“In four years and more than 800 flight hours, there were a lot of notable flights, but the one coming to the mind was, perhaps, a very demanding sortie that I flew in a huge air defence exercise that included USAF. Two Mirages with my friend Lieutenant Maestre and myself, were scrambled to intercept two enemy aircrafts flying high with a northeast track, south of Madrid.Manises AB is placed east of Spain so they were flying approximately towards us.
In our first communication with our interception controller, he told us two traces were flying at 45 angels! (45,000 feet, so they were not hiding at all), and flying extremely slowly at about 200 kts IAS.Â
We were surprised because we had never engaged such a conspicuous target, and never one so high and slow, but up we went, climbing in afterburner, and reached 45 angels in about 10 minutes.
The second surprise (a nasty one) was that we had to maintain military power to stay at that altitude and speed (250 kts IAS). Flight controls and throttle had to be handled very carefully, or we could lose altitude or speed or both…and any sudden movement of throttles could lead to a compressor stall.
The third surprise was that we had radar contact with the targets when they were 25 miles away, very unusual for the old Cyrano II.
But the biggest surprise was having a tally-ho with two ponderous big B-52Es, (with radar-guided twin 20-mm cannon in the back), flying wide abreast. They were about 10 miles leaving a trail of black smoke behind them.
We had them in our 1 o’clock, so I decided to get closer and turn right towards their 6. When I was about 1 mile, the closest B-52 made a high bank turn towards me — which I was unable to follow because of my slow speed so I had to go down and accelerate again. My wingman did the same while approaching the second B-52.
It was easy for them turn like that at such an altitude, with those tremendous wings, but not for us.
So down we went, accelerated and set afterburner to climb again. This time we approached from behind them but then our radar warning lit up showing we had been locked on by their rear cannons. So we immediately broke, and headed down again. More afterburner, another climbing and this time we closed on them from their 3 o’clock.Of course they made their defensive 60º bank turns towards us, but this time we made some nice gun camera snapshoots with the pipper right between their wings.
After flying over them, we joined in close formation with their leader and flew with them for a short while to pay them our respects (a very short time indeed because we were a bit beyond our Bingo fuel). I’ll never forget that enormous aircraft turning hard towards me, it was terrific.”
Want to see more stories like this:Â Follow my vapour trail on Twitter:Â @Hush_kit
Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.Â
Like most MiG fighters, the ’19 was a rough and ready hotrod. Fast, agile and powerful — it was also ill-equipped, unforgiving and brutal. Armed with three 30-mm cannon and Sidewinder missiles, and the fastest acceleration of its generation, the MiG-19/F-6 of the Pakistan Air Force was flawed but potent. We spoke to Wg. Cdr. IrfanMasum about flying and fighting in the ‘Pack of Roaring Power’.Â
This site needs your help to continue. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements (any you do see, are from WordPress). If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.Â
“Immediately after fighter conversion on the F-86F, I was selected for MiG-19 (the Chinese version that we had was known as the F-6) rather than go to a F-86 fighter Squadron. I was excited that I was to fly the MiG-19 as it presented a formidable challenge to harness the ‘Pack of Roaring Power’ as it was known in the PAF. I did my conversion in the Conversion Squadron in the year 1975.
There was no dual seater for training, at the time, and we had to be prepared really well to fly solo the first time. A couple of fast taxi runs were given, though.
My very first impression was that the plane didn’t look very aerodynamic and was not the prettiest fighter on the scene. It had a thick wing with thickness to chord ratio of about 8%, which meant that it would not transition to supersonic speed easily. However, the two powerful engines gave it good initial acceleration and with 0.8 thrust to weight ratio, it climbed exceedingly well which made it ideal for point interceptions.”
You’ve also flown the F-86F, how did the MiG-19 differ from this?Â
“The F-86F had automatic leading edge slats, speed operated – a virtue not available to most other fighters around, not even the F-86E. That made the plane extremely manoeuvrable at low speeds. The MiG-19, on the other hand an aerodynamic problem where it would ‘adverse yaw’ at low speeds, often snapping out of hard turns during low speed manoeuvring. One had to assist a hard turn with a bit of inside rudder to keep it from ‘adverse yawing’.Â
Another major difference was in the fire control systems of the two planes. F-86F had a computing gunsight – where as the MiG-19 had a non-computing gunsight. That meant that the MiG-19 pilots had to pre-calculate (at various speeds, angles and distance scenarios) how much to lead the gunsight in order to hit the target, which bordered on the verge of judgement and estimated guess work envelopes.
The F-86F used six –three on each side of the nose – 20mm canons with a very good rate of fire. The MiG-19 had two side guns and one center gun and used 30mm rounds at an inferior rate of fire.
The major difference in combat area was that the MiG-19 was better in the vertical plane, where as the F-86F had distinct advantage in the horizontal plane.
There is no statistical data of the two adversaries in actual combat. But the Korean War did see MiG-17 pitted against the F-86 in actual combat.”
“The engines were powerful enough to get you out of a bad situation and the acceleration they provided was excellent, especially with afterburners.”
What were it worst qualities?
“There were quite a few bad qualities but the worst, in my opinion, was the thick wing which made transonic speeds (just short of Mach 1) very rough to ride through and almost uncontrollable, although it employed ‘short arm’ and ‘long arm’ technology to cater for it.”
How effective were its weapon systems?Â
“With 30mm canon, just one bullet hitting the target was enough to destroy it. That is if you had computed the gunsight calculations correctly. It had no forward-looking radar and no missile carriage capability. It was the PAF (Pakistan Air Force) which modified it to carry two US made heat-seeking Sidewinder missiles.”
“The fighter squadron that I served in was an ‘Air Superiority Squadron’ used for air defence and ground support roles.”
What advice do you wish you’d be told before flying the MiG-19?
“Don’t be scared of vertical manoeuvring the plane. The myth was that the Chinese did not fly it as a combat aircraft where one would utilise the vertical plane as well. The reason that vertical looping manoeuvres bled the speed too low to handle the aircraft turned out to be myth only. Once you learned to fly at low speeds it manoeuvered beautifully in the vertical plane too.”
Did you feel confident at the prospect of facing potential enemies in the aircraft?Â
“Absolutely. PAF put a great deal of effort in air combat training and DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training) for the ‘Air Superiority’ squadron pilots. The aircraft could hold it’s own in point interception and air combat roles.”
What was the fighter you feared fighting the most and why? What were the aircraft you expected to face in war?
“We did not fear fighting any opposing aircraft. The Intel, at the time, was that we were most likely to face the Hunter in the war as that was the aircraft which was to cross over the border to do battlefield air interdiction and airfield strikes. The Hunter was a manoeuvrable aircraft like the F-86, and we had gained valuable experience during DACT with our F-86s. So we pretty much knew what tactics to employ. Firstly, force the Hunter into a vertical plane combat where our superior thrust-to-weight ratio would give us a distinct advantage. Secondly, allow the Hunter to exit and then catch him with the  MiG-19’s excellent acceleration and let the heat-seeking Sidewinder do the rest. In our air defence role, we could have encountered Gnats and Canberra bombers. There were remote chances of encountering MiG-21 and Su-7 too.”
Did you practice dissimilar air combat flying? If so, against which types and how would you fly against them?Â
“We had three mainstay aircraft in the time period I was actively flying. The MiG-19, F-86F & E and Mirage III. DACT amongst all was an essential part of the training.
MiG Vs Mirage: As MiG pilots, we were always scarce on fuel, especially if we used after-burners – which we had to do in combat. Therefore, we always planned for a short engagement. MiGs would utilise the horizontal plane superiority against the Mirage and try and engage the Mirage in a ‘turning’ battle. MiG pilots had to rely a lot on clearing their tails exceptionally well, as the Mirage would try and merge the fight at high speeds to take a missile shot. Therefore, the MiG pilot had to spot him as soon as possible and quickly get a hard turn into him before letting the Mirage get within missile firing range. The Mirage would then exit still maintain high speed and outrun the MiG, only to re-engage/ merge the fight without getting into a turning manoeuvre.”
What did it feel like firing the guns on the MiG-19?
“The 30mm ammo really shook the aircraft and made vibrations that could be felt in the seat of the pants of the pilot. The central gun was very accurate. We, as MiG pilots, were always detailed to do gun harmonisation ourselves of the dedicated aircraft to our name. So, each pilot very much knew how accurately his guns fired.”
Which three words best describe the MiG-19?
 “Challenging – Powerful – Fun”
What equipment would you most have liked the MiG-19 to have been fitted with? What did it lack?Â
“The MiG-19s that we got from China were only equipped with two side- and one centre gun. Then, we modified it to carry heat-seeking Sidewinders.
It had no navigation systems except NDB. It could have done well if it had INS (Inertial Navigation System) or at least a HUD.”
What was your most frightening or memorable flight on the MiG-19?
“The MiG 19 was notorious for getting into spins without much warning due to it’s ‘adverse yaw’ attribute. And my most frightening episode also relates to this aspect.
I was an operational wingman in an ‘air superiority’ squadron with less than 80 hours on the type. During one of the air combat training missions, I got airborne as a part of a four-ship for 2 Vs 2 air combat mission.
During the very first merge, my section leader told me to make a hard 180-degree turn to the left. I remember going into a hard turn and lighting my afterburner. The next thing I remember is that the MiG flips out of the turn and starts spinning (this phenomenon was the result of the adverse yaw attribute of the MiG-19)
The spin recovery procedure was: “throttled idle, full opposite rudder to stop the yaw and shove the stick forward to un-stall the aircraft) – I did the procedure – The MiG kept spinning. I thought that I may have given the wrong rudder. So I tried to look at the ‘turn and slip indicator’ to see which side I was spinning. In the confusion and panic state that had set in, I could not ascertain which side I was spinning. Since the MiG was not responding, I applied the other rudder and waited. Fortunately, the MiG responded, and the spinning stopped, and I neutralized the rudder and the stick.
But my problem was far from over. Coming out of the spin, I found myself in a vertical dive and mother earth approaching at a rapid rate (during the confusion of the spin recovery, I lost track of height loss and descended below 10,000 feet – SOP was to eject if not recovered by 10,000 feet)
It finally dawned on me that I could not eject while being in a vertical dive, MiG speeding up, and the safe ejection altitude of 6,000 feet had already passed (the Chinese ejection seat had 6000 feet limitation for a safe ejection)
Having no other choice but to recover, I put the speed breaks out, pulled with all my might, and overstressed the aircraft by pulling some 7-8 gs – but broke my descent. And to my relief cleared the ground. By how much, I really don’t know – but I had a good look at the cattle grazing on the mother earth.
Although safe, I was trembling to no end. Didn’t give a call to my leader and went back to the Base to land. The amazing aspect of this episode was – which I was told in the debrief – that my leader was talking to me all the time. He told me over the radio the direction I was spinning in – didn’t hear him – which rudder to give – didn’t hear him again – and the whole recovery procedure – didn’t hear that either. He even advised me to check my height and if below 10,000 feet, eject – God, didn’t hear that at all.
How I didn’t hear any of it, beats me to this day. But that is how one’s brain can act when in an emergency situation.”
…and your most pleasant?Â
“My most pleasant moment was rather a cruel one. Having been pleased with myself in a certain situation, I was reported and disciplined verbally by the Officer Commanding.
I was made to scramble from ADA (Air Defence Alert) duty to intercept an unidentified target by the radar. I had full gun ammo load and two live Sidewinder missiles. My wingman was aborted on take off for technical reasons. So, I proceeded alone to the intercept point under full radar cover and spotted a rather large aircraft from some 20 NM. At first, I thought that a Soviet Bomber from Afghanistan may have strayed into our airspace. However, as I closed in I realised that it was an airliner (B747) of our very own National carrier. The airliner had strayed in the military training airspace. I was told by the radar to guide it out of the military air space. The airliner was on VHF radio frequency and I was on UHF. Not being able to talk to the airliner on the radio I got up close and used hand signals to guide it away from the military airspace. Having achieved the objective of the intercept mission, I felt pretty good and decided to barrel around the airliner. I started my barrel roll from his right wing, went around and under him to come back on his right wing again from where I had started.
I had no idea that the Captain of the airliner reported me for barreling around him and putting both aircraft and the passengers at peril. That is till I was called in by the Officer Commanding the next day to discipline me over the incident. Fortunately, the flak I got was contained to the office of the Officer Commanding only.”
Save the Hush-Kit blog. This site is in peril, we are far behind our funding targets. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements (any you see are from WordPress). If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.Â
How would you rate the MiG-19 in the following ways?Â
A. Instantaneous turn rates – Average
B. Sustained turn rates – poor as compared to F-86 and Mirage
C. Climb rate – Excellent with thrust to weight ratio of 0.8, it climbed really well.
D. High alpha – High Alpha (very high angles of attack – close to stalling angle of attack -where the nose of the aircraft is kept way above the horizon while maintaining low speeds) If you could control the adverse yawing, High Alpha was no great issue
E. Ease of flying – It was a difficult plane to fly primarily because of its bad aerodynamic behaviour. It would adversely yaw very quickly, had awful transonic range speed control, and its engines (axial flow compressors) were prone to stall if not handled properly.
Everything wanted to know about Indian air power but were afraid to ask here
Did you perform the ground attack role, if so what would you have been expected to do it in wartime and how did you prepare for it?Â
 “The MiG 19 was used in ground attack role utilising its three 30-mm canons and 8 rockets in two pods (modified to carry the pods by PAF) in support of the Army’s ground battle. Typical targets were troops gathering to create a bridgehead, troops on ground like convoys, tanks, artillery and radar stations and lines of logistics, railroad stations etc.
Typical training consisted of live strafing and rocket firing at targets in the firing ranges created for the purpose. This was first practiced by remaining in the traffic pattern of the firing range and repeating attack after attack. Later, put to test by means of tactical strikes where you had only one dive attack to hit the target.”
Tell me something I don’t know about the MiG-19?
IrfanMasum with his F-86F.Â
“Having highlighted some of the disadvantages of the MiG-19, I’d like to dwell on the fun part of flying it, that is after one had mastered the art of handling it in the air.
I pulled vertically up without the afterburner during one of the 1 Vs 1 combat training. The airspeed bled so fast that before I could recover, my speed was approaching stalling speed. I knew fully well that if I allowed any yaw at the time of stalling, I would enter in a spin. So, I held my rudders neutral to avoid inducing any yaw. Also, I pushed the stick forward just enough to go to zero-G – in a state of zero-G, the aircraft never stalls. Soon, the speed went to zero, and the MiG started sliding down while remaining in a vertical position, and the altimeter began to register a descent. I was thrilled that I was descending while in vertical position without stalling or spinning. My elation was rather short-lived as I realised that I must recover without stalling or spinning. It was not possible to drop the nose forward or back words to the horizon. The only option was to yaw the MiG and let the nose drop sideways to the horizon. Mindful that if I induce a yaw the MiG will go into a spin, I made sure that I maintained zero-g (which does not allow the plane to stall) and induce a yaw just enough to let the nose drop sideway as done in a ‘Stall turn’ manoeuvre – which I had learnt in my basic training on the ‘Harvard the T-6G’. I also had to counter the roll that the yaw would induce by applying just enough opposite aileron. To my great delight and relief, the nose dropped sideways to the horizon and I could complete the recovery. The amazing thing was that the engines, which were very prone to stall, did not.
Encouraged by this feat, I went on to repeat it again and again, each time recovering without any problem. Thereafter, I would employ this manoeuvre to shake off anyone who tried to get behind me in 1 Vs 1 combat. I would simply pull up vertically and unload to zero g, dropping my speed rapidly to zero. The chase aircraft would follow me and fall out of the vertical pursuit. I would then execute a stall turn and get behind him.
Some years later, when I became a combat weapons instructor, PAF got the dual-seater MiG-19, and I began to teach other instructors this maneuver and demonstrate it to the students.
Another aspect of the MiG-19 relates to the drop tanks it carried. It carried two 760-litre drop tanks, each of which had to be dropped in case of actual combat. With drop tanks, the Gs were limited to five and without drop tanks to six. Flight characteristics with drop tanks were more stable than in clean configuration.
Special thanks to @Le_Sabre54  for introducing me to the Wing Commander (Rtd). Â
The Vought Vindicator isn’t a superstar. It didn’t set any records, it didn’t win any major battles and it wasn’t famous in its own time. It was the first monoplane to equip a US Navy squadron, but by the time World War II rolled around it had largely been superseded by more advanced planes. It wasn’t particularly well-liked by its pilots; they called it names like the “wind indicator†and the “vibratorâ€. So why, then, does the Vindicator hold such a special place in my mind? Partly for for that very reason. Flying for the US Marine Corps and the French Navy, Vindicators played their part in the early stages of World War II despite insurmountable odds. At the battle of Midway, Captain Richard Fleming won a posthumous Medal of Honor flying a Vindicator, and French Navy Vindicators flew perilous raids against the advancing Germans. We tend to gloss over the support players in history, the ones who for whatever reason never become truly famous despite contributing their share to its outcome. But as the Vindicator shows, even the most seemingly insignificant figures have their stories to tell. So here’s to the Vindicator—and the underdog in all of us.
— Gray Stanback, college student and aviation enthusiastÂ
Save the Hush-Kit blog. This site is in peril, we are far behind our funding targets. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements (any you see are from WordPress). If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.Â
Were the weapon systems effective?Â
“Well, in those years nobody had weapon systems, maybe the Phantom was the exception. We had weapons and ways of using them. Our only ‘modern’ weapon was the radar guided missile Matra 530. We could carry just one in the aircraft belly hard point. It was big and heavy, and we didn’t like to fly with its added drag.
But the Cyrano II radar average effective range of detection was no more than 15 nautical miles, and if flying below 10,000 ft the ground clutter made it almost impossible to see any radar returns – so it was not a really effective weapon.We trusted our eyes much more than the old Cyrano II; we had two Sidewinders AIM-9B, two powerful cannon and we mastered their use.”
What was the most frightening mission you flew?Â
“I had a very frightening mission — but was it my fault. The Mirage III was a noble steed, though you had to be careful when flying at the envelope limit.It was a one-on-one dogfight training flight in my Initial Training Course. I had about 25 flying hours on the type. Remember what I said before? The Mirage offered really no mercy to rookies.
I was flying on a two-seater Mirage IIID, with my instructor in the back and my sparring partner was our Squadron Chief, Lieutenant Colonel Quintana who sadly passed away a couple of years ago. I, of course, wanted show to off my flying skills, but my aircraft had other ideas.
The first engagement began with me 2,000 ft higher, and on his 5 o’clock. Both of us were at about 450 kts. I called “engaged” and he broke hard towards me. I had the advantage in speed and altitude so I let him pass left to right in front of me, and pulled up to exchange speed for altitude while turning right towards him. I still had a good position – and the advantage, so next our cross was almost equal, with both trajectories crossing with an angle of around 60 degrees. In this cross he already had his nose down.
I still was turning hard right with not too much energy but when he passed again in front of me, I decided to change my turn to the left to get behind him. It was a good manoeuvre with enough energy for softening the turn but that young lieutenant maintained the G’s. It looked like my aircraft agreed with me for a couple of seconds, and then suddenly changed its mind and gave me the most vicious self righting turn while stalling, and then going into a steep spin.
I controlled the spin while the instructor yelled at me in the interphone, and recovered after two rounds in which I lost 14,000 feet of altitude! The aircraft wanted to give me final lesson for the day, and promptly gave me a compressor stall to fight after the spin recovery. This at least, was easy: throttle back to idle and very gently, again forward. To understand how fast you could lose altitude in the Mirage III, we began at 35 angels (35,000ft), and recovered the compressor stall at 8,000 feet.
Then back to the base, to report the compressor stall to maintenance, and enjoy a particularly ‘nice’ post briefing.”
Which aircraft did you fly against in dissimilar type combat training?Â
As Spain was not yet in NATO, we were limited to dissimilar with Phantoms from the 12th Wing, based in Torrejón Air Base, and Mirage F1 from the 14th Wing in Albacete Air Base. Once a year we took part in exercises with the US Navy 6th Fleet.This gave us the opportunity of having some very boring dogfights with the Tomcats.”
Mirage versus F-14 Tomcat
“Regarding our exercises with the US Navy’s 6th Fleet, we always played the bad guys trying to attack and sink the carrier, but it was almost impossible. Think of 20 destroyers and cruisers around, all of them full of long and short range guided missiles -and leaving no hole to go through. So at the end of our attacking run, we used to meet a couple of Tomcats, but maybe they knew we had been killed three or four times before arriving there, so they didn’t seem eager for a bit of rock ’n’ roll. A couple of turns with their wings fully extended, and that’s all folks. Anyway, we were at low altitude.I don’t know why they never planned for real dissimilar dogfights with us as part of the exercises. They were not interested. Pity. You know what navies are like though…”Â
Mirage III versus Mirage F1
“The Mirage F1 was a completely different thing. They had a lot of advantages over the Mirage III: Better engine, 7200 kgs against our 6700; the aircraft was a ton lighter; it had no need for external tanks so always flew in a full clean configuration; automatic slats and flaps; and better radar and a HUD. Only the weapons were equal: Sidewinders and guns. To dogfight them was real hard work for us. We had to emphasise mutual support to stop them entering firing range. If we reached an advantageous position on one of them, they only had to zoom up and comfortably wait up there for us to nose down and generate sufficient speed to follow. Our only resource was the diving acceleration, so the usual tactic was fly towards them at full throttle, kill the speed to get a position to fire the Sidewinder and escape diving like hell. I remember the F1 pilots complaining because we always tried to avoid close dogfight. Our answer always was: give us your engine and your automatic slats/flaps and we’ll stay for close dogfight.”Â
Want to see more stories like this:Â Follow my vapour trail on Twitter:Â @Hush_kit
Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements (any you see are from WordPress and not us). If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. This site needs donations to keep going, thank you.
What were you first impressions of the Mirage III?Â
“I was a young lieutenant, 24 years old, fresh from the Spanish Air Force Fighter School, and with about 450 flight hours in my log when I first encountered a Mirage. It was an impressive and beautiful aircraft, and the 11th Wing (based in Manises Air Base, near Valencia) was an elite unit, heir to the Garcia Morato, (40 victories ace), standard and badge. I was assigned to 111th Squadron, (triple one, the best one), and so began the four best years in my life (nowadays the 11th Wing is based in Morón Air Base flying Typhoons).
The Mirage III entered Spanish Air Force inventory in 1970, surrounded by a great aura won in the brutal skies of the Six Days War. By the time I arrived, this formidable reputation was further cemented by its performance in the Yom Kippur War.
Our’s was the Mirage IIIE version with a better radar than the C one, a Doppler navigation system and a different vertical stabilizer.â€
What was the cockpit like?Â
“It was narrow, as was usual in French aircraft of its time (the F1 cockpit was the same). I was always very surprised whenever I saw those Phantom pilots walking towards their aircraft with a big bag in their hands; there was not room enough for a sandwich bag in the Mirage III cockpit.
It’s almost as if ergonomics was invented after the Mirage III cockpit layout was designed.We had to push or pull at least two or three switches placed in different control panels to arm the weapons. Being good at twisting your torso was compulsory. I especially remember the starting button which was placed well behind the thrust lever and you had to push it by putting your left hand about 20 cm behind your back. The radar screen had insufficient brightness so they placed a plastic cowl about 30 cm long, which protruded towards your face (the display was in the centre of the frontal panel). As a result, ‘the ball’ (theattitude indicator) was displaced to the left. It was the first and only time I’ve flown an aircraft without the ball in directly front of my eyes. Added to this is the peculiarly French custom, of having the ball’s vertical reference at the bottom. Anyway, after a dozen of or so flights you were happy with the complicated dance your fingers had to perform around the cockpit. Instead of HOTAS we had ‘HATC’, (Hands Around The Cockpit)!”
What were the best things about the Mirage III?
“First it was beautiful, complying with the first Law of Aerodynamics: ‘beautiful aircraft fly well’ (the opposite is also true, ‘ugly aircraft fly badly’).The Snecma Atar 9C was a very reliable engine, very resistant to compressor stalls and almost immune to flame out in flight. It was very easy to fly if you had enough speed, and stable around its envelope. We always flew with two supersonic fuel tanks but the aircraft behaviour was very docile. It was also very strong. It had a landing gear that would have been strong enough for carrier landings and it wasn’t unusual to see 30 people over the wings and fuselage posing for a photo. We didn’t need any ground support to start the engine. Which was very good for detachments. It was very good at accelerating in a dive, no aircraft of that time could follow us. The aerodynamics were excellent but designed for high speed.
It had double speedbrakes coming up and down the wings adding stability if you had to deploy them, and of course an Stability Augmentation System for pitch and yaw (or in french ‘tangage’ and ‘lacet’.”
What were the worse things about the Mirage III?
“It was underpowered, very underpowered, so no close or turning dogfight was possible. Common word at the time said that the Snecma Atar was a development of BMW engines of Me 262, and sometimes it appeared that this was true! Power supplied was 6700 kgs with afterburner, while normal take off weight was around 11000 kgs. There were no flaps or slats which would have aided its dogfight performance. There was also nothing to compensate for the huge induced drag caused by the big delta wing, and the very long take off and landing runs. The approach speed was 185 knots (which would need to be adjusted to accommodate any extra weight). We always used the brake chute on landings. The engine was a plain turbojet and was as thirsty as hell with or without afterburner. When we pushed it into afterburner, as we would for a whole dogfight, the fuel burning rate jumped to infinity. To worsen this problem, the internal fuel tanks had a capacity of only 2980 litres which made for two dogfights near the airfield and 45 flight minutes. That’s why we always had those two external tanks 500 litres each.”
Save the Hush-Kit blog. This site is in peril, we are far behind our funding targets. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.Â
What was the role of your squadron?Â
“In my time it was 80% air defence and 20% ground attack, which was changed to 60/40 a few years later.”
Was the Mirage effective at this role?Â
“First we have to understand that the Mirage III was designed in the late fifties — and as a fighter interceptor, which meant climbing and flying as fast as fast as possible towards the target to intercept it as far as possible from home. It was similar to the F-104: no multipurpose intentions, no manoeuvring dogfight expected..
After the late fifties designers stopped creating fighters optimised for Mach 2, as it’s not very useful.
But the Mirage III was good in a dogfight in the hands of an experienced pilot. But no mercy for rookies. By the end of its life, we were quite proud of what it achieved in dogfights against far more modern aircraft.In war, the Mirage proved to be extremely effective in air-to-air fighting, as demonstrated by the Israeli air force.
While it wasn’t supposed to be its business, the Mirage III behaved quite well in the ground attack role, but again, good training was essential.
We had no frills to aid our aiming, just a fixed pipper which had to be calibrated by the pilot according to the weapon type. We had no guided bombs, just 2.75 rockets or the two 30-mm guns. We had a firing range 20 minutes flight time from the base, which was built to train our Wing, but was also frequented by other squadrons, and we flew a lot of missions out there. The Mirage III’s horizontal stability was a boon in the ground attack role, making it quite easy putting the pipper on target and keeping it there — but you had to fly at the right speed and with the correct diving angle or your bomb could fly out of the range. It was easier with the rockets of course, but 100 feet short or beyond the target was still a normal score for unexperienced pilots.
With the guns (or cannons as we called them), coming very close to the target made it easy to hit it, and the bullets dispersion was straight enough to make really big holes, one 30-mm bullet, one foot long, was something. The problem was we only had 230 bullets, and a firing rate of 1,300 bullets per minute. The Mirage III payload was small and we always needed external tanks for ground attack, so never had more than three hard points available. In the inner wings hard points we could take two special fuel/bomb carrier tanks with four 250 kgs bombs attached and a capacity of 500 litres. It was called the RPK-10. Our Phantom colleagues made a lot of jokes about the fact they could carry more rockets than we bullets…and it was true! We answered by saying that we flew fighters, not bombers.”
Want to see more stories like this:Â Follow my vapour trail on Twitter:Â @Hush_kit
Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.Â
Save the Hush-Kit blog. This site is in peril, we are far behind our funding targets. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.Â
“Let’s start with the big and comfortable Phantom F-4C. I did a lot of dissimilar training with them, usually two-on-two. It had a couple of characteristics in common with the Mirage III: if you meet one with an experienced pilot driving, it was a very hard adversary- and it needed a lot of finesse with the controls at low speed. They had to turn by using their feet whenever they had their nose very high! We preferred high altitude to have room enough to manoeuvre while they always wanted to take us down below 20,000 feet.
Their main advantage lay in the systems. The Phantom had a powerful radar, four eyes looking around, long range missiles two fantastic engines, but no guns, so they always tried not to get closer than 1.5 or 2 miles from us. We denied them that possibility because is easier to close than to fly apart if you have an aircraft which accelerates like hell as soon as you put down your nose. Avoiding a Sidewinder is not so difficult if you are near the firing aircraft, and with speed to brake.
It was very easy to spot Phantoms from 6 or 7 miles because that huge black smoke trail that their engines left behind (except in afterburner) and because it was a big bird. We always had a lot of fun in dissimilars with the Spanish Phantoms, the post briefings were real hard battles, and everyone learned a lot about dogfighting, mutual support and extracting the best from our Mirages.
Scissoring with a Phantom was something you remember forever. Only two crosses were allowed.. but what exciting crosses! Sometimes the first engagement ended before beginning — if both pairs crossed, we pulled hard up and they dived down so both lost visual contact of each other.
It was so much fun with the USAF Phantoms. The last mission I flew before leaving 11th Wing was a week long detachment in Torrejón AB to train our American fellows in tactics against the Mirage III.
They flew the F-4D, a bit better than C, but still no guns. To begin with, their briefings were 2 hours long! Rules of Engagement took 45 minutes.
I remember after finishing the first one, the Major leading the flight asked me, “How long you need from you arrive in the aircraft and be ready to start engines?â€Â I said five minutes. He raised his eyebrows and said “Five minutes? We need 30 minutes at least”. My God!Â
As we were there to do what they needed from us, we flew as required two manoeuvres and then knocked it off, and repeat and repeat. After two days we were able to have some fun and they got a couple of surprises, and hopefully some lessons.”Â
Save the Hush-Kit blog. This site is in peril, we are far behind our funding targets. If you enjoy our articles and want to see more please do help. You can donate using the buttons on the top and bottom this screen. Recommended donation £12. Many thanks for your help, it’s people like you that keep us going.
Want to see more stories like this:Â Follow my vapour trail on Twitter:Â @Hush_kit
Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.Â
To celebrate the launch of the Hush-Kit 2018 calendar (a visual feast starring the greatest aircraft designers and their fantastic aircraft) we are asking you to design an aircraft. The winner will receive one of our limited edition calendars. No need to worry, you will not need to perform detailed wind tunnel calculations, we simply ask to see an annotated sketch of the basic shape.
The first type we would like to design is:
A 1960 fighter aircraftÂ
Specs: The aircraft must have a range of at least 400 nautical miles. It must have a maximum speed over Mach 1.6. It should have a short take-off and landing performance. It should carry at least one cannon and four air-to-air missiles. The type should have a good dogfighting performance.
Rule: The type can only use technology available in 1960
The winner will be selected on the 28th December 2017.
The limited edition Calendar features
12 Spectacular hand-drawn illustrations of the world’s greatest aircraftÂ
13 aircraft designers in swimwear and other revealing outfitsÂ
25 Significant aviation dates across the yearÂ
A boost in your social status in the eyes of other sophisticated aviation enthusiastsÂ
(this calendar is real by the way)Â
Submit your designs to Twitter:Â @Hush-Kit or Email: hushkiteditorial@gmail.comÂ
_______
Order your 2018 calendar through @Hush-Kit or hushkiteditorial@gmail.com
This is an old article- here are the results for 2019.
Tactics, training and luck are the determining factors in who survives within visual range aerial combat. Despite the modern emphasis on beyond-visual-range combat, the vast majority of fighter versus fighter engagements have taken place at close ranges. The following ten are the best fighters for this mission. The order is more or less arbitrary, with different aircraft having the advantage at different altitudes and air speeds. By its nature, any top ten is simplistic and should serve as the basis for discussion rather than as a conclusion.Â
Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. This site is in peril as it is well below its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.
10. McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F-15 Eagle
Once considered top dog, the F-15 is now making room for younger aircraft. In exercises, the type still does well, but this says more about the pilot quality than any inherent advantage of this platform in the WVR arena. Well-armed, well-equipped and powerful, it is still an aircraft to be respected. In later exercises against India, it is reported to have been able to use superior tactics to defeat Su-30s, despite the Russian aircraft enjoying greater manoeuvrability at low speeds. Powerful and reliable, and flown by some of the best fighter pilots in the world (in USAF service), it remains an adversary worthy of great respect, especially at medium altitudes.
Rumours from China describe the J-10 performing well in DACT exercises against the far bigger Su-27/J-11. If these rumours are to be believed then the J-10 would prove a handful for any Western or Asian fighter types that had to face it in a turning fight.
With a maximum G-rating of +9 / -3 and a maximum sustained turn load of 8.9g, the type has demonstrated impressive performance at several public airshows. It scores highly on turn radius, low visual signature, low-speed capabilities and also has excellent pilot vision. The recent addition of the PL-10 advanced short range missile dramatically improves the aircraft’s within visual range potency. The aircraft is powered by the by a single Saturn AL-31 (as used on the ‘Flanker’ series’), a trusted engine that is extremely resultant to extreme manoeuvring. It is perhaps caution, due to a paucity of information, that places this aircraft so low in the list. The new J-10C variant is may benefit, even in the WVR regime, from its new AESA radar and refined avionics.
 HMD/S: Yes
Advanced SRAAMs: Yes, PL10
Visual stealth: Excellent
Thrust-to-weight ratio: Good
High alpha performance: Good
Sustained turn rates: Good
Instantaneous turn rates: Very good
The recent addition of the PL-10 advanced short range missile dramatically improves the aircraft’s within visual range potency.
8. General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin F-16
The Viper remains potent at the mission it was designed for: the close-in dogfight. The Viper has grown fatter with age, so the early Block aircraft are the most spritely, this combined with JHMCS and modern missiles, like the AIM-9X, Python 5 and  IRIS-T keep it a foe to respect. It is small and hard for its opponents to keep visual tabs on, it has an impressive turn rate and has better retention of energy than larger-winged peers like the Mirage 2000. Below 10K feet the F-16 is similar in performance to the Typhoon. Most F-16 models have a better thrust to weight ratio than the Super Hornet (when similarly equipped). The Python 5 is regarded as one of the best air-to-air missiles, it has a very large weapon engagement zone (WEZ) and a high resistance to countermeasures. According to one defence writer close to the UK Typhoon force, RAF pilots had greater respect for the F-16s than the Gripens that they have encountered in wargames.
Was the Spitfire overrated? Full story here. A Lightning pilot’s guide to flying and fighting here. Find out the most effective modern fighter aircraft in beyond-visual range combat. The greatest fictional aircraft here. An interview with stealth guru Bill Sweetman here. The fashion of aircraft camo here. Interview with a Super Hornet pilot here. Most importantly, a pacifist’s guide to warplanes here. F-35 expose here.Â
This is an old article- here are the results for 2019.
7. RAC MiG MiG-29
Despite its age the MiG-29 remains a fiercely capable dogfighter, sharing many of the weapon systems of the ‘Flanker’.  The Indian MiG-29K/KUB with the TopOwl helmet-mounted and R-73E is the best-equipped variant in the WVR scenario, but is normally limited to 7G, whereas land-based ’29s are 9G capable. The tough structure offers a degree of battlefield protection according to MiG who have assessed the type’s performance in actual wars. According to at least one MiG-29 pilot, the type enjoys a small, but significant advantage over the F-16 in the merge. One USAF F-16C pilot (Mike McCoy of the 510th) who flew BFM against MiG-29s noted, “In a low-speed fight, fighting the ‘Fulcrum’ is similar to fighting an F-18 Hornet…But the ‘Fulcrum’ has a thrust advantage over the Hornet. An F-18 can really crank its nose around if you get into a slow-speed fight, but it has to lose altitude to regain the energy, which allows us to get on top of them. The MiG has about the same nose authority at slow speeds, but it can regain energy much faster. Plus the MiG pilots have that forty-five-degree cone in front of them into which they can fire an Archer and eat you up.” Luftwaffe MiG-29 Oberstleutenant Johann Koeck who flew against F-15s, F/A-18s and F-16s in extensive training exercises noted,” Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ I can’t be beaten. Period.”
Visual stealth: Medium (poor in early versions due to smoky engines)
Thrust-to-weight ratio: Excellent
High alpha performance: Excellent
Sustained turn rates: Good
Instantaneous turn rates: Excellent (28deg/sec)
6. Saab Gripen
‘Lose sight, lose the fight‘ is an old dogfighting adage and it is very easy to lose sight of the tiny Gripen. Though not the most powerful fighter, it is agile, well-armed and gives its pilot good situational awareness. Some Gripen operators employ an advanced helmet-mounted sight in conjunction with IRIS-T missiles, a sobering prospect for potential adversaries. The IRIS-T is a highly regarded weapon, with excellent agility and target discrimination. The helmet-sight is an adaptation of the Typhoon helmet, the most advanced helmet in operational service. The Gripen preserves energy very well, is hard to spot and has the smallest IR signature of the fighters on this list.
Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here– it doesn’t have to be a large amount, every pound is gratefully received. If you can’t afford to donate anything then don’t worry.
At the moment our contributors do not receive any payment but we’re hoping to reward them for their fascinating stories in the future.
The Rafale can maintain higher Alpha manoeuvres than the Typhoon.  It is very agile, with an excellent man machine interface and the most advanced aircraft cannon. Like most carrier fighters it is docile in the low speed ranges that most within-visual-range fights take place at. Whereas The Typhoon excels at high speed high-altitude manoeuvrability, the Rafale excels at low speed and low altitude, though its high altitude performance has also impressed French pilots. At sea level, the Rafale is reported to have a superior instantaneous turn rate to Typhoon. According to RUSI’s Justin Bronk, “In terms of horizontal manoeuvrability, Rafale has the better instantaneous turn rate allowing it to reverse its turns more quickly but Typhoon can sustain higher g’s for longer without bleeding speed. High alpha performance is similar, with both aircraft limited by their air intake placement and lack of thrust vectoring although Typhoon’s intakes can at least ‘gape’ slightly to increase airflow at high Alpha and low speeds”. Peter Collins who flew Rafale, and is knowledgeable of the Typhoon’s performance, claims that below 10,000 ft it would ‘eat Typhoon’. The Rafale lacks a helmet-mounted sight and its high alpha performance is inferior to that of the Hornet family. The Rafale has reportedly done well in DACT exercises against the F-22. The Rafale is an extremely tough opponent in the WVR regime. MICA has an LOAL capability allowing targets in the ‘six o’clock’ to be engaged. The addition of a helmet-mounted sight, something Indian Rafales will carry, would push the Rafale into a top three position in this list.
The Bug family have excellent nose authority, JHMCS and good missiles in the form of AIM-9X (or ASRAAM for RAAF legacy birds). At low level they are the equal of any operational fighter, but at higher altitudes (and higher speeds) they are at a disadvantage against more modern aircraft like the Typhoon, Rafale and F-22. The legacy Hornet is 9G rated as opposed to the larger Super Hornet which is stressed up to 7G for normal operations (it is really the legacy F/A-18 that deserves this high ranking but the Super Hornet is also highly regarded in the ‘merge’).  It has been noted by F-16 pilots that Super Hornets lose energy quicker than Vipers at higher altitudes. In a slow fight, no Western fighters can match either the Bug or the Rhino. One pilot who has flown the Super Hornet recommended that I mention the ‘Turbo Nose down’, a manoeuvre which utilises the aircraft’s excess power to rapidly push the aircraft out of high alpha flight. Australian Hornets have demonstrated an 180° missile shot with the AIM-132, firing the missile at a target in the firing aircraft’s 6’o’ clock in the lock-on after launch mode. The so-called ‘Parthian Shot‘ is a defensive boon, but demands a wingman with nerves of steel and faith in the technology!
Read more about flying the Super Hornet here and here.
(For the sake of brevity the two F/A-18 family members share one entry.)
Wild turn rates, a true 9G performance and enormous excess power make the Typhoon a hell of a dogfighter; the highly regarded G-suits worn by Typhoon pilots increase tolerance to the high forces generated by the energetic Typhoon. It also features the most advanced helmet mounted sight in service (and the newer Striker 2 is, according to one independent tester, ‘superb’), a powerful cannon and the excellent IRIS-T and ASRAAM missiles. The combination of advanced missile and helmet imbue the Typhoon with a terrifying off-boresight missile shot capability. Testing of the Aerodynamic Modification Kit, which includes modified strakes, extended flaperons and mini-leading edge root extensions may go some way to rectifying Typhoon’s main limitation – a pedestrian high alpha performance. But the Typhoon is not an ‘angles fighter’ like the F/A-18 which relies on risky (as they drain energy quickly) but startling attacks in the merge; the Typhoon is an ‘energy fighter’ using its phenomenal ability to preserve energy in a dogfight to wear its opponents out. In short, if an opponent doesn’t get a Typhoon on his first attack he is in a very dangerous position as a large amount of excess thrust makes the aircraft a very energetic adversary.
In exercises against Indian Air Force, RAF Typhoons used their superior energy and acceleration to ‘reliably’ trounce Su-30MKIs.
F-22 pilots who ‘fought’ the Typhoon in DACT were impressed by its energy levels (especially in the first turn) and several Luftwaffe aircraft proudly displayed Raptor ‘kill’ silhouettes beneath their cockpits. Â Like the Raptor, the Typhoon has such a formidable reputation that any ‘victories’ against it in training exercises make excellent boasts. At medium to high altitudes, the type is generally superior to the teen fighters in the WVR regime. According to one Typhoon pilot, its dog-fighting abilities are a close match to the Raptor’s, but Typhoon benefits from being smaller and better armed.
The Raptor’s excellent power-to-weight ratio, low wing-loading and 2D thrust-vectoring make it a fierce opponent in the visual range dogfight. The F-22 was the first fighter to be designed from the start to use vectored thrust for control. The rather poetic sounding ‘Carefree abandon‘ is built into the flight control system, allowing the pilot an awe-inspiring Alpha envelope without fear of departing controlled flight (it is also immune to deep stalls). The F-22 was designed to match or exceed fourth generation fighters, like the F-15 and F-16, in basic manoeuvring “..for instance from a high-g turn to straight-line acceleration..*”; it also had to move more swiftly between different manoeuvre states. The thrust vectoring is vital for this but comes at a cost. According to Typhoon pilots who ‘fought’ against it, the Raptor loses energy very quickly when employing thrust vectoring.It is also let down by its lack of helmet-mounted sight and its large size. The F-22 also lacks an infra-red search and track sensor. Until 2016 it was armed with the geriatric AIM-9M, but it now carries the AIM-9X. The internal carriage of its AIM-9X limits the way they can be used, and it only carries two. The F-22 has never been seriously challenged in wargames or DACT exercises, and though the WVR regime is not its strongest card (BVR combat is) it is still extremely hard to beat, to the point that any ‘kills’ scored by pilots against the Raptor become newsworthy. Its pilots are, outside of adversary units, probably the best in the world.
HMD/S: No
Advanced SRAAMs: Yes, AIM-9X
Visual stealth: Poor
Thrust-to-weight ratio: Excellent
High Alpha performance: Excellent
Sustained turn rates: Excellent (28 deg/sec at 20K ft)
Instantaneous turn rates: Excellent
1. Sukhoi Su-35Â
The Sukhoi Su-27 is no slouch in the dogfight, and this advanced derivative is even more potent; the fighter, of which there are currently 58 in Russian service, benefits from an additional 7,000Ibs of thrust combined with a variety of refinements. The Su-35’s engines, at maximum reheat, generate a staggering 62,000Ibs of thrust, which when combined with the ‘Flanker’ series superb aerodynamic configuration and vectored thrust nozzles, create an aircraft unparalleled in low-speed manoeuvrability. Whereas the F-22 relies on two-dimensional thrust vectoring, the Su-35 utilises 3D nozzles and a robust flight control system that have been perfected over the last thirty years.  A Su-35 (ably demonstrated by Sergei Bogdan) held the crowds of Paris 2013 spellbound with its demonstration of dramatic post-stall manoeuvring.
According to RUSI’s Justin Bronk in his Hush-Kit article Su-35 versus Typhoon, “The Su-35 can probably out-turn an F-22 in a horizontal fight at medium and low altitudes, but the need to carry missiles and tanks externally to be effective, as well as the brute size of the Sukhoi will ensure it remains at a distinct energy disadvantage to the Raptor in terms of energy retention and acceleration at all speeds. The F-22 also will not get into an angles fight with an Sukhoi – there is simply no need for it to do so.” .Â
Against Typhoon, “WVR, however, the Su-35 is extremely dangerous due to its phenomenal supermanoeuvrability due to its thrust vectoring engines and huge lifting body. Both in the horizontal and vertical planes, Typhoon would likely be outmatched by the Su-35 WVR, unless a Typhoon pilot could find space to accelerate vertically to gain an energy advantage without being shot down in the process. In reality, of course, whilst in a WVR dogfight situation the Su-35 does have a kinematic advantage, both aircraft are equipped with helmet-mounted sights to cue off-boresight missile shots and carry extremely manoeuvrable IR missiles with excellent countermeasure resistance. Neither is likely to survive a WVR ‘merge’ against the other…WVR combat, especially at lower altitudes and speeds favour the Su-35.”Â
A combat deployment to Syria revealed the types lack of maturity, but also fast tracked a modification programme to rectify the aircraft’s glitches. The type has been ordered by the Chinese air force who have received their first examples.
The Su-35 unique abilities will require unique tactics – if flown by well-trained pilots, the Su-35 will prove a worthy adversary to any in-service fighter in the vicious world of the low-speed furball.
 If you’ve enjoyed this article please do donate- you can help us.
So there we have it, or do we?
I asked a fighter pilot (with experience of flying most of the ‘4.5 generation’ fighter aircraft) his opinion on my top ten selection; he was keen to dismiss such a crude approach:
“It is complicated to discuss this issue in just a few words, but in order to produce a new look analysis on WVR, you should think about gyroscopic vs needle ‘driving styles’ (and the capabilities needed to play this or that, of course). So, you will pass through power-to-weight ratio, rudder surfaces, flying characteristics across different flight levels, etc. Until you get to the crucial area of energy management (that sifts the ace from the targets). It is all a question of control of the part of the egg you want to keep the fight, and well-trained pilots with good tactics will always try to keep the fight in a corner where they have some advantage. We’re not talking about an UFC card! It is team work.
The tactical egg is an imaginary bubble that represents all possible motions of an aircraft in a dogfight, showing the effects of gravity on the aircraft’s manoeuvring. Of course, new weapons (with the ability to lock-on after launch), helmet mounted sight, etc. are making the job much more complex.
Conclusion: This question requests hours of conversation and a dozen beers! ;)”
If this article infuriated you, try our top ten BVR fighters here
‘Only a twenty foot margin for error’ That sounds fun, where do I sign up?
Considering they invented the aircraft carrier, Britain’s Royal Navy has really pulled out the stops ever since to field as many aircraft as possible that were too slow, too dangerous, too late, too expensive or sometimes all four. Not content with producing their own obsolescent deathtraps, the Senior Service also took on cast-offs from the RAF and bought in the occasional American dud to swell the numbers of inadequate aircraft crowding the decks of their too-small carriers. Narrowing down this underwhelming armada to a flotilla of merely ten was a daunting and difficult task. We hope you will agree this was a valuable endeavour and time well spent.
Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. This site is in peril as it is well below its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.Â
10. Parnall Peto The Peto performs its famed Polaris impression
The Peto was, in its way, an excellent little aircraft but it was the realisation of a terrible idea if not a terrible flying machine. Tragically a single airframe (of two built) directly resulted in the deaths of 60 Royal Navy personnel, possibly the worst loss versus production ratio of any military aircraft. The Peto was designed for a seemingly ridiculous purpose, to serve as a scout aircraft for a submarine, in this case the Royal Navy’s largest, the M-class. The concept was also toyed with by the French, German, US and Japanese navies but only Japan pursued it with any seriousness or success. A diminutive machine for obvious reasons, the Peto had folding wings and was housed in a watertight hangar immediately ahead of the conning tower. The crew of the M2 were zealous in their attempts to launch the aircraft in the shortest possible time after surfacing. Probably a little too zealous as it turns out, witnesses on a passing ship, unaware that anything was amiss, saw M2 briefly surface, then submerge forever. When the wreck was discovered the hangar doors were found to be open: in their haste to launch the Peto the doors has been opened too early and the hangar flooded, dragging the M2, the Peto and sixty sailors to the bottom.
9. Curtiss Seamew A thing of beauty is a joy forever
Most of the best aircraft operated by the Royal Navy during the second world war were of American origin and types such as the Wildcat, Corsair and Avenger dominated FAA flight decks for most of the conflict. There were, however exceptions to this rule and chief amongst them was the appalling Curtiss Seamew. 250 were allocated for British use but only 100 were delivered before the Royal Navy refused to take any more and sensibly demanded Vought Kingfishers instead. It’s not entirely surprising that the USN had tried to offload as many Seamews as possible onto their allies; the Seamew didn’t even win the competition that selected it for service. A rival design by Vought was judged superior but Vought were busy with the superlative Corsair and Curtiss had spare capacity so into production the Seamew went, and the inexplicably large total of 795 of these unpleasant aircraft were manufactured. If it had been merely slow and uninspiring (which it was) it could have been written off as a humdrum mediocrity but the Seamew was also dangerous. Its main tank could hold 300 gallons of fuel but it couldn’t take off with more than 80 gallons on board. The Ranger engine of the Seamew was prone to regular failure but even were it to run perfectly the Seamew had other nasty tendencies as, according to the ATA pilot Lettice Curtiss, ‘it was possible to take off in an attitude from which it was both impossible to recover and in which there was no aileron control’
8. Supermarine Seafire Mk XV Thoroughbred or mule? The Seafire XV was both (It’s not a horse, Ed.)
The Spitfire’s experience at sea was not a wholly happy one. In the air the Sea-Spitfire retained all the qualities that had made the regular Land-Spitfire such a successful and popular fighter but revealed that the aircraft was essentially just too delicate for the rigours of operating from a carrier deck. The Merlin powered variants were bad enough but the first Griffon-engined Seafires really did not like being on carriers. They had a tendency to veer to the right on take-off, even with full opposite rudder applied, and smashing into the carrier’s island superstructure. Added to this was the unfortunate situation that the undercarriage oleo legs were still the same as the much lighter Merlin engined Spitfires, meaning that the swing was often accompanied by a series of hops as the oleo could not fully cope with the weight and torque of the aircraft. The weak undercarriage also conferred on the Seafire XV a propensity for the propeller tips to ‘peck’ the deck during an arrested landing and on some occasions led to the aircraft bouncing over the arrestor wires completely and into the crash barrier. Not ideal for a carrier aircraft and the RN offloaded the Seafire XVs onto the unsuspecting Canadians and French navies as soon as was possible. Tellingly both the Canadians and the French in turn replaced these aircraft (with the far more sensible Sea Fury and Hellcat respectively) after very brief carrier service.
7. Westland Wyvern ‘Note humped appearance of fuselage’ and terrified appearance of test pilot
A perplexing design described by Harald Penrose, Westland’s chief test pilot, as “very nearly a good aircraft”, the Wyvern suffered from the good old British problem of excessive development time, such that it was nudging obsolescence once committed to service. Part of the reason for this was not the fault of the design at all, the Wyvern had been designed initially to utilise the Rolls-Royce Eagle, a ludicrously complicated 46 litre H-block 24 cylinder sleeve valve piston engine (essentially a bigger Napier Sabre) that first ran in 1944 and delivered an impressive 3200 hp. Sadly for the Wyvern, the Eagle, though not without teething problems, fell victim to the wide-ranging cancellations of military projects immediately following the second world war that in one fell swoop effectively killed all non-turbine projects (even promising ones). Nonetheless the prototype Wyverns were Eagle powered and the sole surviving example is a never-flown example with the Eagle engine. Attention then swung to a promising turboprop, the Rolls-Royce Clyde rated at a lusty 4030 shaft horsepower. Fate was not to be kind to the Wyvern as Rolls-Royce themselves cancelled development of the Clyde due to the tiresome belief that pure jet engines were the way forward. This left but one suitable engine, the Armstrong-Siddeley Python and the Python was pretty woeful for carrier use. Slow spool-up time made for sluggish acceleration and a go-around or wave-off was a risky affair, the engine had a propensity to flame-out during catapult launches due to fuel starvation, and although the Python was supposed to be more powerful than the Eagle, the piston-engined prototype achieved a higher maximum speed and greater range than its Python powered production brethren a dismal seven years before the Wyvern even entered service. So saddled with a barely adequate power plant the enormous Wyvern attempted to operate from the decidedly small RN carriers of the 1950s. Weighing 650 pounds shy of a loaded Dakota the Wyvern could not be described as ‘sprightly’ and ultimately its main claim to aviation immortality derives not from any superlative quality of the aeroplane itself but from a desperate desire to escape it: Lt. B. D. Macfarlane made history on 13 October 1954 when he performed the world’s first successful ejection from under water after his aircraft had ditched on launch and been cut in two by the carrier. Of 127 built, 39 were lost to accidents and despite eight years of development flying, the career of the only turboprop fighter to see service was to last a mere four.
6. Fairey Swordfish Even during times of war it is considered bad form to attack deck hockey matches on your own carrier
Yes, yes, I know. The Swordfish was probably the most successful aircraft the Royal Navy has ever operated. If it had achieved nothing else, the attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto would have ensured the Swordfish’s immortality yet it also crippled the Bismarck and operated throughout the war, apparently sinking a greater tonnage of Axis shipping than any other Allied aircraft (though this depends on which sources you believe as the American Curtiss Helldiver, rejected for service by the FAA due to its “appalling handling”, is also claimed to be the top Allied anti-shipping aircraft by tonnage sunk). However, this glowing service record was not achieved because of the outstanding qualities of the aircraft but rather in spite of its shortcomings. In other words, imagine how much more might have been achieved had the Royal Navy been operating a modern aircraft of decent performance with reasonable striking power rather than the outdated Swordfish with its first world war performance and modest armament. The Swordfish stands as testimony to the appalling neglect of naval aviation in Britain throughout the inter-war period.
The best aspects of the Swordfish were straightforward – it was reliable, simple and easy to fly. It made for an excellent training aircraft but then so did its cousin, the Fairey Battle which regularly features in lists of the worst aircraft of the war. Yet the Battle was better armed, longer ranged and an order of magnitude faster than the poor Swordfish. Committed to similar combat conditions, the Swordfish was even less able to survive than the oft-maligned Battle. The Swordfish was appallingly slow, not very manoeuvrable and effectively defenceless when faced with even the most underwhelming of fighter aircraft. It is telling that in all its most famous successes the Swordfish never faced an enemy aircraft of any kind: it simply couldn’t. Bismarck had no air cover and the Taranto operation was flown at night. By contrast, in February 1941 all of the Swordfish force sent to attack the German capital ships engaged in Operation Cerberus, the so-called ‘Channel Dash’, were destroyed by fighters or flak. Of the eighteen aircrew involved, only five survived. It was dangerous to operate even a powerful anti-shipping aircraft such as the Beaufighter in European waters until the very end of the war, in a Swordfish it was effectively suicidal. Ultimately the success the Swordfish experienced was due to a combination of extremely canny tactical deployment by the Navy and the exceptional heroism and skill of its aircrews, not through any outstanding combat quality of the aircraft itself.
5. de Havilland Sea Vixen ‘I’m still better than a Scimitar!
Had it entered service with the RAF in the early fifties de Havilland’s last fighter would probably be remembered as a great aircraft. But it didn’t and the Royal Navy’s Sea Vixen turned out to be a death trap. 145 Sea Vixens were built, of these 37.93% were lost over the type’s twelve-year operational life. More than half of the incidents were fatal. The Sea Vixen entered service in 1959 (despite a first flight eight years earlier), two years later than the US Navy’s Vought F-8 Crusader. The F-8 was more than twice as fast as the Sea Vixen, despite having 3,000Ibs less thrust. The development of the Sea Vixen had been glacial. The specification was issued in 1947, initially for an aircraft to serve both the FAA and the RAF. The DH.110 prototype first flew in 1951, and one crashed at the Farnborough airshow the following year. This slowed the project disastrously, the RAF ordered the rival (and inferior) Gloster Javelin whilst DH and the RN focused on the alternative DH.116 ‘Super Venom’. Once the project became prioritised again, it was substantially redesigned to fully navalise it. Then, when the Royal Navy gave a firm commitment, it requested a radar with a bigger scanner and several other time-consuming modifications. All of which meant it arrived way too late, as is compulsory for all British postwar aircraft. Meanwhile its peer, the F-8, remained in frontline service until 2000, its other contemporary, the F-4, remains in service today. The Sea Vixen retired in 1972. Fifty-one Royal Navy aircrew were killed flying the Sea Vixen.
What’s the new Hawk like? Interview with a Hawk pilot here
4. Blackburn Firebrand Firebrand: Waste of a perfectly good Centaurus? Discuss
Despite being a decidedly purposeful looking aircraft the Firebrand was a pilot-killer. The specification for the type was issued in 1939 and it first flew in 1942 but did not enter service until after the war had ended. Despite this luxuriously long development (whilst the Navy attempted to decide whether they wanted a fighter or torpedo bomber or both and toyed with Sabre or Centaurus engines) it was an utter pig, with stability issues in all axes and a tendency to lethal stalls. There was a litany of restrictions to try and reduce the risks, including the banning of external tanks, but it still remained ineffective in its intended role and dangerous to fly. Worse still, instead of trying to properly rectify the problems, the FAA started a witch hunt of those pilots who dared to speak the truth about the abysmal Firebrand. Only two Firebrand squadrons formed, of which the flying complement was heavily, if not entirely made up of qualified flying instructors, suggesting only the most experienced pilots could be trusted with this unforgiving monster. Talking of experienced pilots, Eric Brown, arguably the most experienced naval pilot of all time had this to say on the Firebrand: “It was never a pilot’s aircraft – how could it be when he sat nearer the tail than the nose; as a deck-landing aeroplane it was a disaster and it was incapable of fulfilling competently either the role of torpedo-bomber or that of fighter, but it was built like a battleship – and there were to be those that would say that it flew like one”. Even so, somehow it managed to remain in service until 1953, double the length of time achieved by its successor, the similarly benighted Wyvern.
3. Blackburn Roc Roc: the wrong concept applied to the wrong airframe at the wrong time
Described as “a constant hindrance” by the commander of 803 squadron the Roc was an unhappy outgrowth of the mediocre but adequate Skua. The Roc essentially comprised the same airframe but saddled it with a gun turret weighing about a ton and adding enough drag to lower the speed of the already pedestrian Skua by some 30 mph. A maximum speed (at sea level) of 194 mph was simply suicidal for a fighter facing the Luftwaffe’s ‘109s. Add terrible agility, no forward-firing guns and you get the idea. Wisely, the military decided the best use for it was as a static machine-gun post but not before the Roc had seen some action and scored one confirmed kill. Remarkably the Roc’s sole victim was a Junkers 88, an aircraft capable of flying over 100 mph faster than the lumbering Roc.
2. Supermarine Scimitar A Scimitar holidaying on USS Forrestal wonders why it can’t stay on this lovely big carrier forever
The Scimitar was a case of too much too soon and its shortcomings were paid for in pilot’s lives. It suffered an appalling attrition rate of 51 per cent yet was a worse fighter than the Sea Vixen and a worse bomber than the Buccaneer. To add insult to injury it was also extremely maintenance heavy. Nonetheless the Royal Navy gamely took the Scimitar, an aircraft so dangerous that it was statistically more likely than not to crash over a twelve year period, and armed it with a nuclear bomb. Prior to this one example crashed and killed its first Commanding Officer in front of the press. The Scimitar was certainly not Joe Smith’s finest moment. It was the last FAA aircraft designed with an obsolete requirement to be able to make an unaccelerated carrier take-off, and as a result had to have a thicker and larger wing than would otherwise be required. Only once did a Scimitar ever make an unassisted take-off, with a very light fuel load and no stores, and then just to prove that it could be done.
1. HMA No.1 ‘Mayfly’ Does my back look broke in this: £28,000 of aircraft lost due to a light breeze
It’s fair to say Naval aviation started badly in the UK. In 1909, inspired by German Zeppelin developments, which despite their later fame as bombers were originally intended to operate as long ranged Naval scouts, the Royal Navy commissioned Vickers, at great expense, to build the world’s finest airship, intended to carry 20 crew in considerable comfort and capable of cruising at 40 knots (46 mph) for 24 hours. The aircraft that emerged was in many ways revolutionary, it had equipment to recover water from the engine exhaust to balance the weight of fuel as it was consumed, the structure made extensive use of the brand new alloy duralumin, the upper skin used reflective aluminium powder in its coating to minimise heat absorption, the control gondolas were watertight so that the airship could be operated off the surface of they sea and the hull applied the latest aerodynamic work and was claimed to offer 40% less resistance to the air than contemporary Zeppelins. Some time before trials were to be attempted the airship’s crew started training and it was charmingly noted ‘They lived on board the airship and suffered no discomfort at all although no provision had been made for cooking or smoking on board’. Over the course of the following year static trials were carried out and it was realised that the ship was too heavy. There followed a series of cack-handed modifications which reduced the weight of the aircraft by three tons. Gone was the water recovery system along with half the aerodynamic control surfaces and, most seriously, the external keel of the airship. This last modification was strongly objected to by a draughtsman from Vickers called Hartley Pratt who claimed it would prove disastrous but his warnings were ignored and he left the company. The airship was being removed from its floating shed in a light wind on the 24th September 1911 when cracking sounds were heard from amidships and it broke in two. The 156-metre-long aircraft had never flown, which was lucky, given its dangerously weak structure. As it was no one had been even slightly hurt in what was probably the least dramatic air crash of all time.
Even without provision for cooking or smoking, His Majesty’s Airship No.1 had ultimately proved more successful as a house than as a flying machine.
Want to see more stories like this:Â Follow my vapour trail on Twitter:Â @Hush_kit
Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. This site is in peril as it is well behind its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.Â
The more you give, the more we can give you 🙂
Want to see more stories like this:Â Follow my vapour trail on Twitter:Â @Hush_kit
Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. At the moment our contributors do not receive any payment but we’re hoping to reward them for their fascinating stories in the future.
“If you have any interest in aviation, you’ll be surprised, entertained and fascinated by Hush-Kit – the world’s best aviation blogâ€. Rowland White, author of the best-selling ‘Vulcan 607’
I’ve selected the richest juiciest cuts of Hush-Kit, added a huge slab of new unpublished material, and with Unbound, I want to create a beautiful coffee-table book. Here’s the book link . Â
I can do it with your help.
From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as
“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planesâ€.
The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.
FEATURING
Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
Bizarre moments in aviation history.
Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.
The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.
Rewards levels include these packs of specially produced trump cards.
I’ve selected the richest juiciest cuts of Hush-Kit, added a huge slab of new unpublished material, and with Unbound, I want to create a beautiful coffee-table book. Here’s the book link . Â
One of the most thought-provoking books I’ve read recently is England and the Aeroplane: Militarism, Modernity and Machines by the historian David Edgerton. I highly recommend the book which overturns several of the myths frequently perpetuated in British books about aviation. I tracked down David to find out more.Â
What are the big myths in our popular ideas of British aviation or British aviation history?Â
“It is hard to answer this question, since views differ, even popular views. Furthermore, stories change over time. I hope I had a good account of the dominant myths of British aviation prevalent when I was writing England and the Aeroplane in the late 1980s, but I am a bit loathe to speculate what dominant view is today. Back then, the story was one of aeronautical weakness, before 1914, in the interwar years, and indeed after the Second World War as well. The story of British aviation was basically the story of the fighter, of the moment of genius of 1940, the exception that proved the rule of decrepitude. That was the position I was arguing against then. Now, I fear that a certain kind of Brexiteer revivalist fantasising has overstressed British success in aviation.”
 Is Britain a particularly warlike nation?Â
“Once upon a time the story would have been: most definitely no. Britain was seen as peculiarly peace-loving, and thus prone to underinvest in armaments, including aeroplanes. More recently, opinion has changed, perhaps not surprisingly given the policies of successive governments. Since the 1990s at least they have shown an unseemly desire to go to war, and have succeeded in doing so. The United Kingdom returned East of Suez, from where it had pulled out in the 1970s, to wage war in Iraq, in 1991, 1998, and 2003, and in Afghanistan, and then in Libya. Let it be noted that these and other places where British troops were engaged, were once under British control.  It is not historical destiny which makes the British warlike, but particular political and military programmes of the recent past. So I would say that in the early twentieth century the United Kingdom was more warlike than myth suggested, much more so, but it is only in recent years that we have had a gleeful indulgence in military adventurism overseas. The United Kingdom did once have a major world role, now it just pretends to. It is now really a big Canada, but political leaders want to see themselves at the head of a small United States.”
It is commonly thought that British Governments destroyed or (at least badly damaged) the aviation industry in the ’50s and ’60s, is this true?Â
“Yes, it is indeed commonly thought, in certain circles. It is a very strange view for without the support of British governments there would essentially have been no aircraft industry at all. The argument amounts to saying that if the government had given even more support that it actually did then we would have a stronger aircraft industry today. To which the response might be, more Concordes or TSR2s would have done even more damage to the industry rather than strengthened it. Indeed that argument was made – the problem was indeed too many aircraft projects, all supported by government, stretching the technical resources of the industry. Too much innovation was supported, rather than not enough. I must admit I have not heard a convincing argument that supporting the V1000 or developing the P.1154 would have materially affected aeronautical history, though there is plenty of assertion to this effect. In short, it is a very complex issue which is discussed in simplistic ways. One common assumption was that governments were pig-headedly stupid and short-sighted. But the policies of governments were not stupid. There was a strong case for concentrating on fewer companies in the 1950s, and of pushing for European collaboration in the 1960s, and for reducing investment in a sector which for very good reasons would find it difficult to compete with the USA. Nor should be downplay success – the aero-engine industry has been successful, a very rare example of large British manufacturing firm having a serious place in world markets. Without decades of government support there would be no Rolls-Royce today.”
Was the mass bombing of cities a British idea?Â
“Not entirely, but it was not a hideous foreign invention which the United Kingdom belatedly adopted in the throes of the Second World War. Indeed the British commitment to strategic bombing, to the notion of an independent air force, emerged early and strongly. Thus the RAF was the first independent air force, created in 1918, and was clearly committed to a policy of strategic bombing. In the Second World War, it started bombing German cities, or rather trying to, in May 1940, before the Battle of Britain, let alone the Blitz. The idea of bombing cities, industry and the working population, was an extension of the notion of naval blockade. One could win wars not by engaging and enemy army, but rather by depriving the enemy of the capacity to wage war. This was what I called liberal militarism (though it had other features too).”
There appears to be a correlation between an interest in aviation and a rightwing political bent in Britain: is this true, and if so why?Â
“In England and the Aeroplane I wanted to pursue two separate arguments about the politics of aviation. The first was that liberals loved aeroplanes and saw them as means of overcoming barriers between nations and people, and indeed for waging efficient war against barbarians. This was the view of the great British liberal sage, H. G. Wells. A liberal account of the aeroplane has indeed been very influential in suggesting that aviation was fundamentally about transport, and in the end peace-creating. But there were other kinds of politics involved. It turns out that though lots of people concerned with aviation in the 1930s claimed to have been prescient in seeing the dangers of Hitler and Mussolini, and thus argued for air rearmament, many were in fact Nazi and fascist sympathisers. A good example of many was the editor of The Aeroplane C.G. Grey. But one could add Oswald Moseley, who was ex-RFC, and Lord Londonderry; the ‘Londonderry Herr’ they called him. He was Air Minister no less. The slate was wiped clean by wartime propaganda films, like First of the Few and One of our Aircraft is Missing. In the first the pro-fascist Lady Houston is celebrated for the support she gave to aviation, with no hint of her politics. In the latter, there was no mention that the film told the story of one of the leading pro-Nazi MPs of the 1930s. The story after the Second World War was rather different, but there was an element of the Conservative party at work about the aircraft industry. It is telling that both Frank Whittle and Barnes Wallis ended up on the right wing fringe of British politics.”
HG Wells
What led you to writing about ‘England and the aeroplane’, and what was the most negative response to it?Â
“A series of accidents. I had studied policy for the aircraft industry in the 1930s and 1940s for my PhD. I was then asked to write a short book on the history of the aircraft industry. It then turned out the same publisher had already commissioned a book on exactly the same theme! This was a blessing, as my research was taking me into rethinking the history of British strategy and the whole issue of the British decline, then a hot topic. I was thus able to fashion these new concerns into a much broader book, one which used a new history of the aeroplane to tell a new history of England, one which was not focussed on decline, or on the history of the rise of the welfare state. Indeed my aim was, at a time when declinism held sway, to write not simply an anti-declinist book, but a non-declinist alternative history which made sense of British history in new ways.
Curiously enough I don’t recall any negative response to it. In fact I think I was rather disappointed by the lack of reaction to what were some rather novel arguments which if true meant that declinist and welfarist accounts of the United Kingdom were finished.  As far as the RAF and aircraft industry history I told, I hope the reason for the lack of a negative response has been that even if at first some arguments might have seemed outrageous the evidence to back them up was there. Indeed the story I was challenging was a very weird confection removed from much contact with historical reality. Where I was disappointed with the response was that while the anti-declinist elements were widely noted, the positive part of the story tended not to be noticed. But that was then.”
Our ideas of the aeroplane seemed tied to Modernity and Imperialism; what do our ideas about drones say how about current views?Â
“I don’t know. I must admit I haven’t kept up with the issue of drones. But I can’t help noting that drones are in use by the RAF in parts of the world in which the RAF attempted to keep order by bombing. Perhaps we are being forced to stay locked in a past which has led in part to the tragedies of the present.”
The TSR2, P.1154 and V1000 are often cited as potentially great aircraft killed by a short-sighted government: what is your opinion of each of these and how successful they could have been?Â
“I don’t have an opinion on these questions. One would really have to know an awful lot about these particular projects, and the competition, and the requirements. I think it is up to those who suggest they were potentially great aircraft to make the case, but this is no easy task.”
What is declinism and why is it so appealing?Â
“Declinism is in my definition the idea that the relative decline of the UK was due to British national failings.  In reality most of the relative decline is the consequence of other countries doing better, and growing more in terms of population and output, than the UK. That is even if the UK had the most efficient economy in the world, it would still have been subject to much the same relative decline. Declinism has been appealing because it produces the illusory hope that if the country was able to overcome its failings it would be restored to its previous position.”
Many nations have martyr aircraft. The British have TSR2, the Canadians the CF-105 Arrow and the Australians the CAC Boomerang – how can weapon systems arouse such an emotional response?Â
“It is not because they are weapons they arouse such a response, but because they seem to represent a future that could nearly have been better. There has to be something especially futuristic about these aircraft to make them work in this respect. We need however to distinguish between cases of countries with small aircraft industries, and those with large ones. The martyr aircraft are characteristic of the former. Indeed it is worth remembering that in the 1940s and 1950s lots and lots of countries had jet fighter programmes that went nowhere. We need to remember that the engines for these fighters tended to come from the few countries which could make them. Alas there is much less appreciation of the real significance of engines, than the supposed significance of particular airframes.”
 What should I have asked you?Â
“Perhaps how did it feel to reread and republish England and the Aeroplane more than twenty years after it first appeared? My answer would be this: I couldn’t change the book because it had a form which it would not have if I were writing now. On the other hand, the book’s original intentions are more easily read from it, essentially because it does not seem so strange as it once did. It has thus had a much larger readership now that it ever did when it first appeared. I would like to claim I was prescient, but I wasn’t – for all sorts of reasons, good and bad, the story I told of a militaristic nation enamoured of machines has become easier to accept over time.”
David new history of twentieth century United Kingdom called THE RISE AND FALL OF THE BRITISH NATION to be published by Allen Lane/Penguin Summer 2018.
Hush-Kit would like to thank Rowland White for his assistance in this article.
Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. At the moment our contributors do not receive any payment but we’re hoping to reward them for their fascinating stories in the future.
