Fatal misconceptions

This is actually not a bad video, albeit a bit light on detail, what it does illustrate though is the power of ill conceived notions. There's a process through which information is disseminated and acquired that is a bit like Chinese whispers: send three and fourpence we're going to a dance. It occurs where there's a common exchange of information that is generally accepted as fact but the information of concern, was acquired without sufficient insight or context to apply it effectively. Generally the consequences of such activity are insignificant, people just go around with a bunch of notions in their head that are not connected to reality. Big deal, that happens all the time, read a newspaper or watch the a television news bulletin and you'll find a bunch of folk making their living ensuring that condition is maintained. This particular notion though, the Spitfire's fatal flaw, is an exception; unfortunately it's been implicated as a contributory factor in an accident that lead to the death of two people. I call this process of flawed information exchange, eavesdrop acquisition, which seems to aptly summarise it because the information of concern is often overheard during a casual encounter and the peril of eavesdropping is the lack of relevant context.

The details of the early iteration of the Spitfire's fuel system and its performance during negative g relayed here are essentially correct, it's just that the implications drawn are misleading. Weapons like the Spitfire are essentially solutions to engineering problems, because they're used in conflict the effectiveness of such solutions is subject to an intense imperative. Practical engineering is a process involving compromise and trade off, the fastest aeroplane you can make, wont be the one with the highest climb rate so you settle upon a compromise between those two goals. In the meantime, you do your best to ameliorate any negative impact of such compromise. When it came to designing the Spitfire their solution was, let's get as much power out of this engine as we possibly can. Maybe as a consequence of this urgent imperative, the negative g performance of the Merlin's fuel system, seems to have been overlooked or even placed on the back burner, it being seen as not of immediate significance. Unfortunately that all changed rather catastrophically when Johnny French adopted waving white flags as his national past time.

When Fritz spanked Frenchy and sent him to work in the cheese factory, one of the consequences was they captured a number of intact Hawker Hurricanes. The Hurricane's engine and fuel system were essentially identical to the Spitfire's and what did Fritz find when he put this booty through flight test? Yep, look what happens when you put the thing into negative g. So the flaw in the Spitfire wasn't so much the compromised fuel system, it was the fact that the Germans knew about it and were able to exploit it. They also found a number of other significant flaws with the Hurricane, not least its header tank situated on the cockpit side of the engine firewall, just behind the pilot's instrument panel. They must've laughed their nuts off when they found that howler. Incidentally, after testing the Hurricane, the German opinion was almost universally derisive. Which must've been a great relief to them because the Me 109 had been, rather hastily, rebuilt into a much larger aeroplane after a panic at the German air ministry prompted by the Hurricane's introduction.

So why didn't the Germans win The Battle of Britain then? Well although the negative g performance of the early Spitfire's and Hurricane is a significant flaw, it's only really exploitable in a head on confrontation or against an inexperienced pilot. It doesn't work while you're being chased by a Spitfire because your opponent has ample opportunity to avoid negative g, all he has to do is bank his aeroplane and pull back the stick. It works head on because you can just gently nose down your 109, the Spitfire can't bring his weapons to bear and goes sailing over your head. The flaw caused enough concern though, to prompt hasty remedial action. The video's account is reasonably accurate in this regard, Miss Shilling's orifice, followed by successive more effective solutions. So in short measure, poor ol' Fritz found himself sauntering through the sky thinking he'd dive to safety, only to find himself facing eight angry machine guns, that must've been a bad day.

So how does eavesdrop acquisition prove to have fatal consequences in this case? Well the misconceptions around this topic aren't just related to the means by which the Germans acquired knowledge of this issue and were able to exploit it. Perhaps because of the rather colourful term associated with Miss Shilling, the tale of the Spitfire, negative g and the orifice in question had become a bit of common banter; raised whenever the topic of conversations turns to The Battle of Britain, the Spitfire, the Merlin engine or aerial combat in general. And so 'knowledge' of the Spitfire's and Merlin's negative g flaw, permeates the broader collective consciousness. So when two pilots noted intermittent problems with one of the engines on their Merlin engined Mosquito bomber, they drew upon their common understanding to attribute it to this flaw. The simple fact that the negative g flaw had been diligently and systematically eradicated from all Merlin engines by a process of managed and recorded modification, as is standard practice in the aerospace industry, was lost upon them. As a consequence they missed a vital clue to the condition of the engine after faulty maintenance.

And so I'm afraid, that's how the fatal consequences followed. I suppose there's a lesson there; be careful of the wisdom you bestow, make sure it is actually wisdom.

The Flying Tigers (film)

About this: This gets a little contentious as I explore the morality of propaganda (again), so you might wanna skip it if you find that thing kinda dull. It also get kinda heavy towards the end, so you have been warned.


I seem to be on a second world war kick, well here goes the third in a row. The Flying Tigers with John Wayne, bet you haven't watched it recently. I made a point of digging it out and re watching for the first time since I was about eleven. I was curious about the mock P40 aeroplanes that feature in the film, because it was released in 1942 real aeroplanes were not available for most of the production, being needed elsewhere at the time. The studio built their own non flyable mocks for the scenes that show p40's on the ground either stationary or taxiing, they are so elaborate, they even do a few mock take-off runs. They are quite unconvincing for anyone familiar with the p40 though, they couldn't get things like convincing canopies right, I suppose that's understandble too considering the film made under war time constraints.

Watching The Flying Tigers was an interesting experience, a bit like watching a film from an alien culture, it adheres quite strongly to dramatic conventions that seem quite crude and naive. Stock characters and plot elements abound, there's a troubled, unjustly vilified loner, the loyal compatriot who places himself in jeopardy by disobeying orders, the irreverent conceited ne'er do well, out for his own gain. Of course it was made at quite a charged time, when the US was smarting from the humiliation of Pearl Harbour and there is some strong content for the period, Japanese pilots suffering graphically depicted wounds at the hands of our heroes. Those depictions seem to be inspired by sadism rather than an incentive to realistically portray the perils of war, which actually isn't as bad as it sounds because the film is largely bereft of the kind of demonisation associated with war time propaganda.

As a drama the film has some short comings, it limps through the first act at dire pace that seems be drawn out to an unbearable degree, as if the script is struggling to portray any depth in characterisation under the burden of their stereotypes. Where the script does satisfy, is with dialogue, as you'd expect from this period, there a snappy unselfconscious delivery of well constructed, slightly stylised prose that works well enough to hold your interest through the dull bits. There's also some alarming technical accuracy, when John Wayne's character briefs his men, he's referencing aircraft his Japanese adversaries would actually have been using, this is probably a consequence of the fact members of the real AVG were closely involved in the production as advisers. The real strength of the film are the aerial combat sequences, which despite the fact that studio shots are repeated in the film, work quite well, thanks to the excellent standard miniature photography. The miniature effects are not all up to the same standard but a good deal is really convincing, especially those used for the film's climax. The film's other asset is John Wayne, this was before typecasting eroded the more delicate aspects of his on screen persona and he's a much more convincing screen presence than in some of his later roles, this is a film that really exploits his star quality. It's cause to reflect on the quality of some those later roles and ponder what he could've accomplished if more 'em had reflected the quality of things like The Searchers or Rio Bravo.

The Flying Tigers does turn out to be enjoyable if a little slow to get going but I find the film's message to be morally reprehensible. You might this a little odd since I've excused the sadism expressed with the gruesome depiction of Japanese airmen being killed. and noted the refreshing absence of the demonisation of the enemy beyond those instances necessitated by the plot.

[SPOILIERS AHEAD]

The problem for me occurs the films climax, that one so excellently rendered with special effects, you remember that conceited ne're do well? well he's probably the films best crafted character and the script does a good job of making you hate him. For those familiar with formulaic plot, it will be no surprise to learn that this character turns out to be misunderstood and cements his redemption in the eyes of the audience with a suicidal act of self sacrifice. The message is clear and explicit as we see him destroy a railway bridge by diving into it with an aeroplane loaded with explosives, a chilling and, as I'm sure you're aware, an unnervingly prophetic scene. So prophetic in fact, it's cause to wonder how audiences would react to that scene as the horrors of the war in the pacific unfolded. Our ne'er do well is not the only character to meet such a fate, there are two other notable incidences, both of them involve characters that seem to be carefully drafted to portray social exiles. I found this unselfconscious portrayal of self destruction as virtue particularly indefensible given the context and the cynicism with which the characters are manipulated. A fair portion of the audience would in fact be impressionable young men who did just as the film prompted, got themselves killed. I know this is a contentious opinion, I don't think there's ever been an occasion when I've expressed something like it, when it hasn't been vehemently contested. To be truthful, if someone were in a predicament where there own family were in immediate peril, I could empathise with any action they took to protect that family, that might endanger themselves but to glorify self extinction in the service of an external agenda such as patriotism seems to me to be the ultimate evil, a cynical manipulation of the vulnerable and impressionable. Yeah, I know you're still not convinced but ponder this, The Flying Tigers makes no explicit reference to atrocities inflicted on the Chinese mainland during The Second Sino-Japanese war, who do you think committed those acts perpetrated during such incidents as *The Rape of Nanking? Well I tell you who, the same people who were convinced it's sweet and fitting to die for their country, if you can push someone past the barrier of self preservation, you've essentially created a functional-psychopath, someone capable of anything.

*NB
Despite what you might read in Wikipedia, the 'Rape' in the The Rape of Nanking doesn't refer to mass sexual assault, that's not say incidents of such assault did not occur. It is in fact one of the last occurrences of the use the word in a classical sense, meaning an assault on a community with the consequence of depleting that community's ability to raise children. In this incidence by killing them and their actual or potential mothers.

The Patriot

You'd find it hard to imagine today but I used to be something of a patriot. When I recall the patriot I used to be I don't think of him as naive or blinkered by jingoism, far from it, in fact,I remember him as principled individual with respect for all culture. A funny thing happens when the foundation of secure nationhood rots away from beneath you feet though, you stop thinking of yourself as part of a collective entity, when that happens your individual well-being and ambition become your chief preoccupation. Ceasing to be a patriot must be a gradual process I suppose, in truth if I look back and examine events in detail I think that probably true for me but I chiefly cite one particular period for destroying the faith I had in my nation. That period being the Yugoslavian conflict and my nations concomitant role in that conflict.

One of the misconceptions about propaganda is that it's universally effective. This isn't true as I've tried to explain on several occasions, the latest being a comment to a YT video here, (look for knockoffnigei) only a minority ever fully buy into propaganda. That minority is usually some where below 20% of the general population, the weak-minded and easily lead, maybe that percentage will increase if the population is under unusual stress, desperation breeds weak minds but on whole most people can see though obvious rhetoric. The real strength of propaganda is exercised through its pervasiveness, if a doctrine can seed itself into the media and political life of a nation it has the effect of pacifying opposition, most people don't want to risk airing opinions that seem controversial. In extreme cases this is manifested as moral panic where opposition to a doctrine is suppressed through fear of being ostracised and the threat of concrete sanction.

Such was the case with the war in Yugoslavia, the case for war was almost universally promoted in the media, so much so that anyone examining the period through a historical perspective could be forgiven for assuming that the war received universal approval amongst the British public. This was not the case, whenever the subject was broached in conversation, which was infrequently, the majority of people would tentatively express grave trepidation and concern over the enterprise. Not only did they express opposition or scepticism about the case for war, there was a good deal of awareness of the issues and historical context of the conflict, the very same contextual material that was absent from the media at the time. Of course if anyone who supported the war overheard or was party to such a conversation, some sort of verbal confrontation was likely. Such a confrontation would likely be marked by an aggressive and vociferous attempt to shame dissenters into acquiescing. The weak minded are frequently emboldened by the assurance propaganda affords them, more often than not they're successful in muting opposition, the pacifying effect I mentioned earlier.

So the war continued apace and escalated way beyond anything foreseen by our foolish leaders, no act of hostility seemed beyond justification, the Chinese embassy bombing, the assassination attempt on TV journalists all dismissed with easy platitudes. That's when the patriot in me died, he couldn't take being the baddie, the guy in shiny boots and skull adorned cap. I don't think it was just me either, quite a few people left the country at the time, maybe some were so sick of the shame.

Death of the Ball Turret Gunner

I've no patience for people who lace rhetoric with moral imperatives. I'm supposed to care about people starving somewhere or some intolerable injustice being perpetrated in another location because it's the right thing to do. I'm presented with deserving cases that are almost always suitably photogenic. I've no patience because I've no faith in their sincerity, blah blah blah, their worthless words trip like lemmings over a cliff. I've witnessed how much people really care, it's not an impressive tally. Unless there's some suitable emotional bribe, something to stoke those cosey 'dogooder' embers in their hearts, such people will the overlook the most bestial brutality.

Randall Jarrell said it all for me in his poem, Death of the Ball Turret Gunner. With it he illustrates the murderous faculty of the state and the callousness with which it is exercised. Jarrell describes the drama of warfare with the imagery of abortion and illustrates the state's pitiless insistence for murder. Now this is where I'm supposed to be expounding my own moral argument, nothing could be further from the truth. I don't believe there's a any practical alternative to either of those practices but please don't lie to me any more. Don't tell me you're doing for the love of humanity, you're doing it for self interest. You're launching missiles into crowded markets or flushing children down the bog because it's better for you. You're not doing it for democracy or a woman's right to choose.