New He 219 Book from Wingleader.

[FalkeEins]

I've published a more comprehensive 'look' at the book here

[Jukka Juutinen]

I know no worse disappointment than an aircraft history/monograph turning into an operational chronicle. Great many aircraft books seem to be written by authors who know better things like paint schemes than spinning characteristics. So a reader wanting detailed information on the latter is indeed left wanting. For example, the multi-volume Classic set on the Fw 190 had no coverage of stalling and spinning characteristics, yet for a wartime pilot these were far more important issues than whether the swastika was 99 mm or 99.87 mm wide.

Given above, I hope that at least one of the 219 books would be aimed at aircraft enthusiasts, not combat chroniclers.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

aimed at aircraft enthusiasts, not combat chroniclers.

The only reason the He 219 existed was to be used in combat. It was not an aerodynamic research vehicle or a technology demonstrator like the He 178 or the Gloster E.29/39.

[Jukka Juutinen]

So? Then please explain that why there are numerous warship and tank books (and those warships and tanks were most probably designed for combat) that are very much aimed at readers who are interested in their engineering and mechanical features rather than combat chronicling? Or why suddenly jets get far more technical treatment than WW2 aircraft? Or even WW1 era aircraft monographs tend to go far deeper into tech. details than WW2 aircraft.

And one more thing: history is an analytical science. Combat chronicling is not history.

[edwest2]

Jukka,

I think you are missing the mark. Many Luftwaffe researchers began as modellers (not me) who wanted to know the history of an aircraft type or a particular aircraft. I study the history of technology and am very interested in the engineering aspects and how early developments pre-war were improved upon or superseded by further inventions. Perhaps you should write the engineering history books.

Best,
Ed

[Stig Jarlevik]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

And one more thing: history is an analytical science. Combat chronicling is not history.

Jukka

I certainly respect your opinions and interests.
The problem is you don't respect other individuals interests. Your next problem is that, at least on TOCH you are a minority with your own dedicated interests.

To say that history is an analytical science is wrong. History is whatever you make of it. Mankind's past is basically a time gone buy, just like the seconds it take you to read these sentences.
History is what you make of it. It could be everything or nothing. You can basically chose any subject you want and the minute you look one second behind, it has turned into history, never to come again.
To use the word analytical is in a way correct. Everyone who look into his/our/mankind's past analyse it, whether the individual understands it or not.
If we didn't we would never understand ourselves.

To state that chronicling is not history, is a fundamental mistake. Most historians whether they are archeologists or reading historians are basically relying upon exactly that. Lacking chronology leaves the archeologist with nothing to hang up his findings upon and the historian basically with no story to tell. It makes no difference if you write a wartime history, technical history or whatever dedicated historical topic you chose.

Just try and write a technical history without a chronology. Where would that take you?

Cheers
Stig

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

So? Then please explain that why there are numerous warship and tank books (and those warships and tanks were most probably designed for combat) that are very much aimed at readers who are interested in their engineering and mechanical features …

I have no need to explain it since I didn't make the argument that the study of technical aspects was somehow of lesser value.

history is an analytical science. Combat chronicling is not history.

And how is one to produce an analysis without first establishing, as far as possible, what actually happened? Patterns are more likely to become apparent the more one can piece together the course of events; the discovery of more evidence may also invalidate a working hypothesis derived from one's initial findings.

[FalkeEins]

the technical development of a new type is intricately bound up with its combat history (how many marks of Spitfire were there- the Montforton book only analyses the engineering of the IX and XVI..) ...and especially with a machine like the He 219. After a combat debut in early June 1943 - during which five Lancasters were claimed - six months later in December 1943 I./NJG 1 still only had three serviceable He 219s on strength..page 109 of Ron Ferguson's book looks at the work of the 'Heinkel Technical field Service Unit' at Venlo and considers the many (many, many..) problems affecting He 219 serviceability..

[richdlc]

I'm not going to comment on the book. There's plenty I could say about Ferguson, in fact I"m itching to, but I will refrain.

Our book is being written by Marcel Hogenhuis, Kjetil Aakra and Martin Streetly, and we have had significant help from many other people. A lot of the book will be based on hundreds of pages of primary sources that Ferguson didn't have. Our book will also examine Czech and Russian machines, will have the finest scale drawings and plans, colour profiles and over 400 photos and images from Eddie Creek's archive. Marcel is writing the operational history of NJG 1 and to some extent other units. We hope the effort will be worth it.

[FalkeEins]

Originally Posted by richdlc

I'm not going to comment on the book. There's plenty I could say about Ferguson, in fact I"m itching to, but I will refrain. Our book is being written....

I'm sure there'll be a thread about your book when it appears. Seems a bit churlish of you not to acknowledge that Wingleader and their author have done an excellent job on this. I know you have a 'thing' about 'unpublished' images and there's gonna be far fewer of those now in your book, but I'm sure that won't stop enthusiasts buying it (..as it would not have that JG title...). This book will surely only make yours better..