I have a couple of corrections and an apology to make here. This week, DC Comics brought out Volume 1 of The Blackhawk Archives, a collection of early stories of what was just about the first — and for many years, most popular — war strip. I did the foreword and because I was rushed, I made two dumb mistakes in it. One is that I identified Chuck Cuidera, who drew the early Blackhawk comics, as the creator of the super-hero character, The Blue Beetle. Chuck claimed that at times but his claim is arguable, at best, and I should not have repeated it the way I did. There are other claimants, some of whom seem to have at least as much evidence on their side, if not more. So I take no position on who created The Blue Beetle.
The other mistake involves an apology to Dan Thompson, who operates The Unofficial Blackhawk Comics Website, which you can reach by clicking on that name. Rushing my deadline, I grabbed a quote off his website (with his okay) but in my hurry, I edited it badly and…well, here's a note Dan sent me that explains it all:
I just picked up my copy of the Blackhawk Archive. Naturally, I read the forward immediately since you had mentioned that you were quoting me about the Skyrocket. Boy, I sure wish I'd had a chance to read that before it was published. You took my statement out of context and completely changed the intent and meaning. It sounds like you did not actually read the entire article about the Skyrocket on my website. If you did, I don't see how you could have missed the fact that I was arguing that the "common knowledge" that the Skyrocket was a poor aircraft was completely wrong. The Navy did not adopt it because it was a poor performer but because of logistics concerns and the Navy's outdated ideas of the proper size for a carrier plane. This is what my website says about the Skyrocket:
It is common knowledge in the comics community that the F5F-1 was a failure but it was used for the Blackhawks because it looked cool. It does have a unique look, but it was not the failure commonly believed. The F5F-1's test pilot, "Connie" Converse, in 1980 recalled "the flying qualities for the XF5F-1 were good overall. The counter-rotating props were a nice feature, virtually eliminating the torque effect on takeoff … single-engine performance was good, rudder forces tended to be high in single engine configuration. Spin recovery was positive but elevator forces required for recovery were unusually high. All acrobatics were easily performed, and of course forward visibility was excellent." In 1941, Navy pilots tested the Skyrocket in a fly-off against the Spitfire, Hurricane, P-40, P-39, XFL-1 Airabonita, XF4U, F4F, and F2A. LDCR Crommelin, in charge of the test, stated in a 1985 letter to George Skurla, Grumman president, "for instance, I remember testing the XF5F against the XF4U on climb to the 10.000 foot level. I pulled away from the Corsair so fast I thought he was having engine trouble. The F5F was a carrier pilot's dream, as opposite rotating propellers eliminated all torque and you had no large engine up front to look around to see the LSO (landing signal officer) … The analysis of all the data definitely favored the F5F, and the Spitfire came in a distant second…ADM Towers told me that securing spare parts…and other particulars which compounded the difficulty of building the twin-engine fighter, had ruled out the Skyrocket and that the Bureau had settled on the Wildcat for mass production." It is true that the Skyrocket had some developmental problems, but no more than any other aircraft of similar radical design. The Navy was also concerned that the F5F was overweight, but this was more a problem of their expectations than reality. The Navy was used to comparatively small, light biplanes. The newer, high performance monoplanes were all overweight by that standard. The F4U Corsair weighed more than the F5F, even though it had a single engine compared to the Skyrocket's two.
The purpose of the whole paragraph is to show that the "common knowledge" described in the first sentence, the one you quoted, is not true. I'm afraid this has diminished some of the enjoyment I anticipated in seeing this book. I guess the only good thing is that I do have the website as a forum to explain that I was seriously misrepresented and point out the real story. Of course, it will only be seen by a small percentage of the people who read this book, but it's the best I can do.
This is M.E. again: Having been misquoted and mis-excerpted myself on many occasions, I am embarrassed that I accidentally did it to Dan. So I'm posting the correction here and I'm going to run it in my Comics Buyer's Guide column. And if anyone can think of any other way I can bring it to the attention of those who purchase what is a very fine book, by the way, please suggest it. And again, Dan, my apologies.