PDA

View Full Version : Favorite Aircraft History Books?


Dick Powers
9th February 2005, 19:53
Which do you consider the “best” World War 2 Axis or Allied (keeping our focus on this forum) aircraft history books? By aircraft history, I mean a book documenting the birth, life and final disposition of one particular aircraft design (the Lancaster, for instance), or a family of related designs (Me-110.210/410). Please limit yourself to aircraft history (mechography?..similar to the biography of a machine), and don’t include unit histories, campaign histories or other books. Those can wait for other discussions. Also say what you consider important in a “mechography”, and give reasons for your book selections.

In my own world, the “perfect” aircraft history would:
Document an aircraft which had not been covered in other books.
Discuss the design evolution, starting with the requirements to which it is designed, show alternate designs, and discuss modifications to the design during its lifetime.
Include information on the propulsion systemsused.
Dicsuss armament.
Discuss service use from initial tests through operational use and allocation to training or reserves, presenting critical analysis of the subject.
Discussed camouflage and markings since these are part and parcel of the aircraft, and give them character.
Of course pertinent photographs, well captioned are a must.
Three view drawings and color profiles are nice, but not essential.
Physical data including dimensions, weights, performance for subtypes are necessary. Serial numbers (or manufacturers numbers), subtypes and other production related data in usable form.

All in all, a tall order.

A few of my favorite “mechographies” are:

“Hs-129 Panzerjaeger” by Martin Pegg
Of all the books, this comes closest to being my model of a “good book”. A unique subject, detailed coverage, combat use, weapons development.

“Hawker Hurricane” by Frank Mason
I have the original 1962 version as well as the updated version. Almost as encyclopedic as “Blenheim”, coverage of all theaters, excellent photograph selections ( apparently the author attempted to provide at leat one photo of each Hurricane unit). And, of course a classic subject.

“Mosquito”, by Sharp & Bowyer
Everything you want to know about design, production and service use of the Mosquito. Beautiful photo selections with detailed captions.

“The Bristol Blenheim: A Complete History”, by Graham Warner
Encyclopedic coverage of the Blenheim. The RAF had more Blenheims than any other type when the war started. It fought in almost every theater for most of the war. Complete with color profiles, loss lists, design and service use.

Warren Bodie’s self published P-38 and P-47 books.
Bodie was a long –time AAHS P-38 specialist, he lived thorough the era, so his credentials are unique. Both books are well illustrated (except for the color profiles), discuss the technical aspects of design, set the aircraft in historical context and ,importantly, discuss shortcomings. The P-38 book, in particular, has a very good discussion on comperssilility and the remedy (flaps) as well as discussing why the later high-powered engines were fundamentally troublesome. The only negative aspect is the author’s annoying “America designed it first, every one else copied us” attitude which occasionally comes out.

All above are English language simply because that is the only language I read. Please feel free to include non-English books.

OK – what are your favorites and why?

Jukka Juutinen
10th February 2005, 14:40
Well, I agree on those two books by Warren Bodie. They are very good if one can get past his political views.

I disagree on Pegg. It was a reasonable effort that failed pretty hard on the technical aspects.

IMHO the capo di tutti capi in this contest is Edward Shacklady&Eric Morgan´s "Spitfire-The History".

Other excellent monographs:
-Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410 (Schiffer)
-Do 335 by Karl-heinz Regnat (Schiffer), excellent technical coverage and has excellent detail illustrations
-Tupolev SB by Mihail Maslov (Icarus Books)

What is interesting, and I have ranted on this before, that many ships have far better books written on them. E.g. the Anatomy of the Ship srs have extremely detailed design and technical coverage. It is also very odd that many WW One aircraft have much better books devoted to them than those of the WW Two. Where is e.g. a thorough (with performance curves, design analysis, handling info, pilot reports, material data etc) books on the Marauder, He 111, A-20 etc.?

Kjetil Aakra
10th February 2005, 14:46
Well, there are some to chose from, but the one book that has impressed me the most in recent times is Erik Pilwaskii's "Soviet Air Force Fighters 1941-45"; http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Mybook/bookaddendum.html

This books deals with the technical development of all the major Soviet fighter types (I-153, I-16, Yak-1, -3, -7-, -9, LaGG-3, La-5, -5F. 5FN, La-7,. MiG-1/-3) as well as their colouration. What is really impressive about this book is the level of scholarship and in-depth research that has gone into it. Te bibliography is very interesting read, as is the sections on camouflage and colours. It is simply a masterpiece.

In fact, I think it is one of the very few books where a lengthy presentation of the technical evolution of a plane has been combined with an equally in-depth look at the evolution of colours and markings. It also has very good profiles, line drawings as well as numerous side and plan-views of various camouflage patterns.

I know the book has been critizided in some quarters as being too "revisionist" and pro-Soviet, but don't listen to that. It is simply because we Westerns, who often find ourselves in support of either Western Allied or Luftwaffe fighters, are not used to Soviet GPW (Great Patriotic War) fighters being dealt with in such flattering terms! We are undeniably biased in our views, we have grown up with our western books telling us how great the Mustang, Spitfire and T-bolt were, while Soviet fighters have often been described as rudimentary, simplistic, primitive and hastily put together "emergency" programs. That is simply not true. I still believe Luftwaffe fighters (especially the Fw 190) are some of the finest figehtrs of WWII, but there is simply no denying that the La-7 and Yak-3 (to mention two) were superior fighters, in many ways also to the Spitifre and Mustang. Read the account of the Yak-3U - or any of the other examples of what these Russian fighters could do!

All in all masterpiece and one of the best aviation books to be published in recent years. Highly recommended.

Kjetil Aakra

Franek Grabowski
10th February 2005, 15:45
Kjetil
The book caused some reasonable comments among Russian researchers, though it seems the best on the subject available in English.
One interesting bit is that as yet nobody found any proof of use of yellow edges in Soviet markings.
And, while we are at technical details, feel free to proove superiority of Soviet designs, perhaps on Allied forum! Very eager to comment that.

Kjetil Aakra
10th February 2005, 16:22
Hi Franek.

I am not the correct person to comment on the alledged superiority of some Soviet fighter designs, as I know precious little about them, except what i ahve read in the aforementioned bookk and some others I have in my collection. Besides, I think Pilawskii has done this in his book. Of course, he could eb wring, but he backs up his claims with tests results and also actual combat experience of the involved types.

Having read this book I am not in doubt that the La-7 must count as one of the very best fighters of its time (i.e. 1944-45).

Kjetil

Franek Grabowski
10th February 2005, 16:56
Kjetil
I have serious doubts concerning accuracy of Pilavskii's claims, having in mind some comparative tests between Soviet and Western aircraft.

Kjetil Aakra
10th February 2005, 17:12
Well, Franek, I'll admit that I was dubious about several of Pilawskii's claims regarding the performance of certain Soviet fighters. However, I also believe that Pilwaskii has done his research very well indeed and as I know little about these tests I cannot really say they are false.

If you have allied tests peformed on Soviet fighters I'll surely like to see them for comparison purposes.

And I strongly feel the La-7 must be ranked as one of the very best of WWII fighters - do you disagree??

Kjetil

Dick Powers
10th February 2005, 18:14
I disagree on Pegg. It was a reasonable effort that failed pretty hard on the technical aspects.

Although I might disagree with your evaluation of the technical aspects, the overall package is successful.



What is interesting, and I have ranted on this before, that many ships have far better books written on them. E.g. the Anatomy of the Ship srs have extremely detailed design and technical coverage. It is also very odd that many WW One aircraft have much better books devoted to them than those of the WW Two. Where is e.g. a thorough (with performance curves, design analysis, handling info, pilot reports, material data etc) books on the Marauder, He 111, A-20 etc.?

Ships may be a different problem. Each ship is unique, or at most, only a few are built. Although the design and construction may be much more complicated than for an aircraft prototype, at least prior to the last 30 or so years. I believe where aircraft histories get complicated is when a single book tries to deal with a design having tens of factory variations, twice that of field variations and production that runs into the thousands. trying to make sense of this must be a challenge.

BTW - I saw recently that Crowood will issue one book on the A-20 family, another on the A-26 family. Although Crowood's books can be derivative, sometimes they can produce a gem; Kev Darling's book on the Typhoon, Tempest and Sea Fury is very good.

I certainly agree that flight test data, pilot reports, and similar information should be inlcuded.

Dick Powers
10th February 2005, 18:24
Well, there are some to chose from, but the one book that has impressed me the most in recent times is Erik Pilwaskii's "Soviet Air Force Fighters 1941-45"; http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Mybook/bookaddendum.html

Thanks for your comment. I browsed a copy last year, but put it back. Sounds like I didn;t pay attention to the content, only the title.

I do believe that there are a few publishers that consistently demonstrate a commitment to quality, and I feel comfortable buying their books unseen. I alphabetical order, Classic Publications, Eagle Editions, and Hikoki.

As far as Soviet aircraft designs, there is no reason that they should have been inferior to western designs. They were, however, designed for a different set of circumstances.[/quote]

Jukka Juutinen
10th February 2005, 19:12
Dick, I have Crowood´s A-20 book. It is quite good and so far the best A-20 book I have seen, though I haven´t seen too many:) However, you cannot do a comprehensive book on type like the A-20 in about 200 pages.

Of course, many ships are unique. But you must not forget that many ships went thru vast number of modifications, sometimes calling for extensive structural rework. E.g. they might have had their 18 coal firing boilers landed and replaced with 8 oil firing boilers. Not a simple and quick task. I think the greatest reason for this situation is background of authors. Many of the famous ship authors have naval architect or similar background. How many Classic, Hikoki, Osprey authors have piston engine aircraft designer background?

Franek Grabowski
10th February 2005, 20:14
No comments concerning Soviet fighters on this sub forum from me!!!

brewerjerry
12th February 2005, 00:29
Hi
my personal choice :-

the typhoon & tempest story chris thomas

This, ( as is the previous typhoon file ), is excellent, the sheer depth of the subject covered, serials / combats / tech is great.
Cheers
Jerry

Dick Powers
12th February 2005, 00:38
If you put this book together with Kev Darling's Crowood book on the Typhoon, Tempers and Sea Fury, it's almost perfect.
Whereas Chris Thomas' book is (mostly) devoted to WWII operations, Darling's book is predominately development.



Now, if this were the "other" forum, I'd propose tha that the Tempest V could outshine either the P-47, the P-51 in either role.

Jukka Juutinen
12th February 2005, 04:47
I guess I hate to get Darling´s book. I have Mason´s Typhoon/Tempest book and I have seen Thomas´s book on the same subject. The latter was a real disappointment. As the book´s name is "Typhoon/Tempest Story", I was expecting similar treatment that A. Price gave to the Spit in the "Spitfire Story", i.e. plenty of test/eval reports. It did have plenty of pics, but printed on very poor paper. No good at all.

In fact, one of the best monographs I have is the 48 page softcover on the Finnish VL Myrsky written by Jukka Raunio. It has info on design background, performance curves, structure data, handling info, extensive info on testing etc. The author is an aircraft designer by trade and it shows very positively. All this based on solid primary research. This book is so much better than most of the books written by PhDs on the similar subjects. PhDs that may excel in formalities, but for whom a performance curve is something they abhorr in their petty mindedness.

Jim P.
14th February 2005, 22:55
Maybe not as technical as some would like, but I found Peter Rodeike's book on the Fw 190A series to be ground breaking just with the number of new photos alone.

Dick Powers
14th February 2005, 23:27
Peter Rodeike's book only covers the “fighter” versions, with no information on the F or G models. However, his title does indicate that it only considers fighters. I did find it odd that no performance figures are given; weights, dimensions, yes – performance data, no. I think that’s a curious omission. However, within its limitations, it is probably the best book on the FW 190. But, in my opinion, it is nowhere as compete as those listed on my favorites.

FalkeEins
18th February 2005, 13:50
..a more complete coverage of the Fw 190 is available in Jean-Yves Lorant's "Le Focke Wulf 190"..400+pages, plenty of scarce photos, chapters covering technical development, Jabos, wilde Sau etc etc..
Another stunning French language aircraft history volume, published just one month ago, is Jean-Louis Couston's "Le Brewster Buffalo"...at 320 high quality A-4 pages this must be the last word on this machine..detailed English language photo/artwork captions....more details at
http://www.avionsbateaux.com

Nick Beale
18th February 2005, 14:32
How many Classic, Hikoki, Osprey authors have piston engine aircraft designer background?

Well this Classic author has a social science background (aviation design is Arthur Bentley's field) but since the topic heading here is HISTORY books, not engineering monographs, that may not be such a handicap as Jukka implies.

I write books centring on operations (i.e. the reason engineers built all those aircraft in the first place) and the people who flew them. In my view that is no less valid an activity than treatises on technical development or indeed grand strategy, neither of which happens to be my thing.

Dick Powers
18th February 2005, 17:58
Nick,
I certainly agree with you that operational aspects are (or should be) the focus of any aircraft history. Although my education and initial work experience is aeronautical engineering, my eyes glaze over when reading long, rambling technical descriptions of WWII (or any) aircraft.

Any time I see paragraph starting with…
“The Schultz SKD-4U/GA was a semi-monocoque stressed-skin monoplane….” I immediately go to the next section. When discussing the technical aspects of aircraft design I am more interested in why certain features were, or were not, incorporated. Since no military aircraft was designed to be mediocre, each design team was constantly making decisions that affect the ultimate usefulness of the resulting airplane. That, to, is a human story.

And, as you imply, it is how the airplane was used, that fascinates most of us. The Martin-Baker MB-5 might have been the best piston-engined aircraft ever, but who cares.

The Ju-87 was obsolescent soon after entering service, but the fact that it continued to give valuable service until the end of the war deserves more coverage than it has been given.

Even the “tank-busting” career, I believe, hasn’t been definitively treated. Most discussions seem to be a re-hash of Rudel’s “Stuka Pilot”. A thorough discussion of tactics, weapons, doctrine and operations would be most welcome.

You book on NSG-9 is one of the best “Operational” books in my library. As with all “good books” it uncovers new ground, rather than rehashing an often told story. While fighters get the headlines, these flyers went about their duties in dangerous and demanding ops while flying obsolescent aircraft. It is a human story. And as you point out, any aircraft history ultimately must be a human story, whether the subject is design or operations.

Jukka Juutinen
20th February 2005, 03:11
How many Classic, Hikoki, Osprey authors have piston engine aircraft designer background?

Well this Classic author has a social science background (aviation design is Arthur Bentley's field) but since the topic heading here is HISTORY books, not engineering monographs, that may not be such a handicap as Jukka implies.

I write books centring on operations (i.e. the reason engineers built all those aircraft in the first place) and the people who flew them. In my view that is no less valid an activity than treatises on technical development or indeed grand strategy, neither of which happens to be my thing.

Well, your books do not claim to be aircraft tech books. But when title is like "The Hawker Hurricane", it certainly requires competent engineering description.

Let´s consider an example from naval books. Lacroix&Wells book "Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War" describe the development background, operations and the design to the minutest detail down to boiler room fan diameter data. Yet we may have "German Aircraft of WW Two" (Putnam). Comparable title to the L&W, but completely different. That Putnam has very superficial info on design background, tech details etc. The hard truth is that aircraft book authors have a great deal to learn from their naval colleagues.

John Manrho
20th March 2005, 23:09
Interesting subject.....this Hikoki author is actually an aircraft designer (or was one could say as I moved on towards management...but still like to think I know what it is about...!!) but I focus also on operations. I like the technical things about the Fw 190 but the operations and pilots make me tick.... However, I must admit I agree with Jukka. If you write a book on the Fw 190, one should deal with the technical side thoroughly and in my opinion nobody did that yet!

Jukka Juutinen
25th March 2005, 03:23
Let´s hope so for there is an American fellow working on a book on the late A series 190s which should be very technical.

John Vasco
26th March 2005, 01:22
The hard truth is that aircraft book authors have a great deal to learn from their naval colleagues.

Jukka,
Interesting comment. What exactly do aircraft book authors have to learn from naval authors? I would be interested to know what aircraft authors are missing/omitting from what they set down.

Regards,

John Vasco

John Vasco
26th March 2005, 01:46
Many of the famous ship authors have naval architect or similar background. How many Classic, Hikoki, Osprey authors have piston engine aircraft designer background?

Jukka,

I read this post and feel I must comment on it also (in the spirit of debate, not confrontation).

As a future 'Classic' author, I can state that my background is, since 1969, Civil Servant (now retired) and semi-pro guitarist (continuing). I don't have 'piston engine aircraft designer background', but I do not feel that impairs what I do in any way(others might disagree!!!). I do not claim to be a 'rivet counter', although some of what I have written in the past, and something that will appear in the future, may have taken/take me in that direction (horror of horrors!!). As someone else has commented, reading vast tracts of technical information is, for me, a complete turn-off as a reader, and remember, we all started off as readers. I accept that there are some among the Luftwaffe reading public who delight in masses of technical data. I don't. I also bear in mind that the average pilot didn't give a toss about the technical detail of his aircraft - he was interested in it being in good shape to fly, good shape to fight, and sufficient shape to get them down again. I don't feel that an aviation technical background is a necessary prerequisite for setting a military account down in print. If that were so, probably half of what has appeared in the last decades would never have reached the book shelves. Don't get hung up, Jukka, on a technical background = a properly written book.

I would be interested to hear your further comments.

Regards,

John Vasco

Jukka Juutinen
26th March 2005, 04:33
Jukka,
Interesting comment. What exactly do aircraft book authors have to learn from naval authors? I would be interested to know what aircraft authors are missing/omitting from what they set down.

Regards,

John Vasco

Well, I have a few recommendations. First, try to get a look at "Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War". I admit, neither of the two authors are naval architects. Anyway, this book has everything, design background, tech details and operational use. Tech details include stuff like engine room fan capacity, material specs etc. Performance data is based on trial data, not gossip (they include date of trials, exact displacement of the ship etc). Be warned, this book is a large formattome with some 900 pages.

Second recommendation is the Anatomy of the Ship series. Pick e.g. John Roberts´ volume on the HMS Dreadnought. In this book, you can find some 30 pages of machinery related drawings (from general mach room layout to sectioned drawings of pumps) alone.

You wrote that the pilots didn´t give much thought to the tech stuff. Well, how much were they interested in the exact tone of their green paint or whether the swastika was 625 mm or 620 mm wide? Yet, books about that subject fill the shelves (I include pictorials here if the captions´ main theme is camo and markings).

After checking these two, you cannot resist agreeing with me that aviation authors have extremely lot to learn from their naval colleagues.

Jukka Juutinen
26th March 2005, 04:39
BTW, I do not insist on tech background, but I do insist on understanding e.g. the difference between a mechanical supercharger and a turbocharger or the difference between supercharger stages and speeds. There a plenty of authors out there who understand neither. E.g. Paul Ludwig, the author of the Classic book on the Mustang, has either failed to understand a simple supercharger drawing or has not bothered even to check his cra* (his Merlin description is a catastrophe and will result in some folks being convinced by his lies).

Ruy Horta
26th March 2005, 11:23
There is a difference between a mistake and a lie.

mistake: wrong action or statement

lie: an untrue statement made with intent to deceive

Here you are on a public forum accusing an author of making untrue statements with the intent to deceive? Why such a harsh approach and based on what evidence? How many authors do you actually consider to be profesional liars?

Perhaps there are also lies in the Japanese cruiser book, but you failed to notice them? Tons of details can easily overwhelm, doesn't mean that it is all correct. The main difference mighty simply be that you know your aircraft better than your Japanese cruisers.

Your choice of words was poor and I'll have to ask everyone to think before writing down such words.

Jukka Juutinen
26th March 2005, 13:42
You´re right. It was probably an unintentional mistake on Ludwig´s part, but not very acceptable one as the correct info is so easily and widely available (just one look at any two stage Merlin cutaway drawing has adequate correct info).

I am just quite tired of how major technical errors are seen as acceptable but imagine if a color tone or some Rüstsatze is wrong. The book is bludgeoned to death without any mercy. Some academic historian on this board has e.g. praised Eric Bergerud´s book on Pacific air war, even when the technical sections of the book are best described as jokes.

As for the Cruisers book, it is beyond any criticism except for the spine being a bit too light for the page count and the paper could have been better too.

John Vasco
26th March 2005, 19:30
Well, I have a few recommendations. First, try to get a look at "Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War". I admit, neither of the two authors are naval architects. Anyway, this book has everything, design background, tech details and operational use. Tech details include stuff like engine room fan capacity, material specs etc. Performance data is based on trial data, not gossip (they include date of trials, exact displacement of the ship etc). Be warned, this book is a large formattome with some 900 pages.
If this kind of subject captures your interest, all well and good. But, I don't think you should hold it up as some kind of benchmark for aviation authors to aspire to. You might as well ask us to put our writing on a par with Shakespeare, as his writing is considered by many to be the best.

Second recommendation is the Anatomy of the Ship series. Pick e.g. John Roberts´ volume on the HMS Dreadnought. In this book, you can find some 30 pages of machinery related drawings (from general mach room layout to sectioned drawings of pumps) alone.
'30 pages of machinery related drawings' says it all. I'm not into ships. That would deter me even more.

You wrote that the pilots didn´t give much thought to the tech stuff. Well, how much were they interested in the exact tone of their green paint or whether the swastika was 625 mm or 620 mm wide? Yet, books about that subject fill the shelves (I include pictorials here if the captions´ main theme is camo and markings).
You take a simple observation of pilot's views on their aircraft and turn it towards camouflage and markings. I don't follow your line of reasoning.

After checking these two, you cannot resist agreeing with me that aviation authors have extremely lot to learn from their naval colleagues.
I can resist agreeing with you, because I don't agree with you. Aviation authors do not have anything to learn from their naval colleagues. You need to understand that errors occur in every book that has ever been written on military matters. You should also realise that aviation publishers do not subscribe to the fact that every book has to be a technical monolith. Aviation books are targeted at different audiences. These different audiences seek different levels of content. Therefore, some books are high on technical content. Others, such as unit histories, thrust more towards missions and personalities. Others again focus more on camouflage and markings and aircraft types. HMS Dreadnought is HMS Dreadnought, period. The Bf 109, or Bf 110, or Me 262 are (without wishing to be hit for stating the obvious) different animals altogether, with all of their various sub-variants, and the differing approaches as to how they are presented in print. You need to acknowledge that, Jukka, before you start levelling comments or criticism towards Luftwaffe books in print. Constructive criticism is healthy, and necessary, for vigorous debate; destructive criticism serves no purpose whatsoever. I believe I have been reasonable in all I have stated in this post. Perhaps some authors who have remained silent on this topic thus far may agree with some of the points I have made.

John Vasco

Jukka Juutinen
26th March 2005, 20:15
I don´t you understood what I meant. If a book is titled "Bf 109 operations over the Channel Front", I don´t expect it to delve deep into technical details. However, if the book is titled "The Swordfish Story", I do expect heavily technical book.

As for the camo and markings comment, remember what you wrote previously: "...the average pilot didn´t give a toss about the technical detail of his aircraft...". Now, how many pilot accounts have you read that show pilots being extremely keen to make sure that the swastika was 625 mm wide instead of 620 mm or that the checkerboard tail was black on white background instead of vice versa? Yet, on the latter subject there are zillions of books. On the other hand, I have not seen a single Bf 109 book showing e.g. rate of roll vs. airspeed curve and the pilots were definitely more interested in rate of roll than in color schemes.

And are you sure naval books are written for different audience? Perhaps it is a question of supply failing to meet the demand? Most ship freaks I know of are also interested in aircraft, tanks and military history in general.

Franek Grabowski
26th March 2005, 21:50
Well, I have to agree with Juha and respectfully dissagree with his opponents. Indeed it is a fact most of aviation authors lack any technical knowledge. Of course it is not that much necessary in unit or general histories, nonetheless even in those fields ignorance leads to terrifying results. See a myth of superior diving speed (due to weight) of Thunderbolt for example - it is bouncing back all the time, although it is a pure nonsense. In the other words I cannot imagine a good monography of an aircraft being not written by or consulted with an engineer. Claim that it is not interesting is childish, it is very interesting but not for you. That is all.

John Vasco
27th March 2005, 00:21
Jukka,


You seem to have latched onto the fact that I mentioned pilots being mainly concerned with their aircraft working well and getting them down in one piece. You did not make any reply or comment about: You should also realise that aviation publishers do not subscribe to the fact that every book has to be a technical monolith. Aviation books are targeted at different audiences. These different audiences seek different levels of content. Therefore, some books are high on technical content. Others, such as unit histories, thrust more towards missions and personalities. Others again focus more on camouflage and markings and aircraft types. HMS Dreadnought is HMS Dreadnought, period. The Bf 109, or Bf 110, or Me 262 are (without wishing to be hit for stating the obvious) different animals altogether, with all of their various sub-variants, and the differing approaches as to how they are presented in print.
I'm happy to continue to debate this issue with you, but you have to respond to the points I make. I was not selective with yours. The fact is, what I have stated is a simple truth. If you cannot see that, or accept that, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. You can stick to your great naval authors; I'll continue to enjoy the works of Stephen Bungay, Chris Goss, Peter Cornwell, Christer Bergstrom, Jochen Prien, and others who advanced our knowledge of WW2 aviation matters considerably.

Jukka Juutinen
27th March 2005, 04:23
I have never claimed that every aircraft book should be technical book. However, when we have aircraft monographs hundreds of pages in length, books titled like "The Hawker Hurricane", surely one can expect a thorough technical examination to be included. A good example of utter failure is Martin Pegg´s Hs 129 book. No performance curves, no official handling reports (to allow reader to decide whether or not it had good handling), no data on armor steel composition, tempering, hardness, strength.

Some authors excel in listing the numerous mods on an aircraft, but utterly fail to analyze why the modification was incorporated. Many authors mention the oil pressure problems on the 109G, yet they fail to analyze why the problem occurred. All this most probably due to complete inability to understand the subject he is writing about.

I might indeed stick to great naval authors like Mike Whitley, John Roberts, Eric Lacroix, D.K. Brown, William Garzke. Or superior tank authors like Walter Spielberger or R.P. Hunnicutt. Or the best aircraft authors like David Birch, Dan Whitney, Francis Dean, Birch Matthews, Rüdiger Kosin and leave the hacks alone.

Ruy Horta
27th March 2005, 12:38
Aren't we confusing personal taste with absolutes like "utter failures".

Yes graphs are nice, I've been lucky to get my share, but you don't need them for a good book. At one time I criticized Genda's Blade, by Henry Sakaida & Koji Tataki, for its lack of technical study, allthough that book is actually a unit history.

It is clear that some aircraft enthusiasts get their kicks from graphs and figures, because they can use those in their arguments (mainly why their plane of choice is better etc), but it more often than not blinds them from the operational aspect.

A technical background, need not dig deep to give you a better understanding of a weapon and its operational use. Yes, a speed and climb curve can replace a thousand words, but to call authors hacks because they have chosen not to include them is not right.

IMHO some authors actually seem to force themselves to include technical data while it doesn't really contribute much (or worse), like your Bergerud, but that doesn't negate the bulk of their work.

There are always people who know better, or so it seems, but the books available do reflect the market, that is a simple fact. Camouflage and markings seem to be popular, so are operational histories and pilot biographies, however since really technical aircraft books (dealing with WW2) are few it must reflect their market.

OTOH, there are books like The Spitfire History, or Classic's Me 262 series which must come near to your wishes, or indeed Le Bloch MB 152 by Avions-Jets and Le Dewoitine D.520, by Docavia or the numerous work by Dietmar Hermann. I would include Rodeike, but I know you would disagree, since his work fails to bring curves. A lot of curves can be found in America's Onehundred Thousand, but its focus is on performance, not a complete technical background.

However the operational side is still an important part in most of these works.

Now I will start assuming here, but perhaps this is in part due to the fact that most ships could not fill many pages with their operational background, barring a number of historically important vessels. Of course you could do so if you really wanted to, but it would not really deliver an interesting book, hence one can (or perhaps must) fill pages with technical detail, to fill it up.

Now what would bring the Bismarck closer to reality, a book on its technical aspects, or a book about its operations with a concise technical introduction?

OTOH, I have yet to find a performance curve for a WW2 ship :D

Personally I agree with John Vasco, if you speak in general terms the whole idea that aviation writers can learn a lot from their nautical collegues is based on your personal taste, not absolute fact. Especially if you consider the fact that you are comparing a couple of Nautical works and expanding their quality across the whole genre. You could easily reverse that if you choose to do so.

The irony is that I personally like the odd curve, but in my humble opinion it is not the essential part of a good technical background or a good Aircraft History Book.

Just my 2c.

Jukka Juutinen
27th March 2005, 18:44
Ruy, I do have a performance curve for a ship! It is a speed vs. range curve for Essex-class carriers.

And Ruy, please try to have look at the Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War. It proves me right.

What is also interesting that aircraft books on WW One aircraft tend to have much deeper technical coverage. Do compare e.g. two Classic books, Ludwig´s Mustang book and Paul Leaman´s Fokker Dr.1 book. The latter does have extensive camo and markings info, but also a very thorough technical analysis.

John Vasco
27th March 2005, 22:05
My contribution to this thread has come to a full . No point in continuing, really...

Ruy Horta
28th March 2005, 00:44
The latter does have extensive camo and markings info, but also a very thorough technical analysis.

Personally I'm not so impressed by the Leaman book, which I happen to own, the Japanese Cruiser book is indeed on my wish list (but not a high priority) and I was kidding on the ship curves :D

Actually I'm lagging on my ship reading, but the next naval topic I will read is "The Rules of the Game", by Andrew Gordon. I have a weak spot for The Battle of Jutland. Next Naval title will either be Kaigun or The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign (although the latter isn't strictly a naval title). Or I might choose to start with a three volume collection on the Dutch Navy in WW2. I have too much choice really, but don't let my woman catch on to that little fact.

BTW, please realize that I am posting as a fellow member here, not as moderator, I can understand that my posts can be confusing...:eek:

JeffK
28th March 2005, 02:28
In the end, an author is compiling a book which he intends to sell. Therefore they must review their market and provide what the buyers want.

If that means a Naval author has to fill out his book with mechanical details he must do so, If an Aviation author has to minmize the technical and provides more on the operational/personal side, so be it.

Having a broad Military/Historical interest, the technical is of little interest to me, unless it can clearly show how it gave an advatage to one or the other. Of course, all of the technical advatages of the Bismark fail to explain its "disablement" by a single aircraft torpedo.

However, an article which shows the use of technology to turn the P51A into the P51D or Manchester into Lancaster, is of great interest, as well as the use of operational records to show the major changes in performance of these aircraft.

In the end, to each his own.

PS. A ship measured its life in years, if not decades. Most WW2 aircraft last a matter of weeks or months in combat, therefore the continual need for upgrades in a ship deserve time a space in any coverage of their life.

Jukka Juutinen
28th March 2005, 03:19
Personally I'm not so impressed by the Leaman book, which I happen to own, the Japanese Cruiser book is indeed on my wish list (but not a high priority) and I was kidding on the ship curves :D

BTW, please realize that I am posting as a fellow member here, not as moderator, I can understand that my posts can be confusing...:eek:

Could you enlighten me on what is wrong with Leaman´s book?

And I did realize that your posts were written as an enthusiast, not as a moderator:)

Jukka Juutinen
28th March 2005, 03:24
Of course, all of the technical advatages of the Bismark fail to explain its "disablement" by a single aircraft torpedo.

Then you have been reading the wrong books. The numerous design faults of the Bismarck are discussed in detail in "Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War Two" by naval architects William Garzke&Robert Dulin.

Christer Bergström
28th March 2005, 03:35
an author is compiling a book which he intends to sell. Therefore they must review their market and provide what the buyers want.

Or rather, the publishers (who can't afford to publish books which don't generate money) select precisely those manuscripts which satisfy the demands on the market, and turn down manuscripts which don't fill those demands.

So please stop lashing out against authors. I'm sure every writer in this field of interest who is not a professional author (i.e. who doesn't write for his living) writes more or less what he likes himself. You can't blame a guy for writing in the style which he prefers - for that would be like saying that all music must be e.g. Wien classical music. I happen to like the blues, and if I was a musician, I would play the blues, and if a record company would have liked me to do a record, I would then have done a blues record. I couldn't switch to Wien classical music only because there are some people who think that all music just has to sound like that to be "real music".

You can write personal reviews - and even post them to this board - but you can never claim to have the right to judge which style a book under all circumstances shall be written in. If a book's title doesn't satisfy you because you feel that it promises a technical description of a depth which isn't there, please try to understand that it probably was not a deliberate deception by anyone; please keep in mind that different people read different things into a book title. For instance, I think Martin Pegg's Hs 129 book is one of the best WW II aviation books I have ever read; I don't share your view that it should have gone even deeper into technical matters. I would even go so far as to say that maybe someone wrote such a manuscript, and maybe it was turned down by some publisher because it was judged that there were too few people interested in such deep technical descriptions.

If a sufficient number of people demand a book with really deep technical descriptions which is written by a super engineer, then I'm sure it is only a matter of time before you will see a large number of such books getting published. But right now we have only the books which are believed to sell. If we had lived in a planned economy where sales figures were not decisive, the discussion in this thread would have made sense. But we all have to accept that we live in a market economy, and that sets the limits.

Dick Powers
29th March 2005, 08:05
Since I started this thread, I’ll state my opinion regarding the “technical” aspects of a “good” aircraft history. My university education was in aerodynamics, so I am familiar with much of the technical descriptions.



First, at the start of WWII, airplanes were simple machines. Propulsion (engine+propeller), weapons (guns and bombs), pilot, landing gear, an aerodynamic shell held together by structure and a few (very few) systems – radio (sometimes), hydraulics, electrics. Unlike ships which had to be self-supporting for months, airplanes were rarely called on to perform without servicing for more than a few hours. Even bomber command’s late war four engine Lancs were simple aircraft with self contained electronic systems retrofitted. Aircraft didn’t begin to get complicated until the B-29 with central fire control systems and super long range.



That being said, technical descriptions should be fairly simple. I don’t CARE what alloys were used in the wing spars (unless it was a revolutionary material used to overcome some obstacle, such as a shortage of steel.) When I saw a post asking about the rivet size of Me 109’s a wondered why bother? Unless you are building (or rebuilding) one.



As far as systems go, the best description is a schematic from a contemporary servicing manual; more concise than words and more easily understood. Perhaps in the modern world, a CDROM with tech manuals could be included.

If I had to choose between 25 pages of systems description and 25 pages of service use, I’d pick 25 pages of service use.



And you definitely don’t have to be an engineer to write an excellent aircraft history. A good writer knows when to question, what was written, reported or said and how to cross check facts. That talent is not the exclusive property of the technically trained.



In my opinion, far more attention should be given to the service use, development of tactics and doctrine than to the minutiae of voltages, gages, and rivets. After all, it is how the product is used that counts, not how it was constructed.



As I stated previously, Martin Pegg’s Hs-129 book is, in my view, a wonderful balance of development, service use, weapons and people.



Now, I will say that one of the most neglected areas of history is engines….

Jukka Juutinen
30th March 2005, 16:04
Well, if the structure of the airplane isn´t right, it breaks apart on take off (or perhaps even on start up) and you cannot write a single page of operational history. So, the tech part makes the whole operation possible. Never forget that.

Pegg´s book is not really worth the paper it is printed on, from my POV.

Richard T. Eger
3rd April 2005, 07:38
I guess this thread proves that the topic can meander, despite the format used! IIRC, the question was: "What's your favorite aircraft book?" Emphasis was on the nuts and bolts.

As my subject of interest is the Me 262, Classic's 4-volume opus on the subject has to be the current winner. While it does include operational material, its strength really is in its presentation of the technical details of this aircraft. Smith & Creek have presented about every known photo as of the time of printing, a significant feat, indeed.

On the downside are the lack of references and adequate indexing, plus a certain disjointedness attempting to publish an aircraft history over a number of years as new material is being discovered, forcing a bit of revisiting of subject matter. And, in an interesting twist, to actually get all of the pertinent drawings, one had to also purchase Forsyth's JV44.

I can't help but being drawn into the discussion of "nuts & bolts" versus "operational history". The argument seems to be very narrowly drawn, as there is far more to an aircraft's history than these two subjects. In the case of the Me 262, what really has drawn my interest is Germany's struggle to actually get this aircraft ready for production and the decisions having to be made about how and where to produce it. Overlaid upon this is the war situation, itself, what with deteriorating transport, fuel, and essential material supply.

Some here find the operational history of paramount interest, i.e., in the case of the Me 262, how successful was it in combat? Chronologies of day to day combat, such as Foreman & Harvey's Me 262 Combat Diary, may lose sight of the big picture, giving all of the nitty-gritty details of individual combats with claims & losses, but not the overall impact nor the relative impact versus the conduct of the rest of the war.

As for "nuts and bolts" books, hopefully they have their place, too, as I am currently so involved in support of a super-scale model kit effort that the lure of doing a book utilizing the same material is enticing. The key question, of course, is is there a real interest out there to see what is under the skin of an aircraft?

Regards,
Richard

kurlannaiskos
12th May 2005, 07:02
Hello,
Does anyone have any photos of A-20's in Soviet service?
I am looking to do two models, perhaps more if I can get some decent references.

P.F.

John P Cooper
18th May 2005, 07:26
If you write a book on the Fw 190, one should deal with the technical side thoroughly and in my opinion nobody did that yet!

I agree with you and those who have said similar things but a "complete" book on a subject aircraft in my opinion needs to contain the following elements:

1) Development history (complete) incl engines, weapons systems,...
2) Operational history
3) First person accounts for the human side (I want to see it through the eyes of those who have lived it)

Those are the three top picks I want as a consumer. Additionally I want expanded information about the materials used, (and why) technical charts & diagrams, lots of pictures, color profiles,... Much of the super detailed information can be included in the back of the book and used as a reference.

I know this asking for to much for a single book but I would be willing to pay the extra $ for a book that will help me develop a full understanding of the subject matter from multiple angles - pilot, ground crew, designer,...

One last note I am also interested in the history around the aircraft. As an illustration of this would be me wanted to know why Udet, Milch, Goring, Galland, Tank, et al made the decisions that did...

Humm well of my soapbox for now but I think you get my prespective.

Cheers

John

Richard T. Eger
23rd May 2005, 00:56
Dear Fellow Luftwaffe Researchers,

It's late Sunday afternoon and I'm enjoying reading the give and take of this debate. My leaning, since I'm growing more into one of those rivet counters (ugh!!), is to support Jukka in his claim that aviation writers could learn from their naval brethren.

I wonder if part of the difference is in terms of availability of detailed plans. Is it possible that there is an abundance of detailed ship plans ripe for the plucking, whereas detailed plans of Luftwaffe aircraft may be difficult to come by? I can certainly say that the latter is true for the Me 262.

If you pick up the numerous books published on the Me 262 that actually present technical details, they utilize the same set of drawings that appeared in the October 1945 issue of Aviation, these actually being drawn from photos of the captured Me 262 T-2-711. You'll have books like Aero Detail 9, which present walkaround photos, but these are only "skin deep", as opposed to what I presume are detailed internal plans in the naval books. Only rarely will an aviation book get under the skin.

So, perhaps duplicating in aircraft books the detail seen in naval books might possibly be due to a lack of availability.

Comments??

Regards,
Richard

Jukka Juutinen
23rd May 2005, 02:26
I don´t know about the 262 situation, but AFAIk e.g. on the Bf 109 there exist extremely detailed production drawings. And e.g. for the Ar 234 there is the very interesting detail drawing sheet in the 234 book by AJ Press.

There is another source so poorly used so far: production line photos. I have seen some old Luftfahrt journals which included many such photos (e.g. a very interesting shot showing many details of Ha 139 wing spar construction). And such photos on US aircraft seem reasonably common (see e.g. American Aircraft Production in WW two by Joshua Stoff).

The difference (naval/aircraft books) also applies to text. E.g. the Anatomy of the Ship series has extensive structural descriptions, in some cases the machinery description having several pages alone.

So, I don´t buy the lack of sources theory, at least in general. I think the main reason is the non-technical background of aviation authors. While many have e.g. pilot background, it isn´t enough.

Jukka Juutinen
23rd May 2005, 02:33
Continued. I had an interesting conversation with a retired Finnish AF engine expert (he taught engine topics for aircraft mechanics) about the relative lack of technical knowledge among pilots. He mentioned one very experienced test pilot, a PhD in aircraft engineering, who was telling tall tales about engines until this engine fellow showed him some engine maintenance documents to cut the BS. On the other hand, guys handling ships have much greater understanding of what makes the ships tick.

Kurfürst
5th September 2005, 20:45
Then you have been reading the wrong books. The numerous design faults of the Bismarck are discussed in detail in "Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War Two" by naval architects William Garzke&Robert Dulin.

Ah! Another Bismarck hater! Nice, but too bad the statements of that book about 'design flaws' are very dubious in face of the newest research, GandD stay with the old fairy tales about the poor, outdated WW1 design, unable to understand the true concept of the ship.. ;)

JaganP
7th September 2005, 17:27
Getting back to the original topic, One of my favourites.

Vultee Vengeance by Peter C Smith, Smithsonian Press.

Lovely book on a rare type. Infact the ONLY book on this type. .Ample coverage of technical aspects as well as operations in all theatres. I was suitably impressed by the amount of detail on Indian Air Force Operations, which is not the case with most of the other types. I would recommend the book any day.

De Havilland Vampire by David Watson

Another great book, one of the only two on this Type I would guess. nice drawings, and great production info. Also has some good info on my area of interest - Indian Air Force Ops after 1947.

Empiricist
11th September 2006, 05:52
Getting back to the original topic, One of my favourites.

Vultee Vengeance by Peter C Smith, Smithsonian Press.

Lovely book on a rare type. Infact the ONLY book on this type. .Ample coverage of technical aspects as well as operations in all theatres. I was suitably impressed by the amount of detail on Indian Air Force Operations, which is not the case with most of the other types. I would recommend the book any day.
Hello,

Also for me this is one of my favourite WWII-era aircraft and of course I know am unique man with such an fascination. :-)

Would not you like to drop a line about the content of this book? Does it contain the plans of the Vengeance variants for the modellers?

Thank you very much in advance.

Best

E.