učitel

TyberiusClaudius napisal: …Frantisek to Czech, ale zawsze twierdził: I am Polish. The reason: In France Josef František chose to stay with Polish airmen group instead of joining the exiled Czechoslovak Air Force. The reason for that decision was a conflict with one Czech officer, who tried to arrest him for insubordination. This officer even ordered one French MP-corporal to arrest František, but there was written „Polish soldier“ in František´s pilot document, therefore French soldier said he couldn´t do it.

Gregski napisal: Učitel, oczywiście masz rację ale takie wielorakie wykorzystanie nie ograniczało się tylko do maszyn rozpoznawczych/łącznikowych. Yes, no doubt about it. But the theme is maszyny rozpoznawcze, no bombers, no fighters. I wanted only to remind, or to add, that there was a nuance, a small difference, between Hs 126 and FW 189, when I take into account główne zadania do jakich dany typ był zaprojektowany. Another speciality: I have written that Soviet designers have constructed - under the impressions of succees of German FW 189 – artillery observer and reconnaissance plane Sukhoi Su-12. It had a similar two-fuselage concept and cockpit glazing like FW 189, but it was more than two times heavier. Due to its robustness and its form, this design reminded rather American heavy fighter P-61 Black Widow.

Gregski napisal: Taki Storch to maszyna raczej łącznikowa. Na początku wojny do zadań rozpoznania taktycznego Niemcy używali Henschel 126 a później Focke-Wulf 189 i to głównie na kierunkach gdzie w powietrzu nie panowało lotnictwo Aliantów. Yes, I can only remind that Germans determinated originally the purpose (a small difference) between Henschel 126 and FW 189: According to original German booklet from 1942 - Deutsche, italienische, britisch-amerikanische und sowjetische Kriegsflugzeuge, Germans classified Hs 126 as Aufklärungsflugzeug (reconnaissance aircraft), while FW 189 as Aufklärer (reconnaissance special). Despite the fact that Germans used Hs 126 as multi-role plane, like towing glider, its original role –due to its design - was the artillery observer, as well as British Lysander or Polish Czapla. FW 189 was, according to its original design, a typical „spy“ plane, whereas Fi 156 was originally a liason plane. Of course, there was in a common practice that any of these types made each of mentioned roles, which was a common practice at operational airfields. But, it is a well known thing that (under the impressions of succees of German FW 189) Soviet Sukhoi´s OKB designed Su-12, artillerijskij korrektirovščik i razvědčik, an aircraft for artillery observing and reconnaissance roles, shortly after the war. Further evidence, that there´s very small difference between „reconnaissance plane“ and „scout/spy plane“, we can find in prewar Czechoslovak Air Force: Air doctrine had no term „reconnaissance unit (flight)“, only „observing flight“ and „scout/spy flight“. Czechoslovak multi-role biplane Letov Š-328 began to replace Aero A-11 at observation units, while scout/spy units remained a bit older Aero A-100/101. But, as soon as A-100 began to withdraw from units in late of 1930s, Š-328 replaced this type, too. (Advanced, scout/photogrammetric special – Praga E-51 – was still at a prototype stage.)

A word or two to Gregski´s authentic flight diary that he has erenow displayed. There is marked a mission on the 6th June 1944 and as the type is written – SPITFIRE XIX, and above is superscribed GRIFFON. It was probably one of the first operational flights of this type that began to use in the middle of 1944. It is generally known that Spitfire PR. Mk. XIX was the best British photo-reconnaissance plane, together with special photo-reconnaisance Mosquitos. But, such an aviation hybrid – somethig between unarmed Spitfire PR. Mk. X and powerful, operational Spitfire Mk. XIV. - caused that the result wasn´t always so good as the designers had imagined. It is a truth, British pilots didn´t like flying Spitfire Mk. XIX, and they prefered older Mk. X and XI. to newer type. Concerning the superscribed word „GRIFFON“ above the type of Spitfire, the pilot maybe wanted to underline the fact, that the GRIFFON-engine requires a quite different piloting: Mk. XIX was otherwise fast, but the Griffon was heavier, more thirsty, and its range was shorter by 500 kilometres. Its propeller had the opposite direction of rotation; therefore - during the start - the pilots had to eliminate the deviation of the aircraft from the track onto the opposite side than they were used to.

Yes, to have good and reliable engines – it was always the problem, at least for Russian-, Italian-, and Japanese Air Forces. They solved it with a help of a licensed production (also Czechs before the war), but it haven´t always led to optimal results. I think, the discussion the topic „P 37 Los – the heavy fighter“ should stop because it would be just cheating… Recently, I noticed 2 things concerning P-37, though there are details only: First - concerning the opening the canopy. During the First World War, first combat pilots were recruited to Air Forces from the cavalry, and they used to mount on a horse from left side (from the PORT). To this was adapted later opening the cabin – from the port of the aircraft, to right side. I have seen the youtube shot of the alarm start of P-37 Los, and – its crew got onto the plane from right side (from STARBOARD), and therefore a pilot opened the cabin to left side. This is such a curiosity of the design. Second – concerning the camouflage: unlike other Polish military planes of 1930s, P. 37 Los probable haven´t worn a typical Polish camouflage consisted of (Polish) khaki on upper side and pale blue on under side, but chocolate brown („milk chocolate“ – not so dark as French colour Chocolat) and silverish grey. Fragments of a crashed plane showed this fact, which was exploited for the building of the Los replica in Mielec (youtube: Grand opening – Mielec, September 2012) and also Wojciech Krajewski confirms it in other shot (youtube: Prawdziwe kolory bombowca).

In my opinion – P.37 Los could have been a quite good heavy fighter, but it would have had some more powerful power plants. But not only a powerful engine creates a good combat plane. For example, it is known, that Germans used bombing plane´s airframes Ju-88 A and Do-17 Z for their Nachtzerstörers. But a big role belongs to plane´s flight characteristics. Due this feature we can say that Ju-88 C was better night fighter than Do-17 Z-10, because Ju-88 A had better flight characteristics than Do-17 Z. No doubt. (Then Do-217 versions were better for a pilotage, but it was, naturally, a quite new plane in fact.) And concerning P.37, I can compare this fact with one conclusion, what I have sometimes read in a well-known publication Rumanian Air Force (Squadron/Signal publications) by Hungarian aviation historian Dénes Bernád. (Concerning air combat using in Aeronautica Regala Romana, it is a known thing that Rumanians used their Loses for actions in South Ukraine and Crimea.) About that Bernád have written on page 50 - a text placed under a photo of a single-handed P.37: „Although still considered a modern bomber at this time, the P.37 had a tendency to enter a tailspin without warning.“ I believe that this information was known for prewar Polish airmen that flew P.37 Los. Certainly, they must have known it, but I haven´t read it yet in Polish aviation materials.

One false information: .....who was murdered by Lisowczycy when Hieronym Kleczkowski´s troops were riding through Moravia towards Vienna at the beginning of January 1620. I have to correct one mistake publicated 25. 8. 2017 as above. The right information is that: ...who was murdered by Lisowczycy when Hieronym Kleczkowski´s troops were riding through Moravia towards Vienna at the beginning of February 1620.

I can add a word or two about GERMAN JET ACES IN ME 262: http: //wp.scn.ru/en/ww2/b/455/2/5 Several years ago I read the information that Heinz Bär (total 220 kills) succeeded 1 victory - from his 16 jet kills - with Me 262 C-1a "Heimatschützer I" with Walter HWK 109-509 rocket engine in the tail. This prototype airplane (V-186) had reached 922 km/h in 6000 m. I have written above the reference for the source (a picture). When I had interested in German top-scoring jet pilots, I found out that various sources give different victory-numbers. I think, it might have been caused by a chaos during last months of war. Most improbable jet ace seems to be Kurt Welter. He personally claimed about 30 night kills of Mosquitos in Me 262. Various sources give 68 or 63 total victories, including 56 at night. It is stated 29 or 20 night jet kills from his total score. Maybe he was leading jet ace, but there is a possibility that he did overclaim up to 10. Concerning Franz Schall (total 137 kills), he is mostly given on the 2nd place, right behind Bär, with his 14 kills, but some sources talk about 17 kills. Most sources correspond to information that Georg-Peter Eder (total 78 kills) achieved 12 jet victories, but some write about 25. Rudolf Rademacher (total 126 kills) had 8 kills confirmed, but some sources give 24. The others pilots are "trouble-free": Erich Rudorffer (total 222 kills) with 12 kills; Heinrich Ehrler (total 208 kills) with 8 kills; Theo Weissenberger (total 208 kills) with 8 kills; Walter Schuck (total 206 kills) with 8 kills; Adolf Galland (total 104 kills) with 7 kills; Johannes Steinhoff (total 176 kills) with 6 kills; Wolfgang Späte (total 99 kills) with 5 kills; Klaus Neumann (total 37 kills) with 5 kills; Alfred Schreiber (total 5 kills) with 5 kills - first jet ace; Franz Stigler (total 29 kills) with 4 kills; this pilot became known when he - still as Bf 109 G-6 pilot - escorted a havily damaged B-17 (pilot Charles Brown) to the British coast on 20th December 1943. Günther Lützow (total 105/108 or 110 kills) with 2 kills; Walter Krupinski (total 197 kills) with 2 kills; I have written some well-known names only. Exact list of confirmed German jet victories is displayed on pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_World_War_II_jet_aces

Unlike Stanislaw Stroynowski, it isn´t known when and where Idzi Kalinowski ended his life. It is written that Kalinowski was famous for his robbery in autumn 1626, during the battle of Gniew, after the fighting with Sweden was restored. Lots of accucations were imposed, and a result was, that Kalinowski together with Śleżyński and many others were definitely expelled from the Royal Polish Army and he became infamis (for several times already). His next fate is unknown. (Once I read on the Internet that Kalinowski was hired for Prussian military service but the plausibility of the sources is uncertain.) ____________________________________________ Concerning Kalinowski´s death, there is a rather interesting report publicated in historic regional ethnographic journal, called Naše Valašsko (= "Our Wallachia"), a number from 1943. On the page 27 there is described a statement of a Wallachian rebel, Pavel Jančík from Kelč, who was tortured in Lipník on 20th April 1628: "I was three times among Wallachian rebels, one time I was looking for cattle, under Helšteyn (a castle); two times I was in Hranice with Janoštík from Vykanice near Rožnov, that time he was a heytman of them, when they drove cattle from Lipník, when they had killed Kalinovsky near Hranice." The main problem is, that the topic of the rebel´s statement is not dated - what time did he mean? Kalinowski was on mission against Moravian Wallachs in summer 1623, together with Lanikowski (in September 1623 he was in Poland), in winter and spring 1624 with Stroynowski (he returned in June 1624). Next mission - 1625? - lead Kalinowski to northern Italy (Liguria, Zuccarello, Milano, Lombardia, Riva di Chiavenna) and then, in 1626, during his journey to Poland, he tried to defeat Danish units together with a help of imperial units from the neighbourhood of Opava, Teschen and Opole and other Silesian towns. But, Kalinowski´s lisowczycy were defeated in the battle of Opava. After Kalinowski´s return to Poland he planned next mission, then in northern war theatre - against Sweden in Royal Prussia, with Mikolaj Moczarski´s cornets. But I have written it above already. I think, hard to say that Kalinowski could have fought in Moravia (near Hranice) still in 1627, because that year general Wallenstein and Marradas drew on the whole Danish Silesian contingent. And it is not known, that these imperial regiments would have included some Lisowczycy´s cornet in 1627. But they had an auxiliary and rapid cavalry - Dragi´s Croatian cavalry regiment, that formed in Valašské Meziříčí. Concerning the rebel, Pavel Jančík, I think, the events could date to January/February 1624, when Kalinowski was at his regiment´s settlement near Hranice. And the LIsowczyk, whom Janoštík´s rebels have killed, was no "Kalinowski", but some lisowski rytmistrz but porucznik. (And, recalled Wallachian heytman - "Janoštík" - it will mean probably Václav Januštík came from Kostelec. He was a son of Kostelec´s miller Jan Štika (from this "Januštík"), who was murdered by Lisowczycy when Hieronym Kleczkowski´s troops were riding through Moravia towards Vienna at the beginning of January 1620. Januštík became soon a brave Wallachian commander, heytman, and under his command Wallachian men managed to destroy two Polish cornets, directly under Stroynowski´s command, supposedly. It was at the beginning of March 1624. This first Wallachian success caused that radicalized Wallachians began to expel Polish garrisons from Wallachian little towns as Lukov, Fryšták and Kostelec.)

I can add air accidents of three aces-pilots who haven´t lost their life during the war but after the war: Heinrich Bär (1913 - 1957) known by his 220 or 221 victories including 16 kills in Me 262. He was killed in a flying accident in April 1957 near Braunschweig. During a test flight in a light aircraft, a LF-1 Zaunkönig, Bär put the airplane into a flat spin, but the plane spun down from 50 metres. Bär was unable to regain control and he lost his life in front of his family´s eyes. Dezsö Szentgyörgyi (1915 - 1971) was a top-scoring Hungarian fighter ace with 29 kills (including 6 U.S. planes). He survived communist prisons in 1950´s and after 1956 he started flying with the MALÉV airlines. In August 1971 he died in a crash accident near Copenhagen as a senior pilot of Ilyushin Il-18. He would have retired in less than three weeks only... Franco Bordoni-Bisleri (1913 - 1975) was with his 19 kills a top-scoring Regia Aeronautica ace, who survived the WWII. As a president of the Milano-Bresso Aeroclub he returned home from Rome to Milan aboard his SIAI Marchetti SF 260 tourism plane in September 1975. When he was overflying the Apennines, the thunderstorm caught him, and Bisleri crashed into Mount Anchetta near Chiavari. Instead of him, also his 10-year-old son died, and a friend of him.

- Poldas napisal: Samoloty czechosłowackiej produkcji to sobie za bardzo nie powalczyły, ale kojarzę iż jakieś Smoliki i Letovy do Polski przyleciały i były użytkowane bojowo w trakcie Kampanii Wrześniowej. - Yes, it´s truth. Avia B-534 and Letov Š-328 saw some action in Polish campaign. (Sgt. František Hanovec even shot down one Lublin R-XIII in B-534, together with other two Slovak pilots.) But - do you know any foreign air force, where were Avias and Letovs more successful than in Czech- or Slovak Air Forces?? (I don´t mean the Slovak National Revolt Air Force, naturally.) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - učitel napisal: Also a rare fact is a combat using of French light fighter Caudron CR. 714 Cyclone (Finnish Air Force obtained this type at number of six, but they stored them as useless in combat). But, when Polish airmen in France made some combat flights in these planes against Germans in 1940, they appreciated the Caudron performances as quite low, but the maneuverability seemed to be better than with MS. 406 C!! - Today, I consider those sentences (their conclusion) for nonsensical! When I wrote this opinion four years ago, I took over words concerning Cyclone´s maneuverability from some English text; and - as I suppose - they have made a bad translation of an original Polish text. In the second half of 1970´s I bought for air enthusiasts one well-known book - Andrzej Morgala: Polskie samoloty wojskowe 1939 - 1945 (Min. Obrony Nar., Warszawa 1976). I suppose, Mr. Morgala had then still a possibility to talk with some Polish veteran pilots who flew in Caudron Cyclone in Dywizjon Warszawski 1/145. Morgala well describes on pages 67-70 the history of using the type. I suppose, following sentences have become poorly understood: Nie znano jeszcze wówczas ujemnych cech tych maszyn i z entuzjazmem przyjmowano nowy sprzet, który mial odznaczać sie wyzszymi walorami bojowymi od posiadanych dotychczas Morane 406C1. Further, Morgala names some bad features of the Cyclone, described by Polish airmen in combat: - very low speed of climbing ("nie chcialy iść w góre"); - very frequent defects of the automat of propeller setting; - delicate undercarriage - mainly amortizers damaged very often; - frequent defects during chassis extension; - defects in engine protection during a swooping; - big pilot´s powers to control the rudders in the flight of maximal speed. So, Polish airmen - after those experiences - used to exploit this aircraft (having very delicate construction) as sport-club aircraft, trainers, not as full-value combat fighters. (A. Morgala)

After my opinion, one of the most beautiful Axis-fighters are Italian Reggiane Re.2005 Saggitario and Japanese Ki-61 II kai Hien.

After my opinion, one of the most beautiful Axis-fighters are Italian Reggiane Re.2005 Saggitario and Japanese Ki-61 II kai Hien.

My to nazywamy "czeski błąd": Last appendix to my sentences written on November 17, 2015: (Pol.) wojna (= the war) – (Czech) vojna (= military service, also an obsolete expression and a folk expression for the war) (Pol.) walka (= the fight /generally/) – (Czech) válka (= the war) (Pol.) bój (= the fight /concerning the level of the platoon, the company and the battalion?/ – (Czech) boj (= the fight /generally and in all cases/) and finally one smiley example: (Pol.) laska (= the stick /from a hazel branch/) – (Czech) láska (= the love) .............. - What a paradox!!

GREGSKI napisal: Co ciekawe według jego opisu wygrał dwa starcia z Mosquito ale po zaciętej walce. Natomiast z Lightingiem był remis. Dwie porażki i dwa zwycięstwa. Przyznam się, że mnie to nieco zdumiało bo wydawało mi się że jednosilnikowy Typhoon powinien sobie poradzić w tych warunkach z dwusilnikowymi przeciwnikami. This is the reason why British didn´t use Mosquito as a day fighter, but as an attack-point bomber and a night fighter. They had bad experiences with two-engined fighters as day fighters (based on actions of Westland Whirlwind as day fighters in 1940 and American Lightnings in R.A.F. a bit later). British opinions also could be affected by very bad using of heavy fighter Bf 110 during Battle of Britain as a day escort fighter. Unusual, but quite effective, is Mosquito using as an interceptor against German V-1 missiles. Brian Cull in his book (Diver! Diver! Diver!) writes that Mosquito´s pilots shot down together 586.5 flying bombs (mainly Mosquito versions Mk.13, 6, 17 and 19). This number includes mainly night kills, but taking into account, the first place belongs to Tempest V (851.75 kills) and the third place to Spitfires (together 543.25 kills: mainly Spitfire Mk. XIV – 377.5 kills, Mk. IX – 116.25 kills and Mk. XII – 41.5 kills), Mosquitos were placed on the second position. The interesting thing is, that Gloster Meteor Mk.I, predetermined to destruction of V-1s, achieved 12.5 kills of V-1 only! Surely, Mosquito was better than Bf 110 as the fighter. It was faster, and excellent for point bombing especially. But in the role of night fighter were both the fighters successful, after my opinion – Mosquito was better. The obsolescence of Bf 110 as a night fighter was the reason for He 219 developing. P-38 was rather hard for a pilot skill, but if a pilot learned to use best options both Lightning´s engines, P-38 also made its best. And this applies also for single-engined fighters, especially for Japanese pilots. It is an interesting thing that for German pilots, P-38s weren´t so dangerous as for Japanese ones. That fact is confirmed by lots of German fighter aces had been flying over West Europe. Hawker Typhoon was not so good fighter for dogfights in Western Europe. S/L James Sheddan wrote in his book (Tempest pilot) that Typhoon´s cannons were the only good thing in that plane. Its cannons were much better than cannons used in first Tempests. Further, British combat and test pilot, S/L Paul Richey, tested Typhoon against Oberleutnant Faber´s captured FW 190 in summer 1942. British test pilots appreciated FW 190 very well, and according to S/L Richey´s tests, Typhoons were predetermined for coastal air defence and attacks on German bombers, not for dogfights. (And, of course, for ground attack, but still later.)