učitel

Jakober napisal: Cóż. Wśród zachodnich entuzjastów za najlepszy uchodzi rozwinięcie Macchi MC202 Folgore - Macchi C205V Veltro Concerning Macchi C.205, Wikipedia very good describes the events when Luftwaffe independent commission tested all three new Italian „5-line“ fighters at Guidonia airfield: In February 1943, a German test commission was sent in Italy to evaluate the new Italian fighters. The commission was led by Luftwaffe colonel Petersen and was formed by Luftwaffe officers and pilots and by technical personnel, among them the Flugbaumeister Malz. The Germans also brought with them several aircraft including a Fw 190 A-5 and a Bf 109 G-4 for direct comparison tests in simulated dogfights.The tests began on 20th February 1943 with the German commission very impressed by the Italian aircraft, the G.55 in particular. In general, all the Serie 5 fighters were very good at low altitudes, but the G.55 was also competitive with its German opponents in term of speed and climb rate at high altitudes still maintaining superior handling characteristics. The definitive evaluation by the German commission was "excellent" for the G.55, "excellent" for the Re.2005 but very complicated to produce and "average" for the C.205. Colonel Petersen defined the G.55 "the best fighter in the Axis" and immediately telegraphed his impressions to Göring. After listening the recommendations of Petersen, Milch and Galland, a meeting held by Göring on 22 February 1943 voted to produce the G.55 in Germany.

gregski napisal: Ja ze swej strony dołożę Saburo Sakai z sześćdziesięcioma czterema zwycięstwami. Yes, most Japanese victory lists classify Japanese ace Saburo Sakai on the 5th place with 64 kills. But, there are some authors that admit him less than 20 kills (even only 15 kills)!

I have written that it sometimes used to happen during first dogfights between Defiant and Bf 109 E that German pilot mistook Defiant with similar form of Hurricane. He used to attack from the back side to Hurricanes and even got close behind their rear. But, what a surprise when that „Hurricane“ fired from its turret right onto German´s engine. Similar situation used to become also in the Pacific area: Japanese fighters often attacked from the back side onto Hellcats. What a surprise if Japanese pilot found out that his rival is not Hellcat but Avenger!

It is known that Finnish Air Force used some Polikarpov I-16 and I-153 as the captured types. Maj. Eino Luukkanen (48 confirmed kills + 10 group victories) has written in his memorial book (The Fighter over Finland) that I-153 was extremely maneuverable biplane. But, both I-16 and I-153 had very unreliable engine – M-63. It happend many times, that M-63 engine stopped during the flight, without any apparent cause. Several skilled Finnish pilots lost their life after crash landing on freezing sea water.

gregski, nice to see you, too. Exactly, You´re right. As soon as one fighting side knew that the enemy has got fighters more maneuverable – especially in horizontal level – it had to change its dogfight tactics. When Lt. Mölders – flying in Spanish Civil War Bf 109 D – knew, that the rival´s Polikarpov I-16 type 10 has even better horizontal maneuverability than Messerschmitt, he thought out different way of air tactics. He started to attack from higher vertical level to destroy enemy´s groups (the Blitzangriff). He successfully used his air tactics, together with Balthasar, in Battle of France. During Battle of Britain, most Luftwaffe´s fighter pilots accepted his air tactics because Hurricanes and Spitfires Mk. I were better in horizontal turns than Bf 109 E. Also the power characteristics of DB 601 A engine (the direct injection into the cylinders) were convenient for this type of attack. Luftwaffe used that fighter tactics also in Russia and Western Desert during 1941-42: Most of Allied Lend-Lease types, as well as Soviet Jaks, which had indeed French Hispano-Suiza engines (Jak-1 and 7 even in worse workmanship), were worse than Bf 109 F. Some of them were maneuverable enough (Curtiss P-40, Mustang Mk. I or Bell P-39 for example) but their Allison-engine was too lasy. A different case concerns Japanese modern fighters like Nakajima Ki-43 I and Mitsubishi A6M2. Hayabusas were very successful after its first actions in China, even against Chennault´s „Flying Tigers“, flying P-40. Navy A6M Zero, and especially Army Ki-43, were very maneuverable at the expense of their armour of the pilot seat and of fuel tanks, which is today known. Therefore R. A. F., its Fighter Command, sent to South-East Asia its experienced fighting pilot – S/L Paul Richey – who became the ace during Battle of France (R. A. F. expeditionary force) in June 1940. Then he killed 9,5 German planes over France, when he was flying Hurricane with 601st Squadron. He actually accepted original German dogfight tactics of the attack from higher vertical level for the Pacific theatre of war. S/L Richey advised to Allied fighter pilots: „Do not attempt to accept the dogfight in vertical turns – there Japanese fighters are insuperable.“ It was good for P-40- and Wildcat pilot to get Hayabusas and Zeros during the dogfight into the verical level, because these Japanese fighters often tore off their wings if they had got into the swooping. And the heavy fighter P-38 Lightning – this plane was rather challenging for its pilotage, but, if full trained P-38 pilot used best its capabilities, this plane showed also its best.

I wrote on 21st August 2010: I have sometime read that American U.S. Navy-designers had such a complex that their last Navy-fighter types (F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair) were otherwise more powerful than A6M5 Zero, but Zero was more maneuverable than these ones. Therefore the Grumman factory constructed F8F Bearcat. Bearcat should have been more maneuverable than Zero, - according to Grumman technicians opinion. Originally, that opinion comes from Czech well-known and WWII-planes writer, Václav Němeček. But, recently I learnt another opinion, I think, more persuasive. For air superiority in Pacific area in 1944, there wasn´t necessary to develope „supermaneuverable“ fighter – „more maneuverable than A6M Zero“, because Zero was overcome long time ago. After coming of powerful US Navy fighters as Hellcat and Corsair in 1943, the maneuverability of Zero was ineffective enough. The reason was not to devise more maneuverable navy fighter than Zero, but something else: US task forces successfully used the escort aircraft carriers in the Pacific area, on a massive scale.Those „baby“ carriers had on the armament fighters Wildcats – then mostly in the modification FM-2. Wildcats were, as we know, much smaller than Hellcats and Corsairs, and therefore they were very convenient for this duty. Robust Hellcats, as well as Corsairs, were too sizable for „baby carriers´ lifts, their dimensions were large enough. But, in spide of the fact that FM-2 Wildcat was quite good fighter, US Navy intended to replace it for more advanced plane. So, Grumman Bearcat was born as very fast, maneuverable and durable fighter, a convenient fighter for the duty on the escort-aircraft carriers. Its size was limited (its dimensions were like Soviet La-7 dimensions) and it was powered with much more powerful engine than Wildcats had. But, Bearcats came into Pacific area in late May 1945, too late for an effective intervention for WWII dogfights.

Poldas, I don´t understand the sense of your sentences but I think, it has concerned Battle of Malta. Till September 1941, the sky over Malta has then been an area where met biplanes (like in Northern Africa in 1940). Fiat CR.42 Falco on Italian- and Gloster Sea Gladiator on British side. Both biplanes were excellent and maneuverable, Fiat Falco was probably more maneuverable, but Gladiators were probably more durable, had stronger armament and British pilots were better trained as well.

ZGODA. I have expected that somebody will notice PZL P.24. This is a bit rare thing. PZL P.24 was more advanced version of a basic type P.11 but produced for the export only. Many years ago I have read at Pokryshkin´s memoir „The War in the Clouds“, that the most maneuverable plane, that he met in a fight at all, was Rumanian PZL P.24!! Interesting! Also a rare fact is a combat using of French light fighter Caudron CR.714 (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!! So, it is a fact, Polish airmen during Battle of France were more successful in this type than French pilots. Concerning Fiat CR.42 Falco - lots of air forces were successful in this type. Something like was Gloster Gladiator, which was on armament at many air forces, instead of R.A.F. - Belgian-, Norwegian-, Greek-, South African-, Finnish-. But, I mean, this type did its best job at British and South African Air Forces.

Poldas, 1) I don´t know if you undestand correctly the question of this subforum. I think so when I can see your question „Ku czemu zmierzasz?“. 2) And what about Fiat C.R. 42?? Does other air force achieve better successes in this type than Regia Aeronautica? If I remember, Fiat CR 42 was on armament in Hungarian AF, Swedish AF, Belgian AF, Greek AF, Italian Allied AF, Luftwaffe. Hard to say if Hungarians were more successful in Fiat CR 42 (at the Eastern Front) than Italians….. I don´t think so! 3) The fact is that US Navy used Buffalos a short time only, they were soon changed by Wildcats. Finnish Air Force obtained its Buffalos before the war, and more advanced fighters couldn´t be supply there because Finnland belonged to Axis countries. So, they had to fly and fight in those planes which they´ve had. But these things don´t change the fact at all, that Finnish airmen achieved much more success in Buffalos then Americans. 4) A bit similar view is on PZL P-37 Los. Polish Army didn´t fight more than one month. (But it has fought.) So Polish airmen didn´t achieve naturally many successes. But Rumanian Royal Air Force had some P-37s at the Eastern Front and this type was using for bombing attacks on Russian cities, like Odessa for example. Then – the history there is a bit similar, as Buffalo in Finnish AF. 5) Aero A-300 was only the PROTOTYPE!! This type wasn´t in armament – no this type was in service with Czechoslovak bombing units! (I don´t know - maybe a similar example as Wilk, Zubr and other Polish prototypes). So it is also a nonsence to argue that Avia B.35 (for example) achieved „better successes“ in Bulgarian AF than in Czechoslovak AF!! Czechoslovak Air Force hadn´t any possibilities to fight because all main European contries accepted the Munich agreement!

Grogor napisal: Potem został oficerem w zachodnioniemieckim lotnictwie wojskowym, gdzie dowodził pierwszą jednostką całkowicie złożoną z odrzutowców - F-104 Starfighter. Wikipedia is not always truth. I read Czech translation of the book by Toliver-Constable „Holt Hartmann vom Himmel“ 20 years ago. There is written there that the first Bundesluftwaffe´s jet unit, which Hartmann had trained and lead, was JG. 71 "Richthofen" armed by F-86F Sabre. In spide of flying various American fighters at fighter training centre in the U.S.A. (so as F-100, F-102, F-104, F-106) Hartmann didn´t recomend to accept the 2-Mach fighter „Starfighter“ into Bundesluftwaffe´s units. He recomended other type (rather F-100, or F-102) and said that the difference between subsonic F-86 and supersonic F-104 could lead to tragic air accidents in the future. Then Lieut.-col. Hartmann explained his opinions to his higher officer, general Kammhuber, Bundesluftwaffe´s head inspector. Kammhuber told to Hartmann: „Erich, keep it to yourself, so as politicians have a different opinion.“ But, Hartmann vainly tried to convince politicians about his opinion. So, he became uncomfortable for many West-German politics and generals, especially for defence minister Josef Strauss. They have chosen other officers for the post of Chief of Staff of Bundesluftwaffe, more acceptable for them, especially Günter Rall and Johannes Steinhoff, who haven´t critized their choice of F-104. In the end, Hartmann was transferred to Bonn to be deputy-commander of training centre and promoted to colonel. He retired in 1970. Many air accidents of F-104 in 1960´s and 1970´s led to the cognition that Hartmann was right. Too late…

Poldas napisal: Firma Rolls Royce dała dobre motory odrzutowe o resursie rzędu ok. 150 godzin - Nene, Dervent, Goblin. Niemcy cieszyli się, jeśli ich Jumo 004, czy też BMW 003 wylatały 50 godzin bez awarii. Po takim przebiegu/nalocie, należało dokonać remontu silnika. Do you notice it??? This is it, what I have written in my point 2) the quality of engine metal alloys – the matherial - In this Allies were better than Germans. Further, Poldas, do you mean that the cause of good aircraft is only in using good engine? Remember, good plane = good design (airframe, construction) + good engine You speak about combat durability of engines and about good engines again and again. I speak mainly about perspective aircraft design. Niemieckie samoloty z napędem odrzutowym wykazały swoją sprawność, jednak w kwestii napędu tego rodzaju, Brytyjczycy byli lepsi. This is the probleme of using matherial: Me 262 – turbine vane were often burning, supercharger vane sometimes burn (Jumo 004 - an axial supercharger). Napęd MiG-15 nie powstał na jakimś tam klonie BMW-003, czy też Jumo-004, lecz na licencji brytyjskiego silnika Dervent. Again. I haven´t spoken about German engines at all. German suggested Heinkel´s engine HeS 011 for Messerschmitt P.1101, the Americans used their own engine in Bell X-5 during test flights. A typical example is the development of the history of Czechoslovak training plane L-29 Delfin. Initially, it had also British engine – Bristol Viper, because Czechoslovak jet engine (with a centrifugal supercharger – M-701) hadn´t finished yet. The dilema – if an axial, or centrifugal supercharger is better, those ideas were discussed in late of 1950´s, when technicians considered a suitable engine for L-29 (M-710 engine, developing from 1954 to 1956). Most technicians enforced the Motorlet M-710 as the engine with an axial supercharger – then wide used for 2nd generation jet planes, while Ing. Rublič enforced heavily an opposite opinion - an engine with a centrifugal supercharger (M-701). In the end, „Soviet side“ prefered Rublič´s opinion - as the engine simpler for the production and for the maintenance. (By the way, if to use British engine or Czechoslovak, if axial supercharger or centrifugal, Delfín defeated Polish Iskra in comparative trials in 1961.) Conclusion: Which of types of using supercharger is better – it depends on using role of aircraft, what parametre or destination we will expect from concrete aircraft. Jaki wniosek? Did any Allied planes have swept-back wings, ejection seats, braking parachutes or A-A misilles during WWII? No, they had only better electronic equipment (radars) – mainly, and better metal alloys, then the matherial. Good night.

Poldas napisal: Informacja o tym, że Niemcy byli bardziej zaawansowani w materii napędu odrzutowego jest przesadą. Yes it is generally a bit exaggerated, but not so much. But: 1) How many jet planes do Allies see combat action, and how many Germans during WWII? Allies: only Gloster Meteor (Mk.I only Air defence against V-1, and Mk.III – ground attacks) But De Havilland Vampire was on production lines. US: Lockheed P-80 was on production lines (only 1 plane was sent to Europe /Italian Front/, but after several flights it was sent home) Germans: combat actions: Me 262 A and B Arado 234 Heinkel 162 Me 163 (rocket propulsion – „dead street“ of aircraft development) Conclusion to 1): Germans were better than Allies I can´t take into account German Heinkel 178 and 280, as well as British Gloster P.39 Squirt, as well as U.S. Bell P-59. Particular Air Forces only collected experiences for jet-propulsion. 2) Only flight matherials, mainly good engine alloys – it was a big problem for Germany. Allied countries had better possibilities for using for aircraft frames. Conclusion to 2): Allies were better than Germans 3) The quantity of air jet projects, plans, ideas etc – many, many and other, including those suggesting as the Wunderwaffen, Germans had obvious superiority. Further, German projects helped to modernize many postwar air forces (R.A.F., Vojenno-Vozdušnyje sily, L´Armée de l´Air, etc.), and German experiences moved postwar airframe development forward for many years. For example: Two main rivals from Korean War: F-86 (was affected by German Messerschmitt P.1101) and MiG-15 (was affected by German project Focke-Wulf Ta 183). Conclusion to 3): Germans were much better than Allies Poldas napisal: Gdyby dofinansowano pomysł Ohaina, było by Niemcom łatwiej. I would not solve what would it happen (="gdyby"), if … This is a real historical subforum, and „what would it happen“ we can talk hours and hours… The "Sci-fi subforum for WWII" is on other place.

Michaltronik napisal: „Było by więcej Me 262 gdyby Hitler nie kazał ich produkować jako bombowców, co wtedy nie miało już najmniejszego sensu.“ To this topic I can rewrite a word or two that I wrote several years ago in the part „The best jet fighter of WWII“: British test pilot Brown wrote at a book of his, that Alliens hadn´t to afraid of German jet program generally. British Intelligece Services had many good reports about possibilities of mass-production of German jet planes. If woud become, as Galland supposed, and jet planes would have a priority in German war industry, actually the Americans and the British would manage similar priority for their jet planes (Meteors and others).

kazek998 napisal: Następnym pilotem jest autor książki Mały książe -Antoine Marie Jean-Baptiste Roger de Saint-Exupéry w skrócie Antoine de Saint-Exupéry który zginoł 31 lipca 1944r. poldas: Z twórcą Małego Księcia jest o tyle problem iż zaginął.To fakt. Ale czy to była katastrofa? Nie wiadomo Yes, I can agree with poldas that the last Exupéry´s flight has been one great mystery. The possibilities are various: 1) He was shot down, but no Allied kill was reported on 31st July 1944. One photorecognized Lightning F-5 was shot down a day before – on 30th July 1944 and this victory was credited to German pilot Guth from 3/JGr 200. But, on this day two German fighters took off together (including Guth), there´s a possibility that the second pilot was Horst Rippert. There were also some information in 1970s that Exupéry was killed by German pilot Heigel and Robert Heichele. Heichele fell during August 1944 but Heichele´s flight diary, which was published in 1972, describes that Heichele shot down a single-handed Lightning over French coast on 31st July 1944. But, Heigel and Heichele then were flying from Lyon Airfield (a bit far from French Southern coast) and later some legends and moonshine were created – such as both pilots were flying with FW 190 D, which is a big nonsence: the first Doras came to Achmeer Airfield only in October 1944. 2) Exupéry crashed after a navigation error. 3) Exupéry crashed after a loss of plane´s fuel. 4) Exupéry crashed after a technical fault. 5) Exupéry crashed due the incapacitation. 6) Exupéry faked an air accident but he disappeared to live incognito in Paris or in Switzerland. Famous writer supposedly was afraid of his postwar life. There was a suspicion that Exupéry will be arrested because of he was a pacifist, after the armistice in 1940 he left for the USA, and at first, he refused to fight with Free Franch against Hitler. 7) Most of Exupéry´s authors have an idea that a well-known writer commited suicide. A day before his last flight he got rid of own personal belongings, also other things indicate that it was a suicide. (His married life was not so lucky, as well, in spide of loving his beautiful wife very much.) - There were lots of WWII pilot aces, that stayed missing and have no grave. Günter Lützow, for example, didn´t return from his flight with Me 262 in late April 1945. And more and more…

maxgall napisal: dla mnie bitwa o Midway nie była żadnym przełomem, o niczym nie zdecydowała. Kolejna bitwa na wyniszczenie sił Japońskich, według Amerykańskiego scenariusza. I cannot agree with you: The battle of Midway was not only „kolejna bitwa“. While the battle of Coral Sea was the first battle that ended in a draw (1:1) /Americans lost 1 heavy aircraft carrier, and Japanese lost 1 light carrier and 1 destroyer/, the battle of Midway ended in the result 4:1 /Americans lost only 1 heavy aircraft carrier while Japanese 4 aircraft carriers/. And further maxgall has written: Głównym orężem w bitwie o Midway (jak rozumiem właśnie to zwycięstwo miałeś na myśli) były samoloty. Tak na szybko za wiki: - Japonia: 293 samoloty - USA: około 340 samolotów. These American losts were already quite large but U.S. war industry was able to replace these losses very soon, while Japanese losses were very sore, especially concerning the losses of skilled and well-trained airmen – coordinated aircraft crews.

Although I haven´t read previous sides of this FORUM-question yet, I would like to add a word or two to this topic. If I could compare fatal battles that took place both in the Pacific war theatre, and on Eastern Front, I can draw folowing conclusions, and can find a following parallel : 1) The significance of the battle of Coral Sea is almost the same as the battle of Moscow: That battle was the first that Japanese (Germans) haven´t won. 2) The significance of the battle of Midway is almost the same as the battle of Stalingrad: That battle caused the strategic turn in the war (as in Pacific area, so in Russia). This was the first important battle that Japanese/Germans haven´t won. 3) The significance of the battle of Guadalcanal is almost the same as the battle of Kursk: That battle insured the definitive strategic turn in the war, after that the enemy (as Japanese, so Germans) has never recovered.

I must correct my mistake before somebody will warn me. The film Kampfgeschwader Lützow was directed by Hans-Karl Bertram (1906-1993), former long-range pilot and later producer and screenwriter.

A word or two to ciekawy and Wroobel´s sentences concerning the battle of Krojanty on 1st September 1939 (also to the question of the FORUM: "September 1939 - Day after day") This Uhlan´s attack near Krojanty helped to create the legend. This legend naturally spread both Nazi German propaganda, and postwar communist Polish government. Nazi propaganda so exploited the base of although brave but stupid rival. The next day, Italian war correspondents were brought to the battlefield where fallen Polish soldiers lain and German officers told them the story of Polish cavalry yesterday´s attack on German armoured vehicles. Generally, it is true that Italians have a sentimental relationship for cavalry units, therefore they didn´t want to miss such a sensational war story from Northern Poland. Montanelli´s article was although journalistically coloured but it actually described Polish cavalrymen´s courage for Italian readers. After Italian publication, this article was issued nearly in the whole Europe. Germans immediately exploited Italian idea and similar article was issued in propaganda magazine „Die Wehrmacht“. It told about funny Polish cavalrymen, armed with sabres and lances who attempted to attack on German tanks. That riders even believed naively, that German armoured vehicles had made from a plywood. In contrast with Italian journalists, German propaganda didn´t wanted to show Polish soldiers as brave men, but it tried to ridicule Polish resistence in the eyes of the West Allies – France and Great Britain. The mocking campaign of Nazi propaganda continued during the whole war. An interesting episode of that campaign is the film „Kampfgeschwader Lützow“ from 1941, directed by Hans Bertmann. The film makers from Tobis Studio made a fake feature documentary, they showed „an exemplary“ running of Polish campaign including alleged Uhlans´ attacks. The film was made in Kolobrzeg surroundings – German military training area. Unfortunately, these film excerpts are still used as the illustration of Polish campaign from the first days of WW II. After the Second World War, that absurd myth was nurtured even in communist Poland. The official propaganda of Rzeczpospolita ludowa supported the myth about attacked Uhlans, because they wanted to discredit pre-war officers – arch-enemy of the class. So, communist functionaries highly appreciated the young director Andrzej Wajda´s film „Lotna“ from 1959, about one Uhlan squadron. The communist intention was to cause resistance to officers (who had unthinkingly lead common soldiers – workers and peasants´ sons for certain death) in young film viewers, who couldn´t remember the events from September 1939. However, this well-known director appreciated this film later as the worst film of his carrier.

Komuś nie chce się poczytać tego tematu. Proszę zerknąć na wypowiedź nr 27. Not only see nr 27 (kazek998). Boys, I have written this topic (Josef František) in 2010; See nr 6.

In spite of calling of the theme – Air disasters of WWII, I´d like to add some information about one Polish WWII pilot – a pilot who had an air accident after WWII already. He was Squadron Leader Bolesław Kaczmarek, D.F.C., a pilot flown with Polish No. 306, 316 and 302 Squadrons. No. 302 Polish Squadron was under his command from March 24th to August 1st, 1945. Then he flew famous Spitfire L.F. Mk. XVIe with fuselage code letters WX-V, a British Bulldog wearing boxing gloves on the engine cowling and white girl´s name „Janetka“, placed in front of the cockpit. His Spitfire version – Mk. XVI – was similar of last modification of Mk. IX (with Merlin 66 engine) but powered by U.S. Packard engine. The version was in No. 302 Squadron´s armament from February 1945 to December 1946. Generally, No. 302 Polish Squadron destroyed 63 enemy planes, 43 damaged, its 20 airmen were killed, 12 became missing and 9 were captured. The Squadron was disbanded on December 18th, 1946 at Hethel R.A.F. Airfield. 28th July 1947 F/Lt Bolesław Kaczmarek was awarded by Dutch Queen Wilhelmina when he received a military honors – Flying Cross. He was awarded for his initiative, courage and perseverance in flight missions in favour of Dutch Kingdom. After a partition of India (1946), on 14th August 1947 began writing a short postwar history of Polish airmen in new Royal Pakistani Air Force (R.P.A.F.). Then it was the lack of experienced pilots in Pakistan because lots of British pilots finished their duty on Indian subcontinent. So Pakistani AF declared the recruitment for the requirement of experienced pilots that the R.P.A.F. could use as instructors at flight school. So, a group of 26 Polish pilots took participation in this mission. The agreement was signed for three years, and the commander of the contingent was Wladyslaw Turowicz. But, Polish airmen saw action, too, they took part in War of Kashmir in 1949. Two Polish pilots lost their life during service in the R.P.A.F.: Kaczmarek and Kossakowski. Bolesław Kaczmarek served as an instructor pilot at R.P.A.F. College in Risalpur. Most of the information says that the instructor - F/Lt Kaczmarek - was killed during his training flight after crash with student´s plane. Both pilots flew type Hawker Tempest (probably Tempest Mk. II). But the killed Pakistani pilot´s brother – Shujah Khurazmi – says something other: Kaczmarek and Shujah´s elder brother – Pilot Officer Syed Fazal Hussain Khurazmi – flew the type Hawker Fury and then they served in No. 5 Squadron R.P.A.F. On 25th October 1951 - during their aerobatic flight – a fatal collision became, and both pilots lost their life. Mr. Shujah Khurazmi has been caring for an authentic photo with Kaczmarek for years, that he had got from his father. He tried to gain a contact with potential Kaczmarek´s relatives in Poland or in the United Kingdom (or elsewhere). But Kaczmarek hadn´t any family except a fiancee. She survived him but she´s already dead, too.

W/C Paul Richey, D.F.C. (together 10,5 kills, 8,5 kills in Hurricane with British Expeditionary Corps during Battle of France) worked as a fighting consultant after Battle of Britain. In his book written together with Franks (Fighter Pilot´s Summer) he says that Germans didn´t predominate in numbers of fighters in the critical days in the middle of September 1940 during Battle of Britain. He claim that then R.A.F. had in reserve several squadrons with Gloster Gladiator fighters. This biplane was very maneuvering fighter and it was excellent not only in actions in Western Desert, but also in dogfights against Italian maneuvering fighters.

- I recently saw a British video document in which they argued that Hurricane I was even more meneuver than Spitfire I. Something similar confirmed also Czechoslovak veteran pilots in R.A.F., mainly that Hurricane was very stabilized during its fire. - Last year I read the book Fighter Pilot´s Summer written by Franks-Richey. W/C Paul Richey, D.F.C. (together 10,5 kills, 8,5 kills in Hurricane with British Expeditionary Corps during Battle of France) worked as a fighting consultant after Battle of Britain. He wrote that After Battle of Britain, in spring 1941, pilots of Hurricanes Mk.I had had to change their old Hurricanes for Spitfires Mk. II. It was a big shock for many pilots, when they have flown the new Spitfires. They were very frustrated by flying features and by flying qualities of those Spitfires. It lasted a long time enough than they got used to their flying characteristics. - Germans gained at least one Hurricane during Battle of France. Oberstleutnant Werner Mölders tested one Spitfire in 1940. After his flight he told that the take-off and the landing of Spitfire was very easy. „The start with Spitfire would manage even a child!“ (Sims: Fighters) He appreciated very good maneuverability, but climbing and swooping was worse than in Bf 109 E (which is known). And Mölders ends his report with words: „I prefer Bf 109 rather than Spitfire.“ But he never told about Hurricane. - During Battle of Britain, Reichsmarschall Göring arrived at Pas de Calais airfield and he saw with his own eyes, as heavily damaged returning Heinkels managed to crash landing. Göring was very angry and he had to call two important flight commanders: Mölders and Galland. Angry Göring fretted and he asked both pilots what to do to be more successful. Galland answered readily: „Give us one Staffel of Spitfires.“ And Göring walked away… (This moment is described in lots of books; for example in Toliver-Constable: Horrido! The Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe, Galland: Der erste und der letzte, and also in the film Battle of Britain). So, I deduce from this: Galland didn´t say: Give us one Staffel of Hurricanes!!