Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?

I haven't thought about John O'Brian in years. But a comment made on this NG
reminded me of him. He was a bit older than the rest of us. He had a civilian
pilots license when the war started in Europe. He went to Canada and ended up
flying Hurricanes in the MTO. When the US entered the war he was, like all
Americans, transferred to the USAAC. But he ended up as a copilot with the
344th Bomb Group flying B-26 Marauders..I always wondered why, with his
experience, he didn't become a left seater. Any ideas?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" ...
I haven't thought about John O'Brian in years. But a comment made on this
NG
reminded me of him. He was a bit older than the rest of us. He had a
civilian
pilots license when the war started in Europe. He went to Canada and
ended up
flying Hurricanes in the MTO. When the US entered the war he was, like
all
Americans, transferred to the USAAC. But he ended up as a copilot with
the
344th Bomb Group flying B-26 Marauders..I always wondered why, with his
experience, he didn't become a left seater. Any ideas?

Art:
Did all USAAC bombers have a co-pilot? Didn't Lancs and other RAF/RCAF
bombers only fly with one pilot? Seemed kind of risky to me, but I guess it
worked risking one less aircrew member during a mission. My cousins
husband, now deceased, flew as a Nav. He said that nearly on each mission
someone was shot up. He made it through the war without a scratch!
Ed

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:k%wVb.441193$ts4.223591@pd7tw3no...


Did all USAAC bombers have a co-pilot? Didn't Lancs and other
RAF/RCAF
bombers only fly with one pilot? Seemed kind of risky to me, but I guess
it
worked risking one less aircrew member during a mission. My cousins
husband, now deceased, flew as a Nav. He said that nearly on each mission
someone was shot up. He made it through the war without a scratch!
Ed



IRC it was only the Lancaster and Halifax that used just one pilot. The RAF
looked at aircraft losses and came to the conclusion that unlike
the USAAF aircraft typically came back with all their crew or didnt
return at all.
..
Indeed most crews never even knew they were under attack until
they were hit. The flight engineer was usually given some flight training
but basically just enough to hold the aircraft level while the crew bailed
out.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw"
IRC it was only the Lancaster and Halifax that used just one pilot. The
RAF
looked at aircraft losses and came to the conclusion that unlike
the USAAF aircraft typically came back with all their crew or didnt
return at all.

Keith:
A lot of responsability for a young kid not that long out of flight
school, eh!
Most of them were young fellows.
Ed

Subject: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
From: "Ed Majden"
Date: 2/8/04 2:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 5HyVb.440053$X%5.314436@pd7tw2no


"Keith Willshaw"
IRC it was only the Lancaster and Halifax that used just one pilot. The
RAF
looked at aircraft losses and came to the conclusion that unlike
the USAAF aircraft typically came back with all their crew or didnt
return at all.

Keith:
A lot of responsability for a young kid not that long out of flight
school, eh!
Most of them were young fellows.
Ed




I was 19.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:k%wVb.441193$ts4.223591@pd7tw3no...


Did all USAAC bombers have a co-pilot? Didn't Lancs and other
RAF/RCAF
bombers only fly with one pilot? Seemed kind of risky to me, but I guess
it
worked risking one less aircrew member during a mission. My cousins
husband, now deceased, flew as a Nav. He said that nearly on each mission
someone was shot up. He made it through the war without a scratch!
Ed



IRC it was only the Lancaster and Halifax that used just one pilot. The RAF
looked at aircraft losses and came to the conclusion that unlike
the USAAF aircraft typically came back with all their crew or didnt
return at all.

The US daylight bombers required a co-pilot for the physically and
mentally fatiquing task of close formation flying upon which their
defensive boxes were based. Lancasters just bumbelled along in bomber
streams at night presumably on auto-pilot much of the way.



.
Indeed most crews never even knew they were under attack until
they were hit.

Makes me wonder why they bothered with the fitting of guns at all. An
unarmed Lanc might be able to outpace a radar equiped Me 110.


The flight engineer was usually given some flight training
but basically just enough to hold the aircraft level while the crew bailed
out.

Keith

Subject: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
From: (Eunometic)
Date: 2/9/04 5:55 PM Pacific

The US daylight bombers required a co-pilot for the physically and
mentally fatiquing task of close formation flying upon which their
defensive boxes were based.

Exactly 100% correct.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
From: (Eunometic)
Date: 2/9/04 5:55 PM Pacific

The US daylight bombers required a co-pilot for the physically and
mentally fatiquing task of close formation flying upon which their
defensive boxes were based.

Exactly 100% correct.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


In Ambrose Bearse's book "Wild Blue" about Sen. McGovern's B-24 piloting
experience in the Med in WWII, McGovern seemed to me to be rather clear
on the point that his Co-pilot was an adaquate co-pilot but was never in
his mind aircraft commander material. Don't know if he considered him
to be fighter pilot material or was more of the opinion that the guy was
too immature. I vaguely remember that there might have been some latent
desire to fly fighters and some carried resentment for not being allowed
to.

In a situation like that, someone who carries that kind of resentment
could quickly become a sore spot in an aircrew. Wannabes make poor team
members. Aircrew positions in that ware were NOT career paths. A
successful career in the AAC at that point was any which did not end in
a telegram to one's parents. Art, did you ever consider staying in for
20 or 30 years? Is suspect that the crews you knew were almost entirely
focussed on killing the freak in Berlin as a terminal career objective.

--
Dana Miller

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
From: (Eunometic)
Date: 2/9/04 5:55 PM Pacific

The US daylight bombers required a co-pilot for the physically and
mentally fatiquing task of close formation flying upon which their
defensive boxes were based.

Exactly 100% correct.

Gee, how did those A-20's in the Bomb Squadrons ever manage then, being as
they all had only one pilot?

Brooks



Arthur Kramer

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:k%wVb.441193$ts4.223591@pd7tw3no...



The US daylight bombers required a co-pilot for the physically and
mentally fatiquing task of close formation flying upon which their
defensive boxes were based. Lancasters just bumbelled along in bomber
streams at night presumably on auto-pilot much of the way.


Incorrect. That would have been an excellent way of committing
suicide. One of the reasons that Lancasters flew in such loose formations
was that they were constantly weaving to uncover blind spots and spoil
the aim of any fighter.

Moreover the standard tactic on spotting an enemy fighter was NOT
to return fire but to enter a series of violent evasive manoeveurs
called a corkscrew.

Keith