What it took to get wings in WW II.

[ArtKramr]

WHAT IT TOOK TO GET WINGS IN WW II (part one)

1. First apply. You would be given a physical and a written test. You could
pass the written test if you were a good high school student with good skills
in math, physics and the general sciences. The physical exam was a lot tougher.
The vast majority failed and never got into the cadet program.
2. If you got into the program you were sent to basic infantry training. Many
washed out due to the inability to meet the standards. Tests like the obstacle
course not made the required time was one cause.
3. If you made it through basic you were sent to CDT, a College Training
Detachment. I went to Kent State University in Ohio. Here there were two main
activities: flying and academic work. The flying consisted of 10 hours of dual
instruction in Piper Cubs. The academic work consisted of intense classroom
studies in math and physics. But these courses were custom designed to
concentrate on aviation applications. The math covered algebra, geometry, solid
geometry, trig and spherical trig, The physics concentrated on aero
applications and meteorology. Failure to meet academic standards resulted in
being washed out of the program. The washout rate in my class was about 10%
4. Those who survived this far went to classification in San Antonio Texas.
Here you took exams far more intensive than anything before. Intense physical
and exams in math and physics with psychological examinations to determine
emotional stability, determination and sense of commitment. The washout rate
here was greater than in any other steps in the process. Many washed out for
poor depth perception. Many were washed out on the Schneider Index, a very
critical set of physical standards. Some were washed out for being
psychologically unfit. The washout rate in my class was 90%. Those remaining
were then classified pilot, navigator, bombardier or bombardier/navigator..
5. You were then sent to the proper school, pilot,navigator or bombardier
school. I was sent to bombardier/navigator school at Big Spring, Texas.

MORE TO FOLLOW LATER

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> WHAT IT TOOK TO GET WINGS IN WW II (part one)
>
> 1. First apply. You would be given a physical and a written test. You
could
> pass the written test if you were a good high school student with good
skills
> in math, physics and the general sciences. The physical exam was a lot
tougher.
> The vast majority failed and never got into the cadet program.
> 2. If you got into the program you were sent to basic infantry training.
Many
> washed out due to the inability to meet the standards. Tests like the
obstacle
> course not made the required time was one cause.
> 3. If you made it through basic you were sent to CDT, a College Training
> Detachment. I went to Kent State University in Ohio. Here there were two
main
> activities: flying and academic work. The flying consisted of 10 hours of
dual
> instruction in Piper Cubs. The academic work consisted of intense
classroom
> studies in math and physics. But these courses were custom designed to
> concentrate on aviation applications. The math covered algebra, geometry,
solid
> geometry, trig and spherical trig, The physics concentrated on aero
> applications and meteorology. Failure to meet academic standards resulted
in
> being washed out of the program. The washout rate in my class was about
10%
> 4. Those who survived this far went to classification in San Antonio
Texas.
> Here you took exams far more intensive than anything before. Intense
physical
> and exams in math and physics with psychological examinations to determine
> emotional stability, determination and sense of commitment. The washout
rate
> here was greater than in any other steps in the process. Many washed out
for
> poor depth perception. Many were washed out on the Schneider Index, a very
> critical set of physical standards. Some were washed out for being
> psychologically unfit. The washout rate in my class was 90%. Those
remaining
> were then classified pilot, navigator, bombardier or
bombardier/navigator..
> 5. You were then sent to the proper school, pilot,navigator or bombardier
> school. I was sent to bombardier/navigator school at Big Spring, Texas.
>
> MORE TO FOLLOW LATER
>
> Arthur Kramer
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

The pre war RAF experience seems to have been a little different

Frank Harbord in his biography describes his experiences on
volunteering for aircrew thus

In February 1939 the Air Ministry summoned me to London for an interview
with the RAF. After the interview and the medical examination they told me
to carry on working as normal and that the\ would contact me in due course.
About the middle of June 1939 1 received a letter from the Air Ministry
telling me that accommodation had been arranged for me at 130, Abington
Avenue, Northampton. 'Number 6 Elementary and Reserve Flying Training
School' had taken over part of St Georges College in St Georges Avenue,
Northampton. and 1 was to report there during the morning of July 10th 1939.

30, Abington Avenue turned out to be a moderate sized house in a red brick
terrace built about the turn of the century. It had three floors, five large
bedrooms and was situated near the County Cricket Ground. The landlady was a
widow, a Mrs Nichols, she made a living by letting the bedrooms and looking
after her lodgers. One of the bedrooms 1 was to share with another under
training Air Observer named Charley Wynn. For providing each UIT airman with
board and lodgings the landlady received six shillings a day. We had no
complaints about the standard of accommodation or the food. My bike was now
stored in the garden shed and at the weekends 1 would cycle home to
Stamford.

The distance from 130 Abington Avenue to St Georges College was about a mile
and the instructors were Merchant Navy Navigation Officers. On the first
morning we were issued with navigation equipment wich included a course and
speed calculator, a pair of dividers, parallel rule , douglas-protractor and
a copy of the Air Ministry Navigation Manual.

For practical flying experience we were transported to the aerodrome at
Sywel about 6 miles away. The aircraft used were Avro Anson's operated by
the civil firm of Brooklands Aviaton Ltd. They were flown by civilian pilots
with a civilian wireless operator.

Two chaps were discharged due to air sickness and 3 others failed to reach
the required specification. At the end of the course an RAF officer in
uniform, the first we had seen, turned up to swear in the remaining 50 or so
candidates and issue them with their unique serial numbers.

At this point Frank Harbord was posted to bombing and gunnery school at
Aldergrove

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 7/12/03 4:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> WHAT IT TOOK TO GET WINGS IN WW II (part one)
>>
>> 1. First apply. You would be given a physical and a written test. You
>could
>> pass the written test if you were a good high school student with good
>skills
>> in math, physics and the general sciences. The physical exam was a lot
>tougher.
>> The vast majority failed and never got into the cadet program.
>> 2. If you got into the program you were sent to basic infantry training.
>Many
>> washed out due to the inability to meet the standards. Tests like the
>obstacle
>> course not made the required time was one cause.
>> 3. If you made it through basic you were sent to CDT, a College Training
>> Detachment. I went to Kent State University in Ohio. Here there were two
>main
>> activities: flying and academic work. The flying consisted of 10 hours of
>dual
>> instruction in Piper Cubs. The academic work consisted of intense
>classroom
>> studies in math and physics. But these courses were custom designed to
>> concentrate on aviation applications. The math covered algebra, geometry,
>solid
>> geometry, trig and spherical trig, The physics concentrated on aero
>> applications and meteorology. Failure to meet academic standards resulted
>in
>> being washed out of the program. The washout rate in my class was about
>10%
>> 4. Those who survived this far went to classification in San Antonio
>Texas.
>> Here you took exams far more intensive than anything before. Intense
>physical
>> and exams in math and physics with psychological examinations to determine
>> emotional stability, determination and sense of commitment. The washout
>rate
>> here was greater than in any other steps in the process. Many washed out
>for
>> poor depth perception. Many were washed out on the Schneider Index, a very
>> critical set of physical standards. Some were washed out for being
>> psychologically unfit. The washout rate in my class was 90%. Those
>remaining
>> were then classified pilot, navigator, bombardier or
>bombardier/navigator..
>> 5. You were then sent to the proper school, pilot,navigator or bombardier
>> school. I was sent to bombardier/navigator school at Big Spring, Texas.
>>
>> MORE TO FOLLOW LATER
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>The pre war RAF experience seems to have been a little different
>
>Frank Harbord in his biography describes his experiences on
>volunteering for aircrew thus
>
>In February 1939 the Air Ministry summoned me to London for an interview
>with the RAF. After the interview and the medical examination they told me
>to carry on working as normal and that the\ would contact me in due course.
>About the middle of June 1939 1 received a letter from the Air Ministry
>telling me that accommodation had been arranged for me at 130, Abington
>Avenue, Northampton. 'Number 6 Elementary and Reserve Flying Training
>School' had taken over part of St Georges College in St Georges Avenue,
>Northampton. and 1 was to report there during the morning of July 10th 1939.
>
>30, Abington Avenue turned out to be a moderate sized house in a red brick
>terrace built about the turn of the century. It had three floors, five large
>bedrooms and was situated near the County Cricket Ground. The landlady was a
>widow, a Mrs Nichols, she made a living by letting the bedrooms and looking
>after her lodgers. One of the bedrooms 1 was to share with another under

Interesting. Thank you. Quite a difference between the Brit and US procedure
It is as though the Brits did it one at a time while we used a production kind
of procedure.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steve Ruse]

Very interesting Art, thanks for sharing that. Thanks also for doing what
you did back then...without guys like you, where would we be today? I looked
through your site, & really enjoyed the stories & pictures. I grew up in
Odessa, just down the road from where you were in Cadet School. I went to an
ex-POW meeting there with my grandfather just a few months ago...you must
have some interesting memories of that place.

Steve Ruse


"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> WHAT IT TOOK TO GET WINGS IN WW II (part one)
>
> 1. First apply. You would be given a physical and a written test. You
could
> pass the written test if you were a good high school student with good
skills
> in math, physics and the general sciences. The physical exam was a lot
tougher.
> The vast majority failed and never got into the cadet program.
> 2. If you got into the program you were sent to basic infantry training.
Many
> washed out due to the inability to meet the standards. Tests like the
obstacle
> course not made the required time was one cause.
> 3. If you made it through basic you were sent to CDT, a College Training
> Detachment. I went to Kent State University in Ohio. Here there were two
main
> activities: flying and academic work. The flying consisted of 10 hours of
dual
> instruction in Piper Cubs. The academic work consisted of intense
classroom
> studies in math and physics. But these courses were custom designed to
> concentrate on aviation applications. The math covered algebra, geometry,
solid
> geometry, trig and spherical trig, The physics concentrated on aero
> applications and meteorology. Failure to meet academic standards resulted
in
> being washed out of the program. The washout rate in my class was about
10%
> 4. Those who survived this far went to classification in San Antonio
Texas.
> Here you took exams far more intensive than anything before. Intense
physical
> and exams in math and physics with psychological examinations to determine
> emotional stability, determination and sense of commitment. The washout
rate
> here was greater than in any other steps in the process. Many washed out
for
> poor depth perception. Many were washed out on the Schneider Index, a very
> critical set of physical standards. Some were washed out for being
> psychologically unfit. The washout rate in my class was 90%. Those
remaining
> were then classified pilot, navigator, bombardier or
bombardier/navigator..
> 5. You were then sent to the proper school, pilot,navigator or bombardier
> school. I was sent to bombardier/navigator school at Big Spring, Texas.
>
> MORE TO FOLLOW LATER
>
> Arthur Kramer
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> >Date: 7/12/03 4:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
>
> Interesting. Thank you. Quite a difference between the Brit and US
procedure
> It is as though the Brits did it one at a time while we used a production
kind
> of procedure.
>

You have to remember Frank Harbord joined pre-war. Once the war began
the system became much more of a production line and the RAF took
over the initial training scheme. He mentions that his was the last class
taught in this way.

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 7/13/03 4:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
>> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
>> >Date: 7/12/03 4:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>>
>> Interesting. Thank you. Quite a difference between the Brit and US
>procedure
>> It is as though the Brits did it one at a time while we used a production
>kind
>> of procedure.
>>
>
>You have to remember Frank Harbord joined pre-war. Once the war began
>the system became much more of a production line and the RAF took
>over the initial training scheme. He mentions that his was the last class
>taught in this way.
>
>Keith


Keith,
I would be interested to know the course of academic study in the RAF. What
math and physics? How high the washout rate (,more or less)before even getting
to flying school? How high the washout rate for physical reasons? Any idea?.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
>From: "Steve Ruse"
>Date: 7/13/03 12:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <gw7Qa.49824$H17.14799@sccrnsc02>
>
>Very interesting Art, thanks for sharing that. Thanks also for doing what
>you did back then...without guys like you, where would we be today? I looked
>through your site, & really enjoyed the stories & pictures. I grew up in
>Odessa, just down the road from where you were in Cadet School. I went to an
>ex-POW meeting there with my grandfather just a few months ago...you must
>have some interesting memories of that place.
>
>Steve Ruse
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> WHAT IT TOOK TO GET WINGS IN WW II (part one)
>>
>> 1. First apply. You would be given a physical and a written test. You
>could
>> pass the written test if you were a good high school student with good
>skills
>> in math, physics and the general sciences. The physical exam was a lot
>tougher.
>> The vast majority failed and never got into the cadet program.
>> 2. If you got into the program you were sent to basic infantry training.
>Many
>> washed out due to the inability to meet the standards. Tests like the
>obstacle
>> course not made the required time was one cause.
>> 3. If you made it through basic you were sent to CDT, a College Training
>> Detachment. I went to Kent State University in Ohio. Here there were two
>main
>> activities: flying and academic work. The flying consisted of 10 hours of
>dual
>> instruction in Piper Cubs. The academic work consisted of intense
>classroom
>> studies in math and physics. But these courses were custom designed to
>> concentrate on aviation applications. The math covered algebra, geometry,
>solid
>> geometry, trig and spherical trig, The physics concentrated on aero
>> applications and meteorology. Failure to meet academic standards resulted
>in
>> being washed out of the program. The washout rate in my class was about
>10%
>> 4. Those who survived this far went to classification in San Antonio
>Texas.
>> Here you took exams far more intensive than anything before. Intense
>physical
>> and exams in math and physics with psychological examinations to determine
>> emotional stability, determination and sense of commitment. The washout
>rate
>> here was greater than in any other steps in the process. Many washed out
>for
>> poor depth perception. Many were washed out on the Schneider Index, a very
>> critical set of physical standards. Some were washed out for being
>> psychologically unfit. The washout rate in my class was 90%. Those
>remaining
>> were then classified pilot, navigator, bombardier or
>bombardier/navigator..
>> 5. You were then sent to the proper school, pilot,navigator or bombardier
>> school. I was sent to bombardier/navigator school at Big Spring, Texas.
>>
>> MORE TO FOLLOW LATER
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>


Thanks for the kind words.I wasn't sure anyone would be interested in this
stuff. Part II will be flying school. Part three we become a crew and take the
B-26 Marauder through shakedown flights. Then off to the war.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
>From: "Jack G"
>Date: 7/13/03 6:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Art - and anybody else interested -
>
>Big Spring AAFB was renamed Webb AFB - there is a web site at:
>
>http://www.hangar25.org/
>
>
>Jack
>(Webb AFB 1965 - 1968)
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> WHAT IT TOOK TO GET WINGS IN WW II (part one)
>>
>> 1. First apply. You would be given a physical and a written test. You
>could
>> pass the written test if you were a good high school student with good
>skills
>> in math, physics and the general sciences. The physical exam was a lot
>tougher.
>> The vast majority failed and never got into the cadet program.
>> 2. If you got into the program you were sent to basic infantry training.
>Many
>> washed out due to the inability to meet the standards. Tests like the
>obstacle
>> course not made the required time was one cause.
>> 3. If you made it through basic you were sent to CDT, a College Training
>> Detachment. I went to Kent State University in Ohio. Here there were two
>main
>> activities: flying and academic work. The flying consisted of 10 hours of
>dual
>> instruction in Piper Cubs. The academic work consisted of intense
>classroom
>> studies in math and physics. But these courses were custom designed to
>> concentrate on aviation applications. The math covered algebra, geometry,
>solid
>> geometry, trig and spherical trig, The physics concentrated on aero
>> applications and meteorology. Failure to meet academic standards resulted
>in
>> being washed out of the program. The washout rate in my class was about
>10%
>> 4. Those who survived this far went to classification in San Antonio
>Texas.
>> Here you took exams far more intensive than anything before. Intense
>physical
>> and exams in math and physics with psychological examinations to determine
>> emotional stability, determination and sense of commitment. The washout
>rate
>> here was greater than in any other steps in the process. Many washed out
>for
>> poor depth perception. Many were washed out on the Schneider Index, a very
>> critical set of physical standards. Some were washed out for being
>> psychologically unfit. The washout rate in my class was 90%. Those
>remaining
>> were then classified pilot, navigator, bombardier or
>bombardier/navigator..
>> 5. You were then sent to the proper school, pilot,navigator or bombardier
>> school. I was sent to bombardier/navigator school at Big Spring, Texas.
>>
>> MORE TO FOLLOW LATER
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>


LOVE THAT WEBSITE. Brings back fond memories Thanks. (sigh)



Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
>From: Andrew Chaplin
>Date: 7/13/03 7:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>>
>> I would be interested to know the course of academic study in the RAF.
>What
>> math and physics? How high the washout rate (,more or less)before even
>getting
>> to flying school? How high the washout rate for physical reasons? Any
>idea?.
>
>With the implementation of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan,
>the RAF shifted a significant portion of their aircrew training effort
>out of the British Isles, so most training other than conversion and
>OTU was conducted away from the ADGB battle area. You might have a
>look in Spencer Dunmore's history of the BCATP, _Wings for Victory_,
>and Larry Milberry's and Hugh Halliday's _The Royal Canadian Air Force
>at War, 1939-1945_. IIRC, Bill McAndrew is working on a monograph on
>training, ops and LMF problems in the Commonwealth air forces
>operating against Germany; it or papers based on his research may
>already be published. I think a fair idea of how the training was done
>is covered in Murray Peden's _A Thousand Shall Fall_, but he was a
>pilot rather than a bomb aimer.
>
>(The Canadian PM of the day knew that the manpower costs of the BCATP
>would initially obviate an RCAF air expeditionary force and so
>minimize Canadian exposure to combat casualties; he was, however,
>gambling on a much shorter war than what he got.)
>--
>Andrew Chaplin
>SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO


Thanks Andrew. I'll check those books out.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...

>
> Keith,
> I would be interested to know the course of academic study in the RAF.
What
> math and physics? How high the washout rate (,more or less)before even
getting
> to flying school? How high the washout rate for physical reasons? Any
idea?.
>

In the case of Frank Harbord the only screening he mentions prior to
attending
flying school was a fairly standard medical which included eyesight and
depth
perception. There were no academic requirements and the washout rate for all
reasons seems to have been low. They all received training as navigators,
gunners
and bomb aimers and were allocated duties pretty much on overall performance
and operational requirements.

He was 18 years old and had been working in a local factory and
was a member of the territorial army when he volunteered as an
air observer.

Of the 60 men who enlisted with him 55 made it into squadron service.
Only about 5% survived the war, most being killed in the desperate attacks
of summer 1940 when unescorted Blenheims and Battles were taking 80%
casualties in single raids attempting to stop the German advance in France.

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 7/13/03 12:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> Keith,
>> I would be interested to know the course of academic study in the RAF.
>What
>> math and physics? How high the washout rate (,more or less)before even
>getting
>> to flying school? How high the washout rate for physical reasons? Any
>idea?.
>>
>
>In the case of Frank Harbord the only screening he mentions prior to
>attending
>flying school was a fairly standard medical which included eyesight and
>depth
>perception. There were no academic requirements and the washout rate for all
>reasons seems to have been low. They all received training as navigators,
>gunners
>and bomb aimers and were allocated duties pretty much on overall performance
>and operational requirements.
>
>He was 18 years old and had been working in a local factory and
>was a member of the territorial army when he volunteered as an
>air observer.
>
>Of the 60 men who enlisted with him 55 made it into squadron service.
>Only about 5% survived the war, most being killed in the desperate attacks
>of summer 1940 when unescorted Blenheims and Battles were taking 80%
>casualties in single raids attempting to stop the German advance in France.
>
>Keith
>

80% casualties(aaargh) ! Those were times that tried mens souls. (sigh)
I guess that is why Churchill said, " I can build an Air Force second to none
with America's washed out pilots".

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Qman]

Art, come on, do you have to?


Qman

[Walt BJ]

BTW, Art, I graduated from Aviation Cadet Class 54H at Webb AFB (Big
Spring). FWIW the wash-out rate of 54H at BGS was 47%.
Walt BJ

[ArtKramr]

dd up>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
>From: (Walt BJ)
>Date: 7/13/03 6:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>BTW, Art, I graduated from Aviation Cadet Class 54H at Webb AFB (Big
>Spring). FWIW the wash-out rate of 54H at BGS was 47%.
>Walt BJ
>

But when we add up the wash-out rates from day one physicals and tests then
add basic training, CTD, Classification then flying schools, the total has to
be well over 95%. Many are called few are chosen. Do you know why they called
it BIg Spring? Because there was no water. It was down the road from Swee****er
where the water was all alkali.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[vincent p. norris]

>But when we add up the wash-out rates from day one physicals and tests then
>add basic training, CTD, Classification then flying schools, the total has to
>be well over 95%.

I think that estimate is much too high. I don't know how many pilots
there were in the Air Corps during WW II (are you also including
bombardiers and navigators?), but if they were only two or three
percent of the number who started, then the starting number would have
to have been larger than the entire U.S. male population!

Roughly speaking.

vince norris

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
>From: vincent p. norris
>Date: 7/14/03 7:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>But when we add up the wash-out rates from day one physicals and tests
>then
>>add basic training, CTD, Classification then flying schools, the total has
>to
>>be well over 95%.
>
>I think that estimate is much too high. I don't know how many pilots
>there were in the Air Corps during WW II (are you also including
>bombardiers and navigators?), but if they were only two or three
>percent of the number who started, then the starting number would have
>to have been larger than the entire U.S. male population!
>
>Roughly speaking.
>
>vince norris
>


How can you know that when you don't know the final number?

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Lawrence Dillard]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> dd up>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
> >From: (Walt BJ)
> >Date: 7/13/03 6:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >BTW, Art, I graduated from Aviation Cadet Class 54H at Webb AFB (Big
> >Spring). FWIW the wash-out rate of 54H at BGS was 47%.
> >Walt BJ
> >
>
> But when we add up the wash-out rates from day one physicals and tests
then
> add basic training, CTD, Classification then flying schools, the total has
to
> be well over 95%. Many are called few are chosen.

I am inclined to believe that the USAAF of the day, which already was an
elite organization due to its unique activities, elected to set the
standards for piloting so very high in an effort to assure that it would
have on hand sufficient numbers of healthy and bright men to assign, after
"washing out" or otherwise not being selected for pilot duties (Needs of the
Service) to other flight duties which were also VERY important. (Art Kramer,
am I mistaken, or wasn't the "typical" bombardier a well-qualified
specimen, from the standpoints of physical readiness and quick wits? And the
navigators, as well?)

Many were called, indeed. But I have a hunch that quite a large proportion
of the men who were not assigned to pilot duties could probably HAVE been so
assigned, and maybe would have been, except for the Needs of the Service.
And unless competent guys were selected for training in the OTHER important
crew duties, the USAAF would hardly have been so successful in the
aggregate. It managed to find first-rate men for all crew duties, including
especially those of bombardier and navigator.

Becoming a competent bombardier was no easy task. Air navigation, especially
where weather, winds, undercasts, overcasts, etc were concerned was no walk
in the park, either.

Am I completely off-base? Request your commentary.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
>From: "Lawrence Dillard"
>Date: 7/14/03 9:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> dd up>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
>> >From: (Walt BJ)
>> >Date: 7/13/03 6:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >BTW, Art, I graduated from Aviation Cadet Class 54H at Webb AFB (Big
>> >Spring). FWIW the wash-out rate of 54H at BGS was 47%.
>> >Walt BJ
>> >
>>
>> But when we add up the wash-out rates from day one physicals and tests
>then
>> add basic training, CTD, Classification then flying schools, the total has
>to
>> be well over 95%. Many are called few are chosen.
>
>I am inclined to believe that the USAAF of the day, which already was an
>elite organization due to its unique activities, elected to set the
>standards for piloting so very high in an effort to assure that it would
>have on hand sufficient numbers of healthy and bright men to assign, after
>"washing out" or otherwise not being selected for pilot duties (Needs of the
>Service) to other flight duties which were also VERY important. (Art Kramer,
>am I mistaken, or wasn't the "typical" bombardier a well-qualified
>specimen, from the standpoints of physical readiness and quick wits? And the
>navigators, as well?)
>
>Many were called, indeed. But I have a hunch that quite a large proportion
>of the men who were not assigned to pilot duties could probably HAVE been so
>assigned, and maybe would have been, except for the Needs of the Service.
>And unless competent guys were selected for training in the OTHER important
>crew duties, the USAAF would hardly have been so successful in the
>aggregate. It managed to find first-rate men for all crew duties, including
>especially those of bombardier and navigator.
>
>Becoming a competent bombardier was no easy task. Air navigation, especially
>where weather, winds, undercasts, overcasts, etc were concerned was no walk
>in the park, either.
>
>Am I completely off-base? Request your commentary.
>


No you are not off base. But I never went through pilot training. I was
classified as a Bombardier right out of San Antonio since my tests indicated
that was what I was best suited for. And I think they were right, I really
enjoyed the Norden and navigating and did quite well at it. I graduated second
in my class at Big Spring and was assigned to Marauders as were all those guys
at the top of the class. This is to dispel any idea that bombardiers and
navigators were all washed out pilots, Very few were. The highest math skills
were needed by the Navigators. I know many pilots who were totally befuddled
by what it took to navigate celestially. Each specialty had its special demands
and we were chosen to fill those jobs based on our skills. But I am sure that
you are right and many who washed out were moved into jobs where there talents
could best be used.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[buf3]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
> >From: "Lawrence Dillard"
> >Date: 7/14/03 9:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> dd up>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
> >> >From: (Walt BJ)
> >> >Date: 7/13/03 6:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >BTW, Art, I graduated from Aviation Cadet Class 54H at Webb AFB (Big
> >> >Spring). FWIW the wash-out rate of 54H at BGS was 47%.
> >> >Walt BJ
> >> >
> >>
> >> But when we add up the wash-out rates from day one physicals and tests
> then
> >> add basic training, CTD, Classification then flying schools, the total has
> to
> >> be well over 95%. Many are called few are chosen.
> >
> >I am inclined to believe that the USAAF of the day, which already was an
> >elite organization due to its unique activities, elected to set the
> >standards for piloting so very high in an effort to assure that it would
> >have on hand sufficient numbers of healthy and bright men to assign, after
> >"washing out" or otherwise not being selected for pilot duties (Needs of the
> >Service) to other flight duties which were also VERY important. (Art Kramer,
> >am I mistaken, or wasn't the "typical" bombardier a well-qualified
> >specimen, from the standpoints of physical readiness and quick wits? And the
> >navigators, as well?)
> >
> >Many were called, indeed. But I have a hunch that quite a large proportion
> >of the men who were not assigned to pilot duties could probably HAVE been so
> >assigned, and maybe would have been, except for the Needs of the Service.
> >And unless competent guys were selected for training in the OTHER important
> >crew duties, the USAAF would hardly have been so successful in the
> >aggregate. It managed to find first-rate men for all crew duties, including
> >especially those of bombardier and navigator.
> >
> >Becoming a competent bombardier was no easy task. Air navigation, especially
> >where weather, winds, undercasts, overcasts, etc were concerned was no walk
> >in the park, either.
> >
> >Am I completely off-base? Request your commentary.
> >
>
>
> No you are not off base. But I never went through pilot training. I was
> classified as a Bombardier right out of San Antonio since my tests indicated
> that was what I was best suited for. And I think they were right, I really
> enjoyed the Norden and navigating and did quite well at it. I graduated second
> in my class at Big Spring and was assigned to Marauders as were all those guys
> at the top of the class. This is to dispel any idea that bombardiers and
> navigators were all washed out pilots, Very few were. The highest math skills
> were needed by the Navigators. I know many pilots who were totally befuddled
> by what it took to navigate celestially. Each specialty had its special demands
> and we were chosen to fill those jobs based on our skills. But I am sure that
> you are right and many who washed out were moved into jobs where there talents
> could best be used.
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

My pilot training class was 56U. I flew PA-18s and T-6Gs at Hondo AB,
TX and B-25s at Goodfellow AFB, TX. The class was a combination of
student officers from the ROTC programs and Aviation Cadets. I think
the overall washout rate after starting training was slightly less
than 40%. I remember at lease one SIE (self initiated elimination).
After getting my pilot wings I was sent to AOB (Air Observer
Bombardier) training at James Connally AFB because I was going to SAC
in RB-47s and Gen. Lemay wanted one of the two pilots to be triple
rated. I got navigator wings from that school and was rated as
navigator and radar bombardier. We were called "triple headed
monsters". As a new co-pilot on an RB-47 I helped the RN with mission
planning and celestial precomps. I did all the sextant work from a
port at the co-pilot's position. I also plotted all three star fixes
on a Vaid computer as a back up to the RN and gave him a range and
bearing from the assumed position for a cross check. I never made a
radar bomb run in B-47s or B-52s, but I think I had a better
understanding of the N and RNs jobs because of my training.

Gene Myers

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
>From: (buf3)
>Date: 7/15/03 8:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>My pilot training class was 56U. I flew PA-18s and T-6Gs at Hondo AB,
>TX and B-25s at Goodfellow AFB, TX. The class was a combination of
>student officers from the ROTC programs and Aviation Cadets. I think
>the overall washout rate after starting training was slightly less
>than 40%. I remember at lease one SIE (self initiated elimination).
>After getting my pilot wings I was sent to AOB (Air Observer
>Bombardier) training at James Connally AFB because I was going to SAC
>in RB-47s and Gen. Lemay wanted one of the two pilots to be triple
>rated. I got navigator wings from that school and was rated as
>navigator and radar bombardier. We were called "triple headed
>monsters". As a new co-pilot on an RB-47 I helped the RN with mission
>planning and celestial precomps. I did all the sextant work from a
>port at the co-pilot's position. I also plotted all three star fixes
>on a Vaid computer as a back up to the RN and gave him a range and
>bearing from the assumed position for a cross check. I never made a
>radar bomb run in B-47s or B-52s, but I think I had a better
>understanding of the N and RNs jobs because of my training.
>
>Gene Myers

That is impressive. We always welcome experienced military fliers here on this
NG. Can't have too many of them. I remember when the idea came up of making
B-26 Bombardiers also qualified DR navigators It was revoutionery to get one
more guy off the B-26 crews. Now multiple task crew members are routine. And
it is all for the best. The more you know the better. Although we just had to
know DR, we were also breifly trained in celestial, which we never used, yet
guys washed out because they couldn't derive the astro tables or get through
the HO-216 fast enough. BTW, that 40% washout rate in your class was just for
flying school, right?


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Phineas Pinkham]

> > >Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
> > >From: "Lawrence Dillard"
>> > >"ArtKramr" wrote in message
> > >> dd up>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
> > >> >From: (Walt BJ)
> > >> >BTW, Art, I graduated from Aviation Cadet Class 54H at Webb AFB (Big
> > >> >Spring). FWIW the wash-out rate of 54H at BGS was 47%.
> > >> >Walt BJ
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> But when we add up the wash-out rates from day one physicals and
tests
> > then
> > >> add basic training, CTD, Classification then flying schools, the
total has
> > to
> > >> be well over 95%. Many are called few are chosen.
> > >
> > >I am inclined to believe that the USAAF of the day, which already was
an
> > >elite organization due to its unique activities, elected to set the
> > >standards for piloting so very high in an effort to assure that it
would
> > >have on hand sufficient numbers of healthy and bright men to assign,
after
> > >"washing out" or otherwise not being selected for pilot duties (Needs
of the
> > >Service) to other flight duties which were also VERY important. (Art
Kramer,
> > >am I mistaken, or wasn't the "typical" bombardier a well-qualified
> > >specimen, from the standpoints of physical readiness and quick wits?
And the
> > >navigators, as well?)
> > >
> > >Many were called, indeed. But I have a hunch that quite a large
proportion
> > >of the men who were not assigned to pilot duties could probably HAVE
been so
> > >assigned, and maybe would have been, except for the Needs of the
Service.
> > >And unless competent guys were selected for training in the OTHER
important
> > >crew duties, the USAAF would hardly have been so successful in the
> > >aggregate. It managed to find first-rate men for all crew duties,
including
> > >especially those of bombardier and navigator.
> > >
> > >Becoming a competent bombardier was no easy task. ir navigation,
especially
> > >where Air Navigation weather, winds, undercasts, overcasts, etc were
concerned was no walk
> > >in the park, either.
> > >
> > >Am I completely off-base? Request your commentary.
> > >
> >
> >
> > No you are not off base. But I never went through pilot training. I was
> > classified as a Bombardier right out of San Antonio since my tests
indicated
> > that was what I was best suited for. And I think they were right, I
really
> > enjoyed the Norden and navigating and did quite well at it. I graduated
second
> > in my class at Big Spring and was assigned to Marauders as were all
those guys
> > at the top of the class. This is to dispel any idea that bombardiers and
> > navigators were all washed out pilots, Very few were. The highest math
skills
> > were needed by the Navigators. I know many pilots who were totally
befuddled
> > by what it took to navigate celestially. Each specialty had its special
demands
> > and we were chosen to fill those jobs based on our skills. But I am
sure that
> > you are right and many who washed out were moved into jobs where there
talents
> > could best be used.
> >
> >
> > Arthur Kramer
>
> My pilot training class was 56U. I flew PA-18s and T-6Gs at Hondo AB,
> TX and B-25s at Goodfellow AFB, TX. The class was a combination of
> student officers from the ROTC programs and Aviation Cadets. I think
> the overall washout rate after starting training was slightly less
> than 40%. I remember at lease one SIE (self initiated elimination).
> After getting my pilot wings I was sent to AOB (Air Observer
> Bombardier) training at James Connally AFB because I was going to SAC
> in RB-47s and Gen. Lemay wanted one of the two pilots to be triple
> rated. I got navigator wings from that school and was rated as
> navigator and radar bombardier. We were called "triple headed
> monsters". As a new co-pilot on an RB-47 I helped the RN with mission
> planning and celestial precomps. I did all the sextant work from a
> port at the co-pilot's position. I also plotted all three star fixes
> on a Vaid computer as a back up to the RN and gave him a range and
> bearing from the assumed position for a cross check. I never made a
> radar bomb run in B-47s or B-52s, but I think I had a better
> understanding of the N and RNs jobs because of my training.
>
> Gene Myers

RE: Art Kramer's nostalgia-
All Aviation Students were classified by the US Army Air Corps, during WW
II, at a Classification Center, to determine aptitude to become a Pilot, a
Navigator, or a Bombardier. Each Student undergoing Classification received
3 Ratings, the maximum was an 8.
Kramer received 3 #'s also, just like everyone else. Those with 8's went to
Pilot Training or NavigationTraining, if you washed out of Pilot Training,
you were sent to Navigator Training, if you washed out of Navigator Traing
you were sent to Bombardier Traing, if you washed out of Bombardier Training
you were sent to Gunnery School or the Infantry.

RE: Gene Myers Nostalgia

If you will check you orders your orders from Mather, you will ind you were
Rated a Bombardier, A Radar Observer and from Ellington a Navigator.
Therefore you re a 4 Headed Monster, entitled to wear4 sets of Rated Officer
Wings!

I just don't remember having difficulty where Kramer said his professional
Bombardiers did, do you?

I.E.:"Becoming a competent bombardier was no easy task. ir navigation,
especially
> > >where Air Navigation weather, winds, undercasts, overcasts, etc were
concerned was no walk
> > >in the park, either.
> > >

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
>From: "Phineas Pinkham"
>Date: 7/15/03 10:24 AM Pacifi

>f you will check you orders your orders from Mather, you will ind you were
>Rated a Bombardier, A Radar Observer and from Ellington a Navigator.
>Therefore you re a 4 Headed Monster, entitled to wear4 sets of Rated Officer

Interesting. I assume you were a pilot... What plane? What theatre? Tell us
all.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Chris Mark]

>From:

>Tell us
>all.

for the ww2 era types the WDAGO Form 20


Chris Mark

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
>From: vincent p. norris
>Date: 7/15/03 7:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>>I think that estimate is much too high. I don't know how many pilots
>>>there were in the Air Corps during WW II (are you also including
>>>bombardiers and navigators?), but if they were only two or three
>>>percent of the number who started, then the starting number would have
>>>to have been larger than the entire U.S. male population!
>>>
>>>Roughly speaking.
>>>
>>>vince norris>
>>
>>How can you know that when you don't know the final number?
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>I don't "know" it, Art, which I admitted, and which is why I added
>"roughly speaking."
>
>If you know it, let the rest of us know and we'll do the math, just
>for curiosity's sake.
>
>vince norris
>

I have no idea which is why I don't try to speculate and guesstimate. Roughly
speaking that is.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[vincent p. norris]

>The highest math skills were needed by the Navigators.

Art, if I may jump in here again, surely you know that's an
exaggeration.

Celestial navigation requires no math skills beyond the ability to
read a table and do simple arithmetic--the arithmetic every kid learns
by the time he gets to eighth grade. It requires no knowledge of
"higher math." No differential or integral calculus, or simultaneous
equations, or for that matter, even how to do square roots.

I went through navy flight training from 1949 to 1951. At that time,
at least, the navy had no separate training for navigators; all
midshipmen and navcads in multi-engine flight training were taught
celestial navigation and it was assumed they would serve as navigators
until they worked their way up to copilot.

I received so many hours of celestial navigation training that when I
returned to the University of Illinois to complete my undergrad
program, I was awarded 30 semester-hour credits of celestial
navigation! That is the equivalent of a full, two semester college
program. As a result, I was able to receive my bachelor's degree a
full year early.

So I can say, agian, that celestial navigation requires no math
skills bryond the ability to read a table and do simple arithmetic.

All the difficult math was done by those who prepared the tables, so
that aboard an aircraft, it took very little time to do the simple
math requried between taking the shot and plotting the position.

When an aircraft is moving along at a couple hundred knots, that is
important.

I took a commission in the marine corps, where I had served as an
enlisted man before being selected for flight training. So I can also
say that in the marines, the aircraft navigators were enlisted men,
who needed a GCT only 110 (slightly above average) to attend
navigation school.

vince norris

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
>From: vincent p. norris
>Date: 7/15/03 8:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>The highest math skills were needed by the Navigators.
>
>Art, if I may jump in here again, surely you know that's an
>exaggeration.
>
>Celestial navigation requires no math skills beyond the ability to
>read a table and do simple arithmetic--the arithmetic every kid learns
>by the time he gets to eighth grade. It requires no knowledge of
>"higher math." No differential or integral calculus, or simultaneous
>equations, or for that matter, even how to do square roots.
>
>I went through navy flight training from 1949 to 1951. At that time,
>at least, the navy had no separate training for navigators; all
>midshipmen and navcads in multi-engine flight training were taught
>celestial navigation and it was assumed they would serve as navigators
>until they worked their way up to copilot.
>
>I received so many hours of celestial navigation training that when I
>returned to the University of Illinois to complete my undergrad
>program, I was awarded 30 semester-hour credits of celestial
>navigation! That is the equivalent of a full, two semester college
>program. As a result, I was able to receive my bachelor's degree a
>full year early.
>
>So I can say, agian, that celestial navigation requires no math
>skills bryond the ability to read a table and do simple arithmetic.
>
>All the difficult math was done by those who prepared the tables, so
>that aboard an aircraft, it took very little time to do the simple
>math requried between taking the shot and plotting the position.
>
>When an aircraft is moving along at a couple hundred knots, that is
>important.
>
>I took a commission in the marine corps, where I had served as an
>enlisted man before being selected for flight training. So I can also
>say that in the marines, the aircraft navigators were enlisted men,
>who needed a GCT only 110 (slightly above average) to attend
>navigation school.
>
>vince norris
>
>
>
>
>
>


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: What it took to get wings in WW II.
>From: vincent p. norris
>Date: 7/15/03 8:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>The highest math skills were needed by the Navigators.
>
>Art, if I may jump in here again, surely you know that's an
>exaggeration.
>
>Celestial navigation requires no math skills beyond the ability to
>read a table and do simple arithmetic--the arithmetic every kid learns
>by the time he gets to eighth grade. It requires no knowledge of
>"higher math." No differential or integral calculus, or simultaneous
>equations, or for that matter, even how to do square roots.
>
>I went through navy flight training from 1949 to 1951. At that time,
>at least, the navy had no separate training for navigators; all
>midshipmen and navcads in multi-engine flight training were taught
>celestial navigation and it was assumed they would serve as navigators
>until they worked their way up to copilot.
>
>I received so many hours of celestial navigation training that when I
>returned to the University of Illinois to complete my undergrad
>program, I was awarded 30 semester-hour credits of celestial
>navigation! That is the equivalent of a full, two semester college
>program. As a result, I was able to receive my bachelor's degree a
>full year early.
>
>So I can say, agian, that celestial navigation requires no math
>skills bryond the ability to read a table and do simple arithmetic.
>
>All the difficult math was done by those who prepared the tables,

We had to DERIVE the tables just to get through cadet school. Those comfortable
with numbers could do it in the time allowed., Those not comfortable with
numbers who couldn't make the time requirements washed out. How do you feel
about having a navigator on your crew who was not comfortable with numbers? Or
how about one who took so damned long to do an HO-216 you weren't there any
more?.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[QDurham]

>from 1949 to 1951. At that time, at least, the navy had no separate training
for navigators; all midshipmen and navcads in multi-engine flight training were
taught celestial navigation>>

My 1953-1954 Pensacola memory exactly. The additional nav (including
celestial) and carrier ops probably explain why Navy cadets took 1.5 years to
graduate while the AF people did it in one. (Either that or fundamental
sloth/stupidity.)

Quent

Quent

[Chris Mark]

>>From: vincent p. norris

>I don't know how many pilots
>>>>there were in the Air Corps during WW II

I found one stray figure that might be useful: in 1944 the AAFTC trained
80,693 pilots. I believe that was the peak year. As an item of interest, in
1946, it trained 344 pilots.


Chris Mark

[Wolfie]

"Chris Mark" wrote

> >>From: vincent p. norris
>
> >I don't know how many pilots
> >there were in the Air Corps during WW II
>
> I found one stray figure that might be useful: in 1944 the AAFTC trained
> 80,693 pilots. I believe that was the peak year. As an item of interest,
in
> 1946, it trained 344 pilots.

Training figures during the WWII era (1939-1945) for the Air Force:

Pilots
-------------------------------
233,198 Primary with 88,279 (~28%) failures*
193,440 Advanced with (~13%) 28,790 (~13%) failures
108,337 Transition with 7,474 (~7%) failures.

Assuming everyone went Primary, Advanced, Transition (I'd *guess*
that's true but someone who knows is welcome to correct the
assumption), that's a total failure rate of about 39%.

Bombardiers
----------------------------------
28,361 total with 3,423 (~11%) failures**

Navigation
-----------------------------------
56,119 total with 10,822 (~16%) failures***

Bombardier/Navigation
------------------------------------
28,480 total with 3,533 (~11%) failures****

Gunners
------------------------------------
309,236 total with 26,815 (~8%) failures*****

*all failures includes training deaths
** includes Precision, Instructor, and Refresher courses
*** includes Celestial, Dead Reckoning, Instructor, and Refresher
**** includes Bombardier/Navigation, Bombardier DR & D8 Navigation
***** includes enlisted, officers, and instructors