V-1 "aces"

[Cub Driver]

For all the talk about Meteors shooting down V-1s, I was amused to see
that there was no Meteor V-1 "ace". (One pilot did manage to account
for four.)

Most of the V-1 aces flew Griffon-engined Spitfire XIIs, Spitfire
XIVs, and Tempest Vs. The other successful aircraft were Mosquitoes
(at night) and specially-boosted Mustang IIIs.

There appear to have been about 135 such 5-vic pilots in British
service--though, as was typical of the RAF, the pilots' nationalities
ran the gamut from Poles to Americans. What a wonderful air force it
must have been, where close to half the pilots were foreigners.

all the best -- Dan Ford (email: www.danford.net/letters.htm)

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:01:36 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

>For all the talk about Meteors shooting down V-1s, I was amused to see
>that there was no Meteor V-1 "ace". (One pilot did manage to account
>for four.)

There was no Spitfire F.21 ace either. What conclusions would you
like to draw about it's relative effectiveness as a type from that?

>Most of the V-1 aces flew Griffon-engined Spitfire XIIs, Spitfire
>XIVs, and Tempest Vs. The other successful aircraft were Mosquitoes
>(at night) and specially-boosted Mustang IIIs.

Spitfire Vs actually claimed more than the Meteors, IIRC. So what
does that prove, if anything? I hope you don't believe that this
illustrates any kind of relative performance superiority of the
Spitfire V over the Meteor in the summer of 1944.

>There appear to have been about 135 such 5-vic pilots in British
>service--though, as was typical of the RAF, the pilots' nationalities
>ran the gamut from Poles to Americans. What a wonderful air force it
>must have been, where close to half the pilots were foreigners.

Why should anyone have a problem with that? Or are you just seeking
to stir up some defensive national prejudices?

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 19:22:26 GMT, (The
Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote:

[Dan Ford actually]

>>For all the talk about Meteors shooting down V-1s, I was amused to see
>>that there was no Meteor V-1 "ace". (One pilot did manage to account
>>for four.)

Or, to look at it another way:

2,350 Spitfires of all models in RAF hands in the UK in June 1944, at
the beginning of the V-1 campaign, ended up claiming about 460 V-1s by
5th September, when the main V-1 campaign ended or about 0.2 V-1s per
Spitfire. The 19 Meteor Is available claimed 8.5 V-1s in the same
period, amounting to 0.44 V-1s per Meteor. Perhaps the Meteor was
then twice as effective as the Spitfire as an anti-V-1 platform.

This seems equally as invalid and unrepresentative approach as the one
you've adopted above as a yardstick of effectiveness.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[robert arndt]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> For all the talk about Meteors shooting down V-1s, I was amused to see
> that there was no Meteor V-1 "ace". (One pilot did manage to account
> for four.)
>
> Most of the V-1 aces flew Griffon-engined Spitfire XIIs, Spitfire
> XIVs, and Tempest Vs. The other successful aircraft were Mosquitoes
> (at night) and specially-boosted Mustang IIIs.
>
> There appear to have been about 135 such 5-vic pilots in British
> service--though, as was typical of the RAF, the pilots' nationalities
> ran the gamut from Poles to Americans. What a wonderful air force it
> must have been, where close to half the pilots were foreigners.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford (email: www.danford.net/letters.htm)
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
> Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

The Meteor was a new jet just becoming operational and had a flight
endurance of under one hour making standing patrols against the V-1
nearly impossible. That's probably why there were no Meteor V-1
aces...

Rob

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 07 Jul 2003 13:03:51 GMT, (SSNBuff) wrote:

>OK, can anyone direct me to any accounts of a Mosquito victory over a V-1?

Martin Bowman includes an account of one by 418 RCAF sqn in the Osprey
book "Mosquito Fighter/Figher-Bomber Units of World War Two". Lewis
Brandon describes his experiences of intercepting them in his memoir
"Night Flyer", and Jimmy (C. F.) Rawnsley in "Night Fighter".

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[Gordon]

>>OK, can anyone direct me to any accounts of a Mosquito victory over a V-1?
>
>Martin Bowman includes an account of one by 418 RCAF sqn in the Osprey
>book "Mosquito Fighter/Figher-Bomber Units of World War Two". Lewis
>Brandon describes his experiences of intercepting them in his memoir
>"Night Flyer", and Jimmy (C. F.) Rawnsley in "Night Fighter".

With the exception of the Error-Spray title you mention, these are good first
person sources. Brandon told me that he didn't realize Rawnsley was writing a
book when he shared experiences with him in the immediate postwar period, so
"Night Fighter" has some great insights that were gathered when the iron was
still hot.

To the original poster: I have access to none of my references (Hint: never
move from a 3,000 square foot home into a 900...) but any book on the fighter
variants of the Mosquito will have info on their service as V-1 chasers. They
experimented with all sorts of speed-related upgrades to get the Mossie in
amongst the V-1s over the channel. It was such an all-out race for Divers that
frequently, RAF nightfighters fired on each other or nearly collided. Any
suggestion that V-1 chasing was not aerial combat simply didn't have the
experience to draw from to make an accurate judgement. German fighters, a
robotic target of great speed and loaded with enough explosive to take down a
good sized building, trigger-happy defenses on both sides of the channel, and
flying souped-up fighters in the pitch darkness may not sound like combat to
some, but it does to me.

v/r
Gordon

[Cub Driver]

>Destroying 'Buzz' bombs was a deadly business. Anyone who says this was
>not aerial combat needs to give their a real good shake.

Deactivating unexploded bombs was also dangerous, but it wasn't aerial
combat.
>
>NOTE: If a V-1 was destroyed over England, it only counted for 1/2 a
>victory.

The RAF didn't count it at all, only as a V-1 vic. As previously
posted, there were approximately 135 "V-1 aces".

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Deactivating unexploded bombs was also dangerous, but it wasn't aerial
> combat.
>

That's because it wasn't done in the air.

[Gordon]

>
>Destroying 'Buzz' bombs was a deadly business. Anyone who says this was
>not aerial combat needs to give their a real good shake.

agree, and thanks for speaking up, Chris! Hope all is well on your end.

v/r
Gordon

[Gordon]

>
>I'll try and give you a call sometime tonight.

not in Kansas......errrr Austin anymore :)

yfG

[James Linn]

"SSNBuff" > wrote in message
...
> OK, can anyone direct me to any accounts of a Mosquito victory over a V-1?

Terror in the Starboard Seat....

James

[outsider64]

Were there any Allied fighter planes and pilots who were brought down by the
explosion or collision of the V-1 they were trying to shoot down? Thanks,

Ken