THE Eric Brown List

[DaveUnwin]

Well, an early Spit has about 1000hp and weighs around 2,800kg all-up, whereas a Griffon-powered 24 has over 2000hp, weighs 4,500kg and the prop turns the other way - yet the list only says 'Spitfire' - that's my point.
And I'm guessing that the Saratoga and Lance aren't really that different, are they?

[Pontius]

Yeah, I'm waving my willy now (why can nobody see it?)

30 on his list (and even a few that aren't......but only a couple that are reasonably exciting) AND ex-RN too. We of the Senior Service must stick together

Please, someone, let me fly a Corsair (and I don't mean the jet one either).

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've always gone with the type certificate By which all PA28s are all the same type but the C150 and C152 are two different types. You win and lose, but it's a system.

Presumably EMwB was doing something similar given that he listed the Taylorcraft Auster and Auster Aiglet as two types, but all Spitfires as one.

G

[Flying Lawyer]

Genghis

is it an interesting measure of a pilot's experience to ask their "Brown number"

It would be one measure of a pilot's experience, but not a meaningful measure.

As mikehallam said earlier:

Depends a bit on one's age and therefore access to some older types - as more recent a/c don't count.

There will be other factors.

eg Those of us who belonged to the Tiger Club in the 80s (and perhaps later) will have time in the Tiger Moth, various Jodels and Stampe SV.4. Those who didn't are less likely to have flown a Tiger Moth, and far less likely to have flown either the SV.4 or any model of Jodel - unless they have lived in France or Belgium.
Few people are likely to have flown the original Stampe et Vertongen SV.4 which Eric flew. Only about 30 were built before the company closed during WW2. Stampe et Renard renewed SV4 production after the war - as trainers for the Belgian Air Force - and others were built under licence in France by SNCAN. If I remember correctly, both the Tiger Club's Stampes were SNCAN aircraft.

eg Right place right time, friends who own and/or fly rare types.
I've been exceptionally lucky (for a PPL) in both those respects but it is not a meaningful indication of my experience as a pilot. I know people who've never flown anything other than s/e Pipers or Cessnas who have far greater experience as pilots than me.

[pax britanica]

Having read his fascinating book and articles about the recently defeated Luftwaffe types I have always thought he was a truly remarkable man..As to the sheer number of types flown well it was helped a lot by the time -are there anything close to 400 plus types in the whole world now or even over the last 20 years. Flying them is one thing surviving, as more than a few were reputedly real widow makers, given the exigences of wartime and test flying in those days is even more remarkable

Its an oft over used phrased but 100% true of this gentleman -We will not see his like again


PB

[mothminor]

There is a repeat of Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown story on BBC 2 at 1900, sure it will be on I player later.
J.J.

[flyinkiwi]

What a fascinating list!

I read somewhere his favourites were the dH Sea Hornet and NA F-86 Sabre.

[londonblue]

On another forum I frequent someone asked whether he was the greatest pilot the UK had ever produced. I pointed out that given that he has the record for the most types flown I would say there's an argument that he's the greatest pilot the world has ever produced.

There's 486 on the list earlier in this thread. I'm only 480 behind!

Cessna 150, 152, and 172
Piper PA38 and PA28
CAP 10b

I guess I've a long way to go. People like him are truly inspiring.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I keep seeing "one of the greatest", or "Britain's greatest" and absolutely agree.

I can think of one man only, whose contributions to aviation perhaps come close to Eric Brown's, and that's Neil Armstrong. But NA had a much shorter career, and put far less effort into sharing his lessons and experience.

So, "World's greatest, ever" sits very well with me as a description of Eric Brown - I really don't think it needs qualifiers.

G

[megan]

So, "World's greatest, ever" sits very well with me as a description of Eric Brown

And originator of the worlds greatest myth aka the X-1 had to be modified to incorporate the M.52 tail in order to get through the barrier. Somewhat detracts from the memory of a great man and pilot. Came to the conclusion his myth came about from two countries being separated by a common language, to wit, what is a "flying tail". Winkle had one definition, the Americans another.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Come on Megan, a man who has achieved more for, and in, aviation than virtually anybody else has or will has died, and you are making an issue of a minor point of history about the design of two aircraft that the detail about, nowadays, is little more than a footnote. That is not "the world's greatest myth", that's a squabble between pedants, and given the circumstances - rude. That, whether you are right or wrong.

G

[megan]

a minor point of history

It's not a minor point of history Genghis, it's a major point, and Captain Brown made a major point of it in his book on the M.52, and in his presentations. Any thing you see about the X-1 has the claim, based on his assertions. It's not a squabble between pedants, it's historical fact, and was a misrepresentation by Captain Brown, and the only reason I can imagine why is as I posted re two nations separated by a common language.

Perhaps you missed where I wrote "a great man and pilot". I recognise his contributions, but the accolade "greatest" is up for debate. Scott Crossfield, Neil Armstrong, and many others could be up for the vote, particularly those that gave their lives in the furtherance of researching the limits, such as George Welch, Carl Kincheloe and Milburn Apt.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The reasons for the design of the tailplane on one aircraft, however significant, is not a major point of history - in any case your opportunities to challenge him about it ended last week; as it was over his assertion that he saw Adolf Hitler shake Jessie Owen's hand, which also goes against what most historians say. This isn't the time or place.

I'd met Scott Crossfield, and followed the work of Neil Armstrong. Hard to say that either covered the breadth of Captain Brown's work, nor did as much to help the world learn from and use their experiences. They'd still be in the top 10 most significant test pilots in history however.

Seriously if you have an investigative point to make - do what I occasionally do: write a paper for Journal of Aeronautical History, and let it go for full peer review. It's an interesting experience, and when published, those papers matter. But criticising a great man a week after he'd died, when there was adequate opportunity to challenge him directly, strikes me as inappropriate.

G

[India Four Two]

G,

Just for fun, I've added my "Brown Number" to my location.

Without wishing to stir the pot too much, I have often wondered how many of Winkle's types were PIC?

If I had to only count types I had flown solo, my score of 19 would be significantly reduced.

Obviously, flights in things like the Komet and Spitfire were PIC, but I wonder about types like the B-17, B-29, Vanguard and VC-10, for example.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Certainly when I worked for MoD in flight test, test pilots assessing an aeroplane always logged P1, regardless of what seat they were in, and regardless of how many pilots were logging P1!

So, left and right hand seat, both TPs, both logging P1 - entirely in accordance with JSP318.

(For the avoidance of doubt, my military flying was either as a cadet pilot in a Bulldog, or a Flight Test Observer which is logged crew, but another column in the logbook altogether.)

G

[DaveUnwin]

"So, left and right hand seat, both TPs, both logging P1 - entirely in accordance with JSP318."

You'll have to pardon my ignorance, but to me that simply doesn't make sense. Were they both in command? If so that is extraordinarily bad practice, IMHO of course.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Only one was officially captain and making those "boss" decisions, both logged P1 for experience purposes.

Not unlike, I suppose, somebody passing a skill test in an SEP.


It's just how it was done.

G

[DaveUnwin]

Hmmm, seems a little bit like 'padding' ones logbook to me! Surely the aircraft commander/captain logs P1, and unless the other pilot is actually being tested, they're P2? I'm sure we'd all take a pretty dim view of such practices in the GA world.

Edited to add;- I've just discussed this with a very experienced aviator, and he said (and I quote) "if you were the aircraft commander you log P1, and if you logged the flight as P1 then you were the aircraft commander. ANYTHING else is nonsense, as the aircraft cannot have two commanders!"

[Genghis the Engineer]

You can go and tell the chaps at Boscombe Down that - I'm not. And for all I know it's changed in the last 20 years - but it was definitely the case in the 90s when I was flying out of there.

G

[Centaurus]

Hmmm, seems a little bit like 'padding' ones logbook to me!

Happens all the time in the civilian flying world. One reason is that once a pilot has passed his flying school private or commercial pilot's licence where strict records are kept of his flying hours during training and which may be audited by visiting CAA auditors, then very rarely is his log book audited again. It is the same with logging of instrument flight time.

During an initial instrument rating course at a flying school, there are specific minimum instrument hours required. At the completion of the course the CFI or equivalent stamps and certifies the log book of the candidate. Part of that certification includes cross referencing the hours logged by the pilot as against flying school records of his training. Once that pilot has left the training world into the real world of commercial flying, he can log what he likes and frequently gets away with it, because there are no more audits of his log book.

For example how can you audit instrument flight time claimed as in cloud? You cannot. Take the case of one captain who flew from Brisbane to Melbourne in a Boeing 737. Apart from initial take off until short final the flight was on autopilot and in gin clear fine weather.

On arrival Melbourne as his co-pilot was making out the trip record (which was subject to a standard CASA audit), the captain said "Oh! Put me down for three hours instrument flying time for instrument currency." The F/O astonished, replied "But we were never in IMC." "Do as you are told" replied the captain. He knew his cheating could never be proved.

Fake logging of instrument flight time, which includes logging of command time when clearly the pilot concerned was the support pilot only, is wide spread. But whichever way you regard it, it is blatant cheating and dishonest.

Earlier I mentioned it happening in the civilian world. I don't know about present day practices in the military, but during my 18 years of military flying, pilots were required to have their log books checked for accuracy every month and signed by a certifying officer. Every six months the pilot was required to submit a six-monthly flying return which was checked with his log book by internal audit. It was unheard of to log false hours.

In the airline world, it would be rare to see regulatory audit of log book claimed hours. For some pilots, logging of true co-pilot time is seen as degrading. Instead the situation often exists where a co-pilot is given a "leg" by the captain and logs that leg as in command under supervision rather than log it as co-pilot time in the co-pilot column. In command under supervision is regarded by some as superior quality flying hours versus mundane co-pilot hours. A trifle pathetic, don't you think? That said, each State regulatory authority may mandate how hours must be recorded in a pilot's log book.