Why did RAF keep using its own Pilot's Notes/manuals when better ones available?
 

I have been researching aircraft manuals and flying methods in WW2. RAF "Pilot's Notes" tended to be short (50 small pages) and especially at first, badly written. I attach a paragraph from my manuscript talking about this, and an excerpt from a 1939 Hurricane manual about how to get out of spins.

What I'm trying to figure out is why the RAF continued to supply its own Pilot's Notes for American aircraft, such as the B-17, B-25, and P-51? The original American manuals were much longer, more thorough, and easier to follow. Why did the RAF go to the trouble of writing new PN's for these aircraft, which as far as I know were not heavily used by the British?

A secondary question, to which I don't expect much answer, is "Why did the RAF choose to write its manuals using its own pedantic style, instead of switching to the American style?" The US Navy, for example, switched to the USAAF style around 1943.

Manuals in both countries evolved throughout the war, so all comparisons have to take the date into account. But that does not change these results.

Thanks for any pointers to discussions of Pilot's Notes, how they were written, and related topics. Other than the symposium I mention below, I don't know of anyone who has looked at this subject.
Roger Bohn

Following is from the 1939 Hurricane manual. Revised March 1940. Surely between 1939 and 1940 someone had developed more details about how to get out of spins.

Re: Why did RAF keep using its own Pilot's Notes/manuals when better ones available?
 

I think your example from the Hurricane POH shows why the RAF made its own documents for US aircraft. The references to the RAF Training Manual (which probably contains the "more details about how to get out of a spin") would be useful information to anyone who had gone through RAF training, but would not be present in a US manual. The Hurricane quote provides extra information unique to the type, but the Training Manual also needs to be understood to fully operate the Hurricane. The description of the Hurricane's spin recovery may appear dry, but it is quite factual, and would be understood by anyone used to reading such manuals.

You may be interested to know that the RCAF wrote its own pilot's notes for new aircraft types, even when both US and RAF manuals were available. They did this in part because of the need to use terms familiar to RCAF trained pilots, and to provide necessary information relevant to Canadian operations - cold weather usage, interfacing with visiting aircraft servicing at RCAF fields, etc. The RAF would have had similar needs not filled by the US manuals.

As for the US "cartoony" style versus the RAF style, I think this may reflect the expected educational background of the readers. The RAF (and RCAF) required candidate pilots to have a university degree early in the war, the US draftees may have had less previous exposure to high level documents.

Re: Why did RAF keep using its own Pilot's Notes/manuals when better ones available?
 

Bravo, Bill. That rings very true to a 75-year-old American. We had a "comic book" culture back then as compared to your more pedantic cultures in Canada and Great Britain. And it is also true that the majority of our air crew officer candidates did not have 4-year university degrees. I can well remember some of the clownish instructional material that was still being used in the U.S. armed forces in the mid- and late-1950's that was seemingly targeted at an audience with a 6th or 7th grade reading level. I do not fault the authorities for this because the objective was to communicate the message and, as writers know, the audience determines the style and comprehension level.

L.

Re: Why did RAF keep using its own Pilot's Notes/manuals when better ones available?
 

1. All services have their own requirements for written documentation and manuals that they preserve with great zeal.
2. Recently, the DoD arranged the transfer of about two dozen USMC UH-1N helicopters to the USAF. While the USAF operate the same helicopters and the USMC helicopters all came with their manuals, the differences were considered such that it was one of the reasons the USAF decided they'd only operate about three and send the rest out of Davis-Monster to provide homes for unemployed gila monsters.
3. Compared to the US and Germany, Britain (not just the military) is manual adverse. They were running steam locomotives in Britain since the 1820s, but it was only in 1946, with the creation of British Rail and the need for standardization that anyone prepared a manual.

Re: Why did RAF keep using its own Pilot's Notes/manuals when better ones available?
 

Suggested reasons for RAF doing its own manuals

1. The RAF had a standard format, which once you are familiar with it, makes finding the right section easier

2. The aircraft in RAF service were fitted with different kit from their US counterparts

3. British and US units of measurement are different, particularly when it comes to gallons - the US Gal is significantly smaller (20%) than an Imp Gal. Equally boost pressures were measured differently in Hg v psi and tons are not the same either (2000 lbs v 2240lbs).

4. The Americans do not know how to spell properly (color, thru, etc; I ask you) and terms vary airfield v aerodrome, radio v wireless

5. The RAF manuals were written by AM not the manufacturer

Just some suggestions

Martin

Re: Why did RAF keep using its own Pilot's Notes/manuals when better ones available?
 

What's 'wrong' with 'I ask you'?

TomT
American

Re: Why did RAF keep using its own Pilot's Notes/manuals when better ones available?
 

Thanks. Number 3 is particularly interesting. Do you know a source for the Brit Rail anecdote, and anything else about British being averse to manuals?

I have written up several pages on the topic of RAF manuals compared with American ones. I will post them and a link to them soon, and see what people think.

Re: Why did RAF keep using its own Pilot's Notes/manuals when better ones available?
 

I agree with #2 and 3, but the first point seems off to me. All pilots had practiced spinning in training. Now they are in a very new, much higher performance, aircraft, and the question is "what's different about getting out of spins in the Hurricane?" It's single seat - nobody can take you up and show you.
What did they get? A reference to a very generic training manual that they may not even have in their "kit". Why not just reprint that paragraph here? Then it says the mystery paragraph "should be amplified in light of the foregoing remarks." But those "foregoing remarks just amount to saying "all kinds of things can go wrong when you recover from a spin, such as flicking into a new spin in the other direction."
Finally, what does it mean that the paragraph "should be amplified in light of the foregoing remarks." Amplified = ?

I will try to attach the relevant two pages so you can make your own judgment. My interpretation is that the test pilots had not done their job - they had not come up with useful information about how spinning and getting out of a spin in a Hurricane is different, other than to say "you will lose LOTS of altitude."

By the way, regarding "required to have a university degree," Boy Wellum was accepted in 1938 or 39 at 18, right out of his boarding school, and as I recall that was true of others. Also the RAF had plenty of sergeants as pilots, at least in bombers. My impression is that the RAF's manual writers did have elitist attitude about "cartoons," but it may not have been rational.

All in all, their documentation effort seems to have been weak. I just received 2 books edited by Sarkar with a variety of Hurricane and Spitfire material - it is mostly amateurish compared with what the Americans had.

thanks for further thoughts,
Roger

Re: Why did RAF keep using its own Pilot's Notes/manuals when better ones available?
 

What is AM? Indeed I have seen no indication that the manufacturers wrote the RAF manuals.
The Americans had an odd system. Each manufacturer wrote a manual for the aircraft, but the official USAAF manual was a completely different document. Initially the US Navy used the manufacturer's manual, but then they switched to the USAAF approach.
Roger

Re: Why did RAF keep using its own Pilot's Notes/manuals when better ones available?
 

Air Ministry. During World War II and after it was usually abbreviated as AirMin.

Re: Why did RAF keep using its own Pilot's Notes/manuals when better ones available?
 

I'm fairly widely read about British railways, but this is the first reference I've seen to manuals, so find it difficult to recommend any single volume. Nationalisation introduced several measures that now seem entirely rational, but were either absent altogether or rarely found in the preceding companies. Partly this comes from the British tradition of "learning on the job" -"go watch Joe" being the chief means of instruction. A driver worked up from cleaner through fireman and then driver before eventually (at an advanced age) being thought suitable for the top link jobs. This did not involve or encourage any thorough theoretical understanding of how steam engines work - something that at times seems to have been lacking even in the design teams. There was a parallel tradition of self-help where theoretical education could be pursued via unions and the more enlightened employers, but none-the-less a strong bias was placed on practical experience. The writings of R. Hardy do identify some examples of how this approach failed in practice, and comparisons are made with the more formal training approach given to French drivers, or rather engineers, who were required to undergo a more academic training before advancing to what were considerably more complicated machines than the average British "kettle".

I feel this is buried deeply in British culture, where the better educated were immersed in Classical culture rather than more scientific studies, and looked down on anyone who actually got his hands dirty. Both they and the more practical factory bosses would agree in looking down on reading by the lower classes, considering that such a practice could only breed communism. A simplified approach, agreed, which omits much or the nation would actually have achieved even less than it did in the 20th Century! However it expresses basic truths that you will need to face if you wish to learn why the RAF did not produce better manuals. It will mean digging rather deeper into society and its history.

I do wonder from the tone of your comments whether the low quality of RAF manuals is a preconception you are bringing to the study rather something deriving from it. Does the "cartoon culture" actually improve learning? I'd have thought that debatable, at best. Even if true in a society used to such an approach, would it be true in a society used to a more pedagogical approach to learning, or would it considered derisory and thus self-defeating? It certainly seems to multiply the size and weight of said manuals, something to be counted against in times of austerity and paper-saving.

Re: Why did RAF keep using its own Pilot's Notes/manuals when better ones available?
 

Amplified means add this information to what is in the basic manual. It would be most interesting to see what was in the spin section of the RAF Training Manual of the day. The additional information appears to me to be in two parts:
- you will loose a lot of altitude in the recovery
- after the initial "per the Manual" recovery the aircraft may still be stalled, leading to a tendency to enter a secondary spin

I suspect that the standard per the book spin recovery of the time emphasized breaking the yaw, whereas today we emphasize break the yaw AND move the stick forward to break the stall. Many low wing loading aircraft of today, or aircraft with limited nose up elevator power, will break the stall (and therefore the spin) themselves if you simply relax the stick back pressure: in fact constant stick back pressure is required to maintain the spin in many aircraft. The Hurricane may have been one of the first RAF aircraft where this was not true.

Maybe it is because I have spent many decades testing aircraft, writing test reports, and writing flight manuals, but I found the statements you quoted (plus what I assume was in the RAF Training Manual of the day) tells me EVERYTHING I need to know to recover from a spin in a Hurricane. If they don't talk further about what is different in a Hurricane (compared to the training manual information) it is very possible that nothing further is different.

I agree that they didn't use cartoons, but it is a big leap to call this elitist. They did what they thought would work, for their audience at the time.