This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:45 pm
Okay, so I'm on vacation and find this book called, "First Heroes" about the Doolittle Raiders. It's a good read but I do feel like I'm rereading bits and pieces from other books and accounts. The author is clearly not an aviation enthusiast or a pilot – some parts are hard to read because of this. One thing though that has been really bugging me is he keeps having the narrative refer to the B-25's as "Billy's". All the crewmembers lament the loss of their "Billy" - you get the idea. I've never heard the B-25 called that. Obviously the Mitchell was named after Billy Mitchell. Just wondering if it's a slang that hasn't been passed along, I'm just in the dark, or this author is clueless.
Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:59 pm
i've never heard of that lame term & i've been into aviation history since 1972, & i'm 45 now, so i think i'm fairly well read on the topic. i do recall somebody else commenting on the term on this site, he probably read the same trash book.
Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:05 pm
In my association and research of the Marine Bombing Squadrons and their vets, I have never, never heard them refer to their PBJs as "Billy."
Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:37 am
Had the honor of speaking with Lt. Nolan Herndon, Navigator on No.8, several years ago at a dinner. He never mentioned "Billy" in reference to his aircraft.
His aircraft was the one that went to Russia.
Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:45 am
It seems like James Bradley calling the pilots in his second book, "FLYBOYS".
It seems like the author to wanted to inject a new term into popular culture, but skybolt was right! The author doesn't have a clue, besides the book is weak, there are better ones out there.
In 45 years of reading and meeting aviators, I have never heard the term Billy used for a B-25.
Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:01 am
There was a whole thread on that book over on the
http://www.doolittleraider.com forum. I personally dislike that book for more than the "Billy" references.
Ryan
Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:43 pm
Alright, well I'm glad I wasn't nuts about the billy thing. It really rubbed me the wrong way everytime the author called a B-25 a Billy. There were lot of other things that indicated he had no idea of what flying is about, plus he had really bad fact checkers and editors.
I was kind of shocked at the start when in the author notes he mentioned being mid-40 years old and had never heard of the doolittle raiders. What?? I read 30 seconds over tokyo when i was in fifth grade and saw the movie a thousand times. what dipstick could have been that age and never heard of the mission.
I started reading "flyboys" and was immediatly stopped by the authors use of the term "napalm' regarding the B-29 raids on Tokyo. I always heard napalm in Viet Nam, and thought of WWII firebombs just as "incindiaries"> I did a bunch of googling and found that it was composed of napalm, although not the same exact composition of naplalm from the Viet Nam war, and not called that then, but I guess it was more incindiary to call it that. If you get my drift. It didn't sound right.
Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:53 pm
Re napalm, what did they call the jellied gasoline that flamethrowers shot? I read Thirty Seconds also as a kid, and Guadacanal Diary, which made me nt anxious to be Marine and invade any beaches.
Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:32 pm
Here's my book review from amazon.com
Although this is a great subject for a book. It is one of the most poorly written books I've ever read. The authors strangely refers to the B-25 bombers as 'Billys', refers to the airmen by their nicknames which is very confusing, refers to the gunners as bubble boys which I found insulting and needs a lesson in basic aviation before he writes another book on the subject. My advice to prospective readers is to purchase any book by C.V. Glines as he is the official historian of the Doolittle Raiders.
Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:40 pm
jack, your appraisal of the book seems to be in the majority of the critiques i've read at both the professional & enthusiast levels. not even worth reading on the crapper!!
Thu Apr 12, 2007 7:39 am
Well said Jack!
Ryan
Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:57 am
Way to go Jack!
Sounds like a horrible book...
Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:33 am
it's a shame president bush #1 got tied up in the book. his credibility isn't damaged in my view, but to be linked to a harlequin romance class book just doesn't look good to a man of his status as a past leader of the u.s. & as a vet.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.