Peter Teichman's thoughts

[Brevet Cable]

Baffling's not the term I'd use.
Conceited, egotistical or arrogant, yes, but not baffling.

[centaurus18]

Baffling's not the term I'd use.
Conceited, egotistical or arrogant, yes, but not baffling.

I was being polite!

[Ryan.]

Previously, the only stick to beat him with was the rather unfortunate way he landed Pegs gear-up on one occasion.

He did make rather an unfortunate habit of having 'landing issues' in that particular aeroplane

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/hawker- ... march-2009.

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/hawker- ... ugust-2011

The first can't be considered the error of the pilot though. The second, and indeed the quite damming report of Cosford, certainly can.

[Mike]

The first can't be considered the error of the pilot though.

Except for the fact that the follow-up to the AAIB report states that no fault was found. Clearly the fairies must have applied the brakes before landing.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _04-10.pdf

The second, and indeed the quite damming report of Cosford, certainly can.

Not to mention the previous two AIRPROX incidents, after which the same pilot also refused to cooperate with the investigations.

[Alanko]

And still trying to work out how the hell any portion of the blame could be attributed to the Chinook crew!

Because they didn't play the game and let a cavalier old man play at fighter pilots with immunity. Nobody likes a grass!

[olly_s]

I've no particular axe to grind with Peter as such, I just don't like owners making up convenient fake histories for their aircraft to suit their own narrative. Whether it is Peter with his P-51, the anonymous ex-Israeli P-51 fuselage painted as Miss Helen, the Twilight Tear fiasco, or the lie about ML407 shooting down an aircraft on D-Day, he's certainly not alone in this practice.

Sorry to re-surface this thread, but was looking at it regarding the whole 'tall in the saddle' / red tails thing.

I saw this comment, and it said about Miss Helen being some Israeli P51 (does that mean it never did fly with the BNBoB, or just that airframe went on to serve with Israel?) and the 'lie about ML407 shooting down an aircraft on D-Day', which I am particularly fascinated about.

To be honest, I'm just happy these aircraft are flying - no matter what their history. But it would be nice to know the actual history behind them, if some of it is 'fabricated'.

Again, I mean no offence with this obviously but just want to know.

Thanks

[CJS]

I've no particular axe to grind with Peter as such, I just don't like owners making up convenient fake histories for their aircraft to suit their own narrative. Whether it is Peter with his P-51, the anonymous ex-Israeli P-51 fuselage painted as Miss Helen, the Twilight Tear fiasco, or the lie about ML407 shooting down an aircraft on D-Day, he's certainly not alone in this practice.

Sorry to re-surface this thread, but was looking at it regarding the whole 'tall in the saddle' / red tails thing.

I saw this comment, and it said about Miss Helen being some Israeli P51 (does that mean it never did fly with the BNBoB, or just that airframe went on to serve with Israel?) and the 'lie about ML407 shooting down an aircraft on D-Day', which I am particularly fascinated about.

To be honest, I'm just happy these aircraft are flying - no matter what their history. But it would be nice to know the actual history behind them, if some of it is 'fabricated'.

Again, I mean no offence with this obviously but just want to know.

Thanks

Indeed, all the accounts seem to suggest that "Flying Officer Johnnie Houlton DFC who was accredited, whilst flying ML407, with the first enemy aircraft shot down over the Normandy beachhead on 6th June D-Day." https://www.flyinglegends.com/aircraft/ ... re-ix.html

I mean I haven't the time nor inclination to check, but I imagine that's a fairly easy thing to confirm isn't it? And therefore an odd thing to make up, because it's so obviously going to be found out.

[olly_s]

I've no particular axe to grind with Peter as such, I just don't like owners making up convenient fake histories for their aircraft to suit their own narrative. Whether it is Peter with his P-51, the anonymous ex-Israeli P-51 fuselage painted as Miss Helen, the Twilight Tear fiasco, or the lie about ML407 shooting down an aircraft on D-Day, he's certainly not alone in this practice.

Sorry to re-surface this thread, but was looking at it regarding the whole 'tall in the saddle' / red tails thing.

I saw this comment, and it said about Miss Helen being some Israeli P51 (does that mean it never did fly with the BNBoB, or just that airframe went on to serve with Israel?) and the 'lie about ML407 shooting down an aircraft on D-Day', which I am particularly fascinated about.

To be honest, I'm just happy these aircraft are flying - no matter what their history. But it would be nice to know the actual history behind them, if some of it is 'fabricated'.

Again, I mean no offence with this obviously but just want to know.

Thanks

Indeed, all the accounts seem to suggest that "Flying Officer Johnnie Houlton DFC who was accredited, whilst flying ML407, with the first enemy aircraft shot down over the Normandy beachhead on 6th June D-Day." https://www.flyinglegends.com/aircraft/ ... re-ix.html

I mean I haven't the time nor inclination to check, but I imagine that's a fairly easy thing to confirm isn't it? And therefore an odd thing to make up, because it's so obviously going to be found out.

Exactly what I thought. I've always thought it was the ML407 to shoot down the first aircraft, but I've never heard anyone say otherwise until I saw the comment I quoted.

[davski]

Re: ML407 - who is being accused of lieing? Johnnie Houlton himself or the current operators? Curious accusation to make given all the published accounts, including Houlton's own book ‘Spitfire Strikes’.

[Mr OAG]

I remember a big thing was made of this back at Fighter Meet '94(D-Day 50th Anniversary) when Johnnie Houlton was re-united with ML407

[sdad]

http://johnniehoulton.corranashworth.info/
suggests that the "first kill" was decided by HQ, so this might pin that down:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov. ... /r/C508484

This is the actual combat report. It seems surprising though that there were no claims until the third sortie of the day.
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov. ... r/D7445722

This is the 485 Squadron ORB:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov. ... r/D8412857
and
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov. ... r/D8412856

which should give some timings for the whole unit.

[Mike]

Houlton’s own account clearly states that he taxied ML407 into a desk that had been dragged out onto the airfield before the dawn first sortie of D-Day, and damaged the propeller. The ORB shows that he sat that one out, and flew the second mission of the day in another aircraft (ML176) and an afternoon sortie in MK950, when he shot down the Ju88. After a prop change, he flew an airtest in ML407 in the evening. Presumably all was still not well as he returned earlier than the rest of the squadron, and flew the following morning’s first sortie in MK950 again, before resuming flying ML407 again later in the day.

So yes, Houlton is indeed credited with the first enemy aircraft shoot-down of D-Day, but he was flying MK950 at the time, not ML407 (which was on the ground having a prop change at the time).

As in so many cases, the facts do not fit the owner’s narrative.

[Ewart]

Houlton’s own account clearly states that he taxied ML407 into a desk that had been dragged out onto the airfield before the dawn first sortie of D-Day, and damaged the propeller.

One would have to wonder who and why would a desk be dragged onto an active airfield prior to the day of days.