B-17's and Strategic Bombing (Was:Was D VII a good plane)

BTW trying to having a debate with Walt M140 is about as
entertaining as talking to a concrete wall :-)

Are you -ever- going to apologize for saying that Martin Caidin fabricated the
story of the B-17 that survived a head on collision with an FW-190?

Should I post the serial number of that B-17?

Walt

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
om...

I did not write that he fabricated it. I wrote:

... Before I believe a tall story like that, I would like to see a
... better source for it than that amiable distributor of myth,
... legend, fiction and error, M. Caidin.

Which, in my opinion and that of plenty of other people,
is a quite reasonable attitude to take, considering
Caidin's track record; and I certainly will not apologize
for it.


What's Caidin's track record?

... Before I believe a tall story like that, I would like to see a
... better source for it than that amiable distributor of myth,
... legend, fiction and error, M. Caidin.

Which, in my opinion and that of plenty of other people,
is a quite reasonable attitude to take,

Emmannuel's opinion of Martin Caidin as a historian does indeed pretty
much agree with mine, though perhaps expressed more elegantly


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

What's Caidin's track record?

His writing "never let the facts get in the way of a good story."

[snip]

And then there is the ugly wrangle he had with Sakai over the
latter's so-called 'autobiography'.

Aha! I'm very interested in Sakai's book as published in English.
Without going too deeply into it, I found several tall tales in it,
which are noted at www.warbirdforum.com/samurai.htm

I had the feeling that these were introduced by Caidin, or perhaps by
Fred Saito (who rendered it into English for Caidin to work with).

I'd like to know more about the Caidin-Sakai wrangle!




all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...

His writing "never let the facts get in the way of a good story."
He wrote a lot of books, always giving far more attention to being
entertaining than to accuracy. That, of course, is not so harmful
where his numerous works of fiction are concerned; his works
of history however... Caidin's works are spreading and
perpetuating more aviation history myths and errors than those
of any other author, of course also because they were so widely
sold.

And then there is the ugly wrangle he had with Sakai over the
latter's so-called 'autobiography'.


Caidin's books may be riddled with inaccuracies, or they may not be. I
don't know, I haven't read a great deal of his work. But there's a
difference between saying his work is inaccurate and showing his work to be
inaccurate. You haven't shown any of his work to be inaccurate.

You're not the first in this forum to accuse Caidin of inaccuracy, that's
why I asked you about his track record. In January 2003 one "Felger
Carbon", replying to a statement about Caidin's truthfulness, wrote:

"Yep. Example, in a Caidin-authored paperback on test flying, with a
hilarious chapter on the Chance Vought Cutlass jet. He mentions the
twin-engine Grumman interceptor built to compete with the Lockheed
P-38. He states that the only prototype crashed into Long Island
Sound (true). He also clearly and unambiguously stated that the cause
of the crash was a problem with the nose gear. Problem: the Grumman
was a tail-dragger and had no nose gear."

But Caidin was correct. The aircraft was the XP-50, and it was not a
taildragger, it had tricycle gear. Grumman pilot Bob Hall was flying
the aircraft when one of the turbochargers let go. The blades cut the
hydraulic lines to the landing gear. He could lower the mains via the
manual gear extension system, but the nose gear wouldn't come down.
Seems the cables to the nose gear were cut as well. The airplane
could not land in that configuration, so he bailed out over Long
Island Sound. Felger had confused the XP-50 with it's sister, the Navy
XF5F, which was a taildragger.

On December 19th last you wrote in this forum:

"In fact the reconstruction attempt may be surprisingly
accurate. On 16 December 1903 the first flying attempt
failed under very similar circumstances -- the aircraft,
with Wilbur on the controls, stalled because the angle
of incidence became too high, and was slightly
damaged in a hard landing. It was repaired to fly on
the next day."

But the first attempt was not on the 16th, it was on the 14th. Should all
of your work be judged by this error?

Emmannuel's opinion of Martin Caidin as a historian does indeed pretty
much agree with mine, though perhaps expressed more elegantly


If Caidin was an embellisher of stories or a poor checker of facts or
corroboration, so be it.

But you haven't shown such, and neither has Mr. Gustin. It's all been
character assassination by innuendo.

Caidin seems to have hit most of the important points on the this story of the
B-17/FW-190 collision, and Mr. Gustin needs to apologise for doubting it.

But of course that was part and parcel of the attacks on everything American
over on the moderated WWII newsgroup.

Walt

On 17 Apr 2004 12:57:56 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

But you haven't shown such, and neither has Mr. Gustin. It's all been
character assassination by innuendo.

Not at all! We happen to think that Mr. Caidin is a fabulist. There's
no innuendo! I'm saying it outright: he made stuff up! He made lots of
stuff up! Some of it was good (The Six Million Dollar Man, or anyhow
the book that led to it) and some of it was dreck (The Rugged, Ragged
Warriors).

I don't have to show anything. This is simply what I believe: he made
stuff up. That's how he was able to write 150 books in a rather short
lifetime.

You are of course free to believe otherwise. But since you do, then
don't expect me to take anything you post here seriously, since you
have demonstrated that you are likely to be gulled by fabulists.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Not at all! We happen to think that Mr. Caidin is a fabulist. There's
no innuendo! I'm saying it outright: he made stuff up!

Show it.

Walt

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Some of it was good (The Six Million Dollar Man, or anyhow
the book that led to it)


"Cyborg"

One example of how Caiden "sweetened" a story has been pointed out to me (by
two people, as a matter of fact):
In Fork-Tailed Devil, Caiden relates the death of William Sells. In the Caiden
account he says that "perhaps" only one scorched carbon sheet remains to tell
what happened to Sells, a paper Caiden found while working in Japan. However,
Sells career and death are fully documented in the usual routine way.
Caiden says the carbon he found is damaged so that the date of the episode and
Sells' unit are not known, although he suggests a possible fighter group. In
fact, Sells squadron, the individual plane he was flying, and the date of the
episode are fully documented.
The story Caiden then tells is fantasy. He says Sells took off alone on an
engine check only to discover dozens upon dozens of approaching Japanese
bombers and fighters bearing down on the field, none of which had been detected
by radar (how this could be is not explained). Sells gallantly attacks them
single-handedly and shoots down six (the shootdowns witnessed by those on the
ground) before running out of ammo. His plane riddled with bullets, an engine
on fire, himself bleeding profusing, he dives away and heads for a landing.
In fact, the Japanese did launch a very large raid that day. It was detected
by radar and several flights of fighters were sent up to intercept, including
one led by Sells. One of his four planes aborted, but three continued and Sells
led his wingmen (whose names are known) into an attack on a formation of Vals
escorted by Zeros. He ordered one of his wingmen to attack the Vals while he
and his wingman attacked the Zeros. Sells' wingman lost him in the attack on
the fighters and diverted to attack the Vals, damaging two before being chased
off by Zeros. The wingman who had been orderd to attack the Vals is bounced by
Zeros and has to break off his attack before inflicting any damage. He sees
Sells alone engaging 12 Zeros, goes to his assistance, attacks the Zeros and
shoots down one confirmed before having to dive out of the fight. No one sees
Sells shoot down any planes and he is not officially credited with having shot
any down.
In Caiden's account, Sells heads for the nearest field but P-40s are scrambling
from it and Sells is ordered to go around and his plane crashes while he is
attempting to do so.
Unit records say Sells was making an emergency landing on one engine at RAAF
Gurney when he was cut off on short final (gear down, full flaps) by a landing
P-40. In avoiding a collision Sells' plane ran out of flying speed and
crashed, killing him.
The real story of Sells' death is fully interesting enough. But apparently
Caiden felt the need to "massage" it.
Apparently, he didn't do this because he was a knucklehead, but because he had
discovered that the largest audience for mass-market paperbacks about WW2
aviation were junior high school and early high school boys, so he adjusted his
writing to make it as appealing as possible to this target audience.



Chris Mark