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

[RCnoob]

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

What was in these new RAF (“Pilot’s Notes”) manuals? They mixed descriptions of controls with simple procedures. [Referenced content is missing.] is the pre-taxi procedure from a 1939 Pilot’s Notes for the Hurricane fighter.1 The writing, at least to the modern eye, was formal and pedantic. In 2006 a former pilot described one manual as “[t]he RAF’s Lancaster manual consists of fairly tedious lists and diagrams whereas the equivalent American version for the B-17 contains more ‘cartoony’ graphics which may have helped the reader to get a feel for operating a B-17 more quickly.”2
----
1 Hurricane I Aeroplane Merlin II Engine, Air Publication 1564A, volume I, March-1939. Retrieved from scribd.com.
2 Anonymous, “Discussion,” Royal Air Force Historical Society Journal volume 37, 2006, p. 69.

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.

22. Spinning.- Spinning of Hurricanes is prohibited (A.M.O.A.15/1938). The following extract from an Experimental Establishment report is included in order that a recovery may be made from an inadvertent spin.
“The aeroplane is easy to spin, more noticeably so at the extended aft centre of gravity. [which probably means ‘when the aircraft’s center of gravity is far back’]…
…[several paragraphs of data on height loss in spins, concluding with]
“… The average total height lost from initiation of the spin to attainment of level flight is about 3,800 feet for a three turn spin….
“It appears that the aeroplane emerges from a spin in a stalled state which persists for a considerable portion of the resultant dive if backwards pressure is exerted on the control column. If however the control column is pushed forward in recovery so that no effort is made to flatten out from the dive until a reasonable airspeed is reached, the stalled condition is avoided but the height lost is prohibitive. [In other words, “damned if you do; damned if you don’t.”] It will be seen, therefore, that if recovery is made according to Flying Training Manual Part I., the loss of height during the recovery is normal considering the [Hurricane’s high] wing loading. On the other hand there is fear of flicking into a spin in the other direction because the aeroplane emerges from the spin in a stalled state.
The instructions laid down in the Flying Training Manual Part I., Chapter III, paragraph 134, are applicable to the Hurricane, but should be amplified in light of the foregoing remarks.

[Bill Walker]

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.

[Larry deZeng]

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.

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.

[DavidIsby]

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.

[MW Giles]

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

[japercaper]

Originally Posted by MW Giles

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

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

TomT
American

[RCnoob]

Originally Posted by DavidIsby

1. All services have their own requirements for written documentation and manuals that they preserve with great zeal.

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.

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.

[RCnoob]

Originally Posted by Bill Walker

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.

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

[RCnoob]

Originally Posted by MW Giles

Suggested reasons for RAF doing its own manuals

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

Just some suggestions

Martin

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

[Larry deZeng]

What is AM?

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