From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Flying Tiger's responce to Ford's Web Page
Date: 8 Jun 1998 20:09:49 GMT

In <6lgo0v$plb$4@ns3.vrx.net> maury@remove_this.istar.ca (Maury
Markowitz) writes:
>
>In <stevehix-0606981956540001@ip42.safemail.com> Steve Hix claimed:
>>
>>In article <6l6u9c$c3k$6@ns3.vrx.net>, maury@remove_this.istar.ca
>>(Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>>
>>>   Forgive me, but what's a test club?  Am I safe to assume it's
>>>something you put onto the shaft to wind the engine (or similar)?
>>
>> The ones I've seen were a non-functional prop replacement
>> that let you test an engine without blowing everything in
>> the shop around. Looked like a prop with two very short,
>> stubby blades that acted inertially like a prop but didn't
>> push (as much) air.
>
>  Ahhh, makes sense.  Spins great, less blowing!
>
>Maury


Neither of you know what a test club is, nor it's use.
Maury I'm surprised at you, don't go along with some half baked cock
and Bull story.

The test club was a fixed pitch prop designed for use in a
engine test cell. Purpose was for running in a newly overhauled
engines. It could not be used to fly an airplane.

During the time frame we are speaking about, and for use on hi-
powered engines. The test clubs were small in diameter. A fixed
pitch four bladed props, made out of wood.

They were specially designed for maximum airflow around an
aircooled engine, or in the case of liquid cool engine, max
airflow into the radiator.

They were pitched so several parameters were obtained
simultaneously, coinciding with take-off RPM and M. P.
Example: On our Allison engine using a prop
referred to as a test club, at max power, 46 MP gave exactly 3,000
RPM. If one were installed on an aircraft, and one attempted to fly
with it, when you got to take-off MP, you would have 3,000 RPM
before you even started moving.

Being fixed pitch, by the time you got to take-off speed, the
engine RPM would most likely be in the vicinity of 4,000 rpm or
perhaps more. Since the red lined RPM of the Allison was 3,120, the
engine would have exploded.

Even at reduced power, and flying at minimum airspeed, the engine
rpm would exceed it limiting red lined rpm.

Therefore it would be impossible to used a test club for flight,
even in an emergency. Therefore the reason Ford doesn't know
whereof he speaks. Research would have told him that,  instead of
arguing which proves his ignorance concerning aviation.

Mr. Ford stop arguing airplanes, you don't know what the hell you
are talking about. You're over your head, and your's stupidity is
showing. =:-(
                          *     *     *

From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: P 40 AVG
Date: 24 Dec 1997 17:24:58 GMT

     I recommend visiting Ford's WEB Page. It will give you an
excellent insight into just how little Dan knows about military
aircraft and engines. His ignorance on these subjects is appalling.

>Reading Chapter 4 on his web, it starts out describing Don
>Berlin's reason for changing to the Allison engine.
>He says Berlin replaced the P-36's air-cooled engine--*twelve
>pistons* arranged around the *propeller shaft* like the spokes of
>a wheel--with an Allison V-1710 built by General Motors.
snip
     A 12 piston radial engine, wow. Never heard of one.
A 12 piston radial engine was never built. (nor a 12 Cylinder radial).
All radial's have to be of an odd number of cylinders.
Any even numbered radial had to be a twin row or in the case of the
28 cylinder P&W, it had 4 rows of 7 cylinders. (NOT PISTONS)
snip

Always a odd number cyl. (If by chance a twelve cylinder radial was
built, it would HAVE TO HAVE 4 rows of 3 cylinders each. On a four
stroke engine, each cylinder fires once every two revolutions. On a
twelve cylinder radial half of the cylinders would never fire. The
firing order on any radial, a 7 cyl radial for example is as follows:
On each revolution every other cylinder fires. On one rev. the odd cyl
fire, then on the next rev. the even cyl fire Example: 1, 3, 5, 7,
- next rev. 2, 4, 6, then back to 1, 3, 5, 7 etc.)

Dan, please explain the firing order on a 12 piston radial.

     Cyl are not arranged around the prop shaft but the Crank
Shaft. The prop shaft was never referred to as crank shaft.

<The horsepower was the same, and the Allison's cylinders were
>arranged "in line."
snip
     Not true, nor was the Allison an "in line" engine. To be
specific, the P-36's had two types of engines. The R-1830 a 14 cyl
twin row 1200 hp radial, and the R-1820 a 9 cyl single row 1000 hp
engine. The radial was replace by a "V 12," of 1040 H/P, and it was
not an "in line" engine.

< The P-36 had the stubby, no-nonsense look typical of air-cooled
>fighters, the P-40 was slender as a fish, its lines broken only by
>an air-scoop beneath and behind the propeller cone.>
snip
     What the hell is a propeller cone??? Is it on the other end of
the tail spinner???

<    Dan says that Don Berlin originally put the air scoop on the
>plane's belly, but moved it forward. The result was to give the
>plane a distinct face, the propeller cone suggesting a nose, the
>air-scoop a mouth.>
snip
     Propeller cone, is this a new term for propeller spinner made
up by the author. I wonder what the author would call the tail cone
on an airplane. Could it possibly be a tail spinner!!!

<    The RAF then asked for two more guns, a bullet-resistant
>windshield, armor plate behind the pilot, and a wrap-around
>membrane to keep gasoline from spilling out if a fuel tank were
>hit. This was the Tomahawk II, which the U.S. Army adopted as the
>P-40B. >
snip
     This is 100 percent true and describe the AVG's airplane
perfectly. But it was not a Tomahawk IIB.

     Ford describes the armor plate as being one half inch thick,
(1.27 Cm) when in reality it was only 7 mm.

<    By the time Chennault reached Buffalo, another refinement had
>been made: an interior fuel-tank membrane, which did a better job
>of stopping leaks. This was the Tomahawk IIB, which in U.S.
>service would become the P-40C.>
snip
     The Tomahawk IIb that Britain received were comprised of both
the H81-A-2 and THE H81-A-3. This is where Ford gets confused, BUT
they weren't Identical.
     Our self sealing material was exterior, just one of many
indications ours was a "B" model. The reason why the material was
external on the "B's, was because the tanks had already been built.
On the "C," the material was placed internal as they were being
built. On the "B" it was only a fix, which incidently worked
perfectly okay. We never had to change tanks due to bullets holes.

<    A worse flaw, from the pilot's point of view, was that weight
>was added in front of the intended center of gravity. >
<    If the plane stalled, it could go into a spin so vicious that
>it seemed to be tumbling end over end. Still, the Tomahawk IIB had
>one great virtue. Nose pointed earthward, it was the fastest
>military aircraft in the world, 500 mph in an all-out power dive.>
snip
     Not being a pilot Dan doesn't know that a nose heavy airplane
was less apt to spin, and in some cases almost impossible to spin.
     Also not being a pilot, nor having flown the P-40, How would
he know it from a pilot's view point. From my view point as a
pilot, it was one of the nicest flying fighter I ever flew, and
I've flown 8 types.
     The tumble was not as a result of a stall. Also red lined dive
speed was 485 mph indicated. At 10,000 feet this was 575 TAS not
500 mph as the author indicates. A considerable difference.

<    The British did not like the Tomahawk. Without a supercharger,
>its Allison engine was useless above 20,000 feet.
snip
      It DID have a supercharger, it developed 1040 HP at
S/L, and 1090 HP at 12,800. As a matter of fact every
Military airplane the US built from 1930 on, the engine was
supercharged.

>    Their topsides were painted in desert camouflage--alternating
>bands of tan and green, called "sand and spinach"--and their
>undersides pale blue.>
snip
     AVG's camouflage was not that of desert fighters, nor did it
have alternating bans of tan and green. Camouflage was randomly
painted on all Military aircraft. Its coloring was olive drab and
dark green. (jungle)

<    The airframes cost $4.5 million. >
snip
     Actual cost slightly over $36 thousand each.

<    Railway flatcars took the crates to Weehawken, New
>Jersey, where they were loaded into the hold of a Norwegian
>freighter, which cleared Ambrose Lightship on February 19, bound
>for Rangoon via South Africa and the Indian Ocean. >
snip
     Curtiss Wright did not start building the P-40C until April,
1941, over two months after the AVG's last fighter came off the
assembly line.

<    The gravel runways of Mingaladon suggested the letter A
>chalked upon a green slate, with the crosspiece extending beyond
>the right leg. The crosspiece was the main runway, >
snip
     The cross piece was the shortest r/w and it was not the main
R/W.

<     The main contingent--thirty-seven pilots, eighty-four
>technicians, and two women nurses--meanwhile gathered at hotels
>in San Francisco. >
snip
     We stayed at the Johnathon club in LA, then as a group, went
by bus to San Francisco about 3 days before departure.

<    Gil Bright, former flight instructor at Pensacola, put himself
>down as a hardware clerk as a wink to his father, a wholesaler in
>Reading, Pennsylvania. >
snip
     We had no hand or say in choosing what occupation was written
on our passports. It was the state department that made these
decisions.

<    The pilots and technicians sailed next morning, July 8, which
>was foggy and cold in the tradition of San Francisco Bay.>
snip
     I was on this boat and we sailed on July 10. The bay was clear
as a bell, and no fog. Alcatraz could easily be seen from the pier
from which we departed from. Movies taken at the time of our
departure will prove it. NO FOG.>

<     After Honolulu, Jagersfontein was joined by the cruisers Salt
>Lake City, and Northampton. The escort was the work of Lauchlin
>Currie, who worried that Japan might have the airmen kidnapped.
>She docked on August 11, all her brandy drunk, along with 5,000
>bottles of Coca-Cola.>
snip
     The person who later turned out to be Tokyo Rose had broadcast
on the radio, that the Jeagers Fontein would never reach its
destination.
     We arrive in Rangoon on August 15, and debarked on the Aug.
16, 36 days after leaving S/F.

< In a masterstroke of deceit and folly, Hitler had turned on
Stalin the month before.
snip
     Ford apparently places General Chennault on par with Hitler by
saying in Chapter two that, ambiguities and deceptions mark his
(Chennault's) career.

>    Finally some volunteers were promise, (or managed to convince
>themselves) that their CAMCO tour would count as time-in-grade
>toward promotion and retirement.
snip
     We were promised that we would stay equal to our classmates in
rank. The promise had nothing to do with retirement. Reserve
officers at that time, did serve on active duty long enough to earn
retirement.
                       *     *     *     *
     All of the above was found on just the first 5 pages of
Chapter 4. Can you imagine what the rest of the book is like. It
also proves that Ford knows very little about aircraft or engines,
and his arguing about the model of airplane we flew, only further
demonstration his ignorance on the subject.

Destiny: A Flying Tiger's Rendezvous With Fate.
Revised copy, 80 pictures. Now available in hard cover $30.00
includes priority mail - 6541 Carol Ave. Alta Loma, CA 91701
Signed by a Flying Tiger, will include personal letter in answer
to your questions.

Take away my comments, and one would think Fords book was well
researched.

After reading the above, can there be doubt in anyone's mind, that
Ford doesn't know a damn thing about airplanes or engines.

Some may take this as a personal attack on Ford, another suggested
I lighten up on Ford's book, but how else can I show the readers
that Ford is WAY OFF base, knowing next to nothing about the
subject, and set the record straight.

Erik Shilling

From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: NO Zeros over China
Date: 14 Jun 1997 22:41:40 GMT

Dan Ford <df@**christa.unh.edu> wrote:
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:40:19 -0400

>Oh, many thanks, Matt. Stood to reason that somebody had the facts on what
>was really a very unusual circumstance. snip

WHAT FACTS? Dan if you call or used these as facts, no wonder your posts
are so inaccurate.

>even such a resourceful person as Gerhard Neumann couldn't have rebuilt it.

Dan one fifth of all war bird restored by the CAF were worse than some of
those zeros that had been shot. The three P-40 ( B's ) from Russia were
shot down.  Restoration by Mr.  Wilson in Georgia, owned by Mr. Brooks.
One is now in the Navy's Museum at Pensacola.  Yes I said Model *B*.

>I did find a reference to the fact that two Zeros were shot down by
>Chinese ack-ack in the first part of 1941.

Dan I wrote nine months prior to October 1942.  WHAT Part of the word
WITHIN don't you understand??

These were NOT the Zeros that were used in Neumann's restoration. He
used parts from Zeros SHOT, FORCED, OR LANDED WITHIN the NINE months
prior to October 1942.

>One question: Robert Mikesh in his excellent book on the Zero notes
>that P-5016 has Mitsubishi sn 3372. I turn to his appendix and find
>that this sn should belong to an A6M3 model 22, manufactured between
>Dec 1942 and I think Aug 1943.

How can you resolve the difference between the Dec 1942 and the
restoration taking plane starting in Oct 1942?????????

>Does your source say anything about the provenance of
>the Teitsan Zero? Teitsan is not a provence.
>Quite a tribute to Neumann's mechanical genius, that the plane flew
>across the Hump to
>Karachi before being taken on shipboard. That this was the same plane
>as tested by Curtiss-Wright is shown by the nonstandard cowlings,
>fabricated in China, which show on the a/c both in CAF warpaint and
>with CW test pilots in Mikesh's book.

Mr Butler's book sounds like a must-have :)
Why? It's full of errors.

SEE BELOW.

Date: 13 Jun 1997 15:00:42 GMT,wrote:
<n329df@aol.com (N329DF)> Matt wrote:

>the Zero P-5016 made a forced landing near Teitsan Airfield on 17,
>Feb,1941. It was made airworthy at Kunming by american engineers under
>Gerhard Neumann , it was later flown to Rangoon but returned to
>Kunming when the RAF was unwilling to assist in shipping it to the UK
>or USA, It was then Flown to Karachi in 1943 for shipment to Wright
>Field. Notice the dates : Landed on 17, Feb, 1941
>                             Shipped to the US 1943
>all information above is from War Prizes by Phil Butler, published by
>Midland Counties Publications,24 The Hollow, Earl Shilton, Leicester,
>LE9 7NA, England, 1994

Matt,
No quarrel with you, but you have sent a EXTREMELY GOOD example of why
you can't believe every thing you READ. Even if Ford thinks your source
is a must have book.

The landing date is highly suspect. If the date is correct it was 10
months before Pearl Harbor, and had set almost two year before Neumann
started rebuilding the Zeroin October 1942. It was not the Zero Neumann
restored.

The Zero was never flown to Rangoon. Rangoon had fallen almost one year
before the Zero had been restored to flight condition.

The only American that helped in the restoration was a US Sergeant
Mackey. All of the others were Chinese.

The evaluation on the Zero were flown out of Kunming, China, and
completed before it left for the States.

There was never any intention for further testing in the US. It was
scheduled to be flown from city to city on a War Bond Drive. Not until
after it completed its tour did it go to Wright in Dayton.

The Zero A6M was first made airworthy near where it crash landed. Then
flown to Kweilin, where it underwent further restoration.

Erik Shilling
Flt Ldr 3rd Sqdn
Flying Tigers

From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: New info - Zeros over China
Date: 16 Nov 1997 21:40:14 GMT

New information about Zeros over China.

     After I returned from a trip back east, I went over
quite a number of postings and email letters I had
received concerning the Zero.  I have been in touch with Gerhard
Neumann, the person who restored the China Zero, and am more convinced
than ever that there were Zeros over China, and that the AVG had indeed
shot down at least six.
     Mr. Neumann kept meticulous notes on everything he did,
which to me, proves he was not relying upon recollections about
"his Zero." Another interesting fact is that he has in his files
every order he ever received while in the military, as well as
several hundred picture taken during the time he spent in the
orient. Among them are numerous pictures of before and after of
the Zero he restored.
     One of the comments concerns the belief that the Zero's he
used in the restoration were parts from those that had been shot
down near Chengtu almost two years earlier.  Mr. Neumann still
has the map, which was given to him by General Chennault, with
the location of the Zeros that were shot down. All of the parts
used in the restoration were from those Zeros indicted on
Chennault's maps. Also all of them were more than one thousand
mile from the Zeros shot down near Chengtu. As a matter of fact
he doesn't have the slightest idea where these zeros may be, or
even if they still existed.

*************

Mr. Neumann in answer to a quote from Daniel Ford, "saying the
AVG never shot down a Zero, his answer was. "Ford must be crazy."

"I simply could not (not underlined) believe what you wrote about
Daniel Ford. Absolutely incredible."

Another  comment, "this plane was hit in the fuel tank."

"It is very possible that "my" Zeke (Zero) was indeed a new mid-
1942 model, with several improvements over the Zeros you fellows
encountered."

Following underlined -- "Zeros over in China until 1944? Ford
must be crazy!"

A letter of commendation from Col. Bruce Holloway to Gerhard
Neumann, part of which refers to the testing of the Zero says:
"Performance data obtained from test flights has revealed much
needed information on which to base fighting tactics.

All flight testing had been accomplished in China before the Zero
was shipped to the US. No further testing was scheduled, but was
to be used for bond drive purposes.

They would have been a fool not to have done the testing in China
because of the possibility of loosing it on its ocean voyage to
the States.
***********
I question the sources Ford and Ben Shapiro use to prove no Zeros
over China. I find it a bit odd that these same source were
unable to establish the point of departure or the destination of
Mr. Neumann's Zero, yet quite detailed with respect to events
over China.

Isn't it odd that the source they use is able to come up with
such precise information as to what happened to them while over
China, but not how, when, or why they were there nor where they
landed.

How was their source able to declare that they were lost, and
landed in China, but unable to identify who the two the pilots
were that flew these Zeros, or know the eventual fate of those
pilots. Also how were they able to state that they were not
engaged in combat, yet bullet holes in the fuel tank of Neumann's
zero proves otherwise.

The attempt to make up a scenario to fit the picture of Neumann's
Zero fails, but the failed scenario is used to establish that
there were no Zeros over China. And use this same failed scenario
to deduce that the AVG was never in combat against a Zero.

Even though the physical facts dispute these so called historical
records which don't fit the picture, yet Shapiro and Ford are
able to determine there were no zeros over China.

Shapiro wrote:
>His (Neumann's) recollection goes against the historical record
>as I know it. Maybe the record is wrong, maybe I'm wrong, maybe
>Mr. Neumann is wrong. Challenging the facts as presented by you
>isn't based on some prejudice against the military or the AVG or
>you. It is the only way I have to ferret out that which is truly
>verifiable.
Ben, how about starting with the presence of the wreckage of at
least 6 Zeros in downed in China?? Also Mr. Neumann doesn't rely
upon recollection, but uses copious notes and photographs which
were kept by him.

Doesn't hard fact (physical evidence) prove the historical
records are in error. I would believe that most people would take
physical evidence over historical records every time.

Japanese school kids are not taught about Pearl Harbor, but
pictures and physical evidence proves it happened.

>I think you are wrong on the Zeros over China issue based just of
>Mr. Neumann's book. I laid out my reasoning and welcome a reply.

No. I do not base my thinking that zeros were over China by Mr.
Neumann's book alone, but the cold hard facts presented by the
physical presence of the wreckage of at least six Zeros that had
been shot down. I hasten to point out that it is not difficult to
determine whether an airplane was shot down by AA or another
airplane.

>I will say I also think you're going overboard in your attacks of
>Ford's book. This is not an excuse for his ill mannered and
>hurtful remarks about you a couple of days ago.

Those hurtful remarks you refer to are slanderous and outrageous
lies. This alone should tell you the caliber of person Mr. Ford
happens to be. Also I do not have any intention of rolling over
and playing dead. When Ford blatantly distorts the facts and
writes something which I know is far off base, I intend to reply.


Its up to Ford to keep the record straight in his postings. If he
does, I'd be a damn fool to challenge him.

Erik Shilling

From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: AVG Flying Tigers
Date: 5 May 1998 22:22:12 GMT

May 5, 1998 <df@christa.unh.edu> Dan Ford Wrote:
 DF: I just came across the following notes from Jim Erickson,
which deserve attention and comment:
 Erickson: On average the data suggest that the US and British
airforces overclaimed (actually overconfirmed) by approx. 2 to 1.>>
snip
Ford says the AVG claims were even higher.

 Ford wrote: Jim, I'm doing some research on this particular
subject and everything I've seen suggests a much higher rate of
overclaiming, typically 3 for 1 in the early years of the war.
Later, of course, gun cameras increased the accuracy of
fighter-pilot claims.
snip
There are two ways of looking at this.
1.   Ford's way and the intelligent way.
     Ford take the word of the Japanese as the only one who tell
     the truth, although they claim to have shot down 544 Flying
     Tigers.
2.   The intelligent way.
     Ford doesn't realize that the use of cameras proved that
     pilots claims were closer to the truth than Ford, and a few
     others will admit. But as a consequence, it proves the
     truthfulness of fighter pilot's claims.
     Dan undoubtely will say that the pilots will think twice
     before makeing a claim because of the gun camera. Again BS.
     Dan, it's not the other way around, as you'd so joyful like to
     announce...
Ford once wrote on his web page that he "LOATHED THE ARMY" and that
is why he got out. Now his animosity toward the military is
understandable. Ford what's the true reason for leaving the
Military?
 Jim:     <<This does not mean that all units and pilots
overclaimed by 2:1.Given that the AVG was one of the truly elite
units I would find it surprising if their confirmed kills were
really inflated by as much as 2:1.
snip
 DF:   Now here we disagree. In the first place, 2 for 1 is damned
good for the time--as good as the British were able to manage when
fighting over their home counties in 1940. But the AVG couldn't
possibly match the British record.
snip
Bull Shit.
     This is an excellent example of Ford's love affair with the
Japs. He believes them implicitly, and the reason for his illogical
approach is that lossing the war, the Japanese no longer have a
reason to lie.
     Ford overlooks a Japanese characteristic in lying to save
face, who (Japanese) insists there was no such thing as the:
     The Rape at Nanking never took place. BS. They claim there
weren't even 300,000 Chinese in Nanking. Even though almost 400
foreign news correspondents (confirmed 300,000 Chinese were
slaughtered during the Rape of Nanking.)
     Japs said NO Comfort Girls were Forced into Prostitution. They
were (All volunteers) BS
The attack on Pearl Harbor was a defensive measure. BS
The Japanese didn't start the war. BS
 DF:  In the first place, the Chinese gave credit (i.e., paid
combat bonuses) for aircraft destroyed on the ground, while the
British counted only air-to-air kills. Since a grounded aircraft
can't be seen to crash, or its pilot to bail out, such a target
gives great opportunity for over-optimism. On such missions,
overclaiming was generally much higher than it was in air-to-air
combats.
snip
BS
     What in hell has this got to do with the British not counting
aircraft destroyed on the ground?  A bomber shot down in the air
cannot be used to bomb, even though the crew successfully bails out
over their own territory, any more than a bomber destroyed on the
ground could be used to bomb.
     A commanders interest is how many aircraft have been
destroyed, and WOULD prefer to have them destroyed on the ground,
before it can carry out a bombing mission.

How stupid can one get!!!
     Ford apparently has never seen Recon photos which can more
readily support ground claims than confirming aerial victory. A
burned out hulk is easily identified as a destroyed airplane.
I flew many Photo-recon flight over Jap airfields, and know what
the hell I'm saying.
Mr. Ford how many Photo-recon flights have you flown?

DF:  Secondly, the terrain was much more unfriendly. You can't go
out and count planes that fell in the ocean, or behind enemy lines,
or in triple-tiered rain forest, as you can in "the hop fields of
Kent." So a much larger proportion of AVG claims were backed only
by pilot reports.
snip
     Dan Ford, you are stupid. You have been maintaining all along
THAT THE TOTAL NO. OF WRECKED E/A FOUND DIDN'T ADD UP. And since
the numbers don't add up, is one of the reasons why you don't
believe the AVG shot down the number of plane claimed by us it
     You even claimed that the British sent out 35 search teams
looking for Japanese wreckage. That initself is ludacrous, and NOW
you give the answer as to why so many were missed. (Ford Doesn't
always remember what he has written.)
     It's pitiful the ignorance show by some non-military types.
Ford haven't you heard of *Damage assesment* by PHOTO-RECON
FLIGHTS.

Jim Erickson: I for one would be very interested in seeing an
objective independent analysis of Ford's Japanese records.  How
close to reality are they? Is there a good reason to accept them as
reasonable approximations or are there valid reasons to dismiss
them as hopelessly inadequate?  Has anyone else attempted to sort
through the Japanese records/reconstructions?>>
snip
Jim, Who could be a better source than Saito a the Japanese
commander. See below.

     Ford, in his book, admitts that the Japanese destroyed ALL of
their Records, although repeatedly refers to records. ( As I've
said before, Ford Forgets what he has written.)
     There are three very inteligence and logical reasons.

1.   NO ONE would pay $500 buck just on the word of someone saying
I shot a plane down.  YOU'D be a damn fool if you don't demand some
concrete proof before paying out that kind of money.

 Conformation Proof came from two seperate and unbiased sources.

2.   A JOINT Chinese AVG Confirmation board that studied Chinese
Inteligence reports concerning claims and their findings before
they were confirmed.

3.   British Inteligence reports concerning downed Japanese planes,
authenticate destroyed E/A claims made in Burma.

FD:  Amen to that! My book was published seven years ago, surely
enough time for somebody to have challenged its methodology if it
were flawed.
snip
     Saito, a Japanese commander gave evidence that to this effect.
One of the few Japanese commanders that kept a diary inspite of
Japanese regulation against it, wrote that Japanese Commanders did
not report all the losses suffered by their units.
     Ford said how could the Japanese hide the loss of a couple
hundred airplanes.  Answer; Easy, the same way they hid the loss of
FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS at the battle of Midway.

DF:  In my opinion, the Flying Tigers did a damned fine job. That's
why I ended my book with the words: "All honor to them." What a
shame they didn't take the praise and run with it.
snip

Because Ford was hired by the Smithsonian during Enola Gay debacule
under Horwit's regime, to place the Japanese in a more favorable
light. WE as Americans and AVG resent this.

If Ford meant what he wrote:
     Why did he start his book by degrading Chennault? The theme
runs throught out his entire book. Any time Ford give a comment it
is followed by a disclaimer such as (But, However etc.)
     Quote from Ford's book, page xx
As a teenager Chennault had lied about his age in order to attend
college. What teenager hasn't at one time or other lied about his
age, but Ford make a big deal saying:

DF:  "It is small matter this business of Chennault's Birth year,
but significant as the first of the ambiguities and deceptions that
marked his career."

Ford saying that Chennault's career was marked by deceptions and
ambiguities is an Outragous Lie on Ford's part.

Erik Shilling
Author Destiny; A FlyingTiger's Rendezvous With Fate."
Send order to 5641 Carol Ave. Alta Loma, Ca. 91701

From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: AVG Flying Tigers
Date: 7 May 1998 20:29:12 GMT

In <1998050704162000.AAA05704@ladder03.news.aol.com> artkramr@aol.com
(ArtKramr) writes:
>
>>>In my opinion, the Flying Tigers did a damned fine job. That's why I
ended my book with the words: "All honor to them." What a shame they
>>>didn't take the praise and run with it.
>>
>>
>
>"All honor to them" throws them a bone. "hat a shame they didn't take
it and run with it". takes it away. This is damning with faint praise
in it's most devious form. But luckily they won their honor, and  these
snide put-downs effect nothing and influence no one.

>Dan Ford <df@christa.unh.edu> on  7 May wrote:

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN REPLY BUT, posted an advertisement for his
worthless book, which is touted as a definitive history of the
Flying Tigers.
It's should be quite obvious that he refuses to respond to any
legitimate challenge.

Ford had written:
>>>In my opinion, the Flying Tigers did a damned fine job. That's
>>>why I ended my book with the words: "All honor to them." What a
>>>shame they didn't take the praise and run with it.
BenL wrote:
>> Sorry Dan, but "All honor to them" at the end of your book does
>>not quite even the scales in this negatively toned account on the
>>AVG.
snipped Fords advertisement.

Erik Shilling
Revised edition of "Destiny; A Flying Tiger's Rendezvous With Fate"
Available 5641 Carol Ave. Alta Loma, Ca. 91701, or email me.

From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: AVG Flying Tigers
Date: 7 May 1998 20:30:44 GMT

The idiocy of Ford's statement,"That ALL fighter Pilots overclaimed
by 3 - 1," and then further reduces the number of confirmed e/a
destroyed by another 2 -1.

To explore the stupidity of such a statement, I'll go along with
Ford's ridiculous illogical statement, and take it to a logical
conclusion if such a thing can be done.

Since Ford and a couple other "(Historians ?) say that *ALL*
fighter pilots in *ALL* countries *ALL* overclaimed by 3 to 1.
This would mean that pilots such as Bong would have had to have
claimed 120 e/a.

But we can't stop here since Ford also says that even the number of
confirmed are over confirmed by as much as 2 to 1. Therefore for
Bong to have actually shot down 40 e/a, would have had to have
claimed to have shot down 240 e/a.
This is indeed B--- S---.

Now lets get to Ford's equally illogical statement on page 369
says. "And here I must grasp a nettle of my own. How many planes
DID the AVG destroy, in the air and on the ground? Different
documents yield different figures, but when they are sorted out it
appears that the Chinese confirmed 296 kills, including those of
Petach, Hill, and Wright in the week after the group was
officially disbanded. In many instances I have been able to
disprove a claim -- TO MY OWN SATISFACTION. anyhow -- BUT NOT WITH
such consistency that I can advance an equally precise figure of my
own."

Then Ford speaking of records says, "In almost every case, these
unit records recorded were recorded by a Japanese enlisted clerk.
In almost every case, these unit records were lost in the great
retreat of 1944-1945.

As for central records--if there were any--the jest in Tokyo in
August 1945 was that the smoke from the final American air raid
merged into the pall raised by military and civilian bureaucrats,
burning documents before the victors arrived.

SO MUCH FOR FORD'S RECORDS.

Although in the face of the above, Ford comes up with rather a
precise figure of his own, 115 Japanese planes destroyed by the
AVG.

Since 67 Japanese aircraft were destroyed by the AVG in strafing,
and these were confirmed by picture taken by our Photo-Recon P-40.
This leaves 48 Japanese aircraft that were shot down. Ford agrees
with the number of E/A brought down by Parker Dupouy and Bob
Neale's which totals 18 Japanese A/C, leaving 30 Japanese planes
shot down.

But even of this number, Ford say that he knows it to be true, that
a number of these actually belong to the RAF. Lets be generous and
say 5 belong to the RAF.  We can't stop here because Ford also says
that AVG pilots purchased some of these victories from RAF pilots
and agreed to split the 500 dollar bonus with them.

So if we reluctantly give 5 of these back to RAF, as well as the 5
that were purchased from RAF pilot, using Fords figures, the AVG
only shot down 20 Japanese aircraft in 7 months of operation.

Since we started with 82 pilot on December 7, 1941, and Ford
confirms the accuracy of 2 of them, then only 20 Japanese aircraft
had to have been shared by 80 AVG pilots.
If we are to believe Ford, in all the combats where the AVG fought
against the Japanese, only ONE AVG pilot in four shot down a Jap
plane.

How may of you honestly believe Ford knows what the HELL he is
talking about. I don't know about you, But I truly believe Ford is
in Coo Coo land.

Erik Shilling
Revised edition of Destiny: A Flying Tiger's Rendezvous With Fate."
is available. 5641 Carol Ave. Alta Loma, Ca. 91701 or email me.

From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Daniel Ford and Plagiarism
Date: 12 Aug 1998 17:55:54 GMT

     James Howard was the only fighter pilot to be awarded the
Medal of Honor in the European theater. Jim was one of the original
Flying Tigers and one of quite a few pilots that refused induction
into the military in China due to General Bissel's arrogance toward
the AVG.

He too accused Daniel Ford of Plagiarism, and seems to be the
Ford's source of information concerning the AVG, but with Ford's
own spin on much that he wrote. Therefore one of the reasons why it
seems to be so well researched.

Here is a copy of a letter that Jim Howard sent to the
Smithsonian press, complaining of Ford's plagiarism. .

Incase you are unaware of who Jim Howard was. He was one of the
Flying Tiger's Squadron Leaders, who later went to the
European Theater, and flew P-51s. A ship he called Ding Hou.

Jim was awarded the Medal of Honor, for he alone jumped an entire
German squadron of 109 that were attacking a squadron of B-17. Jim
shot down six of the enemy and forced the remaining German fighters
to flee.

Still alone, Jim escorted the B-17s back to England.  Incidently
Jim only claimed 3 Me 109s but the men the Bombers crew credited
him with six. The 109 didn't get any of the B-17s. The reverse of
those 3 to 1 advocates.

              *     *     *     *     *     *     *

                                  James Howard
                                  155 Bluff View Drive, Apt. 209
                                       Belleair Bluffs, FL 34640

                                   July 1, 1991


Felix C. Lowe, Director
Smithsonian Institution Press
470 L'Enfant Plaza, Suite 7100
Washington, D.C. 20560

Dear Mr, Lowe:

          May this letter serve as a notice to you that a writer
by the name of Daniel Ford has gravely infringed upon my book,
ROAR OF THE TIGER with his own manuscript, FLYING TIGERS, which I
understand is considered for publication by your press. Mr. Ford,
of his own admission, told me several months ago that an editor
at Random House had given him a copy of my manuscript without my
knowledge or permission. This has given him guidance in writing
his own story to a great extent. What disturbs me is that he has
lifted much from my writing with slight changes and fiction added
to make it appear that these are his words which they are not.
If the Smithsonian Press decides to go ahead with Ford's book
as it now stands, I feel that this will be a miscarriage of
justice and I will be obligated to take appropriate action to
protect my interest,
           I plan to attend the Flying Tiger reunion in San Diego
in early July where I will meet with the members who have
supported me in condemnation of Ford's manuscript. What disturbs
us is that his story is presented under the guise of
professionalism and unbiased and impartial scholarship. This is
not the case. Ford has been able to delude people with his
extensive travels and the studying of Japanese files. His
denunciation of Chennault is based strictly on rumors which have
been proven false, I knew Chennault as well as any. This must
surely be the season for debunkers who somehow strain the truth

Sincerely yours,
James Howard

The original letter was sign by James Howard
General U.S.Air Force Ret.

Jim Howard died before he was able to take further action against
Ford.

Every Flying Tiger that attended our reunion in San Diego will
attest to the truthfulness of Jim Howard allegations against Daniel
Ford. I saw Jim's manifest at that reunion, and later I was able to
compare it with Ford's book, "Flying Tiger." After seeing both I
feel he has a valid grip against Ford.

Since Jim is now deceased, I don't believe any further action was
been taken, since Jim left no living relatives.

Regards,

Erik Shilling

Incidently Ford Plagiarized 65 paragraphs from my own book.

From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: AVG Flying Tigers / combat report
Date: 8 Jun 1998 20:33:07 GMT

Dan Ford <df@christa.unh.edu> on Sat.30th May wrote:

Dan is back with his usual BS.

FD:Erik has never said that he shot down any Japanese aircraft.

Comment:  (NEVER) You insufferable, pompous, arrogant, ass. How in
the hell would you know, or anyone else for that matter, can
possibly say that I never said that I Shot down any Japanese
aircraft?  Between the four of us pilots, I had claimed the leader,
but we all agreed to share.
The bomber was already on fire (not smoking), and it did not
explode. (AS Ford says) On the back of my discharge from the AVG,
I am credited with 3/4 of those bombers signed by Chennault. Also
what you claim to be my combat report is a DAMN LIE. See the combat
report below.

FD: Incidentally, Erik's combat report from that fight survives. It
is a model of clear-eyed reporting (see pp. 178-179 of _Flying
Tigers_). Unfortunately, Erik now denies that he wrote it. (It is
typed, not signed, like most AVG combat reports.)
snip
FORD DOES NOT HAVE MY COMBAT REPORT.

What Ford wrote is Clear-Eyed, bull shit, it's impossible to get
into Dan Ford's damn thick head that I didn't write such an asinine
report. I have denied it several time AND HE knows it. If Ford
continues to insists that it is, then he is a damn liar.

Ford arrogantly presume that he can convince people to believe him
rather than me, regarding what I did or didn't say 57 years ago. I
can guarantee that NO fighter pilot would ever write such an
asinine report for two reason.

First of all it is something someone who has never been in combat
would have written, (such as Ford) AND has never seen tracers being
fired at them from a bomber. (such as Ford)

Here's Dan's version of my combat report, followed by the a report
in the AVG's war diary, then the actual combat report from the
pilots involved.

For those of you that may not have Dan Ford's book, which he
outrageously claims is "a definitive history of the Flying Tigers,"
here's Dan Ford's version of my combat report. Followed by the a
report from the AVG's war diary which Ford says doesn't exist.

From page 179 in Ford's book he writes:

"Shilling attacks from below and behind, while tracer bullets
drifted toward him from the 'stinger' in the tail-- 'almost like
they were dropping pieces of paper on fire out of the back.' He had
to charge his guns before each run."

Ford in furthering his attempt to discredit me, claims that Charles
Older's combat report said, Chuck shot down the leader and that it
exploded on his final run.

No fighter pilot would ever write such an asinine combat report for
several reason.

1.   Tracers don't drift. At 200 yards from the gun, they are
     coming at you close to 3,000 feet per second or 1,800 mph.
     That sure as hell isn't DRIFTING.

2.   And they DAMN WELL do not look like pieces of paper on
     fire being thrown out of the plane.

3.   The Sally DID NOT have a "stinger," and I was well aware of
     this.

4.   I attack from below. But not from behind.

5.   Sound more like something Dan Ford cooked up instead of taking
     my word or resorting to actual research. He is a man who has
     never been in combat nor shot at. Also a man who, on his web,
     stated that he loathed the military and his reason for
     leaving. Therefore only a person such As Dan would write such
     drivel.
     Worse yet, only a person who has never been in combat could
     accept such asinine trash as being a true combat report.

First the report from AVG's war diary, Jan 17th 1942, which Ford
says doesn't exist.

     "At nine thirty this morning a reconnaissance flight had been
given orders to get pictures of Jap aerodromes at Hagiang, a town
south of Yunnan Province, Indochina. The flight was just warming up
when the net reported loud noises were heard crossing the boarder
at Hokow or Lao Kai. Greenlaw gave the orders to MacMillan the
leader of the flight to take off immediately for Mengtze flying at
12,000 feet.
     In a few minutes word was received that three Jap bombers were
flying toward Mengtze, and a few minutes later, Sasser the radio
operator at Mengtze said that 3 Jap bombers were over the field.
This information was relayed to MacMillan's flight and at 9:57. The
first bomber was down in flames, and other two were taken care of
right after that. Mengtze is 124 miles south of Kunming. Older,
Haywood and Shilling, All third squadron - Shilling's first victory
- the others were already veterans at Rangoon."

The following is a copy of the actual combat report signed by the
pilots:

                     Third Pursuit Squadron
                 First American Volunteer Group

                                              January 17, 1942

Subject: Encounter with enemy formation (Bomber) near Mengtze,
Yunnan, China, January 17, 1942, by "A" Flight of this Squadron.

To     : Commanding Officer, First American Volunteer Group,
         (Through Channels)

       1. At approximately 0950 o'clock January 17, 1992, "A"
flight of the 3rd Pursuit Squadron was ordered to take-off and
intercept unknown enemy formation reported by warning net to be
approximately 30 miles southeast of Mengtze, Yunnan, China.
Immediately after take-off, received orders by radio for 3 ships to
proceed to this vicinity; all others to return to base. 2 ships of
this formation received orders and returned; the remaining four
ships continued.
       2. At 1017 o'clock interception was made with 3 enemy
bombers (Type 97) Heading general direction of Kunming, Yunnan,
China, at approximately 11,000 feet Position about 15 miles
northeast of Mengtsz.
       3.  One minute after the beginning of the attack enemy
formation made a right turn and assumed a course toward Hanoi.
Shortly afterwards the leader of the formation was seen to go down
in flames. The remaining bombers then parted keeping the above
stated course. The attack continued for approximately 15
minutes, the bombers gradually losing altitude, and finally
disappearing in the cloud formation at about 8,000 feet. At this
they were widely separated. The leading bomber went into clouds
with one engine out of commission and badly smoking. The trailing
one was also seen badly smoking as it disappeared in clouds.
       4.  All of our pilots then returned safely to base.
       5.  It is the desire and agreement of the pilots of t his
flight that all bonuses be
equally divided among same.
       6. Claims;  2 certain, 1 probable.

George McMillian                        Thomas C. Haywoood, Jr,
Vice Squadron Commander                 Flight leader.

Charles H. Older                        Eriksen E. Shilling
Flight Leader                           Wingman

SIGNED by all four pilots. The standard combat report was always
SIGNED by the pilots. Ford's mistaken.

Note: NO AIRCRAFT EXPLODED. NO ONE claimed any one particular
bomber as DAN Ford claims.
Please compare this report to the one Ford CLAIMS is mine. You can
see that Ford lies. Incidently it was I that pretended I didn't
hear the return order, and continued with the flight. I had not
shot at a Jap yet.

FORD DOES NOT HAVE A COPY OF MY COMBAT REPORT since it was a
combined one signed by all of us.

Erik Shilling
For a copy of my book "Destiny; A Flying Tiger's Rendezvous With
Fate." Signed by A Flying Tiger. Send your U.S. mail address to
Erik Shilling, 5461 Carol Ave. Ca. 91701.