US Military Aircraft

US Military Aircraft

US Military Aircraft Last revised: 20 May 2001

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/ (1 of 12)07-09-2006 20:38:09


These files are conversions to HTML of the files created by Joe Baugher, describing US combat aircraft. The author of these texts is: Joe Baugher Lucent Technologies Bell Labs Innovations 2000 N. Naperville Road Room 9B-230 P.O. Box 3033 Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033 USA Phone: (630) 713 4548 E-mail: [email protected] Joe now has his own web page. US military serials galore!!

See also the descriptions of the combat aircraft of other nations.

Attack aircraft Here is an overview of the aircraft in the A-series.

A- series "A-1" Douglas XA-2 Curtiss A-3 Falcon Curtiss XA-4 Curtiss XA-5 Curtiss XA-6 General Aviation (Fokker) XA-7 Curtiss A-8 Shrike Lockheed-Detroit Y1A-9 Curtiss YA-10



Consolidated A-11 Curtiss A-12 Shrike Northrop YA-13 Curtiss XA-14 "Shrike II" Martin XA-15 Northrop XA-16 Northrop A-17 Curtiss Y1A-18 Vultee YA-19 Douglas A-20 Boston/Havoc Boeing-Stearman XA-21 Martin XA-22 Maryland Martin XA-23 Douglas A-24 Dauntless Curtiss A-25 Helldiver Douglas A-26 Invader North American A-27 Lockheed A-28 Hudson Lockheed A-29 Hudson Martin A-30 Baltimore Douglas A-33

Bombers Here is an overview of the aircraft in the B-series.

HB- series Huff-Daland XHB-1 "Cyclops" Fokker-Atlantic XHB-2 Huff-Daland XHB-3



LB- series Huff-Daland LB-1 "Pegasus" Fokker-Atlantic XLB-2 Huff-Daland/Keystone XLB-3 Martin XLB-4 Huff-Daland/Keystone LB-5 "Pirate" Keystone LB-6 "Panther" Keystone LB-7 "Panther" Keystone LB-8 Keystone LB-9 Keystone LB-10 Keystone LB-11 Keystone LB-12 Keystone LB-13 Keystone LB-14

MB- series Martin MB-1 Martin MB-2

NBL- series Barling XNBL-1 Martin XNBL-2

NBS- series Martin NBS-1 L.W.F. XNBS-2 Elias XNBS-3



Curtiss XNBS-4

B- series Huff-Daland/Keystone B-1 "Super Cyclops" Curtiss B-2 Condor Keystone B-3 Keystone B-4 Keystone B-5 Keystone B-6 Douglas B-7 Fokker B-8 Boeing B-9 Martin B-10 Douglas YB-11 Martin B-12 Martin B-13 Martin XB-14 Boeing XB-15 Martin B-16 Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress Douglas B-18 Bolo Douglas XB-19 Boeing Y1B-20 North American XB-21 Douglas XB-22 Douglas B-23 Dragon Consolidated B-24 Liberator North American B-25 Mitchell Martin B-26 Marauder Martin XB-27 http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/ (5 of 12)07-09-2006 20:38:09


North American XB-28 Dragon Boeing B-29 Superfortress Lockheed XB-30 Douglas XB-31 Consolidated B-32 Dominator Martin XB-33 Lockheed B-34 Ventura Northrop B-35 Convair B-36 Peacemaker Lockheed B-37 Vega XB-38 Boeing XB-39 Boeing YB-40 Consolidated XB-41 Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster Douglas XB-43 Boeing XB-44 North American B-45 Tornado Convair XB-46 Boeing B-47 Stratojet Martin XB-48 Northrop YB-49 Boeing B-50 Superfortress Martin XB-51 Boeing B-52 Stratofortress Convair XB-53 Boeing XB-54 Boeing XB-55 Boeing YB-56 Martin B-57 Canberra



Convair B-58 Hustler Boeing B-59 Convair YB-60 Douglas B-66 Destroyer

Cargo Aircraft Here is an overview of the aircraft in the C- series.

The original C- series Douglas UC-67 Consolidated C-87 Liberator Express Douglas XC-105 Boeing C-108 Consolidated C-109

Fighters Here is an overview of the aircraft in the P- and F- series.

The original P- and F- series Curtiss P-1 Hawk Curtiss P-2 Hawk Curtiss P-3 Hawk Boeing XP-4 Curtiss P-5 "Superhawk" Curtiss P-6 Hawk Boeing XP-7 Boeing XP-8 Boeing XP-9



Curtiss XP-10 Curtiss XP-11 Hawk Boeing P-12 Thomas-Morse XP-13 Viper Curtiss XP-14 Boeing XP-15 Berliner-Joyce P-16 Curtiss XP-17 Curtiss XP-18 Curtiss XP-19 Curtiss YP-20 Curtiss XP-21 Curtiss XP-22 Curtiss XP-23 Lockheed-Detroit YP-24 Consolidated Y1P-25 Boeing P-26 Consolidated YP-27 Consolidated YP-28 Boeing YP-29 Consolidated P-30 Curtiss XP-31 Swift Boeing XP-32 Consolidated XP-33 Wedell-Williams XP-34 Seversky P-35 Curtiss P-36 Hawk Curtiss YP-37 Lockheed P-38 Lightning Bell P-39 Airacobra



Curtiss P-40 Seversky/Republic XP-41 Curtiss XP-42 Republic P-43 Lancer Republic P-44 Rocket Bell P-45 Airacobra Curtiss P-46 Republic P-47 Thunderbolt Douglas XP-48 Lockheed XP-49 Grumman XP-50 North American P-51 Mustang Bell XP-52 Curtiss XP-53 Vultee XP-54 Curtiss XP-55 Ascender Northrop XP-56 "Black Bullet" Tucker XP-57 Lockheed XP-58 Bell P-59 Airacomet Curtiss P-60 Northrop P-61 Black Widow Curtiss XP-62 Bell P-63 Kingcobra North American P-64 Grumman XP-65 Vultee P-66 Vanguard McDonnell XP-67 Bat Vultee XP-68 Tornado Republic XP-69



North American P-70 Havoc Curtiss XP-71 Republic P-72 Hughes "P-73" "P-74" Fisher P-75 Eagle Bell XP-76 Bell XP-77 North American XP-78 Mustang Northrop XP-79 Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star Convair XP-81 North American P-82 Twin Mustang Bell XP-83 Republic P-84 McDonnell XF-85 Goblin North American P-86 Sabre Curtiss XF-87 Blackhawk McDonnell XF-88 Voodoo Northrop F-89 Scorpion Lockheed XF-90 Republic XF-91 Thunderceptor Convair XF-92A North American YF-93A Lockheed F-94 Starfire North American YF-95A Republic XF-96A Lockheed XF-97 Hughes XF-98 Falcon Boeing-MARC F-99 Bomarc



North American F-100 Super Sabre McDonnell F-101 Voodoo Convair F-102 Delta Dagger Republic XF-103 Lockheed F-104 Starfighter Republic F-105 Thunderchief Convair F-106 Delta Dart North American F-107 North American F-108 Rapier F-109 McDonnell F-110 Spectre General Dynamics F-111 Lockheed F-117A

The new F- series North American F-1 Fury McDonnell F-2 Banshee McDonnell F-3 Demon McDonnell F-4 Phantom II Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger II Douglas F-6 Skyray Convair F-7 SeaDart Chance-Vought F-8 Crusader Grumman F9F Panther and Cougar Douglas F-10 Skyknight Grumman F-11 Tiger Lockheed YF-12 F-13 Grumman F-14 Tomcat McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/ (11 of 12)07-09-2006 20:38:09


General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin F-16 Northrop YF-17 McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F/A-18 Hornet "F-19" Northrop F-20 Tigershark Israel Aircraft Industries F-21A Lion Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23A

US Navy Fighters Here is an overview of US Navy fighters. Brewster F2A Buffalo Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk

Maintained by Carl Pettypiece


Aircraft of the World

Aircraft of the World Last revised: 9 March 2001

These files are conversions to HTML of the files describing combat aircraft of various nations. The author of most of these texts is Joe Baugher, the remainder is provided by Emmanuel Gustin, Ruud Deurenberg, Steven Jacobs, Jason Hodgkiss and Maury Markowitz.

See also the descriptions of US combat aircraft.

Britain B.A.C. TSR.2 de Havilland D.H.89 Dragon Rapide Martin-Baker M.B.5 Hawker Fury Hawker Hurricane in Iranian Service Westland Wyvern

Canada http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ (1 of 4)07-09-2006 20:44:15


Avro CF-105 Arrow

Egypt Helwan HA-300

France Dewoitine D.520

Germany Blohm & Voss Bv 155 Fieseler Fi 103 Reichenberg Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Focke-Wulf Fw 190D Focke-Wulf Ta 152 Gotha Go 229 / Horten Ho IX German Carrier-Based Aircraft Heinkel He 100 Heinkel He 112 Heinkel He 162

An alternative article

Junkers Ju 287 Junkers Ju 86P Junkers Ju 87 Stuka Messerschmitt Me 210 Messerschmitt Me 609

Israel Israel Aircraft Industries Lavi

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ (2 of 4)07-09-2006 20:44:15


Japan Allied Code Names Mitsubishi A6M Zero Fighter Mitsubishi A7M Reppu Nakajima G5N Shinzan Nakajima J1N1-S Gekko Mitsubishi J2M Raiden Mitsubishi J8M1 Shusui Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate Kawasaki Ki-100 Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki Nakajima Kikka Kawanishi N1K Shiden

Poland PZL P-7/11/24 series

Romania I.A.R. 80

United States Boeing Skyfox Fairchild Republic T-46A Fokker F.27 Friendship in US Service Galaxy Aerospace C-38A Astra



Grumman A-6 Intruder Grumman F4F Wildcat Lockheed C-5 Galaxy Vought F4U Corsair Wright F3W-1 Apache The Atomic Powered Aircraft Program

Maintained by Carl Pettypiece


A-1

A-1 Last revised July 1, 2000

There was no A-1 entry in the attack series--the very first entry was deliberately skipped, lest there be confusion with the Cox-Klemm A-1, an ambulance aircraft. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a1.html07-09-2006 20:44:35

Douglas XA-2

Douglas XA-2 Last revised July 3, 2000

In fiscal year 1923, the War Department awarded a contract to the Douglas Company of Santa Monica, California for the manufacture of two experimental observation planes under the designation XO-2. The first (23-1251) was to be powered by a 420 hp Liberty V1650-1 water-cooled engine, whereas the second (23-1254) was to be powered by a 510 hp Packard 1A-1500 liquid-cooled engine. These two machines were to participate against contestants from other manufactures in a competition held at McCook Field for a successor to the aging DH-4Bs and DH-4Ms still serving with the Army Air Service. Since the Army still had a large number of surplus Liberty engines left over from the First World War, the War Department ordered that the competitors in the observation plane contest fit their first entries with this engine. The trials were to begin in November of 1924. At the same time, the Army was fully aware that the supply of surplus Liberty engines would not last forever, and it scheduled a parallel competition for observation planes powered by the new 510 hp Packard 1A-1500 liquid-cooled engine. The second XO-2 was entered in this contest. During the trials at McCook Field, two different sets of wings were tried out on the Liberty-powered XO-2--one with a span of 36 feet 3 inches and area of 370 square feet, the other with a span of 39 feet 8 inches, with an area of 411 square feet. The longer-span wings were found to provide better handling characteristics, lower landing speed, and higher ceiling, so they were adopted as standard. The Douglas XO-2 was judged superior to all other entrants in the Liberty-powered observation plane contest, and on February 25, 1925, a contract was issued for 75 aircraft. The Packard-powered XO-2 was less fortunate, and lost out to the Curtiss XO-1 in the parallel new-engine contest that was held in 1925. The first 45 aircraft on the contract were delivered as O-2 (serials 25-335/379). They were powered by a 435 hp Liberty V-1650-1 engine. The O-2s were generally similar to the Liberty-powered XO-2 with long-span wings, but had a simplified engine installation with a large tunnel-type radiator mounted farther back underneath the propeller shaft.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a2.html (1 of 3)07-09-2006 20:44:45

Douglas XA-2

The O-2 was a two-seat, open-cockpit biplane with a single bay of interplane struts. It was of fairly conventional construction, with a welded steel tube fuselage and wooden wings. A 30-US gallon fuel tank was located in the center section of each lower wing and could be jettisoned in an emergency. The undercarriage consisted of two oleo legs and two Vs hinged at the centerline of the underside of the fuselage. The standard armament consisted of one fuselage-mounted forward-firing 0.30-inch machine gun and one flexible 0.30-inch machine gun operated by the rear observer. Four wing racks were provided, which could carry bombs of up to 100 pounds in weight. An extra 0.30-inch machine gun could be installed over each lower wing. The rear cockpit could also be provided with photographic equipment. The O-2 went on to become the precursor of a series of Douglas-built observation planes which became one of the most important types of American military aircraft during the 1920s and early 1930s. A few of the last related model, the O-38E and F, were still in service at the time of Pearl Harbor. At the time of the awarding of the initial O-2 contract in February of 1925, the War Department had instructed Douglas to complete the last of the 46 O-2s (25-380) as a prototype for an attack aircraft. The aircraft was redesignated XA-2. It was powered by a 420 hp Liberty V-1410 twelve-cylinder inverted-vee air-cooled engine, which dispensed with the vulnerable cooling radiator underneath the nose. Its armament was quite heavy for the time--consisting of six forward-firing 0-30-inch machine guns, two in the upper engine cowling, two in the upper wings, and two in the lower wings. A pair of flexible 0.30-inch machine guns were mounted in the rear cockpit. The XA-2 was completed in 1926, and was tested against the Curtiss XA-3. The competition was won by the Curtiss design, and no further A-2s were built. Specification of Douglas XA-2: Engine: One 420 hp Liberty V-1410 twelve-cylinder inverted-vee air-cooled engine. Performance: Maximum speed 128 mph. Initial climb rate 800 feet per minute. Dimensions: Wingspan 39 feet 8 inches, length 29 feet 7 inches. Height 11 feet 0 inches, wing area 414 square feet. Weights: 3179 pounds empty, 4745 pounds gross Armament: Six forward-firing 0-30-inch machine guns, two in the upper engine cowling, two in the upper wings, and two the lower wings. A pair of flexible 0.30-inch machine guns were mounted in the rear cockpit. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a2.html (2 of 3)07-09-2006 20:44:45

Douglas XA-2

Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 3. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Volume 1, Rene J. Francillon, Naval

Institute Press, 1988.


Curtiss A-3

Curtiss A-3 Last revised July 3, 2000

The Curtiss A-3 was an attack version of the O-1 Falcon two-seat observation aircraft of the US Army Air Service. In 1924, the Army scheduled a competition for a successor to the aging DH-4Bs and DH4Ms still serving with the Army Air Service. Since the Army still had a large number of surplus Liberty engines left over from the First World War, the War Department ordered that the competitors in the observation plane contest fit their first entries with this engine. The trials were to begin in November of 1924. The Curtiss entry was the XO-1. The Curtiss XO-1 (serial number 23-1252) was powered by a 420 hp Liberty V-1650-1 water-cooled engine. The XO-1 was a fairly conventional two-seat biplane with a single bay on N-type interplane struts. The aircraft did have some unique fuselage construction techniques for its time--aluminum tubing bolted and riveted together with steel tie-rod bracing. The wings were wooden-framed with a wire trailing edge and the new Clark-Y aerofoil. The center section of the upper wing was placed well forward for good pilot access and visibility, so the upper wing panels had to be swept back nine degrees to achieve balance. The Curtiss design took second place to the Douglas XO-2 in the 1924 observation plane contest. However, the Army was fully aware that the supply of surplus Liberty engines would not last forever, and in any case it was obvious that the Liberty was no longer suitable as a powerplant for future first-line military aircraft. Consequently, in 1925 another contest was held for observation types to be powered by the Packard 1A-1500, a more advanced V-12 liquid-cooled engine that was rated at 510 hp. The conversion of the XO-1 to the Packard 1A-1500 was fairly straightforward. This time, the Curtiss design won the contest, and an order for ten production aircraft was issued under the designation O-1. Unfortunately, the Packard engine did not live up to expectations, so the ten production Ohttp://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a3.html (1 of 3)07-09-2006 20:44:59

Curtiss A-3

1s (serial number 25-325/334) differed from the prototype in having the Packard engine replaced by the 435 hp Curtiss D-12 (V-1150) liquid-cooled engine. The D-12 was less powerful than the Packard engine, so the performance was poorer. In addition, the vertical tail surfaces were revised to increase the fin area and decrease the rudder area. The armament consisted of a single forward-firing 0.30-inch Browning machine gun in the engine cowling, and a pair of Lewis machine guns on a Scarff ring around the rear cockpit. The O-1B was the first major production variant. Improvements included wheel brakes, a droppable 56-gallon belly tank, and provisions for dumping the fuel in the 113-gallon main fuel tank. 45 were ordered in 1927. Serial numbers were 27-243/287. The A-3 (Model 44) was an attack version of the O-1B. The changes were fairly minor, and consisted of adding bomb racks underneath the lower wings and installing a single 0.30-inch machine gun in each lower wing outboard of the propeller arc. The A-3 was otherwise identical to the O-1B. The engine was the D-12D (V-1150-3) rated at 435 hp. A total of 66 A-3s were ordered on three contracts. Serials were 27-243/262, 27-298/317, and 28-83/108. The first A-3 was ready by October 31, 1927. Six A-3s (27-306,310, 315, 28-116/118) were redesignated A-3A when fitted with dual controls for the training of observers. The A-3B (Model 37H) which appeared in 1929 was an attack version of the later O-1E. The O-1E was an improved O-1B with the V-1150-5 engine. Refinements included refined engine cowling lines, balanced (Frise) ailerons, horn-balanced elevators, oleopneumatic shock absorbers, E-4 gun synchronizer system, and a 36-gallon belly tank. 78 attack equivalents of the O-1E were ordered under the designation A-3B (Model 37H) in two separate contracts. Serials were 30-1/28 and 30-231/280. The first A-3B was tested in April of 1930. A-3B 30-1 was converted to O-1E configuration. Attack Falcons equipped all four of the Air Corps ground attack squadrons, the 8th, 13th, and 19th Squadrons of the 3rd Attack Group at Fort Crockett, Texas and the 26th Attack Squadron based in Hawaii. The last A-3B in service was 30-13, which was scrapped in October of 1937. Specification of Curtiss A-3B: Engine: One 435 hp Curtiss V-1150-5 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled engine Performance: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a3.html (2 of 3)07-09-2006 20:44:59

Curtiss A-3

Maximum speed 139 mph at sea level, 136 mph at 5000 feet. Cruising speed 110 mph. Landing speed 60 mph. Initial climb rate 948 feet per minute. An altitude of 500 feet could be attained in 6.25 minutes. Service ceiling 14,100 feet. Absolute ceiling 16,100 feet. Range 628 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 38 feet 0 inches, length 27 feet 2 inches. Height 10 feet 6 inches, wing area 353 square feet. Weights: 2875 pounds empty, 4458 pounds gross, 4476 pounds maximum. Armament: Four forward-firing 0-30-inch machine guns, two in the upper engine cowling and two the lower wings. A pair of flexible 0.30-inch machine guns were mounted in the rear cockpit. Up to 200 pounds of fragmentation bombs could be carried on underwing racks. Alternatively, a 56-gallon auxiliary fuel tank could be carried behind the tunnel radiator. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 3. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979.


Curtiss XA-4

Curtiss XA-4 Last revised July 3, 2000

The Curtiss XA-4 was produced by fitting a 440 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1340-1 Wasp air cooled radial engine into A-3 airframe serial number 27-244. The XA-4 was delivered in December of 1927. The radial Wasp engine decreased the gross weight to 4113 pounds, but the improvement in performance was only marginal, and the radial-engined Falcon was not introduced onto the production line. The single XA-4 was scrapped in March of 1932 after having logged 327 hours in the air. Specification of Curtiss XA-4: Engine: One 440 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1340-1 air-cooled radial engine. Performance: Maximum speed 137.5 mph at sea level, Service ceiling 16,950 feet. Dimensions: Wingspan 38 feet 0 inches, height 10 feet 6 inches, wing area 353 square feet. Weights: 4113 pounds gross, Armament: Four forward-firing 0-30-inch machine guns, two in the upper engine cowling and two the lower wings. A pair of flexible 0.30-inch machine guns were mounted in the rear cockpit. Up to 200 pounds of fragmentation bombs could be carried on underwing racks. Alternatively, a 56-gallon auxiliary fuel tank could be carried behind the tunnel radiator. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 3. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979.


Curtiss XA-5


The Curtiss XO-16 was a conversion of O-11 28-196 when completed with a 600 hp Curtiss V-1570 Conqueror liquid cooled V-12 engine in place of the 435hp Liberty V1650. The XA-5 was the designation assigned to a proposed attack version of the XO-16. However, the XA-5 was cancelled before anything could be built. Sources: 1. US Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey, Ships and Aircraft, 1946. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.



Curtiss XA-6


Curtiss O-1B serial number 27-263 was redesignated XO-18 when used as a flying testbed for the experimental 600 hp Curtiss H-1640 Chieftain twelve-cylinder twin-row air-cooled radial engine. The Chieftain engine proved to be unsuitable and the XO-18 was refitted with the standard Curtiss V-1150-5 engine and reverted to O-1B configuration. The XA-6 was a proposed attack version of the XO-18. However, the XA-6 was cancelled before anything could be built. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 3. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979. 4. US Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey, Ships and Aircraft, 1946.


General Aviation (Fokker) XA-7

General Aviation (Fokker) XA-7 Last revised July 1, 2000

In 1930, the US Army sponsored a contest for a new generation of attack planes which were intended to replace the Douglas A-2 and Curtiss A-3 biplanes then equipping the three squadrons of the 3rd Attack Group, the Army's only group dedicated solely to the attack mission. The General Aviation company of New Jersey, which was the US subsidiary of the Dutchbased Fokker aircraft company, submitted a two-seat, low-winged all metal monoplane as its entry in the contest. A single prototype of the General Aviation design was ordered by the US Army on January 8, 1930 under the designation XA-7. The General Aviation (Fokker) XA-7 was a two-seat low-winged all-metal monoplane powered by a 600 hp Curtiss XV-1570-27 Conqueror V-12 liquid cooled engine. It had a thick cantilever wing with a fixed landing gear with its main wheels covered over by a set of large wheel pants, open tandem cockpits, and a tunnel radiator underneath the nose for engine cooling. The XA-7 was armed with four 0.30-inch forward-firing machine guns and one 0.30-inch gun operated by the gunner/observer sitting in the rear cockpit. The XA-7 was completed in April of 1931. It had its nose and landing gear modified before tests at Wright Field in June of 1931. It began flight testing in September of that year. The competing Curtiss XA-8 design won the Army attack plane contest in 1931 and no further A-7s were built. Specification of Fokker XA-7: Engine: One 600 hp Curtiss V-1570-27 Conqueror V-12 liquid-cooled engine. Performance: Maximum speed 184 mph. Langing speed 61 mph. Weights: 3866 pounds empty, 5650 pounds gross. Dimensions: Wingspan 46 feet 9 inches, length 31 feet, height 9 feet 5 inches, wing area 333 square feet. Armament: Four 0.30-inch forward-firing machine guns and one 0.30-inch gun operated by the rear gunner.


General Aviation (Fokker) XA-7




Curtiss A-8


Throughout the 1920s, the United States Army had operated just one combat group (typically with three squadrons) which was assigned the mission of attack. This was the 3rd Attack Group, which had initially operated DeHavilland DH-4s and later transitioned to Curtiss A-3 Falcon biplanes. By 1930, however, the era of the military biplane was clearly nearing its end, and the Army Air Corps initiated a contest for the next generation of attack planes which would be all-metal, low-winged monoplanes designed specifically for the attack role. The Curtiss entry in the contest was the XA-8. The A-8 was the first Curtiss tactical monoplane built for the U.S. Army, all previous designs by this company for the US Army having been biplanes. The A-8 had many advanced features, including an all-metal structure with an all-metal covering. It had trailing edge flaps and full span leading-edge slats, and had enclosed cockpits. The A-8 was the first Army Air Corps plane to feature trailing edge flaps, and the enclosed cockpits were the first to be installed on a US combat plane. However, the thin low-mounted wings were externally braced with struts and wires, which was definitely a throwback to an earlier era. The crew sat in widely-separated individual cockpits. The pilot sat well forward in a completely enclosed cockpit and controlled four 0.30-inch machine guns that were mounted in the undercarriage fairings in such a way that their field of fire cleared the propeller arc. The rear cockpit was provided with its own separate canopy and was fitted with a single 0.30-inch flexible machine gun. Underwing racks could carry up to 400 pounds of bombs. The name Shrike was commonly applied to the aircraft, but the name was a company name, and was not used by the US Army. The first XA-8 (Model 59) was flown in June of 1931. It bore the Army serial number of 30-387. It was powered by a single 600 hp Curtiss V-1570C Conqueror water-cooled V-12 engine driving a fixed-pitch three-bladed propeller. It competed with the General Aviation http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a8.html (1 of 3)07-09-2006 20:45:41

Curtiss A-8

(Fokker) XA-7 in the attack plane contest. The XA-8 was judged the better of the two designs and won an order for 13 service-test models that was placed on September 29, 1931. The first five of these service test aircraft were designated YA-8 (Model 59A, serials 32344/348). They were similar to the XA-8 except for the use of Prestone-cooled V-1570-31 engines. The remaining eight were designated Y1A-8 (serials 32-349/356), the Y1 prefix meaning that they were purchased with F-1 funds rather than from regular appropriations. All of these planes were redesignated A-8 upon the completion of service testing. Eleven A-8s (32-345/32-355) were issued to the 3rd Attack Group based at Fort Crockett, Texas during 1932, where they served alongside the unit's Curtiss A-3B Falcon biplanes. At this time, the 3rd Attack Group was the Army's only group devoted solely to attack. The last Y1A-8 (32-356) was converted to Y1A-8A with a 657 hp geared Curtiss V-157057 engine and a revised wing. The geared Conqueror was less noisy but was heavier than the standard model. The gross weight increased to 6287 pounds. The Y1A-8A was delivered to Wright Field for tests in October 1932. In spite of the increased power, the top speed dropped 3 mph to 181 mph. The Y1A-8A was later redesignated A-8A, and was issued to the 3rd Attack Group in September of 1933. The field trials with the A-8 were sufficiently successful that 46 production variants were ordered under the designation A-8B on February 27, 1933. The first YA-8 (32-344) was returned to the Curtiss factory in Buffalo, New York for tests with a 625 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1690D Hornet 9-cylinder air-cooled radial engine. Following the change of engines, the aircraft was redesignated YA-10. With the new powerplant, the plane was returned to Wright Field on September 8, 1932. Tests proved that the Hornet radial engine was superior to the liquid-cooled Conqueror engine for attack aircraft. It was true that air-cooled radials were less streamlined than liquid-cooled engines, but they were less expensive to operate and did not have complex radiators that were especially vulnerable to enemy fire. The Army was so impressed that it decided that subsequent Shrikes would be delivered with radial engines, and requested that the 48 A8Bs on order were to switch from the geared V-1570-57 engine to the air cooled Wright Cyclone radial, this change resulting in a redesignation to A-12. Specification of Curtiss YA-8: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a8.html (2 of 3)07-09-2006 20:45:41

Curtiss A-8

Engine: One 600 hp Curtiss V-1570E Conqueror liquid-cooled V-12 engine. Performance: Maximum speed 183 mph at sea level. Cruising speed 153 mph at sea level. Stalling speed 64 mph. Initial climb rate 1325 feet per minute. Service ceiling 18,100 feet. Range 480 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 44 feet 0 inches, length 32 feet 0 inches, height 9 feet 0 inches, wing area 256 square feet. Weights: 3910 pounds empty, 5888 pounds loaded. Armament: Four forward-firing 0.30-inch machine guns. One flexible 0.30-inch machine gun operated by rear observer. Ten 30-pound bombs could be carried internally, or four 100 pound bombs externally. Armament: Four forward-firing 0.30-inch machine guns. One flexible 0.30-inch machine gun operated by rear observer. Ten 30-pound bombs could be carried internally, or four 100 pound bombs externally. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 3. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979. 4. The Curtiss Shrike, Kenn C. Rust and Walter M. Jefferies, Jr., Aircraft in Profile,

Doubleday, 1969.


Lockheed A-9

Lockheed A-9 Last revised July 3, 2000

The Lockheed-Detroit YP-24 of 1931 was a design ahead of its time. It was the first USAAC low-wing monoplane fighter with retractable undercarriage and was the first USAAC fighter with enclosed cockpits. Perhaps more significantly for later developments, it was the first military pursuit design to carry the Lockheed name, although at that time Lockheed was owned by the Detroit Aircraft Corporation of Michigan. The Lockheed Aircraft Company of Santa Barbara, California had been a going concern all throughout the 1920s, its best-known product being the famous Vega high-wing monoplane which had set so many records. However, in 1929, the management of Lockheed voted to sell majority share ownership to the Detroit Aircraft Corporation, a Michigan-based holding company which already owned the Ryan and Eastman aircraft companies and which also had a substantial manufacturing capacity in the city of Detroit. In July 1929, the Detroit Aircraft Corporation acquired 87 percent of the assets of Lockheed. On the surface, it appeared at first that the change of owners was not going to affect the day-to-day operations of Lockheed, and the functionally-independent California team went right on producing Vegas, Air Expresses, and Explorers. New designs were also forthcoming: In 1929 Lockheed produced the Sirius, in 1930 they produced the Altair, and in 1931 the Orion appeared. However, the Detroit holding company had some ideas of its own, and these resulted in Lockheed's first entry into the pursuit field. The Detroit company undertook the private development of a prototype of a two-seat fighter based on the design of the Lockheed Altair low-wing cantilever monoplane of 1930. The Altair was unique for its time in that it possessed a cantilever monoplane wing with a fully-retractable main undercarriage. The chief engineer responsible for the project was Robert J. Woods, who was based in Detroit. A mockup of the fighter was completed in March of 1931. It bore the Wright Field project number of XP-900. The slim metal fuselage and the metal tail surfaces were built by http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a9.html (1 of 3)07-09-2006 20:45:50

Lockheed A-9

Detroit Aircraft, but the wood-framed, plywood-covered wings as well as the undercarriage were essentially those of the Altair and were built by Lockheed in California. The final assembly and the initial testing of the aircraft were done in Detroit by the parent company. The XP-900 was powered by a 600 hp Curtiss Conqueror V-1570C (the military designation was V-1570-23) liquid-cooled 12-cylinder vee engine driving a three-bladed propeller. The tunnel radiator and the oil cooler were housed beneath the engine just ahead of the wing. The crew of two (pilot and gunner) was housed back to back in enclosed cockpits. The aircraft was armed with two synchronized machine guns (one 0.30-in and one 0.50-in) mounted in the upper fuselage nose, plus one flexible 0.30-cal gun operated by the gunner firing upward and to the rear. Brief manufacturer's trials were conducted in Detroit during the summer of 1931. The XP900 was delivered to Wright Field on Sept 29, 1931. At that time, the plane was purchased by the USAAC and given the designation YP-24. It was assigned the USAAC serial number of 32-320. The YP-24 underwent testing as a potential replacement for the Berliner-Joyce P-16 two-seat pursuit. The speed of the YP-24 was impressive for its time-it was 40 mph faster than the P-16, but it was also 20 mph faster than the single-seat P-6E, which was at that time the fastest fighter in the USAAC inventory. As a result of the tests, the War Department ordered five Y1P-24 two-seat fighters and four Y1A-9 two-seat attack planes. The Y1A-9 attack version differed from the pursuit version in being powered by a V-1570-27 Conqueror that was rated at a lower altitude, and it carried a heavier forward-firing armament (four machine guns) plus underwing racks for bombs. The Y1A-9 attack version was issued the Wright Field number of XA938. The YP-24 was a design well ahead of its time and seemed assured of a promising future. However, on October 19, 1931 the YP-24 prototype was lost when its pilot was ordered to bale out rather than attempt a wheels-up landing after the undercarriage lever had broken off. This problem was, of course, easily correctable, but for reasons totally unrelated to the YP-24 accident, economic realities were about to overtake the Detroit Aircraft Corporation. The timing of Detroit's acquisition of Lockheed had been particularly unfortunate, since it took place only three months before the stock market crash which was to plunge the USA http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a9.html (2 of 3)07-09-2006 20:45:50

Lockheed A-9

into the Great Depression. As the Depression deepened, the Detroit Aircraft holding company found that it was in way over its head, rising losses from other operations draining it of any profit. On October 27, 1931, the Detroit Aircraft Corporation went into receivership. The bankruptcy of the Detroit holding company meant that it could not undertake the manufacture of the Y1P-24s and Y1A-9s. The project was tentatively shelved, and no examples of either type were ever built. It did not revive until after Robert Woods had joined the Consolidated Aircraft Corporation, but that is another story! It looked like the Depression had Lockheed on the ropes. The bankruptcy of its holding company caused the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation subsidiary to be placed under the aegis of the Title Insurance and Trust Company of Los Angeles. Staff was cut to the bone, but operations were able to continue on a shoestring basis. However, on June 16, 1932 the end of the line finally came and the doors of the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation were shut. It would seem that Lockheed would be just one out of many casualties of the Depression, going down the tubes in much the same manner as did Thomas-Morse and Berliner-Joyce, its name never to be heard again. However, only five days after the doors of the corporation had been locked, a miracle took place. A new group of investors bought the assets of the now-defunct Lockheed Aircraft Corporation for only $40,000, and the company was brought back from the dead. And the rest, as they say, is history! Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 4. Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987.


Curtiss YA-10

Curtiss YA-10 Last revised July 1, 2000

The first Curtiss YA-8 (32-344) was held up at the factory for tests with a 625 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1690D Hornet 9-cylinder air-cooled radial engine in place of the Curtiss Conqueror V-12 liquid-cooled engine that powered the other A-8s that had been delivered to the Army. Following the change of engines, the aircraft was redesignated YA-10. With the new powerplant, the plane was delivered to Wright Field on September 8, 1932. Flight tests proved that the radial engine was superior to the liquid-cooled Conqueror engine for attack aircraft. Air-cooled radials were less streamlined than liquid-cooled inline engines, but they were less expensive to operate and did not have to carry the complex radiators that were so vulnerable to enemy fire. The Army was so impressed with the radial-engined YA-10 that it decided that all subsequent examples would be delivered with radial engines, and immediately stipulated that the 48 A-8Bs then on order were to switch from the geared V-1570-57 engine to the air-cooled 670 hp Wright Cyclone radial, this change resulting in a redesignation to A-12. On December 6, 1932, the YA-10 aircraft was sent to Fort Crockett for service testing, where it was assigned to the 13th Attack Squadron of the 3rd Group. It was transferred to Barksdale Field in Louisiana in July 1934 and served alongside the A-8s that had already entered service with the 3rd. It was then sent to the San Antonio Air Depot on April 29, 1934, from where it was assigned to the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas on August 8, 1934. The A-10 was finally assigned to Chanute Field, Illinois on September 14, 1938. It was scrapped there on February 23, 1939. A duplicate of the YA-10 was ordered for tests by the US Navy under the designation XS2C-1. The BuNo was 9377. It was delivered to the Navy in 1933, and some tests were carried out, but no further orders from the Navy were forthcoming. Specification of Curtiss YA-10: Engine: One 630 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1690D Hornet air-cooled radial Performance: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a10.html (1 of 2)07-09-2006 20:45:57

Curtiss YA-10

Maximum speed 174 mph at sea level. Cruising speed 148 mph at sea level. Stalling speed 67 mph. Dimensions: Wingspan 44 feet 0 inches, length 32 feet 0 inches, height 9 feet 0 inches, wing area 256 square feet. Weights: 3727 pounds empty, 5540 pounds loaded. Armament: Four forward-firing 0.30-inch machine guns. One flexible 0.30-inch machine gun operated by rear observer. Ten 30-pound bombs could be carried internally, or four 100 pound bombs externally. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 3. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979 4. The Curtiss Shrike, Kenn C. Rust and Walter M. Jefferies, Jr., Aircraft in Profile,

Doubleday, 1969.


Consolidated YA-11

Consolidated YA-11 Last revised July 3, 2000

When the Detroit Aircraft Corporation, went into receivership in 1931, it was unable to fulfill its contract to manufacture YP-24 fighters and Y1A-9 attack planes for the USAAC. In addition, Detroit Aircraft's chief engineer Robert J. Woods was now out of a job. However, Woods was soon recruited by the Consolidated Aircraft Corporation of Buffalo, New York, and he continued to work on his YP-24 design after he went over to Consolidated. Despite the failure of the Detroit company, the USAAC was still interested in the YP-24 design. The Army ordered a single prototype of Wood's basic design from Consolidated under the designation Y1P-25. The serial number was 32-321. At first glance, Consolidated's Y1P-25 looked much the same as did the Detroit YP-24. It was a two-seat, low wing monoplane with fully-retractable main landing gear. However, there were significant differences. The Y1P-25 had an all-metal wing in place of the woodframe, plywood-covered wing of the YP-24. In addition, the tail of the Y1P-25 was larger, and metal was substituted for the fabric covering on the tail control surfaces. The engine was a 600 hp Curtiss V-1570-27 Conqueror, 12-cylinder liquid-cooled engine with turbosupercharger mounted on the port side (the YP-24 had no supercharger). The armament was two fixed, forward-firing machine guns mounted in the upper fuselage, plus one flexible machine gun operated by the gunner in the rear cockpit. A second prototype of the basic Consolidated design was ordered as a ground attack aircraft. Designated Y1A-11, the aircraft differed from the Y1P-25 primarily in having a Conqueror engine without a supercharger. In addition, the Y1A-11 had two more guns in the nose and racks for up to 400 pounds of bombs. The serial number of the Y1A-11 was 32-322. The flight tests with the Y1P-25 and its Y1A-11 attack counterpart went quite well. However, the Y1P-25 crashed on January 13, 1933, and was so badly damaged that it was a writeoff. The Y1A-11 crashed a week later.


Consolidated YA-11

In spite of the two crashes, the USAAC did not feel that there was any intrinsic flaw in the basic design, and later that month a contract for four production examples of the pursuit version was issued under the designation P-30 (Ser Nos 33-204/207). The P-30 differed from the Y1P-25 by having a 675 hp Curtiss V-1570-57 with twin-blade constant-speed prop, simplified undercarriage, and revised cockpit canopy. Four similar A-11 (33308/311) attack versions were also ordered with unsupercharged V-1570-59 engines. The A-11 had a performance far in advance over its contemporaries when deliveries began in August of 1934. However, its liquid-cooled engine blocked its wider acceptance, since the Army preferred air-cooled radial engines for its attack planes because of their lower cost and reduced vulnerability to enemy fire. Its pursuit counterpart won larger acceptance, a order for 50 P-30As being placed on December 6, 1934. An XA-11A engine test ship modified by Bell Aircraft in December of 1936 was the first plane to take the new 1000-hp Allison XV-1710-7 engine into the air. Specification of Consolidated A-11: Engine: One Curtiss V-1570-59 Conqueror liquid-cooled V-12 engine without supercharger. Performance: Maximum speed 228 mph at sea level. Cruising speed 193 mph. Landing speed 84 mph. Service Ceiling 23,300 feet. Absolute ceiling 24,900 feet. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 3.4 minutes. Range was 470 miles with 327 pounds of bombs. Maximum range 950 miles. Weights: 3805 pounds empty, 5490 pounds gross. Dimensions: Wingspan 43 feet 11 inches, length 29 feet 3 inches, height 9 feet 10 inches, wing area 297 square feet. Armament: Four fixed, forward-firing 0.30-inch machine guns, plus one flexible 0.30-inch machine gun operated by the observer. Up to 400 pounds of bombs could be carried. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 3. General Dynamics Aircraft and Their Predecessors, John Wegg, Naval Institute

Press, 1990. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a11.html (2 of 3)08-09-2006 20:06:24

Consolidated YA-11


Curtiss A-12


The Curtiss A-12 was the first monoplane attack aircraft to serve in substantial numbers with the US Army Air Corps. It formed the bulwark of Army attack plane strength throughout the early to mid-1930s. However, the A-12 was rapidly made obsolescent by advances in aviation technology, and its service with front-line units of the Army Air Corps was quite brief. By the late 1930s, it had been relegated largely to training units. Except for 20 export versions which were sent to China, the A-12 took no part in aerial combat during World War 2. The name Shrike was quite often applied to this aircraft, but this was actually a Curtiss company name, and was not used by the US Army for the A-12 The A-12 was a development of the Conqueror-powered A-8 via the experimental YA-10. A small number of Curtiss YA-8 and Y1A-8 monoplane attack planes had been delivered to the Army in 1932. They were powered by the Curtiss V-1570 Conqueror V-12 liquidcooled engine. As an experiment, the first YA-8 (32-344) was modified at the Curtiss factory in Buffalo, New York where the Conqueror engine was replaced by a Pratt & Whitney R-1690D 9-cylinder air-cooled radial engine. The aircraft was redesignated YA10. Flight tests with the YA-10 proved the advantage of an air-cooled radial engine for attack aircraft. The Army found the radial engine less expensive to operate than the liquid-cooled V-12, and it had no complex cooling radiators exposed to enemy fire. Consequently, the Army immediately requested that the 46 A-8Bs then on order be delivered as radialengined aircraft. This resulted in a change in designation to A-12. Serials were 33212/257. The engine was the Wright R-1820-21 Cyclone air-cooled radial, rated at 160 hp at 1900 rpm. It had been found that the wide separation between the two cockpits of the A-8 hindered communication and cooperation between the two crew members, so on the A-12 the rear cockpit was moved forward to share a common location with the pilot's cockpit. The rear http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a12.html (1 of 5)08-09-2006 20:06:35

Curtiss A-12

gunner's cockpit had a sliding canopy which did not fully enclose it, whereas the pilot's cockpit was now fully open and was protected only by a windshield. The forward section of the A-12 fuselage was of welded tubular steel construction with two wing stubs supported by two heavy struts on each side. The rear section was of monocoque construction with smooth dural skin, J section stringers and bulkheads. The two sections were joined by longeron stubs. The landing gear was attached to the underside of the wing stubs, with the rigid portion being bolted to the underside of the front and rear wing hinge fittings and braced sideways by an adjustable streamlined strut that ran to the center of the fuselage. The wheel was held by a horizontal jointed yoke, hinged at the rear to allow the wheel to move up and down. Each landing gear and wheel were completely spatted. It was possible to latch the wheels before takeoff so that they would not drop down the last six inches of their travel while in the air. However, the wheels were lowered by the pilot before landing so that the full 10-inch wheel motion was available to absorb landing shock. The main wings were attached to the fuselage wing stub by front and rear hinge pins. They were braced at outboard points by double front and rear wires running to a strongpoint on top of the fuselage just behind the strut bracing points. On the bottom of the wing there were double front and rear bracing wires which were attached to the landing gear. The wings of the A-12 were of all-metal construction, but with the ailerons being covered with fabric. The A-12 had a set of full-span leading edge slats which opened automatically at high angles of attack. They had shock absorbers which prevented them from opening or closing too suddenly. The A-12 also had a set of trailing edge wing flaps. The trailing edge flaps could be cranked down by as much as 35 degrees by the pilot. The tail surfaces were of all metal construction, but the rudder and elevators were fabriccovered. The angle of incidence of the stabilizer could be adjusted in flight from +3 degrees to -6 degrees. The vertical stabilizer had a fixed offset of 21/2 degrees to the left. The forward-firing armament consisted of four 0.30-inch Browning machine guns installed in the main landing gear spats, two guns in each member. Each gun was supplied by a 600 round magazine. These guns were aimed by a C-4 gunsight that was mounted just forward of the pilot's windshield. A single flexible 0.30-inch machine gun was provided for the observer. The A-12 could carry ten 30-lb bombs internally in a pair of N2 bomb racks just aft of the pilot's seat and on either side of the main fuel tank. These http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a12.html (2 of 5)08-09-2006 20:06:35

Curtiss A-12

bombs were carried in a vertical position. Alternatively, an external rack capable of carrying up to four 100-pound bombs could be installed underneath the fuselage. A 52gallon auxiliary tank could be carried in place of the bombs. The auxiliary tank could be dropped in flight. In fact, the main fuel tank could also be jettisoned in flight by means of a special release handle. The first A-12 (33-212) arrived at Wright Field on November 21, 1933. It remained at Wright Field until scrapped in October of 1936. The second A-12 (33-213) went to Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland on November 23, and the third (33-214) went to Aberdeen, Maryland, on November 29. The remaining 43 A-12s went to the 3rd Attack Group at Fort Crockett, Texas between December 1933 and February 1934. Their unit cost was $19,483, minus government-furnished equipment. The 3rd Attack Group was commanded by Lt. Col. Horace M. Hickam. The first operational test of the USAAC A-12s was to come from a completely unexpected source. In February of 1934, the US Government canceled all air mail contracts with private carriers and turned over the mission of flying the air mail to the US Army. The Army was completely unsuited for this task. The 3rd Attack Group given the assignment of covering the Central Zone with headquarters in Chicago. 41 A-12s from the 3rd Attack Group were assigned air mail duty. When flying the mail, the A-12s had a lockable cover placed over their rear cockpits, and some replaced the rear cockpit glass with metal. By the time of the end of the Air Mail Emergency in May of 1934 when new contracts were signed with civilian carriers, two A-12s had been lost in fatal crashes while carrying the mail. On November 5, 1934, Colonel Hickam was killed when his A-12 (serial number 33-250) flipped over on its back after touching down short and hitting the lip of the concrete runway while landing at Fort Crockett. The 3rd Attack Group moved to its new permanent base at Barksdale Field in Louisiana in February of 1935. The A-12s of the 3rd Attack Group began to be replaced by Northrop A17s in the middle of 1936. They were then dispersed to various training units. Nine A-12s went to the USAAC Tactical School at Maxwell Field, Alabama. One A-12 went to Edgewood Arsenal, replacing 33-213 which went into a depot. Ten went to Kelly Field, Texas to serve as trainers. During 1937, five more A-12s were sent to Kelly Field, four of them from Maxwell Field and one (33-214) from Aberdeen. 33-214 had been assigned from May through November of 1934 to the 37th Attack Squadron of the 8th Pursuit http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a12.html (3 of 5)08-09-2006 20:06:35

Curtiss A-12

Group at Langley Field, Virginia (where it had served alongside the A-8s) and had been returned to Aberdeen. 15 of the 3rd Group's A-12s were sent to Wheeler Field in Hawaii in 1936. They were joined by six more A-12s in 1937, including 33-213 which had been at Edgewood and five from Maxwell Field. They were assigned to the 26th Attack Squadron which was part of the 18th Composite Group. The A-12s were transferred to Hickam Field in 1940. Nine A-12s were still there when Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941. However, they did not participate in any combat. One of the nine Pearl Harborbased A-12s was scrapped in May of 1942, and 8 were returned to the mainland where they were used as instructional airframes. Of the 16 A-12s that stayed on the mainland in 1937, 33-237 stayed at Edgewood until scrapped there in January 1942. The other 15 remained at Kelly Field, where there were scrapped in 1937 and 1938. The 12 remaining A-12s were then sent to Maxwell Field during 1938 and remained there until removed from service. The last two, 33-223 and 33252, became instructional airframes in March of 1942. No US Army A-12s saw any combat during World War 2. 20 export versions of the A-12 were sold to China in 1936. The Export Shrikes had a more powerful engine, a Wright SR-1820F-52 radial rated at 775 hp at full throttle and 890 hp for takeoff. Armament and fuel capacity was the same as that of the A-12. The Export Shrike had a maximum speed of 182 mph at sea level, 6 mph faster than the A-12. When the Japanese opened hostilities against China in 1937, these planes were soon involved in combat. It appears that few if any of the Chinese Shrikes survived the first year of the war. I do not know if any A-12s survive today. Serials of Curtiss A-12: 33-212/257

Specification of Curtiss A-12: Powerplant: One 670 hp Wright R-1820-21 air-cooled radial engine. Performance: Maximum speed 177 mph at sea level. Cruising speed 151 mph at sea level. Stalling speed 67 mph. Initial climb rate 1170 feet per minute. Service ceiling 15,150 feet. Range 450 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 44 feet 0 inches, length 32 feet 3 inches, height 9 feet 4 inches, wing area 284.5 square feet. Weights: 3898 pounds empty, 5736 pounds loaded. Armament: Four forward-firing 0.30-inch machine guns. One flexible 0.30-inch machine http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a12.html (4 of 5)08-09-2006 20:06:35

Curtiss A-12

gun operated by rear observer. Ten 30-pound bombs could be carried internally, or four 100 pound bombs externally. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. Kenn C. Rust and Walter M. Jefferies, Jr., The Curtiss Shrike, Aircraft in Profile,

Doubleday, 1969. 3. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.



Northrop YA-13

Northrop YA-13 Last revised July 7, 2000

The Northrop YA-13 attack plane of the mid-1930s has a very convoluted and complex origin. Sit back and get yourself a cup of coffee while I tell you its story. The design of the YA-13 can be said to begin back in January of 1932, when John K. Northrop and Donald W. Douglas joined forces to set up the Northrop Corporation as a partially-owned subsidiary of the Douglas Aircraft Company. The new company was based at El Segundo, California. One of the first products of the new Northrop Corporation was the Gamma specialpurpose and mail-carrying aircraft. The first two examples built were known as the Gamma 2A and Gamma 2B. The Gamma 2A was built for the well known pilot Frank Hawks and the Gamma 2B was built for the Lincoln Ellsworth Trans-Antarctic Expedition. Each plane had an enclosed cockpit set on top of the fuselage aft of the wings. The two planes were completed in August of 1932. The Gamma 2A was a low-winged, cantilever monoplane powered by a 785 hp geared Wright GR-1510 Whirlwind fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial driving a three-bladed propeller. It was initially registered X12265 and was a single seater with the pilot's cockpit located aft of the wing and enclosed by a streamlined canopy. The wings were of multispar construction with the center section built integrally with the fuselage and the outer panels being bolted to the center section. The main landing gear was fixed and enclosed in large streamlined trousers. The tailwheel was spatted. Initially, the Gamma 2A was fitted with a set of full-span flaps and "park bench" ailerons which were mounted above the wing trailing edge. However, more conventional ailerons were later installed and flaps of reduced length and area were adopted. A large compartment was provided in the fuselage forward of the cockpit, but this was not normally used. The Gamma 2A was purchased by Texaco on December 6, 1932 and was put at the disposal of Frank Hawks for record-breaking and advertising purposes. It was given the civilian registration NR12265, and flew with the Texaco Sky Chief logo prominently http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a13.html (1 of 4)08-09-2006 20:06:55

Northrop YA-13

displayed. It set a number of records, including a nonstop flight between Los Angeles and New York in 13 hours 27 minutes at an average speed of 181 mph on June 2, 1933. In 1934, Texaco sold the Gamma 2A to industrialist Gar Woods, who entered the plane in the 1936 Bendix Trophy Race from New York to Los Angeles. Unfortunately, during this flight the plane caught fire in the air and the pilot, Joseph P. Jacobson, was forced to parachute to safety. The Gamma 2A crashed near Stafford, Kansas, and was completely destroyed. Its stablemate, the Gamma 2B (registration X122269) was handed over to Lincoln Ellsworth on November 29, 1931. It was named Polar Star, and had been ordered for a proposed flight across the Antarctic continent. It differed from the Gamma 2A in having a longer transparent cockpit canopy that could house a second crew member in addition to the pilot. It was powered by a single 500 hp Pratt & Whitney Wasp SD nine-cylinder aircooled radial engine driving a two-bladed propeller. Since the Gamma 2B was intended for use in Antarctica, it could be fitted with skis in place of the main and tailwheels, and could be fitted with twin Edo floats replacing the trousered main undercarriage. It was initially flown with full-span flaps and "park bench" ailerons, but these were replaced by conventional ailerons before the plane was shipped by boat to Antarctica. The Polar Star flew several pioneering mapping and survey flights in the Antarctic continent, including the discovery of mountain ranges and islands that were previously unknown. It succeeded in making the first crossing of the Antarctic continent in November of 1935. The Polar Star is now on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., occupying a place of honor for making one of the epic flights in aviation history. Since the performance of the Gamma 2A and 2B substantially exceeded that of the Curtiss A-12 Shrike, Northrop decided in early 1933 to undertake at its own expense the development of an attack version of the Gamma, the Gamma 2C. The Gamma 2C retained the wings and trousered undercarriage of the previous two Gamma aircraft, but differed from them in having a new fuselage with a new two-seat enclosed cockpit. The cockpit was moved much further forward, with the pilot now sitting slightly behind the wing leading edge. The Gamma 2C was powered by a 735 hp Wright SR-1820-F2 nine-cylinder air-cooled radial driving a two-bladed propeller. It was fitted to carry up to 1100 pounds of bombs externally between its trousered main undercarriage units. The Gamma 2C was armed with four wing-mounted 0.30-inch machine guns and one flexible 0.30-inch machine gun firing either upward from the rear cockpit or downward through a ventral http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a13.html (2 of 4)08-09-2006 20:06:55

Northrop YA-13

hatch underneath the fuselage. The Gamma 2C was flown for the first time in the spring of 1933. It bore the civilian registration X12291. It was then delivered under a bailment contract to the Army Air Corps for evaluation at Wright Field in Ohio. Flight tests revealed the need for some modifications, and the Gamma 2C was returned to Northrop in February of 1934. While at Northrop, a number of internal modifications were made to the Gamma 2C. In addition, the vertical tail surfaces were changed from the original trapezoidal shape to a more triangular shape. In this form, the US Army purchased the Gamma 2C on June 28, 1934. It was designated YA-13, and was assigned the serial number 34-27. In order to improve the aircraft's performance and the pilot's forward visibility, the YA-13 aircraft was again returned to Northrop in January of 1935 to be re-engined with the smaller diameter 950 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830-7 fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial. This engine change resulted in the YA-13 being redesignated YA-16. While waiting for the Army to make up its mind, 49 export versions of the YA-13 were built for the Chinese Government as light bombers. They were known as Gamma 2E, and were generally similar to the Gamma 2C in its original configuration. They were powered by 710 hp Wright SR-1820-F3 engines driving two-bladed propellers. The Gamma 2E was fitted with a partially retractable bomb-aimer's tub underneath the fuselage just aft of the wing that was operated by the bomb-aimer/gunner sitting in the rear seat. The armament consisted of four forward-firing 0.30-inch machine guns in the wings and one 0.30-inch machine gun operated by the bomb-aimer/gunner. A maximum bombload of 1600 pounds could be carried. The first Gamma 2E was delivered to China on February 19, 1934. The first 24 Gamma 2Es were manufactured and assembled by Northrop, but the remaining 25 were delivered to China in kit form and assembled by the Central Aircraft Manufacturing Company (CAMCO) at Loiwing. The Gamma 2Es were in action with the Chinese Army Air Arm against the Japanese when they invaded China in August of 1937. However all, all 49 aircraft were rapidly destroyed either in training accidents or by the fury of the Japanese onslaught. A single civilian version known as the Gamma 2ED-C was built in July 1934 as a demonstrator aircraft. It was powered by a 735 hp SR-1820-F53 radial. The initial civil registration was X13760. In early 1935, it was piloted by Frank Hawks and G. H. Irving in http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a13.html (3 of 4)08-09-2006 20:06:55

Northrop YA-13

a 20,000 mile tour through Central and South America to locate suitable airfields for a proposed "Round America Air Race". X13760 was later sold to the British Air Ministry in 1935 for evaluation, where it was assigned the RAF serial number K5053. It was tested by the A & AEE at Martlesham Heath. Its ultimate fate is unknown. Specification of Northrop YA-13: Engine: One 735 hp Wright SR-1820-F2 nine-cylinder air-cooled radial. Performance: Maximum speed 207 mph at 3300 feet. Cruising speed 198 mph. Initial climb rate 1300 feet per minute. Service ceiling 21,750 feet. Maximum range 1100 miles. Weights: 3600 pounds empty, 6463 pounds loaded, 6575 pounds maximum. Dimensions: Wing span 48 feet 0 inches, length 29 feet 2 inches, height 9 feet 2 inches, wing area 363 square feet. Armament: Four wing-mounted 0.30-inch machine guns and one flexible 0.30-inch machine gun firing either upward from the rear cockpit or downward through a ventral hatch. Up to 1100 pounds of bombs could be carried on external under-fuselage racks. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920: Volume I, Rene J. Francillon, Naval

Institute Press, 1988. 3. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.



Curtiss XA-14


In 1934, the Curtiss company began work on a two-seat, twin-engined attack aircraft as a private venture. The aircraft was known as Model 76 by the company. It was also known under the company name Shrike, which was a generic name applied by Curtiss to many of its attack aircraft. The Model 76 was a cantilever mid-winged monoplane of all-metal construction but with fabric covering for the moveable control surfaces as well as for the wing aft of the front spar. The aircraft was powered by a pair of Wright R-1670-5 twin-row air-cooled radial engines mounted inside circular-cowled nacelles and driving twin-bladed two-position propellers. The main undercarriage members retracted rearward into the back of the engine nacelles, but leaving half of each wheel exposed. The tailwheel was retractable as well. The pilot sat well forward underneath a sliding canopy, whereas the observer/gunner sat well to the rear underneath his own sliding canopy. The short nose had four 0.30-inch machine guns, and a single flexible 0.30-inch machine gun in the rear cockpit. Bombs were carried internally in a fuselage bomb bay. The aircraft took off on its first flight on July 17, 1935. Since it was a company-owned demonstrator, the Model 76 carried a civil registration of X15314. It was tested by the Army at Wright Field in Ohio, and then returned to Curtiss for modifications. These modifications included a change in engine cowling shape and the installation of new constant-speed propellers. In December of 1935, the Army purchased the Model 76 under the designation XA-14. The serial number was 36-146. Although the maximum speed of 254 mph made the XA-14 ten mph faster than the Consolidated P-30 two-seat fighter and 20 mph faster than the Boeing P-26A single-seat fighter. the Army was reluctant to enter into any large-scale contract for the A-14 because of its high cost. In depression-ridden America, the $90,000 (without engines) pricetag on each A-14 made it much too expensive for a large scale order. Nevertheless, thirteen http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a14.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:07:02

Curtiss XA-14

service test examples were ordered on July 23, 1936. They were powered by single-row Wright R-1820-47 Cyclones driving three-bladed propellers. As was typical in those days, the change of engine resulted in a change of designation, to Y1A-18. Lacking any large-scale orders, Curtiss wanted to use its Model 76 to set some aviation records, but instead it was decided in June 1936 to use the XA-14 to test a new 37-mm cannon. The sole XA-14 was scrapped in August 1938 after only 158 flying hours. Specification of Curtiss XA-14 Engines: Two Wright R-1670-5 air-cooled radials, each rated at 775 hp at 10,000 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 254 mph at 9750, 249 mph at 4550 feet, 243 mph at sea level. Cruising speed 211 mph. Landing speed 75 mph. Service ceiling 27,125 feet. Absolute ceiling 28,500 feet. Initial climb rate 1685 feet per minute. Range 816 miles with 600 pounds of bombs. Dimensions: Wingspan 54 feet 5 inches, length 40 feet 3 inches, height 10 feet 9 inches, wing area 526 square feet. Weights: 8456 pounds empty, 11,738 pounds gross. Armament: Four fixed 0.30-inch forward-firing machine guns in the nose, plus one flexible 0.30-inch machine gun in the rear cockpit. A maximum internal bomb load of 654 pounds could be carried. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979. 3. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 4. Grind 'em Out Ground Attack--The Search for the Elusive Fighter Bomber, Anson

McCullough, Wings, August 1995.


Martin XA-15

Martin XA-15 Last revised July 1, 2000

In May of 1934, an attack version of the Martin YB-10 twin-engined bomber was proposed under the designation XA-15. It was to have had two 750 hp Wright R-1820-25 engines. Wingspan was to have been 70 feet 6 inches, and length was to have been 44 feet 8 inches. Gross weight was to have been 12,356 pounds, and maximum speed was estimated to be 214 mph at 4500 feet. The design was dropped in favor of the faster Curtiss XA-14 before anything could be built. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. US Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey, Ships and Aircraft, 1946.


Northrop XA-16

Northrop XA-16 Last revised July 8, 2000

In the early 1930s, the Northrop Corporation had produced the Gamma 2C, a companyfinanced prototype for a two-seat attack aircraft. The Gamma 2C was based on the Gamma 2A and 2B research aircraft. It retained the wings and trousered undercarriage of the previous two Gamma aircraft, but differed from them in having a new fuselage with a new two-seat enclosed cockpit. The cockpit was moved much further forward, with the pilot now sitting slightly behind the wing leading edge. The Gamma 2C was powered by a 735 hp Wright SR-1820-F2 nine-cylinder air-cooled radial driving a two-bladed propeller. The Gamma 2C was armed with four wing-mounted 0.30-inch machine guns and one flexible 0.30-inch machine gun firing either upward from the rear cockpit or downward through a ventral hatch underneath the fuselage. It was able to carry up to 1100 pounds of bombs externally between its trousered main undercarriage units. The Army purchased the Gamma 2C under the designation YA-13 on June 28, 1934. The serial number 34-27 was applied. Flight tests of the YA-13 indicated that the installation of an engine of greater power would result in substantially increased performance. In addition, the large diameter of the Wright SR-1820 radial engine of the YA-13 obscured the pilot's forward view. In order to improve the performance and the pilot's forward visibility, the YA-13 aircraft was returned to Northrop in January of 1935 to be re-engined with the smaller diameter but more powerful 950 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830-7 Twin Wasp fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial. This engine change resulted in the YA-13 being redesignated YA-16. The XA-16 flew for the first time in March of 1935. Flight tests indicated that the XA-16 was now over-powered, and that if the aircraft ever went into production it should either have a smaller engine or else have larger tail surfaces. The Gamma 2F, another private venture project of Northrop, already featured a smaller engine and this version was ordered into production as the A-17, so no further work was carried out on the XA-16. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a16.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:07:17

Northrop XA-16

The XA-16 was later fitted with a 950 hp R-1830-9 engine. It ended its life at an aircraft mechanics' school at Roosevelt Field. Specification of Northrop XA-16: One Pratt & Whitney R-1830-7 Twin Wasp fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 950 hp for takeoff and 850 hp at 8000 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 212 mph. Weights: 6750 pounds maximum. Dimensions: Wing span 48 feet 0 inches, length 29 feet 8 inches, wing area 363 square feet. Armament: Four wing-mounted 0.30-inch machine guns and one flexible 0.30-inch machine gun firing either upward from the rear cockpit or downward through a ventral hatch. Up to 1100 pounds of bombs could be carried on external under-fuselage racks. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 3. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920: Volume I, Rene J. Francillon, Naval



Northrop A-17

Northrop A-17

Northrop A-17 Northrop A-17A Northrop A-17AS Douglas DB-8A for Sweden Douglas 8A-2 for Argentina Douglas 8A-3P for Peru Douglas 8A-3N for the Netherlands Douglas 8A-4 for Iraq Douglas 8A-5 for Norway, A-33


Northrop A-17

Northrop A-17 Last revised September 3, 2000

The Northrop A-17 series of single-engined attack bombers were the backbone of the USAAC's attack aircraft strength during the late 1930s. The A-17 was well-armed, had a good performance, was reliable and dependable, and was widely exported. Although a fairly advanced design when it first appeared, the A-17 was rapidly eclipsed by advancing technology and soon became obsolescent. Even before American entry into the Second World War, the A-17 had been taken out of front-line service with the USAAC and largely relegated to training roles. It saw no combat in American colors, but its export versions did see some action. The direct ancestor of the A-17 series was the Northrop Gamma 2F. The Gamma 2F (c/n 44) was a private venture prototype for a two-seat attack bomber. It was a development of the Gamma 2C two-seat attack bomber prototype, but differed from the Gamma 2C in having a 750 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1535-11 Twin Wasp Junior fourteen cylinder radial driving a three-bladed propeller. This engine had a smaller diameter than either the R1830-7 or 9 of the XA-16, which made the forward view much better. In addition, the Gamma 2F had a smaller and longer fully-glazed canopy, with the radio operator/gunner being moved further aft. The fuselage was more streamlined and the tail surfaces were revised. The main undercarriage was partially retractable, with the main members retracting rearwards into large, bulky underwing fairings. The Gamma 2F was delivered to the Army for evaluation on October 6, 1934. The results of the evaluation were generally favorable, but the Army wanted additional streamlining. The aircraft was returned to Northrop for modifications. Since the semi-retractable undercarriage Had resulted in only a slight improvement in performance, it was replaced by a fixed undercarriage, with struts and open-sided wheel fairings. In addition, the cowling, fuselage lines, and tail shape were all refined to obtain better aerodynamic streamlining. The shape of the cockpit canopy was extensively revised, and an unglazed section was added between the sliding canopies that covered the pilot's and gunner's cockpits.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a17_1.html (1 of 4)08-09-2006 20:07:35

Northrop A-17

On December 24, 1934, the Army announced their intention to purchase 110 production examples of the Gamma 2F under the designation A-17. Although the A-17 was well armed and had a good performance, perhaps its most salient selling point was its low cost-under $19,000 apiece, minus government-furnished equipment. This made it especially attractive in an America struggling with the Great Depression. The contract was officially signed on March 1, 1935. This was the largest prewar Army attack contract, and was a bonanza for the new Northrop branch. It had been hoped that the larger GR-1820 Cyclone or the R-1830-7 Wasp could be installed in the production A-17, so the YA-13 prototype was returned to Northrop for fitting with this engine. However, the YA-13 was significantly overpowered with the R1830-7, and to prevent disruption of production, it was decided that the production A-17 would retain the smaller R-1535. In modified form, the Gamma 2F aircraft was delivered to the Army Air Corps on July 27, 1935 as the first A-17 (serial number 35-51). 109 production A-17s (35-52/160) were delivered between December 1935 and January 1937. They were powered by the 750 hp R1535-11 and were armed with four wing-mounted and one flexible 0.30-inch machine gun. They differed from the prototype in being fitted with three-segment perforated air brakes which extended between the ailerons. The first true production A-17 (35-52) was sent to Wright Field in December of 1935. The A-17s were initially evaluated at Wright Field and by the Technical Training Command at Chanute Field, Illinois. Beginning in February of 1936, A-17s were delivered to the 3rd Attack Group (8th, 13th and 90th Squadrons) based at Barksdale Field, Louisiana. They were also supplied to the 17th Attack Group (34th, 37th, and 95th Squadrons) based at March Field, California, which had recently converted from P-26A pursuits. The A-17s were powered by the 750hp Pratt & Whitney R-1535-11 radial. They Were armed with four 0.30-inch machine guns in the wings and a single 0.30-inch gun on a flexible mount in the rear fuselage. The ventral firing system tested out on the prototype was deleted on production examples. Up to 20 30-lb bombs could be carried in small bomb bays in the fuselage. Within a year, the A-17s were supplemented in these two groups by faster retractableundercarriage A-17As. Shortly thereafter, the A-17s were transferred to training and auxiliary units. By the time of Pearl Harbor, the A-17 was thoroughly obsolete, and the http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a17_1.html (2 of 4)08-09-2006 20:07:35

Northrop A-17

surviving examples were being used only as advanced trainers or as squadron hacks. Most of them ended their lives at mechanics' schools during the early war war years. A-17 35-122 was used by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) to investigate the characteristics of laminar-flow aerofoils. New highly-polished surfaces were built over and around the existing wing structure. The new surfaces were highly polished and protruded ahead of the leading edge and behind the trailing edge, nearly doubling the wing chord inboard of the ailerons. A two-bladed propeller driven by a small auxiliary engine was mounted on each side forward of the new leading edge to increase the speed of the airflow over the wing. However, it was found that it was much easier to obtain the same data by using conventional wind tunnels, and NACA discontinued the project. Serials of Northrop A-17: 35-051/160

Northrop A-17 c/n 44, 75/183

Specification of Northrop A-17: Engine: One 750 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1535-11 Twin Wasp Junior fourteen-cylinder aircooled radial engine. Performance: Maximum speed 207 mph at sea level. Cruising speed 170 mph. Landing speed 67.5 mph. Initial climb rate 1530 feet per minute. An altitude of 5000 feet could be reached in 3.8 minutes. Service ceiling 20,700 feet. Absolute ceiling 22,150 feet. Normal range 650 miles with 654 pounds of bombs. Maximum range 1240 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 47 feet 8 1/2 inches, Length 31 feet 8 5/8 inches, Height 11 feet 10 1/2 inches, Wing area 363 square feet. Weights: 4874 pounds empty, 7447 pounds loaded. Armament: Four wing-mounted 0.30-inch machine guns, plus one flexible 0.30inch machine gun operated by rear cockpit gunner. Normal bomb load included twenty 30pound fragmentation bombs carried in chutes inside the fuselage and four external 100pound bombs. Maximum bombload was 1200 pounds. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a17_1.html (3 of 4)08-09-2006 20:07:35

Northrop A-17

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 3. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Volume I, Rene J. Francillon, Naval

Institue Press, 1988. 4. Northrop's Connection--The Unsung A-17 Attack Aircraft and its Legacy, Alain J.

Pelletier, Air Enthusiast, May/June 1998, No 75. 5. E-mail from Charles Hinton on 13th Squadron having A-17s at Barksdale Field.


Northrop A-17A

Northrop A-17A Last revised September 3, 2000

While production of the A-17 was underway, Northrop proposed the development of a version of the A-17 with a fully retractable main undercarriage. This retractable undercarriage consisted of a set of main wheels attached to the forward edge of the wing which retracted inwards into wheel wells underneath the fuselage. This retractable undercarriage was first tested on the Gamma 2J experimental advanced trainer. The A-17 design turned out to be readily adaptable to a retractable undercarriage, with relatively few changes being required. However, the use of the retractable undercarriage did require that the inboard leading edge wing roots be extended to provide space for the wheels. On January 29, 1936, an initial order was placed for 100 retractableundercarriage versions of the A-17, which were assigned the designation A-17A. Serials were 36162/261. The first production A-17A (36-162) flew for the first time on July 16, 1936. There were some teething problems with the retractable undercarriage, which resulted in a delay of delivery to the USAAC until February 4, 1937. The aircraft was used for testing during this period, and two accidents caused by undercarriage failures caused the delivery of the second production aircraft to be delayed until April 1937. Once these difficulties were cleared up, the the 100 A-17As were delivered between April and December of 1937. A further 29 A-17As (38-327/355) were ordered during the second half of 1937, and these were delivered between June and September 1938. All A-17As were powered by a 825 hp R-1535-13 Twin Wasp Junior engine. They were armed with four wing-mounted 0.30-inch machine guns and had a flexible 0.30-inch machine gun operated by the gunner in the rear cockpit. Normal bombload was four externally-carried 100-lb bombs or 20 30lb anti-personnel bombs carried internally. A maximum bombload was 1200 pounds. The A-17As were delivered in 1937 to the 3rd Attack Group (8th, 13th, and 90th Squadrons) at Barksdale Field, Louisiana and to the 17th Attack Group (34th, 37th, and 95th Squadrons) based at March Field, California. They supplemented and later replaced the fixed-undercarriage A-17s serving with these units. The A-17A was fairly fast and had http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a17_2.html (1 of 4)08-09-2006 20:07:43

Northrop A-17A

a fairly heavy forward-firing armament for its time, and during 1938-39 war games it was deemed to be the most effective ground attack aircraft yet devised. However, the Army decided that twin-engined attack aircraft offered substantial advantages over the singleengined types then in service, and the career of the A-17A with the Army was quite brief. After only three years of service with the Army, the A-17As were declared surplus. Following the beginning of the Second World War with the German invasion of Poland, the French Armee de l'Air felt an urgent need for dive bombers, and since the US Army considered the A-17A to be obsolescent, the French Purchasing Commission that was touring the USA looking for aircraft was given permission to obtain 93 of the ex-USAAC A-17As. The 93 A-17As ordered by France were withdrawn from USAAF service and were returned to the Northrop factory (which was by this time known simply as the El Segundo Division of Douglas) where they were refurbished and re-engined with 825 hp Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp JrS2A5-G engines. Unfortunately, by the time that the planes were ready for delivery, France had fallen. The contract was then taken over by the British Purchasing Commission, which at that time was willing to buy just about anything that had wings. The British A-17As were given the RAF name Nomad. RAF serials were AS440/AS462, AS958/AS976, and AW420/AW438. However, the RAF also deemed the Nomad to be obsolescent, and decided to restrict it from combat operations. 60 of the RAF Nomads were transferred to South Africa. 17 were lost at sea en enroute. The survivors were taken on charge in February 1941 by the SAAF, where they were used for training. None of these aircraft ever saw any combat. They remained in service until the end of 1942 when they were replaced by Fairey Battles. The last SAAF Nomads were struck off charge in 1944. Those A-17As still in the USA were used during the early war years as advanced trainers or as squadron hacks before ending their lives in mechanics' schools. None of these aircraft ever saw any combat either. The last A-17A was struck off charge on October 31, 1944. A-17A (36-184) was used by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) during 1939 to test new types of engine cowlings. Initially, the aircraft was fitted with a large propeller spinner which completely covered the engine front air intake. Large ducts were built into the wing roots to provide air for engine cooling. However, before flight http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a17_2.html (2 of 4)08-09-2006 20:07:43

Northrop A-17A

testing could begin ground tests indicated that the engine temperature rose too high and NACA decided not to try and fly the aircraft in such a configuration. NACA removed the wing ducts and replaced the oversized spinner with a ducted spinner with a large hole in its center that incorporated impeller blades which forced cooling air to the engine. Engine cooling while on the ground was much more effective than the NACA cowling used by the conventional A-17A--the engine could be operated at full throttle on the ground for 15 minutes without cylinder temperatures exceeding their limits. Although there was a slight decrease in speed with the nose blower, the results of the speed tests were considered inconclusive and the project was not pursued any further. 36-184 was de-modded to standard configuration and returned to the Air Corps on June 21, 1940. A-17A 35-122 was used by NACA at Langley Field to test several aerodynamic innovations. At first it was used to test new exaust pipes. Later, it was used to test new laminar flow airfoils. The aircraft was eventually returned to the Air Corps. A-17A 36-207 is on display at the USAF Museum in Dayton, Ohio. Serials of Northrop A-17A: 36-162/261 38-327/355

Northrop A-17A c/n 189/288 Northrop A-17A c/n 381/409

Specification of Northrop A-17A: Engine: One Pratt & Whitney R-1535-13 Twin Wasp Junior fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, rated at 825 hp at 2500 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 220 mph at sea level. Cruising speed 170 mph. Landing speed 64 mph. Initial climb rate 1350 feet per minute. An altitude of 5000 feet could be reached in 3.9 minutes. Service ceiling 19,400 feet. Normal range 730 miles with 654 pounds of bombs. Maximum range 1195 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 47 feet 9 inches, Length 31 feet 8 inches, Height 12 feet 0 inches, Wing area 363 square feet. Weights: 5106 pounds empty, 7550 pounds loaded. Armament: Four wing-mounted 0.30-inch machine guns, plus one flexible 0.30-inch machine gun operated by rear cockpit gunner. Normal bombload was four externally-carried 100-lb bombs or 20 30lb anti-personnel bombs carried internally. Maximum bombload was 1200 pounds.


Northrop A-17A


Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 3. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Volume I, Rene J. Francillon, Naval

Institue Press, 1988. 4. Northrop's Connection--The Unsung A-17 Attack Aircraft and its Legacy, Alain J.

Pelletier, Air Enthusiast, May/June 1998, No 75. 5. E-mail from Charles Hinton on 13th Squadron having A-17s at Barksdale


Northrop A-17AS

Northrop A-17AS Last revised July 8, 2000

The A-17AS was a three-seat unarmed staff transport version of the A-17A. The S stood for "Staff" or for "Special". Two examples were ordered on March 20, 1936. Although they bore manufacturer's numbers 289 and 290 which followed those assigned to the first batch of A-17As, they were actually built and delivered before the A-17As. The first A-17AS (36-349) was powered by a 600 hp direct-drive Pratt & Whitney R-134041 nine-cylinder air-cooled radial driving a three-bladed propeller. It was delivered on July 17, 1936. It served as Maj Gen Oscar Westover's personal aircraft. General Westover was the chief of the Army Air Corps, and he personally flew the airplane for more than two years for inspection trips and for attending Army maneuvers. On September 21, 1938, this aircraft crashed at Burbank, California, killing General Westover and his mechanic S/ Sgt Sameul Hymes. The second A-17AS (36-350) was assigned as Brigadier General Henry H. Arnold's personal transport. Brig Gen Following the death of General Westover, General Arnold was named as his successor as Air Corps chief, and he remained so throughout the Second World War. The second A-17AS was powered by a 600 hp geared R-1340-45 radial driving a two-bladed propeller. 36-350 was lost in an accident on March 2, 1940, but Arnold was not on board that day. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Volume I, Rene J. Francillon, Naval

Institue Press, 1988. 3. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.



Northrop A-17AS

4. Northrop's Connection--The Unsung A-17 Attack Aircraft and its Legacy, Alain J.

Pelletier, Air Enthusiast, May/June 1998, No 75.


Douglas DB-8A for Sweden

Douglas DB-8A for Sweden Last revised July 8, 2000

Spurred by the success of the A-17 series of US Army attack planes, the Northrop company developed a number of export versions of the A-17 for sales to overseas customers. These were initially known as the Northrop Model 8, but by the time that they were produced Jack Northrop had left the division that bore his name to strike out on his own once again. The Northrop branch was now known simply as the El Segundo Division of Douglas, and consequently these export versions were known as the Douglas 8A or DB8A, where DB stood for "Douglas Bomber". The first of these was the Model 8A-1, or DB-8A-1. The Douglas Model 8A-1 was developed for Sweden, which ordered one prototype and parts for a second machine which would act as a pattern aircraft for license production by AB Svenska Jarnvagsverkstaderna (ASJA) of Linkoping. The 8A-1 was generally similar to the fixed-undercarriage A-17, but Sweden opted for the Bristol Mercury as the powerplant, since this engine was already being built under license in Sweden by SFA. The prototype (company number 378) was powered by a 875 hp Bristol Pegasus XII engine since this engine was generally similar to the Bristol Mercury engine planned for the production version. It was shipped to Sweden on April 22, 1938. The Swedish Flygvapnet designated the aircraft B 5A and assigned it the serial number of 7001. Parts for the second aircraft (company number 410) were shipped on August 8, 1938. The production version built by ASJA was known as B 5B by the Flygvapnet, and was powered by a 920 hp SFA-built Bristol Mercury XXIV nine-cylinder air-cooled radial. It different from the Northrop-built B 5A in having a domed canopy over the pilot's cockpit and having the radio mast moved from the top of the cockpit canopy to a position just forward of the front canopy. The 64 ASJA-built B 5Bs were delivered in 1940, and were assigned Flygvapnet serials 7002 to 7065. In 1941, ASJA was succeeded by Svenska Aeroplan AB, or SAAB. SAAB was given a contract for 39 similar B 5Cs (serials 7066 to 7104). http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a17_4.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:08:01

Douglas DB-8A for Sweden

B 5s equipped Flottiljer F 4 at Ostersund and F 12 at Kalmar until replaced beginning in 1944 by the Swedish-built SAAB B 17 light bomber. Specification of DB-8A (SAAB B 5C): Engine: One 980 hp SFA-built Bristol Mercury XXIV nine-cylinder air-cooled radial. Performance: Maximum speed 205 mph at sea level, 219 mph at 6250 feet. Cruising speed 186 mph. Landing speed 66 mph. Initial climb rate 1430 feet per minute. An altitude of 9845 feet could be attained in 8 minutes. Service ceiling 22,475 feet, Normal range 932 miles, Maximum range 1380 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 47 feet 9 inches, Length 31 feet 9 7/8 inches, Height 12 feet 4 inches, Wing area 363.2 square feet. Weights: 5368 pounds empty, 7496 pounds loaded. Armament: Four wing-mounted 0.30-inch machine guns, plus one flexible 0.30-inch machine gun operated by rear cockpit gunner. Normal bomb load was typically 20 internally-carried 30-lb bombs and four external 100-lb bombs. Maximum bomb load was 1200 pounds. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Volume I, Rene J. Francillon, Naval


Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 4. Northrop's Connection--The Unsung A-17 Attack Aircraft and its Legacy, Part 2,

Alain J. Pelletier, Air Enthusiast, September/October 1998, No. 77.


Douglas 8A-2 for Argentina

Douglas 8A-2 for Argentina Last revised July 8, 2000

The Douglas Model 8A-2 was an export version of the fixed-undercarriage A-17 intended for the Fuerza Aerea Argentina. Test pilot Eddie Allen had demonstrated the Northrop Model 5B in Buenos Aires in 1935, and 30 Model 8A-2s were ordered. They were built and shipped to Argentina in 1938. The Model 8A-2 was powered by the 840 hp Wright R-1820-G3 radial, and was armed with two 12.7 and two 7.6-mm wing-mounted machine guns and one flexible rear-firing 7.6-mm machine gun. The Model 8A-2 was fitted with a partially-retractable bombaiming tub underneath the rear cockpit. Company numbers were 348 to 377. FAA serials were A-401 throu A-430 (later O-401 through O-430). The Model 8A-2s were operated by the Fuerza Aerea Argentina's Regimiento de Ataque No 2, first from El Palomar and then from El Plumerillo. The Model 8A-2s were eventually replaced by the indigenous I.Ae.24 Calquin twin-engined bomber. Surviving examples were transferred to El Palomar, near Buenos Aires, where they were operated as advanced trainers until 1955. Specification of Douglas DB-8A-2: Engine: One 840 hp Wright R-1820-G3 air-cooled radial. Performance: Maximum speed 223 mph at 8700 feet. Cruising speed 200 mph. Landing speed 65 mph. Initial climb rate 1300 feet per minute. Service ceiling 25,400 feet. Maximum range 1190 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 47 feet 9 inches, Length 31 feet 6 inches, Height 12 feet 4 inches, Wing area 363 square feet. Weights: 4899 pounds empty, 7500 pounds loaded. Armament: Two 12.7 and two 7.6-mm wing-mounted machine guns and one flexible rear-firing 7.6mm machine gun. Normal bomb load was 20 internally-carried 30-pound fragmentation bombs and four external 100-pound bombs. Maxim bombload was 1200 pounds. Sources:


Douglas 8A-2 for Argentina

1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Volume I, Rene J. Francillon, Naval





Douglas 8A-3P for Peru

Douglas 8A-3P for Peru Last revised July 8, 2000

The Model 8A-3P was an export version of the A-17A for the Cuerpo de Aeronautical del Peru. The Model 8A-3P differed from the USAAC A-17A in being powered by a 1000-hp Wright GR-1820-G103 radial, and was fitted with the partially- retractable bomb-aiming tub that was carried by the Argentine Model 8A-2s. A total of ten Model 8A-3Ps were built (company numbers 412 to 421). They served with the 31st Escuadron de Ataque y Reconicimemiento. These planes were used during the July 1941 war between Peru and Ecuador. The last Model 8A-3P was finally retired during the late 1950s. Specification of Douglas DB-8A-3P: Engine: One 1000-hp Wright GR-1820-G103 air-cooled radial. Performance: Maximum speed 238 mph at 8700 feet, 208 mph at sea level. Landing speed 66 mph. Initial climb rate 1200 feet per minute, Service ceiling 24,000 feet, Maximum range 1180 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 47 feet 9 inches, Length 32 feet 1 inches, Height 9 feet 9 inches, Wing area 363 square feet. Weights: 4820 pounds empty, 7500 pounds loaded. Armament: Four wing-mounted 0.30-inch machine guns, plus one flexible 0.30-inch machine gun operated by rear cockpit gunner. Normal bomb load included 20 internally-carried 30pound fragmentation bombs and four externally-carried 100-pound bombs. Maximum bomb load was 1200 pounds. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 3. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Volume I, Rene J. Francillon, Naval http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a17_6.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:08:22

Douglas 8A-3P for Peru

Institute Press, 1988. 4. Northrop's Connection--The Unsung A-17 Attack Aircraft and its Legacy, Part 2,



Douglas 8A-3N for the Netherlands

Douglas 8A-3N for the Netherlands Last revised July 8, 2000

The Douglas Model 8A-3N was a version of the A-17A built for the Netherlands. It was powered by a 1100 hp Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp S3C-G. The first example flew on July 31, 1939. A total of 18 were ordered in early 1939. They were delivered between August and November of 1939. The Model 8A-3Ns bore the company numbers 531/548 and were given the Dutch serial numbers 381/396. They were assigned to the 3rd Fighter Squadron of the 2nd Air Regiment based at Ypenburg. One Model 8A-3N was lost in a prewar accident. On May 10, 1940, when German forces began their Western offensive, twelve DB-8A-3N aircraft were on active duty at Ypenburg, and five were held in reserve at Ockenburg. One of the DB-8A-3Ns was destroyed on the ground during the initial Luftwaffe attack, but the eleven other aircraft were able to get into the air. The DB-8A-3N was not intended as a fighter, and seven of them were quickly shot down by Luftwaffe Bf 110s. However, the Dutch DB-8A-3Ns did manage to shoot down a couple of Ju 52 troop transports. Shortly after landing, the remaining four DB-8A-3Ns were caught on the ground in another German raid and were all destroyed. The five DB-8A-3Ns in reserve at Ockenburg were captured intact by the Luftwaffe. In 1941 one of the captured planes was put on display in Berlin next to the DO-X. However, later in the war, this plane was destroyed during an Allied air attack. Specification of Douglas DB-8A-3N: Engine: One Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S3CG Twin Wasp air-cooled radial engine, rated at 1050 hp for takeoff and 900 hp at 12,000 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 260 mph at 12,000 feet. Cruising speed 205 mph. Landing speed 66 mph. Initial climb rate 1430 feet per minute. Service ceiling 29,600 feet, Normal range 910 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 47 feet 9 inches, Length 32 feet 5 inches, Height 9 feet 9 inches, Wing area 363 square feet. Weights: 5508 pounds empty, 7848 pounds gross, 8948 pounds maximum. Armament: Four wing-mounted 0.30-inch machine guns, plus one flexible 0.30-inch http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a17_7.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:08:33

Douglas 8A-3N for the Netherlands

machine gun operated by rear cockpit gunner. Normal bomb load included 20 internallycarried 30-lb bombs and four external 100-lb bombs. Maximum bomb load 1200 pounds. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Volume I, Rene J. Francillon, Naval



Alain J. Pelletier, Air Enthusiast, September/October 1998, No. 77 5. E-mail from Peter de Lange


Douglas 8A-4 for Iraq

Douglas 8A-4 for Iraq Last revised July 1, 2000

The Model 8A-4 was a version of the A-17A built for the government of Iraq. The 8A-4 was quite similar to the 8A-3P ordered by Peru (including the use of the semi-retractable bomb-aiming tub) and was powered by the 1000 hp Wright GR-1820-G103 Cyclone engine. The company numbers of the fifteen 8A-4s ordered were 613/627. They were shipped to Iraq between April and June of 1940. All DB-8A-4s were apparently destroyed by the Royal Air Force during the Iraqi uprising which began on May 2, 1941 under Rashid Ali. Sources: 1. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Volume I, Rene J. Francillon, Naval

Institue Press, 1988. 2. Northrop's Connection--The Unsung A-17 Attack Aircraft and its Legacy, Part 2,

Alain J. Pelletier, Air Enthusiast, September/October 1998, No. 77

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a17_8.html08-09-2006 20:08:47

Douglas 8A-5 for Norway, A-33

Douglas 8A-5 for Norway, A-33 Last revised July 8, 2000

The Model 8A-5 was the last export variant of the A-17A to be built. It was also the most powerful and the most heavily-armed of the entire series of Northrop/Douglas single engined attack bombers. 36 DB-8A-5N aircraft were ordered by Norway early in 1940. They were armed with four wing-mounted 0.30-inch machine guns, one 0.50-inch machine gun in each of two underwing pods just outboard of the main landing gear, and had two flexible 0.30-inch machine guns in the rear cockpit. The engine was the 1200 hp Wright GR-1820-G205A. Up to 1800 pounds of bombs could be carried. RnoAF serials assigned were 301/336. The Model 8A-5s were intended to be used by the Norwegian Heerens Flyvevaben (Army Flying Service). Unfortunately, before they could be delivered, Norway was occupied by German forces. Nevertheless, the 36 DB-8A-5s (company numbers 715/750) were completed and turned over in late 1940 to the Norwegian government-in-exile which was operating a flight training facility known as "Little Norway" at Island Airport in Ontario, Canada. Arrangements were later made for the flight training of Norwegian pilots to be carried out in RAF and RCAF schools, and the Model 8A-5s were declared surplus to Norwegian requirements. In August of 1941, Peru offered to purchase 18 of the surviving Norwegian planes, but the US State Department objected because of fears that they might be used against Ecuador. It was proposed that these planes would be delivered instead to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease, but both Peru and Norway objected. Consequently, these 18 Model 8A-5s were taken over by the USAAF on December 9, 1941 under the designation of A-33-DE. They were assigned the serials 42-13584/13601. They were operated strictly as trainers at stateside airfields and none ever saw any combat. Eventually, 13 of the surviving Norwegian aircraft were delivered to Peru. USAAF designation of A-33A and serials 42-109007/109019 were assigned for record-keeping purposes. They were delivered to Peru in June of 1943. They supplemented the Douglas http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a17_9.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:08:54

Douglas 8A-5 for Norway, A-33

8A-3Ps already serving in Peru. They served with the 31st and then the 23rd Escuadron de Ataque y Reconicimiento de Fotogrametria at Las Palmas. They lasted in service until 1958, when they started to bve replaced by Douglas B-26 Invaders. One of these aircraft is still on display as a gate guard at Las Palmas. Specification of Douglas DB-8A-5 (A-33) Engine: One Wright GR-1820-G205A Cyclone air-cooled radial, rated at 1200 hp for takeoff and 1000 hp at 6900 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 248 mph at 15,700 feet. Landing speed 67 mph. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be reached in 5.8 minutes. Service ceiling 29,000 feet, Dimensions: Wingspan 47 feet 9 inches, Length 32 feet 6 inches, Height 9 feet 4 inches, Wing area 363 square feet. Weights: 5510 pounds empty, 8600 pounds loaded, 9200 pounds maximum. Armament: Four wing-mounted 0.30-inch machine guns, plus two underwing-mounted 0.50-inch machine guns, plus two paired flexible 0.30-inch machine guns operated by the rear cockpit gunner. Up to 1800 pounds of bombs could be carried. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Volume I, Rene J. Francillon, Naval



Alain J. Pelletier, Air Enthusiast, September/October 1998, No. 77


Curtiss Y1A-18

Curtiss Y1A-18 Last revised July 11, 2000

In 1934, the Curtiss company began work on a two-seat, twin-engined attack aircraft. The aircraft was known as Model 76 by the company. It was a twin-engined aircraft with a cantilever mid-mounted wing. The aircraft was of all-metal construction but with fabric covering for the moveable control surfaces and on the wing aft of the front spar. The pilot sat well forward underneath a sliding canopy, whereas the observer/gunner sat well to the rear underneath his own sliding canopy. All three undercarriage members retracted rearward, leaving half of each wheel exposed. The Model 76 was powered by a pair of Wright R-1670-5 twin-row radial air-cooled engines housed underneath circular cowlings and driving twin-bladed two-position propellers. The short nose had four 0.30-inch machine guns, and a single flexible 0.30-inch machine gun in the rear cockpit. Bombs were carried internally in a fuselage bomb bay. The aircraft took off on its first flight on July 17, 1935. Since it was a company-owned demonstrator, the Model 76 carried a civil registration of X15314. It was tested by the Army at Wright Field in Ohio, and then returned to Curtiss for modifications. These modifications included a change in engine cowling shape and the installation of new constant-speed propellers. In December of 1935, the Army purchased the Model 76 under the designation XA-14. The serial number was 36-146. Although the maximum speed of 254 mph made the XA-14 ten mph faster than the contemporary Consolidated P-30 two-seat fighter and 20 mph faster than the Boeing P26A single-seat fighter, the Army was reluctant to enter into any large-scale contract for the A-14 because of its high cost. In depression-ridden America, the $90,000 (without engines) pricetag on each A-14 made it much too expensive for a large scale order. Nevertheless, thirteen service test examples were ordered on July 23, 1936. They were powered by single-row Wright R-1820-47 Cyclones driving three-bladed propellers. As was typical in those days, the change of engine resulted in a change of designation, to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a18.html (1 of 3)08-09-2006 20:09:10

Curtiss Y1A-18

Y1A-18. Despited the added power, increased weight cut the top speed of the Y1A-18 to 238 mph, although the range was improved. Deliveries of the Y1A-18 began in July 1937 and were completed by October. The Y1A18s served initially with the 8th Attack Squadron of the Third Attack Group at Barksdale Field, Louisiana. The chief drawback of the Y1A-18 was its small bomb load (only 670 pounds), plus the fact that the aircraft could not easily be reconfigured for less range with a higher load. The armament was fairly light, the Y1A-18 relying on speed rather than armament to evade interceptors. However, the advances in aircraft design were so rapid that the Y1A-18 rapidly became obsolescent and its performance no longer adequate to escape interception. In 1940, the Y1A-18s were transferred to the Third Bombardment Group at Lawson Field for operational training as plain A-18s. They saw no combat, and the last A-18 was withdrawn from service in 1943. An improved Model 76B with Pratt & Whitney R-1830 engines was proposed to the Army, but was not accepted. Curtiss also proposed a Model 76B for export, but no customers materialized, probably because of its high cost. Serials of Curtiss Y1A-18 37-052/064

Curtiss Y1A-18 c/n 12187/12199

Specification of Curtiss Y1A-18: Engines: Two Wright R-1820-47 Cyclone air-cooled radials, each rated at 930 hp for takeoff and 850 hp at 2500 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 239 mph at 2500 feet. Cruising speed 211 mph. Landing speed 73 mph. Service ceiling 28,560 feet, absolute ceiling 30,000 feet. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 2.2. minutes. Range 1443 miles with 654 pounds of bombs. 1700 miles maximum range. Dimensions: Wingspan 54 feet 5 inches, length 41 feet 0 inches, height 11 feet 6 inches, wing area 526 square feet. Weights: 9580 pounds empty, 12,849 pounds gross, 13,170 pounds maximum. Armament: Four fixed 0.30-inch forward-firing machine guns in the nose, plus one flexible 0.30-inch machine gun in the rear cockpit. A maximum internal bomb load of 654 pounds could be carried. Sources:


Curtiss Y1A-18

1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979. 3. Grind 'em Out Ground Attack--The Search for the Elusive Fighter Bomber, Anson

McCullough, Wings, August 1995. 4. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.



Vultee XA-19

Vultee XA-19 Last revised July 1, 2000

The Vultee Aircraft Corporation was very largely the brainchild of Gerard Freebairn Vultee, formerly chief engineer at Lockheed Aircraft Corporation during the period that Lockheed was owned by the Detroit Aircraft holding company. When Detroit Aircraft went into receivership, Vultee was out of work. He drifted from job to job for a couple of years, but eventually he went off on his own in pursuit of financial backing for some ideas that he and Vance Breese had for a single-engine passenger monoplane while they were at Detroit. Vultee's passenger aircraft proposal attracted the attention of the "boy wonder" of Wall Street, Errett Lobban Cord, who already owned or controlled several airlines, automobile manufacturers, and aircraft companies. With $50,000 in cash (sounds like small potatoes today :-) ), Cord founded the Airplane Development Corporation (ADC) on January 26, 1932, as a subsidiary of the Cord Corporation. Vultee was established as chief engineer of this new company, assisted by Richard W. Palmer. Vultee was initially given space in Cord's private hangar at United Airport in Burbank, California, but in June ADC took over the former Century Pacific hanger at Grand Central Air Terminal in nearby Glendale. Vultee began work on his single-engined airliner project in April of 1932. The project was assigned the designation V1. The V1 was a monocoque low-winged monoplane with "Alclad" sheet metal riveted to an aluminum alloy oval fuselage frame and a two-spar wing box. Only the rudder and elevators were fabric covered. There was accommodation for eight passengers in four rows in the cabin. A forward-sloping windshield (adopted so as to prevent glare at night) enclosed the single-pilot cockpit. Half of the cockpit space was occupied by a mail compartment. The main undercarriage retracted inward into wells in the center section of the wing. The powerplant was the 650 hp Wright SR-1820-F2 ninecylinder air cooled radial. The first flight took place on February 19, 1933. At the time of its appearance, the V1 could truthfully be advertised as the world's fastest airliner. However, its future was somewhat uncertain, since labor troubles had in the meantime forced Cord to divest http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a19.html (1 of 6)08-09-2006 20:09:17

Vultee XA-19

himself of his two airlines, depriving the V1 of any built-in customers. A copilot's position had to be added to the V1 because of safety considerations. To make space for the second crewmember, the mail compartment was moved aft of the passenger cabin. The roof line was raised and the shape of the vertical tail was modified. The wingspan was increased by two feet, the length from 35 feet 6 inches to 37 feet, the wheel track by two feet, and the height by six inches. The original three-bladed Hamilton Standard propeller was replaced by a two-bladed unit. Electrically-operated split trailingedge flaps were installed. The changes were sufficient to result in a redesignation to V1-A. The V1-A still lacked a ready customer. However, in 1934, the ADC was reorganized as a division of the Aviation Manufacturing Corporation, which was in turn a subsidiary of the Aviation Corporation (AVCO), which had recently been taken over by Cord in a stock deal. Vultee became a vice-president of the ADC, but retained his title as chief engineer. As it turned out, AVCO also controlled American Airways, which provided Vultee with a ready-made customer for the V1. American Airways placed a tentative order for 20 V1s in two batches of ten at a price of $35,000 each. Work began on the first batch of ten V1-A airliners for American Airways in February of 1934. Two months later, AVCO lost control of American Airways, which changed its name to American Airlines (a name which it still retains today). However, the V1-A order stood. In July, American Airlines introduced the V1-A on its Fort Worth-Chicago route. The V1-A was fast, comfortable, and popular with passengers, but was too small to be an economically-viable aircraft. On October 1, 1934, the Director of Air Commerce issued an order that single-engined aircraft would no longer be allowed to be operated by scheduled airlines except during daylight hours. This decision instantly dried up the airline market for the Vultee V1-A, but a few more were built as executive transports and several were used for record-setting flights. A few V1-As ended up in Spain during the Civil War, and actually ended up serving on both sides in that conflict. With the advent of restrictions placed on single-engined commercial airliners in late 1934, Vultee turned to military aircraft. The company attempted to develop an attack bomber based on the V1 airliner. Designated V11, it used the wing, undercarriage, and tail surfaces of the V1 airliner joined to a new fuselage. The V11 prototype was powered by a 750 hp Wright SR-1820-F53 Cyclone air cooled radial driving a two-bladed Hamilton http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a19.html (2 of 6)08-09-2006 20:09:17

Vultee XA-19

Standard controllable-pitch propeller. The V11 featured two seats in tandem underneath a long transparent, four-section canopy that covered both cockpits. Armament consisted of two wing-mounted 0.30-inch machine guns, plus a flexible 0.30-inch machine gun operated by the rear cockpit gunner. The forward firing guns were sighted by the pilot using a pylon-mounted telescopic sight. Up to 1100 pounds of bombs could be carried internally and externally. The first V11 (msn 28, civilian registry X14999) took off on its maiden flight on September 17, 1935. Unfortunately, the V11 crashed on takeoff on its second flight at Mines Field, Los Angeles the next day, killing pilot T. C. Van Stone and project engineer Duald L. Blue. A second prototype (msn 29, civilian registry NR14980) took to the air on October 9, 1935. Designated V11-A, it differed from the first in having a three-bladed constant speed propeller and a ring and bead sight for the forward-firing guns. The Chinese Nationalist government showed interest in the V11-A, and an order for 30 was placed. The first (msn 30) was completed in December of 1936 with an SR-1820-F53 engine. The rest (msn 36/64) were shipped between July 1973 and April 1938. They were delivered to China without engines and the later batches were actually delivered as kits of parts which were assembled at Shanghai and Hangkow. The 850 hp R-1820-G2 engines for these planes were acquired separately, and when installed, resulted in a designation change to V11-G. The demands of the Chinese order forced Vultee to seek larger quarters. In June of 1936, the ADC moved its Glendale plant to Downey, California. The Downey facility had formerly been operated by the now-defunct Emsco Aircraft company (where Gerard Vultee had once briefly worked), but was now deserted. The paved runway was renamed Vultee Field. The Chinese V11-G attack planes served at Hangkow with the 14th Squadron, an international unit of American, French, and Chinese aircrews. They saw limited action against Japanese forces in 1938. The V11-GB was a version of the V11-G intended for use as an attack bomber. It differed from the V11-G primarily by the addition of a third crew member in the lower aft fuselage. The third crew member entered the aircraft via a door cut into the rear port http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a19.html (3 of 6)08-09-2006 20:09:17

Vultee XA-19

fuselage and acted as a bomb-aimer/camera operator. He could also operate a 0.30-inch machine gun which was mounted on a retractable position that extended downward from the rear fuselage. Four 0.30-inch guns were mounted in the wings, and another 0.30-inch machine gun was operated by a gunner sitting at the rear of the long transparent canopy. It could be operated as an attack plane, with 600 pounds of bombs carried on internal racks over a 1125 mile range. Alternatively, it could be operated as a bomber carrying a 1000 pound bombload over a range of 2380 miles. Four V11-GBs were purchased by the Soviet Union, along with a manufacturing license. The first V11-GB for the USSR (msn 32, civilian registry NR17328) was flown on January 31, 1937, followed by msn 33 (NR17329) on February 26. These planes both had the 850 hp R-1820-G2 Cyclone engine. The other two (msn 34 and 36) were delivered to the Soviet Union without engines, and the first was dismantled for parts. At least 31 V11-GBs were built in the Soviet Union as the BSh-1 at the Menzhinskii factory at Moscow. They were powered by the 920 hp M-62 radial, which was a licensebuilt version of the Wright Cyclone. With armor plate fitted, the aircraft had a reduced performance and was rejected for service by the VVS. It was decided that that the Polikarpov I-15bis would make a better interim attack aircraft while awaiting the development of the BSh-2, the prototype of the famed Il-2 *Shturmovik*. Most of the BSh-1 aircraft were turned over to Aeroflot in 1939 under the designation PS-43 and were used on mail flights. After the German attack on the Soviet Union in June of 1941, they were returned to the VVS for communications duties. A few survived until after the war. I do not know if any survive today. One V11-GB (msn 31/NR17327) was completed as a European demonstrator on January 20, 1937. It was scheduled to go to Europe in an attempt to attract more customers, but was used instead for experimental flying in connection with an order for forty V11-GBTs (msn 65/104) from Turkey. These were delivered between September 1937 and April 1938 to the 2nd Regiment at Diyarbakir. It seems that the demonstrator aircraft went to Turkey as well. In November of 1937, the Downey plant was renamed the Vultee Aircraft Division of the Aviation Manufacturing Corporation. The Downey plant now finally carried Gerard Vultee's name. On January 24, 1938, Gerard Vultee and his wife were killed in a crash of their Stinson http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a19.html (4 of 6)08-09-2006 20:09:17

Vultee XA-19

Reliant on the slopes of Mt Wilson near Flagstaff, Arizona. The couple left behind a sixmonth old son. They were returning from a sales trip to the East Coast, where Vultee had attempted to interest the US Army Air Corps in the V11-GB. Vultee was succeeded as chief engineer by his assistant, Richard Palmer. The Vultee Aircraft Division retained its name. Following the death of Gerard Vultee, work on the V11 continued on, and more overseas customers were attracted. 26 V11-GB2 aircraft were built for Brazil (msn 105/130). These were completed between June 1938 and March 1939. The last example was fitted with Edo floats and a modified tail as a V11-GB2F, but was not accepted by the Brazilian navy. The last customer for the V11 was paradoxically the US Army Air Corps, to which Gerard Vultee had been attempting to sell when he was killed. On June 24, 1938, the US Army Air Corps ordered seven V11-GBs (USAAC serials 38-549/555, msn 132/138) as service test aircraft. They were designated YA-19 and, unlike the export versions, were powered by 1200 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830-17 Twin Wasp radials. The armament consisted of six 0.30-inch machine guns and a 1080-pound bombload. The first YA-19 was flown on January 27, 1939. Five more were delivered in June and July. The YA-19s initially served at March Field, California, and then were transferred to the Panama Canal Zone, where they served with military attaches on duty in neighboring countries. The concept of a single-engined attack bomber was, however, now thoroughly obsolete, and no further YA-19s were ordered by the Air Corps. None of the YA-19s ever saw any combat. The last YA-19 on the Air Corps order was delivered as XA-19A with a twelve-cylinder Lycoming O-1230-1 liquid-cooled engined offering 1200 hp. It had an enlarged vertical fin to balance out the longer engine. It first flew on May 22, 1940. This aircraft was subsequently re-engined with a Pratt & Whitney R-1830-51 and redesignated XA-19C. The second YA-19 was redesignated XA-19B and was assigned to Pratt & Whitney for engine development work. It was equipped with an 1800 hp R-2800-1 at Rentschler Field.. Specification of Vultee YA-19: Engine: One Pratt & Whitney R-1830-17 air-cooled radial, rated at 1200 hp for takeoff and 1050 hp at 6500 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 230 mph at 6500 feet. Cruising http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a19.html (5 of 6)08-09-2006 20:09:17

Vultee XA-19

speed 207 mph. Landing speed 80 mph. Initial climb rate 1320 feet per minute. Service ceiling 20,400 feet, absolute ceiling 22,100 feet. Range 1110 miles with 1080 pounds of bombs, maximum range 1385 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 50 feet 0 inches, length 37 feet 10 inches, height 10 feet 0 inches, wing area 384 square feet. Weights: 6452 pounds empty, 10,421 pounds gross. Armament. Four 0.30-inch machine guns in the wings. One flexible 0.30-inch machine gun in rear cockpit. One 0.30-inch machine in retractable ventral position. Up to 36 30-pound bombs internally and a 1100-lb external bombload. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. General Dynamics Aircraft and Their Predecessors, John Wegg, Naval Institute

Press, 1990. 3. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 4. Convair B-58 Hustler: The World's First Supersonic Bomber, Jay Miller, Aerofax,

1997.


Douglas A-20 Boston/Havoc

Douglas A-20 Boston/Havoc

Douglas Model 7B Douglas DB-7 for France Douglas Boston I, Boston II, Havoc I for Britain Douglas DB-7A, Havoc II for Britain Douglas DB-7B Boston III for Britain Douglas DB-73 Douglas DB-7C for Netherlands East Indies Douglas A-20 Douglas A-20A Douglas A-20B Havoc Douglas O-53 Douglas A-20C Havoc Douglas A-20D Havoc Douglas A-20E Havoc Douglas XA-20F Havoc Douglas A-20G Havoc Douglas A-20H Havoc Douglas A-20J Havoc Douglas A-20K Havoc Douglas P-70 Douglas F-3 Douglas DB-7 in Service with France Service of Boston/Havoc with Royal Air Force Douglas A-20 in Service with USAAF Douglas Boston/Havoc in Service with Royal Australian Air Force Douglas Boston in Service with Royal Canadian Air Force Douglas Boston in Dutch Service Douglas Boston in USSR Service Douglas Boston in Service with Brazil


Stearman XA-21

Stearman XA-21 Last revised August 20, 2000

In 1929, the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation was formed with headquarters at Hartford, Connecticut as a large holding company that controlled the stock of the Boeing Airplane Company of Seattle, its Canadian subsidiary based in Vancouver B.C., the Boeing Air Transport airline subsidiary of Boeing, as well as the Chance Vought Corporation, the Hamilton Aero Manufacturing Company (a propeller manufacturer) and the Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Company, the well known engine manufacturer. In an arrangement that would be considered as being grossly non-competitive today, one holding company now controlled airlines, engine and airframe manufacturers, as well as propeller suppliers. Sikorsky Aviation Corporation, the Stearman Aircraft Company of Wichita, Kansas, and the Standard Steel Propeller Company were added to United's empire shortly thereafter, followed by several more airlines brought into the fold. The airline interests were soon grouped under a new management company known as United Air Lines, Inc. However, the individual airlines (as well as the individual companies held by United) continued to operate under their own names. In the 1930s, the US government concluded that such large holding companies as the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation were basically anti-competitive, and new laws were passed forbidding airframe or engine manufacturers from having interests in airlines. The United Aircraft and Transport Corporation was broken up into several pieces, with Pratt & Whitney, Sikorsky, Vought and the now-merged Hamilton Standard Propeller Company being organized into a new United Aircraft Corporation, and the airlines going to the newly-organized United Air Lines Transport Corporation. The Boeing Airplane Company again became an independent organization, with the Stearman company as a subsidiary. For the next few years, Stearman operated as a more-or-less independent company, and introduced the famous Model 75 series of two-seat trainers. On April 8, 1939, the Stearman plant at Wichita, Kansas was officially made a division of Boeing, and the Stearman name disappeared. However, the original Stearman model designations and serial numbering systems were retained. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a21.html (1 of 4)08-09-2006 20:09:46

Stearman XA-21

In 1937, the Army's Materiel Division began to investigate the possibility of the development of a twin-engined attack bomber with a performance that would greatly exceed that of the single-engined types such as the Northrop A-17 that were currently in service. In March 1938, the Air Corps issued Circular Proposal Number 38-385 that defined the requirements. Payload was to be 1200 pounds, and range was to be 1200 miles at speeds greater than 200 mph. The Army invited all of the contestants to build prototypes of their designs at their own expense for a design competition. The deadline for the entries would be March 17, 1939. Proposals were submitted by Bell, Douglas, Martin, North American, and BoeingStearman. Bell's Model 9 proposal called for an aircraft powered by two liquid-cooled Allison engines. It was withdrawn from the competition before anything could be built. The Douglas entry was the Model 7B, a high-winged monoplane powered by a pair of 1100 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp radials. Martin submitted its Model 167F, a twin-engined mid-wing monoplane. The North American entry was designated NA-40 by the company and was a high-winged aircraft carrying a crew of five--pilot, copilot, bombardier/navigator, radio operator/gunner, and gunner. Stearman's entry in the competition was designated Model X-100. It was a three-seat highwinged monoplane powered by a pair of untried Pratt & Whitney R-2180 radials. The X100 was the first twin-engined design built by Stearman, and was the first all-metal aircraft and the first monoplane to be produced by the company. The Stearman company had begun work on the X-100 in 1938, and the project was completed after the company officially became a division of Boeing. The normal crew of the Model X-100 was three--a bombardier, a pilot, and a radio operator/gunner. The bombardier and pilot sat in tandem underneath a transparent canopy in a smooth contour nose. The radio operator/gunner sat in a separate transparent cabin at the rear of the fuselage and controlled manually-operated turrets in the dorsal and ventral positions. The rear gunner could operate four 0.30-inch machine guns--one in a manual dorsal turret, one mounted on each side firing from a flexible socket, and one fitted inside a ball-shaped flexible socket mounted on the bottom of the fuselage. Provision was made for a fourth crew member to assist in operating the defensive machine guns. The Model X100 incorporated an electrically-actuated retractable undercarriage, integral fuel tanks, fully-feathering constant-speed propellers, and sealed compartments in the outer wing panels, central fuselage, and empennage for flotation in case of a forced landing on water. The mainwheels retracted rearward into wells in the rear of the engine nacelles, and the http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a21.html (2 of 4)08-09-2006 20:09:46

Stearman XA-21

tailwheel was retractable as well. The wing trailing edge carried Fowler-type flaps both inboard and outboard of the engine nacelles. The engine was the new and untried Pratt & Whitney R-2180-S1A1-G radial, rated at 1150 hp at 2350 rpm, but capable of delivering 1400 hp at 2500 rpm for takeoff. In the interest of aerodynamic streamlining, the original nose contour of the X-100 formed an unbroken line with the top of the fuselage, forcing the pilot to have to look forward through the bombardier's station. In search of a better forward view for the pilot, the nose was modified during the flight test phase to the standard step-down windshield configuration used by most contemporary bombers and transports. Both the North American and the Douglas designs crashed before they could be entered in the contest, leaving only the Stearman and Martin entries actually submitted to the Army for flight testing. However, none of the entries succeeded in landing any Army contracts. Instead, the Army waffled and in April of 1939 they called for a new contest in which a new set of design proposals would be requested and evaluated without the need for the construction and testing of prototypes. All of the original contestants, including BoeingStearman, submitted new bids in response to this new contest. On June 30, 1939, the Army decided in favor of the Douglas DB-7, which was a revised version of the Model 7B that had crashed during flight test. 123 examples were ordered under the designation A-20. Although no production was anticipated, the Army did purchase the X-100 prototype under the designation XA-21. The serial number was 40-191. The aircraft was delivered to the Army in September of 1939. The Army carried out some tests with the aircraft, but no further development was pursued. I am unaware of the ultimate fate of the XA-21. Presumably it was scrapped. The other two unsuccessful contestants in the attack bomber competition did not share the same unhappy fate as the XA-21. Although the US Army only bought one example of the Martin 167 (under the designation XA-22), the aircraft succeeded in landing substantial export contracts with France and later served with the Royal Air Force under the name Maryland. Although the Army did not even buy one example of the North American NA40 (it crashed during testing), the basic design was later adapted to a medium bomber configuration, evolving into the famous B-25 Mitchell. Specification of the Boeing-Stearman XA-21:


Stearman XA-21

Engines: Two Pratt & Whitney R-2180-7 radials, each rated at 1150 hp at 2350 rpm, but capable of delivering 1400 hp at 2500 rpm for takeoff. Performance: Maximum speed 257 mph at 5100 feet. Cruising speed 200 mph. Landing speed 72 mph. Service ceiling 20,000 feet. Range 720 miles with 1200 pound bombload. Maximum range 1500 miles. Weights: 12,760 pounds empty, 18,230 pounds gross. Dimensions: Wingspan 65 feet, length 53 feet 1 inch, height 14 feet 2 inches, wing area 607 square feet. Armament: One 0.30-inch machine gun in a flexible mounting in the nose. The rear gunner could operate four 0.30inch machine guns--one in a dorsal turrret, one on each side firing from a flexible socket, and one in a fixture on the bottom. Four forward-firing 0.3-inch machine guns could be installed in the wing. Maximum bombload 2700 pounds. Sources: Boeing Aircraft Since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Vol 1, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1988 Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Vol 1, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute

Press, 1988 3. Boeing Aircraft Since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989.


Martin A-22

Martin A-22

Martin XA-22 Martin Maryland


Martin XA-22

Martin XA-22 Last revised August 20, 2000

In 1937, the Army's Materiel Division began to investigate the possibility of the development of a twin-engined attack bomber with a performance that would greatly exceed that of the single-engined types that were currently in service. In March 1938, the Air Corps issued Circular Proposal Number 38-385 that defined the requirements. Payload was to be 1200 pounds, and range was to be 1200 miles at speeds greater than 200 mph. The Army invited all of the contestants to build prototypes of their designs at their own expense for a design competition. The deadline for the entries would be March 17, 1939. Proposals were submitted by Bell, Douglas, North American, Boeing-Stearman and Martin. Bell's Model 9 proposal called for an aircraft powered by two liquid-cooled Allison engines. It was withdrawn from the competition before anything could be built. The Douglas entry was the Model 7B, a high-winged monoplane powered by a pair of 1100 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp radials. The North American entry was designated NA-40 by the company and was a high-winged aircraft carrying a crew of five-pilot, copilot, bombardier/navigator, radio operator/gunner, and gunner. Stearman's entry was the Model X-100, which was a three-seat high-winged monoplane powered by a pair of untried Pratt & Whitney R-2180 radials. Martin submitted its Model 167, a twin-engined mid-wing tail-down monoplane. The aircraft was powered by two Pratt & Whitney R-1830-37 Wasp radials, each rated at 1200 hp for takeoff and 1100 hp at 5000 feet. The Model 167 carried three crewmembers in a narrow fuselage--one pilot, one bombardier in the nose, and a gunner that operated a retractable dorsal turret that was covered by a panel that slid forward when the turret was raised. Armament included four 0.30-inch machine guns in the wings, one 0.30-inch machine gun in the turret, and one 0.30-inch machine gun in a deeply-cut lower position behind the bomb bay. The bomb bay could accommodate 60 30-pound or four 300-pound bombs. The Model 167 was flown from Baltimore to Wright Field in Ohio on March 14, 1939. It initially flew under the civilian serial number NX22076. Although no aircraft had yet been http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a22_1.html (1 of 3)08-09-2006 20:10:08

Martin XA-22

ordered by the US Army, the gathering war clouds in Europe attracted the attention of the French government to the twin-engined attack aircraft contest. The French government was sufficiently impressed by the Martin entry that on January 26, 1939, the French government placed a contract for 115 aircraft. The French version was designated Model 167F by the company. The Armee de l'Air designation was 167 A-3, the A standing for army cooperation and the -3 identifying a three-seater. The availability of French money made it possible for Martin to build a new plant that was to play a valuable role in B-26 production. None of the entries initially succeeded in landing any Army contracts. Instead, in April of 1939, the Army called for a new contest in which new design proposals would be requested and evaluated without the need for the construction and testing of prototypes. All of the contestants, including Martin, submitted new bids. On June 30, 1939, the Army decided in favor of the Douglas DB-7, which was a revised version of the Model 7B that had crashed during flight test. 123 examples were ordered under the designation A-20. Glenn L. Martin protested the production contract awarded to the Douglas DB-7 on the grounds that the Model 7B prototype had crashed and was not actually present at the competition. However, he was somewhat consoled by the French contract for the Model 167 which had been placed in January of 1939. Although the US Army did not order the Model 167 into production, on May 20, 1939, it did arrange to purchase the prototype under the designation XA-22. The serial number was 40-706. Although a few flight tests were carried out, there was no further development. Specification of Martin XA-22: Engines: Two Pratt & Whitney R-1830-37 air-cooled radial engines, each rated at 1200 hp for takeoff and 1100 hp at 5000 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 280 mph at 5000 feet. Cruising speed 260 mph. Service ceiling 20,000 feet. Range 750 miles with 1800 pounds of bombs, 1200 miles with 1200 pounds of bombs. 1900 miles maximum range. Dimensions: Wingspan 61 feet 4 inches, length 46 feet 8 inches, height 10 feet 0 inches, wing area 538.5 square feet. Weights: 11,170 pounds empty, 16,00 pounds gross, 17,00 pounds maximum. Sources: Dog of War, Peter Bowers, Airpower, Vol 26, No. 1 (1996) American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. Sources:


Martin XA-22

1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. Dog of War, Peter Bowers, Airpower, Vol 26, No. 1 (1996)


Martin Maryland

Martin Maryland Last revised August 20, 2000

Although the Martin Model 167 was never ordered into service by the US Army, it was to serve in substantial numbers with both the French and British air arms. On January 26, 1939, the French government placed a contract for 115 aircraft. The French version was designated Model 167F by the company. The Armee de l'Air designation was 167 A-3, the A standing for Army cooperation and the -3 identifying a threeseater. The first 167F for France flew in August 1939. The Model 167F had French equipment installed and was armed with six 7.5-mm machine guns, four in the wings, another in the dorsal turret, and one in a deeply-cut lower position behind the bomb bay. French aircraft could carry two 624-pounds or eight 116-pound bombs and six 7.5-mm machine guns, The Model 167F differed from the XA-22 in having no cover over the turret and was powered by 900-hp Wasps supercharged to 12,000 feet. The first Model 167F flew in August of 1939. The French order was increased to 215 aircraft upon the outbreak of war in September of 1939. According to the original plan, the Model 167F aircraft were to be delivered to depots in French North Africa where they would be prepared for operational service. The first Martins did not reach French North Africa until December 15. After the German invasion of May 10, 1940, the French Martins were thrown into action. They flew 418 combat sorties from May 22 to June 24, 18 Martins being lost in action. In the meantime, deliveries on a third contract had begun. 223 Martins had arrived in Casablanca by June 15, but only 182 had been assembled and turned over to the Armee de l'Air. After the Armistice, many surviving Martins ended up with the Vichy Air Force, but several managed to escape to England. After the Armistice of June 1940, the British government took over the last 50 Model 167s on the French order, along with 75 built under a direct RAF contract completed in July of 1940. They were named Maryland I in RAF service. Between December 1940 and April 1941, 150 Maryland IIs were delivered to the RAF with R-1830-S3C4-G Wasps which were each rated at 1000 hp at 12,500 feet. RAF Marylands served with a general reconnaissance unit in Malta in 1940 and in 1941 with one British and three South African light-bomber squadron in northwest Africa. The Model 167s serving with the Vichy Air Force were used to attack Allied forces in Syria in June of 1941 and American forces near Casablanca in November 1942. This makes the Model 167 yet another example of an aircraft which fought on both sides in the Second World War. Serials of RAF Marylands: AH205/AH279 AH280/AH429

Maryland I Maryland II Martin company number 1827/1976 AH301/311, 313/331, 371, 373/380,386/395,


Martin Maryland

AR702/AR751

AX689 AX690 AX692 AX693 AX696 BJ421/BJ428 Middle East BS760/BS777

406/426, 428, 429 renumbered in South African Air Force 1600/1699 allocation. Maryland I AR702/736 accepted to American standards. AR720, 736, 740 transferred to Fleet Air Arm Martin 167 Maryland - presumed French escapee Martin 167 Maryland - presumed French escapee Martin 167 Maryland - presumed French escapee Martin 167 Maryland - presumed French escapee Martin 167 Maryland - presumed French escapee Maryland I - Ex-French contract. Delivered to January 1941. Maryland I - Ex-French contract. BS777 to Free French forces July 1941. BS770 and BS777 converted for target towing.

Specification of Martin Model 167 (Maryland I): Engines: Two Pratt & Whitney R-1830-SC3G air-cooled radial engines, each rated at 1050 hp for takeoff and 900 hp at 12,000 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 275 mph at sea level, 304 mph at 13,000 feet. Cruising speed 248 mph. Landing speed 71 mph. Service ceiling 29,500 feet. Initial climb rate 2000 feet per minute. Maximum range 1300 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 61 feet 4 inches, length 46 feet 8 inches, height 10 feet 0 inches, wing area 538.5 square feet. Weights: 10,586 pounds empty, 15,927 pounds gross, 16,571 pounds maximum. Armament: Six 7.5-mm machine guns, four in the wings, another in the dorsal turret, and one in a deeply-cut lower position behind the bomb bay. Could carry two 624-pounds or eight 116-pound bombs and six 7.5-mm machine guns, Sources: Dog of War, Peter Bowers, Airpower, Vol 26, No. 1 (1996) British Military Aircraft Serials 1912-1969, Bruce Robertson, Ian Allen, 1969. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Enlarged Edition, Doubleday, 1982. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. Dog of War, Peter Bowers, Airpower, Vol 26, No. 1 (1996) British Military Aircraft Serials 1912-

1969, Bruce Robertson, Ian Allen, 1969. 3. British Military Aircraft Serials 1912-1969, Bruce Robertson, Ian Allen, 1969.


Martin XA-23

Martin XA-23 Last revised August 20, 2000

The Model 187 was the manufacturer's name for a Glenn L. Martin Company proposal for a three-seat attack bomber powered by a pair of Wright R-3350-11 air-cooled radials. Wing span was to have been 61 feet 8 inches, and length was to have been 49 feet 0 inches. Gross weight was to have been 21,200 pounds, and estimated maximum speed was 380 mph. The Army exhibited sufficient interest in the Model 187 to order a prototype under the designation XA-23. However, the project was abandoned before anything could be built, and Martin concentrated instead on an adaptation of the basic design known as the Model 187B, which was eventually to emerge as the A-30 Baltimore. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey, Ships and Aircraft, 1946.


Douglas A-24

Douglas A-24

Douglas A-24 Douglas SBD-3A Dauntless Douglas A-24A Douglas A-24B Douglas SBD-5A/A-24B Douglas A-24 in USAAF Service French and Mexican A-24s Surviving A-24s


Curtiss A-25 Helldiver

Curtiss A-25 Helldiver Last revised August 26, 2000

Following the success of Luftwaffe Ju 87 Stukas in the German attack on Poland in 1939 and in the offensive in the west in the spring of 1940, the US Army developed a sudden interest in dive bombers. Up to this time, the US Navy and the US Marine Corps had been the only American armed services interested in dive bombers, and had in fact done some pioneering work which had had been one of the inspirations behind the German development of the Stuka. In pursuit of this new interest, the Army decided to acquire some Navy designs and use them with very little modification as land-based dive bombers. One of these designs was the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver, which the Army acquired under the designation A-25. The development of the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver began back in 1938, when the US Navy laid down requirements for a new scout/dive bomber aircraft. In August of 1938, an invitation was sent out to the aircraft industry calling for a new dive bomber powered by an air-cooled radial engine. It was to be equipped with folding monoplane wings, retractable landing gear, de-icing equipment, heavy armament, and armor protection for the crew. Six companies submitted proposals, with the Curtiss and Brewster designs showing the greatest promise. They were both powered by the 1700-hp Wright R-2600 aircooled radial. In January of 1939, Brewster and Curtiss were selected to build prototypes of their designs under the designation XSB2A-1 and XSB2C-1 respectively. The XSB2C-1 was a monoplane with wings mounted up high enough on the fuselage to permit the installation of an internal bomb bay. The main landing gear retracted inwards, and the wing training edge had split dive flaps. The aircraft was all-metal except for fabriccovered control surfaces. The crew was two--a pilot sitting underneath a rearward-sliding canopy and a gunner sitting underneath a separate forward-sliding canopy. The rear fuselage arrangement was quite similar to that of the earlier SBC biplane dive bomber. The XSB2C-1 prototype took to the air for the first time on December 8, 1940, Curtiss test pilot Lloyd Childs being at the controls. The prototype crashed on December 21, 1941 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a25.html (1 of 5)08-09-2006 20:13:10


after the wings and tail failed while trying to pull out of a dive. Fortunately, the pilot was able to parachute to safety. On October 1, 1941, the Navy decided to give its combat aircraft names. The SB2C was assigned the name Helldiver, a name long associated with Curtiss naval dive bombers. Following Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the Helldiver program took on a new urgency. The first four SB2C-1s were assigned special priority so that flight testing could get underway as soon as possible. In the spring, the Navy announced that 3000 additional Helldivers would be ordered from Curtiss. In May, 1000 Helldivers were ordered from Canadian Car and Foundry at Fort William, Ontario. These were assigned the designation SBW, and 450 of them were allocated to the Royal Navy The first production SB2C-1 was rolled out in June. It was quite similar to the XSB2C-1 with the exception of a slightly taller vertical tail. It flew for the first time on June 30, 1942. Based on the success of German dive bombing, the US Army became interested in dive bombing as a means of ground attack, and in 1940 procurement of dive bombers was included in the Army Air Corps expansion program. Rather than develop new aircraft from scratch, the Army turned to the Navy's Douglas SBD Dauntless and Curtiss SB2C Helldiver to fill this need. In late 1940, agreement was reached for the Army to get approximately 100 SB2Cs from Curtiss under the recently-signed Navy contract. These planes were referred to as SB2C-1A for contract purposes, but were designated A-25A by the Army. The A-25A was to be standardized to the extent possible with the Navy SB2C1. An order for 100 A-25As was added to the Navy contract on December 31, 1940. By the end of 1941, much larger orders for A-25As were being considered, but the Navy felt that all the production capacity of Curtiss Wright's Columbus, Ohio plant would be required to meet its needs. Consequently, the Army Air Materiel Command directed that Curtiss Wright's St Louis plant be turned over to A-25A production. By the spring, 3000 more A-25As were on order. The A-25A was to be almost identical to the SB2C-1, but with larger main wheels and a larger pneumatic tail wheel. The carrier arrester gear was deleted, but the folding wings were to be retained. In addition, Army radios and additional forward and underside armor plating were fitted. Both the Navy and Army models had larger wheel wells to maintain http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a25.html (2 of 5)08-09-2006 20:13:10


standardization. Major subcontractors and suppliers for the Navy production were retained for the A-25A in order to enhance standardization. However, there were problems involved in coordinating engineering and manufacturing between Columbus and St Louis. These snags were not eased very much by the fact that the two plants were divisions of the same company. Enough differences between the A-25A and the SB2C-1 evolved so that the A25A got its own model number of S84 within the Curtiss organization and its own series of drawings. The first A-25A took off on its first flight on September 29, 1942, about three months after the initial flight of the first production SB2C-1. It had the folding wings and the wing slats of the SB2C-1. Production and testing preceded rather slowly, and the first ten production examples were not completed until March of 1943. These were destined to be the last A25As with folding wings. By this time, it was deemed impractical to continue the attempt to maintain standardization between the A-25A and the SB2C-1, since this was now holding up both programs. It was decided to transfer the A-25A program over to an Army contract. This transition added further to delays in the A-25A program, due to problems with inspection authority, government furnished equipment, and coordination with subcontractors. By the time that A-25A production was underway, the Army had found that it no longer had any need for dive bombers. Army pilots had not been well trained in dive bombing techniques, and their combat experience with the A-24 (Army version of the SBD Dauntless) was less than happy. The A-24 suffered heavy losses from enemy flak, and it was fount that it could not be operated in environments in which less than complete air superiority had been established. Consequently, the A-25As that were delivered to the Army were assigned to various second-line activities such as training and target-towing, and never saw any combat. The Army initially assigned the popular name Shrike to the A25A, a name which had been associated with Curtiss-built Army attack planes since the A8/A-10 series back in the early 1930s. However, by the end of 1943, the Army adopted the Navy Helldiver name for the A-25A. By this time the Army's A-25As had been redesignated RA-25A, the R prefix standing for "Restricted", which meant that they were not to be used in combat. Early in the A-25A program, 150 aircraft had been allocated to the Royal Australian Air Force, with RAAF serials being A69-1 through A69-150. However, the RAAF came to the http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a25.html (3 of 5)08-09-2006 20:13:10


same conclusion as the USAAF, namely, that it really did not need dive bombers, and only 10 (RAAF serials A69-1 through A69-10) were actually delivered. 410 A-25As (including the 140 which were originally intended for the RAAF) were eventually turned over to the US Marine Corps for use as land-based dive bombers under the designation SB2C-1A. Following a configuration review for the Marine Corps, a program was set up to send the transferred planes through modification centers operated by NAF Roosevelt Field, New York, Consolidated-Vultee, Allentown, Pennsylvania, and Delta Airlines. The SB2C-1As were then issued to Marine Corps VMSB squadrons for operational training. By the end of 1944, all the SB2C-1As had been modified and delivered. Transfer to the Navy's Operational Training Command had begun. They served with VMSB-132, -144, -234, -344, -454, -464, -474, and -484. In the autumn of 1944, the first three became VMTB squadrons and the fourth was disbanded. VMSB-454 became a VMTB squadron in the same period. The last three units were replacement training squadrons based at MCAS El Toro, California. The Navy/Marine Corps SB2C-1As were also destined for a non-combatant role, and both Army and Marine/navy land-based Helldivers were declared surplus at an early date. Serials of A-25A:

41-18774/18783 41-18784/18823 41-18824/18873 42-79663/79672 42-79673/79732 42-79733/79972 42-79933/80132 42-80133/80462

Curtiss Curtiss Curtiss Curtiss Curtiss Curtiss Curtiss Curtiss

A-25A-1-CS Shrike A-25A-5-CS Shrike A-25A-10-CS Shrike A-25A-10-CS Shrike A-25A-15-CS Shrike A-25A-20-CS Shrike A-25A-25-CS Shrike A-25A-30-CS Shrike

Specification of Curtiss A-25A Helldiver: One Wright R-2600-8 air-cooled radial rated at 1700 hp for takeoff and 12450 hp at 12,000 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 285 mph at 12,400 feet, 269 mph at sea level. Cruising speed 155 mph. Climb to 10,000 feet in 7.4 minutes. Service ceiling 24,600 feet. Range 1130 miles at 157 mph with a 1000-pound bombload, 1090 miles with a 2000pound bombload, 2020 miles maximum ferry range. Dimensions: Wingspan 49 feet 8 5/8 inches, length 36 feet 8 inches, height 14 feet 9 inches, wing area 422 square feet. Weights: 10,363 pounds empty, 15,075 pounds gross (dive bomber, with one 1000-pound http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a25.html (4 of 5)08-09-2006 20:13:10


bomb in bomb bay), 17,162 pounds gross with 2 500-pound bombs on wing racks, two 1000-pound bombs in bomb bay. Armament: Four fixed, forward-firing 0.50-inch machine guns in the wings. One flexible 0.50-inch machine gun operated by gunner in rear cockpit. A bombload of 2000 pounds could be carried in the internal bay. A pair of 500pound bombs could be carried on underwing racks. Alternatively, the underwing bombs could be replaced by a pair of 58-gallon drop tanks. Sources: 1. The Curtiss SB2C-1 Helldiver, Harold Andrews, Aircraft in Profile, 1966. 2. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979. 3. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.


Douglas A-26/B-26 Invader


Douglas XA-26 Invader Douglas XA-26A Invader Douglas A-26B Invader Douglas A-26C Invader Douglas XA-26D Invader Douglas XA-26E Invader Douglas XA-26F Invader Douglas "A-26Z", A-26G, A-26H Douglas JD-1 Invader for US Navy Douglas B-26K Counter-Invader, A-26A Douglas RB-26L Invader Douglas A-26/B-26 Invader in USAAF/USAF Service Invader for the Royal Air Force Invader in Service with L'Armee de l'Air Invaders in Service with Brazil Invaders in Service with Chile Invaders for Colombia Invaders in Service with the Dominican Republic Invaders in Service with Guatemala Invaders in Service with Indonesia Invaders in Service with Nicaragua Invaders in Service with Peru Invaders in Service with Portugal Invaders in Service with Saudi Arabia Invaders in Service with Turkey Invaders in Service with Cuba Invaders at the Bay of Pigs Invaders for Covert Operations in Laos Invaders for Covert Operations in Vietnam Invaders for Covert Operations in the Congo Invaders on the Civilian Market




North American A-27

North American A-27 Last revised September 16, 2000

In 1937, North American Aviation, Inc began work on an attack version of its BC-1A advanced trainer, which was later to be redesignated AT-6. The attack version was intended primarily for the export market. A demonstration model, the NA-44, was first flown in 1938. It was powered by a 775-hp Wright R-1820-F52 air-cooled radial engine and was armed with five guns. This aircraft was eventually sold to Canada in 1940. Brazil received thirty examples under the designation NA-72 from July to October of 1940. Ten more were ordered by Thailand on November 29, 1939 as NA-69s. They were completed by September of 1940 and were about to be shipped to Thailand. However, fearful that they might fall into Japanese hands, they were intercepted by American authorities and impressed into service under the designation A-27 and assigned the serials 41-18890/18899. They were sent to serve in the Philippines. They were there when the Japanese struck in December of 1941. It is believed that they were all quickly destroyed in the initial Japanese onslaught. Specification of North American A-27 (NA-69) One Wright R-1820-75 air-cooled radial engine rated at 785 hp for takeoff and 745 hp at 9600 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 250 mph at 11,500 feet. Cruising speed 220 mph . Landing speed 70 mph. Service ceiling 28,000 feet. Range 575 miles with 400 pounds of bombs. 800 miles maximum range. Dimensions: Wingspan 42 feet 0 inches. Length 29 feet 0 inches, height 12 feet 2 inches, wing area 258 square feet. Weights: 4520 pounds empty, 6000 pounds gross, 6700 pounds maximum. Armament: Two fixed forward-firing 0.30-inch machine guns in the nose, one flexible 0.30-inch machine gun in the rear cockpit. A load of four 100-pound bombs could be carried underneath the wings.


North American A-27

Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.


Lockheed A-28 and A-29

Lockheed A-28 and A-29

Lockheed Model 14 Super Electra, C-111 Lockheed Hudson Mk.I for RAF Lockheed Hudson Mk.II Lockheed Hudson Mk.III Lockheed Hudson Mk.IV Lockheed Hudson Mk. V Lockheed A-28, Hudson Mk.IVA Lockheed A-28A, Hudson Mk.VI Lockheed A-29, Hudson Mk.IIIA Lockheed A-29A, Hudson MK.IIIA Lockheed A-29B Lockheed AT-18 Hudson in Service with Royal Air Force Hudson in Service with Royal Canadian Air Force Hudson in Service with Royal Australian Air Force Hudson in Service with Royal New Zealand Air Force A-29 in Service with USAAF Lockheed PBO-1 for US Navy Hudson in Service with Brazil Hudson in Service with China Hudsons on the Civilian Market


Martin A-30 Baltimore

Martin A-30 Baltimore Index Last revised: 25 April 1998

1. Model 187B ●

Sources

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/a30i.html08-09-2006 20:13:53

Martin A-30 Baltimore -- Chapter 1

Martin A-30 Baltimore - Chapter 1 Model 187B Last revised: 29 May 1998 Martin A-30 Baltimore Martin A-30 Baltimore - Sources The Martin Model 187B was designed in 1940 to meet a need for a medium bomber that would replace or augment the Model 167 light attack bomber which was then being built for France. However, no Model 187Bs were delivered before France fell, and the British government took over the French contract. The Martin 187B flew for the first time on June 14, 1941. It differed from the Model 167 in being powered by a pair of 1600 hp Wright R-2600-A5B engines, having self-sealing fuel tanks, 211 pounds of armor, and in having a deeper fuselage for a four-man crew and a load of four 500-pound bombs. The Model 187B was named Baltimore in RAF service, being named for the city of its origin. The Model 187B was initially built under British contracts and was assigned RAF serial numbers. When Lend-Lease was introduced in 1941, subsequent Baltimores were built under USAAF contracts. For administrative purposes, Lend-Lease Baltimores were assigned the USAAF attack designation of A-30 and were given USAAF serial numbers in addition to the usual RAF serials that were assigned when the aircraft reached Britain. However, despite its USAAF designation and serials, the A-30 was never used operationally by the USAAF. The Baltimore was engaged exclusively in the Mediterranean theatre by the Royal Air Force and by those allied air forces that were operating under RAF command. The initial versions were the Baltimore Mk. I and Mk. II. Both the Baltimore Mk. I and Mk. II were powered by two 1600 hp Wright GR-2600-19(A5B) radials. Armament consisted of four 0.30 inch machine guns in the wings firing forward, two 0.30 inch machine guns on a flexible mounting in the rear cockpit, and two on a flexible mounting in the lower rear flexible position at the break in the underside of the fuselage. There was a rather unusual mounting of four fixed belly guns pointing aft and at an angle of 9 degrees down and 1.5 degrees out. The crew was typically four -- pilot, navigator/bombardier, radio operator and rear gunner. They were all ordered under British contracts. RAF serials of the 50 Baltimore Mk. Is were AG685/AG734, whereas serials of the 100 Baltimore Mk. II aircraft were AG735/AG834. The Baltimore Mk. III had the upper flexible guns replaced by a four-gun Boulton Paul power-operated turret. The RAF serials of the 250 Baltimore Mk. IIIs were AG835/AH184. The Baltimore Mk. IIIA was similar to the Mk. III except that it was delivered under the provisions of Lend-Lease. All previous Baltimores had been direct purchases. For administrative purposes, the Baltimore Mk. IIIA was given the USAAF designation of A-30 and the 281 aircraft that were built were assigned USAAF serial numbers 4127682/27962. RAF serials were FA100/FA380. The first Baltimore Mk. IIIA deliveries were made in August of 1942.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/a30-01.html (1 of 3)08-09-2006 20:13:56


The Baltimore Mk. IV was similar to the Mk. III except that a Martin electrically-operated turret armed with two 0.50-inch machine guns replaced the Boulton Paul unit. There were 294 Baltimore Mk. IVs built, with USAAF designations being A-30A-1-MA to A-30A-5-MA. USAAF serials were 43-8438/8562 and corresponding RAF serials were FA381/FA674. Baltimore Mk. V was a light bomber version. It was powered by two 1700 hp Wright GR-2600-29(A5B5) engines. 600 were ordered on September 23, 1942, and deliveries began in July of 1943. Armament consisted of four 0.50inch machine guns in the wings, two 0.50-inch machine guns in the Martin power turret, and one flexible 0.50-inch gun in the lower rear firing position. The Baltimore Mk. V was known as A-30A-10/A-30A-30 on USAAF rolls. and bore the USAAF serials between 43-8438/9037. RAF serials were FW281/FW880. The Baltimore Mk. VI was similar to the Mk. V except that it was equipped for general reconnaissance duties. By the end of 1941, 146 Baltimores had been delivered to Britain, but 41 had been lost at sea aboard torpedoed ships. The original contract for 400 Baltimore Mk. I/II/IIIs was completed in June of 1942. The first operational RAF sortie with Baltimores took place on May 23, 1942 in Libya. German fighters shot down all four Baltimores in the sortie, indicating that fighter protection was still needed for light bombers. Production of the Baltimore ended in May of 1944. A total of 1575 were built. All combat missions were flown exclusively in the Mediterranean theatre, primarily with RAF and South African squadrons. Baltimores were also issued to a Greek and a French squadron in 1944, and they were supplied to a unit of the Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force in November of 1944.

USAAAF serials of A-30 and A-30A: 41-27682/27962 41-27963/28256 43-8438//8562

43-8563/8662

43-8663/8762

Martin A-30 - all to RAF as Baltimore Mk. IIIA (FA100/FA380) Martin A-30A - all to RAF as Baltimore Mk. IV (FA381/FA674) Martin A-30A-10-MA - all to RAF as Baltimore Mk. V (FW281/FW405) - FW288, FW323 crashed before delivery - FW356, FW384 to Royal Navy - FW392 to French Air Force early in 1946 Martin A-30A-15-MA - all to RAF as Baltimore Mk. V (FW406/FW505) - FW456 and FW527 to Royal Navy - FW422 and FW470 to French Air Force early in 1946 - FW419 and FW439 to Italian Air Force in 1946 Martin A-30A-20-MA - all to RAF as Baltimore Mk. V (FW506/FW605) - FW511 crashed before delivery - FW514, FW570, FW572 to French Air Force early in 1946 - FW584 and FW592 to Italian Air Force in 1946



43-8763/8862

43-8863/9037

Martin A-30A-25-MA - all to RAF as Baltimore Mk. V (FW606/FW705) - FW624, FW703, FW705 to French Air Force early in 1946 - FW649 and FW660 to Italian Air Force in 1946 Martin A-30A-30-MA - all to RAF as Baltimore Mk. V (FW706/FW880) - FW746 to Royal Navy - FW869 to French Air Force early in 1946

Specification of Martin Baltimore Mk. V: Powerplant: Two Wright GR-2600-A5B5 Cyclone fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial engines with two-speed superchargers each rated at 1600 hp at 2200 feet and 1400 hp at 10,800 feet. Dimensions: Wing span 61 feet 4 inches, length 48 feet 6 inches, height 14 feet 2 inches, wing area 538.5 square feet. Weights: 15,875 pounds empty, 22,622 pounds gross, 27,850 pounds maximum takeoff. Armament: Four 0.50-inch machine guns in wings firing forward. Two 0.50-inch machine guns in Martin power turret on top of fuselage over the wing trailing edge. One 0.50-inch machine gun on flexible mounting in a position at the break in the underside of the fuselage. Maximum internal bomb load 2000 pounds. Martin A-30 Baltimore Martin A-30 Baltimore - Sources

Joe Baugher [email protected] Maintained by Carl Pettypiece


Martin A-30 Baltimore -- Sources

Martin A-30 Baltimore - Sources Last revised: 29 May 1998 Martin A-30 Baltimore Martin A-30 Baltimore - Chapter 1: Model 187B ● ●

Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II, Military Press, New York, 1989. Ray Wagner, American Combat Planes, 3rd Edition, Doubleday, 1982.


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/a30-s.html08-09-2006 20:14:00

Martin XA-22 Maryland

Martin XA-22 Maryland Index Last revised: 13 March 1995

1. XA-22 for US Army 2. 167F for France, Maryland for RAF ●

Sources

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/a22i.html08-09-2006 20:14:18

Martin XA-22 Maryland -- Chapter 1

Martin XA-22 Maryland - Chapter 1 XA-22 for US Army Last revised: 29 May 1998 Martin XA-22 Maryland Martin XA-22 Maryland - Chapter 2: 167F for France, Maryland for RAF In 1937, the Army's Materiel Division began to investigate the possibility of the development of a twinengined attack bomber with a performance that would greatly exceed that of the single-engined types that were currently in service. In March 1938, the Air Corps issued Circular Proposal Number 38-385 that defined the requirements. Payload was to be 1200 pounds, and range was to be 1200 miles at speeds greater than 200 mph. The Army invited all of the contestants to build prototypes of their designs at their own expense for a design competition. The deadline for the entries would be March 17, 1939. Proposals were submitted by Bell, Douglas, North American, Boeing-Stearman and Martin. Bell's Model 9 proposal called for an aircraft powered by two liquid-cooled Allison engines. It was withdrawn from the competition before anything could be built. The Douglas entry was the Model 7B, a highwinged monoplane powered by a pair of 1100 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp radials. The North American entry was designated NA-40 by the company and was a high-winged aircraft carrying a crew of five -- pilot, co-pilot, bombardier/navigator, radio operator/gunner, and gunner. Stearman's entry was the Model X-100, which was a three-seat high-winged monoplane powered by a pair of untried Pratt & Whitney R-2180 radials. Martin submitted its Model 167, a twin-engined mid-wing tail-down monoplane. The aircraft was powered by two Pratt & Whitney R-1830-37 Wasp radials, each rated at 1200 hp for takeoff and 1100 hp at 5000 feet. The Model 167 carried three crewmembers in a narrow fuselage -- one pilot, one bombardier in the nose, and a gunner that operated a retractable dorsal turret that was covered by a panel that slid forward when the turret was raised. Armament included four 0.30-inch machine guns in the wings, one 0.30-inch machine gun in the turret, and one 0.30-inch machine gun in a deeply-cut lower position behind the bomb bay. The bomb bay could accommodate 60 30-pound or four 300-pound bombs. The Model 167 was flown from Baltimore to Wright Field in Ohio on March 14, 1939. It initially flew under the civilian serial number NX22076. On January 26, 1939, the French government placed a contract for 115 aircraft. The French version was designated Model 167F by the company. The Armée de l'Air designation was 167 A-3, the A standing for army cooperation and the -3 identifying a threeseater. The availability of French money made it possible for Martin to build a new plant that was to



play a valuable role in B-26 production. None of the entries initially succeeded in landing any Army contracts. Instead, in April of 1939, the Army called for a new contest in which new design proposals would be requested and evaluated without the need for the construction and testing of prototypes. All of the contestants, including Martin, submitted new bids. On June 30, 1939, the Army decided in favor of the Douglas DB-7, which was a revised version of the Model 7B that had crashed during flight test. 123 examples were ordered under the designation A-20. Glenn L. Martin protested the production contract awarded to the Douglas DB-7 on the grounds that the Model 7B prototype had crashed and was not actually present at the competition. However, he was consoled by the French contract for the Model 167 which had been placed in January of 1939. Although the US Army did not order the Model 167 into production, on May 20, 1939, it did arrange to purchase the prototype under the designation XA-22. The serial number was 40-706. Although a few flight tests were carried out, there was no further development.

Specification of Martin XA-22: Powerplant: Two Pratt & Whitney R-1830-37 air-cooled radial engines, each rated at 1200 hp for takeoff and 1100 hp at 5000 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 280 mph at 5000 feet. Cruising speed 260 mph. Service ceiling 20,000 feet. Range 750 miles with 1800 pounds of bombs, 1200 miles with 1200 pounds of bombs. 1900 miles maximum range. Dimensions: Wingspan 61 feet 4 inches, length 46 feet 8 inches, height 10 feet 0 inches, wing area 538.5 square feet. Weights: 11,170 pounds empty, 16,000 pounds gross, 17,000 pounds maximum. Martin XA-22 Maryland Martin XA-22 Maryland - Chapter 2: 167F for France, Maryland for RAF




Martin XA-22 Maryland - Chapter 2 167F for France, Maryland for RAF Last revised: 29 May 1998 Martin XA-22 Maryland Martin XA-22 Maryland - Chapter 1: XA-22 for US Army Martin XA-22 Maryland - Sources Although the Martin Model 167 was never ordered into service by the US Army, it was to serve in substantial numbers with both the French and British air arms. On January 26, 1939, the French government placed a contract for 115 aircraft. The French version was designated Model 167F by the company. The Armée de l'Air designation was 167 A-3, the A standing for Army cooperation and the -3 identifying a three-seater. The version for France was designated Model 167F by the manufacturer. The first 167F for France flew in August 1939. The Model 167F had French equipment installed and was armed with six 7.5-mm machine guns, four in the wings, another in the dorsal turret, and one in a deeply-cut lower position behind the bomb bay. French aircraft could carry two 624-pounds or eight 116-pound bombs and six 7.5-mm machine guns, The Model 167F differed from the XA-22 in having no cover over the turret and was powered by 900-hp Wasps supercharged to 12,000 feet. The first Model 167F flew in August of 1939. The French order was increased to 215 aircraft upon the outbreak of war in September of 1939. According to the original plan, the Model 167F aircraft were to be delivered to depots in French North Africa where they were to be prepared for operational service. The first Martins did not reach French North Africa until December 15. After the German invasion of May 10, 1940, the French Martins were thrown into action. They flew 418 combat sorties from May 22 to June 24, losing 18 Martins in action. In the meantime, deliveries on a third contract had begun. 223 Martins had arrived in Casablanca by June 15, but only 182 had been assembled and turned over to the Armée de l'Air. After the Armistice, many surviving Martins ended up with the Vichy Air Force, but several managed to escape to England. After the Armistice of June 1940, the British government took over the last 50 Model 167s on the French order, along with 75 built under a direct RAF contract completed in July of 1940. They were named Maryland Mk. I in RAF service. Between December 1940 and April 1941, 150 Maryland Mk. IIs were delivered to the RAF with R-1830-S3C4-G Wasps which were each rated at 1000 hp at 12,500 feet. RAF Marylands served with a general reconnaissance unit in Malta in 1940 and in 1941 with one British and three South African light-bomber squadrons in northwest Africa. The Model 167s serving with the Vichy Air Force were used to attack Allied forces in Syria in June of 1941 and American forces near Casablanca in November 1942. This makes the Model 167 yet another example of an aircraft which fought on both sides in the Second World War.



Serials of RAF Marylands: AH205/AH279 AH280/AH429

AR702/AR751

AX689 AX690 AX692 AX693 AX696 BJ421/BJ428 BS760/BS777

Maryland Mk. I Maryland Mk. II - Martin company numbers 1827/1976 - AH301/311, 313/331, 371, 373/380,386/395, 406/426, 428, 429 renumbered in South African Air Force 1600/1699 allocation Maryland Mk. I - AR702/736 accepted to American standards - AR720, 736, 740 transferred to Fleet Air Arm Martin 167 Maryland - presumed French escapee Martin 167 Maryland - presumed French escapee Martin 167 Maryland - presumed French escapee Martin 167 Maryland - presumed French escapee Martin 167 Maryland - presumed French escapee Maryland Mk. I - ex-French contract, delivered to Middle East 1/41 Maryland Mk. I - ex-French contract - BS777 to Free French forces 7/41 - BS770 and BS777 converted for target towing

Specification of Martin Model 167 (Maryland Mk. I): Powerplant: Two Pratt & Whitney R-1830-SC3G air-cooled radial engines, each rated at 1050 hp for takeoff and 900 hp at 12,000 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 275 mph at sea level, 304 mph at 13,000 feet. Cruising speed 248 mph. Landing speed 71 mph. Service ceiling 29,500 feet. Initial climb rate 2000 feet per minute. Maximum range 1300 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 61 feet 4 inches, length 46 feet 8 inches, height 10 feet 0 inches, wing area 538.5 square feet. Weights: 10,586 pounds empty, 15,927 pounds gross, 16,571 pounds maximum. Armament: Six 7.5-mm machine guns, four in the wings, another in the dorsal turret, and one in a deeply-cut lower position behind the bomb bay. Could carry two 624-pounds or eight 116-pound bombs and six 7.5-mm machine guns. Martin XA-22 Maryland Martin XA-22 Maryland - Chapter 1: XA-22 for US Army Martin XA-22 Maryland - Sources http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/a22-02.html (2 of 3)08-09-2006 20:14:23




Martin XA-22 Maryland -- Sources

Martin XA-22 Maryland - Sources Last revised: 29 May 1998 Martin XA-22 Maryland Martin XA-22 Maryland - Chapter 2: 167F for France, Maryland for RAF ● ● ●

Peter Bowers, Dog of War, Airpower, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1996. Bruce Robertson, British Military Aircraft Serials 1912-1969, Ian Allen, 1969. Ray Wagner, American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Doubleday, 1982.


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/a22-s.html08-09-2006 20:14:27

US Bomber Designations

US Bomber Designations Last revised September 8, 2002

1920 Letter-and-Number Bomber Designations Up until 1920, there was no unified designation scheme for American combat aircraft. Before that time, aircraft had always served under their original manufacturer's designation (e. g. SPAD XIII, DH-4, S.E.5, etc). In 1920, it was decided that some sort of unified designation scheme was needed for American combat planes. In that year, the Army Air Service adopted an official letter-and-number designation scheme for all newly-procured aircraft. The letter would indicate the basic type, and the model number would indicate the sequence number of the particular aircraft in order of procurement within that basic type categeory. Henceforth, all Army aircraft were to be subdivided into 15 basic categories, three of which were bombertype categories: ●

Day Bombardment-DB

●

Night Bombardment, Short Distance-NBS

●

Night Bombardment, Long Distance-NBL

In the Day Bombardment (DB) category, there was only one entry: Gallaudet DB-1

Low wing bomber.

Only one built.

Here are the Night Bombardment, Short Distance (NBS) entries: Martin NBS-1

LWF NBS-2 powered by two

Biplane bomber powered by two Liberty Liquid-cooled engines. Proposal for biplane bomber Liberty liquid-cooled engines.

Not built.

Elias NBS-3

Biplane bomber powered by two Liberty liquid-cooled engines. Only one built.

Curtiss NBS-4

Biplane bomber powered by two Liberty

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/Bdesig.html (1 of 10)08-09-2006 20:15:03


liquid-cooled engines.

Only 2 built.

Here are the entries in the Night Bombardment, Long Distance (NBL) category: Witteman-Lewis NBL-1

Large triplane bomber powered by 6 engines. Only one built.

Martin NBL-2

Proposal for monoplane bomber powered by two W-2779 engines. Not built.

1924 Revision In May of 1924, the system was revised and additional letters were added. Aircraft already in service retained their original designations, but all new production was done under the new system. Bombers were now classified according to their size rather than their role: ●

Light Bomber-LB

●

Heavy Bomber--HB

●

Bomber (medium)--B

Here are the bombers in the LB category: Huff-Daland LB-1

Biplane bomber powered by one Packard 2A-2540 liquid-cooled engine. 10 built.

Fokker-Atlantic LB-2

Monoplane bomber powered by two Packard 2A-2540 liquid-cooled engines. Not built

Huff-Daland XLB-3 radial

Biplane bomber powered by two R-1340 engines.

Martin LB-4 powered

One built.

Proposal for all-metal biplane bomber by two R-1690 radials.

Huff-Daland LB-5


Not built

Biplane bomber powered by two Liberty V-1650 engines. 36 built.


Keystone LB-6 Cyclone

Biplane bomber powered by two Wright radials.

18 built

Keystone LB-7

Biplane bomber powered by two Pratt & Whitney Hornet radials. 18 built.

Keystone LB-8

Version of LB-7 with geared Pratt & Whitney R-8360-3 radials. One built.

Keystone LB-9

Version of LB-7 with geared Wright R-1750 Cyclone radials. One built. Version of LB-6 with single rudder and Pratt & Whitney R-1690-3 radials. Designation changed to B-3 in 1926.

Keystone LB-10

Keystone LB-11 1750-3

Version of LB-6 powered by 2 Wright RCyclone radials.

Only one built.

Keystone LB-12

Version of LB-7 with Pratt & Whitney R-1860-1 radials. Only one built.

Keystone LB-13

Biplane bomber powered by two Pratt & Whitney GR-1690 radials. Completed as B-4 and B-6

Keystone LB-14

Biplane bomber powered by two Pratt & Whitney GR-1860 radials. Delivered as B-

5.

Here are the bombers in the HB category: Huff-Daland HB-1

Larger and heavier version of LB-1 with one Packard 2A-2540 engine. Only one built.

Atlantic HB-2 Packard 2A-2540.

Projected monoplane bomber with two Not built

Huff-Daland HB-3 two Packard 2A-2540.

Projected monoplane bomber with Not built.



Here are the bombers in the B (medium bomber) category: Huff-Daland XB-1 built

Twin-engine version of XHB-1.

Only one

Curtiss B-2 Condor V-1570

Twin-engined biplane bomber.

Two Curtiss

liquid-cooled engines. 12 built.

The Original B-Series (1930-1962) One of the categories that had been introduced in 1924 was B, which originally stood strictly for medium bombers, as distinguished from heavy bombers (HB) and light bombers (LB). In 1930, the USAAC decided that it made no sense to make such distinctions, and all of these categories were combined into one, B for bomber. There were already two entries in the B series, the Keystone XB-1B and the Curtiss B-2 Condor. Some of the LB bombers were reassigned new designations in the B-series. Subsequent designs were assigned bomber designations in the sequence in which they were ordered. With the advent of missiles in the 1940s and 1950s, the USAF decided in 1951 to assign "B" designations to its ground attack missiles. The initial assignments were B-61 through B-65. Here is the 1930-1962 B-series of Army/Air Force bombers: 1930-1962 Bomber Series

Designation

Description

Keystone XB-1B

Originally was twin-engine adaptation of XHB-1 heavy bomber. Twin-rudder biplane. Two Curtiss V-1570 liquid-cooled engines.

Curtiss B-2 Condor

Twin-engined biplane bomber. Two Curtiss V-1570 liquid-cooled engines. 12 built.

Keystone B-3

Twin-engine biplane bomber. Two P & W R-1690 radials. 36 built.

Keystone B-4

Twin-engine biplane bomber. Two P & W R-1860 radials. 25 built.

Keystone B-5

Twin-engine biplane bomber. Two Wright R-1750 radials. 27 built.

Keystone B-6

Twin-engine biplane bomber. Two Wright R-1820 radials. 39 built.

Douglas YB-7

Twin-engine monoplane bomber. Two Curtiss V-1570 liquid-cooled engines mounted under gull wings that were braced by metal struts. 7 built.

Fokker XB-8

Twin-engine monoplane bomber. Adaptation of XO-27 long-range observation prototype. All-wood cantilever wing, fabric-covered steel tube fuselage. Two Curtiss V1570 liquid-cooled engines. Only one built.



Boeing Y1B-9

Twin-engine monoplane bomber. Two P & W R-1860 radials. Crew of four in separate open cockpits. All-metal construction, retractable landing gear. Only 6 built.

Martin B-10

Twin-engine monoplane bomber. Two Wright R-1820 radials. Enclosed cockpits, three 0.3 cal guns. First bomber with performance superior to contemporary fighters.

Douglas YB-11

Twin-engine, long-range reconnaissance amphibian aircraft. Two Wright R-1820 radials mounted on pylons above the high-mounted wing. Retractable wheel undercarriage. Redesignated YO-44 and then YOA-5 before delivery to Army.

Martin YB-12

Version of Martin bomber with P & W. R-1690 radials. 31 built.

Martin B-13

Proposal to equip B-10 airframe with R-1860 radial engines. Cancelled before any could be delivered.

Martin XB-14

B-10 airframe with 950hp R-1830 radials. Only one built.

Boeing XB-15

Experimental four-engine long-range bomber. Only one built. Later converted into XC105 cargoplane.

Martin XB-16

Experimental six-engine long-range bomber. Six Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled engines, four as tractors, two as pushers. Two tail booms, twin rudders. Canceled before any could be built.

Boeing B-17 Fortress

Four-engine heavy bomber. Four Wright R-1820 Cyclone radials. Total of 12,677 built.

Douglas B-18 Bolo

Adaptation of DC-2 commercial transport to bombing role.

Douglas XB-19

Four-engined long-range heavy bomber. Four Wright R-3350-5 radials. Only one built.

Boeing Y1B-20

Proposed version of B-15 with 1400 hp Pratt and Whitney R-2180 radial engines. Two ordered. Canceled before any prototype could be completed.

North American XB-21

Twin-engine medium bomber. Two P & W R-2180 Twin Hornets with superchargers. Crew of six. Five 0.30-cal guns in power turrets in nose and on top, and at mounts in waist and ventral positions. Only one built.

Douglas B-22

Proposed adaptation of B-18 to take two Wright R-2600 radials. Cancelled in favor of B23.

Douglas B-23 Dragon

Twin-engine medium bomber. Ordered as part of the B-18A contract. Embodied a greatly improved aerodynamic form and incorporated latest ideas on defensive armament, including a tail gun. Two Wright R-2600 Cyclones

Consolidated B-24 Liberator

Four-engine heavy bomber. Four Pratt and Whitney R-1830 radial engines on highmounted wing. Total of 18,188 built, greater than that of any other American aircraft.

North American B-25 Mitchell

Twin-engine medium bomber. Two Wright R-2600 Cyclone radial engines. Total of 9816 built.

Martin B-26 Marauder

Twin-engine medium bomber. Two P & W R-2800 radials. High-mounted wing. Streamlined cigar-shaped fuselage Total of 5157 Marauders built.

Martin XB-27

High-altitude adaptation of B-26. Two turbosupercharged P & W R-2800 Wasps. Pressurized cabin. Project cancelled before any could be built.


High-altitude adaptation of B-25. Two turbosupercharged P & W R-2800 Wasps. Pressurized cabin. Single rudder. No need was perceived for high- altitude medium bombers, and only two were built.

Boeing B-29 Superfortress

Long range, high altitude heavy bomber. Four Wright R-3350 radials. Unbroken nose, crew of 11, pressurized cabin. Four remote-controlled turrets, plus tail gun position. 3970 built



Lockheed XB-30

Long range, high altitude bomber. Proposed bomber version of Constellation airliner. Entered in competition which eventually produced the B-29, but Lockheed withdrew from the contest before any prototypes could be built.

Douglas XB-31

Long-range, high altitude bomber designed in competition with Boeing B-29. Canceled in favor of B-29 before any prototypes could be built.

Consolidated B-32 Dominator

High-altitude development of B-24. Four Wright R-3350 radials. Only 155 built.

Martin XB-33

Long range bomber project with four 1800 hp R-2600 radials and twin tails. Canceled in favor of B-29 before it ever got off the drawing board.

Lockheed B-34 Ventura

Midwing twin-engine medium bomber with twin rudders. Military adaptation of Model 18 Lodestar airliner.

Northrop YB-35

Long-range flying-wing bomber. Four P & W R-4360 radials with double turbosuperchargers driving pusher propellers.

Convair B-36 Peacemaker

Six-engine long-range heavy bomber. Six P & W R-4360 radials driving pusher props. D version had four General Electric J-47 jets in pods under outer wing to increase overtarget speed.

Lockheed B-37 Ventura

Adaptation of B-34 Ventura for armed observation/ reconnaissance role with R-2600 engines.

Lockheed-Vega XB-38

B-17E airframe converted by Vega division of Lockheed to take four Allison V-1710-89 liquid-cooled engines. Only one built.

Boeing XB-39 Superfortress

Conversion of B-29 airframe to take four Allison V-3420 liquid-cooled engines of 3000 hp. each.

Boeing YB-40

Conversion of B-17F as escort fighter to improve defensive power of B-17 bomber formations.

Consolidated XB-41

Escort fighter conversion of B-24D. Fourteen 0.50 cal guns. Only one built.

Douglas XB-42

High-speed long-range medium bomber. Two Allison V-1710-125 water-cooled engines buried in fuselage driving pusher propellors behind the tail. Only two built.

Douglas XB-43

First American jet bomber. XB-42 airframe fitted with two turbojets in forward fuselage bays fed by intakes located behind the cockpit. Lower tail fin eliminated, taller vertical tail. Two built.

Boeing XB-44

B-29A with four P & W R-4360 radials in redesigned nacelles. Became prototype for B29D which evolved into B-50. Three built.

North American B-45 Tornado

Four-jet medium bomber. First all-jet powered bomber to enter service with USAF. Four General Electric J-47 jets.

Convair XB-46

Four-jet medium bomber. Four General Electric J-35 jets. 491 mph at sea level. Lost out to B-45 Tornado for production orders.

Boeing B-47 Stratojet

Six-jet swept-wing medium bomber. Six General Electric J-47 jets. 2041 built. Formed mainstay of American nuclear deterrent until 1966, when the last B-47E was retired.

Martin XB-48

Six-jet medium bomber. Six Allison J-35 jets mounted three each in underwing pods. Only two built.

Northrop YB-49

Conversion of B-35 to all-jet power. Eight Allison J-35 jets. Wing fences and vertical stabilizing fins were added. All turrets and guns were eliminated. Unstable and difficult to fly. Program was canceled in 1949 in favor of B-36.




Adaptation of B-29 to accommodate four P & W R-4360 radials of 3500 hp each housed in modified nacelles. Enlarged vertical tail.. 368 built. Many converted to training, reconnaissance, tanker, and weather research roles.

Martin XB-51

Three-jet light bomber. Three General Electric J-47 jets, two under forward fuselage and one in tail. Lost out to B-57 in competition for production orders.

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

Eight-jet long-range strategic bomber. Eight P & W J-57 engines mounted in four pods underneath sweptback wings Total of 744 built.

Convair XB-53

Three-jet light bomber project. Canard design with swept-forward wing. Three J-35 jets. Was formerly XA-44. Canceled before completion.

Boeing XB-54

Proposed version of B-50 with P & W R-4360-51 compound engines. Canceled in favor of B-36 before any prototype could be completed.

Boeing XB-55

Long-range heavy bomber powered by four Allison T-40 turboprops housed in pods under a slightly sweptback wing. Abandoned before prototype could be completed because of greater promise of B-52.

Boeing XB-56

Version of B-47 with four Allison J-71 jets. Project was canceled before prototype could be completed.

Martin B-57 Canberra

American-built version of English Electric Canberra twin-jet light bomber. Total of 403 built. High-altitude reconnaissance and target towing versions also built.

Convair B-58 Hustler

Four-engine supersonic medium bomber. Four General Electric J-79 jets with afterburners in individual pods under a delta wing. Total of 116 built

Boeing XB-59

Supersonic bomber project powered by four General Electric J-73 engines. Lost out to Convair B-58 for Air Force orders. Never got off the drawing board.

Convair YB-60

Jet-powered version of B-36. Eight J-57 jets, swept wing and tail. Only two built.

Martin B-61 Matador

Single-engine ground-launched cruise missile. Later redesignated TM-61 and later MGM-1

Northrop B-62 Snark

Single-engine ground-launched strategic cruise missile. Later redesignated SM-62.

Bell B-63 Rascal

Air-launched strategic missile. Later redesignated GAM-63

North American B-64 Navajo

Ground-launched strategic supersonic cruise missile. Later redesignated SM-64.

Convair B-65 Atlas

Ground-launched intercontinental ballistic missile. Later redesignated SM-65 and later PGM-16/CGM-16/HGM-16

Douglas B-66 Destroyer

Air Force adaptation of carrier-based A3D Skywarrior light bomber. Two Allison J-71 jets. Bomber, reconnaissance, and electronic countermeasures versions produced. Total of 294 built.

Radioplane B-67 Crossbow

Decoy missile. Designation later changed to GAM-67

Martin XB-68

Two-seat tactical bomber powered by two P & W J-75 engines. High T-tail and rotary bomb door. Canceled in 1957.

Lockheed B-69 Neptune

Designation allocated to seven P2V-7U Neptune patrol planes ordered from the Navy for special electronic intelligence missions.

North American XB-70A Valkyrie

Mach 3 strategic bomber. Six General Electric J-93 engines. Delta wing. Twin rudders. Only two prototypes built.

B-71

Number used for Lockheed SR-71 twin-engined Mach 3+ strategic reconnaissance aircraft.



A point of major confusion and controversy is what happened for numbers greater than 71. The series does seem to have continued on past 71, but it was no longer used for bombers. In 1955, the Air Force decided to discontinue the use of B-designations for its surface-to-surface missiles, unmanned aircraft, and various test projects. However, the original series of numbers was continued. It seems that no missile past B-67/GAM-67 ever carried a B prefix. Essentially, from 68 on, the bomber and missile numbering system continued in parallel. However, there are some references which still list some of these later missiles as originally having B designations. Post-1955 Missile Designations

Designation

Description

Radioplane GAM-67 Crossbow

Decoy missile

Martin SM-68 Titan

Two-stage intercontinental ballistic missile. Later redesignated HGM-25/LGM-25.

M-69

May have been reserved for redesignation of F-99 Bomarc.

Bendix IM-70 Talos

Talos land-based weapons system.

Convair XGAM-71 Buck Duck

Air-launched decoy missile for B-36, about which very little is known.

McDonnell GAM-72 Green Quail

Air-launched decoy missile. Some sources have this as having Been originally designated B-72. Name later shortened to Quail

Fairchild SM-73 Bull Goose

Surface to Surface missile. Name later shortened to Goose.

M-74

I have no details. Information, anyone?

Douglas SM-75 Thor

Single-stage surface-to-surface intermediate ballistic missile. Later redesignated PGM-17.

Martin TM-76 Mace

Jet-powered surface to surface cruise missile. Later redesignated CGM-13.

North American GAM-77 Hound Dog Jet-powered air to surface missile. Later redesignated AGM-28. Chrysler SM-78 Jupiter

Single-stage surface-to-surface intermediate-range ballistic missile. Later redesignated PGM-19.

Martin GAM-79 White Lance

Project which ultimately led to the development of the Air Force version of the GAM-83 Bullpup.

Boeing SM-80 Minuteman

Two-stage surface-to-surface intercontinental ballistic missile. Later redesignated LGM-30

Lockheed RM-81 Agena

Designation associated with the Agena upper Stage space launcher.

XRM-82

May have been high altitude weather probe. Redesignated PWN-1A in 1963

Martin GAM-83 Bullpup

Air to surface missile. Later redesignated AGM-12.

XRM-84

I have no details. Information, anyone? Later Redesignated PWN-2A in 1963

XRM-85

I have no details. Information, anyone? Redesgnated PWN-3A in 1963.

XRM-86

I have no details. Information, anyone? Redesignated PWN-4A in 1963.

Douglas GAM-87 Skybolt

Air to surface ballistic missile. Later redesignated AGM-48.



Cooper SRM-88

I have no details. Later redesignated PWN-5A.

Ford XRM-89 Blue Scout 1

3-stage missile based on NASA Scout used for suborbital tests.

Ford XRM-90 Blue Scout 2

Similar to Blue Scout 1 but with added fourth stage. Used for suborbital and orbital tests.

Ford XRM-91 Blue Scout Junior

Smaller Air Force version of Scout used for suborbital military tests. Second and third stages of Blue Scout 2 used for first two stages.

Ford XRM-92 Air Force Scout

Four-stage rocket similar to the original NASA Scout.

In 1935, there was a relatively short-lived category introduced, known as Bomber, Long Range, or BLR. There were only three entries: Boeing BLR-1 bomber.

Experimental four-engine long-range Redesignated XB-15 in 1936

Douglas BLR-2 bomber.

Experimental four-engine long range Redesignated XB-19 in 1936.

Sikorsky BLR-3

Experimental long-range bomber. Project abandoned before anything could be built.

In 1936, the BLR category was eliminated, and the two flying examples were redesignated B-15 and B-19 respectively.

The New Unified Designation System (1962). In 1962, the Defense Department decided to restart the B-series bomber designations over again from 1. The designations of the bombers already in service in 1962, however, were unchanged. Here is the new B-series of bombers. So far, there are only two entries.

Rockwell B-1B Lancer bomber and

Four-engine variable sweep strategic cruise missile carrier.

Total of 100

built. Northrop B-2 Spirit multi-role

Two-seat, four-engine low-observable bomber.



Sources: 1. American Combat Planes (Third Edition), Ray Wagner, Doubleday, New York,1982. 2. Observers Aircraft, William Green, Frederick Warne and Co, 1989. 3. Famous Bombers of the Second World War (first and second series), William Green, Doubleday,

Garden City, New York, 1959. 4. The Aircraft of the World, William Green and Gerald Pollinger, Doubleday, Garden City, New York,

1965 5. McDonnell-Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1988. 6. United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian

Institution Press, 1989. 7. E-mail from Jos Heyman on bomber->missile designations. 8. E-mail from Andreas Parsch on later designation of research probes and missiles. More information on

the GAM-71 Buck Duck. He straightened me out on the use of the "beyond 71" series of numbers. 9. E-mail from Charles Eaton on Quail being a decoy aircraft.


Huff-Daland XHB-1

Huff-Daland XHB-1 Last revised July 10, 1999

The Huff-Daland XHB-1 (serial number 26-201) was an enlarged and heavier version of the LB-1 singleengined light bomber. It carried a crew of four, with two in an open cockpit ahead of the wing, one near the tail with twin Lewis guns, and the other using a retractable gun platform that could be lowered below the fuselage. Two Browning machine guns were mounted in the wings and over 4000 bombs could be carried. The XHB-1 first appeared in October of 1926. It was to have been powered by a single 1200 hp engine. Since this engine failed to materialize, a single Packard 2A-2540 engine, rated at 787 hp, was substituted. This was the same engine which powered the LB-1. The XHB-1 was known unofficially as the "Cyclops" by the Huff-Daland company. However, as early as April of 1926, the Army had decided that single-engined bombers were unsatisfactory, concluding that the more conventional twin-engined configuuration was safer and had the additional advantage of allowing for a gunner and/or bomb-aiming position to be mounted in the nose. Consequently, the XHB-1 was not ordered into production, and only one example was built. Specification of the Keystone XHB-1: One 787 hp Packard 2A-2540 twelve-cylinder Vee liquid-cooled engine. Maximum speed 109 mph at sea level, service ceiling 15,000 feet, range 700 miles with 2508 pound bombload. Weights: 8070 pounds empty, 16,838 pounds gross. Wingspan 84 feet 7 inches, length 59 feet 7 inches, height 17 feet 2 inches, wing area 1648.5 square feet. Armed with two Lewis machine guns in a flexible mount in an open dorsal position. A retractable gun platform could be lowered from the rear fuselage. Two Browning machine guns were mounted in the wings. A bombload of over 4000 pounds could be carried. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston 4. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation 5. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/hb1.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:15:12

Huff-Daland XHB-1

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/hb1.html (2 of 2)08-09-2006 20:15:12

Fokker-Atlantic XHB-2

Fokker-Atlantic XHB-2 Last revised July 10, 1999

The Fokker-Atlantic XHB-2 was a proposed monoplane heavy bomber of the mid-1920s that was to have been powered by a pair of 787 hp Packard 2A-2540 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled Vee engines. Gross weight was projected to have been 24,500 pounds. The project was cancelled before anything could be built. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston 4. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation 5. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/hb2.html08-09-2006 20:15:18

Huff-Daland XHB-3

Huff-Daland XHB-3 Last revised July 10, 1999

The Huff-Daland XHB-3 was a projected monoplane heavy bomber of the mid 1920s that was to be powered by a pair of 787 hp Packard 2A-2540 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled Vee engines. The project was cancelled before anything could be built. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston 4. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation 5. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/hb3.html08-09-2006 20:15:24

Huff-Daland LB-1

Huff Daland LB-1 Last revised July 7, 1999

In the annals of aviation, Huff-Daland and Co, Inc. of Ogdensburg, New York is not exactly one of the better known aircraft companies. Only a few aviation historians still remember this company today. Nevertheless, Huff-Daland and its successor Keystone manufactured a line of large biplanes which served as the primary bomber aircraft of the US Army Air Corps in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Although the Huff-Daland/Keystone series of bombers were relatively conservative in design and performance, the USAAC liked them because of their low cost, their reliability, and their stable flying characteristics. The Huff-Daland series of biplane bombers begins with the XLB-1 (23-1250), which first appeared back in 1923. Departing from prior bomber design practice, this aircraft was powered by a single enormous 800 hp Packard 1A-2540 V-12 water-cooled engine instead of the more traditional pair of lowerpowered engines. It was a tapered-winged biplane with a single bay of struts, and was of fabric-covered steel-tube construction. A single vertical tail was fitted. It carried a crew of three, with two sitting side by side behind the engine and a gunner sitting in a position near the single tail. The bombs were all carried internally, and the bomb aimer sighted through a window in the belly rather than from the normal nose position. The armament consisted of two Lewis machine guns mounted on the gunner's position and two 0.30-inch Browning machine guns fixed on the leading edge of the lower wings. A total bombload of 1500 pounds could be carried. Nine service-test LB-1s were ordered which were identical to the XLB-1 except for the installation of an improved 2A-2540 engine plus the addition of a seat for a fourth crew member. These planes were known as "Pegasus" by the Huff-Daland company, although this was not an official USAAC name. Their serials were 26-377/385. Army experience with these planes suggested that a single-engined format for bombers was unsatisfactory from a safety standpoint. The Army decided that henceorth all of its bombers would have a multi-engined format. Specification of the Huff-Daland LB-1: One 787 hp Packard 2A-2540 V-12 water-cooled engine. Maximum speed 121 mph at sea level, 117 mph at 6500 feet. Cruising speed 114 mph. Landing speed 55 mph. Service ceiling 14,425 feet, Absolute ceiling 17,300 feet. Initial climb rate 176 feet per minute. An altitude of 6500 feet could be attained in 23.5 minutes. Range 940 miles. Weights: 5704 pounds empty, 10,346 pounds gross. Wingspan 85 feet, length 62 feet, height 19 feet 3 inches, wing area 1604 square feet. Armed with two Lewis machine guns in the gunner's position plus two 0.30 inch machine guns fixed on the leading edge of the lower wings. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/lb1.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:15:52

Huff-Daland LB-1

Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/lb1.html (2 of 2)08-09-2006 20:15:52

Fokker-Atlandic XLB-2

Fokker-Atlantic XLB-2 Last revised July 7, 1999

The Atlantic Aircraft Corporation of Teterboro, New Jersey was the American subsidiary of the Hollandbased Fokker aircraft manufacturing company. It manufactured some Fokker-designed commercial airliners in the United States. Among these were Fokker's series of pioneering high-winged monoplane airliners. Atlantic submitted a monoplane design in response to a 1927 Army competition for a successor to the Martin-designed NBS-1 bomber. A single prototype was ordered under the designation XLB-2. The serial number was 26-210. The XLB-2 was developed from the Fokker series of monoplane transports, and had the distinction of being the first USAAC bomber designed as a monoplane. It was powered by a pair of 410hp Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp radials suspended underneath the high cantilever wing. A crew of five was carried. The bombardier position was housed inside a glazed area in the lower nose. A pair of 0.5-inch machine guns were mounted in each of two open defensive gunner positions, one situated in the extreme nose and the other in a dorsal position on the upper rear fuselage. A single gun could be fired through a position in the lower rear fuselage. A 2050 pound load of bombs could be carried. The aircraft was later fitted with a pair of 525 hp R-1690-1 radials, which raised the maximum speed from 116 mph to 123 mph. However, the performance of the XLB-2 was not much better than that of existing Army biplane bombers. In addition, the Army was quite reluctant to consider such radical innovations as cantilever monoplane designs, and the XLB-2 was not ordered into production. Specification of the Atlantic-Fokker XLB-2: Two 410 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1340 air cooled radial engines. Maximum speed 116 mph at sea level, 112 mph at 5000 feet. Cruising speed 93 mph. Landing speed 67 mph. Service ceiling 10,925 feet, Absolute ceiling 13,400 feet. Initial climb rate 540 feet per minute. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 11.5 minutes. Range 540 miles with 2052 pounds of bombs. Weights: 5916 pounds empty, 12,039 pounds gross. With two 525 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1690-1 air cooled radial engines, the performance figures were as follows: Maximum speed 123 mph at sea level. Service ceiling 13,700 feet. Initial climb rate 762 feet per minute. Range 650 miles with 2052 pounds of bombs. Weights: 5916 pounds empty, 12,039 pounds gross. Wingspan 72 feet 10 inches, length 51 feet 5 inches, height 13 feet 3 inches, wing area 748 square feet.


Fokker-Atlandic XLB-2

Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982.


Huff-Daland XLB-3

Huff-Daland XLB-3 Last revised July 10, 1999

The Huff-Daland XLB-3 was the first example of the series of twin-engined Huff-Daland/Keystone bombers. The Huff-Daland LB-1 three-seat biplane bomber of 1923 had been powered by a single enormous 800 hp Packard 2A-2540 V-12 water-cooled engine instead of the more traditional pair of lower-powered engines. Ten examples had been delivered to the Army. However, the Army soon found the single-engined format to be unsatisfactory, and decided to revert to a more conventional twin-engined format. In response to this need, the Huff-Daland company submitted the XLB-3. A single example was ordered by the Army. The serial number was 27-333. The Huff-Daland XLB-3 was powered by a pair of experimental air-cooled and inverted Liberty V-1410-1 engines mounted on top of the leading edges of the lower wing, one on each side. The single vertical rudder of the LB-1 was supplemented by a pair of smaller vertical rudders mounted outboard on the horizontal tailplane. A crew of five was carried, with the two additional members being housed in the nose gunner and bombardier positions. The XLB-3 was designed in parallel with the Huff-Daland LB-5, which had the same overall format but was powered by a pair of ordinary watercooled upright Liberty engines. By that the time that the XLB-3 appeared in December of 1927, the Huff-Daland company had been reorganized as the Keystone Aircraft Corporation and had moved its headquarters to Bristol, Pennsylvania. The experimental Liberty engine installation in the XLB-3 proved to be unsatisfactory, and before the first flight could take place the Liberty engines were replaced by a pair of 410 hp air-cooled Pratt & Whitney R1340-1 air-cooled radial engines. The engine change caused a designation change to XLB-3A. The performance of the XLB-3A was actually poorer than that of the single-engined LB-1 that it was designed to replace, and no production examples were ordered. However, the parallel LB-5 project was to prove more successful, and was the first of Keystone's successful biplane bombers. Specification of the Huff-Daland XLB-3A: Two 410 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1340-1 air-cooled radials. Maximum speed 116 mph at sea level, 113 mph at 5000 feet. Cruising speed 93 mph. Landing speed 59 mph. Service ceiling 11,210 feet, Absolute ceiling 13,700 feet. Initial climb rate 550 feet per minute. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 11.3 minutes. Range 544 miles. Weights: 6065 pounds empty, 11,682 pounds gross. Wingspan 67 feet, length 45 feet, height 16 feet 10 inches, wing area 1138.7 square feet. Sources: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/lb3.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:16:05

Huff-Daland XLB-3

1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989.


Martin XLB-4

Martin XLB-4 Last revised July 10, 1999

The Martin XLB-4 was a 1926 proposal for an all-metal biplane bomber powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney R-1690 Hornet radials. The Army was reluctant at that stage to experiment with all-metal aircraft, and the project never got off the drawing board. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/lb4.html08-09-2006 20:16:10

Huff-Daland/Keystone LB-5

Huff-Daland/Keystone LB-5 Last revised July 10, 1999

The Huff-Daland LB-5 was the first of the Huff-Daland twin-engined biplane bombers to enter service with the US Army Air Corps. The Huff-Daland/Keystone series of bombers were to be the dominant USAAC bombers until the advent of the monoplane era in the early 1930s. The Huff-Daland XLB-5 (serial number 26-208) was similar to the XLB-3A except for the use of a pair of conventional water-cooled 420 hp Liberty engines instead of the air-cooled Wasp radials of the XLB3A As on the XLB-3A, the single vertical rudder of the XLB-5 was supplemented by a pair of smaller vertical rudders mounted outboard on the horizontal tailplane. The Liberty engines were mounted on top of the lower wing. A crew of five was carried: a pilot, a copilot, a bombardier, plus two gunners. The XLB-5 was a safe and reliable aircraft, and had the ability (unusual for the time) to fly for half an hour on one engine only. Impressed by this capability, the Army ordered ten production LB-5s. The serials were 27-335/344. Following the delivery of the last LB-5, the Huff-Daland company changed its name to Keystone. Under the new Keystone name, the company delivered twenty-five LB-5As to the Army (serials 28-001/025). They differed from the LB-5 in having twin vertical tails rather than the single large rudder with two smaller rudders on each side. The LB-5 became known as *Pirate* by the company, although this name was never officially adopted by the USAAC. Specification of the Huff-Daland LB-5: Two 420 hp Liberty V-1650 liquid-cooled V-12 engines. Maximum speed 107 mph at sea level. Service ceiling 8000 feet, Absolute ceiling 8800 feet. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 20 minutes. Range 435 miles with 2312 pounds of bombs. Weights: 7024 pounds empty, 12,155 pounds gross. Wingspan 67 feet, length 44 feet 8 inches, height 16 feet 10 inches, wing area 1138.7 square feet. Two Lewis machine guns in an open gunner's position in the nose, two Lewis machine guns in an open dorsal gunner's position, one Lewis gun firing downward through an opening in the lower fuselage. Sources:


Huff-Daland/Keystone LB-5

1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation 4. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston 5. Plane Makers, Bill Gunston


Keystone LB-6

Keystone LB-6 Last revised December 22, 2000

The Keystone XLB-6 was obtained by fitting the 10th LB-5 (serial number 27-344) with new straight-chord wings of 75-foot span. These wings were untapered and were slightly swept back. The twin Liberty engines of the LB-5 were replaced by a pair of 525 hp Wright Cyclone radials. The engines were suspended between the wings rather than resting on top of the lower wing. Seventeen production LB-6 aircraft were delivered by Keystone to the USAAC between August and September of 1929. Srials were 29-011/027. All LB-6s were identical to the XLB-6 except for minor refinements and a revised angular shape for the twin rudders. Additionally, one LB-7 (29-010) was converted to an LB-6 at Wright Field after being tested as the XLB-9. Three of the LB-6s (29-013, 29-014, and 29-016) were converted to LB-7s at France Field in May 1930. The LB-6 served with the 2nd Bomb Group based in the US as well as with the 5th Composite Bomb Group based in Hawaii. The LB-6 had a better performance than the Liberty-powered LB-5. It was ten miles per hour faster and had twice as fast a climb rate. The LB-6 was known as Panther by the Keystone company, although this was not an official USAAC name. The LB-6s rapidly became obsolete, and all surviving examples were withdrawn from service and scrapped in 1933-35. Specification of the Keystone LB-6: Two 525 hp Wright R-1750-1 Cyclone alr-cooled radial engines. Maximum speed 114 mph at sea level, 106 mph at 5000 feet. Cruising speed 95 mph. Landing speed 58 mph. Service ceiling 11,650 feet, Absolute ceiling 14,000 feet. Initial climb rate 600 feet per minute An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 10.3 minutes. Range 632 miles with 2003 pounds of bombs. Weights: 7024 pounds empty, 12,155 pounds gross. Wingspan 75 feet, length 43 feet 5 inches, height 18 feet 1 inches, wing area 1148 square feet. Two Lewis machine guns in an open gunner's position in the nose, two Lewis machine guns in an open dorsal gunner's position, one Lewis gun firing downward through an opening in the lower fuselage. Disposition of LB-6s 29-011 DELIVERED SURVEYED 2/6/35. 29-012 DELIVERED WRECKED 8/19/31. 29-013 DELIVERED 29-014 DELIVERED 29-015 DELIVERED 29-016 DELIVERED

5/1/29, REDESIG. ZLB-6 WITH 40TH SCHOOL SQ. ON 3/7/31, 7/16/29, REDESIG. ZLB-6 WITH 40TH SCHOOL SQ. ON 4/15/31, 7/21/29, 7/26/29, 7/26/29, 7/21/29,

CONVERTED TO LB-7 5/14/30, WRECKED 6/19/31. CONVERTED TO LB-7 5/14/30, SURVEYED 11/2/33. WRECKED AND SURVEYED ON 10/12/29. CONVERTED TO LB-7 5/14/30, WRECKED 6/19/31.


Keystone LB-6

29-017 DELIVERED TO HAWAII 7/11/29, SURVEYED IN HAWAII 2/25/35. 29-018 DELIVERED TO HAWAII 7/22/29, SURVEYED IN HAWAII 2/25/35. 29-019 DELIVERED TO HAWAII 7/26/29, SURVEYED IN HAWAII 4/8/35. 29-020 DELIVERED TO HAWAII 8/1/29, SURVEYED IN HAWAII 2/25/35. 29-021 DELIVERED TO HAWAII 8/7/29, SURVEYED IN HAWAII 5/16/35. 29-022 DELIVERED TO HAWAII 8/15/29, SURVEYED IN HAWAII 5/18/33. 29-023 DELIVERED TO HAWAII 8/20/29, SURVEYED IN HAWAII 2/25/35. 29-024 DELIVERED TO HAWAII 8/26/29, SURVEYED IN HAWAII 5/10/34. 29-025 DELIVERED TO HAWAII 9/4/29, SURVEYED IN HAWAII 9/26/33. 29-026 DELIVERED 10/29/29, CONVERTED TO LB-11 3/3/31, CONVERTED TO LB-11A 4/1/31, CONVERTED TO LB-6 5/31/32, REDESIG. ZLB-6 WITH 40TH SCHOOL SQ. ON 6/2/33, SURVEYED 9/29/34. LB-7 29-010 Delivered 12/27/29, CONVERTED TO XLB-9 3/2/31, CONVERTED TO LB-6 12/4/31, EDESIG. ZLB-6 WITH 40TH SCHOOL SQ. ON 3/16/32, SURVEYED 9/26/33.

Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian,

1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston 4. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation 5. E-mail from Lee Perna on conversions to LB-7, as well as dispositions of LB-6.


Keystone LB-7


The Keystone LB-7 was identical to the LB-6 except for the replacement of the Wright Cyclones by Pratt & Whitney R-1690-3 Hornet radials. In those days, the simple act of replacing one engine by another would often call for a new aircraft designation. Sixteen production LB-7 aircraft were delivered to the USAAC between February and June of 1929. Serials were 28-388/395 and 29-001/010. Additionally, three LB-6s (29-013, 29-014, and 29-016) were converted to LB-7s at France Field in May 1930. The Cyclone-powered LB-6s could be externally distinguished from the Hornet-powered LB-7s by looking at the exhaust collector rings on their engines. The Hornet of the LB-7 had exhaust collector rings BEHIND the cylinders, whereas the Cyclone of the LB-6 had exhaust collector rings AHEAD of the cylinders. (Several references have this backwards). The aircraft were otherwise externally identical. The LB-7 actually preceded the LB-6 into service. The LB-7 served alongside the LB-6 with the 2nd Bomb Group based in the US. Most of the LB-7s were stationed at Langley Field until being sent to the 40TH School Squadron at Kelly Field in March-June 1931. Three aircraft (28-388, 29-009, and 29-010) spent their careers at Wright Field as convertion experiments until March 1932, when the sole survivor (29-010) was converted to an LB-6 and was also sent to the 40th School Squadron at Kelly Field. Like the LB-6, the LB-7 was known as Panther by Keystone, but this was not an official USAAC name. Like its LB-6 stablemate, the LB-7 rapidly became obsolete and the survivors were all withdrawn from service and scrapped in 1933-1934. Disposition of Keystone LB-7

28-388 DELIVERED 2/9/29, CONVERTED TO LB-12 6/27/29, WRECKED 8/30/29. 28-389 DELIVERED 1/31/29, WRECKED 2/6/29. 28-390 DELIVERED 2/20/29, REDESIG. ZLB-7 WITH 40TH SCHOOL SQ. ON 6/15/31, WRECKED 12/23/31. 28-391 DELIVERED 3/4/29, REDESIG. ZLB-7 WITH 40TH SCHOOL SQ. ON 5/26/31, SURVEYED 8/7/34. 28-392 DELIVERED 3/12/29, REDESIG. ZLB-7 WITH 40TH SCHOOL SQ. ON 6/14/31, SURVEYED 6/28/34. 28-393 DELIVERED 3/18/29, REDESIG. ZLB-7 WITH 40TH SCHOOL SQ. ON 6/26/31, SURVEYED 5/23/34. 28-394 DELIVERED 3/16/29, REDESIG. ZLB-7 WITH 40TH SCHOOL SQ. ON 6/25/31, SURVEYED 5/23/34. 28-395 DELIVERED 4/15/29, REDESIG. ZLB-7 WITH 40TH SCHOOL SQ. ON 4/28/31, SURVEYED 8/20/34.


Keystone LB-7

29-001 DELIVERED 3/28/29, REDESIG. ZLB-7 WITH 40TH SCHOOL SQ. ON 4/28/31, SURVEYED MAY 33. 29-002 DELIVERED 4/17/29, REDESIG. ZLB-7 WITH 40TH SCHOOL SQ. ON 3/10/31, SURVEYED 6/28/34. 29-003 DELIVERED 4/11/29, REDESIG. ZLB-7 WITH 40TH SCHOOL SQ. ON 3/29/31, SURVEYED 4/9/34. 29-004 DELIVERED 4/27/29, BURNED 3/1/30. 29-005 DELIVERED 4/26/29, REDESIG. ZLB-7 WITH 40TH SCHOOL SQ. ON 6/25/31, SURVEYED 8/20/34. 29-006 DELIVERED 4/30/29, BURNED 9/17/29. 29-007 DELIVERED 5/1/29, WRECKED 11/22/29. 29-008 DELIVERED 5/10/29, BURNED 1/15/30. 29-009 DELIVERED 11/6/29, CONVERTED TO XLB-8 12/11/29, BURNED 3/18/31. 29-010 DELIVERED 12/27/29, CONVERTED TO XLB-9 3/2/31, CONVERTED TO LB-6 12/4/31, REDESIG. ZLB-6 WITH 40TH SCHOOL SQ. ON 3/16/32, SURVEYED 9/26/33. 29-013 DELIVERED 7/21/29, CONVERTED TO LB-7 5/14/30, WRECKED 6/19/31. 29-014 DELIVERED 7/26/29, CONVERTED TO LB-7 5/14/30, SURVEYED 11/2/33. 29-016 DELIVERED 7/21/29, CONVERTED TO LB-7 5/14/30, WRECKED 6/19/31.

Specification of the Keystone LB-7: Two 525 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1690-3 Hornet air-cooled radial engines. Maximum speed 114 mph at sea level, 110 mph at 5000 feet. Cruising speed 95 mph. Landing speed 55 mph. Service ceiling 13,325 feet, Absolute ceiling 15,700 feet. Initial climb rate 660 feet per minute An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 9.1 minutes. Range 432 miles with 2000 pounds of bombs. Weights: 6556 pounds empty, 12,903 pounds gross. Wingspan 75 feet, length 43 feet 5 inches, height 18 feet 1 inches, wing area 1148 square feet. Two Lewis machine guns in an open gunner's position in the nose, two Lewis machine guns in an open dorsal gunner's position, one Lewis gun firing downward through an opening in the lower fuselage. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian,

1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston 4. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation 5. E-mail from Lee Perna with corrections on LB-7 service, plus dispositions of LB-7s. 6. E-mail from Tom Hegre with correction on location of exhaust collectors on LB-6 and LB-7.


Keystone LB-7


Keystone XLB-8

Keystone XLB-8 Last revised December 22, 2000

In order to test experimental engine installations, the next-to-last Keystone LB-7 on the 1929 contract (29-009) was fitted in December of 1929 at Wright Field with a pair of geared 550 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1860-3 radial engines in place of the ungeared R-1690 Hornets. The gearing ratio of these engines was 2:1. The re-engined aircraft was redesignated XLB-8. It was common practice during the 1920s and 1930s to assign different designations to versions of the same aircraft which differed from each other only in the type of engine that powered them. Only one of these R-1860-powered aircraft was built. The plane burned on 3/18/31. Specification of the Keystone LB-8: Two 550 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1860-3 alr-cooled radial engines. Maximum speed 112 mph at sea level. Weight: 13,250 pounds gross. Wingspan 75 feet, length 43 feet 5 inches, height 18 feet 1 inches, wing area 1148 square feet. Two Lewis machine guns in an open gunner's position in the nose, two Lewis machine guns in an open dorsal gunner's position, one Lewis gun firing downward through an opening in the lower fuselage. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston 4. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation 5. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/lb8.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:16:30

Keystone XLB-8

6. E-mail from Lee Perna with correction on XLB-8 service and disposition.


Keystone XLB-9


The last Keystone LB-7 on the 1929 contract (29-010) was converted with a pair of geared 575 hp Wright R-1750 Cyclone radial engines in place of its original Pratt and Whitney Hornets. The gearing ratio was 1.58:1. Convertion work was done at Wright Field in March 1931, and the aircraft was redesignated XLB-9. The purpose of this engine installation was purely experimental, and only one of these R-1750-powered XLB-9 aircraft was built. When testing was completed in December 1931, the aircraft was converted to an LB-6 and sent to the 40th School Squadron at Kelly Field. Specification of the Keystone LB-9: Two 575 hp Wright R-1750 Cyclone air-cooled radial engines. Maximum speed 118 mph at sea level. Weight: 13,100 pounds gross. Wingspan 75 feet, length 43 feet 5 inches, height 18 feet 1 inches, wing area 1148 square feet. Two Lewis machine guns in an open gunner's position in the nose, two Lewis machine guns in an open dorsal gunner's position, one Lewis gun firing downward through an opening in the lower fuselage. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston 4. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation 5. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey 6. E-mail from Lee Perna with corrections on dates for XLB-9 conversion.


Keystone XLB-9


Keystone LB-10

Keystone LB-10 Last revised July 10, 1999

The 17th production Keystone LB-6 on the 1929 contract (29-027) was completed as the LB-10. The LB-10 differed from the LB-6 in being powered by a pair of experimental 525 hp Wright R-1750-1 Cyclone radial engines, plus it had a single rudder in place of the twin rudders which Keystone had standardized on the LB-5A. The single-rudder adaptation introduced by the LB-10 impressed the USAAC, and 63 examples were ordered under the designation LB-10A. The LB-10A differed from the LB10 in being powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney R-1690-3 radials. The LB-10A had a slightly smaller wingspan and had a slightly shorter fuselage, but was otherwise similar to the LB-10. However, before the first LB-10A could be delivered, the USAAC had dropped the LB designation and was listing all of its bombers under the B series. The LB10A was redesignated B-3A under the new scheme. Specification of the Keystone LB-10: Two 525 hp Wright R-1750-1 Cyclone alr-cooled radial engines. Maximum speed 116 mph at sea level, 113 mph at 5000 feet. Cruising speed 93 mph. Landing speed 58 mph. Service ceiling 13,440 feet. Absolute ceiling 15,800 feet. Initial climb rate 660 feet per minute. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 9 minutes. Range was 350 miles with 2587 pounds of bombs. Weight: 6993 pounds empty, 13,285 pounds gross. Wingspan 75 feet, length 49 feet 3 inches, height 15 feet 6 inches, wing area 1148 square feet. Two Lewis machine guns in an open gunner's position in the nose, two Lewis machine guns in an open dorsal gunner's position, one Lewis gun firing downward through an opening in the lower fuselage. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/lb10.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:16:43

Keystone LB-10

2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston 4. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation 5. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey


Keystone XLB-11


The 16th production Keystone LB-6 on the 1929 contract (29-026) was converted to the XLB-11 at Wright Field in March 1930. The XLB-11 differed from the LB-6 in being powered by by a pair of experimental 525 hp Wright R-1750-3 Cyclone radial engines. In April 1930, the XLB-11 became the XLB-11A when it was fitted with geared G1R-1750 Cyclones. The XLB-11/11A was purely experimental, and did not lead to a production order. After completion of testing in May 1932, the aircraft was converted back to an LB6 before being sent to the 40th School Squadron at Kelly Field to finish its career as a ZLB-6. Specification of the Keystone LB-11: Two 525 hp Wright R-1750-3 Cyclone air-cooled radial engines. Maximum speed 115 mph at sea level Weight: 13,000 pounds gross. Wingspan 75 feet, length 49 feet 3 inches, height 15 feet 6 inches, wing area 1148 square feet. Two Lewis machine guns in an open gunner's position in the nose, two Lewis machine guns in an open dorsal gunner's position, one Lewis gun firing downward through an opening in the lower fuselage. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston 4. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation 5. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey


Keystone XLB-11

6. E-mail from Lee Perna with corrections on dates for XLB-11 conversion.


Keystone LB-12


The first production Keystone LB-7 (28-388) was converted to LB-12 at Wright Field in June 1929. The convertion consisted of the replacement of the Pratt and Whitney R-16903 radials by a pair of direct drive 575 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1860-1 radial engines. The aircraft was wrecked two months after the conversion. Only one example was built. Specification of the Keystone LB-12: Two 575 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1860-1 air-cooled radial engines. Maximum speed 116 mph at sea level Weight: 13,050 pounds gross. Wingspan 75 feet, length 49 feet 3 inches, height 15 feet 6 inches, wing area 1148 square feet. Two Lewis machine guns in an open gunner's position in the nose, two Lewis machine guns in an open dorsal gunner's position, one Lewis gun firing downward through an opening in the lower fuselage. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston 4. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation 5. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey 6. E-mail from Lee Perna on corrections for conversion dates.


Keystone LB-12


Keystone LB-13


In 1930, seven Keystone bombers were ordered under the designation LB-13. They were to be equipped with single vertical tails and were to be powered by a pair of 525 hp Pratt & Whitney GR-1690 radials. Serials were 30-344/353. In 1930, the USAAC abandoned its separate designation categories for light (LB) and heavy (HB) bombers, and classified them both under the B category. Of seven LB-13s ordered, five were completed as Y1B-4s with 575 hp R-1860-7 engines (30-344/348 and the other two as Y1B-6 with 575 hp R-1820-1 engines (30-349/350). Three more Y1B-6s were converted from B-3As (30-351/353) Specification of the Keystone Y1B-4: Two 575 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1860-7 alr-cooled radial engines. Maximum speed 121 mph at sea level Weight: 13,011 pounds gross. Wingspan 74 feet 9 inches, length 48 feet 10 inches, height 15 feet 9 inches, wing area 1145 square feet. Two Lewis machine guns in an open gunner's position in the nose, two Lewis machine guns in an open dorsal gunner's position, one Lewis gun firing downward through an opening in the lower fuselage. Specification of the Keystone Y1B-6: Two 575 hp Wright R-1820-1 air-cooled radial engines. Maximum speed 120 mph at sea level Weight: 13,300 pounds gross. Wingspan 74 feet 9 inches, length 48 feet 10 inches, height 15 feet 9 inches, wing area 1145 square feet. Two Lewis machine guns in an open gunner's position in the nose, two Lewis machine guns in an open dorsal gunner's position, one Lewis gun firing downward through an opening in the lower fuselage. Sources:


Keystone LB-13

1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.



Keystone LB-14


In 1930, three Keystone bombers were ordered under the designation LB-14. They were to be equipped with single vertical tails and were to be powered by a pair of 525 hp Pratt & Whitney GR-1860 radials. In 1930, the USAAC abandoned its separate designation categories for light (LB) and heavy (HB) bombers, and classified them both under the B category. The LB-14s that were ordered were completed as Y1B-5s with 525 hp Wright R-1750-3 engines. However, it is uncertain if these were ever actually delivered. Specification of the Keystone Y1B-5: Two 525 hp Wright R-1750-3 air-cooled radial engines. Maximum speed 111 mph at sea level Weight: 13,100 pounds gross. Wingspan 74 feet 9 inches, length 48 feet 10 inches, height 15 feet 9 inches, wing area 1145 square feet. Two Lewis machine guns in an open gunner's position in the nose, two Lewis machine guns in an open dorsal gunner's position, one Lewis gun firing downward through an opening in the lower fuselage. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.



Keystone LB-14


Martin MB-1

Martin MB-1 Last revised July 5, 1999

In 1916, Glenn L. Martin withdrew from the Wright-Martin combine that he had been involved with and struck out on his own. The Glenn L. Martin aircraft company was established in Cleveland, Ohio in late 1917. One of the first Army contracts landed by the new company was the design a new bomber that would hopefully outperform the British-designed Handley-Page, which was at that time scheduled to be built in the USA by Standard Aircraft of Elizabeth, New Jersey. The aircraft that emerged was designated MB-1 by the Martin company. It was a wooden, fabriccovered biplane powered by a pair of liquid-cooled 400 hp Liberty 12A engines suspended between the wings. The engines were cooled by a set of radiators situated in the front of the engine mounts just above the propeller shaft. Two bays of struts were outboard of the engines. The fixed mainwheels were aligned on a single axle. The tail consisted of twin rudders, mounted on top of a single horizontal stabilizer. A crew of 3 could be carried, a bombardier in a nose position, a pilot, and a gunner in a position in the upper fuselage just aft of the top wing.. The armament consisted of five 0.30-inch machine guns, two in the nose position, two in the aft fuselage position, plus one firing downward and to the rear through a trapdoor. Maximum bombload was 1040 pounds. The original contract for six examples was issued on January 17, 1918. It was increased to 50 on October 22, 1918, but then was cut back to ten in January 1919. The first MB-1 flew on August 17, 1918. A total of ten examples were built, the last being delivered to the US Army Air Service in February of 1920. They were designated GMB by the USAAS, where the letters stood for "Glenn Martin Bomber". Their serials were 39055/39060 and 62948/62951. They were the first American-designed bombers to enter service with the USAAS. The Martin MB-1 had a good performance for its day. However, the Martin bombers were too late to see any action during World War 1. They formed the nucleus of the first Army bomber squadrons during the immediate postwar years. High power and a relatively small size made the GMB also capable of carrying out the long range observation and the escort fighter roles. The first four were built as observation aircraft, and the next three were built as bombers. The eighth (designated GMT for "Glenn Martin Transcontinental") was a special long-range version capable of 1500-mile range, and the ninth (designated GMC for "Glenn Martin Cannon") was fitted with a 37-mm cannon in the nose.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/mb1.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:17:13

Martin MB-1

The last example was completed as a transport by removing all the military equipment, raising the top of the fuselage, and adding cabin windows and seats. The pilot's cockpit was enclosed in a glazed enclosure. It was originally given the designation GMP (for "Glenn Martin Passenger"), but was later designated T-1, where the T was in the T-for-Transport series. Six modified MB-1s were turned over to the US Postal Service and flew air mail delivery runs for a short time during the period when the US government took over the delivery of air mail. So far as I am aware, no MB-1 aircraft survive today. Serials of the Martin MB-1: 39055/39060 62948 62949 62950 62951

Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin

GMB GMB GMT GMC GMP (T-1)

Specification of the Martin MB-1: Two 400 hp Liberty 12A liquid-cooled Vee engines. Maximum speed 105 mph at sea level, 100 mph at 6500 feet. 92 mph cruising speed at sea level. Landing speed 53 mph. Service ceiling 10,300 feet. Absolute ceiling 12,250 feet. Initial climb rate 630 feet per minute. An altitude of 6500 feet could be attained in 14 minutes. Range 390 miles with 1040 pound bombload. Empty weight 6702 pounds, gross weight 10,225 pounds. Wingspan 71 feet 5 inches, length 44 feet 10 inches, height 14 feet 7 inches, wing area 1070 square feet. Defensive armament was five 0.30-inch Lewis machine guns. Bombload was normally 1040 pounds. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, 3rd edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.


Martin MB-2/NBS-1

Martin MB-2/NBS-1 Last revised July 5, 1999

An improved version of the Martin MB-1, the MB-2, was ordered by the USAAS in June of 1920. This model had new and larger wings that were intended to make it possible to carry a heavier bomb load. In the MB-1, the Liberty engines were suspended between the wings by a system of struts, but on the MB2, the twin Liberty engines were lowered to sit inside nacelles attached to the lower wing. As compared to the MB-1, the landing gear was simplified to only two wheels. The non-staggered wings were hinged at the rear spars just outboard of the engines, and could be folded aft for storage. The armament consisted of five Lewis machine guns, two in the front cockpit, two in the rear, and one aimed downwards and to the rear. A crew of four could be carried. The MB-2 was designed specifically as a night bomber, and sacrificed the high speed and maneuverability of the MB-1 for a greater bombload. Ten MB-2s were built by the Glenn L. Martin company in Cleveland, and were redesignated NBS-1 when the new Army designation scheme was introduced. Their serials were 64195/64214. These planes are best remembered today as being the aircraft which participated in the famous Billy Mitchell demonstration of July 21, 1921 in which the exGerman battle cruiser *Ostfreisland* was sunk by aerial bombardment. Special 2000-pound bombs had to be designed for the test. Martin proposed to the Army that 50 more NBS-1 bombers be built. However, under the prevailing policy of the time, the rights to the NBS-1 design were owned by the Army rather than by Martin. Consequently, the Army had the right to ask for competitive bids on the project from other manufacturers. In 1921, Curtiss underbid the Glenn L. Martin Co. for the production of 50 examples of the NBS-1. In order to spread scarce military procurements among as many manufacturers as possible, contracts for 35 other NBS-1s were granted to the L.W.F. (Lowe, Willard, and Fowler) Engineering Company of College Point, New York and a contract for 25 more was granted to the Aeromarine Plane and Motor Co. of Keyport, New Jersey. The last 20 Curtiss-built NBS-1 bombers were equipped with General Electric turbosuperchargers. These were the first airplanes to use turbosuperchargers in production quantities. With these turbosuperchargers, the NBS-1 could reach a service ceiling of 25,341 feet. However, the use of turbosuperchargers in bombers proved to be premature, the early superchargers being notoriously unreliable. Practical application of turbosuperchargers to bombers did not take place until the B-17B of 1939. Eight Army bombing squadrons used the NBS-1--the 11th, 20th, 49th and 96th Squadrons with the 2nd http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/mb2.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:17:18

Martin MB-2/NBS-1

Bomb Group based at Langley Field in Virginia, the 23rd and 72nd Squadrons with the 5th Composite Group in Hawaii, and the 28th Squadron with the 4th Composite Group in the Philippines. They remained in service until replaced by Keystone bombers in 1928-29. Serials of NB-2/NBS-1: Martin MB-2 L.W.F. NBS-1 Curtiss NBS-1 Aeromarine NBS-1

64195/64214 68437/68471 68478/68527 22-201/225

Specification of Martin NBS-1: Two 420hp Liberty 12 liquid-cooled Vee engines. Maximum speed 99 mph at sea level. Cruising speed 92 mph. Landing speed 59 mph. Initial climb rate 391 feet per minute. Service ceiling 8500 feet. Maximum ceiling 9900 feet. Range 400 miles with 2000 pounds of bombs. Maximum range 558 miles. Wingspan 74 feet 2 inches, length 42 feet 8 inches, height 14 feet 8 inches, wing area 1121 square feet Armament consisted of five 0.30-inch machine guns. An internal bombload of up to 1800 pounds could be carried. Instead of the internal bombload, an external bombload of up to 2000 pounds could be carried. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 3. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979


Barling XNBL-1

Barling XNBL-1 Index Last revised: 29 December 1995

1. XNBL-1 "Barling" Bomber ●

Sources

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/nbl-1i.html08-09-2006 20:17:27

Barling XNBL-1 -- Chapter 1

Barling XNBL-1 - Chapter 1 XNBL-1 "Barling" Bomber Last revised: 29 May 1998 Barling XNBL-1 Barling XNBL-1 - Sources The XNBL-1 was the first really large bomber to be designed from the ground up in the USA. It was initially designed by the US Army Engineering Division, which was based at McCook Field in Dayton, Ohio. The chief designer was Walter Barling, who had experience with aircraft design in England. The XNBL-1 (or "Barling Bomber", as it came to be known) was a rather clumsy-looking triplane powered by six 420 hp Liberty 12A liquid cooled engines. Four of the engines were in tractor configuration, placed in mounts attached by struts underneath the middle wing. Two more engines were placed in pusher configuration, mounted behind the inner tractor engines. The box-like tail had a biplane horizontal tailplane configuration and had four separate rudders. The main landing gear had no less than ten wheels. A crew of eight could be carried. Armament consisted of seven 0.30-inch machine guns. The Witteman-Lewis Company of Teterboro, New Jersey won a competitive contract to build two examples of the design. Serials were 64215 and 64216. The second XNBL-1 was canceled before it could be built. The first example was built in parts at Teterboro and then trucked out in pieces to Wright Field for final assembly. The last of the parts had arrived by July 22, 1922, but it took over a year before they could actually be assembled. The XNBL-1 (64215) took to the air for the first time on August 22, 1923, Lt. H.R. Harris being at the controls. Colonel Billy Mitchell was an enthusiastic backer of the XNBL-1, but its performance was rather disappointing. The speed, load and endurance were all well below expectations. The maximum speed was less than 100 mph, and range with a 5000-pound bombload was only 170 miles, not a very useful distance. The operational ceiling of the XNBL-1 was so low that it could not safely cross the mountains to reach either coast. Consequently, the XNBL-1 was not ordered into production. However, the XNBL1 did manage to set some new records, including a record flight was made to an altitude of 6722 feet with a 4400 pound load. The sole XNBL-1 was dismantled and scrapped in 1928. It would not be until 1937 that the US Army would attempt to produce anything as large.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/nbl-1-01.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:17:30

Barling XNBL-1 -- Chapter 1

Specification of XNBL-1: Powerplant: Six 420 hp Liberty 12A liquid-cooled engine. Performance: Maximum speed 96 mph at sea level, 93 mph at 5000 feet. Cruising speed 61 mph, landing speed 55 mph. Service ceiling 7725 feet. Absolute ceiling 10,200 feet. Initial climb rate 352 feet per minute. Range was 170 miles with 5000 pounds of bombs. Maximum range was 335 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 120 feet, length 65 feet height 27 feet. Wing area 4200 square feet. Weights: Empty weight 27,703 pounds, gross weight 32,203 pounds, maximum weight 42,569 pounds. Armament: Armed with seven 0.30-inch machine guns. A maximum bombload of 5000 pounds could be carried. Barling XNBL-1 Barling XNBL-1 - Sources


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/nbl-1-01.html (2 of 2)08-09-2006 20:17:30

Barling XNBL-1 -- Sources

Barling XNBL-1 - Sources Last revised: 29 May 1998 Barling XNBL-1 Barling XNBL-1 - Chapter 1: XNBL-1 "Barling" Bomber ●

●

Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Smithsonian, 1989. Ray Wagner, American Combat Planes, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982.


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/nbl-1-s.html08-09-2006 20:17:33

Martin XNBL-2

Martin XNBL-2 Index Last revised: 29 December 1995

1. Martin XNBL-2 ●

Sources

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/nbl-2i.html08-09-2006 20:18:48

Martin XNBL-2 -- Chapter 1

Martin XNBL-2 - Chapter 1 Last revised: 29 May 1998 Martin XNBL-2 Martin XNBL-2 - Sources During the early 1920s, the Glenn L. Martin Company proposed an advanced four-place monoplane bomber design. It was to have been powered by a pair of 700 hp 18-cylinder W-2779 engines designed by the US Army's Engineering Division. The engines were to be mounted in the leading edge of the wing, which had a span of 98 feet. The Army showed sufficient interest that they ordered two prototypes under the designation XNBL-2. For a time, Colonel Billy Mitchell had promoted the XNBL-2 as the answer to the Army's long-range heavy bomber needs. However, the concept seems to have been far too advanced for the time, and the XNBL-2 project was canceled before anything could be built. Martin XNBL-2 Martin XNBL-2 - Sources


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/nbl-2-01.html08-09-2006 20:18:51

Martin XNBL-2 -- Sources

Martin XNBL-2 - Sources Last revised: 29 May 1998 Martin XNBL-2 Martin XNBL-2 - Chapter 1 ●

●

Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Smithsonian, 1989. Ray Wagner, American Combat Planes, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982.


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/nbl-2-s.html08-09-2006 20:18:54

LWF NBS-2

LWF NBS-2 Last revised July 5, 1999

The NBS-2 was a project of the L.W.F. (Lowe, Willard, and Fowler) Engineering Company of College Point, Long Island for a twin-engined biplane bomber designed to replace the Martin-designed NBS-1. The L.W.F company had manufactured 35 examples of the NBS-1, and the company's proposal was based largely on their experience with that project. Like the NBS-1, the NBS-2 was to have been powered by a pair of Liberty 12A liquid-cooled engines. However, unlike the NBS-1, the fuselage was to be made largely of metal. Unfortunately, the L.W.F. company went out of business in April of 1923 before anything could be completed, and the project was cancelled. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, 3rd edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/nbs2.html08-09-2006 20:19:10

Elias XNBS-3

Elias XNBS-3 Last revised July 5, 1999

The Elias XNBS-3 was built in response to a 1922 Army program intended to produce an aircraft that would replace the Martin-designed NBS-1 bomber. A single prototype of the XNBS-3 was ordered in 1922 by the USAAS. The XNBS-3 had much the same configuration as the NBS-1, being a wooden, fabric-covered biplane powered by a pair of 425 hp Liberty 12A engines mounted inside nacelles attached to the lower wing. It differed from the NBS-1 in having a boxlike biplane tail, which was somewhat of a retrograde step. The armament consisted of five Lewis machine guns, two in the front cockpit, two in the rear, and one aimed downwards and to the rear. The single XNBS-3 (serial number 68567) was tested in August of 1924 and did 101 mph while carring a 1692 pound bombload. However, the XNBS-3 offered essentially no advance over the existing NBS-1 and was not ordered into production. Specification of Elias XNBS-3: Two 425hp Liberty 12A liquid-cooled Vee engines. Maximum speed 101 mph at sea level and 96 mph at 6500 feet. Landing speed 65 mph. Initial climb rate 405 feet per minute. Service ceiling 8680 feet. Maximum ceiling 11,500 feet. Range 485 miles with 1692 pounds of bombs. 8809 pounds empty, 14,343 pounds gross. Wingspan 77 feet 6 inches, length 48 feet 5 inches, height 16 feet 10 inches, wing area 1542 square feet Armament consisted of five 0.30-inch machine guns. A bombload of up to 1692 pounds could be carried. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, 3rd edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/nbs3.html08-09-2006 20:19:17

Curtiss XNBS-4

Curtiss XNBS-4 Last revised July 5, 1999

In 1922, Curtiss received a contract to develop two examples of a night bomber intended to replace the Martin-designed NBS-1 biplane bomber that was at that time the only twin-engined bomber in Army service. They were assigned the designation XNBS-4. Curtiss had built 50 Martin-designed NBS-1s for the US Army Air Service in 1921/22, and the XNBS-4 drew heavily on that experience. Like the NBS-1, the XNBS-4 was a conventional biplane powered by two Liberty 12 engines mounted inside nacelles attached to the lower wing. A crew of four could be carried. However, the XNBS-4 differed from the NBS-1 in having a welded steel-tube fuselage instead of a wooden one. A new and thicker Curtiss C-72 airfoil replaced the RAF 15 airfoil of the NBS-1. The bomb-aimer's position was built into an offset on the port side of the fuselage instead of under the nose gunner's position as was the usual position. Unlike the NBS-1, the XNBS-4 had a boxlike biplane tail, which was somewhat of a retrograde step. The serial numbers of the two XNBS-4s were 68571 and 68572. The first XNBS-4 was delivered in May of 1924. One of the XNBS-4s was modified by having each engine nacelle extended aft of the wing trailing edge so that it could accommodate a defensive gunner position in the rear. It was hoped that this arrangement would offer a clearer field of fire for the gunners than the more conventional fuselage-situated positions. This was not an entirely new and unique idea, having been tried out on British and German bombers during the War. Like the Elias XNBS-3, the Curtiss XNBS-4 offered no real advantage over the existing Martindesigned NBS-1, and was not ordered into production. However, it did provide Curtiss with valuable design experience which culminated in the successful Condor bomber and transport series of 1927-29. Specification of the Curtiss XNBS-4: Two 435 hp Liberty 12A liquid-cooled engines. Maximum speed 100 mph at sea level. Cruising speed 82.9 mph. Landing speed 53 mph. Service ceiling 11,100 feet, absolute ceiling 13,000 feet. Initial climb rate 283 feet per minute. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 11.5 minutes. Range was 500 miles with 2000 pounds of bombs. Empty weight 7864 pounds, gross weight 13,795 pounds. Wingspan 90 feet 2 inches, length 46 feet 5 inches, height 15 feet 9 inches, wing area 1524.4 square feet. Armed

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/nbs4.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:19:24

Curtiss XNBS-4

with five 0.3-inch Lewis machine guns, two each in positions in the nose and aft cockpits, and a single Lewis firing downward from the bottom of the fuselage. A bombload of 2100 pounds could be carried. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, 3rd edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 3. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/nbs4.html (2 of 2)08-09-2006 20:19:24

Huff-Daland XB-1

Huff-Daland XB-1 Last revised July 11, 1999

Huff-Daland and Co, Inc. of Ogdensburg, New York is not exactly one of the better known aircraft companies. Only a relatively few people still remember this company today. Nevertheless, during the late 1920s and early 1930s, Huff-Daland (and its successor Keystone) was the primary manufacturer of biplane bombers for the US Army Air Corps. In particular, this company had the honor of producing the first entry in the B-for-bomber series. This category had been introduced in 1924 along with the LB (Light Bomber) and the HB (Heavy Bomber) categories. The XB-1 was essentially a twin-engined adaptation of the Huff-Daland XHB-1 single-engined heavy bomber. As early as April of 1926, the Army had decided that single-engined bombers were unsatisfactory, concluding that the more conventional twin-engined configuration was safer and had the additional advantage of allowing for a gunner and/or bomb-aiming position to be mounted in the nose. The XB-1 (serial number 27-334) was originally powered by a pair of 510 hp Packard 2A-1530 liquidcooled engines, and took to the air for the first time in September of 1927. The B-1 also differed from the XHB-1 in having a twin tail rather than a single tail. Instead of a single rear gunner with his view being blocked by the tail assembly, there were now two gunners, one seated in the rear of each engine nacelle. Twin Lewis guns were provided for each of these gunners, with a third pair provided for a gunner's position in the nose. This particular arrangement was not exactly new, having been tried out on both British and German bombers during World War 1. A total of five crew members were carried. A pilot and a copilot were seated side-by-side in a cockpit ahead of the wing, a gunner/ bombardier was seated in a nose position, and a gunner was seated in the rear of each engine nacelle. The Packard engines were later replaced by 600 hp Curtiss V-1570-5 Conquerors, and the aircraft was redesignated XB-1B. By this time, the Huff-Daland company had been reorganized as Keystone. The XB-1B found itself in competition with the Curtiss B-2 Condor, the Sikorsky S-37B Guardian, and the Fokker-Atlantic XLB-2 high-winged monoplane for Army production orders. The Curtiss design was deemed to be the best of the lot, and only one example of the XB-1B was built.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b1.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:19:31

Huff-Daland XB-1

Specification of the Keystone XB-1B: Two 600 hp Curtiss V-1570-5 Conqueror liquid-cooled engines. Maximum speed 117 mph at sea level, service ceiling 15,000 feet, range 700 miles with 2508 pound bombload. Weights: 9462 pounds empty, 16,500 pounds gross, 17,039 pounds maximum. Wingspan 85 feet, length 62 feet, height 19 feet 3 inches, wing area 1604 square feet. Armed with six Lewis machine guns, paired in engine nacelle and nose positions. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston 4. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation 5. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey


Curtiss B-2 Condor

Curtiss B-2 Condor Last revised December 22, 2000

The Curtiss XB-2 (26-211) was a direct development of the Curtiss-built Martin MB-2 (NBS-1) through the two Curtiss XNBS-4s. The primary differences were that steel tubing was used instead of wood for fuselage construction, Curtiss Conqueror liquid-cooled engines were used in place of the war-surplus Liberty engines, and the thicker Curtiss C-72 airfoil was used. A single XB-2 prototype was ordered by the Army in 1926. The serial number was 26-211. First flight of the XB-2 took place in September 1927. The Conqueror engines were housed inside nacelles mounted on top of the lower wing. The engines were cooled by rather angular radiators which jutted up vertically from each nacelle. Like the NBS from which it had evolved, the XB-2 had twin rudders with twin horizontal stabilizers, which was a rather old-fashioned arrangement even by the standards of 1927. One of the more unusual innovations introduced by the XB-2 was the addition of a defensive gunner position in the rear of each nacelle. It was hoped that this arrangement would offer a clearer field of fire for the gunners than the more conventional fuselage-situated positions. An additional gunner position was provided in the nose. Each position was provided with a pair of Lewis machine guns. A similar arrangement was fitted to the competing Keystone XB-1B. The XB-2 found itself in competition against the Keystone XB-1B, the Keystone XLB-6, the Sikorsky S37B, and the Atlantic-Fokker XLB-2. When an Army board of review met in February of 1928 to decide which design was to be awarded a contract, they immediately ruled out the XB-1B, the XLB-2, and the S37. However, the Board was unable to decide between the XB-2 and the XLB-6. The XB-2 had the better performance, but the XLB-6 was only $24,750 per unit. The per unit cost of the B-2 was $76,373, more than three times the cost of a Keystone bomber. In a split decision, the Board opted for the Keystone design, but on June 23, 1928 Curtiss was given a contract for two B-2s (28-398/399). A further ten examples were ordered in 1929 (serials were 29-28/37). The twelve production B-2s were delivered from May 1929 to January 1930. Notable differences from the XB-2 included the use of three-bladed propellers and somewhat shorter and wider radiators mounted on top of the engine nacelles. One B-2 (serial number 29-30) became B-2A when fitted with full dual controls. During the early 1930s, the advances in bomber design were so rapid that canvas-covered biplanes such as the B-2 rapidly became obsolete. Consequently, the B-2 served only briefly with the Army, being taken out of service in 1934. The last B-2 was surveyed in July of 1936. So far as I am aware, none survive today. Serials of Curtiss B-2 Condor http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b2.html (1 of 3)08-09-2006 20:19:47

Curtiss B-2 Condor

28-398/399 Curtiss B-2 Condor 28-398 DELIVERED 6/10/29, SURVEYED 10/3/34, MARCH FIELD 28-399 DELIVERED 8/10/29, SURVEYED 8/15/34, MARCH FIELD 29-028/037 Curtiss B-2 Condor 29-028 DELIVERED 10/10/29, WRECKED 12/4/29 (TWO KILLED), LANGLEY FIELD 29-029 DELIVERED 11/2/29, SURVEYED 10/3/34, MARCH FIELD 29-030 DELIVERED 10/17/29, CONVERTED TO B-2A 10/6/31, SURVEYED 12/22/33, MARCH FIELD 29-031 DELIVERED 11/28/29, SURVEYED 8/6/34, MARCH FIELD 29-032 DELIVERED 12/9/29, SURVEYED 8/6/34, MARCH FIELD 29-033 DELIVERED 12/14/29, SURVEYED 8/6/34, MARCH FIELD 29-034 DELIVERED 12/22/29, SURVEYED 6/17/35, MARCH FIELD 29-035 DELIVERED 12/26/29, SURVEYED 5/23/33, MARCH FIELD 29-036 DELIVERED 1/4/30, SURVEYED 7/22/36, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNDS 29-037 DELIVERED 1/16/30, SURVEYED 9/29/34, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNDS

Specification of the Curtiss B-2 Condor: Two 633 hp Curtiss V-1570-7 Conqueror liquid-cooled engines. Maximum speed 132 mph at sea level, 128 mph at 5000 feet. Cruising speed 114 mph, landing speed 53 mph. Service ceiling 17,100 feet, absolute ceiling 16,400 feet. Initial climb rate 850 feet per minute. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 6.8 minutes. Range was 780 miles with 2508 pounds of bombs. Empty weight 9039 pounds, gross weight 16,516 pounds. Wingspan 90 feet, length 47 feet 6 inches, height 16 feet 3 inches, wing area 1499 square feet. Armed with two Lewis machine guns in each of the gunner positions at the rear of the engine nacelles, plus an additional pair of Lewis guns in the nose position. Bombload was normally 2508 pounds, but could be increased to 4000 pounds on short flights. Sources: 1. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian,

1989. 3. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 4. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston 5. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation


Curtiss B-2 Condor

6. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey 7. E-mail from Lee Perma on dispositions of B-2s. Also information about costs.


Keystone B-3A

Keystone B-3A Last revised July 11, 1999

The 17th production Keystone LB-6 on the 1929 contract (29-027) had been completed as the LB-10. The LB-10 differed from the LB-6 in being powered by a pair of experimental 525 hp Wright R-1750-1 Cyclone radial engines, plus it had a single rudder in place of the twin rudders which Keystone had standardized on the LB-5A. The single-rudder adaptation introduced by the LB-10 had impressed the USAAC, and 63 examples were ordered under the designation LB-10A. Serials were 30-281/343. The LB-10A differed from the LB-10 in being powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney R-1690-3 radials, as well as in having a slightly smaller wingspan and a slightly shorter fuselage. However, before the first LB-10A could be delivered, the USAAC had dropped the LB designation and was listing all of its bombers under the B series. The LB-10A was redesignated B-3A. The first B-3A was delivered in October of 1930. The B-3A carried a crew of five--pilot, copilot, bombardier, front and rear gunners. The sixty-three B-3A bombers ended up serving with the 6th Composite Group based in the Canal Zone and the 4th Composite Group based in the Philippines. In addition, the 19th Bomb Group was activated in June 1932 with nine B-3As. The Keystone B-3A of the early 1930s was not very much faster than the biplane bombers that flew during the First World War. It would seem at first sight, then, that the state of the art had not advanced very far in the past fifteen years. However, performance was not the entire story--the Keystone bombers were far more safe and much more reliable than the Handley Page, Gotha, or Friedrichshafen bombers of World War 1. In May of 1932, a group of B-3A biplane bombers flew down the Hudson River to parade above New York City in a display of America's aerial strength. At that time, this parade of lumbering Keystone bombers represented virtually the entire bomber strength of the Army Air Corps. Serials: 30-281/343

Keystone B-3A

Specification of the Keystone B-3A: Two 525 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1690-3 Hornet air-cooled radial engines. Maximum speed 114 mph at sea level, 109.5 mph at 5000 feet. Cruising speed 98 mph. Landing speed 56 mph. Service ceiling http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b3.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:19:54

Keystone B-3A

12,700 feet. Initial climb rate 650 feet per minute. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 9.4 minutes. Range was 860 miles. Weight: 7705 pounds empty, 12,952 pounds gross. Wingspan 74 feet 8 inches, length 48 feet 10 inches, height 15 feet 9 inches, wing area 1145 square feet. Armed with three Browning machine guns, one in each of nose, dorsal, and ventral positions. A bomb load of 2500 pounds could be carried. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston 4. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation 5. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey


Keystone B-4

Keystone B-4 Last revised July 11, 1999

In 1930, seven Keystone biplane bombers were ordered under the designation LB-13. They were to be equipped with single vertical tails and were to be powered by a pair of 525 hp Pratt & Whitney GR-1690 radials. Serials were 30-344/353. However, in the early 1930s, the USAAC abandoned its separate classification scheme for light (LB) and heavy (HB) bombers, and grouped them both under the B category. The bombers in the LB series already under order had to be redesignated. In particular, of seven LB-13s ordered, five were completed as Y1B-4s with 575 hp R-1860-7 engines (30-344/348). On April 28, 1931, the Army ordered 25 examples of the B-4A, which was an improved production version of the Y1B-4. Serials were 32-117/141. Like the B-3A, the B-4A carried five crew members--two pilots, a bombardier, and a front and rear gunner. The B-4A was externally almost identical to the B-3A which preceded it (as well as to the B-5 and B-6 which followed it). These Keystone bombers usually differed from each other only in the type of engine which powered them, and it was often only possible to distinguish one from the other by an examination of their serial numbers. Serials: 30-344/348 32-117/141

Keystone Y1B-4 Keystone B-4A

Specification of the Keystone B-4A: Two 575 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1860-7 air-cooled radial engines. Maximum speed 121 mph at sea level, 103 mph cruising speed. Initial climb rate 690 feet per minute. An altitude of 5000 feet could be reached in 8.6 minutes. Service ceiling 14,000 feet. Range 855 miles. Weight: 7951 pounds empty, 13,209 pounds gross. Wingspan 74 feet 8 inches, length 48 feet 10 inches, height 15 feet 9 inches, wing area 1145 square feet. Armed with three Browning machine guns, one in each of nose, dorsal, and ventral positions. A bomb load of 2500 pounds could be carried. Sources:


Keystone B-4

1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston 4. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation 5. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey


Keystone B-5


In 1930, three Keystone biplane bombers were ordered under the designation LB-14. They were to be equipped with single vertical tails and were to be powered by a pair of 525 hp Pratt & Whitney GR-1860 radials. Shortly thereafter, the USAAC abandoned its separate designation categories for light (LB) and heavy (HB) bombers, and classified them both under the B category. The LB-14s that were ordered were completed under the designation Y1B-5s with 525 hp Wright R-1750-3 engines. However, it is uncertain if these were ever actually delivered. 27 production versions of the Y1B-5 were obtained by converting existing B-3As. These conversions were assigned the designation B-5A. They were powered by a pair of Wright R-1750-3 Cyclone aircooled radial engines. The Cyclone engined Keystones could be distinguished from the Hornet-powered Keystones by the presence of the exhaust rings in front on the Cyclones and in the rear on the Hornets. The B-5A carried a crew of five--pilot, copilot, bombardier, front and rear gunners. Except for the engines, the B-5A was almost identical to the B-3A from which it was converted. The B-5A served with the 72nd Squadron of the 5th Composite Group based at Luke Field in Hawaii. In addition, a training squadron at Kelly Field had a few B-5As. Specification of the Keystone B-5A: Two 525 hp Wright R-1750-3 Cyclone air-cooled radial engines. Maximum speed 111 mph at sea level, 106 mph at 5000 feet. Cruising speed 98 mph. Landing speed 57 mph. Service ceiling 10,600 feet. Absolute ceiling 13,000 feet. Weight: 7705 pounds empty, 12,952 pounds gross. Wingspan 74 feet 8 inches, length 48 feet 10 inches, height 15 feet 9 inches, wing area 1145 square feet. Armed with three Browning machine guns, one in each of nose, dorsal, and ventral positions. A bomb load of 2500 pounds could be carried. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b5.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:20:21

Keystone B-5

4. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation 5. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey


Keystone B-6


In 1930, seven Keystone bombers were ordered under the designation LB-13. They were to be equipped with single vertical tails and were to be powered by a pair of 525 hp Pratt & Whitney GR-1690 radials. Serials were 30-344/353. In 1930, the USAAC abandoned its separate designation categories for light (LB) and heavy (HB) bombers, and classified them both under the B category. Of seven LB-13s ordered, five were completed as Y1B-4s with 575 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1860-7 Hornet engines (30-344/348) and the other two were completed as Y1B-6 with 575 hp Wright R-1820-1 Cyclone engines (30-349/350). Three more Wrightpowered Y1B-6s (30-351/353) were produced by conversion from production Pratt & Whitney-powered B-3As On April 28, 1931, the Army ordered 39 B-6A bombers. The B-6A was an improved production version of the Y1B-6. At the same time, the Army ordered 25 B-4As, which were similar but were powered by Pratt & Whitney Hornets. Despite their later sequence number, the Cyclone-powered B-6As were delivered first, being manufactured from August 1931 to January 1932, with the Hornet-powered B-4As being delivered from January to April of 1932. Both the B-4 and the B-6 had three-bladed propellers. The two aircraft could be distinguished from each other by the engine exhaust rings, which were in the front on the Cyclone-powered B-6 and in the rear on the Hornet-powered B-4. The two planes were otherwise almost completely identical. The B-6A served with the 20th, 49th and 96th Squadrons of the 2nd Bomb Group based at Langley Field, Virginia. Well over 200 Keystone biplane bombers were built. Only 120 of them served in the continental USA, the remainder being deployed in Hawaii, the Philippines, and in the Canal Zone. Several Keystone bombers took part in the National Air Races. They also performed as mail carriers during the few months in 1934 when the Army took over the flying of the air mail. A few B-6As were still in service when World War 2 began, but none saw any action. 30-349/353 32-142/180

Keystone Y1B-6 Keystone B-6A


Keystone B-6

Specification of the Keystone B-6A: Two 575 hp Wright R-1820-7 Cyclone air-cooled radial engines. Maximum speed 121 mph at sea level, 116mph at 5000 feet. 103 mph cruising speed. Landing speed 57 mph. Initial climb rate 690 feet per minute. An altitude of 5000 feet could be reached in 8.6 minutes. Service ceiling 14,100 feet, absolute ceiling 16,500 feet. Range 363 miles with 2500 pounds of bombs, maximum range 855 miles. Weight: 8057 pounds empty, 13,334 pounds gross. Wingspan 74 feet 8 inches, length 48 feet 10 inches, height 15 feet 9 inches, wing area 1145 square feet. Armed with three Browning machine guns, one in each of nose, dorsal, and ventral positions. A bomb load of 2500 pounds could be carried. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston 4. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation 5. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey


Douglas B-7

Douglas B-7 Last revised July 11, 1999

In early 1930, the Douglas aircraft company submitted a proposal to the Army for a twin-engined observation plane. It was designed to compete with the Fokker XO-27, two examples of which had been ordered in June of 1929. The Douglas proposal was for a monoplane with high-mounted braced gull wings and metal construction with corrugated duralumin covering on the fuselage and tail surfaces. It was to be powered by a pair of Curtiss Conqueror twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled Vee engines that were housed in nacelles attached underneath the wing by a series of struts. The main undercarriage members retracted backwards into the engine nacelles, but the lower portion of the wheels remained exposed in order to reduce the amount of damage in the event of a wheels-up landing. Four crew members were to be carried--an observer/gunner in an open cockpit in the nose firing a single 0.30-inch machine gun, a pilot in an open cockpit just ahead of the wing, a gunner in an open dorsal cockpit in the rear fuselage firing a single 0.30-inch machine gun, and a radio operator in an enclosed cabin admidships. On March 26, 1930, the Army ordered two example of the Douglas proposal. One was designated XO35 (30-227) and the other XO-36 (30-228). The two planes were to be almost identical to each other, with the primary difference being that the XO-35 had two geared 600 hp Curtiss GIV-1570C (military designation V-1570-29) Conquerors driving three-bladed propellers and the XO-36 had two direct-drive 600 hp Curtiss V-1570C (military designation V-1570-23) Conquerors driving two-bladed propellers. Since the propellers of the XO-36 were of smaller diameter than those of the XO-35, the engine nacelles of the XO-36 were to be mounted 8 inches closer to the aircraft centerline. The performance of the XO-35/36 promised to greatly exceed that of the lumbering Keystone biplanes that were at that time the standard USAAC light bombers. Consequently, the Army decided to have the XO-36 completed as a light bomber rather than as an observation plane. It was assigned the designation XB-7, and was to have been equipped with racks for 1200 pounds of bombs underneath the fuselage. At the same time, the Army ordered that the second Fokker XO-27 be completed as a light bomber under the designation XB-8. The XO-35 flew for the first time in the spring of 1931. It was delivered to Wright Field on October 24, 1931. The XB-7 was delivered to Wright Field in July of 1932. The XB-7 had racks for 1200 pounds of bombs underneath the fuselage. Both planes had corrugated metal fuselage and tail coverings. The tailplane was supported by wire bracing.


Douglas B-7

On August 22, 1931, the USAAC ordered seven Y1B-7 bombers and five Y1O-35s. Serials were 32308/314 and 32-315/319 respectively. These were delivered between August and November of 1932. Both the bomber and observation models standardized on geared versions of the Conqueror engine. The Y1B-7 was powered by a pair of 640 hp V-1570-33 or 675 hp V-1570-52 engines, whereas the Y1O-35 was powered by a pair of 650 hp V-1570-39 or 675 hp V-1570-53 engines. The service-test aircraft differed from the prototypes in having smooth rather than corrugated metal covering on their fuselages and in having fabric covering for their movable tail surfaces. The length was increased from 45 feet to 45 feet 11 inches, and an adjustable tab was added to the rudder. The tailplane was now supported by metal struts rather than by wires. Fuel capacity was increased by 116 US gallons. The fuel distribution system was modified and the engine controls and the oil cooler were improved. Shortly afterward, the Army lost interest in twin-engined observation aircraft and no production examples of the Y1O-35 were ordered. The Y1B-7 was rapidly made obsolete by advances in bomber technology (such as the Martin B-10), and no production was ordered for this version either. The seven Y1B-7s were assigned to the 11th and 31st Bombardment Squadrons at March Field in California, becoming the Army's first monoplane bomber to enter service. They were later redesignated B-7. One was lost in a crash during its first year of operation. The five Y1O-35s (later redesignated O35) entered service with Observation Squadrons at Crissy and Mitchel Fields. On February 9, 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt cancelled all air mail contracts with civilian carriers and ordered the Army Air Corps to take over the flying of the air mail. The Army had few aircraft that ware suitable for this mission, but a motley collection of bombers, transports, observation planes, and even fighters were assembled. Among the planes assigned to air mail duty were the XO-35, the five O35s, and the six surviving B-7s. These planes were assigned the mission of carrying the air mail from Cheyenne, Wyoming to the Pacific coast, a particular dangerous route since it involved flying over a lot of mountains. By June 1, 1934, when the Army Air Corps finally stopped flying the air mail, four B-7s had been lost in accidents. However, the XO-35 prototype and all five of the O-35s survived the air mail duty. Following the completion of the air mail duty, the O-35/B-7s which had survived returned to more conventional military roles, and they remained flying until nearly the end of the 1930s, despite their obsolescence. The XO-35 was surveyed on October 28, 1938, with the XB-7 being surveyed six months later. The last of the O-35s was surveyed in February of 1939. The two B-7s which had survived the air mail ordeal were surveyed in 1938/39. No O-35/B-7 bombers survive today. Serials: Douglas XO-35 Douglas XO-36 --> XB-7 Douglas Y1B-7

30-227 30-228 32-308/314


Douglas B-7

Douglas Y1O-35

32-315/319

Specification of the Douglas Y1B-7 Two 640 hp Curtiss V-1570-33 or 675 hp V-1570-52 Conqueror twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled Vee engines. Maximum speed: 182 mph at sea level, 177 mph at 5000 feet. Cruising speed: 155 mph. Landing speed 78 mph. Climb to 5000 feet in 3.7 minutes. Climb to 10,000 feet in 8.7 minutes. Service ceiling 20,400 feet, absolute ceiling 21,800 feet. Normal range 411 miles, maximum range 632 miles. Weights: 5519 pounds empty, 9953 pounds loaded, 11,177 pounds maximum Dimensions: wingspan 65 feet, length 45 feet 11 inches, height 11 feet 7 inches, wing area 621.2 square feet. Armed with two 0.30inch machine guns, one in a flexible nose position and the other in a flexible dorsal position. 1200 pounds of bombs could be carried on racks underneath the fuselage. Sources: 1. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920: Volume 1, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1988 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 3. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982.


Fokker XB-8

Fokker XB-8 Last revised May 8, 2005

The Fokker Aircraft Corporation of Teterboro, New Jersey (formerly known as the Atlantic Aircraft Corporation) was the American subsidiary of the famed Dutch-based Fokker corporation. Fokker was a pioneering designer of monoplane aircraft for both the civilian and the military market. In 1929, the Fokker design department at Teterboro developed a proposal for an observation aircraft that could replace the Douglas O-25. The aircraft (designated Model 16 by the company) was a true cantilever monoplane with no struts or rigging wires. The plywood-covered high-mounted wing was similar to those fitted to contemporary Fokker commercial aircraft and was made of wooden box spars with plywood spars and ribs, covered with a plywood veneer. The fuselage was made of steel tubing and was covered with fabric. The aircraft was powered by a pair of Curtiss V-1570-9 Conqueror twelvecylinder liquid-cooled engines mounted in the leading edge of the wing. The landing gear was retractable, the first such to be fitted to an Army Air Corps observation or bombardment aircraft. The main gear members retracted backwards into the rear engine nacelles, but the wheels remained only partially enclosed. Three crew members (1 pilot plus two gunners) could be carried in open cockpits. Armament was to consist of two flexible 0.30-inch machine guns, one operated by a gunner in a nose position and the other by a gunner in a dorsal position. On June 19, 1929, the US Army Air Corps ordered two prototypes of the Model 16 from Fokker. The designation was XO-27. Serials were 29-327/328. In response to the Fokker design, the Douglas Aircraft Corporation submitted a competing proposal for a twin-engined observation monoplane. On March 26, 1930, the Army ordered two example of the Douglas proposal, one being designated XO-35 and the other XO-36. The two planes were to be almost identical to each other, with the primary difference being that the XO-35 was powered by geared Conquerors and the XO-36 by direct-drive Conquerors.


Fokker XB-8

The performance of the Douglas XO-35/36 and the Fokker XO-27 promised to greatly exceed that of the lumbering Keystone biplanes that were at that time the standard USAAC light bombers. Consequently, in 1929 the Army decided to have the second prototype of both designs completed as a light bomber rather than as an observation plane. The designation XB-8 was assigned to the Fokker design, XB-7 to the Douglas design. The XO-27 (29-327) was first tested at Wright Field on October 20, 1930. The prototype was later fitted with an enclosure over the pilot's cockpit and was fitted with geared V1570-29 engines, being redesignated XO-27A. In 1930, Fokker-America was absorbed by the General Aviation Corporation, which was a subsidiary of General Motors, the large automobile manufacturing concern. On April 11, 1931, the company received a contract for six service test B-8s (two YB-8s and four Y1B8s. Serials 31-587/592 were issued. On May 13, 1931, six service test Y1O-27s were ordered (31-598/603). They were broadly similar to the YO-27s. These were initially fitted with 600hp Curtiss GIV-1570C Conquerors, but these were replaced during December 1932 with GIV-1570F (V-1570-29) geared units. The XB-8 (29-328) was delivered to Wright Field at Dayton, Ohio in February of 1931. After completing only a few flights, the XB-8 was damaged in an accident. It was repaired and test flights resumed. However, the XB-8 did not have as good a performance as the competing Douglas XB-7, and only one example of the XB-8 was built. The contract for two more prototypes and four service-test aircraft (two YB-8s and four Y1B-8s) was cancelled and was converted into a contract for six YO-27 aircraft. In any case, the advances in bomber design that took place in the early 1930s had become so rapid that both the XB-7 and XB-8 were quickly deemed obsolete and no production was ordered for either design. The dozen production YO-27 and Y1O-27 observation aircraft were delivered to the USAAC between May 15, 1932 and January 6, 1933. The first YO-27 was issued to the 12th Observation Group based at Brooks Field, Texas. Five squadrons were ultimately equipped with these planes--two observation, two bombardment, and one pursuit squadron. These planes were operated primarily for radio practice flights, night navigation training, and long-distence cross-country practice flights. There were numerous accidents, most of which were caused by landing gear failures. However, the aircraft was relatively easy to fly, with no vicious flight characteristics. Surviving YO-27s were surveyed and scrapped during the mid 1930s and none survive today. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b8.html (2 of 3)08-09-2006 20:20:39

Fokker XB-8

In 1933, the General Motors Corporation underwent a major reorganization and combined its General Aviation Corporation subsidiary into a large conglomerate along with other GM-owned aircraft companies such as Berliner-Joyce and the Curtiss-Caproni Corporation. This conglomerate was also known as the General Aviation Corporation. The complex of General Motors aircraft plants was later organized as the Eastern Aircraft Division and was to manufacture thousands of aircraft under license during the Second World War. Serials: 29-327 29-328 31-587/592 31-598/603

Fokker Fokker Fokker Fokker

XO-27 XB-8 YB-8 (delivered as YO-27) Y1O-27

Specification of the Fokker/General Aviation XB-8: Two 600 hp Curtiss V-1570-23 Conqueror twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled Vee engines. Maximum speed: 160 mph at sea level. Weights: 6861 pounds empty, 10,545 pounds gross. Dimensions: wingspan 64 feet, length 47 feet, height 11 feet 6 inches, wing area 619 square feet. Armed with two 0.30-inch machine guns, one in a flexible nose position and the other in a flexible dorsal position. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey 4. Fokker Twilight--Last of the US Military Fokkers, Alain Pelletier, Air Enthusiast,

May/June 2005, No. 117.


Boeing B-9

Boeing B-9 Last revised September 10, 2002

The Boeing B-9 was the first cantilever monoplane bomber to be produced for the US Army. The B-9 began life as the Boeing Models 214 and 215. These were companyfunded new bomber designs that were based on the concepts developed by the Model 200 Monomail commercial mail carrier. Both the Model 214 and the Model 215 were low-winged, all-metal cantilever monoplanes. The fuselage was of semi-monocoque construction, which permitted the use of a more nearly circular cross section. The main landing gear retraced rearward into the engine nacelles, but the lower halves of the wheels remained exposed. Five crew members were carried--pilot, copilot, nose gunner/bombardier, rear gunner, and a radio operator. Four of the crew members sat in separate open cockpits, widely separated from each other. The bombardier/nose-gunner sat in a cockpit in the nose, which was equipped with a bomb sight and aiming window in the bottom and had a mount for a single flexible 0.30-inch machine gun around the top. Because the fuselage was so narrow, the pilot and copilot sat in separate tandem cockpits immediately behind the nose gunner. A fourth cockpit for a rear gunner was located on top of the fuselage behind the wing. He operated a single flexible 0.30-inch machine gun. The radio operator was located inside the fuselage just ahead of and below the pilot, and had a window on each side of the nose. Because of their wide separation, crew members had difficulty in communicating with each other in flight. The pilot had limited visibility because of the radial engines on each side and the long forward fuselage immediately ahead. The Models 214 and 215 had rudder servo tabs to assist the pilots in moving the controls, which was the first such installation on an American-designed aircraft. There was no internal bomb bay--there were four hardpoints loctated underwing between the fuselage and engine nacelles. The Models 214 and 215 were virtually identical to each other, differing primarily in the choice of engines. The Model 214 was to be powered by pair of 600 hp Curtiss V-1570 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b9.html (1 of 5)08-09-2006 20:20:44

Boeing B-9

Conqueror Prestone-cooled V-12 engines, whereas the Model 215 was to be powered by a pair of 600 hp Pratt & Whitney Hornet air-cooled radial engines with NACA cowlings fitted around the cylinder heads for aerodynamic drag reduction. On the 214, the servo tab on the rudder was a small auxiliary surface, whereas on the 215 the tab ran the full height of the rudder. The radial-powered Model 215 was the first to be completed. It took to the air for the first time on April 12, 1931. Since it was a Boeing-owned airplane, it was painted in civilian colors and carried a civilian registration number (X-10633). It was initially powered by a pair of 575 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830-13 commercial engines. It was tested by the Army on a bailment contract under the designation XB-901. It achieved a maximum speed of 163 mph at sea level. Favorable testing of the XB-901 resulted in the Army deciding on August 14, 1931 to purchase both the Model 215 and the Model 214. The Model 215 was assigned the designation YB-9 and was given the serial number 32-301. Now owned by the Army, the plane was repainted in military colors and the civil registration number was cancelled. The Model 214 (which had not yet flown) was designated Y1B-9 and was assigned the serial number 32-302. At the same time, the Army ordered five new planes under the designation Y1B-9A. Serials were 32-303/307 Following the Army order, the YB-9 was re-engined with Pratt & Whitney R-1830-11 Hornets supercharged to yield 600 hp at 6000 feet and was fitted with three-bladed propellers. With these new engines, the YB-9 attained a maximum speed of 188 mph at 6000 feet, an impressive performance for 1931. The era of the biplane bomber was clearly nearing its end. The Y1B-9 (Model 214) flew for the first time on November 5, 1931. After testing with the liquid-cooled Curtiss Conqueror engines at the Boeing plant in Seattle and at Wright Field in Ohio, these engines were later replaced by Hornet radials, duplicating the YB-9. The Model 246 was the company designation for a small batch of five Y1B-9A evaluation aircraft that had been ordered by the Army at the same time that the two prototypes were purchased. The Y1B-9A was powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney Y1G1SR-1860B Hornet radials, rated at 600 hp at 6000 feet. Externally, the Y1B-9A was virtually identical to the YB-9. However, the Y1B-9A had the rudder tabs of the Y1B-9 and it had metal instead of fabric covering on the control surfaces. Three-bladed propellers were fitted. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b9.html (2 of 5)08-09-2006 20:20:44

Boeing B-9

There were also many internal structural and equipment changes. Later, the shape of the rudder was changed to more closely resemble that of the Boeing Model 247 commercial transport. Maximum speed was up to 186 mph with the altitude-rated engines. The defensive armament consisted of two 0.30-inch machine guns, and the bomb load included four 600-lb bombs carried externally The first Y1B-9A flew on July 14, 1932 and was delivered to the Army on July 21. The last Y1B-9A on the contract was delivered on March 20, 1933. The five Y1B-9As served with the 20th Bomb Group based at Langley Field, Virginia. The high speed of the Y1B9A indicated that enclosed cockpits for the crew would be needed. Although a greenhouse cockpit canopy was designed for the Y1B-9A, it was never actually fitted. The B-9 was a truly revolutionary design, and had a speed fully 60 percent greater than that of the Keystone biplane bombers that were still the backbone of the American bomber force in 1932. In war games held in May of 1933, the Y1B-9A could not be intercepted by six Boeing P-12 fighters, giving the USAAAC a bomber with a performance superior to that of its pursuit aircraft. In view of its superior performance, Boeing fully anticipated an Army order for substantial numbers of the new design. However, The Glenn L. Martin company in Baltimore, Maryland had in the meantime brought out a competing design of its own, the XB-907. The XB-907 was even more revolutionary than the XB-901. It was slightly larger than the XB-901 and had a substantially better performance. The Army decided to order the Martin design into production under the designation B-10 and B-12, and no production examples of the B-9 were ordered. The service of the Y1B-9A was relative short, with all surviving examples being removed from service and surveyed in 1934. So far as I am aware, no examples of the B-9 survive today. Serials: 32-301 32-302 32-303/307

Boeing YB-9 (XB-901) Boeing Y1B-9 Boeing Y1B-9A

Specification of the YB-9: Two 600 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830-13 air-cooled radial engines. Maximum speed 188 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b9.html (3 of 5)08-09-2006 20:20:44

Boeing B-9

mph at 6000 feet, cruising speed 165 mph, landing speed 63 mph, initial climb rate 1060 feet per minute, service ceiling 22,600 feet, absolute ceiling 14,400 feet. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 6 minutes. Range was 495 miles with 1997 pounds of bombs. Dimensions: wingspan 76 feet 9 inches, length 51 feet 6 inches, height 12 feet 8 inches, wing area 954 square feet. Weights: 8362 pounds empty, 13,351 pounds gross. Two 1100-pound bombs could be carried. Defensive armament consisted of two 0.30-inch machine guns in nose and dorsal flexible positions. Specification of the Y1B-9: Two 600 hp Curtiss GIV-1570 (V-1570-29) Conqueror liquid-cooled twelve-cylinder Vee engines. Maximum speed 173.5 mph at sea level, 171.5 mph at 5000 feet, cruising speed 147.5 mph, landing speed 62 mph, initial climb rate 1160 feet per minute, service ceiling 19,200 feet, absolute ceiling 21,000 feet. Range was 1250 miles. Dimensions: wingspan 76 feet 9 inches, length 51 feet 6 inches, height 12 feet 8 inches, wing area 954 square feet. Weights: 8618 pounds empty, 13,591 pounds gross. Two 1100-pound bombs could be carried. Defensive armament consisted of two 0.30-inch machine guns in nose and dorsal flexible positions. Specification of the Y1B-9A: Two 600 hp Pratt & Whitney Y1G1SR-1860B Hornet supercharged air-cooled radials, rated at 600 hp at 6000 feet. Maximum speed 188 mph at 6000 feet, cruising speed 165 mph, initial climb rate 900 feet per minute, service ceiling 20,750 feet, absolute ceiling 22,500 feet. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 7.1 minutes. Range was 540 miles with a 2260 pound bombload, maximum range was 990 miles. Dimensions: wingspan 76 feet 10 inches, length 52 feet, wing area 954 square feet. Weights: 8941 pounds empty, 13,932 pounds gross, 14,320 pounds maximum. A load of 2260 pounds of bombs could be carried. Defensive armament consisted of two 0.30-inch machine guns in nose and dorsal flexible positions. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982.


Boeing B-9

3. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey 4. Boeing Aircraft Since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989 5. End of the Dinosaurs--Boeing's B-9, Breaking the Bomber Mold, Alain Pelletier,

Air Enthusiast, No. 101, 2002.


Martin B-10

Martin B-10 Last revised July 11, 1999

The Martin B-10 was the first all-metal monoplane bomber to enter full production for the US Army. It was also the first bomber to have a performance that exceeded that of contemporary pursuit aircraft.

Model 123 The immediate ancestor of the B-10 was the Martin Model 123, which was designed and built as a private venture by the Glenn L. Martin Company of Baltimore, Maryland. It was a midwing all-metal monoplane. The monocoque fuselage had corrugated top and bottom surfaces with a deep belly. The deep belly carried doors for an internal bomb bay, so the bombs could be carried internally rather than on external racks as in the Boeing YB-9. The main landing gear retracted backwards into the rear of the engine nacelles, but the lower half of the wheels remained exposed. Four crew members were to be carried. Three of the crew members were seated in separate open cockpits on the top of the fuselage. The nose gunner/bombardier had a transparent aiming position in the lower nose, the pilot sat in an open cockpit abreast of the forward wing, and the rear gunner sat in an open position in the rear dorsal fuselage. The fourth crew member occupied a position inside the fuselage. The Model 123 flew for the first time at Baltimore on February 16, 1932. It was powered by a pair of 600 hp Wright SR-1820-E Cyclone engines that were enclosed by NACA low-drag cowling rings. The wingspan was 62 feet 2 inches. The Model 123 was delivered to the Army on March 20, 1932 under a bailment contract. Although still Martin property, the aircraft was assigned the designation XB-907 for its trials at Wright Field. Trials began in July of 1932. During the trials at Wright Field, a maximum speed of 197 mph was recorded at an altitude of 6000 feet. This was a truly spectacular performance for 1932.

XB-907A, XB-10 The Model 123 was returned to the factory in Baltimore for some suggested modifications. During the early autumn of 1932, the open-cockpit gun position in the nose of the Martin 123 was replaced by a front gun turret. This was a transparent, manually-rotated facility, equipped with a single 0.30-inch machine gun. The pilot's cockpit and the dorsal gunner position remained open. At the same time, more powerful 675 hp R-1820-19 Cyclone engines were installed. These engines were also fitted with full cowlings that extended forward of the wings. A new longer-span wing was fitted, increasing the http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b10.html (1 of 6)08-09-2006 20:20:50

Martin B-10

wingspan to 70 feet 7 inches. The designation was changed to XB-907A when it was returned to Wright Field for more tests. Trials of the XB-907A took place at Wright field in October of 1932. Despite an increase of nearly 2000 pounds in the gross weight to 12,230 pounds, the XB-907A had a maximum speed of 207 mph at 6000 feet. The XB-907A was faster than any US fighter then in service. The Model 123 was a truly revolutionary design, and every other bomber in the world (and just about every pursuit plane as well) was instantaneously made obsolete. In 1932, the Glenn L Martin company was awarded the Collier Trophy for its work. On January 17, 1933, the Army purchased the XB-907A under the designation XB-10. The serial assigned was 33-139. At the same time, the Army ordered 48 production examples of the Martin design. These were designated Model 139 by the factory.

YB-10 The first 14 aircraft were designated YB-10 (33-140/153). They were powered by 675 hp Wright R1820-25 engines. They differed from the prototype primarily in having transparent sliding canopies fitted over both the pilot's cockpit and the rear gunner's position, a concession to the 200 mph-plus speeds that could be attained. The rear cockpit was modified to accommodate a radio operator in addition to the gunner. Armament consisted of a 0.30-inch Browning machine gun in the nose turret, a 0.30-inch gun in a flexible position in the dorsal position, plus a 0.30-inch machine gun in a tunnel position in the fuselage floor behind the bomb bay to guard against attacks from below. The internal bomb bay could carry two 1130-pound bombs or five 300-pound bombs. There were provisions for an external shackle under the right wing for a single 2000 pound bomb. The YB-10 could be distinguished from its successors by the presence of an oil cooler scoop on top of the engine cowling. The first YB-10 was delivered to Wright Field in November of 1933. Most of the YB-10s were based at March Field in California with the 7th Bomb Group until December of 1934, when it re-equipped with B-12s. The YB-10s then remained at March Field with the 19th Bomb Group. In a demonstration of their reliability and efficiency, ten YB-10s undertook a survey flight to Alaska in July of 1934.

YB-10A A single YB-10A (33-154) was included in the 48 aircraft of the original order. It was delivered in June of 1934 with a pair of experimental turbosupercharged R-1820-21 Cyclones. It achieved a maximum speed of 236 mph at 25,000 feet. Despite the high performance that was achieved, the turbosuperchargers were not sufficiently reliable to be introduced into production models. Consequently, there was no B-10A production model, the first production model of the B-10 series being the B-10B.

XB-14 Another experimental version included in the original order was the XB-14 (33-162), which was similar http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b10.html (2 of 6)08-09-2006 20:20:50

Martin B-10

to the YB-10 but was powered by a pair of 950hp Pratt & Whitney YR-1830-9 Twin Wasps. It was common in those days to assign a separate model number to aircraft which differed from each other only in the type of engine which powered them.

B-12A The remaining 32 aircraft on the original order were delivered as B-12As. They differed from the YB-10 primarily in being powered by Pratt and Whitney R-1690-11 Hornet radials in place of the Wright Cyclones. Despite their new model number, they were otherwise quite similar to the YB-10. They will be described more fully under the B-12 entry.

B-10B Production of the Martin bomber was continued by FY 1934 and 1935 Army procurements for 103 examples of the B-10B, the primary service version. The B-10B could be distinguished from the YB-10 by the presence of air intakes on top the nacelle as well as by the relocation of the exhaust pipes from the lower nacelle to outlets at the nacelle top immediately behind the air intakes. It was otherwise quite similar to the service test YB-10. The first B-10B arrived at Wright Field in July of 1935. Production deliveries to Langley Field began in December of 1935 and were completed by August of 1936. The B-10B served with the 2nd Bomb Group at Langley and the 9th at Mitchell Field. The B-10B served (along with YB-10s) with the 19th Bomb Group based at March Field in California. The B-10B also served with the 6th Bomb Group based in the Canal Zone, and was issued to the 28th Bomb Group based in the Philippines. Army records do show that two aircraft designated simply B-10 were ordered as part of the the original B-10B contract, with serials 36-347/348 being assigned. They may have been replacements for the two experimental models (YB-10A, XB-14), but it is uncertain if these were actually delivered and, even if they were, in what particular configuration. In January of 1931, the US Army was assigned the responsibility for coastal defense around the United States mainland. As part of this mission, several Army YB-10s were temporarily fitted with large floats for water-based operations. The B-10s remained in service with Army bombardment squadrons until the advent of the B-17 and B18 in the late 1930s. The advances in bomber technology suddenly became so rapid that the B-10, revolutionary though it was, swiftly became obsolete as the 1930s progressed. By 1940, the B-10B was thoroughly out of date and had been largely relegated to secondary roles such as target towing. No US Army B-10Bs participated in any combat during World War 2.

Export Versions http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b10.html (3 of 6)08-09-2006 20:20:50

Martin B-10

With such an advanced performance, the Martin company fully expected that export orders for the B-10 would come flooding in. However, since the Army owned the rights to the Model 139 design, it forbade any export overseas until its own orders had been filled. However, following the completion of the last example for the Army in 1936, clearance was finally given for the export of the Martin bomber. The first export demonstrator, the Model 139W, was completed in August of 1936. It was powered by a pair of 750 hp Wright R-1820-F53 Cyclones. The civilian registration number NR-15563 was applied. It was sent to Argentina in September to compete against the German Junkers JU-86 and the Italian Savoia SM-79B for Argentine orders. The Martin plane won the contract, and Argentina ordered 13 examples for the Navy and 26 for the Army. Other export orders soon followed. The Martin 139WC was a version intended for China. It was powered by a pair of 850 hp R-1820-G2 Cyclones. 6 examples went to China in February of 1937. They were used in combat when Japan invaded China in August of 1937. These Martin 139WCs were the first American-designed bombers to see combat. However, the results were not all that good, since most were destroyed on the ground during Japanese air attacks. Six Martins were sold to Siam in April of 1937. They were powered by R-1820-G3 Cyclones. 20 Model 139Ws were sold to Turkey in September of 1937, powered by R-1820-G2 engines A single Model 139WR (X16706) was sold to the Soviet Union for evaluation. Its fate is unknown. Plans to sell Martin 139s to Republican Spain were blocked by the State Department. Reports that the Martin bomber was being used in Spain on the Republican side were in error, being misidentifications of the Soviet Tupolev SB-2, which was basically similar in overall configuration. The largest customer for the export Martin bomber was the Dutch East Indies. The first Dutch order was for 12 Model 139WH-1 bombers powered by 750 hp R-1820-F53 Cyclones. They were delivered between September 1936 and February 1937. 26 Model 139WH-3s, powered by 840 hp R-1820-G3s were delivered from November 1937 to March 1938. The final export version was the Model 139WH-3 (or Model 166), powered by a pair of 900 hp Wright R-1820G-102 radials. It had a long unbroken transparent canopy "greenhouse" that extended from the pilot's cockpit all the way to the rear gunner's position. 78 of these new bombers were delivered by May 5, 1939, when the last export Martin bomber rolled off the Baltimore production line. Between mid-1936 and 1939, a total of 189 export Model 139W and Model 166 bombers had been manufactured. Six squadrons of Martin bombers were serving in the Dutch East Indies when the Japanese invaded. Dutch crews flew these Martin bombers in a futile attempt to stem the Japanese advance into the Dutch East Indies during early 1942. By this time, the Martin bomber was thoroughly obsolete, and its speed and armament were completely inadequate to protect against the fast and heavily-armed Japanese Zero http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b10.html (4 of 6)08-09-2006 20:20:50

Martin B-10

fighters. Most were shot down in combat or were destroyed on the ground. A surviving export Model 139 fled from the Dutch East Indies to Australia on March 7, 1942. It was taken on strength by the USAAF for use as an utility aircraft and assigned the serial number 42-68358. This was the only export Martin 139 to serve with the USAAF. An Argentine Martin Model 139 was returned to the USA in 1976. It was refurbished as a standard USAAC B-10B and is now on display in the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio. So far as I am aware, it is the only surviving Model 139 bomber. Serials: 33-139 33-140/153 33-154 33-155/161 33-162 33-163/177 33-258/267 34-028/115 35-232/246 36-347/348 42-68358

Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin

XB-10 YB-10 YB-10A YB-12 XB-14 B-12A B-12A B-10B B-10B B-10 (not certain that these were delivered) B-10 (ex-Dutch Model 139 impressed by USAAF)

Specification of Martin B-10B: Two Wright R-1820-33 Cyclone air-cooled radial engines, rated at 775 hp for takeoff and 750 hp at 5400 feet. Maximum speed 213 mph at 10,000 feet, 196 mph at sea level. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 3.4 minutes. Cruising speed 193 mph. Landing speed 65 mph. Service ceiling 14,200 feet. Normal range 590 miles, maximum range 1240 miles, ferry range 1830 miles. Weights: 9681 pounds empty, 14,600 pounds gross, 16,400 pounds maximum. Dimensions: wingspan 70 feet 6 inches, length 44 feet 9 inches, height 15 feet 5 inches, wing area 678 square feet. One 0.30-inch Browning machine gun in nose turret, one 0.30-inch Browning machine gun in flexible mount in dorsal gunner position, and one 0.30-inch Browning machine gun in a ventral tunnel position mounted in the floor of the fuselage behind the bomb bay. 2260 pounds of bombs could be carried. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b10.html (5 of 6)08-09-2006 20:20:50

Martin B-10

3. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey


Douglas B-11

Douglas B-11 Last revised July 17, 1999

The Douglas B-11 was a 1932 project for an amphibian bomber that would fly over water along with formations of conventional land-based bombers to act as navigation leaders and as rescue aircraft in case one of the bombers went down. A single YB-11 was ordered on November 18, 1932. The serial number was 33-17. It was to have been a substantially scaled-up version of the Douglas Dolphin amphibian and was to have been powered by two 670 hp Wright R-1820-13 Cyclone nine-cylinder radials mounted in individual nacelles above the cantilever monoplane wing. The aircraft was to have had fixed underwing floats and a two-step hull. The main landing gear was to have retracted into fuselage sides just beneath the wing leading edge. Armament was to have consisted of three flexible 0.30-inch machine guns, one firing from each of two gunner's hatches situated on the upper fuselage just behind the wings and one in an enclosed bow turret. The turret was to be have been set back from the bow to allow room for an open mooring hatch in the extreme nose. While the aircraft was under construction, the Army decided that the use of mixed formations of landplanes and amphibians was not very practical, and the YB-11 was redesignated YO-44, an observation category. It was later redesignated YOA-5, an observation amphibian category. The YOA-5 was flown for the first time in January of 1935. An open bow gunner position was fitted rather than the originally-intended turret. The YOA-5 was transferred out to Wright Field in Ohio for test and evaluation. Although the performance of the YOA-5 was acceptable, the Army decided that it did not need observation amphibians and no further examples of the YOA-5 were ordered. YOA-5 33-17 remained a "one-off" aircraft. Following the completion of the tests at Wright Field, the YOA-5 was assigned in October of 1935 to the 1st Air Base Squadron at Langley Field in Virginia. In June of 1941, the YOA-5 was transferred to Elmendorf Field in Alaska. It was scrapped there in late 1943. Specification of the Douglas YOA-5: Two 750 hp Wright R-1820-25 air-cooled radial engines. Maximum speed 161 mph at sea level, 170 mph at 2800 feet. Cruising speed 152 mph. Landing speed 75 mph. Service ceiling 18,900 feet. An http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b11.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:21:07

Douglas B-11

altitude of 10,000 feet could be reached in 13 minutes. Dimensions: wingspan 89 feet 9 inches, length 69 feet 6 inches, height 22 feet, wing area 1101 square feet. Weights: 14,038 pounds empty, 20,000 pounds gross. Armed with three flexible 0.30-inch machine guns, one firing from each of two gunner's hatches situated just behind the wings and one in an open nose position. Sources: 1. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Volume I, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1988. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. American Warplanes, Bill Gunston 4. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey


Martin B-12


The Martin B-12 was a production version of the B-10 that was powered by the Pratt & Whitney Hornet radial instead of the Wright Cyclone. It was common in those days to assign different USAAC model numbers to aircraft of a given type which differed from each other only in the type of engines which powered them. On January 17, 1933, the Army had ordered 48 production examples of the Martin Model 139 monoplane bomber design. 32 of the aircraft on this original order were ordered as YB-12s and B-12As. They differed from the YB-10 primarily in being powered by Pratt and Whitney R-1690-11 Hornet radials in place of the Wright Cyclones of the B-10 series. The first YB-12 appeared in February of 1934. Despite their new model number, they were otherwise quite similar to the YB-10. They could be externally distinguished from the B-10 version by the presence of oil cooler intakes on the port side of the engine nacelles. Internally, the B-12A had provision for an extra fuel tank in the bomb bay. This tank had a capacity of 265 US gallons, supplementing the 226 US gallons normal fuel capacity on long flights. In January of 1931, the US Army was assigned the responsibility for coastal defense around the United States mainland. As part of this mission, several Army B-12As were fitted with large floats for waterbased operations. A B-12A fitted with twin floats set a seaplane speed record on August 24, 1935. The B-12s remained in service with Army bombardment squadrons until the advent of the B-17 and B18 in the late 1930s. The advances in bomber technology suddenly became so rapid that the B-10/B-12 series of bombers, revolutionary as they were at the time of their appearance, swiftly became obsolete as the 1930s progressed. By 1940, the B-10s and B-12s were thoroughly out of date and had been largely relegated to secondary roles such as target towing. No US Army B-10Bs or B-12s participated in any combat during World War 2. Serials of B-12: 33-155/161 33-163/177 33-258/267

Martin YB-12 Martin B-12A Martin B-12A


Martin B-12

Specification of Martin YB-12: Two Pratt & Whitney R-1690-11 Hornet air-cooled radial engines, rated at 700 hp at 6500 feet. Maximum speed 212 mph at 6500 feet, 190 mph at sea level. Initial climb rate 1740 feet per minute. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 10.1 minutes. Cruising speed 170 mph. Landing speed 71 mph. Service ceiling 24,600 feet. Absolute ceiling 26,600 feet. Normal range 524 miles, maximum range 1360 miles, Weights: 7728 pounds empty, 12,824 pounds gross Dimensions: wingspan 70 feet 6 inches, length 44 feet 9 inches, height 15 feet 5 inches, wing area 678 square feet. One 0.30-inch Browning machine gun in nose turret, one 0.30-inch Browning machine gun in flexible mount in dorsal gunner position, and one 0.30-inch Browning machine gun in ventral tunnel. 2260 pounds of bombs could be carried. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey


Martin B-13


The Martin B-13 was a proposed version of the YB-10 powered by a pair of 650 hp Pratt & Whitney R1860-17 engines. Twelve examples were ordered but were all cancelled before delivery. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b13.html08-09-2006 20:21:20

Martin XB-14

Martin XB-14 Last revised July 17, 1999

The Martin XB-14 (33-162) was a version of the YB-10 powered by a pair of 950hp Pratt & Whitney YR-1830-9 Twin Wasps. It was common in those days to assign a separate model number to aircraft which differed from each other only in the type of engine which powered them. Only one example of this version was built. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey


Boeing XBLR-1/XB-15/XC-105

Boeing XBLR-1/XB-15/XC-105 Last revised July 17, 1999

In April 14, 1934, the Army Air Corps issued a request for a long-range bomber. A 5000 mile range with a 2000-pound bombload was envisaged. The Boeing Airplane Company submitted its Model 294 in response to this requirement. The Army expressed sufficient interest in the Model 294 that it issued a contract on June 28, 1934 for design data, wind-tunnel tests, and the construction of a mockup under the designation XBLR-1, the letters standing for "Experimental Bomber, Long Range". On June 29, 1935, a contract was approved for one example of the XBLR-1. The BLR category was later eliminated, and the aircraft was redesignated XB-15 in July 1936. The XB-15 was a large, four-engined mid-wing cantilever monoplane with all-metal semi-monocoque construction. The structure was generally similar to that of earlier Boeing monoplanes that had been based on the Monomail design, with the exception that the wing from the main spar aft was covered with fabric instead of metal. The XB-15 was originally to have been powered by four Allison V-1710 liquid cooled V-12 engines. However, before the aircraft was built, the powerplants were changed to four 1000 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830 twin-row air-cooled radials. The crew of ten has soundproofed, heated, and ventilated quarters with rest bunks, a kitchen, and a lavatory. For the first time in an airplane, small auxiliary engines were fitted which powered a 110-volt electrical system. The wing was so thick at the root that it was possible for a crew member to service the engine accessory sections in flight from a passageway extending behind the nacelles. Such a system later appeared on the Boeing Model 314 flying boat. The main undercarriage retracted into the rear of the inner engine nacelle. The aircraft was sufficiently heavy that it was necessary to fit two wheels on each main undercarriage truck. The defensive armament was the heaviest yet to be fitted to a bomber. It carried six machine guns. One of these guns was mounted in a nose turret and another one was carried in a forward-facing belly turret mounted below the pilot's cabin. A 0.50-inch gun was mounted in a top turret which could rotate through 360 degrees. One gun was carried in each of two waist blisters attached to the fuselage behind the wings. A sixth gun was housed inside a rearward-facing belly turret. Although it was an older design than the Model 299 which eventually emerged as the B-17 and carried http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b15.html (1 of 3)08-09-2006 20:21:35


an earlier military designation, the XB-15 made its first flight two years later. The XB-15 (serial number 35-277) made its first flight on October 15, 1937 with Eddie Allen at the controls. At the time of its appearance, it was the largest and heaviest aircraft yet to be built in the United States. The XB-15 proved to be seriously underpowered with the R-1830 radials. Because of its low performance as compared to later aircraft, the XB-15 was never ordered into production, and the prototype was the only example to be built. Following the completion of the tests, the XB-15 was turned over to the 2nd Bomb Group in August of 1938. In spite of the fact that the aircraft was seriously underpowered for its size, it did manage to set several world records for weight carrying, including a 71,167-pound payload lifted to 8200 feet on July 30, 1939 and a payload of 4409 pounds carried over a distance of 3107 miles at 166 mph. In 1943, the sole XB-15 was converted into a cargo carrier by adding cargo doors and a hoist. The aircraft was redesignated XC-105. The gross weight increased to 92,000 pounds. The XC-105 was scrapped at Kelly Field, Texas shortly before the end of the war. Two service test models of the XB-15 were ordered under the designation Y1B-20. In an attempt to provide more power, these planes were to have been powered by 1400 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2180 radials. However, they were cancelled before anything could be built. Specification of XB-15: Four Pratt & Whitney R-1830-11 Twin Wasp air cooled radials, rated at 850 hp at 2450 rpm at 5000 feet, and 1000 hp for takeoff. Maximum speed: 200 mph at 5000 feet, 197 mph at 6000 feet, cruising speed 152 mph at 60 percent power at 6000 feet. Service ceiling 18,900 feet, absolute ceiling 20,900 feet. Climb to 5000 feet in 7.1 minutes, climb to 10,0000 feet in 14.9 minutes. Range 3400 miles with 2511 pounds of bombs, maximum range 5130 miles. Weights: 37,309 pounds empty, 65,068 pounds gross, 70,706 pounds maximum. Dimensions: wingspan 149 feet, length 87 feet 7 inches, height 18 feet 1 inches, wing area 2780 square feet. Armed with two 0.50-inch and four 0.30-inch machine guns. A bomb load of four 2000 pound bombs could be carried. Maximum bombload was 12,000 pounds. Sources: 1. Boeing Aircraft Since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 3. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 4. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey




Martin XB-16

Martin XB-16 Last revised July 17, 1999

In April 14, 1934, the Army Air Corps issued a request for a long-range bomber. A 5000 mile range with a 2000-pound bombload was envisaged. The Glenn L. Martin Company of Baltimore, Maryland submitted its Model 145 in response to this request. This design was in competition with the Boeing Model 294 project which eventually emerged as the XB-15. Originally, the Model 145 was to have been very similar to the Boeing Model 294, being a large cantilever monoplane powered by four Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V-12 engines. On May 12, 1934, the Chief of Staff authorized negotiations with both Boeing and Martin for preliminary designs. In the meantime, the Martin design had undergone a major redesign, having been enlarged to a 173-foot wingspan. Six Allison V-1710-2 engines were to have been utilized, four of them operating as tractors and two as pushers. Twin rudders were to have been mounted behind two tail booms. A tricycle landing gear was to be used. The maximum weight was to have been 105,000 pounds. The Martin XB-16 was considered as being too large and expensive, and the project was cancelled before anything could be built. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey



Boeing B-17 Fortress Last revised July 31, 1999

Boeing Model 299 Boeing Y1B-17 Boeing Y1B-17A/B-17A Boeing B-17B Fortress Boeing B-17C Fortress Fortress I for RAF Boeing B-17D Fortress Boeing B-17E Fortress Vega XB-38 Fortress IIA for RAF Boeing B-17F Fortress Boeing YB-40 Fortress II for RAF BQ-7 Drone C-108 Transport Boeing B-17G Fortress Fortress III for RAF F-9 Photographic Reconnaissance PB-1 Naval Fortress B-17 in Pacific Theatre B-17 in European Theatre B-17 Squadron Assignments B-17 With The Enemy Boeing B-17H B-17 Drone Aircraft EB-17 Conversions B-17 Commercial Transports B-17 With Foreign Air Forces Civilian and Surviving B-17s



Cost of a B-17


Douglas B-18 Bolo

Douglas B-18 Bolo Last revised August 1, 1999

The Douglas B-18 Bolo was a military adaptation of the DC-2 commercial transport to the long-range bombing role. Although totally obsolescent by the end of 1941, it was numerically the most important longrange bomber in service with the USAAC at the time of America's entry into World War 2. The origin of the B-18 can be traced back to the same 1934 Army competition that led to the famed Boeing B-17. In May of 1934, the Army announced a competition for a multi-engined bomber capable of carrying a ton of bombs at more than 200 mph over a distance of 2000 miles. This Army requirement envisaged from the start that the winning design would have a production run of as many as 220 planes. Several manufacturers were invited to submit bids, with the entries to be flown at Wright Field in a final competition to select the winner. The Douglas entry bore the company designation of DB-1. It drew heavily on the company's experience with its DC-2 commercial airliner. The DB-1 was designed around the wings of the DC-2 and was fitted with a deeper and fatter fuselage which contained a bomb bay within its center section. The DB-1 had larger tail surfaces than did the standard DC-2, plus a wing with a slightly larger span and area resulting from the fitting of rounded tips. A six-man crew was carried (two pilots, one navigator/bombardier, plus 3 gunners). Defensive armament consisted of three 0.30-cal machine guns, one each in manually-operated nose and dorsal turrets, and one firing from a ventral hatch. The dorsal turret was located just ahead of the vertical fin and was fully retractable. It was rather unusual in having a rectangular top, so that it could lie flush with the upper fuselage when retracted. A 4400-pound bombload could be carried in the bomb bay. The DB-1 made its first flight in April of 1935, powered by a pair of 850 hp Wright R-1820-G5 air-cooled radials. Maximum speed was 233 mph, with cruising speed being 173 mph. Range was 2030 miles with a 2000- pound bombload. Service ceiling was over 25,000 feet. It was delivered to Wright Field for the competition in August of 1935. Competitors included the Martin 146, which was a streamlined and enlarged version of the B-10 twin-engined light bomber then already in Army service, plus the fourengined Boeing 299, which was eventually to emerge as the famed B-17 Flying Fortress. Test flights proved the DB-1 to be inferior in almost every respect to the Boeing 299. However, the DB-1 did have the advantage over the Boeing design in being substantially cheaper. In addition, the crash of the Boeing 299 on October 30, 1935 caused the USAAC to opt for the conservative approach, and on January 28, 1936 they ordered 82 B-18s, with the order being increased to 132 by June. Fortunately, the Army also ordered 13 Boeing YB-17s. Production B-18s were powered by a pair of 930 hp Wright R-1820-45 radials housed in revised cowlings. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b18.html (1 of 5)08-09-2006 20:22:06

Douglas B-18 Bolo

The nose cone was somewhat shorter than that of the DB-1 prototype, and it contained more lateral windows as well as a bomb-aiming window in its forward lower portion. With full military equipment fitted, the performance of the production B-18 fell off slightly, to a maximum speed of 217 mph, cruising speed of 167 mph, and combat range of 850 miles. Nevertheless, the B-18 was the most modern bomber design then available to the Army. The first production B-18 was delivered to Wright Field on February 23, 1937. The DB-1 prototype was brought up to full B-18 standards and was redelivered to the Army five days later as serial number 37-51. The DB-2 was a B-18 airframe fitted in March 1937 with a power-driven nose turret with an extensivelyglazed large bombardier's enclosure. It bore the serial number 37-34, which identified it as the last aircraft ordered on the original B-18 contract. However, it was delivered out of sequence, and it was actually the 36th B-18 to be delivered when it was received at Wright Field on November 8, 1937. This modified nose did not prove satisfactory, and the aircraft was eventually converted back to standard B-18 configuration before being delivered to the 18th Reconnaissance Squadron at Mitchel Field, New York. The second (and last) major production version of the Douglas bomber was the B-18A. The B-18A differed from the B-18 in having the bomb-aimer's position moved upward and forward underneath an extended glazed housing, while the flexible forward-firing nose gun was moved further back and below and was mounted inside a globular ball turret. This led to the rather unusual geometry in which the bombardier sat above and ahead of the nose gunner. A transparent domed cap was added to round off the top of the dorsal turret, so that it no longer lay flush with the fuselage when retracted. The B-18A was powered by two 1000-hp Wright R-1820-53 radials driving fully-feathering propellers. 177 B-18As were ordered on June 10, 1937, with 78 more being added to the contract on June 30, 1938. The B-18A flew for the first time on April 15, 1938. The first B-18A was delivered to the Army in April of 1938, with the last example being delivered in January of 1940. Only 217 out of the 255 ordered were actually delivered as B-18As, the last 38 examples being built as B-23s. Fearing the imminent breakout of war in Europe, a delegation from the British Air Ministry toured the Douglas plant in late 1938 seeking to purchase combat aircraft. Douglas was unable to interest the British in the B-18 design, as it was deemed by the RAF to have insufficient power, poor airfield performance, and inadequate defensive armament. The RAF chose to order the Lockheed Hudson instead. However, Douglas did succeed in acquiring an order for 20 B-18A from the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF). In Canadian service, these 20 planes were designated Digby Mk 1. The Digby was generally similar to the USAAC's B-18As, but had 0.303 cal machine guns as well as some other British and Canadian equipment. The first Digby entered RCAF service in late 1939. These carried the Canadian serial numbers 738 thru 757. They served with No 10 (BR) Squadron, where they were assigned the duty of patrolling the North Atlantic in search of German U-boats. In 1939, the DB-1 prototype (which had been delivered to the Army as serial number 37-51) was modified to test the feasibility of firing large-caliber cannon from aircraft. A forward-firing 75-mm cannon was mounted in a fixed position in the bomb bay and the nose was cut down to accommodate the muzzle. Initial tests were carried out over Lake Erie and at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. Vibration http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b18.html (2 of 5)08-09-2006 20:22:06

Douglas B-18 Bolo

during firing proved excessive, and the experiments were eventually discontinued. However, the data gathered was of great value in developing the B-25G and H cannon-firing versions of the North American Mitchell medium bomber during the war. In 1940, 22 B-18s and 17 B-18As had their D-3 and B-7 bomb shackles removed so that larger bombs could be carried. They were redesignated B-18M and B-18AM respectively. Deliveries of B-18s to Army units began in the first half of 1937, with the first examples being test and evaluation aircraft being turned over to the Materiel Division at Wright Field, Ohio, the Technical Training Command at Chanute Field, Illinois, the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, and Lowry Field in Colorado. The first operation unit to receive the B-18 was the 7th Bombardment Group based at Hamilton Field in California. B-18s later went to the 5th Bombardment Group at Luke Field, Oahu, the 19th Bombardment Group and 38th Reconnaissance Squadron at Mitchel Field, and the 21st Reconnaissance Squadron at Langley Field, Virginia. These units were also later supplemented with B-18As, with B-18As also being supplied to the 2nd Bombardment Group at Langley Field. By the early 1940s, the deficiencies in the B-18/B-18A bomber were becoming readily apparent to almost everyone. In range, in speed, in bombload, and particularly in defensive armor and armament, the design came up short, and the USAAC conceded that the aircraft was totally unsuited in the long-range bombing role for which had originally been intended. To send crews out in such a plane against a well-armed, determined foe would have been nothing short of suicidal. However, in spite of the known shortcomings in the B-18/B-18A, the Douglas aircraft was the most numerous American bomber type deployed outside the Continental United States at the time of Pearl Harbor. It was hoped that the B-18 could play a stopgap role until more suitable aircraft became available in quantity. In early December of 1941, the 5th and 11th Bombardment Groups at Hickam Field, Hawaii had 33 B-18s on strength, whereas the 28th Bombardment Squadron at Clark Field in the Philippnes had twelve. B-18/B18As were also stationed with the 6th Bombardment Group in the Canal Zone, with the 9th Bombardment Group stationed at airfields in Trinidad, St. Lucia, and Surinam. When war came to the Pacific, most of the B-18/B-18A aircraft based overseas in the Philippines and in Hawaii were destroyed on the ground in the initial Japanese onslaught. The few Douglas bombers that remained played no significant role in subsequent operations. The Bolos remaining in the continental USA and in the Carribean were then deployed in a defensive role in anticipation of attacks on the US mainland. Fortunately, these attacks never materialized. In 1942, 122 B-18As were modified for the maritime reconnaissance bombing role to counter the U-boat menace. These modified aircraft were redesignated B-18B. An SCR-517-T-4 ASV (air to surface vessel) radar set was mounted under a radome in the nose, replacing the bombardier's shark-nose glazed area. The bombardier's station was moved below and behind the radome, where the forward turret had formerly been located. In addition, a Mk IV Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD) set was installed in a long tubular boom that extended behind and below the the rudder. Some B-18Bs were also equipped with a set of retro bombtracks underneath the wings which could fire bombs backwards in a prearranged pattern. B-18Bs are credited with two U-boat kills--U-654 on August 22, 1942 and U-512 on October 2, 1942. The http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b18.html (3 of 5)08-09-2006 20:22:06

Douglas B-18 Bolo

antisubmarine role was relatively short lived, and the Douglases were superseded in this role in 1943 by the B-24 Liberator which had a substantially longer range and a much heavier payload. Like their American counterparts, the RCAF Digbys were also employed on maritime reconnaissance missions to counter the U-boat menace. The Canadian Digbys are credited with one U-boat kill. This was U-520 which was sunk on October 3, 1942 by Digby #757 PB-K of 10 (BR) Squadron operating out of Dartmouth (Halifax, Nova Scotia). By mid-1943, the RCAF Digbys had been superceded by Liberator GR. Vs in the anti-submarine role, Two B-18s ended up serving in Brazil. 6300 (ex USAAF 36-300) and 7032 (ex USAAF 37-32) served with the Agrupamenato de Avioes de Adatacao, which was a provisional conversion training unit set up under the provisions of Lend-Lease. They were later used for antisubmarine patrols. They were struck off charge at the end of the war. Another B-18 was used as an instructional airframe, but I am unaware of its serial number. Surviving USAAF B-18s ended their useful lives in training and transport roles within the continental USA, and saw no further combat action. Two B-18As were modified as unarmed cargo transports under the designation C-58. At the end of the war, those bombers that were left were sold as surplus on the commercial market. Some postwar B-18s of various models were operated as cargo or crop-spraying aircraft by commercial operators. The last Canadian Digby was struck off strength by the RCAF in 1946. So ends the career of one of the lesser lights of the Second World War. The Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio has B-18A serial number 37-469 on display. It is equipped with a rectangular-topped dorsal turret from a B-18. Other preserved B-18As include 37-029 at Castle AFB Museum, 37-505 at McChord AFB Museum, 38-593 at the Pima museum, and 39-025 at Cannon AFB Museum B-18 serials: 36-262/343 36-431/36-446 37-1/34. 29 is on display at Castle Air Museum, CA B-18A serials: 37-458/634 469 is on display at US Air Force Museum, Wright Patterson AFB, OH. 505 on display at McChord AFB, WA. 593 on display at Pima Air and Space Museum, Tucson, AZ. 38-585/609 39-12/64. 25 on display at Wings Over the Rockies museum, http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b18.html (4 of 5)08-09-2006 20:22:06

Douglas B-18 Bolo

Denver, CO. B-18As 39-27/64 were delivered as B-23s Specification of Douglas B-18: Two Wright R-1820-45 air cooled radials, rated at 930 hp for takeoff and 810 hp at 10,200 feet. Maximum speed 217 mph at 10,000 feet. Cruising speed 167 mph. Landing speed 64 mph. Service ceiling 24,200 feet. Absolute ceiling 25,850 feet. Initial climb rate 1355 feet per minute. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 9.1 minutes. Range was 1082 miles with 2200 pounds of bombs and 412 gallons of fuel, or 1200 miles with 4400 pounds of bombs and 802 gallons of fuel. Maximum ferry range was 2225 miles. Dimensions: wingspan 89 feet 6 inches, length 56 feet 8 inches, height 15 feet 2 inches, wing area 959 square feet. Weights: 15,719 pounds empty, 21,130 pounds gross, 27,087 pounds pounds maximum takeoff. Normal bombload was 2200 pounds, but a maximum bombload of 4400 pounds could be carried. Armed with three 0.30-inch machine guns in nose, dorsal, and ventral positions. Specification of Douglas B-18A: Two Wright R-1820-53 air cooled radials, rated at 1000 hp for takeoff and 850 hp at 9600 feet. Maximum speed 215.5 mph at 10,000 feet. Cruising speed 167 mph. Landing speed 69 mph. Service ceiling 23,900 feet. Absolute ceiling 25,600 feet. Initial climb rate 1030 feet per minute. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 9.9 minutes. Range was 1150 miles with 2496 pounds of bombs. Dimensions: wingspan 89 feet 6 inches, length 57 feet 10 inches, height 15 feet 2 inches, wing area 959 square feet. Weights: 16,321 pounds empty, 22,123 pounds gross, 27,673 pounds pounds maximum takeoff. Normal bombload was 2200 pounds, but a maximum bombload of 4400 pounds could be carried. Armed with three 0.30-inch machine guns in nose, dorsal, and ventral positions. Sources: 1. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920: Volume 1. Rene Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1988. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers,

Smithsonian, 1989. 3. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 4. C-47 Skytrain in Action, Larry Davis, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1995.


Douglas XBLR-2/XB-19

Douglas XBLR-2/XB-19 Last revised October 14, 2003

The Douglas XB-19 was the largest American aircraft built until the completion of the Convair B-36 in August of 1946. The XB-19 project had its origin in a secret Army Air Corps project of the mid 'thirties for an advanced long-range bomber. On February 5, 1935, the Army Air Corps initiated a secret project for an experimental long-range bomber, with the goal of seeing just how far the state of the art could be pushed. It was assigned the codename "Project D", and was classified top secret. No production was envisaged, since "Project D" was more of a proofof-concept vehicle than it was a serious proposal for a production military aircraft. Preliminary discussions were carried out with Douglas and Sikorsky, the only two companies which showed any interest in participating in the project. The Army wanted the prototype to be delivered by March 31, 1938. On July 9, 1935, the designation XBLR-2 was assigned to the Douglas proposal, the type symbol BLR standing for Bomber, Long Range. The BLR type symbol had been introduced in 1935 to cover large, long-range bombers. At the same time, the competing Sikorsky design was assigned the designation XBLR-3. A contract covering preliminary and detailed design, mock-up construction and testing of critical components was sent to Douglas in October of 1935 and was approved on October 18. In March of 1936, wooden mockups of the Douglas and Sikorsky designs were inspected. At that time, the Douglas proposal was deemed superior, and the contract for the Sikorsky XBLR-3 was cancelled. Progress on the XBLR-2 proceeded rather slowly due to the shortage of funds caused by http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b19.html (1 of 6)08-09-2006 20:22:11


the limited military budget allocated for research and development during the Depression years 1935 to 1937. The aircraft was conceived as a large, four-engined, low-winged monoplane. A tricycle undercarriage was to have been fitted, which was still rather unusual for the time. This undercarriage was tested on a Douglas OA-4B Dolphin amphibian loaned back to the company by the Army. The XBLR-2 was originally to have been powered by four 1600 hp Allison XV-3420-1 twenty-four cylinder liquid-cooled engines. The XV-3420 was basically a pair of V-1710 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled Vee engines coupled together to drive a single propeller. On November 2, 1936, the Douglas company decided to substitute the 2000 hp Wright R3350 air-cooled radial for the coupled Allisons originally specified. The separate BLR type symbol was abolished in 1936, and the XBLR-2 was redesignated B-19 in the B-for-bomber series. By late 1937, enough R & D funds had been made available so that a contract change calling for the construction of a single prototype under the designation XB-19 was issued on November 19, 1937, but not approved until March 8, 1938. The serial number 38-471 was assigned. By late 1938, the XB-19 was way behind schedule because of the lack of adequate development funds from the USAAC. The Douglas company had been forced to spend a considerable amount of its own money on the XB-19 project and badly needed the XB-19 design staff to work on other aircraft projects that had better prospects for a production future. By this time, the weight of the XB-19 was increasing excessively, resulting in an expectation of a progressively poorer and poorer performance with the engines specified. During the previous three years the advances in the state of the art had been so rapid that the basic B-19 design was by this time quite obsolescent. Consequently, on August 30, 1938 the company recommended to the Army that the XB-19 contract be cancelled. However, the Army's Materiel Division refused to abandon the project, and construction of the first prototype continued slowly at Douglas. In 1940, the Army, perhaps recognizing that the XB-19 had by that time lost most if not all of its military importance, finally removed the aircraft from its list of secret projects, and the aircraft became a hot item in the popular press as a radically new long-range bomber for America's defense against foreign foes.



The XB-19 was finally completed in May of 1941. It was a very large, all-metal stressedskin low-winged monoplane with a retractable tricycle undercarriage. It had a wingspan of 212 feet and a maximum gross weight of 162,000 pounds. It was physically the largest American aircraft yet built, and was to remain so until the completion of the Convair B-36 in 1946. The XB-19 was powered by four Wright R-3350-5 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radials rated at 2000 hp each for takeoff. They drove three-bladed constant-speed propellers. Total internal fuel capacity was 10,350 US gallons, with provision for the fitting of additional tanks of 824 gallon capacity in the bomb bay for additional range. Bombs could be carried either in an internal bomb bay or on ten underwing racks. The internal bomb bay could accommodate eight 2000-pound, 16 1100-pounds, or 30 600-pound bombs. The ten underwing racks could each accommodate bombs of up to 2000 pounds in weight for short-range missions. Maximum bomb capacity was 37,100 pounds. Defensive armament of the XB-19 (not fitted at the time of completion) was quite heavy for the time. It consisted of one 37-mm cannon and one 0.30-inch machine gun in each of the nose and forward dorsal turrets, one 0.5-inch machine gun in the tail position, rear dorsal turret, ventral turret, and port and starboard positions. One 0.30-inch machine gun was fitted on each side of the bombardier's position and on each side of the fuselage below the tailplane. There was no armor protection for the crew and there were no self-sealing fuel tanks included, but these features would undoubtedly have to have been included had the B-19 ever gone into production. The normal combat crew of the XB-19 was 16, which included a pilot, co-pilot, aircraft commander, navigator, flight engineer, radio operator, bombardier, a gunner operating the nose power turret, a gunner who operated 0.30-inch guns pointing from each side of the nose compartment, a gunner operating the forward dorsal power turret, an upper rear dorsal turret gunner, two waist gunners, a belly gunner, a tail gunner, and a gunner seated below the stabilizer operating 0.30-inch guns firing from either side of the aircraft. However, an additional crew consisting of 2 flight mechanics and six relief crewmembers could be carried in a special compartment installed in the fuselage above the bomb bay with eight seats and six bunks. Passages in the lower wing gave mechanics direct access to the engines while the aircraft was in flight. The XB-19 even had a complete galley for the inflight preparation of hot meals. Over three years behind the original schedule, the first flight of the XB-19 took place from http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b19.html (3 of 6)08-09-2006 20:22:11


Clover Field in Santa Monica on June 27, 1941 with a crew of seven captained by Major Stanley M. Umstead. On its first flight, it was flown to March Field and turned over to the Army for evaluation. Such was the degree of popular enthusiasm aroused by the XB-19 that President Franklin Roosevelt himself telegraphed congratulations to Donald Douglas for this achievement. Thirty hours of manufacturer's flight tests were carried out at March Field before the XB19 was tentatively accepted by the Army in October of 1941. After the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, as a matter of precaution the XB-19 was painted in camouflage and its guns were loaded during its last four test flights in California. On January 23, 1942, the XB-19 was transferred to Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio, hopefully well out of range of any attacking Japanese aircraft. After more tests and the carrying out of some minor modifications which included the installation of improved brakes, the aircraft was formally accepted by the Army in June of 1942. The Army paid Douglas $1,400,064 for the XB-19. However, the company had spent almost 4 million dollars of its own funds on the project, so Douglas managed to lose money on the XB-19. Nevertheless, the XB-19 proved on tests to be relatively troublefree, with the exception of engine cooling difficulties. These problems required that the engine cooling gills be kept open during long flights, reducing maximum speed at 15,700 feet from 224 mph to 204 mph. Following the completion of its series of flight tests, the XB-19 was eventually modified at Wright Field as a cargo aircraft and fitted with four 2600 hp Allison V-3420-11 turbosupercharged twenty-four cylinder liquid cooled engines, which was the production version of the engine that had originally been specified for the aircraft. It was redesignated XB-19A. The XB-19A could reach a maximum speed of 275 mph and was no longer plagued with engine cooling problems. Although the XB-19/XB-19A never saw production, it provided extremely valuable data for features which were later incorporated into the design of other large aircraft such as the Boeing B-29 and Convair B-36. The XB-19A made its last flight on August 17, 1946, when it was flown from Wright Field to Davis-Monthan Field in Arizona and placed in storage. It was scrapped there in June of 1949. However, its nose section somehow ended up in a scrap yard on Alameda Street in Los Angeles, and was still visible there as late as 1955. It is too bad that this http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b19.html (4 of 6)08-09-2006 20:22:11


aircraft could not have been saved. Serial of the Douglas XB-19/XB-19A:

38-471

Specification of Douglas XB-19: Four Wright R-3350-5 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radials rated at 2000 hp each for takeoff and 1500 hp at 15,700 feet. Maximum speed 224 mph at 15,700 feet. Cruising speed 135 mph. Initial climb rate 650 feet per minute. Service ceiling 23,000 feet. Normal range 5200 miles, maximum range 7710 miles. Weights: 86,000 pounds empty, 140,000 pounds loaded, 162,000 pounds maximum. Dimensions: wingspan 212 feet, length 132 feet 4 inches, height 42 feet, wing area 4285 square feet. The internal bomb bay could accommodate eight 200-pound, 16 1100-pounds, or 30 600-pound bombs. Ten underwing racks could accommodate bombs of up to 2000 pounds in weight for short-range missions, for a maximum bomb capacity of 37,100 pounds. Defensive armament consisted of two 37-mm cannon, six 0.30 and five 0.50-in machine guns, distributed as follows: one 37-mm cannon and one 0.30-inch machine gun in each of the nose and forward dorsal turrets, one 0.5-inch machine gun in the tail position, rear dorsal turret, ventral turret, and port and starboard positions. One 0.30-inch machine gun was fitted on each side of the bombardier's position and on each side of the fuselage below the tailplane. Specification of Douglas XB-19A: Four 2600 hp Allison V-3420-11 twenty-four cylinder liquid cooled engines. Maximum speed 265 mph at 20,000 feet. Cruising speed 185 mph. Service ceiling 39,000 feet. Normal range 4200 miles Weights: 92,400 pounds empty, 140,230 pounds loaded. Dimensions: wingspan 212 feet, length 132 feet 4 inches, height 42 feet, wing area 4285 square feet. Sources: 1. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Volume 1, Rene J. Francillon, Naval

Institute Press, 1988. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 3. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b19.html (5 of 6)08-09-2006 20:22:11


4. E-mail from Richard Eaton on the correct spelling of Stanly Umstead's name.


Boeing XB-20

Boeing XB-20 Last revised August 1, 1999

The Boeing XB-15 experimental four-engined long-range bomber of 1937 proved to be seriously underpowered and was never ordered into production. In March of 1938, in an attempt to remedy some of the deficiencies of the basic design, the Boeing company offered a more advanced version of the XB-15. It was known by the company as the Model 316, and was approximately the same size as the XB-15. However, in an attempt to provide more power, the Model 316 was to have been powered by four 1400 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2180 Twin Hornet air cooled radials. The Model 316 was offered to the Army in several different forms. The Model 316D version, which featured a high-winged design with an 80,000 pound gross weight, 152foot wingspan, seven machine guns, and a pressurized canopy, attracted sufficient attention so that two examples were ordered by the Army in June of 1938 under the designation Y1B-20. Shortly after the order, the Army concluded that the Y1B-20 was simply too expensive and that they really did not require bombers with range or carrying capability beyond those of the B-17. Consequently, both Y1B-20 prototypes were cancelled before anything could be built. Specification of the Boeing Y1B-20: Four Pratt & Whitney R-2180 Twin Hornet air cooled radials, rated at 1400 hp each. Weights: 80,000 pounds gross Dimensions: wingspan 152 feet Armed with seven machine guns. Source: 1. Boeing Aircraft Since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b20.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:22:19

Boeing XB-20



North American XB-21 Last revised August 1, 1999

The XB-21 of the mid-1930s was North American Aviation's first venture into the bomber field. It was a twin-engined six-place heavy bomber powered by a pair of 1200 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2180-1 Twin Hornet radial engines equipped with F-10 turbosuperchargers. The XB-21 was a mid-wing monoplane armed with five 0.30-inch machine guns. One gun was mounted in each of power turrets installed in the nose and in the rear dorsal positions, plus one 0.30-inch machine gun firing from a ventral hatch and from left and right waist positions. The aircraft was known by the company as the NA-21, and work on the project was begun in January 1936. The prototype took to the air on its maiden flight on December 22, 1936. After some rework, it was accepted by the Air Force as the XB-21. The serial number 38485 was assigned. Two 1100-pound bombs could be carried 1960 miles, or eight 1100 pound bombs for a 660 mile range. The XB-21 aircraft found itself in competition with the Douglas B-18A for production orders. Price was the determining factor, the two aircraft having roughly similar performances. North American was asking $122,600 for each plane, whereas Douglas was asking only $63,977. Consequently, Douglas got the order, and a contract for 177 B-18As was issued on June 10, 1937. No further XB-21s were built. Serial number of North American XB-21: 38-485. Specification of North American XB-21: Two Pratt & Whitney R-2180-1 radials, rated at 1200 hp for takeoff. Performance: Maximum speed 220 mph at 10,000 feet. Cruising speed 190 mph. Service ceiling 25,000 feet. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 10 minutes. Range was 1960 miles with 2200 pounds of bombs, 660 miles with 10,000 pounds of bombs. Maximum range http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b21.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 20:22:24


3100 miles. Weights: 19,082 pounds empty, 27,253 pounds gross, 40,000 pounds maximum. Dimensions: Wingspan 95 feet, length 61 feet 9 inches, height 14 feet 9 inches, wing area 1120 square feet. Armed with a 0.30-inch machine gun mounted in power turrets in the nose and in the rear dorsal positions, plus one 0.30-inch machine gun firing from a ventral hatch and from left and right waist positions. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982.


Douglas XB-22

Douglas XB-22 Last revised August 1, 1999

It was readily apparent by the late 1930s that the performance of the B-18 bomber was rapidly rendering it obsolete. In an attempt to improve the performance of the B-18A, Douglas proposed that 1600 hp Wright R-2600-1 radials be fitted to a version of the B18A to be designated XB-22. In spite of the substantial increase in power offered by the larger engines, the performance of the XB-22 still fell short of requirements and the project was abandoned before anything could be built. Sources: 1. Ray Wagner, American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 2. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, vol 1, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute

Press, 1988 3. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 4. U.S. Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James, C. Fahey


Douglas B-23 Dragon

Douglas B-23 Dragon Last revised November 23, 2000

The Douglas B-23 Dragon was a development of the B-18A Bolo with a considerably refined fuselage and a tail gun position. By the late 1930s, it was readily apparent that the performance of the B-18 bomber was rapidly rendering it obsolete. In an attempt to improve the performance of the B-18A, Douglas proposed that a pair of 1600 hp Wright R-2600-1 radials be fitted to a version of the B-18A to be designated XB-22. In spite of the substantial increase in power that was offered by the change in engines, the performance of the XB-22 still fell short of requirements and the project was abandoned before anything could be built. As an alternative to the failed XB-22, Douglas proposed that the B-18 undergo a major redesign in which it would be fitted with the stronger wings of the DC-3 commercial transport and be equipped with a completely new and better-streamlined fuselage with a substantially larger fin and rudder. A pair of Wright R-2600 radials (that were to have powered the unbuilt XB-22) were to be used as the powerplants. The USAAC was sufficiently intrigued by the Douglas proposal that they issued a change order in late 1938 in which the last 38 B-18As ordered under Contract AC9977 would be delivered as B-23s. Serials would be 39-27 thru 39-64. It was agreed that the usual prototype and service test phases would be skipped, and that all the aircraft would be delivered as production aircraft designated simply B-23. The first B-23 (39-27) was completed in July of 1939, powered by a pair of 1600 hp Wright R-2600-3 radials. The fuselage of the B-23 was much less deep than that of the B-18A, and the vertical tail and rudder were much larger in area. This first aircraft had an unglazed nose, whereas later production aircraft were to have a glazed nose housing the bombardier's position plus a flexible 0.30-inch machine gun carried on a ball-andsocket mount. It was assumed that the higher top speed of the B-23 would make frontal attacks less likely, so a frontal turret was thought not to be necessary. Perhaps the most noticeable feature of the B-23 was the presence of a glazed tail gunner's position, the first to be installed on an American bomber. The maiden flight of the B-23 took place from Clover Field at Santa Monica on July 27, 1939. After being evaluated by the Materiel Division at Wright Field in Ohio, the B-23 entered service with the 89th Reconnaissance Squadron based at March Field in California. The remaining 37 B-23s were delivered between February and September of 1940, replacing the Northrop A-17As of the 17th Bomb Group based at March Field. In service, the B-23 carried a flexible 0.30-inch gun on a ball-and-socket mount in the extreme nose, plus a 0.30-inch machine gun on a swing mount attached to the aft fuselage bulkhead and firing either through beam hatches or through a swing-down dorsal panel, a 0.30-inch machine gun firing through a ventral hatch, plus a 0.50-inch hand-held machine gun in the glazed tail-gunner's position. The aircraft also had provision for a camera mounted on the left hand side of the fuselage. The bomb bay could accommodate http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b23.html (1 of 3)08-09-2006 20:22:50

Douglas B-23 Dragon

bombs of up to 2000 pounds in weight. The crew was six--pilot, bombardier, navigator, radio operator, camera operator, and tail gunner. Although the B-23 was 66 mph faster than its B-18A predecessor and had a much better range, it was still clearly inferior to the Boeing B-17E, the first truly combat-capable version of the Fortress. The B-23 was slower than the North American B-25 Mitchell and Martin B-26 Marauder and was less heavily-armed. Consequently, the B-23 was never used in its intended bombardment role and never saw any combat overseas. After the 17th Bomb Group's B-23s were replaced by B-25s, their B-23s were passed on to the 12th Bomb Group at McCord and to the 13th Bomb Group at Orlando. After Pearl Harbor, a few B-23s were used briefly for patrol along the Pacific Coast before being relegated to training roles. Many B-23s were later used for various tests and experiments. B-23 serial number 39-028 was used in glider pickup tests in which a glider's tow line would be held off the ground between two poles and caught by a hook extending from underneath the rear fuselage of the B-23 as it flew overhead. 39-28 was also used by Emerson Electric to test various remotely-controlled turret arrangements. B-23 number 39-032 was handed over to Pratt & Whitney on August 20, 1940 to test the 1850 hp R-2800-5 engine in support of the B-26 and XB-28 program. 39-053 was used at Muroc Dry Lake in California as a controller for the Culver PQ-8 radiocontrolled drone. At least eighteen B-23s were modified as transports under the designation UC-67. Known serials are 39-029, 031, 034, 035, 039, 041, 043, 044, 047, 054/059, 061, 063, and 064. After the end of the war, surviving B-23s and UC-67s were sold off as surplus. Many were refitted as corporate aircraft and were provided with a new and longer metal nose, full washroom facilities, plus accommodations for twelve passengers in two compartments. Several of these civil conversions were still flying in the late 1970s. I am aware of four B-23s that still survive. B-23 serial number 39-037 is located at the Air Force Museum at Wright- Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio. It was parked outside for several years, but has been recently moved inside for restoration. B-23 serial number 39-045 is on display at the Castle Air Museum in California. 39-036 is at the McChord Air Museum in Washington state. 39-051 is at the Pima Air Museum in Tuscon, Arizona. Serials: 39-027/064

Douglas B-23 Dragon c/n 035 036 037

2713/2750 converted to UC-67 at McChord Air Museum, WA. at USAF Museum, OH undergoing

restoration. 038 converted to UC-67 041 converted to UC-67 045 at Castle Air Museum, CA


Douglas B-23 Dragon

047 converted to UC-67 051 at Pima Air Museum, Tucson, AZ. 052 crashed McCall, Idaho Jan 29, 1943. Crew recovered some time after Feb 13. 053 converted to UC-67. RFC/scrap, Patterson Field 5/31/45 056 RFC Patson Field, Savanna GA 6/5/45 062 RFC McKeller Field, TN 7/3/46 064 RFC McKeller Field, TN 9/3/44 Specification of the Douglas B-23 Dragon: Two Wright R-2600-3 air-cooled radial engines, rated at 1600 hp for takeoff and 1275 hp at 12,000 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 282 mph at 122,000 feet, cruising speed 210 mph. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be reached in 6.7 minutes. Service ceiling 31,600 feet. Normal range 1400 miles with 4000 pounds of bombs, maximum range 2750 miles. Weights: 19,089 pounds empty, 26,500 pounds loaded, 32,400 pounds maximum. Dimensions: wingspan 92 feet, length 58 feet 4 3/4 inches, height 18 feet 5 1/2 inches, wing area 993 square feet. Armed with a flexible 0.30-inch gun on a ball-and-socket mount in the extreme nose, a 0.30inch machine gun on a swing mount attached to the aft fuselage bulkhead and firing either through beam hatches or through a swing-down dorsal panel, a 0.30-inch machine gun firing through a ventral hatch, plus a 0.50-inch hand-held machine gun in the glazed tail-gunner's position. Sources: 1. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920: Volume 1. Rene Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1988. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian,

1989. 3. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 4. E-mail from Will Marshall on status of USAF Museum B-23. 5. E-mail from Charles Sill on B-23 at Castle Air Museum.




Consolidated XB-24 Liberator Consolidated YB-24 Liberator Consolidated B-24A Liberator/LB-30B Consolidatee B-24A Liberator Liberator II for the RAF/LB-30 Consolidated XB-24B Liberator Consolidated B-24C Liberator The Liberator Production Pool Consolidated B-24D Liberator Liberator III/G.R.V for RAF B-24D for Australia XB-41 gunship Consolidated B-24E Liberator Liberator IV for RAF Consolidated XB-24F Liberator Consolidated B-24H Liberator Consolidated B-24G Liberator Consolidated B-24J Liberator Consolidated XB-24K Liberator Ford/Consolidated B-24L Liberator Liberator VI/VIII for RAF Convair/Ford B-24M Liberator Consolidated B-24N Liberator Consolidated XB-24P Liberator Consolidated XB-24Q Liberator Consolidated C-87 Liberator Express Consolidated C-109 Consolidated F-7 Consolidated PB4Y-1 Liberator with Royal Australian Air Force Liberator with the Netherlands



Liberators for India Liberators for China B-24s for South Africa B-24s for Czechoslovakia B-24s for Turkey B-24 with USAAF Convair PB4Y-2 Privateer Convair RY-3



North American B-25 Mitchell

North American NA-40 North American B-25 Mitchell North American B-25A Mitchell North American B-25B Mitchell The Doolittle Tokyo Raid North American B-25C Mitchell North American B-25D Mitchell B-25C/D Strafers Mediterranean Modifications of B-25C/D F-10 Photo-Reconnaissance Version of B-25 North American XB-25E Mitchell North American XB-25F Mitchell North American B-25G Mitchell B-25C with 37-mm Cannon North American B-25H Mitchell North American NA-98X North American B-25J Mitchell B-25 Experiments with Glide Torpedoes PBJ-1 for US Navy B-25 VIP Transport Conversions AT-24, TB-25, VB-25 Mitchell with Royal Air Force B-25 Mitchell in Dutch Service B-25 Mitchell with Royal Australian Air Force B-25 Mitchell with Royal Canadian Air Force B-25 Mitchell in Service with China B-25 Mitchell with Free French B-25 Mitchell with Brazilian Air Force Postwar B-25s Postwar Latin American Use of the Mitchell Civilian and Surviving Mitchells






Martin B-26 Marauder Martin B-26A Marauder Marauder I for RAF Martin B-26B Marauder The Widow Maker Marauder IA for RAF Martin B-26C Marauder Marauder II for RAF Martin XB-26D Marauder Martin "XB-26E" Marauder Martin B-26F Marauder Martin B-26G Marauder Martin TB-26G Marauder Marauder III for RAF Martin XB-26H Marauder Martin AT-23 Marauder Martin JM-1 Marauder for US Navy Martin JM-2 Marauder Service of B-26 Marauder with USAAF Service of B-26 Marauder with Free French


Martin XB-27

Martin XB-27 Last revised April 17, 2000

The Martin XB-27 (Model 182) was to have been a high-altitude version of the B-26 Marauder. It was to have been powered by a pair of turbosupercharged Pratt & Whitney R2800-9 air-cooled radial engines and was to have had a pressurized cockpit. The crew was to have consisted of seven, and estimated maximum speed was 376 mph. However, the project was cancelled before anything could be built. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.


North American XB-28 Dragon

North American XB-28 Dragon Last revised April 17, 2000

The North American XB-28 (NA-63) Dragon was a proposed high-altitude follow-on to the B-25 Mitchell twin-engined medium bomber. Two prototypes were ordered on February 13, 1940. The XB-28 aircraft was generally similar to the B-25 in overall configuration, but had a single vertical tail rather than two. It had appreciably more power than the B-25, being powered by a pair of turbosupercharged Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engines It carried a crew of five in a pressurized cabin and could carry up to 4000 pounds of bombs. The defensive armament consisted of remotely-controlled upper, lower, and tail turrets, each of which contained two 0.50-inch guns. The guns were aimed by gunners inside the fuselage who operated periscopic sights in stations behind the pilots' seats. The XB-28 flew for the first time on April 26, 1942. The second prototype was completed as the XB-28A reconnaissance version with R-2800-27s. Although the high-altitude performance of the XB-28 greatly exceeded that of the B-25, most medium bombing during the war was done from relatively low altitudes, and it was decided not to interrupt Mitchell production for an untried type, and the XB-28 project was cancelled after only two examples were built. Specification of North American XB-28: Engines: Two Pratt & Whitney R-2800-11 air-cooled radial engines, rated at 2000 hp for takeoff and 1840 hp at 25,000 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 372 mph at 25,000 feet. Cruising speed 255 mph. Service ceiling 34,600 feet. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 9 minutes. Range was 2040 miles with a load of 6000 pounds of bombs. Weights: 25,575 pounds empty, 35,740 pounds gross, 37,200 pounds maximum. Dimensions: wingspan 72 feet 7 inches, length 56 feet 5 inches, height 14 feet, wing area 676 square feet.


North American XB-28 Dragon

Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.




Boeing XB-29 Superfortress Boeing YB-29 Superfortress Boeing B-29 Superfortress Boeing B-29A Superfortress Boeing B-29B Superfortress Boeing B-29C Superfortress Boeing B-29D/XB-44 Superfortrss Boeing F-13A Superfortress Operation Matterhorn B-29 Attacks on Japan from the Marianas The Atomic Bomb B-29 in Korean War Washington to the RAF Boeing XB-39 Boeing XB-29E Superfortress Boeing B-29F Superfortress Boeing XB-29G Superfortess Boeing XB-29H Superfortress Boeing YB-29J Superfortress Boeing CB-29K Superfortress Boeing B-29L Superfortesss KB-29M Tanker, B-29MR Receiver Boeing KB-29P Superfortress Boeing YKB-29T Superfortress P2B-1S for US Navy EB-29 Carrier for XF-85 Parasite Fighter B-29 Mothership for X-1 Preserved B-29s Tupolev Tu 4




Lockheed XB-30

Lockheed XB-30 Last revised May 27, 2000

General Henry H. (Hap) Arnold, the acting head of the Army Air Corps, had become alarmed by the growing war clouds in Europe and in the Far East. He established a special committee, chaired by Brigadier General W. G. Kilner, to make recommendations for the long term needs of the Army Air Corps. No less a personage than the famous aviator Charles Lindbergh had been a member of the committee. Lindbergh had recently toured German aircraft factories and Luftwaffe bases, and had become convinced that Germany was well ahead of its potential European adversaries. In their June 1939 report, the Kilner committee recommended that several new long-range medium and heavy bombers be developed. Hastened by a new urgency caused by the outbreak of war in Europe on September 1, on November 10, 1939, General Arnold requested authorization to contract with major aircraft companies for studies of a Very Long-Range (VLR) bomber that would be capable of carrying any future war well beyond American shores. Approval was granted on December 2, and USAAC engineering officers under Captain Donald L. Putt of the Air Material Command at Wright Field began to prepare the official specification. In January of 1940, the Army issued requirements for a "superbomber" with a speed of 400 mph, a range of 5333 miles, and a bomb load of 2000 pounds delivered at the halfwaypoint at that range. The official specification was revised in April to incorporate the lessons learned in early European wartime experience, and now included more defensive armament, armor, and self-sealing tanks. This became the basis for Request for Data R40B and Specification XC-218. On January 29, 1940, the War Department formally issued Data R-40B and circulated it to Boeing, Consolidated, Douglas, and Lockheed. On June 27, 1940, the Army issued contracts for preliminary engineering data for the new "superbomber" to four manufacturers, which were designated in order of preference as Boeing XB-29, Lockheed XB-30, Douglas XB-31, and Consolidated XB-32. The Lockheed XB-30 proposal envisaged a bomber powered by four 2200 hp Wright R3350-13 air-cooled radials. It was to have carried a crew of 12, and would have had a wingspan of 123 feet and a length 104 feet 8 inches. Seeing that it was at a competitive http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b30.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 21:26:58

Lockheed XB-30

disadvantage against the Boeing B-29, Lockheed withdrew its XB-30 proposal from the competition before any detailed designs could be completed. However, the work that Lockheed performed on the abortive XB-30 did not go to waste, since it was later put to use on the development of the C-69 Constellation transport. Sources: 1. US Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey, Ships and Aircraft, 1946. 2. Warbird History--B-29 Superfortress, Chester Marshall, Motorbooks International,

1993. 3. The Boeing B-29 Superfortress, Mich Mayborn, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday,

1969. 4. B-29 Superfortress, John Pimlott, Gallery Books, 1980. 5. Famous Bombers of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1960. 6. Boeing Aircraft Since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989. 7. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.



Douglas XB-31

Douglas XB-31 Last revised May 27, 2000

General Henry H. (Hap) Arnold, the acting head of the Army Air Corps, had become alarmed by the growing war clouds in Europe and in the Far East. He established a special committee, chaired by Brigadier General W. G. Kilner, to make recommendations for the long term needs of the Army Air Corps. No less a personage than the famous aviator Charles Lindbergh had been a member of the committee. Lindbergh had recently toured German aircraft factories and Luftwaffe bases, and had become convinced that Germany was well ahead of its potential European adversaries. In their June 1939 report, the Kilner committee recommended that several new long-range medium and heavy bombers be developed. Hastened by a new urgency caused by the outbreak of war in Europe on September 1, on November 10, 1939, General Arnold requested authorization to contract with major aircraft companies for studies of a Very Long-Range (VLR) bomber that would be capable of carrying any future war well beyond American shores. Approval was granted on December 2, and USAAC engineering officers under Captain Donald L. Putt of the Air Material Command at Wright Field began to prepare the official specification. In January of 1940, the Army issued requirements for a "superbomber" with a speed of 400 mph, a range of 5333 miles, and a bomb load of 2000 pounds delivered at the halfwaypoint at that range. The official specification was revised in April to incorporate the lessons learned in early European wartime experience, and now included more defensive armament, armor, and self-sealing tanks. This became the basis for Request for Data R40B and Specification XC-218. On January 29, 1940, the War Department formally issued Data R-40B and circulated it to Boeing, Consolidated, Douglas, and Lockheed. On June 27, 1940, the Army issued contracts for preliminary engineering data for the new "superbomber" to four manufacturers, which were designated in order of preference as Boeing XB-29, Lockheed XB-30, Douglas XB-31, and Consolidated XB-32. The Douglas XB-31 (company designation of Model 423) was somewhat larger and heavier than the other three competitors. It was to have been powered by four 3000-hp Pratt & Whitney R-4360 28-cylinder air-cooled radials driving three-bladed propellers. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b31.html (1 of 3)08-09-2006 21:27:06

Douglas XB-31

Wingspan was to have been 207 feet with a wing area of 3300 square feet. The length of the fuselage was to have been 117 feet 3 inches. Weights were expected to be 109,200 pounds empty and 198,000 pounds maximum. The pilot and co-pilot were to be seated under separate double bubble canopies that were similar to those later fitted to the C-74 Globemaster transport and the XB-42 experimental bomber. The six other crew members were to be accommodated at separate stations throughout the fuselage. Defensive armament was to have consisted of twin 0.50-inch machine guns in remotely controlled dorsal and ventral turrets, plus a pair of 37-mm cannon in the tail. A maximum bombload of 25,000 pounds was to have been carried in two fuselage bays. In spite of the promise of the XB-31, the B-29 had the edge in the competition since work on the Boeing design was much further along. On May 17, 1941, the Army announced that an order would be placed for 250 B-29s. This order was confirmed in September of 1941. The Douglas XB-31 project was formally cancelled in late 1941 before anything could be built. Sources: 1. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Volume I, Rene J. Francillon, Naval

Institute Press, 1988. 2. US Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey, Ships and Aircraft, 1946. 3. Warbird History--B-29 Superfortress, Chester Marshall, Motorbooks International,


1969. 5. B-29 Superfortress, John Pimlott, Gallery Books, 1980. 6. Famous Bombers of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1960. 7. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.



Douglas XB-31


Consolidated B-32 Dominator

Consolidated B-32 Dominator Index Last revised: 25 February 1996

1. B-29 Competitor ●

Sources

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b032i.html08-09-2006 21:27:17

Consolidated B-32 Dominator -- Chapter 1

Consolidated B-32 Dominator - Chapter 1 B-29 Competitor Last revised: 12 June 1998 Consolidated B-32 Dominator Consolidated B-32 Dominator - Sources (From "Flying Terminated Inventory", Stephen Harding, Wings, April 1993, p. 40. Used with permission.) The Consolidated B-32 Dominator four-engined heavy bomber was ordered at the same time as the Boeing B-29 Superfortress. It was definitely the USAAF's second choice, and was intended primarily as insurance in case the favored Boeing design failed. Since the B-29 turned out to be an outstanding success, the B-32 was built only in relatively small numbers and used in only a very few combat actions during the last few weeks of the war. Although its brief combat career was unspectacular, it did have the distinction of flying the last aerial combat mission against Japan. In early 1939, General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, the acting head of the Army Air Corps, had become alarmed by the growing war clouds in Europe and in the Far East. He established a special committee, chaired by Brigadier General W.G. Kilner, to make recommendations for the long term needs of the Army Air Corps. In their June 1939 report, the Kilner committee recommended that several new longrange medium and heavy bombers be developed. Hastened by a new urgency caused by the outbreak of war in Europe, on November 10, 1939, General Arnold requested authorization to contract with major aircraft companies for studies of a Very Long-Range (VLR) bomber that would be capable of carrying any future war well beyond American shores. It was to be superior in performance, range, load-carrying ability, and in defensive armament to existing B-17 and B-24 aircraft. Approval for the VLR bomber project was granted on December 2, and USAAC engineering officers under Captain Donald L. Putt of the Air Material Command at Wright Field began to prepare the official specification. In January of 1940, the Army issued a set of formal requirements for the "superbomber", calling for a speed of 400 mph, a range of 5333 miles, and a bomb load of 2000 pounds delivered at the halfwaypoint at that range. The official specification was revised in April to incorporate the lessons learned in early European wartime experience, and now asked for more defensive armament, more armor and provision for self-sealing fuel tanks. This became the basis for Request for Data R-40B and Specification XC-218. On January 29, 1940, the War Department formally issued Data R-40B and circulated it to Boeing, Consolidated, Douglas and Lockheed.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b032-01.html (1 of 7)08-09-2006 21:27:24


On June 27, 1940, the Army issued contracts for preliminary engineering data for the new "superbomber" to four manufacturers, which were designated in order of preference as Boeing XB-29, Lockheed XB-30, Douglas XB-31 and Consolidated XB-32. Seeing that they were at a competitive disadvantage, Lockheed and Douglas both subsequently withdrew from the competition before any detailed designs could be completed, but both Boeing and Consolidated stuck with it. On August 24, 1940, the Army ordered two prototypes and a static test model from Boeing under the designation XB29. At the same time, two XB-32 prototypes were ordered from Consolidated as insurance against the failure of the favored XB-29. The contract was dated September 6. A third XB-32 was later added to the contract. The first XB-32 was to be delivered within 18 months of the contract date, the second 90 days later, and the third 90 days after that. The Consolidated XB-32 was assigned the designation of Model 33 by the company. It was similar in overall layout to the twin-finned B-24 Liberator, with a high-mounted Davis-type wing, twin tails, and a twin bomb-bay covered over by a set of roll-up doors. It differed from the B-24 in having a larger wing, a cylindrical fuselage, and a rounded, B-29-type nose. However, the rounded nose was replaced by a more conventional stepped windshield before the first prototype flew. The engines were the same as those of the XB-29 -- four turbosupercharged Wright R-3350 Duplex Cyclone air-cooled radials. Like the Boeing B-29, the XB-32 had pressurized crew compartments and remotely-controlled turrets. However, the turrets on the XB-32 were retractable. The B-32 mockups were built in late December of 1940. They were modified to incorporate changes suggested by a Wright Field report on wind tunnel testing of a 1/35th scale wooden model. The revised mockups were reinspected and finally approved on January 6, 1941. Thirteen service test YB-32s were ordered in June of 1941. These would be developed in parallel to the construction of the three XB-32s. The first XB-32 (41-141) was rolled out at San Diego on September 1, 1942, nearly six months behind schedule. At this stage in the war, the B-32 was still an important part in the USAAF's war planning. The August 1941 plan was based on precision bombing of German industrial targets with 98 groups of bombers, 48 of them equipped with B-29s and B-32s. The USAAF was already unhappy about the delays in both the B-29 and B-32 programs, and since the B-32 had actually been the first to be completed, the Army wanted flight tests to begin at once. Because of problems with the pressurization system and the gun turrets, these items had been left off the first XB-32 so that it could begin flight testing right away. The first XB-32 took off on its maiden flight on September 7, 1942 from San Diego's Lindbergh Field, with test pilots Russell Rodgers and Richard McMakin at the controls. Problems with one of the rudder trim tab actuating rods forced an emergency landing at nearby NAS North Island after only 20 minutes in the air. The XB-32 had R-3350-13 engines inboard, and R-3350-21 engines outboard, all of which drove threebladed Hamilton Standard Hydromatic propellers. The XB-32 was later fitted with four 0.50-inch machine guns in each of its top and lower turrets, plus a pair of 0.50-inch machine guns and one 20-mm http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b032-01.html (2 of 7)08-09-2006 21:27:24


cannon mounted in the rear of each outboard engine nacelle firing rearward and controlled by aiming stations in the fuselage and tail. In addition, two fixed 0.50-inch guns were carried in the wing leading edges, outboard of the propellers. Development problems continued, and in February 1943 the YB-32 contract was cancelled. However, a month later a contract for three hundred B-32s was placed, although some USAAF officers were in favor of cancelling the B-32 program outright since the B-29 program was now proceeding forward rapidly. The B-32s were to built at the Fort Worth Consolidated plant, although the prototypes had been built at San Diego. The popular name Terminator was assigned. On May 10, 1943, XB-32 41-141 crashed just after takeoff because of a flap malfunction, injuring six crewman and killing Consolidated test pilot Richard McMakin. This was a major setback for the B-32 program, since some vital test records had been destroyed in the crash, which meant that several tests had to be repeated. The second XB-32 (41-142) flew for the first time on July 2, 1943. The second XB-32 sported the same type of twin fin and rudder assembly but with modified rudder tabs. It was also pressurized and had remotely-controlled retractable gun turrets in the dorsal and ventral positions, with a manned tail "stinger". The first flight of the third XB-32 (41-18336) was delayed by further technical problems. When finally completed in November of 1943, the machine by now incorporated several features that the Army deemed unsatisfactory. In December of 1943, the USAAF came to the conclusion that the B-32 as it then existed was obsolete by contemporary world standards. A host of changes were recommended in order to save the program from cancellation. The USAAF felt that the defensive firepower of the XB-32 was totally inadequate and recommended that the remotely-controlled turrets be replaced by manned turrets. The armament was changed to a pair of 0.50-inch machine guns installed in nose, ventral, tail and two dorsal positions. The engine nacelles were redesigned, and four-bladed propellers were adopted. It was now envisaged that most of the missions carried out by the B-32 would be at low or medium altitudes, and the pressurized cabin was abandoned. The weight savings achieved by the omission of the pressurization enabled the maximum bombload to be increased to 20,000 pounds. Improved fuel, oil and bomb-release systems were needed, an automatic flight control system was installed, and emergency exits were improved. The bombardier's view was improved through installation of the B-24's Emerson Model 128 nose assembly. These changes were so major that they represented a virtual redesign of the entire B-32. The third XB-32 was used as the text bed for the changes. After its 25th flight, the third XB-32 was fitted with a single Boeing-designed 16.5-foot tall B-29-type vertical tail. However, this was still inadequate, and a Consolidated-designed 19 feet 6 inch vertical tail was substituted. This was first flown on the third XB-32 (41-18336) on November 3, 1943, and ultimately became standard on production B32s. With these revisions, the design became known as the Model 34, and orders were increased to over 1500 aircraft, including a third contract for 500 aircraft to be manufactured in the San Diego plant. San Diego http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b032-01.html (3 of 7)08-09-2006 21:27:24


was to produce fuselage parts for Fort Worth, and the latter was to build wings for incorporation into complete aircraft at San Diego. Powerplant auxiliary packages were to be built at Downey, and the rudder and the engines were to come from the Chicago plant of General Motors. In August of 1944, the popular name of the B-32 was changed to Dominator. However, in August of 1945, this name was dropped because of objections made by the State Department at a United Nations conference. I am not sure of the reasons for the objection, but the name "Dominator" must have been deemed to be "politically incorrect" for the postwar environment. After that, the aircraft was officially referred to as simply B-32. Although the first production aircraft built at Fort Worth (42-108471) was initially fitted with a complete B-29 vertical tail, it was later fitted with the definitive tall tail. Production B-32s carried ten 0.50-inch Browning M2 machine guns, mounted two each in manned nose, tail, belly and two dorsal turrets. The two dorsal turrets were built by Martin and were electrically-operated and fitted with streamlining "teardrops". The nose, tail and dorsal turrets were electric-hydraulic ball turrets built by Sperry. The belly turret was retractable, but protruded slightly when retracted. The first B-32 delivery was made on September 19, 1944 with the second Fort Worth-built aircraft (42108472). However, it was written off the very same day when its nose wheel collapsed on landing. Production delays held up delivery of the next aircraft, 42-108475, until November 22. Service tests were to be carried out at Eglin and Pincastle Fields in Florida and at Wright Field and Vandalia, Ohio. By the end of December of 1944, only five aircraft had been delivered to the various test centers. In comparison, the B-29 had been in combat for nearly six months. By mid-December 1944, the USAAF was quite unhappy about the delays and deficiencies in the B-32 program. Those B-32s already delivered were experiencing a high rate of mechanical malfunctions, and there were complaints about faulty workmanship on some of the delivered aircraft. Many in the USAAF were now recommending that the B-32 program be cancelled outright, with B-32 crews being transferred to B-29 units. Brigadier General Donald Wilson reported on the status of the B-32 program in December, and recommended that even in spite of the difficulties it would be unwise to abandon the Dominator program until a full set of tests had conclusively demonstrated its unsuitability. He recommended that no final decision about the Dominator's future be made until after the completion of service tests and that the crew training program should continue. In support of the training of crews, starting on January 27, 1945, 40 aircraft (42-108485/108524) were delivered as TB-32s without turrets for crew training. The unarmed TB-32s carried ballast to compensate for the weight of the absent turrets and bombing equipment. Prospective B-32 pilots underwent 50 hours training in TB-32s and co-pilots received 25 hours of flight time and 25 hours of observer training. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b032-01.html (4 of 7)08-09-2006 21:27:24


In service, the B-32 had numerous deficiencies. The cockpit had an extremely high noise level and the instrument layout was poor. Bombardier vision was rather poor. The aircraft was overweight for the available engine power, the mechanical subsystems were inadequate, and there were frequent engine fires caused by a faulty nacelle design. There were frequent undercarriage failures, which caused the type to be grounded briefly during May of 1945. On the plus side, the B-32 had excellent low-speed directional control, good takeoff and landing characteristics and rapid control response. The B-32 was a stable bombing platform, its manned turrets provided good protection, its subsystems were easily accessible for maintenance, and its reversible inboard propellers gave it excellent ground-handling characteristics. Many of the problems encountered during the B-32 service tests were eliminated in subsequent production aircraft, either through design changes or through better quality control during manufacture. An August 1944 directive from the USAAF had required that a combat test be carried out before the B32 could be introduced into service. However, the AAFPGC agency opposed both a combat test and general service introduction of the B-32, so it seemed that the Dominator would be consigned to operational limbo indefinitely. In the meantime, Lt. Gen. George C. Kenney, the commander of the Far East Air Forces, had been anxious to get B-29s but his requests had always been turned down on the grounds that the B-29s were urgently needed elsewhere. As an alternative, General Kenney started requesting B-32s instead. On March 27, General Arnold approved Kenney's request and authorized a comprehensive Dominator combat test. Col. Frank R. Cook was appointed commander of the test detachment. Three B-32s were chosen for the combat test (42-108529, -108531 and -108532). -108531 was damaged in an accident before leaving Fort Worth, and was replaced by 42-108528. -108528 was in rather bad shape, since it had been used as a test machine at Fort Worth. The first two arrived on Luzon on May 24, with the recalcitrant -108528 not arriving until the next day. The test was to be carried out under the auspices of the 5th Bomber Command, with the 316th Bombardment Squadron of the 312th Bombardment Group as the host unit. If things worked out well, the A-20s which equipped the 312th would be replaced by B-32s. The first combat mission took place on May 29, 1945. It was a strike against a Japanese supply depot in Luzon's Cayagan Valley. All three of the Dominators were to take part, but -108528 aborted on takeoff. The other two proceeded to the target. Unopposed bombing runs were made from an altitude of 10,000 feet, and both aircraft returned without incident. This raid was followed by a series of attacks on Japanese targets in the Philippines, in Formosa, and on Hainan Island in the Tonkin Gulf. The only opposition encountered during these missions was some rather inaccurate flak. The tests were deemed a success, and plans were made to convert the entire 386th Bombardment Squadron to B-32s. The 312th BG was scheduled to move to Okinawa as soon as the 386th conversion was completed. Following the dropping of the atomic bombs, in August of 1945, the unit was ordered to move to Okinawa before the conversion could be carried out. Six more B-32s joined the squadron on Okinawa a http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b032-01.html (5 of 7)08-09-2006 21:27:24


few days later. Combat operations continued in spite of the de-facto cease-fire that had been called following the bombing of Nagasaki. During this time, the B-32s flew mainly photographic reconnaissance missions, most of which were unopposed. However, on August 17 a group of 4 B-32s flying over Tokyo were fired on by radar-directed flak and were attacked by Japanese fighters. The American aircraft escaped with only minor damage, claiming one confirmed fighter kill and two probables. During a reconnaissance mission over Tokyo on August 18, 42-108532 and 42-108578 were attacked by Japanese fighters. The American gunners claimed two kills and one probable, but -108578 was badly shot up and one of her crew was killed with two being injured. This was to prove to be the last combat action of World War 2. The last Dominator mission of the war was flown by four B-32s on August 28 in a reconnaissance mission to Tokyo. The mission was a disaster, although not because of any enemy action. 42-108544 lost an engine on takeoff and skidded off the runway. All 13 men aboard perished when the aircraft exploded and burned. On the way back from the target, 42-108528 lost power on two of its four engines. The plane's pilot ordered the crew to bail out, but two men perished. After VJ-Day, the surviving B-32 aircraft were ordered to return to the USA. All further production of the B-32 was cancelled in September/October of 1945. At the time of cancellation, Fort Worth had produced 74 B-32s and 40 TB-32s, and San Diego had built only one. The last six fully-equipped Dominators (42-108579/108584) were flown from the production line directly into storage at DavisMonthan and Kingman, Arizona. Twelve additional aircraft in shop-assembled status at San Diego and Fort Worth were declared "terminal inventory" and were also flown directly to disposal sites. At least 37 partially-assembled machines were stripped of all their government-furnished equipment and engines and were scrapped on site by the contractor. Those Dominators that were already in service were flown to the nearest disposal center, and all the non-flyable examples were scrapped in place. By 1947, most of B-32s that had been sent to the disposal centers had been scrapped. No surplus B-32s were ever sold to foreign air forces, and the aircraft's complexity and reputation for mechanical unreliability made it unattractive on the postwar commercial market. There is only example in which a commercial customer showed any interest in a surplus B-32. In June 1947, Milton J. Reynolds, a pen manufacturer, announced that he was planning to buy a surplus B-32 for a round-theworld flight over both poles, but this plan was never carried out. No intact, complete B-32 survives today. B-32-1-CF 42-108474 had been set aside for display at the Air Force Museum, but was unaccountably declared excess and scrapped at Davis-Monthan in August of 1949. Only bits and pieces of B-32s remain in existence today. A nose turret from a B-32 is in storage at the Paul Garber Restoration Facility of the Smithsonian Institution at Suitland, Maryland. Another B-32 nose turret is on display in a Minnesota museum. A static test wing panel from a B-32 was erected as a monument to aviation pioneer John J. Montgomery on a hill near San Diego.

Serials of Consolidated B-32:



41-141/142 41-18336 42-108471/108484 42-108485/108524 42-108525/108584

Consolidated Consolidated Consolidated Consolidated Consolidated

XB-32 Dominator - 141 w/o 5/10/43 XB-32 Dominator B-32-CF Dominator TB-32-CF Dominator B-32-CF Dominator

Specification of Consolidated B-32 Dominator: Powerplant: Four 2200 hp Wright R-3350-23A Duplex Cyclone eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial engines, each with two turbosuperchargers. Performance: Maximum speed 357 mph at 30,000 feet, 281 mph at 5000 feet. Initial climb rate 1050 feet per minute. An altitude of 25,000 feet could be reached in 38 minutes. Normal range 2400 miles at 20,000 feet. Maximum range 3800 miles. Weights: 60,278 pounds empty, 123,250 pounds maximum gross weight. Dimensions: Wingspan 135 feet 0 inches, length 32 feet 2 inches, wing area 1422 square feet. Armament: Ten 0.50-inch machine paired in nose, tail, ventral and two dorsal turrets. A maximum load of 20,000 pounds could be carried internally. Consolidated B-32 Dominator Consolidated B-32 Dominator - Sources




Boeing B-29 Superfortress Index Last revised: 10 February 1996

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

XB-29 YB-29 Service Test Aircraft B-29 Production Model B-29A B-29B B-29C B-29D, XB-44, B-50A F-13 Photographic Reconnaissance Superfortress Operation Matterhorn B-29 Attacks on Japan from Marianas The Atomic Bomb B-29 in Korean War Boeing Washington for the RAF XB-39 XB-29E B-29F XB-29G XB-29H YB-29J CB-29K Cargo Transport B-29L KB-29M Tanker, B-29MR Receiver KB-29P Boom Tanker YKB-29T P2B-1S for US Navy EB-29 Carrier for XF-85 Parasite Fighter Launch Aircraft for X-1 The End of the Line Tu-4 Soviet Copy of the B-29

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029i.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 21:27:54


●

Sources

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029i.html (2 of 2)08-09-2006 21:27:54

Martin XB-33

Martin XB-33 Last revised May 27, 2000

The Martin XB-33 was a bomber project submitted to the USAAF in March of 1941 for an improved version of the B-26 Marauder powered by a pair of Wright R-3350 air-cooled radials. By May 8, 1941, it had been redesigned with four 1800 hp Wright R-2600-15 radials and twin tails. The crew was to have been seven, and a gross weight of 95,000 was projected. The bombload was to have been 12,000 pounds, and an armament of eight 0.50inch machine guns was to have been carried. The high-winged aircraft was to have had a wingspan of 134 feet 0 inches and the length was to have been 79 feet 10 inches. Two prototypes were ordered under the designation XB-33A, and on January 17, 1942 an order for 402 B-33As was placed. The production of the B-33 was to have been carried out at a new government-owned plant at Omaha, Nebraska that would be operated by Martin. However, the entire B-33 project was cancelled on November 25, 1942 so that Martin-Omaha could concentrate on the manufacture of the B-29 Superfortress. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. US Army Aircraft, 1908-1946, James C. Fahey, Ships and Aircraft, 1946


Lockheed B-34

Lockheed B-34

Lockheed Ventura for RAF Lockheed Ventura IIA for RAF, B34 Lockheed B-37 Lockheed PV-1 Ventura Lockheed PV-2 Harpoon


Northrop B-35

Northrop B-35 Last revised January 19, 2000

John K. Northrop was one of the pioneering giants in aviation. He got his start in aviation back in 1916, when he went to work for the Loughead Aircraft Manufacturing Company. Jack Northrop joined Douglas Aircraft in 1923, and rose to the rank of chief engineer, but he later left Douglas to rejoin his old team at what was now known as Lockheed. While there, he worked on the Lockheed Vega monoplane. In 1928, Northrop helped found the Avion Corporation, which built the well known Alpha monoplane. However, in 1930 he was forced to sell Avion to the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation. At the height of the Depression in 1932, with partial financing from the Douglas Aircraft Company, Jack Northrop founded the first aircraft company bearing his name. His company built the famous Gamma and Delta monoplanes which were so successful during the 1930s. However, in August of 1939, Jack Northrop left the company he had founded, since by that time it had become just another division of Douglas, and founded an entirely new and completely independent company named Northrop Aircraft, Inc at Hawthorne, California. As early as 1923, Jack Northrop had been convinced that the flying wing, in which the aircraft carried all loads and controls within the wing and dispensed with fuselage and tail sections, was the next major step forward in aircraft design. In support of the flying wing idea, Jack Northrop had built a number of small-scale demonstrators to evaluate the concept. One of these was the N1M flying wing demonstrator which flew for the first time on July 3, 1940. On April 11, 1941, the USAAF issued a request for proposals for a high-altitude bomber that could carry a 10,000-pound bombload halfway across a 10,000 mile range. Maximum speed was to be 450 mph at 25,000 feet, cruising speed 275 mph, service ceiling 45,000 feet, and a maximum range of 12,000 miles at 25,000 feet. Invitations for preliminary design studies were sent to the Consolidated Aircraft Corporation and to the Boeing Airplane Company. The Consolidated submission was eventually to emerge as the B-36. As part of this project, Northrop was contacted on May 27, 1941 and asked to provide studies of a flying wing proposal as it related to requirements for a range of 8000 miles at 25,000 feet with one ton of bombs, a cruising speed of 250 mph, a service ceiling of 40,000 feet, and a bombload of 10,000 pounds, which were much less demanding than those of the April ll RFP. In August of 1941, slightly more ambitious requirements were again submitted to Northrop. The flying wing bomber project (designated NS-9 by the company) received approval for an initial start http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b35.html (1 of 7)08-09-2006 21:28:25

Northrop B-35

from the USAAC in September of 1941, following a visit to the Northrop plant by Assistant Secretary of War Robert Leavitt, General Henry H. Arnold, and Major General Oliver P. Echols. The order was confirmed on October 30, 1941. The contract included a purchase order for engineering data, model tests, plus a 1/3-scale flying mockup known as the N9M. On November 22, a contract for a single XB35 prototype and an option for a second was signed. The option for the second XB-35 was exercised on January 2, 1942. According to the terms of the contract, the first XB-35 was to be delivered in November 1943, with the second following in April of 1944. Detailed design work on the XB-35 began in early 1942, and the XB-35 full-scale mock-up was approved on July 5, 1942. On December 17, 1942, 13 YB-35 service test aircraft were ordered. Two more N-9M flying scale models were ordered in early 1943, with a fourth being ordered in mid1943. The advantages of a flying wing format were perceived as providing both low drag and high lift, which meant that the XB-35 could carry any weight faster, farther, and cheaper than conventional aircraft. In addition, the use of a flying wing meant that simpler construction methods could be used with fewer structural complications. A flying wing should cost less to build since it was built as a single unit with no added tail or fuselage. A flying wing provides a better weight distribution for the offensive load, since compartments along the entire span could distribute the weight of the bomb load much more evenly. Finally, a flying wing presented a smaller target when seen from fore, aft, or from the side when engaged in either offensive or defensive operations. Northrop lacked adequate production facilities for the manufacture of production B-35s, and enlarging the company's Hawthorne plant was out of the question at that time. At the end of 1942, in search of more production facilities, Northrop began negotiating with the Glenn L. Martin Company. Northrop management indicated that they would be satisfied to fabricate only the XB-35s and the YB-35s, with Martin having the responsibility for building the production B-35s at its plant in Baltimore, Maryland. A contract for 200 B-35s was initially planned in November of 1942, and was formally issued on June 30, 1943. The first production B-35 was to be delivered by June of 1945. In support of the program, Northrop built four 60-foot wingspan (about one-third the size of the proposed B-35) N9M flying wing test aircraft to train pilots in handling flying-wing aircraft and to see if the general concept was feasible. They were of mixed wood and metal construction, with the center section being of welded steel tubing. The covering was of wood and metal panels, with the outer wing panels being of wood with metal wing slots and wing tips. The four N9Ms were later called N9M-1, N9M-2, N9M-A, and N9M-B respectively. They were initially powered by a pair of 290 hp Menasco C65-4 six-cylinder air-cooled engines each driving a pusher two-bladed propeller by means of an extension shaft via a fluid-drive coupler. The engines were cooled by air admitted by large under-wing scoops. The N9M-B was later fitted with two air-cooled 400 hp Franklin engines. Provisions were made for a pilot and one passenger, both housed underneath a single transparent bubble canopy. It was provided with a retractable tricycle landing gear, and a rear outrigger tail wheel was fitted. These 4 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b35.html (2 of 7)08-09-2006 21:28:25

Northrop B-35

aircraft flew with neither civil registrations nor military serials. The design details worked out in the N9M were incorporated into the design of the XB-35. The first N-9M flew for the first time on December 27, 1942. It crashed on May 19, 1943, killing its pilot. On the maiden flight of the second model on June 24, 1943, the cockpit canopy of the aircraft flew off while in flight, but the pilot was able to land successfully. Nearly all the flight tests of the N9M were shortened by mechanical failures of one kind or another, particular with failures in the Menasco engines. The fourth and last N9M (the N9M-B) flew for the first time on September 21, 1943. The N9M-B (the last of the four) managed to survive all these years, and was restored to flying condition over a period of 12 years by volunteers at the Chino 'Planes of Fame Museum' and flew again, for the first time after about 45 years, on November 11, 1994. The new civil registration of the N9M-B is 'N9MB'. The wingspan of the B-35 was 172 feet, and the leading edges were swept back at an angle of 27 degrees. The wing of the B-35 was 37 1/2 feet wide at the center, tapering to 9 feet wide at the tips. Because of the wing sweep, the overall length of the aircraft was slightly over 53 feet. The lateral control that was normally provided by conventional rudders was provided on the B-35 by a set of double split flaps located on the trailing edges of the wingtips. These operated by having the split flaps open up in butterfly fashion to provide a braking effect. When the left rudder pedal was depressed, the left flaps would open up, forcing a turn to the left. If both pedals were depressed, both split flaps would open up to increase the gliding angle or reduce the air speed. These double split flaps could also act as trim flaps, and could be adjusted as a unit either up or down to trim the airplane longitudinally. Elevons were located along the trailing edge of each wing inboard of the trim flaps. When deflected together in the same direction (by the pilot moving the control column fore or aft), they could cause the airplane to descend or climb. When operated differentially (by having the pilot move the control wheel left or right), they caused the airplane to bank left or right in a fashion similar to the function of conventional ailerons. For landings and takeoffs, A set of flaps were located in the wing trailing edge near the center. The aircraft was powered by four Pratt & Whitney Wasp Major air-cooled radials (two R-4360-17s and two R-4360-21s) with double superchargers and feed by cooling air coming from long slots cut into the wing leading edge. Each engine drove a set of coaxial, counter-rotating four-bladed pusher propellers mounted at the end of a driveshaft that protruded beyond the trailing edge of the upper wing surface. The B-35 was 20 feet tall when sitting on its tricycle landing gear. 5' 6" dual wheels on the main gear and a 4'8" wheel on the nose gear. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b35.html (3 of 7)08-09-2006 21:28:25

Northrop B-35

The crew of the XB-35 was carried in a crew cabin installed at the center of the wing, with a tailcone protruding beyond the central wing trailing edge. The normal crew was 9--a pilot, copilot, bombardier, navigator, engineer, radio operator and 3 gunners. The pilot sat in the very front of the wing center section (slightly offset to the left of center) underneath a transparent bubble-type canopy. The copilot sat to the right of the pilot and somewhat lower down, and sighted through a set of transparent windows cut into the front of the wing. His visibility, though, was fairly marginal. The bombardier's station was located to the right of the copilot's seat, and the bombardier operated the bombsight by aiming it through a square window cut into the forward underwing surface. The navigator and flight engineer sat to the rear of the copilot. The navigator had a small transparent bubble over his seat for the sighting of stars. Six more crew members could be added as substitutes on long-range missions, with folding bunks in the rear of the crew cabin to accommodate the off-duty crewmen. The defensive armament was to consist of a set of remotely-controlled barbettes. A quartet of 0.50inch machine guns were housed inside each of dorsal and ventral barbettes that were mounted on the tailcone along the wing's centerline. Four 0.50-inch machine guns were installed in the rear of the tailcone. A pair of 0.50-in machine guns were installed in each of four barbettes mounted on the wing outboard of the outermost engines, one above and one below the wing. The guns were remotely sighted by gunners sitting in stations in a bubble in the upper rear part of the tailcone, in a ventral station, and in a position in the pilot's bubble immediately behind the pilot's seat. The bombs were carried internally in eight individual bomb bays cut into the under surface of the wing outboard of the main crew cabin. The XB-35 was built of an entirely new aluminum alloy developed by Alcoa. This alloy was considerably stronger than previous metals. The fuel was carried in self-sealing leak-proof fuel cells in the wing, and additional fuel could be carried in tanks in the bomb bay and in other wing compartment areas. Unfortunately, by early 1944, the B-35 program was seriously behind schedule. Test results with the N-9M aircraft had indicated that the range of the XB-35 would most likely be 1600 miles shorter than anticipated. In addition, the maximum speed was estimated to be 24 mph slower than anticipated. Consequently, General Arnold began to question the wisdom of any extensive B-35 production program. In the meantime, the Martin company was experiencing severe shortages of trained engineers (many had been drafted) who could work on the B-35 project and had encountered delays in setting up the necessary tooling. These problems had forced Martin to push back the delivery date of the first B-35 to 1947. As a result, the USAAF concluded that it was unlikely that the B-35 would be ready in time to contribute to the war effort, and cancelled the Martin B-35 production contract on May 24, 1944. However, this did not spell the death of the B-35 project, since the Air Technical Service Command felt that the XB-35 flying wing project was worthwhile for test purposes even if it never achieved operational status. In December of 1944, the USAAF decided that Northrop should go ahead and build the XB-35 and YB-35 aircraft as test vehicles. The first six of the YB-35s would be built on the XBhttp://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b35.html (4 of 7)08-09-2006 21:28:25

Northrop B-35

35 pattern, but with certain individual differences. On June 1, 1945, orders were issued to have two of the YB-35 airframes fitted with Allison J35-A-5 jet engines. The jet-powered flying wing was initially assigned the designation YB-35B, but this was later changed to YB-49. In 1945, after two more YB35s had been added to the first YB-35 lot to replace the two that were earmarked for jet conversion, the USAAF told Northrop to manufacture the remaining 5 airplanes on the YB-35 contract to more advanced specifications, which resulted a redesignation to YB-35A. The first XB-35 (serial number 42-13603) took off on its maiden flight on June 25, 1946, with Max Stanley as pilot and Dale Schroeder as flight engineer. On this first flight, the aircraft was flown from Hawthorne to Muroc Dry Lake, a flight lasting 45 minutes. Almost immediately, the flight test program ran into difficulties. Gear box malfunctions and propeller control difficulties caused the XB35 to be grounded on September 11 after only 19 flights. The second XB-35 (serial number 42-38323) took to the air for the first time on June 26, 1947. Only eight flights took place before Northrop was forced to ground this plane too. The dual counter-rotating propellers and their gearboxes proved to be totally unsatisfactory, and both XB-35s had to be grounded in September of 1947 so that their dual-rotating propellers could be replaced by single-rotation propellers. Following the fitting of the new single-rotation propellers and the mounting of simpler gearboxes, flight testing of the first XB-35 was resumed in February of 1948. Seven more flights were made by the first XB-35 from February 12 to April 1, 1948. The new propeller installations operated without any particular mechanical difficulties, but there was considerable vibration and the performance of the aircraft was reduced. The XB-35's intricate exhaust system was a maintenance nightmare, and by the middle of 1948 the cooling fans of the R-4360 engines were beginning to show signs of metal fatigue. The first YB-35 (42-102366) flew on May 15, 1948, which was the only example actually fitted with defensive armament. The two XB-35s had carried only dummy turrets. The YB-35 was fitted with single-rotation propellers. This was destined to be the only one of the 13 YB-35s ordered that actually flew. Of the original 13 YB-35s ordered, four had been scheduled to be used as sources of spare parts for the extensive flight test program that was planned. However, by mid-1948 the piston-engined B-35 was definitely outdated, and the program was clearly doomed. A propeller-driven aircraft was simply much too slow for the era of jet propulsion, and the flying wing as it then existed was much too unstable to make a good bombing or camera platform. Nevertheless, the Air Force did not want to throw in the towel completely after having spent so much money, and for a while considered studying the feasibility of adapting the B-35 for the air-refuelling role, but this was not pursued any further. By the end of 1948, it was planned for five YB-35s and 4 YB-35As to be converted to six-jet configuration and fitted with cameras and redesignated RB-35B (later to be redesignated YRB-49A). One YB-35 was earmarked for static testing, and another jet-converted YB-35A was to be fitted out as a test-bed for the Turbodyne T-37 turboprop engine, which was then under development. This test http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b35.html (5 of 7)08-09-2006 21:28:25

Northrop B-35

aircraft was to have been designated EB-35B (it was the last of the 13 prototypes) and would be capable of carrying two T-37 engines, although only one of these engines would actually be fitted initially. The second XB-35 was to have been fitted with a flexible-mount gear box to try and cure the problems with the vibrations in the single-rotation propellers. In August of 1949, the two XB-35s and the first two YB-35s were scrapped. In November, the Air Staff cancelled plans for further conversions of YB-35s and YB-35As to jet propulsion. Scrapping of the remaining YB-35 airframes started in December of 1949 and was completed by March of 1950. The disassembly of the EB-35B testbed began in March of 1950. None of the series production B-35A were ever built. Serials of Northrop B-35: 42-13603 42-38323 42-102366/102378

Northrop XB-35 Northrop XB-35 Northrop YB-35 102367 and 102368 converted to YB-

49. 102368 w/o 6-5-48 102369/102375 scrapped before flying 102376 converted to YRB-49A 102377,102378 scrapped before flying Specification of Northrop XB-35: Engines: Two Pratt & Whitney R-4360-17, and two R-4360-21 Wasp Major air-cooled radials rated at 3000 hp each. Performance: Maximum speed 391 mph at 35,000 feet, cruising speed 183 mph. Service ceiling 39,700 feet. An altitude of 35,600 feet could be attained in 57 minutes. Range was 8150 miles at 183 mph with a 16,000 pound bombload, or 720 miles at 240 mph with 51,070 pounds of bombs. Dimensions: wingspan 172 feet 0 inches, length 53 feet 1 inches, height 20 feet 1 inches, wing area 4000 square feet. Weights: 89,560 pounds empty, 180,000 pounds gross, 209,000 pounds maximum. Armament: (only fitted to the first YB-35) Four 0.50-inch machine guns in remotelycontrolled dorsal turret. Four 0.50-inch machine guns in remotely-controlled ventral turret. Four 0.50inch machine guns in the rear of the tail cone. Two 0.50-inch machine guns in each of four barbettes installed above and below the wing outboard of the outermost engines. The guns were remotely sighted by gunners sitting in stations in a bubble in the upper rear part of the tailcone, in a ventral station, and in a position in the pilot's bubble immediately behind the pilot's seat. The bombs were carried in eight individual bomb bays cut into the under surface of the wing outboard of the main crew cabin. Sources:


Northrop B-35

1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. Northrop Flying Wings, Edward T. Maloney, World War II Publications, 1988. 3. Post-World War II bombers, Marcelle Size Knaac, Office of Air Force History, 1988.




Convair XB-36 Convair B-36A Convair B-36C The B-36 Affair Convair B-36B Peacemaker Convair B-36D Peacemaker Convair RB-36D Peacemaker Convair RB-36E Peacemaker Convair B-36F Peacemaker Convair B-36G/YB-60 Convair B-36H/RB-36H Peacemaker Convair B-36J Peacemaker Rascal DB-47H Convair NB-36H RB-36F "Tom-Tom" B-36/F-85 Combination GRB-36J FICON Service of B-36 With USAF


Lockheed B-37

Lockheed B-37 Last revised June 18, 2000

In August of 1941, large orders for Lockheed Venturas were placed with Lend-Lease funds. These planes would be owned by the US Government but would be "leased" or "lent" to Britain and its allies in support of their war effort against Germany. Among the orders that had been placed at that time was a contract for 550 armed reconnaissance versions of the Ventura to be built in Lockheed's B-1 plant under the designation O-56-LO (company designation Model 13796-03). Serial numbers were 41-37470/38019. The O-56 differed from the B-34 primarily in being powered by a pair of 1700 hp Wright R2600-13 air-cooled radials instead of 2000 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800 radials. However, before the first O-56 could be completed, the USAAF had dropped the O-for-observation designation category, and the O-56 had been redesignated RB-34B-LO. Before the first RB-34B-LO could fly, the USAAF had redesignated the plane once again, this time to B-37-LO. The fact that different engines were being used was thought to justify a new bomber series number. Aside from the engines, the B-37 was almost identical to the B-34. However, the B-37 could be externally distinguished from the B-34 by the presence of two oval waist gun ports on either side of the rear fuselage for a single 0.30-inch flexible machine gun. During the early months of 1942, the USAAF had assumed the primary responsibility for flying antisubmarine patrols over the Atlantic Ocean in support of the battle against German U-boats. This was a thorn in the side of the US Navy, since that service had always felt that antisubmarine warfare was its responsibility. In order to carry out this mission, the Navy was anxious to acquire a long-range, land-based heavy maritime reconnaissance and patrol aircraft capable of carrying a substantial bombload. However, the USAAF had always resisted what it perceived as an encroachment by the Navy into its jealously-guarded land-based bomber program, and forced the Navy to rely on long-range floatplanes such as the PBY Catalina, the PBM Mariner, and PB4Y Coronado to fulfill the long-range maritime reconnaissance role. However, the USAAF needed an aircraft plant to manufacture its next generation of heavy bombers, the B-29 Superfortress. It just so happened that the Navy owned a plant at Renton, Washington, which was at that time being operated by Boeing for the manufacture of the PBB-1 Sea Ranger twin-engined patrol flying boat. The Army proposed that the Navy cancel the Sea Ranger program and turn over the Renton factory to them for B-29 production. In exchange, the USAAF would agree to get out of the antisubmarine warfare business and would drop its http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b34_3.html (1 of 3)08-09-2006 21:28:40

Lockheed B-37

objections to the Navy's operation of land-based bombers. In support of the Navy's new landbased antisubmarine patrol mission, it was proposed that the Navy be permitted acquire navalized versions of the B-24 Liberator and the B-25 Mitchell. In addition, it was proposed that Lockheed cease all production of B-34/37 Venturas for the USAAF and start building a navalized version of the Ventura for the Navy under the designation PV-1 for use in maritime reconnaissance and antisubmarine warfare. The Navy readily agreed to this arrangement. On July 7, 1942, the USAAF agreed to discontinue procurement of B-34/B-37s so that Lockheed Vega could concentrate on the production the PV-1. Manufacture of the B-37-LO ceased after the completion of only 18 examples (41-37470/37487). The Ventura III designation had been reserved for the RAF delivery of the O-56-LO, but since the O-56 never materialized, this designation was never used. Serials of Lockheed B-37-LO: 41-37470/38019

Lockheed B-37-LO Only 37470/37487 built (c/n 437-6476/6493).

Specification of Lockheed B-37-LO: Engines: Two 1700 hp Wright R-2600-13 air-cooled radials. Maximum speed 298 mph at 13,500 feet. Cruising speed 198 mph. An altitude of 10,000 feet and could be attained in 5.5 minutes. Service ceiling 22,400 feet. Normal range 1300 miles. Maximum range 2700 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 65 feet 6 inches, length 51 feet 5 inches, height 11 feet 11 inches, wing area 551 square feet. Weights: 18,615 pounds empty, 27,000 pounds loaded, 29,500 pounds maximum. Armament: Two 0.50-inch machine guns installed in dorsal turret. A pair of flexible 0.30-inch machine guns were mounted in a ventral position behind the wing trailing edge. Two fixed forward-firing 0.50-inch machine guns were installed in the upper decking of the nose. One 0.30-inch machine gun in a lower waist position on each side of the rear fuselage. A bomb load of 3000 pounds could be carried in an internal bomb bay. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. Post World War II Bombers, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force History, 1988. 3. British Military Aircraft Serials, 1912-1969, Bruce Robertson, Ian Allen, 1969.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b34_3.html (2 of 3)08-09-2006 21:28:40

Lockheed B-37

4. Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987. 5. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers,

Smithsonian, 1989. 6. United States Navy Aircraft Since 1911, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers,

Naval Institue Press, 1990.


Vega XB-38

Vega XB-38 Last revised July 16, 1999

As part of its participation in the Boeing-Vega-Douglas manufacturing pool for the Fortress, the Vega division of Lockheed had been requested by the USAAF to explore the feasibility of adapting the basic B-17E airframe to the 1425 hp Allison V-1710-89 liquidcooled V-12 engine. Negotiations for development of the new design, known as Vega Model V-134-1, began in March of 1942 and a contract was signed on July 10. The project was considered sufficiently different from the stock B-17E that a new series number was assigned--XB38. The ninth production B-17E (serial number 41-2401) had been turned over to Vega for study during the initial formation of the B.V.D. manufacturing pool, and this plane was selected for the first XB-38 conversion. The basic airframe of the XB-38 was essentially that of the B-17E, with a few revisions necessitated by the installation of the new powerplants. For example, the oil coolers of the B-17E were mounted in the leading edges of the wings, but they were moved to positions underneath the propellers in the XB-38. Also, the coolant radiators for the Allisons were mounted in the wing leading edges between each pair of engine nacelles. The XB-38 made its first flight on May 19, 1943. As a result of the increased power of the Allison engines, the XB-38 was slightly faster than its radial-powered B-17E counterpart. However, the XB-38 prototype was destroyed on June 16, 1943 as a result of an engine fire which could not be extinguished, and a full comparison with the Wright-powered B17E could never be made. In any case, the performance improvement offered by the XB38 was only marginal, and since the liquid-cooled Allisons were in great demand for the P38 Lightning and P-40 Warhawk fighters, the USAAF decided to abandon further work on the XB-38, and plans for two additional XB-38 conversions were cancelled. Specification of Boeing XB-38: Four Allison V-1710-89 liquid-cooled V-12 engines, rated at 1425 hp at 25,000 feet. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_9.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 21:28:48

Vega XB-38

Performance: Maximum speed 327 mph at 25,000 feet. Cruising speed 226 mph. Service ceiling 29,700 feet. Range 2400 miles with 3000 pounds of bombs, 1900 miles with 6000 pounds of bombs. Maximum range 3600 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 103 feet 9 3/8 inches, length 74 feet 0 inches, height 19 feet 2 inches, wing area 1420 square feet. Weights: 34,748 pounds empty, 56,00 pounds gross, 64,000 pounds maximum. Armament: Armament was the same as that of the standard B-17E, namely one 0.30-inch machine gun which could be mounted on any one of six ball-and-socket mounts in the extreme nose, one Sperry No. 645473E power turret in the dorsal position with two 0.50 Browning M2 machine guns with 500 rounds per gun, a remotely-controlled power turret in ventral position with two 0.50-inch Browning machine guns with 500 rounds per gun, one 0.50-inch Browning M2 machine gun is each of the two waist windows, 400 rounds per gun, and two 0.50-inch M2 Browning machine guns in the tail position, with 500 rounds per gun. Sources: 1. Flying Fortress, Edward Jablonski, Doubleday, 1965. 2. Famous Bombers of the Second World War, Volume One, William Green,

Doubleday, 1959. 3. Boeing Aircraft Since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989. 4. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 5. Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987. 6. Boeing B-17E and F Flying Fortress, Charles D. Thompson, Profile Publications,

1966. 7. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 8. Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II, Military Press, 1989.


Boeing XB-39

Boeing XB-39 Last revised April 17, 2000

The first YB-29 (41-36954) was turned over to General Motors for installation of liquidcooled Allison V-3420 engines and further tests. The converted aircraft was later redesignated XB-39. The V-3420 engine was essentially a pair of Allison V-1710 twelvecylinder liquid-cooled Vee engines coupled to a single propeller shaft. Normal output was 2100 hp at 25,000 feet. Aircraft speed increased to 405 mph at 35,000 feet, but the improvement in performance was not considered sufficient to justify production. Sources: 1. Warbird History--B-29 Superfortress, Chester Marshall, Motorbooks International,


1969. 3. B-29 Superfortress, John Pimlott, Gallery Books, 1980. 4. Famous Bombers of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1960. 5. Boeing Aircraft Since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989. 6. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 7. Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II, Bill Gunston, Military Press, 1989. 8. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_14.html08-09-2006 21:28:54

Boeing YB-40

Boeing YB-40 Last revised July 25, 1999

The YB-40 was the bomber escort variant of the Flying Fortress, where the Y stood for "service test". This aircraft was produced in an attempt to provide better defenses for B-17 daylight bomber forces which were suffering appalling losses in their raids against German targets on the European continent. The YB-40 was produced by converting existing B-17Fs in an attempt to provide additional firepower for the defense of bomber formations when they ventured into areas beyond the range of contemporary fighters. The first XB-40 prototype was produced in November of 1942 by the Vega division of Lockheed. They converted a standard Boeing-built B-17F (serial number 41-24341) to escort configuration by adding a dorsal turret in the radio compartment position carring a pair of 0.50-cal machine guns, a chin turret underneath the nose equipped with a pair of 0.50 cal machine guns, and twin gun mounts instead of the usual single gun mounts at each waist position. The regular top, belly, and tail turrets were retained, bringing total defensive armament to fourteen 0.50-inch machine guns. Additional protective armor was fitted for better crew protection. The bomb bays were replaced by storage areas which carried additional ammunition for the guns. The normal ammunition load was 11,135 rounds, which could be increased to 17,265 rounds if the fuel load was reduced. Twenty more Vega-built B-17Fs were converted to YB-40 configuration, plus four TB-40 trainers. Although they bore the Vega model number of V-139-3, they were actually modified by Douglas at Tulsa, Oklahoma from Vega-built B-17F airframes. A variety of different armament configurations was tried. Some YB-40s were fitted with four-gun nose and tail turrets. Some carried cannon of up to 40-mm in calibre, and a few carried up to as many as 30 guns of various calibres in multiple handheld positions in the waist as well as in additional power turrets above and below the fuselage! Oddly enough, there don't seem to have been any photographs ever published of these 30-gun YB40s (insofar as I am aware), although I have seen some drawings. The first operational YB-40 sortie took place on May 29, 1943 against St. Nazaire. Eight other missions were later flown, the last one taking place on July 4, 1943. Five kills and two probables were claimed during these missions, with the loss of one YB-40. Very early on, it was found that the net effect of the additional drag of the turrets and the extra weight of the guns, armor, and additional ammunition was to reduce the speed of the YB-40 to a point where it could not maintain formation with the standard B-17s on the way home from the target once they had released their bombs. The YB-40 could protect itself fairly well, but not the bombers it was supposed to defend. Consequently, it was recognized that the YB-40 project was an operational failure, and the surviving YB-40s were http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_12.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 21:29:00

Boeing YB-40

converted back to standard B-17F configuration or used as gunnery trainers back in the States. However, the YB-40 was to have one lasting impact--the chin turret originally introduced on the YB40 was later adopted as standard for the B-17G series. Serials: XB-40: Conversion of B-17F-1-BO 41-24342

YB-40: Conversions of B-17F-10-VE 42-5732/5744, B-17F-30-VE 425871, and B-17F-35-VEs 42-5920, 5921, 5923, 5924, 5925, and 5927.

TB-40: Conversions of B-17F-25-VEs 42-5833 and 5834, B-17F-30-VE 42-5872, and B-17F-35-VE 42-5926. Sources: 1. Flying Fortress, Edward Jablonski, Doubleday, 1965. 2. Famous Bombers of the Second World War, Volume One, William Green, Doubleday, 1959. 3. Boeing Aircraft Since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989. 4. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers,

Smithsonian, 1989. 5. Boeing B-17E and F Flying Fortress, Charles D. Thompson, Profile Publications, 1966. 6. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 7. Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II, Military Press, 1989.


Consolidated XB-41

Consolidated XB-41 Last revised August 10, 1999

The one-off XB-41 was a long-range escort version of the B-24D Liberator. It was designed to fill a similar requirement as was the Boeing YB-40, namely, to provide escort for bombers penetrating German airspace. The sole XB-41 was obtained by converting a Consolidated/San Diego-built B-24D-CO (serial number 41-11822). The conversion was carried out by Consolidated/Fort Worth and was delivered to Eglin Field, Florida on January 29, 1943. Additional guns were provided which brought the total armament to fourteen 0.50-inch machine guns. A second Martin A-3 power turret was added to the dorsal spine just behind the wing trailing edge. A Bendix remotely-controlled turret was added in a chin position underneath the nose, and the nose glazing was modified to give the operator of the Bendix turret a clear field of view. The cheek guns characteristic of the later B-24D were not fitted. A pair of powerboosted 0.50-inch machine guns were added at each waist position, replacing the single flexible mounts originally fitted. The original Martin A-3 power turret behind the cockpit was modified so that it could be raised during flight to increase its field of fire, then lowered to decrease aerodynamic drag when not in use. A total of 12,420 rounds of ammunition was carried, including 4000 reserve rounds carried in a box installed in the forward bomb bay. The additional weight of armor, guns and ammunition brought the gross weight up to 63,000 pounds, 6000 pounds heavier than a standard B-24D. Tests were carried out at Eglin during the early winter of 1943. These tests indicated that the center of gravity was improperly located, which made the aircraft quite unstable in flight. In addition, the climbing rate and service ceiling were rather poor because of the additional weight. The port waist gun position had originally been covered by a plexiglas bubble, but this was found to cause severe optical distortion and was removed. Consequently, because of these problems, on March 21, 1943, the Army declared the XB41 as being operationally unsuitable, and plans for thirteen YB-41 Liberator conversions were cancelled. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b24_12.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 21:29:07

Consolidated XB-41

Undaunted, Consolidated continued to work on the XB-41 prototype, and equipped the aircraft with wide-blade propellers and subjected the plane to a weight-reduction program in which some of the armor was removed. On July 28, 1943, the XB-41 was returned to Eglin for more tests. Tests showed that the stability problem had been cured, but the aircraft was still plagued with poor maneuverability. In the meantime, the Boeing YB-40 had entered combat in Europe, and the initial results had demonstrated that the basic escort gunship concept was fundamentally flawed. The heavily-laden YB-40 escorts could not keep up with the bomber formations once they had dropped their bombs. As a result of the negative experience with the YB-40, further work on the XB-41 was abandoned. The sole XB-41 was later redesignated TB-24D and was used as an instructional airframe for training Liberator mechanics. Sources: 1. Famous Bombers of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1959. 2. Liberator: America's Global Bomber, Alwyn T. Lloyd, Pictorial Histories

Publishing Co, Inc, 1993. 3. B-24 Liberator in Action, Larry Davis, Squadron/Signal Publications Inc, 1987. 4. General Dynamics Aircraft and Their Predecesssors, John Wegg, Naval Institute

Press, 1990. 5. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 6. American Combat Planes, 3rd Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.


Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster

Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster Last revised May 27, 2000

The Douglas XB-42 began as a private venture by the manufacturer, and was not originally conceived in response to any official requirement. In early 1943, Douglas designer Ed F. Burton began a company-funded study to determine the feasibility of designing a twin-engined bomber having a maximum speed in excess of 400 mph and capable of carrying a bombload of 2000 pounds to targets within a 2000-mile radius. Burton's team came up with the idea of mounting the engines entirely within the fuselage and using a completely clean wing. An unsolicited proposal was submitted to the USAAF in May of 1943. The proposal attracted the attention of the Bombardment Branch of the Engineering Division of the Air Technical Service Command, and on June 25, 1943 a contract was issued for two flying prototypes and one static test airframe. The aircraft was considered as an attack aircraft at the time, and was assigned the designation XA-42. Almost immediately thereafter, the USAAF began to consider the Douglas proposal as a possible high speed bomber which could match the range of the B-29 at only a fraction of the cost. On November 26, 1943, the designation of the Douglas design was changed to XB-42. Progress on the XA-42/XB-42 was quite rapid under the supervision of Ed Burton and Carlos C. Wood, Chief of the Preliminary Design Division, and the mockup was inspected and approved in September of 1943. The aircraft that finally emerged was powered by a pair of 1325 hp Allison V-1710-125 liquid-cooled V-12 engines installed completely inside the fuselage immediately aft of the pilot's cabin. Air for the cooling radiators was provided by narrow slots cut into the leading edges of the inner wings. The centerline of each engine was about 20 degrees to the vertical and the engines were toed in a few degrees to the vertical. The power was transmitted via five lengths of shafting to a pair of contra-rotating propellers installed in the extreme tail cone. Each of the three-bladed contra-rotating propellers was driven by its own engines, the left powerplant driving the forward propeller and the right the aft. A lower fin and rudder was fitted underneath the tail to prevent the propellers from striking http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b42.html (1 of 4)08-09-2006 21:29:22


the ground during nose-high takeoffs and landings. The tricycle undercarriage had main members which retracted aft into large wells in the fuselage sides. The extremely-clean laminar-flow wing was mounted at middle fuselage. It had double-slotted flaps on the inboard trailing edge, with ailerons on the outboard trailing edge. A remotely-controlled General Electric turret with a pair of 0.50-inch machine guns was to be installed in the trailing edge of the wing between the ailerons and flaps. The guns were normally housed inside the wing underneath snap-action doors, but when extended into firing position, they could cover an area extending 25 degrees to either side, 30 degrees above, and 15 degrees below. They were controlled remotely by the copilot, who had a sighting station at the rear of his cockpit. It was true that this field of fire was rather limited, but it was assumed that the bomber's high speed would prevent any enemy fighter attacks except from the extreme rear. The crew consisted of three, with a navigator/bomb-aimer in the glazed nose section, and a pilot and copilot/gunner in a side-by-side cockpit with small separate canopies. The first XB-42 aircraft (43-50224) was completed in May of 1944. The XB-42 took off for the first time on May 6, 1944, with test pilot Bob Brush at the controls. As a safety measure, the initial flight was carried out entirely over Palm Springs Army Air Base. The performance of the XB-42 was outstanding. Speed was within a percent of that predicted, and range and rate of climb exceeded expectations. The XB-42 was as fast as the Mosquito B.XVI but carried twice the maximum bombload (8000 pounds versus 4000 pounds over short ranges or a bombload of 3750 pounds versus 1000 pounds over a range of 1850 miles). Moreover, the XB-42 carried a defensive armament of four 0.50-inch machine guns in two remotely-controlled turrets whereas the Mosquito was unarmed. However, the twin "bug-eye" canopies of the XB-42 were found to interfere with pilot/copilot communication, and the aircraft suffered from yaw, excessive propeller vibration (especially when the bomb-bay doors were open), poor harmonization of control forces, and from poor efficiency of the cooling ducts. The second XB-42 prototype (43-50225) flew on August 1, 1944. It was powered by V1710-129 engines. Shortly after its first flight, the twin bug-eye canopies were replaced with a single canopy as was proposed for production versions of the aircraft. In early December of 1945, 43-50225 was flown from Long Beach, California to Bolling Field http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b42.html (2 of 4)08-09-2006 21:29:22


near Washington, D.C. at an average speed of 433.6 mph. However, on the 16th of December, the aircraft crashed near Bolling Field and was destroyed. Fortunately, the crew managed to parachute to safety. By this time, the USAAF had decided that the XB-42 would not be put into production, since the end of the war had made it possible to wait for the more advanced, higherperformance jet-powered bombers that should soon be forthcoming. The surviving XB-42 was allocated to various test purposes. One of these modifications resulted in the replacement of the -125 Allisons by a pair of 1375 hp Allison V-1710-133 engines. In addition, two 1600 lb.s.t. Westinghouse 19XB2A axial-flow turbojets were installed underneath the wings. With these changes, the aircraft was redesignated XB-42A, and flew for the first time at Muroc Dry Lake, California on May 27, 1947. A total of 22 flights with the XB-42A were carried out by Douglas flight test crews, accounting for a total of 17 hours in the air. A maximum speed of 488 mph was achieved during the tests. On August 15, 1947, the XB-42A made a hard landing in the tail-low position, damaging the lower vertical stabilizer and lower rudder, and the aircraft was returned to Santa Monica late in 1947 for modifications of the jet nacelles. The remainder of the XB-42 modification program was cancelled in August of 1948, and the XB-42A was struck off charge on June 30, 1949. It was turned over to the National Air and Space Museum. For several years thereafter, it was kept at the National Air Museum Storage Facility in Park Ridge, Illinois. In April of 1959, the fuselage of the XB-42A was moved to the Paul Garber restoration facility at Suitland, Maryland, where I assume it still remains. Has anyone seen it? Specification of Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster: Two Allison V-1710-125 liquid-cooled V-12 engines, each rated at 1325 hp for takeoff and 1800 hp war emergency. Performance: Maximum speed 410 mph at 23,440 feet, 344 mph at sea level. Cruising speed 312 mph. Service ceiling 29,400 feet. Normal range 1800 miles, maximum range 5400 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 70 feet 6 inches, length 53 feet 8 inches, height 18 feet 10 inches, wing area 555 square feet. Weights: 20,888 pounds empty, 33,208 pounds gross, 35,702 pounds maximum loaded. Armament: Four 0.50-inch machine guns installed in remotely-controlled turrets on the trailing edges of the wings. The bomb bay could carry a maximum load of four 2000-pound bombs. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b42.html (3 of 4)08-09-2006 21:29:22


Sources: 1. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920: Volume 1, Rene J. Francillon, Naval

Institute Press, 1988. 2. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 3. Post World War 2 Bombers, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force History,

1988.


Douglas XB-43

Douglas XB-43 Last revised May 27, 2000

The Douglas XB-43 was the first American jet bomber. It was a development of the XB42 Mixmaster twin-engined bomber, with turbojet engines replacing the twin inline Allison piston engines. The XB-43 had its origin back in October of 1943, when first consideration was given to fitting turbojets to the XB-42. Preliminary studies indicated that the scheme was practical, and on March 31, 1944 Douglas received a change order to the original XB-42 contract which called for the production of two jet-powered versions under the designation XB-43. The USAAF wanted the XB-43 to have a gross weight of 40,000 pounds. Two General Electric TG-180 (later redesignated J35-GE-3) axial-flow turbojets were mounted in the forward fuselage bays that were previously occupied by the Allison piston engines of the XB-42. Flush intakes were incorporated in the upper fuselage sides immediately behind the two-seat pressurized cockpit. The hot gases from the engines were exhausted via long tail pipes which extended all the way down the fuselage to side-by-side openings in the tail. Since there was no longer any rear propeller which had to be protected against hitting the ground, the lower ventral fin of the XB-42 could be omitted. This omission required that the upper vertical fin be increased in area to provide adequate lateral control. Assuming tests on the prototypes to be satisfactory, plans were made for an initial production order of 50 B-43s for the USAAF, while Douglas subitting a proposal for an eventual production rate of as many as 200 per month. The production B-43 would have had a conventional canopy in place of the two small bug-eye canopies of the XB-42. Two versions were planned--a bomber version with a transparent nose and a maximum bombload of 6000 pounds and an attack version with 16 forward-firing 0.50-inch machine guns with an unglazed nose and an armament of 35 5-inch rockets. Both versions were to be fitted with a remotely-controlled, radar-directed tail turret with two 0.50-inch machine guns.


Douglas XB-43

The end of the war resulted in a slowdown in the B-43 program, since a jet bomber was no longer urgently needed. In addition, late delivery of the turbojets resulted in a delay of several additional months. During a engine run-up test at Clover Field in October of 1945, the starboard engine shed some of its first-stage compressor blades, causing an instantaneous separation of all blades and damaging the engine casing and fuselage skin. The repairs that were required delayed the first flight by another seven months. The first XB-43 (44-61508) finally took off on its maiden flight on May 17, 1946, with test pilot Bob Brush and engineer Russell Thaw in the cockpit. Performance was generally satisfactory, but the aircraft was somewhat underpowered. During flight trials, the Plexiglas nose cracked due to temperature changes, and had to be replaced by a plywood cone. However, by the time of the XB-43's first flight, the USAAF had already decided against ordering the B-43 into production. USAAF thinking now favored a four-engined rather than a twin-engined configuration for its future jet bombers, and had already decided to order the North American B-45 Tornado into production. The XB-43 program would still continue, but it would now be relegated to the status of a flying testbed. The second aircraft (44-61509) was fitted with a single canopy and was delivered to Muroc in May of 1947. It was used there as an engine testbed. For this purpose, one of its J35s was replaced by a General Electric J47. This plane was kept flying by cannibalizing the first XB-43, which had been damaged in an accident on February 1, 1951. In late 1953, the second XB-43 was finally retired. The plane is now owned by the National Air and Space Museum. I presume that it is sitting in one of the hangars of the Paul Garber restoration facility at Suitland, Maryland. Has anyone seen it? Serials of the two XB-43s were 44-61508 and 44-61509. Specification of Douglas XB-43: Two General Electric J35-GE-3 turbojets, 4000 lb.s.t. each. Performance: Maximum speed 515 mph at sea level. Cruising speed 420 mph. Service ceiling 38,200 feet, Absolute ceiling 41,800 feet, Initial climb rate 2470 feet per minute. Range 1100 miles with 8000 pounds of bombs. Maximum range 2840 miles. Weights: 21,755 pounds empty, 37,000 pounds loaded, 39,553 pounds maximum takeoff. Dimensions: Wingspan 71 feet 2 inches, length 51 feet 2 inches, height 24 feet 3 inches, wing area 563 square feet. Armament: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b43.html (2 of 3)08-09-2006 21:29:27

Douglas XB-43

Neither XB-43 was ever fitted with any armament. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. Post World War II Bombers, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force History,

1988. 3. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920: Volume I, Rene J. Francillon, Naval



Boeing B-29D/XB-44 Superfortress

Boeing B-29D/XB-44 Superfortress Last revised April 17, 2000

The Wright-powered B-29 had always been somewhat underpowered for its weight, and it became clear that the aircraft could take substantially more engine power if it were available. In pursuit of this objective, one B-29A (42-93845) was handed over to Pratt & Whitney for conversion as a testbed for the new four-row 28-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R4360 Wasp Major air-cooled radial engine, which was rated at 3500 hp. The aircraft was later redesignated XB-44, and was readily recognizable by the new engine installation, with the oil cooler intake pulled further back on the lower part of the nacelle. An order for 200 production examples under the designation B-29D was placed in July of 1945, but was reduced to only 50 after V-J Day. In December of 1945, the designation of the B-29D was changed to B-50A. This was a ruse to win appropriations for the procurement of an airplane that appeared by its designation to be merely a later version of an existing model that was already being cancelled wholesale, with many existing models being put into storage. Officially, the justification for the new B-50 designation was made on the basis that the changes introduced by the B-29D were so major that it was essentially a completely new aircraft. The ruse worked, and the B-50 survived to become an important component of the postwar Air Force. Sources: 1. Warbird History--B-29 Superfortress, Chester Marshall, Motorbooks International,


1969. 3. B-29 Superfortress, John Pimlott, Gallery Books, 1980. 4. Famous Bombers of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1960.


Boeing B-29D/XB-44 Superfortress

5. Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II, Bill Gunston, Military Press, 1989. 6. Boeing Aircraft Since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989. 7. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 8. Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II, Bill Gunston, Military Press, 1989. 9. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.


b50

North American B-45 Tornado

North American XB-45 Tornado North American B-45A Tornado North American B-45B Tornado North American B-45C Tornado North American RB-45C Tornado


Convair XB-46

Convair XB-46 Last revised April 16, 2000

The Convair B-46 officially originated back in 1944, at a time when the USAAF was already aware of German advances in the field of jet propulsion, especially as applied to the development of jet bombers. Alarmed by German developments, the War Department called for bids on a new family of jet-powered bombers, with gross weights ranging from 80,000 pounds to more than 200,000 pounds. An April 1944 specification called for a 1000-mile tactical radius, a maximum speed of 500 mph, and a 40,000 foot ceiling. These new aircraft were to be powered either by TG-180 or TG-190 engines which were then under development at General Electric. The TG-180 was eventually built by the Allison Division of General Motors as the J35, and the TG-190 was built by the General Electric company as the J47. On November 6, 1944, Convair submitted a proposal for a fairly conventional design with a shoulder-mounted Davis wing and a slim well-streamlined fuselage. The aircraft was to be powered by four General Electric TG-180 axial-flow turbojets, paired in two underwing pod nacelles. The three crew members were to be housed in a pressurized cockpit. The pilot and copilot sat in tandem underneath a fighter-type bubble canopy, and the bombardier sat in the forward nose with a glazed nose section. Defensive armament consisted of two 0.50-inch machine guns in a remotely- controlled tail turret. Normal bomb load was 8000 pounds. The proposal was known as Model 109 by Convair. Three prototypes of the Model 109 were ordered on February 27, 1945 under the designation XB-46. Serials were 45-59582/59584. At the same time, contracts were awarded to North American, Boeing, and Martin for the XB-45, XB-47, and XB-48 respectively. The end of the Second World War resulted in the cancellation of many projects and the delay of others. However, the War Department felt that the development of a jet-powered bomber should still be pressed forward with the utmost speed, and the XB-45, XB-46, XB47, and XB-48 contracts were left relatively unscathed. However, funds for two of the three XB-46s were diverted to Convair's XA-44 jet attack bomber project. In the event, the http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b46.html (1 of 4)08-09-2006 21:29:50

Convair XB-46

XA-44 design was converted to a light bomber design in December 1946 and redesignated XB-53. The XB-53 project was abandoned shortly thereafter. In 1946, tensions between the USA and its erstwile Soviet ally were rising, and the USAAF concluded that it needed to field a jet-powered bomber as soon as possible. The USAAF decided that it could save some time if it skipped the competition that would ordinarily be held between the four bomber proposals and went ahead and reviewed the available designs to see which of them could be produced first. By that time, the XB-45 and XB-46 were nearing completion, but the XB-47 and XB-48 were still at least two more years away. The USAAF decided to appraise the XB-45 and XB-46 right away and choose one of them for immediate production. Any consideration of the XB-47 and XB-48 would be deferred until after they had flown. if either the XB-47 or XB-48 turned out at that time to be markedly superior to the plane that was then being produced, then that aircraft would be purchased and the currently-produced version would be phased out. This is indeed what happened when the XB-47 appeared. The USAAF concluded that the Convair XB-46 would likely be inferior in performance to the North American XB-45 because of its higher weight, and that its thin, graceful fuselage would not be able to hold all the required radar equipment. Since the configuration of the XB-45 did not depart significantly from that of proven aircraft already in service and hence presented fewer risks, on August 2, 1946, the USAAF announced that they were going to endorse the immediate production of the B-45. Nevertheless, Convair would be permitted to complete a single XB-46 for test purposes, with essentially no chance of ever receiving a production contract for the type. The sole XB-46 (45-59582) took to the air for the first time on April 2, 1947, with E. D. "Sam" Shannon and Bill Martin at the controls. The wing had nearly full-span Fowler-type flaps on the trailing edge, and roll control was achieved primarily by 20-foot long spoilers, the ailerons being only 6 feet long. The main undercarriage retracted into wells in the engine nacelles. The XB-46 was unusual in that it had a complete pneumatic system for the actuation of the undercarriage, bomb bay, crew doors, and brakes. The B-46 program was officially cancelled by the USAF in August 1947, one year after the USAAF had endorsed the immediate production of the North American XB-45. Company flight tests at Muroc were completed by September 1947 after 14 flights. The aircraft was re-engined with Allison J35-A-3 turbojets and then flown to Wright Field. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b46.html (2 of 4)08-09-2006 21:29:50

Convair XB-46

The aircraft was accepted by the Air Force on November 7, 1947. The XB-46 was used in a variety of tests such as noise measurements and tail vibration investigations. Additional stability and control tests were carried out at West Palm Beach AFB in Florida between August 1948 and August 1949. However, these tests became increasingly more difficult to complete because of maintenance difficulties aggrivated by the lack of spare parts. Following completion of trials, the XB-46 was flown to Eglin Field in Florida in July of 1950 where a series of low temperature tests on the aircraft's pneumatic system were carried out in the base's climatic hangar. Following the completion of the climatic tests, the Air Force had no further need for the XB-46. The nose section was sent to the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio in early 1952. The remainder of the airframe was scrapped in February of 1952. Specification of Convair XB-46: Engines: Four 4000 lb.s.t. Allison-built General Electric J35-A-3 axial-flow turbojets. Performance: Maximum speed 545 mph at 15,000 feet, 491 mph at sea level. Cruising speed 439 mph at 35,000 feet. An altitude of 25,000 feet could be attained in 19 minutes. Service ceiling 40,000 feet. Range 2870 miles with 8000-pound bomb load. Maximum fuel capacity 6682 US gallons. Initial climb rate 2400 feet per minute at maximum takeoff weight. Weights: 48,000 pounds empty, 75,200 pounds combat, 94,400 pounds maximum take off. Dimensions: Wingspan 113 feet 0 inches, length 105 feet 9 inches, height 27 feet 11 inches, wing area 1285 square feet. Armament: Two 0.50-inch machine guns in tail turret. Space and structural provisions were made for an APG-27 remote control system with optics and radar sighting. Maximum bombload was 22,000 pounds. Sources: 1. Post-World War II Bombers, 1945-1973, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force

History, 1988. 2. General Dynamics Aircraft and their Predecessors, John Wegg, Naval Institute

Press, 1990. 3. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.


Convair XB-46




Boeing XB-47 Stratojet Boeing B-47A Stratojet Boeing B-47B Stratojet Boeing RB-47B Stratojet Brass Ring The B-47 Rascal Program Boeing TB-47B Stratojet Boeing WB-47B Stratojet Boeing YB-56/YB-47C Stratojet Boeing XB-47D Stratojet Boeing B-47E Stratojet Boeing YDB-47E, DB-47E Stratojet Boeing EB-47E Stratojet Boeing EB-47E(TT) Stratojet Boeing ETB-47E Stratojet Boeing QB-47E Stratojet Boeing WB-47E Stratojet Boeing RB-47E Stratojet Boeing YB-47F Stratojet Boeing KB-47G Stratojet Boeing RB-47H Stratojet Boeing ERB-47H Stratojet Boeing YB-47J Stratojet Boeing YB-47K Stratojet Boeing EB-47L Stratojet CL-52 Flying Testbed for Orenda Turbojet


Martin XB-48

Martin XB-48 Last revised June 5, 2000

The Martin XB-48 officially originated back in 1944, at a time when the USAAF was already aware of German advances in the field of jet propulsion, especially as applied to the development of jet bombers. Alarmed by German developments, the War Department called for bids on a new family of jet-powered bombers, with gross weights ranging from 80,000 pounds to more than 200,000 pounds. These new aircraft were to be powered either by TG-180 or TG-190 engines which were then under development at General Electric. The TG-180 was eventually built by the Allison Division of General Motors as the J35, and the TG-190 was built by the General Electric company as the J47. On November 17, 1944, the USAAF issued a specification calling for a bomber with a range of 3000 miles, a service ceiling of 45,000 feet, a tactical operating altitude of 40,000 feet, and a maximum speed of 550 mph. On January 29, 1945 these requirements were amended to stipulate that the aircraft would have to carry specific types of bombs, including the conventional M-121, a 10,000-pound "dam-buster" earthquake bomb. The Glenn L. Martin company of Baltimore, Maryland came up with the Model 223 in response to this requirement. The Martin proposal was submitted to the Air Technical Service Command on December 9, 1944, and led to Letter Contract W33-038 ac-7675. Approved on December 9, 1945, this initial contract called for one mockup of the Martin Model 223. The designation XB-48 was assigned. At the same time, three other contractors were awarded development contracts, North American for the XB-45, Convair for the XB-46, and Boeing for the XB-47. The end of the Second World War resulted in the cancellation of many projects and the delay of others. However, the War Department felt that the development of a jet-powered bomber should still be pressed forward with the utmost speed, and the XB-45, XB-46, XB47, and XB-48 contracts were left untouched. In 1946, the USAAF decided to forego the competition that would ordinarily be held between the four entries and opted instead to review the available designs to see which of the contestants could be produced first. By http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b48.html (1 of 4)08-09-2006 21:30:07

Martin XB-48

that time, the XB-45 and XB-46 were nearing completion, but the XB-47 and XB-48 were still at least two more years away. Since the USAAF was guided by what it felt to be a sense of great urgency, it decided to appraise the XB-45 and XB-46 right away and choose one of them for immediate production. Any consideration of the XB-47 and XB-48 would be deferred until after they had flown. if either the XB-47 or XB-48 turned out to be markedly superior to the plane that was then being produced, then that aircraft would be purchased and the currently-produced version would be phased out. This is indeed what happened when the XB-47 appeared. On December 13, 1946, the original contract was superseded by W33-038 AC-13492 which called for two XB-48 prototypes, spare parts, and a bomb bay mockup. The first XB-48 was to be flight tested and delivered by September 30, 1947, with the second being delivered by June 30, 1948. The XB-48 was to be powered by six General Electric TG-180 turbojets, later to be redesignated J35. The six engines were encased three each in lifting aerofoil section pods housed underneath each wing. The lift pods had air ducts between the pods and had adjustable tailpipes on the engines. The pilot and copilot were seated in tandem underneath a canopy-type enclosure, and the bombardier/navigator sat in the extreme nose. The wings were too thin to house a conventional landing gear, so The aircraft had a bicycle-type tandem undercarriage, with tandem twin-wheel units retracting into the fuselage ahead and behind the bomb bay. The aircraft had a pair of smaller outrigger wheels underneath each wing outboard of the engine pods. This arrangement had been tested on a XB-26H and had been found to be feasible. The armament was to have been a pair of 0.50-inch machine guns housed in a remotely-controlled tail turret and guided by an AN/APG-27 radar. The first XB-48 (serial number 45-59585) made its maiden flight on June 22, 1947. It took off from Martin's company airfield at Baltimore and landed at the Patuxent Naval Air Station some 80 miles away. It was powered by six TG-180-B1 (J35-GE-7) engines. Development and testing of the XB-48 was delayed by engine difficulties. The first XB-48 went through no less than 14 engines during its first 44 flights. In the spring of 1948, after early flight test data had been obtained on both the Boeing XB47 and the Martin XB-48, the Air Force concluded that the XB-47 had an appreciably better performance and showed greater development potential. In addition, the Martin design was over 50 mph slower than its guaranteed speed, and no production of the XB-48 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b48.html (2 of 4)08-09-2006 21:30:07

Martin XB-48

was ordered. The end of the line for the XB-48 became official in September of 1948, when the Air Force ordered its first lot of B-47 Stratojets. The second XB-48 flew for the first time on October 16, 1948, some three months behind schedule. However, this delay did not matter very much, since by that time the fate of the XB-48 program had already been decided. It was powered by six J35-GE-9 turbojets. In early 1949, Martin attempted to revive the B-48 program by proposing that the second XB-48 be re-engined with four XT40 turboprops installed in reconfigured nacelles. This converted XB-48 was to have been a prototype for the Martin Model 247-1, an airplane which the contractor insisted was capable of competing with the B-47, B-50, and B-54. The Air Force felt that the contractor's cost and performance estimates were too optimistic, and, in addition, since the XT40 was a Navy-developed engine, it was unlikely that Martin would be able to get enough engines to meet the schedules. Moreover, the Air Force was now of the opinion that turbojets, not turboprops, were the wave of the future for bombers, and on March 31, 1949, Martin was formally notified that the Model 247-1 would not be proceeded with. Flight tests with the XB-48s continued even after the formal end of the program. In the fall of 1949, the first XB-48 was cannibalized to keep the second flying. The latter aircraft was scheduled for a series of tests on the F-1 autopilot, jet engine cooling systems, and a hydraulic system for jet engines. However, these tests were cancelled before any could be carried out. The second XB-48 was used instead for the testing of thermal de-icing systems. In September 1951, the aircraft was flown to Phillips Field at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland where it was static tested to destruction. Specification of Martin XB-48: Engines: Six General Electric J35-GE-7 axial-flow turbojets, each rated at 3820 lb.s.t. Performance (contractor's estimate): Maximum speed 479 mph at 35,000 feet, 516 mph at 20,000 feet, and 486 mph at sea level. Average cruising speed 415 mph. Combat radius 500 miles with maximum bombload. Takeoff run 7900 feet at 102,600 pounds takeoff weight. Initial rate of climb 3250 feet per minute at takeoff weight of 102,000 pounds. Combat rate of climb 4200 feet per minute at combat takeoff weight of 86,000 pounds. An altitude of 30,000 feet could be attained in 21.5 minutes. Service ceiling 39,400 feet. Dimensions: Wingspan 108 feet 4 inches, length 85 feet 9 inches, Height 26 feet 6 inches, wing area 1330 square feet. Weights: 58,500 pounds empty, 92,600 maximum takeoff. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b48.html (3 of 4)08-09-2006 21:30:07

Martin XB-48

102,600 pounds combat with 4968 gallons of fuel included. Armament: Two 0.50-inch machine guns in extreme tail in remotely-controlled turret (not actually fitted). Maximum bombload 22,000 pounds. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. Post World War II Bombers, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force History,

1988.


Northrop YB-49/YRB-49A

Northrop YB-49/YRB-49A Last revised January 21, 2000

Northrop YB-49 Northrop YRB49A Conspiracy?


b50


Boeing B-50A Superfortress Boeing B-50B Superfortress Boeing B-50C Superfortress Boeing B-50D Superfortress Boeing DB-50D Superfortress Boeing TB-50D Superfortress Boeing WB-50D Superfortrss Boeing RB-50E Superfortress Boeing RB-50F Superfortress Boeing RB-50G Superfortress Boeing TB-50H Superfortress Boeing KB-50 Superfortress Boeing KB-50J Superfortress Boeing KB-50K Superfortress


Martin XB-51

Martin XB-51 Last revised November 23, 2002

In 1945, the US Army Air Forces issued a requirement for a light bomber aircraft. In February of 1946, a design competition was announced based on the USAAF requirements. On April 1, 1946, the Glenn L. Martin Company of Baltimore, Maryland proposed a straight-winged, six-seat attack bomber powered by two TG-110 turboprops and two I-40 turbojets. The aircraft promised a maximum speed of 505 mph, a cruising speed of 325 mph, and a combat radius of 800 miles. The Martin design won the competition, and was assigned the designation XA-45 in the attack series. In the spring of 1946, the USAAF revised its requirement, calling for an aircraft with better performance for all-weather, close-support bombing. The revised characteristics called for a redesignation of the Martin design as XB-51. A fixed-price letter contract issued on May 23, 1946 called for two XB-51s, to be accompanied by wind tunnel models and mockups. The military characteristics specified in 1945 and 1946 were revised yet again in early 1947. The XB-51 was now pictured as a low-altitude attack aircraft and the combat radius requirement was reduced. The company designation of Model 234 was applied to the project. The aircraft that finally emerged was powered by three General Electric J47 turbojet engines, one in the tail fed by a top air inlet and two in nacelles underneath the forward fuselage. The wings were swept back at 35 degrees and had six degrees negative dihedral. The wings had variable incidence to enhance performance for takeoff and landing The wings were fairly advanced for the day, having spoilers instead of ailerons and sporting leading-edge slots and full-span flaps. The crew was two, consisting of a pilot seated underneath a bubble type canopy and a navigator seated behind him within the fuselage. The landing gear was similar to that of the B-47--consisting of a set of tandem dual mainwheels which retracted into the fuselage and supported by a set of small outrigger http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b51.html (1 of 4)08-09-2006 21:30:31

Martin XB-51

wheels which retracted into the wingtips. An unusual feature was the use of a rotatable bomb bay door on which the bombs were mounted. When open, the weapons bay load was essentially the same as with external stores, but without the speed restrictions. The XB-51 prototype (46-0685) flew for the first time on October 28, 1949. It was the USAF's first high-speed, jet-powered ground support bomber. Phase I tests, which lasted until the end of March 1951, indicated that the design required relatively few modifications. Phase II tests, carried out between April and November 1950 confirmed these findings. Martin test pilots flew the XB-51 for 211 hours in 233 flights. Air Force pilots carried out 221 hours of test flights. The second XB-51 (46-0686) flew for the first time on April 17, 1950. It was fitted with an armament of eight 20-mm cannon in the nose, with 160 rpg. Up to 10,400 pounds of bombs could be carried, but the basic mission consisted of the delivery of 4000 pounds over a 475-mile radius. In 1950, following the beginning of the Korean War, the USAF perceived a need for a night intruder bomber to replace the Douglas A-26 Invader. The XB-51 was entered in the contest, along with the North American B-45 Tornado and the North American AJ-1 Savage. Foreign entries included the Avro Canada CF-100, a twin-jet all-weather interceptor, and the English Electric Canberra. On December 15, 1950 a Senior Board of officers recommended that the XB-51 and the Canberra had the best potential as a night intruder. Although a relatively large aircraft, the XB-51 was highly maneuverable for its size. At low levels, it had a very satisfactory turning radius in the speed range of 280-310 IAS. However, its low limit load factor of 3.67 G severely limited its capability during tactical operations, and was generally considered unsatisfactory. The XB-51 was nearly a hundred knots faster than the Canberra at low level, its maximum speed of Mach 0.89 below 30,000 feet made interceptions of the XB-51 by aircraft such as the F-86 extremely difficult. However, the endurance of the XB-51 was much poorer than that of the Canberra, with the Canberra being able to loiter for 2 1/2 hours over a target 780 nautical miles from its base. The XB-51 could loiter only one hour over a target 350 nautical miles from its base. Despite the prospect that improved jet engines would eventually be available, there was little prospect that the range and endurance of the XB-51 would improve sufficiently to meet the loiter time requirement. In addition, it was thought that the small outrigger wheels on the XB-51 might be troublesome at hastily-prepared forward air bases. In early 1951, a flyoff at Andrews AFB finally settled the issue, and the http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b51.html (2 of 4)08-09-2006 21:30:31

Martin XB-51

Canberra was declared the winner. On March 23, 1951, 250 examples of the Canberra were ordered under the designation B-57A. The XB-51 program was cancelled in November of 1951. However, Martin was not all that upset, since they were awarded the contract to build the B-57. Flight tests with both prototypes continued after program cancellation. The second XB-51 (48-686) crashed on May 9, 1952 during low-level aerobatics over Edwards AFB, killing its pilot. The first prototype XB-51 continued on with various other test work. Extensive tests on high-speed bomb release were carried out, and the tail configuration, variable incidence wing, and bicycle-type landing gear provided much useful data. The XB-51 even starred in a movie--the film "Toward the Unknown" starring William Holden in which it was assigned the spurious designation "Gilbert XF-120". The aircraft was totally destroyed on March 25, 1956 when it crashed on takeoff from El Paso International Airport. Specification of Martin XB-51: Engines: Three General Electric J47-GE-13 turbojets, each rated at 5200 lb.s.t. Performance: Maximum speed 645 mph at sea level. Cruising speed 532 mph, landing speed 153 mph. Service ceiling 40,500 feet. Initial climb rate 6980 feet per minute. Normal range 1075 miles, maximum range 1613 miles. Weights: 29,584 pounds empty, 55,923 pounds gross, 62,457 pounds maximum. Dimensions: wingspan 53 feet 1 inches, length 85 feet 1 inches, height 17 feet 4 inches, wing area 548 square feet. Armament: Eight 20-mm cannon with total ammunition capacity of 1280 rounds. Normal bombload was four internal bombs of 1600 lb. each or two external bombs of 2000 pounds each. Maximum bombload of 10,400 pounds. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. Post World War II Bombers, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force History,

1988. 3. Martin B-57 Canberra, The Complete Record, Robert C. Mikesh, Schiffer Military

History, 1995. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b51.html (3 of 4)08-09-2006 21:30:31

Martin XB-51

4. E-mail from Nolan Tucker and Gene Cupples on crash of 685.


Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

Boeing B-52 Stratfortress

Origin of B-52 Boeing XB-52/YB-52 Stratofortress Boeing B-52A Stratofortress Boeing RB-52B/B-52B Stratofortress Service of Boeing RB-52B/B-52B Stratofortress Boeing B-52C Stratofortress Service of Boeing B-52C Stratofortress Boeing B-52D Stratofortress Service of Boeing B-52D Stratofortress Boeing B-52E Stratofortress Service of Boeing B-52E Stratofortress Boeing B-52F Stratofortress Service of Boeing B-52F Stratofortress Boeing B-52G Stratofortress Service of Boeing B-52G Stratofortress Boeing B-52H Stratofortress Service of Boeing B-52H Stratofortress


Convair XB-53

Convair XB-53 Last revised June 17, 2000

The Convair XB-53 was a stillborn project for a tactical jet bomber that originated back in 1945. It was to be powered by three J35 turbojet engines buried in the fuselage and fed by two lateral air intakes. The wings were swept forward at an angle of 30 degrees. The aircraft was originally designated XA-44 (in the attack series), and for a while the USAAF actually considered cancelling the Convair XB-46 four-jet bomber in its entirety in favor of the XA-44. However the contractor firmly believed that a better solution would be for one XB-46 to be built in stripped but flyable condition and to develop two XA-44s in lieu of the two other XB-46s remaining under the contract. The USAAF agreed to this change and the XB-46 contract was reduced from three to one, with the serials of the last two XB-46s (45-59583/59584) being reassigned to the XA-44. However, USAAF support of the XA-44 did not last long. In December of 1946, the design was converted into a light bomber and the designation was changed to XB-53. However, the XB-53 project was cancelled before anything could be built. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. Post World War II Bombers, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force History,

1988. 3. General Dynamics Aircraft and their Predecessors, John Wegg, Naval Institute

Press, 1990.


Boeing B-50C/B-54 Superfortress

Boeing B-50C/B-54 Superfortress Last revised June 17, 2000

The B-50C was an advanced version of the B-50, designed to squeeze the maximum amount of performance that could possibly be gotten from the basic Superfortress design. The B-50C was to be powered by four new R-4360-43 turbo-compound engines. The turbo-compound engines were sometimes referred to as Variable Discharge Turbine (VDT) engines, and had also been considered for the B-36. The change to turbocompound engines required a complete redesign of the airframe, with a wider wingspan and a longer fuselage. The takeoff weight of the B-50C was estimated to be 207,000 pounds, almost 50,000 pounds greater than that of most other B-50s. An early B-50A was set aside to serve as a prototype for the YB-50C. The mockup of the B50C was completed by November of 1948. 43 production aircraft (14 B-50Cs and 29 RB50Cs) were ordered. In late 1948, the Air Force concluded that the B-50C was sufficiently different from the B-50A and B which preceded it that a new bomber model number of B-54 was assigned. However, fiscal year 1949 was a difficult time for the American defense budget, with large cuts being forced by financial exigencies. The B-54 offered little or no growth potential since it squeezed the maximum possible amount out of an already obsolescent design. In addition, it promised to be quite expensive. The B-54 was fitted with an outrigger landing gear which required wider taxiways than those which existed at operating bases, and its introduction into service would require a massive program of base reconstruction. It was discovered that jet engines could not be installed on the B-54 without completely redesigning the wings. The new K-1 bombing system could not be installed without sacrificing a belly turret or without a drastic alteration in the aircraft's fuselage. Air Force Secretary W. Stuart Symington and General Vandenberg both supported the B-54 project, but General Curtis LeMay vigorously opposed it and argued for the cancellation of the B-54 in favor of more B-36s. The development of the B-36D with auxiliary jet pods fitted underneath the outer wings promised superior performance in speed, altitude and range, and, pending the availability of the B-52, General LeMay argued that the B-36 provided the best option for strategic deterrence. However, Secretary Symington and General Vandenberg were http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b50_3.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 21:30:52

Boeing B-50C/B-54 Superfortress

reluctant to terminate the B-54 since the loss of the B-54 and the procurement of more B-36s would alter the medium/heavy bomber mix that had been recently approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As an alternative, Secretary Symington proposed that some additional B-50s be substituted for the B-54. General LeMay was unhappy with this proposal as well, and countered with an argument that if it were not possible to replace all programmed B-54s by B36s, the best alternative would be to secure additional B-47 medium bombers. After balancing all factors involved, the Board of Senior Officers agreed with General LeMay and recommended that the B-54 project be dropped in favor of the procurement of more B-36s and that the production of the B-47 Stratojet should be accelerated. The Board's recommendations were approved by Secretary Symington and General Vandenberg on April 5, 1949, and the B-54 project was formally cancelled. The partially-built YB-50C was also cancelled. Serials of B-50C/B-54: 46-061 49-200/206 49-207/229 49-1757/177O 49-1771/1799

Boeing YB-50C Superfortress - Project cancelled cancelled contract for Boeing B-54A - originally designated B-50C cancelled contract for Boeing RB-54A - originally designated RB-50C Cancelled contract for Boeing B-54A originally designated B-50C Cancelled contract for Boeing RB-54A originally designated RB-50C

Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. Post World War II Bombers, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force History, 1988. 3. Boeing Aircraft Since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989. 4. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.



Boeing XB-55

Boeing XB-55 Last revised June 17, 2000

In October of 1947, a request was issued to the aviation industry for a new medium bomber that would be the successor to the B-47, the prototype of which had made its first test flight only a month earlier. The program was assigned the bomber designation of XB55. On July 1, 1948, Boeing was named the winner of the contest and was granted a contract. The Boeing entry was assigned the company designation of Model 474. The Model 474 was essentially a turboprop adaptation of the jet-powered XB-47. It was to be powered by four 5643 hp Allison T40-A-2 turboprops housed in individual pods slung below a slightlyswept high-mounted wing. The turboprops drove a set of three-bladed contrarotating propellers. The landing gear configuration was similar to that of the XB-47--a tandem pair of wheels which retracted into the fuselage and supported by outrigger wheels which retracted into the outer engine nacelles. Gross weight was estimated at 153,000 pounds. Defensive armament was to consist of twelve 20-mm cannon housed in three separate turrets which were mounted in the rear of the aircraft and directed remotely by an aft-mounted gunner's compartment. The wingspan was to be 135 feet, and the length was to be 118 feet 11 inches. The Model 474 later metamorphosed into the Model 479, powered by six Westinghouse J40 turbojet engines and featuring a thickened wing root section. In January of 1949, the XB-55 project was cancelled. One reason for the cancellation was a lack of money caused by the Fiscal Year 1949 budgetary crisis, which caused the termination of several military projects and the delay of others. In addition, there no longer seemed to be any immediate need to develop a new medium bomber, in view of the currently-projected growth in the B-47. The XB-55 project promised to take much longer than originally expected, and the Air Force thought that its design should have been based on more-advanced aerodynamic principles as well as on improved propulsion systems. The mockup and detailed engineering work then taking place on the XB-55 were halted, http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b55.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 21:31:00

Boeing XB-55

but the Air Force allowed the study reports and wind tunnel testing to continue. These were to prove useful in the development of the XB-52, which was also in development at the same time at Boeing. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. Post World War II Bombers, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force History,

1988. 3. Post-World War II Bombers, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force History,

Washington, D.C., 1988. 4. Boeing B-52--A Documentary History, Walter Boyne, Smithsonian Institution

Press, 1981. 5. Boeing's Cold War Warrior--B-52 Stratofortress, Robert F. Dorr and Lindsay

Peacock, Osprey Aerospace, 1995. 6. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 7. Boeing Aircraft Since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989.


Boeing YB-56/B-47C Stratojet

Boeing YB-56/B-47C Stratojet Last revised June 17, 2000

The early versions of the Stratojet were all severely underpowered, and in pursuit of a more powerful Stratojet the Air Force proposed a version of the B-47 powered by four 10,090 lb.s.t. Allison J71-A-5 turbojets. The designation YB-56 was assigned to this project, since the different engine configuration was thought to justify a change in designation. A reconnaissance version known as RB-56A was also planned. According to the original planning, the 88th B-47B (50-092) was scheduled be converted to YB-56 configuration as a testbed for the concept. For a time, the YB-56 was intended to be the "definitive" Stratojet. However, since the airframe was basically that of a "stock" B-47B, the designation of the YB-56 was changed to YB-47C. The J71 engine was later found to be unsuitable for the Stratojet, and a decision was made to switch to the new Pratt & Whitney YJ57 turbojet. However, these engines were not yet available, and in any case they were already earmarked for the B-52. Consequently, the YB-47C program was cancelled in December of 1952, and no four-jet Stratojet was ever built. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. Post World War II Bombers, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force History,

1988. 3. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 4. The Boeing B-47, Peter Bowers, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday, 1968. 5. Boeing Aircraft Since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989.


Boeing YB-56/B-47C Stratojet


Martin B-57

Martin B-57

Martin B-57A Martin RB-57A Lightweight and Heartthrob Martin B-57B Martin B-57C Martin RB-57D Martin B-57E Martin RB-57F Martin B-57G B-57 with Pakistan B-57 with Republic of Vietnam Air Force




Origin of Convair B-58 Hustler Convair B-58 Hustler Convair TB-58A Hustler Service of B-58 Hustler with USAF Convair B-58B Hustler Convair B-58C Hustler Convair B-58D/E Hustler Testbed for YF-12A Weapons System NB-58A Testbed for General Electric J93 Hustler Supersonic Transport Hustler for Australia? Reconnaissance Hustlers Super Hustler Hustler Missile Launcher


Boeing XB-59

Boeing XB-59 Last revised July 3, 2000

In May of 1947, Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, at that time Deputy Chief of Air Staff for Research and Development, wrote a letter to Lt. Gen. Nathan F. Twining, chief of the Air Materiel Command, to request that work begin on a new jet-powered medium bomber that would be ready for service by the late 1950s. The new bomber should have a combat radius of 2500 miles, a cruising speed of at least 500 mph, and a gross weight of 170,000 pounds. It was proposed that the development of such an aircraft would follow the development of the B-52. General LeMay's proposal led the Air Staff to solicit ideas from the leading US maker of bombing aircraft, the Boeing Airplane Company, as well as from several other manufacturers. At this stage, the project was still rather ill-defined. By October of 1947, things had begun to firm up sufficiently so that the War Department submitted a requirement for a new medium bomber to the aviation industry. The aircraft was to weigh less than 200,000 pounds, have a 2000 mile radius, and be able to carry a 10,000 pound bombload. The aircraft was tentatively assigned the designation XB-55. Boeing submitted the winning proposal, and a Phase I contract for the XB-55 was initiated with FY 1948 funds. However, in the immediate postwar environment, funding for any type of military project was in short supply and it was decided that the initial design study for the XB-55 would be converted into a purely paper study to explore new aeronautical technologies. As part of the project, the Air Force began to explore the potential of delta wing configurations and began to consider the possibility of bomber designs capable of supersonic flight. Some of this work had actually gotten started before the advent of the XB-55 project, and several companies had launched informal internally-funded studies. On January 27, 1949, the AMC was directed to cancel the XB-55, since the projected B-47 production rate had reached the point that another subsonic medium bomber would probably be unnecessary. However, the general requirement for a high-performance medium bomber remained intact. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b59.html (1 of 5)08-09-2006 21:31:36

Boeing XB-59

Among the initial approaches to the design of a long-range supersonic bomber was the Generalized Bomber Study (better known as GEBO), which had been carried out by several aircraft companies, in particular Convair. GEBO began with the exploration of the the feasibility of a delta-winged aircraft weighing about 150,000 pounds. This had begun in October 1946 under an Air Force contract given to Convair. One of the positive results of the shelving of the XB-55 project was that it freed up some scarce funds for additional development. Brig. Gen. Donald Putt, Director of the Research and Development Office and Deputy Chief of Staff for Materiel, recommended that the AMC ask the aircraft industry for new and possibly unconventional proposals for intercontinental bombers. A second Generalized Bomber Study (known as GEBO II) was initiated. The design parameters were a radius of 1200 to 2500 miles with a 10,000 pound bombload, a cruising speed of more than 450 knots, a combat altitude greater that 35,000 feet and a takeoff distance of less than 6000 feet. In the meantime, the Boeing Airplane Company, now freed up by the cancellation of the XB-55 project, began to study the possibility of a high-performance medium bomber. Performance objectives included a combat radius of 3000 miles at an altitude of 50,000 feet. The aircraft would be capable of a supersonic speed of Mach 1.3 within 200 miles of the target. After looking at several different configurations, the Air Force selected the Boeing Model 484-405B as having the highest potential. The 484-405B was a fairly conventional design, with a low aspect ratio, high-mounted wing with a sweep of 47 degrees. A bomb bay similar in size to that of the B-47 would be provided. Gross weight was 200,000 pounds. The aircraft was to be powered by four Pratt & Whitney J57-P-5 afterburning turbojet engines. The engines were to be mounted side-by-side, two in the inboard section of each wing. Because the wing had to be thin in order to make it possible to achieve supersonic performance, all of the fuel had to be housed entirely within the fuselage. The fuselage housed a pressurized cabin for a crew of three. A remotelycontrolled tail turret was to be fitted. The Convair Aircraft Corporation also submitted a design to meet the requirement. In January of 1950, Convair, as part of its work on GEBO II, began to explore a parasite concept. They proposed a fairly small delta-winged aircraft which would be carried partway to its target underneath a B-36. The aircraft was to carry a two-man crew and would have four turbojet engines. Very early on, however, the parasite concept was abandoned, to be replaced by an aircraft with conventional landing gear.


Boeing XB-59

By the end of 1950, the Bombardment Branch of the Air Materiel Command's Aircraft and Guided Missiles Section began to prepare a detailed military specification for both the Boeing and Convair proposals. Based on the AMC proposal, which was in turn based on input from both the Boeing and Convair design studies, requests were made for funds for beginning projects. The supersonic bomber was now officially a part of the Air Force's future plans. On January 26, 1951, following the completion of the detailed study, Convair proposed that it develop a long range supersonic reconnaissance bomber. The project was given the number MX-1626 by the AMC under contract AF33(038)-21250. In February, the competing Boeing project was given a development contract by the AMC under the designation MX-1712 and contract AF33(038)-21388. Boeing's contract called for Phase I development of two bomber/reconnaissance aircraft through wind tunnel testing, engineering, and mock-up. Initial flight dates for both designs were tentatively set for late 1954. On February 1, 1952, the USAF issued General Operational Requirement SAB-51, where SAB stood for Supersonic Aircraft Bomber. It called for a multi-mission strategic reconnaissance bomber capable of carrying 10,000 pounds of bombs. It had to be capable of operating in all weather conditions, and had to be able to achieve a combat radius of 5000 miles with a single outbound inflight refuelling. It had to be capable of supersonic performance at altitudes of 50,000 feet or more and had to be able to achieve a high subsonic performance at lower altitudes. It was considered important that the aircraft be fairly small, since this would reduce the radar reflectivity and make the aircraft harder to detect. The Air Force wanted production to begin within five years. On February 26, 1952, the SAB-51 GOR was revised in a document which came to be known as Directive Number 34. It was conceded that it was unrealistic to expect the rapid development of a high-altitude, long-range supersonic bomber that could also be suitable for low-altitude high-speed missions. Consequently, the low-altitude performance requirement was dropped. Following discussions with the Air Council and representatives of the ARDC, SAC, the Rand Corporation, and the Scientific Advisory Board, the Air Force endorsed this recommendation, and the revised SAB became formalized on September 1, 1952 as SAB-52-1. However, the Air Force still wanted the aircraft by 1957. At the end of February 1952, General J. W. Sessums, ARDC Deputy for Development recommended that it would be better to forego the traditional industry-wide competition http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b59.html (3 of 5)08-09-2006 21:31:36

Boeing XB-59

that would ordinarily be held for the supersonic bomber project. Time and money would be saved if contractors could be selected on the basis of the proposals already submitted. Although the AMC felt that the Boeing and Convair proposals offered the best hope for a supersonic bomber, the AMC had requested informal proposals from other manufacturers, including Douglas, Lockheed, Martin, and North American. However, only two of the last four companies actually submitted proposals, and these were not very interesting. Shortly thereafter, the Wright Air Development Center endorsed this strategy and called for a competition between Boeing and Convair, the only two companies to have submitted proposals that were of any significant interest. The Air Force was now committed to the advanced bomber project, and placed heavy emphasis on the MX-1626 and MX-1712 programs. It requested that two parallel Phase 1 projects be initiated, thus engaging Boeing and Convair in an official competition. It was anticipated that contracts would be issued to both competetors in the fall of 1952 for detailed designs and mockups, followed by the selection of a winning design in February or March of 1953. The emphasis would continue to be on minimum size and maximum altitude and speed performance. The financing of the Phase I development of two parallel projects was extremely difficult to support, especially during a period of financial austerity. The Boeing MX-1712 program had benefited somewhat from the XB-55 cancellation, which freed up some Boeing developmental funding for the new project, but Convair's MX-1626 was experiencing a severe funding problem. In late February, the MX-1626 program was almost cancelled due to the lack of funds, and the project remained in some danger until May 15, when enough additional funds were obtained to keep the project going. Directive 34 had also dictated that the project use the weapons system concept, in which the equipment, weapons, electronics, and components of the aircraft would be developed as an integrated whole to ensure that each component would be compatible with the others. By mid-1952, both Boeing and Convair had made considerable progress in bringing their projects into compliance with the weapons system philosophy. In the process of making their designs conform with the requirements of Directive 34, Convair's MX-1626 was now known as MX-1964 and Boeing's MX-1712 was now called MX1965. The USAF designations B-58 and B-59 were tentatively assigned to the two competing projects, even though no production orders were yet forthcoming. In the summer of 1952, the Wright Air Development Center concluded that a less costly http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b59.html (4 of 5)08-09-2006 21:31:36

Boeing XB-59

alternative would be to select just one of the two competitors even before the design and mockup stage was reached. The small bomber concept was endorsed by the Air Force Council and by General Hoyt S. Vandenberg, who was Chief of Staff of the Air Force. However, General Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command, generally favored the development of larger bombers with longer ranges. SAC felt that high performance alone would not necessarily assure mission success, and that the small supersonic bomber's lack of range would prevent it from operating without midair refueling from most forward bases. Despite SAC's objections, the Wright Air Development Center recommended that the Boeing/Convair competition be stopped. Even though the Air Force thought that Convair's estimates of the MX-1964's supersonic drag and gross weight were overly optimistic, the Air Force felt that the Convair design was superior to the Boeing proposal. It was concluded that the Boeing design would offer insufficient supersonic capabilities, and on November 18, 1952, General Vandenberg formally announced that Convair was the winner of the contest. All work on the competing B-59 project was stopped. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. Post World War II Bombers, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force History,


Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 4. Convair B-58 Hustler: The World's First Supersonic Bomber, Jay Miller, Aerofax,

1997.


Convair YB-60

Convair YB-60 Last revised December 25, 2004

On August 25, 1950, Convair issued a formal proposal for an all-jet swept-winged version of the B-36, initially designated XB-36G. The Air Force was sufficiently interested that on March 15, 1951 the USAF authorized Convair to convert two B-36Fs (49-2676 and 492684) as B-36Gs. Since the aircraft was so radically different from the existing B-36, the designation was soon changed to YB-60. In the interest of economy, as many components as possible of the existing B-36F were used to build the YB-60. The fuselage from aft of the cabin to near the end of the tail remained essentially the same as that of the B-36F. However, the nose was lengthened to accommodate more equipment, and was tapered to a needle-like instrument probe. The conversion to a swept wing had moved the center of gravity farther aft, which necessitated the addition of a retractable tail wheel underneath the rear fuselage. The plan was to leave the tail wheel still extended during the takeoff run, retracting it just prior to rotation. During landing, the tail wheel remained retracted until both the main and nose gears were firmly on the ground. Because of the higher landings speeds that were inherent with a swept-wing design, the design team included provisions for a drag chute in the tail cone, although it is unclear if it was actually fitted to either prototype. The fuselage was a bit longer than that of the B-36F, having a length of 171 feet. The most readily-noticeable difference between the YB-60 and the B-36F was the swept wing. A wing sweep of 37 degrees was accomplished by inserting a wedge-shaped structure at the extremity of the center portion of the center wing. A cuff was added to the leading edge of the center wing to continue to sweep line to the fuselage. The net result was an increase of wing area to 5239 square feet. The wing span was 206 feet, about 24 feet less than that of the B-36F. The aircraft was also fitted with a new swept vertical tail and a set of swept horizontal elevators. The new swept vertical tail made the YB-60 somewhat taller than the B-36F, the tip of the new swept vertical fin reaching 60 feet 6 inches from the ground. The YB-60 was to be powered by eight 8700 lb.s.t. J57-P-3 turbojets, housed in pairs on http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b60.html (1 of 4)08-09-2006 21:31:42

Convair YB-60

four pods that were suspended below and forward of the wing leading edge, similar to the B-52, but turboprop engines were still considered as a possible option if the jet engines did not work out. The YB-60 also differed from the B-36F in its crew allocation and in its armament fit. The original YB-60 concept had only five crew members-pilot, copilot, navigator, bombardier/ radio operator and radio operator/tail gunner. All were seated in the pressurized and heated forward compartment. All of the defensive armament of the B-36F was omitted, save the twin 20-mm tail cannon that were remotedly directed by the radio operator/tail gunner seated in the forward fuselage via an AN/APG-32 radar in the extreme tail. The K-3A bombing/navigation system, with Y-3A optical and radar bombing sight was retained. The maximum bombload capacity was the same as that of the B-36F, namely 72,000 pounds. The second YB-60 and any production aircraft were to have the crew increased to nine. Early in the design process, the Air Force asked Convair to add back some of the retractable turrets that had been omitted from the initial design. The upper forward and lower aft turrets wer to be identical to those of the standard B-36F, but the upper aft turret was still to be omitted. The conversion of 49-2676 to YB-60 configuration began in the spring of 1951. The work was completed in only 8 months, since almost 72 percent of the parts of the YB-60 were common with those of the B-36F. However, the project was delayed by the late delivery of the J57 turbojets, which did not arrive at Convair until April of 1952. The aircraft was rolled out on April 6, 1952. It was the largest jet aircraft in the world at the time. The first flight of YB-60 49-2676 took place on April 18, 1952, with Convair chief test pilot Beryl A. Erikson at the controls. The Boeing YB-52 took to the air for the first time only three days later. Although there was never any formal competition between the YB60 and the B-52, the B-52 quickly exhibited a clear superiority. Although the YB-60 had a clear cost advantage over the B-52 (the YB-60 had a 72 percent parts commonality with the B-36 and used much already-proven equipment), the B-52 clearly had a superior performance. The top speed of the YB-60 was only 508 mph at 39,250 feet, more than 100 mph slower than the B-52. In addition, flight tests of the YB-60 turned up a number of deficiencies--engine surge, control system buffeting, rudder flutter, and electrical enginecontrol system problems. The stability was rather poor because of the high aerodynamic forces acting on the control surfaces acting in concert with fairly low aileron effectiveness. Consequently, the Air Force concluded that there was no future for the YB-60 and http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b60.html (2 of 4)08-09-2006 21:31:42

Convair YB-60

canceled the flight testing program on January 20, 1953. At that time, 66 hours of flight time had been accumulated. The second prototype was never flown at all. Although it was 95 percent complete, it was never provided with any engines and was not fitted with any government-supplied equipment. After flight test cancellation, Convair vainly attempted to convince the Air Force to continue interest in the YB-60. Convair even offered to complete the remaining B-36s on the production line as B-60s without charging the Air Force any more money. This proposal was turned down. Convair then tried to convince the Air Force that the YB-60 could be used as an experimental test bed for turboprop engines. This proposal was also rejected. Convair even considered trying to adapt the YB-60 as a commercial jet airliner. Nothing came of this idea either. There was even some consideration of using the YB-60 as a test vehicle for the proposed nuclear-powered X-6. This idea went nowhere as well. Although the Air Force formally accepted both YB-60s in mid 1954, flight testing was already over and the two aircraft had been permanently grounded. The two YB-60s were shunted off to the side of the runway at Fort Worth, where they sat out in the weather for several months. By the end of July 1954, they had both been scrapped, with some of the components that were common with the B-36F being scavenged for spare parts. Specification of Convair YB-60 Engines: Eight 8700 lb.s.t. Pratt & Whitney J57-P-3 turbojets. Performance: Maximum speed 508 mph at 39,250 feet. Combat ceiling 44,650 feet. Maximum range 8000 miles. Combat radius 2920 miles with 10,000 pound bomb load. Initial climb rate 1570 feet per minute. An altitude of 30,000 feet could be attained in 28.3 minutes. Ground run 6710 feet, takeoff to clear a 50 feet obstacle 8131 feet. Normal cruising altitude 37,000 feet. Maximum cruising altitude 53,300 feet. Dimensions: wingspan 206 feet 0 inches, length 171 feet 0 inches, height 60 feet 6 inches, wing area 5239 square feet Weights: 153,016 pounds empty, 300,000 pounds gross Armament: Two 20-mm cannon in the extreme tail. Maximum bombload 72,000 pounds. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b60.html (3 of 4)08-09-2006 21:31:42

Convair YB-60

2. Post World War II Bombers, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force History,


Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 4. General Dynamics Aircraft and their Predecessors, John Wegg, Naval Institute

Press, 1990. 5. Convair B-36-A Comprehensive History of America's "Big Stick", Meyers K.

Jacobsen, Schiffer Military History, 1998. 6. Eight-Engined Giant, Dennis R. Jenkins, Wings, Feb 2005.


b66

Douglas B-66 Destroyer

Douglas RB-66A Destroyer Douglas RB-66B Destroyer Douglas B-66B Destroyer Douglas RB-66C Destroyer Douglas WB-66D Destroyer Northrop X-21A


Cargo Aircraft Designations

Cargo Aircraft Designations Last revised March 15, 2006

Here are the designations of US Army and US Air Force transport aircraft. The C for Cargo designation for Army transport aircraft was originally introduced in May of 1924 There were two series of C-planes, one beginning in 1924 and ending in 1962, and another one beginning in 1962 and continuing to the present day.

Original C-Series (1924-1962) Here are the aircraft in the original C-series, beginning with the C-1 and ending in 1962 with the C-142. Douglas C-1

Single-engine biplane military transport. One 435 hp Liberty V-1650-1 water-cooled engine. Best known for participation in early mid-air refuelling experiments (1929). 26 built. Standard USAAC transport until 1929.

Fokker-Atlantic C-2

Military version of Fokker F-VIIA/3m trimotor transport. Eleven built.

Ford/Stout C-3

Designation given to eight 4-AT-B commercial trimotor transports acquired by USAAC.

Ford/Stout C-4

Designation given to 5-AT trimotor commercial transports acquired by USAAC. 5 built. radials.

Fokker-Atlantic C-5

Military version of 12-passenger commercial Fokker F-10A. Three Wright R-975 radials in place of the P&W Wasps of the commercial version. Only one ordered.

Sikorsky C-6

Military version of 12-seat S-38A twin-engined sesquiplane amphibian. Two 450 hp R-1340-7 radials. 112 mph crusing speed at sea level. Total of eleven procured.

Fokker-Atlantic C-7

Ten-passenger military transport. XC-7 was a C-2A with engines replaced by 3 330 hp Wright R-975 radials. It and four other

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher3/cdesig.html (1 of 18)08-09-2006 21:31:59


similarly re-engined C-2As were redesignated C-7. C-7A was designation given to six production planes which had a slightly larger wing, new vertical fins, and fuselages patterned after the commercial F-10A. Max. speed: 136 mph. Fairchild C-8

Designation given to commercial Model 71 singleengine light cabin monoplanes used by USAAC as light transports and photographic survey aircraft. Some were briefly designated F-1. An unusual feature was a folding wing.

Ford/Stout C-9

Designation given to C-3 trimotor transports after being re-engined with 300 hp. R-975-1 radials.

Curtiss XC-10

Designation given to one Curtiss Robin W delivered to USAAC. As compared to standard civil Robins, C-10 had increased wing dihedral, enlarged vertical tail surfaces, raised thrust line. Used for early experiments in radio-controlled unpiloted aircraft.

Consolidated Y1C-11

Designation given to a single Consolidated Model 17 Fleetster 6-7 seat passenger and mail transport monoplane acquired by USAAC in 1932. One Wright R-1820-1 radial.

Lockheed Y1C-12

Designation given to a single Lockheed Vega DL-1 commercial monoplane acquired by USAAC for tests as fast command transport.

C-13 reasons

Designation not used.

Either for superstitious

or to avoid confusion with the Curtiss O-13B, a transport version of the O-13. Fokker-Atlantic C-14

Military version of six-seat Fokker F-14 singleengine parasol-wing commercial transport. 20 ordered as Y1C-14s with 525 hp Wright R-1750-3 Cyclone radial.

Fokker-Atlantic C-15

Ninth Y1C-14 was converted ambulance aircraft and was Y1C-15. Single C-15 was a F-14 acquired from General


Designation given to one commercial F-XI amphibian acquired by USAAC for tests.


as a specialized redesignated commercial Fokker Aviation.


Lockheed Y1C-17

Designation given to a single Lockheed Vega DL-1B Special commercial monoplane acquired by USAAC for tests in 1930. All-metal fuselage, wire-braced single strut landing gear, NACA cowling, and wheel pants. At the time, the Y1C-17 was the fastest aircraft of any type in USAAC service (221mph).

Boeing C-18

Designation given to commercial Model 221 Monomail acquired by USAAC for tests.

Northrop C-19

Designation given to three Alpha 1 light transports acquired by USAAC.


Designation given to F-32 commercial transport acquired by USAAC for tests.

Douglas C-21

Designation given to military version of Douglas Dolphin commercial amphibian transport. Two 350 hp Wright R-975-3 radials mounted in separate nacelles above the high-mounted wing.

Consolidated Y1C-22

Military version of Model 17 Fleetster 6-7 seat passenger and mail transport. Improved version of C-11. Three built.

Lockheed Y1C-23

Designation given to a single Lockheed Altair DL-2A two-seat single-engined commercial monoplane acquired by USAAC in 1931 for use as transport for high-ranking military and civil officials.

American Y1C-24

Military version of commercial American Pilgrim single-engined transport. One 575 hp Wright R-1820-1 Cyclone. Ten seats. Used by USAAC as general utility aircraft. Four built.

Lockheed Y1C-25

Designation given to prototype Lockheed Altair 8D two-seat single-engined commercial monoplane acquired by USAAC in 1931.

Douglas C-26

Extensively revised version of C-21 amphibian transport. Two 300hp P&W R-985-1 radials in nacelles above the high-mounted wing. Larger wing area, longer fuselage, higher vertical tail, auxiliary fins removed. Later redesignated OA-4. 8 built.

Bellanca C-27

Adaptation of civilian Airbus four-seat cabin sesquiplane light tranport to military transport/cargo requirements.



Total of 15 built Sikorsky C-28

Commercial S-39C with R-985-1.

Douglas C-29

Version of C-26 amphibian transport with more powerful 550 hp P&W R-1340-29 radials. Two built.

Curtiss YC-30 Condor

Military version of T-32 Condor biplane civil transport. Two supplied to US Army.

Kreider-Reisner C-31

High-wing freighter. one built.

Douglas C-32

Original XC-32 was a military version of the DC-2 commercial airliner. Differed from the the commercial airliner only in minor details and in being powered by 750 hp Wright R-1820-12 radials. Only one built. Designation C-32A given to 24 DC-2 commercial airliners acquired by the Army in 1942 from civilian sources (including 5 aircraft previously acquired by the British Purchasing Commission).

Douglas C-33

Military cargo version of DC-2 series. Enlarged vertical tail, reinforced cabin floor, large cargo door. 18 built.

Douglas C-34

Military version of DC-2 commercial airliner. Similar to XC-32 except for minor revisions in interior arrangements. Two built.

Lockheed XC-35

Experimental high-altitude adaptation of Model 10E Electra light transport. Completely circular cross-section fuselage, smaller cabin windows.

Lockheed C-36

Three Lockheed Model 10A Electra twin-engined light transports were purchased by USAAC "offthe-shelf" in 1937 In 1942, 15 12-place Model 10As were "drafted" by USAAC and designated C-36A. 2 450 hp. P&W R-985-13s. Surviving aircraft were returned to civil register beginning in 1944. Four similar Model 10Es became C-36B. Two 600 hp P&W R-1340-49 radials. Seven 10-place Model 10Bs (450 hp Wright R-975 Whirlwinds) became C-36C. Maximum speed: 205 mph. Redesignated UC-36 in 1943.

Lockheed C-37

Designation given to a single Lockheed Model 10A


Only one built.

R-1820-25 engine.

Only


Electra ten-passenger commercial transport ordered "off-the-shelf" by War Department in 1937. 450 hp P&W R-985-13 radials. Assigned to National Guard as staff transport. Redesignated UC-37 in 1943. Douglas C-38

Military version of DC-2 twin-engine commercial airliner. Had DC-3 outer wing "married" to a DC-2 fuseslage and center section. Prototype of the series of aircraft sometimes known as "DC 2 1/2". One built.

Douglas C-39

Twin-engine military transport. Production version of C-38 aerodynamic prototype. Had DC-3 outer wing "married" to a DC-2 fuselage and center section. Two 795 hp Wright R-1820-55 Cyclone radials. Used primarily as cargo transport. 35 built.

Lockheed C-40

Military version of Lockheed Model 12-A Electra Junior commercial light transport.

Douglas C-41

C-41 was a "one-off" version of C-39 intended as staff transport for Chief of Staff of Army Air Corps. Two 1200 hp P&W R-1830-21 radials. Generally similar to C-39. One built. C-41A was military version of DC-3A reequipped with military instruments and communication equipment. Two 1200 hp P&W R-1830-21 radials. Served as staff transport. One built.

Douglas C-42

Staff transport for use by Commanding General of the Air Force GHQ. Similar to C-41 but powered by two 1000 hp. Wright R-1820-21 radials. One built.

Beechcraft UC-43 Traveller

Designation given to civilian Model 17 five-seat staggerwing biplane cabin transport acquired by Army and used as light personnel transport.

Messerschmitt C-44 single-

Designation given to one Bf 108B Taifun engine cabin monoplane purchased in Germany for use by US military attache in Berlin.

Beechraft C-45 Expeditor

Military transport version of civilian Model 18S twin-engine, twin tail light transport.

Curtiss C-46 Commando

Twin-engine personnel/cargo transport. P&W R-2800 radials. 3182 built

Douglas C-47 Skytrain

Redesign of civilian DC-3 twin-engine commercial


Two


airliner for role of military cargo transport. Most widely used military transport in World War 2. Used by RAF as Dakota, by U. S. Navy as R4D. Douglas C-48

Designation given to 36 DC-3As taken over from the airlines and used by the Army as personnel transports.

Douglas C-49

Designation given to 138 DC-3s taken over from the airlines and used by the Army as personnel transports.

Douglas C-50

Designation given to 14 DC-3s taken over from airline orders and used by the Army as personnel transports.

Douglas C-51

Designation given to a single DC-3 taken over from airline order and used by the Army as paratroop transport.

Douglas C-52

Designation given to 6 DC-3s taken over on the production lines before delivery and fitted as paratroop transports

Douglas C-53 Skytrooper

Paratroop transport version of C-47. Fixed metal seats, no large cargo door, no reinforced floor, no astrodome.

Douglas C-54 Skymaster

Military version of DC-4 four-engine commercial transport. Both cargo and troop transport versions built. Navy version was R5D. Total of 1084 built.

Curtiss C-55

Prototype CW-20T civil transport purchased by US Army for use as troop transport

Lockheed C-56 Lodestar

Military version of civilian Model 18 Lodestar twin-engine commercial airliner. Crew 3, 14 passengers. 36 acquired in 1942-43 from various civilian sources and used by Army as general personnel transport


Military version of civilian Model 18 Lodestar twin-engine commercial airliner. Crew 3, 14 passengers. Impressed under different contracts than C-56 series. 20 acquired from various civilian sources and used by Army as general personnel transport.

Douglas C-58

Designation given to two B-18A bombers modified as unarmed cargo transports.




Designation given to 10 civilian Model 18-07 Lodestar commercial airliners acquired by Army from various sources and used as general personnel transport.


C-60 was designation given to 36 Model 18-56 twin-engine commercial airliners acquired from civilian sources and used by Army as general personnel transport. C-60A was designation given to 325 aircraft of the same general type built from scratch as military paratroop transports.

Fairchild UC-61 Forwarder

Military version of Model 24 civilian four-seat high-wing single-engine cabin monoplane. Used by Army as general light utility transport.

Waco C-62

Projected twin-engined, high-wing cargo transport. Order for 253 was cancelled before any could be built.

Lockheed C-63

Proposed transport variant of A-29 Hudson light attack bomber. Cancelled before any could be produced.

Noorduyn C-64 Norseman

Light transport and communication aircraft. Single engine, high wing cabin monoplane powered by 600 hp P&W R-1340 Wasp radial. Crew 2, up to 8 passengers. 746 built.

Stout C-65

Designation given to Stout Skycar used by USAAC for tests.


Designation given to a single civilian Model 18-10 Lodestar twin-engine commercial airliner impressed by the Defense Supply Corporation.

Douglas UC-67

Designation given to 18 B-23 Dragon bombers converted to transport role and stripped of all armament.

Douglas C-68

Designation given to commercial airliners airlines and used by transports. Two P&W

Lockheed C-69 Constellation

Originally initiated as the L.049 four-engined commercial airliner explicitly designed to meet the requirements of TWA. Taken over as a military project following Pearl Harbor, and modified to meet troop transport needs..


two DC-3A twin-engine taken over from the Army as personnel R-1830-92 radials.


Only 20 were delivered as C-69 to USAAF before end of World War 2. At the end of the war, USAAF decided to standardize on the Douglas C-54 as its four-engined transport of choice, and most of the C-69s were promptly declared surplus and sold on the commercial market. Production of the basic design was turned over to the civil market, which was to lead to the famous Constellation series of airliners. Howard UC-70

Designation given to 20 Howard DGA-8,9,12, and 15 commercial four-seat high-wing cabin monoplanes acquired from various sources and used by Army for general light utility transport duties.

Spartan UC-71

Designation given to 16 Model 7W Executive civilian 5-seat cabin monoplanes acquired by the USAAF. One 450 hp P&W R-985 radial. 212 mph.

Waco UC-72

Designation given to 44 Waco civilian cabin biplanes impressed by USAAF for use as staff transports and station ferries. Sixteen different Waco models were included, some with tricycle undercarriage.

Boeing C-73

Designation given to 27 Boeing 274 twin-engined commercial transports "drafted" by USAAF in 1942. Small airline cabin and doors prevented use as heavy cargo and troop transport, so they were used primarily for crew ferrying and later for training.

Douglas C-74 Globemaster

Long range heavy transport aircraft. Four 3250 hp P&W R-4360-69 Wasp Major radials. 312 mph at 20,800 feet. Max range of 7250 mi. Could carry 125 troops or up to 48,000 lbs of cargo. Only 14 built. Served only briefly with USAAF, then declared surplus and sold on the commercial market.

Boeing C-75 Stratoliner

Designation given to 5 Boeing 307 Stratoliner commercial airliners impressed into USAAF service. Four Wright GR-1820 Cyclone radials. Pressurized cabin, 33 passengers. 241 mph at 6000 feet. Returned to commercial users after the war.

Curtiss C-76 Caravan

Twin-engined transport. Structure largely made of wood to minimize use of critical materials.

Aluminum shortage failed to materialize and program was http://home.att.net/~jbaugher3/cdesig.html (8 of 18)08-09-2006 21:31:59


canceled after only 25 had been built. Cessna C-77

Designation given to eleven Model DC-6 planes impressed by USAAF.

Cessna UC-78 Bobcat

Military version of T-50 civilian 5-seat twin engine cabin monoplane. Used by Army as light personnel transport. 3356 built.

Junkers C-79

Designation given to one Junkers Ju 52/3m acquired by USAAF as war prize from Brazil.

Harlow C-80

Designation given to four Harlow PJC-2 civilian aircraft impressed into service with USAAC.

Stinson UC-81 Reliant

Designation given to 47 privately-owned Stinson Reliant commercial 5-seat high-wing monoplanes impounded by USAAF and used for general utility transport duties. Wartime production of Reliant was under designation of AT-19.

Fairchild C-82 Packet

Twin-engined high-wing, twin boom, twin-tailed tactical freighter and troop transport. Total of

220 built. Piper C-83

Designation given to seven Cub aircraft impressed into service with USAAC in 1942. Later redesignated L-4F.

Douglas C-84

Designation given to four DC-3Bs taken over from the airlines and used by the Army as personnel transports.

Lockheed UC-85

Designation given to a single Model 9-D2 Orion six-passenger commercial transport impressed into service by USAAF in 1942.

Fairchild C-86

Designation given to nine commercial F-24-R-40 aircraft acquired by USAAF.

Consolidated C-87 bay Liberator Express

Transport version of B-24 Liberator.

Bomb

and rear fuselage replaced by passenger compartment. Loading door cut into rear fuselage. 286 built.

Fairchild C-88

Designation given to two F-45 low-wing commercial aircraft acquired by USAAF.

Hamilton C-89

Designation given to H-47 high-wing commercial aircraft acquired by USAAF.



Luscombe C-90

Designation given to two Model 8 high-wing commercial planes acquired by USAAF.

Stinson C-91

Designation given to SM-6000 trimotor transport acquired by USAAF.

Akron-Funk UC-92

Designation given to one B-75-L commercial aircraft acquired by USAAF.

Budd C-93A Conestoga

Twin-engined stainless-steel transport. Cancelled by Army but ordered by Navy as RB-1.

Cessna C-94

Designation given to three C-165 commercial aircraft acquired by USAAF.

Taylorcraft UC-95

Designation given to 7 commercial BL-65 light high-wing monoplanes taken over by USAAC and used as light communications aircraft. Later redesignated as L-2F. One Lycoming O-145-B1 engine.

Fairchild UC-96

Designation given to three Model 71 commercial single-engined cabin monoplanes "drafted" by USAAF in 1942 and used for photographic survey duties.

Boeing C-97 Stratofreighter

Four-engined aerial refuelling aircraft. Four P&W R-4360 radials. 375 mph at 25,000 ft. Midair refuelling boom under rear fuselage. Can be converted into transport role. When acting as transport, can carry up to 96 fullyequipped troops. 888 built.

Boeing C-98

Designation given to four examples of Model 314 flying boat requisitioned by USAAF from PAA. Later transferred to US Navy.

Convair XC-99

Transport version of Convair B-36 strategic bomber. Two decks. Capable of carrying 400 equipped troops, 300 stretchers, or 100,000 pounds of cargo. Six R-4360-41 radials. Only one built

Northrop UC-100

Designation given to one commercial 2D Gamma single-engine mail-carrying and special purpose aircraft acquired by USAAF from Texaco. in 1942. Used as utility transport until 1943.

Lockheed UC-101

Designation given to a single civilian Lockheed Model 5C Vega single-engine light transport "drafted" by USAAF in 1942. Returned to civil



register in 1944 Rearwin C-102

Designation given to three Speedsters acquired by USAAF.

Grumman UC-103

Designation given to two Grumman G-32 two-seat demonstration aircraft (conversion of single seat F3F biplane fighter) impressed by USAAF and used as utility light transports and ferry pilot trainers.

Lockheed C-104

Model 118 transport derived from civilian Lodestar transport. Redesignated C-60C, then cancelled.

Boeing C-105

Conversion of XB-15 experimental long-range bomber to cargo transport.

Cessna C-106

High-wing twin-engine transport. for tests.

Stout C-107

Skycar III commandeered in 1942 for tests.

Boeing YC-108

Transport version of B-17 bomber. XC-108 was B-17E converted as VIP transport for General McArthur. All armor and armament was removed (except for nose and tail guns) and interior was fitted out as office. YC-108 was B-17F converted to VIP transport in similar manner as XC-108. XC-108A was B-17E converted to experimental cargo transport. XC-108B was tanker conversion of B-17F.

Consolidated C-109 bombers

Two used

Designation given to 200 B-24 Liberator converted for use as aerial tankers to support China-based B-29 squadrons.

Douglas C-110

Designation given to three DC-5 twin-engined commercial transports impressed by Army in Australia from Dutch operators.

Lockheed C-111

Designation assigned to three Model 14-WF62 Super Electra commercial airliners flown to Australia in 1942 to avoid capture by Japanese. Purchased by USAAF for service with Allied Directorate of Air Transport.

Douglas XC-112

Pressurized development of C-54E Skymaster military transport. Longer fuselage, larger rectangular windows in place of circular



portholes of C-54. Four 2100 hp P&W R-2800-34 radials. End of war resulted in lack of production orders. Became basis of DC-6 series of commercial airliners. Curtiss XC-113

Conversion of C-46G to test General Electric TG-100 turboprop. The turboprop was in starboard nacelle, original R-2800 radial in port nacelle. Arrangement found to be completely unmanageable. Program terminated by a ground accident. Aircraft never flown.

Douglas XC-114

Proposed Allison V-1710 powered version of C-54. Not built.

Douglas XC-115

Projected Packard Merlin V-1650-209-powered version of XC-114. Not built.

Douglas XC-116

Proposed Allison V-1710 powered version of C-54. Similar to XC-114, but with thermal deicers. Not

built Douglas C-117

Twin-engine staff transport externally similar to C-47, the military version of the DC-3 commercial airliner. Combination of original features developed for DC-3 with latest improvements developed for C-47.

Douglas C-118A

Military version of commercial DC-6A freighter. Can carry up to 76 fully-equipped troops or up to 27,000 pounds of cargo. Four 2500 hp P&W R-2800-52W radials. 372 mph at 18,000 ft. 101 built. 74 troops or 27,000 lbs. of cargo. 40 R6D-1 (Navy logistic transport versions of DC-6A) were also transferred to USAF.

Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar

Twin-engine, twin boom, twin tail cargo and troop transport. Evolved from C-82 by relocating the flight deck, widening the fuselage, and providing more powerful engines. Two Wright R-3350 radials. 296 mph at 17,000 feet. Can carry up to 62 fully-equipped troops or a 30,000 pound cargo load. Clamshell doors in rear cockpit can accommodate wheeled or tracked vehicles.

Fairchild XC-120 Packplane

Experimental version of C-119 with detachable cargo pod. Aircraft could be flown with or without the pod. Only one built.

Lockheed C-121

C-121A was military version of commercial Model 749 Constellation. Military transport versions and



radar picket versions both built. One was used by President-elect Eisenhower as *Colombine II* in 1952. Chase YC-122 Avitruc

Fairchild C-123 2800 Provider

Twin-engined assault transport evolved from the all-metal XCG-18A 30-seat troop transport glider. Only nine built. After evaluation by USAF, declared surplus and disposed of on the commercial market. Twin-engined assault transport

Two P&W R-

radials. Can accommodate up to 60 fullyequipped troops or a 24,000 lb cargo load. 300 built. Achieved some notoriety in Vietnam as carrier plane for "Agent Orange" defoliant.

Douglas C-124 Globemaster II

Four-engine long-range military transport. Based on C-74 wing, engines, and tail, married to a new, deeper fuselage. Clamshell doors in lower fuselage for cargo loading.

Northrop YC-125 Raider

Short-field light assault transport and Arctic rescue aircraft. Three 1200 hp Wright R-1820-99 radials. Used mainly for mechanical training until disposed of as surplus in 1955.

Cessna LC-126

Designation given to 78 civilian Model 195 high-wing 4/5-seat cabin monoplanes ordered by USAF. Used primarily for instrument training and light transport duties. One Jacobs R-775 air-cooled radial. 180 mph.

C-127

Initial designation given to DeHavilland Beaver single-engine utility monoplane. Later redesignated L-20 and then eventually to U-6. Designation later reassigned to Boeing-built four-engined turboprop transport. Cancelled while still on drawing board.

Fairchild C-128

Variant of C-119.

Douglas YC-129

Designation given to a single Super DC-3 ordered by USAF in 1951 for trials. Larger horizontal and vertical tail surfaces with squared tips. New outer wing panels with squared tips.

Lockheed C-130 Hercules

The famous Hercules assault transport!!! Four Allison T-56 turboprops. High wing, cargo door in rear fuselage. 345 mph at


Redesignated C-119D and E.


18,000 ft. Probably the most successful military transport since the Douglas C-47. Used by just about every air force in the Production still continues today. Convair C-131 Samaritan USAF

Military version of Convair 240-440 series of twin-engine commercial airliners. Used by as general aeromedical, cargo, and personnel

transport Douglas XC-132

Proposal for heavy cargo aircraft. Highmounted wing with 25 degree sweepback and four 15,000 hp. P&W T-57 turboprops Cancelled in 1956 after only a mockup was built.

Douglas C-133 Cargomaster

Four-engine, long-range military cargo transport. Clamshell-type cargo loading doors in rear fuselage. Four 5700 hp P&W T34-P-3 turboprops. Total of 50 built

Stroukoff C-134

Modification of C-123B to test a boundary layer control system. Two Wright R-3350-89A radials with four bladed props. Longer and wider fuselage, much-modified undercarriage. Small endplane fins and rudders replaced the dorsal fin.

Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker

Four engine midair refuelling tanker. Four P&W J-57 jets/TF-33 turbofans. Versions for Midair refuelling, long range transport, cargo, photo mapping, electronic reconnaissance, readiation measuring, space communication, weather reconnaissance, nuclear blast detection, aerial command posts, and laser weapons testing.

Fairchild C-136

Proposed improved version of C-123B Provider. Cancelled early in the design stage

Boeing VC-137 by

Military version of commercial 707 transport.

Used

USAF for use as personnel and high-priority cargo transports. Two used by President as "Air Force One". C-138

Reserved for Fairchild F-27 but not taken up

Lockheed SC-139 Neptune.

Reserved for USAF transport version of Navy P2V Cancelled before anything could be built



Lockheed C-140 Jetstar

Four-engined jet utility transport and trainer. Four P&W J-60 turbojets. 573 mph at 36,000 ft.

Lockheed C-141 Starlifter

Four-jet long-range strategic transport. Four P&W TF-33 turbofans. 570 mph at sea level. High mounted swept wing, high mounted t-tail. Clamshell cargo doors in rear fuselage.

LTV-Hiller-Ryan XC-142A

Four-engined V/STOL tactical transport. Four General Electric T-64 turboprops mounted on a wing which can be tilted vertically for VTOL. ordered into production.

Curtiss-Wright XC-143 Became X-19 instead.

Not

Reserved for Model 200 VTOL but not approved.

The original C-series seems to end here.

New C-Series (1962-Present) In 1962, the Defense Department introduced a scheme under which Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force aircraft would all be designated in exactly the same manner. In addition, they decided to start the C-series over again from one. However, Air Force transports in the C- category still in service (such as the C-141) had their designations unchanged. Here are the post-1962 C-series aircraft:

New Transport Series

Designation

Description

Grumman C-1A Trader

Transport version of S-2 Tracker twin-engine carrier-based antisubmarine aircraft. Used by Navy as general utility shipboard transport and training aircraft

Grumman C-2A Greyhound

Transport version of E-2A Hawkeye shipboard early-warning aircraft

Martin VC-3A

Two commercial Martin 4-0-4 airliners acquired by US Coast Guard in 1951. Redesignated VC-3A in 1962. Later transferredto US Navy.

Grumman C-4A Academe

Military version of Gulfstream twin-engine business transport intended for U. S. Coast Guard and U. S. Navy as VIP transport and training aircraft

Lockheed C-5 Galaxy

Four-engined long range military strategic transport. Four General Electric TF39 turbofans.

Beechcraft VC-6A

One King Air 90 commercial executive aircraft delivered to USAF as VIP transport.

DeHavilland Canada C-7A

Designation given to 134 US Army DHC-4 Caribou twin-engined light tactical transports taken over by USAF.



DeHavilland Canada C-8A

Designation given to 4 US Army DHC-5 twin- turboprop light tactical transports taken over by USAF

Douglas C-9A/B Nightingale/Skytrain II

C-9A Nightingale is aeromedical evacuation transport. Basically similar to commercial DC-9-32CF convertible freighter.

McDonnell-Douglas KC-10A Extender

Flight refueling tanker and military freighter adaptation of commercial DC-10 airliner. Three General Electric CF6 turbofans. C-10 designation was originally allocated to a military version of British Aerospace HP-137 Jetstream 3 executive transport and feederliner. Order cancelled before any could be delivered.

Gulfstream VC-11A

Designation given to Gulfstream II executive aircraft purchased by US Coast Guard for use as a VIP transport.

Beechcraft C-12 Huron

Designation given to versions of the Beechcraft Super King Air 200 ordered for use by all the services.

C-13

Not used (I assume for superstitious reasons)

Boeing YC-14

Advanced Medium STOL transport (AMST) prototypes. Two built. Two CF650 turbofans and USB system. Did not go beyond prototype stage.

McDonnell-Douglas YC-15

Advanced Medium STOL Stransport (AMST). Four JT8D-17 turbofans and EBF systems. Did not go beyond prototype stage.

C-16

Designation assigned to Cessa Caravan CE-208 intended for use by Army in FLIR missions against leftist rebels in El Salvador and the forces of Nicaragua. Aircraft not accepted.

McDonnell-Douglas C-17 Globemaster III

Long-range heavy airlifter project. Four 37,000 lb. st. P&W F117-PW-100 turbofans.

Boeing C-18

Designation given to eight ex- airline Boeing 707-320Cs acquired by USAF in 1981.

Boeing C-19

Version of commercial Boeing 747 personnel cargo transport ordered for Air National Guard. Order cancelled before any could be acquired. One of my references has 19 examples being modified for Civil Reserve Air Force use in case of national emergencies. Planes remain in civilian service until called up by the Secretary of Defense.

Gulfstream C-20A

Designation given to military version of Gulfstream III business jet used for special mission support and electronic surveillance roles.

Gates Learjet C-21A

Military version of Gates Learjet Model 35A executive jet. Used for delivery of high- priority and time-sensitive cargo, as well as for general light transport and medevac duties

Boeing C-22

C-22A was ex-airline 727-100 operated by USAF as VIP transport for US Southern Command in Panama. C-22B was designation given to four ex-airline Boeing 727-100 three-jet transports used by Air National Guard to carry inspection and training teams from Washington to various points in the USA.

Shorts C-23A Sherpa

Light freighter and utility aircraft based on Shorts 330-200 30-passenger commercial transport.

Douglas EC-24A

Designation given to DC-8-54F acquired by US Navy for use as "electronic aggressor" aircraft with fleet electronic warfare support group.

Boeing VC-25A

Extensively-modified Boeing 747-200 used as presidential aircraft



Fairchild C-26A

Military version of 19-seat Metro 3 twin- turboprop light commercial transport. Used as operational support transport by Air National Guard units.

Alenia C-27A

Alenia G-222-710 twin-turboprop transport acquired for use as short takeoff transport in the Canal Zone.

Cessna C-28

One commercial Model 404 Titan ordered for use by US Navy as personnel transport.

British Aerospace C-29A

Military version of British Aerospace 125-800 light corporate executive transport. Six ordered by USAF for the combat flight inspection and navigation mission roles.

C-30

Designation skipped for unknown reasons.

Fokker C-31A

Designation applied to two Fokker F-27s used by US Army for Golden Knights parachute team.

Boeing C-32A

Designation applied to four Boeing 757-200s acquired for USAF for use as executive VIP transports.

C-33

Non-Developmental Airlift Aircraft project for a commercial freighter to supplement the C-17. Project cancelled before anything was ordered. At the time, the C-17 project was in trouble and Boeing proposed a version of the 747400F to supplement a reduced C-17 acquisition. The proposal was rejected. Lockheed made a similar proposal (C-5D) which was also rejected.

C-34

Designation skipped at the request of the US Army when the latter requested the MDS for what later became th UC-35A. The Army wanted to avoid confusion with "T-34"

Cessna UC-35A

Military version of Citation V Ultra (Model 560)

YFC-36A

Reserved for a four-engined aircraft, but not used. Believed to have been the original designation for the YAL-1A airborne laser prototype

Gulfstream Aerospace C-37A

Gulfstream Vs acquired by USAF for technical and logistics support.

Galaxy Aerospace C-38A

Military version of Model 1125A Astra SPX business jet for ANG.

C-39

Initial designation for Navy Unique Fleet Essential Aircraft. Designation changed to C-40 for reasons that remain unclear. Perhaps the Navy never noticed that C-40 was not next in the sequence.

Boeing C-40A

Designation applied to three Boeing 737-700Cs For Navy Unique Fleet Essential Airlift Replacement Aircraft to replace C-9B Skytrain II

CASA C-41A

Military version of CASA C.212-200

Canadair C-43

Military version of CL-641 Challenger for US Coast Guard

Sources: 1. The Aircraft of the World, William Green and Gerald Pollinger, Doubleday, New York, 1962 2. Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II, Military Press, 1989. 3. The "C" Planes-US Cargo Aircraft 1925 to the Present, Bill Holder and Scott Vadnais, Schiffer Military History, 1996. 4. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution http://home.att.net/~jbaugher3/cdesig.html (17 of 18)08-09-2006 21:31:59


Press, 1989. 5. E-mail from Jasper Versteeg on C-110 6. E-mail from David Shiflett on C-16A designation. 7. E-mail from Andreas Parsch on C-41, C-138, C-139, C-143, C-34, C-36. 8. E-mail from GOMACjdm on C-22 designation. 9. E-mail from Vahe Demirjian on reason for skipping C-13 in pre-1962 series, and C-39 in post-1962 series. 10. E-mail from Jos Heyman on C-43 designation.


Consolidated C-87 Liberator Express

Consolidated C-87 Liberator Express Last revised June 13, 2004

The C-87 Liberator Express was a transport version of the B-24D bomber. The first Liberator transport was created by converting B-24D serial number 42-40355 which had been damaged in a crash landing in the Arizona desert in early 1942. All of the bombing equipment and defensive armament were deleted, and the nose glazing where the bombardier sat was replaced by a sheet metal nose which hinged to the right. A floor was installed through the bomb bay and into the waist compartment. Rectangular windows were cut into the sides of the fuselage, and 25 seats were added. There was a large 6x6 door incorporated into the port side of the fuselage. The navigator's compartment was relocated to a position just aft of the pilot's cockpit, and an astrodome was installed where the top turret had been located. The tail turret was removed and replaced by a metal fairing. The crew was normally four--pilot, copilot, navigator, and radio operator. The prototype was flown to Bolling Field in Washington, DC for evaluation. The Army was sufficiently impressed that they ordered the aircraft into production as the C-87 Liberator Express. All of the C-87s were built at Consolidated/Fort Worth and were delivered between September 2, 1942 and August 10, 1944. The first 73 C-87s were conversions from existing B-24Ds, with the remainder being built from scratch on the Fort Worth production line as transports. A total of 287 C-87s were built by Consolidated/Fort Worth. The C87s were not assigned production block numbers, but there were six different versions of the C-87 that were built which incorporated a number of specific changes. Most C-87s were assigned to Air Transport Command. When Burma fell to the Japanese in April of 1942, China's only route to the Allied supply line, the Burma Road, was cut. The only route to China from India was now by air, involving a treacherous flight over the Himalayas, the highest mountain range in the world. This route came to be known as the *Hump*. On September 12, 1943, the Air Transport Command established a new route to China via the Hump. This route began at Patterson Field, Ohio and ended in China. This round trip route covered 28,000 miles and took twelve days to complete. ATC C-87s became an important part of this operation. So dangerous was this route that the USAAF ended up losing three crewmen for each thousand tons of cargo that reached China. The Hump operation ended up costing the lives of over a thousand USAAF crewmen. During the war, so great was the need for an air transportation system that the Army was forced to turn to the commercial airlines to help operate the system. In addition to ATC, four commercial airlines operated the Liberators under contract. These were Consairways, American Airlines, United Air Lines, and T&WA. Consairways was organized as a separate subsidiary of Consolidated Aircraft. The original purpose of Consairways was to return the crews ferrying aircraft to the Pacific back to the USA, but it later ended up http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b24_26.html (1 of 5)08-09-2006 21:32:25


flying cargo of just about every imaginable type back and forth between the USA and the Pacific theatre. It also flew USO shows to entertain the troops in the Pacific. Consairways operated a mixture of LB-30s, C-87s, and B-24s. Two C-87s known to have been operated by Consairways were 41-24029 and 41-11706. In January of 1943, American Airlines was awarded a contract by ATC to operate C-87s over North Atlantic and South Atlantic routes. These planes flew in military insignia and markings and carried USAAF serials, but were operated by civilian crews. Later, American Airlines personnel also flew numerous dangerous Hump missions. C-87s flown by American Airlines: 41-11608, 41-11639, 41-11657, 41-11674, 41-11675, 4111729, 41-11731, 41-11744, 41-11745, 41-11746, 41-11788, 41-23695, 41-23859, 41-23792, 41-23959, 4124141, 41-24163, 42-107274, 43-30565. One of the more notable exploits of AA-piloted C-87s was the 31,000-mile trip made by FDR's "One World Ambassador", Wendell Wilkie, aboard C-87 41-11608 *Gulliver*. This involved a 51-day mission to Cairo, Palestine, Baghdad, Teheran, Moscow, and China, and then a return to the United States via a route across the Pacific. AA later traded in their C-87s for more advanced C-54 Skymasters. United Airlines was awarded a contract by ATC to fly trans-Pacific routes and to fly intra-theater leave shuttles ferrying armed forces personnel back and forth between the front and leave ports in Australia and New Zealand. C-87s operated by United Airlines included 41-24005, 41-24027, 41-24028, 41-24160, 4124252, 41-24253, 41-11608, 41-11640, 41-11642, 41-11642, 41-11655, 41-11656, 41-11789, and 41-11861. During the war, Transcontinental & Western Airlines (T&WA)--later to become Trans World Airlines or TWA--operated Liberators for training and in support of USAAF Ferry Command operations. In late 1942, T&WA's new Intercontinental Division was assigned three C-87s to fly the South Atlantic route between the USA and the Middle East. The C-87A was a VIP transport version of the basic C-87. The C-87 had been essentially a "no-frills" transport, with little attention being paid to passenger comfort. The C-87A was designed for more passenger comfort, and had only 16 seats. It could be fitted with Pullman-type upholstered seats that could be converted into five berths. Because of the different seating accommodation, the window arrangement was different. The first three C-87As were named Gulliver I, Gulliver II, and Gulliver III. A total of six were built, three for the USAAF and three for the US Navy. Gulliver I (serial 41-11680 (some sources have it as 41-11608)), converted from a B-24D) was used by Wendell Wilkie in a 31,000 mile 51-day around the world flight in 1942. C-87A 41-24159 later became the first "Air Force One" for President Franklin Roosevelt, and was renamed *Guess Where II*. Three C-87A VIP transports were turned over to the Navy under the designation RY-1. Navy BuNos were 67797/67799. Five C-87s were transferred to the US Navy under the designation RY-2. BuNos were 39013/39017. Five C-87s were converted into AT-22 trainers, which were employed for training flight engineers. Their serial numbers were 42-107266, 43-30549, 43-30561, 42-30574, and 43-30584. Six stations were provided in the fuselage for the instruction of flight engineers in the operation of powerplants. They were intended to train engineers that were going to be flying aboard B-24 and B-32 bombers In 1944, these five planes were redesignated TB-24D.



24 USAAF C-87s were transferred to the RAF under Lend-Lease for use by Transport Command as Liberator C.VII. Their RAF serials were EW611/EW634. Known USAAF serial numbers are 44-39219 and 4439248/39261, which accounts for only 15 of the 24 C.VIIs. They were used by Nos. 232, 246, and 511 Squadrons starting with mid to late 1944 up until the end of the war. EW611, ex-USAAAF 44-39219, became G-AKAG. The RAF did not keep its Liberator C.VIIs very long, disposing of the last examples in 1946. The C-87s were not very popular with their crews, who complained about all sorts of hazards, particularly with the fuel system, with the engines, and with the cockpit accessories. The C-87 was notorious for problems with leaking fuel tanks, and midair fires were an ever-present danger. The C-87 also had some dangerous icing properties, which made it a very risky plane to fly over the Hump. There were few tears shed when the Army's C-87s were withdrawn from service and replaced by more reliable Douglas C-54 Skymasters. Serials of C-87 and C-87A Liberator Express: 41-11608 41-11639/11642 41-11655/11657 41-11674/11676 41-11704 41-11706/11709 41-11728/11733 41-11742/11747 41-11788/11789 41-11800 41-11837/11838 41-11907/11908 41-23669/23670 41-23694/23696 41-23791/23793 41-23850/23852 41-23859/23862 41-23863 41-23903/23905 41-23959 41-24004/24006 41-24027/24029 41-24139/24141 41-24158 41-24159 41-24160/24163 41-24172/24173 41-24174 41-39600 42-107249/107275

Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express later reserialed 41-39600 Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87A-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87A-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87A-CF Liberator Express Consolidated XC-87 Liberator Express Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express



43-30548/30568 43-30569/30571 43-30572/30627 44-39198/39298

VII 44-52978/52987

107266 converted to AT-22 Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express Consolidated C-87A-CF Liberator Express all to US Navy as RY-1 67797/67799 Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express 30574 and 30584 converted to AT-22 Consolidated C-87-CF Liberator Express 39198/39202 to US Navy as RY-2 39013/39017 39219, 39248/39261 to RAF as Liberator C. Consolidated C-87 Liberator Express

Specification of Consolidated C-87 Liberator Express: Four Pratt & Whitney R-1830-43 fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial engines with General Electric turbosuperchargers rated at 1200 hp at 2700 rpm for takeoff. Performance: Maximum speed 300 mph at 25,000 feet. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be reached in 60 minutes. Service ceiling 28,000 feet at 56,000 pound takeoff weight. Normal range at 60 percent power was 1400 miles at 215 mph at 10,000 feet. Maximum range was 3300 miles at 188 mph at 10,000 feet. Weights: 30,645 pounds empty, 56,000 pounds normal loaded. Dimensions: Wingspan 110 feet 0 inches, length 66 feet 4 inches, height 17 feet 11 inches, wing area 1048 square feet. Fuel: 2910 US gallons. Accommodation: Crew was normally four (pilot, copilot, navigator, radio operator). Up to 25 passengers could be carried. For ranges of 1000 miles or less, average cargo capacity was 10,000 pounds. On trans-oceanic routes, cargo capacity was 6000 pounds. Sources: 1. Famous Bombers of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1959. 2. British Military Aircraft Serials, 1912-1969, Bruce Robertson, Ian Allen, 1969. 3. Liberator: America's Global Bomber, Alwyn T. Lloyd, Pictorial Histories Publishing Co, Inc, 1993. 4. The Consolidated B-24J Liberator, Roger A. Freeman, Profile Publications, Inc. 1969. 5. B-24 Liberator in Action, Larry Davis, Squadron/Signal Publications Inc, 1987. 6. General Dynamics Aircraft and Their Predecesssors, John Wegg, Naval Institute Press, 1990. 7. Consolidated B-24D-M Liberator IN USAAF-RAF-RAAF-MLD-IAF-CzechAF and CNAF Service,

Ernest R. McDowell, Arco, 1970. 8. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian,

1989. 9. American Combat Planes, 3rd Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 10. Jane's American Fighting Aircraft of the 20th Century, Michael J.H. Taylor, Mallard Press. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b24_26.html (4 of 5)08-09-2006 21:32:25


11. E-mail from Lord Jim on 41-11680 (not 41-11608) being Gulliver I.


Boeing XC-108

Boeing C-108 Last revised July 25, 1999

The designation XC-108 was assigned to a B-17E (serial number 41-2593) that was converted as a special transport for General Douglas MacArthur in 1943. All armor an armament except the nose and tail guns were deleted. Extra windows were installed, and the interior was fitted out as a flying office for the General, complete with living and cooking facilities. A drop-down entry door with built-in steps was cut into the rear fuselage. The designation YC-108 was assigned to B-17F-40-VE serial number 42-6036 which was converted into VIP transport aircraft similar to General MacArthur's XC-108. The XC-108A was B-17E 41-2595 converted in March 1944 at Patterson Field as a cargo aircraft. It was part of an experimental program to test the feasibility of converting obsolescent bombers into cargo transports. All armament and military equipment was removed, and a large cargo door was cut into the rear fuselage. The interior arrangement was reworked, and the radio operator and navigator were moved to a position behind the pilot's where the top turret had originally been located. The nose compartment was rebuilt to provide space for cargo or personnel, with access being gained by the crawlway underneath the cockpit or by a solid, hinged nose piece that replaced the transparent nose of the standard B-17E. The bomb bay doors were sealed shut and the bulkhead between the bomb bay and what had been the radio compartment was opened up. The bulkhead between the radio compartment and the waist area was removed. Provision for cargo or troop-transport was installed in both the former bomb bay and the aft fuselage. The XC-108A was based in India and was used for transportation of materials into China over the Hump. It was not a success as a transport, being subject to continual engine problems, and there were no further cargo transport conversions of the Fortress. The XC108A returned to the States in October of 1944, and after the war ended up in bits and pieces in a junkyard near Dow Field in Maine. In 1985, a vintage airplane buff moved the pieces of the XC-108A to Galt Airport in Illinois, and current plans are to restore the plane to B-17E configuration for display in a museum. This will make it the only surviving Bhttp://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_15.html (1 of 2)08-09-2006 21:32:33

Boeing XC-108

17E. The XC-108B was B-17F serial number 42-30190 converted as a fuel transport aircraft. It was a test of the feasibility of converting bombers into tankers for use in ferrying fuel over the Hump from Burma to China. All armor and armament was removed, and extra fuel tanks were installed in the fuselage. Many other B-17s were converted to VIP transport configuration under the designation CB-17, the C indicating their status as converted bombers. Sources: 1. Flying Fortress, Edward Jablonski, Doubleday, 1965. 2. Famous Bombers of the Second World War, Volume One, William Green,

Doubleday, 1959. 3. Boeing Aircraft Since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989. 4. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 5. Boeing B-17E and F Flying Fortress, Charles D. Thompson, Profile Publications,

1966. 6. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 7. Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II, Military Press, 1989.


Consolidated C-109

Consolidated C-109 Last revised August 16, 1999

The designation C-109 was assigned to existing B-24Js and B-24Ls that were converted into fuel transports to support B-29 operations out of China. An early plan called for ten B29 groups to be stationed in China for operations against Japan, and these bombers were to be supported by no less than 2000 C-109s which would fly in aviation gasoline over the Hump from India for the bombers. Unlike the C-87 cargo/passenger transport, the C-109 fuel transports were not new aircraft, but were conversions of existing B-24 bombers. All armament and bombardment equipment was removed and both the forward and aft turrets were removed and faired over with sheet metal. The waist windows were retained. Eight fuel tanks were installed inside the fuselage that could carry 2900 US gallons of aviation gasoline. Most C-109s were equipped with a dual ADF system, as indicated by the presence of two football-shaped antennae on top of the fuselage. C-109s were generally devoid of any armament, although photographs do show that some of the turrets were retained on a few aircraft. A total of 218 Liberators were modified to C-109 tanker specifications at the various modification centers in the USA. They were not popular with their crews, since they were very difficult to land when fully loaded, especially at airfields that were above 6000 feet in elevation. In addition, longitudinal stability was rather poor when the tank in the forward fuselage was full, so quite often the C-109 flew with this tank empty. The C-109s were initially operated by the 20th Air Force in the CBI theatre in support of the B-29 operations out of China. The original plan to acquire up to 2000 C-109s was cut way back when the B-29 Superfortress operations relocated from China to the Marianas, from where they could be much better supported by US Navy seaborne tankers. The C-109s were then transferred to the Air Transport Command. Some limited use was also made of the C-109 in Europe. Conversions of B-24s to C-109s: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b24_27.html (1 of 6)08-09-2006 21:32:38

Consolidated C-109

42-7172/7229 42-51293/51395

42-51396/51430

42-51611/51825

Ford B-24E-20-FO Liberator 7221 converted to XC-109 Douglas-Tulsa B-24J-5-DT Liberator 51368 converted to C-109 51390 converted to C-109 Douglas-Tulsa B-24J-10-DT Liberator 51411 converted to C-109 51420 converted to C-109 51424/51427 converted to C-109 51429 converted to C-109 Ford B-24J-10-FO Liberator 51615 converted to C-109 51647 converted to C-109 51659 converted to C-109 51676 converted to C-109 51684 converted to C-109 51697 converted to C-109 51706 converted to C-109 51712 converted to C-109 51716 converted to C-109 51721 converted to C-109 51727 converted to C-109 51730 converted to C-109 51734 converted to C-109 51740 converted to C-109 51748 converted to C-109 51756 converted to C-109 51758 converted to C-109 51766 converted to C-109 51774 converted to C-109 51782 converted to C-109 51784 converted to C-109 51786 converted to C-109 51788 converted to C-109 51792/51793 converted to C-109 51809/51810 converted to C-109 51817 converted to C-109


Consolidated C-109

42-51826/52075

44-48754/49001

51825 converted to C-109 Ford B-24J-15-FO Liberator 51826 converted to C-109 51830 converted to C-109 51839 converted to C-109 51844 converted to C-109 51846/51847 converted to 51849/51850 converted to 51854 converted to C-109 51857 converted to C-109 51860 converted to C-109 51862 converted to C-109 51876/51877 converted to 51883 converted to C-109 51887 converted to C-109 51890 converted to C-109 51893 converted to C-109 51901 converted to C-109 51904 converted to C-109 51921 converted to C-109 51930 converted to C-109 51962 converted to C-109 51982/51983 converted to 52000/52001 converted to 52005/52006 converted to 52012 converted to C-109 52014 converted to C-109 52020/52021 converted to 52023 converted to C-109 52033 converted to C-109 52042 converted to C-109 52049 converted to C-109 Ford B-24J-20-FO Liberator 48755 converted to C-109 48792 converted to C-109 48877 converted to C-109 48879 converted to C-109 48882/48883 converted to


C-109 C-109

C-109

C-109 C-109 C-109

C-109

C-109

Consolidated C-109

44-49002/49251

48888 converted to C-109 48890/48892 converted to 48948 converted to C-109 48968 converted to C-109 48974 converted to C-109 48979 converted to C-109 48984 converted to C-109 48995/48996 converted to 49001 converted to C-109 Ford B-24L-1-FO Liberator 49007/49009 converted to 49011/49020 converted to 49022/49023 converted to 49025 converted to C-109 49030/49031 converted to 49034/49035 converted to 49037 converted to C-109 49040 converted to C-109 49045/49046 converted to 49050/49051 converted to 49057 converted to C-109 49059/49060 converted to 49062/49063 converted to 49065 converted to C-109 49067 converted to C-109 49071 converted to C-109 49075 converted to C-109 49077 converted to C-109 49079 converted to C-109 49184 converted to C-109 49191 converted to C-109 49197 converted to C-109 49204 converted to C-109 49208 converted to C-109 49219 converted to C-109 49222 converted to C-109 49230 converted to C-109 49234/49236 converted to


C-109

C-109

C-109 C-109 C-109 C-109 C-109

C-109 C-109 C-109 C-109

C-109

Consolidated C-109

44-49252/49501

44-49502/49751

49238 converted to C-109 49240 converted to C-109 49245/49249 converted to 49251 converted to C-109 Ford B-24L-5-FO Liberator 49253 converted to C-109 49255/49258 converted to 49265 converted to C-109 49267 converted to C-109 49269/49272 converted to 49274/49277 converted to 49280/49281 converted to 49283/49285 converted to 49288/49290 converted to 49292 converted to C-109 49295 converted to C-109 49299 converted to C-109 49302/49303 converted to 49305 converted to C-109 49313 converted to C-109 49317 converted to C-109 49319 converted to C-109 49326 converted to C-109 49330 converted to C-109 49333 converted to C-109 49337 converted to C-109 49344 converted to C-109 49348 converted to C-109 49351/49354 converted to 49358/49359 converted to 49445 converted to C-109 49466 converted to C-109 49490 converted to C-109 Ford B-24L-10-FO Liberator 49510 converted to C-109 49615 converted to C-109 49621 converted to C-109 49628 converted to C-109


C-109

C-109

C-109 C-109 C-109 C-109 C-109

C-109

C-109 C-109

Consolidated C-109

49660 49662 49684 49691 49704 49715 49720 49723 49728

converted converted converted converted converted converted converted converted converted

to to to to to to to to to

C-109 C-109 C-109 C-109 C-109 C-109 C-109 C-109 C-109

Sources: 1. Famous Bombers of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1959. 2. Liberator: America's Global Bomber, Alwyn T. Lloyd, Pictorial Histories Publishing

Co, Inc, 1993. 3. The Consolidated B-24J Liberator, Roger A. Freeman, Profile Publications, Inc.

1969. 4. B-24 Liberator in Action, Larry Davis, Squadron/Signal Publications Inc, 1987. 5. General Dynamics Aircraft and Their Predecesssors, John Wegg, Naval Institute

Press, 1990. 6. Consolidated B-24D-M Liberator IN USAAF-RAF-RAAF-MLD-IAF-CzechAF and

CNAF Service, Ernest R. McDowell, Arco, 1970. 7. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 8. American Combat Planes, 3rd Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 9. Jane's American Fighting Aircraft of the 20th Century, Michael J.H. Taylor, Mallard

Press.


USAAC/USAAF/USAF Fighter Designations

USAAC/USAAF/USAF Fighter Designations Last revised June 6, 1999

There seems to be some confusion about the designations of American fighter planes. Here's a summary I put together which I hope will clear up some of that confusion. I hope that you have as much fun reading this as I had in writing it. Enjoy!!! Up until 1920, there was no unified designation scheme for American combat aircraft. Before that time, aircraft had always served under their original manufacturer's designation (e. g. SPAD XIII, DH-4, S.E.5, etc). In 1920, it was decided that some sort of unified designation scheme was needed for American combat planes. In that year, the Army Air Service adopted an official designation scheme for all newly-procured aircraft. Henceforth, all Army aircraft were to be subdivided into 15 basic categories, seven of which were pursuit-type categories: PA PG PN PS PW R TP

Pursuit, Pursuit, Pursuit, Pursuit, Pursuit, Racer Pursuit,

Air-Cooled Ground Attack Night Special Alert Water-Cooled Two-Seat

(Yes, that's right, R for Racer; the Army raced planes back in those days!). The category letters were followed by a chronological number. This number gave the sequence in which an aircraft in a given category was ordered into service. The chronological number was often (but not always) followed by a letter which designated minor modifications of that particular aircraft type in the order in which they were performed. For example, the Boeing PW-9C was the ninth basic type of pursuit aircraft powered by a water-cooled engine to be ordered by the Army Air Service. The letter "C" indicates the third modification of the basic PW-9 design. As always, there were a few exceptions to this scheme. For example, the S. E. 5 scout of World War 1 fame which remained in USAAC service until 1926 retained its original designation. In 1924, the Army scheme was changed again. At that time, it was decided that it made no sense to classify pursuit aircraft according to the type of engine which powered them, and the seven pursuit categories were reduced to four: F FM P

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fdesig.html (1 of 25)08-09-2006 21:32:50

Photographic reconnaissance Fighter, Multiplace Pursuit


PB

Pursuit, Biplace

However, the basic philosophy of the chronological numbering scheme remained the same, with aircraft being assigned numbers in the sequence in which they were ordered into service. Chronological numbers for all four categories of pursuit aircraft were started at one. For example, the Boeing P-12 was the twelfth pursuit design to be ordered by the Army after 1924. Pursuit aircraft already in service at the time of the change were redesignated; for example, the Curtiss PW-8 became the Curtiss P-1. This basic scheme is summarized as follows: (prefix)(type)-(chron. num.)(variant)-(production block)-(factory) where "type" is a letter indicating basic category of aircraft (P for pursuit, B for bomber, C for transport, etc) and "chron. num" is thechronological number of the aircraft of that particular type. The "prefix" was not always used; it designated special features or roles (such as X for experimental). The "variant" was a letter in the sequence A, B, C,....which indicated the version of that particular aircraft in order of its entry into service. The "production-block" number was introduced in 1942 to keep track of relatively minor modifications of aircraft not deemed to be sufficiently significant to merit a separate variant letter. The "factory" code was an innovation also introduced at the beginning of World War 2 to keep track of the large numbers of aircraft manufacturers coming on line in support of the war effort. It was a two-letter code which indicated the plant where the aircraft was manufactured. Often, the same aircraft would be built by two or more different manufacturers. For example, the first of the "bubble-canopy" Thunderbolts bore the designation P-47D-25-RE, which meant that it was the forty-seventh basic pursuit aircraft to be ordered by the Army, it was the fourth basic variant, and was manufactured in the 25-th production block coming off the line at the Republic Aircraft Corporation in Farmingdale, New York. This designation scheme remained in force all throughout the Second World War. In 1948, the Army Air Forces were split off from the Army and became the Air Force. This evidently called for a new designation scheme. The four fighter categories were replaced by one, designated by F. The old F-for-reconnaissance designation was eliminated as a separate category. However, it was decided NOT to start the chronological numbering system over again from one. Fighter aircraft already in service at the time of the change had the P replaced by an F, but kept their original chronological number. For example, the North American P-51 became the F-51, the Lockheed P-80 became the F-80, etc. As newer aircraft were ordered into service by the Air Force, they were assigned succeeding chronological numbers in the order in which they entered service. Here is a complete list of all pursuit aircraft in the P/F series:

Curtiss P-1 Hawk 435 hp Curtiss

Single seat biplane powered by V-1150-1 liquid-cooled engine.

First of famed http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fdesig.html (2 of 25)08-09-2006 21:32:50


Curtiss Hawk series of fighters Curtiss P-2 Hawk replaced by

Version of P-1 with V-1150 engine 500 hp Curtiss V-1400 (D-12

Curtiss P-3 Hawk radial Pratt &

Adaptation of Curtiss P-1 to Whitney R-1340-3 engine

Boeing XP-4 Packard 1A-1500

Modification of PW-9 to test turbosupercharged engine

Curtiss P-5 Hawk turbosupercharged

Version of Curtiss P-1 with V-1150 435 hp engine.

Curtiss P-6 Hawk Curtiss V-1570

Modification of P-1 powered by Conqueror engine of 600 hp

Boeing XP-7 1570 Conqueror

PW-9D modified to test Curtiss Vengine

Boeing XP-8 powered by Packard

Single-seat biplane fighter 2A-1530 liquid-cooled engine

Boeing XP-9 with high-mounted

Single-seat monoplane fighter wing and external bracing.

Curtiss XP-10 fighter with

Single-seat high-altitude biplane gull-type upper wing

Curtiss P-11 Hawk hp H-1640 Chieftain

P-6 converted to use of the 600 12-cylinder air-cooled engine

Boeing P-12 powered by Pratt and

Single-seat biplane fighter Whitney R-1340 radial engine.



Most successful of the "between-wars" fighters.

341

built. Thomas-Morse XP-13 Viper Curtiss H-1640

Single-seat biplane powered by Chieftain engine

Curtiss XP-14 Thomas-Morse

Proposed Curtiss-built version of XP-13.

Boeing XP-15 of P-12) to

Never built.

Conversion of F4B (Navy version monoplane configuration.

Only

one built. Berliner-Joyce P-16

Two seat biplane fighter.

Curtiss XP-17 Hawk with Wright

Version of Curtiss P-1 re-engined V-1460 Tornado inline aircooled

engine.

Only one built.

Curtiss XP-18 around Wright

Proposed biplane fighter built V-1560 12-cylinder inline air-

cooled engine. Never built Curtiss XP-19 fighter built around

Proposed low-wing monoplane Wright V-1560 12-cyliner inline

air-cooled engine. Never built. Curtiss YP-20 Hawk hp Wright R-1870

Conversion of P-11 to use of 650 Cyclone air-cooled radial.

Only

one built. Curtiss XP-21 for P&W R-985

Conversion of P-1 Hawk as testbed Wasp Junior radial engine.

built. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fdesig.html (4 of 25)08-09-2006 21:32:50

Two


Curtiss XP-22 Hawk V-1570 inline

Conversion of P-6A to use Curtiss engine.

Acted as prototype for P-

6E. Curtiss XP-23 Hawk pursuit biplanes.

Last of the Hawk series of Only one built.

Abandoned due to

advent of Boeing P-26 monoplane. Lockheed XP-24 monoplane with

Two-seat, low-wing, cantilever retractable undercarriage.

Based

on Lockheed Altair civil transport.

Project

abandoned when parent company (Detroit Aircraft) went belly-up.

Project became basis of Consolidated Y1P-

25. Consolidated Y1P-25 seat fighter with

Revision of Lockheed YP-24 twometal wings.

Powered by Curtiss

V-1570 liquidcooled engine.

Two built.

Served as prototype for P-30. Boeing P-26 seat monoplane

The famous "Peashooter".

Single-

fighter powered by P & W R-1340 radial engine. 136 built.

Some service at

beginning of World War 2. Consolidated YP-27 radial P & W

Proposed version of Y1P-25 with R-1340-21 engine.

Consolidated YP-28 radial P & W

Proposed version of Y1P-25 with R-1340-19 engine.


Never built.

Never built.


Boeing YP-29 enclosed cockpit.

All-metal low wing monoplane with Only 2 built.

Consolidated P-30A fighter powered by 700 hp

Two-seat low-wing monoplane Curtiss V-1710-61 liquid-cooled

engine with turboSupercharger.

54 delivered.

Later redesignated PB-2A Curtiss XP-31 Swift design.

First monoplane Curtiss pursuit All metal. Fully-enclosed

cockpit.

Lost out to Boeing P-26 for production orders.

Only

one built. Boeing XP-32 & W R-1535 engine.

Developed version of P-29 with P Never got past the design stage.

Consolidated XP-33 take P & W

Proposed adaptation of P-30 to R-1830 radial engine.

Never

built. Wedell-Williams XP-34 cockpit pursuit

Single-seat, low-winged, enclosed aircraft powered by P & W R-

1535.

Project cancelled before any prototypes

could be completed. Seversky P-35 with semi-retractable

Cantilever, low-wing monoplane landing gear.

Beat out Curtiss P-

36 in initial competition. Curtiss P-36 Hawk fighter. Air-cooled

Closed-cabin, all-metal monoplane radial engine (Wright R-1820).

First Americanhttp://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fdesig.html (6 of 25)08-09-2006 21:32:50


designed fighter to enter largescale production. 210 built for Army, many more for export. Curtiss XP-37 Allison V-1710 in-

Adaptation of P-36 airframe to line water-cooled engine.

Only

one built. Lockheed P-38 Lightning Two Allison liquid-

The famous "Fork-Tailed Devil". cooled engines.

tail.

Twin booms, twin

10,037 built.

Bell P-39 Airacobra powered by Allison

Single seat, low-winged monoplane V-1710 liquid-cooled engine

mounted behind pilot and driving propellor via a shaft. 9558 built. Curtiss P-40 Warhawk teethed airplane.

The famous Flying Tiger sharkStarted life as a straightforward

conversion of P-36 to use of Allison V-1710 inline engine. Fought on all fronts in World War 2.

Served with many allied air forces.

built.

13,738

Many different modifications.

Seversky XP-41 retractable landing

Adaptation of P-35 with fullygear and more powerful R-1830-19

engine with supercharger. Curtiss XP-42 take new aerodynamic

Only one built.

Conversion of P-36 airframe to cowling around radial engine to

improve performance. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fdesig.html (7 of 25)08-09-2006 21:32:50


Lost out to P-40 in competition. Only one built. Republic P-43 Lancer turbosupercharged R-1830-35

Adaptation of XP-41 with engine.

Republic P-44 Rocket R-2800 engine.

272 built.

Adaptation of P-43 with R-2180 or Cancelled in favor of P-47.

Never proceeded past the design state. Bell XP-45 version of Bell

Designation for first production Airacobra.

Designation later

changed to P-39C. Curtiss XP-46 on European

Proposed follow-on to P-40, based advances in combat aircraft

design.

Ten guns, automatic leading edge slots,

fully-retractable undercarriage.

Further

development abandoned in favor of production of P-40D. Only two built. Republic P-47 Thunderbolt and escort fighter

The famous "Jug" fighter-bomber of World War 2.

Douglas XP-48 light-weight

15,660 built.

Proposal for single-engine ultra fighter.

Never got off the

drawing board. Lockheed XP-49 1540 hp

Improved version of P-38 with two Continental XIV-1430-9/11

engines.

New nacelles, new tail booms, pressurized

cockpit..

Project cancelled after only one example



was built Grumman XP-50 Skyrocket twin-

"De-navalized" version of XF5F-1 engined, carrier-based monoplane

fighter. Prototype crashed on test flight, and project was abandoned. North American P-51 Mustang more need be said?

Only one built

The incomparable Mustang!!!

What

Probably the best all-round fighter of World War 2. Total of 14,819 built. Bell XP-52 cockpit and

Mid-wing monoplane with engines, armament in fuselage.

Tailplane

mounted on twin booms attached to wings. Continetal XIV-1430 proposed as powerplant.

Order

canceled in favor of XP-59. Curtiss XP-53 with laminar flow

Proposal for follow-on to P-40 wings and Continental V-1430

liquid-cooled engine. Two airframes built.

Project was

cancelled when the engine failed to materialize. Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose interceptor powered by

Unconventional high-altitude Lycoming XH-2470 engine of 2300

hp.

Fuselage had engine in rear, driving a

pusher prop

Project was cancelled after only two were

built. Curtiss XP-55 Ascender Allison V-1710 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fdesig.html (9 of 25)08-09-2006 21:32:50

Unorthodox canard aircraft with


in extreme rear of fuselage driving pusher prop. Swept-back wings.

Performance

problems caused project to be abandoned.

Only 3

built. Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet with Pratt & Whitney

Flying wing single-seat fighter R-2800 engine driving pusher

contrarotating props. Only one built. Tucker XP-57 based on 720 hp

Proposal for lightweight fighter Miller engine.

Tucker company

bellied-up before any detailed drawings could be completed. Lockheed XP-58 Chain fighter. Two Allison Lightning time that the XP-58

Two-seat, long range escort V-3420 inline engines.

By the

finally emerged, there was no longer any need for a new long-range escort fighter, and the project was cancelled after only one was built. Bell P-59 Airacomet more powerful

Original P-59 proposal was for a variant of XP-52 pusher fighter.

This was covertly abandoned and used as a "cover" for the development of the first American jet powered aircraft, which was designated as P-59A. Conventional mid-wing monoplane with two jet engines, one on either side of the fuselage, mounted under the wing roots. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fdesig.html (10 of 25)08-09-2006 21:32:50


50 built.

Poor performance made

it unsuitable for combat.

Used only as a fighter-

trainer to gain experience with jet operations Curtiss P-60 improved P-40.

Abortive attempt to produce Several versions produced,

powered by Packard Merlin and Allison V-1710 inlines , and by Pratt & Whitney R-2800 radial.

All had

disappointing performances. Project finally cancelled. Northrop P-61 Black Widow fighter powered by two

Twin engine, twin boom night Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engines

Crew of three. Total of 706 built. Curtiss XP-62 interceptor based on

Design for high-altitude Wright R-3350 18-cylinder radial

with supercharger driving contra-rotating propellors.

Project cancelled after only one was

built. Bell P-63 Kingcobra 39 Airacobra with

Extensively-modified version of Plaminar flow wings, a new engine,

a taller tail, and a four-blade propellor. Intended as closesupport aircraft.

Total of 3303

built, most of which were sent to the Russian front. North American P-64 single seat

Designation applied to six NA-50 fighters ordered by Thailand and

seized by US http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fdesig.html (11 of 25)08-09-2006 21:32:50


Government and used as fighter trainers. Grumman XP-65 of Navy F7F Tigercat

Proposed Army Air Forces version twin-engined carrier-based fighter Project cancelled before work

could start. Vultee P-66 Vanguard venture single-seat

Designation applied to private low-winged fighters ordered by

Sweden but embargoed before they could be delivered. 129 sent to China, 15 transferred to USAAF as advanced fighter trainers. McDonnel XP-67 Bat range fighter.

Twin-engined, single-seat longOnly one built.

Vultee XP-68 Tornado re-engine the

Designation given to proposal to XP-54 with Wright R-2160 Tornado

powerplant. Project abandoned when Tornado engine was cancelled. Republic XP-69 fighter based on

Proposal for long-range escort Wright 42-cylinder (!!!) R-2160

engine.

Engine was mounted in fuselage behind pilot

(a la P-39 Airacobra) driving a pair of contrarotating props via a long extension shaft. Envisaged as replacement for P-47.

Cancelled in favor of

P-72 before construction could begin. Douglas P-70 attack bomber as http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fdesig.html (12 of 25)08-09-2006 21:32:50

Night-fighter conversion of A-20


stopgap measure until P-61 Black Widow was available. Curtiss XP-71 escort fighter.

200 produced

Large, heavy two-seat long-range Never got off the drawing board.

Republic XP-72 Pratt & Whitney

Modification of P-47 to take the R-4360 3450 hp radial engine.

Two built. Hughes P-73 boom high-altitude

Experimental twin-engine, twin fighter made largely of wood.

Only one built. P-74 designation P-74 was

For some obscure reason, the never assigned to any aircraft.

Fisher P-75 Eagle by 2600 hp Allison

Long-range escort fighter powered V-3420 engine mounted in mid-

fuselage (a la P-39) driving contrarotating props. Project was abandoned when it was found that P-51 and P47 with underwing tanks were perfectly capable of fulfilling the bomber escort role. Bell XP-76 conversion of P-39 to

Only 13 built.

Originally XP-39E, which was a laminar flow wings with square-

cut tips.

Ordered into production as P-76, but

later cancelled. Bell XP-77 of non-strategic

Ultra-light fighter constructed materials.

performance.

Shortage


Disappointing


of aluminum did not materialize, and project was cancelled. North American XP-78 to use Packard

Only two built.

Conversion of basic P-51 airframe Merlin V-1650 engine.

Later

redesignated XP-51B. This change was to turn the Mustang from a relatively mediocre fighter into an outstanding success. Northrop XP-79B Flying Ram aircraft. Two

Jet-powered, flying wing fighter Westinghouse 19B jets.

Pilot lay

prone in a cockpit between the two engines. Reinforced leading edge to make it possible to destroy enemy aircraft by slicing off their wings or fuselages by ramming them!!!

Also carried 4 0.50 cal

machine guns. Lots of stability and control problems.

The sole prototype crashed and the project

was canceled. Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star fighter

First fully-operational USAAF jet

Convair XP-81 by combination

Long-range escort fighter powered jet/turboprop engines.

Turboprop

engine did not perform as expected.

Project was

cancelled after only two were built. North American P-82 central rectangular Twin Mustang Six 0.50-cal machine http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fdesig.html (14 of 25)08-09-2006 21:32:50

Two P-51H fuselages joined by a wing section and a tailplane.


guns in wing center section.

Two

cockpits with dual controls. Bell XP-83 two General

270 built

Long-range jet fighter powered by Electric J-33 engines.

Disappointing performance caused cancellation of project. Only 2 built. Republic P-84/F-84 bomber. Versions Thunderjet/ were straight-winged Thunderstreak/ engine. Thunderflash experience in Korea.

Single-seat, jet-powered fighterB, C, D, E, and G Thunderjets aircraft powered by Allison J-35 Thunderjet had extensive combat F-84F Thunderstreak version had

swept wing and more powerful Wright J-65 engine. 2474 built. Equipped many NATO air forces. RF-84F Thunderstreak was recon version with wing root intakes replacing nose intakes. McDonnell XP-85/XF-85 fighter designed to be Goblin of B-36 bomber.

Single seat, swept-wing jet carried as parasite inside belly Only two built.

North American P-86/F-86 Korean War. First Sabre Fighter-bomber and

The famous "MiG-killer" of the swept-wing US jet fighter. interceptor versions also

produced.

Served with just about every non-Communist

air force. Curtiss XP-87 Blackhawk http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fdesig.html (15 of 25)08-09-2006 21:32:50

Four-engined, jet-powered, all-


weather interceptor. Lost out to Northrop F-89 Scorpion.

Only one built. This was the last airplane to be

built by Curtiss. McDonnell XP-88/XF-88 fighter. Designed to Voodoo short endurance

Twin-engine, long-range escort overcome the limited range and characteristic of early jet

fighters.

Two 3000 lb. st. Westinghouse XJ-34-WE-13

jets.

Only 2 built

Northrop F-89 Scorpion fighter. High-

Twin engine, two-seat all-weather mounted tail gave the aircraft

its name.

A, B, and C versions had 6 20-mm cannon, D

and H versions had exclusively missile armament.

1050 built.

Lockheed XF-90 penetration fighter.

Twin-engine long-range Two Westinghouse XJ34-WE-15 engines

of 3000 lb. st. each. Only 2 built. Republic XF-91 interceptor powered by Thunderceptor and four rocket

Single-seat, swept-wing General Electric J-47 jet engine engines.

Wings pivoted at the

root and had "inverse taper" (wider at the tips than at the roots).

Not placed in series

production due to high cost and high sophistication.

Only two built.

Convair XF-92A experimental fighter.

Single-seat delta-wing Acted



as proof-of-concept for F-102. Only one built. North American YF-93A penetration fighter/

Long-range swept-wing jet interceptor.

Cancelled in favor

of F-86D. Only two built. Lockheed F-94 Starfire

Two-seat all-weather interceptor. Adaptation of Lockheed T-33 to

fulfill requirement for interim all-weather fighter F-94C was an extensively revised version with an allrocket armament installed in the nose, replacing the guns.

Total of 853 Starfires

built. North American YF-95A afterburning

All-weather version of Sabre with engine.

Republic XF-96 swept-back wings.

Later redesignated F-86D.

Version of F-84 Thunderjet with Later redesignated F-84F.

Lockheed YF-97A with J-48 engine and

Proposal for revised Starfire all-rocket armament.

Later

redesignated F-94C. Hughes F-98 Falcon Falcon air-to-air

Initial designation of Hughes missile.

Later redesignated GAR-

98. Boeing F-99 Bomarc surface-to-air

Initial designation of Bomarc missile.

Later redesignated IM-

99. North American F-100 bomber. World's http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fdesig.html (17 of 25)08-09-2006 21:32:50

Swept-wing, single-seat fighter-


Super Sabre supersonic speed in level

first fighter capable of flight.

McDonnell F-101 Voodoo fighter and strike

Total of 2292 built.

Single-seat long range escort aircraft, two-seat interceptor,

single-seat recon aircraft.

Basically a scaled up,

more powerful XF-88. Convair F-102 Delta Dagger weatherinterceptor.

Single-seat, delta-winged allAll-missile armament.

875 of

single-seat version built.

111 two-seat versions

(TF-102A) built. Republic XF-103 interceptor/fighter

Ultra-futuristic plan for a capable of reaching Mach 4

speeds.

Powered by combined turbojet/ramjet engine.

Very small delta wing mounted at mid fuselage. High cost of project, coupled with success of F-102, caused cancellation before any prototypes could be completed. Lockheed F-104 Starfighter General Electric

Single-seat Mach 2 fighter. J-79 with afterburner.

One

First

produced as highperformance day-fighter.

Only

served in limited numbers for brief time with USAF.

Outstanding success in export market when

converted into all-weather multirole attack fighter



Republic F-105 Thunderchief The famous "Thud"

Mach-2 tactical fighter bomber -of Vietnam.

Convair F-106 Delta Dart & W J-75 engine and

824 built.

Enhanced version of F-102 with P revised vertical tail.

missile armament.

All-

277 single-seat (A) versions built.

63 two-seat (B) versions built North American YF-107A development of F-100

All-weather interceptor Super Sabre.

fuselage.

Area-ruled

Top-mounted intake to make room for radar in

nose.

Lost out to Republic F-105 in tactical

fighter competition. Production plans cancelled in 1957. North American F-108 Rapier act as escort for

Long-range Mach 3 interceptor to B-70 Valkyrie bomber.

Large,

delta-winged aircraft powered by two General Electric J93 engines. Canceled due to high cost and advent of long-range missiles.

Never got past the

mock-up stage. F-109 aircraft.

Designation not assigned to any

McDonnell F-110 Spectre Phantom. Later

Air Force version of Navy F4H redesignated F-4.

General Dynamics F-111

Two-seat swing-wing fighter bomber Two Pratt & Whitney TF-30

turbofans. FB-111 was strategic bomber version. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fdesig.html (19 of 25)08-09-2006 21:32:50

Total


of 563 built. [Note:

The series seems to end here. of article ]

But see commentary at end

Now for the Navy's designation scheme for its fighters. From the start, the US Navy had an entirely different designation scheme for its combat aircraft. Like the Army, the Navy originally had no consistent scheme for designating their aircraft, and they simply used the original manufacturers designation. However, in 1923, the Navy decided to adopt a consistent scheme for designating its aircraft, but the scheme they chose was quite different from that chosen by the Army Air Services in 1920. The Navy scheme is as follows: (prefix)(function)(succession num)(mfg code) - (variant number)(suffix) The function was designated by a letter or letters (F for fighter, TB for torpedo bomber, etc). The prefix designated special features or role (such as X for experimental) and was not always used. The mfg code was a single letter which specified the manufacturer of the aircraft (C for Curtiss, B for Boeing, U for Vought, F for Grumman, etc). The succession number indicated the chronological order in which the particular aircraft of the given type had been ordered from the manufacturer designated by the manufacturer code. The suffix was used to indicate a special modification of the basic aircraft to fulfill a role for which the original design had not been intended. For example, the F4U-5N Corsair was the fourth basic fighter type to be ordered by the Navy from the Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation. The "5" designates the fifth modification of the basic Corsair aircraft to enter service. The N suffix designates a special modification for night-fighting applications. The Navy designation scheme remained essentially unchanged until 1962. The new Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara reportedly got hopelessly confused when his subordinates attempted to explain the Air Force and Navy combat aircraft designation schemes to him. He was shocked to find that the Air Force and Navy had different designations for basically the same aircraft (e. g. the FJ Fury and the F-86 Sabre). McNamara ordered that the Air Force and Navy immediately adopt common designation schemes for their aircraft. Henceforth, the Navy was to abandon its separate designation scheme, and both services were to adhere to a new unified designation system which was quite similar in form to the Air Force scheme already in effect. However, some new category letters had to be provided to include aircraft types which the Air Force did not have (e. g. P for Patrol). By 1962, Air Force chronological numbers for bombers had reached 70, and chronological numbers for both fighters and transport aircraft had exceeded a hundred, and it was decided to start the chronological numbering scheme over again from one for all aircraft categories. The new scheme meant that all Navy aircraft had to be redesignated (for example the Lockheed P2V Neptune became the P-2, the Vought F8U Crusader became the F-8, etc). However, for some reason it was decided not to change the designations of Air Force aircraft already in service in 1962 (the F-100 Super Sabre remained F100, the Boeing B-52 remained B-52, etc). Most of the earlier sequence numbers in the new F-series were taken up by redesignated Navy fighters. Once these numbers were used up, the succeeding chronological numbers were allocated to new Air Force and Navy aircraft in the sequence in which they were ordered into service. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fdesig.html (20 of 25)08-09-2006 21:32:50


Here is the new unified fighter designation scheme: North American F-1 Fury version of F-86 Sabre.

Formerly FJ Fury, the navalized

McDonnell F-2 Banshee vintage two-engine

Formerly F2H Banshee, Korean Warcarrier-based strike fighter.

McDonnell F-3 Demon single-engine

Formerly F3H Demon, a late 1950's carrier-based strike fighter.

McDonnell F-4 Phantom II Phantom/F-110 Spectre..

The famous Phantom.

Formerly F4H

Most successful Western fighter since the F-86 Sabre. Two General-Electric J-79 jets with afterburner. Over 5000 built in both carrierbased and land-based versions. Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter T-38 Talon

Fighter adaptation of twin-engine jet trainer.

Primarily used for

export. Douglas F-6 Skyray engine carrier-based

Formerly designated F4D, a singleinterceptor fighter. 419 built

Convair F-7 Sea-Dart experimental twin-engine

Formerly XF2Y Sea Dart, an delta-winged fighter that landed

on water skis. [ Note: mystery.

This one is sort of a

The Sea Dart was cancelled in 1957.

Why

bother to give it a new designation in 1962? ] Vought F-8 Crusader engine, carrier-based


Formerly designated F8U, a single


day fighter/interceptor.

"When

you're out of Crusaders, you're out of fighters!" Grumman F-9 Cougar single-engine carrier-based

Formerly designated F9F Cougar, a fighter.

Douglas F-10 Skyknight Skyknight, two-seat, carrier-based

Formerly designated F3D night-fighter of Korean War

vintage.

Two 3400 lb.st. Westinghouse J-34-WE-36 turbojets

in semi-external nacelles beneath the fuselage center section Grumman F-11 Tiger single-

Formerly designated F11F Tiger, engine, carrier-based day fighter.

Lockheed YF-12A interceptor Blackbird replacement for F-106.

Conversion of "A-12" spyplane to configuration as possible 2 P & W J-58 turbojets of 32,500

lb. st. each. Only four built. F-13 to any aircraft, I

Designation not assigned suspect for superstitious reasons.

Grumman F-14 Tomcat geometry

Two-seat, twin-engine variable carrier-based interceptor.

McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle interceptor/fighter.

Twin-engine all-weather In service with USAF, air forces

of Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia. General Dynamics F-16 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fdesig.html (22 of 25)08-09-2006 21:32:50

Single-seat fighter, fighter-


bomber. Fighting Falcon other air forces.

In service with USAF and several

Northrop YF-17A interceptor fighter.

Single-seat all-weather Two General Electric YJ-101

jets.

Lost out In competition with F-16.

Only 2

built. Used as basis for F/A-18 Hornet. McDonnell-Douglas F/A-18 Hornet and attack aircraft.

Carrier-based multirole fighter Two General Electric F-404

turbofans.

In service with Navy, Marine Corps, air forces of Canada, Spain,

Australia, Finland, Switzerland. F-19 At one time,

Not allocated to any aircraft. It was at one time assumed that

this designation was reserved for the long-rumored stealth fighter.

But the stealth designation turned

out to be F-117. Northrop F-20 Tigershark multirole designed for

Single-engine lightweight export.

Project terminated in

1986 due to lack Israel Aircraft Industries F21 Industries Kfir C-2 (Israel-

of customers. Several Israel Aircraft built modification of French

Mirage with J-79 engine) used briefly as aggressor aircraft by Navy "Top Gun" training units. Lockheed/Boeing/General prototype. Named as next http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fdesig.html (23 of 25)08-09-2006 21:32:50

Advanced tactical fighter


Dynamics YF-22A Raptor fighter.

generation advanced tactical

Northrop YF-23A prototype. Lost out to

Advanced tactical fighter YF-22A for production orders.

Now back to the F-19/F-117 controversy. Just *what* does the 117 in F-117 stand for? Is it in the pre-1962 Air Force fighter designation sequence? By 1962, the *known* Air force fighters had reached F-111. If F-117 is *really* in this sequence, this would imply that the Stealth fighter had been ordered into service prior to 1962, which seems quite improbable. If one accepts even this as plausible, one now is faced with the question of what happened to the missing numbers between F-111 and F-117 in the sequence. What, then, were F-112, F-113, F-114, F-115, and F-116? There has been some suggestion that these are designations for Soviet-built aircraft that were "acquired" by the Americans and taken out West to be test flown and evaluated in the Nevada ranges. They might, for example, be American designations for MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, Su-7, etc. However, enemy aircraft captured during World War 2 were never assigned US designations when they were evaluated by American forces, so the assignment of USAF designations to purloined Soviet aircraft would therefore be a departure from past practice. In view of the above, it is at likely that F-117 is NOT in the pre1962 USAF fighter sequence at all; I remember some Defense Department spokesman saying that the designation "117" was actually derived from the radio call sign used by the Stealth prototypes during their early tests out in the Nevada desert. We can only speculate until someone in the know is willing to talk. What about the F-19? For a long time, it had been assumed that this number referred to Lockheed's supersecret stealth fighter that had long been rumored to exist. When the Stealth came out of the black in 1989, it was revealed to everyone's suprise that its designation was F-117, not F-19. So what then *was* F-19? I remember a Defense Department spokesperson saying that the F-19 designation had been deliberately skipped so that "noone would confuse it with the Soviet MiG-19 fighter" (If anyone actually believes this explanation, I've got a bridge for sale :-) :-) ). It is at least conceivable that F-19 stands for some supersecret project that is so "black" that we won't hear anything about it for at least a decade? Could it be the "Aurora" aircraft that is rumored to be under test out in the desert as a possible replacement for the SR-71? Aviation Week and other sources have been full of rumors about hypersonic "waveriders", "pulsers", "plasma-propulsion" drives and other such exotica being seen or heard out in the Nevada desert. Perhaps F-19 refers to one of these. Finally, perhaps the F-19 *really* is a "hole" in the designation scheme, and all of this confusion and inconsistency in aircraft designation schemes was deliberately designed to confuse Soviet intelligence about what we are up to. It has certainly succeeded in confusing ME!!! Sources 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner 3. Warplanes of the Second World War, William Green 4. McDonnell-Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Rene Francillon




Curtiss PW-8/P-1 Hawk

Curtiss PW-8/P-1 Hawk Last revised September 12, 1998

The Curtiss "Hawk" series of fighter aircraft was developed directly from a line of specialized racing planes that the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company of Buffalo and Garden City, New York had built for the Army and Navy between the years 1921 and 1925. The powerplant for these racers was a Curtiss-developed compact, water-cooled, direct- drive V-12 design with a displacement of 1150 cubic inches and a power of 435 hp. This engine bore the manufacturer's designation of D-12, but in the middle 1920s the US military services adopted a system in which the type and displacement were used as the basis of the designation for engines. The D-12 engine was given the designation V-1150, V for the basic Vee design and 1150 for the amount of displacement as measured in cubic inches. The first fighter based on the new 435 hp Curtiss D-12 engine originated in 1922 as a private venture by Curtiss. The design was given the company designation of Model 33. Three prototypes were ordered by the Army Air Service on April 27, 1923 under the designation PW-8. Serial numbers were 23-1201, 1202, and 1203. Examples of a basically similar competing Boeing design were also ordered by the Army, and were given the designation PW-9. The designation PW-8 stood for "Pursuit, Water-cooled, Model 8". This Army designation scheme had been introduced in 1920. There were seven separate Pursuit categories, chosen according to the role of the aircraft and the type of engine which powered it--PA (Pursuit, Air- cooled), PG (Pursuit, Ground Attack), PN (Pursuit, Night), PS (Pursuit, Special Alert), PW (Pursuit, Water-cooled), R (Racer), and TP (Two-seat, Pursuit). The PW-8 prototypes were redesignated XPW-8 in 1924 when the X-for-experimental prefix was adopted. The first PW-8 prototype was delivered to the Army on May 14, 1923. The fuselage of the PW-8 was of welded steel tube construction with fabric covering. The undercarriage was of a divided-axle design. The wings were entirely of wood and were of a very thin section http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p1.html (1 of 8)08-09-2006 21:32:58


which required two bays of interplane struts for stiffening. The cooling system for the D12 engine consisted of a set of wing-surface radiators that had been pioneered on Curtiss racers in 1922. These radiators were mounted flush with the upper and lower surfaces of the top wing, resulting in an extremely well-streamlined wing surface. In the flyoff between the XPW-8 and the competing Boeing XPW-9 at McCook Field, the PW-8 proved faster, but the PW-9 was found to be more maneuverable, tougher, and more reliable. The primary problem that the Army found with the PW-8 was in its unique surface radiator cooling system. Although these radiators improved streamlining, they turned out to be a maintenance headache and were prone to constant leaks. In addition, the Army concluded that such a cooling system would probably be extremely vulnerable to damage by gunfire were the Hawk to be used in combat. The second XPW-8 prototype (Ser No 23-1202) differed from the first in having a divided type of landing gear with reduced drag. The streamlining of the cowling was improved, and strut-connected ailerons and unbalanced elevators were provided. Gross weight increased from 2768 lbs. to 3151 lb Although the Army favored the Boeing design, the Curtiss company nevertheless did get an order from the Army for 25 production PW-8 fighters. This order was given to Curtiss in return for the company's agreement to collaborate on a pet scheme of General Billy Mitchell, which involved an attempt a coast-to-coast flight across the USA to be completed between dawn and dusk on the same day. The prototype XPW-8 23-1201 was stripped of all military equipment and used in two unsuccessful attempts piloted by Lt. Russell Maughan in July of 1923 to cross the USA in a dawn-to-dusk flight. This aircraft was later fitted with a second cockpit, temporarily given a spurious designation of CO-X (for Corps Observation, Experimental) and entered in the 1923 Liberty Engine Builders Trophy race for military two- seaters. It was withdrawn before the race because of objections from the Navy. The 25 production PW-8s (Ser Nos 24-201/225) that had been ordered in September 1923 began to be delivered to the Army in June 1924. These aircraft were in the configuration of the second XPW-8 (Ser No 23- 1202), which differed from 23-1201 by having a different undercarriage. Most of the production PW-8s served with the 17th Pursuit Squadron, although several production PW-8s were sent to McCook Field for experimental work. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p1.html (2 of 8)08-09-2006 21:32:58


On June 23, 1924, PW-8 Ser. No. 24-204 was finally able to complete the first successful dawn-to-dusk crossing of the USA. The aircraft, piloted by Lt. Russell Maughan, took off from Mitchell Field on Long Island, with refuelling stops at Dayton, Ohio, St. Joseph, Missouri, Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Saldura, Utah. The PW-8 was powered by a 435 hp Curtiss D-12 engine. Maximum speed was 171 mph at sea level. Cruising speed was 136 mph. Initial climb rate was 1830 ft/min. Service ceiling was 20,350 ft. Range was 544 miles. Armament consisted of a pair of 0.30 cal machine guns mounted above the engine synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. Weights were 2185 lbs. empty, 3155 lb. gross. The third prototype XPW-8 (23-1203) from the original order had been held back at the factory for installation of a set of single-bay wings. These new wings had heavier spars which produced a stiffer structure, permitting the installation of only a single bay of struts. The new aircraft was assigned the company designation of Model 34. It was delivered in this form to the Army in September 1924, and was later redesignated XPW-8A. The troublesome surface radiators of the first two prototypes were replaced by a core-type radiator built flat into the center section of the upper wing panel. A modified rudder without balance area was fitted. XPW-8A Ser No 23-1203 was entered into the 1924 Pulitzer Trophy race. When modified for the race, the radiator was installed in a "tunnel" underneath the engine, similar to the installation on the Boeing PW-9. In this guise, 231203 was known as XPW-8AA. It came in third in the race. The new core-type radiator of the XPW-8A proved to be somewhat less temperamental than the surface radiators of the first two XPW-8s, but it was still considered inadequate by the Army. In the meantime, the Army Air Service had been impressed by the performance of the competing Boeing XPW-9 at McCook Field. The XPW-9 was basically similar to the XPW-8, but it had tapered wings and was provided with a tunnel radiator underneath the engine. The Army was impressed with both of these features. Consequently, the Army asked Curtiss to fit tapered wings and a tunnel radiator to its XPW-8A and resubmit the aircraft for consideration. Curtiss agreed to the changes, and the modified 23-1203 was delivered to the Army in March 1925. The changes resulted in a change of designation to XPW-8B. The Army was satisfied with the improved XPW-8B, and decided on March 7, 1925 to give Curtiss a contract for a production series based on this design. In the meantime, in May 1924 the Army had combined its seven separate pursuit category designations into http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p1.html (3 of 8)08-09-2006 21:32:58


one single category--P for pursuit. The first pursuit aircraft ordered by the Army under this new designation scheme were the production versions of the XPW-8B, 15 of which were ordered as serial numbers 25-410/424. These were given the designation P-1, the first entry in the new series. The P-1 (company designation Model 34A) was the first of the Curtiss biplane fighters to carry the name "Hawk", a name which stuck to Curtiss-designed fighters up to and including the P-40 of World War 2. The only external difference between the XPW-8B and the P-1 was the addition of an aerodynamic balance to the rudder of the P-1, plus some minor changes to the single-bay struts. These airframes were fitted with the 435 hp Curtiss V-1150-1 (D-12C) engine, but were provided with engine mounts that would permit the installation of the larger 500 hp Curtiss V-1400 engine. Original plans were for the last five aircraft of the P-1 order to have this V-1400 engine installed at the factory. Wings were again of wooden construction, but were tapered. Fuselage was of metal tube construction with fabric covering. A 55 gallon auxiliary fuel tank could be fitted underneath the belly. The first P-1s were delivered to the Army in August 1925. Weights were 2058 lb. empty, 2846 lb. gross. Maximum speed was 163 mph at sea level. Cruising speed was 136 mph. The P-1 could climb to 5000 feet in 3.1 minutes. Service ceiling was 22,500 feet. Range was 325 miles. The P-1 was armed with one 0.50-cal and one 0.30-cal machine gun mounted in the upper fuselage deck and firing through the propeller arc. The first P-1 (Ser No 25-410) was used primarily for test work. It was briefly fitted with an inverted air-cooled "Liberty" engine and was entered in the 1926 National Air Races. Later, it was fitted with an experimental Wright V-1460-3 Tornado inline inverted aircooled engine and was redesignated XP-17. The last 5 P-1s which were destined for the larger Curtiss V-1400 engine were considered sufficiently different that they were redesignated P-2 when they were delivered to the Army. However, the V-1400 engine proved to be completely unsatisfactory in service, and three of these P-2s (25-421, 422, and 424) were converted back to P-1A standards after less than a year of service. The P-1A (Model 34G) was an improved P-1. It was the first of the Hawks to serve in quantity with the Army Air Corps. 25 were ordered in Sept 1925, with deliveries beginning in April 1926. Serial numbers were 26-276/300. Power was provided by the http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p1.html (4 of 8)08-09-2006 21:32:58


improved D-12C. The fuselage was 3 inches longer than the P-1, the cowling lines were revised, the fuel system was changed, and the bomb-release system was improved. In addition, some additional service equipment was provided which increased the weight by some 20 pounds and decreased the top speed slightly. Weights were 2041 lb. empty, 2866 lb. gross. Maximum speed was 160 mph at sea level. Cruising speed was 128 mph. The P1A could climb to 5000 feet in 2.6 minutes. Initial climb rate was 2170 ft/min. Service ceiling was 21,000 feet and range was 342 mi. The P-1A had the same armament as did the P-1. Three additional P-1As resulted from installation of D-12 engines in P-2 airframes 25-421, 422, and 424, as described earlier. Only 23 out of the 25 P-1As originally ordered were delivered as such. 26-296 was later modified as the prototype for the XAT-4 trainer, and 26-300 was transformed first into XP-3, then to XP-21 and XP-21A. P-1A Ser. No. 26-295 was modified into an Army racer known as XP-6A No. 1. The old XPW-8A wings were installed on 26-295, along with the PW-8-type surface radiators. The new V-1570 Conqueror engine was installed in a PW-8-type nose cowling, and various other minor refinements were made. A really fast aircraft was the result. The XP-6A No. 1 won the 1927 National Air Race at a speed of 201 mph. However, the aircraft was destroyed shortly before the 1928 National Air Race. The designation XP-1A was applied to a stock P-1A (26-280) diverted to test work. Despite the X-prefix, the aircraft was NOT a prototype. The P-1B was an improved model ordered in August 1926. Serials were 27-63/87. Deliveries to the Air Corps began on October 28, 1926. The radiator was slightly more rounded and the wheels were slightly larger in diameter. The cowling was redesigned. Flares were added for night landings and controls were improved. Equipment changes increased the weight still further, and reduced the performance still more. First deliveries to the Army began in December 1926. Power was provided by the 435 hp Curtiss V-11503 (D-12D) engine. Weights were 2105 lb. empty, 2932 lb. gross. Maximum speed was 160 mph at sea level. Cruising speed was 127 mph. Initial climb rate was 1540 ft/min., service ceiling was 21,400 feet, and maximum range was 600 miles. Armament was identical to that of the P-1 and P-1A. The P-1Bs served with squadrons already flying the earlier Hawks. The designation XP-1B was applied to a couple of stock P-1Bs (Ser. Nos. 27-71 and 2773) which were used for test work at Wright Field. 27-73 had machine guns mounted in the wings. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p1.html (5 of 8)08-09-2006 21:32:58


33 improved versions known as P-1C (Model 34O) were ordered in October 1928. This was the largest Army Hawk order to date. Serial numbers were 29-227/259. First deliveries to the Army began in April 1929. The P-1C had larger wheels which were fitted with brakes. The last two P-1Cs were fitted with hydraulic instead of rubber-block shock absorbers. Once again, the weight increased and the performance decreased. The P-1C was powered by the 435 hp Curtiss V-1150-5 (D- 12E). Maximum speed was 154.4 mph at sea level. Cruising speed was 124 mph. Service ceiling was 20,800 feet. Empty weight was 2136 lb. and gross weight was 2973 lbs. The P-1C could climb to 5000 feet in 3.9 minutes. Initial climb rate was 1460 ft/min. Service ceiling was 20,800 feet. The normal range was 328 miles, with the maximum range being 554 miles. The P-1C Ser. No. 29-259 was completed as the XP-6B, with the Conqueror engine in place of the D-12. It was intended for a long- range flight from New York to Alaska. However, the XP-6B crashed short of its goal and was shipped back to the USA for repair and subsequent test work. XP-1C was the designation applied to P-1C Ser. No. 29-238 diverted to test work. It was fitted with an experimental Heinrich radiator and Prestone cooling system. Despite its Xprefix, the XP-1C was not a prototype. In 1924, The US Army decided that it might be a good idea to equip some of its up-to-date pursuit designs with lower-powered engines and use them as advanced trainers. These advanced trainers were all unarmed. However, the concept was not very successful. Since the trainers used the same airframes as did the fighters, the lower- powered trainers were vastly over-stressed for their missions and were overweight for their power and had very poor performances. After a short service, these advanced trainers were converted to full fighter configuration, provided with armament, and were retrofitted with D-12 engines. These converted trainers were then given pursuit designations, and were designated P-1D through P-1F. The first Curtiss advanced trainer prototype had been created by fitting P-1A Ser No 26296 with the 180 hp Wright-Hispano E liquid- cooled engine. It was delivered to the Army in July 1926 under the designation XAT-4, where "AT" stood for "Advanced Trainer". The AT-4 was the production version of XAT-4. Forty AT-4s were ordered in October 1926 under Ser Nos 27-88/97 and 27-213/242. All of these were powered by the WrightHispano E (V-720) engine. Maximum speed was 133 mph at sea level. Cruising speed was http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p1.html (6 of 8)08-09-2006 21:32:58


107 mph. Initial climb was 950 ft/min. Range was 535 miles. Weights were 1847 lb. empty, 2484 lbs. gross. 35 AT-4s were eventually converted back to fighter configuration by the fitting of the Curtiss V-1150-3 (D-12D) engine and the mounting of a single 0.30cal machine gun. These converted aircraft were assigned the designation P-1D. The last five airframes of the AT-4 order (Ser. Nos. 27-238/242) were completed as AT5s, with the 220 hp Wright J-5 (R-970-1) Whirlwind radial engine in place of the WrightHispano liquid-cooled engine. This engine was considerably lighter than the WrightHispano, but the disadvantage of lower power was still there. Maximum speed was 125.4 mph at sea level. Cruising speed was 100 mph. Initial climb was 1096 ft/min. Range was 488 miles. Weights were 1802 lbs. empty, 2445 lbs. gross. These AT-5s were later redesignated P-1E when they were re- engined with D-12D engines of 435 hp and fitted with a single 0.30-cal machine gun. Both the P-1D and the P-1E served with the 43rd School Squadron at Kelly Field. The AT-5A (Model 34M) was an improved AT-5, with the longer fuselage and other structural improvements of the P-1A. 31 examples were ordered by the Army on July 30, 1927. Serial numbers were 28-42/72. In 1929, these AT-5As were all converted to fighter configuration with the switch to the 435 hp D-12D engine and the addition of armament. These aircraft were then redesignated P-1F. One other P-1F (Ser No 28-189) was obtained by converting an XP-21, which in turn had earlier been converted from a P-3A. There were only a few export sales of the P-1 Hawk. Four P-1s were sold to Bolivia. Eight export models of the P-1A were sold to Chile in 1926. One example was sold to Japan in 1927. Eight export models of the P-1B were sent to Chile in 1927. Some examples are believed to have been built in Chile. With each successive variant of the P-1, the weight of the fighter increased, leading to a gradual falloff in the top speed and in the climbing performance. P-1s were flown by 27th and 94th Pursuit Squadrons of the 1st Pursuit Group based at Selfridge Field in Michigan and later by the 17th Squadron which kept them in service until 1930 until they were replaced by later types. I don't they ever fired a shot in the defense of American territory. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter

Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p1.html (7 of 8)08-09-2006 21:32:58


2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1987. 4. "The Curtiss Army Hawks", Peter M. Bowers, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday, 1969.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p1.html (8 of 8)08-09-2006 21:32:58

Curtiss P-2 Hawk

Curtisss P-2 Hawk Last revised June 6, 1998

The designation P-2 (company designation Model 34B) was the Army designation for the last five P-1 Hawks (Ser Nos 35-420/424) which were reengined at the factory with the 500 hp Curtiss V-1400 liquid- cooled engine in place of the standard 435 hp Curtiss V-1150 (D-12) engine which powered the rest of the aircraft in the original P-1 order. The new engine made these five planes sufficiently different from the rest of the P-1 order that the Army deemed them worthy of a different P-designation. The first flight of the P-2 took place in December 1925. The increased power provided to the P-2 by the V-1400 engine resulted in an improvement in performance vis-a-vis the "standard" P-1 Hawk. Maximum speed at sea level was 172 mph, 151 mph at 15,000 feet. Initial climb was 2170 ft/min, and an altitude of 6500 feet could be attained in 3.5 minutes. Weights were 2018 lbs. empty, 2869 lbs. gross. Service ceiling was 22,950 feet, and range was 400 miles. The P-2 was armed with a pair of 0.30 cal machine guns installed in the upper engine cowling, synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. However, the V-1400 engine proved to be unsatisfactory in service. After less than a year of operation, the Army converted P-2s 25-421, 422, and 424 to P-1A configuration with the replacement of the V1400 engine by the D-12 engine of the P-1 series. P-2 Ser No 25-423 became XP-6, the prototype for the P-6 line when fitted with the new 600 hp Curtiss V-1570 Conqueror liquid-cooled engine. Stripped of military equipment, it placed second (at 189 mph) in the unlimited event of the 1927 National Air Races. The winner of this race was the Conqueror- powered XP-6A, which had been produced by the conversion of a P-1A. Only Ser No 25-420 remained a P-2. 25-420 temporarily became XP-2 when tested with turbosupercharged Curtiss V-1400. Top speed was almost 180 mph, but the basic shortcomings of the V1400 engine precluded any further development. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books,


Curtiss P-2 Hawk


Curtiss P-3 Hawk

Curtiss P-3 Hawk Last revised June 5, 1998

The P-3 was an attempt to adapt the Curtiss P-1 Hawk airframe to a radial engine. Like the Navy, the USAAC was initially undecided as to whether it preferred radial or in-line engines for its fighters. The radial engine had been successfully applied to the Boeing P12, and the Army wanted to determine if the same could be done for the Curtiss Hawk. The designation XP-3 had originally been reserved for P-1A Ser No. 26-300 which was to be fitted with the new experimental 390 hp Curtiss R-1454 air-cooled radial engine. However, this engine had already been tested in other aircraft and had been found to be unsatisfactory. Consequently, the XP-3 designation was cancelled before this new engine could be installed. In October 1927, P-1A Ser No 26-300 was fitted instead with the new 410 hp Pratt and Whitney R-1340-1 Wasp air-cooled radial engine. This aircraft was redesignated XP-3A No. 1 (factory designation Model 34N). This aircraft was originally delivered to the Army uncowled, but the plane was used by the Army to test some early NACA cowling designs for radial engines. The lighter engine installation gave the XP-3A an improved climb and ceiling performance as compared with the P-1 series. The Army was sufficiently impressed that they ordered 5 P-3As on December 27, 1927. Serials were 28-189/193. Deliveries began in October 1928. Power was provided by the 450 hp Pratt and Whitney R-1340-3 (SR1340B). Maximum speed was 171 mph at sea level, 168 mph at 5000 feet. Initial climb rate was 1742 feet per minute. Service ceiling was 23,000 feet. Weights were 2024 pounds empty, 2730 pounds gross. Range was 342 miles. Armament was two 0.30-cal machine guns mounted in the upper fuselage, synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. The P3As were originally delivered to the Army completely uncowled, but narrow Townend rings were soon added. These rings did little to increase the speed over that of the original uncowled XP-3A.


Curtiss P-3 Hawk

The designation of XP-3A 26-300 was changed to XP-21 when it was used to test-fly the 300-hp R-985-1 Wasp Junior in December 1930. This new designation was used to identify a particular test configuration and not a new prototype. However, this engine had only half the power of service fighters of the period, and the project was not successful. A later engine change to the 300 hp Pratt and Whitney R-975 radial changed the designation of 26-300 to XP-21A. The designation XP-3A No. 2 was applied to a production P-3A (Ser No 28-189) which was used for test work for the development of a NACA cowling with fuselage faired to match the cowl. The XP-3A No. 2 was fitted with a tight cowling and large spinner, and was entered in the 1929 National Air Race Free-for-All. It came in second at 186 mph, when the Army raced against civilians for the last time. This airplane was later redesignated XP-21 No. 2 when it was fitted with a Pratt and Whitney R-985-1 Wasp Junior engine of 300 hp. 28-189 was later brought up to standards of P-1F following a change to D-12 (V- 1150-3) engine. Tests with the P-3 and the XP-21 failed to convince the Army of any intrinsic superiority of the radial engine for the Hawk, and it was decided that the Hawk line of Army fighters was to stick with the liquid-cooled engine. Sources: United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 2. Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1987. 3. "The Curtiss Army Hawks", Peter M. Bowers, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday, 1969.


Boeing XP-4

Boeing XP-4 Last revised June 6, 1998

In June 1925, before the first of the Boeing PW-9s ordered in 1924 had been delivered, the USAAS decided to have the 30th and last PW-9 aircraft (Ser No 25-324) modified during production to test the high-altitude performance of the new 510 hp Packard 1A-1500 turbosupercharged engine. This modification was considered important enough to warrant a designation change to XP-4 in accordance with the new system which had just been adopted. The XP-4 had a new, more aerodynamic wing profile, with both wings being of equal size and larger than those of the PW-9 in order to provide the necessary larger area needed to lift the increased weight. The fuselage-mounted pair of 0.30-cal machine guns were supplemented by two extra 0.30-cal machine guns mounted in the lower wing, situated far enough outboard to clear the propeller arc. A four-bladed propeller was fitted. The new engine made it necessary to redesign the cowling, and the turbosupercharger was mounted externally on the right-hand side. The XP-4 was delivered to the Army at Wright Field for tests on July 27, 1927. The Packard engine did not prove to be sufficiently powerful to compensate for the 800-lb increase in empty weight, and the performance of the XP-4 was rather disappointing. It did, in fact, actually perform more poorly than did the standard PW-9, and the XP-4 project was abandoned after only four hours of flying time. The airframe was surveyed on May 1, 1928. Empty weight was 2711 lbs, with gross weight being 3603 lbs. Maximum speed was 161 mph. Initial climb rate was 2055 ft/min. Service ceiling was 22,000 feet, and range was 375 miles. Sources: Boeing Aircraft since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989. 1. "Boeing F4B-4", Peter M. Bowers, in "Aircraft in Profile", Doubleday, 1969. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Boeing XP-4


Curtiss P-5 "Superhawk"

Curtiss P-5 "Superhawk" Last revised June 6, 1998

The Curtiss P-5 (company designation Model 34L) was the designation given to a version of the P-1 Hawk that was powered by a turbosupercharged Curtiss D-12 engine. At the request of the USAAC, five airframes identical to the P-1A had the 435 hp turbosupercharged V-1150-4 (D-12F) engine installed and were designated P-5. The turbosupercharger was mounted externally on the left hand side of the fuselage. Five examples of the P-5 were ordered on May 14, 1927. Serial numbers were 27-327/331. The first example was delivered in January 1928. The high altitude performance showed a marked improvement over that of the standard P-1A. The top speed of the P-5 was only 142 mph at sea level, but it increased to 173.5 mph at 25,000 feet. The aircraft could climb to 10,000 feet in 8.4 minutes. Initial climb rate was 1250 ft/min. The service ceiling was 31,900 feet, almost ten thousand feet greater than than of the P-1B. Weights were 2551 lb. empty, 3340 lbs. gross. Armament was the same as that of the "standard" P-1, namely a pair of 0.30 cal machine guns mounted in the upper fuselage cowling synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. Although the P-5 exhibited a much better high-altitude performance than the standard P-1, the general feeling on the part of the Army was that it would be better to wait for the arrival of the more powerful Conqueror engine rather than to go ahead with a large procurement for series production of the P-5. Consequently, only five P-5s were built. Two of the five P-5s were destroyed during the test program, but the surviving three planes entered service with the 97th Pursuit Squadron. They remained in service until mid 1932. Curtiss chose the name "Superhawk" for the P-5, but I don't think that this name was ever official. Sources: United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 2. Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1987. 3. "The Curtiss Army Hawks", Peter M. Bowers, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday, 1969.


Curtiss P-5 "Superhawk"


Curtiss P-6 Hawk


The P-6 Hawk series resulted from the installation of the new 600 hp Curtiss V-1570 Conqueror liquidcooled engine in what were essentially P-1C airframes. The variant which is best remembered today is the P-6E, which IMHO was one of the best-looking biplane fighters ever manufactured. The Curtiss V-1570 Conqueror engine was a evolutionary descendent of the Curtiss D-12 which powered the P-1 Hawk. The direct ancestor of the Conqueror was the unsuccessful Curtiss V-1400 engine which powered the P-2. The first aircraft to carry the P-6 designation was the fourth P-2(Ser No 25-423), modified to race for the Army in the National Air Races of 1927. It was the first Hawk to be fitted with the new Curtiss V-1570 engine which later became known as Conqueror. Because of the use of the new Conqueror engine, the Army gave the airplane a new designation--XP-6. Stripped of military equipment, it placed second in the unlimited event of the 1927 National Air Races. For its principal entry in the 1927 National Air Races, the Army ordered that extensive modifications be made to a stock P-1A (Ser No 26-295). It was fitted with a V-1570-1 Conqueror engine and was equipped with a set of PW-8A-type un-tapered wings complete with the skin-mounted radiators. It bore the company designation of Model 34Q. The Army redesignated this aircraft XP-6A No 1 because of its use of the Conqueror engine. It took first place in the 1927 race at a speed of 201 mph. However, the XP6A crashed during preparations for the 1928 National Air Races. The success of the Curtiss Conqueror engine in these two racing aircraft led to an Army contract for a service test quantity of 18 P- 6s placed on October 3, 1928. These aircraft were assigned the serial numbers 29-260/273 and 29-363/366. These aircraft were given the company designation Model 34P. The Y-for-service-test designation had just been adopted at this time, but it does not appear to have actually been applied to these planes, although they are sometimes recorded as YP-6s. One of the innovative features of the new Conqueror-powered P-6 was in its cooling system. The water coolant of the earlier P-1 series was to be replaced by Prestone, a trade name for an ethylene glycol (HOCH2CH2OH) mixture. Prestone was a product of the Union Carbide corporation, and had an advantage of having a very high boiling point and a very low freezing point. By using Prestone instead of water, Curtiss was able to reduce the surface area of its radiators by one third. In addition, since less coolant was needed, the use of Prestone rather than water resulted in the savings of about 50 pounds of weight. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p6.html (1 of 6)08-09-2006 21:33:47

Curtiss P-6 Hawk

However, since the new Prestone-cooled Conqueror engines were not yet ready, aircraft 39-269/273 and 39-363/366 were delivered in October 1929 with water-cooled V-1570-17 engines as P-6s, so that they could be gotten into service as rapidly as possible. The rest of the aircraft in the order were completed later as P-6As once the Prestone-cooled V-1570-23 Conqueror engines were finally ready. The P-6 was generally similar to the P-1 in construction and appearance. However, the P-6 differed from the P-1 in having its fuselage rounded out to match the fatter engine cowling required by the Conqueror engine. A series of stringers were added to the fuselage sides to round out the cross section. In addition, the rear fuselage was deepened in order that it could faire cleanly into the bottom of the radiator. The result was an airplane which had a much deeper and broader fuselage than did the P-1. Maximum speed was 178 mph at sea level, 171 mph at 10,000 feet. The P-6 could climb to 10,000 feet in 6.6 min. Service ceiling 27,200 feet, and range was 260 miles. Weights were 2450 lb. empty, 3310 lb gross. The armament of the P-1 was a pair of 0.30 cal machine guns mounted in the upper fuselage decking inside the V-cylinder blocks and synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. Deliveries of the P-6 to the USAAC were made between October 1929 and December 1930. The first nine P-6s (Ser Nos 29-260/268) were completed with Prestone-cooled V-1570-23 Conqueror engines once these engines were ready. These aircraft were redesignated P-6A once they were delivered to the Army. Weights were 2389 lb. empty, 3172 lb. gross. Maximum speed was 176 mph at 5000 feet. Initial climb was 1910 ft/min. Service ceiling was 27,300 feet. Armament was the same as that of the P1. Two additional P-6s resulted from conversions of the Curtiss P-11. The P-11 was basically a P-6 airframe modified so that it could be powered by the new 600-hp Curtiss H-1640 twelve-cylinder twobank air-cooled engine. Three examples of the P-11 had been ordered by the Army for tests. However, before any of the P-11s could actually be completed, the H-1640 engine had proved itself to be completely unsatisfactory, and the first two P-11s (Ser No 29-367 and 368) were completed as P-6s with water-cooled Conqueror engines. The last P-11 (Ser No. 29-374) was fitted with a 575 hp Wright R1820 Cyclone radial engine and was redesignated YP-20. During the service test period, various minor changes in the radiator shape were made and some of the machines were fitted with three blade propellers in place of the original two-bladers. XP-6A No 2 was the designation given to P-6A Ser No 29-263 diverted to test work. Despite its Xprefix, it was not a prototype. XP-6B was the designation given to the last P-1C (Ser No 29-259) when it was delivered on July 18, 1929 with a 600 hp V-1570C Conqueror engine. It was intended to be used by Captain Hoyt in a longrange flight from the eastern USA to Alaska. The aircraft came to be known as "The Hoyt Special". The fuselage lines and the cowling were similar to those of the later P-6 and P-6A. Long-range tanks were built in. The flight attempt took place in July of 1929. However, the XP-6B only got as far as Valemont, http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p6.html (2 of 6)08-09-2006 21:33:47

Curtiss P-6 Hawk

British Colombia, where it made a crash landing. After repair and deletion of the long range tanks, it was returned to service as the sole XP-6B. Maximum speed was 197 mph at 15,000 feet. Service ceiling was 32,000 feet. Weights were 2698 lb. empty, 3483 lb. gross. Initial climb was 1730 ft/min. P-6C was a new designation that had been initially assigned to 46 Y1P-22s. [Y1 was a prefix used from 1931 to 1936 to indicate that these service test aircraft had been purchased with "F-1" funds rather than from regular USAAC appropriations. This distinction from the regular Y-for-service-test prefix was only budgetary and had no technical significance.] The P-6C designation was later canceled in favor of P-6E for the same planes. The XP-6D was a new prototype created by installing a turbosupercharged V-1570-C Conqueror in P6A Ser No 29-260. The turbosupercharger was mounted externally on the right-hand side of the fuselage. Sea level top speed increased to 172 mph and speed at 15,000 feet increased to 197 mph. The modifications were later removed, and the aircraft reverted to the configuration of a standard P-6A. All of the surviving P-6s and all the P-6As except 29-267 were fitted with turbosupercharged Conquerors in March and April of 1932. These were redesignated P-6D and were assigned to Langley Field, Virginia for service trials. The only outward difference between these planes and the XP-6D was in the use of three-bladed propellers. The path to the famous P-6E variant is sort of complicated, and involves several modifications and quite a few redesignations along the way. It can be said to begin with the third P-6A (Ser No 29-262) which was redesignated XP-22 when used to test new radiator and oil cooler installations for the 700 hp V1570-23 engine. The final modification to the XP-22 produced an entirely new nose, with the oil cooler and radiator located on the belly situated between the undercarriage legs. A three-bladed propeller was used. Machine guns were lowered to troughs on the fuselage sides under the engine cylinder banks rather than between them as on previous versions. A new single-leg undercarriage was also installed. Spats were placed around the wheels. These new features were eventually removed from the XP-22 and were installed on the YP-20. They were replaced by the original P-6A equipment and the XP-22 reverted to a standard P-6A. In the meantime, the third P-11 (Ser No 29-374) had been completed as a YP-20 with a 650 hp Wright R1870-9 Cyclone radial engine in place of the failed Chieftain engine. The fin and rudder were changed slightly by raising the division between the rudder balance area and the top of the fin by half a rib space. This radial powerplant installation ultimately turned out to be unsatisfactory. 29-374 was then fitted with the 700 hp V-1570-23 Conqueror engine, mounted with a new horizontal tail, and given the single-strut undercarriage first tried out on the XP-22. A tailwheel was used in the place of the tail skid. The YP-20 was then redesignated XP-6E, the prototype of the most famous of the Hawk line of pursuit aircraft. 46 production examples of the XP-22, with the 700 hp V-1570C (V-1570- 23) Conqueror engine, had been ordered on July 8, 1931. These were initially designated Y1P-22. However, since many of the parts of the Y1P-22 were identical with P-6 spares, the designation was changed to P-6C in order to simplify


Curtiss P-6 Hawk

the bookkeeping. However, this designation was changed yet again to P-6E before delivery. In the meantime, features that had first been tried out on the XP-22 had been added to the YP-20 airframe and it was decided that the production aircraft should be to the YP-20 standard as P-6E. The YP-20 was then redesignated XP-6E, which is considered as being the true prototype of the P-6E variant. Deliveries of the P-6E began in December 1931. Serial numbers were 32-233/278. The company designation for the P-6E version of the Hawk was Model 35. 32-278 was held back at the factory for conversion to XP-23. 32-233 became the XP-6H, and 32-254 became XP-6G, then P-6G, and eventually reverted to P-6E. Structural refinements had brought the empty weight of the P-6E down to 2715 lbs. Gross weight was 3436 lbs. Maximum speed was 193 mph at sea level. Initial climb rate was 2480 ft/ min. Service ceiling was 23,900 feet and range was 244 miles. The P-6E was quite a good-looking airplane, and became the most famous of the Hawk line of biplane fighters. It is perhaps the best-known of all the "between wars" Army pursuits. In a flyoff against the contemporary Boeing P-12B, the P-6E was faster, but the P-12B was more maneuverable. The good speed of the P-6E was counterbalanced by some unsatisfacory handling characteristics which made it sluggish in response to controls. The 700 hp Conqueror engine was exceptionally powerful for its day, but it had many minor and some major faults which needed to be corrected. P-6Es served from 1932 onward with the 1st and 8th Pursuit Group, flown by the 17th, 94th, and 33rd Squadrons based at Selfridge Field, Michigan and at Langley Field, Virginia. They were kept in service until 1937. The shapely wheel spats for which the P-6E is best remembered today were often replaced in service with a set of open-sided wheel fairings, especially in later years. In Army service, the P-6Es were involved in numerous accidents which claimed no less than 27 of the 46 examples built. The Army's P-6Es rapidly became obsolete as the 1930s wore on. Instead of being given expensive overhauls when they were called for, the P-6Es were allowed to deteriorate and wear out in service. One by one, they either wore out and were scrapped, or else they crashed. However, at least one survived into 1942. The XP-6F (Model 35C) was the designation given to XP-6E Ser No 39-374 that was sent back to the factory for installation of a turbosupercharged V-1570F (V-1570-55) engine delivering 675 hp. It was fitted with an experimental cockpit canopy. It was redelivered to the Army in March 1933 as XP-6F. The gross weight was nearly 400 lbs greater than that of the standard P-6E. Sea level top speed decreased to 194 mph, but speed at 15,000 feet was an impressive 225 mph. Cooling difficulties with the engine precluded any careful testing above that altitude. However, the XP-6F did prove that as speeds exceeded 200 mph, the traditional open cockpit was no longer satisfactory. The XP-6F later became an P-6F with a 775 hp V-1570-55 engine. The XP-6G was P-6E Ser No 32-254 fitted with an unsupercharged V-1570F engine. When the experimental work was done, the plane retained the F engine, but dropped the experimental prefix to become just plain P-6G and finally converted back to P-6E again when the standard V-1570C engine was installed.


Curtiss P-6 Hawk

The XP-6H was the designation given to the first production P-6E (Ser No 32-233) returned to the factory for installation of four 0.30-cal machine guns in the wings. Two guns were in the upper wing and one in each lower wing panel. All four fired outside the propeller arc. The fuselage guns were retained, resulting in a very heavily-armed fighter for its day. Gross weight went up to 3858 lb and top speed declined to 190 mph. Delivered April 20, 1933. After the tests, the special wings were removed and the plane reverted to standard P-6E configuration. The last P-6E (Ser No. 32-278) was retained at the factory for coversion to XP-23 (Model 63). This plane resembled previous Hawks only in the wings. The fuselage structure was a metal monocoque. The tail surfaces had different shapes, and a turbosupercharged and geared G1V-1570-C Conqueror drove a left-handed 3-blade prop. The nose was much more pointed. It was delivered April 16, 1932. It had improved altitude performance, but the Army recognized that the biplane fighter had finally reached the end of the line and no production was ordered. The turbosupercharger was removed, and the XP-23 was redesignated YP- 23. P-6S was an export model with a P-6 airframe fitted with 450 hp Pratt and Whitney Wasp radial engine. Three were sold to Cuba and one to Japan in 1930. Company records are unclear about the Japanese Hawk. In some photos, it appears with a Conqueror engine. Hawk 1 was the designation given to civil and export versions of the P-6. A company demonstrator built in 1930 and registered as 9W. Following a crash, it was rebuilt and registered NR9110. Because it was demonstrated by the famous pilot James Doolittle, it became to be known as the "Doolittle Hawk". This airplane was later sold to air show pilot Jesse Bristow and used for air show work until forced down at sea between Florida and Cuba during an air race in January 1940. Another Hawk 1 was a special demonstrator built in April 1929 for long-distance flights. It was powered by the Conqueror engine and had extra fuel tanks fitted into the sides of the fuselage. The original civil registration was NR636E. After a crash, it was rebuilt as a Hawk 1A with a 575 hp Wright Cyclone radial engine and was sold in August 1930 to Alford J. Williams, a famous air show pilot of the 1930s. Registration was NR982V. Since Al Williams flew for the Gulf Oil Company, his plane was known as the *Gulfhawk*. In August 1931, Al Williams installed in the *Gulfhawk* a 575 hp Bliss Jupiter engine, an American-built version of the British Bristol Jupiter. Following another crash, NR982V was again rebuilt with a 710 hp Wright R-1820F-3 Cyclone engine. The side fuel tanks were removed and the fuselage was skinned with metal rather than fabric. The engine was later taken out and transferred to Williams' new Grumman *Gulfhawk II* in 1936. NR982V was then placed in an aeronautical trade school. It was retrieved in 1958 by movie pilot Frank Tallman, who installed a 600-hp Pratt and Whitney Wasp engine in the airframe. It is presently owned by the US Marine Corps Museum at Quantico, Virginia. A P-6E currently resides in the Wright-Patterson Air Force Museum. I do not know anything about the history of this particular airplane.


Curtiss P-6 Hawk

Sources: United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 2. Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1987. 3. "The Curtiss Army Hawks", Peter M. Bowers, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday, 1969.


Boeing XP-7


The Boeing XP-7 was an attempt to adapt the PW-9 fighter to the new Curtiss Conqueror engine, and bore much the same relationship to the PW-9 as did the Curtiss P-6 to the Curtiss P-1. The Army was interested in seeing how much the performance of the PW-9 fighter could be improved by the use of the Conqueror engine, and they ordered a single example on March 5, 1928. The last Boeing PW-9D off the production line (Ser No. 28-041) was experimentally fitted with a new 600-hp Curtiss V-1570-1 Conqueror engine and was redesignated XP-7 under the new system. The cowling had to be redesigned to contain the larger radiator, giving a shorter, deeper nose than that of the PW-9D. In addition, the new model incorporated an all-duralumin tailplane, a different type of tailskid, and a new control system for the ailerons. The XP-7 was delivered to the Army on September 8, 1928, and began flight testing shortly thereafter. The Conqueror engine proved to be suitable for use in fighters, and an Air Corps specification was drawn up to cover the building of four service test P-7s. However, subsequent tests demonstrated that the performance of the XP-7 was not much better than that of the standard PW-9D, maximum speed being 168 mph at sea level as compared with 163 mph for the PW-9. Since Boeing's radial-engined XF4B-1 had already reached nearly 170 mph, it was concluded that the XP-7 project showed little promise and the Army cancelled its order for the four service-test P-7s. After the end of the tests, 28-041 was converted back to standard PW-9D configuration. Performance of the XP-7 included a maximum speed of 167.5 mph at sea level and 163.5 mph at 5000 feet. Initial climb was 1867 ft/min, and an altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 7.1 minutes. The XP-7 had the same armament as did the PW-9D, namely one 0.50 cal. and one 0.30 cal machine gun mounted in the upper fuselage decking and synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. Weights were 2358 lbs empty, 3260 lbs. gross. Sources: 1. Boeing Aircraft since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Boeing XP-7


Boeing XP-8


The Boeing XP-8 was a new design initiated by Boeing to conform to an Air Corps specification issued in April 1925 for a fighter to be powered by the new 600 hp Packard 2A-1500 inverted liquid cooled engine. It was built under a bailment contract, in which the Army agreed to supply the engine and the military equipment and to test the airplane, but Boeing would retain actual ownership of the airframe. The project was assigned the company designation of Model 66. Although the Model 66 owed a great deal to the PW-9/FB series, it was essentially a new design. The Model 66 was a single-bay biplane with staggered wings that were tapered in chord and joined by a single bay of duralumin N-struts. The span of the upper wing was reduced by almost two feet from the PW-9, while that of the upper wing was increased by the same amount. The fuselage consisted of a welded steel tube framework forward section from the nose to the cockpit, whereas the real of the fuselage including the rudder consisted of a bolted duralumin framework. The wing was made of wood, and both the wings and the fuselage were fabric covered. The radiator was located in the lower fuselage, situated at the point where the bottom wings were joined onto the fuselage. The twin-bladed propeller had an aerodynamically-faired spinner. The forward landing gear struts incorporated oleo-pneumatic shock absorbers, a feature which became standard on subsequent Boeing fighters. Boeing delivered the Model 66 aircraft to the Army in July 1927. It flew for the first time in July 14, 1927. The designation XP-8 was not assigned to the aircraft until the USAAC bought the plane from Boeing on a separate contract signed in January 1928. The Army assigned it the serial number 28-359. Testing showed that the performance of the XP-8 was rather disappointing, and the Army decided not to order the aircraft into production. The Achilles heel of the XP-8 was in its Packard engine, which was still in the experimental stage. Performance included a maximum speed of 173 mph, an initial climb rate of 2138 ft/min, a service ceiling of 23,000 feet, and a range of 325 miles. Weights were 2390 lbs. empty and 3421 lbs. gross. Armament consisted of one 0.30 cal and one 0.50 cal machine gun in the upper fuselage decking synchronized to fire thru the propeller The sole XP-8 was surveyed at Wright Field in June 1929. Sources: 1. Boeing Aircraft since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989.


Boeing XP-8

2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Boeing XP-9


The XP-9 was Boeing's first monoplane fighter design. Bearing the company designation Model 96, it was designed to Army Specification X-1623A which was issued on May 24, 1928. The Model 96 was designated XP-9 by the Army when a contract for one example was signed on May 29, 1928. The serial number was 28-386. The XP-9 was actually the first Boeing monoplane to start through the factory, but various delays postponed the delivery date from April 1929 to September 1930, so it was not the first actually to fly, having been beaten into the air by the new Model 200 Monomail. The construction of the XP-9 was entirely new to Boeing. The fuselage was a semi-monocoque structure of sheet dural over metal formers for the portion aft of the rear undercarriage struts and welded steel tubing from that point forward to the engine. The tail surfaces of the XP-9 were identical to those of the contemporary P-12/F4B. The shoulder-mounted, externally-braced monoplane wing had a conventional two-spar structure with a metal framework and fabric covering. Power was supplied by a 600 hp Curtiss SV-1570-15 Conqueror liquid-cooled engine with supercharging. A chin-type radiator was mounted underneath the engine. A 0.50-cal machine gun was mounted on each side of the fuselage, firing through tunnels mounted just below the engine cylinder blocks. In addition, two 122-lb or five 25-lb bombs could be carried. Upon completion, the XP-9 was delivered by rail to the Army Test Centre at Wright Field. It made its first flight there on November 18, 1930. Flight tests of the XP-9 by the Army were rather disappointing. Visibility from the cockpit was extremely poor. The plane suffered with such a large number of serious instability problems that it frightened even the most experienced Army pilots, who dubbed it a menace. However, controllability was improved somewhat by replacing the P-12-like corrugated metal vertical tail with a larger design. However, this was not sufficient to overcome the basic shortcoming of the design, and the Army chose not to order the XP-9 into production. The Army was in fact so dissatisfied with the XP-9 that they did not even exercise their option for five Y1P-9 monoplanes to be built under the P-12D contract. In August 1931, the Army relegated the XP-9 to use as a non-flying instructional airframe. Only 15 flying hours had been completed. Performance included a maximum speed of 213 mph and an initial climb rate of 2560 ft/min. An altitude of 5000 feet could be reached in 2.3 minutes, and service ceiling was 26,800 feet. Range was 425 miles. Weights were 2669 lbs. empty, 3623 lb gross. Sources:


Boeing XP-9

1. Boeing Aircraft since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Template

Template Last revised June 5, 1998

The Curtiss XP-10 was designed and built under an Army contract dated June 18, 1928, which called for a new pursuit aircraft having good maneuverability and high speed at high altitude. The upper wing of the XP-10 had a gull form, and was joined directly to the fuselage. By eliminating the wing center section in front of and above the cockpit, the traditional upward and forward blind spot for the pilot was removed, and exceptionally good pilot visibility was anticipated. In the pursuit of higher speed, Curtiss decided to readopt the old PW-8 style surface radiators for the XP-10, and these were fitted to the upper and lower surfaces of the inner half of the top wing. The fuselage was of steel tube construction with fabric skinning. The wings were of wood, enveloped in the special "Curtiss ply" covering. The powerplant was a 600-hp Curtiss V-1570-15 Conqueror liquid-cooled engine. The Conqueror was mounted inside an extremely tight-fitting and well-streamlined cowling, made possible by the use of the wing-mounted radiators. The two-bladed propeller was capped with a spinner which faired neatly into the engine cowling. The result was an airplane with extremely clean and attractive lines. The XP-10 (Ser No 28-387) was delivered to the Army in April 1930. It made its first flight one month later. As expected, the pilot visibility was excellent. However, the performance of the XP-10 was rather disappointing, being only marginally better than the Army's contemporary Hawk models powered by the same Conqueror engine. The major fault with the P-10 was with the old PW-8 style surface wing radiators. These proved to be quite as troublesome as they were for the PW-8, and were the principal reason for the Army's rejection of the design. During tests, the XP-10 attained a maximum speed of 191 mph at sea level and 215 mph at 12,000 feet. Initial climb was 1650 ft/min and service ceiling was 26,500 feet. Range was 461 miles. Weights were 3040 lb. empty, 3975 lbs gross. The XP-10 was armed with two 0.30-cal machine guns in the upper fuselage cowling, synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. The XP-10 was scrapped by the Army in August 1931 after only ten hours of flight time. Thereafter, Curtiss confined its biplane pursuit development to variants of the established Hawk line. Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Template

2. Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1987.


Curtiss P-11 Hawk


The Curtiss P-11 Hawk was an attempt to adapt the P-6 airframe to the new 600 hp Curtiss H-1640 Chieftain two-row, 12-cylinder air-cooled engine. Three P-6 airframes (29-367, 368, and 374) were to be reserved for the P-11 project. However, a similar conversion of an existing airframe to the Chieftain engine had already progressed somewhat further along--a standard production Curtiss O-1B Falcon two-seat observation plane converted as a flying test bed. When fitted with the new Chieftain engine, the O- 1B was redesignated XO-18. Flight tests with the XO-18 showed that the new Chieftain engine was subject to chronic overheating problems. It was thought that the problems with the Chieftain were insoluble, and any further work on this engine was abandoned. The XO-18 flying testbed was converted back into standard O-1B configuration with a Conqueror engine. With the failure of the Chieftain engine, any thoughts of proceeding further with the P-11 project were abandoned. Ser Nos 29-367 and 268 were subsequently completed to P-6 standards (later converted to P-6D) with the installation of Conqueror engines. Ser No 29-374 was to have a completely different history. It later became the YP-20 when a 650 hp Wright R-1860-9 Cyclone radial engine was fitted. The fin and rudder of the YP-20 were changed slightly by raising the division between the rudder balance area and the top of the fin by half a rib space. The Cyclone radial engine installation in the YP-20 proved to be unsatisfactory, and this engine was replaced with the 700 hp V-1570-23 Conqueror liquid-cooled engine, mounted with an new horizontal tail, and given the single-strut undercarriage first tried out on the XP22. A tailwheel was used in place of the tail skid. The YP-20 was then redesignated XP-6E, to become the prototype of the famed P-6E variant of the Hawk pursuit. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1987.


Curtiss P-11 Hawk

4. "The Curtiss Army Hawks", Peter M. Bowers, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday, 1969.


Boeing P-12

Boeing P-12 Last revised June 6, 1998

The Boeing P-12 was one of the best known Air Corps fighters of the entire inter-war period. It equipped most of the Air Corps fighter squadrons during the early 1930s. Numerically, it was the most important of all the "between-wars" pursuit aircraft. Here is a history of this important warplane. The origin of the P-12 series can be traced back to a pair of experimental aircraft produced by Boeing at company expense in hope of replacing the PW-9 and the Navy's F2B and F3B fighters. These two sires of the entire P-12/F4B line of fighters bore the company designations of Model 89 and Model 89. These planes departed from earlier Boeing construction practice in that they had fuselages made largely of bolted-up aluminum tubing construction, rather than the welded steel tubing of earlier Boeing fighters. They retained welded steel tubing in the engine mounting and center-section area, but bolted squaresection dural tubing was used aft of the cockpit. Bolted instead of welded joints had been used in earlier fighters, but the steel tubes had been bolted to tabs welded to the longerons. On these planes, the tubes were bolted directly to one another through dural gussets. The wings of the Model 83/89 had a straight rather than tapered planform, which was a departure from previous Boeing practice. The wings were constructed of two wooden box spars with spruce flanges and mahogany ply webbing. The ribs were band-sawed from mahogany ply and were fitted with spruce strips. The upper wing was built up in one piece, but the lower wings were constructed separately and bolted together at the spar butts for installation as a unit. The airfoil section was the newly-developed Boeing 106 section. The entire tail unit was of semi-monocoque metal construction using the integrally stiff corrugated skinning originally developed for the F3B-1. Armament was provided by two 0.30-cal or one 0.30- and one 0.50-cal machine guns. These guns were located in the top of the nose with troughs in the paneling and synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. The powerplant was the 450 hp Pratt and Whitney R-1340-7 radial, driving a ground-adjustable variable-pitch two blade metal propeller. No cowling was fitted around the engine, but streamlined "hats" were positioned behind each cylinder. A 55-gallon auxiliary fuel tank could be fitted between the undercarriage legs. Up to 700 pounds of bombs could be distributed under the lower wing and fuselage belly. First to fly was the Model 83 which flew June 25, 1928 at Seattle and was delivered to the Navy at San Diego three days later. The Model 89 was completed the next month and was shipped by rail to the Naval Test Center at Anacostia, Maryland on July 24. It flew for the first time there on August 7. The two planes were virtually identical, but the Model 83 had a spreader-bar undercarriage with diagonal http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p12.html (1 of 7)09-09-2006 10:28:27

Boeing P-12

strut bracing to the middle of the bar, whereas the Model 89 had a split-axle gear. The 89 had a 500-lb bombrack between the undercarriage legs, whereas the 82 had an arrester hook. Although not Navy property, these two planes were referred to as XF4B-1 for administrative purposes during the testing. Since both aircraft were Boeing-owned, they did not carry military markings. However, they did not carry the civil registrations that were allocated to them. Both aircraft were originally powered by "long-nosed" R-1340B engines which were supposed to improve the aerodynamic shape of the nose. They were soon replaced by the standard dash-7 engine with no more than marginal effect on performance. Flight testing of these two prototypes showed that they outperformed all serving fighters. As a result of testing of the two prototypes, the Navy ordered 27 production F4B-1s (serial numbers A-8130/8156). Navy bought both the Model 83 and 89 on June 19, 1929, and the designation XF4B-1 became official. Both prototypes were returned to the factory after testing for modification to the standards of production F4B-1s. These two planes were then assigned Navy serial numbers immediately ahead of those in the F4B-1 contract (A8128 for Model 89 and A8129 for Model 83). F4B-1 #A8133 was modified as a special executive airplane for Assistant Secretary of the Navy David S. Ingalls, the Navy's only World War 1 ace. It was stripped of all armament, fitted with a ring cowl and painted with the special blue fuselage coloring of Naval executive aircraft. This plane was designated F4B-1A. Although the Model 83/89 had both been submitted to the Navy, the Model 89 was loaned to and tested by Army pilots at Bolling Field, which was located just on the other side of the airstrip from Anacostia. Like their Navy counterparts, the Army pilots were impressed. As a result of the Army pilots' reports on the Model 89, Boeing received a contract for ten P-12s (Ser Nos 29-353/362) on November 7, 1928. These airplanes bore the company designation of Model 102. This order by the Army was quite unusual, because they had not even tested a prototype, simply having "borrowed" the Navy's plane for the tests. The first nine P-12s were similar to the F4B-1 naval version with the exception of the deletion of the arrester hook and other purely naval equipment. The first P-12 completed was handed over to Air Corps Captain Ira C. Eaker on February 26, 1929 for use in a good-will high-speed flight to Central America. The first flight of a "standard" P-12 was on April 11, 1929. The last example was delivered on April 26. The basic P-12 was the only model in the Army series to use the tapered ailerons of the prototypes. Production P-12s were delivered with fairings aft of the engine cylinders, but cooling problems led to their removal soon afterwards. The P-12 was powered by the 500 hp Pratt and Whitney R-1340-7 radial. Maximum speed was 158 mph at sea level and 171 mph at 5000 feet. Initial climb was 2080 ft/min. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 5.8 minutes. Service ceiling was 28,200 feet and range was 520 miles. Weights were 1758 lb. empty, 2536 lb. gross. Armament was the same as that of the prototypes--a pair of 0.30-cal or one 0.50-cal and one 0.30-cal machine guns.


Boeing P-12

The last P-12 (Ser No 29-362) was delivered as the XP-12A (Boeing Model 101). It incorporated various refinements suggested to Boeing by Army pilots. The differences included the use of Frise balanced ailerons with hinge lines lying parallel to the wing spar, a shorter undercarriage, a long-chord engine cowling, redesigned elevators, and a castoring tail skid in place of the fixed skid of the P-12. The first flight of the XP-12A took place on April 11, 1929. However, after only four hours of flying, it was destroyed in a midair collision with another P-12 at Wright Field on May 18. Nevertheless, evaluation of the remaining P-12s sufficed to eliminate some of the minor snags. The P-12B was an improved version, owing a great deal to Army experience with its nine P-12s. On June 10, 1929, Boeing received an order for 90 P-12Bs, the largest single aircraft order placed by the Army in peacetime thus far. Serials were 29-329/341 , 29-433/450 and 30-029/087. The company designation for the P-12B was Model 102B. The P-12B could be distinguished outwardly from the P-12 by the Frise balanced ailerons as originally fitted to the XP-12A, by the revised elevators, and by the use of slightly larger wheels. The landing gear and uncowled engine were the same as on the P-12 (omitting the cylinder fairings), but some P-12Bs were retrofitted with ring cowlings developed on later versions. Rail delivery of dismantled P- 12B aircraft began on February 1, 1930 The first P-12B flew May 12, 1930, and the last example was delivered on May 17. The P-12B was somewhat heavier than the P-12, and its performance suffered accordingly. The engine was the 500 hp Pratt and Whitney R- 1340-9. Weights were 1956 lb. empty, 2638 lb. gross. Maximum speed was 166 mph at 5000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2040 ft/min Service ceiling was 27,450 feet, and range was 540 miles. The armament was the same as that of the P-12. The P-12C was an improved P-12B with a later engine and some minor refinements. The Army ordered 131 P-12Cs on June 2, 1930. Serials were 31-147/277. The company designation for the P-12C was Model 222, and the the naval equivalent of the Army P-12C was F4B-2. The P-12C differed from the Bversion in having an engine ring cowl and a spreader bar undercarriage similar to that fitted to the original Model 83. This undercarriage arrangement had been first tried out on the experimental XP-9. Wingtip navigational lights were provided. Delivery of dismantled P-12C aircraft to the Army began August 30, 1930 and was completed on February 12, 1931. The first recorded flight of a P-12C was on January 30, 1931. In the event, only the first 96 examples of the original order (31-147/242) were actually completed as P-12Cs, the remaining 35 being completed as P-12Ds. In addition, Ser Nos 31-152/154,156,157,159/161,175,195,209/212,233, and 234 were later converted to P-12D standards after having initially been delivered as Cs. The engine powering the P-12C was the 450 hp R-1340-9 (SR-1340D). Maximum speed was 175.5 mph at 10,000 feet and 176.5 mph at sea level. Initial climb was 1410 ft/min, service ceiling was 26,200 feet, and range was 580 miles. Weights were 1938 lb. empty, 2630 lb. gross. The Navy equivalent of the P-12C was the F4B-2. Serial numbers were 8621/8639 8791/8809.


Boeing P-12

Only the first 96 examples of the original P-12C order (31-147/242) were actually completed as P-12Cs. The last thirty-five examples of the original P-12C order were completed as P-12Ds, beginning on February 25, 1931 and ending on April 28. Serial numbers of the Ds were 31-243/277. The company designation of the P-12D was Model 227. Deliveries of the P-12D began on February 25, 1931, and were completed on April 28. The first flight of a P-12D was made on March 2, 1931. The P-12D differed only internally from the P-12C. On the P-12D, the ignition harness was on the front of the engine rather than behind it as on the P-12C. In addition, the cowling support struts visible on the P-12C were not used on the P-12D. The P-12D was powered by the more powerful 525 hp Pratt and Whitney R-1340-17. Performance was improved. Maximum speed was 178 mph at 7,000 feet and 176.5 mph at sea level. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 5.8 minutes. Initial climb was 1410 ft/ min, service ceiling was 25,400 feet, and range was 475 miles. Weights were 1956 lb. empty, 2648 lb. gross. Both C and D models were later retrofitted with P-12E vertical tails by the Army. The best-known version of the P-12 series was the P-12E. The P-12E had its origin in the private venture Model 218 which flew for the first time on September 29, 1930. The Model 218 was a company-owned aircraft intended to develop new features for the P-12/F4B series. It was essentially a P-12B with a semimonocoque metal fuselage structure similar to that of the experimental XP-9 monoplane. It had a tail wheel in place of the tail skid of the earlier versions. A pilot's headrest was provided behind the cockpit. The fin and rudder of the Model 218 were originally the same as that of the P-12B, but they were soon enlarged to a more rounded form. An experimental Army designation of XP-925 was assigned during testing with a R-1340D engine and was changed to XP-925A when an R-1340E engine was installed. Empty weight increased to 1954 lb, gross weight was 2694 lb. Speed with the altitude-rated R-1340D engine was 195 mph at 8000 feet. The Model 218 was temporarily fitted with wheel spats in an attempt to obtain additional speed. The Model 218 was tested by both the Army and Navy under bailment contracts. During the test program, the Model 218 bore the civil registration X66W. The Model 218 was sold to China after the testing was completed. Once there, it was flown by the American volunteer pilot Robert Short. In an air battle over Shanghai in 1932, it destroyed two out of three attacking Japanese fighters before it was shot down. The Army ordered the Model 218 into production as the P-12E (Boeing Model 234). 135 P-12Es were ordered on March 3, 1931. 110 aircraft (31-553 to 586 and 32-1 thru 76) were delivered as such between September 19 and October 15 of 1931. They bore the factory designation of Model 234. The naval equivalents were designated F4B-3 and F4B-4. The first flight of a P-12E took place on October 15, 1931. The P-12E was the most widely used and long-lived of the Army series. It used the new fuselage and tail surfaces of the Model 218, but most other components were essentially those of the P-12D. The P-12E was initially fitted with a tailskid, but it was replaced in service with a tailwheel as first tried out on the Model 218. P-12Es were originally built with flotation gear in the upper wing as on previous


Boeing P-12

models, but this feature was deleted in service and replaced in most examples by a rubber life raft for the pilot stored in an enlarged "Panama" headrest, so named because it was originally developed for use in the Canal Zone area. This gave the P-12E a distinctive "hunchback" appearance. The maximum speed was 189 mph at 7,000 feet, and initial climb was 1920 feet/min. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 5.8 minutes. Weights were 2014 lb. empty, 2701 lb. gross. Service ceiling was 31,400 ft and range was 585 miles The last 25 aircraft of the March 1931 order (Ser No 32-077/101) were powered by 600 hp R-1340-19 engines, rated for maximum performance at 10,000 feet, 3000 feet higher than the -17 in the P-12E. As this significantly altered the performance characteristics, these aircraft were designated P-12F (Model 251). Deliveries of the P-12F took place between March 6 and May 17, 1932. The last ten P-12Fs had tailwheels rather than tailskids, but tailwheels were later retrofitted to all the E's and the F's. Many P12Fs were fitted in service with the "Panama" headrest. The maximum speed was 195 mph at 10,000 feet, and initial climb was 1784 feet/min. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 4.2 minutes. Weights were 2035 lb. empty, 2726 lb. gross. Service ceiling was 31,400 ft and range was 300 miles The last aircraft in the P-12 batch (Ser No 32-101) was fitted experimentally with an enclosed cockpit and sliding canopy. The production history of the P-12 ends with the F-version. All later versions were produced by "oneoff" conversions of earlier variants. P-12E Ser No 31-553 was redesignated XP-12E on October 1, 1931 immediately after delivery. This was used to identify a standard example of the E-series withdrawn from service for test work, and was not considered as a prototype. It was later restored to service and resumed its P-12E title. The XP-12G was produced by the conversion of P-12B Ser No 29-329 by fitting it with an experimental Y1SR-1340G (R-1340-15) radial engine equipped with turbosuperchargers and ring cowlings. Later, other experimental versions of the R-1340 were fitted to this airframe. After the series of tests were over, the plane reverted to standard P-12B configuration. P-12D Ser No 31-275 was modified as the XP-12H to accommodate an experimental Pratt and Whitney GISR-1340E geared radial engine and a P-12E tail. This engine arrangement turned out to be unsatisfactory and the aircraft was returned to P-12D configuration in June 1932. P-12E Ser No 32-042 became P-12J with installation of a 575 hp Pratt and Whitney SR-1340H (R-134023) engine and a special bombsight. This engine improved the service ceiling but gave few other advantages. This plane became one of the seven YP-12Ks after yet another engine change. The XP-12E, the P-12J, and five standard P-12Es (32-033, -036, -040, -046, and -049) became YP-12Ks when SR-1340E engines with fuel injection were installed for service trials. One YP-12K was flown with a combination of ski-wheel chassis. All reverted back to P-12E standards in June, 1938. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p12.html (5 of 7)09-09-2006 10:28:27

Boeing P-12

YP-12K 31-553 (ex XP-12E) was redesignated XP-12L on January 2, 1934 when fitted with a Type F-7 turbosupercharger. It reverted back to YP-12K in February 1937 and then to P-12E in June 1938. Boeings were used by the 17th Pursuit Group (34th, 73rd, and 95th Squadrons) at March Field, and the 20th Pursuit Group (55th, 77th and 79th Squadrons) at Barksdale Field. The older P-12s equipped the overseas units; the 3rd Squadron in the Philippines, the 16th Pursuit Group (24th, 29th , 745h, and 79th Squadrons) in the Canal Zone, and the 18th Pursuit Group (6th and 19th Squadrons) in Hawaii. The P12E and F remained in service with front-line pursuit units until replaced by Boeing P-26s in 1934 and 1935. Thereafter, they were relegated to secondary roles and to training duties. Most P-12E and Fs were grounded and assigned to mechanics's schools in 1941. After American entry into the war, twenty-three miscellaneous P-12s (P-12C: 31-151,- 154,-209,-210; P-12D: 31-245, -258; P-12E: 31-561,-564,-576,32010,- 013,-025,-033,-040,-041,-044,-046,-048, -057, -066,-069,-074; P-12F: 32-85) were handed over to the Navy for use as radio-controlled target aircraft. These were all referred to by the Navy as F4B-4A, the A designating their former Army status. They were assigned Navy serial numbers 2489/2511 in the second series. Most were shot down during training exercises. P-12E 32-017 which had been given to civilian schools in 1940-41 was later obtained by the Ontario Air Museum in California from the California Polytechnic Institute. It was slowly restored to display conditions and was made airworthy in 1962 under the civil registration N3360G. It was painted as a Navy F4B-3 for Navy celebrations of Armed Forced Day in 1961. In 1962, it was repainted to its correct configuration as a P-12E. It is now based at the Museum's new facilities at Chino Airport, California. Ser No 31-559 was a former ground school P-12E which was acquired by a private owner and donated to the US Air Force Museum at Wright- Patterson AFB near Dayton, Ohio. It was rebuilt and put on display in the markings of the 6th Pursuit Squadron which it once carried. Yours truly saw it there in May of 1992. Quite a thrill! Sources: 1. American Combat Planes (3rd edition), Ray Wagner, Doubleday, New York, 1982. 2. Boeing Aircraft since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989. 3. "Boeing F4B-4", Peter M. Bowers, in "Aircraft in Profile", Doubleday, 1969. 4. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 5. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Boeing P-12


Berliner-Joyce XP-13 Viper

Berliner-Joyce XP-13 Viper Last revised June 7, 1998

The XP-13 Viper was the last fighter built by the Thomas-Morse Aircraft Corporation of Ithaca, New York. The Thomas-Morse Aircraft Corporation had started life in early 1917 when the Thomas Brothers Aeroplane Company merged with the Morse Chain Works. The Thomas-Morse outfit built the well-known S-4 fightertrainer of World War 1, which never actually served in combat, but became a very popular participant at postwar air shows. They also designed and developed the MB-3, the first American fighter of indigenous design to enter service. However, under the bizarre military procurement policy of the early 1920s, Boeing actually obtained the bulk of the production contracts for the MB-3. During the 1920s, Thomas-Morse specialized in the construction of all-metal designs, observation planes, and racers, although a few unsuccessful fighter projects were attempted. Like lots of other companies, Thomas-Morse found that firm military orders were hard to come by. The XP-13 (named "Viper" by the company) was created for the new 600 hp Curtiss H-1640-1 Chieftain twelve-cylinder 2-row air cooled engine. Thomas-Morse's experience with the manufacture of all-metal aircraft stood them in good stead in the design of the Viper. The fuselage had an all-metal structure covered by a corrugated aluminum-sheet skin. The wing was of wooden construction with fabric covering, but the ailerons were made of corrugated metal sheet. Tail surfaces were of metal and fabric, but the control surfaces were covered with corrugated sheet metal. The Viper was delivered to the USAAC for evaluation in early 1929. The aircraft was tested at Wright Field in June 1929 as P-559, then purchased by the Army and designated XP-13. The serial number was 29-453. Performance was satisfactory, but the Chieftain suffered with insurmountable cooling problems. Similar problems had been encountered with Curtiss-built fighters powered by this engine. The XP-13 had an empty weight of 2262 lbs and a gross weight of 3256 lb. The maximum speed was 172.5 mph at sea level, 169.9 mph at 5000 feet. The XP-13 could climb to 5000 feet in 3 minutes, and the service ceiling was 20,800 feet. The XP-13 was not fitted with any armament. Because of the insoluble overheating problems, the Chieftain engine was abandoned. The XP-13 prototype then had a new engine installed in September 1930, a 525 hp Pratt and Whitney SR-1340-C enclosed in a NACA cowling, along with a revised fin and rudder. The designation was changed to XP-13A. The change to a new engine resulted in even better performance. The XP-13A had an empty weight of 2224 lbs and a gross weight of 3194 lb. Maximum speed was 188.5 mph at 5000 feet. The XP-13A could climb to 5000 feet in 3.5 minutes, and service ceiling was 24,150 feet. A USAAC performance report of 1930 described the XP13A as having a "comfortable feel" in all aerobatics and that it "makes a wonderfully smooth slow roll". However, by then the opportunity was lost. and the Army never ordered the aircraft into production. The Viper caught fire during its last test flight and was destroyed in the resulting crash.


Berliner-Joyce XP-13 Viper

A second Viper was to have been built by Curtiss under the designation XP-14. However, the failure of the Chieftain engine was to cause this project to be cancelled before any aircraft could be built. The failure of the XP-13 to win a contract was catastrophic for the Thomas-Morse company. In August, 1929, the Thomas-Morse company was taken over by the Consolidated Aircraft Company of Buffalo, New York. The Thomas-Morse company disappeared as a separate entity shortly thereafter. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. General Dynamics Aircraft and their Predecessors, John Wegg, Naval Institute Press, 1990.


Curtiss XP-14

Curtiss XP-14 Last revised June 7, 1998

The Curtiss XP-14 was a proposed Curtiss-built version of the Thomas- Morse XP-13 Viper. The failure of the Chieftain engine which was to power both the XP-13 and the XP-14 resulted in the cancellation of the XP-14 project, and the XP-14 was never built. Source: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p14.html09-09-2006 10:28:44

Boeing XP-15


By the end of the 1920s, Boeing had realized that the biplane fighter was soon going to reach the end of the line, and that the monoplane held the key to the future. Rather than start with a radically new design, as had been attempted in the abortive XP-9, Boeing decided to adapt an existing design for its next monoplane fighter project. From the start, the project was a company-financed venture, with no promises of support from the military. As first planned, the new Boeing design was merely the basic Model 89 (second prototype of the F4B/P12 series) redesigned as a monoplane through deletion of the lower wing and the addition of struts to support the upper wing which was moved slightly aft to keep the center of lift in the correct position. This design was known by Boeing as the Model 97, but was not built. Following a decision to go to allmetal construction with a new fuselage design based on the XP-9 (Model 96), the designation was changed to Model 202. The reason for the large gap in company designations was due to the fact that company model numbers 103 through 199 had been reserved for Boeing-designed aerofoil sections. The Model 202 that finally emerged was essentially a P-12/F4B with the lower wing removed and with a newly-designed parasol wing of increased wingspan attached to the fuselage by numerous struts. The wing was similar to that of the upper P-12 wing except for a 6-inch increase in span, the substitution of built-up dural spars and ribs for wood, and the use of dural skin for covering. The undercarriage was of split-axle design, and a tail wheel replaced the tail skid of the P-12. The portion of fuselage aft of the undercarriage rear attachment point was a semi-monocoque all-metal structure with dural formers, longitudinal stiffeners, and dural skin. The structure forward of this point was welded steel tubing covered with removable access panels and cowling. The original metal skin of the tail surfaces was smooth, but the second fin-rudder combination that was used was covered with corrugated metal. External tail bracing was similar to that of the biplanes. The undercarriage was of split-axle design, and a tail wheel replaced the tail skid of the P-12. The powerplant was the Pratt and Whitney SR-1340D Wasp air-cooled radial, rated at 450 hp at 8000 feet. Since the Model 202 was a company venture rather than a military- financed project, it carried a civil registration (X-270V) rather than a military serial number. The Model 202 flew for the first time in January of 1930. The shape of the vertical tail was changed to that eventually standardized for the later P-12E and a ring cowl similar to that installed on production P12Cs was added before the XP-15 was sent to Wright Field. The military designation of XP-15 was assigned unofficially when the USAAC accepted the Model 202 at Wright Field for flight test under a http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p15.html (1 of 3)09-09-2006 10:28:52

Boeing XP-15

bailment contract on March 10, 1930. During tests at Wright field, the XP-15 attained a maximum speed of 163 mph at sea level and 190 mph at 8000 feet. The initial climb rate was 1800 ft/min at 800 feet. Service ceiling was 26,550 feet and range was 421 miles. Weights were 2052 lb empty, 2746 lb gross. The aircraft was to have been armed with two 0.30 cal machine guns, but these were never actually fitted. The deletion of the lower wing increased the top speed of the XP-15 over that of the P-12B, but the rate of climb, the maneuverability, and the landing speed all suffered from the decrease in wing area. Consequently, the design was not accepted for production by the military, and the Army never actually purchased the XP-15 prototype. Therefore, it was never assigned a USAAC serial number. The XF5B-1 was an almost identical duplicate of the Model 202 that had been ordered for the US Navy. It differed mainly in being fitted for operation from aircraft carriers as a fighter-bomber. An arrester hook was fitted. The engine was a supercharged Pratt and Whitney SR-1340C offering 480 hp at sea level. The company designation for this aircraft was Model 205. The Model 205 was delivered to the Navy in February 1930. Like the Model 202, it was originally tested by the Navy under a bailment contract and bore the civil registration X-271V. By the time that test flights were terminated at the beginning of 1932, it had been decided that the monoplane still did not have the reliability needed for a successful carrier-based airplane. Although the Navy did not accept the aircraft as a production type, they nevertheless purchased the airplane and the designation XF5B-1 became official. The serial number was A-8640. After three years of testing, the airframe was static tested to destruction. After return to the factory from Wright Field, the XP-15 was used for further test and development work, in the vain hope that it might eventually be granted an Army contract. However, all such hopes were dashed on February 7, 1931, when the XP-15 crashed near Seattle after a propeller blade failed during a vertical climb following a high speed run. The resulting vibration shook the engine out of the airframe. The program was abandoned shortly thereafter. Although the aerodynamic design was not accepted by the Army, many of the structural features of the XP-15 were incorporated into later models of the P-12/F4B series then in production. Sources: 1. Boeing Aircraft since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989. 2. "Boeing F4B-4", Peter M. Bowers, in "Aircraft in Profile", Doubleday, 1969. 3. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 4. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Boeing XP-15


Berliner-Joyce P-16/PB-1

Berliner-Joyce P-16/PB-1 Last revised June 7, 1998

The Berliner-Joyce P-16 is not exactly one of the best-known fighters of the between-wars period. It is remembered today only by aviation historians and by such amateur buffs as myself. The P-16 had the distinction of being the last biplane fighter to enter service with the USAAC. In addition, the P-16 was the only two-seat biplane fighter to enter production for the Army since 1918. The Berliner-Joyce Aircraft Corporation of Dundalk, Maryland is not exactly a household name in the annals of aviation. Only the most esoteric of aviation historians still remember the name of this relatively obscure company today. It was founded by Henry Adler Berliner and Temple Nach Joyce in 1929. Henry Berliner had in 1922 opened up an aircraft company in Pennsylvania which had marketed a two-seat touring plane and which had experimented with early rotorcraft patents. Temple Joyce was a well-known aviator with World War 1 combat experience. Unfortunately, the founding of the BerlinerJoyce company coincided with the outbreak of the Great Depression, and the new company was forced to abandon its ambitious plans for a line of civilian monoplanes. Instead, they concentrated on designs they hoped to sell to the USAAC and to the US Navy. One of the early Berliner-Joyce projects was the result of an USAAC decision in April 1929 to launch a design competition for a two-seat fighter. The perceived need for a two-seat fighter is sort of strange, the single seat fighter by that time having been accepted as the standard. Perhaps the USAAC wanted to give its fighters some protection against attack from the rear where single-seat fighters of the time were very vulnerable. Against competition from Boeing and Curtiss, Berliner-Joyce won the design competition in June, 1929. and a single prototype was ordered under the designation XP-16. The serial number was 29- 326. The prototype was known as TP-2 in company documents. The XP-16 prototype was powered by a liquid-cooled 600 hp Curtiss V-1570A Conqueror with supercharging. A two-blade propeller with conical spinner was fitted. A tunnel radiator was mounted underneath the engine. Airframe and wings were of metal tubing construction with fabric covering. The upper wing was of gull configuration, and was attached at the roots to the upper fuselage. The lower wing was shorter and narrower and positioned slightly behind the top wing (positive stagger) Two crewmen sat in tandem, pilot in front and gunner in back. The XP-16 was delivered to Wright Field on September 1, 1930. It gave a relatively good account of itself when tested. Maximum speed was 176 mph at sea level, 186 mph at 5000 feet. It could climb to 5000 feet in 2.6 minutes. Service ceiling was 26,200 feet. Weights were 2756 lb empty, 3727 lb gross. Two 0.30-in machine guns were mounted in the upper fuselage cowling, firing through the propeller arc. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p16.html (1 of 3)09-09-2006 10:28:59


The second crewman fired a single flexible 0.30-cal machine gun. In addition, two 122-lb bombs could be carried. During 1931, orders were placed for fifteen, followed by a further ten preseries aircraft. Serials were 31502/515; 31-597 and 32-221/230. First delivery to Wright Field was on March 1, 1932. Airframes of the series aircraft were identical to the prototype, but the engine was changed to a 600 hp V-1570-25 without supercharger driving a three-bladed propeller. The speed and operational ceiling dropped dramatically as a result. The P-16 had a maximum speed of 175 mph at sea level, 172 mph at 5000 feet. Service ceiling was 21,600 feet, and the P-16 could . climb to 5000 feet in 2.9 minutes. Weights were 2803 lb empty, 3996 lb gross. Apart from the deleterious affect of having an unsupercharged engine, the pilot had poor visibility during landing, and the center of gravity was too far forward, making landing and takeoff rather hazardous. Most of the P-16s went to the 94th Pursuit Squadron, which passed its Curtiss P-6Es on to the 33rd Squadron. During service, the P-16s were redesignated PB-1 (PB for Pursuit, Biplace). Their poor performance and hazardous landing/takeoff properties caused them to be taken out of front-line service on January 21, 1934, after having been operational for only a few months. In spite of the problems the Army had encountered with the P-16, in 1931 the Navy ordered a carrierbased version which it designated XF2J-1. Since the Navy favored radial engines for its fighters, the XF2J-1 was powered by by the 625 hp Pratt and Whitney R-1510-92 Hornet. The XF2J-1 differed from the P-16 in having a wider fuselage to accommodate the larger engine. In the original design the two cockpits were open, but an enclosed sliding canopy was subsequently fitted. The Bureau of Aeronautics number was 8973. Because of the financial difficulties encountered by the Berliner-Joyce company, the XF2J-1 was two years in the making. By the time that the XF2J-1 was finally ready in 1934, the Grumman FF-1 was also ready, far outclassing all competitors. Testing showed that, like the P-16, the XF2J-1 had very poor landing visibility, a particularly fatal defect in a carrier-based airplane. In addition, the decision on the part of Wright to discontinue development of the R-1510-92 radial did not help, and the Navy did not order any further examples of the XF2J-1. The Berliner-Joyce company could not long survive the dearth of military orders in the early 1930s. In 1933, North American Aviation, Inc. acquired a controlling share ownership of the Maryland-based company. In 1934, the Berliner-Joyce company officially became a division of North American. Shortly thereafter, what was left of the old Berliner-Joyce company was transferred from Maryland out to Inglewood, California. The name Berliner-Joyce vanished from the aviation scene forever. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes (3rd Edition), Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.



3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Curtiss XP-17

Curtiss XP-17 Last revised September 12, 1999

The first Curtiss P-1 off the production line (Ser No 25-410) had been used as an test machine throughout its entire life. For a time, it had been used to test an experimental inverted Allison air-cooled variant of the "Liberty" engine, but no change in designation had been made. However, when it was used as a testbed for the new 480 hp Wright V1460-3 Tornado inverted V-12 air-cooled engine in June 1930, the designation XP-17 was applied. This experiment had not been performed by Curtiss, but rather by the Engineering Division of the USAAC, and the experimental designation was intended to indicate the test status of the airframe, and was not meant to designate a new experimental fighter prototype. The XP-17 achieved a maximum speed of 165 mph at sea level and 161 mph at 5000 feet. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 8 minutes. Service ceiling was 21,400 feet. Weights were 2204 lb. empty and 2994 lb gross. Since no production was envisaged, the engine cowling was a simple sheet metal shell designed to cover the engine without much concern for aerodynamics. The performance of the XP-17 was uninspiring, and the experiment went no further. The aircraft was scrapped in March 1932 after testing was completed. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter

Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1987. 4. "The Curtiss Army Hawks", Peter M. Bowers, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday, 1969.


Curtiss XP-17


Curtiss XP-18


The Curtiss XP-18 was a proposed biplane fighter built around the Wright V-1560 12-cylinder inline aircooled engine. This engine was cancelled, and the aircraft never got off the drawing board. Source: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Curtiss XP-19


The Curtiss XP-19 was a proposed low-wing monoplane fighter built around the new Wright V-1560 12cyliner inline air-cooled engine. The Wright engine was cancelled, and the XP-19 project never got off the drawing board Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Curtiss YP-20

Curtiss YP-20 Last revised June 8, 1999

It is probably a gross understatement to say that the designation scheme used by the Army for its pursuit aircraft during the late 1920s and the early 1930s was bizarre and inconsistent. Sometimes, an experimental change in powerplant in an existing pursuit design would call for an entirely new designation. On other occasions, it would call only for a new version letter in the existing designation. And sometimes it would call for no redesignation at all. Often, an existing pursuit airframe would be taken off the production line, experimentally fitted with a new engine, given a new designation, and then would revert back to the old designation when the engine was removed. No example typified the eccentricities of the designation system more than the wild gyrations which produced the Curtiss YP-20. The history of the YP-20 can be said to start back with the first Army production contract for the Curtiss P-6 Hawk. The designation P-11 had been reserved by the Army for a version of the P-6 powered by the 600 hp Curtiss H-1640 Chieftain two-row twelve-cylinder air-cooled engine. Three P-11s had been ordered (Ser Nos 29-267, 29-268, and 29-374) by the Army at the same time that the original P-6 order had been issued. However, in tests with other airframes the Chieftain engine had proven itself to be completely unsatisfactory, being subject to chronic overheating problems. The Chieftain engine project was cancelled while the P-11 airframes were still on the production line. The three P-11 airframes were then used for other purposes. 29-267 and 29-368 were fitted with Conqueror engines and then delivered to the Army as standard P-6s. However, 29-374 was to have an entirely different fate. In October 1930, Ser No 29-374 was fitted with a 650 hp Wright R- 1870-9 Cyclone radial engine. The fin and rudder were changed slightly by raising the division between the rudder balance areas and the top of the fin by half a rib space. The aircraft was redesignated YP-20, continuing the rather bizarre practice of giving new pursuit designations to existing airframes which had been experimentally fitted with different kinds of engines. A large set of wheel pants was briefly fitted to the YP-20 in the interest of attaining greater speed. The YP-20 had a maximum speed of 187 mph at sea level and 184 mph at 5000 feet. The initial climb rate was 2600 feet/minute, and an altitude of 5600 feet could be attained in 2.3 minutes. Service ceiling was 26,700 feet. Weights were 2477 lbs empty, 3323 lbs gross. The YP-20 was armed with two 0.30-cal machine guns mounted in the upper fuselage decking, synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. In June, 1931, the YP-20 participated unsuccessfully in a flyoff against a standard P-6, a standard Boeing P-12, and the Conqueror- powered XP-22. The high speed of the XP-22 won it a production order for 46 production examples under the designation YP-22. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p20.html (1 of 2)09-09-2006 10:29:29

Curtiss YP-20

After the tests were over, Ser No 29-374 was fitted with a V-1570-23 Conqueror engine and with the new nose, belly radiator, and single-leg undercarriage first tried out on the XP-22. With these changes, Ser No. 29-374 was redesignated XP-6E, and became the prototype for the famed P-6E version of the Hawk. After having proven out the P-6E concept, the aircraft was fitted with a turbosupercharger and became the P-6F. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1987. 4. "The Curtiss Army Hawks", Peter M. Bowers, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday, 1969.


Curtiss XP-21


The Curtiss XP-21 is yet another example of the infuriatingly inconsistent designation system used by the USAAC during the 1920s and early 1930s. The history of the XP-21 begins with the Curtiss P-3 pursuit. The P-3 was an attempt to adapt the Curtiss P-1 single-seat biplane fighter to a radial engine. The last P-1A of the series (Ser. No 26-300) had been modified as the XP-3A with the replacement of the original liquid-cooled Curtiss D-12 by a 410 hp Pratt and Whitney R-1340-1 air-cooled radial engine. This airplane flew for the first time in April 1928, and became the prototype for the P-3A series, of which only five examples were built (Ser Nos 28-189/193). In 1930, XP-3A Ser No 26-300 and P-3A Ser No 28-189 were used as flying test-beds for the new 300 hp Pratt and Whitney R-985 Wasp Junior engine. These planes were then redesignated XP-21. This new designation was intended to identify a particular test configuration and was not intended to indicate a new prototype. The first flight of an XP21 took place in December 1930. Tests did not convince the Army that there was any intrinsic superiority of the radial engine as a powerplant for the Hawk. Consequently, XP21 Ser No 28-189 was later fitted with a D-12 engine and became a standard P-1F. However, XP-21 Ser No 26-300 continued on as a testbed and became XP-21A when it was fitted with an improved 300 hp R-975 Wasp Junior engine. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter

Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1987. 4. "The Curtiss Army Hawks", Peter M. Bowers, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday, 1969. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p21.html (1 of 2)09-09-2006 10:29:37

Curtiss XP-21


Curtiss XP-22


The Curtiss XP-22 is one of the steps in the convoluted process of evolution and adaptation which produced the famous Curtiss P-6E pursuit. It was basically the third P-6A (Ser No 29-262) which was used to test new radiator and oil cooler installations for a V-1570-23 engine. Under the bizarre designation scheme used by the Army during the late 1920s and early 1930s, the experimental use of a different engine was thought to call for an entirely new designation, and the aircraft was redesignated XP-22. Final modification produced an entirely new nose, with belly radiator and oil cooler, machine guns lowered to troughts on the sides of the fuselage under the engine cylinder banks rather than between them as on previous versions. A new single-leg undercarriage was also installed. The XP-22 flew for the first time in June of 1931. Weights were 2597 lbs empty, 3354 lb gross. During tests, the XP-22 achieved a maximum speed of 202.4 mph at sea level and 195.5 mph at 10,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2400 ft/min, and an altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 2.3 minutes. Service ceiling was 26,500 feet. Armament consisted of a pair of 0.30-cal machine guns mounted on the fuselage sides and synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. In June 1931, a flyoff was held between a standard P-6, a standard Boeing P-12, a YP-20 with the Cyclone radial, and the XP-22. The XP-22's speed of 202.5 mph at sea level gained it the upper hand over all its rivals, and won it an order for 46 service test versions under the designation Y1P-22. However, for budgetary reasons, this designation was changed to P-6C and finally to P-6E before the planes were delivered. After the tests were completed, these new features were removed from the XP-22 and were replaced by the original equipment, and the aircraft reverted to a standard P-6A. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1987. 4. "The Curtiss Army Hawks", Peter M. Bowers, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday, 1969. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p22.html (1 of 2)09-09-2006 10:29:45

Curtiss XP-22


Curtiss XP-23


The Curtiss XP-23 was the last biplane fighter design to be produced by the Curtiss company, and was perhaps one of the best-looking fighter biplanes ever produced by any manufacturer. The last P-6E in the USAAC order (Ser No 32-278) had been held back at the Curtiss factory for tests. It was completed with an entirely new monocoque aluminum fuselage, new tail surfaces, a new nose, new landing gear, and a turbosupercharged and geared Curtiss G1V-1570-C engine. A three-bladed propeller was fitted. The nose was much sharper and more pointed than that of the P-6E, giving a much more aerodynamically-clean appearance. The cooling radiator was mounted on the underside of the fuselage between the landing gear legs, just as it was on the P-6E. The wings had the same design as the P-6E, but were of all-metal construction rather than wood. However, the wings still had a fabric covering. The result was an airplane quite different in appearance from the P-6E. Since it was essentially a new design, the aircraft was redesignated XP-23 by the USAAC. The XP-23 was delivered to the USAAC on April 16, 1932. Weights were 3274 lb empty, 4124 lb gross. Maximum speed was 180 mph at sea level, 223 mph at 15,000 feet. Initial climb was 1370 ft/min, service ceiling was 33,000 feet, and range was 435 miles. Armament was one 0.50-cal and two 0.30-cal machine guns, all mounted in the nose. Although the XP-23 was the fastest biplane fighter yet produced and had an improved altitude performance, the USAAC recognized that the era of the biplane fighter had finally come to an end. Since they had already ordered the Boeing P-26A monoplane fighter, the Army opted not to go ahead with an order for production examples of the P-23. Even though no production orders were forthcoming, tests still continued with the XP-23. The XP-23 designation was switched to YP-23 when the status changed from "experimental" to "service test". As YP-23, it had its supercharger removed and the three-bladed propeller was replaced by a two-bladed unit. This airplane was later used in a rather interesting test to determine the effects of radiator drag on high-speed aircraft. For a brief period, the aircraft was flown without any radiator at all, the cooling water being pumped through the engine from an isolated tank and discharged overboard rather than being recirculated. Sources: 1. "United States Military Aircraft Since 1909", Gordon Swanborough and Peter Bowers,


Curtiss XP-23

Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 2. "The American Fighter", Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. "Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947", Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1987. 4. "The Curtiss Army Hawks", Peter M. Bowers, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday, 1969.


Lockheed YP-24

Lockheed YP-24 Last revised June 10, 1999

The Lockheed-Detroit YP-24 of 1931 was a design ahead of its time. It was the first USAAC low-wing monoplane fighter with retractable undercarriage and was the first USAAC fighter with enclosed cockpits. Perhaps more significantly for later developments, it was the first military pursuit design to carry the Lockheed name, although at that time Lockheed was owned by the Detroit Aircraft Corporation of Michigan. The Lockheed Aircraft Company of Santa Barbara, California had been a going concern all throughout the 1920s, its best-known product being the famous Vega high-wing monoplane which had set so many records. However, in 1929, the management of Lockheed voted to sell majority share ownership to the Detroit Aircraft Corporation, a Michigan-based holding company which already owned the Ryan and Eastman aircraft companies and which also had a substantial manufacturing capacity in Detroit. In July 1929, the Detroit Aircraft Corporation acquired 87 percent of the assets of Lockheed. On the surface, it appeared that the change of owners was not going to affect the day-to-day business of Lockheed, and the operationally-independent California team went right on producing Vegas, Air Expresses, and Explorers. New designs were also forthcoming: In 1929 Lockheed produced the Sirius, in 1930 they produced the Altair, and in 1931 the Orion appeared. However, the Detroit holding company had some ideas of its own, and these resulted in Lockheed's first entry into the pursuit field. The Detroit company undertook the private development of a prototype of a two-seat fighter based on the design of the Lockheed Altair low-wing cantilever monoplane of 1930. The Altair was unique for its time in that it possessed a cantilever monoplane wing with a fully-retractable main undercarriage. The chief engineer responsible for the project was Robert J. Woods, who was based in Detroit. A mockup of the fighter was completed in March of 1931. It bore the Wright Field project number of XP-900. The slim metal fuselage and the metal tail surfaces were built by Detroit Aircraft, but the wood-framed, plywood-covered wings as well as the undercarriage were essentially those of the Altair and were built by Lockheed in http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p24.html (1 of 3)09-09-2006 10:29:56

Lockheed YP-24

California. The final assembly and the initial testing of the aircraft were done in Detroit by the parent company. The XP-900 was powered by a 600 hp Curtiss Conqueror V-1570C (the military designation was V-1570-23) liquid-cooled 12-cylinder vee engine driving a three-bladed propeller. The tunnel radiator and the oil cooler were housed beneath the engine just ahead of the wing. The crew of two (pilot and gunner) was housed back to back in enclosed cockpits. The aircraft was armed with two synchronized machine guns (one 0.30-in and one 0.50-in) mounted in the upper fuselage nose, plus one flexible 0.30-cal gun operated by the gunner firing upward and to the rear. Brief manufacturer's trials were conducted in Detroit during the summer of 1931. The XP900 was delivered to Wright Field on Sept 29, 1931. At that time, the plane was purchased by the USAAC and given the designation YP-24. It was assigned the USAAC serial number of 32-320. The YP-24 underwent testing as a potential replacement for the Berliner-Joyce P-16 two-seat pursuit. The speed of the YP-24 was impressive for its time-it was 40 mph faster than the P-16, but it was also 20 mph faster than the P-6E, at that time the fastest fighter in the USAAC inventory. Maximum speed was 235 mph. Initial climb was 1820 feet/minute. Service ceiling was 25,000 feet and range was 556 miles. Weights were 3010 lbs. empty, 4360 lbs. loaded. As a result of the tests, the War Department ordered five Y1P-24 two-seat fighters and four Y1A-9 attack planes. The Y1A-9 attack version differed from the pursuit version in being powered by a V-1570-27 rated at a lower altitude and carried a heavier forwardfiring armament plus bombs. The YP-24 seemed to have a promising future ahead of it. However, on October 19, 1931 the YP-24 prototype was lost when its pilot was ordered to bale out rather than attempt a wheels-up landing after the undercarriage lever had broken off. This problem was, of course, easily correctable, but for reasons unrelated to the YP-24 accident, some rather harsh economic realities were about to overtake the Detroit Aircraft Corporation. The timing of Detroit's acquisition of Lockheed had been particularly unfortunate, since it took place only three months before the stock market crash which was to plunge the USA into the Great Depression. As the Depression deepened, the Detroit Aircraft holding company found that it was in over its head. Rising losses from other operations drained it of any profit. On October 27, 1931, the Detroit Airctraft Corporation went into http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p24.html (2 of 3)09-09-2006 10:29:56

Lockheed YP-24

receivership. The bankruptcy of the Detroit holding company meant that it could not undertake the manufacture of the Y1P-24s and Y1A-9s. The project was tentatively shelved. It did not revive until after Robert Woods had joined the Consolidated Aircraft Corporation, but that is another story! It looked like the Depression had Lockheed on the ropes. The bankruptcy of its holding company caused the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation subsidiary to be placed under the aegis of the Title Insurance and Trust Company of Los Angeles. Staff was cut to the bone, but operations were able to continue on a shoestring basis. However, on June 16, 1932 the end of the line finally came and the doors of the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation were shut. It would seem that Lockheed would be just one out of many casualties of the Depression, going down the tubes in much the same manner as did Thomas-Morse and Berliner-Joyce, its name never to be heard again. However, only five days after the doors of the corporation had been locked, a miracle took place. A new group of investors bought the assets of the now-defunct Lockheed Aircraft Corporation for only $40,000, and the company was brought back from the dead. And the rest, as they say, is history! Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 2. Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987.


Consolidated Y1P-25

Consolidated Y1P-25 Last revised June 10, 1999

When Lockheed's holding company, the Detroit Aircraft Corporation, went into receivership in 1931, they were unable to fulfill their contract to manufacture YP-24 fighters for the USAAC. In addition, Detroit Aircraft's chief engineer Robert J. Woods was now out of a job. However, Woods was soon recruited by the Consolidated Aircraft Corporation of Buffalo, New York. Robert Woods continued to work on his YP-24 design when he went over to Consolidated. Despite the failure of the Detroit company, the USAAC was still interested in the YP-24 design. The Army ordered a single prototype of Wood's basic design from Consolidated under the designation Y1P-25. The serial number was 32-321. At first glance, Consolidated's Y1P-25 looked much the same as did the Detroit YP24. It was a two-seat, low wing monoplane with fully-retractable main landing gear. However, there were significant differences. The Y1P-25 had an all-metal wing in place of the wood-frame, plywoodcovered wing of the YP-24. In addition, the tail of the Y1P-25 was larger, and metal was substituted for the fabric covering on the tail control surfaces. The engine was a 600 hp Curtiss V-1570-27 Conqueror, 12-cylinder liquid-cooled engine with turbosupercharger mounted on the port side (the YP-24 had no supercharger). The armament was two fixed, forward-firing machine guns mounted in the upper fuselage, plus one flexible machine gun operated by the gunner in the rear cockpit. A second prototype of the basic Consolidated design was built as a ground attack aircraft. Designated Y1A-11, the aircraft differed from the Y1P-25 primarily in having a Conqueror engine without a supercharger. In addition, the Y1A-11 had two more guns in the nose and racks for up to 400 pounds of bombs. The serial number of the Y1A-11 was 32-322. The Y1P-25 was delivered to the Army on December 9, 1932. First tests were very encouraging. Thanks to the turbosupercharger, the Y1P-25 could achieve 247 mph at 15,000 feet in spite of 700 lbs more weight as compared to the YP-24. The maximum speed was 205 mph at sea level. The Y1P-25 could climb to 10,000 feet in 6.7 minutes. Weights were 3887 lbs empty, 5110 lbs gross. The flight tests with the Y1P-25 and its Y1A-11 attack counterpart went quite well. However, the Y1P25 crashed on January 13, 1933, and was so badly damaged that it was a writeoff. The Y1A-11 crashed a week later. In spite of the two crashes, the USAAC did not feel that there was any intrinsic flaw in the basic design, and later that month a contract for four production examples was issued under the designation P-30 (Ser Nos 33-204/207). The P-30 differed from the Y1P-25 by having a 675 hp Curtiss V-1570-57 with twinhttp://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p25.html (1 of 2)09-09-2006 10:30:01

Consolidated Y1P-25

blade constant-speed prop, simplified undercarriage, and revised cockpit canopy. Four similar A-11s (33308/311) were also ordered with unsupercharged V-1570-59 engines. Plans for the construction of two Y1P-25s with Pratt and Whitney radial engines which were allocated the designations YP-27 and YP-28 did not materialize. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. General Dynamics Aircraft and Their Predecessors, John Wegg, Naval Institute Press, 1990.


Boeing P-26

Boeing P-26 Last revised June 12, 1999

Boeing XP-26 Boeing P-26A Boeing P-26B Boeing P-26C Boeing Model 281 Operational History of Boeing P26


Consolidated YP-27

Consolidated YP-27 Last revised June 12, 1999

The Consolidated YP-27 was to have been a version of the Y1P-25 two-seat monoplane fighter powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-1340-21 air-cooled radial engine in place of the Curtiss Conqueror liquidcooled, inline engine. It was never built. Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Consolidated YP-28

Consolidated YP-28 Last revised June 12, 1999

The Consolidated YP-28 was to have been a version of the Consolidated Y1P-25 with a Pratt & Whitney R-1340-19 air-cooled radial engine in place of the Curtiss Conqueror liquid-cooled inline engine. It was never built. Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Boeing YP-29

Boeing YP-29 Last revised June 12, 1999

The Boeing YP-29 was an attempt to produce a modernized version of the highly successful P-26 pursuit aircraft. The YP-29 originated as the Boeing company's Model 264 project. The Model 264 was a new and more advanced fighter design developed at company expense in the interval between the appearance of the XP-936 (P-26 prototype, company designation of Model 248) and the delivery of the first P-26A (Model 266) to the Army. The new model was initiated as a private venture by Boeing in collaboration with the Army, in which the company agreed to construct three prototypes under a bailment contract. Basically, the Model 264 was an updated and modernized P-26. It differed from the P-26 in having fullycantilever wings and a retractable undercarriage. The undercarriage was similar to that which appeared on the Monomail, in which the main landing gear wheels retracted backwards about halfway into the wings. The fuselage and the tail unit were basically the same as those of the P-26. The engine was the tried and true Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp air-cooled radial, basically the same type of engine which powered the P-26. The aircraft had the same armament as did the P-26A, namely one 0.30-cal and one 0.50 cal machine guns mounted in the fuselage sides and firing between the cylinder heads of the radial engine. The first Model 264 to leave the Boeing factory featured a narrow sliding cockpit enclosure that was essentially a transparent continuation of the pilot's oversize protective headrest all the way to the windshield frame. The engine was the Pratt & Whitney R-1340-31 Wasp of 550 hp, essentially identical to the engine which powered the engine. However, the radial engine was enclosed in a full NACA cowling rather than being surrounded by the narrow Townend ring that was used on the P-26. The airplane made its maiden flight on January 20, 1934 and was flown to Wright Field for Army testing 5 days later. The plane was originally tested by the Army on a bailment contract under the experimental military designation of XP-940. During testing, the XP-940 achieved a maximum speed of 220 mph at 10,000 feet. The gross weight was 3814 pounds. Upon testing of the XP-940, the Army decided on June 29, 1934 to buy it and its two sister ships. The pursuit designation of P-29 was assigned. In the meantime, the XP-940 had been returned to the factory in March for modifications. The Army did not like the narrow cockpit enclosure, feeling that it restricted pilot vision too much. Consequently, Boeing replaced the narrow sliding cockpit enclosure by a standard open cockpit installation, but the distinctive long headrest that extended all the way to the tail was http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p29.html (1 of 3)09-09-2006 10:30:29

Boeing YP-29

retained. The engine was replaced by a 600 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1340-35. The full NACA engine cowling that had been originally used was replaced by a drag ring similar to that which appeared on the P-26A. The modified XP-940 was returned to the Army in April of 1934. The newly-configured plane flew for the first time on June 4, 1934. Later that June, when the Army purchased the airplane outright, it was assigned the designation YP-29A and given a serial number of 34-24. It eventually became just plain P29A after an engine change to a 600 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1340-27 in place of the R-1340-35. The cleaner design of the YP-29A resulted in a plane which was 16 mph faster than the P-26A, but the greater weight cut down on the ceiling and the maneuverability, and the Army cancelled an intended P29A order. The three prototypes were subsequently used strictly for experimental purposes. As mentioned earlier, the military was displeased with the narrow cockpit enclosure of the XP-940. The second Model 264 ordered by the Army was completed with a large and roomy glasshouse enclosure around the cockpit. In addition, the tailwheel was housed in a different fairing. The engine was the 600 hp Pratt and Whitney R-1340-35, enclosed in an anti-drag ring. The plane was delivered to the Army on September 4, 1934 under the designation YP-29 with a serial number of 34-23. Despite its earlier Army designation and serial number, it was actually the second Model 264 to fly. Weights were 2509 lbs. empty, 3518 lbs. gross. Maximum speed was 250 mph at 10,000 feet. Initial climb was 1600 feet per minute. Service ceiling was 26,000 feet, and absolute ceiling was 26,700 feet. Range was 800 miles. This new cockpit enclosure satisfied the requirement for pilot protection at 250 mph operating speeds. Nevertheless, the landing speed of the YP-29 was considered too high for Army operational use. Because of the increased landing speed of the new monoplane design, the YP-29 was returned to the factory for the installation of wing flaps. Following service testing by the Army and Boeing, which included trials with controllable pitch propellers, the service test designation was dropped and changed to plain P-29 after the engine was changed to a Pratt & Whitney R-1340-39. The third Model 264 was completed as YP-29B with an open cockpit configuration similar to that of the YP-29A. The serial number was 34-25. It was delivered to the USAAC on October 11, 1934. The only outward differences between it and the YP-29A were the addition of a one-piece wing flap similar to that of the YP-29, an additional one degree of dihedral in the wing, and an oleo tail wheel assembly similar to that of the YP-29. The YP-29B was sent to Chanute Field in Illinois for service testing. It was eventually redesignated just plain P-29B. Sources: 1. Boeing Aircraft since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Boeing YP-29


Consolidated P-30/PB-2A

Consolidated P-30/PB-2A Last revised February 26, 2000

The P-30 was the production version of the Consolidated Y1P-25 two-seat monoplane fighter which in turn had evolved from the Lockheed-Detroit YP-24. It was the first aircraft to be built by Consolidated in its new factory at San Diego, California, after the company had relocated from Buffalo in 1935. Based on tests with the Consolidated Y1P-25, a contract for four production examples (33204/207) was placed by the Army on March 1, 1933. For some reason, the Army decided to give the production version of the Y1P-25 a completely different designation, and the P30 number was next in line. Overall, the P-30 was quite similar to the Y1P-25 which preceded it, but was powered by a different engine, a 675 hp Curtiss V-1570-57 Conqueror with driving a two-blade constant-speed propeller. In addition, the undercarriage was simplified and the cockpit canopy was revised. At the same time, four similar A-11 attack versions (Ser Nos 33-308/311) were ordered. These A-11s were to be powered by V-1570-59 engines without superchargers, since high altitude performance was not considered important for an attack plane. Tests of the first P-30 (33-204) began at Wright Field in January of 1934. Although the Army was generally pleased with the performance of the P-30 (especially with its highaltitude performance), pilots complained that the gunner who sat in a partly open cockpit was of limited value, as his position ensured that he would black out whenever maneuvering started. Maximum speed was 239 mph at 15,000 feet and 194 mph at sea level. Weights were 3832 lbs empty, 5092 lbs. gross. The P-30 could climb to 10,000 feet in 7.6 minutes. Range was 495 miles. Armament was two 0.30-cal machine guns in the nose, plus one flexible 0.30-cal machine gun operated by the gunner in the rear cockpit. Three of the P-30s were issued in 1934 to the 94th Pursuit Squadron, stationed at Selfridge Field, Michigan. The fourth P-30 (33-205) was never issued to an operational unit. Despite misgivings about the value of the second crewman, on December 6, 1934, 50 P30As were ordered by the Army under contract W535-AC-7220. This contract was http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p30.html (1 of 4)09-09-2006 10:30:42


finalized on February 19, 1935. Serial were 35-001/050. These aircraft were redesignated PB-2A (PB for Pursuit, Biplace) before delivery. The engine which powered the PB-2A was the 700 hp Curtiss V-1570-61, with General Electric F-2H turbosupercharger. The PB2A was equipped with a three-bladed controllable-pitch propeller. In addition, it carried oxygen for the crew, an absolute requirement for the altitudes at which the PB-2A was capable of operating. The first production PB-2A came off the new line at San Diego and flew for the first time on December 17, 1935. The PB-2A had a maximum speed of 274 mph at 25,000 feet, 255.5 mph at 15,000 feet, and 214 mph at sea level. It could climb to 15,000 feet in 7.78 min. Service ceiling was 28,000 feet and range was 508 miles. Weights were 4306 lb empty, 5643 lbs gross. Armament consisted of two fixed 0.30-cal machine guns in the upper cowling synchronized to fire through the propeller arc, plus a single 0.30-cal machine gun operated by the gunner in the rear seat. In addition, the PB-2A could carry ten 17-pound fragmentation bombs. Unfortunately, the first PB-2A crashed at Wright Field in late May. Nevertheless, the deliveries of the PB-2A built up quite rapidly, being completed by July 1936. The PB-2A initially served with the 27th Pursuit Squadron, 1st Pursuit Group at Selfridge Field, Michigan. A few were also operated by that group's 94th Squadron. In 1937, the 1st Pursuit Group converted to Seversky P-35s and their PB-2As were passed on to the 33rd, 35th, and 36th Squadrons of the 8th Pursuit Group based at Langley Field, Virginia. A few wee also issued to the 60th Service Squadron at Barksdale Field, Louisiana. On October 17, 1936, A PB-2A flown by Lt. John M. Sterling won the Mitchell Trophy race at Selfridge Field at a speed of 217.5 mph. In March 1937, a PB-2A reached an altitude of 39,300 feet over Langley Field and remained there for 20 minutes, but high altitude flights were seldom performed in practice because of the expense, inconvenience, and discomfort of the bulky pressure suits. The PB-2A proved to be a sturdy aircraft, and there were relatively few fatal accidents. However, the retractable undercarriage of the PB-2A was a relatively new and unfamiliar innovation, and on numerous occasions pilots forgot to lower it before landing. In the spring of 1939, the 8th Pursuit Group reequipped with the Curtiss P-36, and most of the 35 or so surviving PB-2As were transferred to Maxwell Field, Alabama. A few others were transferred to Eglin Field. By 1941, most were out of use. The last one was donated http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p30.html (2 of 4)09-09-2006 10:30:42


to a ground school in March of 1942. I don't know if any examples survive today. Although the PB-2A was not exactly one of the shining lights in American aviation history, it nevertheless did chalk up an impressive list of firsts. The PB-2A was the only single-engined two seat monoplane fighter to attain operational status with the USAAC during the inter-war year, it was the first fighter in service with the USAAC to have a fully retractable undercarriage, it was the first fighter with a constant speed propeller, and it was the first truly successful application of a supercharger to an operational military aircraft. However, the two-seat fighter design concept was outdated by the time it appeared. The idea of defending the fighter against attack from the year by stationing a second crew member in the rear cockpit never gained much support. The penalties entailed in terms of lost speed and maneuverability caused by the added load seemed to be too high a price to pay for the addition of just one more gun. Consequently, the service life of the PB-2A was quite short. In 1936, the USAAC held a competition for a replacement for the Boeing P-26 fighter. Since the second crewman seemed to be the main drawback of the PB-2A, the Consolidated company thought that a single-seat version of their fighter might be successful in the competition. In April 1936, PB-2A Ser No 35-7 was converted by Consolidated to single-seat configuration and entered in the USAAC competition. It differed from the standard PB-2A in having the rear cockpit removed and the position faired over with a raised decking, but was otherwise quite similar to the PB-2A. Competitors were the Seversky SEV-1XP, the Curtiss Model 75, and the Northrop 3A. Unfortunately, flight tests revealed that the single-seat PB-2A fighter was still much too heavy in comparison to its competitors to make an effective fighter. And if that wasn't enough, the single-seat PB-2A crashed during testing, which permanently doomed its chances. The ultimate winner of the competition was the Seversky design, which entered production as the P-35. Some of the PB-2As serving with the Army were used for tests. PB-2A Ser No 35-26 was used to test a laminar flow aerofoil in 1940 with a new structure built over the existing wing. The P-33 was a proposed version of the P-30 powered by a new Pratt & Whitney R-18301 radial engine. This project never got off the drawing board. Sources: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p30.html (3 of 4)09-09-2006 10:30:42


1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 2. General Dynamics Aircraft And Their Predecessors, John Wegg, Naval Institute

Press, 1990 3. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter

Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 4. Singular Two Seater, Alain J. Pelletier, Air Enthusiast, Issue 85, 2000


Curtiss XP-31

Curtiss XP-31 Last revised April 3, 2003

The Curtiss Model 66 Swift was an unsuccessful competitor against the Boeing XP-936/P26 for the US Army's interim monoplane pursuit of 1932. Encouraged by the Army, Curtiss undertook the development of a new pursuit as a private venture for which the Army agreed to provide the powerplant and the military equipment under a bailment contract. The experimental project number XP-934 was assigned. The all-metal Swift drew heavily on the Curtiss A-8 Shrike attack plane. Like the P-26, the Curtiss Swift was an intriguing mixture of the old and the new. It was fitted with a lowmounted monoplane wing with external bracing struts. The fixed, non-retractable undercarriage was enclosed by a set of spats. The pilot's cockpit was fully enclosed by a sliding canopy. The wing was fitted with trailing-edge flaps and carried a set of full-span leading-edge slats that opened automatically at 15 mph above stalling speed. Armament was four 0.30-cal machine guns, two in troughs in the nose and two in external packages on each side of the cockpit. The Swift had originally been planned for the 600 hp Curtiss Conqueror liquid-cooled V12 engine, but the Army believed that this engine was nearing the end of its development cycle and insisted that the powerplant be changed to the 700 hp Wright R-1820 Cyclone air cooled radial. The aircraft was also fitted briefly with a Pratt & Whitney Wasp radial. The Swift left the factory in July 1932. During the early flight testing, the performance was found to be rather disappointing. Within a month, the Cyclone radial was replaced by a Curtiss G1V-1570F Conqueror of 600 hp, which was the engine that Curtiss had wanted all along. Although the speed increased, other performance characteristics suffered because the plane was now seriously overweight. Maximum speed was 215 mph at sea level, initial climb rate was 2130 ft/min, service ceiling was 22,700 feet, and range was 396 miles. Weights were 3334 lbs. empty, 4143 lbs. gross. The Army bought the XP-934 in February 1933 and assigned it the designation XP-31 and the serial number 33-178. The civil-type engine was replaced by an equivalent militaryhttp://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p31.html (1 of 2)09-09-2006 10:30:47

Curtiss XP-31

type V-1570-53 engine. The XP-31 was re-designated ZXP-31 (Z for obsolete) and was retired to an Air Corps mechanics' school in July 1936. It was surveyed at Edgewood Arsenal on December 10, 1936. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter

Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1987. 4. E-mail from Terence Geary on fate of XP-31


Boeing XP-32


XP-32 was the USAAC designation given to the Boeing Model 278A, a company-financed design project of 1934. The XP-32 was basically a developed version of the earlier P-29 with a 750 hp P & W R-1535 Twin Wasp radial engine. The project drawings show a low-wing, cantilever monoplane design with a fully-retractable undercarriage and a fully-enclosed cockpit with a rearward-sliding canopy. The XP-32 design looked a lot like the Model 264 (YP-29A), but the XP-32 differed in the means by which the undercarriage was retracted. Whereas the P-29's main wheels retracted rearwards to lie partiallyexposed underneath the wing, the main wheels of the XP-32 retracted inward to be stowed flush with the sides of the fuselage, a pattern that would be followed by the Brewster F2A-1 Buffalo of 1938. The gross weight was 3895 pounds. The USAAC did not encourage the development of the project, and the XP-32 never got past the design stage. Boeing got out of the fighter business altogether shortly thereafter. Boeing was not to submit another fighter design to the military until the XF8B-1 long-range carrier-based fighter-bomber of late 1944. Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 2. Boeing Aircraft since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1989.


Consolidated XP-33

Consolidated XP-33 Last revised June 12, 1999

The Consolidated XP-33 was a proposed adaptation of the P-30 two-seat fighter to take an 800hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830-1 radial engine in place of the 700 hp turbosupercharged Curtiss V-1570-61 liquidcooled V12-engine. It was never built. Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Wedell-Williams XP-34

Wedell-Williams XP-34 Last revised June 12, 1999

The Curtiss company had demonstrated that it was possible to evolve a successful pursuit design from a racing aircraft. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the Wedell-Williams Company, one of the bestknown manufacturers of racing planes during the 1920s and 1930s, would also attempt to adapt its racing designs to a fighter proposal. The Wedell-Williams company submitted a cantilever, low-wing monoplane powered by a 700 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1535 Twin Wasp radial housed in a tightly-fitting cowling that looked too big for the rest of the airframe. The landing gear retracted inward to be stowed under the fuselage, and the cockpit was fully enclosed by a rearward-sliding canopy. The cockpit was situated well-aft, reminiscent of the manufacturer's racing planes from which the design was evolved. A maximum speed of 286 mph was anticipated. The proposal was sufficiently appealing to the USAAC that on October 1, 1935 they ordered that a set of construction drawings be prepared under the designation XP-34. However, by 1936, fighters were already flying with performances exceeding that of the proposed XP-34. When confronted with this reality, the Wedell-Williams company proposed that the engine be switched to the 900hp Pratt & Whitney XR-1830-C radial in the pursuit of better performance. However, this revision failed to interest the USAAC, and the whole program was cancelled before anything could leave the drawing board. Source: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Seversky P-35

Seversky P-35 Last revised June 12, 1999

Seversky P-35 Seversky P35A Seversky NF-1


Curtiss P-36

Curtiss P-36 Last revised June 13, 1999

Curtiss P-36A Curtiss P-36B Curtiss P-36C Curtiss P-36D Curtiss P-36E Curtiss P-36F Curtiss P-36G Curtiss Model 75A Demonstrator Curtiss Hawk With Armee de l'Air RAF Mohawk Hawk 75A-5 for China Hawk 75A-9 for Iran Hawk 75A-6/75A-8 for Norway Hawk 75A-7 for Netherlands Simplified Hawk


Curtiss XP-37


In early 1937, the USAAC expressed an interest in seeing how much the performance the P-36 could be improved if its radial engine were replaced by the new turbosupercharged Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled engine. On February 16, the USAAC placed an order with Curtiss for a single P-36 airframe to be powered by this new engine. In response to this USAAC request, Curtiss's chief designer Donovan Berlin fitted a 1150 hp Allison V1710-11 turbosupercharged engine to the original Model 75 prototype airframe. He positioned the three Prestone cooling radiators immediately behind the engine. In order to balance the aircraft and to make room for the radiators, the pilot's cockpit was moved quite far aft. Except for the cockpit relocation and the V-12 liquid-cooled engine, the XP-37 was otherwise identical to the P-36. The modified Model 75 prototype was redesignated Model 75I by Curtiss and was delivered to the Army as a new airframe. It was designated XP-37 with Army serial number 37-375. The XP-37 flew for the first time in April 1937 and was delivered to the army in June. The XP-37 attained a maximum speed of 340 mph at 20,000 feet and a service ceiling of 35,000 feet. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be reached in 7.1 minutes. Gross weight was 6350 lbs. The aircraft was equipped with what was the standard USAAC armament of the time--one 0.30-in and one 0.50-in machine gun mounted in the fuselage and synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. Almost from the first, the XP-37 aircraft ran into trouble. The supercharger was extremely unreliable, and the performance of the aircraft fell short of expectations. In addition, the positioning of the cockpit that far aft on the fuselage resulted in extremely poor visibility, especially during takeoffs and landings. >p> The XP-37 was retired to an Army mechanics' school in August 1941 with a total of only 152 hours of flying time. Although the new engine/supercharger combination was quite troublesome in the XP-37, the Army was nevertheless impressed by the potential of the design, and on December 11, 1937 they ordered 13 service test YP-37s. Serials were 38-472/484. These used Allison V-1710-21 engines fitted with improved B-2 superchargers, revised nose contours, a 25-inch increase in fuselage length aft of the cockpit, and most of the aerodynamic improvements worked out on the XP-37. The first one of these flew in June of 1939. However, the YP-37s continued to suffer with the same supercharger problems of the X-model and did not live up to their potential. All but one of the YP-37s were out of service or retired to mechanics' schools by early 1942. The highest-time aircraft had only 212 hours. The last active http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p37.html (1 of 2)09-09-2006 10:31:28

Curtiss XP-37

example (38-474) was transferred to the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) for research in August 1942. It survived until January 1946. The YP-37 was powered by a 1000 hp Allison V-1710-21. Wing span was 37 feet 3 1/2 inches, length was 32 feet 11 1/2 inches, and wing area was 236 square feet. Weights were 5592 lbs empty, 6700 lbs gross. Maximum speed was 340 mph at 10,000 feet. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 8 min 30 sec. Service ceiling was 34,000 feet. In the meantime, the USAAC had already held a competition for a new fighter in January 1939, and had chosen another Berlin design, the Model 75P which was also derived from the P-36. This was eventually to emerge as the famous P-40. All further work on the P-37 was abandoned. Sources: 1. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979 2. The Curtiss Hawk 75, Aircraft in Profile No. 80, Profile Publications, Ltd. 1966 3. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday, 1961.


Lockheed P-38 Lightning

Lockheed P-38 Lightning Last revised June 19, 1999

Lockheed XP-38 Lightning Lockheed YP-38 Lightning Lockheed P-38 Lightning Lockheed XP-38A Lightning Lockheed P-38B/C Lightning Lockheed P-38D Lightning Lightning I for RAF Lockheed P-38E Lightning Lockheed F-4 Lightning Lockheed P-38F Lightning Lockheed P-38G/F-5A Lightning Lockheed P-38H Lightning Lockheed P-38J Lightning Lockheed P-38K Lightning Lockheed P-38L Lightning Lockheed P-38M Lightning P-38 in European Theatre P-38 in Pacific Theatre P-38 with US Navy and Foreign Air Forces


Bell P-39 Airacobra

Bell P-39 Airacobra

Bell XP-39 Airacobra Bell YP-39 Airacobra Bell P-39C Airacobra Bell P-39D Airacobra Airacobra I for RAF, P-400 Bell P-39D-1,2 Airacobra Bell XP-39E Airacobra Bell P-39F Airacobra Bell P-39J Airacobra Bell P-39G/H Airacobra Bell P-39K Airacobra Bell P-39L Airacobra Bell P-39M Airacobra Bell P-39N Airacobra Bell P-39Q Airacobra Bell XFL-1 Airabonita, XF2L-1 Wartime Service of P-39 with USAAF Airacobras to Portugal Airacobras to the Soviet Union Airacobras to Italy Airacobras to Free French Airacobras to Australia Postwar Racing


Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, Tomahawk, Kittyhawk

Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, Tomahawk, Kittyhawk

Curtiss XP-40 Curtiss P-40 Curtiss P-40A Curtiss P-40B Curtiss P-40C Curtiss Tomahawk Curtiss P-40D, Kittyhawk I Curtiss P-40E, Kittyhawk IA Curtiss P-40F Warhawk, Kittyhawk II Curtiss P-40G Curtiss P-40J Warhawk Curtiss P-40K Warhawk, Kittyhawk III Curtiss P-40L Warhawk, Kittyhawk II Curtiss P-40M Warhawk, Kittyhawk III Curtiss P-40N Warhawk, Kittyhawk IV Curtiss P-40Q Warhawk Curtiss P-40R Warhawk P-40 with Royal New Zealand Air Force


Seversky XP-41

Seversky XP-41 Last revised August 12, 2005

The last aircraft on the Seversky P-35 contract (36-430) was delivered in 1938 as the XP41 (company designation Model AP-2) with a revised wing and a 1200-hp R-1830-19 air cooled radial engine with a medium-altitude two-stage turbosupercharger in place of the standard 850 hp R-1830-9 engine. The supercharger was located in a ventral position just aft of the wings and had its air intake in the left wing root. Overall length was increased from 25 feet 2 inches to 27 feet 0 inches. In addition, this aircraft had a fully retractable undercarriage, the legs and wheels folding inward into the wings and fuselage. The canopy was somewhat lower than that of the standard P-35, and was more aerodynamically streamlined. The XP-41 made its first flight in March, 1939, shortly before the Seversky company threw out Major de Seversky as its CEO and changed its name to Republic Aviation Corporation. A maximum speed of 323 mph at 15,000 feet was attained. Maximum range was 1860 miles. Empty weight was 5390 pounds and maximum loaded weight was 7200 pounds. Armament was the same as that of the standard P-35--one 0.50-in and one 0.30-in machine gun. On January 25, 1939, with war clouds gathering in Europe, the USAAC invited manufacturers to submit proposals for new pursuit aircraft. At this time, the Army was still thinking in terms of low-altitude, short-range fighters. Among the contenders were the Lockheed XP-38, the Bell XP-39, no less than three planes from Curtiss, the H75R, XP40, and XP-42, plus two parallel designs from Seversky/Republic--the XP-41 (AP-2) and XP-43 (AP-4). Although the XP-40 could not match the performance (especially at altitude) of the turbosupercharged types, it was less expensive and could reach quantity production fully a year ahead of the other machines. In addition, the XP-40 was based on a already-proven airframe that had been in production for some years. Consequently, on April 26, 1939, the Army adopted a conservative approach and ordered 524 production versions under the designation P-40 (Curtiss Model 81). Although the XP-41 showed significantly better performance than that of the standard P-35, the Army preferred the other Seversky/Republic development, the high-altitude AP-4 which was eventually to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p41.html (1 of 2)09-09-2006 10:34:54

Seversky XP-41

emerge as the YP-43, and the XP-41 was not developed any further. Sources: 1. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,

1964. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter

Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 4. E-mail from Vahe Demirjian


Curtiss XP-42


The fourth Curtiss P-36A (serial number 38-4) was used by the US Army and NACA for aerodynamic research in an attempt to overcome the aerodynamic drag penalty inherent in large-diameter air-cooled radial engines as compared to narrower liquid-cooled Vee-type engines. The aircraft was given the company designation of Model 75S, and the USAAC assigned it the designation of XP-42. As initially delivered in March of 1939, the XP-42 had a special 1050 hp Pratt and Whitney R-1830-31 radial engiine fitted with a long extension fitted to the propeller shaft and nose casing which permitted the use of a streamlined nose with a large propeller spinner. The intake for cooling air was located under the engine, and the intake for carburetor air was located above the engine. The initial configuration of the XP-42 suffered from serious overheating problems and from vibrations of the propeller shaft. Attempts to cure these problems resulted in no less than twelve different cowling designs being tested on the XP-42. Various types of cowl flaps were fitted, and short-nose high- and low- inlet velocity cowlings were tried with and without fans. The nose was progressively shortened until the airplane gradually once again resembled a P-36A. The XP-42 was entered by Curtiss in the 1939 USAAC fighter competition. Although the XP-42 was faster than the P-36A, it was slower than the XP-40. Consequently, the XP-42 lost out to the XP-40 for production orders. The XP-42 was finally scrapped in January 1947. Sources: 1. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979 2. The Curtiss Hawk 75, Aircraft in Profile No. 80, Profile Publications, Ltd. 1966 3. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday, 1961. 4. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Curtiss XP-42


Republic P-43 Lancer

Republic P-43 Lancer Last revised June 26, 1999

The Republic P-43 Lancer was a progressive development of the Seversky P-35. It can be regarded as an "intermediate" between the P-35 and the superlative P-47. During 1938, the Seversky Aircraft Corporation initiated work on two developments of the P-35. One was the AP-2, a conversion of an existing P-35 airframe with a Pratt and Whitney R-1830-19 radial containing an integral, medium altitude supercharger. The other was the AP-4, with a similar engine but with a turbosupercharger mounted in the rear fuselage aft of the cockpit. The airframes of the AP-2 and AP-4 were almost identical to each other, and both featured inward-retracting main undercarriage members. The AP-2 was eventually delivered to the USAAC as the XP-41. It was unsuccessful in attracting any production orders. Initially, the AP-4 featured a close-fitting engine cowling and an inordinately large propeller spinner in an attempt to reduce drag. However, this arrangement caused cooling problems and a more orthodox radial cowling was fitted at an early stage. Initially, the AP-4 looked a lot like its P-35 predecessor--the cockpit was raised quite high and there was a large area of transparency behind the pilot. On March 12, 1939, thirteen service test models of the AP-4 were ordered by the Army under the designation YP-43. Serial numbers were 39-704/716. The YP-43 differed from the original AP-4 in several respects. The cockpit was lowered in an attempt to reduce drag, the rear fuselage upper decking was raised, and the transparent area behind the cockpit greatly reduced. The tailwheel leg was made longer. The air intake for the turbosupercharger was moved from the port wing root and was mounted underneath the engine inside the deeper, oval-shaped cowling. The two 0.5-inch machine guns in the engine cowling were supplemented by a pair of wing-mounted 0.3-inch machine guns. The Pratt and Whitney R-1830-35 engine was adopted, offering 1200 hp for takeoff and 1100 hp at 20,000 feet. The first YP-43s were delivered to the Army in September 1940. By this time, Major de Seversky had been ousted as president of Seversky, and his company had changed its name to Republic Aviation Corporation. The last YP-43 was delivered by April 1941, the type being given the name *Lancer*. Maximum speed was 349 mph at 25,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2850 feet per minute. Service ceiling was 38,000 feet, and range was 800 miles. Wingspan was 36 feet, length was 27 feet 11 inches, height was 14 feet, and wing area was 223 square feet Weights were 5656 pounds empty and 7300 pounds gross. Although the weight of the YP-43 was excessive, the turbosupercharger gave the new aircraft a considerable advantage in both speed and operational ceiling over the earlier P-35. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p43.html (1 of 4)09-09-2006 10:35:05


However, by 1941, the Lancer was already outdated by the rapid advances in air combat technology that had taken place in Europe. It suffered from poor maneuverability and climbing performance, and lacked such modern innovations as armor protection for the pilot and self-sealing fuel tanks. Consequently, the Army did not anticipate ordering any more P-43s beyond the initial service-test contract. In fact, on September 13, 1939, the Army had already ordered eighty examples of the more advanced AP-4J from Republic under the designation P-44. However, combat reports coming out of Europe in the spring of 1940 indicated that even the P-44 would not be up to the task, and Alexander Kartveli began to consider the successor which was eventually to emerge as the P-47 Thunderbolt. On September 13, 1940, all work on the P-44 was cancelled in favor of the P-47. It would seem, therefore, that the P-43 would have a rather bleak future. However, since the R-2800 Double Wasps that were to power the P-47 would not be available for some time, the Army felt that Republic's Farmingdale production lines needed to be kept busy in the interim. Consequently, the P-43 was ordered into production as a stop-gap measure. Fifty-four P-43 Lancers were ordered by the Army in late 1940. Serial numbers were 41-6668/6721. They were virtually identical to the YP-43. The engine was the turbosupercharged Pratt & Whitney R1830-47, delivering 1200 hp. The first P-43 was delivered on May 16, 1941, the last example being delivered on August 28, 1941. Maximum speed was 349 mph at 25,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2850 feet per minute. Service ceiling was 38,000 feet, and range was 800 miles. Wingspan was 36 feet, length was 28 feet 6 inches, height was 14 feet, and wing area was 223 square feet Weights were 5654 pounds empty and 7810 pounds gross. Maximum takeoff weight was 7935 pounds. Armament consisted of two 0.50-inch and two 0.30-inch machine guns. The P-43 was immediately followed by the P-43A, 80 examples of which were ordered. Serials were 402891/2970. Deliveries began in September of 1941. The P-43A was essentially the same as the earlier P43, but differed in having the turbosupercharged R-1830-49 which afforded its full 1200 hp at 25,000 feet. Armament was increased to a full four 0.50-in machine guns, two in the fuselage and two in the wings. Deliveries began in September 1941. Maximum speed was 356 mph at 25,000 feet. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be reached in 6 minutes. Service ceiling was 36,000 feet, and range was 650 miles. Wingspan was 36 feet, length was 28 feet 6 inches, height was 14 feet, and wing area was 223 square feet Weights were 5996 pounds empty and 7435 pounds gross. Maximum takeoff weight was 8480 pounds. In the USAAF, the P-43 went to the 1st Pursuit Group at Selfridge Field, Michigan, to the 55th Pursuit Group at Portland Field, and then to the 14th Pursuit Group at March Field, California. Their service life with these groups was quite brief, and they were quickly replaced by P-38 Lightnings as soon as they became available. On June 30, 1941, 125 further examples were ordered with Lend-Lease funds for supply to the Chinese Air Force, although their primary purpose was still to keep the Farmingdale production lines occupied



until the Thunderbolt could be ready. The Chinese Lend-Lease P-43s were designated P-43A-1. Serial numbers were 41-31448/31572. The P-43A-1 differed from the P-43A by having a Pratt and Whitney R1830-57 engine with the same power. The four 0.50-inch machine guns were all concentrated in the wings. Some attempt was made to make the design more combat-worthy by adding such modern features as armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. Provision was made for the carrying of a 41.6 Imp. gall. drop tank, one 200-pound bomb, or six 20-pound bombs. maximum speed was 356 mph at 10,000 feet, service ceiling was 36,000 feet, and maximum ferry range was 1450 miles. Weights were 5996 pounds empty, 7435 pounds loaded, and 8480 pounds maximum. Wingspan was 36 feet 0 inches, length was 28 feet 6 inches, height was 14 feet 0 inches, and wing area was 223 square feet. Production of the P-43A-1 was completed in March of 1942, and 108 of these aircraft were ultimately transferred to China. They saw a certain amount of action there, but they proved uniformly unequal to the task at hand. They were handicapped by poor maneuverability and inefficient self-sealing fuel tanks and achieved little success against the Japanese. The USAAF always viewed the P-43 as only an interim type and considered it unfit for any combat role. None of the USAAF P-43s ever saw any action, being used strictly for advanced training in Stateside units. In 1942, most of the surviving USAAF P-43 and P-43A Lancers were converted as specialized photographic reconnaissance aircraft and redesignated P-43B. These were fitted with cameras in the rear fuselage. Most of these were used to train squadrons until Lockheed F-4s became available. Conversions to P-43B standards also included those P-43A-1s which did not get sent to China. A total of 150 Lancers were eventually converted to P-43B standards. Two other P-43As (serials 40-2894 and 40-2897) were modified as P-43C photographic reconnaissance aircraft, which were similar to the P-43B but with different photographic fixtures. Yet another set of modifications of existing P-43s (serials 41-6685, 41-6687, 41-6692, 41-6695, 41-6707, 41-6718) took place to produce the P-43D photographic version, which differed only in minor details from the P-43C. The designation P-43E was applied to a projected but unbuilt photo- reconnaissance version of the P43A with different types of fixtures. In August of 1942, six Lancers were withdrawn from USAAF stocks and transferred to the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). They served with No. 1 Photo Reconnaissance Unit, based at Coomlie, Northern Territory. The aircraft were two P-43Ds (A56-1 and -2) and four P-43A-1s (A56-3 to 6). Two more P-43Ds (A56-7 and A56-8) were delivered in November of 1942. A56-6 was damaged beyond repair in a landing accident, and A57-7 went missing on April 28, 1943 on a flight from Wagga Wagga in central New South Wales (the wreckage was not found until 1958). The remaining six were returned to the USAAF 5th Air Force at Charters Towers in 1943. I don't think that the RAAF Lancers ever saw any combat. In October 1942, surviving P-43s were redesignated RP-43, the R standing for "restricted from combat http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p43.html (3 of 4)09-09-2006 10:35:05


use". Sources: 1. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 4, William Green, Doubleday, 1964. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 4. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982 5. E-Mail from Gary Barns, Melbourne, Australia 6. Website of RAAF Museum, http://www.raafmuseum.com.au/research/index.htm


Republic XP-44 Rocket

Republic XP-44 Rocket Last revised June 26, 1999

The Republic P-44 Rocket was a progressive development of the P-43 Lancer. It can be regarded as yet another step along the road which led ultimately to the P-47 Thunderbolt. As described earlier, the AP-4 project was a progressive adaptation of the Seversky P-35 fighter powered by a turbo-supercharged Pratt and Whitney R-1830-35 radial engine. The supercharger was mounted underneath the rear fuselage and was fed by an air intake mounted beneath the engine. On March 12, 1939, thirteen service test models of the AP-4 were ordered by the Army under the designation YP-43. Although the weight of the YP-43 was excessive, the turbosupercharger gave the new aircraft a considerable advantage in both speed and operational ceiling over the earlier P-35. However, by 1939, the Lancer was already outdated by the rapid advances in air combat technology that had taken place in Europe. It suffered from poor maneuverability and climbing performance, and lacked such modern innovations as armor protection for the pilot and self-sealing fuel tanks. Consequently, the Army did not anticipate ordering any more P-43s beyond the initial service-test contract. On September 13, 1939, the Army ordered eighty examples of the more advanced AP-4J from Republic under the designation P-44. The P-44/AP-4J was basically similar to the P-43 but was provided with the more-powerful Pratt and Whitney R-2180-1 radial engine of 1400 hp. Drawings of the projected P-44 show an aircraft which looked very much like the P-43 but with a somewhat longer nose and a somewhat heavier armament of six machine guns. However, combat reports coming out of Europe in the spring of 1940 indicated that even the P-44 Rocket would not be up to the task, and Alexander Kartveli and his design team began to consider an even more advanced project known under the company designation of AP-10. A prototype of the AP-10 had been ordered by the USAAF in November 1939 under the designation XP-47. Since the USAAF regarded the XP-47 as showing greater promise, they cancelled all work on the P-44 project on September 13, 1940, before any P-44 prototype could be completed. 170 P-47Bs and 602 P-47Cs were ordered in their place. Kartveli and his team then concentrated all their efforts on the P-47 project, which was to turn out to be a wise decision indeed. However, P-47 development promised to be protracted, the first production aircraft not scheduled to roll off the production lines until late 1942. The Army felt that Republic's Farmingdale production lines needed to be kept busy in the interim. Consequently, the P-43 was ordered into production as a stop-gap measure. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p44.html (1 of 2)09-09-2006 10:35:14

Republic XP-44 Rocket

Sources: 1. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 4, William Green, Doubleday, 1964. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Sqanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 4. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.


Bell XP-45 Airacobra

Bell XP-45 Airacobra Last revised June 26, 1999

The Bell P-45 was the designation initially applied to the first proposed production model of the Bell XP39 Airacobra, even though it were almost identical to the YP-39 service test aircraft already under evaluation. However, in the political climate of 1940 it was virtually impossible for the USAAC to acquire any new aircraft. But it could order more examples of an already-existing model. Consequently, the designation of the Airacobra was changed to P-39C prior to the delivery of the first aircraft. Sources: 1. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday, 1964. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 4. The Calamitous 'Cobra, Air Enthusiast, August 1971.


Curtiss XP-46


At the time when the Curtiss P-40 fighter was initially entering production, Curtiss's chief designer Donovan Berlin was already thinking about its successor. The P-40 was already largely obsolescent by contemporary European standards even before it had entered production, and early war experience in Europe suggested that more speed, more protection, and more firepower would very soon be required. Influenced by contemporary British and French thinking, Berlin submitted his ideas to the USAAC. The USAAC was sufficiently impressed that they issued a Circular Proposal (CP 39-13) based on Berlin's proposal. The Army ordered two prototypes from Curtiss under CP 39-13 on September 29, 1939. The designation was XP-46 and the serials were 40-3053 and 40-3054. The XP-46 was generally similar to its P-40 predecessor, but was somewhat smaller and featured a widetrack, inwardly-retracting undercarriage. The engine was to be the newly-developed Allison V-1710-39 (F3R) twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled Vee of 1150 hp. This same engine was also later to power the Dversion of the P-40. In view of the relatively high wing loading, automatic leading-edge slots (a la Bf 109E) were fitted to the outer portions of the wing to give increased aileron control near the onset of the stall. Armament was to be two 0.50-in machine guns in the nose below the cylinder banks and no less than eight 0.30-inch machine guns in the wings. This made the XP-46 the most heavily-armed American fighter up to that time. A month after the initial XP-46 order, the USAAC modified their requirement and called for the provision of self-sealing fuel tanks and armor protection for the pilot. The maximum speed when fully armed and armored was to be a rather ambitious 410 mph at 15,000 feet. In order to save time and get something in the air as quickly as possible, the second prototype (40-3054) was delivered without armament or radio. This aircraft was redesignated XP-46A. The XP-46A was actually the first to fly, taking to the air on February 15, 1941. Even with all the military equipment taken off, the XP-46A was just barely able to achieve 410 mph at 12,200 feet, the required maximum speed when fully equipped. When the fully-equipped XP-46 flew for the first time on September 29, 1941, the additional weight of the military equipment slowed the fighter down to only 355 mph at 12,200 feet. In the meantime, while the XP-46 and XP-46A prototypes were still under construction, the USAAC decided in June of 1940 not to order the P-46 into production, but rather to order a similarly-powered version of the already-existing P-40. This was eventually to emerge as the P-40D. This option had the advantage in not disrupting Curtiss production lines by the introduction of a completely new airframe at http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p46.html (1 of 2)09-09-2006 10:35:26

Curtiss XP-46

a critical period. In the event, this turned out to have been a wise decision, since the fully-equipped XP46 was actually slower than the P-40D. Specification of the Curtiss XP-46: One 1150 hp Allison V-1710-29 liquid-cooled engine. Armed with eight 0.3-inch machine guns in the wings and two 0.50-inch guns in the nose. Maximum speed of 355 mph at 12,300 feet. Climb to 12,300 feet in 5 minutes. Service ceiling of 29,500 feet. Range at maximum cruising speed was 325 miles. Weights were 5625 pounds empty, 7322 pounds loaded, and 7665 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 34 feet 4 inches, 30 feet 2 inches long, 13 feet 0 inches high, and wing area 208 square feet. Sources: 1. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday, 1964. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979.


Republic P-47 Thunderbolt

Republic P-47 Thunderbolt Last revised July 18, 1999

Republic XP-47B Thunderbolt Republic P-47B Thunderbolt Republic P-47C Thunderbolt Republic P-47D Thunderbolt Republic XP-47E Thunderbolt Republic XP-47F Thunderbolt Curtiss P-47G Thunderbolt Republic XP-47H Thunderbolt Republic XP-47J Thunderbolt Republic XP-47K Thunderbolt Republic XP-47L Thunderbolt Republic P-47M Thunderbolt Republic P-47N Thunderbolt P-47 in European Theatre with USAAF P-47 in Pacific Theatre with USAAF P-47 USAAF Squadron Assignments P-47 with Brazilian Air Force P-47 with Royal Air Force P-47 with Mexico P-47 with Free French P-47 with Soviet Union P-47 with Air National Guard


Douglas XP-48

Douglas XP-48 Last revised August 1, 1999

In early 1939, the Douglas Aircraft Company of Santa Monica, California submitted a proposal to the USAAC for an ultra-lightweight single-seat high-altitude fighter. The project was given the company designation of Model 312. The general arrangement drawings of the Model 312 that have survived show a rather unusual-looking low-wing cantilever monoplane sporting a wing with a rather high aspect ratio. Power was to be provided by a supercharged Ranger SGV-770 twelve-cylinder inverted-vee liquid-cooled engine offering 525 hp. A three-bladed propeller was to be used. A tricycle undercarriage was to be fitted. The wing was so thin that the main undercarriage members had to be attached to the fuselage, the mainwheel members retracting rearward into recesses within the rear fuselage. Armament was to consist of a 0.30-in and a 0.50-in machine gun, both mounted in the upper fuselage deck and synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. The dimensions of the proposed Model 312 were to be wingspan 32 feet, length 21 feet 9 inches, height 9 feet, and wing area of 92 square feet. Weights were only 2675 pounds empty and 3400 pounds gross. The Douglas designers projected a maximum speed of no less than 525 mph for the Model 312 design! The USAAC looked over the Douglas proposal, and were sufficiently interested that they reserved the pursuit designation of XP-48 for the design. However, upon further investigation, the USAAC concluded that Douglas' performance estimates were grossly over-optimistic, and the project was not funded. Consequently, the Douglas company pursued the Model 312 project no further. Sources: 1. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920: Volume I, Rene J. Francillon, Naval



Douglas XP-48

2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.


Lockheed XP-49

Lockheed XP-49 Last revised August 2, 1999

On March 11, 1939, the USAAC Materiel Division issued Circular Proposal 39-775 to the aircraft industry. This proposal called for a new type of twin-engined, high-performance interceptor fighter. The successful entry was, however, to derive as many design features as possible from already existing aircraft. Four contractors submitted proposals. The Lockheed entry was a progressive development of the P-38 Lightning, and was given the company designation of Model 222. The Model 222 had the same general arrangement as the P-38, but featured a pressure cabin and was powered by a pair of turbosupercharged twenty-four cylinder Pratt & Whitney X-1800SA2-G (military designation XH-2600) liquid-cooled engines which were supposed to develop somewhere between 2000 and 2200 horsepower. Lockheed proposed to replace these engines by a pair of 2300 hp Wright R-2160 Tornado turbosupercharged radials in production aircraft. Armament was to be a pair of 20-mm cannon and four 0.50-inch machine guns. Total fuel capacity was to be 300 US gallons, as compared to 230 US gallons for the early production P-38. The Model 222 was rather optimistically estimated to have a top speed of 473 mph at 20,000 feet when powered by the Pratt & Whitney XH2600s, and a speed of no less than 500 mph at the same altitude when powered by the Wright Tornadoes. The USAAC finished looking over the four proposals on August 3, 1939. The Lockheed proposal (which by this time had had its company designation changed to Model 522) was judged the most promising of the four entries, and the USAAC ordered one example under the designation XP-49 in October 1939. The competing Grumman entry was their Design 41, which was a development of the XF5F-1 Skyrocket twin-engined carrier-based fighter. The Grumman design came in second, but the USAAC considered it sufficiently promising that they ordered one example under the designation XP-50. A contract for a single XP-49 prototype was officially issued on January 8, 1940. Because http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p49.html (1 of 3)09-09-2006 10:35:45

Lockheed XP-49

the Lockheed company was preoccupied with the P-38 Lightning, work on the XP-49 proceeded quite slowly during the early months of 1940. Both the USAAC and Lockheed soon came to realize that with either the Pratt & Whitney XH-2600 or the Wright R-2160 engines, the XP-49 would be seriously overpowered. Consequently, in March 1940 it was decided to substitute a pair of experimental Continental XIV-1430-9/11 twelve-cylinder inverted-vee liquid-cooled engines rated at 1540 hp for takeoff. In order to counteract torque, the engines rotated in opposite directions--the port propeller rotated CCW when viewed from the rear, and the starboard propeller rotated CW. Other changes included the substitution of dummy armor plate for the genuine armor plate called for in the original specification, thus expediting construction of the prototype. A maximum speed of 458 mph at 25,000 feet was now anticipated. On December 23, 1940 , detailed design of the XP-49 began under the direction of project engineer M. Carl Haddon. Two-thirds of the XP-49 airframe components were common with the P-38. The primary differences were in the engine installation, the use of a heavier and stronger undercarriage, and a pressurized cockpit similar to that of the XP-38A. Since much of the airframe was common with the production P-38, the construction of the XP-49 prototype (serial number 40-3055) went fairly rapidly. However, the first flight was delayed by problems with the experimental Continental engines, which were not yet cleared for flight operations at the time they were delivered to Lockheed in April 1942. It was not until November 14, 1942 that the XP-49 took to the air for the first time, flown by test pilot Joe Towle. The aircraft was grounded only a week later for replacement of the engines by XIV-143013/15 engines rated at 1350 hp for takeoff and 1600 hp at 25,000 feet. The fuel tanks were replaced by self-sealing tanks taken from a P-38, and a flight engineer's jump seat was added behind the pilot's seat. Flights were resumed in December, but were marred by continual hydraulic problems. When it was actually able to fly at all, the aircraft handled fairly well and had good maneuverability, but the Continental engines gave the XP-49 a rather uninspiring performance--the maximum speed was only 406 mph at 15,000 feet as against a promised speed of 458 mph at 25,000 feet. On January 1, 1943, the XP-49 was damaged during an emergency landing at Muroc AAB after a simultaneous inflight failure of both the hydraulic and the electrical systems. While being repaired, the XP-49 received 7 3/4 inch taller vertical tail surfaces. The XP-49 flew again on February 16, 1943. In this form, it was delivered to Wright Field on June 26, http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p49.html (2 of 3)09-09-2006 10:35:45

Lockheed XP-49

1943, almost 27 months later than expected. By that time, the Army had lost all interest in the XP-49, since the performance was actually inferior to that of the standard P-38J which was already in service. In addition, the questionable future of the troublesome Continental engine caused the Army to abandon any further consideration of quantity production of the XP-49. Even after the USAAF had decided not to proceed with quantity production of the XP-49, the Army continued testing the aircraft at Wright Field. However, maintenance difficulties with the Continental engines and problems with the fuel system limited the usefulness of the XP-49, and it was flown only rarely. It ended its useful life by being dropped from a bridge crane to simulate hard landings. It was finally scrapped in 1946. Performance of the XP-49 included a maximum speed of 406 mph at 15,000 feet, 384 mph at 10,000 feet, and 347 mph at sea level. Initial climb rate was 3300 feet per minute, and the XP-49 could climb to 20,000 feet in 8.7 minutes. Normal range was 679 miles, and maximum range was 1800 miles. Service ceiling was 37,500 feet. Weights were 15,410 pounds empty and 18,750 pounds loaded. Wingspan was 52 feet 0 inches, length was 40 feet 1 inch, height was 9 feet 9 1/2 inches (original tail), 10 feet 5 1/4 inches (revised tail), and wing area was 327.5 square feet. The proposed armament of 2 20-mm cannon with 670 rpg and four 0.50-inch machine guns with 300 rpg was never actually fitted. Sources: 1. Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1988. 2. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,

Doubleday, 1964. 3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter M. Bowers, Orion, 1987.


Grumman XP-50

Grumman XP-50 Last revised August 2, 1999

The Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation of Bethpage, Long Island is best known for its line of superb carrier-based fighters such as the F4F Wildcat and the F6F Hellcat. One of its less well-known products was the XP-50, which was an Army-financed development of the Navy's Grumman XF5F-1 Skyrocket experimental twin-engined shipboard fighter. The XF5F-1 traces its origin back to 1935, when the US Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) first contemplated the development of a single-seat, twin-engined carrier-based fighter. In early 1937, the BuAer sent out to the aircraft industry a request for proposals for twin-engined, carrier-based fighter designs capable of exceeding 300 mph. Brewster, Curtiss, Lockheed, Seversky, and Vought all submitted proposals in response to the request. Grumman's submission was known by the company as Design 25--a highaltitude fighter powered by a pair of turbosupercharged Allison V-1710 liquid- cooled engines. However, the Navy deemed that none of these proposals promised sufficient performance improvements over new single-engined fighters to justify issuing a development contract. The Bureau of Aeronautics revised its fighter requirements in early 1938. They concluded that the best performance could be obtained by using either a pair of turbosupercharged R1535 or R-1830 radials, or a single turbosupercharged V-1710 liquid-cooled engine. On February 1, 1938, the BuAer issued a new request for proposals, calling for either a singleengined fighter powered by a mechanically-supercharged Allison engine or for a twinengined fighter powered by a pair of radial engines. Armament was to be 2 20-mm cannon and two 0.30-in machine guns. The top speed was not specified, but it was to be the highest possible that could be attained. Bell, Brewster, Curtiss, Grumman, and Vought all submitted designs in response to the http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p50.html (1 of 4)09-09-2006 10:35:51

Grumman XP-50

request for proposals. Vought also took a chance and submitted a design powered by the Pratt and Whitney R-2800 radial engine, although this particular engine was not specified in the RFP. On April 11, 1938, the Navy issued contracts to Vought for the XF4U-1 with an 1850 hp Pratt and Whitney XR-2800-4 radial (this was to evolve into the famous Corsair), and to Grumman for the XF5F-1 powered by a pair of 750 hp. Pratt and Whitney R-1535-96 radials driven by two-speed superchargers. On November 8, 1938, a third contract was issued to Bell for the XFL-1 (a navalized version of the P-39 Airacobra) powered by the 1150 hp Allison V-1710-6 liquid-cooled engine. Grumman's XF5F-1 design was given the company designation of Design 34. Very early on, Grumman was forced to substitute Wright R-1820 radials for the much smaller R-1535 engines, since Pratt and Whitney was no longer offering the two-speed supercharger as an option. Although the greater diameter of the Wright engines offered the gloomy prospects of considerably poorer forward and downward visibility (particularly serious defects for a carrier-based aircraft), the Navy reluctantly agreed to the change. Since Grumman was at that time forced to give priority to the development of the F4F-3 Wildcat, work on the XF5F-1 proceeded very slowly. The prototype XF5F-1 (BuNo 1442) finally took to the air for the first time on April 1, 1940. An unusual feature of the aircraft was an extremely short nose--the forward extremity of the nose did not go past the leading edge of the wing. A large and high cockpit canopy was fitted. Like Navy carrier-based planes of the period, the XF5F-1 was a taildragger. The wings folded just outboard of the engine nacelles, and the main undercarriage members retracted into the engine nacelles. The XF5F-1 was powered by two 1200 hp Wright XR-1820-40 and -42 engines driving 3-bladed propellers rotating in opposite directions. Provision was made for four 23-mm Madsen cannon to be mounted in the abbreviated nose, but no armament was ever actually fitted. There were problems with the XF5F-1 almost from the very beginning-- engine oil cooling was inadequate, aerodynamic drag was excessive, and there were problems with the closing of the undercarriage doors. Sideward and downward visibility were both atrocious, owing to the forward location of the wings and the position and large diameter of the radial engines. The XF5F-1 was delivered to the Navy at NAS Anacostia on February 22, 1941. By that time, it was painfully obvious to just about everyone that the Skyrocket would never make a useful carrier-based fighter. The XF4U-1 Corsair was already exceeding 400 mph in its http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p50.html (2 of 4)09-09-2006 10:35:51

Grumman XP-50

test flights, and the Navy had requested that Vought adapt its design for production. Nevertheless, the Navy was not entirely ready to give up on the XF5F-1, and returned the aircraft to Grumman for some major modifications in an attempt to alleviate some of its more obvious shortcomings. The engine nacelles were lengthened and extended further aft, spinners were fitted to the propellers, the height of the canopy was reduced, wing fillets were added, and the fuselage nose was extended forward of the wing leading edge. However, when the plane was returned to Anacostia on July 24, 1941, it was found that the changes had not provided any significant improvements in the aerodynamic drag or in the engine cooling problems. The strongest point of the XF5F-1 was its rate of climb--4000 feet per minute as compared to 2660 ft/min for the XF4U-1 and 2630 ft/min for the XFL-1. However, maximum speed was only 383 mph at sea level. Empty weight was 8107 lbs and normal loaded weight was 10,138 lbs. Service ceiling was 33,000 feet and maximum range was 1170 miles. The XF5F-1 was used off and on for tests in support of the XF7F-1 project for the next couple of years, until it was finally stricken off record on December 11, 1944 after suffering an undercarriage failure. As detailed in the article on the XP-49, in early 1939, the Army had issued a Circular Proposal calling for a new generation of fighters which would match existing airframes with new and more powerful engines. Four companies submitted designs in response to the proposal. Lockheed submitted its Model 522, which was an adaptation of the P-38 powered by either Pratt and Whitney XH-2600 or Wright R-2160 turbosupercharged engines. Grumman submitted a proposal known under the company designation of Design 41. Design 41 was an aircraft quite similar to Design 34 (XF5F-1) but was powered by a pair of Wright R-1820 radials fitted with turbosuperchargers. The Lockheed design came in first in the competition, and was ordered by the Army as the XP-49. However, the Army saw sufficient merit in Grumman's Design 41 that they encouraged the company to submit a revised design, just for insurance in case the XP-49 ran into problems. The revised proposal, known by the company as Design 45, incorporated a nosewheel tricycle undercarriage and a longer nose. Provision was to be made for self-sealing fuel tanks and for armor protection for the pilot. On November 25, 1939, the Army issued a contract for one prototype of Grumman's Design 45 under the designation XP-50. The XP-50 was to be powered by two 1200 hp Wright R-1820-67/69 radials fitted with turbosuperchargers. Armament was to be two 20-mm cannon and two http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p50.html (3 of 4)09-09-2006 10:35:51

Grumman XP-50

0.50-in machine guns, all mounted in the nose. The XP-50 (Ser No. 40-3057) flew for the first time on February 18, 1941, with Grumman test pilot Robert L. Hall at the controls. Early tests were encouraging, and the XP-50 handled much better than did the XF5F-1. Furthermore, the supercharged engines of the XP-50 gave it a much better performance at medium and high altitudes. However, on May 14, 1941 the XP-50 experienced an inflight turbosupercharger explosion while on a flight over Long Island Sound, and pilot Robert Hall was forced to parachute to safety. The loss of the aircraft brought an abrupt end to the XP-50 program. Estimated maximum speed of the XP-50 (never achieved in tests) was 424 mph at 25,000 feet. Estimated service ceiling was 40,000 feet. An altitude of 20,000 feet could supposedly be reached in 5 minutes. Maximum range was estimated to be 1250 miles. Empty weight was 8307 lbs, and loaded weight was 10,558 lbs. Maximum weight was 13,060 lbs. Wingspan was 42 feet, length was 21 feet 11 inches, height was 12 feet, and wing area was 304 square feet. Sources: 1. Grumman Aircraft Since 1929, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1989. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 3. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,

Doubleday, 1964.


North American P-51 Mustang

North American P-51 Mustang Last revised September 6, 1999

North American NA-73 Mustang I/IA for RAF Service of Mustang I/IA With RAF North American XP-51 Mustang North American A-36 Invader North American P-51/F-6A Musang North American P-51A Mustang North American P-51B/C Mustang Mustang III For RAF North American P-51D/K Mustang P-51D/K in Foreign Service North American XP-51F, G, J Mustang North American P-51H Mustang Piper Enforcer


Bell XP-52

Bel XP-52 Last revised September 6, 1999

The Bell XP-52 was an unorthodox fighter project that arose out of a USAAC competition held in the winter of 1939 for a fighter that would be much more effective than any extant-with a top speed, rate of climb, maneuverability, armament, and pilot visibility, all of which would be far superior to those of any existing fighter. In addition, the fighter was required to have a low initial cost and had to be easy and inexpensive to maintain. A tall order, indeed! The USAAC issued its requirements to the industry in the form of Request for Data R40C. No less than 50 responses came in. Among these was the Model 16, which the Bell company had developed some months earlier. Bell was famous for submitting unconventional designs, and the Model 16 was no exception. It had a round, barrel-shaped fuselage with the pilot seated in the nose and a 1250 hp Continental XIV-1430-5 liquidcooled twelve-cylinder inverted vee engine mounted behind the pilot and driving a pair of contrarotating coaxial propellers operating in pusher fashion. The wing was mounted in mid-fuselage position, and was swept back at an angle of about 20 degrees. Twin booms were mounted about one-third of the way along the wings outboard of the fuselage. The horizontal tailplane at the rear connected the two booms. A tricycle landing gear was to be fitted, with the nosewheel retracting into the fuselage and the mainwheels retracting into the booms. One unusual feature of the XP-52 was the presence of an air inlet for the engine radiators mounted in the extreme nose, a feature which was to be seen later in jet-powered fighters. Two 20-mm cannon were to be mounted in the lower fuselage, and three 0.50-in machine guns were to be mounted in the front of each of the twin booms. By the end of 1940, the Army purchasing commission had chosen six of the submissions for further development. Among them was the Bell Model 16. A single prototype was ordered under the designation XP-52. However this order was canceled on November 25, http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p52.html (1 of 2)09-09-2006 10:36:02

Bell XP-52

1941, before anything could be built. It was replaced by an order for another Bell design, based on the XP-52 but equipped with a more-powerful Pratt & Whitney R-2800-52 aircooled radial engine. This aircraft was assigned the designation XP-59 by the US Army. Estimated performance of the XP-52 included a maximum speed of 425 mph at 19,500 feet. It was expected that an altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 6.3 minutes and that the service ceiling would be 40,000 feet. Maximum range was to be 960 miles. Weights were estimated to be 6840 lbs empty and 8750 lbs gross. Dimensions were wingspan 35 feet, length 34 feet, height 9 feet 3 inches, and wing area 233 square feet. Source: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.


Curtiss XP-53


Following the failure of the XP-46 to win any Army production orders, the Curtiss company proposed another design in their search for the eventual replacement for the P40. This was the Curtiss Model 88, which was an improved XP-46 powered by the yet-tobe-built 1600-hp Continental XIV-1430-3 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled inverted Vee engine. The Model 88 was to use the fuselage and tail assembly from the P-40D combined with a NACA laminar flow wing. Armament was to have consisted of eight wing-mounted machine guns. The mainwheel retraction scheme reverted to the sequence used by the original P-40, with the mainwheels rotating 90 degrees before they retracted rearwards into wing wells. Maximum speed was projected to be 430 mph. On October 1, 1940, the USAAC ordered two examples of the Model 88 under the designation XP-53. Serials were 41-140 and 41-19508. In a conference held six weeks later, the USAAC informed Curtiss-Wright of its need for a fighter combining laminar flow wing technology with the British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. Since the XP-53 was already being designed for laminar-flow wings, Curtiss proposed to convert the second XP53 airframe (41-19508) to the Merlin engine while it was undergoing construction. This airframe was redesignated Model 90 by the company. The USAAC accepted this idea, and assigned the designation XP-60 to the new aircraft. The other XP-53 airframe was to retain the Continental engine. However, while the XP-53 and XP-60 were both undergoing construction, the Army cancelled the XP-53 order because of the excessive delays in the temperamental Continental XIV-1430 engine. The XP-53 never flew. As it turned out, the Continental engine never did enter production, and all of those aircraft projects which had planned for it ultimately failed.


Curtiss XP-53

In November 1941, the XP-53 airframe was converted into a static test airframe in support of the P-60 project, and its bullet-proof windshield, self-sealing fuel tanks, and armament were scavenged and transferred to the XP-60. Sources: 1. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979. 2. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,

Doubleday, 1964. 3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.


Vultee XP-54

Vultee XP-54 Last revised August 12, 2005

The Vultee Aircraft Corporation was very largely the brainchild of Gerard Vultee, formerly chief engineer at Lockheed Aircraft Corporation during the time that Lockheed was owned by Detroit Aircraft. When Detroit Aircraft went belly-up, Vultee was out of a job. Eventually, he went off on his own in pursuit of financial backing for some ideas he had for a single-engine passenger monoplane. Vultee attracted the attention of the "boy wonder" of Wall Street, Errett Lobban Cord, who already owned or controlled several airlines, automobile manufacturers, and aircraft companies. With $50,000 in cash (sounds like small potatoes today :-) ), Cord founded the Airplane Development Corporation in January 1932, as a subsidiary of the Cord Corporation. Vultee was established as chief engineer of this new company. In 1934, the ADC was reorganized as a division of the Aviation Manufacturing Corporation, which was in turn a subsidiary of the Aviation Corporation, which had recently been taken over by Cord in a stock deal. The Aviation Corporation is best known today as being the parent company of what later became American Airlines. Vultee became a vice-president of the ADC, but retained his title as chief engineer. In 1936, the ADC moved its plant to Downey, California. In 1937, this plant was renamed the Vultee Aircraft Division of the Aviation Manufacturing Corporation. Gerard Vultee and his wife were killed in a plane crash in January 1938. He was succeeded as chief engineer by Richard Palmer, who had worked for a time on the Hughes H-1B racer. A syndicate bought out Cord's interest in the company, and a California investment banker named Richard Millar was brought in as vice-president. He moved up as president when Vultee Aircraft Inc. was established in 1939 to acquire the assets of the Aviation Manufacturing Corporation. On November 27, 1939 the USAAC issued Circular Proposal R-40C, which called for a fighter that would be much more effective than any extant--with a top speed, rate of climb, maneuverability, armament, and pilot visibility, all of which would be far superior to those http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p54.html (1 of 6)09-09-2006 10:36:12

Vultee XP-54

of any existing fighter. In addition, the fighter was required to have a low initial cost and had to be easy and inexpensive to maintain. The Army specifically mentioned in R-40C that they would consider aircraft with unconventional configurations. No less than 50 responses came in. Many of them were quickly ruled out, but by the end of 1940, four designs were considered sufficiently worthy of further study. These were designs submitted by Bell, by Curtiss, by Northrop, and by Vultee. The Vultee Aircraft Corporation's only previous venture into fighter design had been the Model 48 Vanguard, which had been unsuccessful in attracting any Army production contracts. Nevertheless, Richard Palmer's team at Vultee came up with the proposal which was judged the best of the entrants. An initial Army contract covering engineering data and wind tunnel models was issued on June 22, 1940. A contract for one prototype was issued on January 8, 1941 under the designation XP-54. The serial was 41-1210. A second XP-54 was ordered on March 17, 1942, with the serial 42-108994 being assigned. However, photographs of the second XP-54 exist with the tail number 11211 painted on the fins, which implies that its serial was 41-1211, which would make both planes having consecutive serial numbers, even when ordered more than a year apart. Moreover, 411211 conflicts with a serial number allocated to a BT-13A Valiant basic trainer. It appears that the explanation of the discrepancy is a simple printing error in painting the second XP54 and that its serial really was 42-108994. According to Ray Wagner, the second XP-54 took off on its first flight with the faulty tail number 11211 painted on its fin. However by the time of the second flight, the serial had been replaced with the correct 2108994. The XP-54, designated Model 84 by Vultee, was a twin-boom, low-mounted, inverted gullwing monoplane powered by an engine mounted in pusher configuration. The engine was to be the Pratt & Whitney X-1800-A4G (military designation H-2600) twenty-four cylinder liquid-cooled engine offering a power output of 1850 hp and driving a set of contra-rotating pusher propellers. The Model 84 was actually an outgrowth of an earlier Vultee proposal known as Model 78, which had a similar configuration but was to be powered by a unsupercharged Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled engine. The single-seat cockpit was sited in the center section of the bullet-shaped fuselage. Magnesium alloy construction was to be used throughout the fuselage. A tricycle landing gear was fitted, with the nosewheel retracting into the fuselage and the mainwheels retracting into the booms.


Vultee XP-54

The center wing section was designed around the newly-developed NACA "ducted wing", in which the airflow was taken in via narrow slots in the wing leading edge and directed over the oil and coolant radiators and then to the intercoolers and eventually fed into the engine via ducts in the wing trailing edge. The landing flaps were so designed that their secondary function was to regulate the airflow through the coolers. This innovation made it possible to house the coolant radiators and the intercooler entirely within the wings. The original mission of the XP-54 was envisaged to be low- and medium-altitude combat. Six 0.50-inch machine guns were to be mounted in the nose. The estimated maximum weight was 11,500 pounds, and maximum speed was expected to be no less than 510 mph at 20,000 feet, taking six minutes to reach that altitude. On September 7, 1940, the USAAC announced to Vultee that they were changing the mission of the XP-54 from that of low-level combat to that of high-altitude bomber interceptor. This change necessitated the development of a pressurized cockpit and the installation of turbosupercharging equipment. Armament was changed to a pair of 37-mm T-12/T-13 cannon with 60 rpg and twin 0.50-in M2 machine guns with 500 rpg, all mounted in the nose. The Army also required the fitting of heavy armor protection for the engine and pilot. All of these changes caused the estimate gross weight to creep up to 18,000 pounds. The pressurized cockpit requirement, combined with the considerable height of the aircraft from the ground, made cockpit entry and exit a problem. In order to attack these problems, a unique solution was evolved--a pilot seat which functioned as an elevator. In order to enter the aircraft, the seat was electrically lowered from the bottom of the aircraft by a switch mounted on the outside of the plane. The pilot would sit down on the seat, throw a switch, and the seat would electrically raise itself up into the aircraft until it reached the flight position. Flight control cables were routed around the opening in the floor, and an inverted U-column was used to support the pilot's control wheel. This ventral access was also valuable in that it made possible the design of a fixed cockpit canopy, which simplified the problem of making a pressure-tight seal. In an emergency (assuming sufficient altitude were available), the elevator seat assembly would be catapulted downward clear of the propeller, making the XP-54 the first American fighter to be fitted with an ejector seat. The nacelle-type fuselage incorporated yet another unusual feature. Because of the different muzzle velocities of the cannon and machine guns, the entire nose section was http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p54.html (3 of 6)09-09-2006 10:36:12

Vultee XP-54

moveable so that direction of fire of the machine guns could be elevated by as much as three degrees or depressed by as much as six degrees without changing the flight attitude. The cannon were fixed and did not move. The movement of the nose section and the machine guns was controlled by a special compensating gunsight. The management of these differentially- pointing guns probably would have been a real nightmare. In October 1940, Pratt & Whitney discontinued all work on its X-1800 engine, and Vultee decided to substitute the 2200 hp twenty-four cylinder liquid-cooled Lycoming XH-2470 in its place. The Lycoming engine was still under development for the Navy at the time. The Lycoming engine was to be fitted with a turbosupercharger, in view of the XP-54's newly-assigned high-altitude role. With all of these changes, it came as no surprise that the delivery date slipped substantially from the promised date of July 1942. The first XP-54 (41-1210) did not, in fact, fly until January 15, 1943, when test pilot Frank Davis took it for a 31-minute flight from Muroc Dry Lake (now Edwards AFB). This flight went fairly uneventful except for the malfunction of the Curtiss propeller. The faulty propeller was subsequently replaced by a Hamilton-Standard unit. By March 11, ten flights had been made, but it was clear that performance was substantially below that which was guaranteed. In addition, the engine showed metal traces in the oil, and the aircraft was returned to Downey for an engine change. 86 more flights were carried out at Ontario AFB, California, and on October 28, the XP-54 was flown to Wright Field for service testing. However, the Lycoming engine again developed serious problems, and the entire engine had to be returned to the manufacturer for repairs. Repair costs turned out to be prohibitive, and the engine had to be scrapped. Some sources claim that the XP-54 was known under the popular name "Swoose Goose" while it was at Wright Field. The name came from the fact that the XP-54 looked like a goose when it was flying, and the "Swoose" part of the name is a misspelling of the word "Swiss". By late 1943, the continual troubles with the Lycoming H-2470 engine had led the Navy to abandon the entire program. The XP-54 was therefore left without an engine. A proposal to adapt the Wright R-2160 Tornado radial engine to fit the XP-54 airframe was briefly considered, the project being redesignated P-68. However the Tornado engine also failed to achieve production, and the P-68 project was abandoned. Although it appeared possible to install the Allison W-3420 in the XP-54 without major structural changes, the http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p54.html (4 of 6)09-09-2006 10:36:12

Vultee XP-54

delay and expense involved in making such a change resulted in the decision being made not to try to introduce the XP-54 into quantity production. There was even thought given to the installation of a jet engine in the XP-54 airframe, but such a proposal was rejected on the grounds of cost. The second XP-54 (42-108994) was delayed by the need to change from two Wright turbosuperchargers to a single experimental General Electric XCM model. Consequently, by the time it was ready for flight, all hope of quantity production of the XP-54 had been abandoned. The second XP-54 finally took to the air on May 24, 1944, when it was taken on a 20-minute flight from Downey to Norton AFB, California. The engine/ turbosupercharger combination was found to be unsatisfactory and they were returned to the manufacturer. Although another engine was fitted to the second XP-54, it was never flown again. The nose section was sent to Elgin AFB for armament tests (the guns were never fired from the air). The rest of the airframe was scrapped. The first XP-54 was static tested to destruction at Wright Field. The XP-54 was the last project that the Vultee corporation carried out for the USAAF under its own name. In June 1943, Vultee Aircraft, Inc. merged with Consolidated to form Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation. Although the name of the new conglomerate was contracted to "Convair" internally, this name was not officially registered until 1954 when Convair became a division of General Dynamics. Specs of the XP-54: Maximum speed: 381 mph at 28,500 feet, 290 mph at sea level. Initial climb rate: 2300 feet per minute. Climb to 32,100 feet in 27.7 minutes. Service ceiling: 37,000 feet. Weights were 15,262 pounds empty, 18,233 pounds normal loaded, and 19,337 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 53 feet 10 inches, length 54 feet 8 3/4 inches, height 14 feet 6 inches, and wing area 455.5 square feet. Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 2. General Dynamics Aircraft and their Predecessors, John Wegg, Naval Institute

Press, 1990.


Vultee XP-54

3. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,

1964. 4. E-mail from Vahe Demirjian on correct serial of the second XP-54 and the origin of

the name "Swoose Goose". 5. Ray Wagner, American Combat Planes of the 20th Centyry, Bacon, 2004 on serial

number mixup on second XP-54 prototype.


Curtiss XP-55 Ascender

Curtiss XP-55 Ascender Last revised March 12, 2004

The Curtiss XP-55 Ascender was another response to Circular Proposal R-40C, which was issued on November 27, 1939. It called for a fighter that would be much more effective than any extant--with a top speed, rate of climb, maneuverability, armament, and pilot visibility, all of which would be far superior to those of any existing fighter. In addition, the fighter was required to have a low initial cost and had to be easy and inexpensive to maintain. The Army specifically mentioned in R-40C that they would consider aircraft with unconventional configurations. No less than 50 responses came in. Many of them were quickly ruled out, but by the end of 1940, four designs were considered sufficiently worthy of further study. These were designs submitted by Bell, by Curtiss, by Northrop, and by Vultee. The Curtiss entry, designated CW-24 by the company, was perhaps the most unconventional of the four finalists. It was to be one of the last projects supervised by Donovan Berlin before he left the Curtiss company to go over to Fisher to work on the P75. The CW-24 was a swept-wing pusher aircraft with canard (tail-first) elevators. The low-mounted sweptback wings were equipped with ailerons and flaps on the trailing edge as well as directional fins and rudders mounted near the wing tips both above and below the airfoil. The elevators were located near the front of the nose in a horizontal surface. A completely-retractable tricycle undercarriage was to be used, the first time such an undercarriage was to be employed in a Curtiss fighter. Curtiss proposed to use the new and untried Pratt & Whitney X-1800-A3G (H-2600) liquid-cooled engine, mounted behind the pilot's cockpit and driving a pusher propeller. Project maximum speed was no less than 507 mph! On June 22, 1940, the Curtiss-Wright company received an Army contract for preliminary engineering data and a powered wind tunnel model. The designation P-55 was reserved for the project. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p55.html (1 of 5)09-09-2006 10:36:17


Since the USAAC was not completely satisfied with the results of the wind tunnel tests, Curtiss-Wright took it upon itself to build a flying full-scale model. Designated CW-24B by the company, the flying testbed was powered by a 275 hp Menasco C68-5 engine. It had a fabric-covered, welded steel tube fuselage and a wooden wing. The undercarriage was fixed. After completion, the CW-24B was shipped out to the Army flight test center at Muroc Dry Lake (later Edwards AFB) in California. It made its first flight there on December 2, 1941. Although the maximum speed was only 180 mph because of the low engine power, the CW-24B proved out the basic feasibility of the concept. However, early flights indicated that there was a certain amount of directional instability. The original auxiliary wingtip fins were increased in area and moved four feet farther outboard on the wings, which enhanced the directional stability. The wingtips were made longer, and further improvements were obtained by adding vertical fins to both the top and the bottom of the engine cowling. 169 flights with the CW-24B were made at Muroc between December 1941 and May 1942. After that, the airplane (having been assigned the USAAC serial number 42-39347) was transferred to Langley Field, Virginia, for further testing by NACA. During the flight testing of the CW-24B, work on the CW-24 fighter project continued. On July 10, 1942, a USAAF contract was issued for three prototypes under the designation XP-55. Serial numbers were 42-78845/78847. Since the Pratt & Whitney X-1800 engine was experiencing serious program delays (it eventually was cancelled outright before attaining production status) Curtiss decided to switch to the Allison V-1710 (F16) liquidcooled inline engine for the sake of reliability and availability. Armament was to be two 20-mm cannon and two 0.50-inch machine guns. During the mockup phase, it was decided to switch to the 1275 hp Allison V-1710-95 engine, and the 20-mm cannon were replaced by 0.50-inch machine guns. The first XP-55 (42-78845) was completed on July 13, 1943. It had essentially the same aerodynamic configuration as did the final CW-24B. It made its first test flight on July 19, 1943 from the Army's Scott Field near the Curtiss-Wright St Louis plant. The pilot was J. Harvey Gray, Curtiss's test pilot. Initial flight testing revealed that the takeoff run was excessively long. In order to solve this problem, the nose elevator was increased in area and the aileron up trim was interconnected with the flaps so that it operated when the flaps were lowered.



On November 15, 1943, test pilot Harvey Gray was flying the first XP-55 (42-78845) through a series of stall tests when the aircraft suddenly flipped over on its back and fell into an uncontrolled, inverted descent. Recovery proved impossible, and the plane fell out of control for 16,000 feet before Gray was able to parachute to safety. The aircraft was destroyed in the ensuing crash. At the time of the crash, the second XP-55 (42-78846) was too far advanced in construction for its configuration to be conveniently modified to incorporate any changes resulting from an analysis of the cause of the loss. The second XP-55 was essentially similar to the first one, apart from a slightly larger nose elevator, a modified elevator tab system, and a change from balance tabs to spring tabs on the ailerons. It flew for the first time on January 9, 1944, but all flight tests were restricted so that the stall zone was carefully avoided until the third XP-55 had been satisfactorily tested. The third XP-55 (42-78847) flew for the first time on April 25, 1944. It was fitted with the designed complement of four machine guns. It incorporated some of the ideas learned from the investigation into the cause of the loss of the first XP-55. It was found that stall characteristics could be improved by adding four-foot wingtip extensions of greater area and by increasing the limits of nose elevator travel. However, the first flight revealed that the increased elevator limits resulted in the pilot being able to hold such a high elevator angle during takeoff that the elevator could actually stall. After modifications, stall tests were performed satisfactorily, although the complete lack of any warning prior to the stall and the excessive loss of altitude necessary to return to level flight after the stall were undesirable characteristics. An artificial stall warning device was introduced to try and correct some of these problems, and between September 16 and October 2, 1944, the second XP-55 (42-78846), which had been modified to the same standards as that of the third aircraft, underwent official USAAF trials. The trials indicated that the XP-55 had satisfactory handling characteristics during level and climbing flight, but at low speeds and during landings there was a tendency on the part of the pilot to overcontrol on the elevators because of a lack of any useful "feel". Stall warning was still insufficient, and stall recovery still involved an excessive loss of altitude. Engine cooling was also a problem. The performance of the XP-55 was not very impressive and was in fact inferior to that of the more conventional fighters already in service. In addition, by 1944, jet-powered fighter aircraft were clearly the wave of the future. Consequently, no production was undertaken, http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p55.html (3 of 5)09-09-2006 10:36:17


and further development was abandoned. The name Ascender had originated as a joke on the part of a Curtiss engineer. The name stuck, and eventually became official. The third prototype (42-78847) survived the testing program, but was destroyed in a crash during an airshow at Wright Field, Ohio on May 27, 1945, killing the pilot. The sole surviving XP-55 (42-78846) was flow to Warner Robins Field in Georgia in May of 1945. It was later taken to Freeman Field to await transfer to the National Air Museum at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. For a long time, its fuselage was on display at the Paul Garber facility in Suitland, Maryland. In December of 2001, the aircraft was sent to the Kalamazoo Aviation History Museum for restoration, which will take two or three years. Specs of the XP-55: One 1275 hp Allison V-1710-95 (F23R) twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled Vee engine. Four 0.50-inch Colt-Browning M2 machine guns with 200 rpg. Maximum speed 390 mph at 19,300 feet, 377.5 mph at 16,900 feet. Normal range was 635 miles at 296 mph. Maximum range was 1440 miles. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 7.1 minutes. Service ceiling was 34,600 feet. Weights were 6354 pounds empty, 7330 pounds normal loaded, and 7939 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 44 feet 0 1/2 inches, length 29 feet 7 inches, height 10 feet 0 3/4 inches, wing area 235 square feet. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes (3rd Edition), Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 3. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,

1964. 4. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979. 5. E-mail from Clarence Wentzel on restoration of XP-55.



6. Enduring Heritage, by Gerald Pahl, Aviation History, May 2004.


Northrop XP-56

Northrop XP-56 Last revised September 6, 1999

The experimental Northrop XP-56 flying wing fighter of 1943 was one of the most unusual fighter aircraft to be evolved by any of the combatants during World War II. Although unsuccessful in attaining production, the XP-56 gained a lot of valuable data on flying wing designs, some of which was ultimately used in the design of the Northrop B-2 Spirit stealth bomber of the 1990s. The founder of Northrop Aircraft Inc. was John Knudsen "Jack" Northrop, who at one time worked for Loughead Aircraft Manufacturing Company (later changed in spelling to Lockheed) as well as for Douglas Aircraft. It is not widely known, but there were actually THREE separate and distinct aircraft companies that carried Jack Northrop's name. The first one of these companies ("Northrop I") had been founded by Jack Northrop in 1927, initially under the name of the Avion Corporation. For the first couple of years as head of the California-based Avion Corp., Jack Northrop spent his time experimenting with ideas for all-metal construction and for flying-wing designs. Unfortunately for the bottom line, nothing actually got built or sold by Avion in the first two years of its existence, and economic reality eventually made itself felt. Lacking sufficient capital to carry on by itself, the Avion Corporation was absorbed in 1929 by the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation, and operated until 1931 as the Northrop Aircraft Corporation, a division of UA&T Corp. During this period, Northrop built the Alpha (a single-engined passenger- and mail-carrying aircraft) and the Beta (a two-seat sports aircraft). In 1931, UA&T consolidated its two subsidiaries--Northrop Aircraft Corp and Stearman Aircraft--into a single unit and moved everything to Wichita, Kansas. Jack Northrop was a dyed-in-the-wool Californian, and found the prospect of facing Kansas winters unpalatable. Consequently, he left UA&T and tried once again to establish another California-based aircraft company. He got together with his old friend and former employer, Donald Douglas, to found the Northrop Corporation ("Northrop II"), with http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p56.html (1 of 5)09-09-2006 10:36:22

Northrop XP-56

Douglas retaining 51 percent of the stock and Jack being named as its president. The main factory was located at El Segundo, California, ensuring that Jack could remain living in the state that he loved. The Northrop Corporation was responsible for the famous Gamma and Delta commercial monoplanes which were so successful during the 1930s. The Northrop Corporation was also responsible for the 3A monoplane fighter of 1935 and for the A-17 attack plane of 1935/36. Northrop was also responsible for the BT-1 attack bomber, which was to evolve into the famous SBD Dauntless of World War II fame. However, the Northrop Corporation began to experience some serious labor strife in the late 1930s. The labor problems eventually got so bad that the Army refused to accept any further deliveries of A-17 attack planes until they were corrected. In an attempt to correct the labor problems, on April 5, 1937, Douglas decided to acquire the rest of the stock of the Northrop Corporation. Continued labor difficulties forced Douglas to dissolve the Northrop Corporation altogether on September 8, 1937. It was immediately reformed under the direct aegis of Douglas, the name of the company changing to the El Segundo Division of Douglas. By 1939, the Northrop Corporation had become just another division of Douglas Aircraft, and Jack Northrop went out on his own for a third time to found yet another Californiabased aircraft company bearing his name, this one named Northrop Aircraft Inc. of Hawthorne, California ("Northrop III"), the forerunner of today's Northrop Corporation, the maker of the B-2 stealth bomber. The Northrop XP-56 was the first USAAF fighter aircraft to be built by "Northrop III". The Northrop XP-56, like the Bell XP-52, the Vultee XP-54, and the Curtiss XP-55, was evolved as a response to Circular Proposal R-40C, which was issued on November 27, 1939. It called for a fighter that would be much more effective than any extant--with a top speed, rate of climb, maneuverability, armament, and pilot visibility, all of which would be far superior to those of any existing fighter. In addition, the fighter was required to have a low initial cost and had to be easy and inexpensive to maintain. The Army specifically mentioned in R-40C that they would consider aircraft with unconventional configurations. The Northrop entry, designated N2B by the company, was nothing if it was not unconventional. It was a unique tailless interceptor made entirely of magnesium. The N2B was a swept-wing tailless flying-wing aircraft with no forward-mounted elevators. Northrop proposed to use the new and untried Pratt & Whitney X-1800-A3G (H-2600) liquid-cooled engine, mounted behind the pilot's cockpit and driving a pair of http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p56.html (2 of 5)09-09-2006 10:36:22

Northrop XP-56

contrarotating pusher propeller. Jack Northrop had actually been thinking about flying wing aircraft as far back as 1929 when he was with the Avion Corporation. In 1939, Northrop had, in fact, built a full-scale flying testbed to explore the possibility of all-wing designs. Designated N1M by the company, the flying testbed was powered by a pair of Lycoming engines driving pusher propellers. The N1M has survived to the present day and is in storage at the Paul Garber facility in Suitland, Maryland. I saw it there in November of 1992. It seems to be in pretty good shape. On June 22, 1940, Northrop Aircraft, Inc. received a contract for preliminary engineering data and a powered wind tunnel model. The designation P-56 was reserved for the project. On September 26th, 1940, a single prototype was ordered as the XP-56. The serial number was 41-786. However, shortly after development of the XP-56 began, Pratt & Whitney abandoned all work on its X-1800 liquid-cooled engine. This left the XP-56 (and the competing XP-54 and XP-55 along with it) out on a limb, without an engine. Northrop's design team reluctantly decided to switch to the less-suitable Pratt & Whitney R-2800 air-cooled radial engine. Although the R-2800 engine was more powerful (2000 hp as opposed to 1800 hp), it was also wider. The larger diameter of the radial engine required in turn that the fuselage be widened in order to accommodate it. These changes resulted in an increase in the weight. The fuselage was stubby and rounded, with an unpressurized cockpit situated well forward. The plane had a short and stubby dorsal fin and a very large ventral fin, so large, in fact, that it very nearly scraped on the ground when the aircraft stood on its landing gear. The cantilever mid-mounted wing had elevons which functioned both as ailerons and wingflaps mounted on the trailing edge of the drooping wing tip. Air ducts for cooling of the radial engine were located on the wing leading edge. The mainwheels retracted into the wing, and the nosewheel retracted into the fuselage. Proposed armament was to be two 20-mm cannon and four 0.50-inch machine guns, all mounted in the nose. On February 13, 1942, a USAAF contract was issued for a second XP-56 prototype. The serial number was 42-38353. The name *Black Bullet* has been attached to the project, but I don't know if this name was official.


Northrop XP-56

The first XP-56 (41-786) was ready in April of 1943. It was shipped out to Muroc Dry Lake (later Edwards AFB) for tests. During initial ground handling trials, it was found that the aircraft tended to yaw sharply and dangerously while taxiing at high speeds. It was thought that this problem was caused by faulty wheel brakes, and trials were halted until the aircraft was re-equipped with manual hydraulic brakes. This delayed the first flight until September 30, 1943, when test pilot John Myers took the XP-56 into the air for the first time. An altitude of five feet was maintained, and the XP-56 appeared to fly normally. Several additional flights were undertaken, during which somewhat greater altitudes were attained. These test flights were not particularly encouraging. Nose-heaviness was a persistent problem, and lateral control was difficult to maintain in all flight regimes. However, before any of these aerodynamic problems could be addressed, the port mainwheel tire blew out during a high-speed taxiing run and the aircraft somersaulted over onto its back. It was totally wrecked. In an attempt to correct the deficiencies encountered with the first XP-56, the second XP56 (42-38353) underwent some major changes. The center of gravity was moved further forward. There was a major increase in the size of the upper vertical surface--it was enlarged from a mere stub into a surface larger in area than the ventral fin. A new form of rudder control was fitted which made use of air bellows at the wing tips which operated a set of split flaps for directional control. The control of the bellows was achieved by valving air to or from the bellows by means of wingtip venturis. On March 23, 1944, test pilot Harry Crosby took the second XP-56 up for the first time. However, Crosby found it impossible to lift the nosewheel off the ground at speeds below 160 mph, and the test flight lasted only a few minutes. The second flight went better, and it was found that the nose heaviness went away after the landing gear was retracted. However, the aircraft was severely underpowered for its weight, and only relatively low speeds could be attained, much less than the projected maximum speed of 465 mph at 25,000 feet. On May 39, 1944, it was decided that NACA would use their wind tunnel at Moffett Field, California to look into the causes of the XP-56s low performance. However, the higher priority of other projects led to postponement of the XP-56 wind tunnel tests until late October of 1944. While awaiting the beginning of the wind tunnel testing, further flight test trials were undertaken with the XP-56. On the tenth test flight, the pilot complained of extreme tail http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p56.html (4 of 5)09-09-2006 10:36:22

Northrop XP-56

heaviness on the ground, low power, and excessive fuel consumption. After consultations, it was concluded that the XP-56 was basically not airworthy , and that it was just too dangerous to continue flight tests with it. Shortly thereafter, the whole project was abandoned. The further development of higher-performance piston-engined fighters was futile in any case, since the advent of jet propulsion would soon bring the era of propellerdriven fighters to a close. Although the XP-56 project was a failure, it was not a total loss for Northrop, since the company had learned a lot about flying wing designs. This data gained during the XP-56 project was put to good use in later Northrop designs such as the XB-35 piston- engined bomber, the YB-49 jet-powered bomber, and the B-2 stealth bomber. Specs of the XP-56: One 2000 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-29 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial engine. Proposed armament was to be two 20-mm cannon and four 0.50-inch machine guns, all mounted in the nose. No armament was, in fact, ever actually fitted. In view of the limited flight testing of the XP-56, the following performance figures are based on manufacturer's estimates and were never achieved during actual tests. Maximum speed 465 mph at 25,000 feet, 417 mph at sea level. Climb rate of 3125 feet per minute at 15,000 feet. Climb to 20,000 feet in 7.2 minutes. Normal range 445 miles at 396 mph. Maximum range 660 miles. Service ceiling 33,000 feet. Weights were 8700 pounds empty, 11,350 pounds normal loaded, and 12,145 pounds maximum. Dimensions (second prototype) were wingspan 42 feet 6 inches, length 27 feet 6 inches, height 11 feet, wing area 306 square feet. The length of the first prototype was 23 feet 6 inches and the height was 9 feet 8 inches. Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 2. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,

1964.


Tucker XP-57

Tucker XP-57 Last revised September 6, 1999

The Tucker XP-57 was a proposal for a lightweight fighter, issued at a time when the trend was toward fighters of increasing weight and complexity. In May of 1940, the Tucker Aviation Company of Detroit, Michigan issued a proposal to the USAAC for the construction of a lightweight fighter. Preliminary drawings showed a small single-seat aircraft built up around a small 720 hp Miller L-510 eight-cylinder inline engine mounted at mid-fuselage behind the pilot and driving a two-bladed propeller by means of an extension shaft. The all-wooden wing was low-mounted, and a retractable tricycle undercarriage was fitted. Loaded weight was estimated to be an amazingly light 3400 pounds. Armament was to consist of three 0.50-inch machine guns or one 0.50-inch and two 20mm cannon, all mounted in the nose. This was amazingly heavy armament for so small an airplane. Tucker had some rather optimistic estimates for the performance of their proposed fighter--they claimed that their airplane would be able to attain a speed of 308 mph and a range of up to 960 miles. The USAAC found the Tucker proposal sufficiently interesting that they decided to order a single prototype under the designation XP-57. However, by February of 1941, before even any construction drawings had been completed, the Tucker company had gotten themselves into some severe financial difficulties, and the XP-57 project stalled. Since the trend was toward fighters of increasing weight and complexity, the XP-57 contract was allowed to lapse, and no prototype was ever completed. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Enlarged Edition, Doubleday, 1982.


Tucker XP-57

2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Lockheed XP-58

Lockheed XP-58 Last revised September 6, 1999

The Lockheed XP-58 is almost a textbook example of what changing requirements, military mismanagement, and vacillating officialdom can do to a promising military aircraft project. The XP-58 started life as a fairly straightforward development of the P-38 Lightning fighter, evolved in stages into an escort fighter, then into an attack plane, then into a bomber, then into a tank buster, and then finally into a bomber destroyer. These incessant changes in requirements, combined with several changes in powerplants, resulted in the XP-58, which started life in 1940, being delayed until nearly the end of the war. In early 1940, the US Army reserved for itself the right to refuse permission for its American military aircraft suppliers to export these aircraft to overseas customers. This was particularly true if the Army felt that the foreign order might possibly result in undue delays in deliveries of these aircraft to its own squadrons. Consequently, when Britain and France wanted to purchase the Model 322 Lightning from Lockheed, the Army was reluctant to give its approval since it had already ordered YP-38 Lightnings for its own use. However, the USAAC finally did grant authorization to export the unturbosupercharged Lightning to Britain and France, but only under the condition that Lockheed agree to develop and produce at no cost to the U.S. government a prototype of an advanced version of the Lightning. The formal agreement was signed on April 12, 1940. This advanced Lightning was given the company designation of L-121, and James Gerschler was named as project engineer. The L-121 was to be powered by a pair of turbosupercharged Continental IV-1430 liquid-cooled engines. It was to be offered in two versions, a single- seater and a two-seater. The single-seat version was to retain the standard P-38 armament of one 20-mm cannon and four 0.50-inch machine guns. The twoseat version was to have an additional armament of a single 0.50-inch machine gun mounted in a remotely-controlled barbette situated at the end of each tail boom. Gross http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p58.html (1 of 5)09-09-2006 10:36:37

Lockheed XP-58

weight was estimated at 16,500 pounds, and the aircraft was expected to attain 450 mph at 25,000 feet. During a meeting at Wright Field in May 1940, it was decided to drop the single-seater and proceed with the two-seat version, which was assigned the designation XP-58. In July 1940, it was concluded that the XP-58 would be underpowered with the Continental engines, and the decision was made to switch to a pair of 1800 hp Pratt & Whitney XH2600-9/11 liquid-cooled engines. The re-engined XP-58 was given the company designation of Model 20-14, and revised specifications were issued by Lockheed on September 10, 1940. A second 20-mm cannon was added to the forward-firing armament. The tail boom guns were deemed to be highly impractical, and were replaced by a single remotely-controlled dorsal turret containing a pair of 0.50-inch machine guns. The serial number 41-2670 was assigned to the prototype. Estimated gross weight had crawled upward to 24,000 pounds, and estimated top speed had fallen to 402 mph. Range on internal fuel was anticipated to be 1600 miles. However, scarcely a month after these revised specifications had been issued, Lockheed's new project engineer, Neil Harrison, was told that Pratt & Whitney was suspending development of the XH-2600 engine. The XP-58 was now without an engine. Attention focused on the XH-2470, the Continental XH-2860, and on the Pratt & Whitney R-2800, as possible choices for the XP-58 powerplants. Lockheed preferred the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 radial engine, and estimated that with these powerplants the XP-58 would have a a loaded weight of 26,000 pounds and a maximum speed of 418 mph at 25,000 feet. However, the USAAC considered this performance to be inadequate, and suggested that Lockheed turn to the experimental Wright XR-2160 Tornado forty-two cylinder, six-row engine offering a power output of 2350 hp. One advantage of this engine was that it had an extremely small frontal area. However, the Tornado engine was highly complex, and its development was fraught with problems from the start. Nevertheless, in March of 1941 the USAAC announced that it was going to go with the Tornado for the XP-58. Two months later, the USAAC issued an change order for the installation of cabin pressurization for the pilot and the aft-facing gunner, and for the addition of a remotelycontrolled ventral turret to supplement the dorsal turret. These changes caused the estimated gross weight to soar upward to 34,242 pounds. Estimated range had dropped to 1300 miles. Nevertheless, the top speed of the Tornado-powered XP-58 was estimated to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p58.html (2 of 5)09-09-2006 10:36:37

Lockheed XP-58

be no less than 450 mph. The XP-58 was scheduled for delivery to the USAAF in August of 1942, and to meet this deadline the project team grew to a peak of 187 people by October of 1941. However, following Pearl Harbor, the XP-58 was assigned a lower priority and most of the engineering staff were moved off to other more pressing projects. By early 1942, the XP58 staff was down to twelve people. In March of 1942, Lockheed suggested that the USAAF order a second XP-58 prototype using Government funds. Since the Tornado engines were already experiencing serious delays and were now not expected to be delivered until the spring of 1943, Lockheed felt that there was sufficient time to redesign the second XP-58 machine in order to provide it with enough fuel capacity to increase the range to 3000 miles. The USAAF agreed to this request and indeed placed the order in May of 1942. However, shortly thereafter, the USAAF began to go through a protracted series of flipflops in their thinking about the ultimate mission for the XP-58. First, the USAAF suggested that the nose-mounted forward-firing armament should be changed to a 75-mm cannon with a 20-round automatic feeder plus a pair of 0.50-inch machine guns. This was an odd choice of armament for an escort fighter, so the USAAF began to think seriously of the XP-58 as a ground attack aircraft. This in turn led to considerations of several different alternative configurations, including a two-seat attack aircraft with six forward-firing 20mm cannon and a three-seat bomber with a bombardier in the nose, an enlarged central nacelle containing an internal bomb bay, and with or without the 75-mm nose cannon. In both the attack and bomber versions, the dorsal and ventral turrets were to be deleted, and unsupercharged engines were to be used. It was soon realized that the last thing the USAAF need was another attack bomber. The Douglas A-26 Invader was already in production, and it more than adequately filled all USAAF attack bomber requirements. The experimental Beech XA-38 Grizzly then under development showed considerable promise as a low-altitude tank buster and ground attack aircraft (this airplane always looked to me like a Beech Model 18 on steroids :-) ). Consequently, the USAAF decided that there was little point in trying to make the XP-58 into a low-level attack plane. The XP-58 program was then re-oriented back to its original role as a high-altitude aircraft. However, this time it was to be bomber destroyer rather than an escort fighter. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p58.html (3 of 5)09-09-2006 10:36:37

Lockheed XP-58

The turbosuperchargers and the dorsal and ventral turrets were put back on. The first prototype was to have four forward-firing 37-mm cannon, whereas the second was to have a 75-mm cannon and two 0.50-inch machine guns. Gross weight was now up to an astronomical 38,275 pounds, and top speed was down to 414 mph at 25,000 feet. Range was only 1150 miles. However, at this stage of the war (late 1942), the enemy bomber threat had largely disappeared, both in the European and in the Pacific theatres. The P-58 was being designed for a role it was unlikely ever to have to perform. By early 1943, the XP-58 program was in utter chaos because of the constantly changing Army requirements. In desperation, Lockheed recommended in January 1943 that only one prototype actually be built, and that it have interchangeable noses that would permit the fitting of either type of forward-firing armament. To make things even worse, the trouble-ridden Tornado engine program finally collapsed in February 1943, leaving the XP-58 without engines once again. Lockheed and the USAAF both agreed to switch to a pair of turbosupercharged Allison V-3420-11/13 twenty-four cylinder liquid-cooled engines, rated at 2600 hp for takeoff and 3000 hp at 28,000 feet. With these Allison engines, the XP-58 (serial number 41-2670) was finally completed in June of 1944, more than four years after its design had begun. Its company designation was now Model 20-86. When the XP-58 rolled out of the factory it was really only halffinished--no cabin pressurization equipment was provided, no forward-firing armament was installed, and dummy dorsal and ventral turrets were fitted in place of the real things. It made its initial flight from Lockheed Air Terminal at Burban on June 6, 1944 (what else happened that day? :-) ), piloted by test pilot Joe Towle. On its first flight, it was ferried to Muroc AAB (later Edwards AFB) Twenty-five flights were made at Muroc prior to the delivery of the XP-58 to Wright Field in Ohio on October 22, 1944. These flights were marred by turbosupercharger problems. Once at Wright Field, the XP-58 quickly became a white elephant--by the end of 1944, the USAAF certainly had no further need for bomber destroyers. Maintenance of the prototype proved to be such a headache that it was very rarely flown. In early 1945, it was transferred for use as a non-flying instructional airframe. I don't know anything about the eventual fate of the XP-58. In all likelihood, it was scrapped. However, perhaps there is http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p58.html (4 of 5)09-09-2006 10:36:37

Lockheed XP-58

the odd chance that bits and pieces of the XP-58 are still sitting today in some forgotten corner of a hanger at WPAFB, waiting for a patient restorer to come along and discover them. The second XP-58 was abandoned before construction could be completed. The XP-58 project, which started off its career as having absolutely no cost to the US government, ended up costing the taxpayer over two million dollars. $400,000 of this money covered the USAAF-requested changes to the first prototype, and the rest of the money covered the government-ordered, but then cancelled, second prototype. Specifications of the XP-58: Performance: Maximum speed: 436 mph at 25,000 feet, cruising speed: 274 mph at 25,000 feet, initial climb rate: 2660 feet per minute, service ceiling: 38,400 feet, normal range: 1250 miles, maximum range: 2650 miles. Weights: 21,624 pounds empty, 39,192 pounds normal loaded, 43,000 pounds maximum. Dimensions: wingspan 70 feet 0 inches, length 49 feet 4 inches, height 16 feet 0 inches, wing area, 600 square feet. Armament was to consist of a quartet of 37-mm cannon with 250 rpg or, alternately, one 75 mm cannon with 20 rounds and two 0.50-inch machine guns with 300 rpg, all mounted in the nose. Two 0.50-inch machine guns were to be fitted in each of two remotely-controlled turrets. It was anticipated that external military loads of up to 4000 pounds could be carried. The XP-58 was, in fact, never fitted with any armament. Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 2. Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987. 3. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,

1964. 4. American Combat Planes, Third Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.


Bell P-59 Airacomet

Bell P-59 Airacomet Last revised June 27, 2002

The Bell XP-59A Airacomet was America's first jet aircraft. For that reason alone, the aircraft is of historic significance. Although it never fired a shot in anger during World War II, it was nevertheless important in that it provided a lot of important data on the care and maintenance of jet aircraft, which proved invaluable when more advanced jet fighters came in to service. The history of the Airacomet is one of the most interesting of any of the aircraft we have encountered so far in this series. For that, we must go back a bit and start with the Bell XP52. The Bell XP-52 was an unorthodox fighter project that arose out of a USAAC competition held in the winter of 1939 for a fighter that would be much more effective than any extant-with a top speed, rate of climb, maneuverability, armament, and pilot visibility, all of which would be far superior to those of any existing fighter. In addition, the fighter was required to have a low initial cost and had to be easy and inexpensive to maintain. The USAAC issued its requirements to the industry in the form of Request for Data R40C. No less than 50 responses came in. Among these was the Model 16, which the Bell company had developed some months earlier. Bell was famous for submitting unconventional designs, and the Model 16 was no exception. It had a round, barrel-shaped fuselage with the pilot seated in the nose and a 1250 hp Continental XIV-1430-5 liquidcooled twelve-cylinder inverted vee engine mounted behind the pilot and driving a pair of contrarotating coaxial propellers operating in pusher fashion. The wing was mounted in mid-fuselage position, and was swept back at an angle of about 20 degrees. Twin booms were mounted about one-third of the way along the wings outboard of the fuselage. The horizontal tailplane at the rear connected the two booms. A tricycle landing gear was to be fitted, with the nosewheel retracting into the fuselage and the mainwheels retracting into the booms. Two 20-mm cannon were to be mounted in the lower fuselage, and three 0.50http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p59.html (1 of 7)09-09-2006 10:36:51

Bell P-59 Airacomet

in machine guns were to be mounted in the front of each of the twin booms. One unusual feature of the Model 16 was the presence of an engine radiator cooing air intake mounted in the extreme nose. Nose-mounted air intakes were features which were later to be seen in jet-powered fighters. By the end of 1940, the Army purchasing commission had chosen six of the submissions for further development. Among them was the Bell Model 16. A single prototype was ordered under the designation XP-52. However this order was canceled on November 25, 1941, before anything could be built. It was replaced by an order for another Bell design, based on the XP-52 but equipped with a more-powerful Pratt & Whitney R-2800-52 aircooled radial engine rated at 2000 hp and driving a pair of three-bladed contrarotating pusher propellers. This aircraft was assigned the designation XP-59 by the US Army. The XP-59 had more-or-less the same unorthodox configuration as that of the XP-52, complete with the unusual nose intake. Estimated maximum speed was 450 mph at 22,000 feet, and service ceiling was to have been 38,000 feet. In the meantime, something happened in England which was to alter radically the fate of the XP-59. In April of 1941, Major-General H. H. Arnold paid a visit to Britain. While there, he was shown the top-secret Gloster E-28/39 jet-powered aircraft, powered by one of Wing Commander Frank Whittle's W2B centrifugal turbojets. Work on jet-powered aircraft was well-advanced in Britain, and similar projects were underway in both Germany and Italy. The USA was clearly behind other major aircraft manufacturing nations in this revolutionary new form of aircraft propulsion. General Arnold was so impressed by the potentiality of this new technology that he immediately asked if American engineers could be given the blueprints of the new jet engine so that they could manufacture it under license in the USA. Since the US government was being so generous with its Lend-Lease aid to Britain, the RAF readily agreed. On September 4, 1941, at a meeting at Wright Field, General Arnold asked the General Electric Corporation of Schenectady, New York to act as the prime American contractor for license production of the British jet engine. General Electric was selected for this work because of the company's extensive experience with turbines for various industrial and aviation applications. Fifteen jet engines were ordered. This work was to be carried out under the utmost secrecy. The very next day, Bell Aircraft of Buffalo, New York was approached and asked if it http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p59.html (2 of 7)09-09-2006 10:36:51

Bell P-59 Airacomet

would build a fighter aircraft powered by the new General Electric jet engines. The choice of Bell as prime contractor for the manufacture of the first American jet fighter is sort of curious. Some have suggested that Bell was chosen because, of all the primary aircraft manufacturers in the USA, it had the least work to do in building aircraft vital for the war effort. Others have suggested that Bell was chosen because of its flair for imaginative design. Still others claim that Bell was chosen by General Arnold for this assignment primarily because of its proximity to the General Electric plant, a primary concern if strict secrecy was to be maintained. Perhaps all of these factors played a role. Bell accepted the assignment, and agreed to build three aircraft. They accepted a deadline to complete the first prototype eight months after signing the contract on September 30, 1941. The serial numbers of the three prototypes were to be 42-108784/108786. In order to provide for strict secrecy, some rather extreme measures were taken. In order to provide a cover, the Bell jet fighter project was assigned the designation XP-59A. This was done in the hope that even if Axis intelligence were to get wind of the XP-59A project, they would mistakenly think that it was just an adaptation of the totally-unrelated XP-59 piston-engined pusher fighter. At this time, Bell engineers were already hard at work on the XP-59 pusher, but work on this project was quietly abandoned in the next couple of months as work on the jet fighter got under way. The XP-59 project was officially cancelled on December 1, 1941. The General Electric jet engine was assigned the cover designation I-A, in the hope that enemy intelligence might mistake it for a new turbosupercharger. So the XP-59A and its jet engines were an early example of a "black" project. Many more such "black" projects were to follow in later years. With the XP-59A project being given the highest priority, work proceeded very rapidly. Since the General Electric jet engines were being designed and built in parallel with the XP-59A, Bell engineers had little or no knowledge about performance data of the engines, so they adopted a fairly conservative design approach. Within two months after the initial order, Bell engineers had submitted a design for a fairly conventional aircraft, with a cantilever, laminar-flow, mid-mounted wing and a fully-retractable tricycle landing gear. The aircraft was fitted with two 1400 lb. st. General Electric I-A jet engines, one mounted on either side of the fuselage under the wing roots. The aircraft had a high tailplane, well out of the way of the turbojet exhausts. It was fitted with a pressurized cockpit, still a http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p59.html (3 of 7)09-09-2006 10:36:51

Bell P-59 Airacomet

rather unusual feature for the time. Access to the cockpit was through a side-hinged canopy. The fuselage was to be built in two sections, the forward section comprising armament bay and cabin, and the rear section being of stressed-skin semi-monocoque construction. All control surfaces were fabric covered and manually-operated, the ailerons being of the pressure-balance type with pressure seals. The aircraft was fitted with aerodynamically-balanced, fabric-covered flaps located inboard of the ailerons. Although the XP-59A was primarily viewed as a test-bed for jet engines, the USAAF also viewed it as a potential combat aircraft, and it was to carry a nose-mounted armament of two 37-mm cannon with 44 rpg. The USAAF approved the initial design, and construction of the three prototypes got underway on January 9, 1942. Without even waiting for the flight of the first XP-59A prototype, the USAAF ordered thirteen service test YP-59As in March of 1942. Serial numbers of the YP-59As were 42108771/108783. These were to be powered by improved versions of the General Electric engine, the I-16 (later designated J-31) rated at 1650 lb. st. each. They were to have rearward-sliding cockpit canopies in place of the hinged canopies of the prototypes. The first XP-59A prototype was ready by the late summer of 1942, and was ferried by rail out to Muroc Dry Lake, California (now Edwards AFB) on September 12, 1942. Once it arrived in California, it was fitted with a dummy propeller attached to its nose, just in case the curious might see it and start asking why this aircraft didn't have a propeller. On October 1, 1942, Bell's test pilot Robert Stanley was undergoing some high-speed taxiing trials with the XP-59A when the aircraft "inadvertently" became airborne for a short time. It made its first official flight the next day, with a USAAF pilot at the controls. This was remarkably rapid progress, the first flight of the prototype taking place only 13 months after the contract had first been awarded. The XP-59A weighted 7320 pounds empty and 12,562 pounds maximum loaded. Wingspan was 45 feet 6 inches, length was 28 feet 2 inches, height was 12 feet 4 inches, and wing area was 386 square feet. As might be expected for such a revolutionary system of aircraft propulsion, there were serious problems right from the start. The jet engines were too heavy in relation to the amount of power they could develop, and their exhaust was so hot that the turbine blades regularly overheated and often broke off with catastrophic results. The maximum speed was 404 mph at 25,000 feet, somewhat below expectations. The engine installation was found to result in an inordinate amount of aerodynamic interference, and the aircraft was http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p59.html (4 of 7)09-09-2006 10:36:51

Bell P-59 Airacomet

subject to severe directional snaking, making it a poor gun platform. Nevertheless, work on the P-59 continued unabated, and remedies were eventually found for its long list of faults. The second XP-59A flew on February 15, 1943 and the third late in April. The first YP-59A reached Muroc in June of 1943, and the USAAF gave the aircraft the name *Airacomet*. The first YP-59A flew in August of 1943. The YP-59A had more powerful 1650 lb. st. General Electric I-16 (J31) turbojets. However, the YP-59A showed little improvement in performance over the XP-59A. Empty weight increased to 7626 pounds, and maximum speed was a disappointing 409 mph at 35,000 feet. Service ceiling was 43,200 feet. The last four YP-59As had a heavier armament--three 0.50-inch machine guns and a single 37-mm cannon, which had been standardized for the production P-59A. The third YP-59A (Ser No 42-22611) was shipped to Britain in exchange for the first production Gloster Meteor I. Upon arrival in England, it was assembled by Gloster at Moreton Vallance, where it was flown for the first time by a Bell test pilot on September 28, 1943. It was assigned the RAF serial number of RJ362/G. It was transferred to the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough on November 5, 1943. It was on the topsecret Jet Flight list (along with the Gloster E.28/39, the De Havilland Vampire, and the Gloster Meteor), but the Airacomet was flown very little because of unserviceability and the lack of spares. The RAF test pilots found the aircraft to be badly underpowered, with an unacceptably-long takeoff run. Like all other early jet-powered fighters, the Airacomet suffered from very poor engine acceleration. In December of 1943, the US Navy got the eighth and ninth YP-59As (42-108778 and 42100779) for use in tests. Some sources list their naval designation as being YF2L-1, which is sort of curious since the F2L designation was also used by a couple of Bell P-39Q Airacobras employed by the Navy as target aircraft. Perhaps this inconsistency was simply a part of the overall program of official deception, in the hope that enemy intelligence would mistakenly think that the jets were simply more naval Airacobras. In any case, the Airacomet was totally unsuited for carrier operations because of the poor view from its cockpit and the poor acceleration of its engines. In addition, the Airacomet suffered from a lack of adequate drag during landing approaches, so that there was a lot of "float" before touchdown when the power was cut. The lack of drag was primarily caused by the absence of dive brakes, which had been deliberately omitted because of the Airacomet's anticipated mediocre performance. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p59.html (5 of 7)09-09-2006 10:36:51

Bell P-59 Airacomet

The last YP-59A had been delivered by the end of June 1944. Shortly before the first flight of the XP-59A, the USAAF had placed an order for one hundred P-59A Airacomets. However, the performance of the YP-59A service test aircraft had proved to be rather disappointing, not even up to the standards of conventional pistonengined fighter aircraft already in service with the USAAF. It was considered rather unlikely that any appreciable improvements in the performance of the P-59 would be soon be forthcoming, and by the early fall of 1943 the Airacomet was no longer considered by the USAAF as being worthy of consideration as an operational combat type. The Airacomet was therefore relegated to the operational training role, and the P-59A order was halved on October 30, 1943. The production P-59A differed very little from the YP-59A. Only the first twenty of the P59A order were actually completed as P-59As. Serials were 44-22609/22628. Most of these P-59As were powered by a pair of 1650 lb. s.t. General Electric J31-GE-3 turbojets, although the last few were powered by uprated 2000 lb. st. J31-GE-5 turbojets. The J31GE-5-powered P-59A had a maximum speed of 413 mph at 30,000 feet and 380 mph at 5000 feet. Range on internal fuel was 240 miles, and range with two 125-Imp. gall. drop tanks was 520 miles. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be reached in 3.2 minutes, and 20,000 feet in 7.4 minutes. Weights were 7950 pounds empty, 10,822 pounds loaded, 12,700 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 45 feet 6 inches, length 38 feet 10 inches, height 12 feet 4 inches, and wing area 385.8 square feet. Armament consisted of one 37-mm cannon and three 0.50-inch machine guns, all mounted in the nose. In addition, two 1000-pound bombs or eight 60-pound rockets could be carried on underwing racks. The twenty-first and remaining twenty-nine Airacomets of the P-59A order were completed as P-59Bs. Serials were 44-22629/22658. They had the uprated J31-GE-5 jets of the later P-59As, but had internal fuel capacity increased by 55 Imp gall. Maximum range was increased to 950 miles. Empty weight of the P-59B was increased to 8165 pounds and normal and maximum loaded weights were 11,049 pounds and 13,700 pounds respectively. The last P-59B was delivered in May of 1945. Most of the P-59s went to the 412th Fighter Group of the Fourth Air Force based at Muroc Dry Lake (later Edwards AFB), where they served in the training role. The Airacomets provided USAAF pilots and ground crews with valuable data about the difficulties and pitfalls involved in converting to jet aircraft. This information proved quite useful when http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p59.html (6 of 7)09-09-2006 10:36:51

Bell P-59 Airacomet

more advanced jet fighters finally became available in quantity. A few P-59s were later modified and used as drone directors or manned target aircraft aircraft with a second cockpit installed forward of the main cockpit. Although the Airacomet never saw service in its originally-intended role as a fighter aircraft, it nevertheless provided the USAAF with valuable orientation experience in the use of jet aircraft and furnished a nucleus of trained jet pilots. The Airacomet was to have one other major impact on aviation history, one that is not generally recognized. Bell engineers undertook some initial work on a single-engined version of the Airacomet, which was designated XP-59B (not to be confused with the P59B). It had a low-mounted wing and was to be powered by a single General Electric I-16 turbojet engine housed in the rear fuselage with an air inlet at the wing roots and an exhaust in the tail. However, the Buffalo plant was so busy with other projects that in late 1942 the USAAF transferred the preliminary drawings of the single-engined XP-59B to Lockheed, where it became the inspiration of the famed P-80 Shooting Star. Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 2. Wings of the Weird and Wonderful, Volume 2, Captain Eric Brown, Airlife, 1985. 3. Warplanes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 4, William Green, 1964. 4. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Enlarged Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 5. United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 6. British Military Aircraft Serials, 1912-1969, Bruce Robertson, Ian Allen, 1969.


Curtiss P-60

Curtiss P-60 Last revised September 6, 1999

The story of the Curtiss P-60 is a rather sad one. This aircraft was a desperate attempt on the part of Curtiss to design a replacement for the venerable P-40. It went through a dizzying series of changes in engines, changes in requirements, and changes in designations, the gyrations of which are difficult to keep straight. Its ultimate failure was a reflection of changing USAAF requirements, but was also a reflection of a company which was beginning to run out of fresh new ideas. The story of the Curtiss P-60 is quite convoluted and rather difficult to follow. Nevertheless, pour yourself a cup of coffee and follow along :-). The convoluted history of the P-60 actually begins back with the Curtiss XP-46. Following the failure of the XP-46 to win any Army production orders, the Curtiss company proposed yet another design in their search for the eventual replacement for the P-40. This was the Curtiss Model 88, which was basically an improved XP-46 powered by the yet-to-be-built 1600-hp Continental XIV-1430-3 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled inverted Vee engine. The Model 88 was to use the fuselage and tail assembly of the P-40D combined with a NACA laminar flow wing. Armament was to have consisted of eight wing-mounted 0.50-inch machine guns. The mainwheel retraction scheme reverted to the sequence used by the original P-40, with the mainwheels rotating 90 degrees before they retracted rearwards into wing wells. Maximum speed was projected to be 430 mph. On October 1, 1940, the USAAC ordered two examples of the Model 88 under the designation XP-53. Serials were 41-140 and 41-19508. However, in a conference held six weeks later, the USAAC informed Curtiss-Wright of its need for a fighter combining laminar flow wing technology with the British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. Since the XP-53 was already being designed for laminar-flow wings, Curtiss proposed to convert the second XP53 airframe (41-19508) to the Merlin engine while it was undergoing construction. This airframe was redesignated Model 90 by the company. The USAAC accepted this idea, and assigned the designation XP-60 to the new aircraft. The XP-60 was to take the 1300-hp http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p60.html (1 of 7)09-09-2006 10:37:14

Curtiss P-60

Packard-built Rolls Royce Merlin V-1650-1 engine as used in the XP-40F then under development. The other XP-53 airframe was to retain the Continental engine. However, while the XP-53 and XP-60 were both undergoing construction, the Army cancelled the XP-53 order because of the excessive delays in the temperamental Continental XIV-1430 engine. The XP-53 never flew. As it turned out, the Continental engine never did enter production, and all of those aircraft projects which had planned for it ultimately failed. In November 1941, the XP-53 airframe was converted into a static test airframe in support of the P-60 project, and its bullet-proof windshield, self-sealing fuel tanks, and armament were scavenged and transferred to the XP-60. During construction of the XP-60 aircraft, it was decided to replace the rearward- retracting P40 style landing gear with a new inward-retracting gear similar to that which had been fitted to the abortive XP-46. Initially, the XP-60 was fitted with a British-built Merlin 28 engine. The Model 90 (XP-60) flew for the first time on September 18, 1941, only eleven days before the first flight of the disappointing XP-46. The performance of the XP-60 was disappointing as well, with a top speed of only 387 mph at 22,000 feet. It took 7.3 minutes to reach an altitude of 15,000 feet, and service ceiling of 29,000 feet. Some of the reason for the disappointing performance was due to the wing surface not being finished to the degree of smoothness required for the laminar flow wing. Another factor was the fact that the Merlin engine did not deliver the guaranteed output. Empty weight was 7008 pounds, gross weight was 9277 pounds, and maximum takeoff weight was 9700 pounds. Dimensions were wingspan 45 feet 5 1/4 inches, length 33 feet 7 1/2 inches, height 12 feet 4 inches, and wing area 275 square feet. On two occasions, the XP-60 had suffered damage as the result of undercarriage failures. During the test flights, it was found necessary to enlarge the vertical and make some minor modifications. These resulted in a change in company designation to Model 90A. The XP-60 (41-19508) was modified in August of 1942 with the installation of a Packard Merlin V-1650-3 (license-built Merlin 61) of 1350 hp with a two stage supercharger. A fourbladed propeller was fitted. The aircraft was redesignated XP-60D by the Army and Model 90B by the factory. By the time that the changes were made, the intervening Army designations B and C had been assigned to other improved versions of the XP-60. The XP60D (41-19508) was destroyed in a crash on May 6, 1943. In late 1941, concern was expressed that the license-built Merlin engine would be in such great demand for other aircraft that there would likely be engine shortages which would delay http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p60.html (2 of 7)09-09-2006 10:37:14

Curtiss P-60

the P-60 program. Consequently, consideration was given to alternative powerplants for the P-60. The liquid-cooled Allison V-1710 engine was selected on the basis of reliability and availability. On October 21, 1941, a contract for 1950 P-60As was approved. The turbosupercharged Allison V-1710-75 liquid-cooled engine offering 1425 hp at 25,000 feet was specified as the powerplant. However, on November 17, 1941, it was concluded that the P-60A would be underpowered if the Allison engine were used, and that either a more powerful engine should be found or else another fighter be built instead of the P-60A. Following Pearl Harbor, officials had second thoughts about the desirability of interrupting P40 production at such a critical point by the introduction of a completely new type. On December 20, 1941, work on the P-60A project was ordered halted, and on January 2, 1942, the production order for the 1950 P-60A fighters was officially cancelled in favor of more P40Ks and Ls plus some Curtiss-built P-47G Thunderbolts. However, the P-60 program was not to be scrubbed completely. The Army decided that three experimental P-60s should be built--one XP-60A, one XP-60B, and one XP-60C. The XP60A (serial number 42-79423) was to have the Allison V-1701-75 engine and a General Electric B-14 turbosupercharger. The XP-60B (serial number 42-79425) was to be similarly powered, but was to use the Wright SU-504-2 turbosupercharger. The XP-60C (serial number 42-79424) was to use the experimental Chrysler XIV-2220 sixteen-cylinder engine. Normally, a switch in engines was considered by the Army as calling for change of model number as well, but such was not the case here. The first of these new experimental P-60 aircraft was the XP-60A. The Allison-powered XP60A could be considered as an adaptation of the XP-60 wing to a new fuselage and a new powerplant, in much the same spirit as the XP-60 could be regarded as a P-40D with a new wing. The XP-60A was given the company designation of Model 95A (Model 95 having been a design study which had been discontinued). Nose and fuselage contours of the XP60A (serial no 42-79423) were extensively revised to accommodate the Allison engine, and armament was reduced to six 0.50-inch guns in the wings. A four-bladed propeller was fitted. The XP-60A made its initial ground taxiing tests in late October of 1942. However, during one of these tests, a minor fire occurred in the engine due to the lack of cooling air in the shrouds surrounding the exhaust manifold. The turbosupercharger and long exhaust manifold were therefore removed from the aircraft, and short exhaust stacks were substituted. The XP60A (42-79423) flew for the first time in this form on November 11, 1942. Empty weight was 7806 pounds, gross weight was 9616 pounds, and maximum takeoff weight was 10,160 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p60.html (3 of 7)09-09-2006 10:37:14

Curtiss P-60

pounds. Dimensions were wingspan 41 feet 3 3/4 inches, length 33 feet 7 1/2 inches, height 12 feet 4 inches, and wing area 275 square feet. Estimated maximum speed (never achieved in tests) was 420 mph at 29,000 feet and 324 mph at sea level. It was estimated that an altitude of 15,000 feet could be attained in 6.5 minutes. Service ceiling was 35,200 feet. The maximum speed (especially at low altitudes) and the initial climb rate were rather disappointing. The XP-60A aircraft was soon dismantled and some of its parts were used in the later XP-60C and XP-60E. The poor performance of the XP-60A had caused official interest in the P-60 fighter to sour, the project being in serious danger of being cancelled outright. However, Curtiss-Wright proposed to the Army that the XP-60C prototype then under construction be fitted with the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 radial air-cooled engine driving a pair of three-bladed contrarotating propellers. The substantial improvement in performance that this modification promised to provide aroused sufficient interest that in November 1942 the Army issued a letter contract for the production of five hundred R-2800-powered production P-60A-1-CU fighters. The first 26 aircraft on this production contract, Army serials 43-32762/32787, were to be delivered as service test models designated YP-60A. The XP-60C (Model 95C, Army serial number 42-79424) was originally to have had an airframe similar to that of the XP-60A and XP-60B, but fitted with the new and experimental 2300 hp Chrysler XIV-2220 engine. Since this engine was experiencing development difficulties, an order was given in September 1942 to complete this aircraft with a 2000-hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-53 engine driving a a pair of three-bladed contrarotating propellers. Armament was reduced to four 0.50-inch machine guns. First flight of the XP-60C was on January 27, 1943. Apart from somewhat high elevator and rudder forces, the aircraft's flight characteristics were generally satisfactory. The single XP-60B (Model 95B, Army serial number 42-79425) was to have been similar to the XP-60A but with a Wright instead of a General Electric supercharger for the V-1710-75 engine. The aircraft was never completed in this configuration. On December 2, 1942, the Army ordered that it be fitted with a Pratt & Whitney R-2800-10 radial engine in place of the original V-1710. Unlike the XP-60C, a single-rotation four-bladed propeller was to be used. In this form, the aircraft was redesignated XP-60E. Owing to the lighter propeller installation of the XP-60E as compared to that of the XP-60C, it was found necessary to move the R2800 engine forward by ten inches. Owing to a fault experienced during the initial ground running tests which necessitated a change of engines, the first flight of the XP-60E did not take place until May 26, 1943.


Curtiss P-60

During the latter part of April 1943, the USAAF decided to undertake a series of comparative tests at Patterson Field with various fighter types in an attempt to weed out the least desirable types so that it could concentrate on the best types. Curtiss-Wright was notified by the Army that the XP-60E would have to be delivered for tests within four days. Since the XP-60E had not yet made its first flight, Curtiss-Wright decided to substitute the XP-60C in its place. The XP-60C was hastily reassembled and delivered to Patterson Field. During trials with the XP-60C at Patterson Field, it proved impossible to obtain full rated power. In addition, the experimental wing finish had peeled off from the leading edge of the wing, destroying the smooth laminar-flow characteristics and resulting in a further loss of speed. Consequently, the XP-60C made a very poor impression on the Army, being in fact inferior to the Republic P-47D and the North American P-51B. The P-60 series was henceforth eliminated from any further consideration for production. In June 1943 the Army contract for the P-60A-1-CU was reduced from 500 to just two aircraft. The XP-60C was powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-2800-53 engine delivering 2000 hp. Empty weight was 8698 pounds, gross weight was 10,785 pounds, and maximum takeoff weight was 11,835 pounds. Dimensions were wingspan 41 feet 3 3/4 inches, length 34 feet 1 inches, height 12 feet 4 inches, and wing area 275 square feet. Maximum speed was 414 mph at 20,350, 324 mph at sea level. An altitude of 30,000 feet could be attained in 6 minutes, and initial climb rate was 3890 feet per minute. Service ceiling was 37,900 feet. Normal range was 315 miles. Armament consisted of four 0.50-inch machine guns with 300 rpg mounted in the wings. Following the return of the XP-60C to Curtiss-Wright, some further tests were undertaken, but a forced landing terminated all testing work with this aircraft. By this time, there was essentially no chance for the P-60, since the P-47 and P-51 seemed to satisfy all the Army's needs for fighters. Nevertheless, the Army agreed to test the delayed XP-60E which had missed out on the May 1943 trials at Patterson Field. In January 1944, the XP-60E (Model 95D) was flown to Elgin Field for official tests. The engine was a Pratt & Whitney R2800-10 eighteen-cylinder radial offering 2000 hp. Empty weight was 8285 pounds, gross weight was 10,320 pounds, and maximum takeoff weight was 11,520 pounds. Dimensions were wingspan 41 feet 3 3/4 inches, length 33 feet 11 inches, height 12 feet 6 inches, and wing area 275 square feet. Maximum speed was 410 mph at 20,200, 391 mph at 24,200 feet, and 405 mph at 15,000 feet. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be attained in 4.8 minutes. Service ceiling was 38,000 feet. Normal range was 315 miles. Armament consisted of four 0.50-inch machine guns with 250 rpg mounted in the wings. USAAF test pilots found that the XP-60E did not compare very favorably in level flight performance with later http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p60.html (5 of 7)09-09-2006 10:37:14

Curtiss P-60

fighters, but it did match them in climbing rate. The aircraft was sensitive to slight changes in flight condition and had to be constantly retrimmed. Stability in level flight was poor and the climing speed was difficult to maintain. In May of 1944, Curtiss-Wright finally recognized that the P-60 was a lost cause, and indicated to the Army that they wanted to discontinue all further work on the project. However, the USAAF insisted that the company follow through on its agreement and complete at least one of the two YP-60A aircraft still under construction under the revised P60A-1-CU contract. These aircraft had been redesignated YP-60E owing to the number of design modifications incorporated that were related to the XP-60E. One of the YP-60As was to see the light of day as a YP-60E. This was the second YP-60A, serialled 43-32763. It flew for the first time on July 15, 1944, powered by a 2100 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-18 eighteen-cylinder radial engine driving a single four-bladed propeller. It differed from previous P-60s in having a bubble canopy over the cockpit and revised fuselage and vertical tail shapes, so that it ended up looking a lot like a P-47D-25 Thunderbolt. Empty weight of the YP-60E was 8225 pounds, gross weight was 10,270 pounds, and maximum takeoff weight was 11,520 pounds. Dimensions were wingspan 41 feet 3 3/4 inches, length 33 feet 11 inches, height 12 feet 6 inches, and wing area 275 square feet. Estimated maximum speed was 405 mph at 24,500. Initial climb rate was estimated at 4200 feet per minute. Service ceiling was 34,000 feet. Armament consisted of six 0.50-inch machine guns with 267 rpg mounted in the wings. Only two test flights of the YP-60E were undertaken by Curtiss-Wright before the aircraft was transferred to Wright Field. By this time, the Army had absolutely no need for the P-60, and no further trials were undertaken. The YP-60E was eventually disposed of as surplus after the war. It was purchased by James DeSanto and was entered in the 1947 National Air Races with Race No. 80 and civil registration NX21979, but crashed on a qualifying flight. Here is a brief summary of serial numbers, which may help to make the history of the P-60 a bit less confusing :-) 41-140 41-19508 42-79423 42-79424 42-79425 43-32762/32787 cancelled.

Curtiss Curtiss Curtiss Curtiss Curtiss Curtiss

XP-53 - cancelled before construction XP-53 ---> XP-60 ---> XP-60D XP-60A XP-60C XP-60B --> XP-60E YP-60A 32763 to YP-60E, rest


Curtiss P-60

43-32789/33262

Curtiss P-60A-1-CU - all cancelled June 1943.

Sources: 1. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979. 2. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,

Doubleday, 1964. 3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 4. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Enlarged Edition, Doubleday, 1982.


Northrop P-61 Black Widow

Northrop P-61 Black Widow Last revised September 11, 1999

Northrop XP-61/YP-61 Black Widow Northrop P-61A Black Widow Northrop P-61B Black Widow Northrop P-61C Black Widow Northrop XP-61D Black Widow Northrop XP-61E Black Widow Northrop F-15A Reporter Northrop F2T-1 for US Navy Wartime Service of Northrop P-61 Black Widow Postwar Service of Northrop P-61 Black Widow


Curtiss XP-62


In January of 1941, the Army issued a requirement for a heavily-armed, high-performance interceptor fighter. The fighter was to be built around the 2300 hp Wright R-3350-17 "Duplex Cyclone" twin-row, eighteen-cylinder air cooled radial engine. This was the heaviest engine yet to be mounted in a fighter, and was the same engine that was to power the B-29 bomber, then under development. Built-in armament was to comprise no less than EIGHT 20-mm cannon or TWELVE 0.5-inch machine guns. Guaranteed maximum speed was to be 468 mph at 27,000 feet. Curtiss's proposal was submitted to the Army on April 29, 1941. Their design was a cantilever low-wing monoplane with retractable main landing gear and tailwheel. The Wright R-3350 engine was to drive a pair of contrarotating three-bladed propellers. Since the aircraft was intended for high altitude operation, the engine was to be fitted with a turbosupercharger and the aircraft was to be equipped with a pressurized cabin. The pressurized cabin feature was a design first for a new single-seat fighter, the earlier Lockheed XP-38A being an adaptation of an existing design. On June 27, 1941, the Army ordered two prototypes, one under the designation XP-62 and the other under the designation XP-62A. The XP-62 prototype was to be delivered within fifteen months, and the XP-62 was to be delivered three months later. On August 2, 1941, some changes in specifications were submitted for approval. The principal changes were a reduction in maximum speed to 448 mph and an increase of 1537 pounds in loaded weight. A mock-up inspection took place in December, and ninety changes were recommended. The status of the XP-62 project was reviewed on January 1, 1942, and it was recommended that the loaded weight be reduced from 15,568 pounds to 14,000 pounds by revising the structure, by removing four of the eight cannon, and by eliminating the propeller anti-icing equipment.


Curtiss XP-62

Proposals were submitted on January 13, 1942 for 100 production P-62 fighters, the first of which was to be delivered in May of 1943. A letter contract for 100 P-62s was approved on May 25, 1942. However, the contract was terminated by the Army on July 27, 1942 since it was feared that production of the new P-62 would have adversely affected deliveries of critically-needed Curtiss-built P-47G Thunderbolts. Even though no production of the P-62 was envisaged, work on the XP-62 continued. The pressure cabin proved to be a problem, and delays in its delivery caused the first flight to the XP-62 to be pushed back. Eventually, it was decided that the first flight testing of the XP-62 should take place without the pressurized cabin being fitted. The first flight of the XP-62 (serial number 41-35873) took place on July 21, 1943. The portion of the contract covering the XP-62A was cancelled on September 21, 1943. A limited amount of flight testing had been conducted with the XP-62 by February 1944 when it was decided to install the pressure cabin for general development work. However, by this time the XP-62 project had a very low priority and work proceeded very slowly. In the fall of 1944, the XP-62 was finally scrapped without any further flight testing. Specification of Curtiss XP-62: Powerplant: One 2300 hp Wright R-3350-17 "Duplex Cyclone" twin-row, eighteencylinder air cooled radial engine. Performance: The following performance figures are manufacturer's estimates, since only limited flight testing of the XP-62 took place. Maximum speed: 448 mph at 27,000 feet, 358 mph at 5000 feet. Normal range: 900 miles. Maximum range: 1500 miles. Climb to 15,000 feet in 6.9 minutes. Service ceiling: 35,700 feet. The weights of the XP-62 were 11,773 pounds empty, 14,660 pounds normal loaded, and 16,651 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 53 feet 7 3/4 inches, length 39 feet 6 inches, height 16 feet 3 inches, and wing area 420 square feet. Sources: 1. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 4, William Green,

Doubleday, 1964. 2. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1987. 3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.


Curtiss XP-62


Bell P-63 Kingcobra

Bell P-63 Kingcobra Last revised September 18, 1999

Bell XP-63 Kingcobra Bell XP-63A Kingcobra Bell P-63A Kingcobra Bell P-63B Kingcobra Bell P-63C Kingcobra Bell P-63D Kingcobra Bell P-63E Kingcobra Bell P-63F Kingcobra Bell RP-63A/C "Pinball" Bell RP-63G Kingcobra Swept-wing L-39 Bell TP-63 Kingcobra Vee-Tailed P-63 Bell XP-63H Kingcobra Air Racing P-63s P-63s in the Soviet Union French P-63s


North American P-64

North American P-64 Last revised August 13, 2001

The North American NA-16 basic training monoplane of 1935 was the ancestor of a whole series of military trainers, culminating in the fabulously successful AT-6 Texan of World War 2 fame. Less well-known is the fact that there was a single-seat fighter aircraft based on this design which actually served for a brief period of time with the USAAF. The series of single-seat fighters based on the NA-16 trainer were originally developed by North American Aviation for export to the air forces of smaller nations which required relatively simple and inexpensive aircraft but which also wanted aircraft with such advanced features as enclosed cockpits and retractable undercarriages. To meet this need, North American evolved the single-seat NA-50A, a single-seat fighter adaptation of the company's two-seat NA-26 advanced trainer, the first development of the NA-16 which featured a retractable undercarriage. The philosophy used by North American was moreor-less the same as that used much later by Northrop in the F-5 fighter which was based on the T-38A Talon two-seat trainer. The NA-50A was powered by an 870 hp Wright R-1820-77 Cyclone nine-cylinder aircooled radial engine driving a three-bladed propeller. The NA-50A was armed with a pair of 0.30-inch machine guns. Maximum speed was 295 mph at 9500 feet, range was 645 miles, and service ceiling was 32,000 feet. The only customer for the NA-50A was the Peruvian Air Force. Seven examples were delivered to Peru in 1938-1939. The Peruvians fitted racks underneath the fuselage for light bombs. During the brief war between Peru and Ecuador in 1941, the Peruvian NA50As actually flew a number of operational sorties, two examples being lost in action. On December 30, 1939, Thailand ordered six examples of a design basically similar to the NA-50A. Designated NA-68 by the company, these planes differed from the NA-50A in having redesigned tail surfaces with a more angular rudder and a modified undercarriage. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p64.html (1 of 3)09-09-2006 10:37:40

North American P-64

It had heavier armament, consisting of a pair of 0.30-inch machine guns in the wings and two 20-mm cannon in underwing gondolas. The engine was the same as that of the NA50A, namely a Wright R-1820-77 Cyclone. The increased weight caused the performance to suffer--maximum speed was only 270 mph at 8700 feet, normal range was 635 miles, and service ceiling was 27,500 feet. Weights were 4660 pounds empty, 5990 pounds normal loaded, and 6800 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 37 feet 3 inches, length 27 feet 0 inches, height 19 feet 8 inches, and wing area 227.5 square feet. The six NA-68s were on their way to Thailand via ship when Japan invaded that country. The ship was detained at Hawaii by the U.S. government and the six NA-68s were seized to prevent them from falling into enemy hands. They were requisitioned by the Army and assigned the designation P-64. The serials assigned were 41-19082/19087. The P-64s were obviously not suited for front-line combat duty, and when they were returned to the USA they had their cannon armament removed and were assigned to advanced fighter training schools at Luke Field in Arizona. While the P-64s were serving with the Army as advanced fighter trainers, the Thai national insignia were replaced with USAAC insignia, but the planes kept their original Thai camouflage paint job. The P-64s rounded out their brief service lives as liaison aircraft aircraft with Trainer Command. In 1943, surviving P-64s were redesignated RP-64, where the R stood for "Restricted", meaning that they were to be excluded from combat duties. Most of the P-64s were eventually scrapped, but one survives today in the collection of the Experimental Aircraft Association of Oskosh, Wisconsin. It is 41-19085, which bore civilian registrations of NX37498, XB-KUU and N68622 during its postwar years. It is interesting to compare the P-64 to the Commonwealth CA-12 Boomerang of Australia, which was a fighter adaptation of the Wirraway trainer (license-built North American NA-33). Sources: 1. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 4, William Green,

Doubleday, 1964. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987


North American P-64

E-mail from Michael Pearson on surviving 41-19085.


Grumman XP-65

Grumman XP-65 Last revised September 18, 1999

The Grumman XP-65 was to have been the Army equivalent of the Navy's Grumman F7F Tigercat twin-engined carrier-based fighter. You may recall the Grumman XP-50, which was the Army version of the Navy's XF5F Skyrocket experimental carrier-based twin-engined fighter. The Army had ordered a single XP-50 prototype from Grumman as insurance against the failure of the Lockheed XP-49 high-altitude interceptor. Test flights revealed that the XP-50 had a good performance, but the sole prototype was destroyed on May 14, 1941 after the pilot was forced to bale out after an inflight turbosupercharger explosion. Work on the XP-50 was abandoned shortly thereafter. Following the loss of the sole XP-50, Grumman succeeded in interesting the Army in a different proposal, named Design 46 by the company. Design 46 called for a somewhat larger twin-engined fighter powered by a pair of supercharged 1700-hp Wright R-2600 radials. Work had actually began on Design 46 in October of 1939, nearly two years before the loss of the XP-50. This initial work led to the company's Design 49, which was an export version proposed in February 1940 and to Design 51, a naval fighter adaptation which was submitted on March 24, 1941. The Grumman proposals attracted enough attention that both the Army and the Navy decided to pursue the development of similar Grumman-designed twin-engined fighters. They were to be essentially the same aircraft, but the Army version was to have turbosupercharged engines and the Navy version was to have mechanically- supercharged engines. Both versions were to have been armed with four 0.50-in machine guns, but the Army version was to have had an additional pair of 37-mm cannon and the Navy version was to have had a additional quartet of 20-mm cannon. In addition, the Army version was to have a pressurized cockpit.


Grumman XP-65

The Army ordered two prototypes of the Grumman-designed twin-engined fighter under the designation XP-65 on June 16, 1941. The Navy ordered two prototypes under the designation XF7F-1 two weeks later. However, both services eventually concluded that a single design would not actually be able to satisfy their individual requirements, and on January 16, 1942 the Army decided to back out of the project in order to permit Grumman to optimize their design to meet naval requirements. The XP-65 was destined to be Grumman's last fighter submission to the USAAF. Thereafter, all of Grumman's fighter designs were submitted to the Navy. Estimated performance of the XP-65 included a top speed of 427 mph at 25,000 feet, a service ceiling of 42,000 feet, and a normal range of 825 miles. Weights were to be 15,943 pounds empty and 21,425 pounds loaded. Sources: 1. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 4, William Green,

Doubleday, 1964. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987 3. Grumman Aircraft Since 1929, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1989.


Vultee P-66

Vultee P-66 Last revised September 18, 1999

The Vultee Model 48 was an company-originated design evolved during the late 1930s by Richard Palmer, chief designer of the Vultee Aircraft Division of the Aviation Manufacturing Corporation. The aircraft was intended for the export market, and was pattered after the H-1B racer which Palmer had designed for Howard Hughes. The Hughes H-1B achieved the distinction of setting a world landplane speed record of 352.388 mph in 1935. In late 1938, Palmer and his team were busily working on their Model 48 project when the US Army announced a design competition for an advanced trainer. Since a substantial Army order was anticipated for the winner of the competition, the Vultee Aircraft Division decided to enter the contest. Palmer's team came up with the idea of using the work already done on the Model 48 as a basis for Vultee's trainer proposal. Eventually, the Vultee team evolved four separate and distinct aircraft designed to fulfill different military roles from this one basic design. The four designs used the same basic tooling and featured the same wings, the same aft fuselage, and the same tail assembly. Other details differed according to the roles assigned to the individual aircraft. The four types carried the company designations BC-51, B-54, B-54D and P-48. The BC-51 was the designation given to the basic combat trainer which was eventually entered by Vultee in the USAAC competition. However, the BC-51 lost out to the North American BC-2 in the trainer contest. Nevertheless, the Army bought the sole Vultee BC51 under the Army designation BC-3. The B-54 was an advanced trainer design intended for export and the B-54A was a basic trainer version. The B-54A eventually evolved into the famous BT-13 Valiant. The P-48 was the fighter version. The designation "P-48" was a company designation, not http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p66.html (1 of 5)09-09-2006 10:37:51

Vultee P-66

to be confused with the USAAF's P-for-pursuit designation scheme. Vultee put work on the P-48 on the back burner while they concentrated on the three trainer versions. The P-48, BC-51, and B-54 had the same fuselage center section and a retractable undercarriage, and the BC-51, B-54, and B-54D had the same wing outer panels which had a greater span but the same wingtip and root chord as those of the P-48. After the three trainers had been produced in 1939, Vultee returned to work on their original P-48 design. The P-48 featured a steel-tube semi-monocoque fuselage, a two-spar wing, and a fully-retractable undercarriage. It featured hydraulically-actuated split flaps. The aircraft was all metal-covered, with the exception of the control surfaces. The P-48's detachable outer wing panels shortened its wing span by six feet in comparison to the wings of the trainers. At one time, an armament of no less than TEN 0.30-inch machine guns was envisaged, with two of the guns firing rearwards aimed by mirrors. However, this idea was abandoned during development and a more conventional layout of two 0.30in guns in the cowling and four wing-mounted 0.30-in guns was adopted. The P-48 aircraft was to have been powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S4C4-G aircooled radial engine rated at 1200 hp for takeoff and 900 hp at 15,400 feet. According to the initial plan, the engine was to be enclosed in an orthodox cowling similar to that fitted to the Curtiss P-36. However, during construction it was decided to switch to an unorthodox long and pointed cowling on order to reduce aerodynamic drag. In order to accommodate the long and pointed cowling, the engine was fitted with a lengthened drive shaft. Engine cooling was provided by a retractable air intake fitted beneath the nose immediately behind the propeller spinner. The nose of the P-48 looked a lot like the nose of the abortive Curtiss XP-42. The Model P-48 was given the civil designation NX21755, and was flown for the first time in September of 1939 by test pilot Vance Breese. The name *Vanguard* was chosen. Unfortunately, the Model P-48 ran into the same sort of engine cooling problems that bedeviled the Curtiss XP-42. After a few flights with the initial cowling configuration, the variable air intake underneath the nose was fixed in the open position and another scoop was added above the cowling. At the same time, the rudder area was increased. Only limited flight testing had been completed when, on May 9, 1940, the Model P-48 Vanguard was damaged in a mid-air collision with Paul Mantz's Lockheed Sirius during a landing at Vultee Field. The impact severed one of the undercarriage legs, but test pilot Vance Breese succeeding in landing the Vanguard with little additional damage. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p66.html (2 of 5)09-09-2006 10:37:51

Vultee P-66

The production version of the Model P-48 was to have been designated Model 61, but by the time of the P-48's landing accident it had already been decided to give up on the pointed-nose for the Vanguard, since the drag reduction that it provided was insufficient to justify the increased weight and the cooling problems that it caused. Consequently, the second prototype Vanguard, the Model 48X (NX19999), reverted to the orthodox radial engine cowling that had originally been planned. The Model 48X made its first flight on February 11, 1940. The second prototype also differed from the first in having a compound wing dihedral with a break in the middle. The damaged first prototype was rebuilt with the originally-planned orthodox radial cowling, a modified main undercarriage, and a rearward-retracting tailwheel. Provisions were made for twin guns in the upper fuselage decking and two wing guns. Some instability was encountered by the Model 48X during flight testing, and substantial increases were made in the areas of both the vertical and the horizontal tail surfaces. The maximum speed was 358 mph at 15,600 feet. Initial climb rate was 3300 feet per minute. Service ceiling was 34,300 feet, and normal range was 738 miles. Weights were 4657 pounds empty and 6029 pounds gross. Dimensions were wingspan 36 feet 0 inches, length 29 feet 2 inches, height 9 feet 5 inches, wing area 197 square feet. On February 6, 1940, Vultee received an order from Sweden for 144 Vanguards, the production version being given the company designation Model 48C. The Flygvapen designation for the aircraft was J10. The first production prototype bore the civilian serial number NX28300 and flew for the first time on September 6, 1940. It was essentially similar to the Model 48X, but had an R-1830-S3C4-G (R-1830-33) engine rated at 1200 hp for takeoff and 1050 hp at 13,100 feet. Armament consisted of four 0.30-in machine guns in the wings and two 0.50-in machine guns in the fuselage. The military equipment added to the Model 48C caused the weight to go up-- weights were 5237 pounds empty, 7100 pounds gross, and 7384 pounds maximum. The extra weight caused the performance of the Model 48C to degrade in comparison with that of the Model 48X. The maximum speed was 340 mph at 15,100 feet. Initial climb rate was 2520 feet per minute, and an altitude of 19,680 feet could be attained in 9.2 minutes. Service ceiling was 28,200 feet, and normal range was 850 miles. Weights were 4657 pounds empty and 6029 pounds gross. Dimensions were wingspan 36 feet 0 inches, length 28 feet 4 inches, height 9 feet 5 inches, wing area 197 square feet. Before any production aircraft could be delivered to their Swedish customer, the US http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p66.html (3 of 5)09-09-2006 10:37:51

Vultee P-66

government placed an embargo on the export of military aircraft to Sweden, fearing that they might fall into Axis hands. Although the British had earlier rejected the Vultee fighter for their own use, they agreed to take over 100 of these aircraft under Lend-Lease as Vanguard Is. RAF serials BW208 through BW307 were assigned to these aircraft. The Vanguard I was considered as being unsuitable for combat use by the RAF, but it was considered appropriate for advanced training use by units based in Canada. In early 1941, Chiang Kai-Shek's Nationalist Chinese forces were being hard-pressed by Japanese air attacks, and were in desperate need of more combat aircraft. So dire was their need that they were willing to accept just about anything that had wings. On May 19, 1941, the British government agreed to release its Vanguards for supply to Chiang KaiShek's Nationalist Chinese forces. The 144 Vanguards were given the USAAC designation P-66 and were assigned the serial numbers 42-6832 thru 42-6975. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, there was complete panic on the west coast of the USA. The Japanese fleet was expected to show up off Santa Barbara at any moment. In anticipation of a Japanese attack, some forty to fifty P-66s originally intended for China were hastily impressed into USAAC service and issued to the 14th Pursuit Group for use in the emergency defense of southern California. The pilots of the 14th Pursuit Group actually liked their P-66s, and they described the P-66 as being a very good aerobatic aircraft. Test pilot Gil Clark thought that it was the best aircraft he had ever flown, being much better than the Curtiss P-36. However, the cockpit layout was rather poor, and the aircraft was not sufficiently robust for a fighter. In addition the P-66 had an disconcerting tendency to ground-loop, some 15 examples being lost to this sort of accident. Eventually, the US west coast was regarded as being sufficiently secure that the Vanguards were eventually released from USAAC service and allowed to be transferred to China. The first shipment of P-66s left for China in February of 1942, the last aircraft being delivered by August. They went first to Karachi (at that time in India) where they were assembled, tested, and ferried to China. The combat record of the Vanguard in China is rather undistinguished. The actual number of Vanguards which actually reached China is uncertain. Several were lost during tests in India and others were lost while enroute to China. Others remained unairworthy at Karachi. About twelve Vanguards were on station at Kunming with the 7th Fighter Squadron of the 23rd Fighter Group, but they saw little use. Two Chinese squadrons based http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p66.html (4 of 5)09-09-2006 10:37:51

Vultee P-66

at An-Su saw combat action with the Vanguard from August 1943 onward. Many Vanguards were destroyed on the ground during Japanese attacks. The Vanguard had an unfortunate resemblance to the Japanese Nakajima Ki-43 *Oscar* and Nakajima Ki-44 *Tojo*, and several Vanguards were shot down by Chinese forces by mistake. Some Vanguards were placed in caves for storage at Chungking for use in the upcoming civil war against Mao's Communists. Many were reported still in their crates as late as 1947. I am uncertain if they actually saw any service during the civil war. It is possible that there are some Vanguards in China STILL sitting in their crates in pristine condition. Would be an astounding discovery if this were actually the case! Sources: 1. General Dynamics Aircraft and Their Predecessors, John Wegg, Naval Institute

Press, 1990. 2. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 4, William Green,

Doubleday, 1964. 3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987


McDonnell XP-67

McDonnell XP-67 Last revised September 18, 1999

The McDonnell Aircraft Corporation of St Louis, Missouri was incorporated on July 6, 1939. McDonnell was certainly not a company to start small--as its first military project, the company immediately began a design study for a long range fighter. A rather ambitious first project for such a new aircraft corporation! In June of 1940, the new McDonnell company submitted an unsolicited proposal to the USAAC for an unconventional fighter powered by either an Allison V-3420-B2 or a Pratt & Whitney H-3130 engine equipped with a two-stage supercharger. The engine was to be buried in the fuselage aft of the pilot. The engine was to drive a pair of pusher propellers situated aft of the wings by means of a complicated system of extension shafts and gear drives. Although the USAAC rejected the proposal because of excessive weight and complexity, the Army was sufficiently impressed that it bought the engineering information from McDonnell on June 6, 1940 and encouraged the new company to keep trying. The next McDonnell proposal to the Army came later that same month. This time the company issued a proposal for a twin-engined, two-seat heavy fighter powered by a pair of Continental I-1430 twelve-cylinder inverted-Vee liquid-cooled engines. Initially, the USAAC expressed no interest, but during subsequent discussions with McDonnell some revisions were made and on May 5, 1941 a formal proposal was submitted to the Army. The project was given the company designation of Model S-23-A and called for a singleseat long-range fighter with a pressurized cabin. An unusually heavy armament of six 0.50inch machine guns and four 20-mm cannon was proposed. McDonnell's design team attempted to maintain true aerofoil sections throughout the entire airframe, the center fuselage and the rear portions of the engine nacelles merging smoothly together. This gave the aircraft a unique bat-like appearance. The forward member of the tricycle undercarriage retracted into the fuselage, whereas the mainwheels retracted into the engine nacelles. Guaranteed maximum speed was a rather optimistic 472 mph at 25,000 feet, and http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p67.html (1 of 4)09-09-2006 10:38:01

McDonnell XP-67

gross weight was estimated to be 18,600 pounds. This time the Army was definitely interested, and on August 2, 1941 the USAAF issued an authority for purchase of two prototypes. The contract was formally approved on October 29, 1941. The designation XP-67 was assigned, and the serial numbers of the two prototypes were 42-11677 and 42-11678. By the time that detailed design of the XP-67 got underway, the armament was changed to six 37-mm cannon with 45rpg in the inboard wing sections. The pair of Continental XI1430-1 engines were fitted with General Electric D-1 turbosuperchargers and drove fourblade propellers. A unique idea was to use the engine exhaust to augment the thrust. The increased armament and other changes caused the estimated gross weight to rise to 20,000 pounds. With the exception of armament, cabin pressurization equipment, and the oxygen system, the first XP-67 (42-11677) was ready by December 1, 1943. The aircraft had conventional ailerons rather than the planned drooping ailerons. By this time, the engines were XI-143017/19s, with D-23 turbosuperchargers. The Continental engines were rated at 1350 hp for takeoff and 1600 hp at 25,000 feet. The initial flight tests of the XP-67 were delayed by fires in BOTH engines that broke out during a high-speed taxiing run at Lambert Field in St Louis on December 8, 1943. After being repaired, the XP-67 was trucked to Scott Field in Illinois. The first flight of the XP67 took place there on January 6, 1944 with test pilot E. E. Elliott at the controls. However, this flight had to be abruptly terminated after only six minutes owing to engine problems. The XP-67 was grounded while modifications were made to the engine compartments. A stainless-steel bulkhead was installed to seal off the turbosupercharger compartment from the rest of the engine, improvements were made to the cooling air circulatory system, and the aft ends of the engine cowlings were shortened. With these modifications, two test flights were completed successfully. However, on the fourth flight (on February 1, 1944), the Continental engines were deliberately overspeeded and the bearings burned out, forcing yet another emergency landing. This mishap had damaged the Continental engines beyond repair, and since replacements were not immediately available, the XP-67 was returned to McDonnell in St Louis for http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p67.html (2 of 4)09-09-2006 10:38:01

McDonnell XP-67

modifications. Wind tunnel testing had suggested that the tailplane should be raised one foot in order to improve longitudinal stability, and this was done while the aircraft was awaiting replacement engines. Test flying resumed on March 23, 1944, and five more successful flights were made during the month of May by USAAF test pilots. During this time, some problems were encountered with engine roughness, with improper aileron balance, and with unsatisfactory main undercarriage door closure. However, the USAAF pilots reported that the cockpit layout was adequate and that ground handling was satisfactory. Handling in the air was considered as being satisfactory and the roll rate was deemed to be good at high speed. The fighter was stable longitudinally, but it was neutrally stable laterally and tended to "Dutch roll". However the performance of the XP-67 fell quite short of that which was promised. The takeoff run was excessively long, the initial climb rate was poor, and the acceleration was slow. The aircraft was clearly underpowered with its troublesome Continental engines, which failed to develop their design rating of 1350 hp, barely reaching 1060 hp. Test flights continued throughout the summer of 1944. A dorsal fin and an additional two degrees of dihedral were added to the tailplane to improve lateral stablity. The XP-67 was scheduled to begin official performance tests in September, but before they could get underway a fire broke out in the right engine nacelle while test pilot E. E. Elliott was taking the XP-67 for a test flight. Elliott safely landed the aircraft, but the wind blew the flames over the fuselage and caused major damage to the structure. The XP-67 was deemed to have been damaged beyond economical repair. This accident, plus the seemingly endless series of problems caused by the temperamental Continental engines, caused the USAAF to recommend that work on the XP-67 project be halted. On September 13, both McDonnell and the USAAF agreed that the project should be terminated. The contract was formally cancelled six weeks later. The second prototype (42-11678) was cancelled before it could be completed. This prototype was to have been powered by I-1430 liquid-cooled engines with war emergency power ratings increased to 2100 hp. Contrarotating propellers were to be fitted in place of the handed propellers of the first prototype. There was even some talk of fitting a mixed powerplant arrangement to later production P-67s, with either a Packard V-1650 or an Allison V-1710 engine with two-stage supercharger in front of each engine nacelle and an http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p67.html (3 of 4)09-09-2006 10:38:01

McDonnell XP-67

I-20 turbojet in the rear of each nacelle. However, nothing ever came of these plans, since the USAAF requirement for long-range escort fighters was more than adequately satisfied by the North American P-51H Mustang, the Republic P-47N Thunderbolt, and later by the North American P-82 Twin Mustang. The maximum speed attained by the XP-67 during tests was 405 mph at 15,000 feet and 357 mph at 10,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2600 feet per minute, and service ceiling was 37,400 feet. Maximum range was 2385 miles. Weights were 17,745 pounds empty, 23,114 pounds loaded, 15,400 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 55 feet 0 inches, length 44 feet 9 1/4 inches, height 15 feet 9 inches, and wing area 415 square feet. The planned armament of six 37-mm cannon was never actually fitted. Sources: 1. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920: Volume II, Rene J. Francillon, Naval

Institute Press, 1990. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 3. War Planes of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.


Vultee XP-68 Tornado

Vultee XP-68 Last revised September 18, 1999

The Vultee XP-68 Tornado was a proposed version of the XP-54 experimental pusher fighter. The XP-68 was to be powered by the 42-cylinder Wright R-2160 Tornado radial engine driving a set of contrarotating propellers. In July of 1941, the USAAF assigned the designation XP-68 to the project. In the event, the Wright Tornado engine project was abandoned before anything could be built, and the XP-68 project never got off the drawing board. The XP-68 was officially cancelled on November 22, 1941. Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, 3rd Edition, Doubleday, 1982.


Republic XP-69

Republic XP-69 Last revised September 18, 1999

In 1940, Alexander Kartveli, vice president and technical director of the Republic Aircraft Corporation, drew up plans for a new escort fighter built around the proposed 2350-hp Wright R-2160 Tornado, an experimental 42-cylinder, six-row liquid-cooled radial engine driving contrarotating propellers. Designated Model AP-18 by the company, the aircraft was envisaged as a potential replacement for the P-47 Thunderbolt when that aircraft became obsolescent. The Wright Tornado engine was one of the most odd engine products of the entire American aircraft industry during the Second World War. It was a oddity in that it was a LIQUID-cooled radial engine. The 42 cylinders were arranged in six radial banks. This configuration was chosen so that the Tornado engine would have an extremely small overall diameter, enabling aircraft designers to build fuselages with small cross section areas. However, the Tornado required the use of rather heavy and complicated systems of cooling radiators, which probably would have negated any aerodynamic advantage it might have otherwise had. In the XP-69, the Tornado engine was to be located immediately behind the pilot, and was to drive a set of contrarotating propellers via an extension shaft to the nose. The air intake and the cooling system were located under the fuselage. The pressurized cockpit featured a large bubble canopy. A laminar flow wing was planned. Proposed armament was two 37mm cannon and four 0.50-inch machine guns, all mounted in the wings situated so that they fired outside the radius of the propellers. Estimated performance included a maximum speed of 450 mph at 35,000 feet, a service ceiling of 48,900 feet, and a climb to 35,000 feet in 20 minutes. Maximum range was to have been 1800 miles. Estimated weights were 15,595 pounds empty, 18,655 pounds gross, 26,164 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 51 feet 8 inches, length 51 feet 6 inches, height 17 feet, and wing area 505 square feet. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p69.html (1 of 2)09-09-2006 10:38:12

Republic XP-69

In July 1941, the USAAF ordered two prototypes of the AP-18 under the designation XP69. A P-69 mockup was inspected in June of 1942. However, delays in the delivery of the Wright Tornado engine caused the XP-69 project to be cancelled on May 11, 1943 in favor of Republic's parallel XP-72 project which showed more promise. In the event, the Tornado engine project was itself cancelled before anything could be built. Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, 3rd Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 3. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, William Green, 1964.


Douglas P-70

Douglas P-70 Last revised September 18, 1999

The Douglas DB-7/A-20 Boston/Havoc was one of the most popular and effective light bombers of the Second World War. A total of 7478 of these bombers were built, and they served with the USAAF under the designation A-20 and with the RAF under the designation *Boston*. However, it is a little-known fact that there were night fighter versions of this attack plane which served with the RAF under the name *Havoc* and with the USAAF under the designation P-70. The initial USAAC order for the DB-7 had been for 63 A-20s. They were to be powered by turbosupercharged Wright R-2600-7 radials, and were to have been high-altitude light bombers. However, these engines developed cooling problems and troubles were encountered with the turbosuperchargers. In the event, only the fifteenth aircraft (39-735) was actually fitted with the supercharged R-2600-7 engine. Since it was felt that there was no need for higher power at high altitudes for an aircraft which was meant to perform at its best at low and medium altitudes, all other A-20s were converted to A-20A configuration with 1600 hp Wright R-2600-11 engines without superchargers. Before the USA entered the Second World War, the USAAC felt that it needed long-range fighters more than it needed attack bombers, and the prototype A-20 (39-735) was adapted for night fighting duties under the designation XP-70. Two unsupercharged 1600 hp Wright R-2600-11s replaced the turbosupercharged R-2600-7s. RAF experience with the modified DB-7 Havoc was used as a guideline. British AI Mk IV radar was mounted in an unglazed nose, with an arrow-like transmitting antenna located in front of the nose, and receiving antennae being located on the fuselage sides and on the port wing. All bomb racks and all defensive armament were removed. The crew was reduced from three to two, the second crewman being a radar operator seated in the rear cockpit. Four 20-mm cannon with 60 rpg were installed in a ventral tub. The success of these modifications led to a USAAC decision on October 15, 1940 to have fifty-nine more of the A-20s on order modified as P-70 night fighters. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p70.html (1 of 4)09-09-2006 13:13:47

Douglas P-70

Fifty-nine P-70s, originally ordered as A-20s were completed with R-2600-11 engines as night fighters. Serials were 39-736 to 39-740, 39-742 to 39-744, 39-746 and 39-747 and 39-749 to 39-797) They were identical to the XP-70 except for minor equipment changes. Maximum speed was 329 mph at 14,000 feet. An altitude of 12,000 feet could be attained in 8 minutes, service ceiling was 28,250 feet, and combat range was 1060 miles. Weights were 16,031 pounds empty and 20,984 pounds gross. The first P-70 was delivered in April of 1942, and the order was completed in September of that year. The name *Nighthawk* seems to have been given to the P-70, although I don't know if it was official. P-70A-1 was the designation given to thirty-nine A-20Cs modified by the USAAF in 1943. The A-20C was the US equivalent of the British DB-7B. They were powered by two 1600 hp R-2600-23s and were armed with six to eight 0.50-inch machine guns in a ventral tray. Improved radar equipment was installed in the nose. Serials were 42-33143, 33148,33152, 33164, 33165, 33170,33177, 33179, 33221, 54057/54062, 54064/54068, 54103, 54105, 54106, 54108/54110, 54112, 54126/54129, 54131/54142, 54161, 54163/54165, and 54267/54274. P-70A-2 was the designation given to 65 A-20Gs modified as night fighters. The A-20G featured an unglazed nose housing a battery of forward-firing guns. Starting with the A20G-20-DO production block, the single hand-held machine gun in the dorsal position was replaced by a two-gun Martin turret. The P-70A-2 retained the A-20G's standard battery of forward-firing guns, but all flexible defensive weapons were removed. They were otherwise similar to the P-70A-1. I don't have any record of the serial numbers of the P70A-2s. P-70B-1 was the designation given to a single A-20G-10-DO modified as an experimental night fighter fitted with SCR720 centimetric radar in the nose. Armament consisted of six 0.50-inch machine guns in three blisters on each side of the fuselage. P-70B-2 was the designation given to 105 A-20Gs and A-20Js modified as night fighter trainers and fitted with SCR720 or SCR729 centimetric radar in the nose. Six to eight 0.50in machine guns could be carried in a ventral tray, but were not always fitted. Serials were 42-86858, 26892, 86896, 86900/86902, 86904/86911, 43-9682, 42-9727, 9728, 9732, 9727, 9739, 9784/9789, 9992, 10000, 10004, and 21551. Since the USAAF had no night fighter units when the USA entered World War 2, a night fighter training organization was established at Orlando, Florida. Most of the P-70 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p70.html (2 of 4)09-09-2006 13:13:47

Douglas P-70

Nighthawk aircraft served there with the 481st Night Fighter Operational Training Group to develop tactics and procedures for radar-controlled night interceptions and to train the crews of nineteen night fighter squadrons. Very few of these P-70s ever went overseas, most remaining in the USA to be passed on to the next night fighter units that needed to be trained. Most units trained on the P-70 were reequipped with the Northrop P-61 Black Widow before they transferred overseas. Only five night fighter squadrons were still equipped with P-70s at the time they were deployed overseas. Four P-70-trained night fighter squadrons were sent with their aircraft to North Africa in 1943 for service with the Twelfth Air Force. However, when they got there, these outfits used Bristol Beaufighter VIF fighters obtained from Britain under Reverse Lend-Lease. The 427th Night Figher Squadron took its P-70s with it when it deployed to Italy, but the squadron exchanged its P-70s for Northrop P-61 Black Widows before it became operational. The P-70 actually saw some combat action in the Pacific Theatre, although their service there was quite brief. The 6th Night Fighter Squadron began operations in February of 1943 with its P-70s from Henderson Field, Guadalcanal, in an attempt to intercept highflying Japanese night raiders. It was later supplanted by the 419th Night Fighter Squadron. The 418th and 421st Night Fighter Squadrons flew P-70s operationally in New Guinea for a brief time. The P-70 was not very successful in combat, scoring only two kills during the entire war. The P-70 lacked sufficient performance to intercept Japanese night raiders unless it was extremely fortunate. P-70s were replaced with P-61s just as soon as these aircraft would be made available. Sources: 1. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Vol 1, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute

Press, 1988 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 3. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, 3rd Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 4. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, William Green, 1964. 5. Early Nightfighter Operations in the Pacific: the P-70 at War, Warren E. Thompson,

Combat Aircraft Sept 1999 (Vol 2 No 4), 1999. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p70.html (3 of 4)09-09-2006 13:13:47

Douglas P-70


Curtiss XP-71


The Curtiss XP-71 was the result of a 1941 proposal to the Army by the Curtiss-Wright Corporation of St. Louis, Missouri for a large escort fighter. The Curtiss design called for a high-wing monoplane with a tricycle landing gear. It was to be powered by a pair of turbosupercharged 3450 hp Pratt & Whitney R-4360-13 Wasp Major 28-cylinder aircooled radials. The engines were to be situated in underwing-mounted nacelles and were each to drive a pair of contrarotating propellers in a pusher arrangement. The pressurized cockpit was to have had two crew members seated in tandem. The proposed armament consisted of two 37-mm cannon and one 75-mm (!) cannon mounted in the nose. Estimated maximum speed of the XP-71 was 428 mph at 25,000 feet. Service ceiling was to have been 40,000 feet, and an altitude of 25,000 feet was to be reached in 12.5 minutes. Estimated weights were 31,060 pounds empty, 39,950 pounds gross, and 46,950 pounds maximum. The dimensions were wingspan 82 feet 3 inches, length 61 feet 10 inches, height 19 feet 0 inches, and wing area 602 square feet. The USAAF ordered two XP-71s, but later had doubts that such a large and heavy warplane would ever be viable, and the project never reached the prototype state. It was officially canceled on August 26, 1943. Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 2. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.


Republic XP-72

Republic XP-72 Last revised March 12, 2000

The Republic XP-72 was Alexander Kartveli's proposal for a replacement for his fabulously successful P-47 Thunderbolt. It was evolved in parallel with the XP-69 escort fighter project. The XP-69 was a completely new design, whereas the XP-72 was a more-or-less straightforward progressive development of the P-47 Thunderbolt. The XP-72 was the first fighter to be designed around the huge 28-cylinger Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major, the most powerful piston engine produced during World War 2. The engine was closecowled and was fan-cooled. The Wasp Major was to have driven a pair of three-bladed Aeroproducts contrarotating propellers. The wing and tail of the P-47D were to be retained, but the airframe was enlarged and strengthened. The turbosupercharger was still located aft of the cockpit as it was in the P-47, but the turbosupercharger intake was moved to a position just underneath the cockpit rather than in the extreme nose. The lower fuselage was modified to allow for the larger air intake for the turbosupercharger. The XP72 was to have been fitted with a bubble-type canopy, similar to that used by the late production blocks of the P-47D. Compressibility recovery flaps were fitted. Armament was to consist of six wing-mounted 0.50-inch machine guns, and two 1000-pound bombs were to be carried on underwing shackles. The greater promise displayed by the XP-72 caused the USAAF to cancel the XP-69 project in favor of the XP-72. Two XP-72 prototypes were ordered on June 18, 1943. Serial numbers were 43-36598 and 43-36599. Some sources have these serials as being 436598 and 43-6599, but these appear to be in error since they conflict with a batch of P-51 Mustang serials. XP-72 Ser No 43-36598 flew for the first time on February 2, 1944. Power was provided by a 3450 hp Pratt & Whitney R-4360-13 Wasp Major air-cooled radial engine. Since delivery of the planned Aeroproducts contrarotating six-bladed propeller had been http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p72.html (1 of 3)09-09-2006 13:15:00

Republic XP-72

delayed, the first XP-72 was equipped with a single four-bladed propeller as a temporary stop-gap measure. Nevertheless, the performance was excellent, a maximum speed of 490 mph being reached in flight tests. The second XP-72 (43-36599) flew for the first time on June 26, 1944. It was fitted with the Aeroproducts contrarotating propellers, which had finally been delivered. Unfortunately, the second XP-72 was written off in a takeoff crash early in its test flight program. In spite of the loss of the second prototype, the USAAF was so impressed with the performance of the XP-72 that they ordered one hundred P-72 production variants. These P-72s were to have the R-4360-19 engine and were to be provided with an optional choice of four 37-mm cannon as an alternative for the six 0.50-in machine guns. It was anticipated that speeds in excess of 500 mph would be attained. However, the changing character of the war created a greater need for long-range escort fighters than for high-speed interceptors, and the USAAF rapidly lost interest in the XP-72 project. The order for the one hundred P-72s was cancelled. The advent of jet-powered fighters which promised even more spectacular performance was undoubtedly also a factor. The surviving XP-72 (43-36598) is thought to have been scrapped at Wright Field at about the time of V-J Day. Specification of Republic XP-72: Powerplant: One 3450 hp Pratt & Whitney R-4360-13 Wasp Major air-cooled radial engine. Performance: Maximum speed was 490 mph at 25,000 feet. Normal range was 1200 miles at 300 mph and maximum range was 2520 miles at 315 mph with two 125 Imp. gall. drop tanks. Initial climb rate was 5280 feet per minute, and climb rate at 25,000 feet was 3550 feet per minute. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be reached in 3.5 minutes, 20,000 feet in 5 minutes. Service ceiling was 42,000 feet. Weights were 11,476 pounds empty, 14,433 pounds normal loaded, 17,490 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 40 feet 11 inches, length 36 feet 7 inches, height 16 feet 0 inches, and wing area 300 square feet. Sources: 1. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple

Press Aerospace, 1980. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p72.html (2 of 3)09-09-2006 13:15:00

Republic XP-72

3. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 4. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 4, William Green,

Doubleday, 1964.


Hughes XP-73

Hughes XP-73 Last revised September 19, 1999

Many authors who write about American fighter aircraft of the World War 2 era state categorically that there never was a fighter project with the designation "P-73". For some obscure reason, this particular number seems to have been skipped. The aviation historian James Fahey claims that the P-73 designation was deliberately omitted as a result of political pressure applied to the Army by the Fisher Body Division of the General Motors Corporation. In 1942, Fisher was hoping to interest the Army in its new escort fighter design. At that time, the next available Army pursuit designation was P-73, but Fisher wanted the Army to assign to its new escort fighter a "nice symbolic number", something that would sound nice in advertising copy and would make for memorable slogans-something like "The French 75 in World War 1, the Fisher P-75 in World War 2" was envisaged. Fisher got its way and the Army agreed to assign the designation P-75 to its escort fighter project, the designations P-73 and P-74 being deliberately skipped. However, a few other sources maintain that there really WAS a fighter aircraft designated P-73 and that it actually made some test flights. However, it was so secret that even today there are few details available about it. The P-73 was almost as mysterious in its time as the shadowy *Aurora* is today. However, the reason for all this secrecy was not any outstanding capabilities that the P-73 might have had, but was a result of the neurotic personality of the owner of the company which produced the aircraft. This was none other than the brilliant but eccentric movie tycoon, inventor, and industrialist Howard Hughes. During the Second World War, many of the projects of the Hughes Aircraft Company were shrouded in secrecy and were the subject of mysterious and convoluted political maneuverings, due in no small part to the bizarre personality of its owner. Even though Howard Hughes and his company had been involved in several innovative aviation projects, the War Department found that dealing with Howard Hughes was a real nightmare. He could not be relied upon to meet schedules and his claims about the capabilities of his aircraft were often not credible. He would alternatively pressure the War http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p73.html (1 of 5)09-09-2006 13:15:07

Hughes XP-73

Department into buying his aircraft right away without delay, then would withhold them from the government at the last minute. He had paranoid fears about others stealing his ideas, at one time claiming that Lockheed had stolen the idea for the P-38 Lightning from him. Howard Hughes had always been obsessed with the setting of aviation records. In the mid1930s, he had hired the talented aeronautical engineer Richard Palmer to build for him a racing monoplane designed specifically for the purpose of setting speed records. The product of this collaboration was the H-1B Racer, which took to the air for the first time on August 17, 1935. On September 13, 1935, Howard Hughes used his H-1B racer to set a world landplane speed record of 352.388 mph, a record which stood until 1939. in January 1937 he used an altered version of his same H-1B racing aircraft to set a transcontinental speed record of 7 hours 28 minutes 25 seconds (Burbank to Newark). In July of 1938, Howard Hughes used a Lockheed 14-N2 twin-engined transport to set a round-the-world record of 91 hours 14 minutes flying time. Hughes believed that this record could be bested by a large margin if he could design and build an aircraft dedicated to the task of setting long-range records. This seems to have been the origin of the D-2, one of the most mysterious aircraft projects in all of aviation history. Even today, fifty years after the event, few details and even fewer photographs or drawings of the mysterious D-2 are publically available. They are presumably locked away somewhere in the vaults of the Summa Corporation, the holding corporation for the Hughes empire. There is the possibility that Richard Palmer had begun work on the D-2 before he left Hughes to go to work for Vultee Aircraft, but this is not certain. The D-2 project envisaged a twin-boom, twin-engined aircraft with a relatively small central crew nacelle. No effort was spared to minimize aerodynamic drag. The few drawings which are available show an aircraft with the same general configuration as the Lockheed P-38 Lighting, although appreciably larger and heavier. Most of the airframe of the D-2 was to be made of Duramold plywood, which was a plastic- bonded plywood molded under heat and high pressure. Initially, the aircraft was to have been a taildragger, but the landing gear was later changed to a tricycle configuration. The main undercarriage units retracted rearwards into the twin booms and the nosewheel retraced rearwards and rotated 90 degrees to lie flat in the small central fuselage. The powerplants were to have been a pair of Wright Tornado forty-two cylinder liquid-cooled radial engines.


Hughes XP-73

The onset of war in Europe caused all thoughts of a record-breaking round-the-world flight to be abandoned. Aircraft engines and specialized aviation equipment urgently needed for rearmament were just not going to be made available for the sole purpose of setting records. In order to keep his project going, in December of 1939 Hughes offered to sell the drawings and data for the D-2 to the USAAC in the hopes of attracting a military contract. He hinted that the design might be made into a "pursuit-type airplane", although at that time the D-2 had no military role envisaged. Hughes seems to have succeeding in interesting the Army in his project, since in 1940 the USAAC informed him that there was no objection to his purchase of a pair of Wright Tornado engines. However, the USAAF decided later to divert these Tornado engines to Lockheed for its XP-58 project, leaving Hughes without engines for his D-2. Hughes was forced to switch to a pair of Pratt & Whitney R-2800-49s for the D-2, and these engines arrived at Hughes in March of 1942. Subsequent memos from Hughes to the Army seemed to indicate that he was changing his mind about the mission for the D-2. In May of 1940, he was no longer referring to a "pursuit-type aircraft", but instead to a "Duramold bombardment aircraft". The mission envisaged for the D-2 seems to have changed yet again in May 1941, the aircraft now being pictured as a bomber escort. In June of 1942, the USAAF seems to have referred to the aircraft as the "P-73" in one communique and as the "XA-37" in another, indicating that there was really no clearly defined military role for the aircraft. In reality, the D-2 could not carry enough bombs internally to make it a useful attack aircraft and was not sufficiently maneuverable to make it a useful fighter. So it seems that the designation "P-73" was reserved by the Army at some stage for the fighter version of the D-2, and "XA-37" for the attack version. However, all of this is very murky, and it is not at all certain if the USAAF was ever very serious about the prospects for any useful military role for the Hughes aircraft. These designations may have been little more than place holders. In early 1942, Hughes began to pressure the Army for a quick decision to purchase the D2. Responding to this pressure, on June 16, 1942, Lt. Gen. H. H. Arnold, Commanding General of the USAAF, ordered Wright Field to acquire the D-2 from Hughes for testing as a prototype for possible future bomber development. However, a couple of weeks later, Hughes told the Army that he no longer wished to sell the D-2 to the Army but wished instead to test it himself first. The procurement of the D-2 was put on hold by the Army. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p73.html (3 of 5)09-09-2006 13:15:07

Hughes XP-73

Components for the D-2 were built by Hughes at its Culver City plant, and final assembly was done at Harper Dry Lake in the Mojave Desert. Harper Dry Lake was an exceedingly remote area in the Desert, well away from prying eyes. The choice of this site was a reflection of Hughes' almost paranoid obsession with secrecy. The D-2 was built primarily of wood. Power was provided by two 2000-hp Pratt and Whitney R-2800-49 radials driving three-bladed propellers. A hydraulic control surface boost mechanism was provided for elevators, rudders, and ailerons, one of the first applications of such a device to an aircraft. Turbosuperchargers and cabin pressurization were planned, but were not yet fitted. Crew was two or three. Initial ground trials began in the spring of 1942. However, it soon became obvious that the control forces were excessively heavy when the boost mechanism was not operating. During high speed taxiing tests, Hughes briefly lifted the aircraft off the ground on some 30 occasions. These brief hops revealed some aileron instability, and further full-scale tests were delayed until new ailerons with broader chord were fitted. The D-2 made its first true flight on June 20, 1943. Howard Hughes took it up twice that day. Hughes noted that there were rather high aileron control forces and that there was a tendency to roll with power on and with the undercarriage retracted. In order to correct these problems, Hughes increased the wingspan, but these changes did little to improve the flight characteristics. Hughes reluctantly concluded that the D-2 needed major modifications, including a complete redesign of the wings and a change in aerofoil section. The wing center section, which was continuous through the fuselage nacelle, was to be revised to increase the size of the proposed bomb bay. Following these changes, the aircraft was to be assigned the company designation D-5. On June of 1943, General Arnold noted that the lack of de Havilland Mosquito aircraft might result in an Army need for the Hughes design, and requested that the D-2 be flow to Bolling Field, DC. for inspection. At that time, the D-2 was undergoing modification to D5 configuration and wasn't going anywhere. However, Hughes had the audacity to propose three separate production versions of the D-5--a two seat unarmed reconnaissance aircraft, a three-seat light bomber, and a two-seat escort fighter. The USAAF was not impressed, and recommended in August of 1943 that all development of the Hughes D-2/D-5 be discontinued. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p73.html (4 of 5)09-09-2006 13:15:07

Hughes XP-73

In spite of the negative reception from the USAAF, Howard Hughes continued work on the D-2/D-5 on his own. In November 1944, while still undergoing modifications to the D5 configuration, the D-2 was lost in a mysterious fire. According to Hughes, a "lightning bolt" struck the hangar in which it was being housed, and the aircraft was destroyed. By that time, the D-2/D-5 project had evolved into the XF-11, which was a long- range, highspeed unarmed reconnaissance aircraft of all-metal construction. It retained only the basic twin-boom/small central nacelle configuration of its predecessor. Sources: 1. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920: Volume II, Rene J. Francillon, Naval

Institute Press, 1990. 2. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple

Press Aerospace, 1980. 3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 4. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.


"P-74"

"P-74" Last revised September 12, 1999

Authors who write about American fighter aircraft of the World War 2 era are unanimous in stating categorically there never was a fighter project with the designation "P-74". For some obscure reason, this particular number (and perhaps P-73 as well) seems to have been skipped. The aviation historian James Fahey claims that the P-73 and P-74 designations were deliberately omitted as a result of political pressure applied to the Army by the Fisher Body Division of the General Motors Corporation. In 1942, Fisher was hoping to interest the Army in its new escort fighter design. At that time, the next available Army pursuit designation was P-73, but Fisher wanted the Army to assign to its new escort fighter a "nice symbolic number", something that would sound nice in advertising copy and would make for memorable slogans--something like "The French 75 in World War 1, the Fisher P-75 in World War 2" was envisaged. Fisher got its way and the Army agreed to assign the designation P-75 to its escort fighter project, the designations P-73 and P-74 being deliberately skipped. In contrast to the P-73, I am aware of no sources that actually claim that there ever was a P-74. Source: 1. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple

Press Aerospace, 1980. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 3. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.


"P-74"


Fisher P-75 Eagle

Fisher P-75 Eagle Last revised September 19, 1999

In February of 1942, the USAAF issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) which called for aircraft companies to submit designs for a fighter/interceptor having an exceptional performance. Maximum speed was to be 440 mph at 2000 feet, operational ceiling was to be 38,000 feet, and range was to be 2500 miles. A special requirement was added for the initial climb rate, which was to be no less than 5600 feet per minute. High speed, high climb rate, high ceiling, and long range, all in one package--a tall order for any aircraft company. In April of 1942, the famous designer Donovan Berlin (who had been responsible for such successful designs as the P-36 and the P-40) left the Curtiss company after many years of service to take over the directorship of the Aircraft Development Division of the Fisher Body Division of the General Motors Corporation. As one of his first assignments, he took it upon himself to work on a design in response to the USAAF RFP. In September of 1942, Fisher submitted their proposal to the USAAF. The Fisher proposal used the most powerful liquid-cooled engine then available, the twenty-four cylinder Allison V-3420. This engine was basically a pair of coupled V-1710 engines, mounted side-by-side in a Wtype configuration. Significant savings in cost and time were to be gained by employing major assemblies from existing aircraft already in production in the manufacture of the new interceptor. On October 10, 1942, a contract for two prototypes was awarded to Fisher under the designation XP-75. In assigning the XP-75 designation to the Fisher design, the designations XP-73 and XP-74 were skipped, for reasons which are not altogether clear even today. The aviation historian James Fahey claims that the P-73 and P-74 designations were deliberately omitted as a result of political pressure applied to the Army by Fisher. According to the story, Fisher wanted the Army to assign to its new escort fighter a "nice symbolic number", a number that would sound nice in advertising copy and would make for memorable slogans--something like "The French 75 in World War 1, the Fisher P-75 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p75.html (1 of 4)09-09-2006 13:15:24

Fisher P-75 Eagle

in World War 2" was envisaged. The Army agreed, and skipped the designations P-73 and P-74 and gave Fisher the P-75 designation. Serial numbers 43-46950 and 43-46951 were assigned to the two XP-75 prototypes. The Allison engine was to be located behind the cockpit a la P-39 Airacobra, and was to drive a set of contrarotating propellers via an extension shaft and a reduction gearbox. The engine was cooled by means of a large duct in the ventral fuselage. Initially, it was planned that the outer wing panels of the P-51 Mustang would be used in an inverted-gull configuration, and that the tail assembly of the Douglas A-24 (Army version of the SBD Dauntless) and the undercarriage of the Vought F4U Corsair would be used. However, at an early stage it was decided to drop the inverted gull-wing configuration and go with a straight wing design utilizing outer wing panels from a P-40. By the summer of 1943, the USAAF had a more urgent need for long-range escort fighters than it did for fast-climbing interceptors. On July 6, 1943, the USAAF ordered six more prototypes that would be adapted to fulfill the long-range escort role. They were assigned the designation XP-75A, and the serial numbers were 44-32161/32166. They were to be powered by an Allison V-3420-23 engine, and were to be armed with six 0.50-inch machine guns in the wings and four 0.50-inch guns in the fuselage nose. At the same time, the USAAF decided to order no less than 2500 production P-75As, although they did stipulate in the contract that if the production aircraft did not meet specifications the order might be cancelled. Maximum speed was to be 434 mph at 20,000 feet and 389 mph at sea level. These production P-75As were to be built at the Fisher plant in Cleveland, Ohio. The first XP-75 flew on November 17, 1943. It was powered by an Allison V-3420-19 engine rated at 2600 hp for takeoff and driving a pair of contrarotating propellers. As planned, the wing was of a straight center section with P-40 outer panels with modified tips. The tail assembly was from an A-24, and the main undercarriage members were taken from an F4U Corsair. All six XP-75A long-range escort versions were in the test program by the spring of 1944. Some problems were encountered with instability, since errors had been made in the initial estimate of the aircraft's center of mass. The coupled Allison engine failed to give its full rated power. The engine cooling was inadequate, aileron forces were excessively high, and the spinning characteristics were poor. The P-75A production aircraft featured a modified tail assembly and had a bubble-type http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p75.html (2 of 4)09-09-2006 13:15:24

Fisher P-75 Eagle

canopy replacing the framed and braced cockpit hood of the earlier versions. It featured the V-3420-23 engine of the XP-75A. The first P-75A flew on September 15, 1944. By that time, most of the bugs had been ironed out of the design. However, at that stage in the war, the Republic P-47D Thunderbolt and the North American P-51D Mustang were more than adequately fulfilling the long-range escort role, and the USAAF decided that there was no longer any need for a new escort fighter. Consequently, the USAAF decided to terminate the P-75 development program, and the production contract for the P-75A was cancelled on October 27, 1944 after only six examples had been built. The serial numbers of the six P-75As built were 44-44549/44553. By the time of contract termination, the first and second P-75A had been delivered to Elgin Field, Florida for tactical suitability trials, the third machine was in the shop being fitted with an experimental intercooler, and the fourth and fifth machines were almost complete. Although the USAAF no longer had any need for the P-75, it was decided to go ahead and finish these machines and use them for development work. The sixth machine was to be placed in storage and scavenged for spare parts to keep the rest flying. The five production P-75As never completed official performance trials, but enough testing was performed to confirm the fact that the maximum speed was at least 30 mph below that guaranteed by the manufacturer. The third machine received an experimental intercooler installation which permitted substantial increases in engine power. The following specification for the long-range XP-75 are those quoted by the manufacturer; One 2885 hp Allison V-3420-23 twenty-four cylinder liquid-cooled engine. 433 mph at 20,000 feet, initial climb rate 4200 feet per minute st 10,000 feet, 3900 feet per minute at 20,000 feet. Service ceiling was 36,400 feet and absolute ceiling was 29,500 feet. Range with maximum external fuel was 3500 miles. Weights were 11,495 pounds empty, 13,807 pounds normal loaded, and 18,210 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 49 feet 4 inches, length 40 feet 5 inches, height 15 feet 6 inches, and wing area 347 square feet. Armament consisted of six 0.50-inch machine guns in the wings (235 rpg) located outboard of the propeller arc and four 0.50-in machine guns (300 rpg) in the fuselage nose synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. In addition, a pair of 500pound bombs could be carried. The last production P-75A (serial number 44-44553) is on display in the Annex at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Museum in Dayton, Ohio. I saw it there in June of 1992. It was in fairly good shape, but needs some restoration work. This was apparently the http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p75.html (3 of 4)09-09-2006 13:15:24

Fisher P-75 Eagle

aircraft that had been scavenged to keep the other P-75s flying, so more than a few things may be missing. Sources: 1. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,

Doubleday, 1964. 2. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 3. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple

Press Aerospace, 1980. 4. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.


Bell XP-76

Bell XP-76 Last revised September 19, 1999

One of the persistent criticisms of the Bell P-39 Airacobra was that its high-altitude performance was rather poor in comparison to that of its competitors. The Bell P-76 was a proposed advanced version of the Airacobra that would be equipped with a more powerful engine, a laminar flow wing, and other refinements that would help to correct some of these deficiencies. The P-76 project began its life as the XP-39E, which was a 1941 project to flight-test the experimental Continental I-1430-1 inverted-Vee supercharged liquid cooled engine. The company designation for this project was Model 23. The first two machines were ordered on April 10, 1941, with a third machine being added on October 17, 1941. As called for in the contract, three production P-39Ds were taken off the line and modified to XP-39E standards. Serials were 41-19501, 41-19502, and 42-7164. The Continental engine was not yet ready when the XP-39E airframes were completed, and the 1325 hp Allison V-1710-47 engine had to be installed in its place. The carburetor air intake was relocated and the wing-root radiator intakes were enlarged. The XP-39E featured laminar-flow wings with square-cut tips, the wing span and gross area being increased to 35 feet 10 inches and 236 square feet respectively. Each of the three examples of the XP-39E that were built tested different configurations for the vertical tail surfaces-the first being rounded and tapered, the second being cut-off square and rather short, and the third being rather similar to that of the P-51. Armament was the same as that of the P39D. Empty and loaded weights of the XP-39E were 6936 lbs and 8918 lbs respectively. During tests, a maximum speed of 386 mph at 21,680 feet was attained. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be reached in 9.3 minutes. The XP-39E was considered by the Army as being sufficiently different from the stock Phttp://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p76.html (1 of 2)09-09-2006 13:15:30

Bell XP-76

39 that it was considered worthy of a new pursuit designation--it was redesignated XP-76 on February 24, 1942. The Army felt sufficiently confident in the new aircraft that they ordered no less than 4000 production P-76s from Bell, all of which were to be manufactured at Bell's new plant in Atlanta, Georgia. Less than three months later, the USAAF was to have second thoughts about the wisdom of its decision. Even though the XP-76 had proven itself to be faster than the P-39D, the new design was considered to be inferior to the basic Airacobra in other respects, and the order for the P-76 was cancelled in its entirety on May 20, 1942, freeing up the Bell-Atlanta plant for license manufacture of the B-29 Superfortress. Even though no production ensued, the XP-39E/XP-76 did provide some valuable basic data which proved useful for the P-63 Kingcobra project. Sources: 1. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,

Doubleday, 1964. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 4. P-39 Airacobra in Action, Ernie McDowell, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1980 5. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple

Press Aerospace, 1990.


Bell XP-77

Bell XP-77 Last revised August 24, 2001

The Bell XP-77 had its origin in a prewar USAAF request for a study of the feasiblity of an ultralight fighter that would be smaller, faster, and more maneuverable than any fighter then in existence. The USAAF was particularly interested in exploring the possibility of using non-strategic materials such as wood, fearing that a shortage of aluminum might materialize. On October 30, 1941, the USAAF formally requested Bell's Chief Designer, Robert J. Woods, to study the problem. Six month later, Woods submitted a design for a low-wing monoplane with a tricycle landing gear and a laminar-flow wing equipped with manuallyoperated flaps. The structure was to be almost entirely of wood, but with a metal laminate skin. Bell gave the project the company designation Tri-4, the designation being a shorthand for the USAAF requirement for "400 hp, 4000 pounds, 400 mph". The engine originally chosen for the Tri-4 was the twelve-cylinger Ranger XV-770-9 inverted-vee air-cooled supercharged engine which offered 500 hp. It was estimated that a top speed of 410 mph at 27,000 feet could be attained with this engine. Armament was to have been a pair of 0.50-inch machine guns in the fuselage plus a single 20-mm cannon firing through the propeller hub. The USAAF authorized the procurement of 25 Tri-4s on May 16, 1942. The USAAF requested that provisions be made to carry either a 300-pound bomb or a 325-pound depth charge. This required that the 20-mm cannon be deleted. Delays in the delivery of the supercharged Ranger XV-770-9 engine caused the USAAF to reduce the order to only six aircraft on August 20, 1942, at which time the designation XP77 was assigned. In a formal contract issued on October 10, 1942, the USAAF ordered six prototypes of the XP-77, with serials being 43-34915/24920. In addition, two airframes http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p77.html (1 of 4)09-09-2006 13:15:36

Bell XP-77

were ordered for static tests. The first airplane was to be delivered within six months. The program had by this time become known under the company designation of Model 32. The mockup was inspected on September 21/22, 1942. No less than 54 changes were requested by the USAAF. At that time, it was decided to install the unsupercharged XV770-6 engine (which offered the same power up to 12,000 feet altitude) as a temporary measure for initial flight test trials, pending the availability of the supercharged XV-770-9. It soon became apparent to the Bell design team that the XP-77 as originally planned would be seriously overweight, which if left uncorrected would result in an aircraft which offered no appreciable advantage in performance over aircraft already in production. Consequently, the Bell engineers undertook a drastic reduction program to cut the weight of the aircraft down to 3000 pounds. This rework caused costs to rise and the date of delivery of the first prototypes to be delayed. Because of the incessant delays and cost overruns, the USAAF cut the XP-77 order back to only two examples on August 3, 1943. The USAAF agreed that the engine was to be the V-770-7, the AAF designation for the Navy's V-770-6. No further consideration was given to the supercharged V-770-9. Since Bell was already heavily committed to the P-39, P-63, and P-59 programs, the company began to request more and more delays in the XP-77 program. There were delays in the delivery of the wooden wings from the Vidal Research Corporation subcontractor, and there were problems with undercarriage retraction. The two XP-77s were finally delivered in the spring of 1944. Serial numbers were 4334915 and 43-34916. The low-mounted cantilever wing had a single-spar structure with stressed skin. The wing and the fuselage were largely constructed of resin-bonded laminated wood. The tricycle landing gear was electrically-operated. The nosewheel retracted rearwards into the fuselage, and the main landing gear retracted inwards into wheel wells in the wing. The flaps were manually controlled. Test pilot Jack Woolams took the first XP-77 on its maiden flight on April 1, 1944 (April Fool's Day, no doubt a portent of things to come). Test flights showed that the performance was disappointing, a speed of only 330 mph at 4000 feet being attained. The takeoff run was excessively long, and test pilots complained that there were some unfavorable vibrations at certain engine rpm because of the total lack of engine support vibration-damping mounts.


Bell XP-77

The second XP-77 went to Elgin Field for fuel consumption and operational suitability trials. On October 2, 1944, this aircraft crashed after getting into an inverted spin as the result of a botched Immelmann maneuver. The pilot was forced to parachute to safety, and the aircraft was destroyed. Flight trials continued with the first XP-77, but the USAAF was disappointed by the aircraft's relatively poor performance. The performance of the XP-77 was actually inferior to that of aircraft already in service. In addition, by that time in the war, any danger of an aluminum shortage had passed. Consequently, the ultralight fighter project was officially abandoned on December 2, 1944. After cancellation, the first XP-77 went to Wright Field, then back to Elgin, then to Wright again. It was seen at various postwar airshows, often wearing spurious markings. The plane ultimately ended up as a gate guard at an air base entrance (don't know where), and remained there for severaly years until it had so deteriorated that it had to be destroyed. Serials of the XP-77: 43-34915/34916 43-34917/34920

Bell XP-77-BE Bell XP-77-BE - cancelled

Specification of the XP-77: Powerplant: One Ranger XV-770-6 twelve-cylinder inverted-vee air-cooled engine, 520 hp. Performance: Maximum speed 330 mph at 4000 feet, 328 mph at 12,600 feet. Initial climb rate was 3600 feet per minute, and an altitude of 9000 feet could be attained in 3.7 minutes. Service ceiling was 30,100 feet, normal range was 305 miles, and maximum range was 550 miles. Weights: 2855 pounds empty, 3583 pounds gross, 4028 pounds maximum takeoff. Dimensions: wingspan 27 feet 6 inches, length 22 feet 10 inches, height 8 feet 2 inches, wing area 100 square feet. Armament was two 0.50-inch machine guns mounted in the fuselage nose, synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. In addition, a 300-pound bombload could be carried. Sources: 1. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,

Doubleday, 1964.


Bell XP-77

2. The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. 4. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple

Press Aerospace, 1990. 5. Bell Aircraft Since 1935, A. J. Pelletier, Naval Institute Press, 1992. 6. E-mail from Bob Mueller on fate of surviving XP-77. Article in Jan 1998 issue of

Aviation History by John Guttman.


North American XP-78 Mustang

North American XP-78 Mustang Last revised September 19, 1999

XP-78 was the designation initially given to a version of the North American P-51 Mustang powered by the Packard-built Rolls Royce Merlin liquid-cooled engine. On July 25, 1942, North American Aviation was authorized to adapt two P-51 Mustang airframes to Merlin 65 engines imported from England. For the conversion, NAA selected two P-51s from the batch of Mustang IAs that had been repossessed from the RAF by the USAAF. Their serial numbers were 41-37350 and 41-37421. NAA gave the project the company designation NA-101. These aircraft were considered sufficiently different from the existing Mustang that they were given a new designation--XP-78. However, the designation of these two aircraft was changed to XP51B while the work was progressing. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Enlarged Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,

Doubleday 1964. 4. United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers,

Smithsonian, 1989. 5. Fighting Mustang: The Chronicle of the P-51, William N. Hess, Doubleday, 1970. 6. Classic Warplanes: North American P-51 Mustang, Bill Gunston, Gallery Books, 1990. 7. Famous Fighters of the Second World War, Volume I, William Green, 1967. 8. The North American P-51B and C Mustang, Richard Atkins, Aircraft in Profile,

Doubleday, 1969.


North American XP-78 Mustang


Northrop P-79

Northrop P-79 Last revised September 19, 1999

The Northrop XP-79 originated in 1942 as an idea by John K. Northrop for a high-speed flying wing fighter aircraft powered by a rocket engine. Near-sonic speeds were envisaged. The idea was somewhat similar to that which eventually produced the Messerschmitt Me 163 rocket-powered interceptor in Germany. The Northrop fighter project was to be powered by a 2000 pound thrust Aerojet rocket engine, with takeoff assisted by a pair of 1000 pound thrust rocket boosters which would be dropped after takeoff. Northrop proposed that this airplane be flown by a pilot lying prone in the cockpit, since it was hoped that this would reduce strain on the pilot during violent maneuver and would present a minimum silhouette to enemy gunners. In January of 1943, the USAAF issued a contract for three prototypes under the designation XP-79. The availability of jet engines led to a decision in March to use two Westinghouse 19B turbojets in the third prototype, which was redesignated XP-79B. Since the layout of the fighter was so radical, it was thought that test glider prototypes be built to verify the validity of the concept. One of these was designated MX-324, and was fitted with a fixed tricycle landing gear. The MX-324 was towed into the air by a P-38 on July 5, 1944, and became the first American-built rocket-powered aircraft to fly. Delays in the development of the Aerojet rocket engine caused the USAAF to cancel the two XP-79s, leaving only the XP-79B. The serial number of the XP-79B was 43-52437. The XP79B was finally ready for flight testing in the summer of 1945. The pilot lay prone in an unpressurized cockpit situated between the two turbojets. The flying wing was of semimonocoque construction and was built largely of magnesium in order to save weight. Instead of conventional ailerons, the wing had air intakes at the tips for lateral control, in much the same manner as the XP-56. The aircraft was equipped with a pair of vertical tails, presaging the MiG-25 and the F-15. The retractable landing gear consisted of four wheels, two each in tandem.


Northrop P-79

The XP-79B was to use a rather unusual technique for destroying enemy aircraft. The wing leading edge was reinforced so that it could slice off the wings or tails of enemy aircraft by ramming them! And if that didn't work, the XP-79B was equipped with a more conventional armament of four 0.50-inch machine guns in the wing leading edge. The XP-79B was transferred to Muroc Dry Lake in June of 1945. Flight testing was delayed by problems with bursting tires during ground taxiing trials. On September 12, 1945, test pilot Harry Crosby finally took the XP-79B up in the air for the first time. It flew all right for about fifteen minutes, but the plane then suddenly went into a spin from which it proved impossible to recover. Crosby attempted to parachute to safety, but his chute failed to open and he was killed. The XP-79B impacted in the desert and was destroyed in the resulting fire. Magnesium burns very nicely. :-). Although the mishap that cost Harry Crosby his life could have been corrected, the USAAF decided to abandon the project. Specification of the XP-79B: Powered by a pair of 1365 lb. st. Westinghouse 19B turbojets. Wingspan was 28 feet, length 14 feet, and height was 7 feet. Wing area was 278 square feet. Gross weight was 8669 pounds. Estimated performance included a maximum speed of 547 mph at 20,000 feet, an initial climb rate of 4000 feet, a service ceiling of 40,000 feet, and a range of 993 miles. The proposed armament of four 0.50-in machine guns was never fitted. Sources: 1. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Enlarged Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Lockheed P-80/F-80 Shooting Star

Lockheed P-80/F-80 Shooting Star Last revised July 16, 1999

Lockheed XP-80 Shooting Star Lockheed XP-80A Shooting Star Lockheed YP-80A Shooting Star Lockheed P-80A Shooting Star Lockheed P-80B Shooting Star Lockheed P-80C Shooting Star Lockheed TO-1/TV-1 Lockheed F-80D Shooting Star Lockheed F-80E Lockheed TP-80C/TF-80C/T33 Lockheed QF-80 Service History


Convair XP-81

Convair XP-81 Last revised October 14, 1999

In March of 1943, the Consolidated Aircraft Corporation merged with Vultee Aircraft Incorporated, forming the Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation. The name of the new merged corporation was often abbreviated to *Convair*, although that name did not get officially registered as a trademark until 1954. One of the first products of this new merged corporation was the XP-81 mixed-power escort fighter. The primary drawback of most early jet fighters was their high fuel consumption, leading to a relatively limited range and a rather short endurance as compared to piston-engined fighters. In 1943, the USAAF was interested in figuring out a way to couple the improved performance offered by jet propulsion with the long endurance that was demanded by the Pacific campaign, and issued a requirement for a long range escort fighter to be powered by a combination of turboprop and jet engine. The turboprop engine would be used for cruising flight, with the turbojet engine being turned on for takeoff and for high speed flight. The specification called for a 1250-mile operating range and a maximum speed of 500 mph. Charles R. 'Jack' Irvine, Vultee's chief designer and chief test pilot Frank W. Davis collaborated with the USAAF and came up with an all-metal cantilever low-winged monoplane powered by an experimental General Electric TG-100 (later redesignated XT31) turboprop mounted in the nose and provided with a ventral exhaust, as well as by an Allison-built J33-GE-5 turbojet in the rear fuselage fed by a pair of dorsal intakes. A retractable tricycle undercarriage was fitted. The pressurized cockpit was housed underneath a bubble canopy. The project bore the company designation of Model 102. Convair began detailed design work on the Model 102 on January 5, 1944. The USAAF ordered two prototypes of the design from Convair on February 11, 1944. The designation XP-81 was applied, and the serials were 44-91000 and 44-91001. The contract was subsequently modified to include thirteen service-test YP-81s. The YP-81 was to have http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p81.html (1 of 3)09-09-2006 13:16:11

Convair XP-81

been powered by the lighter and more powerful TG-110 turboprop, the wing was to have been moved aft ten inches, and an armament of six 0.5-inch machine guns or six 20-mm cannon was to have been fitted. The TG-100 turboprop engine encountered an extensive series of teething troubles and was not yet available when the XP-81 (44-91000) was ready for its first flight. A Packard Merlin V-1560-7 power package from a P-51D Mustang was supplied in its place. A P38J-style beard radiator inlet was mounted below the propeller spinner. The Merlinpowered XP-81 was trucked to Muroc Dry Lake, where it was flown for the first time on February 11, 1945. The handling proved to be exceptionally good. However, the directional stability was marginal and a 15-inch fin extension and a short ventral fin were added. The second XP-81 was fitted at the factory with a rounded fin extension and a long ventral fin. In the meantime, the war against Japan had progressed to the point where the capture of such islands as Guam and Saipan had largely eliminated the need for long-range, highspeed escort fighters. The 13 pre-production YP-81s were cancelled shortly before V-J Day, but work continued on the two XP-81s. The first XP-81 was flown back to Vultee Field to be fitted with the TG-100, but the work was not finished until after V-J Day. The first flight with the TG-100 took place on December 21, 1945. The TG-100 was supposed to deliver 2300 e.h.p, but actually delivered only 1400 e.h.p. Consequently, the performance of the turboprop-powered XP81 was no better than that of the Merlin-powered version. In addition, excess propeller vibration and persistent oil leaks became important problems. The XP-81 program was officially terminated on May 9, 1947. Both prototypes were redesignated ZXF-81 in 1948, indicating a testbed status. In 1949, they were both stripped of useful parts and placed on a photographic and bombing range at Edwards AFB. The remains of both machines were stored for a long time at the Flight Test Museum at Edwards. They have now been moved to the USAF Museum at Wright Patterson AFB for eventual restoration and display. Specification of the XP-81: One 2300 ehp General Electric XT31-GE-1 (TG-100) turboprop and one 3750 lb.st. Allison J33-GE-5 turbojet. Proposed armament (never fitted) was six 0.50-inch machine http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p81.html (2 of 3)09-09-2006 13:16:11

Convair XP-81

guns or 6 20-mm cannon and two 1600-pound bombs. Weights were 12,755 pounds empty, 19,500 pounds loaded, 24,650 pounds maximum overload. Dimensions were wingspan 50 feet 6 inches, 44 feet 10 inches, height 14 feet 0 inches, 425 square feet wing area. The following estimated performance figures were based on an assumption of a full 2300 hp output from the turboprop: Maximum speed, 478 mph at sea level, 507 mph at 30,000 feet. Range 2500 miles at 275 mph at 25,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 5300 feet per minute. Service ceiling was 35,500 feet. Sources: 1. General Dynamics Aircraft and their Predecessors, John Wegg, Naval Institute

Press, 1990. 2. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,

Doubleday, 1964. 3. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 4. E-mail from Martin Keenan on current status of XP-81 airframes.


North American P/F-82 Twin Mustang

North American P/F-82 Twin Mustang Last revised October 15, 1999

North American XP-82 Twin Mustang North American XP-82A Twin Mustang North American P-82B Twin Mustang North American P-82C Twin Mustang North American P-82D Twin Mustang North American P-82E Twin Mustang North American P-82F Twin Mustang North American P-82G Twin Mustang North American P-82H Twin Mustang Operational History of P/F-82 Twin Mustang


Bell XP-83

Bell XP-83 Last revised October 16, 1999

One of the primary weaknesses of early jet fighters was their voracious appetite for fuel, resulting in a short range and a limited endurance as compared to conventional pistonengined fighters. In March of 1944, the Bell Aircraft Corporation was asked by the USAAF to construct a jet fighter with extended radius to overcome some of these limitations. A Letter Contract for two prototypes was issued on March 29, 1944. The designation XP-83 was assigned. Bell had actually been working on an interceptor design since March of 1943 under the company designation of Model 40. In April, in response to the USAAF's requirement, the Model 40 was reconfigured as a long-range escort fighter. The Bell Model 40 retained the basic overall configuration of the earlier P-59A Airacomet, the first US jet-propelled aircraft. Twin General Electric I-40 (J33) turbojets were installed in housings underneath the wing roots, adjacent to the fuselage. This arrangement had the advantage in that no appreciable asymmetric forces were exerted if one engine went out. In addition, no fuselage space was occupied by engines, leaving internal fuselage capacity free for fuel tankage and armament. The rather large and bulky fuselage was of all-metal semimonocoque construction. A fullyretractable tricycle undercarriage was fitted. Internal fuel capacity was a capacious 1150 US gall. In addition, a pair of 250 US gall drop tanks could be carried. The ailerons were hydraulically-operated, and the flaps were electrically-controlled. A pressurized cabin was provided. The cockpit had a small, low canopy with a very sloping windscreen. The proposed armament was to be six 0.50-in machine guns with 300 rpg, all guns being mounted in the nose. However, alternative armament schemes of four 20-mm or 37-mm cannon and even a battery of 20 (!!!) 0.50-in machine guns were also considered. A USAAF contract for two XP-83 prototypes was awarded on July 21, 1944, confirming the Letter Contract of March. Serials were 44-84990 and 44-94991. Only seven months http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p83.html (1 of 3)09-09-2006 13:16:22

Bell XP-83

after the awarding of the contract, the first prototype (44-84990) was flown on February 25, 1945 by chief Bell test pilot Jack Woolams. The aircraft proved to be underpowered and somewhat unstable. The close proximity of the turbojets was found to have the unintended side effect of allowing the hot jet exhaust gases to buckle the tailplane during run-ups on the ground unless fire trucks were standing by to spray cooling water on the rear fuselage. The second prototype (44-84991) flew on October 19, 1945. It had a slightly different bubble canopy and a somewhat longer nose to accommodate a heavier armament of six 0.60-inch T17E3 machine guns. This aircraft was used in gunnery tests at Wright Field in Ohio. The tailplane overheating problem was cured by modifying the tailpipes so that they angled outwards. Wind tunnel tests showed that an 18-inch extension of the vertical tail would cure the stability problems, but it is not certain whether or not this modification was actually carried out. The performance of the XP-83 was rather disappointing, and no series production was ordered. Apart from its range, the XP-83 offered no significant advantages over the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star which was already in production, and further work on the XP-83 project was abandoned. Following the abandonment of work on the XP-83, the two prototypes were used for a short time as test beds for other development work. The first XP-83 was used in a ramjet engine test program, in which a pair of experimental ramjets were slung under the wings. It was intended that the aircraft would be able to fly on ramjet power only, once sufficient flying speed was obtained. A hatch was cut in the belly to provide entry into the aft fuselage, and an engineer's station was provided in the fuselage behind the pilot. However, on September 14, 1946, just as the test program was beginning, one of the ramjets caught fire during a test flight, forcing pilot Chalmers Goodlin and engineer Charles Fay to parachute to safety. The XP-83 was destroyed in the ensuing crash. The second XP-83 survived until 1947, at which time it was scrapped. Specification of the XP-83: Two 4000-lb.st. General Electric J33-GE-5 centrifugally-fed turbojets. Performance: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p83.html (2 of 3)09-09-2006 13:16:22

Bell XP-83

Maximum speed was 522 mph at 15,660 feet. Range on internal fuel was 1730 miles at 30,000 feet. With two 250-Imp.gall drop tanks, range was 2050 miles. Initial climb rate was 5650 feet per minute, and an altitude of 30,000 feet could be reached in 11.5 minutes. Service ceiling was 45,000 feet. Weights were 14,105 pounds empty, 24,090 pounds loaded, 27,500 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 53 feet 0 inches, length 44 feet 10 inches, height 15 feet 3 inches, wing area 431 square feet. Sources: 1. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple

Press Aerospace, 1990. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 3. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 4, William Green,

Doubleday 1964. 4. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 5. Bell Aircraft Since 1935, A. J. Pelletier, Naval Institute Press, 1992.


Republic P-84/F-84 Thunderjet/Thunderstreak/Thunderflash

Republic P-84/F-84 Thunderjet/Thunderstreak/ Thunderflash Last revised October 17, 1999

Republic P-84/F-84 Thunderjet Republic XP-84 Thunderjet Republic XP-84A Thunderjet Republic P-84B/F-84B Thunderjet Republic P-84C/F-84C Thunderjet Republic P-84D/F-84D Thunderjet Republic F-84E Thunderjet Republic F-84G Thunderjet

Republic F-84F Thunderstreak Republic XF-96A/XF-84F Thunderstreak Republic YF-84F Thunderstreak Republic F-84F Thunderstreak Republic F-84F Thunderstreak Service with USAF Republic F-84F Thunderstreak Service with NATO Air Forces

Republic RF-84F Thunderflash Republic RF-84F Thunderflash Republic RF-84F Thunderflash Service with USAF


Republic P-84/F-84 Thunderjet/Thunderstreak/Thunderflash

Republic RF-84F Thunderflash Service with NATO Air Forces


McDonnell XP-85/XF-85 Goblin

McDonnell XP-85/XF-85 Goblin Last revised October 23, 1999

On January 29, 1944, the Army Air Forces invited the industry to submit concept proposals for jet fighters capable of escorting its long-range heavy bombers. Since the first jet fighters were notorious fuel hogs, they promised to have insufficient range to escort the long-range B-35 and B-36 bombers then on the drawing boards. As one possible solution to this range problem, the USAAF revived the parasite fighter idea of the early 1930s, and proposed that one solution to the problem might be for the long-range bombers to carry their protective fighters right along with them. The McDonnell Aircraft Corporation of St Louis was the only company to respond to the proposal. McDonnell proposed a small fighter aircraft to be carried partially inside a parent B-29, B-36, or B-35 heavy bomber. However, the AAF rejected this plan in January of 1945, concluding that the fighter would have to be carried ENTIRELY inside the B-35 or B-36. On March 19, 1945, McDonnell submitted a revised proposal--a plan for a tiny aircraft with an egg-shaped fuselage, a triple vertical tail, a tailplane with pronounced anhedral, and vertically-folding swept-back wings. The engine was to be a 3000 lb.st. Westinghouse J34-WE-7 axial-flow turbojet with a nose intake and a straight-through exhaust. The aircraft was to be fitted with a pressurized cockpit and an ejector seat. Armament was to be four 0.50-cal machine guns in the forward fuselage sides. The USAAF liked the McDonnell proposal, and on October 9, 1945 they ordered two prototypes (plus one static test article) under the designation XP-85. As a parallel development, the USAAF specified that the 24th and subsequent B-36s to be accepted by the service would be capable of carrying one P-85 in addition to the usual bomb load. It was even planned that some B-36s would be modified so that they could carry THREE fighters and no bomb load.



Conditional upon the results of flight trials with the XP-85, the AAF had intended to order an initial batch of 30 production examples, but before the completion of the first prototype this plan was shelved in favor of a more cautious approach in which only the two experimental aircraft would be acquired. Since the XP-85 was to be launched and recovered from a retractable trapeze underneath its parent bomber, no conventional landing gear was fitted. A retractable hook was fitted to the fuselage in front of the cockpit. During recovery, the XP-85 would approach its parent bomber from underneath, and the hook would gently engage the trapeze. Once securely attached, the aircraft would be pulled up into the belly of the bomber. If an emergency landing were necessary, the aircraft was provided with a retractable steel skid underneath the fuselage, and the wingtips were protected by steel runners. Since no B-36 could be spared as yet for the project, a Bell-Atlanta-built Boeing B-29B65-BA (Ser No 44-84111) was specially modified for use as the mothership in the initial testing. Redesignated EB-29B, it was fitted with a special launch-and-recovery trapeze that would be used for the first test flights of the XP-85. In June 1948, the XP-85 was redesignated XF-85 when the USAF replaced the prefix P for Pursuit by F for Fighter. The first prototype XF-85 (46-523) was damaged at Moffett Field, California during wind tunnel testing, so it was the second aircraft (46-524) that was used for the initial flight trials. These began on August 23, 1948. Initially, the XF-85 made captive flights suspended beneath the EB-29B at 20,000 feet above Muroc Dry Lake (later Edwards AFB). The first free flight came on August 28. The test pilot detached his XF-85 from the EB-29B and flew free for 15 minutes while he evaluated the handling properties of the new fighter. However, when it came time to re-hook, he ran into trouble. The XF-85 was caught in violent air turbulence underneath the parent aircraft. After ten minutes of futile attempts to hook onto the trapeze, the XF-85 was slammed up against the trapeze and the canopy was shattered. Fortunately, the pilot was uninjured and he managed to make an emergency landing on the dry lake bed below. Following repairs, 46-524 made three flights on October 14 and 15 of 1948. Three successful recoveries were made, although each one of them was a rather harrowing experience for all concerned. However, on the fifth flight, more trouble was encountered. The removal of the temporary fairing around the base of the hook resulted in severe http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p85.html (2 of 4)09-09-2006 13:16:38


turbulence and loss of directional stability, forcing the pilot to make another emergency landing. Vertical surfaces were added to the wingtips in an attempt to improve directional stability while flying in the turbulent air underneath the EB-29B. However, this did not help very much, and the sixth XF-85 flight ended in yet another emergency landing on the lakebed. The same fate awaited 46-523 on April 8, 1949, when it made its first and only flight. In spite of the problems encountered with recovery, the XF-85 handled quite well in ordinary flight. Its test pilot commented favorably on the stability, control, and spin recovery characteristics. Estimated maximum speed was 648 mph at sea level and 581 mph at 35,000 feet. Initial climb was estimated to be 12,500 feet/min, and service ceiling was estimated at 48,000 feet. I don't think that the armament of four 0.50-cal machine guns was ever fitted. However, the Air Force reluctantly concluded that since the recovery operation was so difficult a job for even experienced test pilots, it would probably be far beyond the capabilities of the average squadron pilot. In addition, it was projected that the performance of the XF-85 would likely be inferior to that of foreign interceptors that would soon enter service. Furthermore, a budget crunch in the autumn of 1949 led to a severe shortage of funds for developmental projects. Consequently, the Air Force terminated the XF-85 program on October 24, 1949. I have never found any references which state that the XP-85 ever made any flights from a B-36 mothership. Although the XF-85 Goblin was ultimately unsuccessful, it did provide some valuable data that was of use in the 1950s when the Republic RF-84F Thunderflash reconnaissance aircraft was adapted for launch and recovery beneath a B-36 bomber. XF-85 Ser No 46-523 is currently on display at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Museum. I saw it there in May of last year. It is indeed one tiny airplane! 524 is on display at the Strategic Air Command Museum in Omaha, Nebraska. References: 1. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Volume II, Rene J. Francillon, Naval

Institute Press, 1990. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p85.html (3 of 4)09-09-2006 13:16:38


2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


North American F-86 Sabre

North American F-86 Sabre Last revised November 5, 1999

North American XP-86 North American F-86A Sabre North American RF-86A Sabre North American F-86B Sabre North American F-86C/YF-93A North American F-86D Sabre North American F-86E Sabre North American F-86F Sabre Cannon-Armed F-86F Sabre in Korea North American RF-86F Sabre Sabre Vs MiG North American F-86F-40-NA Sabre F-86Fs in Foreign Service North American TF-86F Sabre North American F-86H Sabre North American F-86K Sabre North American F-86L Sabre North American FJ-1 Fury North American FJ-2 Fury North American FJ-3 Fury North American FJ-4 Fury Canadair Sabre Commonwealth Sabre


Curtiss XP-87/XF-87 Blackhawk

Curtiss XP-87/XF-87 Blackhawk Last revised November 6, 1999

The Curtiss XP-87 Blackhawk (Model 29A) was Curtiss's first (and only) pure-jet aircraft. It was also the last aircraft to be produced by the Curtiss company, marking an ignominious end for a corporation which had been a household name in the annals of American aviation for so many years. The Curtiss-Wright Corporation, like all other American aircraft manufacturers, was hit hard by the massive cancellations that took place at the end of World War 2. Unfortunately, Curtiss had no projects that were readily applicable to the postwar civilian market, and none of its military aircraft fit in with postwar planning. Consequently, in 1946 Curtiss-Wright was forced to shut down all of its aircraft manufacturing plants except the government-owned plant in Columbus, Ohio which had been built for it by the Navy for the purpose of SB2C Helldiver production. All units of the Aeroplane Divison of Curtiss-Wright were transferred to Columbus, and Curtiss-Wright valiantly tried to get back into the game. Following the fabulously-successful P-40 series of fighters and the SB2C Helldiver carrierbased dive-bomber, Curtiss had gone through a long series of unsuccessful combat aircraft projects. Notable in this list of failures were the USAAF XP-46, P-60, and XP-62 projects, and the Navy XF14C, XBTC-2, and XBT2C-1 projects, none of which succeeded in attaining quantity production status. Nothing seemed to work for Curtiss; the company seemed to have run out of fresh, new ideas. On March 23, 1945, the USAAF had announced a competition for an all-weather fighter bomber. It was generally pictured as being the successor to the Northrop P-61 Black Widow night fighter, and initially a piston-engined design was considered. However, the era of the piston-engined fighter was clearly at an end, and in December 1945 the requirement was changed to stipulate that the fighter-bomber was to be powered exclusively by jet engines. Bell, Consolidated-Vultee, Douglas, Goodyear, Northrop, and http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p87.html (1 of 4)09-09-2006 13:16:52


Curtiss-Wright all submitted proposals. The Curtiss-Wright company had earlier submitted a proposal to the Army known by the company as the Model 29. The jet-powered Model 29 had been designed specifically for the attack role, and the Army had been sufficiently impressed that they had ordered two prototypes of the design under the designation XA-43. To meet the jet-powered night fighter requirement, Curtiss proposed an aircraft of a similar configuration, but adapted specifically for the interception role. The company designation of Model 29A was assigned to the project. The Army ordered two prototypes under the designation XP-87 and the name Blackhawk was assigned. The USAAF initially favored the Curtiss proposal, if for no other reason that the CurtissWright factory would probably close down if it did not win the order. In order to free up Curtiss-Wright for the fighter project, the XA-43 project was cancelled on November 21, 1945, and the funds and Army serial numbers were transferred to the XP-87 project. The XP-87 was a large, all-metal, cantilever, mid-wing aircraft, powered by four 3000 lb. st. Westinghouse XJ34-WE-7 turbojets paired in two large pods mounted under the wings. The horizontal tailplane was mounted halfway up the vertical tail. The aircraft was equipped with a twin-track tricycle undercarriage. The pilot and radar operator were seated side-by-side in a large, spacious cockpit. The armament was initially to have been a pair of automatically-operated nose and tail turrets, each containing a pair of 0.50-inch machine guns. In addition, internally-mounted rockets were to have been fitted. However, this was changed before completion to a quartet of 20-mm cannon housed in a nose turret. This nose turret was subcontracted to the Glenn L. Martin Company of Baltimore. The turret was to be a moveable platform which would allow the angle of fire to be varied at will. Firing angles ranging from zero to 90 degrees from the centerline could be achieved. The XP-87 had a gross weight of 49,000 pounds, and was one of the heaviest Curtiss aircraft ever built, exceeded in weight only by some variants of the C-46 Commando series of twin-engined transports. In the immediate post-war period, Curtiss-Wright had only two military designs in contention for production orders--the mixed-power XF15C-1 carrier-based fighter and the XP-87 two-seat night fighter. The XF15C-1 lost out to the Ryan FR-1 Fireball for postwar http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p87.html (2 of 4)09-09-2006 13:16:52


production orders from the Navy. The Blackhawk was Curtiss-Wright's only hope. The prototype XP-87 (45-59600) was finally ready in early 1948. It was trucked out to Muroc Dry Lake in March of 1948 for its first flight. It took to the air for the first time on March 5, 1948. Initial performance of the XP-87 (redesignated XF-87 in June 1948) was promising, although the top speed was some twelve percent slower than promised and there were some problems with buffeting at high speeds. An order for 57 F-87A fighters and 30 RF-87A photographic reconnaissance aircraft was placed on June 10, 1948. Since the XP-87 had proven to be somewhat underpowered, the production F-87As were to have been powered by two 6000 lb.st. General Electric J47-GE-7 engines. Plans were made for the second XP-87 prototype (46-522) to be fitted with a pair of these J47 turbojets as a production prototype. It was redesignated XP-87A. With the landing of the F-87 contract, it would seem that Curtiss-Wright had finally begun to recover from its postwar doldrums. However, the USAF concluded that the new Northrop XP-89 Scorpion showed much more potential, and the F-87A order was cancelled in its entirety on October 10, 1948. Work on the twin-engined XF-87A version was halted before completion, and the machine was scrapped. The loss of the F-87 contract was devastating for Curtiss-Wright. By this time, the had completely run out of fresh ideas, and had finally reached the end of the line. With no orders forthcoming from the military, and with nothing even remotely promising for the civil market, Curtiss-Wright was forced to shut down its entire Aeroplane Division. All of the Aeroplane Division's assets were soon sold to North American Aviation, and the government-owned plant at Columbus reverted back to the Navy. The Columbus plant sat idle for a couple of years, but was re-opened by North American Aviation in the early 1950s for the production of F-86 Sabres. Specification of the XF-87 Blackhawk: Engines: Four 3000 lb.st. Westinghouse XJ34-WE-7 turbojets. Weights: 25,930 pounds empty, 49,900 pounds gross. Maximum speed: 600 mph at sea level. Climb to 25,000 feet in 13.8 minutes. Service ceiling 41,000 feet. Range 1000 miles. Dimensions: wingspan 60 feet, length 62 feet 10 inches, height 20 feet, wing area 600 square feet. The cannon-armed nose turret was never actually fitted. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p87.html (3 of 4)09-09-2006 13:16:52


Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 2. Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979. 3. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982


McDonnell XF-88 Voodoo

McDonnell XP-88/XF-88 Voodoo Last revised November 6, 1999

The USAAF had found by painful experience in World War II that fighter escort was absolutely vital for the survival of bombers in enemy airspace. Unfortunately, the first jet aircraft were notorious fuel hogs and lacked the range and endurance of their pistonengined counterparts, and would be unable to escort long-range bombers such as the B-29, B-50, and B-36 all the way to their targets. In an attempt to solve this problem, the USAF considered all sorts of proposals for markedly increasing the range of jet fighter escorts, some of which bordered on the bizarre. One proposal for the solution to the escort fighter range problem was for the bombers to tow their escorting fighters into the combat zone and release them when their protection was needed. Several experiments were made with B-29s or B-36s towing P-80 or P-84 jet fighters, none of them being very successful and some being downright dangerous. Other proposals revived the parasite fighter concept of the 1930s, this time with jet fighters being launched from platforms suspended from the bellies of large bombers. The best known example of this idea was the McDonnell XF-85 Goblin. Other ideas included the use of mixed power concepts such as that which produced the Convair XP-81. Others involved the construction of large, bulky fighters that were virtually flying fuel tanks, e.g., the Bell XP-83. Initial attempts to produce jet-powered fighters with the endurance of piston-engined aircraft (e. g. the Bell XP-83 and the Convair XP-81) were disappointing, and in early 1946, the USAAF informally requested proposals for a "penetration fighter" with a combat radius of at least 900 miles and a performance capable of meeting all opposing fighters on more than equal terms. In addition, the USAAF wanted to keep the gross weight of the aircraft below 15,000 pounds. They didn't ask for much, did they? :-) Spurred on by the USAAF request, the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation of St. Louis, Missouri initiated work on the Model 36 on April 1, 1946. The Model 36 project called for a large twin-jet aircraft powered by a pair of 3000 lb. st. Westinghouse J34 engines. Originally, McDonnell had considered installing the engines in the wing roots, but this http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p88.html (1 of 6)09-09-2006 13:16:59


proved infeasible and the engines were moved to a side-by-side location in the lower central fuselage where they could be more easily reached for maintenance. The engines were fed by straight-through air intakes mounted in the wing roots. The jet exhausts were underneath the rear fuselage. This configuration, it was hoped, would leave enough space in the fuselage for the fuel needed for the long-range penetration mission. A 35-degree sweptback wing was fitted, and a V-tail was to be used. The V-tail arrangement was selected because of the desire to reduce compressibility effects, which was thought would be helped by cutting the number of tail intersections from three to two. A set of perforated dive brakes was mounted on the rear fuselage, hinged at the rear. The pilot's cockpit was situated well forward of the wing. The armament was to be six 20-mm cannon. The USAAF was sufficiently interested in the proposal that a Letter of Intent was awarded to McDonnell on May 7, 1946. On June 20, 1946, the USAAF awarded McDonnell a contract for two XP-88 prototypes. Serials were 46-525 and 46-526. A mockup was ready by the summer of 1946. Following inspection of the mockup in August, some changes were made. The wing root intakes were given 40 degrees of sweep and a boundary layer ramp was added on the intakes to improve pressure recovery. Early wind tunnel tests had indicated that the V-tail arrangement would result in adverse rolling moments due to rudder action and would produce insufficient longitudinal stability near the stall. Consequently, the V-tail was replaced by conventional swept surfaces, with the tailplane mounted partway up the fin to keep it in undisturbed airflow. The USAAF was satisfied with the changes, and confirmed the order for two prototypes on February 14, 1947. On June 11, 1948, the designation XP-88 was changed to XF-88 when the P designation was replaced by F. The name *Voodoo* was assigned, consistent wiht McDonnell's tradition of choosing the names of spirit-like apparitions for its aircraft. The first prototype (46-525) was rolled out on August 11, 1948. It was taken out to Muroc Dry Lake for testing. It made its maiden flight on October 20, 1948, piloted by McDonnell chief test pilot Robert M. Edholm. The powerplants were a pair of 3000 lb.st. Westinghouse XJ34-WE-13 axial-flow turbojets mounted side-by-side in the lower center fuselage. No armament was fitted. Some minor problems were encountered during the test flight program. Some loss of thrust was encountered during takeoff due to choking in the S-shaped air ducts. This was http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p88.html (2 of 6)09-09-2006 13:16:59


solved by fitting spring-loaded blow-in doors in the wheel well section of the ducts. The rolling rate was found to be insufficient. It was improved to a certain extent by increasing the aileron chord by 26 percent, but the full cure for this problem required an increase in the torsional rigidity of the wing. When the dive brakes were fully open, there was excessive buffeting. This problem was eliminated by perforating the brakes and restricting their opening angle to 45 degrees. In order to correct problems with inadequately damped directional oscillations and objectionable roll coupling, artificial means of stablization had to be devised, and a yaw damper system was adopted using a yaw rate gyro which controlled the rudder. With these changes, handling characteristics were generally satisfactory. However, performance was rather disappointing, due primarily to the demanding range requirements and to the weight increases which had taken place since the initial design phase. Maximum speed at sea level was only 641 mph, slower than that of the F-86 Sabre which was already in production. It took approximately six minutes for the XF-88 to reach an altitude of 30,000 feet. Initial estimates of a combat weight of only 16,500 pounds had proven to be overly optimistic, and the installation of additional equipment as requested by the USAF and the various modifications required as a result of flight testing were estimated to push the combat weight to over 20,000 pounds, making matters even worse. In order to satisfy the range requirements, the 734 US gallon internal fuel capacity was to be supplemented by 350-gallon wingtip tanks. However, wind tunnel testing indicated that serious stalling problems would be encountered when these tip tanks were mounted. It would appear that the XF-88 needed more power. McDonnell proposed to fit afterburners to the J34 engines that powered the second prototype, and the production F88s were to be powered by 6000 lb.st. Westinghouse J46 afterburning turbojets. The USAF did not choose to fund the J46 installation, but they did approve the adaptation of the second prototype to the afterburning J34 engines. However, this adaptation proved more difficult than expected. Westinghouse found it difficult to achieve the additional thrust that was required with an afterburner only 52 inches long (the maximum which could be allowed due to ground clearance considerations). McDonnell was forced to develop the afterburner on its own. The length of the McDonnell-devised afterburner turned out to be only 30 inches and weighed only 218 pounds. It boosted the thrust of each Westinghouse XJ34-WE-15 engine from 3600 to 4825 pounds. The second prototype (46-526) was redesignated XF-88A, and was fitted with the afterburning XJ34-WE-15 engines. It was also fitted with bladder fuel cells in the wings to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p88.html (3 of 6)09-09-2006 13:16:59


increase internal fuel capacity to 834 gallons. The XF-88A made its first flight on April 26, 1949. The performance improvement was apparent --- maximum speed at sea level was almost 700 mph, time to climb to 30,000 feet was cut to 4 minutes, and takeoff run was reduced by 20 percent. The XF-88A was faced with some stiff competition for the USAF penetration fighter order. The Lockheed XF-90 and the North American XF-93A had also been entered as contenders for the USAF penetration fighter order. The XF-90 was a twin-jet design which first flew in June of 1949. The XF-93A was a beefed-up derivative of the F-86 Sabre, initially ordered under the designation of F-86C. In the penetration fighter competition, the USAF initially favored the North American design because of its commonality with other Sabre variants, and in June of 1948 they supplemented the contract for the two F-86Cs with a contract for 118 production aircraft. In December of 1948, McDonnell was instructed to stop design and development work on the F-88, but was permitted to continue flight testing on the two prototypes. It would seem that the curtain had been brought down on the XF-88. However, the F-93A production contract contract was suddenly cancelled in February of 1949. Several reasons were given. Perhaps the most important reason was a severe reduction in the military budget for that year. With limited funds available, it was decided to give priority to interceptors and to strategic bombers. In addition, a Senior Officers' Board felt that no production order for any penetrator fighters should be awarded until a competitive flyoff between the three contenders could be carried out. The flyoff between the Lockheed XF-90, the McDonnell XF-88, and the North American YF-93A took place between June 30 and July 8 of 1950. On August 15, 1950, the Evaluation Board declared the McDonnell XF-88A to be the winner of the contest. However, McDonnell's victory was rather hollow since no penetration fighters were every actually manufactured or placed in service because wartime pressures mandated that priority be given to the procurement of existing types for use in Korea. In addition, the development of long-range, high-speed jet bombers such as the B-47 and the B-52 eliminated any real need for penetration fighters. At the request of the Air materiel Command (AMC), in October 1949 after completing its Phase I tests at Edward AFB, the first XF-88 (46-525) was returned to McDonnell for modification as the XF-88B, a propeller research vehicle. Provisions were to be made for testing 27 combinations of propellers driven by an Allison T38 turbine. The XF-88 was to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p88.html (4 of 6)09-09-2006 13:16:59


be fitted with a 2750 shp Allison XT38-A-5 turboprop offset to port in the nose, and the nosewheel was to be moved to starboard. The non-afterburning XJ34-WE-13s were to be replaced by afterburning XJ34-WE-15s, and a fuel cell was to be installed in the wing as was done for the XF-88A. The fuselage fuel capacity was to be reduced to 543 gallons to provide space for flight test equipment. 240 pounds of ballast was to be placed in the rear fuselage to balance out the weight of the turboprop in the nose. Modifications began with the installation of the afterburning turbojets. However, before the turboprop engine could be installed, 46-525 had to be returned to the USAF to replace the XF-88A (46-526) which had been damaged on June 16, 1950. The turboprop installation was not completed until early 1952. It was first tested in flight on April 24, 1953. The XF-88B spent most of its time at the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory. It was joined by the damaged XF-88A in 1955, which served as a source of spare parts for the XF-88B. Testing continued until 1956. It had the distinction of being the final propeller-driven fighter in the USAF designation series. Although the F-88 never attained production status, it was the inspiration for the later supersonic F-101 Voodoo, which performed successfully in any number of roles, including penetration, escort, tactical strike, nuclear strike, photographic reconnaissance, interceptor, and conversion training. Following the completion of its testing, the XF-88A sat in a junkyard at Langley AFB in Virginia for several years. Both the XF-88A and the XF-88B were eventually scrapped. Specification of the XF-88: Engines: Two 3000 lb.st. Westinghouse XJ34-WE-13 axial-flow turbojets. Dimensions: wingspan 39 feet 8 inches, length 54 feet 1 1/2 inches, height 17 feet 3 inches, wing area 350 square feet. Weights: 12,140 pounds empty, 18,500 pounds loaded, 23,100 pounds maximum. Maximum speed: 641 mph at sea level. Climb to 35,000 feet in 14.5 minutes, service ceiling 36,000 feet, range 1737 miles. The planned armament of 6 20-mm cannon was not installed. Specification of the XF-88A: Two Westinghouse J34-WE-15 turbojets, 3600 lb.st. dry, 4825 lb.st with afterburning. Dimensions: wingspan 39 feet 8 inches, length 54 feet 1 1/2 inches, height 17 feet 3 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p88.html (5 of 6)09-09-2006 13:16:59


inches, wing area 350 square feet. Weights: 12,140 pounds empty, 18,500 pounds loaded, 23,100 pounds maximum. Maximum speed: 641 mph at sea level. 706 mph at 20,000 feet. Initial climb rate 8000 feet per minute. climb to 35,000 feet in 14.5 minutes, service ceiling 39,400 feet, range 1737 miles. Armament consisted of six 20-mm cannon in the nose. Sources: 1. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920: Volume II, Rene J. Francillon, Naval

Institute Press, 1990. 2. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple



Northrop F-89 Scorpion

Northrop F-89 Scorpion Last revised November 21, 1999

Northrop XP-89 Scorpion Northrop F-89A Scorpion Northrop F-89B Scorpion Northrop F-89C Scorpion Northrop F-89D Scorpion Northrop F-89E Scorpion Northrop F-89F Scorpion Northrop F-89G Scorpion Northrop F-89H Scorpion Northrop F-89J Scorpion


Lockheed XF-90

Lockheed XF-90 Last revised September 15, 2003

The Lockheed XF-90 experimental long-range penetration fighter of the early 1950s always reminded me of the planes flown by the Blackhawks, who were comic book heroes when I was a wee lad. Hawkaaaaaa......! The USAAF had found by painful experience in World War II that fighter escort was absolutely vital for the survival of bombers in enemy airspace. Unfortunately, the first jet aircraft were notorious fuel hogs and lacked the range and endurance of their pistonengined counterparts, and would be unable to escort long-range bombers such as the B-29, B-50, and B-36 all the way to their targets. In an attempt to solve this problem, the USAF considered all sorts of proposals for markedly increasing the range of jet fighter escorts, some of which bordered on the bizarre. One proposal for the solution to the escort fighter range problem was for the bombers to tow their escorting fighters into the combat zone and release them when their protection was needed. Several experiments were made with B-29s or B-36s towing P-80 or P-84 jet fighters, none of them being very successful and some being downright dangerous. Other proposals revived the parasite fighter concept of the 1930s, this time with jet fighters operating in parasite fashion from the bellies of large bombers. The best known example of this idea was the McDonnell XF-85 Goblin. Other ideas included the use of mixed power concepts such as that which produced the Convair XP-81. Others involved the construction of large, bulky fighters that were virtually flying fuel tanks, e.g., the Bell XP-83. Initial attempts to produce jet-powered fighters with the endurance of piston-engined aircraft (e. g. the Bell XP-83 and the Convair XP-81) were disappointing, and in early 1946, the USAAF informally requested proposals for a "penetration fighter" with a combat radius of at least 900 miles and a performance capable of meeting all opposing fighters on more than equal terms. In addition, the USAAF wanted to keep the gross weight of the aircraft below 15,000 pounds. The requirements were somewhat ill-defined--combat range requirements changed from 900 miles to 1500 miles and then back to 900 miles, and http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p90.html (1 of 5)09-09-2006 13:17:10

Lockheed XF-90

climbing speed requirements were raised from an altitude of 35,000 feet reached in 10 minutes to 50,000 feet reached in less than 5 minutes. In addition, the aircraft was expected to be able to fly ground-attack missions if needed. Spurred on by the USAAF request, the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation gathered a team under the direction of project engineers Don Palmer and Bill Ralston to work on a submission. In 1946, the Lockheed team submitted a design under the company designation of Model 090-32-01, which called for a delta-winged aircraft. The USAAF was sufficiently interested that on June 20, 1946, they issued Lockheed a contract for two prototypes under the designation XP-90. Serials were 46-687 and 46-688. A month earlier, the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation of St.Louis, Missouri had received a Letter of Intent from the USAAF for a competing design, the XP-88. The XP-90 had originally been a delta-winged design, but wind tunnel tests carried out at the California Institute of Technology indicated that such a configuration would not work. Consequently, work on the construction of the delta-winged prototype was immediately halted, and those parts which had been already completed were scrapped. The Lockheed penetration fighter project was completely redesigned, and the design which finally emerged was the Model 90, which featured 35-degree sweptback wings, a sharply-pointed nose, and two Westinghouse J34 axial-flow turbojet engines mounted side-by-side in the rear fuselage and fed by side-mounted air intakes. The wings had leading-edge slats, Fowler flaps, and ailerons on the trailing edge. The pressurized cockpit was fitted with an ejector seat and a bubble canopy. Proposed armament was 6 20-mm cannon. The internal fuel could be supplemented by wingtip-mounted tanks, bringing total fuel capacity to 1665 US gallons. The XP-90 was constructed of 75ST aluminum rather than the then-standard 24ST aluminum alloy. The aircraft was built with heavy forgings and machined parts. The result was an extremely well-constructed and robust aircraft. However, these innovations also resulted in an aircraft which had an empty weight more than 50 percent greater than that of its primary rival, the McDonnell XP-88. Since both aircraft were powered by the same engines, the performance of the XP-90 was certain to be much poorer than its rival. In late 1947, the XP-90 was to acquire yet another competitor in the form of an enlarged version of the North American P-86 Sabre. In December of 1947, the Air Force ordered two examples of this North American design under the designation P-86C. Unlike the XP88 and the XF-90, the North American entry was powered by a single engine, an http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p90.html (2 of 5)09-09-2006 13:17:10

Lockheed XF-90

afterburning Pratt & Whitney J48 turbojet. Since the P-86C design was so vastly different from the P-86A day fighter, the aircraft was later redesignated YF-93A. On June 11, 1948, the designation XP-90 was changed to XF-90 when the P designation was replaced by F. In the penetration fighter competition, the USAF initially favored the North American design because of its commonality with other Sabre variants, and in June of 1948 they supplemented the contract for the two F-86Cs with a contract for 118 production aircraft. It would seem therefore likely that the F-93 would be assured of a long and fruitful career with the USAF, and that the XF-88 and XF-90 would be consigned to oblivion. However, the F-93A production contract was suddenly cancelled in February of 1949. Several reasons were given. Perhaps the most important reason was a severe reduction in the military budget for that year. With limited funds available, it was decided to give priority to interceptors and to strategic bombers. In addition, a Senior Officers' Board felt that no production order for any penetrator fighters should be awarded until a competitive flyoff between the three contenders could be carried out. The XF-90 was ready for flight testing in the spring of 1949. The engines were a pair of 3000 lb.st. Westinghouse XJ34-WE-11 engines. The XF-90 was trucked out to Edwards AFB, where it underwent its maiden flight on June 3, 1949 with the well-known test pilot Tony LeVier at the controls. Although test flying initially proceeded without many problems, the performance of the XF-90 was (as expected) rather sluggish because of its excess weight and the low power of its non-afterburning J-34 engines. In search of more power, Lockheed decided to fit the second prototype (46-688) with afterburning Westinghouse XJ34-WE-15 turbojets, each offering 3000 lb.st. dry and 4200 lb.st. with afterburning. These engines were also retrofitted to the first prototype. When powered with the afterburning J34s, the aircraft were redesignated XF-90A. The XF-90A achieved a maximum speed of 668 mph in level flight at 100 feet, and reached a maximum speed of Mach 1.12 in a dive. It was on one of these maximum speed dives that one of the XF-90As was almost lost when Tony LeVier experienced great difficulty in pulling out of a dive. Even though the afterburning engines gave the XF-90A a better performance, it was still not good enough to be considered acceptable to the USAF. The performance of the XF90A was actually poorer than that of the F-86A Sabre, which was already in service. In http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p90.html (3 of 5)09-09-2006 13:17:10

Lockheed XF-90

pursuit of better performance, Lockheed explored three other developments of the XF-90: the Model 190-33-02 powered by a single Allison J33-A-29, the Model 290-34-03 powered by a pair of Westinghouse J46-WE-2s, and the Model 390-35-02 powered by a single General Electric J47-GE-21 engine. None of these projects ever saw the light of day, as they would have all required a major redesign of the intakes and fuselage to accommodate the larger air-flow requirements and the larger diameters of the engines. The flyoff between the Lockheed XF-90, the McDonnell XF-88, and the North American YF-93A took place between June 30 and July 8 of 1950. On August 15, 1950, the Evaluation Board declared the McDonnell XF-88A to be the winner of the contest. Work on the XF-90 was formally terminated in September of 1950. In 1952, the second XF-90A (46-688) was deliberately destroyed on the ground during a nuclear test at Frenchman's Flat in Nevada. The first XF-90A (46-687) was shipped to the NACA laboratory in Cleveland, Ohio in 1953. By this time it was no longer flyable, and was used for structural testing, exploring the limits of the extremely robust structure of the design. Presumably it was tested to destruction. In 2003, the hulk of the second XF-90 (46-688) was recovered by the USAF Museum from the Nevada nuclear test site. I assume that it will eventually be restored and put on display. McDonnell's victory in the penetration fighter contest turned out to be rather hollow, since no penetration fighters were ever actually manufactured or placed in service by the USAF. At that time, wartime pressures mandated that priority be given to the procurement of existing types for use in Korea. In addition, the development of long-range, high-speed jet bombers such as the B-47 and the B-52 eliminated any real need for penetration fighters. Specification of the XF-90A: Engines: Two Westinghouse XJ34-WE-15 axial-flow turbojets, each rated at3000 lb.st. dry and 4200 lb.st. with afterburning. Dimensions: wingspan 40 feet 0 inches, length 56 feet 2 inches, height 15 feet 9 inches, wing area 345 square feet. Weights: 18,050 pounds empty, 27,200 pounds loaded, 31,060 pounds maximum. Performance: Maximum speed: 668 mph at 1000 feet. Climb to 25,000 feet in 4.5 minutes, service ceiling 39,000 feet, normal range 1050 miles, maximum range 2300 miles. The planned armament of six 20mm cannon was not installed. Sources: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p90.html (4 of 5)09-09-2006 13:17:10

Lockheed XF-90

1. Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987. 2. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple

Press Aerospace, 1990. 3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 4. E-mail from Mike Hoffman on survival of hulk of 46-688.


Republic XF-91 Thunderceptor

Republic XF-91 Thunderceptor Last revised November 21, 1999

The Republic XF-91 Thunderceptor was an experimental mixed-power interceptor, being powered by both a jet engine and by a battery of rocket motors. It was Republic's first swept-wing design. The project began in 1946 when Alexander Kartveli and his team at Republic Aviation began to explore the possibility of using rocket engines to power aircraft. The Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet of World War 2 had demonstrated that truly spectacular performance could be attained with rocket propulsion, although at the expense of an extremely short endurance and a very low combat radius. Republic proposed to overcome this inherent disadvantage of rockets by using a conventional jet engine for cruising flight, with rocket engines being used only for fast takeoff and climb to combat altitude and for extra boost during combat emergencies. In 1948, Republic submitted its ideas to the USAF. The Republic proposal was to be powered by a single 5200 lb.s.t. General Electric J47-GE-3 turbojet engine, augmented by a Curtiss-Wright XLR27 four-chamber rocket motor rated at a total thrust of 13,000 pounds.Two rocket chambers were to be located above the jet engine exhaust,two below. The fuselage had some resemblance to the F-84 Thunderjet, with some parts actually being in common. However, an entirely new wing was to be fitted. The cantilever, midmounted wing was swept back at an angle of 35 degrees and had a variable incidence. This meant that the wing could be pivoted around its attachment point to the fuselage, allowing the angle of incidence to be adjusted by the pilot for the most effective angle during takeoff, cruise, and landing. The angle of incidence could be varied between -2 and +6 degrees. In contrast to the usual practice, the swept wing was thicker and wider at the tip than it was at the roots. It was hoped that this unusual wing configuration would provide greater lift outboard and would reduce the tendency of the wingtips to stall at low speeds. In addition, it was expected that this innovation would reduce the amount of http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p91.html (1 of 4)09-09-2006 13:17:15


aerodynamic drag at the critical wing/fuselage junction. The retractable landing gear consisted of a single nosewheel plus a pair of main landing gear members attached to the wings. The nosewheel was fairly conventional, and retracted forward into the forward part of the nose. The main landing gear was anything but conventional. Each of the main landing gear members consisted of a pair of bogie-type wheels mounted in tandem. Since the wing roots were too thin to accommodate the main landing gear wheels when retracted, the landing gear retracted outwards, the wheels being stowed inside the thickened wingtips. This configuration permitted the XF-91 to carry external stores or drop tanks on pylons inboard of each undercarriage unit. The design featured a ventral-mounted airbrake, and was to be equipped with a braking parachute to shorten the landing run. A pressurized, air-conditioned cockpit was provided, and the cockpit canopy was similar to that of the F-84. The USAF was sufficiently impressed that they ordered two examples of this design under the designation XF-91. Serials were 46-680 and 46-681. Unfortunately, the Curtiss-Wright rocket motor did not perform properly during tests. Rather than delay the entire program, Republic decided to switch to the lower-powered but tried and true Reaction Motors XLR11 four-chambered rocket motor rated at a total thrust of 6000 pounds. This rocket engine was the powerplant of the X-1 and was considered highly reliable. The individual thrust chambers of the Curtiss-Wright engine were originally to have been positioned in vertical pairs in fairings above and below the exhaust, but with the switch to the XLR11, the lower fairing was enlarged so that it could accommodate all four chambers in a diamond pattern. The first prototype rolled out of the factory on February 24, 1949. The first prototype (46680) took to the air for the first time at Edwards AFB on May 9, 1949, Carl Bellinger being the pilot. The first flights were powered by the turbojet alone. Later that year, flights were made with an afterburner and then later with the rocket engines installed. In December 1951, the XF-91 became the first American combat aircraft to go supersonic in level flight. When all five powerplants were running, the XF-91 coulld achieve a maximum speed of 1126 mph (Mach 1.71). Not bad for the early 1950s! Had the more powerful Curtiss-Wright engine been available, theXF-91 could probably have achieved Mach 2 performance. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p91.html (2 of 4)09-09-2006 13:17:15


The XF-91 showed signs of having the pottential of developing into anexcellent warplane. However, the Korean War had demonstrated that Mach 1 could be exceeded by aircraft that were considerably less sophisticated than the XF-91, and this extremely advanced warplane never saw production. Tests continued with the two prototypes. One was flown experimentally with a V-type butterfly tail, and the first XF-91 was refitted with a nose radome housing an APS-6 radar installation in the same manner as the F-86D Sabre. The XLR11 rocket engine was very reliable and never suffered an inflight failure. On one test flight, it proved its worth when the J47 jet engine flamed out. Unable to restart the jet engine, the pilot fired the rocket motors and was able to reach Edwards AFB and land successfully. The second prototype was eventually destroyed, but the first XF-91 (46-680) is currently on display at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base Museum. Specification of the XF-91: Engines: One General Electric J47-GE-3 axial-flow turbojet, 5200 lb.st. plus four Reaction Motors XLR11-RM-9 rocket motors rated at 1500 lb.st. each. Dimensions: wingspan 31 feet 3 inches, length 43 feet 3 inches, height 18 feet 1 inches, wing area 320 square feet. Weights: 14,140 pounds empty, 18,600 pounds combat, 28,300 pounds maximum. Performance: Maximum speed: 1126 mph at altitude (Mach 1.71), 984 mph at 47,500 feet. Climb to 47,500 feet in 2.5 minutes, service ceiling 50,000 feet, normal range 1175 miles. The planned armament of four 20-mm cannon was never installed. Sources:

1. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple

Press Aerospace, 1990. 2. The Thunder Factory-An Illustrated History of the Republic Aviation Corporation,

Joshua Stoff, Motorbooks International, 1990. 3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.




Convair XF-92A

Convair XF-92A Last revised November 21, 1999

In August of 1945, the USAAF announced a competition for a supersonic interceptor capable of reaching an altitude of 50,000 feet in four minutes and capable of achieving a maximum speed of 700 mph. A tall order for 1945! A team from Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation (better known as Convair) won the competition in May of 1946. The Convair design proposal was for a ramjet-powered aircraft with wing sweep of 45 degrees. The designation XP-92 was assigned to the project. However, wind tunnel testing indicated that there would be problems with wing tip stalling at low angles of attack and with lateral control problems. Consequently, the Convair team went back to some wartime German research by Dr. Alexander Lippisch, who had been an early pioneer in delta wings. The Convair team decided to adapt their aircraft to a delta-winged configuration. The aircraft that they eventually came up with was an interceptor with a delta wing and a Vshaped butterfly tail. It was to be powered by a single 1560-lb.st. Westinghouse J30-WE-1 turbojet plus no less than six 2000-lb.st liquid-fueled rocket engines. The P-92 was envisaged as a very fast point-defense interceptor with range and endurance being sacrificed for all-out performance. In order to speed development of the P-92, in November 1946 the USAAF authorized Convair to build a delta-winged research aircraft to prove out the concept. This aircraft was given the company designation of Model 7-002. A USAF serial number of 46-682 was assigned. In order to save time and money, extensive use was made of existing aircraft components where feasible. The main undercarriage was taken from a North American FJ-1 Fury, the nosewheel was taken from a Bell P-63 Kingcobra, the engine and hydraulics were taken from a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, the ejector seat and cockpit http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p92.html (1 of 4)09-09-2006 13:17:25

Convair XF-92A

canopy were taken from the cancelled Convair XP-81, and the rudder pedals were taken from a BT-13 trainer. The delta wing planform required that "elevons" be developed to replace the traditional elevators and ailerons. All flight controls were hydraulicallyactivated and were irreversible. Construction was well underway when Vultee Field was closed down in the summer of 1947. The airframe was then transferred out to Convair's plant in San Diego for completion. The airframe was completed in the autumn of 1947, and in December it was shipped without an engine to NACA's Ames Aeronautical Laboratory at Moffett Field near Sunnyvale for wind-tunnel testing. After the wind-tunnel testing was completed, the airframe was returned to San Diego, where it was installed with a 4250 lb.s.t. Allison J33A-21 turbojet. The Model 7-002 was then taken out to Muroc Dry Lake (later Edwards AFB) in April of 1948. Tests were at first limited solely to taxiing and high speed ground runs, although a short hop was made on June 9, 1948. In the meantime, the USAF finally came to the conclusion that the F-92 point-defense interceptor concept was not a very practical idea, and decided to cancel the program. However, the idea of a delta-winged aircraft was sufficiently interesting that the USAF decided to continue on with the flight testing of the Model 7-002, even though no production was envisaged. The Model 7-002 aircraft was assigned the designation XF-92A. A 5200 lb.st. J33-A-23 engine was installed before the official flight testing began. The XF-92A officially took to the air for the first time on September 18, 1948, Sam Shannon being the pilot. The XF-92A was the world's first true delta-winged aircraft to fly. Iniial flight testing was performed by Sam Shannon and Bill Martin. They found the controls to be extremely sensitive. Initial testing was completed by August 26, 1949. The XF-92A was then turned over to USAF test pilots Capt. Charles E "Chuck" Yeager and Maj. Frank K. "Pete" Everest, who did most of the test flying with the aircraft until the end of the year. The XF-92A was easy to land and was extremely stable at speeds of Mach 0.9. However, the XF-92A could not exceed the speed of sound in level flight and could only exceed Mach 1.0 in a dive, this being done at least once with Major Everest as the pilot. In 1951, the XF-92A was refitted with an Allison J33-A-29 engine with afterburner, offering a thrust of 7500 lb.st. The re-engined XF-92A was flown by Chuck Yeager for the first time on July 20, 1951. However, there was very little improvement in http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p92.html (2 of 4)09-09-2006 13:17:25

Convair XF-92A

performance. In addition, there were maintenance problems with this engine and only 21 flights were made during the next 19 months. A further engine change was made to the 8400 lb.st. J33-A-16, and on April 9, 1953, the test pilot A. Scott Crossfield began a series of flights on behalf of NACA. These tests indicated a violent pitch-up tendency during high-speed turns. Wing fences were added which partially alleviated this problem. On October 14, 1953, the XF-92A suffered a nosewheel collapse during a high-speed taxiing run. The damage was sufficiently severe that the XF-92A had to be withdrawn from service. Although the XF-92A never produced a useful combat aircraft, it nevertheless provide a lot of valuable data on delta wing aircraft, and was instrumental in the development of the later F-102 and F-106 delta-winged interceptors. Following the withdrawal of the XF-92A from test-flying work, it was eventually disposed of as a static exhibit, and was parked outside to weather away. It was rescued from this fate by the USAF in 1962 and is currently in storage awaiting exhibit at the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB. I was there in June of 1992, but it was still not yet on display. Specification of the XF-92A: Powerplant: One Allison J33-A-29 turbojet, 5900 lb.st. dry and 7500 lb.st. with afterburner. Dimensions: wingspan 31 feet 4 inches, length 42 feet 6 inches, height 17 feet 9 inches, wing area 425 square feet. Weights: 9078 pounds empty, 14,608 pounds gross. Maximum speed: 718 mph at sea level, 655 mph at 35,000 feet. Climb to 35,000 feet in 4.3 minutes, service ceiling 50,750 feet. The XF-92A was never fitted with any armament. Sources:


Press Aerospace, 1990. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 3. General Dynamics Aircraft and their Predecessors, John Wegg, Naval Institute http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p92.html (3 of 4)09-09-2006 13:17:25

Convair XF-92A

Press, 1990.


North American F-86C/YF-93A

North American F-86C/YF-93A Last revised October 29, 1999

One of the problems of early jet fighters was their relatively limited range and endurance as compared to their piston-engined predecessors. The USAAF wanted to acquire jet powered escort fighters capable of defeating enemy interceptors, but most of the early jet fighter designs lacked sufficient range to escort bombers all the way to their targets. Since the USAAF had found by painful experience in World War II that fighter escort was absolutely vital for the survival of bombers in enemy airspace, they considered all sorts of proposals for markedly increasing the range of jet fighter escorts, some of which bordered on the bizarre. Some thought that the range problem could be solved by having the bombers tow their escorting fighters into the combat zone, and several experiments were made with B-29s or B-36s towing P-80 or P-84 jet fighters. Other proposals involving having jet fighters operate in parasite fashion from the bellies of large bombers, the best known example of this idea being the McDonnell XF-85 Goblin. Other ideas included the use of mixed power concepts such as that which produced the Convair XP-81. Others involved the construction of large, bulky fighters that were virtually flying fuel tanks, e.g., the Bell XP-83. Initial attempts to produce jet-powered fighters with the endurance of piston-engined aircraft (e.g. the Bell XP-83 and the Convair XP-81) were disappointing, and in early 1946, the USAAF informally requested proposals for a "penetration fighter" with a combat radius of at least 900 miles and a performance capable of meeting all opposing fighters on more than equal terms. In addition, the USAAF wanted to keep the gross weight of the aircraft below 15,000 pounds. They didn't ask for much, did they? :-) Lockheed submitted the XF-90 and McDonnell entered the XF-88 in response to this proposal, and the USAAF ordered prototypes of both designs in the spring of 1946. In late 1947, North American entered the penetration fighter fray with a proposal for an extensively revised version of the F-86A.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_5.html (1 of 4)09-09-2006 13:17:31


North American's penetration fighter proposal began life as company project NA-157 on December 17, 1947. In order to keep costs down, the NA-157 retained the swept-wing and the tail assembly of the F-86A, but almost everything else was different. For one, it had an entirely new engine. The engine was to have been the Pratt & Whitney J48-P-1 centrifugalflow turbojet rated at 8000 lb.st. with afterburning. The J48 was an American-built version of the Rolls Royce Tay. Since the J48 was significantly larger than the J47 of the F-86A, the fuselage had to be increased both in width and in length. In order to meet the range requirement, additional fuel tankage had to be added, bring the total fuel capacity to 1580 gallons. Since the NA-157 was a larger and heavier aircraft than the F-86A, the landing gear was significantly more robust, with twin wheels being used on the main landing gear. In December of 1947, the USAF ordered two examples of the NA-157 under the designation F-86C, reflecting its Sabre ancestry. Serials were 48-317 and 48-318. Armament of the F-86C was to have been six 20-mm cannon (with 225 rpg), and an SCR720 search radar was to have been mounted in the nose. Since the radar set now took up the nose, the air intakes for the turbojet had to be relocated to the sides of the fuselage. These side intakes used special NACA-designed flush-mounted air scoops in the hopes of reducing aerodynamic drag. The air brakes on the sides of the F-86A fuselage were replaced by a single large slab-type brake mounted on the fuselage belly. In the penetration fighter competition, the USAF initially favored the North American design because of its commonality with other Sabre variants, and in June of 1948 they supplemented the contract for the two F-86Cs with a contract for 118 production aircraft. At that time, it was decided that there were so many differences between the F-86C and the production Sabre that the F-86C should be assigned a new F-number--it was redesignated YF-93A. It would seem that the F-93 would be assured of a long and fruitful career with the USAF. However, the F-93A production contract was suddenly cancelled in February of 1949. Several reasons were given. One reason was that the projected performance of the B-47 Stratojet was such that it probably would not need a fighter escort. Perhaps the most important reason was a severe reduction in the military budget for FY 1949. With limited funds available, it was decided to give priority to interceptors and to strategic bombers. In addition, a Senior Officers' Board felt that no production order for any penetration fighters should be awarded until a competitive flyoff between the three contenders could be carried out. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_5.html (2 of 4)09-09-2006 13:17:31


Even though the production contract had been cancelled, work on the two YF-93A prototypes (48-317 and 318) continued so that they could be entered in the penetration fighter contest. The YF-93A was actually the last of the three penetration fighter competitors to take to the air. The McDonnell XF-88 competitor had flown on October 20, 1948, and the Lockheed XF-90 had made its first flight on June 3, 1949. The YF-93A did not roll out of the factory until late 1949, and was trucked out to Muroc Dry Lake for flight testing. George Welch took the YF-93A (48-317) on its maiden flight on January 24, 1950. The flyoff between the Lockheed XF-90, the McDonnell XF-88, and the North American YF-93A took place in the summer of 1950. On August 15, 1950, the Evaluation Board declared the McDonnell XF-88 to be the winner of the contest. However, McDonnell's victory was rather hollow, since no penetration fighters were ever actually manufactured or placed in service because the development of long-range, high-speed jet bombers such as the B-47 and the B-52 eliminated any real need for penetration fighters. In addition, wartime pressures mandated that priority be given to the procurement of existing types for use in Korea. The two YF-93As were eventually handed over to NACA's Ames Laboratory at Moffett Field, California for comparison tests of the flush air intakes. Late in their lives, both prototypes were fitted with more conventional air intake scoops extending over the NACA flush intakes. The test results indicated that the standard intakes were actually a better design for high-speed flight than the original flush intakes. At one point in their service lives, both planes had their rear fuselages modified to accept a production F-86D tailpipe and stabilizer housing. They were used by NACA as flight test and chase aircraft well into the mid 1950s, and played an important role in testing for most of the "Century Series" of fighter aircraft ranging from F-101 to F-106. They were both retired and scrapped in the late 1950s. Specification of North American YF-93A: Engine: One Pratt & Whitney J48-P-6 turbojet rated at 6000 lb.st. dry and 8750 lb.st. with afterburner. Performance: Maximum speed 708 mph at sea level, 622 mph at 35,000 feet. Initial climb rate 11,960 feet per minute. Maximum range on internal fuel 2000 miles. Service ceiling 46,800 feet. Dimensions: Wingspan 38 feet 9 inches , length 44 feet 1 inch, height 15 feet 8 inches, wing area 306 square feet. Weights: 14,035 pounds empty, 21,610 pounds gross, 26,516 pounds combat. Armament: Six 20-mm cannon in the nose. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_5.html (3 of 4)09-09-2006 13:17:31


Sources: 1. F-86 Sabre in Action, Larry Davis, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1992. 2. The North American Sabre, Ray Wagner, MacDonald, 1963. 3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 4. Flash of the Sabre, Jack Dean, Wings Vol 22, No 5, 1992. 5. North American F-86 Sabre, Larry Davis, Wings of Fame, Volume 10, 1998


Lockheed F-94

Lockheed F-94 Last revised November 26, 1999

Lockheed F-94A Lockheed F-94B Lockheed F-97/F-94C Starfire Lockheed F-94D

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f94.html09-09-2006 13:17:37

North American F-86D Sabre

North American F-86D Sabre Last revised September 12, 1999

In the late 1940s, being faced for the first time with the possiblity of a strategic bombing attack on the US mainland by Soviet strategic bombers, the US government began a massive effort to develop an effective defense of US airspace. In support of this effort, the USAF had decided on the Northrop F-89 Scorpion as the interceptor of choice that would provide for the aerial defense of North America until the supersonic "1954 Interceptor" (the Convair F-102/F-106) would be ready. However, problems with the XF89 prototype led the Air Force to consider possible alternatives in case the F-89 project failed. These alternatives included a modified Lockheed TF-80C which evolved into the F94 Starfire, as well as a highly modified version of the F-86 Sabre. On March 28, 1949, North American Aviation began engineering design work on an allweather interceptor version of the F-86. The project was known as NA-164 by the company. The USAF showed immediate interest in the project, and on April 7, 1949 the company felt sufficiently confident that they began work on a production version, which was known as the NA-165. Up to that time, all-weather jet interceptors had always been two-seaters, and the NA164/165 was the first attempt to build a single-seat all-weather jet interceptor. An on-board radar-guided intercept system would provide for the all-weather capability, and an afterburning jet engine would be used to provide the extra boost needed to reach high speeds and high altitudes in a hurry, an essential feature for an interceptor. The omission of the second seat made for a simpler adaptation of the existing Sabre airframe. However, the choice of a single-seat format required sophisticated electronic systems to replace the second crew member, making it necessary to employ some of the earliest computers used in aviation. An afterburning General Electric J47-GE-17 turbojet was selected as the powerplant for the NA-164/165, and was provided with an electronically- controlled fuel scheduling http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_6.html (1 of 14)09-09-2006 13:17:45


system which was designed to relieve the pilot of the tedious task of having to watch the engine behavior constantly. A single throttle lever control worked through an electronic fuel selector which determined the amount of fuel to be fed to the engine and correlated the entire engine and afterburner behavior for optimal efficiency. In the promotional literature of the day, this engine was referred to as a "blowtorch with a brain". An AN/APG-36 search radar was to be carried in the nose. In order to fit the search radar into the nose, the nose air intake had to be lowered and reshaped to make space above it for a 30-inch dielectric radome covering the 18-inch antenna of the search radar. Instead of using conventional cannon armament, plans were made for the armament to consist of a battery of twenty-four 2.75-inch "Mighty Mouse" Folding Fin Aircraft Rockets (FFARs), all mounted in a retractable tray in the aircraft's belly. The FFAR, developed jointly by North American and the Navy, was based on the German R4 rocket of World War II. The use of an all-rocket armament was quite innovative for the time, although a more conventional 20-mm cannon installation was studied as a standby plan. The rearward-sliding canopy of the F-86A was replaced by a clamshell canopy hinged at the rear. It was anticipated that the clamshell canopy would make for easier and safer ejection in the event of an emergency. The aircraft was to be fitted with an all-flying horizontal tail, and the controls were to be completely hydraulic. In February 1950, the rocket armament was selected and all plans for the standby 20-mm cannon were dropped. On July 19, 1949, the Secretary of the Air Force formally endorsed the Sabre interceptor project. A Letter Contract for two NA-164 aircraft and 122 NA-165 aircraft was made out on October 7, 1949. Since the NA-164/165 was a substantially new aircraft with only 25 percent commonality with the original F-86A, the USAF decided to give the new interceptor a new F-number and assigned it the designation F-95. The announcement of the first successful USSR atomic bomb test a short while earlier gave a certain sense of urgency to the F-95 project. A formal contract was approved on June 2, 1950, with 31 more examples being added to the order to bring the total to 153. Responsibility for the electronic fire control system was assigned to the Hughes Aircraft Corporation. On November 18, 1949, the Hughes company proposed that the system be designed so that the rocket attack on the enemy aircraft would be made from a lead http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_6.html (2 of 14)09-09-2006 13:17:45


collision course instead of from the traditional tail pursuit curve. Hughes evolved the E-4 system for this purpose. Until the 250-kW E-4 was available, the less-capable E-3 50-kw system would be fitted to the first 37 production F-95 aircraft. The first NA-164 rolled out of the NAA plant in September of 1949. At that time, it was still known as the YF-95A, and was so labeled on its nose. Oddly enough, the two YF95A prototypes had serials numbered after the beginning of the production run (the YF95A had serials 50-577/578, and production F-95s began with serial number 50-455). Neither the rocket armament nor the fire control system were yet available, and in order not to delay testing both prototypes were initially delivered and flown without them. In addition, conventional F-86A controls were fitted, and the sliding canopy and V-shaped windscreeen of the F-86A were retained. An early version of the afterburning J47-GE-17 engine was fitted, limited to 5000 lb.s.t. dry and 6650 lb.s.t. with afterburning. 50-577 went by truck to Muroc on November 28, 1949, The first flight was made on December 27, 1949, the redoubtable George Welch being at the controls. Throughout 1950, North American test pilots made some 74 flights to evaluate engine electronic controls and to check out the function of the afterburner. The prototype Hughes E-3 fire-control system was received at NAA on May 26, 1950 and was installed in the second YF-95A (50-578) and tested during September. On October 17, 1950, this aircraft went to Hughes for two years of development testing. The retractable rocket pack with twenty-four 2.75-inch "Mighty Mouse" FFAR (FoldingFin Aircraft Rockets) rockets was fitted to 50-577 which went to Inyokern, the Navy's rocket range at China Lake, California for firing tests. The 1.75-inch rocket had a 7.55pound explosive warhead, a velocity of 2500 feet/second at burnout, and a range of 4500 yards. First trials were carried out in February of 1951. The launcher took only a halfsecond to extend, and the FFARs could be fired in groups or in salvo from the launcher. The stabilizing fins were foldable, being clustered around the aft end of the rocket and snapping into position after clearing the launcher. For political reasons the designation of the F-95 was changed to F-86D on July 24, 1950. The reasons for the change are sort of murky. North American company officials explained that the reason for the designation change was that separate appropriations must be made by Congress to allocate funds for "new" types of aircraft, but "developments" of http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_6.html (3 of 14)09-09-2006 13:17:45


existing types come under another budget category, making the F-86D a much easier "sell" to Congress than the F-95A. However, the USAF claimed that that the real reason for the change was the fact that a contractor could justify larger unit costs for a "new" aircraft than it could for a "development" of an existing one. Even though the USAF initially had agreed that the F-86D was substantially a "new" aircraft and designated it F95A, in order to save the taxpayers some money they convinced North American management to agree that the plane was simply a "logical extension" of the existing F-86 and the designation was changed to F-86D. The pressure of the Korean War led to fears that a Soviet attack on the US mainland could come at any time, and orders for the F-86D were dramatically stepped up. An order for 188 F-86D-20-NAs under the NAA number NA-177 was approved on April 11, 1951. Another contract for 638 F-86D-25 through D-35 aircraft was approved on July 18, 1951, the company designation for these aircraft being NA-173. A total of 979 production F86Ds were now on order. The first production version was the F-86D-1-NA. The first F-86D-1-NA (50-455) was delivered to the USAF in March of 1951. This aircraft had the production configuration-with clamshell canopy, increased vertical tail surface area, and the all-flying horizontal tail which had been lowered slightly. The aircraft also had the production version of the J47GE-17 engine, which offered 5425 lb.s.t. dry and 7500 lb.s.t. with afterburner. The rear fuselage of the D-1 was redesigned to have a mush smaller exhaust opening than the prototypes, and small vortex generators were added to both the stabilizer and the rear fuselage to break up potential drag in these areas. All D-1s had the E-3 fire control system. The all-flying horizontal tail had an artificial feel for the pilot. It had more positive longitudinal control than the F-86A's tail, eliminating the phenomenon of control reversal that took place at high subsonic speeds. However, the all-flying tail took a bit of getting used to. It was very sensitive, and when a pilot was flying at high speeds at low altitudes he could inadvertently induce a violent oscillating pitching maneuver. However, the pitching could be halted by the pilot simply releasing the controls. Some system changes helped to reduce this problem, but the F-86D always required careful piloting throughout its entire career. The F-86D-1-NA had an empty weight of 13,677 pounds and a combat weight of 16,292 pounds. It had a top speed of 692 mph at sea level and an initial climb rate of 12,200 feet per minute. This was less than the 707 mph promised at the time of the contract in June of http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_6.html (4 of 14)09-09-2006 13:17:45


1950. Nevertheless, the F-86D-1 was quite a bit faster than the contemporary Northrop F89C Scorpion (650 mph) and the Lockheed F-94C Starfire (640 mph). Consequently, the F-86D was chosen for two-thirds of the Air Defense Command's wings, and became the dominant ADC interceptor during the late 1950s. In the meantime, F-86D-1-NA acceptances were agonizingly slow because of delays in delivery of the Hughes E-3 fire control system, as well as by problems with the electronic fuel controls. The last F-86D-1 was not delivered to the USAF until October of 1952, three years after the original letter contract had been issued. The next production version was the F-86D-5-NA, which was the first to be equipped with the E-4 fire control system. The first production Hughes E-4 fire control system was received in December 1951, nearly three months late. The E-4 was five times as powerful as the E-3 system, but the first few examples of the E-4 that were delivered had extremely poor quality control, with serious defects like incorrect wiring, wrong vacuum tubes, loose hardware, and the like. It was not until July of 1952 that the first E-4 equipped aircraft, the F-86D-5-NA (serial number 50-492) was delivered for testing. The 26 F-86D-5-NAs were followed by 36 F-86D-10s which introduced a power-operated rudder without a trim tab. The 54 F-86D-15s introduced a single-point ground refueling receptacle for faster mission turnaround times. Other changes on the D-15 included installation of the AN/ARC-27 command radio. This completed the first (NA-165) contract. The second contract (NA-177) began with the F-86D-20-NA, which added a fuel filter deicing system. 188 of these were built between May and December of 1953. The 88 F-86D-25-NAs introduced provisions for using the 120-gallon drop tanks for combat missions rather than simply for ferrying. The F-86D-30-NA introduced an automatic approach coupler control, and the manuallyoperated rudder with trim tab reappeared. 200 were built. The F-86D-35-NA introduced omni-directional radar ranging--the RC-103 Zero Reader of earlier versions was replaced with the AN/ARN-14 Omni-Directional Ranging Set. The last 97 of the production F-86D-35-NA aircraft had an afterburner fitted with a new fuel



flow amplifier and an inner ceramic liner of the exhaust to provide for better protection against excess heat. A total of 350 D-35s were built. However, recurring problems with the E-4 fire control system, with the electronic fuel control, and with the new AN/ARN-14 ranging set, kept the last of the planes from being completed until late December of 1953. During the early 1950s, North American Aviation was turning out F-86Ds at a faster rate than they could be supplied with engine controls and electronic equipment. At one time during the winter of 1952-53 there were no less than 320 F-86Ds parked outside the factory at Inglewood waiting for various electronic systems such as radar, E-4 fire control systems, autopilots, or engine controls. Deliveries were eventually made of the electronic equipment and the F-86Ds eventually moved off the strip outside the Inglewood factory and out to squadron service. All the D-15s were delivered by March of 1953, and the D20s, 25s and 30s were delivered to the USAF by June of 1953. The USAF was anxious to show off its hot new interceptor to the public. On November 18, 1952, F-86D-20-NA serial number 51-2945 set a new world's air speed record of 698.505 mph. The record-setting plane was flown by Captain J. Slade Nash over a 3-km course at the Salton Sea in California at a height of 125 feet. This record was broken on July 16, 1953 by Lt. Col. William Barnes flying the first F-86D-35-NA (51-6145) over the same Salton Sea course, averaging 715.697 mph. Both record-breaking aircraft were standard production F-86Ds with full armament and electronics. The faster speed of the second aircraft was made possible by a higher ambient temperature and by the addition of a ceramic liner around the exhaust nozzle. This innovation was added to the last 97 D-35 production aircraft. The advanced performance of the F-86D won it two more contracts. The first of these new contracts, the NA-190, was approved on March 6, 1952 and called for 901 F-86D-40 to 50 aircraft. The 300 F-86D-40-NAs were powered by the J47-GE-17B of 5425 lb.st. dry and 7500 lb. st. with afterburner. They had a new glide path indicator and had an exhaust temperature gauge added to the instrument panel. By December of 1953, problems with the electronic fuel control system had gotten so bad that the Air Force was forced to ground its entire F-86D fleet after the loss of 13 aircraft due to engine fires and explosions.



Long landing runs had been a problem for the F-86D ever since its introduction, and to cure this problem a 15.6-foot ribbon drag parachute was tested on F-86D-15-NA serial number 50-544. This reduced the landing roll from 2550 feet to 1600 feet. The success of this installation led to the installation of drag parachutes to all production aircraft from F86D-45-NA onward. The first D-45 appeared in April 1954. The D-45s could be distinguished from their predecessors by the presence of the braking parachute housing with a straight fairing immediately above the exhaust tailpipe which replaced the curved fairing of previous blocks. Installation of the drag chute was made necessary by the introduction of the F-86D to bases in Japan, Formosa, and Okinawa where the runways were much shorter than those normally used by the F-86D at bases in the continental USA. The first 238 D-45s were provided with the J47-GE-17B turbojet, but the remaining F86Ds (52-4136 and subsequent) completed from July 1954 onward had the J47-GE-33 with a dry thrust of 5500 pounds and 7650 pounds with afterburner. For a brief time, the version of the F-86D with the -33 engine was known as F-86G, but the designation was soon changed back to F-86D. The main effect of the more powerful engine was an improvement in speed at 40,000 feet from 612 to 616 mph. Maximum sea level speed was 693 mph, service ceiling was 49,600 feet, and initial climb rate was 12,000 feet per minute. The J47-GE-33 engine was much more powerful than the -17 engine which powered the earlier versions. In addition, it had better cooling and afterburner ignition, as well as several other improvements which eliminated some of the flaws of the earlier engine. However, crashes caused by engine problems continued. Many of these were caused by engine fuel control malfunctions, by defective engine parts, or by turbine wheel failures. The final three variants had minor instrument and electronics changes. All were externally similar to the D-45 with the drag chute in the tail. The 301 F-86D-50-NAs rounded out the NA-190 contract. The last production order was placed on June 12, 1953 for 624 F-86D55s and -60s. These bore the company designation of NA-201. They were all quite similar to each other. The last F-86D-60-NA, 53-4090, was accepted in September 1955. At that time the ADC had twenty F-86D wings. The F-86D was a very complex aircraft for its day, and was a bit of a handful for a single pilot. It required more pilot training than any other USAF aircraft, including the sixengined B-47. Most of the training for the F-86D took place at Perrin AFB in Texas. Pilot trainees had to spend a lot of time in ground based flight simulators that had a replica of a http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_6.html (7 of 14)09-09-2006 13:17:45


cockpit duplicating F-86D controls. Flight training included the firing of rockets at targets towed behind B-45 bombers. By the time that late 1953 rolled around, there was a profusion of many different production blocks of F-86Ds in service, all of them quite different from each other and requiring different sets of spare parts, different instruction manuals, and different maintenance procedures. This made for a maintenance and repair nightmare. In order to make the various production blocks of the F-86D standard throughout the USAF, a decision was made in late 1953 to withdraw all F-86Ds from combat units in stages and subject them all to upgrades so that there would be a more-or-less "standard" F-86D out there in the field, making maintenance and repair much less of a headache. The project was given the name *Project Pull-Out*. One by one, as their periodic maintenance became due, these early-block F-86Ds were taken out of service, returned to maintenance depots or to the North American factory, and subjected to upgrades such as the installation of current electronics or the provision of braking parachutes. By September 1955, the upgrade program was completed. The last production F-86D (53-4090) was delivered to the ADC in September of 1954. In all, a total of 2506 F-86Ds were built. In a typical intercept mission, the F-86D's AN/APG-37 radar searched the sky in a forward direction, sweeping back and forth and up and down in a 3.5-second cycle. Targets could be located up to 30 miles away. When the target showed up as a blip on the pilot's radar scope, he locked the radar onto the target and the AN/APA-84 computer determined a lead collision course. The pilot flew this course by keeping the steering dot on his scope inside a reference circle. When the automatic tracking system indicated that there were only 20 seconds to go, the pilot steered more precisely to keep the dot in a smaller circle. The pilot chose whether to fire 6, 12, or all 24 of his rockets, and pressed the trigger. However, the actual firing instant was determined by the computer, not by the pilot, and when the computer deemed the range to be right, the rocket pack was extended and the rockets were fired. The range at which the computer fired the rockets at the target was typically about 500 yards. It took a half-second for the pack to lower, and only a fifth of a second to fire all 24 rockets. After firing, the rockets fanned out in a predetermined pattern reminiscent of a shotgun blast. When the last rocket was away, the pack automatically retracted back into the fuselage belly, and an "8" appeared on the pilot's scope, warning him that the target was only 260 yards ahead and that he had better break away. It was thought that the lead collision course attack would expose the F-86D to enemy defensive fire for the http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_6.html (8 of 14)09-09-2006 13:17:45


minimum amount of time, and the "shotgun" effect of the rocket pattern would ensure a high probability of a kill. If, for some reason, the E-4 fire control system went down, there was a stand-by optical lead computing sight provided. The F-86Ds rockets were meant for use against bombers, not fighters. If confronted by enemy fighters, the tactic was for the F-86D to turn towards its attackers, then use its superior speed to get the heck out of there as quickly as possible. Tests had disclosed that the 2.75-inch FFAR rockets of the F-86D were only marginal in accuracy and effectiveness. In 1955, an F-86D-60-NA (serial number 53-4061) was fitted with underwing fixtures for four GAR-1B Falcon radar-homing missiles. Another example was tested with the infrared homing Sidewinder missile. However, budgetary limitations ended both projects in September of 1957. In the late 1950s, the F-86D served as the main air defense weapon against Soviet bomber attacks. In retrospect, the Soviet bomber threat was grossly exaggerated, but it cannot be denied that the presence of the F-86D interceptor and its F-94 and F-89 stablemates was an important deterrent. At one time, the ADC had no less than 20 F-86D wings, totaling 1405 aircraft, which made up two thirds of all ADC units. All the F-86D squadrons were under Air Defense Command, US Air Forces in Europe, or Far East Air Force control, with the exception of two squadrons that were transferred to the Strategic Air Command in 1959. The F-86D served with the following Air Defense Command Fighter-Interceptor Squadrons: 2nd, 5th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 31st, 37th, 42nd, 47th,49th 54th 56th, 60th, 62nd 63rd, 71st, 75th, 82nd, 83rd, 85th,86th, 87th, 93rd, 94th, 95th, 97th, 318th, 332nd, 323rd,324th, 325th, 326th, 327th, 329th, 330th, 331st, 332nd, 354th,413th, 432nd, 440th, 444th, 445th, 456th, 460th, 465th, 469th,496th, 497th (later to SAC), 498th, 518th, 519th, 520th, 538th,539th. The F-86D served with the following Far East Air Force squadrons: 4th, 16th, 25th, 26th, 39th, 40th, 41st, 68th, and 329th FIS.



The following independent squadrons of USAFE operated F-86Ds: 357th, 431st, 525th, and 526th Even after Project Pull-Out had been completed, the USAF was still experiencing problems with its F-86D fleet. Engine failures were still all too frequent, and the E-4 fire control system remained unreliable and difficult to maintain. In September of 1957, the Air Force decided to phase out the F-86D as soon as possible and replace it with the F86L. The F-86L was to be a conversion of existing F-86D airframes so that the aircraft had the capability of working in conjunction with the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) computerized ground-controlled intercept system. The phaseout of the F-86D from the ADC began in August of 1956, and was essentially complete by April of 1958. As ADC F-86Ds were phased out, some of them were turned over to the Air National Guard (ANG). The following Air National Guard Squadrons received F-86Ds: 141th, Texas ANG (1957-1960) 120th, Colorado ANG (1960-1961) 122nd, Louisiana ANG (1957-1960) 125th, Oklahoma ANG (1957-1960) 127th, Kansas ANG (1958-1961) 128th, Georgia ANG (1960-1961) 133rd, New Hampshire ANG (1958-1960) 146th, Pennsylvania ANG (1957-1960) 147th, Pennsylvania ANG (1958-1961) 151st, Tennessee ANG (1957-1960) 156th, North Carolina ANG (1959-1960) 157th, South Carolina ANG (1958-1960) 159th, Florida ANG (1956-1960) 173rd, (1957-1964) 181st, Texas ANG (1957-1964) 182nd, Texas ANG (1957-1960) 185th, Oklahoma ANG (1958-1961) 187th, Wyoming ANG (1958-1961) 190th, Idaho ANG (1959-1964) http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_6.html (10 of 14)09-09-2006 13:17:45


191st, Utah ANG (1958-1961) 192nd, Nevada ANG (1958-1961) 194th, California ANG (1958-1965) 196th, California ANG (1958-1965) 197th, Arizona ANG (1957-1960) 198th, Puerto Rico ANG (1958-1960) 199th, Hawaii ANG (1958-1961) Many of the ANG's F-86Ds were quickly supplanted by F-86Ls, and by June 1961, the F86D no longer appeared on either the USAF or ANG rolls. So far as I am aware, the F-86D never fired a single shot in anger while serving with the USAF. Perhaps that fact alone is a testimony to its effectiveness as a deterrent.

Export Throughout much of the 1950s, the E-4 fire control system of the F-86D was considered too sensitive for export to foreign nations. A simplified version, known as the F-86K, was delivered in its stead. It was not until 1958 that it was deemed safe to export the F-86D overseas. By that time, the F-86D was beginning to be replaced in USAF service by supersonic types such as the Convair F-102A Delta Dagger and the McDonnell F-101B Voodoo, and ex-USAF F-86Ds were now freed up for export to Allied nations. Denmark--Kongelige Danske Flyvevabnet First to receive the F-86D was the Kongelige Danske Flyvevabnet, or Royal Danish Air Force. Beginning in 1958, 59 mainly ex-USAFE F-86Ds went to the Royal Danish Air Force, where they equipped Nos. 723, 726 and 728 Squadrons. Another 3 were acquired as spares in 1962. Many were fitted with Martin-Baker ejector seats. These F-86Ds were operated by the RDAF until March 31,1966. After their withdrawal from service, the surviving aircraft were used as decoys. Japanese Air Self Defense Force Beginning in January 1958, 122 ex-USAF F-86Ds were supplied to the Japanese Air Self Defense Force, equipping the 101st, 102nd, 103rd, and 105th Squadrons of the 3rd Wing. These F-86Ds were taken out of service in October of 1968. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_6.html (11 of 14)09-09-2006 13:17:45


Republic of Korea Beginning in November of 1960, the Republic of Korea got sufficient numbers of F-86Ds to equip two interceptor wings. The Ds had all been retired by 1978-79. Taiwan-Republic of China Air Force The Chinese Nationalist Air Force obtained enough F-86Ds to equip one all-weather interceptor squadron. I have no further details. Phillipines In 1958, twenty F-86Ds were delivered to the Philippine Air Force under the provisions of the MDAP. They were withdrawn from service by 1970. Greece-Elliniki Polmiki Aeroporia Beginning in 1961, 35 F-86Ds were delivered to the Royal Hellenic Air Force of Greece under the MDAP. They equipped No. 343 Squadron until 1966/67. A few remained as decoys as late as 1993. Turkey-Turk Hava Kuvvetleri And, of course, an equal number of F-86Ds had to be delivered to the Turkish air force, the Turk Hava Kuvvetleri. Whenever you deliver a combat aircraft to Turkey, you have to deliver one to Greece, and vice-versa. Yugoslavia-Jugoslavensko Ratno Vazduhplovstvo In 1961, the Yugoslavian air force, the Jugoslovensko Ratno Vazduhoplovstvo, obtained 130 F-86Ds. Deliveries of US combat aircraft to what was obstensibly a Communist country caused a lot of political controversy in the USA. For a time, these F-86Ds served in Yugoslavia alongside the Soviet-supplied MiG-21, one of the few situations where Western and Soviet-bloc aircraft served side-by-side. They were finally taken out of service about 1980. Serials of F-86D http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_6.html (12 of 14)09-09-2006 13:17:45


50-455/491 50-492/517 50-518/553 50-554/576 50-577/578 50-704/734 51-2944/3131 51-5857/5944 51-5945/6144 51-6145/6262 51-8274/8505 52-3598/3897 52-3898/4197 52-4198/4304 52-9983/10176 53-557/781 53-0782/1071 53-3675/3710

North American F-86D-1-NA Sabre c/n 165-1/37 North American F-86D-5-NA Sabre c/n 165-38/63 North American F-86D-10-NA Sabre c/n 165-64/99 North American F-86D-15-NA Sabre c/n 165-100/122 North American YF-86D-NA Sabre c/n 164-1/2 North American F-86D-15-NA Sabre c/n 165-123/153 North American F-86D-20-NA Sabre c/n 177-1/188 North American F-86D-25-NA Sabre c/n 173-1/88 North American F-86D-30-NA Sabre c/n 173-89/288. North American F-86D-35-NA Sabre c/n 173-289/406 North American F-86D-35-NA Sabre c/n 173-407/638 North American F-86D-40-NA Sabre c/n 190-1/300. North American F-86D-45-NA Sabre c/n 190-301/600. North American F-86D-50-NA Sabre c/n 190-601/607 North American F-86D-50-NA Sabre c/n 190-708/901 North American F-86D-55-NA Sabre c/n 201-1/225 North American F-86D-60-NA Sabre c/n 201-226/515 North American F-86D-60-NA Sabre c/n 201-516/551



53-4018/4090

North American F-86D-60-NA Sabre c/n 201-552/624

Specification of the F-86D-40-NA Engine: One General Electric J47-GE-33, rated at 5500 lb.st. dry and 7650 lb.st. with afterburner. Performance: Maximum speed: 693 mph at sea level, 616 mph at 40,000 feet. Tactical radius: 270 miles at 550 mph. Ferry range: 769 miles (two 120 US gallon underwing tanks). Initial climb rate: 12,000 feet per minute. an altitude of 40,000 feet could be reached in 7.2 minutes. Service ceiling: 49,600 feet. Takeoff distance to clear 50foot obstacle: 3600 feet. Weights: 13,498 pounds empty, 18,160 pounds loaded, 19,952 pounds maximum. Dimensions: wingspan 37 feet 1 1/2 inches, length 40 feet 3 1/4 inches, height 15 feet 0 inches, wing area 287.9 square feet. Armament: 24 2.75-inch "Mighty Mouse" Folding Fin Aircraft Rockets (FFARs), all mounted in a retractable tray in the aircraft's belly. Sources: 1. F-86 Sabre in Action, Larry Davis, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1992. 2. The North American Sabre, Ray Wagner, MacDonald, 1963. 3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 4. The World Guide to Combat Planes, William Green, MacDonald, 1966. 5. The World's Fighting Planes, William Green, Doubleday, 1964. 6. Flash of the Sabre, Jack Dean, Wings Vol 22, No 5, 1992. 7. Larry Davis, North American F-86 Sabre, Wings of Fame, Vol 10, 1998.


Republic XF-96A/XF-84F Thunderstreak

Republic XF-96A/XF-84F Thunderstreak Last revised October 17, 1999

A swept-wing version of the F-84 had been planned late in 1949 in order to bring the performance of the Thunderjet up to the level of that of the F-86 Sabre. However, it was hoped that the swept wing version would retain or even improve the ground attack capabilities of the Thunderjet. At this time, USAF funds for new aircraft development were rather limited, and it was thought that by using some 60 percent of existing Thunderjet tooling and a standard F-84E fuselage, a high-performance aircraft could be produced at minimal cost. The swept-wing version of the Thunderjet was initially designated XF-96A because of its extensive design changes. The USAF sanctioned construction of a single prototype. The last aircraft on the F-84E contract (49-2430) was selected for the conversion. The fuselage of the XF-96A was essentially that of the F-84E, including the pilot's rearward-sliding canopy and the air brake underneath the fuselage. The tail was swept back and an entirely new wing, swept back at an angle of 38.5 degrees was used. The new wing had an area of 325 square feet and a span of 36 feet 5 inches. The wing had its maximum thickness at 45 percent chord, although the chord-wise thickness ratio was only nine percent. The swept wing had an anhedral (negative dihedral) of 3.5 degrees. The engine was an Allison J35-A25 of 5200 lb.st. The construction of XF-96A 49-2430 took 167 days. It was then dismantled and flown from Farmingdale via cargo aircraft out to Muroc. It was reassembled there and took off on its maiden flight on June 3, 1950, piloted by Republic's Director of Flight Otto P. Haas. Performance included a maximum speed of 693 mph at sea level (Mach 0.93), and a range of 1716 miles at a cruising speed of 514 mph. Maximum fuel load was 1253 Imp. gall internally and externally, and the empty and maximum loaded weights were 12,150 pounds and 23,350 pounds respectively. Although the low-altitude speed was impressive, performance fell off rather badly with altitude. Service ceiling was only 38,300 feet and it took 14.8 minutes to reach an altitude of 35,000 feet. It was felt that the performance http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p84_8.html (1 of 2)09-09-2006 13:17:50

Republic XF-96A/XF-84F Thunderstreak

improvement over the F-84E was only marginal at best, and the project proceeded with only low priority. Were it not for the Korean War, the XF-96A project probably would have been cancelled. As it turned out, the onset of the Korean War freed up some USAF funds for continued development and a letter contract for F-96A production was received in July of 1950. On August 9, 1950, the designation was changed to XF-84F, and the name Thunderstreak was chosen. It was anticipated that the first production Thunderstreaks would be available in the autumn of 1951. Sources: 1. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple

Press Aerospace, 1990. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 3. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 4. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 5. The Republic F-84F Thunderstreak, Ray Wagner, Profile Publications, 1966.


Lockheed F-97/F-94C Starfire

Lockheed F-97/F-94C Starfire Last revised November 26, 1999

The F-94A/B all-weather interceptors of the USAF were considered only as interim types which would fill in the gap for a couple of years until more advanced aircraft could be made available in quantity. Once their initial problems had been corrected, the F-94A/B proved to be quite reliable allweather interceptors and were relatively easy to maintain in the field. However, the F-94A/B lacked sufficient range and climbing speed to make it a really good interceptor, and its armament did not pack sufficient punch to be considered really effective against bombers. In July 1948, four months before receiving the contract for the first batch of F-94As, Lockheed issued a proposal to the USAF for a more advanced development of the F-94A concept. The project was given the company designation of L-188. In order to achieve higher Mach numbers, the L-188 featured a completely new wing with reduced thickness and greater dihedral. The speed brakes were revised and the fuel capacity was increased. The aircraft was to be provided with a drag 'chute, being the first USAF fighter to be so equipped. Since more power was clearly needed, a Pratt & Whitney J48 afterburning turbojet was to be fitted. This engine was a license-built version of the Britishdesigned Rolls-Royce Tay. With afterburning, this engine offered 8750 pounds of thrust. The increased engine thrust required that the air intakes be revised and made larger. The rear fuselage had to be revised in order to accommodate this new engine. A more advanced Hughes E-5 fire control system with APG-40 radar was to be used. The machine gun armament of the F-94A was to be replaced by an all-rocket armament mounted in the fuselage nose. The USAF was initially not all that interested in the Lockheed proposal, preferring to concentrate on the North American F-86D Sabre and the Northrop F-89 Scorpion. Nevertheless, the USAF thought enough of the proposal that they assigned it a designation of F-97. A new F-number was selected for the Lockheed proposal since it was almost a complete redesign of the F-94. Undeterred by the USAF's initial lukewarm response to their L-188 proposal, Lockheed decided in 1949 to go ahead with the construction of a company-funded demonstrator aircraft that would combine the L-188 wing with a F-94A fuselage from which the military armament and fire control systems had been omitted. Since the J48 engine was not yet ready, the demonstrator was fitted with an imported non-afterburning Rolls-Royce Tay. Bearing the civil registration N94C, the unarmed demonstrator flew for the first time on January 19, http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f94_3.html (1 of 5)09-09-2006 13:17:56


1950, with test pilot Tony LeVier at the controls. It retained the original nose of the F-94A, and had non-standard teardrop-shaped centerline-mounted wingtip tanks. The USAF was sufficiently impressed that in February 1950 they purchased the unarmed L-188 demonstrator under the designation YF-97. The military serial number 50-955 replaced the original civil registration number. At the same time, the USAF ordered a fully militarized prototype YF-97 under the serial number 50-877. 180 production examples were ordered under the designation F-97A. The company designation for the F-97A was Model 880. Initial trials with the L-188/YF-97 demonstrator turned up several problems which were corrected by progressive modifications. The wing root extension fillet of the original L-188 wing was removed in order to improve stall characteristics during landing approach. The original horizontal stabilizer of the F-94 was replaced by power-boosted swept surfaces to eliminate an annoying high-frequency vibration that took place at high Mach numbers. Dampers were added to correct aileron buzzing. Spoilers were added to improve roll control. The vertical fin was made larger in order to increase directional stability at high speeds. When the American-built Tay finally became available, the first YF-97 was re-engined with a J48-P-3 engine, rated at 6000 lb.s.t. dry and 8000 lb.s.t with afterburning. On September 12, 1950, the YF-97 was redesignated YF-94C. Even though the YF-97 was almost a completely new aircraft, it was thought wise to pretend that the design was simply a "logical extension" of an existing aircraft. Political considerations often play an important role in the choice of aircraft designations. The name Starfire was applied to the F-94C by publicists, following the tradition of naming Lockheed aircraft after celestial objects. The C-variant was the only variant in the F-94 series to carry this name. The two YF-94Cs continued to be used for tests of the improved fire control system and the allrocket armament. The all-rocket armament consisted of twenty-four 2.75-inch Folding-Fin Aircraft Rockets (FFAR) mounted in four groups surrounding the APG-40 radome in the nose. The rockets in each group were mounted inside a door which opened sideways on the ground for easy servicing and reloading. In front of each rocket group was a snap-action door which opened immediately before firing. The YF-94Cs were fitted with a revised fuel system accommodating 566 US gallons in wing and fuselage tanks, 500 gallons in center-mounted wingtip tanks, and 460 gallons in midwing drop tanks mounted on pylons at the wing center for a total fuel capacity of 1526 gallons. There were difficulties with the drag chute, with the automatic pilot, with the afterburner of the J48, and with aileron flutter. These problems were not fully resolved until after the first F-94C production aircraft had been delivered. The first production F-94C was delivered in July of 1951. The production F-94C was powered by the Pratt & Whitney J48-P-5 engine rated at 6350 lb.s.t. dry and 8750 lb.s.t. with afterburning. Teething problems delayed the introduction of the F-94C into squadron service for almost two years. The Fhttp://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f94_3.html (2 of 5)09-09-2006 13:17:56


94C finally entered service with the 437th Fighter Interceptor Squadron at Otis AFB in Massachusetts in June of 1953. The F-94C was the second type of fighter serving with the Air Defense Command (ADC) to use rockets as its sole armament, the North American F-86D Sabre being the first. Initially, the F-94C suffered with some of the same teething troubles which had not been completely ironed out during the testing of the YF-94Cs. The E-5 fire control system had reliability problems. The cockpit seal tended to leak, causing electrical short-circuits. In addition, the jet engine tended to flame out when the nose rockets were fired. However, once these difficulties were cleared up, the F94C became popular with its flight and maintenance crews. The rocket armament of the F-94C was considered to be more accurate than that of the F-86D Sabre, owing to the use of closed-breech launchers by the F-94C which increased the velocity of the rockets. However, the firing of the nose rockets violently shook the F-94C and blinded both crew members in exhaust smoke and fire. 387 F-94C aircraft were built and delivered between July of 1951 and May of 1954. In 1953, F-94Cs were delivered to the 29th, 48th, 66th,332nd, 438th, and 497th Fighter Interceptor Squadrons. In 1954-55, F-94Cs went to the 27th, 39th, 61st, 64th, and 318th Squadrons. Most of these squadrons served in the mainland United States, although the 39th did serve for a time in Japan. In the course of its production and service life, the F-94C was progressively improved and upgraded, with new features continually being added in the field. New and improved ejector seats were provided, variable-position dive brakes were fitted, and a better drag chute was added. Beginning with the 100th F-94C leaving the production line, a twelve-rocket pod was mounted on each wing leading edge, doubling the armament of the Starfire. A frangible plastic nose covered the front of each pod, which shattered when the rockets were fired. These mid-wing rocket pods were retrofitted to earlier production machines. Owing to the crew blinding problem during rocket firing, the nose rockets were often omitted from F-94Cs in the field, the rocket armament being carried exclusively in the mid-wing pods. The nose radome initially had a rather blunt shape, but it was soon replaced by a more pointed radome which quickly became standard. The F-94C Starfire became the first all-weather fighter to break the sound barrier, which happened by accident when test pilot Herman "Fish" Salmon put his F-94C into a dive from 45,000 feet, rolling over in afterburner. A single F-94C was used to test the adoption of the Hughes GAR-1 Falcon missile as part of the basic armament of the Starfire. This aircraft was redesignated DF-94C. Although the Falcon missile was never made part of the Starfire's operational armament, these experiments provided data for later generations of ADC interceptors. F-94C serial number 50-963 was experimentally fitted with an enlarged nose in which reconnaissance cameras were mounted in place of the interceptor's radar and rockets. This plane was redesignated EF-94C, the E standing for *Exempt*. E was used rather than the regular R for http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f94_3.html (3 of 5)09-09-2006 13:17:56


Reconnaissance because this aircraft was to be used strictly for research purposes. The service life of the F-94C Starfire with the USAF was quite short, most of these aircraft being phased out and replaced by more advanced types after only a half-dozen years of service. The last F94C left USAF service in February of 1959. After leaving USAF service, F-94Cs were passed along to the Air National Guard. With the F-94Cs supplementing the earlier F-94A/B, the Starfire equipped twenty-one Fighter Interceptor Squadrons of the Air National Guard. The last F-94Cs were phased out of ANG service by the 179th Fighter Interceptor Squadron at the Duluth Municipal Airport, Minnesota during the summer of 1959. Serials of the F-94C Starfire: 50-877 94C 50-955 94C 50-956/1063 51-5513/5698 51-13511/13603

Lockheed YF-97 Starfire -- later redesignated YFLockheed YF-97 Starfire -- later redesignated YFLockheed F-94C-1-LO Starfire Lockheed F-94C-1-LO Starfire Lockheed F-94C-1-LO Starfire

Specification of the F-94C: Engine: One Pratt & Whitney J48-P-5 turbojet engine rated at 6350 lb.st. dry and 8750 lb.st. with afterburning. Dimensions: Wingspan 42 feet 5 inches with wingtip tanks, length 44 feet 6 inches, height 14 feet 11 inches, wing area 232.8 square feet. Weights: 12,708 pounds empty, 18,300 pounds loaded, 24,184 pound maximum. Performance: Maximum speed: 640 mph at sea level, 585 mph at 22,000 feet, 578 mph at 40,000 fee. Initial climb rate 7980 feet per minute. Service ceiling 51,400 feet. Normal range 805 miles, maximum range 1275 miles. Armament: Armed with twenty-four 2.75inch Mighty Mouse FFARs in nose, plus twelve FFARs in each of two wing leading-edge pods. Sources:

1. Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987. 2. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple Press

Aerospace, 1990. 3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 4. Lockheed F-94 Variants, Robert F. Dorr, Wings of Fame, Vol 13, 1998 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f94_3.html (4 of 5)09-09-2006 13:17:56


5. Marcelle Size Knaack, Post World War II Fighters, Office of Air Force History, 1986.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f94_3.html (5 of 5)09-09-2006 13:17:56

Hughes F-98 Falcon

Hughes F-98 Falcon Last revised November 27, 1999

In 1947, the designation XF-98 was assigned to an "unmanned fighter" project that was eventually to result in the Hughes Falcon, the world's first operational air-to-air guided missile. In 1947, the USAAF asked for bids on a new type of aircraft armament system. Two separate projects were to be undertaken--the first was to explore the use of a radar-based airborne fire-control system for manned interceptors and the second was to develop a guided air-to-air missile to be carried by later generations of manned interceptors. Both contracts were won by the Hughes Aircraft Corporation of Culver City, California. The air-to-air missile component of the system was given the designation XF-98, a fighter designation. It was assigned the name *Falcon*. However, The USAF had second thoughts about giving an unmanned guided missile a fighter designation, and in 1950, the Hughes Falcon air-to-air missile was redesignated GAR-1, the GAR standing for *Guided Aircraft Rocket*. The Falcon initially operated on the principle of semi-active radar homing, that is, it tracked and homed in on a radar echo reflected back from a target illuminated by a radar set carried in the aircraft that launched the missile. The missile did not carry its own radar transmitter. The Falcon entered production at a new Hughes plant in Tucson in 1954. The airframe was about the size of a person, and the missile was powered by a Thiokol solid-fuel rocket motor. It had a hemispherical nose radome flanked by receiving aerials that looked like small nose fins. These antennae gave proportional navigation and steering signals to the elevons mounted on the trailing edges of the four delta wings. The length was 1.97 meters (6.48 feet), the diameter was 16.3 cm (6.4 inches), and the wingspan was 50.8 cm (20 inches). It carried a 29-pound high-explosive warhead that was detonated by a proximity http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f98.html (1 of 5)09-09-2006 13:18:02

Hughes F-98 Falcon

fuse. The launch weight was about 110 pounds. Maximum speed at engine burnout was Mach 2.8, and effective range was about five miles. The first Falcon installations were on the wingtip pods of F-89H and J Scorpion interceptors. At about the same time, the Convair F-102A Delta Dagger interceptor entered service with six Falcons housed inside the internal weapons bay. Both aircraft entered service with the Air Defense Command in 1956. In late 1956, the first infrared Falcon appeared, the GAR-2. The radar receiver of the GAR1 was replaced by a passive infrared detector housed behind a glass nose. This missile homed in on the infrared radiation emitted by the hot engine exhaust of the enemy aircraft. The infrared Falcon had the advantage in that it was "fire and forget", enabling the launching aircraft to break away as soon as the missile was fired. However, interceptor aircraft typically carried a mix of both radar and infrared Falcons, and it was common doctrine to launch one missile of each type at an enemy target in order to ensure a kill. The GAR-1D was an improved version of the radar Falcon, with the control surfaces being made larger and moved to a position well behind the delta wings. The GAR-2A was an improved version of the infrared Falcon with a better infrared detector. The GAR-2A was built for export under the designation HM-58, and was built under license by SAAB-Scania of Sweden as the RB-28. The GAR-3 Falcon of 1958 was a vastly-improved version of the radar Falcon with a longer-burning rocket motor, an improved radar receiver mounted behind a more pointed nose, long wing-root fillets, and a larger warhead. Maximum speed was about Mach 4, and effective range was about 7 miles. The GAR-3A radar homer of 1959 had a new motor having boost/sustainer charges, improved radar homing guidance, provision for electronic countermeasures, and some changes in the airframe. The GAR-4A was the infrared homing version of the GAR-3. It contained a new infrared seeker capable of locking on to smaller targets at greater ranges. The GAR-11 Nuclear Falcon of 1960 was designed to give a better PSSK (Probability of Single-Shot Kill) in head-on attacks. Infrared homing was considered to be ineffective in

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f98.html (2 of 5)09-09-2006 13:18:02

Hughes F-98 Falcon

head-on encounters, and since semi-active radar homing was less precise, it was decided that the best option was to increase the yield of the warhead. A nuclear warhead similar to that of the Genie was carried, triggered by four active-radar proximity fuse aerials mounted flush with the body ahead of the wings. The diameter was 11 inches, and the launch weight was 203 pounds. The GAR-11A was similar to the GAR-11, but it carried a conventional high-explosive warhead. This version was exported as HM-55 and was built under license by SAABScania of Sweden as RB-27. The GAR-9 was a fourth-generation Falcon designed for the North American F-108 Rapier interceptor. Following launch, the ASG-18 radar of the F-108 was to be used for mid-course guidance and target illumination, and an infrared sensor was to be used for terminal homing. Propulsion was to be by a Lockheed-developed storable liquid-fueled rocket. Mach 6 performance was envisaged, and ranges of up to 115 miles were anticipated. Following the cancellation of the F-108 project in 1959, work on the GAR-9 missile project was transferred to the Lockheed F-12 project. The F-12 project was itself terminated after only four aircraft were built, leaving the GAR-9 with no launching aircraft. In 1962, the GAR-1, 2, 3, and 4 Falcon missiles were redesignated AIM-4, where the AIM stood for "Airborne Interception Missile". The GAR-11 was redesignated AIM-26 and the GAR-9 was redesignated AIM-47. The various Falcon redesignations are summarized as follows: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

GAR-1 -> AIM-4 GAR-1D -> AIM-4A GAR-2 -> AIM-4B GAR-2A -> AIM-4C GAR-2B -> AIM-4D GAR-3 -> AIM-4E GAR-3A -> AIM-4F GAR-4A -> AIM-4G GAR-11 -> AIM-26A GAR-11A -> AIM-26B GAR-9 -> AIM-47A


Hughes F-98 Falcon

The AIM-4D was the final production version of the Falcon, It was specifically designed for air-to-air combat, all previous Falcons having been designed for the interception and destruction of enemy bombers. It combined the small airframe of the earlier Falcons with the more powerful rocket motor and more sophisticated infrared seeker of the AIM-4G. The AIM-4D had a launch weight of 134 pounds and had a maximum effective range of about 6 miles. Numerous AIM-4As and Cs were remanufactured to the AIM-4D standard. The AIM-4D did see some combat in Vietnam. The F-4D Phantom retained the AIM-7 Sparrow capability of the F-4C, but it deleted the Sidewinder capability on the inboard underwing pylon in favor of the Hughes AIM-4D Falcon infrared-homing missile. However, the infrared Falcon proved relatively unsuccessful in air-to-air combat in Vietnam, shooting down only four MiG-17s and one MiG-21 between October 26, 1967 and February 5, 1968. The Falcon was definitely not a good dogfighting missile, having been originally designed back in the 1950s for bomber interceptions. One of the basic problems in using the Falcon for dogfighting was that its aerodynamic design made for relatively limited manoeuvrability. The moveable surfaces at the end of the four delta wings of the Falcon did not provide sufficient aerodynamic force for the rapid changes of direction that were required to be effective against highly manoeuvrable fighters. The Falcon proved to be somewhat temperamental in service, requiring a lot of careful setting up and tweaking. In addition, the Falcon had a tendency to cause engine flameouts on the F-4D when fired. Perhaps the most significant problem with the AIM-4D was that its fire control system required 6-7 seconds to actually launch the missile after the firing button was pushed, which is an eternity in a dogfight. The internal systems and aerodynamic surfaces of the Falcon were powered by an internal turbo-alternator and hydraulic power unit which was driven by a gas generator. This system took a few seconds to spin up and take over control from the aircraft fire control system. Also, the analog computers in the fire control system had to calculate several pre-launch attack parameters and pass them along to the missiles' guidance system, which also took a second or two. Thirdly, the Falcon required a direct hit to explode, since there was no proximity fuse. The leading edges of the four delta wings were made of fibreboard, and the intent was that upon impact the missile would bury itself in the fuselage of the target up to the midpoint of the missile's wing. The fibreboard would then crush, completing a circuit and detonating the warhead. In addition, the explosive warhead was quite small, only about 4 pounds. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f98.html (4 of 5)09-09-2006 13:18:02

Hughes F-98 Falcon

Consequently, combat pilots in Vietnam were very uncomplimentary about the Falcon. As a result of the barrage of complaints from the field, the Sidewinder capability on the inboard underwing pylons was hastily restored. However, in fairness to the Falcon, virtually all air-to-air missiles would prove to be troublesome in Vietnam and less deadly to enemy aircraft than anticipated. Sources: 1. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft Armament, Bill Gunston, Orion, 1988. 2. McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies, Airtime Publishing, 1992.


Boeing/MARC F-99

Boeing/MARC F-99 Last revised October 30, 1999

The fighter designation F-99 was assigned in the late 1940s to the Bomarc surface-to-air missile. The F-99 was a joint project of the Boeing Airplane Company and the Michigan Aeronautical Research Center, the name *BOMARC* standing for BOeing and the Michigan Aeronautical Research Center. The Bomarc missile resembled a small aircraft, with a pair of shoulder-mounted delta wings. It was launched from a vertical position by a 23,000 lb.st. Aerojet General LR59AG-13 liquid-fueled rocket motor mounted in the tail. Second-stage thrust was provided by a pair of 10,000 lb.st. Marquardt RJ43-MA-3 ramjet engines attached to the fuselage sides. Maximum speed attained during an intercept was Mach 3.45 (2275 mph) at 105,000 feet. Launch weight was 15,500 pounds. The dimensions were wingspan 18 feet 2 inches, length (excluding the first stage rocket nozzle) 47 feet 4 inches, height 10 feet 3 inches, wing area 65 square feet. The warhead consisted of 1000 pounds of high explosives. Alternatively, a nuclear warhead could be carried. The warhead was detonated by a proximity fuse activated from the ground control center. The first Bomarc launch took place on September 1, 1952. A short time later, it was decided that it was not a good idea to give fighter designations to unmanned missiles, and the Bomarc was redesignated IM-99A, where IM stood for "Intercept Missile". The IM-99B version of the Bomarc had a first-stage Thiokol solid-fuel rocket motor in place of the liquid-fueled engine of the A. On September 18, 1962, the IM-99A and B were redesignated CIM-10A and CIM-10B, where the C prefix stood for "Coffin" which described the intercept missile's launch environment, i.e. horizontal storage in a protective encounter. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f99.html (1 of 2)09-09-2006 13:18:07

Boeing/MARC F-99

The Bomarc served well into the 1960s with the USAF Air Defense Command. In the late 1950s, the Canadian government decided to abandon work on the advanced Avro Arrow two-seat Mach 3 interceptor and opted for the unmanned Bomarc. The Bomarc served in Canada for about a decade. At first, the warheads were conventional, since the Canadian government of the day (Progressive Conservative Party) could not decide whether to accept nuclear warheads or not. When the Liberal Party came into power in 1963, the government finally decided to accept nuclear warheads. The nuclear warheads were supplied by the US, and there was a "double key" launching arrangement similar to that used by US missiles in the United Kingdom. The warheads were removed and returned to the USA in April/May of 1972, and the missiles were decommissioned at the same time. A CIM-10A Bomarc (serial number 59-1897) is on display outside the USAF Museum at the Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio. Sources: 1. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple

Press Aerospace, 1990. 2. E-mail from Chris Gainor, Victoria, BC.


North American F-100 Super Sabre

North American F-100 Super Sabre

North American YF-100A Super Sabre North American F-100A Super Sabre North American RF-100A Super Sabre North American F-100B/YF-107A North American F-100C Super Sabre North American F-100D Super Sabre North American F-100E Super Sabre North American F-100F Super Sabre Service of F-100 With Foreign Air Forces QF-100 Drone ZEL F-100 Unbuilt F-100s


McDonnell F-101 Voodoo

McDonnell F-101 Voodoo Last revised November 27, 1999

McDonnell F-101A Voodoo McDonnell RF-101A Voodoo McDonnell F-101B Voodoo Voodoos for Canada McDonnell RF-101B Voodoo McDonnell F-101C Voodoo McDonnell RF-101C Voodoo McDonnell F-101D/E Voodoo McDonnell F-101F Voodoo McDonnell F-101G Voodoo McDonnell RF-101H Voodoo


Convair F-102 Delta Dagger

Convair F-102 Delta Dagger Last revised December 4, 1999

Convair YF-102 Delta Dagger Convair F-102A Delta Dagger Convair TF-102A Delta Dagger USAF F-102 Squadron Assignments Convair F-102B Convair F-102C F-102s with Greece and Turkey F-102 Drones


Republic XF-103

Republic XF-103 Last revised December 4, 1999

The Republic XF-103 had its origin in an early-1949 request by the USAF for an advanced interceptor capable of surpassing the speed and altitude performance of new Soviet intercontinental bombers that American intelligence officials warned would soon be available in quantity. The North American F-86D Sabre, the Northrop F-89 Scorpion, and the Lockheed F-94 Starfire were all subsonic aircraft, and were deemed to have insufficient growth potential to be able to meet this threat. This project came to be known as the "1954 interceptor", after the year that new interceptor would supposedly be entering service. At that time, the Air Force recognized that the increasing complexity of modern weapons made it no longer practical to attempt to develop equipment, airframes, electronics, engines, and other components in isolation and expect them to work properly when they were put together in the final product. To address this problem, the Air Force introduced the "weapons system" concept, in which components of the the new interceptor would be integrated with each other from the very beginning, making sure that the various systems would be compatible with each other when they were incorporated into the final aircraft. The project was given the designation WS-201A, where WS stood for "Weapons System". As originally conceived, WS-201A was a weapons system consisting of air-to-air guided missiles, all-weather search and fire control radar, all housed in an airframe capable of supersonic flight. The electronics package for the new WS-201A system came first. Project MX-1179 was the designation given to that portion of the project dedicated to the armament and electronic fire-control system of the 1954 Interceptor. In October of 1950, the Hughes Aircraft Company was named the winner of the MX-1179 contract. The Hughes proposal consisted of a MA-1 fire control system acting in conjunction with Falcon air-to-air guided missiles. For a brief time, the Falcon missile was known as the F-98.


Republic XF-103

The airframe part of the project was designated MX-1554. Proposals for the aircraft were requested by the Air Force on June 18, 1950. When the bidding closed in January of 1951, nine proposals had been submitted by six different manufacturers. Republic submitted three separate proposals, North American two, and single proposals were made by ChanceVought, Douglas, Lockheed, and Convair. On July 2, 1951, the Air Force announced that designs by Convair, Lockheed, and Republic had been selected to proceed with preliminary development. All three companies were to proceed with their designs all the way to the mockup stage, with the design being deemed most promising at that time being awarded a production contract. Later, the USAF deemed it too costly to carry through with three concurrent development programs, and it cancelled the Lockheed project in its entirety. The Convair and Republic entries were given the go-ahead to proceed. The Republic entry bore the company designation of AP-57. It was a development of the AP-44A, a 1948 proposal for an all-weather high-altitude defensive fighter. The AP-57 project called for an extremely advanced aircraft capable of achieving a Mach 4 performance (2600 mph) at altitudes of up to 80,000 feet. The AP-57 was to be built entirely of titanium, this metal being chosen because of its resistance to the aerodynamic heating that would be encountered at the high speeds at which the aircraft would be operating. This phenomenal performance was to be achieved by the adoption of a dual-cycle propulsion system. Takeoff and normal cruise were to be powered by a Wright XJ67-W-3 turbojet, rated at 15,000 lb.s.t. dry and 22,000 lb.s.t. with afterburning. The XJ67 was a license-built version of the Bristol Olympus. At high speed, the thrust of the turbojet was to be augmented by a XRJ55-W-1 ramjet, capable of delivering 18,800 pounds of thrust. With both powerplants operating, a total thrust of 37,000 pounds could be achieved at altitude. The engines were fed by a large intake mounted on the ventral fuselage, a geometry which was sure to invite foreign object ingestion and damage during takeoff and landing. The fuselage was smooth from nose to tail, with no bumps or kinks of any kind to interrupt the air flow. There wasn't even a kink or bump for the pilot's cockpit. The cockpit was recessed into the fuselage, so that there was no cockpit canopy to interfere with the air flow. The pilot was provided with only two small side windows for vision. The view ahead was provided by the use of a periscope. For emergency escape, a downwardhttp://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f103.html (2 of 4)09-09-2006 13:20:42

Republic XF-103

ejecting capsule was provided. In 1955, the periscope concept was tested on a specially modified F-84G which was flown on a long cross-country flight with the pilot's forward vision blocked. The small wings were of delta configuration, but the Republic design was not a true delta, since there was a separate horizontal tailplane mounted on the rear fuselage. A ventral fin was also mounted on the rear fuselage, the fin being retracted to the side during takeoffs and landings. The armament was to have consisted of six Hughes GAR-3 Falcon air-to-air missiles housed in flush-mounted individual weapons bays on the sides of the fuselage, plus 36 unguided rockets. The fire-control radar was housed in the nose. The estimated takeoff weight of the AP-57 was over 40,000 pounds. The Republic AP-57 was clearly a quantum leap ahead in the state of the art for the early 1950s. It would clearly be quite a challenge even today. The competing Convair entry called for a scaled-up version of its XF-92A experimental delta-winged aircraft On September 11, 1951, Convair received a contract for this design under the designation F-102. Work on the competing Republic design was also authorized, and that aircraft was assigned the designation XF-103. A full-scale mockup was built and was inspected in March of 1953. Republic received a contract for three prototypes in June of 1954. Work was slowed by lots of problems-difficulties encountered in the fabrication of the titanium alloy used in the structure, delays with the development of the advanced dual-cycle propulsion system, and massive cost overruns. It was clear that the XF-103 was so far ahead of the state of the art that it was much too risky to be a serious contender for the 1954 Interceptor project. This made the competing Convair F-102 for all practical purposes the winner of the contest, and the Air Force began to lose interest in the XF-103. Continuing delays and cost overruns caused the program later to be cut back to only one prototype. The Wright XJ67 engine encountered even more delays and ultimately never materialized. Plans to substitute the Wright J65 turbojet proved to be unrealistic. The Air Force finally threw in the towel on August 21, 1957, cancelling the entire XF-103 project.


Republic XF-103

Specifications of the XF-103: Engines: One Wright XJ67-W-3 turbojet, rated at 15,000 lb.st. dry and 22,000 lb.s.t. with afterburning, plus one XRJ55-W-1 ramjet rated at 18,800 pounds of thrust. Projected performance: Maximum speed: 1985 mph at 50,000 feet. With ramjet power, it was estimated that 2600 mph could be achieved. Initial climb rate was 19,000 feet per minute. An altitude of 50,000 feet could be attained in 7.1 minutes. Service ceiling was 69,000 feet. Normal range was 245 miles, with maximum range being 1545 miles. Total internal fuel capacity was 2440 US gallons. Weights: 24,949 pounds empty, 31,219 pounds combat, 38,505 pounds gross, 42,864 pounds maximum takeoff. Dimensions: wingspan 34 feet 5 inches, length 77 feet 0 inches, height 16 feet 7 inches, wing area 401 square feet. Armament was to have consisted of six Hughes GAR-3 Falcon air-to-air missiles, plus 36 2.75-inch unguided rockets. Sources: 1. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft Armament, Bill Gunston, Orion, 1988. 2. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 4. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple

Press Aerospace, 1990. 5. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 6. Post-World War II Fighters, 1945-1973, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force

History, 1986.


Lockheed F-104 Starfighter


Lockheed XF-104 Starfighter Lockheed YF-104A Starfighter Lockheed F-104A Starfighter Lockheed F-104B Starfighter F-104A/B in Combat F-104A/B with Jordan F-104A/B with Jordan Lockheed NF-104A Starfighter Lockheed F-104C Starfighter Lockheed F-104D Starfighter The Deal of the Century Lockheed F-104F Starfighter Lockheed F-104G Starfighter Lockheed RF-104G Starfighter Lockheed TF-104G Starfighter Lockheed RTF-104G1 Starfighter Canadair CF-104 Starfighter Canadair CF-104D Starfighter Lockheed/Mitsubishi F-104J Starfighter F-104G Starfighter Serials Starfighter with Germany Starfighter with Belgium Starfighter with Netherlands F-104G Starfighter with Italy Starfighter with Norway Starfighter with Denmark Starfighter with Greece Starfighter with Turkey Starfighter with Spain Starfighter with Taiwan Lockheed F-104H Starfighter



Starfighters With NASA Lockheed F-104S Starfighter Lockheed CL-1200 Lancer


Republic F-105 Thunderchief

Republic F-105 Thunderchief

Republic YF-105A Thunderchief Republic F-105B Thunderchief Republic JF-105B Thunderchief Republic F-105C Thunderchief Republic F-105D Thunderchief Republic RF-105D Thunderchief Republic F-105E Thunderchief Republic F-105F Thunderchief Republic F-105G Thunderchief


Convair F-106 Delta Dart

Convair F-106 Delta Dart

Convair F-106A Delta Dart Convair F-106B Delta Dart F-106 Squadron Assignments Convair F-106C/D Convair F-106E/F Foreign Customers for the F106


North American F-100B/F-107

North American F-100B/F-107 Last revised November 27, 1999

The F-100B was originally going to be the follow-on to the F-100A. It was pictured as a faster version of the F-100A day fighter, optimized to take maximum advantage of the power offered by the J57 jet engine. The F-100B project began in 1953 as company design NA-212 for an improved F-100A. On March 4, 1952, North American Aviation management had asked their design team for an estimate of engineering requirements for the F-100B. The F-100B retained the original swept wing planform of the F-100A but had a thinner wing cross section with a 5 percent thickness/chord ratio rather than the 7 percent of the F-100A. An upgraded J57 engine was provided, and the aircraft was to be fitted with a variable-area inlet duct and a convergentdivergent exhaust nozzle. Total thrust of this new engine was to be 16,000 pounds. Dual landing-gear wheels were to be provided which would make operations from unprepared airfields possible. The fuselage was to be area-ruled and was to have an increased fineness ratio. The fuel load was to be carried in integral wing tanks, no provisions being made for the carrying of external fuel tanks. The F-100B was to expected to be approximately the same size and weight as the F-100A, and with the increased power and the aerodynamic refinements that would be made available, a maximum speed of Mach 1.80 at high altitude was anticipated. Production was expected to begin in 1955. At the same time, North American began to study the feasibility of adapting the Super Sabre as an all-weather interceptor. The project became known as the "F-100I" (I for *Interceptor*) or "F-100BI", although these designations were not official USAF designations. This aircraft was similar in overall configuration to the F-100B except that it had a modified cockpit and was fitted with a nose radome. In order to accommodate the radome, the forward fuselage had to be redesigned so that it had an undernose variablearea air intake. Provision were made for underwing drop tanks, and the wing leading edges were to be heated to prevent icing. An all-rocket armament was to be fitted. The F-100BI was intended to bear much the the same relation to the F-100A as the F-86D did to the Fhttp://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f100_4.html (1 of 7)09-09-2006 13:21:09


86A. On October 20, 1953, the factory designation NA-212 was assigned to the project. Work began on wind-tunnel studies and a detailed cockpit mockup was built. Work was started on a full aircraft mockup. In November of 1953, North American started to give some consideration to adapting the NA-212 to a fighter-bomber role. Six hardpoints were added underneath the wing, and the wing structure, controls, and cockpit were revised accordingly. Single-point refuelling capability was provided and the windshield and canopy were revised to improve the pilot's view. A retractable tailskid was installed and the flight control system was upgraded by the addition of pitch and yaw dampers. Neither the F-100B nor the F-100BI attracted all that much interest on the part of the Air Force. Consequently, on January 15, 1954, the program was cut back drastically at the request of NAA president Lee Atwood. Plans to undertake full production were abandoned, and the program was scaled back to a comprehensive engineering study. On April 16, NAA decided to settle on the general configuration of the F-100B as being basically that of the F-100BI interceptor. However, later that month, NAA learned that the Air Force was interested in the fighter-bomber configuration of the NA-212. On May 16, 1954, North American directed that all work on the F-100B interceptor project be terminated and that all efforts now be concentrated on the fighter-bomber adaptation. The nose radome and the chin intake of the interceptor version were, however, to be retained. In the meantime, NAA engineers had discovered that low-speed handling properties could be improved and landing speeds lowered by about 30 mph if an inboard blown flap were used for boundary layer control. These were incorporated into the design at an early stage. The F-100A had been designed without any wing flaps at all. Among the changes needed to adapt the F-100B as a fighter-bomber was the change from a 7.33 to an 8.67 load factor, the installation of a maneuvering autopilot, the mounting of an AN/APW-11A radar beacon, a Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS), an AN/ALF-2 chaff dispenser, an AN/APS-54 radar warning system, a plotting board and a cockpit computer. Larger and heavier wheels and brakes had to be designed, and provision had to be made for electric fuseing of external stores.



On June 11, 1954, the USAF authorized a contract for 33 F-100B fighter bombers. On July 8, 1954, the Air Force notified NAA that the designation for the project had been officially changed to F-107A, the USAF concluding that since this aircraft was so vastly different from the original F-100A it deserved a completely new fighter designation. On August 4, 1954, the contract was cut back to only nine service test aircraft under the designation YF-107A. USAF serials were to be 55-5118/5126. Late in 1954, the Air Force issued General Operational Requirement 68, calling for a tactical fighter-bomber and an air-superiority day and night fighter. North American apparently responded to this requirement, but it is not quite sure how the F-107A fits into GOR-68. In any case, work continued on the F-107A at a feverish pace. In the meantime, Pratt & Whitney had developed the J75 turbojet, a newer and more powerful adaptation of the J57. NAA enthusiastically embraced this engine as the powerplant for the F-107A. North American engineers redesigned the vertical tail of the F-107A fighter-bomber as a single-piece, all-moving slab. A similar innovation was adopted for the North American A3J (later A-5) Vigilante carrier-based strategic bomber. A complex spoiler-slot-deflector system on the wings provided lateral control. The wing leading edge was similar to that of the F-100A and had automaticaly-actuated slats, but the wing trailing edge was made up entirely of tabbed and slotted flaps. There were no ailerons, lateral control being provided by a set of spoilers above and below the wing. The aircraft had an early fly-by-wire control system known as the Augmented Longitudinal Control System (ALCS). It used air data system inputs to provide a comand of pitch rate. The major offensive load was to consist of a nuclear weapon carried semi-submerged in the fuselage belly on the centerline. Unfortunately, wind tunnel tests showed that there would be major problems with weapon release and separation caused by airflow interference from the nose radome and chin air intake. In order to correct this problem, it was decided to move the air intake from the nose to the top of the fuselage just behind the cockpit. This intake was fitted with a complex system of variable inlet ramps to adjust for optimal airflow to the engine at various speeds. A two-position (3.25 degrees and 12 degrees) engine inlet duct system was installed in the first two prototypes for the initial flight tests. This system incorporated a vertical wedge-shaped splitter in the middle of the intake, with four hydraulically-powered doors attached to the sides of the wedge inside the intake which would extend or contract as needed to adjust the intake throat area for optimal airflow to the engine. In the third prototype, the system was made fully automatic and the doors were continuously http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f100_4.html (3 of 7)09-09-2006 13:21:09


adjustable. The main landing gear was attached to the fuselage (rather than the wing as in the F-100) and retracted forwards into bays in the fuselage. The dual-wheeled forward landing gear retracted forwards into the fuselage. There was a retractable tailskid underneath the rear fuselage to prevent damage during inadvertent high-angle landings. The YF-107A was to be equipped with the NAA Autonetics Division XMA-12 integrated fire control system in the nose. This system was to be capable of detecting airborne targets, selecting a victim, and calculating a lead pursuit course for attack with guns or rockets. Because of the unusual location of the air intake, it was necessary for the canopy to open straight up rather than to open in the usual clamshell fashion. In an emergency, the pilot could eject right through the canopy without having to jettison it first. On January 1, 1957, the YF-107A contract was amended to provide for only three flying examples, plus one static test airframe. The first F-107A (serial number 55-5118) took off on its maiden flight on September 10, 1956 at Edwards AFB, with NAA test pilot Bob Baker at the controls. It went supersonic on its first flight, although there was some minor damage upon landing when the drag chute malfunctioned and the aircraft overran the end of the concrete runway and ended up in a ditch. The aircraft was quickly repaired and flew again three days later. 55-5118 achieved its first Mach 2.0 flight on November 3, 1956. 55-5119 flew for the first time on November 28. It was equipped with the armament of four 20-mm cannon and was assigned the job of carrying out performance and integrated control system testing, and was to check out the separation characteristics of the centerline store. 55-5120 flew for the first time on December 10. It was the first YF-107 to have the fullyautomatic variable area inlet duct. Unfortunately, the variable-geometry duct did not live up to its expectations. In spite of repeated attempts at steady climbs at subsonic or supersonic speeds and even zoom climbs from maximum speed at 35,000 feet, 55-5120 was never able to get above 51,000 feet. This was blamed on problems with the variable-



geometry intake duct and with the J75 engine, both of which were relatively new at the time. In addition, there was an annoying "buzz" in the variable air intake at high speeds, which was traced to instability of the airflow at the inlet. 55-5118 was asssigned the taks of exploring the zoom climb characteristics. Test pilot Al White was able to start off at 39,000 feet at Mach 2.1, and was able to reach a maximum height of 69,000 feet. 55-5119 was assigned the job of evaluating the weapons delivery system. It was the only one of the three F-107 prototypes to be fitted with the four 20-mm M39 cannon. Wind tunnel tests had suggested that there might be problems with the release of weapons from the streamlined centerline container at supersonic speeds. After some initial problems, on February 25, 1957, test pilot Al White finally successfully delivered the weapon store while flying at Mach 1.87 over the Naval test range at China Lake. The F-107A found itself in direct competition with the Republic F-105 Thunderchief for production orders. In March 1957, the USAF decided to go with the F-105, and the F-107 was relegated to aerodynamic testing duties. The first and third F-107As were turned over to NACA for high speed flight testing work. The first F-107A (55-5118) reached NACA at Dryden on November 6, 1957. It was given the NACA number of 207. However, it was so mechanically unreliable that it was grounded by NACA after only four flights and was scavenged for spare parts to keep the other one flying. The third F-107A (55-5120) reached NACA at Dryden on February 10, 1958. The flight testing of the variable geometry intake of the aircraft was cut short because of its mechanical problems. Eventually, NACA gave up on the F-107A's variable-geometry inlet altogether and it was bolted fixed in position, limiting top speed to Mach 1.2. This aircraft also experienced buffeting problems at high angles of attack. 55-5120 completed some forty test flights for NACA/NASA during 1958-59. On the basis of F-107 flight testing, North American refined the design of the side-stick planned for the X-15. 55-5120 was damaged on September 1, 1959 when test pilot Scott Crossfield was forced to abort a takeoff because of control problems. Both tires blew and the left brake burst into flames. Crossfield was uninjured, but the resulting damage to the F-107A was deemed to be too severe for economical repair, and NASA decided to scrap the aircraft. It was cut up and its fuselage shipped to Sheppard AFB in Texas where it was used for as a fire fighting http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f100_4.html (5 of 7)09-09-2006 13:21:09


training aid. The other two F-107As still survive. After being retired by NASA, F-107A number 555118 was turned over to the Pima Air Museum in Tucson, Arizona, where it is now on display. F107A number 55-5119 is in the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio. Serials of North American YF-107A: 55-5118/5126

North American YF-107A 5121/5126 cancelled.

Specification of the YF-107A: Engine: One Pratt & Whitney YJ75-P-9, 17,200 lb.s.t. dry and 24,500 lb.s.t. with afterburning. Performance: Maximum speed: 890 mph at sea level, 1295 mph at 36,000 feet. Initial climb rate: 39,900 feet per minute. Service ceiling 53,200 feet. Normal range 788 miles, maximum range 2428 miles. Dimensions: wingspan 36 feet 7 inches, length 61 feet 10 inches, height 19 feet 8 inches, wing area 376 square feet. Weights: 22,696 pounds empty, 39,755 pounds gross, 41,537 pounds maximum takeoff. Total internal fuel capacity was 1260 US gallons, carried in fuselage tanks and in two wing cells. Additional fuel could could be carried in a recessed centerline external tank, as well as in drop tanks carried undereneath underwing hardpoints. Armament consisted of four 20-mm cannon M39 cannon with 200 rounds per gun (fitted only to 55-5119). A centerline position was provided for a recessed store. Six underwing pylons could be attached which could carry a total external load of 10,000 pounds. Sources: 1. North American F-100 Super Sabre, David A. Anderton, Osprey, 1987 2. The North American F-100 Super Sabre, Ray Wagner, Aircraft in Profile, 1965. 3. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 4. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f100_4.html (6 of 7)09-09-2006 13:21:09



Press Aerospace, 1990. 6. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 7. Post-World War II Fighters, 1945-1973, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force

History, 1986. 8. Flying the Frontiers: NACA and NASA Experimental Aircraft, Arthur Pearcy,

Naval Institute Press, 1993. 9. 'Hun Bravo' to Unsung F-107, Francis Allen, Air Enthusiast, No 56, Winter 1994.


North American XF-108 Rapier

North American XF-108 Rapier Last revised December 19, 1999

The F-108A Rapier was destined to be the last fighter project carried out by North American Aviation, builders of such immortals as the P-51 Mustang and the F-86 Sabre. The F-108 project was originally known as the LRIX (Long-Range Interceptor, Experimental) and was initiated by the Air Force on October 6, 1955. On June 6, 1957, North American was issued a letter contract for two prototypes of a long-range, highperformance interceptor to be designated F-108A. The company designation for the aircraft was NA-257. It was to be capable of Mach 3 performance and was intended to serve as a long-range interceptor that could destroy attacking Soviet bombers over the poles before they could get near US territory. It was also to serve as the escort fighter for the XB-70 Valkyrie Mach-3 strategic bomber, also to be built by North American. The Air Force expected that the first F-108A would be ready for service by early 1963. An order for no less than 480 F-108s was anticipated. The F-108A design that North American ultimately produced called for a large deltawinged aircraft powered by a pair of afterburning General Electric J93-GE-3AR turbojets fed by variable inlets mounted underneath the wing roots. The F-108 aircraft was designed for a maximum speed of 1980 mph at 75,550 feet and for a 1020-mile combat radius. The pilot and radar operator sat in tandem individual ejector capsules in the forward cockpit. The aircraft was to be equipped with an extremely sophisticated avionics system, directed by the Hughes AN/ASG-18 search and tracking radar which was to have a range of over 100 miles. The F-108A was to be armed with three advanced Hughes GAR-9 Falcon missiles housed in an internal weapons bay. The GAR-9 missile was powered by a Lockheed storable liquid-propellant rocket motor which was capable of driving the missile to hypersonic speeds of up to Mach 6 and achieving ranges of up to 115 miles. The GAR-9 missile used semiactive radar homing for midcourse guidance, with passive infrared homing being used http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f108.html (1 of 3)09-09-2006 13:21:18


for the final run-in to the target. A mockup was inspected in January 1959, with the initial flight being planned for March 1961. The popular name *Rapier* was assigned on May 15, 1959. However, by mid 1959, the Air Force was already beginning to experience some doubts about the high cost of the Rapier program. The primary strategic threat from the Soviet Union was now perceived to be its battery of intercontinental ballistic missiles instead of its force of long-range bombers. Against intercontinental ballistic missiles, the F-108A interceptor would be completely useless. In addition, the Air Force was increasingly of the opinion that unmanned intercontinental ballistic missiles could accomplish the mission of the B-70 Valkyrie/F-108 Rapier combination much more effectively and at far lower cost. Consequently, the F-108A project was cancelled in its entirety on September 23, 1959, before any prototypes could be built. The XB-70 project was also halted, and on December 3, 1959 was cut back to only one prototype. The work on the Rapier did not entirely go to waste. The work that Hughes did on the AN/ ASG-18 radar was later transferred over to the Lockheed YF-12A interceptor project, and the GAR-9 Falcon (redesignated AIM-47A in 1962) missile originally developed for the F108A was used to arm the YF-12A. Specification of F-108A Rapier (estimated): Two General Electric J93-GE-3AR turbojets, 20,900 lb.s.t. dry, 30,000 lb.s.t. with afterburner. Maximum speed: 1980 mph at 76,550 feet. Service ceiling 80,100 feet, combat ceiling 76,550 feet. Initial climb rate 18,000 feet per minute. Climb to 50,000 feet in 5.4 minutes. Combat radius 1020 miles with three missiles. 2488 miles ferry range. Dimensions: wingspan 57 feet 5 inches, length 89 feet 2 inches, height 22 feet 1 inches, wing area 1865 square feet. Weights: 50,907 pounds empty, 76,118 pounds combat, 102,533 pounds gross. Armed with three Hughes GAR-9 Falcon air-to-air missiles. Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 2. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple

Press Aerospace, 1990. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f108.html (2 of 3)09-09-2006 13:21:18


3. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982. 4. Post-World War II Fighters, 1945-1973, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force

History, 1986.


F-109

F-109 Last revised December 19, 1999

Although temporarily assigned to several projects, it now appears that the designation F109 was never actually used by any aircraft. In 1955, the McDonnell Corporation proposed that the designation F-109 be assigned to the two-seat all-weather interceptor variant of the Voodoo. The Air Force turned down this proposal, and the aircraft was assigned the designation F-101B instead. Throughout the 1950s there were published reports that the F-109 designation had been assigned to a vertical-takeoff aircraft designed by the Ryan Aeronautical Company. However, this aircraft was actually designated X-13 (a designation in the X-forexperimental series). The X-13 was strictly experimental and was never intended as an operational fighter aircraft, and it never actually bore the F-109 designation. Many references that I have read state that the F-109 designation was assigned to the Bell D-188A, a late 1950s private venture proposal by the Bell Aircraft Corporation for a Mach 2+ V/STOL fighter. This proposal called for a high-winged aircraft powered by eight General Electric J85-GE-5 turbojets. Two of these engines were mounted horizontally in the rear fuselage and were fed by cheek-type air intakes mounted on the sides of the rear fuselage. Two other J85 engines were mounted vertically in the fuselage behind the pilot's cockpit. They provided lift during vertical takeoff and landing, but were shut down for ordinary horizontal flight. The other four engines were mounted in two pairs in movable pods at the wingtips. The pods were rotated into a vertical position for vertical takeoff and landing, then were rotated horizontally for level flight. The project had gotten as far as the mockup stage when, in February 1958, the Bell Aircraft Corporation requested that the USAF assign the designation XF-109 to the D188A project. The Air Force had no interest in the proposal and turned down the request. Consequently, the D-188A never, in fact, received a USAF designation, although the http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f109.html (1 of 2)09-09-2006 13:21:29

F-109

USAF serial numbers 59-2109 and 60-2715 have been associated with this project. In the event, the D-188A never did find favor with the military, although the general concept was later taken up by West Germany in the E.W.R-Sud VJ 101C. Sources: 1. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909. Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 2. Fighters of the Unites States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple



McDonnell F-110A Spectre/F-4C Phantom II

McDonnell F-110 Spectre/F-4C Phantom II Last revised December 24, 2002

The impressive performance of the Navy F4H Phantom immediately caught the attention of the USAF, which ordinarily would have been quite reluctant even to consider any aircraft that had originally designed for the Navy. However, under pressure from Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who wanted to reduce defense expenditures by achieving greater commonality between the aircraft flown by the various services, the Air Force agreed in 1961 to undertake an evaluation of the F4H-1 Phantom II. A comparative evaluation between the F4H-1 and the F-106A took place under the code name Operation Highspeed. The F4H-1 had better overall speed, altitude and range performance than the F106A. In addition, it could carry heavier loads than the F-106A over longer distances and had a 25 percent greater radar range. Later, the Air Force also looked into the possibility of using the Phantom as a tactical fighter and as a tactical reconnaissance aircraft. The F4H-1 was much more versatile than the Air Force's F-105 Thunderchief, since it could not only carry similar external loads but was also potentially a much better air superiority fighter due to its more favorable wing and power loadings. In the reconnaissance role, the Phantom offered a much better performance than the RF-101A/C, and unlike the Voodoo, could be fitted for night photographic missions. Since the Phantom had so much going for it, in January of 1962, President Kennedy requested Congressional approval for the procurement of F4H-1 derivatives for the Air Force under the designation F-110. The F-110A was to be the tactical fighter version, with RF-110A being the tactical reconnaissance version. The name Spectre was assigned to the aircraft. In support of this program, the Defense Department instructed that McDonnell deliver two Navy F4H1s to the Air Force for evaluation. On January 24, 1962, the two Navy F4H-1s (BuNos 149405 and 149406) were delivered to the Air Force at Langley AFB in Virginia. They were painted in USAF markings with the designation "F-110A" prominently displayed on the nose, but initially retained their Navy BuNos. They were later given Air Force serials 62-12168 and 62-12169 respectively. The results of the trials were impressive. The Phantom met or exceeded all the Air Force's expectations. In March of 1962, the Defense Department announced that land-based versions of the Phantom were to be the standard tactical fighter and tactical reconnaissance aircraft of the USAF. On March 30, McDonnell received a letter of intent for one F-110A (serial number 62-12199), and on May 29, another letter was received for a pair of YRF-110A reconnaissance aircraft (62-12200 and 6212201).



In order to formalize the F-110 project, the Air Force issued Specific Operational Requirement 200 on August 29, 1962. It called for an aircraft based on the F4H-1 but with added ground attack capability. The folding wings, catapult attachment points, and arrestor hooks of the naval version were to be retained, but dual controls were to be provided for the crew member in the rear seat. The high tire pressure of the Navy F-4B was unacceptable to the Air Force, and new wider tires with lower pressures were to be fitted. Anti-skid wheel brakes were to be provided, the Air Force considering that even the tailhook would not be enough insurance in case of a landing emergency. On September 18, 1962, the Defense Department ordered that all Air Force, Army, and Navy aircraft be designated under a common, universal system. This was done because Secretary McNamara was interested in achieving greater commonality between the services. According to one story, he supposedly had gotten hopelessly confused when his aides told him that the Navy and the Air Force had completely different designation schemes, often for what was basically the same aircraft. Under the Defense Department order, the separate naval designation system which had been around since 1922 was eliminated. In particular, this meant that the F4H naval designation for the Phantom was abolished and replaced by F-4. At the same time, the F-110 Air Force designation for the Phantom was also abolished and replaced by F-4. Henceforth, both Navy and Air Force Phantoms were to be designated F-4, with Air Force and Navy Phantoms being distinguished from each other only by series letters. The Navy F4H-1 Phantom was redesignated F-4B, whereas the Air Force F-110A became known as F-4C and the YRF-110A became YRF-4C. At the same time, the separate name Spectre for the USAF's version was eliminated, and from that moment onward, both Air Force and Navy F-4s were named Phantom II. The first production F-4C (62-12199) took off on its maiden flight on May 27, 1963. The factory designation was Model 98DE. The F-4C was externally almost identical to the naval F-4B, even retaining the folding wings and arrestor gear. However, it differed internally from the F-4B. It was fitted with dual controls, as the Air Force intended to fly it as a two-pilot aircraft. Low-pressure tires were fitted, which required thicker wheels which, in turn, required deeper wheel wells which resulted in a slight bulge having to be added above and below the inner wing panels. An anti-skid wheel system was fitted. The probe-and-drogue midair refueling system of the Navy version was replaced by a boom-type refueling system with a refueling receptacle being mounted on top of the fuselage behind the rear cockpit. The backseat crew member (who was now also a pilot) had new consoles, a lowered panel for improved forward visibility, and a relocated radar tracking handle, attack switches, and other refinements. The F-4C had substantially different electronic equipment, including a Westinghouse AN/APQ-100 radar system with ground mapping capability, an AN/APA-157 CW illuminator for the AIM-7 Sparrow family of air-to-air missiles, an AN/AJB-7 all-altitude nuclear bomb control system with lowaltitude release capability and option for Bullpup release, a Litton AN/ASN-48 (LN12A/B) inertial navigation system, and an AN/ASN-46 navigation computer. Other systems included the ASN-39 (later -46) dead-reckoning navigation computer, the ALR-17 electronic countermeasures radar warning receiver, APR-25 radar homing and warning system, an APR-26 SAM launch warning http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_7.html (2 of 9)09-09-2006 13:21:35


system, an APN-141 (later -159) radar altimeter, an A24G central air data computer, a General Electric ASA-32A analog autopilot and flight-control system, an ASQ-19 communications/navigation/ identification package, and an ARW-77 Bullpup missile control system. Some F-4Cs were equipped with the SST-181X Combat Skyspot radar bombing system. The F-4C was powered by two 10,000 lb.s.t. (17,000 lb.s.t. with afterburning) General Electric J79GE-15 turbojets. A built-in cartridge starting system was provided. The crew members sat on MartinBaker Mk H5 ejector seats. The F-4C had no built-in cannon armament. Four AIM-7D or -7E Sparrow missiles could be mounted in recesses underneath the fuselage. Four AIM-4D Falcon or AIM-9B or -9D Sidewinder infrared homing air-to-air missiles could be carried externally on the inboard underwing pylon. Air-to-ground missiles that could be carried included the AGM-12 Bullpup, the AGM-45 Shrike, and the AGM-65 Maverick. Unguided rocket launchers could also be carried, and a load of retarded and unretarded bombs (conventional, cluster, fire, chemical, or leaflet) could be carried. The Mk.28 "special store" could be carried, although the F-4C did not have a nuclear mission as one of its primary goals. A maximum external load of 16,000 pounds could be carried. In later years, the lack of an internal gun came to be a problem, and a centerline SUU-16/A pod containing an M61A1 gun and 1200 rounds of ammunition was fitted underneath the fuselage. The F4C could carry as many as three SUU-16/A (later -23/A) pods, each housing an M61A1 cannon and 1200 rounds of ammunition. The internal fuel was 1979 US gallons, carried in six fuselage tanks and two integral wing tanks. To supplement the internal fuel, the F-4C could carry a single 600-gallon drop tank on the centerline rack and/or one 370-gallon drop tank underneath each wing In order to give the Air Force an early start in getting the Phantom into service, the Navy temporarily loaned 27 more F-4Bs to the USAF. These planes were BuNos 150480, 150486, 150493, 150630, 150634, 150643, 150649, 150650, 150652, 150653, 150994, 150995, 150997, 150999, 151000, 151002, 151004, 151006, 151007, 151009,151011, 151014, 151016, 151017, 151020, and 151021. They were temporarily assigned the USAF serials 62-12170/12196. In November of 1963, these aircraft were delivered mainly to the 4453rd Combat Crew Training Wing at MacDill AFB in Florida. They were soon followed by production F-4Cs. This wing was assigned the initial responsibility for crew training for the F-4C. Some of these borrowed aircraft later went to the 12th TFW, also based at MacDill. The 12th TFW was the first operational user of the F-4C, receiving its first machines in January 1964, replacing the unit's F-84F Thunderstreaks. The 12th TFW achieved initial operational capability in October of 1964. As the pace of F-4C deliveries quickened, the borrowed F-4Bs were returned to the Navy. On December 2, 1964, four F-4Cs set an unofficial endurance record for jet fighters. They landed at MacDill after an 18-hour flight of nearly 10,000 miles during which they were refuelled by KC-135 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_7.html (3 of 9)09-09-2006 13:21:35


tankers. A total of 583 F-4Cs were built. The last F-4C rolled off the production line on May 4, 1966. The 15th TFW deployed its 45th Tactical Fighter to Thailand in 1965. On July 10, 1965, two F-4C crews scored the USAF's first kills of the Vietnam War when they destroyed two MiG-17s over North Vietnam with Sidewinder missiles. In time, the F-4C took over the bulk of the heavy fighting over North and South Vietnam. On a typical mission over the North, an F-4C would carry four Sparrows, four Sidewinders, and a load of eight 750-pound bombs. The AIM-7D/E Sparrow was carried in the ventral trays. It gave the Phantom a beyond visual range capability at distances of up to 28 miles. However, such launches were very rarely permitted under the terms of the rather restrictive rules of engagement. When it was fired, the Sparrow turned out to be virtually useless against fighter-sized targets, especially at low altitudes. The AIM-9B/D Sidewinder was usually the weapon of choice. The AIM-9D had a range of up to 12 miles. The PbS infrared seeker head of the AIM-9D had to be cooled before it could lock onto a target, but this was not usually a problem. The early Sidewinders were generally effective only in close stern engagements in good weather at high altitudes. In bad weather or at low altitudes, the results were less impressive, the Sidewinder often losing its lock on its target due to interference from rain or from clouds or having a tendency to lock onto the Sun or onto reflections in lakes or ponds. However, ultimately the Sidewinder scored more aerial victories in the Vietnam War than any other weapon. On July 24, 1965, F-4C 63-7599 of the 47th Tactical Fighter Squadron was downed by a surface to air missile, becoming the first American warplane to be downed by a SAM. In the first two years of combat in Vietnam, the casualties among the first F-4C squadrons had reached almost 40 percent, for a total of 54 aircraft. Most were lost to AAA, but a few were lost in stall/spin accidents at low altitude. During close-in dogfights, when pulling high-gs or when at steep angles of attack, it was very easy to lose control of an F-4C, especially if it was carrying a centerline store. Recovery from a spin at an altitude below 10,000 feet was essentially impossible, and the only option for survival was generally for the crew to eject. The F-4C lacked the guns of a complete fighter system, which was found to be a serious deficiency in close-in air-to-air combat. The addition of a SUU-16A gun pod on the underfuselage centerline compensated for the lack of a gun, but it seriously degraded overall performance and in addition made the aircraft somewhat unstable and difficult to recover from a spin. Early F-4Cs had problems with wing tank leaks, these problems being so serious that the tanks had to be carefully resealed after each flight. The radar had a tendency to malfunction far too easily, the humid air of Southeast Asia being a persistent problem. Early F-4Cs also had problems with cracked ribs and stringers on the outer wing panels. Later F-4Cs were equipped with a heavier stringer and an additional wing rib. These modifications were retrofitted to earlier F-4Cs. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_7.html (4 of 9)09-09-2006 13:21:35


A number of F-4Cs were modified and equipped with a radar homing and warning (RHAW) system, which enabled these fighters to act as killer pack leaders for air strikes on radar and surface-to-air sites. The Air Force lost six F-4s in crashes between June 1966 and December 1967 because of defects in cylinder barrels that controlled the ailerons. By mid-1968, an inferior potting compound was found in various electrical connections and relays of 385 early production F-4Cs. It took over a year to correct each of these problems. In the USAF F-4s, the rear seat crewmember could perform virtually all of the flight maneuvers that the pilot could, with only a few exceptions. The rear seater could even drop bombs if need be, but he could not fire the gun and could not launch missiles. In addition, the rear seater could not raise either the landing gear or the flaps, but he could lower them both in an emergency by using a pneumatic charge stored in a high-pressure bottle. A number of my references claim that the USAF removed the rear seat dual controls from the F-4C in 1969. It seems that this is little more than an urban legend, since several people in a position to know have e-mailed me to say that the USAF F-4s retained their rear seat dual controls all throughout their careers. Several F-4s had been lost because of fires in the engine bay. This caused a major reconfiguration program to be undertaken which lasted from January through October of 1970. As F-4Cs were superseded in front-line service by later marks of the Phantom, they were transferred to Air Force Reserve units or to units The following USAF Wings operated the F-4C: ●

8th Tactical Fighter Wing

●


●


●

18th Tactical Fighter Wing (44th TFS, 67th TFS), Kadena AB, Okinawa with detachments to Korat RTAFB.

●

32nd Tactical Fighter Wing

●


●

52nd Tactical Fighter Wing

●

57th Fighter Weapons Wing


McDonnell F-110A Spectre/F-4C Phantom II ●

57th Fighter Interceptor Squadron

●

58th Tactical Fighter Training Wing

●

81st Tactical Fighter Wing

●


●


●


●


●


●

405th Fighter Wing

●


●


●

3247th Test Squadron

●

4453rd Combat Crew Training Wing

●

4525th Fighter Weapons Wing

●


●

6512th Test Squadron

As F-4Cs were superseded in front-line service by later marks of the Phantom, they were transferred to Air Force Reserve units or to units of the Air National Guard. The first F-4Cs began to reach Air Force Reserve units in 1978, initially equipping the 93rd TFS of the 915th Tactical Fighter Group based at Homestead AFB in Florida. In 1981, the 93rd TFS of the 482nd TFW (also based at Homestead) received F-4Cs. These were the only Air Force Reserve units to get the F-4C version of the Phantom, with most of the other Phantom-equipped AF Reserve units getting later F-4Ds and Es. These units operated the F-4C for only a brief time, converting during the early 1980s to F-4Ds. Ex-USAF F-4Cs first began to reach units of the Air National Guard in 1972. First to get the F-4C was the 170th TFS of the 183rd TFG of the Illinois ANG, which began to receive the type in January of 1972. F-4Cs ended up serving with seven ANG units in the tactical role. In addition, they served in the http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_7.html (6 of 9)09-09-2006 13:21:35


air defense role from 1978 with seven ANG fighter interceptor squadrons and with a air defense training squadron They equipped the following ANG units: ●

110th TFS, 131st TFW, Missouri ANG

●

111th FIS, 147th FIG, Texas ANG

●

113th TFS, 181st TFG, Indiana ANG

●

114th TFTS, 142nd FIG, Oregon ANG

●

122nd TFS, 159th TFG, Louisiana ANG

●

123rd FIS, 142nd FIG, Oregon ANG

●

136th FIS, 107th FIG, New York ANG

●

163rd TFS, 122nd TFW, Indiana ANG

●

170th TFS, 183rd TFG, Illinois ANG

●

171st FIS, 191st FIG, Michigan ANG

●

182nd TFS, 149th TFG, Texas ANG

●

184th TFS, 188th TFG, Arkansas ANG

●

196th TFS, 163rd TFG, California ANG

●

199th TFS, 154th CB, Hawaii ANG

Most of the ANG's F-4Cs were replaced in service by later-model F-4Ds and Es (as well as by F-15s and F-16s) during the mid- to late-1980s. The last ANG squadron to fly the F-4C, the 123rd FIS of the Oregon ANG, exchanged its F-4Cs for F-16s in the spring of 1989. None remain in service with any ANG units today. The only F-4Cs exported to overseas customers were ex-USAF machines (mainly from the 81st TFW) which were shipped to Spain's Ejercito del Aire in 1971-72. F-4C-24-MC serial number 64-0829 is on display in the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio. It was once flown by Robin Olds, who scored four MiG kills in Vietnam. Serials of the F-4C: 62-12199

McDonnell F-110A Spectre



63-7407/7420 63-7421/7442 63-7443/7468 63-7469/7526 63-7527/7597 63-7598/7662 63-7663/7713 64-0654/0672 64-0673/0737 64-0738/0817 64-0818/0881 64-0882/0928

later redesignated F-4C-15-MC Phantom McDonnell F-4C-15-MC Phantom McDonnell F-4C-16-MC Phantom McDonnell F-4C-17-MC Phantom McDonnell F-4C-18-MC Phantom McDonnell F-4C-19-MC Phantom McDonnell F-4C-20-MC Phantom McDonnell F-4C-21-MC Phantom McDonnell F-4C-21-MC Phantom McDonnell F-4C-22-MC Phantom McDonnell F-4C-23-MC Phantom McDonnell F-4C-24-MC Phantom McDonnell F-4C-25-MC Phantom

Specification of the F-4C: Engines: Two General Electric J79-GE-15 turbojets, 10,900 lb.s.t dry, 17,000 lb.s.t. with afterburner. Performance: Maximum speed 1433 mph at 48,000 feet, 826 mph at sea level. Inital climb rate 40,550 feet per minute. Service ceiling 56,100 feet, combat ceiling 55,600 feet. Combat range 538 miles, maximum range 1926 miles with maximum external fuel. Weights: 28,496 pounds empty, 51,441 pounds gross, 38,352 pounds combat weight, 58,000 pounds maximum takeoff weight. Dimensions: Wingspan 38 feet 5 inches, wing area 530 square feet, length 58 feet 3 3/4 inches, height 16 feet 3 inches. Fuel: Maximum internal fuel was 1986 US gallons (1343 gallons in fuselage, 630 gallons in wings). Maximum external fuel load was 600 US gallons in centerline tank underneath the fuselage and 740 US gallons in two underwing tanks, bringing total fuel to 3313 US gallons. Armament: Armed with four AIM-7D or-7E Sparrow semiactive radar homing missiles in underfuselage recesses. Inner underwing pylons could each accommodate a pair of AIM-9B/D Sidewinder infrared homing missiles. In ground attack mode, could carry as much as 16,000 pounds of ordnance on centerline pylon underneath the fuselage and on four underwing hardpoints. Sources: 1. The World's Fighting Planes, William Green, Doubleday, 1964. 2. McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies. Airtime Publishing, 1992. 3. Modern Air Combat, Bill Gunston and Mike Spick, Crescent, 1983. 4. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 5. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers,

Smithsonian, 1989. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_7.html (8 of 9)09-09-2006 13:21:35


6. Post-World War II Fighters: 1945-1973, Marcelle Size Knaac, Office of Air Force History,

1986. 7. The World Guide to Combat Planes, William Green, Macdonald, 1966. 8. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft Armament, Bill Gunston, Orion, 1988. 9. The World's Great Attack Aircraft, Gallery, 1988. 10. E-mail from Donald G. Barnett 11. E-mail from Tom LaMonica with correction on F-4C service with 18th TFW. 12. E-mail fro Erv Smalley on 191st FIG being with Michigan ANG, not Minnesota ANG.


General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark

General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark

General Dynamics F-111A General Dynamics RF-111A General Dynamics EF-111A Raven General Dynamics/Grumman F-111B General Dynamics F-111C for Australia General Dynamics F-111D General Dynamics F-111E General Dynamics F-111F General Dynamics FB-111A General Dynamics FB-111B General Dynamics F-111G General Dynamics FB-111H General Dynamics F-111K


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f117i.html

1. Lockheed F-117A 1. Have Blue 2. F-117A 3. Developmental and operational history 4. Sources:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f117i.html09-09-2006 13:21:49

North American FJ Fury

North American FJ Fury

North American FJ-1 Fury North American FJ-2 Fury North American FJ-3 Fury North American FJ-4 Fury

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/fjfury.html09-09-2006 13:22:01

McDonnell F2H Banshee


McDonnell F2H-1 Banshee McDonnell F2H-2 Banshee McDonnell F2H-3 Banshee McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee Banshee With Royal Canadian Navy

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f2hbanshee.html09-09-2006 13:22:08

McDonnell F3H Demon

McDonnell F3H Demon

McDonnell XF3H-1 Demon McDonnell F3H-1N Demon McDonnell F3H-2N,F3H-2M, F3H-2 Demon McDonnell F3H-3 Demon

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f3hdemon.html09-09-2006 13:22:23

McDonnell F-4 Phantom II


McDonnell YF4H-1 Phantom II McDonnell F4H-1F/F-4A Phantom II McDonnell F4H-1/F-4B Phantom II McDonnell QF-4B Phantom II McDonnell F-4G Phantom II McDonnell RF-4B Phantom II McDonnell F-110 Spectre/F-4C Phantom II McDonnell EF-4C Phantom II McDonnell RF-4C Phantom II McDonnell F-4D Phantom II McDonnell F-4E Phantom II McDonnell F-4E(F) Phantom II McDonnell F-4EJ Phantom II McDonnell F-4EJ Kai Phantom II McDonnell F-4E(S) Phantom II McDonnell RF-4E Phantom II McDonnell F-4F Phantom II McDonnell F-4F/ICE Phantom II McDonnell F-4G Phantom II McDonnell F-4H Phantom II McDonnell F-4J Phantom II McDonnell F-4K Phantom FG.Mk.1 McDonnell F-4L Phantom II McDonnell F-4M Phantom FGR Mk.2 McDonnell F-4N Phantom II McDonnell F-4P,Q,R Phantom II McDonnell F-4S Phantom II McDonnell F-4T Phantom II McDonnell F-4X/RF-4X Phantom II McDonnell YRF-4C CCV McDonnell F-4(HL) Phantom II McDonnell F-4J(UK) Phantom



McDonnell F-4(FV)S Phantom II Boeing "Super Phantom" Kurnass 2000 Phantom Service With USAF Phantom Service with Air National Guard Phantom Service with US Navy Phantom Service with US Marine Corps Phantom Service with Royal Australian Air Force Phantom Service with Israel Phantom Service with Egypt Phantom Service with Luftwaffe Phantom Service with Iran Phantom Service with Greece Phantom Service with Turkey Phantom Service with Japan Phantom Service with South Korea Phantom Service with Spain Phantom Service with United Kingdom


Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger II


Northrop N-156F Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter Northrop F-5B Freedom Fighter Northrop RF-5A Freedom Fighter Service of F-5A with USAF Freedom Fighter in Service with Vietnam Freedom Fighter in Service with Iran Freedom Fighter in Service with Republic of Korea Freedom Fighter in Service with Greece Freedom Fighter in Service with Philippines Freedom Fighter in Service with Taiwan Freedom Fighter in Service with Turkey Freedom Fighter in Service with Morocco Freedom Fighter in Service with Norway Freedom Fighter in Service with Pakistan Freedom Fighter in Service with Ethiopia Freedom Fighter in Service with Thailand Freedom Fighter in Service with Libya Freedom Fighter in Service with Jordan Freedom Fighter in Service with Yemen Arab Republic Canadair CF-5 Canadair NF-5 CF-5 with Venezuela CASA SF-5 for Spain Northrop F-5E Tiger II Northrop F-5F Tiger II Northrop RF-5E Tigereye Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II With US Navy Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II With US Marine Corps Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II with USAF Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Taiwan Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Switzerland



Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Saudi Arabia Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Jordan Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with the Republic of Korea Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Indonesia Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Malaysia Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Singapore Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Thailand Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Vietnam Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Tunisia Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Sudan Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Morocco Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Keyna Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Brazil Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Chile Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Mexico Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Bahrain Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Iran Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II in Service with Honduras Northrop F-5G/F-20A Tigershark


Douglas F4D Skyray

Douglas F4D Skyray

Douglas XF4D-1 Skyray Douglas F4D-1 (F-6A) Skyray Douglas F4D-2 Skyray Douglas F4D-2N Skyray/F5D-1 Skylancer

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4d.html09-09-2006 13:23:19

Convair F2Y (F-7) Sea Dart

Convair F2Y (F-7) Sea Dart Last revised January 8, 2000

The Convair XF2Y SeaDart water-based fighter was the result of a design contest initiated by the US Navy in 1948 for a supersonic interceptor seaplane. The goal of the contest was to develop a high-performance supersonic naval fighter aircraft which could operate in forward areas without the need for land bases. At that time, the Navy assumed that it would be impossible to operate high-performance supersonic jet aircraft from the decks of aircraft carriers. For this reason, the Navy actually stuck with lower-performance straightwinged carrier-based jet aircraft such as the F9F Panther and the F2H Banshee long after land-based air forces had switched over to higher-performance swept-winged fighter aircraft. Convair entered the seaplane fighter contest on October 1, 1948. Initially, Convair's proposal was for a delta-winged design with a blended hull which rested on the water and rose up onto a retractable step for takeoff and landing. Convair also tested a large number of seaplane designs equipped with hydro-ski configurations. On January 19, 1951, Convair was awarded a contract for two prototypes of a water based fighter with a delta wing planform, a single delta-shaped tail, and a watertight hull. The aircraft was to take off and land on a pair of hydro-skis that retracted into wells in the side of the lower fuselage. The two prototypes were assigned the designation XF2Y-1 and were issued the BuAer serial numbers 137634 and 137635. The name SeaDart was assigned. The SeaDart aircraft was to be powered by a pair of 6100 lb.s.t. afterburning Westinghouse XJ46-WE-02 engines. The engines were to be fed by a pair of lateral intakes mounted high up on the sides of the fuselage well above the wings and behind the cockpit, this location being chosen in order to prevent water spray from entering the air intakes during takeoff and landing. The hull of the SeaDart had multiple watertight compartments in the lower fuselage to prevent sinking in the event of a puncture. The lower fuselage of the SeaDart had the V-shaped profile of a boat, as would be expected for a water-based aircraft. Both the elevons and the rudder were hydraulically-powered. The aircraft was fitted with a set of dive brakes on the lower rear fuselage which also doubled http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f7.html (1 of 7)09-09-2006 13:24:05


as water brakes and as a water rudder while taxiing on the surface. When sitting at rest in the water, the SeaDart floated with the trailing edge of the wing and the elevons being flush with the water, and the leading edge of the delta wing at the juncture of the fuselage being about 18 inches above the water. The one-piece cockpit canopy structure was hinged from behind the cockpit. When open, there was no windscreen in front of the pilot. The canopy was provided with two small transparencies on either side, separated from each other by a center post which obstructed the directly forward view. By all accounts, the view from the cockpit was rather poor, and would certainly have to had been substantially improved had the SeaDart ever entered service as a combat aircraft. The aircraft took off and landed on a pair of retractable hydro-skis that extended outward on oleo legs from recesses cut into the lower hull, one ski on each side of the hull. During takeoff, the skis were initially fully retracted into their wells. Then as power was applied and the leading edge of the ski broke the water at 9-11 mph, the skis were extended to an intermediate position until 45-55 mph was reached. The skis were then extended to their fully-extended position, and the aircraft accelerated to a takeoff speed of about 145 mph. When the aircraft was sitting on dry land out of the water, it tilted backwards on its extended skis, its tail resting on the ground. Each of the twin retractable hydro-skis had a small fixed wheel at its aft end, and there was a small fixed swiveling tailwheel mounted underneath the rear fuselage. This provided for a limited amount of ground maneuverability, which made it possible for the aircraft to enter or leave the water via a long ramp under its own power. However, the aircraft could not take off or land on conventional runways. The Navy had such confidence with the design that they ordered 12 production F2Y-1 aircraft on August 28, 1952, even before the first prototype had flown. Serials were 135762/135773, which curiously were in a batch earlier than those of the two XF2Y-1s ordered more than a year earlier. Proposed armament for the production F2Y-1 aircraft was a set of four 20mm cannon and a battery of 2.75-inch folding-fin unguided rockets. These aircraft were to be powered by a pair of J-46 afterburning turbojets, each offering a thrust of 6000 pounds. Shortly thereafter, the contract was amended so that the the first four F2Y-1s (BuNo 135762/135765) would be built as YF2Y-1 service test aircraft. Later, eight more F2Y-1 production aircraft were ordered. Their serials were http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f7.html (2 of 7)09-09-2006 13:24:05


138530/138534, plus three others which I don't know. This brought the total SeaDart order to 22 aircraft. Pending the availability of the J46s, the first prototype XF2Y-1 (BuNo 137634) was fitted with two side-by-side non-afterburning Westinghouse J34-WE-32 engines of 3400 lb.s.t. each. In the late autumn of 1952, the completed aircraft was transferred from the experimental shop at Convair's Lindbergh Field facility to the Convair seaplane ramp area on San Diego Bay. On December 14, 1952, E. D. "Sam" Shannon began taxiing trials in San Diego Bay with the XF2Y-1 prototype. On January 14, 1953, he made an inadvertent first hop of 1000 feet during a high-speed taxiing run. The XF2Y-1 prototype made its official maiden flight on April 9, 1953. The first flight tests revealed (as expected) that the aircraft was severely underpowered for its weight. In addition, the waterskis vibrated continuously during takeoff and landing, so much so that the aircraft was extremely difficult to control. In order to cure the vibration problem, the skis were redesigned and the oleo legs were improved. This seemed to help somewhat. However, the absence of an area-ruled fuselage (plus the lack of adequate engine power) meant that that the XF2Y-1 could not exceed the speed of sound in level flight. In 1953, the XJ46 engines finally became available and was installed in the prototype. However, they failed to reach their projected thrust output. In search of more power, the Navy proposed that a single 12,000 lb.s.t Wright J67 or 15,000 lb.s.t. engine be fitted in an improved version of the SeaDart, the XF2Y-2. On October 14, 1953, the remaining XF2Y-1 (BuNo 137635) was cancelled. The first YF2Y-1 (BuNo 135762) service test aircraft joined the test program in early 1954. Since the second XF2Y-1 (BuNo 137635) had been cancelled, YF2Y-1 BuNo 135762 was the second SeaDart aircraft actually to be built. It was powered by a pair of afterburning Westinghouse J46 turbojets. In overall appearance, the YF2Y-1 was similar to the XF2Y-1 except for the J46 engines. However, the aft fuselage at the engine exhaust area was significantly different, with the engine nacelles and nozzles extending further aft. The YF2Y-1 differed from the XF2Y-1 in not having wheels on the rear of its twin skis, so auxiliary beaching gear was required during entry to or exit from the water. Convair test pilot Charles E. Richbourg made the initial flight tests of the number two http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f7.html (3 of 7)09-09-2006 13:24:05


SeaDart. On August 3, 1954, Richbourg took BuNo 135762 through the sound barrier while in a shallow dive. This made the SeaDart the first (and to date the only) seaplane to go supersonic. Since the SeaDart had been designed before the advent of the area rule, the aircraft experienced high transonic drag and was unable to exceed the speed of sound in level flight. Flight tests indicated some wing spanwise airflow, and a single airflow fence was mounted on each upper wing surface near the tip. No other SeaDart was fitted with wing fences. Unfortunately, Richbourg was killed on November 4 of that year while demonstrating BuNo 135762 over San Diego Bay to Navy officers and press representatives. It seems that the aircraft had gotten pushed past its safety margin during a low-altitude, high-speed flypast, and the plane disintegrated in midair as a result of pilot-induced pitch oscillations. Bits and pieces of flaming debris fell into the bay. I still remember the rather vivid photos of this accident that appeared in Life magazine. All SeaDart operations were temporarily suspended after the crash. In the meantime, the Navy had been gradually losing interest in the SeaDart project. By this time, the Navy had overcome its earlier reluctance and was already planning for the introduction of supersonic carrier-based fighters, and the need for a water-based supersonic fighter did not now seem to be as critical as before. In addition, the problems with the vibrating waterskis had continued to plague the SeaDart, and seemed to be insoluble. As a result, the Navy cancelled ten of the sixteen production F2Y-1 aircraft in December of 1953, even before the first of the YF2Y-1 service test aircraft had been delivered. The remaining six production F2Y-1s were cancelled in March of 1954. The fatal crash of the first YF2Y-1 aircraft later that year, with the surrounding bad publicity, did not help matters any, and the SeaDart program was relegated to test status only. Also cancelled was the F2Y-2, which had been envisaged as the definitive production version of the SeaDart. It had a single waterski, an area-ruled fuselage, plus a single afterburning Pratt and Whitney J-75 turbojet of 15,000 pounds of thrust. In spite of the project cancellation, tests continued with the sole XF2Y-1. During the summer of 1954, the XF2Y-1 was extensively reworked. The aft fuselage was brought up to YF2Y-1 configuration with afterburning Westinghouse J46 turbojets. The aircraft was fitted with a large, single hydro-ski in place of the original pair of skis. The single-ski installation was not fully retractable, since high-speed flight was never planned. The previous twin-ski fuselage wells were not filled in or covered over for the single-ski http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f7.html (4 of 7)09-09-2006 13:24:05


installation, and during flight, the single ski was held below the fuselage in an external position parallel to the aircraft's longitudinal axis. The rear part of the ski was extended downward for takeoff or landing. The rear part of the single ski had a pair of retractable wheels on either side for use in moving the aircraft into and out of the water, the aircraft resting nose-up on a small tailwheel. Like the dual-ski XF2Y-1, the aircraft could be launched or recovered from the water without the need for auxiliary beaching gear. The XF2Y-1 flew for the first time in this configuration on December 29, 1954, with Convair test pilot B. J. Long at the controls. The first tests with the single sky encountered the divergent and uncontrollable hydrodynamic longitudinal pitch oscillations. These were corrected by adding a new ski oleo damping device what sensed stroke rate and varied the oleo hydraulic orifices and provided the needed damping qualities. Lateral directional control problems that had been encountered were corrected by doubling the lateral deflection of the elevons relative to the pilot control stick movements. The single ski could even safely handle crosswind takeoffs and landings with a wingtip dragging in the water. The aircraft could even operate in waves of up to 6 to 10 feet in height, far in excess of the requirement. The last single-ski test with the XF2Y-1 took place January 16, 1956, when an open-sea landing and takeoff was carried out. After the completion of the tests, the XF2Y-1 was placed in storage. The number three SeaDart, YF2Y-1 BuNo 135763 joined the test program in March of 1955. It was the nearest of the three aircraft to a full production model, and carried no special test instrumentation. It flew for the first time on March 4, 1955. It was powered by a pair of Westinghoeus J46 afterburning engines, the same as those retrofitted to the XF2Y-1 when the single-ski was installed. The aircraft featured a revised twin-ski format, with beaching wheels once again as an integral part of the skis. The bottom planform of the ski afterbodies were the same as the best design finally derived on the number two aircraft, which did not have wheels. The afterbodies were tapered and pointed, with a retractable wheel mounted flat on the top surface of each ski afterbody, with a slight overhang on the inside of the bottom planing surface. The afterbodies rotated 90 degrees just aft of the ski main oleo struts. When the aircraft was sitting out of the water on the ramp with the wheels extended, the bottom afterbodies faced outward and appeared as spurs. Upon water entry, the ski afterbodies were retracted inward at the bottom to a 90degree position, with the wheels safely tucked out of the way on top of the skis. Vibration was still unacceptable with the two-ski example, and after open-sea trials, testing with the second YF2Y-1 formally ended on April 28, 1955. The aircraft was placed in storage and never tested again. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f7.html (5 of 7)09-09-2006 13:24:05


In late 1956, the XF2Y-1 was taken out of storage and the entire large single-ski oleo system was removed and replaced with a small rigidly-mounted hydrofoil ski. Actual flight with such a configuration was not possible, since the rigid mounting and placement of the ski would not permit the ~20 degree nose-up attitude that was required for takeoff. The first test was carried out on March 21, 1957. Violent pounding caused every taxiing run to be aborted at speeds between 50 and 60 knots. Another rigid ski configuration was tested in the autumn of 1957. It too caused too much vibration, and further tests were abandoned. The XF2Y-1 was placed in storage after these tests were completed, never to be flown again. The other two YF2Y-1 prototypes (135764 and 135765) were completed but never flown. The four surviving SeaDarts are all preserved in museums. The XF2Y-1 prototype (BuNo 137634) was reportedly at one time with the Maryland Aviation Historical Society at Strawberry Point (I'm not sure where this is, even though I am from Maryland. It might be at the site of the old Glenn L. Martin plant near Baltimore). However, it is now in storage at the Paul Garber Restoration Facility of the Smithsonian Institution in Suitland, Maryland, waiting eventual restoration. It is in terrible shape, with lots of rust, a smashed canopy, and the wings having been cut off by a blowtorch. The 3 surviving YF2Y-1s are with the San Diego Aerospace Museum at Balboa Park (135763), the Wings of Freedom Air and Space Museum at NAS Willow Grove, Pennsylvania (135764) and the Sun n' Fun site at the Lakeland, Florida airport (135765) respectively. There is a rather odd postscript to the SeaDart story. In 1962, five years after the official termination of the SeaDart project, the Navy was ordered to redesignate all of its fighter aircraft in order to conform to the new tri-service unified aircraft designation scheme. For some obscure reason, the SeaDart was assigned the designation F-7. Why would the Navy bother to redesignate an aircraft which had never entered service? Perhaps some clerk in the Defense Department had some fond memories of this warplane, and decided to honor it posthumously with an official F-number. Serials of Convair X/YF2Y-1 SeaDart: 137634/137635 135762/135773

Convair XF2Y-1 SeaDart 137635 was cancelled Convair F2Y-1 SeaDart 135762/135765 delivered as YF2Y-1.



138530/138534

remainder all cancelled. Convair F2Y-1 SeaDart cancelled contract.

Specification for the Convair YF2Y-1 SeaDart: Engines: Two Westinghouse J46-WE-2 turbojets, rated at 6000 lb.s.t. each with afterburning. Maximum speed: 695 mph at 8000 feet, 825 mph at 36,000 feet. Initial climb rate 17,100 feet per minute. Range 513 miles. Service ceiling 54,800 feet. (these are estimated performance figures, which I don't think were ever achieved in test). Stalling speed 132 mph. Dimensions: Wingspan 33 feet 8 inches, length 52 feet 7 inches (YF2Y-1 no. 3 51 feet 1 1/2 inches), height 16 feet 2 inches (skis retracted) 20 feet 9 inches (skis extended), wing area 568 square feet. Total internal fuel capacity: 1000 US gallons. Weights: 12,625 pounds empty, 16,500 pounds gross, 21,500 pounds maximum takeoff. Armament: The SeaDart was never equipped with any armament. Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 2. United States Navy Aircraft Since 1911, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 3. General Dynamics Aircraft and their Predecessors, John Wegg, Naval Institute

Press, 1990. 4. Ray Wagner, American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Doubleday, 1982. 5. Convair XF2Y-1 and YF2Y-1 Sea Dart, B. J. Long, Naval Fighters, 1992. 6. E-mail from Steven L. Simpson


Vought F8U/F-8 Crusader

Vought F8U/F-8 Crusader

Vought XF8U-1 Crusader Vought F8U-1 (F-8A) Crusader Vought F8U-1P (RF-8A) Crusader Vought F8U-1E (F-8B) Crusader Vought F8U-2 (F-8C) Crusader Vought F8U-2N (F-8D) Crusader Vought F8U-2NE (F-8E) Crusader Vought F8U-1T (TF-8A) Crusader Vought DF-8F Crusader Ling-Temco-Vought RF-8G Crusader Ling-Temco-Vought F-8H Crusader Ling-Temco-Vought F-8J Crusader Ling-Temco-Vought F-8K Crusader Ling-Temco-Vought F-8L Crusader Ling-Temco-Vought F-8M Crusader Crusader in Navy/Marine Corps Service Vought F-8E(FN) Crusader Crusader with Philippines Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III


Grumman F9F/F-9 Panther/Cougar

Grumman F9F/F-9 Panther/Cougar

Grumman F9F Panther Grumman XF9F-2 Panther Grumman F9F-2 Panther Grumman F9F-3 Panther Grumman F9F-4 Panther Grumman F9F-5 Panther Grumman F9F-5P Panther Panther in Service with US Navy and US Marine Corps Panther in Service with Argentina

Grumman F9F Cougar Grumman F9F-6/F-9F Cougar Grumman F9F-7/F-9H Cougar Grumman F9F-8/F-9J Cougar Grumman F9F-8P/RF-9J Cougar Grumman F9F-8T/TF-9J Cougar Operational History of Cougar


Douglas F3D/F-10 Skyknight

Douglas F3D/F-10 Skyknight

Douglas F3D-1/F-10A Skyknight Douglas F3D-2/F-10B Skyknight Douglas F3D-3 Skyknight


Grumman F11F/F-11 Tiger

Grumman F11F/F-11 Tiger

Grumman F11F-1/F-11A Tiger Grumman F11F-1F Tiger


Lockheed YF-12A

Lockheed YF-12A Last revised January 30, 2000

The Lockheed YF-12A Mach 3 interceptor of the mid-1960s had its origin in the topsecret A-12 spyplane which had been designed by Lockheed at Central Intelligence Agency request as a successor to the U-2 spyplane. The basic U-2 concept dated back to 1954, but as early as 1957 the CIA had concluded that the high-flying U-2 might soon be vulnerable to missiles and would have to be replaced with something more advanced if reconnaissance missions over Soviet territory were to continue unmolested. The CIA wanted an aircraft with a maximum cruising speed of over Mach 3 which could operate at altitudes exceeding 80,000 feet, which should render the aircraft immune from interception by any known threat. The Agency gave the project the code name Project Gusto. After some preliminary studies, both Convair and Lockheed were given funds to carry out detailed design studies. Even before this study had gotten underway, the Lockheed Skunk Works team (headed by the famous engineer Clarence R. "Kelly" Johnson) had already been trying to interest the government in a U-2 replacement, and had been experimenting with advanced propulsion concepts involving a turbojet powered by a liquid hydrogen/ liquid oxygen mixture, but these ideas were abandoned as being impractical at an early stage in the process. On August 29, 1959, Lockheed was officially declared the winner of the contest and was awarded a limited development contract for design, wind-tunnel testing, and the construction of a mockup. The project came to be known under the deliberately deceptive codename OXCART. The designation A-12 became associated with the project, which is sort of odd, since such a designation was not consistent with either the official USAF or the internal Lockheed company designation scheme. In some documents, the various Skunk Works proposals that were at various times being given consideration during the initial design phase bore the in-house design numbers of A-1 through A-12, and the A-12 designation was supposedly chosen because the 12th design was the one that was eventually produced. However, Lockheed's designer Clarence L. ("Kelly") Johnson seems http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f12.html (1 of 11)09-09-2006 13:24:52

Lockheed YF-12A

to have referred to the aircraft as A-11 rather than A-12. To make things even more confusing, the designation A-11 was used by President Lyndon Johnson when he officially revealed the existence of the project in February of 1964, but this may have have simply been a slip of the tongue on Lyndon's part. It is possible that the CIA came up with the A12 designation itself. The OXCART document claims that the aircraft WAS originally designated A-11, but was later redesignated A-12 as a result of changes that had been introduced to make the aircraft capable of achieving a lower radar cross section, with the designation A-11 later becoming associated with the YF-12A interceptor version. On September 3, 1959, the CIA authorized Lockheed to proceed with antiradar studies, aerodynamic structural tests, and engineering designs, and on 30 January 1960 the Agency gave the green light to produce 12 aircraft. Serial numbers were 60-6924/6935 . Later, three more single-seaters (60-6937/6939) and nine two-seaters (60-6940/60-6948) were ordered. The aircraft were to be tested at a secret test site in Nevada know as Groom Lake or "Area 51", which had originally been developed for the U-2. The technical challenges faced were enormous. The aircraft was to operate at sustained speeds that were nearly three times greater than that of existing aircraft, and was to be able to cruise at altitudes above 80,000 feet. The Pratt and Whitney Division of United Aircraft Corporation was chosen to develop the propulsion system. The J58 engine was based on a 1956 project known as Suntan, which was designed to produce a Mach 2.7 hydrogen-fueled aircraft. This project was cancelled in 1959. It was also based on the Pratt & Whitney JT9 single-spool high-pressure ration turbojet rated at 26,000 lb.s.t. in afterburning, which had been designed for a US Navy attack aircraft which had been cancelled. The design team came up with a unique idea of a variable-cycle engine (later known as a bleed-bypass engine) in which air was extracted from the fourth stage of the nine-stage single-spool axial-flow compressor and fed through a series of bypass ducts and reintroduced into the turbine exhaust near the front of the afterburner. This reduced the exhaust gas temperature and produced almost as much thrust per pound of air as the main flow that had passed through the main part of the engine. To minimize stalling of the front stages of the rotor blades at low engine speeds, moveable inlet guide vanes were incorporated. They changed from axial to a cambered position in response to the main fuel control. When operating at high cruising speeds, the turbine inlet temperatures reached over 2000 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f12.html (2 of 11)09-09-2006 13:24:52

Lockheed YF-12A

degrees Fahrenheit, which required the development of a new type of fuel, known as JP7. It had a much higher ignition temperature than JP4. It required the use of a new type of chemical ignition system based on a fluid known as tri-ethyl borane. The A-12 was to be built almost entirely of heat-resistant titanium alloys, chosen because of their relatively light weight and great strength. However, titanium is relatively costly and is a very hard metal which is very difficult to mill and machine. Consequently, its use as an important aircraft component required the development of entirely new technologies. The Titanium Metals Corporation was chosen as the primary contractor for the metal. Quality control is especially difficult during titanium alloy manufacture--even the most minute of impurities can render the batch into a useless brittle metal which shatters under the weakest of stresses. Of the early deliveries from Titanium Metals Corporation, some 80 percent had to be rejected as being flawed, and it was not until 1961 that quality became consistently satisfactory. Since the airframe would undergo aerodynamic heating during sustained supersonic cruise, significant thermal expansion was expected. In order to accommodate for this thermal expansion, a set of chordwise corrugations were added to the central portion of the wing, and expansion gaps were provided between some panels. When operating at high cruising speeds, the turbine inlet temperatures reached over 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, which required the development of a new low-volatility type of fuel, known as JP7. It had a much higher ignition temperature than JP4. It required the use of a new type of chemical ignition system based on a fluid known as tri-ethyl borane. During protracted operations above Mach 3 it was estimated that the fuel tanks would heat up to about 350 degrees Celsius, and the tanks themselves had to be rendered inert with nitrogen gas to prevent fuel explosions in the tank because of the heat. Special lubricating oil had to be developed for operation at 600 degrees F., and contained a diluent in order to remain fluid at operation below 40 degrees. The wing was of short-span modified delta planform, supplemented by long fuselage chines which extended forward all the way to the nose. These chines had the beneficial effect of contributing to yaw damping at high speeds and also provided additional space for fuel and equipment. The blending of the fuselage, chines, and wings also helped to reduce the A-12's radar signature over that of other aircraft. The engines were housed in long nacelles that were mounted at approximately mid-span http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f12.html (3 of 11)09-09-2006 13:24:52

Lockheed YF-12A

on each wing. The nacelles were provided with a complex inlet and ejector system, with the inlets contributing as much as 60 percent of the total engine thrust at Mach 3. During takeoff, suck-in doors mounted on the side of the engine nacelles open up to admit additional air to the engines. The engines contained large conical-shaped inlet spikes which could be pushed forward or backwards to adjust for aircraft speed. During takeoff and low-speed flight, the inlet spikes were fully forward, but as speed increased, the inlet spikes were pulled to the rear a maximum of 26 inches so that the shockwave could be maintained at the inlet throat. A vertical tail was mounted above the rear of each engine nacelle. The vertical tails were all-moving, and were canted inwards. Fixed fins were mounted underneath each nacelle, and a fin was mounted underneath the rear fuselage which could be folded aside for takeoffs and landings. The landing gear was fairly conventional, with the three-wheeled main members retracting inwards into bays in the fuselage and the nosewheel retracting forward into a bay in the forward fuselage. A small Skunk Works engineering team worked with engineers from Pratt & Whitney and were able to construct the first prototype in only 22 months. In December 1961, the first A12 (article number 121, USAF serial number 60-6924) was trucked from Palmdale, California to the secret base at Groom Lake, Nevada, so chosen that it would be welldistant from prying eyes. However, the J58 engine was still not ready, and it was decided that a pair of Pratt & Whitney J75 engines would be used for the initial test flights. Finally, on 26 April 1962, aircraft 121 was ready. On that day, Lockheed test pilot Louis Schalk took it for an unofficial, unannounced, maiden flight lasting some 40 minutes. The first official flight took place on April 30, 1962, piloted again by Louis Schalk. The aircraft broke the sound barrier on its second official flight, 4 May 1962, reaching Mach 1.1. Aircraft No. 122 arrived at Groom Lake on 26 June, and spent three months in radar testing before engine installations and final assembly. Aircraft No. 123 arrived in August and flew in October. Aircraft No. 124, a two-seated version intended for use in training OXCART project pilots, was delivered in November. It was to be powered by the J58 engines, but delivery delays and a desire to begin pilot training prompted a decision to install the smaller J75's. The trainer flew initially in January 1963. The fifth aircraft, No. 125, arrived at the area on 17 December.


Lockheed YF-12A

On October 27, 1962 a U-2, flown by a Strategic Air Force pilot on a SAC-directed mission, was shot down by a surface-to-air missile while flying over Cuba in search of Soviet missile sites. This raised the dismaying possibility that continued manned, highaltitude surveillance of Cuba might become too dangerous, and the OXCART program suddenly assumed greater significance and its achievement of operational status became one of the highest national priorities. By the end of 1962, speeds of Mach 2.16 and altitudes of 60,000 feet had been achieved, still with the lower-powered J75 turbojets, although some flights did take place with just one J58 installed. However, by the end of January 1963, ten J58 engines were available, and the first flight with two of them installed occurred on 15 January. Thenceforth all A12 aircraft were fitted with their intended propulsion system. In the meantime, an entirely new mission had appeared for the OXCART. In September of 1959, the USAF had cancelled its contracts for the North American F-108 Rapier, a Mach 3-capable aircraft that had been proposed as the USAF's next-generation interceptor to replace the F-106. The reason given for the cancellation was that the F-108 was simply too expensive for the USAF, now that the primary Soviet threat to the US mainland was its battery of intercontinental range ballistic missiles rather than its fleet of long-range bombers. Nevertheless, Lockheed thought that the Air Force might still be interested in a less-costly F-106 replacement should the Soviet bomber fleet ever again be perceived as a significant threat. Lockheed suggested to the Air Force that the A-12 design would make a good platform for a Mach 3+ interceptor, and might make a good replacement for the F106 at a more reasonable cost than the abortive F-108 Rapier. Sufficient interest was expressed by the Air Force that in October of 1960 they gave Lockheed permission to modify three A-12 Airframes (the 7th, 8th, and 9th) to interceptor configuration. The designation AF-12 was initially assigned to this project. Serial numbers were 606934/6936. One of the unsaid reasons for the Defense Department approval of the interceptor project was perhaps that it might make a good cover for the real CIA-supported intelligence-gathering nature of the project. In September of 1962, these three aircraft were secretly assigned the designation YF-12A in the new Defense Department tri-service scheme.. The YF-12A was quite similar in overall configuration to the A-12 from which it was derived. It differed from the A-12 primarily in having a second crewman in a position immediately behind the pilot This second crewman was added to operate the extremely powerful and capable Hughes AN/ASG-18 pulse Doppler fire control radar, which had http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f12.html (5 of 11)09-09-2006 13:24:52

Lockheed YF-12A

originally been developed for the F-108 Rapier. The AN/ASG-18 was installed in the extreme nose of the aircraft, with the forward chines being cut back to accommodate the 40-inch radome. The ASG-18 radar supposedly had a search range as great as 500 miles. Infrared sensors were installed in the forward edges of the cut-back chines. The YF-12A also differed from the A-12 in having armament. This armament consisted of four Hughes AIM-47A Falcon air-to-air missiles housed internally in chine bays that had previously been used to carry the reconnaissance equipment. The AIM-47A had originally been known as the GAR-9 and (like the ASG-18 radar) had originally been intended for the F-108 Rapier. When fired, the Falcon missiles were explosively ejected from their bays, and their rocket motors were fired. Powered by a storable-propellant liquid-fuelled rocket, the AIM-47A had a maximum speed of Mach 6 and an interception range of 115 miles. It had a launch weight of about 800 pounds. The missile relied on semiactive radar homing for midcourse guidance to the immediate vicinity of the target, homing in on reflections off the target resulting from transmissions from the huge ASG-18 radar. However, it used terminal infrared homing for the final run in to the target. The AIM-47 could carry a 250-kiloton nuclear warhead. Early wind-tunnel testing indicated that there would be directional stability problems resulting from the revised nose and cockpit configuration, and a large folding fin was mounted under the aft fuselage and two shorter fixed fins were mounted underneath each nacelle. The first YF-12A (60-6934) took off on its initial flight on August 7, 1963, piloted by James D. Eastham. It was equipped with a streamlined camera pod mounted underneath each engine nacelle for photographing AIM-47 missile launches. Three YF-12As were built. Serials were 60-6934/6936. While on a routine INS test flight with A-12 number 123 on May 24, 1963, CIA detachment pilot Kenneth Collins entered some clouds. Water vapor froze in the pitot tube, giving an erroneous airspeed reading. With the airspeed indicator giving the wrong reading, the aircraft stalled. Collins ejected safely from the aircraft after it entered an inverted flat spin. The aircraft crashed 14 miles south of Wendover, Utah. The wreckage was recovered in two days, and people at the scene were identified and requested to sign secrecy agreements. A cover story for the press described the accident as occurring to a F105, and is still listed in this way on official records.


Lockheed YF-12A

Although this particular loss was ultimately traced to a problem that was easily corrected, it nevertheless precipitated a policy problem within the Agency. With the growing number of A-12s flying out in the western desert, the CIA felt that there was a danger that the OXCART project's cover could be blown at any moment. Although the program had gone through development, construction, and a year of flight testing without attracting any public attention, the Department of Defense was experiencing increasing difficulty in concealing its participation in the OXCART program because of the delays and cost overruns that had increased the rate of expenditures to such an extent that they might eventually get large enough to attract unwanted attention from congressional budget oversight committees. There was also a realization that the technological data would be extremely valuable in connection with feasibility studies for the SST. Finally, there was a growing awareness in the higher reaches of the aircraft industry that something new and remarkable was going on. Several commercial airline crews had reported sighting unidentified aircraft in flight. The magazine Aviation Week indicated to its readers that it was vaguely aware that there was some rather unusual project going on at the Skunk Works at Burbank. Soon after President Lyndon Johnson took office following the assassination of President John Kennedy on November 22, 1963, he was briefed on the OXCART project and directed that some sort of cover announcement be prepared for the spring of 1964. On February 29, 1964, President Johnson announced that "The United States has successfully developed an advanced experimental jet aircraft, the A-11, which has been tested in sustained flight at more than 2,000 miles per hour and at altitudes in excess of 70,000 feet. The performance of the A-11 far exceeds that of any other aircraft in the world today. The development of this aircraft has been made possible by major advances in aircraft technology of great significance for both military and commercial applications. Several A11 aircraft are now being flight tested at Edwards Air Force Base in California. The existence of this program is being disclosed today to permit the orderly exploitation of this advanced technology in our military and commercial program." The "A-11" referred to by President Johnson had been the original design designation for the aircraft first proposed by Lockheed prior to the adoption of stealth technology for the design. Subsequently, it became the design designation for the YF-12A interceptor version. The parallel OXCART project remained black. Although there was at the time considerable speculation about a Central Intelligence Agency role in the A-11 development, this was never acknowledged by the government.


Lockheed YF-12A

The President also said that "the A-11 aircraft now at Edwards Air Force Base are undergoing extensive tests to determine their capabilities as long-range interceptors." This statement was untrue, since at the time the President spoke, there were no A-11's actually at Edwards and there never had been. Project officials were aware that some sort of public announcement was about to be made, but they had not been told exactly when. Caught by surprise, they hastily arranged to fly two of the Air Force YF-12A's to Edwards to support the President's statement. Thenceforth, while the OXCART continued its secret career out at the Groom Lake site, the A-11 performed in its YF-12A guise at Edwards Air Force Base under a considerable glare of publicity. In 1964, Kelly Johnson was awarded the prestigous Collier trophy for his achievements in the YF-12A project, becoming the first person in history ever to be honored by this recognition twice. On April 16, 1964, the first airborne AIM-47 missile separation test was conducted. Unfortunately, the missile's nose-down position was not correct, and had the missile's rocket motor actually fired, the aircraft would probably have shot itself down. On March 18, a YF-12A successfully engaged a Q-2C target drone at 40,000 feet while the interceptor was flying at Mach 2.2 at an altitude of 65,000 feet. The first powered launch was undertaken on March 18, 1956. Six out of seven AIM-47 tests resulted in hits, including One fired from an altitude of 75,000 feet and a speed of Mach 3.2 against a target approaching head-on at 1500 feet. The three YF-12As served initially with the 4786th Test Squadron at Edwards AFB. The USAF was sufficiently impressed with the performance of the YF-12A that on May 14, 1965 they ordered a total of 93 definitive F-12B aircraft into production and Congress had voted $90 million toward the project. However, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara saw no need for the F-12B and refused to free up the money, the reason being given that the expanding war in Southeast Asia was consuming all available funds in the USAF budget. McNamara chose instead to purse the cheaper "F-106X" interceptor. The YF-12As served primarily in various and sundry operational evaluation projects throughout the remainder of the 1960s. Even though there was to be no production of the YF-12A, the three prototypes carried out an extensive program of flight research with the Air Force. On May 1, 1965, the following world records were set by YF-12A 60-6936:


Lockheed YF-12A ●

●

●

●

15/25 km closed-circuit speed record: 2070.102 mph. Piloted by Col Robert L. Stephens and LtCol Daniel Andre. This counted as a new world absolute speed record and was the first record to exceed 2000 mph. Sustained altitude record of 80,257.86 feet. Piloted by Col. Robert L. Stephens and LtCol Daniel Andre. 500-km closed-circuit speed record: 1642.042 mph. Piloted by Majors Walter F. Daniel and Noel T. Warner. 1000-km closed circuit speed record: 1688.891 mph. Piloted by Major Walter F. Daniel and Capt James P. Cooney.

In December of 1969, YF-12A 60-6935 was handed over to NASA at the Dryden Flight Research Facility. 60-6936 was delivered to Dryden a year later. While serving with NASA, YF-12A 60-6936 was lost on June 24, 1971 when USAF pilot LtCol Ronald J. Layton and WSO Maj. William A. Curtis were forced to eject after the plane caught fire due to a fuel line fatigue failure during approach to Edwards. Both crewmembers survived. In November of 1979, its research program being completed, YF-12A 60-6935 was donated to the USAF Museum at Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio. It is now permanently on display at the museum. This is the only YF-12A that survives. The prototype YF-12A (60-6934) was briefly placed in storage following the end of its flight test program. In 1969, it was taken out of storage and cut up and used for parts in the construction of SR-71C 64-17981, a two seat trainer. There was actually a FOURTH YF-12, sometimes referred to as a YF-12C. Its serial number is 60-6937. However, Aerofax claims that this aircraft is really SR-71A serial number 64-17951 that had been retained by Lockheed until 1969. In that year, Lockheed turned the aircraft over to the USAF. For some reason, the Air Force then changed its designation to YF-12C and assigned it a new serial number (60-6937) prior its delivery to NASA in July of 1971. NASA returned the plane to the Air Force in December of 1978. It was later put on outdoor display at Edwards AFB. The latest information I have is that the plane is now with the Pima Air Museum of Tucson, Arizona. Anyone have more current information on its whereabouts? http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f12.html (9 of 11)09-09-2006 13:24:52

Lockheed YF-12A

The A-12s continued on to become operational spy planes and carried out numerous reconnaissance missions, the details of which are still highly classified even today. The OXCART document (assuming it to be genuine) gives a few of the details. The OXCART fleet was taken out of service and placed in storage in the late 1960s. In February 1963, Lockheed undertook redesign of the basic A-12 with additional fuel tankage, broader forward nose chines, and the provision for inflight refueling and a seat for a second crewman. This eventually emerged as the SR-71. Specification of Lockheed YF-12A: Engines: Two Pratt and Whitney J-58 (JT11D-20B) turbojets, each rated at 32,500 lb.s.t. with afterburning. Performance (estimated): Maximum cruise speed: 2110 mph at altitude (Mach 3.2) Maximum operational ceiling: 85,000 feet Maximum unrefuelled range: 2500 miles Dimensions: Length: 101 feet 7 inches, Wingspan: 55 feet 7 inches. Height: 18 feet 6 inches. Wing Area: 1795 square feet Weights: 60,730 pounds empty, 127,000 pounds maximum takeoff. Armament: Four Hughes AIM-47A air to air missiles which are explosively ejected downwards from paired tandem missile bays. Sources: 1. Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987. 2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987. 3. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft Armament, Bill Gunston, Orion Books,

1988. 4. Lockheed Blackbirds, Anthony M. Thorborough and Peter E. Davies, Motorbooks

International, 1988. 5. The OXCART Story, Thomas P. McIninch, available from Skunk Works Digest. 6. Lockheed A-12/YF-12/SR-71, Paul F. Crickmore, Wings of Fame Vol 8, 1997.


Lockheed YF-12A


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f013i.html

1. "F-13"

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f013i.html09-09-2006 13:24:58

Grumman F-14 Tomcat

Grumman F-14 Tomcat

Origin of Grumman F-14 Tomcat Grumman F-14A Tomcat Grumman F-14B Tomcat Grumman F-14A+/F-14B Tomcat Grumman F-14D Tomcat TARPS Pod for Tomcat Bombcat Service of F-14 with US Navy Service of F-14 with Iran F-14 with USAF F/A-14D Quickstrike Super Tomcat 21


McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle

McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle

Origin of McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle McDonnell Douglas F-15: Airframe and Flight Control Systems McDonnell Douglas F-15: Engines Electronics Suite of F-15A Armament of F-15A/B/C/D Eagle McDonnell Douglas F-15A Eagle McDonnell Douglas F-15B Eagle McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle McDonnell Douglas F-15D Eagle F-15 Multi-Stage Improvement Program McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle Service of F-15 Eagle with USAF and ANG F-15 Eagle in Desert Storm F-15 Eagle in Service with Israel F-15 Eagle in service with Saudi Arabia F-15J and F-15DJ for Japan F-15 ASAT IFFC/Firefly III F-15 NF-15B "Agile Eagle" F-15A/B for NASA F-15S for Saudi Arabia F-15N "Sea Eagle" F-15I for Israel F-15K for South Korea F-15XX RF-15 "Peek Eagle" "Wild Weasel" F-15C


General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon


Origin of General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon Structure of F-16 Fighting Falcon Engines of F-16 Fighting Falcon Electronics of F-16 Fighting Falcon Armament of F-16 Fighting Falcon General Dynamics YF-16 Fighting Falcon and the European Fighter Consortium General Dynamics F-16A/B Block 1, 5, 10 Fighting Falcon General Dynamics F-16A/B Block 15 Fighting Falcon General Dynamics F-16A/B Block 15 ADF Fighting Falcon General Dynamics F-16A/B Block 20 Fighting Falcon European F-16A/B Mid-Life Update (MLU) General Dynamics F-16C/D Block 25 Fighting Falcon General Dynamics F-16C/D Block 30/32 Fighting Falcon General Dynamics F-16C/D Block 40/42 Fighting Falcon General Dynamics F-16C/D Block 50/52 Fighting Falcon General Dynamics F-16E/F Block 60 Fighting Falcon Service of F-16 Fighting Falcon with USAF Service of F-16 Fighting Falcon with Air National Guard General Dynamics F-16N for US Navy F-16A/B for Belgium F-16A/B for Denmark F-16A/B for Netherlands F-16A/B for Norway F-16 for Israel F-16A/B for Pakistan F-16 for Egypt F-16 for Turkey F-16 for Greece F-16 for the Republic of Korea F-16 for Thailand http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f16.html (1 of 2)09-09-2006 13:25:31


F-16 for Indonesia F-16 for Bahrain F-16 for United Arab Emirates F-16 for Singapore F-16 for Taiwan F-16 for Venezuela F-16 for Portugal F-16 for New Zealand F-16 for Saudi Arabia F-16 for Jordan F-16 for Italy F-16 for Poland F-16 for Chile F-16 for Republic of China F-16 for Iran General Dynamics F-16XL Fighting Falcon General Dynamics F-16/79 Fighting Falcon General Dynamics YF-16/CCV Fighting Falcon General Dynamics AFTI F-16 General Dynamics F-16/101 General Dynamics F-16 VISTA General Dynamics RF-16 General Dynamics Agile Falcon General Dynamics A-16 Mitsubishi F-2 General Dynamics/Lockhed Martin F-16ES General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin F-16X Lockheed Martin F-16I Fighting Falcon for Israel


Northrop YF-17 Cobra

Northrop YF-17 Cobra Last revised April 17, 2000

Followed by the success of the F-5A in the world arms market, in 1965 Northrop began work on a new tactical lightweight fighter which would offer an even higher performance than the F-5E/F Tiger II which was at that time under development. Company studies, including new aerodynamic research, demonstrated that it would be possible to build a fighter with capabilities far exceeding the F-5. This project was known as the P-530 by the company. The P-530 was to be powered by a pair of 13,000 lb.s.t. General Electric 15/J1A5 turbojets. The GE15 used a core that was scaled down from the F101 turbofan of the B-1 bomber, but was a twin-spool engine. There were ten stages of compression which generated a pressure ratio as high as 25:1. The GE15 was a low-bypass ratio turbofan, with a bypass ratio of only 0.25, and the airflow did little more than cool the rear casing of the engine. For this reason, the GE15 was often referred to as a "leaky turbojet". Because of the bypassed air, the engine bays required little cooling and could be made of lighter, lower-cost materials. The afterburning thrust of the GE15 was to be 14,300 pounds, similar to that of the J79 turbojet, but weighing only half as much and having much better fuel economy. The wing planform was quite similar to that of the F-5. The sweepback value at the quarter-chord line was 20 degrees, and the trailing edge was unswept. The wing was initially shoulder-mounted and had an anhedral of 5 degrees. Over the next couple of years, however, the wing moved steadily downward on the fuselage until it ended up at the mid position. The area was 400 square feet as compared with 186 square feet for the F-5E. The wing had a variable camber, which was provided by by hinged flaps along the straight leading and trailing edges, those on the trailing edge stopping a little over half way to the tip in favor of conventional ailerons. In 1968, the leading edge flap was spilt up into front and rear sections to increase the lift coefficient in the depressed position. The wing was provided with a leading edge root extension (LERX) that tapered into the fuselage on a level with the cockpit. The LERX made it possible to achieve post-stall http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f17.html (1 of 9)09-09-2006 13:25:42


maneuvering capabilities at angles of attack exceeding 30 degrees and later even 40 degrees. At high angles of attack the LERX added about 50 percent to the lift provided by the basic wing. Extending the LERX ahead of the engine inlets had the additional effect of guiding the airflow smoothly into the inlets and presented the engines with a full flow of relatively undisturbed air at high angles of attack, helping to prevent engine flameouts. In addition, a long axial slot was cut into each LERX adjacent to the fuselage ahead of the intakes, preventing a buildup of air ahead of the inlet while in supersonic flight. At lowspeed and high angles of attack, these slots provided an escape for boundary-layer air which scrubbed across the fuselage ahead of the inlet. In 1968, the LERX were further enlarged, the forward portions continuing ahead as strakes almost to the nose. The engines were fed by long ducts which admitted air from semi-circular inlets. These inlets originally were provided with a movable half-cone centerbody ahead of the wing. However, by 1971 it was concluded that Mach 2 performance was not all that important a design objective, and these conical centerbodies were eliminated. At about the same time, the inlets were made shorter and brought back under the LERX. That made the large LERX look a lot like the head of a cobra, so much so in fact that Cobra became the Northrop name for the P-530. The inlets were further refined throughout 1971-71, the final shape selected being a canted oval shape with a fixed, slightly-rounded edge, with the top located 4 inches below the underside of the LERX. The inlets were separated from the fuselage by a large rectangular splitter plate. The tail of the P-530 was originally fairly conventional, with slab tailplanes mounted below mid-level. Originally, a single vertical fin was planned. The ability of the P-530 to fly at extreme angles of attack indicated that a single vertical tail would be inadequate, since it would be blanketed in the wake of the wing. To overcome this problem, the single centerline fin was replaced by twin fins, each about half as large as the original single surface, canted out at almost 45 degrees to put them in free-stream airflow. To reduce cross-coupling effects in roll, the rudders reached only halfway up the fins. In 1969, the canted fins were approximately doubled in size and moved forward to a position partially overlapping the wing. By late 1970, the tailplanes had been further enlarged and the outward cant of the fins had been reduced to only 18 degrees. At the same time, the horizontal tails were also enlarged and moved further reawards on the fuselage sides, as far aft as possible. The aircraft was designed according to the principle of relaxed static stability, with the aircraft being longitudinally unstable with a tendency to pitch nose up. Air-combat http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f17.html (2 of 9)09-09-2006 13:25:42


maneuverability would be dramatically enhanced to the point where the limiting factor would now be the pilot. However, Northrop did not feel that 1960-vintage fly-by- wire control systems were sufficiently reliable, and retained conventional mechanicallysignalled flight controls. The canopy of the P-530 was a large frameless moulding with a bulged cross section that provided the pilot with unobstructed 360-degree vision and good sightlines over the nose and downwards on each side. The maximum takeoff weight of the P-530 was estimated at 40,600 pounds, and a maximum speed of Mach 2 was expected. The armament was to be a single 20-mm M61 rotary cannon mounted on the centerline underneath the nose, and a Sidewinder missile could be carried on each wingtip. An array of missiles and bombs could be carried on external weapons pylons, three under each wing and one on the underfuselage centerline. Potential customers for the P-530 Cobra were Western nations who wanted and who could afford a fighter aircraft with a higher performance than that of the F-5A/B. Prime targets were every user of the F-104 Starfighter, as well as several Middle Eastern countries, including Iran. It was estimated that the P-530 program development costs would be 350400 million dollars, and the flyaway price would be two million dollars apiece, assuming a total procurement equivalent to that of the F-5. On January 28, 1971, Northrop revealed their P-530 program to the world. A model of the P-530 was constructed and more than 5000 hours of wind tunnel testing was carried out. However, there were no buyers. As early as 1965, the USAF had begun concept formulation studies of new highperformance fighters. These included the F-X, a heavy interceptor/air-superiority fighter, and the lightweight Advanced Day Fighter (ADF). The F-X was to be in the 40,000-pound class and was to be equipped with advanced, sophisticated long-range radars and armed with long-range, radar-guided air-to-air missiles. The ADF was to be in the 25,000 pound range and was to have a thrust-to-weight ratio and a wing loading intended to better the performance of the MiG-21 by at least 25 percent. The general concept behind the ADF was much the same as the reasoning which had led after the Korean War to the Lockheed F-104A Starfighter. The appearance of the Mach 2.8-capable MiG-25 Foxbat in 1967 frightened Defense http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f17.html (3 of 9)09-09-2006 13:25:42


Department analysts and prompted a redirection in USAF fighter plans, with high performance being once again the primary concern. The F-X concept was later to emerge as the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, a twin-engined fighter with advanced avionics and long-range missiles. The ADF was temporarily shelved. The ADF concept was kept alive by former fighter instructor Major John Boyd and by Pierre M. Sprey, a civilian working in the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Analysis. They both disliked the F-X concept as it then existed, and preferred a much simpler design. In the late 1960s, they proposed a 25,000 pound aircraft designated F-XX, which was to be a dedicated air superiority fighter with a high endurance, minimal electronics, and no long-range missiles. Later studies brought this weight down to 17,000 pounds. The concept met with much opposition, since some considered it a threat to the existing F-X project. However, the Pentagon decided to continue the project at a low level just in case the F-X (i.e. F-15) program got delayed. In 1969, a Pentagon memorandum suggested that both the Air Force and the Navy adopt the F-XX as a substitute for the F-15 and F-14 respectively, since both these planes were becoming increasingly expensive. Both services vigorously resisted these moves, and both the F-14 and F-15 projects surged ahead. Deputy Defense Secretary David A. Packard (who came in with the new Nixon Administration in 1969) was a strong advocate of returning to the concept of competitive prototyping as a way of containing the ever-increasing costs of new weapons systems. During the 1960s, under Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara, the Total Procurement Package philosophy had been adopted, in which an aircraft was committed to production even before the first example had flown and without any competitive flyoff against rival designs. This had led to such controversial aircraft as the Lockheed C-5A Galaxy and the General Dynamics F-111, which had both encountered expensive and time-consuming developmental problems and extensive cost overruns. Under the new competitive prototyping philosophy, Air Force Secretary Robert C. Seamans drew up a set of ground rules in which the initial funding of a new weapons project would be limited, with initial performance goals and military specifications being kept to a minimum. By 1971, Boyd was working for the Air Force Prototype Study Group. He was able to push the concept at a time when the idea of competitive flyoffs was coming back into fashion. A Light Weight Fighter (LWF) program came into being under Packard's watch. A Request For Proposals (RFP) was issued to the industry on January 16, 1971. The RFP http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f17.html (4 of 9)09-09-2006 13:25:42


called for a high thrust-to-weight ratio, a gross weight of less than 20,000 pounds, and high maneuverability. No attempt was to be made to equal the performance of the MiG-25 Foxbat, the emphasis being on what was thought to be the most-likely conditions of future air combat--battles at altitudes of 30,000-40,000 feet and speeds of Mach 0.6 to Mach 1.6. Emphasis was to be on turn rate, acceleration, and range rather than on high speed. A small size was stressed, since the small size of MiG-17 and MiG-21 had made them difficult to detect visually during combat over North Vietnam. The RFP specified three main objectives. The aircraft should fully explore the advantages of emerging technologies, reduce the risk and uncertainties involved in full-scale development and production, and provide a variety of technological options to meet future military hardware needs. Northrop believed that it had the basis for an entry in the LWF contest in its P-530 Cobra project, which had so far failed to attract any customers. Its entry was given the company designation of P-600. Externally, the P-600 was almost identical to the 1971 form of the P530 Cobra. However, the P-530 had always been envisaged as a multi-role aircraft with a significant air-to-ground capability, whereas the P-600 was to be purely an air-to-air demonstrator with no armament except a gun and a Sidewinder missile at each wingtip. The P-600 was to be powered by a pair of General Electric YJ101-GE-100 turbofans rated at 15,000 lb.s.t. each with afterburning. The J101 was a development of the GE15 engine that had been proposed for the P-530. The two engines were mounted close together to minimize the asymmetric effects in the event of an engine loss. The maximum takeoff weight of the P-600 was initially only 21,000 pounds, but it soon grew to 23,000 pounds. The landing gear was much simpler than that of the P-530, saving considerable weight. A much higher proportion of the structure was of graphite fibre, including the LERX, ailerons, flaps, airbrake engine doors, fin leading and trailing edges, rudders, and many access doors. An inflight refuelling receptacle was installed above the nose. The M61 cannon was relocated to the upper part of the nose instead of underneath. Full fly-by-wire controls were adopted, Northrop management finally concluding that these systems were now sufficiently reliable to warrant their incorporation. The tail circuits were quadruply redundant, but the ailerons were simplex because the aircraft could always be controlled in roll by the tailplanes.



The cockpit of the P-600 was generally identical to that of the P-530. An inertial navigation system (Litton LN-33) was planned, but Northrop at USAF request did not plan for a large and expensive multi-mode radar and the designers retained a constricted nose with a pointed conical form. However, in April of 1974 Northrop contracted with Rockwell for a compact radar with a phased-array antenna that could fit inside the narrow nose. Four other manufacturers submitted proposals--Boeing, General Dynamics, Ling-TemcoVought, and Lockheed. In March of 1972, the Air Staff concluded that the Boeing Model 908-909 was the first choice, with the General Dynamics Model 401 and the Northrop Model P-600 as close seconds. The Vought V-1100 and Lockheed CL-1200 Lancer had been eliminated. The Source Selection Authority, after further work, rated the General Dynamics and Northrop proposals ahead of the Boeing submission. The General Dynamics Model 40116B and the Northrop P-600 were chosen for further development on April 13, 1972, and contracts for two YF-16s (72-1567/1568) and two YF-17s (72-1569/1570) were awarded. Rather than the "X" (experimental) prefix being used, the "Y" (development) prefix was used in order to indicate that a mixture of off-the-shelf and experimental technologies were being used. The YF-16 was to be powered by a single Pratt & Whitney F100 turbofan, whereas the YF-17 was to be powered by a pair of General Electric YJ101-GE100 engines. The "cost plus fixed fee" contracts covered the design, construction, and testing of two prototypes, and a year of flight testing. At the time, the Air Force was still very much committed to the F-15 fighter, and visualized the LWF program as more of a technology-demonstration project rather than a serious effort for a production aircraft. At the same time, contracts were given to Pratt & Whitney for a version of the F100 turbofan specially adapted for single-engined aircraft and to General Electric for the new and smaller YJ101 engine. The first YF-17A (72-1569) was rolled out at Hawthorne, California on April 4, 1974, and was trucked to Edwards AFB. The first YF-17A took off on its first flight on June 9, 1974 from Edwards AFB, with test pilot Hank Chouteau at the controls. On June 11, the YF-17 became the first American fighter to exceed the speed of sound in level flight without the use of an afterburner. The second YF-17A flew for the first time on August 21, 1974. The two prototypes carried out a series of 288 test flights totalling 345 hours. The flyoff began as soon as flight testing started. There was an attempt to get as many http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f17.html (6 of 9)09-09-2006 13:25:42


pilots as possible to fly both the YF-16 and YF-17. The Lightweight Fighter prototypes never flew against each other, but they did fly against all current USAF fighters as well as against MiG-17s and MiG-21s that had been "acquired" by the USAF and operated at the Nellis AFB complex. In the meantime, the governments of Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway had begun to consider possible replacements for the Lockheed F-104G Starfighter. They formed the Multinational Fighter Program Group to choose the successor, and agreed that all four countries would purchase the same aircraft. The prime candidates were the Northrop YF-17, the Dassault Mirage F.1, the SAAB JA37 Viggen, and the General Dynamics YF-16. The winner of the ACF contest in the USA would probably be the favored candidate, but the MFPG wanted to see if the USAF was going to buy the plane for itself before they made any commitment to an American candidate. Within the Air Force staff, there was a strong institutional bias against the LWF, since they perceived it to be a threat to the F-15 program. However, the prospect of a big European order for the LWF whetted the appetite of certain Air Force brass, who now regarded the project as something more than just a technology demonstration program. To try and convince the F-15 lobby that the LWF program was not a threat to them, the LWF program was renamed Air Combat Fighter (ACF) by the Defense Department. In September of 1974, Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger announced that that he was considering production of the winner of the LWF contest to satisfy USAF, Navy, and export requirements. Up to that time, the LWF/ACF program had been largely an academic exercise for the USAF, but the possibility of a large European order led the USAF to change its mind and envisage large-scale service for the aircraft. However, the design emphasis would be changed to that of a multi-role aircraft rather than simply an airsuperiority fighter. It was agreed that the ACF would complement rather than supplement the F-15 Eagle in USAF service, easing somewhat Air Force fears that it would somehow sidetrack their Eagle program. The production form of the LWF (by now known strictly as the ACF in Defense Department press releases) would have a larger radar antenna, giving the aircraft some BVR capability. On September 11, 1974, the USAF announced plans to buy 650 ACFs, with the possibility that this could be increased to 1400 or more. This move was made to assure the potential NATO customers that the USAF would stand firmly behind the new fighter. Although the Northrop contender demonstrated remarkable handling qualities and was http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f17.html (7 of 9)09-09-2006 13:25:42


actually superior in certain areas, on January 13, 1975, Air Force Secretary John McLucas announced that the YF-16 had been selected as the winner of the ACF contest. The YF-16 was a little faster than the YF-17, and its F100 powerplant was a proven engine that was in use in other warplanes already in service. The J101 engine was a new, relatively untried powerplant which would require enormous investment in tooling, spare parts, and documentation. In addition, the J101 was considered somewhat underpowered and was not a true turbofan like the YF-16's F100, and suffered from a lower specific range. In addition, the YF-16 had a better specific range than the YF-17 and was considerably less expensive. That might have been the end of the line for the Northrop design, were it not for the US Navy's desire for a new fighter. In August of 1974, the US Navy's own VFAX program had been cancelled by Congress in favor of NACF, which instructed the Navy to choose its fighter from between the two ACF rivals. Northrop decided to team up with McDonnell Douglas to promote a version of its YF-17 as an entry in this contest. This design was eventually to emerge as the F/A-18 Hornet, which was ordered by the Navy on May 2, 1975. The second YF-17 was earmarked for development work as the "F-18 prototype" (even though the true F/A-18 did not fly until November of 1978). During the LWF/ACF program, the two YF-17s logged 345.5 flying hours (including 13 hours supersonic). A sustained angle of attack of 63 degrees was achieved at 50 knows. In 1976, YF-17 72-1569 was sent to NASA's Dryden Flight Research Facility at Edwards AFB for base drag studies for the US Navy. 72-1569 is currently on display at the Western Museum of Flight in Hawthorne, California. 72-1570 is currently on display at the US Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, Florida. Serials of Northrop YF-17A: 72-1569/1570

Northrop YF-17A

Specification of Northrop YF-17A: Engines: Two General Electric YJ101-GE-100 turbojets, 15,000 lb.s.t. each with afterburning. Performance: Maximum speed: Mach 2.0 (1320 mph) at 40,000 feet. Service



ceiling 60,000 feet. Maximum range 2800 miles. Weights: 21,000 pounds empty, 23,000 pounds gross, 30,630 pounds maximum takeoff. Dimensions: Wingspan: 35 feet 0 inches, length 55 feet 6 inches, height 14 feet 6 inches, wing area 350 square feet. Armament: One 20-mm M61A1 cannon. One AIM-9 Sidewinder infrared-homing air-to-air missile could be carried at each wingtip. Stores could be carried on one ventral and four underwing pylons. Sources: 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987. 2. Combat Aircraft F-16, Doug Richardson, Crescent, 1992. 3. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989. 4. F-16 Fighting Falcon--A Major Review of the West's Universal Warplane, Robert F.

Dorr, World Airpower Journal, Spring 1991. 5. Hornet, Robert F. Dorr, World Air Power Journal, Spring 1990, p. 38. 6. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920: Volume II, Rene J. Francillon, Naval

Institute Press, 1990. 7. Northrop YF-17: The Fighter They Didn't Want, Bill Gunston, Wings of Fame, Vol

1, 1996.


McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F/A-18 Hornet

McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F/A-18 Hornet

Origin of McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet Structure of F/A-18 Hornet The Hornet's Armament Suite Electronics of F/A-18 Hornet McDonnell Douglas F/A-18A Hornet McDonnell Douglas F/A-18B Hornet McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F/A-18C Hornet McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F/A-18D Hornet Northrop F-18L McDonnell Douglas F/A-18(R) Hornet Service of Hornet with US Navy and US Marine Corps CF-18 for Canada Hornet for Australia Hornet for Spain Hornets for Finland Hornet for Malaysia Hornet for Kuwait Hornet for Switzerland No Hornets for Korea No Hornets for Thailand No Hornets for Singapore Hornets for NASA Hornet HARV Hornet 2000 McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Boeing EA-18G Growler


"F-19"

"F-19" Last revised August 6, 2002

The F-19 fighter designation has been one of the recurring mysteries of the postwar era. There is an apparent "hole" in the fighter sequence between F-18 and F-20. Was F-19 never assigned to any fighter aircraft as the Air Force claims, or is it a cover for some supersecret "black" project that is yet to be revealed? All throughout the late 1980s, it was sort of an open secret that the Air Force and the Lockheed "Skunk Works" were working on a project to develop a "stealth fighter" that would be invisible to radar. It was assumed by almost everyone that this project bore the designation F-19, since that designation had apparently been skipped when F-20 was assigned to a Northrop design. In July of 1986, the Testor Corporation of Rockford, Illinois released a $9.95 plastic kit model of what they called the "F-19 Stealth Fighter". Tom Clancy referred to a "F-19 Ghostrider" in his 1986 novel Red Storm Rising as part of a plot involving a future European war. After years of gossip and rumors, on November 10, 1988, the existence of the Lockheed "stealth fighter" was finally officially revealed by the Defense Department. It turned out to be an attack aircraft rather than a fighter, since it apparently has no air-to-air capability. At the same time, it was also revealed that its designation was F-117. It seems that the F-117 designation has nothing to do with the old fighter sequence which ended at F-111, in spite of rumors that the Soviet fighters under test at Groom Lake conceal their real identity by using call-signs such as F-112, F-113, and so on. During its development and test phase, the Lockheed "stealth fighter" was known strictly under its project name of Senior Trend, and never carried any designation at all, certainly not a designation of F-19. Although the real origin of the F-117 designation is still not known with certainty, it seems to have been derived from the strict security restrictions that were in place at Groom Lake during the flight testing--pilots flying the Senior Trend test aircraft were not allowed to tell anyone what type of aircraft they were flying, and so whenever asked to fill out routine forms that requested identification of the aircraft type they flew they would fill in the meaningless number 117. When the first manual for the Senior Trend aircraft appeared, it had F-117 printed on its cover. Since it would cost too much to have the manual reprinted, the http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f19.html (1 of 3)09-09-2006 13:26:08

"F-19"

designation later became official. So it seems that the Lockheed Senior Trend was never known as F-19. So what then WAS F-19? When asked about this, an Air Force spokesman claimed that the F-19 designation had never been assigned to any aircraft because of a fear that it might be confused with the Soviet MiG-19. This doesn't seem plausible, because the designations F-17, F-21, and F23 had not been skipped. Another rumor was that F-19 is really the designation of some other super-secret project, one that so black that it will not be revealed for many years. Maybe the mysterious Aurora that has been the subject of gossip, rumor, and speculation for the last decade is actually designated F-19. However, it is still not at all certain that any such aircraft as the "Aurora" actually exists. It is now known that the designation "F-19A" was officially skipped at Northrop's request. Since the F-5G turbofan adaptation of the F-5F was basically a completely new design, the company wanted to have a new designation assigned to it. The next designation in line would be F-19, but Northrop preferred an even number because the Soviet competitors in the export fighter market of the early 1980s all used odd numbers, and Northrop wanted to stand out from these. So the official "confusion with MiG-19"-story isn't all that far from the truth, although it is certainly rather misleading. It is unlikely that anybody would ever confuse an "F-19A" with a MiG-19, especially because the latter was already obsolete. The F-20A designator was approved despite official recommendation by the USAF Standards Branch (at that time responsible for nomenclature assignments) to follow the regulations to the letter and use "F-19A" for the redesignated F-5G. Presumably this change would also make for better advertising copy--"The Northrop F-20: First of a new generation of fighters", for example. A similar sort of thing happened during World War 2 when the designation P-74 (and perhaps P-73 as well) had been deliberately skipped at the request of the Fisher Body Division of General Motors who wanted their new heavy escort fighter to carry the designation P-75 for advertising reasons. Sources: 1. Lockheed F-117: The Black Jet, Robert F. Dorr, World Airpower Journal, Winter

1994. 2. Andreas Parsch on F-20A designation at http://www.designation-systems.net/ http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f19.html (2 of 3)09-09-2006 13:26:08

"F-19"

usmilav/missing-mds.html


Israel Aircraft Industries F-21A Kfir

Israel Aircraft Industries F-21A Kfir Last revised May 13, 2000

F-21A was the designation given to 25 Israel Aircraft Industries Kfir C.1 fighters that were leased by the US Navy and US Marine Corps from Israel for dissimilar air combat training. The Dassault Mirage IIICJ had long been an important part of the Israel Defense Force/Air Force (IDF/AF), and had played a key role in establishing Israeli air superiority during the Six-Day War in 1967. However, there was some room for improvement. There were problems with the jet engine exhaust of the Mirage IIICJ and the Cyrano II fire control radar was unreliable and hard to maintain. Even before the Six-Day War, the IDF/AF had proposed to Dassault that they should produce a cheaper version of the Mirage III without a fire-control radar. The omission of the radar and the related electronics would make it possible to carry an additional 500 liters of fuel. In addition, the Atar 9B of the Mirage IIICJ was to be replaced by the more reliable and more fuel-efficent Atar 9C. Israel placed an order for 50 of these aircraft, designated Mirage 5J. However, at the end of the Six-Day War in 1967, the government of France under President Charles de Gaulle underwent a change in its foreign policy, and decided to embargo the delivery of the batch of Mirage 5Js that the IDF/AF had ordered and which were already built and ready for delivery to Israel. The planes were redesignated Mirage 5F, and were delivered instead to the Armee de l'Air. Faced with a continuing threat from its Arab neighbors, Israel concluded that it could no longer be certain of a supply of combat aircraft from overseas, and decided that it had to manufacture combat aircraft on its own. One of Israel's first efforts was the production by Israel Aircraft Industries of a copy of the Mirage 5, which was known as the Nesher (Eagle). There was some unofficial French cooperation--since Dassault was a privately-owned corporation, the French government http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f21.html (1 of 5)09-09-2006 13:26:21


did not block the granting of a licence to built the airframe to IAI. However, the Atar engine was another matter--SNECMA was government-owned and France stubbornly refused to allow a license to be granted. Production drawings for the Atar 9C engine were stolen by Israeli agents from the Swiss Sulzer AG factory that was building the engine under license, and many airframe production drawings were stolen by Israeli agents operating in France. To assist the project, the IDF/AF loaned a Mirage IIIBJ (Number 88) to IAI. In order to avoid losing the unofficial French cooperation, the development of the Nesher took place under a shroud of secrecy. The first Nesher flew in September of 1969. A total of 69 Neshers were built by IAI between May 1971 and late 1974. The first Nesher was delivered to IDF/AF squadrons in May 1971. The Nesher was available for the Yom Kippur War of October 1973, and some 40 Neshers saw action in that conflict. Unofficial sources claim 144 kills for the Neshers, but this might have included some Mirage kills as well, since the Nesher program was still highly classified and did yet officially exist. By that time, Mirages were also in service with Arab air forces--IDF/AF Neshers clased with Libyan Mirages on October 18, 1973, . To avoid identification confusion between Israeli- and Arab-piloted Mirages, the IDF/AF Mirage/Nesher aircraft were painted with large yellow/black triangles on their wings and tails. In the late 1970s, 26 Neshers surplus to IDF/AF requirements were sold to Argentina under the export designation Dagger. At that time, the story of the Israeli-built Mirage was finally revealed to the public. Seventeen Daggers were lost during the 1982 Falklands/ Malvinas war, during which they operated primarily in the fighter-bomber and antishipping roles. It was apparent that the Atar 9C of the Mirage 5/Nesher had insufficient power, and in 1968 the IAI began to look at alternative powerplants for an upgraded version of the Nesher. Work on the project began in 1968, with one team looking at the General Electric J79 and the other concentrating on the Rolls Royce Spey. The J79 was eventually selected, primarily because it powered the F-4 Phantom that had just been ordered by the IDF/AF and perhaps more importantly because the Phantom deal included rights to the local manufacture and assembly of the J79 engines. As a trial, the veteran Mirage IIIBJ testbed was fitted with a J79 engine, and flew for the http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f21.html (2 of 5)09-09-2006 13:26:21


first time on September 21, 1970. A re-engined Nesher flew in September 1971. As a result of their design work on the re-engined Mirage IIIBJ, IAI suggested that a much more sophisticated machine could be built. The new project was named Kfir (Lion Cub). The airframe was based on that of the Mirage/Nesher, but the rear fuselage was slightly shorter and larger in diameter in order to accommodate the J79. The 11 percent greater mass flow of the J79 required the use of larger air intakes, and the higher operating temperatures of the engine required the fitting of extensive heat shielding for the rear fuselage. A large dorsal air scoop was installed at the base of the fin to supply cooling air to the afterburner. The landing gear was strengthened and provided with longer-stroke oleos. The cockpit was extensively revised, and a considerable amount of Israeli-built electronics were incorporated. The internal fuel tankage was slightly rearranged and its capacity was increased to a total of 713 gallons. The prototype Kfir was a conversion of Nesher No. 712. It flew for the first time in June of 1973. The Kfir entered production too late for participation in the Yom Kippur War of October 1973, but IDF/AF Kfirs have been active in numerous subsequent Israeli military actions against guerilla installations in Lebanon. The first production version was the Kfir C.1. The first IAI Kfirs were not equipped with canards, and some had a round-tipped radome for their ranging radar. They were essentially little more than J79-powered Neshers. The Kfir C.1 was fitted with the Elta EL/ M-2001 fire-control radar which had look-down/shoot-down capability. The basic Kfir was produced in only relatively few numbers (27) and most were later upgraded to Kfir C.2 standards with small narrow-span fixed canards on the upper air intakes and rectangular strakes behind the ranging radar on the sides of the nose. The first Kfirs entered service in 1974, but were not revealed to the public until April 14, 1975. In 1985, the US Navy leased 12 Kfir C.1s from Israel for use as dissimilar air combat trainers. The Kfir C.1 in US Navy service was assigned the designation F-21A. They received the Bureau of Aeronautics serial numbers 163298/163309. The twelve F-21As went to VF-43 at NAS Oceana in 1985, where they were painted in a two-tone grey scheme. They were replaced by F-16Ns in early 1988, and were all returned to Israel in March of 1988.



The Marine Corps established its own dissimilar air combat training unit, VFMT-401, at Yuma, Arizona in August of 1987. VFMT-401 received 13 F-21As leased from Israel in 1987. These were given a non-standard serial number derived from the aircraft's threedigit construction number prefixed by 999 for bookkeeping purposes to make them compatible with Navy computer systems. Some USMC F-21As were painted in a two-tone grey scheme, whereas others retained Israeli camouflage. USMC F-21As were operated by VFMT-401 for a couple of years until being replaced in late 1989 by F-5E Tiger IIs obtained from the USAF. These F-21As were then returned to Israel, bringing the era of the F-21A in US service to an end. The Kfir C.2 and C.7 were later versions of the design with more capable electronics, additional weapons hardpoints, and the ability to carry out multirole operations. None of these ever served in the USA. The Kfir C.2 introduced larger sweptback forplanes on the air intakes, small strakes installed ont he extreme nowe, and a new wing with a "sawtooth" on the leading edge. An improved EL/M-2001B radar was installed. The Kfir C.7 was a ground attack version with a stronger landing gear and two additional hard points. Specification of IAI F-21A (Kfir C.1) Engine: One IAI Bedek Division-built General Electric J79-J1E turbojet, rated at 11,890 lb.s.t. dry, 18,750 lb.s.t. with afterburning. Performance: Maximum speed (clean) 1516 mph at 36,000 feet, 862 mph at sea level. Ferry range 2000 miles with one 343 US gallon and two 449 US gallon drop tanks. Combat radius 480 miles with two AAMs with one 218 US gallon and two 343 US gallon drop tanks. Initial climb rate 45,930 feet per minute. An altitude of 50,000 feet in 5 minutes 10 seconds. Stabilized supersonic ceiling 58,000 feet. Dimensions: Wingspan 26 feet 11 1/2 inches, length 51 feet 4 1/4 inches, height 14 feet 11 1/4 inches, wing area 374.6 square feet. Weights: 16,060 lbs empty, 22,961 lbs. normal takeoff, 36,376 pounds maximum takeoff. Armament: Two Rafaelbuilt DEFA 553 30-mm cannon in the wing roots, each with 125 rounds of ammunition. Two Rafael Shafrir infrared-homing air-to-air missiles are normally carried underneath the outer wings. Sources: 1. United States Navy Aircraft Since 1911, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1990.



2. The Rise and Fall of the Aggressors, Lindsay Peacock, Air International, July 1995. 3. Dassault-Breguet Mirage III/5, Salvador Mafe Huertas, Osprey, 1990. 4. Encyclopedia of World Military Aircraft, David Donald and Jon Lake, AirTime

Publishing, 1994. 5. Tsahi Ben-Ami, The Story of the Kfir, Solo Avition Production and Research, 1997.


Lockheed Martin F/A-22 Raptor

Lockheed Martin F/A-22 Raptor Last revised May 30, 2004

The F/A-22 Raptor has its origin as far back as the early 1970s with a Tactical Air Command (TAC) study known as TAC-85. In 1969-70, even before the F-15, F-16 and A-10 had entered service with the USAF, the TAC-85 study begin exploring the question of what their successor might look like. The results of this study led to TAC issuing a Concept of Operations in 1971 for what they called the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF). At that time, the ATF concept was still fairly vague, and there were only some relatively small-scale studies that were carried out during the early 1970s. In early 1975, the USAF Systems Command actually developed a plan to build two sets of ATF prototypes in 1977-81, but there was no money available to fund such a project at that time. In 1978, the USAF split the ATF concept into two separate projects, one known as the Enhanced Tactical Fighter (ETF) and the other known as the Advanced Tactical Attack System (ATAS). The ETF would be a near-term project, whereas the ATAS would be a longer-term project which would concentrate on the development of new weapons and other advanced technologies. Initially, the emphasis was to be on the ground-attack mission, since it was assumed that the F-15 and F-16 would be able to deal adequately with the Soviet fighters then in service. However, the appearance of new Soviet fighters such as the MiG-29, Su-27, and the MiG-31 caused the USAF to reconsider its philosophy and to contemplate the development of air-to-air and air-to-ground aircraft in parallel. In April of 1980, the ETF project was shelved, and the ATAS project was redesignated the ATF. It was hoped that both air-to-air and air-to-ground roles could be incorporated in the same aircraft. In addition, it was decided that the possibility of incorporating Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) capability into the design should also be explored. The first Request For Information (RFI) for the Advanced Tactical Fighter was issued to the industry in June of 1981. In the RFI, nine companies were invited to submit bids: Boeing, Fairchild, General Dynamics, Grumman, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, Northrop, Rockwell, and Vought. An RFI for the engine was issued a month later. Since the USAF had really not yet decided on what kind of aircraft they wanted, RFI was basically a request from the Air Force for the industry to tell them what the requirements for the new aircraft should be. Seven companies actually responded to the RFI. By October 1982, the USAF had digested the RFI responses that came in and decided that supercruise capability should be an important requirement for the future ATF. NATO commanders had expressed pessimism about the survivability of its http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f22_1.html (1 of 18)09-09-2006 13:26:33


forward-based fighter and attack forces in the event that a war broke out in Europe. Control of the skies above central Europe would probably have to be maintained by fighters based in the Benelux countries or in the United Kingdom. In such a scenario, the ability of an aircraft to fly at supersonic speed without afterburning and thus to fly supersonically for the entire mission segment that lay over hostile territory would, it was hoped, reduce the fighter's exposure to enemy SAMs. It was also recommended that the aircraft should have a greater range than that of the F-15, which would allow it to operate from more distant, safer airbases. Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) capabilities would also be important, since STOL would make it easier to continue operations from damaged airfields. In addition, the Air Force wanted an attempt to be made to reverse the trend of rapidly increasing cost and complexity that seemed to occur with every new generation of fighters. In support of this goal, the Air Force wanted to set a limit on the size and weight of the ATF aircraft, and strongly recommended the use of new technology to reduce the cost of acquiring and supporting the new fighter. By the early 1980s, the air-to-ground mission for the ATF began to appear less urgent, since the projected F-117A "stealth fighter" that was currently under development should be able to penetrate the air defenses of the Warsaw Pact in the event of a European war. Also, the F-111 would, it was thought, still remain effective even into the 1990s. In addition, General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas had both demonstrated that both the F-15 and F-16 fighters could be successfully modified into strike aircraft, which meant that it would probably be safe to optimize the ATF for an air-to-air role. By mid-1983, the USAF had adopted this philosophy and had reoriented the ATF concept as a primarily air-to-air fighter, and had defined the ATF concept as an F-15 replacement that would be capable of supersonic flight without afterburning, with a greater range than the F-15 but with a similar armament, and with thrust vectoring and reversing engine nozzles provided for STOL performance. At that time, it was anticipated that the ATF would be ready in time to start entering service in the late 1990s, with the ATF being the primary fighter in service with the USAF by the time the new century began. In October of 1982, representatives from most of the American fighter manufacturers met with USAF representatives in Anaheim, California to discuss the ATF project. They came up with a concept for an aircraft capable of supersonic cruise performance, a combat radius of 600-800 nautical miles, and the ability to take off and land in a 2000-foot runway. The normal takeoff weight should be no greater than 60,000 pounds in the air-to-air mission and 80,000 pounds for the strike mission. In late 1982, a Request For Proposals (RFP) was issued for the Concept Definition Investigation (CDI) stage of the ATF program. It was still hoped that the ATF could be introduced into service by the mid-1990s.



In May of 1983, the final RFP for the CDI phase was issued. At that time, the ATF project was still in the "white" unclassified world, and a lot of the project officers working on the ATF were unaware of the "black" stealth technology that was being developed. Once this project officers were made aware of this work, the ATF RTP was amended to include the incorporation of stealth technology. In September 1983, concept definition contracts were issued to all of the companies which had responded to the RFP-Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, Northrop, and Rockwell. The final reports were expected by May 1984. A parallel program was initiated for the engine that would power the ATF, the project being known as the Joint Advanced Fighter Engine (JAFE). In May of 1983, even before it had released the RFP for the aircraft itself, the Air Force released its Request For Proposals (RFP) for the development of the engines for the ATF. The power plant for the ATF had to be self-starting, with autonomous ground check-out equipment based around very high thrust/weight ratios and high reliability values. In September of 1983, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric were awarded contracts to design and build engines for the ATF. The Pratt & Whitney engine was known as the PW5000 by the manufacturer and as F119 by the Air Force. The General Electric engine was known as the GE37 by the company and as F120 by the Air Force. The engines were to be interchangeable in the ATF airframe, leaving either one of them to be applicable to the definitive fighter. There was to be a contest between these two manufacturers to see which one of them would build the engine for the production ATF. By the end of 1984, the ATF requirement had reached a more definitive form. The requirement now called for a fighter with a Mach 1.5 cruising speed, a takeoff roll of only 2000 feet, a gross takeoff weight of no greater than 50,000 pounds and a combat radius of more than 700 nautical miles. The aircraft was to be capable of performing 5g turns at Mach 1 and 6g turns at Mach 1.5 at 30,000 feet. At 10,000 feet, the ATF was to be capable of pulling instantaneous turning acceleration loads as high as 9 gs at Mach 0.9 and was to be capable of performing sustained 2g turns at Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet. At sea level, the ATF was to be capable of accelerating from Mach 0.6 to Mach 1.0 in 20 seconds. At 20,000 feet or 30,000 feet, the aircraft was to be capable of accelerating from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.8 in 50 seconds. The unit flyaway cost was to be no more than $40 million in 1985 dollars (later reduced to only $35 million), and the life-cycle cost was to be no more than that of the F-15. At first, the USAF wanted to develop the ATF through a "Demonstration and Validation" (Dem/ Val) process rather than by having a flyoff competition between prototypes as was done in the case of the LWF contest that resulted in the F-16. The Dem/Val process would cover everything short of flight testing. Complete avionics systems would be tested in simulators, and the design would be tested in wind tunnels and on radar cross-section ranges. Full-scale mockups would be built, but flyable aircraft would not be. The winner of the Dem/Val phase would then be awarded a full-scale http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f22_1.html (3 of 18)09-09-2006 13:26:33


development (FSD) contract for a flyable aircraft. In September of 1985, the Air Force issued a full Dem/Val Request for Proposals (RFP) for the ATF, specifying a submission deadline of January of 1986. At this time, the Air Force indicated the possibility of a procurement buy of as many as 750 aircraft. As part of the Dem/Val approach, full and reduced scale wind tunnel models would be built, with computational analysis being made of radar cross sections for low visibility. The deadline for the response to the RFP was later extended to April of 1986. All seven competitors responded to the Dem/Val RFP. Boeing proposed a V-tailed, diamond-shaped wing design with a single shark-mouth chin-type intake to feed both engines. General Dynamics proposed a delta-winged design that reflected some of the work it had done on the F-16XL. There were two intakes, one located on each of the fuselage sides, just ahead of the leading edge of the wing. There was a single large vertical tail. There were two separate radar arrays fitted behind the cockpit, one over each of the air intakes. Lockheed's design closely paralleled that of the F-117 that was currently under development. It had an arrowhead planform and a leading-edge glove which extended in a straight line to the nose. It had conventional trapezoidal wings, vectored thrust, and a horizontal tail. The design had an internal weapons bay, and featured twin outward-canted vertical tails. The McDonnell Douglas design had a single wedge-shaped chin inlet and sharply swept wings. Northrop's design had a diamond-shaped wing and an internal weapons bay, but did not have thrust vectoring. The Rockwell design had a large, highly blended delta wing. The Grumman design has never been described in any detail, but might have featured a forward-swept wing. In April of 1986, the US Navy decided to get involved in the ATF program, and agreed that they would use the ATF as the basis for a replacement for the F-14D Tomcat. At the same time, it was agreed that the Air Force would develop an F-111 replacement from the Navy's Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA) program. The concept of a navalized ATF was especially attractive to a Congress that was keen to extract maximum utilization from an already strained defense budget. In May of 1986, the USAF changed its mind and announced that instead of proceeding toward a single contractor at the end of the Dem/Val phase, two contractors would be selected to build prototypes for flight test. The two winning contractors would then compete against each other for a Full Scale Development (FSD) contract. The Packard Commission had strongly advocated the flight testing of prototypes in military procurement contests, and the USAF was under strong pressure to accept its recommendations, with the cost overruns and delays involved in the C-5A and F-111 projects being still fresh in the memories of many. At first sight, Lockheed would seem to be an unlikely entrant into the ATF contest, and even less likely to have won. Lockheed had not built a successful fighter aircraft since the F-104 Starfighter of the mid-1950s. It is true that Lockheed had successfully integrated the first lookdown pulse-Doppler radar and shoot-down missile into the YF-12, but the company had not been a contender in the F-15 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f22_1.html (4 of 18)09-09-2006 13:26:33


competition. However, Lockheed's Advanced Development Projects Division, better known as the "Skunk Works", had made a series of breakthroughs in low-observability technology during the mid1970s. These culminated in the Senior Trend low-observability strike aircraft, which eventually emerged as the F-117A Nighthawk. One of the first responses by Lockheed to the RFI had been a proposal for a high-altitude, highly supersonic aircraft that would be able to cruise well above its adversaries and shoot them down with long-range missiles. This concept was rejected as being too costly. In 1984-85, the Skunk Works went to work to see if it was possible to combine the newly-emergent stealth technology with supersonic speed and excellent maneuverability, something that was considered virtually impossible at the time. However, advances in computer technology had made it possible to do the mathematical modeling and simulations that were needed to design a stealthy aircraft which was also supersonic and capable of good maneuverability. The computers of the mid-1970s could only model the radarscattering properties of flat surfaces, but the Cray supercomputer of the 1980s made it possible to handle the much more complex problem of curved surfaces. In addition, much more capable radar absorbent materials (RAM) were now available. Early in 1985, before the final Dem/Val RFP was issued, Lockheed decided that it was unlikely that it could win the competition for full-scale development all by itself. In June of 1986, it was announced that Lockheed would form a team with Boeing and General Dynamics to develop an ATF entry. It was agreed that the company whose design won the Dem/Val contest would lead the team. Boeing would seem to be as unlikely an entrant in the ATF contest as Lockheed--Boeing had never built a manned supersonic aircraft nor had it ever even built a jet fighter, the company having specialized since the early 1930s in bombers, transports, tankers, and large commercial airliners. The last fighter built by Boeing was the unsuccessful F8B carrier-based fighter of World War 2 vintage. However, Boeing had always recognized that there was a large market for tactical fighters and had kept a design team working on these types of aircraft all throughout the 1970s. At the same time, Northrop had announced that it would be teaming with McDonnell Douglas in the ATF competition. Seven manufacturers responded to the RFP--Boeing, General Dynamics, Grumman, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, Northrop, and Rockwell. Grumman and Rockwell pulled out of the competition at an early phase. On October 31, 1986, Lockheed and Northrop were announced as the winners and were awarded contracts for the demonstration and validation phase of the program. Each group was to build two flyable prototypes. The designation YF-22A was assigned to the aircraft that would be built by the Lockheed-led team, with YF-23A being assigned to the plane to be built by the Northrop-lead team. Each aircraft would be capable of flying with either a pair of Pratt & Whitney F119 or a pair of General Electric F120 engines. At the completion of the competition, one of the teams would be awarded a Full-Scale Development (FSD) contract.



In 1987, the requirement for the use of thrust reversers was eliminated. The thrust reversers were designed to be used in flight, for deceleration in combat, and for speed control during approach and landing. During development, tests with the F-15 STOL/Maneuver Technology Demonstrator had found that these thrust reversers would be heavier and would require more cooling air than had been predicted. Consequently, late in 1987, the thrust reversers were eliminated from the ATF requirements. Without thrust reversers, the aircraft would land in 3000 feet rather than the 2000 feet that had been originally specified, but the additional weight and complexity needed for the extra 1000 feet of stopping space were deemed not to be worth the cost. Lockeed assumed responsibility for the overall design of the YF-22A, and was to supply the forward part of the fuselage, including the cockpit. It would also handle most of the specialized stealth development work. Lockheed would also handle the final assembly in its facility at Palmdale, California. Boeing would build the wings and the aft fuselage and would install the engines. General Dynamics of Fort Worth, Texas would handle the center fuselage, the weapons bays, the empennage, and the undercarriage. The entire team would build a complete avionics system. In mid-1987, the YF-22A design had to be significantly changed because of weight problems. A diamond-shaped wing replaced the less-tapered trapezoidal wing that had originally been planned. The long glove extending all the way to the nose was eliminated, since wind tunnel testing had revealed that the pitch-up forces generated by the glove could not be controlled by the tail surfaces. In addition, the horizontal tails were enlarged in area. The originally-proposed rotary weapons bay was replaced by a flat weapons bay. This redesign coincided with the elimination of the thrust reversers, which meant that the fuselage afterbody could now be made slimmer and lighter. These extensive redesigns meant that the YF-22A would have to be delayed. By early 1989, it became clear that the YF-22A would not be ready to fly by the beginning of 1990. However, the Air Force agreed to extend the demonstration and validation program by six months. In 1988, declining budgets forced the Air Force to cut the number of tactical fighter wings from 38 to 35. In 1988, USAF modernization plans now included 750 ATFs, to be delivered at a rate of 72 per year. Following the FSD go-ahead scheduled for 1991, deliveries of the first FSD aircraft were to begin during 1993, with the first aircraft entering service with the USAF in 1996. By late 1988, the ATF program had been extended by one year and the USAF declared a pilot production lot of 24 aircraft. A draft request for proposals on the FSD phase was issued during August of 1989. On October 6, 1989, the Defense Acquisition Board approved a six-month delay in early design work, extending the Dem/Val phase to mid-1991. This delayed the FSD phase by one year. The Air Force agreed to issue the RFP for FSD at the end of October 1990 and to move to FSD in April 1991, at which time a single contractor would be selected. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f22_1.html (6 of 18)09-09-2006 13:26:33


The aircraft that finally emerged from the Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics team had a forward fuselage that was essentially diamond-shaped in cross-section, merging into a pentagonal midfuselage and a tapered flat rear fuselage. The body shape was designed with large flat sides which reflected the "faceting" philosophy that was used in the F-117A. However, the facet breaks are not nearly as sharp as they are on the F-117A, the facets are fewer in number, and curved surfaces are used on the aerodynamic surfaces and above and below the fuselage. The use of curved surfaces was made possible by the advent of Cray supercomputers to do the simulation of the radar reflectivity of various geometries. Air intakes flanked a short, tapered nose which accommodated the cockpit and most of the avionics. The inlet ducts curved inwards and upwards, shielding the front faces of the engines from direct illumination by hostile radars. In the critical front quadrant, it is estimated that the radar cross-section of the YF-22A is about 100 times smaller than that of the F-15. The aircraft is about the same size as an F-15, but is heavier, weighing about 62,000 pounds in clean condition. Since variable-geometry intake ramps would be incompatible with stealthy design, the wedgeshaped air intakes were designed to be of fixed geometry with no moving parts. The inlets were of the two-shock variety, and the ramp angles were chosen for optimal efficiency at Mach 1.5. There were spill doors mounted immediately behind the top lip which dump excess air from the inlet at low speeds and low power settings. The intakes ensure low airflow distortion with good recovery and provide low observable characteristics as well as comprehensive boundary layer air bleed. The intakes were offset from the fuselage wall by several inches for effective boundary layer control. Sshaped intake tunnels carried air to the engines, the shape of the intake tunnels being deliberately designed so that the engine faces were completely invisible from any external look-angle. There were a pair of auxiliary blow-in inlets above the body just forward of the vertical tails which provided the engines with extra air for starting and takeoff. The wing was designed with a diamond-shaped planform, which was actually fairly close to that of a delta with a 48 degree sweep on the forward edge, a nearly straight trailing edge, and a very small tip chord. The sharp taper reduces the bending loads across the wing because most of the lift is generated close to the root. The wing root chord at the fuselage centerline is 34 feet 6 inches, and the wing tip chord is 4 feet 2 1/2 inches. The wing has no twist or pronounced camber, and there are no foreplanes or leading-edge root extensions. Large integral fuel tanks are built into the wing structure. The wing was fitted with full-span leading edge flaps. The trailing edge has large plain flaps inboard and smaller, tapered flaperons outboard. All of the wing surfaces droop at low speed to reduce takeoff and landing runs. The forebody of the fuselage was provided with a sharp edge, or hard chine running from the tip of the nose to the upper inlet lip, and there was a small aerodynamic lip attached to the top outside http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f22_1.html (7 of 18)09-09-2006 13:26:33


corner of each inlet. These were designed to cause the formation of vortices at high angles of attack. As a result of these chines and lips, at high angles of attack a pair of strong vortices form over the fuselage center section and another pair form over the wings. Because of low pressure inside these vortices, additional lift can be generated, improving the controllability at high angles of attack. However, these vortices can have an adverse affect on the vertical tails-- they can cause aerodynamically buffeting, they can blanket the vertical tails so that they become aerodynamically ineffective, or they can form asymmetrically so that there is a destabilizing effect. Careful computational fluid dynamics calculations using supercomputers were needed to avoid these unwanted side effects. A large speedbrake was installed on the upper fuselage between the two vertical tails. Like most of the other doors on the aircraft, the airbrake panel had serrated, dogtooth edges to suppress unwanted radar reflections. The horizontal tail was set on two booms which extend beyond the ends of the engine exhausts. The stabilizers were located in the same plane as the wing and were so close to the wing that the wing and tailplane planforms actually merge smoothly together--the stabilizer leading edges fit neatly into cutouts at the roots of the wing flaps. In accordance with stealth principles, the horizontal tail has the same planform as the wing. The twin vertical tails were canted outward by 27 degrees. When viewed from the sides, the large fins mask thermal images of the aircraft's tail and engine-exhaust areas and help to block infrared search scans from all but the rear and high elevation angles. The twin vertical tail surfaces are located well forward (like those on the F/A-18). They are unusually massive, and are 70 percent larger than those on the F-15. Because of anticipated problems with structural stresses caused by vortexes from the wing, it was decided not to use an all-flying vertical tail format, and there are two fixed vertical stabilizers with moveable rudders. The rudders account for almost a third of the total area. Throughout the entire fuselage, all internal and external metal areas were coated with radar absorbent materials (RAM) and with radar absorbent paint (RAP). Considerable progress has been made in this area. When the first F-117A was flown, the RAP was expensive to apply and came off easily. The design of the various doors that are cut into the sides and top of the fuselage (e.g. for landing gear, weapons stowage, blow-in intakes, maintenance access, etc) posed a major challenge for designers trying to achieve low observability. Serrated edges were added to the doors to reflect radar returns in harmless directions. Intake and cooling vents which must remain open at all times are covered with a low-observable wire mesh to prevent enemy radar emissions from getting inside. The F-22 was to be powered by a pair of advanced technology engines, mounted close together on the fuselage centerline, between the two booms that carry the tail surfaces. The AFF engines are of an advanced type, designed to make it possible to cruise for extended periods of time at supersonic http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f22_1.html (8 of 18)09-09-2006 13:26:33


speeds. Conventional fighter engines reach their compressor-exit temperature (CET) limits at speeds of about Mach 1, because of the rise in inlet temperature and pressure. At higher speeds, the engine must be throttled back to hold down the CET, and the extra thrust must come from the afterburner. The afterburner consumes fuel very rapidly, and supersonic flight must of necessity be fairly brief. In contrast, the ATF engines are designed to run at full throttle at speeds of up to Mach 1.5. Both the YF119 and the YF120 engines are counter-rotating dual-spool, low bypass turbofans with single turbine disks in both low and high compression stages. Both engines have improved blade aerodynamics and structures, reducing the number of stages as well as the number of parts, and making it easier to cool. Both engines also make use of advanced materials and techniques such as composites, ceramic seals, hollow fan blades, and new heat-resistant coatings. The General Electric YF120 engine was apparently the more advanced of the two. The YF120 is a double-bypass variable-cycle powerplant that operates as a turbofan at subsonic speeds and as a turbojet at supersonic speeds. The F120 engine has a low pressure rotor consisting of a two-stage fan and a single-stage high-pressure turbine with a triplex digital control unit mounted on the power plant itself. The YF119 is based around a conventional cycle with an advanced fuel control and management system. It is basically a low-bypass ratio (0.2 to 1) turbofan. The F119 incorporates a three-stage fan as the low-pressure rotor with a singe-stage high-pressure turbine stage and a sixstage high pressure compressor, also driven by a single-stage turbine. Exit guide vanes are cast as an integral part of the strutless diffusers, and a fully-modulating cooling diffuser is located ahead of the two-dimensional convergent-divergent nozzle. The two-dimensional engine nozzles of the YF-22A can be vectored 20 degrees up or down at any power setting. Vectored thrust is most effective at high engine power and is most useful at each end of the speed range. Continuous vectored thrust can also be used for high-speed turns (e. g. 6 g at Mach 1.8 is an ATF objective), where horizontal tail authority might not be sufficient. Vectored thrust also improves roll control. An afterburner is incorporated for use in combat or for Mach 2 plus dash speeds. Combining low-observable technology with the requirement for high maneuverability required the use of fly-by-wire controls. The FBW system for the F-22 was developed by General Dynamics. Air data sensors, rate gyroscopes, and accelerometers feed information into the computer, where it is integrated with inputs from the pilot's controls. The central computer then coordinates the operation of leading-edge flaps, ailerons, tailplanes, rudders, airbrake, and thrust-vectoring nozzles. Roll and yaw is effected by a combination of differential movement of the ailerons, flaperons, and the tailplane. The rudders also provide directional control and feed coordination functions during complex integrated maneuvers. Pitch control is provided by coupled commands to the tailplane and to the thrust-vectored nozzles. The leading edge surfaces operate automatically according to angle of attack, airspeed, altitude, and data inputs from the FBW system.



There is a receptacle for a boom-type midair refuelling probe in the upper fuselage, located between the blow-in auxiliary intake doors that are just forward of the vertical tails. This receptacle is covered by a door when not in use. In the interest of achieving low-observability, all of the air-to-air weapons are carried internally. There are three weapons bays. Two of the weapons bays are located on the sides of the fuselage (one on each side) immediately aft of the cheek intakes, the rear wall of each bay forming the forward wall of the main undercarriage bays. Each side bay can accommodate two AIM-9 Sidewinder infrared-homing air-to-air missiles and is covered by two separate doors. When a Sidewinder missile is fired, the weapons bay doors snap open, the Sidewinder missile swings outward on a trapeze, the missile's infrared seeker locks onto its target, the missile is fired, the trapeze swings back in and the doors close. The quicker this is done, the less likely it is than an enemy could pick up a radar return from the open weapons bay. A third weapons bay is located underneath the fuselage and can carry four or six AIM-120C AMRAAM radar-guided air-to-air missiles. The main bay is covered by two hinged doors, each consisting of two lengthwise fold-back panels. When an AMRAAM is fired, the door is opened and the missile is dropped. The door can be closed right away, because the missile's engine does not ignite until it drops free of the aircraft. The leading and trailing edges of the main weapons bay doors carry serrated edges for low observability. Although designed largely for internal weapons carriage in the interest of stealth, the F-22 can be fitted with four external weapons pylons under the wings. These could be used for ferry purposes or for operations in which stealth is unnecessary. The main landing gear members retract forward into bays in the fuselage sides immediately aft of the side weapons bays underneath the wings. These doors have serrated edges for low radar observability. The steerable nosewheel retracts forward into a well between the air intakes. All three undercarriage units are operated via independent hydraulic rams and each wheel has an anti-skid disc brake unit. About 23 percent of the structure of the prototypes is made up of composite materials, and it is planned for about 40 percent of the production F-22 to be made of composite materials. Some of the high-temperature structural components are made from carbon fibres embedded in a bismaleimide matrix, which can supposedly tolerate higher thermal stresses then the epoxy materials that are currently used. Wing skins are made from carbon fibers in a thermoplastic matrix. The advantage of thermoplastics is that they can be reheated and reformed, lowering the cost of manufacturing and repairing complex components. The pilot's cockpit is what has come to be known as a "glass" cockpit. The control panel has no dials or gauges, and all information is presented to the pilot on screens or as holographic images on the heads-up display (HUD). The cockpit has two 8x8 inch primary multifunction displays, flanked by three 6x6 inch secondary MFDs, all in full color. There is a three-color up-front control underneath http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f22_1.html (10 of 18)09-09-2006 13:26:33


the HUD. All of the displays are liquid-crystal-display (LCD) panels, which replace the conventional cathode-ray tubes used by previous "glass"-cockpit aircraft. The F-22 is the first military aircraft to feature this technology. At first, the liquid crystal displays were provided with finger-on-glass (FOG) panels, but a lack of tactile feedback during tests led to a decision to revert to pushbutton switches surrounding the screens. In the production aircraft which will carry a full avionics suite, the primary screens will provide tactical situation information while the secondary screens will provide offensive and defensive systems data. Voice annunciators will present vital advisory and cautionary information to the pilot. It will be arranged so that these voice annunciators will present only the most urgent information and will avoid overloading the pilot with things he or she does not need to know. Control of all aircraft functions is handled by a hands-on throttle and stick (HOTAS) that gives the pilot access to all the selection modes he or she needs to complete an attack. The YF-22A has a central control column, but this will be replaced by a sidestick controller in production machines. The cockpit canopy is frameless and is shaped and coated to eliminate radar reflections. The singlepiece acrylic laminate canopy was only for the prototypes. Indium tin oxide will be added to the laminate in production machines to reduce the radar return. Great emphasis was placed on the design of the cockpit for low observability, and careful selection of proper materials for the control panel, ejector seat, and canopy was a vital part of achieving a stealthy interior. The pilot's seat is upright, studies having shown that the inclination would have to be at least 65 degrees to provide any significant benefit to a pilot's g-tolerance. The two YF-22A prototypes have the ACES II ejector seat, but the production machines will have a modified Weber seat. Not many details have been published about the avionics suite that will be fitted to production F22s. It is known that the avionics suite will include a Northrop Grumman/Raytheon APG-77 activearray, electronically-scanned radar and a Sanders/General Electric ALR-94 integrated electronic warfare system. The sensor antennae for the ALR-94 system are smoothly blended into the skin, and the system can positively identify the target, determine its bearing and its range. The avionics systems are tied together by a computer system. The radar is designed to provide the pilot with a first-look, first-launch, first-kill capability. It has long range and high resolution for the early detection of enemy fighters. It has a low passive-detection signature which is designed to allow the F-22 to approach very close to its target before being detected. The Lockheed Martin AAR-65 Missile Launch Detector comprising six IR focal plane arrays located around the nose is used to warn of immediate treats from enemy missile launches. Two YF-22A prototypes had been ordered, one to be powered by a pair of F120 engines and the other to be powered by F119 engines. The first YF-22A was ready by June 1990. However, at that time the General Electric F120 engines that were to power the aircraft had not yet been qualified for



flight by the Air Force. Lockheed briefly considered switching its initial efforts to the second prototype, which was to be powered by the competing Pratt & Whitney F119 engine, but decided to stick with the original schedule. The two YF-22As were integrated and assembled at Lockheed's facility at Palmdale, California. The first YF-22A was officially unveiled at a ceremony at Palmdale on August 29, 1990. Rather unusually, the aircraft bore a civilian registration number N22YF rather than a USAF serial number. It flew for the first time on September 29, 1990, with Lockheed test pilot Dave Ferguson at the controls. It was powered by a pair of General Electric YF120 engines. The first flight was a short hop from Palmdale to Edwards AFB. The flight was considerably shorter than planned because of a minor fault with telemetry equipment which required repair at the end of Palmdale's runway, reducing the fuel load available and curtailing the opportunity to perform a number of tests. The YF-22A achieved supersonic speed for the first time on October 25. The second YF-22 followed on October 30, with Lockheed test pilot Tom Morgenfeld at the controls. It bore the civilian registration of N22YX and was powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney YF119 engines. Neither of the two test aircraft carried any radar, nor were they equipped with cannon armament. However, they were capable of carrying and launching AMRAAM and Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. Early in November of 1990, YF-22 N22YF achieved one of the important milestones of the ATF program, when it attained a speed of Mach 1.58 without using afterburners. Optimal supercruise speed was Mach 1.58 for N22YF and Mach 1.43 for N22YX. With afterburning, both aircraft could easily exceed Mach 2 at 50,000 feet. The first thrust-vectoring by the YF-22A was performed by N22YF on November 15, with test pilot Dave Ferguson exploring the roll response enhancement that this feature could afford. With 2dimensional thrust vectoring, the aircraft could achieve supersonic roll and pitch rates in excess of those that can be achieved by a conventional fighter at subsonic speeds. At speeds above Mach 1.4, the two-dimensional nozzles improved turning rates by about 35 percent. The YF-22A was able to perform maneuvers when it was far beyond the stall angle of attack and could perform bank-to-bank rolls at speeds as low as 80 knots and angles of attack as high as 60 degrees. Enhanced agility at high angles of attack will give the F-22A an important edge over other fighters, allowing weapons lock-on with a conventional aircraft that is unable to avoid flick-pointing. The nozzles give a fourfold improvement in pitch-down nose recovery, allowing the aircraft to resume normal flight attitudes within a second. On November 28, 1990, YF-22 number two achieved another first for the ATF program when test pilot Jon Beesley test-fired an AIM-9M Sidewinder during a flight over the Navy's China Lake range. On December 20, test pilot Tom Morgenfeld fired an AIM-120 AMRAAM from YF-22



number two during a flight over the Pacific Missile Test Center range at Point Mugu, California. On April 23, 1991, the Air Force announced that the Lockheed group had won the Demonstration/ Validation phase of the ATF contest. At the same time, the Pratt & Whitney F119 entry was selected as the winning engine. On August 3, 1991, the Air Force formally awarded an Engineering, Manufacture, and Development (EMD) contract to the Lockheed team. The first of 11 EMD aircraft (including two F-22B two-seaters) was due to fly in 1995. Initial operating capability (IOC) was set for 2001. N22YX with its YF119 engines went back into the air on October 30, 1991 for more flight tests. N22YF was stripped of its General Electric engines and was moved to Lockheed's Marietta, Georgia facility for EMD systems mock-up tests. Unfortunately, N22YX was involved in a major accident on May 25, 1992 when it belly-flopped onto the runway after 8 seconds of violent pilot-induced oscillations. It slid several thousand feet down the runway and caught fire, destroying some 25 percent of the airframe. Pilot Tom Morgenfeld was uninjured, but the aircraft was deemed too badly damaged for economical repair. At the time of the crash, Morgenfeld had been carrying out a planned go-around, and he had just switched on his afterburners and had retracted his undercarriage at less than 50 feet off the runway with thrust vectoring active. At a speed of 175 knots, the aircraft began an uncommanded pitchup followed by a severe stick-forward command from the pilot. The aircraft then entered a series of pitch oscillations, with rapid tail and thrust nozzle fluctuations, exacerbated by control surface actuators hitting rate limiters causing commands to get out of synchronization with their execution. An investigation later showed that Morgenfeld had ignored a test-card that required that the vectoring nozzles to be locked into position in just such a configuration that he had found himself at the time of the crash. However, most engineers had also ignored this instruction since they thought it to be unnecessary. At the time of the accident, the aircraft had made some 760 flights and had logged 100.4 hours in the air. After this accident, no further flight testing of the prototypes was carried out, and the program moved into the EMD phase. The other YF-22 (N22YF) was later stripped of its engines and was used for ground testing. N22YF is now on display at the USAF Museum in Dayton, Ohio. By early 1992, the definitive shape of the EMD F-22 had been finalized. There were some important changes. The length was reduced to 62 feet 6 inches, the wing span was increased to 44 feet 6 inches, and the wing sweep angle was decreased to 42 degrees. Other edges that had to be aligned with the wing sweep angle for low RCS were also changed to 42 degrees. The wing shape was modified to incorporate a clipped section between the ailerons and the tip. The thickness of the root was decreased and the camber and twist were modified. The engine inlets were moved aft by 1 foot



5 3/4 inches. The entire cockpit was moved further forward, with subsequent changes to the nose and radome profile, giving the forward fuselage a blunter shape. The tail surfaces were modified, with the fin/rudder being decreased in area and the horizontal tail being increased in area. The tail planform was modified to a diamond shape, and the aircraft height was reduced to 16 feet 5 inches. The production F-22A will carry a single General Electric M61A2 20-mm cannon above and aft of the starboard engine intake. This is an improved, lighter version of the standard M61A1 cannon that has been carried by US fighters since the 1950s. Production F-22s will also have a ground-attack capability, and will be provided with two sets of hardpoints underneath each wing, although the carriage of external stores will severely degrade the low-observable characteristics of the aircraft. The aircraft will be able to carry a pair of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) in the underfuselage weapons bay and two Tri-Service Stand-Off Attack Missiles (TSSAMs) underneath the wing for deep strike missions. The JDAM is a 1000-lb smart bomb that dispenses infrared/acousticguided submunitions. The early versions of the JDAM will be directed by a GPS guidance system, but this will perhaps be replaced with an image seeker in a later version. The Air Force may even want to equip the F-22 with HARM missiles for anti-radiation missions. Initial Operational Capability (IOC) has slipped steadily over the years. The decision to build prototypes meant that the Dem/Val program had to be extended for a longer time than expected. Metal for the first EMD aircraft was first cut in December of 1993. By that time, the number of preproduction aircraft on order had been cut to nine. The first three EMD F-22s were be used primarily for airframe tests, and the fourth will be used for avionics tests. The seventh and ninth aircraft were to be two-seat F-22Bs, whereas the eighth was to carry out low-observability tests. The nine EMD F22A and B aircraft were to be followed by four Pre-Production Verification (PPV) aircraft. Exactly how many production F-22s will be built is still uncertain, since the deployment plans for the F-22 are continuously in flux because of funding cuts and budgetary uncertainties. The initial 1985 RFP had indicated a requirement for 760 aircraft, but budget cuts and force realignments have steadily reduced the total numbers expected to be built. In 1993, the Pentagon cut the planned F-22 fleet from 648 to 442, and then cut it again to 339 in mid 1997. In July of 1996, the USAF deferred the development of the F-22B two-seater and cut the two F-22Bs from the test program, leaving only seven EMD prototypes. The first of seven F-22A EMD prototypes (91-4001, c/n 4001, named Spirit of America) was unveiled to the public at the Lockheed Martin plant at Marietta, Georgia on April 9, 1997. It was announced that the name Raptor has been chosen for the aircraft. Raptor 01 (as the plane was labeled) was equipped with a pair of vectoring exhaust Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 engines, rated at 35,000 lb.s.t. each with afterburning. It flew for the first time on September 7, 1997. The plane was delivered to Edwards AFB aboard a C-5 transport on February 5, 1998. It was reflown for the first time at Edwards AFB on May 17, 1998.



The second EMD F-22A prototype (91-4002, c/n 4002) was rolled off the production line at Marietta, Georgia on February 10, 1998. It flew for the first time on June 29, 1998, and flew crosscountry to Edwards AFB on August 26, 1998 to join 91-4001 in the test program. By the end of 1998, the first two F-22s had been able to reach a speed of Mach 1.4 without afterburning. The third F-22A (91-4003, c/n 4003) was rolled of the production line in Georgia on May 22, 1999. Technically, this was actually the fourth F-22A off the production line, since the third F-22A (3999) serves as a static test vehicle. 91-4003 flew for the first time on March 6, 2000. The plane was the first of the Block 2 F-22s, which is the first Raptor to have an internal structure that is fully representative of the production version. It also had full-envelope flight capability. The fourth Raptor (91-4004) was to be the first F-22 with fully-integrated avionics A Boeing 757-200 (c/n 22212, registration N757A) was converted as an avionics laboratory to test the radar and other electronics systems. The aircraft was fitted with an F-22 forward fuselage as well as a sensor wing on top of the fuselage just aft of the flight deck. The 757 testbed flew for the first time on March 11, 1999. Anxiety over the rising costs of the F-22--along with the general opinion that the threat that it was designed to counter no longer existed and that no current or conceivable future threat justifies the expense--led to a move in Congress to remove six F-22 aircraft from the Air Force FY 2000 budget. In July of 1999, the House of Representatives voted to cut the six F-22s that had been planned for FY 2000 out of the budget and to re-allocate the money to more F-15Es, F-16CJs and C-130Js. However, the Senate readily approved the six FY2000 fighters, and a compromise was reached in conference in which the six F-22As requested would be procured as Production Representative Test Vehicle II (PRTV II) aircraft and not as Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft. The procurement of ten LRIP aircraft in FY2001 were to be conditional on the test program attaining successful flight testing of the avionics software as well as a verification of its stealth capabilities. The contract for the six F-22 Production Representative Test Vehicle II aircraft was awarded to Lockheed Martin on December 30, 1999. The first PRTV II aircraft were be delivered by March 2002. On August 25, 1999, the Raptor achieved flight in excess of 60 degrees angle of attack. Raptor 01 demonstrated its supercruise capability on July 21, 1999 by sustaining Mach 1.5 without afterburner. On August 15, 2001, the Pentagon's Defense Acquisition Board approved LRIP for the F-22A, but reduced the total order from 339 to 295. Construction began on the first operational aircraft (014018) and it was announced that the first 13 Raptors in Lot 2 would enter service with the 325th Wing at Tyndall AFB beginning in 2003. It was announced that some Raptors would go the the 57th Fighter Wing at Nellis AFB for operational development work. The first operational wing would be the 1st FW, based at Langley AFB, VA. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f22_1.html (15 of 18)09-09-2006 13:26:33


The final flight test aircraft (91-4009) under the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase contract, was delivered to the USAF on Apr 15, 2002. It was dedicated to the evaluation of the ease of maintenance and repair for the Raptor. After these tests were completed, the plane was delivered to Edwards AFB to join the other six F-22s already there. On April 25, 2002, the latest Block 3.1 avionics software package was flight tested on 91-4006 at Edwards AFB. This software provides more than 90 percent of that required for full functionality in production Raptors. Alarmed at the high cost of the F-22A program , some people in Congress insisted on an air-toground role for the Raptor, and work was initiated in determining if the two internal weapons bay could accommodate air-to-ground weapons such as the GBU-32 JDAM, as well as 1000-pound bombs. In order to keep Congress happy, on September 17, 2002, General John Jumper, the Air Force Chief of Staff, announced that the Raptor was going to be redesignated F/A-22 to indicate the support of a dual-role mission. At that time, the USAF had the goal of acquiring 339 Raptors, although up to 762 Raptors could ultimately be required. At the same time, Air Force Secretary James Roche announced that the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley AFB would develop a limited air-to-ground mission in addition to its primary air-to-air role. The basic problem is that if the air-to ground mission requires stealth, the Raptor will not be able to carry air-to-missiles in the weapons bay, nor will it be able to carry anything on underwing pylons, thus entirely losing its air-to-air capability. However, if stealth is not required, the aircraft can be equipped with four underwing stations that can carry bombs, missiles, or 600 gallon fuel tanks. Each station can carry up to 5000 pounds of weapons or fuel. Raptor number 10 (99-4010), the first Production Representative Test Vehicle, was formally accepted by the USAF on October 23, 2002. It was assigned to Edwards AFB to serve with the Air Force Operaational test and Evaluation Center to support the Dedicated Initial Operational Test and Evaluation phase. On November 5, 2002, Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract for Low Rate Initial Production Lot 3, comprising 16 aircraft. Raptor number 11 (99-4011), the last Dedicated Initial Operational Test and Evaluation aircraft, made its first flight on September 16, 2002 and was formally accepted by the USAF on November 26, 2002. On November 22, aircraft 4007 succeeded in launching an unarmed AIM-9M missile. Also accomplished in 2002 was the interception of an aerial target by an AIM-120 launched from a supercruising F/A-22. The first F/A-22A Raptor (00-4012) was delivered to Nellis AFB, Nevada on January 14, 2003. A further seven Raptors will are scheduled to join 00-4012 with the 422nd Test and Evaluation http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f22_1.html (16 of 18)09-09-2006 13:26:33


Squadron by the end of 2004, with nine more due to join the 57th Wing at Nellis AFB between 2008 and 2009. The Block 4 F-22A is scheduled for introduction into service in 2005. It may turn out that F-22 serves with the USAF for forty years, perhaps not being replaced by some later type until the year 2045. There ia a proposal for an enlarged derivative of the Raptor, the FB-22. It is intended as a pure bomber and is proposed as a replacement for the B-52, B-1B, and B-2. It will have the same stealth characteristics as the Raptor, but will be able to carry up to 30 small-diameter bombs at supersonic speeds at ranges as high as 2000 miles without the need for midair refuelling. This project is at the preliminary concept stage, and time will tell if it ever evolves into anything practical. Serials of Lockheed Martin F/A-22 Raptor 91-4001/4009

Lockheed F-22A Raptor EMD aircraft 99-006/007 Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor PRTV aircraft. Serials cancelled and replaced with 99-4010/4011. 99-4010/4011 Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor c/n 4010/4011. PRTV aircraft 99-4012/4017 Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor c/n 4012/4017. IP aircraft 99-4018/4025 Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor c/n 4018/4025. Reserved for future use Ten Raptors are included in the FY2001 budget

Specification of Lockheed YF-22A Engines: Two Pratt & Whitney YF119-PW-100 or two General Electric YF120-GE-100 afterburning turbofans, each rated at 35,000 lb.s.t.. Performance (estimated): Maximum speed at military power Mach 1.6 (1059 mph). Maximum speed Mach 2.2 (1450 mph) at maximum power with afterburning at altitude. Maximum speed Mach 1.2 (915 mph) at sea level. Maximum sustained cruising speed above 36,000 feet Mach 1.4-1.5 (925-990 mph). Service ceiling 65,000 feet. 3500 feet takeoff length. 750-800 nautical mile unrefuelled combat radius. Weights: 33,000 pounds empty, 58,000 pounds normal takeoff. 62,000 pounds combat takeoff weight. Dimensions: Wingspan 43 feet 0 inches, length 64 feet 2 inches, height 17 feet 8 7/8 inches, wing area 830 square feet. Four AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles are carried in internal bays in the sides of the engine intake ducts. Four AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles are carried in internal bays underneath the air intakes. Sources: 1. Lockheed F-22: Stealth with Agility, Bill Sweetman, World Airpower Journal, Volume 6,



Summer 1991. 2. From ATF to Lightning II: A Bolt in Anger. Design Options and the YF-23A, David Baker,

Air International, December 1994. 3. From ATF to Lightning II: A Bolt in Anger. Lockheed's YF-22A, David Baker, Air

International, January 1995. 4. Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, Bill Sweetman, World AirPower Journal, Vol 38, Fall 1999. 5. Air Intel, Tom Kaminski, Combat Aircraft, Oct-Nov 1999. 6. Airscene Headlines, Air International, April 2003. 7. Classics Compared: F-86 Sabre and F/A-22 Raptor, Robert F. Dorr, Air International,

February 2003. 8. Airscene Headlines, Air International January 2003. 9. Airscene Headlines, Air International November 2002 10. Airscene Headlines, Air International October 2002. 11. Airscene Headlines, Air International June 2002.


Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23

Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 Last revised May 25, 2000

The Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 was the unsuccessful entry in the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) competition, which was won by the Lockheed Martin YF-22. The Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) project was conceived in the early years of the Reagan administration. It was pictured as being the aircraft which would replace the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle in USAF service. At that time, it was anticipated that the ATF would be ready in time to start entering service in the late 1990s, with the ATF being the primary fighter in service with the USAF by the time the new century began. In 1969-70, even before the F-15, F-16 and A-10 had entered service with the USAF, the Tactical Air Command funded a study known as TAC-85 to begin exploring what their successor might look like. The results of this study led to TAC issuing a Concept of Operations in 1971 for what they called the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF). At that time, the ATF concept was still fairly vague, and there were some small-scale studies carried out during the early 1970s. In early 1975, the USAF Systems Command developed a plan to build two sets of ATF prototypes in 1977-81, but there were no funds available to fund such a project at that time. By 1976, these studies had begun to consider the incorporation of low-observable technology in the design of the ATF. In addition, the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds without using afterburning was also considered as being important. In 1978, the USAF defined two separate projects, one known as the Enhanced Tactical Fighter (ETF) and the other known as the Advanced Tactical Attack System (ATAS). The ETF would be a nearterm project, whereas the ATAS would be a longer-term project which would concentrate on the development of new weapons and other advanced technologies. Initially, the emphasis would be on the ground-attack mission, since it was assumed that the F-15 and F16 would be able to deal adequately with the Soviet fighters then in service. However, the appearance of new Soviet fighter such as the MiG-29, Su-27, and the MiG-31 caused the USAF to reconsider its philosophy and consider the development of air-to-air and air-toground aircraft in parallel. In April of 1980, the ETF project was shelved, and the ATAS http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f23_1.html (1 of 12)09-09-2006 13:26:45


became the ATF. The ATF would consider both types of missions. It was hoped that both air-to-air and air-to-ground roles could be incorporated in the same aircraft. In addition, it was decided that that the possibility of incorporating STOL into the design should also be explored. The first Request For Information (RFI) for the Advanced Tactical Fighter was issued to the industry in June of 1981. Nine companies were involved in the RFI: Boeing, Fairchild, General Dynamics, Grumman, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, Northrop, Rockwell, and Vought. An RFI for the engine was issued a month later. The RFI was basically a request from the Air Force for the industry to tell them what the requirements for the new aircraft should be. Seven companies responded to the RFI. By October 1982, the USAF had digested the RFI responses that came in and decided that supercruise capability would be an important requirement for the future ATF. NATO commanders had expressed pessimism about the survivability of forward-based NATO fighter and attack forces should a war break out in Europe. Control of the skies above central Europe would probably have to be maintained by fighters based in the Benelux countries or in the United Kingdom. In such a scenario, the ability of an aircraft to fly at supersonic speed without afterburning and thus to fly supersonically for the entire mission segment that lay over hostile territory would, it was hoped, reduce the fighter's exposure to enemy SAMs. Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) capabilities would also be important, since STOL would make it easier to continue operations from damaged airfields. It was also recommended that the aircraft should have a greater range than that of the F-15, which would allow it to operate from more distant, safer airbases. In addition, the Air Force wanted an attempt to be made to reverse the trend of rapidly increasing cost and complexity that seemed to occur with every new generation of fighters. In support of this goal, the Air Force wanted to set a limit on the size and weight of the aircraft, and strongly recommended the use of new technology to reduce the cost of acquiring and supporting the new fighter. In the early 1980s, the air-to-ground mission for the ATF began to appear less urgent, since the projected F-117A "stealth fighter" that was currently under development should be able to penetrate the air defenses of the Warsaw Pact in the event of a European war. Also, the F-111 would, it was thought, still remain effective even into the 1990. In addition, General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas had both demonstrated that both the F-15 and F-16 fighters could be successfully modified into strike aircraft, which meant that it would probably be safe to optimize the ATF for an air-to-air role. By mid-1983, the USAF had adopted this philosophy and had reoriented the ATF concept as a primarily airto-air fighter, and had defined the ATF concept as an F-15 replacement that would be http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f23_1.html (2 of 12)09-09-2006 13:26:45


capable of supersonic flight without afterburning, with a greater range than the F-15 but with a similar armament, and with vectoring and reversing engine nozzles for STOL performance. In October of 1982, representatives from most of the American fighter manufactures met with USAF representatives in Anaheim, California to discuss the ATF project. They came up with a concept for an aircraft capable of supersonic cruise performance, a combat radius of 600-800 nautical miles, and the ability to take off and land in a 2000-foot runway. The normal takeoff weight should be no greater than 60,000 pounds in the air-toair mission and 80,000 pounds for the strike mission. In late 1982, a request for proposals was issued for the concept definition investigation stage of the ATF program. It was hoped that the ATF could be introduced into service by the mid-1990s. In May of 1983, the final RFP for the CDI phase was issued. At that time, the ATF project was still in the "white" unclassified world, and a lot of the project officers working on the ATF were unaware of the "black" stealth technology that was being developed. Once this project officers were made aware of this work, the ATF RTP was amended to include the incorporation of stealth technology. In September 1983, concept definition contracts were issued to all of the companies which had responded to the RFP-Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, Northrop, and Rockwell. The final reports were expected in May 1984. A parallel program was initiated for the engine that would power the ATF, the project being known as the Joint Advanced Fighter Engine (JAFE). In May of 1983, even before it had released the RFP for the aircraft itself, the Air Force released its Request For Proposals (RFP) for the development of the engines for the ATF. The power plant for the ATF had to be self-starting, with autonomous ground check-out equipment based around very high thrust/weight ratios and high reliability values. In September of 1983, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric were awarded contracts to design and build engines for the ATF. The Pratt & Whitney engine was known as the PW5000 by the manufacturer and as F119 by the Air Force. The General Electric engine was known as the GE37 by the company and as F120 by the Air Force. The engines were to be interchangeable in the ATF airframe, leaving either one of them to be applicable to the definitive fighter. There was to be a contest between these two manufacturers to see which one of the would build the engine for the production ATF.



By the end of 1984, the ATF requirement had reached a more definitive form. The requirement now called for a fighter with a Mach 1.5 cruising speed, a takeoff roll of only 2000 feet, a gross takeoff weight of no greater than 50,000 pounds and a combat radius of more than 700 nautical miles. The aircraft was to be capable of performing 5g turns at Mach 1 and 6g turns at Mach 1.5 at 30,000 feet. At 10,000 feet, the ATF was to be capable of pulling instantaneous turning acceleration loads as high as 9 gs at Mach 0.9 and was to be capable of performing sustained 2g turns at Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet. At sea level, the ATF was to be capable of accelerating from Mach 0.6 to Mach 1.0 in 20 seconds. At 20,000 feet or 30,000 feet, the aircraft was to be capable of accelerating from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.8 in 50 seconds. The unit flyaway cost was to be no more than $40 million in 1985 dollars (later reduced to only $35 million), and the life-cycle cost was to be no more than that of the F-15. At first, the USAF wanted to develop the ATF through a "Demonstration and Validation" (Dem/Val) process rather than by having a flyoff competition between prototypes as was done in the case of the LWF contest that resulted in the F-16. The Dem/ Val process would cover everything short of flight testing. Complete avionics systems would be tested in simulators. The design would be tested in wind tunnels and on radar cross-section ranges. Full-scale mockups would be built, but flyable aircraft would not be. The winner of the Dem/Val phase would then be awarded a full-scale development (FSD) contract for a flyable aircraft. In September of 1985, the Air Force issued a full Dem/Val Request for Proposals (RFP) for the ATF, specifying a submission deadline of January of 1986. At this time, the Air Force indicated the possibility of a procurement buy of as many as 750 aircraft. As part of the Dem/Val approach, full and reduced scale wind tunnel models would be built, with computational analysis being made of radar cross sections for low visibility. The deadline for the response to the RFP was later extended to April of 1986. All seven competitors responded to the Dem/Val RFP. Boeing proposed a V-tailed, diamond-shaped wing design with a single shark-mouth chin-type intake to feed both engines. General Dynamics proposed a delta-winged design that reflected some of the work it had done on the F-16XL. There were two intakes, one located on each of the fuselage sides, just ahead of the leading edge of the wing. There was a single large vertical tail. There were two separate radar arrays fitted behind the cockpit, one over each of the air intakes. Lockheed's design closely paralleled that of the F-117 that was currently under development. It had an arrowhead planform and a leading-edge glove which extended in a http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f23_1.html (4 of 12)09-09-2006 13:26:45


straight line to the nose. It had conventional trapezoidal wings, vectored thrust, and a horizontal tail. The design had an internal weapons bay, and featured twin outward-canted vertical tails. The McDonnell Douglas design had a single wedge-shaped chin inlet and sharply swept wings. Northrop's design had a diamond-shaped wing and an internal weapons bay, but did not have thrust vectoring. The Rockwell design had a large, highly blended delta wing. The Grumman design has never been described in any detail, but might have featured a forward-swept wing. In May of 1986, the USAF changed its mind and announced that instead of proceeding toward a single contractor at the end of the Dem/Val phase, two contractors would be selected to build prototypes for flight test. The two winning contractors would then compete against each other for a FSD contract. The Packard Commission had strongly advocated the flight testing of prototypes in military procurement contests, and the USAF was under strong pressure to accept its recommendations, with the cost overruns and delays involved in the C-5A and F-111 projects being still fresh in the memories of many. Following the end of World War 2, the Northrop Corporation had become well-known for its work on fighter designs which balanced cost against capability. In the interest of keeping costs down, high performance and technological sophistication were emphasized only where absolutely necessary. This had been the philosophy behind the F-5A/B Freedom Fighter and the F-5E/F Tiger II, which had been outstandingly successful in the export market. However, the Northrop company had been less successful with its attempts to build a successor to the F-5. The P-530 Cobra project did not attract any customers, and its YF-17 derivative was edged out by the F-16 in the LWF contest. Northrop was able to market a derivative of its YF-17 to the US Navy as the F/A-18 Hornet, but the Hornet production program ended up being dominated by its McDonnell Douglas partner, with Northrop being reduced to the status of a subcontractor. Northrop had tried to develop a lower-cost equivalent to the F-16 in the form of the F-20 Tigershark, but the F-20 also failed to attract any customers and was cancelled in its entirety before entering production. In company-financed studies, Northrop had made extensive use of computer-driven flight simulators to determine the operational characteristics of a fighter that would be most effective in the air combat environment of the future. It was found that an aircraft which had a low radar observability had the best chance of being able to penetrate hostile airspace and remain undetected or at least avoid effective tracking by hostile systems. In addition, vast improvements in on-board radar systems coupled with improvements in computer processing power and the use of large-screen cockpit displays would vastly http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f23_1.html (5 of 12)09-09-2006 13:26:45


increase the effectiveness of a fighter. Northrop concluded that a stealthy fighter with advanced radar systems and powerful computer processing power could engage and kill many of its adversaries in BVR encounters before they were even aware of its existence. Northrop became one of the respondents to the RFP for the ATF. Several months before the Dem/Val decision was announced by the USAF, Northrop decided to team with McDonnell Douglas in the ATF competition, just as it had done on the F/A-18 Hornet project. Northrop would be able to take advantage of McDonnell Douglas's wide experience in designing large, complex tactical aircraft such as the F-15E. The Dem/Val program was expected to cost considerably more than the USAF was prepared to pay, and the teaming would enable the two companies to support greater losses. It was agreed that whichever team won the Dem/Val program would lead the effort. Seven manufacturers responded to the RFP--Boeing, General Dynamics, Grumman, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, Northrop, and Rockwell. Grumman and Rockwell pulled out of the competition at an early phase. On October 31, 1986, Lockheed and Northrop were announced as the winners and were awarded contracts for the demonstration and validation phase of the program. Each group was to build two flyable prototypes. The Lockheed-led team would build two YF-22A prototypes and the Northrop-led team would build two YF-23A prototypes. Each aircraft would be capable of flying with either a pair of Pratt & Whitney F119 or a pair of General Electric F120 engines. At completion, one of the teams would be awarded a Full-Scale Development (FSD) contract. In 1987, the requirement for the use of thrust reversers was eliminated. The thrust reversers were designed to be used in flight, for deceleration in combat, and for speed control during approach and landing. During development, tests with the F-15 STOL/ Maneuver Technology Demonstrator had found that these thrust reversers would be heavier and would require more cooling air than had been predicted. Consequently, late in 1987, the thrust reversers were eliminated from the ATF requirements. Without thrust reversers, the aircraft would land in 3000 feet rather than the 2000 feet that had been originally specified, but the additional weight and complexity needed for the extra 1000 feet of stopping space were deemed not to be worth the cost. In 1988, declining budgets forced the Air Force to cut the number of tactical fighter wings from 38 to 35. In 1988, USAF modernization plans now included 750 ATFs, to be delivered at a rate of 72 per year. Following the FSD go-ahead scheduled for 1991, deliveries of the first FSD aircraft were to begin during 1993, with the first aircraft http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f23_1.html (6 of 12)09-09-2006 13:26:45


entering service with the USAF in 1996. By late 1988, the ATF program had been extended by one year and the USAF declared a pilot production lot of 24 aircraft. A draft request for proposals on the FSD phase was issued during August of 1989. On October 6, 1989, the Defense Acquisition Board approved a six-month delay in early design work, extending the Dem/Val phase to mid-1991. This delayed the FSD phase by one year. The Air Force agreed to issue the RFP for FSD at the end of October 1990 and to move to FSD in April 1991, at which time a single contractor would be selected. The aircraft that finally emerged from the Northrop/McDonnell Douglas team was larger than the F-15, as was expected because of the requirement for greater range on completely internal fuel. The body of the YF-23A is a blend of stealthy shapes and aerodynamic efficiency, hopefully providing a low radar cross section without compromising performance. The YF-23A was longer and more slender than the Lockheed YF-22A. The main load-bearing fuselage structure, measured from the stablizer to the front of the cockpit, is about 7 feet longer than the YF-22A. From the side, the profile of the YF-23A is reminiscent of that of the Lockheed SR-71. The general impression from other angles is that of a long, high forebody mounted between two widely-separated engine nacelles. The lengthwise variation in cross-sectional area is very smooth, minimizing transonic and supersonic drag. The forward section has a modified double-trapezoid cross section, one above the other in mirror image, with the aft region blending into a circular cross section and disappearing into the rear fuselage. The upper component of the engine box is dominated by two parallel engine nacelles that blend smoothly into the wing, each nacelle being of a modified trapezoidal cross section. The forebody has the cockpit, the nose landing gear, the electronics, and the missile bay. The YF-23 engine nacelles were larger than they would have been on the production F-23, since they had been designed to accommodate the thrust reversers originally planned for the ATF but later deleted. Trapezoid-shaped air inlets are located underneath each wing, with the leading edge forming the forward lip of a simple fixed-geometry two-shock system. The placement of the intakes underneath the wings has the advantage in removing them from the sides of the fuselage so that a large boundary-layer scoop is not needed. Instead, the thin boundary layer which forms on the wing ahead of the inlet is removed through a porous panel and is vented above the wing. An auxiliary blow-in inlet door is located on each of the upper nacelles just ahead of the engine to provide additional air to the engines for takeoff or for low speeds. The inlet ducts leading to the engines curve in two dimensions, upward and inward, to shield the faces of the compressors from radar emitters coming from the http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f23_1.html (7 of 12)09-09-2006 13:26:45


forward direction. The leading edge of the YF-23A's wing is swept back at 40 degrees, and the trailing edge is swept forward at the same angle. When viewed from above, the wing has the planform of a clipped triangle. On the YF-23A, every line in the planform is parallel to one or the other of the wing leading edges, which has become one of the guiding principles in stealthy design. The wing is structurally deep, and there is ample room for fuel inside the wing box. The wings have a thin cross-section with approximately two degrees of anhedral. The wing has leading-edge slats which extend over about two-thirds of the span. The trailing edge has a set of flaps inboard and a set of drooping ailerons outboard. In contrast to the Lockheed YF-22A, no speedbrake is fitted to the YF-23A. The all-flying twin V-tails are set far apart on the rear fuselage. They are canted 50 degrees outwards in an attempt to avoid acute corners or right angles in elevation or front view. These all-flying tail sections are hinged at a single pivot. Their leading and trailing edges are parallel to the main wings but in a different plane. The all-flying canted tails double as shields for the engine exhaust in all angles except those immediately above or hehind the aircraft. In the YF-23A, Northrop elected not to use thrust-vectoring for aerodynamic control. This was done in order to save weight and to help achieve better all-aspect stealth, especially from the rear. All controls are by aerodynamic surfaces. The V-tails work in pitch, roll, and yaw. The wing trailing edge controls provide roll control and lift augmentation, but they also function as speedbrakes and rudders. For straight line deceleration, the control system commands the outer ailerons to deflect up and the inboard flaps to deflect down, thus producing a decelerating force but creating no other moments. Yaw control can be provided by doing this on one side only. The forward fuselage has a large chine which maintains pitch and yaw stability at high angles of attack. The chine sheds a vortex at high angles of attack which generates lift over the wing and also acts as a fence, stabilizing the overwing airflow. Computer studies indicated that the YF-23A would have better turning performance than today's fighters, with no artificial handling limits. There is a midair refuelling receptacle located on the upper fuselage behind the pilot's http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f23_1.html (8 of 12)09-09-2006 13:26:45


cockpit. Like the YF-22A, the YF-23A has a fly-by-wire system that controls the settings of the aerodynamic surfaces in response to inputs from the pilot. The main undercarriage members retract rearwards into bays in the wing roots adjacent to the forward compressors of the engines. The nosewheel retracts into a well underneath the fuselage. The pilot sits well forward on the fuselage in an ACES II ejector seat. The pilot is underneath a two-piece cockpit canopy, with a fixed frameless windscreen and a clamshellopening rearward portion. A wide-field heads-up display sits low on the forward decking. The first YF-23A was powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney YF119 engines, the second by a pair of General Electric F120 engines. Both the YF119 and the YF120 engines are counter-rotating dual-spool, low bypass, power plants with single turbine disks in both low and high compression stages. The General Electric YF120 engine is a variable-cycle powerplant that operates as a turbofan at subsonic speeds and as a turbojet at supersonic speeds. The F120 engine has a low pressure rotor consisting of a two-stage fan and a single-stage high-pressure turbine with a triplex digital control unit mounted on the power plant itself. The YF120 has 40 percent fewer components than the F110. The YF119 is based around a conventional cycle with an advanced fuel control and management system. The F119 incorporates a three-stage fan as the low-pressure rotor with a singe-stage howpressure turbine stage and a six-stage high pressure compressor, also driven by a singlestage turbine. Exit guide vanes are cast as an integral part of the strutless diffusers and a fully-modulating cooling diffuser is located ahead of the two-dimensional convergentdivergent nozzle. The edge treatment is sustained on the fuselage afterbody, where a jagged-edged boat-tail deck fills in the gap between the two V-tails and blends the engine exhausts into the lowRCS planform. Unlike the YF-22A, the YF-23A does not use thrust vectoring. The exhaust nozzles are located well forward on the upper fuselage, between the tails, and are of the single expansion ramp type. There is one variable external flap on top of each nozzle, and the lower half of each nozzle is faired into a curved, fixed ramp. The engines exhaust into tunnels or trenches cut into the rear fuselage decking. These trenches are lined with head-resistant material, cooling the engine exhaust rapidly and making for a weaker IR source. In the pursuit of stealth, all of the weapons carried by the F-23 were to have been housed http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f23_1.html (9 of 12)09-09-2006 13:26:45


completely internally. The forward section of the fuselage underbelly was flat, with a capacious weapons bay immediately aft of the nose gear bay. The bay could carry four AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles. The missiles were to be launched by having the doors open and the missiles extend out into the airstream on trapezes. The missiles would then drop free and the motor would fire. The doors would then immediately shut, minimizing the amount of time that they were open and thus possibly causing more intense radar returns. It was planned that production F-23 would have had a stretched forebody, accommodating an extra missile bay for a pair of AIM-9 Sidewinders or ASRAAM air-to-air missiles in front of the AMRAAM bay. In addition, production F-23s would have carried a 20-mm M61 Vulcan cannon fitted inside the upper starboard fuselage just above the main weapons bay. The two YF-23As that were built were more like bare-bones demonstrators than true prototypes. In order to save money, the main landing gear members were modified F-18 components and the nose gear was from an F-15. The cockpit was from an F-15, and bigscreen monitors were not fitted. Northrop had not redesigned the aft end of the aircraft when the USAF dropped the thrust-reversal requirement, and the rear fuselage of the prototypes was broader and deeper than that planned for production machines. The prototypes did not have any radar, nor did it have any of the complex electronics that would have been required on a production aircraft. Northrop/McDonnell Douglas did built a complete prototype avionics system which was test flown in Westinghouse's BAC-111. Northrop did not plan to do high-angle of attack maneuvers with the prototype, nor did it intend to fire any missiles. However, wind tunnel tests at NASA Langley showed that the aircraft could perform tail slides and had no angle of attack limits and could self-recover from any spin except in those situations when the weapons doors were open. The first YF-23A (civil registration N231YF, USAF serial number 87-800), powered by Pratt & Whitney engines, was shipped to Edwards AFB in California in 1989. It was rolled out at Edwards AFB in a public ceremony on June 22, 1990. The first YF-23A flew at the Air Force Flight Test Center on August 27, 1990, with test pilot Paul Metz at the controls. It stayed in the air for 20 minutes. The only problem during this first flight was a left main gear which failed to latch correctly. A further four flights had taken place by midSeptember, including flights at supersonic speeds and inflight-refuelling tests with a KC135 which were carried out on September 14. The second YF-23A (87-801), powered by General Electric YF120 engines, followed on October 26. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f23_1.html (10 of 12)09-09-2006 13:26:45


Progress with the flight testing was rapid, test pilot Paul Metz maintaining that the flight characteristics were exactly what the computer simulations said they should be. The first YF-23A "supercruised"--that is, went through Mach 1 without afterburner--on its fifth flight. The aircraft achieved a maximum speed of Mach 1.8, maneuvered at up to 7 g, and reached a maximum angle of attack of 25 degrees. Aircraft number 1 achieved its highest supercruise of Mach 1.43 on November 14. The General Electric F120 engine on the second YF-23A was somewhat bigger and more powerful than the Pratt & Whitney F119 on the first YF-23A. Although the supercruise data on the second YF-23A are still classified, General Electric estimated that if the F120-powered YF-22A could reach almost Mach 1.6, the F120-powered YF-23A could reach Mach 1.8 without afterburning. On April 23, 1991, the Air Force announced that the Lockheed group had won the demonstration/valuation phase of the ATF contest. At the same time, the Pratt & Whitney entry was selected as the winning engine. Although detailed comparisons between the YF22A and the YF-23A are still highly classified, the general consensus is that the YF-23A is the faster of the two designs. In addition, it was probably the more stealthy of the two, particularly from the side and the rear. Since the YF-23A had no thrust vectoring and a smaller tail area, it is simpler and lighter. The only area in which the YF-22A had an obvious advantage was in low-speed maneuverability. The F119 engine was chosen over the F120 probably because it presented fewer technological risks. Both YF-23s remain in storage at Edwards AFB. Specification of Northrop YF-23A : Two Pratt & Whitney YF119-PW-100 or two General Electric YF120-GE-100 afterburning turbofans, each rated at 23,500 lb.s.t. dry and 35,000 lb.s.t. with afterburning. Performance (estimated): Maximum speed at military power Mach 1.6 (1059 mph). Maximum speed Mach 2.0 (1450 mph). at maximum power with afterburning at altitude. Maximum sustained cruising speed above 36,000 feet Mach 1.4-1.5 (925-990 mph). Service ceiling 65,000 feet. 3500 feet takeoff length. 750-800 nautical mile unrefuelled combat radius. Weights: 29,000 pounds empty, 54,000 pounds normal takeoff. 62,000 pounds combat takeoff weight. Dimensions: Wingspan 43 feet 7 inches, length 67 feet 5 inches, height 13 feet 11 inches, wing area 900 square feet. Four AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles are carried in internal bays in the sides of the engine intake ducts. Four AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles are carried in internal bays underneath the air intakes.



Sources: 1. Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23: The Fighter They Didn't Want, Bill

Sweetman, World Airpower Journal, Volume 7, Autumn/Winter 1991. 2. Lockheed F-22: Stealth with Agility, Bill Sweetman, World Airpower Journal,

Volume 6, Summer 1991. 3. From ATF to Lightning II: A Bolt in Anger. Design Options and the YF-23A, David

Baker, Air International, December 1994. 4. From ATF to Lightning II: A Bolt in Anger. Lockheed's YF-22A, David Baker, Air

International, January 1995.


US Navy Fighter Designations

US Navy Fighter Designations Last revised December 24, 1999

Up until 1922, there was no unified designation scheme for American naval aircraft. Before that time, aircraft had always served under their original manufacturer's designation (e. g. Curtiss N-9). On March 29, 1922, it was decided that some sort of unified designation scheme was needed for American naval planes. The airplanes were classified according to manufacturer, type, and model sequence by letters and numbers. The system was also used by the US Marine Corps, which is a part of the Navy, as well as by the US Coast Guard beginning in 1935. This system continued relatively unchanged until the introduction of the unified designation scheme of 1962. The system was not actually applied to all airplanes operated by the Navy. Sometimes, civilian aircraft taken into service by the Navy during World War II were operated under their civilian model numbers and were not given special Navy designations. Sometimes, aircraft acquired from the Army were assigned separate Navy designations, but on other occasions their original Army designations were kept. There were some postwar examples in which the Navy acquired aircraft in quantity and kept their original designations-e.g. the North American T-28 and the Beech T-34, with the changes made for naval use being reflected only in using a different suffix letter-e.g. T-28B and C and T-34B. The naval designation scheme is as follows (status prefix)(Type)(Manufacturer type sequence)(manufacturer) - (configuration sequence number)(special purpose suffix) The fields have the following meaning:

●

Type This was a letter or pair of letters which designated the role that the aircraft was to fulfill. Examples were F for fighter, BF for bomber-fighter, PB for patrol bomber,

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fnavydesig.html (1 of 11)09-09-2006 13:26:58


TB for torpedo bomber, S for scout, etc) ●

Manufacturer This was a one letter (on rare occasions two-letter) code which specified the manufacturer of the aircraft. For example, the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation of Bethpage, Long Island was designated by the letter F. The letter H stood for the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation. In some cases, a letter used by one manufacturer was reassigned to another after the first went out of business. During the heavy production period during World War 2, it was not uncommon to have several manufacturers using the same letter at the same time. Usually the aircraft were of different types, so there was no danger of confusion. However, when here was, one of the manufacturers would have to be issued a different letter. There is a full list of manufacturer's identification letters in Swanbourough and Bowers' book. Here are the manufacturer's letters that were used by builders of fighters. Letter Manufacturer A Brewster Aeronautical Corporation B

Boeing Aircraft Company

C

Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company

D

Douglas Aircraft Corporation

D

McDonnell Aircraft Corporation (to H in 1946)

F

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation

G

Goodyear Aircraft Corporation

G

Eberhart Aeroplane and Motor Company

H

Hall-Aluminum Aircraft Corporation (to 1940)

H

McDonnell Aircraft Corporation (1946 ->)

J

Berliner-Joyce Aircraft Corporation (to 1935)

J

North American Aviation Corporation (1937->)

L

Loening Aircraft Corporation (to 1932)

L

Bell Aircraft Corporation

M

General Motors Corporation (Eastern Aircraft Division)

N

Seversky Aircraft Corporation

O

Lockheed Aircraft Corporation (Plant B, 1931-1950)



●

R

Ryan Aeronautical Company

T

Northrop Aircraft, Inc

U

Chance Vought Corporation

V

Lockheed Aircraft Corporation (Vega plant)

W

Wright Aeronautical Corporation

Y

Convair

Manufacturer type sequence number This number indicated the procurement sequence for different models of a similar type ordered from the same manufacturer. For example, FF-1 was the first Navy fighter ordered from Grumman, F2F-1 the second, F3F-1 the third, etc. Sometimes, some type sequence numbers had to be skipped because they conflicted with previous designations. For example, Brewster's first Navy fighter had to be designated F2A, since the designation FA had already been used by General Aviation Corporation for an experimental fighter.

●

Aircraft Configuration Sequence Number. This number identified the sequence of different modifications within the same basic aircraft. For example, there were five different versions of the Grumman F6F Hellcat, designated by F6F-1, F6F-2, F6F-3, F6F-4, and F6F-5.

●

Status Prefix This letter was added in front of the class designation to indicate special status such as experimental or service test. X generally stood for experimental, Y for service test. For example, the prototype Convair Sea Dart was designated XF2Y-1, the service test aircraft being designated YF2Y-1.

●

Special Purpose Suffix This was a letter which was added after the configuration sequence number to indicate a minor alteration deemed not sufficient to justify a new configuration sequence number. Sometimes these were field modifications, but sometimes these



modifications were performed at the factory. For example, the night fighter modification of the F6F-5 Hellcat was designated F6F-5N. A photographic reconnaissance version of the F6F-5 was designated F6F-5P. The following is a list of Navy fighter aircraft that were ordered under the 1922-1962 designation system. ●

General Aviation 1. General Aviation FA

●

Brewster 1. Brewster F2A 2. Brewster F3A Corsair

●

Boeing 1. Boeing FB 2. Boeing F2B 3. Boeing F3B 4. Boeing F4B 5. Boeing F5B 6. Boeing F6B 7. Boeing F7B 8. Boeing F8B

●

Curtiss



1. Curtiss CF 2. Curtiss F2C 3. Curtiss F3C 4. Curtiss F4C 5. Curtiss F6C 6. Curtiss F7C 7. Curtiss F8C Falcon 8. Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk 9. Curtiss F10C 10. Curtiss F11C 11. Curtiss F12C 12. Curtiss F13C 13. Curtiss F14C 14. Curtiss F15C

●

McDonnell 1. McDonnell FD Phantom 2. McDonnell F2D Banshee

●

Douglas 1. Douglas FD



2. Douglas F3D Skyknight 3. Douglas F4D Skyray 4. Douglas F5D Skylancer 5. Douglas F6D Missileer

●

Grumman 1. Grumman FF 2. Grumman F2F 3. Grumman F3F 4. Grumman F4F Wildcat 5. Grumman F6F Hellcat 6. Grumman F7F Tigercat 7. Grumman F8F Bearcat 8. Grumman F9F Panther/Cougar 9. Grumman F10F Jaguar 10. Grumman F11F Tiger 11. Grumman F12F

●

Eberhart 1. Eberhart FG 2. Eberhart F2G


US Navy Fighter Designations ●

Goodyear 1. Goodyear FG Corsair 2. Goodyear F2G

●

Hall 1. Hall FH

●

McDonnell 1. McDonnell FH Phantom 2. McDonnell F2H Banshee 3. McDonnell F3H Demon 4. McDonnell F4H Phantom II

●

Berliner-Joyce 1. Berliner-Joyce FJ 2. Berliner-Joyce F2J

●

North American 1. North American FJ Fury

●

Loening 1. Loening FL

●

Bell



1. Bell FL 2. Bell F2L

●

General Motors 1. General Motors FM Wildcat 2. General Motors F2M 3. General Motors F3M

●

Seversky 1. Seversky FN

●

Lockheed 1. Lockheed FO

●

Ryan 1. Ryan FR Fireball 2. Ryan F2R Dark Shark

●

Northrop 1. Northrop FT 2. Northrop F2T Black Widow

●

Vought



1. Vought FU 2. Vought F2U 3. Vought F3U 4. Vought F4U Corsair 5. Vought XF5U 6. Vought F6U Pirate 7. Vought F7U Cutlass 8. Vought F8U Crusader

●

Lockheed 1. Lockheed FV

●

Wright 1. Wright F2W 2. Wright F3W

●

Convair 1. Convair FY Pogo 2. Convair F2Y Sea Dart

1962 Unified Designation System The Navy's designation system lasted until September 16, 1962, when the US Defense



Department decided to introduce a new designation system. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara supposedly got frustrated when his advisers tried to explain the aircraft designation system to him, and was surprised to find that the Navy and the Air Force had two different designation systems, often for what was basically the same airplane (e.g. F110 for the Air Force version of the Phantom, F4H for the Navy version). The Secretary ordered that the Navy abandon its separate designation system and redesignate all of its aircraft according to the Air Force system. For fighters, the Air Force sequence had reached F-111, and the Defense Department decided to start a brand new fighter designation series with 1, which would cover both Navy and Air Force fighters. Existing Navy fighter aircraft in service at that time were assigned new numbers in the new unified fighter system. New Designation

Old Designation

North American F-1 Fury North American FJ Fury McDonnell F-2 Banshee


McDonnell F-3 Demon

McDonnell F3H Demon

McDonnell F-4 Phantom II McDonnell F4H Phantom/F-110 Spectre Douglas F-6 Skyray

Douglas F4D Skyray

Convair F-7 Sea-Dart

Convair F2Y Sea Dart

Vought F-8 Crusader

Vought F8U Crusader

Grumman F-9 Cougar

Grumman F9F Cougar

Douglas F-10 Skyknight

Douglas F3D Skyknight

Grumman F-11 Tiger

Grumman F11F Tiger

Air Force fighters in service at the time (e.g. F-100, F-101, etc) retained their original designations, but new Air Force fighters ordered after 1962 were assigned numbers in the new unified designation scheme (F-15, F-16). New Navy fighters were assigned numbers in the system as well, for example, the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, which would probably have borne the designation F13F under the old system, assuming that the number 13 would have been used. Sources 1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers 2. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner 3. Warplanes of the Second World War, William Green http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fnavydesig.html (10 of 11)09-09-2006 13:26:58


4. United States Navy Aircraft Since 1911, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M.

Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1990. 5. McDonnell-Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Rene Francillon


Brewster F2A

Brewster F2A

Brewster XF2A-1 Brewster F2A-1 Brewster B-239 with Finland Brewster F2A-2 Brewster B-339B Brewster 339 in Netherlands East Indies Brewster Buffalo Mk I Brewster F2A-3 Brewster 339-23 End of the Line for Brewster

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f2a.html09-09-2006 13:27:04

Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk

Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk Index Last revised: 5 October 1997

1. Parasite Fighter ●

Sources

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f9ci.html09-09-2006 13:27:11

Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk -- Chapter 1

Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk - Chapter 1 Parasite Fighter Last revised: 29 May 1998 Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk - Sources The Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk had originally been designed as a small single-seat shipboard fighter developed in response to a Navy spec laid down on May 10, 1930. It was in competition with the General Aviation (formerly Fokker) XFA-1 and the Berliner-Joyce XFJ-1. The XF9C-1 (Navy serial number A8731) was ordered from Curtiss on June 30, 1930. It made its first flight in March of 1931. It had a metal monocoque fuselage and tail and fabric-covered metal-frame wings. The upper wing joined the fuselage at the top, giving the pilot an excellent upward view. Power was provided by a 420 hp Wright R-975C (J-6-9) Whirlwind radial engine. The high-pressure tires had no wheel pants or fairings. XF9C-2 was the unofficial designation given to a second prototype built by Curtiss as a private venture. The engine was the 438 hp R-975E-3 engine, and it had a single-leg wire braced undercarriage and a four-inch-higher location for the upper wing that resulted in a more noticeable gull-wing effect at the fuselage. In addition, a set of wheel spats were fitted. The Navy's small fighter concept did not ultimately prove successful, and the Sparrowhawk would have been abandoned along with its rivals had it not been for the appearance of an entirely new mission. Contracts for two airships, the USS Akron and Macon had been issued on October 6, 1928, and it was intended from the start that these airships should be capable of carrying aircraft and launching and retrieving them while in flight. While the airships were under construction, however, plans for a suitable fighter to be carried by them lagged. The F9C, the best of the three competitors, was deemed to be the only high-performance type which was small enough to be carried aboard these airships. The first airship docking tests were carried out with the prototype XF9C-1. The XF9C-1 was fitted with airship hook-on gear at the Naval Aircraft Factory and was transferred to Lakehurst, New Jersey for trials. It first hooked-on to the airship Los Angeles on October 17, 1931. Based on these tests, the Navy ordered six production versions of the XF9C-2 (designated F9C-2) in October 1931. Navy serial numbers were 9056/9061. The Navy then purchased the second prototype, and the XF9C-2 designation became official. The serial number 9264 was assigned to the XF9C-2. 9264 was later modified to full http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f9c-01.html (1 of 3)09-09-2006 13:27:17


production standards, and it was redesignated just plain F9C-2. As first flown on April 14, 1932, the first production F9C-2 (serial number 9056) was fitted with the single-leg XF9C-2 undercarriage. However, this undercarriage was soon changed to the earlier XF9C-1 tripod type, and the other F9C-2s were completed with the same type. After a short period in service, the vertical fin area of the F9C-2s was increased by adding a new rudder post eight inches aft of the original. The original high-pressure tires of the XF9C-1 were replaced by low-pressure types, and the wheels were enclosed in open-sided fairings. The production F9C-2 was powered by the 438 hp Wright R-975E-3 Whirlwind radial engine, enclosed in an anti-drag ring. Maximum speed was 176.5 mph, and initial climb was 1690 feet per minute. Service ceiling was 19,200 feet. Range was 297 miles. Weights were 2117 pounds empty, 2779 lbs gross. Armament was a pair of 0.30-cal machine guns mounted in the upper fuselage deck, firing through the cylinder banks and synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. The first F9C-2 made its first hook-on to the Akron on June 29, 1932. All six F9C-2s were delivered to the Navy in September 1932. The XF9C-1 and all six F9C-2s were originally assigned to the Akron, which was based at Lakehurst, New Jersey. The airship could each carry up to four F9C-2s in an internal hangar, with one more Sparrowhawk suspended from an external station. The airplanes were fitted with a hook-on gear above the fuselage which enabled them to fly up under the airship and engage a trapeze at the bottom. Once firm contact was made, an arm on the trapeze would swing down to steady the rear fuselage. The aircraft would then be pulled up into the belly of the airship and stored in the hangar. Although the F9C-2s were popularly regarded as defensive fighters, their principal mission was to act as scouts to extend the effective operating area of the mother ships, which were themselves used as scouts. Consolidated N2Y-1 two-seat trainers were used as "skyhook" trainers for pilots assigned to the Akron and the Macon. They were fitted with hook-on gear above the fuselage. These were later replaced by the Waco XJW-1 two-seat trainer, which was a modification of the Waco UBF commercial sport plane. These planes were also used to fly mail and passengers back and forth between the airships and the ground. The Akron was lost at sea off New Jersey on April 4, 1933, but no airplanes were aboard the airship at that time. The Sparrowhawks were then transferred to the Macon, based at Moffett Field, California. They were later joined by the XF9C-2, which had been redesignated F9C-2. In addition, the prototype XF9C-1 was assigned to the Macon as a spare. After brief service aboard the Macon, the XF9C-1 was transferred to the Naval Aircraft Factory and was scrapped there in January 1935. On a few occasions when the Sparrowhawks were operating exclusively from the Macon without using http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f9c-01.html (2 of 3)09-09-2006 13:27:17


land bases, they were flown without undercarriages. This reduced both weight and drag and allowed the installation of a streamlined auxiliary fuel tank under the fuselage which increased their range still further. The Macon went down at sea off Point Sur, California on February 12, 1935. She took four F9C-2s with her when she was destroyed. The loss of the second mother airship brought an abrupt end to the parasite fighter program. The three F9C-2s that were not aboard the Macon when she went down were stripped of their hook-on gear and were redesignated XF9C-2. Two of them were scrapped at San Diego in 1936. The sole surviving XF9C-2 (Navy serial number 9264) was reassigned to the Naval Air Station at Anacostia, Maryland. In 1939, 9264 was given to the Smithsonian Institution, fitted with a replacement skyhook built for the purpose at the Naval Aircraft Factory, and put on display with an inaccurate color scheme and the wrong Navy serial number of 9056 taken from an F9C-2. These errors were corrected when the twice-designated XF9C-2 was refurbished by the Museum in 1975. Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk - Sources


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f9c-01.html (3 of 3)09-09-2006 13:27:17

Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk -- Sources

Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk - Sources Last revised: 29 May 1998 Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk - Chapter 1: Parasite Fighter ● ●

● ●

Peter M. Bowers, Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Naval Institute Press, 1987. Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, United States Navy Aircraft Since 1911, Naval Institute Press, 1990. William T. Larkins, US Navy Aircraft, 1921-1941, Orion Books, 1988. John Wegg, General Dynamics Aircraft and their Predecessors, Naval Institute Press, 1990.


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f9c-s.html09-09-2006 13:27:20

BAC TSR.2

BAC TSR.2 Origins The tale of the TSR.2 began in March 1957, when the Air Staff announced its operational requirement GOR.339. The GOR.339 document (which later became OR.339, and after review OR.343) called for a tactical strike and reconaissance aircraft, to enter service in 1964. The GOR.339 aircraft was to be able to operate in all weather conditions, without relying on external systems (such as navigation beacons) to complete its mision. The mission pattern assumed was an attack at very low level, at high subsonic speed on most of the way to the target, with a supersonic dash over the target. At high altitude, the aircraft should be able to fly at Mach 2 and to "supercruise", although this term had not been invented yet. Despite being a tactical strike aircraft, it had to be able to reach targets up to 1000nm (1850km) away. The load would be a tactical nuclear free-fall bomb, or conventional bombs. A crew of two, pilot and navigator, was to fly the aircraft. A good take-off and landing performance was required. >From the start, some fog surrounded GOR.339. The introduction to this document stated that the requirement contained the "broad outlines" of the project. It also stated that the aircraft would be able to fly missions to the USSR, with in-flight refuelling, and thus added an unofficial strategic dimension to the GOR.339 requirement. This suggests strongly that, although the GOR.339 was officially intended to replace only the Canberra, it was also being regarded by the Air Staff as a possible replacement and enhancement for the V-bomber force. After the cancellation of the Skybolt air-launched ballistic missile, it had been decided to transfer the nuclear deterrent to the Royal Navy and its Polaris submarines. But the RAF wanted to retain a nuclear capability. The GOR.339 was considered to be suitable for a condition of "limited" nuclear war. Proposals were submitted by Avro, Blackburn, Bristol, Fairey, English Electric, Handley Page, de Havilland, Short Brothers, and Vickers. The proposal from Blackburn was a modified version of the NA.39 Buccaneer naval attack aircraft, which it was going to build for the Royal Navy. Although the NA.39 did not meet the requirements of GOR.339, the Secretary of State for Air suggested that the Buccaneer could be required as an interim replacement for the Canberra. The GOR.339, he suggested, would not enter service before 1968. But this idea was dismissed by the RAF: The Blackburn NA.39 was unsuitable because it was subsonic, had a too short range, required a too long runway, and had an insufficiently advanced bombing system. The RAF would rather prefer the keep the Canberra (subsonic, and with a primitive bombing system) in service a few years longer! Obviosuly, there was a fear that adoption of the NA.39 as a palliative would lead to abandonment of the GOR.339. Nobody can have expected that in the end, it would be the other way around. The RN of course liked the idea of the RAF accepting a derivative of its NA.39, because this would reduce the costs. The First Sea Lord advocated the NA.39 as much superior to the Canberra, and available in 1961. He even offered to share the ordered pre-production aircraft with the RAF. His suggestion was again rejected by the Air Ministry. As the Air Ministry would state later, for the purposes of the RAF the NA.39 would be obsolescent by the time it

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/tsr2.html (1 of 10)2006-09-19 15:04:20

BAC TSR.2

could enter service! On 17 June 1958, the Deputy Chief of Air Staff defended the OR.339 in the Defence Research Policy Committee (DRPC). AM G. Tuddle argued that the OR.339 was also vital to the aircraft industry, the position of the UK in the NATO, the Army, and (suprise!) the Navy. He added that it would probably be "the last military fighting aircraft developed in the UK." This statement was probably based on the 1957 "Defence White Paper", that boldly had declared all manned aircraft obsolescent in favour of missiles. The GOR.339 was making an exception on this rule. According to Tuddle, the development of OR.339 would cost 35 million, and it would be ready in 1965. The representative of the Navy correctly dismissed these predictions as overly optimistic, and advocated NA.39 again to fill the gap between the Canberra and OR.339 --- it was even possible, he suggested, to delay OR.339 by two years. However, when it was later suggested that the RN could adopt the aircraft developed for the RAF, the Admiralty was quick to answer that NA.39 and OR.339 were not in competition and designed for different roles. On 10 September, the Minister of Defence authorized a production order for the NA.39, and indicated that he would not yet set a limit on production. The suggestion that in the future some surplus NA.39 might be available upset the RAF, and it began putting pressure on the Minister, H. Watkinson, to decide on OR.339. In November the Ministry of Defence gave authorizaton to ask the Treasury for the money for the development. But then the estimated development costs were already up to 70 million, twice the amount mentioned in June. When the Air Ministry asked the Treasury to allocate 62 million to them, with an option on an additional 15 to 25 million, this provoked a sharp reaction. The response from the Treasury amounted to a thinly veiled accusation that the RAF had deliberately underestimated the costs to safeguard the programme, and suggested to look at the NA.39 option again. The Treasury also complained that the MoD asked for large amounts of money, while it was not yet itself convinced of the need for the OR.339! On 1 January 1959, a press statement was issued, using for the first time the name TSR.2. The acronym TSR indicated the aircraft's function of Tactical Strike / Reconaissance, although the first documents described it as Tactical Support / Reconaissance. TSR.1 was supposed to be the Canberra. It is also possible that someone had remembered the original TSR.II --- the prototype of the Fairey Swordfish! The air staff requirement was revised and now became OR.343. It was required that one squadron would be fully equipped at the end of 1965. Thus began the long fight of the RAF against delays of the TSR.2 program. The 1965 goal could only be met, it was agreed, if no changes were made to the specifications during development and by a very concentrated effort. There was still anxiety about the very high costs, and on 7 March the Chiefs of Staffs were asked to review the need for the TSR.2 again. They submitted a paper in May. In a later meeting, Minister of Defence mentioned that there were two cures to the cost problem. The first was selling the TSR.2 to the USAF, which he intended to try during his next visit to the USA. This was a reasonable hope, because the USAF did already have a licence-built version of the Canberra in service, the Martin B-57. The other


BAC TSR.2

option was giving the TSR.2 an extended strategic role by fitting it with a missile. The latter option would of course not reduce the cost, but it would make the TSR.2 more useful, and thus help justifying the expenditure. But the Minister's suggestion that this could be a weapon "like Bulpup" revealed his lack of techical knowledge: The US Bullpup had a range of about 10km. The development of a new cruise missile for the TSR.2 was under consideration. Blue Steel, the missile carried by the V-bombers, was much too large.

Contracts, Management, and Cancellation The first TSR.2 contract was placed on 3 June 1959, but this was only a development contract, running until 30 July 1960. It was not until the autumn of 1960 that all branches of the government finally agreed with the development of the TSR.2, and the contract was signed on 6 October. The Treasury agreed with an expenditure of 61.7 million pound. A Progress Review Committee, a Development Progress Committee, a Managament Board and a Steering Committee would supervise the TSR.2 development. In the long run, these committee would show themselves complete incapable of controlling the TSR.2 project. After the 1959 elections, Duncan Sandys had begun to reorganize what was left of the British aviation industry. There was a feeling that there were too many and too small companies --- the financial weakness of some of them was due to Sandys' own 1957 Defence White Paper. Not only were these thought to be uncompetitive, it was also an expensive situation for the taxpayer. The creation of the Vbomber force had resulted in contract for two interim types (the Sperrin and the Valiant) and two definitive types (the Victor and the Vulcan) at great expense. In the future there would certainly be fewer, but more expensive development contracts, and the creation of larger conglomerates was logical. To achieve this reorganisation, the government made it a condition in the contracts for GOR.339 and other projects, and even cancelled orders for a batch of Victor bombers because Handley Page refused to cooperate. Hence the contract for GOR.339 was placed with a conglomerate of Vickers-Armstrong, English Electric, and Bristol Aeroplane. BAC was created speedily, and a final agreement was signed in in June 1960. The three merging companies had 40:40:20 shares. At the engine side a similar merger occured: The Olympus 22R Mk.320 engines would be developed by Bristol-Siddeley Engines, also recently created by a merger of Bristol Engines and Armstrong Siddeley. This choice of engine had not been the one of BAC, which had preferred Rolls-Royce engines. It was easier to sign a formal merger than to achieve integration between design team and work forces that were used to compete sharply with each other. Not everyone was enthusiast about the enforced merger, and the cooperation within BAC often lacked effectiveness. The allocation of the contract was by no means the end of the political dicussions. On 27 March 1962 the MoD called for a new review of the TSR.2 project, because estimates of the development cost had risen to 137 million. The DRPC decided that the TSR.2 development could continue, but only on condition that the project would be reviewed again when new cost estimates became available. In July http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/tsr2.html (3 of 10)2006-09-19 15:04:20

BAC TSR.2

1962 the Managament Board for the TSR.2 project heard more bad news: The first flight date was being shifted back to August 1963. The reason was highly embarrasing: BAC had failed to produce a number of drawings, and certain parts of the prototypes had therefore not been manufactured! In December 1962 the cost estimates were up to 175--200 million, with a rather large margin of error. The estimated unit cost had risen to 2.1 million, and the predicted service entry of the TSR.2 had slipped back to late 1967. The Management Board was highly dissatisfied, and suggested that BAC could improve its own management of the programme. The director of BAC, George Edwards, agreed and made some suggestions. BAC was also willing to accept "incentive clauses" in their contract. Officials began to take a cynical view at the cost of the TSR.2 program, but in February 1963 the DRPC agreed again with the continuation of it. Suggestions were made by the MoD and the Admiralty that the number of TSR.2s could be reduced to 50 or 60 instead if 138, but the RAF and MoA rejected these. In June the estimates were up again, to 197--222 million. In June 1963 an order was placed for eleven pre-production TSR.2s, to reinforce the development batch of 9 aircraft. Important was also a visit by an Australian delegation, because the RAAF wanted 24 strike aircraft. (The RAAF would later also select the F-111, and it would actually receive these aircraft.) The confidence was now growing, and in October the MoA gave a press release on the TSR.2. The reaction from the press was considered favorable by the MoA, but "inevitably there was a tendency to dwell upon the cost." The RAF began making plans for the training of TSR.2 crews. In December 1963 the TSR.2 program was debated in the House of Commons. The Times commented sarcastically that there were "rumours of cancellation", and official denials of this "strenuous enough to spread panic through the arms industry". There were also questions about the strategic role of the TSR.2, because of an earlier decision that the RAF would abandon this role to the RN and its Polaris missiles. In his reply the MoD stressed that the strategic role of the TSR.2 was only a bonus, not the reason for its existence. As far as the TSR.2 was concerned, 1964 was just more of the same: Rising costs, slipping time schedules, and disagreements between government officials and BAC. It was now obvious that the RAF, MoA and MoD had lost their confidence in the management of BAC. The TSR.2 had still not flown in July 1964, but cost estimates were now at 240 million, with an unit price of 2.3 to 2.8 million. It made its first light on 27 September. In October 1964, a Labour government came in power. It wanted to reduce the defence budget to 2000 million a year by 1969/1970. And because TSR.2 was the most expensive development contract running, it was a logical target. The R&D costs were now estimated at 272 million, and the production costs for 158 aircraft at 469 million. This prompted yet another review of the TSR.2 program, and a number of foreign types were considered to replace it, including the TFX, later known as the F-111. This was, sadly, also a mismanaged project, and an Air Staff team sent to Washington reported that "There is some reason to believe that there are difficulties about aerodynamics, weight growth and rising cost." Nevertheless, it was estimated that 158 TFX aircraft could be acquired for 332 million.


BAC TSR.2

Several means of cutting the costs were also considered, and a proposal to negotiate an agreement on a fixed-price contract was approved in March 1965. Meanwhile, it was decided to update the specifications of the TSR.2 by taking into account the first flight test results. On 15 January 1965, the Secretary of State for Defence expressed for te first time his view that the TSR.2 should be cancelled, along with the P.1154 and the HS681. The TFX would be cheaper, although it was admitted that costs might rise --- this aircraft was still in an early stage of development. At the end of January, it was decided to defer a decision until a closer comparison of the TFX and the TSR.2 had been made. The Prime Minister announced this decision on the House of Commons in early February. He estimated that this would cost the taxpayer 4 million per month. At the end of March, the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee reviewed its position. BAC had refused to accept a fixed price contract, although it had been willing to accept a limited financial responsability. The final decision was made in two Cabinet meetings on 1 April. An option for the F111A was secured before announcing the cancellation, because the government did not want to be "in the hands of the Americans". The USA was willing to sell the F-111 at an unit price of 2.125 million pound for the first ten and 2.32 million for later aircraft. The UK did not yet have to commit itself to actually buying the F-111. On 6 April 1965, the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, announced the cancellation of the TSR.2 in the House of Commons. The Secretary of State for Defense, Denis Healey, explained that the government had been very reluctant to do so, but that the cost of the TSR.2 program was becoming an "intolerable burden", because the total cost of 750 millions pounds amounted to 5 million per aircraft, assuming a production of 150 aircraft. Such an expenditure, he declared, could not be cost-effective. He added that even the best efforts of BAC and the government could not provide any "assurance that the Government's ultimate financial responsibility would be limited". Healey continued to say that Britain could no longer afford to produce combat aircraft for its own armed forces only. He went one important step further when he announced the governments intention to reduce the number of strike aircraft that would be bought for the RAF. "It might even be possible to reshape our defences in such a way as to dispense with this type of aircraft altogether." When questioned about this remarkable statement, Healey admitted that this was very unlikely. It would only occur if Britain would decide to retire its forces from the Middle East and Asia. He mentioned that the government did indeed intend to buy a new strike aircraft, the General Dynamics F-111A, and that this could be done for less than half the price of the TSR.2 program. To that date, BAC had received 125 million for the development of the TSR.2, and about 70 million had still to be paid.

Design


BAC TSR.2

The TSR.2 was intended to cruise at Mach 2.05 at an altitude of 36000ft (10100m), and to achieve supersonic speeds at treetop height. This had to be combined with a long range and a good take-off and landing performance. These requirements called for powerful engines, a large fuel load, and a small wing. The most remarkable characteristic of the TSR.2 was its enormous length. >From front to tail the fuselage contained a small radar, the cockpit, an avionics bay, a large fuel tank, the jet intakes and another fuel tank, the bomb bay, and the large engines with two more fuel tanks. The fuselage was crammed with fuel, and even the engines were almost completely surrounded by fuselage fuel tanks 3 and 4. About 80% of the fuel was in the fuselage, the rest was integral wing tanks. The internal fuel capacity was 5588 imp. gallons (25425 liter). The small wing was of delta planform with cropped wingtips. Instead of giving the entire wing anhedral, the wingtips were turned sharply downwards. Almost the entire wing was an integral fuel tank. Two pylons could be fitted under each wing, to carry missiles, bombs, or even more fuel --- the ferry tanks contained 2400 imp gallons, 10920 liter. A small, highly loaded wing gives the smoothest ride at very low altitude, but to achieve the requested good take-off and landing performance, the entire wing trailing surface had to be fitted with blown flaps. They could be turned down to 50 degrees for landing, the take-off setting was 35 degrees. There were no ailerons, and the TSR.2 relied on differential operational of the tailplanes for roll control. The tailfin and tailplanes had no fixed parts, but the elevators were split in two sections. Four airbrakes were fitted on the aft fuselage, in the narrow gap between the wing trailing edge and the tailfins.

Engines The engine intakes were of half-circular type, with movable shock cones. There were auxiliary intake doors behind the lips of the main intakes. The Olympus 22R Mk.320 engines were twin-spool axial-flow engines, with variable afterburners and water injection. They were designed for sustained cruise at Mach 2+, a feature which would be used later in the Concorde, which was also powered by the Olympus --- at least the money for the engine development was not wasted. The development of the Olympus 22R engine was not without problems. That there was a serious problem was demonstrated in December 1962, when a Vulcan testbed exploded dring ground running. The event was traced back to a resonant vibration of the turbine, excited by the coolant air flow for the turbine blades. In July 1964 the shaft of an Olympus engine failed during ground testing, requiring more modifications. And after the engines had been installed in the first TSR.2, the vibration problems were back.

Crew Accomodation


BAC TSR.2

The two crew members sat far forward in the fuselage, on Martin Baker Mk.8A ejection seats. The location of the cockpit was chosen to reduce the vibrations during low-level flights as much as possible. The view from the front cockpit was very good, without any glare even in bright sunlight conditions. Only during the initial climb had the seat to be raised. The navigator only had a view on the outside world by two small windows in the side of the hood. Directly in front of him was nothing but a large electronics panel. The most serious complaint about the cockpit design was related to the very unreliable and temperamental air conditioning.

Equipment The Autonetics Verdan computer system was an American product, developed for the A-5 Vigilante carrier-based jet bomber --- an aircraft which had many similarities with the TSR.2. It combined data from the nose radar, the Doppler navigation radar, and an intertial navigation system. The TSR.2 was also fitted with a radar altitude meter and systems to keep the TSR.2 automatically at an altitude of 90m. The system was designed for blind attacks with an error of less than 100ft (30m). The nose radar had limited search capability, only over sea or flat terrain, and an air-to-air capacity suitable to assist in the connection with tanker aircraft. It was intended primarily for navigation and bomb aiming. For the reconaissance radar, a pallet could be installed in the bomb bay. This contained a side-looking radar, cameras, and a line scanner.

Landing Gear The TSR.2 stood high above the ground, and a not too tall person could walk under it. It had a backward retracting nose leg with twin wheels. The mainwheel had two wheel in tandem, and retracted into the fuselage. During tests, there were several occurences of heavy vibrations upon touchdown, and modifications to the landing gear were planned. A tail parachute was fitted and routinely used during the test flights.

Prototypes The original contract called for 9 prototypes. This was later extended by the order of 11 pre-production aircraft. The first TSR.2 was rolled out at Weybridge (Vickers) on 4 March 1964, but the first flight was repeatedly delayed. It was found that the engines required modification because they did not fit into the TSR.2, a sign of the poor communications between BAC and Bristol Sidddeley. After relocation of the http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/tsr2.html (7 of 10)2006-09-19 15:04:20

BAC TSR.2

engine accesories they were installed, but during ground tests there were serious vibrations. A palliative was implemented, and the TSR.2 was cleared for its first flight, but with an engine power limitation. Afterwards, test pilot Roland Beamont commented: "It is clear that the current engine ratings leave the aircraft critically short of thrust, and this situation is likely to dictate the rate of flight development." New engines would have to be fitted, and this caused again a delay of months. There was pressure to have the TSR.2 ready to fly at Farnborough's SBAC show in September. But the first flight of XR219 was finally made on 27 September, with Roland P. Beamont at the controls and D. J. Bowen in the navigator's seat. For this flight, the undercarriage was left extended and the engine intake configuration fixed. Beamont found that the TSR.2 was pleasant to fly, without any major deficiencies. The behavior was very close to that predicted by design studies and a simulator. The second flight was not made until the end of December, because the engines had to be replaced. The undercarriage was also troublesome, and not until the tenth flight was a successful undercarriage retraction achieved. This was on 6 February 1965. Supersonic speed was achieved on the 14th flight, on 22 February, when XR219 achieved supersonic speed at "Max. Dry Intermediate" power. The full performance envelope could not be investigated during this flight, because of an error in the No.2 engine (port) which prevented the selection of afterburning. Nevertheless Beamont flew the aircraft to Mach 1.12, with only the No.1 engine at 1/3 afterburner. The XR219 remained completely controllable, with only a small trim change required. The TSR.2 was directionally very stable, stable in pitch, and somewhat unstable laterally at subsonic speeds. Supersonic flight was reached with only mild buffet between Mach 0.93 and Mach 1, and no trim change was needed. At supersonics speeds it became laterally stable, and behaved flawlessly. While everything was fine on the aerodynamics side, there were numerous theething troubles with other elements of the TSR.2. The undercarriage continued to cause problems, with serious (1.5g) oscillations on touch-down. The cabin air conditioning failed to operate in any reasonable way. The engines were a source of constant problems. After the cancellation on 6 April 1965, the three TSR.2s built were immediatly grounded. They were never to fly again.

Aftermath In January 1968 the UK cancelled its option on the F-111. At that time the favorite aircraft of McNamara was in serious trouble. It fell below the specifications, was seriously delayed and had become even more expensive than the TSR.2. Although the USN abandoned its F-111B carrier-borne fighter version as totally unsuitable, the F-111 was not cancelled. Later the F-111 would prove that it was an effective strike aircraft. It was decided to buy the F-4 Phantom for the tactical attack role, and the Buccaneer as long-range strike http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/tsr2.html (8 of 10)2006-09-19 15:04:20

BAC TSR.2

aircraft. This was a remarkable reversal of fortunes. A single Buccaneer, XK487, had been used as a testbed for the TSR.2's radar in 1963, and had attracted new interest from the RAF because of its excellent performance at low altitudes. In 1969 the RAF received the first example of the aircraft it had rejected twelve years earlier. In July 1970 No.12 squadron became the first operational Buccanneer unit of the RAF. The land-based version of the Buccaneer was the S.2A. The S.2B was a modified version, which had a bulging bomb bay door with an additional fuel tank, and provision for the Martel missile.

Storage 1. 2. 3. 4.

XR222 is in the Imperial War Museum at Duxford XR220 is on display at Cosford in Wolverhampton XR219, XR221 and XR223 are reportedyl at the shooting range of Shoeburyness. XR224, XR225, XR226 and XR227 were scrapped. The nose of one is at the Brooklands museum in Weybridge.

Statistics Here four aircraft are compared: The TSR.2, the Buccaneer S.2 that effectively replaced it, the General Dynamics F-111A that was once selected to replace it, and the North American A-5 Vigilante. The mention of the latter may be a surprise in this context. But this carrier-borne attack aircraft resembled the TSR.2 in many ways, and actually preceded it by seven years. It had the same all-moving tail surfaces, the long fuselage, the blown flaps, the inertial navigation system, the twin engines and the internal bomb bay. It failed as an attack aircraft because of a complicated and ineffective bomb bay design. The data listed here are for the reconnaissance version, which carried more fuel.

Type

BAC TSR.2

Blackburn Buccaneer S.2

G.D. F-111A

North American RA-5C Vigilante

Engines

Bristol Siddeley Rolls-Royce RB168 Olympus Mk.320 Spey Mk.101

P&W TF30-P-3

General Electric J79GE-10

Thrust

13865kg

8380k

8127kg

Dry Thrust

8880kg

Wing Span

11.28m

13.41m

19.20m / 9.74m

16.17m

Length

27.13m

19.33m

22.37m

23.35m

Height

7.32m

4.97m

5.22m

5.91

Wing Area

65m2

47.82m2

48.77m2

70.0m2

13608kg

20920kg

17024kg

28123kg

44780kg

36133kg

19090l

13633l

Empty Weight 20334kg Max. Weight Fuel

34500kg

5105kg

5435kg

25404l


BAC TSR.2

Load internal

6 * 454kg

4 * 454kg

Load external

2722kg

5443kg

Max. Speed

2185km/h

Low Level Speed

1352km/h

Ceiling Action rad. Max. Range

2337km/h at 16290m

2229km/h at 12190m

1040km/h

1470km/h

+12190m

17900m

14750m

2140km

2414km

1850km

Range

2 * 340kg

3700km 6860km

5090km

Sources 1. RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces. Humphrey Wynn, Ministry of Defence Air Historical Branch. HMSO, 1994. 2. Testing Early Jets. Roland Beamont, Airlife, 1990. 3. Airplane Nr.16. Published by De Agostini (Netherlands). 4. Handley Page Victor. Andrew Brookes, Ian Allan Ltd., 1988. 5. RAF Buccaneer. Peter R. Foster, Ian Allan Ltd., 1987. 6. Chronicle of Aviation. Ed. by Bill Gunston, Chronicle Communications, 1992.

Emmanuel Gustin [email protected]


de Havilland D.H.89

de Havilland D.H.89 Last revised: 16 November 1995

The De Havilland D.H.89 Dragon Rapide six/eight-passenger airliner was a scaled-down, twin engined version of the D.H.86 Dragon four-engined biplane airliner. The D.H.89 had a squarish section fuselage with large side windows, tapered biplane wings, and a trousered fixed undercarriage. Initially, it was powered by a pair of 200 hp De Havilland Gipsy Six six-cylinder air-cooled engines. The first prototype flew on April 17, 1934. The D.H.89 remained in production for ten years, a total of 728 being built. In its day, it was one of the most widely-used air transports in the world. Although officially known as the Dragon Rapide, it usually known simply as the Rapide. The D.H.89 had a maximum speed of 157 mph, and a cruising speed of 132 mph. Initial climb rate was 1000 feet per minute, ceiling was 19,500 feet, and range was 578 miles. Weights were 3346 pounds tare, 5500 lbs. all-up. Dimensions were wingspan 48 feet 0 inches, length 34 feet 6 inches, height 10 feet 3 inches, and wing area 336 square feet. The first British operator of the Dragon Rapide was Hillmans Airways Ltd., making its debut with that airline on July 13, 1934. Railway Air Services Ltd. operated D.H.89s on trunk route between Croydon, Speke, Renfrew, and Belfast, and for summer services between Speke, Whitchurch, Eastleigh, and Shoreham. Two Dragon Rapides were acquired by Jersey Airways Ltd. The 1936 Dragon Rapide had a nose landing light, thickened wingtips, and cabin heating. The D.H.89A was introduced into production in 1937. It featured small trailing-edge flaps under the lower main wing mounted outboard of the nacelles. Many earlier D.H.89s were later brought up to this standard. Several Dragon Rapides were acquired by the RAF. K5070 was operated by No. 24 Squadron at Hendon in 1935 as a VIP transport. In 1938, P1764 and P1765 were acquired for communications duties. R2485, R2486, and R2487 were acquired as trainers. Several Dragon Rapides were adapted for service on floats. The floatplane adaptations were performed by De Havilland of Canada, where they were fitted with Edo floats and a long dorsal fin. Several Dragon Rapides were modified for service on skis. Most of these served in northern Canada. There were even combat adaptations of the Dragon Rapide. Specification G-18/35 called for a coastal http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/dh89.html (1 of 3)2006-09-19 15:04:32

de Havilland D.H.89

command and general reconnaissance aircraft for the RAF. A standard Rapide was fitted with a Vickers machine gun on the starboard side of the nose, a bomb bay for two 100-lb and four 20-lb bombs, one Lewis gun on a flexible mounting on top of the fuselage, extra cabin windows, and a long curved dorsal fin. A crew of three was carried, pilot, radio operator/gunner, and navigator/bombardier. A single prototype was built under the designation D.H.89M, and was assigned the serial number K4227. It lost out to the Avro Anson for production orders. Three modified D.H.89Ms were delivered to Spain in 1935 for police duty in Morocco. A Vickers E gun was mounted in the nose, a bombsight was built into the floor, and twelve 27-lb bombs could be carried in a rack under the fuselage. The mid-upper gunner was provided with a Vickers F gun and a second gun fired downward through the floor. When the Spanish Civil War began in 1936, these planes saw combat on the Nationalist side. In 1936, two further D.H.89Ms were built for Lithuania. The last civil delivery before the outbreak of war was the 205th aircraft, intended for an airline in India. After the war began, production continued as the D.H.89B Dominie Mk. 1 navigation trainer or Mk. 2 communications aircraft for the RAF. The Mk. 1 had a pilot and radio operator and could carry six passengers. The Mk. 2 had a pilot and eight passengers. At least six Dominies were made available to the USAAF Eighth Air Force in Britain between December 1942 and August 1944. They were operated as communications aircraft by the 27th Transport Group. By 1942, annual output at the Hatfield works was 185 machines, but since factory space at Hatfield was needed for the Mosquito, and Dominie manufacture was transferred to the Brush Coachworks Ltd. factory at Longborough. 346 more Dominies were manufactured there between 1943 and 1945. Hundreds of Dominies were disposed of as surplus after the war. They joined the considerable number of pre-war Dragon Rapides that were already in airline service. The last RAF Dominies were finally declared obsolete in June of 1955, but a few were still on Admiralty charge as late as 1961. Ex-RAF Dominies ended up serving as communications aircraft by major British aircraft manufacturers, as pleasure craft, as charter aircraft, or as feeder liners in many parts of the world. The six-passenger version with pilot and radio operator was known as Mk. 2, whereas Mk. 3 denoted the alternative version for pilot and eight passengers. However, these designations were rarely used in practice. Most postwar Dragon Rapides were powered by surplus RAF Gipsy Queen 3 engines rated at 200 hp each. Many Dragon Rapides were later retrofitted with 200 hp Gipsy Queen 2s driving variable-pitch propellers. This installation made it possible to increase the maximum takeoff weight to 6000 pounds, and gave a significant improvement in climb, cruising, and single-engine performance. These aircraft were known as Mk. 4s, and they could be identified by the presence of larger engine air intakes and variable-pitch propeller spinners. The first Mk. 4 prototype installation was performed in G-AHGF in 1953 by Flightways Ltd. of Eastleigh.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/dh89.html (2 of 3)2006-09-19 15:04:32

de Havilland D.H.89

The Mk. 5 was a one-off modification performed in 1948 by de Havilland to its G-AHKA communications aircraft. Manually-operated variable-pitch propellers were fitted to special Gipsy Queen M.V.P. engines. In 1958, a special fixed-pitch propeller was developed for the Dragon Rapide by Fairey Aviation. It imparted a performance increase similar to that offered by the Mk. 4, but without the cost and maintenance difficulties of the variable-pitch mechanism. Dragon Rapides modified in this fashion were known as Mk. 6. Dozens of Dragon Rapides are still flying throughout the world. One of them appeared in the Agatha Christie Hercule Poirot mystery series shown on Mystery Theatre on PBS.


Back to Elevon... Back to my Home Page...

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/dh89.html (3 of 3)2006-09-19 15:04:32

Martin-Baker M.B.5

Martin-Baker M.B.5 Last revised: 19 November 1995

1. M.B.5 2. Comparisons with its Contemporaries i. Sources


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/mb5i.html2006-09-19 15:04:40

Martin-Baker M.B.5 -- Comparison with its Contemporaries

Martin-Baker M.B.5 -- Comparison with its Contemporaries Chapter 2 Last revised: 19 November 1995

For comparison, here are some figures for some other high-performance piston-engined fighters that appeared near the end of the war. This list includes both fighters which were in production, as well as some experimental types.

North American P-51H Mustang Powered by a 2218 hp Packard V-1560-9 Merlin twelve-cylinder V-type liquid cooled engine. Armed with 6 0.50-inch machine guns, plus provisions for two 500-pound or 1000-pound bombs. 444 mph at 5000 feet, 463 mph at 15,000 feet, 487 mph at 25,000 feet. Climb to 5000 feet in 1.5 minutes, to 15,000 feet in 5 minutes. Service ceiling was 41,600 feet. 6585 lbs empty, 9500 lbs normal loaded. Range was 755 miles (clean). Wing area was 235 sq ft.

Republic P-47M Thunderbolt Powered by a 2800 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-57 18-cylinder air-cooled radial. Armed with six or eight 0.50-inch machine guns in the wings. Maximum speed of 400 mph at 10,000 feet, 453 mph at 25,000 feet, 470 mph at 30,000 feet. 3500 ft/min initial climb at 5000 feet. Range was 560 miles (clean). Weights were 10,423 pounds empty, 13,275 lbs normal loaded. Wing area was 322 square feet.

Republic XP-47J Thunderbolt Powered by a 2800 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-57 18-cylinder air-cooled radial. Armed with six 0.50inch machine guns in the wings. Maximum speed of 507 mph at 34,300 feet. Climb to 15,000 feet in 4.5 minutes. Service ceiling was 45,000 feet. Range was 1070 miles at economical cruising speed. Weights were 9663 pounds empty, 12,400 lbs normal loaded. Wing area was 300 square feet.

Republic XP-72 Powered by a 3450 hp Pratt & Whitney R-4360-13 Wasp Major 28-cylinder air-cooled radial. Armed http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/mb5-02.html (1 of 4)2006-09-19 15:04:50


with six 0.50-inch machine guns in the wings, plus two 1000-lb bombs. Maximum speed of 490 mph at 25,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 5280 ft/min, and could reach 15,000 feet in 3.5 minutes. Range was 1200 miles at economical cruising speed of 300 mph. Service ceiling was 42,000 feet. Weights were 11,476 pounds empty, 14,433 lbs normal loaded. Wing area was 300 square feet.

Focke-Wulf Ta 152C-3 Powered by a Daimler-Benz DB 603L twelve-cylinder inverted-Vee liquid cooled engine which could be boosted by MW 50 (methanol/water) injection to give a maximum power output of 2100 hp. Armed with one engine-mounted 30-mm MK 103 and four 20-mm MG 151 cannon (2 in wing roots, two in upper fuselage deck). Maximum speed was 339 mph at sea level, 439 mph at 37,000 feet, 463 mph at 34,000 feet with MW 50 boost. Initial climb rate was 3050 feet/minute. Service ceiling was 40,350 feet. Range was 745 miles at 372 mph at 32,800 feet. Weights were 9058 lbs empty, 11,025 lbs normal loaded. Wing area was 216 square feet.

Messerschmitt Bf 109K-4 Powered by a Daimler-Benz DB 605 ASCM/DCM twelve-cylinder inverted-Vee liquid cooled engine which could be boosted by GM 1 (nitrous oxide) injection to give a maximum power output of 2000 hp for takeoff. Armed with one engine-mounted 30-mm MK 103 (or MK 108) cannon and two 20-mm MG 151 cannon in upper fuselage deck. Maximum speed was 377 mph at sea level, 452 mph at 19,685 feet Initial climb rate was 4823 feet/minute. Service ceiling was 42,000 feet. Range was 355 miles. Weight was 7438 lbs normal loaded. Wing area was 174.38 square feet.

Messerschmitt Me 209A-2 Powered by a 1750 hp Junkers Jumo 213 twelve-cylinder inverted-Vee liquid cooled engine. Armed with one engine-mounted 30-mm MK 103 (or MK 108) cannon and two 20-mm MG 151 cannon in upper fuselage deck. Maximum speed was 410 mph at 19,685 feet, 458 mph at full boost altitude. Service ceiling was 42,650 feet. Weights were 76519 lbs empty, 9259 lbs normal loaded. Wing area was 184.6 square feet.

Supermarine Spitfire Mk. 21 Powered by 2050 hp Rolls-Royce Griffon 61 twelve-cylinder Vee liquid-cooled engine. Armed with four 20-mm Hispano Mk. II cannon in the wings plus one 500-lb and two 250-lb bombs. Maximum speed was 420 mph at 12,000 feet and 454 mph at 26,000 feet. Could climb to 20,000 feet in 8 minutes. Range with maximum internal fuel was 880 miles. Weights were 6900 lbs empty, 9200 lbs maximum loaded. Wing area was 244 square feet.

Supermarine Spiteful http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/mb5-02.html (2 of 4)2006-09-19 15:04:50


Powered by 2375 hp Rolls-Royce Griffon 69 twelve-cylinder Vee liquid-cooled engine. Armed with four 20-mm Hispano Mk. V cannon in the wings. Maximum speed was 409 mph at sea level, 437 mph at 5500 feet and 483 mph at 26,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 4828 ft/min. Could climb to 20,000 feet in 4.9 minutes. Range with maximum internal fuel was 564 miles. Weights were 7350 lbs empty, 9950 lbs maximum loaded. Wing area was 210 square feet.

Hawker Tempest Mk. II Powered by 2520 hp Bristol Centaurus V eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial. Armed with four 20-mm Hispano Mk. V cannon plus two 1000-lb bombs. Maximum speed was 440 mph at 15,900 feet, 417 mph at 5000 feet. Range was 775 miles with maximum internal fuel. Initial climb rate was 4520 ft/min. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be reached in 5.6 minutes. Service ceiling was 37,000 feet. Weights were 9300 pounds empty, 11,800 pounds loaded. Wing area was 303.7 square feet.

Hawker Tempest Mk. V Powered by a 2200 hp Napier Sabre IIB 24-cylinder horizontal-H liquid-cooled engine. Armed with four 20-mm Hispano Mk. V cannon plus two 1000-lb bombs. Maximum speed was 392 mph at sea level, 416 mph at 4600 feet, 435 mph at 17,000 feet. Range was 820 miles with maximum internal fuel. Initial climb rate was 4700 ft/min. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be reached in 6.1 minutes. Service ceiling was 36,000 feet. Weights were 9250 pounds empty, 11,400 pounds loaded. Wing area was 302 square feet.

Hawker Fury Powered by a 3055 hp Napier Sabre VII 24-cylinder horizontal-H liquid-cooled engine. Armed with four 20-mm Hispano Mk. V cannon plus two 1000-lb bombs. Maximum speed was 457 mph at 8000 feet, 485 mph at 18,500 feet. Range was 1480 miles with two 45 Imp gall drop tanks. Initial climb rate was 5240 ft/min. An altitude of 24,000 feet could be reached in 6 minutes. Service ceiling was 41,500 feet. Weights were 9350 pounds empty, 12,120 pounds loaded. Wing area was 284.5 square feet.

Grumman F8F-1 Bearcat Powered by a 2100 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-34W eighteen-cylinder radial air-cooled engine. Armed with four 0.5-in machine guns. Maximum speed was 382 mph at sea level, 421 mph at 19,700 feet. Initial climb rate was 4570 feet/minute. Service ceiling was 38,700 feet. Weights were 7070 lbs empty, 9836 lbs normal loaded. Wing area was 244 square feet.

North American XP-82 Twin Mustang

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/mb5-02.html (3 of 4)2006-09-19 15:04:50


Powered by two 1860 hp Packard Merlin V-1650-23/25 twelve-cylinder Vee liquid-cooled engines. Armed with six 0.50-in machine guns in center wing, plus two 2000-lb or four 1000-lb bombs. Maximum speed was 482 mph at 25,100 feet. Range was 1390 miles. Could climb to 20,000 feet in 7 minutes. Service ceiling was 41,600 feet. Weights were 13,405 lbs empty, 19,100 lbs normal loaded. Wing area was 408 square feet.

Goodyear F2G-1 Powered by a 3000 hp Pratt and Whitney R-4360-4 Wasp Major 28-cylinder radial air-cooled engine. Armed with four 0.50-in machine guns in the wing, plus two 1000-lb or two 1600-lb bombs. Maximum speed was 399 mph at sea level, 431 mph at 16,400 feet. Range was 1190 miles. Initial climb rate was 4400 feet/min. Service ceiling was 38,800 feet. Weights were 10,249 lbs empty, 13,346 lbs normal loaded. Wing area was 314 square feet. Can you think of any more? Previous: 1. M.B.5 Next: Sources




Martin-Baker M.B.5

Martin-Baker M.B.5 Chapter 1 Last revised: 19 November 1995

The Martin-Baker M.B.5 is considered by many as being the best all-round fighter evolved during World War II. At first sight, it looks a lot like a modified P-51D Mustang, complete with under-fuselage air scoop and bubble canopy. However, the M.B.5 does not appear to owe anything specific to the Mustang. Today, the Martin-Baker company is known primarily for its line of ejector seats, which are used throughout the world. But during World War 2, the company evolved a line of fighter aircraft, the last of which was the superlative M.B.5 single seat fighter of 1944. The M.B.5 began life as the second of two M.B.3 prototypes. The first M.B.3 had been powered by the Napier Sabre II twenty-four cylinder horizontal-H type liquid cooled engine. The M.B.3 had been designed to meet the requirements of Specification F.18/39, which called for a fighter capable of speeds exceeding 400 mph, one with sturdiness and good handling qualities. Particular attention was paid to a requirement for ease of maintenance and rearming. The M.B.3 flew for the first time on August 31, 1942, but crashed during a landing approach a month later. Construction of the second M.B.3 prototype had been delayed in order to incorporate the ideas gained from flight testing with the first prototype. It was initially proposed to install a Rolls-Royce Griffon in the second prototype and redesignate it M.B.4, but this scheme was abandoned in favor of an extensively redesigned model, the M.B.5. The wings of the M.B.5 were essentially similar to those of the M.B.3, and the fuselage was of steel tube construction, covered and faired with detachable panels which offered exceptional accessibility. It was powered by a 2340 hp Rolls-Royce Griffon 83 twelve-cylinder V-type liquid cooled engine driving two contra-rotating three-bladed propellers. The M.B.5 (serial number R2496) flew for the first time on May 23, 1944. The performance was superlative, the Armament and Aircraft Experimental Establishment raving about the general design and layout of the aircraft. All pilots who flew it praised its qualities, and it is sort of a mystery why this airplane was never put into production, even though there would have been enough time for this plane to have entered squadron service by the time of the end of the war against Germany. The M.B.5 was armed with four 20-mm British Hispano Mk. II cannon in the wings. Maximum speed was 395 mph at sea level, 425 mph at 6000 feet, 460 mph at 20,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 3800 feet/ http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/mb5-01.html (1 of 2)2006-09-19 15:04:57

Martin-Baker M.B.5

minutes. Climb rate at 7000 feet was 4000 feet/minute. The airplane could climb to 20,000 feet in 6.5 minutes, and could reach 34,000 feet in 15 minutes. Service ceiling 40,000 feet. Weights were 9233 lbs empty, 11,000 lbs normal loaded. Wing area was 262.64 square feet. Next: 2. Comparisons with its Contemporaries




Hawker Fury

Hawker Fury Last revised: 19 November 1995

1. Fury 2. Sea Fury i. Sources


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/furyi.html2006-09-19 15:05:15

Hawker Fury -- Fury

Hawker Fury -- Fury Chapter 1 Last revised: 19 November 1995

On June 23, 1942, Oberleutnant Arnim Faber erroneously landed his Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-3 fighter at RAF Pembrey, apparently having mistaken this airfield for a Luftwaffe channel coast airfield. The British were thereby presented with a working example of the Fw 190 fighter, which had been giving the RAF an extremely difficult time. The Hawker Fury design was a direct result of the examination of Faber's Fw 190A-3. Examination of Faber's aircraft was largely responsible for the preparation of Specification F.6/42, which called for a new, high-performance fighter. In the meantime, Hawker had been working on several proposals for light fighters intended to halt the upward spiral in the weight and complexity of fighter aircraft. Among these proposals was the Sabre IV-powered P.1018, the Griffon 61-powered P.1019, and the Centaurus IV-powered P.1020. In late 1942, the first discussions were held concerning a lighter and smaller version of the Tempest in which the wing center section would be eliminated and the outer wing sections brought together on the aircraft centerline. In January 1943, it was decided that this project should to be made to conform to the requirements of Specification F.6/42, and the project became known as the Tempest Light Fighter (Centaurus). The engine was to be the Bristol Centaurus radial. However, only two months later, a new specification (F.2/43) was written specifically for the Hawker project. In April, 1943, Sydney Camm, the Hawker chief engineer, decided that the F.2/43 project with an up-rated Centaurus XII engine might also fit the needs of Specification N.7/43, a Royal Navy requirement for a carrier-based interceptor. Consequently, both Royal Navy and RAF requirements were pooled under Specification F.2/43. Hawker was designated to work on the land-based version, and responsibility for the naval conversion was assigned to Boulton-Paul Aircraft Ltd. of Wolverhampton. Apart from its smaller size, the Fury could be distinguished from the Tempest in having a fuselage of monocoque construction throughout. The wing consisted of two Tempest outer sections bolted together on the fuselage centerline. Alternative powerplants to the Centaurus XII engine were considered. A total of six prototypes were ordered, two being powered by the Griffon, two with the Centaurus XXII, one with the Centaurus XII, and one to be used as a test structure. Early in 1944, a revised naval specification, N.22/43, supplanted N.7/43. and in April 1944 contracts were placed for 200 F.2/43 planes for the RAF and 200 N.22/43 planes for the Fleet Air Arm. 100 of the Navy planes were to have been constructed by Boulton-Paul. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fury-01.html (1 of 3)2006-09-19 15:05:20

Hawker Fury -- Fury

NX798 was the first to fly, taking to the air on September 1, 1944. It was an F.2/43 powered by a Bristol Centaurus XII driving a four-bladed propeller. Shortly thereafter, the names Fury and Sea Fury were adopted for the RAF and FAA versions. The second prototype Fury (LA610) flew on November 27, 1944, powered by a Rolls-Royce Griffon 85 driving a pair of three-bladed contra-rotating propellers. However, this engine was quickly replaced by a 2400 hp Bristol Centaurus XV eighteen-cylinder radial air-cooled engine and later by the 3055 hp Napier Sabre VII twenty-four-cylinder liquid-cooled horizontal-H engine. The Sabre VII-powered Fury was perhaps the fastest piston-engine aircraft ever built by Hawker, possessing a maximum speed of 485 mph at 18,500 feet and 457 mph at 8000 feet. Range with two drop tanks was 1480 miles. Initial climb rate was 5240 feet, and an altitude of 24,000 feet could be attained in 6 minutes. Service ceiling was 41,500 feet. Weights were 9350 lbs empty, 12,130 lbs loaded. Armament consisted of four 20-mm Hispano Mk. V cannon in the wings. The first Sea Fury prototype, SR661, flew on February 21, 1945. It was powered by a Centaurus XII engine driving a four-bladed propeller. This airplane had a deck arrester hook under the rudder, but retained fixed wings. The second Sea Fury prototype, SR666, was powered by a Centaurus XV driving a five-bladed propeller and was a fully navalized aircraft with folding wings. The remaining Fury prototype, NX802, was powered by the Centaurus XV and flew for the first time on July 25, 1945. The Boulton-Paul machine, VB857, was a Sea Fury and was completed to the same standard as SR666, and flew on January 31, 1946. Another Fury prototype was VP207, completed from stock parts after the war in ca.1947 and flown with a Napier Sabre VII engine. With the end of the Second World War, the RAF canceled all production contracts for the Fury, deciding to concentrate all of its future efforts on jet fighters. No Furies ever entered service with the RAF. Henceforth, all attention was concentrated on the Sea Fury carrier-based version, the production of which continued in the post-war years, the aircraft becoming standard shipboard equipment with the Royal Navy and with several other air arms. Although the RAF canceled all contracts for the Fury, the aircraft was nevertheless built in small numbers for Iraq, Egypt, and Pakistan. The first prototype (NX798) was fitted with a Centaurus XVIII and sold to Egypt. The third prototype (NX802) was fitted with a Centaurus XVIII and sold to Pakistan. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fury-01.html (2 of 3)2006-09-19 15:05:20

Hawker Fury -- Fury

In December 1946, the Iraqi government ordered 30 Furies. Known unofficially as the "Baghdad Furies", these were delivered to Iraq during 1948. These were joined in 1949 by two twin-seat trainer versions. A further 25 single-seaters and three two-seat Furies were ordered and delivered to Iraq in 1953. All of these aircraft were powered by Bristol Centaurus 18 engines driving five-bladed propellers. Next: 2. Sea Fury



http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fury-01.html (3 of 3)2006-09-19 15:05:20

Hawker Fury -- Sea Fury

Hawker Fury -- Sea Fury Chapter 2 Last revised: 19 November 1995

On April, 1943, Sydney Camm, the Hawker chief engineer, decided that the F.2/43 project with an uprated Centaurus XII engine might also fit the needs of Specification N.7/43, a Royal Navy requirement for a carrier-based interceptor. Consequently, both Royal Navy and RAF requirements were pooled under Specification F.2/43. Hawker was designated to work on the land-based version, and responsibility for the naval conversion was assigned to Boulton-Paul Aircraft Ltd. of Wolverhampton. Early in 1944, a revised naval specification, N.22/43, supplanted N.7/43. and in April 1944 contracts were placed for 200 F.2/43 planes for the RAF and 200 N.22/43 planes for the Fleet Air Arm. 100 of the Navy planes were to have been constructed by Boulton-Paul. The first Sea Fury prototype, SR661, flew on February 21, 1945. It was powered by a Centaurus XII engine driving a four-bladed propeller. This airplane had a deck arrester hook under the rudder, but retained fixed wings. The second Sea Fury prototype, SR666, was powered by a Centaurus XV driving a five-bladed propeller and was a fully navalized aircraft with folding wings. The Boulton-Paul machine, VB857, was a Sea Fury and was completed to the same standard as SR666, and flew on January 31, 1946. With the end of the Second World War, the RAF canceled all production contracts for the Fury, deciding to concentrate all of its future efforts on jet fighters. The Royal Navy reduced its order for Sea Furies to 100 aircraft, and canceled the Boulton-Paul contract in its entirety. The first 50 production Sea Furies were termed Mk. Xs and were fighters based fundamentally on the prototype SR666. The first Mk. X was TF895, which flew for the first time on September 7, 1946. Early Mk. Xs featured four-bladed propellers, but, as a result of tests with SR666 and TF895, five-bladed propellers became standard on all subsequent Sea Furies. The first deck trials with Sea Fury TF898 began aboard HMS Victorious during the winter of 1946-47. Serials were TF895-TF928 and TF940-TF955. There were some initial problems with arrester hooks



being damaged during landings, and several interim modifications were necessary. The Sea Fury Mk. X was finally cleared for shipboard duty in the spring of 1947. Sea Furies were issued to Nos. 778, 802, 803, 805 and 807 Squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm. The Sea Fury Mk. 11 was a fighter-bomber version capable of carrying a mixture of 1000-pound bombs, rocket projectiles, drop tanks and napalm tanks. The arrester hook was longer, and provision was made for the incorporation of rocket-assisted take-off gear. In the next seven years, no less than 615 Sea Fury Mk. 11s were delivered to the Royal Navy, these aircraft becoming the Fleet Air Arm's principal single seat fighter until the introduction of the Sea Hawk in 1953. Serials of the Sea Fury 11 were TF956-TF973, TF985-TF999, TG113-TG129, VR918-VR952, VW224VW243, VW541-VW590, VW621-VW670, VW691-VW718, VX608-VX643, VX650-VX696, VX707VX711, VX724-VX730, VX748-VX764, WF590-WF595, WF610-WF627, WE673-WE694, WE708WE736, WE785-WE806, WM472-WM482, WM487-WM495, WG564-WG575, WG590-WG604, WG621-WG630, WH581-WH594, WH612-WH623, WJ221-WJ248, WH276-WJ292, WJ294-WJ297, WJ299-WJ301, WN474-WN479, WN484-WN487, and WX627-WX656. The Sea Fury Mk. 11 was powered by a 2480 hp Bristol Centaurus 18 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial engine. Maximum speed was 460 mph at 18,000 feet. An altitude of 30,000 feet could be reached in 10.8 minutes. Range without external tanks was 700 miles, and 1040 miles with two drop tanks. Service ceiling was 35,600 feet. Weights were 9240 lbs empty and 12,500 lbs loaded. Armament was four 20-mm Hispano cannon in the wings, plus underwing racks for bombs, drop tanks, and rockets. The first unit to receive the Sea Fury F.B.11 (as the aircraft had been redesignated) was No. 802 Squadron in May 1948. Nos. 280, 804, 805, and 807 Squadrons followed, embarking aboard HM Light Fleet Carriers Ocean, Theseus and Glory during 1949-51. In 1951, Sea Fury F.B.11s were introduced into service with the No. 1822 Squadron of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, replacing Supermarine Seafire Mk. 17s. They subsequently served with Nos. 1831, 1833, 1834, 1845, and 1836 Squadrons of the RNVR. The Sea Fury T.Mk. 20 was a two-seat trainer version. The Sea Fury two-seater was a direct result of an order for four two-seat Fury land-based fighters for Iraq. However, owing to interest expressed by the British Admiralty, the first machine was completed to an Admiralty Standard of Preparation and serialed VX818. VX818 flew for the first time on January 15, 1948. The VX818 initially had a pair of separate cockpit canopies for pilot and student, but during one of the early test flights, the rear canopy collapsed. An interconnecting cockpit "tunnel" was added to provide additional mechanical strength. In addition, a periscopic sight was mounted on a tripod just forward of the instructor's (rear) cockpit, and the armament was reduced from four to two 20-mm cannon. Sixty production Sea Fury T.Mk. 20s were built and delivered to the Fleet Air Arm, deliveries taking place between 1950 and 1952. Serials were VX280-VX292, VX297-VX310, VZ345, VX346, VZ349http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fury-02.html (2 of 4)2006-09-19 15:05:27


VZ354, VZ363-VZ365, VZ368, VZ370-VZ372, WE820-WE826, and WG652-WG656. They were not equipped with arrester hooks and served only with shore-based establishments. They were used primarily as conversion trainers with reserve squadrons, serving alongside their single-seat counterparts. They served alongside Mk. 10s and 11s with Nos. 1830, 1831, 1832, 1934, 1835, 1836, and 1843 Squadrons of the RNVR. The first foreign variant of the Sea Fury was the Sea Fury Mk. 50 for the the Royal Netherlands Navy for service on the ex-Royal Naval Escort Carrier Nairana. Twelve more were ordered in 1950, bringing the total to twenty four. A license was acquired for manufacture of Sea Furies by Fokker, and the license manufacture brought the total of Dutch Sea Furies to 48. Many of these Sea Furies served with the Royal Netherlands Navy aboard the Karel Doorman (previously HMS Venerable). Hawker-built Sea Fury Mk. 50s were initially numbered 10-1 through 10-24 but later became 6-1 through 6-24. Fokker-built aircraft were numbered 10-25 through 10-45, becoming 6-25 to 6-45 (owing to attrition). These Sea Furies were not finally replaced until 1959 by Hawker Sea Hawks. Approximately 50 ex-Fleet Air Arm Sea Furies were transferred to the Royal Australian Navy during 1949 and 1950. Others were also supplied to the Royal Canadian Navy. In 1949-50, Pakistan purchased 93 single seat Sea Fury fighter-bombers plus five two-seat trainers. 87 of the single-seaters were newly-built Mk. 60s, 5 were ex-FAA Mk. 11s, and one was the prototype F.2/43 Fury NX802. All of the Mk. 61 two-seaters were new builds. Twelve Sea Fury fighters were ordered by Egypt during 1949 and delivered during the following two years. A couple of these Sea Furies were still in service during the Suez operation in November 1956. In 1957, large numbers of surplus FAA Sea Fury Mk. 10s, 11s, and T.20s were repurchased by Hawker. Of these, eighteen Mk. 11s and three T.Mk.20s were reconditioned and resold by Hawker to Burma and delivered in 1958. Fifteen Mk. 11s and two T.Mk. 20s selected from the aircraft re-purchased by Hawker from the M.O.S. were sold to Cuba in 1958, although these were not assembled until 1959, after the Castro revolution against the Batista government. Cuban-piloted Sea Furies were in action against the CIA-sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Eight Mk. 20s were selected from aircraft re-purchased from the M.O.S. were reconditioned and sold to Deutsche Luftfahrt Beratungsdienst during 1959-60. They were further modified in Germany for targettowing duties. These aircraft were given civilian registrations and served under contract to the West German Luftwaffe as target tugs. When war broke out in Korea in June 1950, the Royal Navy carrier Theseus was dispatched to Korean waters. The Sea Furies went into action against North Korea in December 7, 1950, and the planes were used with considerable skill in the ground attack role. On occasion, they were used to sow mines outside http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fury-02.html (3 of 4)2006-09-19 15:05:27


Communist ports. However, these naval formations came under attack from MiG-15 jet fighters. Although several Sea Furies were lost to MiGs, the Sea Furies did succeed in destroying a number of the enemy fighters. The Ocean and Glory followed the Theseus several months later. The HMAS Sydney of the Royal Australian Navy was also transferred to Korean waters and went into action with its Sea Furies. The Royal Navy Sea Furies were finally replaced by jets in the mid 1950s. Several surplus Sea Furies have been purchased by civilian operators and have been used in unlimited racing in the United States. Previous: 1. Fury Next: Sources




Hawker Hurricane in Iranian Service

Hawker Hurricane in Iranian Service First Deliveries One Hurrcane Mk I was delivered in 1939. Later in the war, possible after Iran had declared war to Germany on 9 September 1943, Iran received ten Hurricanes MK IIs from No. 74 Fighter Squadron of the RAF. This squadron stayed in Iran for a short time during the last few months of 1942 and when it transferred to the Supermarine Spitfire, it transferred its Hurricane Mk IIs to Iran.

After the War Iran was one of only two countries that received the Hurricane after World War Two (the other country was Portugal, which received 40 Hurrcane Mk IIB/Cs between 1945 and 1946 and used them until 1951). An order for 16 Hurricane Mk IICs was placed. They were former RAF aircarft, which were orginally destined for service in the Middle - East. The armament of four 20 mm Hispano Mk I/II cannons was removed and stub fairings substituted, in order to maintain the centre of gravity and they were used as fighter - trainers by the Advanced Fighter Training Group at Doshan Teppeh. These Hurricanes were delivered between 1945 and 1947.

Two-seat Hurricane The other Hurricanes that were deliverd to Iran were two two - seat trainer conversions (Iranian serials 231 (RAF serial KZ232) and 2-32). The conversion of these aircraft was undertaken with drawings prepared in 1940 to develop a trainer as a replacement of the Miles Master and the North American Harvard (this project was abandonned by the RAF in late 1940, before the aircraft was flown). The position of the second crewmember was incorporated aft of the existing cockpit, without extensive modification to the structure. The top fuselage stringers being terminated about four feet (1.20 meter) further aft and additional cross members being inserted between the longerons. The four 20 mm Oerlikon cannons were removed. The first aircraft (2-31), which was otherwise identical to a tropical Hurricane Mk IIC, was first flown by Bill Humble on 27 September 1946 from Langley. At first, both cockpits were uncovered, the front cockpit retained the windscreen and frame, and a transparant fairing between the cockpits shielding the rear cockpit. Soon, it became apparent that the instructor in the rear cockpit suffered considerable discomfort in a very draughy cockpit from the airflow turbulence caused by the various screens and fairings in front. Therefore, additional stringers were incorporated, a fairing added aft of the rear cockpit together with a sliding hood from the Hawker Tempest with a windscreen. The rear seat was fitted with a rudimentary set of controls for the instructor and all radio equipment was deleted. In this form the two - seat Hurricanes were deliverd to Doshan Teppeh in 1947. These aircraft had a maximum speed of 320 mph (515 km/h) at 21,500 feet (6,553 meter) and the all-up weight was 8,140 pounds (3,692 kg). http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/hurri_iran.html (1 of 2)2006-09-19 15:05:38

Hawker Hurricane in Iranian Service

Sources ● ● ●

Hurricane, E. Bishop, Airlife Publishing Limited, 1986. The Hawker Hurricane, F. Mason, Macdonald & Company (Publishers) Limited, 1962. Wings of Fame - Volume 1, D. Donald, Aerospace Publishing Limited, 1996.

Ruud Deurenberg, 14 January 2001

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/hurri_iran.html (2 of 2)2006-09-19 15:05:38

Westland Wyvern

Westland Wyvern Last revised: 19 November 1995

1. Wyvern i. Sources


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/wyvrni.html2006-09-19 15:05:52

Westland Wyvern

Westland Wyvern Chapter 1 Last revised: 19 November 1995

The Westland Wyvern began life as a 'Torpedo Fighter', intended to operate as daylight fighter and torpedo bomber. The concept itself was less odd than it might seem. Multi-role aircraft are an obviously advantageous concept for carrier forces, because the ship can carry only a strictly limited number of aircraft. The Wyvern fitted in the trend that fighter-bombers replaced light and medium bombers, and torpedoes had already been carried by the Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-5/U14 and the Blackburn Firebrand. The particularly disappointing career of the latter aircraft should have been a warning, however. The Wyvern began life with specification N.11/44, issued in November 1944; this called for a fighter with a Rolls-Royce Eagle piston engine, but capable of accepting a turboprop; carrier-capable and armed with four 20-mm cannon, eight rockets, and three 450 kg bombs, a 825 kg mine or a 20-in torpedo. The RAF thought about ordering the same aircraft as a land-based escort fighter for some time, but abandoned it in favour of jet fighters. John Digby was responsible for the Westland design, chosen by the RN. It had half-elliptic wings not unlike those of the Tempest and slightly of inverted-gull configuration. The inner section was fitted with sizable Fairey-Youngman flaps; the outer section had plain flaps and ailerons. The fuselage was clean, if sizable; the 3550 hp, 24-cylinder, sleeve-valve liquid-cooled Eagle engine was installed with a 'beard' radiator and underwing oil coolers. It wasn't exactly close-cowled, but the sloping engine cowling certainly gave the pilot a good forward view, preventing one of the most undesirable characteristics of single-engined propeller fighters. An eight-bladed, contra-rotating propeller was to pull the big fighter forward. Because of the bulky engine installation, a large tail had to be fitted. First flight was made by TS371 on 12 December 1946, flown by Harold Penrose. It was followed by five other prototypes and ten Wyvern TF.1 pre-series aircraft. Except the first prototype all were fitted with ejection seats. They immediately began to build a bad record, with numerous emergencies and two complete groundings; problems with engine and propeller seem to have been responsible for most of them. The Eagle-engined version was soon abandoned in favour of the turboprop-engined developments. The concept of a turboprop-engined strike fighter was not uncommon in itself. In the USA the Douglas A2D Skyshark was built as a possible replacement for the AD Skyraider; but it had to be abandoned because of the unreliability of the Allison T40 engine. In the USSR the Tupolev Tu-91 attack aircraft was abandoned after Stalin's death, together with the carrier building programme. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/wyvrn-01.html (1 of 3)2006-09-19 15:05:57

Westland Wyvern

The available engines for the Wyvern were the Rolls-Royce Clyde and the Armstrong Siddeley Python. The Clyde was a twin-spool engine, with one spool driving a centrifugal compressor and the other the propeller and an axial compressor. The Clyde delivered at least 4030 hp, with a potential for much more. The Clyde was used for prototype VP120. The radiator and underwing oil coolers were removed, a smaller tail was fitted, and a six-bladed contraprop installed. The engine had twin exhausts, one on each side of the fuselage, over the wing. It first flew on 18 January 1945, and showed to be excellent. Production had to be canceled however, simply because Rolls-Royce refused to build the Clyde engine in series! Rolls-Royce was committing itself fully to jet engines. The Python was an older design and lower-powered (3760 hp), with a reverse-flow, 14-stage axial compressor. The first Python-engined Wyvern TF.2 was VP109 and flew on 22 March 1949, with an eight-bladed Rotol propeller, but otherwise similar to VP120. Oil coolers were placed in the extended wing roots. It was followed by a second prototype and a few T.3 two-seat trainers. Experiences with the engine were far from satisfactory, unreliability and a slow reaction speed making the aircraft unpopular. If it had been available, Westland would probably have liked to return to the Eagle engine; but that was not possible, and twenty Python-engined TF.2s were built. Carrier trials began on 21 June 1950. Four converted and 87 new-built aircraft were delivered of the most important Wyvern version, the TF.4, later renamed S.4. The TF.4 had numerous small changes. The recognition characteristic was the cut-off engine inlet, the propeller spinner then protruding much further forward. Small rectangular fins were added to the tailplane, changes were made to the ailerons, Martin-Baker Mk. 2B ejection seats were installed, and the cockpit was reinforced. Later modifications included perforated dive brakes, a flat windscreen, and provisions for tip tanks. The Wyvern entered service with 813 Sqn in May 1953, replacing the Firebrand. 813 Sqn was based later on the Eagle and the Albion. Other Wyvern units were 827, 830 and 831. In November 1956 the 830 and 831 Squadron took part in the Suez campaign. Only 830 seems to have made combat flights, losing 2 aircraft in 79 sorties. In March 1958 the last Wyvern unit, 813, was disbanded. Total Wyvern production had been 127.

Specification of Wyvern TF.1 Powerplant: 3550 hp Rolls-Royce Eagle. Performance: Maximum speed 734 km/h, operational ceiling 10000 m, maximal range 1900 km.

Specification of Wyvern S.4 Powerplant: 2736 kW + 536 kg Armstrong Siddeley Python 3. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/wyvrn-01.html (2 of 3)2006-09-19 15:05:57

Westland Wyvern

Dimensions: Span 13.42 m (wings folded 6.1m), length 12.88 m, height 4.57 m (wings folded 5.11m). Weights: Empty 1080 kg, maximum take-off 11113 kg. Performance: Maximum speed 708 km/h (616 km/h at low altitude), initial climb 2130 m/min, operational ceiling 8535 m, ferry range +1445 km. Armament: Four Hispano Mk. 5 20-mm cannon, 907 kg bombload and 16 rockets. Next: Sources

Emmanuel Gustin [email protected] Maintained by Carl Pettypiece


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/wyvrn-01.html (3 of 3)2006-09-19 15:05:57

Westland Wyvern -- Sources

Westland Wyvern -- Sources Last revised: 19 November 1995

● ● ●

Airplane No. 21 (Aerospace Publishing, DeAgostini, and Pilot Press) Britse Vliegtuigbouwers (Orbis Publishing, Lekturama) Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation

Previous: 1. Wyvern

Emmanuel Gustin [email protected] Maintained by Carl Pettypiece


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/wyvrn-s.html2006-09-19 15:06:06

Interceptor Rex
The Avro CF-105 Arrow

Interceptor Rex -- The Avro CF-105 Arrow Design and Development Avro Canada was created in December 1945, when the British Avro acquired the National Steel Car factory that had been building its Lancaster bombers during WWII. After WWII, Avro Canada designed a number of aircraft. The CF-100 "Canuck" a transsonic straight-wing all-weather fighter was the most successful one and 692 were built, including 53 for Belgium, between 1950 and 1958. In 1954 Avro Canada came under governement control, with an aircraft division and an engine division. The latter would later become Orenda engines. It was inevitable that Avro Canada would try to design a replacement for the CF-100. Initially, these designs resembled CF-100s with swept wings and supersonic performance. Later a number of designs with swept and delta wings were studied, but the effort began in earnest in April 1953, when the RCAF announced it requirement Air-7-3. It wanted a twin-engined, two-seat interceptor with a radius of action of at least 1000km, a ferry range of no less than 6000 nautical miles (11000km) and a maximal speed of more than Mach 1.5. It was to be equipped with a sophisticated fire control system, and to have an allmissile armament. A need for 600 such aircraft was initially envisaged. No such aircraft was available elsewhere, and the RCAF was unwilling to comprise by adopting a less than 100% satisfactory aircraft. So a new type would have to be designed. In the end, the RCAF would adopt one of the alternative designs it had studied, but rejected --- the McDonnell F-101 Voodoo. It is interesting to note that when the USAF formulated its requirement for a modern interceptor, it did choose a single-engined, single-seat fighter. This reflected the confidence of the USAF in automatized systems, as had already been used by the F-86D, for the all-weather interception mission. The RCAF may have felt, probably wisely, that the workload for a single pilot in bad weather or at night was too high. The preference for twin-engined aircraft may have been based on the assumption that these are safer for long patrol flights over the vast unpopulated regions of Canada. The requirements of the USAF were also less demanding in other important aspects: Radius of action was required to be only 600km, and the bomb bay of the F-102 and F-106 was tailored for only four Falcon missiles. All this resulted in a smaller aircraft. The USAF adopted a two-stage development program, in which the F-106 was to be preceded by an interim model, the F-102. In this way the USAF limited the risks of the development process. The armament of the new fighter was to be all-missile, and the missiles were to be stored in an internal missile bay. This protected them for the elements and reduced drag, but in combination with the range requirement it called for a large and roomy fuselage. To make access for maintenance easier, and to reduce structural problems with the wing spars and the missile bay, a shoulder wing configuration was adopted. The chosen wing was a large, very thin delta wing with marked anhedral. When this design was submitted to the RCAF in 1953, it was immediately accepted. Wind tunnel tests, as well as tests with http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/arrow.html (1 of 9)2006-09-19 15:06:40

Interceptor Rex

rocket-powered scale models, produced favourable results. However, the choice of the engines was to be a problem. Originally, the Rolls Royce RB106 engine was chosen, but it was soon recognized that this would not be available. Then the Wright J67 was chosen, but this engine was cancelled in 1955. Finally, it was decided to use an indigenous engine, the Orenda PS-13 Iroquois. Because this engine would not be available for the first prototypes, it was decided to use the Pratt & Whitney J75 to power the Mark 1 prototypes and pre-series aircraft. The thrust of the J75-P3 with full afterburner was 8390kg, equivalent to the maximal dry thrust of the Iroquois. The Arrow Mk.2 would have the Orenda engines. The Mk.2A would have more fuel and redesigned jet intakes and nozzles. The final Mk.3 version, with uprated engines, would be able to fly at Mach 2.5.

Structure The delta wing was thin and had considerable anhedral. In plan view, the leading edge was swept at 60 degrees and straight, apart from a dogtooth at half-span. Internally, the spars of the outboard wing panel were swept at almost the same angle as the leading edge, while those of the inboard panels had much less sweep. This was reflected by the leading edges of the big control surfaces. The Arrow had separate elevators and ailerons on its delta wing. The leading edges were drooped, more strongly on the outboard wing sections. The wing contained six integral fuel tanks: in the inboard wing panel behind the landing gear compartiment, in the wing roots, and a small tank in the part of the wing on top of the fuselage, inboard of the landing gear compartiment. The fuselage was large and box-like, preceding that of the MiG-25 and F-15. A compartiment in the nose was designed for the Astra radar and fire control system, that in the end never was installed. The CF-105 would probably have been able to be fitted with a larger radar antenna, and the nosecone tapered sharply. The engines intakes were rectangular, with large splitter plates to divert the boundary layer. They were far forward of the wing leading edge and the engines, so that considerable volume was occupied by the intake ducting. Two fuel tanks were installed in the fuselage, between the engine intakes. The armament bay, which was larger than that of a Lancaster or B-29, was installed below the intake ducts. It was 16ft 1in long, 9ft 6in wide, and 3ft high. The projected armament consisted of a version of the AIM-7 Sparrow, known as Sparrow II, and the Hughes Falcon. The doors of the missile bay could be opened in 0.3 seconds. Launch tests were performed at speeds up to Mach 1.5. The engines were installed at the extremeties of the aft fuselage, with the engine nozzles projecting well beyond the wing trailing edge and the tail. The engines could be changed in 30 minutes, by extracting them backwards.

Engines The Arrow Mk.2 was to be powered by two Orenda PS-13 Iroquois engines. Development of the PS-13 http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/arrow.html (2 of 9)2006-09-19 15:06:40

Interceptor Rex

began in 1953. It was a twin-spool engine, designed to deliver 8720kg dry trust and 11800kg with afterburner. The high-pressure spool had two compression and two turbine stages; the low- pressure spool had three compression stages and a single turbine stage. The then still very scarce and expensive titanium was used for a number of parts, to keep the weight down. Of a total weight of about 2000kg, 30% was accounted for by titanium parts. The PS-13 was run at full dry power during ground tests in 1955. In 1957, the RCAF received a B-47E Stratojet on loan from the USA to test the Iroquois engine. The cooperation of the USA also extended to giving the Canadian crew of the aircraft a SAC training course, and offering the facilities of NACA to test the engine. The Iroquois was installed at the right side of the tail, under the tailplane of the B-47. The first flight was made in November 1957. Testing was not entirely without problems, including an in-flight failure of the turbine, luckily without any serious consequences for aircraft or crew. But in general the engine was progressing well. The Iroquois was the most powerful engine of the American continent, it had a very good weight-to-trust ratio, and it was fuel efficient. Development costs had not exceeded 90 million dollar --- cheap, even for that time.

Crew accomodation The two crewmembers sat under clamshell-type canopies. They opened on the top, the two side panels folding left and right. The panels of the pilot's cockpit had a relatively large cutout in them, but the aft compartiment only had two small windows. The windscreen was of V-type with a frame in the middle. A similar type of canopy was fitted to the American F-106, until 1972. This canopy design betrayed a preoccupation with the high-speed bomber interception mission, being obviously less suitable for dogfights with enemy fighters, because it offered a relatively poor view. However, the cockpit layout was excellent, and praised as one of the best by a group of USAF visitors. The pilot and radar operator sat on Martin-Baker C5 ejection seats. For many test flights, there was only a single crewmember.

Landing Gear The landing gear of the CF-105 was supplied by Dowty. The three undercarriage legs each had two wheels. On the mainwheel legs, the wheels were set in tandem, to fit withing the wing. The nosewheel leg retracted to the front. The mainwheel legs were attached close to the leading edge, near the dogtooth extension at half-span. They legs retracted diagionally inwards and to the front, and folded into the inboard wing panels. Behind the wheel wells there was enough room for an external pylon. Because the Arrow was a shoulder-wing design, this meant that the mainwheel legs were very long. Especially because the Arrow stood very high above the ground, with a nosewheel leg that was 3.65 meters long! The nosewheel leg was attached just behind the cockpit, under the jet intakes. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/arrow.html (3 of 9)2006-09-19 15:06:40

Interceptor Rex

Powerful brakes were provided, as well as a braking parachute. This was installed in the tail cone, between and just above the engines.

Controls and Equipment The CF-105 relied to a much higher degree on electronic systems for control than any previous aircraft, although it was not a true fly-by-wire design. An AFCS (Automatic Flight Control System) was installed. This worked in three modes: In "normal" mode it assisted the pilot by stabilizing the aircraft. In "automatic" mode the AFCS controlled the aircraft completely, serving as autopilot and blind-landing aid. In theory, fully automatic landings were possible. The "emergency" mode was entered in case of a serious failure, e.g. an engine failure, and served to prevent the CF-105 from entering a stall or another dangerous condition. The controls were all hydraulically boosted. The thin wing had created some problems for the designers of the hydraulically powered controls. They finally decided to have the hydraulic lines running through the wing fuel tanks. Special problems were also posed by the Canadian environment. The CF-105 was designed to operate in very cold weather, but also to resist the heat generated by sustained high-speed flight. Some key parts were made from titanium, and an environmental control system was installed to protect the crew and the instruments.

Armament One of the key features of the Arrow project --- which also contributed to its end --- was its armament system. This was as ambitious as the Arrow fighter itself. There were numerous problems with the Astra radar and fire control system, designed by RCA-Victor. This was complex and expensive. In addition, a new missile was being developed for the Arrow, and this was a very ambitious one: Sparrow II. In fact, this missile had already been abandoned by the US Navy because it was too ambitious. Canada had already had an unpleasant experience with its only serious indigeneous air-to-air missile program, Velvet Glove. This was a short-range (8km) missile with IR guidance. It had been initially intended for the CF-100, but development was so slow that it still was unavailable when the last CF100s were being delivered. Velvet Glove was finally cancelled in 1954, and was no longer considered for the Arrow. As a long-range missile for the Arrow, the RCAF chose Sparrow II. This missile was developed between Sparrow I, a beam-riding missile and the Sparrow III with semi-active radar homing. Sparrow III is still in service, but Sparrow II was a much more ambitious project, because it featured active radar homing. The 8in fuselage diameter of Sparrow I was retained, and this required very careful engineering to fit the X-24 radar, developed by Westinghouse. The Sparrow II project was initiated by Douglas in 1955, and it http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/arrow.html (4 of 9)2006-09-19 15:06:40

Interceptor Rex

was intended for its F5D Skylancer fighter. But in 1956 the US Navy cancelled both. The project was revived by the RCAF interest, with Canadair acting as a subcontractor for Douglas. However, communication between the two companies was extremely poor, and Sparrow II was not a successful project. In addition, the Hughes AIM-4 Falcon was considered as short-range missile. Initially, it was planned that the Arrow would carry eight Falcons and three Sparrows in its immense missile bay. Later the number of Sparrow missiles was increased to four. After the cancellation of Sparrow II, the armament was changed to four Falcon missiles, and one or two unguided Genie missiles. Genie, unofficially designated MB-1 or (after 1962) AIR-2, was an unguided rocket with a 1.5kT nuclear warhead. This armament combination, Falcon and Genie, was the same as used by the F-106 and F-101B interceptors. Both missiles were designed for intercepting bombers, and in Vietnam it would be demonstrated that Falcon was nearly useless in fighter-versus-fighter combat.

Politics During the development of the CF-105, there were some political evolutions that changed its intended role. The NORAD agreement that was signed in 1954, created a cooperation between the USA and Canada in the air defense of the North American continent. Although this made it in theory easier to sell the CF-105 to the USAF, in practice this was unlikely to happen, because the Americans preferred to develop their own aircraft. In 1957, the conservatives replaced the liberals in governement. They and the new prime minister, John Diefenbaker, were much less supportive of the CF-105 project. The order for the CF-105 was reduced to 100, for a price of 781 million dollar. In combination with inflation, delays and development problems, this served to boost the unit price of the CF-105. The public animosity against the expensive interceptor increased, and every problem with the aircraft was published extensively by the press. The most important problem was that the enemy that the Arrow had been designed to intercept, the highflying supersonic or transsonic bomber, was perceived by many to be on its way out. Although new attack aircraft, optimized to fly at low altitudes, were on the drawing boards, the missile seemed to be the future both as vector for nuclear weapons and as air defence system. In 1957 the British aviation industry was dealt a sharp blow when Duncan Sandys cancelled all aircraft projects, except the English Electric Lightning, which was considered in a too advanced development stage to be cancelled. If anyone had announced then that the Tu-95 'Bear' would still be in service in 1995, he would probably have been put in a straightjacket immediately. Meanwhile, the IM-99B Bomarc B surface-to-air missile had been ordered to reinforce the air defence. Bomarc B was more an unmanned interceptor aircraft than a missile in common sense: It was 13.3 meter long, weighed 7260kg, and had a range of 710km. Although Bomarc could ostensibly not replace the http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/arrow.html (5 of 9)2006-09-19 15:06:40

Interceptor Rex

Arrow,it did contribute to the feeling that the Arrow was really unneccessary.

The prototypes For the CF-105, a similar production plan was adopted as the Cook-Craigie plan adopted by the USAF for the F-102. The prototypes were built on production jigs. The first CF-105 Mk.1 was rolled out on 4 October 1957, four years after the definition of the RCAF requirement. This was certainly a notable achievement. The Minister of Defence, George R. Pearkes, announced with some pride a new age in Canadian aviation. The Chief of Air Staff used the opportunity to hint at a possible purchase of the Arrow by the USAF, and to point out that American subcontractors had contributed significantly to the Arrow. Probably this could have saved the Arrow from its final fate, but it was never much more than a faint possibility. In preparation for the first flight, the design parameters of the CF-105 were fed to a computer --- still very limited, in 1958! --- to predict the behaviour of the aircraft in the air. The usefulness of this was probably small, because the computer predicted that the Arrow was unstable and would crash 13 seconds after take-off. This did not deter the chief test pilot for the CF-105, Jan Zurakowski. He was born in Poland and flew combat missions in 1939, before he escaped to Britain. There he joined the RAF, and later became a test pilot for Gloster. He joined Avro Canada in 1952. The second test pilot was Spud Potocki, and for the RCAF Lt. Jack Woodman would test the CF-105. During taxi tests all four mainwheel tires exploded, and the brakes had to be modified. On 25 March 1958 Zurakowski took the CF-105, number 25201 (coded RL-201) into air for the first time. Apart from a landing gear warning light, the flight was without problem. Zurakowski declared that the Arrow was easier to fly than the F-102 or the Gloster Javelin, two other delta-winged fighters. This would later be confirmed by other test pilots, who praised the handling of the CF-105 highly. Zurakoski complained about the high workload in the cockpit, despite the sophisticated AFCS (Automatic Flight Control System), but on the other hand the reliability of the electronic systems was better than expected. On its third flight, the CF-105 reached Mach 1.1, at an altitude near 13000m. Mach 1.52 was reached on the seventh flight. But on its 11th flight, on 11 June, the left landing gear leg failed during landing, because it had not aligned itself properly with the axis of the aircraft. The landing gear broke off completely, and 201 skidded of the runway on its belly. Damage was not extensive, and on 5 October the aircraft flew again. Meanwhile, on 1 August, the 202 had joined the flight test program. But in November the landing gear of 202 failed when the brakes blocked.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/arrow.html (6 of 9)2006-09-19 15:06:40

Interceptor Rex

Cancellation The Arrow was to be cancelled in stages. First to go was the Astra radar and fire control system, and the associated Sparrow II missiles. These were cancelled on 23 September 1958, and replaced by American systems. It was announced that the entire project would be reviewed again in March 1959. On 11 hours, 20 February 1959, John Diefenbaker announced that the CF-105 was to be cancelled. On the same day, Avro was instructed to immediately halt all work on the CF-105. That included the completion of the first Mk.2 prototypes, which were nearly complete. Employees were sent home, and were told that Avro could not garantuee them a job in the future. Indeed, about 14000 were fired. It was ordered that all five prototypes, the nearly complete first four Arrow Mk.2's, and the tools would be destroyed. Although the Arrow could now have been a political liability, this scrapping of everything seems to have been the standard procedure. Suggestions that one of the Arrows could be kept flying as an engine test bed, or that RL-206 should be used to set a new speed record, were dismissed. The only remains now is the nose of a single Arrow, RL-206, the sixth prototype. This one was the first Mk.2 prototype, but it has never flown.

A might have been For all purposes, the Avro Arrow had remained one of the greatest 'night have beens' of the aviation industry, competing only with the BAC TSR.2 strike aircraft. Despite being a considerable technical achievement, the Arrow failed to reach the production stage because of problems with the project management and political support. It would be unfair to blame only the governement that cancelled the Arrow. The RCAF itself was probably unwise in putting its demands so high. Everything it demanded was technically achievable, as was proven by the existence of the Arrow itself. However, it should have been clear from the start that such an expensive aircraft was not affordable, except in the unlikely case that there would be large export orders. The simultaneous development of aircraft, engines, radar system and missiles was a highrisk affair, with a large probability that at least one of these programmes would be a failure. The Sparrow II project may have been the least well-advised of all, because the missile had already been abandoned by the US Navy. A less ambitious project, with more off-the-shelf parts, would have been more realistic. For example Sweden developed several generations of excellent fighter aircraft, but always used derivatives of existing engines. The RCAF can also be blamed for being too inflexible in planning. The Arrow was hailed as the definitive interceptor, and the projected future versions were intended to fly faster and higher, to carry even more expensive electronics, and to be more effective in killing bombers. One could compare this to


Interceptor Rex

the career of the F-101: Derived from a long-range escort fighter, the F-101 evolved into a fighterbomber with nuclear weapons, an interceptor and a reconnaissance aircraft. Such changing requirements were an inevitable consequence of the longer development time of more complex aircraft. Some of the money spent on the development of radar and armament could have been used better to make the Arrow more flexible and more cost- effective. As an air superiority fighter, the Arrow had the disadvantage of being a very large aircraft, but because of its large wing area and powerful engines it could have been effective. Because of its high performance, the Arrow would probably also have been an good reconnaissance platform. Because of its large bomb bay, generous wing area and ample ground clearance it could also have been an effective fighter bomber. On the other hand, its enormous wing area was a disadvantage for operations at very low altitude. The main problem of the Arrow was its size. Almost any job, except that of a long range interceptor, could have been done more effectively by a smaller aircraft. If the RCAF had accepted external missile carriage, and had taken into account the development of in-flight refuelling, even that task could have been undertaken by a smaller aircraft.

Statistics Data for the Arrow Mk.2 are estimates, because the aircraft never flew. Type

Arrow Mk.1 Arrow Mk.2

F-101B

MiG-25P

Engines

P&W J75-P-3

Orenda PS-13 P&W Iroquois J75-P-55

Dry Thrust

5670kg

8390kg

Full thrust

8390kg

11790kg

Wing span

15.24m

15.24m

12.09m

14.01m

Length

25.3m

24.83m

20.54m

19.75m

Height

6.25m

6.4m

5.94m

6.10m

113.8m2

113.8m2

34.19m2

61.40m2

13141kg

20000kg

23768kg

36720kg

Wing Area Empty Weight

Max. Weight 31117kg Max. Speed

Mach 1.98

Climb

13565m/min

Ceiling

18290m

Action rad.

483km

Range

Mach 2.4+

Tumansky R-31

6750kg 12250kg

1965km/h Mach 2.83 16705m

20700m

2500km

1730km


Interceptor Rex

Sources: ●

● ● ● ●

●

Avro CF-105 "Arrow". Bernard Custeau, Le Fana de l'Aviation No.270, 271 and 272, starting in May 1992. Published by Editions Lariviere, Paris. Airplane, Nr.95. Published by De Agostini (Netherlands). McDonnell F-101 Voodoo. Robert F. Dorr, Osprey, 1987. The complete book of Fighters. William Green and Gordon Swanborough. Salamander, 1994. The illustrated Encyclopedia of the World's Rockets & Missiles. Bill Gunston, Salamander Books, 1979. E-mail from Darrell A. Larose ([email protected]), Russell Isinger (isingerr@herald. usask.ca), Maury Markowitz ([email protected]), Bill Zuk ([email protected]), Thomas Dugelby ([email protected]).



Helwan HA-300

Helwan HA-300 Development The Helwan HA-300 was orginally designed in Spain by Professor Willy Messerschmitt, who headed a German-Spanish design team, to meet a Ejercito del Aire (EdA) (Spanish Air Force) requirement. The development was initiated by the Spanish Hispano-Aviacion concern who produced a full-scale glider model, designated HA-23P, before the programme was transferred to Egypt in 1960. The United Arab Republic (UAR), consisting of Egypt, Syria and Yemen, assumed the sponsorship of the programme and it was controlled by the Egyptian General Aero Organisation (EGAO). Test facilities and workshops for the development of the fighter and the powerplant were built at Helwan. The HA-300 was orginally conceived as a tailless delta, powered by one Bristol Siddeley Orpheus B. Or.12 turbojet, rated at 3,057 kg dry and 3,706 kg with reheat. The maximum speed should be Mach 1.5. Before the programme was transferred to Egypt, a swept tailplane was introduced at the base of the rear fuselage, so a similar configuration to the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 'Fishbed' was adopted, and considerable developemnt of the basic design was then undertaken by German, Spanish and Egyptian engineers, who adapted the design for the E-300 turbojet and for speeds in the order of Mach two.

Structure The HA-300 was a very small aircraft, roughly comparable with the Fiat G.91 and the Northrop F-5A/B Freedom Fighter, and had a mid-mounted delta wing with a thickness/chord ratio of about four per cent and a leading edge sweep of 57.5 degrees. In view of the moderately large approach incidences associated with highly loaded deltas such as the HA-300, the pilot of the HA-300 would appear to suffer an exceptionally poor view for landing, and it is therefore possible that in the production variant some form of mechanical nose dropping would have been used.

Powerplant The Bristol Siddeley Orpheus turbojet was initially planned to power the HA-300, but it was not powerfull enough for the HA-300 to reach supersonic speeds. The E-300 turbojet was developed by a team headed by Dr. Ferdinand Brandner, who came from Austria to Egypt to assist in the development of the E-300 turbojet. During a visit to Egypt in early 1963, the Vice President of India, Dr. Zakir Hussain, was asked by the Egytian Air Force Chief, M. Sidky Mahmout, for help with the HA-300 programme. In fact, Egypt wanted only help for the development of the E-300 engine and an Indian test pilot.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ha-300.html (1 of 4)2006-09-19 15:06:50

Helwan HA-300

A test rig for the E-300 turbojet was build at Military Aircraft Factory Number 36 at Helwan, where Indian engineers assisted in the development of the E-300 turbojet, which ran for the first time in July 1963. The HA-300 had lateral intakes, possible derived from the intakes of the Lockheed F-104G Starfighter, for the E-300 turbojet. To test the E-300 turbojet, an example was fitted to the left inboard position of an Egyptian Air Force (EAF) Antonov An-12 'Cub', where it replaced the Ivchyenko Al-20K turboprop. This An-12 was damaged on 5 June 1967 by IDF/AF Sud-Ouest SO.4050A Vantours at Helwan. India supported the development programme for the E-300 turbojet, because India planned to use the E300 on the Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) HF-24 Marut. A modified HF-24 Mk IBX was loaned, and later given, to Egypt for engine trails with the E-300 turbojet. Thirty engineers from HAL were send to Egypt to maintain the aircraft.

Armament The planned armament for the intercept mission consisted of two to four infra-red (IR) homing air-to-air missiles, such as the Russian AA-2 'Atoll', and two 30 mm Hispano cannon or four 23 mm NudelmannSuranov NS-23 cannon would have been used for the ground attack role, although the high loaded delta configuration offered serious shortcommings in the latter role.

Flight Trails The Egytian Air Force Chief, M. Sidky Mahmout, was invited by HAL in early 1963 and he asked Group Captian Kapil Bhargava of the Indian Air Force (IAF) to became the testpilot for the HA-300. He came to Egypt in June 1963 and flew more than 100 flight hours with aircraft powered by the E-300 turbojet. Two Egyptian pilots were send to India in 1964 where they attended the Indian Air Force test pilot school to prepare for the flight development of the HA-300. Major Zohair Shalaby was a pilot of exceptional ability and Major Sahby al-Tawail was both a pilot and an engineer. Both of these officers completed the course succesfully. The first prototype made its first flight on 7 March 1964, piloted by Group Captian Kapil Bhargava. The first HA-300 was powered for the initial trails by a 2,200 kg Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703-S-10 turbojet. In the initial form, the aircraft was intended for relative slow speed trails, having subsonic engine air intakes and a non-powered rudder. The second prototype, which joined the test programma on 22 July 1965, had the same powerplant as the first prototype, but had supersonic intakes and a power control for the rudder. With the Orpheus 703-S10 turbojet, the HA-300 attained Mach 1.13. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ha-300.html (2 of 4)2006-09-19 15:06:50

Helwan HA-300

The third prototype, which was the first with the E-300 turbojet, began taxi trails in November 1969, but the programme was cancelled without flight testing being undertaken with the third prototype.

Cancellation The HA-300 programma was cancelled in 1969, due to the limited exceptions of the E-300 turbojet and thus the lack of a suitable powerplant and the Six Day War of June 1967. After the HA-300 was cancelled additional Soviet aircraft were ordered. At the start of the HA-300 programme, it was planned to built additional prototypes and pre-production aircraft to join the flight programme during the course of 1965, and that the delivery of production aircraft would have been started before the end of 1966 or early 1967. Later, this date was set at 1968. The production of the HA-300 would have taken place at Military Aircraft Factory Number 36 at Helwan.

Specification of the Helwan HA-300 Type: Single-seat point-defence interceptor with a limited ground-attack capability. Powerplant: One Helwan E-300 turbojet rated at 3,402 kg dry and 4,990 kg with reheat. Performance: Maximum speed: 2,124 km/h at 12,192 m and 1,802 km/h with two air-to-air missiles. Initial rate of climb: 12,192 m/min. Combat radius: 643 km in clean condition. Service ceiling: 12,000 m. Dimensions: Wingspan: 5.84 m. Length: 12.40 m. Height: 3.15 m. Wing area: 16.70 m2. Weights: Loaded weight: 5,443 kg in clean condition. Armament: Two 30 mm Hispano or four 23 mm Nudelmann-Suranov NS-23 cannon and two to four infrared (IR) homing air-to-air missiles.

Sources ●

●

●

●

Eyewitness to the Six-Day War, Kapil Bhargava, Air Forces Montly, June 1998 (Number 123), Key Publishing Limited, 1998. The Complete Book of Fighters - An illustrated encyclopedia of every fighter aircraft ever built and flown, W. Green and G. Swanborough, Salamander Books Limited, 1994. The World Guide to Combat Planes - Volume One, William Green, Macdonald & Company (Publishers) Limited, 1966. The World's Fighting Planes - Fourth and completely revised edition, William Green, Macdonald


Helwan HA-300

●

& Company (Publishers) Limited, 1965. Wings over Suez - The first authoritative account of air operations during the Sinai and Suez wars of 1956, Brian Cull, David Nicolle and Shlomo Aloni, Grub Street, 1996.

Ruud Deurenberg, 6 June 1998


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/d520i.html

1. Dewoitine D.520 1. Sources:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/d520i.html2006-09-19 15:07:07

Dewoitine D.520

Dewoitine D.520 The Dewoitine D.520 was perhaps the best fighter available to the Armee de l'Air during the German invasion of France in May of 1940. It was yet another example of a combat aircraft which flew on both sides during World War 2. The D.520 was a single-seat, single-engined low-winged fighter powered by a liquid-cooled HispanoSuiza 12Y Vee-type engine. It was designed in November 1936 by a team led by Emile Dewoitine, who was at that time the director of a private design office. It was designed in response to a specification issued in 1937 for a single seat fighter. It was designed around the 900hp Hispano-Suiza 12Y-21 liquidcooled engine, and was to have a maximum speed of 323 mph (520 km/hr). The designation D.520 was assigned, the 520 standing for the maximum speed in kilometers per hour. Provisions were made for the future installation of an appreciably more powerful 1200 hp engine then under development by HispanoSuiza. Dewoitine's design office was later absorbed by the Societe Nationale de Construction Aeronatiques du Midi (SNCAM), and he was named deputy managing director of the firm. The first of three prototypes (the D.520-01) flew on October 2, 1938 at Toulouse-Francazal with Marcel Doret at the controls. It was powered by a Hispano-Suiza 12Y-21 liquid-cooled engine rated at 890 hp. For the preliminary trials, the D.520-01 had a two-bladed wooden propeller and the cockpit canopy was removed. The engine was cooled by a set of radiators which were submerged underneath the wing. This arrangement was found to produce excessive drag which limited maximum speed to 298 mph and the radiator was later moved to a position underneath the fuselage. In addition, the vertical tail was increased in area to correct some lateral instability. After a wheel-up landing on November 28, the aircraft was re-engined with a 12Y-29 powerplant and was fitted with a "jet" exhaust manifold which replaced the former separate pipes. These modifications enabled the aircraft to achieve its design maximum speed of 520 km/hr. The D.520-01 achieved 513mph in a dive on February 8, 1939. The second prototype (D.520-02) flew for the first time on January 28, 1939. It had a completely redesigned vertical tail, a backwards-sliding cockpit canopy, and an armament of one 20mm cannon firing through the propeller hub and two machine guns mounted in gondolas underneath the wing. The D.520-02 was transferred to the Centre d'Essais du Materiel Aerien (CEMA) at Villacoublay. When reengined with a 12Y-31 engine in place of its original 12Y-29, it achieved a maximum speed of 341 mph at 17,060 feet, and could reach an altitude of 26,240 feet in 12 min 53 sec. It was soon joined by the third prototype (D.520-03), which flew for the first time on March 15, 1939. It differed in having a different type of supercharger and a steerable, non-retractable tailwheel replacing the tail-skid. Flight trials at CEMA went fairly well, and an initial contract for 200 production machines to be

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/d520.html (1 of 5)2006-09-19 15:07:17

Dewoitine D.520

powered by the 12Y-31 engine (later replaced by the 12Y-45) was issued in March of 1939. A contract for an additional 600 D.520 fighters was issued in June of 1939. This was later reduced to 510 in July. On the outbreak of war in September of 1939, a new contract brought the total of D.520s on order to 1280, with the production rate to be 200 machines per month from May 1940 onward. Successive amendments to this order on April 19, 1940 called for a total of 2250 machines, with the production rate being 350 per month. In addition, 120 machines were ordered by the Aeronavale in January 1940. The first production D.520 flew on November 2, 1939. It was powered by the 830 hp Hispano-Suiza 12Y-31 engine and was armed with two 7.5-mm machine guns in housings underneath the wings. It had a curved, one-piece windshield. The fuselage was about 20 inches longer than that of the prototypes, and the engine cowling was modified. Two additional fuel talks were fitted in the wing leading edge. Armor plate was fitted behind the pilot's seat. The second production machine had a 910 hp Hispano-Suiza 12Y-45 engine with a supercharger and an electric 3-bladed propeller. It was armed with a 20-mm cannon firing through the propeller hub and four 7.5-mm machine guns in the wings. The curved, one-piece windshield was replaced by windshield containing an optically-flat panel. As an alternative to the Hispano-Suiza engine, it was decided in October of 1939 to fit a Rolls-Royce Merlin III engine. Although the project was cancelled in November (the Merlin being allocated instead to the Amiot 353/356 bomber), the 41st D.520 was experimentally fitted with the Rolls-Royce Merlin III engine. The wing armament was omitted. The aircraft was designated D.521, and flew for the first time on February 9, 1940. A maximum speed of 354 mph was attained. The aircraft was later converted back to standard D.520 configuration. The Groupe de Chasse I/3 was the first unit to get the D.520, receiving its first planes in January of 1940. At first, the D.520s issued to this Groupe were unarmed training versions, and GC I/3 was assigned the task of shaking out the bugs. In April and May, GC I/3 was issued with 34 "war-cleared" D.520s at Cannes-Mandelieu. The D.520 was very popular with its pilots, who praised it for the sensitiveness of its controls, the simplicity of its control panel, and the ease of recovery from a spin. In comparative trials on April 21, 1940 at CEMA at Orleans-Bricy against a captured Bf 109E-3, tests showed that the German machine had a 20 mph speed advantage owing to its higher power. However, the D.520 had superior maneuverability owing to its superb handling properties. On May 10, 1940, when Germany invaded France, only GC I/3 was equipped with the D.520, a total of 79 D.520s being taken on charge. GC I/3 was hastily thrown into action, the D.520 meeting the Luftwaffe for the first time on May 13, shooting down three Henschel Hs 126s and one Heinkel He 111 without loss to themselves. GC II/2, GC III/3, GC III/6 and GC II/7 were later to receive the D.520, and http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/d520.html (2 of 5)2006-09-19 15:07:17

Dewoitine D.520

all took part in the battle for France. A naval unit, the 1o Flottile de Chasse, was also equipped with the D.520. GC II/6 and GC III/7 had also converted to the D.520, but had been formed too late to see any action. By the time of the Franco-German Armistice of June 25, 1940, 437 D.520s had been built, and 351 of these had been delivered to operational units. The Armee de l'Air D.520s gave a good account of themselves, and gave better than they got. By the time that the battle for France had come to an end, D.520-equipped squadrons had accounted for 108 confirmed kills and 39 probables. A total of 85 were lost on operations, with 54 of these losses being due to direct enemy action. As French resistance to the German advance began to collapse, between the 18th and 20th of June, GC I/3, II/3, III/3, III/6, and II/7 flew their aircraft to North Africa. 153 machines remained behind in unoccupied France. Three D.520s of GC III/7 escaped to Britain and were incorporated into the Free French 1st Fighter Group formed at RAF Odiham. After the Armistice, the German victors allowed the Vichy government to maintain a reduced air force. Under the terms of the agreement, no D.520 unit was to remain in service on the French mainland, and all surviving D.520 aircraft in France were dispersed and stored. In North Africa, GC I/3, II/3, III/6, and III/7 as well as Aeronavale Escadrille 1AC (the former AC1) were allowed to remain in service with their D.520s. In April 1941, the German authorities agreed to allow the resumption of aircraft manufacture in unoccupied France. When SNCAM was dissolved, its plants were absorbed by S.N.C.A. du Sud-Est (SNCASE). The Vichy Air Force adopted the D.520 as its standard fighter, and the German Armistice Commission permitted production of the D.520 to resume at Toulouse-Blagnac. 550 D.520s were ordered on June 23rd. They were to replace all other single-seat fighters in service in Vichy, and in a second stage of the program, the D.520 was to equip newly-formed units. By the middle of 1943, it was anticipated that the Vichy government would be able to field an Armistice Air Force equipped with 17 D.520-equipped Groupes with 442 front-line aircraft, three Aeronavale Escadrilles with 37 aircraft, plus 3 training units with 13 aircraft. The first batch of 22 aircraft was delivered in August of 1941. In 1942, the D.520 number 465 was flown with an improved Hispano-Suiza 12Y-45 engine, a modified radiator, and inboard hinged wheel doors. By December 31, 1942, 349 aircraft had been delivered, 197 of which were powered by the 12Y49 engine. This brought total production of the D.520 to 775 aircraft. By October of 1942, nine Vichy Groupes de Chasse had been equipped with the D.520. In addition, the 1o Flotille de Chasse had been equipped with the D.520. Vichy D.520s saw some action against British forces in the Levant and had escorted Vichy bombers in an attack on Gibraltar. GC III/6 and II/3 took part in operations in Syria in June-July 1941. They were later joined by Escadrille 1AC. During that operation, they saw combat against RAF aircraft. GC III/6 was credited with 19 confirmed kills and four probables. GC II/2 was credited with three confirmed kills and two probables. Esc. IAC was credited with eight kills. Vichy D.520 losses totaled 32, with 11 being shot down, 12 lost


Dewoitine D.520

in accidents, 7 being destroyed in the ground, and two being abandoned in Syria when the fighter units flew back to French North Africa. At the time of the Operation Torch Anglo-American landings in North Africa in November of 1942, 234 D.520s were in unoccupied France (of which 93 were in service), 173 were in North Africa, and 30 were in Senegal. French-based D.520 units comprised GCs I/1, II/1, and III/9 (which had recently received the D.520 in place of its Bloch 152s), and I/2. GC I/2 escaped with 24 aircraft to Meknes on November 9 to avoid capture by German forces. In North Africa, D.520s equipped GCs II/3, III/3 (formerly I/3, its designation being changed at German request since three of its pilots had fled to Gibraltar on October 14, 1941), III/6, II/7, and II/5 Aeronavale IF Flotille (comprising Escadrilles 1AC and 2AC) was also based in Africa. The Allied landings gave rise to fratricidal air battles in which the D.520s of GC III/3 and II/5 were involved, as well as those of 1F Flotille and the Hawk 75s of GC I/5 and II/5. Losses were heavy on both sides. The Aeronavale lost 19 Dewoitines and seven Martin bombers, and the Armistice Air Force lost 16 D.520s and Hawks. Allied air forces lost 44 aircraft during these clashes. In response to the Allied landings in North Africa, German forces invaded Unoccupied France in November of 1942. On November 27th, all French armed forces were disbanded and all existing D.520s were seized. This included 246 D.520s serving with Vichy units, plus 169 D.520s in various stages of completion at SNCASE. Some of these seized D.520s were transferred to two Luftwaffe fighter training units (JG-103 and JG105). They were highly praised by Luftwaffe crews for their exceptional maneuverability. However, the accident rate was fairly high owing to the great differences between it and the German aircraft to which the pilots were accustomed. Sixty D.520s were transferred to the Regia Aeronautica, and were operated primarily as fighter trainers by Gruppi 13, 22, 24, and 167. About a hundred D.520s were issued to the Bulgarian Air Force, which used them operationally against the US 9th Air Force. Most of these were lost in combat. The Rumanian Air Force operated a small batch of D.520s in combat on the Eastern Front, flying them alongside that air force's Bf 109s. Upon the liberation of Southwestern France, a French FFI (Forces Francaises de l'Interieur) fighter Groupe was formed with D.520s that had been captured from the retreating enemy. This unit took part in attacks on retreating German units and provided escort for Allied bombers and strafed artillery positions. In March of 1945, this unit reequipped with the Spitfire Vb, and its D.520s were transferred to GC B I/18 and to a training unit. About 55 D.520s were recovered from the Luftwaffe as the Allied forces advanced eastward, which were later reinforced by another 20 which were brought back from North Africa. In postwar years, the D.520 continued to serve with training units in the revived Armee de l'Air. Several http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/d520.html (4 of 5)2006-09-19 15:07:17

Dewoitine D.520

were converted to two-seat configuration under the designation D.520 DC (for "double commande"). The last unit to fly the D.520 was the Escadrille de Presentation de l'Armee de l'Air (EPAA), which had previously flown Yak 3s brought back to France from the Soviet Union by the Normandie-Niemen regiment. The last D.520 was finally withdrawn from service in September of 1953. Four D.520s are known to exist ca 1966. No. 408 belongs to the Musee de l'Air, No. 603 is on display at the Ecole de l'Air, No. 650 (a DC) is on display at Etampes-Mondesir, and No. 862 is on display at the Luxeuil-Saint Sauveur Air Base. Specification of the D.520: One Hispano-Suiza 12Y-45 twelve-cylinder Vee liquid cooled engine rated at 930 hp for takeoff. Maximum speed 329 mph at 19,685 feet, 280 mph at sea level. Initial climb rate 2362 feet per minute. Time to 13,120 feet was 4 minutes. Service ceiling 36,090 feet, normal range was 620 miles and maximum range was 777 miles. Dimensions: wingspan 33 feet 5 1/2 inches, length 28 feet 8 1/2 inches, height 8 feet 5 inches, wing area 171.684 square feet. Weights: 4608 pounds empty, 6129 pounds maximum loaded. Armed with one 20-mm Hispano-Suiza 404 cannon with 60 rounds mounted between the engine cylinder banks and firing through the propeller spinner, plus four 7.5-mm MAC 1934 M 39 machine guns in the wings with 500 rpg.

Sources: The Dewoitine 520, Raymond Danel, Aircraft in Profile, 1966. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume One, William Green, Doubleday, 1963.

Joe Baugher [email protected]


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/bv155i.html

1. Blohm & Voss Bv 155 1. The high-flying changeling 2. Source:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/bv155i.html2006-09-19 15:07:35

Blohm & Voss Bv 155

Blohm & Voss Bv 155 The high-flying changeling The Bv 155 high-altitude interceptor was an example of how NOT to design a combat aircraft. It went through an agonizing number of design changes, starting off as a single-seat carrier-based fighter evolving into a precision bomber, then went through several incarnations as a high-altitude interceptor. It even went through a change of manufacturers. Here is a summary of its history. The saga of the BV 155 high altitude interceptor actually began at Messerschmitt in the spring of 1942. At that time, it was known under the designation of Me 155, and was a company proposal for a carrierbased single seat fighter. The Me 155 was intended to be based aboard the Graf Zeppelin aircraft carrier, then under construction. In the interest of economy and simplicity, the Me 155 was to use as many Bf 109 components as possible, being basically a navalized version of the earlier Messerschmitt fighter. The Me 155 was to be powered by a DB 605A-1 liquid-cooled engine of 1475 hp. The fuselage was more-or-less that of the standard Bf 109G, but with an entirely new wing. The undercarrage retracted inwards into wing wells, providing the wider track required for safe carrier landings. Standard naval equipment such as folding wings, catapult spools, and arrester gear were to be fitted. Proposed armament was an engine mounted 20-mm MG 151 cannon and two 20-mm MG 151 cannon and two 13mm MG 131 machine guns in wings. Estimated maximum speed of 403 mph. Detail design of the Me 155 was complete by Sept 1942. However, the numerous delays in the Graf Zeppelin seemed to indicate that the launching of the carrier would be at least two years away. Messerschmitt was told to shelve the Me 155 project for the indefinite future. In the event, work on the Graf Zeppelin carrier was abandoned in favor of more submarines. In order that all of that work on the Me 155 project not go entirely to waste, Messerschmitt adapted its design in November 1942 to fulfill a Luftwaffe requirement for a fast single seat bomber. A single 2205 lb SC 1000 bomb was to be carried. All of the carrier equipment and most of the armament was removed from the aircraft. Additional fuel cells were provided and an elongated, non- retractable tailwheel was added to provide ground clearance for the large bomb. The proposal was designated Me 155A. By the end of 1942, the increasing number of USAAF bombing raids and intelligence coming in about the new American B-29 bomber led the Luftwaffe to envisage a pressing need for an effective highaltitude interceptor. The Messerschmitt outfit adapted its design to this requirement under the designation Me 155B. The engine was to be the DB 628, which was basically a DB 605A with a twostage mechanical supercharger with an induction cooler. A pressure cabin was to be provided. It was estimated that a service ceiling of 46,250 feet could be attained. A converted Bf 109G adapted to take the DB 628 engine flew in May 1942 and attained an altitude of http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/bv155.html (1 of 3)2006-09-19 15:07:43

Blohm & Voss Bv 155

50,850 feet. However, the Technische Amt concluded that a DB 603A engine with an exhaust-driven turbosupercharger was more promising. The DB 603A provided 1610 hp for takeoff and 1450 hp at 49,210 feet. This engine change required that the fuselage be elongated in order to house the turbosupercharger aft of the pressure cabin. Exhaust gases were carried to the turbosupercharger via external ducts. Air was drawn in through via a ventral trough aft of the wing. Standard Bf 109G wings were to be fitted outboard of a new, long-span, untapered wing center section. Other parts were scavenged from existing Messerschmitt designs --- the vertical tail was from the Me 209, and the horizontal tail and the undercarriage were taken from the Bf 109G. In August 1943, the Technische Amt decided that Messerschmitt was over-committed, and they decided to transfer the work on the design to the Blohm und Voss outfit. After some initial study, the Blohm and Voss design team deemed that the existing Messerschmitt design had too many weaknesses. Several months of argument and finger-pointing between the Messerschmitt transition team and the Blohm und Voss designers followed. Friction between the two teams got steadily worse. In the event, no meeting of the minds was possible, and the Technische Amt eventually decided to throw Messerschmitt off the project entirely, and turn it entirely over to Blohm und Voss. The Blohm und Voss team elected to adopt a laminar-flow airfoil section, and abandoned the idea of using standard Bf 109G wings for the outer panels. The wing center section was redesigned. Two large radiators were mounted over the wing trailing edges at the extremeties of the center section. Ju 87D-6 undercarriage legs and wheels used instead of the Bf 109G units. The Bf 109G horizontal tail surfaces were replaced with larger area freshly-designed units, and the vertical tail surface was increased in size. The first prototype was designated BV 155 V1, and flew for the first time Sept 1, 1944. Tests with the V1 showed that the outboard radiators were not sufficently effective in providing cooling, especially at high angles of attack. The intakes on the next prototype were enlarged and underslung beneath the wing rather than placed over it. However, the enlarged radiators caused an c.g. problem, which required moving the pressurized cockpit forward. The Blohm und Voss team took this opportunity to replace the original Bf 109G canopy with an aft-sliding all-round vision canopy, and the rear fuselage decking was cut down. This in turn required that a larger rudder be fitted. The ventral radiator bath was also enlarged. All these changes were incorporated into the BV 155 V2, which flew for the first time on February 8, 1945. which was the first genuine Bseries aircraft. The Blohm und Voss team was still not satisfied with the design, and before the V-2 began its flight trials they proposed that the engine be switched to the DB 603U having the larger mechanically-driven supercharger of the DB 603E. The DB 603U promised a power of 1660 hp for takeoff and 1430 hp at 49,000 feet. The ventral turbosupercharger was retained. The Technishe Amt decided to accept this proposal, and abandoned all work on the BV 155B in favor of the revised design, which was designated BV 155C. The BV 155C was quite different in appearance from the BV-155B. The clumsy wing-mounted radiators of the BV-155B were eliminated, and the main landing gear leg attachment points were moved inboard to retract inwards. The cooling was provided by an annular frontal radiator a la Ta 152. Large circular

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/bv155.html (2 of 3)2006-09-19 15:07:43

Blohm & Voss Bv 155

intakes were attached to the fuselage sides above the wing roots. In the meantime, the BV 155 V2 was damaged beyond repair during a bad landing. It was to be replaced in the test program by the BV 155 V3. The BV 155 V3 differed from the V2 in having the DB 603U intended for the BV 155C. However, the engine cowling and turbosupercharger were unchanged. Various armament schemes for the BV 155B were proposed. One proposal had an engine-mounted 30mm MK 108 cannon and two 20-mm MG 151/20 cannon. Another had an engine- mounted MK 103 cannon and two wing-mounted 15mm MG 151 cannon. Estimated maximum speed was 404 mph at 39,370 feet and 429 mph at 52,490 feet. Service ceiling was to be 55,610 feet. Empty weight was 10,734 lbs. Normal loaded weight ranged from 11,300 to 12,100 lbs, depending on the armament provided. The program was brought to an abrupt end when the Allies occupied the Blohm und Voss factory at Finkenwerder in April of 1945. At that time, the V3 was 75 percent completed, but assembly of the Cseries prototypes had not yet commenced. The V-3 was eventually taken to the USA for examination. I am unaware of its ultimate fate.

Source: ●

Warplanes of the Third Reich, William Green, Doubleday, New York, 1970.

Joe Baugher

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/bv155.html (3 of 3)2006-09-19 15:07:43

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fi103i.html

1. Fieseler Fi 103 Reichenberg

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fi103i.html2006-09-19 15:08:40

Fieseler Fi 103 Reichenberg

Fieseler Fi 103 Reichenberg According to William Green's Warplanes of the Third Reich, the piloted version of the Fi 103 "buzzbomb" missile WAS intended as a suicide weapon. The piloted Fi 103 was intended for use against shipping or heavily-defended ground targets, and was developed under the code name Reichenberg. The project was the brain-child of the famous woman pilot Flugkapitan Hanna Reitsch and of the redoubtable adventurer SS-Haupsturmfuhrer Otto Skorzeny. Earlier, Flugkapitan Reitsch had promoted a scheme for the recruitment of a cadre of suicide pilots willing to sacrifice their lives in defense of the Fatherland by crashing their aircraft onto important targets. The scheme met with little favorable response except from a few Nazi fanatics, and was only pursued on a limited scale. Various different aircraft types were considered for possible conversion to manned missiles. It was envisaged that the aircraft be aimed towards its target by the pilot. Once he had ensured that his intended target could not escape, the pilot would then bale out thus giving him as least some change of survival. It was Skorzeny who suggested that the Fi 103 missile be adapted to accommodate a pilot. The scheme was adopted in the summer of 1944, and the project was given the highest priority and assigned the code name Reichenberg. Flight test examples were ready within only 14 days of the initial authorization. The aircraft was launched from underneath the port wing of a He 111 bomber. Initial piloted trials were conducted in September 1944. The first two examples crashed, but Hanna Reitsch took over the test flying and met with more success. Nevertheless, there were a couple of crashes which Flugkapitan Reitsch managed to survive. There were four piloted models of the Fi 103, three of which were to be used as trainers. These trainers were the Reichenberg I single seat glider with landing gear and flaps, the Reichenberg II two-seat glider with a second cockpit in the nose where the warhead would have been located, and the Reichenberg III single seat trainer with landing skid and flaps but with the Argus AS 014 impulse duct engine fitted and ballast in the nose to simulate the weight of the warhead. The operational version was the Reichenberg IV. The pilot's cockpit was located just ahead of the propulsive duct. The instruments were quite rudimentary, consisting of an arming switch, a clock, an airspeed indicator, an altimeter, and a turn and bank indicator. The aircraft was otherwise quite similar to the unpiloted Fi 103, and carried a 1874-lb warhead in the nose. The Reichenberg IV was to be carried to the vicinity of its target underneath the wing of a He 111 bomber, in exactly the same way that the pilotless Fi 103s were airlaunched against England. In theory, the pilot would jettison his cockpit canopy and bail out just after aiming his aircraft at the target, but since the target approach speed was of the order of 500 mph, it was anticipated that his actual chances of survival would be negligibly small. A training program was initiated, and the task of first deployment was assigned to the infamous KG 200

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fi103.html (1 of 2)2006-09-19 15:08:44

Fieseler Fi 103 Reichenberg

squadron. However, the whole program was cancelled in October 1944, after some 175 Fi 103s had been converted to piloted configuration. None were ever used operationally. The Argus AS 104 pulse jet provided a thrust of 660 pounds. Maximum speed was estimated to be 497 mph at 8000 feet. Powered endurance was 32 minutes. Range from point of launching at 8200 feet was estimated to be 205 miles. Joe Baugher

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fi103.html (2 of 2)2006-09-19 15:08:44

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190i.html

1. Development history 1. FOCKE-WULF 190A 1. FOCKE-WULF 190 A-1 2. FOCKE-WULF 190 A-2 3. FOCKE-WULF 190 A-3 4. FOCKE-WULF 190 A-4 5. FOCKE-WULF 190 A-5: 6. FOCKE-WULF Fw 190A-6 7. FOCKE-WULF 190 A-7 8. FOCKE-WULF 190 A-8 9. FOCKE-WULF 190 A-9 2. FOCKE- WULF 190 S 3. FOCKE-WULF 190 F 1. FOCKE-WULF 190 F-1 and F-2 2. FOCKE-WULF 190 F-3 3. FOCKE-WULF 190 F-8 4. FOCKE-WULF 190 F-9 4. FOCKE-WULF 190 G 1. FOCKE-WULF 190 G-1 2. FOCKE-WULF 190 G-2 3. FOCKE-WULF 190 G-3 4. FOCKE-WULF 190 G-8 5. MISTEL SETS

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190i.html2006-09-19 15:08:56

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190di.html

1. Focke-Wulf Fw 190D 1. The "Dora 9" 2. Sources:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190di.html2006-09-19 15:09:16

Focke-Wulf Fw 190D

Focke-Wulf Fw 190D The "Dora 9" The Fw 190D "long-nose" version was an adaptation of the radial-engined Fw 190A to the Junkers Jumo 213 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled engine. In many respects, the "Dora" was the most successful version of the Focke-Wulf fighter to attain service in quantity. In 1943, the Luftwaffe was faced with a desperate need for fighters with better high-altitude performances to face the threat of Allied bombers. By that time, the Luftwaffe was aware of the existence of the B-29, and they were also aware that the existing Fw 190 would be incapable of effectively intercepting this American bomber at the altitudes at which it was supposedly capable of operating. Consequently, Dipl.-Ing. Kurt Tank undertook the development of a high altitude version of his Fw 190 fighter to meet the threat. Tank was convinced that the BMW-801 air-cooled radial would never achieve the required high-altitude performance, and decided that only a liquid-cooled engine would do. Tank proposed that Daimler Benz DB 603 engine be used, but this engine was looked upon with disfavor by the Reichluftfahrtministerium (State Ministry of Aviation, better known as the RLM) for what were basically political rather than technical reasons. Consequently, Tank was told to adapt the existing BMW 801 air cooled radial or use the Junkers Jumo 213 liquid-cooled Vee. As a concession to Tank, he was allowed to work on a DB 603powered version, but it was made clear to him that it would be only a low-priority project. Three alternative proposals were considered: the Fw 190B powered by a turbosupercharged BMW-801, the Fw 190C powered by a DB 603, and the Fw 190D powered by a Jumo 213. The Fw 190B and C both ran into an extensive series of teething problems, and, in the event, never entered production. Priority was therefore given to the Fw 190D even though Tank felt that that the DB 603 was a better high-altitude engine than the Jumo 213 and had greater development potential. In addition, it was anticipated that the Jumo 213 would be available sooner than the DB 603 engine, which was still regarded as being "chancy" by the RLM. Tank had always viewed the "Dora" as only an interim type, pending the availability of the DB-603-powered version, which was eventually to evolve into the Ta 152. The Jumo engine had a nose radiator housed in a short annular duct. In order to compensate for the longer nose, the rear fuselage was also lengthened, overall length becoming 33 feet 11 inches (as compared with 29 feet 0 inches for the Fw 190A version). The vertical fin was increased in width. The Jumo engine was installed as a complete "power egg", being attached by four bolts to the fireproof bulkhead. It drove a three-bladed "paddle" propeller. There were a small number of Fw 190D-0 and D-1 aircraft built for service evaluation and delivered http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190d.html (1 of 3)2006-09-19 15:09:19

Focke-Wulf Fw 190D

during the spring and summer of 1943. For some odd reason, the designations Fw 190D-2 thru 8 were skipped, and the first production version of the "Dora" was the Fw 190D-9, which attained production status in the early summer of 1944. It was powered by a Jumo 213A-1 engine rated at 1776 hp for takeoff and 1600 at 18,000 feet. However, with MW 50 (water/methanol) injection, it could give 2240 hp at sea level and 2000 hp at 11,150 feet. The boost could not be used longer than ten minutes at a time, but there was sufficient MW 50 fuel for a maximum of 40 minutes use. Armament was two 20-mm MG 151 cannon in the wing roots with 200 rpg and two 13-mm MG 131 machine guns with 475 rpg mounted in the upper fuselage deck. A 1102-pound bomb could be carried on an underwing rack. Maximum speed was 357 mph at sea level, 397 mph at 10,830 feet, 426 mph at 21,650 feet, and 397 mph at 32,800 feet. An altitude of 6560 feet could be reached in 2.1 minutes, and 32,801 feet could be attained in 16.8 minutes. Range was 520 miles at 18,500 feet on internal fuel. Weights were 7694 lbs empty, 9840 lbs normal loaded, and 10,670 lbs maximum. The aircraft was well-armored, having a 14mm plate for the pilot's head and shoulders, and an 8-mm plate for the seat back and surrounding area. The engine was protected by armor rings around the cowling. Delivery of the Fw 190D-9 began in August 1944. The first Gruppe to convert to the "Dora-9" was III/ JG 54. Their initial assignment was to fly "top cover" for Me 262 jet fighters during takeoff when the jet fighters were specially vulnerable because of their poor acceleration. At first, Luftwaffe pilots were somewhat suspicious of their new fighter, since the Jumo 213 was thought to be only a "bomber" engine. However, it soon became apparent that they had a winner on their hands. The "Dora" could out-climb and out-dive its BMW 801-powered predecessor with ease, and it possessed an excellent turning rate at speed. An experienced pilot could pull a tighter turn in a D-9 than he could with the BMW-powered FW190A. The general opinion of the pilots who flew the FW 190D-9 was that it was the finest propellerdriven fighter available to the Luftwaffe during the entire war. In fact, many of its pilots considered it more than a match for the redoubtable P-51D Mustang. The D-9 also participated in Operation Bodenplatte, a mass attack by several hundred Luftwaffe aircraft on Allied airfields in Belgium, France, and the Netherlands on the first of January, 1945. Very early in the production run of the "Dora-9", the original Fw 190Astyle cockpit canopy was replaced by a blown hood similar to that used on the Fw 190F fighter-bomber. The Fw 190D-10 was an experimental version of the D-9 with an engine-mounted MK 108 cannon and two MG 151 cannon in the wing roots. Only two of these were built. The Fw 190D-11 was powered by the Jumo 213F with MW 50 boost. The fuselage-mounted guns were eliminated, and there were two MG 151s in the wing roots and two MK 108s in the outer wings. Only seven prototypes were built. The Fw 190D-12 was a fighter-bomber variant, which differed from the D-9 by having a three-stage supercharged Jumo 213F-1 engine rated at 2060 hp for takeoff mounted in a new, more extensively armored cowling. Armanent was one engine-mounted 30-mm MK 108 cannon and two 20-mm MG 151s

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190d.html (2 of 3)2006-09-19 15:09:19

Focke-Wulf Fw 190D

in the wing roots. Although primarily a ground-attack plane, the D-12 also made an effective fighter and could attain 453 mph at 37,000 feet when MW 50 boost was used. Production began in March 1945 at the Arado and Fieseler plants, but only a few were delivered. The D-13 differed from the D-12 by having a Jumo 213EB engine and by having a 20-mm enginemounted MG 151 cannon in place of the 30-mm MK 108 unit. However, only a couple of prototypes were built. In the late autumn of 1944, the Technische Amt decided to switch to the Daimler-Benz DB 603 engine for future Fw-190D production. A couple of production Fw 190D-9s were re-engined with the DB 603AE, and during tests one of them clocked 435 mph at 32,800 feet. Plans were made to produce the fighter in series with the DB603E or DB 603LA as the Fw 190D-14 and with the DB 603EB or DB 603G as the Fw 190D-15, but the war ended before these plans could be brought to fruition. Somewhere between 650 and 700 "Doras" were built before the occupation of Focke-Wulf factories by Allied forces brought production to an end. There is an Fw 190D-9 on display at the WPAFB Museum in Dayton, Ohio. An Fw 190D-12 is on display at the Champlin Fighter Museum at Falcon Field, Mesa, Arizona. I'll talk about the Ta 152 later.

Sources: ● ● ●

Warplanes of the Third Reich, William Green, Doubleday, 1971. Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday 1967. The Focke-Wulf 190--A Famous German Fighter, Heinz Nowarra, Harleyford, 1965.

Joe Baugher

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190d.html (3 of 3)2006-09-19 15:09:19

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152i.html

1. Focke-Wulf Ta 152 1. Kurt Tank's finest 2. Sources:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152i.html2006-09-19 15:09:36

Focke-Wulf Ta 152

Focke-Wulf Ta 152 Kurt Tank's finest As promised, here is the follow-on to the Fw 190D story --- Kurt Tank's own Ta 152. Before the end of 1940, the Focke-Wulf design bureau headed by Dipl.-Ing. Kurt Tank had initiated work on variants of the Fw 190 intended to improve its high-altitude performance. Three alternative proposals were considered, designated Fw 190B, C, and D. The Fw 190B was basically similar to the Fw 190A, but was to be powered by a BMW 801 radial boosted by nitrous-oxide (GM 1) injection pending the availability of an exhaust-driven turbosupercharger. A pressure cabin was to be fitted, and the wing area was to be increased. The Fw 190C was basically similar to the B but was to be powered by the Daimler Benz DB 603 liquid-cooled engine using either a mechanically-driven supercharger operating in conjunction with nitrous oxide injection or a turbosupercharger. The Fw 190D was powered by the Jumo 213. The Fw 190B and C both ran into an extensive series of teething problems, and, in the event, never entered production. Priority was therefore given to the Fw 190D even though Tank felt that that the DB 603 was a better high-altitude engine than the Jumo 213 and had greater development potential. The result was the superb "Dora" version of the Fw 190, which was described in a previous post. When Germany declared war on the USA, the Luftwaffe had initially assumed that the Americans would give the war in the Pacific their first priority, and had not worried too much about high-altitude bombing raids from B-17 bombers. However, by the autumn of 1942, it became readily apparent that the USAAF was planning a full-scale massive bombing campaign against Germany from its bases in the UK, and that the Luftwaffe would soon require fighters with better high-altitude performances to face the threat from American bombers. By that time, the Luftwaffe was also aware of the existence of the B-29, and they were also aware that the existing Fw 190 would be incapable of effectively intercepting this American bomber at the altitudes at which it was supposedly capable of operating. Consequently, Dipl.Ing Kurt Tank undertook the development of of a Hochleistungsjäger, or High-performance Fighter, offering a much improved combat ceiling. The Luftwaffe envisaged a two-phase program for the production of its new high-altitude fighter. The first phase would produce an aircraft based to the extent possible on an existing production airframe. The second phase would design a fighter from the ground up specifically for the high-altitude role. To meet the requirements of the first phase, Focke-Wulf proposed the Fw 190 Ra-2 and Ra-3 designs, both based on the Fw 190D. These two proposals were basically similar, differing from each other principally in wing span and armament, the Ra-2 having a standard Fw 190D wing and the Ra-3 having extended wing outer panels giving a wing with a rather high aspect ratio. The engine was to be a Jumo 213E with a a three-speed two-stage supercharger and induction cooler which offered superior highhttp://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html (1 of 4)2006-09-19 15:09:39

Focke-Wulf Ta 152

altitude performance over the Jumo 213A. Both designs had a pressure cabin and provision for both nitrous oxide (GM 1) and methanol-water (MW50) injection. The fuselage was common to both models, and was lengthened to provide increased internal capacity. The cockpit was moved sixteen inches further aft in relation to the wing attachment points in order to balance the center of gravity. Vertical tail surfaces were enlarged, and both aircraft had a 30-mm engine-mounted cannon and a pair of 20-mm MG 151 cannon in the wing roots, however the Ra-2 was to have an additional pair of MG 151s in the upper deck of the forward fuselage. The requirements of the second phase were to be met by the Fw 190 Ra-4D. Although it was based broadly on the Fw 190, the Ra-4D embodied a complete structural redesign and numerous aerodynamic refinements. It was from the start to use a turbosupercharged Daimler-Benz DB 603 engine, the engine which Kurt Tank had preferred all along. Dipl.-Ing Kurt Tank had by this time obtained almost legendary status as a result of his successful aircraft designs, and the RLM decided to honor him by using the prefix "Ta" instead of "Fw" for aircraft coming out of his design bureau. Since the Ra-2 and Ra-3 were considered sufficiently different from their predecessors to deserve a new designation, they were the first to receive the new "Ta" prefix. They were both redesignated Ta 152 by the end of 1942. Logic would seem to dictate that the Ra-2 and Ra-3 be designated Ta 152H and K, since they followed on directly from the Fw 190F and G (I and J were not used as suffixes). However, Tank had a different idea. He proposed that the short-span Ra-2 be designated Ta 152B, where the B stood for Begeleitjäger or Escort Fighter, and the long-span Ra-3 be designated Ta 152H, where the H stood for Hohenjäger or High-Altitude Fighter. Such was the prestige of Kurt Tank that he immediately got his way. The Ra-4D was assigned the designation Ta 153. Although Tank was pressing the Luftwaffe to allocate production priority to the Ta 152, the authorities were reluctant to disrupt existing assembly lines for the introduction of a new type. Consequently, the work on the Ta 152 proceeded only very slowly, and it was not until the spring of 1944 that serious preparations for production were begun. By that time, the USAAF bomber offensive was in full gear, and the Luftwaffe was in dire straits. The Luftwaffe desperately needed a counter to the P-51 Mustang which was cutting German fighters to pieces. The wing of the proposed Ra-4D/Ta 153 had a slightly greater span and area than that of the Fw 190D. This wing was seen to have certain advantages over the wing originally envisaged for the Ta 152. In addition to having better aerodynamic characteristics, the Ta 153 wing was deemed easier to manufacture and was capable of carrying more fuel. The Luftwaffe consequently proposed that that the new wing be adopted for the Ta 152B, with the outboard panels and flaps being extended for the longspan Ta 152H. Kurt Tank was still pressing for permission to use the DB 603 engine in the Ta 152, owing to its superiority over the Jumo 213E at high altitudes. Although the Luftwaffe still insisted that the Jumo 213E remain the primary Ta 152 powerplant, it permitted Tank to begin work on a DB 603-powered version under the designation Ta 152C. There was no designation conflict with the Fw 190C, since all

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html (2 of 4)2006-09-19 15:09:39

Focke-Wulf Ta 152

work on that version had been abandoned by this time owing to chronic turbosupercharger problems. The first Ta 152H prototypes were completed in the summer of 1944. Several Fw 190C airframes were used in the project. The first Ta 152H-0 service test aircraft rolled off the assembly lines in October-November 1944. The Ta 152H-0s had no fuel tanks in their wings. They were joined a month later by the first production Ta 152H-1 aircraft, which had fuel tanks in the wings. The Ta 152H-1 was armed with one engine-mounted 30-mm MK 108 cannon with 90 rounds and two 20-mm MG 151 cannon in the wings with 175 rpg. 330 pounds of armor were carried for the protection of the engine and the pilot. Most production machines were delivered to Ta 152H-1/R11 bad-weather fighter standards. A MW 50 boost tank was fitted in the inboard port wing tank for use in enhancing lowaltitude performance, with the GM 1 high-altitude boost tank aft of the cockpit being standard. Approximately 150 Ta 1252H-1 fighters were manufactured between January 1, 1945 and the final abandoning of production with the arrival of Soviet forces at the Cottbus assembly plant. No Jagdgruppen ever completely converted to the type, but several Jagdstaffeln operated the Ta 152H alongside the Fw 190D and other types. Most of the Ta 152s operated in the close-support role. Others flew "top-cover" for bases from which Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighters operated, trying to protect the jets from being "bounced" by Allied fighters during takeoff or landing. It was said that no British or American fighters risked attacking an Me 262 during landing while Ta 152s were known to be circling the airfield. The large wing area of the Ta 152 made it quite easy to fly. Most of the Ta 152Hs, however, were destroyed on the ground by Allied air attacks while awaiting delivery. A few Ta 152Hs were allocated to the Mistel program. Near the end of 1944, Kurt Tank himself had a narrow escape while flying one of his Ta 152Hs. He was flying from Langenhagen near Hannover to attend a meeting at the Focke-Wulf plant in Cottbus. His plane carried armament, but no ammunition. Shortly after takeoff, he was jumped by four Mustangs. Tank pressed the button which activated his MW 50 boost, opened the throttle wide, and quickly left the Mustangs far behind in a cloud of blue smoke. Engine: Junkers Jumo 213E-1 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled engine rated at 1750 hp for takeoff (2050 hp with MW 50 boost) and 1320 hp at 32,800 feet (1740 feet with GM 1 boost). Maximum speed: 332 mph at sea level (350 mph with MW 50 boost), 465 mph at 29,530 feet with MW 50 boost, 472 mph at 41,010 feet with GM 1 boost. Service ceiling was 48,550 feet with GM 1 boost. Initial climb rate was 3445 feet/minute with MW 50 boost. Weights were 8642 pounds empty, 10,472 pounds normal loaded, 11,502 pounds maximum. Wingspan 47 feet 41/2 inches, length 35 feet 1 2/3 inches, height 11 feet 0 1/4 inches, wing area 250.8 square feet. The Ta 152B has originally been envisaged as having interchangeable Jumo 213 or DB 603 "power eggs", but with the acceptance of the Ta 152C the Jumo 213 was standardized. The original plan to install cabin pressurization was abandoned. However, it was decided to give higher priority to the Ta 152C, and only three prototypes of the Ta 152B-series were completed before the war came to an end.


Focke-Wulf Ta 152

Series production orders for the Ta 152C had been placed in October 1944, the delays being a result of the Luftwaffe still continuing to support the Jumo 213 over the DB 603 for the Ta 152 as late as the autumn of 1944. The Ta 152C with the lighter DB 603 engine was otherwise identical to the Ta 152B. It was considered primarily as a Zerstorer. The MW 50 boost installation for the enhancement of lowaltitude performance was standard. An Fw 190D prototype had been rebuilt and flown with a DB 603 engine in support of the Ta 152C program, and this plane took to the air for the first time in October 1944. During December 1944 and January 1945, the first Ta 152C-O service test aircraft joined the test program. The definitive production version was to be the Ta 152C-1, and it was hoped that the first examples could be rolling off the production lines in April of 1945. However, series production of the Ta 152C was only just beginning when Allied forces overran the assembly plants, so this fighter never entered service with the Luftwaffe. The Ta 152C-1 was powered by a Daimler-Benz DB 603LA twelve-cylinder liquid cooled engine rated at 2100 hp (2300 hp with MW 50) for takeoff and 1750 hp at 29,530 feet (1900 hp at 27,560 feet with MW 50). Armed with one engine-mounted 30-mm MK 108 cannon with 90 rounds, two fuselagemounted 20-mm MG 151 cannon with 250 rpg, and two wing-mounted 20-mm MG252 cannon with 175 rpg. Maximum speed was 227 mph at sea level (356 mph with MW 50), 436 mph at 37,730 feet (460 mph at 32,810 feet with MW 50). Initial climb rate was 3050 feet per minute and service ceiling was 40,350 feet. Weights were 8849 lbs empty, 10,658 lbs normal loaded, and 11,733 pounds maximum. Wingspan was 36 feet 1 inch, length was 35 feet 6 1/2 inches, height was 11 feet 1 inch, and wing area was 290.89 square feet. There is a long and complex list of experimental subtypes (both actual and proposed) of the Ta 152B, C, and H, much too long to list here. See one of the references listed below if you are really interested. Some Ta 152s are known to have been captured and returned to the USA for study. I wonder if any of them still exist? Perhaps a Ta 152 is squirreled away in a dark corner in one of the hangars of the Garber facility at Suitland, Maryland. Anyone know?


Warplanes of the Third Reich, William Green, Doubleday, 1971. Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday 1967. The Focke-Wulf 190--A Famous German Fighter, Heinz Nowarra, Harleyford, 1965.

Joe Baugher


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/go229i.html

1. Gotha Go 229 / Horten Ho IX 1. Flying wing fighter 2. Source:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/go229i.html2006-09-19 15:10:01

Gotha Go 229 / Horten Ho IX

Gotha Go 229 / Horten Ho IX Flying wing fighter The Gotha Go 229 was the first turbojet-driven warplane of pure flying wing configuration. Although flown for the first time in 1945, the aircraft looks surprisingly modern --- almost like a small version of the Northrop B-2 stalth bomber. The Go 229 was initially designed by the brothers Reimar and Walter Horten, pioneers in early flying wing aircraft designs. The Horten brothers were attempting to figure out ways to eliminate every sourse of parasitic drag. They believed that the flying wing configuration offered the best way to achieve this feat. Their flying wing proposals had no fuselage as such, and they looked a lot like the Northrop flying wing designs produced in the USA during the 1940s and later. The chord of the wing center section increased sufficiently to enable pilot and powerplants to be housed entirely within the wing itself without any drastic increase of thickness/chord ratio. There were no vertical surfaces --- lateral and directional control were provided by a set of spoilers. The Horten brothers' interest in flying wings dates back to the Horten I wooden sailplane of 1931. The brothers produced a number of experimental powered and unpowered flying wings throughout the 1930s. In 1943, they began to envisage a jet fighter flying wing design, designated Ho IX. The Ho IX was to be powered by a pair of BMW 003 turbojets. The Ho IX was what was later to be known colloquially as a "skunked" project --- it went forward initially without the support (or even the knowledge) of the all-powerful Reichluftfahrtministerium (RLM, the State Ministry of Aviation). Work on a single prototype (designated Ho IX V1) was begun at Gottingen. The Horten brothers planned that their Ho IX V1 was to undergo an extensive series of gliding tests before any attempt was to be made to install the pair of BMW 003 turbojets. However, in early 1944, RLM became aware of the existence of the Ho IX V1. The project captured the imagination of Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering who gave it his enthusiastic backing. In addition, intelligence reports from the USA indicated that the Northrop Corporation was thinking along similar lines. The Ho IX project was to move forward to powered flight testing with all deliberate speed. With official backing now present, the Ho IX project gained momentum. The first gliding trials began in spring of 1944. Gliding tests were highly satisfactory. The planned installation of the BMW 003 turbojet engines in the Ho IX V1 prototype was deemed impractical, and it was decided to install a pair of Jumo 004 engines in the second prototype (Ho IX V2). The Ho IX V2 was designed for a 7g safe load factor. The center section of the wing housed the engines and the cockpit and was made of conventional welded steel-tube construction. The center section was covered with plywood skinning except in the immediate vicinity of the engine exhausts, where metal http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/go229.html (1 of 3)2006-09-19 15:10:10


was used. The outer wings were made entirely of wood. The outer wing leading edges were constructed of a special molded wood (wood shavings compressed with resin), but the rest of the wing was covered with plywood. A special coating of lacquer was applied to give a smooth finish to the entire aircraft. I think that the idea of the lacquer finish was to give an aerodynamically smooth surface rather than to provide any "stealth" characteristics --- that was still many, many years in the future. Two Jumo 004B turbojets were mounted side-by-side close inboard in the center section. The jet tailpipes protruded above the wing rear surfaces. A tricycle undercarriage was fitted. Lateral and longitudinal control was provided by elevons which, together with plain flaps, occupied the trailing edges of the outer wing panels. Spoiler flaps extended across most of the wing center section immediately aft of the mainwheel wheels. Directional control was achieved by spoilers located near the wingtips just aft of the main spar. Glide tests with the Ho IX V1 were sufficiently encouraging that the RLM decided that the Horten design was worthy of production as an operational combat aircraft. In early summer of 1944, the Friedrichsroda facility of the Gothaer Waggonfabrik was given a contract for the production of the design under the designation Go 229. Control of the adaptation of the design for production was taken away from the Horten brothers, but the brothers continued to work on the testing of their Ho IX prototype. Gotha immediately began work on the production of the flying wing fighter. The initial production version was to be given the designation Go 229A. The Gotha team found it necessary to introduce some changes in order to adapt the Ho IX for production. They redesigned the cockpit, enlarged the turbojet housings, revised the air intake geometry and modified the undercarriage. Provision was made for four 30 mm MK 103 or MK 108 cannon mounted immediately outboard of the engines. Hardpoints were to be provided beneath the center section for two 2205-lb bombs or for two 275 Imp gall fuel tanks. A two seat radar-equipped all-weather version (designated Go 229B) was also envisaged. In the meantime, the Ho IX V2 was transferred in January 1945 to Oranienberg for powered flight testing. Flight tests went quite well. Handling characteristics were much better than expected. A maximum level speed of 497 mph was attained during the tests. Unfortunately, the Ho IX V2 crashed during a landing attempt and was totally destroyed. Gotha's first production prototype for the Go 229A single-seat fighter-bomber series was given the designation Go 229 V3. V4 and V5 were to be the prototypes for the Go 229B alweather fighter, and V6 was to be a second A-series prototype with MK 103 cannon in place of MK 108s. V7 was to be a prototype for a two-seat training version. All through the spring of 1945, work proceeded at Friedrichsroda on these prototypes. However, late in April, the Friedrichsroda plant was finally occupied by American troops and developmenent came to an abrupt end. At that time, the Go 229 V3 prototype was being prepared for flight testing, and the V4 and V6 prototypes were in final assembly. Component manufacture for the 20 pre-production Go 229A-0

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/go229.html (2 of 3)2006-09-19 15:10:10


fighter bombers was well advanced, and various component parts were found strewn about the factory. The Go 229A-0 pre-production fighters were to be powered by a pair of Junkers Jumo 004B-1, -2, or -3 turbojets, 1962 lb. st. each. Estimated maximum speed was 590 mph at sea level and 607 mph at 39,370 feet. Maximum ceiling was to be 52,500 feet (!!! Remember, this was only 1945, folks!). Maximum range was estimated at 1180 miles, and initial climb rate was to be 4330 ft/min. Weights were estimated at 10,140 lb empty, 16,550 lbs. normal loaded.

Source: ●

Warplanes of the Third Reich, William Green. Doubleday, New York, 1970.

Joe Baugher

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/go229.html (3 of 3)2006-09-19 15:10:10

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/grzeppi.html

1. German Carrier-Based Aircraft 1. Bf 109T, Ju 87C, and Me 155 2. Source:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/grzeppi.html2006-09-19 15:10:22

German Carrier-Based Aircraft

German Carrier-Based Aircraft Bf 109T, Ju 87C, and Me 155 Yes, there was a carrier-based version of the Bf 109. It was designated Bf 109T, and was intended to be based aboard the Graf Zeppelin aircraft carrier. There was also a carrier-based version of the Ju 87 dive bomber. During the late 1930s, the aircraft carrier was a serious part of German naval planning. In February 1939, Admiral Erich Raeder proposed that two aircraft carriers (named Graf Zeppelin and Peter Strasser) be laid down. These carriers were to be equipped with specialized carrier-based versions of the Bf-109E fighter and the Junkers Ju 87B dive-bomber. Construction on the first German aircraft carrier, the Graf Zeppelin, was initiated immediately. Messerschmitt's proposal for a shipboard fighter was designated Bf 109T (T for "Trager"). It was basically a Bf 109E-1 with a larger wing, an attachment point for catapult points underneath the fuselage, and an arrester hook underneath the aft fuselage. A breakpoint was incorporated in the wing spar outboard of the gun bays to permit manual folding of the wings. However, the wing folding process was complicated by the need to detach the flaps prior to folding. The landing gear still retracted outwards, but the undercarriage legs were made stronger in order to accommodate the faster sink rates involved in carrier landings. Armament was to consist of two fuselage-mounted 7.9-mm MG 17 machine guns and either two MG-17 machine guns or two 20-mm MG-FF cannon in the wings. The engine was the Daimler Benz DB 601A. Since the Messerschmitt A.G. was fully occupied with Bf 109 and Bf 110 production, responsibility for the Bf 109T project was assigned to the Fieseler Werke. Ten Bf 109E-1s were to be converted to Bf 109T-0 configuration for service test, and 60 Bf 109T-1 fighters were to be built from scratch. The Bf 109T-0s were ready for evaluation during the winter of 1939-40. When the war in Europe began, the Graf Zeppelin was about 85 percent complete, and most of her machinery had been installed. However, work on the Graf Zeppelin was suspended in October 1939 due to a change in German naval thinking. It was deemed that the operation of a single aircraft carrier within range of enemy land bases was impractical, and all work on the Graf Zeppelin was halted in May of 1940. Assembly of the 60 Bf 109T-1 fighters was also halted at the same time. However, the successes of British carrier-based aircraft against the Italian Navy late in 1940 rekindled German interest in ships of this type, and the Fieseler Werke was instructed to complete the 60 Bf 109T1s then under construction but to remove the naval equipment and deliver them as land-based fighter bombers suitable for operation from short strips.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/grzepp.html (1 of 3)2006-09-19 15:10:27


Stripped of naval equipment and fitted with a rack for a 66 Imp gal drop tank, 4 110-lb bombs, or a single 551-lb bomb, the planes were redesignated Bf 109T-2. It was concluded that the Bf 109T-2 would be ideal for operation from small, exposed airstrips such as those from which the Jagdflieger were forced to operate in Norway. Several units operated with the Bf 109T-2 in Norway. However, it never operated in its intended shipboard role. The short-field performance of the Bf 109T lead to surviving Norwegianbased Bf 109T-2s to be based on the tiny fortified island of Heligoland in 1943. The last of the Bf 109T2s disappeared from the inventory at the end of 1944. In March of 1942, British carrier-based aircraft were able to drive the battleship Tirpitz away from two Allied convoys on the Murmansk run, and Admiral Raeder insisted that aircraft carriers would be absolutely necessary in the future to protect commerce raiders from enemy air attacks. On May 13, 1942, orders were given that construction on the Graf Zeppelin be resumed, and that it should carry an air group of 28 bombers and 12 fighters. However, by this time, the Bf 109T was considered obsolescent for shipboard operations, and proposals were solicited for new carrier-based fighters. The Messerschmitt company submitted the Me 155, which was basically a navalized Bf 109G. It had a fuselage basically similar to that of the standard Bf 109G, but with an entirely new wing. The undercarriage retracted inwards into wing wells, providing the wider track required for safe carrier landings. Standard naval equipment such as folding wings, catapult spools, and arrester hooks were fitted. The powerplant was a 1475 hp Daimler-Benz DB 605A-1 liquid-cooled engine. Armament was to be one engine-mounted 20-mm MG 151 cannon and two 20-mm MG 151 cannon and two 13-mm MG 131 machine guns in the wings. Estimated maximum speed was 403 mph. Detailed design of the Me 155 was completed by September of 1942. However, the numerous delays in the construction of the Graf Zeppelin seemed to indicate that the launching of the aircraft carrier would be at least two years away. Messerschmitt was told to shelve the Me 155 project for the indefinite future. In the event, the Graf Zeppelin was never completed, the German navy deciding to concentrate fully on submarine manufacture. The Me 155 project was to evolve into a design for a single-seat bomber, then into a high-altitude interceptor. In August 1943, the project was transferred to Blohm und Voss and was redesignated BV 155. It went through numerous changes in design, and was still under test when the war came to an end. In June of this year, I posted an article in sci.military with some more details about the BV 155. There was also a carrier-based version of the Stuka dive bomber. The navalized version of the Stuka intended for service aboard the Graf Zeppelin was designated Ju 87C. It was basically similar to the Ju 87B, but featuring catapult spools, arrester gear, and jettisonable main undercarriage members for emergency landings on water. Flotation equipment was provided, and provisions were made for manually-folded outer wing panels. The first Ju 87C-0 pre-production aircraft appeared in the summer of 1939, and the definitive shipboard Ju 87C-1 was to have featured an electrically-activated wing folding mechanism and provisions for



carrying a single torpedo under the fuselage in the place of the usual bombs. The Ju 87C-0 pre-production aircraft were issued to units intended for service aboard the Graf Zeppelin. However, the invasion of Poland in September 1939 caused them to be impressed into land-based service. One incident is worthy of note. One of the Ju 87C-0s was damaged by antiaircraft fire while attacking the Polish naval base at Hela, and the pilot jettisoned his landing gear in preparation for an emergency water landing. However, the pilot succeeded in regaining control of his plane, and he was able to regain his base where he made a belly landing. The German propaganda machine used this incident as "evidence" of the high structural integrity of the Stuka. A photograph of this Stuka supposedly flying back to its base with its missing landing gear was widely distributed, the claim being made that the undercarriage had been lost when the airplane flew too close to the water while pulling out of a dive. This photograph was, in fact, a fake. When work on the Graf Zeppelin was suspended in October 1939, the contract for the production Ju 87C-1s was cancelled, and the aircraft on the production line were completed as Ju 87B-2s.

Source: ●

Warplanes of the Third Reich, William Green, Doubleday, 1970

●

Joe Baugher


Heinkel He 100

Heinkel He 100 Introduction On the 30th of March 1939 a prototype of the new Heinkel He 100 fighter design streaked into the record books at 746.6km/h — the new world absolute speed record. Surprisingly it took the record away from a plane with well over twice the horsepower, and beat it by over 40km/h. Lessons learned from earlier Heinkel projects had been put to good use and its advanced aerodynamics resulted in a plane that was the best performing fighter in the air, even in its less slippery production line model. Little information on the plane is available, and what there is often contradictory. All we know for sure is that Heinkel built the world's fastest plane, and it was suitable for use as a fighter (unlike many racing planes). We also know that after being built and proving itself in testing, the production line only built twelve planes before shutting down. The rest of the He 100 story is clouded in mystery, which makes it all the more interesting. Basic specifications Company: Designer: Year: Type: Description: Fuselage:

Wings:

Ernst Heinkel Flugzeugwerke GmbH Walter and Siegfried Günther 1938 Single seat day fighter Low wing monoplane fighter with conventional control surface layout. Egg shaped cross section with flattened sides, particularly around the engine. The front of the plane is largely flat horizontally, sloping down sharply behind the spinner. The rear of the plane slopes down toward the rear, starting at a high point at eye level behind the cockpit and ending up roughly level with the bottom of the canopy at the tail. The wings are largely rectangular, with rounded tips. The inner portion of the wing is flat on the bottom and then bends up about 1/3rd along the span, but due to the thinning of the wing it appears to have a slight reverse gull-wing bend. The portion inboard of the bend is thicker with parallel leading and trailing edges, outside of the bend the leading edge tapers back slightly, and the trailing edge forward more strongly. Flaps span the area inside of the bend, and ailerons start at the half way point and run to the tips.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he100.html (1 of 14)2006-09-19 15:10:47

Heinkel He 100

Other details: The canopy is similar to the Malcolm hood from later Spitfires, in which a rounded center section slides to the rear over smaller windows set into the fuselage. The windscreen at the front is well rounded and the flat plate in front of the gunsight is small and well faired. Fully retractable tail–dragger landing gear were used, with the main gear retracting inward towards the fuselage, the wheels laying in the thick inner portion of the wing.

Background The Heinkel He 100 story starts in 1933 with the Reichsluftsfahrtministerium (Reich Air Ministry, or RLM) competition to produce the first modern fighter for the re-forming Luftwaffe. Four designs were submitted; Arado's Ar 80, Focke–Wulf's Fw 159, Heinkel's He 112 and the Messerschmitt Bf 109. All four planes were tested competitively in early 1936 with interim engines, and the Ar 80 and Fw 159 were quickly eliminated. Both the 112 and 109 were considered worthy of further testing, and orders were sent out for 15 additional aircraft from both companies. Although Heinkel was considered the favorite to win the contract, the more modern and better performing 109 won over the Flight Acceptance Commission. By late March of 1936 the 109 was considered the favorite. At that point Heinkel was allowed to redesign the 112, which resulted in the largely all–new 112B. The 112B was considerably improved and was as good or better than the 109, but the 109 won anyway. The 112 had a few problems that lost it the competition. The first was that the airframe was rather complex; it included a large number of compound curves and its elliptical wing was labor intensive. The RLM was looking to produced hundreds of planes, so cost in both dollars and manhours was a factor. The prototypes also suffered from a series of accidents, even if they weren't related to problems with the plane they still left a bad taste in the mouth. But the biggest problem for the 112 was that after learning that Supermarine had started series production of the Spitfire, the Luftwaffe was desperate to get a modern fighter into squadron hands. Heinkel might have won the competition had the B model been available in early 1936, but by the time they were ready in the second half of the year the 109 was already in series production. Nevertheless some small scale contracts for the plane were finally secured with a variety of air forces in Europe and Japan. Thirty were bought by Japan, but twelve of these were used briefly by the Luftwaffe during the Sudetenland Crisis. Another nineteen were then sold to Spain where they served long careers. Thirty were sold to Romania, they served in combat in 1941 but were quickly worn out. Finally three more B's were sold to Hungary as the vanguard of a license production series that never took place. By 1939 production of the He 112 ended, and it appeared that Heinkel was out of the fighter business.


Heinkel He 100

Development history Even by early 1936 the RLM became interested in a new fighter that would leap beyond the performance of the Bf 109 as much as the 109 had over the biplanes it replaced. There was never an official project on the part of the RLM, but Roluf Lucht felt that new designs were important enough to ask both Focke–Wulf and Heinkel to provide "super–pursuit" designs for evaluation. Since the super–pursuit type was not an official recommendation, it was possible that Heinkel would be told to stop work on the project. Thus the work was kept secret, in a company Memo No.3657 on January 31st this was made clear; "The mockup is to be completed by us... as of the beginning of May... and be ready to present to the RLM... and prior to that no one at the RLMis to know of the existence of the mockup." Walter Günter —one of Heinkel's most talented designers— looked at the 112 and decided that nothing more could be done with it. He started over with a completely new design known as "Projekt 1035". Learning from past mistakes on the 112 project, the design was to be as easy to build as possible while still offering good performance. That good performance was set at an astounding 700km/h (435mph). Keep in mind that fighters with this sort of performance didn't appear on the battlefield until 1944. To ease production the new design had considerably fewer parts than the 112, and those that remained contained considerably few compound curves. In part count the 100 was made of 969 unique parts and was held together with 11543 rivets, in comparison the 112 had 2885 parts and 26864 rivets. The new straight-edged wing was a source of much of the savings, after building the first wings Otto Butter reported that the reduction in complexity and rivet count (along with the Butter brothers's own explosive rivet system) saved an astonishing 1150 man hours per wing. In order to get the promised performance out of the plane, the design included a number of drag reducing features. On the simple end was a well–faired cockpit, the absence of struts and other draggy supports on the tail, and fully retractable gear (including the tailwheel) which were completely enclosed in flight. These and similar changes applied to the 109 for the F model would boost performance of that plane 50km/h. The engine was mounted directly to a strong forward fuselage as opposed to internal struts, so the cowling was very tight fitting and as a result the plane has something of a slab sided appearance. The design used a shorter wing than the 109, trading altitude and turn performance for speed. In order to provide as much power as possible from the DB 601 engine, the 100 used exhaust ejectors for a small amount of additional thrust. In addition the supercharger inlet was moved from the normal position on the side of the cowling to a location in the leading edge of the left wing, where the clean airflow improved the ram-air effect and increased boost. For the rest of the designed performance increase, Walter turned to the risky method of cooling the engine via surface evaporation. Inside the engine the fluid is kept under pressure which stops it from http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he100.html (3 of 14)2006-09-19 15:10:47

Heinkel He 100

boiling even though it's allowed to heat above its normal boiling point, the fluid is then run to cavity with lower pressure where it quickly starts to boil and releases steam. Since steam contains considerably more energy than the same temperature water, if you can remove the steam you can remove a lot of heat. The stream can be cooled by allowing it to condense in a series of pipes inside the plane. With no external openings at all, it's basically a zero-drag cooling system. On the down side the system is complex and hard to maintain. Worse, it greatly increases the chance of killing the engine in combat due to a "radiator hit" on the now much larger cooling system. Other designs would attempt to use the same sort of design, but invariably returned to conventional radiators due to the complexity. A number of people had already tried the system and given up on it, but Heinkel had good experiences with it on their He 119 high speed bomber project and decided to press ahead. In the Heinkel system —designed by Jahn and Jahnke— the engine was run at 110 Celsius and the superheated fluid was then sprayed into the interior of a centrifugal compressor, allowing the pressure to drop and steam to form. The water, being heavier, was forced to the outside of the pump by centrifugal force and returned to the engine. The weight of the water forced the steam into the only available space, the inside of the pump, where it was removed. The steam was then allowed to flow into a series of tubes running on the inside surface of the leading edges of the wings, where it would condense back into water and be pumped back to the engine. A number of pumping systems were tried, and eventually a system of no less than 22 small electric pumps (all with their own failure indicator lamp in the cockpit) was settled on. Unlike the cooling fluid, oil cannot be allowed to boil. This presents a particular problem with the DB 601 series of engines, because of a particular design technique that results in a considerable amount of heat being transfered to the oil as opposed to the coolant. To cool the oil a small semi-retractible radiator was fitted under the wing. This radiator was later replaced on some of the prototypes with a system in which the oil was sent to a heat exchanger where it boiled methyl alcohol to carry away the heat. The alcohol was then cooled in a similar fashion to the engine fluid, by running it to tubes on the top surface of the rear fuselage and leading edge of the vertical stabilizer. Walter was killed in a car accident on May 25th, 1937, and the design work was taken over by his twin brother Siegfried, who finished the final draft of the design later that year. The wing started out flat and then bent upwards about 1/3rd along the span, and the portions inboard of the bend were thicker to hold the wheels. The gear retracted inward and thus were wide set when opened, resulting in a significant improvement in ground handling over the 109. The rear of the fuselage sloped down to the tail from a point at about eye level at the rear of the cockpit, so while it didn't have the visibility of the 112's bubble, it was still significantly better than the 109. A small retractable radiator was added for running on the ground where the surface cooling system wouldn't work. The plane was small, slightly smaller than the 112 that spawned it, and considerably lighter.


Heinkel He 100

At the end of October the design was submitted to the RLM, complete with details on prototypes, delivery dates, and prices for three planes delivered to the Rechlin test center. At this point the plane was being referred to as the He 113, but the "13" in the name was apparently enough to prompt Ernst Heinkel to ask for it to be changed to the He 100 (even though it had previously been given to Feiseler). In November Messerschmitt took the speed record for landplanes in a modified 109. In response Ernst Heinkel made plans to use the He 100 design as a record setting plane (less serious plans for this appear to have been in the works all along). Much of the fuselage was as smooth as it could get, so the modifications were limited to the canopy and a newer set of much shorter wings. The racing version would need another airframe, so a fourth prototype was added to the series. In a December meeting at the Heinkel factory with Ernst Udet and Roluf Lucht the plans were changed slightly. V1 through V3 were to be used for testing and record attempts, V3 sporting the clipped wings. V4 was to a testbed for series production. The RLM went ahead with the plan, due in no small part to Udet's (Generalluftzeugmeister, Minister for Aircraft Production in the RLM) plans to fly the plane in a series of record attempts.

Prototypes The first prototype He 100 V1 flew on January 22nd, 1938, only a week after it's promised delivery date. The plane proved to be outstandingly fast. However it continued to share a number of problems with the 112, notably a lack of directional stability. In addition the Luftwaffe test pilots disliked the high wing loading, which resulted in landing speeds so great that they often had to use breaks right up to the last 100m of the runway. The ground crews disliked the design too, complaining about the tight cowling which made servicing the engine difficult. But the big problem turned out to be the cooling system, largely to no one's surprise. After a series of test flights V1 was sent to Rechlin in March. The second prototype addressed the stability problems by changing the vertical stabilizer from a triangular form to a larger and more rectangular form. The oil cooling system continued to be problematic so it was removed and replaced with a small semi-retractible radiator below the wing. It also received the still–experimental DB 601M engine which the plane was originally designed for. The M version was modified to run on "C3" fuel at 96 octane, which would allow it to run at higher power ratings in the future. V2 was completed in March, but instead of moving to Rechlin it was kept at the factory for an attempt on the 100km closed-circuit speed record. A course was marked out on the Baltic coast between Wustrow and Müritz, 50km apart, and the attempt was to be made at the plane's best altitude of 18000ft. After some time cleaning out the bugs the record attempt was set to be flown by Captain Herting, who had previously flown the plane serveral times. At this point Ernst Udet showed up and asked to fly V2, after pointing out he had flown the V1 at Rechlin. He took over from Hertingand flew the V2 to a new world 100km closed circuit record on the 5th of June, 1938, at 634.73km/h (394.6mph). Several of the cooling pumps failed on this flight as well, but Udet wasn't sure what the lights meant and simply http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he100.html (5 of 14)2006-09-19 15:10:47

Heinkel He 100

ignored them. The record was heavily publicized, but in the press the plane was referred to as the "He 112U". Apparently the "U" stands for "Udet". At the time the 112 was still in production and looking for customers, so this was one way to boost sales of the older design. V2 was then moved to Rechlin for continued testing. Later in October the plane was damaged on landing when the tail wheel didn't extend, and it's unclear if the damage was repaired. The V3 prototype received the clipped racing wings, which reduced span and area from 30ft 10in and 155sq ft, to 24ft 11in and 118.4sq ft. The canopy was replaced with a much smaller and more rounded version, and all of the bumps and joints were puttied over and sanded down. The plane was equipped with the 601M and flown at the factory. In August the DB 601R engine arrived from Daimler-Benz and was installed. This version increased the maximum RPM from 2200 to 3000, and added methyl alcohol to the fuel mixture to improve cooling in the supercharger and thus increase boost. As a result the output was boosted to 1776hp, although it required constant maintenance and the fuel had to be drained completely after every flight. The plane was then moved to Warnemünde for the record attempt in September. On one of the pre-record test flights by the Heinkel chief pilot, Gerhard Nitschke, the main gear failed to extend and ended up stuck half open. Seeing as the plane could not be safely landed it was decided to have Nitschke bail out and let the plane crash in a safe spot on the airfield. Gerhard was injured when he hit the tail on the way out, and made no further record attempts. V4 was to have been the only "production" prototype and was referred to as the "100B" model (V1 through V3 being "A" models). It was completed in the summer and delivered to Rechlin, so it wasn't available for modification into racing trim when V3 crashed. Although the plane was unarmed it was otherwise a service model with the 601M, and in testing over the summer it proved to be considerably faster than the 109. At sea level the plane could reach 348mph, faster than the 109E's speed at its best altitude! At 6560ft it improved to 379mph, topping out at 416mph at 16400ft before falling again to 398mph at 26250ft. The plane had flown a number of times before its landing gear collapsed while standing on the pad on the 22nd of October. The plane was later rebuilt and flying by March of 1939. Although V4 was to have been the last of the prototypes in the original plans, production was allowed to continue with a new series of six planes. One of the airframes was selected to replace V3, and as luck would have it V8 was at the "right point" in its construction and was completed out of turn. It first flew on the 1st of December, but this was with a standard DB 601Aa engine. The 601R was then put in the plane on the 8th of January 1939, and moved to a new course at Oranienberg. After several shakedown flights, Hans Dieterle flew to a new record on March 30th, 1939, at 746.6km/h (463.9mph). Once again the plane was referred to as the He 112U in the press. It's unclear when happened to V8 in the end, it may have been used for crash testing.


Heinkel He 100

V5 was completed like V4, and first flew on November 16th. It was later used in a film about V8's record attempt, in order to protect the record breaking plane. At this point a number of changes were made to the design resulting in the "100C" model, and with the exception of V8 the rest of the prototypes were all delivered as the C standard. V6 was first flown in February 1939, and after some test flights at the factory it was flown to Rechlin on the 25th of April. There it spent most of its time as an engine test-bed. On the 9th of June the gear failed in-flight, but the pilot managed to land the plane with little damage and it was returned to flying condition in six days. V7 was completed on the 24th of May with a change to the oil cooling system. It was the first to be delivered with armament, consisting of two 20mm MG/FF in the wings and four 7.92mm MG17's arranged around the engine cowling. This made the 100 the most heavily armed fighter of its day. V7 was then flown to Rechlin where the armament was removed and the plane was used for a series of high speed test flights. V9 was also completed and armed, but was used solely for crash testing and was "tested to destruction". V10 was originally to suffer a similar fate, but instead ended up being given the racing wings and canopy of the V8 and displayed in the German Museum in Munich as the record–setting "He 112U". It was later destroyed in a bombing attack. Overheating problems and general failures with the cooling system motors continued to be a problem. Throughout the testing period failures of the pumps ended flights early, although some of the test pilots simply starting ignoring them. In March Kleinemeyer wrote a memo to Ernst Heinkel about the continuing problems, stating that Schwärzler had asked to be put on the problem. Another problem that was never cured during the prototype stage was a rash of landing gear problems. Although the wide-set gear should have eliminated the gear failures that plagued the 109, the 100's were built very thin and as a result they were no improvement. V2, 3, 4, and 6 were all damaged to various degrees due to various gear failures, a full half of the prototypes.

He 100D-0 Throughout the prototype period the various models were given series designations (as noted above), and presented to the RLM as the basis for series production. The Luftwaffe never took them up on the offer. Heinkel had decided to build a total of 25 of the planes one way or the other, so with 10 down there were another 15 of the latest model to go. In keeping with general practice, any series production is started with a limited run of "zero-series" machines, and this resulted in the He 100D-0. The D-0 was similar to the earlier C models, with a few notable changes. Primary among these was a larger vertical tail in order to finally solve the stability issues. In addition the cockpit and canopy were slightly redesigned, with the pilot sitting high in a large canopy with excellent vision in all directions. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he100.html (7 of 14)2006-09-19 15:10:47

Heinkel He 100

The armament was reduced from the C model to one 20mm MG/FF-M in the engine V firing through the propeller spinner, and two 7.92mm MG17's in the wings close to the fuselage. The three D-0 planes were completed by the summer of 1939 and stayed at the Heinkel Marienehe plant for testing.

He 100D-1 The final evolution of the short He 100 history is the D-1 model. As the name suggests the design was supposed to be very similar to the pre-production D-0's, the main planned change was to enlarge the horizontal stabilizer But the big change was the eventual abandonment of the surface cooling system, which proved to be too complex and failure prone. Instead an even larger version of the retractable radiator was installed, and this appeared to completely cure the problems. The radiator was inserted in a "plug" below the cockpit, and as a result the wings were widened slightly. While the plane didn't match it's design goal of 700km/h once it was loaded down with weapons, the larger canopy and the radiator, it was still capable of speeds in the 400mph range. A low drag airframe is good for both speed and range, and as a result the He 100 had a combat radius between 900 and 1000km compared to the 109's 600km. While not in the same league as the later escort fighters, this was at the time a superb range and may have offset the need for the 110 to some degree. By this point the war was underway, and as the Luftwaffe would not purchase the plane in its current form, the production line was shut down. Specifications for the He 100D-1c Engine: Dimensions:

Weights: Wing Area:

1,175hp (876kW) Daimler-Benz DB 601M liquid–cooled inverted V12 span 9.42m (30ft 10 3/4in) length 8.20m (26ft 10 3/4in) height 3.60m (11ft 9 3/4 in) empty 2070kg (4,563lb) max loaded 2500kg (5,512lb) 14.5m2 (156ft2)

Wing Loading: 29.25lbs/ft2


Heinkel He 100

Performance: maximum speed 668km/h at 6400m (416mph at 21,000ft) 560km/h (348mph) at sea level cruise speed unknown service ceiling 11000m (36,090ft) range 900km (559miles) Armament: one 20mm MG/FF-M firing through the propeller spinner two 7.92mm MG17 in the wings

He 100 in service In 1940 the He 100's were publicized by Goebbels in a propaganda effort aimed at convincing people that a new fighter was entering service with the Luftwaffe. The plan involved taking pictures of the remaining D-1's at different air bases around Germany, each time sporting a new paint job for various fictional fighter groups. The pictures were then published in the press with the He 113 name, sometimes billed as night fighters (rather silly since you could see they didn't even have a landing light). The plane also appeared in a series of "action shot" photographs in various magazines like Der Alder, including claims that it had proven itself in combat in Denmark and Norway. One source claims that the planes were on loan to the one Luftwaffe staffel in Norway for a time, but this might be a case of the same misinformation working many years later. It's unclear even today exactly who this effort was intended to impress —foreign air forces or Germany's public— but it seems to have been a successful deception. British intelligence featured the plane in AIR 40/237, a report on the Luftwaffe that was completed in 1940. There the top speed was listed as 390mph (interesting that it also states the wing was 167 square feet) and it noted that the plane was in production. Reports of 113's encountered and shot down were listed throughout the early years of the war. The remaining twelve He 100D-1c fighters were used to form Heinkel's Marienehe factory defense unit, flown by factory test pilots. They replaced the earlier He 112's that were used for the same purpose, and the 112's were later sold off. At this early stage in the war there were no bombers venturing that far into Germany, and it appears that the unit never saw action. The eventual fate of the D-1's remains unknown.

Foreign use When the war opened in 1939 Heinkel was allowed to look for foreign licensees for the design. Japanese and Soviet delegations visited the Marienehe factory in late October, and were both impressed with what they saw. Thus it was in foreign hands that the 100 finally saw use, although only in terms of adopted design features. The Soviets were particularly interested in the surface cooling system, and in order to gain experience with it they purchased the six surviving prototypes (V1, V2, V4, V5, V6 and V7). After arriving in the http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he100.html (9 of 14)2006-09-19 15:10:47

Heinkel He 100

USSR they were passed onto the ZAGI institute for study, there they were analyzed and its features influenced a number of Soviet designs, notably the LaGG-3. Although the surface cooling system wasn't copied, the addition of larger Soviet engines made up for the difference and the LaGG-3 was a reasonably good performer. It's perhaps ironic that German planes would later be shot down by German inspired planes. The Japanese were also looking for new designs, notably those using inline engines where they had little experience. They purchased the three D-0's for 1.2 million DM, as well as a license for production and a set of jigs for another 1.8 million DM. The three D-0's arrived in Japan in May 1940 and were reassembled at Kasumigaura. They were then delivered to the Japanese Naval Air Force where they were re-named AXHei, for "Experimental Heinkel Fighter". When referring to the German design the plane is called both the He 100 and He 113, with at least one set of plans bearing the later name. In tests the Navy was so impressed that they planned to put the plane into production as soon as possible as their land-based interceptor — unlike every other forces in the world, the Army and Navy both fielded complete land-based air forces. Hitachi won the contract for the plane and started construction of a factory in Chiba for its production. With the war in full swing in Europe however, the jigs and plans never arrived. Why this wasn't sorted out is something of a mystery, and it appears there isn't enough information in the common sources to say for sure what happened. The DB 601 engine design was far more advanced than any indigenous Japanese design, which tended to concentrate on air cooled radials. To get a jump into the inline field, Kawasaki had already purchased the license for the 601A from Daimler Benz in 1938. The adoption process went smoothly, they adapted it to Japanese tooling and had it in production by late 1940 as the Ha-40. At the same time Kawasaki was working on two parallel fighter efforts, the Ki-60 heavy fighter and the Ki-61. The former was abandoned after poor test results (the test pilots disliked the high wing loading, as they always did) but work continued on the lightened Ki-61 with the Ha-40 engine. The Ki-61 was clearly influenced by the He 100. Like the D's it lost the surface cooling system (although an early prototype may have included it), but is otherwise largely similar in design except for changes to the wing and vertical stabilizer. Since the Ki-61 was supposed to be lighter and offer better range than the Ki-60, the design had a longer and more tapered wing for better altitude performance. This also improved the handling to the delight of the test pilots, and the plane was put into production. The Hien would prove to be the first of the Japanese planes that was truly equal to the contemporary US fighters.

Further developments In late 1944 the RLM went shopping for a new high altitude fighter with excellent performance. It's unclear exactly why this happened, as the Ta 152H version of the Fw 190 was currently in limited production for just this task. Nevertheless Heinkel was contracted to design such a plane, and Siegfried http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he100.html (10 of 14)2006-09-19 15:10:47

Heinkel He 100

Günter was placed in charge of the new "Projekt 1076". The resulting design was similar to the He 100, but many detail changes resulted in a plane that looked all-new. It sported a new and longer wing for high altitude work, which lost the gull-wing bend and was swept forward slightly at eight degrees. Flaps or ailerons spanned the entire trailing edge of the wing giving it a rather modern appearance. The cockpit was pressurized for high altitude flying, and covered with a small bubble canopy that was hinged to the side instead of sliding to the rear. Other changes that seem odd in retrospect is that the gear now retracted outward like the original 109, and he re-introduced the surface cooling system. Planned armament was one 30mm MK 103 cannon firing through the propeller hub, and two wing-mounted 30mm MK 108 cannons. The use of one of three different engines was planned: the DB 603M with 1825hp, the DB 603N with 2750hp or the Jumo 213E with 1750hp (the 603M and 213E both supplied 2100hp using MW-50 water injection). Performance with the 603N was projected to be a shocking 880km/h (546mph), which would have stood as a record for many years even when faced with dedicated racing machines. Performance would still be excellent even with the far more likely 2000hp class engines, the 603M was projected to give it the equally amazing speed of 855km/h (532mph). These figures are somewhat suspect though, and are likely just optimistic guesses that could not have been met — something Heinkel was famous for. Propellers loose efficiency as they approach the speed of sound, and eventually they no longer provide an increase in thrust for an increase in engine power. Even the advanced counter-rotating VDM design is unlikely to have been able to effect this problem too much. The design apparently received low priority, and it was not completed by the end of the war. Siegfried Günter later completed the detailed drawings and plans for the Americans in mid-1945.

Conclusions In 1939 the He 100 was clearly the most advanced fighter in the world. It was even faster than the Fw 190, and wouldn't be bested until the introduction of the F4U in 1943. Nevertheless the plane was not ordered into production. The reason the He 100 wasn't put into service seems to vary depending on the person telling the story, and picking any one version results in a firestorm of protest. Some say it was politics that killed the He 100. However this seems to stem primarily from Heinkel's own telling of the story, which in turn seems to be based on some general malaise over the He 112 debacle. The fact is that Heinkel was well respected within the establishment regardless of Messerschmitt's success with the 109 and 110, and this argument seems particularly weak. Others blame the bizarre production line philosophy of the RLM, which valued huge numbers of single designs over a mix of different planes. This too seems somewhat suspect considering that the Fw 190 was purchased shortly after this story ends. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he100.html (11 of 14)2006-09-19 15:10:47

Heinkel He 100

For these reasons I have chosen to accept the RLM version of the story largely at face value; that the production problems with the DB series of engines was so acute that all other designs based on the engine were canceled. At the time the DB 601 engines were being used in both the 109 and 110 aircraft, and Daimler couldn't keep up with those demands alone. The RLM eventually forbade anyone but Messerschmitt to receive any DB 601's, leading to the shelving of many designs from a number of vendors. After all, the 109 and 110 were better than anything out there, so another plane that was even better didn't seem important at all. The only option open to Heinkel was a switch to another engine, and the RLM expressed some interest in purchasing such a version. At the tim the only other useful inline was the (inferior) Junkers Jumo 211, and even that was in short supply. However the design of the He 100 made adaptation to the 211 difficult. Both the cooling system and the engine mounts were designed for the 601, and a switch to the 211 would have required a redesign. Heinkel felt it wasn't worth the effort considering the plane would end up with inferior performance, and so the He 100 production ends on that sour note. For this reason more than any other the Fw 190 became the next great plane of the Luftwaffe, as it was based around the otherwise unused BMW 139 (and later BMW801) radial engine. Although production of the engines was only starting, the lines for the airframes and planes could be geared up in parallel without interrupting production of any existing design. And that's exactly what happened.

Notes Another chapter about the operational use of the He 100 is referred to in Len Deighton's fictional work Bomber. In the book he tells the story of an RAF Mosquito pathfinder/marker being shot down by a nitrous-oxide (GM-1 presumably) equipped He 100. The use of laughing gas on the Heinkel suggested the plane's nickname, the plane was referred to as the "he he". This account entirely fictional, but still, one wonders where the idea came from. [A reader noted that in his version of the book the plane in question is a Ju 88S. My recollection might be faulty. Interestingly the 88S was a bomber-only version, and could not have been used in this role!] There is some disagreement on various measures depending on the source, this appears to be due to the limited number of records left for the plane. Common disagreements are on the service ceiling, and the empty weight is also often listed at 1810kg (3,990lb). Another issue is the overall height of the plane which is sometimes listed at 2.5m. I believe this is in error in this case, the other common figure of 3.6m is used because that is likely correct for the enlarged tail of the D-1 models. Most importantly it should be noted that almost all of the planes underwent engine modifications and tweaking during their lifespan. The 650km/h speed is almost universally quoted for the D-1 models, but it may be the case that this is the speed of the earlier and more slippery V4 "A" model.


Heinkel He 100

After reading the earlier versions of this article, a number of people expressed their concerns with this figure, and suggested further research. In the meantime it is quite likely that the AIR 40/237 number in the 390mph range is accurate for the production plane. All measures and performance data in the table are for the D-1 production model, and taken from the primary source listed in the Sources section. I have used metric values as the primary form of measurement in most cases, with the exception of engine power. This might seem arbitrary, but it appears this is the way most people prefer to see them. Conversions for power use 1 hp = 550 ft.lbs/s = 745.6W.

Sources Heinkel He 100, World Record and Propaganda Aircraft, Hans-Peter Dabrowski, Schiffer Publishing, 1991 Heinkel's Hoaxer, William Green, RAF Flying Review, Feb. 1963 Stormy Life, Ernst Heinkel, E.P. Dutton, 1956 The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft, David Donald (editor), Prospero Books, 1997 Additional details on the P.1076 from Don Johnson's Luft'46 site.

Links The Public Records Office lists some details from AIR 40/237. The Luftwaffe Resource Group's He 100 page contains a three view of the D-1 and some basic information. Although the main article on the 100 is incomplete, a comparison table is available here that lists the various models of the 100 (in French). This page includes a description similar to that from The Encyclopedia, as well as links to a number of images of the plane. This site uses frames, so I'll point you directly to this page with basic information on both the 100 and the 112. (in German)

Version History v1.0 Initial Version, September 17th, 2000 v1.1 Large changes, October 15, 2000 v1.2 Minor Cleanup, October 22, 2000 http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he100.html (13 of 14)2006-09-19 15:10:47

Heinkel He 100

v1.3 Minor Cleanup, March 07, 2001 Maury Markowitz [email protected]


Heinkel He 112

Heinkel He 112 Introduction Early in 1934 a contract tender was offered to the German aircraft industry to build the new fighter to arm the re-forming Luftwaffe. Although the aim of the contract was to produce a design that would leapfrog other air forces, the requirements were nonetheless surprisingly modest. Four planes were submitted to the contest and two were quickly eliminated. Of the remaining two, the Heinkel He 112 was the clear favorite to win the contest. But today the Heinkel 112 is perhaps the poorest known German production fighter of World War II. That's an interesting statement when you consider that it was still flying for almost a decade after it was first designed. It's obscurity is likely best understood by considering the fame of the plane it lost the competition to, the Messerschmitt Bf 109. The story of the He 112's obscurity is an interesting one. Basic specifications Company: Designer: Year: Type: Crew: Description:

Ernst Heinkel Flugzeugwerke GmbH Walter and Seigfried Günter 1935 Day fighter 1, pilot Low wing monoplane fighter with conventional layout. All of the surfaces are well rounded as opposed to straight edged and ended. Fuselage: The fuselage is elliptical in cross section, cigar shaped front to back, and has no ridgeback. The front is pierced in many places with openings for the engine and weapons. A lip on the upper engine decking gives the plane a slight resemblance to the Il2. Wings: The wing is a large elliptical planform with a small amount of reverse gull-wing bend. Flaps span the inner part of the wing out from the bend, with fabric covered ailerons meeting them about two thirds of the way out from the wing root and running to the tip. Other details: The canopy is an early example of the bubble type, but in three pieces rather than two. Tail-dragger landing gear were used, with all three gear retracting (although the tailwheel was "half out" when retracted. The wing droop resulted in short gear legs, so they could be retracted outwards, and the cover left a small amount of the wheel uncovered when retracted.


Heinkel He 112

Background When the re-forming Luftwaffe started to look for new planes in the early 1930's, initially training and utility aircraft, Heinkel was one of the most experienced firms in the country. Contracts were received for numbers of two seat planes, and the He 45, 46 and 50 were born. The company also continued to work on fighter designs, which culminated first with the He 49, and later with the improved He 51. This placed the Heinkel firm in good standing with the Reichsluftsfahrtministerium (Reich Air Ministry, or RLM). The He 51 was a workmanlike but otherwise uninspired biplane, which first flew in May 1933 when the Luftwaffe was still a secret. Deliveries started in July of the next year, the 51 was intended to replace the earlier Arado 65 and 68's but they ended up flying side-by-side. The He 51 was outdated the day it entered service, and after an initial run of 75 production fighters, the design was switched into the B-2 reconnaissance floatplane for another 80, and then finally the C-1 light ground attack plane for a further 79. On August 6th, 1936 six of the planes were sent to Spain to fight in the civil war. Deliveries continued until there were three squadrons of 12 planes each, and the Legión Cóndor (Condor Legion) was formed from these squadrons in November. Deliveries continued as the hostilities increased, and the plane met and beat a number of older biplane designs. This time of superiority was short lived. The arrival of the superior Polikarpov I-15 started it's downfall, and when the new I-16 monoplane arrived it was clearly hopeless. The He 51 was withdrawn from fighter duty and relegated to the ground attack role, and then eventually to training. After the war the 46 surviving planes would be joined by another 15 new builds, and serve in the utility role in Spain until 1952! The experiences in Spain would prove once and for all that the days of the biplane fighter were over. Although the later model Fiat biplanes were superior to the He 51 and continued to soldier on in Nationalist service, the I-16 monoplanes were basically untouchable because of their speed. If the conditions were right they could use their heavy armament in a quick pass and then leave, if things weren't so favorable they simply flew away. The lesson learned by all of the participants was that speed was far more important in combat than maneuverability.

Development history During 1933 the Technisches Amt (the technical department of the RLM) concluded a series of research projects into the future of air combat. The result of the studies were four broad outlines for future aircraft: ●

Rüstungsflugzeug I for a multi-place medium bomber


Heinkel He 112 ● ● ●

Rüstungsflugzeug II for a tactical bomber Rüstungsflugzeug III for a two-place heavy fighter Rüstungsflugzeug IV for a single-place fighter

The Rüstungsflugzeug IV was intended to be a Verfolgungs-Jagdeinsitzer (single-seat fighter), and the requirements were not terribly hard to meet. The plane needed to have a top speed of 400km/h at 6000m (250mph at 19,500ft) which it could maintain for 20 minutes, while staying in the air for a total of 90 minutes. It also needed to be armed with at least three machine guns with 1000 rounds each, or one 20mm cannon with 200 rounds. One other interesting specification was that the plane needed to keep wing loading below 100kg/m2, which is a way of defining the plane's ability to turn and climb. The priorities for the plane were level speed, climb speed, and then maneuverability (in that order). In October 1933 Hermann Göring sent out a letter requesting aircraft companies consider the design of a "high speed courier aircraft" — a thinly veiled request for a new fighter. In May 1934 this request was made official and the Technisches Amt (the technical department of the RLM) sent out a request for a single seat interceptor for the Rüstungsflugzeug IVrole, this time under the guise of a "sports aircraft". The specification was first sent to the most experienced fighter designers, Heinkel, Arado, and FockeWulf. The request was later sent to newcomer Bayerische Flugzeugwerk (Bavarian Aircraft Manufacturers, or BFW), on the strength of their Bf 108 "Taifun" advanced sports plane design. Each company was asked to build three prototypes for run-off testing. By the spring of 1935 both the Arado and Focke-Wulf planes were ready. The Focke-Wulf Fw 159 was a parasol wing design based on their earlier Fw 56 "Stösser" (Falcon), used as an advanced trainer. The Stösser was a relatively modest advance in the state of the art, and with the exception of a bizzare tail arrangement with the elevator on the fuselage deck in front of the vertical stabilizer, the 56 looked basically like a 1920's biplane with the lower wing removed, it even retained the wing struts. The 159 included a fairly small set of changes to the earlier design, primarily a rework of the tail area, a canopy hood, the inclusion of retractable gear, and a new engine. The gear retraction system proved to be the design's Achilles heel. With no wing to fold into they had to fold into the fuselage in front of the cockpit, somewhere under the engine. The resulting system was terribly complex and failure prone (compare this with the Wildcat, which had a similar system that worked well). The first two prototypes were both destroyed because of gear failures, the V1 on it's first flight. The Arado Ar 80 was a somewhat more advanced design, a low wing monoplane with an elliptical planform reverse-gull wing. Arado mounted the elevator to the rear of the vertical stabilizer, which resulted in excellent spin behavior. Arado didn't have the experience with monocoque construction to build the entire plane, so the forward portion was built of steel tubing covered with removable aluminum skins.


Heinkel He 112

The Ar 80 was supposed to have a gear retraction system that folded the short gear legs in toward the fuselage and slightly to the rear. However a number of bugs turned up in the system, and the prototypes were instead delivered with simple fixed gear. The fixed gear were known to be a major performance hit but this was supposed to be offset by the plane's light weight. As is all too common in the industry the weight crept upwards, and as a result the plane was never able to meet it's performance goals. Heinkel's design was created primarily by the twin brothers Walter and Siegfried Günter, who's designs would dominate most of Heinkel's work. They started work on "Projekt 1015" in late 1933 under the guise of the original courier airplane, based around the BMW XV radial engine. Work was already underway when the official request went out on May 2nd, and on May 5th the design was renamed the He 112. The primary source of inspiration for the 112 is the earlier He 70 "Blitz" (Lightning). The Blitz was a single engine, 4-passenger plane originally designed for use by Lufthansa, and it in turn was inspired by the famous Lockheed Orion mailplane. Like many civilian designs of the time the plane was pressed into military service, and was used as a two seat bomber (although mostly for reconnaissance) and served in this role in Spain. The Blitz introduced a number of new construction techniques to the Heinkel company. It was their first low wing monoplane, and the elliptical, reverse-gull wing planform would be seen on a number of later projects. It was also their first all-metal design, built using the then-advanced monocoque construction technique. It also introduced retracting gear for the first time on a Heinkel airplane. The Blitz could almost meet the new fighter requirements itself, so it's not surprising that the Günter's would choose to work with the existing design as much as possible. In many ways the resulting 112 design was a scaled down He 70. Like the He 70 the 112 was constructed entirely of metal, using a two spar wing and a monocoque fuselage with flush mounted rivets. The gear retracted outward from the low point of the wing's gull-bend, which resulted in a fairly wide 9m track, giving the plane excellent ground handling. It's only features from an older era was it's open cockpit and fuselage spine for the headrest, which were included to provide excellent vision and make the biplane-trained pilots feel more comfortable.

Prototypes He 112 V1 was completed on September 1st, 1935, but pending the unavailable Jumo 210 engine it instead mounted a 695hp Rolls-Royce Kestrel Mk.II.S. Initial test flights at the factory revealed that the drag of the design was much higher than expected, and that the plane was not going to be as fast as originally predicted. The V1 was sent off to be tested by the RLM at Travemünde in December. V2 was completed on the 16th of November, it had the now-available 640hp Jumo 210C engine and a three bladed prop, but was otherwise identical to the V1. Meanwhile the data from the V1 factory flights was studied to discover where the unexpected drag was coming from, and the Günter brothers identified http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html (4 of 22)2006-09-19 15:12:52

Heinkel He 112

the large and thick wing as the main culprit. V2 was kept at the factory and modified with a clipped wing that was thinner as well, which was expected to improve the speed of the plane by 25 to 30km/h (15 to 18mph) and allow it to compete with the 109. This made the 112 creep over the wing loading requirements in the specifications, but with the 109 way over the limit this wasn't seen as a problem and the V2 was sent off for testing. The V3 took to the air in January. Minor changes included a larger radiator, fuselage spine and vertical stabilizer, but it was otherwise largely the same as the V2 with the clipped wings. Other changes included a single cover over the exhaust ports instead of the more common "stack", and it also included modifications to allow the armament to be installed in the cowling. It was expected to join the V2 in testing, but instead would be assigned back to Heinkel in early 1937 for tests with rocket propulsion. During a test the rocket exploded and the plane was destroyed, but in an amazing effort the V3 was reconstructed sporting a number of changes including an enclosed cockpit.

The Contest The 112V1 started off the head-to-head contest when it arrived at Travemünde on the 8th of February, 1936. The other three planes had all arrived by the beginning of March. Right away the Fw 159 and Ar 80 proved to be rather lacking in performance, and plagued with problems. It was clear that the contest was really between the He 112 and the Bf 109. At this point in the program the 112 was still the favorite over the "unknown" 109, but opinions changed when the Jumo powered 109V2 arrived on the 21st of March. From that point on it started to outperform the 112 in almost every way, and even the arrival of the 112V2 with the Jumo engine on the 15th of April did little to address this imbalance. As would be expected the 112 had better turn performance due to it's larger wing, but the 109 was faster at all altitudes and had considerably better agility and aerobatic abilities. During spin tests on the 2nd of March, the 109V2 showed no problems while the 112V2 crashed. Repairs were made to the plane and it was returned in April, but it crashed again and was written off. The V1 was then returned to Heinkel on April 17th, and fitted with the clipped wings. Meanwhile news came in that Supermarine had recently received a contract for full scale production of the Spitfire, and this caused a wave of concern in the higher command of the Luftwaffe. Time now took on as much importance as any quality of the plane itself, and the RLM was ready to put any reasonable design into production. That reasonable design was the Bf 109. On the 12th of March the Commission wrote up the outcome of their meetings in a document called "Bf 109 Priority Procurement". The plane that was considered a long shot for most of the program suddenly found itself leading the race. But there were some who still favored the Heinkel design, and as a result the RLM then sent out contracts for 15 "zero series" planes from both companies. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html (5 of 22)2006-09-19 15:12:52

Heinkel He 112

Testing continued until October, at which point some of the additional zero series planes had arrived. At the end of September there were four He 112's being tested, yet none was a clear match for the 109. This was likely the final nail in the 112's coffin, from October on the Bf 109 appears to have been selected as the winner of the contest. There are a number of factors that were considered in the decision. For one the 112 didn't seem to be a single design, every plane that arrived for testing differed from the others, sometimes in rather major ways. As a result it could be said that the 112 didn't really get tested, but even with all of these versions none could beat the 109. It's likely that the crashes also cast some doubt on the quality of the plane, but the 109 had it's own problems here too. In addition some sources have mentioned that the 112 continued to suffer from lateral instability throughout the test period, which caused the plane to "snake" in flight. The various modifications to the vertical stabilizer may be evidence for this problem. Another issue is that the 112 was more complex than the 109, and it's likely that this had at least some effect on the decision making process. The 112's use of complex curves on almost all surfaces required more working of the metal, notably the large number of hard to build 2-d curves. This is also true of the wing, as the elliptical planform was often skipped over due to it's complex construction, even though it is provably the most efficient wing design possible. As a result the 112 was considerably more expensive to build, and this is a major concern for a plane that has to be quickly ordered into mass production.

He 112A Prototypes Heinkel had expected orders for additional aircraft beyond the initial three prototypes, and was able to respond quickly to the new contract for the 15 zero series aircraft. The new planes would be given the series designation A-0. The first of these new planes, the V4, was completed in June 1936. It included the more powerful 210Da engine with a two speed supercharger that brought the power to 690hp (507kW) for takeoff. The only other change was a slight reduction in the size of the vertical stabilizer. In July both the V5 and V6 were completed. V5 was built identically to the V4 with the 210Da engine, and it also sported two fuselage mounted 7.92mm MG17 machine guns. The V6 on the other hand was completed as the pattern plane for the A series production run, and thus included the 210C engine instead of the more powerful Da. The only other change was a modification to the radiator, but this modification would not appear on later A-0 series models. It suffered a forced landing on the 1st of August and was repaired and joined V4 for testing in October. The last of the prototype A-0 series was the V8, which was completed in October. It switched engines entirely and mounted the DB600Aa, along with a three bladed fully adjustable all metal propeller. The Mercedes engine was a huge change for the plane, the DB produced 910hp (670kW) for takeoff and was http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html (6 of 22)2006-09-19 15:12:52

Heinkel He 112

a massive 33.9L at 686kg (2069cu in at 1510lbs). Compared that to the Jumo 210Da's 690hp (510kW) from 19.7L (1202cu in) — at about the same weight. The V8 was seen primarily as a testbed for the new engine, and more importantly, it's cooling systems. The DB used a dry liner in the engine that resulted in poor heat flow, so more of the heat was removed by the oil as opposed to the glycol. In March of 1937 the plane was assigned to rocket propulsion tests at Peenemünde. It completed these tests later that summer (without exploding!) and was returned to the factory where it was converted back into a normal model. At the end of the year it was sent to Spain, where it was seriously damaged on the 18th of July, 1938. Once again it was put back together and was flying four months later. No one seems to know what happened to it then.

He 112A-0 At this point the prototype stage was ostensibly over, and Heinkel continued building the A-0 as production line models. The naming changed adding a production number to the end of the name, so the next six planes were known as 112A-01 through 112A-06. All of these included the 210C engine, and were essentially identical to V6, with the exception of the radiator. These planes were used in just as varied a manner as the earlier V series had been. A-01 flew in October 1936 and was used as the prototype for a future 112C-0 carrier based aircraft. It was later destroyed during rocket tests. A-02 flew in November, and then joined the earlier V models at Rechlin for further testing in the contest. A-03 and A-04 were both completed in December, A-03 was a show aircraft and was flown by Heinkel pilots at various air shows and exhibitions, A-04 was kept at Heinkel for various tests. The last two models of the A-0 series, A-05 and A-06, were completed in March of 1937. They were both shipped to Japan as the initial machines of the 30 for the Japanese Navy. Specifications for the He 112A-0 (from the V4) Engine: Dimensions:

Weights: Wing Area:

680hp (507kW) Junkers Jumo 210Da liquid–cooled inverted V12 span 11.5m (37ft 8 3/4in) length 9.0m (29ft 5 3/8in) height 3.7m (12ft 1 5/8 in) empty 1680kg (3,704lb) max loaded unknown 23.2m2 (250.5ft2)

Wing Loading: 102.5kg/m2 (xx.x lbs/ft2)


Heinkel He 112

Performance: maximum speed 488km/h (303mph) at unknown m unknown at sea level cruise speed unknown service ceiling 8000m (26,245ft) range 1100km (684miles) Armament: three 7.92mm MG17 mounded in the engine cowling

He 112B Prototypes In October 1936 the RLM changed the orders for the zero series 112's, instructing Heinkel to complete any A-0's already under construction and then switch the remaining planes to an updated design. This gave Heinkel a chance to improve the 112, which they did by completely redesigning it into a totally new aircraft called the 112B — similar in name only. It's at this point that it becomes a truly modern plane that could compete head to head with the Bf 109. The 112B had a completely redesigned and cut down rear fuselage, a new vertical stabilizer and rudder, and perhaps most interesting, a completely enclosed cockpit with a bubble style canopy. The canopy was somewhat more complex than later bubble designs, instead of having two pieces with the majority sliding to the rear, the 112B's canopy was in three pieces and the middle slid back and over a fixed rear section. Even with the additional framing the 112 still had excellent visibility for it's day. Armament was also standardized on the B model with two 7.92mm MG17's in the sides of the cowling with 500 rounds each, and two 20mm MG FF's in the wings with 60 rounds each. For aiming, the cockpit included the then modern Revi 3B reflex sight. The first B series airframe to be completed was the V7 in October 1936. The V7 used the DB600Aa engine like the V8, and it also used the original V1 style larger wing. This wing was later replaced with a smaller one, but instead of the clipped version from the earlier V models, a completely new single – spar fully elliptical wing was produced. This wing design became standard for the entire B series. V7 was turned over to von Braun in April 1937 for yet more rocket tests, and managed to survive the experience. It was then returned in the summer and sent to Rechlin where it was used in testing. The next plane was V9 which flew in July of 1937, powered by the 680hp Jumo 210Ea engine. V9 can be considered to be the "real" B series prototype, as the V7 received the DB600Aa originally for experimental reasons (like the A-0 series V8). The entire surface was now flush riveted and the plane had several other aerodynamic cleanups. The radiator was again changed, this time to a semi-retractable design for reduced drag in flight. The plane also underwent a weight reduction program which reduced the empty weight to 1617kg. As a result of all of these changes, the V9 had a maximum speed of 485km/h (301mph) at 4000m, and 430km/h (267mph) at sea level. This was a full 20km/h faster than the contemporary 109B-2. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html (8 of 22)2006-09-19 15:12:52

Heinkel He 112

Nevertheless by this time the 109 was already ramping up production, and the RLM saw no need for another largely similar plane. It's also worth noting that users of the plane generally found it impossible to reach this speed, and rarely managed to exceed 260mph. The RLM had already contracted for another six 112's so production of the prototypes continued. V10 was supposed to receive the 960hp Jumo 211A (Junker's inexpensive DB600 competitor), but the engine was not available in time and the V10 instead received the new 1,175hp DB601Aa. The new engine drove the V10 to an amazing 570km/h (354mph) and increased climb rate significantly. V11 was also supposed to get the 211A, but instead received the DB600Aa. The last prototype, the V12, was actually an airframe taken off the B-1 series production line (which had started by this point). The 210Ea was replaced with the new fuel-injected 210Ga, which improved performance of the engine to 700hp for takeoff, and a sustained output of 675hp at the reasonably high altitude of 4700m. Better yet the Ga also decreased fuel consumption, thus increasing the plane's endurance. The new engine gave the V12 such a boost that it became the pattern plane for the planned B2 series production. With all of these different versions and experimental engine fits during the B series prototype construction, it might seem like the problem with the A series continually changing wasn't being addressed. In fact this was not the case, except for the engine fit the B's are all basically identical. Due to the shortage of just about any German engine at the time, and the possibility that advanced versions could be blocked for export, various models had to be designed with different installations. Thus the B models were different only in their engine, the 210C in the B-0, the 210Ea in the B-1, and the 210Ga for the B-2.

He 112B Although no clear date is given, in Stormy Life it is Udet himself that delivers the news to Heinkel that the 109 had entered series production in 1936. He is quoted as saying "Pawn your crate off on the Turks or the Japs or the Rumanians. They'll lap it up." Perhaps he was not so far wrong. With a number of air forces looking to upgrade from biplanes and various designs from the early 1930's, the possibility for foreign sales was promising. In order to show off the design,the V9 spent much of the later half of 1937 being flown by pilots from all over the world. It was also sent around Europe for tours and air shows. The effort was a success and orders quickly started coming in. The first was from the Imperial Japanese Navy. After seeing the V9 in flight they quickly placed an order for thirty 112B's with an option for 100 more. The first four were shipped in December of 1937, another eight in the spring, and promises for the rest to arrive in May. Before delivery the Luftwaffe unexpectedly took over twelve of the planes to bolster its forces during the Sudetenland Crisis. The planes were then returned to Heinkel in November, but the Japanese refused to accept them this late and http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html (9 of 22)2006-09-19 15:12:52

Heinkel He 112

Heinkel was left holding the aircraft. Luckily Spain was so impressed with the 112's performance during evaluation in the civil war, that the Aviación Nacional (Spanish Air Force) purchased the twelve planes in early 1938, and later increased the order by another six (some sources say five). Of the first twelve, two were shipped in November, another six in January, and the rest in April. In November 1937 an Austrian delegation came to see the plane, led by Generaloberst Alexander Löhr, Command-in-Chief of the Luftstreiktkräft (Austrian Air Force). Test Pilot Hans Schalk flew both the Bf 109 and the He 112V9 back to back. Although he felt that both models performed the same, the Heinkel had more balanced steering pressures and better equipment possibilities. They placed an order on the 20th of December for forty-two 112B's. Pending the license for the MG FF cannon, these planes would remove the cannon and add six THM 10/I bomb shackles which carried small 10kg anti-personal bombs. The order was later reduced to thirty-six planes due to a lack of funds (the 112B cost 163,278 Reichmarks), but the planes were never delivered due to the disappearance of Austria in the March 1938 Anschluss. In April it looked like Yugoslavia would be the next user of the 112, and they placed an order for thirty of the planes. Later they cancelled their order and decided to produce other designs under license instead. Finland appeared to be another potential customer. Between January and March of 1938 the famous Finnish pilot, Eka Magnusson, travelled to Germany to gain experience in new tactics. He had been on similar tours in France in the past and was interested to see how the Germans were training their pilots. In Germany he was briefly assigned to Richtofen Geschwader, JG 132, and found to his surprise that the Luftwaffe was considerably behind the times in terms of formation tactics. On a visit to the Heinkel plant in Marienehe he flew the 112, and he reported it to be the best plane he had flown. In May Heinkel sent the first of the 112B-1's to Finland to join an air show. It remained on for the next week and was flown by a number of pilots, including Magnusson who had since returned to Finland. Although all of the pilots liked the plane, the cost was so high that the the Suomen Ilmavoimat decided to stick with the much less expensive Fokker D.XXI. A similar setback would accompany sales efforts to the Luchtvaartafdeling (Dutch Air Force), who were looking to purchase thirty-six fighters to form two new squadrons. A 112B-1 arrived for testing on the 12th of July, and quickly proved to be the best plane in the competition. Nevertheless they decided to purchase the locally-built (and rather outdated) Koolhoven FK.58 instead. The plane was not yet ready for production, so in an odd twist they then purchased a number of Hawker Hurricanes because they could be delivered immediately. In the end the FK.58's would never be delivered. Switzerland was able to receive the 109 and purchased that plane, and both Turkey and Belgium http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html (10 of 22)2006-09-19 15:12:52

Heinkel He 112

eventually decided on the Hurricane. Fortunes would be seem to be reversed with Hungary. In June of 1938 three pilots of the Magyar Királyi Honvéd Légierö (Royal Hungarian Home Defense Air Force, or MKHL) were sent to Heinkel to study the V9. They were impressed with what they saw, and on the 7th of September an order was placed for thirty-six planes, as well as an offer to license the design for local building. Through a variety of political mishaps, only three planes were ever delivered and licenced production never happened. The final, and perhaps most successful, customer for the 112B was Romania. The Fortelor Aeronautica Regalã ale Românã (Royal Romanian Air Force or FAAR) ordered twenty-four planes in April 1939, and increased the order to thirty on the 18th of August. Deliveries started in June, and the last of the thirty was delivered on the 30th of September. By this point in time war had started, and with better models on the market —including Heinkel's own superlative He 100— no one else was interested in purchasing the design. The production line was closed after a total of only 98 planes, 85 of those being the B series models. Specifications for the He 112B-2 Engine: Dimensions:

Weights: Wing Area:

700hp (522kW) Junkers Jumo 210Ga liquid–cooled inverted V12 span 9.09m (29ft 9 3/4in) length 9.22m (30ft 11 7/8in) height 3.82m (12ft 6 3/4 in) empty 1617kg (3,565lb) max loaded 2248kg (4,957lb) 17m2 (183ft2)

Wing Loading: 132.35kg/m2 (27.1lbs/ft2) Performance: maximum speed 510km/h (317mph) at xxxxm (xx,xxxft) xxxkm/h (xxxmph) at sea level cruise speed unknown service ceiling 9500m (31,200ft) range 1150km (715miles) Armament: two 7.92mm MG17 with 500 rounds each mounted in the sides of the engine cowling two 20mm MG FF cannons with 60 rounds each in the wings

He 112 in Legión Cóndor Service When it was clear the 112 was losing the contest, Heinkel offered to re-equip V6 with 20mm cannon armament as an experimental aircraft. The Technisches Amt was very interested; at the time many tanks were equipped with 20mm guns as their primary armament, the same armament on a plane could prove http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html (11 of 22)2006-09-19 15:12:52

Heinkel He 112

to be a powerful weapon. In September a 20mm MG C/30L cannon was mounted to the plane, with the breech to the rear of the engine and the barrel lying between the cylinder banks and exiting in the propellor spinner. This is the first experimental mounting of what would later be called the motorkanone, a feature that would become a standard on most German fighters. She was then broken down and shipped to Spain on the 9th of December. After being re-assembled she was assigned to Versuchsjagdgruppe 88, a group within the Legión Cóndor devoted to testing new planes. There she was nicknamed the Kanonenvogel, and joined three V series Bf 109's which were also in testing. The Kanonenvogel was adopted by Oberleutnant Günter Radusch who started flying the plane on the 9th of December at Tablada. From then on it joined the Ju 87A's and Hs 123's already in service and was used as a ground attack plane. On the 6th of February the plane was moved to Villa de Prado near Mardid, and then in March she was re-assigned to Jagdgruppe 88 at Almorox near Toledo. While sitting at Almorox due to a mechanical problem in his He 45C, Oberleutnant Wilhelm Balthasar heard that a Republican armored train was approaching and talked himself into the cockpit of the V6 by insisting he was a Heinkel test pilot. After teaching himself to fly the plane and managing to get into the air, he found the train parked at the station in Seseña and attacked it. On his third pass one of the 20mm shells punctured the ammunition car and the entire train exploded. Then on the way back to Almorox he came across an armored car and set it on fire. His exploit in the V6 made him famous, and Balthasar found himself in command of the newly formed combat group with the V6 and three He 45C recon planes. Over the next few months the V6 was flown by a number of pilots, and on the 6th of July Unteroffizier Max Schulze knocked out an additional number of armored cars. On the 19th of July Schulze was once again flying the V6 when the engine seized during landing. Schultze walked away from the resulting pancake landing, but the plane broke her back and was a writeoff. V8 and V9 were then sent to Spain in the spring of 1938. The V8 was the earlier A series model with the larger DB600Aa engine, but it was only in Spain until July when it crashed. V9 was the B series platform and armed with the twin 20mm cannons. Like the V6 it was then used primarily as a ground attack plane, but it was also flown by a number of experienced Spanish pilots before being returned to Heinkel and becoming the show plane.

He 112B in German Service The early stages of the Third Reich's expansion plans consisted of a series of annexations of territory where the majority of the population were culturally German. This started with the March 1934 Anschluss, the annexation of Austria. Next on the list came the Sudetenland, a portion of western http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html (12 of 22)2006-09-19 15:12:52

Heinkel He 112

Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia wasn't interested, and unlike the Austrian example, it didn't look like France and England were going to simply sit back and watch. Suddenly the possibility of a military confrontation looked very real. As a result the Luftwaffe pressed every flightworthy fighter into service. At the time the Japanese Navy batch of 112B's was being completed, and these were taken over and used to form IV./JG 132 on the 1st of July, 1938. They were first based at Oschatz, but were moved to Karlsbad on the 6th of October. The planes moved again on the 17th of November to Mährish-Trübau, where they were reformed as I./ JG 331. But by that time the crisis had passed, and I./JG 331 received Bf 109C's in place of the 112B's. The planes were then returned to Heinkel and then shipped to Japan to fulfill the order. A number of other 112's at the Heinkel plant were used as a factory defense unit, flown by Heinkel test pilots (all civilians). The planes never never saw action in the role, and were replaced with He 100's and then exported.

He 112B in Japanese Service In 1937 the Teikoku Nihon Kaigun (Japanese Imperial Navy) found itself at a disadvantage in combat over the Chinese mainland. The fact that Navy aircraft were fighting over the mainland might seem odd, but interservice rivalry in Japan went beyond the occasional bar brawl and both services fielded complete air forces with their own types of planes. At the time the Navy air services were small and equipped mostly with older biplanes. Meanwhile the Soviets were supplying the Chinese air forces with the I-15bis and I-16 fighters. Although the new A5M "Claude" was largely similar to the I-16, they were just starting to enter service and available in small numbers only. The Navy was concerned about the lack of fighters and went looking for new designs that could be purchased off the shelf to bring the squadrons to strength quickly. At the time the majority of modern design work was taking place in Europe, and with England no longer on friendly terms they turned to Germany for a new fighter. In late 1937 a delegation visited Marienehe and saw V9 in action. They were impressed with what they saw and placed an order for thirty of the B series planes, with an option for 100 more. They even purchased one of the older designs to take back with them immediately (according to the primary source below, this was the V5). Upon arriving in Japan the planes were named A7He1, the A7 refers to the 7th navy fighter design (the Zero was 6th), and the He1 means it's the first version of this particular design, and built by Heinkel. In testing the He 112B proved superior to the A5M2 in many ways, notably in speed where the 112 could easily outrun the A5M to the tune of 65km/h. Yet the test pilots rejected the plane out of hand because the A5M was more maneuverable. Maneuverability was considered to be the single most important factor for any fighter, everything and anything was sacrificed to improve it. It could be said http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html (13 of 22)2006-09-19 15:12:52

Heinkel He 112

that the Japanese were still fighting WWI in the air, and the focus on maneuverability would later prove to be the downfall of their air forces. In the end the plane was rejected and the option for the additional 100 was canceled. The thirty already purchased were delivered over a period in 1937 and '38, drawn from a number of production runs. Upon arriving in Japan they were used for training duties, but the V11 with it's DB600Aa was used for testing. As it turns out the A7 designation would later be assigned to the A7M, essentially an advanced Zero which also never saw combat.

He 112B in Spanish Service When V9 was sent to Spain in the spring of 1938 it was primarily as a sales effort to interest the Spanish in the He 112 design. It was flown my a number of Spanish pilots in various test and show flights. The pilots reports all praised the plane, but at the same time they all considered it to be underpowered. Nevertheless the government decided to purchase the 112B and form up a new group under the command of Comandante José Muñoz Jiménez. An order was placed for twelve planes and they started to arrive in November 1938, where they were assembled in León by Heinkel workers. The first two were ready by December, followed by another seven B-1's and ten B-2's in early 1939. The first seven aircraft were ready by the end of January, and were formed up as 2a Ecsuadra Grupo de Caza 5-G-5 (2nd Squardon of Fighter Group 5-G-5). When another eight were completed the 1a Ecsuadra was formed up as well, and the remaining four were split among them as they became available. 1a Ecsuadra lasted only a short time before they were re-equipped with 190B's and C's handed down from the Legión Cóndor as they received their new 190E's. Grupo 5-G-5 was then incorporated into 7a Ecsuadra de Caza (7th Fighter Regiment) along with 2-G-2 and 3-G-3 with their Fiat CR.32 biplanes. The He 112's were to operate as top cover over the Fiat's, which had considerably worse altitude performance. Operations started on the 17th of January 1939, and on the 20th the operational plan proved sound when they encountered a number of I-16's over Igualada. The squadron commanding officer, Capitán García Pardo shot one down for his 12th kill, but this would prove to be the only air to air victory for the He 112 for the war. From then on they operated almost solely in the ground attack role and moved about the country as the war wound down, sometimes rejoining 1a Ecsuadra. Two aircraft and their pilots were lost in careless accidents during this time, but it appears none were lost in combat. The civil war ended on April 1st, leaving Spain with one of the most powerful and modern air forces in the world. 2a Ecsuadra returned to Léon where they had started off, but on the 13th of July they were


Heinkel He 112

moved to Sania Ramel in Spanish Morocco. Here they were renamed 1a Ecsuadra and joined a newly formed 2a Ecsuadra flying the new Fiat G.50's (still no match for the 112's). Together they formed Grupo 27. When Allied forces landed in North Africa, the Spanish forces in Morocco found themselves once again on alert. Due to the navigational difficulties of the day, the planes found themselves repeatedly intercepting straying aircraft from both Allied and German forces. For instance, on the 8th of November they intercepted C-47's dropping paratroops on Morocco! On other occasions they intercepted Spitfire V's from Gibraltar, and Dewoitine D.520's operated by the Vichy French out of French Algeria. None of these incidents resulted in losses. On March 3rd 1943 a formation of Allied planes was seen straying into Spanish airspace yet again, and Grupo 27's alert plane was scrambled with Teniente Miguel Entrena Klett at the controls. After climbing to 3500m, he spotted the target aircraft and identified eleven P-38's. He then positioned for an attack out of the sun (which was to the rear of the formation) and made a diving pass on the trail-end aircraft. Several hits were made with the 20mm rounds (his MG's were later discovered to be unloaded), and the plane started trailing smoke and was forced down in Algeria. By 1944 the planes found themselves sitting on the ground more and more due to a lack of fuel and maintenance. By 1945 there were only nine left, and they were rotated out of service for repairs in Spain. They continued to be attrited due to accidents and cannibalization over the next few years, eventually returning to the mainland and being assigned to training units (where they rarely flew). The last airworthy example appears on the books in 1952, along with another that couldn't fly. The next year there were none listed.

He 112B in Hungarian Service Like the Germans, Hungary had stiff regulations imposed on her armed forces with the signing of the Peace Treaty of Versailles. In August 1938 the armed forces were re-formed, and with Austria (historically her partner for centuries) being incorporated into Germany, Hungary found herself in the German sphere. One of the highest priorities for the forces was to re-equip the MKHL as soon as possible. Of the various planes being looked at the 112B eventually won out over the competition, and on September 7th an order was placed for thirty six planes. At that point in time the Heinkel production line was just starting, and with Japan and Spain in the queue before them it would be some time before the planes could start delivery. Repeated pleas to be moved to the top of the queue failed. Germany had to refuse the first order at the beginning of 1939 because of their claimed neutrality in the Hungarian/Romanian dispute over Transylvania. In addition the RLM refused to license the Oerlikon 20mm MG FF cannon to the Hungarians, likely as a form of political pressure. This later insult didn't


Heinkel He 112

cause a problem, because they planned to replace it with the locally designed Danuvia 20mm cannon anyway. V9 was sent to Hungary as a demonstrator after a tour of Romania, and arrived on the 5th of February, 1939. It was test flown by a number of pilots over the next week, and on the 14th they replaced the propeller with a new three bladed Junkers design (licensed from Hamilton). While being tested against a CR.32 that day, V9 crashed. On the 10th of March a new 112B-1/U2 arrived to replace the V9, and was flown by a number of pilots at different fighter units. It was during this time that the Hungarian pilots started to complain about the underpowered engine, as they found that they could only reach a top speed of 430km/h (267mph) with the 210Ea. With the Japanese and Spanish orders filled, things were looking up for Hungary. However at that point Romania placed its order, and was placed at the front of the cue! It appeared that the Hungarian production machines might never arrive, so the MKHL started pressing for a license to build the plane locally. In May the Hungarian Weiss Manfréd Repülogép-es Motogyár (Manfred-Weiss Aircraft and Engine Plant) in Budapest received the license for the plane, and on the 1st of June an order was placed for twelve planes. Heinkel agreed to deliver a 210Ga powered plane to serve as a pattern aircraft. As it turns out the B-2 was never delivered, and two more of the B-1/U2's with the 210Ea were sent instead. On arrival in Hungary the 7.9mm MG17's were removed and replaced with the local 8mm 39.M machine guns, and bomb racks were added. The resulting fit was similar to those oringinally ordered by Austria. Throughout this time the complaints about the engines were being addressed by continued attempts to license one of the newer 30-litre class engines, the Jumo 211A or the DB600Aa. Late in March the He 100 V8 took the world absolute speed record, but in stories about the record attempt the plane was referred to as the He 112U. Upon hearing of the record, the Hungarians decided to switch production to this "new version" of the 112, which was based on the newer engines. Then in August the CinC of the MKHL recommended that the 112 be purchased as the standard fighter for Hungary (although likely referring to the earlier versions, not the "112U"). At this point the engine issue came to a head. It was clear that no production line planes would ever reach Hungary, and now that the war was underway the RLM was refusing to allow their export anyway. Shipments of the Jumo 211 or DB601 were not even able to fulfill German needs, so export of the engine for locally built airframes was likewise out of the question. By September the ongoing negotiations with the RLM for the license to build the engines locally stalled, and as a result the MKHL ordered Manfred-Weiss to stop tooling up for the production line aircraft. The license was eventually canceled in December. At that point the MKHL turned to the Italians, and purchased the Fiat CR.32 and Reggiane Re.2000. The later would be the backbone of the MKHL for much of the war. Nevertheless the three B-1/U2 aircraft continued to serve on. In the summer of 1940 tensions with http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html (16 of 22)2006-09-19 15:12:52

Heinkel He 112

Romania over Transylvania started to heat up again and the entire MKHL was placed on alert on the 27th of June. On the 21st of August the 112's were moved forward to the Debrecen airfield to protect a vital railway link. The next week a peaceful resolution was found, and the settlement was signed in Vienna on the 30th of August. The 112's returned home the following week. By 1941 the planes were ostensibly assigned to defend the Manfred-Weiss plant, but were actually used for training. When the Allied bomber raids started in the spring of 1944 the planes were no longer airworthy, and it appears all were destroyed in a massive raid on the Budapest–Ferihegy airport on the 9th of August. After the licensed production of the 112B fell through in 1939, the plan was to switch the production line to build a Manfred-Weiss designed plane called the W.M.23 Ezüst Nyíl (Silver Arrow). The plane was basically a 112B adapted to local construction; the wings were wooden versions of the 112's planform, the fuselage was made of a plywood over a steel frame, and the engine was a licensed built version of the 1000hp class Mistral-Major radial. It would seem that this "simplified" plane would be inferior to the 112, but in fact the higher powered engine made all the difference and the W.M.23 proved to be considerably faster than the 112. Nevertheless work proceeded slowly and only one prototype was built. The project was eventually canceled outright when the prototype crashed in early 1942. It's still a mystery why so little work had been done in those two years on what appeared to be an excellent design.

He 112B in Romanian Service At the end of WWI Romania had been granted large tracts of land as a "reward" for siding with the allies. The lands were taken as penalties from surrounding countries, so they instantly made enemies of the USSR, Bulgaria and Hungary. Throughout the 1920's and 30's Romania entered a number of alliances with nearby nations who were in a similar situation, notably Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. They were interested in blocking any changes to the Versailles treaty, which could eventually lead the loss of the land grants. Germany looked on Romania as a rather important supplier of needed war material, notably oil and grain. Looking to secure Romania as an ally, throughout the middle of the 1930's Germany placed increasing amounts of pressure on them in a variety of forms, best summed up as the "carrot and stick" approach. The carrot came in the form of generous trade agreements for a variety of products, and by the late 1930's Germany formed about half of all of Romania's trade. The stick came in the form of Germany's continued siding with Romania's enemies in various disputes. On the 26th of June, 1940, the Soviet Union gave Romania a twenty-four hour ultimatum to return Bessarabia and cede northern Bukovina, which had never even been a part of Russia. Germany's ambassador to Romania advised the king to submit, and he did. In August Bulgaria reclaimed southern Dobruja with German and Soviet backing. Later that month German and Italian foreign ministers met http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html (17 of 22)2006-09-19 15:12:52

Heinkel He 112

with Romanian diplomats in Vienna and presented them with an ultimatum to accept the ceeding of northern Transylvania to Hungary. Romania was placed in an increasingly bad position as her local allies were gobbled up, and her larger allies (Britain and France) assurances of help proved empty when they did nothing during the invasion of Poland. Soon the king was forced from the throne and a pro-German government was formed. With Romania now firmly in the German sphere of influence, her efforts to re-arm for the coming war were suddenly strongly backed. The primary concern was the FARR. Their fighter force at the time consisted of just over 100 Polish PZL. aircraft, primarily the P.11b (or the locally modified f model) and P.24E. Although these aircraft had been the most advanced fighters in the world in the early 1930's, by the late 30's they were hopelessly outclassed by practically everything. In April of 1939 the FARR was offered the Bf 109 as soon as production was meeting German demands, in the meantime they could take over twenty-four 112B's that were already built. The FARR jumped at the chance and then increased the order to thirty planes. Late in April a group of Romanian pilots arrived at Heinkel for conversion training, which went slowly because of the advanced nature of the 112 in comparison to the PZL.'s. When the training was complete, the pilots returned home in the cockpits of their new aircraft. The planes, all of them B-1's or B-2's, were "delivered" in this manner starting in July and ending in October. During that time two of the planes were lost, one in a fatal accident during training in Germany on the 7th of September, and another suffered minor damage on landing while being delivered and was later repaired at SET in Romania. When the first planes started arriving they were tested competitively against the locally designed IAR.80 prototype. This interesting and little known plane proved to be superior to the 112B in almost every way. At the same time the test flights demonstrated a number of disadvantages of the 112 in general, notably the underpowered engine and poor speed. The result of the fly-off was that the IAR.80 was ordered into immediate production, and orders for any additional He 112's were cancelled. By the 15th of September enough of the planes had arrived to form up, and as a result the Escadrila (squadron) 10 and 11 were re-equipped with the 112. The two squadrons were formed into the Grupul 5 vânãtoare (5th Fighter Group), responsible for the defense of Bucharest. In October they were renamed as the 51st and 52nd squadrons, still forming the 5th. The pilots had not been a part of the group that had been trained at Heinkel, so they started working their way toward the 112 using Nardi F.N.305 monoplane trainers. Training lasted until the spring of 1940, when a single additional 112B-2 was delivered as a replacement for the one that crashed in Germany the previous September. During the troubles with Hungary the 51st was deployed to Transylvania. MKHL Ju 86's and He 70's started making recon flights over Romanian territory, and repeated attempts to intercept them all failed because of the 112's low speed. On the 27th of August Locotenent Nicolae Polizu was over Hungarian territory when he encountered a Caproni Ca.135bis biplane bomber flying on a training mission. Several http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html (18 of 22)2006-09-19 15:12:52

Heinkel He 112

of his 20mm rounds hit the bomber, which was forced down safely at the Hungarian Debrecen airbase — home of the Hungarian 112's. Polizu became the first Romanian to shoot down a plane in aerial combat. When Germany prepared to invade the USSR in 1941, Romania joined them in an effort to regain the territories lost the year before. The FARR as a whole was made part of Luftflotte 4, and in preparation for the invasion Grupul 5 vânãtoare was sent to Moldavia. At the time twenty-four of the 112's were flyable, the remaining three were left at their home base at Pipera to complete repairs (two others had been lost to accidents, the remaining one is unaccounted for). On the 15th of June the planes moved again, to Foscani-North in northern Moldavia. With the opening of the war on the 22nd, the 112's were in the air at 10:50am supporting an attack by Potez 63's of Grupul 2 bombardment on the Soviet airfields at Bolgrad and Bulgãrica. Although some flak was encountered on the way to and over Bolgrad, the attack nevertheless was successful and a number of Soviet planes were bombed on the ground. By the time they reached Bulgãrica fighters were in the air waiting for them, and as a result the twelve 112's were met by about thirty I-16's. The results of this combat were mixed, Sublocotenent Teodor Moscu shot down one of a pair of I-16's still taking off, and when he was pulling out he hit another in a head-on pass and it crashed into the Danube. At this time he was set upon by several I-16s and received several hits, including a puncture of the fuel tanks which didn't seal. Losing fuel rapidly he formed up with his wingman and managed to put down at the Romanian airfield at Bâlad, and his plane was later repaired and returned to duty. Of the bombers, three of the thirteen dispatched were shot down. Over the next few days the 112's would be used primarily as ground attack aircraft, where their heavy armament was considered to be more important than their ability to fight air-to-air. Typical missions would start before dawn and would have the Heinkel's strafe Soviet airbases. Later in the day they would be sent on search and destroy missions, looking primarily for artillery and trains. Losses were heavy, most not due to combat, but simply because the planes were flying an average of three missions a day and weren't receiving the maintenance they needed. This problem effected all of the FARR, who didn't have the field maintenance logistics worked out at the time. On the 29th of July a report on the readiness of the air forces listed only fourteen 112's in flyable condition, and another eight repairable. As a result the planes of the 52nd were folded into the 51st to form a single full strength squadron on the 13th of August. The men of the 52nd were merged with the 42nd who flew IAR.80's, and were soon sent home to receive IAR.80's of their own. A report from August on the 112 rated it very poorly, once again noting it's lack of power and poor speed. For a time the 51st continued in a front line role, although they saw little combat. When Odessa fell on the 16th of October the Romanian war effort ostensibly ended, and the planes were considered to be no longer needed at the front. Fifteen were kept at Odessa and the rest were released to Romania for training duty (although they seem to have seen no use). On the 1st of November the 51st moved to Tatarka and then returned to Odessa on the 25th, performing coastal patrol duties all the while. On the


Heinkel He 112

1st of July, 1942 the 51st returned to Pipera and stood down after a year in action. On July 19th one of the He 112's took to air to intercept Soviet bombers in what was the first night mission by a Romanian plane. As the Soviets were clearly gearing up for a night offensive on Bucharest, the 51st was then re-equipped with Me 110 night fighters and became the only Romanian night fighter squadron. By 1943 the IAR.80 was no longer competitive, and the FARR started an overdue move to a newer fighter. The fighter in this case was the barely competitive Bf 109G. The 112's found themselves actively being used in the training role at last. The inline engine and general layout of the German designs was considered similar enough to make it useful in this role, and as a result the 112's came under the control of the Corpul 3 Aerian (3rd Air Corps). Several more of the 112's were destroyed in accidents during this time. It soldered on in this role into late 1944, even after Romania had changed sides and joined the allies.

Conclusions A swirl of controversy still surrounds the He 112, and why it was not chosen over the Bf 109. Some say the 112 was doomed from the start, to be mired down in the Luftwaffe's endless political system that was tilted against Heinkel. Others (including Heinkel it seems) have claimed that the 109 won out because of Messerschmitt's own political abilities. Reading over the available information makes it clear that this is simply not the case. The 112 was considered the favorite for much of the competition and had the backing of many of the major players — including Udet. Meanwhile the 109 was considered a long shot from a new and somewhat suspect company with a bad track record. There's nothing to suggest that politics played any large part in the process, with the possible exception that BFW's plant was better located to develop the industry outside the tight knit group in northern Germany. However tempting these stories might be, it's clear that the 109 beat the 112 fair and square. The early He 112 models submitted for testing were inferior to the 109; they were a blend of old and new features that place it more in competition with the I-16 than the all-modern 109. It was only after the huge number of changes for the 112B that the design matured into a true match for the 109, an effort that speaks of both Heinkel's abilities, and their will to win the contract. Yet by that point in time the need for production right away had already handed the contracts to Messerschmitt. Another way to look at this is that the two planes were developed in very different ways. The He 112 was developed to meet the requirements of the original 1934 contract, the Fw 159 and Ar 80 demonstrates just how limited the specification was. On the other hand the Bf 109 wasn't really developed to meet the specifications at all, it was an effort to adapt the lessons from the Bf 108 to a fighter. In fact Messerschmitt personally rejected the requirements, stating that they would result in fighters that would be slower than the bombers then being designed. He was given a free hand (it being http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html (20 of 22)2006-09-19 15:12:52

Heinkel He 112

unlikely he would win anyway...) and the 109 was simply a far more advanced design. It's not at all surprising that it won as a result. Ernst Heinkel seems to have never accepted the fact that the 112 may have simply not been as good as the 109. Instead he laid the blame for the loss at the feet of the technical director for the project, Heinrich Hertel. Heinkel claimed that Hertel's background at the Research Institute for Aviation gave him the overwhelming drive to tinker with designs. With Heinkel himself tied up with other contracts there was no one to say "no", and as a result every plane that exited the factory was different. Whether or not this is true, Hertel left Heinkel and joined Junkers in May of 1939.

Notes Prior to starting research for this article I had been led to believe that the primary complaint about the aircraft was its complexity. Yet this complaint appears in none of the sources I read on the plane. I do remember one post to the UseNet on the topic where the relative manhours needed to build the 109 vs. the 112 were posted, but I can no longer find the message. If anyone has any details on this topic, feel free to forward them on. When looking for references for this article in a local Toronto store (Aviation World, check it out) I bumped into the author of the primary source below. While conversing he convinced me of the accuracy of his production figures in comparison to the older and often re-quoted sources. As a result I had to pretty much scrap my first attempt at this article and start over, but I'm very happy with the results. Many thanks are due to him for this excellent resource, which is one of the finest of an already outstanding series of books. Most measures and performance data in the table are taken from the primary source listed in the Sources section, with the exception of the data for the A-0 V4, which comes from Gustin's data. I have used metric values as the primary form of measurement in most cases, with the exception of engine power. This might seem arbitrary, but it appears this is the way most people prefer to see them. Conversions for power use 1 hp = 550 ft.lbs/s = 745.6W.

Sources Heinkel He 112 in action, Dénes Bernád, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1996 Stormy Life, Ernst Heinkel, E.P. Dutton, 1956 He 112 Took Only Second Place, Karl-Heinz Kens in Flug Revew 1/2000, Motor-Presse Stuttgart, 1999

Links http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html (21 of 22)2006-09-19 15:12:52

Heinkel He 112

The Luftwaffe Resource Group's He 112 page This page has some details on the 112, along with illustrations and a three-view. This site uses frames, so I'll point you directly to this page with basic information on both the 100 and the 112. (in German)

Version History v1.0 Initial Version, October 22, 2000 v1.1 Minor cleanup, October 27, 2000 v1.2 Minor cleanup, November 25, 2000 v1.3 Minor cleanup, changes to Finish details, March 5, 2001 Maury Markowitz [email protected]


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162i.html

1. Heinkel He 162

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162i.html2006-09-19 15:13:18

Heinkel He 162

Heinkel He 162 Since the subject of the Heinkel He 162 came up in a couple of recent postings, I thought that the readers of sci.military might be interested in the following description of this remarkable little warplane. I am indebted to William Green's "The Warplanes of the Third Reich" for much of the factual material described here. The "Volksjaeger" (or "People's Fighter") was a project that originated in the Reich War Ministry in March of 1944. It was largely the idea of Otto Saur, a high Nazi party official and head of the Fighter Staff in the War Ministry. Saur was a protege of Minister of Armaments Albert Speer, who, in turn, had the ear of the Fuehrer himself. Because of the desperate straits of the German war effort in the spring of 1944, Saur conceived of a need for a simple, inexpensive fighter aircraft that could be manufactured in large numbers with readily available materials by unskilled (perhaps slave ?) labor. The basic requirement was drawn up on September 8, 1944, and was issued to several large German aircraft firms. A crucial requirement was that the aircraft be ready for mass production by January 1, 1945. General Adolph Galland vehemently opposed this scheme; he wanted German industry to concentrate solely on the Me 262 twin-jet fighter. Designers such as Kurt Tank and Willy Messerschmitt also thought the proposal entirely unrealistic. However, Arado, Blohm und Voss, and Heinkel submitted proposals. After several days of acrimonious debate, Otto Saur decided on the Heinkel proposal and gave the project the go-ahead on September 24. Heinkel had truly ambitious plans for the He 162. Development, pre-production, and quantity production lines were to be run simultaneously, a first for any aircraft manufacture. Three final assembly plants were planned. There was a complex array of subcontractors, and much of the manufacture was to be performed underground in saltmines, well away from Allied bombing. It was anticipated that the output would reach 2000 planes per month by May of 1945. The first prototype (He 162 V1) made its first flight on December 6, 1944, only ninety days after Saur's initial go-ahead. This must be some sort of record for the rapidity of design, construction, and flight of a major new warplane. In contrast, the Lockheed P-80 took 180 days from initial go-ahead to first flight. The He 162 had a metal fuselage, with a one-piece wooden wing. A BMW 003 turbojet with 2028 pounds of thrust was mounted on the top of the fuselage. Two 20-mm MG 151 cannon were mounted in the fuselage sides beneath the cockpit. The tricycle landing gear retracted into the fuselage. The pilot sat under an aft-folding canopy located in front of the top-mounted engine. An ejector seat was provided for the pilot. The instrumentation and radio gear were fairly rudimentary and inexpensive, as it was anticipated that an He 162 would typically survive only 5 to 10 hours in combat.


Heinkel He 162

The first He 162 fighters started to appear in squadron service in February of 1945. However, the introduction of the fighter into actual combat was deferred until all of the bugs could be shaken out and the aircraft was deemed completely ready. The general confusion and disintegration present in Germany in the last few months of the war caused hopeless maintenance headaches and chaotic supply situations. Aircraft and pilots were constantly being moved from one base to another to avoid advancing Allied forces. Many He 162s sat idle on their airfields, lacking either fuel or spare parts. Because of the general chaos, no fighter squadron was able to get itself sufficiently well-organized to send any He 162s into actual combat. It is possible that a few Allied pilots might have actually seen an He 162 in flight, but there is no confirmed account of any Allied aircraft ever encountering one in actual combat. Toward the end, Goering conceived of the idea of recruiting thousands of Hitler Youth into the "Volksjaeger" program, giving them a minimal amount of rudimentary training on gliders, and then sitting them in He 162 cockpits and sending them off into battle in the final defense of the Fatherland. Fortunately, the war ended before this insane scheme could be put into effect. At the end of the war, there were about 180 He 162s in service, with another hundred or so awaiting flight test. About 800 more were in various stages of assembly somewhere within the extensive Volksjaeger manufacturing network. Many He 162s were destroyed on the ground by Allied bombing and strafing attacks. Others were deliberately destroyed by retreating German forces to prevent them from falling into Allied hands. A few were captured intact by Allied forces. At least one underwent flight test in Britain after the war. I don't know how many He 162s still survive. I know of at least one. It is (if my memory isn't faulty) on display at the Imperial War Museum in London. Perhaps the readers of sci.military are aware of others. For short-duration dashes, the He 162 could attain a maximum speed of 553 mph at sea level and 562 mph at 19,700 feet. The range was about 600 miles. The initial climb rate at full power was 4615 ft/min. The fully-loaded weight was 6200 pounds. The He 162 had some rather vicious flight characteristics. The top-mounted engine caused the aircraft to be rather unstable about its longitudinal axis. Pilots were cautioned to avoid making any sudden or erratic control moves, lest the aircraft go into an uncontrollable spin. The aircraft was rather unforgiving of mistakes, demanding the full skill of a highly-trained and experienced pilot. Expecting young teenagers with only glider experience to be able to handle such a demanding and troublesome aircraft would have been nothing short of suicidal. Joe Baugher


Heinkel He 162

Heinkel He 162 Introduction Conceived during the destruction of the Luftwaffe in early 1944, the Heinkel He 162 was built to win back the skies from the Allies. The need for a new fighter to do this seemed so great that the plane was rushed through design and directly into production at an astonishing rate. Largely as a result of the schedule, the production models were left with a number of sometimes serious problems. With even a little more time in the prototype phase, the plane could have matured into a good light fighter. Instead it's known as one of the great jokes of the German war effort. The story of He 162 is an interesting one of politics and desperation. Basic specifications Company: Designer: Year: Type: Crew: Description: Fuselage:

Ernst Heinkel Flugzeugwerke GmbH Siefried Günther and Karl Schwärzler 1944 Jet powered day fighter 1, pilot High wing monoplane fighter with conventional layout and twin vertical tail surfaces. The fuselage is small, circular in cross section, and cigar shaped front to back. It is quite small and smooth overall. Wings: The wing is quite small and has a strong dihedral. It has a straight leading edge and the trailing edge slopes strongly forward to the drooped tips, forming a sort of reverse delta. Relatively large flaps span the inner portion of the wing, covering about 2/3rds of it's trailing edge. Smallish ailerons run out to the tips. Other details: The canopy is in two pieces, the front half contains no armor glass or "flat section" and the rear portion hinges up to the rear. The engine was mounted on the back of the plane, which required the use of the split tail to avoid the exhaust. Fully retracting tricycle landing gear were used, with all three gear retracting rearward into the fuselage.

Background The re-opening of the American bomber campaign in early 1944 brought a new surprise for the Luftwaffe, the presence of swarms of Mustangs flying escort. At first they had mixed effects on the overall battle. While they quickly eliminated the use of the Luftwaffe's best weapon, the rocket armed http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162_mm.html (1 of 13)2006-09-19 15:13:36

Heinkel He 162

twin engine bomber killers, the single engine bulk of the Luftwaffe's forces quickly learned to attack once from the front and then simply leave, giving the escorts little time to intercede. But then with a simple switch in strategy on the part of the 8th Air Force, the Luftwaffe was quickly swept from the skies in a matter of weeks. In the middle of March the escorts were freed from flying close to the bombers, and were told to hunt down the Luftwaffe wherever it could be found — like struggling to climb over their bases up to the bombers' altitude while fully laden with weapons and fuel. They got to pick the fight, and that's often all it takes. By summer of '44, it was over. The cream of the Luftwaffe fighter corps had been killed in action, and the laissez faire training system had no way to make up for the losses. Mustangs flew unhindered over the heart of Germany, and without any opposition they turned the roads and railways into a shooting gallery. The remaining Luftwaffe pilots and planes sat on the ground waiting for fuel, ammo and parts; where they waited until Mustangs would fly over and shoot them up while sitting still. Clearly something needed to be done, and quickly. The debate started in Fighter Command of the Reichsluftsfahrtministerium (Reich Air Ministry, or RLM), and two general plans were outlined. One option was to produce existing designs in huge numbers. This had the advantage of re-supplying the various units as quickly as possible because the production lines were already set up. But it also had the serious disadvantage of putting inferior pilots in inferior planes, a formula for disaster. Nevertheless this plan was put into effect, and during the summer of 1944 more 109's and 190's were produced than the entire runs up to that date, the vast majority never to fly due to a lack of fuel. Another option was to concentrate on the production of new designs, notably the jet fighters. While the numbers of these planes that could be produced was limited because the production lines were new, they were so much more advanced that they gave the pilots a fighting chance even in small numbers. In addition they ran on jet fuel, basically refined lamp oil, which was much easier to supply than high octane aviation gasoline. But the jets had one very serious drawback, their engines lasted only a few hours and then needed extensive work in order to get into the air again. With the parts supply problems they were having, it seemed likely that the jets would end up being shot up on the runway just like their propeller counterparts. This state of affairs convinced Otto Saur that the solution was indeed a jet, but one that was so easy to build that you would simply scrap it when it broke — a disposable aircraft. It didn't even have to be a great plane, it just needed to be fast enough so that even green pilots could keep out of trouble simply by flying away from the enemy. But it did need to be easy to fly so the non-combat losses wouldn't end up killing more pilots than the Mustangs. The concept was known as the Volksjäger (People's Fighter), and he started to shop the idea around in March of 1944.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162_mm.html (2 of 13)2006-09-19 15:13:36

Heinkel He 162

The plan was vehemently opposed by General der Jagdflieger (General of the Day Fighters) Adolph Galland. He was concerned about two points: it was unclear if a new plane could be designed, built and then produced in great numbers before it was too late. And even if the production could be ramped up as expected, there weren't enough pilots to fly the planes anyway. Instead he argued that all production to be focused on the proven Me 262. Both men's positions made sense, but neither really addressed the pilot issue. Reichsmarshall Hermann Göring believed the problem demanded not only a disposable aircraft, but disposable pilots. The plan was to take Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) members, give them a few hours of basic flying instruction in the existing glider clubs, and send them off into combat in the cockpit of a jet. This plan did not make sense, in fact the entire concept is absurd. But desperation ruled, and the Volksjäger was cheap enough that massive losses could simply be written off, along with the lives of its pilots. Otto Saur was a Nazi Party Leader, and director of the Jägerstab (Fighter Staff) in the War Ministry. He was also a protégé of Minister of Armaments Albert Speer. So as you might imagine with Saur, Speer and Göring all supporting the Volksjäger, any objections were simply overruled and the plan came to fruition.

Development history The contract tender was sent out on the 8th of September, 1944, and was issued to Arado, Blohm und Voss, Fieseler, Focke-Wulf, Junkers, Heinkel, Messerschmitt and Siebel. Submissions had to be returned by the 20th, which everyone thought wasn't nearly enough time, so to make matters worse it was later shortened to the 14th, a single week! The RLM requirement was for a single-seat fighter, powered by a single BMW 003 turbojet engine with 800kg (1,760lbs) thrust. The aircraft was to weigh no more than two metric tonnes (4,410lbs), considerably less than most fighters of the era but possible due to the light weight of the jet engines. The maximum speed had to be at least 750km/h (457mph) at sea level, and it's endurance had to be at least a half hour at the same altitude. The takeoff run was to be no more than 500 meters (1,640ft), making it possible for the plane to operate from "backwoods" airfields, and it was to be armed with either one or two MK108 cannon. Other requirements were defined by the times. The plane needed to use as few "strategic" materials as possible, which meant the use of wood. Skilled workers were just as hard to come by, so the plane needed to be easily built, likely by slave labor. Time was also an issue, so one other important requirement was that the aircraft be ready for mass production by January 1st, 1945. Kurt Tank (at Focke-Wolf) and Willy Messerschmitt both objected to pretty much everything about the plan; the unrealistic requirements, the time frame for the design, and the time frame for production. In the end Messerschmitt refused to submit an entry, but the other companies all submitted proposals, typically based on earlier work that had been carried out in-house. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162_mm.html (3 of 13)2006-09-19 15:13:36

Heinkel He 162

All that survives of the Junkers EF 123 and EF 124 entries are photos of the company models. Of the Fieseler design we know only it's estimated performance. Nothing of the Siebel design remains at all. This is indicative of the state of the Third Reich at the time. The Arado E.580 entry was based on work from an earlier 1943 project. The E.580 had a low mounted unswept wing, and the tail unit had twin fins and rudders to keep clear of the jet exhaust. A single BMW 003A-1 engine was positioned above the fuselage in a way that made it look half buried, and the intake was partially obstructed by the bulged canopy. Armament consisted of two 20mm MG151/20 cannon or two 30mm MK108 cannon mounted in the nose. The Fw Volksflugzeug (People's Plane) proposal was essentially a simplified Ta 183. The pilot sat over the engine intake, with the wings mounted at the fuselage shoulder just behind the cockpit. A boom extended over the top of the engine and mounted the rear control surfaces, which were in a T configuration. The wing was offered in both straight and swept versions. The handling issues with swept wings were well known at the time and it's odd that it was even offered in this form for a "beginners" plane. Blohm und Voss entered no less than three different designs, all of them radically different. The the P.210 was a bizarre tailless design developed on the basis of their earlier P.208 work. The pilot sat over the engine intake in a pod-like fuselage, and the wings were mounted below the cockpit at the bottom of the plane. The wings were swept back (as all tailless designs need to be) and included a downward bend about 1/4 of the way in from the tip which was meant to reduce wave drag at transonic speeds. It was not known at the time, but all-wing designs have serious problems at high speed so it's perhaps lucky that the RLM passed this one over. The P211.01 looks astonishingly like an F-86 Sabre. The primary difference is that the engine is mounted forward in the fuselage and exits just to the rear of the cockpit, as opposed to being behind the pilot and exiting at the tail. This is a design that was common to early jets because it reduced the loss of thrust found in a long pipe. Like the Fw entry, the controls then ended up on a boom. The P.211.02 was similar in name and general layout only. This is perhaps the most interesting of the entires because of the various features it used to simplify construction. The main structure of the fuselage were two steel cylinders joined behind the pilot. One was under the pilots feet, open at both ends, which formed the intake for the engine. The other ran back from about head level and formed the tail boom. They were joined by a steel box section in the middle which formed the back of the pilot's seat and was a major fuel tank. The wooden wings were held to the tail boom just behind the join, where they fit over an inner portion of stub steel wings. The cockpit instrumentation and equipment and the guns and their ammo drums were both separate assemblies that attached to the intake tube, and could be quickly swapped out. Of all the designs, the P.211.02 is likely the most true to the requirements. The final design was Heinkel's P.1073 "Spatz" (Sparrow), which had been worked on for some months


Heinkel He 162

by Siefried Günther and Karl Schwärzler as a private project within Heinkel. The design started out fairly advanced, with a mid-mounted swept wing and V tail, with two engines, one on top and one on the bottom of the fuselage. For the Volksjäger they simplified the design. First to go were the swept wings; although this would reduce performance, the tricky handling was a tradeoff not worth making. Next to go was the second engine, the plane kept the back mounted engine but lost the one under the nose. The engine on the back meant it was at shoulder level, which should make maintenance or replacement easier. Finally the tail surfaces were modified from the original V tail to a simpler system with two vertical surfaces, one on either side of the exhaust. The P.1073 was mostly made of light metals, but the wings and control surfaces were wooden. Another interesting feature of the plane was the hydraulically operated controls, likely a holdover from the earlier, more advanced design. This made the plane more complex, but had the advantage of working well when normal cable operated controls would be "frozen out" at high speeds. Like all of the entries the plane used a tricycle landing gear arrangement, which was primarily to lower drag during the takeoff run, as opposed to being easier to operate (today most planes use tricycle gear for the later reason). The designed armament was specified as two 20mm MG151/20's in the wing roots. Perhaps the most interesting feature of the plane was the ejection seat, needed because the engine was above and behind the pilot making a conventional bail-out out of the question. The seat was mounted on four rollers which moved in two parallel tracks 42 inches long on either side of the seat back. The tracks were two tubes attached to the frame of the plane, which contained explosive cartridges similar to shotfun shells. Above the rollers on the seat back were a matching set of tubes which rode down over the fixed set when the seat was rolled onto the tracks. When the seat was fired the cartridges pushed on the upper part of the tubes, and forced the seat to ride up on it's rollers. The ejection velocity was about 35fps, with an acceleration of about 12G.

The Contest In most cases the contest for the contract would take place after the prototypes had been built and the planes could be tested competitively. With the Volksjäger there wasn't any time for testing, so everything was done on paper. Be afraid. The designs were first evaluated on the 15th of September. Focke-Wulf's proposal was considered to be unrealistically advanced, Arado's was rejected out of hand, and Heinkel's was deemed unsuitable for a variety of reasons including that it used the MG151's instead of the requested MK108's. The winner was the Blohm und Voss P.211.02, and it's clear that it was the best of the submitted designs. Heinkel's representative complained long and loud that their plane was being judged unfairly in the contest, Another meeting was scheduled for the 19th of September to make a final decision. Updated proposals were received from Junkers, Focke-Wulf, Siebel and Fiesler, but they didn't change the outcome. Once again the Blohm und Voss was judged as the best design, and the Heinkel was second.


Heinkel He 162

Although the design may not have been as good as the P.211.02, Heinkel's P.1073 did have the advantage of being worked on already. This included some flight tests of the BMW engine, which demonstrated that it was far less sensitive to throttle adjustments. That meant it could be handled much easier than the notorious Jumo 004, a good sign for a beginner's plane. Although the Spatz underwent major revisions before turning into the Volksjäger, they were still the only firm with real hardware and data to back up their entry. On the 23rd Heinkel showed a mock-up of their Volksjäger to officials. The same day time the decision to proceed with the concept was being made in a meeting at Göring's headquarters. Otto Saur favored Heinkel over Blohm und Voss and ordered construction of the first prototype on the 24th. It might appear that Heinkel had won the contract at this point, but it wasn't Saur's decision to make! Then two aerodynamisysts were consulted on the designs, and they suggested that the intake on the P.211.02 might cause problems with the airflow to the engine. This was enough to tip the balance and the Heinkel proposal was ordered directly into production. The final drawings were completed on the 29th of October, a day ahead of schedule, and by this time the first prototypes were already partially built. The aircraft was first named the He 500, but this was changed to He 162 (previously assigned to Messerschmitt's contender for the Schnellbomber competition that had been won by the Ju 88) to convince Allied intelligence that the project was an older one. Two versions were planned, the 162A-1 with the required 30mm MK108's, and the 162A-2 with the 20mm MG151/20's. At the same time that the designs were being finalized, a massive development and production program started. The metal fuselages were to be built at the Heinkel factories at Barth in Pomerania, Pütnitz in Mecklenburg, Stassfurt in Saxony and at Berlin-Oranienburg as well as the Junkers factories in Schönbeck, Ascherleben, Leopoldshall, Halberstadt and Bernburg. In addition fuselages were to be built in former salt mines at Eglen and Tarthun. The wooden wings and other components were to be produced by two groups of furniture firms specially organized in the Erfurt and Stuttgart areas. The parts were then going to be shipped for final assembly at one of three plants, Heinkel-Nord at RostockMarienhe, Junkers at Bernburg and the infamous underground slave camp Mittelwerke at Nordhausen. The first two were expected to assemble a thousand machines a month and the latter, two thousand. The Heinkel factory at Wien-Schwechat was to build all of the prototypes, and then later to begin production in a converted chalk mine outside Vienna at Hinterbühl. A salt mine near Urseurg housed the machinery from the Berlin-Spandau and Basdorf-Zülsdorf engine factories for the production of the BMW 003 engines. The production schedule called for the first thousand aircraft to be ready by the end of April 1945, and output to reach two thousand a month by May. The project was code-named "Salamander", although you'll often find this name applied to the plane itself. It appears that the plane didn't have a name, Spatz referred only to the earlier design and everyone referred to the production plane simply as the Volksjäger.


Heinkel He 162

Prototypes The unarmed He 162 V1 was rolled out at the beginning of December, and it made its first flight on the 6th at the Schwechat factory airbase near Vienna. The flight lasted 20 minutes until one of the gear doors fell off when the glue came undone during the high speed portions of the flight. Gotthold Peter turned around immediately and landed without problem. The flight was otherwise a success, the plane had reached a top speed of 840km/h at an altitude of 6000m (522mph at 19,700ft). However a number of minor problems in handling were noted, notably some fore-and-aft rocking and directional instability in the form of "snaking" (a problem that seems to haunt Heinkel designs). On December 10th Peter was again flying the prototype at Schwechat, this time in a show for Nazi officials. He was making a high speed run over the airfield when one of the wings came partly unglued and shed its starboard aileron. He quickly lost control and the plane rolled over into the ground and Peter was killed. The accident investigation found that the bonding agent for the wood was to blame, it was a new adhesive because the factory producing the usual glue had been bombed. The wing was then redesigned for greater strength. V2 first flew on December 22nd, with Heinkel director Carl Francke at the controls. The V2 had not been fitted with the stronger wings, so Francke kept his top speed under 500km/h (310mph). The V2 was the prototype for the A-1 variant and was fitted with the two 30mm MK108 cannons, and it became clear that even with these low velocity guns the recoil was too much for the plywood nose area to handle. Production then shifted to building the A-2 version with two 20mm MG151/20's in place of the MK108's, while design efforts began on a A-3 variant with a stronger nose to allow use of the MK108's. The third and fourth prototypes both took to the air on January 16th, 1945. They had the new, stronger wing and a number of other changes, the most visible being turned-down wingtip extensions and larger vertical tails which were supposed to help with the directional instability. The various changes resulted in the He 162 weighing quite a bit more than the two tonne limit, the V4 weighed 2800kg (6,184lbs) fully loaded. However, the speed of the plane was considerably better than expected, the He 162 was capable of an astonishing 890km/h at sea level and 905km/h at 5950m, making it the fastest plane in the world. Time was the primary concern for the project, and so many of the problems discovered during the prototype phase were either ignored or never truly solved. The directional stability issues were never cured. Not only was the plane unstable by itself at high speeds, use of the rudder also caused the plane to react badly. These sorts of problems both point to one culprit — the wings had too much dihedral. Dihedral is a upward bend to the wings that makes a plane more stable, which would be important for an easy to fly aircraft. However it can also lead to a problem known as adverse yaw, which shows up as the plane oscillating back and forth across it's line of flight. This is exactly what the test pilots were reporting.


Heinkel He 162

Removing some of the dihedral would have likely cured the problem, but with the production of the wings already underway there wasn't much they could do about it. Instead the wing tip droops were added to give the plane more vertical surface, but it wasn't enough. An additional attempt was made to solve the problem by adding a lead plug in the nose. The added weight was supposed to give the plane more angular inertia and damp out any oscillations, but it too seems to have had little effect. On the other hand the lead plug made the plane nose heavy. Combine this with the high mounted engine that wants to push the nose down, and you end up having serious problems trying to get off the ground. The 500m takeoff distance was out of the question, and in fact the plane needed to get over 180km/h before it could be lifted off. Even then the airflow was such that the gear couldn't be retracted until 300km/h. Add to all of this that the rudders actually had too much power once the plane was up to speed. At full deflection they caused heavy buffeting, so you had to limit rudder movement to about 3/4s travel. The plane responded poorly to any quick control movements in general, and needed a light touch on the controls at all time. Not exactly the mark of a beginners aircraft. The engine mounting was (in theory at least) the plane's greatest problem, but this takes a little explaining. Consider yourself in a small plane trying to fly level, when you notice you're actually moving down a bit. This means you need more lift, and in order to provide that lift you want to tilt the nose of the plane up a bit, which gives the wings more "bite". This also causes more drag on the wing, so at the same time you have to add more power to make up for the loss in drag. In most small planes this is actually quite easy to do; the engine is mounted slightly below the "thrust line" of the plane, so when you increase the throttle the extra power pulls the nose of the plane up slightly. Now imagine a pilot coming in for a landing in the Volksjäger, and noticing that they're too low. Just like any plane they need more lift, and in order to get it they need to add power and pull up the nose. But with the engine mounted over the thrust line, when you add power the nose is pushed down —quite hard too because it's a jet— and at low speed the controls don't have a lot of "authority". If you're only a few hundred meters up, crunch. The test pilots reported in no uncertain terms that the plane would not be suitable for anyone but an experienced pilot. Göring's plan was finally out of the question, so the problem of pilots was once again an issue. But at this point there were plenty of pilots from the bomber and transport crews that could be retrained, and production continued.

He 162A-2 in Service In January 1945 the Volksjäger-Erprobungskommando 162 (Evaluation Unit for He 162) was formed with Oberst Heinz Bär in command. They started training in the He 162 at the Rechlin test center, but in April they joined Galland's JV44 at München-Riem. At that point the plane still wasn't considered ready for action, so they were flown very little. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162_mm.html (8 of 13)2006-09-19 15:13:36

Heinkel He 162

On the 8th of February I./JG1 gave its Fw 109s to II./JG1 and were send to Parchim to begin conversion to the He 162. Parchim is close to the Heinkel factory at Marienhe, but their first aircraft still didn't arrive until the end of the month. On the 7th of April the field was bombed by 134 Flying Fortresses, so on the 9th they left to move to a nearby airfield at Ludwigslust. Less than a week later they moved again, flying north to an airfield at Leck, near the Danish border in Schleswig-Holstein, where they ended the war. I./JG1 was declared combat-ready on April 23rd, but it had already claimed an RAF fighter on the 19th of April. Feldwebel Günther Kirchner was posthumously credited with the fighter when the captured pilot described the plane that had shot him down, Kirchner had been shot down and killed by another British fighter while returning to Leck. Although other planes would be claimed, this is the only kill for the He 162 that can be confirmed. On April 20th, the only successful ejection in the 162 took place when Leutnant Rudolf Schmitt ejected from his 162, although no one seems to know why. Four days later Hauptmann Paul-Heinrich Dahne (commander of II./JG1) died when ejecting from his He 162 because the canopy did not come off. On the 2nd of May another victory was recorded by Unteroffizier Rechberger, who shot down an American P-47, and on the 4th Schmitt (unharmed from his ejection) shot down a British Typhoon near Rostock. The next day the war unofficially ended when a cease fire was accepted, and the Leck airfield was taken over by the British on the 8th of May. II./JG1 left their 190s on the airfield on the 8th of April as they transferred to Rostock-Marienhe to begin their conversion to the He 162. The left Marienhe and joined I./JG1 at Leck on May 2nd to escape the Soviets. The conversion of III./JG 1 was planned to begin in mid-April, but they disbanded on the 24th of April and their personnel were distributed to other units. On May 3rd JG1 was reorganized into two Gruppen, I. Einsatz (Combat) and II. Sammel (Replacement), with a total of about 50 pilots and aircraft. I./JG400 were supposed to be equipped with the 162, but the war ended before they could receive any planes. The Luftwaffe received a total of something between 120 and 180 He 162A-2s, which were used by I./ JG1 and II./JG1 as well as the few that were delivered to JV 44 from Erprobungskommando 162. Many of the delivered planes were lost in accidents, the leading cause being running out of fuel because of the plane's short endurance. At the end there were about 100 additional planes awaiting flight tests prior to delivery, and another 800 or so airframes in various stages of completion. As it turns out, the plan to spread the production over several sites made matters worse because of the state of the infrastructure at the time. Many fuselages simply never met their wings or engines. In common with most of the planes produced at the end of the war, many of the completed planes were unflyable due to terrible construction, some had holes in various parts that were simply filled with glue and sanded down.


Heinkel He 162

Specifications for the He 162A-2 Engine: Dimensions:

Weights: Wing Area:

one 800kg (1,764lb) thrust BMW 003E-1 or E-2 single-shaft axial flow turbojet span 7.2m (23ft 7 1/2in) length 9.0m (26ft 6 1/4in) height 2.6m (8ft 6 3/8 in) empty 1663kg (3,666lbs) max loaded 2695kg (5,942lb) 14.5m2 (156ft2)

Wing Loading: 29.25lbs/ft2 Performance: maximum speed 905km/h at 5950m (562mph at 19500ft) 890km/h at sea level (553mph) cruise speed unknown service ceiling 12040m (39,500ft) initial climb 1405m/min (4615 ft/min) range 975km (605miles) Armament: two 20mm MG151/20 mounted in the wing roots

He 162S Although sitting novice pilots in the Volksjäger was clearly hopeless, plans for the concept continued to go forward anyway. In order to give then some training, the 162S was created by adding a second, open, cockpit behind the first. This might seem odd, considering that's where the engine is, and in fact the engine was simply removed and the plane flown as a glider. To improve gliding performance the 162S was also fitted with longer span wings,

Further Development Although the whole idea of the Volksjäger program was to produce a huge number of standardized planes, this didn't stop Heinkel from experimenting with several offshoot designs. The most common change was the powerplant, and there are a number of plans for the plane with various engines like the Jumo 004B, Argus As 044, As 004 and As 014 or even the famed Heinkel-Hirth HeS 011. There was also a version with BMW 003R engine, which consisted of a BMW 003A jet and a BMW 718 rocket. Other versions were planned to use an even easier to supply engine, the Argus pulsejet from the V-1. Although it wouldn't offer the performance of the BMW engines, it had the advantage of being able to run on almost any liquid fuel and is little more complex than a pipe. Versions with one or two engines were called the 162B-1 and 162B-2 respectively. Although interesting in their own right, similar designs


Heinkel He 162

had already been tried, and in general the vibration from the engines proved to be too much for most planes. Designs were also looked at to improve the performance of the planes, as the RLM was afraid that the Allies would soon field jets that would outperform anything in the works (which turned out not to be true). Wing sweep was known to be the best way to improve high speed performance, so two other variations were designed to take advantage of this. The 162C used a swept forward wing, although this was difficult to build it didn't have the low speed handling problems of a normal swept-back wing. The final version was the 162D, which included both compound-swept back wings, and a V-tail – making it fairly similar to the original P.1073 that spawned the He 162.

Conclusions I found this interesting description of the He 162's flight characteristics on Scott Willey's Garber Facility Virtual Tour while researching this article. RAF test pilot Commander William Benson, reports on its handling characteristics: "I explored...performance range as follows: at low speed, very tricky; lateral and longitudinal stability were poor, mainly because of the high mounted turbojet. Control movements were always smooth and careful, no sudden movement. Maximum altitude reached was 41,200 ft, maximum speed level 562 mph at 18,400'. In a dive at around 585 mph at 25,000 ft encountered aileron snatch and buffet on the rudders started to get severe and I would throttle back and ease very carefully level. High angles of attack resulted in a near fatal spin (still don't know how I quite got out of that one) so the message was "don't stall" (at least not below 35,000 ft). Treated very properly, the 162 was very good and speed was its weapon rather than a dog fight. There was no way you would haul that plane around like a Spitfire or FW 190. It needed a touch of a well-trained pilot, say at least 2,500 hours to be really safe...the 16-year-old boys...would never have stood a chance." With all of these problems, it's perhaps worth asking if the plane could have been saved at all. I believe the answer is a qualified yes. The qualification is based on the program starting slightly earlier and allowing for a real prototype phase. Although the problems due to the high mounted engine would not be easy to fix, the stability issues could have been rectified if the wings weren't already in production. No amount of patching would make the He 162 into a plane suitable for new pilots, but as a replacement for the Me 262 (also not exactly usable by beginners) it appears that Galland's objections were wrong. In comparison with the 262, the 162 was far easier to build and maintain — if you consider scrapping to be maintenance. When you consider all the problems the 262 had and the amount of time it spent sitting on the ground, this is a huge advantage for the 162.


Heinkel He 162

In terms of performance the 162 is a clear winner. Although the 262 was fast, it was a complete dog in almost every other respect; climb, turn, acceleration were all poor to terrible. The 162 is a spritely plane in comparison, it had a superb 4600ft/min climb rate, a better power to weight ratio than the 262, and generally good response to the controls (with the exceptions noted above). The engine was also a big advantage for the 162, the BMW 003 was far easier to operate and at least as reliable (not saying much) as the 262's Jumo 004's. Even in speed the 162 won out over the 262, which is perhaps the most surprising aspect of the comparison. Finally it appears that the production goals may not have been as ridiculous as Tank and Messerschmitt thought. Even by the end of the February there were well over 100 of the planes built, and although 1000 a month might not have been possible given the state of the country at the time, a few hundred a month seemed likely.

Notes Most measures and performance data in the table are taken from the primary source listed in the Sources section. I have used metric values as the primary form of measurement in most cases. The empty weight for the A-2 is sometimes listed at 1663kg while the loaded weight is always the same as above. The range figures are likewise "all over the place". If anyone has the definitive values, please forward them on.

Sources Heinkel He 162, Heinz Nowarra, Schiffer Publishing, 1993. The Heinkel He-162 Volksjaeger, Greg Goebel, Vectors, June 2000 Information on the competitors and various planned follow-on versions are from Don Johnson's Luft'46 site. Details on the production system are from The Heinkel He 162: A Salamander That Never Received its Baptism of Fire.

Links The University of Southampton hosts a number of pages on "The Jet Genesis", including one on the Heinkel He 162 A-1/A-2 Salamander Details on the ejection seat in the He 162 (and many others) can be found here on The Ejection Site: Heinkel 162 Ejection Seat and here on Seat history. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162_mm.html (12 of 13)2006-09-19 15:13:36

Heinkel He 162

Version History v1.0 Initial Version, October 18, 2000 v1.1 Minor Cleanup, October 22, 2000 v1.2 Minor Cleanup, November 25, 2000 Maury Markowitz [email protected]


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ju287i.html

1. Junkers Ju 287 1. Forward-swept wing bomber 2. Source:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ju287i.html2006-09-19 15:14:01

Junkers Ju 287

Junkers Ju 287 Forward-swept wing bomber I think that you probably saw a picture of the forward-swept wing Junkers Ju 287, an experimental aircraft which first appeared in the summer of 1944. The book that you read was probably the excellent "Warplanes of the Third Reich" by William Green, which I cannot recommend too highly. The following account is drawn largely from that book. Early in 1943, a Junkers design team lead by Dipl.-Ing. Hans Wocke was assigned the task of developing a high-speed heavy bomber which could outrun any contemporary Allied fighter. They first looked at a turbojet-powered swept-back wing design. The swept-back wing offered advantages at the upper end of the performance envelope, but they were accompanied by disadvantages at low speeds. As a sweptback-winged aircraft slows down, its wingtip stalls first, causing a loss of roll control just when you need it the most. The Junkers team proposed a unique solution to this problem, a forwad-swept wing. It was hoped that this wing would transfer the stability problems to the high-speed end of the performance envelope, where they could more easily be handled. In theory, the swept-forward wing would have its highest lift coefficient at the root, decreasing towards the tip. Consequently, the tip would be the last to stall as the aircraft slowed down, aileron control being available beyond the main centersection flow breakaway. The downside of the swept-forward wing design is in its elastic behavior, specifically the phenomenon of "aeroelastic divergence". As an airplane flies through the air, its wing is subjected to a more-or-less random twisting moment exerted by variable aerodynamic forces caused by rapid changes in wind currents or by rapid maneuvers. If the wing is swept forward, a small increase in the angle of attack at the tip will increase the lift, causing a twisting moment at the tip, which in turn will cause an increased angle of attack, which will cause still more lift, etc. This causes the aircraft to become seriously unstable. In the worst case, the wing can undergo a catastrophic structural failure. This can make for a real bad day. The Reichsluftfahrtministerium (State Ministry of Aviation, better known as the RLM) gave the project the go-ahead and assigned it the designation Ju 287. The first prototype, the Ju 287 V1, was to be a flying testbed to check out the low-speed characteristics of the swept-forward wing. In order to get something in the air as soon as possible, parts were scavenged from existing aircraft to the extent feasible. The Ju 287 V1 used a fuselage from a He 177A bomber, a tail assembly from a Ju 388, and a massive fixed undercarriage consisting of Ju 352 mainwheels enclosed by large fairings and a pair of nosewheels scavenged from a B-24 Liberator. Virtually only the swept-forward wing was new. The wing used a Junkers reverse-camber, high speed airfoil section with a two-spar all-metal structure. The inner leading edges were fitted with fixed slats to delay the initial root stall, and large slotted flaps were fitted which extended down to 40 degrees. The ailerons were arranged to droop 23 degrees to provide a http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ju287.html (1 of 3)2006-09-19 15:14:07

Junkers Ju 287

completely cambered wing for maximum lift coefficients. Power was provided by four 1984 lb. st. Junkers Jumo 004B turbojets, two mounted on the sides of the forward fuselage and two slung under the rear edges of the wings. The Ju 287 V1 flew for the first time on August 16, 1944. Flight testing proceeded without any serious incidents, and the aircraft turned out to have rather pleasant flying characteristics. There were virtually no trim changes with flap operation, and landings were fairly easy. Lateral control was good except when yaw was applied, a pronounced wing drop then being experienced. The aircraft reached speeds as high as 404 mph in a dive, and confirmed the aeroelastic problems inherent in the swept-forward wing, with decreasing elevator forces during tight turns and pull outs from shallow dives. Testing revealed that it would be a good idea to mount the engines on the forward edges of the wings in order to provide a mass balance, and this was to be done for the high-speed second prototype, the Ju 287 V2. The Ju 287 V3 was to be the production prototype with full military equipment being provided. The wing of the Ju 287 V2 was similar to that of the V1, but the fuselage was entirely different, being quite similar to that of the propeller-driven Ju 388. A fully-retractable undercarriage was to be fitted, all members being stowed inside the fuselage. Originally, the plane was to be powered by four 2866 lb. st. Heinkel-Hirth 011A turbojets mounted in pairs and projecting ahead of the wing leading edges. However, owing to delays in the availability of this power plant, Junkers decided to power both the V2 and the V3 with six 1760 lb. st. BMW 003A-1 turbojets. Two different arrangements were to be tried, one with a cluster of three engines under each wing and the other with two engines underneath each wing and one on each side of the fuselage nose a la Ju 287 V1. The former engine arrangement was to power the V2, whereas the V3 and the pre-production Ju 287A-0 were to be powered by the second engine arrangement. The V3 was to be the first prototype to carry armament --- a tail barbette containing a pair of MG 131 machine guns operated remotely by a periscopic sight from the crew compartment. The cockpit was fully pressurized. A maximum bombload of 8800 lbs was envisaged. It was anticipated that the V3 could achieve a maximum speed of 509 mph at sea level and 537 mph at 16,400 feet. Range was expected to be 985 miles with an 8800 lb bombload. The V3 was expected to be able to attain an altitude of 19,700 feet in 10.5 minutes. Weights were estimated to be 26,278 lbs empty, and 47,398 lbs fully loaded. The Ju 287 V2 was undergoing final assembly when the Junkers factory was overrun by Soviet forces in 1945. The incomplete prototype, Dipl.-Ing Wocke, plus his design team, were all carted off to the Soviet Union. The Junkers team continued to work on the project in the Soviet Union, and the Ju 287 V2 was flown for the first time in 1947. So far as I am aware, the Soviets did not exhibit any further interest in the project.

Source: ●

Warplanes of the Third Reich, William Green, Doubleday, 1970.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ju287.html (2 of 3)2006-09-19 15:14:07

Junkers Ju 287

Joe Baugher



1. Junkers Ju 86P 1. High Altitude Reconnaissance Aircraft 2. Source:


Junkers Ju 86P

Junkers Ju 86P High Altitude Reconnaissance Aircraft The origin of the Ju 86 can be dated back to 1933, at the time when contracts were being let for combat aircraft for the still-clandestine Luftwaffe. The Ju 86 was a twin-engined low-winged, twin-tailed aircraft that was to fulfill both bombing and commercial transport roles, and evolved in parallel with the Heinkel He 111. The first prototype flew on November 4, 1934. Both bomber and commercial transport prototypes were built. Production of both types of aircraft were initiated in late 1935, the bomber version under the designation Ju 86A, the transport version under the designation Ju 86B. The Ju 86A bomber was powered by a pair of 510 hp Junkers Jumo 205C-4 liquid-cooled Diesel engines. It carried a crew of four and was armed with 3 7.9-mm MG 15 machine guns in nose, dorsal, and ventral positions. 8 220-lb bombs could be carried in the fuselage. Only about a dozen of these aircraft were built before they were supplanted on the production line by the Ju 86D. The Ju 86B commercial transport was similar to the Ju 86A, but with the military equipment replaced by passenger accommodations. Only seven of these were built, but they gave long service to Lufthansa and to Swissair in commercial service. The Ju 86C differed from the Ju 86B in having the fuselage tail extension standardized for the Ju 86D. Four were built, all being delivered to Lufthansa. The Ju 86D bomber was a revision of the Ju 86A which included a wedge-shaped extension designed to correct a longitudinal stability problem. In addition, additional fuel capacity was provided. Five Ju 86D bombers were dispatched to Spain in 1937 for service in the Condor Legion. They saw quite a bit of action. However, it was found that the Ju 86D was markedly inferior to the Heinkel He 111B in just about every respect. The Jumo 205C Diesel proved to be particularly unsuitable as a powerplant for bomber aircraft --- it did not take kindly to sudden changes in r.p.m, and lost power rapidly at altitudes above 16,500 feet. In addition, serviceability was rather low, with seized pistons and the welding of exhaust ports being common problems. The Ju 86K version was an export model which was provided to Sweden. The first three were powered by a pair of 875 hp Pratt and Whitney Hornet S1E-G nine-cylinder radial engines. The remaining 37 were powered by the Bristol Pegasus III 9-cylinder radial engine. A license was acquired by SAAB for the production of the Ju 86K in Sweden. These gave long and faithful service to the Swedish Air Force, the last example finally being retired in 1956.


Junkers Ju 86P

Other export versions included the Ju 86K-2 provided to Hungary. These were powered by Manfred Weiss-built Gnome-Rhone 14K Mistral-Major 14-cylinder air cooled radials. These Hungarin Ju 86s participated in combat when Hungarian forces occupied the Slovakian territory of Carpathao-Ruthenia immediately after the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia following the German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia. Hungarian Ju 86s participated in the initial fighting when Hungary declared war on the Soviet Union on June 27, 1941. However, service was short-lived, and the type was withdrawn from front-line service in 1942. The Ju 86E version was an attempt to overcome the reliability problems with the Jumo 205C Diesel engines. The Diesels were replaced by two 810 hp BMW 132F radials. Serviceability was improved considerably, but performance was only marginally increased. However, since the Ju 86 was never considered as anything more than an interim type in Luftwaffe service, this was not considered to be a serious problem. The Ju 86G version had a revised cockpit to provide better takeoff visibility for the pilot. The cockpit was moved forward, and the nose was redesigned to provide a fully-glazed curved surface. These began to appear in mid-1938. By the time that World War 2 began, most of the Diesel-powered Ju 86 Luftwaffe aircraft had been withdrawn from service, and most BMW 132 powered versions had been relegated to training roles. However, several Luftwaffe Ju 86s were withdrawn from schools to provide emergency airlift for the Stalingrad operation. They proved to be totally unsuited to the task. The version of interest here was the Ju 86P, which was a high-altitude reconnaissance version which made its debut in 1940. It was basically a Ju 86D airframe from which the dorsal and ventral gun positions were removed and a new forward fuselage was fitted containing a two-seat pressure cabin. A new wing with a larger span (83 ft 11 3/4 inches) was provided. The powerplant was the Jumo 207A-1 six-cylinder Diesel, which was a high-altitude version of the Jumo 205 equipped with a pair of centrifugal superchargers mounted in series. The cabin pressure was provided by tapping the port enginedriven blower. Access to the cabin was provided by a circular hatch in the floor. The Ju 86P was produced in two versions, the Ju 86P-1 high-altitude bomber carrying 4 550-lb bombs or 16 110-lb bombs and the Ju 86P-2 high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft equipped with three cameras. No defensive armament was provided, since it was assumed by the Luftwaffe that the aircraft would be completely immune to interception by enemy fighters. During 1940 and 1941, numerous bombing and reconnaissance missions were flown over Britain, the Ju 86P aircraft indeed proving to be immune from interception by RAF fighters. The Ju 86P aircraft also flew some clandestine reconnaissance missions over the Soviet Union in preparation for the June 22, 1941 assault. Some Ju 86Ps were operated in the Mediterranean theater, and flew unmolested numerous times over Egypt. However, the Ju 86P eventually met its match in the form of a specially-stripped version of the Spitfire V evolved by the British to meet the high-altitude threat. The first successful interception of a Ju 86P was on August 24, 1942, when a Spitfire V caught one of these aircraft over Egypt at an altitude of 42,000 feet and forced it


Junkers Ju 86P

to crash into the Mediterranean. In response to this new threat, Luftwaffe personnel hastily fitted a remotely-controlled MG 17 machine gun fixed to fire aft from the rear fuselage. However, a couple more Ju 86P-2s were soon lost to these modified Spitfires. Since the operation of the Ju 86P over enemy territory was becoming increasingly hazardous to the health of its aircrews, the type was shortly thereafter withdrawn from operational service. In an attempt to improve the chances of the reconnaissance Ju 86 surviving over enemy territory, the Ju 86R series was evolved. An even higher-aspect ratio wing was fitted, having a span of 104 ft 11 3/4 in. A pair of Jumo 207B-3 engines were fitted, each offering 1000 hp for takeoff. The engines were provided with GM-1 boost (nitrous oxide injected into the supercharger) for use above the rated altitude of the engine. Two versions were proposed, the Ju 86R-1 high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft and the Ju 86R-2 high- altitude bomber. A few existing Ju 86Ps were converted to Ju 86R configuration, and tests showed that an altitude of 47,250 feet could be reached and maintained. A few operational missions were flown by the Ju 86R, but the type was eventually taken out of service by July 1944.

Source: ●

The Warplanes of the Third Reich, William Green

Joe Baugher



1. Junkers Ju 87 Stuka 1. Introduction 2. The Origins of Dive Bombing 3. Birth of the Ju 87 4. Development History 5. Combat History 6. Evaluation 7. Source:


Junkers Ju 87 Stuka

Junkers Ju 87 Stuka Introduction On 27 September 1937, the commander of the French airforce, General Vuillemin, sent the Prime Minister, Edouard Daladier, a very pessimistic report about the relative strength of the German and French airforces. In it he claimed that if war broke out, the German Luftwaffe would become master of the air quickly, and: Thus the concentration of French land forces can be gravely troubled and subjected to very important delays. It will be the same for its transport. Also, land operations will be rendered very difficult as the result of the power and frequency of enemy air intervention at the rear of the Armies and on the field of battle itself. As a realistic evaluation of the strategic situation at the eve of the Sudeten crisis, which would find its end in the ignominious agreement of Munich, this lacked accuracy. Vuillemin and the other French generals enormously overestimated the strength of the German forces. After the end of World War II, at the Nuremberg trial, the German generals admitted that in 1938 their army would have been completely outnumbered by the combined forces of France, Great Britain and Czechoslovakia. But as a prophecy of the things to come in 1940, Vuillemin's pessimistic assessment was remarkably accurate. It was probably not the opinion of the majority of French generals -- Vuillemin did not even bother to send a copy of his report to the Chief of the General Staff, general Gamelin. Nor was this wisdom going to help the French in any way, for the French air force completely failed to prevent this announced disaster. The weapon that would turn pessimistic prophecy into painful reality was the Junkers Ju 87, universally known as the Stuka. That was actually a generic term, shorthand for Sturzkampfflugzeug, to describe all dive bombers. The Stuka would become the symbol of the Luftwaffe, of its efficiency in ground support operations, of the terror that is spread, but also of its weakness as a strategic force. The success of the Ju 87 also contained the seeds of a disaster for the Luftwaffe, because it began to require that all its new bombers would be able to execute dive bombing attacks, including heavy mediums such as the Do 217 and heavy bombers such as the He 177. This policy was to be highly detrimental for the Luftwaffe.

The Origins of Dive Bombing The concept of dive bombing was certainly not unique to the German Luftwaffe. The theoretical basis for it is simple enough, that it would come to different minds in different places and at different times. It



would probably be unjustified to look for the "inventor" of dive bombing. In normal (horizontal) bombing the released bomb has a horizontal, forward speed vector given to it by the movement of the aircraft. To this a vertical acceleration is added, caused by the pull of gravity, which causes to bomb to fall. The combination of the two results in a parabolic curve, which is distorted by the drag of the bomb and the wind. The basic idea of dive bombing is to make the speed vector of the aircraft coincide with the direction of gravity -- vertical -- so that the trajectory of the bomb becomes a straight line instead of a complicated curve. This greatly reduces the problems of bomb aiming. Because the bomb is usually released from lower altitude and at higher speeds, the effects of the wind are also minimised. There are of course also disadvantages. A vertical or near-vertical dive results in a rapid build-up of speed, and airbrakes are needed to reduce the terminal dive velocity of the aircraft to acceptable limits. At the end of the dive, after the release of bombs, a sharp pull-out is necessary to keep the aircraft in the air, and this puts considerable stress on the aircraft. These requirements usually meant that dive-bombers had to be heavy, robust aircraft, with an unimpressive performance in level flight. Dive bombing also required highly specialised, intensively trained crews. These pilots not only had the technical problems of judging the diving angle correctly -- the natural tendency is to overestimate it -- aiming their bombs correctly, dropping them and then pulling out at the correct time. They also had to resist the mental and physical stress of a fast dive and a sharp pull-out manoeuvre. The technique was first used during Word War I. The first officially acknowledged dive bombing attack seems to have been made by Lieutenant Harry Brown of the RFC (Royal Flying Corps) who sank a munitions barge in 1917. After the end of the war the RAF (Royal Air Force) conducted research and experiments, but finally decided that the method was too dangerous and halted its development. Instead, the British chose to concentrate their efforts on the creation of a strategic bombardment force. The FAA (Fleet Air Arm) kept the idea alive, but the development on its aircraft was seriously hampered by the RAF control over all aircraft, including shipboard aircraft. The development of dive bombing continued in the USA. The USMC (US Marine Corps) practised dive bombing, although seldom at angles of more than 45 degrees, during operations in Haiti in 1919. A more refined form of the technique, influenced strongly by aviators who had flown in Europe during W.W.I, was used by them during the US intervention in Nicaragua in 1927. During these years, the USMC pilots also included spectacular dive bombing demonstrations in their air show routines. The USN (US Navy) adopted dive bombing as doctrine, not to provide ground units with tactical air support (as had been the goal of the USMC) but as an effective method to hit enemy ships - relatively small, moving targets. The aircraft used during these years were developments of the Curtiss Hawk family of fighter biplanes, the F6C and BF2C. The name of `Helldiver' was attached to these aircraft, although this would not become officially the name of an American aircraft until the Curtiss SB2C was introduced, during W.W.II. In Germany, forbidden by the treaty of Versailles to develop military aircraft (a regulation which was often infringed upon, with the occasional help of the Russia, Japan, Sweden, the USA and other



countries), the military leadership had to concentrate more on the theory of their application. Theorists developed the concept of a new style of mobile warfare, fought by Panzer divisions which combined tanks with motorized infantry and artillery, and intensively supported by attack aircraft. After Hitler came to power in 1933, work began to convert the theoretical concept into a real force. Ernst Udet, the head of the aircraft development programme of the Reichsluftwaffe, was very impressed with the demonstrations he saw in the USA in 1933. (Not because the concept of dive bombing was new to Udet, for the development of German dive bombers was already underway.) After he had flown the Curtiss Hawk, he bought two, which he demonstrated in Germany. This helped to advance the case of the dive bomber in Germany.

Birth of the Ju 87 In Germany the development of dive bombers was set up in October 1933, as part of the secret rearmament programme. (Which in its origins dated back to 1921, long before Hitler came to power.) The first dive bombing unit was equipped with the Heinkel He 50, a sturdy biplane that had originated from a Japanese requirement for such an aircraft. Later the Henschel Hs 123, also a biplane, replaced the He 50. The Hs 123 was, like many early aircraft of the Luftwaffe, seen as an interim type, but it would actually give excellent service during most of World War II. In 1934 the Luftwaffe tested a modified Junkers K 47, an all-metal, low-wing monoplane with twin tail fins. The K 47 was originally designed as a two-seat fighter, and the diving tests were purely experimental. There was also an exchange of ideas with the Swedish airforce, which was also interested in dive bombing - and would, after the end of W.W.II, produce one of the most advanced dive bombers ever flown, the Saab 18. Then in 1936 the Luftwaffe selected a new dive bomber to replace the Hs 123. The contenders were the Arado Ar 81, the Blohm & Voss Ha 137, the Heinkel He 118 and the Junkers Ju 87.

Arado Ar 81 The Ar 81 seemed an anachronism compared to the other contenders, because it was a biplane. It had a fuselage with nice, clean lines, and a fully covered cockpit for the two crew members. The fixed landing gear was covered with spats. The biplane wings were of single-bay configuration (with a single pair of outboard wing struts). The installation of the Jumo 210C engine was similar to that later adopted by the Ju 87, with a rectangular `beard' radiator. The performance of the Ar 81 was good, it was faster than the prototypes of the Ju 87 and Ha 137. But its biplane configuration doomed it.

Blohm & Voss Ha 137 The Ha 137 -- the Ha designator was used instead of the Bv designator connected with Blohm & Voss, because the manufacturer had been known earlier as Hamburger Flugzeugbau -- was an all-metal, singleseat monoplane. It had a deep fuselage of rectangular cross-section, and an inverted gull wing with trousered undercarriage legs. The installation of the Jumo 210C engine was neater than designed by the http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ju87.html (3 of 17)2006-09-19 15:14:38


other contenders, with a close-fitting cowling and a small radiator set under the wing centre section. Nevertheless the type exuded a ponderous uglyness. The Ha 137 could carry one 250kg bomb and four 50kg bombs, with a fixed armament of one 20mm cannon and two 7.9mm machine guns. Five were built. The performance of handling of the Ha 137 were good, and Wolfram von Richthofen (a nephew of the W.W.I 'ace' Manfred von Richthofen) recommended its production. But nothing came of this, because Udet preferred the Ju 87.

Heinkel He 118 The Heinkel He 118 was designed by the brothers Günter, and had the smooth elliptical wing and fuselage contours typical of their designs -- such as the He 70 and He 111. It was the aesthetically most appealing of the contenders. The He 118 too had an inverted gull wing, but this was set higher on the fuselage. The He 118 was also the only contender with retractable landing gear. It was powered by the Daimler-Benz DB 600 engine. Although the He 118 was without doubt the most advanced of the contenders, it was not satisfactory, mainly because it failed to reach a diving angle of more than 50 degrees. When Udet impulsively flew the He 118 outside its limits, the propeller was torn away. Udet escaped by parachute. The He 118 later did provide inspiration for the Japanese Yokosuka D4Y Judy dive bomber.

Junkers Ju 87 The Ju 87V1, which made its first flight on 17 September 1935, was again a monoplane with an inverted gull wing, but it was by far the ugliest of all. The wing had no taper on the leading edge of the anhedralled center section; on the dihedralled outboard section the leading edge tapered gently backwards. The trailing edge tapered more sharply. In line with earlier Junkers practice -- also seen on the Ju 52, Ju 86 and the K 47 -- the entire trailing edge of the wing was fitted with slotted flaps; the ailerons too were slotted. This gave the Ju 87 fine low-speed handling, but of course also generated a lot of drag. The undercarriage was fixed and covered with ugly 'trousers'. The blunt-edged nose had a deep radiator, with entrance louvers, for its Rolls-Royce Kestrel engine. This was replaced in later prototypes and the Ju 87A series by the Jumo 210 engine, and a smaller, rectangular radiator bath. The fuselage itself had fairly gracious lines. It tapered upwards from the nose to the cockpit, so that the pilot had a good forward view. The view all around was excellent, thanks to a roomy greenhouse canopy for the two crew members. The slender tail structure is alleged to have been quite vulnerable to enemy fire, because the control lines were grouped close together. Initially the rectangular, strut-braced tailplane had two small, rectangular endplate fins, but after the crash of the Ju 87V1, that was attributed to weakness of the tail, this was replaced by a large single tail fin. The dive brakes consisted of a pair of long, rectangular strips attached to stubs under the wing leading http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ju87.html (4 of 17)2006-09-19 15:14:38


edges. They were rotated perpendicular to the airstream to reduce the speed of the aircraft. Initially the brakes were not fitted to the first prototype, and after they were fitted the tail of the Ju 87V1 broke up during a dive test. But the third prototype (Ju 87V3) demonstrated its ability to dive at 90 degrees, and to resist a force of 6G during the pull-out. It was primarily this ability that made it win the competition. Here are specifications for the Ar 81 and Ha 137. I did not find data for the He 118. Maybe someone can fill in the gap? Type: Crew: Engine:

Ar 81 V3 2

Ha 137 V4 1

640hp Junkers Jumo 210Ca 610hp Junkers Jumo 210Aa

Wing Span:

11.00m

11.15m

Length:

11.51m

9.47m

Height:

3.61m

2.79m

Wing Area:

35.60m2

23.50m2

Empty Weight:

1925kg

1810kg

Maximum weight: 3070kg

2411kg

345km/h at 4000m, 300km/h at SL

300km/h

Ceiling:

7700m

7000m

Climb:

4000m in 11min

2000m in 4min

Maximum Speed:

Fixed Armament: one 7.9mm MG17

two 7.9mm MG17 and one 20mm MG FF

Rear Armament: 7.9mm MG15

none

Bomb Load:

250kg

one 250kg and four 50kg

Development History There were three major versions of the Ju 87: The A-series, the B-series (including the R and C) and the D-series (including the G and H). Every step in this series involved an engine change, a redesign of the engine installation, a refinement of the cockpit canopy, and a modification of the undercarriage. They can be easily recognised.

Ju 87A The production Ju 87A featured the revised tail with a single fin, but the heavy `trousers' on the fixed http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ju87.html (5 of 17)2006-09-19 15:14:38


undercarriage of the prototype were retained, making it easy to distinguish this version from later models of the Ju 87. The radiator intake was (relatively) small and rectangular, and is another easy recognition feature. If that is not enough, the cockpit of the A-model featured two small angled out antenna masts, that were later replaced by a single, vertical one. The canopy had hinged panels instead of the sliding sections featured by later models. The Ju 87A-0 pre-production model entered service in the spring of 1937. The engine was the Jumo 210, which was to be retained in different versions by the production A-series: the Jumo 210Ca for the A-1, and the Jumo 210Da for the A-2. Production of the A-series ended after 262 aircraft, at the end of 1938. The Junkers Ju 87A had two fixed, forward-firing MG 17 guns, installed in the wing outboard of the undercarriage attachment points. There was a flexible MG 15 in the rear cockpit. The Ju 87A could carry a 250kg bomb, or a 500kg bomb if the rear gunner was left home. The bomb was carried on a swingdown rack, a tubular structure of which the front end was attached under the engine. On release, the bomb was swung forward and downward, so that it was free of the propeller disc. (The swinging bomb crutch seems to have been an American invention. The USN considered it important enough that they refused, in 1939, to allow export of such bomb racks to France! The logic behind that decision is difficult to explain.) There were also two small racks for SC50 bombs under each outboard wing panel. The Ju 87A did not see combat, with the exception of three aircraft which were sent to Spain during the civil war, but it was important in the development of the automatic bombing system of the Ju 87. This consisted of an Askania autopilot, which was used together with a Revi gunsight. The bomb release gear, elevator controls, and dive brakes were linked to this system. Before attacking the pilot would set the bomb release height. The deployment of the dive brakes automatically adjusted the elevator trim tab, and put the aircraft into a dive. When the bomb release height was reached and the bombs were dropped the autopilot adjusted the elevator trim tab again, so that the aircraft became tail heavy and pulled itself out of the dive. The use of the elevator was forbidden, except in case of emergency. The pilot thus needed not to be concerned too much with the pull-out. This was just as well, because the pull-out put a an acceleration of 6G on aircraft and pilot. Under such conditions one could not expect the pilot to perform complicated control sequences. Normal procedures called for a bombr release at an altitude of about 900m, which brought the Stuka down to about 400m before it started to regain altitude.

Ju 87B The Ju 87B was to be the standard model during the early years of World War II. It was powered by the much more powerful Jumo 211 engine. This engine had fuel injection, an important feature for an aircraft which had to be subjected to heavy G-forces and acrobatic manoeuvres. A new engine cowling was designed, with a new air intake on top of the cowling, and a deep half-circular radiator under it. The radiator was larger for the B-2 model than for the B-1, because the B-2 had an even more powerful engine, and it can only be described as a deliberate insult to the aerodynamicists.



The trousered undercarriage of the A-model was replaced by a `spatted' one, with closer-fitting leg covers and better streamlined wheel spats. The change was more than cosmetic, for the undercarriage was also redesigned and considerably strengthened. The mainwheels were also moved slighlty backwards. If the Ju 87 had to operate from poor airfields, such as found at the Eastern front, the spats were often removed because they tended to get clogged with mud. It was not even uncommon for Ju 87s to have their undercarriage ripped off when operating from such airfields. On the undercarriage legs a fitting was installed for a siren, a so called `Jericho Trumpet', to enhance the effect on morale of the Ju 87's attacks. This was driven by a small propeller on the left undercarriage leg. When the siren was not installed the mount was faired over, leaving a protrusion on the undercarriage. The sirens were mostly discarded during the Battle of Britain, because they reduced the performance of the already slow and vulnerable Ju 87. The greenhouse canopy of the Ju 87B was also different of that of the Ju 87A, with sliding sections for the pilot and the gunner, which replaced the earlier hinged entry panels. The twin radio masts of the JU 87A were replaced by a single, tall, vertical mast.

Ju 87C The Ju 87C-1 was a shipboard development of the Ju 87B, intended for use on Germany's -- never completed -- aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin. The carrier was launched at the end of 1938, but work was halted in 1940. It was resumed in 1942 but abandoned again the next year. The Graf Zeppelin was intended to carry 40 aircraft, of which 28 were planned to be Ju 87Cs. The wings of the Ju 87C had a smaller span and folded outboard of the undercarriage attachment points. The folding was similar to that used by the Grumman F4F Wildcat: the wings folded backwards with the leading edges turning down, so that they could be stored flat against the sides of the fuselage. The Ju 87C of course also had attachment points for catapult launch and a tailhook for arrested landings. The landing gear was made jettisonnable for a ditching, and flotation bags were fitted. The Ju 87C also had the capability to carry underwing fuel tanks, extending its range from 800km to 1600km. This was to be retained for another (land-based) production model, the Ju 87R. Because the Graf Zeppelin was never completed, the Ju 87C only operated from land bases.

Ju 87R The Ju 87R was a long-range version of the Ju 87B, with design features of the Ju 87C. The out-ofsequence R-designation stood for `Reichweite', range. They were intended for anti-ship attacks, and proved very effective during the fights in Scandinavia. An additional fuel transfer system was fitted, new fuel tanks installed in the wing, and the outer wing attachment points were modified so that 300l fuel tanks could be carried instead of bombs. The R-1 and http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ju87.html (7 of 17)2006-09-19 15:14:38


R-2 were equivalent to the B-1 and B-2, but the R-1 had a longer range, because the B-2 model was heavier than the B-1.

Ju 87D The Ju 87D had a completely redesigned engine installation. The engine was still a derivative of the Jumo 211, but the more powerful J or P model was used. The main coolant radiator was removed from under the engine cowling, and two radiators were installed under the wing centre section instead. A shallow oil cooler was retained under the engine cowling. A new VS11 propeller with paddle blades was used. There were also other aerodynamic refinements. The greenhouse canopy now tapered aft, instead of having a nearly constant cross-section as had that of the B-model. The aft gunners exchanged the single drum-fed MG15 gun for twin belt-fed MG81 guns. The bomb release gear was better faired in, and the maximal bomb load was increased to 1800kg. This could include a 1400kg armour-piercing bomb on the centreline rack. The landing gear was again strengthened, but nevertheless the Ju 87D retained a reputation for landing gear collapses on rough runways. The wheel covers were again changed, and the fitting for sirens were eliminated. The D-3 introduced additional armour, because the Ju 87 now more often had to dodge the fire of the troops it attacked. From the D-4 model onwards the 7.9mm win guns were replaced by the 20mm MG151/20 cannon. The D-5 model had a longer wing span, with pointed wing tip extensions. An interesting development was the D-7, which had night flight equipment and radar.

Ju 87E Like the Ju 87C had been the navalised derivative of the Ju 87B, the Ju 87E was the navalised version of the Ju 87D. But it was never built.

Ju 87G The Ju 87G was the final version of the Stuka. It abandoned the dive attack in favour of an armament of two 37mm Rheinmetall-Borsig BK3,7 anti-tank cannon. These weapons fired special armour-piercing ammunition, with tungsten cores, at a muzzle velocity of 850m/sec. They were installed in gun pods fitted outboard of the landing gear legs. The ammunition was in six-round clips. The first operational trials were made in March 1943. The normal 7.9mm or 20mm wing guns were deleted. Dive bombing was not possible with the additional weight of the guns, so the dive brakes were also deleted -- the Ju 87G could still drop bombs, but not in a dive. Initially, the Ju 87G was seen as quite dangerous to its crews. The additional weight and drag of the



wing guns adversely affected performance and handling, and low-level attacks in the face of the Russian AAA and fighters seemed suicidal. But true as that was, it remained that the Ju 87G was extremely effective. The 37mm gun was in 1943 considered obsolete as an anti-tank gun on the ground, but from the air it was still effective, because the Ju 87G could attack tanks from the rear or from above, were their armour was much thinner. Not that the Germans refrained from trying out bigger cannon on antitank aircraft, but the Ju 87 could not possibly carry these, and larger aircraft such as the Ju 88 were not agile enough to operate successfully against tanks. There were two versions, the G-1 and the G-2, with short and long wing spans, respectively -- the G-2 was based on the long-wing D-5 model. Production of the Ju 87 was halted definitively in October 1944.

Ju 87H The Ju 87H models (H-1, H-3, H-5, H-7 and H-8) were disarmed versions of the equivalent D-models, equipped with dual controls, for use as trainers. The rear cockpit design was again modified, with bulging windows to give the instructor a reasonable view forward.

Ju 87K The Ju 87K designation was used for export models. The K-1 was equivalent to the A-1 and intended for export to Japan. The K-2 and K-4, equivalent to the B-1 and A-1, were exported to Hungary.

Specifications: Type:

Ju 87A-1

Ju 87B-1

Ju 87D-1

Ju 87G-1

640hp Junkers Jumo 210D

1200hp Junkers Jumo 211A

1300hp Junkers Jumo 211J

1300hp Junkers Jumo 211J

Wing Span:

13.00m

13.20m

13.80m

13.80m

Length:

10.80m

11.00m

11.00m

11.00m

Height:

3.90m

3.77m

3.77m

3.77m

30.00m2

31.90m2

31.90m2

31.90m2

2760kg

2810kg

3600kg

Engine:

Wing Area:

Empty Weight: 2273kg Maximum weight:

3324kg

4400kg

5720kg

5100kg

Maximum Speed:

320km/h

350km/h

354km/h

344km/h

Dive Speed:

550km/h

600km/h

600km/h

9430m

8100m

9000m

Ceiling:


7500m


3000m in 8.8min

3000m in 14min

3000m in 13.6min

995kg

800km

1165km

1000km

Fixed Armament:

1*mg7.9mm MG17

2*mg7.9mm MG17

2*mg7.9mm MG17

2*g37mm BK3,7

Rear Armament:

1*mg7.9mm MG15

1*mg7.9mmMG15

2*mg7.9mm MG81Z

2*mg7.9mm MG81Z

Bomb Load:

500kg

1000kg

1600kg

Climb: Range:

Combat History Evaluation in Spain In late 1936 three Ju 87A-1s were sent to Spain for operational evaluation. They were followed in 1938 by three Ju 87B-1s. More would arrive later. The A-models had not been very successful in combat, mainly because of technical shortcomings, but the Ju 87B proved to be effective. They were used to attack bridges, command posts, artillery positions, and ships in harbour. The war in Spain was more important for the Ju 87 than the other way around, for it was in Spain that the Germans developed their air-ground cooperation doctrine.

Poland On 1 September 1939, at 04:26 hours, three Ju 87Bs took off for the very first bombing attack of World War II -- before the official declaration of war. Their targets were cables near two railway bridges at Dirschau. The cables had to be cut to prevent the destruction of the bridges; it was a partial success, because the Poles managed to blow up one bridge. That first day of the war was not an overall success for the Luftwaffe and the Ju 87. Most of the strength of the Luftwaffe was sent far behind the lines to destroy the Polish air force on the ground, but without conclusive results -- it was estimated that the Poles lost about 30 aircraft by it. But during the next days the co-operation between the armed force and the Stukas proved to be excellent. Every time the Polish army tried to organise resistance to the rapid advance of the tanks, Stukas were called in to destroy it. The largest Polish counter-attack, when 170,000 men attacked the rear of the 10th Army in the battle of the Bzura, was brought to a halt under the relentless air attacks, before the Polish were surrounded at Kutno. If the quick German success in Poland was watched with admiration as well as concern in some other countries, the fate of Warsaw was a warning of the barbarism that the war would bring. Technically, the



attacks of German bombers on the fiercely defended Polish capital may have been allowed by the rules of warfare. Nevertheless, the destruction of the city caused great anger. It also had a strong effect on the minds of other allied leaders, who would during 1940 being reluctant to defend cities against the advancing German army, if this meant that they would be mercilessly destroyed from the air. The Germans indeed made a propaganda movie about the Ju 87, and the devastation it had caused in Poland. Allegedly, the Germans bombarded parts of Warsaw after the end of the fighting, to get more impressive footage for this production... It ended with a threat against England, if it did not seek peace. As far as England and the Ju 87 were concerned, it was a hollow threat.

Denmark and Norway There was little reason for the Stukas to intervene in the land battle during these fights in the Scandinavian countries. Instead, the Ju 87 was used extensively for attacks against allied ships, which tried to supply their own expeditionary force in Norway and to prevent the Germans from reinforcing theirs. The attacks of the Stukas concentrated mainly on the allied attacks to recapture Narvik and Trondheim by landings at Harstad, Namson and Andalsnes. They did inflict considerable losses on the attackers, although they did probably not change the outcome of this operation, which was doomed from the start by the stupidity of allied planners and the events in France. At Narvik the Luftwaffe sank a cruiser, and damaged two others and the old battleship Resolution. For the Royal Navy this was a serious lesson about operating under enemy air superiority -- a lesson that some people refused to listen to, and others would quickly forget. But the commander of the French troops in Norway, a man with the confusing name of Mittelhauser, admitted later: At any rate, when the Stuka was revealed to us, when we saw the British fleet giving up before Trondheim (because of it), we had the feeling that we were face to face with something quite new, and of a technical surprise whose employment to be decisive. We can only assume that the general didn't know that dive bombers were not a new invention. Even the French navy had some. The French airforce held the view that they were of no use over land.

France and the Low Countries Poland not being much of an opponent for Germany, it was in May 1940 that the Stukas really proved their effectiveness. There it was not only its accuracy as a dive bomber, but also the fear that it spread -among combatants and civilians alike -- that was decisive. Of course it did not help that the French Army had two commanders and three headquarters, none of which actually knew what was going on at the front. Nor did it improve things that French generals had been too complacent to properly train their soldiers. The French had expected that after any serious move made by the Germans, they would have days or weeks to react, while reinforcements and artillery were laboriously moved to the frontline. Now http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ju87.html (11 of 17)2006-09-19 15:14:38


they experienced that their own old-fashioned army, based on the tactical principles of W.W.I, was completely unable to defend itself against this kind of attack. The fatal breakthrough on 13 May near Sedan was preceded by an attack of the Ju 87s on the positions of the French defenders. Small groups of Stukas methodically attacked the villages in front line, road crossings and artillery positions. Even the Germans, moving forward under protection of these attacks, were frightened -- perhaps understandably, because there had been a few "friendly fire" incidents during the campaign in Poland. The French general Ruby reported: The infantry, cowering and immobile in their trenches, dazed by the crash of the bombs and the shriek of the dive bombers, were too stunned to use their anti-aircraft guns and fire. Their only concern was to keep their heads down and not move. Five hours of this punishment shattered their nerves. They became incapable of reacting to the approaching enemy infantry. It is unbelievable, but the French general Huntziger refused to call in fighters to chase the attackers away, because of the attrition that such operations would cause! The prevailing view was that air force was a vulnerable weapon, that would soon be lost if it were used. General Gamelin is alleged to have predicted that "It will burn itself in a flash." (In fairness to Gamelin: I heard a Belgian reserve officer express the same opinion ten years ago!) When the French commanders saw their mistake, they began to ask for British fighter aircraft to protect their troops. They were unaware that because of monumental incompetence, most of the French air force had remained inactive. Three quarters of the French fighters were never committed to the battle. The Luftwaffe was free to attack anything that moved. Most of that movement was to the rear. The Ju 87s, sometimes flying nine missions per day, cleared the road for the German forces which brushed irresistably through France. Some French units launched limited counter-attacks, such as General de Gaulle's 4th armoured division, but they were immediately attacked by the Ju 87s, and forced to retreat: Until sunset they continued to bomb us, and the consequences were wrecking for our vehicles, which could not leave the road, and our artillery, which could find no cover. The tanks, its seems, were more difficult targets; but they could do little without their support vehicles and the divisional artillery. The Luftwaffe's attack on Dunkirk, however, showed the limitations of both the Luftwaffe and the Ju 87. The French and British soldiers, finally accustomed to the screaming attacks of the dive bombers, resisted admirably, defending the city until almost all the British and many of the French soldiers could be evacuated over sea. At the same time, the operations of the RAF to protect the evacuation caused heavy losses for the attackers, although a large number of ships was sunk or damaged. It was the first sign of the vulnerability of the Ju 87.



The Battle of Britain For the battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe amassed a force that included 336 Ju 87s, of which about 280 were operational. But the contribution of the Ju 87 to the attack on Britain was brief, and in fact mainly limited to the attacks on shipping in the channel, during the initial stages. Here the Ju 87 was effective enough, and the Royal Navy was forced to remove a destroyer flotilla from Dover and give orders that destroyers would only pass the Straits of Dover during the night. There were also a number of attacks on convoys off the British coast. The best known of these was the fight off Eastbourne, which was reported `live' by the BBC. In this battle three ships were damaged, but seven Stukas were shot down for the loss of one Hurricane. Then the Stukas turned their attention to the British airfields. Attacks on Detling, Lympne, Hawkinge and Tangmere followed. But by now the Fighter Command and taken measure of the Stuka, and the attacks of the next days would make it clear that the Ju 87 was a sitting duck for the Spitfires and Hurricanes of the RAF. On 18 August the so-called "Stuka-slaughter of Thorney Island", when a large formation was caught without fighter cover, cost the Luftwaffe 30 Stukas -- shot down, crash-landed, or damaged beyond repair. This forced the Luftwaffe to pull back the Stukas from the offensive against Britain. They continued operating against shipping in the channel, also at night, but no longer participated in the main effort. The Ju 87s were conserved for the actual invasion.

Ju 87 in Italy One of the weaknesses of the Italian Regia Aeronautica was its lack of dive bombers. The Italian attempts to develop such an aircraft had ended in a complete and ridiculous failure: The SM85 was abandoned after the type flew a single mission. Yet it was clear that dive bombers were a very effective weapon against British ships in the Mediterranean. As was proven by the Germans when sent Stukageschwader I and II to the help the Italians. The Stukas badly damaged the carrier Illustrious, sank the cruiser Southampton, damaged several other ships, and nearly cut off the supply line to the besieged Tobruk. So by 1941 the Italians received 46 B-1s, 50 B-2s, 59 R-2s. In 1943 they received an additional 46 aircraft, D-2s and D-3s. The Italians gave the aircraft the nickname Picchiatelli, which means "Striker". Although the Italians were trained initially to use the same tactics as the Germans, who did dive vertically on their targets in small groups, they soon developed their own methods. Rather oddly, the Italians also used the Ju 87 for the method which later became known as skip bombing -- horizontal attacks at very low level, dropping their bombs in such way that they would bounce of the water and hit the attacked ship on the waterline. The advantage of this method of attacking was that the target was hit on the waterline, and a dive directly into the defensive fire was avoided.

The Eastern Front



At the Eastern front, air support was not as adequate as it had been in France. This was because the Luftwaffe was so enormously overstretched: Too many aircraft had too stay in the West and the Mediterranean. The task that would come to the Ju 87 on the Eastern front was the destruction of enemy tanks. One of the things that the Germans had not accounted for in their war plans was the enormous number of tanks the Red Army had, and their qualities had escaped the observation of most. Confronted with the presence at the of large numbers of excellent T-34 tanks, and the disappointing production of their own industry, the Germans sought to compensate their numerical inferiority in other ways. For the Ju 87 it was a "target-rich environment". The giant tank battle of Kursk, the largest ever, saw the participation of large numbers of Ju 87s. But the Ju 87s now had to operate from often very primitive airfields, at the end of long supply lines, and in a harsh climate. Aircraft had usually to be maintained in the open air, and hangars or shelters for parked aircraft were non-existent. Equipment broke down in the Russian winter. Rudel wrote: The engines no longer start, everything is frozen; it is suicide to trust the instruments. Stuka units also often had to improvise the transport of their own supplies and ground crews. In Germany, enormous overwing pods were developed for this, which allowed the Ju 87 to carry four people. But they remained experimental, and a common solution was too load everything in a DFS 230 glider and tow it behind a Ju 87. For use during the winter, optional ski landing gear was developed, although it was not widely used because it reduced performance. The removal of wheel spats was also common. Tactics changed from dive-bombing to low-level attacks, and finally the use of dive bombing was abandoned entirely by the Ju 87G versions. Because of the dangerous nature of such operations, the armour of the Stuka was substantially increased. Of course it became even more dangerous when the Soviet air force gained the upper hand, because it first and foremost wanted to achieve tactical air superiority over the battlefield, where the Ju 87s flew. The obsolescence of the Ju 87 was now seriously felt, and the type was increasingly replaced by the fighter-bomber versions of the Fw 190. If the Ju 87 continued to be effective, it was mostly because of the very experienced crews. The most successful Stuka pilot was Hans-Ulrich Rudel, who was to become the most decorated German pilot of W.W.II. He was also the pilot who flew the most combat missions -- a staggering 2530. He was credited with the destruction of the battleship Marat, 519 tanks, and over 2000 other vehicles. According to one rumour, Hitler was so impressed by Rudel's actions that he contemplated naming him as his successor!

Evaluation During W.W.II, several Ju 87s fell into allied hands, but not until at the end of the war the famous British test pilot Eric Brown had the opportunity to fly an Ju 87D-3. He had flown numerous allied dive http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ju87.html (14 of 17)2006-09-19 15:14:38


bombers, such as the Blackburn Skua, the Vultee A-35 Vengeance, the Vought SB2U, the Douglas SBD Dauntless and the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. Therefore he was in an excellent position to compare these aircraft. To him the Ju 87D-3 - then completely obsolete - imparted an "almost oppressive" sense of vulnerability. The pilot sat high a the greenhouse company, with an excellent view all around, but also terribly exposed. The Ju 87D-3 accelerated well on take-off, but climbed slowly, and was both too slow to escape from fighter attack and too stable to evade it. Briefly, the Ju 87 was an "ideal target", even for the most inexperienced fighter pilot. On the other hand Brown confirmed that the Ju 87 was ideal for dive bombing, "a genuine 90 deg screamer", in which it felt quite natural to be in a vertical dive. Dive bombing practice in the Ju 87 he found "more enjoyable... than I had ever experienced with any other aircraft of this specialist type." Before the dive, the aircraft had to be trimmed for cruise conditions, the bomb release altitude was be set, and the cooler flaps closed. Deploying the dive brakes automatically put the Ju 87 into a dive, and engaged a security device which limited the control column movement to 5 degrees from neutral -enough to give effective control for bomb-aiming, but preventing manoeuvres which could overstress the aircraft. After bomb release the Ju 87 pulled itself out of the dive. The pilot then closed the dive brakes, and climbed away. Compared with other dive bombers, the Ju 87 left a favourable impression. If it was vulnerable, it was not more so than the Douglas SBD Dauntless, the Aichi D3A Val, or the Blackburn Skua. And it was more accurate than any of those.

Comparison Here is a comparison of the Junkers Ju 87B-1 with some other dive bombers of World War II. They are all naval types. The Blackburn Skua was a British dive bomber and two-seat fighter. It was rather too slow and cumbersome to be an effective fighter, and was rapidly replaced by the Fulmar. As a consequence, the FAA did no longer have a dive bomber after the Spring of 1941. The Skua eyed a bit more modern than the Ju 87, because it had retractable landing gear, but it was quite ugly. Its diving characteristics were good. The usual dive angle was 70 degrees, and its dive brakes were modified 'Zap' type trailing-edge flaps. The Douglas SBD Dauntless was the standard dive bomber of the USN for a good part of the war, and continued in service until the end. It played a very important role in several battles in the Pacific -- the most famous that of Midway, where SBDs sunk four Japanese carriers. The SBD too had retractable landing gear, and it had better streamlining than most contemporary dive bombers. Thus it had a relatively good performance. It also had good diving characteristics, and diving angles between 70 and http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ju87.html (15 of 17)2006-09-19 15:14:38


75 degrees could be achieved. The dive brakes were large trailing edge flaps which were perforated to reduce the buffet. Nevertheless, it was admitted to be an obsolescent and vulnerable aircraft. It just happened to be still better than its intended replacement, the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. The Aichi D3A Val was the most important Japanese dive bomber of the war, which was produced until January 1944. The more modern Yokosuka D4Y appeared only when the war was already lost for Japan. The D3A shared the fixed landing gear of the Ju 87 and had similar dive brakes: rotating strips attached under the wing leading edges. But its other features, such as the elliptical wing, showed mostly Heinkel influence. During the first year of the war, with very highly trained and experienced crews, the D3As achieved a hitting rate of about 80%. They were agile enough to be used as dogfighters after they dropped their bombs, but when the USN pilots improved their tactics the D3A became very vulnerable. Junkers Ju 87B-1

Blackburn Skua

1200hp Junkers Jumo 211A

830hp 1200hp 1075hp Bristol Wright Mitsubishi Perseus XII R-1820-60 Cyclone Kinsei 44

2

2

2

2

Wing Span:

13.20m

14.07m

12.66m

14.53m

Length:

11.00m

10.84m

9.91m

10.25m

Height:

3.77m

4.32m

3.94m

3.35m

Wing Area:

31.90m2

28.98m2

30.19m2

Empty Weight:

2760kg

2493kg

3028kg

Maximum weight: 4400kg

3733kg

4322kg

Maximum Speed: 350km/h

362km/h at 2040m

407km/h at 5060m

600km/h

407km/h

445km/h

Ceiling:

8100m

5820m

8075m

Climb:

3000m in 8.8min

5820m in 43min

3050m in 8min

Range:

800km

Type:

Engine: Crew:

Dive Speed:

Douglas SBD-5 Dauntless

2084km

Aichi D3A2

2618kg

450km/h

10880m

1560km

Fixed Armament: 2*mg7.9mm MG17 4*mg7.7mm 2*mg12.7mm

2*mg7.7mm

Rear Armament: 1*mg7.9mmMG15 1*mg7.7mm 2*mg7.62mm

1*mg7.7mm

Bomb Load:

1000kg

227kg

815kg

Sources: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ju87.html (16 of 17)2006-09-19 15:14:38

370kg


●

● ● ● ●

●

● ●

● ● ● ●

Wings of the Luftwaffe. Captain Eric Brown, published by Pilot Press (1977, 1979) and by Airlife (1987, 1993). Wings of the Navy. Captain Eric Brown, published by Pilot Press and by Jane's, 1980. Dive Bombers in Action. Peter C. Smith, published by Blanford Press, 1988. Stuka! Joachim Dressel, published by Arms and Armour Press, 1989. The Collapse of The Third Republic. William L. Shirer, published by Heineman Ltd., and by Secker and Warburg Ltd., 1969. The Encyclopedia of German Military Aircraft. Bryan Philpott, published by Arms and Armour Press, 1980. Hermann Goering - Ijzeren Ikaros. Andre ver Elst, published by De Vlijt. Chronicle of Aviation. Edited by Mark S. Pyle, Bill Gunston, and Eduouard Chemel. Published by Chronicle Communications, 1992. Who's Who in Aviation History. William H. Longyard, published by Airlife, 1994. The Aerospace Chronology. Michael J. H. Taylor, published by Tri-Service Press, 1989. Messerschmitt `O-Nine' Gallery. Thomas H. Hitchcock, published by Monogram, 1973. Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II. Published by Bracken Books, 1989.

Emmanuel Gustin mailto:[email protected]


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/me210i.html

1. Messerschmitt Me 210 1. Sources:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/me210i.html2006-09-19 15:14:58

Messerschmitt Me 210

Messerschmitt Me 210 The infamous Me 210 began its life in early 1938 with a design study for a potential successor to the Bf 110, which was itself not yet even in service. The Reichsluftfahrtministerium (State Ministry of Aviation, better known as the RLM) proposal envisaged an aircraft which was to be capable of performing heavy fighter, fast reconnaissance, dive bombing and attack roles. Messerschmitt's Augsburg design bureau submitted the Me 210 in response to this proposal. In retrospect, the RLM was asking the aircraft to do too much. The result was perhaps the Luftwaffe's greatest wartime failure, ranking right up there on the top of the disaster scale along with the Heinkel He 177. The Me 210 had a single-spar all-metal stressed-skin wing and a fuselage built in two vertical halves and joined top and bottom. A one-piece wing center section was used with the I-section spar passing through the fuselage. Welded steel box girders in compression were used as the main supporting members of the engine mount. In comparison to the Bf 110, the nose of the Me 210 was relatively short, stubby, and compact. The twin DB-601 engines projected well ahead of the nose of the Me 210, whereas the nose of the Bf 110 was well forward of the engines. The two crew members sat back-to-back in an extensively glazed canopy. The first prototype, the Me 210 V1, flew on September 5, 1939. It was powered by two Daimler-Benz DB 601A-1 engines each rated at 1050 hp for takeoff. The airplane was initially fitted with twin fin-andrudder tail assembly. In early flight tests, the airplane displayed extremely unsatisfactory handling characteristics, and suffered from both directional and longitudinal instability. At first, it was thought that the twin fin-and-rudder assembly was at fault, and the prototype was hastily refitted with a very large centrally-mounted vertical tail and a tapered tailplane of increased span. However, improvement in handling was only marginal with the new tail, and experiments with several other prototypes throughout the winter of 1939-40 all failed to produce any significant improvement in the Me 210's abominable handling characteristics. The aircraft was still highly unstable, and its flying characteristics were unpredictable. Stalling behavior was extremely poor, and at high angles of attack the aircraft would often whip into a spin. Turbulence along the rear fuselage resulted in some tailplane buffeting, and elevator flutter would be experienced in certain flight regimes. A total of 14 experimental Me 210s were built. An extensive series of crashes punctuated the development program, and there was no improvement in sight. The Luftwaffe had originally anticipated that the first Me 210s would enter service in mid 1941, and assembly lines had been laid down at both the Augsburg and Regensburg Messerschmitt plants, and plans had been made for the Messerschmitt plant at Braunschweig to switch from Bf 110 to Me 210 production. However, the serious problems encountered by the Me 210 were to put these plans on indefinite hold.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/me210.html (1 of 4)2006-09-19 15:15:02


As the spring of 1941 came and with the problems with the Me 210 still left unresolved, the Luftwaffe decided that it had no option but to commence manufacturing and delivery of the aircraft despite its obvious shortcomings. No less than 94 service test Me 210A-0 aircraft were built, and they spent 18 months in trials. The test program was punctuated by numerous accidents. Pilots found the flying characteristics of the Me 210A-0 to be particularly vicious, and numerous proposals were made for improvements. However, all these proposals turned out to require such major changes as to produce unacceptable delays in the introduction of the aircraft into service. However, even the top brass in the Luftwaffe eventually had to admit by the end of 1941 that the Me 210 as it currently existed was totally unsuitable for issue to operational units. In spite of the problems encountered during service testing, plans had gone forward throughout late 1941 for the mass production of the Me 210. At the beginning of 1942, two production versions had been ordered, the Me 210A-1 heavy fighter with secondary fighter-bomber capability and the Me 210A-2 dive bomber. During January 1942, a total of 64 Me 210A-1s had been accepted by the Luftwaffe. In the meantime, a commission established to investigate the Me 210 debacle had recommended that production of the Me 210 be halted immediately and that the Bf 110 be reinstated in production. It took until May of 1942 before the production could finally be completely halted. By that time, 90 Me210A-1 aircraft had left the assembly lines, leaving some 370 still in various stages of construction. These aircraft were placed in storage. Despite the termination of the Me 210 production program, development continued unabated in the hope of finding a solution to the stability problems. Finally an answer was found. Automatic slots were provided on the wing leading edges, and the rear fuselage was entirely redesigned with increased depth and 3 feet greater length. This seemed to work. Messerschmitt's Augsburg design bureau then submitted a new proposal based on the revised Me 210 but with more powerful engines. It was assigned the designation Me 410, and was envisaged for initial availability at the beginning of 1943. Most of the development work on the Me 210 was now directed primarily toward proving out its Me 410 successor. Pending availability of the Me 410, Messerschmitt was authorized to rebuild some of its Me 210A-1 aircraft which had been held in storage by the Luftwaffe. These were fitted with the new rear fuselage, wing leading-edge slots, and parallel-bar-type air brakes on the upper and lower wing surfaces outboard of the engine nacelles. The rebuilt Me 210A-1s were issued to a special unit, which first achieved operational status at Soesterburg in the Netherlands as 16./KG 6. Its first operational sortie took place over Yorkshire on September 6, 1942 where two examples were shot down by Hawker Typhoons. Two more were lost the next week, and by September 20, 16./KG 6 was down to only three serviceable aircraft. The Me 210A-1 was powered by two DB 601F twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled inverted-vee engines, each rated at 1350 hp for takeoff. Maximum speed was 288 mph at sea level, and 350 mph at 17,520 feet. It could climb to 21,120 feet in 7.5 minutes, and maximum range was 1130 miles. Weights were 15,586 lbs empty, 21,297 lbs maximum loaded. Armament consisted of two 30-mm MG 151 cannon and two 7.9 mm MG 17 machine guns mounted in the nose. Protection against rear attacks was provided by a rather unique pair of remotely controlled barbettes, one mounted on each side of the rear fuselage just aft http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/me210.html (2 of 4)2006-09-19 15:15:02


of the wing. Each barbette contained one 13-mm MG-131 machine gun. These guns were operated remotely by the rear-facing gunner, and each gun could be directed independently of the other. Each gun could be elevated or depressed through a range of 70 degrees. Each weapon could be traversed through 40 degrees in azimuth, and the barbettes were attached to a drum which traversed the fuselage aft of the cockpit. The drum was rotated via a 1.5 hp electric motor by servo units controlled by a pistol grip. The guns could be fired aft in unison, a contact-breaker device stopping the firing whenever the guns pointed at any part of the aircraft structure. There was an internal bomb bay in the forward fuselage just underneath the pilot's seat. Covered by clamshell-doors, the bay could carry 8 110-lb, two 551 lb, or two 1102 lb bombs internally. For comparison, here are the figures for the Bf 110F-2 heavy fighter which first appeared in service in the early summer of 1941. It was powered by two Daimler-Benz DB 601F engines each rated at 1350 hp for takeoff. Maximum speed was 310 mph at sea level and 352 mph at 17,700 feet. Maximum range was 745 miles. Service ceiling was 35,760 feet. It could climb to 19,685 feet in 9.2 minutes. Maximum range was 745 miles. Armament consisted of two 20-mm MG FF cannon and four 7.9-mm MG 17 machine guns mounted in the nose, plus one 7.9-mm MG 15 machine gun on a flexible mount in the rear cockpit. The Bf 110F-1 bomber version could carry two 551-lb or two 1102-lb bombs on underfuselage racks. In addition four 110 lb bombs could be carred on underwing racks. As far as the incomparable Mosquito is concerned, there is virtually no comparison between it and the Me 210, although any comparison between the two aircraft is probably unfair since the Mosquito appeared in combat somewhat later in the war than did the Me-210. Perhaps the most apt comparison is with the Mosquito F.B.Mk.VI fighter- bomber version of 1943. The Mosquito F.B.Mk.VI was powered by two Rolls-Royce Merlin 25 liquid cooled engines rated at 1635 hp maximum power. Maximum speed was 362 mph at 5500 feet, 380 mph at 13,000 feet. Range was 1270 miles (with wing bombs only) and 1400 miles (with fuselage bombs only). Initial climb rate was 1870 feet/minute, and an altitude of 15,000 feet could be reached in 9.5 minutes. Service ceiling was 33,000 feet. Weights were 14,300 pounds empty, 19,500 pounds normal loaded. Armament consisted of four 20-mm Hispano cannon and four 0.303 Browning machine guns in the nose. The internal bomb bay could carry a pair of 500-pound bombs, and a pair of 500 pound bombs could be carried on underwing racks. In place of the underwing bombs, eight 60-lb rockets could be carried. Messerschmitt was eventually authorized to complete the Me 210A-1 and A-2 aircraft that were still on the production line, and these began to reach Luftwaffe service in early 1943. Production of the Me-210 in Germany finally terminated in June of 1943. In November 1942, a small number of rebuilt Me 210A-1 aircraft had been delivered to III/ZG 1 in Sicily to fly alongside the units Bf 110s. This unit was transferred to Tunisia in early 1943. By March of that year, the unit had converted entirely to the Me 210A-1. The 10./ZG 26 based in Tunisia also got a number of Me 210A-1s in early 1943, but these were soon replaced by Ju 88s. From January 1943, the Stab of FAGr 122 and 2.(F)/122 based in Sardinia operated some Me 210A-2s, but discarded them in March.



The Me 210B was a specialized high-speed reconnaissance version in which forward-firing armament was reduced to two MG 151 cannon and cameras were installed in the bomb bay. Only two production examples were built. The Me 210C was a version manufactured in Hungary by the Duna Repulogepgyar (Danube Aircraft Factory). Under the terms of the German-Hungarian Mutual Armament Program, two thirds of these planes would go to the Luftwaffe and one third would go to the Magyar Kiralyi Legiero (Royal Hungarian Air Force). The Me 210C differed from the Me 210A in being powered by two DB 605B engines of 1475 hp, the engines which were to power the Me 410. Two versions were planned, the Me210Ca-1 which combined the tasks of heavy fighter and dive bomber, and the Me 210C-1 which was primarily a long-range reconnaissance aircraft. The first of three Hungarian-built Me 210Cs were accepted by the Luftwaffe in April 1943. The first Hungarian units did not receive their aircraft until early 1944. In spite of the negative experience of the Luftwaffe with their early Me 210A-1s, the Hungarians rather liked their Me 210Cs. They found the Me 210C to possess an excellent performance and to be highly maneuverable. The Magyar Kiralyi Legiero used it well as a dive bomber and closesupport aircraft. The Me 210Ca-1 attained a maximum speed of 297 mph at sea level and 359 mph at 21,325 feet. Maximum range was 1075 miles, and service ceiling was 29,200 feet. Armament was the same as that of the Me 210A-1. In Luftwaffe service, the Me 210C was operated briefly by II and II/ZG 1 and III/ZG 26 and with several Aufklarungsstaffeln before it was supplanted by the Me 410. Hungarian production finally ended in March of 1944, and the Duna Repulogepgyar switched over to the manufacture of the Bf 109G. By that time, a total of 267 Me 210Cs had been built, of which 108 had been given to the Luftwaffe. The Me 210D was proposed as an equivalent version of the DB 605B-powered Me 210C, but it was never proceeded with.

Sources: ● ●

Warplanes of the Third Reich, William Green, Doubleday, 1970. Warplanes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 2, William Green, Doubleday, 1961.

Joe Baugher



Messerschmitt Me 609 Introduction In accordance with the Reichs Luftfahrt Ministerium (RLM) (Reich's Air Ministry) policy of restricting aircraft construction to a few types in the interest of production, a requirement was issued in 1941 for a new Zerstörer (destroyer or heavy fighter), which called for a new design that would use components of aircraft in service, so that aircraft production was not disrupted. Messerschmitt initiated two projects of 'twin' aircraft, like the Lockheed P-38 Lightning and the Fokker G-1. The projects proposed involved the use of two fuselages of either the Bf 109G or the Me 309. The variant with two Bf 109G fuselages was the Bf 109Z Zwilling, but it was destroyed before flight testing could begin, and the variant with two Me 309 fuselages was the Me 609. The purpose of both the Bf 109Z and the Me 609 projact was to create a high atitude performance aircraft in two variants, a Zerstörer and a high - speed bomber.

Development In 1943, the Me 309 project was cancelled and it was proposed to use two Me 309 fuselages, each with a Daimler - Benz DB603G powerplant for the Me 609 (One of the other projects was the Me 509). Preliminary study showed that complete fuselages, powerplants, internal equipment, parts of the undercarriage and eighty per cent of the wings (standard port and starboard wings) could be used. The new components necessary consisted of the constant - chord wing between the fuselages, a partly modified undercarriage with larger wheels, new wheel - housings in the wings and a new, constant chord, horizontal tailplane. The main landing gear retracted outwards into the outer wing, while the two nose wheels retracted to the rear after rotating 90 degrees to lie flat beneath the engines. The adaption of an aircraft already in production would expedite the design and, if succesfull, the production of the Me 609. It was estimated that a saving of seventy per cent in time and money could be archieved in this way.

Variants Two variants were proposed, a Zerstörer and a high - speed bomber. The designations were Me 609A and Me 609B.

Zerstörer For the Zerstörer variant, an armament of two 30 mm MK 103 and two 30 mm MK 108 cannons was planned, and it was proposed that, at a later date, these were to be augmented by two 30 mm MK 108 cannons mounted beneath the center wing section or under the outer wing sections. A bombload of http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/me609.html (1 of 3)2006-09-19 15:15:12


1,100 lb could be carried, consisting of either one SC 500 bomb or two SC 250 bombs beneath the center wing section.

High - Speed Bomber The high - speed bomber variant of the Me 609 was proposed to carry a bombload of 4,400 lb, consisting of two SC 1000 bombs beneath each fuselage, but the internal armament consisted of only two 30 mm MK 108 cannons. The fuel weight was increased to 3,300 lb, which was carried in the faired over starboard cockpit.

Cancellation The circumstances obtaining in 1944, together with changing miltary requirements and the appearance of the Messerschmitt Me 262, that could take over all roles for which the Me 609 was designed caused a loss of interest in the Me 609 project and the Me 609 never progressed beyond the design stage.

Specification of the Messerschmitt Me 609 Crew: One pilot in the port fuselage. Powerplant: Two 1,900 hp (at sea level) Daimler - Benz DB603G twelve - cylinder inverted Vee liquid cooled engines. Performance: Speed: 472 mph. Dimensions: Wingspan: 52 ft 7 in. Length: 31 ft 5 in. Height: 12 ft 3 in. Weights: Empty weight: 11,300 lb. Gross weight: 14,600 lb. Note on Bf and Me Designation System The RLM official changed from the Bf to Me designation after the Bf 162. The Bf 162 was an unsuccesfull competitor in the Luftwaffe's Schnellbomber competition in the late 1930s. It was beaten by the Junkers Ju 88. Sometimes, the numbers were used twice if they had been used for an unsuccesfull type. So, the number 162 was used by Heinkel for the He 162 Volksjager. So, all aircraft before the number 162 (i.e. Bf 109, Bf 110) are designated with Bf and all aircraft adter 162 (i.e. Me 163, Me 262) are designated with Me. In fact, there was a Bf 163. This was a high - wing STOL monoplane, a design competing with the http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/me609.html (2 of 3)2006-09-19 15:15:12


Fieseler Fi 156 Storch and similar in layout. Only one Bf 163 was built. The number was next used for the Me 163 Komet. A further exception was the Me 155, which was developed as a naval fighter for the aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin. When the carrier programme was cancelled, the project was taken over by Blohn und Voss as the BV 155 and developed further as a high - altitude interceptor. So, there never was a Bf 155.

Sources ● ● ●

●

●

Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II, Bill Gunston, Studio Editions, 1995. Messerschmitt Me 609, Dan Johnson, Luft '46 (http://www.luft46.com). The Focke - Wulf 190 - A Famous German Fighter, H.J. Nowarra, Harleyford Publications Limited, 1963. The Messerschmitt 109 - A Famous German Fighter, H.J. Nowarra, Harleyford Publications Limited, 1963. Warplanes of the Third Reich, W. Green, Macdonald & Company Publishers Limited, 1972.

Ruud Deurenberg, 23 September 2000


Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Lavi

Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Lavi Introduction During the fifties and sixties the Tsvah Haganah Le Israel - Heyl Ha'Avir (Israel Defence Force/Air Force (IDF/AF)) relied on France for its combat aircraft. When, after the Six Day War (5 to 10 June 1967), France did not delivered the 50 Dassault Mirage 5Js Israel had ordered and paid for, Israel decided to develop its own combat aircraft. The first such attempt resulted in the Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Kfir (Lion Cub), a multi-role fighter developed from the Mirage 5, of which a total of 212 were produced. To replace the Kfir, Israel developed the Lavi (Young Lion).

Development Israel has been embroiled in more wars in recent times than any other nation, with the result that Israeli pilots are very combat experienced, and most likely to know exactly what they want in a fighter, within the constrains of affordability. When, in 1979, the Lavi programme was announced, a great deal of interest was aroused for these reasons. The Lavi programme was launched in February 1980 as a multi-role combat aircraft. The Lavi was intended primarly for the close air support (CAS) and battlefield air interdiction (BAI) mission with a secondary air-defence mission. The two-seat version could be used as a conversion trainer. As orginally conceived, the Lavi was to have been a light attack aircraft to replace the eldery McDonnell Douglas A4 Skyhawk, the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II and the IAI Kfir, remaining in service with the IDF/ AF. A single-seater, powered by a General Electric F404 turbofan, it was soon perceived that this solution gave no margin for future growth, and an alternative engine was choosen, the much more powerful Pratt & Whitney PW1120. With the extra power came demands for greater capability, until the Lavi began to rival the F-16, which was already in service with the IDF/AF. The full-scale development (FSD) phase of the Lavi began in October 1982. Orginally, the maximum take-off weight was projected as 17,000 kg, but studies showed that with only a few design changes, and thus a slight increase in weight, the Lavi could carry more armament. The prize was tried to kept at the same level. With a prospective IDF/AF requirement for up to 300 aircraft (including 60 combat-capable two-seaters), the full-scale development (FSD) phase was to involve five prototypes (B-01 to B-05) of which two, B-01 and B-02, were two-seaters and three, B-03, B-04, and B-05, were single-seaters. A full-scale mock-up of the Lavi was revealed at the beginning of 1985. The first Lavi which was rolled out was the Lavi B-02. The Lavi B-01 was not ready in time, because it was going through the final stages of the construction for the first flight. The Lavi B-02 looked good

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/lavi.html (1 of 14)2006-09-19 15:15:28


from the outside, but it was not fitted with avionics etc. The first Lavi (B-01) flew on 31 December 1986, piloted by IAI chief test pilot Menacachem Schmoll. The handling was described as excellent, with a high degree of stability in crosswind landings, and the flight test programme proceeded space. The second Lavi (B-02) flew on 30 March 1987. Both Lavi B-01 and Lavi B-02 were tandem two-seaters, with the rear cockpit occupied by test equipment and were not equipped with the full avionics fit and used mainly for aerodynamic testing. Then, on 30 August 1987, the Lavi programme was cancelled, after Lavi B-01 and Lavi B-02 had made more than 80 flights. The two prototypes had flown at speeds from 204 km/h up to Mach 1.45 at 23o angle of attack. Much systems, including the digital flight control, were tested within this envelope. The third Lavi (B-03) and subsequent Lavi prototypes (B-04 and B-05) would be fitted with the definitive wing with increased elevon chord and the last three prototypes would also have the complete mission-adaptive avionics system. Lavi B-04 and Lavi B-05 were just about to receive the definitive wing when the programme was cancelled. The first production aircraft were intended to be delivered in 1990 and initial operationaly capability (IOC) was planned for 1992. At the height of the production, a total of twelve aircraft would be produced in one month. The Lavi would have been the most inportant aircraft of the IDF/AF in the nineties.

Structure Comparisons with the Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon are inevitable, as the US fighter made a handy yardstick. The Lavi was rather smaller and lighter, with a less powerful powerplant, and the thrustto-weigth ratio was slightly lower across the board. The configuration adopted was that of a tail-less canard delta, although the wing was unusual in having shallow sweep on the trailing edge, giving a fleche planform. The straight leading edge was swept at 54 degrees, with manoeuvre flaps on the ourboard sections. The tips were cropped and fitted with missile rails to carry the Rafael Python 3 air-toair missile. Two piece flaperons occupied most of the trailing edge, which was blended into the fuselage with long fillets. The wing area was 38.50 square metres, 38 per cent greater than the wing area of the F16, giving an almost exactly proportionally lower wing loading, while the aspect ratio at 2.10, was barely two-thirds that of the F-16. Pitch control was provided by single piece, all-moving canard surfaces, located slightly astern of and below the pilot where they would cause minimal obstruction in vision. Grumman was responsible for the design and development of the wing and the fin, and would produced at least the first 20 wings and fins. Predictably, relaxed static stability and quadruplex fly-by-wire (FBW), with no mechanical backup was used, linked to nine different control surfaces to give a true control configured vehicle (CCV). In comparison with the F-16, the Lavi is very unstable, with an instability of 10 to 12 per cent. The surfaces were programmed to give minimum drag in all flight regimes, while providing optimum handling and http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/lavi.html (2 of 14)2006-09-19 15:15:28


agility. It was stated that the Lavi had an inherent direct lift control capablity, although this was never demonstrated. The powerplant intake was a plain chin type scoop, similar to that of the F-16, which was known to be satisfactory at high alpha and sideslip angles. The landing gear was lightweight, the nose wheel was located aft of the intake and retracting rearwards, and the main gear was fuselage mounted, giving a rather narrow track. The sharply swept vertical tail, effective at high alpha due to interaction with the vortices shed by the canards, was mounted on a spine on top of the rear fuselage, and supplemented by the two steeply canted ventral srakes, mounted on the ends of the wing root fillets. Extensive use of composites allowed aerolastic tailoring to the wings, so that the often conflicting demands of shape and rigidity could be resolved to minimise drag in all flight regimes. Composites were also used in the vertical tail, canards, and various doors and panels. A total of twenty-two per cent of the structural weight compromise composite materials. IAI claimed a significant reduction in radar cross section (RCS). Standard practice with high performance jet aircraft is to provide a second seat for conversion training by shoehorning it in, normally at the expense of fuel or avionics, or both. IAI adopted a different approach, designing the two-seater first, and then adopting it into a single-seater, which left plenty of room for avionics growth. In fact, the first 30 production aircraft would all have been two-seaters to aid service entry. Many of these aircraft were later to have been fitted out for the suppression of enemy airdefense (SEAD) mission.

Powerplant The powerplant of the Lavi was the Pratt & Whitney PW1120 turbofan, rated at 6,137 kg dry and 9,337 kg with reheat and was a derivate of the F100 turbofan. The development of the PW1120, according to IDF/AF specifications, started in June 1980. It retained the F100 core module, gearbox, fuel pump, forward ducts, as well as the F100 digital electronic control, with only minor modifications. Unique PW1120 components included a wide chord low pressure (LP) compressor, single-stage uncooled low pressure (LP) turbine, simplified single stream augmentor, and a lightweight convergent/divergent nozzle. Full scale testing was initiated in June 1982, and flight clearance of the PW1120 was tested in August 1984. The PW1120 had 70 per cent similarity with the F100, so the IDF/AF would not need a special facility for spare parts. It would be built under licence by Bet-Shemesh Engines Limited in Israel. IAI installed one PW1120 in the starboard nacelle of an F-4E-32-MC of the IDF/AF (Number 334/660327) to explore the airframe/powerplant combination for an upgrade programme of the F-4E, known as Kurnass 2000 (Heavy Hammer) or Super Phantom and to act as an engine testbed for the Lavi. The powerplant was more powerfull, and more fuel efficient than the General Electric J79-GE-17 turbojet normally installed in the F-4E. The structural changes included modifying the air inlet ducts, new powerplant attachment points, new or modified powerplant baydoors, new airframe mounted gearbox with integrated drive generators and automatic throttle system. It also included a modified bleed managment and air-conditioning ducting system, modified fuel and hydraulic systems, and a powerplant http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/lavi.html (3 of 14)2006-09-19 15:15:28


control/airframe interface. It was first flown on 30 July 1986. Two PW1120 powerplants were installed in the same F-4E and it was flown for the first time on 24 April 1987. This proved very succesfull, allowing the Kurnass 2000 to exceed Mach 1 without the afterburners, and endowing a combat thrust-toweight ratio of 1.04 (17 per cent better than the F-4E). This improved sustained turn rate by 15 per cent, climb rate by 36 per cent, medium-level acceleration by 27 per cent and low-level speed with 18 bombs from 1,046 km/h to 1,120 km/h. It was demonstrated at the Paris Air Show in 1987 carrying the show number 229 and civil registration 4X-JPA. However, McDonnell Douglas refused to approve the modification, because it offered a flight performance equal to that of the F/A-18C/D, and endangered any future sales of the F/A-18C/D. The internal fuel capacity was 3,330 litres (2,722 kg), some 16 per cent less than the F-16, although this was claimed to be offset by the low drag of the Lavi airframe and the low specific fuel consumption (sfc) of the powerplant. Single point high pressure refuelling was adopted for quick turnaround, and provision made for air refuelling with a female type receptable compatible with flying boom-equipped tankers. To aid the flight test programme, the Lavi prototypes were also equipped with bolt-on refuelling probes. The external fuel capacity was 4,164 kg in two 2,548 litre drop tanks on the inboard pair wing stations.

Specification of the Pratt & Whitney PW1120 Performance ratings (ISA, S/L): Static thrust: 6,137 kg. Augmented thrust: 9,337 kg. Mass flow: 80.9 kg. Pressure ratio: 26.8. Specific fuel consumption: Static thrust: 22.7 mg/Ns. Augmentd thrust: 52.65 mg/Ns. Dimensions: Length: 4,110 mm. Maximum diameter: 1,021 mm. Weights: Dry weight: 1,292 kg.

Systems The Lavi had an AiResearch enviromental control system for air-conditioning pressurisation, and powerplant bleed air control. A pneudralics bootstrap type hydraulic system with a pressure of 207 bars with Adex pumps was also installed. The electronical system was powered by a Sundstrand 60 kVA integrated drive generator, for single-channel AC power at 400 Hz, with a SAFT main and Marathon standby battery. Sundstrand also provided the actuation system, with geared rotory actuators, for the leading-edge flaps. The Lavi had an AiResearch emergency power unit (EPU) and a Garrett secondary power system.

Avionics



The avionics of the Lavi were modular - they could be upgraded by loading new software into the Elbit ACE-4 mission computer. The purpose was that the airframe would not require many modifications during its life. The avionics suite was stated to be almost enterely of Israeli design. The flexibility and the situational awarness were emphasised to reduce the pilot workload at high g and in a dense threat environment. The air data computer was provided by Astronautics. Most of the avionics of the Lavi had already been test flown in a Boeing Model 727 testbed of IAI.

The Cockpit A wrap around windshield and bubble canopy gave excellent all-round vision. But where a steeply raked seat and sidestick controller similar to the F-16 might have been excepted, IAI selected a conventional upright seat and central control column. The reasoning was as follows. The raked seat raised the pilot's knees, causing a reduction in panel space which could ill be spared while neck and shoulder strains were common in the F-16 when a pilot craned around in his steeply raked seat to search the sky astern while pulling high g. The sidestick controller was faulted on three counts: 1. It virtually neutralised the starboard console space. 2. With a force transducer it was difficult for an instructor pilot to know precisely what a pupil was trying to do. 3. In the event of quite a minor injury to the right arm, the pilot would not be able to recover the Lavi to its base. With a central stick, the Lavi could be flown left-handed with little difficulty. The cockpit layout was state of the art, with HOTAS (hands-on-throttle and stick), and a Hughes Aircraft wide-angle diffractive optics head-up-display (HUD) surmounting a single El-Op up-front control panel, through which most of the systems were operated. Furthermore, the cockpit had LCD technology powerplant indicators. Elbit Computers Ltd was selected as prime contractor for the integrated display system, which included the HUD, the three head-down diplays (HDD) (two of them were colour presentations and the third black and white), display computers, and communications controller, which included an Elta ARC-740 fully computerised onboard UHF radio system. Datasharing between the HDDs would ensure display redundancy. The navigation system included the Tuman TINS 1700 advanced inertial navigation system. Control-column, throttle and display keyboard were all encoded in the display computers, which would themselves had a back-up function to the main aircraft computer, the Elbit ACE-4.

Elbit ACE-4 Mission Computer The Elbit ACE-4 mission computer was selected for the IAI Lavi. It was compatible with both the MILSTD-1750A and MIl-STD-1553B standards and could be used for display, digital radar, stores managment and (future) avionics integration. It had a memory of 128 K.

Elta EL/M-2035 Multi-Mode Pulse Doppler Radar



The Elta EL/M-2035 multi-mode pulse-Doppler radar was a development of the Elta EL/M-2021B multimode Doppler radar of the IAI Kfir-C2. The radar was very advanced and had a coherent transmitter and a stable multi-channel receiver for reliable look-down performance over a broad band of frequencies and for high resolution mapping. An Elta programmable signal processor, backed by a distributed, embedded computer network, would provide optimum allocation of computing power and great flexibility for growth and the updating of algorithims and systems growth. The radar could provide speed and position of targets in the air and on the ground, and could provide the pilot with a map of the terrain the Lavi was overflying. It could track several targets at 46 km distance in at least five air-to-air modes (automatic target aquisition, boresight, look down, look up and track while scan (TWS)). The radar had at least two air-to-ground modes (beam-sharpened ground mapping/terrain avoidance ans sea search). After the cancellation of the Lavi programme the radar was offered for multirole fighter retrofits, including the Denel Cheetah E.

Elta/Elistra Electronic Warning System The electronic warning system of the Lavi was designed by Elta and Elistra and was based on an active and passive integrated electronic support measures/electronic countermeasures (ESM/ECM) computersystem, and was capable of rapid threat identification and automatic deception and jamming of enemy radar stations. It was carried internally. This system could also be used in the future eviroment of more sophisticated enemy radar systems. The Lavi could eventually carried podded power-managed noise and deception jammers.

Lear Siegler/MBT Fully Digital Flight Control System The Lear Siegler/MBT fully digital flight control system for the Lavi had quadruplex redundancy with stability augmentation, and had no mechanical backup. It compromised two boxes, with two digital channels built into each box. The twin-box configuration hinged on the survivability issue, which was given great emphasis. If one was damaged, the other would provided sufficient control authority to regain base. Each digital channel had associated with it an analogue channel that could have take over its function in the event of a failure. The design total failure rate was not greater than 1 in 107 hours. The programme was launched in October 1982, and production deliveries would began in 1988.

Elbit SMS-86 Stores Managment System Elbit was selected during early 1985 to develop the SMS-86 stores managment system for the Lavi. The system, which was fully computer-controlled, compromised two units. The stores managment processor included one MIL-STD-1750 computer and two MIL-STD-1553B data-bus interfaces. The armament interface unit included a stores interface compatible with the MIL-STD-1750. The SMS-86 was capable of managing both conventional and smart weapons.



Armament The weapons carriage of the Lavi was mainly semi-conformal, thus reducing drag, with two hardpoints beneath each wing (the inboard pair was wet for the carriage of two 2,548 litre auxilliary fuel tanks), plus the wingtip rail and seven underfuselage hardpoints (three tandem pairs plus one on the centreline). The main air-to-air weapon was to be the Rafael Python 3, an Israeli-designed short range infra-red (IR) homing dogfight air-to-air missile, while a DEFA Type 552 (Improved) cannon was housed in the starboard wing root. The air-to-ground weapons used by the Lavi included the Hughes AGM-65B Maverick, the IAI Gabriel IIIAS, rockets, and the Mk 81, Mk 82, Mk 83, Mk 84, and M117 bombs.

DEFA Type 552 (Improved) The DEFA 552 (Improved) is a single-barrel, five-chamber, revolver type automatic aircraft cannon with a high rate of fire (1,100 to 1,500 rounds per minute (rpm)). It is gas actuated, electrically controlled and fires electrically initiated 30 mm ammunition. The ammunition is belt fed from the left in the Lavi. The 30 mm DEFA 552 cannon arrived in Israel on the Dassault Mystere IVA fighters and it turned out to be a very effective cannon. Israel Military Industries (IMI) was able to get the licence rights to manufacture the cannon and it became very popular with the IDF/AF - it was used in the Dassault Mirage IIICJ, the IAI Kfir and the McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawk. In its present form, the modifications and improvements results from its extensive use in combat by the IDF/AF. The optional ammunitions for the DEFA Type 552 (Improved) can include: ● ● ● ● ●

Hard Core Projectile/Incendiary (AP/I). High Explosive/Incendiary (HE/I). Semi Armour Piercing/Incendiary/Tracer (SAP/I/T). Semi Armour Piercing/High Explosive Incendiary (SAP/HEI). Target Practice (TP).

Rafael Python 3 When the Shafrir 2 entered service with the IDF/AF in 1978, the engineers of Rafael started the development of the Python 3, driven by the desire for a larger warhead to increase lethality. A revised airframe with large, highly-swept wings was combined with a new pattern of infra-red (IR) seeker with a plus or minus 30 degree gimbal angle. The Python 3 has a weight of 120 kg and can be operated in boresight, imcaged or radar-slaved mode, and allows all-aspect attacks. The maximum speed is Mach 3.5, and the Python 3 can pull 40 g. The high-explosive (HE) warhead weights 11 kg and is detonated by an active laser fuze. By the time of the war in Lebanon in 1982, the Python 3 was in service with the http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/lavi.html (7 of 14)2006-09-19 15:15:28


IDF/AF, and played a major role in the succesful air battles against the Syrian air force over the Bekaa valley. It was credited with about 50 air-to-air victories. The Python 3 has been exported to China and South-Africa, and may be licence-built in China as the PL-8.

Hughes AGM-65B Maverick The AGM-65 was developed during the war in Vietnam as a replacement for the AGM-12 Bullpup. The AGM-65B weights 212 kg and has the advance of 'scene magnification', which enables it to be lockedon to the same target as an AGM-65A from twice the range. The maximum launch range depends on the size of the target. The maximum aerodynamic range is about 23 km, but a more realistic range is 15 km. The high-explosive shaped-charge warhead has a weight of 57 kg. The AGM-65B is white, with a clear seeker dome and has 'SCENE MAG' stenciled on its side.

IAI Gabriel IIIAS The Gabriel IIIAS is a radar-guided anti-ship missile and entered service with the IDF/AF in about 1985. The Gabriel IIIAS weights 560 kg, has a range of 33 km and has a 150 kg semi-armor piercing (SAP) warhead. It is powered by a solid-propellant rocket motor and is inertially guided at a radar altimetercontrolled altitude of 20 m, with the option of a midcourse update from the Lavi. In the terminal phase, the Gabriel IIIAS descends to strike the target at the waterline.

Bombs The Lavi could carry the Mk 80 series of bombs (113 kg Mk 81, 227 kg Mk 82, 454 kg Mk 83, and 907 kg Mk 84) with an explosive content of circa 50 per cent. The Mk 80 series are based on studies done by Douglas Aircaft in 1946. The production began during the Korean War (1950 to 1953), but the first saw first service in the Vietnam War (1965 to 1973). During the Vietnam War, the Mk 81 bomb was found to be ineffective, and the use was discontinued. A number of different fins can be fitted to the Mk 80 series. The low drag fins include the low drag, general purpose (LDGP) fin and the high drag fins include the air inflatable retard (AIR) fin and the Snakeye (SE) fin. The Korean War-vintage 340 kg M117 bomb has an explosive content of circa 65 per cent and was widely used during operation Desert Storm by the Boeing B-52G Stratofortress.

Lavi 2000 Shortly before the cancellation of the Lavi programme, it was proposed that the Israeli Ministery of Defence (MoD) would sponsor what was then termed the Lavi 2000, a new combat aircraft for the next century.

Cancellation http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/lavi.html (8 of 14)2006-09-19 15:15:28


The total cost for the development and production of the Lavi was 6,400 million US dollar in 1983 and approximately 40 per cent was paid by the US government. The fly-away price for the Lavi would be between 15 and 17 million US dollar. The development costs of 1,370 million US dollar were relatively low, because much use was made of existing technology. Even before the first Lavi (B-01) flew, the storm clouds were gathering. In 1983, the US government refused to give the export licences for a number of essential parts (for example the wings), because the parts provided high technology products. A total of 80 US firms would provide technology through licences. In 1984 the licences were awarded. Furthermore, the US government was not prepared to give money and technology to an aircraft that could be a major concurrent for the F-16C/D and the F/A-18C/ D on the future export market. In the spring of 1985, Israel was in an economic depression and the Lavi programme was almost cancelled. Then, a dispute arose as to the final unit cost, the Israeli figure being far less than the US calculations showed. The US Congress withdrew financial support for the Lavi programme. The Israeli government could not finance the project without US support and cancelled the Lavi programme on 30 August 1987. The vote was 12 to 11 to cancel the Lavi programme. After the cancellation the US government offered the A-10A, AH-64A, AV-8B, F-15I, F-16C/D and UH-60A as replacements for the Lavi, all Israeli wishes that were previously rejected. In May 1988, Israel ordered 30 F-16C Block 40 and 30 F-16D Block 40 under Peace Marble III. The Lavi programme was a truly national programme, and everyone in Israel followed the progression. The cancellation of the programme was a true sad event.

After the Cancellation Although the flight performance envelope was not completely explored, it seems probably that the Lavi would have been at least the equal of the F-16C/D in most departments, and possible even superior in some. It had been calculated that the Lavi could reef into a turn a full half second quicker than the F-16, simply because a conventional tailed fighter suffers a slight delay while the tailplane takes up a download, whereas with a canard fighter reaction is instantaneous. By the same token, pointability of canard fighters is quicker and more precise. Where the Lavi might really have scored heavely was in superconic manoeuvrability, basically due to the lower wave drag of a canard delta. It was orginally planned to use Lavi B-03, a two-seater, as a test vehicle for the Elta EL/M-2035 radar, the Elta/Elistra electronic warning (EW) system, the Elta ARC-740 fully computerised onboard UHF radio system, the Tuman TINS 1700 advanced inertial navigation system, the Elbit SMS-86 stores managment system, the Astronautics air data computer and many other avionics of indigenous design.



A clause included in the Israeli government's decision to cancel the Lavi programme on 30 August 1987 stated that the development of the third Lavi prototype (Lavi B-03) would continue under Israeli Ministery of Defence (MoD) funding to test the avionics fit of the Lavi. The intention was to satisfy the industry and allow for the future export of the systems of the LAvi as a complete package. However, the IDF/AF objected strongly and argued that the funds, about 90 million US dollar, were required for other programmes, such as the first stage definition for the upgrade of the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle of the IDF/AF. The MoD finally surrendered to pressure and on 8 July 1988 the Minister of Defence, Itschak Rabin, accepted the decision to wirthdraw the MoD's funding for the programme. In August 1988, Morshe Keret, IAI's general director, announced that IAI would use its own financial resources to produce the Lavi B-03, by using parts of either the Lavi B-01 or the Lavi B-02, and it had approximately 15 per cent larger elevons. The Lavi TD (Technology Demonstrator) carried a bellymounted instrumentation and a telemetry pod. The Lavi TD was rolled out after the cancellation of the Lavi programme. It was intended as a demonstrator for IAI's advanced fighter/cockpit technologies, which the company is applying by retrofit to a number of earlier combat aircraft, and as an equipment testbed. The Lavi TD has two Martin Baker Mk 10 lightweight zero/zero ejection seats. The maiden flight of the Lavi TD (B-03) slipped from March 1989 to 25 September 1989, when it made its maiden flight piloted by IAI chief test pilot Menacachem Schmoll from Ben Gurion International Airport, following several last minute delays. An immediate application involved the improved digital flight control system integrated with the advanced manoeuvre and attack system. In 1994, while it was still used as a flying testbed, it was planned to install a Global Positioning System (GPS) for navigation. In 1998, it was still used as a (non-flying) testbed. Some of the avionics of the Lavi have found operational applications. An Elta/Elistra electronic warning (EW) system, probably based on that designed for the Lavi, equip thirty of the sixty F-16C/Ds that were delivered to the IDF/AF from May 1991 onwards following the Minister of Defence's controversial decision on 27 November 1988 to split the order equally between Loral and Elta/Elistra. Lavi B-02 is on display at the IDF/AF Museum in Hatzerim. It does not have the powerplant installed, because it was removed for use in the Lavi TD (B-03). The PW1120 turbofan is not manufactured anymore, so IAI need it as long as it works. Lavi B-01, Lavi B-04 and Lavi B-05 were sold to the metal industry and were melted to aluminum blocks in 1996. The metal industry was not alowed to disassamble the aircraft or sell some of the parts. The event was well covered by the Israeli media. At the beginning of the nineties there were rumours that Israel had delivered a Lavi to South Africa. The Chinese Chengdu J-10 (F-10) seems to draw heavely on the Lavi programme. However, a close examination of the model of the J-10 shows nothing more than an old technology fighter with the shape of a modern one. A prototype was in the final stage of construction at the end of 1997 and Israeli and Russian companies were competing to provide the radar and the associate air-to-air missiles and air-tohttp://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/lavi.html (10 of 14)2006-09-19 15:15:28


ground weapons. The J-10 made its maiden flight on 24 March 1998.

Flight Experience An editor of Flight International flew the Lavi during 1989, and published his experiences of the flight in 1991 during operation Desert Storm. He wrote: Now when the coalition forces fight in the Gulf they miss the aircraft they really need. It's a real shame that I had to fly the world's best fighter knowing it would never get into service.

Serials of the Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Lavi B-01

Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Lavi First flight on 31 December 1986 Sold to metal industry and melted to aluminum blocks in 1996

B-02

Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Lavi First flight on 30 March 1987 On display at the IDF/AF Museum in Hatzerim

B-03

Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Lavi TD Completed by using parts of either Lavi B-01 or Lavi B-02 Had approximately 15 per cent larger elevons First flight on 25 September 1989 Still flying in 1994 Still used as a (non-flying) testbed in 1998

B-04

Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Lavi Never completed Sold to metal industry and melted to aluminum blocks in 1996



B-05

Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Lavi Never completed Sold to metal industry and melted to aluminum blocks in 1996

Specification of the Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Lavi Type: Single-seat multi-role fighter and two-seat conversion trainer. Powerplant: One Pratt & Whitney PW1120 afterburning turbofan rated at 6,137 kg dry and 9,337 kg with reheat. Fuel capacity: Internal fuel capacity: 3,330 litres (2,722 kg). Internal fuel fraction: 0.24. External fuel capacity: 4,164 kg in two 2,548 litre drop tanks. Performance: Maximum speed: 1,965 km/h at 10,975 m with 50 per cent internal fuel and two Python 3 air-toair missiles, 1,482 km/h above 11,000 m on a CAS mission, 1,106 km/h with two 907 kg Mk 84 bombs and two Python 3 air-to-air missiles and 997 km/h at sea level with eight 340 kg M117 bombs and two Python 3 air-to-air missiles. Rotation speed: 259 km/h. Climb rate: > 254 m/s. Service ceiling: 15,239 m. Combat radius: 2,131 km on a hi-lo-hi mission with two 454 kg Mk 84 bombs or six 227 kg Mk 82 bombs, 1,853 km on a CAP with four Python 3 air-to-air missiles and 1,112 km on a lo-lo-lo mission with eight 340 kg M117 bombs and two Python 3 air-to-air missiles. Thrust-to-weight ratio: 0.94 at normal take-off weight. Wing loading: 302 kg/m2 at normal take-off weight and 523 kg/m2 at maximum take-off weight. Sustained air turning rate: 13.2o/s at Mach 0.8 at 4,757 m. Maximum air turning rate: 24.3o/s at Mach 0.8 at 4,757 m. Maximum rate of roll: 300o/s. Take-off distance: 305 m at maximum take-off weight. G limit: + 9 g (Lavi) and + 7.2 g (Lavi TD). Dimensions: Wingspan: 8.78 m. Length: 14.57 m. Height: 4.78 m. Wing area: 33.05 m2 excluding canards and 38.50 m2 including canards. Aspect ratio: 1.83 excluding canards and 2.10 including canards. Wheel track: 2.31 m. Wheel base: 3.86 m. Weights: Empty weight: 7,031 kg. Normal take-off weight: 9,991 kg. Maximum take-off weight; 19,277 kg. Armament: One internally mounted 30 mm DEFA Type 552 (Improved) cannon, with helmet sight, and four Rafael Python 3 air-to-air missiles. Maximum external load: 7,257 kg between seven underfuselage stations (three tandem pairs plus one one centreline), four underwing stations (the inboard pair wet for the carriage of two 2,584 litre auxilliary fuel tanks), and two wingtip stations for the Rafael Python 3 air-to-air missile. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/lavi.html (12 of 14)2006-09-19 15:15:28


Sources ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ● ●

Air Forces Montly - November 1989 (Number 20), News...News, D. Oliver, Key Publishing Limited, Stamford, United Kingdom, 1989. Air Forces Montly - December 1989 (Number 21), News...News, D. Oliver, Key Publishing Limited, Stamford, United Kingdom, 1989. Air Forces Montly - March 1990 (Number 24), News...News, D. Oliver, Key Publishing Limited, Stamford, United Kingdom, 1990. AIR International - September 1988 (Volume 35, Number 3), Airscene, William Green, Pilot Press Limited, London, United Kingdom, 1988. AIR International - July 1994 (Volume 47, Number 1), Fighter radars for the '90s, D. Richardson, Key Publishing Limited, Stamford, United Kingdom, 1994. AIR International - October 1993 (Volume 45, Number 4), Air-to-Air Missile Directory, D. Richardson and P. Butowski, Key Publishing Limited, Stamford, United Kingdom, 1993. Comparative Politics, April 1987 (Volume 19), Large-Scale National Projects as Public Symbols, G. Steinberg. Designed for the Kill - The Jet Fighter - Development & Experience, M. Spick, Airlife Publishing Limited, Shrewsbury, United Kingdon, 1995. E-mail form Tsahi Ben-Ami ([email protected]), Jerusalem, Israel. E-mail from Lieven Dewitte ([email protected]), Belgium. Encyclopedia of World Military Aircraft - Single Volume Edition, D. Donald and J. Lake, Aerospace Publishing Limited, London, United Kingdom, 1996, Fighter 2000 - Die Kampfflugzeuge der Zukunft, B. Gunston, Podzun-Pallas Verlag GmbH, Friedberg, Germany, 1987. Flight International - 28 October - 4 November 1997 (Volume 152, Number 4598), Military Aircraft of the World, D. Barrie and G. Warwick, Reed Business Publishing, Sutton, United Kingdom, 1997. Flight of the Lavi - Inside a U.S. - Israeli Crisis, D. Zakheim, Brassey's Incorporated, Washington, United States of America, 1996. Flugzeugtypen der Welt - Modelle - Technik - Daten, D. Donald, Bechterm•nz Verlag im Weltbild Verlag GmbH, Augsburg, Germany, 1997. Jane's Civil and Military Aircraft Upgrades 1994-95 (Second edition), S. Michell Jane's Information Group Limited, Surrey, United Kingdom, 1994. Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1990-91 (Eighty-first edition), M. Lambert, Jane's Information Group Limited, Surrey, United Kingdom, 1990. Jane's Avionics 1985 - 86 (Fourth edition), M. Wilson, Jane's Publishing Company, London, United Kingdom, 1985. Luchtvaart 1986, B. van der Klaauw, De Alk B.V., Alkmaar, the Netherlands, 1985. Luchtvaart 1989, B. van der Klaauw, De Alk B.V., Alkmaar, the Netherlands, 1988. Luchtvaart - oktober 1985 (2de Jaargang, Nummer 10), Lavi - Haalt deze jonge Israelische leeuw de jaren negentig?, R. van Druenen, Ten Brink Meppel B.V., Meppel, the Netherlands, 1985.


Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Lavi ●

● ●

●

●

● ●

●

● ●

McDonnell F-4 Phantom - Spirit in the Skies - The definitive reference work on the world's greatest jet fighter, J. Lake, Aerospace Publishing Limited, London, United Kingdom, 1995. Midstream, November 1987, Lessons of the Lavi, G. Steinberg. Military Technology, October 1986, Lavi Bares Its Teeth, G. Clark, Monch Publishing Group, Bonn, Germany, 1986. Military technology, October 1987, C' Etait Lavi, T. Guest, Monch Publishing Group, Bonn, Germany, 1987. Observers Aircraft - 1987 edition (36th edition), W. Green, Penguin Books Limited, Harmondsworth, United Kingdom, 1987. Rising Regional Powers, T. Hoyt, John Hopkins University, 1996. The Complete Book of Fighters - An illustrated encyclopedia of every fighter aircraft ever built and flown, W. Green and G. Swanborough, Salamander Books Limited, London, United Kinghdom, 1994. The Encyclopedia og World Aircraft - The development and specifications of over 2500 civil and military aircraft, D. Donald, Blitz Editions, Enderby, United Kingdom, 1997. The Israeli Arms Industry, S. Reiser, Holmes & Meier, 1989. The New Observer's Book of Aircraft - 1986 edition (35th edition), W. Green, Frederick Warne (Publishers) Limited, London, United Kingdom, 1986.

Ruud Deurenberg, 12 July 1998


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/japcodei.html

1. Allied Code Names for Japanese World War II Aircraft

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/japcodei.html2006-09-19 15:15:55

Allied Code Names for...

Allied Code Names for Japanese World War II Aircraft Someone requested that a list of Allied code names for Japanese aircraft used during the Second World War be posted. Ask and ye shall receive! Enjoy! The code name system for Japanese aircraft originated in the Southwest Pacific theatre in the second half of 1942. Before Pearl Harbor, very little was known about Japanese military aircraft of any type, and it was widely assumed that most Japanese military aircraft were second-rate copies of obsolescent Western designs. It goes without saying that the first six months of the Pacific War showed just how wrong that view was! The Allies were thus faced with a desperate need for accurate, up-to-date intelligence on the Japanese aircraft which were at that time riding roughshod over the entire Pacific theatre of operations. In June, 1942 Captain Frank T. McCoy of Nashville, Tennessee became head of the Material Section of the Directorate of Intelligence of the allied air forces in the entire Southwest Pacific area. His team was assigned the task of identifying and classifying Japanese aircraft. Since Captain McCoy was from Tennessee, he initially assigned hillbilly names such as ZEKE, RUFE, NATE, and JAKE to Japanese aircraft --- chosen so that they were short, simple, unusual, and easy to remember. 75 code names were assigned the first month. By September 1942, these names were in wide use throughout the entire Southwest Pacific. Shortly thereafter, they went into use throughout the entire Pacific. These odd-sounding code names soon attracted attention from high-ranking military brass. Captain McCoy assigned to what later turned out to be a modified Zero the code name HAP, the nickname of General Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold, USAAF Chief of Staff. The General was not amused, and had Capt McCoy summoned before General MacArthur's chief of operations to explain what he was up to. Captain McCoy seems to have gotten himself out of this particular jam, but the name HAP was quietly changed to HAMP. In the summer of 1944, a joint Army-Navy Air Technical Center in Washington took over responsibility for assigning the names. The code names were alloted according to the following system: Male first names: Fighters and reconnaissance seaplanes Female first names:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/japcode.html (1 of 11)2006-09-19 15:16:00


bombers, attack bombers, dive bombers, reconnaissance aircraft, flying boats, transports (names beginning with letter T). Tree names: Trainers Bird names: Gliders However, there were some exceptions to the rule. The Ki-44 Shoki single-seat fighter was assigned the name TOJO. Here is a list of code names. Supposedly it is complete, but I would appreciate being informed of any omissions.

Allied code names for japanese aircraft ABDUL Nakajima Ki-27 Army single-seat fighter serving in CBI theatre. Duplicate of NATE in Southwest Pacific. After 1943, code name NATE was used exclusively. ADAM "Nakajima STK-97" Nonexistent fighter seaplane ALF Kawanishi E7K Navy single-engined reconnaissance biplane seaplane. ANN Mitsubishi Ki-30 Army single-engined light bomber. BABS Mitsubishi Ki-15/C5M Army/Navy single-engined reconnaissance aircraft. BAKA Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka Navy rocket-powered suicide Ohka (Cherry Blossom) attacker. BELLE Kawanishi H3K1 Navy biplane flying boat BEN "Nagoya-Sento KI-001" Did not exist. BEN Mitsubishi A6M Reisen http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/japcode.html (2 of 11)2006-09-19 15:16:00


Name briefly assigned to Zero in CBI theatre. BESS Heinkel He 111 Erroneously believed to being built under license in Japan. BETTY Mitsubishi G4M Navy twin-engined land-based attack bomber. BOB Aichi Type 97 Navy recon seaplane - did not exist. BOB Kawasaki Ki-28 Erroneously believed to be in production as fighter. BUZZARD Kokusai Ku-7 Manazuru (Crane) Army transport glider. CEDAR Tachikawa Ki-17 Army single-engined two-seat biplane primary trainer. CHERRY Yokosuka H5Y Navy flying boat. CLARA Tachikawa Ki-70 Army command reconnaissance aircraft. CLAUDE Mitsubishi A5M Navy carrier-based single-seat fighter. CYPRESS Kyushu K9W Navy primary trainer. DAVE Nakajima E8N Navy two-seat reconnaissance seaplane biplane. DICK Seversky A8V1 Seversky 2PA-B3 purchased from USA and operated as two-seat Navy land-based fighters. DINAH Mitsubishi Ki-46 Army twin-engined reconnaissance and interceptor aircraft. DOC Messerschmitt Bf 110 German twin-engined fighter erroneously believed to be in service in Japan. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/japcode.html (3 of 11)2006-09-19 15:16:00


DORIS Mitsubishi B-97 Medium bomber --- did not exist. DOT Yokosuka D4Y Carrier-based dive bomber --- duplicate of JUDY. EDNA Mansyu Ki-71 Army experimental single-engined two-seat tactical reconnaissance aircraft. Development of Mitsubishi Ki-51. EMILY Kawanishi H8K Navy four-engined long-range reconnaissance flying boat EVA (EVE) Mitsubishi Ohtori Erroneously believed to be a bomber. FRANCES Yokosuka P1Y Ginga (Milky Way) Navy land-based twin-engined light bomber / night fighter. FRANK "Mitsubishi TK-4" Fictional twin-engined fighter. Name later applied to Nakajima Ki-84. FRANK Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate (Gale) Single-seat Army fighter. FRED Focke-Wulf FW 190A-5 Erroneously believed to be in service in Japan. GANDER Kokusai Ku-8 Army transport glider. Formerly named GOOSE. GEORGE Kawanishi N1K Shiden (Violet Lightning) Navy single-seat land-based interceptor-fighter. GLEN Yokosuka E14Y Navy single-engined reconnaissance seaplane GOOSE Kokusai Ku-8 Army transport glider. Named changed to GANDER. GRACE Aichi B7A Ryusei (Shooting Star) Navy single-engined carrier-based attack bomber. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/japcode.html (4 of 11)2006-09-19 15:16:00


GUS "Nakajima AT-27" Fictional twin-engined fighter. GWEN Mitsubishi Ki-21-IIb Army heavy bomber - name later changed to SALLY III. HAMP Mitsubishi A6M3 Navy carrier-based fighter. First named HAP, then HAMP, then finally ZERO 32. HANK Aichi E10A Navy reconnaissance seaplane. HELEN Nakajima Ki-49 Donryu (Storm Dragon) Army twin-engined heavy bomber. HICKORY Tachikawa Ki-54 Army twin-engined advanced crew trainer and light transport. IDA Tachikawa Ki-55 and Ki-36 Army single engined two-seat monoplane trainer and army cooperation aircraft. IONE "Aichi AI-104" Nonexistent reconnaissance seaplane. IRENE Junkers Ju 87A German single-engine dive bomber erroneously believed to be in service with Japanese army. IRVING Nakajima J1N Gekko (Moonlight) Navy twin-engined land-based night fighter and reconnaissance aircraft. JACK Mitsubishi J2M Raiden (Thunderbolt) Navy single-seat land-based interceptor. JAKE Aichi E13A Navy single-engined reconnaissance seaplane. JANE Mitsubishi Ki-21 Army heavy bomber - Name later changed to SALLY. JANICE Junkers Ju 88A-5 German light bomber erroneously believed to be in service in Japan. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/japcode.html (5 of 11)2006-09-19 15:16:00


JEAN Yokosuka B4Y Navy carrier-based single-engined attack bomber biplane. JERRY Heinkel A7He1 Heinkel He 112B-0 in service in Japan as Navy land-based fighter. JILL Nakajima B6N Tenzan (Heavenly Mountain) Navy single-engined carrier-based attack bomber. JIM Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa Army single-seat fighter - name later changed to OSCAR. JOE "TK-19" Fictional single-seat fighter. JOYCE Misidentified HICKORY. Believed to be a light bomber version of Tachikawa Ki-54. JUDY Yokosuka D4Y Suisei (Comet) Navy carrier-based single-engined dive bomber. JULIA Misidentified LILY. Believed to be a heavy bomber. JUNE Misidentified JAKE. Believed to be a floatplane version of VAL. KATE Nakajima B5N Navy single-engined carrier-based attack bomber LAURA Aichi E11A Navy reconnaissance seaplane. LILY Kawasaki Ki-48 Army twin-engined light bomber. LIZ Nakajima G5N Shinzan (Mountain Recess) Navy four-engined attack bomber operated as freight transport. LORNA Kyushu Q1W Tokai (Eastern Sea) Navy twin-engined land-based patrol aircraft. LOUISE Mitsubishi Ki-2 Army twin-engined light bomber. LUKE Mitsubishi J4M Senden http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/japcode.html (6 of 11)2006-09-19 15:16:00


Navy interceptor. MABEL Mitsubishi B5M Carrier-based attack bomber. Name later changed to KATE 61. MARY Kawasaki Ki-32 Army single-engined, two-seat light bomber. MAVIS Kawanishi H6K Navy four-engined maritime reconnaissance flying boat. MIKE Messerschmitt Bf 109E German fighter erroneously believed to be in service in Japan. MILLIE Vultee V-11GB Erroneously believed to be in production by Showa in Japan. MYRT Nakajima C6N Saiun (Painted Cloud) Navy single-engined carrier-based reconnaissance aircraft. NATE Nakajima Ki-27 Army single-seat fighter. Name initially used only in Southwest Pacific theatre, whereas the same plane was called ABDUL in CBI theatre. From 1943 onward used name NATE exclusively. NELL Mitsubishi G3M Navy land-based twin-engined attack bomber. NICK Kawasaki Ki-45 Toryu (Dragon Killer) Army two-seat, twin-engined fighter. NORM Kawanishi E15K Shiun (Violet Cloud) Navy single-engined high-speed reconnaissance seaplane. NORMA Misidentified BABS. Believed to be a light bomber. OAK Kyushu K10W Navy intermediate trainer. License-built North American NA-16. OMAR "Suzukaze 20". Fictional twin-engined fighter. OSCAR Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa (Peregrine Falcon) Army single-seat fighter - known for a time in CBI theatre as JIM. PAT http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/japcode.html (7 of 11)2006-09-19 15:16:00


Tachikawa Ki-74 Erroneously believed to be a long-range fighter. Name changed to PATSY when true role of bomber became known. PATSY Tachikawa Ki-74 Army experimental long-range, high-altitude reconnaissance bomber. PAUL Aichi E16A Zuiun (Auspicious Cloud) Navy single-engined reconnaissance seaplane. PEGGY Mitsubishi Ki-67 Hiryu (Flying Dragon) Army twin-engined heavy bomber PERRY Kawasaki Ki-10 Army single-seat biplane fighter. Relegated to training roles by beginning of Pacific War. PETE Mitsubishi F1M Navy single-engined observation biplane seaplane. PINE Mitsubishi K3M Navy single-engined crew trainer. RANDY Kawasaki Ki-102b Army twin-engined assault plane. RAY Mitsubishi A6M Reisen (Zero Fighter) Name briefly assigned to Zero in CBI theatre. REX Kawanishi N1K Kyofu (Mighty Wind) Navy single-engined seaplane fighter. RITA Nakajima G8N Renzan (Mountain Range) Navy land-based four-engined attack bomber. ROB Kawasaki Ki-64 Experimental Army single-seat fighter. RUFE Nakajima A6M2-N Seaplane fighter version of Mitsubishi A6M2 Reisen. RUTH Fiat BR-20 Italian-built heavy bomber in Japanese service. SALLY http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/japcode.html (8 of 11)2006-09-19 15:16:00


Mitsubishi Ki-21 Army twin-engined heavy bomber. Formerly named JANE. SAM Mitsubishi A7M Reppu (Hurricane) Navy single-seat carrier-based fighter. SANDY Mitsubishi A5M Navy carrier-based fighter. Name given to a non-existent inverted-gull wing version of CLAUDE. SLIM Watanabe E9W Navy Reconnaissance Seaplane. SONIA Mitsubishi Ki-51 Army two-seat, single-engined assault aircraft. SPRUCE Tachikawa Ki-9 Army medium-grade two-seat single-engined biplane trainer. STELLA Kokusai Ki-76 Army single-engined command liaison aircraft. Generally similar to Fieseler Fi 156 Storch but not a copy. STEVE Mitsubishi Ki-72 Army experimental twin-engined fighter. SUSIE Aichi D1A Navy single-engined carrier-based biplane dive bomber. TABBY Showa/Nakajima L2D Navy land-based twin-engined transport. License-built version of Douglas DC-3. TESS Douglas DC-2 License-built DC-2s, erroneously believed to be in widespread use by Japanese Navy. THALIA Kawasaki Ki-56 Army twin-engined transport. Japanese-built adaptation of Lockheed Model 14-WG3. THELMA Tachikawa/Kawasaki Type LO Twin-engined Army transport. License built version of Lockheed Model 14. THERESA Kokusai Ki-59 http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/japcode.html (9 of 11)2006-09-19 15:16:00


Army twin-engined light personnel transport. THORA Nakajima Ki-34/L1N Army/Navy twin-engined transport. TINA Mitsubishi Ki-33 Army transport - misidentified Yokosuka L3Y transport version of G3M attack bomber. TILLIE Yokosuka H7Y Navy experimental flying boat. TOBY Lockheed 14 Commercial Lockheed 14s used by Japan during Pacific War. TOJO Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki (Devil-Queller) Army single-seat fighter. TONY Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien (Swallow) Army single-seat fighter. TOPSY Mitsubishi Ki-57/L4M Army/Navy twin-engine transport. TRIXIE Junkers Ju 52/3m German trimotor transport, erroneously believed to be in service in Japan. TRUDY Focke-Wulf Fw 200 German four-engined maritime reconnaissance aircraft, erroneously believed to be in service in Japan. VAL Aichi D3A Navy single-engined two-seat carrier-based dive bomber. WILLOW Yokosuka K5Y Navy intermediate trainer biplane. ZEKE Mitsubishi A6M Reisen (Zero Fighter) Navy single-engined carrier-based fighter.

Source: 1. Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979.



Joe Baugher


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6mi.html

1. Mitsubishi A6M Zero Fighter 1. A6M1 2. A6M2 3. A6M2-N "Rufe" 4. A6M2-K two-seat trainer 5. A6M3 "Hap" 6. A6M4 7. A6M5 8. A6M5a 9. A6M5b 10. A6M5c 11. A6M5-K two-seat trainer 12. A6M6c 13. A6M7 dive bomber 14. A6M8 15. Sources:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6mi.html2006-09-19 15:16:12

Mitsubishi A6M Zero Fighter

Mitsubishi A6M Zero Fighter A6M1 The Mitsubishi A6M Zero Fighter was the finest shipboard fighter in the world during the first year of the Pacific War. It was the first shipboard fighter capable of defeating its land-based opponents. Its world-wide fame was won in a series of astounding victories against all types of land-based and carrierbased Allied aircraft during the first six months after Pearl Harbor. It took part in every major action in which the Japanese Navy was involved, from Pearl Harbor all the way to the final B-29 assault on Japan. It became a legend in its own time for its extremely good maneuverability and its exceptionally long range. Even today, the Zero remains for the Japanese and their erstwhile enemies alike the symbol of Japanese air power during the Pacific War. Despite the fact that it was largely obsolescent by mid-1943, it remained in production until the end of the war. More Zeros were built than any other type of Japanese aircraft, a total of 10,449 being built at Mitsubishi and Nakajima factories. In 1937, the Japanese Navy had just introduced the Navy Type 96 Carrier Fighter (Mitsubishi A5M, later known to the Allies under the code name CLAUDE) into service, but they were already looking to design its successor. On May 19, 1937, preliminary specifications for a Navy Experimental 12-Shi Carrier Fighter were submitted to both Mitsubishi and Nakajima. The number 12 indicated that the specification had been issued in the twelfth year of Showa, as the reign of Emperor Hirohito was known. The Mitsubishi Jukogyu K.K. (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Co Ltd) was a highly-integrated conglomerate of shipbuilding, airframe and engine manufacturing plants, with facilities located in a dozen different locations in Japan. A team led by chief engineer Jiro Horikoshi was assigned by Mitsubishi to work on the project. In October 1937, in light of combat reports coming from China, the Japanese Navy issued a revised set of specifications. These called for a maximum speed of 310 mph at 13,100 feet, a climb to 9800 feet in 3.5 minutes, an endurance of 1.5-2.0 hours at normal rated power or 6 to 8 hours at economical cruising speed, and an armament of two 20-mm cannon and two 7.7-mm machine guns. A complete set of radio equipment had to be carried, including a radio direction finder. The maneuverability had to be at least the equal of the Mitsubishi A5M. Nakajima thought these requirements to be completely unrealistic and pulled out of the competition on January 17, 1938. This left Mitsubish alone to try and meet the requirements of the 12-Shi project. The design team headed by Jiro Horikoshi came up with a cantilever low-winged monoplane with a fully-retractable landing gear. The pilot was housed underneath a large transparent canopy with an excellent view both forward and aft. It was powered by a Mitsubishi Zuisei 13 (Auspicious Star) fourteen-cylinder, twin-row air-cooled radial engine, rated at 780 hp for takeoff and 875 hp at 11,810 http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html (1 of 18)2006-09-19 15:16:22


feet. This engine was later known under the unified JNAF/JAAF designation scheme as the Ha.31/13. This engine was selected because of its light weight and small diameter, even though Horikoshi had actually favored the more powerful Mitsubishi Kinsei 46. The engine was to drive a two-bladed variablepitch propeller. Careful attention was paid to weight savings, and a new special aluminum alloy developed by Sumimoto was adopted. The mockup was inspected on April 17 and July 11, 1938, and changes recommended were progressively incorporated into the design. The first prototype was completed on March 16, 1939 at Mitsubishi's Nagoya plant. It was armed with two 7.7 mm Type 97 machine guns in the upper fuselage decking and two wing-mounted 20-mm Type 99 cannon. The aircraft was transferred to the Army's training airfield at Kagamigahara for flight testing. The aircraft took off on its first test flight on April 1, 1939 with test pilot Katsuzo Shima at the controls. The test was highly successful, the only problems noted being with the wheel brakes, the oil system and a slight tendency to vibrate. During the flight test program, the two-bladed variable-pitch propeller was replaced by a three-bladed constant speed propeller in an attempt to correct the vibration problem. The prototype was accepted by the Navy on September 14, 1939 as the A6M1 Carrier Fighter. In the meantime, a second prototype was completed and passed its manufacturer's flight tests on October 18, 1939, and was delivered to the Navy one week later.

A6M2 The speed of the A6M1 was 305 mph at 12,470 feet, which was slightly below the requirement, so on May 1, 1939, the Navy ordered Mitsubishi to install the Nakajima NK1C Sakae 12 (Prosperity) engine in the third prototype and subsequent aircraft. The Sakae 12 (Ha.35/12) engine was also a fourteencylinder twin-row air-cooled radial and was only slightly larger and heavier than the Zuisei despite its higher power. Mitsubishi was somewhat reluctant to do this, since the Sakae engine was a competitor's product. The re-engined aircraft was designated A6M2. The first Sakae-powered A6M2 began flight testing on December 28, 1939. The aircraft's performance exceeded the Navy's most optimistic expectation, amply exceeding the original performance requirements which had been thought to be impossible only a few months earlier. Production of an initial service test batch of A6M2s began, and initial flight trials were completed in July of 1940. On July 31, the aircraft was formally accepted for production as the Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 11. The popular name was Reisen (which was an abbreviation for Rei Sentoki, or Zero Fighter), so chosen for its type number which was 0, standing for the last digit of the current Japanese year, which was 2600 in the Japanese calendar. On July 21, 1940 the Japanese Navy decided to assign 15 pre-production A6M2s to the 12th Rengo http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html (2 of 18)2006-09-19 15:16:22


Kokutai (12th Combined Naval Air Corps) for combat trials in China. In China, the A6M2 entered combat for the first time on August 19, 1940, when 12 A6M2s escorted 50 G3M2 bombers in a bombing raid over Chungking, but no enemy fighters were encountered. The Zero Fighter drew first blood on September 13, 1940 when thirteen A6M2s led by Lt Saburo Shindo attacked a force of 27 Chinesepiloted Polikarkpov I-15s and I-16s, shooting down all the Chinese aircraft with no Japanese losses. The pre-production Zero Fighters were later joined by the initial production A6M2s. In the next few months, they destroyed 99 Chinese aircraft for the loss of only two of their own to ground fire. After over a year of use in China not one Reisen had been captured or inspected by either Chinese or American observers. Claire E. Chennault, who was a retired USAAC officer attempting to reorganize the demoralized Chinese air force, took note of this new Japanese fighter and attempted to warn the USAAF of the Zero's capabilities, but his warning was ignored and the Zero remained largely unknown in the West. The second A6M1 crashed on March 11, 1940 when it disintegrated in midair during a test flight, the pilot being killed. Although the actual cause of this accident was never fully determined, it was thought that a wing spar might have failed. Consequently, beginning with the 22nd A6M2, a reinforcement of the rear wing spar was introduced. Beginning with the 65th aircraft, manually upward-folding wingtips (about 20 inches long) were incorporated so that the Reisen could fit the deck elevators of the Imperial Navy's aircraft carriers. This modification resulted in a change of designation to Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 21. The next modification affected the aileron tab balance. Beginning with the 128th Reisen, the aileron tab balance was linked to the landing gear retraction mechanism to improve high-speed control by reducing stick forces. In order to correct an aileron flutter problem, a modified aileron tab balance was incorporated on the 192nd and subsequent A6M2. In November 1941 the Nakajima Hikoki K.K. was instructed to begin producing the Model 21 at its Koizumi plant. This must have been especially irritating for the Nakajima company, since less than three years earlier it had thought that the Zero Fighter had been impossible to design. When the Pacific War began on December 7, 1941, The Japanese Navy had over four hundred Zeros in service, most of them Model 21s. At Pearl Harbor, Zero Fighters flying off the carriers escorted the B5N2 torpedo bombers and D3A1 dive bombers in the first strike, and they strafed military airfields, anti-aircraft positions, and other ground installations. The Zeros caused considerable havoc on the ground at Pearl Harbor, while destroying four US aircraft in the air. Eight A6M2 fighters were lost during the raid, most of them to anti-aircraft fire. During the first year of the Pacific War, the standard shipboard fighter serving with the US Navy was http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html (3 of 18)2006-09-19 15:16:22


the Grumman F4F Wildcat. The A6M2 was superior to the F4F Wildcat in speed, climb rate, and maneuverability, but the Wildcat had better firepower and was more robust. In a dive the two aircraft were fairly equal, but the turning circle of the Zero Fighter was very much smaller than that of the Wildcat by virtue of its lower wing loadings. In the first Japanese attack on Wake Island on December 8, eight Wildcats were destroyed on the ground. The remaining Wildcats fought courageously for two weeks, breaking up a number of air attacks and turning back one seaborne invasion attempt. However, they were overwhelmed by superior Japanese forces and the last two Wildcats were destroyed on December 22. By the time of the Battle of Midway in June 1942, Wildcat pilots had evolved tactics to deal with the superior performance of the Zero. One of these was the "Thatch Weave", named for LtCmdr John S. Thatch, commander of VF-3. In this maneuver, two Wildcats would criss-cross back and forth, each one alternately covering the other's tail. Whenever possible Wildcat pilots tried to get above their opponents, so that they could then dive through the enemy formation in a firing pass, continuing their dive until they were able to zoom-climb back up to a favorable altitude for another attack. Efforts were made to avoid close-in dogfights, where the Zero clearly had the advantage. The initial attack on the Philippines was staged by bombers and fighters based in southern Formosa. The range performance of the Zero was such that the attacking planes must have come from aircraft carriers. On December 8, 54 G4M1s and 54 G3M2s escorted by 84 A6M2s staged a raid on Clark Field. Even though Pearl Harbor had been attacked the day before, the American aircraft were still not yet dispersed and few American fighters were up in the air. Total surprise was achieved and 15 US aircraft were destroyed in the air and fifty aircraft destroyed on the ground, essentially crippling US air power in the Philippines in a single day. The first US aircraft shot down over the Philippines was a Curtiss P-40, destroyed that day by a Zero flown by Petty Officer Saboro Sakai. This was his third kill, Sakai having gotten two aircraft in China. Sakai show down the first B-17 two days later. By December 13, the US air forces were essentially gone, and the A6M2s reverted to strafing and ground support. The Zero had established air superiority in only three days. The Zero Fighter achieved perhaps its greatest success in the Duch East Indies campaign. In about three months, a force of 200 A6M2s defeated all comers, including Brewster Model 339 Buffaloes, CurtissWright CW-21Bs, Curtiss Hawk 75A-7s, and Curtiss P-40s that were thrown against it by the Dutch, British, American, and Australian forces. These fighters were no match for the Reisens, and on March 8, 1942 the Dutch were forced to capitulate. The Zeros then turned towards New Guinea and the Solomons. During this campaign, the Reisen consistently mastered the Curtiss P-40s and the Bell P-39s and P-400s that the Allies threw against them. The Airacobra was no match for the Zero in air-to-air combat, and Saburo Sakai regarded the P-39 as a relatively easy "kill" for a pilot of any experience. The only bright spot during these dark days was the American Volunteer Group (AVG), better known as

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html (4 of 18)2006-09-19 15:16:22


the Flying Tigers. They were first in battle on December 20, 1941 during a Japanese raid on Kunming. The P-40s flown by the AVG were faster than the Zero in level flight, but were much less maneuverable. It was soon concluded that it was suicide to try and out-maneuver a Zero, and AVG pilots found that they were able to take advantage of the superior diving speed and ruggedness of their P-40s. The tactics that most often achieved success were to first make sure the P-40s had a height advantage, dive down on the Zeroes, shoot, and then run as fast as you could. By the time that the AVG was absorbed into the 14th Air Force in early July of 1942, they had been credited with 286 Japanese aircraft destroyed in the air as against 13 pilots killed in aerial action The Zero Fighter was given the code name ZEKE by Capt Frank McCoy's air intelligence team in July of 1942. However, faulty identification and lack of cooperation between various intelligence officers in the CBI theatre resulted in duplicate names being assigned to the Zero Fighter, namely BEN and RAY. However, these were soon dropped in favor of ZEKE. Nevertheless, since the Reisen's official Japanese designation was known by the Allies quite early in the war, the ZEKE code name was not often used, and the Reisen was still referred to as the Zero by Allied pilots who were still trying to figure out a counter for this outstanding warplane. In June of 1942, a Japanese task force launched a strike against the Aleutians in an attempt to draw American forces away from the intended target of Midway. On June 3, Petty Officer Tadayoshi Koga flying from the aircraft carrier Ryujo took off in his A6M2 for an inconclusive strike against Dutch Harbor. On the way back to his carrier, he found that a couple of bullet holes had pierced his fuel tanks, and told his commanding officer that he intended to attempt an emergency landing on the bleak marshes of Akutan Island. Unfortunately, the plane flipped over on its back during the landing. Although the aircraft was only slightly damaged, Petty Officer Koga's neck was broken and he was killed. Five weeks later an American naval scouting party found the Japanese fighter upside down in the marsh, the pilot still hanging dead in his straps. Petty Officer Koga's A6M2 was only slightly damaged, and was packed up and shipped back to the USA. This was one of the greatest intelligence finds of the Pacific War, since it enabled American intelligence to make a detailed study of the Zero which was still running wild all throughout the Pacific. Koga's Zero was repaired and reflown, and went through an exhaustive series of tests in order to gain information about its strengths and weaknesses. The tests revealed the fighter's faults and finally shattered the aura of myth which had surrounded it. Information from these tests in the United States was quickly passed along to operational units in the Pacific which were able to improve their tactics against the nimble Zero which had ruled the Pacific skies for the first six months of the Pacific War. The tests confirmed that the Zero Fighter had an excellent climb rate, and could easily outclimb both the F4F Wildcat and the Curtiss P-40. Its range of more than 1200 miles was far superior to that of any other Allied fighter then available. The tests also confirmed that the Zero was indeed the most maneuverable carrier-based fighter in the world, and that it was suicide to try and out-maneuver it, especially at low speed. However, the maneuverability of the Zero deteriorated rapidly as the speed increased. At high speeds, the ailerons stiffened and became extremely difficult to move. In addition, tests revealed that the wings had structural problems which http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html (5 of 18)2006-09-19 15:16:22


prevented the Zero from being dived at high speeds. In combat, a pursuing Zero could often be escaped by diving at the maximum possible speed and by rolling either right or left, the Zero being unable to follow. The rule for an Allied pilot was to keep his speed as high as possible during combat and never, never try to out-maneuver a Zero while at low speed. The Zero Fighter lacked any armor protection for the pilot, did not have any self-sealing fuel tanks, and had no onboard fire extinguishing equipment. A superficial hit would often cause the aircraft to catch fire. The final air battles fought by the A6M2 were on October 26, 1942 during the Battle of Santa Cruz. After that time, the A6M2 was superseded by the A6M3 version of the Reisen, and A6M2s were relegated to second-line units and training outfits. Many of these obsolete A6M2s were brought back to operational status and expended in kamikaze attacks in the last year of the war. Specification of A6M2 Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 21: One Nakajima NK1C Sakae 12 fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 940 hp for takeoff, 950 hp at 13,780 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 331 mph at 14,930 feet. Cruising speed 207 mph. Initial climb rate 4517 feet per minute. Climb to 19,685 feet in 7 minutes 27 seconds. Service ceiling 32,810 feet. Normal range 1160 miles. Maximum range 1930 miles. Radius of turn with entry speed of 230 mph was 1118 feet. Entering a 180 degree steep turn with an entry speed of 230 mph, the fighter could complete the turn in 5.62 seconds, with an exit speed from the turn of 189 mph. At slower speeds, the turning radius was 612 feet. Normal positive g-load factor was 7g, with a safety factor of an additional 1.8g. Normal negative gload factor was 3.5g, with a safety factor of an extra 1.8g. Dimensions: Wingspan 39 feet 4 7/16 inches, length 29 feet 8 11/16 inches, height 10 feet 0 1/16 inches, wing area 241.5 square feet. Weights: 3704 pounds empty, 5313 pounds loaded, 6164 pounds maximum. Fuel capacity: Internal fuel capacity was 114 Imp gall. One 72.6 Imp. gall drop tank could be carried underneath the fuselage. Armament: Two 7.7-mm Type 97 machine guns in the fuselage decking and two 20-mm Type 99 cannon in the wings. Two 132-pound bombs could be carried on underwing racks.

A6M2-N "Rufe" In the autumn of 1940, anticipating the possibility of a Pacific war against the United States, the Japanese Navy issued a 15-Shi specification for a single-seat fighter seaplane that would be capable of providing air cover for offensive amphibious operations in far-flung places where land bases were not yet available. At that time, the Japanese Army's Corps of Engineers was quite small and was illequipped for the task of building airfields in newly-conquered territories in a hurry. The Kawanishi Kokuki K.K. (Kawanishi Aircraft Co Ltd) began work on their N1K1 project to meet this requirement, but it soon became obvious that this ambitious aircraft would not be ready in time for the upcoming war with the USA. As a temporary alternative, the Japanese Navy ordered the Nakajima http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html (6 of 18)2006-09-19 15:16:22


Hikoki K.K. (Nakajima Aeroplane Co Ltd) to begin work on a seaplane adaptation of the Mitsubishi A6M2 Reisen (Zero Fighter) that Nakajima was also building. Work on the project began in February of 1941. The A6M2 Model 11 with the non-folding wingtips was used as the basis. The retractable landing gear was removed and the wheel wells were faired over. A large central float was mounted, attached to the belly of the fuselage by means of a forward-sloping pylon and an aft V-strut. Two stabilizing cantilever floats were fitted underneath the outboard wings. The standard powerplant and armament of the A6M2 were retained. In order to provide the additional aerodynamic stability required by the presence of the large float, the area of the vertical tail surfaces had to be increased and a small ventral fin was added. Because the main pylon had taken up the space previously reserved for the ventral drop tank, an auxiliary fuel tank was installed in the float itself. The aircraft was designated A6M2-N. The first prototype A6M2-N was flown on December 7, 1941, the first day of the Pacific War. Production was ordered under the designation Navy Type 2 Floatplane Fighter Model 11. The first production A6M2-N was delivered in April of 1942. The A6M2-N first appeared in combat in the Solomons. The A6M2-N was given the Allied code name RUFE under Capt Frank McCoy's system of assigning hillbilly names to Japanese aircraft. A6M2-Ns were initially deployed to Tulagi, but were caught in the raids leading up to the American landings on Guadalcanal. Although they inflicted some serious damage on the B-17s of the 11th Bombardment Group, these A6M2-Ns were soon destroyed. The A6M2-N was also used in the Aleutian campaign. In spite of the weight and drag of the float, the A6M2-N was actually quite fast and maneuverable, and could even out-maneuver many Allied fighters if they were unwise enough to try and dog-fight with this floatplane. On several occasions, they succeeded in scoring kills against aircraft as formidable as the P-38 Lightning. As the war in the Pacific progressed, the A6M2-N was encountered just about everywhere. However, by this time the Japanese Navy had been thrown back onto the defensive, and in this mode the A6M2-N was no match for the Allied land-based fighters which opposed it. In spite of its obsolescence, the A6M2-N was still in service at Lake Biwa on the Japanese island of Honshu, being used primarily to train pilots for Kawanishi N1K1 Kyofu floatplane fighters, but occasionally being called up to act as an interceptor in the defense of central Honshu. A total of 327 A6M2-N floatplane fighters were built by Nakajima at the Koizumi plant between December 1941 and September 1943. Specification of Nakajima A6M2-N Navy Type 2 Floatplane Fighter Model 11: One Nakajima NK1C Sakae 12 fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 940 hp for takeoff and 950 hp at 13,780 feet.



Performance: Maximum speed 271 mph at 16,405 feet. Cruising speed 184 mph. Climb to 16.685 feet in 6 minutes 43 seconds. Service ceiling 32,810 feet. Norma range 715 miles, maximum range 1110 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 39 feet 4 7/16 inches, length 33 feet 1 5/8 inches, height 14 feet 1 5/16 inches, wing area 241.54 square feet. Weights: 4235 pounds empty, 5423 pounds loaded, 6349 pounds maximum. Armament: Two 7.7-mm Type 97 machine guns in upper fuselage decking and two 20-mm Type 99 cannon in the wings. Two 132-pound bombs could be carried on external racks.

A6M2-K two-seat trainer The A6M2-K was a two-seat training version of the A6M2 Zero Fighter. The 21st Naval Air Arsenal at Sasebo converted a single A6M2 under a 17-Shi specification by fitting a two-seat cockpit, with student pilot forward and instructor behind. An enlarged canopy was fitted, which for some reason did not fully enclose the student's seat. The fuselage fuel tank was removed, and the two 20-mm wing guns were removed. Small horizontal fins were fitted on the side of the fuselage ahead of the stabilizers for added stability. The main wheel fairings were eliminated. The aircraft was designated A6M2-K. Following naval evaluation, it was ordered into production as the A6M2-K Zero-Rensen (Zero Fighter Trainer). Starting in November 1943, 236 A6M2-Ks were built by the 21st Naval Air Arsenal, and a further 272 were built from May 1944 at Hitachi's Chiba plant. The A6M2-K two-seaters were extensively operated in Japan and Formosa as advanced trainers. They were also modified as target tugs by the removal of the tail cone and the installation of a cable container underneath each wing. Many were expended in kamikaze attacks in the last few months of the war. Specification of A6M2-K: One Nakajima NK1C Sakae 12 fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 940 hp for takeoff and 950 hp at 13,780 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 296 mph at 13,125 feet. Cruising speed 214 mph. Climb to 19,685 feet in 7 minutes 56 seconds. Service ceiling 33,400 feet. Normal range 860 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 39 feet 4 7/16 inches, length 30 feet 0 1/4 inches, height 11 feet 7 3/16 inches, wing area 241.54 square feet. Weights: 4010 pounds empty, 5146 pounds loaded, 5792 pounds maximum. Fuel capacity: 83.6 Imp gall carried internally. Drop tank not carried. Armament: Two 7.7-mm Type 97 machine guns in upper fuselage decking. Two 132-pound bombs http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html (8 of 18)2006-09-19 15:16:22


could be carried on underwing racks.

A6M3 "Hap" In mid-1941, work began on a new version of the Zero Fighter, the A6M3 powered by a 1130 hp Sakae 21. This engine was equipped with a two-speed supercharger instead of a single-speed unit as used on the earlier Sakae 12. The new engine required that the firewall be moved 8 inches further aft, which reduced the fuselage fuel capacity from 21.6 Imp gall to 13.2 Imp gall. The shape of the engine cowling had to be changed in order to incorporate the supercharger air intake in its upper lip. The first A6M3 flew in June of 1941. Although the aircraft performed satisfactorily, the flight trials of the A6M3 were somewhat disappointing since performance figures fell below the calculated values. In addition, production had to be delayed until sufficient numbers of Sakae 21 engines became available. The type was placed in production as the Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 32. Beginning with the fourth aircraft, the ammunition supply for the wing-mounted 20-mm cannon was increased from 60 rpg to 100 rpg. Soon thereafter, in order to simplify production and maintenance, the folding wingtips and the tab balances were removed, reducing the wingspan to 36 feet 1 1/16 inches and wing area to 231.75 square feet. This resulted in a slight increase in the level speed with little adverse effect in the overall maneuverability. Japanese pilots did find that both the maneuverability and climb rate of the new clipped-wing Zero Fighter were slightly poorer than those of the earlier A6M2, but the aircraft was considerably faster in a dive, the ailerons were more effective, and the roll rate was better at high speed. 343 A6M3s were built by Mitsubishi, with an unspecified number also being built by Nakajima at Koizumi. Following limited service in Japan, the A6M3s were deployed to the New Guinea/Solomons area in the late spring of 1942 in preparation for the invasion of Australia. Initially, the Allies thought that the A6M3 was an entirely new fighter because of its squared-off wingtips, and Capt. Frank McCoy's team at the Directorate of Intelligence of the Allied Air Forces, Southwest Pacific Area, assigned it the code name HAP, after the nickname of General Henry Arnold, the USAAF's Chief of Staff. The General was not amused, and had Capt. McCoy called onto the carpet to explain just what he was up to. Capt McCoy seems to have survived this particular episode, but the code name of the new square-winged fighter was quietly changed to HAMP. When Allied intelligence finally recognized that the aircraft was not a new design but was actually a modified version of the ZEKE, it was renamed ZEKE 32. Following the American landing at Guadalcanal, the A6M3 were forced to operate from bases 560 nautical miles away from the landing force. During this operation, a large number of A6M3s were lost because they had insufficient range. The Sakae 21 engine of the A6M3 had a higher fuel consumption rate than the Sakae 12, and this, acting in concert with the reduced fuel capacity resulting from the installation of the two-speed supercharger, had an adverse effect on range, which had been one of the strong points of the A6M2. In order to increase the range, a 9.9 Imp gall fuel tank was fitted in each http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html (9 of 18)2006-09-19 15:16:22


wing outboard of the cannon. The folding wingtips were restored. This new version was still known under the short designation A6M3, but bore the new designation of Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 22. It could be externally distinguished from earlier A6M3 models by the rounded-off wingtips. The aircraft was known as the Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 22A when long-barreled 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 Mk 3 cannon were installed. The rounded-wingtip Model 22 became the prime carrier fighter of the A6M3 series, some 560 being built by Mitsubishi. Specification of A6M3 Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 32: One Nakajima NK1F Sakae 21 fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 1130 hp for takeoff, 1100 hp at 9350 feet, 980 hp at 19,685 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 338 mph at 19,685 feet. Cruising speed 230 mph. Initial climb rate 4500 feet per minute. Radius of turn with entry speed at 230 mph was 1118 feet. Entering a 180 degree steep turn with an entry speed of 230 mph, the fighter could complete the turn in 6.02 seconds, with an exit speed from the turn of 189 mph. At slower speed, the radius of turn was 629 feet. Climb to 19,685 feet in 7 minutes 19 seconds. Service ceiling 36,250 feet. Maximum range 1477 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 36 feet 1 1/16 inches, length 29 feet 8 11/16 inches, height 11 feet 6 5/32 inches, wing area 231.75 square feet. Weights: 3984 pounds empty, 5609 pounds loaded. Armament: Two 7.7-mm Type 97 machine guns in the upper fuselage decking and two 20-mm Type 99 cannon in the wings. A 72.6-Imp gall drop tank could be carried underneath the fuselage.

A6M4 By late 1942 and early 1943, the Zero Fighter was beginning to be confronted with newer, more-capable Allied fighters. At high altitude, the A6M2 and A6M3 were hopelessly outclassed by newer Allied fighters such as the P-38 Lightning and the F4U Corsair. In an attempt to correct this deficiency, two A6M2s were modified by Dai-Ichi Kaigun Koku Gijitsusho at Yokosuka to take an experimental turbosupercharged Sakae engine. The short designation A6M4 was assigned to this project. However, major teething troubles were encounted with the A6M4, and no production order was placed. As a substitute, the A6M5 interim version was introduced pending availability of the A7M Reppu.

A6M5 By early 1943, the war was beginning to go badly for the Japanese, and new, more capable Allied fighters such as the Lockheed P-38 Lightning and the Vought F4U Corsair had begun to appear. The http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html (10 of 18)2006-09-19 15:16:22


Lockheed P-38 Lightning was introduced into combat in the Aleutian theatre in August of 1942 and in the New Guinea theatre in the autumn of 1942. The P-38 had an excellent high-altitude performance, a high diving speed, and heavy armament. The US Navy introduced the Vought F4U Corsair in combat on February 13, 1943 during a raid on Bougainville. This fighter had high top speed, good diving performances, rugged construction, heavy armament, and good protection for the pilot and fuel tank. With these two American fighters committed to combat in large quantities, the Zero began to lose control of the air. One of the primary weaknesses of the early Reisen was its insufficient diving speed, with lessmaneuverable Allied fighters often being able to engage the Zero successfully in a diving encounter or else being able to escape destruction by diving to safety, the Zero being unable to follow. This forced the Japanese Navy to consider the development of an improved version of the Reisen, since the hoped-for generation of new fighter aircraft had yet to materialize. The A6M5 Model 52 was the result. In the pursuit of better combat capability (especially a higher diving speed), the 904th Reisen (an A6M3) was converted as a prototype for what was to become the A6M5 series. This project was supervised by engineer Mijiro Takahashi, who had taken over development of the Zero from Jiro Horikoshi so that the latter could concentrate on the J2M Raiden interceptor. The converted aircraft was fitted with a new set of wings with heavier gauge skin and with redesigned, non-folding rounded wingtips. The wingspan was reduced to 36 feet 1 1/16 inches and wing area to 229.3 square feet. The standard A6M3 armament of two 20-mm cannon and two 7.7-mm machine guns was retained, as were the two wing tanks and the Sakae 21 engine. However, new individual exhaust stacks were fitted to the cylinder heads, which added some residual thrust. The first A6M5 flew in August of 1943. In spite of an increase in all-up weight of 440 pounds, the A6M5 was faster than the A6M3 Model 32, and could reach a maximum level speed of 351 mph at 19,685 feet. More important, it could now be dived at speeds of up to 410 mph. It was rushed into production as the Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 52. The Model 52 began to reach front line units in the autumn of 1943. It was immediately confronted by the new Grumman F6F Hellcat, which was slightly less maneuverable but which was much more strongly built, heavier armed, and better protected. The A6M5 saw its first major action in June of 1944 with the Allied invasions of the Marianas. On June 19, 1944, a fleet of dive bombers and torpedo bombers escorted by 108 A6M5s attempted to attack Admiral Raymond A. Spruance's Task Force 58. The attacking force was decimated by intercepting F6F Hellcats, and those planes that managed to get through found it almost impossible to penetrate the heavy screen of anti-aircraft fire. The Japanese attack force lost some 300 aircraft that day in what was later to be known as the "Marianas Turkey Shoot". Losses were so devastating that the Japanese navy was never able again to mount any sort of sizable offensive air action.



Despite the fact that the Zero Fighter was by now outclassed by Allied fighters such as the Grumman F6F Hellcat and the Vought F4U Corsair, the A6M5 became numerically the most important Japanese fighter and was the version of the Reisen built in the largest numbers. Since Japanese industry was unable to come up with sufficient numbers of higher-performing replacements, the manufacture of the A6M5 series continued until the end of the Pacific War. Mitsubishi built 747 Model 52s. Nakajama also built the the Model 52 during 1943-44 --- the exact number is not known --- and Hitachi was also scheduled to build the A6M5, but production snags prevented that company from completing even a single example before the war ended in August of 1945. Among the field modifications carried out to A6M5s was the addition of a 20-mm cannon mounted to fire obliquely upward at an angle of 30 degrees from a position behind the pilot's cockpit. These fighters were intended as B-29 Superfortress interceptors. Some A6M5s were converted to dive bombers by replacing the centerline drop tank by a rack for a single 550-pound bomb. Unfortunately, the rack was mechanically unreliable, and frequently failed to release its bomb when commanded to do so by the pilot. Consequently, many Zero dive bombers were forced to fly back to their bases with their bombs still attached, and many were forced to ditch at sea and were lost. This was of course not a problem for those A6M5s that were used for kamikaze attacks. Modified Zeros assigned to Air Group 201 based in the Philippines carried out the first suicide missions against American naval units. The first such attack was carried out on October 25, 1944, led by Lt Yukio Seki. These suicide aircraft were at first primarily modified obsolete A6M2s, but modified A6M5s were later used as well. These attacks were an outstanding success, and other Kamikaze units were formed, primarily equipped with Zero fighters modified to carry 500-lb bombs underneath their fuselages. In ten months of use, suicide aircraft accounted for nearly half of all US warships damaged. Nevertheless, the desperate Kamikaze attacks were not able to stop the relentless American advance across the Pacific to Japan. Specification of A6M5 Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 52: One Mitsubishi NK1F Sakae 21 fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 1130 hp for takeoff, 1100 hp at 9350 feet, 980 hp at 19,685 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 351 mph at 19,685 feet. Cruising speed 230 mph. Climb to 19.685 feet in 7 minutes 1 second. Service ceiling 38,520 feet. Maximum range 1171 miles at a cruising speed of 230 mph. Dimensions: Wingspan 36 feet 1 1/16 inches, length 29 feet 11 3/32 inches, height 11 feet 6 5/32 inches, wing area 229.27 square feet. Weights: 4136 pounds empty, 6025 pounds loaded. Armament: Two 7.7-mm Type 97 machine guns in the upper fuselage decking and two 20-mm Type 99 http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html (12 of 18)2006-09-19 15:16:22


cannon in the wings. Two 132-lb bombs could be carried on underwing racks.

A6M5a In response to a need for heavier firepower and even better diving performance, the A6M5a version of the Zero Fighter was produced. The A6M5a Model 52A appeared in late 1943 and began rolling off the production lines at Mitsubishi and Nakajima in March of 1944. It had still heavier gauge wing skin which enable a further increase in diving speed to 460 mph, bringing it almost up to Western standards. This was to be the highest diving speed attained by any Reisen variant. Armament was improved by replacing the drum fed Type 99 Model 2 Mk3 cannon with 100 rpg with belt-fed 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 Mk4 cannon with 125 rpg. Delivery of the Model 52A began in March of 1944. Mitsubishi built 391 Model 52As. Nakajima also produced the type, but I don't know the actual number built. Specification of A6M5a Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 52a: One Mitsubishi NK1F Sakae 21 fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 1130 hp for takeoff, 1100 hp at 9350 feet, 980 hp at 19,685 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 348 mph at 19,685 feet. Cruising speed 230 mph. Climb to 19.685 feet in 7 minutes 1 second. Service ceiling 38,520 feet. Maximum range 1195 miles at a cruising speed of 230 mph. Dimensions: Wingspan 36 feet 1 1/16 inches, length 29 feet 11 3/32 inches, height 11 feet 6 5/32 inches, wing area 229.27 square feet. Weights: 4167 pounds empty, 6047 pounds loaded. Armament: Two 7.7-mm Type 97 machine guns in the upper fuselage decking and two 20-mm Type 99 cannon in the wings. Two 132-lb bombs could be carried on underwing racks.

A6M5b Since the J2M Raiden interceptor and the A7M Reppu carrier-based fighter programs had run into delays, the Japanese Navy had no alternative but to continue with progressive developments of the Reisen, which was by now thoroughly outclassed by more modern Allied warplanes. One of the weaknesses of the Zero Fighter was its lack of any protection for its fuel tanks, which made it prone to catching fire even when only superficially damaged in combat. In addition, the excellent maneuverability and good climbing performance of the Zero Fighter had been achieved to a certain extent at the expense of the omission of armor protection for the pilot, which became more and more of a serious problem as the war continued. The A6M5b Model 52B originated as a private venture jointly developed by Mitsubishi and Dai-Ichi http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html (13 of 18)2006-09-19 15:16:22


Kaigun Kokusho to carry additional armament and to provide some fire protection for the fuel tanks and some armor protection for the pilot. Armored glass was provided for the windshield, which consisted of two layers of plastic mounted between glass outer-sections. The total armored windshield was two inches thick. The fuel tanks were provided with automatic CO2-type fire extinguishers. One of the fuselage-mounted 7.7-mm Type 97 machine guns was replaced by a 13.2-mm Type 3 machine gun. Production of the Model 52B began at Mitsubishi's 3rd airframe plant in April of 1944, and 470 fighters of this type were built. This version was perhaps the best version of the Reisen to see active duty. The Model 52B was available in time for the US Navy's amphibious operations to capture the Marianas in preparation for the B-29 offensive against Japan. However, the Model 52B was no match for the F6F Hellcat, and dozens were lost on June 19, 1944 during what came to be known as the "Marianas Turkey Shoot". Mitsubishi built 470 Model 52Bs. Specification of A6M5b Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 52B: One Mitsubishi NK1F Sakae 21 fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 1130 hp for takeoff, 1100 hp at 9350 feet, 980 hp at 19,685 feet. Dimensions: Wingspan 36 feet 1 1/16 inches, length 29 feet 11 3/32 inches, height 11 feet 6 5/32 inches, wing area 229.27 square feet. Armament: One 7.7-mm Type 97 machine gun and one 13.2-mm Type 3 machine gun in the upper fuselage decking and two 20-mm Type 99 cannon in the wings. Two 132-lb bombs could be carried on underwing racks.

A6M5c Despite the obsolescence of the basic design, development of the Reisen continued into the summer of 1944. About a month after the Marianas disaster, on July 23, 1944, the Japanese Navy issued another Zero Fighter improvement order. This time the Navy demanded Zero Fighters with even more armor, armament, fuel tankage, and bomb delivery capability. The A6M5c was the result. Design engineer Eitaro Sano headed up the Mitsubishi team. The A6M5c Model 52C differed from earlier Zero Fighters in having two additional 13.2-mm machine guns installed in the wings outboard of the cannon. The fuselage-mounted 13.2-mm machine gun was retained, but the smaller-calibre 7.7-mm fuselage-mounted gun was deleted. An armor plate was mounted behind the pilot's seat to provide some protection against attacks from the rear, and a 30.8 Imp gall self-sealing fuel tank was installed behind the cockpit. Wing racks were provided for unguided air-to-air rockets. The Zero Fighter was now beginning to suffer from the disease which had affected lots of other fighters --- a steady increase in the weight caused by the addition of more fuel, armament, and armor without a corresponding increase in engine power. Sano now felt that the Sakae radial would be insufficiently http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html (14 of 18)2006-09-19 15:16:22


powerful, and recommended that the Sakae engine be replaced by the more powerful Mitsubishi Kinsei 62 engine. However, the Navy refused to allow this and ordered Mitsubishi to retain the Sakae radial. Nevertheless, they did allow Mitsubishi to use the improved Sakae 31 with water-methanol injection in the A6M5c. However, this engine was not available in time for installation in production A6M5c fighters, and so they had to rely on the Sakae 21 engine. The first A6M5c was obtained by modifying an A6M5 airframe, and took off on its flrst flight in September of 1944. During flight testing, it was found necessary to increase the thickness of the wing covering in the region of the gun bays in order to achieve the desired diving performance. The design was put into production as the Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 52C. The self-sealing tanks planed for the Model 52C were not actually fitted to production aircraft because of the lack of experience of ground crews in dealing with this type of fuel tank. As expected, the increased weight proved to be too much for the power available from the Sakae 21, and the performance of the A6M5c was disappointing. Consequently, production of the Model 52C was terminated after the delivery of only 93 machines. Specification of A6M5c Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 52C: One Mitsubishi NK1F Sakae 21 fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 1130 hp for takeoff, 1100 hp at 9350 feet, 980 hp at 19,685 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 348 mph at 19,685 feet. Cruising speed 230 mph. Climb to 16,405 feet in 5 minutes 50 seconds. Service ceiling 36,255 feet. Maximum range 1314 miles at a cruising speed of 230 mph. Dimensions: Wingspan 36 feet 1 1/16 inches, length 29 feet 11 3/32 inches, height 11 feet 6 5/32 inches, wing area 229.27 square feet. Weights: 4751 pounds empty, 6945 pounds loaded. Armament: one 13.2-mm Type 3 machine gun in the upper fuselage decking, two wing-mounted 13.2mm Type 3 machine guns and two wing-mounted 20-mm Type 99 cannon.

A6M5-K two-seat trainer The A6M5-K Model 22 was a two-seat tandem advanced fighter trainer version of the basic A6M5. It was similar to the A6M2-K, a two-seat adaptation of the earlier A6M2. The Sasebo Naval Air Arsenal undertook the project design, and work on the prototypes began in August of 1944. Production was to be carried out by Hitachi, but only a small experimental batch of seven A6M5-Ks were built in March of 1945. By this time, the deteriorating course of the Pacific War had placed emphasis on combat aircraft, and no more two-seat A6M5-Ks were built.



A6M6c The A6M6c was the next variant of the Zero Fighter. The A6M6c was powered by the water-methanol boosted Sakae 31 engine, which finally became available in November of 1944. The Sakae 31 had the same rated horsepower as the Sakae 21, but had a water-methanol injection system for short bursts of speed. The aircraft was otherwise similar to the A6M5c, but it did have self-sealing wing tanks substituted for the previously-unprotected tanks. One prototype of the A6M6c was built by Mitsubishi in late 1944, but the production of the A6M6c Model 53C was assigned to Nakajima at the Koizuma plant. A small quantity of A6M6c fighters were turned out by Nakajima, the exact number being unknown. Although a maximum speed of 346 mph could be achieved with the Sakae 31 engine, the actual performance was usually below this because of poor quality control in the manufacture of the engine and airframe. In addition, the Sakae 31 engine did not produced the expected boosted power and the injection system was troublesome and difficult to maintain. Specification of A6M6c Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 52C: One Mitsubishi NK1F Sakae 31 fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 1130 hp for takeoff, 1100 hp at 9350 feet, 980 hp at 19,685 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 337 mph at 21,000 feet. Cruising speed 230 mph. Climb to 26,250 feet in 9 minutes 53 seconds. Service ceiling 33,300 feet. Maximum range 956 miles at a cruising speed of 230 mph. Dimensions: Wingspan 36 feet 1 1/16 inches, length 29 feet 11 3/32 inches, height 11 feet 6 5/32 inches, wing area 229.27 square feet. Weights: 4519 pounds empty, 6614 pounds loaded. Armament: One 13.2-mm Type 3 machine gun in the upper fuselage decking, two wing-mounted 13.2mm Type 3 machine guns and two wing-mounted 20-mm Type 99 cannon. Eight 22-lb rockets or two 132-lb rockets could be carried underneath the wing.

A6M7 dive bomber By late 1944, most of the larger Japanese aircraft carriers had been sunk, and the Japanese Navy instructed Mitsubishi to begin development of a version of the Reisen capable of being used as a dive bomber operating from smaller aircraft carriers. The A6M7 was designed to meet this requirement. The A6M7 differed from the A6M6c in having the under-fuselage drop tank installation replaced by a



special bomb rack capable of carrying a single 551 pound or 1100 pound bomb. A strengthened and reinforced tailplane was provided to accommodate the stresses of dive bombing. In place of the centerline drop tank, provisions were made for two 77 Imp gall drop tanks to be attached underneath the wings outboard of the 13.2-mm machine guns. Production of the A6M7 began as the Model 63 in May of 1945. It was hastily produced both by Mitsubishi and Nakajima and issued to Navy dive-bomber units. The exact numbers built by either company is not known. The bomb-release mechanism proved to be more reliable than the makeshift racks fitted in the field to earlier Zero Fighters that often failed to release their bombs. This problem did not of course affect the Zeros that were expended in Kamikaze attacks. Some of the A6M7s were also expended in this fashion in the closing months of the Pacific War. Specification of A6M7 Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 63: One Mitsubishi NK1F Sakae 31 fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 1130 hp for takeoff, 1100 hp at 9350 feet, 980 hp at 19,685 feet. Dimensions: Wingspan 36 feet 1 1/16 inches, length 29 feet 11 3/32 inches, height 11 feet 6 5/32 inches, wing area 229.27 square feet. Weights: 6945 pounds loaded. Armament: One 13.2-mm Type 3 machine gun in the upper fuselage decking, two wing-mounted 13.2mm Type 3 machine guns and two wing-mounted 20-mm Type 99 cannon. One 551-lb or 1102-lb bomb could be carried underneath the fuselage centerline. Two 77-Imp gall droptanks could be carried underneath the wings.

A6M8 The A6M8 was the last production version of the Reisen. Bomb damage to the Nakajima engine plants (as well as Nakajima's decision to decrease Sakae production in preparation for the production of the 18cylinder Homare radial) had resulted in a shortage of the Sakae radial engines which had previously powered the Zero Fighter. Consequently, the Navy finally accepted Mitsubishi's proposal to use their more powerful MK8K Kinsei 62 (Ha-33/62) fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial engine. Manufacture of the Kinsei-powered A6M8 prototypes was finally approved in November 1944. The forward fuselage was completely redesigned to accommodate the 1560 hp Mitsubishi MK8P Kinsei 62, which had a larger diameter than the Sakae, requiring that the fuselage-mounted gun be removed. At the same time, the fuel tank fire-extinguishing system was improved, and additional fuel tankage was added. The fuselage centerline could carry a single 1100-lb bomb, and a pair of 77-Imp gall drop tanks could be carried underneath the wings. The first A6M8 was completed in April of 1945. Flight tests turned up a number of faults in the fuel and oil systems, plus a tendency to overheat, and the machine had to be returned to the factory for these to be http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html (17 of 18)2006-09-19 15:16:22


corrected. By enlarging the oil tank, revising the pipe lines, and by fitting engine cooling baffles, these snags were eliminated. At high altitudes, the tendency for the fuel pressure to drop was overcome by altering the fuel regulating valve. After completion of service trials at Aomori, on May 25, 1945 the A6M8 was approved for manufacture as the Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 64. A second prototype was accepted in June, and both were turned over to the Yokosuka Experimental Air Corps Proving Division throughout July. Production of the A6M8 was assigned to dispersed Mitsubishi and Nakajima factories, with as many as 6300 machines being ordered. However, owing to the chaotic conditions prevailing in Japanese industry in the closing months of the war, none were actually delivered. Specification of A6M8 Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 64: One Mitsubishi MK8P Kinsei 62 fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 1560 hp for takeoff, 1340 hp at 6890 feet, 1180 hp at 19,030 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 356 mph at 19,685 feet. Climb to 16.685 feet in 6 minutes 50 seconds. Service ceiling 37,075 feet. Dimensions: Wingspan 36 feet 1 1/16 inches, length 30 feet 3 21/32 inches, height 11 feet 11 7/32 inches, wing area 229.27 square feet. Weights: 4740 pounds empty, 6945 pounds loaded. Armament: Two 13.2-mm Type 3 machine guns and two 20-mm Type 99 cannon in the wings. A single 1100-lb bomb could be carried underneath the fuselage centerline. An additional two 132-lb bombs could be carried underneath the wings.

Sources: ● ● ● ● ● ●

Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979. Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1967. Zero Fighter, Martin Caidin, Ballantine, 1970. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 3, William Green, Doubleday 1964. The Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero-Sen, Rene J. Francillon, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday, 1969. Mitsubishi A6M5 to A6M8 Zero-Sen, M.C. Richards and Donald S. Smith, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday, 1974.



http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a7mbaui.html

1. Mitsubishi A7M Reppu 1. Intended successor to Zero 2. Sources:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a7mbaui.html2006-09-19 15:16:30

Mitsubishi A7M Reppu

Mitsubishi A7M Reppu Intended successor to Zero The Mitsubishi A7M Reppu (Hurricane) single-seat carrier-based fighter was intended by the famous aircraft designer Jiro Horikoshi to be the successor to the A6M Zero-sen fighter. Even as early as 1940, Jiro Horikoshi was fully aware that he had better start working on the successor to his fabulous Zero fighter. He envisaged an aircraft similar in overall configuration to the Zero but utilizing the much more powerful Mitsubishi NK9A eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, which was then under development. A 17-Shi specification for the aircraft was issued by the Japanese Navy on July 6, 1942. A maximum speed of 379 mph at 19,685 feet was called for, and the maneuverability was to be at least equal to that of the A6M3 Model 32. However, In September of 1942 the Japanese Navy insisted that the aircraft be designed around the lesspowerful Nakajima NK9K Homare 22 radial. Since the Navy signed the checks, Horikoshi reluctantly agreed. The first prototype was given the designation A7M1. Work on the A7M1 proceeded relatively slowly at Mitsubishi, since higher priority had to be given to later versions of the A6M and the J2M. The Nakajima NK9K Homare 22 radial offered 2000 hp for takeoff and 1570 hp at 22,000 feet. Armament consisted of two 13.2-mm machine guns and two 20-mm cannon, all mounted in the wings. Innovations such as self-sealing fuel tanks, cockpit armor, and a bulletproof windshield were provided. In the pursuit of better maneuverability, a set of combat flaps much like those fitted to the Kawanishi N1K1-J Shiden (Allied code name George) were fitted. The A7M1 was a considerably larger and heavier aircraft than the A6M5 Model 52, with a wingspan of 45 feet 11 3/16 inches, a wing area of 332 square feet, and a loaded weight of almost 10,000 pounds. The A7M1 prototype flew for the first time on May 6, 1944, test pilot Eisaku Shibamaya being at the controls. Test pilots reported that the A7M1 handled extremely well, and that the use of the combat flaps made the A7M1 just as maneuverable as the Zero. However, they also reported that the aircraft was significantly underpowered for its weight. The Homare 22 delivered only 1300 hp at 19,685 against a calculated rating of 1700 hp, and at this altitude maximum speed was only about 350 mph. In retrospect, Horikoshi was right. Because of its disappointing high-altitude performance, on July 30, 1944 the Navy ordered that further work on the A7M1 be suspended after the second prototype had been built. Soon after this, the Japanese Navy authorized Horikoshi to begin work on the A7M2 version. This was to be powered by the Mitsubishi MK9A radial, which was the engine that Horikoshi had wanted all along. The MK9A had a larger diameter than the Homare 22, which required a complete redesign of the forward fuselage. The first A7M2 prototype flew on October 13, 1944, and initial tests indicated that http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a7mbau.html (1 of 3)2006-09-19 15:16:34


high altitude performance was much better, with maximum speed being 390 mph at 21,655 feet. Service ceiling was 35,760 feet and an altitude of 19,685 feet could be reached in 6 minutes 7 seconds. The armament consisted of four wing-mounted 20-mm cannon. The Navy was quite pleased with the performance of Horikoshi's new fighter, and plans were initiated for immediate production of the A7M2 as the Navy Carrier Fighter Reppu Model 22 at Mitsubishi's plant at Nagoya and at the Nankai Works in Osaka. Production aircraft were to have been armed with either four 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon or two 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon and two 13.2-mm Type 3 machine guns. However, the Japanese aircraft industry was in desperate straits at this stage in the war. The production of the Mitsubishi NK9A engine was delayed by a disastrous earthquake which struck the Nagoya area in December of 1944. Massive B-29 raids followed shortly thereafter, which caused additional production delays. The second A7M2 prototype was destroyed in a landing accident, and three other prototypes were destroyed on the ground during American raids. Only three of the seven prototypes that were built remained in flying condition by the end of the Pacific War, and only one production aircraft had been completed. The A7M2 was assigned the Allied code name Sam. So far as I am aware, the Reppu never saw any combat. Specification of Mitsubishi A7M2 Reppu One Mitsubishi MK9A eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 2200 hp for takeoff and 1800 hp at 19,685 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 390 mph at 21,655 feet. Climb to 19,685 feet in 6 minutes 7 seconds. Service ceiling 35,760 feet. Range 570 miles with internal fuel and 976 miles with two 77 Imp gall drop tanks. Weights: 7112 pounds empty, 10,406 pounds loaded. Dimensions: Wingspan 45 feet 11 3/16 inches, length 36 feet 1 1/16 inches, height 14 feet 0 1/4 inches, wing area 332.2 square feet. Armament: four wing-mounted 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon with 200 rpg, or two 20-mm Type 99 Model 22 cannon with 200 rpg and two 13.2-mm Type 3 machine guns with 400 rpg. In addition, two 132-pound bombs could be carried.

Sources: Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1988.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a7mbau.html (2 of 3)2006-09-19 15:16:34


Warplanes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 3, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a7mbau.html (3 of 3)2006-09-19 15:16:34

Nakajima G5N Shinzan

Nakajima G5N Shinzan Introduction The Nakajima G5N Shinzan (Mountain Recess), codenamed Liz by the Allies, was developed because the Japanse Imperial Navy was interested in a long-range strategic bomber.

Development The G5N was a development of the Douglas DC-4E, which flew for the first time on 7 June 1938, but was rejected on the American market, because it was underpowered. The Japanese Imperial Navy bought the only example (the prototype) of the DC-4E and used it as the basis for the G5N. It crashed later. The G5N was orginally designed by Mitsubishi as the G5M1, but was not succesful and the project was taken over by Nakajima. The work on the G5N started in early 1939, and one year later the prototype was completed. It had the wings, the undercarriage and the powerplant installation of the DC-4E. During the flight test, the performance was disappointing, mainly because Japan had no experience with the developemnt of large aircraft, and the project was cancelled. The designation of the Japanse Imperial Navy for the G5N1 was Type 2 Land Attack Plane, Model 11.

Construction Wings The G5N was a low-wing cantilever monoplane. The wings were sharply tapered with most taper on the leading-edge. The wings were of all-metal structure with a smooth external skin, reinforced with an inner corrugated skin with the corrugations running spanwise. The landing flaps were inboard of the ailerons. The main fuel tanks were situated in the wings and the oil tanks in the engine nacelles.

Fuselage The fuselage had a oval, all-metal semi-monocoque structure with a flush-riveted stressed skin.

Tail Unit The tail unit was of a cantilever monoplane type with twin vertical fins and rudders and was of metal structure. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/g5n.html (1 of 3)2006-09-19 15:16:43


Landing Gear The landing gear was of the retractable tricycle type. The main wheels retracted outwardly into the underside of the wings. The retraction was hydraulic.

Accomodation As a bomber, the G5N carried a crew of eight to nine men and as a transport aircraft, it could carry twenty to twenty-five paratroops or a varied load of freight.

Production and Operational Use A total of six G5Ns were produced, but they were never used as bombers. They were used as transports during World War Two.

Aftermath In 1942, three years after the failure of the G5N, the Japanse Imperial Navy issued the development of the Nakjima G8N Renzan, but by the time it flew in 1944 Japan has already lost the war.

Specification of the Nakajima G5N1 Shinzan Type: Four-engined, long-range, heavy bomber and transport aircraft. Powerplant: Four 1,870 hp Nakajima NK7A Mamoru (Protector) 17 fourteen-cylinder, two-row, radial, aircooled engines each driving a four-blade Hamilton type constant-speed airscrew. Performance: Maximum speed: 420 km/h at 4,100 m. Service ceiling: 7,450 m. Range: 4,260 km. Dimensions: Wingspan: 42.14 m. Length: 31.02 m. Weights: Loaded weight: 32,167 kg. Armament: Two 20 mm cannons and four machine-guns in the nose, above power-operated turret and below fuselage, in staggered waist positions and in extreme tail. An internal bomb bay for a bombload of 4,000 kg.

Sources http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/g5n.html (2 of 3)2006-09-19 15:16:43


●

● ● ●

●

●

●

De geschiedenis van de Luchtvaart - Amerikaanse Vliegtuigbouwers, Bart van der Klaauw, Lekturama B.V., 1979. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation, Michael Taylor, Studio Editions, 1993. Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II, Bill Gunston, Studio Editions, 1989. Praktisch Handboek Vliegtuigen (Deel 5) - Burgerluchtvaart (1945 tot 1960), Hugo Hooftman, Uitgeverij Helmond B.V., 1978. Sampson Low Guides, World Aircraft, World War II - Part II (U.S.A. - Japan - U.S.S.R. Australia - New Zealand - South Africa - China - Brazil), Enzo Angelucci and Paolo Matricardi, Sampson Low, 1978. The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft - The development and specifications of over 2500 civil and military aircraft, David Donald, Blitz Editions, 1997. United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter Bowers, Putman Aeronautical Books, 1989.

Ruud Deurenberg, 26 September 1999

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/g5n.html (3 of 3)2006-09-19 15:16:43

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/j1n1si.html

1. Nakajima J1N1-S Gekko 1. Sources:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/j1n1si.html2006-09-19 15:16:51

Nakajima J1N1-S Gekko

Nakajima J1N1-S Gekko "Irving" night fighter In 1938, the air war over China had shown the need for a long-range fighter aircraft capable of escorting Japanese bombers in raids deep into Chinese territory. In that year, the Japanese Naval Bureau of Aeronautics met to draft a 13-Shi specification to meet this need. They were inspired by the French Potez 63, which was about to enter service with the Armee de l'Air. In 1938, the Japanese Navy officially issued to Mitsubishi and Nakajima a 13-Shi specification calling for a three-seat twin-engined long range fighter. Maximum speed was to be 320 mph, normal range 1500 miles, and maximum range 2300 miles. Armament was to include forward-firing 20-mm cannon and 7.7mm machine guns, and flexible rear-firing 7.7-mm machine guns. Good combat maneuverability was required, since the aircraft was expected to be able to counter single-engined enemy fighters. Mitsubishi did produce a set of preliminary design studies, but a shortage of design staff caused the company to be allowed to drop out of the 13-Shi project at an early stage. This left Nakajima as the only entry, and this company was awarded a development contract under the designation J1N1. The Nakajima Hikoki K.K. (Nakajima Aeroplane Co Ltd) was Japan's oldest aircraft company and was a highly-integrated engine and airframe production complex, which made just about everything from aircraft engines and airframes all the way to pig iron and aircraft ordnance. Four plants, located at Ota, Koizumi, Handa, and Utsonomiya made airframes, whereas plants at Musashi, Omiya, and Hamamatsu made engines. Nakajima's chief engineer Katsuji Nakamura's design team came up with a low-winged monoplane powered by a pair of 1130 hp Nakajima Sakae air-cooled radial engines. To offset the effect of propeller torque, handed engines were used (Sakae 21 and 22), driving propellers turning in opposite directions. The crew was three. Forward-firing armament consisted of a single 20 mm Type 99 Model 1 cannon and two 7.7-mm Type 97 machine guns. Its most novel feature was in the arrangement of its rearward-firing armament. Two tandem-mounted remotely-controlled barbettes each housing two 7.7-mm machine guns were mounted behind the pilot. They were aimed by the navigator. The first prototype, known as the Navy Experimental 13-Shi Three-Seat Escort Fighter, made its first flight in May of 1941. It bore the short designation of J1N1. To improve the maneuverability, the second prototype was fitted with trailing-edge combat flaps and leading edge slots. Unfortunately, the aircraft was considerably overweight for the available power, and there were lots of problems with the oppositely-rotating engines. The complex hydraulic system was a continual source of trouble, and the remotely-controlled barbettes were cumbersome, difficult to aim, and much too heavy. The J1N1 suffered severe aileron vibration during rolls, and severe buffeting took place when at high angles of attack. The maneuverability, although fairly good for a twin-engined aircraft, was considered to be http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/j1n1s.html (1 of 4)2006-09-19 15:17:07


inadequate for the demands of combat against enemy single-seat fighters. As a result, the Japanese Navy rejected the J1N1 as a long-range escort fighter. Despite the failure of the J1N1 as a long-range fighter, in July of 1942 Nakajima was instructed to modify the nearly-completed examples on the production line to meet a requirement for a fast landbased long-range reconnaissance aircraft. An extensive weight-savings program was initiated to adapt the design for the reconnaissance role. In order to save some weight, the internal fuel capacity was reduced from 499 Imp gall to 374 Imp gall, and all armament was removed. The handed Sakae 21 and 22 engines were replaced by a pair of unhanded Sakae 21s. To make up for some of the reduced internal fuel, provisions were made for two 72.6-Imp gall drop tanks underneath the wing center section. The fuselage was redesigned to accommodate the pilot and the radio operator/gunner underneath a single transparent canopy. The gunner operated a single hand-held flexible 13-mm Type 2 machine gun to provide some small measure of protection against attack. A navigator/observer was located in a separate cockpit situated behind the trailing edge, his position being covered by a separate transparent stepped canopy. This new aircraft was designated J1N1-C. The J1N1-C was put into production as the Navy Type 2 Reconnaissance Plane. Between April 1942 and March 1943, Nakajima delivered 54 J1N1-Cs, including prototypes. The J1N1-C first began to be delivered to operational units in the autumn of 1942. The J1N1-C was first encountered by the Allies during the Solomons campaign, where they mistook it for a new fighter and gave it the code name IRVING. Later, the J1N1-C was redesignated J1N1-R by the Navy, and a few were armed with a 20-mm Type 99 Model 1 cannon installed in a spherical manually-operated turret mounted directly behind the pilot. These were designated J1N1-F, and were intended for use as a three-seat fighter, but only a few were built. In the spring of 1943, Commander Yasuna Kozono of the 251st Kokutai based at Rabaul suggested that the J1N1-C might make a good night fighter that would be effective against the long-ranging nocturnal B-24 Liberators that were constantly raiding Japanese installations in the East Indies. Ground crews at Rabaul removed all the equipment from the observer's cockpit and faired over most of the transparency that covered his position. In place of the observer, they mounted two fixed 20-mm cannon firing obliquely upward at an angle of 30 degrees above the forward direction. Two similar cannon were installed in the ventral fuselage behind the wing firing 30 degrees downward. The observer was no longer needed, since his position was now occupied with guns, so the crew was reduced to two. The modified aircraft was designated J1N1-C KAI. Two B-24s were intercepted and destroyed by modified J1N1-Cs in May of 1943, showing that the basic concept was feasible. Spurred on by these successes, the Naval Staff instructed Nakajima to build a version of the J1N1 as a dedicated night fighter. The dedicated night fighter was designated J1N1-S Gekko (Moonlight) Night Fighter Model 11.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/j1n1s.html (2 of 4)2006-09-19 15:17:07


Production began at Koizumi in August of 1943, and the J1N1-S was destined to become the major production variant. The Gekko featured a completely redesigned upper fuselage, with the observer's position being completely deleted, reducing the crew to only two. This made it possible to eliminate the step that had been previously been located between the rear of the observer's cockpit and the base of the vertical fin. No forward-firing armament was fitted, but twin obliquely-mounted 20-mm cannon were installed dorsally just behind the transparent cockpit canopy and also underneath the fuselage just aft of the wing roots. Both crew members sat tandemly underneath a long transparent canopy. Individual exhaust stacks replaced the exhaust collector rings that were fitted to earlier J1N1 machines. In combat, the downward-firing cannon were found not to be all that effective, and were not installed on later production aircraft, which were designated J1N1-Sa Gekko Model 11A. Most of the Gekkos were fitted with airborne interception radar with external antenna attached to the nose, while a few carried a small searchlight in the nose. Those machines not fitted with radar or a searchlight were often fitted with a nose-mounted fixed forward-firing 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon. The Gekko enjoyed considerable success during its early operational career, and was particularly effective against slow-flying B-24s. As the Japanese were gradually pushed back to their home islands, Gekko fighters were employed against the B-29. The Gekko was considerably less effective against the Superfortress, since it could seldom make more than one firing pass against the much faster B-29. Production of the J1N1 series terminated in December of 1944 after the delivery of 479 examples, including prototypes. Most of the Gekkos and the J1N1-R reconnaissance aircraft were expended in kamikaze attacks. Specification of Nakajima J1N1-S Two Nakajima NK1F Sakae 21 fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial engines, each rated at 1130 hp for takeoff, 1100 hp at 9350 feet, and 980 hp at 19,685 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 315 mph at 19,160 feet, cruising speed 207 mph at 13,125 feet. An altitude of 16,405 could be reached in 9 minutes 35 seconds. Service ceiling 30,610 feet, normal range 1581 miles, maximum range 2348 miles. Weights: 10,670 pounds empty, 15,454 pounds loaded, 18,043 pounds maximum. Dimensions: Wingspan 55 feet 8 1/2 inches, length 41 feet 10 3/4 inches, height 14 feet 11 19/32 inches, wing area 430.6 square feet. Armament: Two fuselage-mounted upward-firing 20-mm Type 99 cannon and two downward firing 20-mm Type 99 cannon. On J1N1-Sa, the downward-firing cannon were deleted. Optionally, an additional 20-mm Type 99 cannon could be installed in the nose of the J1N1-Sa.

Sources: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/j1n1s.html (3 of 4)2006-09-19 15:17:07


● ●

Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 3, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/j1n1s.html (4 of 4)2006-09-19 15:17:07

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/j2mi.html

1. Mitsubishi J2M Raiden 1. J2M1 2. J2M2 3. J2M3 4. J2M4 5. J2M5 6. J2M6 7. J2M7 8. Sources:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/j2mi.html2006-09-19 15:20:30

Mitsubishi J2M Raiden

Mitsubishi J2M Raiden J2M1 The Mitsubishi J2M Raiden (Thunderbolt) land-based fighter used by the Japanese Navy was the first Japanese fighter to be designed from the outset for the interception role, with emphasis being placed on speed and climb rather than on maneuverability. Its good performance, powerful armament, and adequate armor protection made it perhaps the most effective bomber destroyer used against the B-29 by the Japanese during the Pacific War. However, the Raiden was persistently plagued by technical difficulties and production snags throughout its entire life, and only 476 of these excellent interceptors were built, too few and too late to affect the outcome of the war. The design originated back in October of 1938, when Mitsubishi's chief designer Jiro Horikoshi held preliminary discussions with the Japanese Naval Air Force about a new land-based interceptor that would stress speed and climbing performance rather than maneuverability. This was a bold departure for the Japanese Navy, and since the Mitsubishi team was preoccupied with the A6M Reisen (Zero Fighter), the project was kept in limbo for a year or so. It was not until September of 1939 that an official 14-Shi (14th year of the Showa reign, or 1939) specification was drawn up. The 14-Shi specification called for a land-based interceptor capable of reaching a maximum speed of 373 mph at an altitude of 19,685 feet. It was to be able to climb to this altitude in less than 5.5 minutes. The endurance was to be 45 minutes at full-rated power. The takeoff run at overload weight was not to exceed 985 feet. The landing speed was to be no greater than 81 mph. Armament was to be the same as that of the A6M2 Reisen (Zero Fighter) --- two 20-mm cannon and two 7.7-mm machine guns. Armor plate was to be incorporated behind the pilot's seat. There was no mention of maneuverability in the specification. The choice of the engine was left up to the designer. Horikoshi had a choice between the Aichi Ha-60 Atsuta (a derivative of the Daimler-Benz DB 601A) inverted-vee 12-cylinder liquid cooled engine rated at 1185 hp for takeoff and the Mitsubishi Ha-32 Kasei Model 13 14-cylinder air cooled radial rated at 1440 hp for takeoff. Although the Aichi Tokei Denki K. K. (Aichi Clock and Electric Company, Ltd) promised a future increase of at least 15-20 percent in the power of the Atsuta engine, Jiro Horikoshi decided to select the more powerful Kasei radial despite its higher fuel consumption and larger frontal area. Design work began in the early weeks of 1940. The first prototype was designated J2M1. It was powered by a 1460 hp Mitsubishi MK4C Kasei 13 radial engine driving a 3-bladed propeller. Since the Kasei radial engine had a rather large frontal area, in order to minimize drag the engine was fitted with an extension shaft to permit the use of a finely-tapered cowling. An engine-driven fan pulled in cooling air through a narrow annular intake in the front of the cowling. A low aspect ratio wing with a laminarhttp://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/j2m.html (1 of 9)2006-09-19 15:20:43


flow airfoil was selected, and an extremely-shallow, curved windshield was used in order to provide streamlining. Combat flaps were fitted to improve the maneuverability. The high priority given by Mitsubishi to the development of the A6M Reisen (Zero Fighter) series of carrier-based fighters caused the completion of the first prototype J2M1 to be delayed until February of 1942. By this time, Dr. Jiro Horikoshi, suffering from overwork, had relinquished his post of chief designer to Kiro Takahashi. The prototype flew for the first time on March 20, 1942, with Mitsubishi test pilot Katsuzo Shima at the controls. A total of three J2M1 prototypes were built. The J2M1 handled well, but test pilots complained that the view from the cockpit was totally inadequate and the curvature of the windshield severely distorted forward vision, especially during landing. The propeller pitch change mechanism proved to be unreliable, and the main undercarriage members had difficulty in retracting at speeds greater than 100 mph. The ailerons tended to stiffen up at speeds above 323 mph. In addition, the speed (357 mph at 19,685 feet) and the climb rate (19,685 feet in 7.8 min) were both below those promised in the original specification. Consequently, the fourth prototype was extensively reworked into the more-powerful J2M2, which is the subject of the next post. Specification of J2M1 Raiden Model 11: One Mitsubishi MK4R-A Kasei 13 14-cylinder radial air-cooled engine rated at 1430 hp for takeoff, with military ratings of 1400 hp at 8860 feet and 1260 hp at 20,015 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 359 mph at 19,685 feet An altitude of 19,685 feet could be reached in 7.8 minutes. Service ceiling 36,090 feet. Fuel: 85 Imp gall in wing tanks, 26 Imp gall in fuselage tanks. Weights: 4830 pounds empty, 6307 pounds normal loaded. Dimensions: Wingspan 35 feet 5 1/4 inches, length 32 feet 5 3/4 inches, height 12 feet 6 13/32 inches, wing area 215.82 square feet. Armament: Two 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon with 200 rpg in the wings and two 7.7-mm Type 97 machine guns in the upper fuselage decking.

J2M2 The performance of the three J2M1 prototypes had been found to fall below the original 14-Shi specification. In addition, the view from the cockpit (especially in the forward direction) had been found to be totally inadequate. In order to correct these deficiencies, the fourth prototype was modified to take the Mitsubishi MK4R-A Kasei 23a radial, which could provide 1820 hp by incorporating watermethanol injection into the supercharger. It was fitted with individual exhaust stacks which provided some degree of thrust augmentation. The engine was modified to incorporate a marginally shorter extension shaft. With the new engine, the length of the nose could be reduced by about a foot, improving the pilot's view during landing. In addition, a four-bladed propeller was fitted and a taller cockpit canopy http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/j2m.html (2 of 9)2006-09-19 15:20:43


with flat panels was provided in an attempt to improve the forward view. However, the engine weight had increased by 14 percent, so the fuel tankage had to be reduced from 156 Imp gall to 120.5 Imp gall in order to maintain the position of the center of gravity. The fuel was distributed between two 46 Imp gall wing tanks and a single 28.5 Imp gall fuel tank in the fuselage immediately aft of the engine firewall. With these changes, the fourth prototype was redesignated J2M2. The J2M2 took off on its initial flight on October 12, 1942. Armament consisted of two 7.7-mm Type 97 machine guns in the upper fuselage decking with 550 rpg and two wing-mounted Type 99 Model 2 20mm cannon with 200 rpg. The Japanese navy was so confident that the J2M2 would meet its requirements that they ordered the design into production as the J2M2 Raiden (Thunderbolt) Interceptor Model 11 even before the aircraft could be fully evaluated. Production was to take place at Mitsubishi's No. 3 (Airframe) plant at Nagoya. A few production J2M2s began to reach development units late in 1942. It turned out that the decision to place the Raiden in production had been premature. Almost immediately upon entry into service, severe problems were encountered with the fuel-injected Kasei 23a engine. Excessive smoke was emitted by the engine when it was being operated at its maximum power. At certain engine speeds, uncontrollable vibrations could be encountered. These problems were gradually alleviated by introducing appropriate modifications to the engine mounts and to the water-methanol injection system, but progress was difficult and delivery rates were slow. By March of 1943, only 11 J2M2 aircraft had been delivered. The second J2M2 was lost in a takeoff accident on June 16, 1943. Shortly after takeoff, the fighter had inexplicably nosed down and crashed into a barn, the fuel exploding on impact. A month later, the tenth J2M2 encountered the same problem, but this time the pilot was able to regain control of the aircraft by simply lowering the undercarriage. Examination of the aircraft revealed that the tailwheel struts had pressed against the torque tube lever after retraction, jamming the controls in the dive position. The modifications needed to correct this problem were fairly straightforward, but they resulted in an additional delay. In December of 1943, the first batch of Raiden Model 11 fighters was delivered to the 381st Kokutai at Toyohashi, southeast of Nagoya. The production J2M2 was armed with two 7.7 mm machine guns in the fuselage and two 20-mm cannon in the wings. Deliveries were slow, only 141 examples being produced in the fiscal year 1943- 44. In January 1944, the 30th J2M2 disintegrated in mid-air immediately after its pilot had made a firing pass at a target streamer. The cause of the accident was unknown, but it was believed that it was possible that a violent oscillation had set up when an engine attachment point broke loose. Alternatively, it was theorized that an engine cowling panel could have broken away and hit the tail. In any case, the engine attachment points were reinforced and the cowling fasteners were strengthened in an attempt to cure the problem. However, there were other incidents in which Raiden fighters disintegrated in midair with no satisfactory explanation. These accidents were never adequately explained.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/j2m.html (3 of 9)2006-09-19 15:20:43


The oscillation problems thought to have been cured by the changes introduced in the early development of the J2M2 would recur on occasion in the field. In an attempt to fix these problems, a variety of highrigidity thick propeller blades were tested, but the problem was never adequately resolved. A series of crank-pin failures occurred, which were solved by raising the oil pressure. This in turn required that the oil temperature be raised, requiring the adoption of a new and enlarged oil cooler with an external air intake. A total of 155 J2M2 aircraft were built before production was transferred to the J2M3 version in May of 1944. Specification of J2M2 Raiden Model 11: One Mitsubishi MK4R-A Kasei 23a 14-cylinder radial air-cooled engine rated at 1870 hp for takeoff, with military ratings of 1580 hp at sea level, 1695 hp at 6890 feet, 1560 hp at 18,045 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 371 mph at 17,880 feet Normal cruising speed 219 mph at 9840 feet, 265 mph at 19,685 feet. Normal range 655 miles at 265 mph at 19,685 feet (with 85 Imp gall in wing tanks). Maximum range 1180 miles at 232 mph at 15,750 feet (with full fuel load and 44 Imp gall drop tank). Initial climb rate 3838 feet per minute. An altitude of 19,685 feet could be reached in 5 minutes 30 seconds. Service ceiling 38,385 feet. Fuel: Two 46 Imp gall wing tanks and a single 28.5 Imp gall fuel tank in the fuselage. Weights: 5176 pounds empty, 7077 pounds normal loaded. Dimensions: Wingspan 35 feet 5 1/4 inches, length 31 feet 9 11/16 inches, height 12 feet 8 9/16 inches, wing area 215.82 square feet. Armament: Two 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon with 200 rpg in the wings and two 7.7-mm Type 97 machine guns in the upper fuselage decking.

J2M3 Produced in parallel with the J2M2 was the J2M3 Raiden Model 21, which was destined to be the major production version. The J2M3 was equipped with a stronger wing carrying four 20-mm cannon. The two fuselage-mounted 7.7-mm machine guns were discarded. Two of the cannon were Model 2 versions with projecting muzzles and the other two were slower-firing Model Is buried entirely inside the wing. The additional wing guns had dictated some local strengthening of the wing structure and required that some reduction be made in the size of the wing-root fuel tanks. The fuselage tank was also slightly reduced in capacity. However, a 44-Imp gall drop tank could be carried underneath the fuselage centerline as an alternative to an external load of a pair of 132-pound bombs underneath the wings. The J2M3 standardized on the enlarged oil cooler with an external air intake that had been introduced during the production run of the J2M2. The Kasei 23a engine was retained.



The J2M3 was initially produced in parallel with the J2M2, but it soon supplanted it and became the major production model of the Raiden. A new domed cockpit canopy (which had been first tried out on the J2M6) was introduced on the production line in June of 1944 in order to address the continual complaints from pilots about poor vision from the cockpit. The differing type of cannon carried by the J2M3 resulted in different ballistic characteristics. In an attempt to address this problem, the J2M3a Model 21A version was built. The J2M3a differed from the J2M3 only in having the two wing-mounted Type 99 Model 1 20 mm cannon removed and replaced by two 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon carried in pods beneath the wings. The quartet of Model 2 cannon proved more effective, but the drag of the underwing gondolas had an adverse effect on performance, and only 21 of these J2M3a versions were built. The first J2M3 appeared in October 1943, some time before the J2M2 had been delivered to the 381st Kokutai. This model was adopted in succession to the J2M2 and placed in production at Mitsubishi's Nagoya and Suzuka factories. The first production J2M3 was delivered at the beginning of February 1944. Unfortunately, the J2M3 was somewhat heavier than the J2M2 owing to its better armament, and the J2M3 could no longer attain the performance called for in the original specification. In addition, its protracted teething troubles and poor mechanical reliability had resulted in slow deliveries and in low availability. Consequently, in June of 1944 the Japanese Navy decided to adopt the Kawanishi N1K1-J Shiden (Allied code name George) as its primary interceptor aircraft. However, production of the Raiden was permitted to continue at a reduced pace until the A7M Reppu (Hurricane) could be placed in production. However, within weeks of the Japanese Navy's decision to phase out the Raiden, the B-29 Superfortress begin to appear. Since the J2M3 had a good high-altitude performance and an effective armament, it was judged to be a potent B-29 interceptor and its production priority was reinstated. In addition, The Koza Kaigun Kokusho (Koza Naval Air Arsenal) was instructed to join in Raiden production. The production of Raiden fighters by the Mitsubishi Jugogyo K K of all types totaled 476. The Raiden made its operational debut in September of 1944 over the Marianas during the Battle of the Philippine Sea, when a small number of Raidens had operated from Guam. A technical manual on the Raiden was discovered by American intelligence after the capture of Saipan, and the Raiden was assigned the Allied code name Jack. A small number of Raidens were deployed to the Philippines and were active during the invasion of these islands by the Americans. The Raiden got its primary use during the defense of the Japanese home islands. Its good performance, powerful armament, and armor protection made it perhaps the best bomber destroyer employed by Japan in the latter stages of the war. It had a good high-altitude performance, and was one of the few Japanese fighters able to reach the high-flying B-29 Superfortress. Its armament of four 20-mm cannon was sufficiently heavy that it could do major damage against B-29s. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/j2m.html (5 of 9)2006-09-19 15:20:43


In February of 1945, an American technical intelligence team discovered a single Raiden abandoned among the trees alongside the Dewey Boulevard on the outskirts of Manila. It was disassembled and transferred to Clark Field, where it was repaired by the Technical Air Intelligence Command (TAIC) and test flown. A senior test pilot attached to TAIC rated the Raiden as being the best Japanese fighter he had flown, offering a good performance, good stability, good stalling characteristics, and good takeoff and landing qualities. It had a steep climbing angle and a rapid climb rate. Handling and control were good, but the ailerons became rather heavy at speeds above 325 mph. Stalling characteristics were exceptional. Even though there was relatively little stall warning, the recovery from the stall was extremely rapid, with very little altitude being lost. There was no tendency to spin, the aircraft being exceptionally stable. The maneuvering flaps were rated as being very effective. On the negative side, the brakes and rudder brake action were poor, the ailerons were heavy which made the maneuverability fall off at high speeds, the mechanical reliability was poor, and the range was short. The Raiden was available too late and in insufficient numbers to affect the outcome of the war. It is indeed fortunate for the B-29 crews that more of these capable interceptors were not deployed by the Japanese in the last year of the war. Specification of J2M3 Raiden Model 21: One Mitsubishi MK4R-A Kasei 23a 14-cylinder radial air-cooled engine rated at 1870 hp for takeoff, with military ratings of 1580 hp at sea level, 1695 hp at 6890 feet, 1560 hp at 18,045 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 338 mph at 7875 feet, 363 mph at 17,880 feet, 359 mph at 19,360 feet. Normal cruising speed 219 mph at 9840 feet, 265 mph at 19,685 feet. Normal range 655 miles at 265 mph at 19,685 feet (with 85 Imp gall in wing tanks). Maximum range 1180 miles at 232 mph at 15,750 feet (with full fuel load and 44 Imp gall drop tank). Initial climb rate 3838 feet per minute. An altitude of 9840 feet could be reached in 2.95 minutes. An altitude of 19,685 feet could be reached in 5.85 minutes. Service ceiling 38,385 feet. Fuel: 85 Imp gall in wing tanks, 26 Imp gall in fuselage tanks. A 44 Imp gall drop tank could be carried on the fuselage centerline. Weights: 5489 pounds empty, 7584 pounds normal loaded (fuel in wing tanks only), 8120 pounds overload (with fuel in fuselage tank and carrying drop tank). Dimensions: Wingspan 35 feet 5 1/4 inches, length 32 feet 7 1/2 inches, height 12 feet 11 1/4 inches, wing area 215.82 square feet. Armament: Two 20-mm Type 99 Model 1 cannon and two 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon with 200 rpg. Underwing loads of two 66-lb or two 132-lb bombs could be carried. Alternatively, one 44-Imp gall drop tank could be carried on the centerline.

J2M4 In an attempt to improve the high-altitude performance of the Raiden, the J2M4 Model 34 was introduced, flying for the first time in August of 1944. It had a Kasei 23c engine equipped with a http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/j2m.html (6 of 9)2006-09-19 15:20:43


turbosupercharger mounted in the side of the fuselage just behind the engine. The turbosupercharger allowed the rated power of 1420 hp to be maintained up to 30,000 feet instead of only 15,750 feet. Two oblique-firing 20-mm cannon were fitted inside the fuselage behind the cockpit. These guns were aimed upward at an angle of 70 degrees from the horizontal in a manner similar to the German Schrage Musik installation. The four cannon in the wings were retained. This aircraft could reach a speed of 362 mph at 30,185 feet, which would have made it useful against the B-29s which were able to fly above the combat ceilings of most Japanese fighters. However, difficulties with the turbosupercharger caused the project to be terminated after only two experimental J2M4s were built. Specification of J2M4 Raiden Model 34: One Mitsubishi MK4R-C Kasei 23c 14-cylinder radial air-cooled engine rated at 1820 hp for takeoff, with military rating of 1420 hp at 30,185 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 362 mph at 30,185 feet. Normal cruising speed 230 mph. Normal range 575 miles. An altitude of 32,810 feet could be reached in 19.5 minutes. Service ceiling 37,895 feet. Fuel: 85 Imp gall in wing tanks, 26 Imp gall in fuselage tanks. Weights: 6202 pounds empty, 8702 pounds normal loaded. Dimensions: Wingspan 35 feet 5 1/4 inches, length 33 feet 3 13/32 inches, height 12 feet 11 1/4 inches, wing area 215.82 square feet. Armament: Two 20-mm Type 99 Model 1 cannon and two 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon with 200 rpg. Two 20-mm Type 99 Model 1 cannon mounted in the rear fuselage and firing obliquely upwards. Underwing loads of two 66-lb or two 132-lb bombs could be carried. Alternatively, one 44-Imp gall drop tank could be carried on the centerline.

J2M5 The J2M5 Raiden Model 33 version retained the airframe of the J2M4, but was powered by a MK4U-4 Kasei 26a engine with a mechanically-driven three-stage supercharger. It had actually preceded the J2M4, having first flown in May of 1944. This installation proved to be more reliable than the turbosupercharger used by the J2M4. The J2M5 could reach a speed of 382 mph at 22,310 feet, and was the fastest version of the Raiden series. In addition, it had a wider and roomier cockpit which offered the pilot a better view. The appearance of the B-29 over Japan had created a sudden, urgent need for more capable interceptors, and the J2M5 was immediately ordered into production as the Model 33 at the Koza Kaigun Kokusho (Koza Naval Air Arsenal). However, shortages in supplies of Kasei 26a engines delayed the production of the J2M5, and only 34 examples were built before the war ended.



The J2M5a Model 33A was a proposal for a version with four 20-mm Type 99 Model cannon and a domed cockpit canopy. The end of the war prevented this version from ever being built. Specification of J2M5 Raiden Model 33: One Mitsubishi MK4U-4 Kasei 26a 14-cylinder radial air-cooled engine rated at 1820 hp for takeoff, with military rating of 1510 hp at 9185 feet, 1400 hp at 22,310 feet, and 1310 hp at 23,925 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 382 mph at 22,310 feet. Normal cruising speed 230 mph. Normal range 783 miles. An altitude of 19,685 feet could be reached in 6 minutes 20 seconds. Service ceiling 36,910 feet. Fuel: 85 Imp gall in wing tanks, 26 Imp gall in fuselage tanks. Weights: 5534 pounds empty, 7646 pounds normal loaded. Dimensions: Wingspan 35 feet 5 1/4 inches, length 32 feet 7 17/32 inches, height 12 feet 11 1/4 inches, wing area 215.82 square feet. Armament: Two 20-mm Type 99 Model 1 cannon and two 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon with 200 rpg. Underwing loads of two 66-lb or two 132-lb bombs could be carried. Alternatively, one 44-Imp gall drop tank could be carried on the centerline.

J2M6 The J2M6 (which actually chronologically preceded both the J2M4 and the J2M5) differed from the J2M3 in having a new wider cockpit and a domed cockpit canopy which improved visibility. Only one example of the J2M6 was completed, but the new domed canopy introduced on the J2M6 was fitted to some later production J2M3 and J2M3a Raidens. The J2M6a Model 31A was a proposal for a similar modification of the J2M3a. It was never built.

J2M7 The J2M7 Model 23 was a projected variant of the J2M3 with the Kasei 26a engine. The J2M7a Model 23A was basically similar, but was based on the J2M3a with four 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon. The end of the war prevented either one of these variants from being built.

Sources: War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 3, William Green, 1964. Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979.



The Asiatic Thunderbolt, Air Enthusiast, June 1971.



http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/j8mi.html

1. Mitsubishi J8M1 Shusui 1. Japanese adaptation of Messerschmitt Me 163B Komet 2. Sources:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/j8mi.html2006-09-19 15:21:10

Mitsubishi J8M1 Shusui

Mitsubishi J8M1 Shusui Japanese adaptation of Messerschmitt Me 163B Komet During the war, Japanese military attaches in Germany were aware of the existence of the Messerschmitt Me 163B Komet rocket-powered interceptor, and in late 1943 Japan arranged to purchase a license for manufacture of the Komet. For the sum of 20 million Reichmarks, Japan also purchased the manufacturing rights to the Walter HWK 109-509 rocket engine together with one completed example. Faced with the onset of B-29 raids on the Japanese home islands, the military was in desperate need of an effective interceptor to counter the Superfortress. In July 1944, the Japanese Navy issued a 19-Shi specification for a rocket-powered interceptor based on the Me 163B. The task of designing and producing the aircraft was assigned to the Mitsubishi Jukogyo K.K.. Both Army and Navy versions were planned--- the Army designation was to be Ki-200 Army Experimental Rocket-Powered Interceptor and the Navy designation was to be J8M1 Navy Experimental Rocket-Powered Interceptor Fighter. The popular name for both versions was Shushi (Sword Stroke). The Japanese-built version of the HWK 109-509 rocket engine was designated Toko Ro.2 (KR10), and had an estimated thrust of 3307 lb. st. It was quite similar to its German inspiration, but did have some modifications to adapt it to Japanese production techniques. Progress on the aircraft proceeded rapidly under the direction of Mijiro Takahashi of Mitsubishi, in spite of the fact that a submarine bringing an example of the Me 163B and a set of full technical data back to Japan had been sunk en route. The team at Mitsubishi had only a simple instructional manual to work with, but a mockup of the Shusui was completed and ready for inspection in September 1944. A glider version of the Shusui was also designed. It was to act as a trainer for pilots who would be flying the J8M1. The glider version was designated MXY8 Akigusa (Autumn Grass), and was built by the DaiIchi Kaigun Koku Gijitsusho (First Naval Air Technical Arsenal) at Yokosuka. The MXY8 was taken to Hyakurigahara Airfield in Ibaragi Prefecture for tests upon completion. It flew for the first time on December 8, 1944, towed into the air by a Kyushu K10W1 of the 312th Kokutai and piloted by LtCdr Toyohiko Inuzuka. Despite its unusual configuration, it handled well. Two additional MXY8 prototypes were built at Yokosuka. A heavier version of the MXY8 was planned, fitted with water ballast tanks to simulate the characteristics of a fully-loaded J8M1. It was to be built for the Navy by Maeda Koku Kenkyujo (Maeda Aircraft Institute) and for the Army by Yokoi Koko K.K. (Yokoi Aircraft Co) as the Ku-13 Training Glider. Some 50-60 of these gliders were finished by the time of the Japanese surrender. The Navy also planned to built the MXY9 Shuka (Autumn Fire), a modified powered version powered http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/j8m.html (1 of 3)2006-09-19 15:21:14


by a 441 lb.s.t Tsu-11 ducted fan engine. However, no examples were completed before the Japanese surrender. The first two J8M1s to be built were completed with ballast replacing the rocket motor and its fuel. Gliding flights of the J8M1 began on January 8, 1945. The aircraft were towed into the air by a Nakajima B6N1 and released to glide back down. These flights confirmed the basic soundness of the design. The first Toku Ro.2 rocket motors were delivered to Mitsubishi in early June of 1945. The first powered J8M1 was ready for its first flight test later in June. Unfortunately, on its first powered flight on July 7, the rocket engine failed during the steep climb after takeoff and the aircraft crashed, killing its pilot, Lt. Cdr Toyohiko Inuzuka. The cause of the engine failure was thought to have been the shifting of the hydrogen peroxide fuel to the rear of the partially empty tank, allowing air to enter a fuel pipe and causing a blockage. No other test flight ever took place. The fuel system of the sixth and seventh prototypes were in the process of being modified when the war ended, bringing the Shusui program to an abrupt halt. Shusui production was already underway at the end of the war, with Mitsubishi, Nissan, and Fugi all participating in the program. By the time of the Japanese surrender, a total of seven Shusui aircraft had been built by Mitsubishi. Three MXY8 gliders and some 50-60 Akigusa and Ku-18 Shusui heavy gliders had also been built. Two Navy versions of the Shusui were planned, the J8M1 armed with two 30-mm cannon and the J8M2 with one of the cannon being replaced by additional fuel tanks. An enlarged version of the Ki-200 Army version with increased fuel, the Ki-202, was to be the Army's priority interceptor project. A J8M1 was captured by US forces after the war and was returned to the USA for evaluation. As far as I am aware, it was never actually flown. It was acquired by Ed Maloney from a scrap yard in 1950, and is now on static display at the Planes of Fame museum in Chino, California.

Specification of Mitsubishi J8M1 Shusui (Sword Stroke) One 3307 lb.s.t Koko Ro.2 (KR10) liquid-fuelled rocket engine. Estimated performance: Maximum speed 559 mph at 32,810 feet. An altitude of 32,810 feet could be attained in 3 minutes, 32 seconds. Service ceiling 39,370 feet. Powered endurance 5 minutes 30 seconds. Dimensions: Wingspan 31 feet 2 inches, length 19 feet 10 3/16 inches, height 8 feet 10 5/16 inches, wing area 190.8 square feet. Weights: 3318 pounds empty, 8565 pounds loaded.



Armament: Two wing-mounted 30-mm Type 5 cannon.


Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979 War Planes of the Second World War, Volume 3, William Green, Doubleday, 1964. e-mail from William Liao.



http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-61i.html

1. Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien 1. Ki-61-I 2. Ki-61-II 3. Ki-61-III 4. Sources:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-61i.html2006-09-19 15:21:32

Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien

Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien Ki-61-I The Kasasaki Ki-61 Hien was unique among Japanese fighter aircraft of the Pacific War -- it had a liquid-cooled engine, a long tapered nose, and high aspect-ratio wings. It had a very European look to it --- in fact, when it first appeared in combat it was initially assumed to be a license-built version of either the Messerschmitt Bf 109 or perhaps some unspecified Italian aircraft. In fact, its suspected Italian ancestry may have played a role in the choosing of its Allied code name --- TONY. Most Japanese fighter aircraft had been powered by air-cooled radial engines. However, the German Daimler-Benz DB 601A liquid-cooled, inverted-vee engine (which powered the Bf 109E) had attracted considerable interest in Japan, and a license had been acquired in April 1940 by the Kawasaki Kokuki Kogyo K.K. (Kawasaki Aircraft Engineering Co Ltd) to build the German engine in Japan under the designation Ha-40. A Japanese technical team brought back a set of blueprints of the DB 601A and a few examples to serve as production patterns. The first prototype Ha-40 engine was ready in July of 1941, and the first examples began to roll off Kawasaki's Akashi engine production line in the fall of 1941. While negotiating with Daimler Benz in Germany, Kawasaki attempted to interest the Japanese Army in various fighter aircraft powered by this engine. The Japanese Army had of course been following the combat reports from Europe with great interest, particularly the successes of fighter planes powered by liquid-cooled engines (e. g. Bf 109E, Spitfire, Hurricane). In February of 1940, the Koku Hombu instructed the airframe division of the Kawasaki Kokuki Kogyu K. K. located at Kamamingahara near Nagoya to produce two separate designs based on the DB-601A/Ha-40 engine --- the Ki-60 heavy interceptor and the Ki-61 light, all-purpose fighter. Initial priority was given to the Ki-60 heavy interceptor. Contrary to previous Japanese philosophy, speed, rate of climb, and offensive punch were to be stressed at the expense of range and maneuverability. The Ki-60 was designed by Takeo Doi and Shin Owada and was a clean, low-winged fighter powered by a 1100 hp Daimler-Benz DB 601A liquid-cooled 12-cylinder inverted-V engine that had been purchased directly from Germany. Armament consisted of 2 fuselage-mounted 12.7-mm machine guns and two wing-mounted 20-mm Mauser MG 151 cannon imported from Germany. The first Ki-60 prototype flew in March of 1941. However, test pilots were generally displeased with its performance --- they found the aircraft to have poor maneuverability, an excessively-high wing loading, a high landing speed, and a top speed of only 342 mph (373 mph was promised). In order to correct some of these deficiencies, the second prototype was provided with a wing of increased area and was fitted with a revised cowling having better streamlining. Maximum speed was boosted to 348 mph and maneuverability was improved somewhat. The third prototype was refined still further, and the Mauser cannon were replaced by a pair of 12.7-mm machine guns in an attempt to save some weight. However, http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-61.html (1 of 6)2006-09-19 15:22:08

Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien

even with these changes, the maximum speed was still only a rather disappointing 354 mph, and the Ki60 project was shelved in favor of Kawasaki's other project, the lighter and faster Ki-61. The Ki-61 was a lighter, all-purpose adaptation of the Ki-60. It was also designed by Takeo Doi and Shin Owada and was fitted with a high aspect-ratio, large area wing which was designed to provide good maneuverability and long endurance. It was two feet longer than the Ki-60, and the wings were five feet greater in span. The engine was also the Kawasaki Ha-40, the license-built version of the DB-601A. Armament consisted of two 12.7 mm machine guns in the fuselage and either a pair of 7.7 mm or 12.7 mm machine guns were fitted to the wings. A large coolant radiator was mounted on the fuselage belly at the position of the wing trailing edge. Flight tests of the Ki-61 prototype began in December of 1941. Flight tests met the most sanguine hopes of the designers --- a maximum speed of 367 mph at 19,685 feet was reached. The wing loading was high in comparison with other Japanese fighters, but the diving speed was good and the armor protection, self-sealing tanks, and heavy armament were all commented upon favorably. During competitive tests against an imported Bf 109E and a captured Curtiss P-40E, the Ki-61 was judged to have the best overall performance. In late 1942, the design was accepted for production under the designation Army Type 3 Fighter Model 1. It was assigned the popular name Hien (Swallow). The thirteenth Ki-61 was the first machine which was built with production tooling and was completed in August of 1942. It differed from the prototypes in deleting a small window on each side of the fuselage ahead of the windshield. There were two initial production variants, which differed from each other in the armament fitted: the Ki61-Ia (Model 1A) armed with two fuselage- mounted 12.7-mm machine guns and two wing-mounted 7.7-mm machine guns and the Ki- 61-Ib (Model 1B) in which the wing guns were replaced by 12.7-mm units. The powerplant was the 1100 hp Kawasaki Ha-40 twelve- cylinder liquid cooled inverted-vee engine. Initial deliveries were made in February 1943 to the 23rd Dokuritsu Dai Shijugo Chutai at Ota, which acted as a conversion and training unit. The Hien initially entered combat in April 1943 when the 68th and 78th Sentais were transferred to the New Guinea theatre of operation. The aircraft subsequently appeared in every theatre in which the Japanese Army was involved. The Ki-61 immediately proved itself to be better suited for combat against its heavier-armed Allied opponents than was the Ki-43 Hayabusa. Although it was not as maneuverable as the earlier Ki-43, the Ki-61 had heavier armament, good armor protection for the pilot, and self-sealing fuel tanks. The Hien could be pushed over into a 45 degree dive very rapidly, and its diving performance was far superior to that of any other Japanese fighter. Its high diving speed worked to advantage against Allied fighters which relied on hit and run attacks from higher altitudes. In defensive operations, the Hien was especially difficult to counter, since the aircraft seldom offered a good target. When engaged in combat at a disadvantage, it could often escape by going into a half-roll followed by a dive, or else it would turn in and under the opposing plane, often getting in a deflection shot. The Hien completely outclassed the Curtiss P-40 in most

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-61.html (2 of 6)2006-09-19 15:22:08

Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien

combat encounters, unless the Allied fighter was being flown by the most experienced of pilots. The Hien was well-liked by its pilots and respected and feared by its opponents. However, the Ha-40 engine proved to be a maintenance headache, especially in the prevailing hot and damp weather of the New Guinea theatre. Main-bearing failures and oil-system faults were the primary problems. In addition, the power ratings of individual Ha-40 engines would vary greatly from one example to another, owing to poor quality control during manufacture. Combat experience showed that the Hien was still somewhat underarmed, especially when it was going up against well-protected Allied bombers. Pending the availability of indigenous cannon, plans were made to replace the wing-mounted machine guns of the Ki-61-Ia and Ib aircraft with Mauser MG 151 20 mm cannon imported from Germany. Since space in the wing was limited, the cannon had to be mounted on their sides, with a small underwing fairing covering the breech. Since the recoil forces from the cannon were larger than those from the machine guns, some local wing strengthening was required. However, as the war began to turn against Japan, the numbers of these German-supplied cannon became limited, and only 388 Ki-61-Ia and -1b Hiens actually received these guns. One Ki-61 was modified to test a surface evaporation cooling system proposed for the Ki-64 experimental high-speed fighter. This had its large ventral radiator replaced by a smaller retractable unit located further forward. This unit was meant only for use on the ground, with inflight cooling being provided by steam evaporation through wing condensers. Operations from New Guinea, New Ireland, and New Britain had shown that the Hien was difficult to maintain in the field. In an attempt to improve the maintainability of the basic design, the Ki-61-I-KAIc version was introduced onto the production line. In order to simplify maintenance in the field, the fuselage was slightly longer and was provided with a detachable rear section. The wings were strengthened, which allowed an increase in the diving speed. Provisions were made for the mounting of stores pylons underneath the wings outboard of the wheel wells. The retractable tailwheel was replaced by a fixed unit. Aware that the supply of German MG 151 cannon could be curtailed at any time, the Japanese had begun developing a comparable weapon of indigenous design, the Ho-5. The Ki-61-IKAIc (Model Ic) used a pair of domestically-produced Type Ho-5 20 mm cannon mounted in the fuselage and a pair of 12.7-mm machine guns mounted in the wings. The first Ki-61-I-KAIc was manufactured in January 1944. Since the Ho-5 cannon were not immediately available in adequate quantity, the Ki-61-I-KAIc version was manufactured in parallel with the earlier Ki-61-Ib. The Ki-61-IKAIc finally supplanted the earlier model on the production line in August of that year. A total of 1274 Model Ics were built, which accounted for over half the Hiens built. The Ki-61-I-KAId was a specialized bomber interceptor version armed with a pair of 30-mm cannon in the wings and two 12.7-mm machine guns in the fuselage. Only a few of these variants were built. The Hien appeared in the Philippines late in 1944, serving with the 17th, 18th, and 19th Sentais. It appeared over Formosa and Okinawa with the 19th, 37th 59th, and 105th Sentais, and the 23rd Doikuritsu Dai Shijugo Chutai. It also served with the 18th, 23rd, 28th, 55th, 56th, 59th, and 244th


Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien

Sentais in the final defense of the Japanese home islands. Over Japan, it fought against B-29s and against US Navy carrier-based aircraft. Against the high-flying B-29s, the Hien lacked the necessary high-altitude performance. In attacks on B-29 bombers, the Hien would often be used in ramming attacks, the pilot jumping clear immediately before impact. When the Iwo Jima-based P-51 Mustang finally started to appear over Japan, the Hien was definitely outclassed. A total of 2654 production Ki-61-I Hiens were built (1380 Ia and Ib, 1274 KAIc and KAId). By the spring of 1944, production of the Hien had fallen to a low level because of shortages of Ha-40 engines, with no solution having been found for the bearing failure problems. Production was finally terminated in January of 1945. Specification of Kawasaki Ki-61-1b Army Type 3 Fighter Model 1b: One Army Type 2 twelve-cylinder liquid cooled engine (Kawasaki Ha-40) rated at 1175 hp for takeoff and 1080 hp at 11,480 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 368 mph at 15,945 feet. Cruising speed 249 mph at 13,125 feet. An altitude of 16,400 feet could be reached in 5 minutes 31 seconds. Service ceiling 37,730 feet. Normal range 373 miles, maximum range 684 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 39 feet 4 7/16 inches, length 28 feet 8 1/2 inches, height 12 feet 1 11/16 inches, wing area 215.3 square feet. Weights: 4872 pounds empty, 6504 pounds loaded, 7165 pounds maximum. Armament: Two fuselagemounted 12.7 mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns and two wing-mounted 7.7 mm Type 89 machine guns (Ki-61-Ia). Two fuselage-mounted 12.7 mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns and two wingmounted 12.7 mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns (Ki-61-Ib). Some Ki-61-Ia and -Ib aircraft had the wing guns replaced by 20-mm Mauser MG-151/20 cannon. Specification of Kawasaki Ki-61-I-KAIc Army Type 3 Fighter Model 1c: One Army Type 2 twelve-cylinder liquid cooled engine (Kawasaki Ha-40) rated at 1180 hp for takeoff and 1100 hp at 11,480 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 366 mph at 13,980 feet. An altitude of 16,400 feet could be reached in 7 minutes. Service ceiling 32,810 feet. Maximum range 1120 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 39 feet 4 7/16 inches, length 29 feet 4 inches, height 12 feet 1 11/16 inches, wing area 215.3 square feet. Weights: 5798 pounds empty, 7650 pounds loaded. Armament: Two fuselage-mounted 20 mm Ho-5 cannon and two wing-mounted 12.7 mm Type 1 (Ho103) machine guns and two wing-mounted 12.7 mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns.

Ki-61-II


Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien

Shortly after beginning production of the Ha-40 engine, the Kawasaki corporation began work on a more powerful version of this engine, designated Ha-140. This engine was to emphasize high-altitude performance, and work began on a Hien derivative to accommodate this new engine. This derivative was given the temporary designation Ki-61-II-KAI. It retained the original wing of the Hien, married to a revised fuselage with a longer nose and a strengthened airframe. The cockpit canopy was revised for improved vision. A redesigned vertical fin with a greater area was fitted. Even though the Ha-140 engine still had a lot of mechanical problems (crankshaft failures being quite common), the design was accepted for production as the Ki-61-II Army Type 3 Fighter Model 2. Two versions of the Model 2 were built--the Ki-61-IIa Model 2A with two 12.7 mm machine guns in the wings and two 20-mm Ho-5 cannon in the fuselage, and the Ki-61-IIb Model 2B with four 20 mm Ho-5 cannon. The Model 2 Hien never entirely supplanted the earlier Model 1 in operational units, since its Ha-140 engine continued to suffer from lots of problems even after full production had begun. This engine was subject to frequent failures in its main bearings, in its superchargers, and in its oil and coolant systems. In addition, the lack of skilled workers in the engine manufacturing plant resulted in rather poor quality control, and only rarely did the Ha-140 engine give its full rated power. However, when the Ha-140 engine was working well, it could deliver 1500 hp for takeoff and 1250 hp at 18,700 feet, and the Model 2 Hien proved to be an effective interceptor and was the only Army fighter capable of maintaining combat formation at the operating altitude of the B-29. Of the Ki-61-IIa and IIb fighters built, about onethird were destroyed in air raids, and the remainder were assigned to duty as interceptors. Chronic engine problems and shortages resulted in lots of Model 2 airframes sitting around in factory yards waiting for powerplants. This problem was exacerbated even further on January 19, 1945 when a B-29 raid destroyed Kawasaki's Akashi engine plant. The chronic shortage of engines caused production of the Model 2 Hien to be suspended. By the time that production was suspended, 374 Model 2s had been built, but 30 of these were destroyed on the ground prior to delivery and 275 were built without engines. What to do with these airframes sitting around waiting for engines? That is another story, which will be considered in the Ki-100 installment of this series. Specification of the Kawasaki Ki-61-IIa Army Type 3 Fighter Model 2A: One Kawasaki Ha-140 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled engine rated at 1500 hp for takeoff and 1250 hp at 18,700 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 379 mph at 19,685 feet, an altitude of 16,400 feet could be attained in 6 minutes. Service ceiling 36,090 feet. Normal range 684 miles, maximum range 995 miles.


Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien

Dimensions: Wingspan 38 feet 4 7/16 inches, length 30 feet 0 5/8 inches, height 12 feet 1 11/16 inches, wing area 215.3 square feet. Weights: 6261 pounds empty, 8333 pounds loaded, 8433 pounds maximum Armament: two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon and two wing-mounted 12.7 mm Type 1 (Ho103) machine guns. Two 551 pounds could be carried on underwing hardpoints.

Ki-61-III The Ki-61-III was to have been a modified version of the Ki-61-II with various aerodynamic refinements including the use of an all-round vision canopy. Only one aerodynamic prototype was produced, this aircraft being produced by fitting an all-round vision canopy to a stock Ki-61-II. This version was never produced, being abandoned in favor of the radial-engined version of the Hien, the Ki100. However, the new all-round vision canopy was eventually incorporated into later production models of the Ki-100.

Sources: ● ● ● ●

Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979. Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1967. Aircraft in Profile: The Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien, Rene J. Francillon, 1966. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 3, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.



http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84i.html

1. Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate 1. Ki-84-I 2. Ki-84-II Hayate Kai 3. Ki-84-III 4. Ki-106 5. Ki-113 6. Ki-116 7. Ki-84N 8. Ki-84P 9. Ki-84R 10. Sources:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84i.html2006-09-19 15:23:04

Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate

Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate Ki-84-I The Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate (Gale) was numerically the most important fighter serving with the Japanese Army Air Force (JAAF) during the last year of the Pacific War, and was probably the best Japanese fighter aircraft to see large-scale operation during this period of the war. The Hayate was fully the equal of even the most advanced Allied fighters which opposed it, and was often their superior in many important respects. It was well armed and armored, was fast, and was very maneuverable. Although it was generally outnumbered by Allied fighters which opposed it, it nevertheless gave a good account of itself in battles over the Philippines, over Okinawa, and over the Japanese home islands. So desperate was the need for Ki-84s in the last months of the war, Japan was building underground factories with a planned rate of 200 aircraft per month. The history of the Ki-84 can be traced back to just after the beginning of the Pacific War between Japan and the United States. Just three weeks after Pearl Harbor, the Koku Hombu instructed the Nakajima Hikoki K.K. (Nakajima Aeroplane Co Ltd) to begin the design of a replacement for the Ki-43 Hayabusa, which itself had just entered service with the JAAF. The JAAF wanted a general-purpose long-range fighter that would be superior to those that were then under development in the USA and Britain. The specification called for an aircraft with the maneuverability of the Ki-43 Hayabusa coupled with the speed and climb of the Ki-44 Shoki. In addition, the aircraft was to be provided with armor protection for the pilot and was to be fitted with self-sealing fuel tanks. The aircraft was to have a maximum speed of 398-423 mph, and was to be capable of operating at combat rating for 1.5 hours at distances as far as 250 miles from its base. The wing loading was not to exceed 35 pounds per square foot. The maneuverability requirements were relaxed somewhat as compared to those of the Ki-43, but were to exceed those of the Ki-44 which had been designed strictly as a bomber destroyer. The engine was to be the Nakajima Ha-45 eighteen-cylinder double-row air-cooled radial. The armament was to be two 12.7 mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns and two 20-mm Ho-5 cannon. T. Koyama was named as the project engineer, and work on the Ki-84 began in early 1942 at Nakajima's Ota plant in Gumma Prefecture. The first prototype was ready in March of 1943. The aircraft was a fairly conventional low-wing monoplane that bore an obvious family resemblance to the Ki-43 and Ki44 fighters that preceded it. The 1800-hp Nakajima Ha-45 engine that powered the Ki-84 was a JAAF version of the Navy's NK9A Homare. Experimental models of the Homare engine had been test run as early as May of 1942, but the development of the Homare was long and difficult, and few Homares were available until August of 1943, and experimental production did not begin until late 1943 at Najajima's Musashi engine factory. A big exhaust collector pipe was mounted on each side of the engine behind the cowling gills. The all-metal airframe followed the common Japanese practice of building the wing integral with the central fuselage in order to save the weight of heavy attachment points. The fuselage was of oval section, with flush-riveted stressed skin. The two-spar wing carried metal-framed, fabric-



covered ailerons and was provided with hydraulically-operated Fowler flaps. A total of 220 US gallons of fuel was carried in tanks aft of the cockpit and in the wings. The engine mounting and cowling incorporated the oil cooler and intakes for the carburetor and supercharger. The three-part canopy had an aft-sliding central section. All three undercarriage members were hydraulically retractable. The main gear retracted inward and horizontally into the wings and was fully covered with flush-fitting doors. The non-steerable tailwheel retracted into the fuselage and was covered by a flush-fitting door. The rudder was of metal construction but was covered with fabric. The tailplane was set well ahead of the vertical surfaces. Two 12.7 mm Ho-103 machine guns with 250 rpg were mounted in the upper cowling, and a 20-mm Ho-5 cannon with 150 rounds was mounted in each wing outboard of the main undercarriage leg. The pilot was protected by a 70-mm armored windshield and by 13-mm armor plate in the rear and floor of the cockpit. Provision was made under the fuselage centerline for a single drop tank. The Ki-84 prototype flew for the first time from Ojima Airfield in April of 1943. The second prototype flew in June. The first prototypes were assigned to the JAAF for trials at the Tachikawa Air Arsenal under the direction of combat-experienced pilots, and the modifications recommended were incorporated into the fourth prototype. The fourth prototype had a maximum speed of 394 mph at 21,800 feet, and could achieve a speed of 496 mph in a dive. The test program went well, and a service trials batch of 83 machines were ordered in August of 1943. These were built between August of 1943 and March of 1944. The pre-production machines differed from each other in minor details, but fuselage changes were incorporated to ease production, and the area of the fin and rudder was increased to improve control on takeoff. A few service trials machines were handed over to the Tachikawa Army Air Arsenal. JAAF pilots commented favorably on the machine, although its maximum speed was below the requirement. The aircraft had a maximum speed was 388 mph, could climb to 16,405 feet in 6 minutes 26 seconds, and had a service ceiling of 40,680. This made the Ki-84 the best-performing Japanese fighter aircraft then available for immediate production. A few service-test Ki-84s were fitted experimentally with a ski undercarriage. The legs retracted into the normal wheel wells, with the skis lying flat underneath the wing roots. These aircraft were tested in Hokkaido during the winter of 1943-44. The ski installation increased the maximum weight, and thus had an adverse effect on maneuverability and reduced the maximum speed by 8 mph. Consequently, skis were not incorporated on production machines. The Ha-45 engine entered full-scale production in April of 1944 as the Type 4. Production of the Type 4 engine was hampered by many setbacks, most of which were due to inadequate preparation, with shortages of jigs, tools, and skilled personnel being significant problems. Service tests of the Ki-84 began in Japan under operational conditions in October 1943. The type was accepted for production as the Army Type 4 Fighter Model 1A Hayate (Gale) or Ki-84-Ia.



A second pre-production batch of 42 Ki-84s was started in April of 1944. These were built between March and June of 1944. These were built in parallel with the first production aircraft, which began to roll off the production lines in April of 1944. Both types were fitted with individual exhaust stacks, which provided some thrust augmentation, and could increase the maximum speed by some 9-10 mph. Each of the two wing racks could carry a 44 Imp gall drop tank or a 551-pound bomb. Some of the aircraft of the second service test batch were tested with wings of increased span and area to serve as development aircraft for the projected Ki-84N and Ki-84P projects. Early production machines had the 11 and 12 models of the Ha-45 engine, with takeoff ratings of 1800 hp and 1825 hp respectively. Later models had the model 21 version of this engine, delivering 1990 hp for takeoff. These engines were rather unreliable and were subject to numerous quirks. Sudden loss of fuel pressure was a constant source of difficulty, and this was addressed by the adoption of the Army Type 4 radial Model 23 ([Ha-45]23) for even later production machines. This Model 23 engine was a modification of the Model 21 engine fitted with a low-pressure fuel injection system. The Ki-84-Ia was followed on the production line by the Ki-84-Ib Army Type 4 Fighter Model Ib. In the Ki-84-Ib, the fuselage-mounted machine guns were replaced by a pair of 20-mm Ho-5 cannon, giving the aircraft a total armament of four 20-mm cannon. The Ki-84-Ic was a specialized bomber destroyer variant armed with two 20-mm Ho-5 cannon in the fuselage and two wing-mounted 30-mm Ho-105 cannon. Only a small number of this version were built. In March of 1944, the experimental squadron that was conducting the service test trials of the Ki-84 was disbanded, and its personnel transferred to the 22nd Sentai. This unit was re-equipped with production Hayates and transferred to China where it entered combat against the USAAF's Fourteenth Air Force in August of 1944. The Ki-84-Ia quickly established itself as a formidable foe that compared favorably with the best Allied fighters then available. The Hayate had an excellent performance and climb rate, and had none of the shortcomings of the earlier generation of Japanese fighters, being well armed and possessing adequate armor protection for the pilot. In addition to the penetration and interception roles, the aircraft was used as a fighter-bomber and dive bomber. The 22nd Sentai was later moved to the Philippines, where it was joined by the 1st, 11th, 21st, 51st, 52nd, 55th, 200th, and 246th Sentais. Following encounters with the Ki-84-Ia, the Allied Technical Air Intelligence Unit (ATAIU), commanded by Colonel Frank McCoy, assigned the code name FRANK to this fighter. This code name had previously been assigned to a fictitious aircraft known as the "Mitsubishi T.K.4", which was erroneously believed to be under development in Japan. When the T.K.4 failed to materialize, Colonel McCoy decided to name the new Ki-84-Ia after himself. The FRANK later appeared in the battle for Okinawa, serving with the 101st, 102nd, and 103rd Hiko Sentais. Two new Sentais, the 111th and the 200th were activated with Hayates. The Hayates were used for long-range penetration missions, fighter sweeps, strafing, interception and dive-bombing missions http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html (3 of 10)2006-09-19 15:23:12


with considerable success. The Ki-84 proved faster than the P-51D Mustang and the P-47D Thunderbolt at all but the highest altitudes. At medium altitudes, the FRANK was so fast that it was essentially immune from interception. The climb rate was exceptionally good, 16,400 feet being attained in 5 minutes 54 seconds, which was superior to that of any opposing Allied fighters. The Ki-84 had a close resemblance to the Ki-43 Hayabusa, which caused many Allied fighter pilots to confuse it with the earlier Nakajima fighter during the stress of combat. Many an American pilot, having sighted a Japanese fighter he believed to be a Ki-43 and salivating at the prospect of a quick and easy kill, suddenly found he had latched onto a different bird entirely. The Ki-84 even did well at the fighter-bomber role. On April 15, 1945, a flight of eleven Hayates from the 100th Sentai made a surprise air attack on American airfields on Okinawa, damaging or destroying a substantial number of aircraft on the ground. However, eight of the Hayates were destroyed in the attack, and one made a forced landing on a small islet near Kyushu. Although the Ki-84 was intended for the offensive, penetration role, Hayates were assigned to the defensive role over the Japanese home islands during the last few weeks of the war, operating with the 10th Division responsible for the defense of Tokyo. The units assigned to home defense included the 47th, the 73rd, the 111th, and the 112th and the 246th Sentais. Since the Hayate was regarded as being essential for the interception role, relatively few were expended in Kamikaze attacks. The Hayate was simple to fly, and pilots with only minimal training could fly the type with relatively little difficulty. However, the aircraft did have have certain poor control characteristics to which a veteran pilot could easily become become accustomed but which could be deadly in the hands of an inexperienced pilot. Taxiing and ground handling were generally rather poor. On takeoff, once the tail came up, continual pressure had to be maintained on the starboard rudder pedal to counteract a tendency to swing to port caused by the high engine torque. In flight, the controls were sluggish in comparison with those of the Hayabusa, and the elevators tended to be heavy at all speeds. The ailerons were excellent up to about 300 mph, after which they became rather heavy. The rudder was mushy at low speeds for angles near neutral. However, most of the defects with the Ki-84 can be laid to poor quality control during manufacture, especially during the last few months of the Pacific war. When the Ki-84 was being designed, emphasis had been placed on ease of production, and the manufacture of the Ki-84 required less than half the tooling needed by the Ki-43 and Ki-44 which preceded it. However, many experienced workers had been drafted into the military, and this loss, acting in concert with the accelerated rates of production ordered by the Japanese Ministry of Munitions, resulted in a steady drop in quality standards of both the engine and the airframe of the Hayate as the war progressed. The performance and reliability of production Hayates was seldom as good as that of the service test machines. As the quality of the workmanship steadily deteriorated, the performance of the Hayate steadily declined as production progressed, with later machines having successively poor and poorer performance and mechanical reliability. The hydraulic and fuel pressure systems were both poorly designed and were subject to frequent failures. The wheel brakes were notoriously unreliable, and the metal of the landing gear struts was often inadequately hardened during manufacture, which made them likely to snap at any time. This caused many Hayates to be written off in landing accidents, without ever having been damaged in http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html (4 of 10)2006-09-19 15:23:12


combat. Engine shortages and delays were a constant problem for the Hayate. Although the Ha-45 engine had been plagued with production difficulties all throughout its life, most of the delays in deliveries were caused by frequent visits of 20th Air Force B-29s to the Musashi engine plant during the last year of the war. This plant was hit by B-29 raids on no less than twelve occasions between November 24, 1944 and August 8, 1945. Production was able to continue at the Musashi plant until April 20, 1945, when it was finally put out of business for good and all production came to a standstill. Operations were transferred to an underground plant at Asakawa. and to a new plant at Hamamatsu, and a trickle of engines still continued to flow, but the supply of engines never reached the previous peak. Because of the production delays and components shortages, the quality of the Ha-45 engines delivered steadily deteriorated as the months passed, and later engines were considerably less powerful and less reliable than those initially delivered. By June of 1945, the lowering of manufacturing standards had cut the climb rate of the fighter so severely that the aircraft was virtually useless at altitudes over 30,000 feet. A total of 1670 Hayates were built during 1944, making the aircraft numerically the most important Japanese fighter in production at that time. However, this was still far below JAAF requirements. Orders for 1944 alone totaled 2525 machines, almost a thousand more than were actually delivered. This shortfall was partly a result of the failure of subcontractors to deliver components on schedule, but became increasingly caused by Allied air attacks on Japanese industry as 1944 neared its end. On February 19. 1945, Nakajima's Ota plant was attacked by 84 B-29s, which seriously damaged the plant and destroyed some 74 Hayates on the assembly line. Further attacks on the plant by US carrier-based aircraft further damaged the plant to such an extent that an extensive dispersal program had to be carried out, with an accompanied sharp drop in production. In May of 1944, Nakajima opened up a second Hayate manufacturing line at its Utsonomiya plant. This facility had built 727 fighters by July of 1945, less than half the number scheduled during this period. Construction of the Hayate was also assigned to the Mansyu Hikoki Seizo K.K. (Manchurian Aircraft Manufacturing Company), which started production in the spring of 1945 at its Harbin plant in Manchuria. However, only a hundred or so Hayates were built at Harbin before the end of the war brought production to an abrupt end. Total production of the Hayate by all factories was 3514, including prototypes and service trials aircraft. In 1946, a captured late-production Hayate was restored and tested at the Middletown Air Depot in Pennsylvania. At a weight of 7490 pounds, the aircraft achieved a maximum speed of 427 mph at 20,000 feet, using war emergency power. This speed exceeded that of the P-51D Mustand and the P-47D at that altitude by 2 mph and 22 mph respectively. These figures were achieved with a superbly maintained and restored aircraft and with highly-refined aviation gasoline, and were not typical of Japanese-operated aircraft during the later stages of the war. Specification of Nakajima Ki-84-1a:



Engine: One Army Type 4 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial (Nakajima Ha-45). The following engine models were used: [Ha-45]11 rated at 1800 hp for takeoff and 1650 hp at 6560 feet. [Ha-45]12 rated at 1825 hp for takeoff and 1670 hp at 7875 feet. [Ha-45]21 rated at 1990 hp for takeoff and 1850 hp at 5740 feet. [Ha-45]23 rated at 1900 hp for takeoff and 1670 hp at 4725 feet. Performance (early production): Maximum speed 392 mph at 20,080 feet, cruising speed 277 mph. An altitude of 16,405 feet could be reached in 5 minutes 54 seconds. An altitude of 26,240 feet could be attained in 11 minutes 40 seconds. Service ceiling 34,450 feet. Normal range 1053 miles, maximum range 1347 miles. Weights: 5864 pounds empty, 7955 pounds loaded, 8576 pounds maximum. Dimensions: Wingspan 36 feet 10 7/16 inches, length 32 feet 6 9/16 inches, height 11 feet 1 1/4 inches, wing area 226.04 square feet. Armament: Two fuselage mounted 12.7-mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns and two wingmounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon (Ki-84-Ia). Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon and two wingmounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon (Ki-84-Ib). Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon and two wingmounted 30-mm Ho-105 cannon (Ki-84-Ic). External stores included two 551-pound bombs or two 44Imp gall drop tanks.

Ki-84-II Hayate Kai The Ki-84-II or Hayate Kai was an attempt to conserve valuable supplies of aluminum by employing large numbers of wooden components in the manufacture of the Hayate. The rear fuselage, certain fittings, and modified wingtips were made of wood, with all the wood work being carried out at a shadow factory at Tanuma. The engine was the Nakajama [Ha-45] 21, 25 or 23 with low-pressure fuel injection. Armament consisted of four 20-mm or two 20-mm and two 30-mm cannon. The designation Ki-84-II was actually a Nakajima designation, the aircraft in JAAF service retaining the Ki-84-Ib or -Ic designation, depending on armament. Specification of Ki-84-II: Engine: One Army Type 4 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial (Nakajima Ha-45). The following engine models were used: [Ha-45]21 rated at 1990 hp for takeoff and 1850 hp at 5740 feet. [Ha-45]23 rated at 1900 hp for takeoff and 1670 hp at 4725 feet. [Ha-45]25 rated at 2000 hp for takeoff and 1700 hp at 19,685 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 416 mph Weights: 8495 pounds loaded. Dimensions: Wingspan 36 feet 10 7/16 inches, length 32 feet 6 9/16 inches, height 11 feet 1 1/4 inches, wing area 226.04 square feet. Armament: Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon and two wingmounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon. Alternatively, the two wing-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon could be http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html (6 of 10)2006-09-19 15:23:12


replaced by two 30-mm Ho-105 cannon. External stores included two 551-pound bombs or two 44-Imp gall drop tanks.

Ki-84-III The Ki-84-III was a high-altitude version of the Hayate powered by a Ha-45 Ru engine with a turbosupercharger in the fuselage belly. This version was still on the drawing board when the war ended.

Ki-106 The Ki-106 was an all-wood version of the Ki-84 Hayate designed by Tachikawa Hikoki K.K., with the goal of achieving further savings of aluminum. Three airframes were built for Tachikawa by Ohji Koku K.K. (Prince Aircraft Co, Ltd) at Ebetsu, in Ishikari Prefecture on Hokkaido. The use of wood made it possible to employ lots of unskilled labor in the manufacture of the airframe. The Ki-106 was powered by a 1990 hp Nakajima [Ha-45] 21. The Ki-106 retained the external configuration of the Hayate, but the vertical surfaces had increased area and the skin was of plywood with a thick lacquer coating. The armament was four 20-mm cannon on the first Ki-106, but was reduced to only two cannon on the second and third prototypes to save weight. Flight tests started in July of 1945. The use of wood rather than metal had raised the normal loaded weight to 8958 pounds (an increase of some 600 pounds), and this had an adverse effect on climb rate and maneuverability. An altitude of 26,240 feet could be attained in 13 minutes 5 seconds, this being nearly a minute and a half greater than that for the standard Hayate. However, because of the aircraft's exceptionally fine finish, the maximum speed of 384 mph at 24,000 feet compared closely to that of the standard metal Hayate. During trials with the first prototype, the plywood skinning failed during a test flight and began to rip away. The aircraft managed to land safely, and steps were taken in order to anchor the skin more firmly to the airframe. Although the flight tests were quite satisfactory, the end of the war brought the Ki-106 project to an abrupt halt. Specification of Nakajima Ki-106: Engine: One Army Type 4 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial (Nakajima Ha-45/21) rated at 1990 hp for takeoff and 1850 hp at 5740 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 385 mph at 21,080 feet. Cruising speed 310 mph at 20,100 feet. An altitude of 16,405 feet could be reached in 5 minutes. Service ceiling 36,090 feet. Normal range 497 miles plus 1.5 hours of combat. Weights: 6499 pounds empty, 8598 pounds loaded. Dimensions: Wingspan 36 feet 10 7/16 inches, length 32 feet 7 3/4 inches, height 11 feet 9 5/16inches, http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html (7 of 10)2006-09-19 15:23:12


wing area 226.04 square feet. Armament: Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon and two wingmounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon. External stores included two 551-pound bombs or two 44-Imp gall drop tanks.

Ki-113 The Ki-113 was a version of the Ki-84-Ib partially built of steel. It was an attempt to conserve light alloys by using steel in place of aluminum in as many sub-assemblies as possible. It employed steel sheet skinning and the cockpit section, ribs, and bulkheads were made of carbon steel. The aircraft retained the Ha-45 Model 21 engine and had an armament of four 20-mm cannon. The Ki-113 was designed in the autumn of 1944, and a single example was completed in early 1945. However, it never flew since it was decidedly overweight. Specification of Nakajima Ki-113: Engine: One Army Type 4 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial (Nakajima Ha-45/21) rated at 1990 hp for takeoff and 1850 hp at 5740 feet. Performance (estimated): Maximum speed 385 mph at 21,325 feet. An altitude of 16,405 feet could be reached in 6 minutes 54 seconds. 33,800 feet service ceiling. Normal range 621 miles plus 1.5 hours combat. Weights: 6349 pounds empty, 8708 pounds loaded. Dimensions: 36 feet 10 7/16 inches, length 32 feet 6 9/16 inches, height 11 feet 1 1/4 inches, wing area 226.04 square feet. Armament: Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon and two wing-mounted 20mm Ho-5 cannon (Ki-84-Ib). External stores included two 551-pound bombs or two 44-Imp gall drop tanks.

Ki-116 No effort on the part of Najajima seemed to succeed in turning the Ha-45 engine into a truly reliable powerplant, so the JAAF began to look for other sources of engines for the Hayate. In view of the successful adaptation of the Kawasaki Ki-61-II Hien airframe to take the Mitsubishi Ha-112-II aircooled radial engine, the JAAF thought that the Ha-45 engine problems might be solved by replacing this engine with the Mitsubishi Ha-112 in the Ki-84. The designation Ki-116 was applied to the fourth Mansyu-built Ki-84-I adapted to take a 1500-hp Mitsubishi [Ha-33] 62 (Ha-112-II) driving a three-bladed propeller. This engine was borrowed from a Ki-46-III twin-engined reconnaissance aircraft. This engine was substantially lighter than the HA-45 that it replaced, and required that the engine mounts be lengthened in order to maintain the center of gravity. In order to compensate for the additional length, the tail surfaces had to be enlarged. The Ki-116 http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html (8 of 10)2006-09-19 15:23:12


weighted only 4850 pounds empty, a full 1000 pounds lighter than the standard Ki-84-Ia. The Ki-116 showed considerable promise and had a performance approximating that of the Ki-100. Test pilots were extremely enthusiastic about its capabilities, but the Japanese surrender brought an end to further development. Specification of Ki-116: Engine: One Army Type 4 fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial (Mitsubishi Ha-33) rated at 1500 for take off, 1350 hp at 6560 feet and 1250 hp at 19,030 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 385 mph. Weights: 4938 pounds empty, 7039 pounds loaded. Dimensions: wingspan 36 feet 10 7/16 inches, height 11 feet 3 13/16 inches, wing area 226.04 square feet. Armament: Two fuselage mounted 12.7-mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns and two wing-mounted 20mm Ho-5 cannon.

Ki-84N The Ki-84N was a projected high-altitude interceptor version of the Hayate powered by a 2500-hp eighteen-cylinder twin-row Nakajima [Ha-44] 13 (Ha-219) air cooled radial engine. The wing area was increased from 226 square feet to 249.19 square feet. The production version of the Ki-84N was assigned the Kitai number of Ki-117, and the aircraft was in the initial design stage when the war in the Pacific ended.

Ki-84P The Ki-84P was another high-altitude interceptor version of the Hayate powered by the 2500-hp eighteen-cylinder twin-row Nakajima [Ha-44] 13 (Ha-219). The Ki-84P differed from the Ki-84N in having the wing area further increased to 263.4 square feet. The Ki-84P was abandoned in favor of the less-ambitious Ki-84R.

Ki-84R The Ki-84R was a projected high-altitude version of the Ki-84-I Hayate powered by a 2000 hp Nakajima [Ha-45] 44 with a mechanically-driven two-stage three-speed supercharger. At the time of the Japanese surrender, the first prototype was eighty percent complete.



Sources: ● ● ● ●

The Nakajima Ki-84, Rene J. Francillon, Aircraft in Profile, 1969. Famous Fighters of the Second World War, Second Series, William Green, Doubleday, 1967. Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.

Joe Baugher Email: [email protected]


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100i.html

1. Kawasaki Ki-100 1. Radial-engined Hien 2. Sources:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100i.html2006-09-19 15:23:28

Kawasaki Ki-100

Kawasaki Ki-100 Radial-engined Hien When we last left the story of the Ki-61, the Japanese Army was faced with the unhappy prospect of all those Ki-61-II airframes sitting around waiting for installation of their Ha-140 liquid-cooled engines. The Ha-140 engine had proven to be totally unreliable, and, to make matters worse, the factory manufacturing the Ha-140 had been destroyed in a B-29 raid. Since Japan desperately needed aircraft capable of intercepting the B-29, in November of 1944 the Ministry of Munitions instructed Kawasaki to install a different powerplant in the Ki-61-II in an attempt to get as many aircraft in the air as possible. After some sniffing around, Kawasaki finally settled on the 1500 hp Mitsubishi Ha-112-II fourteencylinder double-row radial engine. This engine had established a standard of easy maintenance and reliable service, which contrasted markedly with the notoriously unreliable and temperamental Ha-140. However, the Ha-112 was a radial engine, and, with a diameter of four feet, the installation of this engine in a fuselage only 33 inches wide provided a major challenge. However, the Kawasaki concern was guided in its work by being able to study the engine mount in an imported Focke-Wulf Fw 190A, an example in which a wide radial engine had been successfully installed in an airframe with a narrow width. In addition, the same Mitsubishi Ha-112 radial engine had been successfully installed in the Aichi-built D4Y3 (Allied code name JUDY) dive bomber, earlier versions of which had been powered by a liquid-cooled engine. The new project was sufficiently different from the Ki-61 Hien that it was assigned a new Kitai number: Ki-100. Three Ki-61-II airframes were experimentally modified as Ki-100s by the installation of the Ha112 radial. The first Ki-100 prototype aircraft made its first flight on February 1, 1945. The results of the flight testing exceeded everyone's expectations. The Ki-100 was about 600 pounds lighter than its Ki-61II predecessor. Maneuverability and handling were markedly improved due to the lower wing and power loading. Although the maximum speed of the Ki-100 was slightly lower than that of the Ki-61-II because of the higher drag exerted by the radial engine, this performance could be reliably attained because of the better reliability of the Ha-112 engine. The design was ordered into immediate production as the Army Type 5 Fighter Model 1A (Ki-100-Ia). The first Type 5 fighters (Ki-100-Ia) were direct conversions of existing Ki-61-II airframes. 271 airframes were converted between March and June 1945, and were immediately delivered to operational units. The Ki-100 was simple to fly and maintain. Even the most inexperienced pilots were able to get the hang of the Ki-100 relatively quickly. The Ha-112 engine proved to be quite reliable and simple to maintain. In combat, the Ki-100-Ia proved to be an excellent fighter, especially at low altitudes. It possessed a definite ascendancy over the Grumman F6F Hellcat. In one encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html (1 of 3)2006-09-19 15:23:30

Kawasaki Ki-100

unit destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to themselves. When the Ki-100 encountered the P51D Mustang at low or medium altitudes over Japan, it was able to meet the American fighter on more or less equal terms. The outcome of P- 51D vs Ki-100 battles was usually determined by piloting skill or by numerical advantage rather than by the relative merits of the two fighter types. However, at altitudes above 26,000 feet, the maneuverability of the Ki-100 began to fall off rather severely and the fighter was at a relative disadvantage in intercepting the high-flying B-29. So far as I am aware, the Ki-100 never had a separate Allied code name assigned to it. It may, for all I know, have been known under the code name of its predecessor --- TONY. By June, 1945, all of the Ki-61-II airframes had been used up, and further Ki-100s were built from the outset as radial-powered machines. This version was designated Ki-100-Ib. The Ki-100-Ib differed from the Ki-100-Ia in having an all-round vision hood similar to that fitted to the experimental Ki-61-III. The first Ki-100-Ib fighters were built at the Kagamigahara and Ichinomiya Kawasaki factories in May of 1945, but production was severely hampered by the continual Allied bombing. Plans had been made to produce 200 fighters per month, but the Ichinomiya plant was forced to shut down in July 1945 after having built only 12 aircraft, and the Kagamigahara plant had its production severely curtailed by aerial attacks. By the time of the Japanese surrender, only 118 Ki-100-Ib aircraft had been delivered. In an attempt to improve the high-altitude performance, the Ki-100-II version was evolved. It was powered by a 1500 hp Mitsubishi Ha-112-II Ru with a turbosupercharger and water-methanol injection to boost power for short intervals. Because of a lack of space, the turbosupercharger had to be mounted underneath the engine without provision for an intercooler and its associated ducting, with air being ducted directly from the compressor to the carburetor. It first flew in May 1945. The lack of an intercooler limited the high-altitude performance of the Ki-100-II, and the turbosupercharger added 600 pounds to the weight, which reduced maximum speed by 15 mph at 10,000 feet. However, the boosted high-altitude power enabled a maximum speed of 367 mph to be be reached at 32,800 feet (the cruising altitude of the B-29 during daylight operations). It had been planned to begin production of the Ki-100-II in September of 1945, but only three prototypes of this high-altitude interceptor had been produced by the time of the Japanese surrender. A total of 396 Ki-100s were built, including 275 Ki-61-II conversions, 118 Ki-100-Ib production aircraft built from scratch, and three Ki-100-II prototypes. Most of them were assigned to the defense of the home islands, operating from Chofu and Yokkaichi from the spring of 1945. At the end of the war, two Ki-100-Ibs were shipped to the USA for evaluation. I don't know what happened to these planes. Presumably, they were scrapped in the late 1940s, along with a lot of other captured Axis aircraft. Specification of Kawasaki Ki-100-Ia Army Type 5 Fighter Model 1a: One Army Type 4 fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial (Mitsubishi [Ha-33] 62 or Ha-112-II) rated at 1500 hp for takeoff 1350 hp at 6560 feet and 1250 hp at 19,030 feet.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html (2 of 3)2006-09-19 15:23:30

Kawasaki Ki-100

Performance: Maximum speed 360 mph at 19,685 feet and 332 mph at 32,810 feet. An altitude of 16,405 feet could be attained in 6 minutes. Service ceiling 36,090 feet. Maximum range 1367 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 34 4 7/16 inches, length 28 feet 11 1/4 inches, height 12 feet 3 5/8 inches, wing area 215.3 square feet. Weights: 5567 pounds empty, 7705 pounds loaded. Armament: Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho 5 cannon and two wing- mounted 12.7 mm machine guns.


Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979. Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1967. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 3, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.

Joe Baugher Email: [email protected]



1. Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa 2. Ki-43-I 1. Ki-43-II 2. Ki-43-III 3. Sources:


Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa

Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa Ki-43-I The Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa (Peregrine Falcon) was numerically the most important fighter used by the Japanese Army Air Force during the Pacific War. It remained in production from the beginning of the Pacific War until its end in August of 1945. In many ways, it was a transitional type, bridging the gap between the lightly-loaded fighter monoplanes of the late 1930s with their fixed undercarriages and open cockpits and the higher-powered heavy fighters of the early 1940s with their retractable undercarriages and enclosed cockpits. Its appearance was a complete surprise to the Allies, and the fighter proved to be superior in performance to most of its opponents during the first year of the Pacific War. Most of the Japanese Army's aces established the larger part of their scores while flying this airplane. The Ki-43 is often confused with its contemporary, the famed Mitsubishi A6M Reisen (Zero Fighter) of the Japanese Navy, and was often misidentified as a "Zero" early in the war. The Nakajima Hikoki K.K., located in the city of Ota in the Gumma Prefecture about 50 miles northwest of Tokyo, had been one of Japan's oldest and most prominent aircraft manufactures, and had been responsible for the design and manufacture of the Army Type 97 Fighter (Ki-27, later known to the Allies under the code name Nate), which was the first indigenous Japanese fighter to compare favorably with foreign fighters. Work on its successor began almost as soon as the Ki-27 had entered surface with the JAAF. For this project, the Army abandoned its long-standing policy of holding competitive fly-offs and gave Nakajima the contract to design a successor to the Ki-27. The specification called for a maximum speed of 311 mph, a climb rate of 5 minutes to 16,405 feet, a range of 500 miles, an armament of two 7.7-mm machine guns, and a maneuverability at least the equal of that of the Ki-27. The project was allocated the Kitai number Ki-43. The design team was lead by Hideo Itokawa, who had also been the designer of the earlier Ki-27. The team came up with an aircraft that had the same general configuration as that of the Ki-27 and bore an obvious family resemblance. It was of low-wing configuration, with all-metal construction but with fabric-covered control surfaces. The three-spar wing was built in a single piece and had substantial area to keep loadings small for maximum maneuverability. The fuselage was exceptionally slim, and was covered by a metal stressed-skin. The aircraft differed from the Ki-27 in being fitted with a fullyenclosed cockpit for the pilot. The aircraft also differed from the Ki-27 in being fitted with a fullyretractable undercarriage, the main members retracting inwards into wells underneath the forward fuselage. The prototype was completed at Nakajima's Ota plant and flew for the first time in January of 1939. Three prototypes were built, all of which were powered by the 925 hp Nakajima Ha-25 twin-row fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial with single-speed supercharger. This engine was the Najakima-built counterpart of the Sakae (Prosperity) engine which powered the Mitsubishi A6M series. It was armed with two 7.7-mm Type 89 machine guns mounted in the upper engine cowling and synchronized to fire http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki43.html (1 of 7)2006-09-19 15:23:43


through the propeller arc. These aircraft did not have any engine cowling gills and had metal panels in the rear of the cockpit hood. A radio antenna mast was mounted on the cockpit hood and a telescopic gunsight protruded through the windshield. Although the Ki-43 prototype met the Japanese Army's performance specifications, Army pilots were not happy about the maneuverability, which was not as good as that of the Ki-27. They regarded the retractable undercarriage as a frill which added only weight and reduced the maneuverability of the aircraft. In addition, they did not like the enclosed cockpit, which severely restricted vision to the rear. For a while, the future of the Ki-43 was in doubt. The JAAF decided to conduct further tests and ordered ten service trial aircraft (Ki-43-KAI) from Nakajima. These ten planes were built between November 1939 and September 1940. They were all identical to the prototypes except for minor equipment changes and the fitting of a new all-round vision canopy that replaced the heavily-framed canopy of the prototypes which severely restricted pilot vision, especially to the rear. The second service trials machine was fitted with an experimental Nakajima Ha105 engine equipped with a two-speed supercharger. Another service test machine carried a pair of 12.7mm Ho-103 machine guns. Another one of the service trials aircraft had an alclad-treated duralumin outer skin, cowling gills, and a radio mast mounted on the starboard side of the fuselage. It was powered by a Ha-105 engine and was armed with two 12.7-mm Ho-103 machine guns. It had a new fuselage of smaller diameter and redesigned tail surfaces and wings. Some authors report that one of the Ki-43 service trial aircraft was experimentally fitted with a fixed undercarriage, but this report appears to be in error. One of the service trials aircraft was fitted with combat flaps which could be extended during flight to provide greater lift and to make it possible to maintain a much tighter turning circle. This modification was sufficiently successful that service pilots now commented favorably on the maneuverability. The aircraft was completely devoid of any vicious flying characteristics, and all controls were extremely sensitive. The Koku Hombu agreed that the use of the combat flaps sufficiently improved the maneuverability to justify the issuance of a production order. The production version was to have an airframe similar to that of the last service trials machine, but was to be powered by a production version of the Najajima Ha-25 950 hp radial. The initial production version was designated Army Type 1 Fighter Model 1A and was named Hayabusa (Peregrine Falcon). The Ki-43-1a entered production in April of 1941. It was powered by a Ha-25 Type 99 engine rated at 980 hp for takeoff. This engine was later known as the Ha-35/12 under the unified JAAF/JNAF designation system. The Ki-43-1a was initially fitted with a fixed-pitch, two-bladed wooden propeller which was soon replaced with a two-pitch metal unit. The armament consisted of two 7.7-mm Type 89 machine guns mounted in the upper cowling and synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. There were two attachment points for fuel tanks underneath the wing center section.



The first Ki-43-Ia fighters were delivered to the 59th and 64th Sentais in October of 1941, only eight months after production had begun at Ota. They were transferred to China shortly before the war with America broke out. The next version was the Ki-43-Ib which differed from the Ia in having a heavier armament in which one of the Type 89 machine guns was replaced by a 12.7-mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine gun. The Ki-43Ic which followed it had two 12.7-mm Type 1 machine guns, and was the major production variant of the Model 1 series. A total of 716 Ki-43-I production aircraft were built between April of 1941 and February of 1943. When war in the Pacific broke out, only 40 Hayabusas had been delivered to combat units, and these were immediately taken to the Malay Peninsula by the 59th and 64th Fighter Groups. The initial combat missions consisted of escorts of Army Type 97 (Mitsubishi Ki-21) bombers in attacks on Hong Kong and Burma. First to face the Hayabusa were the P-40s of the American Volunteer Group and the Brewster Buffaloes of No 67 Fighter Squadron of the Royal Air Force. Japanese military security was sufficiently effective in maintaining a cloak of secrecy over the Type 1 Fighter that its appearance was a complete surprise to the Allies. Early war operations established the Ki-43 as one of the most feared Japanese fighters. Its performance was generally superior to that of most Allied fighters during the first year of the Pacific War. Nevertheless, its Navy contemporary, the Mitsubishi A6M Reisen (Zero Fighter), got more publicity back home in Japan, and the Japanese Army decided to reveal the existence of the Ki-43 to the Japanese public in April of 1942 so that it could get its fair share of recognition. As compared to the Mitsubishi A6M2 Reisen, the Ki-43-Ic had a substantially lower wing loading but was nevertheless slightly inferior to the carrier-based fighter in overall maneuverability. The A6M2 was superior to the Ki-43-Ic in zoom climbing speed, although the Ki-43-Ic had a slight edge over the A6M2 in steady climbing rate to 16,400 feet. The primary weakness of the Ki-43-Ic was its light armament and its lack of armor protection for the pilot or for the fuel tanks. Under the Allied system of assigning code names to Japanese aircraft, the Ki-43 was assigned the code name OSCAR in the Southwest Pacific theatre. At the same time, the the name JIM was assigned in the CBI theatre to what was thought at the time to be a retractable-undercarriage derivative of the Ki-27. It turned out that JIM and OSCAR were actually the same aircraft, and the name OSCAR was finally retained. As the Ki-43-I was superseded by later, more powerful variants, it was reassigned to advanced fighter training schools. Others were delivered to the Royal Thai Air Force, which was then allied to Japan. These remained in service in Thailand until 1949. Specification of Ki-43-Ia: One Army Type 99 (Nakajima Ha-25) fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 980 hp for takeoff and http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki43.html (3 of 7)2006-09-19 15:23:43


970 hp at 11,555 feet driving a two-bladed propeller. Performance: Maximum speed 308 mph at 13,125 feet, climb to 16,405 feet in 5 minutes 30 seconds. Service ceiling 38,500 feet. Maximum range 745 miles. Weights: 3483 pounds empty, 4515 pounds loaded, 5695 pounds maximum. Dimensions: wingspan 37 feet 6 5/16 inches, length 38 feet 11 3/4 inches, height 10 feet 8 3/4 inches, wing area 236.81 square feet. Armament: Two 7.7 mm Type 89 machine guns in the engine cowling. Two 33-pound bombs could be carried underwing. Two 44-imp-gall drop tanks could be carried.

Ki-43-II In pursuit of better performance, five Ki-43-I airframes were modified in February of 1942 to be powered by the 1150-hp Type 1 engine (which was the Nakajima Ha-115, a development of the earlier Ha-25). This engine had a two-speed supercharger and drove a three-bladed constant-speed metal propeller. The supercharger air intake was moved from underneath the cowling to its upper lip, with the carburetor intake remaining underneath the cowling. The wingspan was decreased by two feet and the wing area by 6.46 square feet to improve speed at low and medium altitudes. The windshield and cockpit canopy were raised slightly and a new reflector gunsight was fitted. The wing attachment points were strengthened to carry 551-pound bombs. In response to complaints from the field that the Hayabusa was too vulnerable to superficial combat damage, some rudimentary armor protection was provided for the pilot and self-sealing tanks were installed in the wings. The improved Hayabusa model entered production as the Army Type 1 Fighter Model 2A (Ki-43-IIa). As the Model 2A entered production, the earlier Model 1 was progressively phased out, until the 716th and last Model 1 left the line in February 1943. The carburetor air intake was deepened early in the production life of the Ki-43-IIa. The major production version of the Hayabusa was the Ki-43-IIb, which differed from the IIa only in minor equipment changes. The oil cooler, which had been mounted in a ring inside the cowling ahead of the engine and around the propeller shaft, was replaced by a honeycomb unit mounted inside a still deeper carburetor intake. Late production IIbs had their underwing bomb attachment points moved outboard of the main undercarriage legs to prevent bombs from hitting the propeller during dive bombing attacks at steep angles. Later production IIb aircraft had the oil cooler moved backward from the carburetor air intake and relocated underneath the central fuselage. The modifications progressively introduced during the Ki-43-IIb production run were standardized on the Ki-43-KAI. This aircraft was also fitted with individual exhaust stacks that replaced the exhaust collector ring of earlier versions, and provided some amount of residual thrust augmentation. This variant also saw the underwing attachment points moved outboard of the landing gear. Three prototypes were built between June and August of 1942, and the Ki-43-KAI entered service in the summer of 1943. Some sources refer to this variant as the Ki-43-IIc, although this may be a "retrospective" designation http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki43.html (4 of 7)2006-09-19 15:23:43


introduced after the fact by Western sources for clarity. The Ki-43-II-KAI was capable of out-maneuvering every Allied fighter it encountered, but the P-38, P47, and P-51 could all out-dive and out-zoom the Japanese fighter. Two additional production facilities, the Tachikawa Dai-Ichi Rikugun Kokusho (First Army Air Arsenal) and the Tachikawa Hikoki K.K. (Tachikawa Aeroplane Company, Ltd), were given contracts to manufacture the Ki-43 under license. The Tachikawa Dai-Ichi Rikugun Kokusho began production of the Hayabusa from Nakajima-supplied components in October of 1942. Unfortunately, the Army Air Arsenal did not have the experience needed for the manufacture of modern fighter aircraft, and was ordered to cease production in November 1943 after the delivery of only 49 Ki-43-IIa fighters. The Tachikawa Hikoki K.K. contractor was more successful, and built 2629 Ki-43-II and Ki-43-III Hayabusas beginning in May of 1943, and ceasing only with the end of the Pacific War in August 1945. A total of 2500 Ki-43-IIs were built by the Nakajima parent plant at Ota. In September 1943, the Allies were able to rebuild a complete fighter out of several wrecked Model 2A Hayabusas found at Lae, New Guinea. This aircraft was flown in mock combat against several different Allied fighters. Allied pilots commented favorably on the Hayabusa's sensitive controls and extreme maneuverability. It had no vicious flight characteristics, and its turning and stall characteristics were better than those of any Allied fighter. It handled well in the air, and had phenomenal low-speed handling capabilities which were aided by its set of combat flaps. It had excellent low-speed acceleration and could leap from 150 mph to 250 mph with extreme rapidity. Nevertheless, the Allied pilots felt that the Ki-43 was outclassed by the P-47 Thunderbolt, the P-38 Lightning, the Supermarine Spitfire, and even by later models of the P-40 Warhawk. The Hayabusa was appreciably slower than most Allied fighters and could usually be evaded by diving. The Hayabusa lacked effective firepower and its lack of effective armor protection made it vulnerable to superficial combat damage and often disintegrated in the air when hit. Nevertheless, Allied fighter pilots were always well-advised to avoid combat with the Hayabusa at low speeds since its rapid acceleration and excellent low-speed maneuverability made it a deadly opponent in such situations. Specification of Ki-43-IIb: One Army Type 1 (Nakajima Ha-115) fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 1150 hp for takeoff and 980 hp at 18,375 feet driving a three-bladed propeller. Performance: Maximum speed 329 mph at 13,125 feet, climb to 16,405 feet in 5 minutes 49 seconds. Service ceiling 36,750 feet. Normal range 1095 miles. Maximum range 1990 miles. Weights: 4211 pounds empty, 5710 pounds loaded, 6450 pounds maximum. Dimensions: wingspan 35 feet 6 3/4 inches, length 29 feet 3 5/16 inches, height 10 feet 8 3/4 inches, wing area 230.34 square feet. Armament: Two 12.7-mm Type 1 machine guns in the engine cowling. Two 66-pound or 551-pound http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki43.html (5 of 7)2006-09-19 15:23:43


bombs could be carried underwing. Two 44-imp-gall drop tanks could be carried.

Ki-43-III Despite the obsolescence of the basic design, developmental work on the Hayabusa continued until the end of the Pacific War. The Ki-43-IIIa was the last Hayabusa variant. Ten prototypes were built starting in May of 1944. It was similar in airframe and armament to the Ki-43 KAI, but was powered by a Najajima Ha-115-II Sakae aircooled radial rated at 1230 hp at 9185 feet. This engine employed individual exhaust stacks to provide a certain amount of exhaust thrust augmentation. Production began in December of 1944, most of the aircraft being built by Tachikawa Hikoki K.K.. The Ki-43-IIIa was assigned to units defending Tokyo and other major Japanese cities and was also used in numerous suicide attacks during the final phases of the Pacific War. Tachikawa also built two prototypes of the Ki-43-IIIb, which was a specialized interceptor version powered by a 1250 hp Mitsubishi (Ha-33) 42 (Ha-112) fourteen-cylinder air cooled radial. The pair of 12-7-mm machine guns (which had remained the standard Hayabusa armament since the Ki-43-Ic) were replaced by two 20-mm Ho-5 cannon, which made the Ki-43-IIIb the first Hayabusa variant to carry large-caliber armament. Further changes were made to the fuselage and wing structure as well as further modifications to the exhaust system. Overall wing span was similar to that of the Model IIIa, at 35 feet 6 3/4 inches. This version was under test when the war in the Pacific ended and brought further work to a standstill. After the war, a few Hayabusas left in the East Indies by the withdrawing Japanese forces were salvaged by the Indonesian People's Security Force and used in 1946 in fighting against the Dutch. A few Hayabusas were confiscated by the French upon their return to Indo-China and were flown by pilots of the French Groupes de Chasse I/7 and II/7 against insurgents. These were replaced by Spitfire IXs shipped from France. The only known surviving Ki-43 is a Model 2 (-IIa) that was on display at Clark AFB in the Philippines. With the departure of the Americans from Clark, I am not sure that this plane is still there. Specification of Ki-43-IIIa: One Army Type 1 (Nakajima Ha-115-II) fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 1300 hp for takeoff and 1230 hp at 9185 feet driving a three-bladed propeller. Performance: Maximum speed 358 mph at 21,920 feet. Climb to 16,405 feet in 5 minutes 19 seconds. Service ceiling 37,400 feet. Normal range 1320 miles. Maximum range 1990 miles.



Weights: 4233 pounds empty, 5644 pounds loaded, 6746 pounds maximum. Dimensions: wingspan 35 feet 6 3/4 inches, length 29 feet 3 5/16 inches, height 10 feet 8 3/4 inches, wing area 230.34 square feet. Armament: Two 12.7-mm Type 1 machine guns in the engine cowling. Two 66-pound or 551-pound bombs could be carried underwing. Two 44-imp-gall drop tanks could be carried.

Sources: Famous Fighters of the Second World War, Second Series, William Green, Doubleday 1967. The Nakajima Ki.43 Hayabusa, Martin C. Windrow and R. F. Francillon, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday, 1969. Warplanes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 3, William Green, Doubleday, 1964. Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979.

Joe Baugher



1. Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki 1. Ki-44-I 2. Ki-44-II 3. Ki-44-III 4. Sources:


Nakajima Ki.44 Shoki

Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki Ki-44-I The Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki (Demon or Devil-Queller) interceptor was the only interceptor fighter serving with the Japanese Army when the B-29 campaign against Japan began. At that time, it was the fastest-climbing Japanese fighter in service, and was one of the few aircraft capable of reaching the B29s at the altitudes at which they operated. The Ki-44 Shoki originated in parallel with the Ki-43 Hayabusa (Peregrine Falcon) single-seat fighter. At the same time that Nakajima was working on the initial design of its Ki-43 single-seat fighter for the Japanese Army, the Koku Hombu (Air Headquarters) issued a specification for Nakajima to begin work on an interceptor as a parallel project. This project was assigned the Kitai number of Ki-44 (next in line from the Hayabusa Ki-number). Unlike previous Japanese combat aircraft design philosophy, it was decided that the Ki-44 was to be built strictly as an interceptor, with emphasis being placed on speed and climb rather than on maneuverability. The specification called for a maximum speed of no less than 373 mph at 13,125 feet. This altitude was to be attained in a time no greater than 5 minutes. Armament was to consist of a pair of 7.7-mm and a pair of 12.7-mm machine guns. The design team was directed by Najajima's project engineer, T. Koyama. The engine selected for the new interceptor was Nakajima's own Ha-41 fourteen-cylinder double-row radial. This engine had actually been intended primarily for bomber aircraft, and had a rather large diameter. Nevertheless, the design team was able to marry this engine to a fuselage of narrow cross section, producing an aircraft which always looked to me like it had "too much engine". The fuselage was designed with a large side area to help ensure a stable gun platform. The fin and rudder were mounted well to the rear of the horizontal tail. The vertical tail has always looked to me as though it was "too small", but this is undoubtedly a misperception. The wing area was relatively small for an aircraft of the size and weight of the Ki-44, leading to a high wing loading and a relatively high landing speed. A set of "butterfly" combat flaps were fitted for improved maneuverability. The first Ki-44 prototype took to the air for the first time in August of 1940. The prototype was armed with two synchronized 7.7-mm Type 89 machine guns in the upper engine cowling and one 12.7-mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine gun in each wing outboard of the main undercarriage leg. The first test flights were generally encouraging, and handling was considered rather good despite the high wing loading. However, the landing speed was somewhat greater than that for which most Japanese pilots were accustomed, and the big engine restricted the forward visibility while the plane was taxiing on the ground. However, the inflight visibility was considered as being excellent. Unfortunately, the performance of the Ki-44 was below that called for in the original specification. Maximum speed was only a disappointing 342 mph at a weight of 5622 pounds. It took 5 minutes 54 http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki44.html (1 of 5)2006-09-19 15:23:59


seconds to reach an altitude of 16,400 feet. A series of modifications were made to the prototypes to increase the performance and reduce the drag. The rigidity of the engine mount was modified, the supercharger intake was revised several times, and the cowling flaps were changed. Thus modified (and with armament removed), the maximum was up to 354 mph, still below specification. The firewall installation was then modified to improve the engine cooling, thus making it possible to remove the five cooling vents mounted on each side of the forward fuselage just aft of the cowling gills. With these vents sealed up, drag was substantially reduced and speed was now 389 mph (still without the armament). This speed now exceeded the original specification. Although this speed had been achieved with an unarmed plane, calculations indicated that production aircraft with armament fitted would be able to reach a maximum speed of 360 mph, and the Japanese Army deemed that this was good enough to make the aircraft fit for production. The design was accepted by the Japanese Army for service under the designation of Army Type 2 Single-seat Fighter Model 1 (Ki-44-I). It was given the popular name of Shoki, which means "Demon" or "Devil-Queller", depending on which reference you pick up. Seven pre-production aircraft were built, the last being delivered in September of 1941. The armament was the same as that of the prototypes--two 7.7-mm machine guns in the engine cowling and two 12.7mm machine guns in the wings. The guns were aimed by a telescopic gunsight which protruded through the windshield. The original 3-piece cockpit canopy (in which the front and rear pieces were fixed and only the center section slid backwards) was replaced by a two-piece canopy in which the entire rear section slid backwards. The radio mast was moved from a mounting on the cockpit to a position on the starboard side of the forward fuselage, and the rudder was redesigned. Provision was made for two 28.6 Imp gall drop tanks carried underneath the wing center section. The pre-production aircraft and two of the prototypes (which had been brought up to pre-production standard) were turned over to the Army for service trials on September 15, 1941. They were handed over to an experimental squadron, the Kawasemi Butai, for service trials. The unit was sent to China for combat trials, and in May 1942 was renamed 47th Dokuritsu Dai Chijugo Chutai. In September of 1942, all tests were completed and the type was accepted for service with the JAAF. Three variants of the Model 1 were produced, the Ki-44-Ia, Ib, and Ic. They differed primarily in armament and in minor equipment changes. The Ki-44-Ia was fitted with 2 7.7-mm machine guns in the fuselage and two 12.7 mm machine guns in the wings. The Ki-44-Ib was armed with four 12.7-mm machine guns (two in the fuselage, two in the wings), and had the oil cooler moved to a position under the cowling gills. The Ki-44-Ic had similar armament to the Ib, but had the lower hinged portions of the main wheel fairings moved from the landing gear legs to the fuselage. The Shoki was first encountered by the Allies over China. It was assigned the code name Tojo by Allied intelligence working in that theatre. This name was a departure from the standard Allied coding convention, in which boys' names were assigned to Japanese fighters. However, a special request was made that the Tojo name should be allowed to stick, and all coordinating Allied intelligence agencies readily agreed.



Only 40 production Ki-44-Is were built before production was shifted to the more-powerful Ki-44-II variant in October of 1942. Specification of Ki-44-Ia: One Nakajima Ha-41 (Army Type 100) fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 1200 hp for takeoff and 1260 hp at 12,140 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 360 mph at 12,140 feet. An altitude of 16,405 feet could be reached in 5 min 54 sec. Service ceiling 35,500 feet. Normal range 575 miles, maximum range 1070 miles. Weights: 4286 pounds empty, 5622 pounds loaded, 6368 pounds maximum. Dimensions: wingspan 31 feet 0 1/16 inches, length 28 feet 8 1/2 inches, height 10 feet 8 inches, wing area 161.458 square feet. Armament: Two fuselage-mounted 7.7 mm Type 89 machine guns and two wing-mounted 12.7-mm Type I (Ho-103) machine guns.

Ki-44-II Only 40 production Ki-44-Is were built. The Shoki soon proved itself to be the fastest Japanese Army fighter in service. However, the fighter was unable to intercept the Mitsubishi Ki-46 (Allied code name Dinah) high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. (Very few Allied aircraft were able to intercept this excellent aircraft either). Consequently, work began immediately on a more powerful Model 2 version of the Shoki which would be even faster and have an even greater climb rate. The Model 2 (Ki-44-II) was powered by the 1520 hp Nakajima Ha-109 radial, which was already in production as the Army Type 2 radial. The engine had the same diameter as that of the Ha-41, so the changes needed to incorporate it into the Shoki were minimal. The general configuration of the Model 2 was the same as the Model 1 version, but the undercarriage was strengthened. Five prototypes and three pre-production versions were built, and in August of 1942 the type replaced the Ki-44-I on Nakajima's production lines at Ota. The Model 2 (Ki-44-II) became the major production version of the Shoki, and was built in three separate versions. The Ki-44-IIa was equipped with two fuselage-mounted 7.7-mm machine guns and two 12.7-mm machine guns in the wings. Only a relatively few examples of the IIa version were built. The major production version was the Ki-44-IIb (Model 2B). It carried a quartet of 12.7-mm machine guns, two in the fuselage and two in the wings. The Model 2C was armed with a quartet of 20-mm Ho-3 cannon and was intended primarily as a B-29 interceptor in defense of the Japanese home islands. The Ki-44-II was first encountered by the Allies in the China, Burma, and Malaya theatres. Shoki fighters were also assigned the task of defending the vital oil fields at Palembang on Sumatra. Later, B-



29 crews encountered the Tojo in their early sorties over the Japanese home islands. The Ki-44-IIc was particularly effective against the B-29, and was regarded as the toughest and most troublesome fighter that these bomber crews had to deal with at that stage in the war. Very few other Japanese fighters were capable of reaching the altitude at which the B-29 operated and still possess sufficient performance in order to intercept this bomber. A few Ki-44-IIc fighters were armed with a pair of 12.7- mm machine guns and a pair of wing-mounted 40-mm Ho-301 cannon in an attempt to provide even more punch against the B-29. However, this cannon had a rather low muzzle velocity and was hence effective only at close ranges. A few other Ki44-IIc fighters were fitted with a pair of 37-mm Ho-203 cannon with a somewhat higher muzzle velocity. However, both heavy cannon types were only moderately successful and saw only limited action. By the time that production of the Shoki terminated in late 1944, 1167 Ki-44-II and III fighters had been built, a relatively small production number for a major fighter aircraft of the Second World War. At first, most Japanese pilots disliked the Shoki fighter because of its high landing speed and relatively poor maneuverability as compared to the more nimble aircraft that they were used to. However, they soon began to learn to take advantage of its high rate of climb and its excellent diving speed. When the B-29 raids against the Japanese homeland began, the Ki-44 was the only interceptor that the Army could field that was effective against this high-flying bomber. Against unescorted B-29s, the Ki-44 was considered as the toughest and most troublesome fighter available in Japan at that stage of the war. However, the Ki44 was not without its faults. Its maneuverability was relatively poor and the aircraft was restricted against performing snap rolls, spins, stalls, and inverted flight at high speed. It was somewhat less forgiving of pilot mistakes than most of the more maneuverable Japanese fighters such as the Ki-43 Hayabusa. The armor protection for the pilot and the self-sealing tanks, although heavy in comparison with most previous Japanese fighters, was largely ineffective against Allied 50-cal machine guns. Many Shokis expended themselves in suicide ramming attacks against the long-ranging B-29s. I have a rather personal postscript to the Ki-44 story. In July of 1992, I happened to be riding my bicycle along the lakefront here in Chicago. I was on my way to attend the Air and Water Show, which is held here every year. While riding past Meigs Field near McCormick Place on the lakefront, I happened to looked over to the airfield to see what kind of airplanes were sitting there. I couldn't believe my eyes! Parked over there was a Ki-44 "Tojo", large as life! Had to be a Tojo --- the oversize engine and the small tail were unmistakable! The camouflage scheme was green overall, and the red "meatball" Japanese national insignia could readily be seen. Where did this Tojo come from? I had always thought that all the Ki-44s which survived the war had been scrapped soon afterwards. Did some warbird buff get hold of a derelict Tojo and beautifully restore it to pristine condition? Or was I only fooled by an AT6 Texan or a BT-13 Valiant modified and made up to look like a Tojo? Very good job, if so! Can anyone help me out? Specification of Nakajima Ki-44-IIb



One Nakajima Ha-109 (Type 2) fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 1520 hp for takeoff, 1440 hp at 7055 feet, and 2320 hp at 17,220 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 376 mph at 17,060 feet. An altitude of 16,405 feet could be reached in 4 min 17 sec. Service ceiling was 36,745 feet, and the maximum range was 1056 Weights: 4643 lbs empty, 6094 pounds loaded. Dimensions: Wingspan 31 feet 0 1/16 inches, length 28 feet 9 7/8 inches, height 10 feet 8 inches, wing area 161.458 square feet. Armament: two fuselage mounted 12.7-mm Type I (Ho-103) machine guns and two wing mounted 12.7 mm Type I (Ho-103) machine guns.

Ki-44-III The final production version of the Shoki was the Ki-44-III. It was powered by a Nakajima Ha-145 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 2000 hp for takeoff, 1880 hp at 6560 feet, and 1450 hp at 26,245 feet. This engine drove a four-blade propeller and carried a set of thrust-augmentation exhaust stacks. The wing area was increased and the tail surfaces were made larger. Two versions were produced--the Model 3A (Ki-44-IIIa) with two 20-mm Ho-5 cannon in the wing and two Ho-5 cannon in the engine cowling, and the Model 3B (Ki-44-IIIb) with two 20 mm Ho-5 cannon in the fuselage and two 37-mm Ho-203 cannon in the wings. Only a few Model 3s were built, as the design was made obsolete by the advent of the superb Ki-84-I Hayate (Allied code name Frank), and the last Ki-44-III was produced in December of 1944.

Sources: ● ●

Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 3, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.



http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/kikkai.html

1. Nakajima Kikka 1. Japanese WW2 Jet Fighter 2. Source:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/kikkai.html2006-09-19 15:24:10

Nakajima Kikka

Nakajima Kikka Japanese WW2 Jet Fighter The Nakajima Kikka (Orange Blossom) was a twin-jet fighter based on the German Messerschmitt Me 262. The Kikka was the only Japanese jet-powered aircraft produced during the Pacific War that was capable of taking off on its own power, although it did so only twice. The reports on the progress of the Me 262 received from the Japanese air attache in Berlin led the Naval Staff in September 1944 to instruct the Nakajima Hikoki K.K. to design a single-seat twin-jet attack fighter based on the Me 262. Requirements included a maximum speed of 431 mph, a range of 127 miles with a 1100-pound bomb load or 173 miles with a 551 lb bombload. The takeoff run was to be no longer than 1150 feet when using two 992 lb.s.t. RATOG bottles. Provisions were to be made for the aircraft to have folding wings in order that it be able to be hidden in caves and tunnels. An emphasis was to be made on the ease of production of the aircraft by unskilled labor. The overall configuration of the Kikka was quite similar to that of the Me 262, but the Kikka was somewhat smaller than its German counterpart. Like the Me 262, the twin turbojets were mounted in separate nacelles underneath the wings. Initially, the aircraft was to be powered by a pair of 441 lb.s.t. Tsu-11 Campini-type engines, but these were soon replaced by two 750 lb.s.t. Japanese-designed Ne-12 turbojets. However, the Ne-12 failed to deliver the expected thrust, and official interest in the Kikka began to wane because it appeared that it would be unable to meet its performance requirements. However, In the meantime, photographs of the German BMW 003 axial-flow turbojet had been obtained, and the Japanese were able to use these photos to assist them in designing a similar turbojet (designated Ne-20) rated at 1047 lb.s.t. It was decided to switch the Kikka to the Ne-20, and since it now appeared that the performance requirements could be met after all, the project moved forward with greater rapidity. The first Kikka was completed in August 1945, and made its first flight on August 7 at Kisarazu Naval Air Base with LtCdr Susumu Takaoka at the controls. The second flight, which took place four days later, had to be aborted during takeoff because the two RATOG bottles were mounted at an incorrect angle. However, the Japanese surrender brought an immediate termination to the project on August 15, 1945. At the time of termination, a second prototype was almost ready for flight trials and 18 additional prototypes and pre-production aircraft were in various stages of assembly. Fighter, trainer, reconnaissance, and attack versions of the Kikka were planned. The bomber version was to be unarmed, but the fighter version was to carry a pair of 30-mm cannon. The fighter version would have had either two 1984 lb.s.t Ne-130 or two 1951 lb.s.t. Ne-330 axial-flow turbojets. Specification of the Nakajima Kikka: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/kikka.html (1 of 2)2006-09-19 15:24:12

Nakajima Kikka

Two Ne-20 axial-flow turbojets, 1047 lb.s.t. each. Performance (estimated); Maximum speed 387 mph at sea level and 433 mph at 32,810 feet. Service ceiling was 39,370 feet. Climb to 32,180 feet in 26 minutes. Range 586 miles. Dimensions: wing span 32 feet 9 11/16 inches, length 26 feet 7 7/8 inches, height 9 feet 8 5/32 inches, wing area 141.1 square feet. Weights: 5071 pounds empty, 7716 pounds loaded, 8995 pounds maximum takeoff. Armament: Neither prototype carried any armament.

Source: ●

Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/kikka.html (2 of 2)2006-09-19 15:24:12

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/n1ki.html

1. Kawanishi N1K Shiden 1. N1K1 Kyofu (Mighty Wind) Fighter Floatplane 2. N1K1-J Shiden (Violet Lightning) landplane 3. N1K2-J Shiden Kai (Violet Lightning Modified) 4. Sources:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/n1ki.html2006-09-19 15:24:21

Kawanishi N1K Shiden

Kawanishi N1K Shiden N1K1 Kyofu (Mighty Wind) Fighter Floatplane The Kawanishi N1K2-J Shiden Kai (Violet Lightning Modified) is generally rated as being one of the finest land-based fighter planes fielded by the Japanese during the Pacific War. It was actually superior to most of the carrier-based US Navy fighters that opposed it, and could hold its own against even the later models of the P-51 Mustang. Unfortunately for the Japanese, the aircraft was available too late and in insufficient numbers to affect the outcome of the war. The N1K2-J had a rather curious evolution. It actually originated as a floatplane fighter designed for offensive operations, and evolved in stages to produce what was perhaps the finest land-based fighter plane available to any of the combatants in the Pacific War. In 1940, anticipating a coming war in which Japan would be involved in far-ranging offensive operations, the Japanese Navy issued a requirement for a floatplane fighter which could be used for offensive operations in forward areas were no airfields existed. In response to this requirement, the Nakajima Hikoki K. K. concern at Koizumi offered a design based on a modified Mitsubishi A6M2 Reisen carrier-based fighter. This eventually emerged as the A6M2-N and was given the Allied code name Rufe when it entered service. However, this aircraft was considered as only an interim solution, and the Kawanishi Kokuki K. K. of Naruo was instructed to begin work on a more-advanced aircraft specially designed for the purpose. The Japanese Navy issued a 15-Shi specification (so named for the 15th year of the Showa era, which was 1940) for this aircraft in September of 1940. A team of engineers at the Kawanishi plant including Toshihara Baba, Shizuo Kikuhara, Hiroyuki Inoue, and Elizaboro Adachi came up with a design for a compact aircraft with mid mounted wings of laminarflow section. A single large float was to be installed underneath the fuselage, with auxiliary floats being carried underneath each outer wing. The central float was to be attached to the fuselage by a forward Vstrut and an I-strut at the rear. The initial design had the auxiliary floats being retractable and with metal planing bottoms and inflatable rubberized-fabric tops. However, these retractable floats were deemed to be too heavy and complex, and were replaced by fixed cantilever floats prior to the first flight of the prototype. The aircraft was to be powered by a 1460 hp Mitsubishi MK4D Kasei 14 air-cooled radial driving a pair of contrarotating two-bladed propellers. The contrarotating propellers were intended to offset the high propeller torque on takeoff expected from such a powerful engine mounted in a relatively small airframe. The first N1K1 prototype took off on its first flight on May 6, 1942. The contrarotating propellers of the prototype were later dropped as being too complex, and the design was modified to accept a 1460 hp MK4C Kasei 13 (Ha.32/13) radial engine driving a single conventional three-bladed propeller via an extension shaft. The single propeller installation was simpler and less mechanically troublesome, but it did produce (as expected) an extremely powerful torque on takeoff that required considerable skill on http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/n1k.html (1 of 9)2006-09-19 15:24:24


the part of the pilot to counter. Armament was two 20-mm cannon and two 7.7-mm machine guns. Once in the air, the N1K1 was found to be an extremely pleasant aircraft to fly and it had remarkable maneuverability by virtue of its combat flaps. The Japanese Navy accepted the design under the designation N1K1 Navy Fighter Seaplane Kyofu (Mighty Wind) Model 11, and production began. Service trials aircraft were delivered to the Japanese Navy starting in August of 1942. Early production aircraft were powered by 1460 hp MK4C Kasei 13 engines, but later production aircraft were powered by 1530 hp MK4E Kasei 15 engines which differed only in minor details. The Kyofu entered service with the Japanese Navy in July of 1943, and was assigned the Allied code name Rex. Production was slow in gaining tempo and by December of 1943 had reached only 15 per month. However, by the time that the Kyofu entered service, Japan had been thrown back onto the defensive, and the Kyofu was never to serve in the offensive fighter role for which it had been designed. Instead, the the N1K1 was assigned as an interceptor based at Balikpapan in Borneo, a role for which it had never been intended. Even though the Kyofu was a rugged and efficient floatplane, it was no match for the single-seat Allied fighters which opposed it. Consequently, production of the Kyofu was terminated in March of 1944 after the delivery of only 89 production aircraft. Also abandoned at the same time was the N1K2-I Kyofu-Kai project, to have been powered by the improved 1900 hp Mitsubishi MK4R Kasei 23 engine. Later in the war, one Kyofu unit was assigned as an interceptor with the Otsu Kokutai operating from the inland Lake Biwa on the Japanese home island of Honshu. An N1K1 is currently owned by the National Museum of Naval Aviation of Pensacola, Florida. It had been brought over to the United States after the war, and had sat out in the open for many years at NAS Willow Grove, Pennsylvania before being moved to more secure quarters at Pensacola. Another N1K1 is in storage at the NASM Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration, and Storage Facility at Suitland, Maryland. It awaits restoration and display. Specification of the Kawanishi N1K1 Kyofu One Mitsubishi MK4E Kasei 15 fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 1530 hp for takeoff, 1400 hp at 8530 feet, 1280 hp at 19,685 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 302 mph at 18,700 feet, service ceiling 34,645 feet cruising speed 230 mph at 6560 feet. Climb to 16,400 feet in 5 minutes 32 seconds. Normal range 660 miles, maximum range 1040 miles.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/n1k.html (2 of 9)2006-09-19 15:24:24


Weights: 6067 pounds empty, 7716 pounds loaded, 8184 pounds maximum loaded. Dimensions: wingspan 39 feet 4 7/16 inches, length 34 feet 8 7/8 inches, height 15 feet 7 inches, wing area 252.95 square feet. Armament: Two 7.7-mm Type 97 machine guns in the fuselage and two 20-mm Type 99 Model 1 cannon in the wings. Two 66-pound bombs could be carried externally.

N1K1-J Shiden (Violet Lightning) landplane In December of 1941, the Kawanishi engineering team proposed to their management that it might be a good idea to produce a land-based version of the company's N1K1 Kyofu seaplane fighter. Kawanishi management thought enough of the idea that they decided to go ahead with the project as a private venture. Initially, few changes over the N1K1 were planned other than the replacement of the floats with retractable land undercarriage. However it was decided to replace the 14-cylinder Kasei engine with an eighteen-cylinder Nakajima Homare air-cooled radial which, it was hoped, would deliver 2000 hp. To take advantage of the increased power, a new four-bladed propeller with a diameter of 10 feet 10 inches was to be fitted. However, since the original mid-wing configuration of the Kyofu was retained, a very stalky undercarriage was required in order that the prop be able to clear the ground. This in turn required a rather complex scheme of double landing gear retraction, in which the legs contracted as they folded into the wing wells. The aft portion of the fuselage was deepened to give more vertical stabilizing area and included a retractable tailwheel. A unique feature of the N1K1-J was its set of combat flaps. Whereas flap extension was manually controlled on the Kyofu seaplane, the flaps on the landplane version had the ability automatically to change their angle in response to changes in g-forces during maneuvers. This automatic operation freed up the pilot from having to worry about his flaps during combat, and eliminated the possibility of a stall at an inopportune time. The landbased fighter made its maiden flight on December 27, 1942. Since the aircraft was a private venture, it had no military designation, and was known as the Model X-1 Experimental Landbased Fighter by the manufacturer. The engine was the 1820 hp Nakajima Homare 11 radial. It was armed with two 7.7 mm Type 97 machine guns in the fuselage and two 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon housed in underwing gondolas. Since the Homare 11 had been accepted for production before the completion of its final tests, it was plagued with teething troubles. The early Homare engine failed to develop its rated power, the propeller torque during takeoff was excessive, and the visibility during taxiing was poor. However the aircraft had pleasant flying characteristics and the automatic combat flaps gave the aircraft exceptional maneuverability. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/n1k.html (3 of 9)2006-09-19 15:24:24


By July of 1943, four prototypes had been built, and one was handed over to the Navy for trials. The performance was disappointing, the maximum speed being only 357 mph (403 mph had been promised). However, it was faster than the Mitsubishi A6M5 Reisen and was more maneuverable and longer-ranged than the faster Mitsubishi J2M2 Raiden. By this time, the Japanese Navy was in desperate need of fighters capable of countering the Vought F4U Corsair and the Grumman F6F Hellcat, and gave authorization for Kawanishi to proceed with further development of the land-based version of the Kyofu under the designation N1K1-J Shiden (Violet Lightning) Interceptor Fighter. The J indicated that it was a landplane development of the original N1K1. Further prototypes and service trial aircraft were built during 1943. They were fitted with the more powerful 1990 hp Nakajima NK9H Homare 21 radial. The cowling was modified and featured an additional lower lip scoop. Individual exhaust stacks were fitted, and an external oil cooler was mounted on the port side of the cowling behind and below the cooling gills. Two additional 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon were installed in the wings just outboard of the external underwing cannon gondolas. Quantity production was ordered by the Navy as the Navy Interceptor Fighter Shiden Model 11. By the end of 1943, 70 aircraft had been built at the Naruo Works, and the first aircraft had been delivered by the Kawanishi plant at Himeji. The N1K1-J entered service with land-based squadrons of the Japanese Navy early in 1944. Armanent consisted of 2 7.7-mm machine guns in the fuselage and four 20 mm cannon in the wings (2 in the wing, 2 in underwing gondolas). The first large unit of Shidens to be deployed was the 341st Kokutai (Air Corps), which was transferred to Luzon from Formosa on October 20, 1944. The N1K1-J was first encountered by American forces in combat over Formosa and the Philippines. It was assigned the Allied code name George. It quickly established itself as one of the toughest and most troublesome Japanese fighters yet to be met in combat. It was a truly exceptional combat aircraft in the hands of an experienced pilot. It proved itself superior to most US shipboard fighters that it encountered, and many experienced Shiden pilots regarded the previously-formidable Grumman F6F Hellcat as a particularly easy "kill". The N1K1-J was, however, not without its faults. Operations were plagued by frequent undercarriage malfunctions, the complex double-retraction landing gear causing lots of problems. Aircraft availability was frequently limited by insufficient maintenance crews and by logistics problems. The Homare engine was rather unreliable and was a maintenance headache. The wheel brakes were so bad that most pilots chose to land their Shidens on the grass alongside the runway in order to shorten the landing run. The N1K1-Ja Model 11A differed from the Model 11 in having all four of its 20-mm cannon inside the wing, and it dispensed with the fuselage-mounted machine guns. The N1K1-Jb Model 11B had four improved 20-mm cannon in the wing, was fitted with two underwing racks for bombs of up to 550 pounds in weight, and late production N1K1-Jb fighters had completely redesigned, square-tipped vertical tail surfaces. The N1K1-Jc Shiden Model 11C was a specialized fighter-bomber version similar



to the Model 11B but with four underwing bomb racks. At least one N1K1-J used in the Philippines was captured by US forces. It was repaired and tested by American Technical Air Intelligence Unit pilots at Clark Air Base. The respect that American pilots had for the airplane was found to be fully justifiable. Following the fall of the Philippines to US forces, the Shiden was met in large numbers during the invasion of Okinawa. A Japanese military communique reported an engagement in which a unit of 34 Shidens met a force of 70 Allied fighters, destroying 20 of them against a loss of only twelve of their number. Shidens also equipped the 343rd Kokutai the First Air Fleet based at Tinian, and were later based at Shikoku in Japan in defense of the home islands during the spring of 1945. Late in 1944, a Shiden was modified as the N1K1-J-Kai with a supplementary rocket unit to increase power for short periods. The rear portion of the fuselage was modified to house a rocket motor. Several aircraft received this modification, but the conversion never achieved operational status. The Shiden Special Attack aircraft was a variant capable of carrying out suicide attacks. In early 1945, four Shiden 11s were modified for this mission, but were never expended. A total of 9 prototype and 520 N1K1-J production aircraft were built by the Naruo plant, and 468 N1K1J production aircraft were built by the Himeji plant. This brought total production of the Shiden to 1007 examples, including prototypes. Production of the N1K1-J was phased out at the Narou plant in December 1944 in favor of the improved N1K2-J. Production of the N1K1-J at the Himjei plant was halted by the damage caused by B-29 raids. Specification of the Kawanishi N1K1-J Shiden One Nakajima NK9H Homare 21 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 1990 hp for takeoff, 1825 hp at 5740 feet, 1625 hp at 20,015 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 363 mph at 19,355 feet, 334 mph at 8040 feet. Cruising speed 230 mph at 6560 feet, service ceiling 41,000 feet cruising speed 230 mph at 6600 feet. Climb to 19,685 feet in 7 minutes 50 seconds. Normal range 890 miles at 230 mph at 13,120 feet, maximum range 1580 miles. Weights: 6387 pounds empty, 8598 pounds loaded, 9526 pounds maximum loaded. Dimensions: wingspan 39 feet 4 7/16 inches, length 29 feet 1 25/32 inches, height 13 feet 3 27/32 inches, wing area 252.95 square feet. Armament: Two 7.7-mm Type 97 machine guns in the fuselage, two 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon in the wings, two 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon in underwing gondolas. Two 132-pound bombs or one 88 Imp gall drop tank could be carried externally.



N1K2-J Shiden Kai (Violet Lightning Modified) Although the N1K1-J was an outstanding fighter, it did have some serious defects. Its Homare 21 engine was notoriously unreliable, and the complex doubly-retracting landing gear was subject to frequent failures. Even before the N1J1-J entered production, work had already begun at Kawanishi on correcting some of its more glaring defects, in particular its long and complex landing gear. The result of these changes was the Shiden-Kai (Violet Lightning--Modified). Given the designation N1K2-J, the aircraft was completely redesigned so as to use fewer components in order to simplify its construction. More non-critical materials were to be used. Another step towards simplification involved the use of pre-formed sheet construction. Perhaps the most easily-noted innovation was the use of a lowmounted wing in place of the original mid-mounted wing. This permitted a shorter set of landing gear legs to be used, and the complex double-retraction system which had caused so many problems could be eliminated. In addition, the fuselage was lengthened and the tail surfaces were redesigned. The result was a virtually new aircraft, although the unreliable 1990 hp Homare 21 engine of the N1K1-J was retained. Armament was four 20-mm cannon, all mounted internally to the wing. The first N1K2-J prototype took off on its maiden flight on December 31, 1943. It was handed over to the Japanese Navy for trials in April of 1944. Although the Homare 21 engine was still mechanically unreliable, the Navy liked the aircraft so much that they authorized quantity production of the N1K2-J to be its standard land-based fighter and fighter-bomber even before the service trials were completed. Production aircraft were designated Navy Interceptor Fighter Shiden Kai (Violet Lightning Modified) Model 21. In addition to the Kawanishi plant at Naruo, the Shiden Kai was ordered into production at the Himeji works of Kawanishi. Shiden Kai fighter aircraft were also ordered into production from the Dai-Nana Kokuki Seisakusho (7th Airframe Works) of the Mitsubishi Jukogyo K. K. at Tsurashima, from the Aichi Kokuki K. K. at Eitoku, from the Showa Hikoki K. K. at Shinonoi, and from the Naval Air Arsenals at Hiro, Omura, and Koza. A further seven prototypes had been completed by June of 1944, However, the prototypes began to experience a long series of teething troubles, which proved difficult to correct. The Shiden-Kai program began to slip its schedules, and by the autumn of 1944 the N1K2-J production lines were beginning to experience shortages of vital components due to B-29 attacks against the factories of Kawanishi's subcontractors. By the end of 1944, only 60 Shiden Kais had been delivered by the Naruo factory, and production at Himeji did not begin until March of 1945. The other manufacturers in the Shiden Kai pool were never able to produce more than a handful of aircraft. The Shiden Kai was to become perhaps the best all-round fighter to be operational in the Pacific theatre. It was fast, powerful, and maneuverable, and was well-armed and armored. In the hands of an experienced pilot, the Shiden-Kai was the equal of any Allied fighter, even the later models of the P-51 Mustang which began to appear over Japan in the spring of 1945. In one notable action, on February 16 1945 over Yokohama, Warrant Officer Kinsuke Muto of the 343rd Kokutai in an N1K2-J singlehandedly battled a dozen F6F Hellcats. He shot down four of them before the rest were forced to break http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/n1k.html (6 of 9)2006-09-19 15:24:24


off combat and return to their carrier. However, against the B-29, the N1K2-J was less successful, since its climbing speed was insufficient and the power of the Homare 21 engine fell off rather rapidly at higher altitudes. A two-seat trainer version, the N1K2-K Shiden Kai Rensen (Violet Lightning Modified Fighter Trainer) was planned, but only a few examples were produced by fitting a second seat behind the pilot's seat of some existing N1K2-J airframes. The Shiden Kai had its center of gravity too far aft, and to correct this problem the N1K3-J Shiden Kai 1 Model 31 was built, which had the Homare 21 engine moved forward six inches. This freed up enough space to permit two 13.2-mm machine guns to be fitted in the engine cowling. Two prototypes were built at Himeji, but this model was never put into production. The N1K3-A Shiden Kai 2 Model 41 was a carrier-based variant of the N1K3-J. It too was never put into production. In an attempt to overcome some of the operational problems caused by the still unreliable Homare 21, the N1K4-J Shiden Kai 3 Model 32 and its carrier-borne variant the N1K4-A Shiden Kai 4 Model 42 were developed. These were powered by the 2000 hp NK9H-S Homare 23 fuel-injected radial. Two prototypes of the N1K4-J and one of the N1K4-A were built in the spring of 1945 at Naruo. The carrierbased aircraft was accepted for production as the Shiden 41, but was later abandoned since by that time Japan's carrier forces had been completely destroyed. One of the weaknesses of the Shiden Kai was its rather lackluster high-altitude performance. It had proven to be ineffective against the B-29 owing to its poor climbing ability. In search of better highaltitude performance, the N1K5-J Shiden Kai 5 Model 25 was planned, powered by a 2200-hp Mitsubishi MK9A eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial. However, the sole prototype of the N1K5-J was destroyed prior to completion during a B-29 raid in June of 1945. Another high-altitude interceptor version of the Shiden Kai was to be based on a Homare 44 engine equipped with a three-speed mechanical supercharger. The end of the Pacific War brought an end to all these projects. Only 415 production examples of the outstanding N1K2-J fighter were built, owing primarily to construction snags and delays resulting from the continuous B-29 raids on the Japanese homeland in the last year of the war. With the exception of Kawanishi's Naruo and Himeji plants, the other companies involved in the production pool were late in getting started and delivered only a token number of machines before the war ended. It is fortunate for the Allies that this outstanding aircraft was not available in greater quantity. After the war in the Pacific was over, several N1K2-J fighters were discovered intact at Japanese airfields and were brought back to the United States for study. Several of these are now on display in museums or are awaiting restoration.



N1K2-J Number 5218 had originally been found at an airfield at Omura in Japan. It is currently owned by the National Museum of Naval Aviation at Pensacola, Florida. N1K2-J Number 5312 is on display at the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. The National Air and Space Museum owns one N1K2-Ja. It was serial number 5341, the 341st example built, having been built at the Narou Kawanishi plant. It had been picked up at an airfield at Omura, Japan after the war and brought to the United States. Following evaluation, it had sat for many years out in the open at NAS Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, slowly rusting away and being stripped by vandals. Eventually, the Navy agreed to transfer the plane to the NASM's Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration, and Storage Facility at Suitland, Maryland, if for no other reason than to get it out of the weather and away from vandals. It was cleaned of debris, coated with a preservative, and stored awaiting a full restoration. In the meantime, the Champlin Fighter Museum of Falcon Field, Mesa, Arizona, which lacked a Japanese fighter to round out its exhibits, proposed that they borrow the N1K2-Ja from the NASM and restore it according to NASM's rigid codes. In exchange, they would be allowed to display the aircraft at the Falcon Field museum for 10 years. After protracted negotiation, the NASM finally agreed and the N1K2-Ja was moved to Falcon Field in December of 1991 and restoration work began. The project was completed in November of 1994. The aircraft is painted in the colors of the 343rd Kokutai, aircraft number 35. Specification of the Kawanishi N1K2-J Shiden Kai: One Nakajima NK9H Homare 21 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 1990 hp for takeoff, 1825 hp at 5740 feet, 1625 hp at 20,015 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 369 mph at 19,355 feet, 359 mph at 9840 feet. Cruising speed 230 mph at 9845 feet, service ceiling 35,300 feet cruising speed 230 mph at 6600 feet. Climb to 19,685 feet in 7 minutes 22 seconds. Normal range 1066 miles at 219 mph at 9840 feet, maximum range 1488 miles with 88 Imp. gall. drop tank. Weights: 5858 pounds empty, 8818 pounds loaded, 10,714 pounds maximum loaded. Dimensions: wingspan 39 feet 4 7/16 inches, length 30 feet 7 29/32 inches, height 12 feet 11 29/32 inches, wing area 252.95 square feet. Armament: Four 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon in the wings. Two 551-pound bombs or one 88 Imp. gall. drop tank could be carried externally.


Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1967. Warplanes of the Second World War, Volume III, William Green, Doubleday, 1964. Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979.


Kawanishi N1K Shiden ●

Japanese Fighter by George! Robert Mikesh, Wings, April 1995.

Joe Baugher


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/pzli.html

1. PZL P-7/11/24 series 1. Sources:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/pzli.html2006-09-19 15:24:35

PZL P-7/11/24 series

PZL P-7/11/24 series The P.Z.L. P-7 / P-11 / P-24 series of Polish gull-wing single seat fighters of the 1930s were the product of the P.Z.L. (Panstwowe Zaklaty Lotnicze or State Aircraft Factory) located in Warsaw, Poland. All of them had a high-mounted gull wing with two parallel struts, the airfoil being thinnest at the fuselage join and thickest at the "break". This wing came to be known as the "Polish wing", and was largely the inspiration of the famous designer and pilot Ing. Zygmunt Pulawski, the chief designer of P.Z.L. Pulawski was killed in a plane crash in March of 1931, six months before the first P-11 prototype flew. The first aircraft using the "Polish wing" was the P-1 which first appeared in 1929. It was powered by a 600 hp Hispano Suiza V liquid-cooled engine. The undercarriage was fixed, and the wing was supported by a pair of parallel external struts. The open cockpit was located immediately behind the shouldermounted gull wing. The P-1 created an instant sensation and won first place in the 1930 Bucharest competition against such contenders as the Bristol Bulldog and the Dewoiting D.27. The P-1 immediately placed Poland in the first rank of aircraft-building nations, at a time when most other nations still adhered to the biplane as a first-line fighter. However, the Polish War Ministry objected to the Hispano engine on economic and practical grounds, and as a result all P-series aircraft powered by liquid-cooled in-line engines remained experimental only. The first radial-engined variant was the P-6, powered by a 500 hp Bristol Jupiter VI FH enclosed in a Townend antidrag ring. This version suffered from engine overheating problems, which led to the P-7 version powered by the 585 hp Bristol Jupiter VII F. Some 150 were built, and remained in service with the Polish Air Force until 1939. Some thirty were still in squadron service when the German attack took place. The best-known version was the P-11, which flew for the first time in September 1931. The first P-11 prototype was powered by a Gnome-Rhone (Bristol) Jupiter engine, similar to the engine of the P-7. The second and third prototypes were powered by a Bristol Mercury engine. The sixth prototype was the production prototype, and was fitted with an exhaust collector ring. The second P-11 prototype was exhibited in 1932 at the Salon International d'Aeronautique in Paris and caused an immediate sensation. The third prototype was entered in the 1932 International Contest at Zurich, a speed contest for singleseat fighters. It came in second, the winner being a Hawker Fury. One of the later P-11 prototypes took place in the US National Air Races in 1932. The initial production version was the P-11a. All were completed in 1934 and all were powered by the Bristol Mercury IV S2 built under license by the Polish Skoda works. Armament consisted of a pair of 7.7-mm Browning machine guns with 700 rpg mounted in side fuselage bays and synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. Although by 1939 most of the Polish Air Force's P-11a fighters had been relegated to training duties, a few of them actually saw combat during the German invasion.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/pzl.html (1 of 4)2006-09-19 15:24:41


The P-11b was a variant developed specifically for export. 50 examples were ordered by Rumania, and these were powered by the Rumanian-built Gnome-Rhone K.9 Krse engine of 595 hp and were fitted with Rumanian instruments. The geometry of the tail assembly of the P-11b differed slightly from that of the P-11a. First deliveries took place in 1934. A license for the manufacture of the P-11 in Rumania was acquired by the I.A.R. (Industria Aeronautica Romana) concern located at Brasov. The Rumanianbuilt version was named P-11f. In spite of substantial Polish assistance, the rate of production of the P11f by I.A.R. was extremely slow because of lack of experience by the Rumanian company in building all-metal aircraft. All P-11f aircraft were equipped with four guns and all were fitted with special lowpressure tires for use from unprepared airfields. Four squadrons of the Rumanian Air Force were still equipped with P-11f fighters as late as 1941. The next production version was the P-11c, which began to reach Polish fighter units during 1935. A total of 175 were built before the type was replaced on the production lines by the P-24. The major design change involved the redesign of the forward fuselage in an attempt to improve forward view. This was done by lowering the thrust line of the engine and raising and moving aft of the pilot's seat. The dihedral of the inboard wing sections was increased and a new tail assembly was fitted. The armament was increased to four 7.7-mm machine guns. Two guns were in the wing, mounted just outboard of the "break", and two guns were mounted in side fuselage bays, synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. Wing guns carried 300 rpg, fuselage guns 500 rpg. However, only about one third of the P-11c fighters were actually fitted with four guns, delays in gun deliveries necessitating most machines being fitted with only two guns. Only about one in three P-11c fighters were equipped with radios. The P-11c was powered by a 645 hp P.Z.L.-built Bristol Mercury VI S2 nine-cylinder air-cooled radial engine driving a wooden two-blade fixed-pitch propeller. Maximum speed was 186 mph at sea level and 242 mph at 18,000 feet. Range at economical cruising speed was 593 miles. An altitude of 16,400 feet could be reached in 6 minutes, and an altitude of 26,240 feet could be attained in 13 minutes. Weights were 2524 pounds empty and 3960 pounds loaded. Wingspan was 35 feet 2 inches, length was 24 feet 9 1/2 inches, height was 9 feet 4 inches, and wing area was 192.7 square feet. In the spring of 1939, it was decided to boost the performance of the P-11, the goal being the filling of the interim gap caused by delays in the development of the P-50 Jastrzab. The improved version was designated P-11g. It was to be powered by an 840 hp Mercury VIII engine driving a larger-diameter propeller. The undercarriage legs were to be longer, and four 7.7-mm machine guns were to be fitted. Production was initiated at the PWS works in Biala Podlaska in July of 1939, but the German invasion brought the program to a halt before any aircraft could be delivered. 128 P-11s were in service in Poland at the time of the German invasion. The P-11 was definitely a "pilot's airplane" which had been a world-class fighting machine in 1934. However, by 1939 it was definitely obsolescent, having remained in service long after more modern types had become available. The P-11 could not even reach the Dornier Do 17 bombers which were intruding into Polish airspace even before the beginning of the September 1, 1939 offensive. When the war began, there were ten German aircraft for every Polish plane. The Luftwaffe's Bf 109E had a 90 mph speed advantage over the http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/pzl.html (2 of 4)2006-09-19 15:24:41


P-11 and a 1200-foot higher ceiling. Although the P-11 possessed superlative maneuverability, all German aircraft with the exception of the Hs 126 and the Ju 87 could avoid combat with the P-11 at will. Nevertheless, the Polish pilots of the P-11 achieved a reasonable number of kills, which can be ascribed to the determined fighting spirit of Polish pilots in the face of insurmountable odds. The first German aircraft shot down during World War 2 was a Ju 87, brought down by P-11 pilot Lt. W. Gnys. The first Allied pilot to score two kills in one sortie was Lt. Gedymin. In the first three days of the battle, 46 P11s and P-7s were lost, but a large proportion were able to be repaired and returned to duty. In the same time period, 60 Luftwaffe aircraft were shot down. On the third day of the offensive, P-11s made the first attack on a German armored column, with small results and heavy losses. In a matter of days, it was all over. Contrary to general knowledge, the main losses suffered by the Polish fighter units were not caused by destruction on the ground. Of 166 Polish fighters of all types, 116 were destroyed in combat, and 50 or so were evacuated to Rumania. Twelve pilots were killed, 15 injured, and seven were missing in action, rather low casualties when it is considered what these people went through. The P-24 was the ultimate development of Pulawski's gull-wing design. It was stressed to take advantage of increased engine powers, it being anticipated that radial engines of up to 1000 horsepower could be accommodated. The P-24 was a private venture on the part of P.Z.L, and was intended strictly for export and never served with the Polish Air Force. In some respects, it can be considered as the export equivalent of the Polish Air Force's P-11c, as the two fighters were evolved in parallel and had many features in common. The first prototype was powered by a 770 hp supercharged Gnome-Rhone 14 Kds fourteen-cylinder twin-row radial and flew for the first time in March 1933. The second prototype was powered by an unsupercharged Gnome-Rhone 14Kfs radial of 930 hp driving a three-bladed metal propeller. This aircraft was fitted with a pair of 20-mm Oerlikon FF cannon which were mounted in fairings at the junctions of the wings and the bracing struts. This plane was used as a demonstrator machine for several Balkan air arms in the hopes of soliciting orders. In 1934, P.Z.L.'s test pilot B. Orlinski established a F.A. I.-recognized speed record of 257.3 mph. The third prototype carried an additional pair of 7.7-mm machine guns in addition to the twin cannon and was intended to be representative of the proposed production model and was designated P-24A. The P-24A featured a tail assembly similar to that of the P11c and had an enclosed cockpit. The P-24B featured an alternative four machine gun armament. The first foreign customer for the P-24 was Turkey, which ordered 40 examples under the designation P24C. Fourteen of these carried an armament of two cannon and two machine guns, but the rest carried four machine guns. Structurally, the P-24C differed little from the A or B variants, but the fairings at the junctions of the bracing struts and the fuselage were omitted. The Turkish government acquired a license for the manufacture of the P-24C, and the first example rolled off the production lines of Tayyare Fabricasi at Kayseri in May of 1937. Limited production continued under Polish supervision until 1940.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/pzl.html (3 of 4)2006-09-19 15:24:41


The Rumanian version of the P-24 was designated P-24E, and was quite similar to the Turkish P-24C but had an I.A.R.-built Gnome-Rhone 14 Kmc/36 engine of 930 hp and had an armament of two 20-mm Oerlikon cannon and two 7.7 machine guns. Six airframes were supplied by P.Z.L, but the rest were built under license by I.A.R. at Brasov. First deliveries began in 1937, and some fifty were built by I.A.R. between 1938 and 1939. The P-24E provided the backbone for Rumanian fighter squadrons and saw action on the Russian front when Rumania joined Germany in the war against the USSR. Surviving P-24Es were later replaced by German Bf 109E-4 fighters. The Rumanian P-24E was to have an interesting postscript. The I.A.R. factory used the P-24E as the basis of an entirely new indigenous design, designated I.A.R.80. The rear fuselage, tail surfaces, the engine, engine mount and cowling, and various other components of the P-24E were married to a new forward and center fuselage section and fitted with an entirely new low-mounted wing and a retractable undercarriage. The I.A.R.80 replaced the P-24E on the Brasov production lines in 1941. Bulgaria and Greece also ordered the P-24 in 1937-38. Bulgaria acquired 34 examples of the P-24F with two 20-mm cannon and two 7.7-mm machine guns. and Greece ordered 30 P-24Fs and six P-24Gs. The P-24F was powered by a 970 hp Gnome-Rhone 14 N-7 fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial which was housed in a new low-drag cowling. Maximum speed was 214 mph at sea level and 267 mph at 13,940 feet. Normal range was 497 miles at 186 mph. It could climb to 16,400 feet in 5 minutes 40 seconds, and could reach 26,250 feet in 12 minutes. Service ceiling was 34,450 feet. Weights were 2924 pounds empty and 4232 pounds empty. Wingspan was 35 feet 2 inches, length was 24 feet 7 1/2 inches, height was 8 feet 10 1/4 inches, and wing area was 192.7 square feet. Two squadrons of the Royal Hellenic Air Force were equipped with the P-24F, and these operated against both the Regia Aeronautica and the Luftwaffe when Greece was invaded. Until the advent of the Hurricane, Spitfire, and Bf 109E, the P-24 was considered to be a world-class fighter. It had a high degree of maneuverability and possessed a rugged, all-metal structure. However, it was approaching obsolescence when World War II began. Since the P-24 flew both with the Rumanian Air Force and the Royal Hellenic Air Force, it joins the list of aircraft which flew on both sides during World War II.

Sources: ● ●

The P.Z.L. P-11, Witold Liss, Aircraft in Profile # 75, Profile Publications, 1966. War Planes of the Second World War. Fighters Volume 3, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.

Joe Baugher http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/pzl.html (4 of 4)2006-09-19 15:24:41

IAR.80

IAR 80 Introduction The history of WWII aviation is dominated almost entirely by the aircraft of five countries, the USA, England, Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union. Although small numbers of other designs saw combat, the majority of these were poor performers and saw little action. The Romanian IAR.80 is an exception to the rule. When it was introduced it could outperform many contemporary fighters, and even beat out advanced German designs in head to head competition. It went on to form the backbone of the Romanian fighter groups for a number of years and would score a number of surprising and important victories over the USAAF. Basic specifications Company: Designer: Year: Type: Crew: Description: Fuselage:

Industria Aeronautica Românã (IAR) Ion Grosu 1938 Day fighter 1, pilot Low wing monoplane fighter with conventional control surface layout. The fuselage is circular in cross section, turning to egg shaped behind the cockpit where it incorporates a ridge-back. The general fuselage layout bears a very strong resemblance to the F4U. Wings: The wings are basically rectangular, the trailing edge tapers very slightly towards the front. Surprisingly small flaps run from the fuselage to a point about 1/3rd along the span, where oversized ailerons start and run out to the rounded caps on the wingtips. Other details: The canopy is a bubble type, very similar to the F4U or Malcom hook with the center "bubble" sliding to the rear. The radial engine and wing are near the front of the plane but the cockpit is seemingly far to the rear, over 1/2 of the way back from the front of the plane. Tail-dragger landing gear were used, with the main gear wide-set and retracting inward, and the tail "gear" being a simple skid that did not retract.

Background At the end of WWI Romania had been granted large tracts of land as a "reward" for siding with the http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/iar80.html (1 of 14)2006-09-19 15:25:01

IAR.80

allies. The lands were taken as penalties from surrounding countries, so they instantly made enemies of the USSR, Bulgaria and Hungary. Throughout the 1920's and 30's Romania entered a number of alliances with nearby nations who were in a similar situation, notably Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. They were interested in blocking any changes to the Versailles treaty, which could eventually lead the loss of the land grants. As a result of the land grants, Romania was literally surrounded by hostile nations. Military issues were an important aspect of the country's planning, and a strong effort was made to develop an indigenous aviation industry because of the poor results they had in attempting to purchase advanced equipment from other nations. In order to overcome these problems and ensure that the Fortelor Aeronautica Regalã ale Românã (Royal Romanian Air Force, or FARR) could continue to be supplied with aircraft in time of war, the government subsidized the creation of three major aircraft manufacturers in the 1920's and 30's. The first was Societatii pentru Exploatari Tehnice (SET) which was formed in Bucharest in 1923. Next came Industria Aeronautica Româna (IAR) which set up shop in Brasov in 1925. Finally there was Intreprinderea de Constructii Aeronautice Romanesti (ICAR), which was founded in Bucharest in 1932. In 1930 the Romanian government issued specifications for a new fighter. Although the government did not expect bids from its own aircraft industry, IAR produced several prototype fighters in response to the tender. None of the other Romanian companies entered a bid, and as the industry was rife with corruption, the government nationalized IAR while the other two companies were left to their own devices. However the contract was eventually won by the Polish Panstwowe Zaclady Lotnicze (PZL) P.11, which at the time was considered to be the best fighter in the world. The FARR purchased fifty of a modified version called the P.11b, which included Romanian instruments and the locally built 595hp IAR K9 engine. All fifty were delivered in 1934. This started a long series of setbacks for IAR, who seemed to always be one step behind the PZL teams. TIn 1934 IAR introduced the IAR.15 and 16 which were based on a study of the good points of the P.11b. Both were low-wing monoplane fighters, differing only in the powerplant -- a 600hp inline in the 15, and a 560hp radial in the 16. Both were faster than the P.11b, but the FARR decided to simply upgrade the P.11 with the newer 640hp IAR K9 engine and call it the PZL P.11f. This version also included four guns (up from two), and low-pressure tires which allowed it to be flown from any open field. Production of the 11f version at IAR was rather slow, as the company gained experience with allmetal construction. The pace of aerodynamic improvement was such that by 1936 the P.11 was no longer competitive, so the FARR again went looking for newer aircraft. Just prior to this IAR had tested a number of new design and construction techniques on a private project, the IAR.24 sports plane. Using lessons learned from this project, most notably the wing design, the IAR team came forward with a new fighter which

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/iar80.html (2 of 14)2006-09-19 15:25:01

IAR.80

added retractable gear and a much improved engine. Once again PZL won the contract, this time with the "product improved" P.11, the P.24. Unlike the P.11, the P.24 was intended only for export. The main differences between the P.24 and the earlier P.11 was heavier armament, an enclosed cockpit, and a strengthened structure suitable for mounting engines up to 1000hp. The Romanian version was the P.24E, and mounted the new 930hp K14 C36, along with two 20mm Oerlikon cannon and two 7.7 Browning machine guns. Fifty were delivered in total, the first six from PZL and the rest from IAR. All these setbacks might make it sound like IAR should have been out of business. Quite on the contrary, IAR won the contracts to actually build many of the PZL aircraft. They also provided all of the engines, which were locally built versions of various licensed Gnome-Rhône radials. Other licensed contracts included the Potez 25, the Moraine-Saulnier 35, and the Fleet 10-G. As a result the company had enough money to fund a design shop even if it's designs never saw production.

Development history Despite the constant race with PZL, an IAR design team led by Dr. Ion Grosu continued work on fighter designs. He was convinced that the low wing design pioneered on the IAR.24 represented a much better design than the PZL gull-wing design, which was often referred to as the "Polish wing". Once again the team studied the new PZL fighter looking to incorporate its best features into a new plane, and the result was the IAR.80. The design was a true mix of features. The tail section was taken directly from the P.24, and was of semimonocoque construction. Also taken from the P.24 was the very front of the plane, including the engine, engine mounting, and the cowling design. The fuselage from the engine back to the cockpit was new, consisting of a welded steel tube frame covered with duraluminum sheeting. The wings were mounted just behind the engine, and were of the same design as those used on the IAR.24. The cockpit's interior, instruments, and gunsight were almost entirely imported from foreign suppliers. The plane was considerably more modern than the Polish designs, and the team finally had a plane that could beat PZL's best.

Prototypes Work began on the IAR.80 prototype in late 1937, originally with an open cockpit and the 870hp IAR K14-III C32 engine which was a licensed Gnome-Rhône 14K II Mistral Major. The prototype was completed slowly, and first took to the air in late 1938 with Dimitru "Pufi" Popescu at the controls. Test flights of the prototype were impressive, the plane could reach 510km/h at 4000m (317mph at 13,000ft) which was highly respectable at the time. In comparison the P.24E was almost 450kg lighter, http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/iar80.html (3 of 14)2006-09-19 15:25:01

IAR.80

yet over 80km/h slower even though it used the same engine. The plane also proved to be a delight to fly and highly maneuverable. A number of minor problems turned up during the prototype phase, and were dealt with over the next year. To improve power the design was updated to mount the newer 930hp C36 version of the K14-III. However this engine was slightly heavier than the C32, which required the fuselage to be stretched to move the center of gravity back into the proper position in relation to the wing. The extra space in the fuselage was put to good use by increasing the size of the fuel tanks to 455l (100 gallons). The wing was also enlarged and the tail was revised to eliminate the bracing struts. Since the space was inserted behind the engine, the cockpit ended up further back on the plane to a point that looks oddly out of place. A side effect of this extreme rearward position was that the pilot had almost no visibility over the nose while taxing on the ground. It was at this time that they introduced the bubble-style canopy. The updated prototype was tested competitively against the He 112, which had just arrived in Romania as the start of a potentially large order. Although the 112 was somewhat more modern and much more heavily armed (with two machine guns and two 20mm cannon), the IAR.80 completely outclassed it in all other respects. The FARR was impressed, and ordered 100 of the new fighters on the 18th of December, 1939. Orders for additional He 112's beyond the original thirty were cancelled.

IAR.80 Production of the IAR.80 was to start immediately, but providing the armament proved to be a serious problem. The prototype had mounted only two Belgian-made Fabrique Nationale 7.92mm machine guns, a licensed modification of the Browning 30 cal. This armament suite was clearly not heavy enough for combat use, and the production model was supposed to mount six of these guns. The German invasion of Belgium and the Low Countries in 1940 ended the supply of the FN guns, and there was no indigenous machine gun that was suitable for use in aircraft. Lacking armament, production was put on hold. It wasn't until November 1940 when Romania joined the Axis that the Germans eventually allowed the delivery of the guns to resume. As a result the first production IAR.80 didn't roll off the line until January 1941, although the first batch of twenty had been quickly delivered by the middle of February. The new armament supply still wasn't enough to fully equip the planes, so the production models only carried four guns. The production models also included new oxygen gear. The initial batch of fighters was well received by the Romanian pilots, but they considered the aircraft underpowered and lacking firepower. In order to address the power issue the planes mounted the 960hp K14-IV C32 engine in the 21st through 50th examples, but there was little they could do about the firepower issue at the time.


IAR.80

Specifications for the IAR.80 Engine: Dimensions:

Weights: Wing Area:

960hp (716kW) IAR K14-IV C32 air-cooled 14 cylinder double-row radial span 10.7m (32ft 1in) length 8.9m (32ft) height 3.6m (11ft 10in) empty 1780kg (3,924lbs) max loaded 2250kg (4,960lbs) 16m2 (xxxft2)

Wing Loading: xxxkg/m2 (xxlbs/ft2) maximum speed 510km/h at 4000m (317mph at 13,000ft) xxxkm/h (xxxmph) at sea level Performance: cruise speed unknown service ceiling 10500m (34,500ft) range 940km (xxxmiles) Armament: four FN (Browning) 7.92mm with 500 rounds each mounted in the inner portion of the wing

IAR.80A In April of 1941 the Romanians were firmly in the German sphere, and as a result the Germans released more of the FN guns for their use. These were quickly incorporated into the design, and the resulting 80A model finally mounted the original design compliment of six guns. The design also added armored glass to the windscreen, armor to the seat-back, and a new Goerz gunsight. They also took this opportunity to mount the newer 1025hp K14-1000A engine. The extra engine power proved to be more than the fuselage structure was designed to handle, and it had to be reinforced with a duralumin "belt" just behind the cockpit in the first ninety-five A series aircraft built before the fuselage could be modified. Although the IAR.80A had a more powerful engine, the added weight of the guns, ammunition and armor plating actually reduced the top speed slightly to 316mph. Nevertheless the new model was clearly a advancement, and the A model replaced the earlier one on the assembly line starting with the 51st airframe. Eight of these had been completed in time for the invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22nd, 1941. Even the release of more of the FN guns couldn't make up the entire needed supply, so throughout late 1941 and early 1942, guns from the PZL's and some observation aircraft were stripped and used in the IAR's.


IAR.80

Specifications for the IAR.80A Engine: Dimensions:

Weights: Wing Area:

1025hp (764kW) IAR K14-1000A air-cooled 14 cylinder double-row radial span 9.09m (29ft 9 3/4in) length 9.22m (30ft 11 7/8in) height 3.82m (12ft 6 3/4 in) empty 1617kg (3,565lbs) max loaded 2248kg (4,957lbs) 17m2 (183ft2)

Wing Loading: 132.35kg/m2 (27.1lbs/ft2) Performance: maximum speed 510km/h (316mph) at xxxxm (xx,xxxft) xxxkm/h (xxxmph) at sea level cruise speed unknown service ceiling 9500m (31,200ft) range 1150km (715miles) Armament: six FN (Browning) 7.92mm with 500 rounds each mounted in the inner portion of the wing

IAR.81 The FARR had been intending to replace its light strike and dive bombing aircraft for some time when the war opened in 1941. The first role was to be filled by the IAR.37 (and later 38 and 39 models) but the plan was to fill the second role with the Ju 87. Once again the Germans deferred and the FARR was left searching for an airplane. The modification of the existing IAR.80 as a dive bomber was seen as a reasonable response, easier than designing an entirely new aircraft -- as well as having all of the obvious production benefits. The IAR.81 was developed as a result. The design was a rather modest change to the IAR.80A models that were then in production, adding a hinging bomb cradle under the centerline to throw a 225kg (500lb) bomb clear of the propeller (many dive bombers used a similar system). Delivery consisted of a shallow dive from about 3000m to 1000m (10,000ft to 3,000ft) with the speed around 470km/h (290mph). The pilots found the plane unfavorable though, as the drag from the bomb cradle was enough to seriously hamper performance. Fifty of the design were ordered in the middle of 1941. After the first forty were delivered, a further modification was added to the design to mount a 50kg (110lbs) bomb in racks under each wing. The wing racks could also mount 100l drop tanks, allowing the 81 to be used in the long-range fighter role.

IAR.80B


IAR.80

Combat over the Soviet Union proved that even six of the FN guns still lacked punch, and once again the design was modified to increase the firepower. In this case 13.2mm (50 cal) FN machine guns in use in Romanian SM.79's were stripped from those planes, and added to the IAR.80 in a new lengthened wing. The result was the IAR.80B, which also introduced new radio gear, an area where the plane had perviously been weak. Fifty of the new design were completed, including twenty airframes which were originally intended to be IAR.81A's. These last twenty were thus able to carry a 50kg (110lbs) bomb or a 100l (26.4 gallon) drop tank under each wing. The entire series were delivered between June and September 1942.

IAR.81A As the fighter model was converting from the A to B series with the addition of the 13.2mm guns, likewise the 81 model was upgraded in the same fashion, creating the IAR.81A. By this point the only distinguishing feature between the 80B and the 81A was the 81's centerline bomb rack, and both planes were being built on a common assembly line. The first order for 81A's was cancelled and the airframes were instead delivered to fighter units as 80B's as mentioned earlier. Efforts to obtain the Ju 87 continued to drag on, so a second batch of IAR.81A's was ordered much later in May 1943 to replace losses. Once again fate intervened, and the Germans released the Ju 87 for delivery before the order could be delivered. Like the first order, these ten airframes were again stripped of the centerline bomb rack and delivered as fighters.

IAR.81B The supply of the 13.2mm guns was clearly limited, and in a further attempt to increase the firepower of the design the Romanians signed a deal with Ikaria in Germany for a supply of 20mm MG/FF-M cannon. These were in turn a licensed version of the famous Swedish Oerlikon MG FF, which had been in use in various German aircraft with a thin-walled shell with extra explosive. The new gun also required a redesign of the wing, a problem that should have been fixed with a more flexible mounting during the 80B project. The resulting sixty IAR.81B models were originally intended to be dive bombers, but were delivered as fighters without the centerline bomb rack instead. After the first ten were completed, self-sealing tanks were added along with improved back armor for the pilot. The first ten were delivered in December 1942 and the entire order was completed by April 1943.

IAR.81C The final stage in the IAR.80's wartime history was the 81C. This version changed the guns once again, this time to the Mauser MG 151/20 which was replacing the MG/FF-M in German service and had just http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/iar80.html (7 of 14)2006-09-19 15:25:01

IAR.80

been released for Romanian use. The order for the 81C was placed in May of 1942, predating the second order of the 81A's. The first order for 100 airframes was delivered, like all of the prior updates to the 81 series, with the centerline bomb rack removed to be used as fighters. An additional order for thirty-five was placed in February 1943, and then another fifteen in January 1944. These planes were primarily to replace losses in earlier models, while production of the 109G ramped up. Specifications for the IAR.81C Engine: Dimensions:

Weights: Wing Area:

1025hp (764kW) IAR K14-1000A air-cooled 14 cylinder double-row radial span 9.09m (29ft 9 3/4in) length 9.22m (30ft 11 7/8in) height 3.82m (12ft 6 3/4 in) empty 2200kg (4,850lbs) max loaded 2980kg (6,570lbs) 17m2 (183ft2)

Wing Loading: 132.35kg/m2 (27.1lbs/ft2) Performance: maximum speed 550km/h at 7000m (342mph at 22,965ft) unknown at sea level cruise speed unknown service ceiling 9500m (31,200ft) range 730km (454miles) on internal fuel only Armament: two 20mm MG151/20 and four 7.92mm FN mounted in the inner portion of the wing

IAR.80M By 1944 the FARR fighter units included examples of 80A B and C models, as well as 81A, B and C's. In order to up-gun the earlier planes as well as simplify logistics and maintenance, an upgrade program was started in mid-44 to bring all existing airframes to the 81C armament suite of two MG 151/20's and four FN 7.92's. The resulting A and B models of the 80 and 81's would become the 80M and 81M respectively, although at this point there were no dive bombers in use so the difference in naming is interesting. It's unclear how many of these conversions were completed.

IAR.80DC


IAR.80

Various IAR.80's soldiered on in Romanian serice until 1949, when they were replaced by La-7's and Yak-9's. At that time the airframes with the lowest hours were modified by removing one of the fuel tanks in front of the cockpit and inserting another seat, resulting in a training aircraft called the IAR.80DC. These were used for only a short time before being replaced by other Soviet aircraft in late 1952.

Further developments IAR realized that the Mistral Major was at the limits of its development potential even by the middle of 1941, when the 1000A model reached the same ultimate output as the original Gnome-Rhône versions. An ongoing program to fit the IAR.80 with a more powerful engine had been in the works for most of the design's lifetime, but this proved to be a fruitless endeavor. The most obvious choice for a new engine would be the BMW 801 used in the Fw 190. This engine produced a full 600hp more power, and although it was heavier, it was of roughly the same size as the K14. IAR engineers estimated that a BMW powered IAR.80 would have a maximum speed of at least 600km/h (373mph). This sort of performance would have made it one of the fastest airplanes of its day, comparable with the Spitfire V's and 190F's, and bested only by the 190 itself. But as always the Germans were unable to supply the engine as every example coming off the line was needed for installation in a German airframe. Licensed production was likewise out of the question, the engine production was in the midst of being ramped and the demand was so great that not even one set of jigs could be spared. Another attempt was made to fit the Junkers Jumo 211 to the airframe, although this engine was also in high demand in Germany. However in this case the SM.79B's in FARR service already used the engine, so some were available for testing. One 1220hp 211Da was taken --complete with cowling and ring radiator-- from a SM.79 and fitted to a IAR.80 in 1942. The concept was abandoned after the first test flight however, when the in-flight vibrations proved to be so bad that the engine was idled and the plane landed, never to be flown again.

IAR.80 in Service Escadrila (squadron) 59 and 60 of Grupul 8 vânãtoare (8th Fighter Group) received the early batch of IAR.80's almost as soon as they had rolled off the assembly lines, and were declared operational on the 15th of April, 1941. Escadrila 41 joined them when the second batch was completed, bringing the 8th to a full three squadrons. These were at full operational readiness when operations opened against the Soviet Union on the 22nd of June, and the IAR.80 was one of the first aircraft to see combat. At first Grupul 8 was deployed as a part of Luftflotte 4, the southern area Luftwaffe organization. Here they served primarily as ground support with a secondary air superiority mission, along with Grupul 5


IAR.80

vânãtoare and their two squadrons of He 112's. However on the 14th of July Grupul 8 was recalled to Romania to provide air cover over the Ploesti oil fields, as it was becoming clear that the Soviets were gearing up for a bomber offensive on the fields. In time this proved to be little threat, and Grupul 8 was returned to the east to support the Romanian efforts against Bessarabia and Odessa. This lasted until the fall of Odessa on 16th of October, when the Romanian offensive ostensibly ended. Throughout this period the IAR.80A's started replacing IAR.80's as they were rotated out for service. It was also in October that Grupul 6 vânãtoare, previously flying P.24E's in the fighter role, started receiving the first of the IAR.81's. Their two squadrons, the 61st and 62nd, were fully equipped with the 81's by early 1942, and the group was renamed Grupul 6 bopi -- "bopi" is an acronym for "dive bomber". They spent one day in service during the siege of Odessa, but were withdrawn along with the 8th when operations ended. In 1942 IAR.80As were also issued to grupuri 3, 8, and 9, and escadrila 42, 43, and 53. In August the 52nd, previously flying He 112's, were merged into the 42nd for a time, and the later sent home to receive new IAR.80's of their own. Most of these squadrons were retained for home defense or escort missions over the Black Sea. Only Grupul 6 continued to operate the IAR.80s and 80As in Russia throughout the first half of 1942, and the air-to-air victory scores of the Romanian pilots continued to climb. While the IAR.80 was serving well on the eastern front, it was that summer on the 12th of June that the USAAF made its first attempt on Ploesti. Thirteen B-24s were flown at extreme range from Egypt, and although the raid did little damage, no B-24's were lost to the unprepared defenses. It was at this time that the limitations of the armament suite against the bombers was seen as critical, and the B model's suite including the 13.2mm guns was ordered. The next few months also saw a huge improvement in the quality and number of defenses around Ploesti, notably in terms of flak. During the buildup of the defenses around the Stalingrad area during the German summer offensive, both Grupul 8 and Grupul 6 were again sent to the front areas to provide air cover over the newly arriving units of the Romanian Third Army. Together they formed Corpul 1 Aerian (1st Air Corps), the Romanian expeditionary air force. Both groups saw action during the offensive, but the 6th's 81's were used exclusively as fighter-bombers as opposed to the dive bombing mission for which they were built. In addition the 43rd, normally part of Grupul 3, was sent to the Kerch Straits area (southwest of Stalingrad) for coastal defense in October, but here they operated directly under German command. When the Soviets launched their counteroffensive at Stalingrad on the 19th of November, the Romanian bases were far to the rear and well out of harms way. Bad weather for most of the next few days limited the number of missions flown, and by the time the weather cleared the Soviets had already devastated the Romanian armies and were overrunning many of the German forward airfields. As a result the units continued to see little action as their own bases were being inundated with planes flying out of the pocket. Nevertheless some missions were flown, and it was at this time that the 81's were pressed into service as actual dive bombers.


IAR.80

The Soviets launched their second offensive of the year on the 16th of December. They were attempting to cut off the entire southern wing of the German forces, ending any possibility of a strong counteroffensive to relieve the still-trapped 6th army in Stalingrad, and encircling the majority of the German army. The spearhead of the offensive was aimed at the Italian 8th army in the north, much as the earlier offensive had been aimed at the Romanian armies just to their east. The Romanian airbases were located just to the southwest of the Italian army, and they were soon under direct attack. Many planes were simply abandoned on the airfields, as flyable aircraft and crew were flown to the rear. By this time the decision had been made to withdraw from the war and reform in Romania, so both the 6th and 8th left for home in January. The 43rd remained at the front near Kerch, and ended up fighting heavily during the Kuban Bridgehead defense in early 1943 (along with Romanian ground units). During this period the Soviets started introducing newer fighter types that outclassed the IAR.80, and the Romanian fighter units started to take a beating. In the entire period starting with the movement of the 6th and 8th forward in October 1942 to the withdrawal of the 43rd in June 1943, the FARR claimed only 39 kills for the loss of 26 in combat and 49 to all causes. As the experiments with more powerful engines had all failed, the FARR started looking for a new design and finally settled on the Bf 109G. Some 109's had been in use in various units since 1941 so this appeared to be the path of least resistance. In the meantime the units withdrawn to Romania were reformed with the newest IAR.80 types available. On the 1st of August the US 9th Air Force re-opened the offensive on the Ploesti with a mission by 178 B-24's operating at long range from Libya. The plan was to approach at low altitude in order to avoid radar detection and thus minimize defensive reaction, but it backfired for a number of reasons. The planes were in fact met by 59 IAR.80's and 81's of the latest types, which were identified by the US crews as Fw 190's. The IAR's shot down an astonishing twenty of the B-24's for the loss of only one plane and three damaged (and an additional Me 110 lost). Luftwaffe units also participated with 89 sorties, adding another fifteen bombers. The low altitude approach also put the bombers within easy reach of the flak, which by this time were ready and waiting. In the end the 9th lost 53 bombers shot down, another 8 forced down in Turkey, and 55 damaged. With one-third of the attacking force lost outright and another third written off, US operations were again called off. Throughout the second half of 1943 units on the Soviet front started exchanging their older IAR models and receiving 109's in exchange. Many of the older planes were sent to units on the Black Sea where they served as convoy escorts, replacing the P.11's and P.24's that had previously been used in this secondary role. Older IAR's, 80 and 80A's, were handed off to Grupul 3 which became a conversion training unit in mid 1943, being replaced at the front with the new Grupul 4 bopi with their IAR 81C's. By the end of October 1943 the Crimean was cut off from the mainland with a large number of German and Romanian troops still occupying it. Supply of the troops was entirely by sea, and Grupul 4, with support from the 5th, provided air escort over the convoys. This continued until the final evacuation in May of 1944, by which time escadrila 49 of Grupul 4 on the peninsula had already been overrun. To add to the confusion, operations against Ploesti started again with the USAAF now able to launch http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/iar80.html (11 of 14)2006-09-19 15:25:01

IAR.80

missions from the Italian mainland. This not only made the operations easier to support, it also allowed them to operate under the cover of escort fighters. Raids began again on the 5th of April 1944, when a high altitude raid by the 15th AF's B-24's took place. Another nine similar raids were carried out over April and May, but in general they resulted in little damage and losses to flak were high. Although the IAR.80 was no match for the US escorts, this was addressed by attacking the escorts in Grupul 7's Bf 109's, while the IAR's of Grupul 6 (back home for their refit) and 2 continued on to attack the bombers. The result was that the USAAF was losing an average of 7% of their bombers on every mission. In exchange Grupul 2 only lost six IAR.81C's with another 13 damaged (loses for Grupul 6 are unknown), although this represented a good portion of their strength. All of this is even more astonishing when you consider that the Luftwaffe was operating under considerably better conditions in the defense of Germany, yet fairing considerably worse. Not only did the bombers have to spend more time over enemy territory, but they were facing better radar, ground control, flak and fighters. Yet the 8th AF was in the process of destroying the Luftwaffe utterly, and the defenders never managed to operate in the coordinated fashion that the FARR seemed to pull off every time (albeit with lots of German assistance). Clearly a change of tactics was needed on the part of the 15th AF, and so they made another attempt at a low-level raid, this time using P-38's which should have a considerably better chance against the flak. The mission was carried out at dawn on the 10th of June by fourty-six P-38's from the 82nd Fighter Group carrying 1,000lbs bombs, escorted by fourty-eight more P-38's from the 1st Fighter Group. Just before this on the 30th of May Grupul 2 had been rotated out to the Soviet front to reform, exchanging places with other units of Grupul 7. Once again the low level raid did not conceal the planes from radar, and the defenders were aware of their approach. If that were not bad enough on it's own, their flight path took them right over Grupul 6's airbase at Pipera, and the early hour of the raid convinced their HQ that the raid was an attack on the airbase. Needless to say, Grupul 6's pilots were "well motivated". First onto the raid were the units of JG53, an experienced Luftwaffe unit who happened upon the 82nd as they climbed for their attack. They claimed six of the P-38's for a single loss and and a ditched landing. Then it was Grupul 6's turn when their twenty-eight IAR.81C's came across the escort fighters of the 1st FG. The resulting combat lasted less than four minutes and the count at the end was eight P38's downed (although they claimed fourteen) for four IAR's. The combat took place in a tight valley, which may explain why the superior P-38's performed poorly against the less powerful but more spritely IAR's. In all the attack lost twenty-three of it's planes, and once again the FARR handed the USAAF a 30% loss rate. Nevertheless the raid was a success for the USAAF; the 82nd hit a number of important targets in the fields, and both groups had shot down a number of other Luftwaffe aircraft that shouldn't have been flying at the time. It would also prove to be the last success for the FARR. Over the next few weeks the


IAR.80

15th AF would find itself, and after another eleven heavily escorted high altitude raids (with some additional support by the RAF) Romanian oil production would be down to 20% of it's normal levels. The destruction of the Romanian oil fields is considered by many to be one of the turning points of the war. In addition the better coordination and numbers of the later raids resulted in the sorts of outcomes that were more typical over Germany. Over the next month the FARR would lose fifty-six of it's leading pilots, several in a single day in August when the 15th flew over 1000 sorties. Although the end tally would be 223 bombers to about 60 fighters, the FARR couldn't replace those 60 while the 15th could replace those 223 with relative ease. In late May and early June the situtaion got worse, as the Soviets had moved up to the Romanian border and appeared to be gearing up for an offensive. In reality this was a feint to draw the German army south, but of course this was unknown to the Romanian planners. In response they moved practically every flyable IAR to the Soviet front, which included Grupul 1, 2 and 4, and switched any remaining units to the Me 109. When it turned out the Soviets were actually attacking against the German center, the FARR units got a few weeks of much needed R&R. Nevertheless the respite was short, and the Soviets launched their offensive on the 20th of August. Its advance was so rapid that a coup took place and Romania changed sides in the war and signed a ceasefire on the 23rd of August. The cease-fire was formalized in a treaty on the 12th of September, and the terms required the Romanians to field a considerable force against the Germans. Of course this left the units in the process of switching to the 109 with no additional planes or parts, and so Grupul 6 ended up switching back to the 81C. They joined the remains of Grupul 2 and Grupul 7, until an additional number of 109's were produced and/or scrounged and they were joined by the newly equipped Grupul 1. They would continue to serve until the end of the war, although they would fair poorly against the Luftwaffe experten over Transylvania.

Conclusions The IAR.80 was an excellent design that in many ways mirrored the construction and performance of the Hurricane. While England had the ability to switch designs to the more modern Spitfire, the IAR.80 had to soldier on late into the war. It did so in fine form, with the exception that it's engine was already out of steam when the planes started rolling off the lines. Had the Germans supplied the requested BMW engines the need to move to the Bf 109 most likely would have never happened. There seem to be two ways to look at the IAR.80 story. One is that it was an outdated plane that should have been pulled from combat in 1942 or '43 at the latest. The other is that it was a competent design flown by even more competent pilots and continued to score notable successes long after anyone would have imagined.


IAR.80

Notes One source states that the IAR.81B's that were delivered as fighters were actually referred to as IAR.80C in service, reflecting the fact that they were used as fighters instead of bombers. It's unclear if this was the case, and as the later 81C model definitely did not receive a "modified name" in the same fasion, it's unlikely this was true. I have used metric values as the primary form of measurement in most cases, with the exception of engine power. This might seem arbitrary, but it appears this is the way most people prefer to see them. Conversions for power use 1 hp = 550 ft.lbs/s = 745.6W.

Sources Romania's indigenous fighter, Timothy Kutta, World War II (magazine) The Hodgepodge from Romania: The Story of the IAR 80 and 81, Jason Long, World War II (magazine) Details on the operations against the oil fields are from: Last glory day of 6th FG, Octavian Ghita and John Crump, WW II Ace Stories, 1998

Links The I.A.R.80 Story

Version History v1.0 Initial Version, March 7, 2001 Maury Markowitz [email protected]


Boeing Skyfox

Boeing Skyfox Introduction On 22 March 1948 the first Lockheed T-33 'T-Bird' (designated TF-80C and serialed 48-356) made its first flight. A total of 6,557 T-33s were produced in Canada, Japan and the USA between 1948 and 1959, and many were delivered to other nations under the Mutual Defence Aid Programme (MDAP). About 700 T-33s were still in service at the end of 1986. At the beginning of the 1980s, the Skyfox Corporation (later Boeing) proposed a remanufacturing programme for the T-33. The programme included the replacement of the Allison J33-A-35 turbojet by two Garrett TFE731-3A turbofans and an extensive redesign of the airframe, but no customers could be found for the Skyfox.

Development In 1982, a number of former Lockheed employees, lead by T-33 designer Irvin Culver, formed Flight Concepts Incorporated, later known as the Skyfox Corporation. To improve the performance and the reliability of the T-33 and to obtain a modern trainer at half the cost (by utilizing standard production methods and commercially available components) of new aircraft, such as the British Aerospace (BAe) Hawk and the Dassault-Breguet Alpha Jet, the Skyfox Corporation proposed a conversion of the T-33. The Skyfox Corporporation purchased about 80 T-33s for conversion, but they hoped to convert a total of 240 T-33s of the 700 in service at that time. The first conversion was a former Canadian Armed Forces (CAF)/Forces Armees Canadiennes (FAC) Canadair CT-133 (CL-30/T-33A-N) Silver Star 3PT (Pilot Trainer), formerly a Silver Star 3AT (Armament Trainer). The aircraft, produced in 1958, had construction number T.33-160 and serial number 21160. It was struck-off charge on 10 November 1970 and was sold through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation (a Crown Corporation, i.e. a business owned by the Canadian government) to Leroy Penhall/Fighter Imports and registered as N12414 in 1973. It was then sold to Murray McCormick Aerial Surveys, as N12414, in 1975. Its next owner was Consolidated Leasing, still as N12414, in 1977. It was sold to the Skyfox Corporation, as N221SF, on 14 January 1983 and went next to Flight Test Research, as N221SF, in August 1983. Its first flight as the prototype Skyfox was on 23 August 1983, nearly 35.5 years after the first flight of the T-33. Race and test pilot Skip Holm performed the initial http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/skyfox.html (1 of 7)2006-09-19 15:25:12

Boeing Skyfox

flight test at Mojave Airport, California. The prototype Skyfox was white overall, with black cheat lines, and a very pale blue trim. The Skyfox Corporation initially failed to secure contracts for this highly capable trainer. In 1986, however, the Boeing Military Airplane Company recognized the aircraft's potential and acquired the marketing and production rights for the Skyfox, but not enought orders were obtained by Boeing to continue the project. The registration N221SF had been cancelled at the end of 1997.

Structure Changes The design team proposed retaining about 70 per cent of the structure of the T-33 and replacing the ancient Allison J33-A-35 turbojet with a pair of 1,678 kg thrust Garrett TFE731-3A turbofans, mounted on the rear fuselage sides. Other modifications included inboard wing leading-edge extensions, the replacement of the tip tanks with winglets, new canopy with one-piece windshield, revised nose geometry to improved visibility from the cockpit and to fair into the T-33's lateral intakes, new tail surfaces with a mid-set tailplane, and new avionics.

Powerplant Announced in April 1969, the TFE371 is a two-spool geared turbofan designed for business jet aircraft. The use of a geared fan confers flexibility in operation and yields optimum performance at up to 15,545 m. The removal of the J33-A-35 turbojet allowed the orginal T-33 inlets to be used for the internal stowage of fuel formerly carried in the tip tanks of the T-33 (two 800 litre tanks). This allowed the tip tanks to be removed, and thus reducing the external drag while maintaining the full 3,191 litre standard fuel capacity of the T-33. Moreover, the Skyfox retained the orginal tip tank fittings, permitting the reinstallation of the tip tanks and the aviability of 4,932 litres of fuel.

Specification of the Garrett TFE371-3A Performance rating: Static thrust: 1,678 kg. Specific fuel consumption: Static thrust: 23.30 mg/Ns. Dimensions: Length: 1,440 mm. Intake diameter: 869 mm. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/skyfox.html (2 of 7)2006-09-19 15:25:12

Boeing Skyfox

Weights: Dry weight: 345 kg.

Conversion Options The Skyfox was designed to be produced entirely from kits of components. The conversion involved the disassembly, the inspection, and the refurbishment of the T-33 airframe as necessary, the installation of the kits and reassembly of the airframe in the Skyfox configuration. There were two conversion options: 1. To purchase a complete Skyfox from Boeing. The airframe could be supplied by Boeing or by the country itself. 2. To purchase a conversion kit from Boeing and perform the conversion in the country itself. The standard conversion kit included: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Two Garrett TFE371-3A turbofans, the nacelles, and the propulsion support system. Nose assembly. Tail assembly. Fuel system and managment panel. Single-point refuelling. Aerodynamic refinement kit. Structural refinement kit. Nose wheel steering. Anti-skid power brakes. Single-piece windscreen. Hydraulic components kit. Powerplant instrument master caution panel. Generator control and distribution system. Throttle quadrants and control system. Powerplant start panel. Fire extinguishing system.

In addition to the standard conversion kit described above, Boeing also offered a number of options such as those liseted below, that could further improve the overall capability of the Skyfox. ● ● ● ●

Avionics upgrade. Basic rewiring of the aircraft. Tactical, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare (EW) training mission packages. Zero-zero ejection seat.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/skyfox.html (3 of 7)2006-09-19 15:25:12

Boeing Skyfox

Missions The Skyfox was mission modular. Under this concept, self-contained nose modules, a large internal payload volume of over sixty cubic feet due to the removal of the J33-A-35 turbojet of the T-33, and ten underwing hardpoints allowed the Skyfox to perform a variety of missions, including: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Attack. Air combat tactical training. Close air support (CAS). Drug interdiction. Electronic warfare (EW). Fighter lead-in training. Forward air control (FAC). Martime patrol. Pilot proficiency training. Pilot transition. Reconnaissance. Target towing. Threat simulation.

Costs The operating and support costs of the Skyfox were less than that of the T-33 and could compete with the costs of the Hawk and the Alpha Jet. Structeral improvements, avionics upgrades, electrical rewiring, airframe and systems refurbishment, and powerplant modifications resulted in low cost, low maintenance hours and low spare parts consumption. The two TFE371-3A turbofans that powered the Skyfox together weighted 17 per cent less than the single J33-A-35 turbojet of the T-33, while producing 60 per cent more thrust and consuming 45 per cent less fuel. The TFE371-3A turbofan had a ten-fold increase in time between overhauls (TBO) compared with the J33-A-35 turbojet. The result was a greatly improved maneuverability, range, endurance, payload and the added overwater and hostile terrain safety of the twin powerplant configuration.

Customers Portugal To replace the T-33A, Portugal signed a letter of intent with the Skyfox Corporation in the middle of the 1980s for twenty conversion kits. The Forca Aerea Portuguesa (FAP) proposed that Oficinas Gerais de Material Aeronautico (OGMA) in Alverca would undertake the conversions, but insufficient orders http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/skyfox.html (4 of 7)2006-09-19 15:25:12

Boeing Skyfox

were obtained from other nations to motivate Boeing to continue with the project.

USA Even the USAF was interested in the Skyfox. It was orginally planned to demonstrate the Skyfox at Farnborough International 1986, but the aircraft was tested at the time by the USAF. Eventually, the USAF did not purchase the Skyfox.

Performance Comparison of the T-33 and the Skyfox In the table is a comparison of the performance of the T-33A and the Skyfox. T-33A

Skyfox

Weight

6,847 kg

7,364 kg

Rate of climb at sea level

1,036 m/min

> 1,494 m//min

Time to 9,144 m

15 min

8 min and 12 sec

Range1, 2

2,315 km

3,630 km (internal fuel) 4,815 km (internal and external fuel)

Endurance1, 2

2 hours

5.1 hours (internal fuel) 7 hours (internal and external fuel)

Take-off distance over 15 m

1,402 m

793 m

Notes 1. Reserves: 20 min at sea level and five per cent additional mission fuel. 2. Loiter and cruise speed at 12,192 m. The Skyfox flight envelope was equal or superior to the T-33 flight envelope in every aspect, while providing higher performance and improved handling characteristics within this enveloppe. The landing roll of the Skyfox was also reduced in comparison with the T-33A.

Serial of the Boeing Skyfox


Boeing Skyfox

N221SF

Boeing Skyfox First flight on 23 August 1983

Specification of the Boeing Skyfox Type: Tandem two-seat advanced trainer and light tactical support aircraft. Powerplant: Two 1,678 kg Garrett TFE731-3A turbofans. Fuel capacity: Internal fuel capacity: 3,191 litres. Total fuel capacity: 4,932 litres. Performance: Maximum speed: 935 km/h at sea level and 850 km/h at 12,000 m. Rate of climb: > 1,494 m/min at sea level and 300 m/min at height. Time to 9,144 m: 8 min and 12 sec. Service ceiling: 12,192 m. Range: 3,630 km on internal fuel and 4,815 km on internal and external fuel. Maximum range: 5,560 km. Endurance: 5.1 hours on internal fuel and 7 hours on internal and external fuel. Takeoff distance over 15 m: 793 m. Dimensions: Span: 11.83 m. Length: 13.41 m. Height: 3.76 m. Weights: Empty weight: 3,856 kg. Take-off weight: 6,532 kg. Maximum take-off weight: 7,364 kg. Armament: A total of 2,700 kg of armament on ten underwing hardpoints.

Sources ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

Air Classics, Volume 19, Number 11, November 1983. Air Forces Montly - July 1998 (Number 124), T-bird at fifty, Rene J. Francillon, Key Publishing Limited, Stamford, United Kingdom, 1998. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 23 May 1983. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 29 August 1983, Page 23. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 26 September 1983. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 5 March 1984, Page 39 to 46. Boeing Skyfox - National Defense, Boeing Military Airplane Company, 1987. Boeing Skyfox - Tactical Modernization at Low Cost, Boeing Military Airplane Company, 1987. Encyclopedia of World Military Aircraft - Single Volume Edition, D. Donald and J. Lake, Aerospace Publishing Limited, London, United Kingdom, 1996, Flight International, 13 December 1986, Page 32 to 34. Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1990-91 (Eighty-first edition), M. Lambert, Jane's Information Group Limited, Surrey, United Kingdom, 1990.


Boeing Skyfox ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

Lockheed Aircraft since 1913, R.J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1988. Luchtvaart - november 1986 (3de Jaargang, Nummer 11), Skyfox - Een moderne trainer voor de smalle beurs, Page 308, Ten Brink Meppel B.V., Meppel, the Netherlands, 1986. N-Number Database (http://www.landings.com). Portugal, Salvador, World Air Power Journal, Volume 24, Spring 1996. Slyfox, Boeing Military Airplane Company, October 1987. The Aircraft of the Canadian Armed Forces, Second Edition, Jeff Rankin-Lowe, 1998. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989.



Fairchild Republic T-46A

Fairchild Republic T-46A Introduction In 1977, the United States Air Force (USAF), began to consider a replacement for the Cessna T-37B Tweety Bird in the basic training role. The first XT-37 (54-716) had flown for the first time on 12 October 1954 by Bob Hogan at Wichita Municipal Airport.

Development At the beginning of 1981, a request for proposals (RFP) was issued for a New Generation Trainer (NGT) to Cessna, Fairchild Republic, General Dynamics, Rockwell International and Vought (teamed with Messerschmitt Bolkow Blohm in Germany), which called for an aircraft with two turbofans, a pressurised cockpit and a gross weight slightly less than that of the T-37B, which had a gross weight of 2,982 kg. In terms of performance, the USAF wanted an aircraft capable of 556 km/h at 7,620 m, with the ability to operate from 1,524 m runways in hot and high conditions. The Fairchild Republic Company, one of the aerospace subsidiaries of Fairchild Industries Incorporated (which had been attemping to sell Fairchild Republic), ordered Ames International to produce a 62 per cent scale model of their contender, which was called NGT Flight Demonstrator. Burt Rutan, who also designed the Voyager, was ordered to develop and test flight this model, which was mainly produced from composites. This aircraft was designated as Model 73 by Burt Rutan. The first flight took place on 10 September 1981, controlled by Richard Rutan and powered by two Microtube TRS-18 engines with 100 kg of thurst each. The wingspan was 6.70 m and the take-off weight was 680 kg. A number of USAF bases were visited to win support form USAF personnel for the design. On 2 July 1982, Fairchild Republic was named winner of the NGT programme, with what became known as the Thunder Piglet. The initial contract called for two T-46A full scale development (FSD) aircraft (84-0492 and 84-0493), two static airframes and options on a further 54 T-46As out of a planned total of 650 aircraft for the USAF. The delivery was planned to began in 1987 and the last was excepted to be delivered to the USAF in March 1992. The production rate would have been 12 examples per month in 1992.

Structure The design of the T-46A was relatively conventional, with side-by-side accomodation for the pupil and the instructor on Weber ACES II ejection seats in a pressurised cockpit. The primary structure was of light alloy, with composite control surfaces and access panels. A shoulder mounted straight wing, fitted with Fowler flaps, was employed and the T-46A had a tail assembly which featured two vertical fins. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/t-46a.html (1 of 5)2006-09-19 15:25:20


The two Garrett F109-GA-100 turbofans were designed specially for the NGT programme. Garrett was selected in July 1982 to produce the powerplant for the T-46A, which was based on the T76 (TPE331) turboprop. The engines were mounted on the fuselage sides beneath the wing roots.

Flight Trails The first metal for the first FSD aircraft was cut in April 1983, bit it was completed too late in February 1985, because Fairchild Republic had financial and managment problems. At that time, the first flight was planned for May 1985. The engine run-up tests with the first T-46A began at Farmingdale on 7 August 1985. Following completion of these engine trials and other pre-flight activities, the T-46A was shipped by a Lockheed C-5A Galaxy to Edwards AFB in late August 1985. At that time, the programme was already running several months later than orginally scheduled, and the possibility of further delays in the delivery of production T-46As has been raised by the discovery of a fatigue crack on a fuselage test specimen after only some 2,200 hours of testing. The first flight of the first FSD T-46A (84-0492), which had an overall white finish, took place on 15 October 1985 at Edwards AFB, several months behind schedule. The FSD aircraft had an empty weight of 2,534 kg and a normal take-off weight of 3,315 kg. The T-46A was excepted to reach 723 km/h in level flight at a height of 9,000 m and to have a service ceiling of 13,840 m. At the time of the first flight, the USAF was suffering budgetary problems and during the course of 1985, the T-46A suffered a number of delays and some cost escalation. By late 1985, the programme was under scrutiny and Cessna was asked to quote for a re-engining programme for the T-37B. By mid 1986, the porgramme was one year behind schedule and suffering severe cost overruns and the USAF adviced for the cancellation of the programme. The second FSD aircraft flew for the first time on 29 July 1986 at Farmingdale, New York. The first flight of the second FSD aircraft was orginally planned for April or May 1986. The flight test programme was planned to take 20 to 22 months in the hands of the Combined Test Force. This was a 128-strong team drawn from the Air Force Systems Command (AFSC), Air Training Command (ATC), Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Force, Fairchild Republic and Garrett. During the flight test programme, the two FSD aircraft and the first production T-46A were used. A second production T-46A was also planned to take part in the flight test programme, but the programme was cancelled before this aircraft was ready.

Production The production was initiated against a contract for the first ten aircraft (85-1596 to 85-1605) and the first of these flew at Farmingdale on 14 January 1987. After the cancellation, the other nine aircraft were not finished. A total of US $ 193.9 million was included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 1986 budget for a further 33 production T-46As, but no serails were allocated. No provision had been made by the USAF to include funds for the T-46A in its FY 1987 budget request.

Cancellation http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/t-46a.html (2 of 5)2006-09-19 15:25:20


During the flight test programme, a 40 per cent discrepancy between predicted and actual drag were found with consequent effects in performance. Furthermore, the T-46A was overweight, which also lead to a decrease in performance. This, combined with production delays and escaliting costs, lead to the cancellation of the programme on 13 March 1987. As a result, Fairchild Republic closed the Republic plant at Farmingdale.

AT-46A As a private venture, Fairchild Republic proposed an armed export variant as the FRC-225 and later AT46A that was considered for armament training, forward air control (FAC) and ligh attack missions. The AT-46A had four hardpoints under the wing for a total warload of 907 kg. The inboard hardpoints were plumbed for 254 liters drop tanks and the outboard hardpoints could carry two 113.4 kg bombs or gun pods.

JPATS In 1988, the USAF began a life extension programme for the 644 remaining T-37Bs in USAF service to increase the fatigue life until a replacement was found. On 22 June 1995, it was revealed that the Raytheon Beech/Pilatus PC-9 Mk II was the winner of the Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) programme. On 2 June 1997, the PC-9 Mk II was formally named T-6A Texan II by the USAF and the US Navy. A total of 372 T-6As will replace the T-37Bs in USAF service from May 1999 onwards and a further 339 T-6As will be delivered to the US Navy to replace the Beech T-34C Turbo Mentor from 2002 onwards.

Serials of the Fairchild Republic T-46A 84-0492/0493

Fairchild Republic T-46A (2) Full Scale Development (FSD) aircraft 0492 on display at Edwards AFB 0493 to AMARC as TM002

85-1596/1605

Fairchild Republic T-46A (10) 1596 to AMARC as TM001 1597/1605 cancelled

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/t-46a.html (3 of 5)2006-09-19 15:25:20


Specification of the Fairchild Republic T-46A Type: Two-seat side-by-side primary and basic trainer. Powerplant: Two 603 kg Garrett F109-GA-100 (TFE109) two-shaft turbofans. Fuel capacity: Internal fuel capacity: 572 kg. Performance: Maximum speed: 736 km/h at 7,620 m. Maximum cruise speed: 712 km/h at 10,670 m. Economic cruise speed: 616 km/h at 13,720 m. Maximum initial rate of climb: 22.7 m/sec. Service ceiling: 14,175 m. Ferry range: 2,130 km. Wing loading at maximum take-off weight: 207 kg/m2. Thrust-to-weight ratio at maximum take-off weight: 0.39. Take-off distance: 366 m. Landing distance: 343 m. Dimensions: Wingspan: 11.78 m. Length: 8.99 m. Height: 3.86 m. Wing area: 14.95 m2. Aspect ratio: 9.3. Weights: Empty weight: 2,351 kg. Maximum take-off weight: 3,092 kg.

Sources ●

●

●

●

●

●

● ● ● ●

●

●

Airscene, William Green, AIR International, Volume 29, October 1985 (Number 4), Fine Scroll Limited, 1985. Der Uberflieger - Burt Rutan und seine auBergewohnlichen Konstruktionen, Bernd Gaubatz, Flug Revue, February 1989 (Number 2), Vereinigte Motor-Verlage GmbH & Co. KG, 1989. Fairchild Tests its "Tweety", William Green, AIR International, Volume 30, March 1986 (Number 3), Fine Scroll Limited, 1986. Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1990-91 (Eighty-first edition), M. Lambert, Jane's Information Group Limited, 1990. JPATS, Roy Braybrook, AIR International, Volume 46, May 1994 (Number 5), Key Publishing Limited, 1994. JPATS - Trainer Sale of the Century, John Downey, Air Forces Montly, June 1991 (Number 39), Key Publishing Limited, 1991. Luchtvaart 1983, Bart van der Klaauw, Uitgeverij De Alk B.V., 1982. Luchtvaart 1986, Bart van der Klaauw, Uitgeverij De Alk B.V., 1985. Luchtvaart 1988, Bart van der Klaauw, Uitgeverij De Alk B.V., 1987. The New Observer's Book of Aircraft - 1986 edition (35th edition), William Green, Penguin Books Limited, 1986. Tweety-Bird Replacement, Roy Braybrook, AIR International, Volume 28, June 1985 (Number 6), Fine Scroll Limited, 1985. United States Air Force Yearbook 1996, Peter R. March, Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund Enterprises, 1996.


Fairchild Republic T-46A ●

●

●

●

●

United States Air Force Yearbook 1998, Peter R. March, Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund Enterprises, 1998. United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Putman Aeronautical Books, 1989. USAAS - USAAC - USAAF - USAF Aircraft Serial Numbers - 1922 to Present, Joe Baugher, Joe Baugher's Home Page, 1998. USMIL - United States Military Aircraft Serials, Sixth edition, Andy Mower, Aviation Associates, 1994. World Trainer Directory, William Green, AIR International, Volume 28, June 1985 (Number 6), Fine Scroll Limited, 1985.



Fokker F27 Friendship in US Service

Fokker F27 Friendship in US Service Introduction The Fokker F27 Friendship is a commercial, fifty-seat, twin-engined, airliner developed and produced in the Netherlands. The first flight of the prototype of the F27 (constuction number 10101 and serial number PH-NIV) was made on 24 November 1955, piloted by Hugo Burgerhout. It April 1956, Fokker and Fairchild signed a contract to built the F27 under licence in the USA by Fairchild as F-27. A total of three F27s/F-27s were obtained for the US armed forces, two for the US Army and one for the US Navy.

US Army Two Fokker-built F27s were confiscated by the US government in 1984 and were used as primary dropping aircraft by the US Army's Golden Knights parachute display team. They were given the DoD designation C-31A.

Serials of the Fokker C-31A Friendship 85-1607

Fokker C-31A Friendship Construction number 10653 US Army identifier GK-001

85-1608

Fokker C-31A Friendship Construction number 10668 US Army identifier GK-002

Specification of the Fokker C-31A Friendship Powerplant: Two 2,250 hp Rolls-Royce Dart RDa.7 Mk 536 turboprops. Performance: Cruising speed: 479 km/h at 6,095 m. Dimensions: Wingspan: 29.01 m. Length: 23.56 m. Height: 8.50 m. Wing area: 70.00 m2 Weights: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/c-31a.html (1 of 3)2006-09-19 15:25:39

Fokker F27 Friendship in US Service

Take-off weight: 20,412 kg.

US Navy A single example of the Fairchild-built F-27A (equivalent to the F27 Series 200) was obtained by the US Navy. It was unofficially designated UC-27A. It was formerly operated by Butler Aviation (Pepsi Cola Bottling Company), to which it was delivered on 10 April 1959 as N1004. It was assigned to the Naval Air Development Center (NADC) for special duties. Later, it was assigned as a support aircraft for the Atlantic Underwater Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC) and operated for the US Navy by Imperial Aviation. By 1994, it was used by the Naval Air Warfare Center - Aircraft Division (NAWC - AD) and by May 1996, it was out of US Navy service and serialled N1004 again.

Serial of the Fokker F-27A Friendship 161628

Fokker F-27A Friendship Construction number 33

Specification of the Fokker F-27A Friendship Powerplant: Two 2,353 shp Rolls-Royce Dart RDa.7 Mk 532 turboprops. Performance: Cruising speed: 479 km/h at 6,095 m. Range: 1,926 km with 44 passengers. Service ceiling: 8,990 m. Dimensions: Wingspan: 29.01 m. Length: 23.56 m. Height: 8.50 m. Wing area: 70.00 m2 Weights: Empty weight: 12,148 kg. Take-off weight: 20,412 kg.

Sources ● ● ●

●

●

Alles over de Fokker Friendship, Hugo Hooftman, L.J. Veen's Uitgeversmij N.V., 1963. Military Aircraft Database, Emmanuel Gustin, Elevon - Aviation on the Internet, 1998. Praktisch Handboek Vliegtuigen - Burgerluchtvaart - 1935 tot 1960 (Deel 5), Hugo Hooftman, Uitgeverij Helmond B.V., 1978. The Encyclopedia og World Aircraft - The development and specifications of over 2500 civil and military aircraft, D. Donald, Blitz Editions, 1997. The Observer's Book of Aircraft - 1980 Edition, William Green, Frederick Warne & Company Limited, 1980.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/c-31a.html (2 of 3)2006-09-19 15:25:39

Fokker F27 Friendship in US Service ● ●

●

●

United States Air Force and Navy 1996, M.G. Jennings, Mach III Plus, 1996. United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Putman Aeronautical Books, 1989. United States Navy Aircraft since 1911, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Putman Aeronautical Books, 1990. United States Military Aircraft Serials (USMIL), Andy Mower, Aviation Associates, 1994.



Galaxy Aerospace C-38A Astra SPX

Galaxy Aerospace C-38A Astra SPX Development On 28 August 1996, the United States Air Force (USAF) issued a $ 20.8 million contract for two C38As to replace the Learjet C-21As as fast transport jets in service with the Air national Guard (ANG). The transcontinental C-38A is a missionized version of the Model 1125A Astra SPX business jet, which first flew on 16 August 1994. The acquisition programme for the C-38A used the streamlined acquisition reform techniques of the commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) programme, which focussed on saving time and funds. This technique had recently been adopted by the USAF. The Integrated Product Team, headquartered at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, will sustain the C-38As. The C-38As were procured at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio by Aeronautical Systems Center's Commercial Aircraft Integrated Product Team, in partnership with the single programme director at Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma. The C-38A was produced and supported by Galaxy Aerospace and offered by Tracor Incorporated at Austin, Texas as prime contractor, which received 'green' aircraft from Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI). The C-38As were accepted from the subcontractor JetCorp at St. Louis, Maryland, who is responsible for the installation of a part of the equipment, the test phase, maintenance and technical advice to pilots. Another subcontractor is Duncan Aviation at Lincoln, Nebraska for the paint job and the installtion of the auxilary power unit (APU). The pilots and the maintenance personel will be trained at Flight Safety International Service Center at New Castle, Delaware.

Accomodation For the VIP passengers, the introduction of the C-38A meaned a dramatic improvement over the Learjet C-21A it replaces. The C-38A flies further and faster than any other similar priced business jet and provided the ability to rapidly travel worldwide. The maximum range of 6,034 km provides the C-38A with US coast-to-coast capability under virtually any conditions. The C-38A also offered substantially greater cabin volume for the eight passengers and enhanced passenger comfort for long-range travel, including a stand-up aft lavatory. The cabin has a height of 1.70 m, a width of 1.50 m and a length of 5.20 m. Remarkably, it offers benefits at a lower operating cost than the smaller C-21A. The C-38A normally carries a crew of two.

Avionics http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/c-38a.html (1 of 3)2006-09-19 15:25:51


The C-38A is configured with the latest in navigation, communications, vertical separation and safety equipment, along with new state-of-the-art avionics. An identification friend or foe (IFF) system, a single tactical air-navigation system, an ultrahigh-frequency/very-high-frequency (UHF/VHF) command radio and a traffic collision avoidance system are carried. These features, as well as a global positioning system (GPS), were all integrated to the commercial avionics system. The commercial, off-the-shelf equipment also includes a terrestrial, aeronautical radio-telephone system that provides voice and data communications for the passengers. The equipment also included an extensive inertial reference navigation system. Rockwell Collins provided the Pro Line 4 avionics for the C-38A.

Missions Tracor and its integrated team of vendors provide unparalleled support for the C-38A and can adapt the aircraft for a wide range of special-mission requirements, including target towing, photo-reconnaissance, threat simulation, flight inspection missions, assistance in command and control, communications in time of disaster or war and medevac. The passenger seating can be removed to accommodate a medical evacuation system and can swiftly be converted back to passenger seating.

In Service The first C-38A (94-1569) was accepted by Air Force Material Command (AFMC) of the USAF on 17 April 1998 and delivered to the 201st Airlift Squadron (AS) at Andrews AFB on 8 May 1998. Lt. Col. Mike Hannon and Maj. Dave Morales, both of the 201st Airlift Squadron, Washington DC, flew the first C-38A from St. Louis to Andrews AFB. The 201st Airlift Squadron is a part of the 113th Wing. The second C-38A (94-1570) was delivered in the middle of May 1998. The USAF held an option for a further two C-38As. The C-38As are white overall, with a blue cheat line. The serial number and an oversized USAF roundel are displayed at the outside of the powerplant.

Serials of the Galaxy Aerospace C-38A Astra SPX 94-1569/1570

Galaxy Aerospace C-38A Astra SPX Construction number 088 and 090 Civil registration N398AG (14 October 1997) and N399AG (23 July 1997)



Specification of the Galaxy Aerospace C-38A Astra SPX Powerplant: Two 1,928 kg (ISA + 9 oC) AlliedSignal TFE 731-40R-200G turbofans. Fuel capacity: Fuel capacity: 4,247 kg. Performance: Maximum speed from sea level to 8,232 m: 645 km/h. Typical cruise speed at 12,497 m: 867 km/ h. Maximum range (IFR): 5,465 km. Maximum range (VFR): 6,034 km. Maximum service ceiling: 13,716 m. Take-off distance at 11,179 kg: 1,644m. Landing distance: 890 m. Dimensions: Wingspan: 16.64 m. Length: 16.96 m. Height: 5.54 m. Wing area: 29.42 m2. Leading edge sweep: 34 o inboard and 25 o outboard Weights: Basic operating weight: 6,213 kg. Maximum zero fuel weight: 7,710 kg. Maximum landing weight: 9,287 kg. Maximum take-off weight: 11,179 kg. Maximum ramp weight: 11,247 kg. Payload: Useful load: 1,496 kg. Maximum payload: 4,247 kg.

Sources ● ●

● ● ● ●

Air Forces Montly - July 1998 (Number 124), Key Publishing Limited, 1998. Combat Aircraft - The International Journal of Military Aviation, Mel Williams, AIRtime Publishing Incorporated, 1998. Flugzeuge der Welt 1998, Claudio Mueller, Motorbuch Verlag, 1998. Scramble, juni 1998 (Nummer 229), Dutch Aviation Society, 1998. The USAF/ANG C-38A Special Mission Aircraft, Galaxy Aerospace Corporation, 1997. World Air Power Journal Volume 28, Spring 1997, Aerospace Publishing Limited, 1997.



Grumman A-6 Intruder

Grumman A-6 Intruder Last revised: 26 May 1998

Contractors: Northrop Grumman (Prime), Boeing, Norden, Hughes, Sundstrand

Aircraft Description Powerplant: Two Pratt & Whitney J52-P8B/C, nonafterburning, axial-flow turbojet engines; each rated approximately 9,300 lb. thrust. The C version is a reliability and maintainability improvement to the combustion chamber, fuel nozzles and seals in the oil tank. The engine, used in other internationally operated aircraft is supported by several corporations. Accommodations: Crew of two: pilot and bombardier/navigator. Performance: Maximum speed 568 knots at sea level, max range greater than 2,800 miles. Armament: Provision for carrying up to 18,000 lbs. of ordnance on 5 external weapon stations.

Aircraft Mission and Capabilities The A-6E is the U.S. Navy's heavy payload attack aircraft that provides all-weather, day or night, longrange strike capability. It has recently been modified with a composite wing to extend the plane's operational fatigue life another 20 years and is equipped with an all-weather multiple-mode radar, DRS (Detecting and Range Set), and a self-contained carrier airborne inertial navigation system. The APQ156 integrated radar provides the capabilities of search, target tracking, airborne moving target identification, and beacon interrogation. The high resolution, real beam ground mapping radar, complemented by the Tactical Altitude Director (TAD) system, also provides terrain clearance and avoidance for low-level navigation. The DRS contains a FLIR, laser range-finder designator, and forward air control (FAC) receiver located beneath the nose in a sensor turret for precision attacks against tactical targets at night and in adverse weather. The A-6E can deliver the Navy's entire arsenal of available air-to-ground weapons from general purpose bombs to ground attack missiles, and the AIM-9L/ M air-to-air missile. The SWIP (Systems Weapons Improvement Program) is the latest upgrade that enables the Intruder, through a MIL-STD-1553 avionics multiplex databus to employ multiple advanced precision guided missiles against land- and sea-based targets and emitters. Most A-6Es have been further modified to night multi-place attacks. The integrated attack navigation weapon system coupled with a two man, side-by-side crew, significantly enhances crew coordination, situational awareness, and safety of flight by reducing data saturation associated with the real world tactical environment. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a-6.html (1 of 3)2006-09-19 15:26:02


Program Summary The A-6E was removed from U.S. Naval Air Forces in February 1997. One hundred (100) aircraft are stored in War Reserve and the additional excess aircraft are stored for potential Foreign Military Sales (FMS) all of the SWIP composite wing configuration. The A-6F, the next generation Intruder, started development in 1984 incorporating General Electric F404 engines, an inverse synthetic aperture radar with air-to-air mode, and improved structural changes. This program was cancelled in 1989 with 5 prototypes built. The A-6 has played an essential part in the changes that have reshaped the world: Vietnam War - 19631971, Lebanon/Libya/Grenada - 1971-1986, and Operation Desert Storm in 1991. A total of 693 production A-6s were built, including 488 A-6As, 95 A-6Es, 71 A-6E TRAM, 34 A-6E SWIP and 5 A6Fs. Over its 33 year history, the A-6 has been in active service in 17 U.S. Navy and 7 U.S. Marine Corps squadrons. Presently the attack version and/or the Tanking Version (KA-6E) are being offered by the U.S. Navy for FMS.

GRUMMAN A-6E INTRUDER Dimensions Wing span Wing span (folded) Overall length Height

53 25 54 16

ft ft ft ft

/ 2 7 2

16.15 m in / 7.67 m in / 16.64 m in / 4.93 m

General Data Crew Power Plant Number Manufacturer Type Rating

2 2 Pratt & Whitney J52-P-B/C Turbojet 9,300 lb / 41.1 kN

Performance Maximum speed Average cruise speed

560 kt / 1,037 km/hr 412 kt / 763 km/hr

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a-6.html (2 of 3)2006-09-19 15:26:02


Approach speed Min. T.O. distance Min. landing distance Service ceiling Ferry range

122 kt / 226 km/hr 4,820 ft / 1,469 m 2,700 ft / 823 m 41,000 ft./12,496 m 2,380 naut mi / 4,408 km

Weight Weight empty Internal fuel External fuel (5 300 gal drop tanks) External stores maximum capacity

27,892 15,939 10,025 18,000

Written by Steven Jacobs Maintained by Carl Pettypiece

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a-6.html (3 of 3)2006-09-19 15:26:02

lb lb lb lb

/ / / /

12,649 kg 7,230 kg 4,546 kg 8,165 kg

Grumman F4F Wildcat

Grumman F4F Wildcat Development XF4F-1 On 2 March 1936, Grumman was awarded a contract for the development of its model G-16, a shipboard biplane fighter for the US Navy, under the designation XF4F-1. The G-16, which was designed by Dick Hutton and Bill Schwendler, was very similar in general layout to the earlier biplane fighters of Grumman, the F2F and its development the F3F. It was smaller, with a wing span of 27ft, compared with 32ft for the F3F. Its length was 23ft 3in, and its gross weight 4500lb. The XF4F-1 had a conservative biplane layout, with staggered wings. A bulge of the lower front fuselage covered the narrow-track retractable landing gear, similar to that of the F3F. A fully covered cockpit was placed relatively far aft to the tail, behind the lower wing trailing edge. The aircraft was powered by the 900hp Wright XR-1670-2 14-cylinder, two-row radial engine. As an alternative, the XR1535-95 of 800hp was considered. With the XR-1670 engine, a top speed of 264mph was estimated. This was only a marginal improvement over the performance of last models of the F3F. The armament consisted of two cowl-mounted .50 guns, or one .50 and one .30. The performance of the XF4F-1 was obviously inferior to that expected of the Brewster F2A design, which was to become the USNs first operational monoplane fighter. The future of the XF4F-1 held little promise, because it was considered merely as a back-up for the F2A, if this proved to be unsuitable. Nobody was very happy about the model G-16, and after four months the USN cancelled the contract. The XF4F-1 was never flown.

XF4F-2 To compete with the Brewster F2A, Grumman developed the model G-18. The first sketches showed a mid-wing monoplane development of the XF4F-1, with an almost unchanged fuselage. The monoplane wing had a span of 34ft, with rounded tips. The tail surfaces had similar rounded tips. Like the F2A, the G-18 had no wing folding. The fuselage had, because of the radial engine and voluminous undercarriage retraction mechanism, a rotund, tubby shape. This was already a trademark of Grumman, established with the earlier F2F and F3F. The cockpit was moved much forward by comparison with the XF4F-1, so that the pilot now sat over the wing. The cross-section of the fuselage was maximal at the cockpit, and tapered towards to the engins. This assured that the pilot had a good forward view, which was essential for a deck-landing. The cockpit was fitted with a telescopic gunsight, which protuted through the windscreen. Two down-look

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4f.html (1 of 18)2006-09-19 15:26:11

Grumman F4F Wildcat

windows were cut in each side of the lower fuselage. The fuselage spine which started behind the cockpit tapered down rapidly, and ended just in front of the tail fin. The hingeline of the rudder was canted forward. The model G-18 was powered by the Pratt & Whitney R-1830-66 Twin Wasp engine, a two-row, fourteen-cylinder radial. A Hamilton Standard two-position propeller was fitted. The armament installation was basically the same as that of the XF4F-1, with two 0.50 guns with 200 rounds each in the top of the engine cowling, and provision for two 100lb bombs under the wings. The gross weight of the aircraft was 5635lb, a substantial increase over the XF4F-1 biplane. The G-18 was ordered on 28 July 1936. Despite the substantial differences with the G-16, the designation XF4F-2 was applied. The prototype, BuNo 0383, was first flown on 2 September 1937. During trials its demonstrated a maximum level speed of 290mph, which was faster than the XF2A-1, but still below the USN requirement of 300mph. The XF4F-2 was delivered to NAS Anacostia on 23 December 1937 for evaluation. During trials the prototype suffered from a series of snags and accidents. None of these was particularly serious, but their undermined the confidence of the USN. The XF4F-2 suffered repeated engine crankshaft failures. The arrestor hook proved too weak. On 24 February 1938 there was an on board fire when ballast bags in the aft fuselage began to burn. And on 11 April 1938 the XF4F-2 suffered a crash when the engine failed during a simulated deck landing. As a result, the US Navy selected the more reliable Brewster F2A-1 Buffalo for production, after NACA tests had suggested that minor aerodynamic improvements could boost the speed of the XF2A-1 by 30mph. The USN ordered 54 F2A-1s on 11 June 1938.

F4F-3 Despite this setback, the USN continued to show interest in the F4F. This was probably partly due to its unwillingness to rely fully on the production of Brewster: The order for the F2A-1 was the first production contract for Brewster, and the manufacturer did not even possess a factory which was adequate for the production of aircraft. Grumman had already built the FF, F2F and F3F for the Navy, and the F4F showed some promise. A development contract was awarded in October 1938. The Grumman G-36, designated XF4F-3 by the USN, was first flown 12 February 1939. It had been evolved from the XF4F-2 (the prototype of which was modified to become the XF4F-3) by installing the Pratt & Whitney XR-1830-76 engine with a two-stage, two-speed supercharger. Two intercoolers were also installed. This was the first fighter to enter service with such an engine installation. (The first version of the Mitsubishi A6M 'Zeke' with a two-stage supercharger was the A6M3, which began to enter service when Battle of Guadalcanal began.) The two-bladed, two-position propeller of the XF4F-2 was replaced by a three-bladed Curtiss-Electric constant-speed propeller, which was initially distrusted by the pilots. Because of the increased engine weight, a larger wing with rectangular tips was fitted. This http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4f.html (2 of 18)2006-09-19 15:26:11

Grumman F4F Wildcat

increased the wing span from 34ft to 38ft and the wing area from 232ft2 to 260ft2. Also, the fuselage was revised and lengthened. At this stage the prototype still had the tail surfaces of the XF4F-2 with a canted rudder hingeline. Thanks to its new engine, the XF4F-3 reached 333.5mph at 21000ft. The engine cooling was a problem, and a series of cowl and propeller spinner designs was tried to improve it. Finally the propeller spinner was deleted, and cuffs were fitted to the propeller blade roots. NACA tests at Langley field resulted in some redesign. The tail fin was made larger, and the fuselage spine aft of the cockpit, which previously ended just in front of the tail fin, was extended and faired into the fin root. The tailplane was raised 20in, from the fuselage onto the fin. The wing dihedral was increased, and the ailerons reduced in area. The radio mast was moved from in front of the cockpit to behind the cockpit. The armament of the XF4F-3 was two 0.3 cowl guns and two 0.5 wing guns. A telescopic gun sight was still fitted. In this form, the F4F-3 was accepted by the USN, and an order for 54 was received in August 1939. After the first two, the cowl guns were removed, and four 0.50 wing guns fitted. The production aircraft were powered by the R-1830-76 engine, which initially gave some problems. Most F4F-3s had no armour and self-sealing fuel tanks. The first delivery was made on 5 December 1940, to VF-4. Then later VF-7, VF-42, VF-71 were equipped. The F4F-3 was also given to USMC, beginning with VMF-121, VMF-211 and VMF-221. The first cruise was made USS Ranger and USS Wasp, in early 1941. Experience resulted in the deletion of the wing flotation bags, because these tended to inflate in flight. They were positioned over the wing leading edge, and generated prodigious drag. In one such incident, Ensign Howell of VF-42 was killed. There was also a need to strengthen the windscreen, and fuel tank pressurization was required to fly at high altitude. The tailwheel was weak, and cockpit ventilation was inadequate. A shortage of the -76 engines with their two-stage superchargers resulted in a production batch with -90 engines with single-stage, two-speed superchargers. These aircraft were designated F4F-3A. The first one was delivered on 26 November 1940. The name 'Wildcat' was officially adopted on 1 October 1941. At the time of Pearl Harbour only USS Enterprise had a fully-equipped Wildcat squadron, VF-6 with F4F-3As. The USS Enterprise was then transferring a detachment of VMF-211, also equipped with F4F3s, to Wake. The USS Saratoga was in San Diego, working up for operations of the F4F-3s of VF-3. Eleven F4F-3s of VMF-211 were at the Ewa Marine Air Corps Station on Oahu; nine of these were damaged or destroyed during the Japanese attack. The detachment of VMF-211 on Wake lost 7 Wildcats to Japanese attacks on 8 December, but the remaining five put up a fierce defense, making the first bomber kill on 9 December. The destroyer Kisagara was sunk by the Wildcats, and the Japanese invasion force retreated. In these dark days the defense of Wake generated enthusiasm in the USA, but it was impossible to send help, and later Wake surrendered to a much superior invasion force.


Grumman F4F Wildcat

In February 1942 the USS Yorktown and USS Enterprise striked against the Marshall and Gilbert islands. Meanwhile the USS Lexington operated near New Guinea, for an attack on the Japanese base of Rabaul. The latter attack was abortive, because the Japanese detected the presence of the US fleet. But Lt. Edward H. 'Butch' O'Hare of VF-3 later received the Congressional Medal of Honor for shooting down five Mitsubishi G4M 'Betty' bombers over Rabaul, on 20 February. Coral Sea In May 1942 the F4F-3s of VF-2 and VF-42, on board of USS Yorktown and USS Lexington, participated in the Battle of the Coral Sea. The USS Lexington and USS Yorktown fought against the Zuikaku, Shokaku and the light Shoho in this battle, in an attempt to halt a Japanese invasion of Port Moresby on Papua. On 7 May a force of 93 US aircraft, of which 18 Wildcats, found the light carrier Shoho --- a small ship of 11200 tons, which carried only 12 Zeros for its own defense. Shoho was sunk, and the attackers lost only three aircraft. It was claimed that eight Zeroes had been shot down. An unescorted counter-attack by B5Ns and D3As in the evening was successfully repelled, with heavy losses on the side of the attackers. Eight aircraft were shot down, eleven more failed to find their carriers. However, when 69 Japanese aircraft attacked again the next day, the fighter cover of USS Lexington and USS Yorktown consisted of only eight Wildcats, because all others had been sent to escort an attack on the Japanese carriers Shokaku and Zuikaku. The Shokaku was seriously damaged, but the USS Lexington had to be abandoned and the USS Yorktown was damaged. The aircraft losses were high on both sides, taking into account the small number of aircraft committed to battle; the Japanese lost 40 aircraft, the US 33. During these battles, it became clear that attacks without fighter escort amounted to suicide, but that the fighter component on the carriers was completely insufficient to provide both fighter cover for the carrier and an escort for an attack force. Most US carriers carried less than 20 fighters. The introduction of the F4F-4 with its folding wings improved this situation, because it increased the number of fighters that could be parked on a surface by more than a factor 2. The F4F-3 was replaced by the F4F-4 in June 1943, during the battle of Midway; only VMF-221 still used them at that time. The total production of the F4F-3 was 285, that of the F4F-3A was 95. After the Italian attack of 1941, 30 F4F-3As were sent to Greece, and were used after the Greek surrender by the FAA as Martlet Mk.III. A few were fitted with cameras and referred to F4F-3P; there was also one F4F-3AP. Specification of the Grumman F4F-3 Wildcat: Engine: Pratt & Whitney R-1830-76 Twin Wasp, 14-cylinder, two-row radial engine, with a two-speed, two-stage mechanical supercharger. Three-bladed Curtiss Electric C5315(S) propeller with a diameter of 9ft 9in. Power of 1200hp at 2700rpm for take-off. Military power 1100hp at 2550rpm, sea level; 1000hp at 19000ft. 147 US gallons in internal fuel tanks, provision for one 58 US gallon external tank under http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4f.html (4 of 18)2006-09-19 15:26:11

Grumman F4F Wildcat

each wing. Performance: 278mph at sea level, 330mph at 22000ft. Max range cruise 185mph. Initial climb rate 2050ft/min. Service ceiling 31000ft, absolute ceiling 32600ft. Max endurance 9.4 hrs. Take-off distance 228ft into a 25kn wind. Weights: 5293lb empty, 7467lb normal, 3978kg max take-off. Dimensions: Wing span 38ft, length 28ft 9 3/8in, height 8ft, wing area 260ft2. Wing root chord 8ft 7in, wing tip chord 5ft 1 5/8in. Armament: Four Colt-Browning 0.50 guns. Two 100lb bombs.

F4F-3S A floatplane version of the F4F-3 was developed for use at forward island bases in the Pacific, before the construction of airfields. It was inspired by appearance of the A6M-2N 'Rufe', a modification of the Mitsubishi A6M 'Zeke' by Nakajima. BuNo 4083 was modified to become the F4F-3S 'Wildcatfish'. Twin floats, manufactured by Edo, were fitted. To restore the stability, small auxiliary fins were added to the tailplane. Because this was still insufficient, a ventral fin was added later. The F4F-3S was first flown 28 February 1943. The weight and drag of the floats reduced the maximum speed to 241mph. As the performance of the basic F4F-3 was already below that of the A6M, the F4F3S was clearly of limited usefulness. Anyway, the construction of the airfields at forward bases by the 'Seabees' was surprisingly quick. Only one was converted.

Martlet Mk.I At the end of 1939 Grumman received a French order for 81 aircraft of model G-36A, to equip the new carriers Joffre and Painleve. The main difference with the basic model G-36 was due to the unavailability for export of the two-stage supercharged engine of F4F-3. The G-36A was powered by the nine-cylinder, single-row R-1820-G205A radial engine, of 1200hp. This was combined with a Hamilton Standard constant-speed propeller. The first deliveries featured highly polished, shiny propeller blades. The G-36A had also French instrumentation, radio, and gunsight. The throttle was modified to conform to French pre-war practice: the throttle lever was moved towards the pilot to increase engine power. The armament too was French, six 75mm Darne guns being specified. The first G-36A was flown on 11 May 1940. None of the aircraft ever entered French service. After defeat of France, all contracts were taken over by Britain. The throttle was modified again, four 0.50 guns were installed in the wings, and most traces of


Grumman F4F Wildcat

the original ownership removed. The Martlets were modified for British use by Blackburn, which continued to do this for all later marks. British gunsights, catapult spools, and other items were installed. After initial attempts to fit British radio sets, it was decided to use the much superior American equipment. The British Admiralty chose the name of Martlet Mk.I for this fighter. The first ones entered service in August 1940, with No 804 squadron, then stationed at Hatson in the Orkneys. The Martlet Mk.I did not have a wing folding mechanism, and was therefore only used from land bases. The small fighter from Grumman was designed for carrier use, and for land- based operations this resulted in some problems, especially with the soft, narrow-track undercarriage. There were problems with landing or taking off in a cross-wind or when taking corners during fast taxying, because the Martlet Mk.I tended to roll on its undercarriage, enough to make a wingtip touch the ground. A 'Wing Tip Club' was formed at Haston. Of course these problems would not have been felt in carrier operations. RAF test pilots also had some other criticisms, especially related to the cockpit: Carbon monoxide leaked into cockpit, there was a strong draught when cockpit was opened, except at low speed, and there was no provision for the jettisoning of the canopy. Another problem was the lack of automatic boost control, which kept the pilot busy with adjustments. The manual retraction of the landing gear was probably disliked by all pilots who ever flew a Wildcat. The first combat of Grumman's little fighter took place on 25 December 1940, when two aircraft from No 804 squadron brought down a Ju 88A near Scapa Flow, the base of the Home Fleet. The pilots of these aircraft were Lt. L.L.N. Carver and Sub. Lt. (A) Parke.

Martlet Mk.II Before the FAA (Fleet Air Arm) took on charge the Martlet Mk.Is of the original French order, it had already order one hundred model G-36B fighters. The British chose the Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S3C4G engine to power this aircraft; this too had a single-stage supercharger. The FAA decided to accept a delay in delivery to get folding wings, which were vitally important if the Martlet was to be used from British carriers with their small hangar decks. Nevertheless, the first ten received had fixed wings. The first Martlet with folding wings was not delivered before August 1941. A description of the wing folding is given in the chapter on the F4F-4. The Martlet Mk.II was about 1000lb (450kg) heavier than Mk.I, because of wing folding, a heavier engine, and two additional machine guns. Also in contrast to F4F-3, the British aircraft were fitted with armour and self-sealing fuel tanks. The Mk.II also had a larger tailwheel. For carrier operations, the 'sting' tail hook and attachment point for the American single-point catapult launch system were considered important advantages. Nevertheless, the Martlets were modified to have British-style catapult spools. At this point, the Martlet was simply the only single-seat, monoplane carrier fighter available to the http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4f.html (6 of 18)2006-09-19 15:26:11

Grumman F4F Wildcat

British fleet. Previously it had equipped its fighter units with the Gloster Sea Gladiator biplane fighter, and the single-engined, two-seat Fairey Fulmar, which was a nice and reliable aircraft but just didn't have the performance required to combat enemy single-seaters. The Martlet was therefore received with enthusiasm by the FAA. The majority of the Martlet Mk.IIs (54) were sent to the Far East. The first shipboard operations of the type in British service were in September 1941, on board of HMS Audacity. The Audacity was a conversion of the former German merchant vessel Hannover. It was a very small carrier with a carrier deck of 128m by 18m. It no lifts and no hangar deck; the six Wildcats were parked on the deck at all times. On its first voyage, it served as escort carrier for a convoy to Gibraltar. On 20 September, a German Fw 200 was downed when it made a bomb run at the convoy. On the next voyage, four Fw 200s fell to the guns of the Martlets. Operations from the HMS Audacity also demonstrated that the fighter cover was useful against U-boats. Audacity was sunk by an U-boat on 21 December 1941, but it had proven the usefulness of escort carriers. In May 1942 the No 881 and 882 squadron, on HMS Illustrious, participated in operations against (Vichy-French) Madagascar. In August 1942 No 806 on HMS Indomitable provided fighter cover for a convoy to Malta. Later in that year they participated in the landings in French North Africa.

Martlet Mk.III The first 30 F4F-3As were released for sale to Greece, after the Italian invasion of that country in November 1940. However, at the defeat of Greece in April 1941 the aircraft had only reached Gibraltar. They were taken over by the FAA as Martlet Mk.III. Because these aircraft did not have folding wings, they were only used from land bases. They served in a shore-based role in the Western Desert, with the so-called 'Royal Naval Fighter Unit.'

F4F-4 The major difference between the F4F-4 and the F4F-3 was the introduction of a wing folding mechanism. A single hinge was placed in the wing spar. The hinge line was reportedly experimentally determined by Roy Grumman with the help of an eraser in which two bend paperclips were inserted, representing the wings. The main spar was angled forward, so that the top of the hinge line was well in front of the bottom; there were small blisters on the wing covering the top of the hinge. When folding the wing backwards, the leading edge of the wing moved downwards, so that the wings were stored parallel with the fuselage, leading edge down. They were secured to the tailplane with struts. Unfolded, they were secure by a locking cylinder in the leading edge, which was screwed in with a crank. Five F4F4s could be parked in the place previously used by two F4F-3s. Also, aircraft handling on the deck and through the lift became much easier. The first XF4F-1 had hydraulic wing folding, but this was abandoned because of the excess weight. All http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4f.html (7 of 18)2006-09-19 15:26:11

Grumman F4F Wildcat

production aircraft had manual wing folding. The F4F-4 had also other modifications to make the aircraft more combat-capable. Armament was increased to six guns, with 1440 rounds. Armour and self-sealing fuel tanks, previously only fitted to the British Martlets and a few F4F-3s, were fitted. This much improved the survival chances of the pilot. There was a provision for 50 or 58 US gal drop tanks under the fixed parts of the wing, as well as bombs. The engine was the R-1830-86 of 1200hp, also fitted to the last F4F-3s, but because of the additional weight, the performance suffered. The F4F-4 also proved less suitable for operations for escort carriers, which lead to the development of the lighter FM-2. The US Navy orders totaled 1169 F4F-4s. It had replaced the F4F-3 by August 1942. The F4F-4A was an unbuilt version powered by the R-1830-90. At least one Wildcat was converted to F4F-4P photo-recce configuration. One F4F-4 was fitted, as an experiment, with electrically-operated, full-span flaps. Another served as a testbed for the breakaway wing tips, which were later used on the F8F Bearcat. Midway The most famous battle in which the Wildcat participated was the Battle of Midway. While six Wildcats were based on Midway itself, as well as 21 F2A Buffalos, most of the fighter component was contributed by the carriers. With the lessons of the Coral Sea in mind, the fighter strength of the US fleet was increased by one third. The USS Yorktown carried 25 fighters, the USS Hornet and USS Enterprise each 27. Their contribution was not, however, decisive, if only by their still relatively small number. Of the 116 aircraft which attacked the Japanese fleet on 4 June, only 20 were Wildcats; all others were torpedo and dive bombers. 36 Wildcats were kept behind to protect the US carriers. Half of the fighter escort did not find the Japanese fleet and later had to ditch because they had ran out of fuel. The weak fighter cover (six Wildcats) of VT-3 was unable to protect the 12 TBDs, while VT-6 and VT-8 attacked without any fighter escort, with disastrous results. However, the battle turned around dramatically when two formations of SBD Dauntless dive bombers arrived, encountered no opposition, and hit the Akagi, Kaga and Soryu. While the Wildcats were reasonably able to defend themselves --- claiming four kills, for the loss of one --- it was clear that the battle had been won more by luck than by strength. When the surviving Japanese carrier, the Hiryu, counter-attacked, the fighter cover of the Yorktown, 12 Wildcats, claimed 13 of the 18 attacking D3A 'Val' dive bombers, and three of the six A6Ms. A follow-up attack force of 10 B5N 'Kate' torpedo bombers and six A6Ms also lost four aircraft. However, this did not prevent that the Yorktown was hit by three bombs and two torpedos, which eventually caused its loss. Guadalcanal The qualities of the F4F were proven in the next large series of battles in the Pacific, the fights around the island of Guadalcanal. Guadalcanal is one of the Solomon islands, which are North-East of http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4f.html (8 of 18)2006-09-19 15:26:11

Grumman F4F Wildcat

Australia. The island of 160 by 80 km is mountaineous and covered with a dense jungle. Most of the fights centered around Henderson Field, the airbase near Cap Lunga. The battles began with the landing of the 1st Division of the USMC on Guadalcanal, on 7 August 1942, protected by a large part of the US fleet. During three days of intensive fighting between US Navy aircraft of the USS Enterprise, USS Saratoga and USS Wasp (a total of 99 fighters, 103 dive-bombers, and 41 torpedo-bombers) and Japanese aircraft from Rabaul on New Ireland (75 fighters, 48 twinengined bombers, 18 long-range recce flying boats, 12 floatplane fighters, and 16 dive-bombers) the Japanese suffered disproportionate losses. Of course, this was partly due to the large distance between Guadalcanal and their base at Rabaul --- flights of 2000km were required --- which made it impossible for some of the used aircraft, notable the D3A dive bombers, to return to their base. Also, the G4M 'Betty' bomber was extremely vulnerable. The A6M 'Zeke' fighter force had some successes. In a famous incident, the Japanese fighter pilot Saburo Sakai witnessed how a single F4F fought off three A6Ms, until Sakai himself intervened. Finally, the US force did establish some kind of air superiority over Guadalcanal when the Japanese decided to suspend air attacks after two days, because of the excessive losses. However, at this moment Rear-admiral Fletcher decided to remove the US carrier fleet from the battle zone, handling according to the principle that the carriers, which were as vulnerable as they were valuable, should not stay in the same area for more than two days. The decision was not unlogical in itself, but combined with the disastrous end of the naval battle at Savo Island on the next day, it contributed to put an end to the career of Fletcher. Two weeks later the carriers had returned, and in the fight known as the Battle of Eastern Solomons, the USS Enterprise and USS Saratoga fought a battle with the Zuikaku, Shokaku and the light carrier Ryujo. While US carrier aircraft found and sank the Ryujo, a Japanese counter-attack of the main force managed to damage the USS Enterprise, despite a fighter cover of 53 Wildcats, which was largely kept at a distance by the escorting A6Ms. In this case, inefficient fighter control was largely to blame. This remained a problem during the next fights, despite the advantage of radar. Enterprise was only temporarily disabled, however. At the end of the month, Japanese submarines damaged USS Saratoga and sank USS Wasp. On 26 October, during the battle of the Santa Cruz islands, the pattern repeated itself. US aircraft damaged the Zuiho and Shokaku, while Japanese aircraft hit USS Hornet and USS Enterprise, and finally sank USS Hornet. While this undoubtly was a tactical victory for the Japanese, the aircraft losses of both parties were again so high that they had to retreat. The presence of US aircraft on Henderson Field, near Cap Lunga on Guadalcanal, outweighed the advantage. The result of these battles suggests that overall, the Wildcat failed to fulfill its role. While the Wildcats did shoot down a considerable number of enemy aircraft, thereby limiting the strength of Japanese attacks on the US fleet, the carriers invariably suffered serious damage whenever they were the target of a Japanese attack. And attacks on the Japanese fleet often resulted in the loss of a considerable number


Grumman F4F Wildcat

of aircraft. After 1942, newer fighters replaced the Wildcat as carrier-borne fighter, and the US Navy established air superiority. One would be inclined to blame the Wildcat. However, this is too simplistic. There is no doubt that the F6F and F4U were better aircraft than the old F4F, but the Wildcat was not as inferior to the A6M as some sources suggest. In a combat situation, the two fighters were fairly evely matched, if the Wildcat pilot was wise enough to use the strong points of their aircraft --- dogfighting with the A6M was always to be avoided. The low impact of the fighter force in the battles of 1941 and early 1942 can be attributed to their numerical weakness. Large carriers as the USS Lexington and USS Saratoga began the war with only 18 fighters on board, a fourth of all aircraft they carried. At the battle of Okinawa in March 1945, the large fleet carriers had 70 or more fighters, or two thirds of all aircraft they carried were fighters. At Okinawa, a small escort carrier had a more powerful fighter cover than the USS Lexington in the Battle of the Coral Sea. Of course, this change towards a larger complement of fighters was made possible by the fact that the newer, larger fighters could carry a substantial armament load. The F6F could carry two 1000lb bombs, a load comparable to that of the TBF Avenger of the SBD Dauntless. The unability to carry a substantial bomb load was always a weakness of the Wildcat. There was also important tactical changes, with a much stronger attempt to gain air superiority. Instead of escorting torpedo bombers and dive bombers, the fighters were sent out alone to attack Japanese bases, achieving air superiority before the final attack was done. These tactics finally culminated in the 'Big Blue Blanket' designed to Jimmy Thach as a defense against Kamikaze attacks. Specification of the Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat: Engine: Pratt & Whitney R-1830-86 Twin Wasp, 14-cylinder, two-row engine, with a two-speed, twostage mechanical supercharger. Three-bladed Curtiss Electric propeller with a diameter of 2.97m. Power 1200hp at 2900rpm for take-off. Military power 1200hp at 2700rpm from sea level to 550m, and 1135hp at 1035m. Normal power 1100hp at 2550rpm at sea level, 1090hp at 3445m. 545 in internal fuel tanks, provision for one 220l external tank under each wing. Performance: 441km/h at sea level, 515km/h at 5735m. Max range cruise 259km/h at 1525m. Initial climb rate 9.9m/sec. Climb to 3050m 5.6min, to 6100m 12.4min. Service ceiling 10370m. Max range on internal fuel 1335km, 2051km with two drop tanks. Take-off distance 195m, 125m into a 28km/h (15kn) wind. Weights: 2676kg empty, 3621kg normal, 3978kg max take-off. Dimensions: Wing span 11.59m, length 8.85m, height 3.44, wing area 24.15m. Width with folded wing 4.35m. Armament: Six Colt-Browning 0.50 guns, 240 rounds each.


Grumman F4F Wildcat

Martlet Mk.IV This was basically F4F-4 delivered to Britain under Lend-Lease contracts. For contractual purposes, the USN designation F4F-4B was assigned. It was never used by the USN. The engine was the R-1820-40B Cyclone, also known was GR-1820-G250A-3 for export. A Hamilton Standard Hydromatic airscrew was used. The top speed of the Martlet Mk.IV was 296mph, slightly below that of the F4F-4. Gross weight was 7904lb.

FM-1 and Martlet Mk.V The production facilities of Grumman were not large enough to built large numbers of the F6F, TBF and F4F. The Eastern Aircraft Division of General Motors was created to take over production of the TBF and F4F, under the designations TBM and FM. The name 'Mongoose' was proposed for Eastern-built Wildcats, but luckily it didn't stick. The FM-1 was basically a F4F-4 built by the Eastern Aircraft, in its factory at Linden, New Jersey. There was one change: The FM-1 had only four guns, with ammunition increased to 430 rounds per gun. This version of the Wildcat was primarily intended for escort carriers, as the F6F was replacing the F4F on the fleet carriers. Contract for 1800 aircraft were awarded on 18 April 1942. The first one was flown on 31 August. Finally 1060 were built before production was switched to the FM-2. Of these, 839 were destined for the USN and USMC, and 312 were delivered to Britain as Martlet Mk.V. These British aircraft flew support missions for the invasion of Southern France, Operation Dragoon, in August 1944. Later they also flew from HMS Illustrious in support of the invasion of Italy, in Salerno Bay. They also operated from HMS Victorious in West-Pacific. In January 1944, the Admiralty decided to abandon the name Martlet, and the type became the Wildcat Mk.IV in British service.

F4F-5 Nos 3 and 4 from the F4F-3 production line were completed as XF4F-5, with the R-1820-40 Cyclone engine with a single-stage supercharger, this because the R-1830-76 gave problems. Later one of these was fitted with a R-1820-48 with a two-stage supercharger, and one with a turbo-supercharged R-182054.

F4F-6 This was a version of the F4F-3 with R-1830-90 with single-stage, two-speed supercharger. It was ordered into production as the F4F-3A. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4f.html (11 of 18)2006-09-19 15:26:12

Grumman F4F Wildcat

F4F-7 The F4F-7 was a long-range photo-recce version, first flown on 31 December 1941. The F4F-7 had a non-folding wing, containing 555 US gallons of fuel. This boosted the total fuel capacity to 695 US gallons, giving a range of 3700 miles, or an endurance of 25 hours! Obviously this was a bit exaggerating the point, for such flights would have been much too demanding for the pilot, even though an autopilot was installed. To save weight, the F4F-7 had no armament or armour, and the bullet resistant windscreen was replaced by a simple curved one. Nevertheless, the gross weight increased to 10328lb. To reduce the weight quickly in case of an emergency, a fuel dump system was installed. The two dump pipes of this system were visible under the rudder. A single camera was carried. Only 21 were built, and the rest of the order was completed as fighters. Only two are reported to have been used, at Guadalcanal. Specification of the Grumman F4F-7 Wildcat: Engine: Pratt & Whitney R-1830-86 Twin Wasp, 14-cylinder, two-row engine, with a two-speed, twostage mechanical supercharger. Three-bladed Curtiss Electric C5315(S) propeller with a diameter of 2.97m. 1200hp at 2900rpm for take-off. Military power 1200hp at 2700rpm from sea level to 550m, and 1135hp at 1035m. Normal power 1100hp at 2550rpm at sea level, 1090hp at 3445m. Performance: 250mph at sea level, 309mph at 22000ft. Cruise speed 200mph. Landing speed 86mph. Initial climb rate 1730ft/min. Service ceiling 28300ft. Max range on internal fuel 4540 miles, endurance 25.5hrs. Take-off distance 574ft into a 25kn wind. Weights: 5468lb empty, 10336lb combat gross weight. Armament: none.

XF4F-8 and FM-2 The increased weight of the F4F-4 made this version less suitable for use on the small decks of escort carriers. However, the Wildcat was more suited to these small, slow carriers than the newer, but also larger and heavier fighters such as the F6F and F4U. Therefore it was decided in 1942 to develop a lighter model. The two prototypes were built by Grumman under the designation XF4F-8, but production aircraft were built by Eastern as the FM-2. The new Wildcat was powered by the R-1820-56 engine. Previous USN Wildcats were all powered by the R-1830, but the R-1820-56 delivered 1350hp, 150hp more than the engine of the F4F-4, and was http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4f.html (12 of 18)2006-09-19 15:26:12

Grumman F4F Wildcat

also 102kg lighter, with a weight of 604kg. The weight was also reduced by deleting two guns (increasing ammunition to 1720 rounds at the same time) and the reserve fuel tank. The new engine had a single-stage supercharger, and performance at altitude was therefore below that of the F4F-4. But at low levels the performance was considerably better, with a spectacular improvement in climbing rate. The main tasks of the FM-2 were to be submarine patrols and close air support, so performance at high altitude was less important. The two XF4F-8s were modified F4F-4s. The first one was flown on 8 November 1942. The prototypes were fitted with slotted flaps, but these proved less efficient that the split flaps of earlier models. The XF4F-8 weighed 2433kg empty, 3211kg gross, and 3752kg at max overload. The production FM-2 was, inevitably, a bit heavier. Characteristic for the engine installation was a rectangular indentation of the forward fuselage aft of the cowling ring, above the wing leading edges, were the exhaust of the engine were grouped. The circular oil coolers under the inboard wing sections were removed. In side view, the FM-2 was easy to identify. And a taller vertical tail was fitted, because of the more powerful torque of the engine. This had other benefits, for the FM-2 now also had fully satisfactory spin recovery characteristics. The tailhook had to be reinforced after combat experienced showed it to be too weak. Some later aircraft had the -56W or -56WA engines, with water injection. A tank with a 10min water supply was carried. After the 240st aircraft the main fuel tank of 117 US gallons was replaced by one of 126 US gallons, compensating a bit for the deletion of the reserve tank. After the 3301st aircraft provision was made for six 5in rockets. The first order, for 1265, was signed in early 1943. The final production of the FM-2 was 4127, plus 340 Wildcat Mk.VIs for the FAA. The FM-2 was the most built version of the Wildcat. The first combat of the FM-2 was during Operation Flintlock, the invasion of Kwajalein, in January 1944, when the USS Manila Bay (Task Group 52.9) carried twelve FM-2s. In June they fought in operation Forager, the invasion of the Marianas. Experience showed that the FM-2 had at best only a marginal performance advantage over the Japanese aircraft, and that its reduced armament was a disadvantage. But the Japanese pilots of the time were inexperienced and poorly trained. In October 1944 a conference on aircraft requirements was held at Patuxent River. The armed forces showed their latest fighters, and an impressive demonstration of the XF8F-1 Bearcat was done by Bob Hall. But the FM-2 was nevertheless considered the best fighter below 10000ft, even in comparison with the F6F, F4U, P-47 and P-51. It was stable, handled well in a dive, and had excellent landing characteristics. On the other hand, its level speed was unimpressive, its small armament load was a problem, and the cockpit provided no rearward view. In the Battle of Leyte, 15 of the 18 escort carriers of the 'Taffy' force carried FM-2s. Only weak air opposition on the first days, but on 24 October there was spiritied fighting, and Lt. K. G. Hippe of VChttp://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4f.html (13 of 18)2006-09-19 15:26:12

Grumman F4F Wildcat

27 became an 'ace-in-a-day' by shooting down five K-48 'Lily' bombers, being bettered by Lt Cdr H. Funk who claimed six kills that day. At the end of the day, the Japanese had lost 47 aircraft; five FM-2s had been lost. This result confirmed the confidence in the FM-2. However, it was felt yet again that the number of available fighters was too small: at the end of the day, the 15 carriers had 'only' 290 FM-2s. For the attack on Mindoro in December, the number of fighters was boasted to 24 on each of six escort carriers. In 1945 a new and rather unique unit was deployed, VOC-1 on USS Wake Island. This unit was intended to act as artillery spotters for the fleet. The pilots had trained on F4Us and F6Fs, but reequipped finally with the FM-2. In the battle of Okinawa VOC-2 made its debut. The spotters proved very effective, and fought in the front line for the next invasions in the Pacific, of Iwo Jima in February and of Okinawa in March, in which 12 and 18 escort carriers participated, respectively. At the end of the war, four USN pilots had become aces on the FM-2: Lt. R. Elliot (VC-27) with nine kills, Lt Cdr H. Funk (VF-26) with six, Lt. K. Hippe (VC-13) with five, and Ens J. McGraw (VC-10 and VC-80) with five. Total claims for the FM-2 were 420. Specification of the General Motors (Eastern Aircraft) FM-2 Wildcat: Engine: Wright R-1820-56W Cyclone, 9-cylinder, single-row engine, with a two-speed, single-stage mechanical supercharger. Three-bladed Curtiss Electric CS propeller with a diameter of 10ft. 1350hp for take-off, 1200hp at 5000ft, 900hp at 18500ft. Performance: 289mph at sea level, 319mph at 19600ft. Max climb rate at sea level 2890ft/min. Best climb 3650ft/min. Service ceiling 35600ft. Max range on internal fuel 780 miles, 1350 miles with two drop tanks. Take-off distance 195m, 125m into a 28km/h (15kn) wind. Weights: 5542lb empty, 7431lb gross. Armament: Four Colt-Browning 0.50 guns, 1720 rounds total. Racks for six 5in rockets under the wings.

Wildcat Mk.VI The FM-2 was known as Martlet Mk.VI in FAA service; it was renamed Wildcat Mk.VI in January 1944. 340 were delivered. The FM-2 equipped, partially or completely, 22 squadrons, ten of which used the type operationally. Their first major action was operation Dragoon, the invasion of Southern France, in which No 881 sqn flew 180 sorties. But the Wildcat Mk.VI operated mainly in Far East. On 26 March 1945, Mk.VIs of No 882 squadron shot down five Bf 109Gs over Norway. These were the last FAA victories of WWII.


Grumman F4F Wildcat

XF2M-1 The F2M was a design by Eastern Motors for a version of the Wildcat powered by the XR-1820-70 engine. It was never built.

Description All details for F4F-4, except indicated otherwise.

Construction The wing was built around a single main spar. Models with folding wings had a inclined main spar, parallel with the hinge line. The folding parts were flush-riveted, the fixed parts were not. When folding the wing backwards, the leading edge of the wing moved downwards, so that the wings were stored parallel with the fuselage, leading edge down. They were secured to the tailplane with struts. All control surfaces of the Wildcat were fabric-covered and were mechanically operated, with exception of the flaps, which were operated by a vacuum tank installed behind the cockpit. The rudder and elevator had small horn balances, the ailerons had inset hinges. The fuselage was of semi-monococque construction, with a skin of aluminium alloy. It had external rivets, with overlap of the fuselage skin at the joints of skin and frames. This give the outside of the fuselage a 'rib' at each frame. The radial engine was carried by a tubular engine mounting, attached to the cockpit firewall. An 11 US gallon oil tank was installed in the upper half of the fuselage, between the engine mounting ring and the cockpit firewall. The lower half of this fuselage bay was occupied by the landing gear. The intercoolers, generator, engine starter and other engine accesories were also in this section. The main fuel tank (117 US gal, 443l) was below the cockpit floor. There was a reserve fuel tank (27 US gal, 102l) behind the cockpit. In the bay behind the cockpit were also the vacuum tank for flap actuation, the oxygen bottle, the R/T set, and the battery. There was an access door to the aft fuselage on the right side, aft of the wing root. Closer to the aft bulkhead the radio compass was installed. An opening was made in each side of the fuselage, connected by a tube inside, and served as attachment points for lifting the aircraft. In the fuselage spine behind the cockpit (aft of the section covered by the sliding canopy) a liferaft was installed, but this was usually deployed too late to be of any use.

Engine


Grumman F4F Wildcat

The engines used by the Wildcat version were the Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp fourteencylinder, two-row radial engine, and the Wright R-1820 Cyclone nine-cylinder, single-row radial engine. The R-1820 was less complicated and lighter than R-1830, and later versions were more powerful at lower altitude. The larger diameter of the R-1820 resulted in slightly worse forward view, and the R1820 was much noisier and produced more vibration than the R-1830.

Cockpit To access the cockpit, there was a foot support and a hand hold at each side of the fuselage, aft of the cockpit. There were walkways over the wing roots. The cockpit was roomy, but the FAA judged that the arrangement of the controls was a bit confusing. The pilot had a good view to front, for deck landing, because of high position of the cockpit. The view sideways and downwards was also reasonable. There was virtually no rearwards view. The Wildcat had a bullet resistant windscreen, with a reflector sight, and rearward-sliding plexiglass canopy. Most had a single window on each side of the lower fuselage, intended to give the pilot some view downwards, but this was minimal. They were probably more useful as access panels to the lower fuselage. The first models did only have seat lap belt, and not a shoulder harness. In case of a crash, this seriously endangered the pilot's head. The front panel of Martlet Mk.II had a directional gyro and an artificial horizon on the top row, left and right of the gunsight mounting. On the lower row were, left to right, the air speed indicator, altimeter, turn-and-bank indicator, rate of climb indicator, boost gauge and oil temperature/pressure indicators. The engine instrumentation was to the left and right of the main instrument panel. (The arrangement of the F4F-3 was basically the same, but there was a compass at the center of the panel, which was displaced by the larger gunsight in the Martlet Mk.II.) Left of the main panel the ignition switch, fuel pump, supercharger controls, engine rpm indicator, and propeller switches were grouped. Also the undercarriage lamp and reflector sight intensity controls were located there. Right of the main panel the fuel gauge, carburetor temperate gauge, temperature gauge, inertia starter switch, cowling gills control and fire extinguisher control were found. The left console contained even more engine controls, such as the cylinder temperature gauge, main fuel cock, and throttle lever. The rudder, elevator and aileron trim were also on the left console, with the controls for the arrester hook and the locking tailwheel. One the right console was a box with electric switches, including the gun selector switches, and cockpit lighting controls. Behind it was the R/T panel. Below the right console was the infamous undercarriage crank; 30 turns were required to retract the undercarriage.

Undercarriage The undercarriage of the Wildcat had a narrow track and was very soft. There were hydraulic brakes, http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4f.html (16 of 18)2006-09-19 15:26:12

Grumman F4F Wildcat

controlled by toe brakes on the rudder pedals. They were less efficient than desirable. The main wheels were retracted by 30 turns on a hand crack, the pilot being required to crank with his right hand while holding the stick with his left hand. Usually this resulted in a wobbling climb. This was disliked by pilots, and somewhat dangerous; there were at least two accidents, one fatal, when the lead of the pilot's R/T headset got entangled in crank. The retraction mechanism used chains which lead to sprockets at the top of the compression strut; this folded in two places, near the top and near the wheel. The wheels (Bendix 26x6 in) were stored flat aside the fuselage, under the wing leading edge. A lower fuselage cover was attached to the landing gear, and sealed the underside. There was a non-retractable locking tailwheel. It was required to lock this before take-off, to counter the Wildcat's tendency to swing. It was Installed aft of the aft fuselage bulkhead, in front of the tailplanes. The first models had a solid tailwheel, but this was later replaced with a larger, inflatable one which lifted the tail (9in, 23cm) higher on the ground, giving better control during take-off. The sting tailhook extended from the extreme end of the tail and then dropped down.

Armament The Wildcat had gun cocking handles on cockpit floor, with steel cables running to guns. 0.50 guns were used in all operational fighter models: four in the F4F-3, Martlet Mk.I, FM-1, and FM-2, and six all other models. The wing guns of the F4F-3 were installed just outboard of the propeller disc, staggered to make room for the ammunition feeds. The additional wing guns of the F4F were installed more outboard, outside of the ammunition boxes of the inner guns. The installation of the guns in FM-1 and FM-2 was similar to that of the F4F-3, but not identical; the guns barrels did not protrude from the wing leading edges as in the F4F-3. The guns were accessible by panels in the upper wing surface. The gun ammunition boxes could be removed and replaced from the underside of the wing.

Handling For take-off, the Wildcat required careful handling, because the fuselage blanked the rudder, and there was a strong tendency to veer to port. Cross-winds were to be avoided. The tailwheel had to be locked and checked. Until the tail was lifted, careful appliance of the brakes was required, to avoid overheating them. These problems were of course more important for land-based operations than for carrier operations. The level and dive speed was inferior to that of contemporary land-based fighters, but climb and http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4f.html (17 of 18)2006-09-19 15:26:12

Grumman F4F Wildcat

manoeuvrability were good. However, they were still inferior to the performance of the A6M 'Zeke', which excelled in these aspects. The Wildcat was relatively stable, and had heavier stick forces than other fighters. Deck-landing characteristics were very good, because of the good handling at low speed, the excellent forward vision, a robust undercarriage, and the sting tailhook. The stall was completely innocuous, at 157km/h clean, and 146km/h all down (Martlet Mk.II). A spin was not easy to recover from, and deliberate spinning was prohibited. This was cured with the larger tail of the FM-2. In comparison with its most important opponent, the Mitsubishi A6M Reisen 'Zeke', better known as 'Zero', the F4F-4 was inferior in level speed, climb and manoeuvrability. They were however fairly evenly matched in a dive, because the F4F was heavier and more powerful, and better controllable at high speed. It never had an operational speed limit; the terminal dive speed was probably over 500mph. Most importantly, the F4F was a sturdy aircraft, with armour and self-sealing fuel tanks, which resisted the armament of the A6M well. It was very unusual for a Wildcat to catch fire when hit, while the woefully vulnerable A6M tended to fall apart or burst in flames when hit by a short burst of the Wildcat's .50 guns. Much depended on the tactics applied and the training of the pilots. The 'Thach Weave' was adapted by the USN as a standard fighter tactic, and was very effective. However, in the beginning of the war the Japanese pilots often had combat experience, which USN pilots did not yet have. Nevertheless the F4F, despite its theoretical disadvantages, did remarkably well in combat. A kill ratio of 6.9 to 1 was claimed: 178 lost, for 905 'confirmed' kills. The most successful Wildcat pilot was Joe Foss, with 26 kills, all on the Wildcat. This made him the leading USMC ace.

Sources ●

●

●

● ●

Wings of the Navy, Capt. Eric M. Brown, edited by William Green and Gordon Swanborough. Pilot Press, 1980. ISBN 0-7106-0002-X Sea, Sky and Stars --- An Illustrated History of Grumman Aircraft. M. J. Hardy, Arms and Armour Press, 1987. The Ironworks --- Grumman's Fighting Aeroplanes. Terry Treadwell, Airlife Publishing Ltd. 1990. ISBN 1-85310-070-6 Aircraft Carrier, the majestic weapon. Donald MacIntyre. Ballantine's, 1969. F4F Wildcat in detail & scale. Bert Kinzey, Tab Books, 1988. ISBN 0-8306-8040-3



Lockheed C-5 Galaxy

Lockheed C-5 Galaxy CX-HLS The winner of the CX-HLS (Cargo Experimental-Heavy Logistics System), the Model L-500 was designed by the Lockheed-Georgia Company in competition with entries submitted by Boeing in Seattle, Washington, and Douglas Aircraft Company in Long Beach, California. Intended to supplement Lockheed C-141A Starlifters, which were about to enter service with the Military Air Transport Service as the world's first purpose-designed jet cargo transport, the CX-HLS competitors stemmed from earlier 1963 parametric design studies for the CX-4, a heavy lift aircraft in the 272 160-kg (600 000lb) class primarily intended to carry bulky and heavy military equipment over long range global deployments which couldn't be accommodated in the C-141A Starlifter. In mid-1964, following the CX-4 paramertic study, Air Force Systems Command awarded a threemonth design study contracts to Boeing, Douglas, and Lockheed for the airframe, and to General Electric and Pratt & Whitney for high-bypass-ratio turbofans which gave the range of a turboprop like the Cancalled XC-132, but with the speed of the jet age and twice the static thrust maximum rating of existing military turbojets and low-bypass ratio turbofans. When then Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara shock up the vast Pentagon-based department in the 1960's, brought in the first-ever system for discovering the true cost of weapons and systems thus assessing whether they were worth the budget and introduced Total Package Procurement (TPP) which assigned to a single contractor the responsiblity for the complete operating systems. Conceived as part of the programmme - from research, to development, testing, evaluation and production - under a single fixed-price contract with negotiated incentives. The C-5 was one of first two contracts that resulted in what the media regarded as the most scandalous (up until then) examples of wasting tax dollars by what it called 'the military/industrial complex', a kind of underground mafia dedicated to milking unsuspecting and unconcern citizens. The other program, the General Dynamics F-111 which was critized for the same reasons as the C-5, with both taking up millions of column-inches they generated, alomst over looked the important fact the both these aircraft enhanced the defence capablity of the United States and both did things up until then that had been impossible. As satisfactory progress had been made during that design study phase, in December 1964 the Department of Defense invited the three airframe and two engine manufacturers to submit proposals under the newly developed TPP. In the case of the CX-HLS competition, TPP airframe proposal were to cover: ●

design, construction, and testing of 5 RDT&E aircraft (with NO aircraft being intended as prototypes and all being assigned to operational units after refurbishment);

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/c-5.html (1 of 12)2006-09-19 15:26:23

Lockheed C-5 Galaxy ● ●

a firm Run A production batch of 53 aircraft; and a conditional Run B for a further 57 aircraft.

A total force of 115, to equip six MAC (Military Airlift Command) Squadrons. GOR (General Operational Requirement) included: ● ● ● ● ●

take-off at maximum weight from a 2,44km (8,000ft) runway; landing on a 1,22km (4,000ft) semi-prepared strip; carrying 56,700kg (125,000lb) on unrefuelled sectors of up to 12,875km (8000 miles); maximum payload of 113,400kg (250,000lb); design life of 30,000 flying hours.

This was in fact well beyond the limit of what was techinally possible then, and sowed the seeds for most of the future problems. After reviewing the two engine proposals submitted in April 1965 and requesting additional information from the five manufacturers, Air Force Systems Command announced its selection of General Eletric in August and in October, Lockheed-Georgia Company, whose C-130 and C-141 already provided almost all of the Airlift capacity. Soon Afterward, the winners were awarded contracts to proceed with development of their GE1/6 but scaled up to give 18 114-kg (40 000lb) thrust as the TF39 and Model L500 as the C-5A Galaxy. It was the first new design to receive a post 1962 designation in the restarted C series.

C-5A TPP Curiously, many observers including the very mayor of the city where it was to be built, failed to see the need for the C-5. The need was simply that there might come a time where and when the United States would wish to send it's military forces to distant lands to show the world it's superpower status and they need an aircrat to carry them, which was proven late on in its life. As little had distinguished the Lockheed proposal from the those submitted by Boeing and Douglas - all three designs being of high-wing configuration, with four turbofans in the underwing nacelles and front and rear ramp-equipped doors for flow-though loading and unloading - selection of Lockheed design was justified by the Department of Defense on technical and economic grounds. The wing, which was designed by a hastily organized group of unemployed engineers from the various cancelled Britsh programmes of the 1965, under intense pressure, has 25 degree sweep and 5,5 degree anhedral on the ground, full-span slats, modified Fowler flaps running on six prominent tracks on each http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/c-5.html (2 of 12)2006-09-19 15:26:23

Lockheed C-5 Galaxy

side, and both spoilers and outboard ailerons. The T-tail is unusaul in that having anhedral on the variable incidence horizontal surface. The fuselage, pressurised to 8,2lb/sq in (0,58kgcm(sq)) throughout, has a main deck 5,79m (19ft) wide and 36.91m (121ft, 1in) long, not including the 7.3m (24 ft) of the fullwidth rear ramp door which can be opened in flight for heavy dropping of the largest itmes. Specifically, Lockheed was praised for proposing an upward-lifting visor nose to provide clear access for loading and unloading bulky equipment whereas Boeing and Douglas proposed a more conventional sideways-hinged nose doors and a for its lower bid of $1.9 billion verses 2.3 billion for Boeing and $2 billion by Douglas. Geopolitical considerations, however are like to have been the deciding factor as three equally large contracts were to be awarded in 1965-66 by the US Government. For the MOL (Manned Orbiting Laboratory), Douglas and Lockheed in California competed with Boeing in the State of Washington. For the CX-HLS, the same three companies, but with Georgia Division representing Lockheed, where at odds. Lastly the US SST (Super Sonic Transport) competition pitted Boeing (Washington) against Lockheed (California). The award of the MOL contract to Douglas on the 25th of August, 1965, took care of that company and the state of California while on the first of October 1965, the award of the C-5 contract satisfied Lockheed and the state of Georgia. Boeing and the state of Washington, still unrewarded at the end of 1965, were taken care of with the award of the SST contract on the 31 of December 1966. However, unfortually for Boeing and Douglas and there respective home states, the SST and the MOL contracts were subsequently cancelled, primarily due to the need for the US Government to cut expensive programs to free limited budgetary resources for the prosecution of the war in South East Asia. Conversely, that war made the proceeding with development and production of the C-5 even more urgent. After detailed design had begun, it became apparent that the aircraft would be heavier than originally contemplated and would fail to meet specified payload/range. Accordingly, Lockheed suggested taking advantage of the increases in the TF39 ratings to build a heavier aircraft, but fully meeting performance requirements. That proposal was rejected by the Air Force, and instead, drastic efforts were done to reduce airframe weights in order to remain within contractual performance guarantees later resulted in C5 wing running into structural deficiency problems. General Characteristics Primary Function: Massive strategic airlift. Cargo and troop transport Prime Contractor: LockheedGeorgia Co. Power Plant Manufacturer: Four General Electric TF39-GE-1C turbofan engines. Thrust (each engine): 41,000 pounds (18,450 kilograms), each engine. Wingspan: 222 feet, 9 inches (67.9 meters). Stabilizer Span:68 feet, 9 inches (20.8 meters). Length: 247 feet, 10 inches (75.3 meters). Height at Tail: 65 feet, 1 inch (19.8 meters). Cargo Compartment: Height 13 feet, 6 inches (4.10 meters); width 19 feet (5.76 meters). Speed: 541 mph (Mach 0.72) Service Ceiling: 34,000 feet (10,303 meters) with a 605,000-pound (272,250-kilogram) load. Range: Unlimited with in-flight refueling, 5,940 miles (5,165 nautical miles) empty. Crew: 6 (pilot, co-pilot, two flight engineers, two


Lockheed C-5 Galaxy

loadmasters) Maximum Peacetime Takeoff Weight: 769,000 pounds (346,500 kilograms). Maximum Wartime Takeoff Weight: 840,000 pounds (378,000 kilograms). Takeoff/Landing Distances: 12,200 feet (3,697 meters) takeoff fully loaded; 4,900 feet (1485 meters) land fully loaded. Load: 291,000 pounds (130,950 kilograms) maximum wartime payload. Accommodations: Upper deck seats 73 passengers; forward upper deck seats six, a relief crew of seven, and eight mail or message couriers. The flight deck has work stations for the entire crew. The upper deck's forward and rear compartments have galleys for food preparation and lavatories. Date Deployed: December 1969 (for training); June 1970 (operational); December 1984 (to Reserve). Inventory: Active-force, 70; ANG, 11; Reserve, 28. Unit Cost: C-5A, $163.4 million; C-5B, $167.7 million Sensors: An automatic trouble-shooting system constantly monitors more than 800 test points in the various subsystems of the C-5. The Malfunction Detection Analysis and Recording System uses a digital computer to identify malfunctions in replaceable units. Failure and trend information is recorded on magnetic tape for analysis by maintenance people.

Testing Rolled out at Lockheed's Marietta plant on the 2nd of March 1968, the first C-5 (66-8303) of an intial order of five, was prepared for initial trails at Dobbins AFB. The 94-minute maiden trouble-free flight, with Loe J. Sullivan as pilot and Walter E. Hensleigh as co-pilot, was made from this Goergia base on the 30th of June 1968. Located in Marietta, this airfield is known as Dobbins AFB by the USAF and by the USN as NAS Atlanta. Since early 1951, the runway and other facilities have been shared with Lockheed-Georgia Company. The first phase of manufacturer's flight trials proceeded without major problems (exempt for the loss of a main wheel during a routine landing accident; after the aircraft came to a standstill, the wheel was replaced, with the media having a field day with this event), but in July 0f 1969 full-scale structural ground static tests resulted in a premature wing failure at 84% of the scheduled maximum design load. Nevertheless, while corrective measures were devised, flight tests proceeded in Goergia and in California, where the 2nd C-5A had been delivered to Edwards AFB on the 4th of June 1969, to take part in the 6-month joint air force/contractor Category I testing. Key dates during this phase of the program and follow on Category II and III tests included: 1969 June 15:take off at a gross weight of 345,640kg (762,000lb), a new world record. August 29:first use of in-flight refueling October 2:start of category II testing October 14:take off @ a new record weight of 362,000kg (798,200lb) 1970 May 11: landing on bare soil at Happers Dry Lake at a weight of 213,190kg (470,000lb) http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/c-5.html (4 of 12)2006-09-19 15:26:23

Lockheed C-5 Galaxy

July 2: completion of first 1,000 Hours of flight time August 2: 16.2-hours flight covering 10,780km (6,700 miles) August 16: 20 hr 29 min unrefuelled flight from Edwards AFB, to Seattle, Washington; Bangor, Maine; Atlanta, Georgia; and back to Edwards AFB 1973 May 6: flight of +24,100 km (15,000 miles) during which a low-altitude parachute delivery of cargo, in-flight refueling, and landing on a dry lake bed were made. July 1: completion of C-5A testing. For the most part, Air Force and contractor tests validated the design. Coming in for much praise, the configuration of the aircraft provided for a pressurized main cargo compartment with a length of 36,91m (121ft 6in), a maximum width of 5,79m (19ft), a maximum height of 4.11m (13ft 6in) and a volume of 985,3m3 (34,795 cubic ft) in which to carry up to 120,200kg (265,000lb). Quick and efficient loading and unloading of bulky equipment -- such as main battle tanks, 74-ton mobile scissors bridge, mediumand heavy-lift helicopters, or a double row of vechiles was facilitated by incorporating a visor nose opening and aft door, each fitted with a full-width ramp . Typical heavy loads included two M1 main battle tanks or 24 AH-64 attack helicopters. Although not normally used for troop transports, the C-5 can carry 290 troops on canvas seats on the main deck. Moreover, incorporation of a 'kneedling' landing gear system enabled the cargo floor to be lowered to trunk-bed height at either end. An upper deck compartment located immediately aft of the 5-station cockpit (pilot, co-pilot, and flight engineer with the provision for a navigator and observer/instructor) provided accommodation for a relief crew of seven and eight couriers and included a lavatory and hot-meal galley. An aft upper deck compartment, also fitted with lavatories and a galley, was fitted with 73 aft facing seats for the drivers and operators of the equipment being airlifted or, when operating on routine logistic missions, or for military personal and dependants. Other notable features of the C-5 design validated during the flight test program included: ●

●

●

●

the first use of high-bypass-ratio turbofans (four 182.4kN; [41,000lb] military thrust, General Electric YTF39-GE-1s being fitted for initial trials, and 182.8kN; [41,100lb] military thrust, TF39-GE-1s powering C-5As); an air-refueling receptacle mounted atop the fuselage immediately aft the cockpit (the C-5 becoming the first transport to incorporate this feature in its design); a high-flotation landing gear with four-wheel nose unit and 4 six-wheel main trucks, with two aft trucks slewing to improve crosswind sterring; and installation of a computerised Malfunction Detection, Analyis and Recording (MADAR) system to monitor 800 test points on the ground and in the air.

However, full-scale ground fatigue testing showed early wing cracking; notably, the C-5 wing was found to have a fatigue life of barely 25% of the design goal of 30,000 flying hours and payload had to


Lockheed C-5 Galaxy

be restricted under normal peacetime operations to only 22,680kg (50,000lb) or less than a third of the desgin payload. (Wartime load, however, was never reduced.) Although Lockheed devised a number of corrective measures, the air force lacked funds for their implementation and full resolution of these deficiencies had to await implementation of Pacer Wing modifiaction programmes. As if structual deficiencies and peacetime restictions were not bad enough, the aif force and the manufacture had to contend with alarming programme cost overruns and ensuing sereve critcisms from the media and Congress. These overruns could partially be attritubured to Lockheed - to win the CXHLS competiton it had submitted an overly optimistic bid - and to the Department of Defense. After inviting manufactures to submit bids based on 5 RDT&E aicraft, 53-aircraft production 'Run A' and 57aircraft production 'Run B', the DoD was forced to limit 'Run B' to 23 aircraft to free funds for war operations in South East Asia, thus forcing Lockheed to recover development cost on a smaller production run. Overruns, however, were maimly beyond control of either contractor or customer as during the mid-1960's inflation was pmapant in the US ecomony. Inflation was even greater in the aircraft industry as lack of tooling and a shortage of skilled labour brought about by rapid increase in both military and commercial production forced all manufactures to pay premiums for materials, tools, and staff. 66-8303/8307

67-0167/0174

68-0211/0228

69-0001/0027 70-0445/0467 70-0468 71-0180/0212 72-0099/0112

Lockheed C-5A c/n 500-0001/0005 8303 w/o Oct 17, 1970 in ground fire Lockheed C-5A c/n 500-0006/0013 0172 w/o in ground fire May 25, 1970 Lockheed C-5A c/n 500-0014/0031 0213 converted to C-5C 0216 converted to C-5C 0218 w/o April 4, 1975 near Saigon. 0227 w/o Sept 27, 1974 in ground fire 0228 w/o Aug 29, 1990 at Ramstein Lockheed C-5A c/n 500-0032/0058 Lockheed C-5A c/n 500-0059/0081 Cancelled contract for Lockheed C-5A Galaxy Cancelled contract for Lockheed C-5A Galaxy Cancelled contract for Lockheed C-5A Galaxy

Past Service So pressing were the requirments for heavy lift generated by combat operations in South East Asia and http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/c-5.html (6 of 12)2006-09-19 15:26:23

Lockheed C-5 Galaxy

so urgent was the need to replace obsolete Douglas C-124 and obsolescent C-133s, that, notwithstanding the occurrence of the wing static test failure at a low 84% of its scheduled maximum test load, the C-5A was rushed into service barely 3months after CATII testing had started. Delivered on the 17th of December 1969, to the 443rd Military Airlift Training Wing, at Atlus AFB, the first aircraft was soon joined at this Oklahoma base by others to enable Transitional Training Unit to intiate an accelarated training programme to provide crews for the operational units. Meanwhile, preparations were made at two East Coast and one West Coast Aerial Port of Embarkations (APOEs) for transition of three squadrons from C-141As to C-5As. The first Galaxy (9th off the production line) for these operational squadrons was delivered on the 6th of June 1970, to the 3rd Military Airlift Squadron, 437th Military Airlift Wing, at Charleston AFB. Remaining based at Charlston until the first of August 1973, that squadron was then reassigned to the 436th MAS at Dover AFB so that East Coast C-5A squadrons could be concentrated at the Delaware base. There, Galaxies of the 3rd MAS had bee preceded by those of the 9th MAS, the first of which arrived in April 1971. On the West Coast, the C-5A made its debut with the 60th MAW, at Travis AFB, in California, in October of 1970 when the 75th MAW recieved it's first Galaxy tp proceed with its transition from Starlifters. Outpacing the East Coast squadrons to become the first to achieve IOC (initial operaional capablitlity), the 75th MAS flew its first C-5 mission to Vietnam in April of 1971. Ten Months later, the 60th MAW gained a 2nd Galaxy squadron when the 22nd MAS was reactivated. In 1968, seeking to maximise aircraft utilisation without increasing the number of aircrew and maintenace personal assigned to active duty wings, Military Airlift Command initiated the Reserve Associate Program. Two of the wings organised under this programme - the 349th MAW (Associate) and the 512th MAW (Associate) - added C-5 squadrons in October of 1973. Since then, reservists from these 2 wings have flown and maintained C-5s of the co-located 60th MAW/60th AW and 436th MAW/ 436th AW.

Operation Enhance Plus In Support of last phases of the war in South East Asia, the C-5 was quick to prove its value by airlifting items that would otherwise have to be brought by sea. Notably, when Da Nang was besieged in 1972, Galaxies carried loads totalling 748,400kg (1,650,000lb) in ten flights, remaining on the ground for only 32 minutes to offload tanks and helicopters while engines were kept running. The C-5 also proved vital to the success of Operation Enhance Plus, the final delivery of aircraft and helicopter to the Vietnamese Air Force in anticipation of the signing of the Paris Agreement. with termination of US combat activities in South East Asia in August of 1973, it appeared the Military Airlift Command would be able to operate its C-5A at a more leisurely pace and with restricted loads while a solutions for the wing fatigue life problem were elaborated.

Operation Nickel Glass However, on the 6th of October 1973, egyptian and Syrian forces launched surprise attacks against http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/c-5.html (7 of 12)2006-09-19 15:26:23

Lockheed C-5 Galaxy

Israel, quickly threatening the survival of the Jewish State. Not prepared to let Israel fall, the United States mounted Operation Nickel Glass to airlift urgently needed heavy tanks, artillery, spare parts and ammunition. With its refuelling capability, the C-5A truly came into its own during the Yom Kippur War as Operation Nickel Glass came close to being stillborn due to the unwillingness of European allies to allow MAC transports to be refuelled at their bases. No other US transport aircraft could carry heavy or bulky loads non-stop from bases on the East Coast to bases in Israel. However, with air refuelling and peacetime load limitations dispensed with, the C-5As could fly non-stop from Dover AFB to Tel Aviv, a distance of about 11,945km (6,450nm). In the course of 145 missions between October 14 and November 14, 1973, C-5A airlifted 10,800 tons of supplies to Israel - an average of 74 tons per flight. Few in the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) will deny that this greatly helped turn the tide in their favour by replenishing fast dwindling stocks of ammunition, ECM pods, Shrike anti-radiation missiles and other critically needed parts. The C-5 achievement during Nickel Glass is even more remarkable when seen in the light of contemporary operations by the Voenno-transpotnaya Aviatsiya (then Soviet Transport Aviation) in support of it's Arab allies. Flying 935 missions during a 40-day peroid, V-TA delivered only an estimated 15,000 tons of supplies despite average flight length between Soviet bases and Arab destinations was only 3,150km (1,700nm). Average load per Soviet flight was 16 tons, a paltry figure as the C-5As carried more than 4 times as much and farther. That lesson wasn't lost on the Soviet High Command and led to development of it's Antonov An-124. Slightly larger and heavier than the C-5, that look-alike aircraft first flew on December 26 1982, more than 14 years after the first Gaxaly. Even in aeronautical term matters, imitation remains the keenest form of flattery!.

C-5 Lose's For the public and congressoinal critics, Nickel Glass achievemnet were either little appreciated or soon forgotten while a tragic accident during the final days of the Republic of Vietnam has long haunted memories. Flying the first mission of Operartion Babylift, the evaction of Vietnamese orphans, 68-0218 had its controls damaged after the accidental loss of part of the rear doors shortly after take-off from Tan Son Nhut AB on April 4th, 1975. Attempting to make an emergency landing, the aircraft crashed, killing 155 of the 314 poeple on board. Tragically, many were infants. That crash did much to lend urgency to the need for finally funding means to solve long-known strucural and performance deficiencies.

Pacer Wing During the C-5A initial design, Lockheed had to implement an aggressive weightreduction programme to meet USAF performance requiremnts. The wing weight was reduced by using a higher design stress level and reducing primary component thickness. This higher stress level was not compatible with achieving a 30,000 hour fatigue testing in July 1969.


Lockheed C-5 Galaxy

When C-5As had been in service for several years and the air force average had reached 5,000 hours, a wing teardown inspection on one high-time aircraft revealed structurally significant cracks. As a result average remaining time was then estimated at 2,500 to about 3,000 flying hours, forcing the air force to impose previously noted restrcitions and Lockheed to seek ways to restore C-5A wing fatigue life to the orginal specified level of 30,000 flying hours. Lockheed initially proposed to (1) develop an active aileron system to alleviate gust loads on the wing, (2) incorporate local modifiactions to improve fatigue life, and (3) redistribute fuel within the wing to reduce bending moments. Active ailerons were retrofitted to 77 C-5As in 1975-77. That modifaction wasn't expected to correct the problem fully, so, in December 1975 the air force awarded Lockheed a contract for design engineering on wing modifaction. Engineering and design for the new wing was completed in June 1978 and shortly thereafter the Aerostructures Division of the Avco Corporation in Nashville, Tennesse, received a San Antonio Air Logistics Center's contract to build two new sets of wings. Each set consisted of a new centre wing, two inner wing boxes, and two outer wing box sections manufactured from aluminium alloys that were unavaiable when the orginal sets pf wings were produced in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The first set was used for 42 months of stuctural tests while the 2nd set was fitted to C-5A serail number AF68-0214 for flight trails, starting in August 1980. Successful completion of flight tests and full scale, ground flight-by-flight fatigue and damage tolerance tests permitted all performance and service life restictions to be lifted, and led to the award of a $1.4 billion contract to modify all C-5As, with the Avco-built wing components to be installed by LockheedGeorgia at the Marietta plant. The modifactions programme also included substitution of a colour weather radar for the orginal monchrome set. The first 'production' rewinged aircraft was Af Serail number AF67-0173 was Re-delivered to MAC on 24th of Febuary 1983, and the last returned on the 7th of July 1987 to 436th MAW at Dover AFB.

C-5B With the USAF, as like with most other air forces, procurement funding for less glamorous transport aircraft tends to be neglected and for budgetary reasons top priority is given to acquistion of combat aircraft. Hence, thoughtout Military Airlift Command's 26 years of life, it has suffered from a consistently chronic airlift shortfall and had to seek procurement authorisation for additional aircraft. In the case of the C-5, one such request was denied, but a further one led to the successful procurement of 50 C-5Bs. In 1974, when the last 2 C-5As ordered as part of the 23-aircraft 'Run B' funded under Fiscal Year 1970 budget were being built, the air force consider the feasiblity of restarting production to meet the needs of strategic airlift. In the immediate post South East Asia War period, however funding could not be obtained and Lockheed was instructed to close its production line and to store the tooling in anticipation for what then appeared an unlikely resumption of production. Seven years later, as airlift requirements specified in a Congressionally mandated Mobility Study http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/c-5.html (9 of 12)2006-09-19 15:26:23

Lockheed C-5 Galaxy

directed by the 1981 Department of Defense Authorisation Act called for procurement of additional heavy life aircraft, Lockheed submmitted an unsolicited, fixed-price proposal to produce 50 more Galaxies (then known by the unoffical designation C-5N, N meaning 'new'). That proposal was also motivated by Lockheed's hope to convince DoD not to proceed with development of the still born McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) C-17 (this design proposed by was selected on 28th August 1981) and preventing further Congressional support for procurement of Boeing 747s surplus to airline neededs and them been modified to C-19 military standerds. Finding support within DoD and Congress, the proposal was accepted, with Lockheed authorised in Ocober 1982 to proceed with procurement of long lead time items and receiving a production contract for 50 C-5B at the end of the year. These aircraft, which were to remain externally identical to C-5As were to (1) be built with the same strengthened wing boxes as being retrofitted to C5As, (2) be pwered by slightly more powerful and more easily maintained engines (four 191.2kN, [43,000lb] st, General Eletric TF39-GE-1C turbofans), (3) incorporate tougher aluminium alloys and improved fasters to enhance fracture toughness and corrosion resistance, and (4) be fitted with state-of-the-art avionics and improved MADAR II. In addition, the slewing capability of the aft main-gear trunks was to be removed. Completed in July 1985, the first C-5B (83-1285) flew at Marietta on September 30. As the C-5B was essentially similar to the C-5A, flight trials proceeded swiftly and the first four Galaxies were delivered to the 443rd Military Airlift Wing, Training, at Altus AFB begeinng on 8 January 1986. Initial deliveries to operational units were made late 1986, with the 60th MAW at Travis AFB receiving its first C-5B on 29th August and the 436th MAW, at Dover AFB, getting its first a month later. The last C-5B was delivered to the Dover wing on 17 April 1989. 83-1285 84-0059/0062 85-0001/0010 86-0011/0026 87-0027/0045

Lockheed C-5B c/n 500-0082 Lockheed C-5B c/n 500-0083/0086 Lockheed C-5B c/n 500-0087/0096 Lockheed C-5B c/n 500-0097/0112 Lockheed C-5B c/n 500-0113/0131

Current Service With the availablity of C-5Bs to supplement the existing A models in active duty and associate reserve squadrons, MAC was able to release a number of model As to equip two AFRes squadrons and one ANG squardon. The first reserve Galaxy was delivered on the 1st of December 1984, to the 68th MAS, 433 MAW, at Kelly AFB, Texas; the New York ANG's 137th MAS, 105th MAG, recieved its first C-5A in July 1985; and the 337th MAS, 439th MAW, at Westover AFB, Massachusetts, got its first C-5A in Ocotber 1987. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/c-5.html (10 of 12)2006-09-19 15:26:23

Lockheed C-5 Galaxy

Whether flown and maintained by active duty personal, by reservists with associate units or in unit's possessing their own aircraft or by ANG personal, both C-5Bs and older C-5As, have consistently proved their worth during the past ten years. Notably, they played a vital role in support of Operation Urgent Fury, the intervention in Grenada in October 1983, and of Operation Just Cause, the U.S. military action mounted after the Panamanian Assebbly yielded to General Manual Noriega and declared in December 1989 that Panama and the United States were at war. On a more humane note, Galaxies have also participated actively in US disaster relief operations, weather following natural catastrophes like the earthquakes in Mexico in Spetember 1985 and in Armenia in December 1988 and hurricanes Hugo in September 1989 and Andrew in August 1992, or man-made disaters like the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in August 1986. With their new wings, Galaxies were able to break world avaition records. Notably, during the fourth quarter of 1984, a rewinged C-5A flew at a gross weight of 417,691kg (920,836lb), a still-holding record, after been air refuelled. Four an a half years later, a C-5B set a new air drop record of 86,406kg (190,493lb), the consisting of four Sheridan tanks and 73 paratroopers, during a demonstration at Fort Bragg, North Carolina on the 7th June, 1989. Their greatest achievements, however, came during DESERT SHEILD and DESERT STORM. In August 1990, when, following the invasion of Kuwait, Iraqi forces appeared poised to move on to gain control of oil fields in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, Galaxies proved unmatched in the build-up of Coalition forces in the Saudi Kingdom. Between the beginning of DESERT SHEILD and March 17, 1991, the Galaxies accounted for 22.4% of the 17,341 missions flown by strategic airlifters (C-5s, C-141Bs, KC-10A, and CRAF aircraft) and carried 16.8% of the 550,569 passengers and 41.5% of the 510,789 tonnes (563,048 tons) of the cargo airlifted bythese aircraft.

C-5C A Recent development in the C-5 programme include removal of the upper troop deck from two C-5A (68-0213 and 68-0216) and modification of their rear loading doors to enable loads for the Space Shuttle and Space Station to be airlifted without being dismantled. These two aircraft are assigned to the 60Th Airlift Wing at Travis AFB, now have have been redesignated C-5Cs. (Some unoffical sources claim the modification also enables the C-5C to be used for covert transportation of strange 'shapes' between Lockheed's California plants and the test centre at Groom Lake, Nevada. Obviously, this claim remains 'neither confirmed or deneid' by government or corporate officals and may well be spurious.)

Pacer Snow More important are modifications have been made under the Pacer Snow programme to provide protection agianst infra-red, heat seeking guided missiiles. Tested at Eglin AFB, Florida, and Holloman AFB, New Mexico, by the USAF Special Mission Operations Tests and Evaluation Center (SMOTEC) and intended for eventual retrofit to all Galaxies, the Pacer snow defensive system consists of an AN/ ALE-40 flare dispensers and an AN/AAR-47 missile-warning system. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/c-5.html (11 of 12)2006-09-19 15:26:23

Lockheed C-5 Galaxy

Future Forward In 1993/94, as the C-17 Program ran in to some more trouble, much thought was given to resuming the production line for a third time. And in an attempt to sell it to NATO's european countries, Lockheed discussed with Rolls-Royce powered versions for the European market. With the possiblablity of a Commercail version to keep cost down over a longer running production line. The C-5 will long remain the most productive aircraft in service with Air Mobility Command, with no replacement planned or heard of. Future C-5 crews and crews maintance personal may have yet to be born.

Sources: Galaxy, Mighty Lifter, Rene J Francillon, Air International, Novermber 1994. The Giants of Georgia, Rene J Francillon, Air International, February 1984. The "C" Planes: US Cargo Aircraft 1925-to the Present, Bill Holder and Scott Vadnais, Schiffer Military/ Aviation History, Atglen, PA, 1996. Joe Baugher Ghosts (person/s wishing to remain unknow) Jason Hodgkiss, last updated 24 April 98


Chance Vought F4U Corsair

Chance Vought F4U Corsair XF4U-1 Genesis In February 1938, the US Navy Bureau of Aeronautics published a requests for proposals (RFP) for both a twin-engined and a single-engined fighter. For the single-engined fighter the Navy requested the maximum obtainable speed, and a stalling speed not higher than 113km/h (70mph). A range of 1610km (1000 miles) was specified. The fighter had to carry four guns, or three with increased ammunition. Provision had to be made for anti-aircraft bombs to be carried in the wing. These small bombs would, according to thinking in the 1930s, be dropped on enemy aircraft formations. An unusual element of the RFP was that the Navy vowed to consider designs with liquid-cooled engines, in contradiction with a policy settled in 1927 that required air-cooled engines for shipboard aircraft. From the viewpoint of naval aviators, liquid cooling systems had serious disadvantages: They were heavier, more vulnerable, and more difficult to maintain. But in the late 1930s, there was a growing conviction in international aviation circles, that radial engines presented a too high drag penalty. Liquidcooled engines with their smaller frontal area could be installed in a more streamlined fuselage. Hence the option to accept a fighter built for such an engine, in practice the Allison V-1710. This engine was indeed chosen by Bell for their entry in the competition: The Bell Model 5 Airabonita, virtually a P-39 Airacobra with tailwheel landing gear, a slightly larger wing, and a stronger structure. As in the P-39, the engine was placed amidships, over the wing. The pilot sat in front of the engine, with a long extension shaft passing between his legs to drive the propeller up front. A 23mm Madsen cannon (or a .50 gun) and two .30 guns were installed in the nose, the cannon firing through the hollow propeller hub. There was more choice in radial engines: The older Pratt & Whitney R-1830, and the new the Wright R2600 and Pratt & Whitney R-2800. These air-cooled radial engines had a larger frontal area than the V1710, and thus generated more drag. For the R-2600 and R-2800 this was compensated for by their power: While the V-1710 was hoped to deliver about 1150hp, the R-2800 was expected to generate 2000hp and more, and the R-2600 1500hp. Radial engines were chosen by Brewster, Grumman, Vought and Curtiss. Grumman proposed a development of the F4F Wildcat, that would be powered by the R2600 engine. Brewster, manufacturer of the F2A Buffalo that had been the US Navy's first monoplane fighter, offered designs with the R-2600 or R-2800. Curtiss proposed developments of the P-36 Mohawk, powered by either the R-2600 or the older R-1830 engine. In April 1938, Vought proposed its two designs to the US Navy. One, called V-166A by Vought and "Vought A" by the USN, was powered by the R-1830. The other, the V-166B or "Vought B", was http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4u.html (1 of 16)2006-09-19 15:26:36


designed around the new Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp radial engine. This was an 18-cylinder, two-row air-cooled radial. This engine would later also be installed in the competing Grumman F6F Hellcat and in the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt for the USAAF, but the new Vought fighter was the first to use this engine. The R-2800 later acquired a reputation as a powerful and very reliable engine. But it was also very bulky, and aircraft powered by it tended to be big. In May 1938, the Bureau of Aeronautics evaluated the proposals. The "Vought B" was deemed to be the best one, with a merit figure of 86.4 on a scale from 0 to 100. Hence on 11 June, a contract was given for development of the Vought V-166B, the fighter that would become famous as the F4U Corsair. The evaluation committee also recommended that the "Brewster A" proposal, rated third best, should be developed because of its alternative R-2600 engine. Because of the managament difficulties of Brewster, this never happened. Grumman received a contract to develop to F4F-3 version of the Wildcat, and won the simultaneous competition for a twin-engined fighter with F5F Skyrocket. Their R-2600 engined fighter was rejected, but in June 1941 the Navy would nevertheless order two prototypes of the F6F Hellcat --- which switched to the R-2800 during development. The Navy was also sufficiently intrigued by the Bell proposal to order a prototype, named the XFL-1. But the Bell fighter, ranked sixth of the competitors, was obviously not destined to enter production, and Bell was very reluctant to invest time and money in its development. The history of the Airabonita would be an unhappy one.

Design The engineers of Grumman and Republic both selected to install the R-2800 in a fuselage with an eggshaped cross-section, deeper than was strictly required by the R-2800. This created room for a bath with ducts under the engine. For the P-47, the determining factor was the installation of the turbosupercharger in the aft fuselage, which required air and exhaust ducts in the lower fuselage. The considerations of Grumman may have been similar, because a version of the F6F with a turbosupercharged R-2600 engine was offered to the US Navy. Vought's Chief designer Rex B. Beisel instead opted for a fuselage of circular cross-section, of a diameter matching that of the R-2800. The oil cooler and supercharger air intakes would be installed in the wing leading edges. He also avoided the hump-backed upper fuselage of the Grumman F4F and F6F, that was designed to give the pilot a better forward visibility over the engine. Hence, the forward fuselage was of cylindrical shape. Construction was all-metal, and streamlining was improved further by using a new spot-welding technique that gave a very smooth finish. A very large propeller was required to convert the power of the R-2800 into forward thrust. A threebladed propeller with a diameter of 4.04m was chosen. Sufficient propeller clearance could have been achieved by designing a long and stalky landing gear, or by making the fuselage deeper again, thus moving the wing downwards relative to the engine. Instead, the Vought team adopted an inverted gull http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4u.html (2 of 16)2006-09-19 15:26:36


wing: the wing started with strong anhedral, i.e. a downwards slope toward the wingtips, and then curved upwards to strong dihedral. The landing gear was installed at the lowest point of the bend. Such a construction was not uncommon, though usually associated with fixed landing gear, such as on the German Junkers Ju 87 "Stuka" dive bomber. Inevitably, the weight of such a construction is higher than that of a straight wing. But apart from keeping the landing gear short and simple, it offered the advantage that the joint between wing and fuselage was made at the ideal angle. In that way a wing root fairing could be avoided. The entire construction contributed to the purposeful ugliness of the design, but it was efficient. The wing had integral leading edge fuel tanks, which were unprotected. For storage aboard carriers, the wing folded upward outboard of the main landing gear legs. The wheels folded backwards, turning through 90 degrees while retracting, so that they were stored flat within the wing. The entire trailing edge inboard of the ailerons was provided with flaps. The outer wing panels were covered with fabric aft of the wing spar. The pilot sat in a large cockpit over the wing trailing edge. The view straight forward over the engine cowling was poor, even more so than common in single-seat fighters of the day. View too the sides was reasonable, although the cockpit canopy was heavily framed. No concessions were made to rearward view, the aft of the cockpit being faired into a gentyly sloping fuselage decking. The tailplanes and fins had rounded tips, and the control surfaces were fabric covered. Armament consisted of one .50 gun in each wing, and a .50 and a .30 in the engine cowl decking. There was also room for 20 small anti-aircraft bombs, stored in the wings.

Testing In June 1938 the USN signed a contract for a prototype, the XF4U-1, BuNo 1443. After mock-up inspection in February 1939 construction of the XF4U-1 went ahead quickly. First flight of the XF4U-1 was made on 29 May 1940, by Lyman A. Bullard Jr. The XF4U-1 was powered by a XR-2800-4 engine, rated at 1805hp. The first flight was not uneventful. A hurried landing was made when the elevator trim tabs failed because of flutter. Early testing encountered a serious setback when project pilot Boone T. Guyton ran out of fuel during the fifth test flight and made an emergency landing on a golf course. The XF4U-1 was badly damaged, but not beyond repair, and Chance Vought rebuilt it. On 1 October the XF4U-1 made a flight for Stratford to Hartford with an average ground speed of 650km/h (404mph). It was then the first US fighter to fly faster than 400mph. The XF4U-1 also had an excellent rate of climb. On the other hand, the testing of the XF4U-1 revealed that some of the http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4u.html (3 of 16)2006-09-19 15:26:36


requirements of the US Navy would have to be rewritten. In full-power dive tests speeds of up to 885km/ h were achieved, but not without damage to the control surfaces and access panels, and in one case, an engine failure. The spin recovery standards also had to be relaxed, as recovery from the required ten-turn spin proved impossible without recourse to an anti-spin chute. Much time was spent trying to improve the handling of the XF4U-1. Numerous changes were made to the ailerons, with success, as these were later known to be very effective. However, the low-speed handling characteristics left much to be desired. The F4U had a troubling tendency to drop a wing when it stalled. And this was a critical factor for a shipboard fighter, which would have to make dangerous deck landings.

F4U-1 Changes At the end of June 1941 the US Navy ordered 584 F4U-1 fighters. The first of these would appear a year later, in June 1942. At that time Brewster and Goodyear were already tooling up to join the Corsair production program. For the production F4U, the US Navy required some changes, which were logical in itself but had unfortunate side effects. More armour was carried for the pilot and oil tank, which added 68kg to the weight. The armament was changed to six .50 machine guns, three in each wing. The wing bomb bays were deleted. This increase in firepower was needed, but the wing guns displaced the leading edge fuel tanks. To restore an adequate fuel capacity, an additional fuel tank had to be installed in the fuselage. Because it had to be near the center of gravity, there was no other option than moving the cockpit to the rear. The 897 liter self-sealing fuel tank pushed to cockpit 0.91 meter closer to the tail. Forward view over the engine cowling, already poor in the prototype, was now decidedly bad. This was especially a problem during take-off and landing, because the F4U, like most fighters of its generation, was a taildragger. On the other hand, rearward vision was improved a bit by making cutouts in the rear fuselage decking. Vision to the sides and downwards was excellent. The ailerons were enlarged, the cockpit canopy was made jettisonable, an IFF transponder was fitted, and the tailwheel design changed. The engine of production aircraft was the R-2800-8, rated for 2000hp at an rpm of 2700 for take-off. It had a mechanical two-stage, two-speed supercharger. When all changes were incorporated, the gross weight had increased considerably. The XF4U-1 had weighed 4244kg, but the F4U-1 5758kg. The performance of the F4U was impressive. Below is a comparison with the two other fighters which were powered by the R-2800. The F4U was considerably faster than the competing F6F Hellcat. It was http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4u.html (4 of 16)2006-09-19 15:26:36


slower than the P-47 Thunderbolt, but the latter achieved it highest speed at 9150m, with the help of a turbocharger. The F4U had a mechanically supercharged engine. Vought F4U-1 Corsair

Republic P-47D-1-RE Thunderbolt

Pratt & Whitney R-2800-10 2000hp


Wing Span 12.49m

13.08m

12.43m

Wing Area 29.17m2

31.03m2

Engine


Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat

Length

9.99m

10.17m

11.00m

Height

4.58m

4.40m

4.35m

Empty

4025kg

4101kg

4485kg

Loaded

5388kg

5528kg

6116kg

Max

6280kg

5997kg

6795kg

Speed

631km/h at 7315m 515km/h at S/L


676km/h at 9150m

Climb

3050m in 5.1min 6100m in 10.7min

4575m in 6.0min 7620m in 11.3min

4575m in 7.2min 6100m in 11min 9150m in 20min

Ceiling

11310m

10820m

12800m

Range

1722km

1746km

1344km

Weights:

Four .50 M2 with 400 rpg Armament Two .50 M2 with 375 rpg Six .50 M2 with 400 rpg Eight .50 M2 with 300 rpg Two 454kg bombs

The Ensign Eliminator The first production F4U-1 made its first flight on 25 June 1942. The USN received its first aircraft on 31 July. Overall handling of the F4U-1 was acceptable, but not very good. In level flight the Corsair was stable enough to be flown hands-off. The ailerons were light and effective, and the high roll rate was used with good effect in combat with the A6M, which suffered from bad aileron response at high speeds. The http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4u.html (5 of 16)2006-09-19 15:26:36


elevators were heavy, but effective. Only the rudder really stiffened with increasing speed. For combat maneuvering, the flaps could be deployed 20 degrees. After the first delivery of an F4U-1 on 31 July 1942, more than two years passed before the US Navy cleared the type for shipboard operations. The Corsair was found to be much too difficult to land on a carrier deck. First of all, the pilot could hardly see the deck, because he sat so far aft of the bulky engine. The F4U tended to stall without warning, and was then certain to drop the starboard wing. Quick action had to be taken to prevent a spin. Spin recovery was difficult. In landing configuration, the F4U-1 would stall at 141km/h. A warning light would light at 148km/h. On touchdown, the F4U-1 had sluggish controls and insufficient directional stability. It also was prone to "bounce" because of overly stiff landing gear oleo legs. These characteristics had already been there on the XF4U-1, and if anything they were worse on the production type. Carrier qualification trials on the escort carrier USS Sangamon Bay, on 25 September 1942, caused the US Navy to release the type to the US Marine Corps. After all, the US Navy still had the Grumman F6F Hellcat, which did not have the performance of the F4U but was a far better deck landing aircraft. The Marines needed a better fighter than the F4F Wildcat. For them it was important that the F4U could be put on a carrier, but they usually flew from land bases.

Marines During the Pacific war, the strategy of "island hopping" turned islands into forward operating bases for the aircraft of the US Marine Corps, the US Navy and the Army Air Force. Essential to this strategy was that no attempt was made to conquer all Japanese strongholds in the Pacific. Instead, they were neutralized by attacks, cut off from the main Japanese forces, and left behind. The islands from which the advanced units operated were often very small. If they were larger, they were often covered with a dense jungle, and only a small part of the island was used by the combattants. The climate was often unhealthy, both for people and aircraft, and standards of living were primitive. Missions often involved long overwater flights. The island group of the Eastern Solomons, for example, extends over more than 1000km. The first USMC unit to equip with the F4U was VMF-124, which was declared operational on 28 December 1942. VMF-124 was quickly deployed to Guadalcanal, where it flew its first combat mission, also the first of the F4U, on 11 February 1943. Fighting over Guadalcanal was intense. The first air-toair combat took place on the 14th, when a mixed force of P-38s, P-40s, PB4Ys and F4Us lost ten aircraft to the Japanese, and claimed four A6M "Zero" fighters. As on this first mission, the aircraft involved in an operation were often of different types, belonged to different services, and belonged to different bases. The coordination between them was not always what http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4u.html (6 of 16)2006-09-19 15:26:36


it should have been. Within six months, all USMC units in the Pacific were equipped with the F4U. The production was extremely rapid, and by August 1934 a thousand aircraft had been delivered. Final production of the F4U-1 was 5559, including the 2010 FG-1s built by Goodyear and 735 F3A-1s built by Brewster.

Commonwealth Corsairs The Royal Navy received 95 Corsair Mk.Is and 510 Mk.IIs, these being equivalent to the F4U-1 and F4U-1A or D. Goodyear-built aircraft were known as Mk.IIIs, and Brewster-built aircraft as Mk.IVs. British Corsairs had their wing tips clipped, 20cm being removed at the tips, to allow storage of the F4U on the lower decks of British carriers. The Royal Navy was the first to clear the F4U for carrier operations. It proved that the Corsair Mk.II could be operated with reasonable success even from small escort carriers. It was not without problems, one being excessive wear of the arrester wires due to the weight of the Corsair and the understandable tendency of the pilots to stay well above the stalling speed. Fleet Air Arm units where created and equipped in the US, at Quonset Point or Brunswick, and then shipped to war theatres on board of escort carriers. The first Corsair unit of the FAA was No 1830 Sqdn, created on the first of June 1943, and soon operating from HMS Ilustrious. At the end of the war, 19 FAA squadrons operated with the F4U. British Corsairs operated both in Europe and in the Pacific. The first, and also most important European operations were the series of attacks in April, July and August 1944 on the German battleship Tirpitz, for which Corsairs provided top cover. In the Pacific the FAA Corsair also began to operate in April 1944, participating in an attack on Sabang, and later in the attack on oil refineries at Pelambang. In July and August 1945, the Corsair squadrons No 1834 , No 1836 and No 1842 took part in a series of strikes on the Japanese mainland, near Tokyo. They operated from the carriers MHS Victorious and HMS Formidable. The other major user of the Corsair was New Zealand. It received over 425 F4U-1A and F4U-1D models. In late 1944 the F4U equipped all twelve Pacific-based fighter units of the RNZAF. The first squadrons to use the Corsair were Nos 20 and 21, on Esperitu Santo island, operational in May 1944. In the RNZAF Corsair units, only the pilots and a small staff belonged to the squadron; aircraft and maintenance crew were grouped in a pool. The RNZAF Corsair mainly flew close-support missions, and as a consequence did not claim a single enemy aircraft shot down. At the end of 1945, all Corsair squadrons but one (No 14) were disbanded. That last squadron was based in Japan, until the Corsair was retired from service in 1947.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4u.html (7 of 16)2006-09-19 15:26:36


Development Soon after production began, wing leading edge tanks of 235 liter were again installed outside of the gun bays. Later provisions were made for the carriage of external fuel tanks, first on the centreline, then on the starboard wing and finally on both wings. At that stage, the wing leading edge tanks, which were not self-sealing, were eliminated again. The cowling gills on top of the fuselage were soon fixed in the closed position, to avoid the deposition of oil on the windscreen. For similar reasons, the joints of the fuselage fuel tank in front of the cockpit were often covered with sealing tape. To cure the tendency to drop a wing, a small spoiler was installed on the starboard wing. From the 759th aircraft onwards, the framed canopy of the F4U-1 was quickly replaced by a much neater plexiglass "bulb" with small frames. The raising of the seat by 18cm slightly improved the view over the nose, and the new type also offered some rearward vision. Later this modification was associated with a change of designation to F4U-1A, which was not used at the time. An important change, from the 1550th aircraft, was the installation of the -8W engine with water injection, which allowed higher emergency power to be used at low altitude. The F4U-1B designation seems to have been used for the F4U-1As delivered to Britain. The F4U-1C had four 20mm cannon instead of the six .50s. These guns were the British Hispano Mk.II cannon, known in the USA as the Hispano M2. These weapons protuded far from the leading edge. Production of this version remained limited to 200. They entered combat in April 1945. In early 1944, bomb racks for the F4U-1 were developed by personnel of VMF-222 and VF-17. The modification was rapidly applied by other squadrons. The F4U-1D was a factory-built fighter-bomber model, powered by a R-2800-8W engine with water injection. The F4U-1D had three pylons, one on the centreline and two on the wings. Later small stubs on the outer wing panels, to carry rockets, were added. Also in early 1944, longer oleos were installed in the main landing gear legs. They cured much of the tendency of the Corsair to "bounce". A longer tailwheel leg raised the fin, and reduced the directional stability problem. These improvements were essential in making the Corsair suitable for carrier operations, and in April 1944 the Corsair was finally qualified for carrier operations. An F4U-1 with a special mount in the rear fuselage for a K-21 camera was known as F4U-1P. The F4U1P was used mainly to assess the results of air strikes. No F4U-1Ps were produced by the factories, they http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4u.html (8 of 16)2006-09-19 15:26:36


were all modified in the field by USMC or USN units.

US Navy Despite the decision to issue the F4U to Marine Corps units, VF-12 (October 1942) and later VF-17 (April 1943) were equipped with the F4U. By April 1943 VF-12 had succesfully completed deck landing qualification. However, VF-12 soon abandoned its aircraft to the USMC, while VF-17 operated as a shore-based unit in New Georgia. In November 1943 the land-based VF-17 ran out of fuel while giving top cover to the carriers USS Essex and USS Bunker Hill. The aircraft then landed on the carriers, without incidents. The US Navy finally accepted the F4U for shipboard operations in April 1944, after the longer oleo leg was fitted, which finally eliminated the tendency to bounce. The first Corsair unit to be based effectively on a carrier was the pioneer USMC squadron, VMF-124, which joined the USS Essex. They were accompanied by VMF-213. The increasing need for fighters, as a protection against Kamikaze attacks, resulted in more Corsair units being moved to the carriers. The Navy squadrons VF-12, VF-17 and VF-301 also soon operated from carriers.

F4U-2 The F4U-2 was a nightfighter development of the F4U-1. Standard nightfighter radars of WWII were too large, heavy and complicated to be installed in single-engined, single-seat fighters. But the availability of a small radar with a limited capacity made it possible to develop a nightfighter which would provide a degree of air cover during night operations. Because Vought was already overloaded with work, the development of the F4U-2 was undertaken by the Naval Aircraft Factory. In the end, only 34 were converted. Two of these were made by VMF(N)-532, and these were the only ones converted from F4U-1As. The original radar was the AIA installation, developed from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under Project Roger. It had a range of 6km against aircraft. For single-seat fighters a easy-to-use scope had to be developed. This took the form of a small circular scope on the instrument panel that showed two blips for the target. The first blip indicated the direction and distance of the target, and the position of the second blip relative to the first one was an indication of the relative height of the target. The small radar radome was added on the starboard wing, on the wing leading edge close to the wing http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4u.html (9 of 16)2006-09-19 15:26:36


tip. To compensate for the weight one of the wing guns was removed, and ammunition reduced. As the F4U-2 was intended for night operations, flame dampers were fitted to the exhaust stacks. A radio altimeter and an autopilot were also installed. The F4U-2 equipped VMF(N)-532, VF(N)-75 and VF(N)-101. Early operations of VF(N)-75 in New Georgia revealed considerable problems with the operating procedures, but on the night of 1 November Lt. O'Neill shot down a G4M bomber. The tactics finally developed let the F4U-2 climb towards its target from astern. This also helped to decelerate the fighter enough, to prevent it from overshooting its target. VF(N)-101 was created by splitting of part of VF(N)-75. It was the first carrier-based nightfighter unit of the USN. This was in January 1944, and made the unit the first carrier-based Corsair squadron. A limited number of night operations was flown, because of reluctance to take the risk. Nevertheless, no accidents occured, which helped to clear the Corsair for carrier operations. Nevertheless, the Navy preferred to develop a nightfighter version of the F6F Hellcat, which was easier to fly and to deck-land. For night operations those were important advantages, and the Hellcat became the standard single-seat nightfighter.

XF4U-3 The F4U-3 was a proposed version of the Corsair with a turbosupercharged XR-2800-16 engine. The 1009A turbosupercharger was expected to maintain the full engine power of 2000hp up to 12200m (40000ft). A large duct under the fuselage housed the turbosupercharger. The first XF4U-3 flew on 22 April 1944. After the three XF4U-3s, only a single Goodyear-built FG-1A was converted to FG-3, before the programme was cancelled. Twelve more FG-3s were completed, but were used only for development work.

F2G Goodyear did undertake part of the production of the F4U, under the designation FG. Hence it developed, late in the war, a version of the Corsair powered by the Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major. It was based on the F4U-1D, and intended as a low-altitude interceptor. Such aircraft were required to defend the fleet against Kamikaze attacks.



The early R-4360-4 engine was rated at 3000hp. Because of the greater length of the four-row R-4360 radial, the engine cowling of the F2G was elongated. Together with the air intakes behind the engine cowling, on top of the fuselage, this was an easy recognition feature. The tail surfaces were enlarged, and more fuel capacity wa installed. Goodyear also fitted an all-round vision bubble cockpit on the F2G. This had first been tried on a FG-1A. It was a significant improvement, that for some reason was not adapted by later models of the Corsair. The first models were land-based F2G-1s, but they were later followed by F2G-2 carrier fighters with hydraulic wing folding. Production of the F2G ended after eight prototypes, five F2G-1s and five F2G-2s were completed. The original order for 418 F2G-1s was cancelled, because the end of the war removed any need for the F2G. Climb was excellent, 9150m could be reached in 4 minutes. Maximum speed on the other hand was rather disappointing, 32km/h (20mph) down from the expected 724km/h (450mph). The F4U-5, with its uprated R-2800 engine, was faster than the F2G. The F2G also suffered from lateral control problems.

F4U-4 The first F4U-4 was delivered to the US Navy on 31 October 1944. The F4U-4 was powered by C-series Double Wasp engine. The installed model was the R-2800-18W, later replaced by the R-2800-42W. It had a war emergency power of 2760hp. A four-bladed propeller replaced the three-bladed one of the F4U-1. A chin scoop was added to the underside of the engine cowling. The F4U-4 could reach a speed of 726km/h. During the F4U-4 production, the cockpit was redesigned again. It now incorporated a flat, bullet-proof windscreen, a revised canopy, an armoured seat, and an improved instrument panel. Production included 2050 F4U-4s with six .50 guns, 297 F4U-4Bs or F4U-4Cs with four 20mm cannon, a single F4U-4N nightfighter conversion and nine F4U- 4P reconnaissance modifications. The last one was delivered in August 1947. Plans to produce the F4U-4 by Goodyear as the FG-4 were abandoned. The F4U-4 arrived late in WWII, and served only during the last four months of the conflict. The war of the F4U-4 was the Korean war. Here the type served mainly as a fighter-bomber, but nevertheless one pilot, Capt. J. Folmar of VMA-312, was credited with shooting down a MiG-15.

F4U-5 http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4u.html (11 of 16)2006-09-19 15:26:36


The first post-war model, the F4U-5, was basically similar to the F4U-4. The air scoop under the engine cowling was removed, and replaced by two small scoops incorporated in the lower side of the cowling. Also, the outer wing panels were now fully covered with metal. The armament consisted of four 20mm cannon, as in the F4U-4B. The engine was the 2675hp R-2800-32W, with a variable-speed two-stage supercharger. The engine installation introduced a lowering of the thrustline by 2.75 degrees, which improved stability and forward view. The first XF4U-5 flew on 4 April 1946. There was also a nightfighter version, the F4U-5N. The radar was again, as in the F4U-2, installed on the outer starboard wing. The radome was different in shape, however, betraying the presence of the improved AN/APS-6 and later AN/APS-19A radar set. The AN/APS-6 radar had a range of 8km against aircraft, and 37km against ships. Production included 223 F4U-5s, 214 F4U-5Ns, and 30 F4U-5P reconnaissance models. In addition 101 winterized F4U-5NLs were built, with de-icing booths for service in the bitter winters of Korea. Production continued until October 1951. In the late 1950s the US delivered a small number of F4U-5s and F4U-5Ns to the Argentine Navy.

AU-1 The AU-1 was a dedicated low-level attack version of the F4U. The XAU-1 was created by converting a F4U-5NL, and initially the contracts called it the F4U-6. It was powered by a R-2800-83WA with a single-stage supercharger and water injection, that delivered 2800hp at sea level. The air scoops were aggain removed from the engine cowling. The AU-1 was given more armour for the pilot and the engine. Four 20mm cannon with 231 rounds each were installed in the wings. The number of outer wing racks was increased from eight to ten. Performance had, of course, decreased. The handling had suffered even more, and the AU-1 was unpleasant to fly. Only 111 were built between February and October 1952.

F4U-7



The F4U-7 was developed for France. It was based on the F4U-4B. The cockpit was again slightly redesigned, with a small upward extension of the rear fuselage decking. Thus the pilot could be seated even higher. The engine was the R-2800-18W. The French received 94 F4U-7s. The last one completed, on 31 January 1953, was also the last Corsair built. In addition, the French acquried a few AU-1s used previously by the USMC. French Corsairs fought in Indochina, Algeria, and the Suez conflict. The last were retired in 1964.

Evaluation How can the Corsair be evaluated? Its standing as a major combat aircraft of World War II can not be denied. But its merits, or lack thereof, have always been controversial. The Corsair was fast, sturdy, powerful, well-armed, and versatile. Its handling qualities were widely criticized, but an experience pilot who knew the strong points of the aircraft could outmanoeuvre fighters that were praised for their handling and maneuvrability. The most unfortunate feature of the design was the cockpit, which in early versions presented a very poor view for fighting as well as normal operations. Continuous modifications moved the pilot upwards, removed canopy frames and created an acceptable forward view. One wonders why Vought never adopted the Goodyear-designed bubble cockpit, even if it would have had a drag penalty. The F4U is often said to have been the most successful fighter of WWII. This is based on a claimed 11 to 1 kill ratio: 2140 enemy aircraft shot down for a loss of 189. But as a measure of effectiveness, this is not very reliable. Kill claims are almost invariably too high: Repeated firing on the same aircraft, the confusion of a fast-moving battle, overestimation of damage done to the enemy, and over-confidence of the pilots usually produce estimates which are at least a factor two too high. Also, the opponents encountered by the Corsair squadrons in the Pacific were of greatly varying quality. Most of them indeed flew aircraft to the F4U, but the A6M "Zeke" was inferior to all US fighters of the end of WWII. Finally, to these 189 lost in air-to-air combat one should add the 349 shot down by anti-aircraft fire, the 164 that crashed on landing, and the 992 that were lost for other reasons, including training accidents. The large number of aircraft lost to anti-aircraft fire reflects the use of the Corsair as a fighter-bomber. In this role it excelled, and its use continued into the Korean war. In one respect the F4U must be considered a partial failure: More than two years passed before the Corsair became an acceptable deck-landing aircraft. Of the 64051 combat missions flown by the type in World War II, 54470 were flown from land bases. If Grumman had not hastily produced the F6F Hellcat, the US Navy could have been in serious trouble. Clearly the Hellcat and Corsair represented different design philosophies: The Hellcat sacrificed performance to simplify production and to make it a better deck-landing aircraft, but the Corsair did not. The Grumman team also produced a fighter that was almost right from the start, apart from the engine change in the early stages of development. Far http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4u.html (13 of 16)2006-09-19 15:26:36


more time and effort were required to realize the potential of the Vought fighter, and by the time it was fully developed the war was almost over. Production of the Corsair ended after 12571 had been built, which 4017 by Goodyear and 735 by Brewster. For comparison: Grumman built 12275 Hellcats, and Republic completed 15683 Thunderbolts. One must take into account that production of the F4U continued after the war, and that of the F6F and P-47 did not. The actual production rate of Vought was lower than that of its competitors, but it was still impressive. Vought F4U-1 Corsair Engine


Wing Span 12.49m

Vought F4U-5 Corsair

Goodyear F2G-2

Pratt & Whitney R-2800-32W 2850hp


12.49m

12.50m

Wing Area

29.17m2

29.17m2

29.17m2

Length

9.99m

10.53mm

10.29m

Height

4.58m

4.49m

4.90m

Empty

4025kg

4490kg

4649kg

Loaded

5388kg

?

6054kg

Max

6280kg

6840kg

?

Speed


756km/h at 8170m 694km/h at 5000m 649km/h at S/L 642km/h at S/L

Climb

3050m in 5.1min 6100m in 10.7min

?

9150m in 4min

Ceiling

11310m

13400m

?

Range

1722km

?

1915km

Weight

Four .50 M2 with 400 rpg Armament Two .50 M2 with 375rpg Four 20mm cannon ? Two 454kg bombs

Sources


Chance Vought F4U Corsair ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Wings of the Navy Captain Eric M. Brown, edited by William Green and Gordon Swanbrough Pilot Press / Jane's, 1980 ISBN 0-7106-0002-X F4U Corsair in Action Jim Sullivan Squadron/Signal Publications (Aircraft No.29), 1977. The Complete Book of Fighters William Green and Gordon Swanborough Salamander Books, 1994 ISBN 0-86101-643-2 Thunderbolt -- A documentary history of the Republic P-47 Roger A. Freeman Arms And Armour Press, 1978, 1992 ISBN 1-85409-171-9 Nightfighter -- A Concise History of Nightfighting Since 1914 Anthony Robinson Ian Allan Ltd., 1988 ISBN 0-7110-1757-3 The Illustrated Direcory of Fighting Aircraft of World War II Bill Gunston Salamander Books, 1988 ISBN 0-86101-390-5 Sea, Sky and Stars -- An Illustrated History of Grumman Aircraft Michael J. Hardy Arms And Armour Press, 1987 ISBN 0-85368-832-X The Ironworks -- Grumman's Fighting Aeroplanes Terry Treadwell Airlife, 1990 ISBN 1-85310-070-6 "Bernard Vurpillot et le Corsair" Bernard Lestrade Le Fana de l'Aviation, Mai 1994 Editions Lariviere Gregory "Pappy" Boyington -- Legende et Realite Bernard Baeza Le Fana de l'Aviation, Avril/Mai/Juin 1995 Editions Lariviere Victory in the Air Aeroplane Monthly, VE-day 50th Anniversary edition IPC Magazines Ltd, 1995. Airplane Nr.162



●

●

DeAgostini (Netherlands), 1996. US Navy and Marine Corps Fighters (WW2 Aircraft Fact Files) Willand Green and Gordon Swanborough Macdonald and Jane's, 1976. Les Avions de Combat de l'US Navy de la deuxieme geurre mondiale. Le Fana de L'Aviation, Hors Serie. Editions Lariviere, 1997.



Wright F3W-1 Apache

Wright F3W-1 Apache Development The Wright F3W-1 Apache was the first and only fighter designed for the US Navy by the aircraft division of the Wright Aeronautical Corporation. The two earlier designations in the US Navy series, FW and F2W, were applied to the racing aircraft of Wright. The FW was probably the paper designation for the NW racing seaplane. The F2W was a single-seat biplane racing seaplane with a 70 hp Wright T-3 and was produced in 1925. A total of two F2Ws (A-6743 and A-6744) were produced and they were later redesignated XF2W-1. Under a US Navy contract, a single prototype was designed to operate from battleships as a seaplane or from the deck of an aircraft carrier with a wheel undercarriage. The F3W-1, as the prototype was first known, was named Apache by Wright. The F3W-1 was a single-bay, equi-span, biplane of mixed construction and had a steel-tube fuselage and tail unit. The F3W-1 had wooden wings that were fabric covered. As a seaplane, the Apache had a large single-float under the fuselage and one stabilising float under each wingtip. As the airframe of the F3W-1 was ready before the experimental Wright R-1300 (P-1) Simoon ninecylinder air-cooled radial engine of 325 hp, the F3W-1 initially flew, in early 1936, with the 200 hp Wright R-760 Whirlwind engine. After the R-1300 (P-1) Simoon was installed, which was developed when the US Navy stated that it favored radial engines over in-line liquid-cooled engines, there were persistent difficulties with this engine and it was soon replaced by the Pratt & Whitney R-1340B Wasp. With the R-1340B Wasp, the F3W-1 made its first flight on 5 May 1926. The F3W-1 was tested by the US Navy in both a float and wheel configuration. There is no record that any armament was ever fitted to the Apache. The F3W-1 was redesignated XF3W-1 and used in the 1930s as an engine test-bed for the R-1340B Wasp engine, both with and without a supercharger. The Wright Aeronautical Corporation, which built the F3W-1 Apache, was primarily a powerplant manufacturer. The speed and climb of the F3W-1 proved so outstanding, due to the part of the small size and weight of the aircraft, that the US Navy decided to use the Apache as an engine testbed for the Pratt & Whitney R-1340B Wasp engine that had been intended as a competitor to the R-1300 (P-1) Simoon. In this form, the F3W-1 archieved its greatest successes.

Record Breaking During the trails with the Pratt & Whitnmey R-1340B Wasp engine, the Apache first exceeded by nearly 914 m the previuos seaplane height record set by a French 515 hp Loire-Gourdou-Leseurre seaplane,

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f3w1.html (1 of 3)2006-09-19 15:26:50

Wright F3W-1 Apache

archieving an average of rate of climb of 425 meters per minute. In both configurations, seaplane and landplane, a series of altitude records were set by the XF3W-1, which aided by the supercharger on the Wasp engine, eventually reached 11,753 m as a seaplane and 13,157 m as a landplane. For the later record breaking altitude flights, the wingspan of the upper wing was increased. The records attained by the XF3W-1 are displayed in the two tables below.

Seaplane Records for Height Date

Pilot

Place

Record

5 May 1927

Lt. C.C. Champion

Hampson Roads

10,197 m

4 July 1927

Lt. C.C. Champion

Anacostia

11,581 m

4 June 1928

Lt. C.C. Champion

Anacostia

11,753 m

Landplane Records for Height Date

Pilot

Place

Record

25 July 1927

Lt. C.C. Champion

Anacostia

11,710 m

8 May 1929

Lt. Apollo Soucek

Anacostia

11,930 m

4 June 1930

Lt. Apollo Soucek

Anacostia

13,157 m

Serial of the Wright F3W-1 Apache A-7223

Wright F3W-1 Apache Redesignated XF3W-1

Specification of the Wright F3W-1 Apache Type: Single-seat shipboard biplane fighter. Powerplant: One 425 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1340B Wasp nine-cylinder radial piston engine. Fuel capacity:


Wright F3W-1 Apache

Internal fuel capacity: 178 litres. Performance: Maximum speed: 261 km/h at sea level. Service ceiling: 10,180 m. Landing speed: 87 km/h. Dimensions: Wingspan: 8.33 m. Length: 6.73 m. Height: 2.59 m. Wing area: 19.97 m2. Weights: Empty weight: 641 kg. Take-off weight: 965 kg.

Sources ●

●

●

●

●

Jane's Pocket Book 15 - Record-Breaking Aircraft, John W.R. Taylor, Macdonald and Jane's Publishers Limited, 1978. The American Fighter - The Definitive Guide to American Fighter Aircraft from 1917 to the Present, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Aerospace, 1987. The Complete Book of Fighters - An illustrated encyclopedia of every fighter aircraft ever built and flown, William Green and Gordon Swanborough, Salamander Books Limited, 1994. United States Navy Aircraft since 1911, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Putman Aeronautical Books, 1990. U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials - 1909 to 1979, John M. Andrade, Midland Counties Publications, 1997.



http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/x-6i.html

1. The Decay of the Atomic Powered Aircraft Program 1. Technology 2. Politics 3. Conclusion 4. Endnotes 5. Bibliography 6. Appendix

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/x-6i.html2006-09-19 15:27:01

The Atomic Powered Aircraft Program

The Decay of the Atomic Powered Aircraft Program Interest in atomic energy hit full force following World War II. The scientists who had raced to produce a bomb had also developed theories for a number of possible uses for the atom. Martin Mann lists a number of them in his book, Peacetime Uses of Atomic Energy. Ideas ranged from power generation, to nuclear excavation, to nuclear propulsion for vehicles on land, sea, and in the air. There were proposals for nuclear ships, nuclear locomotives, nuclear automobiles, and nuclear aircraft. It is this last proposal that is the topic for this paper, which will examine the technical and socio-political aspects of the United States Air Force's Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program and associated programs, including the reasons the ANP program was undertaken, and the reasons it was canceled after a decade of work.

Technology The principles behind using atomic energy for the propulsion of aircraft were developed early in the atomic age. As early as 1942 Enrico Fermi and his associates involved with the Manhattan District Project discussed the use of atomic power to propel aircraft.[1] It was in 1946 that a study by John Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory delineated the potentials and problems of using atomic power for aircraft propulsion. Chief amongst the problems at the time was the lack of data on the effects of radiation on materials which would be used in a design.[2] Some of the other basic problems were the possible release of radioactive fission products or isotopes during normal operation or due to any accident, shielding the crew and persons on the ground from radiation, and the selection of test sites and ranges. There was the potential for the release of radioactive materials to the atmosphere and the problems of direct radiation during operational use.[3] The requirements for an operational nuclear aircraft were that, even under the most adverse conditions, the aircraft did not add materially to the general background atmospheric radioactivity and that while in use the aircraft restricted all harmful radiation to within the craft or a predesignated exclusion area.[4] In 1946 the interest in atomic aircraft developed into a long-lived project know as NEPA, for Nuclear energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft.[5] The NEPA project, which started in May, was controlled by the United States Air Force (USAF) and was therefore oriented towards developing both an atomicpowered long-range strategic bomber and high-performance aircraft. Nuclear power showed promise in both fields because of its dual nature of long-lasting fuel supply and the high temperatures theoretically possible using a reactor. However, in a paper in 1957 Kelly Johnson and F. A. Cleveland, both of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, wrote, "It appears that the strategic bomber, by requiring both high speed and great endurance and because of the inherent low-altitude potential advantages over similar chemical airplanes, will be the first candidate for a nuclear power plant."[6] The NEPA contract was with the Fairchild Engine & Airframe Co., and the work was conducted at Oak

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/x-6.html (1 of 16)2006-09-19 15:27:08


Ridge. By the end of 1948 the USAF had invested approximately ten million dollars in the program.[7] Extensive studies were conducted under NEPA from 1946 until 1951, at which time it was replaced by the joint Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) / USAF ANP program. The ANP program set forth the ambitious goal of full-scale development of aircraft reactor and engine systems. One of the factors that led to the creation of the ANP program was a study done at MIT by a group convened by the AEC in 1948 to look at the potential uses of atomic powered flight. "This study group, known as the Lexington Project, came to the conclusion that nuclear aircraft (manned) were likely less difficult than nuclear ramjets, which, in turn, would be less difficult than nuclear rockets to develop."[8] Ironically, this turned out to be the reverse of the proper order of difficulty, as later research and development would prove. Although nuclear ramjets, under Project Pluto, and nuclear rockets, under Project Rover, were successfully tested at the levels needed for operational use, an operational level atomic aircraft powerplant was never developed. In 1954, B.C. Briant, who was then the director of the ANP Project stated that "manned nuclear aircraft pose the most difficult engineering development job yet attempted within this century."[9] Unfortunately the ANP program wasn't very well organized. Instead of trying to develop one aspect of the technology to a working stage the effort was spread out over a number of areas. Part of the problem was that, under the conventional guidelines, the AEC was responsible for reactor development while the Air Force was responsible for development of the remainder of the system. Therefore the project was divided into two parts which needed to work closely together, but these two parts were managed by totally separate entities. Under the ANP program the General Electric Co., at Evendale, Cincinnati was issued a contract to develop a direct-cycle turbojet, and Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division of United Aircraft Corp. was authorized to study an indirect cycle and work was started at the Connecticut Aircraft Nuclear Engine Laboratory (CANEL).[10] In the direct air cycle air enters through the compressor stage of one or more turbojets. From there the air passes through a plenum and is directed through the reactor core. The air, acting as the reactor coolant, is rapidly heated as it travels through the core. After passing through the reactor the air passes through another plenum and is directed to the turbine section of the turbojet(s) and from there out through the tailpipe.[11] An indirect system is very similar, except that the air does not pass through the reactor itself. After passing through the compressor the air passes through a heat exchanger. The heat generated by the reactor is carried by a working fluid to this heat exchanger. The air then passes through the turbine and out the tailpipe as above. The working fluid in the indirect cycle is usually a dense fluid, such as a liquid metal, or highly pressurized water. This allows more heat energy to be transfer, thereby increasing the efficiency of the system.[12] In an article in the SAE Journal, L.W. Credit wrote, "Of three alternatives for achieving flight reliability in nuclear aircraft through component or system redundancy, the single-reactor, all-nuclear aircraft seems to be the optimum design."[13] The other two alternatives were a dual-reactor system and a combination nuclear-chemical (combustion) system. Originally the ANP program was to develop an indirect cycle, single reactor propulsion system. However, a petition by General Electric to the government allowed them to develop the direct cycle system. GE claimed that the direct cycle was simpler and therefore would have a shorter development time. For the indirect cycle system, Pratt & http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/x-6.html (2 of 16)2006-09-19 15:27:08


Whitney developed the super-critical water reactor, in which the working fluid is water heated to 1,500 degrees fahrenheit, but kept in a liquid state by pressurizing to 5,000psi. This avoided the problems of using a liquid metal working fluid. The United States has never favored the operational use of liquid metal reactors. To date all military reactors in active service, with the exception of the one liquid sodium reactor on the attack submarine USS Seawolf, have been of the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) type. Even the USS Seawolf experienced enough problems that the liquid sodium reactor was replaced with one of a PWR design after a few years in service. Part of the ANP program was the X-6 program. Beginning in 1952, the designated goal of the X-6 program was to produce two flying testbeds powered by atomic energy. The test program started by testing shielding problems. A B-36 was converted for this purpose. This aircraft was referred to as the Nuclear Test Aircraft (NTA). The NTA began its life as a Convair B-36H bomber, but after conversion it was redesignated as an NB-36H. It was modified to carry a small air cooled reactor in the aft bomb bay and to provide shielding for the crew. The NTA incorporated shielding around the reactor itself and a totally new nose section which housed a twelve ton lead and rubber shielded compartment for the crew. There were also water jackets in the fuselage and behind the crew compartment to absorb radiation. The reactor was made critical in flight on several occasions and the aircraft was used for many radiation and shielding experiments. Convair's successful flight program with the B-36 carrying a flight test reactor (July 1955 - March 1957) showed that the "aircraft normally would pose no threat, even if flying low." The principal concerns would be: (a) accidents which cause the release of fission products from the reactors, and (b) the dosage from exposure to leakage radioactivity (in the direct cycle concept).[14] It was decided that the risks caused by radiation were no greater than the risks that had been incurred during the development of steam and electric power, the airplane, the automobile, or the rocket.[15] The B-36 was also to provide the basis for the actual X-6 aircraft. At the time the B-36 was the only existing, time tested, airframe large and powerful enough to carry the expected engine and shield weight. The engine chosen was the J53 turbojet.[16] At the time the J53 was a conventional turbojet in the planning stage at General Electric. The J53 was a highperformance design and it was felt that conversion to nuclear power would present no more difficulty than any other design then in use. In the early stages of the program, before GE's petition, it was planned to connect the J53 to a liquid-metal reactor for use on the X-6. The original propulsion system was to have weighed 165,000 pounds. This was composed of a 10,000 pound reactor, 60,000 pounds of reactor shielding, 37,000 pounds of crew shielding, and a total engine weight of 18,000 pounds plus an additional 40,000 pounds for ducts and accessories.[17] After experiencing development problems with the J53, GE resorted to the J47 as the powerplant. J47s converted for nuclear testing were referred to as X-39s. It should be noted that the United States was not the only country working on atomic aircraft in the early years. The Soviet Union had a few projects of their own. One aircraft, a flying boat, proposed in 1950 would have had a flying weight of 1,000 tons. It was planned to equip the giant airplane with four



atomic turbo-prop engines. The wing span was more than 130 meters, and the total power of the engines exceeded one-half million horsepower. This airplane was supposed to carry 1,000 passengers and 100 tons of load at a speed of 1,000 kilometers per hour.[18] It was planned to surround the reactor with five layers of shielding. The layers were supposed to be as follows: first layer - beryllium oxide reflector; second layer - liquid sodium for removing heat from the walls; third layer - cadmium, for absorbing slow neutrons; forth layer - paraffin wax, for slowing down fast neutrons; fifth layer - a steel shell, for absorbing slow neutrons and gamma-rays. Such multilayer 'armor' permits decreasing the weight and size of the necessary shielding. The coolant was liquid lead. [19] The Soviets studied many of the same options the United States considered; both direct and indirect cycles, turbo-props, shadow shielding, and the special ground handling needed. One fact that is striking is that in the Soviet design the total weight of the atomic power plant was to be 80 tons.[20] 80 tons is equal to 160,000 pounds, which compared to the original figures for the X-6 propulsion system, which was 165,000 pounds, was practically identical. The reference to 'shadow shielding' above is to the practice of dividing the shields between the reactor and the crew, the crew being in the 'shadow' created by the shields. This is also referred to as the divided shield concept. If it were possible to put as much shielding on the reactor as is done on ground reactors, we could reduce the radiation therefrom to a negligible amount. But the total weight of shielding required to do this would be prohibitive; in fact, we are forced to the so-called 'divided shield' concept in order to reduce total shield weight to an acceptable amount. Divided shielding is, of course, simply a division of the shielding between the reactor and the crew compartment in such a fashion as to result in nearminimum total shielding weight.[21] Distributing the shields lessens the total shield weight, but it also means that the majority of the aircraft would have been exposed to higher levels of radiation. And once on the ground more radiation would penetrate the surrounding area. These problems were to be overcome by newer materials and by designing the aircraft's servicing equipment with the higher radiation levels in mind. Divided the shields also had some other benefits. The directional nature of the radiation leads also to the fact that aircraft structure and components are useful as shielding material, and judicious use of such things as the wing box, landing gear, pay load, and fuel for landing go-arounds can reduce the thickness of shielding required on the crew compartment rear face.[22] The problem with shield weight was one of two major problems which surfaced during the program. The other was increasing reactor performance. The ANP program focused a great deal of effort on developing the divided shield concept, decreasing the required shield size by decreasing reactor size via increasing reactor power density, increasing the operating temperature of the reactor to boost efficiency and therefore aircraft performance, and utilizing the reduced shield mass in aircraft design.[23] Although



work on an actual airframe never got very far, a great deal of work was accomplished on the power plants. General Electric ran a series of very successful experiments using the direct cycle concept. These were referred to as the Heat Transfer Reactor Experiment (HTRE) series. The series involved three reactors, HTRE-1 through HTRE-3. HTRE-1 became HTRE-2 at the conclusion of its test program. HTRE-1 (and therefore HTRE-2) successfully ran one X-39 (modified J-47) solely under nuclear power. HTRE-3 was the closest to a flight article the program came. It was solid moderated, as opposed to the earlier reactors which were water moderated, and it powered two X-39s at higher power levels. HTRE-3 was limited by the two turbojets, but it could have powered larger jets at even higher power levels. HTRE-1 was principally a proof of concept reactor. "HTRE-1 achieved a number of full-power runs that demonstrated conclusively the feasibility of operating a jet engine on nuclear power."[24] HTRE-2 was simply HTRE1 modified to test advanced reactor sections in a central hexagonal chamber. In this way new reactor designs could be tested without the need to build a totally new reactor from scratch. The experience gained from HTRE-1 and HTRE-2 was used in the construction of HTRE-3. HTRE-3 was the final test item designed to prove the feasibility of producing an actual aircraft powerplant. "The design and testing of HTRE-3 has advanced the direct-cycle program beyond the question of feasibility to the problems of engineering optimization."[25] All three of the HTRE reactors were of the standard direct cycle configuration, with the addition of a chemical combustor just upstream from the turbines. This combustor allowed the jets to be started on chemical power and then be switched over to atomic heat as the reactor was brought up to operating temperatures. The operational system may have also utilized a chemical combustor for use during takeoff and landing, and possibly target penetration, when the reactors relatively slow response time could be a disadvantage.[26] The HTRE either met or exceeded their goals, but although all had reactor cores of roughly the size needed to fit into an aircraft, none of the HTREs were designed to be a prototype of a flight system[27]; the series showed that it then appeared "possible and practical with the technology in hand to build a flyable reactor of the same materials as HTRE-3 and similar in physical size."[28] Despite the fact that HTRE-3 didn't produce the power that would have been needed for flight, that was mainly because it was not an optimized design; it was designed simply as a research reactor, to prove the concepts needed for a flight article. At the end of the HTRE run the probability of flying a reactor seemed high. The test runs showed that a reactor using the same materials as HTRE-3, and which could power a gas-turbine powerplant, could have been built at that time. Such a reactor would meet all of the requirements needed for a flight ready unit.[29] In their paper Kelly Johnson and F. A. Cleveland also stated that "when improved materials are available, we would expect the nuclear power plant to advance rapidly in its overall efficiency, with a consequent improvement in ability to install such power plants in airplanes of smaller size than those currently contemplated."[30]



While GE was working on the direct cycle, Pratt & Whitney (P&W) was working on the indirect cycle. However, progress went much slower that it did with the HTREs. P&W never ran a practical test system. In fact their work was limited to component testing. In addition to work on the super-critical water reactor P&W worked with liquid metal coolant designs. It was the latter that received the most attention. The two major designs were a solid core reactor, in which the liquid metal circulated through a solid reactor core, and a circulating-fuel design, in which fuel was mixed with the coolant and critical mass was achieved as the coolant circulated through a central core. After the circulating-fuel design showed promise, work on the super-critical reactor was halted. P&W did accomplish a great deal on the design of liquid metal cooling loops, corrosion prevention, and heat exchanger design. However, P&W work at CANEL never led to a test reactor, much less one which was flight ready. In the long run the indirect cycle showed more promise, but it also required a great deal more developmental work. While these test programs were successful, there were other programs which weren't. A number of programs were begun at a great cost of time and money, only to be dropped when the program went through one of its many reorientations. The official U.S. government report on the ANP project lists such programs. A Flight Engine Test facility was built in Idaho for use to test the flight engine both on the ground and in the test aircraft. This facility cost over eight million dollars, yet it was never used during the ANP program, other than as a storage building, because the flight program was cancelled. A radiator laboratory was constructed at CANEL for use in studying liquid metal to air heat transfer. After spending over six million dollars the construction was halted with only a shell completed because the Air Force changed its mind. Another laboratory was built at CANEL to study vacuum conditions. This laboratory cost over a million dollars, and it entered use in March 1961, the same month that the ANP program was cancelled. These were only the largest of the wastes. There were numerous instances of wasted time and money, none of which can really be blamed on the technicians, since the leaders changed their minds and the equipment went unused. Overall the technology seems to have been there, yet the ANP program died. GE's HTRE series proved that the direct cycle concept would work. P&W was making progress, slowly but surely, on the indirect cycle. The NTA reactor tests demonstrated that aircraft shielding could be done effectively. A myriad of smaller developments, new metals, synthetic lubricants, all worked out and were available to produce an aircraft. In 1960 Kenneth Gantz wrote, "The taming of the atom, coupled with the technological advances in aerodynamic and structural efficiencies achieved over the past several decades, now brings atomic-powered aircraft and missiles within our grasp."[31] But if it wasn't killed by technology, what were the reasons for the program's demise? The answer to that question follows in the next section.

Politics If the technology didn't kill the ANP, what is left? The other factors involved in any major project are the social and political forces behind it. It must be from these areas that the force which killed the ANP arose. However, it is also these areas from which the forces which began the ANP came. The ANP began in an era when general attitudes towards atomic energy were quite favorable. In fact the http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/x-6.html (6 of 16)2006-09-19 15:27:08


type of attitude has been referred to as "Our friend the atom." The writers of the time made it seem as if the atom would be a welcome addition to everyone's life. The idea of an atomic airplane was made to seem quite attractive. At the time a number of books and articles aimed at the general public appeared, a few of which mentioned atomic aircraft. An atomic airplane? This, too, can be built. --- The advantages of increased range and carrying capacity that make the A-ship so attractive apply as well to the A-plane - but more so. Ordinary airplanes can never really carry enough fuel, even though a big airliner loads more than fifty tons of gasoline into its tanks. Routes must be planned with carefully located alternate landing fields to guard against the disaster of running out of fuel in the air. Long flights over water are particularly worrisome. More than a few times an accumulation of small accidents - headwinds, engine failure, a fuel leak - has culminated in tragedy. Atomic fuel would solve these problems. A few ounces of uranium would keep an airplane aloft indefinitely.[32] This may sound like a rosy review written by someone not involved directly with the field, but even aerospace professionals realized that atomic power gave aircraft something that no foreseeable chemical power source could, unlimited range. Two of the pillars of the aviation community, Kelly Johnson and F. A. Cleveland, wrote in a 1957 paper; "After a half century of striving to make aircraft carry reasonable loads farther and farther, the advent of a type of power plant that will solve the range problem is of the utmost importance." [33] Later, when referring again to the unlimited range they wrote, "And this unique characteristic is one to be greeted enthusiastically."[34] As I stated in the technology section, feasibility studies for atomic powered aircraft were begun in 1946. This was the year that NEPA was started up. NEPA ran until 1951 when it was dropped in favor of the ANP program. The ANP program was aimed at creating a strategic weapons system which eliminated the limitations of conventional powerplants. The ANP program ran until 1961, when it was cancelled by President Kennedy. The total amount spent on the development of atomic aircraft was $1,040 million. Of this sum $839 million was for operating costs and $201 million was for facilities and equipment. Funding was provided by the Air Force, AEC, and US Navy, each supplying $518 million, $508 million, and $14 million respectively.[35] Throughout its life the ANP program was plagued by a lack of direction. Neither the Air Force nor the Department of Defense (DOD) maintained a set of goals for the ANP project. "The ANP program was characterized by frequent changes in emphasis and objectives, varying from a research and development program to an accelerated program to develop a weapon system for the Air Force."[36] Without a set of goals the project managers had a hard time deciding what research to support. This caused a great deal of waste, both of time and money. Test facilities were erected, such as the radiator test facility in Connecticut, which where never utilized during the life of the program. These facilities were built to fill perceived requirements which never materialized due to a shift in project orientation.



They either ended up as expensive storage buildings, or worse, as abandoned, half-finished hulks. This cannot be blamed on the AEC and the project managers as "Our review disclosed various instances where it appeared that the Department of Defense (DoD) did not furnish sufficient and timely guidance to those responsible for carrying out the ANP program."[37] The ANP program floundered many times during its life and without its very vocal proponents it is likely that it would have died sooner. "William L. Borden, --- a man Herbert York describes as 'a fanatic on the subject of nuclear weapons', --- strongly favored --- a package he called 'the ultimate weapon system' --- the thermonuclear weapon carried by a nuclear powered airplane."[38] The Air Force favored the development of an atomic powered bomber because they wanted to keep manned aircraft an integral part of the deterrent force. At the time missiles didn't show a great deal of promise, and there was an aversion towards the pilots of the fifties becoming the "silositters of the sixties." In fact, the Air Force set the priority for the ANP much higher than that for strategic missiles. Herbert York wrote that General Curtis E. LeMay, commander of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) at the time, placed the highest priority on the B-52H and B-70 programs. The ANP was slightly down his list of priorities, with long-range missiles at the bottom. [39] The politicians' ambitions were writing checks for the ANP program that the research couldn't cover. Despite the fact that at the time the research was nowhere near the point of producing flight hardware, in 1950 the Defense Department decided to fly a subsonic aircraft by 1957.[40] The JCAE called for the Air Force to either give the program sufficient support to insure success, or to cancel it.[41] The ANP program did actually die in March of 1953. At that time Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson cancelled the program. However, the JCAE restarted the ANP program as a crash effort in April of 1954. [42] The program labored on burdened by an inefficient and ineffective command structure. There were redundant offices in the Air Force and AEC. A major program was undertaken to correct this situation. This resulted in a more streamlined command structure which could have been quite effective if utilized properly, unfortunately it wasn't. The program, while making definite progress, continued to meander across a wide variety of research fields, wasting time and money on the way. The program was again stuck in its own mire when a new boost rocketed onto the scene, quite literally. The Soviets launched Sputnik. The launch of Sputnik not only started the space race, but also a general technological race. Representative Melvin Price, Chairman of the JCAE subcommittee, holding the hearings on the ANP, wrote a letter to President Eisenhower urging him to speed up the ANP program to produce operational atomic powered aircraft in answer to the Soviet's launch of Sputnik.[43] Many people involved in the project came out in favor of an early flight date, including the director of the ANP project Major General Donald Keirn, "who believes many important problems of flight can be solved thereby without delaying the installation of improved reactor cores."[44] Dr. York said, however, that changing a reactor core in an airship 'is not a minor thing'. Secretary Gates adds that the proper time to fly an airframe would be 'when we have a reactor that is possible of greater growth than the reactor we would now have to use."[45] Despite these words of warning the hysteria and paranoia caused by Sputnik continued to spread, and http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/x-6.html (8 of 16)2006-09-19 15:27:08


was in fact encouraged by some to help continue the ANP program. In a speech, General Keirn said that there was an increased drive for technological development, and proposals to accelerate the ANP program were part of this drive.[46] Both the budget for the B-70 and the budget for the ANP program were temporarily increased, despite there nearly nonexistent links to space. The paranoia also spread to the public via the press and television. The rumor was spread that the Soviets had beaten us to the punch and had already flown an atomic powered aircraft. Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia said in a television statement; "The report the Russians have testflown an atomic-powered aircraft is an ominous new threat to world peace, and yet another blow to the prestige and security of our nation and the free world. It follows in tragic sequence the Russian success of last fall in launching the first earth satellite."[47] On December 1, 1958, Aviation Week magazine ran an editorial in which it was announced that the Soviets had flown an atomic powered bomber prototype.[48] This was accompanied by sketches, complete with large red stars, and supposed data on the aircraft. Time has shown all of this information to be false. It is likely that someone involved with the ANP program created these rumors to use the public to put pressure on Congress to continue funding the ANP program. A short time after this scare, in 1959, the ANP program came under the control of then Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Herbert York. Dr. York, together with Arthur T. Biehl, set forth a new set of program objectives. They were as follows: (a) continue the development of only such reactors and power plants as would be suitable for militarily useful nuclear flight; (b) increase the effort on the indirect-cycle program so as to determine its potentialities at an earlier date than previously contemplated, and (c) defer initiation of a specific flight program until one of the advanced powerplants was established as feasible and potentially useful, and until a flight program could be instituted without seriously interfering with the development of militarily useful powerplants.[49] Unfortunately for the ANP program these new objectives came too late. The program had become so mired in bureaucracy that, despite the leaps in technology achieved, it wasn't productive enough to be sustained. The ANP program was clouded by political infighting and controversy.[50] The DOD and the AEC muddled about in each other's business. The JCAE continuously tried to take total control of the program. And through it all the contractors took advantage of the disarray. About the only thing that remained constant was that the Air Force continuously said that there was a definite need for nuclear aircraft and that important military applications would derive from atomic propulsion. The problem was that the Air Force never narrowed down what exactly their need was. A couple of the decisions concerning the technical aspects of the program were made politically. Among the things examined were the danger to the public caused by a development program. Using accident experience gathered from other experimental jet programs, risk assessments as if those aircraft had been http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/x-6.html (9 of 16)2006-09-19 15:27:08


nuclear powered. It was decided that proper selection of bases and flight planning would limit the hazard to the public to risk levels no greater than those associated with the normal operation of other military aircraft. [51] This meant operating away from populated areas and flying in isolated corridors. These tactics would seem to defeat some of the originally perceived advantages of atomic aircraft, in particular the advantage of being able to fly anywhere, without being confined to strict flight paths. Another decision involved the crew, for although the shield tests accomplished all of their goals, it was still felt that some mildly harmful radiation may reach the crew. This begot a plan which in hindsight look rather ridiculous, although at the time it was quite serious. While most of the intellectual effort devoted to solving these problems was of the usual serious and straight forward kind, occasionally some bizarre proposals arose. One which was discussed quite seriously was that older men (i.e., men beyond the usual age for begetting children) should be used as pilots so that genetic damage from radiation would be held to a minimum and because older people are generally more resistant to radiation than younger ones.[52] In the end the program had simply been around for too long while producing too few results. Just prior to President Kennedy taking office in 1961, Herbert York and his staff again reviewed the ANP program. They decided to halt all further work on the direct cycle and continue the work on the indirect cycle at a reduced pace.[53] He discussed this recommendation with the incoming staff of the Kennedy administration. "If there was any difference between [President Kennedy's Special Assistant for Science and Technology, Jerome Wiesner's] views and mine, he felt more negatively about the program, and, as a result, ANP was cancelled in the first months of the Kennedy administration."[54] Low level work did continue for a time on the indirect system at P&W. On March 28, 1961 President Kennedy issued a statement cancelling the ANP program. In it he wrote, "Nearly 15 years and about $1 billion have been devoted to the attempted development of a nuclearpowered aircraft; but the possibility of achieving a militarily useful aircraft in the foreseeable future is still very remote."[55]

Conclusion The ANP program is an example of the leaders failing to lead. In this case it wasn't a matter of removing the snake's head. This time there were too many heads all trying to control something. The official government report of 1963 reviewed the program: "we do not believe that a research and development effort of the complexity and magnitude of the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program can reach its goal in an effective and efficient manner unless a certain degree of stability in objectives is accorded to the program."[56] The politicians wanted to be in on everything, and they tried to control things better left to the experts, much like what they did with the Vietnam war, which took place only slightly later. Herbert York wrote: The politicians persisted in concerning themselves with how to go about developing the power plant for a nuclear aircraft, In particular, they tried to insist on a particular http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/x-6.html (10 of 16)2006-09-19 15:27:08


sequence of developmental steps (all of which would be, to be sure, ultimately necessary). The result was a mess, and the nuclear airplane was never built.[57] The technicians and scientists did their best to succeed with the ANP program, and they did make a great deal of technological progress. However, without guidance their efforts were too spread out. The blame for the failure of the ANP program cannot rest with the technology, it belongs to the politicians and the military. "While technical objectives have been generally met by the contractors, there are apparently no firm military requirements set by the Joint Chiefs of Staff."[58] The ANP program resembles in many ways the World War II German atomic bomb effort. There wasn't enough leadership, and what was there was indecisive. There were too many different development efforts competing for the available resources. Both projects made significant advances in their field, but both were too broad and shallow. If either project had been given better direction early in their lives then the odds are they would have succeeded. As it happened both projects came close, but failed in the end. Perhaps it is a recurring symptom which must be guarded against. We have to make sure that the politicians and leaders set sound goals for new programs while leaving the actual development work to the experts. If we don't, then we may repeat these events yet again. Remember the ANP project cost a good deal of money, but the German bomb effort may have cost them the war. Near the end of the ANP program Herbert York stepped in and tried to reorganize the project. But it was too little and too late to save the program. The damage had already been done. All the years of cost overruns and disorganization had made the program seem to be a waste of time and money, at least in the eyes of President Kennedy and his staff, and those were the people who really mattered. It has been said that the cancellation was partially due to the development of accurate missiles, or due to ecological protests which at the time were also plaguing the B-70 and SST programs. Surely these played a part, but the majority of the blame lies with the mismanagement of the program.

Endnotes 1. Bussard, R.W. & DeLauer, R.D., Fundamentals of Nuclear Flight, McGraw-Hill: New York, 1965), 1. 2. Ibid., 1. 3. Connor jr., J.A., "Aerospace Nuclear Power Safety Considerations", Aerospace Engineering 20 (May 1960): 26. 4. Ibid., 58. 5. Clarfield, Gerard H., Nuclear America, (Harper & Row: New York, 1984), 124. 6. Cleveland, F.A., & Johnson, Clarence L., "Design of Air Frames for Nuclear Power", Aeronautical Engineering Review 16 (June 1957): 48. 7. "Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program", Metal Progress 76 (December, 1959): 93. 8. Bussard, 2. 9. Ibid., 4. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/x-6.html (11 of 16)2006-09-19 15:27:08


10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

"Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion", 93. Penner, S.S., Advanced Propulsion Techniques, (Pergamon Press: New York, 1961), 42. Ibid., 42. Credit, L.W., "Single Reactor All-nuclear System Favored for Nuclear Aircraft", SAE Journal 68 (May 1960): 34. Connor, 59. Ibid., 61. Miller, Jay, The X-Planes, (Aerofax: Arlington, Texas, 1988), 70. Ibid., 71. Perelman, Roman Grigorevich, Soviet Nuclear Propulsion, (Triumph Pub. Co.: Washington, 1960), 31. Ibid., 31-32. Ibid., 33. Cleveland, 49. Ibid., 51. Bussard, 321. Thornton, G. & Blumberg, B., "Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Heat Transfer Reactor Experiments Fulfill Test Goals", Nucleonics 19 (January 1961): 45. Ibid., 46. Cleveland, 56. Thornton, 46. Ibid., 46. Ibid., 50. Cleveland, 49. Gantz, Kenneth Franklin, Nuclear Flight, (Duell, Sloan, and Pearce: New York, 1960), 10. Mann, Martin, Peacetime Uses of Atomic Energy, (The Viking Press: New York, 1961), 74. Cleveland, 48. Ibid., 57. U.S. government report, Review of Manned Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program, Atomic Energy Commission and the Department od Defense, (U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., 1963), 2. Ibid., 31. Ibid., 58. Clarfield, 147. York, Herbert Frank, Race to Oblivion, (Simon and Schuster: New York, 1970), 53. Ibid., 63. Ibid., 63. Ibid., 64. Ibid., 70. "Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion", 93. Ibid., 93. York, 70. Ibid., 70.



48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.

Ibid., 71. Ibid., 67-68. Ibid., 61. Gantz, 24. York, 62-63. Ibid., 69. Ibid., 69. U.S. government, 176. Ibid., 2. York, 223. "Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion", 93.

Bibliography ● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

● ● ● ●

● ●

●

●

● ●

"Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program." Metal Progress, 76 (December, 1959) 93 Barnaby, Frank, Man and the Atom; The Uses of Nuclear Energy, (Funk and Wagnalls: New York, 1971) Bussard, R.W. & DeLauer, R.D., Fundamentals of Nuclear Flight, (McGraw-Hill: New York, 1965) Clarfield, Gerard H., Nuclear America, (Harper & Row: New York, 1984) Cleveland, F. A., & Johnson, Clarence L. "Design of Air Frames for Nuclear Power." Aeronautical Engineering Review, 16 (June 1957) 48-57 Connor jr, J.A. "Aerospace Nuclear Power Safety Considerations." Aerospace Engineering, 20 (May 1961) 26-70 Credit, L.W. "Single Reactor All-nuclear System Favored for Nuclear Aircraft." SAE Journal, 68 (May 1960) 34-38 Crocker, A.R. "Testing Aircraft Nuclear Powerplants." Aeronautical Engineering Review, 16 (December 1957) 30-35 Gantz, Kenneth Franklin, Nuclear Flight, (Duell, Sloan, and Pearce: New York, 1960) Mann, Martin, Peacetime Uses of Atomic Energy, (The Viking Press: New York, 1961) Miller, Jay, The X-Planes, (Aerofax: Arlington, Texas, 1988) North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Combustion and Propulsion Panel; Advanced Propulsion Techniques, (Pergamon Press: New York, 1961) Penner, S.S., Advanced Propulsion Techniques, (Pergamon Press: New York, 1961) Perelman, Roman Grigorevich, Soviet Nuclear Propulsion, (Triumph Pub. Co.: Washington, 1960) Reeves, E. D. "Atomic Powerplants Are Out, for Highway Vehicles, Locomotives or Transport Planes Until Problems Are Solved." SAE Journal, 66 (March 1958) 69 Thornton, G. & Blumberg, B. "Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Heat Transfer Reactor Experiments Fulfill Test Goals." Nucleonics, 19 (January 1961) 45-51 Thring, M.W., Nuclear Propulsion, (Butterworth Inc.: Washington, 1960) U.S. Congress, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Research and Development of the Joint



●

●

Committee on Atomic Energy: First Session on the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program, July 23, 1959, (U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., 1959) U.S. government report, Review of Manned Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program, Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Defense, (U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., 1963) York, Herbert Frank, Race to Oblivion, (Simon and Schuster: New York, 1970)

Appendix When I started writing this paper I didn't expect it to be as complicated as it turned out to be, source wise that is. Since a good deal of the ANP program was classified at the time there were a number of contradictory articles which appear to be either an attempt by the author to fill in the blanks, or perhaps deliberate disinformation by the government. The idea of powering aircraft with atomic power is still a topic whichcauses very strong opinions, one way or the other. During the time I have been researching and writing this paper I have discussed this topic with a good number of my friends. And a common reaction is simply, "Why?" Why would anyone want to fly an atomic aircraft. After explaining the goals of the ANP program many people still don't see what the point was, most consider atomic aircraft to be simply too big a risk to be worthwhile. My initial conversations gave me the idea to go to the nets and solicit opinions there. I posted to wpi. students, rec.aviation, sci.military, and sci.aeronautics asking for opinions on nuclear powered aircraft. This should not be considered to by a good sampling of the general public as, in general, those people on the nets have a high level of education and are, for the most part, involved in some technical field. Plus the newsgroups I posted to have a high concentration of people interested in aviation simply because of what their subjects. I received a fair number of replies and in general the reaction was again, why use atomic power. However, a few people did acknowledge that it was feasible, and perhaps desirable for the military. Here are a few selected quotes, no attribution as I stated I would not use names. ●

●

● ●

●

●

"I think that the words 'nuclear' and 'aircraft' coming together in the same breath would freak out a lot of people, mostly those who don't know a lot about the idea. --- However, I personally think the idea would be feasible, providing that it is well-maintained and well-regulated." "This doesn't sound feasible! Nuclear engines on military aircraft? Wouldn't the nuclear product yield an identifiable signature?" "The major problem, I think, would be that crashes would make things rather messy." "How do you plan to eliminate the danger of radioactive contamination in the event of a crash or other catastrophic failure (and there will be catastrophic failures)?" "Planes crash. How can you make it safe? If you could make it safe, and convince me it was safe, I guess I'd have no objections." "Nuclear propulsion for aircraft was one of the stupidest ideas they ever came up with. --- The



● ●

●

●

●

● ● ● ● ●

consequences of accidents, overwhelmingly outweigh any benefits." "Why would you want nuke engines, anyway?" "This is absolutely crazy! --- If I was a terrorist I don't see how I could resist the temptation to blow it over a city. --- Nah, not a good idea." "Much as I like the idea of nuclear use, I don't know how you could do nuclear propulsion in the vicinity of an inhabited/able planet." "The multiple problems of crashing, radioactive emissions and production hazards seem to be great." "As a semi-informed member of the public (Physics Ph.D., and a general interest/support of nuclear power), I really doubt that such a thing can be made to work safely at any reasonable cost." "I personally think that's just fine, but with the general populace, the idea will never fly." "Negative, think of the new dimension it would add to airplane crashes." "--- the idea of using nuclear reactors to power aircraft is insane." "Too much risk of radiation release against only a marginal benefit." "As far as opinion goes, I'd ride in one, but I was told that the results of the experiment showed that a properly shielded nuclear reactor is much too heavy to use for aircraft."

As you can see from the above quotes, opinions very widely. There arethose who feel atomic aircraft are fine, and those who feel the idea is insane. A few new points were brought up by the replies too. When the ANP project took place there wasn't any real problem with terrorists, but now they are a very real risk. Bringing a nuclear aircraft down on a populated area could cause a great deal of trouble. The one point that was repeated the most was the simple fact that planes crash. The military could get around this by operating in their own airspace away from cities, but a nuclear civilian airliner would need to get close to cities to be effective. A large number of crashes occur during take-off and landing, this is when a nuclear airliner would be the most dangerous to the public. Personally I don't have any problem with the use of atomic power for aircraft, and I would fly in one if I believed it was safe. I feel that as a passenger my odds of dying on an airliner are the same whether it is chemically powered or powered by a reactor. But why? Conventional jets have come a long way since the ANP program ran. Modern airliners have the range for nearly any flight one would want to make, and as a matter of business airlines don't fly a great deal of non-stop flights long distance. The nuclear airliner wouldn't fit the present system. And for the military, the nuclear bomber is a purely strategic weapon. With the thawing of the cold war there is no use for such an expensive and complicated system. The B-2 would have a better chance if ever used, and it is being cut back drastically. In this day of curtailed military spending I don't think the ANP would have ever come about. It took the pressure of the early cold war years to give it life. The nation was almost constantly on a ready for war footing, and as time went on we relaxed and began to seriously look at our projects. The ANP seemed to be unneeded. If the program had had better guidance perhaps it would have made progress quicker and produced a flight article before the cold war cooled off. If it had we may have been introduced to a world of nuclear aircraft. But that isn't the way it happened, at least not in this universe.



Brian D. Bikowicz [email protected]


US Military Aircraft

Recommend Documents