Category Archives: WW2

World War 2 saw the airplane rise to even greater importance than in the first World War. Air superiority became a crucial component of battlefield operations and air forces were massively expanded during the conflict.The Allied and Axis sides of the war developed enormous war machines, capable of developing and rolling out unprecedented numbers of advanced new military equipment in rapid response to changing conditions on the battlefield, as well keeping up with the technological advances of adversaries.

High altitude bombing raids and night fighting were hallmarks of the War for Europe, whilst aircraft carrier battles pitched the American and Japanese fleets against one another. The technology of the day was pushed to it’s limit with the use of superchargers in aircraft engines, the introduction of radar, and the rapid development of the jet engine by the war’s end.

The period ended as the Nuclear Age and subsequent Cold War were ushered in by the tremendous and tragic blows to Japan’s wearied people.

Yakovlev Yak-2

USSR flag USSR (1939)
Ground attack bomber – 100 Built

The Yak-2. Source: Y. Gordon, D, Khazanov Soviet Combat Aircraft

During his career, Alexander Sergeyevich Yakovlev designed a number of successful aircraft, his most famous being his single engine fighters. But his first proper military aircraft project, the Yak-2, would be so poorly designed that it was practically useless. Nevertheless, thanks to Yakovlev’s good standing with Stalin, this aircraft would be put into production, albeit in small numbers, and would see limited action during World War Two.

The No-22 and BB-22 projects

While being involved in civil aviation, Yakovlev wished to pursue military contracts., Yakovlev actually wanted to gain a proper military contract. He estimated that the best way to do this was to impress Stalin himself. To do so, he set on designing the fastest plane in the Soviet Union. Having no previous experience in designing military aircraft, this was no easy task. Nevertheless, he soon began working on a two-engined mixed construction aircraft named simply the No.22 (but also known as the Ya-22). When the prototype was complete and flight tested it reached a maximum speed of 567 km/h (352 mph). This design would first be presented to the Soviet Spanish Civil War hero Yakov Smushkeviche, who was also the Chief of the Soviet Air Force. Yakov was highly impressed with this aircraft and informed Stalin about its performance. Stalin agreed and gave a green light for its future development.

In May of 1939, for further testing and evaluation, this prototype would be given to the Nauchno Issledovatelysii Institut (NII VVS). There, the aircraft was evaluated by a commission consisting of Chief engineer Holopov, test pilot Shevarev, and navigator Tretyakov. They managed to reach a maximum speed of 567 km/h (352 mph) without any problems. The commission also suggested that, with an improved cooling system and with new propellers, the maximum speed could be increased up to 600 km/h (372 mph).

When Yakovlev began working on the No.22, he did not seriously consider in which role it should be used. Military officials would decide the aircraft would be used as a light bomber, a use that both Yakovlev and Stalin would agree with. The plane would be renamed BB-22  (Blizhnii Bombardirovshchik, short range bomber) to fit its new role.

 

The BB-22 prototype, Source: Source: Y. Gordon, D, Khazanov Soviet Combat Aircraft

While at first glance the BB-22 showed to be capable of racing at high speeds, its use in military aviation would prove to be highly problematic. The core of this problem lay in the fact that this aircraft was designed with the main purpose of reaching the highest possible speed, with little thought for military adaptation. Very shortly, the BB-22 began showing the first signs of being an inadequate design. While being tested, it was noted that the engine was prone to overheating. During one test flight, the pilot attempted to reach 7,000 m (23,000 ft) which the designers claimed that it could reach in 8 minutes. In reality, the pilot needed more than half an hour due to constant engine overheating problems. Other issues were also noted, like the inadequate fuel system and wheel brakes.

In the meantime, Air Force officials were discussing the BB-22’s performance and if it should have been put into production. Nearly two months earlier, Yakovlev had already made first steps for the BB-22’s production without their knowledge, despite no official order being given. While military officials were still discussing the BB-22, he had already given copies of the design to GAZ’s Plant No.1. In June 1939, the Council of Soviet People’s Commissars officially gave orders to put the BB-22 into production. The first production aircraft was completed by the end of 1939, and thanks to the political machinations of its designer, made its first flight in February 1940. Production of the aircraft was subsequently delayed. By the end of 1939, of the planned 50, only one was built. Despite these problems, the Soviet Defence Committee issued orders for 580 new aircraft to be built.

 

Work on the Yak-2

Despite the best attempts of Soviet Air Force officials to cancel the BB-22 project, they were hindered by two facts. First was the fact that Stalin personally showed significant interest in its development. Secondly, Yakovlev was appointed as the Deputy People’s Commissar for aircraft production. As a result, the aircraft’s production could not be interrupted. In November 1940, the name of the aircraft was changed to Yak-2, as it was common practice in the Soviet Union to name the aircraft after their designers

By March 1940, after numerous tests and attempts to improve this aircraft, it simply proved to be unusable due to many mechanical flaws. These included the engine overheating, poor flight stability, problems with hydraulics, insufficient quality of bolts that held the wings etc. In total, over 180 faults were reported. The situation was so bad that the Directorate of the Soviet Army Land-based Aviation actually demanded the cancellation of any further work on the Yak-2. On the other side, GAZ No.1 plant officials (who were responsible for the production of this aircraft), along with their test pilots who had flown on this plane, urged its production in order to stay in Yakovlev’s graces. There were plans to produce the first series of 21 aircraft that would be ready by May 1940. After numerous complaints about the Yak-2’s performance, Stalin ordered that the whole situation be investigated. To avoid any kind of guilt, Yakovlev simply blamed the GAZ No.1 production plant for the Yak-2’s poor quality. Ultimately, only 100 Yak-2s would be built and given to the Air Force for operational use.

 

Yak-2 side view. Source: Pinterest

Technical characteristics

The Yak-2 was designed as a twin-engined, mixed-construction low-wing light bomber. The frontal part of the fuselage was made of duralumin. The central part of the fuselage, which was integrated into the wings, was made of wood. The rear part of the fuselage consisted of a welded steel tube frame that was covered with fabric. This rear part could be, if needed (for repairs for example), be separated from the remainder of the aircraft.

The Yak-2 was powered by two Klimov M-103 960 hp liquid cooled engines. The two engines were placed in wing nacelles, on each side of the central fuselage.

op view of the Yak-2. The two engines could be clearly seen. Source: Wiki

The Yak-2 had standard retractable landing gear units, which consisted of two larger frontal wheels and one smaller to the rear. All three retracted to the rear, with the frontal two retracting into the engine nacelles. While, initially, the aircraft had only one large frontal landing wheel on each side, the majority would be built with twin-wheels on each side.

Unusually, the wings were built using only a single large piece. This greatly limited the possibility of transporting this plane by rail. The wings were built using two metal spar structures which were covered with plywood skin. At the rear of the fuselage, the twin-finned tail was positioned.

While it was based on the BB-22, unlike it, the Yak-2 received a modified canopy with both crew members being placed in it. The pilot was placed in front, while the navigator/rear gunner was placed behind him. This arrangement provided easier crew communication.

The Yak-2 had a crew of two, with the pilot placed to the front and the navigator/machine gunner to the rear. Source: Pinterest

The armament of this aircraft consisted of two rear positioned 7.62 mm (0.3 in) machine guns. These were placed in a small cupola that could be raised higher up to provide better covering fire. There was a provision for an internal bombing bay that could hold 400 kg (880 lbs) of bombs. In addition, the aircraft could carry up to 100 kg (210 lbs) bombs in external bomb racks

In combat

Despite its obvious mechanical unreliability, the Yak-2 would be allocated for operational service. The first group of 25 aircraft were initially allocated to the Kharkov Military District. Due to many mechanical problems, they could not be used for flying. Even at this time, there were still attempts to somehow improve the Yak-2’s overall performance, with minimal results. When the aircraft was fully equipped with military equipment, such as radio, weapons, and full fuel load, the flight performance dropped dramatically. For example, the maximum speed was reduced to 399 km/h (247 mph). In addition, the Yak-2 struggled to reach heights of 8,100 m (26,500 ft), which were some 2,800 m (8.800 ft) lower than those reached during prototype testing.

When the war with the Germans broke out, some 75 Yak-2s were allocated to the 136th Bomber Regiment located in Kiev and the 316th Reconnaissance Regiment in the western district. Their use was quite limited, as most were destroyed on the ground by the German Air Force. At least one was shot down by friendly aircraft fighters.

 

The majority of Yak-2s were destroyed on the ground by the German Air bomb raids. Source Y. Gordon, D, Khazanov and S. Komissarov OKB Yakovlev, Midland
Some did survive the initial German Air raids but would be lost in the following weeks. Here, a group of three Yak-2s on their way to bomb German positions can be seen. Source: Y. Gordon, D, Khazanov and S. Komissarov OKB Yakovlev, Midland

Proposed versions

Despite its generally poor performance of the Yak-2, there were some attempts to reuse this aircraft for other purposes. These included the BPB-22 short-range bomber, R-12 reconnaissance, I-29 escort fighter, Yak-2KABB ground attack aircraft, and a trainer version.

The BPB-22

The GAZ. No.81 production plant, on its own initiative, tried to develop a short-range dive bomber based on the BB-22. For this proposal, they equipped one aircraft with the newly developed M-105 engines and added dive brakes. The first flight test made in October 1940 was disappointing and the project was canceled.

R-12 reconnaissance

Based on elements from No-22 and the Yak-2, a reconnaissance aircraft named R-12 was to be developed. This aircraft was to be powered by 960 hp M-103 engines. In the end, nothing came of this project.

Yak-2KABB

This was a ground attack prototype equipped with bombs, two 20 mm (0.78 in) cannons, and two machine guns placed under the fuselage. It also received a new modified cockpit design. The aircraft was tested in a series of evaluation flights and was generally considered to be a good design. The outbreak of the war stopped any further work on this aircraft.

The experimental Yak-2KABB. Source: Y. Gordon, D, Khazanov and S. Komissarov OKB Yakovlev, Midland

I-29

The I-29 was a heavy escort fighter that was to be armed with two 20 mm (0.78 in) cannons. While work on this aircraft continued up to 1942, it would ultimately be canceled.

A trainer version

One Yak-2 was built as a dual-control trainer aircraft. While it was tested in March 1941, nothing came from this project. It is not known if this version ever received any official designation.

Production

Being an unsuccessful design, the actual production run was limited. The Yak-2 was produced by the GAZ No.1 production plant, which built around 25 aircraft. The Moscow Aircraft factory No.81 produced some 75 Yak-2s which were slightly improved in quality but, otherwise, were the same. By the time production ended, only around 100 aircraft were built.

  • No-22/BB-22 Prototype – The first prototype built during the summer of 1939, which served as a base for the Yak-2
  • Yak-2 – Main production version
  • Yak-2KABB – A ground attack prototype
  • BPB-22 – Short-range bomber, one prototype built
  • R-12 – Reconnaissance version proposal
  • I-12 – Escort fighter proposal
  • Trainer Aircraft – One prototype of a dual-control trainer version was built but was not accepted for service

Conclusion

While it managed to achieve extraordinary speed during the prototype phase, in the military role, the Yak-2 proved to be a disappointing design. Once it was fitted with armament and other equipment, its performance dropped dramatically. This, together with other design problems, ultimately led to the cancelation of this project after only 100 built aircraft.

Specifications –  Yak-2 Specifications
Wingspan 45 ft 11 in / 14 m
Length 30 ft 7 in / 14 m
Wing Area 316.4 ft² / 29.4 m²
Engine Two M-103 960 hp engines
Empty Weight 9,390 lb / 4,260 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 12,410 lb / 5,630 kg
Fuel Capacity 600 liters
Maximum Speed 310 mph / 500 km/h
Cruising Speed 255 mph / 410 km/h
Range 560 mi / 900 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 28,545 ft / 8,700 m
Crew One pilot and one navigator/gunner
Armament
  • Two 7.92 mm (0.3 in) machine guns
  • 400 to 500 kg (880 to 1100 lbs) bombs

Gallery

Yak-2 (BB-22) – 316th RAP Lt.I.M.Agarkov. South-West Front – July-August 1941
Illustration by Ed Jackson

 

  • D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata SSSR, Beograd.
  • B. Gunston and Y. Gordon (1977)Yakovlev Aircraft Since 1924, Putnam Aeronautical Books.
  • Y. Gordon, D, Khazanov (1999) Soviet Combat Aircraft, Midland Publishing.
  • Y. Gordon, D, Khazanov, and S. Komissarov (2005) OKB Yakovlev, Midland.

Junkers Ju 88G

Nazi flag Nazi Germany (1943)
Night fighter – Approximately 2,520 Built

A Ju 88G-1 in transit. [Boiten]
Developed from converted fighter versions of the Ju 88A-4 medium bomber, the Ju 88G would take up a growing role in the German night fighter force, as it saw its greatest successes in the Spring of 1944, and its decline in the Autumn of that same year. While built mostly as a result of the German aviation industry’s failure to produce a new specialized night fighter design, the Ju 88G would nonetheless prove to be a valuable asset, one that far exceeded the capabilities of its predecessors and was well suited for mass production.

Hunting in the Dark: 1943

1943 was a year of highs and lows for the Luftwaffe’s night fighter force, one that saw their tactics change considerably to match those of RAF’s Bomber Command. The year started with the Luftwaffe continuing the heavy use of its long standing fixed network of defensive ‘Himmelbett’ cells. These contained searchlights, radar, and night fighters that coordinated to bring down raiders. This chain of defenses stretched across the low countries through northern Germany in a network known more broadly as the ‘Kammhuber line’, named after its architect and initial commander of the German night fighter force, Josef Kammhuber. However the British would develop tactics to shatter this line and employ countermeasures to blind the radars used both by flak and fighter directors, and night fighters. 

They employed what became known as the ‘bomber stream’, deploying their aircraft in a long and narrow formation in order to penetrate as few of the Luftwaffe’s defensive boxes as possible. It was a simple but effective tactic, a night fighter could only intercept so many planes, and the cells were quickly overwhelmed. When they coupled this tactic with radar reflecting chaff, which they called ‘window’, the result was the near total collapse of the German air defenses during the July raid against the city of Hamburg. With German radar scopes clouded by the resulting interference, they were unable to direct gun laying radar for their anti-aircraft guns, and night fighters could not be vectored onto their targets, much less find anything using their on-board radar systems. Virtually defenseless and in the grips of a hot, dry summer, Hamburg suffered a level of destruction eclipsed only by the raid on Dresden when the war was coming to a close.

The Himmelbett system provided expansive coverage but could easily be overwhelmed by a concentrated stream of enemy aircraft. [Price]
The Luftwaffe’s disaster over Hamburg forced them to reform their strategy and develop new detection systems that would be unaffected by the newest RAF countermeasures. Kammhuber was sacked, though not exclusively as a result of the raid, and a new system of night fighter control was to be the primary means of nightly strategic air defense. Instead of the heavy focus on the fixed Himmelbett boxes, night fighters would be assembled over beacons before being directed towards bomber streams. This would ensure there would be no bottlenecks and would allow the full strength of the night fighter force to, as it was hoped, be brought against the enemy in mass. They would also employ new equipment, modifying their Wurzburg radars, used for fire and aircraft direction, with a chaff discriminating device, and replacing the older Lichtenstein (B/C) aerial search radars with the new SN-2.

In the winter of 1943, Bomber Command set out to try and knock Germany out of the war. They launched a series of large-scale raids against major industrial cities and the capital, with Sir Arthur Harris, its C-in-C, believing he could end the war without the need for a costly invasion of the continent (Overy 339). The Luftwaffe’s new weapons and tactics would quickly prove their worth during what later became known as the ‘first Battle of Berlin’. Bomber Command held that a loss rate of 5% represented “acceptable losses” and significantly higher values could spell trouble for continuous operations (Brown 309). Between August and November of 1943, the casualty rates during the “1st Battle of Berlin” sat at 7.6-7.9%, figures which would climb slowly over the following months (Overy 342). However, while most Luftwaffe planners were enthusiastic about the new air defense methods, they would have to confront a growing concern in the service: they were reliant on considerably dated night fighter designs.

 

The Search for a New Design

Left to right: Ta 154, He 219, Ju 188. [avionslegendaires.net & Wikipedia]
Throughout much of 1943, the night fighting mission was taken up mostly by variants of the Bf 110, followed by the Ju 88, and in much smaller numbers the Do 217 and He 219. In order to address the lack of a mass produced, specialized night fighter design, three new proposals were introduced. The first being the Ta 154 “Moskito,” a wooden, dedicated night fighter design which hoped to capture the same success as the British aircraft which bore the same name. The second, the He 219, was a specialized night fighter design championed by the very man who had devised the Himmelbett system, Josef Kammhuber. Lastly the Ju 188, a bomber that at the time still lacked a night fighter version, was proposed for conversion (Aders 72).

The Ta 154, despite high hopes for the project, never came to fruition as a result of its troubled development. The He 219 was sidelined by Generalflugzeugmeister (Chief of Procurement and Supply) Erhard Milch, who opposed increasing the number of specialized airframes in favor of mass production of multipurpose designs (Cooper 265). To make matters worse for the project a number of technical issues prolonged development, the aircraft took around 90,000 hours to produce, and with comparatively little support from the Luftwaffe, few were built (Cooper 325). The aircraft would, however, still be employed with the Luftwaffe, but in limited service. The Ju 188 design that likely would have received Milch’s support simply never materialized. 

With the failure to find a new design, it was clear that the brunt of future night fighting would fall on existing designs, in particular the Ju 88. In early 1943, it was on this design that hopes were placed for a high performance, specialized night fighter that would become available to the Luftwaffe the following year (Cooper 266).

The Old 88

Left to right: Ju 88A-4, Ju 88C-6, Ju 88R, Ju 88G-1. [Asisbiz]
Originally entering service as a medium/dive bomber in 1939, the Ju 88A was a state of the art, if somewhat conservative, design that was exceedingly versatile and easily modifiable. The airframe was sturdy, aerodynamically clean, and modular, with many components capable of being modified without necessitating major revisions to its overall design. This is perhaps nowhere more evident than the self-enclosed combined engine-radiator assemblies that allowed the powerplant and its associated cooling systems to be easily removed or replaced via connecting plates and brackets (Medcalf 106, 107, 191).

Not long after its teething period subsided, the Ju 88 proved itself in a number of roles and was employed as a night fighter early in the war, as some bombers were converted to Zerstorer (long range fighter/ground attack aircraft) at Luftwaffe workshops. Several of these aircraft were subsequently handed off to night fighter squadrons by the end of 1941, the first set with their dive brakes still equipped (Aders 31). However, by the end of 1941, small quantities of serial-built Ju 88C fighters were being delivered, with a larger production run following in the subsequent years. The type would eventually take up a growing position in the night fighter force (Medcalf 166, 178). Owing to their origins as converted aircraft, the Ju 88C-6 series retained virtually the same airframe as their bomber counterparts, with some minor alterations. The bombardier and their equipment were removed and an armament of three 7.92 mm MG17’s, a 20mm MG 151/20, and a pair of 20mm  MG FF cannons were installed in the nose of the aircraft and in the “gondola” beneath the nose that would have otherwise carried the bombsight and ventral gunner (Medalf 319).

The night fighting capabilities of the C-6 were good but its shortcomings were becoming more apparent as the war progressed. By early 1943, it was considered relatively slow and this was particularly worrying in the face of the RAF’s growing use of the Mosquito as a bomber and pathfinder, an aircraft which no German night fighter in service was able to effectively intercept. When flying at high speeds and altitudes, catching these aircraft was often more a matter of good fortune than anything else. In mid 1943, an interim design known as the Ju 88R was introduced in the hopes of alleviating some of the deficiencies of the preceding series. Despite remaining very capable in the anti-heavy bomber role, it had no hope of intercepting the Mosquito. While the Ju 88R proved to be significantly faster thanks to the use of the much more powerful BMW 801 engines over the older Jumo 211Js, it still failed to fulfill the anti-Mosquito role that its planners hoped to achieve. 

  While the aircraft offered greater performance and was favored by pilots, it was still very much a simple conversion, much like the C series it was supplementing, and it was clear additional modifications were necessary to better realize the airframe’s potential. In particular, its greater engine power meant the aircraft could reach higher speeds, but that power also enabled the aircraft to exceed the limits to which the rudder was effective (Aders 73). However, despite the disappointments of the year and the failure to secure a brand-new night fighter design, the hope that a new model of specialized Ju 88 would be entering service was soon realized.

Gustav

The Ju 88G would provide the Luftwaffe with a high performance night fighter that also allowed them to consolidate existing production lines. [Asisbiz]
By the end of 1943, work on the new night fighter was complete and the Luftwaffe was preparing to receive the first planes by the end of the year. The new Ju 88G-1 was developed as the successor to the previous C and R series night fighters, both consolidating production and vastly improving performance. 

The Ju 88V-58 was the primary prototype for the Ju 88G-1 and first flew in June of 1943 (Aders 258). It sat between the older Ju 88R series aircraft and the later Ju 88G in design and appearance, using the same basic airframe as the Ju 88R and its BMW 801 power plants. However, it also incorporated the vertical stabilizer designed for the Ju 188, used a new narrower, low drag canopy from previous fighter models, and removed the “gondola” which carried a portion of the aircraft’s armament in previous models (Aders 132; Medcalf 191, 192). The armament was significantly improved with the addition of a mid-fuselage gun pod which mounted four MG 151/20 20 mm cannons, making use of the space otherwise taken up by bombing gear, with another pair of cannons installed in the nose of the aircraft. However, the nose mounted pair were removed later on due to issues regarding the muzzle flash of the guns affecting the pilot’s vision, a resulting shift in the aircraft’s center of gravity, and interference with nose mounted radar aerials (Medcalf 191). 

After this series of changes to the aircraft’s fuselage, armament, and the subsequent addition of an SN-2c radar, the Ju 88G went into production. 6 pre-production Ju 88G-0 aircraft and 13 Ju 88G-1s were completed by the end of 1943 (Medcalf 178). The production switch between the previous Ju 88R and 88C models to the G was relatively smooth, with the first three aircraft delivered to the Luftwaffe in January of 1944. Production and deliveries of the new model increased sharply over the following weeks thanks to the aircraft sharing most of its components with older models (Aders 129). Mass production was carried out rapidly, with 12 planes completed a month later in January, roughly doubling the next month, and rising to 247 aircraft in June, before gradually falling as the production of its successor, the G-6, began to supersede it (Medcalf 240).

The Ju 88G-1 went into production with an offensive armament of four forward facing 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons in a pod mounted ventrally near the center of the aircraft. Upward facing cannons in the fuselage, in a configuration referred to as ‘Schräge Musik’, were often installed later at field workshops. These upward facing weapons were of particular use against British bombers, which had forgone ventral defensive guns. This armament was a marked improvement over the three 20 mm cannons and three MG 17 7.92 mm machine guns carried by the preceding C6 and R series (Medcalf 319). 

The aircraft was powered by the much more powerful BMW 801 G-2 engines producing 1740 PS, a huge boost up from the Jumo 211J, 1410 PS, on the Ju 88C-6. This allowed the aircraft to reach 537 km/h at an altitude of 6.2 km, quite a considerable improvement over the Ju 88C-6’s 470 km/h at 4.8 km (Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke 7, 12, Medcalf 319). The engines were unchanged from that of the previous Ju 88R model, though it was able to make better use of them thanks to the enlarged vertical stabilizer which granted better control and stability at high speed.

G-6 

The G-6 would incorporate more powerful engines and standardize several common modifications made to the previous model.  [albumwar2]
To build on the success and production base of the first design, work began on a successor. Retaining the same airframe, the G-6 would be powered by the Junkers Jumo 213 A-1 and would standardize the use of equipment commonly added to the G-1 at Luftwaffe workshops. To this end several new prototypes were produced, these being Ju 88V-108, V-109 which included the MW50 boost system, and Ju 88V-111 which served as a production prototype (Medcalf 192). 

The aircraft carried with it several key improvements over the initial model. It was faster, better armed, and possessed a more advanced set of electronic warfare equipment. However, it’s top speed is difficult to ascertain given the limited number of sources on the aircraft. It was able to achieve 554 km/h (344 mph) at 6km (19685 ft) without the use of the MW50 boost system, and after the war Royal Navy test pilot Eric Brown was able to reach a top speed of 644km/h (400mph) at an altitude of 9,145 meters in tests (30,000ft) (Medcalf 319, Eric Brown 195). In all likelihood, this was a testing aircraft that was using either Jumo 213E or 213F engines, as 9km was well above the full throttle height of the Jumo 213A. Alternatively, some of these engines may have made their way into very late production G-6 aircraft.

The new standardized equipment included an upward firing pair of 20 mm cannons, the FuG 350 Naxos Z radar detector, and they would later be the first night fighters to be equipped with the new SN-2R and Naxos ZR tail warning equipment. They also carried the new Neptun radars for twin engine fighter use and were the only aircraft that made use of the SN-3 and Berlin search radars (Medcalf 319, 324; Aders 181)

The SN-2R was a rearward facing radar aerial added to the SN-2d search radar sets that would warn the crew of pursuers. It helped to significantly improve survivability along with the new Naxos ZR, which could now warn the crew of enemy night fighter radar emissions. These systems quickly showed their worth. Ju 88G-6’s fared better in the presence of enemy night fighters than the He 219’s and Bf 110’s, which lacked standardized tail warning equipment (Aders 181). 

Late G-6’s were also equipped with the FuG 120A Bernhardine. This device was intended to make use of a nationwide network of high powered transmitters that would have been unjammable by the RAF’s electronic warfare equipment. The system would provide the altitude of a bomber stream, its location on a grid map, its course, strength, and the recipient night fighter’s bearing from the ground station. All of this information was relayed in coded messages by means of a teleprinter in the cockpit of the night fighter. It was mostly foolproof, but the system was not fully operational by the war’s end (Medcalf 325; Price 237, 238).

Pilot’s Remarks and General Flight Characteristics

As with the rest of the Ju 88’s in the night fighter service, the plane had the ergonomics and handling characteristics that were so sought after by pilots. The sorties they faced by this point of the war were as long as two hours and as such undemanding flight characteristics were a crucial feature of any night fighter (Aders 23). Stability, well balanced controls and the ability to fly well on one engine were crucial factors, and having them made the Ju 88G a highly rated aircraft among the force (Aders 31, 132). Its reinforced airframe also came in useful, as its earlier use as a dive-bomber required a high tolerance for g-forces that made it capable of pulling off hard maneuvers without risk of damaging the airframe in the process. The addition of the Ju 188’s vertical stabilizer also improved handling markedly, as the newer design provided much smooth rudder controls over the previous version, which had ones unchanged from older bomber models and were quite stiff once the aircraft was brought up to speed (Medcalf 304).

Ju 88G-1 flown by Roland Beamont. [asisbiz.com]
The G-1 handled exceedingly well, with controls that were well balanced and responsive. Praise for the Gustav’s handling could even be found outside the ranks of the Luftwaffe, as Roland Beamont, an RAF fighter pilot and post war test pilot, had a chance to take one up and evaluate how it performed at RAF Tangmere in the summer of 1945. Beamont found the aircraft undemanding, with gentle controls and that, on landing, the aircraft “could be steered on the approach as gently and responsively as any fighter”. Equally as important, he found the aircraft needed very little adjustment in the air, with only very minor trimming of control surfaces needed for smooth operation in regular flight. In a rare chance, he even found an opportunity to have a mock battle with another RAF pilot, Bob Braham, flying a DeHavilland Mosquito. Beamont found the 88 was able to hold its ground for some time, but eventually letting up when he began to reach the limits of the unfamiliar plane so low to the ground and in the wake of Bob’s plane, which promptly outmaneuvered him.

Despite his praise for the aircraft’s flight characteristics, he felt the structural cockpit framework was very restrictive of the pilot’s vision. In a summary of his first flight and a second on July 16th, he claimed “It has remained in my rating as one of the best heavy piston-engined twins of all time and a very pleasant flying experience.” (Medcalf 294, 295). Much like Beamont, most Luftwaffe pilots were very satisfied with the aircraft (Aders 132).

Famed Royal Navy pilot Capt. Erik ‘Winkle’ Brown would also be among the few allied pilots to have the opportunity to fly both the G-1, and subsequent G-6 model. Capt. Brown felt the aircraft possessed largely the same excellent handling characteristics as the Ju 88A-5 he’d flown prior. He praised the aircraft for its easy ground handling, thanks to its excellent brakes, it’s good handling during climbs, and light controls at cruising speed (Brown 190).

Capt. Brown would spend more time with the G-6 and was able to put one through more demanding tests. Having previously flown several versions of the Ju 88, Brown was particularly impressed by the aforementioned high speeds achieved by a Ju 88G-6 (Werk-nr 621965) he’d flown in tests. The aircraft remained in line with his general, glowing remarks over the Ju 88. “It was a pilot’s airplane, first and last, it demanded a reasonable degree of skill in handling and it responded splendidly when such skill was applied. There was a number of very good German aircraft but, with the exception of the Fw 190, none aroused my profound admiration as did the Junkers ‘eighty-eight’ (Brown 195).” 

Perhaps the simplest but greatest advantage the aircraft had in night fighting was in the close proximity of the crewmembers, which allowed them easy communication in the event of intercom failure or emergency. It also allowed the pilot to be seated beside their radar operator, with the flight engineer seated directly behind him, an ideal arrangement providing both easy communication and good situational awareness, which became a necessity as bomber streams became the hunting grounds for RAF night fighters (Aders 132).

While it inherited the benefits of the original design, it also had its flaws, the most obvious of which was the poor visibility due to the bars of the reinforced cockpit frame, and the troublesome landing gear which had a tendency to buckle if the aircraft was brought down too hard (Medcalf 75). The landing gear was a hydraulically actuated set that rotated 90 degrees so that the wheels would lie flat within their nacelles. This greatly reduced drag, as the shallower landing gear bays contributed far less to the frontal area of the plane, but they could be broken in forced landings or careless flying. These types of accidents were typically handled by the airfield ground staff, though handing off the plane to a recovery and salvage battalion could prove necessary in the event of a forced landing or a particularly bad accident (Medcalf 62).

Lichtenstein SN-2

Early combined SN-2 with the wide-angle attachment; compared to a later model on Ju 88G. These large aerials came to be known as the ‘Hirschgeweih’(stag antlers). [Bauer, Rod’s Warbirds]
Perhaps the most important feature of the Ju 88G, its radar, was easily the weakest point of the aircraft in comparison to its contemporaries in foreign service. Unlike the British or Americans, the Germans lacked any major production of centimeter band search radars, forcing them to rely on meter band types. In practical terms, the meter band radar carried with it several major disadvantages, the most evident and visible of which were the large aerial antennas which protruded from the aircraft’s fuselage and created significant drag. In tests by the Luftwaffe’s Rechlin test pilots, it was found that the Lichtenstein (B/C) decreased the maximum speed of a Bf-110 by 39.9 km/h (Aders 44). Another major disadvantage was its inferior ability to cut through ground clutter, leading to very poor performance at lower altitudes and making it useless near ground level (Aders 163, 200). 

The standard Ju 88G-1 was equipped with the Lichtenstein SN-2c, also designated as FuG 220. This airborne radar set was designed by Telefunken for naval service and originally rejected by the Luftwaffe earlier in the war. Its initial rejection was based on its extreme minimum range of 750 meters, which meant that any target would disappear off the scopes long before the pilot would be able to see it (Aders 79, 80). Its later adoption was a matter of the previous air search radar having a relatively short maximum range, and that the SN-2 would be unaffected by the chaff that made the previous sets useless (Brown 309). However, due to the shortcomings of the original SN-2, the device was coupled with a simplified version of the older Lichtenstein  FuG-212 radar to track targets within the large minimum range of the new system.  The resulting set up required the use of 5 radar scopes and was an exceedingly cumbersome display, with three scopes devoted to the older Lichtenstein set and two for the SN-2 (Price 196). 

The two scope SN-2c display, the “peaks” represent radar contacts. Left is azimuth and range, right is elevation. The range demarcations are 2 km for both sides, the radar will not display contacts beyond the 5th demarcation.[Bauer]
The SN-2 carried by the 88G was an improved model which had its minimum range decreased to an acceptable distance, allowing it to drop the excess equipment for the far simpler SN-2c, which required only two scopes (Aders 122). The system had a frequency range of 73/82/91 MHz, a power output of 2.5 kW, an instrumented range of 8km, a minimum range of 300 m, a search angle with an azimuth of 120 degrees, an elevation of 100 degrees, and a total weight of 70 kg. While the system had a maximum instrumented range of 8km, its practical detection range was tied to the altitude at which it was operating and the size of the target. For example, if searching for a heavy bomber traveling at the same altitude, and with the maximum antenna aperture towards the Earth being roughly 30 degrees, and at an operating altitude of 5km, the slant range of the radar can be placed roughly at the system’s maximum range of 8km (Bauer 12, 13). This range increases or decreases correspondingly with the altitude of the aircraft or its target, with the device being virtually useless near ground level.

 One SN-2c was eventually recovered by the RAF when an inexperienced crew landed their plane at RAF Woodbridge as a result of a navigation failure, which allowed the British to develop both effective chaff and electronic jamming countermeasures for it (Price 221). This same aircraft would be the one given such a good review by Roland Beamont, its registration code being 4R+UR. 

The SN-2 would see further development even as its usefulness declined in the face of widespread jamming and chaff which targeted its operating bands. The SN-2d was the most immediate development which helped to some degree. Its operating frequencies were shifted to the 37.5-118 MHz dispersal band to make use of its still usable frequencies that were not fully targeted by RAF jamming efforts. It would later be combined with the SN-2R tail warning radar and, very late in the war, made use of low drag ‘morgenstern’ aerials and an aerodynamic nose cone which fit over it (Aders 244). 

Late War and Experimental Radars

Left to right: Fug 218 Neptun, Lichtenstein FuG 220 SN-2 with a low drag array, FuG 240 Berlin with its parabolic antenna set behind a removable nose cone. [Rod’s Warbirds, Asisbiz,ww2aircraft.net]
 The FuG 217/218 Neptun radar sets were developed and built by FFO. These had been initially developed for use in single engine night fighters, but were later adapted for use aboard twin engine aircraft. They were largely a stop gap following the RAF jamming efforts against the SN-2, as any new aerial search radar was months away. These series of radars came in a variety of configurations as they were further developed and pressed into wider service.

 The Neptun 217 V/R was a search radar that could switch between two frequencies between 158 and 187 MHz, had a search angle of 120 degrees, a maximum range of 4 km with a minimum of 400 meters, and a total weight of 35 kg. The subsequent Neptun 218 V/R search radar included four new frequency settings along the same range, had a maximum range of 5km with a minimum of 120 meters, a power output of 30kW, weighed 50kg, and possessed the same search angle as the previous model. Both radars could be mounted in a “stag antler” array with the preceding Neptun 217 V/R also having a “rod” type mounting arrangement, which consisted of individual antennas attached to the airframe. As with the SN-2, tail warning sets were produced which were found in the form of the standalone Neptune 217 R and Neptun 218 R sets, or as a component of the Neptune 217 V/R and Neptun 218 V/R combined search and tail warning radars. (Aders 245, 246).

The FuG 228 SN-3 was developed by Telefunken and was visually similar to the SN-2 but with thicker dipoles. The device operated on a frequency range of 115-148 MHz, had a power output of 20kW, a maximum range of 8km with a minimum of 250m, a search angle with an azimuth of of 120 degrees, an elevation of 100, and a total weight of 95kg. Some sets also made use of a low drag “morningstar ” array that used ¼ and ½-wavelength aerials. 10 sets were delivered for trials and may have been used in combat (Aders 245).

 The FuG 240 Berlin was another radar developed by Telefunken and their last to see operational use during the war, it also being the first and only centimetric aerial search radar to see service with the Luftwaffe. It operated on a wavelength of 9 to 9.3 cm, an output of 15kW, had a maximum range of roughly 9 km, a minimum of 300 m, a search angle of 55 degrees, weighed 180 kg, and had no serious altitude limitations (Aders 246, Holp 10). While only twenty five Berlin sets were delivered to the Luftwaffe they made successful use of them in March of 1945 (Aders 246; Brown 317). While these new devices were free of the heavy jamming the SN-2 faced, they lacked the larger production base of the SN-2 which continued to be fitted to new night fighters until the end of the war.

Passive Sensors

While the SN-2 radar was somewhat mediocre, this deficiency was offset by other devices that were often installed aboard which could supplement it, these being the FuG 227 Flensburg and FuG 350 Naxos Z. Developed by Telefunken, Naxos was able to detect the emissions of British H2S ground mapping radar and other devices with frequencies in the centimeter band. This would enable a night fighter equipped with the system to home in on RAF aircraft that were using ground mapping radar to direct bomber streams to their targets. The Naxos Z set was capable of detecting emissions at up to 50 km, enabling them to find pathfinders or simply other bombers in the stream as the ground mapping radar became more commonplace among the aircraft of Bomber Command (Price 176, Medcalf 325). Subsequent models would expand the reception band to allow the device to detect British centimetric aerial intercept radar and combine the system with tail warning equipment to alert aircrews to the presence of British, and later American, night fighters, with the series working within the 2500 mHz to 3750 mHz band (Medcalf 325). These included the Naxos-ZR, used exclusively in Ju 88s, with the aerial contained within the fuselage, the Naxos ZX, which further increased the detectable frequency ranges, and the Naxos RX, which was a version of the previous type which coupled it with tail warning equipment (Aders 248, 249). This was solely a directional sensor and would give the operator the azimuth of the target, but not its altitude or range. 

Naxos indicator, each notch represents a detected emission [Bauer]
Flensburg was another passive device, this one made by Siemens. While Naxos detected the emissions from RAF ground mapping radar, Flensburg picked up the tail warning radar of RAF bombers, a device codenamed Monica. With later versions operating on a tunable frequency band of 80 mHz to 230 mHz, it allowed aircraft equipped with it to detect virtually all bombers traveling within a stream should their rear warning radar be active (Medcalf 325). Among the captured pieces of equipment in Ju 88G [4R+UR], this was evaluated by the RAF and found to be an exceedingly useful tool for detecting and closing in on their bombers. The aircraft with the device was evaluated by Wing Commander Derek Jackson in a series of tests with both a single RAF Lancaster bomber and a small group of five planes flying over a considerable distance. He found that, in both cases, he was able to home in on the bombers with the Flensburg device alone from as far as 130 miles away without any issues even when the aircraft were in close formation, where there was hope that several of the tail warning radars operating closely together might have confused the device (Price 222). 

In all, 250 Flensburg sets were produced, alongside roughly 1,500 Naxos-Z sets, and though only the latter became standard equipment, both saw extensive use among Ju 88 night fighters (Aders 124). These devices proved incredibly successful in combination with SN-2 and, for several months, allowed the German night fighter forces to achieve great operational success. However, they eventually fell behind again one final time after the successful British efforts to counter the Luftwaffe’s sensors and tactics in the months following the landings in France (Brown 319). In the end only Naxos remained the only reliable means of detecting raiders as, unlike Monica, they could not do without their H2S ground mapping radar.

Initial Deployments

Field use of the aircraft began shortly after the delivery of the first pre production aircraft, which were quickly sent out to units equipped with older models of Ju-88s, often being placed into the hands of formation leaders. In this way, its introduction into service was gradual, with the first aircraft already being in the hands of more experienced pilots before more deliveries allowed for the entire unit to transition away from older models. Prior to July of 1944, Gruppe IV of NJG3, II and III of NJG6, and I of NJG7 were supplied with large numbers of G-1s, followed by a gradual supply to NJG2, Gruppe IV of NJG 5, III of NJG3, and NJG100. It should also be noted that these aircraft could be found in the inventories of most units, even those that did not fully transition over fully to their use (Aders 131). 

For the first three months of 1944, the Luftwaffe inventory had only a single digit number of operational G-1s but, by April and May, mass deliveries of the aircraft began, with 179 planes available in May and 419 by July (Aders 272). A total 1,209 Ju 88G-0s and G-1s were delivered to the Luftwaffe between December of 1943 and October of 1944, with the aircraft and its successor, the Ju 88G-6, becoming the mainstay of the German night fighter force for the remainder of the war (Medcalf 178, 240).

Zahme Sau: Winter through Spring

As a heavy radar equipped night fighter, the Ju 88G would serve the Luftwaffe as “Zahme Sau” (Tame Boar) interceptors. They differed from “Wilde Sau” (Wild Boar), in that they were to receive guidance toward enemy bombers from a series of ground based stations in a system known as Y-Control. With information collected from various search radars and passive radio and radar detectors scattered throughout much of Western Europe, ground control operators would direct interceptors toward bomber streams (Price 175, 178).

For much of 1944, a typical mission for a Zahme Sau pilot would go as follows. First, they would take off and head for an assembly point marked by a radio/searchlight beacon. Then, they would wait their turn before receiving radio commands directing them towards a bomber stream. The fighters were led away from the beacons by their formation leaders, but rarely did all a gruppe’s fighters actually reach the target in close order. Lastly, upon reaching the stream, they would attempt to merge with it and then begin to search out targets with on board sensors. In addition to direct guidance, Y-control gave a running commentary on a bomber stream, describing its course and the altitude range the staggered bombers flew at (Aders 102, 103,195). This running commentary was particularly useful later on when night fighters more commonly flew alone and the use of the signal beacons was restricted.

This system would see the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe’s night fighters reach its zenith in the spring. Building upon their successes of the previous winter they would inflict heavy losses on Bomber Command. Between November of 1943 and March of 1944, Bomber Command would lose 1,128 aircraft prior to the temporary withdrawal from large scale operations over Germany. During the raid on Nuremberg in April of 1944, 11.9% of raiders failed to return home in what became the costliest raid of the entire war (Overy 368). Thankfully for the Allies, the Luftwaffe would never see this level of success again, as Bomber Command shifted to support Operation Overlord at the end of May. While Arthur Harris wished to continue his large-scale area bombing campaign over Germany, he would relent to pressures from higher offices and place his forces in support of the coming operation to liberate France. The subsequent raids against various rail yards across coastal France would prove a well needed respite for Bomber Command. The short distance the raiders flew over hostile territory meant that Luftwaffe night fighters had fewer opportunities for interception, and thus Bomber Command’s losses were comparatively light.

RAF Tactics and Changing Fortunes

Avro Lancaster and DeHavilland Mosquito NF MK XVII. [Flickr]
Following Overlord, Bomber Command returned to Germany better equipped and prepared for the challenges ahead. A typical late war Bomber Command heavy raiding force was composed mostly of Lancaster and Halifax heavy bombers which were supported by airborne  radar and radio jammers, night fighters, decoy formations composed of trainee squadrons, and chaff dispersing aircraft. In addition to the aforementioned Lancaster and Halifax, the B-17 and B-24 were also used by both the USAAF and RAF as electronic warfare platforms during these raids, though in much smaller numbers. Several variants of the DeHavilland Mosquito would be used as pathfinders, bombers, and nightfighers. The pathfinders were particularly troublesome as they could outpace any interceptor, save for a night fighter variant of the Me 262 that was introduced near the end of the war. While goals of the heavy bombers were straightforward, the supporting forces’ goal was to disorient Luftwaffe ground controllers and engage their night fighters to reduce operational losses and tie up enemy aircraft (Aders 194, 195).

Locating the stream proved difficult, but if a fighter was to infiltrate it, they were mostly free of electronic interference and would encounter little resistance. While successful infiltration often meant good chances for kills, most night fighters would end up returning to base having expended most of their fuel in the search.

Various derivatives of the FuMG 402 Wasserman radar, a long range early warning and fighter control radar built by Siemens. Later versions were capable of frequency changes within the 1.9-2.5 m, 1.2-1.9 m, and 2.4-4.0 m ranges (Aders 251). [cdvandt]
While the Luftwaffe’s system was still holding steady it soon faced a new challenge, as from December 1943 onward, German night fighter pilots would also have to contend with the long-range Mosquito night fighters of the RAF’s 100 Group. Tasked with supporting bombing raids through offensive action, they operated by seeking out German night fighters over raid targets, at night fighter assembly points, and lastly to seek out enemy aircraft near the stream itself (Sharp & Bowyer 289). 

 By the beginning of May 1944, 100 Group possessed only about a hundred Mosquitos, though the number would grow larger and they would begin to replace their older and less capable aircraft (Sharp & Bowyer 290, 291). In the Autumn of 1944, the Mosquitos began to carry equipment to track German night fighters by activating their Erstling IFF (Identify Friend or Foe System) by mimicking the signals of German search radars. With this new gear and their bolstered numbers, they had tied down much of the Luftwaffe night fighter force by the winter of 1944. Eventually, the Germans left their IFFs off, which made tracking their own planes extremely difficult, and forced them to abandon the use of the assembly beacons which were frequented by the Mosquitos (Aders 196). Understandably, the Mosquito became the source of constant anxiety for Luftwaffe night fighter crews. The Mosquito typically made its appearance during takeoffs, landings, and when the often unsuspecting German night fighters were transiting to and from their targets. Under such circumstances, the use of tail warning and radar detecting equipment aboard the Ju 88G was both an important defensive tool, and a serious morale booster. 

Despite its earlier successes, the Luftwaffe’s night fighter force’s effectiveness began its decline in August of 1944 in the face of general disruptions to their detection and communication capabilities as the Allies deployed radar and radio jammers to the continent (Aders 194, 195, 197). This loss of early warning radar coverage would prove a decisive blow to the Luftwaffe, one that they never recovered from.

Blind and Deaf: Autumn into Winter 

As summer turned to autumn, night fighter bases were increasingly harassed by Allied daylight fighter bombers, which forced the Luftwaffe to disperse their forces to secondary airfields. While these “blindworm” locations were free of prowling Mosquitos and fighter bombers, they were not without their disadvantages. While these fields were well camouflaged, their rough landing fields could be hazardous and they were not cleared for night landings. This forced many night fighters to land at their more well-constructed bases after their nightly sorties and return to the camouflaged fields in the evenings. The result was a rise in losses as the aircraft were occasionally caught by Allied fighters on their flight back. Through late 1944 and into 1945, German night fighter losses were most commonly the result of interception in transit or being hit on the ground. While at first only bases in Belgium and the Netherlands were threatened, Allied fighters would appear in growing numbers over the skies of Western and Southern Germany, as would the recon aircraft that periodically uncovered the “blindworm” bases (Aders 197). 

A Ju 88G caught in transit. [asisbiz.org]
In September of 1944 the night fighter force flew a total of 1,301 sorties against approximately 6,400 enemy aircraft, of which they brought down approximately 76, representing a loss rate of 1.1%. Bomber Command losses had fallen significantly from the 7.5% of the previous year, and from last April’s catastrophic high of 11.9%. As such, Bomber Command losses were once again well below the 5% attrition threshold for continuous operations (Aders 197). 

By the start of winter, the RAF and USAAF had largely succeeded in jamming most of the Luftwaffe’s early warning radars, y-control radio services, and through the use of chaff and jammers, made the standard SN-2 search radar useful only in the hands of experts. This had the overall effects of ensuring the night fighter force was slower to respond in-bound raiders, more likely to be sent against diversionary formations, and that night fighters were far less likely to make contact with the bomber stream after being vectored toward it. By winter, it had become clear for the Luftwaffe that the after hours war over Western Europe had been irrevocably lost.

While the night fighter force had some success in finding alternatives to their models of the SN-2 air search radars there was no hope of recouping their past successes. Between the chronic fuel shortages, marauding RAF Mosquitos, mounting ground and transit losses, and the compromised performance of most of the Luftwaffe’s ground based radars, the situation had become unsalvageable. Its decline was final, and in February of 1945, the force disintegrated as the Allies took the war into Germany (Aders 201). After almost a year following its greatest successes, the Luftwaffe’s night fighter force finished the war mostly grounded for lack of fuel and as night harassment forces in support of Germany’s depleted and hard pressed army (Aders 206). 

Large numbers of German night fighters were captured as the Allies overran their airfields, many left intact. Lacking flame dampeners or exhaust stains, these planes have likely never been flown. [flickr]

On the Offense

In conjunction with their interception duties, many units equipped with Ju 88Gs would conduct night ground attack operations against Allied forces in France against the Normandy beachhead, and later across the Western front in support of Operation Wacht am Rhein at the end of 1944. 

On the night of August the 2nd, 1944, the first of these operations were carried out against various targets, including the disembarkation area at Avranches and the Normandy bridgehead. The operation code-named ‘Heidelburg’ was conducted by elements of NJG’s 2, 4, and 5.These attacks were conducted without the use of bombs and were regarded by some as absurd due to the extreme danger in conducting low level strafing runs at night, and with only limited preparations being made before the operation (Boiten P4 25). The attacks would be carried out until the night of the tenth with the night fighters taking considerable, but inconsistent, losses. 

On the night of the sixth, one Ju 88G would claim an unusual victory in this period as during their return flight,  Lt. Jung of 6./NJG2. Jung and his R/O Fw. Heidenrech detected and closed in on P-38 of the 370th fighter squadron at around 2:30 near Falaise, which they subsequently downed. Not all the aircraft had the same luck as Jung, as during the same night another Ju 88G of his Gruppe would be brought down by an Allied night fighter. The aircraft proceeded to crash into a Panther tank belonging to the 1st SS Panzer Division, resulting in a two hour traffic jam during that unit’s counter attack on Mortain (Boiten P4, 28). The overall impact these missions had were largely undefinable due to the inability to accurately survey the damage inflicted. 

While infrequent attacks were carried out during the Autumn of 1944, the Luftwaffe’s night fighters would not be committed to any major ground attack operations until the end of the year. On the night of December 17th, several night fighter squadrons would be called upon for night ground attack operations in support of Operation Wacht Am Rhein. This action saw roughly 140 Ju 88’s and Bf 110’s of at least seven Gruppen being committed to what was to become the Battle of the Bulge (Boiten P3, 65). 

This abandoned Ju 88G-6 was modified for ground attack missions, its radar had been removed and racks for bombs had been added. An AB 500 cluster bomb unit lies in the foreground. [Rod’s Warbirds]
These night raids did considerable damage and sowed confusion amongst rear-echelon services, as vehicles initially traveled with undimmed lights and many facilities failed to observe black out conditions. This was especially true against rail and road traffic which, until then, felt safe traveling at night. These mistakes placed otherwise safe trucks, trains, depots, and barracks in the sights of night fighters sent on massed area raids, and armed reconnaissance patrols. These attacks were typically carried out by strafing, and bombing in the case of modified aircraft, which were equipped with ETC 500 bomb racks. During the nightly ground attack operations during the Battle of the Bulge, these modified aircraft typically carried a pair of AB 250 or AB500 cluster bombs which themselves contained either SD-1 and SD-10 anti-personnel submunitions.

These attacks were particularly effective on the odd night with higher visibility. On the night of the 22nd of December, 23 Bf 110G’s and Ju 88G’s belonging to the I. and IV./NJG 6 flew interdiction missions around Metz-Diedenhofen. Owing to the good weather that night they were able to successfully attack several targets, which included some 30 motor vehicles credited as destroyed, and several trains which they attacked north of Metz. They were joined that night by seven aircraft from I.NJG4 which undertook low level strafing attacks, for which they were credited for the destruction of one locomotive, four motor vehicles, and a supply dump. Additionally, they were credited for damaging another locomotive, six motor transport columns, and five single motor vehicles. Losses amongst the night fighters were uncharacteristically light that night, with only Bf 110 G-4 2Z+VK having been lost during the raids (Boiten 73).

Ground crew with an engine heater prepare a Ju 88G-1. [Asisbiz]
The operational conditions during these raids were generally very poor, both a result of the weather, which had infamously grounded most aircraft during the initial stages of the battle, and Allied electronic interference. While the navigational aids and avionics of their aircraft made them effectively all weather capable, the harsh weather and Allied jamming of navigation beacons and radio communications proved serious challenges to Luftwaffe night fighter crews. The difficult nature of the missions themselves made for little improvement, as they typically flew at low altitudes under weather conditions which reduced visibility. The sum of all of these factors made for missions which brought on significantly more fatigue than the typical bomber interception mission.

Throughout the battle, the Ju 88G would prove an exceptional night ground attack aircraft or ‘Nachtschlachter’. With its powerful engines, cannons, large payload, and exceptional de-icing systems, the aircraft could carry out attacks under very harsh winter conditions. Several of these aircraft would have their radar removed and were used exclusively for this mission until the end of the war. A number of former night fighters would even serve with the bomber squadron KG2, with their cannon armament removed, as night attack aircraft (Medcalf Vol.2 618).

The raiders encountered few night fighters as several RAF Mosquito night fighter units had been withdrawn to requip with the new Mosquito NF Mk. XXX. Between the two USAAF squadrons with their P-61’s and the remaining RAF units, there were few Allied night fighters in the area (Aders 200). However, Luftwaffe losses to AAA were high thanks to the advanced centimetric gun-laying radars in use with the US and British armies. In the end the night fighters were able to cause disruptions behind allied lines, but the price paid was steep, with 75 aircraft being lost over 12 nights (Boiten P5 3). 

Operation Gisela:

The Ju 88G would play an exclusive role in the last major Luftwaffe night action of the entire war, in a large-scale intruder mission dubbed Operation Gisela. This operation was likely formulated after Maj. Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer discovered that night fighting conditions on the other side of the ‘front’ were far more favorable. He later submitted a proposal to his fighter division to attack Allied bombers over the North sea, where there would be relatively little electronic and chaff interference, and where the bombers would least suspect an attack. However, the CO of the 3rd fighter division would instead propose to attack the bombers at their airfields when they were landing.

In any case the British intelligence services got wind of the plan as was made clear by the broadcasting of the song ‘I dance with Gisela tonight’ over a propaganda station. The attack would be postponed several times until early March, 1945 (Aders 205). 

About 100 Ju 88G’s were dispatched in three waves to follow a bomber stream as it departed for home. Upon reaching their destination the first wave would down twenty two bombers, however the fires from the wrecks would ruin the chances of the subsequent waves. While many bombers were saved by flying to different airfields after being alerted by the flames, eight more were wrecked attempting to land at darkened airstrips. However, the night fighters would face a dangerous return trip as they had to chart a course using dead reckoning and astral navigation due to their signal beacons being jammed (Aders 205). In the end, the night fighters would suffer a similar level of losses to the bombers they were hunting as a result of ground fire, crashes resulting from low level flight, and navigation failures. Operation Gisela would end in failure with no subsequent missions being attempted.

Construction 

Fuselage 

Wing connecting system [Ju 88A-4 Bedieungsvorscrift. [1941], 46]
The Ju 88A-4 was the most widely produced bomber variant and provided the foundations for the C, R, and G types. It was a fairly conventional all metal aircraft in its construction, and, while it pushed few technical boundaries, it was state of the art and versatile. It was primarily made of sheet aluminum fastened by rivets, with cast parts used for load bearing elements. Some use of Elektron magnesium alloy was made to further reduce weight, with sparing use of steel where strength was required, particularly in the landing gear assemblies and fuselage connecting elements. The fuselage cross section was rectangular with rounded corners and clad in large sheet aluminum stampings. It used a semi-monocoque structure made up of formers and bulkheads joined by connectors that ran front to aft, with the outer aluminum skin riveted to both elements, which allowed it to bear some of the structural load. Its structural load factor was 4.5 with a 1.1 multiplier for the first wrinkle, 1.3 for yield, and 1.8 for failure. In service, it proved very sturdy, with Junkers engineers claiming after the war that there had been no reported major structural failures over the service life of the airframe (Medcalf  41,43,73).

Eventually, the construction process had been improved to the point where the fuselage could be built from sub-assemblies that would become the upper and bottom halves of the fuselage. These would then be joined together after the internal components were fitted. Wing construction followed a similar process, making heavy use of sub assemblies, followed by equipment installation, skinning, and painting. An early model Ju 88 took roughly 30,000-man hours to complete. By the end of 1943, this number remained about the same for the Ju 88G-1. While this may seem unimpressive at face value, the night fighter carried an airborne radar system and a much more sophisticated set of avionics (Medcalf 41-43; Adders 183).

Wings and Stabilizers

The Ju 88’s wings were the heaviest part of the aircraft, comprising much of its total structural weight at over 1200 kg. A pair of massive main spars ran from the root to the wing tip, a rear spar ran across the entire span of the wing to support the flaps and ailerons, and two forward spars ran from the engine nacelles to the fuselage to transfer thrust from the engines and support loads from the landing gear. These spars were joined by relatively few airfoil shaped ribs and stiffened with corrugated aluminum (Medcalf 41-43). The wings were joined to the fuselage by means of four large ball connectors, which made for easy assembly and alignment. (Medcalf 73).

The vertical stabilizer was fixed to the fuselage by means of the same ball-screw connectors as the wings. Installing it was simple, with the rudderless stabilizer being fitted to the fuselage, and the rudder fin being affixed afterwards. The horizontal stabilizers did not use the same fitting system. Instead, they were each inserted into the fuselage by two spars which were then bolted together. This process was virtually the same on both the Ju 88A and the Ju 188, save for the latter having a fin which was 42% larger by area and a rudder which was 68% larger than the previous model (Ju 88A-4 Bedienungsvorschrift-FL Bedienung und Wartung des Flugzeuges; Ju 188E-1(Stand Juni 1943); Medcalf 123). The Ju 88G would incorporate the larger vertical stabilizer from the Ju 188 to improve stability and control at high speed.

Ju 188 vertical stabilizer assembly. [Ju 188E-1(Stand Juni 1943)]
As previously stated, the landing gear could prove troublesome due compromises in its design. During early prototyping, JFM (Junkers Flugzeug- und Motorenwerke) redesigned the landing gear into a single strut that would rotate so that it would lie flat beneath the wing when retracted. While this did remove the frontal area that would have seriously impacted the aircraft’s high speed performance, it came at the cost of added complexity and made for a far less robust landing gear arrangement (Medcalf 74, 75). Differing from earlier series, the Ju 88G’s landing gear frames made use of welded cast steel instead of light weight alloys.

 The G-1 carried a maximum of 2835 liters (620 gallons) of fuel, with the subsequent G-6 likely having a reduced fuel capacity considering its shorter endurance (Report No. 8 / 151).

Engines and De-icing Systems

The Ju 88R’s BMW 801 engines and engine mounting plate. [Wikimedia]
Among the most notable features of the Ju 88 were its use of unitized engine power units and its novel de-icing system. The unitized engine installation incorporated both the engine and associated cooling system into a single module that could be installed or removed from the aircraft relatively quickly, and made storage of components easier. These “kraftei” arrangements existed for the BMW 801 G-2, and, later, Jumo 213 A-1 engines. These engines were fitted with VDM and VS-111 propellers respectively. 

 

Engine Type Arrangement  Bore  Stroke  Displacement  Weight  Maximum Output  Maximum RPM Fuel type
BMW 801 G-2 Radial 14 156 mm 156 mm 41.8 liters 1210 kg 1740 PS 2700 C3, 95 octane
Junkers Jumo 213 A-1 Inverted V-12 150 mm 165 mm 35 liters 820 kg 1775 PS [2100 PS MW50] 3250 B4, 87 octane

(Medcalf 323; Ju 88S-1 Flugzeug Handbuch 3, Smith & Creek 687; Jumo 213 13) 

The aircraft was also equipped with a de-icing mechanism which took in air, ran it through a heat exchanger around the exhaust ejector stacks, drove it through channels in the wings, and then out over the ailerons (Rodert & Jackson). As the BMW 801 had no exhaust stacks compatible with this system, they made use of a petrol-fired heater to supply air to the de-icing system on the Ju 88G-1 (Report No. 8 / 151).

On left: Exhaust stack heat exchanger. On Right: the wing channel flow area. [Rodert & Jackson]

Cockpit

 The crew arrangement on all Ju 88 models would set the entire crew within the canopy and in close contact with one another. The bombardier ,or radar operator, sat to the pilot’s right, a flight engineer/gunner at the pilot’s back, and a ventral gunner sat beside the flight engineer or in a prone position inside the “gondola”, where his weapon was located. Aboard the Ju 88G, the ventral gunner’s position had been omitted with the removal of the gondola, however the positions of the other crew members remained largely unchanged. While these close quarters arrangements were somewhat claustrophobic, they ensured easy communication between the pilot and the rest of the crew at all times. It also made for a much simpler bail out procedure, as half the canopy would detach and allow for a quick escape for all aboard. In the Ju 88G, the crew entered the aircraft through a hatch below the cockpit.

Ju 88G-1 instrument panel. The cables for the radar display are on the right. [albumwar2]
The Ju 88G’s cockpit differed heavily from previous fighter versions as a result of added instrumentation and alterations to some of the aircraft’s existing controls. Among the new additions were ammunition counters with space for representing up to six guns, and a Zeiss Revi C.12/D gunsight. This sight differed from previous sets by its new elevation controls and its lack of an anti-glare shield. The front of the canopy was protected by a 10mm armor plate, with the windscreen itself being comprised of four panes of armored glass. The three in front of the pilot were electrically heated to prevent frost formation (Report No. 8 / 151). Work was also done to revise the controls to bring them more in line with other Luftwaffe fighters, perhaps most usefully by the addition of an automatic engine control system and manual propeller pitch control switches being added to the throttles (Brown 194).

Armament

The gunpod of the Ju 88G. [Asisbiz, Ju 88 G-1 Schusswaffenlage Bedienungsvorschrift-Wa]
The aircraft’s initial armament consisted of four Mg 151/20 cannons and a defensive MG 131. The cannons were mounted in a ventral pod between the aircraft’s wings and supplied by ammunition belts that occupied the space used as a bomb bay on bomber variants of the airframe. The ammunition belts were loaded with an equal proportion of high explosive ‘mine-shot’, armor piercing, and general purpose high explosive shells. The single 13 mm MG 131 was placed at the rear of the canopy within an armored glass mount and supplied with 500 rounds of armor piercing and high explosive shells in equal proportion (Ju 88G-1 Schusswaffenlage Bedienungsvorschrift-Wa). An armament of upward firing 20mm cannons, being either the MG FF or MG 151/20, were often installed at Luftwaffe field workshops prior to their inclusion to the design in the production run of the G-6 model.

In addition to its cannons, the aircraft could mount ETC 500 underwing racks for bombs and fuel tanks. These racks could each support bombs weighing over 1000kg, though bomb loads in service were light compared to those carried by bomber variants of the Ju 88. These were universal pylons that were added to existing aircraft, an alteration that was fairly simple given the design commonalities with the older Ju 88A-4, and newer Ju 88S medium bombers.

Avionics

In addition to its complement of detection devices, the aircraft carried a variety of tools to aid in navigation and ground direction. Ju 88G’s were typically equipped with the following devices: FuB1 2 (Blind approach receiver), Fug 10P (radio set), FuG 25 (IFF), FuG 101 (Radio altimeter), and the FuG 16zy (radio set).

The FuB1 2 was a blind landing system that guided the aircraft onto a runway by way of two radio beacons placed at 300 m and 3000 m away from one end of the airstrip. It was a tunable device so that airfields could possess separate frequencies between 30 and 33.3 mHz. The aircraft itself carried the Eb1 2 beacon receiver, the Eb1 3F beam receiver, the FBG 2 remote tuner, the AFN 2 approach indicator, the U8 power supply unit, and either a mast or flush antenna (Medcalf 324). 

The FuG 10P was a radio developed by Telefunken and was coupled with the Pielgeräte 6 radio direction finder. The device consisted of numerous transmitters and receivers capable of operating at various ranges. One pair, E10 L and EZ 6, operated at between 150-1200kHz, and another, S10 K and E10 K, between 3-6mHz. Other components included the U10/S and U10/E power supply units, and the fixed antenna loading unit AAC 2. Numerous versions existed and made use of various other components. Much of this system was later removed during the production run of the Ju 88G-6 (Medcalf 324).

The FuG 25 “Erstling” was an IFF system manufactured by GEMA that would respond with coded impulses to the ground-based Wurzburg, Freya, and Gemse radar systems up to a range of 100 km. The receiver operated on a frequency of 125 mHz and the transmitter at 160 mHz. The entire unit was contained within the SE 25A unit, with the BG 25A control box in the radio operator’s station (Medcalf 324).

FuG 101 was a radio altimeter designed by Siemens/LGW with a maximum range of 150-170 m and operated on a frequency of 375 mHz at 1.5 kW. Accuracy was within 2 m and the entire system weighed 16 kg. It consisted of the S 101A transmitter, E 101A receiver, U 101 power supply unit, and the pilot’s panel indicator (Medcalf 325). 

The FuG 16zy “Ludwig” was a radio manufactured by Lorenz and used for fighter control and directional homing, operating on a frequency range of 38.5 to 42.3 MHz. In Ju 88 night fighters it usually accompanied the Fug 10P radio gear which sat just below the defensive machine gun at the rear of the canopy. It could be set to different frequencies for the Y-control communication system: Gruppenbefehlswelle [between aircraft in formation], Nachischerung und Flugsicherung [between the pilot and the ground control unit], and Reichsjagerwelle [running battle commentary] (Aders 242). It was composed of the S16 Z Tx transceiver, E16 Z and U17 power supply systems, and the loop phasing unit ZWG 16 along with the antenna (Medcalf 324).

The FuG 120A ‘Bernhardine’ was a radio positioning device designed by Siemens to provide navigational assistance and bomber stream intercept information to night fighters by means of a teleprinter in the aircraft’s cockpit. It was intended to overhaul the night fighter force’s air to ground communication infrastructure which faced significant signals interference from the RAF, but the war ended before it entered large scale service. Aircraft could be directed over a range of 400km with position bearings accurate within .5 degrees from ground stations (Medcalf 325, Price 238, 239).

Emergency Equipment

The emergency equipment carried by the Ju 88G. [Ju 88S-1 Flugzeug Handbuch]
The Ju 88G would share the same emergency gear as the Ju 88S, this being stowed in a compartment at rear of the fuselage. The largest items of the set were an inflatable raft and an emergency radio beacon, with the contents of the entire compartment being sealed in a waterproof cloak (Ju 88S-1 Flugzeug Handbuch 64).

Production

Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke AG was the sole manufacturer of the Ju 88G and, as was the case with most late war German aircraft, production was conducted at major plants in conjunction with dispersal facilities. The primary production facility for the Gustav was at Bernburg, with two dispersal plants at Fritzlar and Langensalza, each of which would eventually be able to assemble 75 aircraft every month, these being half the capacity of the main Bernburg plant (Medcalf 241, 247).

As with all major fighter projects at the time, large-scale mobilization of labor and material resources was managed by the Jagerstab, an office which built direct links with the RLM (Reichsluftfahrtministerium, the German Air Ministry), regional government officials, and industrialists in order to marshal resources for expanding fighter production. The office was created in response to increasing Allied raids against Germany’s aviation industries and the growing disparity in numbers, which began to strongly favor the Allies as they built up their forces in anticipation for the landings in France. The office was headed by Albert Speer, Minister of Armaments and War production, and aided by Erhard Milch, Generalluftzeugmeister (Air Master General). In spite of the rapidly deteriorating wartime conditions facing all German industries, the office was successful in boosting production, but relied on desperate and illegal measures (Medcalf 229,232). In the fall of 1944, a minimum 72-hour work week was standard, as was the use of forced labor under conditions that were especially poor at the dispersal sites. The acceptance of rebuilt and used parts became ever more commonplace. This, however, did little to offset the clear superiority of the Allies in the air after the Summer of 1944 (Medcalf 247).

Up until April of 1944, the aircraft was built in parallel with decreasing numbers of Ju 88C-6 and Ju 88R, as production at Bernburg transitioned over to the Gustav. Production of the Ju 88G-1 ceased in October as the factories shifted over to the Ju 88G-6 (Medcalf 240). The Bernburg plant was hit twice by the USAAF’s Eight Air Force in February of 1944, which resulted in total stoppages for only a few days, after which production quickly resumed. However, there was a projected loss of over a hundred aircraft per month compared to the averages of the previous year, with a full recovery requiring several months (Medcalf 229).

 

Ju 88 Production January  February  March April May June  July August September October November  December
1943 13 (+6 pre-production)
1944 12 26 47 169 209 247 239 143 88 10
5* 14* 138* 189* 222* 308* 178*
1945 168* 35* 19*

 

Ju 88G-6 production*

Ju 88G-0 Werk Nummern: 710401 through 710406

Ju 88G-1 Werk Nummern: 710407 through 714911

Ju 88G-6 Werk Nummern: 620018 through 623998

Ju 88G-7 Werk Nummern: 240123 through 240125 (~3 built)

Ju 88G-10 Werk Nummern: 460053 through 460162 (~30 built, converted to mistel air to ground weapons)

Variants:

G-0: Preproduction aircraft, the same as G-1

G-1: Production night fighter, powered by BMW 801 G-2 engines 

G-2: Proposed zerstorer, powered by the Jumo 213A, was to carry a single MG 131, four MG 15’s, and two MK 103’s. No radar.


G-3: Proposed night fighter, powered by DB 603, same armament as the G-1

G-4: Proposed night fighter, powered by Jumo 213A, with GM-1 boost system

G-5: Proposed night fighter, powered by Jumo 213A

G-6: Production night fighter, powered by Jumo 213A

G-7: The same as G-6 except with Jumo 213E engines with three speed, two stage intercooled superchargers. Output: 1726 HP (1750 PS) unboosted, 2022 HP (2050 PS) with boost at 3250 RPM. Weight: 28,946 lbs (13,130 kg). Speed:  650 km/h at 7.9 km. Experimental.

G-10: Same as G-6 but with an extended fuselage.

(Medcalf 319, 178, 240; Green 448-482; Smith & Creek 687)

Conclusion:

Only a handful of Berlin centimeter band radars would enter service with the Luftwaffe near the end of the war. The system improved the aircraft’s performance across the board, lacking the drag inducing aerials of the SN-2, and it was untroubled by allied jamming or the altitude limitations of older systems. [wikimedia]
The Ju 88G would prove a valuable asset to the Luftwaffe’s night fighter forces through its zenith, in the spring of 1944,  until its collapse nearly a year later. From a production standpoint the aircraft was phenomenal. It made use of existing supply chains and components from Ju 88 variants that had long been in service prior to its introduction, allowing for a near seamless transition into mass production. In terms of its performance, the initial model would prove exceptional, being far faster and easier to fly than the existing night fighter workhorses, the aging Bf 110G and Ju 88C. The subsequent G-6 model would prove to be even more impressive with the addition of more powerful engines and standardized tail warning equipment.

While the aircraft did have its downsides and couldn’t solve every problem the night fighter service faced, it effectively fulfilled its purpose, and became the most numerous night fighter model in German service by the war’s end.

Specification Charts:

Classification Aircraft type Engine Engine output  Loaded weight Range Maximum Speed 
Bomber Ju 88A-4 Jumo 211J 2×1400 PS (2x 1380 hp) 14000 kg, 30864lbs  2430 km, 1510 mi 440 km/h (5.5 km), 273mph (18044ft)
Zerstorer/Night fighter Ju 88C-6 Jumo 211J 2×1400 PS (2x 1380 hp) 470 km/h (4.8 km), 292mph (15748ft)
Zerstorer/Night fighter Ju 88R-2 BMW 801D 2×1740 PS (2×1716 hp) 3450 km, 2144 mi  550 km/h (6.2km), 341 mph (20341ft)
Night fighter Ju 88G-1 BMW 801G 2×1740 PS (2×1716 hp) 12005 kg, 26466lbs 2870 km, 1783 mi 537 km/h (6.2km), 333mph (20341ft)
Night fighter Ju 88G-6 Jumo 213A 2x 1775 PS [2100 PS], (2×1750 hp [2071 hp]) 12300 kg, 27116lbs ~2400km, 1491 mi 554 km/h (6.0km), 344mph (19685ft)

(Medcalf 323, 319, 320; Smith & Creek 687)

*only the G series was tested with radar and exhaust flash hiders fitted, when equipped with these devices the C and R series flew at values lower than the ones presented on this chart

[] denotes performance with the MW50 boost system

Ju 88G-1  (Ju 88G-6) Specification
Engine BMW 801 G-2 (Jumo 213 A-1)
Engine Output 2×1740 PS (2x 1774PS [MW50: 2100PS]) : 2×1706 hp (2×1750 hp [2071 hp])
Empty Weight 8846 kg (9000kg) : 19502 lbs (19842 lbs)
Loaded Weight 12,005 kg (12300kg) : 26466 lbs (27117 lbs)
Maximum Range 2870 km (~2400 km) : 1784 mi  (~1490 mi)
Maximum Endurance 4 hours 35 minutes (3 hours 45 minutes)
Maximum Speed [at altitude] 537 km/h [6.2 km] : 333mph [20341ft] 
Armament 4xMG 151/20 , 1xMG 131 (4xMG151/20, 2xMG 151/20, 1x MG 131)
Crew 1 Pilot, 1 Radar Operator, 1 Flight Engineer/Gunner
Dimensions
Length 14.5 m : 47′6 7/8” 
Wingspan 20.08 m : 65′11″ 
Wing Area 54.5 m2 : 586.6 ft2 

(Ju 88 G-2, G-6, S-3, T-3 Bedienungsvorschrift-Fl 66, 69 Part II; Ju 88G-1,R-2, S-1,T-1 Bedienungsvorschrift-Fl 49, 53 part II; Report No. 8 / 151: Junkers Ju 88 G-1 Night Fighter 2; Medcalf 323, 319, 320)

*Top speeds reflect only the initial production models and do not take into account any boost systems.

BMW 801 G-2 Low supercharger gear (January 1944) At Height Output RPM Manifold Pressure
Maximum power (3 minutes) 0.9 km 1740 PS 2700 1.42 ata
Combat power (30 minutes) 1.1 km 1540 PS 2400 1.32 ata
Maximum continuous 1.6 km 1385 PS 2300 1.20 ata
Low power, greatest efficiency 2.2 km 1070 PS 2100 1.10 ata
Low power 2.3 km 980 PS 2000 1.05 ata
BMW 801 G-2 High supercharger gear (January 1944) At Height Output RPM Manifold Pressure
Maximum power (3 minutes) 6.0 km 1440 PS 2700 1.30 ata
Combat power (30 minutes) 5.6 km 1320 PS 2400 1.32 ara
Maximum continuous 5.8 km 1180 PS 2300 1.20 ata
Low power, greatest efficiency 5.7 km 990 PS 2100 1.10 ata
Low power 5.7 km 905 PS 2000 1.05 ata

Engine rated for C3 ~95 octane fuels

(Ju 88S-1 Flugzeug Handbuch 3)

 

Radar System Practical Maximum range Minimum range Search angle-azimuth Search angle-elevation Frequency Output Array Other notes
FuG 220  Lichtenstein SN-2c & SN-2d  8km (instrumented)

Altitude dependent 

300m 120 degrees 100 degrees 73/82/91 MHz later changed to 37.5-118 MHz dispersal band 2.5kW Stag antler (Hirschgeweih), few examples of low drag morningstar array (Morgenstern) SN-2d had a narrower beam width, was combined with tail warning radar, and performed better against jamming. Standard production radar for the Ju 88G.
FuG 217 Neptun V/R Altitude dependent 400m 120 degrees Two click stop frequencies of 158 amd 187 MHz Rod or stag antler FuG 217R was the tail warning radar component
FuG 218 Neptun  V/R Altitude dependent 120m 120 degrees Six click stop frequencies between 158-187 MHz stag antler  FuG 218R was the tail warning component
FuG 228 Lichtenstein SN-3 Altitude dependent 250m 120 degrees 100 degrees 115-148 MHz 20kW Stag antler, morningstar ten sets built
FuG 240/1 Berlin N-1a ~9km 300m 55 degrees 9-9.3cm (3,250-3,330 MHz) 15kW Parabolic antenna 25 sets built, 10 delivered for service, 1945

 

This chart is only for operational and experimental radar usage aboard the Ju 88G, it does not include earlier radars or specialized sets designed for other aircraft. 

*The morgenstern (eng. morningstar) aerial is often misidentified as a separate search radar or exclusive to either the SN-2d or SN-3, it is a low drag aerial arrangement compatible with either device.

~ Sources disagree

(Aders 244-246; Holp 10)

Gallery

Illustrations by Ed Jackson

Ju 88G-1
Ju 88G-1 [4R+UR], 7. Staffel/NJG2 flown by Hans Mackle, WNr. 712273. This is a relatively early production Ju 88G equipped with an FuG 220 SN-2c search radar and a FuG 227 Flensburg radar detector.
Ju 88G-6 [C9+AC], Stab II./NJG5 Hans Leickhardt, 1944. This late production G6 used a rare “morningstar” low drag array for its SN-2d combined search and tail warning radar set. While the SN-2’s faced considerable jamming and chaff interference, the series still was still improved upon, focusing on its still usable bands and developing more aerodynamically efficient antennas. This plane was also equipped with a Naxos radar detected which was installed within the fairing over the cockpit.
Ju 88G-1 [2Z+HM], 4. Staffel/NJG6 Aschaffenburg, Germany 1945. While this is a relatively early production Ju 88G it was later refitted with the SN-2d as can be seen from the angle on the nose mounted dipoles and the tail warning array. This aircraft also received a pair of upward firing cannons and a Naxos radar detector.
Junkers Ju 88G-6 [C9+AR], 6. Staffel/NJG5 Dubendorf, Switzerland, 1945. A late war Ju 88G-6 equipped with a FuG 218 G/R Neptun combined search and tail warning radar set, and while it lacks the fairing typically used for installing the Naxos radar detector there was by this point a fuselage mounted model designed for the Ju 88G. Unlike the SN-2R, the FuG 218R tail warning radar sits at the top of the vertical stabilizer rather than below it.
Junkers Ju 88G-6 [4R+EP], 6. Staffel/NJG2 Fritzlar 1945. This aircraft is a good example of the lax camouflage regulations for the Luftwaffe’s night fighters. While aircraft were delivered in white-grey liveries the air and ground crews were free to devise their own patterns.
Ju 88G-6 [C9+HB], 1. Staffel/NJG5, 1945. This aircraft was equipped with an extremely rare FuG 240 Berlin centimeter band search radar. While it presented many major improvements over previous Luftwaffe aerial search radars, only a few were delivered near the end of the war. The radar’s parabolic antenna sits behind the wooden nose cone which created far less drag compared to the ‘antlers’ that were used by the older meter band radars. This aircraft and others that carry late war radar sets are typically misidentified as Ju 88G-7’s. Due to the overlap between that type and very late production G-6’s, identifying them can only be done through their Werk-Nummer.
With its nose mounted Mg 151/20, Hptm. Johannes Strassner’s Ju 88G had perhaps the most peculiar Schräge Musik arrangement of any night fighter. (Boiten P4 30) [Asisbiz]
One of the most obvious differences between the Gustav and other Ju 88 fighters was the removal of the nose mounted weapons to a ventral pod, where muzzle flashes would not disturb the pilot, and the empty area that once served as a bomb bay would offer a much larger capacity for ammunition. Also visible here is the larger vertical stabilizer. [warbirdphotographs.com]
A Flensburg aerial, one of several mounted to a Ju 88G [asisbiz.com]
The capture of a Ju 88G-1 proved to be one the most valuable Allied intelligence coups of the war and, for the Germans, a source of endless trouble. [i.pinimg.com]
Many of the Luftwaffe’s ‘blindworm’ makeshift airfields were later overrun by allied forces, here American personnel inspect Ju 88G-6’s and Bf 110G-4’s hidden in a forest clearing. [SmallScaleArt]
Despite its growing obsolescence and degraded performance in the face of RAF jamming efforts, the SN-2 saw continued development. Its last versions used morningstar aerials encased within wooden nosecones to reduce drag.[Asisbiz]

A restored Ju 88G-1 fuselage in the Berlin Technikmuseum. (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eWzHzdTpJNo/TVqQOv6IFHI/AAAAAAAACVI/gvX4yAaLL_0/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/ju88berlin0.jpg )

Primary Sources

  • Air Intelligence 2 (g) Inspection of Crashed or Captured Enemy Aircraft Report Serial No. 242 dated 16th July 1944 Report No. 8 / 151: Junkers Ju 88 G-1 Night Fighter. 1944.
  • Fw-190 A-5/A-6 Flugzeug-Handbuch (Stand August 1943). Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Berlin. December 8, 1943.
  • Handbuch fur die Flugmotoren BMW 801 MA-BMW 801 ML-BMW 801C und BMW 801D Baureihen 1 und 2. BMW Flugmotorenbau-Gessellschaft m.b.H. Munich. May, 1942.
  • Junkers Flugmotor Jumo 213 A-1 u. C-0. Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke Aktiengesellschaft, Dessau. December, 1943.
  • Ju 88S-1 Flugzeug Handbuch. Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke A.G., Dessau. 1944.
  • Ju 88A-4 Bedienungsvorschrift-FL Bedienung und Wartung des Flugzeuges. Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Berlin. July 19, 1941.
  • Ju 188E-1 (Stand Juni 1943). Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke Aktiengesellschaft, Dessau. June 1, 1943.
  • Ju 88G-1 Schusswaffenlage Bedienungsvorschrift-Wa (Stand Oktober 1943). Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Berlin. November, 1943.
  • Ju 88 G-1,R-2, S-1,T-1 Bedienungsvorschrift-Fl (Stand November 1943). Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Berlin. December 1, 1943.
  • Ju 88 G-2, G-6, S-3, T-3 Bedienungsvorschrift-Fl (Stand September 1944). 1944.
  • Rodert, L. A., & Jackson, R. (1942). A DESCRIPTION OF THE Ju 88 AIRPLANE ANTI-ICING EQUIPMENT (Tech.). Moffett Field, CA: NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS. 1942.

Secondary Sources

  • Aders, Gebhard. German Night Fighter Force, 1917-1945. Stroud: Fonthill, 2016.
  • Bauer, A. O. (2006, December 2). Some Aspects of German Airborne Radar Technology, 1942 to 1945 [Scholarly project]. In Foundation for German Communication and Related Technologies. Retrieved from https://www.cdvandt.org/
  • Bauer, Arthur O. “Stichting Centrum Voor Duitse Verbindings- En Aanverwante Technologieën 1920-1945.” Foundation for German communication and related technologies (History of Technology), December 2, 2006. https://www.cdvandt.org/.
  • Boitens, Theo. Nachtjagd Combat Archive 24 July – 15 October 1944 Part 4. Red Kite . 2021.
  • Boitens, Theo. Nachtjagd Combat Archive 16 October – 31 December Part 5 1944. Red Kite . 2021.
  • Boitens, Theo. Nachtjagd Combat Archive, 1 January – 3 May 1945. Red Kite . 2022.
  • Brown, L. A radar history of World War II: Technical and military imperatives. Bristol: Institute of Physics Pub. 1999
  • Brown, Eric Melrose. Wings of the Luftwaffe. Hikoki, 2010.
  • Cooper, M. The German Air Force, 1933-1945: An Anatomy of Failure. Jane’s Pub, 1981.
  • Green, William. The warplanes of the Third Reich (1st ed.). London: Doubleday. pp. 448–482, 1972.
  • Manfred Griehl, Nachtjäger über Deutschland, 1940-1945: Bf 110, Ju 88, He 219 (Wölfersheim-Berstadt: Podzun-Pallas-Verlag, 1999).
  • Medcalf, William A. Junkers Ju 88 Volume One From Schnellbomber to Multi-Mission War Plane. Manchester, UK: Chevron Publishing Limited , 2013.
  • Medcalf, William A. Junkers Ju 88 Volume Two The Bomber at War Day and Night Operational and service history. Manchester, UK: Chevron Publishing Limited , 2014. 
  • Holpp, Wolfgang. “The Century of Radar.” EADS Deutschland GmbH
  • Holm, M. (1997). The Luftwaffe, 1933-45. Retrieved February, 2021, from https://www.ww2.dk/
  • Overy, Richard James. The Bombing War: Europe 1939-1945. London: Penguin Books, 2014.
  • Price, Alfred. Instruments of Darkness: the History of Electronic Warfare, 1939-1945. Barnsley, S. Yorkshire: Frontline Books, 2017.
  • Sharp, C. Martin, and Bowyer Michael J F. Mosquito. Bristol: Crecy Books, 1997.
  • Smith, J. R., & Creek, E. J. (2014). Focke-Wulf Fw 190, Volume 3: 1944-1945. Manchester: Crecy Publishing.

Credits

  • Article written by Henry H.
  • Edited by Stan L. and Ed J.
  • Ported by Ed J.
  • Illustrations by Ed Jackson

Junkers Ju 87A Stuka

Nazi flag Nazi Germany (1934)
Dive-bomber – 262-400 Built

The Ju 87A [warbirdphotographs.com]
Prior to the Second World War, the Germans were experimenting with how to increase the accuracy of air bombing attacks. One solution was to use dive attacks, which greatly increased the chance of hitting the desired targets. By the mid-30s, a number of German aircraft manufacturing companies were experimenting with planes that could fulfill these dive bomb attacks. The Junkers Ju 87 proved to be the most promising design and would be adopted for service.  The Ju 87 would become one of most iconic aircraft of the Second World War, being feared for its precise strikes, but also for its unique use of sirens for psychological warfare.

History

After the First World War, the Germans began experimenting with ideas on how to make aircraft more precise during ground attack operations. The use of conventional bombers that dispatched their payload from straight and level flight could effectively engage larger targets, such as urban centers, industrial facilities, infrastructure, etc. This method was less effective for destroying smaller targets, like bunkers or bridges. A dive-attack, on the other hand, provided a greater chance of hitting smaller targets and, to some extent, reduced the chance of being shot down by ground based enemy anti-aircraft fire. This concept of dive-attack aircraft would be studied and tested in detail by the Germans during the 1930s. These aircraft would be known as Sturzkampfbomber (dive-bomber), but generally known as Stukas. 

The development of such aircraft was greatly hindered by the prohibitions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. To overcome this, some German companies simply opened smaller subsidiaries in other countries. In the case of the Junkers, a subsidiary company known as Flygindustri was opened in Sweden. There, they developed a K 47 two-seater fighter in 1929. It was tested for the role of dive-bomber and proved successful. But its price was too high for the German Luftwaffe to accept, so it was rejected.

The Junkers K 47 was a two-seater fighter from 1929. While showing to possess good dive-attack characteristics, due to its price, it was not adopted for service. [Wiki]
As a temporary solution, the Germans adopted the He 50 in 1932. The following year, a more comprehensive test of the dive-bombing concept was undertaken at airbase Juterbog-Damm. During these trials, Ju-52 bombers were used. The overall results were disappointing, thus development of a completely new dedicated design was prioritized by the Germans. For this, Luftwaffe officials placed an order with all aircraft manufacturers to present their models for the dive-bomber competition.

In late 1933, the Junkers dive-bomber development project was carried out by engineer Herman Pohlmann. He stressed the importance of an  overall robust aircraft design in order to be able to withstand steep diving maneuvers. Additionally, it should have had fixed landing gear and be built using all-metal construction. 

The next year, a fully completed wooden mock-up with inverted gull wings and twin tail fins was built by Junkers. Officials from the German Aviation Ministry (Reichsluftfahrtministerium RLM) inspected the mock-up during late 1934, but they were not impressed and didn’t place a production order. Despite this, Junkers continued working on the project. Junkers soon began construction of a full scale prototype. Due to many delays with the design, construction of the project dragged into October 1935. The first prototype received the Ju 87 V1 designation, bearing serial number 4921. Somewhat surprisingly, it was powered by a 640 hp Rolls-Royce Kestrel 12 cylinder engine. The first test flight was completed in September 1935 by test pilot Willi Neuenhofen. While the first flight was generally successful, the use of a foreign engine was deemed unsatisfactory and it was requested that a domestic built engine be used instead.  The V1 prototype would be lost in an accident when one of the twin tail fins broke off during a dive test near Dresden. Both the pilot Willi Neuenhofen and the second passenger, engineer Heinrich Kreft, lost their lives. The examination of the wreckage showed that the fin design was too weak and thus had to be replaced with a simple conventional tail fin. 

The V1 prototype could be easily identified by its twin tail fin design. [warbirdphotographs.com]
Ju 87 V2 (serial number 4922 and with tail code  D-UHUH (later changed to D-IDQR) was built with the 610 hp Jumo 210 A engine and had a redesigned tail fin. Another addition was the installation of special slats that could be rotated at 90° forward, perpendicular to the underside of the wing, acting as dive brakes. The V2 also received a specially designed bomb release mechanism, meant to avoid accidentally hitting the lowered radiator and the propeller. When the pilot activated the bomb release during a dive, the specially designed cradle would simply swing forward. In essence, this catapulted the bomb safely away from the plane while still maintaining its trajectory toward the target. There were a number of delays with the redesign of the airframe, which led to V2’s first flight being made during late February 1936. While the test flight was successful, the Luftwaffe officials showed some reluctance with regards to the project, given the fate of the first prototype. Nevertheless, the Ju 87, together with the He 118, Ha 137 and Ar 81, were used in a dive-bomber competition. The initial results favored the Heinkel, but when the He 118 was lost during one of its  test flights together with the engine problems, the RLM proclaimed the Ju 87 as the winner.

The unsuccessful He 118 aircraft. [Wiki]
The Ju 87 V2 prototype. [warbirdphotographs.com]
Winning the competition for the new dive-bomber design, Junkers was instructed to build more prototypes to improve the overall performance of the Ju 87. The V3 (serial number 4923 and designation D-UKYQ) received a number of modifications. It had an enlarged tailfin, added counterweights on the elevators, a modified landing gear, and a redesigned engine cowl to improve forward visibility. The first test flight was made in March of 1936. 

The V4 (serial number 4924 and with D-UBIP) was further modified by once again increasing the size of the tailfin, adding forward firing machine guns, a rear defensive machine gun, and again redesigning the front engine compartment. It was powered by the Jumo 210 Aa engine. It was flight tested for the first time in June 1936. During its test flight, the maximum cruising speed achieved was 250 km/h (155 mph). The RLM would become increasingly concerned about the Ju 87 design, as this cruising speed was the same as that of the older He 50. Despite this, the handling and resilience of the whole airframe were deemed satisfactory. The V4 prototype would later serve as the base for the A-0 pre-production series. The last prototype, V5 (serial number 4925), was built in May 1936. It was built to test the installation of the DB 600 and Jumo 210 engines. 

The V4 prototype, which served as base of the A-0 pre-production series. In addition, it was the first Ju 87 aircraft to see real combat action during the Spanish Civil War. [warbirdphotographs.com]

The Ju 87 ‘Anton’ Introduction

Following the success of the prototype series, the RLM officials issued orders for more Ju 87 aircraft. This would lead to a small production run of between 7 to 10 aircraft of the Ju 87A-0 pre-series aircraft (A for Anton, according to the German phonetic alphabet). While the first A-0 aircraft were to be built starting in November 1935, due to a number of delays, the actual production began in the spring of 1936. Following a series of tests conducted on the A-0 aircraft at the end of 1936, it was determined that these planes, equipped with the Jumo 210 Aa engine, were underpowered. A number of the A-0 aircraft would receive a new 680 hp Jumo 210 D engine as an upgrade. The A-0’s rear fuselage was also lowered to provide the rear gunner with a better firing arc. For the radio equipment, two ‘V’ shaped antennas were placed around the cockpit. 

Further development led to the Ju 87A-1, which was powered by the Jumo 210 D as standard. The A-1 series was able to carry one 250 kg (550 lbs) bomb in its standard two man crew configuration. Alternatively, it could carry one 500 kg (1100 lbs) bomb but, in this case, the rear machine gunner had to be left behind. 

The last version of the series was the Ju 87A-2. It was slightly improved by adding better radio equipment. In addition, the engine performance was improved, along with a new two-stage compressor, and a new propeller.

Technical Characteristics 

The Ju 87A was designed as a single-engined, twin-seat all metal dive bomber. Its fuselage was built by connecting two oval-shaped sections with a simple structure design. The longerons consisted of long shaped strips which spanned across the longitudinal direction of the aircraft. These had a ‘U’ shape which was connected to the duralumin skin by rivets. 

For construction of the Ju 87’s wings, Junkers engineers employed the doppelüger (a double wing construction). This meant that the full-span ailerons were hinged near the trailing edge of the wings. Another feature of the wings was that they had an inverted gull design. This was done intentionally by the Junkers engineers in an attempt to provide the crew members with the best possible all around visibility. The Ju 87 fuselage and wings were covered with a combination of duralumin and magnesium alloy sheeting. While the V1 prototype was equipped with twin tail fins, the A-series was equipped with a more orthodox tail design. The tailplanes had a rectangular shape, while the rudder had a square shape.

Rear view of the Ju 87A [asisbiz.com]
The landing gear was fixed. It consisted of two larger front wheels, with one smaller tailwheel to the rear. The front landing gear and wheels were covered in large protective fairings, sometimes known as “spats.” This arrangement would prove to be problematic, and would later be replaced with a much simpler design.

The Ju 87 had a distinguishable fixed landing gear, protected by a larger housing. This design would be simplified in later version. [asisbiz.com]
The Ju 87 engine was mounted specifically to provide easy access for replacement or maintenance. It was powered by an inline Jumo 210 D water cooled engine, with a variable pitch propeller with a 3.3 m diameter. The fuel capacity was 480 liters, placed in two tanks. The fuel tanks were located in the center part of the curved wings. 

The Ju 87 had a large cockpit where the pilot and the rear gunner were positioned in a back-to-back configuration. The center of the canopy assembly was reinforced by a durable section of cast magnesium, meant to provide better structural integrity. The cockpit was also protected with a fire-resistant asbestos firewall. On the A-series, the pilot was responsible for operating the radio equipment. This task would be allocated to the rear gunner in later versions. The radio equipment consisted of a FuG VII radio receiver and transmitter. 

The Ju 87A-1 was armed with one forward mounted 7.92 mm MG 17 and a rear positioned MG 15, also firing 7.92 mm, fitted on a flexible mount. The offensive armament consisted of either a 250 kg or 500 kg bomb (550 to 1100 lbs). When the larger bomb was used, the rear crew member had to be left behind. A small number of aircraft were equipped with bomb racks for four 50 kg (110 lbs)  mounted under the wings. These were actually used for training purposes, as the bombs were actually made of concrete. 

Diving Operation

The Ju 87 pilot would commence the dive-bombing run once the target was identified. The target would be located through a bombsight which was placed in the cockpit floor. The attack would usually be carried out from an altitude of less than 4,600 meters. The aircraft would then be rolled around by the pilot until it was upside down. The Ju 87 would then engage its target at an angle of attack of 60 to 90°, with a speed of 500 to 600 km/h (310-370 mph). During these dive-bombing runs, there was a chance the pilot could  temporarily lose consciousness due to extensive G-forces. If the pilot was unable to pull up, a ground collision was a strong possibility. To avoid this, the Ju 87 was equipped with automatic dive brakes that would simply level out the plane at a safe altitude. Once the plane reached a level flight, the brakes would then disengage. The Ju 87 was also equipped with warning lights that informed the pilot when it was time to release the bomb. 

Germans conducted extensive research to determine how much G-force a pilot could endure without any medical problems. The testing revealed that the pilot could overcome a 4G force without problems. At 5G , the pilot would experience blurred vision. The maximum G-forces were noted to be 8.5 G but only for three seconds. Any more could lead to extensive injuries or even death. 

Illustration of a Ju 87 dive-attack run. Source Pinterest

Organization

The Ju 87 were used to equip the so-called Sturzkampfgeschwader or simply StG (dive-bomber flight unit). The StG was divided into three Gruppen (groups). Each of these groups was further divided into three Staffel (squadrons).  

In Combat

The Ju 87 saw its first combat action during the Spanish Civil War that lasted from 1936 to 1939. The Germans saw this war as the perfect place to test their new aircraft designs. For this reason, one V4 prototype was secretly disassembled and transported on a passenger ship to Spain in August 1936. It was part of the experimental unit (Versuchskommando) VK/88 (or VJ/88, depending on the source) of the Condor Legion. The overall performance or even the use of this aircraft is generally unknown. During this conflict, it received the designation 29-1. It may have taken part in the Battle of Bilbao  in June of 1937, after which it was shipped back to Germany. 

In early 1938, three more aircraft of the A-1 series were shipped to Spain. These received the 29-2, 29-3, and 29-4 designations. They were given to the 1st Staffel of Sturzkampfgeschwader  162 (dive bomber wing).  While only three aircraft were used by this unit  their original designations were often replaced with higher numbers in an atempt to decive the enemy.  The initial pilots of these aircraft were Ernst Bartels, Hermann Hass, and Gerhard Weyert. The Germans would replace them with new crew members after some time, in the hope of increasing the number of pilots with experience operating the aircraft under combat situations. 

Their initial base of operations was an airfield near Zaragoza, Spain. There were some problems with the forward landing gear covers, which would dig into the ground on the sandy soil of the airfield. To resolve this issue, the crews simply removed them. The use of a larger 500 kg bomb required the removal of the rear gunner, so the smaller 250 kg bomb load was more frequently used.

In March 1938,, the three Ju 87s attempted to attack retreating Spanish Republican units at the Aragon with somewhat limited success. The attacks were less successful, mainly due to the inexperience of the pilots. From July 1938 on, the Ju 87 showed more promising performance during the Spanish Republican failed counterattack at the Ebro River and Mequinenza. By October, all three Ju 87 As were shipped back to Germany. 

A Ju 87A during the Spanish Civil War [Wiki]
The overall performance of the A-series was deemed insufficient for combat operations early on. This, together with the fact that the improved Ju 87B version was becoming available in increasing numbers, leading to a withdrawal of the A version from service. These would be reallocated to training units, and would be used in this role up to 1944. 

The Ju 87A would see only limited combat service, being mostly allocated to training units [warbirdphotographs.com]

In Hungarian Service 

During the war the Germans provided their Hungarian ally with four Ju 87A aircraft. These were used mostly for crew training in later stages of the war. 

Hungarian Ju 87A [Hungarian Air Forces 1920-1945]

Production and Modifications

Production of the Ju 87 ended by the summer of 1938. By that time, some 262 were built by the Junkers factories located in Dessau (192) and Bremen (70). These numbers are according to M. Griehl (Junkers Ju 87 Stuka). Author D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka), on the other hand, notes a number of 400 aircraft being built. 

The main versions were:

  • Ju 87 Prototype series – Five prototypes were built and used mostly for testing. 
  • Ju 87A-0 – A small pre-production series.
  • Ju 87A-1 – Main production version.
  • Ju 87A-2 – Slightly improved A-1 aircraft.

Conclusion

While the Ju 87A fulfilled the role of dive-bomber well, it was shown to be inadequately developed to meet military requirements. For this reason, it was mainly issued for crew training. Its main success was that it provided the German with an excellent base for improvement and development of further aircraft. It also provided the German pilots with valuable experience in such dive-bombing flights.

Ju 87A-1  Specifications

Wingspans 45 ft 3 in / 13.8 m
Length 35 ft 4 in / 10.78 m
Height 12 ft 9  in  /  3.9 m
Wing Area 104 ft² /  31.9 m²
Engine Junkers Jumo 210D 680 hp engine
Empty Weight 5,070 lbs / 2,300 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 7,500 lbs / 3,400 kg
Fuel Capacity 480 liters / 127 US gallons            
Maximum Speed  200 mph / 320 km/h
Cruising speed 170 mph  / 275 km/h
Range 620 miles / 1,000 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 22,970 ft / 7,000 m
Crew One pilot and the Rear Gunner
Armament
  • One forward mounted 7.92 mm MG17 and one 7.92 mm MG15 positioned to the rear
  • One 550 lb (250 kg) bomb for two-seaster
  • Or one  1100 lb (500 kg) bomb in the single-seater configuration. 

Gallery

Illustrations by Carpaticus

Ju 87A with an unusual winter camouflage
Ju 87A-1 from the Dive bomber school 1, operated during winter 1940-1941
Ju 87A used for pilot training in late 1939
Ju 87 A-1 1st Staffel of Sturzkampfgeschwader 162 during the Spanish Civil War

Credits

  • Article by Marko P.
  • Edited by Stan L. & Ed J.
  • Illustrations by David Bocquelet & Carpaticus
  • M. Griehl (2006) Junkers Ju 87 ‘Stuka’, AirDOC.
  • M. Guardia (2014) Junkers ju 87 Stuka, Osprey Publishing 
  • D. Nešić (2008). Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka. Tampoprint S.C.G. Beograd.
  • D. Monday. (2006). The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
  • Z. Bašić (2018) Građanski Rat U španiji 1936-1939, Čigoja Štampa. 
  • G. Sarhidai, H. Punka and V. Kozlik. (1996) Hungarian Air Forces 1920-1945, Hikoki Publisher  

 

 

Blohm und Voss Bv 141

Nazi flag Nazi Germany (1938)
Tactical Reconnaissance Aircraft – 13-18 Built

The Second Bv 141 Prototype (V1) – Colorized by Michael Jucan

During the Second World War, the Germans would design and build a number of unusual aircraft (the Me 163 or the He 111 Zwilling, for example), but none was so unorthodox and strange as the Bv 141. In order to provide good visibility for its reconnaissance role, the crew gondola was completely separated from the aircraft’s fuselage. While small numbers were built, during testing it was shown to have decent flying characteristics for its completely unconventional design.

History 

In 1937, the German Ministry of Aviation (Reichsluftfahrtministerium RLM) issued a request to all German aircraft manufacturers for a new single-engine reconnaissance aircraft with provision for three crew members. Great attention was to be dedicated to having a good all-around visibility. In addition, the aircraft would also have to be able to act as a light attack, and smokescreen laying aircraft. Three aircraft manufacturers responded to this request, Arado, Focke Wulf, and Blohm und Voss. Of these, Blohm & Voss would submit the most distinctive design to say at least. 

While at first glance, the Ha 141 (as it was known at the start of the project, with the ‘Ha’ designation stands for Hamburger Flugzeugbau) appears to be created by someone with no experience whatsoever in aircraft design. This was not actually the case. In reality, the Ha 141 was designed by Dr. Ing. Richard Vogt, who was Chief Designer at Blohm und Voss for the new reconnaissance aircraft. The Ha 141 was to have an unusual design, as the crew was put into a well-glazed gondola, with the fuselage with and engine to the left. During his initial calculations, Dr. Vogt predicted, successfully, that the large crew gondola would act as a counterbalance to the long left-side engine fuselage.  

When Dr. Ing. Richard Vogt presented his plans to the Ministry of Aviation, the officials were quite uninterested in such an unorthodox design, and the story of the Ha 141 would have ended there. Not willing to give up on his idea so easily, the Blohm und Voss company financed the construction of the first prototype with its own funding. The prototype was completed early in 1938  and the name was changed to Bv 141. It made its maiden flight on the 25th of February that year. The flight went well, without any major problems. The only issue was a slight oscillation of the landing gear. When it was presented to the Luftwaffe officials, they were surprised by its performance and ordered a production run of three more prototypes. Interestingly, after some negotiations with Blohm & Voss, their prototype was included in this order and two more aircraft were actually built. The first prototype was marked as V0 and would be later rebuilt into the Bv 141 V2 prototype and tested with the BMW 139F engine.  The Luftwaffe officials only requested that the crew gondola be completely redesigned, internally and externally, to incorporate a larger working space, and to be almost completely glazed, quite similar in design to the Fw 189. Bv 141 V1, actually the second produced aircraft, was used to test the aircraft’s general flight performance. The V3 made its first test flight on 5th October 1938 and was used mainly to test the BMW 132N engine. 

After the first prototype was shown to the Luftwaffe officials order few more to be built for future testing [luftwaffephotos.com]
By 1939, an additional two more aircraft were built. The V4, that was to be sent to the Erprobungstelle Testing Center at Rechlin, had an accident during landing. After the repairs were made, it was finally flight tested at Rechlin. It performed well and it was liked by the pilots that had the chance to fly it. It also underwent a number of different weapon tests. Once all these tests were completed, the V4 prototype was chosen for modification into the first A-series. After that, a small series of the A version, five aircraft in total, were built and used mostly for testing and development of new improvements at Rechlin. Some were stationed at Aufklärungsschule 1 (Training School 1) at Großenhain. While the A-2 would be rebuilt into a training airframe in May 1942, the fate of the remaining aircraft of this series is unknown. Likely, all were scrapped. Depending on the sources the A-series aircraft were powered by a 1,000 hp BMW Bramo 323 radial engine.

A rear view of the Bv 141 V4 prototype. [luftwaffephotos.com]
Following these tests, the Bv 141 received positive reports about its overall performance. There were also discussions about its mass production. Despite this, the whole project was officially canceled on 4th April 1940. The main reason was the Luftwaffe high officials’ distrust of the design. The official reason for rejection of the Bv 141 was noted as ‘underpowered,’ despite its good performance.

Technical Characteristics

The Bv 141 was a uniquely designed single-engine all-metal aircraft. It did not have a standard fuselage, with the engine in the front and the crew behind it.  The crew gondola and the fuselage with the engine were completely separate from each other. Both were located slightly off the center of the wings. The crew gondola was placed on the right, with the engine to the left.

The glazed crew gondola is quite visible here [luftwaffephotos.com]
The first A-series aircraft had a wingspan of 15 m (49 ft 3 in). The Bv 141 was initially powered by a 865 hp BMW 132N 9-cylinder radial engine. It used a constant speed propeller. Behind the engine, the 490 l fuel tank was placed. 

Close up view of the initially used 865 km/h BMW 132N engine. While weaker than the later engine used, its performance was much better and offered a much more pleasant flight. [luftwaffephotos.com]
The tail design was changed during the Bv 141’s development. Initially, a standard tail design was used. This would later be replaced with a forward leaning, asymmetric tailplane, offset to port side. The unusual shape of the new tailplane had the intent of providing the rear gunner with the best available firing arc. It only had one elevator, which had a larger surface area than the previous model. Surprisingly, the aircraft’s good performance was left unchanged after the introduction of the asymmetric tailplane. 

The landing gear was more or less standard for its time. The front landing gear consisted of two large wheels that retracted outwards into the leading edges of the wings. To the rear, there was a small landing wheel that retracted to the back and slightly protruded out of the fuselage.

The landing gear on the Bv 141 were standard type at the time, consisting of two forward landing wheels and one smaller to the rear [luftwaffephotos.com]
The first crew gondola had fewer glazed surfaces than the later used models. In general, it provided the crew with excellent front, rear, and right-side views of the surroundings. The left view was partly obscured because of the engine.

The Bv 141 pilot front gondola interior [luftwaffephotos.com]
The armament consisted of four 7.92 mm machine guns. Two MG 17 forward firing fixed machine guns were placed in the forward nacelle. These were operated by the pilot, who used a Revi aim sight. To the rear, one defensive MG 15 was placed in a small circular cupola atop of the Bv 141. The last MG 15 was positioned to the rear of the aircraft. The Bv 141 could also carry four 50 kg (110 lb) bombs. 

The pilot was positioned on the left side of the englazed nose of the gondola.  Next to him  was the position of the observer, who also acted as bombardier in case the Bv 141 was used for ground attack. The observer also had the job of operating the radio and the machine gun placed in the small circular cupola. Interestingly, because he performed different tasks, his seat was connected to two tracks which enabled him to move freely inside the gondola without getting up. The third crew member operated the rear defensive machine gun. 

The Bv 141 pilot had a large glazed gondola where the crew was positioned. It offered a good all round view (except to the right side where the engine was). [luftwaffephotos.com]
The front view of the first Bv 141 prototype built by Blohm und Voss. [luftwaffephotos.com]

Last Hope for Production

With the cancelation of the Bv 141A series due to allegedly poor engine performance, Dr. Ing. Richard Vogt immediately began working on an improved version. In order to address the concerns made  by the Luftwaffe regarding its engine, the Blohm & Voss designers decided to use the stronger 1,560 hp BMW 801A 14-cylinder two-row engine. Unbeknownst to them, this decision would actually doom the whole project. 

With the new engine, other changes to the overall design had to be made. The wings had to be reinforced and their span increased to 17.46 m (57 ft 3 in). In addition, the leading and trailing edges had to be redesigned. The rear part of the fuselage’s design was also changed. The landing gear was also improved by adding much stronger landing gear wheels. The armament appears to have been reduced to three machine guns (the sources are not clear here), while the bomb load remained the same.

The top view of one of few built Bv 141B series. While intended to improve the Bv 141A series performance, it was never achieved successfully. [luftwaffephotos]
All these changes would lead to the development of the Bv 141B series. The first mock-up was completed in February 1940. The first test flight was made on the 9th January 1941. This time, the Luftwaffe officials showed interest in it, especially after installing the much stronger engine. While Blohm & Voss received permission to build five aircraft of the B-series, the order was increased by five more. Initial calculations showed that it could reach speeds up to 480 km/h (300 mph), at least in theory. Almost immediately, the Bv 141B aircraft proved to be plagued with many problems. The controls were difficult to use and the plane was prone to mechanical faults, especially regarding the landing gear and the hydraulic systems. A huge issue was also created by the strong vibrations that occurred during the test flights. In addition, during firing trials, it was noted that cordite fumes would accumulate in the cockpit from the guns.

The Luftwaffe’s initial enthusiasm for this unusual aircraft quickly faded away. While the tests on the Bv 141 would go on for a few more years, the Fw 189 would be chosen instead. Despite this setback, Dr. Vogt would continue on working on similar and improved designs during the war. Due to urgent requests for more ‘normal’ planes, he was ultimately forced to abandon his work and, besides some proposals, he never got a chance to build another such aircraft during the war. The last mention of the Bv 141 B-10 was in May of 1944, when it was used to tow another unusual design from Blohm and Voss, the experimental Bv 40 armed glider. 

A group of three Bv 141 aircraft during one of many test flights [luftwaffephotos]

Operational Use

The Blohm und Voss Bv 141 [luftwaffephotos.com]
The second BV 141B prototype was allocated to Aufklärungsschule 1 (Reconnaissance Training Unit) in 1941, stationed at Grossenhain. It appears that its performance was deemed satisfactory, as more aircraft were requested in order to form at least one operational test unit for use on the Eastern Front. This was never implemented, mostly due to two reasons. The Blohm und Voss factories were redirected to higher priority projects, and since the  Fw 189 was accepted for service, there was no real need for another reconnaissance aircraft.

Some sources, like the book Aircraft of World War II by C. Chant, mention that it was used in test flights over the UK and the Soviet Union during its short operational service.

Use After the War

The fate of the small number of Bv 141s produced is not known. While the majority were scrapped, some managed to survive until war’s end. One Bv 141 was actually captured by the Soviet Forces near the end of the war. This aircraft would be flight tested by the British pilot Captain Eric Brown. He was the chief test pilot of the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough. He was involved in a British project tasked with taking over German war research installations and interrogating technical personnel after the war. 

The single Bv 141 was relocated to an auxiliary airfield near the town of Meissen. When Captain Brown arrived, Soviet soldiers were already taking anything that was of use from the airfield and destroying everything else. After making a request to the Soviets to see if the aircraft could be flown, the Soviets approved. He was instructed to conduct a short flight around the airfield, and to beware of possible engine malfunctions due to the general poor state of the aircraft.  

Captain Eric Brown described the flight with the Bv 141 as follows. “With the flaps set to start, there was surprisingly little take-off swing, although I had expected rather a lot. The run was short, but I found the undercarriage took a long time to retract, although I suspected the hydraulics were sluggish after a long period of disuse.

The climb was mediocre at a speed of 189 km/h (112 mph) and, remembering my Russian instructions, I did not go above about 915 m (3,000 ft). Cruising speed at that height was 325 km/h (202 mph). It was at this speed that I decided to try out the theory behind the asymmetric layout of the 141, namely that in the event of attack, the aircraft could be stood on its wing tip and held there in straight flight, thus giving the gunner in the cone of the nacelles a tremendous field of fire. 

Frankly, I was sceptical of this claim of edge-on straight flight, but it proved to be, as near as damn it, true. I then stepped up the power, increasing the speed to 360 km/h (224 mph), but just as I rolled the aircraft on to its port side, the engine suddenly backfired heavily and oil pressure began to drop. This terminated any short handling session, as I considered discretion better than providing the Russians with their eagerly awaited spectacle. 

I therefore turned straight into the landing pattern with the engine throttled well back, and lowered the undercarriage immediately at about 610 m (2,000 ft) to give it time to lower in case it got temperamental. I had both flaps and the undercarriage lowered by about 305 m (1,000 ft), across wind of the final approach, turning on to finals at 150 m (490 ft) at 145 km/h (90 mph) and easing the speed off to 130 km/h (80 mph) over the airfield boundary. 

I stopped the engine at the end of the landing run, as it was obviously very sick. …. In retrospect, I am really glad to have had the unique opportunity of even a short flight in the Bv 141B, because it left me with the realisation that it was not as bad an aircraft as its development history seemed to suggest. It had good, effective controls, although it had poor lateral stability, which would have made it unpleasant to fly in turbulence at low level. Maybe this and the fact that its competitor, the Fw 189, had excellent flying characteristics, were the real reasons for its demise before reaching operational production.  “

Allegedly, according to some internet sources, at least one Bv 141 was captured by the British forces. It was then shipped to England for evaluation, but its fate is unknown. 

Production

How many Bv 141s were produced is not clear in the sources. The number ranges from 13 to 18 aircraft being built. This includes at least three prototypes, five of the slightly improved A series and some 10 B series aircraft. The last Bv 141B was delivered in mid-May 1943.

  • Ha 141 Prototype – The first prototype was built as a Blohm & Voss private venture.
  • BV 141A –  Slightly improved version.
  • BV 141B – Powered by a much stronger engine and with many other modifications, especially to the wing design.  

Operators

  • Germany – A few aircraft were used experimentally by the Luftwaffe.
  • Soviet Union – After the War, the Soviets managed to capture one Bv 141B, but its fate is unknown.
  • United Kingdom – Possibly captured one, which was allegedly shipped to England for evaluation.

Conclusion

The BV 141 initially demonstrated generally good flight characteristics, despite its unusual and radical design. The desire to further improve the flight performance, and distrust by the Luftwaffe eventually killed the project. The extensive redesign of the Bv 141B series simply had too many problems that were never completely resolved. The Luftwaffe was also reluctant to invest more time in it, especially as the more orthodox Fw 189 was being introduced into service. In the end, while it was not put into production, the BV 141 was nevertheless an interesting design and certainly deserves a spot in aviation history.

Bv 141B Specifications

Wingspans 57  ft 3  in / 17.56  m
Length 45  ft 9 in / 13.9 m
Height 11 ft 9 in  / 3.6  m
Wing Area 570 ft² / 52.9 m²
Engine One BMW 801 A-0 1.560 HP 14 cylinder radial engine
Empty Weight 10,360  lbs / 4,700 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 13,450 lbs / 6,100 kg
Fuel Capacity 470 l
Climb Rate to 6 km In 8 minute 48 second
Maximum Speed at 5.000 m 272 mph / 438 km/h
Cruising speed 250 mph  / 400km/h
Range 745  miles / 1,200 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 32,810 ft / 10,000 m
Crew Pilot, observer and the rear gunner. 
Armament
  • Two forward fixed 0.3 in (7.92 mm) machine guns and one same caliber machine gun placed to the rear.
  • Up to four 110 lb (50 kg) bombs

Gallery

Illustrations by Ed Jackson

Bv 141 V2 – The 1st Prototype
Bv 141B – The first B Series Prototype
Bv 141B V-11
Bv 141B V-18 with 50kg Bomb Mounted
Bv 141B Overhead View

Credits

  • D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata Nemačka Beograd
  • B.Eric (1977/2010) Wings Of The Luftwaffe Flying The Captured German Aircraft of World War II, Hikoki Publications.
  • C. Chant (2007) Pocket Guide Aircraft Of World War II, Grange Books. 
  • M. Griehl (2012) X-Planes German Luftwaffe Prototypes 1930-1945, Frontline Book.
  • Jean-Denis G.G. Lepage Aircraft Of The Luftwaffe 1935-1945, McFarland and Company.
  • D. Donald (1994) Warplanes Of The Luftwaffe, Barnes and Noble. 

Fizir Prelazni FP-2

Yugoslavia flag Yugoslavia (1933-1947)
Training aircraft – 81 Built

Front view of the FP-2. [vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs]
The FP-2 was designed as an advanced two seater biplane trainer for the Yugoslav Royal Air Force in late 30s. It would be used to equip pilot training schools for some years before WW2. During World War II, it would be used by the Axis powers, which managed to capture a number of them, for limited ground attack operations. The FP-2 would survive the war in smaller numbers and remain in use up to 1947.

History

As the Yugoslav Royal Air Force began to develop and acquire more modern types of aircraft, the need for advanced training aircraft became apparent. Due to the obsolescence of older trainers, the Yugoslav Royal Air Force Command issued orders to begin developing a new series of advanced trainers in 1933. One of the designs submitted was the Fizir FP-1 biplane made by Zmaj. Despite its disappointing overall performance, a new design was desperately needed. At the same time, a design team composed of Rudolf Fizir and Dušan Stankov began working on a new model named FP-2. In a later address to Zmaj management in May of 1940, Dušan Stankov wrote that he was responsible for the design of the FP-2, with little to no input from Rudolf Fizir. While the Royal Air Force command was more in favor of a monoplane design, the FP-2 nevertheless received a green light.

Name

The capital letters in the name FP-2 are an abbreviation for “Fizir Prelazni 2” (Физир Прелазни ФП-2). Depending on the source, it is also sometimes identified as F.P.2. During its operational service in the Yugoslav Royal Air Force, it was also known as F.P.2-K7 after its engine name, or Fizir-Stankov F.P.2 after its designers. This article will use the FP-2 designation, as it is best known today.

What is interesting is that the FP-2 name may suggest that it was an improved version of the earlier FP-1. In reality, these two projects had nothing in common. This name was done mainly for administrative reasons, in order to obtain the funds allocated for FP-1.

Work on the Prototype

Work on the first prototype began in early 1933. At this time, the Yugoslav Royal Air Force officials were negotiating with the French for licenced production of several Gnome-Rhone engine designs, including the K-7, K-9 and K-14. For this reason, it was decided to test the performance of these engines by installing them into several prototype aircraft. This decision included the FP-2 ,which was to be powered by a French Gnome-Rhone K-7, making 420 hp.

The first prototype was officially completed by the end of 1933. It was flight tested by Zmaj test pilot Pavle Bauer. The pilot performed a series of test flights without any problems. As the first flights were successful, the FP-2 was given to the Yugoslav Royal Air Force for further testing in early 1934. For the testing of the FP-2, a commission of seven members was tasked with determining its exact flight performance. The test flight series began on the 19th of February, and after only four days a preliminary report was submitted to the Yugoslav Royal Air Force Command. The report gave mostly positive remarks on the FP-2 performance, with a few changes requested, such as increasing of the fuel load, a better position for the instruments inside the cockpit, modifications of the seats etc. The K-7 engine performance was deemed sufficient, and it was also noted that the testing of the FP-2 with any other engines at the moment was not required. This commission also urged for the FP-2 to be put into production as soon as possible. 

The FP-2 design team expected that a production order was to be given shortly by the Yugoslav Royal Air Force Command. But this was not the case for several reasons. The main problem was the inability of the Rakovica factory to locally produce the K-7 engine by 1936.  Due to high prices, the Yugoslav Royal Air Force could not buy these engines directly from France. Another issue was the adoption of the new Rogožarski ‘PVT’ high-wing training aircraft which used the same engine and offered better performance than the FP-2.

In order to solve this problem, the Zmaj engineers decided to replace the K-7 with the nine-cylinder Valter Pollux II (320 hp) engine. The ensuing flight tests carried out showed that the new engine only worsened the flight performance of the FP-2, due to lower power output. Thus, Zmaj was forced to replace it with the original K-7.

From the end of October to the first half of November 1934, more tests were carried out on the FP-2 with the K-7 by a second commission. This new commission had six members and was tasked with FP-2’s overall performance more thoroughly. These tests also included the testing of a few different types of propellers. The results showed that the metal type propellers gave better performance. In addition, the operational radius was evaluated and the results showed that, at the speed of 100 mph (161 km/h), the FP-2 could stay operational for three hours. Several pilots flight tested the FP-2 and, in general, positive remarks were given about its performance. The changes in the cockpit instrument arrangement was also rated as an improvement. After the tests were completed, this commission gave positive reviews for the FP-2 and suggested that it should be adopted for production as a basic trainer, but not as a fighter trainer due to the lack of performance for this role.

Technical Characteristics

The FP-2 was designed as a single-engine, two-seater basic trainer biplane. The FP-2 was made using wood as its main construction material and then covered with canvas. Its wooden elements were connected using metal pleats and rivets. The fuselage consisted of 16 oval shaped frames that were all connected with four long wooden spars. The wing’s construction was made of wood and then covered with fabric. Rear tail unit was made using a combination of metal and wood, which was then covered in  fabric. The landing gear was a fixed design with two wheels equipped with shock absorbers. There was no rear tail wheel and instead used a small skid which also was provided with a shock absorber. In winter, the front wheels could be replaced with skis.

It was powered by the French K-7 Gnome-Rhone 313 kW (420 hp) engine. The engine itself was placed on a ring shaped housing made of metal and duralumin construction. The maximum speed achieved with this engine was 148 mph (238 km/h). Being designed as a trainer aircraft, its crew consisted of a pilot/instructor and the student.

In Service Before War

For its service in the Yugoslav Royal Air Force, the first prototype was purchased for 577,000 Dinars in 1934. Next year, the contract for the construction of the first batch of 20 aircraft was signed. These were to be produced and given to basic training schools by 1936. All 20 aircraft were completed on time and were given to the First and Second basic training Schools. A few were temporarily given to the Fighter plane school until the more advanced PVT could be built. Once the PVT was adopted for service, the fighter school FP-2s were given to the basic training schools.

The FP-2 was mainly used to replace older training aircraft models that were in service. In its intended role, the FP-2 proved to have satisfactory performance and generally fulfilled the role of a basic trainer successfully. Only one accident was reported in 1938, when, due to a pilot error, control of the plane was lost and it crashed to the ground. The pilot managed to jump out of the plane and safely landed.

The FP-2 was considered a successful basic trainer by the Royal Air Force before the war. [airwar.ru]
During the production run, there were only minor modifications between the different planes. The FP-2 which were built in 1939 were modified with improved control panels with more updated instrumentation. Zmaj also proposed a modified FP-2H powered by the K-9 engine for use by the navy, but it was not adopted. 

By March 1941, around 9 FP-2 aircraft were reportedly awaiting repairs at the Zmaj factory. The fifth batch of 15 FP-2 were to be built by mid-1941. The materials and engine were assembled but, due to the outbreak of the war, none were delivered to the Yugoslav Air Force. Production of the FP-2 was carried out until the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. 

During the April War

At the time of the Axis attack on Yugoslavia in April 1941, all FP-2 were still assigned to the two basic training schools. The First pilot school was transferred near Sarajevo shortly before the outbreak of the war, along with 10 FP-2. The school was operational until the German capture of Sarajevo. The commander of this school, Colonel Adalbert Rogulja, ordered the entire unit to surrender to the Germans without attempting to sabotage its aircraft. 

The Second pilot school, located at the Kapino polje near Nikšić, had 15 FP-2. As the area was not  attacked by Axis forces, this school was operational until the end of war. The remaining FP-2s were stationed in smaller numbers across Yugoslavia. One was destroyed by the Germans in Novi Sad, and a few more in Niš and Pančevo. By the war’s end, both the Germans and Italians managed to capture an unknown number of FP-2s.

In German Service

The Germans managed to capture the Zmaj factory and an unknown number (possibly more than 15) of FP-2 across Yugoslavia. But they were more interested in the factory itself than the FP-2, and for this reason did not use the aircraft that were captured.

In Italian Service

The Italians managed to capture around 13 fully operational FP-2. One was transported to Italy to be flight tested with other captured Yugoslav aircraft (Do-17K and Hurricane) in early June 1941. The remaining 12 FP-2s were stationed at Tirana, but then repositioned in May 1941 to Shkodër to join the 5° Gruppo, which was part of the 39ª Squadriglia. This unit was equipped with older IMAM Ro-37 aircraft. As these were prone to malfunction, the Italians simply reused the FP-2 and pressed them into service. They were mainly used for liaison missions between Tirana and Shkodër. But Partisan activity began to increase in the area and faced with a lack of any other aircraft, the Italians began to arm the FP-2s. The FP-2s were armed with machine guns taken from the Ro-37 aircraft.

The 39ª Squadriglia would be operational until June 1943 in the Shkodër region. It was then returned to Italy and, while it is not clear, there is a chance that at least three FP-2 were still operational with this unit. The final fate of the FP-2s in Italian service is unfortunately not known.

In NDH Service 

After the April War ended, the Germans captured all surviving aircraft production factories, including Zmaj, in Yugoslavia. They restarted production for their own needs. The newly formed NDH (Independent State of Croatia) puppet state asked the Germans for a number of aircraft for their newly formed air force. This included any available Yugoslavian aircraft that survived the war. The Germans supplied the NDH with FP-2s captured in Sarajevo during the war.

In the case of the FP-2s at the Zmaj factory, there were engines and parts for the incomplete fifth production series that could potentially be built. The Germans delayed any decision whether to allow the NDH to take these aircraft. In 1943, an arrangement was reached between the NDH Aviation Force officials and the representatives of Zmaj for the delivery of the 15 FP-2 aircraft. The production process was slow due to the lack of a qualified workforce and constant sabotage by resistance movements. By 1944, only eight FP-2s were completed for the NDH. The remaining seven would remain in Zmaj factory hangars until they were captured by the victorious Communist Partisan forces in October 1944. 

During the war, the NDH Air Force used the FP-2 in its original role of a training aircraft. As the Partisan activity began to rise, some FP-2s were modified by adding bomb racks for six 12 kg (27 lb) bombs. These were then used to fight the Partisans, but as neither the pilot nor the observer were supplied with parachutes, these operations were dangerous.

FP-2 in Croatian service during the Second World War. [histaviation.com]
By 1944, it was obvious that the Axis were on the losing side and, for this reason, many NDH pilots tried to escape to the Partisan side whenever it was possible. One of them was Mitar Оbućanin. While flying an FP-2 (6822) in late August 1944, he escaped to the Partisan held island of Vis. This plane would be used by the Partisans for reconnaissance and liaison. Another attempt was made in October by pilot Drago Markotić and assistant Milan Aćimović. The escape failed and the plane was shot down by German AA ground fire. The pilot was captured and executed but his assistant managed to escape.

This FP-2 (6822) is the plane in which Croatian pilot Mitar Оbućanin defected to the Partisan side. It was then put into service by the Partisans from the isle of Vis. The FP-2 received a large Red Star painted on its side.[vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs]
The NDH had around 23 FP-2s in their Air Force. The aircraft supplied by the Germans received serial numbers 6801 to 6815 and the ones acquired from Zmaj were 6816 to 6823.

After War Service

With the liberation of Zemun, where the Zmaj factory was located, seven incomplete FP-2s were found abandoned. By late April 1945, two FP-2s were completed and put to use by the new Communist Yugoslav Air Force. The last five were completed by mid 1945. In total, around 13 were operated by the Yugoslav Air Force after the war. They would not remain long in service due to a lack of spare parts. They were mostly used as a target tug to haul flying targets for ground AA crew training.

The parts of one FP-2 can now be seen at the Belgrade Aviation Museum near the Nikola Tesla Airport.

Side view of the FP-2. [airwar.ru]
One of the 13 FP-2s operated by the new Communist Yugoslav Air Force after the war. [vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs]
 

Production

The FP-2 was produced in several batches from 1934 to 1940. The first batch consisted of 20 aircraft, followed by a second one with 15 planes in 1937, another 15 planes in 1939, and the final batch of 15 in 1940. An additional 15 planes were to be built in 1941, but due to the outbreak of the war, this was never completed. 

Before the war, the total production number of FP-2s made by Zmaj was 65 aircraft, plus the prototype. During the war and, in small numbers, after the war, an additional 15 were built. In total, 81 FP-2 were built.

Modifications

  • FP-2 – Main production version
  • FP-2H – A proposed naval version powered by the K-9 engine, but not adopted for service.

Operators

  • Kingdom of Yugoslavia – Used some 66 planes for pilot training.
  • SFR Yugoslavia – After the war used seven aircraft of this type. They were all captured at the Zmaj factory. These planes were designed for the NDH but never delivered on time.
  • NDH – A dozen aircraft of this type were delivered to the Air Force of the NDH in 1941 by the Germans. In 1944, another eight aircraft were delivered from the Zmaj factory in Zemun.
  • Italy – Used 13 captured planes from May 1941 to June 1943 against the rebels in Montenegro and Albania.
  • Germany – Captured smaller numbers of FP-2s but did not use them.
FP-2 Specifications
Wingspan 35 ft 5 in / 10.8 m
Length 25 ft  11 in /  7.9 m
Height 9 ft 6 in / 2.9 m
Wing Area 310 sq ft / 28.8 m²
Engine One Gnome-Rhone 7K, 7-cylinder radial, 313kW (420 hp) engine
Empty Weight 1.630  lbs / 740 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 3.170 lbs / 1,450 kg
Maximum Speed 148 mph / 238 km/h 
Cruise speed:  124 mph / 200 km/h
Effective range 360 mi / 580 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 22,300 ft / 6,800 m 
Crew Two (Instructor and student)
Armament None

Gallery

Illustrations by Carpaticus

FP-2 in Croatian service during the Second World War
FP-2 in Italian Service – 39ª Squadriglia

Credits

  • Article by Marko P.
  • Edited by Stan L. and Ed J.
  • Illustrations by Carpaticus
  • Č. Janić i O. petrović (2011) Kratka Istorija Vazduhoplovstva U Srbiji, AEROKOMUNIKACIJE Beograd.
  • D.Babac (2008), Elitni Vidovi Jugoslovenske Vojske U Aprilskom Ratu, Publish.
  • Vojislav V. Mikić (2000) Zrakoplovstvo Nezavisne Države Hrvatske 1941-1945, Vojno  istorijski institut Vojske Jugoslavije
  • Vojislav V. Mikić (1998) Italijanska Avijacija u Jugoslaviji 1941-1943, Vojno  istorijski institut Vojske Jugoslavije
  • B. Nadoveza and N. Đokić (2014), Odbrambena Privreda Kraljevine Jugoslavije, Metafizika Beograd.
  • T. Lisko and D. Čanak (1998), The Croatian Air Force In The WWII, Nacionalna i sveučilišna knjižnica, Zagreb
  • F. Vrtulek (2004) Ludbrežanin Inženjer Rudolf Fizir, Podravski Zbornik.  
  • http://www.vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs/index.php/istorija/229-fizir-fp-2

Reggiane Re.2002 Ariete

italian flag Italy (1940)
Fighter Bomber – 48 Built

An Re.2002 belonging to the 239 Squadriglia stationed at Tarquinia airfield in Italy during June 1943. [vvsregiaavions.com]
Following the failure of the Re.2000, the engineers from Reggiane tried to design a new aircraft to fill the role of ground attack aircraft. This would lead to the development of the improved Re.2002 aircraft. While the Regia Aeronautica (Italian Air Force) ordered 500 of this version, due to problems with production, only about half of that number were ever built.

History

In the late 1930s, Italian aircraft manufacturer Reggiane was attempting to gain attention from the Reggia Aeronautica with its Re.2000. While this aircraft initially showed good flying performance, it was not adopted for service. For this reason, Reggiane’s chief engineer, Roberto Longhi, set out to develop a new aircraft that would fulfill the role of a fighter-bomber aircraft, which the Italian Air Force was in desperate need of. Roberto Longhi made sure to address the shortcomings of the Re.2000’s fuel tanks when designing the new aircraft. These were prone to leaks, so he replaced them with conventional fuel tanks. For this new aircraft, that would later be known as the Re.2002 Ariete (Ram), a large 1,175 hp Piaggio P.XIX R.C.45 Turbine (Whirlwind) – D 14 cylinder air-cooled radial engine was chosen. The Piaggio P.XIX R. engine was still in the development phase at that time and not yet ready for service. The choice of using an engine still in the development phase would have a great negative impact on the later production of the aircraft. A radial engine was preferred over an inline liquid-cooled engine due to the fact that it was durable and less vulnerable to ground anti-aircraft fire. The new aircraft had a number of similarities to Reggiane’s earlier designs, possessing the overall shape of the Re.2000, and the Re.2001’s internal construction.

First Test Flight

The maiden flight of the Re.2002 (M.M. or MM 454) prototype took place in October 1940. It was flown by test pilot Mario de Bernardi. After the first flight, the pilot noted that the Re.2002 had good general flying performance, but there were problems with the engine overheating. After several more test flights, constant engine overheating problems forced further flights to be halted, and the aircraft was returned to Reggiane for necessary engine modifications. After a number of upgrades to the engine were completed in March 1941, the test flights continued. During these tests, the Re.2002 managed to achieve a top speed of 417 km/h (260 mph).

The first prototype, ready to take to the sky. The picture was taken at the Guidonia airfield in April 1941. [vvsregiaavions.com]
Front view of the prototype. While it was chosen for production by the Italian Air Force, the production aircraft received some modifications. These included the use of a Re.2001 canopy and the addition of a fixed rear landing wheel. [vvsregiaavions.com]

Technical Characteristics

The Re.2000 was designed as a low wing, all-metal construction single-seat ground attack plane. The fuselage consisted of a metal frame covered with aluminum sheets held in place by using flush-riveting. The elliptical wings were built using a metal frame covered with a stressed skin duralumin structure. One fuel tank was located in each wing, with an additional third one placed just behind the pilot. If needed, additional auxiliary fuel tanks could be added under the fuselage or the wings.

Side view of the Re.2002 prototype. The most obvious change compared to later production planes was the removal of the rear glazed part of the canopy. [vvsregiaavions.com]
The landing gear system was unusual, but standard for Reggiane aircraft. When it retracted backward, the wheel rotated 90° before it retracted into the wheel bay. For better landing, the landing gear was provided with hydraulic shock absorbers and pneumatic brakes. The smaller rear wheel was initially retractable, but was changed to a fixed type at the start of production. The Re.2002 was powered by a 1,175 hp Piaggio P.XIX R.C.45 Turbine-D 14 cylinder air-cooled radial engine derived from the french Gnome-Rhône 14K Mistral Major. This engine was equipped with a three-blade variable pitch Piaggio P. 1001 propeller made by Piaggio.

The initial cockpit canopy was unchanged from the Re.2000 and opened to the rear. The production version had a canopy taken from the Re.2001. This canopy opened to the side.

Rear view of the Re.2002. [vvsregiaavions.com]
The Re.2002 possessed the same offensive capabilities as its Re.2001 cousin. It consisted of two Breda-SAFAT 12.7 mm heavy machine guns mounted in the engine cowling. The ammunition load for the left machine gun was 390 rounds, with 450 rounds for the right. Two additional 7.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns were placed in each wing. The ammunition load for the right machine gun was 350 rounds and 290 rounds for the left.

Being designed to act as a ground attack plane, the Re.2002 was equipped with one bomb rack placed under the fuselage with an additional rack placed under each wing. The central bomb rack could carry up to 650 kg (1,430 lb). The smaller wing racks could each carry up to 160 kg (350 lb) of payload.

The Reggiane family tree line. While the Re.2002 shared many visual similarities with the Re.2000, its construction was more similar to that of the Re.2001. [Reggiane Fighters in Action]

Production for the Italian Air Force

The first production aircraft, which was built in October 1941.[vvsregiaavions.com]
Following the completion of test flights, the Italian Air Ministry (Ministerio dell’Aeronautica) gave an order for 200 Re.2002s to be produced. The first production aircraft were completed in October 1941. Due to engine production difficulties, the distribution of new aircraft to front line units was only possible in late 1942. While the initial order of 200 was increased to 300, only between 48 to 147 (depending on the source) were built for the Italian Air Force by September 1943. Initially a production order of 200 was placed in March 1942, which would be increased to 300 later in 1943. The sources unfortunately disagree about the number of produced aircraft. For example, sources like J. F. Bridlay (Caproni Reggiane Re 2001 Falco II, Re 2002 Ariete and Re 2005 Sagittario) listed a production number of 147 aircraft, which is the highest number listed in the sources. Other like Duško Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Italija) and David Monday, (The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II) gives us a number of 50 aircraft. While George Punka (Reggiane Fighters In Action) gives us a number of 48 aircraft. All previous numbers do not include later aircraft, especially built for the Germans which is often listed as around 60 or so. The lower production numbers were due to many reasons, lack of production capabilities, scarce resources, supply problems with engines, among others. The disagreement among sources may be the consequence of confusing the number of produced versus actually delivered aircraft.

 

Further Development

With only a small number of aircraft ever built, there were only a few known modifications and proposals for the Re.2002. One was an experimental version created by combining the Re.2002’s fuselage with the Re.2005’s wings. This aircraft was known as Re.2002 bis, but was never truly completed. The second version was to be used on two Italian aircraft carriers, the Aquila and Sparviero. While catapult launch tests were conducted on at least one Re.2002, due to the cancellation of the Italian aircraft carriers, construction of this version was never pursued. One Re.2002 was tested in the Re.2003 two-seater reconnaissance aircraft configuration. As the Re.2003 was not adopted for service, only one prototype was built. The last proposal included a torpedo carrier version, but this was never implemented. The majority of these do not appear to have received any special designation.

In Italian Service

After the introduction of the Re.2002 into service, some additional changes were made in comparison to the prototype. These include: improvements to the engine cowling, introducing a fixed rear tail wheel, and changing the canopy with a new one based on the Re.2001. The improved engine cowling actually caused some issues during dive-bombing runs, as the engine would sometimes simply stall. From the 17th aircraft onward, a new lower engine mount was tested with a different cowling type.

Delivery of the first operational Re.2002 for military  use was only possible in November 1942. The Re.2002s were allocated to the 102º Gruppo, with its 209ª and 239ª Squadriglia, stationed at Lonate Pozzolo. This unit had experience operating ground attack aircraft, previously operating German-supplied Ju-87 dive bombers. The next month, the 101º Gruppo, with its 208ª and 238ª Squadriglia, also began to receive their first Re.2002s to replace their outdated FIAT C.R. 42 biplanes.

During the Allied invasion of Sicily in July of 1943, the Italian Air Force stationed there had only 165 operational aircraft. Two groups, equipped with some 32 Re.2002 in total, were also present as part of the 5º Stormo. The first combat action was on the day of the invasion on the 10th of July, when Re.2002s managed to sink an Allied transport vessel called Talamba. Four aircraft and the commander of the 5º Stormo Colonel Guido Nobili were lost during this action. The next day, a group of 11 Re.2002s began a new attack on the Allied ships stationed near Augusta-Syracuse. The British battleship HMS Nelson was damaged with a 250 kg (551 lbs) bomb, with the mission resulting in the loss of two Re.2002s. In retaliation, the Allies bombed the Re.2002 airfields a few hours later. Due to losses, the surviving Re.2002s were repositioned to Manduria. After receiving reinforcements, the Re.2002s attempted another attack on July 19th, but lost six aircraft in the process. On 20th and 26th July, transport ships Pelly and Fishpool were sunk.

An Re.2002 during its short operational life with the Italian forces in Sicily. [vvsregiaavions.com]
In early September 1943, Allied forces landed in Southern Italy. The Italian command, in despair, dispatched a small group of aircraft supported by 15 Re.2002s in an attempt to drive them back. On 8th September, 1943, due to immense Allied pressure and rising military losses, the Italians surrendered. By this time, the 101º and 102º groups had only 24 Re.2002s, but only half were combat ready. During the two months of fighting, some 32 aircraft were lost. While 19 were lost in direct combat, the remaining were destroyed in Allied bombing actions or accidents.

In early September 1943, the 50º Stormo, with its 158º and 159º Groups, was undergoing the process of conversion to the Re.2002. But, due to Italian capitulation, only the 159º Group received Re.2002s which were not used operationally.

In German Hands

The Germans operated around 60 Re.2002 aircraft. These were mainly used against the French resistance movement. [vvsregiaavions.com]
Following the Italian capitulation, Germany launched Operation Achse (Axis) with the aim of capturing a large portion of the territory of their former ally. This included a number of production facilities, such as the Reggiane factories. The Germans seized some 14 fully completed aircraft, and around 10 more which were under construction. As there was sufficient material available, the production of the Re.2002 continued for some time under German supervision. Due to the same persistent engine delivery problems, Reggiane officials proposed mounting the 1,600 hp BMW 801 engine in the Re.2002, along with other modifications such as an updated wing design. One engine mount was tested in Germany, which led to a production order of some 500 new aircraft in late 1943. However, as the Reggiane factories were destroyed in early 1944 by an Allied bombing raid, the delivery of this modified version was impossible. In the meantime, some 60 aircraft were produced by Caproni under German supervision. Reggiane was actually owned by Caproni, thus all the necessary tooling and equipment for the continued production of this aircraft was available. Not all 60 were accepted for service by the Germans. Due to the Allied advance in April 1945, around 25 were seized by the Germans, while the remaining airframes were destroyed. Additionally, two aircraft were built at Biella. Unfortunately, the exact use of these aircraft by the Germans is not well documented. For example, it is unknown if they were ever used against the Allies in Italy. It is known that these were used by Geschwader Bongart against French resistance around Limoges, Vercors, and Aisne in 1943 and 1944.

Former Italian Re.2002 that was seized or produced for the Germans received the standard German markings, including a Balkenkreuz and a Swastika. [vvsregiaavions.com]

On the Allied Side

Smaller groups of around 40 Re.2002s, that were previously used by 5º Stormo, were operated by the new Aeronautica Cobelligerante Italiana (Italian Co-belligerent Air Force) in cooperation with  the Allies. In October 1943, these were used to form the Gruppo Tuffatori, a dive-bombing group. In 1943, they saw action in supporting the Italian Resistance Movement in Northern Italy, an area which was controlled by the Germans. In 1944, they were also employed in attack operations across the Adriatic Sea, towards the Yugoslavian coastline. One of the last combat missions of the Re.2002 was a bombing run against Axis targets in Dubrovnik on 29th March, 1944. While the Co-belligerent Army lost 9 aircraft in combat, further combat missions had to be aborted due to a general lack of spare parts, their operational life lasted less than 12 months. The surviving aircraft were reallocated to the Fighter Training School at Lecce-Leverano in June 1944. There, they were used for pilot training for a few months, before they had to be discarded, once again due to a lack of parts and poor mechanical condition. 

The Esercito Cobelligerante Italiano had close to 40 Re.2002 aircraft in its inventory. These would be used sometimes to support Italian Partisans in Northern Italy and on the Yugoslavian coastline. [vvsregiaavions.com]

Production Versions

  • Re.2002 (MM 454) – Prototype aircraft
  • Re. 2002 – Production version

Prototypes and Proposed Versions

  • Re. 2002 bis – An experimental version created by combining the Re.2002’s fuselage with the Re.2005’s wings. One built, but never used operationally.
  • Re. 2002 Aircraft Carrier Version possibly one modified for this role
  • Re. 2002 – Proposed torpedo carrier version
  • Re. 2002 – Powered by a 1,600 hp BMW 801 engine. While the engine mount was tested and a production order was given, no aircraft were ever fully completed
  • Re.2002 – One aircraft modified and tested as Re.2003

Operators

  • Kingdom of Italy – 147 aircrafts were delivered to Regia Aeronautica
  • Germany – After the Italian surrender to the Allies, Germany seized around 60 aircraft.
  • Esercito Cobelligerante Italiano – Operated some 40 Re.2002 aircraft

Surviving Aircraft

Today, there are only two surviving Re.2002 aircraft. One was located at the Italian Air Force Museum. The second incomplete Re.2002 can be seen at the French Musée de la Résistance et de la Déportation of Limoges.

The only fully surviving Re.2002, located at the Italian Air Force Museum. [Wiki]
The partly complete Re.2002 located at the French Musée de la Résistance et de la Déportation of Limoges. [Musée de la Résistance]

Conclusion

While the Re.2002 proved to be able to fulfill the role of fighter-bomber that the Italians were lacking. Due to a number of factors, its production was severely hindered. While work on the Re.2002 began in 1940, the production could not start before late 1942. Due to engine delivery problems, only a small number of aircraft were ever delivered to the Italian Force. Its first action against the Allies in Sicily ironically proved to be their last under the Fascist regime. While some would be used up to the war’s end, due to a lack of spare parts, most would be used as training aircraft until finally being discarded.

Re.2002 Specifications

Wingspans 36 ft 1 in / 11 m
Length 26 ft 9 in / 8.16 m
Height 10 ft 4 in / 3.15 m
Wing Area 220 ft² / 20.4 m²
Engine One 1,175 hp Piaggio P.XIX R.C.45 Turbine (Whirlwind)-D 14 cylinder air cooled radial engine
Empty Weight 5,270 lbs / 2,390 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 7,140 lbs / 3,240 kg
Climb Rate to 6 km In 8 minute 48 seconds
Maximum Speed 267 mph / 430 km/h
Cruising speed 250 mph / 400km/h
Range 683 miles / 1,100 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 36,090 ft / 11,000 m
Crew 1 pilot
Armament
  • Two 0.5 in (12.7 mm) heavy machine guns and two 0.31 in (7.7 mm) machine guns
  • One 1430 lb (650 kg) and two 350 lb (160 kg) bombs

Gallery

Illustrations by Carpaticus

Re.2002 in the Italian Royal Air Force (Regia Aeronautica Italiana)
Re.2002 from Esercito Cobelligerante Italiano (Italian Co-belligerent Army)
Re.2002 in German Luftwaffe Service

Credits

  • Written by Marko P.
  • Edited by Stan Lucian & Ed Jackson
  • Illustrations by Carpaticus
  • Duško N. (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Italija. Beograd.
  • M. Di Terlizzi (2002) Reggiane RE 2000 Falco, Heja, J.20, Instituto Bibliografico Napoleone.
  • G. Cattaneo (1966) The Reggiane Re.2000, Profile Publication Ltd.
  • J. W. Thompson (1963) Italian Civil And Military Aircraft 1930-1945, Aero Publisher
  • G. Punka (2001) Reggiane Fighters In Action. Signal Publication.
  • Re.2002 Photographic Reference Manual
  • C. Shores (1979) Regia Aeronautica Vol. I, Signal publication.
  • J. F. Bridlay (1972) Caproni Reggiane Re 2001 Falco II, Re 2002 Ariete and Re 2005 Sagittario, Profile Publications
  • David. M, (2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
  • Images: Rod’s Warbirds Reggiane Re-2002 Ariete II –  http://www.vvsregiaavions.com/RegiaHTML/rre20021.htm

 

Breda Ba.65

italian flag Italy (1935)
Ground Attack Aircraft – 218 Built


 

The Ba.65 was ultimately an unsuccessful design, and was built in relatively small numbers. [warbirdphotographs.com]
The Breda Ba.65 was an Italian ground attack aircraft that first saw action during the Spanish Civil War. It was built in both single and two-seat configurations, and was exported to various nations prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, but only saw large-scale combat operations with the Regia Aeronautica in Northern Africa.

History

During the thirties, the Italian aircraft manufacturer Breda began working on developing several ground attack plane designs based on the theoretical principles set by World War One veteran fighter ace Colonel Amadeo Mecozzi. According to Colonel Mecozzi, the best use of aerial forces was the quick neutralization of military targets deep into enemy territory by using fast and very agile aircraft. Per his request, the major Italian aircraft manufacturers were to present their aircraft proposals for future use by the Italian Air Force (Regia Aeronautica).

The first aircraft design that tested Mecozzi’s idea was the Caproni A.P. 1 monoplane. It was utilized in small numbers during the Spanish Civil War, but the overall performance was underwhelming and, besides the small numbers built, it was not adopted for larger scale service. In the early thirties, Breda built a prototype of a ground attack plane named Ba.64, an all-metal low-wing aircraft powered by a single 700 hp Bristol Pegasus radial engine, license-built by Alfa Romeo. It was armed with four 7.7 mm (0.311 in) Breda-SAFAT guns in the wings, with one additional mounted in the rear gunner position, and a bomb load of around 400 kg (880 lb.) The Ba.64 was built in small numbers and by 1939, only 27 aircraft were reported in the Italian Air Force, which were used for second line duties only.

Side view of the Ba.65 K-14 two seat version. [warbirdphotographs.com]
A new improved design was built under the designation Ba.65 as a multi role aircraft, but it would end up being used mostly for ground attack. The prototype made its first flights in September 1935, piloted by Ambrogio Colombo. After a series of test flights, the prototype was handed over to the Air Force for further trials on the 27th October. The Ba.65 prototype made a flight from Milan to Rome, where it was to be handed over to the military, with an average speed of 412 km/h (256 mph). During its evaluation, a doctrinal problem emerged. Neither the Air Force Command staff, nor Mecozzi precisely specified what kind of performance specifications a ground attack aircraft should achieve. In order to solve this dilemma, the Air Force requested that the Ba.65 be flight tested with the results to be compared with those of the Fiat CR.32 biplane. The performance tests were held at the Guidonia Experimental Center near Rome. While the CR.32 biplane proved to have better handling, the Ba.65 was faster.

The production of the first group of 81 aircraft was started in 1936, and as the Ba.65 was produced in sufficient quantities, these were slowly adopted for service. Immediately after introduction to the Air Force, the Ba.65 proved to be a problematic design. From the beginning, pilots had significant problems learning how to control it, which resulted in several accidents, many fatal. Due to these accidents, the Ba.65 gained a bad reputation with Italians pilots. The main causes of the Ba.65’s difficulties mostly lie with poor pilot training, insufficient preparation, poor organization, and a lack of adherence to regulations.

Technical Characteristics

The Ba.65 was designed as a low-wing, single-engine, mixed-construction multi-role aircraft, including light bomber, attack aircraft, reconnaissance, and interceptor. The Ba.65’s fuselage was constructed of welded chrome-molybdenum steel tubes. The front fuselage and cockpit area (and the rear gunner area in the two-seat versions) were covered with sheet metal panels. This was done to make engine, or any other forward fuselage repairs much easier. The remaining fuselage was covered with fabric.

The wings were built using chrome-molybdenum steel tube spars, which were additionally connected with diagonal steel tubes. The leading edge of the wings consisted of duralumin sheets while the rear part was fabric covered. The ailerons and tail were also built using metal tubes covered in fabric. The tail consisted of two parts, the cantilever fin and the strut-braced tailplane.

Breda Ba.65 K-14 (MM 75085) two seat version equipped with the rear turret, which was armed with a Breda-SAFAT 7.7 mm ( 0.311 in) machine-gun. The Ba.65 was a relatively heavy aircraft, so the rear machine gun position was removed in the hope of reducing weight. [warbirdphotographs.com]
The Ba.65 had a then-modern retractable landing gear. It consisted of two larger front wheels, both of which retracted to the rear under-wing fairings. The landing gear system could be operated hydraulically or mechanically if needed. The smaller rear tail wheel was fixed. The landing gear was usually protected from damage by metal covers, but in some cases these were removed, probably due to damage, or to make repairs easier.

The cockpit was well placed, with ample forward visibility. It was protected by a large fully glazed canopy which could be opened to the rear. The canopy did see a number of design changes during the Ba.65’s service life. Beside the standard control panel, the Ba.65 was also equipped with oxygen tanks, a voicepipe for communication between the pilot and the rear gunner (two-seat version only,) an electric generator, and fire extinguishers. There was space inside the cockpit for additional equipment, such as a radio or cameras, but these were never installed in any Ba.65. In the two-seat versions, the rear position housed the gunner/observer (depending on the mission.) The rear position would also undergo many design changes during the Ba.65’s operational service life, from being protected by a fully enclosed turret, to being open and later even removed in the hopes of reducing weight.

Isotta Franschini K 14
Fiat A 80

The engine used on the prototype and the first series of 81 planes was the 870 hp Isotta Fraschini K-14 fourteen-cylinder engine. There are differences in the engine strength depending on the source, with some indicating, 700 hp, 870 hp, or even 900 hp (D.. Monday, G. Garello., J. W. Thompson., respectively) Later, it was replaced with the stronger 1,000 hp (746 kW) Fiat A.80 RC.41 eighteen-cylinder engine. The engine was placed in a steel housing that was connected to the fuselage by four bolts.

The aircraft’s fuel was held into two tanks located behind the pilot, with a total capacity of 650 l. An additional fuel tank could be added in the bomb bay with a capacity of 370 l. With the standard fuel tanks, the Ba.65 had a flight endurance of 3 hours and 25 minutes. With the additional fuel tank, flight time increased to 5 hours. The main fuel tank was equipped with a “Semape” self-sealing system.

The two left wing machine guns. [warbirdphotographs.com]
The main armament consisted of two 12.7 mm (0.5 in) Breda-SAFAT heavy machine guns and two 7.7 mm (0.311 in) Breda-SAFAT machine guns. The machine guns were placed in the central parts of the wings. For the two-seat version, one additional 7.7 mm (0.311 in ) machine gun was placed in a ring mounted turret. During development, there were several different rear turret designs, either partially or fully enclosed. There is some disagreement in the sources about the designation of these turrets. Gabrielo G. named the fully enclosed version as type M and the partially enclosed one as the type L. Author David M. mentions the enclosed turret as type L. The standard ammunition load was 350 rounds for the heavier machine guns and 500 for the smaller caliber machine guns (without the rear machine gun). According to some sources, the type L turret was armed with one 12.7 mm (0.5 in ) heavy machine gun.

The interior bomb bay could be equipped with either four 50 kg (110 lb) or two 100 kg (220 lb ) bombs placed vertically. Another optional loadout consisted of a container with 168 smaller 2 kg (4 lb). Additionally, 200 kg (440 lb) of bombs could be carried on the bomb racks located under the wings, but these were not always used. The theoretical maximum bomb load was 2,200 lb (1,000 kg) but, due to the plane’s excessive weight and the poor engine performance, this loadout was never used operationally nor in combat. The bombsight was located in the cockpit.

Further Development

Due to its poor performance, the Italian Air Force formed a commission with the aim of determining if the Ba.65 could be modified or improved to justify its continued production. The commission was made up of five Air Force officers and was led by Engineer Parano. After a short analysis, the commission noted that the Ba.65’s two-seat configuration was too heavy. This, combined with an underpowered engine, were the main reasons for the Ba.65’s poor flight performance. The commission made several modification suggestions which would be implemented in the second Ba.65 production series.

Engine Cowling for the K14
Engine Cowling for the A80

The previous K-14 engine was replaced with a stronger 1,000 hp eighteen cylinder Fiat A.80 engine. This resulted in an increase in the overall performance during climbing, take-off and cruising at top speed. The maximum speed with the stronger engine was 430 km/h (270 mph) with an effective range of some 550 km (340 mi ) and a service ceiling of up to 6,300 m ( 20,700 ft). The two engines had different cowling designs. The K-14 had 28 (14 pairs) smaller cylinder covers, and the A.80 had 18 longer cylinder covers. The new improved version is often designated simply as Ba.65 A.80 but, in some sources, it is also called “Ba.65 bis”.

The Ba.65 was also tested with the Piaggio P.XI engine, which was some 100 kg (220 lb) lighter than the K-14. The overall flight performance was improved, but due to the high cost, the proposal that all aircraft should be equipped with this engine was rejected. Additionally, a Pratt and Whitney R-1830 engine was allegedly tested on the Ba.65 (intended for Chinese export), but it is unknown if it was actually installed, or just planned.

Other improvements were made to the A-80 version. The rear machine gun mount was replaced with a new ring mounted machine gun turret. The landing gear was redesigned and improved. Great attention was given to reducing the weight as much as possible. To solve the problem with the overloaded wings, two Handley-Page slats were installed at the wings’ leading edges, which also improved the flight performance. On the tail, additional weighted ballasts were added to help with stability during flight.

Despite these modifications, the newly produced Ba.65 was criticized by pilots who were unhappy with its flying performance. There were also a number of accidents which forced the Air Force to issue special orders in October 1938, according to which it was forbidden to fly unnecessary aerobatics unless it was approved or for training purposes. By April 1939, the Italian Air Force Command, in the hope of finally solving the problems with weight and flight performance, ordered the removal of the rear machine gun position and equipment. In July, additional orders extended this modification to the older Ba.65 K14 versions. Despite these modifications, the Ba.65 never achieved the potential the Air Force High Command hoped for, and the Italians entered the Second World War without a dedicated ground attack aircraft.

Training Version

Small numbers of Ba.65, together with Ba.64 and A.P.1 planes, were used for a short time as trainers at the Foggia Flying School. As the concept of ground assault was abandoned by the Regia Aeronautica in November 1939, all remaining Breda aircraft at this school were scrapped.

In Italian Operational Service

In Italian military service, the Ba.65 saw action in small numbers during the Spanish Civil War, while the only other major engagement was in North Africa. Allegedly, according to author J.W. Thompson, it was also used during the Axis forces attack on the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in April 1941, but this is unlikely as there is no proof to corroborate this.

Pre-War Use

Front view of the Ba.65 (MM 325) prototype aircraft. [warbirdphotographs.com]
In June 1936, the Ba.65 (MM.325) prototype was allocated to the 160a Squadriglia (Squadron) stationed near Ciampino for operational use. After the flight testing at Furbara, the first production aircraft was allocated to the 167a Squadriglia. At this time, the Italian Air Force began reforming the “Assalto” (attack) units into the 5a Brigata Aerea, which consisted of 5° and 50° Stormo (regiment) commanded by Colonel Mecozzi himself. At the time of formation, the 5a Brigata Aerea was equipped with older Caproni A.P.1 and Ba.64’s.

Due to slow production of the Ba.65, by 1937 only 20 were available for operational service. In 1938, the newer and improved Ba.65 A.80 version was ready for service. Immediately after sufficient numbers of the A.80 were produced, the 5° and 50° Stormo were reequipped with them and the older K-14 versions were given to 2° Fighter Stormo.

The improved A.80 version, stationed at Lonate Pozzolo. [warbirdphotographs.com]
In May 1938, during Adolf Hitler’s visit to Italy, a live strafing exercise was organized at the Furbara airfield with 18 Ba.65 and 7 A.P.1 aircraft. During this exercise, a single Ba.65, piloted by Lieutenant Colonel Savarino, was flight tested with a payload over 1,000 kg (2,500 lbs) of equipment and bombs) of 1,160 kg (2,560 lb). After his first test flight, the pilot noted that it was nearly impossible to fly the fully loaded Ba.65. In a second test, the load was reduced to 900 kg (1,990 lb). This time, the flight was more successful, but the aircraft was still reported as uneasy and unpleasant to fly.

During 1938, there were many flight accidents in which eight pilots lost their lives. This forced the Air Force to ground all Ba.65 from October 1938 to January 1939. Because of this decision, training of all pilots in the ground attack role was reduced, which affected combat readiness. At this time, the order for a further 33 aircraft was put on hold until a final decision was made about the fate of these units and the type of aircraft with which they should be equipped. The introduction of the new Breda Ba.88 (which turned out to be an even more disappointing design) persuaded the Italian Air Force Command to replace the Ba.65 with this aircraft. The 5° Stormo was reequipped with the new Ba.88, while 50° Stormo still operated Ba.65 aircraft in a limited role by early 1939.

A Ba.65 flying above Rome during a training flight. These were part of 5° Stormo. [warbirdsphotographs.com]

In Spain

During the Spanish Civil War, Italy and Germany actively supported Francisco Franco’s fascist forces by sending significant military support which consisted of military equipment like small arms, tanks, aircraft, troops, engineers and trainers. This war would be used as a testing ground for many new military aviation designs, including the Ba.65.

In April 1937, the first group of 13 single seat Ba.65 K-14 arrived in Seville. They were attached to the 65a Squadriglia (Sq) Aviazione Legionaria under the command of Captain Desiderio. This unit’s entry into operational service would be delayed until August 1937. This unit was later relocated to Tudela in order to help fascist forces during the battle of Teruel in late December 1937. During this battle, the 65a Sq, under the new leadership of Captain Fanali, performed large, aggressive sorties against Republican forces. The 65a Sq was also very active during the Republican Ebro offensive in July 1938. The battle ended after 115 days with a Republican defeat, with over 80,000 casualties and the loss of large numbers of planes. The Ba.65s were used during the capture of Barcelona in late January 1939.

As the Spanish Civil War ended, the Ba.65 crews were sent by ship to Italy, with the remaining 11 aircraft given to the new fascist Spanish state. During the war, Italy sent around 23 Ba.65 aircraft, of which half were lost. Only three Ba.65 aircraft were destroyed by enemy action. The Breda was used in several different roles during the war. It performed poorly in the role of interceptor due to its inadequate handling and the slow climb rate. Due to stiff controls, lack of an oxygen mask, and the ensuing physical fatigue of the pilots, high altitude scouting missions were also unsuccessful. The only real success was achieved in the fighter-bomber role.

During the war, the Italian crews added bomb racks under the wings. The bomb load was increased with two 100 kg (220 lbs) bombs which were dropped at an angle of 30-35°. An additional 168 smaller 2 kg (4 lb) fragmentation bombs (carried in the position of the second crew member) could be dropped during the climb. After the bomb load was dropped, the Ba.65 could engage ground targets with its four machine guns (two were heavy machine guns). During the Spanish Civil War the single seat version was mostly used, with the exception of a few missions when a rear observer or specialist was requested.

In Africa

Routine aircraft maintenance was necessary during the North African campaign. This picture was taken near Tobruk in November 1940. [warbirdphotographs.com]
Prior to the beginning of the War in Africa against the British, the 50° Stormo was plagued by a general lack of adequate training, poor organization, and bad mechanical condition of the Ba.65 aircraft. By June 1940, the Italians had around 160 Ba.65 aircraft, but only 11 were actually fully operational and could be used for front line service.

The 50° Stormo was moved to Benghazi in Libya. Once there, mechanical problems cropped up as the A.80 proved to be prone to overheating and the desert sand caused significant issues for the engines. In Libya, a series of accidents forced Air Marshal Balbo to order the Ba65 removed from operational frontline service. All Ba.65 were dismantled and were to be sent to Italy, with assault units to be equipped with any available aircraft capable of assault sorties. The only planes fit the role were the Caproni Ca.310, a twin-engined bomber trainer aircraft, which was far from ideal, and the older Fiat CR.32 biplane.

The 50° Stormo (with no Ba.65) was relocated to Sorman airfield near Tripoli in order to provide support to the ground forces during attacks on Tunisia. Due to the rapid British advance, this unit (with only seven Ca.310B) was moved to the T.2 military airfield near Tobruk. The Ca.310B proved to be inadequate for the task, and after only two bombing attacks on the British armored columns in June, they were removed from these units. Due to this, the Italian Air Force commander in North Africa, General Porro, was forced to order the return of all available Ba.65 planes to operational service.

The A.80 version, possibly somewhere in North Africa. [warbirdphotographs.com]
They were to be relocated from Benghazi to the T.2 airfield as soon as possible. Besides the 50° Stormo, the Ba.65 would be supplied to 12° (150th and 160th Squadrons) and 16° (167th and 168th Squadrons) Gruppo (Group). The 12° Gruppo saw heavy action and high attrition rate, and by the end of June only five Breda Ba.65 and five Fiat CR.32 were operational. In July, the 16° Gruppo arrived at T.2 airfield equipped with the CR.32 and a few older Ba.65 K-14 collected from Italy. These units achieved great success when attacking the British forces near Sidi Rezegh (25-27 July 1940), inflicting heavy damage. In August, six Ba.65 A.80 (with fighter cover of unknown type and numbers) attacked a British supply depot but were intercepted by British Gladiators. The engagement ended with three lost Gladiators, but the Italian losses (if any) are unknown. During General Graziani’s short offensive action toward Sidi Barrani in September, all Ba.65 equipped units were active. By the end of the Italian offensive, only 10 Ba.65 and 18 CR.32 were still operational.

On 18th October, a formation of six Ba.65 and seven CR.32 managed to attack a British airfield far behind the front line, in Egypt at Siwa Oasis. This air raid was repeated on 7th November 1940, with six Ba.65 and eighteen CR.32. Bombing actions continued throughout November. By the end of the month, the 12° Gruppo was sent to the rear for rest, recreation, and aircraft overhauls. At the same time, the British launched Operation Compass, which eventually led the attacking Italian Army to collapse. The 12° and 16° Gruppo were allocated to the A.3 airfield near Amseat.

In early December, Britain’s 7th Armoured Division under the command of General O’Connor managed to break the Italian line of defense and began racing to the west. The 50° Stormo, along with all its planes, was dispatched to stop British armored attacks. This attempt failed and the unit lost all its aircraft. The same fate was met by the 16° Gruppo, which was evacuated to Italy on 2nd January 1941, without any operational aircraft. The 12° Gruppo lost most of its aircraft in January and, by the 14th of February, it also was relocated to Italy. With its departure, the Ba.65’s combat service ended.

In Foreign Service

After World War I, Italy became known around the world for the production and export of aircraft, especially during the thirties. This was mostly achieved due to a successful commercial strategy in the international aviation market. Despite the Ba.65 being an unsuccessful design, several countries showed interest in buying this type of aircraft, but their use was very limited. These include Iraq, China, Portugal and Chile. Italians also presented the Ba.65 to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but nothing came from this.

In Iraqi service

Iraq was under the great political and military influence of Great Britain, which meant that they were more or less forced to accept any British Foreign Office decision, including the acquisition of weapons. For a long time, the Iraqis wanted to break away from British influence, or at least reduce it. For this reason, the Iraqi Air Force Chief of Staff Colonel Jewad visited Italy in 1937, in the hopes of concluding a contract for the purchase of new aircraft types which would be used to equip the Iraqi Air Force. During the negotiation with the Italian Aeronautical Export Committee (AEROCONS) in 1938, it was agreed that Iraq would buy 15 (25 according to David M.) Breda Ba.65 aircraft, two of which were the dual control version. In addition, 25 A.80 engines were also bought. All combat aircraft were two-seaters, equipped with the rear mounted Breda turret.

These aircraft were shipped and disassembled into smaller parts, arriving by ship in Iraq. Along with them, a group of Breda engineers under the leadership of Lieutenant Guza, were sent to help with assembly. The transportation process was slow due to the long distance, and the need to test each aircraft after assembly meant that these planes could not enter operational service before November 1938. After this, the process of training the Iraqi pilots began. The Iraqis did not have any problems adapting to the Ba.65 and only one accident was recorded with the loss of the pilot’s life. In May, Guza and his team returned to Italy, with a positive report about the Ba.65 in Iraqi service.

In 1941, there was an uprising led by Rashid Ali, who, with the promise of Axis support, began preparations to expel the British Forces from Iraq. During the Anglo–Iraqi War in May of 1941, all Ba.65s were allocated to the 5th Squadron. This unit saw action against the British forces, but after several attacks only two were left operational. The Italians sent a CR.42 squadron to help the Iraqis but it arrived too late to change the war’s outcome. This unit, seeing the poor Iraqi situation, returned home after a short time. The fate of the surviving Ba.65s is unknown.

Production Attempts in China

For some time, the Italians were trying to negotiate with Chinese authorities about opening an aviation production factory in China. After initial negotiations in June 1934, the Chinese signed a contract with the Aeronautico Italiano per la China (Aerocina). This company was owned by the Italian Government in conjunction with Caproni, Breda, Fiat and SIAI. According to this contract, the Italians were to build the SINAW (Sino-Italian National Aircraft Works) factory in Nanchang. With this agreement, the Italians were to provide tooling, parts, and machines necessary for the factory to work. The head of the soon-to-be factory was the Italian Luigi Acampora and the Director was General Chu Lin. The production of the first operational aircraft was to begin from July 1937 and all Italian personnel were to return to Italy after five years of cooperation.

SINAW officially started production in November 1936 with six Savoia-Marchetti SM.81B bombers. Future plans included local assembly of 30 Breda Ba.65s and 50 Fiat G.50s. Immediately after the start of the Italian-Chinese corporation, there was a disagreement about the assembly of the Ba.65. The Chinese officials insisted that it should be powered by the Pratt and Whitney R-1830 engine in place of the Italian K-14. The Italians were against this, but there was a compromise to equip them with the stronger A.80 engines. Despite this, the Chinese later on insisted on the Pratt and Whitney engines which led to delays in the realization of the project.

The factory was slightly damaged during the Japanese bombing action of Nanchang on the 20th of October, 1937. By November, the Italian Government made a decision to discontinue any further cooperation, and stopped all further deliveries of equipment and materials. This was done mostly due to Japanese military actions, and poor relations with the Chinese side. By early December 1937, all Italian personnel returned home, and the deal with the Chinese was abandoned without a single Ba.65 being built.

In Chilean Service

Rear view of a Chilean Ba.65. Chile bought 17 single-seaters and 3 dual control training versions in 1938. These were powered by the Piaggio P.XI engine instead of the weaker K-14 and armed with 12.7 mm Madsen type heavy machine guns. [warbirdphotographs.com]
In the summer of 1937 representatives of the Chilean Air Force force were sent to Italy to begin negotiations for the purchase of several different Italian aircraft designs. These negotiations were successfully completed, and a purchase was arranged for nine Nardi 305 trainers and seventeen single engine and three dual control training versions of the Ba.65. These were to be powered by Piaggio P.XI engines instead of the K-14. Also, the Chileans demanded that the 12.7 mm (0.5 in) Breda SAFAT heavy machine guns be replaced with Madsen machine guns of the same caliber. Due to these changes and the long voyage to Chile, the Bredas reached their destination on 14th December, 1938. The aircraft were stationed at El Bosque airfield, awaiting the training of the pilots to begin, but due to many delays this only began in March 1939. During these training flights, there were two accidents due to pilot errors. The Chilean Air Force was under great pressure from the press about the quality of these planes, which eventually led to the suspension of any further flights of the Breda. These accidents were caused mostly due to the poor quality of pilot training. Not willing to admit their mistake, the Chilean Air Force began negotiation with the Italians to exchange the Ba.65 with the CR.32. But the negotiations were delayed and were never resolved as the war in Europe broke out. The Ba.65 would be used up to the end of 1941, when the last flight was recorded. These would be replaced with more modern American planes later on.

In Portuguese Service

In January 1937, the Portuguese showed interest in the Ba.65. After some negotiations, the Portuguese Air Force ordered 10 Ba.65 A.80, some of which were equipped with the Breda M turret. The inexperienced Portuguese pilots were to be sent to Italy for extended flight training.

The Ba.65 would be used in the coming year, but due to the lack of resources and maintenance, the Portuguese had problems keeping them in working condition. In February 1941 a heavy storm caused the hangar that all the Bredas were stored in to collapse. As all were damaged beyond repair, the Portuguese Air Force ordered them to be scrapped.

Production and Modifications

Besides the prototype, serial production of the Ba.65 began in 1936, with an initial production run of around 81 (MM 75091-75161) being produced by Breda. The second and the last production series was completed by July 1939. In the second series, Breda produced an additional 80 with an additional 57 built by Caproni. The total production run was 218 operational aircraft, in addition to the single prototype. Of the total produced, around 60 were sold to Iraq, Chile and Portugal.

Only one major modification to the original aircraft was ever made on the Ba.65, as it was used for only a short time.

  • Ba.65 – Prototype
  • Ba.65 K-14– Single and two seat versions
  • Ba.65 A.80 – Single and two seat versions
  • Ba.65 Trainer Version – Small numbers were used as training aircraft for a short time before being scrapped
  • Ba.65 P.XI – One aircraft was tested with the 1.000 hp Piaggio P.XI engine, but was not adopted for service.

Operators

  • Italy – Operated less than 160 Breda Ba.65 in total.
  • Iraq – Bought around 15 A.80 aircraft, of these two were modified as dual control trainers.
  • China –There were negotiations with Italy to domestically assemble thirty Ba.65s, but this was never achieved.
  • Fascist Spain – Used all surviving Ba.65s left by the Italians after the end of the Civil War.
  • Chile – Bought some 17 single-seaters and 3 dual control training version in 1938. These were powered by Piaggio P.XI engines and armed with 0.5 in (12.7 mm) Madsen type heavy machine guns.
  • Portugal – Bought 10 mostly two-seat versions, while some were equipped with the Breda M turret.

Breda Ba.65 A.80 Specifications

(Single Seat Version)

Wingspan 39 ft / 11.9 m
Height 10 ft 2 in / 3.10 m
Length 32 ft 4 in / 9.9 m
Wing Area 252.96 ft² / 23.50 m²
Engine One 1,000 hp (746 kW) Fiat A.80 RC.41 18-cylinder radial piston engine.
Empty Weight 5,510 lb / 2,500 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 6,950 lb / 3,150 kg
Fuel Capacity 650 + 370l
Maximum Speed 267 mph / 430 km/h
Cruising Speed 220 mph / 350 km/h
Range 340 mi / 550 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 20,670 ft / 6,300 m
Crew 1 Pilot
Armament
  • Two 0.5 in (12.7 mm) Breda-SAFAT heavy machine guns and two 0.311 in (7.7mm) Breda-SAFAT machine guns.
  • Four 110 lbs (50 kg) or 220 lbs (100 kg) bombs
  • 168 smaller 4 lb (2 kg) bombs
  • Additional two 220 lbs (100 kg) bombs carried under the wings

Gallery

Ba.65 during the Spanish Civil War
Ba.65 from 2° Stormo 1938
Ba.65 from 5° Stormo
Ba.65 from the 2° Stormo

Credits

  • Article by Marko P.
  • Edited by Stan L. & Ed J.
  • Illustrations by Pavel
  • D. Monday (1984, 2006), The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft of World War II, Aerospace Publishing
  • G. Garello (1997), Breda Ba 65, La Bancarella Aeronautica – Torino
  • D. Nešić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Italija,, Tampoprint S.C.G. Beograd.
  • V.Kotelnikov (1995 ), Samoletuep Olya Boya Vtoroi Mirovoi, Library Moscow
  • Lennart A. (2008) A History Of Chinese Aviation Encyclopedia Of Aircraft And Aviation in China Until 1949, AHS of ROC.
  • J.W. Thompson (1963), Italian Civil And Military Aircraft 1930-1945. Aero Publishers
  • Vojislav V. M.(1998), Italijanska Avijacija U Jugoslaviji 1941-1943, Vojno istorijski institut Vojske Jugoslavije Beograd.
  • Nico S. (1979), Italian Aircraft Of The World War II, Squadron/Signal Publications.
  • Photos: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/vvsregiaavions/regiaindex.html

Edo XOSE-1

USA flag old United States of America (1945)
Observation Scout Floatplane – 10 Built

XOSE-1 taking off. Notice it is painted in the wartime colors. [axis-and-allies-paintworks.com]
The XOSE-1 was an observation float plane built by the Edo float company during World War II and was intended to be a possible replacement for the OS2U Kingfisher. Before being built, the type seemed promising and ten prototypes were ordered. Although development was slow, the aircraft would finally fly after the war had ended. Testing showed the design was riddled with flaws and, with the end of the war making the observation floatplane obsolete and unnecessary, the XOSE-1 program was cancelled.

History

Photo of the mockup XOSE-1.

Before America had entered the Second World War, it was realized that many assets in the United States arsenal were outdated to some degree. Many aircraft were unable to compete with their contemporaries around the world. One such piece of equipment would be the ship launched floatplane. A concept that originated in the 1920s and 1930s, it involved the use of small floatplanes that were carried aboard large warships and could be deployed via catapults for a number of tasks to assist their mothership. These missions included long range scouting, spotting for the warships’ main guns and also providing anti-submarine protection using depth charges or torpedoes. Most of America’s larger warships were equipped with catapults at the time for this purpose. The dedicated ship-based floatplanes the United States Navy (USN) operated at their entrance to the war was the aging Curtiss SOC biplane and the Vought OS2U Kingfisher. The latter would soon replace the former and would enter widespread service after the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Although the Kingfisher was just entering service, the search for a modern seaplane that would eventually replace the aircraft began. The new type was expected to carry out the same duties as its predecessor but also be able to effectively protect itself if needed. The OS2U only had one .50 caliber machine gun for offense, which wasn’t very helpful when against newer fighters. The first and most prominent aircraft that would rise to meet this role would be the Curtiss SC Seahawk, but it would not be the only type that would be built. In fact, a competitor would come from a little known company called Edo.

The Edo Aircraft Company is not a company often mentioned in history regarding the Second World War. The company was founded in 1925 by Earl Dodge Osborne, with the name being an acronym of his own name. Despite being rarely discussed among historians, Edo was immensely crucial to the war effort for the USN. Edo was a primary producer for aluminum floats before the war and would be the main producer for the floats on Navy floatplanes, like the OS2U. It was estimated that up to 95% of floats used on USN aircraft were built by Edo. Not only was Edo responsible for the production of the floats, they were also known for adapting said floats for use on the aircraft that would use them. Edo had become known for their work on floats, but they worked on a handful of their own floatplane designs in the years before WWII had started. However, this was around the time the company was created in 1925, and aircraft design had changed drastically since then. Given their background and knowledge with designing and fitting floats, the USN requested that the Edo company should attempt to design their own modern floatplane for the ship-based observation role. Eager to attempt building a modern aircraft, Edo eagerly accepted the request. On January 11th, 1944, they would begin work on their floatplane, which would be called the XS2E-1.

Frontal view of an XOSE-2 or XTE-1. The two were visually identical from the outside. [axis-and-allies-paintworks.com]
The preliminary design of the XS2E-1 was deemed acceptable by the Navy and an order for ten prototypes was made. The XS2E-1 would be a two seat design with a Ranger V-770-8 engine. The engine mount and cowling would also both be designed by Ranger (this company would become Fairchild after the war.) Additionally, a Westinghouse 19 turbojet was to be installed in the rear of the aircraft to offer increased thrust for evasion or to give chase to an enemy aircraft. This would make the aircraft a mixed powerplant type. Another order for eight more units was made some time after the first order, but an exact date is unknown. On March 16th, 1944, the USN opted to change the floatplane’s design. The Westinghouse 19 turbojet that was planned for the project was experiencing its own difficulties in development.

When the XS2E-1 was drafted, the turbojet, due to its development, had become much heavier than what Edo was expecting. Due to this weight increase and a high demand for the jet engine on other aircraft projects, it was removed from the XS2E-1. This caused a weight problem in the aircraft’s design, as it no longer had the additional thrust needed to operate with its then-current weight. Edo changed the aircraft’s design drastically to make the XS2E-1 lighter. A significant revision done was the removal of the second seat, making the aircraft a smaller, single-seater aircraft. This, however, meant all the work the 2nd crewmen was intended to do was now transferred to the pilot, which would include operating the radar system in addition to flying and observing.

A frontal shot of an XOSE-1 demonstrating its folding wings. [axis-and-allies-paintworks.com]
After the loss of the turbojet and the switch to a single seater design, it was decided to change the aircraft’s role to an Observation Scout floatplane. Another reason for the change was that, developing parallel to the XS2E-1, was the Curtiss SC-1 Seahawk mentioned earlier, an aircraft that was meant to fill the Scout role for the USN. Finding that developing two aircraft with the same role was redundant, the USN authorized the role change on the XS2E-1. With the new role, the XS2E-1 was redesignated as the XOSE-1. Not long after the role and design change, a full-scale wooden mockup of the new XOSE-1 was built and an inspection was held on November 24th, 1944. An early criticism of the design was linked to the removal of the second seat, as would-be operators complained the intense workload was too much to put onto the pilot. A variant was soon conceived, the XOSE-2, which would address this workload issue by reintroducing the second seat for another crewman. This second crewmen would be tasked with operating the onboard radar system and performing observation duties. An order for two XOSE-2s to be built, as well as for a derivative of the XOSE-2 that would be a dual-control training version, soon followed after conception of the two-seat variant. The trainer would be named the XTE-1. Progress on the program overall was slow up to this point, but Edo had added many innovative features to the design to improve its performance.

Side view of an XOSE-1 taking off. [axis-and-allies-paintworks.com]
The war came to an end before the XOSE-1 could take flight. The end of the war saw most of the projects the USN was working on be terminated immediately, as there was no purpose in developing them anymore. The XOSE-1, however, was saved from this fate, as the USN allowed the floatplane to continue development after the end of the war. The XOSE-1’s first flight took place on December 28th of 1945, only a few months after the war had ended. Since there was no urgency to press this new type of aircraft to the frontlines anymore, funding to the program was cut and work slowed down in accordance. The XOSE-2 version finally flew on September 24th, 1947, two years after the war was over. Two XOSE-2s were built. It is unknown exactly when the first XTE-1 was completed and flew, but two of this type were built as well. Originally, during its debut, the XOSE-1 was painted in the standard blue-on-the-top-white-on-the-bottom that mid war USN aircraft used, but would later be colored in the dark blue that late/post-war Navy aircraft were painted in.

Rear view of an XOSE-1 with the floats detached and the wheels attached instead. [axis-and-allies-paintworks.com]
Despite being a company that had only built a handful of planes two decades prior, the XOSE-1 was very promising from the outset, but problems soon began to arise during testing. The XOSE-1 experienced trouble with the Ranger built engines. The two seater XOSE-2 experienced many more problems and major changes had to be implemented in the design. Some remedies to the problems included increasing the height of the tailfin and the addition of a ventral strake below the tail to help with stability. Stability issues were found to be caused by the two seater’s larger canopy installed on the largely unmodified fuselage. By the time the stability issues were resolved, it was almost for naught, as the aircraft program was going nowhere.The shipborne floatplane type itself was beginning to show its obsolescence compared to newer technology. Exactly when the program ended or the whereabouts of the ten XOSE built are unknown, as details about the program during this time are sparse. It is unknown if the XOSE-1 was ever even tested from a ship, as many warships postwar would have their catapults removed. Most of the testing was done via land or sea takeoff, with wheels attached to the floats or a landplane conversion where the floats were replaced with a conventional landing gear. The type would be slowly replaced by ship-based helicopters, an idea that had begun during the Second World War and expanded upon thereafter. The era of the scout floatplane, especially shipboard ones, was over. It is most likely all of the XOSE-1s and its derivatives were scrapped before 1950, as all shipboard seaplane squadrons had been disbanded in 1949.

Design

An Edo XOSE-1 in flight [axis-and-allies-paintworks.com]
The Edo XOSE-1 was a single-seat floatplane design of all metal construction. It’s floatation was provided by one large aluminum float under the hull, and two smaller aluminum floats on the wingtips. This layout was used on almost every USN floatplane. In addition to floats, the aircraft was also able to be launched via catapult aboard a ship. An optional wheeled undercarriage was also available for ground based takeoffs.

The body of the aircraft would be constructed of metal and would contain 135 lbs (61 kg) of armor. The overall weight of the aircraft would be 5,316 Ib (2411.3 kg) standard and 3,973 Ib (1802 kg) empty. The fuselage would have a length of 31 ft 1 in (9.5 m) and a height of 14 ft 11 in (4.5 m). The XOSE and its variants had a unique construction that allowed many parts of the aircraft to be easily accessible for maintenance.

A rear view of an XOSE-1 with its wings folded back. [shu-aero.com]
The Edo XOSE-1 and all of its variants were equipped with the Ranger V-770-8 inline engine that gave it a top speed of 188 mph (302 km/h), a cruising speed of 111 mph (178.6 km/h) and a stall speed of 61 mph (98.2 km/h). The aircraft would have a climb rate of 1,350 ft/min (411.5 m/min) and a maximum service ceiling of 22,300 ft (6797 m). The XOSE-1 would also have a range of 600 mi (965.6 km).

The cockpit would allow protection for the pilot, as the canopy was bulletproof. The canopy was one piece and would slide down and behind the cockpit for easy movement in. On the XOSE-2/XTE-1, the cockpit would be lengthened to accommodate the additional crewman, who would do observation and radar tasks. The canopy on the two seater versions would be two parts and the forward segment would slide back over the rear section.

Fuel would be stored in the fuselage in self-sealing fuel tanks. The tail section of the aircraft would be of metal construction as well. The only differences between the two versions were on the two seaters, in which the tail of the aircraft had to be extended height-wise and a vertical strake beneath the tail was added. Both of these changes helped in the stabilization of the two seaters. The wings of the aircraft were also constructed of metal and would have a wingspan of 37 ft 11 in (11.6 m). The wings would utilize a unique feature for some of its control surfaces. The flaps, that extended outwards from the folding line, would retract automatically if enough water impacted them. This was put in place to prevent damage to these flaps. Additionally, there were retractable slats on the leading edge of the wings to increase drag. The wings themselves could be folded inward for easy storage aboard ships or hangars. Interesting to note, the wings had a manual folding system instead of a hydraulic system most aircraft at the time had.

For armament, the XOSE-1 was equipped with two M2 .50 caliber machine guns as standard. Two hardpoints were equipped on the wings that could allow the XOSE-1 to carry two 350 Ib depth charges or two 50 gallon drop tanks. Additionally, two emergency rescue racks could also be carried on the underside for air to sea rescue missions. A single hardpoint could also be used to carry a radar pod. There is also mention of the XOSE-1 having smoke projectors as well. The two-seat XOSE-2 would lose one of the M2 machine guns and only carry a single gun. The XTE-1 variant would be completely unarmed, given it was only a trainer.

Conclusion

With the Edo XOSE-1 program being terminated, this would be the last time Edo would build an aircraft all on their own. However, Edo would propose a very interesting concept to the US Navy in the 1950s for an amphibious fighter similar to the Convair F2Y Sea Dart. However, this type would never be built.

Variants

  • XS2E-1 – Initial design of the XOSE-1. The XS2E-1 was a two seater and mounted a larger engine as well as a Westinghouse J19 jet engine. This design was changed and became the XOSE-1.
  • XOSE-1 – Single seat reconnaissance floatplane. The XOSE-1 had two .50 Cal M2 machine guns mounted in the wings and two hardpoints for depth charges. 6 were built.
  • XOSE-2 – Two seat version of the XOSE-1. The E-2 version would have a radar operator, a lengthened canopy, and only a single .50 cal for defense. Two were built.
  • XTE-1– Tandem control version of the XOSE-1. This version would be unarmed and would be used for training purposes. Two were built.

Operators

  • United States of America – The XOSE-1 and its variants were only tested by the United States Navy.

Edo XOSE-1 Floatplane Specifications

Wingspan 37 ft 11 in / 11.6 m
Length 31 ft 1 in / 9.5 m
Height 14 ft 11 in / 4.5 m
Wing Area 237 ft² / 22 m²
Engine 520 hp (387.7 kW) Ranger V-770-8 Inline Engine
Propeller 2-blade Hamilton Standard constant-speed propeller (9ft / 2.7m diameter)
Powerplant Ratings
Horsepower output Altitude
Take Off 550 hp Sea Level
Normal

(Approx. 84% Throttle)

500 hp 800 ft / 244 m
Fuel Capacity 120+58 US Gal / 454+219 L
Weights
Empty 3973 lb / 1802 kg
Gross 5316 lb / 2411.3 kg
Maximum 6064 lb / 2750.6 kg
Climb Rate (at sea level) 1,350 ft / 411.5 m per minute
Maximum Speed 188 mph / 302.6 kmh
Cruising Speed 111 mph / 178.6 kmh
Stalling Speed 61 mph / 98.2 kmh
Range 600 mi / 965.6 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 22,300 ft / 6797 m
Crew 1 pilot
Armament
  • 2x 12.7x99mm / .50 cal Browning AN/M2 machine guns
  • 2x 350 Ib / 158.8 kg Depth Charges

Gallery

Illustrations by Ed JacksonEdo,d

Edo XOSE-1 in Standard Wartime Colors
Edo XOSE-1 with the additional ventral stabilizers added
A view showcasing the retractable flaps on the engine.

Two Edo XOSE-1s in flight together [shu-aero.com]
A side view of the XOSE-1 in flight A side view of the XOSE-1 in flight. [axis-and-allies-paintworks.com]
Rear view of an XOSE-2 or XTE-1. [axis-and-allies-paintworks.com]

Credits

  • Article written by Medicman11
  • Edited by Stan L. and Ed J.
  • Illustrated by Ed Jackson
  • Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 1947
  • Norton, Bill. American aircraft development of WWII : special types, 1939-1945. Manchester: Crécy Publishing Ltd, 2016. Print.
  • Wagner, Ray. American combat planes of the 20th Century : a comprehensive reference. Reno, NV: Jack Bacon & Co, 2004. Print.
  • Buttler, Tony. American secret projects : fighters & interceptors, 1945-1978. Hinckley: Midland, 2007. Print.x

Reggiane Re.2003

Kingdom of Italy flag Kingdom of Italy (1941)
Two Seater Reconnaissance Aircraft – 2 Prototypes Built

The Re.2003 prototype. Source: www.vvsregiaavions.com

With the development of new designs for the Italian Air Force, the need for a more advanced reconnaissance aircraft became apparent. Italians mostly used older biplanes for this role, which was far from a perfect solution, and thus a new design was needed. For this reason, one Re.2000 would be rebuilt and tested as a reconnaissance aircraft. Despite an initial order for serial production, only a few prototypes were ever built.

History

Officine Meccaniche Reggiane SA (Reggio Emilia in Northern Italy) was a WWI-era aircraft manufacturer. After the war it was not involved in any significant aircraft production or design work. Large scale production only began during the thirties, when Reggiane became a subsidiary of the much larger aircraft manufacturer Caproni, which was led by the well known engineer Gianni Caproni. Thanks to him, Reggiane was aided by Caproni’s larger and well qualified aircraft design department. Reggiane and Caproni were involved with several experimental pre-war designs, like the Ca.405 Procellaria and P.32bis, in addition to the licensed production of the S.M.79. In 1938, the development of the Re.2000 began with a request from the Italian Aviation Ministry (Ministero dell Aeronautica) under the codename “Programme R.” This was intended to upgrade the Italian Air Force (Regia Aeronautica) with new and modern designs.

Despite the time and resources involved in development, the resulting Re.2000 would not be adopted for the Italian Air Force. It would see service in countries like Sweden and Hungary in some numbers. Due to the demand for long range fighters and shipboard versions, a small number was adopted for service by the Italian Air Force. From the small number of Re.2000s seized by the Italian Air force, most were from the Series II and III. At least one was used as a base for the experimental two-seat Re.2003 version.

The Re.2003

In early 1941, Italian Air Force officials placed an order for a two-seater reconnaissance aircraft. Reggiane responded by simply reusing the already produced Re.2000 in order to speed up development and to streamline a potential production run. One Re.2000 (MM.478) was modified by adding an additional seat behind the pilot.

The prototype was completed very quickly, and by July it was ready for its first test flight. The test flight was carried out by Captain Francesco Aggelo. The flight was considered successful, but certain modifications were required. These include redesigning the rear observer’s cockpit and the installation of camera equipment. Once these modifications were made, the test flights were resumed in November 1941 with two new pilots.

The Re.2003 seems to have fulfilled all requirements that were demanded. On the 16th of December 1941, an official order for the production of 200 Re.2003 was placed at Reggiane. Production was to commence before September 1942.

Rear view of the first Re.2003 prototype. Source: www.vvsregiaavions.com
Front view of the first Re.2003 prototype. Source :www.vvsregiaavions.com

The Second Prototype

Reggiane engineers and designers began working on an improved second prototype in 1942, based on the Re.2002 (MM.12415). The decision to use the Re.2002 was probably based on the fact that it was put into production and was in (very limited) use during the war. In addition, while the Re.2000 was being produced for the export market, it was not adopted for Italian aviation use. Simply put, production in larger quantities was not possible.

Technical Characteristics

The Re.2003 was originally based on the Re.2000, and for this reason, the cosmetic and structural differences were minimal. The Re.2003 was a low wing, mixed construction, but mostly metal, two-seater reconnaissance plane. The fuselage consisted of a round frame covered with aluminum sheets held in place by flush-riveting. The Re.2003’s wings had a semi-elliptical design, with five spars covered with stressed skin. The wings were equipped with fabric-covered Frise type ailerons. The tail had a metal construction, with the controls surfaces covered with fabric. The fuel was stored in the wings, but the precise quantity is not known.

The landing gear system was unusual. When it retracted backward, it rotated 90° (a copy of the Curtiss type) before it moved into the wheel bays. For better handling when landing, the landing gear mechanism was provided with hydraulic shock absorbers and pneumatic brakes. The smaller rear wheel was also retractable and could be steered if needed.

The Re.2003’s engine was the stronger Piaggio P.XI bis RC.40, which had around 1025 hp. Due to being used in limited test flights, precise engine performance is not clear. Author Jonathan Thomson noted that the maximum speed was around 471 km/h (293 mph). The first prototype had the Re.2000’s original engine cowling. The second prototype had a more aerodynamically-shaped cowling, as it was based on the Re.2002.

The most obvious difference was the larger canopy. The front pilot canopy section was more or less the same as the Re.2000. The rear section was somewhat larger in order to provide the observer with a better view. In addition, two small glass windows were added on both sides of the fuselage sides for the observer.

Side view of the Re.2003. Below the rear cockpit, the two small windows placed to provide the observer with a better view of the surroundings can be seen. Source: www.vvsregiaavions.com

The main armament was not changed and consisted of two Breda-Safat 12.7 mm ( 0.5 in) heavy machine guns. The machine guns were placed in the top of the front cowling and fired through the propeller arc. For each machine gun, a provision of 300 rounds was provided. The machine guns could, depending on the combat situation (lack of ammunition, for example), be fired together or individually. The Re.2003 was also tested with a bomb load of 500 kg (1100 lb) placed on the ventral rack.

Operational Use

The Re.2003 first prototype was used by the 1st Gruppo Reserve Aerea (Reserve 1st Air Group), possibly from late 1942 up to the Italian capitulation in 1943. It was then captured by the Germans, who used it as a trainer aircraft. This aircraft, while in German hands, was stationed at the Caproni-Taliedo airfield. Its final fate is unknown.

To make the development of the new Re.2003 fast and easy, Reggiane simply reused the Re.2000 and later Re.2002 for this purpose. While it had a short operational life, it appears that no major problems were encountered during its development and that it could fulfill the designated role as a reconnaissance plane. Source: www.vvsregiaavions.com

Cancellation of the Project

The following year, due to the rapid military deterioration of the Italian Air Force, the need for more advanced fighters had greater priority over other projects. Work on the Re.2003 was slow and, by late 1942, little progress had been made. The second prototype’s development was also proceeding at a slow pace. It made its first test flight in October 1942. Some historians note that the second prototype was never fully completed. In order to increase the production of fighter designs, Reggiane was asked to stop the development of the Re.2003, and instead focus on the production of fighter planes. Only the two prototypes were ever built.

Re.2003 first prototype (MM.478) – One prototype built and used in a limited role.
Re.2003 second prototype (MM.12415) – Based on the Re.2002, one built.

Operators

  • Italy – Operated the first prototype during the war.
  • Germany – Captured one prototype in 1943. It was used as a trainer plane.

Conclusion

Due to the Re.2003’s short development life, it is not known if it could have fulfilled the purpose the Italian Air Force officials had intended for it. It appears that no major problems were encountered during its development, so there is no indication it had any problems fulfilling its role as a reconnaissance plane. However, without ever being properly tested in real combat conditions, this will never be known.

Re.2003 Specifications

Wingspan 36  ft 1  in / 11 m
Length 26  ft 5  in / 8 m
Height 10 ft 4 in  / 3.15  m
Wing Area 220 ft² / 20.4 m²
Engine One Piaggio P.XI RC.40bis, 1025 hp
Maximum Takeoff Weight 7,210 lbs /  3,270 kg
Maximum Speed 293 mph / 471 km/h
Range 447 miles / 720 km
Crew Pilot and observer
Armament
  • Two 0.5 in (12.7 mm) heavy machine guns
  • Bomb load of 1,100 lb ( 500 kg) bombs.

Gallery

The Re.2003 Prototype – Illustration by Carpaticus

Sources:

  • D. Nešić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Italija. Beograd.
  • M. Di Terlizzi (2002) Reggiane RE 2000 Falco, Heja, J.20, Instituto Bibliografico Napoleone.
  • J. W. Thompson (1963) Italian Civil And Military Aircraft 1930-1945, Aero Publisher
  • G. Cattaneo (1966) The Reggiane Re.2000, Profile Publication Ltd.
  • J. F. Bridlay (1972) Caproni Reggiane Re 2001 Falco II, Re 2002 Ariete and Re 2005 Sagittario, Profile Publications

Breda Ba.88 Lince

Kingdom of Italy flag Kingdom of Italy (1936)
Ground Attack Aircraft – 148 ~ 155 Built

A Ba.88 during a flight, possibly a training exercise. Despite having an excellent aerodynamic shape, it performed so poorly that it had to be removed from service. Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com

The Ba.88 was an Italian twin-engine aircraft design built in 1936. Despite managing to break a few world speed records, it was an unsuccessful design. When it was adopted for military service, its performance deteriorated and only a small number of aircraft were ever built.

History

On 20th January 1936, the Italian Air Force (Regia Aeronautica) made a request for the development of a new twin-engine multipurpose aircraft. This new aircraft design was meant to be capable of achieving a top speed of least 470 km/h (290 mph). Heavy armament was also required, which would have to consist of two to four 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns or two 20 mm (0.78 in) cannons. It was requested to have an operational range of 2,000 km (1,200 mi) and to be able to reach a height of 6 km (20,000 ft) in around 9 minutes. The cockpit also had to have a good all-around field-of-view.

Italian Air Force officials invited all Italian aviation companies to submit their proposals for the new multi-role design. Many companies responded to this request with their own suggestions. These included the I.M.A.M Ro.53, Fiat CR.25, Bonomi BS.25, Chiodi CH-2 and the Breda Ba.88. As the Breda Ba.88 showed the most promise, at least on paper, it was chosen as the winner of the competition.

Beginnings

Work on the first prototype began soon after. The development of the Ba.88 was given to a team led by Antonio Parano and Giuseppe Panzeri. The Ba.88 was influenced by an earlier Breda design, the single engined Ba.75, with which it shared some similarities, such as the tail and fuselage design.

The first Ba.88 prototype, named M.M. 302, was completed relatively fast and was ready in Autumn 1939. A series of flight tests began in October 1936, piloted by a young test pilot named Furio Nictol Doglio. During these initial tests, the Ba.88 was shown to have potential weight issues, but development continued.

Ba.88 prototype under construction. Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com

In early February 1937, the prototype was moved to the Guidonia Experimental Centre for further testing. Once there, it was tested by several Breda test pilots. In April of 1937, Furio Nictol managed to achieve an average speed of 518 km/h (322 mph) during a 100 km (61 mi) long flight from Fiumicino, Toraianica to Ancio. This was actually a world speed record at the time. On the 10th of April, Furio Nictol managed to reach an average speed of 476 km/h (295 mph) over a much longer distance of 1,000 km (620 mi). Of course, the Fascist regime was quick to take advantage of these results and used them for propaganda purposes around the world.

To further improve the Ba.88’s performance, the engines were replaced with stronger 1,000 hp Piaggio P.XI. In addition, the single vertical tail was replaced with twin fins and rudders. In November 1937, the modified Ba.88 made many more test flights in order to determine its performance. In early December, two new speed records were made, the first with 555 km/h (345 mph) and then 523 km/h (326 mph).

The Ba.88 prototype, easily identified by the tail assembly. https://comandosupremo.com/breda-ba-88/

Initial Problems

During this time, the Italian Air Force began showing interest in a heavy fighter design (like the German Me-110, for example) and asked Breda to adapt the Ba.88 to this role. During 1938, testing on the Ba.88 continued. During this time, many issues with its design began to arise. In October, when adopted for military testing, the plane was shown to have many issues. The pilots noted that the Ba.88 was difficult to fly, maneuvering was slow and heavy. A report made by General Pinna, dated 21st November, states that the Ba.88’s maximum realistic speed was around 464 km/h (290 mph) at heights of 5.2 km (17,000 ft). He also noted that there is only a small probability that the speed could be improved and that the achieved speed was inadequate for a military aircraft of this type.

While Breda’s test pilots tried to defend the Ba.88, the army pilots were not so impressed. Colonel Lippi echoed General Pinna’s concerns, noting in his report that the Ba.88’s overall performance was poor and it was difficult to control. He also noted that the canopy could not be opened during flight, which was a significant problem if the pilot needed to initiate an emergency bail out. The situation worsened with the installation of military equipment, like the weapons, ammunition, cockpit equipment, extra fuel etc. The weight problem was so severe that the installation of bombs was only possible after removing internal equipment. The lower heavy machine gun was rarely installed in order to save weight. For these reasons, the Italian Air Force put Ba.88 production on hold.

Technical Characteristics

The Ba.88 was an all-metal, high wing, two engine ground attack aircraft. The fuselage was built by using welded chrome-molybdenum steel tubes. Its overall fuselage design could be divided into three sections: the front nose section, the lower section where the bomb bay was placed and the longer section that covered the remainder of the aircraft. The whole fuselage construction was covered with duralumin sheets held in place by longitudinal stringers, rivets and bolts.

The wings were made using chrome-molybdenum tube spars held in place by tube beams. This wing construction was then covered with sheet metal plates. The wings were connected with the Ba.88’s fuselage by using conical wrist pins and bolts. The original prototype had a standard single vertical tail assembly, but this was later changed to a new modified tail unit with twin fins and rudders.

Ba.88 side view. Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com

The Ba.88 had two landing wheels that retracted backward into the engine nacelles. The rear tail wheel was also retractable, and could be steered if needed. The landing gear wheels were equipped with shock absorbers in order to ease landing.

The prototype was powered by two 900 hp Fraschini K14 engines. The production version was powered by two 1,000 hp Piaggio P.XI RC.40 14-cylinder radial piston engines. Two 10.5 ft (3.2 m) duralumin three blade propellers, which could rotate in opposite directions, were used. The engine mounting was made using welded steel tubes. There were plans to test different engines in order to reduce the overall weight and improve performance. This included the less powerful but lighter and more aerodynamic Fiat A 74, and stronger 1,000 hp A 76 and Isotta Fraschini L.121. Foreign engine designs were also proposed, like the German Daimler Benz DB.601 or even the French Hispano Suiza 12Y. There were twelve armored fuel tanks with a total capacity of 1,379 liters (365 gallons). These were arranged with two in the engine nacelles, four in the fuselage, and six in the wings.

The Ba.88 had more or less a standard cockpit layout, with a rear sliding canopy. The pilot was provided with all instruments needed to efficiently fly the Ba.88. The radio used was the R.A.350/II, supported by an A.R.8 receiver. Additional equipment, like a photo camera, could be added in the fuselage nose. To the rear of the pilot was the machine gunner’s position. He was seated with his back to the pilot.

Ba.88 cockpit interior. www.warbirdphotographs.com

The main armament consisted of three 12.7 mm heavy Breda-SAFAT machine guns with 1,250 rounds of ammunition each. The rear gunner operated one 7.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine gun with 250 rounds of ammunition and an additional 250 rounds in reserve. The bomb bay was semi-exposed and could accomodate a few different bomb load configurations: Three 50 kg (110 lbs) bombs, three 100 kg (220 lbs) bombs or two 250 kg (550 lb) bombs. There was also the option to install 40 small 2 kg (4.4 lb) bombs. Theoretically, the Ba.88 could be equipped with a total bomb load of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb), but this was never done due to the airframe’s weight problems.

The rear machine gunner position with its 7.7 mm (0.31 in) machine gun can be clearly seen. In addition, despite the prototype having a simple single vertical tail assembly, the production version would have a new modified tail unit with twin fins and rudders. Source:www.warbirdphotographs.com
A good top view of the Ba.88. www.warhistoryonline.com

A New Chance

With no other options, the Regia Aeronautica ordered the Ba.88 to be put into small production on the 20th of April, 1939. Production was to start in May of 1939, and by October 1939 some 80 had been produced. During 1938 and 1939, the Ba.88 was advertised abroad and several countries showed interest namely Sweden, Yugoslavia, Switzerland and Lithuania, but no orders were placed.

In Autumn of 1938 and early 1939, three newly produced Ba.88 were moved to Guidonia for more testing. The first Air Force units to be equipped with Ba.88s were the 7° Gruppo and the 19° Gruppo. In early May 1939, the first five Ba.88s were reallocated to the 76° Squadriglia of the 7° Gruppo. By September 1939, the 7° Gruppo (76°, 86°, 98° Squadriglia) and the 19° Gruppo (100°, 101°, 102° Squadriglia ) were equipped with 27 Ba.88 aircraft each, with 9 aircraft in each Squadriglia.

This Lince was part of the 7° Gruppo. Source:www.warbirdphotographs.com

With the installation of additional military equipment and armament, the performance and flight characteristics deteriorated dramatically. The top speed achieved with full military equipment and armament was much lower than that during the test flights. Italian army test pilots expressed concern about its flight characteristics, since even simple maneuvers were hard to achieve. In the hope of fixing some of these issues, a number of weight saving modifications were done during the war, but these problems would never be completely solved.

The Ba.88 During the War

During the war, the Ba.88 would be used only during the limited Italian attack on France and in North Africa. A small number were modified as experimental ground attack planes stationed in Italy but none were used operationally. Despite being originally designed as a multi-purpose aircraft, it would only be used in the ground attack role.

On the Western Front

After the German attack in the West in May 1940 and the rapid defeat of Allied forces in Holland and Belgium, the Italians tried to take advantage of the situation and declared war on the Allies. On 16th June, some 12 planes from the 7° Gruppo (or 19° Gruppo, depending on the source) made several bombing raids on airfields in Corsica. The next day, the attack was repeated with 9 Ba.88s. By 19th June, the battle was over. Italian combat analysis of these air attacks had led to the conclusion that the Ba.88 had only limited value as an effective operational aircraft.

In North Africa

The next use of the Ba.88 in combat was in North Africa, starting in August 1940. The Ba.88s of the 7° Gruppo were moved to Libya in August, and were part of the 5° Squadra Aerea. Due to the need to adapt them for desert conditions (with sand filters, for example), they were not combat ready until September. On 14th September, the 7° Gruppo was tasked with attacking Sidi El Barrani, a British airfield about 250 km (155 mi) behind the front. For the first attack, a group of three fully equipped Ba.88s, with full fuel load and ammunition, and carrying 250 kg (550 lb) of bombs were used. The attack failed as the Ba.88s were not able to take to the sky successfully. One Ba.88 had to return to the airfield as the aircraft could not maintain flight and another did not even manage to take off from the airfield. The last one, piloted by the unit commander, managed to take off but was constantly losing altitude and he was also forced to abandon the mission.

While the Ba.88 was used in the North African theater, its operational service life was disappointing due to it being mostly unusable for effective military service. Source: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/vvsregiaavions/regiaindex.html

Many planned flights were also halted due to the Ba.88’s poor performance. Due to the heavy weight, low engine performance and increased drag (due to the addition of externally mounted bombs), the Ba.88’s performance fell dramatically. In a desperate attempt to improve its performance, all unnecessary internal equipment and the rear gunner positions were removed. In addition, many modifications to the design were also added but, in the end, none of these efforts made any appreciable difference.

By October only 10 Ba.88s were fully operational, down from a total of 29. On the 14th October 1940, three Ba.88s from the 98° Squadriglia were ordered to attack British armored forces around Sidi El Barrani and Bir Emba, but they failed to locate their targets. The next day, while on a reconnaissance mission, one was damaged by Italian anti-aircraft fire, as it was mistaken for a British plane.

Due to its disappointing performance, the Ba.88s were ordered to be removed from service. By the 16th of November, the 7° Gruppo had only 2 or 3 fully operational Ba.88 aircraft left. Because of the problems, most if not all surviving Ba.88 had been stripped of all useful equipment and armament, and were scattered around major airfields mostly to act as decoys for British attack aircraft.

Further Modifications: Ba.88 A74 and Ba.88 A74Bic

Despite being rejected from further military use, a second series of 60-70 Ba.88s was completed by Breda and I.M.A.M. None were used to equip any military units, and most were scrapped or used as target practice.

In a desperate hope of reusing the surviving operational Ba.88s, the Italian Air Force ordered them to be modified as dive bombers. The first tests were carried out at the Guidonia Experimental Centre air tunnel. There, different types of under wing brakes were tested, including the ones used on the German Junkers Ju-87. In order to save weight, the Piaggio engines were replaced with less powerful but much lighter Fiat A.74s. Great attention was given to reducing the weight as much as possible. This started with the engine, followed by reducing the fuel capacity by 117 liters (31 gallons), removing the rear machine gun turret position, the wing mounted bomb racks and the lower front machine gun.

Four Ba.88s (M.M. 3985, 3971, 3963 and 4034), together with one dual-control version, were modified with the A.74 engine. These received the Ba.88 A.74 and Ba.88 A.74 Bic (for the dual-control version) designations from Breda. These improved Ba.88 A.74 planes were equipped with modified wing mounted bomb racks in order to increase their offensive capabilities. It was possible to equip one larger 500 kg (1,100 lb), two 250 kg (550 lb) or three smaller 100 kg (220 lbs) bombs. In March 1942, these were given to the 1° Nucleo Addestramento Tuffatori stationed at Lonate Pozzolo. For further intensive testing, two Ba.88 A74 were allocated to the 101° Gruppo Tuffatori also based at Lonate Pozzolo. The tests proved to be disappointing and this unit was instead equipped with the older CR.42.

The Ba.88M

A last ditch attempt was made in the summer of 1942. One Ba.88 A.74 was modified with an 80 cm (31.5 in) longer fuselage and a wider wingspan of 2.3 m (7.55 ft). Parts of the metal wing construction were replaced with wooden panels. These modifications were done by Magni and Augusta. They received orders to modify an additional 6 Ba.88s. These received the Ba.88M designation, where M stands for ‘Modificato’, modified.

The Italian Air Force gave orders to these manufacturers to modify as many Ba.88 as possible. According to the original plan, a group of 40 improved Ba.88s was to be formed. Half of these would have been the single seat version and the other half two seat versions. In March 1943, additional modifications were required (by order of Air Force General Eraldo Ilari) in order to adapt the Ba.88 for dive bomber operations. These included the installation of only one 12.7 mm machine gun with an additional three that could be added if needed (two in the wing roots and one the fuselage), the possibility of adding armored plates for the pilot’s protection, removing parts of the wing’s leading edge in order to provide the pilot with a better view etc. Despite these improvements, the weight was actually increased by some 200 kg (440 lb).

By the end of July 1943, around 12 Ba.88s were gathered for modification. A few completed Ba.88Ms were allocated to 103° Gruppo Autonomo Tuffatori (independent dive-bombing group). This unit was also equipped with the German Ju-87. In August 1943, it was moved to Lonate Pozzolo and all its Ju-87s were given to 102° Gruppo. None of the Ba.88M were used in combat and, as the Germans occupied Italy, all surviving Ba.88s were scrapped for materials. Only one Ba.88M (MM 4605) was operated by the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana in Northern Italy under German markings.

This is the Ba.88 that was operated by the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana.Source: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/vvsregiaavions/regiaindex.html

Production and Modifications

Production of this aircraft began in May 1939 the Breda Bresso 81 workshop. In the first production series (around 80 aircraft), eight Ba.88 were built as dual-control trainers, with the added rear cockpit for the instructor, in place of the rear machine gunner. In addition, one modified single seater was built to be tested with an anti-tank cannon. An additional 24 aircraft were built by I.M.A.M. Later, in 1940, some 67 (or 42) new aircraft were built, 19 by Breda and 48 (or 23) by I.M.A.M. In the end, the total production was (depending on the source) 148 to 155 aircraft plus the prototype.

Newly produced Ba.88s. While difficult to spot, the last six aircraft (to the picture’s left) are actually the two-seater version. Sourcewww.warbirdphotographs.com

Variants:

  • Ba.88 Prototype – One built.
  • Ba.88 – Production version.
  • Ba.88 Single seat prototype – One built to be tested with an anti-tank cannon.
  • Ba.88 Dual-control trainer – Eight were built.
  • Ba.88 A.74 – Experimental dive bomber version. A few were modified, but were not adopted for production. This model served as a base for the Ba.88M.
  • Ba.88 A.74 Bic – Two-seat version of the previous model, one built.
  • Ba.88M – Three modified aircraft in order to improve the Ba.88’s flight performance.

Operators

  • Regia Aeronautica – Operated small numbers of the Ba.88, but were quickly withdrawn from front service.
  • Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana – Operated one Ba.88M given to them by the Germans.
  • Germany – After the surrender of Italy, seized all surviving Ba.88s, but none were ever used operationally.
  • Sweden, Yugoslavia, Switzerland and Lithuania – These countries showed interest in the Ba.88, but buying orders never came from any of them.

Conclusion

Despite a promising start with excellent speed records, the Ba.88 would never fulfill the role which the Italian Air Force had hoped for. The greatest problem was the Ba.88 was a combination of excess weight coupled with underpowered engines, as it showed in Africa where even limited combat flights were nearly impossible with the aircraft barely able to take off with a full load of fuel and bombs. Later attempts to adapt it for dive bombing operations were also unsuccessful. In the end, the Ba.88 proved to be an ill-fated design and a complete failure.

Ba.88  Specifications

Wingspans 50 ft 5 in / 15.4 m
Length 35 ft 3 in / 10.75 m
Height 9 ft  10 in  /  3 m
Wing Area 358.88  ft² /  33.34 m²
Engine Two 1000 hp Piaggio P.XI RC.40 14-cylinder radial piston engine
Empty Weight 10,250 lbs / 4.650 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 6,750 lbs / 6.750 kg
Fuel Capacity 1,397 l / 370 Gallons
Climb Rate to   3 km In 7 minutes  30 seconds
Maximum Speed 304 mph / 490 km/h
Cruising speed 273 mph  /  440 km/h
Range 1,020 miles / 1640 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 26,245 ft ft / 8,000 m
Crew One pilot and the rear gunner
Armament
  • Three 0.5 in (12.7 mm) and one 0.3 in (7.7 mm)
  • Different configuration bomb loads – Three 110 lb (50 kg) bombs
  1. Three 220 lb (100 kg) bombs
  2. Two 550 lb (250 kg) bombs
  3. 40 small 4.4 lb (2 kg) bombs

Gallery

Ba.88 Lince 100-7 – 100 Squadriglia, 19 Gruppo, 5 Stormo Assalto – Lonate, Pozzolo Italy – July 1940
Ba.88 Lince 100-4 -100 Squadriglia, 19 Gruppo, 5 Stormo Assalto – Lonate Pozzolo Italy – July 1940
Ba.88 Lince 11 – 7 Gruppo, 5 Stormo Assalto – St. Castel Benito, Libya – September 1940

 

Credits