Warbird Information Exchange

I'm not sure where this post goes so if we need to move it, that's fine.

I'm just curious if there is any correlation between the most successful fighter pilots (trained in North America) during WWII and the type of primary training plane they flew? I suspect there were more Stearmans used than any other type of PT (both Navy and AAF) so from a shear numbers standpoint, the Stearman would probably win. But could somebody say, for example, that fighter pilots who trained in N3Ns scored more air to air victories on average than guys who trained in any other type of PT?

This is question is based on a "bar bet" so it's important that I try to get the facts correct and be able to back them up.

_________________
Albert Stix Jr.
"Work is the curse of the drinking class"

Having been involved in training fighter pilots for several recent years, I'll add my perhaps unrelated opinion to this.

There is currently very little correlation between the skills learned in pilot training (especially early/primary training) and the skills that make a great fighter pilot. In fact, what is learned in primary training is probably about 1/10 of what is relevant to a fighter pilot's success.

In addition, most of the time shooting down another aircraft has a lot more to do with being at the right place at the right time rather than being a superior pilot or dogfighter.

So, if there is any statistical relationship between type of primary trainer flown and number of air to air victories, it is most likely just correlation rather than causation.

I'm willing to bet that the guys that learned in Stearmans were the REAL ass-kickers - right Albert?

I tend to agree with Randy Haskin that the type trainer, especially primary trainer in the primary/basic/advanced model of WWII, would not be very significant towards later combat skills. For what it is worth, Robin Olds told me he trained in a PT-19. Naturally, there was a bit more of a story there, too.

Randy

I've been training pilots to fly high performance airplanes all through my tenure in aviation. If asked, I would say that the type of trainer used to train the fighter pilots in WW2 had little to do with the eventual success rate of these pilots in combat.
Every pilot who obtained wings during this period went through their service's respective training programs, many flying the same type of training planes.

Going through post PT and through what would have been in their day fighter lead in, each pilot again got the same indoctrination to the basics involved with combat flying.

Entering combat, or ANY post training operational environment, pilots begin to develop the ATTITUDES and HABIT PATTERNS they will carry with them into this environment. To quote a famous German ace of that period, "In combat, there are those who hunt and those who are hunted. To survive, one must HUNT!.
So the bottom line on the "aces" is that every one of them was in that "hunter" category. This type of personality that led not only to survival, but high kill numbers is what set these pilots apart from the rest, not the type of training planes they flew during their training.

_________________
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

What table were you guys sitting at in the bar the other nite? Were you guys on a bar stool too far down for me to notice you? These are many of the same points that came up during the initial debate. I appreciate the input and I agree (mostly) but still, there is an answer to this question. I'm just not sure how to compile the data. Now stop being so evasive and help me figure this out! I've got a case of Ace Pear Cider and a fifth of Wild Turkey Honey riding on this! Here's a link with a list, let's figure this out!

http://www.planet.fi/~mohman/alliedaces ... %20America

_________________
Albert Stix Jr.
"Work is the curse of the drinking class"

Rather than primary trainer there is something much more important. Talking to some of the old WWII guys I learned something.

It seems as though a LOT of the ACES, joined the AAF as acomplished pilots. They had their ratings and sometimes several thousand hours of time. AAF management made them "leaders" of one sort or another and that allowed them an opportunity to score more kills, since they were the ones pulling the trigger and not playing wingman and covering someone else instead of shooting down 109s, etc........

I think that combined with superior EYESIGHT (visual acuity) in the pre radar days made the real difference. A lot of the ACES were beyond 20/20, most 20/10 and a few 20/5 (what we can see at 5' they can see at 20', rare, but it occurs)..........

So that may well be a better answer to a different question.........

Mark H

_________________
Fly safe or you get to meet me .......

I still think this is a simple question that has a simple answer. The interpretation of the results is where things are likely to get really complicated and probably a bit controversial. Both Randys, Dudley, and P51Mstg make excellent points. Dan Jones and I might like to see the Stearman come out on top in the final "adjusted" numbers but I doubt that it will work out that way. I understand that a great primary trainer does not necessarily spit out a great fighter pilot. There are many factors that need to be considered. Let's face it, who do you want in the cockpit of the 767, a first class, top of the line ex-Air Force C-130 driver with thousands of hours and a great safety record or a carnivorous, balls out, F-15 driver with a few air to air victories in the recent conflicts in the Middle East? Oh boy, now I've stepped in it.

Let's just take the list of pilots from the United States in that link I posted that starts at 40 victories and ends at 15. This will probably take me some time so if anyone can fill in any information on the 72 heros on that list, feel free to help out.

*And for you folks that do not understand the origin of the term "balls out", get your mind out of the gutter!

_________________
Albert Stix Jr.
"Work is the curse of the drinking class"

Hi Albert,
I guess if you really want help, you'll need to offer a percentage of the prize!

Sorry I can't help, even for a bottle or two... That said, Randy Haskin's post I think makes a critical point - "So, if there is any statistical relationship between type of primary trainer flown and number of air to air victories, it is most likely just correlation rather than causation."

I'm right behind your winning the booze here, but the primary trainer type is going to be less relevant than almost any other factor you can think of, starting with opportunity for victories (theatre, timing, numbers) and down to physical - (health, diet, height, hangover)...

We are all familiar with the concept of 'lies, darn lies and statistics' - critically the reason for that abuse of data is grabbing unrelated stats and trying to 'prove' one is forcing the other. Obviously you'd never do something like that!

But hey, it's all for the prize! Good luck.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Well JDK, it's going to be even harder than I thought. Using Google as my primary resource for the last 90 minutes, I'm finding some specific PT information on these guys but mostly it just mentions where they did their primary training and when. Several of them flew more than one type of PT while others came into the military with some civilian training already done. Even more had pseudo military CPT training experience. What I have seen so far is indeed interesting. It's not working out like I thought it would.

_________________
Albert Stix Jr.
"Work is the curse of the drinking class"

This has to be a huge part of it. How many pilots were not tasked with air to air, or escort back in WW2.

I've spent a lot of time on the 474th FG that flew 38s in the ground attack role with the 9th AF in the ETO. One pilot in particular stands out as he was involved in a number of combats where his 38s were jumped and he somehow survived the odds and shot down bad guys despite never having the advantage.

I wonder what his 'score' would have been like had he been flying air to air instead of air to ground.

I'm sure there are any number of pilots who fit that profile too.

I had a chance to hear Bud Anderson speak one time, and at the same discussion was a 345th FS, P39/P47 pilot from the MTO who flew ground attack.

Bud talked about the one time he got hit in combat. The ground attack pilot laughed and said if they didn't get hit, they figured they weren't doing their job very well.

Bud went on to talk about some of his air to air kills. The ground attack pilot laughed again, and talked about the one time he destroyed a 109 on the ground. His comment was that while Bud shot "down" enemy planes, he shot them "up".

If was fun to watched the good natured banter between the two. Bud was very surprised to learn that there were 39s being flown against the Luftwaffe in 43-44 by USAAF pilots.

What, exactly, are you trying to "prove" in this bar bet?

If the hypothesis is that a particular type of trainer was "better" than another because it yielded more air-to-air kills or killers, then you are going to have a very tough time making that argument.

If all you're going to do is match PT trainer type against pilots with victories, and then use that to prove the point, then...well, then you need to have a better understanding about proving hypotheses. Such a comparison is NOT valid. You can't draw any conclusions out of such data alone.

Such a comparison makes about as much sense as this "proof" that fewer pirates in the world has caused global warming:

I think that graph is a bit out of date. There are several hundred pirates prowling the waters and seizing ships off East Africa now.

Back to the subject, I'd have to dig his biography out to be sure, but I think Gabreski did his primary training on PT-19s, and very nearly washed out. As mentioned by others, I think its not so much basic pilot skill, but attitude and habits that win in a fight. Gabby was set to go home (his bags were packed and on the plane) but decided to fly one more fighter sweep, when he was shot down.

But then I'm not even a pilot, much less a fighter jock.

SN

Apparently some 'great' wartime flyers weren't that great at flying, or that acid test 'landing'. Again, good flying skill isn't necessarily translated to an effective military pilot. (Presumably not killing yourself in an accident is useful though.)

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

This all started when one pilot said "the PT-X trained more guys that went on to become aces than any other PT". At first I thought, ok, I'll buy that but then I remembered that I'm from Missouri, the Show Me State, and a natural born skeptic. My reply was somewhat automatic. But then I was bluffing because he could be right. I have no idea what the statistics show. In any event, I'm pretty sure that the type of PT flown by guys that scored the most air to air kills will turn out to be one of many factors and probably not the most significant. Having said that, the small amount of data I have accumulated so far is showing a clear "ace maker"

What am I going to "prove" Randy? Nothing. Here are two interesting things that I've found so far.

Many of the aces from WWII built models as kids. So perhaps the Modelers Forum on WIX is a repository of potential aces?

Many of the aces from WWII were given their first ride in a plane by barnstormers in the late 1920s and early to mid 1930s. So maybe the EAA's Young Eagles program will generate some JSF aces in the future?

Randy, you need to show that chart to Al Gore. If we want to get rid of pirates, we need to increase our carbon footprint.

_________________
Albert Stix Jr.
"Work is the curse of the drinking class"