WIX Archives

Re: The problem with aviation books.....

Posted by Jeff on Sun Apr 18, 2004 09:42:36 PM

In reply top Re: The problem with aviation books..... posted by JDK on Sun Apr 18, 2004 04:53:36 PM

Hi JDK,

: I DON'T trust the vets overall; not to say their input and
: firsthand accounts aren't vital; but the number of myths
: and misconceptions perpetrated by those who were there are
: equel to those perpetrated by those who weren't there!

I've found that quite a bit sometimes as where I was working and the family situation I have I get to hear or used to quite a bit from the vets. One of the things which amazed me is how the vultee vengeance was treated, the plane my father flew in so reasonably well researched. Only one author have I found so far that treats it with anything more than saying " dismal failure, no use to anyone." and that is Peter C. Smith. Strangely enough the views he states in his books coincide with what I've heard from the vets here, he even interviewed people I have met and know to have been the local experts on this aircraft.

: right, we work hard to make less mistakes than the others.
: (www.mmpbook.biz if you wish to know)

Wouldn't come up for me which is a pity as have a friend who is trying to become an author but, judging from the numbers the only publisher she's tried so far have quoted, she'd be being ripped off. I just wanted to ask your opinions of the costs she was quoting for having a book published.

: One example. The Boulton Paul Defiant was intended as a d
: estroyer of unescourted bombers. At that it was (at night
: ) and would have been excellent. However, as we know, the
: Germans occupied Europe (not part of the plan!) and Germa
: n fighters devistated the Defiants. Almost all authors br
: and the aircraft as a failure (which it was) in its chosen
: role (which it wasn't) as the role it was a dsaster in wa
: s not it's intended role. It's a subtle point, and someth
: ing difficult to put accross. That's the trick!

Great example! In some ways agrees with the documented ( pictures and text ) of a "trial" done of the vengeance aircraft where a high ranking american general said "Put a bomb between those 2 anthills and hit one of the others and I'll see about you getting combat" ( not quite those words but close enough ). The squadron in question did that ( pictures of the bomb damage are available ) but still was not put or used for dive bombing. BTW our ant hills are about 8 or 10 foot high for a big one and about 2 foot through and when painted white might make reasonable targets or reference points.

Funny how in the light of such accuracy it was a failure as a dive bomber, especially with a dive angle of 90 degrees where almost no AA guns could even get to that angle. So much for the british argument of " the damage to the diving aircraft would be suffiently high from a determined and measured defence as to the attackers losses prohibitive." eh?

just my 2c worth too

Jeff

Follow Ups: