Leo Guo is an avid aviation enthusiast based in Canada. Having a particular interest in German and Chinese aviation, Leo has contributed numerous articles for Plane Encyclopedia, of which he holds the position of team manager, head writer and co-owner.
View all posts by Leo Guo →
An alternate side view of the Fw 190 mit DB 609 model. [Falko Bormann]The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 mit DB 609 was a 1942 design venture to provide the Luftwaffe with a successor to the Fw 190 and its troublesome BMW 801 radial engine. Intended, to mount the envisioned experimental 16-cylinder Daimler-Benz DB 609 engine to produce around 2,600 hp (later 3,400 hp), the new power plant would have required a drastic redesign to the forward section of the Fw 190 as well as parts of the fuselage. In the end, the Fw 190 mit DB 609 was canceled due to flaws with the design and Daimler-Benz’s cancellation of the DB 609 project. Similar to many of the other designs produced in 1942, the Fw 190 mit DB 609 remained a paper design only, although an airframe was provided for the intent of mounting and testing the engine. Obscure in nature and short-lived, much of the project’s specifications and estimated performance are unknown.
History
The original blueprint illustration of the Fw 190 mit DB 609. [War Thunder Forums]The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Würger (Shrike) was one of Nazi Germany’s most iconic fighters of the Second World War. First introduced in August of 1941, the Fw 190 gave contemporary Allied fighters a run for their money and proved to be a relatively successful design. However, the air-cooled 14-cylinder BMW 801 radial engine which powered the Fw 190 proved to be troublesome at times. The BMW 801’s cooling system was inadequate, which caused overheating and production of fumes, which would leak into the cockpit and could suffocate the pilot. Despite the relatively successful introduction of the Fw 190, it was not known if the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM / Ministry of Aviation) would make further orders for the aircraft. However, the spring of 1942 was a prosperous time for the Focke-Wulf firm and assured the Fw 190’s future. The RLM put in orders for large quantities of Fw 190, which in turn boosted the firm’s budget. As such, designers at the Bremen-based Focke-Wulf firm initiated a design venture to produce a successor for the Fw 190 by replacing the troublesome BMW 801 engine with more advanced engines being developed by BMW and Daimler-Benz.
As such, the Focke-Wulf firm produced several drawings in late 1942 which saw the Fw 190 mounting experimental engines. The designs are as follows:
Drawing Number
Project Title
10 10 05-201
Fw 190 mit BMW P. 8028
10 10 05-202
Fw 190 mit BMW 801 J
10 10 05-203
Fw 190 mit DB 609
10 13 141-02
Fw 190 mit DB 623 A
10 13 141-16
Fw 190 mit DB 614
11 19 05-502
Fw 190 mit BMW P. 8011
Unknown
Fw 190 mit DB 603
Unknown
Fw 190 Strahljäger
In order to provide a suitable testbed for these engines, Fw 190 V19 (Werknummer 0042, rebuilt from a Fw 190 A-1) was allocated for engine installation tests. Curiously enough, Fw 190 V19 would be later be redesigned for the “Falcon” wing design which saw a drastic redesign of the wing to a swept, bent design. Conversion to this wing type was meant to take place on February 16, 1944 but this would never occur. Nonetheless, Fw 190 V19 would maintain the regular wings for engine testing.
A closeup of the Fw 190 mit DB 609 model’s cockpit and fuselage section, highlighting the supercharger radiator’s placement. [Falko Bormann]Although the Fw 190 mit DB 609 showed potential, there were several problems which plagued the design. For one, the rather heavy and bulky engine severely affected the aircraft’s center of gravity. As such, the engine’s radiators had to be moved down the fuselage behind the cockpit. The engine also would have put too much stress on the landing gears which could potentially result in a fatal crash if landing conditions were rough. On top of the airframe design issues, the intricate design of the engine also proved a problem for the Daimler-Benz designers, who would terminate the DB 609 (and its subprojects) in April 1943. As such, the Fw 190 mit 609 project would be dropped as well without the experimental engine ever being mounted on V19. Many of the other designs produced by Focke-Wulf in 1942 would also meet the same fate, for more or less similar reasons.
Due to the short-lived conceptual nature of the design, detailed specifications and estimated performance do not appear to have survived. As such, much of the aircraft’s intricate details and specifications are unknown. One could only hope that, in the near future, more details of the Fw 190 mit DB 609 and it’s contemporary designs will surface.
Design
A model of the Fw 190 mit DB 609 in a hypothetical livery with a drop tank. [Falko Bormann]The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 mit DB 609 was a 1942 project to produce a successor to the Fw 190 by replacing the troublesome BMW 801 engine with more promising experimental engines being developed at the time. As the name of the project suggests, this design would have seen the implementation of a Daimler-Benz DB 609 V16 engine. The Daimler-Benz DB 609 was a development of the company’s DB 603 engine. Unlike its predecessor, the DB 609 would have 16 cylinders in contrast to the former’s 12 cylinders. The DB 609’s output was estimated by Daimler-Benz designers to be approximately 2,600 to 2,660 hp, though it would later be upped to 3,400 hp. The benefits of this engine were the ability to function normally upright and inverted, but the bulky engine design required a drastic redesign of the engine cowl and parts of the fuselage. The cowl would have been extended to accommodate the DB 609 engine, the length of which would have measured at 115 in / 2,935 mm compared to the BMW 801’s 79 in / 2,006 mm length.
According to the official blueprints for the Fw 190 mit DB 609, the two large radiators intakes required for the engine’s supercharger were moved to the cockpit’s rear, on the side of the fuselage. This was done to pull the center of gravity back, as placing them in the front would make the aircraft too nose heavy. The placement of the supercharger radiators is similar to that of the American Republic P-47 Thunderbolt. It would appear that internet sources claim the radiator placement was nicknamed the Hamsterbacken (Hamster Cheeks), but it is unknown whether or not this was an official nickname.
Fw 190 V19 (Werknummer 0042), which was intended to mount and test the DB 609 engine, was rebuilt from a Fw 190 A-1, but it is unknown which variant precisely the hypothetical production variant would be based upon. Armament wise, the official project blueprints show two 7.92x57mm Mauser MG 17 machine guns mounted on top the engine cowl. What appears to be a 20x82mm Mauser MG 151/20 cannon would be installed in the engine hub and would fire out through the propellers. It is unknown what wing armament (if any) the Fw 190 mit DB 609 would have had.
Due to the rather short-lived and conceptual nature of the Fw 190 mit DB 609, not many of the plane’s specifications are unknown. Performance estimations do not appear to be available, nor are aircraft dimensions.
Operators
Nazi Germany – The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 mit DB 609 was intended to be a successor to the Fw 190. However, development was dropped due to various problems with the design and engine.
Gallery
Artist Concept of the Fw 109 with the DB 609 Engine [Ed Jackson]A retouched blueprint of the Fw 190 mit DB 609. [Heinz J. Nowarra]Credits
Primary Sources
Fw 190 mit DB 609 (Drawing. No. 10 10 05-203). (1942). Bremen: Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau AG.
Nazi Germany (1942)
Amphibious Multipurpose Transport – 1 Incomplete Mockup Built
The 1:10 model of the Ar 233. [Dan Sharp]The Arado Ar 233 was an amphibious passenger transport seaplane designed in 1942, a time when it seemed Germany would soon complete its conquest of Europe and conclude the Second World War. Intended for civilian use after the war, the development of the Ar 233 was cancelled due to the deteriorating war situation for Germany in 1944. As the project was deemed low priority, much of the Ar 233’s advanced design work was done in the German Military Administration in France by the Société Industrielle Pour l’Aéronautique (SIPA) aircraft firm located within the Northern German administrative zone. The Ar 233 never materialized, but an incomplete mockup was constructed along with a 1:10 scale model. The incomplete mockup, along with blueprints and notes, were captured by the Free French Forces shortly after the Liberation of France. However, the Ar 233 was not further developed by the French, unlike quite a few of the German aircraft projects undertaken and captured in France. Relatively unknown and often overlooked, the Ar 233 is an interesting obscure project to provide an alternate-history post-war Germany with a suitable transport plane.
History
A cutaway drawing of the Ar 233 in its passenger configuration. [Dan Sharp]The first couple years of the Second World War appeared to have been going firmly in favor of Germany. Most of Western Europe had been conquered by then, and the Wehrmacht was making steady progress in its advance eastwards to conquer the Soviet Union. Despite recently declaring war on the United States, a distant economic powerhouse, Germany still seemed confident in its path to triumph. This feeling was prominent amongst the Germans throughout the initial years of the war. As such, some aircraft firms began to make preparations for post-war German civil aviation early in 1940, in accordance with a request made by the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM / Ministry of Aviation). A few examples of aircraft designed for future German civil use are the Focke-Wulf Fw 206 and Blohm & Voss BV 144. The Arado firm was not exempt from partaking in civil aircraft design and responded with a two engine float plane design.
Designed as a passenger transport, the project began around August within the Arado firm bearing the designation “E 430”. Two variants were originally envisioned, a Bramo 323 R2 powered seaplane model capable of transporting ten passengers and a smaller Argus Ar 204 powered amphibian floatplane (capable of operating from land and water) able to transport eight passengers. According to the RLM, the project officially began in October 1942, but this was likely when it was submitted or approved to the RLM. Work on the project most certainly began in August due to the amount of preliminary steps required. This is further backed up by interviews with former French aircraft designers. As the German mainland’s industry was mostly reserved for military production, the industry of occupied France (German Military Administration in France) seemed like an acceptable place to offload this low priority project. As such, the Arado firm made arrangements for the German-controlled French Société Industrielle Pour l’Aéronautique (SIPA) aircraft firm to assist in the design and production of the E 430. The SIPA firm was founded by Émile Dewoitine in 1938 after his previous firm Constructions Aéronautiques Émile Dewoitine was nationalized. It would appear that, between October and December of 1942, the E 430 project gained the designation Ar 233.
In addition to the update in nomenclature, the smaller As 204 powered E 430 “Amphibium” was cancelled in favor of the ten passenger seaplane. However, the amphibious characteristic of the former was integrated into the Ar 233. Soon after, the French SIPA firm began work on producing a full-scale mockup. The SIPA factory in Île de la Jatte, Neuilly-Sur-Seine, West of Paris, was responsible for the the mockup while the other office at 27/29 Rue Dupont (also in Neuilly-Sur-Seine) and the Dewoitine Design office in 11 Rue de Pillet-Will in Paris were responsible for other work. By Christmas Eve of 1942, it would appear that a large portion of the mockup was completed as the Arado firm released a brochure advertising the Ar 233 which featured images of the mockup. The brochure made mention of four projected Ar 233 variants which included the original passenger airliner, a flying ambulance, a private luxury touring aircraft, and a cargo transport. The French effort in the design work and mockup construction went unrecognized, as all French involvement in the project were omitted from the brochure. However, close examination of a few photos in the brochure shows some of the equipment labelled in German and French.
A wind tunnel model of the Ar 233. The bulge beneath the wing is a extendable float. [Dan Sharp]Further on, it would appear that a 1:10 scale model of the Ar 233 was constructed along with a set of propellers. They were tested separately until May 1943 apparently, when they were paired together and sent to the Nationaal Luchtvaart Laboratorium (NLL / National Aviation Laboratory) facility in Amsterdam, Occupied Netherlands. Other than this model, not much more work appeared to have been done on the Ar 233. This was likely due to the disaster at Stalingrad, when the German 6th Army suffered a catastrophic defeat, and Germany’s ensuing effort to focus on their military industry. Nonetheless, the project remained stagnant for the remainder of 1943 and was finally cancelled in 1944 in favor of military aircraft. When the Allied forces and Free French Forces liberated France, it seems that the mockup and quite a lot of notes and design prints were captured. It does not appear that the French furthered the Ar 233 project after the war unlike quite a lot of the other German projects conducted in France, such as the Heinkel He 274 bomber or Blohm & Voss BV 144 airliner.
A rear view of the Ar 233 mockup which shows the port side entrance hatch. [Dan Sharp]In the end, the ill-fated Ar 233 did not progress beyond the mockup and wind tunnel testing stage, although the project was meant to be a capable amphibious seaplane which could operate in all weathers including the extremes in the North Pole and the Tropical regions. The aircraft also had the luxury of being operable from both land and sea. This also would allow the aircraft to operate in underdeveloped regions which did not have adequate airfields. It also would have made emergency landings safer as calm water surfaces would allow for less dangerous landings compared to rough land terrain.
Design
The incomplete Ar 233 mockup in the workshop of the French firm SIPA, near the outskirts of Paris. [Dan Sharp]The Ar 233 was an amphibious seaplane intended to be powered by two 9-cylinder air-cooled Bramo 323 MA radial engines producing 968 hp each. Each engine would be driven by a three blade propeller which would be started electrically via an onboard generator. The generator would also power the onboard radio systems (FuG X P, FuG 101 and FuBl II F) and a fan to provide ventilation. The Ar 233’s crew consisted of a pilot and a radio operator, though a co-pilot could join the crew. The Ar 233 had four variants which would have the passenger capacity vary. For ease of transport, the Ar 233 was designed so that it could be taken apart and transported via the railroad system.
A rear view of the Ar 233 mockup’s cockpit which shows the pilot and copilot’s seat. Note the hatch in the middle which gives access to the forward passenger luggage compartment. [Dan Sharp]The pilot’s compartment consisted of three seats for a pilot, a co-pilot or passenger and a radio operator. An extra set of controls could be installed for a co-pilot in longer range flights or to train pilots. The cockpit could be accessed via a ladder that folded to the underside of the wing. The side windows in the cockpit could be opened by sliding them forward, while the forward windows could be dropped forward to the bow section. An emergency manual pump was located next to the co-pilot’s seat that could be used to remove water. Visibility from the cockpit appears to be inadequate due to the lack of downwards visibility. Rear visibility also seems to be lacking.
The fuselage of the Ar 233 was a ship-hull shaped in order to allow floating on water surfaces. The fuselage was divided into several sections which, in order from front to end, were the nose wheel compartment, forward baggage compartment, pilot’s cockpit, landing gear hatch, passenger compartment, rear baggage compartment and a washroom fitted with a toilet. Lighting in the passenger compartment was provided by ceiling lights which were powered by a generator. Two air ventilation fans were also provided, with one above the entrance and the other in the land gear shaft. The left side of the fuselage had a door which allowed passengers to enter. The entrance door opened both upwards and downwards, with the latter being able to act as a platform. An emergency exit was provided on both sides, as the middle window in the fuselage could open. The tail of the Ar 233 was designed so that it curved upwards in order to protect the control surfaces by preventing unnecessary contact with the water.
A three-view drawing of the Ar 233 along with it’s basic dimensions. [Dan Sharp]In the passenger airliner configuration, the aircraft could carry eight passengers and two crew members. The seats provided in the passenger compartment were fitted with armrests, side tables, seatbelts, lamps and small luggage nets. The luxury touring configuration only allowed four seats (including the pilot). It would also have had two extra 400 L fuel tanks near the wing edge to extend the range. The cargo transport configuration would carry no passengers and had all seats in the passenger compartment removed for cargo. Any cargo would be loaded through hatches on the fuselage side and would have equipment to secure cargo in flight. In the ambulance configuration, beds could be fitted in the passenger compartment for the wounded.
There would be two wheeled landing gears which would be extendable from the side of the hull for land-based operations. Each one of these wheel measured at 39.96 x 14.96 in / 1,015 x 380 mm. These landing gears, when retracted, remained above the waterline and were hydraulically operated. The nose wheel (width measured at 33.74 x 12.79 in / 875 x 325 mm) sat at the front of the aircraft and could retract into a watertight compartment that could expel excess water with compressed air. If needed, a crewmember could climb above the nose compartment and lift the lid on top to perform maintenance. It was also provided with a locking mechanism. Additionally, the nose wheel’s suspension strength allowed it to perform takeoff and landings at altitudes up to 4,900 ft / 1,500 m.
The Ar 233 was designed so that it could be transported via rail. This blueprint drawing shows the transport configuration. [Dan Sharp]The “V” shaped gull wings that sat on top of the fuselage provided a suitable platform for the engines and propellers, as it allowed them to be mounted at a safe distance from the water. Just behind the engine cowls were a set of hydraulically extended floats for assistance with landing on water. The fuel tanks for the engines were located in the wing leading edge in three “densely riveted” containers. These fuel tanks would be refilled by climbing on top of the cockpit via an access ladder. In addition, hydraulically operated flaps were provided to aid the Ar 233 in landing. These flaps were designed to yield in rough water conditions to reduce damage.
In terms of excess equipment, the Ar 233 could carry a fog horn, rubber dinghy, boat hook, towing gear, ropes, detachable sun canopy, emergency food and water, emergency tools, both ground and sea anchors and various other materials.
Variants
E 430 (Bramo 323 R2) – Original design concept which saw a dedicated seaplane powered by two Bramo 323 R2 radial engines and capable of transporting ten people. This design was further developed by incorporating the amphibious characteristic of the E 430 “Amphibium”. This design was later improved upon and bore the designation Ar 233.
E 430 Amphibium (Argus Ar 402) – Original design concept developed beside the E 430 which saw a scaled down variant powered by Argus Ar 402 engines and capable of carrying eight passengers. This variant could be operated from land and water due to it’s amphibious characteristics. This variant was cancelled but its amphibious design was carried onto the E 430.
Ar 233 (Commercial Airliner) – Commercial airliner design based on the original E 430 design which would be capable of carrying ten people. A pilot and radio operator were part of the crew which allowed for eight passengers. In addition, a co-pilot could be in the crew at the expense of a passenger. Two baggage compartments (located in the hull in front of the cockpit but behind the nose wheel and behind the passenger compartment) and a toilet compartment (located behind the rear baggage compartment) were provided for the passengers. Powered by two 9-cylinder air-cooled Bramo 323 MA radial engines.
Ar 233 (Luxury Touring Aircraft) – Luxury touring variant intended for sightseeing in remote areas. This variant featured four seats (including the pilot). This variant had the choice of carrying two extra fuel tanks at 400 L each in the outer wings. The envisioned range was 1,120 mi / 1,800 km. This variant also had the choice of implementing an additional set of controls for a co-pilot. It is not known if this variant would retain the two baggage compartments and toilet. Powered by two 9-cylinder air-cooled Bramo 323 MA radial engines.
Ar 233 (Cargo Transport) – Cargo transport variant which saw the removal of the passenger compartment equipment for cargo. The aircraft in this configuration appeared to been capable of carrying up to 2,200 lb / 1,000 kg of cargo. The cargo would be loaded from doors on the side of the fuselage with equipment provided to secure the cargo. The two baggage compartments and toilet were definitely removed for space. Powered by two 9-cylinder air-cooled Bramo 323 MA radial engines.
Ar 233 (Flying Ambulance) – Flying ambulance variant which envisioned the possibility of placing four beds in the passenger compartment either for the wounded or for the passengers. This variant was mentioned as the E 430 Flying Ambulance in the Ar 233 brochure, which shows the variant still maintained the original designation. It is not known if this variant would retain the two baggage compartments and toilet. Powered by two 9-cylinder air-cooled Bramo 323 MA radial engines.
Operators
Nazi Germany – The German Arado design firm was the original designer and intended to develop the Ar 233 for use with Lufthansa, the Luftwaffe and other organizations. The project was cancelled in 1944 after Allied forces liberated France.
German Military Administration in France – The SIPA firm under German control was responsible for partially designing and building the Ar 233. All three of SIPA’s facilities appeared to have been working on the project.
Free France – The Free French Forces captured the intact Ar 233 mockup as well as notes and drawings after the Liberation of France, but they did not continue development of the project and presumably scrapped the mockup.
Arado Ar 233 (Commercial Airliner)
Wingspan
77 ft 9.07 in / 23.70 m
Length
68 ft 5.65 in / 20.87 m
Height
21 ft 5.87 in / 6.55 m
Wing Area
807.29 ft² / 75.00 m²
Engine
2x 9-cylinder air-cooled Bramo 323 MA radial engine (986 hp / 735 kW)
Propeller
2x electrically started three-blade propeller
Propeller Diameter
11 ft 5.79 in / 3.50 m
Wheel Width
34.45 x 12.79 in / 875 x 325 mm – Nose Wheel
39.96 x 14.96 in / 1,015 x 380 mm – Fuselage Wheels
Arado Ar 233 – Artist Conception of the Military VersionArado Ar 233 – Artist Conception of the Passenger Version
A blueprint sketch showing how the main landing gear operated. [Dan Sharp]The radio operator’s position which is located behind the cockpit. All the equipment mockups are labeled in French and German. [Dan Sharp]A blueprint sketch showing extension of the forward nose. [Dan Sharp]A blueprint sketch showing the fuel tank arrangement of the Ar 233. [Dan Sharp]Inside view of the incomplete tail section of the mockup. [Dan Sharp]The nose section of the Ar 233 mockup. A tow ring is visible at the tip of the aircraft while two labels above it shows where the landing lights would be positioned. [Dan Sharp]A closeup of the cockpit is shown. The seats are removed and the forward baggage compartment can be seen. [Dan Sharp]A partial view of the Ar 233 mockup’s passenger compartment which shows two very comfortable looking seats. [Dan Sharp]A blueprint sketch shows the wing floats extended. [Dan Sharp]Credits
File No. IV-7 & V-16 Aircraft – Paris Zone (CIOS, Rep. Item No. 25). (1945).
Wasser-Land-Flugzeug Ar 233. (1942). Arado Flugzeugwerke.
Nazi Germany (1942)
Jet Fighter Concept – None Built
An official blueprint showing the Fw 190 Strahljäger’s design and estimated performance. (Die Deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-1945: Vol. 2)
The Fw 190 Strahljäger (Jet Fighter) was a conceptual turbojet fighter and the Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau firm’s first attempt to design a jet-powered fighter. First mentioned in a report dated November 5, 1942, the Fw 190 Strahljager would have seen the BMW 801 radial engine replaced by a Focke-Wulf T.1 turbojet engine capable of producing 1,300 lb / 600 kg of thrust at most. Short-lived and canceled mere months after its conceptualization, the Fw 190 Strahljäger is quite mysterious in many aspects, such as how the engine would have performed while mounted. Unfortunately, due to the unique nature of the design, the Fw 190 Strahljäger has been the victim of falsification and malicious misinformation. One of the most popular claims on this aircraft was that it was built. This is almost assuredly false, as no primary sources support this claim. A photo does exist which purports to show a Fw 190 with the jet engine, but this photo is definitely a fake as there are too many discrepancies and questionable content, such as the plastic model looking landing gear. Nonetheless, the Fw 190 Strahljäger is quite an interesting design from 1942 that shows Focke-Wulf’s attempts to remedy the powerplant issues of their Fw 190.
History
When first fielded in August of 1941, the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Würger (Shrike) made a positive impression with Luftwaffe pilots. Seemingly equal or superior to most contemporary Allied fighters, the Fw 190 gained a fearsome reputation among the Allied pilots, who at first did not even realize the Fw 190 was a new aircraft model. Despite the success of the Fw 190, there were several problems with the aircraft’s design. For one, the air-cooled 14-cylinder BMW 801 radial engine which powered the aircraft was prone to overheating due to inadequate cooling systems and, as a result, would produce fumes which would seep into the cockpit and suffocate the pilot. This issue was somewhat addressed in subsequent production variants, but the problem was never snuffed out. In an attempt to address this issue, the Bremen-based Focke-Wulf firm began to look into the possibility of changing the powerplant. However, it was not until late 1942 that the firm launched several design ventures for a new design. In the spring of 1942, the Focke-Wulf firm received a considerable amount of funds from production orders for the Fw 190 by the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM / Ministry of Aviation). The goal of the design venture was to provide a successor to the Fw 190 by replacing the BMW 801 with more promising engines being developed at the time.
A colored official blueprint showing the Fw 190 Strahljäger’s design and estimated performance. Note the large “Ungültig” on the document, which means “Invalid”. (Doktor_Junkers)
One of the designs which resulted from this venture was the Fw 190 Strahljäger (jet fighter), a curious design that first appeared in documents on November 5, 1942. This design explored the feasibility of replacing the BMW 801 with a Focke-Wulf designed turbojet engine. Even before 1942, the Focke-Wulf firm looked into the possibility of replacing the BWM 801 with a turbojet. Dr. Otto Pabst, a Focke-Wulf engineer, told British officials after the war that he attempted to design a jet engine which would be used for the Fw 200 Condor bomber before the Second World War started. The report which entails his interview states: “Dr. Pabst had also worked on a gas turbine engine to be constructed by Focke-Wulf, which consisted of a double entry radial compressor and a single stage axial flow turbine with a single annular burner chamber which was expected to produce 600 kg (1,300 lb) thrust at 11 km (7 mi) or 2 kg (4 lb) thrust at sea level.“ The 4 lb / 2kg thrust at sea level is likely an error by the document author, and the more realistic thrust would be 440 lb / 200 kg. The engine in question was the Focke-Wulf T.1, and this same engine was envisioned to power the Fw 190 Strahljäger.
Much of the Fw 190 Strahljäger’s developmental history is unknown due to poor documentation and the project’s short lifespan. It would appear that the Fw 190 Strahljäger was designed with the intent of making the turbojet nose easily adaptable to standard Fw 190 airframes. Surprisingly, estimated performance graphs on the Fw 190 Strahljäger exist and demonstrate improvement over the standard Fw 190 A variant. Despite this, however, the Fw 190 Strahljäger’s top speed was lower than the Heinkel firm’s He 280 jet fighter and the Messerschmitt firm’s Me 262 fighter. As such, the Reichsluftfahrtministerium decided that the project was not worth pursuing and priority was given to the other firm’s jet fighter programmes. As such, the Fw 190 Strahljäger project would come to an end either in very late 1942 or early 1943, after only two or three months of development time. The original intent to replace the BMW 801 with a turbojet failed, and the Fw 190 program would evolve to utilize improved and reliable conventional reciprocating engines and propellers.
Fact or Fiction? – Author’s Analysis
With the mysterious and unique nature of the Fw 190 Strahljäger design, several online publications from recent times have made several claims about the project, with the most important being that a Fw 190 was actually converted to test the turbojet. This claim is certainly false, as primary documentation and credible historians show that the project did not even make it past the drawing stage. Although the Focke-Wulf firm could have easily taken a factory fresh Fw 190 off of the production lines to test this, just because they could does not mean they did.
A fake photo of the Fw 190 Strahljäger. Several discrepancies in this photo gives away it’s doctored nature. (greyfalcon.us)
There does exist a photo which claims to be evidence that a Fw 190 Strahljäger was built, but there are several discrepancies which suggest that it is fake. For one, the landing gear seems rather plastic, and the shadows are questionable. The shadow of the main wing suggests it is evening or morning and the sun is off to the left, while the shadow from the tailplane is projected as if the sun is behind the plane. Furthermore, it appears that two Werfer-Granate 21 rocket launchers are hung beneath the wing. If a hypothetical aircraft was converted to test the engine, it would make no sense for it to retain the launchers especially when it takes little time to remove them. Lastly, it seems that the nose exhaust is at the wrong angle relative to the fuselage. In conclusion, this appears to be a photo of a model which has been bleached to give the black and white effect. FotoForensics (used to detect photoshopped images) does not appear to suggest that the photo was modified, but this could possibly be due to the image not being the original one.
Other than that, a curious nomenclature which has surfaced in recent times suggests the turbojet-powered Fw 190 would be called the Fw 190 TL (TurboLader Strahltriebwerk – Turbocharger Jet Engine). However, this claim is questionable as official documents only state the name was “Fw 190 Strahljäger”. This can possibly be chalked up to misinformation.
Design
A diagram showing the turbojet engine in detail, along with some of the statistics of the aircraft. (Projekt ’46)
The Fw 190 Strahljäger was a 1942 project to mate a Focke-Wulf designed turbojet engine with a standard Fw 190 A airframe. According to credible secondary sources and an interview with former Focke-Wulf engineer Otto Pabst, the engine which would power the Fw 190 Strahljäger “consisted of a double entry radial compressor and a single stage axial flow turbine with a single annular burner chamber which was expected to produce 600 kg (1,322 lb) thrust at 11 km (6.8 mi) or 2 kg (4 lb) thrust at sea level”. As mentioned earlier, the 4 lb / 2 kg thrust was likely an error and the actual engine would produce 440 lb / 200 kg of thrust at sea level. The engine was the Focke-Wulf T.1 turbojet. The exhaust of the turbojet would be passed through a ring-shaped outlet between the engine and the fuselage. The exhaust passed through the side and bottom, but not the cockpit on the top. The engine would be accompanied by 370 gal / 1,400 l fuel, which the engine uses at 309 gal / 1,170 l per hour. This would give the Fw 190 Strahljäger a total flight time of 1.2 hours or 72 minutes.
A postwar Allied report which shows the Fw 190 Strahljäger’s blueprint. (Author’s Collection)
The Fw 190 Strahljäger’s armaments consisted of two 7.92x57mm Rheinmetall-Borsig MG 17 machine guns mounted on the engine cowl and two 20x82mm Mauser MG 151/20 cannons, one in each wing. It is unknown whether or not the aircraft would have been able to carry ordinance.
Official graphs of the Fw 190 Strahljäger’s estimated performance exist. Some fundamental specifications are listed in the Specifications Table below.
Operators
Nazi Germany – The Fw 190 Strahljäger was intended to replace the Fw 190’s troublesome BMW 801 engine, but the design did not go into production due to several factors.
Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Strahljäger*
* – Information taken from “Das Focke-Wulf Strahltriebwerk wird an die vorhandene Zelle Fw 190 angebout” published in 1942 by the Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau AG and “Luftwaffe: Secret Jets of the Third Reich” published in 2015 by Dan Sharp
Wingspan
34 ft 5.78 in / 10.51 m
Wing Area
197 ft² / 18.3 m²
Engine
1x single stage axial flow turbine Focke-Wulf T.1 turbojet
Engine Ratings
4 lb / 2 kg at Sea Level*
1,300 lb / 600 kg at 7 mi / 11 km
* – Likely an error in the document, the more realistic thrust would be 440 lb / 200 kg
An impressive photo of freshly produced Yak-10 sit on the Dolgoprudny airfield awaiting delivery. [Yefim Gordon]The Yakovlev Yak-10 was a four-seat multipurpose light aircraft designed in 1944 as a replacement for the Polikarpov U-2 (Po-2), a biplane which served as a liaison and passenger transport aircraft. Although the Yak-10 successfully passed state acceptance trials in January of 1945, it proved rather unsatisfactory with Soviet Air Force pilots, and thus, only 41 examples, including the prototype, were produced in 1946 before being replaced by the redesigned and superior Yak-12 light aircraft in 1947. Though unsuccessful in service, the Yak-10 provided valuable experience in light aircraft design and served as a stepping stone for the more successful Yak-12.
History
In early 1944, the Soviet High Command was beginning to realize the obsolete nature of the Polikarpov U-2 (Po-2) in its liaison role. In the wake of the quickly advancing aircraft industry, Yakovlev OKB (Experimental Design Bureau) was called upon to design a multipurpose light aircraft capable of performing liaison missions, ferrying passengers, cargo, and aerial ambulance duties for the Air Force to replace the Po-2. In response, Yakovlev OKB initiated a project with G.I. Gudimenko assigned as chief engineer and work commenced on a four-seat, high-wing monoplane using the firm’s pre-war AIR-6 design as a basis, which had similar traits. The new aircraft design was assigned the designation of Yak-14.
Due to the rather obscure nature of the project’s development, it is unknown when the first prototype was produced, but it is most likely sometime before or in early January of 1945. First flown by test pilot F.L. Abramov, the Yak-14, powered by a 5-cylinder, air cooled Shvetsov M-11FM radial engine producing 145 hp, proved to have unacceptable handling characteristics. This prompted minor redesigning and modifications to the prototype which would address the issues that emerged from the test flight. Amongst the various modifications, the aircraft was also redesignated as the Yak-10 (the Yak-14 designation would later be reused for a 1947 assault glider project). With the completion of modifications, the Yak-10 was resubmitted for state testing. The aforementioned handling characteristic issues appeared to have been addressed, and the Yak-10 passed state trials in June of 1945.
Yak-10 Blueprint Drawing
Now authorized for service, production of the Yak-10 was assigned to the No. 464 aircraft plant in Dolgoprudny (Долгопру́дный), approximately 12 mi / 20 km north of Moscow. A total of 40 models were produced in 1946, which were then delivered to air force units. An important difference between the prototype and production models was the conversion from the 145 hp M-11FM engine to the 160 hp M-11FR engine. During the Yak-10’s service life, several variants were designed. These included a dual-control trainer variant known as the Yak-10V, an aerial ambulance variant capable of carrying two stretchers and a doctor known as the Yak-10S, an experimental floatplane variant known as the Yak-10G, and an experimental ski landing gear conversion without a proper designation. Due to the scarcity of documents regarding the Yak-10, it is unknown how many Yak-10V and Yak-10S models were produced, but the Yak-10G and Yak-10 with ski gear were converted from standard Yak-10 models. Curiously, the Yak-10 also had a competitive experimental low-wing development in 1944 known as the Yak-13 (originally designated the Yak-12, which is unrelated to the 1947 development) which featured a split landing flap and various smaller modifications. Though the Yak-13 was superior to the Yak-10 in speed, the Yak-10 possessed operational advantages and thus won the favor of the Soviet high command. Though the Yak-13 was considered to be produced alongside the Yak-10, the act was deemed economically unviable and thus the Yak-13 remained a one-off prototype.
The Yak-10 prototype, still known as the Yak-14 at the time this photo was taken. [Yefim Gordon]In Soviet service the Yak-10 proved to be lacking in terms of performance, which also impacted the aircraft’s ability to be adapted to more roles. Within a year of the Yak-10’s fielding, the Yakovlev OKB was once again called upon to produce a better aircraft. In early 1947, the bureau initiated another project to fulfill the demands of the Air Force. G.I. Gudimenko was once again assigned as chief engineer, but now M.A. Shchyerbina, M.N. Beloskurskii and L.L. Selyakov joined the team as designers. The new project was designated as the Yak-12 (recycled from the Yak-13’s initial designation) and was essentially a redesigned Yak-10 that featured a redesigned rear fuselage contour and a shallower upper decking. Along with some other modifications to the wings, structure and fuselage, the Yak-12 would undergo flight testing within the same year. Though slower than the Yak-10 in speed, the Yak-12 proved to be more versatile for other roles and had greater operational characteristics. Such improvement was deemed satisfactory by the Air Force and mass production thus commenced. The success of the Yak-12 overshadowed the Yak-10 and all examples were withdrawn soon afterwards. The Yak-12 would be produced in the thousands with dozens of variants and conversions designed. It would see service with several Eastern Bloc countries, as well as the People’s Republic of China, Mongolia and possibly Cuba (it is unknown if they operated this type). The Yak-12 was saw military service well into the 1970s but were all retired prior to the 21st century. Several Yak-12 models are still flown to today for recreation, airshows and other roles.
The Yak-10, despite passing state acceptance trials, was still an operational failure and saw only limited production. However, the Yak-10 was an important stepping stone in the development of the Yak-12, which was much more successful and had a fruitful service life within the Soviet Union and several other countries.
Design
A Yak-10 flies over the Moskva River near the Moscow suburbs. [Yefim Gordon]The Yakovlev Yak-10 was a four-seat, high-wing, single-engine multipurpose light aircraft designed in 1944. The standard production Yak-10 was powered by a 5-cylinder air-cooled Shvetsov M-11FR radial engine providing 160 hp, accompanied by a two blade aluminum VISh-327 propeller. The Yak-10’s fuselage and tail was of metal construction while the wings were wooden. The wooden wings possessed a thickness to chord ratio of 11% and utilized the Clark YH airfoil. The fuselage consisted of a welded tubular steel truss while the tail possessed duralumin frames. Fabric was utilized throughout the entire aircraft for skinning. Twin bracing struts constructed of airfoil section steel tubes joined the wings and fuselage. The Yak-10 also had a non-retractable undercarriage in a taildragger configuration. It consisted of pyramid type, rubber-sprung main units and had a castoring tailwheel.
The same Yak-10 above parked at the Chkalovskaya AB during state acceptance trials at NII VVS. [Yefim Gordon]The Yak-10V dual control trainer variant would have featured a new set of controls next to the regular pilot seat. This would allow a co-pilot to fly while both pilots sat side by side. The Yak-10S ambulance variant would have a hatch on the port side of the fuselage for loading stretchers. A total of two stretchers could be accommodated in the Yak-10S along with a seat for a doctor. The Yak-10G featured the replacement of the conventional landing gear with floats previously used in the Yakovlev OKB’s previous AIR-6 multipurpose light aircraft design. Little is known about this variant, but it is known that it did not go into production due to the loss of performance caused by the floats’ drag. The experimental Yak-10 ski conversion had the landing gear replaced by Canadian manufactured wood skis of 6 ft 3 63/64 in x 1 ft 25/64 in / (1,930 x 340 mm). These skis weighed 44.7 lb (20.25 kg). The tail wheel was also replaced by a ski which measured at 1 ft 6 7/64 in x 4 47/64 in (460 x 120 mm) and weighed 4.25 lb (1.93 kg). This modification caused the aircraft’s performance to deteriorate and proved to be only capable of operating in rolled-down airfields. Consequently, the type was not adopted for use.
Variants
Yak-10 – Standard production variant powered by a 5-cylinder air-cooled Shvetsov M-11FR radial engine providing 160 hp.
Yak-10V – Dual control trainer variant of the Yak-10. An unknown amount were produced.
Yak-10S – Medical variant of the Yak-10 which featured a hatch on the port side of the fuselage for loading stretchers. The passenger compartment could accommodate two stretchers and one doctor. It is unknown how many Yak-10S models were manufactured.
Yak-10G – Experimental floatplane variant of the Yak-10. A single Yak-10 was modified to carry AIR-6 type floats in 1946. The Yak-10G underwent manufacturer’s tests but this type was not accepted for mass production, likely due to the degradation of performance generated by the floats’ drag.
Yak-10 (Skis) – Experimental conversion of a Yak-10 to replace the conventional landing gears with Canadian manufactured wooden skis. A single example was converted from a standard model in February of 1947 but was rejected for service as the skis caused the Yak-10’s performance to deteriorate. The ski variant was also deemed only capable of being operated from rolled-down airfields, thus limiting the operable areas.
Yak-13 – Development of the Yak-10 in 1944 which saw a redesigned low-wing configuration, a split landing flap and various smaller modifications. The engine was also switched to a M-11FM radial engine producing 145 hp. The Yak-13 was superior to the Yak-10 in terms of performance, but this aircraft was not accepted for mass production as the Yak-12 was deemed better in some regards and as a result, the Yak-13 remained a one-off prototype. This variant was originally designated as the Yak-12 but the name was changed to Yak-13 during trials and the designation was reused for the 1947 development project of the Yak-10.
Yak-12 – Redesigned variant which first appeared in 1947. The Yak-12 featured a redesigned rear fuselage contour and a more shallow upper decking. Though the base model was slightly inferior to the Yak-10 in speed, the redesigned variant proved more capable in other aspects and was thus mass produced and replaced the Yak-10 in service.
Operators
Soviet Union – The Yakovlev Yak-10 and it’s variants were briefly operated by the Soviet Air Force from 1946 to 1947 before being replaced by the superior Yak-12.
Yakovlev Yak-10 – Standard ModelYakovlev Yak-10 – Standard Model in Alternate LiveryYakovlev Yak-10 – Air AmbulanceYakovlev Yak-10 – Float Variant
The prototype Yak-10G floatplane variant sits in a river awaiting flight trials. [Yefim Gordon]A Yak-10 flies over the Moskva River near the Moscow suburbs. [Yefim Gordon]A white painted Yak-10S ambulance variant. The port hatch for loading stretchers is visible beside the cross. [Yefim Gordon]
People’s Republic of China (1958)
Helicopter / Bus / Boat Hybrid – None Built
Perhaps the only known photo of the original Shangdeng No.1 model. (中国飞机全书: 第3卷)
Shangdeng No.1 was an overambitious design undertaken by the Chinese Shanghai Bulb Factory in 1958 to produce a multipurpose vehicle which could serve as a helicopter, a bus and a boat for the National Day celebrations. Vastly unknown both inside and outside of China, the Shangdeng No.1 can be considered one of the People’s Republic of China’s more obscure designs of the 1950s. Quietly canceled after the conclusion of National Day, the Shanghai Bulb Factory would never fulfill their promise of completing the design and preparing it for mass production. This could be attributed to a plethora of reasons, but information is scarce.
History
On October 1st 1958, the People’s Republic of China celebrated the ninth anniversary of the founding of the nation. As their personal way of celebrating this national holiday, representatives of the Shanghai Bulb Factory unveiled a model of a hybrid design as a gift to the government. Unorthodox and, some may rightfully argue, ridiculous in concept, this design (dubbed the “Shangdeng No.1” / “上灯” 1号) was meant to have served as a versatile multipurpose vehicle capable of acting as a helicopter, a boat and a small bus. Upon presenting this model to the government, they proclaimed that design and manufacturing work would be completed in 1959 thus allowing for mass production. However, this would never happen, as work on the project ceased shortly after the model was presented and the conclusion of National Day.
The reason for the cancellation is unknown, but one could speculate a number of reasons. First and foremost, the Shanghai Bulb Factory specialized in the production of lightbulbs, therefore they completely lacked any expertise, experience, qualified personnel and machinery required to design and in turn produce such a conceptually complicated vehicle. A second possible reason why the project was canceled was due to Mao Zedong’s “Great Leap Forward” campaign, which would have the entire country struggle to industrialize and collectivize. The Shangdeng No.1 could have been deemed as useless and thus canceled by the government so that the factory could focus its resources to fulfill government mandated quotas of lightbulb production. Lastly, the Shanghai Bulb Factory could have had no intention of developing the Shangdeng No.1 in the first place, and the model presented could have been just a demonstration to show off Chinese ingenuity and to boost the morale of the Chinese people in a small show of fanciful propaganda. These, however, are just theories to speculate on why the Shangdeng No.1 was canceled. Only one photo is known to exist of the Shangdeng No.1’s scale model presented during National Day.
In conclusion, the Shangdeng No.1 was an overambitious design concept explored by the Shanghai Bulb Factory which resulted in the presentation of a scale model on the ninth National Day of the People’s Republic of China. Absurd in concept, the Shanghai Bulb Factory would have had no possible way of delivering on their promise to produce such a vehicle as they certainly had little to no experience on vehicle design and machinery intended for light bulb production could only produce so little. The fact that a light bulb factory conceptualized this vehicle is quite interesting though, and, to their credit, an intended helicopter/bus/boat hybrid design would most certainly have raised a few eyebrows in the country and in the Western world, assuming that the design was feasible and successful.
As details on this project are so scarce, it has led to some debate on the legacy of the design. A popular claim by numerous online sources is that, after the project was canceled, documents on the Shangdeng No.1 was transferred to the American Boeing firm, and that the Shangdeng’s tandem rotor design served as the inspiration of the Boeing CH-47 Chinook helicopter. This claim is unrealistic and vacuous, as the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America had no formal relations until the late 1960s / early 1970s, nearly a decade after the Chinook was serviced. Therefore, the concept of a Chinese light bulb factory transferring documents to and influencing a world-renowned aviation corporation would be extremely illogical and, frankly, impossible. The United States of America was also no stranger to tandem bladed helicopters designs, as numerous helicopters (eg. Piasecki HRP Rescuer, Piasecki H-21, etc) formerly and currently in service had these designs prior to the conceptualization of the Shangdeng.
Design
The design of the Shangdeng No.1 resembles a rectangular box with rounded edges. A tandem rotor blade configuration was used, and the conceptual power plant of the Shangdeng would have been an unspecified radial engine model capable of producing up to 450 hp, connected to both the front and the rear rotors. The cockpit located at the front of the helicopter would have allowed space for two pilots. Four passengers (or the weight equivalent in cargo) could have been held in the compartment located behind the cockpit. Windows were planned to be installed in the fuselage as can seen in the scale model. Relatively speaking, the Shangdeng’s dimensions are quiet small for a tandem rotor helicopter design. The Shangdeng was only 6 ft 7 in (2.00 m) tall, which would have likely made the interior compartment quite cramped.
Four static wheels were mounted in pairs in the front and rear part of the fuselage which would have moved the Shangdeng in its bus configuration. It is unknown whether or not the design would have allowed the tandem helicopter rotors to be folded in this configuration. If not, the blades could potentially be damaged in urban areas or crowded spaces. It is unknown if a separate transmission would have been connected to the wheels, but this would have certainly greatly complicated the design. If the vehicle in its bus configuration was meant to be propelled by the rotors, that would have been not only unacceptably inefficient, but would have also limited the paths it could travel and would have been highly dangerous to be next to. Steering in the wheeled mode is also unclear.
In its naval configuration, the Shangdeng would have been propelled by an unspecified amount of 15 in / 40 cm propellers in the rear, possibly with assistance from the wheels which would have provided limited propulsion in the water. Again, this would have probably been highly fuel-inefficient. Also, why would a helicopter, which can easily get between any two points by flying, be used as a boat is hard to fathom. How steering was achieved in the boat mode is unclear.
In the helicopter configuration, the Shangdeng would have just been propulsed by the rotor blades and radial engine. The problem of having someone trained both as a pilot, driver and skipper at the same time seems to have gone unnoticed by the designers. As the project did not progress beyond the conceptual model stage, intricate details regarding the Shangdeng No.1 are unknown. However, basic dimensions and estimated performances are provided by 中国飞机全书: Volume III, a book written by People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) general Wei Gang (魏钢), former PLAAF model maker and artist Chen Yingming (陈应明) and aviation magazine author Zhang Wei (张维).
Operator(s)
People’s Republic of China – The Shangdeng No.1 would most likely have been operated by the various military branches and likely some civilian institutes if it were to see mass production.
Shanghai Bulb Factory Shangdeng No.1*
* – Statistics taken from中国飞机全书 (Vol. 3)
Length
32 ft 10 in / 10.00 m
Height
6 ft 7 in / 2.00 m
Engine
1x Unspecified Multi-Cylinder Radial Engine Model (450 hp)
The Yer-2ON was a VIP passenger transport aircraft designed in 1944 by Vladimir Grigoryevich Yermolayev and his Yermolayev OKB (design bureau). Based off of the firm’s preexisting Yer-2 bomber, the Yer-2ON was meant to fulfill the role of a government VIP transport aircraft which would carry government members to and from meetings in or out of the Soviet Union. Shortly after Vladimir Yermolayev died on December 31st of 1944 from a typhoid infection, the Yermolayev OKB firm was integrated into Pavel Sukhoi’s Sukhoi OKB firm where the project continued. Despite showing relatively promising performance, the Yer-2ON would eventually be cancelled due to the conclusion of the Second World War and the Sukhoi OKB’s need to concentrate resources on other projects. Thus, the three produced Yer-2ON would never be used for their intended purpose and were presumably scrapped some time post-war.
History
Diplomacy between the Allied countries during the Second World War was an essential step in defeating the Axis powers. With the increasing successes of the Allies during the war, meetings between representatives from the United States, Soviet Union and United Kingdom were held to discuss the future of Europe along with battle plans. In order to attend these meetings, the Soviet government became aware of the need for a long-range VIP passenger transport aircraft capable of carrying 10 to 12 people while maintaining comfort, reliability, cruising abilities at 13,000 ft to 16,400 ft (4,000 m to 5,000 m) and range of 2,500 mi to 3,100 mi (4,000 km to 5,000 km). After Joseph Stalin himself made a request for an aircraft meeting these requirements in January of 1944, a meeting was held between government and Soviet Air Force officials discussing the feasibility of converting existing bomber aircraft to meet this need. Not only would this save time, but also had the benefit of sharing the same airframe as aircraft already in production. In the end, the Yermolayev OKB’s liquid-cooled Charomskiy ACh-30B V-12 diesel engine powered Yer-2 bomber was chosen for conversion. Curiously enough, Yer-2 being used as a transport aircraft is quite ironic, as it reflects on Roberto L. Bartini’s 1937 Stal-7 transport aircraft, from which the Yer-2 bomber was originally developed from.
A frontal view of the passenger compartment. (AviaDejaVu)
Shortly after the NKAP (People’s Commissariat for Aviation Industry) approved Order 351 on May 23, 1944, the head designer of the Yermolayev OKB firm, Vladimir Grigoryevich Yermolayev, began work on converting the Yer-2 into a VIP passenger transport aircraft. In his address to the NKAP on that day, he promised that a completed example would be converted by Factory No.39 and be ready for tests by November 15th. This new variant would be designated Yer-2ON (Osoboye Naznachenie – Special Purpose). With most of the groundwork already completed, Yermolayev was able to complete the conversion blueprints by August. An inspection was conducted on the Yer-2ON’s plans on August 28th and was approved for production. The difference between the Yer-2ON and the standard bomber variant was the removal of all armament and replacement of the bomb bay with a passenger compartment. The passenger compartment would have been able to hold 9 passengers, as well as a flight attendant. All relevant technical drawings were sent to Factory No.39 in the Irkutsk Oblast. A total of four Yer-2 bombers were ordered for conversion, but standard Yer-2 production would run into difficulties as the diesel powered Charomskiy ACh-30B engines manufactured at Factory No.500 were found to have defects and needed to be addressed. As such, the project was put on hold for a considerable amount of time.
A rear view of the Yer-2ON. (Одноклассники)
On December 31st, Vladimir Grigoryevich Yermolayev passed away due to a typhoid infection. As a result, the Yermolayev OKB and its assets were integrated into Pavlov Sukhoi’s Sukhoi OKB firm. It would appear that N.V. Sinelnikov took over as head designer once the project was integrated into Sukhoi OKB. Once the issue with the engines was resolved, three Yer-2 bombers were set aside and were prepared to be converted into the Yer-2ON. Due to the relatively poor documentation of the Yer-2ON’s development, it is unknown when precisely the first Yer-2ON was completed, but most sources allege it was completed at the end of December. The manufacturer’s flight tests and maiden flight appeared to have taken place sometime in February of 1945. Through these tests it was revealed that the Yer-2ON was capable of covering a distance of 3,230 mi / 5,200 km while maintaining a flight ceiling of 19,700 ft / 6,000 m and a top speed of 270 mph / 435 kmh.
On April 16th, the first Yer-2ON made a record non-stop flight from the Irkutsk Aviation Plant’s airfield in Eastern Siberia to Moscow. This flight was accomplished by Heroes of the Soviet Union M. Alekseev and Korostylev over a flight time of 15 hours and 30 minutes and covered a distance of approximately 2,611 mi / 4,202 km. It would appear that a second flight would be conducted sometime near the end of April with the second converted aircraft once it was ready. The second flight had identical circumstances as the first flight (same pilots, destination, fuel load, etc). Interestingly enough, both flights concluded with enough fuel for four more hours of flight, attesting to the Yer-2’s long-range capabilities. A third Yer-2ON was converted at an unspecified time, but details of its tests (if it performed any at all) are unknown. Some internet sources claim that a fourth example was completed on May 10th of 1945, but this cannot be confirmed and disagrees with most publications.
One of the passenger seats of the Yer-2ON. (AviaDejaVu)
Despite the Yer-2ON performing relatively well and passing the manufacturer’s flight tests, the aircraft was never used for its intended role of government VIP passenger transportation. This was likely the result of the project being deemed as low priority within the Sukhoi OKB firm. At the time, Sukhoi was invested in other more pressing projects which led to the Yer-2ON being eventually canceled. Joseph Stalin himself was reputed to have aviophobia (a fear of flying) and the Yer-2ON not entering service did not appear to have consequences for the Sukhoi OKB. Nonetheless, the Yer-2ON project was dropped some time post-war and the three manufactured prototypes were likely scrapped as a result.
Design
A cutout drawing of the Yer-2ON’s interior. (AviaDejaVu)
The Yermolayev Yer-2ON was a two engine VIP passenger transport aircraft based on the Yermolayev Yer-2 bomber aircraft, powered by two liquid-cooled Charomskiy ACh-30B V-12 diesel engines capable of producing 1,500 hp each. The Yer-2ON was identical to the standard Yer-2 bomber in most respects, though armaments and turrets were removed and the bomb bay was converted to a passenger compartment with seats for 9 passengers and 1 flight attendant. The crew would have consisted of a commander pilot, a co-pilot, a navigator, a radio operator, and a flight attendant. In the passenger compartment, the left side (aircraft facing forward) had 5 seats while the right side had 4. The flight attendant’s seat was located behind the last seat on the right side, and was retractable. A luggage compartment was also provided. Another notable feature was the addition of a toilet compartment, as the aircraft’s long-distance travel routes required such a feature. Several windows were installed on the side of the fuselage for the passengers.
Operators
Soviet Union – The Yer-2ON was intended to be used as a passenger transport aircraft for government VIPs traveling in and out of the country to attend meetings.
Yermolayev Yer-2ON*
* – Statistics taken from “OKB Sukhoi: A History of the Design Bureau and its Aircraft” by Dmitriy Komissarov, Sergey Komissarov, and Yefim Gordon
Yermolayev Yer-2ON Side View IllustrationA side view of the Yer-2ON. (AviaDejaVu)The entrance to the passenger section. (AviaDejaVu)This photo shows what appears to be a retractable seat in the rear of the passenger compartment. This seat most certainly would be for the flight attendant. (AviaDejaVu)Toilet compartment of the Yer-2ON. (AviaDejaVu)
Kingdom of Hungary (1944)
Fictitious Jet Attacker / Dive Bomber – 1 Scale Model Built
The original photo published on the XNI-02. (Repülés Magazine)
The Manfréd-Weiss XNI-02 Kaméleon (Chameleon) is a fictitious Second World War Hungarian jet-powered attacker aircraft written about in the April 1980 edition of the Hungarian aviation magazine Repülés (Flight) as an April Fools joke. The brainchild of Hungarian author György Punka, the XNI-02, though meant as a harmless April Fools joke, unfortunately fooled unsuspecting readers and caused controversy within the military aviation fanbase. As a result, numerous websites, magazine authors, armchair historians and casual readers are still convinced to this day that the XNI-02 Kaméleon was an authentic project undertaken during the war and believes it existed.
Alleged History
According to the April 1980 edition of the Hungarian aviation magazine “Repülés”, while working for the Hungarian Manfréd Weiss Steel and Metal Works, (Weiss Manfréd Acél- és Fémművek, also known as “Csepel Works”) engineer Pál Nemisch designed a jet attacker aircraft in 1944. Due to the frequent Allied bombing and Hungary’s shortage of supplies, Nemisch presumably decided to base his design off pre existing components taken from other aircraft. Christened the “XNI-02”, the aircraft gained the nickname of Kaméleon (Chameleon) due to the number of parts incorporated from foreign designs. The XNI-02’s construction consists of a concoction of German, American and indigenously manufactured parts. Further details of the XNI-02’s design process are unknown, as Punka did not expand on them.
The mock guncam footage of the XNI-02 getting shot down. (Repülés Magazine)
Construction of the XNI-02 is presented as having began in mid to late 1944, after parts for the aircraft were collected. The prototype began assembly in Kőbánya, Hungary, but construction was relocated to an underground aircraft production facility near Augsburg, Germany. This can possibly be accredited to Operation Margarethe, the German occupation of Hungary to ensure their loyalty to the Axis. The XNI-02’s development team would once again be relocated to Austria, near Wiener Neustadt prior to November. The XNI-02 prototype was presumably completed by the Wiener Neustädter Flugzeugwerke factory and made its maiden flight on November 6th.
On April 1st of 1945, Lieutenant R. Taylor from the USAAF 385th Fighter Group was patrolling Austrian airspace in search of Axis fighters with his North American P-51 Mustang. While flying near the town of Linz, he spotted a rather peculiar looking aircraft flying to his starboard side at an altitude of approximately 9,840 ft / 3,000 m. While trying to get behind the mysterious fighter, Lt. Taylor inadvertently revealed his presence to the aircraft which led to it speed away. Determined to chase down this mysterious aircraft, Lt. Taylor proceeded with the chase. For some odd reason, the aircraft Lt. Taylor was chasing began to slow down and extended its landing gears. Now in a position to engage the aircraft, Lt. Taylor fired towards the unidentified aircraft. Failing to shoot it down in the initial pass, Lt. Taylor pulled off and reengaged it. This time, the burst of gunfire from his Mustang seemingly crippled the unidentified aircraft and thus forced the pilot to bail out. The aircraft crashed shortly thereafter. After returning to the 385th Fighter Group’s homebase in Foggia, Italy, the guncam on Lt. Taylor’s Mustang was examined and the film revealed that the mysterious aircraft Taylor shot down was the sole XNI-02 (the guncam still frame in the magazine was created using Punka’s model). This, however, was unknown to them at the time. This information would be revealed later on from an unnamed technician who provided pictures and some information regarding the XNI-02 after the war. On that day, the XNI-02 was supposed to be performing a weapon firing flight test, but this would never occur as Lt. Taylor was able to successfully shoot down the prototype. In Lt. Taylor’s private log book, he recorded the victory as: “Unidentified jet over Linz. 10:35, 1945 April 1st”. The reasons why the XNI-02 test pilot decided to slow down and extend his landing gear are up for personal interpretation, as the story is fictitious in itself. The test pilot may have believed he lost Lt. Taylor and decided to prepare for landing, or this was an indication that the XNI-02 was experiencing mechanical problems and needed to perform an emergency landing. Realistically though, the story was written in this way to cover up Punka’s XNI-02 model’s inability to retract its landing gears. It is unknown whether or not the radioman was present onboard the aircraft at the time of its shootdown.
The Wiener Neustädter Flugzeugwerke factory was also in the process of building the reconnaissance variant of the XNI-02 in 1945. The incomplete fuselage of this variant was destroyed by advancing Soviet troops when they overran the factory. Other than the attacker / dive bomber and reconnaissance variant, there was also plans to produce a night fighter and trainer variant for the XNI-02. These plans, however, were never acted upon due to the advancing Allied troops. Details of these variants are unknown as Punka did not write about them.
Supposed Design
As mentioned before, the XNI-02 Kaméleon is a fictitious jet fighter created by Hungarian author György Punka. All known photos of the XNI-02 are sourced from a model Punka created. Using components from several model kits, Punka was able to create a fairly realistic and convincing model. The XNI-02 model uses a North American P-51B Mustang’s fuselage, a set of the iconic gull wings from the Junkers Ju 87 Stuka (the model also uses the Ju 87’s horizontal stabilizer as an anhedral outer section of the regular wings), the Lockheed P-38 Lightning’s nose, and the BMW 003’s two engine cowls were taken from a Sud Aviation Caravelle passenger jet model. The combination of parts used for this aircraft is attributed to the fact that Hungary was unable to manufacture its own aircraft components. However, parts of the tail and nose were constructed using plastic and wood. In the original article written by Punka, only Stuka parts were mentioned. This could mean that the P-51 fuselage was either taken from captured models or the Hungarians reverse engineered it and indigenously produced them with modifications. The fuselage would have been reinforced with steel plates for protection, though every other part of the aircraft was constructed using wood and plastic.
The XNI-02 would have had space for two crew members, a pilot in the plexiglass cabin and a gunner / radio operator which would be housed in the nose (likely in a prone position). The gunner would be able to remotely control two 12.7x81mm Gebauer GKM 1940.M machine guns located under the nose help from a monitor. (The machine guns are not believed to have been installed on the prototypes.)
The XNI-02 was powered by two BMW 003 turbojet engines given to the Hungarians by the Germans. They are mounted on the rear fuselage on either side accompanied by a slight bulge in the fuselage which would have held the fuel tanks. It would appear that the fuel weight impacted the performance of the XNI-02 but guaranteed an increase in endurance and distance. The exact variant of the engines is unknown. The armaments consisted of two 30x184mm Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 103 autocannons and two remote-controlled 12.7x81mm Gebauer GKM 1940.M machine guns. The MK 103 cannons were mounted in the nose while two Gebauer GKM 1940.M machine guns were envisioned to be mounted under the nose. As an attacker, the XNI-02 prototype theoretically would have been able to mount two 550 lb / 250 kg bombs or four 8.26 in / 21 cm Werfer-Granate 21 rockets under the fuselage or wings.
The production variant of the XNI-02 would have had ejection seats for both crewmen, but this feature was not installed on the prototype. Curiously enough, the original prototype concept would have had a propeller-driven engine, but due to time constraints this experimental concept was not tested and jet engines were mounted right away.
Conclusion
Though the XNI-02 Kaméleon is a fictitious aircraft, the design of it would have been quite modern and advanced, but also unusual and with plenty of quirks that signal it as a fake design. The monitor assisted remote gunner system is an example of this. Though Punka was able to sell a convincing story of the XNI-02 Kaméleon, there are some questionable details which impact the veracity. For one, the fact that the Hungarians would have received BMW 003 turbojet engines in 1944 is quite unrealistic. At that time, German would have likely reserved their resources for use against the Allied forces. The basis of the design, although creative, would have imposed an issue for production facilities. The basis of the design resides on the availability of spare parts from existing aircraft, and if such parts were not available, the XNI-02 would have needed extensive modification to accommodate different parts.
Despite these flaws, Punka’s creation most certainly made an interesting and, to some degree, convincing story which made a great April Fools article. However, not everyone realized that this was, in fact, an April Fools joke and some took this as a real aircraft. This caused many other magazines and websites to write their own articles on the XNI-02, stating that it was a real project. The XNI-02 was even able to convince some Hungarian veterans, which led them to contact each other to see if anyone knew if this was a real project.
Variants
XNI-02 Attacker / Dive Bomber – Attacker variant powered by two BMW 003 turbojet engines. One prototype was built and was destroyed on April 1st of 1945 when Lieutenant R. Taylor of the 385th Fighter Group shot it down during a test flight.
XNI-02 Reconnaissance – Reconnaissance variant of the XNI-02. One incomplete prototype was in construction presumably at the Wiener Neustädter Flugzeugwerke factory in Austria. The prototype was destroyed by the Soviet troops.
XNI-02 Night Fighter – Intended night fighter variant. Details unknown.
XNI-02 Night Bomber – Intended night bomber variant. An IR (Infrared Radiation) bombsight would have been installed in the nose for use by the radio operator / gunner (bombardier in this context).
Operators
Kingdom of Hungary – The XNI-02 Kaméleon was intended for use by the Royal Hungarian Air Force.
Gallery
Credits
Punka, G. (1980, April). XNI-02 “Kaméleon”. Repülés, 17-18.
Nazi Germany (1945)
Rocket Interceptor Trainer – 1 Built
A rear 3/4 view of the Soviet captured “White 94” Me 163S. Colorization by Michael Jucan [Yefim Gordon]The Messerschmitt Me 163S (Schulflugzeug / Training Aircraft) Habicht (Hawk) was an unarmed two-seat training glider based off of the famous Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet. Originally designed for the purpose of training novice pilots for landing, the Habicht ultimately never saw active service with the Germans and only a single example was produced through the conversion of a serial Me 163B-1. With the sole example captured by the Russians after the war, the Habicht underwent extensive testing by the Soviet Air Force which helped them understand the flying characteristics of the Komet and prepared Soviet pilots for flying the powered Komets. The Habicht undoubtedly played a part in helping Soviet engineers understand the Komet and thus played a part in the future development of Soviet rocket aircraft.
History
A closeup view of the Me 163S showing the right wing. [Yefim Gordon]The Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet was one of Nazi Germany’s most famous aircraft produced during the Second World War. Although bearing the title of the world’s first mass-produced rocket-powered interceptor, the Komet did have its fair share of flaws, such as the volatile and sometimes dangerous Walter HWK 109-509 rocket engine, which prevented it from becoming an effective weapon against the Allies.
As the Komet was designed to have a limited amount of fuel to engage Allied bombers, pilots were expected to glide the Komet back to friendly airfields once they disengaged from combat. With gliding landings as a potential problem for the less experienced pilots, one of the ideas proposed by Messerschmitt designers in 1944 was to introduce a dedicated trainer variant of the Komet which would have a student pilot accompanied by an instructor pilot. Designated as the Messerschmitt Me 163S (Schulflugzeug / Training Aircraft) Habicht, the trainer glider differed from the production model with the addition of an instructor’s cockpit behind the forward cockpit. This addition was accompanied by the removal of the Walter HWK 109-509 rocket engine and the Habicht would have to be towed by another aircraft in order to get airborne. Another interesting addition to the Habicht was a second liquid tank behind the instructor’s cockpit for counterbalancing. All the liquid tanks would be filled with water for weight simulation and ballast. A total of twelve examples were planned for production, but only one was produced due to wartime production constraints.
The sole example of the Habicht was built by converting an earlier Me 163B-1 production model. Due to the scarcity of information regarding the Me 163S, it is unknown exactly when the Habicht was produced and what sort of testing it may have undergone during German possession. However, it is known that the Soviet Union was able to capture the only example during the final stages of the World War II’s Eastern Front. The sole Habicht was sent to the Soviet Union along with three Me 163B Komets during the Summer of 1945 for thorough inspection and testing. In historian Yefim Gordon’s book “Soviet Rocket Fighters – Red Star Volume 30”, he claims that in addition to the three Komets, seven Habicht trainer models were also captured. This, however, remains quite dubious as there is no evidence that more than one Habicht existed, and all current photographic material, research materials, and books all suggest that only a single example was produced.
The Me 163S in simulated flight configuration aided by struts. [Yefim Gordon]As the Soviets were particularly interested in rocket propulsion aircraft, the State Defence Committee issued a resolution which called for the thorough examination of the Walter 109-509 jet engine and the Me 163 Komet along with captured German documents on rocket propulsion. The three Me 163B Komets, of which only one was airworthy, and the Me 163S Habicht were sent to the Flight Research Institute (LII), the Valeriy P. Chkalov Soviet Air Force State Research Institute (GK NII VSS), and the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute (TsAGI). The Habicht and Komets saw extensive testing in Soviet hands, undergoing several structural, static and wind tunnel tests. During the initial flight testing period, the Komet only flew as a glider as Soviet pilots and engineers were unsure of whether or not the Walter rocket engine was ready for use since bench tests were not completed. Securing the T-Stoff and C-Stoff propellants for the rocket engine was also a problem. In order to understand the handling characteristics of the Komet, the Habicht was flown numerous times at different altitudes, as was the unpowered Komet. A Tupolev Tu-2 bomber was responsible for towing the Habicht to these altitudes. Under Soviet ownership, the Habicht was given the nickname of “Карась” (Karas / Crucian Carp) due to the glider’s distinct silhouette. The test pilot responsible for flying the Habicht was Mark Lazarevich Gallaj. In general, the Habicht was considered relatively easy to handle by the Soviet test pilots. It is unknown how many test flights the Habicht underwent, but the aircraft certainly aided Soviet pilots in understanding the handling characteristics of the Komet. The Habicht’s service came to an end once the Soviet state trials of the Komet concluded. The sole example was scrapped sometime in 1946, along with seemingly all the other Komets.
If the Me 163S was able to be mass produced and flown with the Luftwaffe, the aircraft would have been a valuable tool to train German pilots. Landing the Komet was a problem for some pilots and in some cases resulted in fatalities but, with the use of the Habicht, the number of accidents would have certainly decreased.
Design
The Me 163S hung upside down in an unspecified TsAGI workshop for static testing. [Yefim Gordon]The Messerschmitt Me 163S Habicht was a semi-monocoque aluminum based two-seat training glider developed off the standard tailless Messerschmitt Me 163B-1 Komet. The sole example was converted from a production Komet, which meant dramatic modifications had to be made to the aircraft. The Walther HWK 109-509 rocket engine was removed and in its place was a cockpit for an instructor. The fuel tanks in the airframe were all filled with water to simulate fuel weight while another water tank was added behind the instructor’s cockpit for ballast purposes. There was no armament fitted to the glider. There was a small transparent section between the student pilot’s cockpit and the instructor pilot’s cockpit, presumably for the purpose of communication. As there are no known German documents on the Habicht and Russian documents are scarce, not much is known on the other differences the Habicht may have had. Detailed specifications of the Habicht are unknown, but theoretically it should have been identical to the standard Me 163B-1 Komet except for possibly weight, air drag and center of gravity.
Operators
Nazi Germany – The intended operator and producer of the Me 163S Habicht.
Soviet Union – The main operator of the Me 163S Habicht. A single Habicht was captured and tested by the Soviets after the war. The Habicht was scrapped in 1946.
*Editor’s note: As noted above, the exact specifications of the Me 163S Habicht are unknown. However they are presumed to be similar to that of the Me 163B-1 Komet.
Me 163S Habicht “White 94” in Russian Service [Haryo Panji]Me 163S Habicht in German Service [Haryo Panji]
Now known as the “White 94”, the Me 163S sits idly by. [Yefim Gordon]A closeup view of the Me 163S showing the transparent section between the two cockpits. [Yefim Gordon]The Me 163S in simulated flight configuration aided by struts. [Yefim Gordon]A top down view of the “White 94” Me 163S. [Yefim Gordon]A photo of the “White 94” Me 163S in flight being towed by a presumed Tupolev Tu-2. The pilot in the photo is likely Mark L. Gallaj. [Yefim Gordon]The Me 163S inside TsAGI’s T-101 wind tunnel for testing. The struts support the Habicht and simulate its flight configuration. [Yefim Gordon]An alternate closeup view of the Me 163S during static tests. [Yefim Gordon]
Yet another inverted static test, but this time the tail wheel strut and tire were removed from the Me 163S. [Yefim Gordon]
The prototype Canberra T.25 during it’s first vertical flight. The Avro-Stroker B.69-420 jet engines would explode and destroy the plane just seconds after this photo was taken. (British Archives)
The English Electric Canberra T.25 (nicknamed Hoverberra by the designer team) was an experimental VTOL variant of the British Canberra jet bomber which was patented and developed by Avro Canada designer Richard Stroker. With a standard Canberra B.2 converted to mount two experimental Avro-Stroker BS.69-420 turbojet engines, the aircraft was given the experimental title of T.25 and was vertically flown for the first time on April 1st of 1960. Unfortunately, the first and only test flight resulted in catastrophic failure when the two experimental Avro-Stroker J-69-420 engines spontaneously combusted and exploded shortly after the T.25 got off the ground. Soon after, all work on the project was halted.
History
In the recent months, an experimental variant of the English Electric Canberra jet bomber was discovered in the National Archives in Greater London. Surprisingly enough, the variant was developed in the Dominion of Canada, which never officially operated or received any Canberras! This experimental variant bears the title of Canberra T.25 and was a testbed for an obscure Canadian developed turbojet engine designated as the “Avro-Stroker BS.69-420”. Much of the information regarding this variant has been lost to history, but the fundamentals appear to have been recorded by a variety of sources. Although Canada was never a recipient or official operator of the English Electric Canberra jet bomber, a single example of the Canberra B.2 found its way to Canada in February of 1959. Details of this purchase are not known, but it would appear that the aircraft was purchased by a civilian firm. As such, the aircraft was stripped of much of its military equipment.
Sometime in late 1959, a relatively unknown Avro Canada employee known by the name of Richard Stroker (referred as “Dick” by most) patented a turbojet engine which he had been working on since 1951. Stroker was part of the occupational forces in Germany after the war, and he was one of the engineers who were tasked with studying experimental Nazi hoverjet technology. Details on the precise technologies he was tasked to study are unclear. It would appear that the Avro Canada had taken an interest in this experimental engine Stroker developed, and decided to manufacture a small batch for trials. The engine received the designation of “Avro-Stroker BS.69-420” and it would appear that only four examples were manufactured. Wishing to test the engines, Avro Canada reached out to the Canadian government for permission to utilize a test frame. With the rather small size of the turbojet engines, they were envisioned to power the aircraft horizontally, allowing it to lift upwards. Previous work done on the VZ-9 Avrocar assisted with this engine’s development. As the Canberra B.2 was obtained recently, the Canadian government allocated it to the Avro Canada designers. It would appear that the British Ministry of Aviation was notified of this development, and they took a keen interest in the modification. Soon after, a team of twelve British engineers were dispatched to Canada to observe and assist in the project’s development.
By March 3rd of 1960, much of the modified Canberra’s design was completed. The Canberra received the official designation of Canberra T.25 within the United Kingdom and was nicknamed “Hoverberra” by the design team. Two BS.69-420 turbojet engines were mounted within the bomb bay and rear fuselage at a 90-degree angle. According to official engine bench tests, the BS.69-420 was capable of producing 4410 lb (2,000 kg) of thrust, which would have barely been able to power the Canberra, even with most of its military equipment stripped. As such, the Canberra T.25 was transported to the Toronto Malton Airport (today known as Pearson International Airport) on March 27th. Preparations were being made to initiate the Canberra T.25’s first vertical flight. The Canadian test pilot’s full name is unknown, but documents identified him as “Pranks.” Soon after, all preparations for the Canberra T.25’s first flight was complete. The test flight was to take place within a hangar, as the maiden flight’s purpose was to see if the aircraft could get off the ground at all, and did not instruct the pilot to fly high.
On April 1st at 0500 hours exact, the two BS.69-420 turbojet engines were ignited and the Canberra T.25 slowly lifted itself into the air. Canadian and British engineers and designers observed this process at a safe distance. Twelve seconds after the aircraft began hovering, a strange sound was reported by Pranks which he described as “a high pitched screeching.” As this was unusual and did not occur during engine bench tests, Pranks was ordered to immediately shut down the engine and descend. Just as this command was spoken, the B.69-420 turbojet engines exploded which completely destroyed the Canberra T.25 and killed Pranks. Two nearby engineers were also injured by flaming debris, one was severely burnt while the other made it off with relatively light injuries. Soon after this tragic incident, the Canadian government ordered the immediate cessation of work on this project.
As not much documentation seems to exist on this obscure project, much of the developmental history and post-cancellation history is unknown. However, the Canberra T.25 “Hoverberra” holds a special spot in aviation history as Canada’s indigenous endeavor to produce a VTOL aircraft. It is recorded that Richard Stroker soon resigned from Avro Canada following the catastrophic disaster. He soon moved from Toronto to Medicine Hat where he opened up a restaurant with his wife. He died in 1996 after suffering from colonl cancer.
Operators
Dominion of Canada – The Avro Canada firm developed the Canberra T.25 with assistance from British engineers. The aircraft would have likely entered service as a photo reconnaissance aircraft
United Kingdom – The Ministry of Aviation took great interest in the Canadian VTOL development of the Canberra and provided personnel assistance to the Avro Canada designers. It is unknown whether or not they would have adopted the type for service.
Sources
Fiddlesworth, R. (1962). Completely Reliable Report on Jet Aircraft: Ministry of Fictitious Aircraft & Aviation.
Realname, J. (1960). April 1st Report on VTOL Technology: The Canberra T.25
Stroker, R. (1959). Engine Patent: VTOL BS.69-420 Turbojet
The Curtiss P-40 Kittyhawk/Warhawk is one of the most iconic symbols of American aviation. Having served with over a dozen nations throughout its career, the aircraft proved itself capable of handling its own in combat. Although the Republic of Finland was never a recipient or official operator of the P-40, they were still able to obtain a single example from a Soviet pilot who landed in Finnish territory with his pristine P-40M. Serving mostly as a training aid, the Finnish P-40 Warhawk would never see combat against any of Finland’s enemies.
History
The Curtiss P-40 (affectionately known as the Kittyhawk for early variants and Warhawk for later variants) is perhaps one of the most recognizable American fighters of the 1930s. Most well known for having served with the “Flying Tigers” American Volunteer Group in the Pacific Theatre, the P-40 also had a fruitful service life on the Western Front and Eastern Front. One of the lesser known parts of the P-40’s history however, is the story of the Finnish P-40M Warhawk. The Finnish Air Force (FAF) had quite an interesting history during the 1940s. Equipped with a wide variety of German, Soviet, British and American aircraft, the word “diverse” would certainly apply to them. Despite Finland never officially receiving Curtiss P-40 Kittyhawk / Warhawks, they were still able to obtain and service a single P-40M Warhawk from the Soviet Air Force during the Continuation War through a forced landing.
P-40 KH-51 after repainting for Finnish service (Kalevi Keskinen)
On December 27th of 1943, a Curtiss P-40M-10-CU known as “White 23” (ex-USAAF s/n 43-5925) belonging to the 191st IAP (Istrebitel’nyy Aviatsionnyy Polk / Fighter Regiment) piloted by 2nd Lieutenant Vitalyi Andreyevitsh Revin made a wheels-down landing on the frozen Valkjärvi lake in the Karelian Isthmus region. Finnish forces were able to quickly retrieve the plane in pristine condition.
The circumstances of Revin’s landing are quite odd, stirring up a couple of theories on why Revin decided to land his undamaged aircraft in Finnish territory. According to the 2001 January edition of the Finnish magazine “Sähkö & Tele”, Revin intentionally landed his plane in Finnish territory, suggesting he may have been working as a German spy. This magazine sourced a report by a Finnish liaison officer working in Luftflotte 1. Other contemporary sources suggest that Revin had to land due to a snowstorm which disoriented him and resulted in him getting lost, or that he simply ran out of fuel and had to make a landing. The fate of Revin is unknown. Nonetheless, White 23 was dismantled and taken to the Mechanics’ School located in Utti where it was reassembled and refurbished. Now given the identification code of “KH-51”, the aircraft was delivered to Hävittäjälentolaivue 24 (HLe.Lv.24 / No.24 Fighter Squadron) based in Mensuvaara on July 2nd of 1944.
Warhawk “White 23” in Soviet service before its capture by Finnish forces. (Kalevi Keskinen)
Although KH-51 was never deployed in combat, it served as a squadron training aid where numerous HLe.Lv.24 pilots flew the P-40 for practice without incident. On December 4th of 1944, KH-51 was handed over to Hävittäjälentolaivue 13 (HLe.Lv.13 / No.13 Fighter Squadron). No flights are believed to have happened while the aircraft was serving with this unit. On February 12th of 1945, the P-40 was taken to Tampere where a week later it would be retired and stored in the Air Depot. The total flight time recorded with KH-51 in Finnish service was 64 hours and 35 minutes. On January 2nd of 1950, KH-51 met its end once and for all when it was scrapped and sold.
Variant(s) Operated
P-40M-10-CU – A single example of the P-40M-10-CU known as “White 23” belonging to the Soviet 191st IAP was captured by Finnish forces after the plane’s pilot (2nd Lt. Vitalyi Andreyevitsh Revin) made a landing on Lake Valkjärvi in the Karelian Isthmus area on December 27th of 1943. The aircraft was dismantled, sent to a mechanics school, given the identification code of “KH-51”, reassembled and given to HLe.Lv.24 where it served as a training aid. KH-51 would later be reassigned to HLe.Lv.13 for a short while.
Nazi Germany (1942)
USSR (1946)
People’s Republic of China (1958)
Kingdom of Hungary (1944)
Canada / United Kingdom (1960)
Republic of Finland (1943)
