Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Best wrong answer I've ever seen!
1. Flew in WW II and Korea

2. An important piece of equipment is named for him.

3. He was shot down when flying a Spitfire.

US185Damiani

Bob Hoover?

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

That's it; you're up.

The equipment I had in mind was the "Hoover ring," which prevents jet fuel from being put unto a plane with piston engines. One of Hoover's several crashes occurred when someone wwho mistakenly thought his plane had turboprops filled the tanks with jet fuel, leading to engine failure shortly after takeoff.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Just my opinion, but I think that was an excellent and unconventional question, followed by a very fast and excellent answer. I learned something. Thanks for the information; Ernie P.

US185Damiani

I had to install a few Hoover rings on different airplanes in my day.

OK Next question

Continuing the Pilot theme,

This WW I Pilot was another following in his brother's shadow, became an excellent ace in his own right and was shot down 3 times and in each case he was shot down on the 13th of the month.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

This one shouldn't go very far with this crowd; but I'll let some one else take the lead for a while. Good question, though. I'll have a comment when the correct answer is given. Thanks; Ernie P.

US185Damiani

This WW I Pilot was another following in his brother's shadow, became an excellent ace in his own right and was shot down 3 times and in each case he was shot down on the 13th of the month

His airplane bore the colors of his former unit (as did many of the period) which was yellow. extra point if you can provide the name of the former unit.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Have we lost all of our participants in this forum? It's been very slow over the past few weeks, and I sometimes wonder if everyone is getting bored with the concept. US185Damiani has to be wondering if anyone is following this thread, as am I. Have we reached the point of no interest? How many of you are still reading? Thanks; Ernie P.

Mein Duff

I am still here ... despite my wealth of knowledge and reading I can never seem to find the right answer in time...working full time doesn't allow me much research time.
But I always find these quizes stimulating and very informative...although I'm not much of jet fan at all.

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

I check this thread daily...I thought it was going along pretty good myself...[8D]
You guys seem to know a lot more than I do...I have learned a LOT...please keep it going!

tunakuts3d

KEEPITGOING! Iv'e been subscribed from day 1 and find this very interesting and informative.

US185Damiani

this pilot was also part of the German Jasta with red noses LG legs wheels and struts extra point if you know which Jagdstaffel

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

All;


Glad to know we still have some loyal readers who want the forum to continue. So be it. I'll participate as long as we have at least a couple of other enthusiasts who like learning. Great!

Now... as to the question posed by US185Damiani; I was simply surprised no one jumped on it instantly. The answer was obvious to me from his first post, no research required. But, I suppose any question that brushes up against your past research seems easy to you; but maybe not so to someone who hasn't studied the exact same subject. Maybe that's the best part of the forum; you get the benefit of other folk's research and knowledge.

I can't take the lead right now, since I'll be leaving town soon for a few days. So I'll just sit back and watch as you guys try to figure this one out; then offer a comment about this ace's most famous, and most disputed, victory. Have at it. But you're going to kick yourselves when you figure out the answer! Thanks; Ernie P.

SimonCraig1

Yes please keep going, I was completely tied up in meetings the last two days so refrained from guessing but I'll put a bet on Lothar von Richthofen. His most famous victory was over Albert Ball though it was known even then that he crashed in a thunderstorm.

Mein Duff

I figured Lothar was too obvious to mention...aaarrrggghh

JohnnyS

Me too!

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Sir; like you I couldn't understand how why the Germans were stupid enough to try to claim Lothar shot down Albert Ball. Remember the old saying about getting both sides of a story before making up your mind? Somewhere along the line I heard the German side of things (I haven't had time to doublecheck, but I believe it was Manfred's book "The Red Air Fighter") and the story doesn't sound quite so strange now. Apparently there were eyewitnesses and Lothar fought a triplane before he and Ball tangled. Remember, Lothar was also forced to land in the fight; and his side of things didn't become clear for a few days. I'll look up the cite and see what I can rediscover. Not saying Lothar shot Ball down, only that there is another plausible side of things. Thanks; Ernie P.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

All;

Since we haven't heard from US185Damiani, who is apparently occupied elsewhere for a bit, I'll follow up on my reference to the famous (or infamous) encounter between Albert Ball and Lothar Richthofen. I can't find the exact reference to which I referred, but I'll keep looking. Certain facts are known, and much can be, and has been, inferred from what little is known.

1. The weather was poor, with visibility obscured by low lying clouds.

2. There was an encounter between several units, including Ball's, of the RFC and the Richthofen unit, lead by Lothar; as Manfred was on leave.

3. Lothar was apparently flying Manfred's aircraft.

4. Ball was last seen by British pilots chasing "an all red Albatross" into a cloud. The combat involved German Albatross', British triplanes, Se5's and SPADs.

5. Lothar's official report, filled out that day, stated he had been attacked by triplanes, but doesn't specifically state Ball was flying a triplane.
Lothar wrote: "I had a combat with many triplanes. One of them attacked me in a very determined manner."

6. Another German pilot (Probably AllmenrΓΆder) stated Lothar and a British plane (not specifically identified by type) fought for several minutes and made several "rushes" at each other before the British plane fell out of control.

7. Lothar stated he shot down a British plane. His own plane had been damaged (fuel tank holed) in the fight and he was forced to land near where the British plane had crashed.
Lothar wrote: "He came down under my fire. My machine was damaged, and I landed with a dead prop, near the hostile machine."

8. Lothar recovered a Vickers machine gun and a section of "petrol feed pipe" from the wreckage. Both had been damaged by bullets. The feed line had been severed, which would have caused the plane to run out of fuel. As Peter Kilduff wrote in "Beyond the legend of the Red Baron" (1994), β€œThe last-named item strongly hints at the true cause of Albert Balls demise.” These items were preserved in Lothar's private collection of memorabelia. Photos of these things can be found on pages 321-322 in Walter Zuerl's book Pour le Merite-Flieger (1938).

9. Lothar could not recover the tail number of the aircraft, which had been badly damaged in the crash. Lothar did recover the engine number from the wreckage. That engine number was from Ball's aircraft.

10. Only one British aircraft was lost in that area on that day. That aircraft was Ball's. I believe (not certain) only Lothar claimed a victory on that day.

11. There appears to be very little contention about the above facts until nearly 50 years later, in the late 1960's.

Although there may be room to argue exactly what happened that day, I fail to see how Lothar's story, backed by an eyewitness and supported by the items recovered from the crash of Ball's plane, can be considered as anything other than what Lothar honestly believed to be truthful. I have seen nothing to convince me that Lothar's claim is "rubbish".

There have been many second hand accounts of a doctor and a young lady who viewed Ball's body. Some of these accounts refer to a head wound suffered by Ball, possibly in the crash, perhaps prior to the crash; some do not. I have yet to see any authenticated writing by anyone directly involved, other than Lothar and his eyewitness(es).

You may have other ideas, and your mileage may vary. Thanks; Ernie P.

US185Damiani

Simon Craig
You are correct! LOL sometimes the obvious question makes the most difficult question LOL Ernie,

thank you for the info on the Ball claim,

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Thank you, Sir; and thanks for your question. The most interesting thing about this forum, at least to me, is the facts that come forth. We all have things to learn, and this forum makes learning those things enjoyable. Thanks; Ernie P.

Mein Duff

Great Info Ernie...I've never read anything about this particular situation.

SimonCraig1

Thanks Ernie and great research! In the heat of battle many people may see different thing I guess. As far as I can find out Ball only flew the Newport 17 or the SE 5 and I think his squadron was equipped with the SE at the time he was killed.

From The Aerodrome:

Albert Ball was the first British ace idolized by the public. An engineering student when the war began, he joined the Sherwood Foresters before transferring to the Royal Flying Corps in 1915. Described as an " introspective little chap," Ball was a loner with strong religious convictions who soon established a reputation as a fearless pilot and excellent marksman. On 22 August 1916, he scored his 11th victory when he shot down Wilhelm Cymera's two-seater. In just three months over the Somme, he scored his first 30 victories. With the introduction of the S.E.5, he reluctantly gave up his Nieuport 17. Flying the new scout, Ball's flight encountered Jasta 11 on the evening of 7 May 1917 and Ball was last seen by Cyril Crowe entering an extremely dark thundercloud. In the confusion that followed, Ball and Lothar von Richthofen both crashed. Ball was killed but the German ace survived. Officially listed as missing in action, it was several years before the details of Albert Ball's death were known. Although Germany officially credited Lothar von Richthofen with downing Britain's leading ace, there was little or no evidence to substantiate the claim. Moments before he crashed, Leutnant Hailer, a German officer on the ground, witnessed Ball's undamaged aircraft emerge alone from the clouds, 200 feet above the ground in an inverted position with a dead prop. Ball's death greatly disheartened the entire Royal Flying Corps.

Anyway on with the quiz!!

1. I'm looking for a pilot who built up a unique operational record, mostly flying at night.
2. He flew twin engined planes at first but the record was achieved in new type of single engine fighter.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

You are welcome, Sir. I tried very hard to limit myself to statements of fact, as opposed to conjecture or opinion. Or, interpretation of events, which can very quickly lead one down the primrose path. Hopefully, everything I listed is a factual statement; with no opinion. Actually, since I wasn't there (despite what my grandchildren often claim), I can't state with certitude exactly what happened. How could I? I can only list accepted facts. But if anything can be stated, it would appear either Lothar deliberately lied, and the lie was repeated by other German flyers, or he shot down Albert Ball.

There would appear to be little doubt the two actually came into conflict on that fateful day. Ball was last seen by other RAF flyers pursuing an aircraft that was probably being flown by Lothar. A few minutes later, Ball crashed. Lothar almost immediately landed nearby with his plane disabled by gunfire; presumably by an enemy plane. He said he shot down the crashed plane and that the enemy pilot had disabled him as well. At least one other German airman stated in writing that Lothar and Ball made several runs at each other and Ball fell. Lothar recovered objects from Ball's plane which showed evidence of damage from machinegun fire.

Although there are a lot of stories about so-and-so saw this and so-and-so said that, I can find very little in the way of verifiable, written statements from any other eyewittnesses. Absent that, I have to accept the facts I have. Could Ball have become disoriented during the fight and crashed? Certainly! But the bullet strikes on the Vickers machine gun taken from Ball's plane, and the damaged fuel tubing, seem to be conclusive. If anything is of particular interest, it is that both Albert Ball and Lothar von Richthofen were both of the "go straight at them and fire until they fall" school of fighting. What might you expect when they met; other than that they would go straight at each other until one of them fell, as stated by the witness?

I suppose it would be a bit redundant to write a new book and offer as your premise "Yes; things happened just the way the old books said they happened". Not a lot of money to be made doing that. Good gosh; there is an entire cottage industry dedicated to making Manfred von Richthofen (Or Ball himself, McCudden, Guynemer, whomever, etc) appear less than what we suppose him to be. The more successful the ace, the most people try to debunk him. And if your particular favorite was downed, it could only have been fate or bad luck that felled him. Thanks; Ernie P.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

SimonCraig1;

Forgive me for using your post on Ball's last fight as an example of perhaps doubtful research by someone other that yourself. I mean you no disrespect, as your post is completely factual as to some of what has been written. However, the account you simply repeated contains the words "Moments before he crashed, Leutnant Hailer, a German officer on the ground, witnessed Ball's undamaged aircraft emerge alone from the clouds, 200 feet above the ground in an inverted position with a dead prop".

We do know Hailer was several hundred yards away, observing through binoculars or some type of magnified optical device (I forget exactly which). And we do know Ball's plane was badly damaged when it crashed (inverted) into the ground. And, we do know visibility was not the best.

My questions would be these: (1) What did Leutnant Hailer actually write? Not someone's interpretation of what he wrote, but his own words? Why don't we ever get the actual statement from the witness? (2) I suspect Hailer could only state with certitude that Ball's plane APPEARED TO BE undamaged. In my mind, that simply means the wings were on the plane and the fuselage was straight. (3) Since Ball's plane first appeared only a couple of hundred feet above the ground, falling through low lying clouds, how long was Hailer able to observe the plane before it crashed?

Some accounts have Ball's plane appearing through the cloud upright and then rolling over onto it's back; i.e., not under full control. Again, I wasn't there; but I suspect any "historical account" which attempts to interpret the account of a long dead man, without including the man's actual account itself. The point isn't Ball and Lothar. The point is to be sceptical and to always try to get the actual accounts of those who were actually there. Okay; end of lecture. I apologize for the rant and boring everyone. Thanks; Ernie P.

PS: For what it might be worth, I'd have trouble getting a pair of binoculars, much less a spotting scope of some type, properly pointed and focused in the time it would take a plane to fall 200 feet in a dive. But then again, I'm slow. EP

US185Damiani

another interesting piece of information in most of the authoritative books regarding Ball's crash, is that he had no wounds and that the cause of death was blunt force trauma of the crash.