, and sailed on until the first torpedo bomber attack. Then they turned round and started limping back home.]
Unaccountably Admiral Phillips refused to break radio silence even when the ships knew they had been spotted, and it was 1½ hours later,when the ships had been under attack for three quarters of an hour, that the Captain of Repulse – not Phillips – sent a signal to tell Singapore what was happening.]
[Phillips did break radio silence to send a signal after the first attack - but not a request for air cover against a second attack, which would surely come, but only for a tug to help get his crippled flagship back to Singapore. The tale goes that a Flt Lt Tim Vigors picked this up, and in the absence of any order from Singapore, but on his own authority, scrambled the squadron of Buffaloes, of which he was in temporary command, but they arrived only after the second, fatal attack and the P.o.W. and Repulse were on the bottom.]
Buffaloes could certainly have caused them serious problems. The question, ‘Why did Phillips not signal?’has never been satisfactorily answered – he himself did not survive – and perhaps it is Arthur Harris, who had worked with him in London..........
p.8
.........on the planning staff before the war, who gives us the clue in his parting words to his friend: ‘Tom, you’ve never believed in air. Never get out from under the air umbrella; if you do, you’ll be for it.’ Phillips we must presume had remained unpersuaded.
[He was on record as saying: "A properly handled capital ship can always defend itself against air attack" (I believe this was Naval belief at the time, and in fact AFAIK, no capital ship had been sunk by aircraft in open waters before (Taranto and Pearl Harbor were "sitting ducks").
[In the account of the Singapore disaster, no mention is made of the stranglehold the Japanese had won on the city water supply - IMHO, this would have compelled surrender in any (military) case.]
What it really came down to was the nation’s reluctance to devote enough resources to defence in the 1930s, a reluctance which nearly led to defeat in 1940 and which certainly made it impossible to prepare adequately for another major war on the other side of the world.
[Are we any wiser now ? - Will the significance of the 15th September pass unnoticed ?]
***************************
I have started on the first link (http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/document...st-Air-War.pdf)
My comments added as [..] - no authority except what was common knowledge (?) out there at the end of 1942.
Danny.
........................................
THE RAF AND THE FAR EAST WAR 1941-1945
p.7
Then came the appalling naval disaster as the Prince of Wales and Repulse set sail – knowing they would have no air cover –to try to attack the Japanese invasion forces, failed to achieve the surprise they needed, and turned back.
[They could have had air cover had they asked, but maintained radio silence even after they should have known they had been spotted, and sailed on until the first torpedo bomber attack. Then they turned round and started limping back home.]
Unaccountably Admiral Phillips refused to break radio silence even when the ships knew they had been spotted, and it was 1½ hours later,when the ships had been under attack for three quarters of an hour, that the Captain of Repulse – not Phillips – sent a signal to tell Singapore what was happening.]
[Phillips did break radio silence to send a signal after the first attack - but not a request for air cover against a second attack, which would surely come, but only for a tug to help get his crippled flagship back to Singapore. The tale goes that a Flt Lt Tim Vigors picked this up, and in the absence of any order from Singapore, but on his own authority, scrambled the squadron of Buffaloes, of which he was in temporary command, but they arrived only after the second, fatal attack and the P.o.W. and Repulse were on the bottom.]
Buffaloes could certainly have caused them serious problems. The question, ‘Why did Phillips not signal?’has never been satisfactorily answered – he himself did not survive – and perhaps it is Arthur Harris, who had worked with him in London..........
p.8
.........on the planning staff before the war, who gives us the clue in his parting words to his friend: ‘Tom, you’ve never believed in air. Never get out from under the air umbrella; if you do, you’ll be for it.’ Phillips we must presume had remained unpersuaded.
[He was on record as saying: "A properly handled capital ship can always defend itself against air attack" (I believe this was Naval belief at the time, and in fact AFAIK, no capital ship had been sunk by aircraft in open waters before (Taranto and Pearl Harbor were "sitting ducks").
[In the account of the Singapore disaster, no mention is made of the stranglehold the Japanese had won on the city water supply - IMHO, this would have compelled surrender in any (military) case.]
What it really came down to was the nation’s reluctance to devote enough resources to defence in the 1930s, a reluctance which nearly led to defeat in 1940 and which certainly made it impossible to prepare adequately for another major war on the other side of the world.
[Are we any wiser now ? - Will the significance of the 15th September pass unnoticed ?]
***************************
Last edited by Danny42C; 15th Sep 2016 at 08:52. Reason: Tidy up.
Wise words Danny. There is still prejudice in the Senior Service, if not against air, then against the Royal Air Force. Is that why Phillips did not signal, because to do so would be requesting air cover from the RAF, as the indigenous RN air cover had been left behind having run aground?
Point of order Beagle. Damned bad form to play the Section Officer Harvey card before the 15th, damned bad form indeed, Sir!
Point of order Beagle. Damned bad form to play the Section Officer Harvey card before the 15th, damned bad form indeed, Sir!
There is still prejudice in the Senior Service, if not against air, then against the Royal Air Force. Is that why Phillips did not signal...?
May I politely enquire whether you actually mean "is" or "was", Chugalug? The former I could readily accept in view of what Danny very interestingly says but, if you mean the latter, an authoritative source, or alternatively a correction, would be welcome.
Jack
May I politely enquire whether you actually mean "is" or "was", Chugalug? The former I could readily accept in view of what Danny very interestingly says but, if you mean the latter, an authoritative source, or alternatively a correction, would be welcome.
Jack
It was, on reflection, a blatant generalisation and for that I apologise. I'm very well aware for instance of the Joint Service integration in helicopter operation that has happened since my days and no doubt with it has emerged a much closer understanding and tolerance between the two sides. The prejudice if indeed it did/does exist was never really at that level where it is more banter, friendly or otherwise. It is at the high command level that I was thinking of, ie of Phillips and above, both then and now. Are you in turn saying that is not so now, Jack?
Let's be frank. The RNAS was as an equal to the RFC, but then the RAF happened and the RN had to put up with what was I'm sure an unsatisfactory arrangement for all sides, until it regained control with the formation of the FAA. In a way we seem to be sliding back into that same unsatisfactory relationship again, the FAA having lost (temporarily?) its fixed wing component, the RAF having divested itself of its Maritime Patrol capability.
To be frank again, if I were a Lordship I'd be prejudiced too! The RN lacks indigenous air cover. So did Phillips, and look what happened to him! My comment was meant to be a comment on the existing situation (admittedly as I see it) rather than one of condemnation. I see now that wasn't obvious, and anyway it is simply my own view. I'm quite prepared to believe yours is different, but if I gave offence I'm sorry for it.
Let's be frank. The RNAS was as an equal to the RFC, but then the RAF happened and the RN had to put up with what was I'm sure an unsatisfactory arrangement for all sides, until it regained control with the formation of the FAA. In a way we seem to be sliding back into that same unsatisfactory relationship again, the FAA having lost (temporarily?) its fixed wing component, the RAF having divested itself of its Maritime Patrol capability.
To be frank again, if I were a Lordship I'd be prejudiced too! The RN lacks indigenous air cover. So did Phillips, and look what happened to him! My comment was meant to be a comment on the existing situation (admittedly as I see it) rather than one of condemnation. I see now that wasn't obvious, and anyway it is simply my own view. I'm quite prepared to believe yours is different, but if I gave offence I'm sorry for it.
A very gracious response in every respect, Chugalug, and my compliments on your very speedy and interesting observations. My only further thought would be that a feeling of envy, rather than prejudice, would hopefully be more descriptive of current feeling at Admiralty Board level.
Jack
Jack
If the Admiralty Board is feeling envious of the RAF then it must indeed be in a bad way. This forum is littered with news of station after station closing down, whole fleets and capabilities disappearing, and a continuing and worsening scandal involving the cover up of the loss of that most basic requirement of any air force, the very airworthiness of its aircraft! The latter is, I admit, a particular hobby horse of mine but no less real for all that.
If the outlook for the RN is worse than that then I would counsel not envy nor prejudice but reflection. For that is what I would advise for the RAF, if ever it wanted my advice! The scandal that I mentioned above was a self inflicted injury, as is the continuing cover up of it. Unless and until it is faced up to things will only get worse for the RAF.
If the outlook for the RN is worse than that then I would counsel not envy nor prejudice but reflection. For that is what I would advise for the RAF, if ever it wanted my advice! The scandal that I mentioned above was a self inflicted injury, as is the continuing cover up of it. Unless and until it is faced up to things will only get worse for the RAF.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Where, oh where ?
On "Private Flying" Thread, a Boeing Stearman PT-17 (1942 vintage, US Reg: N 56200) has been much in the news lately. Setting aside the story in which it plays a major part (and which is not relevant to the query in this Post), there have been a number of excellent pictures, and these have set me thinking.
Nowhere around the structure can I see a pitot head sticking out. Although there was no ASI in the back (student's) seat (in which I flew my first 60 hours in Florida long, long ago), the instructor had an ASI in front. So there must be a pitot head somewhere - but where is it ?
("You flew the thing for 60 hours and you don't know ?"..."'fraid not"... "Didn't you have to check, on your walk-round, that the cover [with hi-vis streamer ?] was off ?"...."don't remember any such thing"...."Fat lot of use you are !")
All right, I'll go quietly - but my old eyes not as good as they were - can anyone else find the damn' thing and tell me ?
Danny.....
Nowhere around the structure can I see a pitot head sticking out. Although there was no ASI in the back (student's) seat (in which I flew my first 60 hours in Florida long, long ago), the instructor had an ASI in front. So there must be a pitot head somewhere - but where is it ?
("You flew the thing for 60 hours and you don't know ?"..."'fraid not"... "Didn't you have to check, on your walk-round, that the cover [with hi-vis streamer ?] was off ?"...."don't remember any such thing"...."Fat lot of use you are !")
All right, I'll go quietly - but my old eyes not as good as they were - can anyone else find the damn' thing and tell me ?
Danny.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
CoodaShooda,
Reckon you're right ! Jay Sata's pic ("Private Flying", T.C-T, p.67 #1335) shows it to perfection. And it has two tubes leading from it, one for the dynamic and the other for the static air pressure.
How come I didn't notice it myself ? Becuse I wasn't looking for it on a strut ! - although I should have been, with a memory of that flap thing on a quadrant that the first TMs used (but not by me !)
Thanks from Danny.
Reckon you're right ! Jay Sata's pic ("Private Flying", T.C-T, p.67 #1335) shows it to perfection. And it has two tubes leading from it, one for the dynamic and the other for the static air pressure.
How come I didn't notice it myself ? Becuse I wasn't looking for it on a strut ! - although I should have been, with a memory of that flap thing on a quadrant that the first TMs used (but not by me !)
Thanks from Danny.
Guest
Posts: n/a
BEagle and Chugalug,
The "still" from the film 'BoB' will, I hope, be remembered on every 15th September for years to come (and Section Officer Maggie Harvey [aka Susannah York RIP] will still raise a gleam in an old eye - if nowhere else !)
Seriously, not a cheep from the meejah all day (as I expected).
I suppose they are holding their fire for Battle of Britain Remembrance Sunday this weekend. Yet that day 76 years ago was the climactic day of that Battle in which (in my fulsome words somewhere on this Thread): "The R.A.F. saved this country from what was arguably its greatest danger in almost a thousand years".
My generation can take vicarious credit for that - if nothing else.
Danny.
The "still" from the film 'BoB' will, I hope, be remembered on every 15th September for years to come (and Section Officer Maggie Harvey [aka Susannah York RIP] will still raise a gleam in an old eye - if nowhere else !)
Seriously, not a cheep from the meejah all day (as I expected).
I suppose they are holding their fire for Battle of Britain Remembrance Sunday this weekend. Yet that day 76 years ago was the climactic day of that Battle in which (in my fulsome words somewhere on this Thread): "The R.A.F. saved this country from what was arguably its greatest danger in almost a thousand years".
My generation can take vicarious credit for that - if nothing else.
Danny.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lost, but often Indonesia
Posts: 653
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Danny,
This may be of interest to you, Kiwi Mossie #2 will apparently have its 1st flight on Sunday. There is a great link on the Home | Wings Over New Zealand forum in the Preserving NZ aviation history thread. Engine runups/ taxi checks etc completed. Some good video on that site. The aeroplane looks stunning. Fingers crossed for good weather Sunday.
Cheers
Michael
This may be of interest to you, Kiwi Mossie #2 will apparently have its 1st flight on Sunday. There is a great link on the Home | Wings Over New Zealand forum in the Preserving NZ aviation history thread. Engine runups/ taxi checks etc completed. Some good video on that site. The aeroplane looks stunning. Fingers crossed for good weather Sunday.
Cheers
Michael
IIRC the NZ Mosquitos cannot fly in the UK because they are assembled with modern epoxy resins. To be eligible to fly here they would have to have been (re)built using self disassembly 1940s glue.
Self disassembly's pretty unreasonable.
There was an in-depth analysis commissioned on the Mosquito prototype's airframe a few years ago and there's no structural reason why it couldn't fly.
Admittedly the earlier adhesives did fail, but only in tropical service. There were no problems with the later system.
Despite later epoxies being superior, it's a deviation from the original design so needs Design Authority and mountains of paperwork. The same problem arises when trying to substitute linen covering with modern fabrics.
There was an in-depth analysis commissioned on the Mosquito prototype's airframe a few years ago and there's no structural reason why it couldn't fly.
Admittedly the earlier adhesives did fail, but only in tropical service. There were no problems with the later system.
Despite later epoxies being superior, it's a deviation from the original design so needs Design Authority and mountains of paperwork. The same problem arises when trying to substitute linen covering with modern fabrics.