The Sopwith Dr.I

Barrett · 26 September 2007, 08:51 AM

Yup, your Modern US Air Force doesn't know squat about WW I aeroplanes, not that anybody would expect otherwise.

Also note that Nieuports are "aircraft," as are homebuilts, obviously because the Airman writing the caption had no earthly idea what to call them.

Air Force Link - Photos

womenfly2 · 26 September 2007, 10:11 AM

Yes, pretty sad for an aviation museum and one of the best! Makes you wonder what else they have incorrect?

Nice pictures by-the-way!

WF2

Taz · 26 September 2007, 10:19 AM

WF2- The photographer had nothing to do with the Museum, which has a full time research staff to ensure those types of errors do not occur. He is a staff photographer for WPAFB or AF Link, with no background in aviation history. He forgot to ask someone who did.

Taz
Terry Phillips

Barrett · 26 September 2007, 11:22 AM

I see this sort of thing frequently in the armed forces. The navy is full of earnest young Sailors (it's capitalized now) who believe what they're told about squadron lineages. Last year the New York Yankees of naval aviation history tried to convince a whitehat that the current Fighter Squadron Two had no, zip, nada, relation to the famous "Flying Chiefs" of VF-2 in the 1930s, which went away during The War. Most of the time, people believe what they want to believe.

WinterHawke · 26 September 2007, 12:20 PM

Hey, Barrett

Thanks for the link - hadn't thought to look there yet for pictures from this last weekend.

Yes, we've a very long way to go before even casually interested folks know what these aeroplane-things are supposed to be called - or even being able to tell one side from the other (cf-this very subject on the "Flyboys" threads!).

On the other hand,

Nice photo of some of the flags we flew over at the R/C compound - never thought to snag a picture myself!

Thanks again for the link!!

Lee McDuffee
the WinterHawke

LegendaryLoewenhardt · 26 September 2007, 05:23 PM

Moreover, the Modern US Air Force doesn't need to know about things that existed nearly a hundred years ago...

Focus on what's going on now and what's actually deciding what will happen in the future, not the past which only serves the use, for us in the present, of correlating the times with the details we are supplied with.

-L.L.

Kaiser Bill · 26 September 2007, 09:57 PM

The US Airforce not knowing "squat" about WW1 planes by calling a Sopwith Tripe a Fokker Dr1 sounds like the lady on Jay Leno. He asked her to name The Three Stooges... her reply... Huey Dewey and Louie. What a moron.

Bill

crankcase · 26 September 2007, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegendaryLoewenhardt

Moreover, the Modern US Air Force doesn't need to know about things that existed nearly a hundred years ago...

Focus on what's going on now and what's actually deciding what will happen in the future, not the past which only serves the use, for us in the present, of correlating the times with the details we are supplied with.

-L.L.

LL
I agree that the business end of the air force needs to do its job competently and with technical precision, but I am surprised by your statement. I would have thought you would be a strong supporter of tradition, since it gives inspiration and hopefully some kind of ethical guidance to the men and women serving in the armed forces.

The modern Luftwaffe had to deal with these issues, and luckily had the names Richthofen, Immelmann and Boelcke available to them. WW2 presented difficulties, for reasons well known. Hans Ulrich Rudel, the highly successful Stuka pilot, was a controversial figure in post-war Germany given his outspoken right-wing views.

I think tradition linked to education is necessary so that recruits don't fall prey to such stupidities as giving infantile expression to Nazi symbols in barracks or displaying skulls.
Gruss
CC