FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1959
1959 - 1197.PDF
584 FLIGHT, 24 April 1959 CORRESPONDENCE... The two photographs referred to below by Mr. D. A. Russell. On the left yon Richt- hofen is seen using a step-ladder to reach his cockpit; at right, Oberursel engine markings (Imperial War Museum) 1 I viewer. I myself likewise cannot remember him. During the daysbefore April 21, 1918 (dare on which von Richthofen was killed) I was at the front with the squadron. During that period I neithermade the reviewer's acquaintance nor did I see him. He cannot therefore have talked to Richthofen, as I regularly used to bepresent at such conversations." (4) Your reviewer complains that the authors "miss the pointthat von Richthofen, as well as Boelcke, directly endeavoured to influence development and selection of [the] equipment" [for the"Flying Circus"]. We quote from Anthony Fokker's book Flying Dutchman(p. 201)—"Richthofen knew little or nothing about the technical difficulties of air planes. Unlike Boelcke and Immelmann, he wasnot even interested, except as it was necessary for him to know for his own safety and development." (5) Your reviewer says that when he last saw von Richthofen"only a day or two before his end, he was happily exercising his new mount [D VII] displaying it with pride around neighbouringairfields." Von Richthofen shot down his 77th and 78th victims on April 7, 1917. For the next several days bad weather pre-vailed and prevented flying. Then there followed the move to Jasta 11 to Cappy. Here again there was bad weather, and as isrecounted on page 103 of our book, "during the days that proved to be his last he was kept much to his quarters writing a treatiseon air fighting, bringing up to date the dicta of Boelcke in the light of recent experiences." The bad weather continued untilthe 19th. On the 20th von Richthofen shot down his 79th and 80th victims. On the 21st he was killed. On p. 198 of his bookAnthony Fokker says "for three weeks I lived with the Richthofen Jagdgstaffel located at the time on the Ypres front . . . this wasonly a short time before Richthofen was killed, when he com- manded the Circus and had a great deal of executive duty toattend to as well as his daily fighting. Secretaries raced about and orderlies came and went all day." Your readers may choose between (a) the statements of KarlBodenschatz and Anthony Fokker—both of whom were in daily intimate contact wi:h von Richthofen in the two-to-three-weekperiod prior to his death—and (b) this "claim" by your reviewer, who was nowhere near the Front, less still in contact with vonRichthofen, at any time. (6) Your reviewer states that "Oberursel-built rotary engineswere not fitted to Fokker Dr. I triplanes." This statement is entirely unfounded. It implies directly that the engine (a photo-graph of which appears on p. 117 of our book) and which for the past 40 years has been on exhibition at the Imperial War Museum,has been incorrectly labelled by the museum authorities. It is categorically stated in the official report of the investigatingAllied Control Commission—Rapport Technique Commission Interailiee de Controle Aeronautique en Allemagne—that Oberur-sel engines were fitted to Fokker Dr. I triplanes. Anyone may examine the engine at the I.W.M.; haying done so, we reportthat (a) it is stamped in several places with the trade mark letters MO. These stand for "Motorenfabrik Oberursel A.G." (b) Suchparts as the crankcase, conrods, and even pistons reveal them to be marked with the letter "U" embracing a figure 5, being aninspector's stamp number. (See stampings to the left and right of the Engine Number 2478 in the accompanying photograph—courtesy of the I.W.M.) Note: "U" is the Flugzeugmeisterie Code letter for Oberursel. "O" would seem to be a more appro-priate letter, but it had already been allocated to Opel. (7) Your reviewer says: "And to let fighter pilots mount to theircockpits by wooden step-ladders at least gives credit to the author's inventiveness." On behalf of Messrs. Nowarra and Brown weprotest at the reference to their alleged "inventiveness". . . an indirect way of suggesting that they were lying . , . your readerswill no doubt be interested in the accompanying photograph, which shows none other than Baron von Richthofen himself atthe top of a step-ladder, about to enter or leave an Albatross D.III . . . (8) At our invitation, your reviewer visited us at Letchworthearly this year. All three directors of this company were present at what was throughout a friendly discussion. When asked whatwas his rank in the German Air Service, and to which Jasta he had belonged, your reviewer replied that he was only a trainee cadet,and was never engaged in combat in the 1914-18 war. When asked what was the degree of his association with von Richthofen,he replied that he had never met him, but did once see him . , (9) It is not our concern here as to why your reviewer should sogrossly misrepresent the contents of our book and indeed, his own "qualifications" for so doing. We are concerned solely (as wefeel sure that you, Sir, will be) in correcting the record, and in protecting the high standard of personal and literary integrity ofboth the compilers and editors. Your reviewer wrote: "... one fears that it [the book] may intime come to be quoted as a 'bible' in argument against those who treasure first-hand knowledge and nostalgic memories of vonRichthofen and his squadron." In view of the many appreciations we have received, and bear-ing in mind that of the first print of 5,000 copies some 4,000 have already been sold (and a further reprint will shortly be necessary),it is apparent that the time has already come when Von Richthofen and the Flying Circus will be (and indeed is) quoted by—and notagainst—"those who treasure first-hand knowledge and nostalgic memories of von Richthofen and his squadron"—experienceswhich most certainly your reveiwer never had. Letchworth, Herts. HARLEYFORD PUBLICATIONS LTD., D. A. Russell, Director.[It should, perhaps, be added that the reviewer of the book in question was A. R. Weyl, A.F.R.Ae.S., A.F.I.Ae.S., F.B.I.S., who (as recordedin Flight for March 6) died on February 23.—Ed.] Historic Hops and FlightsI WOULD never call my friend John W. R. Taylor [April 17]frivolous, let alone "worse"; but he has spells of mischievous weakness like all of us. So here goes :(1) I think I am right in saying that every early pioneer (powered), save the Wrights, waited for as calm conditions aspossible, for the fundamental reason that no one before 1909 (except the Wrights) could control his aircraft in a wind, primarilyfor lack of lateral control. (2) In 1903, to keep a powered aeroplane flying for 59 sec in a20-25 m.p.h. wind was an amazing feat. No one but the Wrights could fly for that time—even in a dead calm—until November1907. (3) Leaving aside all hocus-pocus about what flying is, theWrights were by years the first to produce a practical powered aeroplane (their No. 3 Flyer of 1905). They also provided thedirect stimulus to European flying on two pivotal occasions: I must ask John Taylor to wait for my book for what I hopehe will agree is proof of that, advanced fully (I hope) for the first time. (4) Perhaps the greatest single blessing conferred by theWrights on European aviation was the true concept of manoeuvrability. (5) From 1908 (when the first was killed) till the end of 1910,36 lives were lost on powered aeroplanes: eight were killed on Wrights, eight on Farmans (H. and M.) five on Antoinettes, fouron Bleriots, one on Voisins, seven on other makes, and three unknown. Not bad for the huge hourage clocked up by Wrightmachines from 1903 onwards. (6) Why should history give greater credit to later machineswhen earlier ones made them possible? (7) The top of the "pull-up" at Brooklands was no better placethan the finishing straight on which to pose for a photograph; and needed, in addition, friends to push up the machine. TheFrench caption to that photo is interesting. It says : "L'aeroplane de M. Roe prenant son elan" (taking off). In any case, Roe wouldhave been crazy not to have used the slope, especially when (as he says) he had friends to help. Incidentally, and before the wasps get at me, let me correct"four" to "five" alleged tests by Cody in May 1908. The point about the proof of the actual date (May 16) not being known tillafter 1948 is that Cody's biographer wrote in 1958 that Cody "always gave the date May 16"; whereas in September 1948 hehad said he "cannot—at present—give the actual date." CHARLES H. GIBBS-SMITH.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
