All posts by Medicman11

AGO S.I

German Empire, WW1, , , , ,

German Empire (1918)

Armored Ground Attack Aircraft [2 Built]

One of the two AGO S.I, this would be one of the first dedicated “tank busting” aircraft built. (Otto, AGO and BFW Aircraft of WWI)

The AGO S.I was an armored, heavily armed ground attack aircraft designed to fill the requirement for the German Luftstreitkräfte  their S type plane; a dedicated anti-tank ground attack aircraft. Before the end of the war, two of the type were produced, but the war would end before production could begin, nor did the prototypes see service. The aircraft featured a downward facing 20mm Becker cannon which it would use against the thinly armored roofs of tanks.

Tank Troubles and the Search for a Solution

The introduction of the tank in 1916 was a turning point for all modern warfare. The use of the machines to break through barbed wire and enemy trench lines proved itself effective, and as the war dragged on, the number of tanks increased year over year. Germany would use infantry based special weapons such as armor piercing K-bullets in rifles and machine guns, the heavy Tankgewehr m1918 rifle, or artillery bombardment to stop the metal monsters. The Germans would show hesitation in producing their own tanks due to resistance from the German High Command and a lack of industry to produce them in large numbers, but would eventually do so with the Sturmpanzerwagen A7V. The type however, would prove to be riddled with flaws that rendered it able to do little to counter the allied tank numbers. In addition, the A7V would only arrive in 1918, the last year of the war.

A 20mm Becker cannon mounted to the side of an Albatros J.I armored aircraft. This weapon would begin being carried by aircraft late in the war, and was required to be mounted on the S type aircraft. The Becker is known for being the basis of the famous 20mm Oerlikon cannon. (Albatros Aircraft of WWI Volume 3)

Aircraft were never used in a major role to destroy tanks during the war, but the two would encounter each other nonetheless, with German aircraft able to score several victories against them. There seemed to be little interest by the Idflieg in developing aircraft or aerial weapons to be deployed specifically against tanks for the majority of the war, until around the start of 1918. The Idflieg would designate a new type of aircraft, the S type, for a dedicated aircraft meant for ground attack and destroying tanks. The S type anti-tank aircraft was meant to be an armored aircraft with a requirement to mount the 20mm Becker automatic cannon. Armored aircraft themselves weren’t something new within the German Empire, as they were categorized under the J type. These were dedicated armored aircraft and were in use operationally by this point of the war. Some examples included the AEG J.I and Junkers J.I. The Becker Cannon was also in production and had been mounted on various aircraft by this time, mostly by twin engined G types but there were ongoing developments to put the weapon onto a single engine aircraft. The Albatros J.I was one such aircraft and a number would have the cannon mounted on a pintle on the side of the craft, but crews found the weapon placement and pintle mount made the weapon hard to operate and aim. Eventually it was found that this weapon could be most effectively mounted on a single engine aircraft by being placed at an angle inside the hull to fire downward towards the ground. The cannon would be placed this way on the new S types, where it could fire at the thin roofs of tanks. One would think that manufacturers familiar with designing armored aircraft would rise to the occasion, such as Junkers who were at the forefront of developing metal skinned aircraft, or AEG who were producing operational armored aircraft, but surprisingly, it was the the smaller company of AGO that proceeded with developing the only an S type aircraft, and complete it.

The AGO S.I

An example of an AGO C.IV. While this aircraft was AGO’s most produced, it was not liked by its crews due to flight handling and issues with the fuselage. (Otto, AGO and BFW Aircraft of WWI)

AGO Flugzeugwerke was a smaller aircraft manufacturing company in Germany that had found moderate success with its two-seater C type aircraft. The company was known for its C.I, which was the only mass produced single-engine pusher aircraft deployed by Germany in the war, and later, by the C.IV, its most successful aircraft. The C.IV was their most produced aircraft during the war, and the fastest C type at the time of its introduction thanks to its tapered wings, with over 70 being used operationally. Its moderate success however, was overshadowed by a hatred of it by its crews due to issues with its handling and problems arising with the constriction of the fuselage. This disdain for the aircraft would eventually lead to it being removed from service and its production being canceled around September of 1917. Despite this, the company had continued developing their C type aircraft line until 1916. While the S type was a two seater, AGO appears to have no experience with developing an armored aircraft, as all of their previous aircraft were of simple wooden and fabric construction. Development on their own S.I likely began around the time of the creation of the S nomenclature. A patent for the aircraft’s design was filed in July of 1918, showcasing how it’s seating and armor were laid out for the pilot and gunner. Details regarding its development are extremely lacking but it is known that two S.I aircraft were completed by October of 1918. The design was a rather large single-engine aircraft with a boxy fuselage, a consequence of its armor layout. The Becker cannon is known to have never been mounted on the aircraft but accommodations in the design were made, most apparent is the lack of an axle between the wheels. This was done to allow the hull mounted cannon to fire unobstructed. Despite this being done for the cannon, the removal of the axle was almost unseen in this era of aircraft and would become a standard design aspect in the postwar years as aircraft design streamlined. Due to its completion so close to the war’s end, it rarely flew and its performance went undocumented. All development of this aircraft was abruptly brought to a halt a month after the two aircraft were completed due to the war’s end on November 11th. With the signing of the Armistice, all combat aircraft were ordered to be destroyed or transferred, and this is without a doubt the former is the fate the two S.Is met. No further development of the type was allowed after this. The S.I was the last aircraft project AGO would work on before the end of the war.

 

Direct frontal view of the AGO S.I (Otto, AGO and BFW Aircraft of WWI)

Design

The AGO S.I was a conventional biplane designed to fill the role for the S type aircraft. While its specifications aren’t known, the size of the aircraft is evident in the photos that exist that the aircraft was quite large for a single engine aircraft. The fuselage was armored, evident via the angled shape of it. This was done to protect the aircraft in its low level attack runs on the enemy, and would offer protection against small arms fire. According to the patent, the armor was focused in the nose section, surrounding the engine, pilot and gunner positions. An armored plate separated the pilot and gunner’s positions at an angle to accommodate the 20mm cannon. The rear of the fuselage tapered into the tailplane. The two bay wings of the aircraft were large and rectangular in shape. Each bay had two wires going across. Control surfaces of the aircraft were standard, with a large rudder at the back, conventional elevators, and ailerons on the upper wing. At the front was a 260hp (194kW ) Basse und Selve BuS.IV 6-cylinder inline engine that drove a wooden two-blade propeller. This type of engine was often found on larger G type aircraft but the S.I likely had them to bring the heavily armored aircraft into the air. The aircraft would have a fixed landing gear located beneath around where the pilot sat. The aircraft had the unique distinction of having no axle, a feature virtually unseen in aircraft of the era. This was done to allow the hull mounted cannon to fire without having the axle obstructing it. For the extra support, three struts connected each landing gear to the aircraft. Each landing gear had one rubber wheel. At the tail end of the aircraft was a landing skid.

The patent for the armor and gun position in the S.I (Otto, AGO and BFW Aircraft of WWI)

For its armament, the Ago S.I was to have two machine guns; one mounted in the rear for the gunner to use on a flexible mount to fire around the aircraft, and another was likely to be mounted forward for the pilot to use at the front. The centerpiece of the armament was a 20mm Becker Cannon. The cannon would be mounted in the center of the fuselage, directly underneath where the pilot would sit. To fire the gun, the gunner would sit down into the fuselage at a dedicated firing seat in the hull. From here he could operate the weapon and aim at tanks beneath the aircraft.

Conclusion

The AGO S.I was developed too late to see combat and with its performance being unknown its would-be impact on enemy tanks is likewise unknown. Despite this, it represents one of the very first instances of an aircraft built with the destruction of enemy armor in mind, a role that would continue to develop into the Second World War, with aircraft like the Henschel Hs 129, Ilyushin Il-2, and further even until today with the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II.

Interestingly, a month before the two S.Is were completed, 20 of the aforementioned AEG J.II armored aircraft would be delivered with the Becker Cannon mounted in their hull similar to how it would be in the S.I for use against tanks. It is not known whether these aircraft saw combat or how they performed with the modifications.

Although the effectiveness of tank busting aircraft of WW2 has been debated in recent years, the AGO S.I would have several benefits going for it during the First World War. The tanks of this era were slow, and the Mark V tanks the S.I would no doubt encounter would have a top speed of 5mph, making the tanks a fairly easy target for S types. The Mark V also had considerably less armor then later tanks, with a meager 8mm of armor plate for the roofs, making these vehicles easier to damage if the aircraft’s gunner managed to hit it. However, being able to hit tanks was still quite a difficult task to accomplish, and with performance figures not currently being known for the S.I, it can only be debated as to how well it would perform its role.

After being shut down in 1919, AGO Flugzeugwerke would be brought back by the Nazi Government and would produce aircraft once more. The AGO Ao 192 seen here is one of the few original products the company would produce.

AGO Flugzeugwerke would only survive for less then a year after the First World War, its founder attempting to instead shift their production into automobiles, but they would not find success and would close the production facilities down. Despite this, two decades later the Nazi government would reconstitute AGO for aircraft production once more in 1934, and would bring the company back to life. They would mostly produce aircraft from other companies in preparation for the encroaching war, but AGO would have their own design bureau and would work on a select number of their own designs, like the AGO Ao 192 twin engine transport plane.

Variants

 

  • AGO S.I – Armored two-bay biplane design with an armored fuselage and a focus on attacking enemy armor. It was equipped with 2x machineguns and 1 20mm Becker Cannon. 2 built

 

Operators

 

  • German Empire – The AGO S.I was meant to serve the Reichsluftkreite in a ground attack & tank destroying role but arrived too late to see service in the war.

AGO S.I Specifications
Engine 1x 260 hp ( 194kW ) Basse und Selve BuS.IV 6-cylinder inline engine
Propeller 1x 2-blade wooden propeller
Crew 1 Pilot

1 Gunner
Armament
  • 1x 20mm Becker Cannon
  • 2x machine guns (1 forward, 1 rear mounted)

Gallery

Sources

Herris, Jack. Otto, AGO, and BFW Aircraft of WWI: A. 2019.

Weird Wings of WWI: Adventures in Early Combat Aircraft Development. 2023.

Herris, Jack. Development of German Warplanes in WWI: A Centennial Perspective on Great War Airplanes and Seaplanes. 2012.

B. David, Sturmpanzerwagen A7V.https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww1/germany/sturmpanzerwagen_a7v.php

Stiltzkin. Effectiveness of Tactical Air Strikes in World War II – “Tank busting”. https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/articles/tactics/tank-busting-ww2.php

 

Boulton Paul P.105 & P.107

UK, WW2, ,

Great Britain (1944)

Strike Fighter Concept

Side view of the Boulton Paul P.105C. This was the single-seat fighter version of the aircraft, armed with four 20mm cannons. (Boulton Paul Archive Photos)

The Boulton Paul P.105 was a concept for a multi-purpose, single-engine aircraft that was designed to fill a number of carrier based roles. To do so, the P.105 would utilize a unique and innovative method that would use interchangeable fuselage sections and cockpit modules that would allow the aircraft to perform different missions. These modules could be changed quickly to fill a needed role aboard carriers or airbases. The aircraft would not be chosen for production, and The P.105 would be developed further into the P.107, a land-based escort version. The P.107 would have a rear-facing turret and a twin boom tail design to allow greater traverse of the gun. This design wouldn’t be adopted either, and the program would conclude before the war’s end.

History

Late in the Second World War, the Royal Naval Air Arm began seeking out a new aircraft design that would be able to fill both the fighter and bomber roles aboard their carriers. Having one aircraft perform multiple roles would eliminate the need for specialized carrier-borne aircraft to fill the fighter, dive bomber, and torpedo bomber roles that were currently in operation. No official requirements were ever put out to build such an aircraft, but several companies had begun developing aircraft that would fit this role, which had become known as the “Strike Fighter”. Westland, Blackburn, Fairey and Boulton Paul would all develop designs that correspond to the strike fighter role. Boulton Paul’s aircraft design would be known as the P.105.

After the production of their Defiant turret fighter was finished, Boulton Paul began producing the Fairey Barracuda carrier bomber under license. After working extensively with a naval aircraft of this type, lead aircraft designer of Boulton Paul, John North, began to show interest in developing new aircraft to serve the Royal Navy’s carriers. The timing for this interest was beneficial too, as the Royal Air Arm began showing interest in new aircraft that were to be used in the Pacific Theater. He would first design a single engine fighter, dubbed the P.103 which would compete for the Navy’s Specification N.7/43 aircraft project. The P.103 was a heavily reworked Defiant with the turret removed and the design heavily cleaned up to make for a more effective fighter. Two designs existed for the P.103; the A and B, with the A using a Rolls Royce Griffon engine and the B using a Bristol Centaurus engine. The P.103 would utilize a number of innovative features, such as contra-rotating propellers, a low drag wing, specialized landing gear that became shorter when stowed, and elevators with automatic trim tabs. In addition, a more radical design was also submitted, the P.104, which was a twin-boom pusher. Despite both the P.103 and P.104 satisfying the specification, the Navy ultimately would find that a Hawker Tempest variant that was to be produced could easily be adapted to this role. This aircraft would become the Hawker Fury, and naval-ized into the Sea Fury.

While the P.103 wouldn’t be built, there were plans to test many of its design features on an existing aircraft. A Defiant was chosen to be extensively modified with most of the features found on the P.103, including the contra-rotating “dive-brake” propellers driven by a Centaurus engine, electric trim tabs, specialized shortening landing gear, and automatically closing landing gear doors. This aircraft, known as the Special Features Defiant, would also go unbuilt, with only a Defiant being modified with the elevator trim tabs. Boulton Paul wouldn’t yield any aircraft from this specification, but a new design would soon come from John North, who would continue working on Naval aircraft projects, looking to create an aircraft that would replace the Fairey Barracuda. Using design aspects intended for the P.103, and newer features found on the Special Features Defiant, he would design the P.105.

Static model of the standard P.105A. (British Secret Projects 1935-1950)

The P.105 was a small, high-performing aircraft that was meant to perform a number of duties aboard carriers. To achieve this the P.105 would have a unique design feature. To fill the variety of carrier-borne roles, the P.105 would have modular cockpit and bomb bay sections. Each of these modules would pertain to a particular role and would include necessary equipment to operate for the given task. The interchangeable modules included a two-seat torpedo-bomber with the necessary modifications to carry a torpedo (P.105A), a two-seat reconnaissance aircraft with an extended cockpit with changes to improve visibility (P.105B), a single-seat fighter armed with four 20mm cannons (P.105C) and a dive-bomber (P.105D). All aircraft aside from the C would be armed with four 12.7mm machine guns. With this system, it was thought more P.105 airframes could be stored inside hangars and carriers, while the unused modules could easily be stored and would take up less space, compared to having a number of different aircraft specified for specific roles, in theory, increasing the combat capacity of the carrier the P.105 would be stationed on. Boulton Paul expected the aircraft to be very high performance, and the P.105C fighter version, would be thought to serve as an excellent penetration fighter. Like its predecessors, the P.105 was originally going to utilize a Griffon 61 engine, but before performance predictions were done on the design, it would change to a Centaurus with counter-rotating propellers. The brochure on the details of the aircraft was submitted to the RNAA, but no order for production came about.While no particular reason was given for the design not being chosen, the modularity concept may have been less convenient in practice then on paper. Another reason could be that current aircraft at the time were deemed to have been performing adequately and didn’t need such an extensive replacement.

A side view plan drawing showing the layout of the Boulton Paul P.107. (Boulton Paul Archive Photos)

Although the P.105 wasn’t granted production, the design was further reworked into the Boulton Paul P.107. The P.107 was a return to basics for Boulton Paul, being a single-engine two-seat fighter with a turret. It can be assumed the P.107 began development during or shortly after the P.105 had been created. John North expressed many concerns with aircraft meant to operate in the Pacific War, with the biggest issue being the extreme range an aircraft would need in order to operate efficiently in this conflict. While details are sparse on its development, the P.107 extended range escort fighter appears to be his own attempt to create an aircraft meant to amend this issue. Overall, the P.107 shared many aspects of the P.105C, continuing to use the same overall design, Centaurus engine with contra-rotating propellers, and the same armament of four 20mm cannons. However, the P.107 wasn’t meant to operate from carriers, instead being designed as a land-based aircraft. Changes done to the design for this reason include the lack of folding wings and the removal of the torpedo blister. The aircraft would also benefit with the addition of a turret housing two 12.7mm machine guns. To improve the firing efficiency of the turret, the single fin of the P.105 was changed in favor of a twin fin design, which improved the firing range of the guns. The P.107 could also be configured for different roles, such as a dive bomber and for reconnaissance, but it is unknown if it used the same modular system the P.105 used. As was the case with his earlier designs, the P.107 wasn’t selected for production either.

Design

3-Way drawing of the P.105B. This was the reconnaissance version. (British Secret Projects 1935-1950)

The Boulton Paul P.105 had a conventional monoplane fighter layout. In the front, it would utilize a 6-bladed contra-rotating propeller that had reversible pitch. Originally, the design would have mounted a Griffon 61 V-12 inline engine but was changed in favor of the Centaurus 18-cylinder radial CE.12.SM engine instead. The wings on the P.105 were inverted gull wings, much like those on the Vought F4U Corsair or Junkers Ju 87 Stuka, which allowed the mounting of a larger propeller. To allow for easy storage aboard carriers, the wings were able to fold inwards. The fuselage had the most interesting aspect of the design overall, and that was its interchangeable cockpit and lower fuselage modules. Each variant of the P.105 would use different modules that would pertain to the intended role it served. The P.105A was a torpedo bomber and would use the torpedo blister present under the tail, and provisions for carrying another crewmember. The P.105B was a reconnaissance aircraft, and its cockpit would be lengthened to sit a pilot and observer. It would use a glass hull beneath the observer to assist in spotting. The P.105C was an escort fighter and would be a one-man aircraft. The last was a dive-bomber version, which only has very sparse details available. The dive bomber would carry up to two 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs, most likely in an internal bomb bay module. The tail of the aircraft would be a conventional single rudder and tailplane arrangement. The armament of the P.105 was a standard two to four 12.7mm machine-guns in the wings of the aircraft, with the only deviation being the P.105C, which would use four 20mm cannons instead.

3-Way view of the P.107. Notice the turret and twin tail. (British Secret Projects 1935-1950)

The P.107 borrowed many aspects of the P.105 design, but changed some details to better fit its role. The engine and front sections would stay the same, keeping the contra-rotating propellers and Centaurus engine. Reference materials refer to the aircraft as being able to convert from an escort fighter to either a fighter-bomber, or photo reconnaissance aircraft. However, whether it was a conventional conversion, or via the module system the P.105 used is unknown, the latter being most likely. The wing design would stay the same, with the inverted gull wing style. Given its land-based nature, the wings no longer needed to be folded to conserve space, and the torpedo blister under the tail was removed. Behind the pilot, a gunner would sit and remotely control two 12.7mm machine guns. The machine-guns would be housed within the aircraft, with only the ends of the barrel protruding out. To give the gunner a better firing arc, the single tailfin was switched to a double tailfin. The turret and twin tail design are the most obvious differences between the P.107 and P.105. The aircraft’s fuel would be stored in a main tank beneath the crew members and two smaller drop tanks. The fuel amount was expected to give the aircraft a 3,000 mi (4,827 km) range, with up to 30 minutes of combat. The drop tanks could be switched for 2,000 Ib (900 Kg) of bombs. For offensive armament, the P.107 would use four 20m cannons mounted in the wings.

Conclusion

While no P.105 or P.107 would be constructed, the designs do attempt to amend issues that were present at the time. The Strike Fighter designation would eventually become a standard type of aircraft aboard carriers, and aircraft meant to fulfill multiple roles would also eventually be developed, but none would ever use such a unique system as the interchangeable fuselage of the P.105. It is interesting to note that the P.105 and P.107 appear to be the last military propeller aircraft that Boulton Paul would design before their switch to trainers and jet powered research aircraft, the aircraft themselves being distantly related to their Defiant fighter that they became known for during the war.

Variants

 

  • Boulton Paul P.105A– Two-seat torpedo bomber version of the P.105.
  • Boulton Paul P.105B– Two-seat reconnaissance version of the P.105. This version would have a glazed hull for the observer.
  • Boulton Paul P.105C– Single-seat Fighter version of the P.105.
  • Boulton Paul P.105 Dive bomber– Dive bomber version of the P.105. No designation was given to this design. (P.105D?)
  • Boulton Paul P.107– Land-based escort fighter derived from the P.105. The P.107 shared many design aspects with the P.105 but would remove features that would be needed for carrier use, such as the lack of folding wings. The P.107 would also have a turret and the tailplane would be switched to a double rudder design to accommodate the turret’s firing arc. Photo reconnaissance and fighter bomber versions of the P.107 are also mentioned.

Operators

 

  • Great Britain – Had they been built, the P.105 and P.107 would have been used by the Royal Fleet Air Arm, with a focus of being used in the Pacific Theatre aboard carriers and from land.

Boulton Paul P.105 Specifications
Wingspan 38 ft / 11.6 m
Length 34 ft 5 in / 10.5 m
Folded Width 15 ft 4 in / 4.67 m
Wing Area 250 ft² / 23.3 m²
Engine 3,000 hp ( 2,200 kW ) Centaurus CE.12.SM engine
Fuel Capacity 260 gal (1,180 lit)
Weights 12,285 Ib / 5,572 kg with torpedo

12,509 Ib / 5,674 kg with bombs
Climb Rate 3,660 ft/min / 1,110 m/min
Maximum Speed 469 mph / 755 km/h at 20,000 ft / 6,000 m
Cruising Speed 407 mph / 655 km/h
Range 1,300 mi / 2100 km – 3,320 mi / 5340 km
Crew Pilot

Other crew member (Depending on the variant)
Armament
  • 2-4 12.7mm machine guns (All versions)
  • 1x Torpedo (P.105A)
  • 2x 1,000 Ib (454 kg) bombs (Dive Bomber)
  • 4x 20mm cannons (P.105C)

Boulton Paul P.107 Specifications
Wingspan 38 ft / 11.6 m
Length 34 ft 8 in / 10.6 m
Wing Area 250 ft² / 23.3 m²
Engine 3,000 hp ( 2,200 kW ) Centaurus CE.12.SM engine
Fuel Capacity Main: 495 gal (2,250 lit)

Drop Tanks: 140 gal (640 lit)
Weight 15,900 Ib / 7,200 kg
Max Speed 470 mph / 755 km/h at 22,000 ft / 6,700 m
Range With Drop Tanks: 3,000 mi / 4,800 km

Without: 2,200 mi / 3,540 km

Fighter-Bomber: 700 mi / 1,120 km
Crew 1 Pilot

1 Gunner
Armament
  • 4x 20 mm guns
  • 2 x 12.7mm machine guns in rear facing turret
  • 2,000 Ib (907 kg) of bombs

Illustrations

Boulton-Paul P.107
Boulton-Paul P.105 Reconnaissance Variant

Credits

  • Article written by Medicman11
  • Edited by  Henry H.
  • Ported by Henry H.
  • Illustrated by Haryo Panji

Sources

Sopwith T.F.2 Salamander

Great Britain, WW1, , ,

United Kingdom (1918)

Ground Attack Aircraft [300-500+ Built]

A frontal view of a production Sopwith Salamander. The entire front section of this aircraft was armored. (Wikipedia)

The Sopwith Salamander was a dedicated ground attack aircraft, at this point known as a trench fighter, designed for use by the Royal Air Force in the First World War. The Salamander was based off of the Sopwith Snipe fighter and reused many components, but was much more armed and armored. Only a few Salamanders would be assigned to squadrons for testing during the war and none would see frontline combat. After the war, the Salamander was in service with squadrons in British territory until at least 1922. The aircraft was interesting as, in addition to its other modifications, it would be one of the first aircraft to be officially painted by the RAF in camouflage, most likely being the first in RAF aircraft to do so.

The Trench Fighter: Birth of the Ground Attacker

Rear view of the T.F.1 Camel. This was Sopwith’s first attempt at a dedicated Trench Fighter before the Salamander. (Sopwith Aircraft from 1912-1920)

Late into the First World War, the British Royal Air Force began using single-engine fighters to deliberately attack enemy trenches. This was seen at the Battle of Ypres and Cambrai in 1917. Oftentimes, the types used for this role could not perform well enough to dogfight or had some other glaring issue that prevented them from seeing widespread service. Although not their original purpose, these “Trench Fighters” were the first evolutionary step to creating what is now known as dedicated ground attack and close air support aircraft. The Sopwith Aviation Company began experimenting with dedicated, purpose-built trench fighters in 1918. The first of these was a derivative design based on their famous Sopwith Camel fighter. The T.F.1 Camel, TF standing for Trench Fighter, was a modified Sopwith F.1 Camel that had additional armor and was to be used to strafe trenches with a machine gun or bombs. Despite work being done on the T.F.1, it was only considered as a test for a trench fighting aircraft and was never meant to enter service nor production.

Instead, the Royal Air Force was looking for an aircraft with a more powerful engine, which the Camel airframe could not accommodate. Sopwith looked instead to their recently developed Snipe fighter. The Sopwith Snipe aircraft had been designed in late 1917 as a successor to the esteemed Sopwith Camel. It would not enter widespread service until September of 1918 and would only see combat for three months before the end of the war. Despite its short combat service, the Snipe proved itself as one of the most advanced fighters of the time, thanks to its powerful engine and excellent maneuverability. All of this had yet to be proven, however, when the trench fighter derivative design was being drawn up, as the Snipe had only just started testing in late 1917.

Official work began on the trench fighter Snipe in January of 1918. This machine was seen to have several advantages over the TF1. The newer design of the Snipe proved to be much more agile and it was able to carry the powerful 230 hp Bentley BR2 rotary engine. There were three factors that sought to specialize the design of this new aircraft; engine, armor and armament. A rotary engine was favored over an inline on the aircraft because an armored cowling could easily fit over the engine and was thus less likely to be hit from ground fire. For armament, it was planned to have a single forward facing Vickers machine gun with two more in a downward firing position, akin to the armament of the TF1. This idea was ultimately scrapped and two forward facing Vickers were chosen instead, like the armament on the Snipe. Relating to the armor, the front section of the fuselage was made to be a heavily armored box that would protect the pilot and engine from enemy fire. It was optimistically thought only three things would be able to shoot this new aircraft down; a direct hit from anti-air artillery, damage to the flying wires or heavily damaging the main spar. Three prototypes of the new trench fighter aircraft began construction in late January 1918. The first of these would be airworthy and ready in April. By now, the aircraft had received an official name; the Sopwith T.F.2 Salamander.

An example of a production Sopwith Snipe. This would be one of the best aircraft the RAF would field in the later stages of the First World War, and is the aircraft the Salamander would be based on. (Pilots and Planes)

Design

A cockpit view of the aircraft. (Imperial War Museum)

The Sopwith T.F.2 Salamander was an early ground attack aircraft based on the Sopwith Snipe fighter. The two aircraft shared many components, but the Salamander would have a number of features that would make its design unique. It had a wingspan of 19ft 6in (9.5 m). The wings were of two bay construction and consisted of a frame covered in canvas. The fuselage was of all wooden construction and covered in fabric, like the Snipe. It had a length of 19ft 6in (5.9 m). In total, the aircraft had a height of 9ft 4in (2.8 m). The sides of the fuselage were flat, being a change from the rounder fuselage of the Snipe.

In the front of the aircraft would sit the 230-hp Bentley B.R.2 air-cooled radial engine. The eleven-cylinder Clerget 11E engine was an alternative to the Bentley, but no Salamander would be equipped with this engine. The engine and cockpit section of the aircraft would sit in an armored box that would protect its most vital assets. The armored box was 8 mm thick in the front (the armor over the engine and the engine itself also factored in as frontal protection), 6 mm for the sides, 11 mm for the floor, and 10-gauge sheet metal with an additional 6-gauge sheet at the rear. In addition to the armored box, the engine would have an armored cowling over it. The aircraft had around 650 Ibs of armor in total. The sheer amount of armor was meant to protect the aircraft from German anti-armor rounds fired from short range, something it would no doubt deal with at the frontlines.

The controls and cockpit were likely carried over from the Snipe. Behind the cockpit was an armored head fairing that was not present on the Snipe. This detail is a distinct visual difference that one can use to identify the Salamander over the Snipe. Beneath the cockpit was the undercarriage and landing gear. During testing, it was found the armor made the aircraft quite hard to land, and the landing gear was further reinforced during development to assist in this area. The fuselage would taper towards the rear and tailplane. Beneath the tail was a simple landing skid. The tail and rudder were small at first on the prototype Salamanders, like on earlier Snipes, but this would be replaced by a larger rudder and tailfin on the production versions. At first, the tailplane was rigged via wires but this was replaced by four steel tubes connecting at the top and bottom.

A view of the armored front section of the aircraft. (Weapons and Warfare)

For fuel, the Salamander would carry less than the Snipe to accommodate the extra weight of the armor. The fuel delivery system was composed of a Badin vacuum-feed system with a Weyman hand pump connected to the main petrol tank for standby use. The fuel delivery system was protected with armor and rubber along the piping to prevent leaks or fire. In addition to the main petrol tank, there was an oil and gravity tank connected via piping.

The armament of the Salamander went through a number of iterations before its final layout. Originally, the aircraft was going to have a single forward facing Lewis machine gun, with two more facing downwards into the hull, but this was replaced by two synchronized Vickers guns that were staggered to house more ammunition (1000 rounds each). There exist other known layouts pf the Salamander but it is unknown if any of these were tested at any point. These included eight downward firing guns in one layout and two downward facing Lewis guns with two more over the center (in addition to the standard two Vickers). No photos of these two layouts exist. For special missions, the Salamander could carry up to four 20 Ib (9 kg) bombs or a single 112 Ib (51 kg) bomb.

A direct frontal view of the Sopwith Salamander. (Wikipedia)

The Sopwith Salamander: World War Woes

Rear view of the 3rd prototype Salamander. This example has the early rudder. Unfortunately this particular aircraft would be lost in a crash. (Pilots and Planes)

The Salamander would have its first flight on April 27th at Brooklands. The prototype Salamander, E5429, shared the wing mainplane, ailerons and tail control surfaces with the early model Snipe, but these would be improved later on the production models. The improvements were the same as done on the Snipe, which included increasing the size of the rudder. On May 9th, the first Salamander prototype was sent to France for service testing. There is a strange overlap in information with the prototype. Some sources claim that it returned to England on June 30th for further testing at Martlesham Heath, but others claim the prototype was lost to a crash in France on May 19th. Perhaps this was confused with the 3rd prototype, which did crash at a later unknown date. By this point, the other two prototypes were completed (E5430 and E5431). Testing found that the aircraft performed well, but problems appeared with the controls, which were found to be sluggish due to the extra armor.

The Salamander did have its fair share of critics, with several pilots being harsh towards the slower controls of the aircraft and some even finding the concept of an armored aircraft a waste of resources. Many of those who were strong critics of the aircraft criticized it as they did conventional fighters of the time, glossing over its specialized role of ground attack and arguing its armor would make it sluggish in a dogfight, when the aircraft was never intended to operate as a dogfighter. Originally, a plan for 6 prototypes was made but the last 3 were canceled. The 3rd prototype would stagger its machine guns to accommodate the increased amount of ammunition the Salamander had over the Snipe. This change would be present on all Salamanders going forward. With the aircraft performing well in testing, an initial order of 500 aircraft was requested in the early summer months of 1918. Sopwith would begin building production Salamanders at their factories, being constructed alongside the Snipe. In addition to Sopwith, several other aircraft manufacturers would begin constructing Salamanders as well; Air Navigation Co Ltd, National Aircraft Factory No.1, Palladium Autocars Ltd, Glendower Aircraft Co Ltd and Wolseley Motors Ltd. The production versions differed from the prototype Salamanders, having the larger tail fin and rudder as well as the ailerons from the production Snipes being fitted, as well as the staggered machine guns from the 3rd prototype.

A production line at a Sopwith factory where both Salamanders and Snipes are under construction. The first row are incomplete Salamanders. (Armament of British Aircraft)

As the year went on, production for the Salamander increased, as the order jumped from from 500, to 600 to 1400 by the war’s end. Producing the Salamander was found to be more difficult than the Snipe, thanks to its complicated wiring due to the extra steps of creating the armored cockpit area. Problems also began to be found with the armor, as the box was found to warp after some time and distort the frame. This was not a known problem at first, but it plagued many of the early production versions after the war. In October, production Salamanders began being painted in unique disruptive camouflage patterns. This practice started on the 3rd prototype. This would be one of the first times the RAF would officially camouflage paint aircraft, something that would eventually become a mainstay in the next World War. By early November, two Salamanders were sent over and stationed in France, with one being assigned to No 86 Squadron at Phalempin. No 86 Squadron had just been assigned as a dedicated ground attack unit when it arrived. Back in Britain, squadrons No 95 at Weyton, and No 157 at Upper Heyford were also reworked to be dedicated trench fighting squadrons and equipped with five Salamanders each. No 157 Squadron was scheduled to leave for the front on November 21st. With production rapidly increasing and the aircraft soon to be used at the front, all of this was suddenly brought to a halt when the Armistice was signed on November 11th.

 

Postwar Mediocrity

A Sopwith Salamander showcasing its unique camouflage livery (RAF Museum)

With the signing of the armistice, all plans to ship the Salamander-equipped squadrons to the front were canceled. Production was soon to be cut short as well, as the need for such a specialized aircraft disappeared. Gradually, the order of 1400 was decreased to a much smaller number. Sopwith and Glendower continued producing the Salamander until mid 1919, when total production was completely halted. The other companies mentioned before either stopped production entirely or produced only a few more Salamanders after the Armistice. The Salamander was prepared to be used in full force had the war continued into 1919, with an expected thirteen full Salamander squadrons stationed in France by May. There were expected delays with the production of the Bentley engine, so five of these squadrons were to be equipped with the aforementioned Clerget engines. The exact number of Salamanders produced varies from source to source. The most common number found is that 210 were produced in total, but other sources claim that the actual number is closer to 300. Others claim that almost 500 were built. None of these numbers can truly be confirmed but it is likely much more than the commonly thrown around 210.

Rear view of a Sopwith Salamander (Imperial War Musuem)

Postwar, the Salamander did not find itself too popular, as many issues rose up with the design. The warping of the armor began to become a serious problem on early production Salamanders and it was also found the first 70 Salamanders built by Sopwith had upper wings from Snipes, which were not capable of supporting the heavier Salamander. All of these 70 aircraft were found to be extremely dangerous to fly and it took until December of 1918 for the problem to be realized and fixed. From what can be gathered, most of the production Salamanders were put into storage after the Armistice, with many being finished and immediately sent into storage. Flight testing of the type continued until 1920 despite all interest in the Salamander seemingly being lost in mid 1919.

In addition to the disruptive camo, there is mention of a Salamander being painted in a type of lozenge camo, similar to German aircraft schemes in the war, but no photos are known to exist. It was to be tested at Farnborough alongside the regular camo in July of 1919 but it was unlikely anything became of the tests. Despite the lack of interest, the Salamander did occupy a number of squadrons post war, however the details of where and when are sparse. The latest Salamanders mentioned in RAF service were a squadron stationed out of Egypt in 1922. This would have coincided with the Chanak Crisis against Turkey. A few Salamanders were sent to foreign nations for testing. An unknown Salamander was sent to France to be tested by the Section Technique de l’Aéronautique (Aeronautical Technical Section) in Villacoublay, France. Salamander F6533 was sent overseas to America for trials and testing by their Army Air Service. No further orders or Salamanders were made by America after this and the sole example was known to have been still at McCook Airfield as late as 1926. It is likely the warping issue happened with this particular aircraft, as beneath the cockpit “This machine is not to be flown.” was printed and was seen in photographs of the aircraft.

Salamander F6533 at Mccook Airfield (Pilots and Planes)

Many combat aircraft of the First World War found new life in the following years in the hands of private collectors or attending airshows for spectacular performances. The Salamander was unfortunately not one of these aircraft due to its specialized nature and slower performance compared to the fast aircraft that were featured in such displays. With the purpose of the aircraft now gone and with no future in sight, the Salamander was left to be forgotten as newer aircraft replaced it in squadrons and eventually all would be scrapped. None survive to this day.

Conclusion

The Salamander was one of the first British attempts to create a dedicated ground attack aircraft. In addition, it first tested camouflage patterns on RAF aircraft. Unfortunately, it came too late, if only by a few weeks, to be tested in combat. With the war over and the need for such an aircraft gone, the dream of the Salamander strafing enemy positions died and it fell into obscurity as the type was eventually completely scrapped. Had it entered combat, it would have encountered the same problems it did postwar, which would have left the aircraft prone to accidents of its own design and would have taken time to repair in the field. A strange, and perhaps sad, note is the Salamander was the last Sopwith aircraft to enter service with the RAF before the company became defunct in 1920.

Variants

 

  • Sopwith T.F.2 Salamander Prototypes – The first prototypes for the Salamander had many of the same features as the Snipe, including sharing the mainplane, unstaggered guns and the tailplane was supported by wires.
  • Sopwith T.F.2 Salamander Production – The production version of the Salamander had staggered guns, provisions for carrying bombs, and the tailplane was supported by four steel rods. The first 70 production aircraft accidentally were equipped with the upper wings of the Sopwith Snipe.

 

Operators

 

  • United Kingdom – The Sopwith Salamander was built as a dedicated Trench Fighter for the Royal Air Force, but hostilities would stop before it could be sent to the frontlines. After the war, most Salamanders would be put in storage, but a few would be sent abroad, such as to Egypt.
  • United States of America – A single T.F.2 Salamander (F6533) was sent to McCook Field for testing.
  • France – A single T.F.2 Salamander was sent to France for testing with the Section Technique de l’Aéronautique in Villacoublay, France.

Sopwith T.F.2 Salamander Specifications
Wingspan 31 ft 2 in / 9.5 m
Length 19 ft 6 in / 5.9 m
Height 9 ft 4 in / 2.8 m
Wing Area 272 ft² / 25.3 m²
Engine 1x 230 hp ( 171.5 kW ) Bentley B.R.2 Radial Engine
Propeller 1x 2-blade wooden propeller
Weights
Empty 1844 lb / 836 kg
Maximum 2512 lb / 1139 kg
Climb Rate
Time to 5,000 ft / 1,525 m 6 minutes 5 sec
Time to 6,500 ft / 1,980 m 9 minutes 6 sec
Time to 10,000 ft / 3,050 m 17 minutes 5 sec
Maximum Speed 117 mph / 188 km/h at 10,000 ft / 3,050 m

123 mph / 198 km/h at 6,500 ft / 1,980 m

125 mph / 201 km/h at 3,000 ft / 915 m
Cruising Speed 125 mph / 201 kmh
Endurance 1 ½ hours
Maximum Service Ceiling 13,000 ft / 3,690 m
Crew 1 pilot
Armament
  • 2x synchronized Vickers .303 machine guns (1000 rounds per gun)
  • 4x 20 Ib (9 kg) bombs or 1x 112 Ib (51 kg) bomb

Illustrations

The Salamander in standard RAF livery

 

Several Salamanders would receive a standardized camouflage pattern, they were among the earliest RAF planes to use an official camouflage livery.

Credits

  • Article written by Medicman11
  • Edited by  Henry H. & Stan L.
  • Ported by Henry H.
  • Illustrated by Carpaticus

 

Sources

https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/sopwith-salamander

https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/blog/salamandrine-fire/

King, H. F. Sopwith Aircraft, 1912-1920. Putnam, 1981.

Mason, Francis K. The British Fighter since 1912. Naval Institute Press, 1992.

Green, W. and Swanborough, G., n.d. The complete book of fighters.

 

 

Boulton Paul P.75 Overstrand

UK, WW2, ,

United Kingdom (1933)

Medium Bomber – 28 Built

A flight of five No.101 Squadron Overstrands. (Boulton Paul Aircraft Since 1915)

The Boulton Paul P.75 Overstrand was a two-engined biplane that became the RAF’s mainstay bomber aircraft in the early to mid 1930s. The Overstrand was an improvement upon the earlier P.29 Sidestrand biplane bombers after the type recieved several criticisms regarding the frontal gunner position being exposed to the elements on such a high speed aircraft. To amend the complaints, Boulton Paul would design a modified version of the Sidestrand that would use a fully-enclosed powered turret, which would be revolutionary for the time. To test the design, three Sidestrands would be converted into Overstrands. The Overstrand would equip No.101 squadron and 25 newly built Overstrands would be constructed. Aside from mainline service, a number were experimentally modified by Boulton Paul, such as receiving different turret arrangements and more powerful engines. By the time of the Second World War, the aircraft had become obsolete, as new monoplane bombers entered production and replaced it. The type would continually fly in limited numbers for training and auxiliary purposes, but by 1941 would be considered obsolete and grounded.

Boulton & Paul and the Sidestrand

The Boulton & Paul P.29 Sidestrand was a modern and aerodynamic aircraft of the time. But while it was fast it had several glaring flaws, the biggest being the open front turret which exposed the gunner to high speed winds and cold air. (Boulton Paul Aircraft Since 1915)

In the mid 1920s, the Boulton & Aircraft company was beset by hard times. The company was surviving off of small orders for prototype aircraft and was in a rough financial state. The company had, up to this point, focused on creating twin-engine biplane bombers, starting with the Bourges in the First World War and going to their latest of the time, the P.25 Bugle. In late 1925, their savior would be their newest twin bomber design; the P.29 Sidestrand. It was an all-metal, twin-engine biplane bomber with extensive work done into designing its aerodynamic fuselage, creating an innovative and sleek-looking aircraft for the time. Production was soon ordered and 18 were built. This new bomber would populate the No.101 squadron, the only bomber squadron the RAF was operating at the time. Despite its success, a problem began to arise with the forward gunners of the aircraft. The Sidestrand, thanks to its aerodynamic design and powerful Bristol Jupiter engines, was able to achieve a top speed of 140 mph (225 km/h). While this speed made the twin engine bomber quite a fast aircraft for the time, this luxury was not so appreciated by the front gunners of the aircraft, who had no means of protection against the strong slipstream in their open cockpits. The strong winds made aiming the Lewis gun difficult, as it was blown around, and even reports of the propellers being hit by drum magazines thrown from the position were growing to be common. This was not to mention the extreme cold the gunner had to endure as well. Frozen fingers were another common complaint from Sidestrand gunners. While the Sidestrands began to take to the air (and torment their front gunners), Boulton & Paul set to procure more production orders of the type over the 18 that were built, but no further production was ordered, mostly due to the worldwide recession. In the early 1930s, many current fighters of the time were experiencing the same slipstream issues as the Sidestrand was. The Air Ministry put out an order on December 28th, 1932 to seek design reworks that would fix this now commonplace issue with the Sidestrand. While many of the other aircraft would seek simple means, the issue with the gunner position on the Sidestrand was more complex and would require more work put into redesigning the aircraft. Ultimately, Boulton & Paul would decide the answer was a completely covered turret. The company had been working on such a design with their P.70 aircraft concept.

The P.70 was a concept aircraft that was based off the P.64 mailplane and used components of the Sidestrand. While it was never built, it had an innovative enclosed nose turret that the Overstrand would use. (Boulton Paul Aircraft Since 1915)

The P.70 was a twin-engine biplane bomber design based on their earlier P.64 mailplane and incorporated aspects of the Sidestrand. In the nose of the P.70 was a fully enclosed, cylindrical turret that was fully powered via compressed air. The turret would have a single gun mounted that elevated and depressed down a vertical split in the design. It would also have 360 degrees of rotation as long as the gun was elevated 70 degrees to allow it to lift over the nose of the aircraft. Ultimately, the P.70 was not selected for the competition it took part in, but the innovative turret design was chosen to be used on the reworked Sidestrand. In addition to making the front gunner more comfortable, other additions were made for the rest of the crew. The rear gunner had a new windshield installed behind his back to protect him from the fast winds, and the pilot now sat in a fully enclosed cockpit. Even further, the aircraft would implement an onboard heating system, taking off excess heat from the engine intakes. Other planned changes to the design were the wings being swept at the outer edges to compensate for the weight of the front turret, and structurally integrity was also improved in the hull of the aircraft to allow for a bigger bomb load. With the improved design finalized, it was chosen that the first aircraft to test this new design, at this point called the Sidestrand V, would be created by modifying a Sidestrand III; J9186. The order for the creation of the prototype would be 29/33.

The mockup of the powered turret design. (Boulton Paul Aircraft)

Design

The Boulton Paul P.75 Overstrand was a twin-engined biplane bomber designed to improve the performance and crew comfort of the Boulton Paul P.29 Sidestrand. The airframe of the aircraft was of all-metal construction. The fuselage had a length of 46ft 11in (14.3 m). The wings of the aircraft were all-metal, 3-bay biplane wings. The wings themselves had an additional outer edge sweep to them, a design choice not found on the Sidestrand. This was to counter the increased weight of the nose due to the powered turret. The aircraft would have a wingspan of 71ft 11 in (29.2 m). Both the upper and lower wings would be built with ailerons. Mounted between the wings were two 580 hp Pegasus II.M.3 engines connected to two 4-bladed metal propellers. The engines were housed in nacelles that also carried a 17 gallon fuel tank, priming pumps, hand-stating magnetos and a gas starter. The very first Overstrand, which was converted from a Sidestrand, was equipped with 555 hp Pegasus I.M.3 engines. Covering the engine cowlings were 9-sided Townend rings. These assisted with improving the airflow of radial engines, reducing drag and increasing the overall speed of the aircraft. Connected to the engine nacelles on each side were the main connectors for the landing gear, which were each supported by struts. The Overstrand had large, rubber wheels that were bigger than those on the Sidestrand. The cockpit was located in front of where the wings connected to the main body. The cockpit itself was fully-enclosed with a sliding hood, a feature not present on the Sidestrand. The cockpit was glazed with anti-glare perspex. For the pilot, an autopilot was equipped, a feature also found in the Sidestrand. This was located directly behind the pilot’s seat. Behind the cockpit were two gunner positions near the middle of the airframe, one ventral and one dorsal. The dorsal firing position had a windshield installed to protect the gunner from the high speeds the aircraft would encounter. The ventral position would not have to deal with the rough winds due to the way it was positioned within the fuselage. The ventral gunner would also operate several pieces of equipment, including an F.8 camera, and a wireless set consisting of a T.1083 wireless transmitter, a R.1082 wireless receiver and a T.R.11 wireless transmitter/receiver. On the converted Sidestrands, they would continue to use the T.73 transmitter and R.74 receiver they came standard equipped with. Extra ammo magazines were availablefor all gunners. For crew communication, there was a telephone system installed that connected each of the crew members. For crew comfort, a heating system was equipped in the interior of the aircraft. Each crew member was able to appreciate the benefits of this system, no matter where they were located. Heat was siphoned from the Townend rings and engine cowlings through a series of ducts into the interior of the aircraft. Care was taken to make sure these ducts were clear of objects or debris when the system was activated, otherwise they would be forcefully ejected from the vents. At the tail end of the aircraft was a 9 inch by 5 inch tail-wheel, which replaced the landing skid of the Sidestrand. The vertical and horizontal stabilizers remained largely the same as how they were on the Sidestrand, but the rudder of the aircraft was lengthened. The Overstand also retained a rudder extension that was present on the Sidestrand. The horizontal stabilizers were supported by two struts on each side that connected to the fuselage.

A view of the prototype’s nose. On later models, the turret would be widened for increased crew comfort. (Boulton Paul Aircraft Since 1915)

The most innovative technical feature of the Overstrand was the powered turret at the nose of the aircraft. The turret design was created by H A Hughes, head of Armaments Section for Boulton & Paul. The design itself was originally part of the P.70 aircraft design, but with that project being canceled, the turret was reused on the Overstrand. The turret was cylindrical in shape, with the top and bottom being rounded. The majority of the turret was covered in Perspex to allow optimal viewing for the gunner, with the rest of the turret and frame being made of metal. The powered aspect of the turret came from pneumatic power from compressed air that was held in bottles. Each bottle was held at 200 Ib/sq and fed into the turret by an engine-powered air compressor at 40 Ib/sq. These bottles were rechargeable via the compressor and, at their full, could allow a total of 20 complete rotations of the turret before being exhausted. The turret itself was capable of 240 degrees of rotation with the gun pointing forward, and a complete 360 degrees if the gun was raised by 70 degrees. The turret was held on ball-bearings with brackets connected to the bottom and top longerons of the airframe. The top longerons in particular ended in a circular design that allowed rollers to rotate. The air was fed into the base of the turret, which was the main mechanism that rotated the turret. The armament of the turret was a single .303 Lewis machine gun, mounted to a mechanism that the gunner would use. The gun would protrude from a vertical slit at the front of the turret that allowed it to elevate. To protect this slit, a zip fastener canvas was put in place, but this was only found on the prototype Overstrand and was quickly replaced by a simple canvas strip held in place by clips. While the horizontal movement of the turret was done via pneumatic power, elevating the gun was manual. To assist the gunner in this regard, his seat and the gun mount remained balanced with one another and would raise and lower with the gun. Turning the turret was done via applying pressure to plungers on each side of the gun. To prevent the gunner from damaging the aircraft or turret, if rotated with the gun lowered more than 70 degrees to the rear, it would release the pressure from the plunger and stop the turret before the barrel could hit the body. The seat could also be adjusted manually by the gunner. For emergencies, the top dome of the turret could be removed to allow the gunner to exit. The top was held onto the turret via 3 pins, which were locked via pins with finger rings. Removing these three and pushing the top off allowed the gunner to escape. At the rear of the turret was a door that could be opened to enter the airframe of the aircraft. In addition to holding the gunner, the turret also served as the bombardier’s position. The bottom of the turret was heavily glazed to allow downwards visibility. Bomb controls were located to the left of the gun and were also duplicated in the cockpit for the pilot. The bomb sight could not be used in normal use and was stowed away. For bombing, the turret was locked forward into position and the gun moved so the bomb sight could be used.

Front and interior views of the powered turret. (Boulton Paul Aircraft Since 1915)

Aside from the frontal turret, there were two other gunner positions on the aircraft’s rear; one ventral and one dorsal. Both would use the same .303 Lewis gun as the main turret. Many improvements were done over the basic Sidestrand to allow the Overstrand to carry much more weight, including an enlarged bomb load of 1500 Ibs. Two 500 Ibs bombs could be carried internall,y with two additional 250 Ibs bombs on external racks on the fuselage, Additional racks could be installed at the front and rear of the fuselage, each carrying either 4 20 Ibs bombs or 2 20 Ibs bombs and two flares.

The Overstrand Takes Flight

A side view of the completed prototype J9186. This aircraft was converted from a Sidestrand III. (Boulton Paul Aircraft)

The modifications to Sidestrand J1896 would be completed around August of 1933. On its maiden flight, the aircraft would seemingly catch fire, as smoke poured from one of the inner wings. The craft would land immediately, the culprit being found to be caused by fresh varnish on the heating system ducts. Despite this incident happening on the first flight, testing continued on the aircraft. The early days of testing the aircraft yielded two incidents which could be considered quite humorous. After a test flight not long after the first, J1896 would have one of its wheels fall into a hole on the airfield, causing the aircraft to fall forward. One of the propellers would be destroyed and the nose turret would hit the ground. The current occupant of the turret was a member of the armaments section, someone who personally helped with the creation of the turret itself. When the turret dug into the ground, he began to panic and called out for help from the ground crew as he attempted to escape the turret. Due to his panicked state, he had forgotten how to operate the emergency pins that held the top of the turret on. The ground crew found his situation ironic, one of the men who had helped create the turret had forgotten how to operate it in his panicked state. He was in no danger whatsoever and the crew eventually helped the man out. Sometime later, the Air Ministry was intrigued in seeing the progress of the innovative powered turret system and thus sent an official to inspect it. The official was allowed to enter the cockpit to try out the new device. While trying the controls, he accidentally pushed on one of the plungers and began spinning. The gun itself had also been raised over 70 degrees, allowing a full 360 degrees of rotation. In a vain attempt to stop, the official leaned against the gun, and unknowingly onto the plunger; making the turret spin continuously against the intentions of the man. Humored by the situation, the design team that was showcasing the turret simply let him exhaust the air supply and finally let him out once the turret stopped spinning. The Overstrand would make its first debut to the public in late 1933, where it was part of the “Parade and Fly Past of Experimental Types” at the Hendon Air Display. On February 22nd, 1934, the prototype flew to be tested firsthand with the 101 squadron at Andover, who had been operating the Sidestrand up to this point. The main goal was to receive feedback on the changes to the Sidestrand’s design by its would-be operators, if the new additions were at all effective in increasing crew comfort. Aerial tests began and the crews liked the new design for a number of reasons, but they also had their criticisms. Being February, the heating system was very appreciated by the crews. Thanks to its Pegasus engines, the aircraft could attain a top speed of 153 mph (246.2 km/h) while still being as maneuverable as its predecessor. Despite all of this praise, pilots noted that the aircraft felt sluggish on the controls longitudinally and that the engines caused excessive vibrations. Gunners enjoyed not being subjected to harsh winds in the newly enclosed turret, but many felt it was currently too claustrophobic. With the necessary information received, the prototype would leave Andover and return on March 19th. Revisions began immediately to fix the criticisms of the design. A second Sidestrand was converted into this new design (J9770), and the new revisions were input into the modifications of this aircraft. The turret was widened to give the gunner’s more space. The zip-fastened canvas that protected the open slit of the turret was removed in favor of a simple canvas strip that was held on by strips. To accommodate the widened turret, the fuselage nose was widened to a slight degree. Changes were done to improve the autopilot, elevators, and fins to fix the vibration issues. The two-bladed propellers of the Sidestrand were replaced with four-bladed metal ones. Work was also done to make it easier to work on the engine’s compressors. The engines were replaced by the newer Pegasus II.M3 to increase performance and all would be equipped with this engine after this point. By this point in development, the aircraft design would receive a new official name, the Overstrand, named after a town near the city of Sidestrand, the namesake of its base design. Work began on converting two more Sidestrands (J9179 and J9185) into Overstrands not long after the second was completed. Further testing of the types revealed that the aircraft was still having issues with engine vibration. This would plague the converted Sidestrands but was noticeably more tame on the later production versions.

A side view of J9770. This was the 2nd converted Sidestrand and would evenutally be equipped with Pegasus IV engines. (https://www . destinationsjourney . com/)

While Boulton & Paul was in the midst of developing their new bomber, financial issues finally caught up to the company. With the failure to procure production contracts on several aircraft in the past and the Sidestrand itself not performing as well as had previously hoped, Boulton & Paul made the decision that of their four divisions of the company, the Aircraft Division had been the weakest. The Aircraft Division was completely sold off to a financial group, Electric and General Industries Trust Ltd, who would reformat the division into its own dedicated company that would be simply named Boulton Paul Ltd. Despite this drastic change happening with the development team, Boulton Paul would continue their work on the Overstrand starting on June 30th, 1934.

With the early success of the converted Sidestrands, the RAF put out an order (Specification 23/24) to Boulton Paul, which requisitioned the production of 19 newly-built Overstrands to begin replacing the Sidestrands in service.

In Service

A production Overstrand with a Sidestrand in the background. (Boulton Paul Aircraft Since 1915)

On January 24th, 1935, the very first Overstrand would enter service with the 101st Squadron. The squadron itself was already quite familiar with the design, thanks to the testing done the year before, as well as an Overstrand being flown by No.101 squadron members at the 1934 Hendon Air Display. Here, the Overstrand would participate in a mock dogfight against 3 Bristol Bulldog fighters (This display and the rest of the air show can be viewed at the Imperial War Museum’s website, found here.). The plan was to introduce the Overstrand slowly into the squadron, at first forming a third C flight and eventually replacing the Sidestrands in A and B flights. In late May, the Overstrands participated in a bombing demonstration to officials and students of the Imperial Defense College. The target was 200 yards by 300 yards and was meant to represent a bridge. All three bombing runs hit the target and impressed the students with their accuracy. Many however were not so impressed, as the demonstration did not represent accurate combat conditions the bombers would face in battle against a target that would no doubt be defended. Further showcasing of the new bomber continued as on July 6th, No.101 would fly to Mildenhall for the King’s Jubilee Air Review. While there, King George VI would personally inspect Overstrand J9185, and he was particularly interested in the powered turret.

With the necessary modifications made to the designs from actual criticisms of the prototype, the Overstrand and its many accommodations made the aircraft very well liked by the crews who flew them. The Overstrand was a comfortable aircraft to be in, but was also a well performing aircraft no less. At the start of its service, bomb aiming accuracy went up from only 15% accuracy to 85% thanks to the well thought out turret design which factored in bomb-aiming equipment. On top of bomb-aiming, the No.101 Squadron won the Sassoon Trophy of 1935 for photo-reconnaissance with a score of 89.5% accuracy. Gunner accuracy is also noted as having improved considerably thanks to the turret design.

Starting in September, newly produced Overstrands would begin entering service with the No.101 squadron. The first accident with an Overstrand occurred on September 9th, when J9185 crashed at the North Coates Range. Despite this accident, newly built Overstrands would continue to enter service through January of 1936. Before the year would close, an order for five more Overstrands (K8173-K8177) was placed, to serve as replacements in the event any were lost. This would bring aircraft production up to a total of 28 aircraft. While most of the Overstrands would be delivered to the No.101 squadron, K4552 would be sent to the Air Armament School at East-Church, where it would serve as a training aircraft for recruits to become familiar with the type and turret. 1936 was a largely uneventful year for the Sidestrand aside from 3 separate accidents. J9197 would lose an engine shortly after takeoff, K4556 would be forced down in a bog and K4562 would have its brakes seize up on landing.

The aftermath of the crash of K4556. (Boulton Paul Aircraft)

In January of 1937, the RAF began expanding its forces, and creating new squadrons. The No.144 Squadron was formed in support of No.101 and would borrow four Overstrands until new aircraft were made available. The Overstrands would serve for only a month until new Bristol Blenheim bombers could be supplied, after which the Overstrands were returned. Also in January, K4564 would crash while flying in thick fog from Midenhall to Bicester. Unfortunately, the aircraft would be destroyed and the crew was killed. Another aircraft would crash in June. A notice was put out to modify all Overstrands by reinforcing the nose to reduce vibration. Overstrands would once again appear at the Hendon Air Display, however, this would be the last year it was held. An Overstrand would perform a mid-air refuel with a Vickers Viriginia and yet again a mock dog fight would be held, this time an Overstrand would go against three Hawker Demon fighters.

The modified nose of K1785 with the de Buysson turret. (Boulton Paul Defiant: A Technical Guide)

In 1935, Boulton Paul purchased the rights to build the de Buysson electric turret from the Societe d’Applications des Machines Motrices (SAMM) in France. De Buysson was an engineer in the organization and had designed a four-gun electrically powered turret for use on aircraft. The French government was not interested in pursuing it, but de Buysson had caught wind of Boulton Paul’s work on turrets with the Overstrand. SAMM approached the company with their turret design and John North, lead aircraft designer at Boulton Paul, found their turret design superior and purchased the rights to its patent. In 1937, Overstrand K8175, one of the reserve aircraft, was experimentally modified with a de Buysson turret. The turret heavily increased the firepower of the Overstrand from a single Lewis gun to four Barne guns in the nose. Despite the increase in firepower, K8175 would be the only Overstrand to be equipped with this turret. The de Buysson turret would serve as the basis for the turret used in the developing P.82 turret fighter, which would be soon to be renamed the Defiant. Another Overstrand, K8176, would have its turret heavily modified to house a 20mm Hispano cannon. The nose of this aircraft had to be changed drastically to equip this weapon, and the turret was now built into the fuselage. The weapon itself was now on a mount that rotated and most of the glazing of the nose was removed, while what was necessary for bomb-aiming remained.

The modified nose of K1786 with its 20mm Hispano cannon. (Boulton Paul Aircraft Since 1915)

The P.80 Superstrand: A Bomber Behind the Times

Aside from the various modifications done to the Overstrand, there are two known variants that were proposed:

Early in development, Boulton Paul pitched an idea of a variant of an Overstrand that would be converted for coastal reconnaissance, designated P.77. While this idea was pitched, it was found to be largely unnecessary, as the Avro Anson could easily fill this role, and it was a modern monoplane design.

The P.80 Superstrand was meant to be the final evolution of the design, using Pegasus IV engines, retractable landing gear and a redesigned cockpit. While expected performance was much better than the Overstrand, the design was already outdated as it was being made, as newer and more advanced monoplane bombers were entering production, the need for further refining the type was made unnecessary. (Boulton Paul Aircraft Since 1915)

At some point during its service, the second Overstrand built (J9770) was re-equipped with much stronger Pegasus IV engines to increase performance of the aircraft. Plans were further done to modernize the design with retractable landing gear. The development continued with further refinements to the design, eventually becoming a new design entirely. The P.80 Superstrand was meant to be the final step in the bomber’s design, incorporating many modern aspects that were not found on the Overstrand. Aside from the previously mentioned Pegasus IV engines and retractable landing gear, the aircraft would also use variable-pitch propellers. The cockpit section was also redesigned, now connecting the pilot’s position with the rear dorsal gunner’s. The dorsal gunner position was also now fully enclosed. The front turret had many changes done to the design as well. Only the upper section of the turret would now be transparent, and it appears that the front section was now part of the fuselage, with accommodations in the nose for a bomb sight. It was expected these changes to the Overstrand would increase the top speed to 191 mph (307 km/h), give it a maximum ceiling of 27,500 ft and an increase bomb load. The Superstrand was never built, as the aircraft was obsolete even as it was being designed. While the Overstrand was performing well, aircraft development had continued and was now pushing towards more modern monoplane aircraft designs, the opposite of what the Superstrand was. Even Boulton Paul itself, by this point, was beginning to design monoplane bombers. The previous numeric design, the P.79, was a monoplane twin-engine bomber that, while never built, incorporated many elements found in the Overstrand but now adapted onto a more modern airframe. No further work was done on bringing the P.80 to reality.

End of the Line

Direct front view of an Overstrand. (Boulton Paul Aircraft Since 1915)

By 1938, the Overstrand was beginning to show its age. Modern bombers, like the Bristol Blenheim and even larger aircraft, such as the Vickers Wellington, had already, or were soon to enter production and replace the biplanes that remained in service. The Overstrand was no exception. On August 27th, No.101 squadron began gradually replacing their Overstrand bombers with Blenheims. By summer of next year, the Overstrand would be completely removed from frontline service. Despite this, the aircraft still continued to fly in various training schools and serve auxiliary roles. 5 Overstrands were sent to the No.2 Air Observer School in 1938 for training. K4552 would be sent to the No.1 Air Observer school in Lincolnshire, where it would continue its training mission until it was deemed non-airworthy and repurposed to a ground instructional frame. Despite not being in the air, the airframe was still the victim of accidents and, on April 28th, 1940, would be damaged and scrapped after a Gloster Gauntlet trainer overshot and hit it. The final nail in the coffin for most Overstrands came in July, when K1873 would break up mid air, killing the crew. After this incident, all Overstrands were ordered to remain in training as ground instructional air frames only.

K8175 parked in front of the aircraft hangar at the Boulton Paul factory at Wolverhampton. (Boulton Paul Aircraft Since 1915)

Despite this order, a handful of Overstrands would continue flying as part of rather unorthodox missions. K8176 would be sent to be used by the Special Duty Flight at Christchurch. Eventually, this aircraft would be sent to the Army Cooperation Development unit. K4559 would be operated by the Balloon Development Unit at Cardington. There, the aircraft would provide a slipstream for barrage balloons and would test the fatigue of the cables to the balloons. By 1941, the aircraft type was deemed obsolete and it is believed the previously mentioned aircraft were returned to Boulton Paul for turret development. Not long after, K1876 would be involved in an accident due to bad weather. While flying to Edinburgh, the aircraft would attempt to land at Blackpool but would undershoot the runway and crash. This is known to be the last time an Overstrand flew. It is interesting to note that K1876 had just been painted with camouflage, which would make it possibly the only Overstrand that was not in the standard bare metal finish aside from the prototype. It is unlikely any Overstrands saw any combat by happenstance during their short period of operation in the Second World War.

With the type obsolete, all remaining Overstrands were scrapped. While no surviving aircraft remain to this day, a reproduction of the nose section of Overstrand K4556 was built and currently resides in the Norfolk and Suffolk Aviation Museum, in the Boulton Paul Hangar.

 

Conclusion

The reproduction of the nose of an Overstrand at the Norfolk and Suffolk Aviation Musuem. (https://www . aviationmuseum . net/index . html)

Ultimately, the reason the Boulton Paul Overstrand existed was to improve the pre-existing Sidestrand’s nose gunner position and create a faster platform, which it would successfully accomplish with its reworks. The Overstrand served for only a few years before more advanced aircraft would replace it, but in that time it became a well respected aircraft that was liked by its crews for the various comforts incorporated into the design and which increased the performance.

The Overstrand was a very interesting aircraft, as it seems to be in an area between eras. On one hand, it represents the last of the biplane bombers that can trace their lineage back to the First World War for Britain and for Boulton & Paul. But on the other hand, it had features that were soon to become commonplace. The powered turret design was a game-changer not only for British aviation, but the company that built it as well. Boulton Paul, under H.A.Hughes, would become one of the most prolific turret designers for British aviation in the Second World War, not only designing turrets for use on other bombers, but also with their own upcoming turret fighter design, the Defiant.

Variants

 

  • Sidestrand Mk V -The name given to the design at the start of its development.
  • Prototype Overstrand (J9186) – The very first Overstrand was a converted Sidestrand. This had a smaller turret, two-bladed propellers and a narrower nose.
  • Converted Sidestrands (J9770, J9179, J9185)– The next three Overstrands built were modified from existing Sidestrands. However, these would be further improved over the prototype by having their turrets widened, four-bladed propellers installed and a wider nose to accommodate the bigger turret.
  • Boulton Paul P.75 Overstrand – Production version. 24 built in total.
  • Boulton Paul P.77 – Variant of the Overstrand redesigned for coastal reconnaissance. None were built.
  • Boulton Paul P.80 Superstrand – The final design of the “Strand” family, the P.80 Superstrand was drawn up in the mid 1930s as to further refine the Overtrand’s design with more modern components, including retractable landing gear, Pegasus IV engines, a reworked turret, lengthened cockpit and further streamlined airframe. Due to monoplane bombers now becoming mainstream, the P.80 was seen as obsolete and none of the type were built.

Modifications

  • Overstrand K8175 – Production Overstrand that was experimentally modified to test the du Boysson 4-gun turret.
  • Overstrand K8176 – Production Overstrand that was experimentally modified to house a 20 mm Hispano cannon in its nose turret via pedestal mount.
  • Overstrand J9770 – The second converted Sidestrand, this aircraft was later experimentally modified to house Pegasus IV engines. This was done as part of the development that would lead to the P.80 Superstrand.

Operators

 

  • United Kingdom – The Royal Air Force would operate the Boulton Paul Overstrand from 1935 to 1941 in various squadrons. Most of these would fly operationally with the 101 squadron from 1935 to 1938. The type would also briefly serve with 114 squadron for only a month, until it would be replaced by Blenheim bombers. During WWII, the remaining Overstrands would be relegated to training duties and other special tasks, such as working with barrage balloons.

Boulton Paul P.75 Overstrand Specifications
Wingspan 71 ft 11 in / 29.2 m
Length 46 ft 1 in / 14.3 m
Height 15 ft 9 in / 4.8 m
Wing Area 979.5 ft² / 91 m²
Engine 2x 580 hp ( 426 kW ) Pegasus II.M.3 9-cylinder radial engines
Propeller 2x 4-blade metal propellers
Weights
Empty 8004 lbs / 3630.6 kg
Loaded 11392 lbs / 5167.3 kg
Climb Rate
Time to 6500 ft / 1981 m 5 minutes 24 seconds
Maximum Speed 153 mph / 246.2 km/h at 6,500 ft / 1981 m
Range 545 mi / 877 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 21,300 ft / 6490 m
Crew Crew of 4

1x Pilot

3x Gunners (2 would also serve as the Bombardier and Radioman)
Armament
  • 1x .303 Lewis gun in powered nose turret
  • 1x .303 Lewis gun in dorsal gunner position
  • 1x .303 Lewis gun in ventral turret position
  • 1,500 Ib (680.4 kg) bomb load (2x 500 Ib and 2x 250Ib bombs)

Credits

  • Article written by Medicman11
  • Edited by  Henry H. and Stan L.
  • Ported by Henry H.
  • Illustrated by Esteban P.

Illustrations

 

Overstrand J9186: The first Overstrand built, converted from a Sidestrand
Overstrand K4546: A production Sidestrand that was operated by the No.101 Squadron in their C Flight.
Overstrand K1785: A later Overstrand that was experimentally modified with a quad-gun de Buysson turret for testing

Sources

Boulton Paul Aircraft. Chalford, 1996.

Brew, Alec. Boulton Paul Aircraft since 1915. Fonthill Media, 2020.

Mason, Francis K. The British Bomber since 1914. Naval Inst. Press, 1994.

USN B-Class Blimp

United States, WW1, , ,

sweden flag USA (1917)
Patrol & Training Blimp – 20 Built

A B-Class Blimp just after takeoff. This type would be the first in a long line of USN patrol blimps. [US National Archives]
The B-Class Blimp was a type of non-rigid airship used for training and patrol duty by the United States Navy during, and after the First World War. The type would be the first successful patrol blimp series the Navy would field and would be used until the early 1920s. Its success would prove the effectiveness of coastal patrol airships in the US, and would mark the beginning of a long line of airships operated by the Navy.

A Rocky Start

Two B-Class blimps during a training exercise. Two spherical observation balloons can also be seen. [US National Archives]
The First World War was one that saw considerable technological breakthroughs, with many different ideas coming to fruition for the first time or previously small endeavors in weapons now being used in large numbers. Nowhere was this more clear than with aircraft design. Aside from conventional airplanes, lighter-than-air aircraft also saw their first widespread combat use, ranging from the large Zeppelin raids on London, to the observation balloons at the front. Britain would develop their own unique series of non-rigid dirigibles for the sole purpose of patrolling their coastlines and surrounding waters to search for enemy ships and submarines. At first, the Sea Scout class of airship would fill this role, but later the much larger North Sea and Coastal-classes of airship would also be built. These airships would prove very effective in their patrol duties, with some capable of patrolling for hours on end without stopping. The success of these airships would inspire the United States Navy to begin work on their own design in 1915.

An example of a British coastal patrol airship is the Sea-Scout class, which were heavily used during the First World War to patrol the coastline. This type in particular would serve as a basis for the B-class Blimp [Imperial War Musuem]
The first of the Navy’s patrol airships would be the DN-1, later considered the A-Class but never officially known as this. The DN-1 was built by the Connecticut Aircraft Company in 1915 using intelligence from German and Austrian non-rigid airship designs of the time. The DN-1 would prove to be a massive failure, having a poor top speed, inadequate lift, and engine troubles which led the type to not be mass produced. Seeking to avoid a repeat of the DN-1, the Navy would begin looking for a more successful design. Their search would lead to the creation of the improved B-Class

The B-Class Blimp

Rear view of the B-1, the first of the B-Class. [US National Archives]
The designers at the Bureau of Construction and Repair (Bu. of C&R) would instead look towards the British for inspiration for their improved design over the German/Austrian based DN-1. The result would be the B-Class. Its overall design took heavy inspiration from the British Sea Scout class of airship. The design would be drafted by the Bu. of C&R. There were several expected requirements to the B-class. The airship had to have a top speed of at least 45mph, a 35mph cruising speed with an endurance of 12 hours, communication range of 150 miles, a crew of three, and it had to be able to land on water for emergencies or towing. The design was approved on January 26th by the General Board and a day later by the Navy. An initial order for two B-class blimps was arranged, but this would change on February 4th when a total of 16 were now ordered. This amount was too much for a single company to construct, so instead 5 companies were approached; Goodyear, Goodrich, the Connecticut Aircraft Company, Curtiss and U.S. Rubber. All of these companies, despite being rivals, would work closely together on the construction of the B-class blimps. Three companies would construct the main balloon section themselves, Goodyear, Goodrich and Connecticut. Goodyear was tasked with building B-1 through B-9, Goodrich would build B-10 through B-14 and Connecticut would build B-15 and B-16. Curtiss would focus on building the gondolas of the B-class, which were modified JN-4 Jenny fuselages, as well as building the OXX engines and fins for the craft. U.S. Rubber would supply Connecticut with fabric for the skin. At the start, Curtiss was meant to build three blimps but these would be instead given to Goodrich, as Curtiss had other aircraft projects to focus on. Building military airships was a new endeavor for most of these companies, aside from Connecticut who produced the previously mentioned DN-1. Goodyear had the most experience in terms of production of lighter-than-air aircraft, as they had already produced a number of free and kite balloons for the Navy, and were found to be the most prepared for production of this scale. Thus the first few B-Class were assigned to them.

Design

Underside view of a B-Class and its gondola. [US National Archives]
Closeup view of the modified Curtiss JN-4 Jenny fuselages used as the gondola for the B-class. [US National Archives]
The B-Class was a blimp designed for patrolling the offshore waters of the American coastline during World War One. The B-Class had a large, teardrop shaped body that was filled with hydrogen. It would be 160 ft (48.8 m) long. The overall volume of the B-classes differed between the companies that built it. At the rear of the body were several fins, two horizontal, one ventral and one dorsal. Each of these, except the dorsal fin, would have control surfaces to move the airship in the desired direction. Hung underneath the body was the gondola. The gondola was a modified Curtiss JN-4 Jenny fuselage with its wings and tail surfaces removed. An additional third seat was added compared to the standard two seats of the JN-4. In the nose of the gondola was a single Curtiss 100 hp OXX-2 engine powering a two-blade wooden propeller. On the two Connecticut B-classes, 100 hp Hall-Scott engines would be used instead. Beneath the gondola, the B-Class originally retained the landing gear from the JN-4, but these were swapped out later for two flotation bags. On the last B-Class built, B-20, a completely new gondola was designed and the craft was much larger than the standard design.

 

For armament, the B-class would have a Lewis machine gun. For anti-submarine duties, it could carry depth charges or bombs. Additional equipment for the crew included a radio transmitter and receiver, flashlights, a flare pistol with green and red flares, life preservers, rations, drinkable water, maps, a camera, carrier pigeons and signal books.

The B-Class in the War

A B-Class blimp above the Goodyear hangar at Akron. Two Upson kite balloons can be seen in the hangar. [US National Archives]
The first B-Class, B-1, would be completed by Goodyear sometime in April/May of 1917. At the time of its creation, Goodyear had been working on building a facility in Akron to house and operate airships, but it was still under construction when B-1 was completed. Thus, Goodyear had to transport the B-1 to the Goodrich facility near Chicago to inflate the craft. The craft was finally inflated and first flown on May 24th, 1917, with Ralph H. Upson at the controls. Upson was an airship engineer and pilot at Goodyear, and a pioneer in the lighter-than-air field, winning an airship race in 1913 and designing his own kite balloons at Goodyear only a few years earlier. He was thoroughly impressed with the first test flights. Upson would take the B-1 up again 5 days after the first flight and would try to fly from Chicago all the way to Akron. His flight started at midnight. Due to an oil leak, he would have to set the craft down at noon, just 10 miles outside of Akron. Despite not making it to his intended destination, Upson had achieved a record for lighter-than-air aircraft travel distance in America. The Navy had doubts surrounding the B-Class after the failure of the DN-1, but with the type already achieving world records on only its second flight, these doubts were quickly amended. The type was already proving its effectiveness even before entering active service. Production of the rest of the 15 B-classes soon commenced and the B-1 was shipped to Pensacola on August 7th, 1917.

B-Class at Akron, Ohio. [US National Archives]
As production continued, the various B-Classes would be sent across America to different air stations for duties. These included Naval Air Stations; Pensacola, Cape May, Montauk, Key West, Rockaway, San Diego, and Coco Solo in Panama. B-classes would also be stationed at Hampton for mostly testing purposes. Several improvements of the B-class would occur during its service, improving its top speed from 40mph to 48mph. The B-Class was responsible for patrol and rescue operations off the coastlines of America, and hunting for the dreaded U-Boat. It was found that blimps were much better for patrol duties than airplanes thanks to their long range, extended endurance time, and the ability to hover in midair assisted in spotting enemy warships. The B-Class would perform this duty until the end of the war. If a B-Class encountered a U-Boat, it could deploy depth charges or bombs, or radio in for aerial support from the NAS the aircraft was stationed at. During its service life, at least two B-classes would spot a U-boat and attempt to destroy it, but none would be sunk by the B-Class. The service of the B-class was impressive. It is estimated that the B-classes together patrolled for over 13,600 hours across 400,000 miles. Aside from patrol duties, another impact the B-Class had on the military was its extensive use as a training craft. Several B-classes would be stationed at the aforementioned Goodyear Akron facility solely for the purpose of training. Over 170 aviators would train and be certified on the B-Class, with many headed overseas to operate European dirigibles in service with France and Britain. No B-class blimps were ever sent to Europe.

A B-Class preparing for takeoff. [US National Archives]
The B-class was not without its accidents. Throughout their service life, many B-class blimps would suffer damage or be completely destroyed while on duty. B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-9, B-12, B-14 and B-16 were all destroyed in accidents before the end of the First World War.

B-Class at Akron Ohio. [US National Archives]
Despite its effectiveness, the B-class was found to be lacking as a patrol craft, and the Navy would order a successor design in September of 1918 to amend the shortcomings of the B-class. This was the C-Class (no relation to the aforementioned British Coastal Class which was also known as the C-Class coastal airship) and it took many aspects of the B-Class and improved upon them. The shape of the balloon itself was overall the same, but the C-Class had a much larger gondola that sported two engines instead of one, granting improved speed and maneuverability. The C-Class however wouldn’t be ready before the end of the war, but was instead operated postwar.

The B-Class Postwar

View of a B-class during operations patrolling the Atlantic. This photo was taken from a USN submarine. [US National Archives]
The First World War would end on November 11th, 1918, with the B-Class having served well in its duties. Despite the C-Class approaching production, the B-Classes still in service would continue to operate, however a few were stricken off to reduce the fleet size. Three B-Class blimps would be rebuilt reusing the envelopes from previously damaged blimps. These would be B-17, B-18 and B-19. B-17 is known to have reused the envelope from B-1, which was damaged on June 17th, 1920. B-18 likely used the envelope from B-13. Details on B-19 are lacking. It is known that these three blimps were constructed sometime in 1920. The final B-class built would be the B-20. Details are also sparse on this craft but it is known to have had a completely unique gondola design and was much larger than the standard B-Class. In the bureau number list, B-20 is listed as being before the aforementioned rebuilt gondolas. Interestingly, these B-classes were all built after not only the introduction of the C-Class, but even after its successor, the D-Class. All postwar built B-classes were constructed by Goodyear. The remaining B-classes continued to serve into the early 1920s, with many of them being scrapped due to accidents or deterioration with age. By 1924, three B-classes remained, B-3, B-8 and B-15. B-8 was heavily deteriorated but B-3 and B-15 were still in operational condition. By this point however, the B-class was heavily outdated, and with its services no longer required, the last 3 were surveyed and scrapped in 1924. The B-class actually wound up being in service longer than its successor, as the few remaining C-Classes had been scrapped in 1922.

Conclusion

A B-Class above the Naval Air Station at Key West, Florida. [US National Archives]
The B-Class was an important achievement to the United States Navy, proving the effectiveness of patrol airships and paving the way for a long line of succeeding designs. The B-Class would train aviators that would go on to protect allied countries in foreign built dirigibles, and would protect the American coasts from U-Boats. B-Class blimps would serve the Navy well past its expiration date, even surpassing its own successor. The Navy’s LTA airship fleet began with the humble B-Class, and would continue for almost five decades later.

One of the early B-Classes built by Goodrich. Notice the double ventral fins. [US National Archives]

Service List

  • B-1: The first in the B-Class series, B-1 would survive the war. On June 17th, 1920, B-1 would be damaged at Pensacola and would be stricken off. The gas bag was later reused on B-17.
  • B-2: B-2 would survive the war and would be stationed at Key West. On February 28th, 1919, B-2 would completely wreck.
  • B-3: B-3 would survive the war and continue to serve until it was surveyed in 1924. The ship was damaged several times but was fully repaired each time.
  • B-4: Stationed at Hampton NAS for testing. On August 8th, 1918 the craft was damaged and stricken. The blimp was salvaged for spare parts.
  • B-5: Stationed at Akron. While on maneuvers, it would be completely destroyed on November 21st, 1917.
  • B-6: Service details are lacking, stricken from the Navy on September 7th, 1918.
  • B-7: Stricken June 8th, 1918.
  • B-8: Survived the war and served until March 19th, 1924, where it was surveyed due to deterioration.
  • B-9: Stationed at Key West. On April 21st, 1919 would completely wreck due to engine failure.
  • B-10: Stationed at Cape May. During maneuvers on December 7th, 1918, it would be heavily damaged. The craft was sent back to Goodrich but the repairs were considered too expensive and B-10 was scrapped. The envelope was torn up and distributed to other air stations to serve as repair materials on other blimps.
  • B-11: Shipped to Pensacola, service ended on August 15th, 1919. Service unknown.
  • B-12: B-12 wrecked while on patrol on July 26th, 1918.
  • B-13: Damaged numerous times during service at Montauk Naval Air Station. Envelope appears to have been salvaged and later reused but on what aircraft is unknown, possibly B-18. It was recommended to be stricken off at two different stations in 1919, at Montauk and Rockaway.
  • B-14: Wrecked July 20th, 1918 at Montauk(?).
  • B-15: Served at Pensacola through the war and after. Was finally surveyed on April 22nd, 1924.
  • B-16: Official report is spotty but on June 17th, 1918, the craft was destroyed.
  • B-17: Rebuilt gondola, reused the envelope from B-1, service unknown.
  • B-18: Rebuilt gondola, envelope possibly from B-13. Service unknown.
  • B-19: Rebuilt gondola, service unknown.
  • B-20: Last B-class. Built in 1920. Completely new gondola design. Service unknown.

Variants

  • Goodyear/Goodrich B-Class (1 through 14) – B-classes built by Goodyear/Goodrich would use Curtiss OXX-2 engines. The first few of these had double fins but these were later changed to a single fin.
  • Connecticut B-Class (15 & 16) – The two B-Classes built by Connecticut would use Hall-Scott engines. These two appear to have the double fins as well. Unknown if any of these were later changed.
  • B-20 – The last B-class produced. It would have a unique gondola design.

Operators

  • United States of America – The 20 B-classes built would be operated by the United States Navy for patrol and training purposes until 1924.

B-Class (Goodyear) Specifications
Length 160 ft / 48.8 m
Diameter 31.5 ft / 9.6 m
Volume

(Varies between companies)

 77,000 ft³ / 2180.4 m³
Engine 1x 100 hp ( 73kW ) Curtiss OXX-2 8-cylinder engine
Gas Type Hydrogen
Maximum Speed 48 mph / 77.2 km/h
Cruising Speed 35 mph / 56.3 km/h
Maximum Service Ceiling 7000 ft / 2133 m
Crew 3 (Pilot, Copilot and Engineer)
Armament
  • 1x Lewis Gun
  • 2x Depth Charges
  • Unknown amount/type of Bombs
Equipment

(Patrol Duty)
  • Radio Transmitter & Receiver
  • Flashlights
  • Flare Gun
  • Life Preservers
  • Food rations and water
  • Maps
  • Camera
  • Carrier Pigeon
  • Aircraft signal books

Gallery

Artist Concept of B-Class – by Ed Jackson

Credits

  • Written by Medicman
  • Edited by Ed J. & Henry H.
  • Illustration by Ed Jackson

Sources

Upson Balloon

United States, WW1, , , ,

sweden flag USA (1915)
Observation & Training Balloon – 10+ Built


The Kite Balloon operated by the Navy at Pensacola. This particular balloon is based off the first patent. [Naval History and Heritage Command]
The Upson Kite Balloons, also known as Goodyear Kite Balloons or simply Upson Balloons, were a series of three observation balloon designs by Ralph Hazlett Upson to improve upon the design of the German Parseval-Sigsfeld Drachenballon. Two of the designs would be built by the Goodyear Corporation and sent to various balloon training schools and even operate off of ships, but the type was found to not offer much improvement over the Drachenballon, and the much more advanced Caquot balloon which would be introduced only a year after the Upson balloons were built, making the type null. A 3rd design would be patented but wouldn’t be built.

Ralph H. Upson and the Parseval-Sigsfeld Drachenballon

R.H Upson outside of the Goodyear Hangar in Akron, 1917 [US National Archives]
Ralph H. Upson was a pioneer in balloon and airship development in America in the early 1900s. In 1913, using his own airship design, he would win the International Balloon Race. Upson was an employee of the aeronautics division of the Goodyear Rubber and Tire Corporation where he was a pilot and engineer on the various lighter-than-air projects the company had been working on. Upson would mainly work at the Goodyear plant in Akron, Ohio. In 1914, the company began building observation kite balloons for the US Army to use in their balloon divisions. The main type of kite balloon in use was the German designed Parseval-Sigsfeld Drachenballon. The Drachenballon was designed over a decade before in 1898 and was a replacement for the spherical observation balloons of the previous century, as the latter was found to be almost unusable when in windy conditions. The Parseval-Sigsfeld design was built in such a way it would face towards the wind thanks to a large, air-inflated steering bag at the rear of the balloon. Thus it was named Drachenballon, or “kite balloon”. America would build and operate several Drachenballons before their entrance into the First World War.

An example of a German-operated Parseval-Sigsfeld Drachenballon. [Waffen Arsenal 149]
Upson would begin designing an improvement over the Drachenballon in 1915. Using the knowledge he learned from working on airships, he’d incorporate a number of features that would hopefully improve the overall stability of the German balloon. Two designs would be created at first in late 1915, with the patents on these designs being filed on June 20th, 1916.

Kite Balloon Design 1: Back to Basics

Kite Balloon Design 1 in the patent. The Navy-operated balloon in Pensacola is of this type. [Google Patents]
An Upson balloon being inflated at Pensacola. [State Archives of Florida]
The first of these designs was essentially a heavily modified Drachenballon. Its overall appearance and construction was the same. The balloon consisted of a large cylindrical gas bag. In the nose was a valve that regulates the pressure and gas and can be opened for release automatically or manually. On the underside was a neck to which the hydrogen gas was filled from. The Upson’s balloon’s neck was much longer than the neck on the Drachenballon. On the sides of the balloon were two stabilizing fins. On the Drachenballon, these fins are rectangular in shape. On Upson’s design, these would be triangular in shape and would sag down in flight. According to Upson, the rectangular fins of the Drachenballon only offered stabilization horizontally, while his fins would also prevent yaw and pitch movement. Internally at the rear was a large air bag to keep the balloon’s shape stable if the balloon isn’t fully inflated and keep the balloon at a 30-40 degree angle while in the air. The main difference between Design 1 and the Drachen involved the aft section of the balloon. On the standard Drachen is a large air-inflated steering bag that would keep the aircraft stable. On Upson’s design, the balloon would instead slightly taper at the rear. The steering bag would be removed altogether, instead replaced with a large keel-shaped bag. Upson’s thinking behind this change was that the steering bag wasn’t aerodynamic and instead opted for the more sleek keel bag over it, improving airflow. The keel bag and the ballonet were both connected via an intake at the tip of the keel. In addition, the tail of the balloon was connected to the keel, to which several tail cups were placed not only for stabilizing but to keep the keel straight. The tail cups were placed much closer to the balloon than on the Drachenballon. The rubber balloon girdle also differed from the Drachenballon slightly,as it wouldn’t be uniform all around the balloon, instead dipping slightly down near the front. The balloon would be made of rubberized and non rubberized fabric and filled with Hydrogen.

An Upson Kite Balloon in flight [US National Archives]
One of the Upson balloons preparing for flight at the Goodyear Plant in Akron. The other is visible in background hangar. The USAAC roundel is barely visible on the underside. [US National Archives]
BC-3 moored to the USS Huntington. [Wikipedia]
The Upson balloon BC-3 operating off of the USS Huntington. [navsource.org]
The Navy Design 1 balloon operating from the USS Oklahoma [NavalHistory.org]
Several Design 1 balloons are known to be built. The first would be built at the Goodyear plant in Akron in late 1915. While testing was going on in November, it was observed by officials from the Navy who were looking to increase the USN’s LTA (Lighter Than Air) fleet. The Design 1 balloon was accepted into service for the Navy on December 22th and shipped to the Pensacola Naval Air Station in Florida. The balloon would finally arrive on April 5th, 1916, along with a handful of Goodyear employees who helped with training. Only two days after arriving, the balloon would be damaged from heavy winds and would break from its mooring. The balloon would be repaired shortly after. Once repaired, the balloon was stationed aboard the USS Nevada and USS Oklahoma for testing. The balloon was found to offer increased visibility, but there were a number of reasons why using it from a battleship was a bad idea. The balloon was a very easy target, explosive due to its hydrogen gas (which often leaked), and gave away the position of the battleship. Inflating the balloon was also slower than what was expected. In some cases the balloon itself affected the maneuverability of the ship. It was noted that many of these issues could be fixed in the future, but no changes to this balloon are known to have occurred. Despite not performing well aboard a ship, the Navy continued to use the Design 1 balloon at the Pensacola Air Station for testing and training. Two more balloons were ordered, with the designations of CB-2 and CB-3 for the Navy. Both of these balloons are known to have been tested on the USS Huntington for evaluation. Even further on, the balloon CB-4 was ordered. It is unknown what type of balloon this was, whether Design 1 or 2.

Photo of a Design 1 balloon at Fort Omaha, Nebraska [Museum of the United States Air Force]
Aside from the Navy, the United States Army Air Service would also use two Design 1 balloons. One is known to be used for testing purposes. This balloon in particular has an extra set of stabilizing fins located a few feet in front of the regular stabilizing fins. Aside from testing, its service history is unknown. All that is known about it is comes from a US Army report evaluating it and a few photos to go along with said report. The report was very appraising of the type over the standard Drachenballon. The second known USAAS Design 1 balloon had an interesting history. From 1910 to 1919, the United States was in an armed conflict with Mexico on its border, known as the Mexican Border War. During this, many Army units would be stationed along the border. An Ohio National Guard Artillery unit was deployed along the border and stationed at El Paso, Texas in 1916. Accompanying the division was a Design 1 kite balloon gifted to the division by Goodyear. Along with the balloon, Ralph H. Upson himself would be assigned to assist in operations and training personnel for the balloon. The balloon would be used to observe Mexican forces moving near the border. Aside from its service in the War, the fate of this balloon is unknown. It was, however, the first observation balloon operated by the National Guard and is known to have been built shortly after the first Design 1 balloon.

Kite Balloon Design 2: All New

Design 2. This particular type would see several produced. [Google Patents]
The second design was also included on the June 20th patent and would greatly differ from the standard Drachenballon. In fact the only two similarities between the two designs would be their overall layout, other than this, the two designs are greatly different. The overall shape wasn’t cylindrical, but instead more round. Carrying over from Design 1 are Upson’s unique side fins, keel bag, and extended neck. The evacuation valve in the nose was moved upward and is near the top of the nose instead of directly frontally. Instead of having a balloon girdle, the ropes connecting the mooring line and basket were instead connected to individual rubber connection points around the main body of the aircraft. The pattern of the connection points is the same shape as the girdle on Design 1, with it arching down towards the front. The aircraft would also be stabilized by an internal ballonet. Specifications for this balloon do exist. It was to have an internal volume of 25,000 ft³ (707.9 m³). The maximum service ceiling would be 6000ft (1828.8 m). On the underside of two of the balloons, a United States Army Air Corps roundel is printed.

Goodyear would build at least four of this balloon type for training and testing. Two of these would be sent to the Fort Omaha balloon school in late 1916. Here they would be used in the training of the balloon corps alongside Drachenballons and spherical balloons. Two more of this type were photographed at the Goodyear Akron plant during a maneuver with other lighter-than-air aircraft. There is a chance these two aircraft are the same as the ones in Omaha but their overall appearance differs slightly. On one of the balloons is a box-like structure located at the side of the balloon. These are not present in the patent or on the other balloons and their purpose is unknown. It is possible these were some form of additional stabilizers but it is not confirmed. This type appears to be exclusively used by the USAAS.

The same excercise as before at Akron with all balloons now airborne. What appears to be a B-Class Blimp is in the background as well. [US National Archives]
On September 23rd, 1916, two pilots; Carl K. Wollam and Charlie Roth, were interested in one of the Goodyear Design 2 balloons then stationed at Dayton, Ohio. Both men, who were aircraft pilots, wanted to see how well the Upson balloon would do in untethered flight. It should be noted neither man had piloted a balloon before. The two would go up in the balloon, and then cut the cable. The balloon would go to an altitude between 5000 and 6000 ft (1524 and 1828.8 m) for a distance of over 120 miles (321.9 kilometers). The flight would last over 3 hours. The two wanted to head to Akron to land but their attempt failed and they were thrown off course for 70 miles (112.6 kilometers), finally landing in a farm near Circleville, Ohio. This would be the first free flight of a kite balloon in the US. Despite not being designed for this flight, the pilots said the balloon was hard to control, but overall performed well for the task.

Kite Balloon Design 3: Double Trouble

Side view of Design 3. This design was essentially two Design 2 kite balloon bodies sewn together. [Google Patents]
Frontal view of Design 3. [Google Patents]
The last of the Upson balloon designs was not included in the first patent document, instead being patented a few months later on November 9th, 1916. This 3rd balloon design differed greatly from most balloon designs of that era. Design 3 essentially was two Design 2 balloons sewn together side by side. Upson would call it a “Composite Balloon” in the patent. Each side of the balloon would have design features from Design 2. At the rear interior of the gas bag was an air-fed ballonet to keep the overall shape of the balloons intact when not fully inflated. The overall shape of the gas bag was changed, with Upson specifically mentioning that the bottom was flattened out to aid in aerodynamics. In each nose was an emergency gas escape valve to regulate the gas. On each side was one of Upson’s triangular stabilizing wings and at the rear was the keel bag. Instead of the tail cups that were common for kite balloons and used with the previous two designs, Upson would design a completely new tail stabilizing device. A large concave strip would connect to two ropes. Each rope would connect to an end of one of the gas bags. The strip would catch the wind like a parasail, stabilizing the balloon. Upson’s overall choice for the double body design was to greatly increase the stability and maximum height over contemporary balloon designs, with the idea that another body would assist in that regard considerably. The ropes connecting the basket were equally distributed to each of the balloon bags.

Despite Upson claiming it to be superior over his previous two designs, no composite balloon was ever built.

Too Late: The Caquot Arrives.

Two Upson Balloons are part of an exercise at the Akron Goodyear Plant, along with two Caquot Balloons. The photograph label incorrectly states all four balloons are Caquot R Types. [US National Archives]
From reports, the improvements done by Upson over the Drachenballon design did positively impact its design, making it much more stable in strong winds. A Design 1 balloon is known to have remained stable in 45mph winds. Despite the positive reception, there are still mentions that the Upson balloons design wasn’t perfect and it suffered still in terms of total stabilization compared to newer the newe balloons on the horizon, but overall it performed better than the Drachenballon in this regard. Upson’s balloon designs would have only just started their testing when the French officer, Albert Caquot, would create his superior balloon design in the later months of 1916. The design was created to completely fix the flaws of the Drachenballon. To fix the stability issues, two more air-inflated bags were placed at the rear of the balloon, totalling 3 stabilizers spaced 120 degrees apart from each other. The type was found to be completely superior over the Drachenballon and it quickly began replacing allied, and eventually German Drachenballons. Goodyear would later license build Caquot type balloons in 1918, for use by the American Balloon Corps. By their entrance in World War One, the US would only use Caquot types in combat operations in Europe. No further Upson balloons were built after 1917. Despite this, the two Design 2 balloons stationed at the Fort Omaha balloon school would continue to be used for training purposes until the closure of the school in 1919. It is unknown what fate befell the Navy operated kite balloons.

The Design 1 Balloon in operation at El Paso, Texas during the Mexican Border War. [texashistory.unt.edu]
An Upson Balloon at the Fort Omaha Balloon School. [US National Archives]
Due to a lack of information regarding these balloons, it is entirely possible, and extremely more than likely that more than the known amount of Upson balloons were built, but records and photos concerning the production of Design 1 and 2 types are severely lacking.

Upson would continue his work in the field of lighter-than-air aviation, working for Goodyear into the 1920s until he would leave the company to pursue his own vision of lighter-than-air aircraft. He would create the Aircraft Development Corporation, where he would design and build the metal-skinned airship ZMC-2 for the Navy. Upson would continue in the aviation industry all the way through the Second World War and into the 1950s.

A B-Class Blimp flies over the Goodyear hangar in Akron. One of the Upsons is being either taken in or out of storage. The second is visible in the hangar. [US National Archives]

Variants

*Note, the “Design” names are not the official designation, but named so here for simplicity.

  • Design 1– Heavily modified Drachenballon with improvements made by Upson. These include larger side stabilizers, the removal of the steering bag and the new keel bag for wind stabilizing. Five are confirmed to be built, with a possible 6th.
  • Design 2 – Completely original design that took the improvements from Design 1 and put them on a new design. Design 2 had a much more rounder body over Design 1. Four are known to have been built.
  • Design 3 – Composite balloon. Consisted of essentially two Design 2s sewn together. Reused all of the aforementioned modified side fins and keel bags. Would have a unique tail stabilizing parachute.

Operators

  • United States of America – The Upson types built were used by the balloon corps of the United States Army Air Corps and Navy.

Upson Kite Balloon Design 1 Specifications
Length 82 ft / 25 m
Diameter 22 ft / 6.7 m
Volumes 25,000 ft³ (707.9 m³)
Gas Type Hydrogen
Material Rubber-infused and non-infused cotton fabric
Maximum Service Ceiling 6000 ft / 1828.8 m
Crew 2 Observers
Equipment
  • Telephone

Upson Kite Balloon Design 2 Specifications
Volumes 25,000 ft³ (707.9 m³)
Gas Type Hydrogen
Material Rubber-infused and non-infused cotton fabric
Maximum Service Ceiling 6000 ft / 1828.8 m
Crew 2 Observers
Equipment
  • Telephone

Gallery

Illustration of Upson Balloon Design 1 by Ed Jackson

Credits

  • Written by Medicman
  • Edited by Blase & Mebble
  • Illustrated by Ed J.

Sources

LWF Model G

United States, WW1, , ,

sweden flag USA (1918)
Multirole Aircraft – 3 Built

A side view of the LWF Model G-2. The firepower of the aircraft is evident, as the two of the four forward facing aircraft are visible near the engine, the double mount for the gunner, and beneath that the ventral gun is protruding. [US National Archives]
The LWF Model G was a multi-purpose two-man aircraft designed by LWF in 1918. While it was originally designed as a reconnaissance plane, it was redesigned to be equipped as a heavy fighter or bomber. Two aircraft were built for the United States Army Air Services for evaluation, where the craft reached 138 mph in its fighter loadout whilst carrying seven 7.62mm guns. Both prototypes would unfortunately crash, and with the First World War over, the Army Air Service no longer needed the aircraft. After the war, a third Model G was built as a mailplane.

History

The L.W.F. Engineering Company was an American aircraft manufacturer founded in 1915 by Edward Lowe Jr, Charles F. Willard, and Robert G. Fowler, with the company name being an acronym of their last names. The three had worked in the aviation industry before forming the company, with each using the experience they had learned to contribute to the company’s designs. In particular, the company was well known for its laminated wood, monocoque fuselages. Their first commercial product would be the LWF Model V, a two-seat reconnaissance/trainer aircraft for the United States Army Air Service. This would be their most popular aircraft, with over 100 being built before the end of the war. LWF would further experiment with the Model V, creating an improved prototype called the Model F. The Model F would replace the 135 hp (100 kW) Thomas-Morse engine of the Model V with a powerful 350 hp (261 kW) Liberty L-12 engine. This is claimed to be the first aircraft in the world to fly with a Liberty engine. The success of the Model F would inspire a successor design also using the Liberty engine, the Model G.


A pilot of the Model G-2 poses in front of the aircraft. [San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives]
The LWF Model G was drawn up in late 1917 as a high-speed reconnaissance/training plane using the aforementioned Liberty engine. It would bear a strong resemblance to the Model F, only differing in length and a few minor details. The first Model G aircraft was built in early January of 1918. On January 16th, the aircraft would take flight for the first time. The flight would start smoothly after takeoff but with a strong wind the aircraft was forced into a loop and entered into a tailspin, crashing into the ground and being completely destroyed. A second prototype would be constructed not long after the destruction of the first. This new prototype would be known as the Model G-1. The G-1 improved greatly upon the standard G model, but had more than its original reconnaissance and training role in mind. Instead of being solely a reconnaissance plane, the G-1 was envisioned as a capable two-seat fighter and light bomber. Each of the different configurations differed in terms of what they carried, whether it be weapons, bombs or extra armor. The G-1 was completed and flying by the summer of 1918, and its performance was superb. Test flights were done numerous times in front of both military and government officials to demonstrate the engine and its performance. By this point the Liberty engine had been upgraded to have 435hp (324.3 kW). Thanks to its more powerful Liberty engine, it was able to achieve incredible feats. In its fighter configuration, it was to carry an impressive armament of seven 7.62 machine guns. During a test flight, the aircraft was able to achieve a speed of 128mph (206 km/h) while carrying all of its weapons, fuel, and crew. In its bomber configuration, it would carry the same amount of guns, as well as additional armor and bomb racks.


The LFW Model F in flight, the predecessor to the Model G. Overall the two aircraft looked similar. [US National Archives]
Testing of the Model G-1 continued into late summer, when it was reworked into the Model G-2. The G-2 had several modifications to increase performance and handling. The control surfaces were fixed to be more balanced, and the ribs of the wings were doubled to improve structural stability. The improved design is noted as performing significantly better than the G-1. During a fully loaded flight , the improved Model G-2 went 10mph faster than the G-1, clocking in at 138mph. In comparison, the French Spad XIII fighter, one of the most highest performing production aircraft of the war, had the exact same top speed of 138mph (222 km/h) as the Model G-2, and it was a considerably lighter aircraft with only two machine guns. Testing of the G-2 continued through 1918 and showed excellent results. The aircraft was trialed in all three configurations and performance was recorded for each. On November 11th, the First World War came to an end. Despite there being no need for a fighter like the Model G, the type was still tested. A week after the end of hostilities, November 18th, the Model G-2 took off again. The aircraft however had taken off in dense fog, making visibility difficult. Due to the fog, the G-2 would crash and be totally destroyed. With the war over and both military prototypes destroyed, the pursuit of the Model G as a combat aircraft was over and LWF instead focused on the now-growing civilian market. There is mention on a photograph of the Model G-2 that an order for 600 of the aircraft was put out by the Army Air Service, but there is no mention of this in other sources. No production aircraft were built outside of the two military prototypes.

The mail-plane version of the Model G in 1919. Note the lack of armament and four bladed propeller. [US National Archives]
In 1919, a 3rd Model G was built as a mailplane. Little is known regarding this aircraft outside of a single photo. In the photo, which is dated April of 1919, long after both of the previous aircraft had crashed, an unarmed Model G is depicted. What is interesting about this version is that it had a four-bladed wooden propeller, whereas the previous models only had a two blade. Converting the Model G from a combat aircraft to a mailplane was a logical evolution. The Liberty engine would allow it to make quicker deliveries than its contemporaries, and it was able to carry up to 1,200 Ib (544.3 Kg) of cargo. Despite this advantage, only a single example was built. The fate of the mailplane is unknown, but it was likely scrapped years later once service was done, hopefully not meeting the same fate as the previous two Model Gs. No more work was done on the aircraft after the mailplane was finished.

Design


Complimentary image to the gunner showing the elevation, here the depression is shown. Note the ventral gun pointed straight down. [San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives]

Two of the forward facing guns are visible, one above the engine and one in the removed cowling area. [San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives]
The LWF Model G, and its upgrades, were a two-seat biplane multirole aircraft. The fuselage was constructed of laminated wood monocoque in a very aerodynamic cigar shape. It bore a resemblance to the sleek monocoque fighters of Germany, like the Pfalz D.III or Albatros D.V. In the nose, a Liberty L-12 engine was connected to a 2-bladed wooden propeller. At first the engine would be 350 hp (261 kW) but it was later upgraded to 435hp (324.3 kW) on the Model G-1 and onward. On the postwar mailplane, a four bladed propeller was used. The engine itself wasn’t fully covered, with about half protruding from the fuselage. On the nose were two radiators. Behind the engine sat the pilot. A windscreen protected the pilot from the wind and elements. Flight surfaces were controlled via two control sticks. The wings were two-bay and covered in fabric, with ailerons used on both pairs of wings. Beneath the fuselage was the landing gear. Two rubber lined wheels held the aircraft up on a basic landing gear frame. At the end of the fuselage was a landing skid. Behind the pilot sat the observer, who would handle observation duties in its basic configuration, and would serve as the gunner on the fighter and bomber configurations. His position was protected by a small windscreen as well. At the end of the tail were the vertical and horizontal stabilizers. The horizontal stabilizers were supported by two struts connected to the tailfin.

Another view of the gunner/observer position demonstrating the elevation of the double 7.62mm gun mount. [San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives]
On the Model G and reconnaissance/training versions of the G-1 and G-2, no armament would be used. For armament on the fighter and bomber versions of the G-1 and G-2, a total of seven 7.62mm machine guns would be used; five Marlin and two Lewis guns. Two would be built into the fuselage, forward facing. Two more would also be forward facing but would be mounted on the engine itself. The remaining three would be operated by the gunner with two on a movable mount and the last protruding from the underside of the belly. The double mount was highly mobile and offered a great range of fire for the gunner to defend the aircraft. Four bomb racks capable of carrying up to 592 Ibs (268.5 Kg) of bombs were equipped for the bomber configuration. The bomber configuration also carried 66 Ib (30 Kg) of armor for protection of the crew/internals.

The aircraft was painted overall in two tones. From above it was painted a dark brown to blend in with the ground, while from below it was painted a sky blue. The tailfin was painted in the signature red-white-blue found on other American combat aircraft. Two Army Air Service roundels were painted on the upper and lower wings.

Conclusion

View of the pilot and gunner/observers position in the aircraft. Note the small windscreens. [San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives]
The LWF Model G was an impressive aircraft all around, being able to carry a large arsenal of weapons while maintaining a high speed for an aircraft of its stature. Unfortunately, despite being so successful, the aircraft wasn’t adopted for production and with the loss of both prototypes, the military was possibly wary of the aircraft despite its success. With the war over, a need for the type wasn’t necessary, as the aviation industry moved into a more civilian-oriented market.

In the time frame of its development, even if it had been selected for production, it was so late in the war it likely wouldn’t have seen combat. Had it however, the LWF Model G would have been a truly terrifying foe to enemy aircraft, thanks to its powerful armament and fast top speed. With its seven 7.62mm machine guns, it carried more guns than several bombers of the time period.

LWF would continue designing their own aircraft post-war, most of them mailplanes like the Model G, but they too would never catch on. LWF would also license build aircraft from other companies during the 1920s. This wouldn’t last long, however, as the company would file for bankruptcy and become defunct in 1924.

Variants

  • LWF Model G – Prototype, unarmed. Equipped with Liberty V-12 engine. Crashed on first flight. One built.
  • LWF Model G-1 – 2nd Prototype, multirole. Improved upon the Model G and could be configured to do reconnaissance, dogfighting or bombing. Carried an impressive seven 7.62mm machineguns. Increased engine performance.
  • LWF Model G-2 – Modified version of the G-1. Had changes made to the design to increase handling and performance.
  • LWF Model G Mailplane – Unarmed mailplane version of the G-2. 1 built after the war.

Operators

  • United States of America – The LWF Model G was designed for use by the Army Air Service. Despite its success, the end of the war made the aircraft no longer needed. The 3rd Model G served as a mailplane.

LWF Model G-2 Specifications
Wingspan 41 ft 7 in /12.5 m
Length 29 ft 1 in / 8.8 m
Height 9 ft 4 in / 2.7 m
Wing Area 515.54 ft² / 47.9 m²
Engine 1x 435 hp ( 324.3 kW ) Liberty V-12 inline engine
Propeller 1x 2-blade 9 ft 7 in / 2.7 m wooden propeller (1,800 RPM)
Fuel Capacity 90 US Gal / 340.6 L
Water Capacity 14 US Gal / 53 L
Oil Capacity 6 US Gal / 22.7 L
Weights
Empty 2,675 lb / 1213.3 kg
Fighter 4,023 lb / 1824.8 kg
Bomber 4,879.5 lb / 2213.3 kg
Climb Rate
Time to 10,000 ft / 3048 m (Standard) 7.28 minutes
Time to 10,000 ft / 3048 m (Fighter) 9.18 minutes
Time to 10,000 ft / 3048 m (Bomber) 14.15 minutes
Maximum Speed 130 mph / 209.2 km/h at 10,000 ft / 3048 m

138 mph /222 km/h at Sea Level
Landing Speed 50 mph / 80.5 km/h
Endurance 4 hours
Maximum Service Ceiling 24,000 ft / 7315.2 m (Model G)
Crew 1 Pilot

1 Observer/Gunner
Armament
  • 5x 30 Caliber (7.62mm) Marlin machineguns
  • 2x 30 Caliber (7.62mm) Lewis machineguns
  • 4 bomb racks (carrying capacity 592 Ib / 268.5 Kg)

Gallery

Illustration by Ed Jackson

Credits

  • Written by Medicman
  • Edited by Henry H. and Ed J.
  • Illustrated by Ed Jackson

Sources

  • Jane, F. (1969). Jane’s all the world’s aircraft 1919. New York: Arco Pub.
  • Green, W. & Swanborough, G. (2002). The complete book of fighters : an illustrated encyclopedia of every fighter aircraft built and flown. London: Salamander.

Aero Spacelines PG-2 Princess Guppy

Cold War, US, , , ,

sweden flag USA (1964)
Oversized Cargo Aircraft – None Built

The slightly smaller PG-3 used eight jet engines and kept the wings off the Princess without changing them too drastically. Here it is seen carrying the S-II stage. [allaboutguppys.com]
The Aero Spacelines PG-2 was an oversize cargo aircraft with an extremely large cargo hold, designed to airlift the first and second stages of the Saturn V rocket from their factories to Cape Canaveral, Florida, for final assembly. To save on costs, the aircraft would use components from existing aircraft, and most interestingly would use several key components from the British Saunders Roe Princess flying boat, hence the nickname “Princess Guppy”. Unfortunately, due to opposition from Congress, and the deterioration of the Princess aircraft, none of the type would be built.

NASA and the Transportation Problem

The S-II stage of the Saturn V. [James Vaughan- Flickr]
The race to the moon in the 1960s between the United States and Soviet Union introduced a number of challenges upon the growing aerospace industry. The task at hand was one of the biggest endeavors in human history, requiring manpower, materials, logistics, training, and calculations never used before to achieve such a tremendous goal. In America, the Apollo program was well underway, composed of the Apollo spacecraft and the massive Saturn V rocket it would be launched from. The Saturn V (at this point called the Saturn C-5), was a multistage launch platform with 3 different stages. Logistically, there was a problem with its design. The Saturn V was meant to be assembled and launched from Cape Canaveral in Florida, but the first and second stages of the rocket were assembled in completely different states. The first stage, S-IC, was assembled in New Orleans by Boeing, while the second stage, S-II, was produced on the opposite end of the country in California by North American Aviation. This created a massive challenge regarding transportation. The two stages were massive in size, each having a diameter of 33 ft (10 m). The first stage had a length of 138 ft (42 m) while the second stage had a length of 83 ft (24.9 m). Transporting these two components was a major issue, as almost nothing could quickly move these to Cape Canaveral. This led to NASA deciding to use an aircraft to transport the 1st and 2nd stages. However, this brought on yet another problem. At the time, no aircraft then in service could carry such a large and ungainly cargo, leading several aircraft companies to propose concept aircrafts to complete such a task. Due to the nature of the challenge, the proposals often were unorthodox in their design to accommodate the large load. One company, however, was formed deliberately to fill NASA’s airlifting needs.

An example of Aero Spacelines’ other work, the Super Guppy. These aircraft would transport the 3rd stage of the Saturn V.

Aero Spacelines was formed in 1960 by Jack M. Conroy with NASA as their main customer in mind. Jack, being a former Air Force and commercial pilot, knew of their transportation issue regarding rocket components even before the Saturn V rocket, beginning with their previous multistage rocket designs. He proposed using modified Boeing 377 Stratocruiser airliners with large overhead cargo holds to carry these rocket components from their manufacturers to their assembly points. The first of his “Guppy” designs as they were called, the Pregnant Guppy, first flew in 1962 and was awarded contract work for NASA as an airlifter. The Pregnant Guppy was still too small, however, to carry the large 1st and 2nd stages of the Saturn V, and so a larger design began to be drawn up. An early study was done with an entirely new fuselage using B-36 wings and control surfaces to save on parts. This design would have a cargo hold with a diameter of 40 ft (12.2 m), allowing it to carry both boosters. Little is known of this design outside of this but it would be quickly changed on January 30th, 1964 when John M. Conroy announced Aero Spacelines would design a new oversized load airlifter based on the Saunders Roe Princess.

The Saunders Roe Princess: A Dead Dream Revived.

The Saunders-Roe Princess in flight. The size of the aircraft is evident in this photo. [Tom Wigley – Flickr]
The Saunders Roe Princess was the biggest flying boat design built in Britain, and the biggest all metal flying boat ever built. Originally designed as an innovative transatlantic passenger liner, it would first fly in August of 1952. However the Princess encountered two major issues. The ten Proteus engines used were underpowered, causing performance to suffer. On a more pressing matter, the Princess found itself being quickly outdated as it was developed. With the arrival of the De Havilland Comet, the world’s first jet powered airliner, in the same year as the Princess, it was quickly shown that piston-engine airliners, let alone floatplanes, was a dying breed of travel. Jet aircraft could fly faster, smoother, and further than piston engine airliners, and the Princess couldn’t find buyers because of this change in the market. In addition, the amount of airfields left in Britain after the Second World War nullified the benefits of flying boats and their lack of need for airfields. A single Princess would be built and tested, with two more being completed, but not flown, when the program was ended. The three Princesses were put into storage, cocooned away in hopes that a buyer would eventually come and save them.

Over the years several interested parties would look at the Princesses but no deal ever came to fruition. The three airframes would sit in storage for a decade (1954-1964) when they came to the attention of Jack M. Conroy. Interestingly, this wouldn’t be the first time the US considered acquiring the three aircraft, as the Navy had once proposed to convert the three into flying nuclear-powered test beds, but this plan never progressed past a few models and drawings. At the time, Conroy was still working on his booster carrier concept using B-36 components, but the large design of the Princess gave him an idea. Instead of the B-36, Conroy had the idea of reusing the same parts from the Princess. The plans were quickly reworked and came to be known as the PG-2 Princess Guppy. The PG-2 would reuse the wings from the Princess but had several enhancements. Instead of using the ten Proteus engines, these would be swapped out for six Rolls-Royce Tyne turboprop engines. The Tyne engines were originally planned for the Princess during its development, but the engines weren’t ready and couldn’t be used by the time the Princess was built. Now a decade later, the engine was fully operational and ready. The wing length would also be stretched to 40 feet (16.2 m), and the cargo hold would have a 38 foot (11.6 m) minimum diameter and a length of 100 feet (30.5 m). This reduction in length would no longer allow the aircraft to carry the S-IC booster. Maximum cargo capacity would be up to 200,000Ib (104,600 Kg). The aircraft would be reworked once again later in 1964 as the PG-3. The PG-3 would be reduced in size to some degree. The Princess wings would no longer be lengthened to save on costs, and the Tyne engines would no longer be used on the PG-3, instead they’d be replaced by jet engines. A total of eight jet engines would be used on this design, with 4 pairs of engines being used on B-52H engine pods. Other than wing design, the rear of the aircraft was also changed, with the fuselage not angling upward and instead being more of a straight point.

Aero Spacelines had full intentions of seeing this project through, and eventually a representative of the company was sent to inspect the three Princesses at their storage facility. However, a terrible revelation was discovered upon inspection. At some point, maintenance on the three Princesses in storage was stopped, and so they were left to rot for nearly a decade. Being near the sea and exposed to the elements, the three aircraft had deteriorated to such an extent they would no longer be usable. With this discovery, Aero Spacelines had to unfortunately cancel the project and the three Princesses were scrapped. Work on a large carrier was halted for Aero Spacelines and they focused on their smaller Super Guppy aircraft instead, which carried the 3rd stage of the Saturn V.

Design

The Aero Spacelines PG-2 concept. Note the modified wings and tail empennage off the Saunders-Roe Princess [allaboutguppys.com]
The Aero Spacelines PG-2 was a large oversized cargo aircraft designed to carry the first and second stages of the Saturn V rocket. To do so, it would have a very large fuselage to accommodate the rocket stages. The aircraft would have an all metal fuselage that was 200ft (61 m) in length. The lower section of the fuselage contained the huge cargo bay for the rocket stages. On the original plan this section had a diameter of 40 feet (16.2 m) but was shortened to 38 feet (11.6 m) on the PG-2. Cargo was loaded into the aircraft by means of a ramp. The cargo bay had a large clamshell door in front of the aircraft. Landing gear was divided into six pairs of wheels on the underside. Two pairs of wheels were closer to the front of the aircraft while the remaining four were towards the rear. The cockpit and crew section was located above the cargo bay in the aircraft. The cockpit itself bears a striking resemblance to the cockpit section of the Douglas C-133. A crew of 3 to 4 was expected for operations. Initially, the wings would be reused from the Convair B-36 bomber. The engines for this version were never specified. On the PG-2, it was decided at this point that the wings of the Saunders-Roe Princess would be used over for the B-36’s. The wings would be lengthened an additional 40 feet in total for stabilization. The Princess’ original ten Proteus engines would be replaced with six Rolls Royce Tyne engines to improve performance. The tail section of the PG-2 would also be reused from the Princess.

The PG-2 would be reworked into the PG-3 design. The overall proportions were diminished to save on labor. The specifications of this version are relatively unknown aside from one or two estimates based on promotional images. The cargo bay was to remain the same in length. The cockpit section and most of the fuselage remain unchanged aside from the rear. The rear of the fuselage no longer tapered upward and instead transitioned straight back into a cone shape. The tail section of the aircraft remained in the same location but was now supported by a large support to accommodate the height difference of the rear of the aircraft. The wings of the PG-3 remove the 40ft (16.2 m) extension off of the Princess wings and keep the original length. The six Tyne engines were removed in favor of eight jet engines. These engines would be paired together in four B-52 engine pods on the wings. The jet engine intended for use isn’t stated but it’s likely they were Pratt and Whitney TF33 engines. Promotional art also depicts the PG-3 having wingtip mounted fuel tanks.

Conclusion

The final result of the transportation issue. The S-IC and S-II boosters would be transported via barge from their factories to assebmly. Here the S-II booster is carried by the barge Poseidon. [Wiki]
With the cancellation of the Princess Guppy, Aero Spacelines moved on to other means to assist NASA regarding transportation, however they weren’t the only company to offer an aircraft design to carry the larger rocket stages. Several other companies had offered proposals to NASA for the same function, such as Convair and Fairchild. Many of these designs reused existing aircraft as their base or for parts to save on costs. None of these would come to fruition either. Despite reusing components from existing aircraft, many members of Congress found building a new aircraft for this role unnecessary for the amount of funding it needed. Instead it was decided that the 1st and 2nd stages would continue to be transported to Cape Canaveral via barge. For the 2nd stage, this was a very long journey that involved going through the Panama Canal to reach Florida. Despite being time consuming, this method was one Congress found cost effective. No oversized aircraft proposals would be built aside from Aero Spacelines’ own Super Guppy design, which was used to transport the 3rd stage of the rocket, and one of which is still in service to this day by NASA.

The Princess Guppy was a well researched design using prior knowledge of Aero Spacelines’ Pregnant Guppy. The design would have brought back to life a decade-old dream but unfortunately it was crushed due to negligence. Had it been built, it would be questionable if the aircraft would even be airworthy. The immense size of the fuselage and the small amount of engines in comparison to said size could have prevented the aircraft from even lifting off. Regardless, none of the types were built.

Variants

  • Early Design (PG-1?) – The first design of the booster carrying aircraft reused components of the Convair B-36 bomber. It would have a large cargo hold to carry the oversized load.
  • PG-2 – Second design of the booster carrier. The PG-2 Princess Guppy would use the modified wings and tail components of the Saunders-Roe Princess and would be powered by six Rolls Royce Tyne engines.
  • PG-3 – Reduced size version to lessen the work needed to build the aircraft. It was powered by 8 jet engines in B-52H engine pods. The Princess’ wing returns to its normal size for this version.

Operators

  • United States of America – The Princess Guppy was designed specifically to be used by NASA for the transport of the first and second stages of the Saturn V rocket. None were be built.

Aero-Spacelines PG-2 specifications
Wingspan 259.8 ft / 79.2 m
Length 200 ft / 61 m
Height 86 ft / 26.2 m
Wing Area 6328 ft² / 587.8 m²
Engine 6 x 4,616 hp (3,442 kW) Rolls Royce Tyne RTy.12 turboprop engines
Propeller 6 x De Havilland 4-blade propellers
Powerplant Ratings
Horsepower output Altitude
Take Off 5730 hp Sea Level
Weights
Useful 250,000 lb / 113398 kg
Minimum Flying Weight 180,000 lb / 81646.6 kg
Maximum Take Off 430,000 lb / 195044.7 kg
Maximum Landing 400,000 lb / 181436.9 kg
Crew 3 to 4

Gallery

Artist Concept of the PG-2 by Godzilla

Credits

  • Written by Medicman
  • Edited by Henry H. & Ed J.
  • Illustrations by Godzilla

Sources

  • COX, G. (2019). AMERICAN SECRET PROJECTS 3 : u.s. airlifters since 1962. Place of publication not identified: CRECY PUB.
  • Keeshen, J. & Hess, A. (2013). Secret US proposals of the Cold War : radical concepts in military aircraft. Manchester North Branch, MN: Crécy Publishing Limited,Distributed in the USA by Specialty Press.
  • https://wightaviationmuseum.org.uk/princess-flying-boat/

Kennedy Giant

Great Britain, WW1, , ,

UK Union Jack United Kingdom (1917)
Heavy Bomber Prototype – 1 Built / 1 Incomplete

The completed Kennedy Giant (Flickr)

The Kennedy Giant was a very large heavy bomber prototype developed by the United Kingdom, and designed by Chessborough J. H. Mackenzie-Kennedy during World War I. The type was meant to be similar to the Russian Ilya Muromets series of heavy bombers. Development was plagued with issues due to the large size of the aircraft, and after a failed attempt at a first flight, the prototype was left to rot. A smaller redesign was in the works, but the program would be canceled in 1920.

The Man

Chessborough J H Mackenzie-Kennedy in front of the Kennedy Giant in 1917. (The Imperial War Musuem Footage)

In 1904, at the age of 18, Chessborough J. H. Mackenzie-Kennedy would leave his home country of Britain and move to Russia. The allure of developing his own aircraft firm in a place where very few firms were located was his main reason to move to the country. Only a few years after moving, Kennedy was able to design and build his own aircraft in 1908, and a year later would establish his own aircraft company, the Kennedy Aeronautic Firm, in 1909. In 1911, Kennedy would become acquainted with Igor Sikorsky, the premier aircraft designer of the Russian Empire. Kennedy would assist Sikorsky on several occasions with the design of several aircraft, but none of these would be as important as Kennedy’s work on the Sikorsky Russky Vityaz. The Russky Vityaz would be the world’s first 4-engined airplane and was one of the biggest aircraft built at the time. The aircraft would first fly in 1913. Kennedy would continue to help Sikorsky work on other aircraft, among them the successor to the Vityaz, the Ilya Muromets, until 1914.

On July 28th, 1914, Europe would be plunged into the First World War, with Britain entering the war on August 4th. After Britain entered the conflict, Kennedy would return to his home country to help with their war effort. Using the knowledge he gained while in Russia working with Sikorsky, Kennedy was confident Britain could use his expertise in aircraft design. Kennedy wanted to create a large bomber, akin to the Muromets. Upon his return to England, he would establish a design office at 102 Cromwell Road, South Kensington in London.

The Machine

Kennedy would begin talks with the British War Council discerning the creation of a large four engine bomber aircraft, similar to projects he had worked on with Sikorsky. Interestingly enough, Igor Sikorsky would convert the Ilya Muromets civilian aircraft Kennedy was familiar with into Russia’s first 4-engine strategic bomber. Kennedy was able to convince the War Council of his idea, and he was given funding to create his heavy bomber. The aircraft would become known as the Kennedy Giant.

The incomplete Giant being worked on. The wings are outside of the hangar while the tail is still inside. (The Imperial War Musuem Footage)

Construction of the Giant began soon afterwards at an unknown date. The manufacture of the components of the aircraft were undertaken by two companies, Gramophone Company Ltd and Fairey Aviation Co Ltd, both located in Hayes, Middlesex. When all of the components were finished, they were shipped to the Hendon Aerodrome for final construction of the massive aircraft. The sheer size of this aircraft would end up being the source of many problems during its development, and the first one would happen upon the arrival of the disassembled plane. Due to its large size, no hangar at the aerodrome was able to house the Giant, so the actual construction of the aircraft was done completely outdoors, on the airfield. The completed aircraft was impressive, possessing an 80ft (24.4m) fuselage and 142ft (43.3m) long wings. The Giant would heavily resemble the Russky Vityaz and Ilya Muromets that Kennedy had worked on in Russia. Due to the large size of the aircraft, the airplane was stored with its tail inside the hangar, whilst its wings and nose protruded outside. Moving the aircraft required two trucks and 70 men, and in one attempt, the fuselage was damaged from this action. The fuselage3 was redesigned to be 10ft (3m) shorter after this. Originally, Kennedy requested the aircraft to have 4 Sunbeam engines for power, but the engines requested were experiencing difficulties during testing, and wouldn’t be operational until after the war. Aside from testing, the War Council didn’t find the Giant important enough to warrant these new engines, and instead four Canton-Unne Salmson Z9 engines were given to the project instead. These engines would power two pusher and two puller propellers. With the engines finally in place, the completed Kennedy Giant was ready for its first flight.

The Kennedy Giant being constructed outside. (Jane’s All The Worlds Aircraft 1919)

The Giant’s first flight was in the later months of 1917. The aircraft would be set in the position for takeoff on the runway, with veteran test pilot Frank Courtney at the controls of the massive machine. The engines were set to full throttle, and as the aircraft gained speed, it only managed to make a short hop off the ground, being airborne for only a moment. It was found that the engines given to Kennedy were not able to take the Giant airborne. With the craft being so ungainly to move, and no desire to give the aircraft better engines, Kennedy’s giant aircraft was abandoned in the fields of the Hendon Aerodrome to rot, with a second attempt at a flight never materializing. Kennedy himself wasn’t discouraged by the failure of his aircraft and he began working on a smaller version that he hoped would achieve flight. Information on this version is sparse, but it was still in development after the war, and despite starting construction, the program was canceled in 1920. No photos or details on this smaller version are known. By 1920 the Giant project was going nowhere. With the war over, the War Council decided such a large aircraft was no longer a worthwhile investment.

A side view of the completed Kennedy Giant. (Jane’s All The Worlds Aircraft 1919)

In 1923, Kennedy would sue the War Council, now the Air Ministry, over a patent he had filed regarding the aircraft. During the war while he was working on the Giant, Kennedy would design a unique system for the tail gunner of the aircraft. The Air Ministry allegedly gave the design plans regarding the Giant to Handley Page in 1917, with the company applying for a patent on the tail gunner position on March 15th, 1918. Kennedy would file for the same patent for his Giant only a day later on the 16th. His case would be dismissed. The last time the Kennedy Giant would be mentioned regarding this case was in an aircraft magazine in 1923, which refers to the Giant still parked at the airfield at Hendon, most likely in poor condition from neglect. An some later date, the Giant was scrapped.

Design

Size comparison shot of the Giant next to a Bristol F.2 fighter. (Jane’s All The Worlds Aircraft 1919)

The Kennedy Giant was a large four engine heavy bomber built using experience gained from the development of the Russian Russky Vityaz and Ilya Muromets. The fuselage of the Giant was of wood construction and was entirely rectangular. All along the sides of the fuselage were celluloid covered windows. The cockpit had several large rectangular windows with good visibility for the pilot. Controls consisted of two large wheels connected to yokes that directed its control surfaces. Located in the upward slope of the nose, there was a window that assisted with bomb aiming. The wings of the aircraft were two bay, meaning a forward and aft row of struts between the upper and lower wings which were covered in fabric, with a wingspan of 142 feet (42.3m). The wings all had the same chord, but the upper wings were longer than the lower. Only the upper wings had ailerons. At the rear of the aircraft were the tail and elevators. Both of these were covered in fabric. The tailfin itself was rather small for the size of the aircraft and most likely would have negatively affected performance had the aircraft achieved sustained flight. The aircraft was powered by four 200 hp ( 149.1 kW ) Canton-Unne Salmson Z9 nine-cylinder water-cooled radial engines powering four wooden propellers. Two of these engines were to be used in a pusher configuration, while the other two were positioned in a tractor configuration.

Despite never being armed, plans for armament of the Giant exist. The aircraft would be armed defensively with 4 machine guns of unknown type. One of these would be located in the nose, one would be located behind the wings on top of the fuselage, and the last two would be in the tail. The tail gunner would have a unique seat option for the gunner, where it could act as either a seat or a kneepad depending on how the gun was being fired. This seat design would be the cause of the lawsuit in 1923. An unknown number and type of bomb would have been used. The bombs would have been held nose down by two arms. A selector gear would control which bombs were dropped while indicating how many were left.

Conclusion

The Kennedy Giant was an earnest attempt to create a heavy bomber using experience gained by Kennedy in Russia, but due to inadequate engines would never be truly realized to its fullest potential. What is interesting to note is the specifications listed for the Giant would actually make it larger than the Zeppelin Staaken R.VI, which is considered the largest production airplane of the World War I. Had it even flown, the Giant would likely have experienced maneuverability issues as its vertical stabilizer height was rather inadequate for the size of the aircraft. After the failure of the Giant, Kennedy would file for bankruptcy, as the program had personally cost him quite a lot of money. He would eventually move to America in the 1930s.

Variants

  • Kennedy Giant – Large, four engine heavy bomber prototype. One built but did not achieve sustained flight.
  • Postwar Kennedy Giant – Very little is known of this variant aside from it being a smaller version of the Kennedy Giant. It was under construction when the program ended.

Operators

  • United Kingdom – The Kennedy Giant was built for the British War Council as a prototype heavy bomber.

Kennedy Giant Specifications
Wingspan 142 ft / 43.3 m
Length 80 ft / 24.4 m
Height 23 ft 6 in / 7.2 m
Engine 4x 200 hp ( 149.1 kW ) Canton-Unne Salmson Z9 nine-cylinder water-cooled radial engines
Propeller 4x 2-blade wooden propellers
Empty Weight 19,000 Ib / 8618.3 kg
Crew 3
Armament

(planned)
  • 4x Machine Guns
  • Bomb Payload of Unknown Size

Gallery

The first version of the completed Kennedy Giant – by Ed Jackson
Closeup view of the cockpit of the Kennedy Giant. (The Imperial War Musuem Footage)
View of the tail of the Giant. (The Imperial War Musuem Footage)
The mid-section of the Giant. (The Imperial War Musuem Footage)
Kennedy demonstrating the controls of the Giant while in the cockpit. (The Imperial War Musuem Footage)
Kennedy walking down the interior of the Giant. (The Imperial War Musuem Footage)

Credits

  • Written by Medicman11
  • Edited by by Ed Jackson & Henry H.
  • Illustrations by Ed Jackson

Sources

  • Grey, C. G. Jane’s all the world’s aircraft, 1919 : a reprint of the 1919 edition of All the world’s aircraft. Newton Abbot: David & Charles, 1969. Print.
  • Mason, Francis K. The British bomber since 1914. London: Putnam, 1994. Print.
  • https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Mackenzie-Kennedy-7

USAF Type 17 Weather Balloon

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

sweden flag United States of America (1946)
Weather Balloon – Around 2,000 Built

The best publicly available photograph of a Type 17 in action and with its tether still intact. This photo was taken over a mountain range and is close enough to the ground that the USAF logo is barely visibly on the underside. Some of these balloons would have this marking while others did not. [Authors Personal Collection]
The United States Air Force Type 17 Weather Balloon was an experimental and highly secretive weather balloon that used a saucer shape balloon design and █████ technology to test the airworthiness of the “strange” shape. The design however, proved to be more unstable than anticipated, and with a flaw in the cable design, led many of these balloons to break free and travel some distance away. These “escaped” Type 17s can be considered responsible for the “UFO sighting craze” of the late 1940s and 1950s.

History

The immediate post Second World War aviation industry was an incredibly interesting time. Many new radical concepts were being tested, with jet engines, helicopters, and many other advanced designs coming to light. Although not extensively discussed, many different types of lighter-than-air aircraft designs were also tested, but many of these have been either lost or forgotten. One of the most peculiar designs that is known is the USAF Type 17 Weather Balloon.

The origins of the Type 17 start right at the beginning of 1946. With spherical weather balloons in use for quite some time, officials at the USAF began looking to see if some other balloon shape would be more efficient than the spherical design. It was thought that maybe a saucer shape could possibly offer better stability in the wind. Work began on creating the first prototype Type 17 on April 3rd, and a first test flight was scheduled for the 9th but had to be postponed for 2 days due to inclement weather. Balloon 1 went up on April 11th with no issues and achieved an altitude of around 30,000 ft (9.1km). The problem however, was that the location, where it was first tested, was extremely close to many residential areas, and although there wasn’t a report of a “flying saucer” in the area of the test flight, the USAF decided it would be best to move testing of the aircraft out to New Mexico, where other secret aircraft projects were being tested away from the eyes of the public. Thanks to the success of the first flight, a production order of around 1000 was made.


A loose Type 17 captured over New Mexico. Most of these balloons where tested here.

By June, construction of around two-thirds of the Type 17s was complete, and were now being introduced to the various bases in New Mexico, with a few also being sent to bases in Nevada, Texas, Arizona, and it is known that possibly one was sent to NORAD Headquarters in Colorado. Testing continued without issues until the first of many incidents occurred on December 29th. During a routine flight, balloon 134 was sent aloft, but the cable connecting the balloon suddenly broke, and 134 was thrown by the wind similar to a frisbee. The balloon was sent almost 30 miles east and crashed in the middle of the desert. It took the USAF almost 3 days to find the remains. It was then found that the cables designed for the Type 17 had a fatal flaw. Over time, the low quality synthetic material it was made out of would eventually disintegrate, leaving the balloon to be blown away in the wind. Sometimes, the balloon would be blown in such a way, due to its shape, that it could be described as performing maneuvers that “no manmade craft could do”. This flaw was largely ignored for the first few months upon discovery, but by March of 1947, more and more balloons were being lost, and soon, reports from civilians of alien spacecraft in the desert began to emerge more and more. In some cases, multiple Type 17s would break off at once, making it appear there were entire squadrons of flying saucers over the desert. It was decided that for a few months, all Type 17s would be grounded.

Operations continued in the summer, with many now having improved cables. Despite these newer cables, many air force bases still would use the older defective cables due to an error in communication. To curb the loss of the Type 17, they were ordered to operate at a lower altitude than before. This way if the balloon was lost, it wouldn’t be swept as far by the wind, but coming at the cost of being more visible. Also in the summer, the USAF introduced the Type 17A, a larger version over the base model. As more and more of the UFO craze of 1947 came to the public, the Type 17 was once again used less and less to draw attention away from the program. While the fleet of Type 17s were grounded, a further development on the design was made in early 1948 as the Type 17B. The B used the same larger body as the Type A, but had a larger cylinder-shaped top that allowed it to carry even more instruments.

A loose Type 17 captured over New Mexico. Most of these balloons where tested here.

While the fleet was grounded, more of the newer cables were finally distributed to stop the balloons from breaking off. In the summer of 1948, operations would continue a lot more smoothly than the previous years thanks to the stronger cables. The Type 17 and its variants would continue to be used over the years, it is unknown when they would stopped being used completely, but it is known that a handful of Type 17s would be used for mid-air target practice by the USAF. This was at one point observed by a civilian who was trespassing on USAF property, witnessed what he claimed to be a “USAF F-86 dogfighting with an alien spacecraft”.

At some point during its operations, a version of the Type 17 was made to be manned to test high altitude pressure suits for NASA’s budding space program. From what little is known of this project, during one of these manned flights on this Type 17C, the defective cable was used and broke. The pilot in the cupola of the balloon was carried for miles with the wind, landing in a field outside of a farmer’s house. The pilot was eventually picked up a few hours later, after being mistaken for a “spaceman,” he finally convinced the owner of the farm to borrow their landline phone. The Type 17C was taken back to base as well, even if it was damaged from the impact, and supposedly had a handful of holes that matched the entry of a .22 caliber bullet. This incident is cited by many to be an encounter with an “alien spaceman.” After this, safer ways of testing the suits were used instead, and the pilot who had to endure this incident and subsequent crash was reimbursed with a cache of beer and whiskey as a reward.

There is also mention of an unconfirmed Type 17D that would test an experimental ████████ ███████-████████ engine at ██████ ███, ██. This supposed variant could reach ████ mph (████ km/h) and is claimed to have █████ and ████ around it. Details on this design are extremely sparse and the only visual we have of it is based off a napkin drawing from former USAF aeronautics engineer, ████ ████.

The Roswell Incident

Major Jesse A. Marcel posing with the second half of the debris from Balloon 678 on July 8, 1947. [Wikipedia]
The most famous of the Type 17 incidents happened in early July of 1947 near Roswell, New Mexico. On July 1st, men at Walker Air Force Base, 3 miles from Roswell, sent balloon number 678 up for a few tests. Due to a strong wind that day, and the deterioration of the cable connecting the balloon, 678 broke free and traveled extremely close to Roswell before crashing nearby. The men at Walker AFB were quick to act and quietly recovered what they thought was most of the debris. However, upon impact, the balloon had been torn in half, with only a single half of the aircraft being recovered. The second was thrown even further away by the wind and wasn’t recovered until July 8th. By this point however, the people of Roswell had already caught glimpses of the vehicles used to collect it and a report was done in the local newspaper that day of a claimed alien spacecraft crash landing nearby. To at least alleviate this claim, once the remains of balloon 678 were taken to Fort Worth,Texas, a publicity photo was done to show that the craft was just a simple weather balloon, and not anything of alien or supernatural nature. This whole incident is widely popular in ufology, despite there being obvious evidence that it was a Type 17 balloon that crash landed.

Design

Supposedly a photograph of a Type 17A that had broken free. This photo is stated to be from New Jersey. Its interesting to note that Type 17s operated almost nowhere near this state, but it is entirely plausible one was able to break free and fly so many miles away that it could reach this state. [Wikipedia]
The Type 17 was a weather balloon designed for high-altitude flight. The balloon had a flat, saucer shaped body made of aluminum-infused rubber. On the underside of the craft was sometimes painted the USAF symbol and the production number of the balloon. At the top of the balloon was a rounded hump that carried most of the onboard instruments. This hump is often mistaken for some sort of “cockpit” by ufologists. At the very bottom was the connection point that had the radiosonde attached. The balloon was both tested with hydrogen and helium, but it would primarily use helium as its main gas source. On the underside is where the gas valve was filled from. The balloon was connected to the ground via a cable. Instead of a steel cable, a newer synthetic material was used at first, but it was found it corroded very fast and broke easily because of this. A stronger synthetic connection cable was created for the craft around the time of the Type 17A being created.

Several variants of the Type 17 exist. The first of these was the Type 17A, which had the same design but was much larger. The increase in size was done to stabilize the design more and around 100 of these were built. The second was the Type 17B. A derivative of the Type 17A, the B was the exact same size but the instrument “dome” was enlargened to a more cylindrical shape to carry more onboard instruments. The final design was the Type 17C. No photographs exist of this design and details are sparse, but it is known to have had either an A or B design for the balloon, but beneath it was an enclosed gondola that a man could sit in.

Conclusion

The Type 17 was at least known to have still been in use by the mid 1950s. Eventually it was decided that the Air Force should return back to more spherical shaped balloons. Balloons that would cause less of a panic than the saucer shaped 17. After the program was finished, all Type 17s and many of the documents relating to the program were destroyed by the USAF, some say it was out of embarrassment. The last reported use of the Type 17 was in 1957.

 

The Type 17 was an interesting attempt to create a new and improved weather balloon design, but was more of a flop that caused more panic than progress. Due to the poor cable integrity and strange shape, the amount of Type 17s lost is uncountable, and it can be assumed that hundreds of this type are most likely scattered across the deserts and lands of America.

If you ever happen to be out exploring near where the Type 17 operated, and come across material or remains you believe to be related to the Type 17, please contact the United States Department of ████████ at 1-███ ███ ████. Thank you for your cooperation.

Variants

 

  • Type 17– Base model of the Type 17
  • Type 17A – A second design that was slightly larger than the base design. Only around 100 of these type were made.
  • Type 17B – Variant of the Type 17A that had a larger instrument dome that was more cylindrical in shape to carry more instruments. It is known only around 10 of these were built. 1 was confirmed lost.
  • Type 17C – A mysterious 3rd design. Details are sparse on this but supposedly this was an attempted manned version to test high-altitude pressure suits. Beneath the balloon was an enclosed gondola for the test pilot.
  • Type 17D – An unconfirmed 4th design that supposedly tested ██████ ████████ at ████████ ████████, ██████. It could supposedly achieve speeds of ████ mph (████ km/h).

Operators

 

  • United States of America – The Type 17 was operated by the United States Air Force for weather research and performance testing. It operated from 1946 to at least 1957.

Type 17 Weather Balloon Specifications
Diameter 65 ft / 20 m
Height 17 ft / 5.1 m
Maximum Service Ceiling Around 35,000ft / 10668 m
Gas Type Hydrogen or Helium
Material Aluminum-infused Synthetic Rubber
Maximum Speed (Type 17D) ████ mph / ████ km/h
Equipment
  • Type 17 Radiosonde
  • Mk33 Radar Antenna
  • Various other meteorological tools

Gallery

Sources

  • Joe Rogan Experience #1315 – Bob Lazar & Jeremy Corbell
  • Joe Rogan Experience #1510 – George Knapp & Jeremy Corbell
  • Johnsmith, Joe (1988), The Truth Behind the 1947 Saucer Craze: How a Balloon Tricked America. MIB-Books
  • Lovejoy, Erik (2022), How Balloons Ruined My Life and How They’ll Ruin Yours!, MM-PUB.
  • Nermal, Abbey (2003), USAF Aircraft in Detail: The Type 17 Weather Balloon, Greasy PUB.
  • Wikipedia
  • Some of the info was revealed to me in a dream